Ask HN: What have you changed your mind about recently?
For me, I now believe that hypnosis is a real phenomenon: http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392595
25 comments
Something I read in Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell shocked me into reconsidering my role as a father. I'm not a big fan of that book in general, but I found a pearl in there.
I used to think that I needed to set and enforce hard rules, as if this will teach my kids order. I don't want them to take the easy way out or try to negotiate everything. I thought my approach was a good balance to my wife's, as she doesn't assert much authority.
According to a study mentioned in Outliers, my style of parenting is prevalent among the poorer social class, and it leads to a mindset of resignation. Wealthier parents listen more to their children, negotiate with them, and help them take their place in the adult world rather than just be quiet and follow the rules.
This idea has connected a lot of dots for me, and I think I can be a better father than I have been.
I used to think that I needed to set and enforce hard rules, as if this will teach my kids order. I don't want them to take the easy way out or try to negotiate everything. I thought my approach was a good balance to my wife's, as she doesn't assert much authority.
According to a study mentioned in Outliers, my style of parenting is prevalent among the poorer social class, and it leads to a mindset of resignation. Wealthier parents listen more to their children, negotiate with them, and help them take their place in the adult world rather than just be quiet and follow the rules.
This idea has connected a lot of dots for me, and I think I can be a better father than I have been.
Don't be too hard on yourself, and don't go too far in the opposite direction. Kids do want boundaries, and they are happier when they have them. Watching my 8-year-old nephew's behavior bears this out perfectly; when he's given lots of input into plans and opportunity to negotiate, he acts like a demon and ends up melting down and unhappy. When given rules he's a happy angel.
I think the trick is to not open the floor to negotiation. If kids have reasonable objection or points you hadn't considered, they will raise the point and you can modify the rule. If they know that they are "negotiating" just to get their own way and that it won't work, they won't waste the time--and everyone will be happier.
That's my experience, anyway.
I think the trick is to not open the floor to negotiation. If kids have reasonable objection or points you hadn't considered, they will raise the point and you can modify the rule. If they know that they are "negotiating" just to get their own way and that it won't work, they won't waste the time--and everyone will be happier.
That's my experience, anyway.
That's a very interesting observation about parenting. I can completely relate because my grandmother, who was raised by a wealthy, but very stern mother, is totally submissive, and has a "midset of resignation". On the other hand, I've always been able to negotiate with my parents and there was never much enforcement of the rules (I could guilt-trip my mother for anything I wanted--especially with some cold hard logic). I don't think a single person would describe me as having a mindset of resignation.
Outliers has also recently made me think more seriously about the role of luck in an individual's overall success. It is amazing the role it plays. In fact, I'm really suprised that the book didn't mention Lord Timothy Dexter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Dexter), who is the epitome of success by luck.
However, it hasn't changed my overall viewpoint that it is largely up to the person to continually position themselves such that they are receptive to luck. Another way to look at it is by stating the corollary... that the only certain path to failure is to not try.
However, it hasn't changed my overall viewpoint that it is largely up to the person to continually position themselves such that they are receptive to luck. Another way to look at it is by stating the corollary... that the only certain path to failure is to not try.
The late Roman empire, thanks to Theodosius: The Empire at Bay:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bx=of...
I used to have very unclear picture of the late empire. Without thinking about it too much, I bought into the pervasive idea (probably due mostly to Gibbon) that the late empire had lost its Roman mojo: that it had become barbarized (what does that mean?) and worn out (why then?). Now I have a higher opinion of the late empire. They lost largely because they faced harder problems. The empire was depopulated, partly no doubt due to epidemics, and the barbarians on the frontiers were a greater threat than they had been in the time of Augustus.
I'm only half way through the book, but it's already the best thing I've read on the period. It would be worth reading for their revisionist view of Adrianople alone.
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bx=of...
I used to have very unclear picture of the late empire. Without thinking about it too much, I bought into the pervasive idea (probably due mostly to Gibbon) that the late empire had lost its Roman mojo: that it had become barbarized (what does that mean?) and worn out (why then?). Now I have a higher opinion of the late empire. They lost largely because they faced harder problems. The empire was depopulated, partly no doubt due to epidemics, and the barbarians on the frontiers were a greater threat than they had been in the time of Augustus.
I'm only half way through the book, but it's already the best thing I've read on the period. It would be worth reading for their revisionist view of Adrianople alone.
I'm all for revisionist views of Adrianople. My best impression currently is that the ongoing schism between east and west led to bad miscommunications and the eastern emperor rushing ahead into a flanking ambush that resulted in the near-destruction of the western army of the Eastern Empire.
With the late-late empire, I believe that doom came from the fall of the Libyan breadbasket to the Vandals, though that doesn't explain why Egypt (East but still Roman) couldn't provide food to Roman Italy, since it was yet to fall for another 200 years...
Let's see what this book tells me... thanks for the link.
The biggest question I have re: the Roman fall is how did the East stay stable while the West collapsed, though I'm also interested in the process by which a single Patriarchy in Rome managed to gain temporal authority while the Patriarchates in Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem remained bound to separate political organizations.
With the late-late empire, I believe that doom came from the fall of the Libyan breadbasket to the Vandals, though that doesn't explain why Egypt (East but still Roman) couldn't provide food to Roman Italy, since it was yet to fall for another 200 years...
Let's see what this book tells me... thanks for the link.
The biggest question I have re: the Roman fall is how did the East stay stable while the West collapsed, though I'm also interested in the process by which a single Patriarchy in Rome managed to gain temporal authority while the Patriarchates in Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem remained bound to separate political organizations.
Peter Heather recently wrote a very similar history which I found to be very good: http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-History-Barbarians/d...
Heather argues that the Roman empire was still internally healthy, but that increasing pressure from the Persians and the European tribes eventually overwhelmed the empire. Archaeological evidence indicates that the population densities of the barbarian regions may have increased by a factor of two or three since the early days of the empire. The population was larger and more sophisticated, and thus harder to handle.
But just this year Adrian Goldsworthy has written a book countering the new revisionist view that Heather and Williams present ( http://www.amazon.com/How-Rome-Fell-Death-Superpower/dp/0300... ). Goldsworthy argues that the barbarian threat really wasn't that much greater, and that the empire collapsed from within, due to civil war and political strife.
I haven't read Goldsworthy's book yet, but it's on my list.
Heather argues that the Roman empire was still internally healthy, but that increasing pressure from the Persians and the European tribes eventually overwhelmed the empire. Archaeological evidence indicates that the population densities of the barbarian regions may have increased by a factor of two or three since the early days of the empire. The population was larger and more sophisticated, and thus harder to handle.
But just this year Adrian Goldsworthy has written a book countering the new revisionist view that Heather and Williams present ( http://www.amazon.com/How-Rome-Fell-Death-Superpower/dp/0300... ). Goldsworthy argues that the barbarian threat really wasn't that much greater, and that the empire collapsed from within, due to civil war and political strife.
I haven't read Goldsworthy's book yet, but it's on my list.
In "Mohammed and Charlemagne" by Henri Pirenne, the whole Mediterranean region after collapse of the Roman empire still enjoyed prosperity. The economy went down after trades in Mediterranean sea decreased due to Muslim Arabs had taken control the area.
It's a great book, but the Pirenne thesis has since been pretty thoroughly debunked.
Gun control in the U.S.. I used to be more in favor, with the goal of a safer society as well as one less inclined to the isolation of sub-populations.
