Sentences with phrase «rational people in»

It would be helpful to have rational people in charge.

Personally I think anybody that follows an organized religion ought to be preemptively placed in prison to protect the more rational people in this world.

As he was passing by our table, I did what any rational person in my situation would have done — I grinned like a wide - eyed idiot at him, bobbing back and forth in my chair until he could no longer pretend not to notice me.

Not exact matches

Erin Lowry, author of Broke Millennial: Stop Scraping By and Get Your Financial Life Together, says, «People's relationship to money is not rational, it's emotional... We need to focus more on the psychological blocks and triggers that stand in people's ways, instead of just explaining how to budget or the importance of compound interest.&People's relationship to money is not rational, it's emotional... We need to focus more on the psychological blocks and triggers that stand in people's ways, instead of just explaining how to budget or the importance of compound interest.&people's ways, instead of just explaining how to budget or the importance of compound interest.»

A wise person will never invest in a company the day it's founded, for the simple fact that there's no information available to make a rational decision.

Economics assumes people are rational, when in reality they are far from rational, especially when it comes to managing money.

In particular, consider the following question: Can you think of a market in any item where each item was priced perfectly, so that every (rational) person agreed on its valuIn particular, consider the following question: Can you think of a market in any item where each item was priced perfectly, so that every (rational) person agreed on its valuin any item where each item was priced perfectly, so that every (rational) person agreed on its value?

Few people operate from a purely rational and factual mindset day in and day out.

We will continue to see over-funding of late - stage venture financings until the bloom comes off the rose and then I predict rational non-VCs will return to their day jobs chasing returns in other corners of the financial world and we people who only know how to do venture will continue doing just that.

Every major sell - off in history has been accompanied by a mix of economic concerns, monetary policy shifts, geopolitical tensions, or some other source of consternation that might make a rational person demand a higher premium for putting their capital at risk.

Behind Cadbury's simian success was an unlikely inspiration: Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist who won a Nobel Prize in 2002 for showing that people are not the rational agents that economists had thought they were.

«In my experience people who assert statements like that are often immune to evidence or rational argument, and envision themselves as superior beings who are more enlightened than the rest of us.»

Anyone like Kahneman who can provide some insight into why people are not rational and when that is most likely to happen, is a valuable resource for anyone in business.

FLANNERY: I think, fundamentally, you know, my belief is over time, people are rational about what is in their collective best interest.

At this point, the vast majority of people my age — being honest, the dividing line seems to be around 45 years old — roll their eyes and, in a perfectly rational manner, argue that a currency is usually boring and backed up by meaningful institutions such as central banks.

«Is it rational if you've had an increase in equities for a single year to think your retirement prospects have exponentially increased Obviously, I would say not, but people have a tendency to extrapolate.»

His ability to compute numbers without the aid of a computer or calculator, the skill to measure up a person's character from thousands of miles away, and the rational approach to investment and business may never be found in one person again.

As for the current market, I like to think that people are still rational in playing the gravity game with interest rates, albeit the recent optimism is slightly far fetched, but I think it's fine.

The loudest factions of Christianity and atheism aren't the largest, which presents the occasion for mutual understanding: open, honest, introspective and rational discussion between groups of people who share more in common than not.

It carries no weight in the scheme of things with any rational and logical person.

To tell someone that they deserve to go where the worst people in the world go when they die is still insulting, even if you're rational enough to know such a place is a fairy tale.

Anyway, most rational and educated people believe in science not just because it explains things, but because it accurately predicts them.

It's just that anything people can not understand in their puny, primitive brains, is not open to rational consideration UNLESS they are willing to concede that some things are unknowable..

This is why arguments about what god wants are as discredited as arguments about who people were in their last life or what Xenu wants amongst the rational.

are people so simple they crave the misguided beliefs of others to feel better about themselves or are we triing to understand the lunacy of our citizens to believe something as pathic as a 3000 year old IDEA in order to act properly when voting in those who will run this country for the next 4 years a.k.a. voting in one who using rational thinking and logic to make choices!

I prefer to think of people as rational until they open up their mind and let me know of the goofy magical things they feel proud to «believe in».

