The mental illness you speak of has afflicted me a few times over the course of this… whatever it is. For most of us who experienced our entire formal educational history as a pump and dump scheme, it has been a lot like putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. Choosing the glue has been difficult. Much trial and error in the formulation of that glue…
Many of the smartest people I know had a moment when they realized how their education warped them. I'm glad that an article like this draws out some people to say, "Yeah, I got stabbed in the brain, too," because it encourages people to confront the Mindwar that begins almost at birth.
Hi, SherS. It's actually not that Mathew thinks I've been misled by our formal education system. He's saying that I haven't been indoctrinated enough. My decade of research into geoeconomics, culminating in the writing of my book, was auto-didactic--like his. He states that it was wasted because it wasn't under the tutelage of a mentor.
Have we not heard the same about those who dare to 'question the science and do their own research?' I start my book with a quote from Johan Galtung: "I have one advantage in my life: I’m not trained as an economist. So it is so much easier to see reality. When you have to see it through the kind of crazy training these guys get, it becomes very difficult. I admire any economist who nevertheless could talk sense—there’s not many of them, but it happens."
That's from the intro to my book, which I'm reading chapter by chapter into my non-monetized YT, Rumble and Substack: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/0-in-the-beginning-was-the-purpose. My book is the only way in which I could make money, since I have no intention to ever solicit or accept donations. I think we should each take responsibility for our own livelihoods and contribute what we can of our time and energy.
Is it mental illness to think for yourself and not take an authority's word to just trust him? Mathew thinks it is.
Choosing the glue is indeed THE most difficult part! So many that come unstuck with just one washing, lol. Our discernment muscles are getting a good workout.
Very good piece and good points made in style. (bit long, to my European taste but still...)
I have no idea who Tereza is, but probably you should altogether avoid thinking and caring about the Tereza's, and focus more on the value creation which you do otherwise. That will speak for itself.
Its hard, I also know that from personal experience but its necessary to avoid being bogged down in constant Don Quixote battles.
The other parallel that occurred to me while reading your piece that the developments in Syria are probably due to a similar Mad Maxification of the society that these invisible forces achieved.
Your commitment to stay behind to help the others is admirable, and your contributions are no doubt bearing brilliant fruit in multiple sectors. You're a living epistle of 'the first shall be last, and the last shall be first'. Your meekness in the marketplace and in service is beautiful, and I pray blessing and multiplication over all of your investements (of time, value, money, mind, strength, and heart).
Tereza is impossible. I stopped reading and responding to her substack a long time ago. Once her mind is made up there’s no talking to her. I can’t say I miss her or most of the stacks I used to engage in.
I first read about BTC around 2013. Previously I had been fascinated by Ron Paul’s take on the Fed. Then, later, Bernard Von Nothaus’s foray into his Liberty Dollar. He minted beautiful coins out of precious metals. I have a silver 1oz.
Naturally the Feds came down on Nothaus like a ton of bricks. Confiscated everything on trumped up charges of counterfeiting and domestic terrorism. This dragged on for years but ultimately I don’t think he served any time.
So when I read about an electronic version of a competing currency I was intrigued and curious if eventually it would suffer the same fate. By 2017 after Mt Gox and many other shenanigans I thought, screw it, and bought BTC.
My simple thinking was, BTC makes sense on many levels. But I saw two schools of thought. One, was the optimistic “change the world for the better” scenario. The other was there’s no way the legacy power structure will allow this to infiltrate unless it benefits them. So, as the years stacked up it was clear BTC was being allowed to proliferate. Adoption in the face of the cries of Tulips and Ponzi by the hordes was indeed growing.
It occurred to me that regardless of which scenario plays out, there’s a good chance I’ll make a lot of money either way. So I bought more years later at a significantly higher price.
Have not regretted it. It’s hands down the best risk I’ve taken. I’m a big boy and realize anything can happen. And I’m nowhere near as bright as you are, but I’ve learned a lot about BTC (I bought a little LTC too for grins) and I’m optimistic that BTC is definitely earning a place in the economic hierarchy.
Where and how far it goes will be fun to see. But at 67 years old I’m not sure if “to the moon” is in my future. But I imagine the day will come when my daughter is going to look at the BTC I bought for her and say, my dad was a genius!
This is the right attitude regardless of what happens.
I was hanging out with some Bitcoiners a couple of weeks ago. One of them had run his stack up to $10M or so prior to the terra-luna collapse (which I'd predicted across the table from him in early 2021 and wish that I'd poked him about). He lost nearly all of it, and started over. That's a great mental attitude for him, though few people would have so much of their wealth in the new asset class. Now he is primarily a Bitcoin HODLer, with under $1M invested.
