Power of prediction in politics

Have emphasized the predictive power we get with science, which to me is definitive. And helps so much with weeding out things which may claim to be, but actually are not, science. Which so many experience on the daily with flipping a light switch.

We unlike our ancestors have little excuse to get mystical about light on demand.

Where politics is an arena where prediction can have a massive impact. Like consider how important it could be, for you, to know much about what will happen politically long before it does.

But is it possible? With MY focus on predictive certainty one can debate to what extent political science exists! Like when was the last time you chuckled to yourself as noted prediction of a political scientist--people with the title do exist--as something DID happen as predicted? And you were like, yup that political scientist was dead on!!! (Um, I have never had that happen will note.)

Years ago talked what I call political science though which I found to be very depressing. And started by noting a prior post where hypothesized that wealthy people might prefer loaning the government money with bonds, like US Treasury bonds, versus supporting government with taxes. And full theory then is that in order to keep that happening they would do just about anything to drive up government debt, including if they could, start wars.

Today of course in the United States we have had yet another tax cut, where was less hidden why was happening than in the past with even slight explanation. And am telling you was predictable--though I decried it on my social media, and tried to get ahead by saying would not happen. Well shows the value of that as my own political science ideas would suggest it WOULD happen. And has also been a push for war I think, where was expecting that, as accepted theory there. And just so some people who are wealthy can try to pay less taxes? That is what the theory suggests strongly.

Oh yeah, in case you missed it with that analysis, point of tax cuts wasn't just the extra money wealthy did not have to pay into taxes, but to drive up the US national debt. They would need a steady pool of US Treasury notes so would work to maintain a federal deficit--according to the theory.

So am relying on predictive value. Theory suggests something and I check on what actually happens.

But very depressing predictions indeed. But with what value? Well let's say am not the only one who looks for predictive certainty. Others can check on such things themselves. Science is not about some person's opinion. Like that light bulb? Does not light because some guy says some things he calls science.

Predictive certainty is a powerful tool. Start thinking about how it might help you? And it might save your life, and the lives of others. Especially if you are a young person who might have been sent off to war, to fight so some already wealthy people, could get wealthier.

My belief is that as we value science properly, and value each other properly, we will get to better government. Oh and maybe get to political scientists who talk such things, and get that a ha I suggested earlier. We do need fewer surprises in politics and not more I do think.

We also need to expect more from each other. And I think is best when we expect the best from people who know, or should learn, better.

Power of prediction in politics? May quite simply be, helping enable a better world.


James Harris

Talking mental health

There is a vast amount of knowledge humanity has gained where thankfully our species is better with keeping up with it, in our times. Like in the past so much was transferred by word of mouth, as that's what they had. Then could write some things down. And so on, until computers and modern systems which can keep up with all of it, thoroughly indexed and searchable.

Still certain people need vast amounts of training in that knowledge, and practice using it, and in the medical field that has greatly helped the lives of many.

Which is true for mental health as well where well-trained medical people are gaining more and more knowledge, and regardless, without that knowledge, what can you do? Like with myself, thankfully realized years ago and have often relied on mental health people, and still need that help.

So what's with stigma? Sociologists and other social scientists actually study such things. What I know is that the mind is a mystery humanity has long sought to crack am sure, with MOST progress with basics in our times.

Like there was a time there were those who thought the seat of consciousness was in the heart. And the head was thought to be just the most important part of an air conditioning and heating system. Yeah was way weird. Which I should add I think was more of a European thing. (Am not so much into linking to discussion of debunked theories, so if doubt me can go research yourself.)

But how could they know?

So lots of theories where plenty were wacky, to us today. Back then you had humans struggling to understand something as basic as their own perception of self and each other. And also completely lost when things went way wrong. Sure they had some things here and there that seemed to help sometimes, but nothing like the diagnostic capability and treatment options of medical staff in our times.

