STer

Not sure what your point was. Were you backing up my point or trying to refute it. Either way that definition reinforces my point. Terrorism aims to intimidate people. Who does it aim to intimidate? Obviously not the small number of people hurt and even more obviously not the ones killed. It tries to intimidate the remaining population around them. Car accidents have no intent to intimidate and rarely ever do intimidate others. So these are qualitatively different acts and not analogous. I believe the definition highlights the fact that terrorism is not merely intended to spread fear and intimidate people in general, but is specifically designed to interfere with the relationship between the "people" and the State. The reason that the State over-responds to terrorism (which it cannot prevent) and under-responds to the larger number of daily, predictable, perennial deaths-by-traffic (which it could prevent) is that the State cares more about itself, and maintaining its direct control, than it does about actual life-and-death. The State is jealous of its ability to terrorize the populace. It resents the competition. It will spend whatever amount of your money is necessary in order to maintain its monopoly on terror. Maintaining control is its raison d'etre. Otherwise, Statists might as well give up and find another line of work. I had a feeling you were going to try that route and I started to add to my repsonse, but then I figured I'd wait and see. Sure enough you went there. So now I can just point out that there are plenty of dictionaries that don't specify politics in their definitions (see m-w.com for one example). And rightly so. Many terrorists have religious aims, not political aims. And if a group decided to start blowing up people to scare the population into caving into any non-political concern, even something as petty as just them wanting money, would you not call it terrorism? I would, as would many dictionaries. Beyond that, nobody expects to stop all terrorism. We try to minimize it. And you'd have to be clueless not to realize the government succeeds in stopping many plots. No matter how strong your bias against the government, you must admit they stop almost all plots, in fact so far. Opposing the State is not helped by refusing to be honest about what they do and don't do. They do succeed in stopping a lot of plots. You can surely make a case that stopping them in that way isn't worth what we give up. But arguing it in economic terms is not a very effective one since you can't measure things like people's lives and the level of security in a society in pure money. Those things are priceless to many people. So the point is simply that you have to make the case in some other way. And trying to compare the situation to that of car accidents is not a convincing strategy. None of what you are saying here addresses my points. First, the "religious" aims involved in terrorism are still political in nature. The Islamist terrorism that is the main global terror issue for the last 100 years or so is not designed merely to promote their brand of Islam -- it so happens that this particular brand of Islam is State-enforced Islam. It's things like Sharia Law. It's the total merger and fusion of religion and statism. You can call these goals "religious" but doing so completely (intentionally?) misses the fact that it is still just politics, but with some religious language glossed over the top. Second, who is this "we" that is trying to "minimize" terrorism? I don't care about terrorism nearly as much as I care about traffic and toxins, because traffic and toxins are FAR more likely to cause harm to me and my family than is terrorism. I care more about water safety. I care more about pharmacy error. Terrorism is about number 857 on my list of concerns. People's lives are priceless TO THEMSELVES, but not priceless to the State that monopolizes the aggression in modern society. If people's lives and safety were of paramount concern to the State, then the State's paramount attention and effort would be directed at the No. 1 cause of early, avoidable deaths, until it was no longer No. 1 on the list, and then work its way down. They don't. They DO NOTHING about the deaths they CAN prevent, and spend billions pretending to "do something" about the attacks they can't predict or prevent. Even with Total Domestic Surveillance, nothing will stop guys like the Tsarnaev brothers from packing up a pressure cooker with gunpowder and nails and taking it to another sporting event, or a movie theater. It's ridiculous. Sorry but the Wikipedia page I put in my next post offers numerous definitions both from countries' laws and from scholars on terrorism that explicitly say it does not have to involve politics or even the government, so your first point is simply not debatable as a solid unquestioned statement at this point. I admit some definitions say it has to be political, but there are plenty that say it doesn't. So you can't insist that everyone agrees it's only terrorism if political in some way or involving the government. Some definitions make clear it can just be for economic gain and aimed at a group of the public, no government issue at all. Your second point is a straw man. I never said terrorism was everyone's highest concern. I simply said we try to minimize it. That doesn't mean we don't also try to minimize other bad things, some of them with even greater effort. Reading the rest of your statement I see I'm wasting my time. You are an angry anti-statist (nothing wrong with that in itself, especially on this board) hijacking a totally separate discussion to give another cliche anti-state rant (which would be fine if it was relevant to the thread but it isn't). We all know the arguments against the state here. This was a discussion about what is an effective vs. non-effective line of logic for claiming the current anti-terrorism policies are undesirable. It was not a referendum on whether the state is good or has our best intentions in mind. Where you got the idea that it was is hard for me to see since that was not discussed. The question this thread was about is "Is opposing our policies on terrorism on economic grounds effective?" The second focus was "Are anti-terrorism policies and anti-car crash policies analogous?" There is nothing in there about whether the state cares about us or not. These questions would be just as valid if there was no state. They have to do with the nature of terrorism vs. other undesirable events, not the nature of the state.

