Huskerzoo

Can't get the video to embed but it's an interview with ESPN of KJJ sr. explaining why he pulled Jr. out of Nebraska

 

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=19767588

Hard to argue with anything said on there. I'm absolutely disappointed that KJJ won't be on campus. I think he could be an asset to our WR corps even if it's just in practice. That said, sounds like Sr is looking out for the long term best interests of Jr and has a good head on his shoulders as he's approaching it.

At least 5 or 6 departures before fall camp (transfer, quit, violate team rules, etc.). So far, 3 players and counting

I can only think of 2?

 

I like this preview, it contextualizes things. It more or less felt like a "I don't know but here's my best guess based on what I do know".

 

TA is going be another one of our hotly debated QBs as to where he stands in our books. That said, when he couldn't be a play maker with his feet (or because he was concussed) our team suffered. Where we stand now, it feels like we have 3 play makers at QB. This feels like we're in a good spot for once.

 

Regarding other positions here's the rub more or less. If our staff can develop players, I think we're in a good position. Our whole O-line (sans center...which wasn't always a great position) is a year older. Our WRs have someone who can get them the ball consistently (we think) which means even though we're losing some great play makers, we have reason to be optimistic. We also have some young RBs that look like they can bring a lot to the field. TE seems like the one area I don't feel great about on O, but that could just be unknowns.

 

On D it's really hard to guess. What we know is that we've seem at best 50% of our D. DCBD (I like that) has said he wants 3 down 50% of the time and 4 down 50% of the time (or at least the article claims that). Given that we saw none of his 3-4 we really can't be sure. What we do know is that our DL is young, which means if JP can develop we should once again see growth. Again, we're frequently trading low floor lower ceiling guys (our graduated seniors, one of who got drafted) for younger guys who might have a lower floor but a higher ceiling.

 

Our LB group is a strength after being a weakness 2 years ago and our secondary is legit.

 

So what that leaves us with is a lot of "ifs". If everything plays out well, we could escape with one loss against tOSU. We'll lose our heads and claim we're back and get put in our place in 2018. Or as the author of this said, we could be seeing the start of something good. Yeah HCMR is only a 500 guy lately, but we also shed some dead weight in the coaching ranks. I think more importantly, our culture seems fixed. Bo wasn't just toxic for the players, but for our fan base. People still argue about the love of Bo, but we're excited again. Like, legit excited. How often were we super optimistic about the future with Bo? That's what HCMR has given our program, optimism about the future. As a fan, I'll take that. I love our coaching staff (even Cav to a degree, I mean he kept us in the running for Foster Serrel).

 

So yeah, I have no clue how this season is going to play out. My gut reaction is we could get away with 3 losses. I'm also excited about the future though. We'll have a seasoned team for our hell schedule next year and it seems like we might have some depth for our light scheduled in 2019. Just remember, patience is a virtue and HCMR has shown a willingness to adapt, something we haven't seen from a head coach since TO.

I agree with what you wrote, but to address the bolded, people were high on Bo, until the collapse in year 3. Remember, everyone was talking about the "toxic" culture of Callahan, and how Bo had brought the old"tough nosed" Nebraska culture back.

 

Of course, we said the same thing about how Solich had let the culture slip, and Bill Callahan was fixing that culture (and recruiting really well) in the 06 offseason too.

 

That's a great point that I didn't think of Saunders. I was a bit young when we transitioned to Sollich and BC so I don't remember it well, but I'll take your word for it as it rings true to what I've read.

It seems like we're continuing to try to find the culture issue that is the problem. I think my big problem with Bo was the defeatism (especially regarding recruiting) even though we knew differently. BC for all his flaws, recruited well, at least a few years. It felt like Bo knew how to get the most out of the players he had, but it also felt like he burned players out and couldn't bring in the big fish regularly.

With HCMR, the question seems to be if he's a snake oil salesman. He can sell it, but is what he's selling any good? From a us as fans standpoint, the vibe feels different to me. I feel like the fan base is less divided, I feel like the sunshine and rainbows pitch that HCMR makes has me wrapped up as well, I feel like I can see a path forward rather than feeling stuck. The nice thing that HCMR picked up was that I had gotten used to the beatdowns. With the players we had last year, I expected them against teams like tOSU. When TA hurt his hammy, I/we knew that it wasn't going to be pretty, and it wasn't. When the O is that inept, you're gonna get your D in bad positions. Not to mention that we had a true freshman punter who was in a rough place.

I digress, my point is more or less, I'm having fun and I'm excited to see what this team can do. I'm not in a position anymore where I feel like I know what I'm going to get and I like that.

 

 

 

 

Would rather have a lower rated 6'7 OT prospect with good athleticism than the higher rated 6'4 OT prospect that will just end up being a guard or center.

 

Also for those that are complaining about not going after the highest rated prospects, last year we spent significant time going after Sarell and Filiaga and missed out and the board was complaining we didn't have any back ups.

 

Cav has been an above average recruiter, just have to wait and see if he can develop them.

Please elaborate on this.

Farniok, Jaimes were two solid OTs that Cav did a good job with, pretty sure Farniok even cited his relationship with Cav as the X factor.

 

I also think Wilson is a good example of talent evaluation, I think it's pretty clear he deserved a higher rating and we did a good job of identifying him.

 

And yeah keeping Raridon was an easy job but still not a gimme.

 

All I'm saying is O-line is arguably the toughest to evaluate and recruit, I think Cav has done a decent job identifying some underrated talent (Wilson and Jaimes). I'm not sold on how well he will be able to develop them but I think we have better pieces here than when he got here.

So you are impressed by 3 guys out of 4 classes?

 

Raridon was a gimme:

 

"So you commit, then the coaching staff got fired. What was going through your mind when that happened?"

 

"It didnt really bother me, to be honest. I had a feeling that could happen either before I got there or soon after I get there, so I tried to make my decision based on other aspects of the school and not the coaching staff."

I was asked to elaborate on why I think Cav is a decent recruiter. I listed 3 players where I thought he did a solid job. Does that mean I think he is the greatest OL coach in college football? No, it just means that IMO he isn't near as bad as everyone here is making him out to be. Like I also stated above, it'll all depend on how he develops the talent he has acquired.

 

Put down the pitch forks and give the man a chance to do his job. Riley has shown that he is willing to make changes when someone isn't getting the job done and that hasn't happened yet.

 

It's also worth noting that he kept us in the running for Foster Serrel (sic?) last year. While it wasn't a win, it's not something to thumb our noses at. What I need to see from him is his ability to develop though.

I like this preview, it contextualizes things. It more or less felt like a "I don't know but here's my best guess based on what I do know".

TA is going be another one of our hotly debated QBs as to where he stands in our books. That said, when he couldn't be a play maker with his feet (or because he was concussed) our team suffered. Where we stand now, it feels like we have 3 play makers at QB. This feels like we're in a good spot for once.

Regarding other positions here's the rub more or less. If our staff can develop players, I think we're in a good position. Our whole O-line (sans center...which wasn't always a great position) is a year older. Our WRs have someone who can get them the ball consistently (we think) which means even though we're losing some great play makers, we have reason to be optimistic. We also have some young RBs that look like they can bring a lot to the field. TE seems like the one area I don't feel great about on O, but that could just be unknowns.

On D it's really hard to guess. What we know is that we've seem at best 50% of our D. DCBD (I like that) has said he wants 3 down 50% of the time and 4 down 50% of the time (or at least the article claims that). Given that we saw none of his 3-4 we really can't be sure. What we do know is that our DL is young, which means if JP can develop we should once again see growth. Again, we're frequently trading low floor lower ceiling guys (our graduated seniors, one of who got drafted) for younger guys who might have a lower floor but a higher ceiling.

Our LB group is a strength after being a weakness 2 years ago and our secondary is legit.

So what that leaves us with is a lot of "ifs". If everything plays out well, we could escape with one loss against tOSU. We'll lose our heads and claim we're back and get put in our place in 2018. Or as the author of this said, we could be seeing the start of something good. Yeah HCMR is only a 500 guy lately, but we also shed some dead weight in the coaching ranks. I think more importantly, our culture seems fixed. Bo wasn't just toxic for the players, but for our fan base. People still argue about the love of Bo, but we're excited again. Like, legit excited. How often were we super optimistic about the future with Bo? That's what HCMR has given our program, optimism about the future. As a fan, I'll take that. I love our coaching staff (even Cav to a degree, I mean he kept us in the running for Foster Serrel).

So yeah, I have no clue how this season is going to play out. My gut reaction is we could get away with 3 losses. I'm also excited about the future though. We'll have a seasoned team for our hell schedule next year and it seems like we might have some depth for our light scheduled in 2019. Just remember, patience is a virtue and HCMR has shown a willingness to adapt, something we haven't seen from a head coach since TO.

 

What is it with these magazines and the facination with Minnesota and PJ Fleck. Sorry I think he is going to have buy in issues after they fired a pretty popular coach.

He turned around Western Michigan, and went 13-1 last year landed a New Years Six Bowl.

 

As a WMU alum, I'm a little biased. However, I think Fleck is legit. He's cheesy in his own way (Row the boat...for the Broncos and Gophers?) just like Riley, but he's a good coach. That said I don't think he rights the ship in one year. There's a serious overhaul that needs to be done in MN. I think he'll get his chance at a great school though someday. I wanted him at NU when we were going for the Riley hire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am thinking if we don't sign a QB we will be bringing in a walkon

Some think that's the hope with the Kearney Cath kid, but I'm not sure if that's true.

Wait. So we don't take a QB on scholarship "just" to take one but we hope we take a walk on?

Yes? Big difference between giving a kid a scholarship just to take a QB and bringing in a walkon. Not saying we shouldn't sign a QB but I don't see how signing an average player is better than having a player of similar talent walk on.

If a kid is a walk on, he is not similar talent as a 3-4 star player.

That is debateable. Either way, I'm not against taking a QB whatsoever. I think we should pursue Corral. But I'm just saying if we don't sign a QB, I think we bring in a walk on.

 

It's not debatable

 

Dude, just stop. You're arguing about something, by definition it is debatable. Stop flooding the pages, we understand what your position is.

Looking like no QB. Not looking like there will be a RB either. Now seeing we may only take one OT - thought we'd take two.

 

With the 10 commits listed below, we have five open spots left and could sign eight.

 

Current Scholarships/Commits

 

QB - 0 -

RB - 0-1 - Grahm Roberts

WR - 3-4 - MANUEL ALLEN, Kamryn Babb, Nikko Hall, Joshua Moore, Kobe Smith, Tommy Bush

TE - 1 - CAMERON JURGENS

OT - 1-2 - Chris Bleich, Trey Stratford

OG/C - 1 - WILL FARNIOK

 

NT - 1 - MASRY MAPIEU

DE - 2 - TATE WILDEMAN, Judge Culpepper, Daniel Carson

LB - 1 - Jalen Redmond, Cameron Latu, Randy Charlton, James Head, David Alston, Elijah Wade

CB - 3 - BRENDAN RADLEY-HILES, CHASE WILLIAMS, MARIO GOODRICH

S - 1-2 - Bryan Addison, Houston Griffith, Leon O'Neal

 

ATH - Talanoa Hufanga

 

K - 1 - BARRET PICKERING

If I'm tracking this right, our 2 safeties could be Tutt & Griffith.

In an ideal world based on this weekend (doubt it'll happen), We could close out the class with the following with board with only the OTs being unknown. Would anyone be that upset? That said this is a 19/20 person class, might be too high.

QB - 0

RB - 1 = Pledger

WR - 4 = Allen, Moore, Brown, Smith

TE - 1 = Jurgens

OT - 1-2 = Stratford, Traore

OG/C - 1= Will Farniok

NT - 1 = Mapieu

DE - 2 = Wildeman, Culpepper

LB - 1 = Parsons

CB - 3 = Bookie, WIlliams, Goodrich

S - 2 = Tutt, Griffith

 

I would be suprised if he committed again especially this early. I truly hope he takes his time now that he has decommitted once.

There won't be room if he drags his feet.

 

I think it's a yes and situation. Yeah he needs to reserve his spot, but we're going to keep recruiting him and other people on our board (Babb). Recruiting is too fluid now a days.

Still nothing on him either. I think I saw a report of waiting for test scores just a couple days ago but that contradicted an earlier report that he would get the scores on the 10th or something.

He was sending out some optimistic tweets the other day.

https://twitter.com/damonbenning/status/877551741214097408

 

...

Are they talking about Stanley. That's where my mind went right away.

No real issue with it but the idea of having 15 by July seems to be going out the window

There's still talk of silent commits, not to mention that we have one of our major recruiting events coming up. Only need 6 to get to 15 (though they may not all be solid).

That would be shocking. More shocking to me than a scenario where we all somehow end up okay with everything. Which I hope we can avoid.

I mean, it seems like he's not clean in the Flynn stuff. It's just a question if you can prove it.

I think I'm way too optimistic about this season right now. Everywhere I look I see upside right now which is problematic. (Is there a position group we think is going to be worse than last year...maybe RB but Tre looks good?)

I'll throw this out though. Knevel. It sounds like he played hurt last year. I also think the line as a position group is going to be a lot better which will help him a lot as he won't be distracted. It sounds like he was good enough in the Spring to move Conrad to center (I think, I might be remembering wrong). He's always seemed a step slow, but I think he'll be good this year.

I like it.

 

I've never really dug down to understand the reasons behind my feelings - just say I have an opinion and back it with facts. What a better way to have a conversation and better understand the "whys'. So much of our conflict with politics is because we don't listen to the actual person - what does your data show about if this model changes opinions? Whether that be opinion of the actual topic or more specifically opinion on the person who has opposing ideas?

 

Thanks for sharing.

Initial findings show a lot of promise in reducing Manichaeism, the belief that the other side is bad/evil. Which is more or less what we're going for. But yeah, things look good here.

It is worth noting that the example I'm giving you comes at the end of a 6 hour workshop.

The first step is an icebreaker that helps you identify with individuals from different backgrounds ala:

Second, we lead participants through exercises to recognize their values. We also explain the need for both people that keep and expand boundaries (think of one as adding new stuff with little to no filter and the other as choosing what to keep and discard) This frequently maps on to conservative and liberal ideologies.

Then this is the exercise we do: Think of a political issue that you care deeply about, and maybe even feel a little, or a lot angry, about how others view it. So this could be: Abortion or pro-life, gun-control or gun rights, immigration, gay marriage, the environment, etc. These are the very difficult issues that often get us into arguments, when you have both liberals and conservatives in the room. So today, we are going to discuss these in a very specific way, to keep it safe. We are going to use the “downward arrow” technique. The downward arrow is that we start with anger, but underneath the anger is fear and vulnerability, and then underneath the fear and vulnerability is something we love and cherish. So the arrow goes from anger to fear and vulnerability to love. So, if you have identified the political issue that you are angry about, please spend a moment right now exploring what fear or vulnerability you may feel underneath it. Give people a few minutes to do this and write it down. Now, spend a moment right now exploring what it is that you love or cherish, that may be underneath that fear and vulnerability. Can you think of a specific memory in your life, in which you expressed this love for this thing? Write that down too.

To provide my own example (quote for formatting away from a wall of text)

 

I am angry about the future of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program which will not apply to any loans taken out a little over a year from now.

 

I am scared about what that means for the future of science in the USA, something that is important to me on a macro and micro level (I think science is important and it might impact my future employment not to mention that for awhile I wasn't sure if I might be able to have my 6 figure loans forgiven). I'm a first generation college student who came from Lincoln and Milwaukee public schools and there's no way I would've gotten an undergraduate degree, not to mention PhD if loans were not available.

 

Furthermore, I met the person I intend to live the rest of my life with while pursuing this education. I have never met someone who is as thoughtful, loving, and kind as my partner. I used to date just because that was what you were supposed to do. I lived in fear that I'd end up like my dad who's a POS alcoholic who never had a meaningful relationship in his life. I could see that coming because of how I related to people. Then I met her. While at my desk, writing up some study results. I've never felt as passionate about a topic as much as I do my field. Sometimes we need to be able to pursue our passion to find what makes life meaningful.

 

We then get three or four people a chance to respond in a very specific way. The response should be focused on what they appreciate about what they heard, and how it helps them understand you better.

In our design people talk for 6 minutes then 4 minutes others (half who politically agree with them and half who don't) respond. This takes ~1 hour.

We then repeat but with a non-political topic, just sharing who you are and having people respond with what they learned from you, what they heard you say, and how they now understand/relate to you.

That's the basic design.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, so I apologize, but I did find an article directly relevant to what I was saying. Here's a quick quote.

Again, certain persons with mental illness undoubtedly commit violent acts. Reports argue that mental illness might even be underdiagnosed in people who commit random school shootings.62 Yet growing evidence suggests that mass shootings represent statistical aberrations that reveal more about particularly horrible instances than they do about population-level events. To use Swanson’s phrasing, basing gun crime–prevention efforts on the mental health histories of mass shooters risks building “common evidence” from “uncommon things.”31 Such an approach thereby loses the opportunity to build common evidence from common things—such as the types of evidence that clinicians of many medical specialties might catalog, in alliance with communities, about substance abuse, domestic violence, availability of firearms, suicidality, social networks, economic stress, and other factors.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

I am someone with mental illness in my family with multiple people. I know what mental illness is and I have had to deal with it.

 

Now.....the guy is normal.....I've said that.....

 

Now....can we get back to discussing the shooter and how we can stop these from happening in the future with our political rhetoric????

I'm currently doing some research on this, but for lay people a very good resource is: http://www.civilpolitics.org/

Specifically: http://www.civilpolitics.org/content/two-evidence-based-recommendations-for-civil-disagreement/

1. Improve inter-personal relationships – There is a rich psychological literature on how positive contact between groups increases the likelihood that greater cooperation and less demonization across groups will occur.

 

2. Emphasize cooperative goals vs. competitive goals – In most conflicts, the extremists on each side will seek to emphasize the enduring intractable nature of a conflict.

 

My research group is looking at identifying and exploring shared values and what we find threatening about others views. If y'all wanted to I could create a separate thread and show you how that works.

 

"The 1st Amendment, however, will be the far more effective tool. In fact, it's the only tool we have that can successfully overthrow our government."

 

Well said.

 

--@BRB: I don't think it takes a person with mental issues to do this at all. That's also too easy a bow to tie on the story. The narrative that only abnormally functioning people commit crimes like this is convenient and self-serving. (Stigma regarding the mentally ill is also important, and I don't mean to take away from that topic here...)

 

But yeah, we can't wash our hands and say it's just the crazies and well, what can you do about them. The people who do stuff like this are radicals, backed into corners by the storytelling they imbibe or desperation of circumstance. "Normal" Americans can and will continue to fall to the same wayside. Thus, it's worth talking about how to combat it.

We HAVE to talk about how to combat it and saying someone who does this has mental issues isn't using it as a scape goat.

 

If this guy would have survived this, he should have had the total power of the law thrown at him to lock him away for a long time without some insanity plea.

 

However, people with normal mental capabilities don't all of a sudden decide to take a rifle and go shoot congressmen practicing softball. There is obviously something out of whack within this guy that allowed him to cling to words and propaganda that convinced him this is what he needed to do.

 

http://www.bfskinner.org/newtestsite/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ScienceHumanBehavior.pdf PDF download. It's just behavior. It's verbal behavior, but it's just behavior.

Good Lord....I know most people with mental illnesses are not violent. Stop with the correcting of statements on this.

 

But, someone that does this and thinks this is an appropriate action has serious mental issues upstairs and the rhetoric going back and forth influences people like that to do things they shouldn't.

 

So....yes...the vast majority of mentally ill people are not violent. But, it would take a person with mental issues to do this.

 

 

 

That is....unless you think this is a normal American who just woke up and decided to go protect America.

I won't. What you're saying is harmful and blatantly false. People diagnosed with mental illness have enough problems without any added nonsense brought about by other people. The stigma that's associated with mental health makes my job awful. People can't engage with treatment because they are understandably worried that people will over-react. That they will be shunned, feared, etc. That is because of people like you.

It is ignorant to say that only individuals diagnosed with mental illness commit acts of mass violence. He may not have thought that this was an appropriate action, we really don't know. It may have been he was willing to take one for the team and the collateral damage was worth while. I'd also invite you to understand different diagnoses and what they mean.

All of the evidence available say this was premeditated, so no, I don't think he woke up and went out to protect America.

Having faulty beliefs and a willingness to commit violence to address them is not akin to psychopathology. While I think that we should not be debating what I'm about to say because it's more important to not turn things political and recognize human life is more than political grand standing, I'm going to say it anyways. If an individual from Saudi Arabia did this, what would we call it?

 

 

Important disclaimer that I do not at all support this and find it sad and misguided, but I guess it does beg the question... isn't this the sort of thing that gun lobby says we need guns for?

 

I'm pretty sure this is NOT what anyone says we need guns for.

Protection from an armed tyrannical government doesn't really apply to a baseball game, no matter who the attendees are.

 

 

 

The statement by LOMS is wrong.

 

However, it's easy to see how the rhetoric from some on the gun rights side can be taken by a mentally deranged person as this is an appropriate thing to do.

