Libertarians and anarchists are rather far apart in philosophy. Do not confuse the two.
It makes perfect sense for anarchists to be blowing things up, none at all for libertarians.
Not according to wikipedia.
Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. They believe in converting present-day private property into the commons or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property[5].
What the OP called "cognitive dissonance" isn't limited to murderers, terrorists, and other violent basketcases. It extends even to relatively well-adjusted individuals. Take for example, Albert Einstein. Brilliant in formulating the Theory of Relativity, he resisted for a long time the idea of quantum chaos. "God does not play dice."
These eco-anarchists might have the insight to see the dangers of science while being unable to the see consequences of their own actions.
You don't solve the dangers of science by killing scientists. This is the same sort of crap that the Israeli and US government is sponsoring in Iran.
At this point I wouldn't be that sure that they are actually anarchists, Italian state has a long and well established history of blowing up their own citizens and blaming the anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension#Piazza_Fontana_bombing). Anarchist generally dropped 'individual terror' somewhere in the early 20th century as it failed to bring any actual change or a revolution, so even anarchist or anarchist terrorist groups do everything to ensure there will be no casualties of their attacks. Greek groups like CCF, US and UK's ALF and ELF never killed or aimed to harm anybody AFAIK.
Italy on the other hand has this terrorist group always popping up around serious political issues, called nearly the same as the Anarchist Federation of Italy (IAF)... While most anarchist groups would do everything they can to distinguish themselves from other groups (think "Life of Brian"). Just saying.
This is also what I suspect. It doesn't make much sense for libertarians (anarchists) to be anti-technology. There are of course exceptions but for the most part anarchists are pro technology and use the internet. Even the FBI knows enough to think so.
These are luddite terrorists not anarchists. You can be an anarchist and not hate scientists. Their anti-science position has nothing to do with anarchism in the political sense of the word.
Rewriting since my last one lost its paragraph breaks and got off-topic...
ADHD isn't a matter of the mind merely wandering, though -- the H means they're too hyperactive to remain still (they have to constantly be in motion of some sort), and the ADD means that they're completely distracted by sensory input and/or their brain leaps from one half-finished thought to the next. It's hard to make use of interesting ideas or solutions if it you're distracted by something else before you record it and/or can't focus long enough to work on it.
I think it's possible to rearrange one's life so it works well with an ADHD brain, just like I've set mine up to match my autistic brain, and likewise, if we can find a talent that our brain type compliments then we're golden, so to speak -- but that's the reverse of finding a way to make our condition work with the circumstances. That's why disability accommodations exist: so we can work to our full ability without being placed at an artificial disadvantage (i.e. disabled) by the man-made environment/society being sculpted to suit a different kind of brain/body.
The first step is to stop viewing it as if ADHD is a problem. Hyper activity may be a problem but that can be fixed by diet as I think giving sugar and caffeine to children is in direct correlation with the explosion of hyperactivity reported.
I think hyperfocus can be an asset and it all depends on what the focus is on. People with ADD have the hyperfocus ability that people without ADD do not have. This would actually be a feature not a disorder. The man made society didn't even exist prior to 100 or so years ago so ADHD might have been evolutionary and beneficial. If a person is hyper-active then chances are they burned more calories and became more physically fit which would be beneficial in a less sedentary culture. The idea that children would be forced to sit in a classroom for hours a day is relatively new as is the idea that giving children sugar and drugs such as energy drinks is new. This could be the cause of hyperactivity and hyperactivity shouldn't be considered a disorder at all.
ADD should only be considered a disorder if the child is complaining about their inability to focus. Most of the time the children aren't the ones complaining but the parents and teachers are the ones complaining. The parents and teachers expect the child to have the maturity of little adults, to sit down and basically go to their job every day (school), and soldier it out. Unfortunately the child isn't going to pick that up overnight and no amount of drugging is going to change a childs interests.