I may write an hyperbitcoinization at some point. One thing that I struggled with during my first year owning and studying Bitcoin was what it would look like when the Finance blob and various nations began to see buy-in as necessary. I created the comparison of the Chinese Empire burning the Treasure Fleet circa 1430, which allowed for the Europeans to get a foothold on Asia via naval power. That changed the entire fate of the world.
For any critical technology, the group that abandons its use will lose out to the group that uses it. The MOBS wizards surely understand the game theory of the situation. The military quickly began publishing papers on blockchain, and I'm certain that some governments and finance sector participants made private studies. What this means is that we should expect for big players to begin acquiring...right around now, regardless of who invented Bitcoin. In fact, we should be cognizant of the fact that half the profit from the run-up happens...during the final doubling of price (after roughly 29 doublings from first trade to maturity as the dominant reserve currency).
About the only thing naysayers keep repeating nowadays is, what’s going to happen when the last BTC is mined? The armchair experts keep insisting there will be no incentive to maintain the BTC blockchain and the whole thing’s going to crash. Frankly I’m not sure. Maybe they’ll transition to living off transaction fees. It’s difficult to predict 10 years out. Wondering if you had any thoughts?
Mathew have you heard anything on bitcoin derivatives? Catherine Fitts has said something about it (I'd have to go back and find the interview) which would, as I understand it, nullify the 21 million cap. Thanks.
Yes its true, depending on definitions there may be any number of (types) of synthetic bitcoins with any number of supply.
The "real" synthetic btc (wrapped, etfs, etc) claim to be fully backed by "real bitcoin" (which has a code-level cap, unaffected by synths/derivatives).
As they say, buyer beware.
Btw, usdt (and the like) are synthetic dollars. The "real" ones claimed to be fully backed....
The basis on which I change my mind (and I've documented 16 major times I have here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/conspiracy-theorists) is facts and logic, or being shown it conflicts with my only dogma, that I'm no better than anyone else. I don't change my mind because someone says they know better than me and I shouldn't question their authority. Did we not learn that lesson in the CovidCon?
If you haven't listened to the G&E interview, I recommend it, even if you have no interest in my analysis. Gabe, who does know Bitcoin, asks some basic questions that Mathew only answers with 'I'm not bothered by that.' But perhaps Mathew's emotional state matters more than objective reality, GLK, if you're telling him to 'hang in there' after he calls someone mentally ill and ridicules them because they said his position of seeing scams as 'a mosquito bite' is callous.
That's a clearly defamatory explanation of my conversation with Gabe and Hrvoje. It was a congenial talk, and nobody but you interprets my comments as callous. You are demonstrating your deceitful intentions plainly.
We live in a world where the conscientious among us face an exponential requirement of "bandwidth" to properly pursue and vet information from widely diverse information spaces.
My own way of approaching this has been to study the mechanism and functioning of the mind in how it processes the reality in which it both animates and it animated by.
That might sound like the beginning of a cult leader's NLP "pitch" to unsuspecting, but wanting, "subjects" except I am so viscerally opposed to influencing people out of the "free will" they don't even know the depths of which they possess that I'll gladly endure the difficulty of living in a world that is continually more and more uncomfortable because of the increasing number of people with "mental illness" as you describe, Mathew. (forgive the run-on sentence) That said, it increasingly difficult to engage most people anymore because their minds have been oriented in ways that are representative not only of the data streams they ingest, but the medium through which they do.
Simple example:
The pace of a natural back and forth between two un-augmented humans (not using technology in a real in-person conversation) is difficult for most people to maintain because of their own tendency to jump around from information stream to information stream through their use of technology. People's nervous systems are conditioned by the things they train their senses on. This doesn't even account for someone's ability to process information in real time, absorb it, and offer legitimate responses to it.
So, I pose the question to myself, "what is the solution to this 'problem'?"
Sadly, people are conditioned to seek "cult" mindsets. It is a product of their having been severed from their own capacity for effectively and successfully navigating the world. I do feel this is by design, and for a wide variety of reasons. When you describe how you have taught young people, it is obvious you know the "key" and importance of actualizing an individual by connecting them with their own capacity to problem solve and thus empower their life. To do in a tangible way (through quantitative processes such as mathematics) is a great way to legitimize any individual. (I too taught math in a former life)
Anyway, your thesis is sound, in my view, but the implications get very complex - for me at least - very quickly.
The issue that I have is that people are trained into this state in their schooling. The Prussian system lobotomizes people. If we fixed that, people would push back against the system without having to destroy the good parts.
