LONGECITY

In every field, be social, psychologic, dermatologic, pharma or whatever; it is very rare that the results are positive, except for some treatments outcomes.

 

Good news are very rare. For exemple, studies show that people with scars do worse in every way (quality of life)... it is always negative.

That's really depressing.

I don't know but i defy you to find ONE study that say :

 

" They adapt well"; "it's not as hard as expected" or "it is a good thing" when it come to life things, a part technological man-made pills or surgery or interventions.

 

At the very best it is neutral. For exemple child of large families have many side effects, but being an only child is not that advantagous.

 

Being bullied lead to many horrible outcomes, being in a closed positive team is neutral. Being in a group does nothing, but being exlcuded lead to emotional problems.

 

Being beautiful is not a very good thing, in fact it lead to narcissism often, but being unnatractive is very harsh.

 

Always, always, always. It is neutral or horrible but never positive.

Edited by Florian Xavier, 22 September 2014 - 10:10 PM.

Always, always, always. It is neutral or horrible but never positive.

 

Human nature is multidimensional; if you improve something, you could also reduce other thing...

 

But I do not think everything is horrible or neutral.
 

• Proper nutrition during the first 5 years of life influences positively on cognitive performance.
• Moderate physical activity positively influence school performance
• Classical music can enhance brain development in children
• etc

The LACK OF proper nutrition is terrible, while very good nutrition make no marked differences.

 

The LACK of moderate exercice is horrible, an optimal setting do nothing more.

The LACK OF proper nutrition is terrible, while very good nutrition make no marked differences.

 

The LACK of moderate exercice is horrible, an optimal setting do nothing more.

 

If lack of proper nutrition is terrible (compared to proper nutrition), then you have a big difference there.
 

Very good nutrition make no marked differences compared with? You are comparing to a normal nutrition?

 

Maybe the problem is that today almost everyone (living in developed countries) has proper nutrition; then there seems to be no difference.

to a normal nurition yes.

 

Eating less well than normal have many consequences, striving to have a perfect diet don't change much things.

There is a known negativity bias in human thought; events and narratives which produce more negative emotions acts as stronger attentional attractors than positive ones, and because of this are stored more comprehensively in memory. See this page for more details. Hence these things stand out to us to a greater degree than an objective appraisal of the situation would warrant.

 

Another factor, not related to psychology but to the way the universe functions, is that entropy (roughly,chaos) is simply more statistically likely than negative entropy (roughly, order), which over time causes closed systems to become more chaotic. Imagine a deck of cards organised so that each suit is ordered from ace to king. Any random shuffling of that deck is much more likely to produce a less intense pattern than that which unifies the deck in the ordered instance (ace to king across all suits), and the fragments of linear patterning of adjacent numbers/symbols will become less orderly with increasing shuffles.

 

Since lifeforms such as ourselves are fundamentally based on the processing of negentropic forces (to take a basic example, food is more orderly than excrement), and since excessive entropic forces are damaging to our structural integrity, we have developed value systems which generally prefer negentropic forces, that is, processes with high levels of order, as opposed to more chaotic processes. So, entropic configurations we generally deem bad, and negentropic or orderly ones we generally deem good (this is a very general principle, which doesn't hold in all cases, but the gist is accurate). But as I described above, there are statistically many more ways for things to be disorderly than orderly, therefore we are more likely to encounter situations which have a negative outcome than a positive one, simply because the range of our expectations for what is 'good' is a small and delicate bubble which lies within an infinitely larger space of 'bad' possible outcomes.

 

One last thing... you mentioned that it is 'bad' things which are generally reported on. This is simply the economic exploitation of the general negativity bias of human minds. Since our attention is more fixated by negative narratives than positive ones, that is what is generally reported on. It is also that the magnitude of entropic disruption to human systems is generally much larger than the negentropic elevation of order within those same systems, since they are generally organised to operate as near to minimum entropy as possible at any given time (at least idealistically), kind of like homoeostasis on a societal level. Which is not to say that positive discoveries are never made, in fact they are made frequently... it is just that they are rarely if ever reported on in the mainstream media.

 

You said that "The LACK OF proper nutrition is terrible, while very good nutrition make no marked differences. The LACK of moderate exercice is horrible, an optimal setting do nothing more." Logically, this is incoherent; you're saying that '-A = -X but A = 0', when the proper inversion of that is 'A = X' ie good nutrition makes an excellent difference.

http://www.scienceda...1030133119.htm 

Sadness lasts longer than other emotions

This thread is why we all die. Do mice have less entropy?

Well, mice die faster - their life is short, so maybe they have higher entropy.

This thread is why we all die. Do mice have less entropy?

 

To determine this we must first place the mice on a spectrum which measures their complexity of organisation. Since you didn't specify what kind of mice, that'll be a difficult question to answer. If the mouse in question has been blended in an industrial blender, it is safe to say that it has much more entropy than a human. If on the other hand this mouse has been fused with an exocortex which allows 16 petabyte calculations per nanosecond, its complexity might eclipse that of a mere meat-man like myself.

 

P.s. Stop being so positive damnit, we're here to reinforce this man's borderline-delusional negativity 

It just depends on the way of thinking of the mind about the things, positive or negative, it depends on you what you think it is and how you deal with it. :D

No, no, no, no. Entrainment of positivity is possible, all that is required is the building blocks of nutrition that fuel thought. Having enough nutrition to fuel one's self through the process of self analysis. Organic D3 and magnesium are key, coenzymed vitamins and trace minerals are needed, but healthy oils and missing minerals are more important for effective change.
Most peoples minds are caught up with the spells of modern living. There will be emence confussion once salts reach a saturation point (a naturally driven mind sees things a tiered mind can't), if anyone finds themselves in a dilemma of confusion, just remember 'the happy answer is the right (correct) answer'. Don't harm others through your answers, ' if in doubt, leave it out?'. Questioning is more important that the answers, we have all the answers inside us. There's nothing new under the sun.