CharonY

And that is probably because your view of masculine ideals differed from mine and you might not have accepted certain toxic elements freely as I did. Remember, it is not masculinity in itself that is toxic, but rather certain elements *if* they are to your detriment. In my case I can clearly identify aspects that influenced me and where detrimental to me, though the same might not be detrimental to you. It depends a lot also on the environment, including how isolated you are in society and so on. Many of the more harmful elements are simply limited if you have sufficient exchange with peers who can help modulate your behaviour in a positive way (if you have good friends). I freely admit that I was really dumb in my youth. I would not have asked for help (though calling security would be asking for help...?) and I might have thrown the first punch or otherwise escalated the situation as I would find myself unable to back down. I am also utterly unclear how threatening violence actually manages to de-escalate situations. Perhaps it is a cultural/societal thing, but I cannot remember a time where threatening violence actually successfully de-escalated a situation. But that is the thing, isn't it? It means that if we are in a conflict situation we should start puffing up and bring deterrents to the table. Americans claim that open carry is therefore a great idea to deter violence. Looking at the actual numbers I simply don't think that is true.

It could be. I think my main criticism of the movie is that the documentarist has highlighted too much the weird fringe of men's right activism rather which diluted the overall message. But in all fairness, I do not remember much of the details, I generally just did not find it very enlightening. However, I think where there is some intersection is basically the definition of masculinity which we struggle and where folks such as Peterson find their selling points. In many (including Western) societies masculinity is or was often defined in the context of strength, dominance, independence, self-sufficiency and so on. The man is the provider and that is how it should be. They are considered the builders of civilization, the mover and shakers and they should be listened to because of that. Peterson's view and some of those I consider fringe among men's advocates is a desire to uphold that worldview. Unfortunately, it has at least two consequences. One is a certain desire to keep women out of male spaces as they just not fit the established mould. And two, it puts an enormous burden on men, which not everyone can fulfil (not everyone will be rich) and certain folks use that and try to explain those who are unsuccessful how to deal with it while still keeping the traditional view on masculinity as a banner of how things should be. They can score a lot of points by blaming feminists for their misery, for example. At the same time they lack introspection to figure out whether it is not the adhering to the perceived ideals of masculinity. Looking back at my youth and personal experiences that is something that at some point rang a bell for me. I still have trouble doing certain things that are not considered manly as instilled to me in my youth. Asking for help, for example. There are in my mind absolutely toxic elements in the ideals we grew up with and learning how to change that to make our lives better and happier is IMO a much better way they struggling in some weird dominance game that some insist on playing. I think Peterkin had the right idea, either leave (or perhaps call security if such exists) but something to not escalate it further. I wished my younger self had thought that way. Yes but again, that already implies a natural order of things were posturing and underlying violence are a necessary part of the discourse. Again, he fills a couple of pages of it in his book where goes back and tries to make a kind of evolutionary argument about this behaviour. But doesn't it strike you as odd that he explains human behaviours from an exclusively male perspective? I.e. couldn't it be that how women resolve conflicts is the normal and civilized way and we are just want to break faces and are therefore forces of chaos? I.e. if a woman behaves like what Peterson thinks a man should do is chaos, does a man behaving like a woman (which I don't think he ever defined properly other than that they seek providers) create order or double-chaos? Simply put that concept does not make any sense whatsoever and if I try to make sense out of it by looking at his other thoughts, I arrive at the point that I posted earlier.

