Justin Spencer

20170211

"Becoming a Master Student" by Dave Ellis

We can change habits by eliminating unwanted ones and adding new ones.
Success in school and life is largely a matter of cultivating effective habits.
Facing the truth about a habit frees people.
After choosing a new habit, promise to use it and make a plan for when and how.
Before you apply the new behavior, rehearse it in your mind. Mentally picture what actions you will take and in what order.
You can sometimes rearrange a whole pattern of behaviors by changing one small habit.
If you want to stop an old behavior then it often works to tell everyone you know that you intend to stop. When you want to start a new behavior consider telling only a few people -- those who truly support your efforts.
Another way to expand your toolbox is to keep looking for answers.
Once we’re convinced that we have the answer, it’s easy to stop looking for more answers. We then stop learning. Our range of possible actions becomes limited.
Study difficult (or “boring”) subjects first.
Continually avoiding a subject might indicate a trouble area.
Learn to say no. This is a timesaver and valuable life skill for everyone.
The overwhelming majority of research indicates that silence is the best form of music for study.
What is one task I can accomplish toward my goal? Pick out one small accomplishment, preferably one you can complete in about five minutes; then do it.
Say no to activities that fail to create value for you.
Managing time is as much about dropping worthless activities as about adding new ones.
Before rushing to the store to add another possession to your life, see if you can use or adapt something you already own.
Schedule “downtime” every day -- a period when you’re accountable to no one else and have nothing to accomplish.
Planning by itself is totally ineffective. Nothing in our lives will change until there is action. The value of planning is that it promotes action.
Study two hours for every hour in class.
Quality time counts as much as quantity.
When possible, study in shorter sessions.
When you do study in long sessions, stop and rest for a few minutes every hour.
Set clear starting and stopping times. Tasks often expand to fill the time we allot for them.
People often discover they can decrease study time by forcing themselves to read faster.
Goals are specific changes you’d like to make in yourself or your environment. To help make your goals happen, state them as results you can measure or see.
Writing the plan down keeps it specific and powerful.
The more you speak about your goals, the more real they become.
A key part of making any plan work is simply remembering the plan.
Planning a day or week at a time is a powerful practice. Seeing how your days and weeks fit into a larger picture can yield even more benefits.
Break big jobs into a series of small ones you can do in 15 minutes or less.
Do it now. The minute you notice yourself procrastinating, plunge into the task.
Motivation can come simply from being clear about our goals and acting on them.
One strategy for succeeding at any task is to hang around the masters.
When cruising the internet or playing video games, you might find that a whole morning, afternoon, or evening disappears into the digital void. When you choose to play, set a time limit in advance.
Focus your attention on the here and now.
A powerful step toward returning to the here and now is to notice when you leave it.
Goals are merely tools we create to direct our actions right now. They are real only in the here and now.
The only time to do anything is now.
Do what you’re doing when you’re doing it. Be where you are when you’re there.
Money is what we accept in exchange for our life energy -- our time, passion, and effort.
Money problems result from spending more than is available. It’s that simple. The solution is also simple: Don’t spend more than you have.
What we call forgetting is either the inability to recall stored information or the failure to store information in the first place.
Once information is stored in memory, it is never forgotten.
Short-term memory appears to have a limited capacity, and short-term memory disappears fast.
The more often you recall information, and the more often you put the same information into your memory, the easier it is to find.
Pieces of information are easier to recall if you can associate them with similar information.
After learning something, review quickly.
Learn from the general to the specific.
Before you begin your next reading assignment, skim it for the general idea.
Make it meaningful.
Know what you want from your education; then look for connections between what you want and what you are studying.
When information helps you get something you want, it’s easier to remember.
Create associations.
Learn it once, actively.
Action is a great memory enhancer.
When you sit at your desk, sit up. Sit on the edge of your chair, as if you were about to spring out of it and sprint across the room.
Also experiment with standing up when you study. It’s harder to fall asleep in this position. Some people insist their brains work better when they stand up.
Pace back and forth and gesture as you recite material out loud. Use your hands. Get your whole body involved in studying.
Relax. When we’re relaxed, we absorb new information quicker and recall it with greater accuracy.
Relaxation is a state of alertness, free of tension, during which our minds can play with new information, roll it around, create associations with it, and apply many of the other memory techniques. We can be active and relaxed.
Create pictures. Draw diagrams. Make cartoons. Use them to connect facts and illustrate relationships. Relationships within and among abstract concepts can be “seen” and recalled easily when they are visualized. The key is to use your imagination.
Recite and repeat. When you repeat something out loud, you anchor the concept in two different senses. The “out loud” part is important.
Repetition is the most common memory device because it works.
Recitation works best when you recite concepts in your own words.
Writing a note to yourself helps you remember an idea, even if you never look at the note again. You can extend this technique by writing it down not just once, but many times.
Writing prompts us to be more logical, coherent, and complete.
One way to fight mental fuzziness is to learn more than you intended.
A short review within minutes or hours of a study session can move material from short-term memory into long-term memory.
Study your most difficult subjects during daylight hours. The early morning hours can be especially productive.
You can get more done if you take regular breaks.
When you are stuck and can’t remember something you know you know, remember something else that is related to it.
Even information stored in long-term memory becomes difficult to recall if we don’t use it regularly.
To remember something, access it a lot. Read it, write it, speak it, listen to it, apply it -- find some way to make contact with the material regularly.
Another way to contact the material is to teach it. Teaching demands mastery.
When you want to remind yourself to do something, link that activity to another event that you know will take place.
The key is to pick events that are certain to occur.
Another way to remember something is to tell yourself you will remember it. The intention to remember can be more powerful than any memory technique.
When you hear a person’s name, repeat it. Immediately say it to yourself several times without moving your lips.
When meeting a group of people, concentrate on remembering just two or three names.
The idea behind Muscle Reading is that your textbooks have something you want. They offer knowledge and valuable information. Sometimes the value is so buried that extracting it requires skill and energy. Muscle Reading is a three-phase technique you can use to accomplish that extraction. Each of the three phases has three steps. To assist your recall of all nine steps, memorize three short sentences:

Pry out questions
Root up answers
Recite, review, and review again

Muscle Reading:

Before you read: Pry out questions.

Preview
Outline
Question

While you read: Root up answers.

Read
Underline
Answer

After you read: Recite, review, and review again.

Recite
Review
Review again

The main point is to preview, read, and review.

When previewing, look for familiar concepts, facts, or ideas. These items can help link new information to previously learned material.
With complex material, take time to understand the structure of what you are about to read.
Ask yourself what you want from an assignment before you begin reading.
Knowledge is born of questions.
The purpose of making up questions is to get your brain involved in the assignment.
Boredom and fatigue tend to disappear when you’re busy finding answers.
Deface your books. Use them up.
The purpose of making marks in a text is to create signals for reviewing. Underlining or highlighting can save lots of time when you study for tests.
If you mark up too much on a page, you defeat the purpose, which is to flag the most important material for review.
Talk to yourself about what you have read.
One way to get yourself to remember is to look at each underlined point. Note what you marked, then put the book down and start talking out loud. Explain as much as you can about that particular point.
Plan to do your first complete review within 24 hours of reading the material. Sound the trumpets, this is critical: A review within 24 hours moves information from your short-term memory to your long-term memory.
One of the characteristics of memory is that even when you cannot recall something immediately, you can relearn it more easily if you have already learned it once.
The final step in Muscle Reading is the weekly or monthly review.
Develop a habit of regular review.
One way to read faster is to read faster. The fact is, most people can read faster simply by making a conscious effort to do so.
Your eyes can move faster if they take in more words with each burst. You can do this by following your finger as you read. The faster your finger moves, the faster your eyes move.
Our eyes also make regressions. That is, they back up and reread words. Ineffective readers and beginning reader make many regressions. You can reduce regressions by paying attention to them.
Another way to read feaster is to avoid vocalizing. To stop doing it, just be aware of it.
Children’s books, especially children’s encyclopedias, can provide useful overviews of baffling subjects.
Effective note taking consists of three parts: observing, recording, and reviewing.
Students who get as close as possible to the front and center of the classroom often do better on tests for several reasons.
Conduct a short pre-class review. Arrive early, then put your brain in gear by reviewing your notes from the previous class.
Look the instructor in the eye.
Repetition is a signal that the instructor thinks the information is important.
Copy all diagrams and drawings, equations, names, places, dates, statistics, and definitions.
Cornell note taking method:

On each page of your notes, draw a vertical line, top to bottom, 1 ½ inches from the left edge of the paper.
Write your notes to the right of the line.
Reserve the area to the left of the line for key word clues and sample questions.
Fill in the left-hand column when you review your notes.

