dust

My mistake in writing. 'basic' was paired only with 'qigong' in my head. Could read it instead as "Taiji or basic qigong". All I meant to ask is: I know many on TDB only practice these internal arts, and are they alone enough for your flexibility needs? And I'm sure someone will tell me that there's no such thing as 'basic qigong' either. But, well, I practice Baduanjin, and after so long it seems pretty simple/basic compared to other qigong practices. I am not a good student.... And I don't know that there is a specific person who I want to have as a teacher anyway, or a specific practice I want to learn. I'm just floating around.

Very interesting. This goes some way to explaining your standpoint on this and a number of things. Yes, many of these things are amazing, but no more than trees or deer or oceans or humans or even just the air we breathe. In my opinion, these things (buildings etc) are far less amazing than trees or oceans or humans, actually -- far less complex and subtle. A human is, to me, far more impressive and important than the thing he creates. The world does not present a wholly pretty face to me. Yes, I appreciate the beauty of the wild, and of many man-made things, but I do not pretend that all is soft and safe. What you seem to do, though, is irrationally advocate anything man-made over anything wild, purely because man made it, because man's need to produce is so special to you, way beyond things like clean air and oceans and children not dying of cancer. No judgement from me on your love of industrial stuff -- it's based in years of experience, it's part of you, and in itself is not something to object to. But that does not mean that the existence of many of these things and the irresponsible management of them (not always, but sometimes) is not harmful and even hateful. You may enjoy coal mines, but Chinese miners don't. You may enjoy industrial plants, but those who have to live near discarded industrial waste don't; those who get sick from the runoff from all sorts of industry don't. You may even enjoy the clever efficiency of factory farming, but the animals don't, and the global environment is getting pretty sick of it too. Just because you worked in dirty industry for most of your life, and find it amazing, does not mean that dirty industry is not harmful and that we should not be working to minimize it.

Agree with you both. Sionnach, I like that image, and I hate the fact that it represents reality, but... do you really think autarky would lessen all the harm? Yes, humans lived in smaller autonomous groups for a long time, but during a lot of that time slavery and serfdom were widespread. Not to mention the difficulty we'd have in reversing the process. It just couldn't work any longer, at this point, in my opinion. First photo is an area in Beijing. Been there and believe me, smog and traffic is pretty representative. Last photo looks like a garbage dump. You conveniently missed that bit? Only see the pwetty buildings? It continues to amaze me how you can pretend that these kind of things -- pollution, garbage mountains, devastated habitats -- either don't exist or are not a problem.

I used to feel that way. The kicker for me was the beginning of this year, after a long Christmas period eating meat with nearly every meal. I got so sick of it. I'd been aware of vague feelings of guilt over eating animals for a long time, but believed it was a 'necessary evil', believed in all that nonsense that one needs meat for health, and didn't think I'd enjoy food without it. But I tried for a week, and a week turned into a month, and...... I haven't eaten any since. And never will again, unless my life depends on it. The idea of it now sickens me more than ever before. And I feel better now. Not because I'm healthier (I might be, not sure), but because I know I have bettered myself: I was able to admit that I had been wrong for so many years, and I no longer contribute to all that excess suffering. Feels pretty cool. I admire those, like Sionnach, who realised this at such a young age. Took me way too long.

Yes, I attended private and state, and the private certainly provided more balance for the sexes and a general leg-up over the state. But there were still major issues -- being forced to study theology Christianity, the slant on history we were taught, the lack of certain subjects, etc. Girls "outperforming" boys is not unheard of. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11364130/Girls-do-better-than-boys-at-school-despite-inequality.html "The findings ... show that even in countries which are known for their lack of gender equality, including Qatar, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, girls still outstrip educational performance of boys." I don't know what this means, though it would seem illogical to blame it on sexism in either direction when girls are outperforming boys in blatantly misogynist societies as well as far more balanced ones. This outperformance, though, apparently isn't translating into better long-term success, even in the UK. Now, I'm not arguing in favour of women taking over all power because they do better in school (!!), but it would seem that the patriarchy of old is still in effect to a certain extent.

