Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
i've come to see english//panglish as the language of «CONTROL»
used to confuse and obfuscate
to turn upside down and invert
do we cast spells for «CONTROL»?
do our words have power beyond our own personal interpretation?
labels and lumping, the further discreditation of alternative narratives --- the sensorchip
the silicon «CONTROL» of carbon expression
labels on labels on labels on labels
in divided individuals ...
... it's good to breathe
Uh. What? You think it would be a problem to have a woman as POTUS?
I think it’s true too (as an American who has lived on 3 different continents), but it’s actively encouraged here, both for positive and negative reasons.
Unfortunately the system of government, and the fierce opposition from certain states to being governed by that government, is flawed in ways that allow extremist views to color our worldview and prevent any kind of progressive outlook.
Clipped this from some article. It’s prolly one of those things you shouldn’t laugh at, but...it's funny tho 😆
Sigh.
OK, this is going to bum you out, but the "too hot coffee" lawsuit? Your belief has been manufactured by McDonald's corporate lawyers into considering it just another example of frivolous litigation. The narrative has been adopted so frequently, and it sure is appealing: Ugh, these lazy people who expect to get a million-dollar payday for their own negligence! That's what's ruining America. (Please don't examine too closely the power and rights of corporations, which, in the memorably unfortunate phrase of Mitt Romney's, "are people, my friend.")
It's simply not true.
But Max, at this point, you don't really need an excuse to hate America! We get it.
Totally - this Trump situation is a disaster that is still waiting to fully happen, and the reason is exactly what you mentioned: cognitive dissonance. Trump supporters are mostly in too deep already to give up. It is exactly what happens with cults. When you are in so deep, and have perhaps already lost the respect or even the entire connection with a few friends or family members over the past few years as a result, it becomes easier, psychologically, to cling to your beliefs even harder than to admit how wrong you were. There is a very interesting book on this phenomenon 'Mistakes Were Made But Not By Me'.
The gist: it is hard for people to admit they are wrong. Particularly hard to admit that they were really really wrong about something that has had huge consequences. Because let's not kid ourselves, Trump's presidency has had huge and tragic consequences that can be measured, among many other metrics, in the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths that were due to the incompetent pandemic response mentioned above by @espiegel123. Because most people have a reasonably positive self-concept, believing themselves to be competent, moral, and smart, admitting that they were so wrong about Trump or about the way to handle the pandemic is a direct threat to their sense of who they are. This feeling of being wrong when you believed so fervently that you were right, creates a very uncomfortable dissonance between how you see yourself and how the evidence is telling you you should see yourself. Faced with this, you have two choices. Admit you are wrong, at the cost of having to change your self concept about our own competence or goodness. Or to hunker down more to protect your self image and get ever more radicalised. Before you know it, you have the Jonestown massacre or the Holocaust.
Nice summary of the book here https://lifeclub.org/books/mistakes-were-made-but-not-by-me-carol-tavris-and-elliot-aronson-review-summary
I will paste that summary here also:
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Summary and Review
by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson
Have you ever been in a situation where you’ve made a mistake you need to tell others about? If so, in the moment you realized, you’d have to fess up to your mistake, you probably felt your chest tighten up and a lump rise in your throat. This is natural, as nobody likes admitting mistakes. But if you did admit your mistake, you probably felt liberated and could find ways to learn from it.
This book summary explore the human tendency to avoid admitting our mistakes by finding self-justifications for them.
You’ll discover why your brain is willing to jump through any number of hoops, even fabricating memories to protect you from having to admit a mistake.
You’ll also find out how refraining from admitting your mistakes can lead to broken marriages, misdiagnosed illnesses and even wrongful criminal convictions.
Finally, you’ll learn why admitting your mistakes can be a good thing, and how it can even get you promoted.
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Key Idea #1: Instead of admitting our mistakes, we tend to justify them.
Everyone has done things they shouldn’t have. For example, have you ever munched down an entire family-sized pack of potato chips in one go? Chances are pretty good you have.
But, if you’re like most people, you probably told yourself that, actually, it was okay because, say, you’d had a hard week and fully deserved that little indulgence.
Most people do the same: they seek justifications for actions they know were wrong. That’s because they want to reduce feeling cognitive dissonance, or the unpleasant feeling of having two conflicting ideas in our heads.
In this case, if you consider yourself someone who adheres to a healthy diet, your overindulgence creates cognitive dissonance. To resolve the dissonance, you come up with a so-called self-justification (e.g., the rough work week) for your actions.