Sorry, I was putting into a broader context. I started the discussion with MigL in which I referred mostly to his first chapter, and what he was discussing in the interview was something that he also stated in his book. I.e. I am trying to find a consistent argument in his philosophy. Of course, it is possible that all his ideas are unrelated and perhaps even allow for contradiction. But then I think a discussion on his views would be pretty moot as they might be anything at any given point. So if we talk about the fundamental aspects he is explicitly saying in his book that the posturing and jostling for dominance is hard-baked into our brains and that depending on where you are in the hierarchy, it will affect all aspects of life. I.e. in your example the male with low serotonin would probably abandon his wife and the dominant male would take over your wife. If you have enough serotonin you would push back and then inevitably a struggle for dominance would ensue. In the book he states that these need not be violent but as he expounded further they require the underlying threat of violence. In fact, I do not think that he actually made a claim that it is part of our personality as such, rather that this is the basis, and personality outcomes are based on that. I.e. if you lose the struggle for dominance, you will be diminuitive, stressed and unhealthy (again, from his book). So either he claims it is a fundamental aspect and that justifies his hierarchical dominance model (which in turns is used to justify a link to happiness, drug abuse, self-worth and other issues), or it is not fundamental at which point I am not sure what then his reasoning in the book are then really is meant to convey. I think in a way that Peterson worked his way backward here. He sees that men are seemingly more frequently involved in physical violence (there are some big caveats here, which we again are forced to ignore) and from there builds up a male-centric viewpoint of interactions, specifically to separate them from female-female or female-male interactions. I.e. he starts with the conclusion and tries to use the biggest (in his view) separator to justify it. Men are more violent and that colours their interaction. Men are forces of order (sounds weird, but it is a theme he repeats quite a bit with the imagery of feminity as the forces of chaos, which goes back to I suspect Jungian archetypes). Therefore any civil engagement needs the threat of violence to be orderly (and orderly escalation, if you will) Now anything that breaks this perceived mold is not seen as a viable alternative, but rather that somehow breaks order. I.e. you can beat up a woman and therefore civil discourse breaks down. I.e. confronting a man perhaps in the context in a joust for dominance, that is orderly that has rules that you as a men somehow are clear about and can adhere to. But if a woman enters the same context, she is a "crazy woman" and cannot be controlled. Fundamentally of course, it is more of a worldview and kind of fringe philosophy. But then he uses his clout to somehow sell us that idea as kind of a real explanation of human behaviour. At which point anthropologists and real philosophers probably writhe in anguish.

If we take this line of thinking apart it basically means male interactions are fundamentally a posturing where we assess the level of violence we should level at each other. This, to me sounds like an overly simplistic model, after all we have many, many everyday interactions and violence or even thoughts of violence are the extreme outlier (in my experience). So it would sound odd that this extreme outlier should somehow be a defining factor of our behaviour. It seems to me that he is taking an extreme outlier and then creates a model of human behaviour out of it. In fact I would think most folks nowadays would react to a sudden violent outburst with shock rather than with a skillful well-adjusted reaction, simply because we actually do not think in those terms. Moreover, society has a measures to outsource violence (e.g. police). Yet Peterson puts the threat of physical violence as a core concept in male behaviour: So thinking that we as men only respect each other because we know that we would beat each other up. And then if we tie it into his dominant hierarchy thinking it clearly depicts a worldview where men basically cannot interact without thinking in terms of physicality and all interactions are based on the assessment of these physical interactions (and again without providing evidence, but we can treat this more as his personal opinion rather than expert opinion for now). So the issue then is then strangely that he claims that the issue with women is that our normal male skill set suddenly fails and because it is not acceptable to hit women. So to me that is an utter turnaround. First he is saying that we are slaves to our primordial behaviour (and that in itself has issue in terms of the biology behind, but let's ignore that for now) and that we actually cannot act differently. But then he says that somehow society has stopped us applying our skills to women, which should not be possible it was such an universal mandate. As such I do not find his views on this matter internally consistent. If on the other hand our ability to learn and change ourselves which the environment and society (which animals also are doing) then the whole argument of underlying unchangeable and fundamental principles of male behaviour do not make sense. Realistically of course there are both things at play here, but by only using aspects that supports his ideology and ignoring nuance that counters it, he is basically using badscience as a justification for his opinion.