Copy material from the board. Record all formulas, diagrams, and problems. Copy dates, numbers, names, places, and other facts. If it’s on the board, put it in your notes.
Use only one side of a piece of paper.
When understanding is critical, print. When an important idea must be letter-perfect, print it.
A key to successful test preparation is managing review time.
One of the most effective ways to prepare for a test is to practice the tasks you’ll actually do on the test.
Answer the easiest, shortest questions first. Next answer multiple choice, true/false, and fill-in-the-blank questions. Then proceed to short-answer and essay questions.
Look for answers in other test questions.
In quick-answer questions, your first instinct is usually best.
Answer each question in your head before you look at the possible answers.
You can calm physical sensations within your body by focusing your attention on your breathing.
Math and science courses are often text-driven. That is, class activities follow the format of the book closely. This makes it doubly important to master your reading assignments. It’s crucial to master one concept before going on to the next and to stay current with your reading.
Success in math and science depends on your active involvement. Attending class regularly, coming to class with homework finished, speaking up when you have a question, and seeking extra help can be crucial.
In any subject, learning comes when we ask questions. And there are no dumb questions. To master math and science, ask whatever questions will aid your understanding.
Math and science are cumulative. That is, concepts tend to build upon each other in sequential order.
Estimation is a good way to double check your work.
Cramming won’t work if you neglected all the reading assignments or if you skipped all the lectures except the ones you daydreamed through.
The key to cramming is repetitive recitation. Recitation can burn facts into your brain like no other study method.
A creative environment is one in which failure is not fatal.
Mistakes are part of the learning process.
Not only are mistakes usually more interesting than most success -- they’re often more instructive.
Mistakes are not an end in themselves. Rather, their value lies in what we learn from them.
Attachments are addictions. When we are attached to something, we think we cannot live without it, just as a drug addict feels he cannot live without drugs. We believe our well-being depends on fulfilling our attachments.
Practice observer consciousness. This is the quiet state above and beyond your usual thoughts, the place where you can be aware of being aware.
Pay attention to your emotions and physical sensations.
Put current circumstances into a larger perspective.
Take a moment to consider the worst that could happen.
Practice breathing. Calm your mind and body with breathing or relaxation techniques.
When we are detached, we perform better.
People can often get more done by sharing their skills and resources than by working alone.
Limit groups to five or six people. Larger groups are unwieldy.
A habit is the point where desire, knowledge, and skill meet. Desire is about wanting to do something. Knowledge is seeing what to do. And skill is understanding how to do it.
Plan your week.
If you’re pressed for time, get up 15 minutes earlier or stay up 15 minutes later.
Review your subjects before you start classes.
When you meet people whom you consider to be excellent learners, observe them. Isolate specific things they do and say to promote their mastery. Then imitate one of these behaviors.
Society depends on persuasion.
Critical thinking underlies reading, writing, speaking, and listening. These are the basic elements of communication -- a process that occupies most of our waking hours.
Critical thinking also helps us uncover bias and prejudice.
Be constantly on the lookout for thinking that’s inaccurate, sloppy, or misleading.
Critical thinking is a path to freedom from half-truths and deception. You have the right to question what you see, hear, and read.
Thorough thinking is the ability to examine and re-examine ideas that may seem obvious. Such thinking takes time and the willingness to say three subversive words: I don’t know.
Thorough thinking is also the willingness to change our point of view as we continue to examine a problem.
Skilled students are thorough thinkers. Yet no one is born a thorough thinker. This is a learned skill.
Begin with creative thinking, a powerful starting point for critical thinking.
Brainstorming is a technique for finding solutions, creating plans, and discovering new ideas. The purpose of brainstorming is to generate as many solutions as possible.
Creative thinking:

Formulate the issue or problem precisely by writing it down.
Set a time limit for your brainstorming session.
Sit quietly for a few seconds to collect your thoughts.
Write down everything. Accept every idea.
Avoid making judgements and evaluations during the brainstorming session.
After the session, review, evaluate, and edit.

Let go of the need for a particular solution.
Relax. Creativity is enhanced by a state of relaxed alertness. If you are tense or anxious, use some of the relaxation techniques throughout the text.
Set a quota or goal for the number of solutions you want to generate.
Focusing and letting go are alternating parts of the same process. Intense focus taps resources of your conscious mind. Letting go gives your subconscious mind time to work.
Focusing attention means being in the here and now. To focus your attention on a project, notice when you pay attention and notice when your mind wanders.
You can use your body to focus your concentration.
Be willing to accept conflict, tension, and discomfort.
Take a nap when you are tired.
To fuel your creativity, read voraciously, including newspapers and magazines.
Turn a problem upside down by picking a solution first, before you know it will work, and working backward.
Creativity is the ability to discover those new combinations.
To capture your ideas, keep a notebook by your bed at all times.
Genius resides in the follow-through -- the application of perspiration to inspiration.
Critical thinkers want to know the truth. They are willing to consider and even accept ideas that undermine their assumptions or self-interest.
The critical thinker recognizes statements that call for evidence.
The critical thinker is willing to seek truth, listen with an open mind, and do the hard and useful work of thinking.
The critical thinker wants to know.
As a mature person, the critical thinker possesses a wisdom born of experience.
Be willing to say “I don’t know.”
Critical thinking demands that we take time to understand an idea before rejecting or modifying it. One mark of skilled debaters is that they can sum up the viewpoints they disagree with -- often better than the people who hold those viewpoints can.
Read magazines and books that challenge the opinions you currently hold.
Four questions that sum up the whole task of thinking about another person’s ideas:

What is the writing or speech about as a whole?
What is being said in detail, and how?
Is it true?
What of it?

Uncritical thinkers shield themselves from new information and ideas. In contrast, scientists constantly look for facts that contradict their theories.
You stay more alert and creative when you’re on your feet.
Letting our assumptions remain subconscious can erect barriers to our success.
When we remain ignorant of our assumptions, we make it easier for people with hidden agendas to do our thinking for us.
You can follow a three-step method for testing the validity of any viewpoint:

Look for assumptions -- the implied assertions.
Write out these assertions.
See if you can find any exceptions to them. This helps detect many errors in logic.

One mark of a skilled thinker is the ability to explain a complex subject in terms that non-specialists can understand.
The ability to organize ideas in outline form represents a high degree of thinking skill.
Jumping to conclusions is a fallacy that involves drawing conclusions without sufficient evidence.
People who indulge in personal attacks are attempting an intellectual sleight of hand -- trying to divert our attention from the truly relevant issues.
Appealing to authority is usually a substitute for producing real evidence.
Just because one event follows another does not mean that the two events have a cause-effect relationship.
All-or-nothing thinking is one of the most common errors in logic.
When we know specifically what we want from life, making decisions can become easier.
To avoid brainwashing, practice critical thinking.
Problems stimulate us and pull us forward.
One way to handle little problems is to find bigger problems.
Realize that you can make a difference. Your thoughts and actions can change the quality of life on the planet.
Without planning, we can end up completing jobs of low priority.
Success breeds success.
Define the problem, generate possibilities, create a plan, and perform your plan.
To define a problem effectively, understand what a problem is -- a mismatch between what you want and what you have. Problem solving is all about reducing the gap between these two factors.
Putting your thoughts on paper forces us to be more accurate and precise when defining a problem.
Practice. Work lots of problems. Do assigned problems and more. The more problems you do, the more comfortable you’re likely to feel solving new ones.
Work problems backward, then forward. Start at both ends and work toward the middle to check your work.
Another way to check your work is to estimate the answer before you compute it.
Writing is also a powerful way to learn.
Clarify what you want to say by summarizing it in one sentence.
Writing flows from a purpose. This means your writing is more effective when you know exactly what your purpose is.
If you want someone to think differently, make your writing clear and logical. Support your assertions with evidence.
Write the way you talk.
Welcome getting stuck. A breakthrough is not far behind it.
Avoid at all costs and at all times the really, really terrible mistake of using way too many unnecessary words.
In general, write with nouns and verbs. Relying too much on adjectives and adverbs weakens your message and adds unnecessary bulk to your writing. Write about the details, and be specific. Also, use the active rather than the passive voice.
Reading your paper out loud is one way to spot awkward sentences.
Using another person’s words without giving proper credit is called plagiarism.
To make an effective speech, be precise about your purpose.
At the end of the speech, summarize your points and draw your conclusion.
The first and last parts of a speech are the most important.
The key to successful public speaking is practice.
The possibility of succeeding at any venture increases when we’re comfortable with making mistakes.
Listening is not easy. Doing it effectively requires concentration and energy.
To be a good listener, decide to listen.
Look at the other person while he speaks. It demonstrates your attention and it helps keep your mind from wandering.
When communication is emotionally charged, psychologist Thomas Gordon suggests that you consider limiting your statements to descriptions about yourself.
We use questions that aren’t questions to sneak our opinions and requests into conversations, without owning up to them publicly.
How you say something can be more important than what you say.
You are far more likely to get what you want if you say what you want.
Of all the factors that affect relationships, the biggest is communication.
Let go of the reluctance that many people feel toward assuming leadership.
The more important and influential you are, the more likely your mistakes will have huge consequences.
People in leadership positions become paralyzed and ineffective if they fear making a mistake.
Leaders make promises. And effective leaders make big promises.
As a leader, constantly give away the praise and acknowledgement that you receive.
Assertive behavior is a sign of a healthy, strong leader. Assertive people are confident and respectful of others as well as themselves. They ask directly for what they want without feeling embarrassed or inadequate.
As a leader, be aware of what other people are thinking, feeling, and wanting.
Leadership is an acquired skill.
You are what you eat.
The formula for weight loss is simple: eat better food, eat less food, and exercise.
If you can’t fall asleep after 30 minutes, get up and study or do something else until you’re tired.
Seek the counsel of experienced people you respect and admire.
Attitudes are powerful because they create behavior.
An affirmation is a statement describing what you want. The most effective affirmations are personal, positive, and written in the present tense.
To use affirmations, first determine what you want, then describe yourself as if you already have it.
What makes affirmation work is detail.
Once you have written the affirmation, repeat it. Practice saying it aloud several times a day.