Another example of cognitive dissonance would be someone who bemoans the dangers of smoking while continuing to smoke themselves. To resolve the cognitive dissonance of the conflicting views and behavior, this person will probably come up with a self-justification like, “I really don’t smoke that much so the health effects are negligible.”
Unfortunately, these kinds of self-justifications can make us cling to our beliefs even more vehemently – not change our behavior.
For example, after making a mistake, we may find a self-justification for it rather than dealing with it head on and trying to understand why it happened.
One example can be seen in the invasion of Iraq. Even though the weapons of mass destruction that served as the justification of war were ultimately not found in Iraq, and the invasion of the country resulted in an increase of Islamic radicalism that the war was meant to diminish, U.S. president George W. Bush was still convinced that he had made the right decision to go to war. Undoubtedly, this was a way of resolving his cognitive dissonance.
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Key Idea #2: We justify our mistakes by looking at situations in a biased, narrow-minded manner.
As we’ve seen, everyone can come up with justifications for their mistakes to avoid cognitive dissonance.
So how do we do convince ourselves our justification is right?
Through so-called confirmation bias, or when we see the evidence of the matter in a way that supports our original view. This can make a lack of evidence, or even contradictory evidence, look like evidence that supports our case.
For example, in the U.S. in the 1980s, many people were driven to a moral panic because they were convinced that satanic cults were infiltrating society’s highest levels and abducting children for satanic rituals.
The FBI duly investigated these claims and found no evidence to back them up. But instead of accepting this, confirmation bias led the accusers to assert that this showed precisely how adept the culprits were at hiding their crimes.
Self-justifications and confirmation bias can actually even change our view on morality through a step-by-step process, known as the pyramid of choice.
To better understand this, imagine two people with similar morals both have the opportunity to cheat on their spouses.
According to the pyramid of choice, as they try to decide what to do, they are standing on top of a pyramid. From there, they have a bird’s-eye view of the consequences of their choices: what will happen if they cheat or if they remain faithful.
Now, imagine one of the two decides to cheat while the other stays faithful. This means they both begin to clamber down the pyramid, though along very different paths.
As they descend, they lose their overview of their choices, and only see the narrow path they’ve chosen.
The tendencies of self-justification and confirmation bias mean that the person who committed adultery will be ever surer that it was the right choice, while the other will become surer of the opposite.
As they travel down, their paths diverge further, until they finish at opposite corners of the pyramid with totally different views of morality.
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Key Idea #3: Far from an objective record of the truth, our memory is fabricated and adjusted to suit our needs.
When asked about a prior event, most people are confident that their memory is an accurate representation of what happened. In fact, it’s often not true.
First of all, we tend to bias our memories to better suit our current situation, for example, to justify our behavior or our beliefs.
This effect was seen in a study conducted in the 1960s, where teenage boys were interviewed about topics concerning sexuality. When the same boys were interviewed as adults, they “remembered” their responses as teenagers as having been more liberal than they really were. This was attributed to the fact that they tried to make their memories fit the commonly held view that the 1960s were a sexually liberated era.
Second, sometimes we can even have memories of events that never happened, otherwise known as “false memories.”
For example, millions of Americans believe they’ve encountered aliens and even vividly “remember” the details of their encounters. But studies show such encounters are often the result of jet lag and fatigue from, e.g., driving long distances without resting. In these situations, the “abductee” has in fact experienced sleep paralysis, or feeling paralyzed while being aware of one’s surroundings.
In around 5 percent of sleep paralysis cases, the person also hallucinates, essentially experiencing a waking dream and, in some cases, actually dreams up alien encounters. Although the memories are false, the individuals’ brains still treat them as real, so they become part of their life narrative.
So how can we be sure our memories are authentic?
We need to cross-check them, preferably with undisputed historical facts and accounts.
For example, one author named Binjamin Wilkomirski wrote a popular book about his childhood in Nazi concentration camps. But after historical analysis of the material, his story was proven false. It turned out that he had not suffered in concentration camps, but had written the book based on various other sources as a way to cope with his own troubled childhood.
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Key Idea #4: Self-justification of mistakes hinders scientific advancements, especially in the field of medicine.
Have you ever been to the doctor’s office to get a diagnosis for something that’s been bothering you and then, at the last minute, just as you’re leaving the office, the doctor exclaims, “No, wait! I made a mistake – that’s the wrong diagnosis!”
