Posts by feralranger

Carl Cox3 said:I watched it. She didn't say anything useful besides the idea of filming ourselves to review.
Wouldn't it be better if a psychologist provided actual, concrete advice on how to make a good impression? 🙂

In a situation like this, a psychologist is essentially working on behalf of the employer...

If your boss happened to have a mindset similar to Clinton or perhaps Cuomo (both of whom were known for leading hardline factions), they wouldn't be looking for talent; they’d be looking for someone to follow orders without question.

On the other hand, a different employer might actually be searching for someone with true character, and in that case, the psychologist would evaluate you accordingly...

So, one can't really frame this as a universal truth; it all depends heavily on the nature of the job and the specific temperament of the person in charge.

Maria Reyes4 said:Every role demands a specific persona—sometimes you need fire, sometimes you need calm.

There’s no such thing as a "perfect" candidate for everything. You can be an absolute superstar in one field and a total disaster in another.

The qualities most employers claim to want are so incredibly basic it's almost insulting to even list them—just be punctual, polite, organized... that's about it.

Well, I wouldn't call it quite so 'obvious'...

One has to navigate the subtle complexities of where to place one's hands, what to do with their fingers, how to carry oneself, how to position their legs, where to direct their gaze... deciding whether to glance somewhere first before offering an answer... choosing whether to respond impulsively or to take a deliberate pause to formulate a more coherent reply when the question isn't a simple yes or no... and so on, and so forth.

Carl Cox3 said:It would be wonderful if a psychologist specializing in this field could offer some guidance on how to present oneself and behave during a psychological assessment for a job interview.

I have been advised to dress casually, smile, and provide concise answers—simply "yes" or "no"—without offering explanations unless specifically prompted.

Where should I look? Is it a disadvantage to pause and look away while thinking? What is the ideal posture? Where should my hands be placed? Should I cross my legs or not?

Forum members are welcome to share their own experiences with psychologists, provided they pertain strictly to employment interviews rather than general consultations.

🙂

In truth, what you are asking is how to choreograph your responses and gestures—essentially, how to deceive a psychologist... hmm...

That is quite similar, for example, to when Biden works with his advisors to figure out how to mask his arrogance, becoming significantly more polished at it than he was during the elections four years prior... Though, naturally, he remains incredibly arrogant; he has simply learned how to manage his media presence to conceal it, all for the purpose of (clearly successful) voter deception...

What you are inquiring about is fundamentally the same thing, except you are attempting to mislead a psychologist (by learning the specific answers and gestures they wish to hear or see...).

In reality, we live in a world of deception, a world built upon the construction of impressions... in such a pathologically false world, it is hardly surprising that people wonder how to mislead voters, recruiters, or even a boyfriend or girlfriend on a first date...

electricdriver33 said:You didn't mention the global destruction caused by poaching, smuggling, and reselling endangered species because of fake animal lovers wanting to keep them in cages, aquariums, or terrariums. 😉
For example, a large tropical parrot in Washington, D.C. goes for 15 $0.00. These fake animal lovers, along with the resellers and poachers, are the biggest haters and enemies of these creatures, ☕
You want to talk about the beauty of animals? Watch an antelope on TV right before a lion or a crocodile grabs it and devours it. Nature is brutal and doesn't have a sentimental worldview like people who hold unnatural attitudes toward flora and fauna. We should be preserving nature, not cramming it into our apartments.
Take that show on TBS about pets, for example. All those people on the show have houses in the suburbs with big yards and don't bother anyone. Probably because in Germany, the laws regarding pet ownership and care are crystal clear. 😛

These "lovers" who imprison animals are nothing more than pretenders; in reality, they are suffocators and jailers.

My cat, on the other hand, is a free spirit... he gets his meals, he has shelter when it rains, he has access to a warm room when the temperature drops... some days he stays indoors, other days he spends the entire day outside... he is entirely free to come and go as he pleases...

I consider myself someone who loves animals, though certainly not in that pathological, suffocating manner in which many of their owners claim to "love" them...

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
It is an undeniable reality that out of hundreds of thousands of individual actions, there will inevitably be a handful of irregular ones.👍

As I have previously maintained, politicians will always attempt to frame their own actions in the most flattering light possible. Yet, let us be perfectly clear: this nation has been looted right down to its very foundation, leaving our seniors with no choice but to scavenge through trash cans just to make ends meet.