Well damn Mathew! First, thanks for sharing this. I continue to enjoy your essays, Did you share this essay with your wife? Reading this reminded me of (one of many, many) why I love and feel so fortunate to be with my wife. She sees potential and value where I tend to either miss or dismiss. She is repulsed by the very thought of building a new house on undeveloped land, so restoring old foundations it is.
Without having to destroy the good parts is key because it we descent to the Mad Max scenario, people will beg for new and much heightened levels of top down control.
LC, I encourage you to re-read Mathew's article, scanning for anything it tells you about me. Other than a link and a random screenshot of my face, there's nothing. He's come up with some insults and a ridiculing parody but hasn't given a single quote. Is it my face that leads you to take his word for it that I'm mentally ill? I agree it's not the most flattering but I didn't think that I looked particularly demented.
As I responded elsewhere, it's not my formal education that Mathew's pointing to, but my lack of indoctrination because my decade of research into the historical psyops of money was on my own time, at a rate I calculated to be 30 hrs a week in the prelude to my book, which I deleted from the later edition as too personal: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/how-i-became-who-i-am.
While Mathew says that he sees an education exchange as a possibility for asset backing the economy, he's entirely vague on what that would look like. Mostly he's promoting STEM education, which would certainly be applauded by technocrats, bankers and CEOs. Is that not the world they see for us, programming code in our 15-min city cubicles, where we both live and work?
What is the thesis of Mathew's article? It skips around too much for me to tell. That we need more math and less critical thinking? That's all I'm getting from it.
Honestly, your presence in the article didn't even capture my attention beyond reading about yet another online spat people got into. Getting involved with people's intellectual and ideological battles isn't really why I read what Mathew offers. I do agree though that the random screen shot of the woman in the article (I guess that's you?) does make her look a little "off".
Alex, you might want to read my article before recommending Gabe as an outlet. It's his positions that Mathew was dismissing in the G&E interview, and his meaningful questions that I quote as the basis of my article.
I admire his courage, because he stuck to his convictions in the interview and didn't allow himself to be intimidated or bullied into acquiescence by Mathew. And you might want to read his comments on my thread. Despite Mathew belittling his objections, by calling them a response to emotional influencers, Gabe went back to the original whitepaper to show why Mathew is wrong and continually cited evidence--using the correct jargon--that Mathew never refuted.
So if you accept Mathew's pronouncement of my mental illness (based on my photo, since there are no quotes), you'll need to put Gabe in the loony bin with me. He's someone else who thinks for himself, no matter the pressure to cave to authorities--even those who are mentors and friends.
I don't know anything about this specific case (yet), i may watch it someday.
But I think my answer stands, in general. Many times we must make tradeoffs, and deciding how and where to respond to criticisms with limited time, is valid!
I for one am used to crypto people arguing about details. I consider my interests to be more practical.
I get this feeling that this post was as therapeutic to write as it was to read! I'm reminded of this video, https://youtu.be/-4EDhdAHrOg?feature=shared "It's not about the nail". :-)
Curious as to why it was therapeutic to read. It seems, to me, that it would have taken Mathew much less energy to address the issues that Gabe brought up about Bitcoin, and that I elaborated in my article, than to write this elaborate parody of me.
In my article, I go through a point by point analysis of the measurable goals of an economic system, and how the caret system could solve them. The only 'investment' in the caret system is the time to understand it. When Mathew said his health precluded him putting in that time, I said I was sorry and wished him well.
Yet after declining to give it any attention, Mathew now dismisses what he knows nothing about as nonsense. And says that for me to raise objections to Bitcoin without years of advanced technical degrees is crazy. Does that seem hypocritical to you?
In fact, I would say the roles are reversed from the video. I'm trying to take out the nail, which I see as the banking cartel having usurped money creation through the Federal Reserve Act. Mathew keeps saying, it's not about how Bitcoin would address these issues. It's not about the nail, it's that you're mentally ill. Is that an ad hominem attack or a diversionary tactic from his lack of factual answers?
You are a rock star in modest brilliance, Mathew. I've always been put off by TC's self-assured theories of everything (probably because she reminds me of myself), and am appalled that she would denigrate you while she's at it. I hate cancel culture, but I never subscribed to her, so it's all good.
Gort, are the words "self-assured" and "theories" not mutually exclusive? I think we should all be confident in our ability to think systematically while holding our conclusions to be theories until better information or logic comes along. That's my process.
In your comment, you're taking Mathew's word that I have denigrated him. If you go to the article, you'll see that I've made only positive comments about him and said that his position that crypto-scams didn't bother him was callous. There's a difference between a character attack and critiquing someone's positions, don't you think?
