willmw101
The piece explicitly states that it is not sleepwalking:
>Not all nocturnal behaviors are RBD. Sleepwalking and sleep talking, which occur more often during childhood and adolescence, take place during non-REM sleep. This difference is clearly distinguishable in a sleep laboratory, where clinicians can monitor stages of sleep to see when a person moves.
>Jean-Luc Melenchon, a far-left politician running for France's presidency next year has suggested that a jihadist's 2012 murder of Jews was part of an elections conspiracy.
I think the Zelda franchise has similar if not greater cultural impact in some of the ways you're talking about.
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-do...
>Luckily, there is much more to a brain when you look at it under a microscope, and most neuroscientists now believe that the complexity of cellular and molecular organization of neural connections, or synapses, is what truly determines a brain’s computational capacity. This view is supported by findings that intelligence is more correlated with frontal lobe volume and volume of gray matter, which is dense in neural cell bodies and synapses, than sheer brain size. Other research comparing proteins at synapses between different species suggests that what makes up synapses at the molecular level has had a huge impact on intelligence throughout evolutionary history. So, although having a big brain is somewhat predictive of having big smarts, intelligence probably depends much more on how efficiently different parts of your brain communicate with each other.
reply
Exactly. Most of the newer research on this topic suggests that it's neural connection complexity, and specifically frontal lobe volume, rather than overall brain size that determines intelligence or brain power.
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-do...
>Luckily, there is much more to a brain when you look at it under a microscope, and most neuroscientists now believe that the complexity of cellular and molecular organization of neural connections, or synapses, is what truly determines a brain’s computational capacity. This view is supported by findings that intelligence is more correlated with frontal lobe volume and volume of gray matter, which is dense in neural cell bodies and synapses, than sheer brain size. Other research comparing proteins at synapses between different species suggests that what makes up synapses at the molecular level has had a huge impact on intelligence throughout evolutionary history. So, although having a big brain is somewhat predictive of having big smarts, intelligence probably depends much more on how efficiently different parts of your brain communicate with each other.
I did not in fact claim that. You are confusing me with someone else in this thread. I agree that some things are hard to find on google, but I reject the notion that anything with a financial element is fundamentally corrupt in terms of intention.
The point I'm making is that I think your underlying premise, that all sites which have any kind of monetary element to them are fundamentally corrupt in terms of intention or conflict of intention, is flawed. I've now read multiple reviews on https://www.mechtype.com/category/reviews/ that are quite clearly the work of a keen mechanical keyboard hobbyist with sufficient details, knowledge and effort to lead me to believe the work is genuine and useful rather than merely financially motivated alone or spammy. There are many examples of what you suggest, and I agree that many sites with affiliate links and ad popups are disingenuous and fall much closer to the spam end of the spectrum. But there are still useful results if the user is remotely competent at parsing information. If your argument is that users shouldn't need that competence, and search engines should be kinder to less competent users in that regard, then that's a separate (and probably more interesting) conversation.
That site also has a clear affiliate disclosure along with this:
https://www.mechtype.com/disclosures/
>Paid Reviews/Sponsored Posts. MechType does NOT accept paid reviews or sponsored posts. All thoughts expressed within our reviews are our own opinions. However, MechType may on occasion accept product samples for review. When a product sample is provided for review it will be clearly and fully disclosed in the post along with the company/persons who provided the sample.
This is probably a better example: https://www.mechtype.com/xiaomi-yuemi-pro-mk02-review/#more-...
There are some basic economic realities underpinning why most people take the time to create content like this. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that just because someone expects to make a small amount of money from creating a review like that (with either affiliate links or buy links), that that person's opinion is inherently at conflict with honesty just because there's a monetary element. It may be true for many sites and many people, but it's pretty straightforward to parse whether someone is writing a review earnestly and passionately rather than for $.
Edit: This is a better example: https://www.mechtype.com/category/reviews/
Genuine question, what do you think that help would look like? Because every time I try and game out scenarios for China re-absorbing Taiwan by force I come to the conclusion it would essentially be an unwinnable 'war' by western nations and likely a further erosion of the United State's position as the global military superpower (on the back of the Afghan pullout). China can afford to play the long, slow game when it comes to their proximity and civilian toll in/around Taiwan, much of the West can not.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-in-ex...
Given the incident rate and the growing COVID swells in a few european countries (France and Italy especially), the slow vaccination progress, not helped by hesitance over AZ and surprising prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in general, you could just as well argue the opposite. Nations that are overcautious may lose far, far, far, far more lives thanks to covid infections than an extremely rare handful of blood clots which haven't even been tied causally to the vaccine yet. The risk reward narrative on this topic has been really bizarre so far.
>Yes, but we aren't any more
Have you got a source for this?
Oh and btw...
>If you take the purely metaphysical approach, there is a maximum capacity for intelligence that any one individual has. Evolutionary biology has told us, thus far to our understanding, that this is brain size.
I don't think these days that it's accepted that 'brain size' necessarily determines 'maximum capacity for intelligence' for the record. My understanding is that this is a rather outdated way of thinking about the brain and intelligence.
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-do...
>Luckily, there is much more to a brain when you look at it under a microscope, and most neuroscientists now believe that the complexity of cellular and molecular organization of neural connections, or synapses, is what truly determines a brain’s computational capacity. This view is supported by findings that intelligence is more correlated with frontal lobe volume and volume of gray matter, which is dense in neural cell bodies and synapses, than sheer brain size. Other research comparing proteins at synapses between different species suggests that what makes up synapses at the molecular level has had a huge impact on intelligence throughout evolutionary history. So, although having a big brain is somewhat predictive of having big smarts, intelligence probably depends much more on how efficiently different parts of your brain communicate with each other.
>Additionally, it belittles the consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds
Not following this logic and this seems to be at odds with the rest of your comment. You seem to be saying that the idea of 'nurture/environment' being more or as important than 'nature/genetics' belittles the effort made by individuals to train their minds? Isn't the complete opposite actually true, ie acknowledging the importance of 'nurture/environment' or epigenetic enabled knowledge/skill acquisition, would actually be to recognise rather than belittle the 'consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds'?