21–30 of 108 posts
"Popularity" correlates with wealth, wealth correlates with health?
wealth correlates with health? Except it doesn't! Why? Because the hidden variable is that wealthier people tend to be older! So you can easily construct a "proof" that the wealthier you are the more likely you are to die in the next few years...
TL;DR: all you need is love.
It's true. Most of my popularity comes from outliving my enemies. But in all seriousness, I am intrigued with the idea that merely by being popular, it will affect your DNA and turn on genes that correlate good health.
Causality is likely backwards. People who are damaged by their environment or by getting unfortunate genetics end up both becoming unpopular and lowering their life expectancy. IQ is likely also correlated for the same reason to both.
It's true. Most of my popularity comes from outliving my enemies. But in all seriousness, I am intrigued with the idea that merely by being popular, it will affect your DNA and turn on genes that correlate good health.
It's true. Most of my popularity comes from outliving my enemies. But in all seriousness, I am intrigued with the idea that merely by being popular, it will affect your DNA and turn on genes that correlate good health.
Causality is likely backwards. People who are damaged by their environment or by getting unfortunate genetics end up both becoming unpopular and lowering their life expectancy. IQ is likely also correlated for the same reason to both.
A person receiving positive feedback tends to feel better, be more socially comfortable and engaging, and to receive resources that help them on their journey.
This response and that assistance actually helps them become better. Better nutrition, more attentive and patient instruction. Etc. It's not just that things are done for them; it's that the feedback loops can improve their own performance.
A person receiving negative feedback tends to feel worse, to be socially uncomfortable and isolated, and the be denied helpful resources and assistance.
The negative feedback loop can result in that person withdrawing more and more. I've been there: Most people do not want to be where they are not welcome. It is one of the worst feelings.
Negative feedback loops tend to spill over into one's physical health, and that unhealthiness furthers the rejection.
It is not just the "big things." People with a popular appearance routinely get bigger servings, more engaged and attentive care. More respect.
It's pervasive. Pay attention. You'll see it all around you, every day, everywhere.
I've been burned a few times by "attractive" people who deliberately used this to their advantage. And I've been slowly figuring out, at an emotional, "feel it" level -- as opposed to intellectual -- why some people outright pre-emptively reject attractive people.
They've learned a life lesson: Interacting with those people too often places them on the losing side. Whether they are being deliberately used by those people, or just because of the comparative way they are treated by surrounding people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That just proves that you don't care -- not that those who care are few (which is a different assertion).
Let me just remind you... since you sound like you care a lot/spend a lot of time on those services: if you're on those services you're encouraged to interact with other people who also care a lot/spend a lot of time on those services. You're self selecting for a group that re-enforces your opinion. As of 2016, only ~70 percent of adults in the US use facebook. Of those 70%, ~25% use it once a week or less. Those who…
That leaves a 75% that use it more than once a week. Let's be charitable and make it only a 25% (1/3 of them) that use it multiple times per week or daily and care about their standing there.
That's still a whooping 40-50 million people, in the US alone, and of those lots of people do care and are influenced by their social media status.
It's not like "even some adults" as if it is as rare as butterfly collectors or septagenarias that are into Eminem or something -- it's a huge social phenomenon.
A 50% of the adult population (70% * ~0.75) that use it more than once a week is already impressive. And 'adults' is the wrong metric, since it includes anyone 18-100. So "70% of adults in the US use FB" doesn't reveal the whole picture, as a lot of them are not even in the relevant demographic (e.g. people that were already 50 or so when FB hit the scene in the mid-late 2000s).