In response, as I wrote on a recent Doc Malik comment, Mathew has said "'The caret is a nonsensical system that nobody who has studied Economics well will spend much time discussing,' that I am 'dancing on the first step of a very long stairway,' that I should do the research to prove to myself that I'm wrong rather than expecting him to 'hold my hand' through the basics. My decade of studying geo-economics was useless without a mentor or advanced technical degrees, so I'm like 'a person who doesn't know how to balance an equation designing a nuclear power plant, except the risks are much larger.'"
'Cancel culture' doesn't affect me because I don't monetize. I never have and never will ask for donations. My book sells on Amazon. I put my own time and money into asking the questions that matter to me and welcome discussion and debate. I think we should all be deciding what economy would bring about the world we want, and comparing our models based on quantifiable results.
Mathew, by his own admission, knows nothing and cares to know nothing about my system. My article compares the two systems, based on my knowledge of my own and his answers in the interview to Gabe, who does understand Bitcoin. Instead of addressing the objections from his knowledge, he's using insults and ridicule. So while I have no problem with anyone not reading or subbing me, since I prefer constructive dialogue, I think you should research Mathew's claim that I've denigrated him before you are appalled.
The attack on anti-nuclear activists is unmerited. It is a fact that nuclear waste products are tremendously toxic, long-lived poisons, and the problem of containing them is very real. Some anti-nuclear people are also highly educated physicists. Chernobyl is an example of what can go wrong.
In my hypothetical, I presented the nuclear plant as responsibly low pollution. The context was specific. There may be some that are dirtier and some that are cleaner. The point was not to paint the industry with a broad brush.
The Chernobyl story, if we take it fullly at face value, took place in a nation that used technology handed to them without having built up the necessary infrastructure to be safe and clean. The oil and gas industry in Russia made be an even dirtier cautionary tale. There are vast pools of oil sewage there that would not exist in the U.S., but that doesn't mean that U.S. oil facilities pollute to that level. In fact, none of them do.
Graphite moderator is reckless. Neutron bombardment causes it to expand, then, when exposed to heat, it collapses and ignites.
Why don't you promote thorium reactors? They make no transuranium actinides except neptunium and 238-plutonium, both of which are very useful and valuable.
I understand where she's coming from but the powers that be don't really care. This is why I do worry about Bitcoin--the elite are allowing it to get tons of mainstream coverage. This means it benefits them.
And if there is a pump-and-dump scheme happening, might it be spearheaded by the 5% of BTC held in wallets since the early days that haven't been touched since?
You nailed it with this one. Besides your Counting and Probability Book (available from Art of Problem Solving, I think??), any other books you would recommend that current non-techies can pick up and start to put in the work?
(Message for both, tech and spiritual TerraDwellers). What if Terrian Humans met at midway? In fact, tech people are very brain-reason, and spiritual people very hearty-reason. Can we balance reasons in a braihy=brainy+hearty Reason, to please Pascal? Just suppose it is a familial, ordinary meeting. Peace and Love among siblings! Tolerance, Dignity and Clemency! Good seasonal Holidays!
What if Terrian Humans met at midway? In fact, tech people are very brain-reason, and spiritual people very hearty-reason. Can we balance reasons in a braihy=brainy+hearty Reason, to please Pascal? Just suppose it is a familial, ordinary meeting. Peace and Love among siblings! Tolerance, Dignity and Clemency! Good seasonal Holidays!
The mental illness you speak of has afflicted me a few times over the course of this… whatever it is. For most of us who experienced our entire formal educational history as a pump and dump scheme, it has been a lot like putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. Choosing the glue has been difficult. Much trial and error in the formulation of that glue…
Many of the smartest people I know had a moment when they realized how their education warped them. I'm glad that an article like this draws out some people to say, "Yeah, I got stabbed in the brain, too," because it encourages people to confront the Mindwar that begins almost at birth.
Hi, SherS. It's actually not that Mathew thinks I've been misled by our formal education system. He's saying that I haven't been indoctrinated enough. My decade of research into geoeconomics, culminating in the writing of my book, was auto-didactic--like his. He states that it was wasted because it wasn't under the tutelage of a mentor.
Have we not heard the same about those who dare to 'question the science and do their own research?' I start my book with a quote from Johan Galtung: "I have one advantage in my life: I’m not trained as an economist. So it is so much easier to see reality. When you have to see it through the kind of crazy training these guys get, it becomes very difficult. I admire any economist who nevertheless could talk sense—there’s not many of them, but it happens."
That's from the intro to my book, which I'm reading chapter by chapter into my non-monetized YT, Rumble and Substack: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/0-in-the-beginning-was-the-purpose. My book is the only way in which I could make money, since I have no intention to ever solicit or accept donations. I think we should each take responsibility for our own livelihoods and contribute what we can of our time and energy.
Is it mental illness to think for yourself and not take an authority's word to just trust him? Mathew thinks it is.
Hi Tereza. The mind war is real. I see that you're glue is under formulation as well. Good luck.
What a hilarious way to put it!
Yes, my formal education was definitely a pump-and-dump. How embarrassing to have fallen for it!
Choosing the glue is indeed THE most difficult part! So many that come unstuck with just one washing, lol. Our discernment muscles are getting a good workout.
Aint that the truth.
thanks for caring about truth
Oh, for God's sake, I get home from work to find you using my comment section to harass me and my readers.
Please cease all communication here and with me.
Very good piece and good points made in style. (bit long, to my European taste but still...)
I have no idea who Tereza is, but probably you should altogether avoid thinking and caring about the Tereza's, and focus more on the value creation which you do otherwise. That will speak for itself.
Its hard, I also know that from personal experience but its necessary to avoid being bogged down in constant Don Quixote battles.
The other parallel that occurred to me while reading your piece that the developments in Syria are probably due to a similar Mad Maxification of the society that these invisible forces achieved.
Thanks again and best wishes
J
Your commitment to stay behind to help the others is admirable, and your contributions are no doubt bearing brilliant fruit in multiple sectors. You're a living epistle of 'the first shall be last, and the last shall be first'. Your meekness in the marketplace and in service is beautiful, and I pray blessing and multiplication over all of your investements (of time, value, money, mind, strength, and heart).
Tereza is impossible. I stopped reading and responding to her substack a long time ago. Once her mind is made up there’s no talking to her. I can’t say I miss her or most of the stacks I used to engage in.
I first read about BTC around 2013. Previously I had been fascinated by Ron Paul’s take on the Fed. Then, later, Bernard Von Nothaus’s foray into his Liberty Dollar. He minted beautiful coins out of precious metals. I have a silver 1oz.
Naturally the Feds came down on Nothaus like a ton of bricks. Confiscated everything on trumped up charges of counterfeiting and domestic terrorism. This dragged on for years but ultimately I don’t think he served any time.
So when I read about an electronic version of a competing currency I was intrigued and curious if eventually it would suffer the same fate. By 2017 after Mt Gox and many other shenanigans I thought, screw it, and bought BTC.
My simple thinking was, BTC makes sense on many levels. But I saw two schools of thought. One, was the optimistic “change the world for the better” scenario. The other was there’s no way the legacy power structure will allow this to infiltrate unless it benefits them. So, as the years stacked up it was clear BTC was being allowed to proliferate. Adoption in the face of the cries of Tulips and Ponzi by the hordes was indeed growing.
It occurred to me that regardless of which scenario plays out, there’s a good chance I’ll make a lot of money either way. So I bought more years later at a significantly higher price.
Have not regretted it. It’s hands down the best risk I’ve taken. I’m a big boy and realize anything can happen. And I’m nowhere near as bright as you are, but I’ve learned a lot about BTC (I bought a little LTC too for grins) and I’m optimistic that BTC is definitely earning a place in the economic hierarchy.
Where and how far it goes will be fun to see. But at 67 years old I’m not sure if “to the moon” is in my future. But I imagine the day will come when my daughter is going to look at the BTC I bought for her and say, my dad was a genius!
Hang in there Mathew.
"I’m a big boy and realize anything can happen."
This is the right attitude regardless of what happens.
I was hanging out with some Bitcoiners a couple of weeks ago. One of them had run his stack up to $10M or so prior to the terra-luna collapse (which I'd predicted across the table from him in early 2021 and wish that I'd poked him about). He lost nearly all of it, and started over. That's a great mental attitude for him, though few people would have so much of their wealth in the new asset class. Now he is primarily a Bitcoin HODLer, with under $1M invested.
I may write an hyperbitcoinization at some point. One thing that I struggled with during my first year owning and studying Bitcoin was what it would look like when the Finance blob and various nations began to see buy-in as necessary. I created the comparison of the Chinese Empire burning the Treasure Fleet circa 1430, which allowed for the Europeans to get a foothold on Asia via naval power. That changed the entire fate of the world.
For any critical technology, the group that abandons its use will lose out to the group that uses it. The MOBS wizards surely understand the game theory of the situation. The military quickly began publishing papers on blockchain, and I'm certain that some governments and finance sector participants made private studies. What this means is that we should expect for big players to begin acquiring...right around now, regardless of who invented Bitcoin. In fact, we should be cognizant of the fact that half the profit from the run-up happens...during the final doubling of price (after roughly 29 doublings from first trade to maturity as the dominant reserve currency).