There is so much debate over the definition of terrorism that Wikipedia has a rather long page just on that. But I would say the page leans toward the side of it not having to be political, so much so that, for example, the UK's 2000 definition specifies "political, religious or ideological cause." So they were explicit that it isn't just political. Their definition also specifies "designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public" so it doesn't have to even involve the government. It can be meant to directly coerce some group of people in the public.

Not sure what your point was. Were you backing up my point or trying to refute it. Either way that definition reinforces my point. Terrorism aims to intimidate people. Who does it aim to intimidate? Obviously not the small number of people hurt and even more obviously not the ones killed. It tries to intimidate the remaining population around them. Car accidents have no intent to intimidate and rarely ever do intimidate others. So these are qualitatively different acts and not analogous. I believe the definition highlights the fact that terrorism is not merely intended to spread fear and intimidate people in general, but is specifically designed to interfere with the relationship between the "people" and the State. The reason that the State over-responds to terrorism (which it cannot prevent) and under-responds to the larger number of daily, predictable, perennial deaths-by-traffic (which it could prevent) is that the State cares more about itself, and maintaining its direct control, than it does about actual life-and-death. The State is jealous of its ability to terrorize the populace. It resents the competition. It will spend whatever amount of your money is necessary in order to maintain its monopoly on terror. Maintaining control is its raison d'etre. Otherwise, Statists might as well give up and find another line of work. I had a feeling you were going to try that route and I started to add to my repsonse, but then I figured I'd wait and see. Sure enough you went there. So now I can just point out that there are plenty of dictionaries that don't specify politics in their definitions (see m-w.com for one example). And rightly so. Many terrorists have religious aims, not political aims. And if a group decided to start blowing up people to scare the population into caving into any non-political concern, even something as petty as just them wanting money, would you not call it terrorism? I would, as would many dictionaries. Beyond that, nobody expects to stop all terrorism. We try to minimize it. And you'd have to be clueless not to realize the government succeeds in stopping many plots. No matter how strong your bias against the government, you must admit they stop almost all plots, in fact so far. Opposing the State is not helped by refusing to be honest about what they do and don't do. They do succeed in stopping a lot of plots. You can surely make a case that stopping them in that way isn't worth what we give up. But arguing it in economic terms is not a very effective one since you can't measure things like people's lives and the level of security in a society in pure money. Those things are priceless to many people. So the point is simply that you have to make the case in some other way. And trying to compare the situation to that of car accidents is not a convincing strategy.

Not sure what your point was. Were you backing up my point or trying to refute it. Either way that definition reinforces my point. Terrorism aims to intimidate people. Who does it aim to intimidate? Obviously not the small number of people hurt and even more obviously not the ones killed. It tries to intimidate the remaining population around them. Car accidents have no intent to intimidate and rarely ever do intimidate others. So these are qualitatively different acts and not analogous.

I don't get it. Who thinks of terrorism only in terms of economic damage? Isn't it the loss of life that's more the issue? I'm not saying this to justify or argue against the policies. I'm just not getting how focusing on it in purely economic terms makes any sense. As ribuck said, more than 32,000 people die in traffic collisions every year in the USA. It's the No. 1 cause of death for all age groups under age 45. That number could be reduced to about 32 if the government -- which designs, builds, and polices the roads where these deaths occur, and controls the design and installation of the safety features on all of the cars -- were to make some changes. We could ride around in golf carts. Or walk. But there's an even more insidious level of governmental control that virtually guarantees that these traffic rules and designs won't be changed -- land use restrictions. Government controls the location of every type of business and residence, and their density, which spreads everything out to the point that artery roads and cars become a necessity. Land use rules are the most fascistic restrictions that affect people on a daily basis, but most people don't even know they exist. They are written in secret and in back-room deals. They are written to favor developers and landowners and road-building companies. Making our daily transportation activities less of a bloodbath would have large, negative economic effects on politically-powerful people. See my answer above. You're correct and that should be addressed too. But other things that kill people are not designed to spread fear through the culture and have their main effect that way. Terrorism is not really about the people harmed directly. It's about the reaction that causes in everyone else who witnesses it.

