How much of the third season of “Westworld” will take place outside of the robot theme park? How will that affect the overall story?

Answered Jul 24, 2019

Based on the trailer, I am guessing that the majority of Season 3 will be set in a large city in China (i.e. “the mainland”).

There may be some timeline back-and-forth resets.

The trailer suggests that, the protagonist/narrator is an average working guy exploring the personal/spiritual emptiness of a modern high-tech society with servants who are obvious mechanical robots.

It will overlap with the timeline of before and after the uprising at the offshore island where the parks are located.

My guess is that, the protagonist/narrator is a low-level employee of some subsidiary of Delos Corp. Which probably has divisions for things like building construction, etc., (William is a “titan of industry”).

We will see what the world is like while the parks were still operating normally. Maybe get some examples of spoit rich people whose lives were so boring that they decided to pay for the park experience.

We see the protagonist/narrator encounter an ill and distressed looking Dolores. So that will be when she arrives on the mainland, after evacuating the park, and printing a new body for herself.

The implication of the trailer is that, there is a parallel mentality. The hosts in the park are vaguely aware that something is not-quite-right with their daily existence. But perhaps the humans on the mainland are feeling some similar insecurity.

Regarding the park, I predict flashbacks of William, over time. Alternating between his park visits, and his “real world” job as CEO of Delos Corp.

If you absolutely can’t stand the thought of anyone being homeless, and you run a homeless shelter, do you kick people out when they find a job and are able to afford some kind of rent?

Updated Jul 27, 2019

I didn’t work there, but saw how things operated.

It was very small in “shelter” terms – Just a house with 9 bedrooms.

It also wasn’t free. They ran it with the micromanaging, condescending. thinly-disguised-contemptuous attitude as if it were a free shelter, but actually charged rent. The amount was seriously overpriced for the conditions (crowding, micromanaging etc).

However, they didn’t view the residents as paying customers. Because the general model was for the government welfare department to pay the residents’ dole directly to this place. The residents were all viewed as bludgers, (primarily welfare mothers), with the welfare department being the actual customer. And yes, the welfare mothers crammed as many as three or four children into the room with them. Said children were being raised poorly, and will likely repeat the cycle in another ten years or so.

It was all about chronic dependency. People for whom the term, “no-hoper” was invented. Higher education, or even basic, minimal employment just weren’t on the radar for these people.

They called the people living there “residents”, not “tenants”, and that wasn’t just to be polite or friendly.

The rent was probably set at the maximum they could get based on either welfare regulations, or just the maximum to where the residents had just barely anything left over.

Stays were theoretically for a maximum of three months, but there were suggestions that they didn’t actually enforce this.

They provided a room and food. Residents had to buy their own soap, toothpaste, transportation, etc., with the small amount left over after the rent.

You would have been in very serious difficulty if you had any one-time or ongoing medical costs.

This place acted like they were doing people a personal favour by allowing people to live there. It was owned by some allegedly religious entity, and the abusive manager claimed to be religious. But it was really a business, profiting off of fleecing desperate people.

The deal included rotating duties of cooking dinner, and also cleaning common areas (bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, etc), as a condition of living there. Which meant that, a childfree resident had to clean up the daily mess made by other people’s children.

It also included a level of micromanaging rules that no normal landlord could get away with. No visitors in your room, no booze, all kinds of intrusive questions (including finances and medical information) and “here is what you are going to do about your pathetic situation”.

One command was to apply for long-term welfare housing (with a very long waiting list), with the expectation of long-term welfare dependence.

Another command was to see a “budget counselor”, who would demand a detailed accounting of every dollar you received and spent. So that they could dictate what you were allowed to buy.

The manager and a night supervisor (i.e. adult babysitter) actually reacted negatively towards a resident who got a part-time job.