"Apple 1 Replica Creation" by Tom Owad

Digital signals are either on or off, high or low, zero or one.
Touch the point of a logic probe to a wire and it will respond with either “high” or “low.”
This [logic probe] is an invaluable tool for building circuits and one you’ll use frequently.
A breadboard is almost essential for exercises and is also ideal for making quick prototypes.
A digital multimeter is a tool everyone should own.
Wire wrapping is useful if you have unique designs that you want to build, play with for a few months, and then take apart.
Breadboards are much more convenient for quick, temporary designs, whereas circuit boards are more reliable for long-term setups.
Soldering components to a circuit board is the most reliable and permanent method for building your Apple 1 replica.
A good soldering job on a printed circuit board will result in a product indistinguishable from a professionally made board.
Temperature controlled irons allow you to precisely set the temperature of your iron and ensure that the temperature stays within a narrow range.
AT [power] supplies are “switching power supplies” and should require a load to operate properly.
Transistor-Transistor logic (TTL) is a method for creating the logic gates in integrated circuits using two transistors at the output circuit. The primary alternative to TTL is complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS). CMOS circuits use less power than ttl but are also more prone to static damage.
The original Apple 1 used an ASCII keyboard.
Voltage (V) is the potential difference between two points, measured in volts.
Current (I) is used to measure the rate of flow of electrical charge and can be thought of in terms of a water current. Current is measured in amperes (A). Whereas voltage is measured between two points, current measures the rate of flow at a particular point.
Power (P) is voltage multiplied by current. Power is measured in watts.
P = V * I
A diode is a device that allows current to flow in only one direction.
A resistor is a partial conductor, usually made of carbon.
A capacitor stores energy in an electric field.
In building our circuits, we’ll use capacitors as de-spiking capacitors to filter the power supply.
The 7400 series of ICs serves as the basis for digital logic and is very easy to understand.
Pin numbering always starts in the upper-left corner, goes down the left side, and follows up the the right side. Pin 1 is marked either by a circle in the upper-left corner or by a notch in the top center.
When a chip’s inputs are changed, the output does not change instantaneously. The new signals take time to propagate through the chip. This propagation varies depending on the speed and complexity of the design, but TTL gates tend to take about 10 nanoseconds (ns) to complete propagation.
An LED typically has two leads projecting from its base. The longer lead is the positive lead (aka the anode), and the shorter lead is the negative lead (aka the cathode). The cathode is also denoted by a flat edge on the plastic LED housing.
Basic Logic Functions and Gates

AND = 7408
NOT (Inverter/Buffer) = 7404
NAND (Not AND) = 7400
OR = 7432
NOR (Not OR) = 7402
XOR (eXclusive OR) = 7486

Using logic expressions, DeMorgan’s Laws, and Boolean algebra, you can quickly sketch out basic circuits on paper or even in a simple text editor.
Logic expressions will allow you to show gates and lines with symbols and letters.
DeMorgan’s Laws will allow you to swap gates to get more efficient circuits.
Boolean algebra will allow you to simplify your circuits.
algebraic symbols for digital logic

‘ = NOT
⦁ = AND
+ = OR
⊕ = XOR

DeMorgan’s Laws

(A + B)’ = A’ ⦁ B’
(A ⦁ B)’ = A’ + B’

There’s an easy way to remember DeMorgan’s Laws in practice. To find the equivalent for any gate, first swap the symbol (OR to AND, AND to OR). Then look at each input and output. Everywhere there’s an inverter, remove it, and everywhere there isn’t, add one.
A complete set is a collection of chips that can be used to produce and logical statement. One example of a complete set is the 7408 (AND), the 7432 (OR), and the 7404 (NOT).
A set-reset (SR) latch allows us to set a bit to 1 or reset it to 0. We can do this using ordinary logic gates. The trick is to loop the output back into the input. What’s most important to realize her is that all it takes is a momentary high on the set or reset lines to permanently set or reset the output Q.
Digital logic has only two states, high or low; so our numbers need to be expressed in a binary (base 2) format. A binary digit, like a digital signal, is always either 1 or 0.
To distinguish binary numbers from decimal numbers, appane d ab to the end. Hexadecimal numbers are prefixed with a dollar sign ($) or sometimes with 0x.
Each digit in binary is called a bit.
Counting on your fingers, with each finger corresponding to a bit, is a good way to get used to the binary system.
There’s not much that can be expressed with a single bit; so, computers examine a collection of bits at one time. This collection of bits is called a word.
8-bits are called a byte.
Eight bits can be used to represent any letter in the alphabet, a computer instruction, a number, the color of a pixel, or data in countless other formats.
An 8-bit flip-flop (called a register) is just eight flip-flops connected to the same clock.
A selection of lines treated as a group is called a bus.
A bus can be either parallel or serial. In a parallel bus every bit is on its own line and arrives at the same time. This bus is the simplest to use and to understand. The serial bus uses a single data line. All data arrives over this single line, one bit after the next.
A nibble is 4-bits -- half a byte.
ASCII uses 7 bits to produce 128 characters.
A shift register is a collection of flip-flops hooked up in a row such that the output of one is the input to the next. This allows us to store a series of data, as it comes in -- 1 bit for every clock pulse.
A TTL gate can only drive 10 other gates. To alleviate this problem, we have the buffer.
A buffer is like an inverter that doesn’t invert -- it just replicates the signal.
The tri-state buffer has a third state -- off. In this third state, “floating,” no output at all comes from the chip and it will not interfere with other signals on the line.
The first time you use a new soldering iron, you need to tin the tip, which is done by heating the iron and applying a thin coating of solder to the tip.
If your [solder] joint is dull and dirty, you have a cold solder joint, possible because you bumped the joint or because the joint is not getting hot enough.
Nonvolatile RAM (NVRAM) can be used in lieu of static RAM in your replica. NVRAM preserves the contents of memory, even when the computer is turned off. This means that programs you enter by hand will still be accessible the next time you use your replica.
Beginner’s All Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code (BASIC) is a great high-level programming language for beginners.
Apple Basic commands

print -- print strings
run -- run stored programs
tab -- indent line
end -- end of program
goto -- jump execution to a label
input -- get user input
dim -- declare string variables
for i to x step y -- for loop increment
next -- next iteration of for loop

"The Automatic Millionaire" by David Bach

The philosophy behind the automatic millionaire:

You don’t have to make a lot of money to be rich
You don’t need discipline
You don’t need to be your own boss
By using the latte factor, you can build a fortune on a few dollars a day
The rich get rich (and stay rich) because they pay themselves first
Homeowners get rich; renters get poor
Above all, you need an “automatic system” so you can’t fail

If your financial plan is not automatic, you will fail!
Making your financial plan automatic is the one step that virtually guarantees that you won’t fail financially.
Every time you earn a dollar, you should make sure to pay yourself first.
Put aside a few dollars for yourself, THEN pay all your other bills.
Pay off your mortgage as quickly as you can.
Take your mortgage payment and instead of paying it in full once a month, you pay half every two weeks.
No matter how big they are, you pay for your purchases with cash or you don’t buy. The only exception is buying a house, and you pay off the mortgage as quickly as you can.
Ask anyone who got a raise last year if their savings increased. In almost every case, the answer will be no. Why? Because more often than not, the more we make, the more we spend.
How much you earn has almost no bearing on whether or not you can and will build wealth.
The trick to getting ahead financially is watching the small stuff -- little spending habits that you’d probably be better of without.
We throw away too much of our hard-earned money on unnecessary “little” expenditures without realizing how much they can add up to.
Becoming rich requires nothing more than committing and sticking to a systematic savings and investment plan.
Inspiration unused is merely entertainment.
There’s a very simple reason why budgets don’t work in the real world. They aren’t fun.
If you want to be rich, all you have to do is make a decision to do something that most people don’t do. And that’s to PAY YOURSELF FIRST.
You need to set up a system that guarantees you’ll get paid -- a system in which you pay yourself first automatically.
You should work at least one hour a day for yourself. This means you should pay yourself first for your future by putting a minimum of 10 percent of your gross income into what we call a pretax retirement account.
Formula to decide how much to save:

Dead broke: Don’t pay yourself first. Spend more than you make. Borrow money on credit cards and carry debt you can’t pay off.
Poor: Think about paying yourself first, but don’t actually do it. Spend everything you make each month and save nothing. Keep telling yourself, “Someday...”
Middle class: Pay yourself first 5 to 10 percent of your gross income.
Upper middle class: Pay yourself first 10 to 15 percent of your gross income.
Rich: Pay yourself first 15 to 20 percent of your gross income.
Rich enough to retire early: Pay yourself first at least 20 percent of your gross income.

Nothing will help you achieve wealth until you decide to pay yourself first.
The foundation of wealth building is pay yourself first.
The secret to creating lasting financial change is to decide to pay yourself first and then make it automatic.
You need to have a system that doesn’t depend on your following a budget or being disciplined.
Pretax retirement plans are where all wealth starts.
In a perfect world, the fastest way to become rich is to max out the (retirement) plan.
The single most important investment decision you ever make may well be how much to automatically pay yourself first into your retirement account.
An asset allocation or balanced fund does all the work for you, offering the right mix of cash, bonds, and stocks in one fund.
Managing your money (i.e. investments) should be boring!
Not earning interest on your emergency money is almost as bad as burying it in your backyard.
What you want to do with your emergency money is put it in a money market account that pays reasonable interest.
The rich get rich because they make their money work for them.
You can’t get rich renting.
The fact is, you aren’t really in the game of building wealth until you own some real estate.
Take the normal 30-year mortgage you have, and instead of making the monthly payment the way you normally do, you split it down the middle and pay half every two weeks.
One of the most important lessons in this book is that automatic millionaires don’t do debt.
The only time borrowing makes sense is when you do it to buy something that can go up in value (like a home).

"A Manual for Creating Atheists" by Peter Boghossain

Effective interventions depend upon understanding core beliefs and definitions.
When pressed, the faithful will offer vague definitions that are merely transparent attempts to evade criticism, or simplistic definitions that intentionally muddy the meaning of “faith.”
A deepity is a statement that looks profound but is not. Deepities appear true at one level, but on all other levels are meaningless.
Virtually all statements by Deepak Chopra are deepities.
Christians in particular have created a tradition to employ deepities, used slippery definitions of faith, and hidden behind unclear language since at least the time of Augustine (354 - 430).
The words we use are important. They can help us see clearly, or they can confuse, cloud, or obscure issues.
Faith has two definitions:

Belief without evidence.
Pretending to know things you don’t.

