skip to Main Content

Rory Sutherland: Perspective Is Everything

Via

Dieser Beitrag hat 227 Kommentare
  1. TED talks are what happen when scientific evangelists have to sell infomercials to marketers and the rest of the unfortunate idiots produced by the information division of labour.

  2. Austrian economists „argue that empirical statistical methods, natural experiments, and constructed experiments have no way of verifying cause and effect in real world economic events, since economic data can be correlated to multiple potential chains of causation.“ „Mainstream economists generally argue that Austrian economics lacks scientific rigor, rejects the scientific method, and rejects the use of empirical data.“ In conclusion, Austrian School Economics is unscientific.

  3. Austrian economists „argue that empirical statistical methods, natural experiments, and constructed experiments have no way of verifying cause and effect in real world economic events, since economic data can be correlated to multiple potential chains of causation.“ „Mainstream economists generally argue that Austrian economics lacks scientific rigor, rejects the scientific method, and rejects the use of empirical data.“ In conclusion, Austrian School Economics is unscientific.

  4. Austrian economists „argue that empirical statistical methods, natural experiments, and constructed experiments have no way of verifying cause and effect in real world economic events, since economic data can be correlated to multiple potential chains of causation.“ „Mainstream economists generally argue that Austrian economics lacks scientific rigor, rejects the scientific method, and rejects the use of empirical data.“ In conclusion, Austrian School Economics is unscientific.

  5. I do wish that he was a proponent of something which would actually help humanity i.e. tacking energy issues; battling global warming; reducing poverty. What exactly would enforcing Austrian Economics achieve?

  6. I do wish that he was a proponent of something which would actually help humanity i.e. tacking energy issues; battling global warming; reducing poverty. What exactly would enforcing Austrian Economics achieve?

  7. I do wish that he was a proponent of something which would actually help humanity i.e. tacking energy issues; battling global warming; reducing poverty. What exactly would enforcing Austrian Economics achieve?

  8. It is! Remember „social sciences“ and „natural sciences“ have fundamentally different approaches… and you seem to be terribly fixed with the first one.

    If you need to see a more „quantitative approach“ (rather than a „qualitative“ one) around the very same phenomena, check at Dan’s Ariely’s books and TEDs ^_^

  9. It is! Remember „social sciences“ and „natural sciences“ have fundamentally different approaches… and you seem to be terribly fixed with the first one.

    If you need to see a more „quantitative approach“ (rather than a „qualitative“ one) around the very same phenomena, check at Dan’s Ariely’s books and TEDs ^_^

  10. It is! Remember „social sciences“ and „natural sciences“ have fundamentally different approaches… and you seem to be terribly fixed with the first one.

    If you need to see a more „quantitative approach“ (rather than a „qualitative“ one) around the very same phenomena, check at Dan’s Ariely’s books and TEDs ^_^

  11. It is! Remember „social sciences“ and „natural sciences“ have fundamentally different approaches… and you seem to be terribly fixed with the first one.

    If you need to see a more „quantitative approach“ (rather than a „qualitative“ one) around the very same phenomena, check at Dan’s Ariely’s books and TEDs ^_^

  12. It is! Remember „social sciences“ and „natural sciences“ have fundamentally different approaches… and you seem to be terribly fixed with the first one.

    If you need to see a more „quantitative approach“ (rather than a „qualitative“ one) around the very same phenomena, check at Dan’s Ariely’s books and TEDs ^_^

  13. It is! Remember „social sciences“ and „natural sciences“ have fundamentally different approaches… and you seem to be terribly fixed with the first one.

    If you need to see a more „quantitative approach“ (rather than a „qualitative“ one) around the very same phenomena, check at Dan’s Ariely’s books and TEDs ^_^

  14. Google won out because it returned better search results, IMO. Might have evened out since, but that was the case when they skyrocketed. That, and NO to shocking dogs electrically and measuring pain numerically. Otherwise, great talk.

  15. Google won out because it returned better search results, IMO. Might have evened out since, but that was the case when they skyrocketed. That, and NO to shocking dogs electrically and measuring pain numerically. Otherwise, great talk.

  16. Google won out because it returned better search results, IMO. Might have evened out since, but that was the case when they skyrocketed. That, and NO to shocking dogs electrically and measuring pain numerically. Otherwise, great talk.

