captainamerica

Member
  • Content count

    523
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by captainamerica

  1. Season 4 :-D
  2. Yup Have not read the book. Would you mind summarizing which part of it you like and are referring to here? Agree 100 percent. The usual difference that I have with people on this is sustainable technical implementation. For eg. some want a wealth cap. That will not work in the current society and will reduce innovation overall thereby reducing total wealth itself. Not the approach I want to reduce inequality, where everyone become equally poorer instead of equally richer. Or progressive taxation without cutting spending (including quantitative easing). This will create downward spirals in the economy, even a death spiral in the long term. Blaming everything on lack of taxation and not war spending, inflation, etc. It creates very poor policies. Good points. I agree. On top of that, I would like to add that the government is inherently incapable of innovation at the level that we are talking about. As much as water is inherently wet or fire is hot. This is a very counterintuitive problem requiring great innovation. We cannot have another Harvard by just funding. It is decades of innovation in creating the right culture that creates such output. The solution created by Harvard will not scale to a significant percent of the population as it is very niche-specific if we look at it closely. Harvard just takes the top 0.1 percent. The dynamics change significantly in the rest of the population. For eg., the dynamics for the top 5 percent of students in terms of productivity and habits create a vastly different scenario. The govt. can certainly scale to them. But to get to the rest 95 percent requires great innovation dealing with constraints similar to that of the Google search engine(100s of parameters). If we pull a string from one side then it gets entangled from some other side. Creating great course content requires iterations like creating an IPhone in 2007 with immeasurable iterations. If we create great course content, then the course completion rate falls to about 20 percent or so. There are various possibilities from thereon. Like Mindvalley implemented a 20 min. per day innovative idea for courses seeing as high as 80 percent course completion rates. But that will fail in the school system as well as the constraints change yet again. and on and on like any classic innovation problem. Nothing new but you can see the pattern and the dynamic it creates If we think about a negative compound effect that an avg. college student has to pay for thus creating the above reality the same innovation problem comes in high school education so we are back to square one. I literally thought of 50 or so possibilities and all of them at the end of the day were either not scalable at all or required great innovation from companies or startups to work. This is true for at least how we like to define a high-quality education. What are your thoughts on this? I would be interested to know.
  3. @DocWatts You are assuming that I am Framing the problem exclusively on Entrepreneurship. There is a deeper point that was made. It has life-changing implications if understood well, both at an individual and a collective level. The constraints of Business are inherited by the Employees, as well as the population at large, in many counterintuitive ways. It requires a deeper look at it to understand this. A child's possibilities(looks, height, disease, raw brainpower, etc.) are limited by the parent's genes. He will not suddenly appear as some wild, or beautiful, creature from imagination. There are inherited constraints. This can be seen in various industries or Business as a whole. Some industries are inherently more competitive, due to the very product or service it creates (Management Consultancy for e.g.). Both the employees and the executives in such companies have to work 80 hour weeks. Whereas other businesses are inherently more creative so employees have much greater leeway. It is not possible for the employees in the two industries to switch places. They have an inherent constraint due to the field itself, which they inherit. It cannot be not inherited, as long as money and products are created for the people. Business as a whole has a very high failure rate as stated in the last post. This leads to high costs to run the whole economy effectively. It is not possible to skip those costs or inequalities. These constraints are inherited by the population. If 1 in 10 businesses succeeds there needs to be enough energy and resources for 10 businesses in the system. Energy and resources for just 1 business will not do. It seems obvious but these principles are largely ignored by the far-left. An avg. American person does not even recognize that innovation creates wealth. Which is to say they don't recognize that wealth creation creates wealth. See the below picture for polarization in 1970 vs now. A main reason for this is because people have not been taught the fundamentals of Economics and Innovation. This leads to fantasies of socialism, extremism, violence(both-sides), etc. Literally, 99 percent of people in America do not understand the basics of the Economy. This leaves them vulnerable to being exploited by politicians and media. Having this knowledge and contemplation of the harshness of business environments (along with technicalities) creates a good foundation. Rather than being exclusive(to entrepreneurship or to whatever else), this is more like building a bridge between the two extremes. It would be nice to have such a bridge in today's polarized spectrum. Contemplation on Survival and harsh Business realities is a good practice. Employees, workers, and population don’t skip it. But it can and should be minimized. Although that is far from the unfounded fantasies of the far-left. (I really like the Left's initiatives though) We have an agreement on Health care, public education, etc. There are some nuances regarding high-quality public education though that I would like to discuss. Let me see if we can do that tomorrow. Would you like to define when you consider public education as high-quality?
