Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Schools in England Introduce a New Subject: Mindfulness

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: Schools in England Introduce a New Subject: Mindfulness

#131

Post by mayniac »

samdoidge wrote: post #104
faceplanted wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12 Rules for life is a complete mess of strangely used bible quotes, misattributed and misquoted philosophers, at one point blatant rape apology, and an obvious lack of empathy from the author throughout. But one thing is does do well that I wish people would focus on over the obvious shortcomings of the author and why nothing has really replaced it yet is that it tells you in no uncertain terms that if you want to g…

> 12 Rules for life is a complete mess of strangely used bible quotes, misattributed and misquoted philosophers Can you be more specific with the misquoted and misattributed philosophers?

Not specific to philosophers, but Contrapoints has a good breakdown of why the term "postmodern neo-marxists", which JBP uses a number of times throughout the book, shows a complete misunderstanding of modern philosophy. [1]

Not related to 12 rules, but Cuck Philosophy goes into JBP's lectures where he references postmodernism and again appears to completely misunderstand the fundamentals. [2]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas (probably NSFW)

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms

Re: Schools in England Introduce a New Subject: Mindfulness

#132

Post by jules-jules »

sridca wrote: post #117
weavie wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will be asking her what they are teaching her over the week. I am struggling to find any coherent solid information about what the EAT-Lancet diet actually is, or why it is bad. It looks like a load of politically motivated mumbo jumbo! Would you be able to summarise?

It is a vegan-inspired/ anti-meat diet (similar to Canada's New Food Guide), backed by the processed food industry, but with plenty of issues which are neatly summarized by Georgia Ede here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/20190...

From the linked article:

"2. Red meat causes heart disease, diabetes, cancer... and spontaneous combustion

The section of the report dedicated to protein blames red meat for heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, obesity, cancer, and early death. It contains 16 references, and every single one is an epidemiological study. The World Health Organization report tying red meat to colon cancer was also mentioned, and that report is almost entirely based on epidemiology as well. [Read my full analysis of the WHO report here.] The truth is that there is no human clinical trial evidence tying red meat to any health problem. I certainly haven’t found any — and if there were, I think this Commission surely would have mentioned it."

Are we supposed to take this seriously?

Re: Schools in England Introduce a New Subject: Mindfulness

#133

Post by sridca »

jules-jules wrote: post #132
sridca wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a vegan-inspired/ anti-meat diet (similar to Canada's New Food Guide), backed by the processed food industry, but with plenty of issues which are neatly summarized by Georgia Ede here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/20190...

From the linked article: "2. Red meat causes heart disease, diabetes, cancer... and spontaneous combustion The section of the report dedicated to protein blames red meat for heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, obesity, cancer, and early death. It contains 16 references, and every single one is an epidemiological study. The World Health Organization report tying red meat to colon cancer was also mentioned, and tha…

Do you have anything valuable to say in response to that?

Re: Schools in England Introduce a New Subject: Mindfulness

#134

Post by jules-jules »

sridca wrote: post #133
jules-jules wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the linked article: "2. Red meat causes heart disease, diabetes, cancer... and spontaneous combustion The section of the report dedicated to protein blames red meat for heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, obesity, cancer, and early death. It contains 16 references, and every single one is an epidemiological study. The World Health Organization report tying red meat to colon cancer was also mentioned, and tha…

Do you have anything valuable to say in response to that?

Sorry, but this article is junk science, at best.

Who is this curious voice in the field of nutritional science that singlehandedly dismisses decades of epidemiological science on nutrition and diet putting her at odds with virtually the entire scientific field, such as Harvard, (e.g., Framingham Study, Harvard Nurses study and the L-Carnitine Study), Oxford (dozens of longitudinal studies, such as the Epic Oxford Study led by Professor Tim Keys) as well as the World Health Organization, the United Nations Environmental Program, Lancet of course and many, many others.

”I became interested in nutrition after discovering a new way of eating that completely reversed a number of perplexing health problems I had developed in my early 40′s, including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, and IBS. This experience led me on a quest to understand why the unorthodox diet that restored my own health is so different from the low-fat, high-fiber, plant-based diet we are taught is healthy. It turns out that nutrition is not rocket science; if you understand how food works, it all makes sense.”

From the author's biography. Sounds solid.

Re: Schools in England Introduce a New Subject: Mindfulness

#135

Post by sridca »

jules-jules wrote: post #134
sridca wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have anything valuable to say in response to that?

Sorry, but this article is junk science, at best. Who is this curious voice in the field of nutritional science that singlehandedly dismisses decades of epidemiological science on nutrition and diet putting her at odds with virtually the entire scientific field, such as Harvard, (e.g., Framingham Study, Harvard Nurses study and the L-Carnitine Study), Oxford (dozens of longitudinal studies, such as the Epic Oxford St…

> Sorry, but this article is junk science, at best.

Au contraire it exposes the junk sciences (including epidemiology to establish causation) used by EAT-Lancet to further their agenda.

