One Of The Most Beautiful, Touching and Meaningful Commercials I Have Seen In Years - Great Beer Too!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What is COBS?

Bob,

Consortium of Behavioral Scientists. This is an informal group of top behavioral scientists who helped get Obama elected both times. See this NYT article: Academic ‘Dream Team’ Helped Obama’s Effort.

Here's what they helped do: massive subconscious voter manipulation--voter targeting, profiling and segmenting on steroids.

But they actually come from here: Behavioral Economics Roundtable. At least they are mostly the same people.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

What is COBS?

Bob,

Consortium of Behavioral Scientists. This is an informal group of top behavioral scientists who helped get Obama elected both times. See this NYT article: Academic ‘Dream Team’ Helped Obama’s Effort.

Here's what they helped do: massive subconscious voter manipulation--voter targeting, profiling and segmenting on steroids.

But they actually come from here: Behavioral Economics Roundtable. At least they are mostly the same people.

Michael

It is a good thing I don't have a subconscious.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is a good thing I don't have a subconscious.

Bob,

You most definitely do.

The aware part of your brain in the prefrontal neocortex processes about 40 sensory inputs per second. The rest of your brain (i.e., the subconscious) processes about 20 million per second.

The behavioral scientists I mentioned seek to waddle and quack in the middle of that 20 million while bypassing the 40.

Michael

[moralist]

Greg,

I don't mean to insinuate one should not read Taleb or watch videos of him. He is extremely intelligent.

It's ok, Michael, I never inferred that you did. I can cope with the dichotomy of someone describing a valid principle, even if they don't live it. I'm much more interested in principle rather than personality.

But he is like the bad boy of the intellectual elite behind big government apologists. He pisses a lot of those people off, but they accept him and sing his praises. Let's say Cass Sunstein's monkey-shine phrase "paternal libertarianism" (with Thaler) is amateur compared to what Taleb does for smoke and mirrors.

Obviously he claims the government is screwed up. But his thing is to claim that systems (all systems) are more robust if they can withstand a certain amount of randomness and significant unexpected events (he calls them black swan events). Up to here, OK.

But now let's take this to the social realm. What social system can be better prepared for the unexpected than a strong central government? Taleb doesn't outright say that (to my knowledge), but he strongly implies it. He lets others come to this conclusion from all the hints he drops along the way. And he points enough fingers at this and that person, method, system, etc., (he loves to bash statistics stuff) that those in the middle have reasonable-sounding excuses for government failures while still bolstering the need for big government.

Put it this way. He's an advisor to the International Monetary Fund. That's enough to give anyone in our neck of the woods pause.

Maybe Taleb's version of antifragile is government employment!

But I encourage you to watch videos where he and Daniel Kahneman are on stage together. You will learn a lot.

Michael

Thanks for the recommendation. I certainly will.

Greg

[moralist]

Just watched the video and resonated the most with this statement:

"I'd rather be antifragile than intelligent."

Greg

[Peter]

Since seeing a video about Nazi propagandists in the 60’s and reading a book about subliminal suggestions in advertising in the 80’s I have been wary of all “feel good” ads even if they are a public announcement, not-for-profit thing. I am tired of seeing wounded warriors and tortured dogs - (Why do you beat me. . . will I be fed today?) Oh crap! I turn the channel. I would still donate to “Wounded Warriors” or Saint Judes. And I usually give the Salvation Army bell ringers five bucks. Charity I don’t mind but the commercials for it are stifling.

Bah! Humbug!

Sincerely, Ebenezer

[Selene]

Since seeing a video about Nazi propagandists in the 60’s and reading a book about subliminal suggestions in advertising in the 80’s I have been wary of all “feel good” ads even if they are a public announcement, not-for-profit thing. I am tired of seeing wounded warriors and tortured dogs - (Why do you beat me. . . will I be fed today?) Oh crap! I turn the channel. I would still donate to “Wounded Warriors” or Saint Judes. And I usually give the Salvation Army bell ringers five bucks. Charity I don’t mind but the commercials for it are stifling.