Those are nothing more than empty platitudes, quite frankly, lacking any real substance whatsoever.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
What people call "preferential treatment" is actually just a misunderstanding of what it means to act in the interest of the public good; true authority is exercised when law enforcement uses its power to shield the general populace from antisocial elements—both common agitators and those who believe they are above the law—rather than indulging in petty, personal vendettas. In essence, this isn't about enjoying some elevated status or special privilege, but rather about the heavy burden of service to the community at large.👍

And once again, we hear it from the politicians... that tired old line about "serving the people." Honestly, those empty platitudes carry absolutely zero weight.

Brian Edwards6 said:I believe my private message was quite explicit, but I will reiterate for the sake of clarity. Law enforcement officers make mistakes—they are human, they perform their duties, and occasionally, ugly or unlawful things happen. However, we are talking about isolated individuals (even if even one is far too many) and rare circumstances (though even one is one too many). It is simply unfair to engage in constant sweeping generalizations. I am not suggesting that the situation you experienced didn't happen; I am saying it isn't the rule. In my experience doing this job every single day, I have personally never done anything like that, nor have I ever witnessed a colleague do so.👍

Regarding the recent deletion of comments on the controversial thread, those posts were removed because they were direct responses to a sanctioned comment—one which repeatedly insisted that filling the federal treasury is the sole purpose of police work. We have covered this ground several times already, citing various federal budget reports that clearly demonstrate what the actual contribution looks like. That was merely one part of the discussion; the other part involved the user being asked to restate their comment, which they did, leading us to continue the debate.👍

Your comment was nothing more than pure generalization, and since that was your entire contribution to that specific discussion, it was removed accordingly. You are welcome to participate in the Legal subforum just like anyone else, provided you follow the same rules as everyone else. And let me be clear: criticism is not unwelcome—there is plenty of it on that controversial thread and across other topics here—but barging into discussions the way you do is problematic. Dropping a single sentence followed by a smiley face and calling it a day doesn't cut it. In my view, that usually amounts to disrupting the flow of conversation, and if I'm wrong, I'll leave it to the administration to correct me.👍

Finally, while I admit I am subjective, I do not allow that subjectivity to interfere with my moderation. We are all subjective; everyone holds personal opinions on most topics and questions. However, there is a time and a place for every subjective opinion.👍

And who exactly is claiming these are merely isolated incidents? 🤷 Such a convenient little phrase.

That is precisely how politicians describe their own ranks, isn't it? Meanwhile, the country is looted to its very foundation, and retirees are forced to scavenge through trash cans just to get by...

Oh, of course, in every single institution representing the state, everyone is perfectly honest except for those "rare" outliers. Honestly, it’s nothing more than a fairy tale told to naive sheep.

William Torres said:That would be a violation of the right to free speech and expression, Sisyphus. Pure censorship. I suppose there’s some level where censorship makes sense—you can't just broadcast every bit of garbage to the public. At least not in major media outlets. You might get something published in a tabloid like the New York Post, which still reaches a massive audience, and then it's gone. It’s ultimately the editor's prerogative at those outlets to decide whether something is actually worth printing. Or did you think prime time news slots should be reserved for every random person's opinion on how to fix the country and the world? The reality is that ideas need time to gain traction, mostly because the dominant ideologies have the backing of massive capital and powerful interest groups behind them. But you have to be persistent; if you're actually right, you'll eventually break through. Most people will end up siding with you. Fidel Castro didn't let that kind of nonsense shake him. One minute he was calling out the church, the next he was pivoting toward capitalism... it doesn't really matter, the point is he stayed stubborn, he was certain he was right, and in the end, he got his way. Without any help from Americans. Hard work pays off. For instance, nobody just handed Matija Babić a media empire on a silver platter; he built his own platform fueled by Severina's charms, and he continues to sail along smoothly, publishing whatever he damn well pleases.

True enough, yet it simultaneously functions as a form of discrimination; quite often, those who possess the courage to think independently find themselves marginalized, while those who simply parrot the prevailing, narrow-minded consensus are the ones being elevated.

