Interesting argument apropos Wisconsin public school union-busting: the liberal fantasy that "good teachers" will easily erase the non-asian-minority achievement gap has lead to an unfair "blame the public school teachers" conclusion, that conveniently excuses sending your kid to a private school, and makes attacking the teachers' union more politically viable.

http://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits

A programmable chip (FPGA) loaded with the right program (code 'evolved' by an overseer measuring task performance to choose winners, with random sexual combination of code items in a generation) can reliably classify an analog signal with a far simpler design than any human-constructed approach.

Unfortunately, the code may only work for the particular physical substrate (programmable chip) it was evolved on, in that it exploits idiosyncrasies in that particular chip.

One particular winning program produced disconnected loops, that nonetheless were influenced by electromagnetism at distance from nearby circuits, and were essential to task performance.

You could still mass produce such devices by running the evolution on each somewhat-unique chip, seeding it with successful codes from other chips.

They use no clock signal; making changes only happen on transitions of a global clock signal is one of the ways abstract, designed programs can execute reproducibly in spite of small variations in the manufactured substrate (it's also possible to design clockless circuits that converge reliably, but that's not as often practiced).

The human brain almost certainly enjoys such efficiencies (compared to rigid, computer-programming-like design). Just a few weeks ago Caltech researchers found actual evidence of changes in neural activity from influences in disconnected neurons in proximity (in rats), under normal (not epileptic) conditions - "Ephaptic coupling of cortical neurons". I don't know if this mechanism will turn out to be essential to modeling our brains' computation. This is definitely analogous to the useful disconnected circuit in the winning evolved FPGA design; if the learning reinforcement is supplied reliably by other already-working parts of the brain, neural 'circuits' could even arise by an analogous mechanism.

The study tracked the habits and health of 2,500 adults in Manhattan for nearly ten years. Those who drank diet soda had a 48% higher chance of either stroke or heart attack than those who didn’t drink soda at all. So far, the entire science between the finding hasn’t been concluded, but the study says the link exists regardless of factors like exercise, smoking, diabetes, weight and alcohol consumption. Even healthy people are victim to the diet soda.

Correlation, not intervention/control, but still: randomly selected (Manhattan) residents over a 10 year period. It's suspicious to me that they didn't mention caffeine, which is correlated with diet soda imbibed :)

Also, no study text available. Looks super-preliminary - press release science.

This was all I could find in the conference program:

Poster Board Number P55 / Presentation Number Th P55
Soda Consumption and Risk of Vascular Events in the Northern
Manhattan Study
Hannah Gardener, Tatjana Rundek, Clinton Wright, Univ of Miami Miller
Sch of Med, Miami, FL; Julio Vieira, Mitchell S Elkind, Columbia Univ, New
York, NY; Ralph L Sacco, Univ of Miami Miller Sch of Med, Miami, FL

Salt implicated in stroke risk by the same team:

Dietary Sodium Intake is a Risk Factor for Incident 25
Ischemic Stroke: The Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS)
Hannah Gardener, Tatjana Rundek, Clinton Wright, Univ of
Miami Miller Sch of Med, Miami, FL; Norbelina Disla,
Mitchell S Elkind, Columbia Univ, New York, NY; Ralph L
Sacco, Univ of Miami Miller Sch of Med, Miami, FL

It's commonly recommended that people with high blood pressure avoid salt, so perhaps this is sensible. I refuse to modify my salt intake beyond what my taste tells me until I hear a better case that I specifically am at risk, or that on net the harms of a high-salt diet exceed the benefits.

Robin Hanson, my favorite intellectual provocateur, says that the super-rich are almost always virtuous. I'm inclined to agree, except that the type of virtue in making lots of money can involve malfeasance, self-serving negligence, and fraud - Enron, Pfizer (Vioxx), various banks encouraging non-scrutiny of fraudulent home assessments and income declarations, mortgage-backed-securities and credit default swaps, poisonous baby formula and toothpaste, unsafe counterfeit rock-climbing gear, etc.

I don't know how frequent such occurrences are (reporting them is crowd pleasing, so I can't just think 'I hear about it all the time, so it must be really common!'), but to the extent that we effectively punish such crimes by removing most of the perpetrators' wealth, then it would be even more true that the presently rich are likely virtuous.

For some reason, often only a fraction of a criminal's wealth is removed, even though violent or drug crimes of lesser harm result in the entirety of a person's freedom being removed. I also assume that people trying to win in competitive businesses are routinely guilty of lies, collusion, etc., but that's just part of the game and not part of the 'virtue' meant.