Probably not. Because, hopefully, you’ve had good doctors, but also because even the best doctors are reluctant to admit their mistakes.
Which is problematic, as mistakes are a key part of advancement in any area of scientific research.
For example, in the nineteenth century, physician Ignaz Semmelweis found that many of his female patients were dying after childbirth. After analyzing the situation, he hypothesized that it was due to a mistake in the delivery procedure, more specifically, that his fellow colleagues weren’t washing their hands before the delivery, resulting in infections. By enforcing stricter cleanliness requirements, he was able to save many lives.
Sadly, however, medical mistakes like this one are not always recognized, and can sometimes even be deliberately hidden. To avoid seeming incompetent, insecure, or being sued for malpractice, medical professionals don’t readily admit to having made mistakes.
But once any scientific field blinds itself to its mistakes, that field becomes a closed-loop that blocks any future developments, in this case medical improvements.
For example, one oft-made and thoroughly ingrained mistake in the field of medicine is known as clinical intuition, when doctors assume their first judgment is correct and make the official diagnosis without exploring other alternative diagnoses, in the same vein as, “I know it when I see it.”
Due to confirmation bias, once the doctor comes to her diagnosis, she forces all the evidence she later sees to fit this view.
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Key Idea #5: The criminal justice system also makes mistakes due to the self-justification of its actions.
Would you be worried if you were arrested for a crime you didn’t commit? Probably. But your worries might be tempered by the fact that you, like most people, trust that the criminal justice system seeks the truth and works in a legally and morally justifiable way.
Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case, as sometimes people’s tendency towards self-justification can lead the justice system to bury the truth just to have the appearance of running smoothly and being error-free.
This can be seen in the prevalence of wrongful convictions: one study showed that 15 to 25 percent of exonerated prisoners had confessed to crimes they hadn’t committed. Police officers are taught to believe innocent people never confess, but that’s obviously not true. Yet, rather than changing the methods they use to interrogate suspects, they argue that such mistakes are merely a small exception to the rule.
The criminal justice system is so ingrained in its patterns that it’s hard for officers and lawyers to revise their error-prone methods of investigating crimes. And without reform, some mistakes by the police can even become endemic.
One 1989 study found that, in Suffolk County, New York, police officers routinely brutalized suspects, illegally tapped phones and faked evidence to obtain wrongful convictions.
This kind of “ends justify the means” mentality can also be seen by the emergence of the new word “testilying,” referring to the wide-ranging falsification of evidence by police officers in the early 1990s.
To clear away the mistakes that arose from self-justification, a dramatic reform of the criminal justice system is needed.
For example, new technologies like DNA testing have overturned some wrongful convictions, which has lead to reforms such as recording police interrogations on video and teaching police officers, lawyers, and judges about the dangers of confirmation bias.
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Key Idea #6: Self-justifications and blame can damage or even ruin relationships.
Our desire to avoid cognitive dissonance by finding self-justifications for our mistakes can undermine our relationships.
That’s because one common way of avoiding cognitive dissonance is by shifting blame for mistakes onto our partners. Naturally, this engenders conflicts between us and our partners, and conflicts have in turn been shown to increase the likelihood of a break-up. This was evidenced by a study of couples that indicated that once the ratio of time in a relationship spent on good terms versus arguing goes below five to one, the relationship was unlikely to last.
And although not all relationships were meant to last anyway, coming up with self-justifications for why the other person is to blame can even ruin relationships where reconciliation would have been possible.
Because when couples don’t confront their problems honestly, they descend into the so-called “blame game,” where they refuse to accept their own mistakes by pointing out the perceived flaws and mistakes of their partners.
A study of more than 700 couples spanning many years found that self-justification leads to name-calling, refusal to compromise and, eventually, mutual hatred.
So how is it possible to get out of such a downward spiral?
The answer is simple: we shouldn’t judge our partners personally for the mistakes they’ve made; the person and the mistake are not the same thing. In successful relationships, couples recognize that there’s a difference between the mistakes made and the person who made the mistakes.
When you’re criticized personally rather than for your actions, it generates a stronger sense of embarrassment and isolation.
That’s why we we should give our partners the same lenient treatment that we often give ourselves: praising them for doing something good and blaming situational factors when they’ve made mistakes.
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Key Idea #7: Even governments resort to self-justification, and this can lead to escalating conflicts.
