@8nbVq8oVakvAp6SX's banner p

8nbVq8oVakvAp6SX


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 February 27 22:26:18 UTC

				

User ID: 2222

8nbVq8oVakvAp6SX


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 February 27 22:26:18 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2222

Others would say it matters. There are two main reasons why the Swiss have largely abandoned their vaunted neutrality over the last 25 years. The first is, of course, that the SEC, IRS and wider US government effectively threatened to destroy the Swiss banking sector if they didn’t kowtow to them. But the second, perhaps as significant, is that the Swiss started paying the price for their participation in various shadiness abroad. Huge corruption in politics (beyond what was previously considered standard), in public sector contracting, in banking, the growing influence of the Moroccan, Italian and Albanian mafias in Swiss politics and public life, things that ordinary Swiss had to pay for. The idea that one could deal with and bribe anyone abroad without concern for morality while maintaining a high-trust, low-corruption society at home was suddenly no longer as obvious as it had once been.

Sources for these claims?

Setting aside "murder is bad," extraterritorial assassination violates the sovereignty of the country in which the assassination takes place. (Khashoggi comes with an asterisk, in that matter, since it was in a KSA embassy, but still...)

Those two cases are obviously extreme. Perry writes a lot about a "neurodevelopmental sequence," lesser problems that arise from lesser interruptions of the sequence, and results from getting kids back on the sequence. I take it with a grain of salt, but he makes a strong enough case for me to keep it in the back of my mind as a "puzzle piece." If you can enjoy pop-science, when written by an actual expert, I'd recommend his books co-written with Maia Szalavitz, given the usual caveats for a group like this. He also wrote a book with Oprah Winfrey, which I have not read.

Child-Psychiatrist/childhood trauma specialist Bruce Perry makes a similar point about parents traumatizing their children out of ignorance, which - if I remember correctly, as I may have read this part elsewhere - he claims is an increasing problem, due to many people in nuclear families never having been responsible for children prior to having their own. Two examples: A low IQ (his description) housewife has a son while in a tight-nit extended family and receives lots of help caring for him as a baby/toddler, who grows up to be psychologically healthy. Her second son was born after her husband moves the family for work. Caring for a baby on her own is overwhelming and when feedings and diaper changes become hours apart, she leaves him at home while she goes out with her older son, her "little buddy," while the younger son is left to cry in a darkened room, with no interaction/care/bonding for most of the day. The second example is the son of a "power couple." They were only children (or at least the mother was) and, as soon as their son was old enough, the mother hired a full-time nanny, so she could resume her various out-of-the-house endeavors. But then she was hurt when her son bonded more with the full-time nanny than with her, so she fired the nanny... some double-digit number of times. The lack of bonding with a parental figure in the first example and the repeatedly sabotaged bonding in the second example resulted in the boys becoming psychopaths: The first raped and murdered two 13 year old girls and the second raped a mentally disabled girl as part of some prank I can't remember.

So, in what era would you say Sarno practiced? Could it be that Sarno was just another pseudoscientist AND that pseudoscience is sometimes helpful?

modern liberal values

Kantism is from the 18th century.

He's dead, so he's not doing anything, anymore. But he claimed psychosomatic myofascial pain was caused by the brain cutting circulation to muscles, according to your link, which is complete fiction.

makes some arrangement with South Korea where most of their semiconductors go to China

I'd like to think that the American forces stationed there would destroy the factories before leaving.

As someone who has personally dealt with chronic pain, I can tell you that this sort of psychosomatic technique works extremely well compared to other interventions. I’ve regained full function of my body, after having over five recommendations for surgery by practicing specialists.

What evidence is there that you're representative of the general patient population?

I understand why your perspective would be so against this idea, but imagine my perspective here. It’s extremely hard to be charitable to doctors on the chronic pain/fibro front when the evidence for their interventions is so bad and the field stubbornly refuses to look at alternatives to treatment.

What does "chronic pain/fibro" mean? Fibromyalgia is one of many conditions that can cause chronic pain. (And it's probably not psychosomatic - this hasn't yet been replicated, so far as I can find, but it's a pretty good experiment.)

Could it be that the problem with MetaMed was that it failed to outperform doctors on function, not just form? How many people are there with a medical problem whose solution is non-obvious to enough professionals that they turn to amateurs AND findable by the amateurs? Has anyone ever actually shown that MetaMed's product was worth its cost, or does Zvi just take it for granted?

The first is: Did we actually have that information? I would argue that we did, and believe we very much did right by those who hired us in terms of getting them the information they needed and/or requested, but of course I am biased, and we will never know for sure.

WHERE does he argue that they did have that information? Not in THAT blogpost.

Edit: The MetaMed website is archived and it's a pretty bad value proposition for practically everyone.

To the "Holocaust Revisionists," how are you using the term? Can you specify what you are seeking to revise, how, and why?

  • -33

How should we differentiate religious and non-religious shared beliefs in the supernatural, when discussing them?

I'm a different commenter, but unless you know a good way of differentiating shared beliefs in the supernatural from folie à plusieurs, the comment seems reasonable to me.

Have you forgotten the Greendale Human Being?

And of course perhaps what's most glaringly obvious is the subjects she DOESN'T care about: there's barely a mention of race (except for once suggesting they include an Asian member for more diversity!), she famously cares more about animal cruelty than racism, and not only does she never dip her toe into anything resembling bisexuality or gender experimentation, she's even portrayed as mildly homophobic. Until the last episode there's nary a mention of transgender people except for the transfer dance being referred to as the "tranny dance" in season 1 (in 2009, any idea of transgender people being anything other than a punchline was not even dawning in the minds of progressive Hollywood writers).

I think the conceit of that gag was the arbitrariness of her priorities.

Also, Britta wasn't the only annoying liberal progressive on campus, there was also the dean.

Well, we DID have a proper crisis, it just didn't have the effect you want.

How confident are you that your experience applies to the general population and why?

2.5.2. Usual care (control)

Participants randomized to the usual care arm continued their prescribed treatment regimens under guidance of their physicians and without influence from the study team.

The way the study was designed, perhaps the usual care underperformed usual care+placebo. Also, the exclusion criteria included "had diagnosed organic disease as cause of pain."

Well, why did you list chronic pain as a possible culture bound illness?

Does it succeed? If so, what is meaning?

John Vervaeke’s take on shamanism

In what episode does he explain what meaning is? He writes (1,300 words in...):

Now we're going to have to talk about "what does that 'meaning' mean?".

But never answers the question, despite writing another 6,500 words.