” Highly sensitive people are too often perceived as weaklings or damaged goods. Feeling intensely isn’t a symptom of weakness, it’s the trademark of the truly alive & compassionate. It isn’t an empath who’s broken, it’s society that has become dysfunctional & emotionally disabled. “
Saw this on social media. Thought it was interesting.
“The Psychology Behind Irrational Decisions” host Sara Garofalo explains we make decisions that are not “rational”’ from a purely economical point of view, meaning they don’t necessarily lead to the best result. So why do we still make irrational decisions?
Loss aversion is what behavioral economists call the tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. Garofalo explains in the video that this approach to decisions is susceptible to taking mental shortcuts that can lead to irrational decisions. Situations that involve probability are notoriously bad for applying heuristics, any type of problem solving deemed not to be perfect but sufficient for immediate goals .
Meanwhile, in conjunction fallacy, our brain tricks us into picking options that are more detailed than general ones. For example, in one study, researchers asked the participants to consider a regular six-sided die with four green faces and two red faces, where the die will be rolled 20 times and the sequence of greens (G) and reds (R) will be recorded.
They were asked to select one sequence, from a set of three, and rewarded $25 if the sequence they selected appears on successive rolls of the die (RGRRR, GRGRRR. GRRRRR). More than half of the participants chose the second sequence, although option one is contained within it and is shorter than the other options.
The anchoring effect can also influence our decision-making since it’s often used in marketing and negotiations. In other words, businesses can raise the prices that people are willing to pay. So, although we don’t need that shirt, the fact that it’s “on sale” entices us to make a purchase.
Other theories suggest irrational behavior stems from the inability to override automatic emotional responses, or let our feelings and experiences get the best of us. Humans act irrationally as a consequence of biasing influences and strongly and consistently affected by the way a question is presented.
A University College London study found even when both options lead to the same result participants were more likely to gamble at the threat of losing £30 than the option to keep £20.
In the same study, brain imaging revealed that the amygdala, the region that controls emotions and mediates the “fight or flight” reaction, underpinned this bias in the decision-making process.
Moreover, people with more rational behavior had greater brain activity in the prefrontal cortex — the region known to be involved in higher-order executive processes — suggesting that their brains are better equipped to deal with emotions in a more balanced reasoning process.
Despite cognitive basis, we can overcome our brain’s heuristics by learning to be aware of them. When we encounter a situation involving numbers, probability or multiple details — let’s pause for a second, and consider that the intuitive answer may not be what’s best after all.
Let me tell you that this article is very interesting indeed, worth a read.
“There must be something behind the energy” – Einstein
In school, my younger years, it was my understanding that Einstein was all science. And I thought he was an atheist. He was not. Doesn’t bother me either way, but perhaps was some group’s idea to ‘hide’ or ‘alter’ what he really said from the conscience of mainstream civilization post 1960. When finding this article on bethinking.org I thought I would share this incredible work with you.
What would Einstein say about God? I admire him and Edison very much, as Tesla. Who doesn’t?
Except, I wonder, what did he say about God specifically?
Dawkins explains that in dealing with Einstein’s religious views he relied on Max Jammer’s book Einstein and Religion.
What did Einstein really say?
The following quotations from Einstein are all in Jammer’s book:
“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”
“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”
“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”
“My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”
“I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”
“What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”
“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”
“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.”
“There must be something behind the energy”
What gives the lie to Dawkins’ claim that Einstein was an atheist is Einstein’s repeated references to “a superior spirit”, ”a superior mind”, “a spirit vastly superior to men”, ”a veneration for this force” etc. etc. This is not atheism. It is clear Einstein believed that there is something beyond the natural, physical world – a supernatural creative intelligence. Further confirmation that Einstein believed in a transcendent God comes from his conversations with his friends. David Ben-Gurion, the former Prime Minister of Israel, records Einstein saying “There must be something behind the energy.”
According to Dawkins, “Einstein was repeatedly indignant at the suggestion he was a theist.” The evidence from Jammer’s book is the exact opposite. What Einstein actually said is:
“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”
“There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views.”
I remember in the early 2010’s of watching Mr. Beck and have bought several of his books. I admire him and this video today caught my attention of what will happen next!
