rutholearywalker

Intelligence and knowledge are a bit different. Placing your knowledge in a public sphere without being intelligent about it could be smart or stupid. For example, say you pissed your trousers when you were seven: if you were writing a book about child psychology maybe it would be quite smart to open a discussion but if you were writing a rap and threw down some jaunty lyrics to conceal your unexplored psychological issues regarding childhood then it might be considered smart, rolling in that swimming pool of bills, until other people caught your drift and were eventually a bit disgusted and weirded out. Then everyone would find it funny, possibly even cool again, and you might even make some more money but now have to live with how awkward it is that you also went on an MTV interview and confirmed it was about pissing yourself as a kid. I think that intelligence is a lot about how well adjusted you are, which is also about how you express emotion and in which context. Beating yourself up over mistakes is sometimes smart: the more you learn about yourself the more and less like your younger self you are. Pushing yourself away from aspects you don't like might help you avoid what you don't like about yourself, in tern, allowing you to believe others like you more because you like you more. More happiness, more fulfilment, is this not what a smarter human being would want? But it can also be damaging to your health if you still don't like yourself, so its a case of weighing up pros and cons which can only be inspected after the fact and therefore somewhat a moot point. The case can also be made that the more you discover about the atrocities against you fellow human beings the less happy you are, but may help you put things in context or strive to do better. Less happiness, more meaningful, more happiness, and isn't being a useful, positive influence on the world what a smart human being would do? It might increase the likelihood of surviving amongst peers who recognise the value of intelligent action. Then again the less intelligent may survive for decisive action or strong gut feeling (or, though worse, appearance: see Nazis). Foolish, cruel human beings may want to justify their own actions by idolising another foolish, cruel human being. In regards to task repetition, it's what Einstein said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Baby's learn where their mouth is for food by themselves (this is a task which is alternated as the baby gets further from their ears) but a hand guiding their hand to their mouth might help activate muscle memory and co-ordination.

Great answers, thanks. I'll do more research. To your second point: osteopaths are very thorough in taking a history before treatment in case referral to an GP or hospital is needed, hence learning about a wide scope of human biology, physiology and anatomy in case of any issues which might arise. I know first hand it works for some people; if you have a mechanical issue with your back that can be addressed via muscle energy techniques, traction and thrusts using different amounts of velocity and amplitude, and then further addressed through massage of muscles, with the best kind of pressure applied to the area dependent on how "tight" the area is. Genuinely, it's a lovely field, heavily regulated and well worth studying. You can look at it in the same sort of field of physiotherapist or chiropractor, though I would argue there are some very fundamental differences. This is exactly the kind of explanation. It was my problem with the story that it was so vague as well. Kind regards!

"...the heart is removed from the water and a non-wired up heart is placed in the same tank of water and begins to beat." Sooo I study osteopathy. I'm really enjoying the course, I get to work in a clinic and first-hand see the treatments implemented and how people overcome their pain through their treatment. One of my lecturers isn't a qualified osteopath however, they are more like a form tutor come first year guide into science, complimentary medicine and ethics. They're nice enough, though I really don't think they likes any of the work that I've handed in. They also have a high respect for homeopathy and reiki. Don't get my wrong, I'm not going to start being rude about certain traditions (even though watching James Randi videos about faith healer scams makes me worry) but I'm a bit sceptical. The other day they were talking about the power of water: I agree with them that its an incredible substance, water is life. But they pointed to an experience about a wired up beating heart which was placed in water, removed and then a non-wired up heart being placed in the same water and began beating. They credited to a documentary called "The Memory of Water" but when I go on YouTube I can only find this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILSyt_Hhbjg&t=8s The experiment here is of placing flowers in water and imaging the droplets around them. It's a beautiful experiment but I can't find anything about the heart. I've googled lots of different combination of words to no avail. If anyone knows where I can find the experiment they were talking about or have a scientific explanation I'd be incredibly grateful. It's scratching around my brain a bit.