* New Discourses, James Lindsay, Michael Rectenwald, Attack the System, Keith Preston
* 16 Dec: EoP Re ND-JL: No, the Woke Won’t Debate You. Here’s Why
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: EoP v Alt Right / EoP NWO SCO: EoP NTE GM: EoP NTE GMA| EoP Axis MilNec Evac: Lotto: EoP v WiP Law, EoP v WiP Academia, EoP v WiP Media, EoP v WiP Charity, EoP v WiP Peacenik / EoP v WiP Neg.
From: EoP MILED Clerk [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 4:09 PM
To: ‘James Lindsay’
Cc: ‘Michael Rectenwald’; ‘Michael Rectenwald’; ‘Attack the System: Keith Preston’
Subject: Edit RE: EoP Re ND-JL: No, the Woke Won’t Debate You. Here’s Why.
Re: New Discourses: No, the Woke Won’t Debate You. Here’s Why.
I’ve got to run and do some errands and perused your article and it looks rather long. So I shall read it later when I am done errands.
I imagine your reference to ‘woke’ is to WiP law [eop-v-wip-law] ‘woke’.
A transcript of EoP law woke correspondence to unconscious or conscious WiP Law Woke critic Michael Rectenwald [12 Oct: EoP Re: MRectenwald: Peacenik Trump wants to end endless wars; 21 Oct: MR Re EoP Re: MR: Peacenik Trump wants to end endless wars; 21 Oct: EoP Re MR Q: What is your ecological carrying capacity definition?; 23 Oct: EoP Wokeness viz a viz MR Nietzsche Geneology of Morals quote; 23 Oct: MR Re EoP Wokeness viz a viz MR Nietzsche Geneology of Morals quote; 23 Oct: EoP Re MR Re EoP Wokeness viz a viz MR Nietzsche Geneology of Morals quote]
Ego literate cooperative truthseeking discussion is about finding out whether there is evidence that proves any of your working hypothesis conclusions to be in error, and if so correcting such conclusions. Ego literate discussion is knowing what you know and knowing what you don’t know and to avoid pretending to be an expert on shit you don’t know about. It is about defining your terms, particularly abstract concepts; and making sure you actively listen to another, to avoid misunderstandings or accidental misinterpretations.
The concept of debate appears – for many – to be almost a fundamentalist existential identity attachment (a) fear of admitting what you don’t know and are village idiot stupid about; and hence pretending to be an expert on everyting; (b) that your opinion on any known or unknown existential identity issue – whether you are an expert on it, or have done fuck all research about it – is scientifically right.
Navajo Proverb: You can’t wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. [Practical Philosophy: Quote of the Day]
Brad Blanton: That’s what you do when you grow up; you start having enough courage to tell the truth. What is bad about not being honest? You are wrapped up in your own mind. You are trapped in your own mind. You can’t do anything but think about what it is that you havent told somebody and how you are deceiving them. You keep thinking now who did I tell what. You can’t keep track of all the ways in which you modified what you reported to other people and so you end up thinking, what did I say, what am I going to do, what am I trying to get them to do for me, what am I trying to do to manipulate them. You are all wrapped up in trying to get people conned into doing what you want, and when you are wrapped up in that you don’t actually enjoy it when you get what you want, cause you know you just conned them into it. So a way in which you really enjoy getting what you want, is that you ask for it, and they say ‘yeah go ahead you can have it’, then you can enjoy it and be really happy, but if you conned your way into it you can’t enjoy it and be happy. So the idea is being able to be happy and be related to people and not be guarded and careful and protected and afraid of being found out. That’s a lousy way to live. Its a better way to live out loud, let the chips fall where they may, have a few hard times now and then but they get cleaned up when everyone tells the truth. … At about 12 or 13 we start playing a game of pretending that we are not pretending, when we are. We do that in order to play a kind of secret hero role to ourselves and try to get everyone to acknowledge us as being heroic and so we are going to pretend to be whatever we think will help us to get them to give us what we want. So when you learn to pretend that you are not pretending, when you are, thats a big problem, its called the major problem of adulthood, of our whole civilization. .. They lie to get what they want and when they get what they want by lying, they can’t enjoy it. Why don’t they just ask for what they want? Because they are afraid they might not get it. So they build a story to be able to manipulate others to get what they want. – Radical Honesty: The Importance of Telling the Radical Truth. SHO: Brad Blanton: And Nothing But the Truth; Radical Honesty: 01:02:03 [EoP RH FR: Caveat]
» EoP Leg Sub: 09 Apr: EoP Re: Russel Brand 12 Addiction Steps, Social Anxiety and Trust; 21 Apr: EoP Re: Arif Putin to Pena-Taliban: Simple Question: What do you want?; 23 Jul: EoP Law Q: Re SunTzu Risks of endorsing NAAGA BLM Green Army
