Morning! Pour yourself some coffee and click these links.
This week in really cool science: People with anorexia move as if they’re their perceived size. While it’s obviously just one study, could a test like this be used as a screening tool? It gets at the cognitive side, rather than relying on the (mostly behavioral) side of determination we use now.
-Scientific American article and podcast
-Actual research article
Speaking of science, let’s talk about false positives and unreproducible results.
Also, anti-obesity campaigns and people with disordered eating. Not always a great combination.
Here’s a reason the world’s tumbling into ruin: if you want to be a popular pundit, it’s far better to be certain than accurate. That’s right; more people will listen to a person who is factually wrong but confident over a guy who’s accurate but honest.
There are days I despair for the world, because our tiny monkey brains are forever seeking out shit that’s bad for them: sugar. Sex. And certainty. Basically, it’s a terrifying thing to think that this universe is full of so many factors that no one, literally no one, can predict what’s going to happen next with any confidence, and so we’ll happily listen to awful pundits who fill us up with the lie that yeah, someone knows, and it’s me.
Should we seculars have man-free events? My friend Robby mulls it over.
(Embarrassing fact: The first time I read this I, admittedly, scanned it before work. Which meant that I read the intro and the bolded topics. Which meant that I concluded that Robby must be anti-women’s-spaces. Which means that it was a very good thing that Chana sent me back to read it again. I’ve packed humble pie for lunch today.)
I’m updating my reader today–post below if you have a blog