Now, I'm considering widespread ownership more in terms of a last bulwark against one or another form of totalitarian rule. Perhaps it is a limiting factor against pushing the population too far. You might call this a knee-jerk reaction; nonetheless, it's on my mind.
I still consider most unfortunate the additional, lethal violence that the ready availability of firearms (legal and illegal) seems to cause. The question for me is, is it a -- I hate to use this term -- necessary cost.
I feel a little uncomfortable writing about this, nor do I claim to be especially informed on the topic, but since you asked.
Now, I'm considering widespread ownership more in terms of a last bulwark against one or another form of totalitarian rule. Perhaps it is a limiting factor against pushing the population too far. You might call this a knee-jerk reaction; nonetheless, it's on my mind.
I still consider most unfortunate the additional, lethal violence that the ready availability of firearms (legal and illegal) seems to cause. The question for me is, is it a -- I hate to use this term -- necessary cost.
I feel a little uncomfortable writing about this, nor do I claim to be especially informed on the topic, but since you asked.
About 15 years ago, I was at a state sponsored meeting in Minot ND. A group the state hired was there telling us about risk factors in the community. The group hired was from the west coast and all the research they cited was studies done in low income urban areas. They pointed out guns were a big risk factor. The head of one of the local social service programs took exception to this. He asked how many people in the room owned a gun. With the exception of myself, everyone raised their hands (my parents owned firearms and I never bought one myself). He then started counting upwards and more then half owned over 3 firearms. He felt the study had no relevance to the area. Examine Switzerland for another example of prevalent firearms.
People inclined to do violence to others will do so regardless of the weapons available. Swimming pools are more dangerous to children than firearms in the house. My take has always been that the weakening of one amendment will allow avenues of attack on the others.
People inclined to do violence to others will do so regardless of the weapons available. Swimming pools are more dangerous to children than firearms in the house. My take has always been that the weakening of one amendment will allow avenues of attack on the others.
Some further evidence: over the past 30 years, concealed carry laws have loosened dramatically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif), while crime has consistently declined, including year over year in the states at the time they loosen their restrictions.
This year, Washington D.C. had an 17% drop in murder rate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07...), immediately following the overturn of their gun ban via the Heller decision. Which is not to say the decision is responsible for the drop, but even if the impact was negative, it was swamped by other minor factors such as the rain.
I'm more and more convinced that gun restrictions have everything to do with perceived, rather than actual safety.
This year, Washington D.C. had an 17% drop in murder rate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07...), immediately following the overturn of their gun ban via the Heller decision. Which is not to say the decision is responsible for the drop, but even if the impact was negative, it was swamped by other minor factors such as the rain.
I'm more and more convinced that gun restrictions have everything to do with perceived, rather than actual safety.
I read somewhere that total crime rates in Switzerland are comparable to other European countries' rates, but that Switzerland has higher gun crime rates compared to other European countries' rates.
I do believe you are correct (I remember the same thing). People use what they have, but being dead from a knife is still dead. I find the rate of various crimes important as opposed to the tools used. Tools can be substituted.
Tools generally only have partial substitutes. (From memory only...) Suicides decreased in the UK when catalytic converters became required on cars: other means of suicide remain available, but most are harder for the potential suicide than sitting in a car with a pipe from the exhaust through the window.
Knives are substitutes for guns, but it's harder to kill 10 people with a knife than with an automatic. Which may explain why generally (always with exceptions) high gun ownership correlates with high homicides.
Knives are substitutes for guns, but it's harder to kill 10 people with a knife than with an automatic. Which may explain why generally (always with exceptions) high gun ownership correlates with high homicides.
What you are saying is that massacres are easier with guns.
Killing one person with a knife is not harder than with a gun. A criminal willing to kill is going to do it with one, or the other, or both.
Just look at the UK. Violence is bad and there is a total ban on handguns and a near total ban on just about everything else (many restrictions and you need a purpose to own the gun - self defense and for "fun" are not reasons - eg. farming, deer huting, formal target shooting )
Killing one person with a knife is not harder than with a gun. A criminal willing to kill is going to do it with one, or the other, or both.
Just look at the UK. Violence is bad and there is a total ban on handguns and a near total ban on just about everything else (many restrictions and you need a purpose to own the gun - self defense and for "fun" are not reasons - eg. farming, deer huting, formal target shooting )
I believe "high gun ownership correlates with high homicides" to be false. Maybe for a specific demographic or area, but in the middle of the country it just isn't so. I used to work the social work circuit in data collections and research; and the prejudices of the people doing the study show in their interpretation of the raw data and the conclusions they reach.
As we were reminded of today in tragic fashion, suicide bombers seem to get a pretty high body count without using a gun.
As we were reminded of today in tragic fashion, suicide bombers seem to get a pretty high body count without using a gun.
"in the middle of the country it just isn't so" ?
That point of view seems rather US-centric. (Apologies if I've misinterpreted what you meant.) My point was in relation to different countries, higher gun ownership correlates with higher death by gun. I was not comparing different geographic areas within the US. It's obviously a complicated question with many influencing factors, but ignoring the availability of guns does seem to fly in the face of the evidence.
Given that the US has high homicide rates, compared to other countries, then if high availability of guns in the US is not a contributing factor, then what would you saw were the relevant factors?
"suicide bombers seem to get a pretty high body count without using a gun" ?
Absolutely. Suicide bombers can probably achieve a higher murder rate than people with guns, much as people with guns can achieve a higher murder rate than people with knives, and people with knives can achieve a higher murder rate than people with clubs.
High availability of suicide bombers in a society is likely to lead to a higher homicide rate than in a society where suicide bombers are not so prevalent. High availability of guns in a society is likely to lead to a higher homicide rate than in a society where guns are not so prevalent.
So, given the discussion is about the availability of guns, I'm not sure of your point here.
That point of view seems rather US-centric. (Apologies if I've misinterpreted what you meant.) My point was in relation to different countries, higher gun ownership correlates with higher death by gun. I was not comparing different geographic areas within the US. It's obviously a complicated question with many influencing factors, but ignoring the availability of guns does seem to fly in the face of the evidence.
Given that the US has high homicide rates, compared to other countries, then if high availability of guns in the US is not a contributing factor, then what would you saw were the relevant factors?
"suicide bombers seem to get a pretty high body count without using a gun" ?
Absolutely. Suicide bombers can probably achieve a higher murder rate than people with guns, much as people with guns can achieve a higher murder rate than people with knives, and people with knives can achieve a higher murder rate than people with clubs.
High availability of suicide bombers in a society is likely to lead to a higher homicide rate than in a society where suicide bombers are not so prevalent. High availability of guns in a society is likely to lead to a higher homicide rate than in a society where guns are not so prevalent.
So, given the discussion is about the availability of guns, I'm not sure of your point here.
Yeah, I'm a little US-centric because I know the local stats better. For the most part, I blame relative economic class and family problems (e.g. abuse). I find blaming an object to mask the real problems in our lives. It's like blaming the engine when you run out of gas.
[deleted]
Switzerland is actually a very bad example to use. The unusally (for Europe) high number of firearms there is because the members of the militia army keep an assault rifle at home. This is rather different from a handgun or a shotgun, and you're not allowed to use them outside military training.
In a lot of ways, I think it is a very good example. They have access and advanced training (assault rifles are actually very hard to use). The fact that the citizens obey the law and don't use their weapons for greater crime is telling.
