It's not causation since no experiment was conducted to measure this. It's a weak correlation at best, since again, no correlation study was conducted to measure this outcome. It was a meta analysis not an experiment. That's the limitation of the study. It should be touted as proving anything. What it does point to is an interesting of study, something that should be looked at.
I think a reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that prolonged sitting is associated with a number of bad health outcomes and that prolonged sitting should be broken up with breaks during the day.
And that's the problem, it's a crap conclusion. No one is going to develop type 2 diabetes if they are healthy. It's the inactivity and amount of food you eat. So indirectly you could say prolonged sitting contributes to this outcome. The article severely overreaches.
Standing desks DO NOT solve this issue since you are still not moving and poses other health issues. You can't stand in one place all day. People need to sit as well.
True going to the gym, according to the article, would not help. This has not been proven. So take that assertion with a grain of salt. However, taking mini breaks during the day would be of benefit. The key is not to sit for prolonged periods of time.
Actually it doesn't. What the article is trying to say is that exercise will not counteract the effect of prolonged sitting. The problem with that assertion is, it's not proven. The article simple correlates health outcomes with people who exercise and have prolonged sitting, through meta analysis.. Nothing more. IT DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION. Therein lies the problem. Even the correlation is somewhat weak since it was not a single experiment designed to observe those outcomes but rather base those conclusions on other research.
So there is no proof here. But it does highlight an area for future research.
FTA: "Restricting the FCC's Section 706 powers could also interfere with the commission's plans for preempting state laws that prevent cities and towns from building broadband networks."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
So their masters were worried about cities building their own fiber network.
How the hell is this a true free market example? Microsoft laid off a bunch of workers and than banned their rehire. How is that a free market? Immigrants are not free to move into this country without a work Visa. Americans are not free to move into other countries because of restrictions in other countries.
A free marker means that are no barriers to entering a market. The labor market has barriers and thus is not free.
*sigh* Science is about study. It's not a frame of reference or point of view. It's about asking a question and investigating.
From Merriam Webster's dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com... :knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
: a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
: a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
When a scientist conducts research, their research is published in a peer reviewed journal. No, it's not about being open-minded to all possible explanations - that's utter non-sense. Studies do not have 100 different explanations. They have one. In many ways scientists are adversarial, promoting one hypothesis over another. The correct hypothesis comes out in the research. As more people conduct studies and the data puts to one way or another, you begin to understand which explanations is correct.
Shall we talk about entropy then? It's clear you are out of your depth as you do not know how biological systems respond to aging. Eliminating all cancer still will not make people live longer. Cells die. That's a fact. As one gets older new cells stop replacing old cells and systems start to degenerate. You would have to stop cellular decay. That would require changing your DNA. That's not happening anytime soon.
That people miss the point of the article completely. This not a philosophical debate. You have a bunch of charter schools that emphasize teaching certain personality variables as their solution to improving education. The problem is, that approach misses the point. Improving education requires: “asking about the environment in which kids are placed, what kids are being asked to learn, how they’re being taught, what voice they have, if any, in the experience...” One needs to address the the systemic questions.
It's a snake oil pitch which isn't going to solve the problem. Not too mention it won't produce the workforce that businesses want. Business want creative problem solvers. The focus on "grit" does not promote creativity.
That's not what the authors are arguing. They are arguing either or. Grit or intelligence. Your example does not validate the authors premise. Actually it has little to do with grit. It's about focusing one's efforts. FYI without Hawking's intelligence he would have never have developed any of his theories, regardless of how much grit he might have had. More importantly it was his intelligence, his creativity that allowed him to develop some pretty amazing theories. Something grit does not provide.
"“We probably need to start rethinking our emphasis on intelligence,” he said. “This isn’t to say that we should throw intelligence out,” he cautioned, “but we need to pull back on thinking that this is the only game in town.”"
When the author comes up with an asinine statement like that, one should be vary afraid. FYI Poropat and Duckworth are focusing on a single trait, they're substituting "grit" for intelligence. So no, they are not trying refute any single trait theory, they are promoting one, i.e., have education focus on grit rather than intelligence.
“Social psychologists for decades have identified a tendency to overestimate how important personality characteristics, motivation, individual values and the like tend to be relative to the importance of the structural characteristics of a situation,”
http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.c...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not causation since no experiment was conducted to measure this. It's a weak correlation at best, since again, no correlation study was conducted to measure this outcome. It was a meta analysis not an experiment. That's the limitation of the study. It should be touted as proving anything. What it does point to is an interesting of study, something that should be looked at.
I think a reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that prolonged sitting is associated with a number of bad health outcomes and that prolonged sitting should be broken up with breaks during the day.
