wawjgreen

problems with MBT:

1- it contradicts the multiple-selves theory (which is based on science and backed by personal experience and observation.). You have your "good" self, your "private" self, your "evil" self, your "social" self, etc.

2- the human personality is subject to many variables to behave consistently across any given length of time (Bandura's formula). Same settings with a different music background and level of blood in our sugars might produce different outcomes.

3- the illusion of appearances: a person might appear as x but actually be y. I appear an extrovert but I am deeply introverted; it is not my fault that the people around me can't see it.

4- people are trainable. any set of traits and personality adjustments can be taught and trained under rigorous conditions. I became a dog person in 2021 even though for 30+ years my hair would stand on my back when the cutest puppy would appear in my social radius. Now I actively seek the most badass dogs others walk outside and pet them.

5- deep prejudicial and otherwise core personality traits are set in childhood, in the "parent ego state" and are not easy to remove or deprogram. These core traits stem from the millions of situations and interplay of various variables in childhood. labeling them into five neat categories is like classifying the plant world into five "basic" types of plants (which is totally unscientific) and naive.

ahahaha. I think it was a case of reverse psychology and a pinch of culty mind control (you have a problem-- we have solution).

great developers are busy making $$$$$ they are not trying to persuade others they are great developers by writing blogs.

i don't know in which universe you lived---

Thank you.

Well, since today we hear about Garbageoff, so I discussed my opinion from THIS side of things. For sure, many other "players" are also to blame for a lot of the mess my people have found themselves in.

If that were truly the case, the red army should not have entered Afghanistan in the first place and kept their little claws to themselves. Now that they entered and created chaos and conditions for civil war, it was on them to clean up the mess.

Moreover, red army was not really shedding all that much blood. They were sending Afghan army to the dangerous fronts--basically to die (my father was one and he told me how the Russians sent them off to an ambush. When the Afghan army halted because they knew they were gonna die, the Russians began shelling them in order to push them forward.).

In any case, the problems were created by Russians and it became their responsibility to fix it. Moreover, they had agreements and treaties and Garbageoff reneged on those.

To the little boy who lost his childhood and future because of his strategic stupidity he is guilty of deceit, incompetence and inhumanity and I will not stop praying that he continues to burn in hell for it.

it's you again, the "committee" man. actually, since Garbageoff did not do well in school and he was admitted to the universities in Leningrad on the strength of a medal he had won that was given to him based on the large amount of crops he had harvested (he was a "machinist"). There he wrote to his family members that the studies were "grueling", meaning he merely winged it and because he was not cut out for education, he was sent back to his village to do more of crop-harvesting.

So yeah, he did go to school but he was not what you call truly educated (just like other self-important, arrogant people suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect). That he was an idiot can also be seen from his posing in advertisements while his countrymen were starving in the long lines for bread--something unthinkable during any USSR year.

what do you exactly mean?

answer me: would you be comfortable if a MAN who says he thinks he is a woman went to the same toilet as your teenage daughters!? cowards downvote, if you are right, come debate me.

it is easy for you to speak for me, not having experienced war and famine directly. Also, on that Russian score you are wrong: after what he did, the ex-USSR population suffered devastating poverty. And you have the cheek to defend him. Are you a troll?

good riddance. he was an uneducated idiot, who is indirectly responsible for the millions that were killed in Afghanistan, in 1992.

In 1989, when he pulled the red army out of Afghanistan--he also cut all aid to the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. the then-president of DRA went to Moscow to persuade Garbageoff to not to do so, predicting that the terrorist zealots would overrun his government leading to chaos in the region.

Garbageoff dismissed him, and did not even go to the airport to receive him. In the ensuing two years, the DRA fought the terrorists to the last bullet, until food became scarce and defenses crumbled. The terrorists entered Kabul and began fighting each other (they were self-labeling themselves "Mujahedeen" then).

In the carnage that followed, Kabul was destroyed, millions died and became refugees. I was an 11-yo boy who witnessed my neighbors getting torn to pieces by the rockets fired by the terrorists. I barely survived the rockets myself, and we fled and became refugees in Pakistan.

May Garbageoff rot in hell.

rooibus is not just a tea alternative--it is a tea in itself--and very healthy and beneficial one at that.

why are you all so hell-bent on glorifying Popper (pooper). He was just a moron with an agenda.

Btw, tolerance, like democracy is just a bulls$##t concept. Would you like to be tolerant of the neo-trans man going to the same toilet as your teenage daughters???

are we? Your history of computing begins with Turing????? Turing--with generous help from the British military--merely followed up and finished (in effect stole and took credit for) what Babbage started and conceived but could not finish due to no financial or governmental support in his time (btw Babbage was no atheist). Turing was merely a functionally normal.

There is a difference between a functionally normal atheist (like Turing) and a genius theist like Descartes. When I say deficient--it is in this relative term. The atheist is merely functionally normal but in objective terms, still deficient. It is not atheism that leads to that, but the underlying low level of intelligence that leads to atheism. Fortunately, there's hope: the underlying low level is ARTIFICIALLY-induced. In other words, the human brain is capable of achieving higher intelligence levels even if it has been stuck in low levels for a long time.

Functional normality is being just intelligent enough to pull off the type of tasks that given training, both computers and chimpanzees could do--the functionally normal person is somewhere in between. The difference being, as I stated in my second paragraph, that with humans, you can go beyond and remove the artificial barrier to higher level of intelligence.

