Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 6, 2010 at 3:43 PM in reply to: File under Bizarre: “Housing Markets that Will Be Strongest by 2014” #588323August 6, 2010 at 3:43 PM in reply to: File under Bizarre: “Housing Markets that Will Be Strongest by 2014” #588630
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=davelj]These appreciation forecasts are utterly bizarre. I would divide them by 4 and be glad they hit those marks (and, yes, I realize they’re cumulative).
http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/housing-markets-that-will-be-strongest-by-2014%5B/quote%5D
Not just bizarre, but utterly useless. How are people going to afford to pay the mortgage on a house in an area that has no jobs?
Do media outlets like Yahoo actually pay people for this stuff?
Participant[quote=jpinpb]LOL. eavesdropper – Thanks for that very lengthy explanation. If there isn’t a connection between food and chemical reaction in one’s body, then I am at a loss to explain his happiness. But as I was reading your first post, I was thinking maybe the chocolate had something to do w/it. Then you posted the second post about chocolate. [/quote]
Sorry for the length, jp, but that’s what I get for not checking in on Piggs on a regular basis. When you get into a thread involving discussion of brain chemistry that’s been going on a while, it’s tough to know where to start.
There absolutely is a mind-body connection. Scientists are learning more about it every day and, more important, their curiosity about it keeps growing and fuels some incredible research.
However, the basics of biological function at the cellular level provide the underlying structure for homeostasis, the maintenance of the body’s internal equilibrium. With the advances in biochemistry over the past 40 years, particularly in that of the brain, and the concomitant development and marketing of neurosychological medications, it can be difficult to remember that the human body is an amazing machine. The design boggles the minds of the world’s leading physicians and scientists from a multitude of disciplines, and it is capable of a number and variety of functions that make the most intricately programmed computer look like a 10-key adding machine. Every step of each and every function of the body is a result of a nerve impulse, and requires neurotransmitters like serotonin. So before we mess with the brain’s chemistry, we need to know what we’re doing. Fortunately, the human body, despite its very function-specific design, has the ability to maintain homeostasis not only at a specific point, but across a wide range of values, and very often, can compensate for losses, shortages, and surpluses. However, health care practitioners will tell you that, every day, they see patients who have “improved” their bodies to unhealthy, and sometimes life-threatening, levels via natural methods. After all, what can be the harm in increasing levels of a substance, already existing in the human body, that is known to play a beneficial role in the health of the mind?
[quote=jpinpb] But as I was reading your first post, I was thinking maybe the chocolate had something to do w/it. Then you posted the second post about chocolate. [/quote]
The odds are very good that the chocolate could have played a part in your husband’s “happy” reaction to the cake, roles that may be based on both physical and emotional triggers. Unfortunately, I still don’t have the time to go into it, but will try to provide you with some interesting and instructive material on the subject. In the meantime, beware of what you find on the Internet, and take everything with a grain of salt (the low-sodium variety, if that’s a problem).
[quote=jpinpb] There must be something that happens from the time your taste buds get the flavor of certain foods that triggers something in the brain. Your explanation was detailed, yet I still think there’s more to it other than people just willfully and knowingly eating badly or lacking will-power.
[/quote]Again, you are spot-on in your assumptions, but the research is very lengthy, and is incomplete. But it is fascinating, and there are many very good sources of information out there that detail some of the research that’s been going on in the last several years. The choices of what to eat, and the resulting effects, come from physical and emotional impulses, and can vary depending on cultural (thank you, Brian!), genetic, environmental, age, and other factors.
As mentioned, the research is far from complete, and the value of much of what is out there is in what research can be built upon it. But you have a natural curosity and, I suspect, the intellect to go with it, and I think you could really get into some of the available material.
[quote=jpinpb] Certain foods seem much more satisfying than others that are lacking nutrients. Probably more nutrients in an apple than chocolate cake.[/quote]
Depends what you mean by “satisfying” and it depends upon what you mean by “nutrients”. I firmly believe that there are times in a person’s life when a large piece of sinfully rich and delicious chocolate cake will provide them with much more important nutrition than the apple will. Those occasions are rare, but they do occur, and I think that it is important to recognize and respond to them as part of a well-rounded health regimen.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]LOL. eavesdropper – Thanks for that very lengthy explanation. If there isn’t a connection between food and chemical reaction in one’s body, then I am at a loss to explain his happiness. But as I was reading your first post, I was thinking maybe the chocolate had something to do w/it. Then you posted the second post about chocolate. [/quote]
Sorry for the length, jp, but that’s what I get for not checking in on Piggs on a regular basis. When you get into a thread involving discussion of brain chemistry that’s been going on a while, it’s tough to know where to start.
There absolutely is a mind-body connection. Scientists are learning more about it every day and, more important, their curiosity about it keeps growing and fuels some incredible research.
