text:
User:Super Quantum immortal/Psychology examples

(fix the formating latter)

3.11 C+++

Initially the supervisor uses some genetically hardwired crude rule of thumb, and refines as he interacts with the environment:

The withdrawal reflex located in your spine, is an example of simple hardwired algorithm. When your finger gets hurt, a signal is send to the spine, the spine sends 3 signals, 1 to your brain for higher order processing, 1 deactivating signal to your muscles that just moved previously and an activating signal to the muscles that where inactive just before. Similarly, the spine work's a lot to keep our balance, the patellar reflex is part of the system. But reacting to sudden acceleration, instead of pain. The rational is, that any forced movement above a certain acceleration at the lower limbs, can not be taken care of by the brain fast enough, this means we probably going to fall, thus simply counteracting the acceleration should do most of the time.

Mouses have a built in fear of cat smell, mouse brain fills in the blanks through experience(vicious, blood thirsty, ugly four legged fluffy bastard). Excrements, various toxic chemicals, usually have a "bad" smell/taste because they are not good for you, in a similar fashion as with the mouses, our brain fills in the blanks with experience, so that visually are also "bad". People are afraid of snakes, initially the supervisor, doesn't say "snake=bad". Most probably the supervisor says, "elongated and thin stuff in the visual field are bad". With learning this gets adjusted, in to "branches are ok", "pipes are ok".... and "snake looking stuff aren't ok". The initial wiring, must be something, simple, that can jump, from a gene to a brain structure with habitual cell organization, some geometry, certain sensors, smells, tastes .... no need to be a brain surgeon for this stage. The algorithms aren't absolutely correct, only on average, there are important limitations, and quite often, it make mistakes, not necessarily very smart 1s. The supervisor can't be as intelligent as the whole brain, this is the whole point, that the upper brain gets smarter then his supervisor.

This simplicity can be illustrated with simple animals, models of our layered supervisor. Frogs are very stupid animals, more then you ever realized. It eats any thing that goes at a certain speed and of a certain size near him, it will starve to death if it's only surrounded by immobile food. Escaping predators, boils down to just jumping at wherever its darker(for his credit, he is a good jumper). Insects will continue doing there toilette at missing limbs. And a little example of a stupid wasp, beater explained by somebody else(its a classic).

When the time comes for egg laying, the wasp Sphex builds a burrow for the purpose and seeks out a cricket which she stings in such a way as to paralyze but not kill it. She drags the cricket into the burrow, lays her eggs alongside, closes the burrow, then flies away, never to return. In due course, the eggs hatch and the wasp grubs feed off the paralyzed cricket, which has not decayed, having been kept in the wasp equivalent of deep freeze. To the human mind, such an elaborately organized and seemingly purposeful routine conveys a convincing flavor of logic and thoughtfulness--until more details are examined. For example, the Wasp's routine is to bring the paralyzed cricket to the burrow, leave it on the threshold, go inside to see that all is well, emerge, and then drag the cricket in. If the cricket is moved a few inches away while the wasp is inside making her preliminary inspection, the wasp, on emerging from the burrow, will bring the cricket back to the threshold, but not inside, and will then repeat the preparatory procedure of entering the burrow to see that everything is all right. If again the cricket is removed a few inches while the wasp is inside, once again she will move the cricket up to the threshold and re-enter the burrow for a final check. The wasp never thinks of pulling the cricket straight in. On 1 occasion this procedure was repeated 40 times, always with the same result. (Woodridge, 1963, p. 82)

And of course we all saw a stupid fly trying repeatedly to go through a window. Its little brain can not grasp the concept of transparency, certain carnivore plants rely on this limitation, its not just a fluke of newly invented transparent materials. At our level, these behaviors are laughable, but we suffer from the exact same anomalies at a higher level. In the same way that these poor insects aren't smart enough to detect the anomalous behavior of there puny brains, we are not able to detect our anomalies, because this would require more capable brains. When we do acquire more capable brains, we will be able to laugh at our old selves, but again be incapable to investigate the anomalies of our new brains, since the threshold for your brain is always above the capabilities of your current brain.

As, the holder of our programing, a lot of behaviors can be traced at its functioning, the rest comes from other design characteristics of the brain. Our behavior is in last analysis, very controlled by the supervisor, every time you feel, that "this was good" or "this wasn't good" it's him. When you say that you are making a choice, you simply do a generalization from past learning. The rationalization, that you are making rational decisions based on cold logic is an illusion, the logical-generalization synaptic weights in the frontal lobe, them selves are appointed by the supervisor on the ground that they seem good for you, not on logic. The rationalization, that you repeat behavior simply when the supervisor activates, is it self reinforced. The supervisor inputs to the frontal lobe its state(along the other inputs), when he inputs that he is content, if at that time, the frontal lobe contains "repeat behavior", the repeated (good)behavior in the next cycle will reactivate the supervisor that will reinforce "supervisor content-repeat behavior". A very important byproduct of the supervisor's important position, you don't ask people what they would do in a situation, you put them in that situation, because the supervisor isn't consulted, in a simple verbal question, but activates when he detects a given situation, the discrepancy between what people, say, and what they would really do, can be quite huge, because of this reason.

3.11.1 main

You can actually reinterpret in an unified way the entire science of psychology with my above proposals, currently there's a huge number of competing and contradictory thought schools. Apparently the half-life of knowledge in psychology is 5 years.

All the above are not just nice theories, there are potential consequences in the way psychoanalysis is done. Its not possible to give bulk solutions(placebo effect very strong here), but in general any therapy should involve in actively retraining the patient in some way. Anything from just like a dog to just giving advises for self training. Just talking about the problem its not much. What caused the problem isn't very important for therapy, as long the outside cause actually stopped. For example, rape victims got "trained" in a wrong way, causing the distress, so therapy would consists to retrain the patient to normal, the rape it self isn't important; rape victim complains of having trouble to sleep or sex problems, therapy should consist of retraining in normal sleep and sex. If the new approach on average makes a difference or not, is going to be the proof(or not) of the theory.

I doubt that simply stating the conclusions of how it works is enough to get the idea across, you simply have too many wrong preconceived ideas. The "worse is better" principle(in practice, simplicity is beater over "the right thing"), is perhaps the most important point of what i want to pass across here. Our supervisor, our program, is filled with dreadful half arsed approximations. I encourage you to do some outside reading on psychology. What follows, are some examples in ruffle categorization, so that you really get the point of what i mean:

REMINDERS/NOTES[The supervisor can only reinforce, or deinforce what's already in the frontal lobe, it can't put things there directly. The frontal lobe generalizes with more probability the stuff that was reinforced, not because its looking to replicate the behavior that produced a high, the "replicate behaviors that produced a high" is it self a reinforced behavior(the state of the supervisor is part of the inputs). I'm not going to repeat this everywhere, it would be too repetitive and heavy. I'll just remind it here and there, and usually present the explanations under the official theory.

The supervisor is just a machine, for him to event n°654867 must respond with response n°768998, when i personify with "he interprets", "he thinks", "gets fooled", i really mean that he generalizes as good as it can to activate 1 of his many rules, it has no understanding of the rationals, it isn't "conscious", its just a rather dumb neuronal computer.]