Ask any former atheist and they will be glad to tell you how they fully self-actualized and became smarter beyond their wildest dreams.

wow, they have downvoted your comment--but you did not belittle anyone, nor is your comment irrelevant. Hey, HN, must we all write what you like or can we have our own original thoughts? why you so afraid of debates? if he is wrong, prove him wrong (I think he is wrong, btw), why do you downvote his answer? that's pathetic and so 1984.

I don't think it does. Being an atheist, you display your fine intellect for all other readers to see. 2b is a logical outcome for me, and if you think sth is wrong with it, you are implying that an atheist reads scientific works that he does not understand! ...

that explains the fairy tales called big Bang, Natural Selection, and other assorted amusements.

it is the WE that does not care for the works of an atheist because of the fundamental intelligence flaw. If YOU do, then by all means, sate your thirst for second-rate knowledge. I'd rather stand with the likes of Descartes and Leibnitz, minds vastly greater than any modern atheist's.

anyone who does not have and practice a standard code of morality does not earn my respect, and should not feel hurt if I don't read their books... I am free in my choice as are atheists. I simply said I don't read their books because they are not clever. They are welcome to say to same about me.

and I couldn't care less about the downvotes.

anyone in that original list of mine has deficient intelligence levels. you need an elementary analysis to see that it is so--there is nothing subjective about logic.

If you atheists were indeed smart you would not have felt so hurt and downvote my original comment. Also, IQ tests are rubbish (and you didn't know that--which shows your intelligence level).

Among us, we look down on any work that is written by an atheist. It is the ultimate mark of low intelligence.

For me, reading is decided by two factors:

1: is the author intelligent enough? (I filter out atheists, extremists, nonsense-blatherers, rudes and hypocrites etc).

2a: if humanities, does it touch a chord in my heart? the first 100 pages can decide.

2b: if sciences, do I understand enough to keep reading?

feelings are there for a reason. ignoring them means going against your own nature. going against nature has serious ramifications down the line. journos are not qualified to peddle out psychiatric advice.

yes, CTRL+F on that page for "PDF" then you can click on it to download.

what's with all these y's in their names! hoyte, dybvig

Thank you for the great comment. I will go get the book now.

Yes by "mall" I mean Univermag--the Macmillan defines a mall as "a large building with a lot of shops, restaurants, and sometimes a cinema" which satisfies almost all commercial structures in the USSR.

Thus in my definition, the word SHOP is included and there were myriads of those, all full of goods (I cant' speak for all regions but it was so in Moscow, Odessa, Tashkent where I lived)--so for proof of elsewhere maybe you can head on to VK.com and see documented proof of pictures taken by common people, of the abundance.

"Gross" income? hehehe. In USSR? I'll let that slide. Wow then according to your economics, they would have been working their a$ses off just to buy a TV--which is not true. Why everybody had a TV then if it was so expensive? If books were mere kopeks, why would TV be so expensive? from a CPI point of view, your logic does not make sense.

An engineer, 6 months of income for a TV? That's a ridiculous price-to-income ratio ANYWHERE in any ANY era. My father was on scholarship subsidies, which is way less than what an engineer earned then, and we even had a TV, a projector, a radio, a cassette player, and what not. So how did WE buy it then??

<<Hospitals, while free, were horrific>> are you sure? How can education be top-notch but hospitals horrific? the two are inter-connected. Better education means better doctors. What was horrific about it? It was free!

<<Replace "designer" with "not falling apart the day after purchase>> are you sure about that? Most of the Russian stuff from early 80's still working, not so much the new-age "designer" things that have planned obsolescence (look it up in the management textbooks).

The quality of textile, toys, electronics, almost everything was better than anywhere in the world (with the exception of cars--but that was only because the Soviets were pragmatists and didn't care about luxury--a Bourgeois concept.) quality was never a problem.

<< The propaganda kinda lost its effectiveness after the 1960s or so. Certainly by the 1980s few, if anyone, believed it. >>

Once again, I wonder how you came to that conclusion. Up until Brezhnev was alive, almost every Soviet Russian believed and followed the doctrines of their government, and were proud to do so. Only after Garbageov did cracks appear probably because of the sell-outs and traitors who were promised the rose gardens of a Capitalist Utopia. Even so, 90% of Russians today regret (see VK.com for proof) that they lost the Soviet era superpower status and high standard of living.

not sure what kind of Russian you were but I lived there a a foreigner around the same time and I don't buy this "hard time" buying food thing...If anything 90's was the decade where food became scarce, after the USSR collapsed.

that is not true. I lived in in USSR for five years--in the late 70's--and your statement does not conform to the reality I experienced for five years.

Everyone was kinda middle-class, and nobody was overly rich. The malls were full to the tilt, the prices within reach for everybody no matter their occupation (like Walden Two, by Skinner).

Education was free, hospitals were free, people had house, car, etc. The only things you could not freely buy were some of the "designer" goods that belong to the "want" category (not "need"). And I also recall that the USSR propaganda was working full-time to dissuade the common folk to avoid the trappings of the Capitalist societies.

As for consumer goods? bread disappeared (my father went there in 90's and he told me), milk disappeared, long queues for basic goods. Yeah maybe MacDonald's and expensive shopping bags and jeans arrived--but these were not what people need to live a good life. Their own clothes were fashionable and durable enough, the people were voracious bookworms who did not care about lobotomy and a big a*, like they do now on Instagram.

the article says in the nineties living standards improved in post-USSR Russia, but that is false.

thank you--i love a good thinking process--i have heard of duke's book and i will definitely read it.

i always suspicious linear algebra was very useful in representing probabilistic outcomes and your answer confirms my hunch. ;)

good day

are you a dog ;)