  4. @DocWatts You are not appreciating the full ramifications of this: Nobody is saying that there should not be universalized healthcare, public education, and food availability funded by the govt. based on tax collection. Like conservatives underestimate the role of luck in creating successful people, progressives overestimate the role of luck in the life of successful people. A policy design would be from a balanced perspective. 75 percent of businesses that are well-funded fail completely. Of the remaining 25 percent, almost none give good returns consistently. 82 percent of first-time Entrepreneurs fail. Most entrepreneurs who are currently successful had their first success in their 3rd venture. On avg., the first 2 ventures are a failure. Typically the failures last for 7 years if not 10. Business and success are hard. Entrepreneurs know that you cannot buy your way into success. Self-actualization is not achieved by money. Progressives think that just redistribution will solve these problems. These require personal responsibility and innovation over a decade or more to solve at an individual level. And personal responsibility and innovation over many decades to solve at a collective level. What are the specific policies that you are proposing? If not, then what is your (specific) approach?
  5. Well, to be fair, the progressives misuse the luck argument plenty. They will piss away their energies and time when they are young. Many waste their precious time and bodily energies so much that even their bodies are not built properly, let alone skill or value for society. Knowledge of SD would literally be perfect, but no other skill for society. They clearly were privileged enough to give time to something that matters. A more balanced perspective is: Most successful people underestimate the role of luck in their successes whereas most failures overestimate the role of bad luck in their lives.
  6. @asifarahim Will send you a pm on this in the context of turquoise.
  7. @asifarahim What is that something more? or is it a general desire? It is important to ask this because if you have a desire for something specific but it is vaguely defined then your endeavor will most certainly fail then and there itself. Common examples of this are "Work smart;not hard", "Passion" etc, people talk about these things a lot but one of the main reasons they fail to implement even a tiny bit of it is that they don't define or idealize. I believe you can relate to it by your observations of other people/culterscape, it is quite common.
  8. @asifarahim Why do you want to move from Yellow to Turquoise? Perhaps I can help.
  9. @Roy people like you on the forum are responsible for why she still goes into states like depression and fails in her projects. She needs masculine compassion not some bs. If you tell her the truth about her approach it will save her a hell lot of pain in the future. Fake encouragement will cost her in future. She has trouble with the most fundamental concepts like productivity and driving traffic as well. She needs help. Encouragement with lack of proper foundation and understanding her situation will hurt her in future.
  10. I had this classmate in high school. He did not study for his exam, and there was this question on how to prevent over-population. Instead of solutions like awareness/education, knowledge about protection, sex education, etc., he seriously wrote bomb blasts. The teacher confronted him in front of the whole class but he justified it by saying he was stressed as time was running out, so he wrote this. He basically said I was stressed and this seemed plausible. I am not exaggerating, the above is completely accurate as far as I can recall. Nice metaphor.
  11. One can choose from many identities depending on his level of understanding, environment, peers, etc. One can also choose from a broad range of emotional responses in relation to his/her identity. (mature, immature, skillful, victim, manipulation, terror, etc.) @Shmurda here is talking about the former. Some identities themselves are based on falsehood. As such, there is no broad range of emotional responses there. Those identities come with default manipulation, terror, violent states. So he is talking about identity. Even if there is a shift it is because of a change in understanding. Moving to a different identity due to better understanding and moving away from falsehood. It does not happen that such radicalized identity remains and the emotions get mellowed down. There is no peaceful terrorist (right or left). So from that perspective again he is talking about identity itself. I believe it is just a simple misunderstanding bro. No problem.
  12. @Harlen Kelly Actually, it will be. For eg., Elon Musk has proven the feasibility of electric cars. Now every other car manufacturer is investing in it. Similarly, innovations in battery tech and solar tech by various individuals and corporations. Govt. is also partnering with companies/agencies in tropical countries offering up to 50 percent discounts to households looking to buy hardware for solar and make a shift. All this is actually solving the CO2 problems. Soon all this will reduce yearly CO2 emissions by 50 percent. This is just the beginning. What are your proposed solutions? If not solutions then what is your approach?