And that's the problem, it's a crap conclusion. No one is going to develop type 2 diabetes if they are healthy. It's the inactivity and amount of food you eat. So indirectly you could say prolonged sitting contributes to this outcome. The article severely overreaches.
20 minutes a day is considered insufficient. 1 hour a day is good.
Standing desks DO NOT solve this issue since you are still not moving and poses other health issues. You can't stand in one place all day. People need to sit as well.
Standing poses other health risks. There is no silver bullet. They key is to get people to move around on a regular basis at work.
True going to the gym, according to the article, would not help. This has not been proven. So take that assertion with a grain of salt. However, taking mini breaks during the day would be of benefit. The key is not to sit for prolonged periods of time.
Actually it doesn't. What the article is trying to say is that exercise will not counteract the effect of prolonged sitting. The problem with that assertion is, it's not proven. The article simple correlates health outcomes with people who exercise and have prolonged sitting, through meta analysis.. Nothing more. IT DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION. Therein lies the problem. Even the correlation is somewhat weak since it was not a single experiment designed to observe those outcomes but rather base those conclusions on other research.
So there is no proof here. But it does highlight an area for future research.
FTA: "Restricting the FCC's Section 706 powers could also interfere with the commission's plans for preempting state laws that prevent cities and towns from building broadband networks." http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
So their masters were worried about cities building their own fiber network.
...of Comcast in their mouth. Nice.
Apparently you are no familiar with Google's petition to the FCC says Title II would help them gain access to utilities poles to roll out fiber.
Which is where local government can step in and provide without fear of lawsuits from big telecom that prevents such rollouts.
How the hell is this a true free market example? Microsoft laid off a bunch of workers and than banned their rehire. How is that a free market? Immigrants are not free to move into this country without a work Visa. Americans are not free to move into other countries because of restrictions in other countries.
A free marker means that are no barriers to entering a market. The labor market has barriers and thus is not free.
Moron.
So there's an company in India that' willing to pay moving costs to bring an American worker there? Wow...
Funny how it doesn't apply to CEOs....
What!? iPads are made in China with cheap labor, yet have a very high profit margin and are very costly. So no we don't benefit from cheap labor.
Nice try Potsy.
Or you could have read the article...
*sigh* Science is about study. It's not a frame of reference or point of view. It's about asking a question and investigating.
:knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
From Merriam Webster's dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
: a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
: a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
When a scientist conducts research, their research is published in a peer reviewed journal. No, it's not about being open-minded to all possible explanations - that's utter non-sense. Studies do not have 100 different explanations. They have one. In many ways scientists are adversarial, promoting one hypothesis over another. The correct hypothesis comes out in the research. As more people conduct studies and the data puts to one way or another, you begin to understand which explanations is correct.
That's the sick truth of it....cancer is the one thing that could promote longevity.
Shall we talk about entropy then? It's clear you are out of your depth as you do not know how biological systems respond to aging. Eliminating all cancer still will not make people live longer. Cells die. That's a fact. As one gets older new cells stop replacing old cells and systems start to degenerate. You would have to stop cellular decay. That would require changing your DNA. That's not happening anytime soon.
Because serious cancer research isn't being done for a gimmicky prize.
That people miss the point of the article completely. This not a philosophical debate. You have a bunch of charter schools that emphasize teaching certain personality variables as their solution to improving education. The problem is, that approach misses the point. Improving education requires: “asking about the environment in which kids are placed, what kids are being asked to learn, how they’re being taught, what voice they have, if any, in the experience...” One needs to address the the systemic questions.
It's a snake oil pitch which isn't going to solve the problem. Not too mention it won't produce the workforce that businesses want. Business want creative problem solvers. The focus on "grit" does not promote creativity.
Strange, because I have. So your observation isn't as valid as you thought.
LMOL...
That's not what the authors are arguing. They are arguing either or. Grit or intelligence. Your example does not validate the authors premise. Actually it has little to do with grit. It's about focusing one's efforts. FYI without Hawking's intelligence he would have never have developed any of his theories, regardless of how much grit he might have had. More importantly it was his intelligence, his creativity that allowed him to develop some pretty amazing theories. Something grit does not provide.
Really?
"“We probably need to start rethinking our emphasis on intelligence,” he said. “This isn’t to say that we should throw intelligence out,” he cautioned, “but we need to pull back on thinking that this is the only game in town.”"
When the author comes up with an asinine statement like that, one should be vary afraid. FYI Poropat and Duckworth are focusing on a single trait, they're substituting "grit" for intelligence. So no, they are not trying refute any single trait theory, they are promoting one, i.e., have education focus on grit rather than intelligence.
Perhaps you should have read the article.
“Social psychologists for decades have identified a tendency to overestimate how important personality characteristics, motivation, individual values and the like tend to be relative to the importance of the structural characteristics of a situation,” http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.c...
Somebody doesn't read.