FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG

OCCUPY ETHICAL BEHAVIOR

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Monday, July 22, 2013

Where Are Your F@#%ing Values?



Mark Manson


February 25 2013

Where Are Your F@#%ing Values?

If you would take a moment and imagine me screaming the title of this post while jumping up and down on Oprah’s couch like Tom Cruise before his fourth divorce, please do so now.
This post is about values. And how seemingly nobody has them. And how that ruins everything. But before we get into that, let’s go back to Tom Cruise for a second.
Where are your F@#%ing Values?!?!
Where are your F@#%ing Values?!?!


One of my favorite movie openings is the beginning of Jerry Maguire. Tom Cruise plays the eponymous main character: a top sports agent who is beginning to question the ethics of his job. In the opening credits, we see Jerry question whether he is really representing the players’ interests or whether he’s just trying to get the biggest paycheck possible.

One night Jerry can’t sleep. His conscience won’t let him. So Jerry gets up and begins writing a mission statement. It’s about how to represent athletes in an ethical way. As he writes, he begins to “rediscover the simple pleasures of the job,” and remember why he took it in the first place. He writes about how agents should be obligated to their clients regardless of their physical condition, how they should put the players’ health and happiness before money. What begins as one page turns into 25 and soon, the sun comes up.

The next morning, Jerry hands out copies of his new mission statement to everyone at his firm. He’s revitalized and for the first time in years, excited for the future. He believes they can set a new standard of how athletes are treated and dominate the industry by offering more ethical, holistic representation.

And he’s immediately fired.

Modern capitalist society sometimes doesn’t reward having strong personal values. In fact, it sometimes punishes you. Everyone gripes about politicians and their lack of values. But an inherent flaw of democracy is that it rewards those who parrot what people want to hear rather than those who stand up for their core values (see: Mitt Romney, John Kerry). What we get are presidents who talk about peace and go to war, and senators who talk about family values but hire male prostitutes or get caught jerking off in an airport bathroom.

Society rewards the valueless with superficial benefits. But developing strong core values are the foundation of lifelong happiness and fulfillment. They’re the prerequisite for any semblance of a healthy relationship, romantic or otherwise. They’re the compass that always points toward your life purpose.

In short, they’re awesome, and you should know what yours are.

Values are the ideals and standards that you live by, regardless of external pressures or incentives.

Your values are what you’re unwilling to give up despite what other people say or do. Values are the ideals and beliefs you’re willing to fight for, or sometimes even die for.

People who suffer from weak boundaries tend to lack strong core values. Men who exhibit Nice Guy Syndrome lack sturdy personal values. When one lacks values, one is liable to get run over by other people. When one lacks values, they’re likely to base their feelings of success and worthiness based on how well they meet the needs of others and not the needs of themselves. This is codependent or needy behavior. It repels people. And it invites all sorts of problems into your life.

How to Screw Yourself Over in One Easy Step


Recently I received an email from a friend. Before I read a word, I knew what I was in for: drama. The lack of punctuation, the horrible formatting, the smattering of four-letter words in all caps bulging out of the wall of text like zits on a teenager’s face. Rows of exclamation points and question marks running all over, screaming and screaming into the internet void.
“This is going to be a mess,” I thought.

And it was. The woman he had been dating didn’t want to see him anymore. In fact, she had gone back to her ex-boyfriend, a guy who was (apparently) a horrible, evil, child-murdering, small-dicked, rapist who drank the blood of puppies and masturbated to episodes of Gilmore Girls — basically a terrible, terrible human being.

I barely get halfway through the email before giving up. I’m unable to summon sympathy for these types of situations. In fact, all that comes up these days is anger. I want to reach through the computer screen, through the email, through the frenzied exclamation marks and question marks, and shake him. Shake him like you’re not supposed to shake a baby. Shake him hard and then scream, “Where are your fucking values!?!?” with a string of exclamations and question marks of my own.

I never like to proclaim ‘cure all’ solutions for people, and I sure as hell hate it when other people do. But this may be the closest thing I ever post to a cure all. It’s like a magical bandage that fixes all wounds: having personal values and sticking to them.

