In Truth, you are a center of awareness. You have been given a free sample to experiment in. Your own laboratory to play in…so learn some critical thinking is very necessary in this insanity of the world. Passively letting things ride is not working in the peoples best interest. Examine assumptions you make and turn to judgements. Asking questions is how mind works.
Robert Baba
Translation Adventure for Sunday October 8, 2017
ATTENDING: Ned Henry, Alex Gambeau, Ben Gilberti, Brian Wallenstein, Heather Williams
Fear is widespread
Bio: Miyamoto Musashi
It is said the warrior’s is the twofold Way of pen and sword, and he should have a taste for both Ways.
Quotes
Is Your Negativity Getting in the Way of Your Creativity? by SCOTTY HENDRICKS
![]()
October 6, 2017 (BigThink.com)
We all know a Debbie downer. That one person that always knows what could go wrong, and lets you know about those horrible things as soon as you propose any new idea. They rarely have anything in the way of new proposals, but they know for sure that your idea is the worst thing they’ve ever heard. Why do they still make people like that? Wouldn’t optimism be better for everybody?
But, what if we told you that their tendency to bring everyone down is really a survival skill—one that drove human evolution.
Adam Hansen, author of Outsmart Your Instincts, argues that our early human ancestors without food surpluses found that the status quo of what worked well enough was much preferable to taking risks with any chance of failure. The DNA that we have is that of the survivors, the ones who didn’t take large risks and lived to tell the tale. “We are the descendants of the savants of risk aversion,” Hansen claims. This negativity bias is irrational but is a bias towards caution, which is a tendency we still value, as evidenced by our idioms of “curiosity killed the cat,” “better the devil you know,” and, “leave well enough alone.”
The negativity bias is a well-studied and heavily documented phenomenon with implications for nearly every aspect of our lives. One area where it affects us daily, almost without our noticing it, is in our decision making. Nearly all people are more risk averse than they think they are.
In one study, young children took part in response inhibition activities. Half of them were rewarded for the desired behavior, and half were punished (by taking away a visible reward) for failure. It was found that punishment was more effective at getting the children to follow along at all age levels than reward was. Another study showed that we view the loss of resources as being more important than the gain of resources, even when the amounts in question are similar.
Of course, not everybody is pessimistic all the time, so you can overcome the negativity bias.
Understanding your biases is the first step in overcoming them. The idea that humans are perfectly rational beings is a fairly new one, historically speaking, and becoming aware that your first instinct is going to be irrational is the second step. Julia Galef, co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality, makes the case that you should never accept your brain’s first answer to anything. “Your brain is lazy,” Galef says. “Don’t take it personally, my brain’s also lazy. Everyone’s brain is lazy. It’s how the human brain is built.”
Hansen too calls negative reflexes “cognitively lazy”. It’s much easier to say something is wrong than to think about how it could become right. While it takes cognitive effort to reject your first impulse and make the more rational or helpful observation, it is one that can offer huge dividends.
The best solution to the problem is feedback, says management expert Jennifer Brown. Being aware of when you do get hung up on the possible negatives more than you should is the best way of starting to view the negatives in the right proportion to their reality. She has a similar suggestion about how to overcome confirmation biases.
For Adam Hansen, the solution is to work on new habits. While your instinct will be to find the fault in a new idea straight off, try finding what you like about it first. Old habits die hard, but it can be done. He also recommends that businesses ban the phrase “I don’t like it” in meetings, unless it comes with further explanation.
“Every idea is really a compound of ideas. It has all these facets, all these little pieces, and so even if it’s a horrible idea overall, you can still isolate something in there [that you like].
What value could be there? What benefit could come out of this? And what potential are you starting to see because you’re not dismissing it out of hand? Once you start considering ideas for the provocative value, maybe more than just their immediate merits, really cool stuff starts to happen. Every idea can become this multiplicative force, and now I’m not building a shrine to this one idea. I’m simply using it to help me come up with even better ideas. Once you’ve done that, your mind is in a much better frame to take on the problems with the idea, the very real issues,” Hansen says.
While we all tend to view negative outcomes as more severe than they are, and view the whole as less positive than the sum of its parts, we can overcome this ancient irrationality with feedback, reflection on our actions, and a new vocabulary of “How might we…” or “That’s great, and…” that opens up possibilities rather than shooting them down. Overcoming the negativity bias we all share can be a profitable change.
Read the full interview with Adam Hansen over at Heleo.
“Trump Is in Your Head” by MATTEA KRAMER
The voice and manner that Trump uses to speak to women all too often mirrors the damaging, negative tone we take with ourselves.
From that time when then-presidential candidate Donald Trump went on Fox’s Megyn Kelly Presents on May 17, 2016 and everyone made nice. (Photo by Eric Liebowitz/FOX via Getty Images)
This post originally appeared at TomDispatch.
Back in 1992, a certain New York real-estate mogul told a reporter from New York magazine that you have to treat women “like shit.” That was a perfect summary of his philosophy, but it may be an even better descriptor for the way many women treat themselves — or, rather, how they’re treated by a persistent, harping, critical voice in their head. That critical voice, as it happens, is a fixture in the minds of an astonishing number of women, myself included.
You’ll never be good enough, the voice often whispered to me, making it difficult to focus on my work. Sooner or later, I began to wonder how this voice-that-won’t-stop got inside my head and into the minds of so many other women I’d talked to. It turns out that such an “inner critic,” as it’s called, has everything to do with what women hear around them all the time, including the sorts of messages spewed by that real-estate mogul turned president. It’s a phenomenon that matters a great deal at this political moment and should get far more attention than it does — but I’ll get to that in a minute.
Trust me when I say that I derive no pleasure from quoting our current president, but in this case I shouldn’t avoid it. He’s a veritable fountainhead of the sort of unsavory and unsettling messages that women encounter as they go about their regular lives. To take but one example from an apparently limitless source, Donald Trump has a penchant for lambasting women who don’t look like models. (The horror!) When New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote critically of his finances, for instance, he clipped the article, circled her picture, and mailed it to her along with a note that said, “The face of a dog!” Decent he may not be, but he does give unambiguous voice to the (usually more subtle) ways in which women are judged for their looks and often dismissed as incompetent because of them.
This is a big deal, because we humans naturally absorb our environment and often inwardly rehash stuff we hear around us. In other words, what we take in from our surroundings influences our “inner speech,” the conversations we have with ourselves in the silence of our minds. According to psychology professor Charles Fernyhough, author of the acclaimed book The Voices Within, our inner speech is shaped by the social worlds we inhabit. “Other people’s words get into our heads,” he explains. We absorb an assortment of verbal cues from others and those cues turn out to influence the way we talk privately to ourselves.
This unconscious process of sponging up messages from our environment explains a whole lot about why women develop such wicked inner critics.
Men, too, can suffer from inner criticism, though it appears to affect women more profoundly. While researchers can’t directly measure the negativity of people’s private thoughts, they can measure self-regard and evidence shows that women persistently sell themselves short, while men tend to overestimate themselves. Starting at a young age, people instinctively absorb the words of family members, peers, teachers, television shows and Facebook posts; everything, in short, that’s around them. In the process, girls and women tend to glean certain messages about their gender and themselves. Then they develop that inner critic that sounds so convincingly like what they’ve been hearing.
“Why Would They Love You”
“Your thighs are ugly and they color all of you ugly,” said the inner critic to a white woman who counsels adolescents, one of dozens of women I queried about their experience with this interior voice. “You put on so much weight and that’s why he’s leaving you,” the critic said to an African-American woman busy juggling work and school. “Your hair is just not right and your feet are too ugly for sandals,” it said to a woman who came out as gay only after living most of her life as a straight person.
Such voices reflect the negativity regularly directed at women in the everyday world — negativity that spotlights our supposed shortcomings, like Trump’s “face of a dog” comment. Yet even as women absorb perpetual disapproval regarding how we look and constantly worry about our appearance, the inner critic also faults us for spending so much time dwelling on something so trivial. “What’s wrong with you? Why can’t you just accept yourself?” it said to a tenure-track professor. “You pretend you don’t care about your looks, but actually you do care, and you care so much it’s pathetic,” it said to… well, me.
Trump lambasts women who don’t look like models, yet he also attacks ones who do, as when he feuded with former corporate defense attorney and Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. Finding her questioning disagreeable at the first Republican debate, where she served as one of the moderators, he took to Twitter to use her looks against her, diligently retweeting people who called her a “bimbo.”
That’s the thing about being considered an attractive female: People tend to assume that you must not be smart or competent — another kind of bind that worms its way into women’s heads. “No one will take you seriously as long as you look like that,” said the critic in the mind of an ambitious 20-something who had been told years before by her sixth-grade teacher that she ought to dress conservatively to compensate for her big breasts. “Don’t shine too much,” said the critic to a smart, attractive woman who holds a director-level position at a national environmental organization.
So women learn that they’re in trouble if they either look too good or too plain according to prevailing standards, and that’s just one of several unmanageable measures that almost invariably end up embedded in their inner monologues. Here’s another: Women tend to be put down and dismissed for being either assertive or candid (even as men are regularly rewarded for both of those qualities). On the other hand, according to the Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University, women who exhibit stereotypically “feminine” attributes like friendliness and compassion aren’t viewed as leaders and have trouble getting promoted.