If I wanted to add a hook, I would find one that is either sound science or where I make it clear that this is could be a dream realized at some point. I would never sell it as a fact. I have given local media news and because it could affect lives (COVID-19) I was careful to point out exactly where the science is (but also where the edge of my expertise is). Feeding folks false information is in part responsible for where we are today. To me it does matter little if it is a facebook post or a book. As a scientist you have at least some responsibility to uphold science. If there is something useful to say about similiarity it might be. And of course not. But that is what Peterson claims in his book. It is a switch and bait tactic. We start off with something that may be true (there are some issues with his claims, but since it is popsci one might let the details slide) as the bait and talk about lobsters a bit. But then after all the lobsters he then suddenly shift gears and then claims (without evidence) that see, this is all priomordial and therefore in humans we humans also have these strict hierarchies. So he does not actually provide studies or data on human hierarchies, he just magically established them to be true. He tends to do things in interviews and elsewhere too. He starts off with a claim that may be somewhat true and then makes a huge jump and claims that that somehow establishes his big narrative. If a proper scientist would want to make that argument one would first ask, are these male dominance hierarchies real? And what would be a good example. So let's say an average company. And the test the claims beign made. Are folks in higher management happier? Do they have more serotonin? Are they the only one with female partners? What about the women, is it true that they have different hierarchies and are mostly competing for men? Can we see test that? And I am fairly certain if plot all the claims Peterson makes with regard to seronin levels, happiness, access to reproductive partners, we won't see the linear graph that he tries to paint. Most folks writing a pop-sci book write within their realm of expertise. I have read Hawking and while he some bouts of speculation outside his expertise, these are not the central themes. Peterson's theme are almost exclusively outside of his expertise. Maddeningly he does not seem to use his expertise when it comes to his own arguments. He worked in addiction. So you would think that he know the lit (and I suspect he does). But in his book he just sold us the strict male dominant hierarchies and claims in the book that at those at the lower end, the diminutive and weak ones with low serotonin (and again, low serotonin is actually associated with low impulse control), then you are also prone to do drugs because you need it to control your misery. And that flies directly in the face about what we know about addiction. If we look at our corporate model, do we really think that in the upper levels we won't see addicts? We could test that, too and try to plot our assigned hierarchy level vs drug abuse but what we know about the 80s cocaine waves as well as opioid crisis, we kind of know that drug abuse are not necessarily linked to social status. And then we could continue to talk about the issues in fitting women into this model, which according to him are obviously not part of that hierarchy. They are only competing for prime sex partners, which again is just borrowing from semi-mythical animal models and then directly transplanting it to humans rather than highlighting specific human research to justify that. To perhaps make a comparison, it would be the equivalent of me borrowing concepts from GR and then somehow use that as justification why a certain diet would surely reduce your risk of cancer. It is not just nice story-telling. It is me trying to convince you of something using woo-tactics. And that is the part that I fine objectionable. I would be less annoyed if he was just a random woo-doctor peddling bad science. There are many of those around. However, he is one of the folks who kind of uses (indirectly) his credentials to boost his woo. Even intelligent folks like you therefore give him more credence and assume that what he is talking about is really backed by science. There is a difference in my mind regarding overhyping science (which I consider bad) and peddling ideology.