 

"Myth: People with mental health problems are violent and unpredictable.

Fact: The vast majority of people with mental health problems are no more likely to be violent than anyone else. Most people with mental illness are not violent and only 3%-5% of violent acts can be attributed to individuals living with a serious mental illness. In fact, people with severe mental illnesses are over 10 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population. You probably know someone with a mental health problem and don't even realize it, because many people with mental health problems are highly active and productive members of our communities."

https://www.mentalhealth.gov/basics/myths-facts/index.html

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/james-t-hodgkinson/congressional-baseball-shooter-729035

(poor name of sited website ^^ considering the situation we are talking about)

The shooter:

The gunman who opened fire this morning on Republican congressmen and staffers recently declared in a Facebook post that, “It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”

The accused shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, 66, posted a link to a Change.org petition in late March that included the notation that, “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”

Hodgkinson’s Facebook page includes numerous photos of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom Hodgkinson appears to have supported during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. In posts last August, Hodgkinson wrote, “I want Bernie to Win the White House” and “Bernie is a Progressive, while Hillary is Republican Lite.”

Hodgkinson, a Belleville, Illinois resident, has worked as a home inspector

So I get this - he's crazy.

 

Let me pose this though ... if he had posted these things and then shot up the D practice what would the reactions be?

 

I'm going to be at this all day on various forums, but crazy implies mental illness and that's just stigma. It's worth being careful with language.

 

 

Neuroscience has proven to us that effective storytelling works much, much better at changing people's minds and opinions than data, numbers and statistics do. We are storytelling machines - all our entire existence really is is 86 billion neurons telling a story to themselves through feedback loops.

 

It's no surprise that a compelling, concise counter-narrative won enough people over to capture the Presidency. But it is a sobering reality of how those opposed to the demagoguery and xenophobia and general asshattedness of Trump/what he represents need to be able to offer their own cohesive counter narrative, that is for something tangible and concise, instead of just being against the other thing.

Would love to see that citation. Neuroscience is pretty limited on what it can tell us. Right now it's a big deal to discriminate between two different songs. To show that one narrative is more convincing via neuroscience is probably an over generalization.

 

 

 

Here's links to two actual studies done on the idea:

 

http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/J2007OBHDP_DAS_sympathy.pdf

http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_role_of_transportation_in_the_persuasiveness_of_public_narratives.pdf

 

 

 

Here's links to some helpful articles:

 

https://blog.bufferapp.com/science-of-storytelling-why-telling-a-story-is-the-most-powerful-way-to-activate-our-brains

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/stories-vs-statistics/

https://www.fastcompany.com/3015140/once-upon-a-time-at-the-office-10-storytelling-tips-to-help-you-be-more-persu

 

 

 

Also, anecdotally, think about the difference between statistics showing how violent crimes have declined consistently for a long time and are the lowest they've been in ages, vs Fox News and Trump fear mongering that the world is going to hell and getting worse and worse. Which gets people on board more?

 

Thanks. I would debate that any of this utilizes neuroscience to prove anything. The actual articles you linked are social psych and make sense. The other things just report more brain activation, which if we reject dualism, is more or less a "no duh" statement.

I'm in no way debating that stories vs statistics make a difference, that's a pretty well understood phenomena. It was when neuroscience was brought up that it piqued my interest.

Neuroscience has proven to us that effective storytelling works much, much better at changing people's minds and opinions than data, numbers and statistics do. We are storytelling machines - all our entire existence really is is 86 billion neurons telling a story to themselves through feedback loops.

 

It's no surprise that a compelling, concise counter-narrative won enough people over to capture the Presidency. But it is a sobering reality of how those opposed to the demagoguery and xenophobia and general asshattedness of Trump/what he represents need to be able to offer their own cohesive counter narrative, that is for something tangible and concise, instead of just being against the other thing.

Would love to see that citation. Neuroscience is pretty limited on what it can tell us. Right now it's a big deal to discriminate between two different songs. To show that one narrative is more convincing via neuroscience is probably an over generalization.

I feel like I should post a link to reefer madness.

 

Also, I didnt do too much reading but was Morgan or Reed high at the time, nervous, or fess up? What made the cop think he needed to search through their stuff?

I read he had open freshly cut weed on the console of the car he was driving. Cop must have thought there might be more.

 

I think that gives them reasonable cause.