has anyone gone down the list of most popular TED Talks and run similar replications of the claims made in other presentations? itd be interesting if there were some ratio that scored most-popular TED Talk vs. "B.S." content. i wonder if there'd be a link between popularity and amount of B.S.?
would note that near the end of the article its noted that Cuddy has conceded that the specific cortisol effects touted have not been borne out.
she is "still fighting" for power posing but only as a useful technique which sometimes works for some people in some cases, as even the replicated studies seem to show improvements in subjective measures of "confidence", whatever that means.
if it's exactly the same, that would imply that quantum mechanics and decoherence effects are equivalent for both internally generated imaginary stimuli, and external stimuli based on "real" physical objects. but it seems like a stretch to suggest that if i dream that i am flying, that the same quantum mechanical effects that contribute to Time's Arrow in that dream are in play in the "real world", where such a thing would be impossible physically.
I think you're missing something really fundamental. Decoherence happens at the sub-microscopic level -- unless things are very, very cold, in which case you can get macroscopic quantum effects. But at room temperature, by the time you get up to the molecular level things are already more-or-less classical. By the time you get to the level of a neuron they are (as far as we know) indistinguishable from classical. From the point of view of QM, there is no difference between being asleep and being awake. All of your mental processes are indistinguishable from classical.
yes i understand decoherence at different scales, but my point is that the Arrow of Time exists for both a real physical object, such as someone falling off a cliff, but also a non-real object, such as someone dreaming of falling off a cliff. decoherence can explain the first, but since there is no physical cliff or object in a dream (at either the micro- or macro- scale), how can it explain Arrow of Time that is observed in interactions between non-physical imaginary objects?
But your perceptions of real and non-real objects (and hence your perception of time) comes from the same source: the pattern of neurons firing in your brain. It ultimately doesn't matter whether those neuron firings are caused by external stimuli from real objects or internal stimuli from imaginary ones. The nest result is the same: your perception of the passage of time runs in one direction because your mental states form a totally ordered sequence of accreting memories. Decoherence insures that those memories remain self-consistent with each other and with the "real world".
whether its about decoherence or "observer time", I wonder how either explanation can explain why Times Arrow seems to exist in dream. ie. if decoherence was the basis, what is being "decohered" in a dream?
even aside from the billable hours issue, there is the less obvious problem that in many cases, it is in the interest of the client that there be less transparency and more obfuscation of material that might be unfavorable. improving processes and making it easier to analyze data is not necessarily aligned with the incentives of large company who has been named as a defendant in a class action suit, for example.
i wouldnt put that much meaning into reasons for the misleading headline choice. simplest explanation is "Opioid Use Explains..." is better clickbait than "Not Sure if Opioid Use is Causal or Symptom"
to me one of the most interesting things about this issue is how it trended recently because someone actually read and thought for a moment about what Hillary Clinton wrote about in her best-selling book "It Takes a Village", about how they used prison labor during her time in the Arkansas governors mansion:
I think this story is an enormous opportunity to get bipartisan opinion against abuse of prison labor. What better way to get popular support against AG Session's incarceration increase than to tie it to a deeply unpopular politician with his constituency?
i see you deleted your previous comment saying that the way this 20-year-old passage has suddenly been noticed is "banal" and passage itself is not newsworthy, because HRC was not newsworthy anymore until she ran for president.
the point of my observation is that this passage only became a widespread topic AFTER the recent election, after a sharp-eyed and thoughtful reader commented on it via Twitter and it went viral last week.
> Badass gay character, humanized gangsters, contra-Reaganesque attitude to drugs, aim at corruption and money, etc.
you must be pretty young to think these themes were revolutionary in the early 00's, and that the "media has caught up" to those concepts.
you are correct that this show doesnt care about either leftist or liberal ideologies, but that doesnt mean its propaganda either way. its about depicting an arguably valid interpretation of reality wherein the individual cannot "win" vs. the system, no matter what system or institution or ideology that may be.
