Piensan en forma parecida

¿Sabias quela mayoria de los ricos, en cierto aspecto, piensan de forma muy parecida?

  • A pesar de haber logrados poseer dinero y propseridad a través de diferentes actividades, la forma en que estas personas piensan es similar.
  • Nuestro modo de pensar orienta nuestras acciones, y por tanto determinan nuestros resultados.
  • La gente rica piensa en forma distinta a como piensan los pobres y la clase media.
  • Hay que pensar en el objetivo, y no desviarse.
    • Error cognitivo: Mi objetivo es ser multi millonario. Estoy empezando el negocio de la madera. Si me concentro en mi objetivo y logro ser multimillonario, tendre que descuidar otras areas de mi vida como la relación con mis seres amados, mi salud y mi desarrollo en otras áreas.
    • Soluciones:
      • No darme por vencido antes de comenzar.
      • No fabricar pretextos.
      • Iniciar el camino e ir cuidando las cosas buenas que tengo en la vida.
  • People:
    • Marcia Kilgore
      • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31IlKE86LkM
      • Greed.Guilt.  Fear. Exclusivity. Need for approval.
        • “You have to find a great motivators. Greed is a great motivator for the average person”.
      • Get everything in writing.
      • One day at a time, it’s not a sprint race, it’s a marathon.
      • Enjoy the ride.
      • Ask yourself: So, what’s cool about that?
      • Never sell something you wouldn’t buy, or sell to your mother.
        • When you put out a product on the market, ask yourself, would I buy this product for this amount of money, and if the answer is “no”, then don’t do that to your customer.
        • The right answer is the one that increases your customers trust.
        • Everything is a choice. Be happy with your choice.

Opinion pertaining Abby’s self percieved quality of being boring.


So, you’ve managed to bore and/or annoy much more interesting people. Good for you. The thing about people, especially younger more brutish people, is that they are needed. You need them. Your brain is made that way. Your neurochemistry, your neuroendophenotypical expressions, your pre-mammalian structures, everything; is shouting, “people… humans… however unworthy you may be of me, I beg you, please accept me… please love me”. Even people who seem not to care feel this way. Yes, really, in varying degrees, they do. The human brain has evolved this way, it’s the social brain, it has kept all of us and our forefathers throughout the ages alive, or as Homer. J. Simpson would say, “from the dawn of time when our great ancestors had to stay together to fight against dinosaurs in order to survive”. The only ones who really don’t care are psychopaths and thanks to Hollywood’s fascination with them we all know how that goes.

All this is to say that you are right in caring and worrying about how you interact socially, how you affect other people and how they affect you. Well intentioned and caring people you trust will tell you not to think about it too much, that what matters I that you be true to yourself and that some people march to the beat of a different drum. All this is true, but it does not address the point. I will now address the point.

Social interactions will determine the course of many things in your life. How people of different standing view and react to you will influence the attitude they have towards you and the decisions they take. These decisions may affect you, for instance, you are working hard at your acting career; while you may be a great actress, hold great potential and have the grit it takes to endure the process, how others feel working with you will affect the opportunities you’re given. If a cast director feels you disrupt the group’s work dynamic, she may choose to leave you out, if she believes you can’t adapt to a group of actors that’s previously worked well, she may leave you out, if she feels that your presence in the group, however talented you may be, disrupts the emotional environment of the group so as to hinder the work, she may leave you out.

Most people won’t come out and tell you what they think is unbecoming in you, it’s socially unacceptable to do so, which is why we all have to figure it out pretty much on our own. This does not mean we have to become desperate social pleasing chameleons begging for a pat in the back, it means we have to be aware of how our actions and words affect others. Groups, whatever their nature, be it working, social, Harry-Pottermania, or academic ones, have an intrinsic dynamic, each individual holds a place and there is a method to them. Some people seem to understand this in an almost natural way and glide through them while others, in varying degrees, can’t understand what’s going on.

In regard to your initial question. First, decide if you want to be accepted by these people and if the effort is worth your time and energy. If the answer is yes, for your own sake and as part of a personal growing process, understand why they have a certain attitude towards you. If there is something you can and want to change, do it. If you don’t want to or can’t, move on, you seem like a genuinely intelligent and attractive woman, you’ll find social circles better suited for you.

End of opinion. Hope you’re well.


On matters of mate selectivity and attraction pertaining to posts by Blue.

A post by Blue on high dating standards puts forth the question of selectivity in the area of relationships.   Compatibility, interests, religion and goals are mentioned as important criteria for partner selection and congeniality; as well as increasing the probability of building an acceptable mutual future.   On a more recent post, Blue mentions the phenomena pertaining to when people fall in love with the wrong person.  Both these subject matters are related.