If an individual has ADHD with hyper focus the best way to teach them is to take advantage of their hyper focus capability. If the child is hyper active then more time for exercise isn't actually a bad thing and a lot could be taught during that exercise. Basically there is no logical reason why classes have to be taught in doors, why students have to sit still, etc. You could take an extra couple hours out of the day and let students listen to an MP3 while they burn off the excess sugar, you could go for a walk and discuss certain subjects, you can go for a hike and teach certain things, I don't see why we should blame the kids for not sitting still but then after drugging the kids blame them for obesity.
ADHD & ADD have also positive effects on attention sometimes, it's just that average people rarely hear about them and often understand "disorder" to mean same as "weak" - one symptom of ADD/ADHD is called hyperfocusing, and it's negative effects are quite opposite from getting distracted - it means that you can be totally oblivious to even things that would normally grab anybodys attestion from what they are doing, but what you are focusing on is getting 150% focus.
I'm also talking out of experience - it's one of the good things with ADHD >:)
That is exactly what I am talking about. I was exactly like that as a kid.
The thing is the people who are talking about ADHD or discussing it usually never had it to begin with and don't know much about it. If you've had ADHD then they should be interviewing the successful people who overcame ADHD to find out what the positives of having ADHD are. If we listen to people who never had ADHD to begin with what do we expect to learn about the positive effects of ADHD?
For some subjects like math ADHD doesn't help at all but when it's time to be creative or when it's a situation where there isn't some script or book or steps to follow then ADHD actually becomes normal if and only if you recognize your strengths and weaknesses with ADHD. If you think of yourself as a victim of ADHD and never recognize any strengths then that gives control and power over to people who want to call you disabled, say you've got a syndrome, say you're less intelligent, but use a condition like ADHD as a way of saying that without the social stigma of saying it.
In the real world none of the myths are true. People with ADHD depending on the severity and type of ADHD can focus and some actually hyper focus to the point where they cannot think about anything else which would explain why they can't focus on their math homework for example. That is not the same as not being able to focus on anything at all. There may be some people with ADHD so severe that they can't focus on anything at all but I was never like that and I didn't know anyone with ADHD quite that severe.
Except that ADHD isn't a matter of the mind merely wandering -- the H means they're too hyperactive to remain still (they have to constantly be in motion of some sort), and the ADD means that they're completely distracted by sensory input and/or their brain leaps from one half-finished thought to the next. It's hard to make use of interesting ideas or solutions if it you're distracted by something else before you record it and/or can't focus long enough to work on it.
I've had several ADHD friends, and my mother also has it. If they can work on something they're totally fascinated by, during the hours that work for them any particular day, move/pace as they need, avoid the foods/drinks that make it out of control, and control what they physically feel/hear/see/etc. then some of them can thrive. Mom is a classic case: she'll start cleaning her desk, then after five minutes remember that she wanted to make a phone call, start looking for her address book, find it but then notice that it's the shade of blue as her 2nd boyfriend long ago drove, try to look him up on Facebook -- so on and so forth.
But you never had ADHD yourself. You've had friends who had ADHD. I'll admit that I probably had the milder form, but I think the hyperactivity part is just the result of sugar and caffeine in children's diet. I don't think that is any syndrome and I don't accept the idea that hyperactivity is controlled by anything other than diet because they never revealed any section of the brain which makes a person hyper but we do know if you give any kid or any person a lot of sugar or excess energy that they'll have to burn it off somehow.
"If you give an amphetamine to a kid who does not have a serious issue they are not going to be sitting still and studying.
My doctor said the same thing. He said the amount of amphetamine I was taking would normally make a person very hyper, but it settled me down. He even recommended small dosages of caffeine, which also settled me. Not so much large dosages.
I think what makes kids hyper is the sugar they were putting in the food. Hyper activity is related mostly to the diet.