3.11.2 in general

in the same way we are different from the out side, we are different in the inside

In the same way we are different from the out side, we are different in the inside, Heart, liver kidneys, biochemistry etc, in exactly the same way, our brains are also different. At the level of the supervisor, this means that there is variation in the built in rules at birth, and later differences of real life experiences add further variation. The supervisor activates, only if it detects that a given situation is occurring. In other words, part of the decision making circuitry, is inactive when the event is not really occurring. This gives rise to significant discrepancies, between theoretical projections(generalization) of a person, in a hypothetical situation, compared with what he really is going to do. Worse, not only there is no warning what so ever of the problem, but we generalize anyway. However all we really do, is to literally respond to the question "what i would do, right here and now". Because of this people, often fail miserably, in predicting there own actions and anticipating there needs. With understanding others rationals of there actions and predicting others actions, is even worse. Plenty of examples through out the sections below. If you are extremely, depressed, its probable, that you are a burden to your family in some way, or that your genes are stupid, and not worth competing with the rest of your family. So it could be a good idea, that you kill your self, so that you preserve the resources for the rest of your family(doesn't this sounds just terrible or what?). Its self preservation of the group, not the individual. This should be understood as a purposeful programed behavior, similarly with the cells that commit suicide, in order to sculpt the fingers in our hands, its a feature, not a bug. If you don't feel good, maybe you are infected with something contagious, so you should go away and withdraw socially, until you heel or die, so that you don't infect others. If something is forbidden, the supervisor interprets, it must be precious. So braking taboos is pleasurable. Girls, when they please others, the supervisor reinforces this. This is to take care of babies, not for making your lunch and bringing your sleepers. boredom, the supervisor has decided, that is time to stop your current activity and do something else, its to avoid overlearning. In similar ways the supervisor is heavily implicated in weighting the learning of the frontal lobe. This on top of frontal lobe circuits specificities. Risk taking is by it self reinforcing. The real world is certainly not a very safe place, but taking risks can pay off. If theres the perspective of a reward, especially a big 1, the supervisor can pick it up and reinforce the appropriate behavior. This is why gambling and crazy mount everest alpinists exist. It can even go out of control as an addiction, it really is an addiction, with the same mechanisms as with substance abuse. Leading to bankrupt gamblers and skeletons of alpinist all over everest. Religions contains some kind of future rewards (eternal life, 40 virgins, loving paternal figure, etc) and punishments(hell). The supervisor believes that these are rewards or punishments that are really in front of him, not metaphysically or something, these things are literally in front of him. The metaphysical parts, are beyond his understanding. These mechanisms contribute in the overall reinforcement of the religion. For believers, heaven is a real place that you really do go, hell is a real place that you really can go. There are real emotions about this, something not understood by people for whom religion isn't important(most Europeans/Japanese/Koreans). In posthypnotic suggestions, people that where temporary lead to believe they are immortal, reported: no fear of death, serene calmness and happiness (Dr. Bernard Aaronson, Bureau of Research in Neurology and Psychiatry in Princeton, New Jersey). Fear in hell is facilitated by the fact, that the supervisor is very paranoid about security. You die only once, so you beater don't try stuff that might kill you, that hell is a place after you die, is too complicated for your supervisor. For him, hell is a perspective in the material world. As a little simulation of what it feels like to believe in hell, listen to I have no mouth and i must scream (40min) or read it(Harlan Ellison and his wish 1h) The supervisor is really stupid, there's really no need to try very hard to fool it, even if you know that something is false. Role playing games (example: dungeons and dragons (D&D), second life, little girl's dolls, parody religions, etc ) exploit just that. Tattoos, is pretending being somebody else, in a very permanent way, you "become" something else, in your supervisor, thats why the catholic church forbid tattoos. Dictators put there people in to uniforms, this way, the horrible immoral acts are done by the pretended "person", not the pretending person. Actors like acting, precisely because there supervisor gets fooled. If you just pretend something (even poorly), the supervisor will activate, as if it was in front of real events. The important point, its to fake it in the real world, just close the eyes and imagine things in bed is too week. The supervisor is poorly equipped against a superfuge like this. This way, in a D&D game, people can have a good time by just pretending. People with "no imagination", are just people where there supervisor is harder then average to activate. Probably, women read more books because they are more emotional (additional, to there love of talking?). Interestingly, even "worshipers" of a parody religion (not comical, looking serious, like "Church of Satan", not like the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster") can have a good time, there supervisor is convinced its all for real. This show, that the tricks in real religions really do work. For example about idols, the supervisor probably think that the god is it. Real religions, are like D&D games taken too seriously. Music act directly on the supervisor, this actions are prelanguage communication instincts. In films/theaters they exploit that, the use of appropriate music, activates emotional responses. Aliens would probably found our musics irrelevant noises.

Children have at least 2 important educational instincts: excessive conformity and imagination. In addition there are other stuff, like there lower threshold to pain, and probably others, but here i'm concentrating on these 2. I remind you, that the instincts are basically programs of the brain.

Children, are monsters of conformity, way more then in adults. This is easy to understand why. What the others are doing( mainly adults) is very probably good to learn. Especially since children's brain start from scratch, so, probably, its best to emulate everything. This enhances learning, while in adults conformity is mainly for coordination and communication. The actual mechanism is the same as in adults. If the supervisor detects that what the kid is doing is similar enough to others(probably adults), he reinforces the synapses, other wise the synapses are degraded.

Children, have more imagination then adults, they manifest this by more play then adults. Imagination, really means, that the supervisor interprets as real simple pretending, basically its doing a mistake. The activation of the supervisor is important, since its when he activates that synapses get reinforced. When children pretend a situation, they live it as real more then adults. In daydreaming, for the circuits, is as if you are really doing something; in rote learning however, info is simply stored in the explicit memory circuits; all other circuits are bypassed. Children don't like playing per see, there supervisor interpret as real events, when they pretend them, and its those events that they like. The more there brain is able to simulate situations, the more patterns they will generate to present to there nets. In other words, playing, induce increase of intelligence. Regret: You regret more things you haven't done, then things you have done. When you do something and regret it, the supervisor attributes some blame to external factors out of your control, you have only part of the responsibility. When you don't do something, and regret it, the supervisor put the whole blame on yourself, there is nothing else to blame. This effect is not due to weakness of character, the supervisor always does that, because of the way its algorithm is setuped. The supervisor isn't smart enough to attribute blame on anything else but your self, if a problem occurs due to inaction. Ironically, you can tell your self that its because of your supervisor that you didn't do something. This way the supervisor, will put the blame on ... it self. It is not smart enough to understand, that the "supervisor" you are referring too, its its self, it thinks that the "supervisor", is some outside entity.

3.11.3 physical

\\ (o> //\ _V_/__ || ||

click me

Simple stuff like: pain, pleasure, smells, tastes etc, are more or less directly "good" or "bad" accordingly. In general a hierarchy needs seem to be followed by humans. This is most probably wired in the supervisor. In an experiment, a rat's brain gets wired, with an electrode at his pleasure center. The rat was allowed to activate the button that activates the electrode, the rat kept pushing franticly the button, up to 2000 times per hour. A food leaver was just next to it, contrary to an urban legend it didn't died from hanger next to the food leaver, but it did starve it self, it occasionally stopped for food. Sex, targets proxies of fertility and good genes. Good looks are not just superficialities, they really make a difference. Example: Men are attracted by beautiful women, however in blonds color asymmetries are less apparent then in brunets. Men are approaching the brunet population with a greater selective bias over blonds. When comparing between the populations, men conclude that the blond they encounter are less intelligent then the brunets, because there really is a statistical correlation between color asymmetries and the state of the brain. Hence the myth that blonds are dumb. When women, have a baby, they get depressed(synapses degrade), this is directly hardwired, is not secondary. The logic is, that if the mother is really ok, she will be able to compensate, if she can't, probably she hasn't the resources for a baby, depression increases the chances, that she will get rid of the baby, so that she protects her life, now at the hard times, so that she'll be able to do babies, at good times. So yes, we have infanticide in the blood. In girls, when there talking center, is active, the supervisor senses that, and reinforces the behavior. Technically, this is why girls talk too much. In Old couples, The husband brain can detect, if she is fertile in her pheromones, when the wife reaches menopause, her husband gets depressed(synapses degrade), so that theres a greater, probability, that he dumps the old goat and go spread his genes elsewhere. A way to trick this, is to sleep in sheets where a young girl slept, so that the husbands brain detects the pheromones. Womens breasts, are sensible, this is not for sex, when the baby sucks milk, it stimulates the nerves, and the supervisor, reinforces it. This is in order to reinforce, breastfeeding, her baby. Why people enjoy oral sex? They don't have an orgasm in the mouth. The genital produce pheromones, and during oral sex, the brain gets a good dose of them(pubic hair act as a disperser). 30% of the human population can't enjoy the awful bitterness of phenylthiocarbamide, and they have a higher probability to be heavy smokers. Under intense pain, a drug like substance is released that gives a high, equivalent of taking drugs. The rational is, that under normal pain, run away and heal your wounds. Over the scale pain however probably got acquired by an act of sacrificing the body in order to survive, it must be about survival otherwise why did you authorized the pain level go so high? So whatever you are doing under intense pain, it should be reinforced because presumably your life depends on it. Wolfs will chow off there foot if trapped, in order to escape. They generalize that they have to do it, they start and they feel the pain, without the mechanism, the relevant synapses would soon be degraded and the behavior would stop, then the wolf will just have to wait until he dies. With the mechanism however, the synapses "chow off foot" are reinforced, and the deed can be completed. Everybody is capable of this, it just that if you are lucky you'll never have to scientifically test this. The rubs: Athletes as they train feel intense pain and get a high, and go beyond the limits of there body at a destructive level. People that can't feel pain, are tipped off, by this mechanism that something is wrong, when they become euphoric(synapses reinforce too much), they rush to there doctors O_O. Self mutilation has its routs in this, depressed people, get a high by inflicting intense pain on them selves. And of course the classic, masochists of all sort get a high like this. Torture plays on this mechanism, for maximum psychological damage. Corporal punishment on children(more sensible to pain/hitting force systematically underestimate), doesn't has, only the neat explanation that you naively think. Under this mechanism ,they are punished initially for some reason, they get a high, the synaptic weights of "lets act naughty" are ... reinforced, they generalize and act naughty more often and stop because they got there quota. The issue has more complications from other mechanisms. If it tickles, the supervisor reinforces scratching on the same area. If it tickles, they may be parasites, and scratching may help in removing them.