  17. Google won out because it returned better search results, IMO. Might have evened out since, but that was the case when they skyrocketed. That, and NO to shocking dogs electrically and measuring pain numerically. Otherwise, great talk.

  18. Google won out because it returned better search results, IMO. Might have evened out since, but that was the case when they skyrocketed. That, and NO to shocking dogs electrically and measuring pain numerically. Otherwise, great talk.

  19. Google won out because it returned better search results, IMO. Might have evened out since, but that was the case when they skyrocketed. That, and NO to shocking dogs electrically and measuring pain numerically. Otherwise, great talk.

  20. Google won out because it returned better search results, IMO. Might have evened out since, but that was the case when they skyrocketed. That, and NO to shocking dogs electrically and measuring pain numerically. Otherwise, great talk.

  21. Google won out because it returned better search results, IMO. Might have evened out since, but that was the case when they skyrocketed. That, and NO to shocking dogs electrically and measuring pain numerically. Otherwise, great talk.

  22. Google won out because it returned better search results, IMO. Might have evened out since, but that was the case when they skyrocketed. That, and NO to shocking dogs electrically and measuring pain numerically. Otherwise, great talk.

  23. Google won out because it returned better search results, IMO. Might have evened out since, but that was the case when they skyrocketed. That, and NO to shocking dogs electrically and measuring pain numerically. Otherwise, great talk.

  24. As he said in the talk, it was both, it wasn’t just a psychological thing but that played an equally important part. Google transformed the world cause it was super fast, efficient, cleanly designed and stuck to just being a search engine and nothing else, cementing the perception of its greatness. All equally made it what it is today.

  25. As he said in the talk, it was both, it wasn’t just a psychological thing but that played an equally important part. Google transformed the world cause it was super fast, efficient, cleanly designed and stuck to just being a search engine and nothing else, cementing the perception of its greatness. All equally made it what it is today.

  26. As he said in the talk, it was both, it wasn’t just a psychological thing but that played an equally important part. Google transformed the world cause it was super fast, efficient, cleanly designed and stuck to just being a search engine and nothing else, cementing the perception of its greatness. All equally made it what it is today.

  27. As he said in the talk, it was both, it wasn’t just a psychological thing but that played an equally important part. Google transformed the world cause it was super fast, efficient, cleanly designed and stuck to just being a search engine and nothing else, cementing the perception of its greatness. All equally made it what it is today.

  28. As he said in the talk, it was both, it wasn’t just a psychological thing but that played an equally important part. Google transformed the world cause it was super fast, efficient, cleanly designed and stuck to just being a search engine and nothing else, cementing the perception of its greatness. All equally made it what it is today.

  29. As he said in the talk, it was both, it wasn’t just a psychological thing but that played an equally important part. Google transformed the world cause it was super fast, efficient, cleanly designed and stuck to just being a search engine and nothing else, cementing the perception of its greatness. All equally made it what it is today.

  30. As he said in the talk, it was both, it wasn’t just a psychological thing but that played an equally important part. Google transformed the world cause it was super fast, efficient, cleanly designed and stuck to just being a search engine and nothing else, cementing the perception of its greatness. All equally made it what it is today.

  31. As he said in the talk, it was both, it wasn’t just a psychological thing but that played an equally important part. Google transformed the world cause it was super fast, efficient, cleanly designed and stuck to just being a search engine and nothing else, cementing the perception of its greatness. All equally made it what it is today.

  32. As he said in the talk, it was both, it wasn’t just a psychological thing but that played an equally important part. Google transformed the world cause it was super fast, efficient, cleanly designed and stuck to just being a search engine and nothing else, cementing the perception of its greatness. All equally made it what it is today.

  33. As he said in the talk, it was both, it wasn’t just a psychological thing but that played an equally important part. Google transformed the world cause it was super fast, efficient, cleanly designed and stuck to just being a search engine and nothing else, cementing the perception of its greatness. All equally made it what it is today.

  34. I encourage everyone to watch a documentary titled „Spielberg’s Hoax: Last Days of the Big Lie“ which exposes holocaust lies.

    I did not create the film, nor do I know the person who did. I merely made it the featured video on my channel, where you can watch it. (It starts playing automatically.)