William Torres said:I suppose you could argue that discrimination, when viewed as a positive thing, is actually just a form of discernment. But when we talk about discrimination in a negative sense, what we’re really looking at is the rejection of something inherently good. I mean, if you decide not to hire someone because you’ve reasonably assessed they simply aren't qualified for the role, that isn't really discrimination in the way people usually complain about it. It’s just practical. However, if you refuse to hire someone just because they happen to be a woman, a Black person, or gay, then you're entering negative territory. The reason for that, I guess, is that the characteristic being used to discriminate has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do the job—or at least, it doesn't have any impact significant enough to justify treating them differently. You might hear someone make some sweeping generalization, like saying "people from Texas are tougher because of their genes" or "New Yorkers are more sophisticated," but those kinds of stereotypes shouldn't be a valid reason to deny a Texan a job at a museum or prevent a New Yorker from becoming a CEO. It's just... I don't know, it feels too flimsy to be a real basis for anything.

I certainly concur; however, one could argue that discrimination also manifests when those who refuse to conform to this modern brand of narrow-mindedness—this so-called political correctness dictated by Americans as they aggressively export their version of 'peace' to the rest of the globe—are effectively silenced within the mainstream media outlets.

Edward Flores4 said:It is truly charming when someone convinces themselves they are some sort of infallible arbiter, capable of deciding what qualifies as 'pathetic' and what doesn't... or perhaps more importantly, deciding who is actually aware of their own situation.☕

Sound familiar? 🤣

Well, I did put 'pathetic' in quotation marks, didn't I?

I could have just as easily written that the situation was—how shall we say—deplorable.

In any event, the esteemed Mr. Chomsky clearly failed to grasp the essence of what that student was asking her, whether it was pathetic, deplorable, tragic, or whatever other descriptor one might choose to employ...

I find myself once again contemplating the sheer, overwhelming scale of our modern existence—specifically, that dizzying sense of being buried under an endless mountain of trivialities. It feels as though we are perpetually drowning in a sea of one thousand tiny, insignificant distractions, each one more draining than the last, leaving us to wonder if we will ever truly break free from this cycle of mindless clutter. As I have previously observed, there exists a certain inescapable truth to the matter at hand.

Honestly, if every single individual on this planet actually committed to mastering their own specific niche—to truly pursue that one thing they are undeniably best at—I have this nagging, somewhat unsettling suspicion that the entire world would simply spontaneously combust. 🤔 Do you truly possess nothing at all?

It seems to me that the world—this relentless environment we inhabit—frequently demands nothing less than the absolute worst from an individual. It relentlessly pressures us to shed our integrity in favor of becoming socially palatable and market-friendly, even if it means becoming utterly loathsome to our own souls.

I find myself once again contemplating the sheer, overwhelming absurdity of our modern existence—specifically, the way we attempt to quantify things that defy any semblance of logic. It’s much like looking at a massive, disorganized pile of junk and trying to count every single stray bolt or rusted washer. One might say I am staring down a mountain of a thousand little trivialities, all of them equally insignificant yet somehow collectively exhausting. It is a task as futile as counting grains of sand in the Mojave, really, though perhaps slightly more tedious. As the saying goes:
And when exactly might we witness the miracle of you finally rolling uphill?

To roll along or to roll away—is there even a meaningful distinction to be made? In any case, one remains trapped within the same rigid framework of circumstance.

coastalwalker said:And what about you? You going to hold the candle?

In a world where we are all just endlessly pushing boulders uphill, any sort of miracle is a welcome distraction. And an unprecedented one, at that. 😍

lonegardener said:If a nihilist actually went out and started a political party, they'd be proving they actually care about something—which means they aren't a pure nihilist anymore. 🤣 Not to mention, building a party requires actual planning and effort, which is the exact opposite of being inert. 🤣

On another note, I'm not quite following your logic on how "the world feeds off that inertia." 🤔

Personally, I would argue that the reality is quite the opposite—that the opportunists are actually the ones feeding off those who remain "inert." At least when we are discussing the politically active dregs of society, I feel reasonably certain of that conclusion.

coastalwalker said:Not really. A nihilist has zero skin in the game. They know everyone else is just as paralyzed by nothingness, which actually gives them an unexpected cushion of support. It’s easy to lean on. The whole world basically feeds off that collective inertia. Nobody would blink if you formed a political party out of it.

🤷 Everyone who is breathing... is obviously living—in some capacity. Even I can claim to be "living." 😬 🤣

Meh.

