Rahatul asta de comunism imi strica viata si la 24 ani de cind, teoretic, a fost ‘abolit’.
Astazi am vazut o inghetata “Polar” pe care scria ceva de genul ‘gustul copilariei’. N-am avut ce face si am cumparat una.
Poate ca producatorii (Alpine din Sebes) or fi de buna credinta. Partea proasta e ca sunt mult mai tineri decit mine. Banuiesc ca ei au fost copii pe vremea cind ‘Ceasca’ stricase deja tot ce a fost vreodata bun.
Ramaneti cu amintirea.
Archives for category: Psychology
“… sitting ducks for German fighters and antiaircraft gunners. Tens of thousands of men perished in the sky over Europe. The entire United States Marine Corp didn’t suffer as many casualties in the War against Japan as did the airmen who flew bombers over Germany.”
So people can do almost unimaginable things when they think their ‘collective identity’ (way of live, common values, etc.) is in danger. If you examine this in detail you cannot fail to notice that while the Marines fought on a more or less stable/natural environment (the sea shore, mostly) the Airmen first put themselves in a very dangerous and unnatural situation – high up in the sky – and ONLY THEN started to fight one another…
Am I wrong or the graph in this article proves that being a conservative or a liberal has more to do with the conditions in which you grew up and with your own political choices than directly with your religious confession?
I always wonder why do we get updated every five minutes on the ‘Kim Kardashians’ of the world while it took at least 8 month for this information to percolate from the US to Romania.
And how many of you, citizens of the world, were aware of this development?
“Andraka wrote up an experimental protocol and e-mailed it to 200 researchers. Only Maitra responded. “It was a very unusual e-mail,” he remembers. “I often don’t get e-mails like this from postdoctoral fellows, let alone high-school freshmen.” He decided to invite Andraka to his lab. To oversee the project, he appointed a gentle postdoctoral chemist, who took the baby-sitting assignment in stride. They expected to see Andraka for perhaps a few weeks over the summer.
Instead, the young scientist worked for seven months, every day after school and often on Saturdays until after midnight, subsisting on hard-boiled eggs and Twix as his mother dozed in the car in a nearby parking garage. He labored through Thanksgiving and Christmas. He spent his 15th birthday in the lab.”
I’m not talking self defense here. Cross that line and you’re in deep trouble.
No, this is about killing animals.
I enjoy a juicy steak and most of my shoes are made of leather. (My grand father was a shoemaker and I’m able to glue or stitch a mend-able boot.)
I’m talking here about two very different situations.
It’s one thing to raise animals for food (our need for animal protein is real) and use their hides for clothing once we have already killed them but I find it really disgusting to hunt and/or slaughter animals just because we feel prettier clad/shod in their pelts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxbrMk4-ZmA
You know the joke about the proverbial glass.
The optimist sees it as half full, the pessimist as half empty while the ‘realist’ grabs it and ‘enjoys’ whatever is in it.
Something of the same nature happens with the whole planet. Optimists are happily careless about what’s going on, the pessimists are terrified about the future and the ‘pragmatists’ are callously using resources as if there is no tomorrow.
To me this whole situation looks like a tree house. All three kinds of people live together in it and use as sustenance the sap of the tree limb where the house was build.
Only the branch is slowly withering away. The pessimists moan about this but don’t do anything really significant, the optimists don’t care while the pragmatists have already made plans for another house on a higher branch.
There is one small problem though. As time goes by the lower branches wither away. The tree, now old, is left with very few leaves so it can no longer grow new branches nor feed its inhabitants.
At last the hungry survivors decide to climb down and search for another tree. Yeah…but they are too high in the air to jump and the branches bellow … are no longer there!
No, I’m not desperate nor Malthusian. I’m convinced that human ingenuity can solve problems far more complicated than the ones we are facing today. Only we have to start facing them instead of turning our heads the other way.
And we’d better start solving the existing problems without adding new ones. (Iatrogenics, see Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Antifragile…http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Gain-Disorder/dp/1400067820)
“Can Neuromarketers Really Peer Into Your Subconscious? They Say They Can.”
The problem is not whether they can or not. The problem is that they try.
Until not so long ago research was about how to get more money by making better products. Nowadays it’s mostly about how to squeeze most money out of as crappier products as possible
Avand in vedere natura tranzitorie si imperfecta a lumii atitudinea de Gica Contra are citeva dezavantaje:
– Este o pozitie relativa. Nu poate fi chiar impotriva tuturor – ar fi declarat nebun. Asa ca, de obicei, se declara impotriva impotriva curentului dominant in societate sau impotriva personalitatii celei mai marcante a momentului.
– Din aceasta cauza pozitia nu poate fi mentinuta pe termen indefinit. Cineva care militeaza ‘pentru’ ceva are un ‘tel’ valabil pentru intrega viata. Daca e perfectionist va putea lucra la nesfarsit imbunatatindu-si rezultatele iar daca e om normal la un moment dat se va declara satisfacut si se va apuca de sarbatorit.
Gica Contra depinde de tinta lui. Daca aceasta dispare Gica ramana fara scopul vietii. Si unde mai pui ca o disparitie nici macar nu poate fi sarbatorita ca lumea.
– Partea cea mai proasta e latura psihologica a intregii povesti. De obicei atitudinea de Gica Contra este una viscerala, rationalizatoare si nu rationala. Persoanei respective i se pune pata pe ceva si in loc sa isi dea seama ca este pe cale sa cada prada unei pasiuni devoratoare si sa se retraga de pe buza prapastiei se arunca cu capul inainte. Abia dupa aceea incepe sa-si justifice – siesi si celorlalti – actiunile cautand si expunand argumente rationale. Dar hotarirea fusese deja luata. In termeni tehnici aceasta s-ar numi inchiderea disonantei cognitive prin mijloace rationalizatoare.
In conditiile astea disparitia obiectului care a declansat pasiunea este dezastruasa. Dispare ‘le raison d’etre’ a respectivului individ si, in plus, intregul esafodaj de justificari isi dezvaluie – mai ales pentru proprietar, restul incepusera sa se lamureasca de mai demult – precaritatea.
Asta nu insemna, bineinteles, ca nu trebuie sa ne mai opunem lucrurilor/persoanelor cu care nu suntem de acord. Ar fi mult mai bine totusi ca scopul nostru real sa fie rezolvarea unei probleme si nu opozitia de dragul opozitiei.
