81–90 of 95 posts
The good news is that learning new things makes us mentally and physically healthier. What did you learn today?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an idea that sounds good. Sounds like something people might want to be true. So any scientist should be extra careful in checking if observations sufficiently support this idea. After all, science is just a process mainly for avoiding lying to yourself about reality.
I agree 100%, but there's otherwise nothing obviously problematic with the idea itself, is there? It's just that we, humans, are flawed and biased?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree 100%, but there's otherwise nothing obviously problematic with the idea itself, is there? It's just that we, humans, are flawed and biased?
There's no observational evidence to support activity preventing atrophy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give some examples?
What sort of things do you want examples of? This approach opens you up to far more opportunities. Say you have a spare weekend and you aren't sure what to do with it, but feel like going out. You could use the opportunity to try something you wouldn't normally do: go to an event on something you know nothing about, or even on a subject you don't really like. When you're there, find people who are really into the sub…
(Were we friends years ago on MBS?)
"Many labs have observed that these critical brain regions increase in activity when people perform difficult tasks, whether the effort is physical or mental. You can therefore help keep these regions thick and healthy through vigorous exercise and bouts of strenuous mental effort." Woah woah woah there. That doesn't follow at all. Even if you buy the "exercise model" - which can't possibly be tested by observing bra…
And the article acknowledges that it might not, while discussing as yet understudied observations.
In the sentence right before your quote: "We’re still studying this question, but our best answer at the moment is: work hard at something."
While your comment is true (no established causation yet), this reminds me of the climate change debate. For the sake of argument, human carbon production may or may not contribute to global warming. For the sake of argument, global warming may or may not be happening, and may or may not be bad.
But the solution proposed to reduce global warming, "reduce pollution," is good in and of itself. We're pretty sure pollution increases disease and death. It also looks bad and smells bad. How much is too much is debatable, but minimizing it as well as we practically can is a good thing. There are no mainstream proposals, as far as I know, to entirely eliminate pollution (as close as I can come to your equating exercise with professional sports), but dodging climate change has become a way to dodge responsibility for pollution.
Thinking is good. Thinking moderately harder is probably better. Getting up and going to the bathroom is good. Walking to the store is probably better.
If I happen to retain cognitive ability in later years, from exercise and thinking, great. But regardless, I'll do it because it's already good for me in other ways.
> This means that pleasant puzzles like Sudoku are not enough to provide the benefits of superaging. Neither are the popular diversions of various “brain game” websites. You must expend enough effort that you feel some “yuck.” Do it till it hurts, and then a bit more. This sounds a lot like software development. We are constantly on the edge of frustration. Working on a complex problem can be at the same time exhaust…
So far so good! (age 59 and still cursing bad code)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is it possible to expend some yuck without thinning my hairline and makinng me look old? :)
in the same vein, could I get it done without going completely gray before 40
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sort of things do you want examples of? This approach opens you up to far more opportunities. Say you have a spare weekend and you aren't sure what to do with it, but feel like going out. You could use the opportunity to try something you wouldn't normally do: go to an event on something you know nothing about, or even on a subject you don't really like. When you're there, find people who are really into the sub…
I have rarely heard this insight and perspective put so well. I have often "felt drawn to the bad" for the experience dividends and by the same reasoning. In some ways, I have always tried to train myself to be drawn to things I do not prefer. Lowering happiness expectations is a better way to express this and gets you there quicker! I would take it further, and recommend dropping all expectations, but I suppose at t…
Yeah that's the natural extension of it, but I'm not quite at that stage yet :-) I think with Zen, Taoism, etc. it's far better to reach the same insights and realisations - have more "A-ha!" moments - than try to push yourself into things before you want to do them and understand why. Most of those traditions are just roadmaps to the territory (definitely useful, but maps all the same), but I digress.
> (Were we friends years ago on MBS?)
I doubt it. MBS isn't ringing any bells...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I've read, experienced, and observed, it would seem novelty is the crucial element in preserving and, even heightening, mental acuteness. Whether you are a programmer or a chess player; that alone might not be sufficient--you should always pursue novel activities. I tend to suggest music theory and learning to play an instrument. Programming and software development need not be complex, and indeed a lot of…
I think continuously becoming a better programmer is probably a good way to go at this. If you can sprinkle in some traveling and learning another language or to while you're at it, that would perfect. And maybe learn a musical instrument as well. That's my medium to long term plan, anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. And note the sample sizes given a sentence further down. The two best had an n of 12 and 8, respectively. That's why they said 'appears'. It's suggestive, but the amount of available, good-quality data is surprisingly small.
So you are using a paper of small sample size, which doesn't even contradict the conclusion, as your main evidence to disprove a conclusion you disagree with? That seems like a logical fallacy.
My original conclusion wasn't that it didn't work, it was that the amount of actual research done was surprisingly small, and so that we didn't actually know what was being proclaimed as a done deal.
It turns out I was wrong, and that there has been more research than I thought.