Today well-trained medical practitioners still struggle with much, so what chance do those without even that training have? If still ponder, consider with some wound. Do you really want to wing it? Or would you prefer be dressed and treated by the best capable? Some people can dress their own physical wounds, so can be a ready-reference. But even for them, there are limits to what could possibly handle.

And yes limits for the best medical practitioners but they can handle so much more.

Humanity has made much progress and often appropriate people can completely help with certain disorders.

Like did you know they have very effective treatments now for phobias? Like that fear of flying if you have it? Get that worked on. Want to say fixed but apparently folks don't like that word used when it comes to mental health in my experience.

We still have so far to go with understanding all health, including that of the mind. Best when get the best knowledge available from people well-trained.

Oh, and yeah, of course feel free when necessary, to get a second opinion, also from a well-trained medical person. Best ones expect it really. Or should.

That is a reminder for myself as well, as have hesitated at times. But my health is important enough to do all that I can do, especially when is also expected.


James Harris

Wages and civil rights

Can talk simply about topics like money with my own ideas, where it doesn't take much to delve into very contentious areas. Like already noted in a previous post that what I call political science leads easily to the hypothesis that wealthy people may drive up national debts as a tax deferment scheme.

Making a hypothesis does not make it so, but it does give a predictive framework, which you can test! And science is testable.

Here will look to see what my ideas about money as a social IOU given in exchange for a favor, which works best with strangers can do in the arena of wages and civil rights.

One of the stranger things with human beings I think can be on issues of value of effort, where for instance in times past, like in Old Europe, someone might work in a manor house for some Lord, and there was status in that, as well as food and lodgings. Wages were probably paid, but the condition of servitude was recognized. When wages were NOT paid, a condition of slavery was in place, which was something that was in the United States during a period.

That a condition of servitude could entail benefits all the way to a condition of slavery with a wage scale going to zero is important for what comes next.

In our times, people see pay primarily as the value returned in exchange for the service of their labor, which includes mental labor, when working for an employer which is distinguished from being self-employed even in our times.

Getting a proper return on the favor of a labor, say writing a computer program if a software developer, is important, as if an employer gets services without giving compensation then as seen above, the wage scale is at zero, which is slavery.

If we look at what happened in the US after the end of institutionalized slavery we can use these ideas to note something of interest: People previously slaves who were freed, often had little choice but to return to the people who had been enslaving them, only now in return for their services they were supposed to get adequate compensation.

Not surprisingly can have serious doubts on the notion that occurred, so from one perspective, their condition of slavery was not completely removed, but lessened, with significant responsibilities placed upon them, like housing. They were forced to make money somehow to purchase needed things, but were limited as to who was available to take the favor of their services in exchange for wages to people likely to value those the least. And under pressure to find some way to survive, things like sharecropping could push even closer back to the original condition.

So with my terminology, can say that workers were pushed into offering the favor of their services, to the very people who often had previously valued those services at nothing because they were slaves then.

Best thing would have been if they could start their own businesses.

That wages involve a valuation of the favor of services provided is key. Someone who honestly thinks workers are rather worthless can potentially pay a much lower wage, believing it is adequate compensation.

Return on the favor of effort is a fascinating subject, and the social IOU system we call money can have the flaw that to make money you both need someone who wants the favor of your services and that person needs to value those at a level that can vary, so what if in both areas there is a serious problem?

But yeah if you're working say at 80% of what you should be making as a wage? And you work Monday through Friday? Then conceivably on the simplest interpretation on Friday you're at 0 on the scale, and that day? You're a slave.

This approach can also be used to talk about pay disparities for women, who can be said to work for free from a certain day in the year, based on the percentage less they tend to receive than men doing the same work. The gender pay gap could also be seriously impacted by valuation of services, where someone might see a man doing the same amount of work as somehow doing them a bigger favor than a woman. That perceptual bias, however, if it exists is nonsense. If the work done is the same, then the favor is the same, and the compensation should be the same.