About the only thing naysayers keep repeating nowadays is, what’s going to happen when the last BTC is mined? The armchair experts keep insisting there will be no incentive to maintain the BTC blockchain and the whole thing’s going to crash. Frankly I’m not sure. Maybe they’ll transition to living off transaction fees. It’s difficult to predict 10 years out. Wondering if you had any thoughts?
There will be an equilibrium between the fees and need for security. I don't see why that's a problem.
Mathew have you heard anything on bitcoin derivatives? Catherine Fitts has said something about it (I'd have to go back and find the interview) which would, as I understand it, nullify the 21 million cap. Thanks.
Yes its true, depending on definitions there may be any number of (types) of synthetic bitcoins with any number of supply.
The "real" synthetic btc (wrapped, etfs, etc) claim to be fully backed by "real bitcoin" (which has a code-level cap, unaffected by synths/derivatives).
As they say, buyer beware.
Btw, usdt (and the like) are synthetic dollars. The "real" ones claimed to be fully backed....
I will need to let my daughters know I've been labeled impossible, GLK. They will likely agree ;-)
It's interesting that you state "Once her mind is made up there’s no talking to her." I've said many times that I suspect the second-most powerful force in the universe is someone who changes their mind. The most powerful is two people asking the same question, with more concern for the right answer than being right. Those are obviously related, as I say in articles like this: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/when-did-you-stop-being-wrong? and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/how-to-have-a-better-argument.
The basis on which I change my mind (and I've documented 16 major times I have here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/conspiracy-theorists) is facts and logic, or being shown it conflicts with my only dogma, that I'm no better than anyone else. I don't change my mind because someone says they know better than me and I shouldn't question their authority. Did we not learn that lesson in the CovidCon?
If you haven't listened to the G&E interview, I recommend it, even if you have no interest in my analysis. Gabe, who does know Bitcoin, asks some basic questions that Mathew only answers with 'I'm not bothered by that.' But perhaps Mathew's emotional state matters more than objective reality, GLK, if you're telling him to 'hang in there' after he calls someone mentally ill and ridicules them because they said his position of seeing scams as 'a mosquito bite' is callous.
That's a clearly defamatory explanation of my conversation with Gabe and Hrvoje. It was a congenial talk, and nobody but you interprets my comments as callous. You are demonstrating your deceitful intentions plainly.
We live in a world where the conscientious among us face an exponential requirement of "bandwidth" to properly pursue and vet information from widely diverse information spaces.
My own way of approaching this has been to study the mechanism and functioning of the mind in how it processes the reality in which it both animates and it animated by.
That might sound like the beginning of a cult leader's NLP "pitch" to unsuspecting, but wanting, "subjects" except I am so viscerally opposed to influencing people out of the "free will" they don't even know the depths of which they possess that I'll gladly endure the difficulty of living in a world that is continually more and more uncomfortable because of the increasing number of people with "mental illness" as you describe, Mathew. (forgive the run-on sentence) That said, it increasingly difficult to engage most people anymore because their minds have been oriented in ways that are representative not only of the data streams they ingest, but the medium through which they do.
Simple example:
The pace of a natural back and forth between two un-augmented humans (not using technology in a real in-person conversation) is difficult for most people to maintain because of their own tendency to jump around from information stream to information stream through their use of technology. People's nervous systems are conditioned by the things they train their senses on. This doesn't even account for someone's ability to process information in real time, absorb it, and offer legitimate responses to it.
So, I pose the question to myself, "what is the solution to this 'problem'?"
Sadly, people are conditioned to seek "cult" mindsets. It is a product of their having been severed from their own capacity for effectively and successfully navigating the world. I do feel this is by design, and for a wide variety of reasons. When you describe how you have taught young people, it is obvious you know the "key" and importance of actualizing an individual by connecting them with their own capacity to problem solve and thus empower their life. To do in a tangible way (through quantitative processes such as mathematics) is a great way to legitimize any individual. (I too taught math in a former life)
Anyway, your thesis is sound, in my view, but the implications get very complex - for me at least - very quickly.
I'll be eager to see how you parse it out.
The issue that I have is that people are trained into this state in their schooling. The Prussian system lobotomizes people. If we fixed that, people would push back against the system without having to destroy the good parts.
Well damn Mathew! First, thanks for sharing this. I continue to enjoy your essays, Did you share this essay with your wife? Reading this reminded me of (one of many, many) why I love and feel so fortunate to be with my wife. She sees potential and value where I tend to either miss or dismiss. She is repulsed by the very thought of building a new house on undeveloped land, so restoring old foundations it is.