For sure, loss of life is a bigger issue, but it's not the relevant one. It's already well-understood that many more lives can be saved, much more cheaply and easily, by (for example) building better roads. Yes and that would be a better point to make than focusing on the economic cost vs. gains. In fact, it's a point that should be made. However, there is also a retort to that, which is that accidents on roads are not designed to spread fear in the population at large. When accidents happen, they don't typically serve to scare much of the population into changing their lives. Terrorist acts are specifically about that. So their repercussions are much larger than accidents at the cultural level.

I don't get it. Who thinks of terrorism only in terms of economic damage? Isn't it the loss of life that's more the issue? I'm not saying this to justify or argue against the policies. I'm just not getting how focusing on it in purely economic terms makes any sense.

Thank you sir.

DarkSky, this sentiment is great and you should send that to Stefan. But so off topic of this thread, the entire point of which is that we keep getting distracted from this topic. Can you please use this thread to stay on topic and perhaps share those kinds of things elsewhere? Not to be rude about it but this thread in particular it would be pretty ironic if it got off topic.

First of all I think it would have to be "Brain-Optimizing Parenting". But either way, as you saw in the OP, "Brain-Based Parenting" is already in use, but is being used to refer more to the brain of the parent in the process of parenting than that of the child. So I think that would probably get confused with what we're talking about being that close. This isn't a slogan. And this isn't a game (insert "you think this is a game?" meme here). The whole point of this movement is that it is a scientific pursuit, not just some New Age feel good thing. Diabetics are told to eat a "Diabetic Diet." That's not a marketing gimmick. it's a diet tailored for the particular needs of diabetics based on science and medicine. Similarly, there is parenting that is tailored to optimal brain development based on science. But there is no name for this kind of parenting yet that I can find, which itself is telling. But what I'm looking for has nothing whatsoever to do with a marketing slogan. It has to do with conveying exactly what this is. Marketing slogans around that can come later.

Understandable, you have to prioritize your health. Two questions for you, Stefan: 1) Your thoughts on the terminology? Any term for what I'm describing that you know of? "Neurologic-Optimizing Parenting"? 2) Do you think an interview and a book is enough? Or should this be more of an activist thing, which is what I'm envisioning, though of course, interviews, books, etc. could be part of the foundation of it. I mean part of the point is you've already done several great interviews on this, put together Bomb in the Brain, etc. What I'm seeing is a need to go beyond information now to more fervent advocacy and also zeroing in more specifically on the key point which is the neurodevelopmental effects of parenting, stripped down from anything distracting from that.

No the focus on the science of brain optimization (or neurological optimization or perhaps something a tiny bit broader but not too much) is the entire point and we need the proper term at least to talk about it with others who want to spread it. Later if there is some marketing approach to get the idea out there more that's a different discussion. At this point we're trying to even find the right term for US to rally around. Trying to tailor some more marketable inlet for others is jumping way ahead in the process. There are already a million different people out there pushing different ways of parenting they consider healthy. What distinguishes this is the brain science. That is the parenting approach Stefan focuses on that many others, even well-intentioned people, do not.

Thinking of the term "Universally Preferable Behavior" it popped into my mind. What about the term "Neurologically Optimal Parenting"? If there is already a recognized term out there for what I'm after I'd want to consider that first. If not, though, and we have to create one, there is a decent idea I think.

Yes this is exactly what I mean. If we are going to keep pointing out that brain development hindered by poor parenting (whether directly by the parenting or by a failure to parent the child's special needs or parenting that failed to protect the child from threats to that healthy development that we know are out there) keeps people from accepting reason anyway, then we should really just focus in on parenting for a healthy brain and leave it at that. The rest will emerge naturally. And harping on the other stuff prior to a couple generations of healthy "brain parenting" will just be counterproductive - beating our heads against a brick wall. You're right this also would easily become a tax-exempt organization if that is desired. I'd still love to first find that term that is accurate enough to be very clear what we're talking about though. Neurological-Optimizing Parenting or something like that.

