I just googled it, and I now want to visit Quito, Ecuador

There are tons of great cities near the equator. But it is an interesting assertion that I'll frame as a question.

Do early man survival tendencies extend to modern financial planning?
Or maybe they just don't teach good financial planning in poor schools?

If behaviors can be selected for, absolutely.

Genetics and behavior are not disconnected

Men and women present very differently both physically and behaviorally, so why wouldn’t people with vastly different, if clustered, genetics?

they don't teach good financial planning in american school, period

Having different body parts (or missing body parts) will also influence behavior. We shouldn’t assume that behavior is independent of our genetics, because all the evidence points otherwise

I framed it as a question to avoid making assertions that I don't know.

inb4 "my school did"

Parents in poor areas probably don't have the best financial advice to pass down to their kids

Yea but you can teach whatever you want, some people just won’t care or be interested in it, they will prefer other survival strategies

Knowledge and practice are also entirely different

Some people would prefer to be taken care of. Others will prefer to take care of themselves. Some are social, some aren’t. We are very different, behavioral, at an individual level AND we are different, behaviorally, at a cultural level.

It's hard to distinguish nature from nurture without genetic research and omniscient type of nurture records.

You can know all the same things and still behave very differently

True, but why is the question here.

> It's hard to distinguish nature from nurture without genetic research and omniscient type of nurture records.
@Malachi

agreed, which is why the most sensible thing to say is that it is probably some combination of both

There are 3 aspects: nature, nurture and choice. And each person, let alone each culture, have different natures, environments (nurtures), and make different choices. These all influence each other, which is rather awesome! This is why I optimize for freedom, with the stipulation of .. we can defend life when it is infringed on

I'm doing my business 300 homework currently. The prof wants us to read section of a a book called "I Will Make You Rich." The first section I read is a total lie. it's so annoying.

pyramid scheme? xD

I’m much more ok with different behavioral strategies being tried than my leftist counterparts seem to be, yet I care much more about boundaries and the freedom to say no than they do.

We are different

> pyramid scheme? xD
@drenath High energy financial planning guru. It's the worst sort of BS.

Lol nobody who writes a self help book starts the book with “well, see, first I read a self help book”

I’d love to see that

> @drenath High energy financial planning guru. It's the worst sort of BS.
@Malachi A lot to learn from bad ideas. Could be that the teacher is trying to identify who will call BS on it

I'm sure the book is fine and well intentioned. It's just not my style.

How is it wrong? What are his tenets to being rich?

It was an example that he used that was incorrect. Not the subject matter itself.

I’d have to read the book to make any sort of comment there

Or perhaps you can share the excerpt

https://youtu.be/vsNlteJQunc

Does Trump have a fucking clue about that history?

Did Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc cause some of the recent misrepresentations, or use of "Proud Boys" as a cover or derivative joke or taunt like "fuck you fucking fuckers" at scam prejudices of big media businesses, in response to censorship of Boog Bois and other organized ad hoc cel militia groups?

Does CNN or major network so-called "news" have any more fucking clue than Trump lacks?

What percentage of US-ians have ever read or studied 10 USC 311, and its classes of militia?

Does that cover females not enlisted, or persons over age 45, due to post-1791 ConLaw amendments?

I'm not in a position to view the video. Is it pivotal?

How about the issues of age 17 inclusion, versus lawyer fiction/reality games for 18/21 majority, and RTKBA or firearms laws compliance or abridgment of that?

Is this Rittenhouse related?

The video outlines how the "Proud Boys" started as a joke between a comedian father and his kid during youth theater and sexist roles biases. Online media monsters deplatformed the comedian as if white supremacist (that AFAIK he's not; indirect libel towards him possibly), making it less easy for him to remind people of the joke he started when the idea of PB's took on a viral life of its own.

Travis may identify w/ the demonetization of that effort to educate about overlooked facts and hsitory.

I was thinking about writing up a summary of the messy facts of which I'm aware re: Kyle's case, but also wondering if it's worth the effort, as at best that reflects political biases of rigged judicial and political systems, and serious conflicts of potential legal interpretation, plus prosecutorial discretion in charging as to viewing stand alone elements of a sequence of events, versus lumped total review, that can change which elements are defensive, offensive, or primary and secondary crimes. There are also elements as to what knowledge which parties acted on in the moment, versus after the fact review changing that.

It's largely futile to attempt conclusions as if possible without major alternate options being valid, also due to issues like under 18 acting as security for a business, lethal force being valid against arson but whether arson was attempted firebombing cars being messy, as well as curtilage rather than interior defense of a business, and defense by other than an owner/employee/manager (that varies arbitrarily among states in statute or jurisprudence or whatever lawyers pull out of their asses in individual cases), such that most likely courts will not and cannot reach decisions fully within any clear law, even ignoring as well structural and procedural biases.

I do not see the PB joke and its offshoots as defining that, but they're all part of the same BLM gone wild offshoots mess.

FWIW, I have been certified with credentials to teach (and have taught) firearms safety courses recognized for CCW law of most states requiring same, as well as self defense that actually involves more law and ethics, than arms use. The old War Games movie summary that "the only way to win, is not to play", tends to be important there, and actual use of force a fallback option when others aren't viable.

There have been nutcases and idiots I've refused to train or certify, unlike some cash hungry instructors, despite a strong pro-RTKBA attitude, tempered by awareness of the PITA chronic 24/7 responsibilities related to living around "power tools" (but my homes are generally light industrial small business operations with potentially lethal chemicals, machinery, and electronics).

I've also worked legislative process alone or alongside state groups and sometimes an ILA field kiddie (registered lobbyist), and challenged a former kindergarten teacher who for a while headed the ILA over her childish and patronizing attitudes about 14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine and a need for litigated specific precedent linked to 2Am., due to broken SCOTUS games. Under subsequent management that didn't have its heads stuck up its asses as badly, they later backed litigation to do just that. Assholes. (And, the NY AG's biased prosecution of NRA for malfeasance and scams by arrogant officers appear valid other than corrupt motivation to me, but that same state under its lawyer games obstructed litigation by a group of its own Board members 20 years ago trying to shut down LaPierre/Metaksa et al abuses, which litigation I helped support behind the scenes working w Leroy Pyle.)

==
The whole idea of firearms regulation by government is antithetical to RTKBA, given US history of revolution to take out "all enemies, foreign and domestic", and UK practices to try to impede that. It's a paradox though, as there are clearly people not "able" in mental health or intellect terms, and who else stands to manage their issues? OTOH, most MPC (lawyer's trade group Model Penal Code adopted in state variants) post-WW-II "escalation of force" excuses are mainly corrupt politician cover, and fraud re: RTKBA. So, it's inherently at odds with the whole of the law to pretend most firearms laws or regulations are even potentially valid, whether that serve functional purposes or not.

Also of note in doing such review are Bivens (v Six Unnamed Federal Narcotics Agents), that lowered bans on suits for damages against officials acting beyond valid official powers, as well as rights to shoot some cops under complex, convoluted lawyer political games, and the 1895 Injun cops res case with nepotistic idiot cops being shot by another cop on the same force, during what was more like an attempted kidnapping that a valid arrest (forget the cite on that without checking). Those ConLaw standards are also at odds with legislation in many states, pretending it's never legal to shoot felon cops, while the whole idea of RTKBA against Domestic enemies largely applies in cases where courts fail and cannot be a last resort as law seminaries indoctrinate, or the Bill of Rights would be invalid. A big mess, in practice.

(Those outside the USA may have a hard time grasping the ideological theory of revolution by citizen militia as a legally protected right, while US-ians usually don't get it that mandates protecting rather than demonizing (at least select forms of) terrorism and terrorists, while after adding drug laws and related black market violence, and corrupt politicians and judges trying to pretend they and cops acting as their mercenaries (versus just what other cops call bad apples), that larger body of law as if common "standards" is badly broken at best, tainting any and every effort to reach "valid" conclusions in subordinate cases.)

That leads to messy semantics as to sorting out who or why some are advocating criminal violence, or against it (but starting with those in the positions of the most power, police/military and those funding or setting policy for them).