?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I know there are oodles of people who don't give much credit to LJ as a learning tool, but I learned about a whole bunch of stuff this week through the LJ grapevine. Here are some that got me thinking:

The Rat Park Experiments & an article on diets in the NYT. Both of these got me thinking about how hard it is to prove something. I am fascinated by the fact that no one in the scientific community got excited by the results of Rat Park, and I am fascinated that no one cares that the commercial diet industry can't (or won't) prove its effectiveness.

I also learned about Shirley Chisholm, who died earlier this week. I had never heard of her.

Last night I got to watch 3 Dawson's Creek episodes with judithiscariot and we ate Cluck U. Pacey + wings = decandence, in my little world. Tonight, cheese dip. Current primary motivators are birls and fear of leading an ultimately ineffective life.

Edit: My ipod is doing this thing where when it tries to sync it complains about the playcount file being corrupted. It makes me cry, and makes syncing not work right. Grr.

Tags:

Comments

( 13 comments — Leave a comment )
keryx
Jan. 6th, 2005 09:10 pm (UTC)
The Rat Park thing is fascinating. It also made a connection for me... There are other studies done on a variety of meat animals that test for a preference for painkiller-laced food. Caged chickens like it, uncaged chickens dont - this was used as an illustration that the caged birds had some experience of pain (and substantially changed UK fowl-keeping laws, but had no impact in the US). Clearly the environment was the factor in chicken-crack use. I'd never connected that to humans doing drugs, though. Huh.
snidegrrl
Jan. 6th, 2005 10:12 pm (UTC)
Any idea where you saw the chicken study?
keryx
Jan. 6th, 2005 10:17 pm (UTC)
It was pretty widely covered, so probably the BBC or Guardian.
mikailborg
Jan. 6th, 2005 09:26 pm (UTC)
Thank you so much for posting the Rat Park link. Rarely have I followed a LiveJournal link to a site that made me sit back and go, "Wow. That could change some things."
snidegrrl
Jan. 6th, 2005 10:08 pm (UTC)
No problem. That's what I thought when I saw it, too. I had already been reading a book that reminded me that some people consider drug use equal to drug abuse. So it's been on my mind.
professorbooty
Jan. 11th, 2005 01:02 am (UTC)
...
I was explaining to my coworkers that the real drug abuse is in not taking them. They don't deserve your neglect!

Yes, I make points like this at work. It's not easy being me, but somebody's got to do it.
examorata
Jan. 6th, 2005 09:36 pm (UTC)
Mmm. Cheese dip.
jsciv
Jan. 6th, 2005 09:51 pm (UTC)
The "commerical diet industry" isn't selling weight loss. And it doesn't really matter anyway because people don't actually want real weight loss solutions. But I'll get into that soon enough.
snidegrrl
Jan. 6th, 2005 10:06 pm (UTC)
they're not? gee, that's funny, because that's what they talk about in all their ads.
jsciv
Jan. 6th, 2005 10:08 pm (UTC)
It sure is! :)
professorbooty
Jan. 11th, 2005 01:00 am (UTC)
...
It's like the pharmaceutical industry. If you actually got healthy, they would lose your business. The real money is in maintenance drugs.

Speaking of which, the current issue of Adbusters has some awesome coverage of big pharm, among many other things.
cheetahmaster
Jan. 6th, 2005 11:57 pm (UTC)
The hard part is, of course, building the giant paradise-like cage to contain the humans, so they won't do drugs.

Honestly, I don't find it terribly convincing.
mpeg2tom
Jan. 7th, 2005 03:25 am (UTC)
Yeah, but for some people I know, a paradise-like cage would, by definition, include drugs!
( 13 comments — Leave a comment )