Asking somebody not to be mean seems reasonable but he only gets mean after he has already "lost it". He then unfailingly perceives the other guy as the mean one and himself as the victim. If he had the self-awareness necessary to monitor his emotional state then he would not become mean in the first place.
Combine this with the fact that most people come to news sites for validation rather than enlightenment and one can expect mean comments to grow in proportion to the popularity of the site
Right, but this was never discussed in the book, so as to remove the eagle plot hole. But one could see it that way. Perhaps galdolf never brought it up, because he only had a gut feeling gollum would have a role to play, and that frodo wouldn't be able to rid himself of the ring anyway...?
Gandalf's hunch was more of a faith-in-all-people kind of thing, IMO. That it turned out he was right twice (Gollum guided them into Mordor and was instrumental in destroying the Ring) really doesn't count that much in my opinion.
Yes! I have enjoyed many novels. But people (including me) are learning English from communicating on the web. And children are learning English from playing videogames i.e. as a byproduct of something they actually enjoy (I witness it happening!)
John Holt: “I suspect that many children would learn arithmetic, and learn it better, if it were illegal.”
This is true. However, a lot of people will take away the message 'stay off adderall' whereas
(1) some people apparently benefit from it,
(2) some people whom doctors wouldn't prescribe to may benefit (e.g. the mathematician Paul Erdös took ritalin, a similar drug),
(3) all people who abuse drugs do so because of personality problems -- thus if she hadn't taken adderall then she may well have gotten into some other drug or obsession leading to some other addiction or disorder
She isn't saying that people should stay off adderall, she is saying that people should be careful and not think of it as something totally harmless and risk-free. Obviously adderall can be very useful both on- and off-label, but that doesn't mean it can't be harmful too.
And saying that "all people who abuse drugs do so because of personality problems" is obviously quite ignorant. Genetical factors are often important of course, no doubt about it, but to suggest that everyone physically addicted to really addictive substances do it purely because of personality problems, and not the addictiveness of the drugs, is really strange.
You seem to think that being addicted is a simple choice. That might be true for psychological addictions (although I doubt it), but it is certainly not true for physical addictions.
>She isn't saying that people should stay off adderall
Indeed.
>And saying that "all people who abuse drugs do so because of personality problems" is obviously quite ignorant
Nah. The truth in this whole drugs business is far from obvious. Check out Gabor Maté on youtube, he has some interesting things to say. Apart from that, perhaps when we have a theory of consciousness we will be able to re-frame mental disorders as disorders of consciousness.
Meanwhile 'addiction' and 'abuse' are problems -- are you saying they're not to do with personality? Some people do talk about genes in this context, but they have no explanatory theory connecting genes to specific mental traits, so I think they're mistaken. And, if they did, those genes would then be part of the personality
>You seem to think that being addicted is a simple choice
No, I think addictions are a form of unconscious behaviour, so not a matter of choice, although the cure might entail making a choice
An enormous and sophisticated 'tool chain'. Surely it could never be implemented in a one-day-to-be-invented universal fabricator? One is reminded of those 19th C ppl who thought recorded music was impossible since any player would have to contain miniature versions of all the orchestral instruments (or things that resembled them: "humanity's choir") together with a horrendously large paper roll punched full of holes
This suggests to me that a sensible business model would be for the man to pay to have his profile pitched to a given woman. This would reflect the IRL risk of asking for a date.
Not necessarily. I think there's a better solution for that. You just have to consider what it's like to be the typical woman on a dating website and try to mitigate the problem.
So... my take on this:
How about a group dating website? When you and friends get a date, there's a notification prompting you to set a group date.
I think women would be far more likely to meet strangers if they can bring friends along. As a bonus, you'd see what he's like around his friends. And if it turns out he's not exactly your type, maybe one of his friends seems a better fit.
Because she can bring her friends along, she'd be much less hesitant to initiate contact with a stranger and much more likely to meet in person.
And because she won't go alone, she doesn't have to worry that others will think of her as a slut when they see her meeting a lot of men. It will look to others as just a bunch of friends hanging out.
She'll probably still get a ton of messages in her mailbox, but this wouldn't be much of an issue anymore since she's more likely to initiate contact with who she wants.
Would be lots more fun than a plain old date too :)
What do you think? Seems like a win-win to both men and women, regardless of sexual orientation!
Honestly, I can see this making women initiate contact even more than I initially thought when you consider that if a friend got a date, WHOA!, now she wants to find a date too so she can go with her friend!
And I can definitely see girlfriends bugging each other to find a date so they don't have to go alone.
Start-up idea, anyone? Do I get a free membership?
That sounds to me like a great idea and an effective way of managing risk. I notice that online speed dating services are available also, which might work as a way of reducing risk further
As well as being thought of as a slut if she's seen meeting a lot guys (whether concurrently or in a row), like she would need to do to screen who's dating material and who's not.
I don't think people appreciate how intractable a problem bullying is. For instance, bullying is qualitatively indistinguishable from teasing, which is regarded by most as part of normal, healthy socialisation. Hence low-level bullying goes unperceived. OTOH intense bullying is an embarrassment to the school statistics and hence frequently denied or covered up.
We live in a society where people still put a tremendous amount of effort into being normal and liked, and as a corollary we tend to persecute those who don't do this. Bullies are our unappointed henchmen.
I agree that people usually misinterpret their experiences where psychedelics and religion are concerned. However it's worth noting that in striving to create and discover interesting things one becomes vulnerable to all manner of possible obsessions and addictions -- most call it going 'crazy' (e.g. Beethoven, van Gogh, Tesla, Michelangelo, Schumann, John Nash and presumably many who ceased to function altogether in their pursuits)
It seems that psychedelic drugs have helped some people historically in locating an internal pointer or state which, if remembered, prevents this from happening. One wonders, for example, if the Beatles or Steve Jobs, notwithstanding their hard work, could ever have become what they did if they hadn't also taken LSD at some point.
One wonders, for example, if the Beatles or Steve Jobs, notwithstanding their hard work, could ever have become what they did if they hadn't also taken LSD at some point.
Honestly? I think that people who start using these drugs end up giving them too much credit. At some point, they start attributing all interesting or creative thoughts they have to the use of drugs when, while the drug experiences played a role, they weren't as primary as the person (due to the tendency to overvalue intense experiences in explaining personal traits) thinks.
"At some point, they start attributing all interesting or creative thoughts they have to the use of drugs".
i have never met anyone like this. i've also never heard of someone taking it to this extreme. i'm inclined to call it a straw man.
what Steve Jobs for instance, actually said, is that LSD is "one of the two or three most important things [he had] done in [his] life".
rather than responding to a generalized anecdotal scenario, it might suit your response better to respond to Steve's quote directly.
the question is, "could Steve Jobs have become Steve Jobs without LSD?"
now, i don't think Steve's quote is enough information for us to answer conclusively. i'm sure Steve himself doesn't even know. but when you compare Steve's feelings to the question your parent prompted, "Honestly?" seems like an awfully short sighted response.
Btw, "Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy wealthy and wise" now has a citation:
http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2013/02/circadian-clock-obesity/