However, the basics of biological function at the cellular level provide the underlying structure for homeostasis, the maintenance of the body’s internal equilibrium. With the advances in biochemistry over the past 40 years, particularly in that of the brain, and the concomitant development and marketing of neurosychological medications, it can be difficult to remember that the human body is an amazing machine. The design boggles the minds of the world’s leading physicians and scientists from a multitude of disciplines, and it is capable of a number and variety of functions that make the most intricately programmed computer look like a 10-key adding machine. Every step of each and every function of the body is a result of a nerve impulse, and requires neurotransmitters like serotonin. So before we mess with the brain’s chemistry, we need to know what we’re doing. Fortunately, the human body, despite its very function-specific design, has the ability to maintain homeostasis not only at a specific point, but across a wide range of values, and very often, can compensate for losses, shortages, and surpluses. However, health care practitioners will tell you that, every day, they see patients who have “improved” their bodies to unhealthy, and sometimes life-threatening, levels via natural methods. After all, what can be the harm in increasing levels of a substance, already existing in the human body, that is known to play a beneficial role in the health of the mind?
[quote=jpinpb] But as I was reading your first post, I was thinking maybe the chocolate had something to do w/it. Then you posted the second post about chocolate. [/quote]
The odds are very good that the chocolate could have played a part in your husband’s “happy” reaction to the cake, roles that may be based on both physical and emotional triggers. Unfortunately, I still don’t have the time to go into it, but will try to provide you with some interesting and instructive material on the subject. In the meantime, beware of what you find on the Internet, and take everything with a grain of salt (the low-sodium variety, if that’s a problem).
[quote=jpinpb] There must be something that happens from the time your taste buds get the flavor of certain foods that triggers something in the brain. Your explanation was detailed, yet I still think there’s more to it other than people just willfully and knowingly eating badly or lacking will-power.
[/quote]Again, you are spot-on in your assumptions, but the research is very lengthy, and is incomplete. But it is fascinating, and there are many very good sources of information out there that detail some of the research that’s been going on in the last several years. The choices of what to eat, and the resulting effects, come from physical and emotional impulses, and can vary depending on cultural (thank you, Brian!), genetic, environmental, age, and other factors.
As mentioned, the research is far from complete, and the value of much of what is out there is in what research can be built upon it. But you have a natural curosity and, I suspect, the intellect to go with it, and I think you could really get into some of the available material.
[quote=jpinpb] Certain foods seem much more satisfying than others that are lacking nutrients. Probably more nutrients in an apple than chocolate cake.[/quote]
Depends what you mean by “satisfying” and it depends upon what you mean by “nutrients”. I firmly believe that there are times in a person’s life when a large piece of sinfully rich and delicious chocolate cake will provide them with much more important nutrition than the apple will. Those occasions are rare, but they do occur, and I think that it is important to recognize and respond to them as part of a well-rounded health regimen.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]LOL. eavesdropper – Thanks for that very lengthy explanation. If there isn’t a connection between food and chemical reaction in one’s body, then I am at a loss to explain his happiness. But as I was reading your first post, I was thinking maybe the chocolate had something to do w/it. Then you posted the second post about chocolate. [/quote]
Sorry for the length, jp, but that’s what I get for not checking in on Piggs on a regular basis. When you get into a thread involving discussion of brain chemistry that’s been going on a while, it’s tough to know where to start.
There absolutely is a mind-body connection. Scientists are learning more about it every day and, more important, their curiosity about it keeps growing and fuels some incredible research.
However, the basics of biological function at the cellular level provide the underlying structure for homeostasis, the maintenance of the body’s internal equilibrium. With the advances in biochemistry over the past 40 years, particularly in that of the brain, and the concomitant development and marketing of neurosychological medications, it can be difficult to remember that the human body is an amazing machine. The design boggles the minds of the world’s leading physicians and scientists from a multitude of disciplines, and it is capable of a number and variety of functions that make the most intricately programmed computer look like a 10-key adding machine. Every step of each and every function of the body is a result of a nerve impulse, and requires neurotransmitters like serotonin. So before we mess with the brain’s chemistry, we need to know what we’re doing. Fortunately, the human body, despite its very function-specific design, has the ability to maintain homeostasis not only at a specific point, but across a wide range of values, and very often, can compensate for losses, shortages, and surpluses. However, health care practitioners will tell you that, every day, they see patients who have “improved” their bodies to unhealthy, and sometimes life-threatening, levels via natural methods. After all, what can be the harm in increasing levels of a substance, already existing in the human body, that is known to play a beneficial role in the health of the mind?
[quote=jpinpb] But as I was reading your first post, I was thinking maybe the chocolate had something to do w/it. Then you posted the second post about chocolate. [/quote]
The odds are very good that the chocolate could have played a part in your husband’s “happy” reaction to the cake, roles that may be based on both physical and emotional triggers. Unfortunately, I still don’t have the time to go into it, but will try to provide you with some interesting and instructive material on the subject. In the meantime, beware of what you find on the Internet, and take everything with a grain of salt (the low-sodium variety, if that’s a problem).
[quote=jpinpb] There must be something that happens from the time your taste buds get the flavor of certain foods that triggers something in the brain. Your explanation was detailed, yet I still think there’s more to it other than people just willfully and knowingly eating badly or lacking will-power.
[/quote]Again, you are spot-on in your assumptions, but the research is very lengthy, and is incomplete. But it is fascinating, and there are many very good sources of information out there that detail some of the research that’s been going on in the last several years. The choices of what to eat, and the resulting effects, come from physical and emotional impulses, and can vary depending on cultural (thank you, Brian!), genetic, environmental, age, and other factors.
As mentioned, the research is far from complete, and the value of much of what is out there is in what research can be built upon it. But you have a natural curosity and, I suspect, the intellect to go with it, and I think you could really get into some of the available material.
[quote=jpinpb] Certain foods seem much more satisfying than others that are lacking nutrients. Probably more nutrients in an apple than chocolate cake.[/quote]
Depends what you mean by “satisfying” and it depends upon what you mean by “nutrients”. I firmly believe that there are times in a person’s life when a large piece of sinfully rich and delicious chocolate cake will provide them with much more important nutrition than the apple will. Those occasions are rare, but they do occur, and I think that it is important to recognize and respond to them as part of a well-rounded health regimen.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]LOL. eavesdropper – Thanks for that very lengthy explanation. If there isn’t a connection between food and chemical reaction in one’s body, then I am at a loss to explain his happiness. But as I was reading your first post, I was thinking maybe the chocolate had something to do w/it. Then you posted the second post about chocolate. [/quote]
Sorry for the length, jp, but that’s what I get for not checking in on Piggs on a regular basis. When you get into a thread involving discussion of brain chemistry that’s been going on a while, it’s tough to know where to start.
There absolutely is a mind-body connection. Scientists are learning more about it every day and, more important, their curiosity about it keeps growing and fuels some incredible research.
However, the basics of biological function at the cellular level provide the underlying structure for homeostasis, the maintenance of the body’s internal equilibrium. With the advances in biochemistry over the past 40 years, particularly in that of the brain, and the concomitant development and marketing of neurosychological medications, it can be difficult to remember that the human body is an amazing machine. The design boggles the minds of the world’s leading physicians and scientists from a multitude of disciplines, and it is capable of a number and variety of functions that make the most intricately programmed computer look like a 10-key adding machine. Every step of each and every function of the body is a result of a nerve impulse, and requires neurotransmitters like serotonin. So before we mess with the brain’s chemistry, we need to know what we’re doing. Fortunately, the human body, despite its very function-specific design, has the ability to maintain homeostasis not only at a specific point, but across a wide range of values, and very often, can compensate for losses, shortages, and surpluses. However, health care practitioners will tell you that, every day, they see patients who have “improved” their bodies to unhealthy, and sometimes life-threatening, levels via natural methods. After all, what can be the harm in increasing levels of a substance, already existing in the human body, that is known to play a beneficial role in the health of the mind?
[quote=jpinpb] But as I was reading your first post, I was thinking maybe the chocolate had something to do w/it. Then you posted the second post about chocolate. [/quote]
The odds are very good that the chocolate could have played a part in your husband’s “happy” reaction to the cake, roles that may be based on both physical and emotional triggers. Unfortunately, I still don’t have the time to go into it, but will try to provide you with some interesting and instructive material on the subject. In the meantime, beware of what you find on the Internet, and take everything with a grain of salt (the low-sodium variety, if that’s a problem).
[quote=jpinpb] There must be something that happens from the time your taste buds get the flavor of certain foods that triggers something in the brain. Your explanation was detailed, yet I still think there’s more to it other than people just willfully and knowingly eating badly or lacking will-power.
[/quote]Again, you are spot-on in your assumptions, but the research is very lengthy, and is incomplete. But it is fascinating, and there are many very good sources of information out there that detail some of the research that’s been going on in the last several years. The choices of what to eat, and the resulting effects, come from physical and emotional impulses, and can vary depending on cultural (thank you, Brian!), genetic, environmental, age, and other factors.
As mentioned, the research is far from complete, and the value of much of what is out there is in what research can be built upon it. But you have a natural curosity and, I suspect, the intellect to go with it, and I think you could really get into some of the available material.
[quote=jpinpb] Certain foods seem much more satisfying than others that are lacking nutrients. Probably more nutrients in an apple than chocolate cake.[/quote]
Depends what you mean by “satisfying” and it depends upon what you mean by “nutrients”. I firmly believe that there are times in a person’s life when a large piece of sinfully rich and delicious chocolate cake will provide them with much more important nutrition than the apple will. Those occasions are rare, but they do occur, and I think that it is important to recognize and respond to them as part of a well-rounded health regimen.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]LOL. eavesdropper – Thanks for that very lengthy explanation. If there isn’t a connection between food and chemical reaction in one’s body, then I am at a loss to explain his happiness. But as I was reading your first post, I was thinking maybe the chocolate had something to do w/it. Then you posted the second post about chocolate. [/quote]
Sorry for the length, jp, but that’s what I get for not checking in on Piggs on a regular basis. When you get into a thread involving discussion of brain chemistry that’s been going on a while, it’s tough to know where to start.
There absolutely is a mind-body connection. Scientists are learning more about it every day and, more important, their curiosity about it keeps growing and fuels some incredible research.
However, the basics of biological function at the cellular level provide the underlying structure for homeostasis, the maintenance of the body’s internal equilibrium. With the advances in biochemistry over the past 40 years, particularly in that of the brain, and the concomitant development and marketing of neurosychological medications, it can be difficult to remember that the human body is an amazing machine. The design boggles the minds of the world’s leading physicians and scientists from a multitude of disciplines, and it is capable of a number and variety of functions that make the most intricately programmed computer look like a 10-key adding machine. Every step of each and every function of the body is a result of a nerve impulse, and requires neurotransmitters like serotonin. So before we mess with the brain’s chemistry, we need to know what we’re doing. Fortunately, the human body, despite its very function-specific design, has the ability to maintain homeostasis not only at a specific point, but across a wide range of values, and very often, can compensate for losses, shortages, and surpluses. However, health care practitioners will tell you that, every day, they see patients who have “improved” their bodies to unhealthy, and sometimes life-threatening, levels via natural methods. After all, what can be the harm in increasing levels of a substance, already existing in the human body, that is known to play a beneficial role in the health of the mind?
[quote=jpinpb] But as I was reading your first post, I was thinking maybe the chocolate had something to do w/it. Then you posted the second post about chocolate. [/quote]
The odds are very good that the chocolate could have played a part in your husband’s “happy” reaction to the cake, roles that may be based on both physical and emotional triggers. Unfortunately, I still don’t have the time to go into it, but will try to provide you with some interesting and instructive material on the subject. In the meantime, beware of what you find on the Internet, and take everything with a grain of salt (the low-sodium variety, if that’s a problem).
[quote=jpinpb] There must be something that happens from the time your taste buds get the flavor of certain foods that triggers something in the brain. Your explanation was detailed, yet I still think there’s more to it other than people just willfully and knowingly eating badly or lacking will-power.
[/quote]Again, you are spot-on in your assumptions, but the research is very lengthy, and is incomplete. But it is fascinating, and there are many very good sources of information out there that detail some of the research that’s been going on in the last several years. The choices of what to eat, and the resulting effects, come from physical and emotional impulses, and can vary depending on cultural (thank you, Brian!), genetic, environmental, age, and other factors.
As mentioned, the research is far from complete, and the value of much of what is out there is in what research can be built upon it. But you have a natural curosity and, I suspect, the intellect to go with it, and I think you could really get into some of the available material.
[quote=jpinpb] Certain foods seem much more satisfying than others that are lacking nutrients. Probably more nutrients in an apple than chocolate cake.[/quote]
Depends what you mean by “satisfying” and it depends upon what you mean by “nutrients”. I firmly believe that there are times in a person’s life when a large piece of sinfully rich and delicious chocolate cake will provide them with much more important nutrition than the apple will. Those occasions are rare, but they do occur, and I think that it is important to recognize and respond to them as part of a well-rounded health regimen.
Participant[quote=flu]I think it’s a personality disorder in my case. When I enter into some deal, I always think I’m getting screwed, and it ends up being sort of self-fulfilling.
Clearly, I have the glass half empty syndrome.[/quote]Seeing the negative side of a situation always gets a bad rap, and I’m tired of it. I personally think that the insistence on seeing every situation as a positive one more closely approaches the description of “personality disorder”. During the salad days of the early- to mid-aughts, I kept hearing about the wonderful economy and the endlessly rising value of housing. Hell, even Alan Greenspan was enthusiastically extolling the virtues of adjustable rate mortgages, claiming how American families (if they could only get over their allegiance to old-fashioned fixed rate loans) could use ARMs along with low interest rates and rising housing values to manage their debt more flexibly. Sorry, but that phrase still gives me a chuckle. Was Alan referring to homeowners using the equity in their homes to buy designer clothes, luxury automobiles, and even groceries (per one bank’s commercial) as flexible debt management?
Being afflicted with a negative attitude since birth (I’m convinced that it’s a result of my Catholic parents having lost their rhythm), and a nagging memory of my 5th grade study of events leading to the Great Depression, I persisted in questioning the reality of this economic utopia that everyone from my neighbors to the leading economists and financial experts believed in. I endured the pitying glances from friends and neighbor when I ventured an opinion that the unusually rapid rise in our neighborhood property values might not necessarily be a good thing. And my husband received their sympathy when he regaled them with tales of how I would not stop nagging him to sell our large empty nest before the bottom fell out of the market.
I’m not patting myself on the back because my instincts were dead-on. I’m just wishing that there had been a few more people out there who weren’t afraid to flaunt their negative attitudes. I know that they exist, because I’ve been hearing a whole lotta negative in the last couple years from many former cheerleaders, Mr. Greenspan included.
So, flu, keep envisioning that glass as half-empty. In fact, I’m thinking since housing went south, that the glass is closer to 3/4 empty. Personality disorder? Bah, humbug!
Participant[quote=flu]I think it’s a personality disorder in my case. When I enter into some deal, I always think I’m getting screwed, and it ends up being sort of self-fulfilling.
Clearly, I have the glass half empty syndrome.[/quote]Seeing the negative side of a situation always gets a bad rap, and I’m tired of it. I personally think that the insistence on seeing every situation as a positive one more closely approaches the description of “personality disorder”. During the salad days of the early- to mid-aughts, I kept hearing about the wonderful economy and the endlessly rising value of housing. Hell, even Alan Greenspan was enthusiastically extolling the virtues of adjustable rate mortgages, claiming how American families (if they could only get over their allegiance to old-fashioned fixed rate loans) could use ARMs along with low interest rates and rising housing values to manage their debt more flexibly. Sorry, but that phrase still gives me a chuckle. Was Alan referring to homeowners using the equity in their homes to buy designer clothes, luxury automobiles, and even groceries (per one bank’s commercial) as flexible debt management?
Being afflicted with a negative attitude since birth (I’m convinced that it’s a result of my Catholic parents having lost their rhythm), and a nagging memory of my 5th grade study of events leading to the Great Depression, I persisted in questioning the reality of this economic utopia that everyone from my neighbors to the leading economists and financial experts believed in. I endured the pitying glances from friends and neighbor when I ventured an opinion that the unusually rapid rise in our neighborhood property values might not necessarily be a good thing. And my husband received their sympathy when he regaled them with tales of how I would not stop nagging him to sell our large empty nest before the bottom fell out of the market.
I’m not patting myself on the back because my instincts were dead-on. I’m just wishing that there had been a few more people out there who weren’t afraid to flaunt their negative attitudes. I know that they exist, because I’ve been hearing a whole lotta negative in the last couple years from many former cheerleaders, Mr. Greenspan included.
So, flu, keep envisioning that glass as half-empty. In fact, I’m thinking since housing went south, that the glass is closer to 3/4 empty. Personality disorder? Bah, humbug!
Participant[quote=flu]I think it’s a personality disorder in my case. When I enter into some deal, I always think I’m getting screwed, and it ends up being sort of self-fulfilling.
Clearly, I have the glass half empty syndrome.[/quote]Seeing the negative side of a situation always gets a bad rap, and I’m tired of it. I personally think that the insistence on seeing every situation as a positive one more closely approaches the description of “personality disorder”. During the salad days of the early- to mid-aughts, I kept hearing about the wonderful economy and the endlessly rising value of housing. Hell, even Alan Greenspan was enthusiastically extolling the virtues of adjustable rate mortgages, claiming how American families (if they could only get over their allegiance to old-fashioned fixed rate loans) could use ARMs along with low interest rates and rising housing values to manage their debt more flexibly. Sorry, but that phrase still gives me a chuckle. Was Alan referring to homeowners using the equity in their homes to buy designer clothes, luxury automobiles, and even groceries (per one bank’s commercial) as flexible debt management?
Being afflicted with a negative attitude since birth (I’m convinced that it’s a result of my Catholic parents having lost their rhythm), and a nagging memory of my 5th grade study of events leading to the Great Depression, I persisted in questioning the reality of this economic utopia that everyone from my neighbors to the leading economists and financial experts believed in. I endured the pitying glances from friends and neighbor when I ventured an opinion that the unusually rapid rise in our neighborhood property values might not necessarily be a good thing. And my husband received their sympathy when he regaled them with tales of how I would not stop nagging him to sell our large empty nest before the bottom fell out of the market.
I’m not patting myself on the back because my instincts were dead-on. I’m just wishing that there had been a few more people out there who weren’t afraid to flaunt their negative attitudes. I know that they exist, because I’ve been hearing a whole lotta negative in the last couple years from many former cheerleaders, Mr. Greenspan included.
So, flu, keep envisioning that glass as half-empty. In fact, I’m thinking since housing went south, that the glass is closer to 3/4 empty. Personality disorder? Bah, humbug!
Participant[quote=flu]I think it’s a personality disorder in my case. When I enter into some deal, I always think I’m getting screwed, and it ends up being sort of self-fulfilling.
Clearly, I have the glass half empty syndrome.[/quote]Seeing the negative side of a situation always gets a bad rap, and I’m tired of it. I personally think that the insistence on seeing every situation as a positive one more closely approaches the description of “personality disorder”. During the salad days of the early- to mid-aughts, I kept hearing about the wonderful economy and the endlessly rising value of housing. Hell, even Alan Greenspan was enthusiastically extolling the virtues of adjustable rate mortgages, claiming how American families (if they could only get over their allegiance to old-fashioned fixed rate loans) could use ARMs along with low interest rates and rising housing values to manage their debt more flexibly. Sorry, but that phrase still gives me a chuckle. Was Alan referring to homeowners using the equity in their homes to buy designer clothes, luxury automobiles, and even groceries (per one bank’s commercial) as flexible debt management?
Being afflicted with a negative attitude since birth (I’m convinced that it’s a result of my Catholic parents having lost their rhythm), and a nagging memory of my 5th grade study of events leading to the Great Depression, I persisted in questioning the reality of this economic utopia that everyone from my neighbors to the leading economists and financial experts believed in. I endured the pitying glances from friends and neighbor when I ventured an opinion that the unusually rapid rise in our neighborhood property values might not necessarily be a good thing. And my husband received their sympathy when he regaled them with tales of how I would not stop nagging him to sell our large empty nest before the bottom fell out of the market.
I’m not patting myself on the back because my instincts were dead-on. I’m just wishing that there had been a few more people out there who weren’t afraid to flaunt their negative attitudes. I know that they exist, because I’ve been hearing a whole lotta negative in the last couple years from many former cheerleaders, Mr. Greenspan included.
So, flu, keep envisioning that glass as half-empty. In fact, I’m thinking since housing went south, that the glass is closer to 3/4 empty. Personality disorder? Bah, humbug!
Participant[quote=flu]I think it’s a personality disorder in my case. When I enter into some deal, I always think I’m getting screwed, and it ends up being sort of self-fulfilling.
Clearly, I have the glass half empty syndrome.[/quote]Seeing the negative side of a situation always gets a bad rap, and I’m tired of it. I personally think that the insistence on seeing every situation as a positive one more closely approaches the description of “personality disorder”. During the salad days of the early- to mid-aughts, I kept hearing about the wonderful economy and the endlessly rising value of housing. Hell, even Alan Greenspan was enthusiastically extolling the virtues of adjustable rate mortgages, claiming how American families (if they could only get over their allegiance to old-fashioned fixed rate loans) could use ARMs along with low interest rates and rising housing values to manage their debt more flexibly. Sorry, but that phrase still gives me a chuckle. Was Alan referring to homeowners using the equity in their homes to buy designer clothes, luxury automobiles, and even groceries (per one bank’s commercial) as flexible debt management?
Being afflicted with a negative attitude since birth (I’m convinced that it’s a result of my Catholic parents having lost their rhythm), and a nagging memory of my 5th grade study of events leading to the Great Depression, I persisted in questioning the reality of this economic utopia that everyone from my neighbors to the leading economists and financial experts believed in. I endured the pitying glances from friends and neighbor when I ventured an opinion that the unusually rapid rise in our neighborhood property values might not necessarily be a good thing. And my husband received their sympathy when he regaled them with tales of how I would not stop nagging him to sell our large empty nest before the bottom fell out of the market.
I’m not patting myself on the back because my instincts were dead-on. I’m just wishing that there had been a few more people out there who weren’t afraid to flaunt their negative attitudes. I know that they exist, because I’ve been hearing a whole lotta negative in the last couple years from many former cheerleaders, Mr. Greenspan included.
So, flu, keep envisioning that glass as half-empty. In fact, I’m thinking since housing went south, that the glass is closer to 3/4 empty. Personality disorder? Bah, humbug!
Participant[quote=walterwhite]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?sudsredirect=true
This is afascinating article on why facts simply don’t change people’s minds.
Personally, I have changed my mind a lot on big issues over the course of my life. hell, even recently. I don’t feel threatened I don’t think by facts of new ideas. but evidently fear of changing one’s mind is a very normal human reaction.
This article may explain some of the discussions we have here…[/quote]
Great article, Scaredy. Doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s human instinct to want to be “right”, and to have others express views that reflect your own. Look at Fox News. They have enjoyed spectacular success by recognizing that there was a huge group of people that had a particular sociopolitical viewpoint that lacked the imprimatur of a legit news organization. I have friends and acquaintances who place *all* their faith in every report coming out of Fox News (even when Fox contradicts itself), but who will not believe a word that comes from the thousands of other major news outlet.
For them and others similarly-minded, I have this handy tip: If an article in 300 daily newspapers and on virtually every major television newscast reports that your favorite politician misappropriated $250K in campaign funds, it’s not mainstream media bias and he’s not being treated unfairly because Fox News says he is. When a web blog reports that the entertainment industry is boycotting and ruining the career of an entertainer because of her courage in expressing her views over the past six months, try to consider the possibility that her “courage” is actually an attempt to get back into the public eye after an absence of 8 years. Your blind assumption that an alternative news source is always trustworthy is no better than the blind faith in the mainstream media you accuse others of having. Questioning is good, but it has to be across the board. Otherwise, you’re not searching for information, and you’re certainly not seeking the truth. You just want confirmation of your own views.
In the old days, it took courage to hold onto an extreme opinion. In those pre-Web days, the strongly-opinionated felt more isolated. Now, however, you just have to log onto the internet and google up some like-minded buddies. No matter how far-fetched or radical, one can always find “evidence” to support their viewpoints. I am seriously disturbed by the growing number of people who complain bitterly that the “mainstream media” are being untruthful and inaccurate, and then opine that bloggers are a more than satisfactory replacement for news organizations.
About ten years ago, when it became apparent that the amount of information on the Internet and other outlets was being completely overwhelmed by the volume of misinformation, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania started a program called FactCheck. FactCheck.org was hailed by all as an invaluable resource, and utilized by politicians and candidates for public office as an unimpeachable source of information. The honeymoon lasted about 18 months. Despite the fact that FactCheck.org provides ample evidence of exhaustive searches in checking out the validity of information, their accuracy, honesty, and freedom from bias was called into question when the evidence was not favorable to particular groups. So, naturally, there had to be a “new” fact-checking website that would be completely unbiased, but that, peculiarly, seemed to publish findings that were consistently favorable to one party and consistently negative to another. The party it favored, and its followers, had no qualms about using the new site to provide legitimacy to its claims. What is remarkable to me is that people of a particular political bent will zero in on one story that is negative to their party or candidate, and manage to completely disregard the 40 positive ones that have been published in the prior two weeks by the same media outlet.
Many people have extremely strong opinions these days. As I mentioned earlier, it’s human instinct to want to be right. And these days, anyone can be. Legitimacy for your views, no matter how extreme or inaccurate can be had for the mere cost of a Google search. And don’t underestimate the value of denial. After all, everyone know that if you don’t acknowledge facts, they can’t be valid. Right? You can create your own little alternative view universe, in which all of the “smart” people – the ones with common sense – think exactly as you do. And where you can preach your own particular sociopolitical gospel to the nonbelievers, comfortable in the knowledge that it’s the “truth”.
The sad part is that it is getting increasingly difficult – indeed, almost impossible – to find valid sources of information on the Internet. It’s full of “information” sites and blogs that are actually people’s opinions, or worse, plagiarization of other people’s opinions. Worse yet are the news organizations for whom traditional news reporting has become an unprofitable sideline, and is treated as such. They’re tripping over themselves taking pages out of the Fox News playbook. Their programming schedule is chock full of commentary shows with buffoonish characters bloviating endlessly on topics exhausted two weeks before.
My top choices for news and information these days are the PBS NewsHour, the Daily Show, and the Onion. It’s gotten so the headlines of the Onion are indistinguishable from those of the mainstream media, and if I’m going to be entertained, I want it to be from a source with talented staff.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?sudsredirect=true
This is afascinating article on why facts simply don’t change people’s minds.
Personally, I have changed my mind a lot on big issues over the course of my life. hell, even recently. I don’t feel threatened I don’t think by facts of new ideas. but evidently fear of changing one’s mind is a very normal human reaction.
This article may explain some of the discussions we have here…[/quote]
Great article, Scaredy. Doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s human instinct to want to be “right”, and to have others express views that reflect your own. Look at Fox News. They have enjoyed spectacular success by recognizing that there was a huge group of people that had a particular sociopolitical viewpoint that lacked the imprimatur of a legit news organization. I have friends and acquaintances who place *all* their faith in every report coming out of Fox News (even when Fox contradicts itself), but who will not believe a word that comes from the thousands of other major news outlet.
For them and others similarly-minded, I have this handy tip: If an article in 300 daily newspapers and on virtually every major television newscast reports that your favorite politician misappropriated $250K in campaign funds, it’s not mainstream media bias and he’s not being treated unfairly because Fox News says he is. When a web blog reports that the entertainment industry is boycotting and ruining the career of an entertainer because of her courage in expressing her views over the past six months, try to consider the possibility that her “courage” is actually an attempt to get back into the public eye after an absence of 8 years. Your blind assumption that an alternative news source is always trustworthy is no better than the blind faith in the mainstream media you accuse others of having. Questioning is good, but it has to be across the board. Otherwise, you’re not searching for information, and you’re certainly not seeking the truth. You just want confirmation of your own views.
In the old days, it took courage to hold onto an extreme opinion. In those pre-Web days, the strongly-opinionated felt more isolated. Now, however, you just have to log onto the internet and google up some like-minded buddies. No matter how far-fetched or radical, one can always find “evidence” to support their viewpoints. I am seriously disturbed by the growing number of people who complain bitterly that the “mainstream media” are being untruthful and inaccurate, and then opine that bloggers are a more than satisfactory replacement for news organizations.
About ten years ago, when it became apparent that the amount of information on the Internet and other outlets was being completely overwhelmed by the volume of misinformation, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania started a program called FactCheck. FactCheck.org was hailed by all as an invaluable resource, and utilized by politicians and candidates for public office as an unimpeachable source of information. The honeymoon lasted about 18 months. Despite the fact that FactCheck.org provides ample evidence of exhaustive searches in checking out the validity of information, their accuracy, honesty, and freedom from bias was called into question when the evidence was not favorable to particular groups. So, naturally, there had to be a “new” fact-checking website that would be completely unbiased, but that, peculiarly, seemed to publish findings that were consistently favorable to one party and consistently negative to another. The party it favored, and its followers, had no qualms about using the new site to provide legitimacy to its claims. What is remarkable to me is that people of a particular political bent will zero in on one story that is negative to their party or candidate, and manage to completely disregard the 40 positive ones that have been published in the prior two weeks by the same media outlet.
Many people have extremely strong opinions these days. As I mentioned earlier, it’s human instinct to want to be right. And these days, anyone can be. Legitimacy for your views, no matter how extreme or inaccurate can be had for the mere cost of a Google search. And don’t underestimate the value of denial. After all, everyone know that if you don’t acknowledge facts, they can’t be valid. Right? You can create your own little alternative view universe, in which all of the “smart” people – the ones with common sense – think exactly as you do. And where you can preach your own particular sociopolitical gospel to the nonbelievers, comfortable in the knowledge that it’s the “truth”.
The sad part is that it is getting increasingly difficult – indeed, almost impossible – to find valid sources of information on the Internet. It’s full of “information” sites and blogs that are actually people’s opinions, or worse, plagiarization of other people’s opinions. Worse yet are the news organizations for whom traditional news reporting has become an unprofitable sideline, and is treated as such. They’re tripping over themselves taking pages out of the Fox News playbook. Their programming schedule is chock full of commentary shows with buffoonish characters bloviating endlessly on topics exhausted two weeks before.
My top choices for news and information these days are the PBS NewsHour, the Daily Show, and the Onion. It’s gotten so the headlines of the Onion are indistinguishable from those of the mainstream media, and if I’m going to be entertained, I want it to be from a source with talented staff.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?sudsredirect=true
This is afascinating article on why facts simply don’t change people’s minds.
Personally, I have changed my mind a lot on big issues over the course of my life. hell, even recently. I don’t feel threatened I don’t think by facts of new ideas. but evidently fear of changing one’s mind is a very normal human reaction.
This article may explain some of the discussions we have here…[/quote]
Great article, Scaredy. Doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s human instinct to want to be “right”, and to have others express views that reflect your own. Look at Fox News. They have enjoyed spectacular success by recognizing that there was a huge group of people that had a particular sociopolitical viewpoint that lacked the imprimatur of a legit news organization. I have friends and acquaintances who place *all* their faith in every report coming out of Fox News (even when Fox contradicts itself), but who will not believe a word that comes from the thousands of other major news outlet.
For them and others similarly-minded, I have this handy tip: If an article in 300 daily newspapers and on virtually every major television newscast reports that your favorite politician misappropriated $250K in campaign funds, it’s not mainstream media bias and he’s not being treated unfairly because Fox News says he is. When a web blog reports that the entertainment industry is boycotting and ruining the career of an entertainer because of her courage in expressing her views over the past six months, try to consider the possibility that her “courage” is actually an attempt to get back into the public eye after an absence of 8 years. Your blind assumption that an alternative news source is always trustworthy is no better than the blind faith in the mainstream media you accuse others of having. Questioning is good, but it has to be across the board. Otherwise, you’re not searching for information, and you’re certainly not seeking the truth. You just want confirmation of your own views.
In the old days, it took courage to hold onto an extreme opinion. In those pre-Web days, the strongly-opinionated felt more isolated. Now, however, you just have to log onto the internet and google up some like-minded buddies. No matter how far-fetched or radical, one can always find “evidence” to support their viewpoints. I am seriously disturbed by the growing number of people who complain bitterly that the “mainstream media” are being untruthful and inaccurate, and then opine that bloggers are a more than satisfactory replacement for news organizations.
About ten years ago, when it became apparent that the amount of information on the Internet and other outlets was being completely overwhelmed by the volume of misinformation, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania started a program called FactCheck. FactCheck.org was hailed by all as an invaluable resource, and utilized by politicians and candidates for public office as an unimpeachable source of information. The honeymoon lasted about 18 months. Despite the fact that FactCheck.org provides ample evidence of exhaustive searches in checking out the validity of information, their accuracy, honesty, and freedom from bias was called into question when the evidence was not favorable to particular groups. So, naturally, there had to be a “new” fact-checking website that would be completely unbiased, but that, peculiarly, seemed to publish findings that were consistently favorable to one party and consistently negative to another. The party it favored, and its followers, had no qualms about using the new site to provide legitimacy to its claims. What is remarkable to me is that people of a particular political bent will zero in on one story that is negative to their party or candidate, and manage to completely disregard the 40 positive ones that have been published in the prior two weeks by the same media outlet.
Many people have extremely strong opinions these days. As I mentioned earlier, it’s human instinct to want to be right. And these days, anyone can be. Legitimacy for your views, no matter how extreme or inaccurate can be had for the mere cost of a Google search. And don’t underestimate the value of denial. After all, everyone know that if you don’t acknowledge facts, they can’t be valid. Right? You can create your own little alternative view universe, in which all of the “smart” people – the ones with common sense – think exactly as you do. And where you can preach your own particular sociopolitical gospel to the nonbelievers, comfortable in the knowledge that it’s the “truth”.
The sad part is that it is getting increasingly difficult – indeed, almost impossible – to find valid sources of information on the Internet. It’s full of “information” sites and blogs that are actually people’s opinions, or worse, plagiarization of other people’s opinions. Worse yet are the news organizations for whom traditional news reporting has become an unprofitable sideline, and is treated as such. They’re tripping over themselves taking pages out of the Fox News playbook. Their programming schedule is chock full of commentary shows with buffoonish characters bloviating endlessly on topics exhausted two weeks before.
My top choices for news and information these days are the PBS NewsHour, the Daily Show, and the Onion. It’s gotten so the headlines of the Onion are indistinguishable from those of the mainstream media, and if I’m going to be entertained, I want it to be from a source with talented staff.
-
AuthorPosts
