Sometimes anxiety is a symptom of high-functioning autism spectrum. (Note that anxiety doesn't need to be solely related to social situations in this case either)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809000/
835 karma · joined May 10, 2012
I like the simplicity and elegance of that definition. It means work, pressure, "stress", pain, etc., are all completely irrelevant as long as there are enough successes over some interval of time.
Because the only reason to reject well-established scientific conclusions such as evolution and global warming is moral and emotional reasons deriving from membership in a Conservative Christian religous group that confuses the Bible with reality.
> As the article you linked to to "refute" me itself indicates, ice layer accumulation is inconsistent. Therefore, any conclusions regarding historical events drawn from such data would have to be questioned.
Which is exactly why ice is not dated solely by visible layers. An overview of ice core dating is here: http://www.pages-igbp.org/download/docs/magazine/2014-1/PAGE...
Instead, ice cores are dated by measuring independent signatures: isotopic compositions (reflecting season variations in local temperature) different kinds of impurity (reflecting seasonal dust and other mineral concentration), known events (such as volcanic eruptions, fires). In addition, there's a host of new methods and statistics being used and developed.
Effectively, there is no reason to reject the sound science behind ice-core dating unless your Church Group told you that God wants you to. But that's a silly way to find truth.
I didn't say we live in a land of pure unbiased science. However, you can be certain that those insisting that science is biased are basing their conclusions on vastly more biased sources of information than science itself. In one thread, we have a climate science denier who obviously gets moral and emotional comfort from a right-wing political point of view; in another, a creationist who gets moral and emotional comfort from Conservative Christianity. They don't seem to realize that to criticize science effectively, you can only approach from a position with less human bias than practiced science, not more.
> Consider, for example, the "lost squadron" of WWII. These planes were discovered over 200 feet deep under many layers of ice. Therefore, they must be many thousands of years old, right?
This is straight from the Institute of Creation Research, known Liars for Jesus. This nonsense is dealt with here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html. In short, ice layers are counted by many different methods and no one thinks that 200 feet deep automatically means thousands of years old.
This is false, we do understand this well enough to be sure CO2 is a significant problem for warming, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co...
If by definitive, you mean 100%, then yes, else no. The IPCC distilled the consensus down to about 95% which is quite strong, by all means.
You have to show this, you can't just assume it. For example, sea surface temperature adjustments are the opposite; in your words, a low-impact hypothesis that is nevertheless formulated and confirmed. http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2015/02/homogenizati...
The issue is that US rural men are unemployed. But the US rural economy will continue to decline until it reaches a balance with global commerce; protectionism, at best, is only a temporary measure. The US rural economy has even more to fall over the next decade.
Can we really think a solution is to teach rural men to find value in contributing nothing? A sinking economy gives nothing to do; even family-raising is a dismal prospect with poor schools and declining healthcare. The best and only plausible scenario is that rural men pack up their familes and move to the cities where jobs are plentiful. Indeed, this is the worldwide trend.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-russell-steel-china... http://www.ita.doc.gov/steel/countries/pdfs/imports-us.pdf
There's no better reality-based approach than aggregating polls across the political spectrum. But who would have thought that all polls would be wrong in the same direction?
I don't think this is necessary. With Obama, his policies were ultimately shaped, designed and compromised to benefit centrist to left-leaning voters, and so he was sharply opposed by the right and extreme right. With Trump, his policies will be ultimately shaped, designed and compromised to benefit Trump, so it is far from clear that this will give advantage to any class of voter at all.
Why? The law of comparative advantage says we get more productive when we have more trading partners, and the arrival of undocumented workers with limited English skills frees up low-skill American workers who can then specialize in tasks that require better English.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2015/08/28/how-do-ille...
This is factually wrong. Immigrants and native workers compete for different low-skilled jobs: http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/immigrant-and-native-workers...
The big issue is the sheer amount of misinformation and falsehoods that the Trump demographic takes as truth. The lack of a good education-- and particularly the lack of a science education-- means most Trump voters are ill-equipped to distinguish fact from feel-good fiction.
"It is true that, traditionally, Mosuo women tend to take on most of the labour duties at home. They take care of the animals, tend the fields, etc. However, this is due to a historic division of responsibilities where Mosuo men were mostly traders, traveling long distances by caravan to trade with other groups. Since the men were frequently gone from home, the women were left to take care of the work. However, when the men were at home, they would also share in the duties there.
In modern times, the practice of having trading caravans has effectively ceased; with the result that one of the primary male roles has been rendered irrelevant. It is true, therefore, that you may often find men lounging around while women work hard; however, this is not universal (I've visited many homes where the men share in these duties equally with the women); and does not necessarily mean that Mosuo men are lazy…it indicates, rather, the need to define a viable new “male” role within the modern realities of Mosuo culture."
http://www.mosuoproject.org/myths.htm
The idea that any person can be content to contribute nothing meaningful to a family/group/village/society completely misunderstands human nature.
We don't call them privileged. Rather, they hear the insults and put-downs they want to hear by tuning in to customized news and propaganda that confirm their deepest insecurities.
> As cultural changes, one would be to lower the harm from being unemployed. For men, too much of social value and social opportunity is tied to being employed and having a high earning potential.
Re-engineering the social brain so that status doesn't matter? Wow. I doubt you'd have anything like homo sapiens after that.
Sure, but "cocoons" breed intolerance by magnifying the fears and insecurities of the group. Maybe if you have balanced, open, secure people, blocking information doesn't hurt, but those people are not only rare, they tend to go out of their way for new information. They don't willingly slam the door on new streams of information so it seems their "cocoons" if they exist at all have fairly thin walls.
And then they burn all that saved energy on moral warfare, raging furiously at non-threats. That's the problem.
This works as long as the cocoon is perfectly insulated. But it isn't, as elections show. The political process basically cuts through the cocoon like a predatory wasp-- assuming there is at least one candidate or law that is incompatible with insulated beliefs. And then all that saved energy is wasted on moral warfare against the invaders.
Cocoons are always bad in a non-homogeneous society.
This is a curious blind spot. With deep learning algorithms making easy work of master Go players, there has to be enormous untapped potential in GPGPU silicon for AI.
Is this conspiracy theorizing or a serious statement? Either way it seems to seriously sacrifice your credibility and the spirit of the reality-based analysis your first comment invoked.
Let's take a reality-based approach to Libya, for example, often cited as Hillary's fault. In reality, it's hard to blame Hillary when the decision to engage in Libya was Obama's. In reality, it's hard to blame Obama when it was France and Great Britain that instigated the mission from the beginning and begged the US' help. In reality, it's hard to blame France and Great Britain when the simple, uncontroversial fact is that Gaddafi was a dictator/torturer/human-rights-abuser of epic proportions that had systematically destroyed political and civil institutions in his country guaranteeing a power vacuum when he was deposed. With this chain of responsibility in mind which likely equally applies to other foreign policy decisions, it's ridiculous to claim that Hillary is "largely responsible for sacrificing innocents". That's the kind of hyperbole that lacks any basis in reality.