Split (1)

train · 6.74k rows

subreddit stringclasses 11 values	text stringlengths 246 28.5k
science	This reminds me of when they redid the marshmallow experiment and actually tracked the children’s family income. In the original experiment they found that children who could wait for the second marshmallow had better long term outcomes. In the later experiment, they that found that poor kids where less likely to wait, positing that they had less of an ability to “delay gratification” because the poor kids were used to food scarcity and it was wiser, given their life circumstances, not to wait for food to be appear later.
science	That's what I'm thinking. One could also frame it as "the authority of expected results". Say in the case of eating unhealthily: the expected result of changing this behavior is becoming more fit. However if a person has had some sort of misfortune, like falling ill, heartbreak, theft, loss of a friend, etc. then it makes sense that they dont believe in the expected results for when they do something to better themselves. Even if these things aren't related, typically the tragedy of these losses outweigh the benefits of working to keep oneself alive and/or happy in the immediate. If enough of these happen when one is young, not even mentioning the human authorities that may fall short in ones lifetime, then it is understandable that people want to leave their endeavors with what they can get immediately.
science	What are you talking about? I'm not talking about houses or all that luxury crap. I'm talking about choosing between investing or getting meds or getting food or getting fuel. Pick one. Two if you're lucky. Three if you have family you can rely on like me. The people I was talking about are racking up debt so they can feed themselves and stay alive. Meanwhile, the rich get richer and bootlickers come into this thread to insist that the economy is great using cherry-picked stats.
science	No. I had used "skipping the beer", because the poster I was responding to had "trust in authority" as a possible explanation in the marshmallow test. That did not seem right to me; because it assumes that the test subjects are automatons that respond solely to extrinsic forces and not intrinsic ones. They posted a follow up reference to a variation of the test which did show that the results of the teat can strongly correspond to whether or not the experimenter has a history of being reliable ad following through with promises made to the subject. The experiment design was not strictly measuring the same thing as the raw marshmallow test. It was more of an experiment about how people react to unreliable factors. My original example was just to point out that "not everything involves authority" and somehow this subthread became about how food security might affect the experiment.
science	Something like that wouldn't invalidate the study. It would just limit the external validity of its conclusions. Just like the arguments made above regarding trust in authority figures. An interesting second step to these studies would be to assess how anxiety or other forms of percieved threat hinder one's capacity to act with delayed gratification in mind. And it wouldn't be too difficult. Just determine a baseline with a threat free environment and then engage them in a sort of zero-sum game.
science	I just experienced this 10 minutes ago. I get 3 squares of dark chocolate a day, my "ration." I just ate lunch. I looked at the chocolate, and opted for some chewing gum instead so I could enjoy the chocolate later on as a treat, instead of right after I ate when my tummy is full of real food. This is not an innate behavior for me. I was raised on accessible Little Debbie cakes and learned to be an emotional eater as a teenager. Took a lot of time to relearn the appropriate habits. And data helps - by treating my own body with numbers, I was able to take control of it and slowly whittle it back down to size. Delayed gratification has helped me lose 90 lbs.
science	It's like when parents encourage their kids to not eat all their Halloween candy at once, and when the kid does this the parents steal a piece of the kid's candy from time to time...and when the kid decides to eat their candy they kid may notice the amount of candy is less than it was before: "Wait, I used to have 100 pieces of candy, my parents told me to wait, now I have 90 pieces? Because I did what my parents told me to do, I now have less candy than before? I'd better eat all my candy now so I don't lose any more candy!" So instead of a good "teaching your child delayed gratification" lesson, we are teaching our kids "if you don't take the reward now, you will have less reward later". Great job, parents!
science	Can you link a study with that sort of observation? The reason I ask is because in my personal experiences, people with high incomes don't usually don't expect anything from anyone. It seems like they have the attitude of "I'm going to get what I want and you can't stop me." Also... If this observation is true (about people being raised to trust authority), then it seems that our message to the younger generations would be more important than ever. We would want to he careful not to create biases within them and let them have an equal run at life.
science	The study I linked does specifically find that genetics is a big factor in time preference. We also know that genetics play a big role in IQ, conscientousness, violent criminality, and all kinds of traits that push people towards the lower or higher ends of the socioeconomic ladder. I'm skeptical that "social mobility" is actually falling - at least for high IQ people. If you're right, then we should see a decreasing correllation between IQ and SES, as more and more bright but underprivileged kids can't escape poverty. But as I recall from reading Coming Apart, the reverse is actually the case. The smartest people get brain-drained out of poor communities, further impoverishing the communities but enriching the lucky few. For people without smarts or the ability to delay gratification, social mobility hurts more than it helps.
science	Its probably just what the top poster said and it has to do with a distrust in authority figures (i.e. the government, corporations. Etc) everywhere we look it seems as if they're are screwing everyone over mainly financially but also in regards to climate change and other issues. I'm in my late twenties and in the middle of going back to school and part of me wonders whats the point sometimes and while I don't think I would ever do it sometimes I fantasize about taking all my savings and spending it all on a vacation or quitting school and my job and just taking a roadtrip across the U.S.
science	Yes, absolutely, I came here to say something along these lines. We know from extensive research that ability to delay gratification is strongly associated with having a safe, stable, middle-income or better home, where having one's needs met is pretty much a given. Trust in the ability to securely delay gratification is a prerequisite for developing the skills to delay gratification, so really, we're just back 'round to square one with this.
science	There is a school of thought which states that this is the foundation of ethical values in the individual, which becomes self-reinforcing as they interact with others. In other words: If you can trust that your needs will be met you are more likely to respect others, which motivates them to in turn respect you. If you feel that your needs won't be met without being selfish then that perpetuates a hostile/dysfunctional instant-gratification environment.
science	I think we're probably talking about the same thing, then. >The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, or order, and has high potential to result in fallacy, especially when used to rationalize people's misfortune on the grounds that they "deserve" it. >The hypothesis popularly appears in the English language in various figures of speech that imply guaranteed negative reprisal, such as: "you got what was coming to you", "what goes around comes around", "chickens come home to roost", and "you reap what you sow". This hypothesis has been widely studied by social psychologists since Melvin J. Lerner conducted seminal work on the belief in a just world in the early 1960s. Research has continued since then, examining the predictive capacity of the hypothesis in various situations and across cultures, and clarifying and expanding the theoretical understandings of just-world beliefs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
science	Absolutely, I came here to bring this up. There are a lot of uncontrollable factors that are not controlled for. In my house, for example, there were 6 kids. There is no such thing as delayed gratification. If there is one piece of cake left on the table, it is not going to be there the next day, this is a 100% fact. We all learned that we have to get while the getting's good, otherwise, you will not get shit. If you don't want that piece of pie tonight, because you are full, and put it in the refridgerator for tomorrow night, and you tell everyone NOT to eat it because it is yours and you want to eat it tomorrow night because you're full tonight....do you think that piece of pie is actually going to be there tomorrow night? No. Fuck no. And when you are indignant about it and feeling outraged, and demand to know which one of your 5 siblings ate your pie, do you think they are going to speak up and admit it? No. Fuck no. Get while the getting's good. Maybe YOU were born an only child that got whatever you want handed to you on a silver tray, but for the rest of us out here, life's a jungle, you eat what you kill.
science	When Boomers were born, the population of the world was less than half what it is today. Yes, everybody was worried about those problems 50 years ago, but they haven't gotten LESS likely (except maybe nuclear war). The planet is now groaning under the weight of so many people. There are likely to be major wars over basic resources like water within the next 30 years as population keeps growing in Africa and India and climate change and human overuse causes slow ecologic collapse. Hell, we've already caused ecologic collapse in what used to be be major sources of food - like the collapse of the Northwest Atlantic cod fishery.
science	>Driving your old faithful around for 10+ years though it looks like garbage you can afford a new car. Except, if one is truly careful, as you seem to write, then there's no way a car should ever look like garbage, with the sole exception if someone hits your car or a tree falls over and crushes it. Or maybe if you have kids shitting and puking all over it, but then, that would be the exact same as a 1-year-old car, no difference between a 10-year -old pukemobile and a 1-year-old pukemobile, so same either way. But in the case of damage due to being hit, even then you have insurance, and because you're careful and frugal, you will easily have enough money saved to cover the $500 deductible if it is dented up, or have enough money to get a new used car if it is totalled. If one is careful, there's no reason their car won't look just fine. Not like a one-day old car, but a 15-year-old car can look like a 1-year-old car.
science	I had a very fast metabolism as a child and parents who were worried about providing too much food. I did accept and seek out free food like no other until my income increased. This didn't impact my savings rate too much. --- Also anecdotes do not define trends or overall patterns. If you focus on edge cases at the exclusion of the overall patterns you end up with flawed knowledge.
science	Good point. And if we go further, tying that into childhood experiences with one's primary caregiver, impulsiveness is seen also as a coping mechanism. A child is in a state where one's caregiver is really the ultimate authority not only over one's survival but also one's inherent sense of value and eventual self-esteem. If you were neglected as a child, then this would be understood as a form of abandonment, which is catastrophic to a child. It manifests as anxiety, the fear of abandonment, which morphs into self-hatred, what we call shame. Being screwed over during childhood leads to the expectation of being screwed over, which in turn makes you perceive yourself as unherently unworthy of having your needs met. By the time we develop our own self-concept and self-esteem, it is defined by the absence of value and an all too present anxiety and fear of loss. So instant gratification, consciously is met by the expectation of loss, is also a coping mechanism, a short term pleasure to deal with the anxiety of the fear of loss and abandonment. This is a traumatic state, and it's also what underpins addiction as well.
science	Not that the world is going to end in 20 years, but that they won't be able to get anywhere in 20 years. My grandmother was telling a story the other day about how she worked overtime, 10 hours a day, every Saturday and most Sundays because she was "only" making $15/hour as a paralegal in the 80s, and so that overtime really helped her out. She was saying that people today don't want to work for what they want, etc. What she doesn't understand is that paralegals in my area TODAY make $15/ hour, but that $15 went a HELL of a lot further in 1985 than it does in 2018.
science	I believe they also recently started disproving the instant gratification theory? There was a study recently that repeated the very well known marshmallow test among children and found that the original conclusions were drawn too broadly. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/a-new-approach-to-the-marshmallow-test-yields-complex-findings.html The TL;DR is that the whole situation is far more complicated than one factor and that, yes, our 'delaying gratification means more money in the long run' view does tend to look very (and unfairly) disparagingly on those from poverty.
science	Yes, I agree that not all means of delayed gratification \in life\ involve an authority figure, but it's hard to design a test that doesn't include one -- and thus, is testing the delay in gratification rather than trust in authority. Later tests have tried by showing the authority figure to be reliable (or unreliable). I guess you could have them choose between $20 now or $25 in a locked box with a countdown timer that will open in a week. But they still need to believe it will open in a week. This study explores the topic: [http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4622](http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4622)
science	This is the sort of doom & gloom peddling people are on about though. Major wars over basic resources? How long have wars been fought over energy resources ? The supply of gas into europe has been the primary reason for all of the recent wars in the middle east with the interests of Iran/KSA/Qatar/Russia vying against each other. Cod was overfarmed in the North Sea by the UK (and Iceland when allowed), wiping out 90% of the population... we put strict quotas on it and now its recovered AND being "sustainably harvested". Lessons were learned from the Northwest Atlantic cod fishery Population? Declining in 'first world' nations. The increases are coming in 'third world nations' and their emigration. Asian countries have a vastly larger population density than the west and are sustainable.
science	So, then, the black community at large that glorifies and encourages disrespect of authority figures and worships a culture of instant gratification ala drug dealing criminal rappers can actually be blamed for their own plight? Perhaps if this cycle stopped and the parents started encouraging their kids to trust police and authority figures? Or was this another way to say they still get a free pass because whitey is keeping them down?
science	Things aren't on a slow decline. You only think that because of perception bias. Things are actually better than they have ever been, and are continually getting better every day. Seriously. All evidence, all science, supports this. Things are getting much better. Its just, you don't know how bad things were a long time ago, and when you were a child you didn't know about bad things going on then. So it FEELS like there's a lot more shit now, but really really really there isn't. Have hope, be optimistic. We are trending ever upwards. Better standard of living, longer life, less murder, everything is getting better. It just takes a looooong time so its easy to make mistakes of perception bias.
science	Chicken, meet egg. If the parents have learned that society and authority cannot be trusted to look after their best interest either from their own parents or by actual experience, how can they reasonably be expected to demonstrate anything different to their children. I think people are ascribing a lot of causality to the correlation between wealth and delaying gratification, but a lot of studies have shown that the variables can change independently and targeting the ability to delay gratification doesn't appear to have a clear impact on social mobility, and when taking larger sample sizes and consideration for background factors the results are far less pronounced. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797618761661 And an article describing the above study: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-research-marshmallow-test-suggests-delayed-gratification-doesnt-equal-success-180969234/
science	You are going to have to state source on that. I have always believed what this result says but I have always voiced it differently. Those who think with ration rather than emotion do better in life. Emotion should inform your rational decision making but you should never make a decision that primarily an emotional one. Emotional decisions lead you to make rash choices or decide for instant gratification. I firmly believe that instant gratification decisions are made because people believe someone else (the authority figure or government) will pull them out of the pickle they get themselves into. I think people who decide to make decisions geared to the long haul are the ones who decide to do it themselves, not the other way around.
science	This, right here. I haven't stopped working since I was 16, between part time jobs, to full-time in the summer at an industrial paint hangar to pay for college, failing in Mechanical Engineering. Before I switched to business, I had this godawful lingering fear that I was going to fail out of college and end up working there for the rest of my life, and I absolutely hated it. Every day I drove across a bridge to get to work, and every day before and after work my only comfort was the thought that I would someday park my car on the bridge and jump off, because it was all downhill from here, and I was already deep in a valley. For anyone who now feels the same way, you should know, it did get better, but that's because I worked hard and was lucky enough to have a path to success. Most people already have the first part of that down pat, but the second part is harder and harder to find these days, and even then, I've only achieved a limited measure of success, in that I have a job that pays decent money, but I'm still cranking on my student loans, and I will be for the next 20 years, which is going to keep me from being able to buy a house or have kids, possibly forever. I look around sometimes and think, "It wasn't supposed to be this way, I was supposed to graduate and get a great job and be able to afford to live" and still sometimes I think that I'm going to be stuck like this for the rest of my life. But I try to keep it in perspective, that I thought that before, and it did get better.
science	This works as more of a corelation than causation model, I agree but I would say it is far from fallacy. However delaying gratification without a goal where does that fit in a model. People who are scared to travel with money or scared to spend, or celebrate victories, achieved certification, got doctorate etc. I know money is the easy model here but there are lots of problematic scenarios that point to gross amounts of stress triggers and high anxiety. Even disorders like certain types of hoarding can be tied to this. Basically a fear of scarcity can be tied to the same type of behavior.
science	I'd say it's worse with both authority figures teaming up on you. During childhood I'd get in trouble over extremely petty things, like talking during lunch time or not eating lunch and then getting complaints from my parents to the school of how I brought back lunch.so they both figured I should just eat lunch by myself and not talk to any of my classmates. It was so disheartening seeing my parents go off the advice of the teachers who didn't like me to just keep me out of their class and then my parents adding fuel to the fire by never fighting back on how I was being excluded. That's worse because you really trust no body.
science	>One interesting observation that has come out of delayed gratification studies is that your willingness to delay gratification reflects, to a large extent, how trusting you are of the authority figure that is promising the future gratification. If you have had bad experiences with authority, you are more likely to take the reward now Reminds me of this post by Math Babe on the Marshmallow test ([something that's been in the news recently btw](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jun/01/famed-impulse-control-marshmallow-test-fails-in-new-research)): >[So, for example, I’ve long thought that the “marshmallow” experiment is nearly universally misunderstood: kids wait for the marshmallow for exactly as long as it makes sense to them to wait. If they’ve been brought up in an environment where delayed gratification pays off, and where the rules don’t change in the meantime, and where they trust a complete stranger to tell them the truth, they wait, and otherwise they don’t – why would they? But since the researchers grew up in places where it made sense to go to grad school, and where they respect authority and authority is watching out for them, and where the rules once explained didn’t change, they never think about those assumptions. They just conclude that these kids have no will power.](https://mathbabe.org/2014/11/03/hand-to-mouth-and-the-rationality-of-the-poor/) Now the flip side of this is understanding just exactly how wealthy people come to obtain their wealth. Dean Baker: >[This paper argues that the bulk of this upward redistribution comes from the growth of rents in the economy in four major areas: patent and copyright protection, the financial sector, the pay of CEOs and other top executives, and protectionist measures that have boosted the pay of doctors and other highly educated professionals](http://cepr.net/documents/working-paper-upward-distribution-income-rents.pdf) Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that being successful doesn't oftentimes require taking the initiative to plan ahead and spending your time productively with your nose in the books. Only that these conservative types, who emphasis hard work and will power, often look the other way when it comes to the important issues being mentioned above.
science	> Previous generations were not "more able to combine incomes", the two-income household has been a big, socially-relevant thing for like 35 years tops, dude. Which encompasses all of Generation X and a significant portion of Baby Boomers. > And given how weddings are ridiculously expensive, as are divorces, not-getting-married is a perfectly fine financial decision. I never said anything about weddings. I'm talking about marriage. You can get married for less than $50 in most places. But nowadays people want extravagant weddings, shown by the average wedding cost being in excess of $30,000. It's also important to note that even adjusting for inflation, the average wedding today is significantly more expensive than past decades.
science	Except income doesn't always come by way of some promise from a higher authority. What about business entrepreneurs, who invest in their businesses, instead of squandering their capital on a new car or a bigger TV. People who make a lot of money are seldom just employees. They are business owners, independent consultants, and the like. Or if they are employed, they are people in managerial positions, or high performers. Either way, the ability to delay gratification appears to be the predictor.
science	To further complicate matters, there's a lot more to making those choices than immediate vs. delayed gratification. Time, money, energy and convenience, peer pressure and other social forces, the advertising industry, the stories and other cultural artifacts we consume and the aggregate depiction of normality they project, and on and on. In some cases there's an authority; in some cases, not. But in no case is there ever "only your own ability" to do anything. If you think you've isolated all the variables, you haven't considered enough variables.
science	Things are okay, I got kicked out of the house when my dad was drunk and he started a fight with me over the internet bill. Threw my clothes on the floor and now I'm just living with my friends. But I guess I've always known that my parents will blame me and never take my side. There was a time where I got assaulted and the police called my home phone and they picked up and shouted and yelled at me basically acting like the police wanted me when in reality they were helping me. I can't really love people like that who will assume guilt at the first sign.
science	Yeah I gotta say, I’m a pretty hippie-ish tree hugger but I’m also in a really tough spot right now, we’ve always been paycheck to paycheck and the water is starting to creep up to my chin if prices on everything don’t stop going up. I care about climate change and stuff, I worry for my son and his kids and polar bears, but my only immediate concern is how cold Michigan is going to be when I’m homeless.
science	And of course you know when 'back then' was. Or where. Dude, get a grip. I am 40 years old and he died 3 years ago. From 1941 to 1975 he was literally just the tire guy on the south shore of Montreal and paid for what I am saying. In 1976 his boss got sick and gramps got a loan to buy the the tire shop. Then in 1994 he sold it to my father. Everything in my post is 100% factual. Not sure why you think it isn't, but I am sure there are tons of examples exactly like this. Anyone else care to share their story? Similar or polar opposite.
science	Fewer words, 'monkey brain', the cerebellum. Monkeys in the wild are constantly working because they have no ability to preserve and store food, besides there is massive inter-monkey competition, because they are dealing with a rapidly blooming then rotting food supply. Delayed gratification would be suicide. Monkeys in the city are more circumspect. They will delay gratification while they puzzle out how to rob a bigger prize. Also they have become clever grifters, feeding off uncovered food, unsuspecting tourists and the temples. Still, delayed gratification would mean eating out of dumpsters. Monkeys in the zoo are overfed and masturbate all the time, (like government workers and religious leaders). Delayed gratification is fine, because they will always be fed tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day. Then there are the human monkeys: [http://pamelynferdin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/monkey-chains.jpg](http://pamelynferdin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/monkey-chains.jpg) Human monkeys delay gratification until they retire, then realize that their entire life was shackled to wage-slavery, their bodies are wracked and ruined, and the meager savings they acquired will now be stolen by clever monkeys in the eldercare warehousing prison racket, where inmates are chemically strait-jacketed in front of The Price is Right. Don't be a shackled wage-slave chemically strait-jacketed monkey. Gratify the shit out of your life. Just do it.
science	Well you already contradicted yourself in just two posts. >All that on the salary of a guy who fixed flat tires for 50 years... >No exaggeration. >From 1941 to 1975 34 years, not 50, and then we are to believe your grandpa went from being a "tire guy" to a full on business owner...? Do you even know what owning and running a business entails? Your grandpa did not go from just fixing tires to owning a business. You are grossly selling him short for the actual work he would have been putting in because if he wasn't helping out with every other aspect of that business as soon as he took over it would have failed. His official job when he was hired was to fix tires, but over the years I 100% guarantee you he had a hand in every single aspect of that business or he would have never been able to buy it.
science	>One interesting observation that has come out of delayed gratification studies is that your willingness to delay gratification reflects, to a large extent, how trusting you are of the authority figure that is promising the future gratification. This is interesting. It would obviously apply to any given situation on a spectrum, right? For instance, it would be a heavy influence in a workplace situation where your manager is saying "just do this and I promise you'll get a raise later." However, you'd assume it would be nearly a non-factor when talking about trusting financial institutions to save and invest money. The latter statement is what I immediately considered when reading the study - the "Millionaire Next Door" approach, where income level doesn't really matter as long as you are spending less than your income in observable reality.
science	This mindset is infuriating. You can see it whenever a discussion around finding jobs comes up on reddit. To some people, dropping everything you have right now, moving to a new place with "better" job prospects, cutting out your entire social network and safety nets, and burning away all of your savings for a chance at finding something marginally better is clearly the best solution. Oh, and if you don't think that's a good idea, you're a slacker and a failure and should be accepting of your place in life. People who seem to treat others' circumstances as a failure of character reflects more on them than the ones they criticize.
science	I don't think those friends are wealthy What I find is those who spend often seem to be surprised when I say I can buy a new item for 600$ when I need it, instead of them who try to scrounge for second hand or renting one or owing people stuff later. I actually had a friend sell another friend a second hand item for 150$ and I said that's dumb, this thing is 15 years old and falling apart. Makes much more sense to buy a new unit, perfectly clean and under warranty, new features, new methods, etc. She was completely floored I could just come up and with that kind of money. By context she makes double what I do. She just lives way above her means. Her rent is 4x mine (and both her and her boyfriend work well paying jobs), place is smaller but affluent area, and she insists that's better because networking. I save half my paycheques though and I get to do whatever I want instead of constantly chasing more money though. I just view it all as unneeded stress. Those who spend a lot seem to be really unhappy and stressed, and even if they make a lot more money, they somehow have less financial stability, less control, less time. It's just a silly rat race.
science	I didn’t know I wouldn’t be approved by the financial aid department. I talked to the department numerous times along the way, each time hearing that I would receive the aid when the time came for it to be disbursed. The way the school works is that first time borrowers don’t receive their aid until the last day of the summer semester, which is when I enrolled. It’s not an expensive education, it’s a technical degree. I’m finishing my degree at the end of the year, so I will have a job by January of next year, but my only option before going to school was stocking shelves at a grocery store, which has no long term viability - I would have been accumulating even more debt. Also I am going to pay the debt off eventually, as I actually earn more money and am not living paycheck to paycheck. I’m just arguing with you because you make it seem like everything is black and white - like it MUST be my fault that I ended up with debt. I didn’t overlook anything - I’m just going to be paying off debt for a while I work. I would have even more debt if I just tried to work in grocery for the entire year before starting college. At least I’ll be employable at the end of the year, in this case.
science	Because someone who is genetically predisposed to poverty cannot be helped out of it - welfare won't make them fare any better. Moreover, ascribing poverty to moral failure makes charity redundant, even self-defeating. You're essentially taking the position that there are no deserving poor, only people getting the just desserts of their poor character. And you aren't 'punishing' them. You're simply leaving them to their natural fate. Note, I don't hold these views - I'm just illustrating how they form a self-sustaining rationale for selfishness.
science	I read the abstract of your paper. You are operating under the flawed assumption that patience is always a virtue. It is not. Under many circumstances, given sufficient resources, taking the long view is beneficial. However, when resources are constrained, when conditions are unstable - then patience could be catastrophic. As such, attempting to take the long view in order to escape poverty could be a high risk strategy, and while there will be some who succeed, there will be others whose material position may be worsened by the attempt (for instance, taking on large amounts of debt to get an education can be extremely risky), that you are not considering.
science	There was a study which revisited the Marshmallow study, specifically because the Marshmallow study wasn't very well controlled nor was the sample size very large. The replication of the study found the results significantly weaker than the original study, when using far larger and more diverse sample pools. In addition, when they corrected for the samples, the link between delayed gratification and success was far far less. It turns out that those children who came from economically successful families tended to do better on the delayed gratification test as well as had brighter futures than those children who came from poorer and less educated families. [The Study](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797618761661?journalCode=pssa&) Your final thought could equally be explained with: People who come from higher income families tend have financial stability, those with financial stability tend to trust in authority, and those with financial stability tend to have higher income.
science	Your original replies made it sound like you had totally given up on the concept of paying off your debt. You also made it sound like your income wasn't going to increase substantially in the near future. Given that neither of these is the case then it sounds like you are on a reasonable track to improve your life. I'd still recommend looking into someone like Dave Ramsey but it sounds like your future isn't nearly as bleak as you made it out to be originally. Again, best of luck to you with whatever you decide to do. Stay strong and stick to your plan and get of debt.
science	Well in my case, I don't mean truly "wealthy. These were simply middle, upper middle class folks. I grew up in a teachers family of five and we were more properly positioned as lower middle class. Chasing my friend's way of life burned everything I could make. Same could be said for someone who's poor and hangs with lower middle/middle class folks. My point was that its easy to get sucked into someone else's "normal" and never be able to achieve anything beyond the station one is born to.
science	I think you're misunderstanding the concept of time preference. Having low time preference doesn't mean you're going to stupidly ignore a safe immediate windfall in favor of an uncertain and risky future gamble. It simply means that you are better able to delay instant gratification when and if there is a long term benefit to doing so. There's really not a question about which is the better trait to have in a modern society. Low time preference is correllated with better professional, educational, and family outcomes. High time preferences is correllated with criminality, illegitimacy, substance abuse, and unstable work life. This is corroborated by the OP's study.
science	> She just lives way above her means that is exactly my point. ftr, I said "wealthier" not "wealthy". It's a small distinction, but a critical one. It can be used to describe someone who is poor but hangs with middle class folk or middle class and hangs with literally rich folk. Hanging with those who are outside one's income level can easily lead one (and often does) to behaviors that are "living above their means", and that behavior almost inevitably leads to problems As for expenditures, sometimes one can't purchase the $600 item and has to settle for the $150 item, simply because one doesn't have $600 to invest like you do. Sometimes it's best to simply go without instead of purchasing either the $600 or $150 item. case in point: I really want a canoe. I used to love canoeing. I still love canoeing. But I have no partner (ie GF/wife) and few friends who enjoy that kind of recreation. So why am I going to spend upwards of $700-$1000+ for a canoe I won't be using? (before you suggest a kayak, note, part of what I love about canoeing is the partnership element. doing something with someone )
science	\> Day trading &#x200B; Even short term investing is still delaying gratification compared to spending all earnings immediately. &#x200B; \> Hyperinflation. &#x200B; Can have a number of causes, most of which have little or nothing to do with instant gratification, and can;t honestly be looked as a reasonable strategy for success for anyone. &#x200B; \> Casual or hire-and-fire employment ...while generally not the most successful overall strategy, is part of a long term strategy. It does not result in immediate gain for anyone.
science	There was a study like this quoted in the book, “The Power of Habit”. A group of kids were told they could eat a cookie now or wait 20 minutes and receive 2 cookies. Only a fraction of the kids were able to hold out and get the 2 cookies. The same group that did the study followed the kids about 15 years later and found that all of them were making a higher income than those that succumbed to the instant gratification.
science	I suspect that you are on to something there. This would definitely jive with the "data" that allegedly shows a higher incidence of violence in "African American communities" which conveniently ignore other factors such as community income, education and upward mobility (or lack thereof). I try not to be too quick to lump these things together, but it is growing increasingly difficult to separate these days. I do have to say that I was very convinced by the study for years after I heard about it, and I only started to question it after hearing about this 2018 study. I mean, the confounding factors seem really obvious to me when they are pointed out, so I should probably be cautious that I'm not being impacted by confirmation bias, but I would like to think that I would accept new evidence that refutes it.
science	Your comments are passing glibly over huge arrays of variability. Not everyone assesses risk the same way. Not everyone has the resources to bear risk equally. All long term investments are 'risky' - and future returns are intrinsically less valuable than immediate ones, which is what discounting calculations are for. The rate at which an individual discounts investments is linked directly to the degree of risk they experience (greater for people in more poverty) and their ability to bear that risk (lower for people in more poverty). That's not to say that most people are consciously calculating the net present value of each decision! Really, not being poor is the better trait to have in a modern society. With that relief from immediate pressures and the insulation from catastrophic risk that greater wealth provides, people are both freed to make better decisions and protected from the worst consequences of making bad ones. Also, illegitimacy? Are you some 19th century eugenicist?
science	But the facts say that poor people do spend a much bigger portion of their income on instant gratification items. Of course there are underlying causes to the poor decision making but I’ll never understand why Reddit insists that poor people have zero responsibility for their lot in life. It’s certainly more difficult for poor children to develop good habits and move up the socioeconomic latter but it’s very doable. There are literally millions of people (myself included) who grew up poor and went on to be successful. It’s honestly insulting in my mind that Reddit acts like poor people are completely helpless and incapable of improving their own lives...
science	This phenomenon is likely behind a large number of cases where individuals decided not to invest whereby that investment had it been taken would have resulted in such individuals becoming independently wealthy. This also happened to me, specifically because trust had been previously lost due to a scam. Trust is the most important determining factor in delayed gratification. If an individual has difficulty trusting others then it is possible that individual will not delay gratification based upon the promises of others. Teachers, doctors, parents and significant others are the main sources of trust. Once trust is lost it is very hard to recover.
science	The 150-600$ item was a dishwasher mind you. Which actually is a really good investment. Want to save money? If I eat out it is 600-1200$ a month. If I do groceries some months me and my SO eat for 200$ a month. Holy hell that is so worth it monetarily. You also eat a lot healthier! However you are making a large time investment to plan meals, do groceries, learn to cook, to do the cooking, and to do the cleaning. Buying a dishwasher saves time on cleaning, it also makes cooking home made meals less of a pain now, and therefore more positively associated in your head, more likely for you to do.
science	Passing a test is absolutely tied to authority. Who decides you need a test? Who creates the test? Who decides if you passed? Who rewards you for passing? Everything about testing is about proving yourself to an authority so that you can be rewarded/punished accordingly. And skill is a whole other mess. For a start, skill isn't necessarily delayed gratification. A lot of people learn their skills through repeated instant gratification (ie; drawing out of boredom and ending up being a skilled artist) while people who learn skills through delayed gratification will very often do so due to the influence of an authority--whether it's a parent forcing you to study, or an employer saying they'll only hire people with X skill. Most people aren't going to spend more than a few weeks studying something they don't already enjoy unless they fully trust that they will be rewarded (by an authority) in the end.
science	I'm talking about conditions under which short-termism is favoured. Let me explain further using the examples that are easiest to articulate. Instant gratification doesn't cause hyperinflation - but it's a good example of a situation under which short-termist strategies will outperform. This is because your money is literally worth more now than it will be tomorrow. Any delay in spending it results in you being able to buy less with it. Living under casual employment or under hire-and-fire conditions, embarking upon a long-term investment in your future can easily be disincentivised because the uncertainty of employment means that you will be unlikely to reach your goal. Such a failure would waste the money, time and effort that you had put in up to the point of failure.
science	Whether long-term investments are worth the risk in this or that situation is besides the point. Everyone deals with situations where they are better off taking 'one in the hand over two in the bush', and everyone deals with situations where they would benefit from delaying gratification. The point is that people who have an easier time delaying gratification will be better equipped to make the best decision in all of those situationns. Not just the ones that require years long risky investments. And again, it's not controversial that low time preference is a major advantage in today's world. It doesn't matter if there are some anecdotal cases where living by the seat of your pants pays off, because statistally we know that taking the long view and being prudent with your money is what pays off in the overwhelming majority of cases. And it also isn't controversial that there are genetic factors that predispose some people to being better or worse at delaying gratification. So it is simply false to assert that differences in ability to delay gratification is purely a learned behavior, inflicted on the poor by the Unjust World. Some people are worse at thinking ahead, this tends to keep them poor, and their children also inherit these traits genetically. There may be social causes as well, but I'm not seeing you cite any research supporting your theories. And coming up with a theory to explain something that is already fully explainable by established facts is bad science. And finally, yes "illegitimacy" is the correct term. Being born to a single mother is one of the worst risk factors for poverty in adulthood, so it is a relevant data to look at in this conversation.
science	>Instant gratification doesn't cause hyperinflation - but it's a good example of a situation under which short-termist strategies will outperform. Only as it related to possession of cash. Quickly investing the cash in commodities that will grow in value in a hyperinflation situation is still a more profitable long term strategy than immediate consumption. > Living under casual employment or under hire-and-fire conditions, embarking upon a long-term investment in your future can easily be disincentivised because the uncertainty of employment means that you will be unlikely to reach your goal. That simply isn't true long-term investment does not require remaining with a single employer, and is still a preferable long term strategy if one changes jobs frequently.
science	It was an error regarding how the FAFSA was interpreted. I had always received financial aid up to that point. I put that at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year I would be working on a professional degree, which is true because at the time I was in a professional graduate school. When I dropped out of grad school, they took half my financial aid back, and I had to reapply for FAFSA at the technical college. When I applied for FAFSA at the technical college (I even filled it out in front of a FAFSA counselor), they said to leave it as said answer because that was true, I just changed schools. I continued to check back with the financial aid department to make sure I would get my financial aid refund, and they said everything was fine. Fast forward to 3 days after the semester as well as the scheduled disbursement time and the school says they can’t honor my FAFSA because I’m not pursuing a professional degree - it’s only a diploma program.
science	Look i'm not even going to harp on why this was from you getting bad advice and bad decision making on your part. Bottom line is you're depressed and had some unfortuante events happen in your life. you're still in school and you still got a roof over your head.. is it really that bad? You have a technical degree that can land you a nice job. You know what will prevent you from getting a job? A bad credit report (yes that matters). You're well on your way to getting a bad credit report because you think it's hopeless to even try to not spend $50 on yourself. You're not going to get a good job with a bad credit report and then you'll just continue the self-fulfilling prophecy. if you don't want to tough it out and literally eat ramen for the next 6-12 months and not have fun at all to save your credit then i don't know why you're trying so hard to get this degree to make it work. if you don't want to try anymore then just stop going school and just go back to stocking shelves or being a waiter.
science	Okay. I just want to know. If you all of a sudden had $10,000 of credit card debt and $250 left after all bills have been paid, would you seriously just give up everything in your entire life just to pay off your credit card debt? Or would you, like me, budget $50 or so a month of that leftover money to spend on things that make you happy, instead of putting 100% of it toward your credit card bill. Also, it’s not going to be 6-12 months before I pay off my credit. $250 is about how much disposable cash I’ll have left after paying the minimum on my credit card and all other monthly bills (electric, internet, etc), and that’s working 60-72 hours a week. Also, my credit score is above 750 right now, so I’m not too worried about having bad credit. I pay all of my bills, I just have the credit debt remaining.
science	Most people who say things like that have no idea of the history that manufactured much of our country's (edit: should have specified US before) poverty, and will feign knowledge when rebutted. I can't claim some special knowledge of all the world's history, but know enough of it, especially as it respects my country (the US) and the struggle of the working poor, to say that the just-world fallacy is that simply: a fallacy. I am glad for the (extraordinarily tarnished) silver spoon I was given at birth, and, while, I neglected it in my youth, will ensure that my children understand the weight placed upon them by being born with so much.
science	> Also, my credit score is above 750 right now, so I’m not too worried about having bad credit. I pay all of my bills, I just have the credit debt remaining. And at the same time credit scores are supposed to be spent up to a certain point Having a high credit score but high interest rate debt that could be bankrupted is an interesting dilemma... one that oh wait a financial advisor could help you make decisions on. >Or would you, like me, budget $50 or so a month of that leftover money to spend on things that make you happy That's actually $60 after accounting for credit card interests of 22% and compounds every month... so.... >If you all of a sudden had $10,000 of credit card debt and $250 left after all bills have been paid, would you seriously just give up everything in your entire life just to pay off your credit card debt? Obviously I'm not telling you to give everything.. including school for cc debt. All I'm saying is if you're spending money on school for a tech degree to better your future income... you should try your best to get there and minimize your expenses while there. Do you think your current decision is all-in? As in if it fails you're done or do you think you have a backup plan? Act accordingly based on this answer. If it's all-in... then go all-in and eat ramen. >Also, it’s not going to be 6-12 months before I pay off my credit. I said 8+ months months as in when you'll get a better job.
science	I understand it's hard for a lot of people to achieve, but I think moving really is the best option in a scenario where you can't see the light in your future. It's really hard to start over far from your support system and from what you know, but if you believe your best option is jumping off a bridge anyway, it couldn't hurt to just press reset in a place with a better quality of life. Before social security was around to keep track of us, people did it all the time. They'd pretend they'd jumped off that bridge and run to Mexico. edit: Staying seems to have worked out for you, and that's great--I just mean for those who get too close to the bridge idea.
science	yeah, a dishwasher is a good investment (if you can afford it and can either afford to have it installed or know how to yourself). I bought a ~$350 dishwasher about 15 years ago and knew how to install it. (I also maintain it, so it still works just fine) I also don't eat out or at least do so very infrequently. with the exception of the occasional fillet-o-fish or Chinese take out, I prefer home cooked meals to restaurant food (including sitdown restaturants) Same goes for coffee. At one point I was hitting up Starbucks every morning on the way to work and came to the realization that I was spending well over a thousand dollars (with the foofy coffee and some stupid confection, I believe the number I came up with was around $1500 per year) every year, for what I could make at home for a fraction of that price. (FYI, last year's coffee bill was <$250, including coffee, creamer, and sugar, and I drink coffee all day) I hope you understood my point though. Not everyone has $600 even if something's a good investment. And some don't even have $150. My own experience with wealthier friends was that if I couldn't pay my way, I'd get cajoled almost to the point of bullying into allowing someone else pay my way, which slowly resulted in me becoming ingratiated at to them and subject to their whims and choices. Meanwhile, I was blowing every bit of my own money trying to keep up. I advise others to avoid that situation.
science	I didn't say anything about begging anyone for money. I agree. I was indicating throughout this thread that when you hang with wealthier people, there's a tendency for them to push the 'poor' guy/girl into accepting effective handouts (being invited for a vacation when you can't afford it and being pushed in to "don't worry, we'll cover it", dinners, going to a bar, etc), or causing a scene for refusing them. I've been there myself. And I won't go there again. Ever. I'd rather be alone than effectively indentured..And meanwhile, even when they don't foist these embarrassing situations upon the poorer member, hanging with them and trying to keep up with the Jonesinskis burns holes in the pockets of the poorer member of the group. Meaning that they'll never get ahead enough to be at peer level economically. Perhaps you're a teenager or something and naive. I'm not. I'm 59 and have been around the block many many times
science	Nah man. Sounds to me like you just didn't have real friends. I mean, yeah quid pro quo is pretty common with rich people. I have a rich buddy and he has to deal with that shit with a lot of his family members. Especially when we were kids. His mom would make these huge purchases for him like a new car or whatnot and she'd hold it over him to do all these favors for her. Usually making him spend time with her over his father or friends.
science	>Nah man. Sounds to me like you just didn't have real friends. yeah right bud. move on. we're not going to come to any agreement. My experience and that of others I've spoken with in real life and online don't match that of you and your rich buddy. I can accept that you live the exception. I didn't (on more than one occasion) and others haven't. Maybe it's time for you to learn to read.
science	Not massively. All that seems to show is that the ability to delay gratification is either strongly correlated to the factors they controlled for ( a massive danger when controlling for x is that you can control away the real effect at the same time, things can be correlated and also causative ) or that it's not causative at all but is strongly correlated to something that is causative. For example perhaps people with parents who simply keep their promises are more likely to turn out better in general. >“Our findings suggest that an intervention that alters a child’s ability to delay, but fails to change more general cognitive and behavioral capacities, will probably have very small effects on later outcomes,”
science	It is not California only or US only problem though (so possibly not about ag conglomerates, just lazy farmers worldwide). Still building concrete and asphalt surfaces, instead of planting trees and making retention areas, in addition to poor soil management, huge fields, plowing downhill instead around the hill (by the contours), no anti-erosion elements like tree alleys or bounds.. all those things are why there is less and less groundwater every year. We suck at water retention.
science	It still gets me that we have sewer systems all over the place where all the buildings with hard roofs drain into storm drains along with the massive road surfaces hurry off all the water. How could we NOT be having a negative impact on the biom when we do this over and over again? There need to be cisterns so people can capture rainfall and use it at their house. I foresee that one day every house will have a solar panel and a cistern. We take for granted the way we live and there is a lot that we do that is crazy. We just don't see it. I kind of gave up noticing because I gotta make money. And we are all busy just getting by, not living in harmony.
science	Cisterns!! HA! I live in SoCal and we get a mist a few times a year. We had rain maybe three times in the last 12 months. There is no way even draining my entire property into storage would cover even two days worth of use here. This state is in serious trouble. There needs to be a massive investment in desalination with emphasis on peak solar and wind hour water production. There just is no other way. Unfortunately the government is mainly interested in cracking down on pollution from just passenger cars rather than looking forward and predicting the water shortfalls that are going to occur. Heck even Texas is building desal plants to pump water inland and it actually still rains there.
science	>Cisterns!! Ha! Admittedly, doesn't work everywhere. I live in Georgia and there's a lot of run-off. MOST places, putting cisterns everywhere would prevent drought problems. And we are going to run into that more and more; either floods or droughts. Climate change will have an impact. > There needs to be a massive investment in desalination with emphasis on peak solar and wind hour water production. The technology is getting better for that. They just had a major breakthrough engineering a strain of plant to convert solar energy into splitting H2O atoms. That means super cheap storage for energy (well, if you have the hydrogen tanks) -- but it also means much more efficient solar energy. The by-product is pure water. No reason they couldn't use salty water or waste water. Of course, that would be a LOT of energy conversion to water a garden. It's kind of weird having Texas be ahead of California on something -- you guys are supposed to be living the problems we all will get 10 years in the future. Probably because regulations are very lax there, and you can basically just stockpile a million kilos of explosive nitrogen next to a school in Texas. It's the "see what happens" state.
science	> Mainly because of the lax government. I could definitely go for NOT dealing with all the building codes and regulations that California has -- but they've got a unique problem of an unwieldy government, creating propositions for everything, and they HAVE to regulate more, often by necessity. You can't have your huge store of nitrates on a non-fault tolerant platform -- right? Lost Angeles people lost a lot of life points and had to cut emissions or die. As much as it sucks to contend with all those pollution regulations -- they had to do something. I mean, I'd prefer to be carefree and I hate paperwork. If everyone just chose to do the right thing, we wouldn't have to deal with these hassles.
science	If you're cheating, sure. If you're trying to reach understanding with someone else where complex words or processes are used, the definitions need to be crystal clear and agreed upon before you can argue higher points. Most scientific papers include a definitions section for exactly that purpose. Or are you going to say the evolution is "just a theory" even though the definition of theory in the context of science is far different, stricter, and far more demanding to satisfy than the colloquial definition? The chicken and egg problem is a problem of definitions and/or requirements. Is a chicken egg an egg that has the potential to hatch a chicken? Or is it an egg a chicken lays? Or is it a chicken egg in both scenarios (so an inclusive OR)? Is fertilization a necessary component? These are the things that need to be agreed upon for the question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" to be answerable. Making a snarky comment about fertilization as if everyone else was assuming it necessary for an egg to be considered a chicken egg was silly. You could have simply asked whether fertilization is a necessary requirement for a chicken laying an egg for it to be considered a chicken egg if you wanted a serious answer /discussion and not an argument.
science	I’m not sure of what you are saying relates either.. But to answer your question: you can work BACKWARDS.. (that’s allowed). If a chicken pops out of the egg, and you saw the egg before hand, you can actually say, with scientific certainty, that the chicken was in the egg. But now we’re off the philosophical tract. It’s not NECESSARY to know where the first chicken lived. It’s not NECESSARY to know the genealogy of said chicken. It’s not NECESSARY to know where the egg was. At some point in the past, there was, what biologists consider the “first chicken”. That “first chicken”’s parents, weren’t actually chickens, by the biologists definition. That “first chicken” existed as an egg. There was no chicken before THAT chicken’s egg. In Biology terms, the buzz-kill phrasing of the paradox is “which came first, adult you or baby you”.
science	Speciation isn’t well defined because organisms are kind of messy and evolution is generally slow. Inability to crossbreed due to genetic, behavioral, anatomical, etc. differences is extremely helpful in delineating species, but there are species like the mallard duck and black duck or coyotes and wolves that can and often do hybridize with viable offspring that can themselves reproduce. With a lot of lineages you could probably watch them for a million years and not be able to pinpoint when a new species emerged.
science	There's an awful lot of fools that don't understand basic science in here. 1. The Moon's phases are just its position relative to the Sun and Earth. One phase is not one orbit. The cycle simply predicts what the Moon will look like. 2. The water in our bodies isn't in a giant bucket in our chests. The water in us is locked away in cells, veins, etc. Furthermore, mass is affected by gravity, not just water. The Moon is constantly pulling on all of you, not just your water and not just when you can see a full Moon. If the effect they claim is due to the Moon's gravity affecting bodily fluids, it should be replicated by simply hanging a person upside-down for some time. Not only that, but if we are so affected, when the Moon on the opposite side of Earth as you, there would be another, potentially opposite, effect as when the Moon is directly above. People have tried for generations to link the Moon to some facet of human behavior. 99.99% of the time there's no correlation, and of course that one time a study did report a correlation is the one these gullible folks tout. Constellations light years away don't have any impact on our births whatsoever, but we still have multitudes of fools that assume the relative positions of certain stars affect the child's personality.
science	Then can you offer an possible explanation, using scientific fact, for the opposition (those who believe in astrology)? For example, how other celestial bodies could possibly factor into gravity and temperament? And another argument to show the facts as to why there is no scientifically plausible way that any celestial activities could affect human temperament? Just curious to see both of those arguments side by side from one with more scientific knowledge than I.
science	So everybody should spend all of their time researching things that are clearly not real just to be certain that they are not real? That doesn't make any sense at all. There an infinite number of things that are clearly not real. people come up with hundreds of new pseudoscientific, not real ideas every single day. It would be literally impossible to come even close to keeping up. There are lots of things that don't have to be thoroughly research to be discredited. Flat Earth for example. You don't need to debunk Flat Earth theory, you just have to prove the Earth is round. Also, burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim. It's generally almost impossible to prove a negative, or that something is false, which is why burden of proof works that way. But if something is actually real, it should possible to prove that it is or at least find a good amount of credible evidence to support it.
science	the burden of proof lies with a person making a claim. There is no reason to think that celestial bodies could affect personality or temperament. There's absolutely no valid scientific basis for it whatsoever. That's why burden of proof works that way. Asking someone to prove that something couldn't cause something to happen doesn't make sense, especially when there is no reason to believe that it happened in the first place. If I asked you to prove to me that you aren't a Super Android clone sent from the future with the memories and personality of a normal human being, where would you even start? It's a stupid question to ask. I would need to have to have a reason to think that you were an Android in the first place for it to make any senss, and if I did you would then be able to refute my reason. Asking somebody to disprove something ridiculous, that has no sound reasoning behind it to begin with, just doesn't really make sense.
science	Okay then why don't you get started on studying the complete history of human mythology, too? After all, how can you say that the ancient Aztecs and Egyptians weren't right about their God's and superstitions unless you dissect all of their works? you should also get started on researching the whole of ancient Eastern philosophy, unicorns, dragons, sun gazing, and every other ridiculous idea mankind has ever come up with. Good luck.
science	You DID argue that someone shouldn't discount something without learning about it thoroighly first. Meaning nobody should say dragons or unicorns aren't real without thorough research. The truth is, you don't need thorough research for something that doesn't have a factual basis to begin with. I stand by the fact that you don't need to know all the ins and outs of an idea to learn that is has absolutely no factual, scientific basis. I don't know what the different astrological signs are supposed to mean, but I do know the premise on which they are based, and that there is literally no plausible scientific basis for it. Why would I need to know more than that? You're being pedantic.
science	move to base 12, and the standard system wins out over the metric system (most things in standard are based on 8,12,16,etc because 12 is so divisible, divides evenly by 2,3,4, and 6. 10 divides evenly by 2 and 5. so there are 12 inches in a foot, 3 teaspoons in a tablespoon, 2 tablespoons in an ounce, 4 ounces in a cup, 2 cups in a quart, 2 quarts in a pint, 2 pints in a gallon and so on ) metric just wins out because we do all our things in base 10, the only thing metric has going for it is it's newer so it doesn't have the gaps left by units falling out of use (like the jack or the gill)
science	“This research follows a previous laboratory-based study led by the same team, _which found that jet-air dryers were much worse than paper towels or traditional warm air hand dryers when it came to spreading germs._” From the article with added emphasis. It seems the problem is Dyson airblade style driers as the warm air driers weren’t associated with the problem. a paper towel manufacturer funding the study might not be a substantial factor.
science	^ Yep, same here, common knowledge in labs and I have a med student friend that got taught this too. Quick google led me to [this 2012 review of 12 studies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538484/). There were conflicting results due to different methodologies but the authors are still confident enough to claim this: > Most studies have found that paper towels can dry hands efficiently, remove bacteria effectively, and cause less contamination of the washroom environment. From a hygiene standpoint, paper towels are superior to air dryers; therefore, paper towels should be recommended for use in locations in which hygiene is paramount, such as hospitals and clinics.
science	Gloves are used in the medical setting not specifically for "sanitary" reasons in the layman's sense, but for protection from bodily fluids that may carry transmissible pathogens. Gloves should never be worn from one encounter to the next, so whether or not they are soiled is irrelevant. Also, healthcare worker's are often required to sanitize hands when going in and out of patient rooms even if they wore gloves. Compliance with these policies depends on the hospital. &#x200B; Edit: erroneous to irrelevant &#x200B;
science	I mean, the issue is 'who is going to to take the time to replicate this'. In terms decreasing infections in a hospital, there are more interesting/important questions to ask. (Namely, how to make sure doctors wash their hands properly all the time). So the only people interested in questions like this (that are kinda important, but not as important as others) are people who have vested interests in having them addressed. And because of the way research like this is structured, you don't really ever prove a null result, you just fail to prove your hypothesis, which isn't really notworthy for publishing. That is to say, the only studies that get done are paid for by people with interests in a given outcome. And the only papers that are publishable are ones that confirm those outcomes.
science	The air in a bathroom is full of fecal matter, so it's just blowing the bathroom air around... Does it increase the density or inhaled particulate value of the person breathing, does it increase the occupants exposure to fecal matter? All data can be manipulated. I dont have the information, but perhaps the other studies you are referencing were also published by the paper towel tycoons? I honestly have no idea, I'm just skeptical.
science	Feudalism breeds constant threat of death, starvation, lack of freedom of expression. Major unhappiness. Often in times past people would. Literally just leave and never speak again. True that communities were tighter but they lived in bubbles with no connection to the outside world. I can talk to a stranger on the internet across the world or a batista the next town over. What evidence do. You have to support this "individual mindset" or lack of community? And if it's just a feeling, you. May not be wrong but that no more than maybe 15 - 20 years old (advent of pocket tech and internet) Now, do we need to list off all the gains humanity has made? All the reasons for reduced stress?
science	So what they found was that a one-sized fits all approach to a relatively new field of gastrointestinal medicine wasn't ideal. Amazing. A few factoids about your GI flora: * Your gut has over 6000 unique species of bacteria indigenously living along its walls. * Most (freeze-dried) probiotic capsule mixes contain only a handful of different species. * Cultured items such as yogurt are just a concentration of a few strains. * Ingested bacteria has to survive the digestion process. The digestion process also happens to be designed to prevent such bacteria from thriving (although those defense mechanisms can be overwhelmed). * After surviving the digestion process, the bacteria still have to make it to the "river's edge" and find a hand hold. It's no guarantee and most will be swept along the chocolate current. * Sometimes it's your indigenous bacteria that IS the problem, so the fact that some people's normal GI bacteria give way to the probiotic strains isn't always indicative of a bad thing. Basically, probiotic supplementation is a really primitive approach to something that we're only beginning to understand is a very complex ecosystem. It is the literal application of the saying "let's throw things against this guy's colon to see what sticks." But before we throw the baby out with the bath water, know that probiotic therapy, especially following dysbiosis (that's the equivalent of napalming your native villages of GI flora with antibiotics) is one of the best quick fixes we have. This is the same comment I posted yesterday to the press release of the same study. I find it's still relevant today.
science	Another important factor about probiotics that unfortunately nobody will tell you: most of them are going to be transitional strains that you must continue to supplement rather than strains that will take up residence properly. I say this is unfortunate, but nobody wants to have to tell their customers that they HAVE to keep taking the product for it to continue to work, even if they WANT THEM to make it part of their regimen long term.
science	Unless you're using it as a stop gap, that is. If I've decimated my indigenous population through Abx usage and have created an ecological vacuum, I can use the probiotics as a place holder to prevent pathogenic populations from taking up real estate. If the adherent probiotic strains wane to be replaced gradually with indigenous strains, that's fine. If you're using the probiotic species as a permanent replacement for the indigenous bacteria, I would think there would be better ways to make that transition (aka fecal transplant).
science	Hmm. I think the analogy to the flu vaccine would prove problematic. Here's why... The flu vaccine works by introducing a small amount of inactivated flu virus to the body's immune system to encourage an immune response. The vaccine needs to be changed yearly because the virus alters the components that are recognized by the immune system over time so that an immune response won't be mounted and it can take effectively use the human as a host for replication and delivery. That's vaccines. Probiotics are actually the opposite. Throughout your intestines are a native and diverse population of bacteria which are largely symbiotic to your normal physiologic state. So we give them something (room and board) and they give us something (to be determined). When that population gets disturbed or the benign bacteria is replaced with pathogenic bacteria (or bacteria that would cause adverse effect or disease), gastrointestinal health is diminished. Probiotics are a means by which we "wash" the inside of the gut with the "benign bacteria" in hopes that they out number and push out the offending bacteria and perhaps even give us some of the good things that might be offered in a symbiotic relationship (which we're still working out). So instead of trying to activate our immune response, in many ways, we're introducing bacteria to the system to reduce an immune response (which all too often is the cause of the clinical symptoms of the disease). So we're trying to get live bacteria, of the correct genetic makeup, through the upper gastrointestinal tract to seed the lower gastrointestinal tract as somewhat of a no look hail Mary. We've got some gimmicks and tweaks that help the journey, but it's still not a targeted approach.
science	Hope the following question is allowed. Based on this study and your expertise. Is it or isn't it a good idea to feed a kid probiotics (capsules or yoghurts) after a particularly heavy round of antibiotics? Our pediatrician for some reason will not anwer this question either way and just says things like 'that's up to you to decide'. Not helpful, I'm not looking to sue the guy if it's not working, just want to know of it's generally better or not. (also kids don't get heavy rounds of antibiotics often in case that worries anyone, just once for both of them, once for a bad case of impetigo and once for a tick bite with a red circle).
science	If you have the money to buy them, then yes it could be a good idea. it may or may not prevent problems following antibiotic usage. It should cause little to no harm and their normal flora will return eventually. If they have no problems (diarrhea/bloatlyness) then you can save some money by not buying them (that is totally upto you). As others have said, this area of research is kinda new so hence why you got the answer you did.
science	This isn't directly on target, but it's close. I'll see if I can dig up some more literature that's a closer match later... [Bin-Nun, Alona, et al. "Oral probiotics prevent necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight neonates." The Journal of pediatrics 147.2 $2005$: 192-196.](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d34c/32a8ff94c9f6f327e4ed82f5b03d0500aa81.pdf) EDIT: Found some better ones... [Bermudez-Brito, Miriam, et al. "Probiotic mechanisms of action." Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 61.2 (2012): 160-174.](https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/342079) and a review (although it's a bit dated now) [Ohland, Christina L., and Wallace K. MacNaughton. "Probiotic bacteria and intestinal epithelial barrier function." American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology 298.6 (2010): G807-G819.](https://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/ajpgi.00243.2009)
science	I'm not entirely sure what marks the difference between transient and colonizing species or strains, to be honest with you. My understanding is that bacteria from environments dissimilar to our guts tend to not do well there, but then there's some spore-forming strains that still do okay and are still transient. My job makes me an oddly educated layman at best and honestly biology is super complex. My eyes cross when I see enzyme names or three letter abbreviations with numbers in general because chem was so more my bag and organic chemistry is devil hybrid of chemistry and biology. (tbh physics is devil hybrid of chemistry and math, but with the perspective messed up!, and forces.) All that to say u haven't the slightest idea and it's really beyond my reading level to try to figure it out because of the biology involved.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.