For example…

In the thousands of dating advice questions I’ve gotten through the years, probably a solid 1/3 have been some variant of the following:

“I met this girl. She was great. We dance/kissed/talked all night. She was way into me. I texted her to ask her out. She said sure. I texted her again to plan the date and never heard from her again. What do I do? How do I get her to respond?”

Ladies, this goes for you too. I’ve had plenty of female friends in this situation over the years as well: meet handsome guy, have a great time, never hear from handsome guy ever again. What should she do?

For a long time, my answer was this: Nothing. Do nothing. Forget about them and meet someone else.


Staring at the phone isn't going to make her call you.


Staring at the phone isn’t going to make her call you.


As you can imagine, people really didn’t like hearing this. In their minds, there had to be some way to “get” her/him to respond to them. There was some secret or trick that they were missing. Or there had to be a mistake. Maybe they lost their phone, or they saved their name incorrectly, or they’re mixing them up with the other Dave they know and hate. Maybe if I text them a few more times they’ll remember.

In almost every single case, this is insecure delusion. When you do this you are protecting your ego because the truth hurts. It hurts to know that you liked someone more than they liked you. I get it. It’s happened to me tons of times too. And it’s not fun to admit.

In Models, I point out that honesty begins with yourself. And you must be honest to yourself in these situations: they don’t like you enough.

But recently, I’ve skipped even bothering with this advice. I skip explanation and go straight to indignation:

Why would you ever put effort into seeing someone who has demonstrated they don’t want to see you? Why on earth would you ever make time for someone who is unwilling to make time for you? Why should you make time in your schedule for them if they won’t make time in their schedule for you?
Where is your self-respect?

If you sold guitars and someone said, “I don’t want to buy a guitar,” would you follow them around and keep trying to sell it to them? No! You’d be a dick. And probably out of business too.

I have a simple value in my life: I won’t make time for people who won’t make time for me.

It’s as simple as that. And no, ‘flakes’ like this don’t bother me anymore. And, in fact, I get far fewer of them, because I make this value clear when I meet someone new. I don’t tolerate it, so they don’t do it to begin with.
Here’s another example. This time from business:

Many of the people who get into internet marketing and online business begin to make money and find that, to their chagrin, they’ve merely created another grind for themselves. Instead of chained to a cubicle, they’re chained to a laptop and third-world countries because they can’t afford to live anywhere else.

They have to wake up, work hours upon hours on a project that they don’t care about, merely to sustain their lifestyle of drinking cheap beer on beaches with anonymous backpackers and travelers who they’ll never see again.

Awesome life for a year. Shitty career path.


albert-einstein-success-value-large


They suffer and stagnate because they haven’t built the business on their personal values. They built it on expediency and getting themselves enough income to leave as soon as possible. They don’t believe in what they do. Therefore once they hit a plateau or get burnt out, they lose interest or feel stuck.

Many of these entrepreneurs sell their businesses off within a few years and go get a desk job. Others perpetually start new ventures, and even though they may make good money here and there, they’re never totally satisfied and they never feel any job security.

Define Your Values


The values that remedy the situations above are: I don’t make time for people who don’t make time for me. And I invest my time and work on projects that I believe benefit myself and others.

When you decide those things for yourself, not only is it easy to navigate those situations, but you’re far less likely to end up in them in the first place.
For instance, if you value contribution in your business from the get-go, you never find yourself in a position of aimless burnout, because you’re doing something you believe in and that you believe helps the world. If you value people showing respect for your time from the beginning, then you don’t even bother getting phone numbers of women who aren’t that excited to talk to you or who seem unreliable.

But maybe you’re saying, “Gee whiz Mark, that sure sounds swell for you, because you can come up with business ideas while you crap and hundreds of girls are clawing their well-manicured fingernails out to get a date with you, but what about me? I don’t have opportunities like that.”

I know. I know. It’s true.

But, this is another complaint that I’ve lost sympathy for. There will always be more opportunities. Always. There are 7 billion people on this planet, and society is changing faster than ever before. There are more opportunities than people can take advantage of.

