(Nassim Nicholas Taleb)
To understand why what happens in Hollywood is irrelevant to the rest of humans:
a) How many ACTORs do you have among your friends?
b) How many ACTOR friends do your friends have?
Actors rarely mix with real people.
2) Romans banned actors from marrying, even mixing with citizens.
Same dynamics in modern times, but self-inflicted: engineers can mix w/gynecologists… actors stay with actors.
Look at the funerals of “gens du spectacle”.
3) I do not know many industries where people are hired either a) on looks, or b) ability to impersonate what one is not.
4) Actors should not be the ones lektchuring the rest of us on ethics & morality.
They also have a tendency to conflate virtue and its external manifestation, given that everything in their world is appearance.
5) And for the slow thinkers on the thread, you don’t see gynecologists or train engineers lektchuring the rest of the world on virtue.
Actors do.
Gabish?
6) Remember: actors are trained to not seem stupid.
7) Now a harder questchon: what is the proportion of actors who voted for Hilary Monsanto-Malmaison?
8) OK, let me be blunt.
How many professions do you know, other than the ones where physical attributes are essential, where the modus “sleep your way up” prevails?
Source: Original Site Post
-
“Hollywood used to be the main propaganda machine of American lifestyle and valu
—“Hollywood used to be the main propaganda machine of American lifestyle and values around the world. Perhaps America needs to reclaim Hollywood.”— -
“Hollywood used to be the main propaganda machine of American lifestyle and valu
—“Hollywood used to be the main propaganda machine of American lifestyle and values around the world. Perhaps America needs to reclaim Hollywood.”— -
On external correspondence. You can justify anything. that’s why we have numerol
On external correspondence. You can justify anything. that’s why we have numerology, astrology, monotheistic religions, marxism, keynesian ‘cherry picking’ economics, libertarian ethics, and the whole corpus of postmodernism. All the logics do not allow you to prove anything. But they do allow you to use strict grammars to FALSIFY arguments. And praxeology does not allow you to prove anything, but it does allow you to falsify arguments. The reason we use empiricism (observation) is to falsify our reasoning and force us to find alternative solutions. We tend to say an argument is true because we have falsified it and some particular variation of that argument survives. So we use that argument and claim it’s true (as far as we know). When we give others that justification we cannot claim it is true, only that we cannot falsify it and that they are welcome to try. If enough people try and cannot, the it is very hard to argue with it. However, for that to be true, we must state it inoperational language, which is also a strictly empirical grammar(and semantics) – and empirical for the same reason: to defeat the tendency of the human mind to engage in willful ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. This is a very hard thing to understand for some reason, most likely because we think and act in moral language and moral langauge tends to be justificationary. (Unscientific) because moral codes tend to vary from very reciprocal to very NOT reciprocal) -
On external correspondence. You can justify anything. that’s why we have numerol
On external correspondence. You can justify anything. that’s why we have numerology, astrology, monotheistic religions, marxism, keynesian ‘cherry picking’ economics, libertarian ethics, and the whole corpus of postmodernism. All the logics do not allow you to prove anything. But they do allow you to use strict grammars to FALSIFY arguments. And praxeology does not allow you to prove anything, but it does allow you to falsify arguments. The reason we use empiricism (observation) is to falsify our reasoning and force us to find alternative solutions. We tend to say an argument is true because we have falsified it and some particular variation of that argument survives. So we use that argument and claim it’s true (as far as we know). When we give others that justification we cannot claim it is true, only that we cannot falsify it and that they are welcome to try. If enough people try and cannot, the it is very hard to argue with it. However, for that to be true, we must state it inoperational language, which is also a strictly empirical grammar(and semantics) – and empirical for the same reason: to defeat the tendency of the human mind to engage in willful ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. This is a very hard thing to understand for some reason, most likely because we think and act in moral language and moral langauge tends to be justificationary. (Unscientific) because moral codes tend to vary from very reciprocal to very NOT reciprocal) -
Don’t Lie. It’s All About Money.
The only time it isn’t about money is when you’re trying to steal time, effort, money, property, status, opportunity, and political power. -
Don’t Lie. It’s All About Money.
The only time it isn’t about money is when you’re trying to steal time, effort, money, property, status, opportunity, and political power. -
The Fifth Secret Of Propertarianism: Words That I Use Mean What I Intend Them To Mean.
Yes I must create new terms, redefine existing terms, or clarify existing terms, or use different phrasing to prevent the falsehoods in accumulated semantics, whether fictional(fictionalisms), common(ordinary), professional (disciplinary). Moreover, in order to unite Religion, Philosophy (what remains of it), Ethics and Morality, Law, Economics, Science, and Logic, into a single commensurable language that gives no discipline room for deception, I must correct the many ‘fictionalisms’ that plague each of the disciplines no matter how long their traditions. So I choose terms from each that are the most common, and you will find that I choose economics, cognitive science, and physics wherever possible, because they are the youngest languages with the least …. traditional falsehoods. I use mathematics but I use it in operational language. Most of our intellectual history is heavily biased by fictionalisms (storytelling analogies with pretense of science, logic, or reason.) Words mean what I choose them to mean, and my meanings are less subject to falsehood, since that is the purpose of the deflationary grammar (and semantics) of operationism, acquisitionism, propertarianism. TO DEFEAT ABRAHAMISM: THE INVENTION OF LYING. And I have an 80K word glossary to explain them. Cheers -
The Fifth Secret Of Propertarianism: Words That I Use Mean What I Intend Them To Mean.
Yes I must create new terms, redefine existing terms, or clarify existing terms, or use different phrasing to prevent the falsehoods in accumulated semantics, whether fictional(fictionalisms), common(ordinary), professional (disciplinary). Moreover, in order to unite Religion, Philosophy (what remains of it), Ethics and Morality, Law, Economics, Science, and Logic, into a single commensurable language that gives no discipline room for deception, I must correct the many ‘fictionalisms’ that plague each of the disciplines no matter how long their traditions. So I choose terms from each that are the most common, and you will find that I choose economics, cognitive science, and physics wherever possible, because they are the youngest languages with the least …. traditional falsehoods. I use mathematics but I use it in operational language. Most of our intellectual history is heavily biased by fictionalisms (storytelling analogies with pretense of science, logic, or reason.) Words mean what I choose them to mean, and my meanings are less subject to falsehood, since that is the purpose of the deflationary grammar (and semantics) of operationism, acquisitionism, propertarianism. TO DEFEAT ABRAHAMISM: THE INVENTION OF LYING. And I have an 80K word glossary to explain them. Cheers -
The Fourth Secret Of Learning Propertarianism.
Reciprocity is the only rational, ethical, moral, and evolutionarily possible, means of cooperation over the long term. Or put more honestly, it is the only means by which cooperation is preferable to predation, parasitism, enslavement. Where reciprocity refers to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. The more reciprocity, the faster cooperation, the greater the production, the more time we compress through cooperative production, the cheaper is every calorie we need not expend, and every calorie we consume. In other words, we make everything cheaper by removing obstacles to cooperation. This form of reasoning is called ‘via-negativa’, and is the same reasoning common law of tort. But the opposite of justificationism (excuse making). That is contrary to all human intuition, but it how science works: that which is false or ungood, is certain, but that which is not false and not bad, is just preference.