followed tags: 0
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 0
member for: 2879 days
Perhaps if you don't feel like writing an entire appraisal of the book is useful to you, you could focus instead on writing about one (or more, if you find them) really interesting concepts, events, or well-written passages.
Read this part: "With idea futures, Wegener could have opened a market for people to bet on his theory, perhaps to be judged by some official body of geologists in a century. He could have then offered to bet a token amount at, say, 1-4 odds, in effect saying there was at least at 20% chance his claim would be vindicated. His opponents would have had to either accept this estimate, and its implications about the importance of Wegener's research, or bet enough to drive the market odds down to something a little closer to "impossible". They could not suppress Wegener merely by silence or ridicule.
As Wegener increased his stake, buying more bets to move the price back up, his opponents would hopefully think just a little more carefully before betting even more to move the price back down. Others might find it in their interest to support Wegener; anyone who thought the consensus odds were wrong would expect to make money by betting, and would thereby move the consensus toward what they believe. Everyone would have a clear incentive to be careful and honest!"
Moreover, Hanson doesn't mention that anonymous bets wouldn't be possible; in fact, in the "Killer Peanut Butter" scenario, he brings it up.
Every day as I browse hubski, ycombinator, and other webpages for news, I find myself spending hours on this stuff. Sometimes it's easy to rationalize in my mind that at least I'm not playing videogames, that I am learning something. But it's still distracting and takes away from actual work time. In the end, it ()is() still an activity I do for leisure. So I installed Website Blocker for Chrome, where I specified the blocking of certain websites that I visit daily between certain hours on the weekdays, to force myself to get back to work.
Thank you for sharing.
What I wanted to accomplish by sharing this article is simply to make others more aware of how women respond to such comments. Obviously, people are nowadays more knowledgeable on differences in communication styles. However, what you mention isn't entirely relevant to the original article. The message the author is trying to convey is how people use their words, not how often. After all, "You're too sensitive, relax" is not a typical response to a woman who's talking too much (which is what you reference). This isn't an issue of sharing too much or too little, it's a matter of how people - even women - view women - which seems to be needy, irrational, emotional, and on. Yet because of these views, which people may not even know that they believe, women are often put down and, even worse, they blame themselves for it by simply attributing it to their own nature. They are effectively unable to do anything in an environment which overwhelms them with the idea that they are not in control of their own emotions. Sounds a bit like brainwashing, doesn't it?
Therefore, one solution to this problem that I see is to make people more aware of it, since then you can consciously catch yourself in the act and, hopefully, stop doing it over time. I believe that the welfare of humanity depends on the happiness people derive from creativity and their expression. If people are happy and fulfilled, they will create more and increase happiness for others in general. So, in my mind, why foster negative viewpoints and perpetuate negative stereotypes, which seem so redundant and hamper the development of humans?
The last thing I want to say is that I hope no man takes this as an attack on men. I myself have often "gaslighted" girls. Even now, I am aware that my own view is biased negatively in subtle ways towards women...which seems sad to me, considering that I am one.
"In fact, I believe that you could induce the same tumorigenic mutations in cells of two individuals, and one would grow a tumor and one would not."
What makes you state that? Have there been any studies done to point to this conclusion?
Also, your research sounds very interesting. Are you at a university, or a national lab (or elsewhere)?