It turns out that, just like individuals, governments are also reluctant to admit their mistakes. Instead, they seek self-justifications for their actions. This is especially true in a crisis situation.
In a crisis, e.g., when under the threat of war, governments often create self-justifications for their erroneous actions by blaming their enemies for having “started it.”
For example, when U.S. diplomats were held hostage in Tehran during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, both the United States and Iran tried to justify their actions as being mere responses to the other side having started the conflict.
And, just as with relationships, when governments blame each other, it only mires all parties deeper in the problem. Because blaming the other party for inflicting the first wrong can serve as a justification for unnecessarily escalating the conflict.
This could be seen on an individual level in an experiment where people were told to exert pressure on each other’s index fingers, with the pressure levels being monitored. Each party was asked to return the pressure applied by the other person, but it turned out that the levels of pressure applied kept increasing. Both sides justified the increases by saying the other side was responsible for the increase.
The same phenomenon can be seen in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: both sides justify their escalating acts of violence by claiming that the other side is the aggressor and that they’re only protecting themselves in response. Instead of accepting their own past mistakes, both sides focus on faulting the other.
Fortunately, however, once parties start accepting their mistakes, the tendency spreads and can eventually resolve the conflict.
For example, after the unjust system of Apartheid ended in South Africa, a commission was set up where both perpetrators and victims could openly discuss the violence of Apartheid and their own involvement in it without the perpetrators having to worry about vengeance. This allowed the perpetrators to move past their denial and other self-justifications so they could admit their mistakes. This helped both parties move towards reconciliation.
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Key Idea #8: Only by admitting our mistakes can we grow professionally and personally.
Most people have difficulties admitting when they’ve made a mistake – it’s only natural. But, as we’ve seen, this tendency can be destructive, so here are a few tips on how to start admitting mistakes.
First of all, understand that admitting mistakes is not a sign of stupidity or weakness, but a great way to learn from them and resolve cognitive dissonance.
This was seen in one study comparing the educational techniques used in the United States, China and Japan. The study aimed to understand why Asian students performed better in mathematics than their non-Asian peers, and it found that U.S. students were embarrassed about making mistakes so they felt reluctant about working on difficult math problems in front of their peers. Their Asian peers, on the other hand, tended to learn precisely by making mistakes first, and then working to overcome those mistakes, even in front of the class.
Second, open yourself up to criticism from others and to the evidence that may show you’ve made a mistake.
This is beneficial because people respect, and are more likely to reward, those who own up to their mistakes.
For example, when the space shuttle Columbia exploded on re-entry, the NASA launch integration manager Wayne Hale took full responsibility for it. Instead of being fired, he was promoted for his honesty.
Similarly, anecdotal evidence suggests that if doctors make a mistake, they’re better off admitting it, as it makes the patients’ relatives less likely to sue for medical malpractice.
Another example is provided by President John. F. Kennedy, who apologized to the nation for the Bay of Pigs disaster, a botched invasion of Cuba, and saw his popularity soar after the apology. It’s worth noting that he was the last U.S. president to apologize for making a mistake.
In Review: Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Book Summary
The key message in this book summary:
Not admitting your mistakes and instead finding convoluted self-justifications for them can severely damage not only your personal and professional life, but society as a whole.
What are the questions this book summary answer?
Why and how do we justify the bad decisions we make?
When we make a mistake that is inconsistent with our worldview, it creates an unpleasant feeling of cognitive dissonance: we cannot reconcile the mistake with the idea in our heads. This leads us to conjure up self-justifications that seem to bolster the action we took. Once we commit to these self-justifications, they are near impossible to shake.
What are the harmful effects of self-justification?
In both medicine and the legal system, coming up with self-justifications prevents people from correcting mistakes they’ve made, whether misdiagnoses or miscarriages of justice. In romantic relationships and even the relations of nations, self-justifications can cause escalations in any conflict, which can in turn lead to disaster.
How can we recognize our mistakes and begin to take responsibility for our actions?
By being open and honest towards others and accepting new evidence, we can see our mistakes and learn from them more easily.
Emphasis mine.
You'd have thought that at least one of JFK's successors would have been taking notes.
That was quite a chunk of text @Gavinski, but I appreciate the message that runs through it.
As I see it, cognitive biases are inescapable (and fascinating) and not one of us is immune, no matter how present and perspicacious. There's just no getting around it. Your (everybody's) worldview is compromised:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
But we can be willing to learn.
I hope Biden is. I wish him luck.
It made sense immediately.