    I’m promoting the documentary because it, along with „One Third Of The Holocaust“, helped change my worldview.

    We all need to do our part to spread the truth about the holocaust.

    Take care.

  35. I encourage everyone to watch a documentary titled „Spielberg’s Hoax: Last Days of the Big Lie“ which exposes holocaust lies.

    I did not create the film, nor do I know the person who did. I merely made it the featured video on my channel, where you can watch it. (It starts playing automatically.)

    I’m promoting the documentary because it, along with „One Third Of The Holocaust“, helped change my worldview.

    We all need to do our part to spread the truth about the holocaust.

    Take care.

  36. I encourage everyone to watch a documentary titled „Spielberg’s Hoax: Last Days of the Big Lie“ which exposes holocaust lies.

    I did not create the film, nor do I know the person who did. I merely made it the featured video on my channel, where you can watch it. (It starts playing automatically.)

    I’m promoting the documentary because it, along with „One Third Of The Holocaust“, helped change my worldview.

    We all need to do our part to spread the truth about the holocaust.

    Take care.

  37. I encourage everyone to watch a documentary titled „Spielberg’s Hoax: Last Days of the Big Lie“ which exposes holocaust lies.

    I did not create the film, nor do I know the person who did. I merely made it the featured video on my channel, where you can watch it. (It starts playing automatically.)

    I’m promoting the documentary because it, along with „One Third Of The Holocaust“, helped change my worldview.

    We all need to do our part to spread the truth about the holocaust.

    Take care.

  38. I encourage everyone to watch a documentary titled „Spielberg’s Hoax: Last Days of the Big Lie“ which exposes holocaust lies.

    I did not create the film, nor do I know the person who did. I merely made it the featured video on my channel, where you can watch it. (It starts playing automatically.)

    I’m promoting the documentary because it, along with „One Third Of The Holocaust“, helped change my worldview.

    We all need to do our part to spread the truth about the holocaust.

    Take care.

  39. I encourage everyone to watch a documentary titled „Spielberg’s Hoax: Last Days of the Big Lie“ which exposes holocaust lies.

    I did not create the film, nor do I know the person who did. I merely made it the featured video on my channel, where you can watch it. (It starts playing automatically.)

    I’m promoting the documentary because it, along with „One Third Of The Holocaust“, helped change my worldview.

    We all need to do our part to spread the truth about the holocaust.

    Take care.

  40. Actually Schrodinger’s cat relates to entanglement where an unseen event has occurred and, in theory, all possible outcomes exist. When one then „sees“ or, say comes to the place of this event to bear witness, he sees only one possible outcome. In the case of the cat, you see him alive or dead but not alive and dead. Sutherland’s point is on altruism and how the one dog perceived the other in pain. How the dog might relate to that pain and it leads him to press the button to spare the other dog.

  41. Actually Schrodinger’s cat relates to entanglement where an unseen event has occurred and, in theory, all possible outcomes exist. When one then „sees“ or, say comes to the place of this event to bear witness, he sees only one possible outcome. In the case of the cat, you see him alive or dead but not alive and dead. Sutherland’s point is on altruism and how the one dog perceived the other in pain. How the dog might relate to that pain and it leads him to press the button to spare the other dog.

  42. Actually Schrodinger’s cat relates to entanglement where an unseen event has occurred and, in theory, all possible outcomes exist. When one then „sees“ or, say comes to the place of this event to bear witness, he sees only one possible outcome. In the case of the cat, you see him alive or dead but not alive and dead. Sutherland’s point is on altruism and how the one dog perceived the other in pain. How the dog might relate to that pain and it leads him to press the button to spare the other dog.

  43. Actually Schrodinger’s cat relates to entanglement where an unseen event has occurred and, in theory, all possible outcomes exist. When one then „sees“ or, say comes to the place of this event to bear witness, he sees only one possible outcome. In the case of the cat, you see him alive or dead but not alive and dead. Sutherland’s point is on altruism and how the one dog perceived the other in pain. How the dog might relate to that pain and it leads him to press the button to spare the other dog.

