The X factor can be removed from society. Related to Prisoners theory in economics., page 1

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 23-1-2013 @ 03:54 AM by NarrowGate

I typed this when I was tired in another thread, but it was good enough I had to start one with it. The X factor, the unknown, can be removed and we can live by the Golden Rule. With this in mind, we can shape our policies and choose our representatives with a better understanding of what to look for.

Now, keep in mind this was in a thread about a shooting at a school. You need that for context.My argument was that the X factor can be removed, and we can live as intelligent beings with free will and capability to love should. He disagreed, and thought my kind of thinking could be compared to people thinking the world is flat.

Well I am not familiar with that area. Exactly how bad of an area is it? Is it common for people to get shot there?

The X factor can be removed in this case and probably with everything eventually, save a few key things. The world is flat analogy would apply to thinking that it can not be removed in this case.

WE promote the attitudes of our own society. This works as a whole and goes all the way from Washington to the streets. We are actually in this together (shocker I know), and have to treat it as such or things will not get better for anyone. If we live a self-absorbed life with the short term goal of worldly rewards, we have not only hurt our souls but the future generations also have to pay for our foolishness. While we might feel better in this life only caring about ourselves, and worshiping ourselves and priding ourselves on being better then others in this area or that area, it is no where near beneficial to society as a whole. The strong must look out for the weak, not the other way around. Otherwise - EVERYONE, the strong included, suffer. This is just obvious though right?

We have to change the attitudes around us. I have been around long enough to know that people are talking about the wrong things, and the wrong way, for most of their lives. The only time they get serious is when profits are involved. If this is the dominating attitude - everyone loses.

It's kinda like the prisoners theory in economics. We should all just shut up huh? It is beneficial for either one of us to be a snake to the other and back stab them, but only to ourselves and only in the short term. It is most beneficial to both of us to keep our mouth shut.

The problem is why do we apply this to economics and people being interrogated by police? In reality, we should be applying it to our morals. The reason we apply it to only economics and people being interrogated by police is because of exactly what this theory says. Either one can gain the upper hand by being a snake - in the short term. People take that path by applying this lesson to economics and police interrogation but not morale code. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

It is most beneficial to everyone if we do not stab eachother in the back, because this has long term reprecussions that are not profitable, or in this analogy it would mean hurts the generations to come in ways you can not imagine.

I am really tired I hope I typed that right.

Cope/paste. Hopefully not too many mistakes.

edit on 23-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 05:46 AM by Mads1987

reply to post by NarrowGate

I generally agree with your statements.
For a long time I have contemplated what it would take to convince 'the rest' that this is the best option. If the intention is to create harmony, to ensure, not only the survival of the human population, but also peace between them then this is the best way to go about it.

But many people have no intention of living in peace with others or at least not all of mankind. They might not even care if humanity continues after they leave this life. These people are next to impossible to convince.

However, for those who's intention is to live in harmony, which I think most of us do. This is indeed the best solution, and I think the best way to convince them is to 'prove it'. So find like minded people, do something along the lines of Jacque Fresco's Venus Project, and make it work.

Also, in the beginning of your post, you mention free will. As if it is just a matter of choice. With this I completely disagree. People can't just chose to do something they are not aware of, and even if they are, most would consider this kind of ideology utopian and out of reach.

So all I can say is, instead of telling people. You should be showing them.

edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 08:59 AM by NarrowGate

reply to post by Mads1987

What you are referring to is part of the x factor that can be eliminated. It will take time, and we will not see it. But, we can help shape the world by simply doing our part to show people. If just, and I'm just throwing a random number out here, 50% or so of the world cares enough to implement actual change it will happen. The thought process of everyone will change. WE have to try to implement this change in people. I agree, we have an uphill battle and we will probably not see it in our lifetimes.

The reason it will spread once you reach a certain percentage is because it is the only logical conclusion that can be reached. Any other conclusion would be false.

You are right, maybe best if we all just try to show people who are unaware? However, you brought up the free will aspect. Many have not even considered it, and that is because no one took the time to put it in a way they could understand. Once they understand, they can choose or reject it.

edit on 23-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

For those who think this is Utopian and out of reach, that is what they said about the internet about 100 years ago. Before that they would have said it about cars and planes etc...

edit on 23-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 09:31 AM by NarrowGate

I should have put this in the OP. If a Mod wouldn't mind fixing that for me I would be grateful. en.wikipedia.org...

