shoot celebratory gunfire straight up amidst large crowds of people,...
and there are cultures that do not.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Wisdom and Regret
are they the intellectual/emotional equivalent of spacetime?
ie, when viewed from the right perspective, do they merge into a single concept?
not necessarily, i guess.
oh to be the wise man whose wisdom comes not from regret.
ie, when viewed from the right perspective, do they merge into a single concept?
not necessarily, i guess.
oh to be the wise man whose wisdom comes not from regret.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Conceptual Difficulties
As a high school football player, prior to taking Physics but aware of the concept of F = ma, I was convinced that I could maximize the force impacted upon an opponent (whether while tackling the ball carrier or being the ball carrier and breaking a tackle) by accelerating just prior to contact.
The person I mentioned this to, having already taken Physics, paused for a moment and, with what can only be described as an intentionally blank look on his face, replied, "... it doesn't really work that way."
I was convinced that he was wrong and I was correct. After all, F = ma, and my mass is staying constant, so if I accelerate, the force will naturally be greater. This, it appeared, was a simple scientific/mathematical truth and any confusion one may have would be due to their own limitations.
I now view the conceptual difficulty as similar to the one posed by the question, "If the forces are equal and opposite, why does anything happen at all? Why don't they just cancel each other out?"
The person I mentioned this to, having already taken Physics, paused for a moment and, with what can only be described as an intentionally blank look on his face, replied, "... it doesn't really work that way."
I was convinced that he was wrong and I was correct. After all, F = ma, and my mass is staying constant, so if I accelerate, the force will naturally be greater. This, it appeared, was a simple scientific/mathematical truth and any confusion one may have would be due to their own limitations.
I now view the conceptual difficulty as similar to the one posed by the question, "If the forces are equal and opposite, why does anything happen at all? Why don't they just cancel each other out?"
SEP IS AN INDIAN TRIBE
AND RATE IS THE OTHER TRIBE
AND THERE'S A TEEPEE BETWEEN THEM!!!!!!
SEP 'A' RATE
man was i resistant to that one.
me, "umm, no. it's an 'e' between them."
she, "look it up"
me, "ok."
me (a short time later), "dayum. (but perhaps this dictionary is out of date or wrongz)"
now onto the question of "a indian tribe" vs. "an indian tribe".
a tribe
an indian
a/an indian tribe.
because it's a tribe, the answer appears to be a indian tribe.
ironically, if i hear someone say it that way, i will assume lesser intelligence.
it turns out, my petty, judgmental bias favored the "correct determination".
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/article-when-there-is-an-adjective-before-a-noun
i don't know where i got it in my head that the article is always determined by the noun. i think i've seen it written that way. the web says otherwise; that it's the next word that matters so that's that. as for that semi-colon? don't know now and never will. who cares, really? i don't because i can't master it. otherwise i would probably view it as indicative of intelligencez.
AND THERE'S A TEEPEE BETWEEN THEM!!!!!!
SEP 'A' RATE
man was i resistant to that one.
me, "umm, no. it's an 'e' between them."
she, "look it up"
me, "ok."
me (a short time later), "dayum. (but perhaps this dictionary is out of date or wrongz)"
now onto the question of "a indian tribe" vs. "an indian tribe".
a tribe
an indian
a/an indian tribe.
because it's a tribe, the answer appears to be a indian tribe.
ironically, if i hear someone say it that way, i will assume lesser intelligence.
it turns out, my petty, judgmental bias favored the "correct determination".
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/article-when-there-is-an-adjective-before-a-noun
i don't know where i got it in my head that the article is always determined by the noun. i think i've seen it written that way. the web says otherwise; that it's the next word that matters so that's that. as for that semi-colon? don't know now and never will. who cares, really? i don't because i can't master it. otherwise i would probably view it as indicative of intelligencez.
Continuing the discussion
this post was nearly perfect,
http://diddymac.blogspot.com/2014/02/farmers-economic-almanac.html
and would have been proven so, but the circumstances changed in the meantime, and others acted in ways, potentially even "spiteful, punishing" ways, to make the post appear incorrect.
therefore, the post has been proven correct, and i, its creator, prescient. meanwhile, i think i see a double inverted head and shoulders pattern developing which indicates strong upward momentumz.
http://diddymac.blogspot.com/2014/02/farmers-economic-almanac.html
and would have been proven so, but the circumstances changed in the meantime, and others acted in ways, potentially even "spiteful, punishing" ways, to make the post appear incorrect.
therefore, the post has been proven correct, and i, its creator, prescient. meanwhile, i think i see a double inverted head and shoulders pattern developing which indicates strong upward momentumz.