Yes, but the rubberband has to make sense as an analogy. If I use the rubberband and claim that is what GR is about, I am doing pseudeoscience. Also I have to say that I don't think I claimed that he said that aggressive behaviour should be excused (or at least it was not my primary intention if you are thinking about physical violence, though he does bring up the link when it comes to his lengthy musing about lobsters and he also mentioned in a different context I believe in terms of civil behaviour amongs men where violence is always implicit- but I do not recall details, it was part of a weird discussion I had with students and I am not sure how accurate they were). Rather he is saying that this behaviour is expected as fights for dominance is something that exist in all of our evolution and that this behaviour therefore determines your well-being. So the argument he makes in the book is the following: dominance hierarchies are the key element defining all life. It is ancient and controls all conscious and unconscious elements in life. We see it in lobsters which indicates it is an old evolutionary process. Specifically, we see how aggression is tied to dominant hierarchies. He has also mentioned at various points (and interviews) that the primary social hierarchy structures are fundamentally masculine. While he does not explicitly say that e.g. being violent is what takes you to the top (he drops in coalition-building, which counters the lobster example nicely). However, he does build (even in the imagery he is using, a strutting Clint Eastwood lobster) the idea that male swagger, being a manly man, is what makes you successful. Also, women in their own hierarchy, do not fight for the same thing as men do. No they really just want to identify the Clint Eastwood's and throw themselves at them (ok, now I see why that might seem attractive to you ). The more aggressive (whichever form) you are, the more serotonin you have and the higher you climb in hierarchy. If you are higher in the hierarchy, you are healthier happier and so on. If you are low status the opposite is true, you are poor, unhappy and even if you have money, you will use it for drugs. And this is, according to him, all serotonin driven: If you are judged unworthy by your peers, your serotonin levels drop. He makes direct connections between serotonin, aggression and dominance. These are not analogies, but specific claims that are not backed by science. So basically he claims that these dominance hierarchies provide a direct link to virtually all aspects of well-being. I.e. that in any context humans have this specific hierarchies which, as I noted do not necessarily exist in nature. So instead of using a rubberband to explain certain aspects, he is saying the rubberband (social dominance systems) are actually what determines all factors in live. Alphas are real and if you are not at least in that area you will suffer (and also your hormones will tell you that). For a psychologist this is hugely simplistic take on how disorders including drug abuse develop (which is ironic in more than one way). Now you could say that we should not talk about any of the specific claims they are just examples for his bigger points. But then if none of the examples are reflected by reality (or science) what actually is left? And that is the big issue, to me. Many followers of Peterson brush off the specifics of his claim and say, oh those are not relevant or just examples. But if you build your whole grand narrative based on examples that do not hold water, you are really just making a vacuous argument with some non-functional adornments on then. And if you do that as a (former) scientist you are kind of dismissing the actual work of folks who look into those details and figure out whether they are real or not (you know, science). Edit: again, I mostly refer to his self-help book as source.

I cited the lobster argument straight from his book (on google books around p.15 harping on serotonin (which is just bad biology). Not sure what specifically you want. Or how about that (and I know it is going to be a whack-a-mole but at least with you it is likely to be less frustrating than with others). How about you provide a specific argument he made that you think is worthwhile to discuss and we do that.

So the basic premise of those kind of arguments is that are certain behaviours and structure in nature and then argue that because of that, the same thing should be in humans. Especially (but not exclusively) in conservative cycles this is an often-used argument to explain why certain things are the way they are and why the should be like this. It is after all "normal" or "natural". Now there are several issues with that. One is that of ethics. Just because things exist in nature (e.g. rape and killing) does not make those actions moral. But what I think is also important is that this argument completely ignores the variability and versatility in nature. For example, the almost archetypical explanation of hierarchies has been developed in wolves. I am sure you have heard about the strict hierarchy from alphas all the way to the submissive omegas. So the argument goes that this is universal and that is why we have same hierarchies in humans. However, the funny bit is that this appeal to nature argument is actually wrong as those kind of hierarchies are not "normal" in wolves. You see, those behaviour were created under artificial conditions (e.g. zoos) whereas the structures of free-roaming wolves are familial packs, which I have mentioned earlier. See a nicely written article here. So in other words, the presumed natural order only exist under artificial conditions. Thus if even animals have different social structure depending on their environment, how does it make sense to assume that we have a fundamentally "natural" structure if we, as a species, are masters in reconstructing our environment? Again, it is an example of poorly understood concepts and blend it into a woo-narrative. Also, if he remains calm he obviously counters his own argument. Rather obviously he went into the submissive role as he did not really threaten violence. Probably he forgot that serotonin works differently in humans.

