Jump to content

Carl Green

Member
  • Posts

    469
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Carl Green

  1. Just finished chapter 2. This is a REALLY good book so far. It would/will be a requirement for my therapist to have read and plan to utilize. There's also this earlier thread that has this video linked about the process. The speaker is Ecker, one of the authors. Thanks for the recommendation Robin!
  2. What is your motivation for making another person? My advice would be to put this potential person's well being top on your list. Will this emotionally blind husband of yours (from context, not saying it's true) be a good father and model how a husband should be receptive to his wife's concerns?
  3. And I think they don't give you the health and background information any more. But you can still get the raw data which you can send off to Promethease (covered in video) to interpret it.
  4. 13:09 - This one seems to be quite good at reaching people in a short amount of time.
  5. Anyone that's spent more than a few minutes researching nutrition will come across the concept that "food affects everyone differently so there's no one single best diet." This leaves you needing to know what's best for you specifically. In this video, the good Dr. Patrick goes over getting your own genetic tests done and gets into how to use the results to determine what diet is best for you.
  6. Thanks for the input, Torero. I've commented in green.
  7. "Addiction is a result of life. I mean that in the sense that the factors are myriad." My point here was that when someone is addicted to something, it's going to be 'because of' a great many factors. Have you come across any research which covers people both before and during addiction? For example, if the study from that BBC show says that X% of people have a dopamine deficiency, does it say whether they tested their dopamine levels before they became addicted to cocaine? I don't claim any accuracy for this, but with addiction, my finger will always initially point to the parents of the addicted first, and look into their early environment.
  8. Every method of intervention you proposed here was essentially adding another negative to the situation. You pushing him over would have been akin to you 'smacking his hand'. There are ways to go about it by adding a positive into the situation. Even still, I think you can do something about this. You said you think the person was the restaurant owner. This is good because it means you can likely call the restaurant during what shouldn't be a busy time and attempt to contact the person over the phone. This will remove you physically from the situation which might help with any fears. I strongly urge though, that you don't call up and complain. I think it's better for the child if you figure out how to communicate something to the guy that has the most chance of him considering your perspective. Empathize with his situation. "I know it must be tough running your business and keeping an eye on your children at the same time. I just wanted to call to suggest that when you want to get your girl to do something right away by hitting or smacking her, that you could be hurting how she thinks when she's grown up. And I know it seems like there's never time but it would really help your daughter if you could just take 20-30 seconds to collect your thoughts and explain why you want something." Obviously I can't know, but I think this would have a far better chance than just calling up and saying something like "I'll never come back to your store because I saw you hitting your kid." That method might get him to not hit her in public any more, but it's also less likely to get to the root of the issue.
  9. I'm working on a flyer that will be promoting the use of connection over dominance with raising children. It's a letter (8.5"x11") sized tri-fold flyer so the right third of the first page will be what's seen as the front of the flyer, and page 2 will be the 'inside'. Flyer Page 1 Flyer Page 2 Publisher File As you can see, there's still a lot of blank space to be filled. For the most part, I've blocked off or already entered what I would like to get across that doesn't involve 'science based evidence' like studies and research and such. I have a general idea of what type of information I'd like to use but I'm open to suggestions and comments. I want to try to keep the comparison as broad as possible so the 'anti-dominance' side includes spanking but also any form of parenting with force, so I'd like to get information on studies that include multiple parenting methods and their results. This is what I'd like to fill the rest of the space up with. Infographic-y type stuff. The previously posted thread by Fishything will give you a good idea of what I'm thinking of. (it's part of what originally got me started on this thing to begin with)
  10. Addiction is a result of life. I mean that in the sense that the factors are myriad. The genes you're given at birth, which epigenetic switches have been flipped throughout your life, parent/peer usage, availability of the substance, availability of help for substance abuse, etc. etc.
  11. I think similarly to "You are what you eat", "You think/feel how you talk" (internally, audibly, and physically)
  12. Ignoring someone trying to tell you do something wouldn't be 'filtered through the NAP', because it's not really an action. It's more of an non-action. If your response was to engage the person and communicate with them, how you went about doing that would be what the NAP is used for. Not to say you should try to RTR with the jerk and try to become best friends, but there are ways to get across to someone that you're not one to be bothered in such a way. Basically, it's not NAP making you look weak, it's inaction causing that.
  13. Another general physics question. Would it be considered more accurate to call The Speed of Light, the Universal Speed Limit? I think calling what that actually represents in reality as "the speed of light" is yet another misleading popular term.
  14. The fundamentals of philosophy and logic are covered very well by this YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/carneadesofcyrene/playlists I also really enjoy hearing about philosophy/philosophers from this gentleman, Rick Roderick. The Partially Examined Life YT channel has two playlists of him. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6676C3E8A487FEE6 and https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA34681B9BE88F5AA And of course, volume 1 of the podcasts here.
  15. Can anyone here 1] understand the source paper (not the phys.org one) and experiment, and 2] tell me if i'm even close here? Very much appreciated if so, thanks!
  16. So what was the point of bringing up the correlations you shared? Was it to back up your opinion that "pot is stupid"?
  17. Thanks dsaysers. my pretty useless 'medical opinion' would be that external factors like fear of being judged or arrested would be the majority of the cause of such a side affect. THC in high enough doses will induce anxiety pretty consistently though, so it's not all external.
  18. Mantis, I'm not debating the accuracy. I'm debating what you're abstracting from the numbers.
  19. Yes, I could easily have just googled the topic you mentioned. "google it" is not a good answer to "what information are you basing this statement on?". Can you refer to something specific or are you just going with your feels on this as well? As for the list of percentages, what does that have to do with anything, and what are they even saying? 11% of people that are considered 'major depressive' use cannabis? Okay fine, but what does that tell us? So of all the major depressed people, 11% use cannabis. Out of all the people that aren't major depressive, what percentage use cannabis? If it's more than 11%, doesn't that tend to indicate that cannabis is actually GOOD for people in that category?
  20. I struggled through some of the original source paper. I *think* that the graphic shown above is the result of both electrons and photons, from differing sources, being 'shot' at a nanowire suspended on/by graphene and appearing in the same space. And the two results are transposed together based on the time axis. So, it's not necessarily 'single original' 'units' of light being split and imaged, but the two different things reacting to the same thing at the same time.
  21. So really, cannabis use is okay/bad when you feel it is? Than the same goes for me, great. I'd be really interested to see the 'clear science' you've reviewed that theorizes cannabis causing IQ reduction. Or any studies that show long term detrimental effects CAUSED BY cannabis. Unless you're talking about temporarily while on it. That makes sense, your brain kind of changes gears while on cannabis. And if all that matters to you is a maxed out IQ all the time, than I suggest you don't use cannabis. As for your link between the disorders %s and cannabis use, I'm not good at logic and even I can see where you've made a mistake here. No need for the however here, everything you said, including what I cut, I agree with and it goes perfectly fine with what I said earlier as well. (unless you were howevering your own first line, than disregard this)
  22. If cannabis use is inhibiting your path to self development, it's good to stop using it. Addiction, from what I can tell, pretty much doesn't care how it gets to the feel-good chems that it wants. Whether it's cannabis, heroin, gambling, sex, etc.. That's not to say that you can just interchange the sources. Once your mind identifies where it can get relief, it'll stick with it, but the point is that problem isn't what the addiction desires, but the existence and cause of the desire itself. Any substance will have differing affects on people. The overall affect of cannabis on anxiety (as well as all drugs) will be different for each individual. That being said, I think it's important to mentally frame the work of 'fixing this' as "resolving the cause of addiction" as opposed to "quitting my addiction to ____"
  23. It would be nice if the field of scientific journalism kicked the precision of language up a notch. I think that too often the author uses incorrect terminology to "dumb things down for the lay man". This is how we end up with most people thinking atoms actually look like all those graphical representations when really you'd never be able to 'see' a complete atom even if you were scaled down to its size (if current atomic model theories are correct.) I'm by no means 'scientifically smart', but that's not a photograph, for starters.
  24. I agree with Crallask, glad to see you 'back' and thanks for all the helpful contributions to the boards, man in a pink bunny suit.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.