3.11.4 development

___.___ (_]===*  o 0

These first years have, among other things, the advantage that 1 can use force and compulsion. With age children forget everything they encountered in their early childhood. Thus if 1 can take away children's will, they will not remember afterward that they had had a will." (J. Sulzer: "Versuch von der Erziehung und Unterweisung der Kinder", 1748)

(notes: children have lower threshold of pain then adults and people systematically underestimate there real hitting force)

Believe it or not, when the buttocks are receiving a strong enough stroke, this gives a sexual stimulation, its not clear why, nerve connections are quite complicated on this issue. Now the interesting part, is that kids are very often punished in this way, but this is not about parent unknowingly sexually assaulting incestuously there pumpkins. The intense pain is reinforcing for the synapses(remember the wolf) and adds up with the unexpected sexual arousal. We are quite sure of this, because it is reported that little boys can develop erections after being punished, however since at that age they can only get dry orgasms and for little girls more invasive investigation is needed we can't say more. The supervisor is constantly trying to add in his library of "its good/bad for you" from whatever is systematically present when he activates, the above activation is no exception to the rule. BDSM is a direct and uncomplicated adult fetish that can spur from childhood punishments. Latex is used to protect the matrices from children when they whet there beds, if they are often punished in the presence of latex(smell, skin contact), the supervisor will end up associating "latex is good", hence as adults they become latex fetishists, i'm sure your parents would be proud. In the same vein, children are punished if they urinate or defecate where they weren't supposed too, by the same mechanism, at adulthood they can become urophiliac and scatophiliac fetishists. In a comparable way, zoophilia can get induced. Say a dog, as most dogs, are very inquisitions with there nose, and to be friendly they start licking you any where. If the dog stimulates by accident a small child, the child's brain could make an unfortunate link. This is by no means the only way, sexual orientation has a complex way of setting it self up, but by similar principles a lot of paraphilias get induced, by events of the sort during childhood. Heterosexuality and homosexuality get induced with more indirect ways by the supervisor, with certain hardwired assumptions about which kind of creature should be considered as sexual mates. For example, in ducks, when an egg grows up in the nest of an other species, the adult duck, will consider as sexual mates the species of his foster mother. The mechanism is simple, what ever the duckling sees when it hatches, creatures that resemble it, will be considered potential sexual mates at adulthood. We have a calibration because it would be to complicated to hardwire it directly, that is genetically activated, based on an assumption (whats the first thing i'll ever see when i hatch), but the calibration can be done only once because its based on a 1 time event(hatching). In a similar way, various mechanisms(and there mishmash) of the sort act in humans.

pop out and full size You can find other examples with: balloons, birds, little people, mustard, peaches, peanut butter, pickles ... your browser does not support the video tag, install

On the opposite phobias can get induced in a similar way. An experimenter, presented a white bunny to a baby monkey. Each time he would present the white bunny, he would make a scary noise behind the monkeys head. After a while, the monkey would be terrified when confronted with a white bunny. If you think about it, it makes sense, if something bad really happens when a white bunny is present, if you avoid white bunnies, maybe you'll also avoid the really bad thing too. Something similar happens with all phobias.

pop out and full size desensitization therapy your browser does not support the video tag, install

But its not all doom and gloom, the supervisor can be retrained, up to a point, some things are get cemented for good(like the little duck). The supervisor is smart, if he gets repeatedly a signal, that he previously classified as life threatening. And repeatedly nothing happens, he will gradually reduce his response(desensitization therapy). This remains true for a lot of psychological problems(victims of rape, victims of aggression, anorexia), some kind of stress initiated the disease, by having the supervisor developing a phobia, all it needs is to retrain it to declassify the association. Sounds strange, but the "symptoms", are really all there is to these diseases.

The cotton ball woman, apart being a dumb ass for going to such a crappy show with such an asshole of a presenter, she's also doing it wrong, she should confront her fear very gradually, not in 1 go.

Catastrophic belief: In phobias, and fear in general, the supervisor readjust the synapses so that the dreaded event is associated with negative future consequences. Technically, if in the frontal lobe, appears an association between the dreaded event and bad potential consequences, the supervisor will reinforce this. The logic is that this way, the frontal lobe gets less likely that it will generalize in a way that make the event to occur. Of course, the supervisor is wired to automatically do this association when it sees 1, it doesn't has any understanding of the logic behind it. Parents hit there children, because they get rewarded. The child is naughty, the parents brain generalizes "i'll beat it, and it will stop". The child is beaten and stops, the supervisor detects that the annoyance went away and reinforces the "beat/stop".

_        _ \'-_,#     _\'--','`|     \`---`  /      `'`

pop out and full size your browser does not support the video tag, install

pop out and full size your browser does not support the video tag, install

Higher rates of physical violence(most often corporal punishment) or lower physical affection on babies/children/adolescents produce societies with higher rates of adult violence(Somato-sensory affectional deprivation theory "S-SAD"). Physical violences and affections in general, but they are mainly, corporal punishment and sexual repression. The explanation would be, that under important levels of violence during development, the supervisor calibrates it self to expect a violent response from the environment for a given situation. In other words, they are afraid more easily and react violently. In reverse, with high levels of affection, the supervisor calibrates to expect affection for a given situation. Not only you can't spoil a baby, but actually the best way to raise them is with extended breastfeeding(self weaning) and to continuously carry them, with a on-the-body baby carrier.

The transition of European societies after WWII, flows from this mechanism. Somewhat similarly, northern countries, have low levels of violence, because when outside its -40°C, you beater be friends with the neighbors.

Inversely, living conditions in the Victorian era where absolutely appalling. Probably, here(different environment) tricking your neighbor was a gamble that could pay off. Because of the exorbitant affluence of there empire status "we have the money, the power and my boot in your face", Great Britain experienced less effective competition, accumulating bad cultural mutations and stalling its evolution, while the others where more "we suck, we must reform". So, contemporary British have decades to catch up, in relation to continental Europeans. The same is happening as we speak to the silly little americans. Its like the feeding of wild animals, eventually not good for them, the effective reduction of competition because of inequality(interpersonal, interstate etc) is interesting but out of topic.

Proteolytic religions potentially exploit the social effect of violence, more aggressive followers will spread the faith harder. Artificially increased aggression is for conquerors, this is a cultural evolution, they where no conspiracy or social engineering. In general, how aggressive people are is a complex nonlinear correlation between a great number of factors(migration, natural resources, history, education....).

Corporal punishment is a bad idea, because on top of overlearning(in frontal lobe), the supervisor calibrates to higher violence levels(S-SAD theory, above). In real life this means that as adults, they would get angry more easily then they would other wise, for a given situation, the effect is irreversible. The irreversible induced changes in the limbic system, actually qualifies as brain damage. The trap, is that people never think of making a link of there anger levels with there "education".

