2) The muddiness of the whole debate is a demonstration of the difficulty of applying science to public policy. As such it runs along the same lines as the problems with the idea of 'evidence-based policy'. Science is a pretty humble tool when it comes to saying how things are - compared to both its power of discovery, and to how science is used as a badge to exercise power. This is so not least because understanding what science says is a very unequally distributed privilege.
There's an emotional connection that many geeks have to Yahoo: I know I'd still like to like it. If they made something that made us all go "Aaaaw....", we'd recommend the hell out of it, and soon enough it could replace Google News for some people, for example. And from that the next step would not be too long.
Imagine if they had a great news reading and exploring service integrated in a smart way with a reading list/book marking service - like del.icio.us? (ouch...) They have had great technology.
I suspect that a) the vast majority of womenfolk simply don't exist - that some are outliers doesn't mean that the majority are alike, because give it what you like, b) social conditions are changing, for both men and women there are very contradictory expectations - so it may very well be that there is no way to be (culturally) satisfied, and thus c) the vast majority isn't happy. Add to that d), even if we are all up to making choices where we are truly existentially alone, many will for a big part of their life choose as their environment does, because choosing what you want is scary, and doing as others do gives - cold - comfort.
I think there are big changes coming up everywhere.
There are so many games one can play, which at least give a thrill, but that doesn't mean it's satisfying for life. It's like junk food. I suppose that's what much marketing does.
Society is not an intentional result - it's the unintentional result of sometimes (mostly not) intentional actions. Most of the time our bodies are on auto-pilot.
I dated a nursing student in college, so I ran in that social circle a bit, and I knew a lot of girls who made no bones at all about wanting marriage (with an appropriately expensive wedding), children, and an end to the professional life as soon as absolutely feasible.
I suspect that a) the vast majority of womenfolk simply don't exist - that some are outliers doesn't mean that the majority are alike, because give it what you like, b) social conditions are changing, for both men and women there are very contradictory expectations - so it may very well be that there is no way to be (culturally) satisfied, and thus c) the vast majority isn't happy. Add to that d), even if we are all up to making choices where we are truly existentially alone, many will for a big part of their life choose as their environment does, because choosing what you want is scary, and doing as others do gives - cold - comfort.
I think there are big changes coming up everywhere.
There are so many games one can play, which at least give a thrill, but that doesn't mean it's satisfying for life. It's like junk food. I suppose that's what much marketing does.
Society is not an intentional result - it's the unintentional result of sometimes (mostly not) intentional actions.
Thanks, that was interesting. Not least the comments, including one from "Too Smart", which said:
"Being dumb is much better than having to play dumb. It does no good for a girl to be too smart," and suggested complimenting the girl for her sweet looks.
Sort of trollish? Maybe, but it also is true that 'good looks' show, and have immediate 'consequences', whereas the intelligence that's innate to us doesn't show, and the real challenge of intelligence maybe is to find a way to do something with it. Something that makes life meaningful. Which takes constant work, self-confidence, and daring.
I've done a little bit of fasting (I'm actually breaking a fast right now), it really is as simple as that: you simply start seeing whatever it is as not important. Sliverstorm, beagle3 and gwern are exactly right I think.
What you wanted - food - was just a result of you thinking you wanted it. And that was mostly just a result of associating it with the thought of 'need'. But our bodies are apparently made to not bother us needlessly - it's not the body that's bothering us.
When you fast, rather, you go through the whole range of conditioned responses YOU have created to food. But you don't fight them, instead you get to just kind of say 'yeah, that's an interesting thing I've created' and go on with what you're doing. But once you know they are just that, nothing is stopping you. It's a little bit like meditation, where when you notice a thought, you'll simply label it a thought, and its power goes away.
And since you 'know' you will take great care of your body, now and whenever you break the fast (and please do that, follow the instructions, and break it gently, like a part of fasting, rather than straight back to old habits - your pancreas & co will thank you...), there's no crisis thinking or anxiety to it. Rather you get to be alone with your body and your thoughts.
I like it, because it is actually sort of easier to focus when there's just my body doing its things, vs the body with a lot of food it's having to digest, and blood sugar levels going up and down all over the place.
You get to really want something else instead, rather than associating/replacing all sorts of wants with food, if that's what you've done before. It's like realizing those wants are yours and owning them as that, rather than being owned by them when you think it is 'needs'.
Eating regularly is just a routine - probably a good one if it is done right - but there's so much extra luggage, so much extra use, that we put on top.
We really have a lot more power than that. It's not us against the body, it's us thanks to the body. Not thanks to the food - we eat much more than we 'need'.
I suspect he's kind of like Steve Jobs, if Steve Jobs had not been practising Zen-Buddhism. Instead he's learning how to follow through more directly by helping others do it. He's probably not alone about it either. A guy with a skill. It's just that now the circumstances force more of us to use it, which is to say, to start to develop it. Just a thought.
This too -- I can identify precisely with this second paragraph. I can't be content with filling some kind of mould. But that's because I can see the mould, and it certainly isn't me.
Seeing possibilities is not something one necessarily chose to do - it was maybe the result of a great need at a time, but now that you're out of the mould, and you see you're a pot maker - not just the clay - the bets are off, because your dreams are different.
I think that's when meaning becomes important, in order to not be consumed by ambition. That's probably also when it becomes really important to make sure that you have both supportive and different people around you.
Sounds to me like you are in contact with your 'being'. That's rather good actually. The way I've come to think of it, when people get too anxious they start to make violence on themselves - and think they should be something they are not. But changing oneself based on rejecting what one is doesn't work.
1) It's a battle about what 'Climategate' meant.
2) The muddiness of the whole debate is a demonstration of the difficulty of applying science to public policy. As such it runs along the same lines as the problems with the idea of 'evidence-based policy'. Science is a pretty humble tool when it comes to saying how things are - compared to both its power of discovery, and to how science is used as a badge to exercise power. This is so not least because understanding what science says is a very unequally distributed privilege.