Ray Dalio: The greatest tragedy of mankind — or one of them — is that people needlessly hold wrong opinions in their minds. All opinions are not equal. Peter Blanken: I have been in a few situations recently where people I respect and love have given me their opinion on certain matters. I have also had the dubious pleasure of listening to less-than-credible “specialists” mouth-fart about subjects they in actually did not know a lot about. ….. The greatest tragedy of mankind — or one of them — is that people needlessly hold wrong opinions in their minds. All opinions are not equal. And it is not the person we love or respect who necessarily has an opinion which really counts, at least not if they lack believability. Ray Dalio defines believability as follows: “Believable people as those who have repeatedly and successfully accomplished the thing in question — who have a strong track record with at least three successes — and have great explanations of their approach when probed”. From this he extracts another very valuable thought which many people who argue for the sake of arguing would do better to consider: “If both parties are peers, it’s appropriate to argue. But if one person is clearly more knowledgable than the other, it is preferable for the less knowledgeable person to approach the more knowledgable one as a student and for the more knowledgable one to act as a teacher”. Now, in Bridgewater’s organization they have figured this out to the most granular level, because they actually assign a believability score to each participant in a discussion, in real time. This means that when the organisation needs to make important investment decisions, they will take each person’s input and put that through the filter. This may lead to a decision being voted for by a majority, but actually rejected, because the believability score of that majority was lower than the assigned knowledge, experience or background of the minority. That’s pretty powerful stuff. ………. When two people believe opposing things, chances are that one of them is wrong. It pays to find out if that someone is you. …. holding wrong opinions in one’s head and making bad decisions based on them instead of having thoughtful disagreements is one of the greatest tragedies of mankind. ….. That quote is from Ray Dalio, the founder and Grand Poobah at Bridgewater Associates, the largest hedge fund in the world and a successful billionaire entrepreneur. Dalio likes to develop the idea of thoughtful disagreement, in which the goal is not to convince the opposite party that you are right, but simply to find out which view is true and then what to do about it. Both parties must be motivated by a genuine fear of missing important perspectives. In such a situation it is about exploring the truth and not simply arguing. Or “winning” the argument. In reality, the winners of an argument, if there is such a thing, are those who leave the discussion having learned something. Whereas the losers are those who stubbornly cling to their thoughts, beliefs and reasoning without having given any consideration to the others’ point of view. What is interesting is that, being from a multi-cultural European background, I very frequently see how this plays out depending on the origins of the parties involved. Often, discussions get more heated with people from the south of Europe, considered more “hot-blooded”, than people from the North, more “cold-blooded”. The next time you find yourself in a discussion seemingly not leading towards agreement or resolution, consider this notion of thoughtful disagreement. Try to stand apart from the discussion. Hold you tongue and go through these 3 steps: * Listen with intent, meaning that you seek to understand the other person’s viewpoint first and foremost. * Take into consideration how believable the other person is. Find points of agreement and build on those. Determine points of disagreement and focus on clarifying them. * Stay open to the notion that if the 2 ideas are opposing, and one of them could be wrong, there is actually a possibility the person having it wrong is you. You might also consider sharing this methodology with the ”opposing” party and see if that improves the quality of the exchange. The goal should not be to bludgeon the other into accepting your views, but to leave the disagreement smarter that when you started and that this leads to improved decision making and a harmonious conclusion. [CNBC: Ray Dalio says ‘greatest tragedy of mankind’ is people clinging to wrong opinions; The Startup: How to have better discussions — the art of thoughtful disagreement; How to make better decisions: consider Believability]
» EoP Leg Sub: 06 Aug: LJ v LS CEO Req for Invest Info: Peter Blanken & Michael Burry; 23 Feb: EoP Objective Honesty Errors in JP Morgan Risky Business’ Climate Report.