Bah! Humbug!

Sincerely, Ebenezer

So, on a scale of 0 to 100, [ALERT...a framing question is about to be asked], zero being absolute disagreement with the point and 100 being absolute agreement, where would you put your opinion on the following question:

I do support the concepts in this commercial...

answer ___

A...

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

I do support the concepts in this commercial...

answer ___

Sorry. I was reading and did not see the commercial, you wascally wabbit.

[Selene]

Adam wrote:

I do support the concepts in this commercial...

answer ___

Sorry. I was reading and did not see the commercial, you wascally wabbit.

And based on your answer, I am more confused than wascally...

[PDS]

Just watched the video and resonated the most with this statement:

"I'd rather be antifragile than intelligent."

Greg

"I'd rather be [ ] than intelligent".

Because I am fundamentally a compassionate and kind person, not prone to swinging at hanging curveballs left out over the heart of the plate, I am going to simply say that the internet is an endlessly fascinating place, that OL is one of my favorite corners of said internet, and that Greg is (ahem) a gift that keeps on giving for all of us. I can only hope this act of charity will be rewarded in an ill-defined afterlife of some sort.

In the meantime, and as a hedge against the possibility that there is no such thing as an eternal reward, I also hereby petition the site administrator, Mr. MSK, for several new dollar signs above my avatar as a reward for Herculian restraint displayed herein. Two new dollar signs would be sufficient.

[moralist]

"I'd rather be [antifragile] than intelligent".

It doesn't imply that a person can't be both. It's simply the proper priority of which one matters more. Intellectual parasites run the government, and you can see how well that's working out.

Nassim Taleb's statement was from his own experience. I agree with it because it is also mine, because antifragility is the property of stress making you stronger. One of its more practical applications is learning how to become financially antifragile to economic and political cycles. If you don't see any real value in that, then it's your own choice and you get what you deserve.

Greg

[PDS]

So do I get my extra dollar signs or not?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Because I am fundamentally a compassionate and kind person, not prone to swinging at hanging curveballs left out over the heart of the plate, I am going to simply say that the internet is an endlessly fascinating place, that OL is one of my favorite corners of said internet, and that Greg is (ahem) a gift that keeps on giving for all of us. I can only hope this act of charity will be rewarded in an ill-defined afterlife of some sort.

In the meantime, and as a hedge against the possibility that there is no such thing as an eternal reward, I also hereby petition the site administrator, Mr. MSK, for several new dollar signs above my avatar as a reward for Herculian restraint displayed herein. Two new dollar signs would be sufficient.

The dollar signs are only a signifier of the number of posts a person has made, automatically added by the software, not a reflection of anyone's assessment of merit. Their number inexorably obeys programming law. And six appears to be as many as anyone can get. A is A.

Ellen

Add: Gulch8 has 661 posts currently and only 5 dollar signs; Ed Hudgins has 708 and has 6 dollar signs.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think Ellen is right.

I never even noticed the dollar signs until this thread. I vaguely recall Kat putting the dollar sign in some field of other.

This is what is called gamification. Later, in the next major transformation of OL, I might include these elements (badges, levels, brownie points, etc.) in some parts, but, from what I have studied so far, they add to the social and addictive components of the forum experience, but detract from the intellectual or idea part.

That might be fun for some things, but not others.

Still studying and thinking...

Michael

[tmj]

c'mon you knew it was coming

".. badges?! we don't need no stinkin.."

but eh seriously, what's this about brownies? ;)

[moralist]

So do I get my extra dollar signs or not?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

There ya go.

[PDS]

Because I am fundamentally a compassionate and kind person, not prone to swinging at hanging curveballs left out over the heart of the plate, I am going to simply say that the internet is an endlessly fascinating place, that OL is one of my favorite corners of said internet, and that Greg is (ahem) a gift that keeps on giving for all of us. I can only hope this act of charity will be rewarded in an ill-defined afterlife of some sort.

