Books and pseudo intellectualism |
|
|
There are books, and there are books. Not all books are created equally. Just because you read doesn't make you a smart person. Some books misinform rather than inform. Some people cannot tell the difference. You have heard the phrase "it must be true, I read it on the internet", the same can be applied to books.
Pseudo intellectualism has consequences; a person can modify their world view because of a book. They can also use books to justtify beliefs like racism if for example they read books by Ann Coulter. A danger is publishing a book gives creditability to people that may not warrant it. There is no fact verification with books; anybody can publish anything. In addition conservatives regularly buy their own books in order to get on the best seller list, this adds an extra layer of artificial creditability to the author.
Some books are deceptive for example The Secret. The author uses psychological tricks to make readers believe things that are nonsense. You can't attract a red car just by thinking of one, you are simply more likely to notice a red car if you go out looking for one. It is the same thing with visualization. People who visualize what they want to do are just more likely to be motivated to achieve their goals, it has nothing to do with a non-existant law attraction.
Another example are books about conspiracy theories, just because there are books that claim 9/11 was an inside job doesn't make it true. There is a confirmation bias here. People that seek out books on topics such as conspiracy theories and new age religions are more likely to believe them and their beliefs strengthen because of them. Reading both negative and positive reviews could be a good way to assess which books are worthwhile.
Of course this does not mean that I think that all reading is bad but readers must be careful about what they absurb. I don't personally read books very often but I have been planning to get back into audio books. Reading books can be benefitical but there is no reason to stress if you don't. Some intelligent people don't read books and some not so bright people are book readers. |
|
|
|
|
The relationship between weight and psychology |
|
|
Many people assume weight issues are to do with what you eat or how much you exercise. I have come to the conclusion that psychology plays an additional role and perhaps this is more important than the two other factors. However this directly ties into eating habits; psychology and eating are closely linked.
First there are "clean your plate" types who are anxious about wasting anything. Some of these people associate food with money. They also install such attitudes in their children. My advice is don't worry about wasting food. If people have had enough; they had had enough. Making them feel bad for not eating is not the best approach in my opinion. Perhaps serving smaller portions is a better solution.
The other type of psychological trait is eating because you are bored. This is self explanatory. Some people confuse "I'm hungry" with "I'm bored". The best advice I can give is just stick to two or three meals a day and find a distraction at times that you usually snack.
There is also the glorification of food; this starts at an early age with McDonalds marketing happy meals. I'm not sure that this type of advertising is helpful to society. There is also chocolates and other treats that are marketed heavily. Like my sport post; I am under no illusions that society will change, life is best explained though.
In many cases dieting only works short term. If you don't solve the psychological behaviours that lead to over eating the diets would not be as effective.
Additionally a big factor is food addiction. Some food and drinks have substances in it to make people addicted. For example Coke has caffeine. So cutting out such substances will do a lot to help you if limiting weight is a priority.
There are economic issues; many people don't have time to cook a home cook meal or are too tired at the end of the day so they get fast food. With other people it is genetics and there's not a lot they can do; although following the tips above could limit the effects of genetics. It is important not to judge people on weight, however there is no harm in giving people information either. |
|
|
|
|
Sport and brain damage |
|
|
Many people love rugby and football, I am not one of them. I won't go into further details about my personal dislike for the sport, or sport in general. I want to discuss the effect on the brain.
Sporting bodies have been successful in covering evidence up for decades. The evidence that I am talking about is the fact rugby/football causes brain damage. They studied 94 players, 90 came back with chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE. There were issues with the study like self selection, but that is still not good. Exposing people to concussions early is simply not healthy. This may be a deeply unpopular view in New Zealand which is the place that I live but facts are facts. If playing rugby leads to thinking and behavioral problems in my opinion it should be avoided.
