Qab Dqab

Someone is shy

Qab hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

Noface
Qab Dqab
Posted over 1 year ago
Meg Jay: Why 30 is not the new 20
So people are saying about their twenties "what was i doing, what was i thinking?". Her assumption throughout this talk is that the statement implicit in this question is indeed correct i.e. "i wasted my twenties". Now she is trying to prevent people having this problem by encouraging people to behave differently in their twenties so later they won't be saying these things. I think her clients need a new psychologist. Perhaps one who, whilst they are asking these questions, isn't sitting across from them thinking "yeah, you're right. you messed up." Perhaps one who doesn't judge. Perhaps the reason they think they wasted their twenties is because people keep telling them their lives should be other than they are and that they should have behaved differently in the past. Like in this talk for example! If her true purpose was to win more clients in their thirties who (now) think they wasted their twenties then - good talk. Also, perhaps the reason young people are procrastinating is because they don't want to follow her (and the rest of societies') suggestions/ instructions in case they end up like, well, her (/the rest of society). By which i mean "successful". You know with a good job, a spouse, two high achieving kids (respectively - which you hate, your third and thanks to Ritalin courtesy of big pharma where you work in your soul destroying job). Just a thought.
Noface
Qab Dqab
Posted almost 2 years ago
Matt Killingsworth: Want to be happier? Stay in the moment
Because they are answering the poll. That is what they are doing in the present. As long as whilst they are answering the poll they are thinking about the questions asked (at this moment) and not about what they want for dinner they will be present focussed. In fact, this poll is probably a good way to improve ones present focus (which already has a name - mindfulness). Having frequent reminders sent to you to focus your mind on what is happening for you in the present moment is good training for this. What i am intrigued by is who is replying to his texts to let him know that they are currently making love?
Noface
Qab Dqab
Posted almost 2 years ago
Debate: Should students rely on technology for their homework?
When you ask "should" they, are you asking whether it is beneficial for them to do so or whether it is morally right for them to do so? Although I am not sure that this is a sensible question to ask. If it makes completing their homework easier then they will use technology. It is pretty hard (especially with the pressure to get the grades on assignments etc) to get a student to see that this is not going to benefit them long term. Perhaps instead we should be asking why, when the world we live in has changed so dramatically, we are teaching the same things and in the same manner as our parents were taught? Perhaps we need a revolution in the way we teach to keep pace with the world, rather than suggesting the kids play by the old rules. For example, find ways to minimise the effectiveness of using technology. Interestingly I read recently that they are introducing more coursework to some curricula in the UK, which of course is far more vulnerable to the use of technology. I guess employers that wish to hire those most capable of using google will be able to rely on the grades. Of course, a really radical solution would be to inspire the kids so that they want to learn but perhaps that is a separate discussion.
Noface
Qab Dqab
Posted almost 2 years ago
What is the key to smarter decisions?
Not sure what the answer to your question is, however this great little talk helps to highlight why it is a lot harder than one may think! http://www.ted.com/talks/david_pizarro_the_strange_politics_of_disgust.html
Noface
Qab Dqab
Posted almost 2 years ago
Why do we NOT invest effectively in the poor and marginalized so they can participate in the global economy?
I think the answer to your primary question is simply - ignorance. As Fritzie pointed out below, there are efforts to help bring the poor and marginalised into economic participation, in fact on a very large scale. Untold billions of dollars are given to Africa in direct aid every year. However it is quite clear from the level of poverty still prevalent in Africa that this money has not been effectively invested, hence my answer to your question. There is, however, a growing understanding that this is the case. There are now increasing efforts to encourage business into and within poorer regions. For example, http://www.aecfafrica.org/, this largely government funded organisation is encouraging, or rather investing in, companies that are looking to invest in Africa in a manner that will be profitable but also help the community. A great example of such a company is http://www.kickstart.org/. I think one of the factors holding people back from this approach for so long has been the idea that making money from these people is somehow wrong. This story gives a great example of why this is not so: http://www.admittingfailure.com/failure/anthony/. However, if governments were* seen to be funding businesses that profit from such poor communities they would have* received very bad press. * perhaps, sadly, these should be in the present tense. I say that there is a growing understanding that what you propose is true but i do appreciate it is still a tiny minority and, at this point, smart investment is very far from adequate.
Noface
Qab Dqab
Posted almost 2 years ago
Is "free will" an illusion?
and you can't improve a mind? Well the kids will be happy that there is no point in going to school but there may be a few buddhist monks who feel a little disappointed that those years spent meditating have been rather wasted.
Noface
Qab Dqab
Posted almost 2 years ago
Steven Pinker: The surprising decline in violence
Those hunter-gatherer tribes that were non-violent may have suffered or feared suffering at the hands of those that were violent and would thus have been more likely to protect themselves for example by adopting progress and moving to larger communities (cities). Without evidence that the remaining tribes are representative of our ancestors we are left with a massive assumption (which is the mother of all...). So those statistics may be completely invalid. Next we use the Bible as a source of factual and scientific statistical data. Yep, can't see any problem with that! Well that's the first 50,000 years all sorted. Now onto the next 50,000 years. Oh no wait, the remaining 2/3rds of the talk is just looking at 1,000 years? Yeah, this will give us a balanced view of whether "we are living in the most peaceful time in our species existence" (i know this quote is from the bio, not his talk, but it seems to be consistent with it). When we look on a century basis we start with the Dark Ages. Are we really to be surprised that things have improved since then? Now lets quickly skip past two world wars... Okay so this whole argument is really based on the last 50 years, surely that is being a little short sighted? The homicide statistics were firstly for just the UK and the current ones were for just the USA. They could easily have been skewed by localised events. I hope he is right that violence is declining. If he is, then he is certainly right that we should look at the questions: "why is there peace?" and "what have we been doing right?". However his cherry picking of statistics to support his argument is appalling and gives the impression that he is finding data to fit a theory rather than the other way around.
Noface
Qab Dqab
Posted almost 2 years ago
Steven Pinker: The surprising decline in violence
@ Robert Pruitt You are not describing examples of plants feeling pain, you are describing responses to negative stimuli, which isn't the same. You can program a machine to react to protect itself from negative stimuli, that doesn't mean it feels pain. Feeling pain requires at the very least neuro-receptors and probably a more complex nervous system to process the received information. The argument that growing animals for food is bad for the environment is a matter of very simple mathematics - the energy cost in bringing meat to the table is far greater than the cost of bring vegetables to the table. The calculations are based on modern farming practices (because that is how food is currently provided). Letting a cow graze in your back garden and then killing and eating it is (comparatively) very energy efficient; but that is not what we do (so it is not included in the calculation).