I suspect that she read it, but I don't push articles on her unless there is something to discuss.
Without having to destroy the good parts is key because it we descent to the Mad Max scenario, people will beg for new and much heightened levels of top down control.
well said.
LC, I encourage you to re-read Mathew's article, scanning for anything it tells you about me. Other than a link and a random screenshot of my face, there's nothing. He's come up with some insults and a ridiculing parody but hasn't given a single quote. Is it my face that leads you to take his word for it that I'm mentally ill? I agree it's not the most flattering but I didn't think that I looked particularly demented.
As I responded elsewhere, it's not my formal education that Mathew's pointing to, but my lack of indoctrination because my decade of research into the historical psyops of money was on my own time, at a rate I calculated to be 30 hrs a week in the prelude to my book, which I deleted from the later edition as too personal: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/how-i-became-who-i-am.
In fact, I share your and Mathew's dismay over the Prussian schooling system. I've written about John Taylor Gatto many times, champion of homeschooling. Returning schooling to serve the interests of families and communities is a cornerstone of my system: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/reinventing-education and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/five-feminine-economies.
While Mathew says that he sees an education exchange as a possibility for asset backing the economy, he's entirely vague on what that would look like. Mostly he's promoting STEM education, which would certainly be applauded by technocrats, bankers and CEOs. Is that not the world they see for us, programming code in our 15-min city cubicles, where we both live and work?
What is the thesis of Mathew's article? It skips around too much for me to tell. That we need more math and less critical thinking? That's all I'm getting from it.
Hi Tereza,
Honestly, your presence in the article didn't even capture my attention beyond reading about yet another online spat people got into. Getting involved with people's intellectual and ideological battles isn't really why I read what Mathew offers. I do agree though that the random screen shot of the woman in the article (I guess that's you?) does make her look a little "off".
Great conclusions - they aren't all worth the time, in fact some may be motivated to waste yours.
Depending on the value of the discussion, i recommend (articles like this) or a video call with someone else (gabe?) Reacting to the conflict.
If you are going to spend the time, maximize the potential "education" that may happen. But don't empower them.
Alex, you might want to read my article before recommending Gabe as an outlet. It's his positions that Mathew was dismissing in the G&E interview, and his meaningful questions that I quote as the basis of my article.
I admire his courage, because he stuck to his convictions in the interview and didn't allow himself to be intimidated or bullied into acquiescence by Mathew. And you might want to read his comments on my thread. Despite Mathew belittling his objections, by calling them a response to emotional influencers, Gabe went back to the original whitepaper to show why Mathew is wrong and continually cited evidence--using the correct jargon--that Mathew never refuted.
So if you accept Mathew's pronouncement of my mental illness (based on my photo, since there are no quotes), you'll need to put Gabe in the loony bin with me. He's someone else who thinks for himself, no matter the pressure to cave to authorities--even those who are mentors and friends.
Hi!
I don't know anything about this specific case (yet), i may watch it someday.
But I think my answer stands, in general. Many times we must make tradeoffs, and deciding how and where to respond to criticisms with limited time, is valid!
I for one am used to crypto people arguing about details. I consider my interests to be more practical.
I'm lazy, so I looked at the easier problem of three random points on a circle of circumference n.
case 1: P(1 < |x-y| =: d <= 2) = 2/n
case 2: P(2 < |x-y|) = (n-4)/n
In case 1, the probability for z staying away from both x and y is (n-d-2)/n.
In case 2, the probability for z staying away from both x and y is (n-4)/n.
Sum: 2/n * (n-d-2)/n + (n-4)/n * (n-4)/n = (n^2-6n-2d+12)/(n^2)
Plug in d = 1 and d = 2 for bounds => n = 11
Makes sense that n is a little larger here because there is an extra boundary condition (or two).
I get this feeling that this post was as therapeutic to write as it was to read! I'm reminded of this video, https://youtu.be/-4EDhdAHrOg?feature=shared "It's not about the nail". :-)
Love that video! Always makes me laugh.
Curious as to why it was therapeutic to read. It seems, to me, that it would have taken Mathew much less energy to address the issues that Gabe brought up about Bitcoin, and that I elaborated in my article, than to write this elaborate parody of me.
In my article, I go through a point by point analysis of the measurable goals of an economic system, and how the caret system could solve them. The only 'investment' in the caret system is the time to understand it. When Mathew said his health precluded him putting in that time, I said I was sorry and wished him well.
Yet after declining to give it any attention, Mathew now dismisses what he knows nothing about as nonsense. And says that for me to raise objections to Bitcoin without years of advanced technical degrees is crazy. Does that seem hypocritical to you?
In fact, I would say the roles are reversed from the video. I'm trying to take out the nail, which I see as the banking cartel having usurped money creation through the Federal Reserve Act. Mathew keeps saying, it's not about how Bitcoin would address these issues. It's not about the nail, it's that you're mentally ill. Is that an ad hominem attack or a diversionary tactic from his lack of factual answers?
You are a rock star in modest brilliance, Mathew. I've always been put off by TC's self-assured theories of everything (probably because she reminds me of myself), and am appalled that she would denigrate you while she's at it. I hate cancel culture, but I never subscribed to her, so it's all good.
I'm willing to forgive until it begins to looks like a time sink with manipulative tactics of division and social blackmail.
Gort, are the words "self-assured" and "theories" not mutually exclusive? I think we should all be confident in our ability to think systematically while holding our conclusions to be theories until better information or logic comes along. That's my process.
In your comment, you're taking Mathew's word that I have denigrated him. If you go to the article, you'll see that I've made only positive comments about him and said that his position that crypto-scams didn't bother him was callous. There's a difference between a character attack and critiquing someone's positions, don't you think?
In response, as I wrote on a recent Doc Malik comment, Mathew has said "'The caret is a nonsensical system that nobody who has studied Economics well will spend much time discussing,' that I am 'dancing on the first step of a very long stairway,' that I should do the research to prove to myself that I'm wrong rather than expecting him to 'hold my hand' through the basics. My decade of studying geo-economics was useless without a mentor or advanced technical degrees, so I'm like 'a person who doesn't know how to balance an equation designing a nuclear power plant, except the risks are much larger.'"
'Cancel culture' doesn't affect me because I don't monetize. I never have and never will ask for donations. My book sells on Amazon. I put my own time and money into asking the questions that matter to me and welcome discussion and debate. I think we should all be deciding what economy would bring about the world we want, and comparing our models based on quantifiable results.
Mathew, by his own admission, knows nothing and cares to know nothing about my system. My article compares the two systems, based on my knowledge of my own and his answers in the interview to Gabe, who does understand Bitcoin. Instead of addressing the objections from his knowledge, he's using insults and ridicule. So while I have no problem with anyone not reading or subbing me, since I prefer constructive dialogue, I think you should research Mathew's claim that I've denigrated him before you are appalled.
The attack on anti-nuclear activists is unmerited. It is a fact that nuclear waste products are tremendously toxic, long-lived poisons, and the problem of containing them is very real. Some anti-nuclear people are also highly educated physicists. Chernobyl is an example of what can go wrong.
In my hypothetical, I presented the nuclear plant as responsibly low pollution. The context was specific. There may be some that are dirtier and some that are cleaner. The point was not to paint the industry with a broad brush.
The Chernobyl story, if we take it fullly at face value, took place in a nation that used technology handed to them without having built up the necessary infrastructure to be safe and clean. The oil and gas industry in Russia made be an even dirtier cautionary tale. There are vast pools of oil sewage there that would not exist in the U.S., but that doesn't mean that U.S. oil facilities pollute to that level. In fact, none of them do.
Graphite moderator is reckless. Neutron bombardment causes it to expand, then, when exposed to heat, it collapses and ignites.
Why don't you promote thorium reactors? They make no transuranium actinides except neptunium and 238-plutonium, both of which are very useful and valuable.
I understand where she's coming from but the powers that be don't really care. This is why I do worry about Bitcoin--the elite are allowing it to get tons of mainstream coverage. This means it benefits them.
And if there is a pump-and-dump scheme happening, might it be spearheaded by the 5% of BTC held in wallets since the early days that haven't been touched since?
You nailed it with this one. Besides your Counting and Probability Book (available from Art of Problem Solving, I think??), any other books you would recommend that current non-techies can pick up and start to put in the work?
(Message for both, tech and spiritual TerraDwellers). What if Terrian Humans met at midway? In fact, tech people are very brain-reason, and spiritual people very hearty-reason. Can we balance reasons in a braihy=brainy+hearty Reason, to please Pascal? Just suppose it is a familial, ordinary meeting. Peace and Love among siblings! Tolerance, Dignity and Clemency! Good seasonal Holidays!
(Message above is for both, tech and spiritual TerraDwellers).
What if Terrian Humans met at midway? In fact, tech people are very brain-reason, and spiritual people very hearty-reason. Can we balance reasons in a braihy=brainy+hearty Reason, to please Pascal? Just suppose it is a familial, ordinary meeting. Peace and Love among siblings! Tolerance, Dignity and Clemency! Good seasonal Holidays!