Yeah I was doing a little searching around yesterday for info. It seems that there are at least some others that notice similar changes as they get older and many seem to attribute it to having children. I don't know. I guess I just wonder if it's really completely normal and naturally occurring or if it could be the result of some external influence. Like a medication or dietary change or something like that. I've never been one to get overly excited, and that hasn't changed. There have been times where I had felt what I believed to be, probably a fairly mild, depression -but that was long ago. Generally, daily, I am a happy and content person. But it just seems my empathy type response is in hyperdrive most of the time. That's the one thing that seems to have changed. And the one emotion that feels somewhat over the top to me. And confuses me. Maybe I have control issues as I feel I've always tried to reign in and control my emotions. And I've always been pretty good at that. Maybe that's not necessarily the best way to be. To control your emotions. And I'm now feeling like I can't control this emotional response.

Well, really we ALL need to compromise. Nobody ever gets everything they want.

I've just started taking in the Green Party platform, so I'm still digesting and pondering and to be honest, I really like the idea and philosophy of most of it. I REALLY like the fact that it's NOT the democratic party. And to a small extent, I agree with you on your stance regarding experience that we were discussing elsewhere here, but I still have some reservations about that.

All in all, I kind of feel like I could become a real Green Party supporter - but at the same time - I'm not convinced that pushing too hard for the presidency right now is the right thing to do. Honestly, out of all of the candidates - Jill may very well be the best, even considering the fact that she doesn't have public office experience. But, does anyone really believe that she could potentially get enough votes to outright win and not wind up giving the election to Trump? I could easily vote for Jill, but it wouldn't matter - because I unfortunately live in a state that is more than likely going to go to Trump. But if we had what happened with Gore and Nader, and we hand it to Trump.... then we're stuck with Trump. I'd much rather have Clinton with her flaws and status quo than Trump. And I HATE saying that. I hate that things are as they are and everyone can't just vote for who they feel best represents them, without having to consider the bigger picture and vote for someone else just to prevent another. It's ridiculous. And it sucks. But unfortunately, I think that's still the case yet. And it probably will be the case until we get a third party that is pervasive enough throughout the lower government positions that a larger majority of the general population is familiar with them and willing to vote for them. I agree that the Green Party doesn't just show up every 4 years and they have been doing the work to build the base, but I also don't think they have quite a broad enough base YET, to try and truly win the presidency outright.

So, outside of the presidential election, I would gladly and happily support Green Party candidates at this time. I may even see if I can get involved in my local area, because that party and it's message is far more inspirational than the democratic party. And sure, I could potentially even vote for Jill in this election - but I'm certain she doesn't have a chance in hell in taking SC. So my vote wouldn't matter other than saying hey, somebody here voted for the Green Party.

And holy shit does that depress me. That I live in a state that is more than likely going to go for Trump. Fortunately on a more local level, I live in one of the better areas that isn't quite so steeped in the GOP and is a bit more diverse, but it's still SC. And it's still more than likely going to go for Trump. :(

Fair point, but I think I have to question anybody's ability to think critically if they claim to be a proponent of something that really seems quite ridiculous. It's not a comparison of Homeopathy vs racism and war. It's a question of judgement really.

And just because I may not be a fervent supporter of the green party or I question the whole platform because they may support something as ridiculous as homeopathy, does not mean that I am a fervent supporter of the other party candidates either. I'm not exactly thrilled or happy with any of them. And in reality, I would LOVE to be all excited and supportive of a third party and their candidate, like Jill. I'm just not quite there yet.

Is the green party truly pro-homeopathy? I mean, homeopathy is the practice of taking a sample and basically diluting it down ad infinitum and believing that it somehow retains some type of healing property... more or less. Isn't it?

To me, homeopathy always seemed to be harmless at best and dangerous at it's worst. Kind of like trying to pray away the disease instead of going to the dr. I think I would have a hard time backing a platform that supported or pushed homeopathy to any degree really. I generally don't like to make anything about a single issue, but unless I'm really mistaken about something here, supporting something like Homeopathy seems too irrational to me that it would make it difficult for me to overlook that.

I didn't get a chance to watch the videos just yet. But I'm interested in giving my current perspective on experience and hear your (and others) potentially differing opinion.

Generally, I feel I am all for 'political outsiders' to enter into politics. This would/should bring in fresh perspectives and new ideas and what not, not to mention that often, the longer someone is IN politics and 'playing the game' they probably more often than not, become more susceptible to corruption and various agendas that wind up being more about self preservation than truly doing your job for the people.

