>This may be one reason why legal systems have historically been rather forgiving of men who go on rampages after too much wifely nagging or losing their jobs.
Since when? Please show me an example of this..
Misleading metaphors
21–30 of 65 posts
Re: Misleading metaphors
#22Are misleading metaphors the issue, or is it just that lots of the stories we tell are misleading? Strange article, it seems to negate itself at the end by pointing out that "declaring war" on things that aren't war is never true and only sometimes helpful. > “Calories in, calories out” is more than a banal restatement of the Law of Conservation of Energy: it is a metaphor casting the metabolism as akin to a current…
Calories in/out is true. As in it is an accurate statement. The problem is that common examinations of diet focus on this math rather than what motivates humans to eat. It is like saying 'the problem with traffic is too many cars.' It is an axiom that does nothing to examine the causes. Admonishing everyone to 'drive less' will do very little unless several other systems are changed.
I like to say that "calories in/out is true" in the same way that "abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control" is true: it's an obviously true statement that, in practice, is useless at best and dangerously counterproductive at worst.
Re: Misleading metaphors
#23Are misleading metaphors the issue, or is it just that lots of the stories we tell are misleading? Strange article, it seems to negate itself at the end by pointing out that "declaring war" on things that aren't war is never true and only sometimes helpful. > “Calories in, calories out” is more than a banal restatement of the Law of Conservation of Energy: it is a metaphor casting the metabolism as akin to a current…
...We are hard-wired physiologically to crave food...
You just invoked the misleading "brain as a computer" metaphor. I know, it wasn't intentional, and you probably didn't mean it in the way most people would understand the term, but do give the article the benefit of the doubt that these concepts are such commonplaces in our spoken language that they can affect our thinking if we're not careful.
Re: Misleading metaphors
#24Are misleading metaphors the issue, or is it just that lots of the stories we tell are misleading? Strange article, it seems to negate itself at the end by pointing out that "declaring war" on things that aren't war is never true and only sometimes helpful. > “Calories in, calories out” is more than a banal restatement of the Law of Conservation of Energy: it is a metaphor casting the metabolism as akin to a current…
Diet discussion circles around an issue that can't be said aloud: People have varying different amounts of self-control and self-control varies situationally. Fat itself is hormonally active tissue that can affect self-control. Most people are able to lose their weight fast once they get motivated and are in a place where they can form a good habit. Habit forming requires so staying power and ability to live in some…
I agree so much, nicely said. I even think it's more difficult than just self control, which I alluded to a little bit. Our bodies subconsciously treat the threat of not having enough food as a life or death situation. Once I became aware of it I noticed myself doing it all the time. I can't go on a short hike without packing more food than I need. No trips with family & friends ever run short on food, we always pack too much. I'm sure this used to be a real problem in past history, I'm certain we have evolved this way for a reason, but now we always have enough food. I like to think about it this way, anyway, in part because it explains why self control is so extremely difficult without the judgement. Lack of self control over food really isn't an individual weakness, it is an evolutionary advantage that we all share.
Re: Misleading metaphors
#25Are misleading metaphors the issue, or is it just that lots of the stories we tell are misleading? Strange article, it seems to negate itself at the end by pointing out that "declaring war" on things that aren't war is never true and only sometimes helpful. > “Calories in, calories out” is more than a banal restatement of the Law of Conservation of Energy: it is a metaphor casting the metabolism as akin to a current…
...We are hard-wired physiologically to crave food... You just invoked the misleading "brain as a computer" metaphor. I know, it wasn't intentional, and you probably didn't mean it in the way most people would understand the term, but do give the article the benefit of the doubt that these concepts are such commonplaces in our spoken language that they can affect our thinking if we're not careful.
Interesting point, you're right that hard-wired can be seen as a metaphor, but I'm curious why you think it's misleading. I was referring to our evolved state, and my belief that our evolved state has mechanisms that fear not having enough food. If there's a problem with what I said, it's not the metaphor, it's what I believe. I can use biology terms instead of electrical terms, but I'd be saying the same thing. We are, in fact, evolved to crave sex and food. I don't think any biologist or anthropologist would disagree with that. Do you think using the term "hard-wired" instead of "evolved" is misleading?
Re: Misleading metaphors
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calories in/out is true. As in it is an accurate statement. The problem is that common examinations of diet focus on this math rather than what motivates humans to eat. It is like saying 'the problem with traffic is too many cars.' It is an axiom that does nothing to examine the causes. Admonishing everyone to 'drive less' will do very little unless several other systems are changed.