They lied (because they were generally dishonest and disrespectful). Manager claimed that, the job was willful misbehaviour, because it allegedly distracted said resident from “dealing with” a recent bereavement. Babysitter claimed that, said resident wasn’t mentally fit to be working at a job with other people. It was absolute gaslighting.

The manager confronted the resident, and stated that, a condition of continuing to live there was to get diagnosed with a psychiatric disability, and apply for disability welfare benefits. Despite the fact that said resident was working part-time and attending university part-time, and was a sane, rational, reasonably-functioning person. The manager wanted this person to just give up on life, throw away any future potential, and become one of the totally dependent no-hopers.

It was a blatant attempt at gaslighting a person who happened to be having a very sad moment in life.

Why the negative reaction? My guess is a few reasons:

  1. When a person receives over a certain income from working, the welfare department penalises their dole. This could result in that benefit being lower than the rent amount. Which would mean that, this place would need to arrange for the resident to directly pay some or all of the rent. With the risk of non-payment.
  2. There may have been the idea of a disability benefit paying more money, which the facility could take, based on allegedly providing more services (i.e. micromanaging). And/or the idea of demanding that, the tenant’s entire benefit be paid directly to the manager of the facility, since you can’t trust crazy people with money.
  3. A working person would have a position to feel like a paying customer. With expectations and standards. Like objecting to the poor conditions, and the bad behaviour and attitudes of the other residents and their children.
  4. A person who was working, with good credit history, zero criminal history, zero eviction history, generally adult functioning, childfree, and only low-income due to being a university student… just did not fit with the business model, or the contemptuous mental model of residents.
  5. Said person might actually have other alternatives, and might not be such an easy target for financial exploitation.
  6. There was always at least one empty room in the house. So, if someone moved out (due to working and/or refusing to tolerate the conditions), they couldn’t just reload the room with another profit-making resident.
  7. A working person didn’t “fit in” with the other residents. One of whom tried to instigate conflict based on envy and tall poppy syndrome.

This place actually wanted people who were shut out of education, jobs, and regular housing rentals. They wanted people who had/perceived zero other options. Who were terrified of being booted out on the street. And who would submit to bullying and micromanagement, while being used for revenue.

At what age, and how, did you come to realize your mother is abusive and different than most other mothers?

Updated Jul 24, 2019

These are two different questions/issues.

Age 11, when she directly stated that she beat all three of her children not for discipline”, but rather, because it “made (her) feel better”.

I figured out, after years of violence… “She isn’t beating me because I’m a bad person … But rather, because she is a bad person”.

Years later, when I was twenty, I learned about the massive denial, victim-blaming taboo that is endemic among women.

I naively assumed that, the average adult woman had awareness and understanding of the pervasive reality of maternal child abuse.

It was at that age that I learned that, females who didn’t experience maternal child abuse are all in a state of denial and victim-blaming. Non-survivors live in a fantasy-world. And that was a realisation almost as profound as the realisation of my mother’s abusive nature.

Those people are effectively accomplices to the abuse. And, due to their numbers and pervasiveness, cannot be jettisoned with anything near the ease that the one direct abuser was dismissed from my life when I was eighteen.

What is a tall poppy?

Updated Jul 24, 2019

A tall poppy is a person who is perceived as doing better in some way, compared to the person with the perception. It can be one-to-one comparison, or it can be a group of people targeting one person.

Tall poppy syndrome is contextual.

I have spent time in an environment where someone who just graduated with a bachelors degree is the shortest poppy in the room. And have also spent time in environments where, simply being a first-year uni student would constitute being perceived as the tall poppy.

I have spent time in a low-wage, part-time job at a university, as the lowest employee in the department (e.g. washing test tubes in a lab, etc). And have spent time in other environments with chronic non-workers who would perceive me as a tall poppy for that (or any) job. Although they didn’t quite envy the job, but rather, envied the paycheque that they imagined.