BUT.. I would say that when it comes to the US Presidency, I'm not sure that I feel it's correct/good/better/ok to put someone in that particular position that has never held any public office before at all. Not to say that it doesn't/hasn't happened. Reagan never held office prior to becoming elected right? I'm sure there are others. But my reasoning for this is, the US President, the Commander in Chief, is arguable the most prominent and powerful position on the planet. It seems to me, that the person elected to that position ought to already have some genuine experience in somewhat similar type roles, of serving the people, of steering and coordinating something rather large and unwieldy.

Sure, an intelligent person could easily step in and start learning my job tomorrow. And in some period of time, they could be reasonable decent and effective. But, there is no way for someone to quickly acquire my 20+ years of experience doing this job. Which means that regardless of their intelligence, for a long period of time I would most like be far more effective and efficient due to the long period of time I have been doing this work and all the little details I've learned over that time.

Now, maybe public office is a bit of a different animal. But I'm certain that there is a whole lot that goes on that many lay people like myself are not aware of. The details of truly 'getting things done'. How all that behind the scenes works.

I'm not saying that I don't think she COULD do it or she isn't intelligent enough to do it. And I really don't want to find out at all if Trump could do it. But I guess I just feel that it makes a lot of sense for someone vying for the Presidency, to have a certain amount of experience and knowledge about really what that position would be like. Damn near every other job listing has at least a desired if not required experience level. And the idea of anyone being able to run and be elected president is great and all, I just don't know if that's the right place to start - at the top. Seems a little bit like something that should be worked up to, at least to a certain extent.

Anyhow, that's kind of how I view it. Curious to hear other opinions.

Hey did you click the link to the response by Dan Savage to that green party response? Now, I'm not saying who is right or wrong here, I honestly don't know much about Dan Savage or the green party, but Dan's response seemed well reasoned too. Assuming that the numbers he threw out were legitimate, it does appear that the green party really needs to amp up their game in more states and many more local districts. Even if he was off a considerable amount, it seems the green party has well under a half a percent of total public offices available. That APPEARS to be pitifully small, as he put it. BUT - on the other hand, unless more of us seriously start considering 3rd parties in general - that will never change. And I don't think most of us DO consider 3rd parties because we get all caught up in that shitty catch 22 where we think we're throwing our vote away cause no 3rd party candidate can never win and of course they can't because we think that way.

Ideally, if we all simply voted for the one we most aligned with and not for the lesser of the 2 evils, we might be able to change that. But it's hard to imagine that happening. I'm just as much a part of the problem as everyone else I guess.

This - goobster is correct.

The whole GMO thing isn't about whether or not it's safe to eat. It's much more about shitty business practices by companies like Monsanto and the stranglehold they may develop on the seed/food market. I'm all for labeling, for the sake of knowing who you are giving your money to ultimately and what kinds of business practices you are supporting. But we really need to get everyone on the same page and stop mis-information about GMO being unsafe to consume.

Very true. I will take a look at these this evening. It is true though that she has never held public office before though if I'm not mistaken, which was really why I had initially disregarded her. I mean I'm all for getting more 'political outsiders' involved to a certain extent. But I don't know that putting someone in the presidential seat with zero public office experience of any sort really makes a lot of good sense.

You know, I never really knew anything about the green party but I was curious because when I take the isidewith.com questionarre, she somehow winds up at the top of my list. Right where Bernie used to be. But based on what ya'll are saying below, it doesn't seem I would really agree with her/her platforms policies. Makes me wonder a bit about isidewith.com now.. I thought that was fairly legit.

My biggest problem (not having really known very much about the green party platform) was that I didn't really consider her a big contender because I didn't think she really had any sufficient experience for the role. I never really bothered to look much up about her and the platform in general even after isidewith.com said she would be the best to represent my views.

I'd love to see other parties really get into the fray here, but based on what I'm learning now, I don't think the green party is really it. Not to derail you original topic, but I'm curious now - do any of you see any other parties out there that are not well known that could be considered centrist at all? A party that tries to maybe marry some of the better points of the two main parties into one? Is it possible to have smart and sensible social programs and government regulation alongside reasonable fiscal conservatism? It seems the two main parties would say that isn't possible. But I feel there are a lot of people out there like me that believe there ought to be a way to accomplish something like that.

Fame always seems to come with a certain amount of privacy expense. Whether that's youtube/internet fame, movies/television fame, political fame... etc.

But in my opinion, regardless of who you are and how famous you are - there are certainly still lines that SHOULDN'T be crossed. My opinion is that anyone showing up invited at anyone's house and unwelcomingly invading someone's personal and private space is in the wrong.

