Quintain

Stop Me Before I Start Making Sense, Black/Large

Didn't you get the memo; this is business, in the business world there is no such thing as morals, only monies.

This is like the idea of worth-ship, like those who built totems to express the worth-ship of the figure-heads carved into the totems. Which later became the english word "worship". The act of recognizing something's worth and reflecting that worth through symbolism, etc.. Personally, I can think of much more worth-shipful than Starwars. And it is a subconscious act of adoration/veneration in most cases. One adores but does not call it "worship".

By whose definition of "Genius" is; doing puzzles?

I remember talking on here about adolescent synaptogenesis and the subsequent "pruning" process a number of times in the contexts of criminality, economics and even just adolescent behavior. The fact seemed to have been largely overlooked and still is, or is interpreted in too biased a light to be healthy.

This article presents such a bias, IMO. Drawing on too simplistic reasoning, like; thicker corpus callosum makes for greater transhemispheric integration. If this was true then women are decidely more transhemispherically integrated than men and should be our masters. The difference in collasal "thickness" between men and women is as drastic as the difference between children and adults. The organizational structure of the brain, especially as regards transhemispheric integration, is far too complicated to be reduced in this manner.

It also presents the assumption that the "normal" brain or the brain that can adapt to our modern society is the height of brain development. When in reality it may be a collective delusion which we are expecting children to see value in. Of course if they have no choice but to see value, then they will, or they will be classified as having abnormal brain-development.

I thought the prevailing social paradigm was that women should be allowed to present themselves anyway they want and it is encumbent upon boys to innerly thwart their own psychosexual desires. I realize its a bit like asking a 2-year old to not eat a marshmallow that it is placed precariously infront of them, but the dominant moral paradigms of modern society reject that girls would be doing this to objectify themselves and garner sexual attention from boys, rather girls are just doing it for themselves (because they like to ogle themselves?) and boys are inherently creepy and lustful imps.

I much prefer Weininger and Friedan. Women are fashion-crazy because it boosts their self-esteem. It boosts their self-esteem because it garners more attention from the opposite sex. It garners more attention from the opposite sex because men objectify women. So, women objectify themselves to appease the objectifying eyes of men. And men objectify themselves with economic status, wealth and access to power, of which women find especially attractive. Conclusions; men and women objectify themselves in different domains; men in the status, wealth, power domain. Women in the domain of sexual objectification, which fashion assists with.

There isn't enough room to be putting ornaments on my bookshelf. I can barely cram any more books in there. Anyone want to donate their old and abandoned bookshelves?

At roughly $1 a piece (at the Good-Will), that's almost a pack of smokes or a marijuana cigarette! If I put those outside my house they'd be gone instantaneously, otherwise I would very much like one.

This has a specific error code: ID 10 T

Personally, I think humans are far less rational and wear red noses because they like to be irrational, then saying it is to support SIDS is just an after-thought to wanting to do something ridiculous. After-all there is nothing inherently metaphoric or allegoric about a red nose that bears any resemblence to SIDS or distraction and distrust (except as a distraction itself).

Its like all rememberance procedures and paraphinelia; they bear little or no resemblence to the thing that ought to be remembered. Virtually all rememberances are so far obscured and symbolized as to lose all rememberence of the original cause or intent.

FYI, It is likely that the origin of the term Be'elzebub is actually Be'elzebul. Wikipedia relates: "Biblical scholar Thomas Kelly Cheyne suggested that it might be a derogatory corruption of Ba‘al Z?bûl, "Lord of the High Place" (i.e., Heaven) or "High Lord".[12] The word Beelzebub in rabbinical texts is a mockery of the Ba'al religion, which ancient Hebrews considered to be idol (or, false God) worship.[13]"

So, Be'elzebub was never lord of anything in any of the Abrahamic faiths, but is likely rather to be seen as a false idol.

Example given: "Consumers can appropriate associations belonging to brands, such as user characteristics or personality traits, and incorporate them into their self-concepts. In doing so, consumers form connections between brands and their self-concepts, referred to as self-brand connections (Escalas and Bettman 2003)."

"Product cues that evoke certain images (e.g., prestige) are viewed as activating similar beliefs about the self (e.g., high status), which prompts a comparison process to determine whether the product and self-image are congruent. Escalas and Bettman (2003) adopt a prototype matching view, where individuals imagine prototypical users of alternative brands and select ones that maximize similarity to their actual or desired selfconcept, thereby forging a self-brand connection."

The Development of Self-Brand Connections in
Children and Adolescents
Carlson School of Management
University of Minnesota
http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/69662.pdf

Whether they call it NLP after Richard Bandler, or a more general theory of associations generally implied or call it a systematic method of transference or an SBC (self-brand connection). The current is the same.

When they say "everyone" they aren't talking about literally everyone because I've mentioned all of these before, not just on neatorama but to everyone who has ears. But they are wrong about the use of Bandler's theories in marketting. Perhaps NLP specifically, or as a theory is not employed in the explicit, but it is the fact of implicit association which is the underlying force of everything from Hypnosis, Subliminal Messaging, Neuro-linguistic Programming, Hebbian Plasticity (the mechanism of neuroplasticity), 'Transference' (the name of the technique used in marketting) to the Implicit Association research done at Harvard by Mazarheen Banaji.

Actually, you get a more accurate picture comparing them to Machiavellianism. Which is sort of the Sadistic underpinnings of Socipathy and Psychopathy. Which can really be understood in the context of severe trauma causing a psychic schism that alienates the individual from their emotions (consequently empathy) and orients them toward a quantifiable empiricism, such that people are like numbers to them, not like people, more like statistics.