Correct. Guns are not the problem, culture is the problem. But if you have a bad culture, firearms can make it worse. But the reverse can also be true.
But would you want to use an assault rifle in a mugging?
I can’t see much difference in comparison to a shotgun. I have had training with the older Sig SG 510 and the newer Sig SG 550 assault rifle of the Swiss Army and they’re both about as easy to use as an airgun.
Even if you walk around in public with your assault rifle, nobody becomes suspicious. Active members of the army have to show up for a mandatory shooting program every year and shooting matches are very common too, so “Rambo look-alikes” on the streets aren’t an unusual appearance in Switzerland.
Nevertheless, 40% of all homicides are commited by cut and thrust weapons and “only” 10% by guns. The latter accounts for about 70% in the US.
Even if you walk around in public with your assault rifle, nobody becomes suspicious. Active members of the army have to show up for a mandatory shooting program every year and shooting matches are very common too, so “Rambo look-alikes” on the streets aren’t an unusual appearance in Switzerland.
Nevertheless, 40% of all homicides are commited by cut and thrust weapons and “only” 10% by guns. The latter accounts for about 70% in the US.
I think that the "bulwark against totalitarian rule" idea comes in two versions. The naive version imagines that the USA suffers an actual attempt at a military coup, and that the coup is defeated by gunfights started by armed citizens. The sophisticated version asks about ambitious young men: when they dream of gaining political power, what route to the top do they dream of?
If you are an ambitious young man in a country that has had military coups in the recent past, you might join the army, hoping to rise in ranks and be in the right place at the right time. That could also apply in a country with disarmed civilians. It is no part of the American dream. If you want political power in the USA you go to law school (or into banking?)
The 2nd Amendment protects against tyranny because it shapes the Zeitgeist. It makes the idea of staying in office after losing an election seem silly: you would only get shot. Since the very idea is silly the scenario is never played out.
This poses a puzzle to the would be Hari Seldons amongst us. Does the 2nd Amendment inherently undermine itself? Do we end up, after two hundred years of political freedom, thinking that the idea of protection against tyranny being provided by an armed citizenry is just plain silly, because we never see it in action? Where does that lead? Do we repeal the 2nd Amendment, leaving our grandchildren to discover, one hundred years later, that the Zeitgeist has changed and that old Amendment really mattered?
If you are an ambitious young man in a country that has had military coups in the recent past, you might join the army, hoping to rise in ranks and be in the right place at the right time. That could also apply in a country with disarmed civilians. It is no part of the American dream. If you want political power in the USA you go to law school (or into banking?)
The 2nd Amendment protects against tyranny because it shapes the Zeitgeist. It makes the idea of staying in office after losing an election seem silly: you would only get shot. Since the very idea is silly the scenario is never played out.
This poses a puzzle to the would be Hari Seldons amongst us. Does the 2nd Amendment inherently undermine itself? Do we end up, after two hundred years of political freedom, thinking that the idea of protection against tyranny being provided by an armed citizenry is just plain silly, because we never see it in action? Where does that lead? Do we repeal the 2nd Amendment, leaving our grandchildren to discover, one hundred years later, that the Zeitgeist has changed and that old Amendment really mattered?
PHP. It is neither useless nor used only by the contemporary version of AOL proggie coders. For many things, it really makes life easier (e.g. deployment via SCP).
I was up voted more than I thought. I just wrote a blog post follow up.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=904018
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=904018
Religion. I was born & raised a devout Baptist Christian (and creationist). But in the past 5 months, I've read about 50 books and hundreds of web pages and decided that agnostic atheism [1] and evolution make more sense.
Hopefully I didn't just devolve this into a religion argument...
[1] "Agnostic atheist" == I can't say for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I will live my life on the assumption he is not there.
Hopefully I didn't just devolve this into a religion argument...
[1] "Agnostic atheist" == I can't say for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I will live my life on the assumption he is not there.
Same here, only the other way. After being an atheist my entire life, I got more interested in religion over the past few months. After listening to dozens of hours worth of podcasts, and reading a few books and academic journal articles, I've decided that there is such a thing as a "primary religious experience." Furthermore, it's pretty clear that while academia can verify that this experience exists, science can't really go much further than that, at least in its current state.
As to whether this experience is caused by contact with god, or the sacred, or whatever, I'd put myself in your same "agnostic atheist" camp. Only I'd say that I'll approach some future experiences on the assumption that God is there. (Not that I'm going to go out and become super religious or anything, but being able to suspend disbelief once and a while is the key to making things fun, whether it's watching Star Wars or reading about Mysticism or whatever.)
That's the real take away I think, that in the same way most people don't like math because they were "mathematically abused" as kids, most people don't like religion because they were religiously abused as kids. When actually learning about religion is kinda fun and intellectually interesting.
As to whether this experience is caused by contact with god, or the sacred, or whatever, I'd put myself in your same "agnostic atheist" camp. Only I'd say that I'll approach some future experiences on the assumption that God is there. (Not that I'm going to go out and become super religious or anything, but being able to suspend disbelief once and a while is the key to making things fun, whether it's watching Star Wars or reading about Mysticism or whatever.)
That's the real take away I think, that in the same way most people don't like math because they were "mathematically abused" as kids, most people don't like religion because they were religiously abused as kids. When actually learning about religion is kinda fun and intellectually interesting.
The feeling of "spirituality" is certainly universal; after all, so many people have it that it would be absurd to call it purely a cultural construct. However, as far as we can tell, the generation of these feelings is not associated with any external sensor, the way that the experience of seeing is connected with your eyeballs. In all probability, the feeling of religiosity is mind-bound phenomena, much like love and awe, and are not capable of detecting any real external phenomena.
On another note...
I'm an atheist, but I wasn't religiously abused as a kid. I just am interested in science. The fantasies of others is considerably less entertaining than understanding the nature of the universe.
On another note...
I'm an atheist, but I wasn't religiously abused as a kid. I just am interested in science. The fantasies of others is considerably less entertaining than understanding the nature of the universe.
"In all probability, the feeling of religiosity is mind-bound phenomena, not capable of detecting any real external phenomena."
That's an interesting use of the word probability.
Can you justify that position using arguments qualitatively different than those used to justify the opposite position? (That the full-blown mystic experience is qualitatively different than anything that science has ever explained before or any experience generated from within the body, and thus there is no reason to believe that it's necessarily scientifically explainable or endogenous.)
As I said I'm actually more or less with you, I just see the logic of what the other side is saying.
That's an interesting use of the word probability.
Can you justify that position using arguments qualitatively different than those used to justify the opposite position? (That the full-blown mystic experience is qualitatively different than anything that science has ever explained before or any experience generated from within the body, and thus there is no reason to believe that it's necessarily scientifically explainable or endogenous.)
As I said I'm actually more or less with you, I just see the logic of what the other side is saying.
(tl;dr Science can explain these experiences, but people just don't find the explanations satisfying.)
Many folks, religious or not, believe that many powerful experiences (like love or religion) aren't scientifically explainable. However, I think it's because such explanations aren't emotionally satisfying. Such explanations are usually either proximate (i.e. mechanistic) or ultimate (evolutionary.) and people just don't like that.
To use love as an example:
Proximate explanation: When two individuals have different MHC profiles, they are more likely to smell good and be attracted to each other. This attraction can sometimes lead to sex. After orgasm, the hormone vasopressin is released which causes a warm fuzzing feeling in both partners. After repeated instances of sex, there is a learned association of this nice feeling and being with the other person leading them to hang out with each other a lot.