Well known or not, I think every person has the right to draw a line and delineate what they desire to be their publicly accessible self and their private self. Just because I put certain pieces of myself out there for others to see and scrutinize as they wish, does not mean I am obligated to put any other pieces of myself out there if I do not wish. Famous people don't 'owe' anything to any fan or critic. They are still a person, just like anyone else, and I think yes, they absolutely should expect a certain amount of privacy and respect regarding that. I personally don't get at all the obsessed fanatical fans that will go absolutely bat shit crazy to see or meet a well known individual. It boggles my mind. Sure, there are authors and musicians and even actors /actresses, etc., that I would love to meet and have a beer and a chat with because I think they seem to be an interesting person. But would I got to any sort of extreme length to get that opportunity or jump up and down and cry at the site of them? Absofuckinglutely not. That behaviour is just bizarre to me. Foreign to me. Showing up uninvited to a celebrity's house seems, extreme, to me. I wouldn't want someone doing that to me regardless of how famous I was. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation of privacy, regardless of your status. And I mean really.. wouldn't you think someone would have better things to do with their time than obsess over celebrities? This is an area I just don't understand about a large portion of my fellow humans.

But that's not, unfortunately, how many other people seem to see it. They feel it's their absolute right to know anything and everything they want about a person, simply because they are famous or well known. I disagree with that.

I see. Yes, I didn't like when I saw that Mother Theresa was the example they threw out as an extreme altruist. I don't hold her in very high regard for precisely what you mention.

I completely get what you're saying though for sure. I feel that I am a fairly altruistic person, but there is really no objective proof of that, which you could see, to prove that. Even in the case of, as stated in the article, a firefighter risking his life - in the face of true mortal danger - to save someone he doesn't even know, one could debate and say that is it true altruism, or is the person more interested in hero status?

Does true and absolute altruism need to be completely devoid of any benefit, or be a detriment, to the individual performing the act? When I have little money and I use it to take some family or friends out to dinner - is that altruistic of me? Or am I attempting to get something (love? returned favors?) in return? I would tell you that when I do something like that, I do not (at least consciously) want or expect anything in return. But, subconsciously, is it a desire and want to be a good person? Does wanting to be a good person negate any altruistic action as being altruistic? Could there really be true altruism then?

Alright, now that it seems that I've gone completely off the track of the original discussion on psychopathy vs altruism regarding empathy (which I don't think I've really addressed at all here), I'll just shush and see myself out. Haha.

But wait, maybe I do have more. Haha. Reading back through your statements, in the realm of psychology, is there ever definitive proof? I get that we often seem to have brain scans nowadays that seem to confirm, or maybe just correlate, different areas of the brain with different activities and emotions and what not. But isn't psychology at it's base the study of human behaviour? But then, you are arguing that the reason for the behaviour may not be empathy, because you don't have definitive proof. Hmm. Maybe I am trying to hard to make an argument for something that I really don't know enough about. And it's also not like I completely disagree with you either, which makes it more difficult. I guess the empathy aspect being put forth seems to make sense to me, but I would have to agree that without something more concrete as proof - it's hard to say and argue whether or not that's the true basis for these personality traits or not. Rather, it probably is far more complex than simple the ability to feel empathy or not.

Oh well. Nice chatting anyhow. :)

I am certainly not someone well versed in the area of psychology, as I have only a lay understanding of many if not most aspects of it. But when you say there is no proof of empathy being the source of altruism and the lack thereof being psychopathy, is that your interpretation, or more of a fact? I only ask to understand because, having not studied it really at all myself, psychopathy, in my mind, has always carried that basic definition- that it was someone who lacked empathy, amongst other indicators. At some point I do recall reading something about psychopaths that indicated that they were able to 'act' as if they had empathy in order to gain something, but that, in reality, they did not 'feel' empathy. I don't recall where I had read that as it was a long time ago so I have no idea if it was a reliable or factual source at this point.

I would agree that yes, in many cases, externally perceived altruistic behaviours may not in fact be altruistic for as you said they me be self-righteous or have some type of ulterior motive - which kind of seems to lend to how a psychopath may use 'acting' altruistic right?

This past week, after hearing the rumor of a possible new Tool album coming out, I've been listening to all the old Tool albums. So I gots nothing new to share this week. 😥

Well, for what it's worth, I don't know that you are as bad off as you think you might be. Most of the things I've commented on weren't exactly things I've really ever learned from my parents either. You learn a lot as you go. I'm pushing forty, and I'm still learning many MORE things about life. Take it easy and be well. Never stop learning. I think you'll be just fine.

