On Jul 26, 2:21Â pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jul 25, 9:15 pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Jul 26, 8:06 am, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>> On Jul 25, 1:28 pm, "tooly"
bellsouth.net> wrote:>
>>>> "turtoni"
fastmail.net> wrote in message>
>
>>>>> "Professor Raj Persaud says that true self confidence comes from an
>>>>> attitude where you "promise yourself, no matter how difficult the
>>>>> problem life throws at you, that you will try as hard as you can to
>>>>> help yourself. You acknowledge that sometimes your efforts to help
>>>>> yourself may not result in success, as often being properly rewarded
>>>>> is not in your control."
>
>
>>>>> "The socio-psychological concept of self-confidence relates to self-
>>>>> assuredness in one's personal judgment, ability, power, etc.,
>>>>> sometimes manifested excessively.
>
>>>>> Compare:
>
>>>>> confidence (often equivalent to self-confidence)
>>>>> hubris (excessive self-confidence)
>>>>> self-esteem (conceit, or favourable opinion of oneself, or self-
>>>>> acceptance).
>
>>>>> Lack of self-confidence is called timidness or timidity. Being afraid
>>>>> of failure is a sign of this."
>
>>>> Self confidence is often a product of 'dullardness'...of NOT knowing the
>>>> odds.
>>>> Pete Rose, thusly, not swift enough to realize the dire circumstance coming
>>>> up to bat in the bottom of the ninth with bases loaded would be...would not
>>>> FEEL the GRAVITY of the situation [what I call the Pete Rose Syndrome...ha,
>>>> my own coined term].  So, he'd  hit away as if in batting practice...and
>>>> succeed most of the time.
>
>>>> A truely intelligent person would be sweating bullets realizing the gigantic
>>>> stakes at hand....like maybe playing to an inside straight on a million
>>>> dollar pot in Vegas or something.
>
>>>> Gravity is pressure upon the machine that ultimately makes it fail.
>
>>>> Self confidence, is therefore, the ability to lighten the 'gravity' to
>>>> situations whereupon, one can still function up to snuff. Â But REALITY IS
>>>> that gravity...and perhaps often much more. Â So, in a way, it is our
>>>> stupidity, our blindness, our arrogance that ultimately saves us. Â Or to
>>>> simply put a thing 'out of one's mind'...creating a blind spot of sorts.
>>>> Bravery, courage, confidence....sort of cousins of the same inner workings
>>>> pehaps....where blind spots are beneficial for reason of functionality.
>>>> Putting a leash on FEAR...like tying thread around a gator's neck and
>>>> calling it tamed, LOL.
>
>>> Me thinks both you people think in the extreme, maybe Aristotle could
>>> offer some advice here;
>
>>> Aristotle's Golden Mean: doctrine that right action lies in the middle
>>> position between the extremes of excess and deficit.
>
>>> "There are, then, three kinds of disposition- towards excess, towards
>>> deficiency and the virtuous mean. Each is, in a sense opposed to the
>>> others, as when the brave man seems rash to the coward, and cowardly
>>> to the rash man. But the mean is not necessarily the middle, for
>>> rashness is nearer to courage than is cowardice."
>
>>> "It is not easy to be good, as it is no easy task to find the middle.
>>> Even finding the middle of a circle takes skill."
>
>>> "Anyone can get angry, or be generous, but to do so to the right
>>> person, to the right extent, at the right time with the right motive
>>> in the right way is not easy. It is best to aim at the mean by
>>> avoiding the vice which most contrary to it, and guard against the
>>> vices to which we are more inclined. Especially, we must guard against
>>> pleasure, because pleasure cannot be judged impartially."
>
>> May have been appropriate back then, but there is a lot of
>> experiential water passed under the bridge since then. The difficulty
>> is in finding the middle ground. From there, life's a breeze. The
>> pleasure he was referring to back then was more of the 'indulgent
>> type' I would suggest, when decadence equalled high status.
>
>> BOfL
>
> Thats a hard one to understand. You mean excess means something else
> now? Can you explain that better?
Only if you try to understand better.:-)
Back then, to enjoy indulgent pleasure was a mark of status linked to
an accumulation of excess.To find the middle ground would have meant
giving up such status. To lose the position in the group. Difficult
indeed.
Today , the individual can find the middle ground on an individual
basis, without disturbing the status quo of his position the
community.
>
> Evolutionary Psychology strongly rejects the view of the human mind as
> tabula rasa, and avers instead that it is content rich and biased.
Indicating the evolution is not just a group process. For those that
look for argument, being argument for accumulated wisdom via the
reincarnation process.
>The
> human brain, and all of its psychological mechanisms, are adapted to
> the EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness) and are therefore
> biased in favor of viewing and responding to the world as if it were
> still the EEA. The psychological mechanisms we possess in our brain
> today are still the same psychological mechanisms that we possessed in
> the EEA, just as our hand and pancreas are still the same as they were
> 10 000 years ago.
So there is a psychological mechanism in the brain?
The 'meat' of the brain has not changed, just our accumulated ability
to harness it. Of course that doesnt make sense if you believe you are
your brain.
> It is not impossible to overcome this bias through
> conscious effort, but it is often difficult.
It is not supposed to be easy. The effort that comes about during the
'internal battle', is part of the awakening process. To 'overcome such
well entrenched 'programming', is the start of the recognition of ones
will. Re cognition being the reality. Another word that works well!
>This is why we still
> respond to sweets and fats today as if we still lived in the EEA where
> such high-calorie foods were rare and malnutrition was an imminent
> problem for survival, and we have the strong urge to consume a large
> quantity of sweets and fats (even though many of us can consciously
> overcome the urge) (Barash 1982, pp. 144–147).
"We" sure do, and yet is is simple understanding how one can overcome
such 'group programming'. Taking on the giants such as Coca Cola and
Mc Donalds, is easy when you start to wake up to where the battle
ground really is.
I>t is my contention
> that the human brain has unconscious difficulty comprehending and
> dealing with entities and situations that did not exist in the EEA.
Is that your contention,or your brain's.
BOfL