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 12:54 PM by 1nquisitive

reply to post by NarrowGate

I'll jump in later this evening, and give my input.

Will probably be circa midnight

edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 01:18 PM by NarrowGate

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
reply to post by NarrowGate

I'll jump in later this evening, and give my input.

Will probably be circa midnight
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

Much appreciated.

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 08:38 PM by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by NarrowGate
I typed this when I was tired in another thread, but it was good enough I had to start one with it. The X factor, the unknown, can be removed and we can live by the Golden Rule. With this in mind, we can shape our policies and choose our representatives with a better understanding of what to look for.

Now, keep in mind this was in a thread about a shooting at a school. You need that for context.My argument was that the X factor can be removed, and we can live as intelligent beings with free will and capability to love should. He disagreed, and thought my kind of thinking could be compared to people thinking the world is flat.

Well I am not familiar with that area. Exactly how bad of an area is it? Is it common for people to get shot there?

The X factor can be removed in this case and probably with everything eventually, save a few key things. The world is flat analogy would apply to thinking that it can not be removed in this case.

WE promote the attitudes of our own society. This works as a whole and goes all the way from Washington to the streets. We are actually in this together (shocker I know), and have to treat it as such or things will not get better for anyone. If we live a self-absorbed life with the short term goal of worldly rewards, we have not only hurt our souls but the future generations also have to pay for our foolishness. While we might feel better in this life only caring about ourselves, and worshiping ourselves and priding ourselves on being better then others in this area or that area, it is no where near beneficial to society as a whole. The strong must look out for the weak, not the other way around. Otherwise - EVERYONE, the strong included, suffer. This is just obvious though right?

We have to change the attitudes around us. I have been around long enough to know that people are talking about the wrong things, and the wrong way, for most of their lives. The only time they get serious is when profits are involved. If this is the dominating attitude - everyone loses.

It's kinda like the prisoners theory in economics. We should all just shut up huh? It is beneficial for either one of us to be a snake to the other and back stab them, but only to ourselves and only in the short term. It is most beneficial to both of us to keep our mouth shut.

The problem is why do we apply this to economics and people being interrogated by police? In reality, we should be applying it to our morals. The reason we apply it to only economics and people being interrogated by police is because of exactly what this theory says. Either one can gain the upper hand by being a snake - in the short term. People take that path by applying this lesson to economics and police interrogation but not morale code. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

It is most beneficial to everyone if we do not stab eachother in the back, because this has long term reprecussions that are not profitable, or in this analogy it would mean hurts the generations to come in ways you can not imagine.

I am really tired I hope I typed that right.

Cope/paste. Hopefully not too many mistakes.
edit on 23-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

Firstly - define 'X-factor', what are you using the term to mean?

Note there is not such thing as 'society', only individual economic actors.

Though who is Y to tell people "to live harmoniously"?

edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further typos

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 09:08 PM by NarrowGate

reply to post by 1nquisitive

"Firstly - define 'X-factor', what are you using the term to mean? Note there is not such thing as 'society', only individual economic actors. Though who is Y to tell people "to live harmoniously"?

X factor means the unknown in any given situation. The other poster used it first, it is not a term I use, but it was useful to help the other poster to understand what I was saying.

You say not a such thing as society, only individual economic factors? Do you think what happens in Detroit does not affect every suburban family in ways they do not yet understand? Why do people think we are not in it together? This is my question. It is a feeling of "we shouldn't have to...etc because I feel etc...", but it is not beneficial to the generations to come on both sides of the fence. Am I right?

If you do not want peace, you are on the wrong path. This is certain. Does that answer the question about living harmoniously or did I misinterpret?

edit on 23-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 09:23 PM by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by 1nquisitive

"Firstly - define 'X-factor', what are you using the term to mean? Note there is not such thing as 'society', only individual economic actors. Though who is Y to tell people "to live harmoniously"?

X factor means the unknown in any given situation. The other poster used it first, it is not a term I use, but it was useful to help the other poster to understand what I was saying.

You say not a such thing as society, only individual economic factors? Do you think what happens in Detroit does not affect every suburban family in ways they do not yet understand? Why do people think we are not in it together? This is my question. It is a feeling of "we shouldn't have to...etc because I feel etc...", but it is not beneficial to the generations to come on both sides of the fence. Am I right?

