Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Gullible Naive Society or Just down right Lazy?
Replies
-
Recently, I was on social media discussing CICO and I was met with derision and lots of, ‘you just don’t get it!’ (What don’t I get? I’m safely losing weight!) and, ‘you’d sing a different tune if you had a chronic illness that means you can’t exercise sometimes!’
I pointed out I do, in fact, have a chronic illness and sometimes I can’t exercise and am still losing weight. To which the reply (from many), was, it’s just not that easy!’ But I never said it was easy.
I’d also like to point out I wasn’t fat shaming anyone. But I was made to feel as though talking about the science of CICO was a heartless thing to do.
People don't want to take responsibility for themselves. It's much more comforting to look at oneself as a victim because it removes accountability for their actions. That epidemic reaches much further than just weight loss in our society.12 -
Recently, I was on social media discussing CICO and I was met with derision and lots of, ‘you just don’t get it!’ (What don’t I get? I’m safely losing weight!) and, ‘you’d sing a different tune if you had a chronic illness that means you can’t exercise sometimes!’
I pointed out I do, in fact, have a chronic illness and sometimes I can’t exercise and am still losing weight. To which the reply (from many), was, it’s just not that easy!’ But I never said it was easy.
I’d also like to point out I wasn’t fat shaming anyone. But I was made to feel as though talking about the science of CICO was a heartless thing to do.
People don't want to take responsibility for themselves. It's much more comforting to look at oneself as a victim because it removes accountability for their actions. That epidemic reaches much further than just weight loss in our society.
Very true. I was even told to go sit down because I had a lot of thinking to do. Because I just don’t get it. Ugh!2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Not to mention all the crowd-funded quackery the internet has brought us....ie Solar Roadways, Fontus, SciO etc. Plus the popularity contest impractical BS like Hyperloop.
It's rare that I disagree with something you say. There's so many things that used to be impractical or even unthinkable say, 10, 20 years ago that is now commonplace. Not working on something because it's impractical now means it never gets done.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Not to mention all the crowd-funded quackery the internet has brought us....ie Solar Roadways, Fontus, SciO etc. Plus the popularity contest impractical BS like Hyperloop.
It's rare that I disagree with something you say. There's so many things that used to be impractical or even unthinkable say, 10, 20 years ago that is now commonplace. Not working on something because it's impractical now means it never gets done.
It isn't that they are impractical, they are impossible (at least in the way they promote themselves)...they break laws of thermodynamics. They are scams, either intentional or self-deluded. My assumption is self-deluded but it is still a waste of time and money brought on by scientific illiteracy which is something to be shunned not given the benefit of the doubt.
And I get the can-do attitude of if the inventors of yesterday listened to the nay-sayers we wouldn't have X Y and Z but there are some things that are hard to imagine how you would accomplish them (ie getting humans to Mars) and other things that are just in violation of physical laws or are impractical to such a degree that they are non-nonsensical and it is good to be able to distinguish between the two. If what your proposing can be done right now with current technologies and the only way your idea stands out is that you have way WAY over-promised on what can be delivered then that is some b.s.
From my examples Fontus and SciO are impossible to deliver on because their claims break physical laws. Solar roadways and hyperloop are just ridiculous ideas that makes no sense if you think about the practicalities and there claims of what they can achieve are not at all within the realm of possibility. They rely on media hype rather than actual achievements. None of them have or will ever produce anything of value...they are psuedoscience money sinks that rely on people who genuinely do want a better future being gullible or naive. They give a false impression of what is possible that relies on public goodwill, goodwill which will get eroded by b.s. like this.
Just out of curiosity out of respect for you being an excellent poster on these forums which of the ones would you defend as being valid?2 -
Because too many people, when they were in school, thought science was boring, and didn't learn any. Or math.
When you have no science or math, the whole world is a magical mystery, and anything could be as true as anything else, so you might as well go with the magic that sounds easy.
Depending on where you went to school, it may not have been taught. I went to public school in a good system at the time, and we got "basic nutrition" in school in the form of the food pyramid and avoid junk food in health class, and the basic definitions of stuff on the food label during home economics in middle school (and geared for a middle school level of understanding).
I didn't encounter discussions about calories/energy balances and how everything really worked together until I took a dedicated nutrition class in college, so it doesn't surprise me that a lot of people wouldn't know this information. It's not necessarily the result of willful ignorance on their part. And before anyone goes into the "well you can research it on the internet!" - that assumes that you have a level of education where you know how to conduct a proper search, know how to vet sources, and know how to interpret scientific and peer-reviewed journal articles and statistics. Depending on what your focus of study, it may or may not have included those things.
People are also likely to listen to people they consider "trusted sources" (family, friends, coworkers) over someone they do not know, and lots of people are good at positioning themselves as "trusted sources," especially on the internet. You can even see it in online fitness communities, where people will post body pics (which may or may not be anywhere near current, or even them) as evidence that they have knowledge and know how to get results, or try to use longevity on a site or post count as evidence that they are an authority. It's easy for people to get confused, and not always the result of a personal failing or character flaw.9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Someone mentioned the food. I am very new and learning constantly. My thing is you don't realize how bad the food you eat really is until you look up one day and realize you are overweight or have some kind of health issue. They make the (From my perspective at least) food addictive. The more salt, carbs, fat ... the better it tastes.. it's an addiction. Sometimes not even a conscious choice..just what you are accustomed to eating. I recently quit smoking and getting off the unhealthy food is by far harder than quitting the cigs. I decided I would take control of my body. I have made bad decisions about my 'diet' but at least i am trying. Someone mentioned the soda and chips (I would add tv and video games)..yeah if you don't know better it seems so much more appetizing than broccoli and water and exercise.
Honestly I didn't know any better..So when some healthy looking person would say oh I use this or that..yeah I listened. Who knew there is actual work involved and personal responsibility for every thing you put into your body. Like I said.. learning in progress.
People make food that tastes good....must be a conspiracy.
It actually is, to be honest. There is such a thing called hyperpalatability. That's why people can eat a whole bag of chips or fries. They figured out the point of natural satiation - the point where you body has figured out it has eaten enough. Then they found out how to make you want to eat past that point. They intentionally make foods that is hard to stop eating, because of it's hyperpalatability, which produces a dopamine response, which is the same chemical that makes it hard to get off your phone or stop playing video games.
Right....because they want people to by their chips....so they make them tasty. Does that count as a conspiracy now?
Facebook employees have quit over what they say is manipulation of the human brain circuitry to make sure you spend as much time as possible on their site.
Food scientists say the same thing about their industry.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but it is not in the favor of the health of the consumer, and that is coming from the industry insiders.
If you don't agree, that's fine.
Yeah, because they are in the business of making money not the buisness of making you healthy. That isn't a conspiracy and it isn't a crime....it is just market economics. It isn't the job of a company to make you healthy, it is your job to make you healthy. If you value health over taste you can choose to purchase other items or moderate as you see fit. You have control of your own decisions. Someone making a particularly entertaining or appealing or tasty product isn't mindcontrolling you, they are just offering you something you like....you of course have the choice to decide to prioritize something else instead.
Take a look at my avi. I went from the red skirt to the blue one. I workout nearly every day. I am extremely fit. I eat 70% clean. I'll have you know, I don't feel that the MAJORITY of my eating and workouts are a choice. It is habit. Even when I don't want to go to the gym, I do. Not because I decide to, but because my body naturally starts getting ready at a certain time, because that's the power of habit. It works both ways, to reach for the cigarette, the donut, or the weights.
And I also remember what it was like when before I could fit into the red skirt. And how many tries I had. And how many things I tried. I remember working as hard as humanly possible to lose weight and eat only low calories and see no movement on the scale. It's only through the grace of God that I found the strength not to quit.
Just because I've made a lot of progress and it's (a lot) easier for me now, doesn't mean I have to ignore the challenges the people who are still trying their best and finding it very difficult.
People hollering about personal responsibility and Calories in Calories out sounded the exact same way to me as when you ask someone how to be a millionaire and they say, make more profit than expenses. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have business incubators and mentors.
So unless you are rolling in several million dollars, please stop being so condescending to those who are still struggling. Because MATH.
Because when I make my billions, I'll give credit where credit is due.
16 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Not to mention all the crowd-funded quackery the internet has brought us....ie Solar Roadways, Fontus, SciO etc. Plus the popularity contest impractical BS like Hyperloop.
It's rare that I disagree with something you say. There's so many things that used to be impractical or even unthinkable say, 10, 20 years ago that is now commonplace. Not working on something because it's impractical now means it never gets done.
It isn't that they are impractical, they are impossible (at least in the way they promote themselves)...they break laws of thermodynamics. They are scams, either intentional or self-deluded. My assumption is self-deluded but it is still a waste of time and money brought on by scientific illiteracy which is something to be shunned not given the benefit of the doubt.
And I get the can-do attitude of if the inventors of yesterday listened to the nay-sayers we wouldn't have X Y and Z but there are some things that are hard to imagine how you would accomplish them (ie getting humans to Mars) and other things that are just in violation of physical laws or are impractical to such a degree that they are non-nonsensical and it is good to be able to distinguish between the two. If what your proposing can be done right now with current technologies and the only way your idea stands out is that you have way WAY over-promised on what can be delivered then that is some b.s.
From my examples Fontus and SciO are impossible to deliver on because their claims break physical laws. Solar roadways and hyperloop are just ridiculous ideas that makes no sense if you think about the practicalities and there claims of what they can achieve are not at all within the realm of possibility. They rely on media hype rather than actual achievements. None of them have or will ever produce anything of value...they are psuedoscience money sinks that rely on people who genuinely do want a better future being gullible or naive. They give a false impression of what is possible that relies on public goodwill, goodwill which will get eroded by b.s. like this.
Just out of curiosity out of respect for you being an excellent poster on these forums which of the ones would you defend as being valid?
I was just speaking in general since I'm not familiar with most of them besides the hyperloop and solar roadways. Those are ridiculously large scale projects that as of now would be unthinkable for multiple reasons. But then I think that railway tracks connecting all of Europe for example were thought to be way to big a project to be feasible too. And now I could just hop in a train and enjoy the scenery while going from Madrid to Moscow with a few layovers. (Or just get a plane, which is faster, but that wasn't invented yet when they were doing that stuff) Or the short time between when flight was invented and when the first person stepped on the moon, I don't suppose the wright brothers would've even dreamed that being able to go to outer space would be developed on the shoulders of their discoveries.
So, just saying, as long as it's physically possible and there's people who really want to make it happen and have the money to work on it, it can happen. Maybe not in the near future, but some time.
And if it starts out smaller than initially advertised then so be it.0 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Someone mentioned the food. I am very new and learning constantly. My thing is you don't realize how bad the food you eat really is until you look up one day and realize you are overweight or have some kind of health issue. They make the (From my perspective at least) food addictive. The more salt, carbs, fat ... the better it tastes.. it's an addiction. Sometimes not even a conscious choice..just what you are accustomed to eating. I recently quit smoking and getting off the unhealthy food is by far harder than quitting the cigs. I decided I would take control of my body. I have made bad decisions about my 'diet' but at least i am trying. Someone mentioned the soda and chips (I would add tv and video games)..yeah if you don't know better it seems so much more appetizing than broccoli and water and exercise.
Honestly I didn't know any better..So when some healthy looking person would say oh I use this or that..yeah I listened. Who knew there is actual work involved and personal responsibility for every thing you put into your body. Like I said.. learning in progress.
People make food that tastes good....must be a conspiracy.
It actually is, to be honest. There is such a thing called hyperpalatability. That's why people can eat a whole bag of chips or fries. They figured out the point of natural satiation - the point where you body has figured out it has eaten enough. Then they found out how to make you want to eat past that point. They intentionally make foods that is hard to stop eating, because of it's hyperpalatability, which produces a dopamine response, which is the same chemical that makes it hard to get off your phone or stop playing video games.
Right....because they want people to by their chips....so they make them tasty. Does that count as a conspiracy now?
Facebook employees have quit over what they say is manipulation of the human brain circuitry to make sure you spend as much time as possible on their site.
Food scientists say the same thing about their industry.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but it is not in the favor of the health of the consumer, and that is coming from the industry insiders.
If you don't agree, that's fine.
Yeah, because they are in the business of making money not the buisness of making you healthy. That isn't a conspiracy and it isn't a crime....it is just market economics. It isn't the job of a company to make you healthy, it is your job to make you healthy. If you value health over taste you can choose to purchase other items or moderate as you see fit. You have control of your own decisions. Someone making a particularly entertaining or appealing or tasty product isn't mindcontrolling you, they are just offering you something you like....you of course have the choice to decide to prioritize something else instead.
Take a look at my avi. I went from the red skirt to the blue one. I workout nearly every day. I am extremely fit. I eat 70% clean. I'll have you know, I don't feel that the MAJORITY of my eating and workouts are a choice. It is habit. Even when I don't want to go to the gym, I do. Not because I decide to, but because my body naturally starts getting ready at a certain time, because that's the power of habit. It works both ways, to reach for the cigarette, the donut, or the weights.
And I also remember what it was like when before I could fit into the red skirt. And how many tries I had. And how many things I tried. I remember working as hard as humanly possible to lose weight and eat only low calories and see no movement on the scale. It's only through the grace of God that I found the strength not to quit.
Just because I've made a lot of progress and it's (a lot) easier for me now, doesn't mean I have to ignore the challenges the people who are still trying their best and finding it very difficult.
People hollering about personal responsibility and Calories in Calories out sounded the exact same way to me as when you ask someone how to be a millionaire and they say, make more profit than expenses. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have business incubators and mentors.
So unless you are rolling in several million dollars, please stop being so condescending to those who are still struggling. Because MATH.
Because when I make my billions, I'll give credit where credit is due.
A message of personal responsibility and agency should be empowering not condescending. You do have choice, everyone had choice. I made no statement about how easy it is to make choices or to be successful and the world doesn't really owe you or anyone else anything.16 -
They are probably anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers.
4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »A lot of people drop science, but they don't know the math, because their minds are narrower than the righteous path.
"The mind of a child is where the revolution begins." - Immortal Technique: Caught in a Hustle2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Someone mentioned the food. I am very new and learning constantly. My thing is you don't realize how bad the food you eat really is until you look up one day and realize you are overweight or have some kind of health issue. They make the (From my perspective at least) food addictive. The more salt, carbs, fat ... the better it tastes.. it's an addiction. Sometimes not even a conscious choice..just what you are accustomed to eating. I recently quit smoking and getting off the unhealthy food is by far harder than quitting the cigs. I decided I would take control of my body. I have made bad decisions about my 'diet' but at least i am trying. Someone mentioned the soda and chips (I would add tv and video games)..yeah if you don't know better it seems so much more appetizing than broccoli and water and exercise.
Honestly I didn't know any better..So when some healthy looking person would say oh I use this or that..yeah I listened. Who knew there is actual work involved and personal responsibility for every thing you put into your body. Like I said.. learning in progress.
People make food that tastes good....must be a conspiracy.
It actually is, to be honest. There is such a thing called hyperpalatability. That's why people can eat a whole bag of chips or fries. They figured out the point of natural satiation - the point where you body has figured out it has eaten enough. Then they found out how to make you want to eat past that point. They intentionally make foods that is hard to stop eating, because of it's hyperpalatability, which produces a dopamine response, which is the same chemical that makes it hard to get off your phone or stop playing video games.
Right....because they want people to by their chips....so they make them tasty. Does that count as a conspiracy now?
Facebook employees have quit over what they say is manipulation of the human brain circuitry to make sure you spend as much time as possible on their site.
Food scientists say the same thing about their industry.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but it is not in the favor of the health of the consumer, and that is coming from the industry insiders.
If you don't agree, that's fine.
Yeah, because they are in the business of making money not the buisness of making you healthy. That isn't a conspiracy and it isn't a crime....it is just market economics. It isn't the job of a company to make you healthy, it is your job to make you healthy. If you value health over taste you can choose to purchase other items or moderate as you see fit. You have control of your own decisions. Someone making a particularly entertaining or appealing or tasty product isn't mindcontrolling you, they are just offering you something you like....you of course have the choice to decide to prioritize something else instead.
Take a look at my avi. I went from the red skirt to the blue one. I workout nearly every day. I am extremely fit. I eat 70% clean. I'll have you know, I don't feel that the MAJORITY of my eating and workouts are a choice. It is habit. Even when I don't want to go to the gym, I do. Not because I decide to, but because my body naturally starts getting ready at a certain time, because that's the power of habit. It works both ways, to reach for the cigarette, the donut, or the weights.
And I also remember what it was like when before I could fit into the red skirt. And how many tries I had. And how many things I tried. I remember working as hard as humanly possible to lose weight and eat only low calories and see no movement on the scale. It's only through the grace of God that I found the strength not to quit.
Just because I've made a lot of progress and it's (a lot) easier for me now, doesn't mean I have to ignore the challenges the people who are still trying their best and finding it very difficult.
People hollering about personal responsibility and Calories in Calories out sounded the exact same way to me as when you ask someone how to be a millionaire and they say, make more profit than expenses. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have business incubators and mentors.
So unless you are rolling in several million dollars, please stop being so condescending to those who are still struggling. Because MATH.
Because when I make my billions, I'll give credit where credit is due.
A message of personal responsibility and agency should be empowering not condescending. You do have choice, everyone had choice. I made no statement about how easy it is to make choices or to be successful and the world doesn't really owe you or anyone else anything.
So how's that portfolio doing?
Because I'm guessing you aren't working hard enough on it. You really should consider what you are doing in that regard because income in minus expenses is simple math.
Just get it done. No excuses if you haven't at least made a million by 45. Income minus expenses. Personal responsibility bro.
20 -
Because too many people, when they were in school, thought science was boring, and didn't learn any. Or math.
When you have no science or math, the whole world is a magical mystery, and anything could be as true as anything else, so you might as well go with the magic that sounds easy.
Depending on where you went to school, it may not have been taught. I went to public school in a good system at the time, and we got "basic nutrition" in school in the form of the food pyramid and avoid junk food in health class, and the basic definitions of stuff on the food label during home economics in middle school (and geared for a middle school level of understanding).
I didn't encounter discussions about calories/energy balances and how everything really worked together until I took a dedicated nutrition class in college, so it doesn't surprise me that a lot of people wouldn't know this information. It's not necessarily the result of willful ignorance on their part. And before anyone goes into the "well you can research it on the internet!" - that assumes that you have a level of education where you know how to conduct a proper search, know how to vet sources, and know how to interpret scientific and peer-reviewed journal articles and statistics. Depending on what your focus of study, it may or may not have included those things.
People are also likely to listen to people they consider "trusted sources" (family, friends, coworkers) over someone they do not know, and lots of people are good at positioning themselves as "trusted sources," especially on the internet. You can even see it in online fitness communities, where people will post body pics (which may or may not be anywhere near current, or even them) as evidence that they have knowledge and know how to get results, or try to use longevity on a site or post count as evidence that they are an authority. It's easy for people to get confused, and not always the result of a personal failing or character flaw.
I didn't say nutrition, because I really meant science and math: Basic science, like how evidence and hypothesis testing work, what it means when something is a theory vs. a fact vs. a hypothesis in scientific terms, etc.; and basic math to the point of low-level algebra . . . really more just like dealing with "story problems" and applying basic computations to a situation.
I understand that in severely deficient schools, even these may not be taught, but I believe they are taught in most. I went to a moderately deficient school (rural poverty area), and these things were taught . . . and taught over and over through the grades, at increasing levels of detail, nuance and complexity, starting in elementary school and continuing through high school. I truly (and sadly) believe that most people I went to school with (economically fortunate ones included) didn't learn them, even to the level needed for competent basic adulting, like recognizing a financial scam, understanding and evaluating the main scientific arguments about important environmental policies, or understanding a mortgage amortization schedule.
Nutrition was taught in my school in about 6th grade, and there was some discussion of it in health classes in various grades, but the only real depth was in Home Economics in high school, which girls (only girls) were required to take back then. (Here's the "book report", if anyone's interested
: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10625791/mainstream-eating-guidance-1960 ).
If someone learned basic science and math in school, they have the tools to evaluate nutritional information, if they're interested in diet and nutrition. The scamsters and click-bait marketers know that their audience largely lacks the tools to evaluate their claims . . . that they can get away with science-y sounding nonsense, and wow people with a bunch of footnote links that point to actual scientific studies (studies that don't support the scamsters claims at all, but they know that few will read them, because . . . boooorrrrrring. And haaarrrrrd. Still.)
It really doesn't take advanced scientific knowlege or college statistics to begin evaluating these things, though it may require those to understand all the details.4 -
Because too many people, when they were in school, thought science was boring, and didn't learn any. Or math.
When you have no science or math, the whole world is a magical mystery, and anything could be as true as anything else, so you might as well go with the magic that sounds easy.
Depending on where you went to school, it may not have been taught. I went to public school in a good system at the time, and we got "basic nutrition" in school in the form of the food pyramid and avoid junk food in health class, and the basic definitions of stuff on the food label during home economics in middle school (and geared for a middle school level of understanding).
I didn't encounter discussions about calories/energy balances and how everything really worked together until I took a dedicated nutrition class in college, so it doesn't surprise me that a lot of people wouldn't know this information. It's not necessarily the result of willful ignorance on their part. And before anyone goes into the "well you can research it on the internet!" - that assumes that you have a level of education where you know how to conduct a proper search, know how to vet sources, and know how to interpret scientific and peer-reviewed journal articles and statistics. Depending on what your focus of study, it may or may not have included those things.
People are also likely to listen to people they consider "trusted sources" (family, friends, coworkers) over someone they do not know, and lots of people are good at positioning themselves as "trusted sources," especially on the internet. You can even see it in online fitness communities, where people will post body pics (which may or may not be anywhere near current, or even them) as evidence that they have knowledge and know how to get results, or try to use longevity on a site or post count as evidence that they are an authority. It's easy for people to get confused, and not always the result of a personal failing or character flaw.
I didn't say nutrition, because I really meant science and math: Basic science, like how evidence and hypothesis testing work, what it means when something is a theory vs. a fact vs. a hypothesis in scientific terms, etc.; and basic math to the point of low-level algebra . . . really more just like dealing with "story problems" and applying basic computations to a situation.
I understand that in severely deficient schools, even these may not be taught, but I believe they are taught in most. I went to a moderately deficient school (rural poverty area), and these things were taught . . . and taught over and over through the grades, at increasing levels of detail, nuance and complexity, starting in elementary school and continuing through high school. I truly (and sadly) believe that most people I went to school with (economically fortunate ones included) didn't learn them, even to the level needed for competent basic adulting, like recognizing a financial scam, understanding and evaluating the main scientific arguments about important environmental policies, or understanding a mortgage amortization schedule.
Nutrition was taught in my school in about 6th grade, and there was some discussion of it in health classes in various grades, but the only real depth was in Home Economics in high school, which girls (only girls) were required to take back then. (Here's the "book report", if anyone's interested : https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10625791/mainstream-eating-guidance-1960 ).
If someone learned basic science and math in school, they have the tools to evaluate nutritional information, if they're interested in diet and nutrition. The scamsters and click-bait marketers know that their audience largely lacks the tools to evaluate their claims . . . that they can get away with science-y sounding nonsense, and wow people with a bunch of footnote links that point to actual scientific studies (studies that don't support the scamsters claims at all, but they know that few will read them, because . . . boooorrrrrring. And haaarrrrrd. Still.)
It really doesn't take advanced scientific knowlege or college statistics to begin evaluating these things, though it may require those to understand all the details.
I believe many who are taken in by the scams simply are not of the analytical mindset many of the seasoned veterans here seem to tend toward. Critical thinking is not even on most people's radar. They didn't learn it because they aren't and never were interested in analyzing the why's of things. I don't know if it's an educational failing, personality trait, societal influence, or some combination of the above, but it is rampant.8 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Someone mentioned the food. I am very new and learning constantly. My thing is you don't realize how bad the food you eat really is until you look up one day and realize you are overweight or have some kind of health issue. They make the (From my perspective at least) food addictive. The more salt, carbs, fat ... the better it tastes.. it's an addiction. Sometimes not even a conscious choice..just what you are accustomed to eating. I recently quit smoking and getting off the unhealthy food is by far harder than quitting the cigs. I decided I would take control of my body. I have made bad decisions about my 'diet' but at least i am trying. Someone mentioned the soda and chips (I would add tv and video games)..yeah if you don't know better it seems so much more appetizing than broccoli and water and exercise.
Honestly I didn't know any better..So when some healthy looking person would say oh I use this or that..yeah I listened. Who knew there is actual work involved and personal responsibility for every thing you put into your body. Like I said.. learning in progress.
People make food that tastes good....must be a conspiracy.
It actually is, to be honest. There is such a thing called hyperpalatability. That's why people can eat a whole bag of chips or fries. They figured out the point of natural satiation - the point where you body has figured out it has eaten enough. Then they found out how to make you want to eat past that point. They intentionally make foods that is hard to stop eating, because of it's hyperpalatability, which produces a dopamine response, which is the same chemical that makes it hard to get off your phone or stop playing video games.
Right....because they want people to by their chips....so they make them tasty. Does that count as a conspiracy now?
Facebook employees have quit over what they say is manipulation of the human brain circuitry to make sure you spend as much time as possible on their site.
Food scientists say the same thing about their industry.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but it is not in the favor of the health of the consumer, and that is coming from the industry insiders.
If you don't agree, that's fine.
Yeah, because they are in the business of making money not the buisness of making you healthy. That isn't a conspiracy and it isn't a crime....it is just market economics. It isn't the job of a company to make you healthy, it is your job to make you healthy. If you value health over taste you can choose to purchase other items or moderate as you see fit. You have control of your own decisions. Someone making a particularly entertaining or appealing or tasty product isn't mindcontrolling you, they are just offering you something you like....you of course have the choice to decide to prioritize something else instead.
Take a look at my avi. I went from the red skirt to the blue one. I workout nearly every day. I am extremely fit. I eat 70% clean. I'll have you know, I don't feel that the MAJORITY of my eating and workouts are a choice. It is habit. Even when I don't want to go to the gym, I do. Not because I decide to, but because my body naturally starts getting ready at a certain time, because that's the power of habit. It works both ways, to reach for the cigarette, the donut, or the weights.
And I also remember what it was like when before I could fit into the red skirt. And how many tries I had. And how many things I tried. I remember working as hard as humanly possible to lose weight and eat only low calories and see no movement on the scale. It's only through the grace of God that I found the strength not to quit.
Just because I've made a lot of progress and it's (a lot) easier for me now, doesn't mean I have to ignore the challenges the people who are still trying their best and finding it very difficult.
People hollering about personal responsibility and Calories in Calories out sounded the exact same way to me as when you ask someone how to be a millionaire and they say, make more profit than expenses. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have business incubators and mentors.
So unless you are rolling in several million dollars, please stop being so condescending to those who are still struggling. Because MATH.
Because when I make my billions, I'll give credit where credit is due.
A message of personal responsibility and agency should be empowering not condescending. You do have choice, everyone had choice. I made no statement about how easy it is to make choices or to be successful and the world doesn't really owe you or anyone else anything.
So how's that portfolio doing?
Because I'm guessing you aren't working hard enough on it. You really should consider what you are doing in that regard because income in minus expenses is simple math.
Just get it done. No excuses if you haven't at least made a million by 45. Income minus expenses. Personal responsibility bro.
I understand the point you're trying to make. But we are all tempted by yummy food. We would all rather eat whatever we want, and sleep late. We all have our struggles and we all make our choices. No one is doing everything right and still destined to be obese. No one has no choice but to eat too much calorie dense food.
It's possible to believe in personal responsibility being the key, yet still understand the struggle we all go through to figure out what the right choices are and how hard it can be to make those choices. Most of us here in maintenance spent our whole adult lives up to this point failing and failing again until we figured it out.
It is not the food industry's responsibility to make sure we don't eat too much. We all walk through the same supermarket, we all drive past the same restaurants. I love fast food, but when I ate it every day for lunch, it was too hard to lose weight. So I decided to cut back to once a week. I would still love to go every day, but I don't. Other people do, and routinely tell me how "lucky" I am to be thin. When work brings in pizza for us, I have 1 slice and maybe split a second with someone, others have three slices. Then they complain that work is making them fat. These people feel powerless, but they are making choices. And the diet industry is feeding that feeling that they have no control, because if they took control and recognized they were making choices, there would be no need for a diet industry.
IMHO, if you want to blame an "industry", blame the diet and weight loss industry. They are convincing everyone that it isn't their fault and setting up all the boogiemen.24 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Someone mentioned the food. I am very new and learning constantly. My thing is you don't realize how bad the food you eat really is until you look up one day and realize you are overweight or have some kind of health issue. They make the (From my perspective at least) food addictive. The more salt, carbs, fat ... the better it tastes.. it's an addiction. Sometimes not even a conscious choice..just what you are accustomed to eating. I recently quit smoking and getting off the unhealthy food is by far harder than quitting the cigs. I decided I would take control of my body. I have made bad decisions about my 'diet' but at least i am trying. Someone mentioned the soda and chips (I would add tv and video games)..yeah if you don't know better it seems so much more appetizing than broccoli and water and exercise.
Honestly I didn't know any better..So when some healthy looking person would say oh I use this or that..yeah I listened. Who knew there is actual work involved and personal responsibility for every thing you put into your body. Like I said.. learning in progress.
People make food that tastes good....must be a conspiracy.
It actually is, to be honest. There is such a thing called hyperpalatability. That's why people can eat a whole bag of chips or fries. They figured out the point of natural satiation - the point where you body has figured out it has eaten enough. Then they found out how to make you want to eat past that point. They intentionally make foods that is hard to stop eating, because of it's hyperpalatability, which produces a dopamine response, which is the same chemical that makes it hard to get off your phone or stop playing video games.
Right....because they want people to by their chips....so they make them tasty. Does that count as a conspiracy now?
Facebook employees have quit over what they say is manipulation of the human brain circuitry to make sure you spend as much time as possible on their site.
Food scientists say the same thing about their industry.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but it is not in the favor of the health of the consumer, and that is coming from the industry insiders.
If you don't agree, that's fine.
Yeah, because they are in the business of making money not the buisness of making you healthy. That isn't a conspiracy and it isn't a crime....it is just market economics. It isn't the job of a company to make you healthy, it is your job to make you healthy. If you value health over taste you can choose to purchase other items or moderate as you see fit. You have control of your own decisions. Someone making a particularly entertaining or appealing or tasty product isn't mindcontrolling you, they are just offering you something you like....you of course have the choice to decide to prioritize something else instead.
Take a look at my avi. I went from the red skirt to the blue one. I workout nearly every day. I am extremely fit. I eat 70% clean. I'll have you know, I don't feel that the MAJORITY of my eating and workouts are a choice. It is habit. Even when I don't want to go to the gym, I do. Not because I decide to, but because my body naturally starts getting ready at a certain time, because that's the power of habit. It works both ways, to reach for the cigarette, the donut, or the weights.
And I also remember what it was like when before I could fit into the red skirt. And how many tries I had. And how many things I tried. I remember working as hard as humanly possible to lose weight and eat only low calories and see no movement on the scale. It's only through the grace of God that I found the strength not to quit.
Just because I've made a lot of progress and it's (a lot) easier for me now, doesn't mean I have to ignore the challenges the people who are still trying their best and finding it very difficult.
People hollering about personal responsibility and Calories in Calories out sounded the exact same way to me as when you ask someone how to be a millionaire and they say, make more profit than expenses. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have business incubators and mentors.
So unless you are rolling in several million dollars, please stop being so condescending to those who are still struggling. Because MATH.
Because when I make my billions, I'll give credit where credit is due.
A message of personal responsibility and agency should be empowering not condescending. You do have choice, everyone had choice. I made no statement about how easy it is to make choices or to be successful and the world doesn't really owe you or anyone else anything.
And the fact that you cared enough to make the eating and workouts and other lifestyle changes into habits means that you did make a personal choice and took responsibility for yourself, so I don't get what you are arguing with Aaron about? Habits do not just spring up overnight - they take dedication and effort and perseverance to establish (and keep up).7 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Someone mentioned the food. I am very new and learning constantly. My thing is you don't realize how bad the food you eat really is until you look up one day and realize you are overweight or have some kind of health issue. They make the (From my perspective at least) food addictive. The more salt, carbs, fat ... the better it tastes.. it's an addiction. Sometimes not even a conscious choice..just what you are accustomed to eating. I recently quit smoking and getting off the unhealthy food is by far harder than quitting the cigs. I decided I would take control of my body. I have made bad decisions about my 'diet' but at least i am trying. Someone mentioned the soda and chips (I would add tv and video games)..yeah if you don't know better it seems so much more appetizing than broccoli and water and exercise.
Honestly I didn't know any better..So when some healthy looking person would say oh I use this or that..yeah I listened. Who knew there is actual work involved and personal responsibility for every thing you put into your body. Like I said.. learning in progress.
People make food that tastes good....must be a conspiracy.
It actually is, to be honest. There is such a thing called hyperpalatability. That's why people can eat a whole bag of chips or fries. They figured out the point of natural satiation - the point where you body has figured out it has eaten enough. Then they found out how to make you want to eat past that point. They intentionally make foods that is hard to stop eating, because of it's hyperpalatability, which produces a dopamine response, which is the same chemical that makes it hard to get off your phone or stop playing video games.
Right....because they want people to by their chips....so they make them tasty. Does that count as a conspiracy now?
Facebook employees have quit over what they say is manipulation of the human brain circuitry to make sure you spend as much time as possible on their site.
Food scientists say the same thing about their industry.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but it is not in the favor of the health of the consumer, and that is coming from the industry insiders.
If you don't agree, that's fine.
Yeah, because they are in the business of making money not the buisness of making you healthy. That isn't a conspiracy and it isn't a crime....it is just market economics. It isn't the job of a company to make you healthy, it is your job to make you healthy. If you value health over taste you can choose to purchase other items or moderate as you see fit. You have control of your own decisions. Someone making a particularly entertaining or appealing or tasty product isn't mindcontrolling you, they are just offering you something you like....you of course have the choice to decide to prioritize something else instead.
Take a look at my avi. I went from the red skirt to the blue one. I workout nearly every day. I am extremely fit. I eat 70% clean. I'll have you know, I don't feel that the MAJORITY of my eating and workouts are a choice. It is habit. Even when I don't want to go to the gym, I do. Not because I decide to, but because my body naturally starts getting ready at a certain time, because that's the power of habit. It works both ways, to reach for the cigarette, the donut, or the weights.
And I also remember what it was like when before I could fit into the red skirt. And how many tries I had. And how many things I tried. I remember working as hard as humanly possible to lose weight and eat only low calories and see no movement on the scale. It's only through the grace of God that I found the strength not to quit.
Just because I've made a lot of progress and it's (a lot) easier for me now, doesn't mean I have to ignore the challenges the people who are still trying their best and finding it very difficult.
People hollering about personal responsibility and Calories in Calories out sounded the exact same way to me as when you ask someone how to be a millionaire and they say, make more profit than expenses. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have business incubators and mentors.
So unless you are rolling in several million dollars, please stop being so condescending to those who are still struggling. Because MATH.
Because when I make my billions, I'll give credit where credit is due.
A message of personal responsibility and agency should be empowering not condescending. You do have choice, everyone had choice. I made no statement about how easy it is to make choices or to be successful and the world doesn't really owe you or anyone else anything.
So how's that portfolio doing?
Because I'm guessing you aren't working hard enough on it. You really should consider what you are doing in that regard because income in minus expenses is simple math.
Just get it done. No excuses if you haven't at least made a million by 45. Income minus expenses. Personal responsibility bro.
He said:A message of personal responsibility and agency should be empowering not condescending. You do have choice, everyone had choice. I made no statement about how easy it is to make choices or to be successful and the world doesn't really owe you or anyone else anything.
What you countered with doesn't bear on that at all.
I agree with him, obviously: We need to understand the personal responsibility and agency we do have, even if it's not total agency. If we believe we have no control over any aspect to any degree, we truly have none, but only because we're not seeing the (perhaps meager) tools on the workbench in front of us. If we believe we are manipulated victims, the focus is on what we can't control; that's an unproductive focus.
To say that we have (some) control and influence over our situation says nothing about how easy progress will be, or how successful we'll be.
I think the same thing does apply to finances, BTW: I'm old, and retired, as are many of my friends. The people who looked at the financial workbench with a clear eye in their youth, and figured out what tools than they had and how to use them, have done better overall than those who believed they had no control, or didn't think about it. Doesn't mean it was easy, doesn't mean they were bang-up successful in a big way, didn't mean some weren't set back by illness or other uncontrollables . . . but they were more successful than they would've been had they not taken responsibility, and used what few tools they had as best they could.
You're doing exactly those things when you keep trying, and end up figuring out what works, and moving down in skirt size.
To say that a message of responsibility and agency is empowering is not to say that people aren't working hard. It's to say that working hard is worthwhile.
In the same circumstances, people who focus on their own agency make better progress than people who focus on what's being done to them by others. Easy progress? No. To the most ultimate imaginable success? No. But more progress.
P.S. I don't understand where habits come from, if they don't flow from choices.9 -
stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Not to mention all the crowd-funded quackery the internet has brought us....ie Solar Roadways, Fontus, SciO etc. Plus the popularity contest impractical BS like Hyperloop.
It's rare that I disagree with something you say. There's so many things that used to be impractical or even unthinkable say, 10, 20 years ago that is now commonplace. Not working on something because it's impractical now means it never gets done.
It isn't that they are impractical, they are impossible (at least in the way they promote themselves)...they break laws of thermodynamics. They are scams, either intentional or self-deluded. My assumption is self-deluded but it is still a waste of time and money brought on by scientific illiteracy which is something to be shunned not given the benefit of the doubt.
And I get the can-do attitude of if the inventors of yesterday listened to the nay-sayers we wouldn't have X Y and Z but there are some things that are hard to imagine how you would accomplish them (ie getting humans to Mars) and other things that are just in violation of physical laws or are impractical to such a degree that they are non-nonsensical and it is good to be able to distinguish between the two. If what your proposing can be done right now with current technologies and the only way your idea stands out is that you have way WAY over-promised on what can be delivered then that is some b.s.
From my examples Fontus and SciO are impossible to deliver on because their claims break physical laws. Solar roadways and hyperloop are just ridiculous ideas that makes no sense if you think about the practicalities and there claims of what they can achieve are not at all within the realm of possibility. They rely on media hype rather than actual achievements. None of them have or will ever produce anything of value...they are psuedoscience money sinks that rely on people who genuinely do want a better future being gullible or naive. They give a false impression of what is possible that relies on public goodwill, goodwill which will get eroded by b.s. like this.
Just out of curiosity out of respect for you being an excellent poster on these forums which of the ones would you defend as being valid?
I was just speaking in general since I'm not familiar with most of them besides the hyperloop and solar roadways. Those are ridiculously large scale projects that as of now would be unthinkable for multiple reasons. But then I think that railway tracks connecting all of Europe for example were thought to be way to big a project to be feasible too. And now I could just hop in a train and enjoy the scenery while going from Madrid to Moscow with a few layovers. (Or just get a plane, which is faster, but that wasn't invented yet when they were doing that stuff) Or the short time between when flight was invented and when the first person stepped on the moon, I don't suppose the wright brothers would've even dreamed that being able to go to outer space would be developed on the shoulders of their discoveries.
So, just saying, as long as it's physically possible and there's people who really want to make it happen and have the money to work on it, it can happen. Maybe not in the near future, but some time.
And if it starts out smaller than initially advertised then so be it.
I think there isn't just a question of whether we could, there is a question of whether we should.
Solar roadways is ridiculous because if you are going to invest that much in solar panels then why would you put them in pretty much the worst place possible, flat on a non-elevated surface. That is not even mentioning the constant stress they would be under being driven over plus all the times they would be blocked completely. It is just a silly idea. If you covered the roofs of all structures with current gen solar panels you would have more energy than you knew what to do with already...why start with road surfaces that makes no sense. Putting a solar panel flat on the ground is stupid...covering it in material strong enough to allow cars to drive over it is stupider and assuming that they won't break right away is really stupid. Solar panels are expensive...the last thing you want to do is put them somewhere they are the least efficient and then drive over them. Lets put it this way...if I bought you $10,000 worth of solar panels would you: A ) mount them at a 45 degree angle south facing on your roof in a way that avoids shade from trees or B ) dig up your driveway, lay the panels flat on your driveway and then put a sheet of acrylic glass over top of them so they wouldn't just break immediately when you drove over them. Frankly it boggles me than anyone can look at that idea critically and not come to the conclusion it is stupid within a few minutes.
The issue with hyperloop is it is completely impractical. It isn't the same thing as a train at all. How in the hell are you going to build a 500 mile long vacuum tube and have it be even remotely safe or cost efficient. In a train system if a rail is damaged the worst thing that happens is one train derails and people on that train might be killed. With hyperloop any damage anywhere on the 500 mile vacuum would cause a catastrophic faliure that would destroy the entire tube, the terminals, anyone in the tube or the terminals and probably anyone within 250 feet of them. Right now a terrorist domestic or otherwise could potentially take down a single train or a single airplane. With hyperloop they'd just have to get within a few hundred feet of the tube anywhere in the entire 500 miles and shoot it with a rifle to destroy the entire thing. Not to mention just typical wear and tear and damage from things like weather or accidents. Maintaining even a modest vacuum in a small area is not easy...maintaining it in a 500 mile long tube is ridiculous....the energy cost alone would probably far outweigh the benefit of using electricity over jet fuel. And for what exactly? To reduce the travel time between two points by a modest amount? Planes already travel 500 mph, even if you managed to achieve the 800 mph that isn't all that much faster and the idea that you could get from LA to San Francisco in 30 minutes ignores the fact that of course there would have to be an airport-like terminal with all the security and delays one would experience in an airport. The hyperloop couldn't accelerate all that much faster than a plane could because you can only put so much g-force load on people....so the delay in the travel time would be the same as with an airport...ie driving to the terminal, parking, entering the terminal, going through security etc etc. Practically speaking even if the thing worked we are talking changing travel time from like 3 hours to like 2.5 hours which is not exactly revolutionary. Maintaining and flying a fleet of aircraft is just going to be much more practical than maintaining a giant vacuum tube.
So what is the benefit?7 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Someone mentioned the food. I am very new and learning constantly. My thing is you don't realize how bad the food you eat really is until you look up one day and realize you are overweight or have some kind of health issue. They make the (From my perspective at least) food addictive. The more salt, carbs, fat ... the better it tastes.. it's an addiction. Sometimes not even a conscious choice..just what you are accustomed to eating. I recently quit smoking and getting off the unhealthy food is by far harder than quitting the cigs. I decided I would take control of my body. I have made bad decisions about my 'diet' but at least i am trying. Someone mentioned the soda and chips (I would add tv and video games)..yeah if you don't know better it seems so much more appetizing than broccoli and water and exercise.
Honestly I didn't know any better..So when some healthy looking person would say oh I use this or that..yeah I listened. Who knew there is actual work involved and personal responsibility for every thing you put into your body. Like I said.. learning in progress.
People make food that tastes good....must be a conspiracy.
It actually is, to be honest. There is such a thing called hyperpalatability. That's why people can eat a whole bag of chips or fries. They figured out the point of natural satiation - the point where you body has figured out it has eaten enough. Then they found out how to make you want to eat past that point. They intentionally make foods that is hard to stop eating, because of it's hyperpalatability, which produces a dopamine response, which is the same chemical that makes it hard to get off your phone or stop playing video games.
Right....because they want people to by their chips....so they make them tasty. Does that count as a conspiracy now?
Facebook employees have quit over what they say is manipulation of the human brain circuitry to make sure you spend as much time as possible on their site.
Food scientists say the same thing about their industry.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but it is not in the favor of the health of the consumer, and that is coming from the industry insiders.
If you don't agree, that's fine.
Yeah, because they are in the business of making money not the buisness of making you healthy. That isn't a conspiracy and it isn't a crime....it is just market economics. It isn't the job of a company to make you healthy, it is your job to make you healthy. If you value health over taste you can choose to purchase other items or moderate as you see fit. You have control of your own decisions. Someone making a particularly entertaining or appealing or tasty product isn't mindcontrolling you, they are just offering you something you like....you of course have the choice to decide to prioritize something else instead.
Take a look at my avi. I went from the red skirt to the blue one. I workout nearly every day. I am extremely fit. I eat 70% clean. I'll have you know, I don't feel that the MAJORITY of my eating and workouts are a choice. It is habit. Even when I don't want to go to the gym, I do. Not because I decide to, but because my body naturally starts getting ready at a certain time, because that's the power of habit. It works both ways, to reach for the cigarette, the donut, or the weights.
And I also remember what it was like when before I could fit into the red skirt. And how many tries I had. And how many things I tried. I remember working as hard as humanly possible to lose weight and eat only low calories and see no movement on the scale. It's only through the grace of God that I found the strength not to quit.
Just because I've made a lot of progress and it's (a lot) easier for me now, doesn't mean I have to ignore the challenges the people who are still trying their best and finding it very difficult.
People hollering about personal responsibility and Calories in Calories out sounded the exact same way to me as when you ask someone how to be a millionaire and they say, make more profit than expenses. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have business incubators and mentors.
So unless you are rolling in several million dollars, please stop being so condescending to those who are still struggling. Because MATH.
Because when I make my billions, I'll give credit where credit is due.
A message of personal responsibility and agency should be empowering not condescending. You do have choice, everyone had choice. I made no statement about how easy it is to make choices or to be successful and the world doesn't really owe you or anyone else anything.
So how's that portfolio doing?
Because I'm guessing you aren't working hard enough on it. You really should consider what you are doing in that regard because income in minus expenses is simple math.
Just get it done. No excuses if you haven't at least made a million by 45. Income minus expenses. Personal responsibility bro.
He said:A message of personal responsibility and agency should be empowering not condescending. You do have choice, everyone had choice. I made no statement about how easy it is to make choices or to be successful and the world doesn't really owe you or anyone else anything.
What you countered with doesn't bear on that at all.
I agree with him, obviously: We need to understand the personal responsibility and agency we do have, even if it's not total agency. If we believe we have no control over any aspect to any degree, we truly have none, but only because we're not seeing the (perhaps meager) tools on the workbench in front of us. If we believe we are manipulated victims, the focus is on what we can't control; that's an unproductive focus.
To say that we have (some) control and influence over our situation says nothing about how easy progress will be, or how successful we'll be.
I think the same thing does apply to finances, BTW: I'm old, and retired, as are many of my friends. The people who looked at the financial workbench with a clear eye in their youth, and figured out what tools than they had and how to use them, have done better overall than those who believed they had no control, or didn't think about it. Doesn't mean it was easy, doesn't mean they were bang-up successful in a big way, didn't mean some weren't set back by illness or other uncontrollables . . . but they were more successful than they would've been had they not taken responsibility, and used what few tools they had as best they could.
You're doing exactly those things when you keep trying, and end up figuring out what works, and moving down in skirt size.
To say that a message of responsibility and agency is empowering is not to say that people aren't working hard. It's to say that working hard is worthwhile.
In the same circumstances, people who focus on their own agency make better progress than people who focus on what's being done to them by others. Easy progress? No. To the most ultimate imaginable success? No. But more progress.
P.S. I don't understand where habits come from, if they don't flow from choices.
And what I'm saying is that you can run a marathon, and say you did it 1) by putting one foot in front of the other, personal choice and discipline. If you don't run a marathon, it's because of a lack of discipline and decision.
That is true, but not helpful to someone whose chest starts burning after a minute of running.
Ignoring the challenges they have to overcome does not help them overcome them. Instead of put one foot in front of the other, how about:
2) Try alternate walking and running. Before your chest starts burning, slow down and walk. When you catch your breath, start running again. Do this several times and be done. The next day, repeat, only add one minute. Over time, your lung capacity increases really fast. Then sign up for a 5k. Then join a running club. After a while, you'll notice you can push out 10 miles with ease, but then hit a wall at mile 13. Here are the strategies to pushing past that barrier to mile 22, where it gets hard again. There are specific strategies to get those last 4 miles done.
Which advice do you think is more helpful to the one that's struggling?
5 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Someone mentioned the food. I am very new and learning constantly. My thing is you don't realize how bad the food you eat really is until you look up one day and realize you are overweight or have some kind of health issue. They make the (From my perspective at least) food addictive. The more salt, carbs, fat ... the better it tastes.. it's an addiction. Sometimes not even a conscious choice..just what you are accustomed to eating. I recently quit smoking and getting off the unhealthy food is by far harder than quitting the cigs. I decided I would take control of my body. I have made bad decisions about my 'diet' but at least i am trying. Someone mentioned the soda and chips (I would add tv and video games)..yeah if you don't know better it seems so much more appetizing than broccoli and water and exercise.
Honestly I didn't know any better..So when some healthy looking person would say oh I use this or that..yeah I listened. Who knew there is actual work involved and personal responsibility for every thing you put into your body. Like I said.. learning in progress.
People make food that tastes good....must be a conspiracy.
It actually is, to be honest. There is such a thing called hyperpalatability. That's why people can eat a whole bag of chips or fries. They figured out the point of natural satiation - the point where you body has figured out it has eaten enough. Then they found out how to make you want to eat past that point. They intentionally make foods that is hard to stop eating, because of it's hyperpalatability, which produces a dopamine response, which is the same chemical that makes it hard to get off your phone or stop playing video games.
Right....because they want people to by their chips....so they make them tasty. Does that count as a conspiracy now?
Facebook employees have quit over what they say is manipulation of the human brain circuitry to make sure you spend as much time as possible on their site.
Food scientists say the same thing about their industry.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but it is not in the favor of the health of the consumer, and that is coming from the industry insiders.
If you don't agree, that's fine.
Yeah, because they are in the business of making money not the buisness of making you healthy. That isn't a conspiracy and it isn't a crime....it is just market economics. It isn't the job of a company to make you healthy, it is your job to make you healthy. If you value health over taste you can choose to purchase other items or moderate as you see fit. You have control of your own decisions. Someone making a particularly entertaining or appealing or tasty product isn't mindcontrolling you, they are just offering you something you like....you of course have the choice to decide to prioritize something else instead.
Take a look at my avi. I went from the red skirt to the blue one. I workout nearly every day. I am extremely fit. I eat 70% clean. I'll have you know, I don't feel that the MAJORITY of my eating and workouts are a choice. It is habit. Even when I don't want to go to the gym, I do. Not because I decide to, but because my body naturally starts getting ready at a certain time, because that's the power of habit. It works both ways, to reach for the cigarette, the donut, or the weights.
And I also remember what it was like when before I could fit into the red skirt. And how many tries I had. And how many things I tried. I remember working as hard as humanly possible to lose weight and eat only low calories and see no movement on the scale. It's only through the grace of God that I found the strength not to quit.
Just because I've made a lot of progress and it's (a lot) easier for me now, doesn't mean I have to ignore the challenges the people who are still trying their best and finding it very difficult.
People hollering about personal responsibility and Calories in Calories out sounded the exact same way to me as when you ask someone how to be a millionaire and they say, make more profit than expenses. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have business incubators and mentors.
So unless you are rolling in several million dollars, please stop being so condescending to those who are still struggling. Because MATH.
Because when I make my billions, I'll give credit where credit is due.
A message of personal responsibility and agency should be empowering not condescending. You do have choice, everyone had choice. I made no statement about how easy it is to make choices or to be successful and the world doesn't really owe you or anyone else anything.
So how's that portfolio doing?
Because I'm guessing you aren't working hard enough on it. You really should consider what you are doing in that regard because income in minus expenses is simple math.
Just get it done. No excuses if you haven't at least made a million by 45. Income minus expenses. Personal responsibility bro.
He said:A message of personal responsibility and agency should be empowering not condescending. You do have choice, everyone had choice. I made no statement about how easy it is to make choices or to be successful and the world doesn't really owe you or anyone else anything.
What you countered with doesn't bear on that at all.
I agree with him, obviously: We need to understand the personal responsibility and agency we do have, even if it's not total agency. If we believe we have no control over any aspect to any degree, we truly have none, but only because we're not seeing the (perhaps meager) tools on the workbench in front of us. If we believe we are manipulated victims, the focus is on what we can't control; that's an unproductive focus.
To say that we have (some) control and influence over our situation says nothing about how easy progress will be, or how successful we'll be.
I think the same thing does apply to finances, BTW: I'm old, and retired, as are many of my friends. The people who looked at the financial workbench with a clear eye in their youth, and figured out what tools than they had and how to use them, have done better overall than those who believed they had no control, or didn't think about it. Doesn't mean it was easy, doesn't mean they were bang-up successful in a big way, didn't mean some weren't set back by illness or other uncontrollables . . . but they were more successful than they would've been had they not taken responsibility, and used what few tools they had as best they could.
You're doing exactly those things when you keep trying, and end up figuring out what works, and moving down in skirt size.
To say that a message of responsibility and agency is empowering is not to say that people aren't working hard. It's to say that working hard is worthwhile.
In the same circumstances, people who focus on their own agency make better progress than people who focus on what's being done to them by others. Easy progress? No. To the most ultimate imaginable success? No. But more progress.
P.S. I don't understand where habits come from, if they don't flow from choices.
Absolutely. When I chose to focus on my weight, eating habits, and exercise. I have success. When I stop focusing on those things, I may or may not have success. It's more by happenstance, if I do, and the results are not the same.
Finances are exactly the same. When I make the choice to be purposeful with my money, I do much better. In fact, I started focusing on my finances in September of last year, and am financially in a much better position because of it. I can assure you, the last year has not been easy, but it was worth it.
I do, however, seem to have difficulties focusing on both at the same time. So it comes down to priorities. I can intensely focus on one or the other, or I can kind of focus on both. Regardless of which of these I chose, it is my choice.
Not everyone is going to have the same results. We can chose to do the best we can, or we can chose to blame others.2 -
10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions