Nothing Ever Happens!

Nothing ever happens as proven in Empedocles' theory of evolution by trial and error, in Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe, nor in an additional dimension with Einstein's block universe, since everything is determined and laid down from the beginning four-dimensionally speaking.

Don't worry about consistency but be as misunderstood as every authentic and wise man who ever lived. It is a known fact that a human brain cannot make decisions without emotions. If you take your emotions out of the process, you will have a loss or impairment of the ability to make decisions or act independently, which is call abulia. You can't take emotions out of the decision making process, either no decision will be made or its done with respect to one's emotions.

Theory may not be provable but must repeatably account for all known facts and data. It is only as good as its last prediction. Whereas Aristotle spoke of absolute position and absolute time, Newton blew the theory of absolute position out the window with his laws of motion and it upset him to know end. Newton and Aristotle agreed on absolute time. Einstein blew the theory of absolute time out the window with the theory of relativity. Einstein’s theory based on absolute speed can more accurately predict planetary motion. Now, the theory of Quantum Mechanics can’t predict position and velocity at the same time and is in conflict with the theory of relativity. However, it is the basis of the microelectronic age. The theory of relativity continues to correctly predict large scale, whereas, Quantum Mechanics continues to correctly predict small scale but at least one of these is in error.

Diminishing returns always set in Money available for basic needs allows happiness. Additional money does not result in a greater happiness. Incremental pay increases will have no affect on happiness. Previous generations have proven people desires adjust to income. All income levels continue to believe 20% more will provide happiness. Pleasure people get from employment is independent of the pay. People are not very good at picking a job that will make them happy. People are not really equipped to imagine their life around any given job. Advice you gain from people and implement will insure you to be their inferior. Seek a career where the people are happy. Social relationships can increase job satisfaction. Ask not people whether their career makes them happy. People have a vested interest in convincing one self they are happy. Observe the profession to see if you believe it makes its people happy. Proven advice is seldom accepted because people believe they are unique. People believe their experience in a career will be different. People think they are unique get but are similar to everyone else. People’s perception of peoples’ differences is greatly exaggerated. If you spend a lifetime studying the differences between melons then no two will look alike to you but a melon remains a melon. Happy people do not believe they are a special case of human.

Career aspirations should carry less weight than aspirations for sex. Going from sex once a month to sex once a week creates a big jump in happiness. Money impacts which person you marry but doesn’t impact the amount of sex you have.

Most people operate in an unstated context of conventional thought that obscures or avoids acknowledging how the world is. This is especially true of one's relations in the world and one's choices. Self-deception is the basis of inauthenticity: living that is not based on the truth of oneself in the world leads to feelings of dread, guilt and anxiety. Gestalt therapy provides a way of being authentic and meaningfully responsible for oneself. By becoming aware, one becomes able to choose or organize one's own existence in a meaningful manner.

Everyone has a number of misleading beliefs about random events that are applicable to that individual's assumptions of what randomness is. Man has neither clearly defined nor understood randomness. What exist are manufactured mechanical random number generators which use what that individual believes to create an array of events random. With your ground rules of accuracy over speed using rational gambling only, I surmised that you summit to the theory of small-scale minds paying nonrandom dividends. Such insights are hardly foolproof but recognition of features that consistently go together in someone's surroundings makes life much easier and less confusing.

People are willing to take incredible amounts of risk in the stock market with so many uncertainties and unknown risks as well as so many opportunities to be cheated and call it investing. Yet mathematically, gambling risk should be easier to tolerate since the risk numbers are known and there is a high degree of confidence that losses correspond to a well defined chance, such that skill actually matters. For example, people treat small samples of information drawn at random from a large population as similar to one another and representative of the entire population, which is an illusion.

People think statistically significant relationships between two variables that emerges from 20 individuals will probably reappear from an additional 10 individuals, whereas the odds of this happening is no more than 50-50. One's mind thinks a small random sequence with extended runs of one value or another inevitably cancels each other out.

The gambler's fallacy reveals people assume that a run of heads in a sequence of random coin flips will give way to a corrective series of tails to result in roughly equal numbers of heads and tails overall. People also assume that random sequences of two values alternate frequently from one value to another and do not contain extended runs of a single value. People regard the sequence "HHTTHTHTTH" as a better example of randomness than "THHHHHHHT," yet the chances of observing either sequence is the same as any other of equal length. I play basketball and understand that a player's chance of making a shot rests heavily on his athletic skill but has virtually nothing to do with the results of his or her previous shots. Our randomness-challenged minds give real-world errors of judgment that lead to the widespread belief that basketball players have a hot hand when they make a random number of consecutive shots when frequency and duration of shooting streaks actually never exceed chance fluctuations.

I have arthritis and find that people mistakenly believe their arthritis pain responds to changes in weather where no association exists between arthritis pain and substantial changes in local barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity. The widespread certainty that the weather influences arthritis pain is a case of selective matching, the tendency to focus on coincidences, capitalizing on chance but neglecting all contrary evidence.

When people guess the outcome of a series of coin tosses, they will be much closer to generating random sequences of responses--at least those of the sort found in random number tables--than they will when they responded to instructions to devise a random string of heads and tails. Attempts at simulating randomness stray badly because participants try to produce a sequence that reflects how often each value occurs in an entire population but they do so at a length limited by their working memory.

People can accurately estimate the relative frequency of each value over the long haul and approximate the frequency of events in their environment with considerable success. For instance, people infer that heads and tails will turn up in equal proportions over an extended series of coin flips.

People tended to overestimate the extent to which positive correlations occur. Positive bias is a rational predisposition for early detection of relationships that are potentially more useful than negative correlations.

People normally perceive more positive correlations between symbols and colors than actually exist and generate the greatest number of accurate guesses about payoff pairs of symbols and colors that occurred together most often yet their judgments are less accurate in trials that contain negatively correlated values.

Small samples offer the most help in real-world situations, where people usually encounter items one at a time and make decisions without having a chance to peruse a huge body of relevant information. Decisions in uncertain circumstances profit from limited knowledge. In general, human judgment makes a virtue out of mental imperfections. More positive correlations result from a limited working memory capacity. The mind looks for positive correlations without having to perceive all of the background noise in an environment. But the questions remain as whether people with particularly weak working memories notice that they jump to false conclusions about apparent regularities fairly often and become more cautious as a result. An inference engine is a computer program that tries to derive answers from a knowledge base but it is the brain that expert systems use to reason about the information in the knowledge base, for the ultimate purpose of formulating new conclusions.

People are inference engines but what does it mean to be a good thinker. whereas Virginia Woolf ask what if Shakespeare had a sister, in reply, I would ask what if Cassandra had a male counterpart Cassandra, or Alexandra, was a daughter of Hecuba and King Priam, the rulers of Troy during the Trojan War according to Homer's Iliad. Cassandra was a beautiful young woman, blessed with the gift of prophecy by Apollo, who was infatuated with her. Unfortunately, she shunned Apollo at the last minute and he added a twist to her gift; Cassandra was doomed to tell the truth, but never to be believed. King Priam did not know what to do with her, so he tried to keep Cassandra locked up and out of the way of the warriors of Troy. Cassandra misunderstood and misinterpreted as a madwoman or crazy doomsday prophetess. But there is more to Cassandra than her maddened predictions and pitiable treatment. Cassandra was a intelligent heroine who was cursed by the gods for not playing by their rules. She is a tragic figure, not a madwoman, we call a "cassandra" someone whose true words are ignored, since Cassandra's doom was to predict what others refused to believe.