A very interesting read and far more entertianing than my philosophy teacher.

"Quite the opposite! Let me Explain..."

This I have to see..

There is no "right" or "wrong", "good" or "evil". There is just "different." That said, kill a person that sticks a loaded gun in your face. That's just rude.

That depends on the circumstances that lead to him/her actually point a gun at me.

I'd like to think I'm not a bad person, and I have only ever intentionally hit someone when they've hit me first, so I can't quite see someone who actually knows me pulling a gun at me.

And it might be rude, but I have some serious issues about being shot just because it would be polite.

If you were the first one to point a gun at someone, or otherwise seek to end or hinder their life, then the rudeness started with you and the other person has every reason to be rude back.

You're not bad, just different.

"just being shot" is usually rude. If you're playing Russian Roulette, then a gun up against your head is very polite. In that scenario, why would you want to be rude to yourself?

Almost as dense as some of the anthropology texts I've been tasked with...

Cooperation is the default state *within* your group. Competition is the default state with *outgroup* individuals (the not-us).

Two solutions: make all the in-group (unlikely, as humans tend to cooperate in groups of five or less without more organization, and in-group versus out-group develops just a little way up from this) or develop a redirecting and 'safe' avenue for group-group competition. We call the latter "local sports teams." Most modern major city-states in the United States have these proxy armies, often of several stripes, and their soldiers are well-paid as in-group champions.

The closest thing Google gives is an article and a book by the name "No Contest" not "No Conflict" - http://www.alfiekohn.org/managing/nocontest.htm - is that what's being referred to here?

man thats deep .....really deep *thinks * man do you sub as a teacher at yale or something ?

oh god what gigantic wall of text

I love this series! Magnificent parody; H L Menken and Samuel Clemens would have heartily approved.

I take a truly fundamental no BS nutritional psychobiochemical approach to the problem of cooperation: http://www.biovita.fi/suomi/pdf/Enzo_omega.pdf

This helps explain why Icelanders have done so well for so long in such a tough environment with so few natural resources. It also explains why you should feed your girlfriend a salmon dinner at the start of a date...

Interesting... so... by attempting to "eat helthier" and increase intake/uptake of Omega-3 and omega-6, am I making myself more susceptible to being unfairly bargained with?

Now THERE'S a hell of a thought. ;)

*healthier

No. The long chain omega-3 fats in fish oil actually make you more rational and less emotionally driven by envy or anger when bargaining. Getting $1 out of $10 is rationally better than getting $0 out of $10, but many people are overwhelmed with envy and end up with nothing rather than something.

Since large amounts of omega-6 fats can displace omega-3 fats from the brain, I would expect large amounts of polyunsaturated vegetable oils (most of which are omega-6) would make a person more prone to anger and envy, though this experiment didn't test this hypothesis.

Ah. true, I skimmed the start of the article, and focused too much on the imbalance, although I did briefly think "it's still a better position for both individuals".

Exactly! So long as destructive emotions such as envy and anger don't interfere with what would otherwise be a mutually beneficial cooperation. Communism is constructed on envy and anger - and Communist dictators murdered approximately 100,000,000 of their own citizens in the 20th century. Not a successful cooperation, except for dictators like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. (The last systemically murdered everyone with eyeglasses because that meant that they might be able to read thereby making them dangerous to him.)

Heh, polyunsaturated. Reminds me of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2BltBzNMog

Wait until 0.20. Love that commercial, even if it is over 15 years old.

That is an amazing collection of commercials. The margarine one and the following syrup commercial especially tickled my fancy. That syrup commercial was pure R. Crumb.

I inspected this proof for relevance, and found it wanting.

PARANOID ADVICE

---

Dude, pay attention at work. Your straw boss just told you two things:

First, someone higher-up wants to cut staff (if they aren't watching you now, they will be soon).

Second, your straw boss wants to keep you around (he can't control who goes, but if you look busy you have a better chance of staying).

Will anyone be fired? Maybe, but if you and your co-workers haven't done anything wrong they'll have to "re-organize" or commit "lay-offs" instead.

I concur with your assessment. Perception is reality, and if they perceive you have free time, then their reality is that they have too many employees. I disagree that whether anyone has done "wrong" matters in the least. They'll get rid of whoever is least popular, regardless of productivity, and justify it later.

On the other hand, I'm also of the opinion that sniffing co-workers should only be done with the greatest of reluctance.

I like Destrier's way of putting things...

I must concur with your final statement/question. A well made point must be well understood otherwise it's as useless as an utterly pointless statement.

I'd point toward George Orwell's Politics and the English Language here.

For anyone who's read it, Destrier should be setting off your mental alarm bells right about now.