In the meantime, and as a hedge against the possibility that there is no such thing as an eternal reward, I also hereby petition the site administrator, Mr. MSK, for several new dollar signs above my avatar as a reward for Herculian restraint displayed herein. Two new dollar signs would be sufficient.

The dollar signs are only a signifier of the number of posts a person has made, automatically added by the software, not a reflection of anyone's assessment of merit. Their number inexorably obeys programming law. And six appears to be as many as anyone can get. A is A.

Ellen

Add: Gulch8 has 661 posts currently and only 5 dollar signs; Ed Hudgins has 708 and has 6 dollar signs.

This is funny, and reminds me of something from my Glory Days as a youth.

When I was in law school, most of the people at the top of the class grade-wise seemed to be flaming statists, Trotskyites, and the like, and proud of it. The top law schools in the 80's were teeming with such people (they called themselves "critters"), most of whom eventually sold their souls to go work for mega-firms in order to maximize their disposable income.

In my third year, I submitted an editorial for the law school newspaper that argued for the redistribution of grades based on the premise of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I argued that those with poor grades would be most beneficially affected by taking from the already too-rich people with super high GPAs, etc., etc.,using as many marxist maxims with faux sincerity as possible. I proposed a committee of "student leaders" to engage in the noble task of redistribution--nominating myself for the committee, of course. I am sure I threw in some Ayn Rand at the end, just to crank the noses of students and professors alike. Short of pure redistribution, I argued that the leftists among the student population should quit interviewing at corporate firms so that some of the "less fortunate" middle-of-the-clas types could have those interviews. Back then, an interview with a firm at a top school almost ensured the student a job, especially in the third year, absent severe social retardation. The editorial was rather clever, both then, and even now, in hindsight.

Needless to say, the hyper-liberal weenies who ran our law school paper did not publish my clarion call to action (nor was I aware of Trotskyite tripping to this notion on his or her own).

I wish I still had kept a copy of the screed....

[Francisco Ferrer]

The commercial reminded me of Murderball, a documentary about paraplegics who play full contact rugby in wheelchairs. I've never seen a more powerful hymn to the human spirit in the face of adversity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kaT5dDiISw

[moralist]

The commercial reminded me of Murderball, a documentary about paraplegics who play full contact rugby in wheelchairs. I've never seen a more powerful hymn to the human spirit in the face of adversity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kaT5dDiISw

...and proof that happiness is a choice.

Greg

[PDS]

The commercial reminded me of Murderball, a documentary about paraplegics who play full contact rugby in wheelchairs. I've never seen a more powerful hymn to the human spirit in the face of adversity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kaT5dDiISw

Pretty darned cool, FF.

[Jonathan]

I'm reminded of Lizzie Velásquez, whose story I've seen now and again online. What motivates certain people to be angry when they see her, and to bully her and suggest that she kill herself?

It's like, "Not only can I not empathize with what her life must be like, but there's something in me which makes me very excited about the idea of adding to her burden."

Jonathan,

I'm going to probably piss some people off real bad, but facts are facts.

There is a predatory component to this. It's innate in being a carnivore mammal. Some call it the law of the jungle.

(Humans are carnivores by nature and only become vegetarians by choice, but even so, much of the innate baggage of being a carnivore never goes away.)

The best way to get a wild animal to attack you is show a sign of weakness--real weakness. The jungle kills off the weak and that's just the way it is. If you are knocked down in the jungle and can't get back up, you can eventually expect to be dinner for some animal or other.

This isn't a hard and fast rule, but it is certainly valid more often than not. The most vicious attacks by lynch mobs are made not during the takedown of the victim, but after the fall.

They teach this in MLM marketing (and other direct sales training). The purpose is to encourage sellers to adopt a stance of certainty and strength, not weakness, when before a prospect (and in any negotiation) to avoid this automatic innate kill/contempt urge.

So I believe people who are disgusted and hostile by signs of Shaya-like kindness are actually not just taking a principle (like not wanting to "fake reality") to a contextless Platonic ideal, but, also, as part of the mix, they are allowing their emotions to react according to the lowest form of animal consciousness possible--the jungle level.