If one billion people can maintain their faith that some guy was born from a virgin and will one day come back to life to save them, then you can have faith that you will get another opportunity to go on a date on a Friday night. Stop hating on yourself and open your eyes.

People who do not define their values concretely end up drifting around in life, pulled in the direction of any external validation they get their hands on.
They get a nice job out of college because that’s what their parents always pressured them to do. They commit to a girl because she’s the prettiest one who makes herself available. They start a business project so they can get enough money to match their friends’ purchases. They deal with manipulative and disrespectful behavior from their partner because they’re afraid of being single again.

This is why I think everybody, at some point, should sit down and hammer out some of these values for themselves. I’ve been having most of my consultation clients do this lately and it’s been helping them a lot.

Make them concrete. Then stick to them. It will make your decision-making so much easier, and it will remove so much ambiguity from your life. You’ll also develop more self-esteem and feel like less of an asshole all the time.

1. Relationship Values


Take five minutes and write down the values that define your relationships. These are things you are unwilling of compromising on, no matter how attractive the other person is, no matter how much sex you have with them, these are ideals that are more important to you than any outward experience.
Some examples:

I do not make time for people who do not make time for me.
I do not tolerate being disrespected and will stand up for myself.
I will not spend time with people who I do not enjoy being around.


Etc.


Just keeping the three values above will end any worry you have about people flaking on you. It will end any worry you have about people testing you. . And you will no longer make yourself miserable spending time with someone just because they like you.

2. Professional Values


Take five minutes to write down the values that define your career and how you make money.

Some examples:

I believe in earning money by providing tangible benefits to society, to the best of my knowledge.

I will not tolerate disrespectful business relationships or unethical deals for the sole purpose of more money.


I will not spam people or convince them to buy something that I do not believe is in their best interest.


Etc.


3. Personal Values


And of course, do not forget to take care of yourself. This is possibly the most important set of values. As your ability to set expectations and interact with others begins with how you set expectations and interact with yourself.
Some examples:

I will take care of my personal health and hygiene.

I will not get overly angry or critical of myself — I will meet my own flaws with compassion.


Etc.


Making Your Own Bed


As I said, I didn’t finish my friend’s entire email. For one, it was such a garbled mess that reading was a strain on the eyes. But I stopped reading primarily because I have developed a low tolerance for the kind of thinking it exhibited.
On the podcast with T last week, he made the point that toxic relationships don’t just occur because you engage the negative or manipulative behavior, but toxic relationships can also happen simply by tolerating the manipulative and negative behavior.

As I shot off a quick tough love email to my friend it was clear he got to this position by tolerating such behavior.

When he started dating the woman, he knew she was still involved with her ex. Yet he didn’t do anything. He framed his relationship with her as something casual and on-the-side so he could continue pursuing other women. He regularly blew her off and ignored her in favor of opportunities to meet other people. When she was dramatic and falsely claimed her ex-boyfriend had raped her to get him to become jealous, he engaged and validated her manipulative behavior.

So, no, no sympathy. None. He made his bed. He was lying in it. Not only did his lack of clear values fail to define his relationship with her — allowing him to become far more emotionally attached than he realized — but his tolerance of her manipulative behavior also led to him being hurt by her.

And my quick reply? Sorry, not tolerating it. This situation was entirely of your making. Take responsibility. You’re responsible for handling your own emotions. Not me or anybody else.

That is one of my values. Sympathize? Sure. It sucks to see a friend upset. Advice? Of course.

But I will not validate his self-inflicted pain. I will not be dragged into his drama. He’s my friend, but those boundaries between him and me are non-negotiable.

And the fact that I set them and he doesn’t is exactly why he ends up in these situations, and I don’t.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Cops Shoot Family Dog Just Because



News & Politics  

                         

Cops Shoot Family Dog Just Because

Police officers in a Chicago suburb sat in front of a home for 20 minutes, then without any provocation shot the family dog.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Police officers in a Chicago suburb sat in front of a home for 20 minutes, then without any provocation shot the family dog, who had been calmly sitting on the front porch, the dog's owner claims in court.
 
