Alex_Krycek

The popular psychology book Thinking: Fast and Slow by Daniel Khaneman provides insight into why nothing ever happens with guns in America. Yes, politicians are bribed by the NRA to do nothing, but the deeper issue concerns how ordinary people think about guns. In his book, Khaneman outlines two distinct modes of thought in human beings: one is fast, impulsive and based on emotion, and the other is slow, methodical, and based on logic. As Khaneman pointed out, there is also a strong element of loss aversion at play in human psychology. We would rather not lose something valuable than gain something valuable. Thus, it is easy for NRA bought politicians to cater to people's fears of losing their freedom rather than their hope of gaining a safer society. When human beings enter the instinctual "fight or flight" mode of thinking in response to tragedies like this, system two is cut off. They cease to think logically. The do not think: "Wait a minute. If I go and buy guns then I am part of the problem. I might go crazy one day like that person did." Instead, they respond with system 1 and reach for more guns (as the Obama era gun sales boom demonstrated), responding to instincts. Fear keeps people in system 1, perpetuating the frequency of the tragedies. This increases the level of fear in society, and thus the cycle is guaranteed to continue, increasing profits for gun manufacturers all the while. In an economy with practically zero regulations on guns and a constant drive towards profits, it was inevitable that this downward spiral would manifest.

"Similar to other Italian films shot at the time, all footage was filmed silent, and the dialogue and sound effects were dubbed over in post-production.[21] For the Italian version of the film, Eastwood was dubbed by stage and screen actor Enrico Maria Salerno, whose "sinister" rendition of the Man with No Name's voice contrasted with Eastwood's cocksure and darkly humorous interpretation."

Part of the reason is group think and the primitive human urge to control the thoughts of others. This psychological insecurity manifests in practically every collective form of belief: from religion, to politics, to science, which often devolves into scientism (an ideological representation of science that is divorced from objectivity). Currently one incarnation of scientism holds that the universe is completely random, and there is no underlying creative intelligence manifesting itself (indicating a creator), a view that seems patently absurd to people objectively observing the universe. So it seems very difficult for human beings to extricate themselves from A.) conforming to a particular philosophical worldview and B.) attempting to eradicate any dissent that may arise in opposition to this worldview. Thus, while the interest in a creator may be innate in humankind, so is the fear of what a creator signifies and the response that arises from that fear (i.e. conformity and control). Inevitably the concept of a creator becomes codified into a system of control for the benefit of a few people (as has occurred in all the major religions), or, as we have seen recently in science, the notion that their is no creator (atheism) becomes codified and those who openly discuss the possibility of one are ridiculed and shouted down. So what you're encountering with Wikipedia has been going on since the dawn of time. You have to see past the narrow, prejudiced philosophies of those attempting to define the existence of a creator and find your own answers.

There's much better ways to honor the military. Give each active service member a financial bonus. Improve the VA hospitals. Stop treating veterans like absolute garbage when they return from a war. End the wars. The parade is just for Trump, for his gratification and his ego. He doesn't really care about the military. He only cares about his own self image. That's the nauseating part.

I agree. But how to break out of the cycle? The defense industry has enormous influence in Washington; they're an integral part of the US economy. Military dominance also allows the US to influence the global economy in favor of US financial interests in ways that a non-hegemonic power wouldn't be able to. But the more we keep doing what we're doing... Also, I don't know if any one president has the power to change things. Too much money, too many jobs, too little oversight. Military Economy: https://siteselection.com/issues/2012/sep/sas-military-economy.cfm Defense Lobbying: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=D A military parade in Qatar:

Anything that Trump can do to satiate his ravenous ego, he will do. Attention from others is pretty much all he cares about.

Yeah, that's easily something Trump would write. "This is an ISLAND, surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water." - Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the Unites States of America

Cute. I liked Rage too when I was 16. How does it relate to the discussion?

Did you even watch the video?

Some interesting comment by Sam Harris... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_ZSeHiix50

Few more images...

