Posts by Gary James88

Envy and jealousy aren't exactly the same thing. They might overlap sometimes, but they’re fundamentally different experiences.

So, some solid techniques for hitting lucid dreaming have already been mentioned. I went through a phase where they happened way more often, mostly because I was diving deep into books about them. Spontaneous ones were a bit rarer, but they’d pop up once in a while. They vary quite a bit, too—ranging from that fuzzy semi-awareness where you lose control of the dream instantly, all the way up to full consciousness.

Dawn of the Dead, hands down...

Nothing actually happens in these movies, unless you look away from the screen and hit mute. Even then, something is happening—you're just distracted. People claim nothing happens in Stalker (Tarkovsky) or The Tenant, yet they write entire books about them. Give me a break.

I don't even get what "nothing happens" means here. Are we talking about static cameras and too much dialogue, or too much action and not enough talk? What exactly is the criteria?

Hollywood has this incredibly aggressive, well-oiled marketing and PR machine. Between those massive budgets and that level of organization, they can easily drown out any other film industry. But we shouldn't pretend that some of their absolute worst films aren't a direct byproduct of that exact system. You could pit any other national cinema against Hollywood and get all sorts of results, but if you try to stack Hollywood up against just one other single country—assuming we’re actually ranking film as an art form or evaluating entire industries—it’s not even a fair fight.

Honestly, this topic isn't even about psychology—it’s more about politics and social trends. Most of what needed to be said has already been covered.

I’d say Satan's Warrior works pretty well as a teen horror-comedy. The camerawork is decent, the acting holds up, and there are a few standout moments.

Thanks for the kind words, though I shouldn't let it go to my head—I might start thinking I run the show, the mods, the PDFs, everything... 😳

Truth is, I'm not around here nearly as much as the fairy, who does most of the heavy lifting, so I'll pass the praise along to her.

It’s been a long time since I sat down with Psycho II, and honestly, my memory of it is a bit hazy. That said, I was never really a fan of the sequel. You can have a decent plot and okay acting, but the reason the original was such a massive hit was because the script and direction were groundbreaking for their time. By the time this one came out in 1983, those same tropes had already been chewed up and spit out by Hollywood. Therefore, while the first film changed the game for directors everywhere, the sequel didn't offer anything new to the table.

Mark Torres14 said:Can you dive deeper into that "scam algorithm"? It isn't just about ratios. We always say some people lie so much they eventually start believing their own bullshit. Can that logic be applied to fraud too?

I'm not sure. Even people who rarely cheat or lie can end up pulling off some pretty massive scams or deceiving themselves. It really comes down to whether cheating someone else and lying to yourself are actually the same thing, or if they're distinct concepts beyond just the subject and object involved.

True. I don't think you can explain fraud solely through a cost-benefit analysis; that's more about the decision to pull the trigger rather than an explanation of what fraud actually is.

lonegardener said:Sure, but I was being specific about where the distinction lies: it’s all in that "conscious anticipation." When you look at the standard definition of "fraud," it implies intent—a deliberate goal. By that logic, you can't really have an "accidental fraud," because if something is truly accidental, there's no conscious objective behind it. In that case, it isn't fraud; it's just a mistake or a mishap. Of course, we might still call it fraud in a broader, more casual sense. Dammit, terminology is a tricky business.

Think about the definition of a "lie." It requires intent—you have to consciously state something you know to be false. Because of that, you can’t really "accidentally" lie. You might slip up or speak without thinking, but if you truly believe what you're saying, it isn't a lie. The moment you realize you've misspoken, the deception ends. By its very nature, lying implies a level of awareness. A liar operates based on their own perception of the truth; they could even tell a lie that happens to be objectively true, yet it remains a lie because their intention was to deceive. It works the same way with deception. You could technically "deceive" someone in a way that actually benefits them—performing an objective service for them—but from the perspective of the person doing the deceiving, it’s still a calculated act of trickery.

Exactly. When someone says something is "fairly developed," they’re usually throwing out a vague descriptor that’s practically impossible to quantify or define with any precision. It feels like we have no choice but to deal with these fuzzy, ambiguous terms here. 🤷

Exactly. If even the experts slip up like that once in a while, it’s hardly surprising that regular folks make those mistakes constantly. I won't go naming any specific members here who I actually quite like. 😬

I agree it could lead to some confusion, which is why I used the phrase "certain forms of fraud" in my original post. I wanted to include both intentional acts and those that aren't, just in case we decide that fraud strictly excludes anything lacking conscious intent.

Can fraud exist outside of its own definition? And how much does our perception of reality depend on the language we use? 😁

lonegardener said:Speaking of deception... I’ve got a true story from a few years back, when my little brother was only about three and a half. 😍

A few of us were hanging out in the living room with him while he played in the middle of the floor. Mom was just two doors down in another room. My brother was clearly getting annoyed by his socks, but he already knew the rule about not taking them off without permission. So, he checked with Dad—who was in the room with us—to see if it was okay. In a classic move to avoid being the bad guy, Dad just said, "Go ask Mom." My brother wandered down the hall, and we all sat there listening intently 😍 as he asked her, "Can I take my socks off?" Now, Mom was in a bit of a mood, so she just snapped, "No!" 🤣

A moment later, he walks back into the living room, and you can practically see the gears turning in his head... He goes ahead and closes the bedroom door 🤣 and tells Dad, "Mom said I could." 😂

The takeaway? Not only had he already figured out how useful a little white lie could be, but he also understood the importance of cover. He knew he had to make sure Mom didn't overhear the lie he intended to use. The only thing he forgot was that we were right here, having heard exactly what she actually said.

Honestly, I'd love to see anyone pull off a stunt that bold today, LOL.

True. This is actually a pretty high-level deception—it requires nuanced language and complex symbolism. 😁

Besides, assuming intent in other species presents a different kind of problem, one arguably deeper than when we judge other people.

When it comes to the internal states of other humans, we're making indirect inferences. We know our own experiences because we feel them directly, but we guess at someone else's by watching their cues. If they act like we would in a certain situation, we assume their internal experience matches ours. Or, they use symbols we recognize, allowing us to spot those familiar patterns.

With other species, things get messy because they either lack our specific symbolism or we simply don't grasp it. Relying solely on "they act like us" provides very little data. We might be making a massive error by assuming a baboon's intent mirrors ours just because its behavior looks similar. It might not have even had the intention to deceive; there could be plenty of other explanations. You'd need incredibly elaborate experiments to rule out every doubt.

lonegardener said:"We," meaning us humans. I'm referring to the "historical" baggage certain terms carry. The concept of "deception" existed long before modern science came along.

I didn't say they stayed around by accident; we all know how they stayed—because individuals with those specific colors had a much better shot at survival. It’s a pretty simple, obvious reason. There’s no "conscious anticipation," no deliberate "goal" or "plan" involved here. So, while this kind of "deception" (regarding skin color in those species) might share some "similarities" with what we mean when we say "Haso cheated Mujo at poker"—there are still massive differences. Wouldn't you agree?

Of course, this isn't the only case where the same word is used for two concepts that are similar in some ways but fundamentally different in others. For instance, "car theft" shares some DNA with "software piracy" or "stealing an idea"—but the differences are huge. Methinks.

"Soul" is, well, a non-scientific concept. 😍

It seems to me that a baboon's behavior shows quite advanced associations... perhaps it's just a lack of the ability to reflect and "step outside" of its own perspective? That capacity to experience oneself as an "object" rather than just a "subject"? Then again, for a few species, it's said they can "understand" that their reflection in a mirror isn't someone else, but themselves. That sounds pretty fuckin' amazing—what more would they need besides that to follow a path similar to a human child?

How does that experiment with children go... even after a kid can speak and clearly recognizes themselves in a mirror, there's still a gap for a while. For example, if you ask a 3-year-old girl who has two sisters, Ana and May, "How many sisters do you have?"—she'll say "two, Ana and May." But if you then ask her, "How many sisters does Ana have?"—she'll answer "one—May." 😍 This suggests that regardless of recognizing oneself in a mirror, the ability to "step out of one's own perspective" isn't fully developed yet. 🤔 Or something like that.

I agree. In the other case, you're talking about deception as a breach of social contracts, which requires much more advanced cognitive ability. It's fundamentally different from an animal changing its body color.

lonegardener said:"We," meaning us humans. I'm referring to the "historical" baggage certain terms carry. The concept of "deception" existed long before modern science came along.

I didn't say they stayed around by accident; we all know how they stayed—because individuals with those specific colors had a much better shot at survival. It’s a pretty simple, obvious reason. There’s no "conscious anticipation," no deliberate "goal" or "plan" involved here. So, while this kind of "deception" (regarding skin color in those species) might share some "similarities" with what we mean when we say "Haso cheated Mujo at poker"—there are still massive differences. Wouldn't you agree?

Of course, this isn't the only case where the same word is used for two concepts that are similar in some ways but fundamentally different in others. For instance, "car theft" shares some DNA with "software piracy" or "stealing an idea"—but the differences are huge. Methinks.

"Soul" is, well, a non-scientific concept. 😍

It seems to me that a baboon's behavior shows quite advanced associations... perhaps it's just a lack of the ability to reflect and "step outside" of its own perspective? That capacity to experience oneself as an "object" rather than just a "subject"? Then again, for a few species, it's said they can "understand" that their reflection in a mirror isn't someone else, but themselves. That sounds pretty fuckin' amazing—what more would they need besides that to follow a path similar to a human child?

How does that experiment with children go... even after a kid can speak and clearly recognizes themselves in a mirror, there's still a gap for a while. For example, if you ask a 3-year-old girl who has two sisters, Ana and May, "How many sisters do you have?"—she'll say "two, Ana and May." But if you then ask her, "How many sisters does Ana have?"—she'll answer "one—May." 😍 This suggests that regardless of recognizing oneself in a mirror, the ability to "step out of one's own perspective" isn't fully developed yet. 🤔 Or something like that.

Yeah, true. Self-awareness and an understanding of the surrounding world develop over years of experience, up to a certain point. Cognitive development within a species follows its own path, though there are similarities—up to a limit—both within and between species. It’s hard to talk about self-awareness in some animals, while others show hints of it. Humans have a pretty highly developed sense of self, whatever that actually means.

These primate experiments are interesting, mostly because they rely on observing behavior, tweaking variables, and then drawing indirect conclusions about cognition or consciousness. But trying to pin down exactly what that primate was thinking, what its motives were, or how conscious its reaction actually was... that's a stretch. We probably make plenty of mistakes when interpreting these results just by projecting our own human reasoning onto them.

lonegardener said:Hold on a second—the phenomena you're describing aren't really "fraud" in the way humans define it. To us, fraud requires anticipation; it involves an awareness of gain, a conscious intent, and a deliberate decision to deceive.

Those species that "evolved" to look like toxic animals didn't do so through a conscious choice to reap benefits. That adaptation happened purely by accident through mutation. It just so happens that those specific mutations gave those individuals and their offspring a much better shot at survival compared to those that didn't mutate.

Is a baboon "aware" that screaming will help it attract a mate? It's entirely possible, in some rudimentary sense. We already know chimpanzees have the capacity to solve basic problems. Honestly, it’s a fascinating question: what exactly is missing in chimpanzees that prevents them from developing self-awareness and intelligence comparable to ours?

Who exactly is this "us" when you say how "we perceive" it? 🙂 I’m talking about deception in both the narrow and broad sense, not just the human one. The first part of my post was about people. Those colors that look toxic might have appeared by accident, but they didn't stick around by accident.

lonegardener said:Hold on a second—the phenomena you're describing aren't really "fraud" in the way humans define it. To us, fraud requires anticipation; it involves an awareness of gain, a conscious intent, and a deliberate decision to deceive.

Those species that "evolved" to look like toxic animals didn't do so through a conscious choice to reap benefits. That adaptation happened purely by accident through mutation. It just so happens that those specific mutations gave those individuals and their offspring a much better shot at survival compared to those that didn't mutate.

Is a baboon "aware" that screaming will help it attract a mate? It's entirely possible, in some rudimentary sense. We already know chimpanzees have the capacity to solve basic problems. Honestly, it’s a fascinating question: what exactly is missing in chimpanzees that prevents them from developing self-awareness and intelligence comparable to ours?

Probably just the associative centers in the cerebrum. Some might call it a soul, I don't know.

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose you might be giving that baboon way too much credit when it comes to actual foresight or strategic planning. If we look back at my point about Zdravko Mamić regarding emotionality and spirituality, it's a better comparison, I think. You have Zdravko, cornered by reporters, just screaming like a primate. He projects his internal mess onto the world, trying to paint himself as some sort of victim of a massive conspiracy—you know, the whole anti-American, anti-Catholic, anti-football, anti-military, anti-big-city-glory cabal. The journalists eventually walk away without getting any real answers, even if they mock him in the next headline for acting like an animal. Then, Mamić makes a public apology, maybe goes to a couple hours of therapy, and honestly? He just keeps right on lying just like before. The scam works, because the media still didn't get what they actually asked.

It’s just like the baboon. He sees a female digging around, feels insulted that he wasn't the one to think of it first, and lashes out with this emotional outburst, calling for his mother. Once she chases the other little female away, he’s happy again.

I guess you could see the same pattern in how some people on this forum argue, or when they try to get rid of a moderator they don't like, or provoke someone just to get them banned... though, I suppose there's a much higher level of calculated control and cold planning involved there. In those cases, the person who reacts like a primate is usually the one who gets banned or removed first. So, I guess my conclusion is that humans have evolved socially compared to baboons. We've just become more sophisticated at being corrupt. 😁

That kind of behavior actually takes a decent amount of cognitive skill—you need foresight and planning to pull that off.

Mark Torres14 said:Great.
I want to talk about fraud without getting all bogged down in "good vs. evil" nonsense.

We can look at it as an evolutionary mechanism. In that light, cheating evolved as a way to survive and secure a mate, while simultaneously driving the evolution of systems designed to detect and punish dishonesty.

The math behind deception is pretty basic: it's all about the cost-benefit ratio. Cheating lowers the cost while keeping the payoff steady or even increasing it. Of course, once you factor in detection methods, the risk of loss goes up. You see this in any society built on social contracts where those agreements can be broken. It’s even visible in nature—think of organisms that puff themselves up to look bigger to scare off predators, or species that mimic the bright colors of toxic animals when they aren't actually poisonous.

Mark Torres14 said:"Paul, a young baboon, stepped up to watch Mel, an adult female, as she dug through the hard, dry earth looking for rhizomes to eat. Paul looked around; the rest of the troop was nowhere to be seen in the rolling grasslands, though they couldn't have been far. Then, he let out a loud scream—something baboons usually only do when they're in real trouble. Within seconds, Paul's mother, who's Mel's superior, came charging in, chased her off, and both of them cleared out. Paul just wandered forward and started snacking on the rhizome himself."

Richard Leakey and Roger Laven - Rethinking Origins - Man's Search for Meaning - p. 246 Penguin Random House 2005.

It’s pretty clear that in this case, we're looking at a very "sophisticated" bit of deception, even by a baboon's standards.
So, what defines a "deception" to you? And how much weight do you give its role in the evolution of human consciousness?

Someone once told me that we aren't actually the descendants of the brave hunters who faced danger head-on to grab a meal. No, we're the descendants of the ones who waited behind a corner, hit the other guy with a stick, and took his food.

Deception has always been a shortcut to getting ahead, both for ourselves and others. It’s been part of the human playbook since the beginning, and even with all the moralizing today, it’s still going strong.

A friend pointed out that clip to me, and we had a good laugh. I can't see myself sitting through the whole movie, though—not even just to see how weird it is.

slywolf45 said:Fair enough.
Awareness is vital, sure.
But how exactly do you reach the crowd that still views homosexuality as some kind of pathology—people who don't even grant that specific "profession" any legitimacy or legal standing in the first place?🤷
Most folks know the term "homophobia" exists, but I highly doubt anyone is going to look in the mirror and admit, "Yeah, I'm a homophobe."

Personally, I find concepts like internalized homophobia much more compelling to unpack right now.

Awareness is fine, but homophobia is a much broader socio-cultural issue than just a psychological or medical one. You can see that from the intro text; it’s full of claims that any decent sociologist would tear apart for being dubious and inaccurate, which honestly just ends up hurting the community.

Daniel Wilson5 said:Fine. I just started a thread with a quick little post and my entire thing was wiped out overnight!!!!

The thread was pulled because it was basically incitement, and calling homophobes "popes" violated the subforum rules.