Internalizing this no-win situation, women expend an ungodly amount of energy trying to formulate just the right personality. A survey conducted by MSNBC and Elle magazine found that women worry about coming off as “too confident and aggressive for fear of being labeled bitchy. But they also don’t want to be wishy-washy or risk being called indecisive or emotional.” That bind often manifests itself as an inner critic that finds them inadequate in every way. “You will never truly fit in,” said a voice inside the head of a Latina communications professional.
In the event that women do break through that specter of self-doubt and vocalize their opinions, they tend to get smacked down for it — by voices without and within. During a Republican primary debate in which all the candidates continuously interrupted and talked over one another, Donald Trump singled out Carly Fiorina, the lone female on stage, asking the audience, “Why does she keep interrupting everybody?” Naturally, he didn’t fault his male competitors for doing the same thing, just the woman among them. Ten and a half months later, after he’d advanced to the general election, facing Hillary Clinton in their first debate, he thought nothing of interrupting her on 51 separate occasions, including 25 times in the first 26 minutes — an astonishing oratorical feat.
This may make Trump sound like a uniquely egregious blowhard, but his behavior turns out to be quite illustrative, even if in an exaggerated way and on a really big stage, of a common double standard. Social science research has, for example, found that teachers tend to permit boys to answer questions out of turn. But the same behavior from girls is often met with a scolding.
Girls observe and absorb such double standards, as well as the criticism they receive for speaking up. Then they police themselves. As adults in professional settings, women talk a lot less than men when they’re outnumbered by the opposite sex — 75 percent less, according to a team of researchers from Princeton and Brigham Young universities. And if they do dare say something, they tend to hear an inner voice telling them that they sound dumb.
“God, I just said such a stupid thing,” a campaign director at a national advocacy organization thought to herself. “You don’t want to come off as an angry black woman, do you?” said the inner critic to an executive recruiter. To a nationally recognized artist: “You sound like a dumb girl.” To a Ph.D. with a successful career in higher education, “I shouldn’t have talked so much.” And to a 30-something paralegal: “Your boss thinks you’re an idiot, and it’s because you are one.” You can imagine how much she speaks up.
In an attempt to outrun such criticism and those voices echoing in their heads, many women wear themselves out striving for perfection. As one researcher summarized the situation, ambitious women “exist by putting out maximum energy at all times, trying to do everything and do it well. It is not enough that they attempt to be outstanding in their work; their perfection complex also causes them to strive for a Jane Fonda body, a house that could be on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens and perfect children.” They think they’re only okay if they’re flawless — and in the end often come to believe that they’re unlovable. (Depression, as it happens, is more common among women.)
“If other people really knew you, they wouldn’t love you,” said the inner critic to a newly married woman. “You should just accept that you’re going to be alone for the rest of your life,” it said to an Asian-American woman in her 30s. To a writer and teacher who volunteers her time helping the mentally distressed, the critic, speaking of her friends, said, “Why would they love you?”
Calling Out The Inner Critic
If all of this sounds like a major downer, there’s some upbeat news buried in it. After I spent months informally surveying women about that voice in our heads, a surprising thing happened. While it was painful to hear the ruthless things we regularly think about ourselves, I found an overwhelming commonality among us as well. At first I had just wanted to understand the critic in my own head. What I discovered was a practically identical voice ricocheting around in nearly all the women I knew. And that taught me that there isn’t something wrong with any one of us, a realization that gave me a powerful feeling of solidarity with all those other women in (and not in) my life.
I also started confronting my own inner critic. Surprisingly enough, my efforts were remarkably successful. A simple approach — countering its negative declarations with positive ones of my own — proved to be a potent antidote. I’m not talking about anything fancy. “I’m doing a pretty damn good job,” I started saying to myself as a rejoinder to that critic. After a while, that positive declaration became a knee-jerk response and provided an exhilarating upgrade on the old negative tune.
All of this has implications for our present poisonous political climate. It’s easy enough to feel hopeless, given our no-longer-so-new president and his unnerving administration, yet these findings about the inner critic suggest that some powerful forms of resistance to the world Donald Trump represents are accessible close to home. In her book Hope in the Dark, Rebecca Solnit writes that part of activism — maybe a big part of it — involves embodying the values you’re trying to promote. “If your activism is already democratic, peaceful, creative,” she writes, “then in one small corner of the world these things have triumphed.”
