Maxims, rules of thumb and other observations on human cognition and sociocultural affectations

This will be added to on an irregular basis...
  • What is said to humans directly is received with skepticism and considered with dubiousness while that which is heard in passing, especially that which most conforms to their mentality or prejudices, is readily believed.
  • Humans have a certain cognitive latency between exposure to new information or experiences and the ability to think dispassionately and intellectually about it.
  • Humans have a certain cognitive spectrum starting with the moment of exposure to new information or experiences and ending with some point at which the thing is effectively "in the past" for them.
  • This cognitive spectrum is linked to the emotional process often referred to as shock, anger, denial and acceptance.
  • The more and faster information or experiences are presented to people and the closer the quarters and the lesser the distance between people, the more their early reactions in the passionate emotional stage are reflected back to them in the manner of responses to those reactions from others in light of those responses.
  • The more outrages which are suffered without sufficient time to allow emotional bleed-off, the farther the bar for subsequent reaction and outrage are pushed, and the more further events must progress before reaction and outrage.
  • It is possible for serious detriments to eventually sit below this threshold for long enough for their damaging effects to build and multiply until their entire society undergoes some reactive convulsion.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, December 15, 2008

Jimmy Carter's career slouches towards Bethlehem

THAT'S why that poem from two posts back is so on my mind.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/15/Carter_Hamas_leader_meet_in_Damascus/UPI-86001229344511/

Doesn't this peanut farmer know when to go home and actually farm peanuts instead of imagining his absurdly lightweight grasp of human history and psychology and more to the point his ill-informed and inadvisably weak grasp of politics and sense thereof is somehow relevant?

Getting Sadat and Begin to talk was not nearly the achievement everyone wants to believe and in retrospect actually seems like a dog and pony show compared to the present problems in the middle east. Given that, maybe someone should ask if he had any real clue about the east at all. In my view, he didn't as exemplified by his total lack of relevance since and his bizarre far leftist ideas since not to mention the ego of thinking he is going to monitor elections. WHO THE FUCK IS CARTER TO MONITOR ANY ELECTIONS?

Severe lack of humility people, get a good look. Because this is what is coming ten years on for Clinton and thirty years on for Obama: self-important know-nothings mistaking the flimsy achievements they put the window dressing on for being weighty achievements reflecting on their godlike intelligence and wisdom.

Astronomy Picture of the Day