One of the most reasoned and compassionate statements I've come across in quite some time. Mega-super kudos to you you STer. What good does it do to argue, if the result is the creation of more barriers? Finding common ground, and negotiating towards positive outcomes, is far more rewarding than making assertions, and claiming "victory". Parents, generally, want the best for their children; even when they have no clue how to help achieve it. If I could change one, and only one, thing in this world, I would like to change the way children are raised. Most else would soon follow. I've got nothing against arguing to try to find ever more accurate ideas and goals. But in the meantime, it's silly not to take massive action on the goals that we all already agree are worthwhile, especially when we agree it's not just any shared goal, but the very key leverage point. We only disagree somewhat on the particulars of implementation. What about my questions though? 1) Do you know of a term for what I described? 2) Do you think an organized project focused on this should be undertaken? If so, under what banner? Should it be housed at FDR? Or should it be an offshoot separate project? Or do you know of a project already pursuing this in the way we're talking about that could just benefit from more support? Again I'm not just talking about "improving parenting" in a general way, but specifically about improving parenting through spreading awareness of the science of how it interacts with brain/neurological development.

And the video. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwn0YGKM-Fg:480:360] Again, not to sidetrack the thread to focus on critiquing this particular project. But just so relevant.

Well speak of the devil haha. Hillary Clinton announces early childhood development initiative "New research shows that what happens here [in a child's home] during the first five years of your child's life will make a difference for the rest of his or her life," Clinton says of the home in a video announcing "Too Small to Fail." "According to its website, the initiative is designed "to promote new research on the science of children’s brain development, early learning and early health." And it plans to "help parents, businesses and communities identify specific actions ... that they can take to improve the lives of young children." Not to sidetrack things. I'd still love responses to the OP. But couldn't help but share this. It's almost like she read the thread or something [:O]