Its uglier then you think. Proponents of corporal punishment actually do indeed manifest higher level of violence. They manifest higher levels of intolerance(part of the continuum of violence) against children, a product of there own upbringing. They want children to be like zombies, this is what they really mean by "todays kids don't have respect". To grasp well, what is really meant here, in the same way severe cases find it normal to beat there wives to a pulp, in exactly the same way, YOU find that its normal to "discipline" your kids, only the quantity changes. Remember, the supervisor is your program, HE decides whats normal. Its just unfortunate, that the meme manages to get inherited. Old people often complain about todays youth, because they are intolerant, because of there "education", they interpret kids behavior as mean, because they are more violent( and sex negative). In other words, people got trained to be evil, in the same way fight dogs got trained to be evil. In short, spanked kids, grow up to become more difficult people then they would have been.

Corporate Punishment is a good thing in moderation. There is no respect these days, kids don't give a damn about authority, and the parents are too soft after their stint in the 60s "loveboat".(anonymous internaute)

More specifically: Under pain, a circuit in the supervisor goes in panic mode, and he tries to determine a regularity that supposedly caused the distress, so that he classifies it as a phobia. He takes in to account every thing, smells, touch, people present, visual cues,cotton balls.... He seems to prefers to put the blame on intense outside signals. For example, you drink tequila with lemon juice, you get sick, the supervisor goes "AAAhhh!!!!, we almost died, what was it? Aha, we will never drink lemon juice again". In other situations, you risk getting exactly what you asked, for example, puppies that are overly punished for pooping in house, when they will be forced to poop in house(got locked inside), they will be so stressed about it, that they will generalize in eating there own poop in order to clean up. Corporal punishment works a lot at the level, of the supervisor it self, and crazy associations can occur(cotton balls), on the other hand, positive reinforcements or simple talk, rather work at the level of the frontal lobe, capable of much smarter associations. Pain, signals that the body is under attack, with potentially lethal out come, because of this associations with pain are always siding with caution(paranoid). Worse, if the supervisor considers that you almost died in the painful experience, then he can retain indefinite learning after a single case, guarantied overlearning in the supervisor. Pain is for dealing with life and death situations(aggressively paranoid), it wasn't meant to be used as an everyday teaching implement. In contrast, normal learning, can be spread over many "lessons", so that the bogus associations get averaged out, yes, this means children will be less well behaved, but beater behaved as adults. In a few words, corporal punishment is fast and sloppy, while the alternatives are slow and meticulous. You don't compromise with quality.

Spare the rod and spoil the child

3.11.4bis skool

Skool, real initial purpose, was to render the masses more obedient. In skool, you take orders from the teacher, and get reprimanded when you disobey. The supervisor associates disobedience with punishment. Sit still, don't talk, do your homework, etc.... if you don't, you will get bad grades, redo the year, be send to the supervisor( the skool's), told to your parents,etc... As adults, the supervisor still expects that the teacher will come and punish them, that this behavior is required only at skools, is too much to ask for the supervisor's processing capacity. Of course with corporal punishment and rote, this works even beater; with out them, it still works, but less.

Madrassas have perfected the art of producing obedient people, they learn by heart the Koran... in a language they don't understand. And it still works, because the content is irrelevant, only the act of obeying the teachers its important. If they where learning by heart some pornographic text in Swedish(that they don't understand), it would work the same. In Europe, there goal was to have obedient workers, not just mindless zombies, so they actually make them learn stuff that render them beater workers(reading reduces the cost of training workers). Its true, that when 90% of the population is illiterate, you can't do any other way then with a skool, but this explanation doesn't explain why teachers were so strict. This obedience extends in to not taking initiatives. In skool context, taking initiatives, correspond to being disobedient.

I wish it wasn't so, but it is easy to take a child out of school but it is very difficult to take the school out of the person. The children are used to 'achievement' and feel that if there is no measurable achievement they are not doing anything. School culture got to us all and we are having great difficulty letting go of it.

He doesn't want to have to decide every day what to do because, he says, he doesn't feel like it then. He wants to have a schedule and to feel he has to do it, because he wants to make goals and meet them, but without a fixed commitment he feels he does nothing. I think that makes sense. I am like that too. I am not very self-motivated, but like to meet my goals. I would gladly pay somebody to nag and cajole me into keeping my resolutions on a daily basis. Ahh, for a personal trainer, dietician-cum-chef, personal study guide …. ! Tim not only wants one, he has one who is all those things and more! His goals were not to reach a certain "level". They were "to study, Biology, Geography, Different cultures, …..etc"

(www.home-ed.co.uk)

. . . I worked most of the time in the physical laboratory [at the Polytechnic Institute of Zürich], fascinated by the direct contact with experience. The balance of the time I used in the main in order to study at home the works of Kirchoff, Helmholtz, Hertz, etc. .. . In [physics], however, I soon learned to scent out that which was able to lead to fundamentals and to turn aside from everything else, from the multitude of things which clutter up the mind and divert it from the essential. The hitch in this was, of course, the fact that one had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect [upon me] that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year. In justice I must add, moreover, that in Switzerland we had to suffer far less under such coercion, which smothers every truly scientific impulse, than is the case in many another locality. There were altogether only two examinations; aside from these, one could just about do as one pleased. This was especially the case if one had a friend, as did I, who attended the lectures regularly and who worked over their content conscientiously. This gave one freedom in the choice of pursuits until a few months before the examination, a freedom which I enjoyed to a great extent and have gladly taken into the bargain the bad conscience connected with it as by far the lesser evil. It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly. ["Autobiographical Notes," in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Paul Schilpp, ed. (1951), pp. 17-19 © 1951 by the Library of Living Philosophers, Inc.]

It(China) must start to inculcate types of creative thinking that cannot be taught through rote learning and memorization.

[...]As a result, Chinese students develop what appears to many Westerners as a shocking capacity for memorization. Many are able to recite entire articles [...] Chinese students thus regularly achieve near-perfect scores on the standardized exams of Europe and America.

Ill-prepared for Western education

Yet, when they go abroad many of these students find they are ill-prepared for Western education. Chinese students with phenomenal TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) scores are often incapable of taking part in simple English conversation.

At least one graduate school in one of America’s most elite universities has now become wary of accepting students from China for this reason.

Lack of flexibility

A lack of flexibility and inability of individuals to take the initiative affects the entire service sector, paralyzing employees at every level.

Arriving late for the set breakfast at a five-star hotel in Chengdu, for example, I, along with a group of other foreigners, found that the coffee had run out. Our request for more threw the staff into crisis.

It was not until a series of meetings had been held and permission sought from senior management that a fresh pot could be brewed.

Passing even trivial problems up the management hierarchy in this way is simply impossible in a sophisticated post-industrial society.

(Anna Greenspan)

3.11.5 accounting

<:3)~

Apparently the supervisor has sort of counters, events are quantified according to some algorithm(positive and negative) and thrown in the counter, its content gets continuously degraded with time, while the supervisor reinforces the synaptic weights so that the counter stays around some quota. The frontal lobe is reinforced to react in a certain way, under certain conditions, for a certain timing, he isn't directly concerned by the filliness of the counter, he integrates the fact that the counter leaks. Under this mechanism, for as long that the counter stays around the quota, the supervisor stays mute, above it he degrades "good" behavior(other wise you'll masturbate to death), when it falls below it, it reinforces "good" behavior, bad behavior is always degraded. Antidepressant drugs have a latency time before they take effect, my explanation would be that time is needed for the weights to adjust and express modified behavior from the pathological levels. An automated calibration system is built in, to regulate the sensibility of countless neural nets. It assumes that the recorded information from the out side should be inside certain limits, it will change the sensibility to maintain the networks inside the limits. This works well to adapt to growth of children, aging, various damages. Example: Beneath our finger nails, its not special root tissue, its simple skin, the same skin you have all over the surface of your body. That skin experiences the world through the fingernail, hence he takes in reduced amounts of external information, the calibration system cranks it up to the quota, when you lose a finger nail it feels unpleasant and assume it isn't really skin, because of its oversensitivity. Drugs have the effect of increasing considerably the activation of the pleasure center, the system kicks in and reduces the sensibility until the quota is reached, from know on, the intoxicated person will be forced to take the drug simply to have a normal level of synapse building(being normal), if he wants a high he must increase the dose further, and of course the system will reduce the sensibility further, forcing to take even more drugs just to feel normal, you simply can not cheat on pleasure. Yes, this means, that you don't smoke to feel good, you smoke in order to feel normal, as you would if you have never started smoking, and spend money for the privilege.

