That is a good point. If a few of the right people with very high trust capital were to pronounce that cold fusion, or some model of the aether (by any name) was correct, there would be a large number sit up and take notice.
But it must be trust and not popularity, Tom Cruise isn't making fans of his movies or him seriously consider Scientology. It might be worth changing 2 or 3 of the right minds than convincing several million regular people. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > OK John, I can see the need for salt. Lots of it. > Otherwise I think we are saying the same thing. > The motivation to act must come from an inside resource. Getting good > grades and an easy entrance to a good job is motivation with incentives > (from outside resources). > However, if a person has a genuine interest in a subject he/she will look > for tools and need only to know that the tools exist. > Our school system is trying to teach everything inclusive of how to be > logical. That creates a mindset, which makes us all more or less programmed. > Changes are inevitable in all fields and when we meet them and they do not > fit our 'program' it is best to deny them. Therefore it takes more than a > simple logical > description to make people accept changes. You have to build what I call > 'trust capital' and then if you have enough of that you can convince one > person at a time with > whom you have built that 'trust capital'. > This was of course even more pronounced at a time when science had little > or no input on daily life. I have an example ; My grand father said in the > 50-ies" A friend of his was bragging about having traveled in a car at 65 > miles per hour and enjoying the ride" - Grandpa said: "Bloody liar - nobody > can enjoy that speed for a long time". (Grandpa was fine going that speed > on a train btw.) I do not think anything could convince him that this was a > rather limiting position, except a person with a lot more trust capital > witnessing the similar experience.. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 > > “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> It is a saying. >> >> Taking things with a pinch of salt is often needed to avoid blindly >> accepting something doubtful. >> >> The block of salt is needed because if you are going to make breakthrough >> despite reading old information you are going to need to use a lot of salt, >> much of that information will need to be incorrect, incomplete or wrong if >> you are going to make a breakthrough, see a new paradigm. >> >> Additionally I think that reading a little and thinking a lot, both >> before and after to avoid simply becoming 'programmed'. >> >> There is a huge difference between being force fed information, >> regurgitating answers >> And reading a book based on your own interest with no test and without >> the need to accept everything you read as final. >> >> The latter will make more discoverers (and discoveries) than the first >> method. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes, I am sure it is logical. Not everything that sounds logical is >>> logical. >>> As a matter of fact I think you have to find logic. You cannot teach it. >>> Yes, you can >>> give the theory but that is not what we talk about. >>> >>> I haven't heard your salt and books idea. Why the salt? >>> >>> >>> Best Regards , >>> Lennart Thornros >>> >>> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >>> lenn...@thornros.com >>> +1 916 436 1899 >>> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 >>> >>> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >>> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Well I guess the class in logic I was imagining was created by logical >>>> people to help make a logical improvement in logic. >>>> >>>> Of course if it is created by illogical and corrupt people to destroy >>>> and control logic, then I agree. >>>> Overall the best schooling is a brick of salt a a ton of books. >>>> >>>> John. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros < >>>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> John Berry I agree with your conclusion. >>>>> I do not agree with that "Seems like there should be a class in >>>>> logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough." On the contrary that >>>>> class will make logic even more unusual.. >>>>> Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the >>>>> circumstances. However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to >>>>> engage both halves of the brain and somehow a connection between two >>>>> people's right brain really helps to get information over. Yes, it can be >>>>> misused (like most other powers). Sometimes this connection is called >>>>> trust >>>>> and it is hard to catch. >>>>> Today there is a very slim chance to convince somebody that LENR is >>>>> real. A lot of the trusted say the opposite (most of the academia). >>>>> Not only is the best 'medicine' to let them "bright enough join" on >>>>> their own terms, it is also best for LENR. The table will turn quickly >>>>> when >>>>> the first generator is available. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards , >>>>> Lennart Thornros >>>>> >>>>> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >>>>> lenn...@thornros.com >>>>> +1 916 436 1899 >>>>> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 >>>>> >>>>> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >>>>> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” >>>>> PJM >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:20 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority >>>>>> of people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the >>>>>> problem) then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast >>>>>> majority actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the >>>>>> popular belief might be. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I never had any training in logic, so I assumed it was something >>>>>> that most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do >>>>>> as >>>>>> our right brain often wins out). >>>>>> >>>>>> But I guess that my logic came inbuilt as part of my being an INTJ. >>>>>> >>>>>> INTJ's have the highest IQ of any of the 16 Myers Briggs types, so >>>>>> are perhaps more likely to generate their own logic without any >>>>>> education. >>>>>> Introversion, intuition, thinking and judging sounds like the ingredients >>>>>> to invent logic independently. >>>>>> >>>>>> Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it >>>>>> isn't obvious enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> Increasingly emotional arguments, persuasion, conversational hypnosis >>>>>> and psychological pressure are looking like justifiable tools to get the >>>>>> needed agreement. >>>>>> >>>>>> Pioneer hypnotist Dr. Milton H. Erickson once won over a number of >>>>>> Doctors/Professors who had visited him with the intent of disallowing his >>>>>> work in some respect (I forget the details and I can't find a reference, >>>>>> would be in respect to psychology or psychiatry). >>>>>> Of course he used conversational hypnosis to reverse their intention. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would normally have considered it wrong to persuade right thinking >>>>>> people this way, but increasingly I am not sure they are common enough >>>>>> for >>>>>> that moral concern to be valid. >>>>>> >>>>>> If logic can't work, then I am unsure there are any other options, >>>>>> except as you say, going fishing. >>>>>> Let those bright enough join in if they will. >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