Ultimate explanation: individuals which pair bond, resulting in biparental care, produce offspring which are more likely to survive to the next generation than those which do not.
But no one likes to think about that when they're snuggling up to their mate.
"Religiosity" isn't so cut and dry as love. The proximate explanation of spirituality is fairly well established by science i.e. religious experiences can be induced artificially with drugs (psychobilin) or electrical stimulation of the brain. The ultimate explanation I think is less convincing than for love. Most evolutionary psychologists consider religion a byproduct of adaptive psychological traits, such as superstitiousness (associating negative events with some cause- it's more costly to fail to learn what causes negative events than to associate unrelated events) and agency (a similar explanation- it's adaptive to assume that most things are caused be agents, i.e. a rustle in the leaves is a hungry predator, not the wind. If we assume it's the wind and it isn't, we're in trouble, but not if it's the other way around.)
Many folks, religious or not, believe that many powerful experiences (like love or religion) aren't scientifically explainable. However, I think it's because such explanations aren't emotionally satisfying. Such explanations are usually either proximate (i.e. mechanistic) or ultimate (evolutionary.) and people just don't like that.
To use love as an example:
Proximate explanation: When two individuals have different MHC profiles, they are more likely to smell good and be attracted to each other. This attraction can sometimes lead to sex. After orgasm, the hormone vasopressin is released which causes a warm fuzzing feeling in both partners. After repeated instances of sex, there is a learned association of this nice feeling and being with the other person leading them to hang out with each other a lot.
Ultimate explanation: individuals which pair bond, resulting in biparental care, produce offspring which are more likely to survive to the next generation than those which do not.
But no one likes to think about that when they're snuggling up to their mate.
"Religiosity" isn't so cut and dry as love. The proximate explanation of spirituality is fairly well established by science i.e. religious experiences can be induced artificially with drugs (psychobilin) or electrical stimulation of the brain. The ultimate explanation I think is less convincing than for love. Most evolutionary psychologists consider religion a byproduct of adaptive psychological traits, such as superstitiousness (associating negative events with some cause- it's more costly to fail to learn what causes negative events than to associate unrelated events) and agency (a similar explanation- it's adaptive to assume that most things are caused be agents, i.e. a rustle in the leaves is a hungry predator, not the wind. If we assume it's the wind and it isn't, we're in trouble, but not if it's the other way around.)
[deleted]
I buy the existence of religious emotions, for instance a sense of wonder and awe when confronted with astronomy or a newborn child.
My problem isn't with religious education (I didn't get one).
My problem is belief in any ideology. Political or religious.
That is, people having certain opinions about how the world is built from internal emotional experiences. Especially when they know that lots of other people have internal emotional experiences which says they are wrong.
My problem isn't with religious education (I didn't get one).
My problem is belief in any ideology. Political or religious.
That is, people having certain opinions about how the world is built from internal emotional experiences. Especially when they know that lots of other people have internal emotional experiences which says they are wrong.
[deleted]
The above post.
I used to think that Dawkins & co's books were just preaching to the choir. Yeah, I found them fun to read and nod along, but I didn't believe they'd change anyone's mind. I assume that this isn't an issue of logic, and when you're not dealing with logic for the most part, no logical argument would be sufficient.
Reading posts like these do make me believe that it's possible to change minds, if people are willing.
(I'm not saying those books aren't useful; they give a sense of legitimacy to those who don't side with religion and this is important.)
I used to think that Dawkins & co's books were just preaching to the choir. Yeah, I found them fun to read and nod along, but I didn't believe they'd change anyone's mind. I assume that this isn't an issue of logic, and when you're not dealing with logic for the most part, no logical argument would be sufficient.
Reading posts like these do make me believe that it's possible to change minds, if people are willing.
(I'm not saying those books aren't useful; they give a sense of legitimacy to those who don't side with religion and this is important.)
Do you think that being a good atheist requires a certain level of intelligence that many people don't have?
In particular, the extent to which a person can predict the consequences of his/her actions is probably highly dependent on intelligence.
Religion can be viewed as taking some of this unfairness away.
In particular, the extent to which a person can predict the consequences of his/her actions is probably highly dependent on intelligence.
Religion can be viewed as taking some of this unfairness away.
Well, religion and intelligence have been shown to be inversely correlated. Perhaps 'intelligence' is the wrong word; educational level might be better.
For example, only 7 percent of the members in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal god [1]. I forget the numbers for the general public of the US (I don't have the book with me), but it was the vast majority who believed in a personal god.
Of course: grains of salt, correlation vs. causation, etc.
I don't think being an atheist requires a certain level of intelligence, but I do think that people of a certain level of education have been taught to think critically about everything they read/learn/work with, which probably bleeds over into their personal life.
[1] Victor J. Stenger. Has Science Found God? p.78
For example, only 7 percent of the members in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal god [1]. I forget the numbers for the general public of the US (I don't have the book with me), but it was the vast majority who believed in a personal god.
Of course: grains of salt, correlation vs. causation, etc.
I don't think being an atheist requires a certain level of intelligence, but I do think that people of a certain level of education have been taught to think critically about everything they read/learn/work with, which probably bleeds over into their personal life.
[1] Victor J. Stenger. Has Science Found God? p.78
In my experience and from statistics I have seen there is little correlation between intelligence and religious inclination. For example Donald Knuth is strongly religious. (Evidence: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/things.html. ) But can anyone honestly deny his intelligence?
That is not to say that there is no correlation. In general educated people are more likely to be exposed to thoughtful commentary on atheism, and are therefore more likely to consider the idea. But the correlation seems to be with exposure, and not propensity to be convinced by it.
That is not to say that there is no correlation. In general educated people are more likely to be exposed to thoughtful commentary on atheism, and are therefore more likely to consider the idea. But the correlation seems to be with exposure, and not propensity to be convinced by it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
A modicum of research reveals that 'The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.”'
A modicum of research reveals that 'The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.”'
Yes, it is statistically significant. But it can't tell the difference between educated people being more often exposed to the ideas of atheism, and being more likely to find them convincing.
The furor over creationism vs. evolution indicates that even if the ideas themselves are not well exposed to uneducated people, some of the basic building materials and one of the frameworks of the discussion is there.
My comment is about the intelligence required to be good.
Religion could reduce this and as a result be potentially beneficial to society.
Religion could reduce this and as a result be potentially beneficial to society.
[deleted]
Christianity != Creationism
Agnostic != Evolution
Christianity != not(Evolution)
Most Christians (globally) care little about how man came into being and do not think either ideas have any impact on their faith.
It is the hardcore creationists who like to make out all Christians agree with them, and the hardcore underdog atheists who like to make out that all Christians are against them.
I don't know any Christians, and I know many, who believe that evolution and the bible are mutually exclusive ideas. They simply are not. And I wish both Atheists and Creationists would stop claiming that both ideas contradict each other.
Agnostic != Evolution
Christianity != not(Evolution)
Most Christians (globally) care little about how man came into being and do not think either ideas have any impact on their faith.
It is the hardcore creationists who like to make out all Christians agree with them, and the hardcore underdog atheists who like to make out that all Christians are against them.
I don't know any Christians, and I know many, who believe that evolution and the bible are mutually exclusive ideas. They simply are not. And I wish both Atheists and Creationists would stop claiming that both ideas contradict each other.