Its all about striking the right balances between the various rules. This way you can have extremes like, mother Teresa and Albert Fish, with essentially identical brains.

Albert fish: father of 6, house painter, sadomasochist, urophile, coprophile, child torturer, child molester, serial killer and cannibal.

part of a letter to the mother of 1 of his victims.

On Sunday June the 3, 1928 I called on you at 406 W 15 St. Brought you pot cheeseߞstrawberries. We had lunch. Grace sat in my lap and kissed me. I made up my mind to eat her. On the pretense of taking her to a party. You said yes she could go. I took her to an empty house in Westchester I had already picked out. When we got there, I told her to remain outside. She picked wildflowers. I went upstairs and striped all my clothes off. I knew if I did not I would get her blood on them. When all was ready I went to the window and called her. Then I hid in a closet until she was in the room. When she saw me all naked she began to cry and tried to run down the stairs. I grabbed her and she said she would tell her mama. First I striped her naked. How she did kick ߞ bite and scratch. I choked her to death, then cut her in small pieces so I could take my meat to my rooms. Cook and eat it. How sweet and tender her little ass was roasted in the oven. It took me 9 days to eat her entire body. I did not fuck her tho I could of had I wished. She died a virgin.

1 of his little pleasures was to insert in his pelvis needles, and let them there.

drugs are NOT good for you

Drugs and antidepressants, interfere with the supervisor at various level, with global result, that they indiscriminately increase the easiness of synapse building. A drug reinforces the behavior of its own reuptake, this is why drug addicts keep retaking the drug no mater what. A depression, can be described, as a pathologically low level of synapse building(excessive degradation, overfiltering), to a point that very little behavior gets reinforced, this is why very depressed people can stay in bed for a month. Antidepressants basically act as a drug, so the imbalance is fixed. Taking too much drugs increase overextrapolation of the upper brain. At first it leads to paranoia, at the highest stage psychosis develop. A worker took drugs(amphetamines), so that he can work harder, unfortunately he fucked up the dosage, and tooked too much. His hand started talking to him and he found it was a good idea to cut it off(psychosis). Anti-psychotic medication do the reverse of drugs, they reduce the overlearning of the brain, so that it overextrapolate less.

_[_]_     (")  `----' ""`-...-'""

3.11.6 trainings

.-.  ( . ) .-.':'.-. (  =,!,=  ) '-' | '-'

The best, way to train an animal is to give it a treat. The required action, is done, food is given, the supervisor just reinforces whats active at the moment as usual. This is not "i did this, i got food, so i'll do it again", THIS IS the explanation of the " bla bla", not the other way around, the "bla bla" is it self reinforced by the supervisor. Its simply associations through synaptic reinforcement. To know that something is good, is not enough, is important to experience it. You can train your teacher. What teachers like? They like to see there pupils, interested, asking questions, taking notes, stuff of the sort. Chose a behavior that he/she is doing from time too time, scratching his nose, taking of his glasses, blinking, putting his hands in his pockets, anything. Everything he does that, look interested, ask question and so on, after a while, when you ask questions, look interested and so forth, he will unconsciously, do what ever you decided he should repeat. Bou haha, my revenge will be terrible, if only i knew this when i was in school. You can train your boyfriend too. What your boyfriend likes?.... Lets assume it's a blow job, make him do a chore, that he doesn't like very much, while he is doing it, you go down at him, you tell him some thing like "it turns me on to see you .... wash the dishes". His supervisor, in his little sparrow brain, will reinforce dish washing. He, knowing what you really are doing doesn't mater, it still works. You can train your friends. What you friends like? .....Candies is a good guess. When they do some thing you like, quick, grab him/her and shove some candies down his/her throat. The classics, men give flowers to women, grannies give candies to there grand kids. So that the supervisor expands the association "flowers/candy good" to "giver good". What people like in poker? Wining of course. But then, they get trained to behave in certain subtle ways when they have a good hand. This is why a poker face is very hard. Aversion therapy is the little brother of training. Basically, each time the unwanted behavior occurs (for example smoking), the subject self inflicts its self with pain. The brain associates the pain with the unwanted behavior, so the behavior is curved. Paradoxically enough, if people are given large economic reward, the results they produce plunder. Theres an other issue that gets mangled here, the big reward is interpreted by the supervisor that they are being manipulated. Obviously, being manipulated isn't good for any animal. The supervisor has a directive, to look after power and control.

3.11.7 your opinions are boring

pop out and full size your browser does not support the video tag, install pop out and full size torrent file your browser does not support the video tag, install

Why do you cry, are afraid, disgusted etc, at movies? Simple, because the supervisor thinks that it's really in front of it, it is not interested with your stupid explanations about videos and frames per second. You think you are a logical person, taking only rational decisions? Wheeeel, no. Your supervisor, has decided whats bad for you, and thats it. No possibility for appealing his judgments. Blood is first filtered from its big particles, then all "good" molecules are reabsorbed, whats left is urine. Urine, just after urination, is sterile, sure its stuff your body tries to get rid off, but its less toxic then a soda. The really interesting part, its that odor and taste depend on what you eat or bread. Isn't fun to drink your urine, or that of your friends? Imagine all the exiting taste discoveries you will make, and its cheaper then a soda. I assure you, that if the person was healthy, no drugs, etc, from a medical point of view its OK. Its like drinking a soda :). Why you still say no? o_O It makes perfect sense, right? o_o   "tell me you love me"

3.11.8 groups

People, usually underestimate nonverbal communication very much. Until they get on the Internet, that is, there, they discover that nonverbal cues aren't just part of the background. This is why stuff like :), :(, :C, :D, XD, etc where created. When interacting with people, the supervisor is used to read emotions and act accordingly, with a text message however, everybody becomes severely autistic. A little advise, always use emoticons when texting.

Fundamental attribution error: In the world they are good people and bad people(like Albert fish). Good people are ok, but bad people can potentially kill you(and eat you). If you incorrectly identify a bad people as good, you are in trouble, you can die, so its smarter to be paranoid and too bad for the good people identified as bad. We aren't wired to minimize error in our assessment of others, we are wired to be paranoid for security reasons. This is a compromise, between enhanced security and the needless conflicts that it generates. Men are more prone to risk taking, so this problem is reduced for them. On the other hand because women pay a higher price during reproduction, the problem is more acute for them(feminists).

____|____    /'  U ^    `\ |/\/\/\/\/\/\/|          |           |           J

When 1 of your fellow creatures, is afraid or joyful, the odds are good that this concerns you too. What ever is scary, probably wants to eat you too, and what ever is joyful, you probably want a piece too. In addition, if you were doing something joyful and others come along, its a good idea to get excited even more, so that you keep all of it for your self, this rational got derailed in to a social cohesion strategy. The supervisor simply detects these emotions and reacts the same way. This is why comic shows, have laughter in the background, why people like porn, why exhibitionists and porn stars get excited(so that they save "it" from the competition, for them selves !!!) etc...   Laughter, is an instinct, to tell other human supervisors, that the unexpected event that just happened wasn't dangerous, so stress levels should get lowered and no need to get worked up.

pop out and full size your browser does not support the video tag, install pop out and full size torrent file your browser does not support the video tag, install

pop out and full size your browser does not support the video tag, install pop out and full size your browser does not support the video tag, install

