Otto Kretschmer

Anyone here who is into it? I am not doing it personally but in middle school I used to be a huge fan of the Bear Grylls TV show as well as the one of Les Stroud which is now available on YT:

NdGT is a good scientist and an excellent science popularizer but he doesn't know more about politics than an average guy off the street. Not a good fit for a POTUS.

It just occured to me that the perceived superiority of US higher education might have something to do with it's nature US universities are not free and in fact it costs a whole lot to study at the bedt ones. Which means that the best private US universities have a ton of money just from student tuition fees. Which in turn means they have the money to hire the best researchers and buy the best research equipment qvailable. Seems logical to me.

I haven't read the book but I do know that is makes an argument that Muhammad suffered from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy as well as Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Are there some specific evolutionary advantages to religiosity or did it simply evolve as a byproduct of the higher cognitive functions? I'm asking because all premodern societies (and a significant portion of modern ones) were religious in one way or another.

By any chance, has any of you read Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah's Prophet by Ali Sina?

It's at least a very important part of it. (I've updated the OP BTW)

I think yes Many scientists used to be religious especially in the past. Religion and science are not incompatible... well, at least most of science. Isaac Newton spent as much time studying the Bible as he did studying physics.

What is it? I am personally (and have been since my teen years) an atheist though not a militant atheist. I respect people with different worldviews even if they sre irrational (religious folks Economically - left wing. Socially centre. I can't describe myself in more terms.

What are your thoughts on Anton Petrov, a YouTube science popularizer?

Is it a valid theory? It was invented by Simon Baron Cohen and states that there are two main modes of cognition in humans - empathizing and systemizing. They're distributed normally in the population but since males are on average higher on systemizing, their right tail of the curve reaches further and hence there are more autistic males than females. What do researchers think of it?

Which ones do you like and why? Personally I like Carl Sagan the most obviously. From modern ones I like Brian Cox (he's apparently more popular in the UK now than Carl Sagan ever was even in the US) and Neil deGrasse Tyson. I have mixed feelings about Michio Kaku - he started out genuine but jumped on the "will say anything for the money and fame" bandwagon a long time ago.

Perhaps. Let's see if there's any more discussion.

(A spin-off from the thread about Neil deGrasse Tyson.) Is it? This has been the predominant hypothesis about the pathophysiology of depression for several decades and has been heavily promoted by the pharmaceutical industry - but there's now a rival theory, namely the glutamate theory of depression that says neuroinflammation and glutamate dysregulation are to blame for depression. Is there any scientific consensus regarding this matter?

Bump.

Bump Regarding Neil deGrasse Tyson - why does a part of the internet have such a beef with him? It looks to me that a certain small percentage of people on the web dislike him. Can any legitimate criticism be levied against him or do they just hate him for the sake of hating? Personally the only criticism I can levy against is the inaccurate portrayal of Giordano Bruno's trial in Cosmos.

@CharonY Anything to say here?

Let's say we have a small, genetically limited population due to bottleneck/founder effect - is there a way for such a population to increase it's genetic diversity other than by introducing new DNA from the outside? I am talking about small, genetically limited populations like the Amish.

By the way I've never said that NdGT is not a scientist. I had doubts as to whether he can be called a scientist but @swansont arguments convinced me that he is indeed a scientist.

Here you have some criticism of the serotonin hypothesis of depression , from two profs of psychiatry: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jul/analysis-depression-probably-not-caused-chemical-imbalance-brain-new-study Neil deGrasse Tyson clearly said "we know which chemicals make you depressed and which don't and why" - which I guess isn't the case at all.

@swansont I've just noticed that recently (2 months ago) NdGT did make a proper video about the neuroscience of depression:

@swansont I found the specific video He's mostly right except when he's saying "we're almost there". We are not IMO. We know little about what causes depression and the "chemical imbalance theory" was proven to be wrong since for example serotonin levels raise significantly within hours of taking antidepressants while it takes 6-8 weeks for them to fully work and they don't work for everyone. So it's not serotonin that is curing depression and it's not low serotonin which causes it.

Can NdGT be called a scientist in your opinion, given that he's hardly published anything in 30 years? He obviously trained as a scientist but an average practicing astrophysicist publishes more papers each year than he did in his entire career. What's your opinion on the matter? Also, should he be talking about stuff that is outside his area of expertise? I remember him in a YT video about depression saying something like "we already know which chemicals make you happy and which dont", which is wrong since we know very little about what causes depression. Do you know any other situations when he was wrong?

Guys, how do you think does Neil deGrasse Tyson compare to Carl Sagan?

NdGT is simply somewhat socially awkward, he doesn't realize that he's being insensitive. Hence his mass shooting comment.