Some other mind-blowingly petty tall poppy experiences:

  • They suspect you of earning more than minimum wage, forty hours per week. Even if they know this is due to working harder.
  • You don’t smoke cigarettes (or anything else).
  • You don’t have any unplanned children.
  • You live someplace other than the town where you were born.
  • You get passing grades in an educational course.
  • You have never received money to have sex with strangers.
  • Somebody projects a fantasy that you possess resources that you actually don’t.
  • Somebody projects a fantasy that you possess situational advantages that you actually don’t.

Some people answer questions regarding tall poppy syndrome with a defensive excuse that, it is only directed towards people who act haughty, and flaunt high levels of success or resources. But that is not true at all.

Merely giving simple, polite answers to someone’s personal interrogation about the above-listed matters is enough for them to target you. Merely existing while they project the above-described fantasies is enough for them to target you.

Is tall poppy syndrome a problem in your country? Also, what country do you live in?

Answered Jul 16, 2019

Yes, it is a pervasive problem here in New Zealand.

Speaking of country issues, one popular tall poppy point is directed at foreigners (including white, English-speaking ones). Some New Zealanders get serious negative attitudes towards people from larger, more glamorous-seeming countries. Or just people who have a wider range of geographic experience and options.

There is also tall poppy syndrome regarding higher education. Even just being a first-year undergrad can make you a target.

NZ has a high rate of unplanned children, with a corresponding tall poppy attitude towards childfree women.

How do pathological liars convince themselves their lies are true?

Answered Jul 10, 2019

They don’t necessarily “convince themselves their lies are true”.

The mechanism seems to be…

“I want you to do, give, or tolerate Such-And-Such-Thing, And think that a certain claim will induce to to so, if you believe it. So I will push that at you”.

It is important to note that, sometimes, the thing they want is control. Many, many people feel a lack of control over their lives. Some will desperately look for control opportunities, even those that don’t actually benefit them.

If they lie, and you believe them, then they can feel control. Even if they don’t benefit in any practical or tangible way. Some will lie to manipulate (“Oh, I love you”), including lashing out to induce you feel bad. There are actually people who will claim to hate you, when they really don’t have any opinion of you, at all.

They often have poor ability to predict whether the lie will work. Or whether lying will reduce your future willingness to believe them.

Some will do an approach of multiple different angles. Where, the first lie doesn’t work, and then they move on to the next lie (which might even contradict the first). Hoping to find the lie that you will believe.

Their perception of whether their lies are true, just isn’t on the radar. It is about saying some words, to expect a certain result. The pathology is the failure to realistically expect a connection between the words (lies) and your response/actions.

Users of stimulant drugs (cocaine, amphetamine) are notorious for constant, compulsive lying. I wonder if some non-using liars have some kind of natural brain chemistry similar to that induced by those drugs.

Is it normal to not listen to anyone’s advice because you think they are manipulating you, or at least they are trying their hardest to?

Answered Jul 10, 2019

My willingness to listen to advice includes consideration of their bias.

Do they stand to benefit from me acting upon their advice?

Does their advice involve me forking over money, products, or services, that they will receive? This can be indirect, such as someone who wants to look good to their employer by signing up or maintaining a customer. It can be very direct, down to hand-to-hand “Gimmie!”

Does their advice involve having sex?

Does their advice involve personal validation of their life circumstances or behaviour? Some people have given me advice on life-path. Such as “settling down”, moving to the town where I was born, having children, conceding to a bottom-of-the-barrel job, etc, etc. Just to validate them.

Other advice may be very different.

Does their advice encourage you to make your own choices, based on your own values and agenda?

Does their advice expand your life and your world?

Does their advice involve good logistics? Such as structuring university study towards the goal you already want? Or ideas on approaches to employment? Without them personally profiting from your choices?

Does their advice relate to medical/health matters, with them being a qualified physician? Or a friend encouraging you to take better care of yourself?

Does their advice tell you to steer clear of manipulative/exploitive people?

Why do we believe everything the scientists say?