I'm not sure that, aside from Gates+friends' recent push to secure large donations (50% of wealth?) from many of the so-rich-they-can-afford-it, we should expect successful rich people to be especially selfless. One of the reasons many modestly wealthy people have so much as they do is from a practice of selfish frugality. I don't equate charity with virtue, but it does seem fantastic that Gates+friends are trying to spend money in a way that improves more human lives (by more), instead of just donating to the poorest U.S. citizens who are competent to apply for aid (whose biggest problem, I presume, is the terrible behavior of their neighbors, and not a lack of medical care, food, safe water, internet access, etc.).

I suppose it is bad for middle-class U.S. citizens if the rich decide that they want to use their influence to secure lower tax rates (on the rich) so they can spend more helping foreign poor. Naturally, the rich are still spending plenty of money on status and pleasure goods, but I think it's fair of them to have little allegiance to their native country.

Taking 13 milligrams every three to four hours during the day, for a total of 50-65 milligrams per day, is what seemed to cut down colds.

You only suffer 60% of the normal days of coughing/sneezing when you take zinc on the first day (avoid nasal spray zinc). Source: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

I've weakly believed in this for over 10 years, but haven't consistently employed it.

Also (not sure of research), many shut-ins or people in low-sunlight areas claim that taking 10x the RDA of vitamin D has resulted in their not succumbing to colds. This is quite weak anecdotal evidence.

I got tired of reading the book on Vipassana meditation. It's mostly nonsense.

My mostly-certain judgments:

The idea that "not caring" is always the ideal direction is silly.

The idea of being really aware of what's going on in your mind, rather than being driven by emotional repulsion fields, and especially by childish do-not-want! feelings toward the way things really are in relation to you, is beautiful and what I've already always aspired to.

The idea that actively resting from activity allows training in the above, and/or is more restorative than simply adding extra (quality) sleep time, is unsettled in my mind. I've definitely achieved significant pleasure in resting while being observant of how I feel (meditating, in some sense; but I didn't invest a lot of time really following their specific advice so can't fairly say how effective it is, except that I don't find their advice in general to be well-motivated beyond 'trust us, we spent a lot of time trying different things'). But that awake-rest is more pleasurable and interesting than real sleep only because I can't remember much of what goes on when I'm asleep. It doesn't mean that it's more physically helpful or even likely to form new insights more effectively.

I guess in the same way that people may choose to spend time on various drugs, because they can reach different states of mind there, if I wanted variety for variety's sake, I might want a few minutes daily of meditation. Whether or not it's better on average than the alternatives (sleep or activity), it's at least different.

As an example of things that meditation subtracts time from, other than sleep, I've started 'composing' music (improvising using a keyboard and instrument samples, really). During this time I'm not thinking about myself at all. I doubt I'm improving at anything other than imagining sounds and mapping sounds to the requisite finger movements (it's thought that focused practice, and learning in general, may preserve or amplify some global brain attributes, but I doubt anyone's proved it). But it feels nice in moderation, and I can't say my life would be any better if I meditated instead. Almost any time I'd be tempted to meditate, I'm more tempted to perform this (equally pointless) activity. It's more rewarding. It's true that I could expect to become 'better' at meditating in some sense, but practicing music offers definitive, and (I'm not sure how important this is) sharable improvements.

Of course, I'm not only picking a single most rewarding activity and sustaining it in every available moment (other than necessities like work/sleep/food/bills). My internal reward diminishes eventually, and during its refractory period, I'll do the next thing. That implements a sort of preference for novelty and variety. Also, I have feelings of 'needing to recharge facility X' or "I can't do this as well now because I'm tired, I'll do something else until I go to sleep or nap, then I'll get back to it when rested".

That's my explanation of why I don't have a meditation habit, even though I never convinced myself that it would be a complete waste of time.

For sure I disagree with most things that come from a guru-driven (or worse, religion-driven) school, and that includes any sort of meditation instruction I've come across. I think it's actually irresponsible to "try out" practices and beliefs too whole-heartedly. Once you endorse a set of practices at all, you enlist all your biases to cementing them in you. I do believe in avoiding unnecessary stress, and feeling like you need to continually monitor changes in yourself during such an experiment, in order to avoid passing a point of no return, doesn't sound like fun. I don't think I'm infinitely susceptible to influence, but I am definitely somewhat susceptible to both self-influence and peer pressure.

59 Seconds is full of evidence-based self-help advice. I recommend it (on the basis of the first 3 chapters - I haven't finished). In some cases there may be a danger that findings of correlation lead to cargo-cult recommendations, but generally the causation of happiness and motivation is bidirectional (things that happen as a result of them also reinforce them).

Some amusing studies cited in the book:

The day before the 2004 American presidential election, more than a hundred voters were asked to imagine themselves going to the polling booth the following day. One group was told to carry out the visualization exercise from a first-person perspective (seeing the world through their own eyes), while another group was instructed to carry out the same task from a third-person perspective (seeing themselves as someone else would see them). Remarkably, 90 percent of those who imagined themselves from a third-person perspective went on to vote, compared with just more than 70 percent of those who employed first-person visualization. Although the explanation for the effect is uncertain, it could be that adopting a third-person perspective requires more mental effort than a first-person one and so results in more significant behavioral changes.

A more powerful explanation: imagining people seeing you makes activates the idea that people will see you, which makes you behave more like you want to be seen - a 'good citizen'. Just like making the lights less bright (via sunglasses, even) increases your cheating, because you'll imagine that people can't see you.

People were taken to the bottom of a hill and asked to estimate how steep it was and therefore how difficult it would be to climb. When they were accompanied by a friend, their estimates were about 15 percent lower than when they were on their own, and even just thinking about a friend when looking at the hill made it seem far more surmountable.

Obviously, people don't want to act weak in front of others. But I'll definitely try thinking of my friends when I'm alone and facing a challenge.

They were asked to form a clear image in their mind’s eye and imagine how great it would feel to make a high grade. ... Even though the daydreaming exercise lasted only a few minutes, it had a significant impact on the students’ behavior, causing them to study less and make lower grades on the exam.

I'm now going to paraphrase most of the points in the first 3 chapters that I agree with. When I say 'but ...', I mean that it's something I 'know' (have thought of, or read about elsewhere) that the book doesn't mention.

Positive thinking can lead to poor performance. Expecting a reward may also mean we're less interested in the actual reward (we use up some of the juice in advance, and are less motivated by it).

What's recommended instead of pure daydreaming: imagine all the nice things that go with success, and all the problems likely to block you. Then, alternate through those lists (fantasizing about enjoying a benefit after reaching the goal, contemplating what response could be employed against the obstacle). The alternation sounds like a decent idea. In any case, the procedure helped on the whole. It can be helpful to actually form concepts for each thing, which is easier if you can assign a short label. Generally, writing seems to help with this. There's a tendency for ideas mentally rehearsed to either get stuck or fade, which is avoided with diagrams or notes.

Diet tips

• start eating at normal speed, then slow down+savor for the remainder
• use tall glasses and small dishes/utensils
• store snacks out of sight (where you're not likely to remember them)
• just eat. combining food with another engaging activity leads to a 'popcorn movie' effect
• keep track of what you eat (mental or brief written notes)
• eat near a mirror. don't exercise near one.
• fidget more. move more vigorously in everyday life
• don't think eating 'diet' foods will result in less caloric intake, or excuse you from activity

Mood-boosting writing exercises

You can send these to a friend you're able to be honest with, or just write to yourself. I'm sure there's diminishing returns on effort, length, and comprehensiveness. These worked for me (I did one a day). The effects lingered.

• things you're currently grateful for
• an emotional high point from your past
• write about a fantasized-for future where you're completely happy with what you've become and achieved
• tell someone that they're valuable to you (that you love them), and why.
• some things that went better than expected for you in the last week (trivial things are fine), and why you think they happened

Charitable giving makes people happy (or maybe the other way around?). The thrill is greatest if you get to see up close people's lives improved by your giving (this is why professionals work in soup kitchens instead of more rationally working for extra money and paying others to work in the soup kitchen; this is also why charities that send you photos of the child you 'sponsored' do repeat business). But I imagine you could derive a more abstract thrill from being the kind of person who maximizes the leverage of their charitable dollar in *really* helping people, not just in seeing grateful faces up close, knowing you've helped them.

Also, it seems you should binge on 'being a good person' satisfaction. Spreading out small kindnesses one a day for a week gave less joy to people than lumping them all into a single-day extravaganza (small things like writing thank-you notes, giving blood, etc.). I guess it has to be sufficient so you're really convinced that you are a good person.

Doing fun things with your money (vacation, food, shows, etc.) apparently makes you happier than buying super-expensive goods. (But I read elsewhere that people surveyed during a vacation are on average pretty stressed and unhappy; but it's often a net gain because a few nice moments, blown up in stories/memories , that provide pleasant recollections and things to brag about over the coming years.)

If you starve someone for validation, then it's likely that they'll spend more money on the strategy of happiness by consumption.

Fake it until you make it, physically. Really smile, for a few seconds (at least 10). In order to do really do this, you should think of something that makes you smile. Similarly, sit up straight, don't slouch. For men (or confident women?), stick your chest out. Take an expansive pose. Move and talk like a happy person - swing your arms more, bounce more when walking, be more expressive in nonverbal communication (nod your head when you follow what someone is saying, smile, etc), all your voice to swing to higher pitch and speak faster (like you're excited), say emotionally positive things (express liking and approval), and shake hands firmly. Don't use first person pronouns so much. (I'm not sure if all of these can be abused for reverse-expected causation like smiling can, but for sure they're correlated with happiness).

Active habits that increase happiness may increase it permanently, as opposed to accidental windfalls (lottery winning) which make you happy only for a little while.

Persuasion

Small and random rewards work better than rewards large enough that people think they're doing something just because they're paid for it.

If you want a job, make them like you in the interview. Good eye contact, smile, talk about other things. Act interested in their org and their work, and ask questions. Give a real compliment. Ask what they're looking for in you. Act excited about the job. Open with confessions of weakness (provided your overall case is strong, people will like you more if you exhibit *some* weakness and are not all perfection; it also signals honesty) and close with your strongest bragging points (of course trying to pretend to modesty). The reverse order is worse. Remember always that there's a chance others don't notice your mistake (you certainly feel intensely ashamed of it, but remember that others don't know and notice everything you do). It's ok to acknowledge a mistake, and great to continue on as if you're unperturbed.

Sit toward the middle of a table (at least on 'The Weakest Link'). Use simpler language (applies to invented product/company names, too - and probably to human names).

Get people to do small favors that you act like you personally will greatly appreciate. This will make them see you as indebted to them, which is nice because they're likely to keep investing in you.

Familiarity breeds liking.

Anything you can do that increases the tendency of people to like you is valuable.

Carnegie: act interested in people. People love to feel like someone cares about them, and love to talk about themselves. Other tricks: match body language/speech, act modest, help people, give sincere compliments (all of this in a way that doesn't make them suspicious that you're trying to play them).

If you gossip about someone's negative behavior, people will unconsciously associate you with that behavior. (but in general gossip is widely used to enforce social norms; maybe not participating at all marks you as holier-than-thou or free-riding)

If people think highly of you already, a mistake that you'd think would be embarrassing will endear you more to them. If they think you're a loser, then they'll really turn away in disgust after that same mistake.

Get people to say something positive at all ("how are you feeling/doing?"), and then ask them to do something for you. This works better than just asking.

People like things more if they're paired with a (free?) meal or a drink. Caffeine makes you more persuadable (by new arguments, I imagine).

"If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit." Rhyme is actually persuasive. (In general things that are easier to understand/remember are more persuasive; people distrust the same words said in a thick foreign accent, for that reason among others).

If people think they're more like you (e.g. same name), they'll like you or help you more.

Crack a joke that gets them to smile, and they'll give you a better deal in negotiation.

If you need help, target a specific person and ask them directly; don't ask the group.

People will reciprocate. Do them small favors (of course, this may make you like them more).

Put a cute smiling baby photo in your wallet. Then it gets returned 1/3 the time instead of 1/8. (because they imagine they like you, and because babies are thrilling in a way other attractive things aren't).

Motivation

1. make a plan (write down or form a mental list of subtasks)
2. tell people you're working on the goal (this raises the stakes, at least, and the bigger a show you make, to more (important) people, about your promise to do something, the more worried you'd be at not doing it).
3. mentally link the steps of your plan with the good things you'll get when you finish it - be attracted to what you'll have when you succeed, not repulsed by what will happen if you fail. frequently remind yourself of the attraction
4. give yourself artificial rewards (as part of your plan or impromptu) for achieving subtasks, if they're not inherently rewarding
5. journal or chart plan progress or actions taken
6. actually get started. once you do this, you'll be nagging/worrying over it until you finish or give up. you'll want to work on it more. this is where most procrastination lies: in not starting.

Not very useful: worship and emulate people you admire for having done similar, think about the bad consequences of failure, consciously try to 'not think of an elephant' (e.g. sex/drugs/food you want to cut back on), expect to exert willpower (perseverance in the face of high expected chance of unrewarding outcomes), fantasize about your future life after you've got what you want (this was actually recommended as a general mood booster, but I think it leeches away some of the inherent reward for achieving steps toward your goal).

For each goal subtask, make yourself believe that you'll probably succeed (come up with a good reason). Then outline the concrete actions you'll take, and commit to a deadline and a reward that goes with that deadline (optional). List the benefits of winning the main goal (it's also motivating to think of how you'll be helping other people, not only yourself).

I'll probably continue as in this post later (for the remaining 7 chapters) as I read more.