If one had sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a particular claim, then one wouldn’t believe the claim on the basis of faith.
“Faith” is the word one uses when one does not have enough evidence to justify holding a belief, but when one goes ahead and believes anyway.
If one claims knowledge either in the absence of evidence, or when a claim is contradicted by evidence, then this is when the word “faith” is used.
As a Street Epistemologist, whenever you hear the word “faith,” just translate this in your head as, “pretending to know things you don’t know.” While swapping these words may make the sentence clunky, “pretending to know things you don’t know”will make the meaning of the sentence clear.
Faith and hope are not synonyms.
“Promise,” “confidence,” “trust,” and “hope” are not knowledge claims. One can hope for anything or place one’s trust in anyone or anything. This is not the same as claiming to know something. To hope for something admits there’s the possibility that what you want may not be realized.
Desire is not certainty but the wish for an outcome.
Hoping is not the same as knowing.
Many of the faithful imagine that just as a theist firmly believes in a God, an a-theist firmly disbelieves in God.
“Atheist,” as I use the term, means, “There’s insufficient evidence to warrant belief in a divine, supernatural creator of the universe. However, if I were shown sufficient evidence to warrant belief in such an entity, then I would believe.”
The atheist does not claim, “No matter how solid the evidence for a supernatural creator, I refuse to believe.”
A difference between an atheist and a person of faith is that an atheist is willing to revise their belief (if provided sufficient evidence); the faithful permit no such revision.
Agnostics profess not to know whether or not there’s an undetectable, metaphysical entity that created the universe. Agnostics think there’s not enough evidence to warrant belief in God, but because it’s logically possible they remain unsure of God’s existence. Again, an agnostic is willing to revise her belief if provided sufficient evidence.
The problem with agnosticism is that in the last 2,400 years of intellectual history, not a single argument for the existence of God has withstood scrutiny.
“Agnostic” and “agnosticism” are unnecessary terms. Street Epistemologists should avoid them.
Faith claims are knowledge claims.
The term “epistemology” comes from the Greek “episteme,” which means “knowledge,” and “logos,” which means “reason and logic” and “argument and inquiry” and therefore, by extension, “the study of.”
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that focuses on how we come to knowledge, what knowledge is, and what processes of knowing the world are reliable.
Conclusions one comes to as the result of an epistemological process are knowledge claims.
A knowledge claim is an assertion of truth.
Faith is an epistemology. It’s a method and a process people use to understand reality. Faith-based conclusions are knowledge claims.
Those who make faith claims are professing to know something about the external world.
Much of the confusion about faith-based claims comes from mistaking objective claims with subjective claims.
Knowledge claims purport to be objective because they assert a truth about the world. Subjective claims are not knowledge claims and do not assert a truth about the world; rather, they are statements about one’s own unique, situated, subjective, personal experiences or preferences.
Think of subjective claims as matters of taste or opinion.
Faith claims are knowledge claims. Faith claims are statements of fact about the world.
Faith is an unreliable epistemology.
If a belief is based on insufficient evidence, then any further conclusions drawn from the belief will at best be of questionable value. Believing on the basis of insufficient evidence cannot point one toward truth.
As a tool, as an epistemology, as a method of reasoning, as a process for knowing the world, faith cannot adjudicate between competing claims.
Faith cannot steer one away from falsehood and toward truth. This is because faith does not have a built-in corrective mechanism. That is, faith claims have no way to be corrected, altered, revised, or modified.
The only way to figure out which claims about the world are likely to be true, and which are false, is through reason and evidence. There is no other way.
Believing things on the basis of something other than evidence and reason causes people to misconstrue what’s good for them and what’s good for their communities.
The less one relies on reason and evidence to form conclusions, the more arbitrary the conclusion.
Afghanistan under the Taliban was an unmitigated catastrophe.
The vast majority of people use faith to understand the world, to guide their actions, and to ground their institutions.
Religious belief is very often defended through the use of clever semantics.
The emotional satisfaction of religious belief vitally depends upon the beliefs being taken literally; the epistemic defense of such beliefs crucially depends on taking them non literally. This type of cognitive disruption does not bode well in the search for truth.
What nearly all sophisticated believers do is simultaneously deceive themselves while alternating between two stances: they absolutely don’t believe that--of course he didn’t walk on water--while voicing unflappable conviction about this--the world was created by a higher power. When defending epistemically, they characterize the belief as not literally requiring the existence of a Special Person, but then as soon as they have satisfied the epistemic challenge, they reframe the belief more literally.
Whether a person is an atheist or a believer is immaterial with respect to morality, and yet, moral ascriptions are frequently made to atheists and to the faithful.
Atheism is about epistemology, evidence, honesty, sincerity, reason, and inquiry.
Once one buys into a system of belief without evidence, it’s unclear on what basis one could make the claim that there’s a correct or incorrect interpretation [of the belief].
Absent any desire to know one is either certain or indifferent.
If you believe you have the truth then why would you seek another truth?
Certainty is the enemy of truth: examination and reexamination are allies of truth.
Faith taints or at worst removes our curiosity about the world, what we should value, and what type of life we should lead. Faith replaces wonder with epistemological arrogance disguised as false humility.
Among the goals of the Street Epistemologist are to instill a self consciousness of ignorance, a determination to challenge foundational beliefs, a relentless hunger for truth, and a desire to know.
The sense of moving your intellectual life forward and feeding the hunger to know are a vital part of the human experience.
Whenever we have a chance to peek at our prejudices and see our own biases and underexamined assumptions, we have an opportunity to attack those assumptions and to rid ourselves from the presumption of knowledge.
Non-religious people who convert often do so as a result of a sudden, highly emotional event, either a personal one or a societal one. However, the most likely path to un-faith is slower, taking years to unfold, and going through a lot of readings, conversations, and reflection.
Reasoning away faith means helping people to abandon faulty epistemology, but reasoning away religion means that people abandon their social support network.
There are five reasons why otherwise reasonable people embrace absurd propositions:
They have a history of not formulating their beliefs on the basis of evidence.
They formulate their beliefs on what they thought was reliable evidence but wasn’t.
They have never been exposed to competing epistemologies and beliefs.
They yield to social pressures.
They devalue truth or are relativists.
I use the term [doxastic closure] to mean that either a specific belief one holds, or the one’s entire belief system, is resistant to revision.
Belief revision means changing one’s mind about whether a belief is true or false.
We seek out people and groups with ideologies similar to our own--we like to be around people who value what we value. One consequence of clustering is to further cement the process of doxastic closure; when surrounded by “ideological likes,” even far-fetched beliefs become normalized.
A “filter bubble” describes the phenomena of online portals predicting and delivering customized information users want based upon algorithms that take pre existing data into account. Consequently, and unbeknownst to the user, the information users see is in ideological conformity with their beliefs.
Combine clustering in like-minded communities with filter bubbles, then put that on top of a cognitive architecture that predisposes one to belief and favors confirmation bias, then throw in the fact that critical thinking and reasoning require far more intellectual labor then acceptance of simple solutions and platitudes, then liberally sprinkle the virulence of certain belief systems, then infuse with the data that holding certain beliefs and using certain processes of reasoning are moral acts, and then lay this entire mixture upon the difficulty of just trying to make a living and get through the day with any time for reflection, and viola: doxastic closure!
Doxastic openness is a willingness and ability to revise beliefs. Doxastic openness occurs the moment one becomes aware of one’s ignorance; it is the instant one realizes one’s beliefs may not be true.
Awareness of ignorance is by definition doxastic openness.
Street Epistemologists should set the realistic goal of helping the faithful become more doxastically open. Sow the seeds of doubt.
If someone is suffering from a brain-based faith delusion your work will be futile.
When people are presented with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, or are shown that they don’t have sufficient evidence to warrant beliefs, or learn that there’s a contradiction in their beliefs, or come to understand that their reasoning is in error, they seem to cling to their beliefs more tenaciously.
A pathogenic belief is a belief that directly or indirectly leads to emotional, psychological, or physical pathology; in other words, holding a pathogenic belief is self-sabotaging and leads one away from human well-being.
Based upon data with human subjects, psychiatrists have posited that therapeutic interventions work by creating an environment where the therapist continually frustrates a pathogenic belief; this causes the patient to redouble their efforts to prove the pathogenic hypothesis.
Once you expose a belief or an epistemology as fraudulent, you’re likely to hear statements of greater confidence.
People adhere to certain behaviors so that they can receive benefits like respect, recognition, friendship, and solidarity from their community.
Failure to acquiesce may mean being stigmatized or worse.
Most people are afraid of feeling anxiety and they’ll do anything they can to distract themselves from it.
When people aren’t reasoned into their faith, it is difficult to reason them out of their faith.
Many people of faith come to their beliefs independent of reason. In order to reason them out of their faith they’ll have to be taught how to reason first, and then instructed in the application of this new tool to their epistemic condition.
It’s important not to just be aware, but also to be sincere when asking ourselves why we hold the beliefs we do.
Sincerity is indispensable not just in leading an examined life, but also in having meaningful relationships.
An intervention is an attempt to help people, or “subjects” as they’re referred to in a clinical context, change their beliefs and/or behavior.
It’s more likely you’ll earn success if you view what you’re doing as an intervention and consider a person of faith as someone who needs your help--as opposed to passing judgement.
Interventions are not about winning or losing, they’re about helping people see through a delusion and reclaim a sense of wonder.
On a personal level, you’ll likely find deeper satisfaction in helping people than in winning a debate.
Keep in mind the possibility the faithful know something you don’t, that they may have a reliable method of reasoning that you’ve overlooked, that there’s a miscommunication, or that they can somehow help you to think more clearly.
When someone suffers from a doxastic pathology, they tend to not really listen to an argument, to not carefully think through alternatives, and to lead with their conclusion and work backward (this is called “confirmation bias”).
Few things are more dangerous than people who think they’re in possession of absolute truth. Honest inquirers with sincere questions and an open mind rarely contribute to the misery of the world. Passionate, doxastically closed believers contribute to human suffering and inhibit human well-being.
If someone knows something that you don’t know, acknowledge that you don’t know.
You need to become comfortable with not knowing and not pretending to know, even though others may ridicule you or attempt to make you feel inadequate for not pretending to know something they themselves are only pretending to know.
People dig themselves into cognitive sinkholes by habituating themselves to not formulate beliefs on the basis of evidence. Hence the beliefs most people hold are not tethered to reality.
If people believed on the basis of evidence then they wouldn’t find themselves in their current cognitive quagmire.
Do not bring particular pieces of evidence (facts, data points) into the discussion when attempting to disabuse people of specific faith propositions.
Remember: the core of the intervention is not changing beliefs, but changing the way people form beliefs.
Bringing facts into the discussion is the wrong way to conceptualize the problem: the problem is with epistemologies people use, not with conclusions people hold.
The futility of trying to persuade the faithful by way of evidence is particularly conspicuous in fundamentalists and in people who experience severe doxastic pathologies.
The introduction of facts may also prove unproductive because this usually leads to a discussion about what constitutes reliable evidence.
Nearly all of the faithful suffer from an acute form of confirmation bias: they start with a core belief first and work their way backward to specific beliefs.
Every religious apologist is epistemically debilitated by an extreme form of confirmation bias.
By starting with a belief first and working backward, his beliefs make perfect sense to him as well as those who begin with the same belief.
Another example of confirmation bias occurs when someone tells their pastor, for example, that they’re having doubts about their faith. Their pastor in turn tells them to read the Bible and pray about it. This is asking someone to start with their belief first and see what happens--what will happen is that their belief will strengthen.
Doxastic closure almost always results from pressures independent of evidence. Therefore you should avoid facts, evidence, metaphysics, and data points in discussions with those suffering from faith-based forms of doxastic closure.
Before one can help others to overcome false beliefs, it’s important to understand the structure of belief within the context of an epistemological intervention.
In philosophy, the two primary schools regarding belief (epistemic) justification are coherentism and foundationalism. Coherentists think belief statements are justified if they cohere or comport with other statements within the belief system. Foundationalists argue the specific beliefs are justified if they’re inferred from other beliefs.
Using a coherentist model, it’s impossible to break through and meaningfully engage, because of the circular nature of justification. That is, each artifact is justified by other artifacts, yet does not receive justification from any outside source. Thus, from inside a coherentist system everything makes sense.
Street Epistemologists should use a foundationalist paradigm when deconstructing a subject’s faith.
It’s helpful to conceptualize the structure of belief architecturally--a belief system is like a large house. There are foundational beliefs at the base of the house that hold up the entire edifice. There are also secondary and tertiary beliefs that act as scaffolding for the structure--these beliefs are important to give coherence and solidity to the structure but they are dispensable to the structure’s support. To demolish a building, start with the base. Take out the support beam and the entire structure will fail. Faith is the base. Faith holds up the entire structure of belief. Collapse faith and the entire edifice falls.
By undermining faith one is able to undermine almost all religions simultaneously, and it may be easier to help someone to abandon their faith than it is to separate them from their religion.
Your interventions should target faith, not religion.
The greatest obstacle to engendering reason and rationality is faith.
This is how the vast majority of believers experience their religious life--as a communal and social event that adds meaning, purpose, and joy to their lives.
Attacks on religion are often perceived as attacks on friends, families, communities, and relationships. As such, attacking religion may alienate people, making it even more difficult to separate them from their faith.
Religion is not necessarily an insurmountable barrier to reason and rationality.
Attempting to disabuse people of a belief in God is the wrong way to conceptualize the problem. God is the conclusion that one arrives at as a result of a faulty reasoning process (and also social and cultural pressures). The faulty reasoning process--the problem--is faith.
Belief without evidence is the problem.
By targeting belief in God, you also run the risk of modeling the wrong behavior--the behavior of being doxastically closed--of having a closed belief system and an inability to revise your beliefs.
You should be modeling doxastic openness--a willingness to revise your beliefs.
Targeting belief in God may be perceived as a type of militancy, particularly about things that cannot be known, and may push people even further into their faith-based delusions as a consequence of your perceived metaphysical extremism.
One consequence of thinking more clearly and learning how to reason is that one will place less confidence in one’s conclusions.
Focus on epistemology and rarely, if ever, allow metaphysics into the discussion. In other words, focus on undermining one’s confidence in how one claims to know what one knows (epistemology) as opposed to what one believes exists (metaphysics/God).
Target each epistemological claim separately. Do not move on to another claim until the subject concedes that the particular claim in question is not sufficient to warrant belief in God.
It’s crucial to undermine the value that one should lend one’s belief to a proposition because of something allegedly noble in the act of believing, or in the act of professing to believe. There’s nothing virtuous about pretending to know things you don’t know or in lending one’s belief to a particular proposition.
Formulating beliefs on the basis of evidence and acting accordingly does not make one a better person. It just makes it more likely that one’s beliefs will be true and far less likely that one’s beliefs will be false.
The belief that faith is a virtue and that one should have faith are primary impediments to disabusing people of their faith.
Faith is bundled with a moral foundation. Many people, even those who do not have faith, buy into the mistaken notion that faith is a virtue.
Faith-based interventions need to target and decouple the linkage between faith and morality.
Many people haven’t considered the fact that having faith is unconnected to morality, and so stating it bluntly may achieve a certain “shock and awe” among a particular segment of the faithful.
“How could your belief [in X] be wrong?”
“How would you differentiate your belief from a delusion? How do you know that you’re not delusional?”
Understand from the outset that it’s unrealistic to expect a subject will stop pretending to know things she doesn’t know on, during, or immediately after her first treatment.
When people begin to genuinely question their faith, or when their pathogenic hypothesis is frustrated, they may be unhappy with their interlocutor.
Model the behavior you want to emulate.
The Transtheoretical Model of change states that behavior change occurs in a series of stages.

