Isn't this just Chaos Theory, Calculus, and the problem of Jerks (third derivative of position in regards to time)?
When you slice complex reality into smaller pieces, within the smaller piece you have a rough idea of velocity, and changes in velocity (aka acceleration), but you have no idea of future speed-bumps, aka the jerks (third derivative of position in regards to time) for that information is outside the frame of reference when you divided reality into smaller pieces.
Thus you have pictures of people / objects in systems but you are not truly understanding relationships thus you miss things even though you feel like you see things. It is all a theme park for our own amusement, it is not real, only hyper-real which becomes uncanny when we start noticing how the images are off.
In sum humans do not always optimize towards one variable like success / fitness.
Instead they optimize to many things like money, prestige, power, security, and so on. Much like you can't describe health as a single thing, when you collapse your insight to a single variable you miss everything in your simulation of how reality works.
This applies to an individual level but especially applies towards a cooperative level with multiple individuals. When we cooperate (or just act in ambiguous situations) sometimes trying to collapse your actions to "mental shortcuts" aka Heuristics in Judgment and Decision-Making to borrow some thinking fast and slow language further reduces insight.
The cost of soybeans is a lot cheaper to make an artificial burger (once they get the R&D down) than feeding the same soybeans to a cow and getting roughly 1:10 the calorie weight due to energy pyramids. You can get roughly 200 kg of protein per acre per year, while cows it is roughly 19 kg of protein per acre per year.
Of course this is talking future costs, for we are still perfecting artificial plants / proteins that taste like meat even though we been "branding" veggie burgers since the 1980s and the food science goes back hundreds of years prior to that.
Probably the logistics for feedstock is more lax when it comes to hygiene than you apply for food, but the plant matter is to my understanding the same.
1. Energy efficiency doesn't translate to costs of patty raw materials. Cattle can graze on uncultivated land, getting that portion of food for virtually free. There are other added costs to cattle farming outside of feed.
2. There are many costs to a cooked burger outside the cost of the patty.
> Energy efficiency doesn't translate to costs of patty raw materials. Cattle can graze on uncultivated land, getting that portion of food for virtually free. There are other added costs to cattle farming outside of feed.
Every time someone says this, but it's like 97% of cattle in the US that are crop-fed.
A lb of soybeans is cheaper than a lb of meat. But that that is a small percentage of the cost of delivering a mcdonalds burger to a customer.
There is the cost of the bun, the condiments, the transportation, employees, real estate, advertising, paying people to ensure consistent quality, etc...
Even if the soybean burger was free you wouldn't see a 25x relative price movement in the cost of a soybean burger relative to a meat burger.
Only recently, though, did it start tasting like meat. Or at least like fast food burgers. That's what Beyond Meat and Impossible have done. Impossible adds heme, which tastes like blood. They're both biochemistry companies.
Impossible burgers have no health advantage over meat, and much more salt, but they're trying to improve on that.
People will often make choices of accepting an inferior product for vastly cheaper price. So yeah it is possible it is about how many choices you have and what are the different costs for each choice.
This is in the form of not having the latest and greatest where suburban families might buy used 5-10 year old large sedans and SUVs instead of a comparable small car from 2019. If Americans were fine with smaller cars, they'd buy more smart cars and MINIs, but that isn't the case.
The illusion of control. It is the same reason people doomscroll on twitter hoping more information will somehow how change the result. Our brains, all human brains, are not rational but instead are their own thing.
Vaccine progress is of enormous practical consequence. Effective reporting of material information can move markets, and that means it's useful for efficient capital allocation.
Of course, there's diminishing returns and problems with many kinds of noise, and AstraZenica isn't strongly interested in marginal efficiencies in the broader market.
Mental Illness as defined by the DSM as not thriving. You can have the symptoms of a disorder, but if you are thriving then you do not have the disorder.
>It can seriously mess someone's life up.
Treatment to try fix someone who is not thriving, is precisely because someone's life is already messed up. Yes treatment may make it worse, but it often makes it better and there are treatment algorithms where we use best practices of how to go from here, and what signs should we be mindful for often when the meds make things worse the doctor should be asking the right questions for there are warning signs when the med is making things worse.
The DSM is based off the "top" Psychiatrists at the time voting on the illnesses (literally), without scientific backing.
Treatment's don't fix anything, they might lessen one issue and often give a host of other problems that are often more severe. I think more studying of iatrogenics is in order and more data about what "making it better" means -- as often the patient and doctor have different meanings. Again, because there's no physical symptom, you can't say "levels have returned to normal".
If you were feeling depressed but now you feel nothing, is that better?
> The DSM is based off the "top" Psychiatrists at the time voting on the illnesses (literally), without scientific backing.
What, precisely, would provide scientific backing here, if a vote by professional scientists doesn't count? A vote by academics? A committee of academics, appointed by a prior generation? A team at Harvard, because Harvard is the oldest? A committee appointed by the government?
As Talanes mentioned -- the problem is with the decision method not the governing body. Again, comparing to the medical industry, where doctors don't vote on the existence or not of a virus causing a problem.
> A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.
Yes, it is, and that's precisely why the removal of homosexuality from the DSM (in 1974) was not a sign of the DSM's authors giving into cultural pressures - it was a combination of the authors avoiding the cultural pressures that had caused the previous edition to list it, plus a realization (after scientific study) that the problem wasn't with the person, it was with their society.
The nature of the scientific method is that we learn new things over time, and the nature of society is that we are all subject to various kinds of cultural pressures, most of which we don't even recognize. The meta-level goal of the DSM - describing those disorders which prevent someone from thriving and are properly treated by psychiatrists - seems sound, even if each edition always needs to be succeeded by a new one.
Doctors kept thinking I had a mental disorder. Several years of horrible experiences with medications were a waste
Turned out it was a blood disorder. Proper treatment actually solved problems.
Depression meds just meant I was cool with my mind not working right.
I get some people are bipolar and such, but I think a lot of people have an underlying disorder they’re unaware of.
Part of the diagnostic process is supposed to be checking for "non-mental" things like blood disorders, by doing blood tests and other evaluations. So it sounds like you went through a flawed diagnostic process. Unfortunately that is far more common than it should be. The best way I have found to mitigate that risk is to have an advocate with you (family member or close friend) whenever you talk to doctors or other medical personnel about diagnosis or treatment--preferably someone who isn't afraid to ask tough questions and be skeptical of what seem like cookbook answers.
There is a good video done by Philosophy Tube about this subject (it also talks about Jordan Peterson.)
Some words are inherently subjective, like we can't define what "healthy" is without using so many words that are beyond description. (About 10 minutes in this metaphor appears, when Philosophy Tube references Richard Boyd.)
Yept the "Middle Way" is both a rejection of pure asceticism and pure hedonoism, but a middle path between extremes. Material things can be used temporary but the goal is "to unfocus" and see beyond material things.
Reason and Language are useful as well, but the various buddhist teachers over 2400 years whole point is to unfocus and see beyond the limitation of how we try to use language to bring an artificial form of order that is not true understanding, nor is it true love or compassion. Instead it is a form of "clinging" that makes things feel overly familiar and safe when the nature of reality is constant change and finding peace with this "uncanny" and thus scary reality if we allow it to scare us in such a way.
Precisely. IMHO, a literal understanding of Buddhist writings frequently leads to absurd radicalisms. Many teachings, especially in the Zen tradition (which I'm most familiar with) make use of rhetoric and reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the shortcomings of reason. They're not meant to be taken at face value. I doubt very much that a monk severed his apprentice's finger from the body as an educational device. When you read some Zen masters that dealt with actual problems, you see that they were reasonable, practical and compassionate.
Sigh that "Koan" is not literally about killing the Buddha. It is recognizing the divinity is not in an idol or image, including other people. That strand of Buddhism says enlightenment is first found within, and after you find it you see it also in the external world, not in a specific form but you see it everywhere.
Most likely that Koan comes from Linji Yixuan aka 1600 years ago, but Buddhism is likely 2400 or older years ago.
-----
Linji Yixuan also has another saying "If you meet your forefather, kill him" once again this is not literal but is once again excessive reverence to other relationships instead of finding family in all things not just a specific forefather.
A similar statement would be Jesus Christ in the Gospels such as Luke saying you can't be his follower if you love your father, wife, children, siblings, etc more than him. Jesus demanded you love him more than you love your own life, and your duty to his faith is greater than your traditions saying "I must wait" to follow you for first I must bury my dead father and so on. [Once again it is probably not supposed to be taken literally for the Gospels choose certain metaphors for dramatic effect about how one organizes ones priorities.]
I never thought about the similarities before, that's an interesting point. You always hear about how the Bible is a collection of many different genres of writing, some which no longer exist, so it's confusing to people with no point of reference. Song of Solomon, for example, is just hilarious if you think of it as a detailed account of actual events and people. These concepts were probably spreading across cultures for so long before being deposited in a book or scroll.
When you slice complex reality into smaller pieces, within the smaller piece you have a rough idea of velocity, and changes in velocity (aka acceleration), but you have no idea of future speed-bumps, aka the jerks (third derivative of position in regards to time) for that information is outside the frame of reference when you divided reality into smaller pieces.
Thus you have pictures of people / objects in systems but you are not truly understanding relationships thus you miss things even though you feel like you see things. It is all a theme park for our own amusement, it is not real, only hyper-real which becomes uncanny when we start noticing how the images are off.