Anecdotally, 3 of my friends and myself (sample=4) all have self-reported significant improvements in empathy, as well as verified confirmation by our romantic partners. This has also led to objective changes such as volunteering, random acts of kindness, increased gratitude and altruism, and more.
I don't know if you've ever suffered from either of these, but I can assure you, severely depressed or anxious people are not overly empathetic as they are ruminating and caught in their own minds more than being interested in others (overactive default mode network).
In short... there are numerous scientific studies confirming the benefits of these drugs. I fail to see any "overrated" potential after studying these molecules myself for years for experientially and academically.
Here are some takeaways:
"Which foods contain the most cholesterol? Eggs, fish, chicken, and red meat all earn the red light..."
"As for saturated fat, desserts, dairy, and snack foods are all designated as red light, with eggs, chicken, fish, and red meat getting the yellow light. Most of the saturated fat in the American diet comes from cheese (8.5%), pizza (5.9%), grain-based desserts (5.8%), dairy desserts (5.6%), and chicken (5.5%)."
"Salt levels are highest in lunch meat and snack foods, which both get a red light."
"...The more plant-based we get, apparently, the better."
Conclusion: Meat is bad, ultra processed foods are bad, and plant based diets are healthiest. Based on your comment alone, sounds like both Dr. Klurfeld and the WHO scientists are biased, whereas that book provides references to each and every claim that has science backing it. It's not rocket science, it's no surprise at all to find cholesterol, sodium, saturated fats, etc. are in meat and processed foods.
I am no expert but just on the face of it I would take any book that thinks eggs and fish are bad for you (other than in obscene quantities) with more than a few grains of salt.
This book was the catalyst to me going vegan a few years ago. It was easier than I expected. I can't really say that I feel much different. I like the idea that my cholesterol level will likely never be an issue. I'm loving beyond burgers, because something I missed before was a proper burger.
You should check out '30 million words'. It's a book about the importance of spoken language on young minds, and books may be a means. Fascinating data in it.
Before I invest the time.and money in buying a book. How did they deal with the confounds? And was there a study on the intervention you could point me to?
Reading the summary of the book on Amazon, the experiments looked pretty confounded and it didn't mention any successful interventions.
It's hard to make friends with people and I'm in my 30s. I can't imagine how hard it would be to "find new people" when you are 90+ and probably can't even drive.
It think it's also hard because at this point you don't want to make new friends beside smalltalk (which he does).
Imagine having been with your spouse for 60 years, your friends 40-80 years (?), your children I guess at least 40 years, having a new friend has nothing to do with this, you will never know them this good and neither will they.
Yeah, my grandma had an extremely active social life well into her 80s (she died at 85ish) even with significant mobility problems. She lost my grandpa 15 years before she died.
I think the tough part is building something new after experiencing loss ..
I see that in my family, aunt, etc they complain they're lonely but I think it's even worse for them to suffer bad or too short relationships. Heart ache.
As a parent, I fail to see exactly how I'm guilty of anything here. I used the banks because I had to, I listened to their advice because I can't possibly become an expert on their subjects, etc. I even voted for people who want to regulate them. I don't play on the stock exchange (pension funds do, with my money). I didn't do anything wrong.
My children will pay for the mess a few made by pushing unreasonable expectations and by not listening to people like me.
There are some fights that must be fought by others.
Now if you can provide me with decent alternatives, I'd be glad to here from them. But remember, I have to live in the system.
That's generally the problem is that people can only ever see a solution that mirrors our society as is which means voting for the same politicians talking about the same neo-liberal capitalist economy, people need to be a bit braver ideologically if they don't want the wealth gap to increase and when the time for peaceful solutions has passed. We see the rise of the far right, it's slow but there's no denying those people are there in significant numbers and won't go away by calling them all sorts. It would be easy for me as a generally liberal middle-class white man to say everything is fine now but there are some issues which are still prevalent that can't be ignored.
I'm with you on decent alternatives of which I think a non-Fed based monetary system as well as the end of crony capitalism (not capitalism itself) would probably be a decent alternative.
However, the biggest problem is the education of the wider public and garnering the democratic will of the people to make necessary changes.
Economics, for all its show of being empirical is really just politics, and politics is really just philosophy.
In the daily struggle, hustle and bustle of life, few have the time and desire to learn these subjects, let alone pay the price to apply themselves politically to make the necessary changes.
Are you willing to?
I'm not... at least for now, willing to do anything. Charity starts at home and before I contemplate doing anything political I must ensure my family is well off.
However if you are willing, and able to do something, I strongly encourage you to.
>>> Economics, for all its show of being empirical is really just politics, and politics is really just philosophy.
>>> Are you willing to?
You're painfully right. I 100% agree. There lies the issue. I have the philosophy right, but the opportunity and skills to fight for it, well, it's much tougher. If only one could contribute to that like on open source projects ('cos there, I contribute, I find time and energy)
> Economics, for all its show of being empirical is really just politics, and politics is really just philosophy.
That's very-very incorrect. Economics is about models, and understanding the past, and maybe trying to peek at the future. But at its core, it's about modeling.
And it helps us understand what works and what doesn't. Politics should be about giving the parameters to those models. And philosophy (logic) is about finding the inconsistencies in our politics.
And as you say, nowadays people don't care about logic, they care about their beliefs. Even if they are inconsistent. They are too busy to notice that they are wrong.
The Fed is a privately owned bank that is given the monopoly to issue debt backed by the taxation of the State.
The U.S. could simply issue debt itself. Even though the President appoints the Fed Chairman and it has the word "Federal" in its name it is not a Government organization. If you don't believe me, try getting ownership information from the Fed via the Freedom of Information Act.
For further information see what happened when President Andrew Jackson abolished the precursor to the current Fed. America didn't implode it actually thrived.
Also worth looking into is how the current Fed came about. President Woodrow Wilson lived long enough to regret bringing the Fed back.
Fun fact, the Bank of England started off as a private bank before it became nationalized. Nothing is stopping the U.S. from doing the same.
Re: Economics is modelling
If that were the case what is Communism? Is that a model or a political system? What is Capitalism? Is that a model too? No... they are 'societal beliefs in action' which is what politics is.
As for your assertions on philosophy... I would say philosophy is more than finding inconsistencies, it's a framework for thought itself that allows for reasoning.
What is a model anyway? At its essence it's an idea (or set of ideas) that may or may not be true. I think a big part of the problem with Economics today is the hubris modelling can confer by giving the illusion of accuracy.
It's worth looking into the works of Nobel Prize winner in Economics and the Turing Award winner Herbert A. Simon or more recently Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Simon's Nobel acceptance speech suns things up better than I can.
> Even though the President appoints the Fed Chairman and it has the word "Federal" in its name it is not a Government organization. If you don't believe me, try getting information from the Fed via the Freedom of Information Act.
The Fed's own page on the FOIA indicates that the Fed thinks it's a federal agency covered by FOIA.
It has mandatory non-voting non-transferable shares. That is, when you fund a bank, you have to buy in at the regional Fed. Why? Who knows, it's a law on the books, and it's basically mindless administration. It does not make it "owned" in any sense.
The Fed is established by an Act of Congress, directly reports to Congress, and every aspect of the Fed's rights and duties is directly spelled out in laws.
If you do a FOIA request for ownership structure, you'll get nothing, because there's no such thing. The Fed is not owned by anyone, it's an independent-from-the-WhiteHouse US agency. It has a budget (and is self funded, from the interests of the securities/assets it holds), it has expenses for staff and for the cost of providing services, it then gets reimbursed from the Treasury for certain services, etc. ( https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/files/2018ReserveBankBud... ) And it pays out 6% to the member banks, who are mandated by law to have equal to 3% of their capital in Fed Regional Bank "shares".
There's one instance where the regional fed banks can be thought of as "private": from the perspective of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act].
See also Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, in which the distinction is made between Federal Reserve Banks, which are federally created instrumentalities, and the Fed Board of Governors, which is a federal agency.
if you are referring to the budget debt of the US government then a simple cap limiting expenses to less than inflation would in a decade result in a positive balances. however Congress changed their accounting rules decades ago and neither party is interested in fiscal responsibility while the other is in office.
the only real fix is getting out of the tyranny of a two party system, however each new finance reform bill does its best to prevent that possibility under the guise of protecting democracy from outside influence
Depends what proportion of them are kept content with mediocre food, shelter, and a slimmer of hope that their kids can move up in the game. And as long as the security guards (military and police) are kept happy and well equipped, then a small number of them should be able to keep the rest in line.
Debt is the smart way to keep them in the hamster wheel.
And most African nations would disagree with Venezuela. But many governments have been overthrow for much less or in cases where a government is so authoritarian that a coup is very difficult. Not saying America is in that situation, but something has got to give, especially when you look at how far wealthier certain people are living in your country.
Research has been conducted since 1950 (With a gap period of a few decades). It's pretty clear it works effectively, there are several meta analysis' done on modern and historical studies.
I agree that many normal things help even simpler, such as good sleep, exercise, good diet, meaning work, connection to community/society/family, etc.
You are absolutely correct that there is no panacea.
> "Nothing like a blanket statement in your first sentence to immediately discredit your argument."
My opinion is as valid as the opinion of psychonauts. Maybe more so because I do not rave about great insights about the universe or gods or aliens or chakra or kundalini or third eye or old souls; New Age stuff whose proponents are famous for the promotion of altered states (!) by meditation or yoga or drugs.
> "There are now hundreds of studies showing numerous benefits to psychedelics, from anxiety, depression, OCD, anxiety, Autism, etc.
> What more evidence and data do you need?"
All noteworthy (positive) studies are published by medical experts.
All medical experts warn against the casual use of psychedelics. They all promote a therapy that might include psychedelics under supervision of a medical expert.
Only people who suffer from psychosis defend their delusions as real and important.
No chakras, gods or old souls are needed for you to agree to the statement that some aspects of reality are constructed by the human mind (cf. Kant). It explains, for instance, why you perceive what you're sitting on right now as a "chair" rather than the mere collection of atoms and molecules that it's actually made of. Nature outside of the mind has no concept of an object, and no concept of a subject. Acid may help one see reality that way, if one is curious and mentally stable enough to want to.
Disclaimer: NOT intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment
LSD on Empathy (Increasing altruism): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5813062/
LSD enhances emotional empathy: https://www.nature.com/articles/npp201682
Lifetime usage of psychedelics correlates to increase in nature relatedness: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28631526
Anecdotally, 3 of my friends and myself (sample=4) all have self-reported significant improvements in empathy, as well as verified confirmation by our romantic partners. This has also led to objective changes such as volunteering, random acts of kindness, increased gratitude and altruism, and more.
There are also studies on terminally ill showing dramatic decreases in anxiety and depression: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5367557/
I don't know if you've ever suffered from either of these, but I can assure you, severely depressed or anxious people are not overly empathetic as they are ruminating and caught in their own minds more than being interested in others (overactive default mode network).
In short... there are numerous scientific studies confirming the benefits of these drugs. I fail to see any "overrated" potential after studying these molecules myself for years for experientially and academically.