Behaviour

State of mind

• Energized
• Tired
• Resigned
• Focused
• Accepting
• Frustrated
• Relaxed
• Accommodating
• Angry
• Confident
• Anxious

Differentiated perception [Jung]

Ideologically dystopian pseudo-world

A circadian cycle is your body’s built‑in 24‑hour rhythm that regulates when you feel awake, sleepy, hungry, alert, or ready to rest. Sleep inertia is the groggy, sluggish state you feel right after waking up, when your brain is not yet fully alert.

Psychologists have shown that most people prefer to make $70,000 when others around them are making $60,000 than to make $80,000 when others around them are making $90,000.

How to Disagree without Damaging Relationships

"That's an interesting point can I share another angle?"
Shows curiosity while inviting dialogue

"I agree with you on X - where we might differ is on y"
Starts with common ground to reduce defensiveness

"Let's test both ideas and see what works best"
Makes it about outcomes, not egos

"I understand your concern, but my experience has been different"
Grounds your view in personal insight 

"I hear what you're saying, but I have a different take on this"

We do this not because it is easy but because we thought it would be easy

Note to self: just because it pops into my head does not mean it should come out of my mouth

Warning you are about to exceed the limits of my medication

I m sorry facts and logic offend you

Addiction is giving up everything for one thing recovery is giving up one thing for everything

Consider two neighbors, John Doe A, a janitor who won the New Jersey lottery and moved to a wealthy neighborhood, compared to John Doe B, his next-door neighbor of more modest condition who has been drilling teeth eight hours a day over the past thirty-five years. Clearly one can say that, thanks to the dullness of his career, if John Doe B had to relive his life a few thousand times since graduation from dental school, the range of possible out-comes would be rather narrow (assuming he is properly insured). At the best, he would end up drilling the rich teeth of the New York Park Avenue residents, while the worst would show him drilling those of some semideserted town full of trailers in the Catskills. Furthermore, assuming he graduated from a very prestigious teeth-drilling school, the range of out-comes would be even more compressed. As to John Doe A, if he had to relive his life a million times, almost all of them would see him performing janitorial activities (and spending endless dollars on fruitless lottery tickets), and one in a million would see him winning the New Jersey lottery.

Courage

We seem to have evidence that what is called “courage” comes from an underestimation of the share of randomness in things rather than the more noble ability to stick one’s neck out for a given belief. In the scientific literature economic “risk takers” are rather the victims of delusions (leading to overoptimism and overconfidence with their underestimation of possible adverse outcomes). Their “risk taking” is frequently randomness foolishness.

Michael Crichton: “Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.) Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper.”

Predictable

Humans are most predictable in times of high stress—they act instinctively and panic

Short attention span

The attention span required by television, which is commonly blamed for the attention span phenomenon, isn’t short; it’s long, but very, very shallow. Switching stations doesn’t allay your impatience. Newspaper stories, with their catchy headlines, bulleted main points, and information-filled leads, are more likely to create a short attention span than is television. If you skim a newspaper for even fifteen minutes (unlike television, newspapers allow such random access), you can get the gist of dozens of stories. The same time devoted to watching the evening news or, worse, a TV newsmagazine, will expose you to only a few stories.

If you feel like you lost the creativity you had as a child, you’re not alone. According to a NASA study, 98% of children ages four and five scored in the creative genius range, but only 12% maintained this level a decade later. We lose this natural creativity because of the time we spend in structured environments like schools, where teachers reward us for finding a single correct answer rather than exploring many possibilities.

Controlled decision-making process.

Frequently, these delusions are intentional and deserve to bear the name “charlatanism.”

Altruism - Ayn Rand

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes." ¶ Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes. ¶ It is your mind that they want you to surrender—all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or of your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: "It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others"—end up by saying: "It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others." ¶ Now there is one word—a single word—which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand—the word: "Why?" Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it—and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given.

It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been called upon to justify it—or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. What most moralists—and few of their victims—realize is that reason and altruism are incompatible. ¶ Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is: No, the takers are not evil, provided they did not earn the value you gave them. It is not immoral for them to accept it, provided they are unable to produce it, unable to deserve it, unable to give you any value in return. It is not immoral for them to enjoy it, provided they do not obtain it by right.

Such is the secret core of your creed, the other half of your double standard: it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others—it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others—it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch—it is the parasites who are the moral justification for the existence of the producers, but the existence of the parasites is an end in itself—it is evil to profit by achievement, but good to profit by sacrifice—it is evil to create your own happiness, but good to enjoy it at the price of the blood of others.