Ritalin makes the brain focus on boring uninteresting tasks for longer. It helped me to do my math homework but that is about it. For just about everything else from social skills (sense of humor) to creativity to innovative type thinking this kind of focus didn't help and in fact hindered my ability to thought drift my way into unique perspectives or solutions. The thought drift that people with ADHD have is perceived as negative and for some people with ADHD it really is, but in my case it was more I wasn't doing my math studies because I got so bored that I would thought daydream or thought drift onto something I was more interested in. I existed in the moment, and I didn't find school interesting or all that challenging at the time and was more interested in spending 8 hours straight playing video games than spend 8 hours studying algebra.
Since I'll be leaving work soon and won't look for a response until tomorrow.
In my post I said "kids" ie, children. People who are under 13 years of age I would consider kids.
Yes, if you give an adolescent or above Ritalin for the purpose of focusing on school work in a school setting it will most probably work for that use, same as caffeine. It will also though give them a "high" off of it which is quite distracting that ADD people do not get. A child with that "high" will bounce off the walls, not study. The only reason an adolescent or above isn't bouncing off the walls on the medication is self discipline which children lack.
Not true at all. I had ADHD as a kid and was given those meds and quit taking them precisely because the "high" was dumbing me down and causing me to have a slower yet more focused brain. Focus is good and all for something like math where you just do the same series of problems for an hour but it's horrible for anything which requires creativity or out of the box thinking. Ritalin also messed things up with regard to social skills.
So unless you've been on ritalin as a kid to know, maybe you wouldn't know there was or wasn't a high but I recall there was. As a kid I knew when I was on it and didn't necessarily like it.
These correlations are hardly a surprise If you are healthy, wealthy you are more likely to live longer.
And its easier to have a good sense of humor and optimisitic you are settled well. It is also more likely that you have a larger social network then.
The correlation between healthy and living longer is trivial.
The correlation between wealthy and living longer is no secret since health systems are already selective. If you are padded well you more likely will get an experienced surgeon for example or get a vital organ faster.
The wealthy and connected tend to live the longest? Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone except the wealthy and well connected? I'm sure even they know they live longer. That is why they do everything to protect their wealth and connections.
This doesn't necessarily mean that being easy going increases your health... it might just mean that easy going people are less likely to piss off homicidal maniacs!
Easy going people might just value their lives more and learn to be easy going as a way to protect their lives.
It doesn't change the fact that being easy going doesn't work in every environment and these sorts of studies don't consider that in some environments aggressive types live longer.
The best opportunities go to those born into strong big families. This is the large social network the study is talking about. This isn't necessarily a gene because there isn't a specific gene we can identify which determines the size of someones social network, it's more some people are in the lucky sperm club and some are not.
If you're born into a big wealthy family you'll likely have a large social network, be more outgoing, etc simply because you were born into the environment which rewards that. If you're born into a small poor family none of those traits will be as beneficial. Being funny for instance wont help you if you don't have the large social network to begin with. Being outgoing wont help you if you've got fewer people to be outgoing with. There are too many variables here to conclude genes rather than environment and "luck" determine longevity in this instance.
Guess why Steve Jobs made long walks when he had difficult problems to solve. Not being locked into the same room, but with new impressions all the time, the mind receives new inspirations, instead of following the same path of thoughts over and over.
Receiving an extra dose of oxygen comes as a bonus on top. Many original thinkers have used techniques like this over the years.
Sorry, you [citation needed] nazis. Look up the references yourselves. Ideally while being on a long walk, not sitting at the same desk the whole day.
... but this is nothing new.
Guess why Steve Jobs made long walks when he had difficult problems to solve. Not being locked into the same room, but with new impressions all the time, the mind receives new inspirations, instead of following the same path of thoughts over and over.
Receiving an extra dose of oxygen comes as a bonus on top. Many original thinkers have used techniques like this over the years.
Sorry, you [citation needed] nazis. Look up the references yourselves. Ideally while being on a long walk, not sitting at the same desk the whole day.
Tell that to the parents and teachers who are over medicating students who have ADHD.
I regularly have ideas on my research while I'm trying to fall asleep. I have my ipad on the nightstand so that I can send myself an e-mail explaining it.