In the case of the inner critic, the corner of the world in question is the interior terrain of your own mind. There, it’s entirely possible to call out the critic’s refrain as grade-A bullshit — and then proceed accordingly.
What does your inner critic say to you? The author would like to know, so drop her a line (or a tweet).
PROTOMUTANTS: The Love Generation from Space — by Baba McEwen, H.W., m
The book has now been found…
After missing for 40 years
it turned up in Suzanne Deakins
bookshelves.
The Protomutant
is here and had
kids. There is much more to
share now…it is even more relevant now…
then 1976 when it was last published. I have photos of
it on my phone if you want to go down memory lane and see it?
I and Spirit Press
going to republish it,
adding to it my
own 40 years
experience.
Robert “Baba” McEwen
Mentor
“Kurzweil Claims That the Singularity Will Happen by 2045” by Dom Galeon and Christianna Reedy

Kurzweil’s Predictions
Ray Kurzweil, Google’s Director of Engineering, is a well-known futurist with a high-hitting track record for accurate predictions. Of his 147 predictions since the 1990s, Kurzweil claims an 86 percent accuracy rate. At the SXSW Conference in Austin, Texas, Kurzweil made yet another prediction: the technological singularity will happen sometime in the next 30 years.
In a communication to Futurism, Kurzweil states:
2029 is the consistent date I have predicted for when an AI will pass a valid Turing test and therefore achieve human levels of intelligence. I have set the date 2045 for the ‘Singularity’ which is when we will multiply our effective intelligence a billion fold by merging with the intelligence we have created.
“By 2029, computers will have human-level intelligence,” Kurzweil said in an interview with SXSW.
The singularity is that point in time when all the advances in technology, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI), will lead to machines that are smarter than human beings. Kurzweil’s timetable for the singularity is consistent with other predictions,– notably those of Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son, who predicts that the dawn of super-intelligent machines will happen by 2047. But for Kurzweil, the process towards this singularity has already begun.
“That leads to computers having human intelligence, our putting them inside our brains, connecting them to the cloud, expanding who we are. Today, that’s not just a future scenario,” Kurzweil said. “It’s here, in part, and it’s going to accelerate.”
To Fear or Not to Fear?
We all know it is coming sooner or later, but the question in the minds of almost everyone is: should humanity fear the singularity? Everyone knows that when machines become smarter than human beings, they tend to take over the world. Right? Many of the world’s science and technology bigwigs — like Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and even Bill Gates — warn about this kind of future.
Well, Kurzweil doesn’t think so. In fact, he isn’t particularly worried about the singularity. It would be more accurate to say that he’s been looking forward to it. What science fiction depicts as the singularity — at which point a single brilliant AI enslaves humanity — is just that: fiction.
“That’s not realistic,” Kurzweil said during his interview with SXSW. “We don’t have one or two AIs in the world. Today we have billions.”
For Kurzweil, the singularity is an opportunity for humankind to improve. He envisions the same technology that will make AIs more intelligent giving humans a boost as well.
“What’s actually happening is [machines] are powering all of us,” Kurzweil said during the SXSW interview. “They’re making us smarter. They may not yet be inside our bodies, but, by the 2030s, we will connect our neocortex, the part of our brain where we do our thinking, to the cloud.”
This idea is similar to Musk’s controversial neural lace and to XPRIZE Foundation chairman Peter Diamandis’ “meta-intelligence” concept. Kurzweil expounded on how this technology could improve human lives.
“We’re going to get more neocortex, we’re going to be funnier, we’re going to be better at music. We’re going to be sexier,” Kurzweil said during the SXSW interview. “We’re really going to exemplify all the things that we value in humans to a greater degree.”
To those who view this cybernetic society as more fantasy than future, Kurzweil pointing out that there are people with computers in their brains today — Parkinson’s patients. That’s how cybernetics is just getting its foot in the door, Kurzweil said. And, because it’s the nature of technology to improve, Kurzweil predicts that during the 2030s some technology will be invented that can go inside your brain and help your memory.
So, instead of the machines-taking-over-the-world vision of the singularity, Kurzweil thinks it’ll be a future of unparalleled human-machine synthesis.
“Ultimately, it will affect everything,” Kurzweil said during the SXSW interview. “We’re going to be able to meet the physical needs of all humans. We’re going to expand our minds and exemplify these artistic qualities that we value.”
Aristotle’s Logic
“My Mother Myself: The Daughters search for Identity” by Nancy Friday
My Mother/My Self: The Daughter’s Search for Identity by Nancy Friday
― Nancy Friday, My Mother/My Self: The Daughter’s Search for Identity
― Nancy Friday, My Mother/My Self: The Daughter’s Search for Identity