My biggest mental shift recently is an appreciation for ambiguity in language. Three months ago, if someone would have asked me, "Can you gain important topical insights from the ambiguous use of language?" I'd have said, "No, of course not: if you aren't precise in what you discuss, that creates a barrier to communication and makes things more confusing rather than clarifying. Intelligence is, in a large part, the ability to make fine distinctions and precise language helps make those distinctions."
I still see the value in precise language, but I now see it far more as one more tool in my toolbox rather than "THE WAY THINGS MUST BE!" And I've also come to see that my near-totalitarian enforcement of precision was prohibiting me from using other tools.
By analogy: suppose you want to know more about butterflies. Certainly catching them and pinning them to a spreading board is one way to study them: you can measure them exactly, you can count their spots and identify their coloration precisely. But you don't capture all that it is to observe a butterfly that way--you don't comprehend its flight, its movement, its way of being in motion.
Now, clearly I understand that, in a sense, I've only become 'more precise' in my language, willing to 'evoke ambiguity' when precisely necessary. But I can only protest that this fails to understand what I've gained from a willingness to recognize the value of ambiguity.
I still see the value in precise language, but I now see it far more as one more tool in my toolbox rather than "THE WAY THINGS MUST BE!" And I've also come to see that my near-totalitarian enforcement of precision was prohibiting me from using other tools.
By analogy: suppose you want to know more about butterflies. Certainly catching them and pinning them to a spreading board is one way to study them: you can measure them exactly, you can count their spots and identify their coloration precisely. But you don't capture all that it is to observe a butterfly that way--you don't comprehend its flight, its movement, its way of being in motion.
Now, clearly I understand that, in a sense, I've only become 'more precise' in my language, willing to 'evoke ambiguity' when precisely necessary. But I can only protest that this fails to understand what I've gained from a willingness to recognize the value of ambiguity.
"By analogy: suppose you want to know more about butterflies. Certainly catching them and pinning them to a spreading board is one way to study them: you can measure them exactly, you can count their spots and identify their coloration precisely. But you don't capture all that it is to observe a butterfly that way--you don't comprehend its flight, its movement, its way of being in motion."
Nicely said.
Nicely said.
So you've just discovered poetry?
I've long appreciated poetry for it's ability to 'get at' the world in ways that I would consider rather precise. Metaphors are not a tool of ambiguity, but rather precision.
Though I haven't read much poetry (nothing that doesn't appear in Harper's or New Yorker): I'll have to go back and re-read some things to see in what ways my interpretation has changed, if at all.
Though I haven't read much poetry (nothing that doesn't appear in Harper's or New Yorker): I'll have to go back and re-read some things to see in what ways my interpretation has changed, if at all.
I'm partial to Kipling's "If," which should be quite popular among this crowd: http://www.everypoet.com/archive/poetry/Rudyard_Kipling/kipl...
Could you please elaborate on what led you to change your mind? I'm probably not far from where you were, and would like to see what I may be missing. :)
For me, it's been part of a longer trajectory towards the appreciation of "the mess" in all of its dirty glory. I've always been an "algorithm" person: find the underlying pattern that gives beauty and stability (the two being synonyms, of course!) to the apparently chaotic world around us. Increasingly though, I've come to find that discrete difference has its own beauty and instability (the two being synonyms, or so I keep telling myself) that I had been blocked from appreciating.
Less philosophically and more pragmatically: during a time of reflection I was thinking about how my demand for precision was limiting my social interaction. I hadn't been as big a douche as some people I knew, but I could see more of myself in those people than I liked to admit, and realized I needed to change. But I can never change if I'm right, of course!
So I began to talk with people I knew were smart but didn't have the same penchant for demanding precision. On their testimony, I came to believe that there must be something good in ambiguity, though I couldn't comprehend what. I began to practice 'not objecting' when someone would use language or ideas ambiguously. This was immensely frustrating, but I vowed to let it be and try and find the value. Enough times of getting a glimmer of insight led me to finally admit that there was something worthwhile in ambiguity, and so I changed my mind.
Less philosophically and more pragmatically: during a time of reflection I was thinking about how my demand for precision was limiting my social interaction. I hadn't been as big a douche as some people I knew, but I could see more of myself in those people than I liked to admit, and realized I needed to change. But I can never change if I'm right, of course!
So I began to talk with people I knew were smart but didn't have the same penchant for demanding precision. On their testimony, I came to believe that there must be something good in ambiguity, though I couldn't comprehend what. I began to practice 'not objecting' when someone would use language or ideas ambiguously. This was immensely frustrating, but I vowed to let it be and try and find the value. Enough times of getting a glimmer of insight led me to finally admit that there was something worthwhile in ambiguity, and so I changed my mind.
There's an aesthetic component, but mainly it gives flexibility & speed. Think lossy encoding, or maybe dynamic typing.
It's important to note that advantages are not necessary. It wasn't designed. It could just be that it's so widespread that it's impossible to change.
It's important to note that advantages are not necessary. It wasn't designed. It could just be that it's so widespread that it's impossible to change.
I changed my mind on event models in stateless protocols. I used to think, "Oh, that sounds nifty. I bet it works really well, and simplifies the wiring."
Now I think, "Wait, how can an event work in a stateless... Oh, that's just sneaky Microsoft."
Not by choice, rather by circumstance, I have been writing Web Forms apps in ASP.NET for the last year. Took me that long to realize that something about the whole idea just doesn't make sense.
Now I think, "Wait, how can an event work in a stateless... Oh, that's just sneaky Microsoft."
Not by choice, rather by circumstance, I have been writing Web Forms apps in ASP.NET for the last year. Took me that long to realize that something about the whole idea just doesn't make sense.
I recently came upon MVC, and similary was enlightened re. the events within ASP.NET WebForms. I highly reccomend checking out thier approach: its incredibly flexible from a very low level.
I've been thinking a lot about happiness, learning, and experiences.
When you get right down to it, we only have a few short years in the sun. 80 years is less than nothing when compared to the age of the earth - let alone the solar system or universe - so it would appear rational to maximize your experiences, knowledge, and relationships because they would seem to lead to an increase in happiness.
One real-world consequence of this thinking is that I've found myself much more likely to consider switching jobs than my risk-averse persona would predict, especially if I see a new offer as a challenging opportunity to improve myself.
When you get right down to it, we only have a few short years in the sun. 80 years is less than nothing when compared to the age of the earth - let alone the solar system or universe - so it would appear rational to maximize your experiences, knowledge, and relationships because they would seem to lead to an increase in happiness.
One real-world consequence of this thinking is that I've found myself much more likely to consider switching jobs than my risk-averse persona would predict, especially if I see a new offer as a challenging opportunity to improve myself.
The best way to implement health care in the United States.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200909/health-care
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200909/health-care
I enjoy Ezra Klein as a left-perspective, wonky (politically technical, if you're not familiar with the term) writer who has a special focus on the intricacies of health care policy.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/
Trivia note: "wonk" is a fairly new word, having been coined in the last decade or two if I remember correctly.
It used to stand for WithOut Normal Knowledge, meaning people who had a lot of ideas but not much practical experience. I think lately the definition has broadened to mean just intricately technical.
It used to stand for WithOut Normal Knowledge, meaning people who had a lot of ideas but not much practical experience. I think lately the definition has broadened to mean just intricately technical.
