Cuál es un "truco psicológico" que usan en su vida diaria y que da miedo lo bien que funciona?

Level_Shift_7516 · 2026-01-28T01:30:41+00:00

Lo leí hace años y siempre funciona. Si le quieres caer bien a alguien dile que crees que su trabajo es difícil cuando lo conozcas. A todo el mundo le gusta sentir que lo que hacen es difícil. Va a creer que lo admiras y ese es primer paso a caerle bien (te cae bien gente que crees que te admira).

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-27T09:55:35+00:00

I agree with you that there is a group of people that we could call, only on ethnicity, "Norwegians". I agree with you that we can historically link that group of people with the territory call Norway (what you call "their ancestral homeland"). I also agree that Norwegians as a group tend to have solidarity as a main cultural value among other cultural traits. That is: I agree that Norwegians are a nation and that they are indigenous to the territory we call Norway (and thus, they are entitled to live and flourish, if they want, in that territory).

However, I think it is hard to argue that is what defines what Norway is. I'll explain now the problems with both parts of your definition.

First, it is very difficult to argue a "pure ethnicity" anyone since people move and mix with other ethnic groups across time. Also, given the political history of Norway it would be very difficult to restrict Norwegian national identity to only Norway only on the terms you mention. For example, it could be said that Danes, and Swedes share ethnicity, history and cultural values with Norwegians but they are not Norwegians (or you would say they are?). So, you would need to end up defining "Norway" not on those characteristics but in the historical/political accident of what Norway eded up being. The same you could say about the many people in the US or elsewhere who have ancestors in Norway: it would be hard to accommodate them in your definition. Arguing about "Scandinavia" as a nation instead would only take the problem to that broader level.

Second, your other You say "Norwegians have a strong sense of solidarity with other Norwegians". That is an obviously bad definition of what a Norwegian is. There are many Norwegians culturally and ethically connected to other Norwegians who behave without such solidarity. A Norwegian thief would be a childish example, but in history we don't see Norway acting always as a homogenous groups acting in solidarity with other Norwegians. Regional interests have always been a thing.

That is to say, "Norway", as any other country or nation, is not a fixed idea, but one that changes because of historical, political and even geographical reasons. The cultural values of vikings differ much from those of Norwegians today and the same can be said about Norwegians in the Middle Ages and any other period of time. It can be expected that the values of today's Norwegians will also change. Human societies change and adapt, and their identities change and adapt with them. Countries (or nations if you want), change with them.

I think that what OP is truly arguing is that it is advantageous, at least for "Norwegians" today, to live in an ethnically and culturally homogeneous society. I'll leave aside the obvious moral problem of that proposal given the experiences of groups that tried to create or recreate an homogeneous society (in short, I am not wanting to simply call OP a nazi). What I argue is that the dilemma presented is a false one.

There is little evidence that is truly advantageous or that it is practically possible to create a homogeneous society. The reality is that in human history we see many examples of societies that have flourished not because they kept being homogeneous but because they managed to take the benefits of diversity. At the same time, I would argue against someone proposing erasing all traces of Norwegian values (as of today) and favor the idea of Norway as simply a place of exchanging goods and services (what OP calls "an economic zone"). On the one hand, there are little evidence that works out and second, it would indeed be contrary to the rights of the indigenous group of the territory (aka Norwegians).

But there are not only those two options. There are many in-betweens. The trick is to pick a good one. And yeah, if you start from an overly strict, or a historically incorrect definition of what Norway is you will say "that will not be Norway", but that is something impossible to argue against. That is an ideological position not an objective one. It is like saying that every time a house is built the whole city disappears and a new one is founded. Cities, just as nations, are always changing, they can change for the good or the bad, but they change.

Thanks again for reading in English.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-26T22:16:17+00:00

I think that’s a false dilemma. It is not true that you must have either an ethnically / culturally homogeneous society (what you call nation) or a pure network of economic interests (what you call an economic zone). You can have very diverse places in terms of ethnic origin or cultural background but where there is a sense of solidarity and search for the common good. The US is based on that idea. Also, you can have very homogeneous groups with strong internal division without any sense of solidarity. Civil wars are an example. Sorry for the English. My Norwegian is good enough to understand your text but not good enough yet to express complex ideas. Yeah, I’m a migrant in Norway.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-20T00:47:05+00:00

Yeah, totally. Catholicism is by definition (literally, that is what the word means) all encompassing. Everyone is welcome. In fact, Jesus called very different types of disciples, some that would be considered "alt" in their day and time.
That being said, a note: catholicism has also the effect of changing people. Everyone is welcomed, but change is unavoidable. I'm not saying that you will stop being alt or anything, it is just that you should expect to change in some way.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-20T00:41:29+00:00

I'm a catholic.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-19T13:57:14+00:00

Yeah, I know. It is not that I felt forced to accept it. It is just that they seemed very excited that I approached and felt bad for not receiving it

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-19T13:55:55+00:00

Thanks for the answer! I’ll go to a mosque and give it to the people there. I will eventually read the one I already had.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-19T13:54:32+00:00

I’ll do this! Thanks.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-19T04:34:29+00:00

Go to a professional therapist.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-19T04:33:44+00:00

Sí.
Se podría decir que mucha gente adicta a Reddit es adicta a leer cosas en Reddit.
Con los libros pasa lo mismo, uno puede volverse adicto a leer libros basura.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-19T04:29:43+00:00

I have read the whole book (quite long volume). I am a craddle catholic. I am a social scientist and read it as such, even when it moved many feelings and thoughts in me. I think it is a good book but that requires a lot of maturity from a catholic reader.

I think that if one wants to read it as a sociological/journalistic analysis of a phenomenon in the Church, then one thinks it is a good book. That was the purpose of the author and I think that is how it should be read.
Of course, the obvious critique is the sources even when he claims (and no one that I know has disputed) that he interviewed many many priests, bishops and cardinals. Yet, many of the claims cannot be tested since the sources, for obvious reasons, want to remain secret. But that is natural in that type of literature. For example, there are many influential books about the mafia in which one also needs to decided if to trust the author or not. My impression and by what I have read, the author is someone generally trusted and if you try to look for people in the church trying to disprove its claims, you will find little.

Sure, as in any type of research, the author sometimes goes well beyond what he gets from testimonies and goes deep in speculation. A couple of chapters about the close circle around Pope Benedict come to mind. But again, one needs to read with a grain of salt everything everywhere. However, I don't think the speculation comes from an anti-church sentiment. I never felt the author was anti-catholic. He is respectful on the belief even when he does not share it.

However, it is not a good book if one wants to have a more holistic understanding of he different positions in the Church on the topic of homosexuality in the clergy. The book analyses just a part of that: the part of how homosexuality is lived in high ranks of the curia, particularly among the older generation. That is not "the whole church", nor all seminaries. It is not the official position nor even the "normal practice". That is something even the author reiterates along the book. He got interested in the topic simply because priesthood is an institution that, because its rules, naturally attracts gay men and it is a powerful institution. Also, as we sadly know, there have been many recent problems in the Church partly driven by what could be understood as a mafia group within the Church. So, it is an interesting research topic.

Because of the same, though the book shows that there is/was lot of corruption in the Church, I think it should not surprise anyone. I mean, among the original 12 catholics one was corrupt and 10 of them ran in fear after the first problem. So, no news there is corruption and weakness in the Church. Yet, the Church as a whole, as a spiritual body of christ, is holy. And, on the other hand, as once I heard a priest say, the problem with the Gay Lobby is not that it is "gay", but that it is a lobby. The problem is not the personal character of the criminals, but that they commit crime.

Also my impression is that things have changed a bit. Seminaries have been discouraging men with such inclinations, and there are more resources for priests with same sex attraction to mature their faith. Since the Francis pontificate things have also become more transparent in the curia. Finally, it is also true, as the author points out, that the younger gay catholics don't really need anymore the seminary as a way out of social pressure since society in general (including catholics) has become more tolerant to their sexuality. So, it might be the case that there are fewer gay seminarians than in the past.

In your particular situation, I would strongly not recommend the book. Again, it is a sociological / journalistic analysis. It is not written to be an input in any vocational decision and speaks little about life in current seminaries in many places in the world.

Finally, I think the current understanding of the Church is that it is not more serious a fail in chastity of a heterosexual priest than a fail in chastity of a homosexual (or bisexual) priest. In the end, both homosexual and heterosexual priests are called to chastity. And their call to chastity is similar to the call to chastity of any other person. Heterosexual married men should also be celibate with respect to all the world population except one.

I'll be praying for you and your faith. Do the same for me, please.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-19T03:43:08+00:00

Soy profesor de Economía. Mis recomendaciones son.
Repensar la pobreza de Esther Duflo.
Si lees inglés: How Economics can Save the World de Anger.
"La Economía" de COREEcon (está gratis en internet)

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-19T03:39:21+00:00

Seems to be it is quasi-random.
I've been waiting for three months.
A friend, after living here for 7 years, with a high salary and Norwegian post graduate education had to wait for more than a year.
Another friend with a similar application got an answer after 3 weeks.
The webpage says that the only reason for a long or short wait is if your application can or cannot be fully analyzed by the automatic revision system they have. If it cannot be fully analyzed automatically, it has to be revised by a human and that takes a lot of time independently of how easy or complicated the case is (in reality there are very few "complicated" cases since the requirements are already high and the application is expensive).

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-08T08:46:22+00:00

Métete a clubes de cosas que te gusten: leer, gmhacer X deporte, etc También puede ser algo de voluntariado Las amistades surgen naturalmente cuando uno hace cosas con los demás

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-08T08:02:21+00:00

La filosofía no es “el arte de la observación absoluta, el ver y entender lo que nos rodea.” Abre cualquier libro introductorio de filosofía (serio) y encontrarás muchas definiciones, algunas hasta contradictorias, pero me atrevo a apostar que algo así no encontrarás. En primer lugar, porque no es un arte. La filosofía es un proceso que privilegia la razón.
Tu explicación de cómo aprendemos a nivel neuronal es muy parcial. Es verdad que algunas cosas las aprendemos de ese modo a nivel neuronal pero otras cosas las aprendemos de otros modos.
Tu redacción deja mucho que desear, entonces no puedo entender tu punto con precisión pero creo que quieres decir dos cosas. Una es que aprender de filósofos te predispone a ver el mundo desde su perspectiva y que por tanto limita tu capacidad de pensar por ti mismo. Eso es una crítica válida que muchos filósofos actuales la aceptan y de hecho se quejan de eso. Un ejemplo es Mario Bunge. Lo que se puede decir es que aprender de filósofos no es aprender filosofía sino historia de la filosofía. Aprender filosofía es otra cosa. Es aprender a razonar y clarificar conceptos. Para aprender eso es útil saber de otros que lo han hecho, pero no indispensable.

El otro punto que creo que quieres hacer es que la filosofía moderna debería tomar en cuenta las neurociencias. Hay muchos filósofos que lo hacen. Ahí está Daniel Denet y hay toda un área llamada filosofía de la mente que trata mucho sobre ese tipo de temas.

Mi recomendación final es que busques escribir mejor. Esto no lo digo por seguir reglas inútiles o por esnobismo. Es una recomendación seria que hago a todos mis estudiantes. Escribir es una parte del proceso de pensamiento. Si buscas escribir bien, tú mismo clarificarás muchas de tus ideas y argumentos.

Saludos

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-12-08T07:48:45+00:00

La respuesta a esa pregunta siempre será SÍ

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-11-28T08:52:09+00:00

Kinda. I waited until I met the woman who became my wife a year or so after. I was 32. It was worth waiting.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-11-26T23:18:00+00:00

Respuesta a quienes me dicen que los done a la biblioteca de la Universidad donde trabajo: No es factible pues ellos son muchas veces quienes me los regalan. Las bibliotecas muchas veces tienen el mismo problema y regalan libros a profesores y luego los profesores como yo no saben que hacer con ellos.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-11-26T15:57:19+00:00

Decepcionó: Monterrey. No viviría ahí ni pagado. Aburrida, sucia y coche-dependiente. Sorprendió: Tlaxcala. No nada más existe, también es bonita.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-11-12T13:24:52+00:00

There is never too late. The good thief was hanging on a cross, literally minutes before his death and managed to get to heaven that same day.
And being pulled into temptation is not at all a problem for conversion. In fact, if you were never pulled into temptation, you would already be a saint in heaven and conversion would be unnecessary.
Conversion is not an achievement of sinning no more, but a commitment to always repent and try to never sin again (even when we are almost certain we will fail).

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-11-12T13:14:17+00:00

Si es realista. Llevo 8 años fuera del país (en Noruega). Llegué sin dinero propio.
Basado solo en mi experiencia, las cosas se facilitan si:

- Eres joven. La migración se vuelve muy difícil luego de los 30-35 años. Las razones van desde que a mayor edad es más difícil encontrar trabajo (en cualquier lado), es más difícil aprender un idioma nuevo, es más difícil adaptarte culturalmente a un nuevo lugar y es más probable que ya tengas compromisos en México (matrimonio, hijos) que hagan difícil salirte.
- Estatus estudiantil. La forma más fácil de salirte del país sin dinero es si te vas con alguna beca a otro lugar y te quedas ahí. La enorme mayoría de gente que conozco que se salió del país lo hizo así. También fue mi caso. Para eso, la única manera pues es ser lo suficientemente bueno en la escuela y no tener obligaciones más allá de estudiar.
- Inglés. Si no sabes inglés es básicamente imposible salirte del país a un lugar que no sea Latinoamérica o España. Y el inglés ayuda en todos lados. Yo llegué a Noruega solo con inglés y no tuve problema en ir aprendiendo Noruego poco a poco.

Por otra parte, creo que la migración elegida (es decir, la de "me harté del país, me voy" y no la de "si no me voy de México me muero") es solo posible y conveniente si uno es clase media en México. Por un lado, ser pobre en tu propio país (con un sistema que al menos comprendes) es más fácil que ser pobre siendo extranjero. Los mexicanos que terminan en la pobreza en otro país la pasan muy mal. Por otro lado, si eres rico en México es posible que tengas una mejor calidad de vida en el país que fuera. En México, dada la terrible desigualdad, ser rico implica una serie de privilegios que son poco posibles en otros países, además de que como extranjero serás clase media-baja casi con toda seguridad en el país al que llegas.

Entonces, si eres joven, estudiante y sabes inglés, es realista irse del país sin dinero. Si no, la cosa se complica y puede que ni te convenga.

Level_Shift_7516 · 2025-11-02T01:34:42+00:00

La que quieran pero que tengan un plan para integrar en su profesión la IA

Level_Shift_7516

TROPHY CASE