Except all he is doing is espousing grand theories without scientific backing. Evolutionary psychology is in trouble as the methodology often lacks data and reproducibility to support hypotheses. Peterson is entirely skipping the data part, picks up random stories (as e.g. behaviour in lobsters) and spins out a huge narrative how evolution shapes human behaviour without providing or even looking at available data or having expertise in the relevant research which, again, suffers from a replication crisis, even if looking at data. It is pure extrapolation based on a narrative he likes and just cherry-picking half-understood concepts to support them. And that is pure pseudoscience akin to other postings we have got on the forum which are rightfully criticized. The issue IMO is not that so much that there is pseudoscience, but that one engages in while being an academic who should know better. Of course academics are not immune the pseudoscience disease (do folks remember the gyre guy?) but they should be held to a higher standard. If folks start eroding those standards, it undermines the whole profession. At some point one could legitimately ask why we need scientist at all, if all they are are basically youtubers with big words.

The fact that he is prominent for a wide range of issues all unrelated to his specific area of clinical psychology makes it close to impossible to address all the issues. Moreover, he argues things complicated enough that it is is very hard to figure out the actual point, which is to me a weasel tactic. But let me give one example that I had to discuss in class because of him. He argues that human brains work like lobsters. In lobsters serotonin correlates with aggression and Peterson asserts that this creates natural hierarchies. And since lobsters have it in a primordial way, obviously the same is in humans. More aggressive folks are more dominant and higher on the social totem pole land since men are more aggressive it is obvious that social structures. Conversely, low-ranked humans have less serotonin and decreased confidence. Conversely folks with high serotonin levels are high in the totem pole and are true alphas. Basically he is saying that a single hormone determines social hierarchies, happiness as well as illness, lifespan and so on. The basic idea here is that hierarchies are universal biological entities and therefore that human hierarchies are also created that way. Now this is silly on rather many levels. First the use of lobsters makes absolutely no sense. They are obviously rather far away from humans and while marine biology specialist can probably add more detail about the veracity of his claims about lobsters, but as a whole they are not social and do not have complex social structures nor do they even have a proper brain. Between lobsters and humans there are a lot of different other social animals who show a huge range of different behaviour aside from the more agressive -> more dominant -> healthier and more successful axis. Dominance in many mammals are based on familial ties for example, where we find parents to be dominant in a particular group (also that we do have both matriarchies and patriarchies as organizational elements). It does not mean that agressive behaviour does not play a role, but simply that the situation is very complex in many animals and we cannot take a random species (especially one that is so far away form humans) and then use that to explain human behaviour (at least not in a meaningful way). Finally if we want to look at sertonin specifically, in vertebrates low (not high) serotonin levels are associated with aggression and poor impulse control. Also animals with these deficits rarely have high social status. This is especially true for humans as violent behaviour is not typically rewarded. There is a lot more that could be discussed on that, but I already did it once and it was a tremendous waste of time. I am not certain that I want to do that again. But fundamentally what he did here (and he does it on many other occasions in areas such as law, anthropology, philosophy and so on) he takes a data point (behaviour in lobsters) and then builds a huge overarching grand theory that is supposed to explain the totality of human hierarchies and social behaviour. Yet in truth neither elements are really connected in a meaningful way (he could have chosen and other animals and gotten exactly the opposite outcome). And this strategy is exactly what Oz and others have been doing to peddle simple rules that somehow are going to change your life. In Oz's case it is being healthy and fit and in Peterson's case it is, I dunno some kind of manly man? I am not sure, I have not asked my dragon yet. The big issue is that by being that far outside his realm of expertise he is doing what a lot of folks on this site (typically banned) are doing. Take something half understood and extrapolate it to the max. View everything from this specific point of view and ignore existing bodies of knowledge. And there are many other examples, where folks with relevant expertise in, say philosophy, might chime in. That being said, I don't think that it is really worth the time. And with regard to my own expertise, I think I have made it frequently clear that my main expertise is mostly in the area of molecular biology, especially with relation to cell physiology, though I have also got a smattering of bioanalytics (in certain areas) and biomarker-related research. Incidentally, these are the only areas where I have authored publications or got money for consulting. I also believe that I have not at any point make grandiose claims of expertise in areas that I have only read things out of interest but where I am not actually doing active research. I have no idea how one connects with the other, however. Are you perhaps suggesting that I should actually start peddling my miracle cure for diabetes and stupidity?