Hazing and Cognitive Dissonance
eeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhh......
this is a stretch. in order to use this as an example of cognitive dissonance in the sense described (i value the group more after being hazed and humiliated because of cognitive dissonance - ie. i am increasing the value of the accomplishment to make the investment seem worthwhile) you have to deal with all the expectations, real or otherwise, that exist about the group.
first - is it still likely that i will get laid more often by being a member of this group?
well, the hazing didn't necessarily change that. i probably thought that was the case before, which is why i pledged and put up with the hazing as it was happening. so the group membership was valued highly before, and is still valued highly. if, instead, it is disproven that i will get laid more often, and if, in fact, the other group that got simply a mint for their pledge, and where everyone who pledged was accepted, got laid more often, i think i'll (rather quickly) conclude that membership in my fraternity was absolutely NOT worth the investment, and will resent myself and other members for the experience.
this seems logical, and calling it dissonance seems wrong.
but assuming that i do in fact get laid more often...
the difference might be that the hazing makes the membership feel more valuable because i was able to withstand something that others were not. some other pledges may have run away. this makes me "better" than them. therefore i have simply gained pride by surviving an ordeal that others could not. i have paid my dues. this makes the membership more "valuable" in the tangible sense that i know others can not/would not survive the initiation process.
what's the difference here between the sense one gets from working hard in academia (or any other discipline) in general?
i think probably nothing.
there will always be people who don't have to work hard but inherit lots of money and perhaps make lots of money easily from that inherited money. does that mean that it's "cognitive dissonance" at work for me to feel pride in working hard at my job and accomplishing the tasks put before me in trade for a payment i choose to accept, even if that payment is relatively miniscule compared to that received by the lazy legacy admittant with the trust fund?
(free therapy being less effective than paid therapy - you're probably ACTUALLY making the therapy more effective by paying. this again is not necessarily cognitive dissonance. it's behaviorally interesting, but fairly easily explainable by the fact that if anything is free, you know you can get it again with minimal investment later, so the importance of utilizing it immediately is lessened)
regardless of the apparent incontrovertibility of the concept (e.g. if i do get into the group, i will be more likely to CALCULATE that i am getting laid more often than others outside the group, and more than I would have outside of the group, as a result of that membership), the examples provided are lacking.
(interesting discussion towards the end regarding the overestimation of the importance of "the person" rather than "the context", especially after the previous discussion regarding evolutionary psychology and the overriding importance of genetics in determining personality and behavior, rather than the social factors at play. perhaps not a very deeply interesting comparison)
http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/psyc-110/lecture-16
this is a stretch. in order to use this as an example of cognitive dissonance in the sense described (i value the group more after being hazed and humiliated because of cognitive dissonance - ie. i am increasing the value of the accomplishment to make the investment seem worthwhile) you have to deal with all the expectations, real or otherwise, that exist about the group.
first - is it still likely that i will get laid more often by being a member of this group?
well, the hazing didn't necessarily change that. i probably thought that was the case before, which is why i pledged and put up with the hazing as it was happening. so the group membership was valued highly before, and is still valued highly. if, instead, it is disproven that i will get laid more often, and if, in fact, the other group that got simply a mint for their pledge, and where everyone who pledged was accepted, got laid more often, i think i'll (rather quickly) conclude that membership in my fraternity was absolutely NOT worth the investment, and will resent myself and other members for the experience.
this seems logical, and calling it dissonance seems wrong.
but assuming that i do in fact get laid more often...
the difference might be that the hazing makes the membership feel more valuable because i was able to withstand something that others were not. some other pledges may have run away. this makes me "better" than them. therefore i have simply gained pride by surviving an ordeal that others could not. i have paid my dues. this makes the membership more "valuable" in the tangible sense that i know others can not/would not survive the initiation process.
what's the difference here between the sense one gets from working hard in academia (or any other discipline) in general?
i think probably nothing.
there will always be people who don't have to work hard but inherit lots of money and perhaps make lots of money easily from that inherited money. does that mean that it's "cognitive dissonance" at work for me to feel pride in working hard at my job and accomplishing the tasks put before me in trade for a payment i choose to accept, even if that payment is relatively miniscule compared to that received by the lazy legacy admittant with the trust fund?
(free therapy being less effective than paid therapy - you're probably ACTUALLY making the therapy more effective by paying. this again is not necessarily cognitive dissonance. it's behaviorally interesting, but fairly easily explainable by the fact that if anything is free, you know you can get it again with minimal investment later, so the importance of utilizing it immediately is lessened)
regardless of the apparent incontrovertibility of the concept (e.g. if i do get into the group, i will be more likely to CALCULATE that i am getting laid more often than others outside the group, and more than I would have outside of the group, as a result of that membership), the examples provided are lacking.
(interesting discussion towards the end regarding the overestimation of the importance of "the person" rather than "the context", especially after the previous discussion regarding evolutionary psychology and the overriding importance of genetics in determining personality and behavior, rather than the social factors at play. perhaps not a very deeply interesting comparison)
http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/psyc-110/lecture-16
Evolution is about niche-filling
Psychologists don't incorporate this idea often enough, imo.
To significant degree, we become who we become because nobody else in our immediate surroundings is currently filling that niche.
To significant degree, we become who we become because nobody else in our immediate surroundings is currently filling that niche.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Surveys of desired numbers of sexual partners
Using such a survey as indicative of evolutionary biological differences (between males and females) could only be viewed as legitimate if it can be proven to be consistent across vastly different social groups.
Do strictly religious individuals respond the same way? If not, then the answers would be more an indication of social factors, which, if I'm not mistaken, is kind of the opposite of the point attempting to be proved.
Guys know that they are supposed to want lots of chicks,... at least partly because they have been given social pressure indicating that this is the correct choice.
So are we saying that the social factors evolve, and the impact on the individual is based on social pressure? Thereby essentially still falling under an evolutionary umbrella? Or are we really saying that these preferences are inherent and have genetic bases?
Do strictly religious individuals respond the same way? If not, then the answers would be more an indication of social factors, which, if I'm not mistaken, is kind of the opposite of the point attempting to be proved.
Guys know that they are supposed to want lots of chicks,... at least partly because they have been given social pressure indicating that this is the correct choice.
So are we saying that the social factors evolve, and the impact on the individual is based on social pressure? Thereby essentially still falling under an evolutionary umbrella? Or are we really saying that these preferences are inherent and have genetic bases?
What's more political than politics?
To what degree should the answer to that question determine your expectations, actions, and moral compass when engaging in the practice?
What are some boundary conditions of this calculation?
For purposes of the discussion, we can either assume or not assume strict protection of individual rights without exception (ie. we should not, necessarily, use pre-existing moral or legal boundaries).
We could begin to incorporate a sliding scale of the importance of individual rights based on a moral judgment of "fairness" (certainly, our experience would indicate this to be the eventual conclusion, whether that is a purely political result or not, and whether or not that distinction would matter).
I assume the discussion would vibrate back and forth (potentially around a varying or sliding center point) between "it violated that person's rights and therefore should not be tolerated" and "the violation of that person's rights is justified by the benefit that can be provided to another individual who, through either his/her own fault or factors outside his/her's control, did not receive the same/an acceptable degree of opportunity/result as the person whose rights are to be infringed upon.
So, should Robin Hoods be prosecuted or not?
Should governments engage in redistribution? If so, should it be done as blindly as possible (with all the potential unintended consequences) with rules as well-defined and fixed as possible? Or should it be done in as undefined a manner as possible?
Which is likely to lead to the greater number of unintended consequences and/or corruption?
It's quite possible that the entire intellectual exercise is a waste of time. I don't know if there would be broader implications of such a determination.
What are your questions?
Q. Is this going to be on the exam?
A. How should I know? I don't even work for this institution. Security will now escort me out. Have a great rest of your lives!
What are some boundary conditions of this calculation?
For purposes of the discussion, we can either assume or not assume strict protection of individual rights without exception (ie. we should not, necessarily, use pre-existing moral or legal boundaries).
We could begin to incorporate a sliding scale of the importance of individual rights based on a moral judgment of "fairness" (certainly, our experience would indicate this to be the eventual conclusion, whether that is a purely political result or not, and whether or not that distinction would matter).
I assume the discussion would vibrate back and forth (potentially around a varying or sliding center point) between "it violated that person's rights and therefore should not be tolerated" and "the violation of that person's rights is justified by the benefit that can be provided to another individual who, through either his/her own fault or factors outside his/her's control, did not receive the same/an acceptable degree of opportunity/result as the person whose rights are to be infringed upon.
So, should Robin Hoods be prosecuted or not?
Should governments engage in redistribution? If so, should it be done as blindly as possible (with all the potential unintended consequences) with rules as well-defined and fixed as possible? Or should it be done in as undefined a manner as possible?
Which is likely to lead to the greater number of unintended consequences and/or corruption?
It's quite possible that the entire intellectual exercise is a waste of time. I don't know if there would be broader implications of such a determination.
What are your questions?
Q. Is this going to be on the exam?
A. How should I know? I don't even work for this institution. Security will now escort me out. Have a great rest of your lives!
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Online IQ/EQ/Superhero Tests
While the test results themselves may be unreliable, non-predictive nonsense, the degree to which an individual values the importance of the results may be useful and predictive.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Dissonant Chords
I'm astonished by the vitriolic responses of both Woody Allen himself and those rushing to defend him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?src=me
In certain instances, such an emotional response (meaning my own astonishment) to widespread behavior by large numbers of people indicates a flawed set of assumptions by myself regarding the circumstances involved, and is reason for re-evaluation. In other cases the dissonance is the inevitable result of aligning oneself with the truth even when it proves to be unpopular, along with (potentially) a flawed set of assumptions regarding the motivations and/or capabilities of others drawing the diametrically opposed conclusions.
As of this point I am assuming this is an example of the latter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?src=me
In certain instances, such an emotional response (meaning my own astonishment) to widespread behavior by large numbers of people indicates a flawed set of assumptions by myself regarding the circumstances involved, and is reason for re-evaluation. In other cases the dissonance is the inevitable result of aligning oneself with the truth even when it proves to be unpopular, along with (potentially) a flawed set of assumptions regarding the motivations and/or capabilities of others drawing the diametrically opposed conclusions.
As of this point I am assuming this is an example of the latter.
Punishing Cheaters and Rationality
The underlying question is one of rationality.
Do human beings act rationally?
It has been posited that the following reproducible behavior demonstrates irrational/spiteful behavior.
There are two individuals who can stand to gain from a situation. There is an amount of money ($10) available to be distributed between the two individuals. One participant can determine the breakdown of the money to be distributed. For simplicity we will say that he can decide on a split anywhere from 90/10 (the most greedy option) to 10/90 (the least greedy option). If the other person accepts the deal, the money is distributed as agreed upon. But if the other person refuses the deal, neither party receives anything.
It can be assumed that when the offer is deemed "fair" or even "generous" (50%, or 90%, for example) the recipient will accept. But it can be shown that when the offer is deemed unfair, the recipient will often reject the deal, even though it serves as a punishment to both sides. ie. the recipient gives up his/her potential share in order to punish the one making the offer.
This has been characterized as "irrational spite".
I would fundamentally disagree, and would instead argue that this is exactly evidence of the larger point that was being made in the overall discussion - that being the instinctual, rational tendency of certain species to punish cheaters. I assume it would be accepted that the act was a form of "punishment for a cheater". The question is simply one of rationality.
Looked at under the microscope of the single interaction, it can appear as an irrational, spiteful behavior. But looked at from a broader scope, it appears entirely instinctually rational.
Initially we should examine the potential recipient's context for judging the value of the offer. The amount of money involved is weighed against the importance of punishing the cheater. To put it simply, if the person really needs that one dollar, he almost certainly will take the deal. Whereas if the amount of money is of relatively minimal importance to the potential recipient, the benefit of punishing a cheater, and thereby potentially changing the behavior in the future, is of greater potential long-term benefit than the immediate benefit of accepting the unfair offer and encouraging the cheating behavior.
ie. the offer will be rejected by those who can afford to make the moral stand. Is there anything more rational than that?
To make the point further, one would simply use larger dollar amounts. As the dollar amount increases, the potential relative benefit of taking the moral stand over accepting the offer reduces. Assume $100,000.00 and a 10/90 split. $10,000 will be accepted by far more people, than $1 out of $10. As the dollar amount increases, so too will the percentage. There is almost no benefit to refusing the offer at dollar values that represent significant, life-altering amounts.
Perhaps most importantly, there are a variety of other ways to potentially punish the cheater in the future, especially if the dollar amount received affords greater personal freedom of action.
And the likelihood of the act of "punishing the cheater" ever resulting in a larger potential offer in the future tends to zero as the nominal amount of the unfair offer increases. In that sense, even among those for whom the dollar amount is of minimal importance, who can afford to take the "spiteful" moral stand to punish the cheater, if they eventually come to decide that the behavior will not change, and there will be never be a larger/more fair offer (ie. there is no longer-term benefit to be had), those people, too, would eventually come to accept the unfair deal, while stuffing away the feelings of being slighted (and the accompanying desire to punish) for another day and situation.
To summarize:
we do like to punish cheaters, and this is rational
we will engage in actions that cause short-term discomfort (for lack of a better term) in order to engage in that punishment (in fact, this is no different from any other action taken for a payment. the only difference is assuredness of benefit/payment and time frame)
when we are offered an unfair offer that could potentially significantly improve our situation, we will accept that offer even if it remains unfair to the same relative degree
so we decide the worthiness of certain moral stands based on potential costs involved.
I find this behavior a rather straightforward example of the sort of behaviors that would normally be categorized as entirely rational when viewed through the appropriate lens.
Any questions?...........................
err.....
What are your questions?.......
Q. What the holy hell are you talking about?
A. http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/psyc-110/lecture-12
Q. Really? You made an entire post about what is essentially a semantic difference?
A. Perhaps... which of course implies "perhaps not". Also I don't really appreciate the tone of your questions. Thank you for them nonetheless.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Farmer's Economic Almanac
Date: direction amount, reason, direction correct, amount percentage
2/6/2014: up 52, "green shoots in emerging markets", Yes, 1/4
2/7/2014: down 20, "traders are concerned about tapering"
2/10/2014: down 30, "concerned about growth, tech flat"
2/6/2014: up 52, "green shoots in emerging markets", Yes, 1/4
2/7/2014: down 20, "traders are concerned about tapering"
2/10/2014: down 30, "concerned about growth, tech flat"
2/11/2014: up 71, "job market looks good"
2/12/2014: down 117, "global economic growth slowed, emerging markets still unstable, manuf. slowing"
2/13/2014: up 60, "sense of calm, that things aren't that bad, tech good"
2/14/2014: down 122, "upset with central banks"
2/17/2014: up 250, "confidence in Asia"
2/19/2014: up 12, "stable job growth"
2/20/2014: down 94, "uncertainty in Asia"
2/21/2014: down 150, "consumer confidence dropped"
2/24/2014: up 117, "manufacturing increasing"
2/25/2014: down 20, "terrorism fears"
2/26/2014: down 30, "no terrorism, but no big news"
2/27/2014: up 171, "numbers expected to be good"
2/28/2014: down 220, "numbers were not good. worried about tapering"
2/12/2014: down 117, "global economic growth slowed, emerging markets still unstable, manuf. slowing"
2/13/2014: up 60, "sense of calm, that things aren't that bad, tech good"
2/14/2014: down 122, "upset with central banks"
2/17/2014: up 250, "confidence in Asia"
2/19/2014: up 12, "stable job growth"
2/20/2014: down 94, "uncertainty in Asia"
2/21/2014: down 150, "consumer confidence dropped"
2/24/2014: up 117, "manufacturing increasing"
2/25/2014: down 20, "terrorism fears"
2/26/2014: down 30, "no terrorism, but no big news"
2/27/2014: up 171, "numbers expected to be good"
2/28/2014: down 220, "numbers were not good. worried about tapering"
How To Reduce Healthcare Costs
How to reduce healthcare costs, lower childhood obesity rates and improve overall health
1. "Force" kids to brush their teeth after every meal
In order to incent those who may not be interested, institute an extra 5 minute window in which they are allowed to brush while the non-brushers have to return to class. If this isn't enough time, you take away 5 minutes of their "free time" during the eating break and then add the additional 5 minutes to the eating/brushing window. So, for example, if you normally have a 30 minute lunch, the brushers get 25 minutes of free eating time, then 10 minutes to brush, for a total of 35 minutes. The non-brushers have 30 minutes of free time, with no extra brush time, for a total of 30 minutes.
What are your questions?
Q. Why are so many kids overweight?
A. Because they don't brush their teeth after every meal.
Q. How does this work?
A. First, it reduces the cravings because there's a small "cost" added to the activity. It's a form of negative reinforcement, or, if you like, negative positive reinforcement, since we're not taking something away (which is sometimes the definition of negative reinforcement), but what we're adding is a "negative" aspect. This makes the activity less desirable, which will naturally result in a reduction of frequency/degree.
Q. How else does the practice of brushing help curb appetite?
A. It removes the taste from the mouth. Part of the reason we fixate on food in between meals is because we can still taste some of it. It's a constant reminder. A clean mouth removes that source of fixation, thereby reducing the craving, which naturally leads to a more reasonable appetite. There is also a natural tendency to drink more water instead of sugary drinks, both because of the "potential cost" involved with the sugary drink, as well as the effect that a clean mouth will have on taste buds. When your taste buds are already being excited by leftover sweet tastes, water isn't as attractive. It just can't compete.
All of these factors tend to be self-reinforcing, and as such offer great promise for long-term results.
Q. How else does the practice of brushing help overall health?
A. Well, obviously the reduction in eating and associated obesity rates will be the most immediate benefit, but one can reasonably assume a corresponding increase in "healthy activities". When you feel healthier in your mouth, or when you feel cleaner in just about any other way, you tend to want to be more active. This hypothesis would have to be tested, of course, but it is assumed for current purposes.
Also, by forcing young people to accept this process as part of their daily routine, they are much more likely to engage in the practice as they get older, with all the direct and indirect benefits that can be assumed. Not to mention the obvious improvement and dental hygiene and health, whether or not we regard the concept of "focal sepsis" as having any merit, or view the removing of teeth as a cure for mental illness.
Thanks for coming and thanks for your questions. Have a great day and remember to brush!
1. "Force" kids to brush their teeth after every meal
In order to incent those who may not be interested, institute an extra 5 minute window in which they are allowed to brush while the non-brushers have to return to class. If this isn't enough time, you take away 5 minutes of their "free time" during the eating break and then add the additional 5 minutes to the eating/brushing window. So, for example, if you normally have a 30 minute lunch, the brushers get 25 minutes of free eating time, then 10 minutes to brush, for a total of 35 minutes. The non-brushers have 30 minutes of free time, with no extra brush time, for a total of 30 minutes.
What are your questions?
Q. Why are so many kids overweight?
A. Because they don't brush their teeth after every meal.
Q. How does this work?
A. First, it reduces the cravings because there's a small "cost" added to the activity. It's a form of negative reinforcement, or, if you like, negative positive reinforcement, since we're not taking something away (which is sometimes the definition of negative reinforcement), but what we're adding is a "negative" aspect. This makes the activity less desirable, which will naturally result in a reduction of frequency/degree.
Q. How else does the practice of brushing help curb appetite?
A. It removes the taste from the mouth. Part of the reason we fixate on food in between meals is because we can still taste some of it. It's a constant reminder. A clean mouth removes that source of fixation, thereby reducing the craving, which naturally leads to a more reasonable appetite. There is also a natural tendency to drink more water instead of sugary drinks, both because of the "potential cost" involved with the sugary drink, as well as the effect that a clean mouth will have on taste buds. When your taste buds are already being excited by leftover sweet tastes, water isn't as attractive. It just can't compete.
All of these factors tend to be self-reinforcing, and as such offer great promise for long-term results.
Q. How else does the practice of brushing help overall health?
A. Well, obviously the reduction in eating and associated obesity rates will be the most immediate benefit, but one can reasonably assume a corresponding increase in "healthy activities". When you feel healthier in your mouth, or when you feel cleaner in just about any other way, you tend to want to be more active. This hypothesis would have to be tested, of course, but it is assumed for current purposes.
Also, by forcing young people to accept this process as part of their daily routine, they are much more likely to engage in the practice as they get older, with all the direct and indirect benefits that can be assumed. Not to mention the obvious improvement and dental hygiene and health, whether or not we regard the concept of "focal sepsis" as having any merit, or view the removing of teeth as a cure for mental illness.
Thanks for coming and thanks for your questions. Have a great day and remember to brush!
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)