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

Biggest gamble in human history

People don't debate the physics of the gun. Sure they debate who should have them, but what Republican would stand up and argue with you about what usually happens when you pull the trigger on a loaded gun? So why this bizarre rejection of science all of a sudden when it comes to the climate?

Right now the United States of America leads the world in many ways. For that reason the world looks to us to look out for ourselves and them, which may to some extent be misguided. But nonetheless it is a responsibility that requires sober consideration of consequences if we are a horrible leader.

If you make the bet against climate science, and you're wrong it's like looking down the barrel of a loaded gun thinking your opinion matters.

I doubt any Republican or any climate denier would dare.

So why pick on Republicans here?

Because more so than any other party they claim to be conservative when their bet could be considered traitorous to this nation. No true conservative would so dare.

They need to be called on reality.

Throughout human history, plenty of people have bet against science. Some have confronted guns certain in their faith.

The guns won.

Science is a tool. Leadership demands that you respect reality, not play pretend, not dream of a fantasy that you wish were true.

Reality dictates. We just live in this reality.

When you start wishing on a prayer to save you, then don't be surprised when reality blasts you out of existence. Oh, maybe when you get to Heaven you can argue with God about what happened to you, if that's where you're going.

Here on planet Earth, the true leaders will be making the right decisions. Because that's what the best leaders do.

You may not like guns, but you respect them, if you understand reality.

And before it's all over, humanity will learn respect for climate reality too. I guarantee it.

So you make that bet against the science of the climate. Science will win.

But whether you live or die as a consequence, humanity will find the leaders and follow them.

These people who think their opinion matters to our climate are as ephemeral as all who have come before them, and soon enough they will, as will I, find their place in the dust, but humanity will endure. This nation will endure.

But with what consequence?

If the power of the delusions of a few means the United States steps aside from its leadership role, people will know who to blame.

Don't bet against my country.

You will lose. I guarantee it.


James Harris

Non profit funding organizations?

Was reading through a recent post of mine again, where I tried to explain the disparity in money given for certain things by continuing with the notion of money as an IOU on a favor. But that was kind of a depressing conclusion to me, as it means weirdly enough that groups of people may naturally give more for a triviality than for something very important to them.

But it may not be as grim as I think. Of course there are important non profit organizations out there that DO get funding.

And fundraising is a big deal for lots of things and I really started thinking in this direction after watching Wikipedia make appeals for funds, and also the Mozilla foundation through its Firefox browser making similar appeals.

I highly recommend giving them money. They do an awesome job for lots of people.

However, I wondered: why couldn't there be fundraising companies that just did fundraising, who say could only take 5% or less of funds raised and had to distribute the rest to non profit organizations?

Then people who are just really good at raising money could specialize and maybe some non profits could quit worrying about raising the money themselves.

That's one of those fantasy ideas as I don't know if you could build a non profit web company around that idea.

A non profit whose only goal was to raise funds for other non profits? Has that been done?

If not, I think it should be.

It could be forced to be focused--only distribute to other non profits with no other distributions allowed, including no direct distributions to individuals.

At first I'm thinking there'd have to be lots of rules to keep it from being abused, but transparency is the most powerful tool: such a company would have to reveal all its distribution financials--who it gives money, and how much.

And along with transparency it would, of course, also simply have to comply with existing laws.

But total transparency is what would make it a 21st century web company. And that's what would give donors greatest confidence their money wasn't being misdirected.

Really like this idea and the post seems to be popular here, but wondering what to do next.


James Harris