Obama. He talked change and kept all the same financial advisers of the prior administrations.
What about all those paycuts for bankers though? I can't imagine those happening under Bush or McCain. Or are they just cosmetic (I'm not American and not overly familiar
with the details)?
Cosmetic in that they only affect a handful of banks, and none of the major profit-winners such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, etc.
They are cosmetic....check back in a year and see if the money transfer moved to a new channel or not.
I was not a Obama supporter but I really did hope that he would bring transparency into government, which is badly needed. Doing so would have used up a lot of his political capital. It would have been a great achievement and I would have cheered him on - regardless of what I thought of his policies.
I am saddened that he did not follow through and it seems unlikely that he will in the future.
I am saddened that he did not follow through and it seems unlikely that he will in the future.
I don't really want to be rich, I'd rather make interesting and fun stuff.
Inverse here
Whether I really belong here. I used to think it was a given, now I'm really not sure. So much stuff I'm interested in gets completely ignored, and I'm pretty sure it's been seen. There's the occasional zinger, but I no longer think I'm a good match for this community.
That's an interesting frame to the question -- whether you are a good match for the community.
Wouldn't the question work better the other way around -- Whether the community was a good match for you or not?
You would judge the answer based on how much the community helped you reach your goals. Whereas with the other question you're always looking outward for somebody else to validate you (which seems prone to getting bad feedback!)
Wouldn't the question work better the other way around -- Whether the community was a good match for you or not?
You would judge the answer based on how much the community helped you reach your goals. Whereas with the other question you're always looking outward for somebody else to validate you (which seems prone to getting bad feedback!)
Being a match is close to symmetrical, but "usefulness" perhaps isn't. I get a great deal from this site and the musings of many of its participants. It's only reasonable that I should try to give something back, but repeatedly things I think are interesting get absolutely no response.
With me getting a great deal out, but the community not getting much back, are we therefore a good match?
Perhaps that's not really the question, but I've come to realise that stuff I think is cool, enlightening or simply interesting, generally get very little response.
Unless people just don't see them.
With me getting a great deal out, but the community not getting much back, are we therefore a good match?
Perhaps that's not really the question, but I've come to realise that stuff I think is cool, enlightening or simply interesting, generally get very little response.
Unless people just don't see them.
[deleted]
Or they have nothing to add to the discussion/your point.
Usually if someone finds something find, interesting or enlightening they'll up-mod it. I don't care about the karma, I care about things being thought interesting enough to be up-mud.
Nobel peace prizes. I used to see them as the ultimate award that could be earned and the ultimate award which humanity could bestow on an individual. Now I see them as a powerful and influential political tool.
I think many people came to that conclusion many years ago ... I am a bit slow on the uptake.
I think many people came to that conclusion many years ago ... I am a bit slow on the uptake.
It would be great if a award, with a substantial prize (upwards of $10 million), was created to be awarded to the person that has done the most for the human race: for peace, heath care, human dignity, human rights and freedom.
Bill Gates .. you listening? ;)
Bill Gates .. you listening? ;)
NASA and the ability for a government program to be startup-like, as well as my impression that test pilots were selected only for bravado.
I'm reading Carrying The Fire, a book by the Gemini and Apollo astronaut Michael Collins. I was totally caught off-guard about how fast-paced, creative and generally entrepreneurial the early space program was. A common description of their working life was that people on a space mission put in insanely long hours because they were captivated by the long term vision and routinely made fun of other areas of the government where people were just punching the clock.
Even working with otherwise disagreeable folk was tolerated. Collins on learning that he'd have to work with John Young on Gemini 10:
"...besides, I would have flown by myself or with a kangaroo - I just wanted to fly. All that stuff about crew psychology compatibility is crap. Almost anyone can put up with almost anyone else for a clearly defined period of time in pursuit of a mutual object important to each."
Also, I thought test pilots were crazy people with a death wish, probably because of The Right Stuff. Turns out they practice a form of user-centered design and consider themselves as advocates for the end user (pilots in the field). It doesn't surprise me that the current field of HCI was born from the study of airplane cockpits. A joke in the book was about the true story of emergency instructions printed on the inside of a canopy - all the steps after the first one were completely unusable in the context of a real emergency because step #1 was to blast off the canopy.
I'm reading Carrying The Fire, a book by the Gemini and Apollo astronaut Michael Collins. I was totally caught off-guard about how fast-paced, creative and generally entrepreneurial the early space program was. A common description of their working life was that people on a space mission put in insanely long hours because they were captivated by the long term vision and routinely made fun of other areas of the government where people were just punching the clock.
Even working with otherwise disagreeable folk was tolerated. Collins on learning that he'd have to work with John Young on Gemini 10:
"...besides, I would have flown by myself or with a kangaroo - I just wanted to fly. All that stuff about crew psychology compatibility is crap. Almost anyone can put up with almost anyone else for a clearly defined period of time in pursuit of a mutual object important to each."
Also, I thought test pilots were crazy people with a death wish, probably because of The Right Stuff. Turns out they practice a form of user-centered design and consider themselves as advocates for the end user (pilots in the field). It doesn't surprise me that the current field of HCI was born from the study of airplane cockpits. A joke in the book was about the true story of emergency instructions printed on the inside of a canopy - all the steps after the first one were completely unusable in the context of a real emergency because step #1 was to blast off the canopy.
My desire to become a doctor. As a college undergraduate in a biomedical engineering major there's a lot of contact and allure toward that field, but after extensive shadowing experience in the ER I realized that while I undeniably admire those who can become doctors, there is absolutely something missing, for me, in that profession:
The ability to innovate, build, create, explore. An MD's life is more oriented toward dispensing the benefits of knowledge than actively seeking, crafting more.
The ability to innovate, build, create, explore. An MD's life is more oriented toward dispensing the benefits of knowledge than actively seeking, crafting more.
Consider MD/PhD. The MD part of the degree gets you through a ton of doors that would otherwise be closed or incredibly difficult to open (unfortunately). It would also allow you to build products or perform research and actually be on the clinical side of things when it comes to testing (if you care).
It is a consideration, but with the 10+ year path it takes to acquire it, I'm a little shaken. At any rate, I'm looking at PhD in neurosciences so it'd be a decent play with an MD if I wanted it later. I'm not certain that this still lets you get MD tuition waived, but that would be excellent.
You still could become a doctor (PhD) and innovate, explore, etc..
Unfortunately, whether or not a career in academia jives with your idea of what it is innovate/build/create would be another decision you'll have to make!
Unfortunately, whether or not a career in academia jives with your idea of what it is innovate/build/create would be another decision you'll have to make!
Have you considered medical research?
This year has brought me to the belief that the forth estate is dead and has been replaced by pundits of all shapes and sizes.
You can argue where every news organization fits on the political spectrum (other than they all fit at one of the sides and the middle is an illusion), but I don't think there is any network or newspaper that just prints the facts of the case. Every network has their favorites and calls the other sides "little people" names (e.g. pinko, teabagger). All the networks throw out opinions and call them facts. Heck, making up crap doesn't even seem to phase anyone (e.g. false papers, trucks with explosives on the gas tanks).
Has any network gone through the current draft of the health car bill and told us what's on it? Has any network tried to get all the payouts the gov did as part of the bailout?