  44. Actually Schrodinger’s cat relates to entanglement where an unseen event has occurred and, in theory, all possible outcomes exist. When one then „sees“ or, say comes to the place of this event to bear witness, he sees only one possible outcome. In the case of the cat, you see him alive or dead but not alive and dead. Sutherland’s point is on altruism and how the one dog perceived the other in pain. How the dog might relate to that pain and it leads him to press the button to spare the other dog.

  45. Actually Schrodinger’s cat relates to entanglement where an unseen event has occurred and, in theory, all possible outcomes exist. When one then „sees“ or, say comes to the place of this event to bear witness, he sees only one possible outcome. In the case of the cat, you see him alive or dead but not alive and dead. Sutherland’s point is on altruism and how the one dog perceived the other in pain. How the dog might relate to that pain and it leads him to press the button to spare the other dog.

  46. Actually Schrodinger’s cat relates to entanglement where an unseen event has occurred and, in theory, all possible outcomes exist. When one then „sees“ or, say comes to the place of this event to bear witness, he sees only one possible outcome. In the case of the cat, you see him alive or dead but not alive and dead. Sutherland’s point is on altruism and how the one dog perceived the other in pain. How the dog might relate to that pain and it leads him to press the button to spare the other dog.

  47. Actually Schrodinger’s cat relates to entanglement where an unseen event has occurred and, in theory, all possible outcomes exist. When one then „sees“ or, say comes to the place of this event to bear witness, he sees only one possible outcome. In the case of the cat, you see him alive or dead but not alive and dead. Sutherland’s point is on altruism and how the one dog perceived the other in pain. How the dog might relate to that pain and it leads him to press the button to spare the other dog.

  48. I think your reply is just a matter of opinion. What he was asking is how the value of a person could change depending on who is quoting them and why two different people quoting the same person could result in two completely different characterizations based solely on who the quoter quoted. For example because Ron Paul brings up Mises student he is labeled non-thinking/opinionated but when Rory Sutherland brings up Mises he is labeled brilliant even though they are both doing the same thing.

  49. I think your reply is just a matter of opinion. What he was asking is how the value of a person could change depending on who is quoting them and why two different people quoting the same person could result in two completely different characterizations based solely on who the quoter quoted. For example because Ron Paul brings up Mises student he is labeled non-thinking/opinionated but when Rory Sutherland brings up Mises he is labeled brilliant even though they are both doing the same thing.

  50. I think your reply is just a matter of opinion. What he was asking is how the value of a person could change depending on who is quoting them and why two different people quoting the same person could result in two completely different characterizations based solely on who the quoter quoted. For example because Ron Paul brings up Mises student he is labeled non-thinking/opinionated but when Rory Sutherland brings up Mises he is labeled brilliant even though they are both doing the same thing.

  51. I think your reply is just a matter of opinion. What he was asking is how the value of a person could change depending on who is quoting them and why two different people quoting the same person could result in two completely different characterizations based solely on who the quoter quoted. For example because Ron Paul brings up Mises student he is labeled non-thinking/opinionated but when Rory Sutherland brings up Mises he is labeled brilliant even though they are both doing the same thing.

  52. I think your reply is just a matter of opinion. What he was asking is how the value of a person could change depending on who is quoting them and why two different people quoting the same person could result in two completely different characterizations based solely on who the quoter quoted. For example because Ron Paul brings up Mises student he is labeled non-thinking/opinionated but when Rory Sutherland brings up Mises he is labeled brilliant even though they are both doing the same thing.

  53. I think your reply is just a matter of opinion. What he was asking is how the value of a person could change depending on who is quoting them and why two different people quoting the same person could result in two completely different characterizations based solely on who the quoter quoted. For example because Ron Paul brings up Mises student he is labeled non-thinking/opinionated but when Rory Sutherland brings up Mises he is labeled brilliant even though they are both doing the same thing.

  54. I think your reply is just a matter of opinion. What he was asking is how the value of a person could change depending on who is quoting them and why two different people quoting the same person could result in two completely different characterizations based solely on who the quoter quoted. For example because Ron Paul brings up Mises student he is labeled non-thinking/opinionated but when Rory Sutherland brings up Mises he is labeled brilliant even though they are both doing the same thing.

