101–110 of 291 posts
I struggle often with this somewhat arbitrary desire for everything to be data-driven and backed by science. People hope, pray, follow best practices, listen to advice on the internet and yet, every now and then we are reminded that only fools do these things. Really intelligent people only listen to science and do things backed by science and lots of data. How does anyone accomplish anything if every step they take…
This isn't surprising.
Scandinavian society gives a lot of airtime to "radical" intellectuals talking bullshit about things outside their field of expertise. Bjørn Lomborg was a hipster economist who denied man-made climate change and had an embarrassing amount of clout in Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
I say this because one of the biggest problems of every single group or organization that I've seen built around progressive/left/liberal ideas is the tendency to believe in the "everyone has a right to be heard/speak" which leads to everything being dominated by the loudest individuals who are almost always full of BS.
Honestly, I've identified this tendency as the #1 reason why such groups do so poorly in politics, except in situations where the values are just a PR front for a more traditional power structure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mindfulness and meditation especially, /are/ supported by scientific findings. I don't know about yoga, but it's basically stretching and that's generally good for you.
Sure I didn’t mean to imply that those fields in particular are all bogus, but rather that every new book on the subject has to bring a new angle and also often plays a bit fast and loose with scientific rigor. You’ll see books on why you should do yoga while juggling eggplants or mindfulness through playing quake and it might be some times a bit semi-scientific.
I struggle often with this somewhat arbitrary desire for everything to be data-driven and backed by science. People hope, pray, follow best practices, listen to advice on the internet and yet, every now and then we are reminded that only fools do these things. Really intelligent people only listen to science and do things backed by science and lots of data. How does anyone accomplish anything if every step they take…
So whether it is hard science or ghosts and Grandma’s noodle soup, it is always a belief at the core. One of those is a more detailed model and quite useful at making some predictions, that’s all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mindfulness and meditation especially, /are/ supported by scientific findings. I don't know about yoga, but it's basically stretching and that's generally good for you.
So is taking a short nap in the afternoon. Pretty much these are all the same things. Some just get branded and packaged as a thing for consumers to make into a “lifestyle”.
They do get packaged into a lifestyle, but they also predate consumerism by thousands of years.
The interesting question here perhaps isn’t so much whether knowing if you are a particular color or 4-letter Myers-Briggs combination helps you or whether there is a solid foundation to the categorization at all. What’s interesting here is rather: what happens when you think of everyone as a pigeonholed category. Intuitively it seems it should be mostly negative especially if the categories don’t even offer any beha…
i'm not sure being into astrology makes people more empathetic
It just makes people excuse/explain away their and other peoples behaviour, instead of trying to work on themself, their relationships, interactions and/or environment.
The interesting question here perhaps isn’t so much whether knowing if you are a particular color or 4-letter Myers-Briggs combination helps you or whether there is a solid foundation to the categorization at all. What’s interesting here is rather: what happens when you think of everyone as a pigeonholed category. Intuitively it seems it should be mostly negative especially if the categories don’t even offer any beha…
i'm not sure being into astrology makes people more empathetic
I'm not sure which this article claims to be the bluff: the author or the DiSC assessment? ... It seems to be attacking both.