It all depends. How much is the OP using? What negative effects, if any, is he experiencing? Does he have an addictive personality that may predispose him to drink caffeine in excess? How would his life be different after trying alternatives to caffeine, whether that's abstaining from it completely, or switching to something like fresh vegetable juice? There are better options out there.

In low to moderate doses it's not an issue. But many people become dependent on caffeine to maintain their "edge", so to speak, which is where the problems begin (insomnia, anxiety, fatigue). These negative side effects of over-consumption is what the OP may have experienced and is seeking a solution for. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/caffeine-side-effects#section10 There's a time and a place to use it effectively, such as when you're already well rested and want an extra boost to be more creative. But when people are in the habit of reaching for a cup of coffee anytime they're tired, that's when it becomes an issue.

Um...yes. Yes it is: Caffeine is a central nervous system (CNS) stimulant of the methylxanthine class.[10] It is the world's most widely consumed psychoactive drug. Unlike many other psychoactive substances, it is legal and unregulated in nearly all parts of the world. There are several known mechanisms of action to explain the effects of caffeine. The most prominent is that it reversibly blocks the action of adenosine on its receptor and consequently prevents the onset of drowsiness induced by adenosine. Caffeine also stimulates certain portions of the autonomic nervous system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine Caffeine is a naturally occurring chemical stimulant called trimethylxanthine. Its chemical formula is C8H10N4O2 (see Erowid: Caffeine Chemistry for an image of the molecular structure). It is a drug, and actually shares a number of traits with more notorious drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine and heroin. https://science.howstuffworks.com/caffeine1.htm Whether it's brewed from a K-Cup, sipped in sweet tea, savored in chocolate or downed in cola, caffeine is a mild stimulant to the central nervous system that has become a regular fixture in everyday life. https://www.livescience.com/56603-interesting-facts-about-caffeine.html

Dunno. Couldn't care less at this point. Interesting.

Nope. Just like you've never tasted watermelon rind.

Is that an observation based on experience, or is it an assumption?

So why waste it? Juicing solves this problem. A lot of people spit out the seeds when eating the watermelon and lose out on these additional nutrients. Source: https://www.livescience.com/46019-watermelon-nutrition.html

Here's what you said earlier: "Science is about repeated (and repeatable) objective measurements (which can, of course, be of subjective feelings). Not about an individual's personal experience." If we can measure and take into account subjective feelings, why can't we measure and take into account personal experience? I still don't get what you mean. Nor is ignoring it. Taking into account the experiences of others is completely different from reading a horoscope. One example of how science collects data by measuring personal experience is through polling. Well, to avoid food waste for one reason. If you buy a watermelon and are going to consume it, why not get all the nutritional value from the food? Juicing is an excellent way to do that. No sane person would unless they're in a dire survival situation.

That's true. The pioneer of juicing, Jay Kordich mostly ate fruit, for this reason. But some nutritional aspects of the fruit can't be accessed without a juicer. For example, the rind of a watermelon is highly nutritious, but can't be easily consumed like the flesh of the watermelon. The pith of the orange is another example. Many people when they peel the orange lose most of the pith. The juicer helps to break down these parts of the fruit that would otherwise be discarded.

We discussed this earlier. Fruit juice should be taken in moderation due to the high sugar content.

What wonders lie beneath... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/03/scientists-discover-ancient-mayan-city-hidden-under-guatemalan-jungle

I don't think the OP is interested in becoming a drug addict. I think he's interested in becoming healthier.

Just trying to pass on the positive effects of juicing to the OP, which in my life have been profound. It's fine to be skeptical, but at the same time being overly skeptical can become limiting, so hopefully he gives it a try.

You just wrote that you "can't sensibly do enough research to know what's good for people", so why do you assume to know what the correct answer is in this instance? Anyone who follows the scientific method while conducting an experiment is a scientist, which includes my own experiments with juicing, and the OP if he chooses to conduct one. So you don't have exclusive ownership of that title, I'm afraid. Science is for everyone.