Is relevant though that in considering some of the worst horror stories around employment I've noticed in the news, they tend to occur in low wage areas, were people can be pressured in horrifying ways, leading to a lot of labor laws to try and curb abuses, as well as laws pushing against discriminatory hiring practices. Actually LOTS of laws to protect against all kinds of abuses, like a boss who pushes someone into sexual favors, or people pressured to steal or lie for an employer. Which can occur at higher wages too, of course.

But if someone is paid a lot less by this interpretation they're giving a favor without getting an appropriate return. And they're outside of natural bounds, and who might know better than the employee what their work is actually worth? The employer.

What kind of person could exploit with that kind of knowledge? Maybe the cascade of modern labor laws are revealing about what kind.

The basic concept is simple--if someone does you a favor you should give them equal favor in return, without exception to the best of your ability to give a return, where money is simply a convenient abstraction allowing people to enumerate the value of a favor.

Maybe the simplest thing is to force employers to not steal from workers, by having governments work tirelessly to be sure that return on the effort of the favor is commensurate with actual value to the employer. Shared information is very useful in this regard.

From one perspective then can argue that slavery did not completely die around the world in just this one respect, where the position is muddled by other compensations besides wages. Like the servants who had a wage, but other benefits working for a noble, so were in servitude but NOT slaves, technically.

But yeah, if working without compensation for efforts, as an employee, even for a day? That day may be the one where many experience a form of modern slavery which has simply not been called out as such. People may instead say, you're working for free! Um, what's the difference?

Which is yet another hypothesis. From my kind of political science perspective, then simply enough former slaves were consistently given less in return for their efforts than should have received, limiting them immensely.

Or in other words, quite simply, they weren't paid enough.

Then I could predict that government efforts to push people to give adequate return for favors, will force equality among them. Which may be a reason for some to fight to maintain unequal systems, to fight back for lower wages, so that they can devalue human effort, and the humans who give that effort as well.

Obviously, valuing human effort to the extent is opinion, can give lots of room to just claim those people aren't good enough for higher wages, whether that is true, or not, in any number of circumstances.

Government should, if the hypothesis is correct, disincentivize the benefit to that devaluation. Simply remove the reward for devaluing human effort.

And I suspect it's easier to suggest, than to get done. Especially if you have people who got away with it for a long time, and found huge financial rewards as a result.

Maybe society is very lucky in that most people simply will not behave that way, but will try to give an appropriate return on a favor received.


James Harris

But what is middle class?

Working through my own explanations for important things in our world is something I enjoy doing, which I think helps my understanding. And sharing really seems to help me clarify things as if putting it out public gives more focus, and I like to think my musings useful, as long as it is clear these are opinions.

And I've posted several times recently including this recent post where I noted that years ago I also thought it a good idea to come up with ideas for a new political party with a middle class focus. But what is middle class?

To me when you talk about middle class where naturally my focus is on the United States you mean people who are not on direct government or other charitable assistance, who feel comfortable in their community, and feel in control of their lives, for the most part.

Money I think gives a certain amount of freedom.

Pushing on to wealthy I think requires that a person be able to purchase things not necessary for a comfortable life which then are luxuries.

So to me in general differences between middle class and wealthy are about scale, like a middle class household may have from two to four cars, while a wealthy man may own a dozen classic cars.

Or with a home, a middle class family may want as much space as needed. While a wealthy person may occupy a huge mansion.

Yet a person with a great deal of assets--including vast amounts of money--may occupy a middle class home. And in my opinion can be functionally middle class. To me wealthy presents at the point of luxury.

The functional perspective is where I think it gets interesting, as a middle class family occupies I think that optimal place where their efforts in terms of their community are on balance greater than or equal to what they receive.

Then an impoverished state from the community perspective would mean that while a part of a community you have needs which require help from others to a degree greater than you have given by the standards of that community.