precontemplation (not ready to change)
contemplation (getting ready to change)
preparation (ready to change)
action (changing)
maintenance (sustaining change)
termination (change complete)

Precontemplation is somewhat similar to a state of doxastic closure--the faithful don’t even imagine that they need to change because they don’t understand that they have a problem.
Precontemplation means that one is at the stage before contemplation even begins and thus does not mean denial.
Contemplative means that people see a need to change their behavior but don’t think it can be done, or they’re wondering if they should change but they’re not really sure.
Avoid politics whenever possible.
Undermine faith and all faith-based conclusions are simultaneously undermined.
Often, conclusions one comes to on these issues [abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, stem cell research, pornography, contraception, etc.] are consequences of a failed epistemology: faith.
When appropriate, relate to your subject by bringing in shared personal experiences.
Don’t get sidetracked by politics or metaphysics; keep the treatment focused on epistemology.
Truthfulness of reason and willingness to reconsider are two crucial post treatment attitudes the faithful need in order to make a full recovery.
Shermer has noted that the smarter someone is the better they are at rationalizing.
System 1 thinking (intuition) is instantaneous, automatic, subconscious, and often has some degree of emotional valence; System 1 thinking is the result of habits and resistance to change. System 2 thinking (reasoning) is much slower, more subject to change, more conscious, and requires more effort.
Many beliefs are formed on the basis of System 1 fast-thinking phenomenon. Doxastic closure can come about when people lack the system capacity to reinsert evidence into their System 1 thinking--that is, their System 1 thinking is invulnerable to System 2 thinking. They haven’t developed the ability to allow System 2 thinking to penetrate System 1 beliefs.
Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need to publicity. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist.
Arguing about what constitutes evidence and what are the criteria for evidence usually results in shifting the discussion into ever-receding tangets. Such shifts are common rhetorical tactics of apologists.
The more intelligent and articulate the apologist, the more conspicuous and epistemologically enfeebling the confirmation bias.
It’s very difficult to start from a position of belief neutrality because everyone suffers from some form of confirmation bias.
The process of genuinely opening oneself up to competing ideas is vital for one’s intellectual life, because it prevents doxastic closure.
Bringing metaphysics into a discussion is usually fruitless and may even be counterproductive, in some cases pushing people further into their faith and metaphysical delusions.
Conversations about what there is, as opposed to how one knows what there is, cannot gain cognitive traction because the entities in question have no attributes that leave a footprint in the natural realm. Given this starting condition, there’s nowhere for the conversation to move.
One reason many people assign belief in God a high number on the Dawkins’ scale is because they started with metaphysics and worked their way back to epistemology. That is, people started with the belief God exists and then asked themselves how they know this. This is confirmation bias.
Knowledge is not a fuzzy thing that we can decide to have or not. You lend your belief to a proposition because you’re forced to believe it by, among other things, the thoughtfulness that you have given to the problem.
Choosing to believe a particular proposition is referred to in the philosophical literature as “doxastic volunteerism.”
Culture-bound syndromes are recognizable diseases only within a specific culture or society.
Pascal’s Wager states that one should bet as if God exists, and consequently believe and live as if God exists, because if one does so then one has everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Meet people where they are.
If one thinks that he has the truth, one stops looking.
The Socratic method may sound complicated, but essentially it’s asking questions and getting answers.
Effectively used, the Socratic method can create moments of doxastic openness--moments when individuals become aware that their reasoning is in error.
The Socratic method has five stages:

wonder
hypothesis
elenchus
accepting or revising the hypothesis
acting accordingly

