Not to be shallow or detract from an important questions, but things look strange on Skype (or whatever product we see here). Still, I'm glad to have something lol Much more importantly, thank you for presenting this important and enlightening perspective on national/cultural identity and history. Your segment on Russia and WW II strikes home. I live in the U.S. Pac NW where we have a relatively large Russian/Soviet population. This background helps to understand some of their assumptions and positions.
If "religion" means a systematic, empirical wisdom and hierarchical methodology of formal belief, (with or without further analysis), it's typical human-family behavior, (nature-nuture), and is recognized in statements like, "As you think in your heart, so you are". "Christian", or any other religious label, is only a fitting identification if that is what the followers adhere to in behaviours. "A stopped clock is right twice a day", and occasionally labels fit consequences. Accompanying this observation is the advice, "You would care less about what people think of you if you knew how little they think at all", seems like a compelling reason to think for ourselves about who or what "self" is, before projecting expectations on others.
Every decision, especially political ones should be made with a game theoretical approach. Too many errors in thinking, IMO, in this talk coming from doctor appaiah. I am surprised why Michael let it all slide so easily being a skeptic. Just for example, Dr appaiah made the suggestion how it would be a good idea to penalise companies for contributing to global warming, without thinking that probably for this same reason so many jobs in the US are getting off shored. I am not even an American and I feel bad for it's future. Maybe I am wrong, time will tell. There were many other such points. Anyways, a good discussion, not just for some good information but also examples of bad thinking.
Really enjoyable but even here we see some political fallacies used to determine peoples perceived identity. Brexit for brexiteers is described as xenophobia as it has been assumed people don't wish to have faceless bureaucrats rule them from other country's . In reality many don't like decisions being made by unelected individuals based often on the advice of academics who happen to be the children of EU civil servants... They don't like the protectionism of the EU which stops country's trading globally or they don't like the EUs ability to force federalsism on member states. 48 times individual members have voted against EU constitutional changes and everytime the EU has forced these countries to back down. Its little to do with racisism or xenophobia but here we see identity politics at play.. I voted remain, just, but I fully understand people views and opinions on the EU. They are have a goal of arch federalism which many many many Europeans, not just British people don't share. Shermer has single handily gone down the route of identity politics to describe many many people. The major issue with the EU is that it removes countries ability to find a competitive edge to encourage inward investment and instead subsidises their decline. Billions in revenue spent on projects not determined by the free market or elected individuals has killed off the ability of millions to survive. UE in many southern EU countries is shocking. Its not xenophobic for people to wish to escape this.
Very glad to have come upon this discussion - enlightening - thank you.
very enjoyable discussion, thank you
Good stuff. Michael Shermer is still my favorite skeptic.
Not to be shallow or detract from an important questions, but things look strange on Skype (or whatever product we see here). Still, I'm glad to have something lol Much more importantly, thank you for presenting this important and enlightening perspective on national/cultural identity and history.
Your segment on Russia and WW II strikes home. I live in the U.S. Pac NW where we have a relatively large Russian/Soviet population. This background helps to understand some of their assumptions and positions.
Herodutus: I'm done
If "religion" means a systematic, empirical wisdom and hierarchical methodology of formal belief, (with or without further analysis), it's typical human-family behavior, (nature-nuture), and is recognized in statements like, "As you think in your heart, so you are". "Christian", or any other religious label, is only a fitting identification if that is what the followers adhere to in behaviours. "A stopped clock is right twice a day", and occasionally labels fit consequences.
Accompanying this observation is the advice, "You would care less about what people think of you if you knew how little they think at all", seems like a compelling reason to think for ourselves about who or what "self" is, before projecting expectations on others.
Every decision, especially political ones should be made with a game theoretical approach.
Too many errors in thinking, IMO, in this talk coming from doctor appaiah. I am surprised why Michael let it all slide so easily being a skeptic.
Just for example, Dr appaiah made the suggestion how it would be a good idea to penalise companies for contributing to global warming, without thinking that probably for this same reason so many jobs in the US are getting off shored. I am not even an American and I feel bad for it's future. Maybe I am wrong, time will tell. There were many other such points.
Anyways, a good discussion, not just for some good information but also examples of bad thinking.
Really enjoyable but even here we see some political fallacies used to determine peoples perceived identity. Brexit for brexiteers is described as xenophobia as it has been assumed people don't wish to have faceless bureaucrats rule them from other country's . In reality many don't like decisions being made by unelected individuals based often on the advice of academics who happen to be the children of EU civil servants... They don't like the protectionism of the EU which stops country's trading globally or they don't like the EUs ability to force federalsism on member states. 48 times individual members have voted against EU constitutional changes and everytime the EU has forced these countries to back down. Its little to do with racisism or xenophobia but here we see identity politics at play.. I voted remain, just, but I fully understand people views and opinions on the EU. They are have a goal of arch federalism which many many many Europeans, not just British people don't share. Shermer has single handily gone down the route of identity politics to describe many many people. The major issue with the EU is that it removes countries ability to find a competitive edge to encourage inward investment and instead subsidises their decline. Billions in revenue spent on projects not determined by the free market or elected individuals has killed off the ability of millions to survive. UE in many southern EU countries is shocking. Its not xenophobic for people to wish to escape this.
Caste in India