If you do not want peace, you are on the wrong path. This is certain. Does that answer the question about living harmoniously or did I misinterpret?
edit on 23-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

Let me clarify, who is Y to tell people how to live their lifes?

edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 09:29 PM by NarrowGate

reply to post by 1nquisitive

Your question, who is Y to tell people how to live their lives?

God, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. His logic is infallible, yet has never truly been applied. That much is certain.

eta: even many non-believers, for whatever reason, acknowledge His wisdom. Even if they think it is all made up. This, you would think, would be more proof to them in all of the chaos in the world.

edit on 23-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 10:00 PM by NarrowGate

reply to post by Mads1987

Jacque Fresco's Venus Project

I looked into it. It is flawed in a few ways. It is incompatible with what we are currently dealing with.

He is taking things to an international level, talking about war and things like that. There are bad things happening in the world, and it is wrong to turn a blind eye.

I will look into it more, but I am thinking there is a better approach.

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 10:13 PM by Honor93

reply to post by NarrowGate

but I am thinking there is a better approach

as i suggested in our previous conversation (which you bailed from btw) discovering X would be the most prudent action.

you cannot remove X until you can idenify it

balance comes with opposites, you cannot enjoy the ocean without accepting the waves.
one cannot 'love nature' yet, hate bugs.
it is the human experience to be contrary.
and that my friend, is a built-in feature that ppl should learn to accept.

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 10:46 PM by NarrowGate

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NarrowGate

but I am thinking there is a better approach
as i suggested in our previous conversation (which you bailed from btw) discovering X would be the most prudent action.

you cannot remove X until you can idenify it

balance comes with opposites, you cannot enjoy the ocean without accepting the waves.
one cannot 'love nature' yet, hate bugs.
it is the human experience to be contrary.
and that my friend, is a built-in feature that ppl should learn to accept.

I am going to get back to both of our conversations, I don't know if I said this already or not, but you can identify the root of most of the X's (or unknowns) oftentimes even if you can not identify them specifically ahead of time.

Similar how you do not know which disease you can catch if you do not wash your hands, but there is a chance you could catch a number of them. A certain probability.

Anyways I am multi tasking and I want to reply when I am not. I will get back to you tomorrow.

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 11:02 PM by Honor93

reply to post by NarrowGate

probabilities play at the casino ... not many other places or in life in general.

using Mt Everest as an example ... the mountain is X and includes everything that may or may not prevail on the mountain.
the probabilities indicate 1 or more persons will die ascending to the summit.

the ability of any person, software or program to detect which of the climbers will be the "1" is next to impossible, especially given all the variables of X.

what you propose has even more variables of X than Everest, hence X is seldom detectable, it is not predictable and certainly not something that can be eradicated.

reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 08:44 AM by NarrowGate

reply to post by Honor93

That is different. In that analogy you would have to remove the extreme whether conditions. We are talking about the interactions of men, not whether conditions.

I'll get back to you gotta get some work done. Been spending too much time on ATS.

edit on 24-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

eta probabilities play out everywhere you go and I don't even believe in luck

edit on 24-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 08:59 AM by NarrowGate

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Let me clarify, who is Y to tell people how to live their lifes?
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

This is perfect. This is what prevents people from changing their way of thinking. It is not people telling people how to live their lives, it is taking a simple economic theory that has made HUGE profits for corporations and simply applying it to every day interactions with people. If anyone has a problem with that - it will not benefit their descendants. So they can do whatever they want, but it will not be profitable for them in the end.
Who is Z to say this would not work?

People are absorbed in short-term goals. WE have to change the way people think. I know, many do not even care what happens after they die. That is a pathetic way to live. Also, getting as much money as possible for your family before you die is not as beneficial to them in the end. People shouldn't have a hard time seeing why right?

edit on 24-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 10:31 AM by Honor93

reply to post by NarrowGate

the 'weather' on the mountain is not the only variable of X.

which parts of men/women don't have/demonstrate "extreme whether conditions" ??
actually, when we are speaking of humans, it IS exactly a whether situation

whether or not humans will comply is a classic 'whether' extreme.

and just to note ... you seem to be simplifying X far too much.