😍

If we were all to simply inhale the "authentic" life of Noam Chomsky, I suppose we could all sit back and happily witness such a miracle—an unprecedented one, naturally.

coastalwalker said:It's a dead end.
And it's rigged, because any counterargument can just be dismissed as being part of your programming.
You could turn this into a whole cult movement.
Apemant is out in the wilderness, holding the flag for world software.
Spinning in circles like this makes me want to shut the system down.
I guess I'm just programmed that way.
if 'shutting down the system' return to 'it's a dead end'.

Well, if one maintains a strictly scientific and materialistic perspective, life—regardless of how you attempt to spin it—is quite clearly a "dead end."

it’s just being cynical, because any counterargument can easily be dismissed by claiming you were simply programmed that way.

I wouldn't call it "cynical"; rather, if that premise holds true, then things are simply as they are, and there is no other possible state for them to exist in.

one could even turn this into a sort of cult.
An Ape Man on the floor, waving the flag of the world software.
The sheer futility of spinning in circles like this makes me want to trigger a system shutdown.
I suppose I must be programmed this way.
if 'system shutdown' return to 'it's a dead end'.

😍

coastalwalker said:If it's true, there's nothing left to debate.
But he’s (almost) certain it’s true specifically because an entire world—one he navigates via pure intuition, devoid of certainty and shrouded in mystery—remains completely off his radar. If it were on his radar, he might actually believe in determinism. He recognizes the existence of that space, but he doesn't move through it. That's where his conviction in determinism comes from. Meanwhile, those actually moving through that space feel the intuition of free will (or, if you prefer, a similar kind of conviction, assuming everything is indeed determined).
So, he isn't in any position to judge those who are actually navigating that territory.

Well, if it is indeed true—and if you simply find yourself compelled to argue about it until your dying breath😬 —then by all means, continue that endless debate; however, if your disposition is somewhat different, you might find you have no desire to argue at all.

but he is (nearly) certain of its truth specifically because an entire world—one he navigates through pure intuition, a world devoid of certainty and shrouded in absolute mystery—slips right beneath his radar. had it appeared on his radar, he would likely be far more hesitant to claim such certainty. he recognizes the existence of that space, yet he does not traverse it; hence, his conviction in determinism. meanwhile, those who actually move through that space possess an intuition of free will (or, if one prefers, a similar kind of certainty, provided everything is indeed determined).

Are you referring to Apemant? From a purely rational standpoint, the mere fact that something "slips under the radar" doesn't necessarily carry any profound weight; it might simply point to the imperfections of the "radar" itself. Of course, one is always free to believe that the radar is missing something of a mystical nature...

consequently, he isn't even in a position to pass judgment on those who navigate through that space.

Usually, it is "the others"—those staunch believers in "free will"—who do the judging.

The very awareness of potential determinism effectively erodes any meaningful sense of what it means to "judge."

coastalwalker said:Thinking others don't see the problem, rather than realizing they see it just as clearly as you but choose to act anyway, is like flying over the ocean and deciding there's no life beneath the surface simply because you're too afraid to dive into such uncertain waters.

I find that comparison to be quite poor... for if one accepts those premises as true, people aren't actually making decisions at all, but are merely laboring under the ILLUSION of agency.

Naturally, for any human being, it is profoundly difficult to truly "come to terms" with such a realization, even if it happens to be the absolute truth.

Edward Flores4 said:The very fact that you’re actually bothering to argue with me proves you’re operating under the assumption that I have free will... I mean, if you truly believed I didn't, there would be zero point in trying to persuade me. Why bother talking to a machine or a falling rock?

And this whole thing where you claim to be unsure if free will exists, yet you carry yourself as if it definitely does—well, that's a massive psychological knot for any therapist to untangle. 😍

I'm not playing dumb, it just comes naturally to me. 🤣

That's rich... You'd rather claim you're just "naturally" dim than admit that the limits of the human cognitive system don't actually prevent us from making moral or ethical judgments about behavior within those perfectly understandable boundaries. ☕

What kind of logic makes a moral judgment "valid" if we have absolutely no idea whether the person we're judging is actually free or not?