Agreed, no one is free of this, it's the human condition, but we can definitely work on minimising it.
People in power tend to be the worst at that, but I feel that Biden is sincere in his desire to improve America. I really hope that we at least get back to where things were pre-Trump, although that still leaves room for improvement in many areas.
Bill Clinton also apologized after blowjobgate. And his popularity went up afterwards too 😆
I don’t think it went up as it was already high. I think it was more that the public really weren’t behind the impeachment so it didn’t impact his popularity at all.
As I recall from news sources.. US Presidents can't be sued or prosecuted for anything while in office...
IMO , That's what made Trump such a threat to the American republic, the only way to remove a sitting president is by impeachment, and the republican senate lacked the spine to act in the best interest of the republic. The consequences of allowing a "thug" remain in power resulted in the terror attack on the US capital. As the FBI finds and apprehends these domestic terrorists, it's being reported in the news that many of them are defending their actions by saying they were following the president's instructions.
In the USA you can technically sue anyone for anything. But frivolous lawsuits can result in counter claims of harassment, etc. Attorneys can also be sanctioned under federal procedural "rule 11" for claims that are not warranted by existing law or based on frivolous argument.
An "Ex President" is just a citizen, and is no longer immune from litigation.
But an "Ex President" cannot be sued for actions they made while they were still President. That I think would be the criteria under which your "sue the ex president for your covid dead grandparents" hypothetical would fall.
I'm not an Attorney, the above is based on my understanding of this subject, and may contain inaccuracies.
This is true. If you were me, an average American, what would you do about it?
Gosh, Max. I had no idea you felt that way about the states! 🥺
I agree, the Republican Party as it exists today needs to end. The issue is that there’s nothing to fill the void. The closest thing you have is the Libertarian party, but, as someone so eloquently put it on Facebook, libertarian is just republican under a different hat.
Your understanding is not correct. Presidents can be sued while in office. Clinton was. Trump is involved in several lawsuits filed while he was in office. None of the suits against Trump have reached trial yet.
There is no law that prevents the President from being indicted for a crime while in office, but there is an internal Justice Department finding (which is an untested opinion that only applies to department of justice employees) that the President can’t be indicted in a criminal court while in office. This dates to when Nixon was President. It has never been put to a test. The reasoning is that Congress should impeach and remove the President and that a criminal proceeding while the President is actually in office would put the republic in jeapordy by making it impossible for a President to perform his job well. Many constitutional scholars believe the finding is in error.
This article sums it up:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-u-s-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3
The “anyone can sue anyone for anything” thing is also not accurate....what that means is that you can file the paperwork to sue for an awful lot of things ... but courts make determinations as to whether the suit is actually valid. It does not mean that you can make up up some new law. A court will not hear a case that does not have applicable laws.
It also is not true that you can’t sue a President for anything they did while in office. You can’t sue the President or just about any government official personally for actions that are a part of execution of their job. This is the case in many many countries. It isn’t some uniquely weird American thing. So, Trump can’t be sued for being a bonehead that made tragically bad decisions about COVID. But, he potentially could be sued for actions not done as part of his job while they were in office.
It is possible that someone might sue Trump for the consequences of inciting the riot (for example the family of the cop that died)...since he was not acting in an official capacity when he did that. However, it would probably be impossible to win such a case because the burden of proof is pretty high for those sorts of suits. There has been chatter about such suits being filed, but I suspect none of those suits will go forward given what they have to prove.
Trump is likely about to be indicted for financial crimes related to Trump Org. I would guess he is about to be on the receiving end of lots of civil suits, too.
Well, I don’t about most other citizens of the world, but I would imagine they would agree with me when I say I love my country but despise my government.
I vote in every election, even the off years, and always Democratic. I donate what I can. I agree with nearly everything you’ve said. And yet here I am and these things are still happening in my country. What else would you be doing if you were me? The reality is you’d be watching it happen just like I am.
The Trump lesson here is quite simple.
When plotting revenge, dig two graves.
One for yourself.
Not even close to Germany’s darkest hour.
Trump was bad and there are a lot of proto-fascists here in the U.S. And the U.S. is guilty of many bad acts.
But the scale of recent events is nowhere near the scale of Germany’s darkest hour.
Could such events be repeated here...maybe. But we aren’t there now and the comparison minimizes the horror of what happened in Germany from 1933 till the war ended.
Frankly, your comparison trivializes the loss of the many millions exterminated in German death camps.