The function of mate selection in the human species has established neurobiological substrates which in turn have genetic determinants.  These neurobiological factors have a direct expression through neuroanatomic brain structures and neurotransmitter physiology.   At its most basic expression we find the physical characteristics that attract us in the opposite sex, characteristics that indicate from a primal stance those qualities that would make a specific person a good partner with whom to have offspring.  We are hardwired to seek indicators of strength and health and avoid possible weaknesses or illness.  Much of our sex drive is motivated by the conditioned response the species has to specific physical attributes in the opposite sex.

Apart from the basic but incredible complex biological function of sexual arousal (desire to mate), there is a powerful emotional component that comes into play when attraction between two individuals is established.  A primary and usually initial component is characterized by the overwhelming desire to be in the presence of the other individual, to feel acknowledged and reciprocated by them, as well as to have exclusivity.     This is an ideal time to establish initial sexual contact as receptiveness to pleasure is primed and favors mutual satisfaction.  Past this stage, multiple exposures to sexual stimuli of repeated nature will cause the interest to wane.

At almost the same time a different emotional component will start to develop as the two individuals develop a sense of trust and safety in the other.   This emotional trust fosters a feeling of well being and diminished stress levels when in company of the individual.  Predictability is an important element for the sustained growth of trust, which will make possible the establishment of accepted exclusivity.  Coercive exclusivity cannot be trusted.

It is usually in the context of the mentioned primal responses that people “fall in love”, “fall in love with the wrong person”, are “unfaithful”, or take unsustainable decisions.

Next, we find a more complex and hard to describe aspect of human relationships; the one concerning complex cognitive functions (“what” and “how” we think) which has to do with the way in which reality is interpreted, how the individual interacts with his cultural environment and how problems are understood and solved.  It is important to point out that by reality we mean the whole of the situational conditions in which the individual is immersed, independently of the subjectivity pertinent to the human experience.   If X-person has to deal with an inner reality conditioned by very real and intense emotions for Y-person, this will have a definite influence in which X-person interprets personal, social and biographical circumstances.

These are the ways of love.

In addition to all this we must consider the importance of social and cultural aspects that are learnt as the individual matures in a given society.   These cultural aspects have the purpose of promoting the establishment of functional couples in society and stress the desirability of traits such as beauty, intelligence, wealth acquisition capacity, dependability and productivity.   These characteristics are important to foster and protect offspring and hence their importance.   Factually, it has been the female of the species that has dealt with procuring protection for the precious offspring while males are intent on attempting to mate with as many females as possible.  On a side note, it is not as rare as could be believed for women to have a child with a man who has certain desirable physical characteristics but to establish a long term protective relationship with a more dependable man in order to raise the child.

Being “choosy” is therefore the result of a complex series of elements that interact in order to produce the best possible result of sustained survival and prosperity.

These concepts have been amply studied and described by proponents of the gene-centered view of evolution, which I have heard about on Discovery.

So, are we all polygamous by nature? Are men hopelessly hooked on porn because their frontal lobes can’t correct primal functions that are incapable of differentiating between a woman and an image on a computer screen?  Is marital fidelity conditioned by dopaminergic curves?     Is the desire to have different sexual partners conditioned by neurobiological dictates that seek the greatest genetic variety in order to ensure survival of the species? Why don’t they teach this in school?

Description. Three Women. (Mrs. Andrews, Mathilde and Josephine)

Description of Woman Number One.  “The woman had a young, graceful walk, a dark, shining crown of hair, and a beautiful face already tanned (unlike a Parisian’s) by the summer sun.  The child, unexceptional in any way, had thin, long legs, bristling red hair generally in disorder, and the attitude of a leashed terrier quivering to meet every challenge. Yet he aroused no feeling of like or dislike in Alexis until it became evident how jealously the boy made demands upon the mother. He could not bear for her to pause and speak to anyone without pulling irritably on her arm, and it seemed odd that the woman remained undisturbed by the boy’s possessiveness, smiling on him as frequently and tenderly as at an angel by her side.” Mrs. Andrews, Heart is a Masculine Noun, H. Burnett.

Description of Woman Number Two. “She seemed to him to be glowing from the memory of many whispered conversations with young men who had been anxious to touch her hand or her arm; she smiled and went on dreaming and her wide dark eyes grew soft with tenderness. She began to hum as she walked over to the window and stood there looking down at the street in the early winter night; and as Jeff went on watching her he kept resenting that she should have had such a good time at the party that he had found so dull.  She had left him alone a lot, but he had always remained aware of the admiration she aroused in the young men around her…  Mathilde tried to stop smiling, but her dark, ardent face still glowed with warmth as she stood there with her hands clasped in front of her.”  Mathilde, Rigmarole, M. Callaghan.

Description of Woman Number Three. “She was a sub-editor at the publishing house. She was small, slender, dark haired French woman in her thirties and of an odd beauty –a mouth slightly too wide and too thin, her chin soft, almost receding, but with a smooth, caramel skin and dark eyes and dark eyebrows that Austin found appealing.” Josephine Belliard, The Womanizer, R. Ford.    


Reading This:

Quote: How do we re-create the emotional truth of an experience, and what leeway does the writer have?


