I just watched your season of Apprentice and while I'm well aware that (as Clint noted in the finale) it is a edited show so I don't *really* know what went on, I wanted to let you know that, what little I knew of Joan before watching the show was positive, but now she seems utterly horrendous.
I'm no fan of poker players (despite having been one when I needed to be), but I don't think that poker players are actually much worse than anybody else working within the world economic system today. With poker players it's just more out in the open... though a whole lot less in the open than The Apprentice show.
My point is that while the game itself is blatantly designed to bring out everybody's evil, it certainly (in the parts that were shown) brought out much more evil from Joan than from you.
For that reason, I'm sorry that you suffered "losing" even if - from a God's eye perspective - there isn't any actual honor in "winning".
P.S. I typed your name into google to write you this (undoubtedly unnecessary belated) encouragement and was surprised to find that we are on the same platform. I would appreciate if you would check it out. Either way, be well, and know that you came out of that show looking much better than when you went in, while your antagonist came out looking much worse than when she went in.
In presumptive reasoning (as I mean it), the question is not what side of an argument is true but what side deserves the burden of proof. The conclusion of presumptive reasoning serves in a situation where you might not ever find out which side is true. Hopefully you are open to finding out, but either way, you will act as if one side is true, and the other(s) false.
I suspect that doubt is less of a response to ignorance per se and more of a response to dissatisfaction with the conditions driving presumptive reasoning in a particular instance (for example,when the costs of being wrong are high or when the payoff of remaining ignorant is undesirably low). I suspect that it is not the fear of ignorance that bothers people in general, but rather the consequences of acting on ignorance.
"So what if I am wrong about this?" is a common question whose answer effects intellectual integrity and interpersonal honesty. Whenever your ignorance doesn't personally matter, doubt is less of a problem for you. For example, you might suck at poker but if you are only there to hang out and have money to burn, you don't care.
Less paranoia implies less doubt implies less concern but not necessarily more certainty. The chronically doubtful are not less certain but they are more concerned. However, the fashionably uncertain don't appear to me to be either genuinely doubtful or genuinely concerned. You know, the Bayesians.
Conceptualizing personal (relevant) consequences can be a problem for people, as is evident in the case of vices, near-term payoffs with long-term costs, and any situation in which interpersonal honesty only protects others and not you. Without those conceptualizations, doubt is less of an issue even if one's own forgetfulness or lack of imagination is personally obvious. You *could* feel uncertain but you won't. Convenient and common when your attention is elsewhere.
Forming the questions that "change our ways" is valuable, even though they are sometimes only mobilizing our existing knowledge in the moment.
You only briefly touch on control which is a key variable in our relationship with uncertainty. And accepting what we cannot control some things and letting go of that illusion avoids a lot of heartache. This is different than "you cannot know" which you talk about at length in your discussion. My point is about things that can theoretically happen but over which you have no control. Like say whether a lump will appear on your neck tomorrow. That's uncontrollable uncertainty. Different vs whether you should have meal X and Y which is controllable. The latter is also an inconsequential choice so fretting over it makes limited sense but the point is that it is controllable.
I found the best way to deal with uncertainty is to fall in love with the idea of uncertainty.
When I stopped resisting change, uncertain times, and started accepting them, I found uncertainty had less power over me.
We become stronger and less fragile when we’re exposed to volatility and randomness.
Hey Annie, how are you?
I just watched your season of Apprentice and while I'm well aware that (as Clint noted in the finale) it is a edited show so I don't *really* know what went on, I wanted to let you know that, what little I knew of Joan before watching the show was positive, but now she seems utterly horrendous.
I'm no fan of poker players (despite having been one when I needed to be), but I don't think that poker players are actually much worse than anybody else working within the world economic system today. With poker players it's just more out in the open... though a whole lot less in the open than The Apprentice show.
My point is that while the game itself is blatantly designed to bring out everybody's evil, it certainly (in the parts that were shown) brought out much more evil from Joan than from you.
For that reason, I'm sorry that you suffered "losing" even if - from a God's eye perspective - there isn't any actual honor in "winning".
P.S. I typed your name into google to write you this (undoubtedly unnecessary belated) encouragement and was surprised to find that we are on the same platform. I would appreciate if you would check it out. Either way, be well, and know that you came out of that show looking much better than when you went in, while your antagonist came out looking much worse than when she went in.
Which I think shows who REALLY won.
Underrated skill indeed , thanks for reminder Annie!
Hm, a question map, cool.
In presumptive reasoning (as I mean it), the question is not what side of an argument is true but what side deserves the burden of proof. The conclusion of presumptive reasoning serves in a situation where you might not ever find out which side is true. Hopefully you are open to finding out, but either way, you will act as if one side is true, and the other(s) false.
I suspect that doubt is less of a response to ignorance per se and more of a response to dissatisfaction with the conditions driving presumptive reasoning in a particular instance (for example,when the costs of being wrong are high or when the payoff of remaining ignorant is undesirably low). I suspect that it is not the fear of ignorance that bothers people in general, but rather the consequences of acting on ignorance.
"So what if I am wrong about this?" is a common question whose answer effects intellectual integrity and interpersonal honesty. Whenever your ignorance doesn't personally matter, doubt is less of a problem for you. For example, you might suck at poker but if you are only there to hang out and have money to burn, you don't care.
Less paranoia implies less doubt implies less concern but not necessarily more certainty. The chronically doubtful are not less certain but they are more concerned. However, the fashionably uncertain don't appear to me to be either genuinely doubtful or genuinely concerned. You know, the Bayesians.
Conceptualizing personal (relevant) consequences can be a problem for people, as is evident in the case of vices, near-term payoffs with long-term costs, and any situation in which interpersonal honesty only protects others and not you. Without those conceptualizations, doubt is less of an issue even if one's own forgetfulness or lack of imagination is personally obvious. You *could* feel uncertain but you won't. Convenient and common when your attention is elsewhere.
Forming the questions that "change our ways" is valuable, even though they are sometimes only mobilizing our existing knowledge in the moment.
You only briefly touch on control which is a key variable in our relationship with uncertainty. And accepting what we cannot control some things and letting go of that illusion avoids a lot of heartache. This is different than "you cannot know" which you talk about at length in your discussion. My point is about things that can theoretically happen but over which you have no control. Like say whether a lump will appear on your neck tomorrow. That's uncontrollable uncertainty. Different vs whether you should have meal X and Y which is controllable. The latter is also an inconsequential choice so fretting over it makes limited sense but the point is that it is controllable.
is there an audio or podcast of this?