Thoughts after a TedX talk – How to use the scientific method for better conversations | Riley Lenihan | TEDxURI
If you know someone for 5 days, 5 years, 20 years, 50 years – will you be able to know when they lie? Is it possible to ideally factor in all variables? World Events, Oppression – some good reasons to lie, some good reasons to be disavowed (looking for a different word here that I can’t remember right now) – ah aloof – depending on world events F sell someone out might have greater value.
World Events and Oppression will be known is not all true value added. Could be better or worse than one thinks people know there is propaganda and relevance limiting in the mix. Thoughts of Lord of War Movie and scene talking about how all relationships end up in lies – the combination might be more truth than stating otherwise and the truth stated is somewhat hurtful?
I like that the talk stated the importance of communication channels over winning debates. One may win, one may limit one’s capacity to win in the future by winning today – battle vs the war. I also like the talk stated we lose the truth in trying to win – we relevance limit, we don’t have to acknowledge we don’t have all variables – yet someone wins someone loses and that is not what people are generally going for in the first place.
I don’t like the talk stated the level of importance of keeping an open mind. I like out of the box thinking, I also think there are dangerous ideas in this world. Imagine a system tries to open your mind to seeing human rights abuses as useful, not dangerous to listen to the ideas? Might not be an everyday case, yet building the same patterns in the way you communicate might lead to less than full appreciation in hard times, times where it is hard to see right from wrong. We build patterns yet we might miss the evil in by design in the details.
I don’t like that the talk said the truth isn’t found in isolation – it might be a free pass to think groups, band wagon appeal will lead to more ideal truth. You visit an art museum alone, or you visit an art museum with a group of Art History PhDs? No reason to capitalize on meaning in a group setting? I think both would be useful, yet truth of interpretation might be better in silence, or the silence of reading a book. Not to be confused with truth is a great drinking partner. F is A value, F is devalue – claim to ideal the two?
It is important to establish the right type of trust in communication channels, setting up potential for false reliance is possible – and that has the potential to be detrimental to all parties. People gravitate towards interesting and charming, interesting and charming seen as will ideal truth seems unwise. Expectation of have to ideal truth might be dangerous depending upon the times.
The words but why, might lead to greater comprehension of oppression at play – I don’t want others oppressed F I will always know when they are. Is the question useful to them, ideal Golden Rule for them? Is leaving oppression as unknown ideal Golden Rule, ideal capacity to make ideal decisions? Counter argument there is no great depression the world isn’t in WW2? We are past that doesn’t always resonate – an open mind might not always be value added.
I want to be the person that says Have A, not the person that delivered you up to the authority as F met, as F set. I want to deliver on the Golden Rule and accents are interesting? 10-ed no problem in that? I might have to throw rocks at you like a little kitten just to save you, I don’t like the world acts that way. Ift know as A 7? Can’t blame people for trying.
AI art on the background of my laptop had nothing to do with my post today – Counter argument
10-ed I wouldn’t row two it?
F is A Go wild?
My Tech Blog 