Ray Dalio: Just to give you an example, this is an email from Jim Haskel who works for me ~~ Ray: you deserve a D for your performance today in the meeting. you did not prepare at all because there is no way you could have been that disorganized -~~ Isn’t that great? Thats great, because I need feedback like that, and if I did not make Jim’s criticism public to my employees, Bridgewater would not have an idea meritocracy. …… I believe that the biggest problem that humanity faces is an ego sensitivity to finding out whether one is right or wrong and identifying what one’s strengths and weaknesses are. … Constantly worry about what you are missing. Even if you acknowledge you are a ‘dumb shit’ and are following the principles and are designing around your weaknesses, understand that you might still be missing things. You will be better and be safer this way. Our greatest power is that we know that we don’t know and we are open to being wrong and learning. One rule of radical transparency is that Bridgewater employees refrain from saying behind a person’s back anything that they wouldn’t say to his face. … To me, if I don’t let everyone see everything with the tapes, its the equivalent of creating spin. In other words, why wouldn’t you let them see? If you are going to have an idea meritocracy, they should be able to see everything and ask questions. It raises interesting questions, gets them a sense of real reality. That also causes them to be bought in, cause there’s no spin. There is no talking behind anybody’s back. When you put things out in the open and everybody looks at it. You know bad things happen in the dark. … A lot of people just want sugarcoating. You have to be as accurate as possible. They have to be as accurate with you as possible. That you have to create a system that is not just an exchange of mutual feedback, but data collection. So if people are doing certain things, we can correlate if it is being done well or not. If people believe that there is a fair system, an idea meritocracy, where the evidence becomes clear that you are that kind of a person. As long as you have a system that people believe is fair, and is being accurate about someone being that kind of a person. That’s not true that everyone wants that, because not everybody wants to stand naked infront of everybody. So its a little bit like going ito a nudist camp for the first time. Its very awkward. Everybody’s looking around, but before you know it you are talking about interesting subjects and you don’t pay attention to being naked. If you can stand naked infront of other people and have them stand naked infront of you, you can have better relationships and be more productive. It is about getting over that emotional reaction [to being vulnerable]. Your logical self wants it, but your emotional self doesn’t. Its about getting your logical self and your emotional self together. … If you don’t have radical transparency; you are going to have a lot more problems. So by making everything transparent you are going to have less lying, you are going to have less problems. Everyone is going to understand better. Isn’t it better to be that way? – TED: Ray Dalio: How to build a company where the best ideas win; Bloomberg Markets & Finance: Ray Dalio on Bridgewater’s New Partnership; CNBC: Ray Dalio to take step back from Bridgewater: NYT; NYT: Ray Dalio: The Culture Principle; Business Insider: The Treasury And White House Ignored Billionaire Ray Dalio When He Warned Them About The Coming Credit Crisis Back In 2007.
EoP law woke culture advocates on behalf of implementation of EoP Scientific and Cultural law, via EoP UN Resolution.
EoP UN Resolution [lj-v-ls: PDF: pp.25-66/70] to implement Ecology of Peace Scientific and Cultural law as international law; has been submitted electronically or formally served to parties and courts in the following political and legal proceedings – as of date no respondent has exposed any scientific or cultural law error – [A] US Presidential Campaign: McVeigh 2020 [mcveigh2020: PDF: Encl: pp.27-68/275; pp.31-72/326]; [B] US Courts: Criminal No EP-20-U4: US v Patrick Crusius [us-v-pwc: PDF: pp.156-197/261]; [C] South Africa: George High Court: (i) H 225/19: LJ v Speaker George Municipality and Four Others [lj-v-sgmc: PDF: pp.17-54/56]; (ii) H 213/19 LJ v Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula: Min of Defence & Eight Others [lj-v-nmn: PDF: pp.11-76/83]; [D] South Africa: CCMA: Comm for Conciliation Mediation & Arbitration: 1063-20: LJ v Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Two Others [lj-v-trc: PDF: pp.30-71/137]; [E] UK Courts: (i) LJ v Speaker House of Commons and Ten Others [lj-v-shoc: PDF: pp.43-84/88]; (ii) UK Extradition Proceedings: US v Julian Assange [us-v-jpa: PDF: pp.59-100/143]; [F] New Zealand Courts: CRI-2019-009-2468: New Zealand v Brenton Tarrant [nz-v-bt PDF pp.156-197/261]; [G] Intnl Court of Justice: Treaty of Amity Proceedings: Iran v USA [ir-v-us: PDF: pp.59-100/143].
EoP – OKC TRC – Axis Alliance [31 Mar: EoP Upd: Sergey Lavrov: Re: EoP Axis Alliance negotiations] Honest Lives Matter [29 Jun: EoP Axis Alliance is an Honest Lives Matter culture] Negotiations correspondence is published at EoP Leg Sub [eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za]
EoP MILED Clerk [EoP Oath PDF]
16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark, George, 6529
Sent per electronic notice to:
James Lindsay (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Michael Rectenwald (email@example.com); Michael Rectenwald (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Attack the System: Keith Preston:
Attack the System: Keith Preston (email@example.com);