> Who is this curious voice [...] From the author's biography. Sounds solid.

Instead of fervently trying to discredit the author, and then proceed to name-drop to buttress your borrowed beliefs, try to focus on what she actually says.

> epidemiological science [...] virtually the entire scientific field [... name-dropping snipped ...]

Nutrition epidemiology studies are not scientific experiments; they are wildly inaccurate, questionnaire-based guesses (hypotheses) about the possible connections between foods and diseases. This approach has been widely criticized as scientifically invalid [see here(1) and here(2)], yet continues to be used by influential researchers at prestigious institutions.

Even if you think epidemiological methods are sound, at best they can only generate hypotheses that then need to be tested in clinical trials. Instead, these hypotheses are often prematurely trumpeted to the public as implicit fact in the form of media headlines, dietary guidelines, and well-placed commission reports like this one.

Tragically, more than 80%(3) of these guesses are later proved wrong in clinical trials. With a failure rate this high, nutrition epidemiologists would be better off flipping a coin to decide which foods cause human disease.

(1) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2018.00105... (2) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698337 (3) https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-...

Re: Schools in England Introduce a New Subject: Mindfulness

#136

Post by therein »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #122
carlsborg wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a bad thing? If they can evaluate their thought process at such a young age, I would think that's a win.

Are they evaluating their thought processes, or are they parroting what they were taught while still being, you know, five years old?

I would be more worried if they begin absolving themselves of guilt due to this when they do something genuinely harmful to someone else out of childish behavior.

Re: Schools in England Introduce a New Subject: Mindfulness

#137

Post by austincheney »

icebraining wrote: post #129
austincheney wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a dreadful experience that will empower you in ways others can never understand or appreciate. I have tried to explain living like this to my kids in the past and they just look at me like I am stupid.

No, it won't. It screwed me up in ways I still haven't fully grasped, and has long term negative consequences in my life. And I certainly wished I had been more mentally prepared to handle its impact. Which is why is fucking bothers me that you dismiss life for kids in the developed world as an "absence of real problems". Just because we're not scavenging for food, doesn't mean we don't have real problems. Sure, than…

> And I certainly wished I had been more mentally prepared to handle its impact.

People are never properly prepared for tragedy. That is the difference between trauma and sadness. No less, these things happen. Trauma lives in the past. When you reflect on these past experiences they can define you or become you. That is the difficult choice you must confront when dwelling on these memories. With effort you can choose to let the pain of past memories go, if willing. The acceptance of such choices is the nature of perseverance.

Re: Schools in England Introduce a New Subject: Mindfulness

#138

Post by [deleted] »

austincheney wrote: post #137
icebraining wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it won't. It screwed me up in ways I still haven't fully grasped, and has long term negative consequences in my life. And I certainly wished I had been more mentally prepared to handle its impact. Which is why is fucking bothers me that you dismiss life for kids in the developed world as an "absence of real problems". Just because we're not scavenging for food, doesn't mean we don't have real problems. Sure, than…

> And I certainly wished I had been more mentally prepared to handle its impact. People are never properly prepared for tragedy. That is the difference between trauma and sadness. No less, these things happen. Trauma lives in the past. When you reflect on these past experiences they can define you or become you. That is the difficult choice you must confront when dwelling on these memories. With effort you can choose…

[deleted]

Re: Schools in England Introduce a New Subject: Mindfulness

#139

Post by superqwert »

anextomp wrote: post #72
bencollier49 wrote: post #33

My five year-old son now talks about his mind in the third person as a result of this. I'm having to retrain him with responsibility for his own actions. Lovely idea and all but having untrained people teaching psychological practices to reception-grade children seems rather foolhardy to me.

That seems like a fairly healthy thing to learn, no? Sometimes we need to acknowledge that our brain can cause us to do things we don't want to, and not beat ourselves up for it. Obviously that can go too far, and you need to anticipate the consequences of your actions, owning your conscious decisions.

What does this mean: "Sometimes we need to acknowledge that our brain can cause us to do things we don't want to"?

Surely you mean "sometimes we do things we don't want to be doing"? Blaming it on your mind is rather strange. Your mind is part of you.

Re: Schools in England Introduce a New Subject: Mindfulness

#140

Post by bencollier49 »

asimovfan wrote: post #86
bencollier49 wrote: post #33

My five year-old son now talks about his mind in the third person as a result of this. I'm having to retrain him with responsibility for his own actions. Lovely idea and all but having untrained people teaching psychological practices to reception-grade children seems rather foolhardy to me.

That's because you also talk about your mind in the third person and not aware of it. You are consistently talking to yourself in your mind throughout the entire day. (Try to stop it if you don't believe this is true and exactly this is what you are trying to stop with mindfulness) Your child clearly understands the situation better. I recommend you take up mindfulness meditation as well.

My issue isn't with teaching mindfulness, it's with unqualified people teaching mindfulness badly to five year old children.
Post reply on HN