amanda more

I think it is a system actually based on some levels of lies we tell ourselves. Most people, male and female lie to themselves about their real interest. It is crushing to a guy to foresee that he will never again risk his heart in order to have access to a female. He tells himself he is just biding his time and occasionally playing the game. There is no biological imperative regarding him. He wakes up at 55 and decides the reason no 35 year olds are attracted to him is money. A female thinks she is doing the right thing but as 35 approaches dating becomes rife with those she is attracted to disliking the obvious need she has to scout out appropriateness. He holds the cards now and feels he doesn't need to play fair because he has forever. He also has had his heart broken and may likely seek those who are a mismatch because it will prevent deep entanglement. Financially, three quarters of 35 year old men for the last thirty years can't support themselves. So women do this calculation of having another mouth to feed in addition to any offspring. Even in the first round those who actually marry today are well off. One 30 year old I know was anticipating access to 35 year olds when he is 55. I said- what kind of woman wants to date her father's buddies? So even if anticipating coupling at that age this is no longer some feudal system where that is her only chance for advancement. I guess though I wonder that anyone ever finds anyone. The flip question becomes interesting.

Wow. This is so relevant to the iPhone app I just programmed (not yet in the store.) I had no idea if some people tried to add $1.23 + 2.95 they may start on the digits to the right - never even occurred to me. This thing may be more beneficial than I had thought. It is also a very,very dose of behavioral change. When this country failed to go metric the school books faltered then left out meaningful measurement. No cups, pints and quarts. They took what any cook has understood for thousands of years and relegated it to silly numerals above and below a line.

Well, this product gets made and alas. Are any ingredients sourced from a rainy part of California and then discover Iodine 131. Food does not cause traffic accidents. There will always be risk.

I think where- what part of the country you find work is important. Although any company wants to make attempts to retain you if you are a star, in Silicon valley it is almost expected that you will have entrepreneurial desires. Just hanging out in a coffee shop in Palo Alto you would find wide acceptance of your talent. The "person in the street" has made money from people from you. Not that everything is ideal. I'd live longer even in New York City expressing my worries and difficulties. Never have I seen so many twenty somethings with millions funding them- and have to act so laidback Californian about it. With so few barriers to entry why haven't you already slapped something together on the iPhone or facebook app and put it out there?

Not too long ago it was thinness that was associated with bad health. Obesity was rare. Even when AIDS was out of control this culture with TV images etc. still worshipped the very thin. Hard to believe today that anyone ever shared Reuben's appreciation of large females. As I channel flip I noted that Jerry Springer has svelte guests now instead of overweight. My guess on this is the Meth epidemic in the heartland. I don't think the population he can manage to draw from got with it suddenly with diet and exercise. Culture is huge. Health departments must be exasperated. Nuggets and fries and the inability to let your children play outside has to be a true health problem. Beating up on the parents and overweight adults would rarely be a solution. No wonder so many people hate science. Science is used to constantly browbeat. Although I believe good science asking the right questions can show many systems etc. "the errors of their ways." Related to this topic there have been studies showing that mothers who cut calories during pregnancy add risk to their babies. The media never picks up on these stories much. I'm trying to recall but seem to remember the risk can be as high as known factors like cigarette smoking. Actually, it may be a good thing if researchers have time to publish in peace. The public has yet to understand that a controversial study generally signals a need for more science not a total conclusion.

I am asking for a albeit more unusual problem statement. Are you asking in a group of people who would have a high risk of mortality do to their age who among them will be at most risk to die first? Or are you asking all things being equal compared to that rare group of say 60 year old females who have the amazing self-disipline of no other risk factors will obesity as either a marker or a cause signal a shortened life? There are caveats then for each question also.