May sound convoluted but for example you may have invested a lot in the people within your community where I will not try to define that and they may readily help you as you age without it being considered a debt on your part. In that case I would say if you are comfortable then you are middle class regardless of what money is involved.

Take it from me, being impoverished means loss of comfort and control. Which is to cover when someone is deliberately uncomfortable, like out camping with limited amenities when it is by choice versus really being irritated by uncomfortable things when there is no choice. For instance one of the problems for those who are homeless can be as basic as finding a bathroom to use.

And that's it. My opinion on the middle class is not necessarily how others might see it.

Like you can check out the Wikipedia on the American middle class.

Not surprisingly I think healthy communities want people with choices, able to pursue their interests in ways that help the community, without requiring much if any assistance from others. While members of such a community will assist each other greatly providing services for each other.

So how does money change things?

In my opinion ALL that money does is allow strangers to do things for you under social contracts that limit trust needed.

For example you can go to a coffee shop and have a complete stranger make you coffee, which is a fun experience I often enjoyed. Contrast with making it for yourself or having someone in your close community like a spouse make it for you.

By limiting social trust, society allows SO much more to be done between peoples and lets them share favors with money. Which is what allows modern society to function.

Then millions can support each other in a nation.

Notice though we still have deep social trust at the larger scale of the nation.

So yes, politicians can send young people off to defend their nation knowing that some will likely be killed, which is as huge a sacrifice as these brave young people can give.


James Harris

What I call political science

Did a post where I suggested that wealthy people might prefer to loan the government money through bonds than simply lose that money through taxes, because then they can get it back, which can lead them to push for more government debt, which I see as a hypothesis in political science.

And to me science is about a predictive framework, so it's interesting to talk about political science as the art of prediction in politics, which to me is a functional basis.

That is, I suggest to you that "science" is meaningless without predictive value, so political science is the art of prediction in politics, with the certainty that science brings.

If things I suggest in this post make sense to you, then you can be in this context a scientist, and I like that maybe politics offers a way for more people to experience the joy of science in a way relevant to themselves, and also meaningful to their society.

And first of all, a hypothesis does not mean necessarily true in science. Which gives me leeway to explore the hypothesis that wealthy people deliberately push national debts on the world to avoid taxes, without saying that must be the case.

Its value in a potential scientific theory is predictive, if it has value: What can we predict with such a hypothesis?

Well, we might expect government debt to be intractable, and rise regardless of economic reality. We also might expect to see behaviors that would increase the debt, like wars. And we might expect to see wealthy people flooding into politics to protect this system from being dismantled.

Notice, no mention of political parties or ideology. No need to worry about Republican or Democrat, or liberal or conservative.

That ability of science to simplify, or reduce a problem to simpler parts is something called reductionism. And for some people that might be something they hate about science which seems to suck the life out of things, reducing them to cold, hard, and maybe even, inhuman consideration.

One interesting thing I think that follows from this line of inquiry is the possibility that there is a maximum for tax outlay from wealthy members of a society with a balanced government budget. Then their monetary support of government would be completely by taxes alone, with no money that can be returned to them directly, as is possible with bonds.

That is a statement about a mathematical curve. Of course running a surplus might mean higher taxes for the wealthy in the short term, but not sustained indefinitely.

Government bonds are like money with a string attached, allowing payment for government services, and later yanking back the money which paid for them, even if the citizen benefited as well. While taxes do not have that return possibility.

The next thing that science allows is testing.

That is, in a true political science as I see it, which is a functional reality, you can test a hypothesis, in order to see if it's true. And there are multiple ways to test the hypothesis that wealthy people, for instance, actually get into politics primarily to keep their taxes low, by running up government debts, which in essence is like tying a string to their money, to yank it back, versus simply losing it, as they might see it, in taxes.

So what about people who claim to be political scientists, or political pundits or commentators, why would they maybe not call out such a system?

Well presumably wealthy people would be smart enough quite simply to pay them off in various ways.