I have ideas while I'm in my sleep. I dream about my research. I don't see why others don't also.
And I thought "focus" was what I needed! Thanks! I'm pouring the methylphenidate down the toilet. Wandering mind here I come! No effort needed.
If you're an artist or in a creative profession you wont need them. Also if you can figure out how to have ADHD and make it work for you rather than against you then you don't need them.
If your mind wanders a lot and you know how to make good use of it it's a bonus feature but if your mind wanders a lot and you don't know how to make good use of it them it's a mental disorder.
Facebook isn't a community, it's an advert serving system. You could quite legitimately say "Facebook users are a community", but Facebook itself is simply a system for delivering adverts to eyeballs. As for "your" content, as soon as you post it you grant Facebook non-exclusive rights to use it in any way they see fit. I suppose you could try invoicing them...
That's like saying people should be paid by the government for filling in their tax returns. The "users" aren't Facebook's customers, the advertisers are. The entire point is targetted advertising, the more information people post the more the adverts can be targetted and the more advertisers will pay. Facebook is an advertising platform, nothing more, the "social" aspect is just the hook to get the eyeballs to connect to the adverts.
Facebook isn't a tax it's a community. We should be able to make money from our content.
I'm a news junkie, and I often listen to C-SPAN radio. Some shows have callers, most of whom are awful. "And next is Bob on the Independents line. Hi Bob, you're on. Uh, hi, am I on? Yes, Bob, you're on with us. Uh, hi, so, uh, thanks for, uh, having me on, I really like C-SPAN, uh, thanks for your service Congressman, and, uh, I'm calling to ask about..." by which point I'm already yelling in my car, "just ask your fucking question!" There are rewarding exceptions, but the norm is outspoken incoherence.
The best thing Facebook can do is begin paying people to post relevant news articles and popular stories on Facebook.
No, really, it's not. Just like the callers, my friends and family on Facebook are fine folks who rarely have any insight into politics.
I'm on Facebook not to see amateur op-eds, but because I want to know what's going on in their lives, what they're actually doing, and so forth. Maybe a monetary incentive could help, but I suspect I'd wind up blocking people who were too spammy.
My friends on Facebook are college educated and highly intelligent. I don't know who you have on your Facebook but we aren't all alike.
The best thing Facebook can do is begin paying people to post relevant news articles and popular stories on Facebook. They could make the money to pay them from ads, and most people get their news from Facebook.
You listed a bunch of symptoms that people can certainly diagnose with access to the right tests.
What most people can't do is understand and diagnose the underlying conditions that maycause these symptoms.
Most doctors don't understand the causes. There is a process of testing and then narrowing it down but doctors get it wrong all the time. Patients should do more to learn about their own condition.
Changes in cellular physiology are not fully reversible. If you revert to an active lifestyle after a decade of being sedentary, you can grow new muscle tissue, but it'll probably never be as healthy as what you had before. I can run and swim and lift as much as I have time for (and I am), but I'll never again be as fit as I was when I was 20. Likewise, there's no turning my brain back to the condition it was in back then, either (which is both a good thing and a bad thing).
That is just aging. That has nothing to do with how much you work out. You could be the athlete of the century and by age 30 you wont be like you were at age 20.
Where humans interact most with algorithms is the internet,
Very doubtful. Standing, walking, interacting with other people, eating, looking outside and figuring out what to wear - these all involve processing information and decision-making. The internet is a much narrower set of interactions, with a much smaller list of possible outcomes.
Not true at all. You'll find yourself in way more situations on the internet than anywhere else because situations like that just aren't very probable anywhere else. How do you explain the psychology of a serial killer outside of an MMORPG?
Slashdot Mirror
Libertarians and anarchists are rather far apart in philosophy. Do not confuse the two.
It makes perfect sense for anarchists to be blowing things up, none at all for libertarians.
Not according to wikipedia.
Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. They believe in converting present-day private property into the commons or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property[5].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
What the OP called "cognitive dissonance" isn't limited to murderers, terrorists, and other violent basketcases. It extends even to relatively well-adjusted individuals. Take for example, Albert Einstein. Brilliant in formulating the Theory of Relativity, he resisted for a long time the idea of quantum chaos. "God does not play dice."
These eco-anarchists might have the insight to see the dangers of science while being unable to the see consequences of their own actions.
You don't solve the dangers of science by killing scientists. This is the same sort of crap that the Israeli and US government is sponsoring in Iran.
At this point I wouldn't be that sure that they are actually anarchists, Italian state has a long and well established history of blowing up their own citizens and blaming the anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension#Piazza_Fontana_bombing). Anarchist generally dropped 'individual terror' somewhere in the early 20th century as it failed to bring any actual change or a revolution, so even anarchist or anarchist terrorist groups do everything to ensure there will be no casualties of their attacks. Greek groups like CCF, US and UK's ALF and ELF never killed or aimed to harm anybody AFAIK.
Italy on the other hand has this terrorist group always popping up around serious political issues, called nearly the same as the Anarchist Federation of Italy (IAF)... While most anarchist groups would do everything they can to distinguish themselves from other groups (think "Life of Brian"). Just saying.
This is also what I suspect. It doesn't make much sense for libertarians (anarchists) to be anti-technology. There are of course exceptions but for the most part anarchists are pro technology and use the internet. Even the FBI knows enough to think so.
These are luddite terrorists not anarchists. You can be an anarchist and not hate scientists. Their anti-science position has nothing to do with anarchism in the political sense of the word.
Rewriting since my last one lost its paragraph breaks and got off-topic...
ADHD isn't a matter of the mind merely wandering, though -- the H means they're too hyperactive to remain still (they have to constantly be in motion of some sort), and the ADD means that they're completely distracted by sensory input and/or their brain leaps from one half-finished thought to the next. It's hard to make use of interesting ideas or solutions if it you're distracted by something else before you record it and/or can't focus long enough to work on it.
I think it's possible to rearrange one's life so it works well with an ADHD brain, just like I've set mine up to match my autistic brain, and likewise, if we can find a talent that our brain type compliments then we're golden, so to speak -- but that's the reverse of finding a way to make our condition work with the circumstances. That's why disability accommodations exist: so we can work to our full ability without being placed at an artificial disadvantage (i.e. disabled) by the man-made environment/society being sculpted to suit a different kind of brain/body.
The first step is to stop viewing it as if ADHD is a problem. Hyper activity may be a problem but that can be fixed by diet as I think giving sugar and caffeine to children is in direct correlation with the explosion of hyperactivity reported.
I think hyperfocus can be an asset and it all depends on what the focus is on. People with ADD have the hyperfocus ability that people without ADD do not have. This would actually be a feature not a disorder. The man made society didn't even exist prior to 100 or so years ago so ADHD might have been evolutionary and beneficial. If a person is hyper-active then chances are they burned more calories and became more physically fit which would be beneficial in a less sedentary culture. The idea that children would be forced to sit in a classroom for hours a day is relatively new as is the idea that giving children sugar and drugs such as energy drinks is new. This could be the cause of hyperactivity and hyperactivity shouldn't be considered a disorder at all.
ADD should only be considered a disorder if the child is complaining about their inability to focus. Most of the time the children aren't the ones complaining but the parents and teachers are the ones complaining. The parents and teachers expect the child to have the maturity of little adults, to sit down and basically go to their job every day (school), and soldier it out. Unfortunately the child isn't going to pick that up overnight and no amount of drugging is going to change a childs interests.
If an individual has ADHD with hyper focus the best way to teach them is to take advantage of their hyper focus capability. If the child is hyper active then more time for exercise isn't actually a bad thing and a lot could be taught during that exercise. Basically there is no logical reason why classes have to be taught in doors, why students have to sit still, etc. You could take an extra couple hours out of the day and let students listen to an MP3 while they burn off the excess sugar, you could go for a walk and discuss certain subjects, you can go for a hike and teach certain things, I don't see why we should blame the kids for not sitting still but then after drugging the kids blame them for obesity.