  13. @Hardkill Which solutions are you proposing? The majority of it is produced by oil, cement, etc. All of which are basic necessities. Halting it without proper solutions will lead to suffering for millions if not 10s of millions of people today. Even if the US stops it today without creating solutions for 10s of millions of people today, India and China will simply take over and offset that. . In fact, China already did in cement for eg. Developing countries will not stop just because some developed country thinks so. Cars are another major source. People don't have enough money to buy an electric vehicle for the environment. They will buy it at the year they are ready to buy a car. So every year only a fraction of the cars on the road change to EV. This process will take a few more decades to complete. No practical way to skip it. The transition is very fast in the US but still, it is not magic. Cement, Steel, Plastic, and Electricity are responsible for 58 percent of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Transportation 16 percent. For a total of 74 percent. We cannot halt that. Most countries won't anyways as that would lead to mass suffering for 100s of millions of its people, so well-thought solutions are needed. Of the remaining 26 percent, 19 are from plants and animals alone. (7 percent from heating etc.)
  14. But he is not talking about that. He is talking about choosing the wrong identity and manipulation of others into choosing the wrong identity. Not reaction generated via identity. Being radicalized and being emotionally triggered are two very different things.
  15. @Preety_India I believe that no one actually said that charity itself is a fallacy. It was your form or approach to it that people referred to in your previous thread.
  16. @Shmurda Couldn't be more accurate. Stage Green does it from a balanced, non-manipulative perspective as well. But the above is quite common as well and is definitely worth highlighting.
  17. You are conflating. The sense of Charity itself becoming Life Purpose, and its imagined positive impacts as compared to other routes like having a great career, is the stage Green fallacy. I believe that @asifarahim referred to this in your previous thread which you are referring to in your original post. Life Purpose with the medium of Charity is not a stage Green fallacy. Sense of charity and its imagined impact itself becoming "Life Purpose" is. Sometimes it is not even the imagined impact. People due to conditioning start believing that there is inherent virtue in self-denial, sacrificing one's desires, rejecting anything man-made, considering money as evil etc. and move to so called selfless way of existence to cope with the psychological pressure. That again is a fallacy.
  18. Think of it like this. In choosing not to get paid you are choosing to donate what you earn. (To the organization allowing it to function or to the people who benefit from the organisation) the personal responsibility/skills/mindet etc. are not transcended. The earning is not transcended. You are just donating it basically. You can try applying for a job (even at a Non-profit) telling them you will work for free. It is specifically, for this reason, they will not hire you. People who hit employers/organizations telling them they will work for free usually cost more than the paid position itself due to losses in efficiency, personal responsibility, productivity(money), etc. This is a nice experiment, do try it. It is precisely for this reason that many potential Mentor-Mentee relationships fail as well, because of this misconception of the newbie when he tells the mentor that he will work for "free". The Mentor or the experienced person knows how much will "free" actually cost him or his organisation or his investors or various other stakeholders.
  19. You may choose to not get paid. But the skills and personal responsibility relating to generation or making money are basically the same nonetheless. This may be minimized somewhat by living frugally, but even then it basically remains the same. If you minimize it too much by living too frugally it may look like this need is transcended but in doing so basically all of LP is destroyed so that misses the point anyways. Would you like to give an example of such an LP? Maybe I can understand it better from that.
  20. Case in point. You gotta look at this beneath the surface.
  21. @Preety_India Please elaborate and be specific. Joining again requires making an income. That part is not transcended just by joining an organization. They will pay you. What do you exactly mean by opening a fund? Why will someone give you money if you are opening a fund? That requires making money. Learning business strategy, marketing, persuasion, solving problems in the market etc. Some Non-profits require even more business sense to operate than an avg. business, so... You don't leave the market by opening a fund, the work is still done within it. LP is focused on Meaning, Contribution, Mastery, and Growth. Strategy and Money are optimized for those and for living well. Is there a reason you find eliminating money appealing or is it a means to an end?
  22. @Preety_India How will you do charity without making money? Two key components of Life Purpose: 1. The satisfaction of creative contribution/impact and sharing your greatest gifts with the world. On top of this the element of Mastery as well. 2. Personal Meaning. In charity work usually, both are missing. Like planting trees, distribution of clothes, and donating time in a soup kitchen, etc. are all good but people are not really passionate about it or have some personal meaning attached to it. Those activities don't meet the first criteria above as well.