A little experiment, a bunch of people are distributed in to 2 groups randomly. Then they perform an activity, in which they can give money to people of the experiment, despite the fact that the groups are completely random, people will discriminate against the other group, the stupid supervisor got tricked. "Good" behavior to outside of the group gets degraded, and "bad" gets reinforced. Ooooh those dirty bastards from group A, i'll show them. Of course this is more intense on real groups, like nations, race, gender, casts,.....   "social exchange theory": Example, if someone gives you something, you must reciprocate. This is actually how p2p can work, it's easy to cheat by not seeding, but not many people are doing it. Conformity, is also an important part of group function. Usually conformity has derogatory connotations, but without it, a group would have a harder time reaching collective decisions. The conformity experiment shows how powerful conformity can be. An alternative explanation would be, that the group is considered an authority, or a entity with power, it would mean, that conformity is a simply special case of obedience and treated by the same circuits. Leadership: Under autocratic regimes, people are very productive and disciplined, but only when the authority is there, when its not they pull knives at each other to compensate there lack of power. In more democratic regimes, people take part in the decision making process, so they get there power quota. It seems we are wired to follow some entity of authority, most probably the supervisor simply reinforces obeying to entities with power(boss, parents, experts....), this has nothing to do with coercion, its directly hard wired. Most probably, at pre-group period, the rational was, if you obey the 1s with power you avoid getting hurt. In a group the rational changed, obedience is an important part of working along, without it groups would disintegrate in anarchy, the members of the group would not be able to overcome there rivalry. The obedience experiment illustrates how powerful obedience is, for a cardboard-authority 2/3 of people went all the way to the end. In an other variant of the experiment, 90% of people went all the way to the end. The Nazis weren't just a bunch of psychos, something more subtle was going on, in there trials, the "I was just following orders" was frequent. A really unethical variant of the obedience experiment. Professors at a university used a cute little puppy, the puppy was REALLY being electrocuted in FRONT of the "teachers", the "teachers" where ACTUAL students of theres, the performance in teaching the puppy would result in REAL grades for the students. The experiment was presented as "critical fusion frequency in puppies". 50% of men go all the way to the end, in women 100%(yep, all of them) went all the way to the end. I remind you that they where NORMAL students.

pop out and full size At least that's showable your browser does not support the video tag, install

The Standford prison experiment, a bunch of students should pretend realistically, that they where in a prison, some where prisoners, some the guards, every 1 could leave any time. The situation got out of hand, they somehow forgot they weren't in a real prison, the supervisor was convinced that it was dead real and reinforced the behaviors accordingly. Its important to understand this works on 90% of people(unless, you know about this), the above students were NORMAL, the remaining 10% are just the hippies. How sadistic would you be in your own prison? Same phenomenon with behaviors of soldiers at wars, contestants in big brother shows, etc...   The current crisis, can be attributed, to the conformity instinct. Everybody follows everybody else like lemmings. European colonization, among other things, relied of various social tricks of the sort.

3.11.9 supervizor vs supervisor

Being emotional can mold the judgment. The upper brain ponders on something, the supervisor detects something positive or negative in the pondering, and accordingly it reinforces or deinforces the synapses, so that the pondering becomes positive. The reinforced behavior is irrational, this anomaly appears with negative situations, that can not be changed, like death or intense emotional abuse. Made up example: Hmmm, i'm 65, with a history of heart attack, my torso hurts, maybe i'm having a heart attack and i'll die alone and in great pain (supervisor, what we will die? not-content), Hmm, maybe it's just a cramp(supervisor, ouf i was scared for a minute, content; it think that he did something real to avert the crisis) ... yes thats right it's just a cramp, nothing serious, i can continue doing what i'm doing..... Other examples would be certain creationists, eurosceptics, anti-quota fishermen, AIDS denialists.....

pop out and full size your browser does not support the video tag, install

Homophobes, are really homosexuals/bisexuals, but at the same time by education, the supervisor consider being homosexual as bad. Neither are overriddable, the supervisor says simultaneously, "you are looking for same sex mate" and "being gay is bad", the upper brain has to randomly find some conformation that will accommodate both orders, at the same time. If the upper brain says that homosexuals are bad, the "you are looking for same sex mate" get fooled in to not activating (sex drive is automatically deactivated in threatening circumstances), and on the other hand "being gay is bad" activates happily. There are other examples, of the sort, such as, a certain fraction of women-loathing-religious-fundamentalists, anti-pedophilia-activists, anti-pornography-activists, etc. The nature of the mechanism is such, that examples can only be extremely controversial. A slight variation, is the BDSM, rape and prostitute sexual fantasy present in a lot of women, contrary to common sense, it's the most liberated women that have these fantasies(i'm stressing on FANTASIES). Society is sexually oppressive on women, with these fantasies the "promiscuity is bad for you" get fouled in to not activating, since she is "coerced", the "sex is good" activates happily, while the "am i coerced?" is smart enough in to not activating. A variant women sex fantasy, is sex with a stranger that they will never see again, here the conformity instinct is fouled in to silence, since "strangers aren't part of society"(supervisor's logic). In a similar way certain necrophilias and zoophilias can develop, from very repressive sex education, the supervisor will declare "sex is bad". But if frontal lobe suggest "sex with corpse/animal", supervisor is happy since, from education, necrophilia and zoophilia was far less reprehended and theres no other way it can achieve his sex quota. This phenomenon can affect memory retrieval. Too much pain, degrades the synapses to the activation of the explicit memory, hence they are retrieved less easily. This is an example where no 1 will recognize him self in: In the 19 century, before the germ theory, diseases "spread due to bad air", so it was useless for surgeons to wash there hands, if they looked clean. Ignaz Semmelweis showed(interesting read), that if surgeons washed there hands with chlorine, maternity death rates drop 10-fold. His findings where attacked and his proposal for washing hands with chlorine ignored. The explanation would be that acknowledging that this was true, it would mean that they should admit that they where the primary cause for the death of a great deal of there patients over the years they practiced medicine. An unbearable burden, the "don't hurt fellow creature" get activated, but if Semmelweis was a crank, the burden goes away, the "don't hurt fellow creatures" is fouled in to silence. Explanation suggested by: Gustav Adolf Michaelis and Semmelweis ends. Michaelis followed the advice on chlorine, and mortality dropped drastically in his clinic, blaming him self for all the women that had died under his care(including his niece), became very depressed and committed suicide(if he committed suicide the others must have felt something unpleasant). Semmelweis was shunned by almost every 1. He suffered from a nervous break down, severe depression, publicly insulting his colleagues, behaving inappropriately with his family(all this could have been an unrelated neurological disease though). He was forcibly interned in a insane asylum and severely beaten in the proses(yeap, straitjacket and everything), he died 2 weeks later from an infected wound(like the maternity deaths). At his funeral very few people came, no family, no colleagues. No commemorative post Morten address was given at the Hungarian Association of Physicians and Natural Scientists as it was custom. And of course death rates at his clinic reverted back to normal. If he was just a crazy crank, why go to these lengths. Usually, righteous indignation and certainty, hides this type of underlying mechanism. Freud ideas on sexual repression(oedipus complex...), could be reinterpreted under this theory. Various aspects of his theories are recyclable, but because he was slow in updating his theories since the time he died, there are a lot of points that are dead wrong. An impressive case, 18%(2007) of south african population has AIDS, a devastation to the country. President Thabo Mbeki argued, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, so the government of south africa did absolutely nothing for a number of years.

3.11.10 power(inclusive definition)

pop out and full size imagine that YOU made that... useless contraption your browser does not support the video tag, install

For the supervisor, having power, probably, technically is more or less related to making successful predictions. people like to play video games, in general, is about power, the supervisor interprets that its a real meaningful activity and you are in control. This should be understood as the 2 robots from a science fiction story, they where separated from there master, and they kept making breakfast every day, while they knew that they will later throw it away. In both cases, they just follow there programing, they are not going to stop simply because its a meaningless activity. Why certain electronic equipment is full with little buttons, that no 1 ever uses? Because this way we feel we have total control over it, that we have power over it. Collectors(specially men), get reinforced because its interpreted as conquering something, as acquiring power. Whats up with men and football? Well actually the correlation between the 2 is not causal, the true correlation, is between men and the live event on the TV. Because its live, the supervisor thinks that he can influence it some how. The supervisor's rules know nothing about the wired transmission of images, so he thinks, its literally live, in front of it. The rational of the shooting and swearing, its because the supervisor expects that it will somehow influence the outcome. Don't believe it? How many times people watch a game as a rerun? A usual refrain in men and the motivation in there job they are doing, is that they want to "build something". This is an interpretation of dominating nature, having power over nature, natural selection didn't foreseen that we would be building 100m wind turbines. The supervisors rule here got completely denaturated and turned on its head, whats supposed to be a destructive and violent instinct got recruited for the exact opposite. Adventurers and explorers, like crazy mount everest alpinists, see there fits as "conquering", the mountain, sea, desert or whatever. Eventual escalating addiction(automated calibration system) pushes them in ever greater follies, to death. Of course there is also the dark side of power. Serial killers, bullies, vandals.... there behaviors are interpreted as having power. Serial killers should be seen as power-over-people addicts, that went after ever greater power doses. In the same way that the power/risk addiction in dead crazy everest alpinists went too far. All addicts start small and then things get out of control. Little children build towers, they collapse them, and have a lot of fun. There supervisor interprets it as having power over his toys, everything is knew and fresh to the toddler, so this seemingly boring activity is very exiting to him. Giving a name on something is reinforced. Officially, it gives a sense of power, but it could be simply an instinct of language acquisition recruited in stressful situations. Examples: Hostages ask the name of the kidnapper, and sick people feel beater just by knowing the name of there disease.