  55. I think your reply is just a matter of opinion. What he was asking is how the value of a person could change depending on who is quoting them and why two different people quoting the same person could result in two completely different characterizations based solely on who the quoter quoted. For example because Ron Paul brings up Mises student he is labeled non-thinking/opinionated but when Rory Sutherland brings up Mises he is labeled brilliant even though they are both doing the same thing.

  56. it doesn’t matter who is being quoted, it matters who is doing the quoting. A fool can quote and still be a fool. Using quotes and referring to people who are recognized authority in some field doesn’t change that. Not even when their opinions happen to match the opinion of the said fool.

    This is why people react differently to this guy versus Ron Paul, even though they happen to be using the same quote.

  57. it doesn’t matter who is being quoted, it matters who is doing the quoting. A fool can quote and still be a fool. Using quotes and referring to people who are recognized authority in some field doesn’t change that. Not even when their opinions happen to match the opinion of the said fool.

    This is why people react differently to this guy versus Ron Paul, even though they happen to be using the same quote.

  58. it doesn’t matter who is being quoted, it matters who is doing the quoting. A fool can quote and still be a fool. Using quotes and referring to people who are recognized authority in some field doesn’t change that. Not even when their opinions happen to match the opinion of the said fool.

    This is why people react differently to this guy versus Ron Paul, even though they happen to be using the same quote.

  59. it doesn’t matter who is being quoted, it matters who is doing the quoting. A fool can quote and still be a fool. Using quotes and referring to people who are recognized authority in some field doesn’t change that. Not even when their opinions happen to match the opinion of the said fool.

    This is why people react differently to this guy versus Ron Paul, even though they happen to be using the same quote.

  60. it doesn’t matter who is being quoted, it matters who is doing the quoting. A fool can quote and still be a fool. Using quotes and referring to people who are recognized authority in some field doesn’t change that. Not even when their opinions happen to match the opinion of the said fool.

    This is why people react differently to this guy versus Ron Paul, even though they happen to be using the same quote.

  61. it doesn’t matter who is being quoted, it matters who is doing the quoting. A fool can quote and still be a fool. Using quotes and referring to people who are recognized authority in some field doesn’t change that. Not even when their opinions happen to match the opinion of the said fool.

    This is why people react differently to this guy versus Ron Paul, even though they happen to be using the same quote.

  62. it doesn’t matter who is being quoted, it matters who is doing the quoting. A fool can quote and still be a fool. Using quotes and referring to people who are recognized authority in some field doesn’t change that. Not even when their opinions happen to match the opinion of the said fool.

    This is why people react differently to this guy versus Ron Paul, even though they happen to be using the same quote.

  63. it doesn’t matter who is being quoted, it matters who is doing the quoting. A fool can quote and still be a fool. Using quotes and referring to people who are recognized authority in some field doesn’t change that. Not even when their opinions happen to match the opinion of the said fool.

    This is why people react differently to this guy versus Ron Paul, even though they happen to be using the same quote.

  64. it doesn’t matter who is being quoted, it matters who is doing the quoting. A fool can quote and still be a fool. Using quotes and referring to people who are recognized authority in some field doesn’t change that. Not even when their opinions happen to match the opinion of the said fool.

    This is why people react differently to this guy versus Ron Paul, even though they happen to be using the same quote.

  65. Stop being blind and realize the two headed monster has you in it’s grasp…Demopublican/Republicrats need to wake up and vote Freedom-Ron Paul 2012

  66. Stop being blind and realize the two headed monster has you in it’s grasp…Demopublican/Republicrats need to wake up and vote Freedom-Ron Paul 2012

  67. Stop being blind and realize the two headed monster has you in it’s grasp…Demopublican/Republicrats need to wake up and vote Freedom-Ron Paul 2012

  68. Stop being blind and realize the two headed monster has you in it’s grasp…Demopublican/Republicrats need to wake up and vote Freedom-Ron Paul 2012

  69. Stop being blind and realize the two headed monster has you in it’s grasp…Demopublican/Republicrats need to wake up and vote Freedom-Ron Paul 2012

  70. Stop being blind and realize the two headed monster has you in it’s grasp…Demopublican/Republicrats need to wake up and vote Freedom-Ron Paul 2012

  71. Stop being blind and realize the two headed monster has you in it’s grasp…Demopublican/Republicrats need to wake up and vote Freedom-Ron Paul 2012