Many universities have strong neuroscience groups. The easiest thing is to read a few papers that interest you and then look at the affiliations of the authors.

That is exactly it and this misunderstanding is at the core of why I think that he is giving Profs a bad name. Professors are experts in a given area and it erodes trust in us, if we start talking nonsense in areas where our understanding is at best on a layperson's level. It is like if I try to create grand philosophical frameworks (as Peterson does) or start disputing concepts in physics. You also see it in their followers. If they talk about academics they disagree with, even if the academic in question is an expert, often they "forget" the title. However, if someone like Peterson talks about anything, it is always Dr. Peterson. He is is using his academic credentials but basically is selling what youtubers for self-help junkies are doing. It has elements from a cult (i.e. talking to a follower is almost like someone trying to interpret scripture) from which he makes money and as such he is giving actual experts a bad name. He is basically a Dr. Oz or Phil and self-help gurus with simple rules for life (only that uses more complicated sentence structures). Beside that, and this is in turn outside my expertise, but I found it odd that in modern times there are seemingly still psychologists adhering to Jungian concepts. Based on what colleagues tell me it is a bit like being full-on Lamarck as a biologist, but I probably digress. As to OP, the whole concept is a bit silly as iNow mentioned. Concepts like liberalism and conservatism are fairly modern. Likewise the modernist idea of grand theory of human history is usually not really supported. Past attempts, such as Marxist theories of viewing history almost exclusively as class struggle have always some elements that make sense. But as a holistic explanation they are far to shallow to be meaningful.

That is a fairly bad representation of that person. He is (or was) a prof in psychology, his notoriety is in areas where he has got zero expertise. Legal scholars have explained to him why his interpretation of the law was wrong. Folks have not been punished for using the wrong gender pronoun. The fact that this stance managed to get him more money from his followers than his professorial salary should make you wonder a bit. If a person changes their gender and name you would not be forced by law to acknowledge it. However, you clearly would be an arse if you insist on using the false pronoun. Your "royal highness" strawman is what folks keep bringing up (as well as attack helicpoters) and I think such a line of argument is beneath you. No law or even social convention allows that (role-playing groups aside). Even after the outrage machine started by folks like Peterson, the law has not resulted in threats to freedom of expression and as legal scholars have pointed out. Going back to Peterson, he uses a lot of obfuscating and vacuous language and strange metaphors from areas far outside his expertise (his attempt to translate badly understood lobster behaviour to human interactions is bizarre, to say the least). If he wasn't a professor in an entirely different field, he would be considered one of the neo-web conservatives pandering to a male, mostly young crowd. By mostly avoiding specific claims, he fuels the outrage machinery while at any given point gives himself an out by calling himself whatever political or other position he thinks would gain traction. As such he exhibits the behaviour of typical self-help gurus and sells similar products. He gives professors a bad name.

I think the ironic bit that I have learned is that we (as humankind) do not have learned how to use and deal with social media.

The large genetic diversity makes it pretty much useless to talk about an African population (in terms of genetic factors). As a whole, there have of course been attempts to look at genetic factors determining athletic performance. And perhaps unsurprising the results were at best mixed. The overall outcome almost always indicated complex polygenic traits. Whenever a new study comes out there is often a bit of a media hype (usually with titles like: "are genes responsible for X ?" or "Effort vs genes"), typically without strong conclusions as the studies mostly find a certain polymorphism more common in a certain group (say swimmer, or marathon runners) but typically it is very unclear what the physiological consequences of these polymorphisms actually are. As others have implied already, training plays a huge role. While it is possible and perhaps even likely that certain combinations of training and genetic background are more likely to have superior results, especially when it comes to elite performance, the margins are so thin that I think a lot of stochastic factors start to play a role (say, injuries in your childhood). This is perhaps a long-winded way to say I have not by chance come across any studies which have clearly shown genetic factors and how they result in differential marathon performance.

