What doesn't kill me makes me stronger... or weaker... or has no effect on my strength, but it's definitely one of the three, 100% of the time!

great lecture

My reluctance to let my children roam free was not predicated on criminal predators but traffic. It’s a gigantic risk by comparison. I’d guess 100 times more children are killed or injured by cars than kidnappers.

@souxcasa

28 күн бұрын

Would it not be better to teach your children how to behave around traffic than to hide them from it? They're going to have to be around it at some point

@dirkhamilton2709

19 күн бұрын

But people dont let their kids roam free in the woods, where there is zero traffic

His peanut study is total BS. He is starting with children who for some reason have a high chance of being allergic to peanuts. OK, WTF does that mean? It means nothing. This guy is a business professor. He is not in medicine. He goes out and finds studies that back up his BS and uses them as proof of his predetermined notion.

Sippy cups as an example? This whole lecture is fragile.

@myself2noone

23 күн бұрын

What makes that a bad example of resilience? Plactic is resilient. That's why we use it.

What does not kill you is cumulative damage. People make themselves very strong but a certain percentage end up crippled or dead, or have problems later in life due to injuries. People who take care to make themselves fit and healthy are far less likely than "competitors" to end that way. So, this message from Haidt is too simplistic and gives license to some really bad ideas.

@myself2noone

23 күн бұрын

Not really. He said that "death is bad for your long term well being" you're just determined to not listen.

@GaryChurch-hi8kb

22 күн бұрын

@@myself2noone Not really.....

Anyone who uses Talib as someone who has any wisdom is suspect.

In one video, he blames cell phones. In this video, he is blaming things that have been going on for decades. His book is BS.

There was a time when no one had deadly peanut allergies. 3% is enormous compared to near zero. 3% is 3 out of 100. This lecture is BS

@myself2noone

23 күн бұрын

3 is still less than 17. Can you find an actual reason to disagree with this? Not some irrelevant point? Because as it stands you've done this like 5 times and none of red harrings have been convincing. Hell they're all weirdly textbook falasious. Like is this a parody or something?

@peterstafford4426

23 күн бұрын

@@myself2noone 3% is enormous. Much bigger than it was 50 years ago.

@peterstafford4426

23 күн бұрын

@@myself2noone Should we trust Haidt's statistic? No. Why? Because only 1.8% of the US population has a peanut alergy. He has a book to sell. That is all that is gogin on here.

@candysleep314

20 күн бұрын

The statistics he gave were for a clinical test of 640 mothers and babies, not for the population as a whole. It could very well be that only 3% of all US people who were given peanut products as babies developed an allergy. 1.8% of the entire population is about 6 million. We don't know what portion of them were in which cohort. Which is why clinical trials are useful.

@peterstafford4426

20 күн бұрын

@@candysleep314 The guy is full of crap