I like to say that "calories in/out is true" in the same way that "abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control" is true: it's an obviously true statement that, in practice, is useless at best and dangerously counterproductive at worst.
[deleted]
Re: Misleading metaphors
#27Are misleading metaphors the issue, or is it just that lots of the stories we tell are misleading? Strange article, it seems to negate itself at the end by pointing out that "declaring war" on things that aren't war is never true and only sometimes helpful. > “Calories in, calories out” is more than a banal restatement of the Law of Conservation of Energy: it is a metaphor casting the metabolism as akin to a current…
I'm pretty sure this was their point, that stating it as simply "calories in calories out" makes it sound a lot easier than it actually is in practice.
I could buy that, except that the clear implication was that diets don't work because of the language. The article plainly blamed the use of the phrase "calories in, calories out" as a major factor in why diets don't work. That's just not true, the caloric equation isn't why diets don't work, the caloric equation is precisely why diets do work. The phrase also is not the reason that people don't stick to diets either. Sticking to a reduced calorie diet is fighting our instincts and our habits and behaviors and social circles, not our language.
Re: Misleading metaphors
#28Are misleading metaphors the issue, or is it just that lots of the stories we tell are misleading? Strange article, it seems to negate itself at the end by pointing out that "declaring war" on things that aren't war is never true and only sometimes helpful. > “Calories in, calories out” is more than a banal restatement of the Law of Conservation of Energy: it is a metaphor casting the metabolism as akin to a current…
Calories in/out is true. As in it is an accurate statement. The problem is that common examinations of diet focus on this math rather than what motivates humans to eat. It is like saying 'the problem with traffic is too many cars.' It is an axiom that does nothing to examine the causes. Admonishing everyone to 'drive less' will do very little unless several other systems are changed.
The "calories in/out" line also ignores that the "calories out" part varies extremely. For example, my mother has two bum knees from a lifetime of sports activity that now prevent her from engaging in most strenuous activity, and an under-active thyroid. She's also post-menopausal, so her overall metabolism is super low. She literally cannot lose weight on anything more than 1500 calories per day.
"It's just a matter of willpower"--as one of my sibling commentors so thickly puts it--is theoretically true, it's just that a lot more willpower is required out of some people than others.
Re: Misleading metaphors
#29FrameWorks Institute is an interesting nonprofit organization — they "empirically identify the most effective ways of reframing social and scientific topics." In other words, replace the misleading metaphors with better ones.
http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/mission.html
For a practical intro, see "How to build a metaphor to change people's minds"
https://aeon.co/essays/how-to-build-a-metaphor-to-change-peo...
Re: Misleading metaphors
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calories in/out is true. As in it is an accurate statement. The problem is that common examinations of diet focus on this math rather than what motivates humans to eat. It is like saying 'the problem with traffic is too many cars.' It is an axiom that does nothing to examine the causes. Admonishing everyone to 'drive less' will do very little unless several other systems are changed.
The "calories in/out" line also ignores that the "calories out" part varies extremely . For example, my mother has two bum knees from a lifetime of sports activity that now prevent her from engaging in most strenuous activity, and an under-active thyroid. She's also post-menopausal, so her overall metabolism is super low. She literally cannot lose weight on anything more than 1500 calories per day. "It's just a matte…
I agree, reducing it to "willpower" is roughly the same thing as reducing it to "calories in, calories out". Neither one actually helps you achieve it. And saying it's only "willpower" and nothing more is possibly more misleading, and more shaming than the caloric equation.
I found out personally that focusing on willpower doesn't work very well, thinking that way makes it easier to fail mentally. You're trying to focus everything you have on not eating food, and judging your strength by whether you succeed. It's like the psych test of trying not to think of a polar bear. (http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/unwanted-thoughts.aspx) Trying not to think about something is harder than thinking about something, and doubly harder than the habits we don't think about. Focusing on willpower is setting up such a monumental task that almost nobody can achieve, and the very few people that do have mentally trained for it.
It does take me the right mental frame of mind to stick to a reduced calorie diet, but I don't consider it willpower, it's more of a way of thinking and arranging my life so that I don't need willpower. It's almost opposite of willpower. I think about what I should do and how I should feel, instead of what I shouldn't, and I form new habits so that I don't have to think about it all the time or use the power of my will to overcome my tendencies.
I'm not sure but I feel like women generally have it harder when it comes to calorie reduction. My wife has to eat under 1500 to lose weight as well, and she's active and doesn't have bum knees or thyroid problems. Either way, that stinks for you mom. Does she regret her previous sport life at all now, or does she have fond memories?