regarding the mountain X - all you indentify is extreme weather

that which i identify includes climber skill, climber health, climber tools available, climber preparedness, climber cooperation ... and all BEFORE the weather comes into play.

everything i mentioned above are variables of the same X - in this case "ascending the mountain".

as an Irish person, i do believe in luck as it has favored me many times in my life. not on a monumental scale mind you but i view such events as a direct result of 'luck' ... some good, some bad.

i don't know what you'd call such events but 'lucky' works for me.

perhaps we are traveling on different planes of existence, simultaneously ??
if you don't care for my analogy, please, offer one of your own.

reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 10:46 AM by Honor93

reply to post by NarrowGate

This is perfect. This is what prevents people from changing their way of thinking. It is not people telling people how to live their lives, it is taking a simple economic theory that has made HUGE profits for corporations and simply applying it to every day interactions with people.

do you even understand 'prison economic theory' ????
what good is providing HUGE profits for a 'corporation' when we are not part of it ??

If anyone has a problem with that - it will not benefit their descendants.

if anyone doesn't see a huge problem with that, they aren't looking close enough.

So they can do whatever they want, but it will not be profitable for them in the end.

how do you figure this ?

Who is Z to say this would not work?

hiztory ... or history as the case may be

People are absorbed in short-term goals.

some are, some aren't ... what's the problem with that ?

WE have to change the way people think.

why ?
how does what they think benefit you ?

I know, many do not even care what happens after they die.

sure they do, they just don't hold favor for this plane of existence as they have moved on.

if the American Founding Fathers didn't care what happened after their death, they wouldn't have created the Constitution for the United States ... if that wasn't 'caring what happens after they die', then i'm not sure what is anymore.

Also, getting as much money as possible for your family before you die is not as beneficial to them in the end. People shouldn't have a hard time seeing why right?

as someone who has never experienced, indulged or entertained such greed, please explain.
try to keep in mind tho, failing to entertain greed does not mean i have a blind eye toward it ... again, that is an individual choice, isn't it ?

who are you to determine who is greedy anyway ?
shouldn't that be between the human and its creator ?
if so, who crowned you creator ???

reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 10:48 AM by Honor93

reply to post by NarrowGate

We are talking about the interactions of men, not whether conditions.

very well then, which do you propose eliminating ??
yin or yang ?

reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 11:17 AM by NarrowGate

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NarrowGate

the 'weather' on the mountain is not the only variable of X.

which parts of men/women don't have/demonstrate "extreme whether conditions" ??
actually, when we are speaking of humans, it IS exactly a whether situation

whether or not humans will comply is a classic 'whether' extreme.

and just to note ... you seem to be simplifying X far too much.

regarding the mountain X - all you indentify is extreme weather
that which i identify includes climber skill, climber health, climber tools available, climber preparedness, climber cooperation ... and all BEFORE the weather comes into play.

everything i mentioned above are variables of the same X - in this case "ascending the mountain".

as an Irish person, i do believe in luck as it has favored me many times in my life. not on a monumental scale mind you but i view such events as a direct result of 'luck' ... some good, some bad.

i don't know what you'd call such events but 'lucky' works for me.

perhaps we are traveling on different planes of existence, simultaneously ??
if you don't care for my analogy, please, offer one of your own.

OK, I was not looking to go in depth with that analogy. There are many unknown factors in mountain climbing that can not be removed yes. This is not applicable to what we are discussing imo. Nice word play btw.

It is a 'whether' situation when it comes to humans is it not? Whether or not we care about the generations to come. I am talking past our direct descendants. It is easy to love your own blood, it is not as easy to love everyone else.

I do not believe in luck, but that has to do with my Faith so we will run with luck. I view it as angelic intervention, and I have seen evidence of this. I won't get too side tracked, but for example I used to be a roofer and I should have died. I was sliding down a steep pitch and I miraculously gained a ton of friction out of no where and stopped. This is not luck. Others would say I just reacted fast and did the right thing, but there were too many granules. I should have gained more speed, not suddenly stopped. This is only part of why I do not believe in luck, but I believe in angels.

In your mountain climbing analogy, we could remove X by flying to the top in a helicopter

. I know, helicopters have crashed before BUT I would bet there are a few helicopters out there that would have 100% success rate - they would be expensive though.

I will provide a better analogy later. I need to get some things done.

edit on 24-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^