ADHD & ADD have also positive effects on attention sometimes, it's just that average people rarely hear about them and often understand "disorder" to mean same as "weak" - one symptom of ADD/ADHD is called hyperfocusing, and it's negative effects are quite opposite from getting distracted - it means that you can be totally oblivious to even things that would normally grab anybodys attestion from what they are doing, but what you are focusing on is getting 150% focus.
I'm also talking out of experience - it's one of the good things with ADHD >:)
That is exactly what I am talking about. I was exactly like that as a kid.
The thing is the people who are talking about ADHD or discussing it usually never had it to begin with and don't know much about it. If you've had ADHD then they should be interviewing the successful people who overcame ADHD to find out what the positives of having ADHD are. If we listen to people who never had ADHD to begin with what do we expect to learn about the positive effects of ADHD?
For some subjects like math ADHD doesn't help at all but when it's time to be creative or when it's a situation where there isn't some script or book or steps to follow then ADHD actually becomes normal if and only if you recognize your strengths and weaknesses with ADHD. If you think of yourself as a victim of ADHD and never recognize any strengths then that gives control and power over to people who want to call you disabled, say you've got a syndrome, say you're less intelligent, but use a condition like ADHD as a way of saying that without the social stigma of saying it.
In the real world none of the myths are true. People with ADHD depending on the severity and type of ADHD can focus and some actually hyper focus to the point where they cannot think about anything else which would explain why they can't focus on their math homework for example. That is not the same as not being able to focus on anything at all. There may be some people with ADHD so severe that they can't focus on anything at all but I was never like that and I didn't know anyone with ADHD quite that severe.
Except that ADHD isn't a matter of the mind merely wandering -- the H means they're too hyperactive to remain still (they have to constantly be in motion of some sort), and the ADD means that they're completely distracted by sensory input and/or their brain leaps from one half-finished thought to the next. It's hard to make use of interesting ideas or solutions if it you're distracted by something else before you record it and/or can't focus long enough to work on it.
I've had several ADHD friends, and my mother also has it. If they can work on something they're totally fascinated by, during the hours that work for them any particular day, move/pace as they need, avoid the foods/drinks that make it out of control, and control what they physically feel/hear/see/etc. then some of them can thrive. Mom is a classic case: she'll start cleaning her desk, then after five minutes remember that she wanted to make a phone call, start looking for her address book, find it but then notice that it's the shade of blue as her 2nd boyfriend long ago drove, try to look him up on Facebook -- so on and so forth.
But you never had ADHD yourself. You've had friends who had ADHD. I'll admit that I probably had the milder form, but I think the hyperactivity part is just the result of sugar and caffeine in children's diet. I don't think that is any syndrome and I don't accept the idea that hyperactivity is controlled by anything other than diet because they never revealed any section of the brain which makes a person hyper but we do know if you give any kid or any person a lot of sugar or excess energy that they'll have to burn it off somehow.
"If you give an amphetamine to a kid who does not have a serious issue they are not going to be sitting still and studying.
My doctor said the same thing. He said the amount of amphetamine I was taking would normally make a person very hyper, but it settled me down. He even recommended small dosages of caffeine, which also settled me. Not so much large dosages.
I think what makes kids hyper is the sugar they were putting in the food. Hyper activity is related mostly to the diet.
Ritalin makes the brain focus on boring uninteresting tasks for longer. It helped me to do my math homework but that is about it. For just about everything else from social skills (sense of humor) to creativity to innovative type thinking this kind of focus didn't help and in fact hindered my ability to thought drift my way into unique perspectives or solutions. The thought drift that people with ADHD have is perceived as negative and for some people with ADHD it really is, but in my case it was more I wasn't doing my math studies because I got so bored that I would thought daydream or thought drift onto something I was more interested in. I existed in the moment, and I didn't find school interesting or all that challenging at the time and was more interested in spending 8 hours straight playing video games than spend 8 hours studying algebra.