An interim report of a phase III trial by Merck indicates that their candidate (Molnupiravir) which seems to be effective in reducing hospitalization and death in mild to moderate COVID-19 cases . https://www.merck.com/news/merck-and-ridgebacks-investigational-oral-antiviral-molnupiravir-reduced-the-risk-of-hospitalization-or-death-by-approximately-50-percent-compared-to-placebo-for-patients-with-mild-or-moderat/

The relevant bit here is that most of the description in OP suggest that something does not work the way it should (or at least the way it works in most folks). While most researchers would think that perhaps there is something wrong (anesthesia resistance can be a big issue in some folks and in addition to drug abuse has been associated with certain neurological conditions). Now there is some interest in finding out why that is the case (IIRC one mutation in a gene coding for a channel protein was implicated in local anesthetic resistance). However, the fun bit is that OP seems to think that these are desirable things. In most cases you want to similar to most others simply because then treatments and medication are more likely to work on you. That is in fact quite a bit of a problem as folks with rare conditions may be at higher risk as physicians may simply not be aware of these conditions and how they affect treatment. Somewhat related, a similar issue is there because many study cohorts have been historically white and male. Which is why there has been a push in having more diversity in study cohorts, if possible. There is no general term for these types of studies, it really depends on the specific question. For example, assuming that you have tolerance to a certain drug and this trait is found within your family, one might be interested in exome sequencing to see if there is a genetic component. If you have a certain condition that might result in some physiological alterations, one might be interested if those traits are also found in folks suffering from similar conditions and so on. I.e. you design your study around a highly specific question. That is actually a typical effect of caffeine withdrawal, which in turn suggest that you are in fact reacting to caffeine. My guess there is that the acid is not sufficiently concentrated to do immediate burn damage. However, please do not test that out. It is not worth it for an internet discussion.

There are a couple of known conditions that result in abnormal pain perception. It is indeed something that one should consult with a physician, especially if serious cuts are not being noticed. Caffeine tolerance on the other hand is not terribly unusual. During my postdoc times I had easily two litres of coffee a day quite frequently and there was no noticeable effect. However, I tried being on decaff for 1-2 years and after that I found that coffee actually had some effects such as on heart rate. Though that vanished quickly again. Similarly, there are different conditions and issues that can cause tolerance to certain drugs, including anesthasia. Alcohol, amphetamines, opiates as well as high levels of caffeine can alter how those drugs work, for example. Why would acid help with grease? Diluted sulphuric acid often does not immediately result in noticeable damages (especially if skin is protected by a layer of grease a bit). Also, if the skin is also already in rough shape, it may become less sensitive and minor burns may not be immediately noticeable. Folks who routinely work with damaging agents (e.g. aggressive cleaning solutions) with insufficient protection often have badly cracked and damaged skin with little sensation left. However, concentrated suphuric acid will rather quickly lead to burns, and there is no way that healthy tissue would not get damaged.

I think staggering is the right term. Accountability is definitively a huge issue.

Bad genetics generally refers to the practice of invoking genetics in an uninformed way to make silly demeaning claims about someone.

Another from Wuhan indicated that about 45% of hospitalized patients had at least one symptoms after a year. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2784558

Heh, you mean Kim Campbell who was PM for about half a year? Yeah I guess folks to a careful dip into that concept but probably it was a bit much. Baby steps, I guess.

A new cohort study with over 200k patients found a rather high incidence of long-COVID symptoms: PLOS Medicine: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003773

That part is apparently from the methods section. I.e. while the calculations all indicate the same total weight of trehalose are consistent, the sugar was added as solution rather than as solid.

I think it is less annoyance but rather the desire to indicate existing knowledge that is prevalent here. Population size for example is something that pops up every single time in these threads and every time the solution is fairly obvious: educate, promote gender equality and improve standard of living. Those parameters have the strongest association with lower birth size. And as also mentioned every time, short of killing folks there is no way to actively reduce the population size (often a link to one of Rosling's lectures is added here, which illustrates the issue).