And we could check that hypothesis as well, looking for monetary transfers of various types in order to preserve the hypothetical system.

And yet, this entire political science hypothesis, could all collapse if reality revealed, none of the above, or too low a level to consider the hypothesis to be correct.

So then, isn't science fun?

I love it.

The point of science isn't to win an argument. It's not to convince people of one thing or the other. The point of science is to get predictive certainty.

Like flipping a light switch.


James Harris

Adverse stressors in childhood matter

Just watched an incredibly important TED talk and wanted to post to include the video and link to the website for the ACE study mentioned in the talk. But it's not just a public health crisis that is incredibly important where there is a lot known know about how adverse stressors in childhood literally change the human brain, it is also a personal one.

I just took the ACE quiz before making this post, as it is online and it didn't take me long, and it's a way to mention things I've kind of wanted to mention without giving way too much personal information, and I scored a 7.

Here's the video:

In the video Dr. Nadine Burke Harris--not a relation as far as I know--talks about the health impacts of early childhood traumas. It's important to emphasize these literally change the developing brain. Someday a brain scan may be all that's necessary to detect and diagnose, but for now there's the ACE quiz. And yeah, it's scary to contemplate for me with my score and she talks scores in the video so you can hear its implications.

And I grew up in a lower middle class home to very religious parents. Went on to Vanderbilt University on a full tuition scholarship. Have 5 years active duty service in the US Army working at large medical centers, and left with a honorable discharge. Along with a host of other positives I could mention, which I think can maybe hide so much.

And I've struggled with massive issues mostly in the dark, where I will hold my privacy as to the details, and will admit to recent issues with high blood pressure. It can be hard to face these kinds of things as I think we all either wish we had idyllic childhoods, and figure no one does, or have gotten tired of people seemingly making excuses for their lives blaming supposedly bad ones.

The science, however, is where there can be a clear path both to mitigation and treatment without any loss of adult responsibility for one's actions.

Adverse Childhood Experiences Study website: http://www.acestudy.org

Science here can make a difference for so many people, including protecting their dignity, and helping them get the medical treatment that works best.


James Harris

When prestige has merit

The web is a vast distribution network which moves information around the globe, and the quality of that information will I think move the world to a merit measure for prestige.

Like consider the Wikipedia. If you want to know a lot about its potency you can check studies. As much as I'd like to link to independent ones the most definitive source is, yup, the Wikipedia itself:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

That is a bit irritating as I prefer independent sources, and didn't see any that seemed suitable when I did a search on Google for this article. Some government or something should have something up, if they knew what they were doing. But a lot of governments today clearly do not.

Prior to the ability to have a world pick for itself, institutions gained prestige by many means and carried that over time. But notice the ignominy now hovering over the prestigious news agency The New York Times, which in my mind is that group of people who with President George W. Bush helped more than most to lead the United States into war. That may sound harsh, but why sugarcoat it?

To me then there is what I'll call classical prestige, and functional prestige.

The Wikipedia has functional prestige: people know it works as they use it, and some people have checked it against other prestigious sources.

While The New York Times has classical prestige: it retains prestige despite some of the greatest press failures in recorded history. People see it as prestigious with it debatable as to whether or not it is functioning at that level.

But that appears to be a learned response. And as new generations arise without being taught that a particular institution has prestige then they are more likely to switch to functional prestige.

The difference with functional prestige is people know the value from moment to moment from what they can use in their daily lives.

That has practical importance to me, as I have various ideas out there in prestigious areas, like my own definition of science, and my own ideas for a science of money.

Those are functional ideas in areas where far more prestigious sources have a lot of dominance. But the web lets me put forward new ideas where I can rely on the discretion of many people.

If the ideas are valuable because they work, then they can gain their own functional prestige, which then is entirely about merit.

The science of money by itself can change the world, not because the original source--me--is prestigious. But because the functional need is so great.

People need to understand money in our modern world. It's just that simple.

In the old world people or organizations could build prestige over time, becoming reliable sources, who could lead the world down dark and wrong paths based primarily on that prestige alone.

The new world pushes your ideas to always work, and catches you immediately when you slip up, and then keeps reminding you constantly of your failure.

And that is how civilization will work best.

It's a new way of doing things. It's the best way of doing things.

Prestige should have merit. Now thanks to the inexorable progress of science and technology which connects people in a way that allows constant checking and accurate reporting on those checks--it can.

And I do think that most prestigious institutions around the world are ready for that challenge and are meeting it.


James Harris

Predictive certainty

Something which fascinates me is the calmness with which many people I'm sure flip a light switch. The idea of light on demand is so common in my country that many people are simply shut down to a large extent with a power outage. There may be a rushing about to find a flashlight or candle, as people worry about when power crews will get the power back on.

The predictive certainty with which many of us operate allows us to live daily lives without thinking of it that way, while some seem certain we live in uncertain times, when we don't usually worry about crops on any given year, unless maybe a farmer. Few of us are keeping up with livestock, or worrying about what vegetables or fruits are in season. For many a trip to the grocery store is a casual process.

Reality is that living in the most advanced countries brings an extraordinary amount of certainty. And many know that science has something to do with it, but I found myself wondering why concerns about climate sparked so much questioning, and realized that few people may realize that science is about predictive certainty.

So why are people calm about a light switch but ready to challenge the best scientific experts about whether or not the climate is changing?

How do people get into their automobiles and calmly turn the key, to get to work on time, yet feel free to question related scientific principles when it is something as important as the climate of the planet?

Looking around at established definitions of science I think they are problematic. How do you read an established definition of science and know if someone is doing it or not? How do you carry confidence about the electricity flowing in your house yet question the possibility of epic change to the climate of your planet.

So I came up with my own definitions. These are not established. But I'm going to use them to give a functional view of science, show how predictive certainty works, and point out how you can know when someone is doing science.

science (noun): the art of prediction using methodologies and tools to expand zones of certainty by discovery of a predictive framework.

scientific theory (noun): predictive framework found by using science.

scientist (person): practitioner of science.

Science can be about medical science, where a doctor can set a broken bone with predictive certainty. Or it can be about bureaucratic science, where an MBA can learn management techniques for a particular size company. Or automotive science can allow a mechanic to fix your car, or hype up the performance of a race car.

But can a scientist just wake up one morning and definitively say a solution exists for a particular problem?

Usually, no. Experiments and theory and more experiments and studies by various scientists over time can find things that people may have never even realized were possible, so there is an art to it.

My definitions may seem extremely abstract. Where is the scientific method? Why no mention of the natural world or phenomena? How can I not use the word "experiment" or "hypothesis"?

Yet all those things are encapsulated within the abstraction. That's what abstraction is for: getting to the essence of the thing without unnecessary extra.

Experiments involve tools and methodologies to expand zones of certainty by discovery of a predictive framework. That predictive framework lets you do things like wire a house. Work on more efficient propulsion systems. Or produce a new vaccine.

Scientists make predictions.

Let me repeat: scientists make predictions!

That physicist tells you what will happen if you gather enough weapons grade plutonium together into a nuclear bomb.

That biologist tells you how to combat a particular bacterium.

That computer scientist tells you how to build a massively scalable architecture to process Big Data from a billion users around the globe.

Science is not about the unknown. Science is our predictive certainty of the known. It's about those things for which we are sure. That ever growing body of predictive certainty is what our civilization relies upon.

Scientists work to grow that predictive certainty. Beyond the boundaries of that work there are vast stretches of unknown areas. But mystery is not science. It can drive our best scientific minds to discovery.

But mystery is where our science has not yet arrived.

And if you dare to plan, rely on your vehicle to get you there on time, feel confident on that alarm to wake you, or that phone to make the call if needed, you believe in that predictive certainty which came from science.

So believe in it too when it tries to help you and others save your world.

Climate science has much that is certain. But more emphasis where it is uncertain which is where the excitement for scientists exists. That's unfortunate for those who seize upon the edges of predictive certainty to cast doubt on it all.

But I'm sure they have no qualms when they flip a light switch.

James Harris

Your bacteria and you

Source: NY Times

Science
Bacteria Thrive in Inner Elbow; No Harm Done
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: May 23, 2008
Even after you have washed the skin clean, there are still one million bacteria in every square centimeter of skin in the crook of your elbow. But they are not bad bacteria.

Awesome article. Who knew? Bacteria tribes in all of us? Our own cells are out-numbered 10 to 1 by friendlies living inside of us and out?

Here's a quote:

...These are not bad bacteria. They are what biologists call commensals, creatures that eat at the same table with people to everyone’s mutual benefit. Though they were not invited to enjoy board and lodging in the skin of your inner elbow, they are giving something of value in return. They are helping to moisturize the skin by processing the raw fats it produces, says Julia A. Segre of the National Human Genome Research Institute....

And one more because I think it's rather important:

...Much the same set of bacteria recolonize the gut after a course of antibiotics, he said, suggesting that the makeup of the colony is important and that the body has ways of reconstituting it as before.

The article says that biologists think we should be best described as "superorganisms" to properly include all the bacteria. So hey, in a way, we're all super beings with bacterial colonies adapting to our lifestyles along with us. Sort of your extra crew, one might say.

Science explaining wisdom?

Source: NY Times

Health / Research
Older Brain Really May Be a Wiser Brain
By SARA REISTAD-LONG
Published: May 20, 2008
New research suggests that memory lapses that occur with age might be a sign of a widening focus of attention.

That blurb doesn't do the article justice as it says so much more to explain how older can mean wiser in that people with more experience are able to notice more of what's actually going on. Here's a quote from the article:

“A broad attention span may enable older adults to ultimately know more about a situation and the indirect message of what’s going on than their younger peers,” Dr. Hasher said. “We believe that this characteristic may play a significant role in why we think of older people as wiser.”

The article mentioned that younger people tend to just speed past oddities, as if they weren't there, while older people, able to process more efficiently, can even pay attention to the things that should not be there, as well what should, and then understand better overall, what is actually going on.

Learning penalty in nature

Source: NY Times

Science
Lots of Animals Learn, but Smarter Isn’t Better
By CARL ZIMMER
Published: May 6, 2008
New research indicates that growing smarter has dangerous side effects that make its evolution even more puzzling.

Really surprising research to me, though reading the article it makes sense that learning has its costs.

Here's a quote from the article:

Dr. Kawecki and like-minded scientists are trying to figure out why animals learn and why some have evolved to be better at learning than others. One reason for the difference, their research finds, is that being smart can be bad for an animal’s health.

And one more:

Dr. Kawecki says it is worth investigating whether humans also pay hidden costs for extreme learning. “We could speculate that some diseases are a byproduct of intelligence,” he said.

Hmmm...

Immediate physical effects of alcohol consumption

Source: TheSite.org

What drink does

Why do we dance on tables when drunk, why do we crave chips at 3am and why do we feel so, so awful the next day? Before you shout for your next Tequila let TheSite.org explain.

What makes you feel drunk?

When a person drinks an alcoholic beverage, about 20% of the alcohol is absorbed in the stomach and about 80% is absorbed in the small intestine....

Double Dippers dipping dilemma

Source: MSNBC

Eww! Double dipping just gross, study confirms
‘It’s like kissing everybody at the party,’ researcher says

updated 3:27 p.m. PT, Fri., Feb. 1, 2008

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Keep an eye on the salsa this Super Bowl Sunday: A researcher inspired by a famous “Seinfeld” episode has concluded that double dipping is just plain gross....

...They found that three to six double dips transferred about 10,000 bacteria from an eater’s mouth to the remaining dip sample....

Eww, indeed.

Good cholesterol? Bad? How about neither.

Source: NY Times

Op-Ed Contributor
What’s Cholesterol Got to Do With It?
By GARY TAUBES
Published: January 27, 2008
The truth is, we’ve always had reason to question the idea that cholesterol is an agent of disease.

An important read. Here's a quote from within the article:

...The lipoproteins LDL and HDL became “good cholesterol” and “bad cholesterol,” and the lipoprotein transport vehicle was now conflated with its cholesterol cargo. Lost in translation was the evidence that the causal agent in heart disease might be abnormalities in the lipoproteins themselves....

Wow. That gave me a quick wake-up this morning. Go figure.

The new racial dialogue

Source: NY Times

The DNA Age
In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice
By AMY HARMON
Published: November 11, 2007
Research is exploring how DNA explains racial differences, but it could give discredited prejudices a new potency.

Science is now moving towards answering questions long-held about differences between various groups and some fear that reinforcement of negative stereotypes may occur while I do not.

That is because I have a very nuanced view of American racism where I see it as in my experience people who rely on race to say they are superior do so because they need that extra, as normal people do not wish to learn that the size of their accomplishments may be lessened because of genetic gifts.

For instance, to do an extreme, what person struts around proud of being able to talk versus their dog's inability?

As human beings we are genetically capable of speech while our four-footed friends are not, but who prides themselves on that?

If "whites" were genetically superior to "blacks" in some areas of intelligence, then their accomplishments in those areas would be rated less in comparison.

Since no one can say that any racial group is completely shut out of any area of human society in terms of accomplishment, actual racial disparity in some particular area would elevate, not diminish the accomplishments of someone from a disadvantaged group.

So those who look to race for a sense of their own superiority do so I suggest based on a sense of their own personal inferiority, so they need the help, as no one wishes to be simply told that their accomplishments are not that big of a deal because they have a genetic leg-up.

Like, consider fashion models.

The new racial dialogue I believe will be a complex one that will go far beyond past ones that were about scared people looking for advantage in a highly competitive society, especially as more people realize that the person claiming supremacy on the basis of race does so because he has nothing else to rely on, so he needs to believe that something built-in gives him at least some worth.

People who value real accomplishment do not value innate advantage as they seek to prove to themselves and others who is the best.

In a world where genetics are increasingly not enough, where people have to learn to be the best, I doubt racial intolerance will gain more traction than it already has as it is instead a sign of fear and weakness.

And in this modern world showing such weakness is increasingly a way to lose.

Useful appendix

Source: MSNBC

Scientists may have found appendix’s purpose
Seemingly useless organ may produce, protect good germs for your gut

WASHINGTON - Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut....

Grape has more genes than you

Source: Yahoo! News

Wine grape genes mapped
By JENNY BARCHFIELD, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 27, 1:51 PM ET

...A team of French and Italian researchers has mapped the genome of the pinot noir grape, used to make bubbly and many red wines from France's Burgundy region and around the world — and it has about 30,000 genes in its DNA. That's more than the human genome, which contains some 20,000 to 25,000 genes.

Germs in space, experiment makes deadlier

Source: Yahoo! News

Germs taken to space come back deadlier
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Mon Sep 24, 5:02 PM ET

WASHINGTON - It sounds like the plot for a scary B-movie: Germs go into space on a rocket and come back stronger and deadlier than ever. Except, it really happened.

Oh, I love this story. And who thinks of sending germs into space and seeing how many mice they kill when they get back anyway?

Iceland's clean energy

Source: CNN

... Virtually all of the country's electricity and heating comes from domestic renewable energy sources -- hydroelectric power and geothermal springs.

It's pollution-free and cheap....

Ice keeps New York office towers cool

Source: CNN, title is their headline

...Some office towers and buildings are keeping their AC use to a minimum by using an energy-saving system that relies on blocks of ice to pump chilly air....