This distinction is blurry. Which side do boycotts fall on?
Stingray
Karma: 227
I think that parenting skills are a good example of such situation
I have taken the survey.
Then living in a wilderness and cutting trees would be much better. Or some kinds of manual work where you can see the fruits of your labor, e.g. gardening. I believe that activities like these would be better suited for connecting mental and physical parts of a person.
Strongly disagree with 2) and 3). I think you mean them as a proxy for ‘become more social, make more connections, find ways to fit in a local culture’, but quality of connections usually matters more than quantity. But in many circles that are likely to matter for a typical LWer 3) is likely to be useless and likely benefits of 2) are achievable without drinking or with a very modest drinking.
Would this description pass an ideological Turing test?
Lee Sedol isn’t at the top of Go ratings. How would Ke Jie fare against AlphaGo? A match against the best human player would be a better test of AlphaGo capabilities.
External HDD
What kind of threats?
Happiness is not for appreciation of goodness of events, at least, that’s not what evolution intended it to be for. It’s for rewarding your actions to motivate you to do them as well as rewarding other people for their actions that are good for you. If neither you did anything to do it, neither you can pinpoint an actual person who did it and whose action you want to celebrate, it’s no surprise that you do not feel happiness about that thing.
What research are you refering to? Please cite it.
Are there any science fiction novels that take this approach?
You should also subscribe to this subreddit.
Another possibility: the first group of people have more free time than the latter and spending some free time together is quite important for building friendships.
I think that it is likely that pre-WWI drug usage levels survived during 1920s-1940s in certain subcultures, such as. jazz scene, who influenced beatniks, who, among others, were among those who formed the zeitgeist of 1960s and drug culture. Up until that point, postmodernists cannot be said to have any influence, because most works of philosophers most often associated with postmodernism (Baudrillard, Lyotard, Derrida)came only in late 1960s and 1970s. Many 1960s hippies became influential members of society, university professors, and I think that was what gradually pushed drugs into mainstream. Can we call them postmodernists? Well, some of them probably were, but was it a significant number? I’d say that people like Timothy Leary were much more important than Jacques Derrida
Edit: and I think that popularity of drugs among rockstars must have influenced young people as well.
Widespread popularity of drugs predates WWI, let alone postmodernism, which became popular (outside architecture) only after 1960s (mostly in 1970s).
Isn’t this backwards? Shouldn’t you first find a goal, and only then decide that this is something that you want to protect?
Most colonized places were net money-losers for the colonizer for most of their history
But then why did people keep conquering and colonizing new lands?
More importantly, there are a few “control-group” countries which were not colonized while their neighbors were, like Siam (modern Thailand) and Ethiopia, and they don’t seem better off than their neighbors.
There is also Japan, which was better off than its neighbors. In 1905 Japan was strong enough to win a war against Russia.
Search for adult swimming lessons. Everyone there will be as embarrassed as you are. Or try to find swimming lessons out of town, then you won’t accidentally meet people who know you.