this is sort of alien invasion, except that it’s not that alien. we are at war. but not country with country — but something wild with all humans. and that is why it is like alien invasion. but this something originated on earth, and lives on earth, it is a dangerous, arguably not alive creature, of very small size, and we cannot shoot very small animals with our arms, otherwise we’d murder it as we did with other arguably dangerous creatures long ago.
it is interesting that in order to fight alien invasion the most effective way is staying home and watching movies. (:
#aliens #alien_invasion #invasion #humans #war #covid19 #covid-19 #infection #humanity
there are people, who research migration patterns of humans. humans migrate toward countries/places with more developed economy, also to the places with a better climate, to the places where many people already live.
do you aware, of a internet human migration related researches? how do they choose places, how they migrate between services?
i wrote “internet human”, because the “user”, well, doesn’t really express all the people on the internet.
#internet #migration #people #humans #research #web #tendencies
Currently, humans risk becoming similar to domesticated animals. We have bred docile cows that produce enormous amounts of milk but are otherwise far inferior to their wild ancestors. They are less agile, less curious, and less resourceful. We are now creating tame humans who produce enormous amounts of data and function as efficient chips in a huge data-processing mechanism, but they hardly maximize their human potential. If we are not careful, we will end up with downgraded humans misusing upgraded computers to wreak havoc on themselves and on the world.
“We used to think our fate was in our stars,” James Watson, one of the scientists who discovered the structure of dna, declared in 1989. “Now we know, in large measure, our fate is in our genes.” The implications were clear. Unravelling the genetic code would bring an exquisite understanding of bodies and their afflictions but also of minds. After the completion of the human genome project, which Watson initially led, such hopes faded. Individuals’ physical or mental characteristics, and their susceptibility to diseases, turned out to be extraordinarily complex. Some of the swagger went out of genetics. Now it is back.
For much of the 20th century, psychology was dominated by the idea that human nature is a blank slate embellished by upbringing and environment. “Blueprint” begins by describing how Mr Plomin and others have demonstrated that, on the contrary, behavioural differences are strongly influenced by genetics. Studies of adopted children indicate that in disposition they more closely resemble their genetic parents than their adoptive ones. Even when they are reared apart, identical twins are more alike than the non-identical kind (who are as genetically different as any brother or sister).
Such research shows that, on average, dna accounts for about half of the psychological differences between people, with the remainder due to environmental factors; the actual proportion varies with the characteristic in question. More recently scientists have combed through human genomes to identify thousands of genetic variants associated with particular traits, from height and weight to educational attainment and neuroticism. Tests costing less than £50 ($65) can measure genetic propensity to different outcomes—to be overweight, or to go to university.
For those who imagine all that leaves enough wriggle room for benevolent parents or teachers to exert an influence, Mr Plomin has bad news: these environmental factors are themselves substantially influenced by genes. For example, his work shows that genes account for about a third of the differences between the television viewing habits of children. Worse, the remaining tranche of environmental influence appears to be mostly attributable to unpredictable events rather than, say, being brought up in a house full of books.
These findings, says Mr Plomin, imply that “parents don’t make much of a difference in their children’s outcomes beyond the genes they provide”; dna is a “fortune teller” that “makes us who we are”. Environmental effects are “important”, but “there’s not much we can do about them”.
Mr Plomin insists that, armed with their genetic test scores, individuals can take action to counter or augment their innate proclivities; but they are hardly likely to succeed if their psychology is as delimited by genes as he suggests. An equally plausible possibility is that these scores will be used to stigmatise genetic “have-nots” or to justify discrimination. This is the high road to eugenics, about which Mr Plomin is largely silent.
Instead he advocates the use of such scores when choosing between candidates for a job. Yet a person with high scores for traits associated with coding skills is not necessarily a good programmer—they merely have a higher likelihood of being one. A candidate who had demonstrated their aptitude for the job would feel rightly miffed to be passed over in favour of a genetically gifted incompetent. Likewise, though doctors may find it useful to know that a patient is genetically predisposed to be obese, the best way to establish their weight is to ask them to step on the scales.
These are problems of emphasis rather than accuracy. But in a field as ethically fraught as genetics, even that can be troubling. For instance, as Mr Plomin notes, the size of the genetic component of a particular trait—its “heritability”—varies between different populations. The heritability of educational attainment in Norway has increased since the second world war as the country widened access to health care and schools, flattening out environmental effects. That trend seems, worryingly, to have reversed in America in the 21st century. The irony is that the heritability of many traits rises if states do more to provide for all their citizens equally.
You might conclude that without broad measures to tamp down inequalities of opportunity, genes have fewer opportunities to shine. “Blueprint” instead touts the importance of dna in shaping the individual. Hubris indeed.
i had to register a free account to read this. some people say if you just enter with the private mode, it’ll show the article. i don’t know.
#genetics #humans #heritability
animals need energy. evolution process is also connected to /caused by the need of getting energy.
we, humans, have a concept of dignity. humans give up energy/power in favour of dignity.
humans make not economically beneficial for them choices because of the dignity.
amos oz was saying that Hebrews were stunned with the force they posses now, and never had before. this reminds about the compensation theory that those from Russia or Arab countries who recently became wealthy or well-to-do, often compensate former asperity and lack of opportunities.
by transferring the compensation theory to the internet, I think, that many of us today are stunned with the opportunity that many acquaintances and even strangers may read what they transmit, and even like it. Which can be roughly estimated as the likes count.
it is of course a natural need for humans to be accepted in the community, and to feel a bit of self importance. probably, those, who were devoid of those, are more obsessed with showing off in the “internets”, as Bush put it.
thus, like the Hebrews are compulsive to use force, like New Russians must use golden lavatories, we write online, and count
what god sent us today likes, instead of aiming for deeper interpersonal relationships.
which has it’s opposite side: consuming this astonishing amount of information simply is not easy/possible, thus we learn to swallow it fast, without chewing, in vain hope of not missing out.
that’s the vicious circle of the beginning of the internet age, which is hard to escape.
Now I’ve been written this, I’ve remembered words of my friend about the Mcluhan’s book.
#compensation_theory #compensation #theory #psychology #humans #internet
the moment when you realize, that dirty written scripts do not surprise you any more. you do not want to quote them, do not want to show them to someone because it’s the way it should be.
#work #acceptance #humans
humans are not perfect. that is why relationships (with humans) are not compatible with perfectionism.
#relationships #humans #perfectionism #compatibility
the divided brain
#brain #science #research #humans #animals
humans are creatures that project themselves into the future. keyword is future. not past. remember that and do not mix directions. yes (:
#existentialism #humans #future #past #time
Today I have watched Woody Allen’s “Irrational man” film at the “Moscow” cinema theatre in Yerevan. (: And now I am sitting at my balcony, it is raining outside, and I feel cosy writing this post.
I believe Woody is a great director. He knows people very well. And he tries to make deep works. Alas, not often people notice that. There were only 7 couples at the screening. I think it’s not a coincidence that Woody gave up trying to get money for films in USA. He works in Europe now. I just checked, surprisingly, this movie was produced in USA. This situation makes me think about how to make good films in case of free market? My usual guess is that when you have big enough market, then you have enough minority, which will pay for good films, thus they can be produced. However, it seems that even USA market is not big enough.
Whatever, this is a film about a man, who spent almost all of his life in the struggle for fairness. And he paid high price for it - deaths of close people, suffered a serious illness. Eventually he got despair, depression. He failed to make world a better place.
In particular because he was struggling by peaceful means. While the world around him was struggling against him with not very fair, peaceful means. That’s how fair meed fails.
Now this man decides to make something against the cruel system. Some small, but important thing. The difference is that he feels that he exhausted all the peaceful and legal ways to make a change. He decides to act illegally. And he thinks he can win. However the film is about that he cannot win, that fairness cannot win in this world.
Even if the world consists of beautiful and clever amazing girls around who think they believe in fairness.
So he confesses to his girl under the pressure, by having the naive belief that she can understand him. Wasn’t she understanding before? She had so much empathy for his past privations. Of course girl does not understand him. Firstly, I believe, because she is too young. And secondly, because that is not her struggle in reality. It only seems cool to be around someone who has seen life. Yes, there was a disadvantage - he considered himself a looser. However he very soon got back to life, because he got back to struggle for fairness. And she naively thought that she made him back by her “love”. And as we saw, she was unable to accept the man who fights now. She returned to her nice guy former boyfriend, whom she dumped for the philosopher previously, and who did not show any sign of concerns about humanity, justice, etc. Yes, he could buy a ticket for a political satire. That’s what every decent person should do. Buy a ticket and enjoy politics in the theatre.
May be she was unable to accept him, because she did not love him. Or she was in love more with her perception of him, not the real him, who values many other things, not only pretty young girls. He wasn’t loved by the woman who wanted to get to Spain either. They both were just using him to satisfy personal needs. Why would he take that woman to Spain. What for? Why cannot he find other one in Europe? And why he is sure she won’t dump him in Spain to find someone even more convenient? Does she deserve to be taken there? Because he believes in people.
May be the difference between these women was that the young was not aware of her motives, but the older was. She clearly had known what does she need. And she would not pass the philosopher in to the hands of police, not because of her values, but because she eventually found someone convenient.
Also, this movie is about our inability to distinguish between situations where we have to be honest, and where we don’t. This is what the philosopher stressed right in the beginning of the movie by asking his students if they would tell the police about the thief who is hiding at the neighbour’s flat, or not. Then he challenged them with the question if they would tell Nazis about Frank’s family, just for the sake of honesty.
Roy, young boyfriend of the girl, welcomes her back. However I believe she deserves a the other outcome. It’s not fair when people get positive reinforcement for negative actions. Russians have this tale about broken through. That tale is about fairness. Because those, who don’t get negative reinforcement, take people for granted and tend to continue to abuse their friendship.
I believe Woody makes films very close to real life. Indeed, that guy would accept her back. Without even one salty word. But this time. Not the next.
Also, this abandoned husband. He said: “think again” to her. What about? He had to say “go to hell”. But he did not.
Both of them, the boy and the husband may think that they got lucky. However I believe they’ve missed a chance to know who is their real friend, and who is not. If they wanted to see.
The other question is - do they really need a friend? A close person they can trust? Or they need a cool chick/man who will take to Spain/etcetera? Also, the men. Who do they need?
Roy will surround that girl with love and kindness, will make everything for her to feel comfortable and cosy. Will she answer equally? I doubt it. Because it’s not clear she can love at all.
May be nobody is able to love, just people find convenient variants, coinciding interests. I don’t know.
Woody skilfully exposes people’s behavioural patterns. Patterns, we often don’t notice ourselves. Or even if we do we have no strength or will to behave differently.
That is when I think about how many similarities people have. Not only exterior similarities. And how predictable are they.
I have noticed “The Idiot” and Hanna Arendt’s name in the frame for a short time. It seems Allen loves Dostoevsky, it is not a first time he refers to him. May be his works will be taught in the future, just like today Dostoevsky’s works are taught or considered as must read, who knows.
#cinema #movie #woody_allen #irrational_man #review #thoughts #people #dostoevsky #hanna_arendt #existentialism #philosophy #understanding #crime #justice #struggle #fairness #patterns #script #love #relationship #relationships #humans #usa #europe #culture #market #freedom
most of the human religions known to me consider that the god is creator, and he created everything. i don’t know how it describes god, but i think it’s about us. it means we ourselves are creators. creativity is essential feature for us. no wonder the word creative usually doesn’t mean something nasty, and used in positive context. nobody says - “such a creative girl, that is disgusting”. we are delighted by creative people. and because early humans were creative too, they thought that other things they didn’t create, and have no idea how to create, were created by someone mighty.
#creativity #creative #idea #thinking #religion #god #humans #people #imagination
why only humans can get superpower?
#bouletcorp #comics #spiders #humans #humanspider #power #superpower