Answered Jul 9, 2019

Originally Answered: Why do we still believe everything scientists say even if sometimes the fact changes?

I don’t believe everything scientists say.

There are a few different levels of my acceptance of scientific claims.

  • Common sense. Some “scientific” claims are clearly bogus on this basis.
  • The source (person). There is no law about who can label themselves a “scientist”. Different people have different backgrounds in terms of education, work, and reputation. It also helps if I personally know the scientist (i.e. those whom I have had as university lecturers).
  • The source (institutional). I have confidence in the science that is taught at university, because it tends to be already well-established information. However, a seemingly official-sounding organisation that I haven’t heard of before might turn out to be religiously and/or financially devoted to promoting bias, and/or snake-oil.
  • The source (publication). Academic textbooks from large publishers tend to contain already well-established information. Academic journals have a range of reputations, and certain of them have high standards, peer-reviewing, etc. On the other hand, books and magazines for the general public may be far less reliable.
  • My own background knowledge. While that is greater than most of the average public, it is still relatively general as far as I am concerned. Also, it is mainly in biological fields, while having very little knowledge of physics or mathematics. It is valuable in at least trying to comprehend what someone else is claiming, in certain fields, and comparing it to other information available. Along with looking at how well the scientist is able to support the claims.

Scientific claims, conclusions, and theories are not objective facts. They are ways of interpreting, explaining, and summarising data. They are vulnerable to anything from inadequate technology, to innocent error, to lack of thinking things through, to unconscious bias, all the way to deliberate fraud.

What can change is progress in obtaining new data, or more data, or more detailed data. Or progress in being able to look at things differently, either technically, or in terms of thought processes. Potentially leading to different claims, conclusions, and theories.

Have you ever stealth camped?

Updated Jul 9, 2019


Spent consecutive 84 nights (12 weeks) sleeping outdoors. With a sleeping bag and bivy, etc. In a medium-sized public park, with concealed areas. With a nearby place to take morning showers, and spend the days in a library. And even held down a part-time job.

A few people were aware that I was doing this, and some others apparently weren’t.

Camping was partly related to financial poverty.

However, it was also much better, both financially and mentally, compared to the previous living arrangement. Which involved an overpriced, overcrowded boarding house, with low-functioning people. And an amazingly abusive manager who didn’t grasp the concept of personal boundaries. I had zero interest in getting sucked down into the “no-hoper” mentality, or dealing with the types who like to exploit and micromanage such people.

A large negative impact of being poor is the kind of scummy people that you end up interacting with, and being surrounded by. The solitude of camping was quite a relief.

It was also highly therapeutic, as I was mentally processing a certain very rare and wonderful person’s premature death, and needed personal space for awhile. The discomfort of camping isn’t such a big deal, compared to the profound confrontation with mortality and grief.

The main impetus to stop the camping, and get a rented room, was just due to lowering temperatures and increasing rain.

A huge thing about it was just getting over fear. And developing self-confidence, which might help with other aspects of life. It helps with priorities (e.g. reducing materialism), and developing a sense of freedom, and appreciating the present moment.

Previous stealth camping was as a rather young person, doing extended car-sleeping in L.A. and S.F. Which, in retrospect, was reasonably OK, as well.

Might do extended camping again at some point in the future. Either for the mental space. Or even just to avoid paying rent.

Do you wear your socks to sleep in?

Answered Jul 7, 2019

Yes, definitely a sock-sleeper.

Two reasons.

  1. Warmth. It is sometimes rather cold at night where I live. And don’t like (or can’t afford) to run electric heating.
  2. Insects. I am a bug-magnet. They head straight for me, and joyfully bite any exposed skin. There is a legitimate theory that, some people’s microbial skin flora are attractive to mosquitoes, etc. Even worse for me, I also have bad reactions to bites, including serious swelling. If they get me on the ankle, it can swell up to impairing my ability to even walk.