The Socratic method begins in wonder. Wondering takes propositional format--words are used to capture one’s thoughts--and are thus expressed as questions.
Hypotheses are speculative responses to questions posed in stage 1 (wonder). They’re tentative answers to the object of wonder.
The elenchus, or question and answer, is the heart of the Socratic method. In the elenchus, which is essentially a logical refutation, Socrates uses counterexamples to challenge the hypothesis. The purpose of the counterexample is to call the hypothesis into question and ultimately show that it’s false.
In the elenchus, the Socratic facilitator generates one or more ways that the hypothesis could be false. That is, what conditions could be in place that would make the hypothesis untrue?
A hypothesis is never proven to be true. After a hypothesis survives repeated iterations in the elenchus, this only means that to date it has withstood a processes of falsification. A single counterexample can kill a hypothesis, yet even millions of confirming instances don’t change the status of the hypothesis.
The elenchus is a simple yet effective way to undermine a hypothesis by eliciting contradictions and inconsistencies in one’s reasoning, and thus engendering aporia.
In stage 4, the hypothesis is either accepted as provisionally true, or it’s rejected. If it’s accepted as true then this ends the elenchus and immediately beings stage 5. If it’s rejected then another hypothesis is given and the elenchus begins again.
As a consequence of the Socratic method, one would ideally act upon the results of one’s inquiry.
Sometimes, even after years of treatment, the faith virus is not separated from its host.
Remember that the goal of each intervention is to move the subject one step along the transtheoretical model.
We learn from our failures, not from our successes.
It’s a good idea to ask someone to repeat or restate their claim.
If you construct your statement with the passive voice, the subject may be more likely to be open to alternative causes.
I’ve found that questions, as opposed to statements, tend to be less threatening as people feel they have the freedom to answer as they like.
In discussions of faith in particular, it’s crucial the Socratic clinician differentiate between people and propositions.
Faith is a deeply personal experience for people, and the more faith as an epistemology can be separated from faith as an identity, the easier the transition from stage 3 (elenchus) to stage 5 (action).
Getting too personal about something so intimate can be very threatening.
“I don’t know” is a deceptively powerful statement. It also leads the subject to think, correctly, that you don’t have all of the answers and that not having all the answers is okay.
A pregnant pause is a very useful, nonthreatening technique, typically used in sales, to get the result you want. Often the uncomfortable silence will be filled by an answer; regardless, it allows the discourse to move forward, but if the dialectical space isn’t filled you can continue at your leisure.
A little humor, if it’s sincere and well met, goes a long way to cementing the therapeutic alliance.
Humor is an incredibly effective and underused dialectical technique, probably underused because there are so many ways it can backfire. But when successful almost nothing is more effective in advancing rapport.
The phrase “open yourself up” and the word “gift” are frequently used to indoctrinate people into faith systems. Those terms may also be effective in nudging people toward embracing reason.
When administering Socratic treatments, make sure to offer as few hypothesis as possible. If you get stuck, and are unsure how to proceed, reset the conversation back to wonder.
It’s easier to elicit contradictions from responses that indicate certainty as opposed to ambiguity. Showing someone doesn’t have the necessary justification to warrant belief in a claim in which they’re certain is fairly easy. All one has to do is find some condition that could possibly hold that undermines the truth potential for the belief in question.
Socratic interventions are easy to administer, no-cost treatments that can engender doxastic openness and separate faith from its host. The main way this happens is by helping expose contradictions and inconsistencies in subjects’ reasoning process.
Be aware of the stages of the method. Don’t transition from one stage to another stage until you’ve exhausted everything you need to do in that particular stage.
The Drake Equation estimates the number of intelligent, technologically capable civilizations in the universe.
The current body of literature is highly suggestive, though not conclusive, that the Socratic method, can be used as a self-imposed corrective mechanism that helps people fix flaws in their reasoning.
Atheism is a conclusion one comes to after a sincere, honest evaluation of the evidence. Here’s the evidence for the existence of God: Nothing. There is no evidence for God’s existence.
Initially the abandonment of faith can be both liberating and traumatic, especially when one “comes out” to unsupportive friends and family.
Always be prepared to furnish resources at the end of your intervention, and also have that information on hand just in case you run into a subject at a later time.
Forming new relationships is important because these interactions mitigate the risk of recidivating and falling back into faith communities.
Disrupting one’s interpersonal milieu by providing supportive relationships and communities has the potential to cement new values and new, more reliable epistemologies--this is especially crucial in early stages (precontemplation, contemplation, preparation) when one begins to question one’s faith.
Wonder, open-mindedness, the disposition of being comfortable with not knowing, uncertainty, a skeptical and scientific-minded attitude, and the genuine desire to know what’s true--these are the attributes of a liberated mind.
One of the most disappointing realizations for an unseasoned Street Epistemologist is understanding the degree to which wonder and inquiry are prisoner to social values.
Interrupting the relationship between wonder and those institutions and forces that put down free inquiry will require the creation of a potent social and intellectual movement--a New Enlightenment--that will enable individuals to adopt the disposition toward reason en masse.
Once one has been indoctrinated and infected by faith, there may be nothing we can offer those in need that would grant them the same psychological and emotional comfort offered by their misplaced trust in the world.
The human species is made stronger by the fact that in the end we’re all going to die.
Faith’s greatest appeal may be solace--comfort and peace of mind in impossibly difficult times.
The thrust of our message must be that there are things we don’t know and it’s okay to not know--even in death. Not claiming to know something you don’t know isn’t a character flaw, it is a virtue.
There are only three defenses in response to critiques of religion:

religion is true
religion is useful
atheism is somehow corrosive of society or other values.

The possibility that the universe always existed cannot be ruled out.
Anyone who says, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist,” doesn’t understand what the word “atheist” means, or is simply insincere.
Science is the antithesis of faith. Science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks, balances, and safeguards against human bias. Science has a built-in corrective mechanism--hypothesis testing--that weeds out false claims.
Science is a method of advancing our understanding. It is a process we can use to bring us closer to the truth and to weed out false claims. Science is the best way we’ve currently found to explain and understand how the universe works. It should be jettisoned if something better comes along.
Almost invariably discussion about the alleged benefits of faith are red herrings, distracting one from the main issue--whether or not faith can reliably help one to arrive at the truth.
Conversations about whether or not faith is beneficial should only take place after your interlocutor explicitly states that faith is an unreliable path to truth.
The more people who share a faulty process of reasoning the greater the magnification of potential harm.
People use the Stalin/Hitler card in an attempt to argue that the worst dictatorships in recent times have had atheists at their helm. However, even granting this argument’s assumption, these men didn’t act like they did because they were atheists. That is, there nonbelief in a deity didn’t dictate particular actions they took. Their systems were horrific precisely because they resembled faith-based systems where suspending warrant for belief is required.
A criticism of an idea is not the same as a criticism of a person.
Secular humanism is a philosophy and a set of ideas; atheism is simply the lack of belief in God or Gods.
For Locke, liberalism means limited government, the rule of law, due process, liberty, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, separation of church and state, and separation of government powers into branches that oversee each other’s authority.
The basic idea behind cultural relativism is that because everyone is always judging a culture from their own particular, situated cultural viewpoint, it’s therefore impossible to make reliable judgements about other cultures and cultural practices. This means that cultures and cultural practices cannot be judged.
The fundamental idea behind multiculturalism is that different cultures can and ought to peacefully coexist.
Contemporary academic leftism turned the rational analysis of criticizing a process one uses to know reality from an epistemological critique into a moral taboo.
Tolerance only works when there’s reciprocity.
Withholding epistemological critique is wrong and needs to end.
Correcting students’ reasoning processes, and granting faith-based responses no countenance, needs to be the academic, cultural, and pedagogical norm across all academic disciplines.
Cognitive, epistemological, and moral relativism are toxins that students trained in the humanities regularly consume in large doses.
Questions:

Is it possible that some people to misconstrue reality?
Do some people misconstrue reality?
If one wants to know reality, is one process just as good as any other
So then are some processes bad?
If so, this must mean some processes are good, or better.
Is there a way we can figure out which processes are good, and which are not?

Generally, praise is underused in advancing dialogue.
For better or worse, putting the onus of action on someone usually ends the discourse, as most people won’t act beyond the initial contact.
Historically, philosophy has focused on truth. Contemporary philosophy instead focuses on meaning. Meaning is subjective--it’s a turning away from the world and a turning toward our experience in the world and to the language we use to describe that experience.
Too much tolerance entails abandoning critical judgement altogether.
Tolerance does not, cannot, and should not mean having to submit to rules of belief systems to which one does not ascribe.
When teaching, it’s important to frame issues not in terms of student understanding, but in terms of your explanation. This places the burden of clarity on [the instructor], and students are more likely to volunteer and engage issues if they don’t think that the instructor believes they have a problem understanding the material.
Faith is an unclassified cognitive illness disguised as a moral virtue.
People need to be comfortable with not knowing the future, and consequently take an activist stance: if you care about the future and you want something to get done--then do it. You cannot know the future, so take action.
Make empirically verifiable claims, even if the conclusions are ugly, and you get to sit at the Adult Table. Wave an ancient text and expect others to cede to its authority, or claim faith as a justification for your beliefs--then you need to sit at the Kid’s Table.
Give the faithful the same dialectical and conversational reciprocity they give you. Be honest. Be direct. Be blunt. Be unapologetic. Don’t complain, apologize, or mumble in the defense of reason. Don’t tone it down or talk baby talk. Instead, tell people exactly what you think and why you think it.
Sincere, honest people are respected. People who are inauthentic and cower are not respected.
To prevent doxastic closure it’s also important to read the work of noted apologists.
The fact that children tend to track their parents’ religious beliefs is good news for atheist readers.
There are no formulas guaranteed to create an atheists child, but raising a child as a critical thinker, a skeptic, a humanist, or a free thinker will most likely immunize her against delusional thinking and pretending to know things she doesn’t know.
Act the way you want others--particularly your children--to act.
Don’t make religion a forbidden fruit: acknowledge and read religious literature with your children, model the behavior you want them to emulate, genuinely listen, and gently encourage mutual examination of each other’s reasoning process.
Currently, the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) grants religious delusions an exemption from classification as a mental illness.
Your offense means nothing to me. If you have arguments or evidence I’d like to hear what you have to say. You saying that you’re offended carries no weight. Nor should it.
When myths are shown to be false, the result is a sense of despair because we’ve been dependent upon them for so long. The stop out of meaninglessness should not be dependency on a new myth, but self-sufficiency and a tough-mindedness that is weary of resting the sense of meaning on what someone else has said or done or promised.
The sequence of escaping myth is: dependency, despair, reawakening, and self-sufficiency that embraces the value of tough-minded living.
Socratic discussion questions:

What is it to be a man?
What is it to be virtuous?
What is courage?
Do people knowingly do bad things?
What is justice?
Are people responsible for who they become?
Can a man be unjust toward himself?
Can on be too modest?
Why obey the law?
What’s worth dying for?
When is punishment justified?
How important is personal responsibility?
What does “character counts” mean?
Are customs and conventions important?
What kinds of customs and conventions are there?
What’s the best life?
What are the possible lives we can lead?
Is the life of the tyrant the best life?
How much control do we have over who we are?
What obligations do we have toward others?
What are the claims of loyalty and friendship?
What are our obligations toward our families?
What makes a way of life appealing to us?
What attaches people to the way of life?

Deepity - A statement that is seemingly profound yet trivial on one level and meaningless on the other.
Knowledge claims must satisfy these three criteria: they must be justified, true, and believed.
Meme - A concept that spread from one person to another.

"A History of Freedom of Thought" by John Bagnell Bury

A man can never be hindered from thinking whatever he chooses so long as he conceals what he thinks.
It has taken centuries to persuade the most enlightened peoples that liberty to publish one's opinions and to discuss all questions is a good and not a bad thing.
The average brain is naturally lazy and tends to take the line of least resistance. The mental world of the ordinary man consists of beliefs which he has accepted without questioning and to which he is firmly attached; he is instinctively hostile to anything which would upset the established order of this familiar world. A new, idea, inconsistent with some of the beliefs which he holds, means the necessity of rearranging his mind; and this process is laborious, requiring a painful expenditure of brain energy. To him and his fellows, who form the vast majority, new idea, and opinions which cast doubt on established beliefs and institutions, seem evil because they are disagreeable.
The psychological motives which produce a conservative spirit hostile to new ideas are reinforced by the active opposition of certain powerful sections of the community, such as a class, a caste, or a priesthood, whose interests are bound up with the maintenance of the established order and the ideas on which it rests.
If you ask somebody how he knows something, he may say, “I have it on good authority,” or, “I read it in a book,” or, “It is a matter of common knowledge,” or, “I learned it at school.” Any of these replies means that he has accepted information from others, trusting in their knowledge without verifying their statements or thinking the matter out for himself. And the greater part of most men’s knowledge and beliefs is of this kind, taken without verification from their parents, teachers, acquaintances, books, newspapers.
It is obvious that every one’s knowledge would be very limited indeed, if we were not justified in accepting facts on the authority of others. But we are justified only under one condition. The facts which we can safely accept must be capable of demonstration or verification.
Reason’s only weapon has been argument. Authority has employed physical and moral violence, legal coercion and social displeasure.
The burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.
The history of European science and European philosophy beings in Ionia.
When a man is acquainted only with the habits of his own countrymen they seem so much a matter of course that he ascribes them to nature, but when he travels abroad and finds totally different habits and standards of conduct prevailing, he beings to understand the power of custom; and learns that morality and religion are matters of latitude.
He stated the theological difficulty as to the origin of evil in this for: God either wishes to abolish evil and cannot, or can and will not, or neither can nor will, or both can and will. The first three are unthinkable, if he is a God worthy of the name; therefore the last alternative must be true. Why then does evil exist? The inference is that there is no God, in the sense of a governor of the world.
During the two centuries in which they had been a forbidden sect the Christians had claimed toleration on the ground that religious belief is voluntary and not a thing which can be enforced. When their faith became the predominant creed and had the power of the State behind it, they abandoned this view. They embarked on the hopeful enterprise of bringing about a complete uniformity in men’s opinions on the mysteries of the universe, and began a more or less definite policy of coercing thought.
One of the most efficacious means for hunting down heresy was the “Edict of Faith,” which enlisted the people in the service of the Inquisition and required every man to be an informer.
The process employed in the trials of those accused of heresy in Spain rejected every reasonable means for the ascertainment of truth. The prisoner was assumed to be guilty, the burden of proving his innocence rested on him; his judge was virtually his prosecutor. All witnesses against him, however in famous, were admitted. The rules for allowing witnesses for the prosecution were lax; those for rejecting witnesses for the defence were rigid.
The principle on which the Inquisition proceeded was that better a hundred innocent should suffer than one guilty person escape.
The firm belief in witchcraft, magic, and demons was inherited by the Middle Ages from antiquity, but it became far more lurid and made the world terrible.
Some of the early Christian Emperors legislated against magic, but till the fourteenth century there was no systematic attempt to root out witchcraft.
The fearful epidemic, known as the Black Death, which devastated Europe in that century, seems to have aggravated the haunting terror of the invisible world of demons. Trials for witchcraft multiplied, and for three hundred years the discovery of witchcraft and the destruction of those who were accused of practicing it, chiefly women, was a standing feature of European civilization.
No story is more painful than the persecution of witches, and nowhere was it more atrocious than in England and Scotland. I mention it because it was the direct result of theological doctrines, and because, as we shall see, it was traditionalism which brought the long chapter of horrors to an end.
The intellectual and social movement which was to dispel the darkness of the Middle Ages and prepare the way for those who would ultimately deliver reason from her prison, began in Italy in the thirteenth century.
What Humanism did in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, at first in Italy, than in other countries, was to create an intellectual atmosphere in which the emancipation of reason could begin and knowledge could resume its progress. The period saw the invention of printing and the discovery of new parts of the globe, and these things were to aid powerfully in the future defeat of authority.
The principle cause of the Reformation was the general corruption of the Church and the flagrancy of its oppression. For a long time the Papacy had had no higher aim than to be a secular power exploiting its spiritual authority for the purpose of promoting its worldly interest, by which it was exclusively governed.
The Renaissance age saw the first signs of the beginning of modern science, but the medieval prejudices against the investigation of nature were not dissipated till the seventeenth century, and in Italy they continued to a much later period.
The history of modern astronomy begins in 1543, with the publication of the work of Copernicus revealing the truth about the motions of the earth. The appearance of this work is important in the history of freethought, because it raised a clear and definite issue between science and Scripture; and Osiander, who edited it (Copernicus was dying), foreseeing the outcry it would raise, stated untruly in the preface that the earth’s motion was put forward only as a hypothesis.
The observations of the Italian astronomer Galileo de’ Galilei demonstrated the Copernican theory beyond question.
Nowhere did the Press become really free till the nineteenth century.
Religious liberty was an important step towards complete freedom of opinion.
Toleration means incomplete religious liberty, and there are many degrees of it.
The religious liberty now enjoyed in Western lands has been gained through various stages of toleration.
Religion is a curse if persecution is a necessary part of it.
It must be added that in Maryland and a few southern States atheists still suffer from some political disabilities.
For knowledge is advanced through the utterance of new opinions, and truth is discovered by free discussion.
The achievement of religious liberty in England in the nineteenth century had been mainly the work of Liberals.
During the last three hundred years reason has been slowly but steadily destroying Christian mythology and exposing the pretensions of supernatural revelation.
It should be observed that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries atheist was used in the wildest way as a term of abuse for freethinkers, and when we read of atheists we may generally assume that the persons so stigmatized were really deists, that is, they believed in a personal God but not in Revelation.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony is of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.
Modern science, heralded by the researches of Copernicus, was founded in the seventeenth century, which saw the demonstration of the Copernican theory, the discovery of gravitation, the discovery of the circulation of the blood, and the foundation of modern chemistry and physics.
It was in the field of natural history that scientific men of the eighteenth century suffered most from the coercion of authority.
The publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859 is, therefore, a landmark not only in science but in the war between science and theology.
It is now agreed unanimously by all who have studied the facts that the Pentateuch was put together from a number of different documents of different ages, the earliest dating from the ninth, the last from the fifth, century B.C.; and there are later minor additions.
If existence after death were proved and became a scientific fact like the law of gravitation, a revealed religion might lose its power. For the whole point of a revealed religion is that it is not based on scientific facts.
The agnostic holds that there are limits to human reason, and that theology lies outside those limits. Within those limits lies the world with which science (including psychology) deals.
The difference between an agnostic and an atheist is that the atheist positively denies the existence of a personal God, the agnostic does not believe in it.
Speaking out is an intellectual duty.
We are ruled by the view that because compromise is necessary in politics it is also a good thing in the intellectual domain.
If the history of civilization has any lesson to teach it is this: there is one supreme condition of mental and moral progress which it is completely within the power of man himself to secure, and that is perfect liberty of thought and discussion. The establishment of this liberty may be considered the most valuable achievement of modern civilization, and as a condition of social progress it should be deemed fundamental.
The struggle of reason against authority has ended in what appears now to be a decisive and permanent victory for liberty. In the most civilized and progressive countries, freedom of discussion is recognized as a fundamental principle.
It should be apart of education to explain to children, as soon as they are old enough to understand, when it is reasonable, and when it is not, to accept what they are told, on authority.