Rather than being premised on rationality as they tell themselves, a major part of their emotional drive is pure subhuman instinct.

This is not the whole story, but definitely part of it.

Michael

Thanks. I hadn't considered the possibility of evolutionary explanations. The carnivore thing makes sense.

And there's also similar behavior among herbivores. Certain males have the attitude of moving upward in rank in their herd, and therefore they challenge the strongest stud for mating rights, but other males lack that gumption, and instead focus their attention on attacking the weak within the herd. Perhaps it's a way of attempting to craft an illusion of a degree of toughness -- just enough toughness to signal to superiors that you're enough of a badass that they should leave you alone, but that you're not enough of a badass that they should worry about your attacking up-rank?

J

[Jonathan]

This is a separate issue, so I'm making a separate post about it. I have observed that a lot of people get attracted to Objectivism because they were hurt growing up for their competence. Their sense of fairness had been violated over and over by people who tried to shame them into giving a spot they earned the hard way by doing their best to a weaker person just because said person was weaker. Shame was heavily involved as a manipulation, but it seemed like their feelings of pride and fairness were always the target.

I think that's probably a big part of it, but the problem is that these people also express anger at handicapped people who are not looking for pity or the unearned, but who are being celebrated for having earned their way, or for exuding the attitude of confidence in the face of adversity. These haters are the type who used to take pride, on the old SOLOYahoo group, for example, in expressing rage at Marc Quinn's sculpture of Alison Lapper, and in calling her all sorts of vulgar names, but then being unable to explain why they don't take the same condemnatory attitude toward The Miracle Worker and Helen Keller. The interesting thing to me here is that they apparently idolize Rand enough that she was able override their grunting, evolutionary instinct to attack those with birth defects in specific, individual cases. So, is that also an evolutionary instinct? When the queen elephant says "I like that blind/deaf/mute baby elephant," they obey the implied order that she is to be left alone?

J

[Jonathan]

Fear at seeing something so terribly handicapped, the feeling it might be you, so trying to get it out of the way?

Yes, I suppose that's probably a big part of it. And that makes the handicapped person even more heroic, comparatively speaking. The snarky assholes' behavior is an admission that, deep down, they know that they could not handle what the target of their scorn is handling, and often handling it with grace.

I remember when I was a child, there was a crippled and deformed boy, from spina bifida, who lived next door, and some of the neighborhood kids would jeer at him and even throw things at him.

Here's a link to a book called Don't Feel Sorry for Paul. Working on that was a special experience in my years of editing - the department head and I wrote the text from the photographer's notes. One of the aspects discussed about Paul's school life is how some of his classmates would jeer at him, calling him "Captain Hook," and other nastinesses.

Thanks for the link.

Think of the song "Rudolph, the Red-nosed Reindeer." I've thought since I was a kid that it's an awful story. The other reindeer jeer at Rudolph because he looks strange, and they won't let him play in their games.

It's even worse in the animated television special from 1964. Comet, the adult reindeer who is coaching the reindeer games, is a total dickweed, and actually instructs the young reindeer not to have anything to do with Rudolph. Rudolph's parents don't stand up for him -- they don't go and kick Comet's ass. And, if I remember correctly, even Santa is an asshole who just goes along with Comet's program of hate.

Then, after Santa enlists Rudolph to light the sleigh's way on a foggy night, the other reindeer love Rudolph and accord him celebrity status. Ick, in both the before and after cases.

Maybe I should animate an alternate ending, where instead of forgiving and forgetting and agreeing to pull Santa's sleigh, Rudolph, Hermey and the Misfit Toys go all Howard Roark/Django on Christmastown and its inhabitants.

J

[tmj]

J

I like your ending better, who wants to be king of the dickweeds?

[Jonathan]

"Rudolph. His nose is red. Red with the blood of the dickweeds of Christmastown...Coming soon to a theater near you."