Joe From The Before Times

Going to the gym is racist. -Canada

A team of researchers in New Zealand followed 1,037 babies from the day they were born for the next 45 years to find out what actually determines a successful adult life, and the strongest predictor they found had almost nothing to do with intelligence or family wealth. The findings have been published in the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. Almost no parent has heard of them. His name is Avshalom Caspi. Her name is Terrie Moffitt. They are a husband and wife research team based at Duke University and King's College London, and the study they have spent their careers running is called the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. It started in 1972 in a single hospital in Dunedin, New Zealand. Every baby born there in a 12-month window was enrolled. 1,037 of them. The study is still running today. The retention rate is the part that should astonish anyone familiar with how research usually works. After more than 45 years, over 90 percent of the original participants are still being tracked. Most longitudinal studies lose half their sample inside ten years. The Dunedin team has lost almost nobody. They measured everything. Blood. DNA. Brain scans. Income. Criminal records. Romantic relationships. Drug use. Dental health. Sleep. Mental health. Lung function. They flew participants who had moved abroad back to Dunedin every few years for a full day of assessments. Some of those people now live in seven different countries. They still show up. For the first decade of life, the team did something nobody else was doing systematically. They measured each child's self-control. Not IQ. Not family income. Not parenting style. Self-control. They watched 3-year-olds in a research lab and rated their ability to wait, regulate frustration, follow instructions, and resist impulsive reactions. They added teacher ratings. They added parent ratings. They added the children's own self-reports as they grew older. They combined all of it into a single highly reliable score. Then they did the thing nobody else had the patience to do. They waited. When the data came in at age 32, the result was so consistent it should be illegal to teach a child without it. The children who scored lowest on self-control at age 3 grew into adults with worse physical health, more substance dependence, lower incomes, more credit card debt, higher rates of single parenthood, more criminal convictions, and worse mental health than the children who scored highest. The pattern was not subtle. It was a clean gradient. Every step up in childhood self-control produced a measurable step up in adult outcomes across every domain the team could measure. The detail that should disturb every parent reading this is what happened when the researchers controlled for the obvious objections. When they controlled for IQ, the effect held. When they controlled for family income and social class, the effect held. When they compared siblings inside the same family, the sibling with lower self-control still had worse adult outcomes than the sibling with higher self-control. Same parents. Same house. Same dinner table. The trait was running independently of everything researchers expected to explain it. The paper landed in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2011. The title was as plain as it gets. "A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety." It has been cited thousands of times since. Almost no policy maker has acted on it. The reason most people resist this finding is that it sounds like a sentence handed down before the child could speak. If the trait that determines your adult life is locked in by age 3, the rest of your life is a formality. The Dunedin researchers say that is the wrong way to read the data. They found something else in the same paper that almost nobody quotes. Some of the children whose self-control scores improved between childhood and adolescence ended up with adult outcomes far better than their early scores predicted. The trait is not destiny. It is a muscle. Children who learned to wait, regulate, and resist between ages 5 and 15 caught up with kids who started ahead. Self-control is the one childhood trait nobody seems to teach on purpose anymore. Schools focus on test scores. Parents focus on activities. Coaches focus on performance. The part of the brain that decides between five seconds from now and five years from now is left to develop on its own, and the data shows it usually does not. The most uncomfortable part of the research is the cost calculation Moffitt and Caspi ran. They estimated that if a country could move the bottom 20 percent of children up one rung on the self-control ladder, it would measurably reduce healthcare spending, welfare dependency, and incarceration costs at the national level. The intervention is cheaper than almost any other public health investment available. Almost no country has tried it at scale. The reason adults struggle with money, weight, addiction, and relationships is rarely intelligence. It is the gap between what you want right now and what you want in ten years, and which side of that gap your nervous system is built to listen to. Most people lost that fight at age 4 and never went back to learn the technique. You were not behind because life dealt you a bad hand. You were behind because the part of you that decides between right now and the rest of your life was never taught how to choose. The good news is the muscle is still there. Almost nobody trains it after age 10. You can be the one who does.

The 1971 Canadian $10 bill will always remain the GOAT 🐐

In a surprise to absolutely no one, organizers of the flotilla propaganda stunt have been identified as Hamas operatives.

Palestine Action Put Civilians on a “Target Map” They published personal information, addresses, and an “underground manual” explaining how to choose a “target.” Experts warn this crosses a dangerous line. 🧵

I’m glad you asked. First of all, let’s outline the hallmarks of a social contagion event: - A rapid exponential explosion in numbers. - The sudden appearance of an entirely new patient group - Adolescent girls mostly affected. - Clusters of friends presenting with the same symptom/behaviour All of these are present in the epidemic of young people identifying as trans in the 2010s. Now, the way society normally responds to such events is with an immediate search for the trigger event and the vectors for the contagion. For example, with the bulimia contagion of the 80s, the trigger was found to be media coverage of the disorder. With the outbreak of anorexia in Hong Kong in the 90s, it was the sensational media coverage of a school girl who had collapsed and died on a busy street. With TikTok tics in the 2010s, a young Tourettes sufferer’s YouTube channel was swiftly identified. There are endless examples. In those instances, clinicians didn’t wait around for decades for someone to conduct a reliable study showing that the event was a social contagion. They recognised all the hallmarks and acted. In the case of bulimia though, not nearly fast enough. In the case of the trans contagion, all researchers had to do was take a glance at the cultural messaging of the era. The inflection point coincides precisely with the dawn of the trans rights movement, with media celebration of trans-identified public figures, and trans influencers proliferating rapidly on social media. And those early YouTube influencers actually documented the social contagion on camera for all to see with the How I Knew I Was Trans genre of video — with each young person describing encountering a trans-identified person online and immediately recognising themselves in it and adopting the identity. That’s the social contagion in action. We don’t need studies to show it’s a social contagion. We just need to open our eyes and look at the evidence that is, and always has been, all around us.