Quote: D’Agata’s response, when he heard Fingal’s question? “It’s called art, dickhead.”


On reading the Divine Comedy

A few days ago I finished reading Seven Nights by Borges which as you know is a set of seven lectures given by him in a very casual tone, for Borges that is, to an unspecified audience.

As you may also know, the first lecture is the one that verses on his impressions of the Divine Comedy by Dante and inn which Borge’s prompts all readers to enjoy this classic which can be safely called a masterpiece.    So, I began reading it yesterday and am  surprised by how much I feel to be enjoying it so far.

I’m reading it both in English and Spanish (hardcovers) and might try to look up the Italian version (PDF) today to better appreciate the prose. My first impressions are related to the intense thrill of the archetypical density found in almost every passage, a thrill which at present I cannot yet write about.

John of Patmos – The author of the Apocalypse.

This man´s story would make a great story for a book.  Fascinating.

“In retrospect, we can see that he stood on the cusp of an enormous change. This movement, which attracted few Jews within two to three generations after the death of Jesus, was attracting floods of gentiles all over the empire, particularly in those other provinces. And these other people would flood the movement and create, in effect, a new religion. We now know that John would have been distressed to know that leaders of this movement would posthumously adopt him as a Christian himself, and put his book in what they then called the New Testament.”

In the Questions section:

“…they vindicate the old revolutionary slogan, the worse the better, as if the more chaos, suffering, disease and so on, well, it may seem bad, but it’s just the necessary last step before eternal bliss. Rather that combatting it let’s just hurry it along, have this great orgasm of destruction followed by an eternal peace. And as part of this divinely unfolding plan, leading to eternal happiness, there’s going to be an enormous amount of deaths of evil people, also a necessary step for the coming Utopia. “

Sobre Democracia

Hoy leí esto y pense lo siguiente:

Considero que al presente la inscripción al padrón electoral y la asistencia a votar en las elecciones han dejado de ser indicadores fidedignos de la madurez o salud democrática en Bolivia.   Es cierto que en un inicio la relevancia de acudir a votar estaba fuertemente ligada a la memoria de las dictaduras militares, siendo necesario que reafirmemos nuestro deseo y voluntad no regresar nunca a dichos escenarios, sin embargo, la amenaza de una dictadura militar ya no es un fantasma que haya que conjurar.

 Contrariamente a lo que se señala en el comentario, un factor de peso insoslayable en Bolivia es justamente el de la obligatoriedad de asistir a votar.   En los últimos años lo que mejoró en forma sorprendente es la eficiencia de los mecanismos coercitivos mediante los cuales el estado impone dicha obligatoriedad, cosa que no ocurría antes por falta de eficacia a la hora de identificar y sancionar a los omisos.  Actualmente, a diferencia de hace 10 años, el certificado electoral es requerido ampliamente tras las elecciones y la imposición de multas llega a ser draconiana.   Para tener un referente válido de la influencia de dicha situación tendremos que esperar a que el derecho deje de ser obligación o a que la multa sea simbólica.

 El interés en mantener esta obligatoriedad esta dada sobre todo por un aparato político disfuncional que debe de alguna manera dar un barniz de legitimidad a su existencia, y mientras la gente acuda a votar por candidatos que simplemente no convencen, ellos podrán mantener el presente sistema como válido aunque en la práctica veamos que los políticos distan mucho de ser competentes en el manejo del estado boliviano.

 Entre los pilares de la Democracia tenemos el derecho a elegir en forma informada y el derecho a ser representados por quienes fueron elegidos.   Lastimosamente, por limitaciones históricas contundentes, los bolivianos aun no somos capaces de reconocer y valorar la información como herramienta individual y social, dejándonos llevar más bien por retóricas caudillistas que distan de sostener algún tipo de viabilidad administrativa o económica en un país naufrago de políticas de estado sostenibles o relevantes.

 Así mismo, y en ámbito de la democracia, en La Paz no hay un día entre semana que no evidenciemos el fracaso de nuestro aparato democrático, fracaso puesto en evidencia por las marchas de protesta incesantes.  ¿Por qué marcha la gente en la calle? ¿Por qué marchan los indígenas del TIPNIS hacia La Paz? Simplemente porqué el presidente, los senadores, los diputados y los prefectos, no nos representan, no velan por nuestros intereses y no son capaces de lograr un vínculo duradero o transparente  con los movimientos sociales; fuimos engañados.   Entonces, esto no es una democracia, es una partidocracia que al convertirse en gobierno parasita al estado patrimonio de todos, haciendo lo que los parásitos hacen: encontrar la forma de perpetuarse en el poder para poder seguir usurpando la riqueza y seguridad a la cual acceden tras hacerse del poder.

 Llega el momento de dejar de medir la salud de nuestra democracia en términos de cuantos acudimos,  obligados o no,  a las urnas y en vez, ver cuan representativa, trasparente e influyente es la institucionalidad de la Democracia Boliviana.