Is it possible to be negative all the time?
Options
Replies
-
thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »Don't be negative. You might mess up your tv.
These videos you posted are more angry then negative. I know negative people that don't seem angry at all. They're just always whiny and overall sad about EVERYTHING. Anger passes eventually. I think negativity lingers on longer.3 -
LiftingLady5 wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »LiftingLady5 wrote: »Actually pessimists probably are safer.....I remember reading an article about evolution and pessimists....the optimists all die off because they are soooo positive they can cross that icy lake....
Did you know that most published scientific research is fake?
Here's a formula:
Conjecture + confirmation bias + data manipulation + pressure to produce + financial incentives = some nonsense an academic paper will publish and your local news will reiterate.
Geez, so negative.
Optimistic realist? Realistic optimist?
Truth teller...
http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/believe-it-or-not-most-published-research-findings-are-probably-false
0 -
thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »Don't be negative. You might mess up your tv.
These videos you posted are more angry then negative. I know negative people that don't seem angry at all. They're just always whiny and overall sad about EVERYTHING. Anger passes eventually. I think negativity lingers on longer.
True that.0 -
LiftingLady5 wrote: »Actually pessimists probably are safer.....I remember reading an article about evolution and pessimists....the optimists all die off because they are soooo positive they can cross that icy lake....
On a side note, Liftinglady is putting a positive spin on negativity. So is she positive, positively negative, or positive despite negativity?
Hmmmmm.....
0 -
I don't subject myself to toxic people anymore. It's just stressful and unhealthy. I used to tolerate all sorts of unhealthy people, attitudes and environments. But I'm an independent, grown up adult now, and I refuse to be sucked down into that hellish existence. So I just eliminate those negative forces and all is good. I may have fewer folks in my life as a result, but the ones I do have are quality people worth having around. I highly recommend a good purge. You only have one life, live it well!1
-
-
thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »Did you know that most published scientific research is fake?
Fake like a deliberate hoax to fool everybody, or fake like how you could send a rocket to the moon with Newton's laws but they're not a complete description of reality?0 -
LiftingLady5 wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »LiftingLady5 wrote: »Actually pessimists probably are safer.....I remember reading an article about evolution and pessimists....the optimists all die off because they are soooo positive they can cross that icy lake....
On a side note, Liftinglady is putting a positive spin on negativity. So is she positive, positively negative, or positive despite negativity?
Hmmmmm.....
I think the glass is half empty but I feel positive to know I can still dump the contents over anyone's head if I want to
Saucy.0 -
No. I'd try but I'd just fail, just like every time I try to do anything.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »Did you know that most published scientific research is fake?
Fake like a deliberate hoax to fool everybody, or fake like how you could send a rocket to the moon with Newton's laws but they're not a complete description of reality?
Fake as in not reproducible.
Here's a quote:
"It is the title of a paper [why most published scientific findings are false] written 10 years ago by the legendary Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis. The paper, which has become the most widely cited paper ever published in the journal PLoS Medicine, examined how issues currently ingrained in the scientific process combined with the way we currently interpret statistical significance, means that at present, most published findings are likely to be incorrect.
Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet recently put it only slightly more mildly: "Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." Horton agrees with Ioannidis' reasoning, blaming: "small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance." Horton laments: "Science has taken a turn towards darkness."0 -
I've been in metal things that flew across continents, and that was reproducible on demand.0
-
My teenage dd seems to be trying to be negative all the time.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »I've been in metal things that flew across continents, and that was reproducible on demand.
That is correct.0 -
S A D maybe?>>>>0
-
thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »Did you know that most published scientific research is fake?
Fake like a deliberate hoax to fool everybody, or fake like how you could send a rocket to the moon with Newton's laws but they're not a complete description of reality?
Fake as in not reproducible.
Here's a quote:
"It is the title of a paper [why most published scientific findings are false] written 10 years ago by the legendary Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis. The paper, which has become the most widely cited paper ever published in the journal PLoS Medicine, examined how issues currently ingrained in the scientific process combined with the way we currently interpret statistical significance, means that at present, most published findings are likely to be incorrect.
Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet recently put it only slightly more mildly: "Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." Horton agrees with Ioannidis' reasoning, blaming: "small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance." Horton laments: "Science has taken a turn towards darkness."
On the first bold, he doesn't distinguish between known fact, such as the laws of aerodynamics, and accepted theories, which are always subject to change based on available data/observations etc.
Second bold, Again, there's no granularity. Our world and everything in it, above it, beneath it that we can study, we pretty much are. The phrase "Much of the scientific literature" covers an absolutely mind boggling span of study...break it down a bit....
The third bold - Penicillin was once considered to be "of dubious importance". Attempts at flight were mocked and laughed at...
He wrote a piece that appeals to peoples nameless, often baseless fears....
We need specific studies cited on specific unreproducible events/results etc....1 -
thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »Did you know that most published scientific research is fake?
Fake like a deliberate hoax to fool everybody, or fake like how you could send a rocket to the moon with Newton's laws but they're not a complete description of reality?
Fake as in not reproducible.
Here's a quote:
"It is the title of a paper [why most published scientific findings are false] written 10 years ago by the legendary Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis. The paper, which has become the most widely cited paper ever published in the journal PLoS Medicine, examined how issues currently ingrained in the scientific process combined with the way we currently interpret statistical significance, means that at present, most published findings are likely to be incorrect.
Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet recently put it only slightly more mildly: "Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." Horton agrees with Ioannidis' reasoning, blaming: "small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance." Horton laments: "Science has taken a turn towards darkness."
Confused what your point is. Or rather, confused what your endgame with this line of thought is - are you implying modern science is somehow invalid?
Are there poorly designed, limited studies that get published? Yes, frequently. Are there scientists who present their results so they skew toward a particular agenda? Of course, everyone has inherent bias, and some have a harder time letting it go than others. But there's also good ones, and I'm smart enough that when I read them I can tell the difference. I'm pretty good at filtering out actual data from a biased discussion, too. Plus a handful of small studies with interesting but non-reproducible results lead to larger studies and meta-analyses that bring about a clearer picture. Just because there are some hurdles with methodology doesn't mean scientific research as a whole should be dismissed.
Also, they media rarely reports on scientific studies in any sort of accurate manner, so there's a good chance that what my local news is "reiterating" is not what the researchers actually found. Internet news sites in all their clickbaitiness are super guilty of this.
As to the original topic: yes, some people can be amazingly negative all the time. They thrive on talking about how much their lives suck and how dark and gloomy the world is. They seek out sob stories and bad news for gossip. Could we maybe talk about puppies and butterflies instead of how your sister's friend's husband's second cousin's mom's coworker got cancer?
...Is this post too negative?1 -
thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I've been in metal things that flew across continents, and that was reproducible on demand.
That is correct.
If half of everything we knew about the world was wrong, planes would be falling out of the sky left and right - if they could get airborne in the first place.
We have digital cameras, and they work, because the science on light as a particle and a wave (and lots of other science) is right.
We have refrigeration, because the science it relies on is correct.
We have medicine, because what we know about chemistry, biology, genetics, evolution, and a great many other things, is largely correct (but incomplete).
Electrical lighting in the night.
GPS. GPS would put you in the wrong place if Einstein was wrong about relativity.
Xrays.
I could go on and on.
How do we build this stuff if we don't know what we're doing? Penguins genuinely don't understand science, and penguins don't build satellites to visit the edge of the solar system. We have thumbs and penguins don't, but I don't think that's why we can send a person to the moon and bring them home safely.
So where am I going wrong in my thinking?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions