Home Studies and Forecasts in IT The revelation of the conspiracy against themselves has been indefinitely postponed by fools

The revelation of the conspiracy against themselves has been indefinitely postponed by fools

by admin
The revelation of the conspiracy against themselves has been indefinitely postponed by fools

Answer one question, have you ever tried telling a fool that he is a fool so that he stops being one? Yes, I’m here, collecting statistics. I need to know if there is any probability that this has ever worked, beyond the statistical margin of error.

No, it has never worked. Never at all. Stupidity is offensive. Stupidity is a self-sustaining phenomenon.

He’s offended that you didn’t bother to educate him. Rightly so. To correct stupidity is to work hard.

There are two schemes of forced learning.

1. Putting a person in a condition where they are forced to learn in order to reach an average standard of subsistence

and

2. Putting into conditions where the level of provisioning of those around him is higher than that of the untrained, and he is trained simply by the desire to reach their level.

Stick and carrot, it doesn’t get any easier than that.

It would seem that the only difference is whether neutral is good or bad, but the difference goes deeper than that.

These models have different advantages and different disadvantages. The first model has the advantage that the very need for learning is communicated more reliably than learning–and this is consistent with the objective sequence of their importance. In the second model, the violation of the hierarchy turns into a disadvantage: the need for learning depends on a conscious decision whether it is necessary to develop, and with a general feeling that enough is enough, this need is questioned, and then it is excluded from the list of necessities altogether.

Then, as they say, He who does not work teaches Such a person begins to teach on the basis of his unlearned state. Those who learn from such teachers will then break everything.

But the second model has its advantages. Here the taught state is by definition higher than the good state, and so the objective value of learning in this principle looks brighter. Of course, this is only if you look at it from an "acceptable" average level and puzzle it out, and that has to be learned, too.

Also, with the second model of learning, the principle of the law of the jungle no longer tortures the individual. "Every man for himself" is only a distorted "to each his own degree of learning, " which is true in both models. But this distorted result of using the first model, once it reaches the managerial level, divides everything into parts, and the "bad" parts are destroyed. And the state of success already achieved implies completion of development and is therefore considered bad for development. Is everything clear?

People are considered unworthy of social successes that they have not built on their own. Intergroup help is excluded. A common measure is used for all. Isn’t that odd? Odd. But medicine that cultivates sickness is a modern reality.

The principle of self-supported learning is considered a principle of reason. Perhaps you yourself think that reason, which does not require others to be reasonable, is not reason. But one must also realize that there is a subtlety here.

The principle of self-supported learning encompasses the principle of maintaining the necessity of learning, and thus the principle of leveling achievement. After all, if you think about it, the principle of self-supported learning includes a defense of positive achievement. It denies the state of "well, now learning is enough." And it denies that learning leads to anything positive at all. Within this principle is a more obvious sin: the lack of feedback. One teaches the other-the cyclical connection of influence is denied. "Always learning" can have a negative meaning, "always being underlearned."

The conflict between the West and Russia is a conflict of "trained right" and "trained enough." Do you feel the subtlety of the distinction? Do you really think one is trained more than the other? Or more correctly? By the way, paradox : the "trained right" want to look like they are trained more, and the "trained enough" want to look like they are trained more effectively when compared.

The lack of use of feedback in both process worship and outcome worship allows us to say that "both are worse." But this article is not about politics. Politics reflects one level of reality, the other important level of reality is technology. It’s about digital.

Which is for what? A job for a person or a person for a job? Money for man or man for money? Cyber-management for man or man for cyber-management? And in general, who controls who? I have news for you: cybernetics is really the corrupt bitch of imperialism. The simplest model has three participants: the people, the technician and the manager. The technician creates digital tools to control the people, the manager implements them. The people are governed. If it were not for conspiracy theories, nobody would have noticed the one flaw that spoils everything: the lack of feedback. One listens to the other. Digital slavery. And why would anyone want to do what anyone else wants at all!

Lack of feedback is a direct invitation to wantonness and ruthlessness.


The dialectic of the mind is simple. When you go somewhere, you can count the distance according to how much you have walked, or you can count it according to how much is left. And if you’ve walked a lot, it doesn’t mean you don’t have enough left. So, for people who think they are smart – there may still be a lot left in the case of intelligence. It is as clear as day: to go without stopping not knowing where, but only pretending to know – a lot of intelligence is not required.

You may also like