Randy Green sued the Village of South Holland, police Officer Chad Barden and other unknown officers, in Federal Court.
 
South Holland, pop. 21,000, is a southern suburb of Chicago.
 
"On Sunday, July 22, 2012, two South Holland Police Officers arrived in separate vehicles at the home of Randy Green between 9-10 am, to investigate a purported dog off-leash (at large)," the complaint states.
 
"Upon information and belief, a caller had identified the dog at large as 'a big old gray dog runnin' around.' The caller made no mention of the dog being dangerous, vicious, or aggressive. ...
 
"The two South Holland officers arrived while plaintiff Randy Green and his family were asleep inside of their home, and where Mr. Green's Cane Corso dog, Grady, was sitting on the front porch.
"Upon information and belief, the chain holding Grady in the Green family backyard had popped, allowing Grady to be off leash on and around Mr. Green's residence.
 
"Both South Holland officers were equipped with dog-catching poles in the trunks of their vehicles, but neither attempted to use the dog-catching poles to capture the purported dog at large.
 
"South Holland officer Chad Barden stood, with his gun drawn, near the Green family home while the dog Grady sat on the front porch.
 
"The accompanying South Holland officer stood, leaning against his own police vehicle,
approximately 100 feet away from Officer Chad Barden.
 
"The dog Grady walked past both officers on more than one occasion without incident, thereafter lazily returning to the front porch of the Green residence.
 
"At no time did the dog Grady make physical contact with either officer.
 
"The South Holland police officers stood outside the Green family home for approximately twenty minutes.
 
"At this time, the dog Grady approached Officer Barden again as he was standing nearest the Green family home.
 
"Shortly thereafter, Officer Barden shot the dog Grady three times for no reason."
 
Grady, wounded, ran into the back yard and Green "rushed outside" to help him and take him to a vet.
Citing an "Expert Report," Green claims that "video surveillance footage from the Green family residence revealed the absence of any charging, lunging or showing of teeth by the dog Grady and instead showed the dog Grady seeking 'greater distance between the officer and himself,' displaying 'calming [body] signals' by 'looking away from the officers and showing his [Grady's] flank,' and moving in a 'trot.'" (Brackets in complaint.)
 
The family immediately "took Grady to an emergency veterinary facility where Grady was treated," the complaint states.
 
Meanwhile, "South Holland police officers walked onto the residential property of Randy Green, including his backyard and other private areas near his home," Green claims.
 
A month later, South Holland police delivered a letter accusing Green of having a dangerous dog.
Green seeks damages for unreasonable seizure, trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Illinois Humane Care for Animals Act, and malicious prosecution.
 
He is represented by Anna Morrison-Ricordati.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Leading scientists urge President Obama's advisers to investigate ethical issues raised by creating highly infectious strain of bird-flu




Leading scientists urge President Obama's advisers to investigate ethical issues raised by creating highly infectious strain of bird-flu

Virus could easily be transmitted between people

How Do You Define Ethics?



How Do You Define Ethics?


Thursday, May 23, 2013

This column is the first in a new series dealing with ethical dilemmas. You, the reader, write in (anonymously) about a personal ethical issue you are confronting.

Here is where it gets interesting. I cannot give a definitive answer because there is none. There is no Ethics Jeopardy game with right and wrong answers, buzzers, and a host with the answers written on a card. But I can help frame the question, offer some ethical concepts and stimulate a discussion among readers interested in ethical problems.

The idea for an ethics column sounded modest when I proposed it to the editor until she asked, “So, how do you define ethics?” After having taught, written, and worked on ethical issues for decades this seemed like a simple task. After fumbling a bit, I realized I had not formulated a clear, concise definition that did not use the term ethics to describe itself. I had been a lawyer too long.