Wow, that's a lot of questions there. I am curious how old you are and what led to you winding up an adult with out having learned at least a little about some of these things. I don't mean that in any way offensive, just a curiosity. And certainly, you need not explain anything you don't feel comfortable with.

Most of the questions you've asked have no single one or best answer answer. You could search online and find tons of different perspectives on how to deal with any one of your questions. I'll gladly through some of my two cents in on some of them for you though.

Making your bed? Meh, I don't think I've ever seen a good reason to do it other than it looks neat and tidy. I have read some information that says not making your bed and letting it breath and air out is actually better most of the time.

Showering, sound like you got that about right. Personally, I shower most days. At least a quick one. Cool or cold showers are better for your skin than hot (hot strips away your natural skin oils and forces you to have to moisturize more) and cold water is supposed to help your body create adipose fat, which is better for your health. Might need to do some research on that one, just something I recall reading about at some point.

Vacuuming and mopping the floor? That depends on a lot of things. I have two dogs that shed so much I don't understand how they aren't bald. So rightfully, I SHOULD vacuum every couple of days to keep up with all the hair. But often I don't do it nearly as often as I should. So it depends on your situation, but if you don't have pets and don't wear shoes in the house once a week or so on your most trafficked areas if probably plenty sufficient. Less often in less used areas.

Ironing... I rarely iron any of my clothes. I probably should iron some of my clothes more often, but I'm just really not that snazzy of a dresser. I'll starch and iron a shirt and pants if I'm going to something I think really warrants it, but generally day to day, I never iron. Just hang them quickly after drying like you.

Taxes... They can be tricky and difficult, but really fit many people they really aren't that bad. If you work and your employer takes out the right amount of taxes and you don't have many deductions, you can simply file the short 1040ez form at tax time. If the employer is taking out the right amount, and you make under a certain amount, you'll probably be just fine. But really this is something you'd probably want to research more yourself or talk to an accountant of you think you have an odd situation regarding taxes. Could turn into a complete nightmare if you screw those up for to long.

Well, time to board my flight. So that's all I got for now. Good luck.

Edit: flights being delayed a little and I just read back through this, sorry about all the typos. I'm on mobile.

Yep, that was it.

That's what I was figuring, that it was deleted or something. Yeah, I think changing the text there might help people see what's happening.

Yeah I thought Backdrops was nice when I first downloaded it, but quickly realized they didn't often have things I liked. Tapet has been pretty cool though. If you thumbs up, it doesn't change it again right away, it will just change at the next interval time. If you thumbs down, it immediately generates a new wallpaper and applies it. When you thumbs up, it learns the colors and layouts you like more and is supposed to result in better wallpapers for you.

Super clean. Can you do a screenshot of recent apps for that launcher?

Nice. Simple. Clean. Elegant. I like it.

I have never heard of him, very nice little poem. Appreciate you sharing this.

I don't know very much about IOS. They still don't offer/allow alternative launchers like android does right? Last thing I remember hearing was they started allowing alternative keyboards or something I think. I've always enjoyed apples design aesthetics and all that, and it generally seems they provide a very nice and smooth and stable UX, but I just could never bring myself to be a big fan really. Too restrictive and controlling for my taste. I Must Be Free! Captain! And I say that knowing full well that I have now placed pretty much all my eggs in Google's basket for the most part. BUT! I have choices and it's just so easy to switch things up when I feel like it.

I'm always changing things up, usually switching between a heavily customized Nova Launcher setup and a simple and straightforward Google Now Launcher setup. Right now, I'm on the simple GNL setup. I've been stuck on using Tapet for my wallpapers for a while now with the master mode switch set to on, so I have the thumbs up and thumbs down buttons to improve the automated wallpapers for my liking. And some folders to quickly get to my most used apps.

Thanks. That's an older one. I haven't been writing much lately. Thought it might be nice to share some of my older stuff and maybe work up some inspiration and motivation to write some new stuff.

I haven't read all (maybe not even a lot) of Sam Harris' books, but I have read some and I've watched him speak and debate on some videos. From what I have read and watched, I have rather enjoyed. Sam seems to be a thinker and often seems to play a bit of devil's advocate and sometimes throws out thought provoking hypothetical (<-- keyword) ideas to either get a point across or instigate thought and discussion. I have read, what I believe is, the only excerpt where he discusses the nuclear option and I don't quite follow how anyone reading the full context of it can gather from it that he is explicitly stating that what he, personally or otherwise, wants to truly use nuclear weapons in any way. He states clearly that he thinks it would be an awful and stupid thing or something to that effect if I recall correctly. But he proposes a hypothesis on how it might come to pass if radicalized terrorism is left unchecked and those radicalized terrorist were themselves able to obtain nuclear weaponry. So, I have not thoroughly researched all of his statements in all contexts, but based on what I have seen and read I feel it's a bit absurd to state that Sam Harris believes we should actually use nuclear weapons, in any sense or for any reason. He simply stated an argument of how he could see it happening. I think making arguments like that are far from absurd and quite contrarily required.