The dictators originally, start modestly, by demanding obedience from the people and gets a high. The rub is that the self calibrating mechanism in the supervisor kicks in, since he gets far more then the quota the assumption is that something is broken, so it reduces its sensitivity, until "normal" quantities are measured. The dictator demands even more absolute devotion from the people, and calibration mechanism kicks in again. If gone unchecked, we end up with a personality cult. A case that got ridiculously far is Turkmenistan. There, the ex president for life wrote a book, the "Ruhnama", it contains autobiographical information, revisionist history, poems and stories; all being about the spiritual and moral guidance of the people. The Ruhnama constitutes the base of skool education(including math), tests on it are necessary at university and for obtaining a driving license. Not disrespect, but failing to show enough devotion to it, is enough to land you in jail. If a foreign company wishes to gain contracts in the country, they just need to translate the book. He renamed, the months and days of the week, guess whats the new name for September. Doctors give oath to the president, not the Hippocratic oath. With out counting all the cheesy golden statues all over the country and the 100 million mosque in the middle of the desert.

Whenever you take Ruhnama in your hand, remember you are turning it into a drop pouring into the Ocean of the Turkmen Soul! Then, the comfort, pleasure and bliss of a drop reaching the Ocean shall fill your heart.

Do not read Ruhnama hastily; let every bit of thought penetrate your heart!

Read Ruhnama on a table or on something like a prayer rug!

Read Ruhnama as if you are saying your prayers; saying prayers means speaking of God and listening to His creatures rather than speaking of His creatures.

Read Ruhnama all your life! Read it again and again in childhood, adolescence, boyhood, youth, adulthood and old age since Ruhnama's pearls of meaning spill out new aspects of every phase of life.

(Ruhnama II: 30, 32)

Historic examples of unbridled megalomania: month of July after roman emperor Julius Caesar that was born that month, month of august after roman emperor Augustus, china after its first emperor Qin Shi Huang (秦始皇), Saudi Arabia after Saud royal family, and the worse of all Linux after emperor Linus Torvalds with an ego the size of a small planet. Computers are appealing to programmers(mostly men), because they follow orders blindly, they get a high like little dictators.

3.11.11 Jeddy mind tricks

pop out and full size torrent file your browser does not support the video tag, install

ads:

The supervisor is a stupid neuronal computer, advertisers didn't fail to notice that. A computer virus, is a specially crafted program, that by taking advantage of weaknesses of the OS, it can execute arbitrary commands. An ad(and propaganda), is a specially crafted message, that takes advantage of the weaknesses of our supervisor/brain to make us buy arbitrary stuff. The comparison with a virus, isn't a figure of speech, its a very accurate description of whats going on. An ad, doesn't try to convince us in to buying, it tries to induce a correlation "product-good" in the supervisor. A typical mistake, in people is that they say "I'm not influenced, i buy only when i want", but precisely, the ad doesn't control you like a zombie, she influences what you want. You are really naive, to think that billions are spend, on something that doesn't work.

You can not out smart this, no more then a computer can out smart a virus, the only bullet proof way, is to not see them. Advertisers are looking for new tricks all day long, have decades of experience and a lot of money at there disposal, you simply don't stand a chance. In general i recommend, to buy/subscribe your entertainment with out ads. For the Internet i recommend Ad block plus, while for the TV, DVR and commercial skipping applications. Any advertising avoiding/blocking system, even costly worth the investment.

,-._,-.   \/)"(\/     (_o_)

pop out and full size your browser does not support the video tag, install

Extra on ads: If you notice, all ads for watches are set at 10:10, the rational is that the needles look like a smile, so that you get some good feelings from just that. In the same vein, clowns(target children) and nice girls(target dudes) are recruited to sell stuff. Extremely expensive products, like a 1 million bra, they are not meant to be sold, normal buyers brains make a unconscious comparison with what others are buying (the stuff on the catalogs), so this drives there "bra" needs up. The conformity program of the supervisor is fooled in too thinking that the people of the adds are real, it tries to conform to them. Fear: Everything that is potentially dangerous is treated with a lot of paranoia, obviously because you can't explore the issue more truthfully when you are dead. That we cut think corners when assessing danger, hasn't gone unnoticed by politicians or advertisers. Ironically, this trick works on politicians them selves, when they should know beater, lobbyist simply argue that theres a threat of job destruction. The most classic example is, "for the children". Globally its far easier to sell fear then hope.

Slander: In the same vein, slander is treated with a lot of paranoia, the rational is to avoid bad people(like Albert Fish). If you notice Israeli foreign ministers, don't talk normally, they will typically say something like this "Palestinians are terrorizingly terrorizing terrorists imposing the rule of terror". Eurosceptics, will say things like "EU rules say that bananas should be straight". The important element to understand of this trick, is that even if a 100% lie is successfully refuted, or if people know very well that its lies, they will get negatively predisposed anyway. Often, politicians wrap slander in to questions, it still works despite the fact that technically they didn't take any position. Don't trust people that slander other people, its below the waist blows. Politicians just, use, abuse and reuse this.

Is Barak Obama a Muslim?

False memories: Don't cheat, read aloud the first list of words.

List 1: sheets, pillow, mattress, blanket, comfortable, room, dream, lay, chair, rest, tired, night, dark, time.

wait 5min, without cheating, read list 2 and try to spot which words where in list 1.

List 2: door, tree, eye, song, pillow, juice, orange, radio, rain, car, sleep, cat, dream, eat

You probably said that sleep was in list 1, it wasn't. And yea i just copy pasted the lists.

This is a 5min demonstration, but by a similar mechanism serious life memories can be completely fabricated.

An example in illusionists trick. You "chose" (in reality the illusionists tricks you to chose what he wants) a 5 of hearts and a 6 of spades. He is doing his theatric mambo jumbo( to distract you), and... subtly, at some point he start saying that the card you had chosen( that he actually tricked you to chose) where 5 of spades and 6 of heart (the bastard :) ). The vast majority of people will never figure this out.

Weaknesses: These systems were supposed to work, with naked people, in groups that everybody knows everybody, not in multimillion cities, with a TV in every house, and messages that are done by people that do that all there lives.

3.11.12 some personalities

,/      ./(\ -`___-'  |` -(  -`--)    7/`    \\

The supervisor it self can learn, and for it too theres overfiltering and overfiting issues. The most wide spread cause of genetic variation in the population, at the level of the supervisor, again, is the learning spectrum. circuit level variation is too complicated. Reminder the frontal lobe spectrum: standard idiot, dyslexic, neurotypical, gifted, paranoid, psychotic. A ruffle correspondence would be: depressive, hyperactive, neurotypical, emotional, bipolar. The spectrum is just an example, to give a ruffle idea, its not meant to be taken too seriously.

Depressive: If the supervisor is too filtering, it means that it will tend to ignore what ever he gets, so he will just let the synapses to degrade too much.

Hyperactive: If the supervisor's threshold of activation in certain specific high order areas is high (overfiltering). When the frontal lobe gives orders that give results of "typical" intercity, the supervisor's activation level is weak, thus "typical" synaptic weights aren't reinforced. When the frontal lobe gives orders that give results of "high" intercity, the supervisor's activation level is typical, thus reinforcing the synaptic weights.

typical neurotypical

Neurotypical: Pathologically average Joe. Supervisor unexcitingly typical, responsible for training an annoyingly uninteresting frontal lobe. Responsible for painfully boring human beings. A whooping 50% is below average, wide spread degenerating disorder, over 90%, prognosis not good, only available humane treatment is euthanasia. Examples of neurotypical savants: Britney spears, George bush.

