How I did my experiment: I don’t talk at length well and not at all well spontaneously (not knowing what I’m going to say where I just start talking and let whatever comes out). So, I forced myself to give an answer for: “How to solve anything”. I had to do it for at least 10 mins. Once done, I had to fit my spontaneously / forced speaking tempo to a backing track at the correct BPM. Thankfully, I already knew my comfortable “fast speed” on piano is 270 bpm (arpeggios using triplets at 270 bpm, which works out to 810 bpm really). So, I did fractions of that. It worked at 270, 135 (1/2), 67.5 (1/4). But it REALLY stood out at 90 bpm, which is 270/3. 1/3. That makes sense to me as “triplets” (3 in 1) is what I normally like.

How I did my [read full article]


My thing is: these “I DARE YOU” operations don’t help forge a necessary trust of the police. Effective law enforcement needs community assistance. “See it, Say it”. They got a huge list of unsolved murders and they’re instead adding to mistrust of police. If a community doesn’t trust the police, who are they going to go to if there’s trouble? Not the cops – they’re just playing tricks. So, they turn to nobody. Or, they turn to someone with ACTUAL power in the community, which might be a powerful local gang, to do the police’s job for them. Gang warfare anyone? This “broken window theory” style of policing (be hard on jaywalkers so they don’t become murders), doesn’t work.

My thing is: these [read full article]


How do you change the world? You change the world by doing how. How n. ” A manner or method of doing something:” Manner n. “a way in which a thing is done or happens.” Method n. “a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one. So: a) If you are changing a method (that is established), first identify what is currently established. b) To do so, you could look for what is currently systemic. In short, you start by identifying the current “how”. c) Find what is wrong with systemically “not right”: the “how” that is wrong. d) Then, you change the “how”.

How do you change
[read full article]

His dominance hierarchy hitched onto evolutionary psychology and jungian archetypes (tainting campbell in the process too imo) as justifications, and I can’t abide JP. Systemic flaws are glaring, a primary one an identity as “Normal” that remains unspoken, leaving anyone else as the not normals. It’s an unhealthy system he proposes tied into basic motivational fluff.

His dominance hierarchy hitched [read full article]