One thing that I don't hear talked about in many of these discussions about the genetic components of race is how the mixed racial ancestry of many "black" people in Europe and the Americas impacts these studies.
MANY blacks in the Americas and Europe have significant European DNA. For example, even though my family identifies as black, my mother and her siblings are almost 50℅ European according to DNA tests.
How does this factor in when making medical decisions based on assumptions regarding race?
Unfortunately, western medical practitioners and researchers often aren't aware of the complexities of race and racial identity. I spoke with my cousin recently (who is almost done with his pharmacy PhD) and was flabbergasted at how ignorant he was about race as a social, cultural and spiritual phenomenon. Yet he casually spoke of race as a simple demographic category with genetic basis. He'd never heard of "epigenetics", though when I explained it to him, he admitted that it was a plausible idea.
Racial identity translates very poorly into actual population genetics, let alone epigenetics.
1) Am I the only person who doesn't accept random facebook friend requests, ESPECIALLY from beautiful women? If I don't know you, I just assume that you are trying to scam me by becoming my facebook friend. Then again, there must be SOME people who just randomly friend strangers that they have no connection with (or half of the stories in MTV's "Catfish" would have never happened).
2) People really shouldn't freak out too much about there family seeing nudes/sexual pics of them. My mother actually has unintentionally seen sexually explicit photos of me, and it wasn't nearly as big of a deal as I thought it would be. I let her use one of my USB drives, but forgot that there were pictures of myself and ex-girlfriends involved in some more intimate activities.
The result was that my conservative religious mommy realized her then 34yo son was not her "baby" anymore and she called the photos vulgar and pornographic, but beyond that, the world didn't end. I was embarrassed for about 30 seconds, then realized that the only thing that has really changed is she has visual proof that I am sexually active. Well, I am LIVING PROOF that she was sexually active AT LEAST ONCE, so what is the big deal?
The only REALLY uncomfortable part was when the nurse in her came out, and she started grilling me on contraception and whether I was getting regularly tested for STDs. Then she started pleading with me to tell her if she had any grandchildren out there (she doesn't). That turned into the "you really need to settle down and give me some grand-babies" discussion. I offered to buy her a puppy instead, but she said that wasn't the same.
I guess the whole point of my post is that (at least in the West) photos like this might be a little embarrassing, but if your family and friends love you, they will STILL love you even after seeing a video of you doing something that EVERYBODY does, only in private.
Yep. While I liked the Ferraris, I wasn't particular to them. The Lamborghini caught my attention (asI'm sure it did so many others') because of its unique appearance. I was also a large fan of Mustangs, and my first car was a classic Mustang (if in horrible condition). A lot of this was influenced by my older brother, and his taste in cars, and the large coffee book about the history of the Mustang we had around the house. Tastes are so malleable at that age.
I dunno. I suspect that the classic 70s muscle cars are objectively beautiful, or at least as close to objectively as is possible in something like this. Just look at a 69 GTO, or a 70s Charger or Challenger or Camaro.
Oh, I won't object to them being beautiful, I'm just noting that as vehicles, adult me is less than enamored with them. While I like how classic Mustangs look, I have zero desire to ever own one again. I still own a 240z though, and while it's been mothballed for a decade, I still dream of getting that back on the road. That's a wonderfully fun car to drive.
Ha great points, and I suppose that's why I appreciate the Resto-Mod movement of taking gorgeous hardware (69 Camaro in my case) and re-working it with modern tech. Engines, suspension, brakes, tires...ahh! I hope you get a chance to re-visit that 240z and if you ever want to kick around some new life ideas I'm game. Shouldn't be too hard to find me and connect, cheers.
Wow! I had no idea that there were any links to long term problems with lasix. I have been considering the procedure for over 15 years, but never pulled the trigger. If there are long term risks, I think that I will just stick to glasses.
>The end result you describe isn't much different than a number of 4 year undergraduate degrees, PhDs or masters programs (all at "good" colleges).
The difference is that the percentage of people with that negative end result is MUCH higher. Looking at stats like the default rate for students at for-profits vs non-profits is one indicator.
>It's wrong to think that departments at not-for-profit schools don't have a marketing incentive that is (at best) indifferent to the best interests of the student.
There is definitely some truth in this. HOWEVER, a big difference is that in many cases the interests of the department and the student are more aligned at non-profits than for-profits. The most obvious example is completion/graduation rates. At least at the undergraduate and masters level, there is a strong incentive to select students that are LIKELY to graduate from the program. Bringing in woefully underprepared students who have little chance of finishing the degree seems to be strongly discouraged at the undergraduate and masters level. I cannot speak for the PhD level, since I have little experience in that area.
Contrast that with stories about MULTIPLE for-profit colleges going so far as to target the homeless for recruitment into their universities. In some cases they went so far as recruiting people who DID NOT OWN A COMPUTER to sign up for online degree programs. Since virtually all Americans (regardless of credit score) qualify for up to $20K in loans per year (with a cap of about $180K total), a students ability (or lack there of) to complete the program is irrelevant as long as the money keeps flowing in.
> At least at the undergraduate and masters level, there is a strong incentive to select students that are LIKELY to graduate from the program.
Is there? It affects their attrition rate, but I am not sure that is a big factor in which schools students choose. It seems to be based on things like facilities, "vibe", majors available, prestige, quality of education. A high attrition rate need not even suggest a low prestige or quality of education: in many graduate programs, almost the opposite is true.
I went to a very expensive private but nonprofit Christian school for undergrad. They accepted anyone, and their attrition rate was abysmally high (although the education quality was fine). The attrition rate didn't matter at all to their marketing, as parents sent their kids there for different reasons. In fact, those kids who dropped out after 1-2 years were big moneymakers, as they only took gen ed classes that are cheapest to staff.
For PhDs, attrition is much more discouraged, at least economically (I'm in bio), because PIs/advisors pick students with the understanding that their first 1-3 years they will be useless in research and only start "paying off" near the end. This is why at the higher-tier graduate schools, there is a big attrition at the general exam (1.5 years in) and it's very low afterwards. In lower-tier programs there is low attrition throughout. And of course, many grad programs pay stipends, so those programs lose money with no compensation if someone drops out. Very different incentive structure than programs where the student pays tuition.
Yes, gonorrhea (as well as chlamydia and syphilis) can be transmitted via oral sex. In fact, I know of someone who contracted oral gonorrhea (at first she thought it was a bad sore throat) and passed it to a guy who contracted genital gonorrhea.
Yes, most people go to universities for the credential in order to gain employment. However, the reason why that credential is valuable in obtaining employment is because it implies that the holder of the credential has developed certain skills as part of their education.
One of those skills is the ability to think critically about a variety of topics. My assumption is that University of Chicago believes that in order to develop those critical thinking skills, it is a REQUIREMENT to learn an environment with a free and open exchange of ideas.
Students that want the credential BUT they do not want to complete one of the requirements of that credential should reconsider whether the credential is right for them or perhaps find another university.
To use your grocery store/gallon of milk analogy, a more accurate version would be if I went to a grocery store and asked for a gallon of milk, but demanded that it be zero calories and made from tomatoes. The store owner would tell the customer that they can buy tomato juice or water, but there is nothing labeled as MILK which meets their requirements.
> it is a REQUIREMENT to learn an environment with a free and open exchange of ideas.
This is going to get buried, but I feel like I need to write it somewhere.
The biggest argument I've seen /for/ safe spaces is that, outside of them, it is very possible for a certain type of conversation to be drowned out. Safe spaces, by limiting some types of conversation, can allow other types of conversations to foster.
In a purely "free speech" environment, someone can just yell their opinion on repeat, talking over everyone, etc. A safe space can allow certain topics room to talk that they might not get otherwise.
I agree with the concept that UoC should not have to _provide_ safe spaces or trigger warnings, but I feel like both can have their place for an exchange of ideas (safe spaces) or to prepare people for something they're uncomfortable with (trigger warnings).
Viewing them solely as a political attempt to stifle free speech reads rather privileged, based on the above notion I gained elsewhere. I can't quite describe why, which is disappointing to myself - but perhaps safe spaces are needed in order for minority topics to gain the room they need to be discussed.
The idea of a safe space is exactly what you what you said was the problem with free speech though. Any given person's "safe space" will be a place where their opinions are the only ones, so they're not challenged or offended.
Safe spaces only work if you set up a safe space for every possible viewpoint, or you ban any form of interaction within the safe space.
But if you're trying to discuss native american problems and someone just keeps interjecting that focusing on native american problems is racist - then you're not really getting anywhere either - was sort of my point.
I don't think they exist to stifle opposing viewpoints, but to at least attempt sane discussion on certain topics that would otherwise not get the opportunity to be discussed.
But wasn't it possible to discuss ideas amongst allies before safe spaces? I think groups like AIM, for example, provide a great forum for such activities. Likewise, I think student advocacy groups are an excellent idea.
What I don't like about the concept of safe spaces–and I say concept because I have never actually experienced one– is that I would prefer universities, which often have connections with government, to have as few censorship powers as possible.
The example you are using of someone that keeps interrupting is really not a safe space issue to me but really a professor allowing someone to be rude.
There's no need for safe spaces just a professor who can allow for ideas to be exchanged in class whether they are hurtful or not and keep the discussion civil and moving forward.
> However, the reason why that credential is valuable in obtaining employment is because it implies that the holder of the credential has developed certain skills as part of their education. One of those skills is the ability to think critically about a variety of topics.
I don't think that's actually the case. In my experience, employers care whether or not a person is generally competent (often using degrees as a type of signalling, even if that's not accurate), if they can justify the hiring purchase to others (IE, do they have a decent defense if you're a terrible employee), and whether or not you would excel in that particular job (hence asking you questions about it and your work style in general).
I can't think of a case where an interviewer was attempting to see if the candidate was able to think critically about a variety of topics (topics not connected to the particular job). I don't know of any example of, say, a programmer getting interviewed and being asked how they would interpret a particular piece of literature, or being particularly interested if they frequented a political debate group. Such things are almost never considered particularly important when resume suggestions are given.
However, if you have examples of something like this I would be interested in hearing them.
I don't think mcjon was suggesting that interviews for technical positions frequently veer off into discussions about literature.
Rather, I think the experiences you are "supposed" to get in a traditional 4 year university education - such as discussions about literature and other topics not directly related to your degree - are widely believed to improve your ability to think in ways that perhaps aren't directly quantifiable, but nevertheless provide significant benefit to your employer.
These benefits can manifest, for example, in employees that are able to handle disagreements among themselves rather than running to their manager every time they butt heads. Or employees that are simply able to learn new systems without extensive hand-holding through every step of the process.
As someone who has lost a fair amount of weight recently (97 lbs in just under 10 months), I was prepared to argue against this article before even reading it. However, the method he recommended (mindful eating) is basically what I used to finally lose weight.
I have been overweight/obese virtually all of my life (my baby fat was immediately replaced with fat fat). Over the years I have been under the care of two separate physicians for weight loss and taken 3 different types of prescription drugs for weight loss (Phentermine, Xenical, and Contrave). The most that I lost under those physicians and medication was about 30 lbs, which I promptly gained back PLUS an additional 30 lbs for my trouble.
Once I took a more mindful/intuative eating approach, the weight came off easily. I follow 4 basic rules that I took from a book called "I Can Make You Thin" by Paul McKenna (the book also includes some hypnosis stuff, but I don't use that).
1) When I am hungry I eat.
2) I eat what I want.
3) I eat consciously.
4) When I am full I stop.
Seems simple enough, but the devil is in the details. For example, regarding rule 1, I ONLY eat when I am hungry, not when I am bored or stressed. Learning when I was actually hungry and not just wanting to eat to change my emotions was HUGE.
Regarding rule 3 (eating consciously), that means no more eating in front of the TV/Computer, or while reading a book, or even thinking a lot about other things. I focus on eating and JUST eating. I eat with as few distractions as possible.
Regarding rule 4, knowing WHEN I was full was a HUGE issue for me. For most of my life, I ate until I was bloated or nauseous. Now as soon as I am satisfied or full I stop.
Because of Rules, 1, 3, 4, the results of rules 2 (eat what I want) were interesting. I still eat what I want, but what I want changed. I have always loved pizza, but now I am also addicted to spinach, either raw or steamed. I can honestly say that I eat more spinach in a given month than I had TOTAL in the 10 year period between 2004-2014. It's nuts. I am absolutely astounded by how few vegetables that I used to eat before this eating plan.
I don't get hungry and I don't have those cravings that everyone who has been on a diet knows so well. The key for me was that I wanted to find something that I KNEW that I could do for the rest of my life, not some diet that I would just stay on until I reached my goal weight, then revert to my old ways.
Definitely agree. IIRC, the biggest yearly loss for the Dow was 52% in 1931. While I would HATE to lose 50% of my wealth, the point is that with $50m I can EASILY ride that loss out and give it time to recover in a few years. Now, if I only had $50k in the market and was planning on using all of it on a big purchase that particular year (e.g. home down payment, child's college tuition), a 50% loss could be devastating.
Volatility doesn't seem to have as much power when the potential losses are not great enough to cripple you.