Check it out!
Multiple Post in a month? What on earth is going on!!
There was one interesting nugget in there about how creditors are lowering the credit-limit quietly on many American’s credit cards. That is understandable because how can anyone justify how they can repay all of their debt considering how things have been closed down.
The fact is the United States has done an amazing job thus far and we just need the truth and Americans will recover!
Thursday, Nov 21, 2019 — There is no cap on what you can achieve when your healthy willpower and your hustle are working in tandem. It pays to be deliberate and conscientious when deciding who and what to draw in closer today, and where to snap your psychic shields into place. A healthy balance between your physical body and your inner world is stabilizing for your nervous system as you go about building in one area and tearing down barriers in another. Keep yourself well hydrated and nourished as you aim your intentions at the stars. Believe in your dreams and never give up
I post this, because it inspired me. I love Jim Rohn. I love the bible.
**Authors Note** I have just upgraded my posting editor and can’t figure out how to change the colors! My apologies! Shouldn’t that be one of the main features??? ARGH – well – it’s October again and we are coming up to the IG Nobel Prize. Here is some background =
Learning new things is always exciting, it drives the human mind. In searching we can open more doors, discover fruitful pathways, harbor new experiences. We all need to break through, somehow, someway. Education is the key, the engine to achieving your destiny to the real journey. And then your given an award… EDIT – FIGURED OUT THE COLORS ^.^
Not just a Nobel Prize… but a “IG” Nobel Prize.
IG Nobel Prize?
The Ig Nobel Prizes are a parody of the Nobel Prizes and are given each year in early October for ten unusual or trivial achievements in scientific research. The stated aim of the prizes is to “honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think”.
Essentially, they are given to people whose research is highly unusual or seemingly trivial, but none-the-less is interesting and sometimes even important.
The first Ig Nobels were created in 1991 by Marc Abrahams, editor and co-founder of the Annals of Improbable Research, and the master of ceremonies at all subsequent awards ceremonies. Awards were presented at that time for discoveries “that cannot, or should not, be reproduced”.
Ten prizes are awarded each year in many categories, including the Nobel Prize categories of physics, chemistry, physiology/medicine, literature, and peace, but also other categories such as public health, engineering, biology, and interdisciplinary research.
The Ig Nobel Prizes recognize genuine achievements, with the exception of three prizes awarded in the first year to fictitious scientists Josiah Carberry, Paul DeFanti, and Thomas Kyle.
The awards are sometimes veiled criticism (or gentle satire), as in the two awards given for homeopathy research, prizes in “science education” to the Kansas and Colorado state boards of education for their stance regarding the teaching of evolution, and the prize awarded to Social Text after the Sokal Affair. Most often, however, they draw attention to scientific articles that have some humorous or unexpected aspect.
Examples range from the discovery that the presence of humans tends to sexually arouse ostriches, to the statement that black holes fulfill all the technical requirements to be the location of Hell, to research on the “five-second rule“, a tongue-in-cheek belief that food dropped on the floor will not become contaminated if it is picked up within five seconds.
In 2010, Sir Andre Geim became the first person to receive both a Nobel Prize and an individual Ig Nobel prize
Throwing paper airplanes onto the stage is a long-standing tradition at the Ig Nobels. In past years, physics professor Roy Glauber swept the stage clean of the airplanes as the official “Keeper of the Broom” for years. Glauber could not attend the 2005 awards because he was traveling to Stockholm to claim a genuine Nobel Prize in Physics.
The “Parade of Ignitaries” brings various supporting groups into the hall. At the 1997 ceremonies, a team of “cryogenic sex researchers distributed a pamphlet titled “Safe Sex at Four Kelvin“. Delegates from the Museum of Bad Art are often on hand to display some pieces from their collection too.
The prizes are presented to the winners by actual Nobel laureates. One person, Sir Andre Geim, has actually won both an IG Nobel Prize (in 2000) and a real Nobel Prize (in 2010). He won the IG Nobel Prize for an experiment where he and another scientist successfully levitated a frog using magnets. His actual Nobel Prize was won “for groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene”.