  72. Stop being blind and realize the two headed monster has you in it’s grasp…Demopublican/Republicrats need to wake up and vote Freedom-Ron Paul 2012

  73. speaking in slogans instead of arguments doesn’t work. I could invert what you said to mean exactly the opposite, and it’s have just as much meaning – or just as little

  74. speaking in slogans instead of arguments doesn’t work. I could invert what you said to mean exactly the opposite, and it’s have just as much meaning – or just as little

  75. speaking in slogans instead of arguments doesn’t work. I could invert what you said to mean exactly the opposite, and it’s have just as much meaning – or just as little

  76. speaking in slogans instead of arguments doesn’t work. I could invert what you said to mean exactly the opposite, and it’s have just as much meaning – or just as little

  77. speaking in slogans instead of arguments doesn’t work. I could invert what you said to mean exactly the opposite, and it’s have just as much meaning – or just as little

  78. speaking in slogans instead of arguments doesn’t work. I could invert what you said to mean exactly the opposite, and it’s have just as much meaning – or just as little

  79. speaking in slogans instead of arguments doesn’t work. I could invert what you said to mean exactly the opposite, and it’s have just as much meaning – or just as little

  80. RP’s solution – Jesus belt states start teaching creationism – in twenty years their economy collapses and the federal government DOES NOT HELP.

    Gay marriage – religious matter government mustn’t interfere. Real result – gays set up a gay church that marries them (so obvious to think of)

    Dept. of Energy – is mainly used to fund US thermonuclear arsenal. GE didn’t fund base energy research into turbines and nuclear reactors? Really?

  81. RP’s solution – Jesus belt states start teaching creationism – in twenty years their economy collapses and the federal government DOES NOT HELP.

    Gay marriage – religious matter government mustn’t interfere. Real result – gays set up a gay church that marries them (so obvious to think of)

    Dept. of Energy – is mainly used to fund US thermonuclear arsenal. GE didn’t fund base energy research into turbines and nuclear reactors? Really?

  82. RP’s solution – Jesus belt states start teaching creationism – in twenty years their economy collapses and the federal government DOES NOT HELP.

    Gay marriage – religious matter government mustn’t interfere. Real result – gays set up a gay church that marries them (so obvious to think of)

    Dept. of Energy – is mainly used to fund US thermonuclear arsenal. GE didn’t fund base energy research into turbines and nuclear reactors? Really?

  83. RP’s solution – Jesus belt states start teaching creationism – in twenty years their economy collapses and the federal government DOES NOT HELP.

    Gay marriage – religious matter government mustn’t interfere. Real result – gays set up a gay church that marries them (so obvious to think of)

    Dept. of Energy – is mainly used to fund US thermonuclear arsenal. GE didn’t fund base energy research into turbines and nuclear reactors? Really?

  84. RP’s solution – Jesus belt states start teaching creationism – in twenty years their economy collapses and the federal government DOES NOT HELP.

    Gay marriage – religious matter government mustn’t interfere. Real result – gays set up a gay church that marries them (so obvious to think of)

    Dept. of Energy – is mainly used to fund US thermonuclear arsenal. GE didn’t fund base energy research into turbines and nuclear reactors? Really?

  85. RP’s solution – Jesus belt states start teaching creationism – in twenty years their economy collapses and the federal government DOES NOT HELP.

    Gay marriage – religious matter government mustn’t interfere. Real result – gays set up a gay church that marries them (so obvious to think of)

    Dept. of Energy – is mainly used to fund US thermonuclear arsenal. GE didn’t fund base energy research into turbines and nuclear reactors? Really?

  86. part of what he says amounts to: the reason for doing something matters to a person. ask me for $5 to buy drugs and i say no, say its to buy food and i say yes. so in other words lie. you’ll get what you want and the other person is happy. everybody wins. gee isn’t that already the paradigm?
    this is a mis-titled talk, it should be called „how BullShit works“.

  87. part of what he says amounts to: the reason for doing something matters to a person. ask me for $5 to buy drugs and i say no, say its to buy food and i say yes. so in other words lie. you’ll get what you want and the other person is happy. everybody wins. gee isn’t that already the paradigm?
    this is a mis-titled talk, it should be called „how BullShit works“.