I re-read selected ideas and thoughts about ethics from a variety of voices: Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Bentham, Rand, the Bible, Rawls, Locke and numerous other heavy weight ethics thinkers. I reviewed meta-ethics, rational ethics, normative ethics, applied ethics, descriptive ethics, moral ethics, and scores of other philosophies that all used ethics in their titles.

I knew that the word “law” did not belong in the definition of ethics. Written laws, though they reflect societal values, are not ethical standards. Abiding by the law may keep you from going to jail, but it does not necessarily follow that your behavior is ethical.

The reverse is also true. Breaking a law, for example through civil disobedience, may put you in jail, but you may have acted ethically.

Ethics is a series of beliefs and principles held by a person or group about how to determine which human inter-actions they believe are right or wrong. These core beliefs are often interconnected and overlap with other value systems, religious views, legal systems, philosophies, social conventions and moral codes.
Each of us adheres, to a greater or lesser extent, to one or more of these ethical constructs. Most of the time, these beliefs define the ethical parameters of our thinking and behavior. We have few quandaries.

An ethical dilemma occurs when a person’s ethical beliefs do not provide a clear enough resolution to the problem he or she faces.

I want to have a conversation with you and other readers about those ethical dilemmas.

I look forward to hearing from you the readers about ethical issues such as the following:

You’re a well educated, experienced professional who has done considerable writing in your career. Your son wants to get into one of the UC schools. While a good test taker, he has never excelled at writing essays. He asks you to look at his essay. You think it’s dreadful. How much help do you give him? Point out obvious problems? Do an outline for him? Re-write the paper? Let him just hand it in and take his chances? Do you think that your help might allow your son to be admitted over another student with the same grades whose father and mother are not professionals and could not assist him with the essay?

This example illustrates a true ethical problem because the range of choices allows you to test your ethical beliefs against a concrete problem.
That’s what we will be doing in this column: examining our ethical beliefs by examining problems readers pose.

Benjamin Bycel is an attorney and writer. He was the founding Executive Director of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission and of the newly reconstituted Connecticut Ethics office. He serves as an expert witness in cases dealing with political and legal ethics.




















How You are a Big Picture Thinker or Detail-Oriented Affects Your Values


The Fast Track - Intuit QuickBase Blog
Tools To Get The Job Done Fast

Are You a Big Picture Thinker or Detail-Oriented?






They say that there are two types of people – the ‘big picture people’ and the ‘details people.’ The big picture people tend to be creative, strategic, and visionary… but they can also be messy, disorganized, and forgetful. On the other hand, the details people are conscientious, planful, and exacting… but can lack perspective or fail to prioritize. These two types tend to complement each other and work together very well. You’ll often find this division in partnerships and many times the CEO is a big picture person while the COO and the CFO are the details people.





But what if your role requires both strategic thinking and attention to detail? Most people are naturally more skilled at one or the other, and there are a lucky few who do both equally well. Whether you have good attention to detail or whether you can see the big picture easily and clearly is generally part of your personality. But it can also be a learned skill, if you wish to develop it. There are systems and processes that can help you override your natural tendencies when needed.

In my next two blog posts, I will go over some tips on the systems and tools you can use to develop your missing skill. In the meantime, think about whether you are more skilled at the strategic thinking or paying attention to details. While you most likely know this already, here are some points that can promote that reflection:

Typical of the Big Picture Thinker

  • You can quickly see patterns in complex problems.
  • You like to come up with new ideas and new projects.
  • You have a low tolerance for busywork, tedious errands, and filling out forms.
  • You are great at outlining what needs to be done, but filling in the details can feel exhausting.
  • You may have been described as right-brained.
  • When you have taken the Myers-Briggs assessment, you were an N.

Typical of the Details Thinker

  • You think about things in great detail and sometimes miss the big picture.
  • While you are certainly smart, others may joke that you lack common sense.
  • You would prefer to edit or tweak a plan than to come up with it from scratch.
  • Highlighting study notes doesn’t work for you, because you end up highlighting everything.
  • You may have a tendency to over-think things.
  • You have excellent attention to detail.
  • You may have been described as left-brained.
  • When you have taken the Myers-Briggs assessment, you were an S.


Eva Rykrsmith

Eva Rykrsmith is an organizational psychology practitioner. Her passion lies in bringing a psychology perspective to the business world, with the mission of creating a high-performance environment. Follow her @EvaRykr.

A new measure of intelligence: Big-picture thinking trumps narrow-minded expertise


NaturalNews.com

Real News Powered by the People Naturally


world

A new measure of intelligence: Big-picture thinking trumps narrow-minded expertise

Tags: World, People, Big picture





(NaturalNews) Observing the various realms of science, medicine, experts and world events, I've come to the conclusion that our modern definition of "intelligence" (IQ) is seriously lacking. The label of "high IQ" is typically assigned to those who are experts in narrowly-defined fields such as disease pathology, pharmacology, particle physics, mathematics or other so-called "hard science" areas. And yet, it's not uncommon to see a high-level mathematics professor with an IQ of 175 chowing down on a processed hamburger laced with toxic chemical additives, while wearing clothes washed in carcinogenic mainstream laundry detergent.

The professor may be brilliant in mathematics, in other words, but he's unknowingly bathing his entire body in cancer-causing chemicals at the same time.

Not too bright.

Similarly, a typical conventional doctor thinks he knows about health, but he buys breakfast cereals made with genetically modified corn and doesn't even know that GMOs are bad for your health. A quantum physics professor wears antiperspirant deodorant and cologne products that contain powerful cancer-causing chemicals that are absorbed right through the skin. A pharmacist who is an expert in the world of drugs and synthetic chemicals has no clue that the common mineral zinc is crucial for proper immune function.

Highly-intelligent architects for some reason don't question the collapse of the WTC 7 building on 9/11 even though the official explanation of the collapse violates the laws of physics (a subject in which architects are well-versed). Chemists don't consider the chemistry of the toxic shampoos they put on their hair every day. Nor do many scientists think realistically about the toxicity of mercury fillings or the fluorosilicic acid ("fluoride") dumped into the public water supply. I could go on...

The point of all this is that there exists a huge gap in practical intelligence among the so-called "smartest" people in our society. I've spoken with countless doctors and conventional health care providers who are brilliant in their own fields and yet don't even know the basics of nutrition. So how can it be that a guy is so smart he can be the world's best brain surgeon, but when he goes home at night, he bathes his own brain and body in a sea of toxic chemicals consumed as additives in his processed food dinner?

Most people can't assimilate the big picture

What's lacking in these so-called "smart" people is the ability to see the bigger picture by assimilating information from a large number of seemingly unrelated sources. Or, stated in another way, even some of the most high-IQ people around can't see the big picture because they get lost in the details.

Your typical oncologist, for example, almost certainly can't hold an intelligent conversation about nutritional therapies to support immune function because he only thinks of antioxidants as "interfering" with the toxicity of his cancer poisons. Likewise, a typical virologist persistently looks at viruses as the cause of disease but forgets that viruses are opportunists which can only propagate when the terrain is sufficiently vulnerable. Thus, the best defense against invading microorganism is to change the terrain (the person being infected) rather than to try to rid the immediate area of all viruses.

Memorization is not intelligence

See, the very concept of "intelligence" in our society is way off the mark. It isn't intelligent to be able to memorize and regurgitate a huge number of facts and figures, yet this is precisely the measure of academic aptitude assessed in modern educational systems -- especially in law school and medical school. To function as a crude human database of facts and figures is not very useful in an age where handheld computers and mobile computing devices can do the same thing.

But what computers and search engines can't accomplish -- something that is uniquely reserved for intelligent species -- is the ability to assimilate information into a larger picture. It is, in other words, the ability to "connect the dots" and see patterns and trends in what might seem like chaos to others.

My favorite physicist Richard Feynman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman) was an especially gifted pattern assimilator. He was able to look far beyond the conventional boundaries of particle physics and grasp many of the non-intuitive interconnections between matter, energy and the nature of reality itself.

On a more practical level, people like Gerald Celente and even Alex Jones are also phenomenally gifted pattern assimilators. It's not that they are ridiculously good at remembering a lot of facts and figures in one very narrow area of science or knowledge; rather it's the fact that these types of people are able to see patterns in world events and thereby interact with the world around them at a far higher level of understanding than most other people.

Whereas a typical journalist sees a headline that says, "GMO restrictions called unscientific" and thinks it's merely a story about how un-educated GMO opponents are, a more intelligent "pattern assimilator" person sees the same headline and understands the far deeper meaning it holds: That the GMO propaganda campaign is being framed in the language of "science" as a way to label reasonable opponents of GMOs as being somehow uneducated or stupid. But behind the fake science curtain, it's really just gimmicky marketing and a profit-driven agenda.

The pattern behind all that, of course, is the agenda to control the world's food supply and, soon thereafter, charge monopoly prices for seeds (TM) that farmers used to be able to save for free.

A few people are able to see the story behind the story. These people are the "meta-analyzers" of the world around them. They have what I call a "wide angle view" (a big picture view) where they can bring in observational data from a very large data set of observable events in order to infer greater understanding of the world around them.

Here are just a few of the many pattern assimilators who are better known:

Gerald Celente can see the big picture of world finance. He sees the signs of the slipping value of the dollar, the leveraged debt of world banks, the actions of the Fed, the Wall Street bailouts, the news propaganda from the financial sector, and so on -- and from all that, he correctly infers that a global debt bubble is approaching catastrophic collapse.

Many of his colleagues, on the other hand, even though they may achieve high scores on an IQ test, are scribbling away with their noses buried in the arcane mathematics of derivatives calculations, and they miss the big picture because their minds are too narrowly focused on a tiny slice of what's really happening. When the big financial collapse comes, they will be caught with their pants down, holding their pencils in their hands.

Author John Perkins is also another big-picture genius, in his own way, for being able to see the patterns of government actions on a global scaled. He's the author of the popular book "Economic Hit Men" (and also "Hoodwinked"), and he sees patterns in the world that nearly everyone else misses. You can see my interview with Perkins, by the way, at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=83B1AF93091799E7CEB88C5C459A530B

On the nutrition front, Dr Richard Kunin is one of the most remarkable pattern assimilators you'll ever find. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kunin) Here's a genius the world has largely overlooked.

Alex Jones is one of the more astonishing assemblers of patterns out of chaos. His ability to see the underlying patterns behind world events is truly amazing, and whether you agree with his conclusions or not, his mind is able to amass an extraordinarily large amount of data from many sectors (health freedom, police state actions, legislative efforts and so on) and then identify patterns that most other people would miss. You can find Alex on www.PrisonPlanet.com

Seeing the bigger picture doesn't make you any more popular

This list is by no means exhaustive. There are many genius-level pattern assimilators in our world. They are rarely recognized for their talents, however. If anything, those who "get" the big picture are often derided or criticized for doing so. Connecting too many dots, it seems, is dangerous for your reputation. Those who have the most success in the sciences (in particular), are the ones who keep their heads down and focus on their own tiny little corner of study without asking any of the really big questions like, "Hey, where did this grant money really come from?"

I consider myself something of a pattern assimilator, as I see patterns from one area of knowledge often reflected in another. For example, if our global economy is like a world body, what would fit the definition of a cancer tumor engaged in angiogenesis? The answers is corporations, because corporations hijack their own supply of resources (much like cancer tumors build a new blood supply), then grow to a large and dangerous size at which point they begin to replicate and set up branch offices all over the world where the tumor cycle is repeated. And just like cancer tumors, corporations ultimately threaten the lives of their hosts.

As an avid reader and student of human history, psychology and even quantum mechanics, I feel competent to discuss the history of philosophy as much as, say, the modern-day repeating of patterns of tyranny from World War II.

The most promising and fascinating area of human discovery about to be achieved, in my opinion, relates to the superposition of quantum physics and human consciousness. This will result in a paradigm-shattering shift in understanding the nature of our reality, with ripple effects that resound throughout our modern world. Once Earth's people come to realize, for example, that matter is consciousness (and that all consciousness is connected), the implications will require profound rethinking of things such as compassion for animals, religious beliefs and self identity. This is the really exciting stuff that's headed our way.

But we'll never get to a higher understanding of consciousness if we remain "experts" limited to our tiny alcoves of knowledge. To really function as intelligent members of a race that has been advertised as "advanced," we must expand not just the depth of our knowledge but the breadth of our understanding.

And that, of course, means understanding the interconnectedness of our being-ness. It is the interconnectedness that really matters, quite literally (ahem).

Let us hope that more members of the human species can learn to recognize the interconnectedness among not just people, plants and animals, but at another level the interconnectedness of mind, matter and energy, too. To gain understanding of this interconnectedness is -- to paraphrase quite a number of scientists and philosophers from human history -- to become closer to God. He who can see all interconnectedness in life and the cosmos is, of course, God Himself.

To see and recognize the patterns in the reality we apparently inhabit is, in my view, the most important next step necessary for the advancement of human intelligence. Importantly, this advancement cannot come from the sciences alone. It must involve a so-called "quantum leap" in consciousness.

Atheists Rejoice! Pope Francis Says You're O.K.


 

It's not about being right, it's about being loving, the unusually tolerant Pontiff tells his flock.

 
 
 
Photo Credit: Emipress/Shutterstock.com
 

It likely doesn’t matter much to the atheists of the world that — of all people — Pope Francis is on their side. But he is. And that’s a cool thing for all of us.
In a message delivered Wednesday via Vatican Radio, the new pontiff distinguished himself with a call for tolerance and a message of support – and even admiration – toward nonbelievers.

Naturally, a guy whose job it is to lead the world’s largest Christian faith is still going to come at his flock with a Jesus-centric message. But he’s taking it in an encouraging new direction. In his message, Francis dissed the apostles for being “a little intolerant” and said, “All of us have this commandment at heart: Do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not (a) Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must.”

And the pope spoke of the need to meet each other somewhere on our on common ground. “This commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: We need that so much. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” It was a deeper affirmation of his comments back in March, when he declared that the faithful and atheists can be “precious allies… to defend the dignity of man, in the building of a peaceful coexistence between peoples and in the careful protection of creation.”

That’s a message that’s vastly different from Catholicism’s traditional “We’re number one!” dogma. Six years ago, the Vatican reasserted the church’s stance that while there may be“elements of sanctification and truth” in other faiths, “that fullness of grace and of truth… has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.” In other words, close but no cigar, everybody else.

The pope was not, of course, addressing the non-believers of the world in his Wednesday sermon, or trying to win them over. Instead, he was telling his Catholics about the importance of cutting outsiders slack. And it’s a hugely important message for Christians to hear. It’s not about being right. It’s about being loving. And it’s a necessary concept, one that needs to be expressed again and again, in a world in which the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor  in Virginia is justifying his repulsive hate speech against gays and lesbians because “I’m a Christian, not because I hate anybody, but because I have religious values that matter to me.” Coming within a week when atheists have been stepping into the spotlighthere in America with their own messages of live-and-let-live tolerance, it’s downright refreshing to get a similar message from the biggest Christian in the world.
 
There are plenty of atheists out there who will no doubt take the pope’s message with a grain of salt or even flat-out disdain. The last thing somebody who doesn’t believe in heaven could possibly need is some guy in a funny hat telling them that they’re okay in God’s eyes anyway. But maybe, whatever we believe or don’t believe, we can consider that the man is on to something when he speaks about “the culture of encounter.”

Francis notes that the apostles were “closed off by the idea of possessing the truth,” an arrogant certainty that no one group currently has a monopoly on. Where we find each other is in practicing tolerance for our differences, and in finding the commonality of our values. “Doing good,” Francis says, “is not a matter of faith.”

It’s not that faith, for the faithful, doesn’t matter. It’s that belonging to a church isn’t what saves us. It’s belonging to each other.

Mary Elizabeth Williams is a staff writer for Salon and the author of "Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream." Follow her on Twitter: @embeedub.