During the ceremony, each IG Nobel Prize winner is given 60 seconds to explain their research. If they go over the time, a little girl, “Miss Sweetie Poo”, will walk up to them and yell “Please stop: I’m bored” continually until the speaker stops. It was also once traditional for audience members to throw paper airplanes at the stage while the ceremony was taking place, but this practice has died out in recent years due to safety concerns.
Mid September 2018 – Today I learned more about purple and violet. How color hits our eyes and we create the picture based on color wavelengths sent to our eye. I like learning things, and in particular I like violet better then purple for a number of reasons. Here is what you should know about these colors.
The individual difference between ‘violet’ and ‘purple’
People say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so let’s take a look at the two colors in comparison (there are various shades of purple and violet, and the following picture shows some of the more common ones):
So, purple is more reddish and saturated, while violet is more bluish and less saturated. Case closed, right?
There is more in it than the eyes can see (quite literally). To understand the difference, we have to take a look at how our eyes work first.
The electromagnetic spectrum is a continuous range of wavelengths, only a tiny part of which is visible to humans:
We see neither the ultraviolet wavelengths and shorter, nor the infrared wavelengths and longer. How do we see the rest? We have three types of color-sensitive cells in our eyes, so-called cones.
The cones don’t perceive just a single wavelength; they are activated by a whole range of wavelengths, and the signals received from the cones are then processed by the brain in such a way that every color can be thought of as composed of three different elementary signals.
The following picture shows approximately how the brain perceives different spectral colors (the higher the curve, the higher the intensity of the elementary signal the brain receives):
For example, when you see monochromatic (pure) red light on the very right side of the spectrum, only the “red” signal path is activated, which tells your brain to create the impression of red. On the other hand, when you see pure green light (in the middle), both “green” and “red” paths are activated, but your brain knows that “a lot of green activation and a bit less red activation” is in fact just a pure green color, which is what you see.
When a mixture of photons that have different wavelengths hits the retina (creating a ratio of red, green, and blue activation different from any spectral color), the brain will perceive it as an entirely different color. For example, there is no white wavelength. What we perceive as “white” is in fact just a mixture of many different spectral colors.
What happens when violet light hits the retina?
The “red” signal path has an interesting additional property. As you can see above, it has a small bump of activation around the short-wavelength (violet) end of the visible spectrum. When violet light hits the retina, both the “blue” path and (much less) the “red” path are activated. The brain interprets this kind of input in a specific way, which we call “violet”.
It is worth noting that the pigment in the “green” cones themselves also has a small peak of absorption around violet wavelengths, but the brain seems to ignore it (it is not possible to simulate the perception of violet by a combination of green and blue light).
Purple is not a spectral color
As we noted before, many colors we can see are not in the visible spectrum. When you see an object, typically a mixture of different wavelengths reaches your retina, which causes the cones to be activated at a ratio not achievable by a spectral color.
Our brains are very good at interpreting this mixture (it would be silly to simply throw away a part of the incoming information and make everything look like the closest spectral color), and, as a result, we are able to see several million different colors, most of which are not present in the spectrum.
As we noted at the beginning of the article, purple looks more “reddish” than violet, and that’s absolutely correct. Purple is formed by mixing red and blue at a ratio close to 1:1, whereas violet is perceived by your eyes as containing more blue than red.
Purple and violet look similar only to humans
To us, humans, purple looks like a more saturated shade of violet, but violet objects in nature are fundamentally different from purple ones. Purple objects are “red and blue at the same time”, whereas violet objects are… just violet.
If you take a look at the distance between violet and blue in the picture of the spectrum above, it is about the same as the distance between green and orange. Purple is a mixture of red (which is at the opposite side of the spectrum than violet) and blue (which is relatively far from violet), so it is, in terms of wavelengths, a completely different color.
The reason why purple and violet look similar to us is because they stimulate our cones in a similar way, but most other animals don’t share the same types of cones and “post-processing”. This means that to other animals, purple and violet may look completely different!
Now imagine a violet flower petal with a purple pattern on it. Depending on the particular shades, this pattern might be completely invisible to us, while many other animals could see it as clearly as we can see an orange pattern on green background. Even common consumer cameras wouldn’t help us; they are designed to capture the same red-green-blue information as our eyes do, so even taking a photo of the petal and editing it in Photoshop would not uncover the pattern.