In manufacturing there is a common practice that I'm sure goes by many names. Where I used to work we called it PPA (Potential Problem Analysis). We would sit around a table and discuss, a project, a piece of equipment or whatever else you could imagine, and write down a list of potential problems we could come up with. We would come up with all kinds of things from things that were almost certainly going to happen to truly absurd things. We would also rate each of these on the severity and the probability. Based on those ratings we would pick the items that had either a high probability of happening or had a high severity rating or some combination of and come up with ways to prevent and/or mitigate these problems if they did arise.

Without someone thinking about a potential threat, such as terrorists getting nuclear weapons, and putting that idea out there, we wouldn't ever plan to be able to deal with it. What Sam did was put the idea forth, with the a thought about how it might be probable, and what MAY be a probable outcome. Again, what I had read did not seem to indicate he was advocating for it, just that he felt it may be a possibility. No? Or do you think I'm completely missing info or completely misreading what he has written/said?

Life, Work & Health

For all the pondering about motivation and making good choices with food and exercise and good habits I do, I sure as hell have been struggling to stay motivated and productive lately. Not eating the greatest. Not exercising as much as I should. Not sure what exactly is going on, but I've just been, off, the last couple of weeks. Not like depressed or sad. Just, off, a bit. Work has been fine, but kind of slow so I've been getting distracted easily. But because it's been kind of slow and I'm ahead of where I need to be right now, it's not really a big deal. Just kind of leaves you with a lingering sense of being a bit unproductive. But then, in this country, we're so overly obsessed with work and productivity - it's just ridiculous. So I try to just relax and enjoy more.

Entertainment

I've heard some hoopla recently about the second season of Mr. Robot starting up and it peaked my interest. So a few nights ago I began watching the first season. I'm enjoying it, it's a pretty cool and fun show so far. I do need to find a new book to read though. Get myself back away from playing on my phone before bed.

Self?

After getting struck with a little inspiration to write a letter/poem to my son for his birthday, I'm seeing that I must also practice what I preach a little more. If writing is something that I enjoy - for whatever the reason - I must be more disciplined to do it instead of waiting for inspiration to strike every few months... or years. The more I just do it on a regular basis, the more comfortable I will get with it and then the more likely I may actually produce more things that I may like to share with others at some point. I have some old poems that I had written years ago that surround a particularly emotional time that I've read back through. I always felt they captured the emotions that I was feeling then particularly well. I've shared one so far on here and may share some others. Here is to hoping that I can continue to write more that I feel worthy of sharing and that others may find some enjoyment in them as well.

Cheers

If by chance you may be passing through the upstate area of South Carolina, feel free to let me know and I will gladly buy you a brew at a real life pubski. :)

Be well.

Well I bought him a personalized leather journal and I hand wrote this out in it for him. When I gave it to him, he sat there and read the whole thing out loud to me. When he was done he said, wow, it looks like you put a lot of thought into this - I love it. I am so fortunate to have such a good and appreciative son. He only stumbled on a few words in the whole thing (my handwriting can be fairly atrocious too - haha). I asked him if he would like to have it on a poster to hang in his room and he said definitely. So I worked up a fully poster incorporating the image I shared earlier and showed it to him and he liked it, so I ordered a couple of prints. They should be showing up today.

I think this is the best thing you can do. Talk talk talk to your kids. And then talk some more. Share your perspectives with them. Share your life with them. And they'll all turn out just right.

This is awesome man. Great job with this. I'm a Modest Mouse fan and I really love the rendition you have here. Are you a musician for a living? Or something you just do for fun?

So, I'm leaning towards getting a customized leather journal/sketchbook cover that is refillable (there's tons of them on Etsy). Obviously this writing is far too long to be placed on a leather cover. I've taken this and made a yin yang symbol out of it... but I'm not sure what I could maybe have it printed on that could act as a standing insert into the journal. I'm digging around and looking for options and ideas - please do suggest something if you are aware of something that might work for me. I feel like printing it on standard paper, it wouldn't last very long - though I could have it printed again I suppose. Trying to come up with something that would make it fairly long lasting.

Here is a slightly shrunk down version of the image.