Tags for this video have been changed from 'id, neil, degrasse, tyson, not dawkins, Beyond belief' to 'id, neil degrasse tyson, not dawkins, Beyond belief' - edited by xxovercastxx

Charlie, isn't Bi-Polar - But I believe he is Mono-Polar.

I lived with and endured a mono-polar personality in my step-father for 30 years.
The attitudes and words he's using are identical to what I've experienced.

The examples I've experienced with the high-side of a bi-polar or mono-polar personality are that they exhibit a god-like transformation in personality.

Their brain starts firing at such a high rate that they can solve every dilemma man has ever dreamed up. They are smart beyond belief. It's like their brain is running at ten times the speed of a normal brain where no one anywhere could possibly see as clear as they do, no one could possibly be as smart as them and see anything on their level.
The only problem is, when they are firing that fast, they can't stay on one topic for more than a minute before they are off and onto something else. Nothing they solve or think of is clear to anyone else because they cant stop and communicate it properly or even record it. It's just too fast for their brains. Most of the time, they can't even remember what is passing through their head.

In this state, you can't tell them that what is going on here is wrong. My step father had prescriptions for his condition but if he skipped it - and he often did - you couldn't explain to him that the drug was helping him. He'd fire back that the doctors didn't know what they were talking about and that he was just fine. He could go for days or weeks at a time just flying around.

Drugs and alcohol are known triggers - even just a couple beers are enough to set it off - which then leads to an over-indulgence. It wasn't the alcohol that was the problem- though he was clearly drunk at times - it was the condition that blinded him to any sort of reason.

I could go on for ever with stories and descriptions - but from what I've seen, Charlie's condition looks identical with what I've experienced for the last 25-30 years. IDENTICAL! Right down to the speech patterns and arguments. Everything he's been saying, I've already herd so many times, I've lost count.

I hope his family is able to step in and help him onto a program that will lead him toward better mental-health. This is a very hard disease to live with - both for the individuals and the family that needs to interact with them.

I'm trying to figure out whether you are being ironic or not. My first instinct was for irony, but reading your other posts I am no longer sure. If you are for real you are a sad indictment of the educational system you mocked in another post.

>> ^TangledThorns:

This is dumb beyond belief. Sarah Palin is an intelligent patriot, Gina is not and a bad actress to boot. Problem, Videosifters?

This is dumb beyond belief. Sarah Palin is an intelligent patriot, Gina is not and a bad actress to boot. Problem, Videosifters?

What i like most about this is that the graphics and engine do NOT look super realistic and polished beyond belief.

Because that makes me think it relies on its game play to carry the graphics, just like the original did.

http://videosift.com/video/Beyond-Belief-Candles-in-the-Dark-Sam-Harris-20-min

This is a great talk on the same topic.

@bamdrew

It's beyond belief that you doubt that radical Muslims support terrorism against the US more than other groups. Not having "ironclad statistics" on hand doesn't mean we're not allowed to use our brains.

The current national political climate instituted greater aircraft safety not because a North Korean agent hijacked a South Korean plane in South Korea in 1969, as your list points out, but because the mainstream opinion in the intelligence community (and everywhere else) is that in the current time, in the United States, there is an enhanced threat from radical Muslims, as seen in numerous high profile aircraft safety threats in recent years.

>> ^ghark:

I think everyone expected exactly this as soon as the citizens united case was decided, hell, even the president announced that it would happen (and I'm pretty sure he was smiling inside at the time). The problem really is that instead of making progress, and limiting inflow of cash to these politicians through laws and policy changes, it seems to be going in the opposite direction, it just boggles my already befuddled, barely bemused brain beyond belief (lots of b's).


There was a bill that came before the Senate not too long ago called DISCLOSE, which was an attempt to plug some of the major loopholes opened by Citizen's United.

The vote on it was 59 for, 41 against, and since we're in the era of permanent filibuster, that means it didn't pass.

Now, would it change your attitude to learn that the President's party provided all 59 votes for, and the other party provided all the No votes, plus the filibuster that raised the requirement to 60 to pass?

Would it surprise you to learn that so far, the spending enabled by Citizen's United has favored Republicans by a 7 to 1 ratio?

To me, it seems like the facts indicate that Democrats want to change the game so corporate money doesn't drive elections, both for ideological and self-serving reasons, while Republicans are pretty clearly a party whose main purpose is to represent corporate interests.

>> ^dgandhi:

While I might be able to agree with that in the abstract, getting there is a thorny problem, and citizens united is the worst of it on steroids.
Your incredulity strikes me as a lack of scale. The problem that the citizens united precedent creates is an order of magnitude worse than the one created by the existing high cost of campaigning, conflating the two suggests you missed the point.
>> ^ghark:
Nope, never said she should be shocked, my point is that neither candidate should be in a position where $500,000 worth of expenses for this kind of campaign should be considered normal.



Oh ya I completely agree, it's terrible, but to be honest, I think everyone expected exactly this as soon as the citizens united case was decided, hell, even the president announced that it would happen (and I'm pretty sure he was smiling inside at the time). The problem really is that instead of making progress, and limiting inflow of cash to these politicians through laws and policy changes, it seems to be going in the opposite direction, it just boggles my already befuddled, barely bemused brain beyond belief (lots of b's).

>> ^darkrowan:

Uhhhhhhh.... Michael Jackson moves set to C n C Music Factory... fail beyond belief >_<

Yes.

Uhhhhhhh.... Michael Jackson moves set to C n C Music Factory... fail beyond belief >_<

>> ^Kreegath:

Was there a "Beyond Belief" 2009? Granted, I only googled "Beyond belief 2009", but found nothing except the 2006-2008 series of conversations.


Seems your search was correct - the series ran from 2006-08.
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programgroup/beyond-belief

Was there a "Beyond Belief" 2009? Granted, I only googled "Beyond belief 2009", but found nothing except the 2006-2008 series of conversations.

@NetRunner
The thought that keeps running through my head here is that either the insurance companies know something we don't, or they're stupid beyond belief. And, as delightful as the idea is, I find it difficult to believe that they're all that stupid. It seems far more likely that they're just that sure of the leashes they have on their politicians.

That said, I do wonder just how far they can push things before Grayson's bill starts looking passable. To judge by the reform passed for Wall Street, that's a hell of a long ways.

As a progressive, I don't care whether they force votes on the health bills taht people want, or upset the fillibuster with a procedural process. I have a third option... pass a bill before the republican is seated.

Actually I was drinking yesterday and this whole thing upset me beyond belief. Now I'm still sour and I don't think the Democrats will do any of the above, rather they will put the cart before the horse and screw the pooch yet again.