Since I'll be leaving work soon and won't look for a response until tomorrow.
In my post I said "kids" ie, children. People who are under 13 years of age I would consider kids.
Yes, if you give an adolescent or above Ritalin for the purpose of focusing on school work in a school setting it will most probably work for that use, same as caffeine. It will also though give them a "high" off of it which is quite distracting that ADD people do not get. A child with that "high" will bounce off the walls, not study. The only reason an adolescent or above isn't bouncing off the walls on the medication is self discipline which children lack.
Not true at all. I had ADHD as a kid and was given those meds and quit taking them precisely because the "high" was dumbing me down and causing me to have a slower yet more focused brain. Focus is good and all for something like math where you just do the same series of problems for an hour but it's horrible for anything which requires creativity or out of the box thinking. Ritalin also messed things up with regard to social skills.
So unless you've been on ritalin as a kid to know, maybe you wouldn't know there was or wasn't a high but I recall there was. As a kid I knew when I was on it and didn't necessarily like it.
You had be moing there for a little while, but then you tossed in that "wealth/poor" thing.
I doubt wealth has much to do with
1. How big the family is
2. How big the social network is around the family
Just about all the antecdotal experience I have suggests that wealth is negatively correlated with both family size and longevity...
Wealthy families are often socially connected via marriages etc.
These correlations are hardly a surprise
If you are healthy, wealthy you are more likely to live
longer.
And its easier to have a good sense of humor and
optimisitic you are settled well. It is also more likely
that you have a larger social network then.
The correlation between healthy and living longer is trivial.
The correlation between wealthy and living longer is no
secret since health systems are already selective.
If you are padded well you more likely will get an experienced
surgeon for example or get a vital organ faster.
The wealthy and connected tend to live the longest? Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone except the wealthy and well connected? I'm sure even they know they live longer. That is why they do everything to protect their wealth and connections.
This doesn't necessarily mean that being easy going increases your health... it might just mean that easy going people are less likely to piss off homicidal maniacs!
Easy going people might just value their lives more and learn to be easy going as a way to protect their lives.
It doesn't change the fact that being easy going doesn't work in every environment and these sorts of studies don't consider that in some environments aggressive types live longer.
The best opportunities go to those born into strong big families. This is the large social network the study is talking about.
This isn't necessarily a gene because there isn't a specific gene we can identify which determines the size of someones social network, it's more some people are in the lucky sperm club and some are not.
If you're born into a big wealthy family you'll likely have a large social network, be more outgoing, etc simply because you were born into the environment which rewards that. If you're born into a small poor family none of those traits will be as beneficial. Being funny for instance wont help you if you don't have the large social network to begin with. Being outgoing wont help you if you've got fewer people to be outgoing with. There are too many variables here to conclude genes rather than environment and "luck" determine longevity in this instance.
... but this is nothing new.
Guess why Steve Jobs made long walks when he had difficult problems to solve. Not being locked into the same room, but with new impressions all the time, the mind receives new inspirations, instead of following the same path of thoughts over and over.
Receiving an extra dose of oxygen comes as a bonus on top. Many original thinkers have used techniques like this over the years.
Sorry, you [citation needed] nazis. Look up the references yourselves. Ideally while being on a long walk, not sitting at the same desk the whole day.
... but this is nothing new.
Guess why Steve Jobs made long walks when he had difficult problems to solve. Not being locked into the same room, but with new impressions all the time, the mind receives new inspirations, instead of following the same path of thoughts over and over.
Receiving an extra dose of oxygen comes as a bonus on top. Many original thinkers have used techniques like this over the years.
Sorry, you [citation needed] nazis. Look up the references yourselves. Ideally while being on a long walk, not sitting at the same desk the whole day.
Tell that to the parents and teachers who are over medicating students who have ADHD.