The answer is the same as I'd give for the vast majority of problems one might see with society: education. If, and I do mean if, it were decided to be true that, as Brian helpfully says above, there is a problem with discouragement of women in pursuit of a certain subjects/career that they could be very well-suited to, and this discouragement begins in school and permeates the culture to a certain extent, then I would suggest focusing education on being more balanced in its encouragement. It is obvious to me that education is unbalanced and inadequate in many respects -- different in different places, between different schools in the same areas, but still inadequate -- and, though I can't be sure as I haven't attended school for a decent while now, I think that sexism is still one of these imbalances. I've got a good few posts on TDB now, but if you were to look through you'd find a few in which I expand upon my belief that an unbalanced and inadequate education is a major problem with almost every society in history and could be a major solution to many countries' problems. This is not about indoctrination or brainwashing, as I somewhat fear you might infer, but simply about a better balance. I'm not saying "Force men and women down each career path in equal numbers," I'm saying "Strip education back, remove historical and cultural bias as much as possible, and think about what we really want to be teaching younger people so that they are truly free to make the most informed and rational choices they can."

Indeed, it's no more than a sport to me. I intend to look further into it all -- am in the process of it -- but will likely never delve years-deep into it. They are more of a means to an end, and I would be content with looking at the end without truly understanding the means. Which is why I ask these superficial questions, get confused, and end up chasing my tail...

There are no thousand levels to my opinion here, oh omniscient one. Computing, as it existed 200 years ago, was legally open to women too. If it hadn't been, Lovelace wouldn't have been able to help Babbage. And the same applied to numerous people in numerous areas through history. But the absence of legal restriction to do a certain thing didn't mean that everyone was truly free to do it. You are saying, quite simply, that if something is not illegal there is no barrier to it; and that claiming there are barriers, or thinking about whether it might behoove people to eliminate the barriers, is violent and impinges upon individual freedom. That is bullshit.

Well... Laozi and Zhuangzi have some to say about it. Other than that... I'm not sure it's something one can learn much about by reading a book. I've read a good few books, and the Laozi and Zhuangzi a fair few times, but I think I was closer to figuring wuwei out years ago, before I'd started reading about it. sorry, that wasn't helpful at all.

Well, in my mind, the notion that "might makes right" is prominent in the lives of such as Stalin, Mao, Hitler, et al. You did not mean that; good. So what is this violence? To suggest that my questioning the balance of power, in society as a whole and the workforce and in the family etc, implies a philosophy of violence... Not really sure what we're talking about now. Going back to the beginning: I simply linked the article, summarised it, asked for thoughts on it, and stated that I'm not really sure what to think (the question). It was only after an exchange between you and Jetsun and BES and james bond that I said, "Yes, a gap for whatever reason is a gap. Whether it's because women don't like it or see it as something men should do or another reason, there's a gap and it's worth addressing at least in passing." It gradually turned into a debate on equal rights. Yes, I maintain that current culture / perception is responsible at least in part for minor and major differences in the way men and women feel that they can or should conduct themselves and live their lives. Your general refusal to permit any consideration that there might be some unfair differences between how women and men are treated, by each other and themselves and society as a whole, irks me and I must argue against it... When you say, "I don't have to query past cultural bias because it is an irrelevance." -- I must continue to object. Of course it is relevant.

You don't worry about the potential long-term effects of ever more expansive automation? I agree that machines have benefited humans in many ways. But it is foolish to ignore the many other ways in which they have harmed. I won't be discussing this with Karl, as I'm utterly bored of the same argument (and I'd imagine he is too) about the evils of environmentalism and how being wary of unquestioned technological 'advance' is "anti-capitalist" and disgusting, but I'd feel remiss in not questioning this line of thought. Even ignoring short-term unemployment, surely we can see problems with the idea of all aspects of human and non-human life being gradually and completely taken over by machines, and the few who create, maintain, and control them?

Ah. Well, I'll wait and see what else you have to say but for now I wonder, based on what you've said: if each is an element coupled with fire, can we not still make comparisons with the Five and discover some similarities? I mean, if serotonin is indicative of Fire + Water, can a serotonin-dominant person still said to be generally dominant in Water? Also, based on my own continued doubt over the whole comparison: if Poliquin ascribes numerous world-class athletes' success to his method based initially on this idea, and the idea isn't really accurate, what could his success actually be ascribed to?

HyperNormalisation by Adam Curtis presents a compelling, bizarre, and frightening narrative. Without comment, for now, on how factual I believe the narrative to be, and how much is left out, even just watching the film as a mostly chronological stream of captured moments over the last few decades is surreal and disturbing. It attempts to tie some important threads together, from 1975 to the present, in an explanation of how we reached this point -- Trump, Putin, Syria, Brexit, and the gods know what next. ___ I put this in WWW for one reason, with one rule: you must have actually watched the film in order to contribute. It will likely be obvious if you haven't. Anyone who hasn't, and especially who posts nonsense unrelated to the film in the belief that they know what they're commenting on, will have their comments hidden. This is not to say that -- if you have watched it -- you cannot criticise it. Criticism is encouraged. Just make sure you know what you're criticising.

Not sure why the link was funny! Sorry. Fixed. Though I warn that anyone outside the UK probably won't be able to watch it on BBC iPlayer. (There are certainly other ways to find it, I'm sure, but I certainly don't want to encourage illegal behaviour )

Hmm... I don't want to thank you for denying me more beer but I suppose I must be gracious Interesting Also interesting. Will look into Bazi

Does that perhaps mean I could just drink more ale? Will look into the natural stuff and more about GABA For sure, it is oversimplified. I don't know why, for a little while, I entertained the idea that it could possibly be so simple. Well -- I thought -- if the Five Elements are so straightforward (people can apparently be diagnosed fairly accurately), why not these? Also, it obviously ignores more fundamental genetic disposition (in favour of changeable neurotransmitter-based disposition) and circumstantial factors (childhood, lifestyle, etc).

Fair point. Are the characteristics associated with them similar, though? Fire-dopamine, etc? Looking at the Braverman test again today I cannot help but be struck by how incongruous some of it seems (to me). Acetylcholine nature: You are adept at working with your senses and view the world in sensory terms. You are highly creative and open to new ideas. You are a quick thinker who is always taking other people into consideration. You are devoted to making things the best they can be, no matter how much effort it requires. You are flexible, creative, and spontaneous, and are willing to try anything new as long as it promises to be new and exciting. If your acetylcholine nature is in balance, you are intuitive and innovative. You take pleasure in anything involving words, ideas, and communication. (Acetylcholine is produced to a great extent in the parietal lobes of the brain, which is responsible for language, intelligence, and comprehension) You may be ideal in the roles as counselor, mediator, think tank member, yoga and meditation instructor, religious leader, and in public service. Strong acetylcholine levels are associated with high brain speed, which impacts the creative function, so artists, writers, advertising professionals, and actors are frequently acetylcholine dominant. You are extremely social, even charismatic. You love meeting and greeting and making new friends. You come across to others as authentic and grounded. People find you charming, and you find relationships come easy to you. You invest a great deal of energy and time into your relationships and feel that you are personally reaping the rewards. You are an optimist, and your see the possibilities in people. You are attentive to the needs of children and romantic with you significant other. You are good at remembering other people’s feelings and reactions, and this enables you to not hurt others. You are altruistic and benevolent. You love adventure. You are open to new things and not afraid of failure. You like to travel, but you can also enjoy reading about the lives of others. Your quest for learning makes you interested in a variety of topics and adept at sharing your knowledge with others. The stuff highlighted in green resonates with me very well. Open to ideas, creative, considerate, taking pleasure in words and ideas, etc. The stuff in red is pretty much as far from me as possible. Social, charismatic, friend-making, charming! Hah! It doesn't seem like there's any possibility of me fitting into any of the groups, and I don't think anyone I know does either. In which case, what's the point? If nearly everyone is the 'fifth' option -- a balance of all 4 -- doesn't the whole thing become redundant?

Exactly. When a 'gender gap' such as this is pointed out as favouring men, some men will get all bent out of shape arguing about the evils of feminism and totalitarianism. Never, though, did the article or me or you or anyone else suggest that the inequality doesn't work both ways. In the UK, in my experience, teaching from secondary/high school is pretty much equal parts men and women, which is great. But there are certainly fewer men teaching the younger years. And I think there should be fewer men teaching the younger years -- I agree with Karl in that there are obviously differences between the sexes, and I think that one of them is that women are more child-oriented and more nurturing. In terms of evolution, this is pretty much inevitable. But I also agree that in many places men face such hurdles.... and this is not equality. Yes Maybe we need different terms for different levels of gender gap -- the gender gap in the UAE is not the same as the gender gap in the Finnish workforce, for example. Extreme misogyny and inequality (UAE) vs some misogyny/misandry and some inequality (Finland). But as a descriptive term, 'gender gap' only implies to me that there is some kind of gap between men and women, and suggests we ask the question: "Why?"

Hah! OK... I ask some questions, point out some historical fact, and suddenly I'm Stalin. Nice. I'm willing to let it go. I did not start the thread to bemoan some awful inequality between the sexes, in the tech industry or elsewhere. It was simply your refusal to even allow the question to be asked that made me argue. Not that what I've argued does not stand... but I do not have the energy to argue with someone who'll label me a totalitarian based on the fact that I'm not content seeing millennia of cultural bullshit unquestioningly accepted in the modern world. If you read the article, you'll notice that the main question was of international disparity, and the general lack of interest in coding in this country. And, again, I wasn't claiming outright that this is a major problem, only asking whether or not.

I stated, quite clearly, that I don't know if it is a problem. I have said, quite clearly, that it is at least worth asking the question. The fact that you seem to be getting your panties in more of a twist over the whole subject than I am suggests that even asking the question rankles you. And yes, sometimes the ratio of men:women in a field is a sign of inequality. And not always against women. Nobody's arguing that men in years past didn't have a shitty time of it. That's not the point. I didn't bring up Lovelace to complain about the awful time women had, I brought these women up to point out the effect the lack of women in the history of science and maths surely continues to have. Your tirade here is disingenuous. But I can't now ignore what you said... your apparent understanding of history is deplorably skewed. Men were expected to go to war and fight and die, and women... hung around, dancing and drinking champagne, yeah? And was it women who waged these wars, who sent men to die? Women who roamed the lands burning and raping and stealing and killing? Were women at the epicenter of every major religion, the likely ruler of every nation, the politicians, the generals, and antagonists in nearly every war? No. It is disgusting that you sit there acting like the choice wasn't nearly always that of the men, implying that women were fluffy and happy the whole time at home. But, again, that's not the point. What special privileges, exactly? Not saying there aren't any... just wondering what you think they are.

Perhaps, as I have already said, there is nothing stopping women from coding other than the fact that women simply don't enjoy coding. But really.. that's clearly not true. Evidence from numerous other nations confirms that women can be far more likely to step into the coding arena than they are here. Which would suggest, to anyone willing to consider the amazing possibility, that a cultural difference is in effect. Also, http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/06au/readings/p175-gurer.pdf "Augusta Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace, was a mathematician who collaborated with Charles Babbage on the Difference and Analytical Engines, which are regarded as the theoretical foundation for the modem computer" The example of this woman alone is obvious. At that time, women were not doing things like that. Who knows what more of an influence women would have had had the culture been less sexist. But regardless, Lovelace played an important role. And now, who has heard of her? I have heard the name Babbage a hundred times in regard to mathematics and computing, but never Lovelace. And what effect does that have now? None? Young students aren't affected by the consistent prominence of men in advancements in mathematics and technology? A stream of male role models and lack of female role models in textbooks doesn't have any affect on how many men vs women decide to choose computer science? You are right: there are no legal or even outright social barriers to women coding. But there are other barriers. And these barriers probably aren't causing major social or environmental problems. But they obviously exist, or there would be more women in the programming arena..... like there are in other countries. I think this is interesting. I don't particularly care about computer programming above many other things, but the obvious decline in female programmers in the last few decades, and the fact that someone like you will blatantly claim that the gap could not possibly be anything to do with cultural perceptions of male/female or any historical factor or anything other than a pure, wide genetic gap between men and women, is itself evidence to me of a continued persistence and ignorance of gender inequality here.

Yes, there are differences between male and female, between human men and women. This is not to say that every difference is genetic, that no difference is cultural, etc. I don't think feminism needs to come into it. I'm not a feminist, but one who recognizes that just because certain groups were given suffrage and other rights a few decades ago doesn't necessarily mean that everyone instantly had access to equal opportunity of thought and action. Old customs die hard. You are deluded if you really believe that the fight for equality -- for all sorts of people -- is now redundant!

Yes, coding can be boring and baffling for most when first introduced, and for some it will always be so, and it is because of this that there are *apparently* fewer people going into the industry with good knowledge of it. But perhaps more should persist in it, and perhaps the notion that it's only for 'pathetic geeks' should be reconsidered in the public opinion. And I agree that it's not a basic human skill, but neither is shoeing a horse. Nearly nobody alive today needs to be able to shoe a horse -- but a few more would benefit from a deeper understanding of code. Important human skills from a hundred or thousand years ago -- smithing or carpenting or hunting and gathering -- are less fundamental today. Yes, if the worst happens we might all regret not having learned how to make an axe for hunting, but right now we are more likely to use basic knowledge of how code-based machines work. As Jetsun says, our lives are full of code -- it is the basis for so many things that are, now, "fundamental" to the smooth running of an average person's life. I know a good few people working in the industry. A few, who work at the same company producing software for something or other, speak often of the barrier between coders and all others. There is a need for multiple (translator) roles in between client and programmer because of major communication issues; clients frequently ask for things that cannot be done, and programmers frequently do things that don't make sense to anyone who doesn't know how to code. It all sounds highly inefficient and a lot of hard work. Yes, a gap for whatever reason is a gap. Whether it's because women don't like it or see it as something men should do or another reason, there's a gap and it's worth addressing at least in passing. Maybe it's not a big deal and we can ignore it, but maybe the industry would benefit from more women who actually know their C from their C++ (I think that makes sense...) We should all be taught things that we're not. I believe we should be taught the basics of domestic and international law before we leave school, among other things. But I agree with Karl to the extent that formative education should be general and useful on a wide scale -- should teach people how to learn, how to think, etc. It is true that one who wants to learn code can pick it up online easily -- a computer and the internet are the precise and only tools needed to learn and do..

This is the kind of thing I was talking about today in the other thread. "I think such and such.. I heard it somewhere.." Only stupid people chase woozles. This might be the advice from someone, somewhere, but simply posting the notion it doesn't make it so, and posting it without any kind of evidence at all is irresponsible and foolish. An actual source (based on "international consultation of experts" by the WHO): http://foris.fao.org/preview/25553-0ece4cb94ac52f9a25af77ca5cfba7a8c.pdf In other words: farming is harming; eating terrestrial animals is unhealthy for us (cancer, heart disease, brain dysfunction) and damaging to the environment, including the oceans from where we should be aiming to derive our brain-healthy fats and other nutrients. You can call it propaganda, but -- as ever -- you seem to have nothing to back yourself up with.

This is of relatively little importance, but... we are, or can be, very physically impressive. We can beat horses at long-distance running, climb mountains and cliff faces and trees, swim across rivers and oceans, and various other things. Physically, we're impressive. Modern humans less so, because of our sedentariness and poor diet, but we have the capacity to be. When combined with our minds -- undoubtedly the most impressive of any animal that has ever existed on this planet -- we have, or should have, no trouble surviving in nearly any climate, in any size group, with whatever is at our disposal. Which is fine, though nowadays we have little need to. We have our cities and technology, and we are surviving all over the place. And yes, we are creative and our ability to design/construct/build/produce is important to us, and we would be very foolish to deny this, but we are also equipped with reason and the ability to plan ahead. Sometimes, it makes more sense to not build something. This ability to look into the future, to predict the consequences of our actions, and our capacity for examination, self-examination, and logic, should be telling us various things that don't seem to be registering. Like.. if you burn your house down, you won't have a house. If you shit in your pond, the fish won't taste good. I'm not, you should notice, saying "We should stop people from producing things." I am saying "We should be able to see when producing new stuff is no longer helpful" and "We should be aware that our obsession with unnecessary production is harming us and lots of other life on the planet." No. No one should determine, but many men can. No man should tell another what to do, but many can and do. A small distinction but worth noting. And I agree -- no human should tell another what to do. No human tells me how to live, if I can help it. But -- oops -- I cannot help it. The way -- the foolish, illogical, thoughtless, brutish, greedy, selfish way -- in which most people go about their lives, with all the assurance of gods, is preventing everyone else from going about the way they wish to live. We are all impeding each other. Simply saying "Capitalism prevents this, in a capitalist society everyone is free" doesn't make it so. In a capitalist society, there will always be differing opinions and always those who are impeded in their desired path because of actions that others have taken before them or are taking without regard to them. This cannot be helped, but it can be mitigated -- with logic and self-examination. Championing logic and self-awareness is not anti-freedom. I've never spoken of the 'common good', I don't think. I wish for all to thrive, yes, but I have never championed worker bee culture and am somewhat disgusted at the implication that I would! I have never argued for the forced limitation of freedom or the notion of all slavishly working towards a common goal. I do point out that by behaving in the way most do, everyone's freedoms are impinged upon; when some ignore the truth, many others suffer. Nobody can live in true freedom, freely using one's mind and body, if one is not as fully aware (of the truth and their own capacity for action) as one can be. Many in China believe they live in a democracy; they believe they are free. And compared to their antecedents, they are. But we know better. We are freer. We have freer access to truth, more freedom of choice and movement. But we're not as free as we could be. Just yesterday I saw a conversation on facebook: Are we carnivores, omnivores, or herbivores? A friend had asked for input from science-literate friends. Aside from my comment, the only others were along the lines of "I think we're omnivore but we can choose really lol" and "In my understanding meat is strongly linked to brain development" etc. One-sentence answers. Not a single reference, nothing but unsourced opinion, and none of it remotely based in scientific research or even real personal observation. Just "I heard something along the lines of...". This is from relatively well-educated Westerners. They apparently don't know how to do a quick search to confirm or deny a rumour they've heard, let alone actually alter their perspective based on new evidence. (I see this all the time on here, too.) You, Karl, are another example. As intelligent and well-intentioned as you are, you ignore the truth of certain things that do not seem to fit in your carefully constructed worldview. You champion this notion of capitalism, and name anyone who questions you 'anti-capitalist' and anti-freedom, while apparently entirely ignoring the truth of the current world climate.