With Father's Day (at least in the US) coming up tomorrow, now seems as good a time as any to raise this issue. So after being on this forum for a while now, I've seen a diversity of interesting discussions. But all of the most crucial ones seem to always come back to one topic - the importance of optimizing parenting. More specifically, they seem to come back especially to the importance of parenting in such a way as to promote healthy brain/neurological development (or at least as healthy as possible in a given case). This topic was perhaps hit upon most powerfully in the Bomb in the Brain series. While this forum and Stefan's work hit on a very broad range of topics and serve as a great exploration of philosophy, including politics, economics and so much more, the single most important activist angle that I see here all has to do with promoting an understanding of the effects of parenting on the brain and how parents can make sure they are impacting their children's neurological development most beneficially. It really seems to be at the point where engaging in that - along with all it entails (which is a longer discussion) - should be the #1 goal. It's the one goal we can probably all agree on - and can agree on with people from a lot of other movements - even despite any differences we may have regarding the many other issues discussed here. In fact, if we pursue this goal, I wonder how much it even matters whether or not we openly promote all of the other philosophical ideas beyond the point where they help contribute to the better parenting. I'm not saying to stop philosophizing on the other angles. They have their place in a life well examined. But the parenting, specifically in regards to promoting optimally healthy neurology, seems like it should be catapulted to the #1 priority and that should be reflected more clearly in day-to-day terms of what this community focuses on. This raises a couple questions for me. 1) Does anyone know if there is a specific term for the concept or science of parenting based on a conscious, explicit goal of healthy neurodevelopment for the child? I couldn't think of one of which I'm aware. Off the top of my head, I looked into the term "NeuroParenting." That led to some interesting things, such as: The NeuroParenting LinkedIn group A NeuroParenting meetup group in Singapore NeuroParenting classes And so on. But I'm not sure if what these people mean by NeuroParenting is exactly what we would mean by it. But the point is that the term is out there as one example similar to what I'm asking for. Some more searching brought me to the term "Brain-Based Parenting" including resources like this book, Brain-Based Parenting: The Neuroscience of Caregiving for Healthy Attachment. But this doesn't seem to be what we're looking for because it seems to focus mostly on just the neurology of the parent themselves in the act of parenting and not as much on the neurology of the developing child. Also I'm not sure a focus on attachment alone is specific enough since, as crucial as that is, it's still perhaps not the whole ball of wax. In any case, if anyone can come up with or knows of a term that means what Stefan is clearly promoting in terms of parenting with a conscious, explicit goal of stimulating healthy neurodevelopment, it would be fantastic to be able to refer to. I know that usually on this forum, people instead say things like "peaceful parenting." But I think this is too vague and general and leaves far too much room for interpretation. And besides that, the most powerful arguments for it all come back to this focus on neurodevelopment anyway (the moral arguments being less persuasive to many, I think). So I think it would be more precise and more powerful to focus directly on parenting based on the science of healthy brain and neurological development rather than just saying the method is peaceful, especially when it would actually be more than just peaceful. 2) I wonder what Stefan and others think about becoming more active and explicit, in a concentrated and organized way, in advocating for this very specific goal of parenting based on the science of neurodevelopment? If you agree it's the single most important activity we can participate in to improve our world and our future, doesn't it deserve more than just being one topic among so many on this forum and in Stefan's work? Doesn't it deserve to be plucked out and put on a pedestal somehow and driven with a little more activist fervor? I could see this happening through this site, perhaps through an offshoot project or just through a serious campaign of support for an existing project that involves the people doing the best work in this field. To conclude, I just want to say that within this topic there is still a lot of discussion. Parenting for optimal neurodevelopment includes a number of things beyond just "peaceful parenting." It involves getting better at identifying kids with special needs who require particular, and sometimes very specific, types of care to develop optimally. (This, by the way, is where the argument over nature vs. nurture when it comes to disorders of reduced empathy/conscience gets reconciled since, if there are children born with genetic, neurological or other biological predispositions to lower empathy/conscience, parents would have to be involved in finding out about them and in parenting those children who have them in the best possible way to compensate for those challenges. So even if we were to find out these conditions were completely originating in "nature" - which is surely not usually the case, but consider it just for the sake of argument - parents would still be the ones who would have to understand these conditions and what perhaps special care the child needs to optimally develop. So this mindset of parenting for and based on an educated view of optimal neurodevelopment would be just the one called for even in such "nature"-based cases.) It involves understanding how to protect kids from the very real threats that exist, at least in part because of those who are still not parented with healthy neurodevelopment in mind. It involves an ongoing curiosity in the emerging science on these issues, so as not to be dogmatic about any particular methods but to continuously approach the topic in a rational and unbiased way. And a lot more. But all of that could be explored under the umbrella of this concept - whatever the name might be - and any project that might stem from it. I've also considered that this goes beyond just brain/neurodevelopment. It also involves hormonal and other biological aspects of healthy parenting. So perhaps the focus needs to be even a bit broader to incorporate those areas. But on the other hand, I imagine the brain aspects are most important and perhaps it's worth focusing on those. I would love to hear all of your thoughts, especially Stefan's.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time I've over thought something! My frank discussions with my partner about my feelings on this topic were met warmly and I think she understands the difficulty of duplicating the same quality relationship as I have with my own children. Part of the reason I want to get this right is the fact that my partner feels responsibility for failing to make a good decision with the father of her child. I would like to help her heal from that shame by seeing how we have done better together as we are than she could have hoped for with even an average father as a partner. That would give me joy. I hesitate to proclaim what someone I've never met is like in any overarching way just from some forum posts. But, just by virtue of you even caring this much and going to this length to try so hard to be the best you can, it seems to me your partner has already made a better decision. Another concern that I have is that I create resentments in my own children by working so hard to help my partner's daughter feel equal. Of course, I will just do the best I can - and hopefully do no harm. Perhaps this Franklin Effect you mentioned could work through my girls as well as myself. I will give that some serious thought. Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply, you have some very good insight. I think one of the main solutions to this whole issue is just realizing that it's an evolving process that the you, your partner and the kids themselves will go through with communication as it develops. I think kids are very resilient when they see that you truly care and are doing the best you can with their best interest in mind. Perhaps there is a way that you can express these feelings in age-appropriate ways to the kids and let them know you're open to their feedback on how you're doing. I think they'd appreciate knowing they can tell you how they feel as things go along.

Perhaps your standard is too high. Perhaps the question isn't "What if I don't feel exactly as strongly toward my partner's child as toward my own?" Perhaps it's "Am I going to be a constructive enough force in this other child's life that it is better than her having no father figure at all (or only her abusive biological father as a father figure)?" I don't think you have to be perfect to be an overall beneficial force in her life. And I also think that being so conscious of this will help you a lot because you won't project your feelings onto her and make her feel as if she is the cause of them and you'll be on the lookout for ways to reach out to her so she feels accepted. Being aware of these things puts you light years ahead of other step-parents. Beyond that, you could consider that the relationship with her hits on some of your buttons and offers an opportunity to work on healing those some more to become an even better step-father to her. I think it's great that you are thinking about this so much which shows a lot of concern for her well-being as well as your own. There is one other interesting factor to consider, though I'm not sure how valid it is. It has to do with the dynamic described here: Ben Franklin Effect If this is correct then if you go out of your way to treat her well, you will start to grow more fond of her, rather than having to wait until you feel more fond of her to then act on it. It's worth experimenting with perhaps. Hope this helps.

LOL

Yes that's the one linked on the Wikipedia page for Schwartz's book which we were discussing earlier in the thread. I agree we need more studies to see if we can further pinpoint what is going on with the effect. It sounds like this study was unable to zero in on it. Did you find any who took this researchers' advice and did a "further search for moderator variables"? Like I pointed out earlier, this meta-analysis does not address the validity of Simon's work or the work on the overall principle that people's satisfaction is based on their perception of relative status, rather than their absolute status. Those principles still appear to be important here. As for Schwartz's work specifically, the meta-analysis simply says the effect is there, but smaller and more focused than Schwartz said. It's also worth noting that Schwartz says one thing and this other researcher says another. There's no reason to instantly think the meta-analysis is accurate and Schwartz isn't. I really think more research is needed to figure out whose work is more solid. I guess we just don't know at this point. But some of the main principles Schwartz cites are older and more established ideas that I have not seen refuted and in fact have seen corroborated.

I don't have access to the research any more than you do. I've just looked at resources about the book online which talk about which studies he cites. Beyond that I was hoping to hear from people who are familiar with it on that level. But your non-empiricism is not dependent on me in any way. It's evident in the fact that you keep trying to refute something based on research with an approach like "Well that just doesn't seem to make sense to me." A lot of things "just don't seem to make sense" based on our everyday experience and yet have been confirmed through research. Heck all you have to do is look at optical illusions to see that scientific measurements can show us things that we wouldn't ever have intuitively thought were the case. I don't understand why people keep bringing up that correlation doesn't equal causality as if that applies here. That's basic science 101. I'm not sure where you're seeing any evidence that Schwartz doesn't realize this or that the other researchers whose work he is citing don't. I'm not saying it's impossible since I haven't gotten to delve too deeply into it. But it's complete speculation on your part that anyone is simply equating correlation to causality without further backing. I agree we'd have to make sure that wasn't done. But I wouldn't lean toward expecting that to be the case. That would be a pretty rookie mistake for anyone in research to make and I can't imagine any reputable journal publishing a study that amateurish. There are a lot of flaws in research that don't get picked up on in different cases. But equating correlation and causality would be like a math teacher saying 1+1=3 it would be so basic. Obviously if it was done it would refute the whole study we can agree. But I think the odds are pretty low that, whatever flaws there may be in the work, that he would be foolish enough to allow that one. I'd be pretty shocked if he doesn't say in his work "Of course, there are these alternative explanations for why increased choice and dissatisfaction are linked. other than a causal link. But those alternatives are refuted by X, Y, Z." I mean this is a work by a trained professor, not a self-help guru. It's also worth pointing out that Schwartz never says increased choice is the only cause of dissatisfaction. He says it contributes. He never goes so far as to claim "this is the reason for dissatisfaction." I've seen a lot of exaggeration of his claims in this thread.

Can you give any evidence that this is a conscious plot where this tactic is being used this way and not just an emergent property? Who precisely has implemented the plan and what can you point to to show this intent?

This is the very difference between empiricism and non-empiricism. Here you are giving these purely speculative logical reasons why something shouldn't be a certain way. But someone else has done research showing it is that way. If you are empirical, you have to either find a specific flaw in their research (ie: their sample size was too small or they failed to test this criterion in a valid way or something to actually do with critiquing the research) or do your own research refuting theirs. If the response to research is just to go "I don't think that's right cause it seems wrong to me" then we may as well not even waste our time with science. Beyond that, the salad dressing example is obviously a tiny token example. The level of discomfort over that one thing alone would probably be unnoticeable. But when you apply the same principle over and over to nearly everything we do or acquire, it adds up to a life full of doubt over whether you are where you should be for a lot of people. I've actually wondered before what role this has played in skyrocketing divorce rates. 100 years ago, you basically met a limited handful of eligible mates in your life. So there weren't that many other options to sit there wondering if they'd have been better. Now you have access to mates all over the world to the point where you can never possibly know even a fraction of the available mates and can always wonder if someone better is out there. This also may tie into why it's been found that arranged marriages are no less happy or successful than chosen marriages. In those cultures that use arranged marriages, the choices are limited so the couple doesn't really feel like there were infinite other options to worry about and they just get about making the best of things.