German Joe

Einfach nur "bekloppt" 🫣 Wenn es die letzten Lebensmittel wären, hätte ich ja Verständnis. Aber Feuerwerkskörper? (Quelle: irgendein LIDL in Deutschland)

Think of all the most innovative cultures. What do they all have in common? Cold seasons. You cannot afford to be lazy in a cold, seasonal climate: - You can’t live impulsively. If you don’t stock food or plan winter shelter, you’re dead - You must cooperate, or you’re dead - You must delay gratification, or you’re dead - You must create tools, preserve food and build storage systems, or you’re dead Lazy, shortsighted behavior is punishable by death. Cognitive load increases and forward thinking becomes a selective breeding trait. The closer to the equator you are, the less change there is. Resource abundance and constant climate mean no pressure to innovate, no long-term planning requirements. Warmth means comfort and comfort means complacency (biologically speaking). Seasonal cognition is what led to the invention of calendars, agriculture and scheduling. The environmental force that paved the way for: - Industrial revolutions - Scientific method - Modern infrastructure Innovation thrives where the future is uncertain and immediate gratification is punished. Future orientation is an environmental phenomenon.

Scientists report a simple longevity tip: cooling the body helps trigger deep sleep. Clothing traps heat, creating a warm pocket that slows sleep. Cooler rooms promote faster, deeper rest. In cool sleep, melatonin rises, aiding sleep cycles and supporting cellular aging defenses.

In the past, technology caused employment to move up on the sophistication scale. Technology provided the muscle, people did more and more of the thinking . Today, AI is forcing people to move down into low tech and perhaps menial jobs.

What if the “Cry It Out” sleep training (aka extinction-based sleep training) has contributed to mental health issues in young people? In some ways, it’s the most insane thing to do to a child (and is based on incredibly poor science). For centuries, families co-slept without issues, but in modern times, it has become increasingly taboo… why? How can repeated emotional non-response to a baby be healthy? What does it do to their stress calibration, attachment expectations, and self-regulation? How does it play out in their long term relationships and social connections? I’ve read the studies and they are poorly designed and weakly supported. Yet, we have an entire generation of parents that blindly follow this insane protocol without reviewing the data themselves. To be fair, the data supporting co-sleeping is weak as well, but it has centuries of precedent so I feel much more comfortable supporting that than a new approach that was largely instituted since the 1920s. For some context, in the 20th century, behaviorist John Watson (1928), interested in making psychology a hard science, took up the crusade against affection as president of the American Psychological Association. He applied the paradigm of behaviorism to childrearing, warning about the dangers of “too much mother love”. The 20th century was the time when “science" was assumed to know better than mothers, grandmothers, and families about how to raise a child. Too much kindness to a baby would result in a whiney, dependent, failed human being. A government pamphlet from the time recommended that "mothering meant holding the baby quietly, in tranquility-inducing positions" and that "the mother should stop immediately if her arms feel tired" because "the baby is never to inconvenience the adult." A baby older than six months "should be taught to sit silently in the crib; otherwise, he might need to be constantly watched and entertained by the mother, a serious waste of time." The truth is the opposite. We now know that ignoring a child raising cortisol levels and hurts trust and attachment. Yet, every young parent I know today has been brainwashed to let their child cry in silence. It’s truly wild.