I regularly have ideas on my research while I'm trying to fall asleep. I have my ipad on the nightstand so that I can send myself an e-mail explaining it.
I have ideas while I'm in my sleep. I dream about my research. I don't see why others don't also.
And I thought "focus" was what I needed! Thanks! I'm pouring the methylphenidate down the toilet. Wandering mind here I come! No effort needed.
If you're an artist or in a creative profession you wont need them. Also if you can figure out how to have ADHD and make it work for you rather than against you then you don't need them.
If your mind wanders a lot and you know how to make good use of it it's a bonus feature but if your mind wanders a lot and you don't know how to make good use of it them it's a mental disorder.
Facebook isn't a community, it's an advert serving system. You could quite legitimately say "Facebook users are a community", but Facebook itself is simply a system for delivering adverts to eyeballs. As for "your" content, as soon as you post it you grant Facebook non-exclusive rights to use it in any way they see fit. I suppose you could try invoicing them...
Without the people Facebook is nothing.
That's like saying people should be paid by the government for filling in their tax returns. The "users" aren't Facebook's customers, the advertisers are. The entire point is targetted advertising, the more information people post the more the adverts can be targetted and the more advertisers will pay. Facebook is an advertising platform, nothing more, the "social" aspect is just the hook to get the eyeballs to connect to the adverts.
Facebook isn't a tax it's a community. We should be able to make money from our content.
I'm a news junkie, and I often listen to C-SPAN radio. Some shows have callers, most of whom are awful. "And next is Bob on the Independents line. Hi Bob, you're on. Uh, hi, am I on? Yes, Bob, you're on with us. Uh, hi, so, uh, thanks for, uh, having me on, I really like C-SPAN, uh, thanks for your service Congressman, and, uh, I'm calling to ask about..." by which point I'm already yelling in my car, "just ask your fucking question!" There are rewarding exceptions, but the norm is outspoken incoherence.
The best thing Facebook can do is begin paying people to post relevant news articles and popular stories on Facebook.
No, really, it's not. Just like the callers, my friends and family on Facebook are fine folks who rarely have any insight into politics.
I'm on Facebook not to see amateur op-eds, but because I want to know what's going on in their lives, what they're actually doing, and so forth. Maybe a monetary incentive could help, but I suspect I'd wind up blocking people who were too spammy.
My friends on Facebook are college educated and highly intelligent. I don't know who you have on your Facebook but we aren't all alike.
The best thing Facebook can do is begin paying people to post relevant news articles and popular stories on Facebook.
They could make the money to pay them from ads, and most people get their news from Facebook.
We should be paid to use Facebook.
You listed a bunch of symptoms that people can certainly diagnose with access to the right tests.
What most people can't do is understand and diagnose the underlying conditions that maycause these symptoms.
Most doctors don't understand the causes. There is a process of testing and then narrowing it down but doctors get it wrong all the time. Patients should do more to learn about their own condition.
And the inverse is usually true as well: don't do something at all for a long time and you tend to forget how to do it - like calculus :)
So you'll forget how to read if you don't read the entire book cover to cover?
Changes in cellular physiology are not fully reversible. If you revert to an active lifestyle after a decade of being sedentary, you can grow new muscle tissue, but it'll probably never be as healthy as what you had before. I can run and swim and lift as much as I have time for (and I am), but I'll never again be as fit as I was when I was 20. Likewise, there's no turning my brain back to the condition it was in back then, either (which is both a good thing and a bad thing).
That is just aging. That has nothing to do with how much you work out. You could be the athlete of the century and by age 30 you wont be like you were at age 20.
Very doubtful. Standing, walking, interacting with other people, eating, looking outside and figuring out what to wear - these all involve processing information and decision-making. The internet is a much narrower set of interactions, with a much smaller list of possible outcomes.
Not true at all. You'll find yourself in way more situations on the internet than anywhere else because situations like that just aren't very probable anywhere else. How do you explain the psychology of a serial killer outside of an MMORPG?