If I had a child there is no way I would let them play rugby, I would probably encourage them to play chess as I did. I hope that I never have to raise kids myself and I am not here to judge people. An argument is rugby is enjoyable and worth it. I could not disagree more; you can do amazing things with your mind. Sacrificing it in the name of sport is not worth it in my opinion. CTE has been linked to depression, no sport is worth getting depression later on in life. Of course this is just my opinion but if there's a way to lessen the chances of depression, that would be the preferable path to take. CTE is also linked to memory loss and dimentia, again it is worthwhile to lessen such risks of these things. It is also well established that professional football/rugby players die earlier than the regular population. My position is society should be educated on such risks so they can make an informed decision and assess if the consequences are worth it to them.
I have had quite a few knocks to the head in my early age though much less than rugby players. If the information had been out there I would be fine with my parents telling me to stop playing such games on reflection. To be clear I have no reason to suspect that I have CTE. I can't imagine myself playing rugby if I was able bodied, I am grateful I was never given the chance.
In places like New Zealand rugby is encoded in our culture and I am not going to stop people playing rugby. However it would be helpful if society embraces another type of sport that involves much fewer concussions. Soccer would be a worthwhile substitute. I am under no illusions this will happen, but this serves as a possible solution to the issue of CTE. |
|
|
|
|
The myth of over population |
|
|
A common myth is the world is over populated. In my opinion this is not true. It's easy to say the world is over populated. It's not easy to come up with solutions to feed billions of people. We don't have a population problem. The two problems we have are the lack of sustainable living practices which include a lack of technology, and inequality.
Five people own the same amount of wealth as half the population; is the problem population or inequality? I see no reason why all people can't be fed; we don't use all of land on earth and can use this for food production with the most sustainable farming practices. The same for generating energy. Renewable energy is more sustainable. We also need to put research dollars into these things.
Many people in the world are suffering from the effects of capitalism, but also from the effects of having a corrupt government that act like dictators and do not give the people the necessary resources to survive. This includes countries such as North Korea, some of Africa and some would argue that neoliberal governments would fall into this category. Starvation is not primarily caused by the inability to grow food, it is caused by a minority of people and governments. The world could solve hunger if countries work together; they just don't want to because they favour a more market based approach.
Some argue that if we empower all 7 billion people we would run into a shortage of resources. I think that it would just give us us a chance to solve new problems. Yes humanity have sustainability problems when it comes to farming etc. However we can research and implement better practices so the things that we do are more sustainable. Empowering all people would seriously strain the earth's resources with the technologies people currently rely on. Therefore it is essential to implement more sustainable technology and sustainable ways of living when we talk about solving poverty.
You can't change earth's population; you can push for solutions to make life better for people and to increase sustainability. |
|
|
|
|
Intellectually superiority from the left |
|
|
I notice the left calls people stupid very often, especially with YouTube shows like The Ring Of Fire or The Young Turks. My personal news blog is guilty of this, but it's meant party for comedic purposes. I have realized that it is not the best way to reach people.
This started to happen after the 2014 election in New Zealand; I saw an avalanche of insults. Insulting people for not voting or voting a certain way is not helpful. You don't reach people by calling them stupid. The left has facts on their side, would it be more beneficial to just explain the facts rather than call people dumb.
The left accuses the mainstream media of sensationalizng things and covering garbage. However the left needs to examine how it covers things too. They're also catering to an audience, and this could be creating an echo chamber effect. It's worthwhile to try and reach the other side; you could have more affect this way.
You are what you watch; if your daily news source repeatedly calls people stupid, you are more likely to do the same when debating issues. I know that I have done this and had to apologize. The way you cover the news affects the people watching; beyond the information you give them.
Progressive shows should consider doing away with insults; they're not helpful. |
|
|
|
|
How biases effect humanity |
|
|
Humans come with biases. Biases are "programmed" into humans from an early age. For example kids that grow up in a Christian household are more likely to believe in God. They are a predisposition to viewing the world in a certain way.