"A Guide to the Good Life" by William B. Irvine

A grand goal in living is the first component of a philosophy of life.
The second component of a philosophy of life is a strategy for attaining your grand goal in living.
One wonderful way to tame our tendency to always want more is to persuade ourselves to want the things we already have.
Although much has changed in the past two millennia, human psychology has changed little. This is why those of us living in the twenty-first century can benefit from the advice that philosophers such as Seneca offered to first-century Romans.
Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness--all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil.
We humans are unhappy in large part because we are insatiable; after working hard to get what we want, we routinely lose interest in the object of our desire.
The easiest way for us to gain happiness is to learn how to want the things we already have.
We should live as if this very moment were our last.
As we go about our day, we should periodically pause to reflect on the fact that we will not live forever and therefore that this day could be our last.
And besides contemplating the loss of our life we should contemplate the loss of our possessions.
Most of us spend our idle moments thinking about the things we want but don’t have.
The practice of negative visualization can take some of the sting out of having nothing and thereby make those who have nothing less miserable than they would otherwise be.
One reason children are capable of joy is because they take almost nothing for granted. To them, the world is wonderfully new and surprising.
By contemplating the impermanence of everything in the world, we are forced to recognize that every time we do something could be the last time we do it, and this recognition can invest the things we do with a significance and intensity that would otherwise be absent.
A better strategy for getting what you want is to make it your goal to want only those things that are easy to obtain--and ideally to want only those things that you can be certain of obtaining.
Some things are up to us and some are not up to us.
There are things over which we have complete control, things over which we have no control at all, and things over which we have some but not complete control. Each of the “things” we encounter in life will fall into one and only of these three categories.
If something is truly an impulse, we can’t preclude experiencing it.
If we want our life to go well, we should, rather than wanting events to conform to our desires, make our desires conform to events; we should, in other words, want events “to happen as they do happen”.
Besides contemplating bad things happening, we should sometimes live as if they had happened.
What Stoics discover is that willpower is like muscle power: The more they exercise their muscles, the stronger they get, and the more they exercise their will, the stronger it gets.
By practicing Stoic self-denial techniques over a long period, Stoics can transform themselves into individuals remarkable for their courage and self-control.
Another sign of progress in our practice of Stoicism is that our philosophy will consist of actions rather than words. What matters most is not our ability to spout Stoic principles but our ability to live in accordance with them.
The most important sign that we are making progress as Stoic is a change in our emotional life. We will find ourselves experiencing fewer negative emotions. We will also find that we are spending less time than we used to wishing things could be different and more time enjoying things as they are.
Our primary function is to be rational. To discover our secondary functions, we need only apply our reasoning ability. What we will discover is that we were designed to live among other people and interact with them in a manner that is mutually advantageous.
Vices are contagious: They spread, quickly and unnoticed, from those who have them to those with whom they come into contact.
Besides advising us to avoid people with vices, Seneca advises us to avoid people who are simply whiny, “who are melancholy and bewail everything, who find pleasure in every opportunity for complaint.”
When we find ourselves irritated by someone's shortcoming, we should pause to reflect on our own shortcomings. Doing this will help us become more empathetic to this individual’s faults and therefore become more tolerant of him.
One of the best forms of revenge on another person is to refuse to be like him.
If we analyze something into the elements that compose it, we will see the thing for what it really is and thereby value it appropriately.
Refusing to respond to an insult is, paradoxically, one of the most effective responses possible.
The Stoics primary grief-prevention strategy was to engage in negative visualization. By contemplating the deaths of those we love, we will remove some of the shock we experience if they die; we will in a sense have seen it coming. Furthermore, if we contemplate the deaths of those we love, we will likely take full advantage of our relationships with them and therefore won’t, if they die, find ourselves filled with regrets about all the things we could and should have done with and for them.
In normal, prospective negative visualization, we imagine losing something we currently possess; in retrospective negative visualization, we imagine never having had something that we have lost. By engaging in retrospective negative visualization, we can replace our feelings of regret at having lost something with feelings of thanks for once having had it.
We need to keep in mind that just because things don’t turn out the way we want them to, it doesn’t follow that someone has done us an injustice.
To avoid becoming angry we should also keep in mind that the things that anger us generally don’t do us any real harm; they are instead mere annoyances.
What fools we are when we allow our tranquility to be disrupted by minor things.
Our goal should be to become indifferent to other people's opinions of us. If we can succeed in doing this, we will improve the quality of our life.
Realize that many other people, including, quite possibly, your friends and relatives, want you to fail in your undertakings. They may not tell you this to your face, but this doesn’t mean that they aren’t silently rooting against you. People do this in part because your success makes them look bad and therefore makes them uncomfortable: If you can access, why can’t they
Rather than living to eat we should eat to live.
Favor simple things.
People who achieve luxurious lifestyles are rarely satisfied.
There is a danger that wealth will corrupt us, particularly if we use it to finance luxurious living. The danger that fame will corrupt us, however, is even greater.
Exile is nothing but a change of place.
A primary objective of Stoicism is to teach us not only to meet life’s challenges but to retain our tranquility as we do.
Anyone wishing to become a Stoic should do so unobtrusively.
Having a philosophy of life, whether it be Stoicism or some other philosophy, can dramatically simplify everyday living. If you have a philosophy of life, decision making is relatively straightforward: when choosing between the options life offers, you simply choose the one most likely to help you attain the goals set forth by your philosophy of live.
If we prevent or overcome an emotion, there will be nothing to bottle.
It is true that trying to reason our way out of grieving is one way to work through grief, but a better way is to try to elicit from ourselves various grief-related behaviors.
I think people are less brittle and more resilient, emotionally speaking, than therapists give them credit for.
If you consider yourself a victim, you are not going to have a good life; if, however, you refuse to think of yourself as a victim--if you refuse to let your inner self be conquered by your external circumstances--you are likely to have a good life, no matter what turn your external circumstances take.
Stoicism teach us that we are very much responsible for our happiness as well as our unhappiness. It also teaches us that it is when we assume responsibility for our happiness that we will have a reasonable chance of gaining it.
We need to take steps to slow down the desire-formation process within us. Rather than working to fulfill whatever desires we find in our head, we need to work at preventing certain desires from forming and eliminate many of the desires that have formed. And rather than waiting new things, we need to work at wanting the things we already have.
Philosophies of life have two components: They tell us what things in life are and aren’t worth pursuing, and they tell us how to gain the things that are worth having.
Although are evolutionary programming helped us flourish as a species, it has in many respects outlived its usefulness.
You should realize that for the vast majority of people, life with a less than perfect mate is better than life with no mate at all.
The first tip I would offer to those wishing to give Stoicism a try is to practice what I have referred to as stealth Stoicism: You would do well, I Think, to keep it a secret that you are a practicing Stoic.
At spare moments in the day, make it a point to contemplate the loss of whatever you value in life. Engaging in such contemplation can produce a dramatic transformation in your outlook on life.
After mastering negative visualization, a novice stoic should move on to become proficient in applying the trichotomy of control.
We waste our time and cause ourselves needless anxiety if we concern ourselves with things over which we have no control.
As a Stoic novice, you will want, as part of becoming proficient in applying the trichotomy of control, to practice internalizing your goals. By routinely internalizing your goals, you can reduce what would otherwise be a significant source of distress in your life: the feeling that you have failed to accomplish some goal.
The past and present cannot be changed, it is pointless to which they could be different. You will do your best to accept the past, whatever it might have been, and to embrace the present, whatever it might be.
One of the worst things we can do when other people annoy us is to get angry. The anger will, after all, be a moor obstacle to our tranquility. The Stoics realized that anger is anti-joy and that it can ruin our life if we let it.
Whenever you undertake an activity in which public failure is a possibility, you are likely to experience butterflies in your stomach.
The Stoics recommend simplifying one’s lifestyle.
The goal of stoicism is the attainment of tranquility.
Readers are encouraged to take a look at Stoic primary sources.
We should become self-aware: We should observe ourselves as we go about our daily business, and we should periodically reflect on how we responded to the day’s events.
We should user our reasoning ability to overcome negative emotions. We should also use our reasoning ability to master our desires, to the extent that it is possible to do so.
If, despite not having pursued wealth, we find ourselves wealthy, we should enjoy our affluence. But although, we should enjoy wealth, we should not cling to it/ indeed, even as we enjoy it, we should contemplate its loss.
We should form and maintain relationships with others.
The Stoics pointed to two principle sources of human unhappiness--our insatiability and our tendency to worry about things beyond our control.
To conquer our insatiability, the Stoics advise us to engage in negative visualization. We should contemplate the impermanence of all things. We should imagine yourself losing the things we most value, including possessions and loved ones. We should also imagine the loss of our own life.
We should spend some of our time dealing with things over which we have complete control, and spend most of our time dealing with things over which we have some but not complete control.
When we spend time dealing with things over which we have some but not complete control we should be careful to internalize our goals.
We should be fatalistic with respect to the external world: We should realize that what has happened to us in the past and what is happening to us at this very moment are beyond our control, so it is foolish to get upset about these things.

Pages

20170211

"Becoming a Master Student" by Dave Ellis

"Apple 1 Replica Creation" by Tom Owad

"The Automatic Millionaire" by David Bach

"A Manual for Creating Atheists" by Peter Boghossain

"A History of Freedom of Thought" by John Bagnell Bury

"A Guide to the Good Life" by William B. Irvine