publicaffairsny

obviously not well thought out because i debunked the economic logic behind it in 2 seconds. "However if you wanted to model that as an exchange, it would not be a competitive market, because consumers of bullets couldn't freely enter and exit in time to preserve their safety.If they could and chose to stay and engage in gun play yes there would be a demand,"

Though I was an english major, i come close to perfect grammar naturally in my writing so i never gave too much thought to these kinds of rules. The insight I got from that link is that depending on the rigidity of the expert, reactions will differ on whether its permissible. evidently major authors have used the construction in their published work. I'm not sure whether you can publish in MLA with it and i can't find an indication online. I would guess APA would have no position on it.

I would welcome that opportunity. However, I do think I have some valuable insights to offer applicants, such as recovering from nontraditional undergrad, evaluating options outside the top 30, utilizing resources at directional and lacs and in many other areas. The problem is people have such a visceral reaction and need to arbitrarily contradict me that it leads to derailment. I also don't want to give the impression that it is my only social outlet. I have a girlfriend, and close personal relationships with a few faculty and staff at my school that exceed the regular student teacher arrangement. That network is growing now that im a full time student. However, I'm running up against a parkinsonian trap here where my appetite for conversation and exchange is expanding to fill all available space. I regularly find myself exhausting my social contacts and have to do a great deal more of self-censorship than I do on here. I feel much less guilty exploiting this common pool resource and feel less liekly to exhaust it.

Different From vs. Different Than - Grammar & Punctuation | The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation you would not have been taught "different than" as an ESL student, however it used idiomatically by native speakers.

I'm now habituated to using posting as a social outlet. I would take a big loss if I left.

I don't think thats a valid analogy. However if you wanted to model that as an exchange, it would not be a competitive market, because consumers of bullets couldn't freely enter and exit in time to preserve their safety.If they could and chose to stay and engage in gun play yes there would be a demand,

I don't think this idea got a fair chance to be presented in my last post. Lets model this economically. There is a demand for my comments, evidenced by the abundance of responses they deliver. Participants in this exchange have generally equitable levels of information and academic resources. Everyone is free to come and go as they please. The outcomes should be efficient. (Though I am the only supplier this seems to be a natural monopoly).

Difference between me and you. I engage with people. You deliver insults from outside the plane of debate. No one asked you. Get a life. Lets model this economically. There is a demand for my comments, evidenced by the abundance of responses they deliver. Participants in this exchange have generally equitable levels of information and academic resources. Everyone is free to come and go as they please. The outcomes should be efficient. (Though I am the only supplier this seems to be a natural monopoly). By the way, I actually do very well in the classroom because I have a lot of social intuition. I routinely self censor in person because I know people can't keep up. However when I engage in writing I let it fly which leads to dominating behaviors in written communication.

I appreciate the deescalation. Maybe we could be friends. You don't need to hate on me. I would think you would appreciate the potential of someone who isn't a yes man to you.

One key idea in behavioral economics is i believe called active choice theory and refers to the fact that people are more likely to make a passive decision, such as to read a post if they are given the choice to opt out (passive exposure), rather than to opt in (active exposure). By hiding my post behind an icon, you have effectively censored me by shifting the burden of reading the post onto the reader, by changing the nature of the choice from a passive to active decision. I do not concede the point that the initial post lacked connection to economics admission. However it need not. Due to low traffic and debate on this site I have been attempting to foster discussion related to economic theory rather than admissions whenever possible, an objective that has been tacitly approved by the moderator and other posters. The post I made had clear applications to economics, namely through connection to accelerated change and futurist growth projections.

I understand european cultural dynamics. My family is integrally linked with an elite european university, though i will not identify which one. Animosity is cross cultural. You have repeatedly attacked me and attempted to use credentials to project authority. This needs no cultural translation.

Which point did I fail to address?

As I've said he has expertise in admissions. I don't begrudge him that. But he has a tendency to use his status to belittle others and project the authority to speak in absolutes and it represents the worst of academic discourse.

Why would I want to participate in a forum with no posters? I dont enjoy talking to myself... And if you were really open to new ideas you would not make an immediate determination of right or wrong. You would meet a challenging idea with clarifying questions, which no one has done. Every response has been an ad hominem attempt to suppress debate. Its actually pretty morally reprehensible.

Message conveyed. Edited as an olive branch.

Congratulations you have stifled debate. I'm really happy you have failed to expand your worldview by one inch. It bodes well for the future of the discipline which is already in trouble.

Where should I send the book? Those who think I should sit down and shut up when they attempt to eviscerate my intellect and character are the ones who are really contributing to an inhospitable environment. You want it to stop, stop censoring and clinging to your bullheaded and factually incorrect arguments.

You are maybe knowlegable about econ. You know nothing about psychology or psychaitry. So leave your armchair judgments someplace else. By the way humanomics actually had some sense and did very well for himself as an independent thinker. Something an excellent sheep like yourself could learn from. BTW I am now a guru in training.

It takes two to tango. The only reason these threads degenerate is because people are compelled to try to make me look stupid when the proper response is to accept a diverse viewpoint as one of many and accept it in context. If you notice I generally provide my views to those applicants that the conventional wisdom instructs to give up now. I generally stay out of threads with conventional applicants unless I have a point to make. At one point I was an applicant they told to give up. If I can inspire others I am satisfied.

I do like this forum. It provides good information. And as I'm not personally offended by the ignorance of the posters here it gives me confidence in my ability to intellectually outpace a competitive pool of applicants. I can do this all day.

This is part of a larger conversation about censorship and knee jerk hostility to diversity. The exchange was precipitated by a scatological allusion to one of the better ideas I've presented on here. I will accept no blame for the rigidity and defensiveness of this community. I am justified in calling it as I see it while attempting to educate with clearly defined counterpoints.

Yeah cause he responded in a hostile way attempting to impugn me as logically inconsistent. In the interest of civility and progress I edited my initial response to get the conversation on track. This may be proof no one had honest intentions but me. (Response to blanket on my "silly" comment.)

No I think there is a fundamental flaw in this community which is intellectual rigidity, ideological hegemony and resistance to change. I represent the antithesis to that. That scares people and makes them jealous so they react with hostility.

It was fine until I made a good natured allusion to a very accessible book. The thread rapidly descended into insult negation and ridicule none of which was initiated by me.

Appeal to ridicule. Last refuge of the logically incompetent. I suggest you don't take notes from château who is a complete failure in the realm of debate or even civil discussion. As I said anyone who downvotes my posts in the interest of censorship is free to send me a forwarding address and I will mail them a copy of Samuelsons foundations to burn. Seriously how can you have a discussion if you censor all of one sides ideas?