We need rational, reasoning people in the whitehouse.

Consider the «rational atheists» Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and a dozen lesser known atheist tyrants who are responsible for the deaths of over 250 million people in the past 100 years.

@BoldGeorge — So a woman hit's a child and uses the «My hands are so weak I can barely hold a bible» defense when any rational person would know gripping strength in your hands has nothing to do with your ability to swing them at a child.

An irrational atheist is a person that has not put rational thought behind their lack of belief in a god.

What you say does nothing to invalidate my point, which is that when people believe in the supernatural they'll attribute phenomenon in the real world to with even though they have no rational reason to do so.

Something you fail to address is why any rational person would be motivated to invest the time and energy it takes to develop faith in any god if he sees no reason to believe he exists in the first place.

@ shieldofgrace You do realize to rational people YOU are in the «same category as scientologist.

No rational person makes decisions based on such distorted logic in any other area of life, and decisions regarding the textual veracity of the Biblical text should not be an exception to that rule.

However, the assumption of the psychotherapist is that irrational behavior can be brought under rational control by re-educating the person in healthy interpersonal relationships.

You can call me a coward and say I «ran away» or whatever your malicious, childish mind wants to make up to make yourself feel better, but I prefer to actually have adult conversations with rational people who can articulate their opinions based in reasonable, rational thought.

If persons were only intelligent organisms with finite wants, the problem of adjusting demand and supply could in principle be easily settled by rational calculation.

First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father - God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge about modern man or present - day society.)

Chad the Sumerian said, «Any reasonably intelligent person could only conclude He was in fact real by suspending rational inquiry in that matter.»

You can call me a coward and say I «ran away» or whatever your malicious, childish mind wants to make up to make yourself feel better, but I prefer to actually have adult conversations with rational people who can articulate their opinions based in reasonable, rational thought ========= Apparently, since you are still addressing me, I must be «adult» in my conversation and displaying rational thought.

I'll believe the rational thinking person who uses his critical faculties to deduce that all religions are a scourge on humanity and that NOT ONE of them has any basis in fact or reality.

In the first place, we must return to the peculiar situation in which Mascall finds himself in claiming rational necessity for a position that most rational people rejecIn the first place, we must return to the peculiar situation in which Mascall finds himself in claiming rational necessity for a position that most rational people rejecin which Mascall finds himself in claiming rational necessity for a position that most rational people rejecin claiming rational necessity for a position that most rational people reject.

Empirically, people rarely act in ways that economists consider rational.

As I am aware that many are promoting a popular view that has been rationalized by whatever means, however you have failed to provide a shred of the emperical proof you claim, and as far as personal experiences, my point exactly has been that they exist in the realm of feeling and emotion, which any rational person would willingly admit is often self - deceptive.....

He is thus against natural law theory but for a DCT in which God, by creating rational creatures, is bound to make their highest end a relationship with the divine persons, but free to pursue that end via any number of routes.

fred, if you believe that Adam and Eve were actual people who talked to a snake and ate an apple, then you are disqualified from any rational conversation in the first place.

In contrast to people in biblical times «modern man acknowledges as reality only such phenomena or events as are comprehensible within the framework of the rational order of the universe... the thinking of modem men is really shaped by the scientific world - view, anIn contrast to people in biblical times «modern man acknowledges as reality only such phenomena or events as are comprehensible within the framework of the rational order of the universe... the thinking of modem men is really shaped by the scientific world - view, anin biblical times «modern man acknowledges as reality only such phenomena or events as are comprehensible within the framework of the rational order of the universe... the thinking of modem men is really shaped by the scientific world - view, and.

I do nt want to end up being like you, a drone who looks incredibly silly to rational thinking people speaking on and on about their invisible man even in situations where its simply not wanted or warranted.

Thornton, for example, does not envisage change or development in God, whereas I postulate that the three divine persons undergo change in their relationships to one another as a result of their involvement with their (rational) creatures.

When a philosopher defines his central concept only in terms of itself (rational propositions are those that appeal to rational people or that can be supported on rational grounds) it is a sure sign of confusion.