The difference between feeling and emotion

Emotion: Outburst. 

Emotion is a general mental state that can be expressed in many ways.

Emotion can be the sign that you are having a feeling. You may express anger at something emotionally. 

Feeling: You take it in, you express the feeling.

The feeling comes from deep within. You only have to be a human being to feel it. It doesn't have to come out. 

I interpret feelings as deep thinking. 

Example: You can "feel" security and love, or anger and jealousy. 

One can argue that it is a matter of language definition, but that is grossly inaccurate. 

One can usually express why they are having a certain emotion, the same may not be true for feeling. 

Interesting post.

Sometime a long time ago when human beings and animals today were openly brutal and fought over resources instead of shared (the age of the zero-sum game), the game of the entire species was theoretically a zero-sum game. It was fight or run away or die. There was no such thing as cooperation, of sharing, of cooperating as a species. There was no other way.

It still is a zero sum game when it comes to the species and its survival. This is due to scarcity and the strategy adopted by the most powerful members of the species, to gain more power, influence and justify its own existence and dominance using their power. 

Much of human progress as I know it, has been done to solve the issue of win-lose situations. Yet progress has only let more win-lose situations occur, as win-win situations lead to win-lose situations due to the inherent uncertainty and eventual dominance of one party. Win-lose situations then occur, human beings try to solve it, and then the cycle continues.

I do not see this issue being resolved, as we would define it in human terms. What we mean by resolved is but the changing of the system from one state to another, whereby the second state is perceived to be better. 

That is the state of nature. We are fast approaching another of those win-lose situations as a species. 

SAT vs IB

SAT Math and Physics are nice.

But in chemistry is there is too many questions for 1 hour. There were 2 questions I figured out just before the bell rang, but because I was sitting directly in view of the invigilator, I didn't get to scribble it down, unlike many dishonest students from ESF schools.

None of the three are as strange as IB questions though. In sats, I sort of worked around questions I had no idea about and deduced the answer. IN the IB, it is completely regurgitation and much less fun. 

In the IB exams (short answer and multiple choice), it is far more of a direct issue once you know the "learning outcomes" and interpret in the lowliest manner what the question is about. IB exams are actually extremely gut level, being a "good student"(good at bs-ing) and knowing the facts.

In the SATs, I can get my way through the test even if I don't know half the curriculum they want me to know. Why? 

The difference is probably partly due to experience, but that is not the most important. The most important issue is how the SAT people set their answers. To cut things short, the answers are truly multiple choice, with a broad range of answer choices. I can typically eliminate 2 to 3 incorrect answers after reading the question.

The IB multiple choices are nasty because all the choices are very similar unless you know a lot about the subject.

One can conclude that the SAT is good for pretending you know a lot by skill, but the IB is good for pretending you know a lot by getting students to remember everything. 

Both systems are terrible in their own ways if you are actually trying to learn humanly, instead of cheating or becoming a robot*. I do not believe that to be a good scientist one must be able to regurgitate very quickly, because while the learning of science is such, innovating and discovering is so much more than more of the same. 

*You could argue that in the future, robots will be just like humans. But that's for another post. 

WAR = PEACE. This is the way the world is today

Mr Obama getting a Nobel Peace Prize. 

No, seriously, I had to check that it wasn't a hoax before believing.

So now, he is in the same league as other war starters and terrorists like Arafat and those Israelis...

How fitting. 

And when people get the impression that he is a peaceful president, he gets to dump more money and troops into Afghanistan, which is still a war-zone. 

If war=peace,

nobel "peace" prize = nobel "war" prize. 

Jokes aside, you know why this guy is getting a "peace prize"? Because he will and has introduce more world policies. But that is not peace.