We *do* have an idea. You’re just pretending you don't by claiming ignorance, but your behavior tells a different story. The fact that you’re even engaging in this debate shows you aren't being consistent with your own stance. Sorry, but this whole "ultra-skeptic" persona feels pretty weak to me. 🤣

We don't know because we've admitted ourselves that we have no clue—it's a mystery.

We haven't admitted that... you have. We were talking about mysteries involving natural phenomena, like the curvature of spacetime or quantum entanglement. Nobody ever suggested that our ability to understand human behavior is somehow fundamentally broken. Whatever our limitations are, human behavior operates within them—which means it should be just as understandable within those same bounds.

If these kinds of questions don't bother you...

Just because a problem is phrased as a question with a question mark at the end doesn't make it a coherent one. I only lose sleep over questions that actually make sense... I'll leave these nonsensical ones to the people who enjoy chasing ghosts. 😍

You’re falling into the exact same trap Noam Chomsky did when he responded to that one student.

From that particular vantage point, even he—Apemant—is merely acting out his inherent nature, unable to do anything else. The concept of 'absurdity' doesn't actually alter the reality of the situation as it stands.

It is somewhat 'pathetic' that Noam Chomsky seems oblivious to the implications of his own words, whereas 'some random anonymous student' certainly isn't. But then again, those are just their respective limitations... he is simply incapable of grasping (or perhaps accepting) them, while she is incapable of pretending she doesn't see the implications (which, frankly, doesn't make her happy either)... his specific constraints regarding this matter are just slightly more 'stuffy' than hers...

lonegardener said:How can you be so sure? 🤷 If anything, Chomsky is actually pointing out the inherent limits of our understanding regarding how human decision-making works. I basically agree with him; it just feels like he’s taken a somewhat "comfortable" stance on the matter.

No, look—if decisions are made subconsciously, even when we think they're conscious, then it’s entirely possible that those "conscious" value systems of yours are also being formed subconsciously. 😬 If that's the case, what’s left of "free will"? Practically nothing. Value systems essentially assemble themselves as a function of the memes we encounter (combined with our prior state, which depends on genetic predisposition and previous exposure to various memes), and "decisions" are later made subconsciously based on those automatically formed values. We're about as "free" as a standard-issue robot, honestly. 😍 Luckily, I can't be "certain" about what I just wrote, precisely because of what Chomsky argues: the realization of the limitations of our own understanding of anything—starting with supposedly "simple" concepts like "matter," "contact," or "interaction."

I don't see it that way. 🤣 Which points did I actually raise? Chomsky's point is pretty clear; it's just that his answer to that student's question didn't satisfy me, much like Sam Harris's philosophy doesn't satisfy me. That said, about 90% of what he said in the lecture really resonated with me. In fact, I'd say his way of thinking is closer to mine than yours.😬

It would seem that Chomsky failed to grasp the question and remains entirely unaware of the point you are making. Or perhaps he possesses an intuitive resistance to such a mode of thought, which is further evidenced by his comments regarding the futility of any discussion or argumentation, should one start from that particular assumption. Of course, viewed through that lens, every discussion truly is "meaningless," and according to that logic, he was merely being derisive, much like the rest of the crowd in the lecture hall. However, that mockery is merely proof of a "defense mechanism" that activates within a human when contemplating such matters; it certainly does not serve to invalidate your hypothesis.

That "response" was incredibly feeble. It was on the level of a cheap joke, one that, I must begrudgingly admit, caused a few of us to chuckle...

An analogy simply fails to function if it relies on loaded premises or demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the very subjects it seeks to compare.

In that light, your so-called "analogy"—assuming one can even grant it such a title—is catastrophically inept, a point that I believe even Druid has already pointed out to you...

Paul Richardson12 said:Honestly, hatred is an emotion that just doesn't have a seat at my table... People who are capable of committing all sorts of atrocities... they've earned our sympathy... our pity and our prayers... because, like you pointed out, the real question is what kind of lives they actually led. Who are we to sit up there and play judge and jury? What's missing in the world today—really, truly missing—is empathy and basic understanding. If we all just made that our starting point whenever we entered a new relationship or interaction, I honestly think the world would be a much more harmonious place to live in.

I’m afraid you’ve completely missed the core of what I was actually asking you... based on your earlier comments, it is patently obvious that you do indeed categorize people, and that your "love" isn't distributed equally among everyone—even if you prefer to claim otherwise, presumably because it sounds much more virtuous when stated aloud...