Mirrored in 2009 further reading links:scientifically vulgarized uncyclopedia article/Institute for the Study of the Neurologicaly Typical/screening test

Emotional: If the supervisor is overfiting, he will have a tendency to see what it learned in the raw data. Hence overeating( hmm, women?).

Bipolar: If the supervisor is too overfiting, like a psychotic person. It's responses don't have much logic, what it detects is overwhelmed by passed learning. A person like that would be pathologically defective.

pop out and full size your browser does not support the video tag, install

In the autistic personality, the supervisor's threshold of activation in certain low order specific areas( hypervisor?) is high (overfiltering). Control from the supervisor is quite fine tuned actually, in this case the level of fine tuning becomes obvious. For example, little autistic child is told not to run in the street, while in a street A. In street A it stops running, but in street B it does. It is retold to stop running, while in street B. In street A and B it stops running, but when in street C, it start running again. This goes own until the supervisor has reinforced enough examples so that upper brain can generalize correctly. The supervisor, interpreted "not to run" for that particular street, "A", "B", "C", etc. This becomes most visible in functions related to social interaction. This way of generalizing, is superior in anything scientific( its not a guarantee in it self though). Examples, where this way of generalization is obviously beater then the neurotypical 1: You meat "black/Arab/Gypsy/Jew"s, they are assholes, they really are, the neurotypical brain generalizes "ALL "black/Arab/Gypsy/Jew"s are assholes", the autistic generalizes "these people in particular are assholes" ; advertisements don't work well on them ; etc. If typical outside activation activity is followed, the overall activation falls below the expected quota of normal functioning. The other supervisor functions are cranked up until quota is reached, social interaction functions remain weak. Weird narrow special interests develop out of this rebalancing (from dinosaurs to shiatsu (指圧)).

A live human body and a deceased human body have the same number of particles. Structurally there's no difference. (Dr. Manhattan)(can you interpret what he really means here?)

In the narcissistic personality, the quota for good esteem/status is very high. In a normal person, the synapses are morphed until the supervisor decides that the quota (from evolution) is satisfactorily reached. In a narcissistic person however, the quota is so high that this is not possible. But, esteem/status is relative, if the frontal lobe reports that "others are inferior", the supervisor is fouled, considering that the quota is now achieved, the supervisor fires only then. In a normal individual, the "others are inferior" reinforcement, is overwhelmed by other activations of the supervisor. This trick is the only way to avoid being permanently depressed for a narcissistic. The end result isn't nice to live with, they are self aggrandizing as much as they can and put you down as much as they can. An obvious example, Czech Republic's president, Václav Klaus.

Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws

The only shadow that the Desert knows:

"I am great OZYMANDIAS," saith the stone,

"The King of Kings; this mighty City shows

"The wonders of my hand." The City's gone,

Nought but the Leg remaining to disclose

The site of this forgotten Babylon.

"how may I abuse you"

In psychopaths, no remorse, no empathy, no guilt, don't care whats going to happen to others(supervisor rather heavily filtering social aspects?). Actually on them selves, this traits aren't a problem, but in there pursue of pleasure, they can become problems for there surroundings. Contrary to popular belief, most of them are actually well integrated and out of jail, they calculated that prisons aren't nice places, the police and tough laws work on them, while in the general population its rather guilt and remorse. There is a evolutionary advantage to be a psychopath, because they simply cheat the system. The combination of lack of morality and pursue of pleasure can spill over in narcissism and sadism. Narcissistic, because when putting down people, the "its not good to put down people" is absent, while the "i'm beater then them" fires. Sadistic, because when hurting people, the "hurting people is not good" is absent, while the "i'm in power" fires. The end result isn't very nice to live with either, they are extremely manipulative and charming, because they will tell you anything you want to hear, but at the same time they couldn't care less about you. A lot of examples are among politicians, especially the charming 1s.

3.12 Futurology

For say, the next 100K-300K years. Assuming information society goes on. Some extreme version of the Internet, with 99,99% penetration, being around for 100s of 1000s of years. In prehistoric times, people where butt naked illiterate and very few information around, in contrast today you are awash with information.

Supervisor should get less intrusive, natural selection optimized with some relatively invasive programing, that works on average, in order to compensate for the shortage of available information. Today using the information available is more interesting then having some, program in your supervisor that works on average. Selective pressure for the supervisor it self to be more filtering and less verbose.

Frontal lobe filtering should go up, back then, important to hold on the little info you could find. Today finding information is not the problem, finding meaningful information is the problem. Selective pressure for the frontal lobe to be more filtering. 3.13 Infinite regression loops 3.13.1 logic

pop out and full size logic is relative your browser does not support the video tag, install

It's natural selection that decides, through this tweaking of the brain(filtering, supervisor), whats logical, and what isn't. Our wisdom is nothing more than distiled natural selection juice. The wiring of the supervisor, acts exactly like a program.

A little example in order to understand well what i actually say. Atheism, posits that there are no gods, only natural laws, gods are just irrational superstitions. From the naturalistic explanations of science about the world, the supervisor interprets that we have power. This is why atheism gets reinforced in there brain, not "logic". Wheeel yea, what did you expect, your atheism must have some rational scientific explanation don't you think? (And yes, i'm an atheist my self)

Every single time you claim some "logical", "rational" or "scientific" decision, you simply generalize what ever your supervisor reinforced, no different then deciding to take out the trash because they smell. Yes, this remains true for science too(just ignore the circularity). What actually important, is not the truthfully true truth, but that, "that logic", help you survive and reproduce. "Logic" really stands for what kind of neural generalization helped your ancestors survive and reproduce until now, and you extrapolate to the future with that. Input gets in, out put gets out, something happens, and then the supervisor plays with the synapses, there are no exceptions to the main decision loop.

(a little bit of xenopsychology) Because this system is build by random trial and error(evolution), we can not have a civilization with a single consciousness. We don't risk finding any alien civilization with basically 1 huge brain being in charge. Or skynet taking over. Or absolute dictatorships lasting.

From inside the theory, this extends in judging if this theory is correct. Its not about "logic", its about how your brain generalizes. From inside the theory, i believe the theory is correct because my brain generalizes in this particular way, not because i'm "logical". My supervisor, interpret that i have power.

In final analysis, the only intelligence that ever existed is the heuristics of natural selection. 3.13.2 why are you a skeptic?

In general, under this theory, you are skeptical because of neuronal-aliasing in your brain(overlearned). In the same way your brain wanted to read the words and not say the colors of the letters. Your brain for a myriad of possible confiding reason, is generalizing that i'm a crackpot and i only have anecdotal evidence.

If you think, that you don't belong in the general explanation, assuming you understood most of the above, you should be able to cook up the explanation. Even if not convinced you can still apply the principles of a theory. So the theory remains 100% consistent, there you have it, the reason that you are not convinced by the theory. So if the theory is really correct, you can't be convinced, because of the explanation just given (above or your's). If the theory is really wrong, then you shouldn't be using it to explain why your brain correctly figure it out.

Are you satisfied with this last 1? No? Reapply the theory on your self about why you find this last explanation wrong. And there you have it again, you have the full explanation, about why you aren't convinced, so again the theory in consistent. You can continue playing at this any number of iterations you want. Of course, you can't apply the theory to prove that she is wrong, you must use an other one.

Fundamentally, its the same argument as in the previous "logic" section. The brain, is prewired, or programmed, in a certain way. I'm in favor of the theory because my brain is build the way it is build (probably, my supervisor interprets that i have power). You are against it, because the way your brain is build. If you are really wrong, natural selection will take care of you, the hard way. Of course, again it gets self referential.

I want to point out, that this kind of explanation, is normal, for any theory that attempts to model our brain. Its not cheap rhetorics, neither an attempt to prove the theory to skeptic minds. Its a sign that the theory is really consistent. Any theory attempting to model our brain, claiming to be complete and consistent, should produce a naturally flowing explanation for the lack of faith(or not) in certain brains in her self. Why should she be concerned that she is investigating her acceptance(or not)? Self reference is an unavoidable(and entertaining) fluke, when we try to investigate our selves.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/