No Wonder So Many People are Depressed
Moderator: bbmods
While we're discussing what variables are worth looking at, perhaps I should expand on the last sentence above. Here are examples in EN:K wrote:...
Retirement (Pinker's EN, Fig. 17-2)? International tourism (EN, Fig. 17-8 )? We'll have to let David report what these figures look like and are supposed to signify. But they are really at best first-world luxuries, at worst just trivia. And death is bad, but since the author cares only about aggregate numbers, why talk about deaths by lightning strikes (EN, Fig. 12-9)?? Surely, that's always been a minuscule fraction of total deaths? Not to mention his focusing on (presumed) reductions in fatality rates in modes of death that simply did not exist a century ago.
...
Fig. 12-3: Motor vehicle accident deaths (1921 on);
Fig. 12-4: Pedestrian deaths (1927 on);
and in particular Fig. 12-5: Plane crash deaths (1970 on).
About a century ago, your chance of dying in a plane crash was zero, unless you happened to be, say, one of the Wright brothers. Whatever the author says about deaths in plane crashes from 1970 (which must feel to some like yesterday), it strikes one as a bit absurd. (And someone should tell him to look up the Qantas data.) Of course, automobiles and aeroplanes have increased humanity's geographical mobility. If he wanted, he could have discussed what the world has gained as a result of that increased mobility. He could have plotted something relevant to that increased mobility. (If he really wanted to talk fatalities, I guess he could have tried to establish some sort of comparison with deaths in horse-back accidents, etc. ...)
There's a lot that can be said about the road toll... perhaps in another post.
- think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
- David
- Posts: 50683
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 83 times
I certainly wouldn't mind marrying one of the continental European royals. They seem fun (and probably don't have to do much).K wrote:^ Did it dash your hopes of marrying the bride?
I wonder if commoners marrying into the royal family end up happier or unhappier as a result. Maybe this depends on which royal family.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
- David
- Posts: 50683
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 83 times
Here's a good run-down! There are 12 monarchies in all, including the UK and (for some reason) the Vatican City. Andorra's a weird one, in that the 'co-princes' are actually the French President and a Spanish bishop, so once you take them and the Vatican out, there are only nine continental European countries with royal families: Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies_in_Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies_in_Europe
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
How Commoners Are Saving the Royal Families of Europe
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/socie ... y-members/
I don't know if this article comments on whether they live happily ever after. If someone reads this article before I do, please let us know!
Okay, let's just assume for now that we would indeed live happily ever after. Now we need a plan.
How to Marry an Actual Real-Life Prince
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 74996.html
Unlike the Independent, we in the VPT are not at all sexist, so let's also assume for now that it's basically the same idea if you are looking to marry an actual real-life princess.
I'll let you all absorb the words of wisdom in the article, but let me quickly highlight a few things here. Note tip 5: "Be careful with social media". David, I told you to give up FB forever. Now, will you listen to me? And here's tip 6: "Have an interest in charity". Does following the Pies count?
The article concludes with the following:
'While marrying a prince and becoming a princess is certainly possible, "although luck does play a huge part in it," Mr. Fitzwilliam wants to stress to would-be princesses that "winning a prince certainly comes at a price" and that "being a princess is a hell of a job." But, you do get to wear a tiara.'
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/socie ... y-members/
I don't know if this article comments on whether they live happily ever after. If someone reads this article before I do, please let us know!
Okay, let's just assume for now that we would indeed live happily ever after. Now we need a plan.
How to Marry an Actual Real-Life Prince
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 74996.html
Unlike the Independent, we in the VPT are not at all sexist, so let's also assume for now that it's basically the same idea if you are looking to marry an actual real-life princess.
I'll let you all absorb the words of wisdom in the article, but let me quickly highlight a few things here. Note tip 5: "Be careful with social media". David, I told you to give up FB forever. Now, will you listen to me? And here's tip 6: "Have an interest in charity". Does following the Pies count?
The article concludes with the following:
'While marrying a prince and becoming a princess is certainly possible, "although luck does play a huge part in it," Mr. Fitzwilliam wants to stress to would-be princesses that "winning a prince certainly comes at a price" and that "being a princess is a hell of a job." But, you do get to wear a tiara.'
Okay, let me say a bit about the above.K wrote:...
And then there are [measures] Pinker uses that just reflect his own set of political ideologies and prejudices (e.g. vegetarianism, which certainly does not have near-universal support as being "better"). But let me leave that topic for another post.
His BA book includes Fig. 7-28: Vegetarianism in the US & UK (1984 on). It is simply his ideology that eating meat is bad. I'm not aware that anyone here is a vegetarian. Certainly, the thread "What's for dinner" indicates otherwise, so unless there are some guilty meat-eaters among us it seems no one here shares this particular ideology with him.
Another example: capital punishment (BA, Figs. 4-3, 4-4, & 4-5). Given that there is an active thread here about the death penalty, I guess many (though certainly not all) posters here think it is a good thing. I don't think anyone supports executions that are political assassinations, but as punishment for murder, for example, the death penalty continues to have strong support in the US. Maybe capital punishment is bad, or maybe it's good; there is no concensus on this matter and logical arguments alone are unlikely to change that in either direction.
What about disciplining of children? BA, Fig. 7-17: Approval of spanking in the US, Sweden & NZ (1954 on), Fig. 7-18: Approval of corporal punishment in schools in the US (1954 on), Fig. 7-19: American states allowing corporal punishment in schools (1954 on), ... Perhaps if the author had been spanked more at home and in school he would now have more integrity. Perhaps not. Who knows?
The point is not that I think all of the author's social, political and moral ideologies and prejudices are "wrong". One would think that there must be some beliefs one shares with him, and I won't vote here on any of the above examples (they have their own threads!). The point is that he seems not to realize that they are just debatable, subjective ideologies and prejudices. He seems to act and write as if they are objective truths that no one can disagree with. He does not separate them from objective data and logical arguments.
- Dave The Man
- Posts: 45001
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:04 pm
- Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 21 times
- Contact: