Reactive versus proactive captures the notion perfectly. I'm not content to be reactive. I was that way for too long, but I realized it was a cover for fear. It is hard for me to relate to the reactive mindset now. I feel like codependent-prone individuals smell the change and try to follow you around.
I want to be able to relate to everyone well, but there's a point at which the mismatch emerges, and it is unfortunate. It just means my interests are changing.
Exactly. I'm in the middle of trying to let my wrists heal from RSI, and I've noticed that my sleep quality isn't consistently good. Deep sleep seems necessary for healing to occur. I'm looking for something that will let me try out different sleep tweaks (less ambient lighting/no caffeine at all/exercise in morning/exercise in afternoon/various diets) and see which ones are actually effective for me.
Hopefully Wakemate fits the bill. I'll wait for the initial reviews to come out. I'm excited about the future of health afforded by devices like these.
This is beautiful. Too often I see business as a purely soul-less set of transactions predicated on the exchange of money where both parties need each other, but keep each other at arm's length.
I think natural talent exists, and it manifests itself as an ability to know where to direct your focus when learning something new. Someone who lives in their head a lot may fare better at programming initially, for example. They're used to talking through things in their head.
But eventually the natural talent can't carry you any farther.
Exactly. Nobody cares if the exact details aren't 100% correct in a non-technical discussion. Suppose I begin recounting a blog entry which describes an odd situation. I may not remember all the details right, but I certainly have the gist of it and can convey that. There is no point in someone stepping in and saying, "you know, it was actually in Des Moines, not Dallas," if the city is entirely irrelevant to actual content of the post.
What is the group supposed to do with that statement? Someone has to segue back to the original topic, while someone else just lost face. Most people will just either ignore the correction entirely, or just drop the topic altogether.
I'm 28, and I don't want to end up like Liz Lemon ("well I have $12,000 in checking"). What's a good primer on investing? I don't have a ton of money but I'd like to get into it.
I'm killing most of my material and time investment into gaming so I can devote it toward music. While that isn't quite as severe as abandoning old projects, it still seems necessary in the same way that the article discusses. It is like I have to prove to myself that I can remake myself, that I can be about something completely new, and leave the old self behind.
Yet another argument for why we should be impressed with natural selection: "we used to be a certain way, so we HAVE to value these things, however arbitrary they may seem!"
I value knowing what our evolutionary history is, and why we have certain biases. But I become highly suspicious of arguments that point to genes in an almost conformistic way. It feels like an appeal to tradition that is backed up by the dominant school of thought of the day. Why should I be impressed that human behavior is similar to that of animals? Our potential is enormous! I'm more impressed, generally, with people that aspire to be more human than animal.
It isn't that 'simpler' drives are bad, but I don't find them inspiring in the slightest.
I've been thinking about this for awhile. Current dating sites make it easy to meet lots of people, but then there's the issue of how well you actually mesh in real life. Thus, some sort of hybrid approach might be better.
I'm imagining some sort of OkCupid/augmented reality mashup. I think there might be something to some level of algorithmic matching, but it doesn't mean much until you actually meet the person. Matching systems can, for instance, prevent people with totally incompatible different values systems from even wasting time with each other. Augmented reality would let you pick someone out of a crowd (via the inevitable smartphone) and pull up their profile. It could even provide the "similar users" ability among people that were present if you happen to meet your type, but they're not physically attractive to you.
Lots of work can be done here. I'm trying to get the number of awkward first dates down, and I believe it to be possible if we meld the best aspects of online and offline personas.
Useful? Why would I care what xXNinjaGuy2938Xx's opinion on foreign policy is? Twitter strikes me as a very anti-intellectual medium because of the 140 character limitation. How do you convey a nuanced, complex opinion in such a fashion?
Story of my life. I suppose doing this sort of thing just sort of desensitizes you to that? I'd be curious to see if your viewpoint is different 3 months from now or so.
I like how the author pulls out the word "microact" as if it were the most normal thing in the world and later derides poking as created by "nerds" a few paragraphs later.