You can argue where every news organization fits on the political spectrum (other than they all fit at one of the sides and the middle is an illusion), but I don't think there is any network or newspaper that just prints the facts of the case. Every network has their favorites and calls the other sides "little people" names (e.g. pinko, teabagger). All the networks throw out opinions and call them facts. Heck, making up crap doesn't even seem to phase anyone (e.g. false papers, trucks with explosives on the gas tanks).
Has any network gone through the current draft of the health car bill and told us what's on it? Has any network tried to get all the payouts the gov did as part of the bailout?
So true.
For example: http://consortiumnews.com/2009/102409b.html
This won't be on the news, yet I bet every American would have a strong opinion (for or against) this practice....but it is not newsworthy. A boy who may (or may not) be floating away in a balloon, however, gets 24x7 coverage.
Whats that saying about something becoming a parody of itself? Thats how I see America today....they have such passionate beliefs about what they are as a people, but their actions are the exact opposite. It's sad...of course, a lot of this has been happening for decades, but what can be pulled off now in the light of day with no public reaction (torture, war crimes, unprecedented financial fraud, etc) is just mind boggling.
For example: http://consortiumnews.com/2009/102409b.html
This won't be on the news, yet I bet every American would have a strong opinion (for or against) this practice....but it is not newsworthy. A boy who may (or may not) be floating away in a balloon, however, gets 24x7 coverage.
Whats that saying about something becoming a parody of itself? Thats how I see America today....they have such passionate beliefs about what they are as a people, but their actions are the exact opposite. It's sad...of course, a lot of this has been happening for decades, but what can be pulled off now in the light of day with no public reaction (torture, war crimes, unprecedented financial fraud, etc) is just mind boggling.
I recently changed my mind about the quality of the producers and consumers on HN.
Can you clarify? You haven't been registered here for long, so I'm curious as to what sort of trends you've noticed that have caused you to change your mind.
I've lurked longer than I've trolled. There is a surface appearance of intelligence (thanks to a couple dozen prolific and intelligent participants) but a great deal of unproductive conversations.
Too often, people talk past each other.
Too often, people nitpick like http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=782752
Too often, edw519 gets upvotes for 'pithy' statements like http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=864709
Too often, reposts galore, and even worse, from techcrunch: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=743735
Too much non-contributing irrelevant self-promotion: http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=kkleiner http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=kkleiner
Too often, votes are based on... zealotry? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=902804 Why would jrockway get downvoted for answering a question as to why OSX didn't merit the Apple Tax for his purposes?
HN is useful for the domain knowledge and experience of some notable fellows, but a lot of the active user base dampens a lot of the remaining signal.
Too often, people talk past each other.
Too often, people nitpick like http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=782752
Too often, edw519 gets upvotes for 'pithy' statements like http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=864709
Too often, reposts galore, and even worse, from techcrunch: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=743735
Too much non-contributing irrelevant self-promotion: http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=kkleiner http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=kkleiner
Too often, votes are based on... zealotry? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=902804 Why would jrockway get downvoted for answering a question as to why OSX didn't merit the Apple Tax for his purposes?
HN is useful for the domain knowledge and experience of some notable fellows, but a lot of the active user base dampens a lot of the remaining signal.
I hope you didn't get the impression that I thought your opinion was somehow less valuable than someone else's because of the amount of time you've been registered here. I think that's a weak argument and I hate it when people make it.
I look at people's time on the site when they say the community has changed because I want to know if they're contributing or consuming.
This is a community, and it can be reasoned with by anybody, as long as they take the time to try and do it.
I think for the most part, the responses on the threads you linked showed that. Sometimes people will reflexively downvote people because of a perceived slight. I have a feeling that some of the early voting trains get undone as the day goes on.
That being said, I'm sure I've personally contributed a significant amount of noise to conversations here, but if I wanted pure signal I'd probably spend a lot more time on places like LtU. The value of this place is the conversations, far more than the links (in my opinion).
I look at people's time on the site when they say the community has changed because I want to know if they're contributing or consuming.
This is a community, and it can be reasoned with by anybody, as long as they take the time to try and do it.
I think for the most part, the responses on the threads you linked showed that. Sometimes people will reflexively downvote people because of a perceived slight. I have a feeling that some of the early voting trains get undone as the day goes on.
That being said, I'm sure I've personally contributed a significant amount of noise to conversations here, but if I wanted pure signal I'd probably spend a lot more time on places like LtU. The value of this place is the conversations, far more than the links (in my opinion).
Good call on the singularityhub....
That one has been reported for a long time but nobody cares much about it.
I used to flag them consistently but I just gave up, so kkleiner wins that round and gets to spam as much as he wants.
Flagging to keep out the spam is a way of doing community service, if the feeling is that it is for nothing or possibly even ignored (PG hinted that people that flag a lot have their flaggings discarded) makes me much less inclined to do that work.
I used to flag them consistently but I just gave up, so kkleiner wins that round and gets to spam as much as he wants.
Flagging to keep out the spam is a way of doing community service, if the feeling is that it is for nothing or possibly even ignored (PG hinted that people that flag a lot have their flaggings discarded) makes me much less inclined to do that work.
Seat belt laws.
For years, my inner Libertarian would cringe at the idea that the government could force someone to do something they didn't want to when it was their own life at risk. But then my inner Republican realized that if I were to be at fault in an accident, I would be financially and possibly criminally liable for a much steeper offense if the other party wasn't buckled up.
Not to sound harsh, but your logic here epitomizes the stereotype of conservative as uncaring/greedy/self-absorbed. Instead of being concerned that people will die, your reasons for supporting seat belt laws is that it reduces your liability. Maybe you actually have some concern for human life, and don't actually intend to leave that impression; if not, it's worth considering how you present your argument, because right away you've alienated anyone who doesn't have a strictly utilitarian (or perhaps libertarian) view of the world.
I think maybe you missed something in his post. How is he being uncaring/greedy/self-absorbed by acknowldedging how he is impacted by others' decision to use a seatbelt or not?
He isn't saying people shouldn't wear a seatbelt. He's saying it should be their choice. If someone chooses not to wear their seatbelt, they obviously care more about their own convenience and comfort than their safety and well-being. Why should he (or anyone else) worry about their lives more than they do themselves?
Not to sound harsh, but I think that your logic epitomizes the stereotype of the extreme liberal who thinks it's everyone else's responsibility to support and take care of you. You've alienated anyone who doesn't have a strictly socialist view of the world.
Of course, if you're not alienating someone, then you're probably not thinking things through enough to form a strong opinion. So, good on you for having an opinion either way ;-)
He isn't saying people shouldn't wear a seatbelt. He's saying it should be their choice. If someone chooses not to wear their seatbelt, they obviously care more about their own convenience and comfort than their safety and well-being. Why should he (or anyone else) worry about their lives more than they do themselves?
Not to sound harsh, but I think that your logic epitomizes the stereotype of the extreme liberal who thinks it's everyone else's responsibility to support and take care of you. You've alienated anyone who doesn't have a strictly socialist view of the world.
Of course, if you're not alienating someone, then you're probably not thinking things through enough to form a strong opinion. So, good on you for having an opinion either way ;-)
It's more that I don't feel it's the government's place to tell people that they must wear a seat belt. It's their place to hold car manufacturers to safety standards that make sure their seat belts are effective and safe. It's their place to make it publicly known that wearing a seat belt greatly reduces your risk of injury or death in a collision. Beyond that, I feel very strongly that it is personal responsibility and choice.
When I realized that allowing this freedom could possibly encroach on my freedoms, it became a different issue. And I changed my mind.