Another example are politics. Families that inherited fortunes are more likely to think that they did it all themselves and therefore be more conservative. If you spend all your working life at a 9-5 job you are probably more likely to value workers and unions and therefore be a lefty. This can be reinforced but by tribalism and group think. Ideas become confused with identities such as an identity of a family or political party. Many people are unable to escape this tribalism even when presented with facts to refute what they believe.
Humanity, if you think about it is just groups of people believing different sets of ideas. Some believe in facts and evidence, some believe in "alternative facts" or more accurately fictional things based in ideology.
Another way humans get their biases is through social conditioning. Obviously different have different laws and what is acceptable to one may not be acceptable to another. Example in many (but not all) Muslim countries homosexuality is illegal, and that used to be the case in Westen countries four decades ago. Many Western countries ruin people's life over what they put in their own bodies even if such substances have medical purposes. Countries largely value people according to a currency system man invented. Currencies don't naturally occur in nature. That invented system largely dictates who gets resources that may or may not naturally occur.
Biases can be damaging to humanity, climate change is an outstanding example of this. There is also poverty caused by faulty economic logic and countless other policies not based on evidence. The political process is inherently flawed; it allows people to take control of countries that frequently disregard evidence. Perhaps this is the route of of all problems worldwide.
Biases can stifle scientific progress. For example the Bush Administration were against stem cell research which can lead to medical cures. Man-invented capitalism can also prevent funds going towards research. I would also argue the base of researchers is starved due to people needing other types of jobs to survive. If people were freer there would probably be more researchers.
Personally I'm becoming less and less interested in personal takes on a issue. I just want to look at facts and data. People's perspectives could can serve a purpose if you want to understand how a person got to X conclusion. This also doesn't mean I am not interested in how issues affect people directly, just that I am not interested in whether you believe trickle down economics works; I would rather observe the data. However for societies to become free they need to disregard the irrational ideologies and focus on facts, data and evidence. |
|
|
|
|
Politics and psychology |
|
|
Welcome to Thane's Brain, my psychology and technology blog.
One thing that has interest me in the past year or two is emotional attachments and its role in politics. Politics would work better if people thought about it logically however most people don't do this and tend to vote for the same parties due to tribalism. Many people associate their political party with their family or religious/core values. I am sure this happens when they don't even realize this. This also leads to an "us against them" mentality.
People emotionally attached are more likely to outright reject information. To some you are not attacking policy but their core identity. They can't even tolerate conflicting information and even shut out people with conflicting opinions. This only creates a bubble/echo chamber especially if other people in their circle are saying the same thing. Additionally if you're emotional about an issue for example sexism you may be more likely to blame it for problems without considering the other factors. Ironically I once brought up emotional attachments in a political conversation and I was accused of being sexist.
There is also emotional hatred, this is pretty similar to above. Such an emotion can be driven by fear and a lack of knowledge about the issues. Three good examples are Hillary Clinton, Islam and socialism. In the case of socialism there are some people that hate the word but like the idea of free health care and education. Emotional hatred also prevents people from making sense of rational criticisms of the subject and are more likely to go download the internet conspiracy rabbit hole for example; Hillary Clinton is an excellent example of a topic that could lead to such a behaviour. Some people also hate politics all together and are more likely not to vote.
Additionally today's celebrity culture makes it easier for people to form emotional attachments over political figures like the Clintons or John Key in New Zealand. This only strengthens the wall of defense, or the hate. I would say Donald Trump could be the ultimate example of this.
Politics, religion, love and drugs can also have the same type of chemical reaction in the brain. Of course this isn't true for all people such as swing voters, and of course not everyone that reliably votes for one side is emotionally attached. You could make a case that political parties are not the most effective way of doing things because of things like tribalism. I can't see them going away any time soon though.
The point of this blog entry is pointing out how emotional attachments affects politics ; it's normal behaviour and we need to acknowledge this. |
|
|
|
|