  88. part of what he says amounts to: the reason for doing something matters to a person. ask me for $5 to buy drugs and i say no, say its to buy food and i say yes. so in other words lie. you’ll get what you want and the other person is happy. everybody wins. gee isn’t that already the paradigm?
    this is a mis-titled talk, it should be called „how BullShit works“.

  89. part of what he says amounts to: the reason for doing something matters to a person. ask me for $5 to buy drugs and i say no, say its to buy food and i say yes. so in other words lie. you’ll get what you want and the other person is happy. everybody wins. gee isn’t that already the paradigm?
    this is a mis-titled talk, it should be called „how BullShit works“.

  90. part of what he says amounts to: the reason for doing something matters to a person. ask me for $5 to buy drugs and i say no, say its to buy food and i say yes. so in other words lie. you’ll get what you want and the other person is happy. everybody wins. gee isn’t that already the paradigm?
    this is a mis-titled talk, it should be called „how BullShit works“.

  91. part of what he says amounts to: the reason for doing something matters to a person. ask me for $5 to buy drugs and i say no, say its to buy food and i say yes. so in other words lie. you’ll get what you want and the other person is happy. everybody wins. gee isn’t that already the paradigm?
    this is a mis-titled talk, it should be called „how BullShit works“.

  92. Kind of.

    A bit like letting a neighbors kid you don’t like kick a large dog you don’t know, watching it for the shadenfreunde moment.

    The gay church was actually meant seriously.

  93. Kind of.

    A bit like letting a neighbors kid you don’t like kick a large dog you don’t know, watching it for the shadenfreunde moment.

    The gay church was actually meant seriously.

  94. Kind of.

    A bit like letting a neighbors kid you don’t like kick a large dog you don’t know, watching it for the shadenfreunde moment.

    The gay church was actually meant seriously.

  95. Kind of.

    A bit like letting a neighbors kid you don’t like kick a large dog you don’t know, watching it for the shadenfreunde moment.

    The gay church was actually meant seriously.

  96. you sure you know his „program“ beyond the foreign policy and the war on drugs?

    you sure you don’t confuse honesty and integrity with ability for analytical thinking?

    watch?v=5tEDMExd1aw#t=320s

  97. you sure you know his „program“ beyond the foreign policy and the war on drugs?

    you sure you don’t confuse honesty and integrity with ability for analytical thinking?

    watch?v=5tEDMExd1aw#t=320s

  98. you sure you know his „program“ beyond the foreign policy and the war on drugs?

    you sure you don’t confuse honesty and integrity with ability for analytical thinking?

    watch?v=5tEDMExd1aw#t=320s

  99. Dr. Paul has other ideas behind his war on drugs and foreign policy. He wants to end the fed and restore order to the people. How are we supposed to grow as a society if we are always brought down everyday.

  100. Dr. Paul has other ideas behind his war on drugs and foreign policy. He wants to end the fed and restore order to the people. How are we supposed to grow as a society if we are always brought down everyday.

  101. Dr. Paul has other ideas behind his war on drugs and foreign policy. He wants to end the fed and restore order to the people. How are we supposed to grow as a society if we are always brought down everyday.

  102. I have no problems with the kind of issues he picks up, but I do have huge problems with the kind of solutions he comes up with.

    and „restore order to the people“ is just a slogan. Come on, it’s not an actionable item, it’s just something to get elected with.

    besides I’m not sure in which way we’re brought down every day. People in Iran are brought down every day. Americans? By their huge bellies, may be, but that’s not a political issue.

  103. I have no problems with the kind of issues he picks up, but I do have huge problems with the kind of solutions he comes up with.

    and „restore order to the people“ is just a slogan. Come on, it’s not an actionable item, it’s just something to get elected with.

    besides I’m not sure in which way we’re brought down every day. People in Iran are brought down every day. Americans? By their huge bellies, may be, but that’s not a political issue.

  104. I have no problems with the kind of issues he picks up, but I do have huge problems with the kind of solutions he comes up with.

    and „restore order to the people“ is just a slogan. Come on, it’s not an actionable item, it’s just something to get elected with.

    besides I’m not sure in which way we’re brought down every day. People in Iran are brought down every day. Americans? By their huge bellies, may be, but that’s not a political issue.

Kommentare sind geschlossen.

Back To Top