This really does goes towards my general concern that science is misunderstood. Except in this case there is an underlying favorable goal towards what is in fact a type of propaganda. I know cigarette smokers do die from it but it often effects the quality of life. Even here one would have to say heavy smoking is dangerous. If you limited yourself to two a day you haven't increased your odds at all. Every medical study I have ever read I always approach it trying to see if the researchers have truly teased out cause and effect. Suppose you were to observe five thin women at age 55 in the heartland. It is a very different thing than study results to conclude that they would have better odds at a longlived life than an obese person. The words that the media misses is "all other things being equal" perhaps obesity is a risk factor. Here too a study may have sorted out all the people with other factors. Today, for instance, in certain areas, thinness is a marker for cigarette smoking or methamphetamine use or alcoholism. These things on average will get you quicker. In the studies weightloss is often a precurser to cancer.( "preclinical cancer" meaning it hasn't been detected yet.) Half of the people have a genetic predisposition to get diabetes and high cholesterol while half do not even, possibly, if they were to go on and become obese. When mentioning cause and effect just as thinness could be a marker of cancer and not a cause of it, obesity can be a marker of already having insulin resistance and prediabetes. So it is then an effect here and not a cause primarily. Certainly debilitating illness which prevents movement can be seen to hurt the equation also. Even if weightloss helps initially since 98 percent gain back the weight then at a two year trial they are not then better off. So weightloss may not improve longterm health outcome. The factor I am thinking of is the main one that makes researchers struggle to account for in their study populations for almost any kinds of research. Epidemiological research especially. I've asked several scientists in person who don't guess it. What is the major measurable risk factor among the largest number of people which causes the most lost years resulting in earlier death in this country (USA)?

That is wrong. Heart disease is not the main -measurable factor- which is the main cause of -early- death in the United States. Anyone? Hints are already here. Are more hints needed?

If the junk food contains fat, it will not cause energy levels to spike. It is the combination of foods. Foie Gras is all fat and one wouldn't expect much difference physiologically from fried pigs feet.

Many of those causes used to be labelled differently- old age. Early death here is the key and it has been sort of mentioned. In the United States today besides gender what is the biggest easily defined factor causing an early death?

from Marat "I think that people don't play lotteries on the mistaken reasoning that lotteries are a sensible investment overall. Instead, they are just hoping to be lucky, since their dead-end lives leave no other chance for dramatic improvement. There is a certain logic to playing the lottery if you know you are stupid or untalented, since then you take a chance on your luck, which is identical with that of everyone else playing the game, rather than on your intelligence or talent, which put you at a competitive disadvantage." end Marat Thank you. A lot here. I was wondering if the "other half" might understand it in their language. Some way to engage emotion I suppose with a bully standing around taking lunch money perhaps. But that still aggravates. They have to use math all the time. Why dislike it so strongly here? To consider a type of formal apology for the lottery- My first stab at it is that the poor spend a lot in aggregate and a higher percent of income on lotteries but perhaps since all paycheck is spent (after all poverty and savings don't correlate often) then they are deflecting from other economic choice. Instead of two six packs with the predictive call to the cops later and losing my current squeeze, I play the lottery instead. It could be argued the second six pack has a negative return as it causes more pain than pleasure. It does take some kind of power of authority to let humans know when they are taking a misstep. We are mammals and are exquisitely tuned for the momentary pleasures. Suddenly what everyone knew as evil gambling has been rebranded as fun gaming. So we believe television instead of the words of oldtime pastors as expressed by some in the older generation. I was considering this: If there are measurable costs for attempting say to go to college. The loans. Need not to work at 7-11 during high school losing that cash. Navigating away from the beating from the neighborhood bully. If only 6% of the poor ever get into the middle class or above in this country and the risks could be measured (like in freakonomics) maybe in general there is statistical evidence not to stride for more. If it is a sure loss- most will fail who try then guess what? Only half your money is lost in the lottery. And no student loans.

I recall a student coming back to the dorm after a very challenging test which probably had an average score of 50% and throwing his arms around "I aced that." At what point is a person being a kind of a bully with his words? That may not be his intention. Still.

I think while -strategy- helps with games and everyone uses it in the workplace, it falls short. A chess game is a meritocracy and the workplace is not. It is a political arena. You are wrong to think that there are no others without this same skill set. This is hard for me to understand but it is possible to accept that if it isn't brain surgery and the patient isn't critical then it is ok for companies to muddle along. Frustrating, but you are not the only one. When I was in Silicon Valley, they helped solved this by bringing in ace contractors who worked less with the other employees but were well rewarded for the kind of thinking you mention. There is still huge politics involved because now you have to sell your ability over and over. They always talked about "culture" of the company- generally 20 something Stanford grads. But there was always others in the wings some old guys of 50 say. I enjoy iphone programming but even here I'd rather be programming and building my own requires so much marketing etc. stuff.

s

Acts of genius versus the entity of having a state of intelligence at a genius level. We are a tribal species. If an individual has a high IQ but it is not nurtured by his environment then how can he fulfill his potential? If he is raised alone practically with no one else who can talk with him then it would be very hard to learn to accomplish things in the world at large. A simple example is there must have been millions of females who had as high an IQ as their husbands but we don't hear about them. There the environment is more than just childhood socialization but a real barrier to apply what they learn and to have the resources to learn. An average person can certainly have flashes of genius. In the right time and place these can even be productive and recognized.

So here it is- the language of science is math. If one wants "the other half"(nonscientists) to have a clue about the modern world then they need some basic understanding of the language of science. But they don't , won't, can't. Why? The simple problem I mentioned was that say - a lottery where the state (or country or whatever) takes in 100 million dollars and keeps 50 million dollars. So, without chi or any upper level stuff, it is basic that then for every $1 spent 50 cents goes to the state (or country or whatever.) Perhaps if this isn't clear then you can help me to understand what is not to understand with this. A higher level term for this than the term- odds is --probability.

I'd go the comparative physiology route. I have a book here somewhere on it but googling should work. I know that for mammals we have an ever changing environment and there is what would appear to be quite a dicey method to keep all minerals, sugar,water etc. in balance. But it would be interesting if other animals can stand greater variations and so don't need such sophistication.

If genius didn't have some underlying IQ whether we put math on it or not then why would we believe in "unfulfilled potential?" I am reminded of Forest Gump's mothers advice "stupid is as stupid does." Really? So genius is as genius does?

I suppose the culture has not adjusted its thinking to skew from old middle class majority to the current socioeconomics. The upper class that fell to the middle class can feel higher by believing in the food wars. Health scientists refuse to acknowledge the number one risk factor for an early death in the USA. test question: Besides gender what is the biggest risk factor for an early death?

So a master manager that convinces foreign born and native grad students to work lots of hours for little pay and uses his political connections to get grants is a genius? Ah, if only the world was a meritocracy instead of a political game. The flipside is the individual in his own individual lab can do so little so to work with others is absolutely necessary to be productive requiring some level of EQ.

There is a real effect. Arthritics generally have some level of inflammation. My grandmother (an arthritic) made the family move to a hallway and a tornado crashed the chimney through the living room. Gas being much more compressible than liquid it makes me wonder just what the makeup of synovial fluid is about(like at knee). The ear is ok in the air generally and the ground. It is during take-offs and landings that ear pain happens. Fish have a bladder that responds to the water depth. Maybe it is a sensory response that somehow pumps fluid suddenly to areas- blood, lymph etc. Unless all the radar, internet etc. is down then the weather service isn't going to run the experiments so that they can then say, "Bring me an arthritic."

Hi, For the third book I want to write - letting the "other half" (the politicians and journalists especially )get a clue about basic arithmetic so they can then be able to talk some rudimentary science or to some scientists/techs/mathematicians As an example, I thought I'd use the lottery. Alas, those who are clueless seem especially unable to understand this. Is it too emotional? This isn't even death statistics. I need to do some headshrinking on them to try to find what the deep intense block is. Any guess? Thanks

I am not sure how this drills down to undergraduate biochemistry. my interest two b-cells O O they see a substance <<<<<<<<<< They both get activated then one quiets O but the other stays active The first one is a normal bcell that has seen a substance which is actually part of the person's own body. The second one is the essence of Lupus. This appears to be independent of all the other cell signaling factors acting on or with the bcell. Why? And even if one has the bad luck to have selfreacting bcells can they be messed with to then have them do selfdeath or switch back?

This is a topic change. I am planning a book. I ask a lottery purchaser this: "Okay, say the state takes in 100 million dollars for a lottery. It keeps 50 million dollars. That is ok with you?" They nod. "So it is ok for the state to do that- you know they keep part of it- you knew that?'' yes, they say. "So when you buy a lottery ticket and spend $1, then 50 cents goes to the state, right?" They don't get it. Goes right over their heads. Our lives are run by media and politicians that hate math. Isn't this really arithmetic? Maybe all of 8th grade arithmetic? This is some huge disconnect. The two camps have a gulf as wide as an ocean between. Why are we supposed to couch things in words? Why can't they speak in at least rudimentary level of our language. It isn't an improved education needed. This is some kind of deep type of block. Why? Why? Why? As an aside- does anyone here bet the lottery?