Yes. Too many scientists aren't trying to explain things; rather they wander around looking for new correlations. There's an abundant supply of correlations wherever one looks.
Hear Hear! And all learning is done on one's own, really.
IQ is, not to put too fine a point on it, bunk.
Grades are also bunk. They can never measure depth of knowledge, which is the thing that matters, intellectually speaking. Depth depends on connections formed with other areas of knowledge, which are unique to each student.
I agree. The problem with these kind of studies is that they aren't coming up with explanations and then trying to test them; they're simply looking for correlations, which advances knowledge not one jot.
In the case of caffeine I suspect the main benefit is that drinkers of tea and coffee eat less food, and rich food damages the blood vessels of the brain (as it does to the heart).
Paying people to leave actually sounds like quite a good idea to me.
Pay people 3 months salary to leave; don't pay new employees for the first 3 months.
It's much easier to identify an underperforming existing employee than to pick the best potential employee at interview. Not paying newbies filters out people who aren't motivated.
A question about PC gaming. It can be irritating to have to keep the game disc inserted in order to play, even after the install. One reason is that children frequently empty the drive trays and discs can quickly get scratched. Is there a way around this or am I being hopelessly naive?
>The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible
I'm not sure how relevant this is but my impression is that many or most environmentalists oppose both nuclear power and research into geo-engineering.
Attractive people, on average, think less and are more sensitive to emotion including conscience. This makes them more likely to be good and less likely to be guilty of crime.
Thinking draws resources away from the body and thus indirectly affects things like movement, grace and growth.
Hence the medieval law of combat: a good knight could not lose against a bad knight.
Also the Emperor Palpatine's skin problems, ugly stepmothers in fairy tales, etc.
Also George Orwell's comment "At age 50, every man has the face he deserves."
If you study bullies carefully you will notice that they are continually probing potential victims for the right kind of emotional response (prior to any further verbal or physical abuse). If they don't elicit one they move on to new targets,
Whereas there are people who aren't picked on by bullies, despite having never fought back. And I don't think they are necessarily the most popular individuals (although such people do fit into that category).
You're right, the theory is unfalsifiable (for now at least).
However, I have argued for it, and I believe if offers the best explanation for the nerd-bully phenomenon. Bullies can't really pick on people who are simply mistaken, they can only pick on people who are (at some level) ashamed of themselves. [See my reply to zackattack for more.]
I'd like to stress that all this doesn't make bullying any less wrong or less damaging for all concerned.
Part of my explanation would be that you can only insult a person with their compliance. If they become offended or defensive then they are implicitly conceding that you have a point.
So, although nerds are consciously unaware of their denial, it lurks beneath the surface and effects their emotional response in ways that other people can detect.
It is in the nature of denial that one is unaware both of what is denied and of the denial itself. Only when denial is relinquished does one realise that the it was both real and voluntary.
They lack social skills because they lack emotional intelligence.
To take it further: nerds lack emotional intelligence because they have learnt to ignore the relevant emotions. That is why bullies are able to bait nerds; they both feel that the nerds' denial of group emotions makes them culpable.
Yes. Too many scientists aren't trying to explain things; rather they wander around looking for new correlations. There's an abundant supply of correlations wherever one looks.