When I realized that allowing this freedom could possibly encroach on my freedoms, it became a different issue. And I changed my mind.
In Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends & Influence People" he says to never argue with anyone, since you'll never convince the other person and if you do they'll resent you for making them look foolish (or something like this).
The case for wearing a seat belt is my exception to this rule. I was talking to a "libertarian" friend and he mentioned his life is his responsibility and he should wear the seat belt or not if he didn't want to. I told him that if he got in an accident and paralyzed because of not wearing seat belt then it wouldn't be fair to the rest of us tax payers to support him because of his decision. (This was in a modern country with universal health care).
He thought for a second and said, "oh, yes, you're right".
The case for wearing a seat belt is my exception to this rule. I was talking to a "libertarian" friend and he mentioned his life is his responsibility and he should wear the seat belt or not if he didn't want to. I told him that if he got in an accident and paralyzed because of not wearing seat belt then it wouldn't be fair to the rest of us tax payers to support him because of his decision. (This was in a modern country with universal health care).
He thought for a second and said, "oh, yes, you're right".
Wow, I never thought of that. However, I don't think the answer is forcing people to wear seatbelts, but rather to exonerate the at-fault driver from the other driver's decision against seatbelt use. The former not only encroaches on people's rights, but it doesn't actually solve the problem mentioned, because the other person can still decide not to wear a seatbelt.
Luckily, I live in a no-fault state though. But still, that's a very good point.
Luckily, I live in a no-fault state though. But still, that's a very good point.
There are all sorts of cases like that. We're probably going to get universal healthcare, so other people's health expenses affect you since you'll be paying for them. So cattle prods + fatties + treadmills = more freedom for you.
I'm glad I'm not a libertarian or I'd be experiencing cognitive dissonance.
I'm glad I'm not a libertarian or I'd be experiencing cognitive dissonance.
I've been reading Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate lately. It has changed my view of the role of consciousness in everyday life. It's also clarified my understanding on various social issues, the relationship with the individual and society, and the evolutionary origins of the emotions.
I'm about 2/3 of the way through.
I'm about 2/3 of the way through.
Steven Pinker is amazing. From what I've read from his other articles, books, etc, it's always been enlightening. He also does a beautiful job communicating his ideas.
I agree, his writings are eye-opening. I know a bit too much about neuroscience, I think, so sometimes when he ventures that way in The Blank Slate I'm unconvinced, but the core of his arguments always stand.
My first encounter with his works was The Language Instinct, which was required reading for a course I took on psycholinguistics. If that were more recent, I would have mentioned it in my initial post, because that book completely changed my understanding of human language.
My first encounter with his works was The Language Instinct, which was required reading for a course I took on psycholinguistics. If that were more recent, I would have mentioned it in my initial post, because that book completely changed my understanding of human language.
Some of his writings is how I'm getting my introduction to neuroscience. Also, following stuff like the brain science podcast and reading any popular science books dedicated to it. I'd love to get more in depth, but currently lack direction.
Well, if you're looking for a textbook, I suggest Biopsychology by Pinel. It was required reading for two courses I took, and I found it to explain things quite well.
Something to watch out for though: he tends to over-simplify things in places, which may lead you to develop overly-rigid mental models. There are exceptions to every rule, and some recent papers may contradict what Pinel says about the functions of some areas of the brain, or show that things are actually more nuanced. It's still a good start.
Once you have a good grasp of the fundamentals, I suggest reading Nature Reviews Neuroscience. They often have excellent review articles that summarize the state of research in a particular area. http://www.nature.com/nrn/index.html
If I were to suggest one area to focus your attention on, it would be memory. Memory is a central ability of the mammalian brain, and pretty much every area of the brain is involved in memory somehow. Here are some papers that I've found enlightening:
Gaffan. Against memory systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: … (2002)
Martin and Morris. New life in an old idea: The synaptic plasticity and memory hypothesis revisited. Hippocampus (2002)
Frankland and Bontempi. The organization of recent and remote memories. NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE (2005) vol. 6 (2) pp. 119-130
Ross and Eichenbaum. Dynamics of hippocampal and cortical activation during consolidation of a nonspatial memory. Journal of Neuroscience (2006) vol. 26 (18) pp. 4852
Dudai. The Neurobiology of Consolidations, Or, How Stable is the Engram?. Annual Review of Psychology (2004) vol. 55 (1) pp. 51-86
Fischer et al. Recovery of learning and memory is associated with chromatin remodelling. Nature (2007) vol. 447 (7141) pp. 178 (but don't worry too much about the parts that are heavy on the biochemistry).
Rasch et al. Odor cues during slow-wave sleep prompt declarative memory consolidation. Science (2007) vol. 315 (5817) pp. 1426
One thing you may notice is that all of these papers are published in the last decade. That's about the shelf-life of research in this field. Let me know if you can't find these articles online; I have PDF copies of all of them.
Hope that gives you some direction :)
Once you have a good grasp of the fundamentals, I suggest reading Nature Reviews Neuroscience. They often have excellent review articles that summarize the state of research in a particular area. http://www.nature.com/nrn/index.html
If I were to suggest one area to focus your attention on, it would be memory. Memory is a central ability of the mammalian brain, and pretty much every area of the brain is involved in memory somehow. Here are some papers that I've found enlightening:
Gaffan. Against memory systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: … (2002)
Martin and Morris. New life in an old idea: The synaptic plasticity and memory hypothesis revisited. Hippocampus (2002)
Frankland and Bontempi. The organization of recent and remote memories. NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE (2005) vol. 6 (2) pp. 119-130
Ross and Eichenbaum. Dynamics of hippocampal and cortical activation during consolidation of a nonspatial memory. Journal of Neuroscience (2006) vol. 26 (18) pp. 4852
Dudai. The Neurobiology of Consolidations, Or, How Stable is the Engram?. Annual Review of Psychology (2004) vol. 55 (1) pp. 51-86
Fischer et al. Recovery of learning and memory is associated with chromatin remodelling. Nature (2007) vol. 447 (7141) pp. 178 (but don't worry too much about the parts that are heavy on the biochemistry).
Rasch et al. Odor cues during slow-wave sleep prompt declarative memory consolidation. Science (2007) vol. 315 (5817) pp. 1426
One thing you may notice is that all of these papers are published in the last decade. That's about the shelf-life of research in this field. Let me know if you can't find these articles online; I have PDF copies of all of them.
Hope that gives you some direction :)
I used vim to edit a config file here or there for four years of college. I always hated it. I just couldn't wrap my head around command vs insert mode. Since I never edited more than a few lines at a time, I never really learned it. I thought it was just a stupid idea. Then, about 9 months ago, it clicked. I started loving it. Now, you couldn't pry it from my cold, dead, Python editing fingers. (Although, I still contest that IDEA/Resharper are far superior for Java/C#)
did any particular tutorial make it click for you?
This in my vimrc helped tons:
map <down> <nop>
map <left> <nop>
map <right> <nop>
map <up> <nop>
LOL, nice.
I changed my mind about Django. In practical usage, it does not save time. Most things are faster, stabler, more portable and easier to outsource than Django. So, gone from being a Django enthusiast to making PHP my main web language and Django for things like admin and cron jobish sort of things.
Now that I live there, Colombian food.
My political persuasions have changed radically over the last 20 years... And I used to find politics interesting.
Hacker News, after reading this thread. I think I'll become a regular.