Add ADD to that.
I believe that, all things being equal, people will default to being decent to each other. I believe being selfish and greedy are the aberration.
Urgh. Here’s one that’s really not SDMB-friendly: I believe that some kind of magnetic energy that changes as the earth orbits the sun has a mild effect on the brain development of fetuses, and that results in personality tendencies roughly describe by the zodiac signs.
I know that magnetic fields affect neuron growth, I worked in a lab that did research on that.
I also know that there have been an astonishing number of coincidences with birth signs in my life. The five guys I dated before my husband were all Aries and had only two different birthdays between them. Six more guys who wanted to date me and got nasty when I said no were all Leos. And I have the same birthday as my husband’s ex-wife.
I don’t do anything about my theory, I just enjoy collecting data.
My theory is that people who don’t have pets live cold, unfulfilled lives.
People in front of me drive slower when I’m in a hurry, and all men own black Mercedes sedans were bullies in school and have a higher than average incidence of divorce, spousal abuse and erectile dysfunction.
Electricity is like snake venom. You can build up a tolerance.
Note: No one should run experiments in reliance upon my theory.
I mostly agree but, as with most everything in life, there are many points on the continuum. I know two men who are rabidly homophobic. They both say that they hate gays because the very idea of men having sex with men is disgusting. But if you listen very closely to their stories, you’ll learn that both men were intimately touched while asleep, became quite aroused, and only upon awakening (“Just in time!” as one of them put it), discovered that they were being fondled by another man. Each incident happened separately, years apart, on navy ships with all male crews.
It is clear to me that both men were/are deeply disturbed by the idea that a man touching them could be arousing. Both of these men hold fast to their image of themselves as virile, manly, and very straight men. Becoming aroused when touched by a man simply does not fit into that view of themselves. So to maintain the facade, they must take the position that homosexuality wrong, evil, and disgusting.
So, to expand slightly on iiandyiiii’s theory, I believe that some men who advocate as he describes are not necessarily closet homosexuals but are unsure, at some deep level, with their own heterosexuality.
I agree with this 100%.
This was supposed to be “and all men who own…” I also theorize that autocorrect and copy/paste on the iPhone are intentionally designed to sabotage clear communication.
I’m not sure if excess sugar and soda cause children to be hyper little monkeys, but I’m certain that parents who permit a constant stream of junky food are permissive in other aspects of their kids’ upbringing as well and that wild behavior reflects more on a permissive parenting style than a crappy diet.
It’s certainly possible that after too many electric shocks you end up damaging nerve endings and building up a pain tolerance to electric shocks. It’s also possible that electric current passing through your body causes a chemical reaction in some of your tissues that causes them to become more resistive, lowering the amount of current that will pass through you. All of this is total conjecture but its a definite possibility.
This one actually has scientific support:
Motivation experiments show that offering big rewards for simple tasks work beautifully but when intellectual power is needed in a task then big rewards are not conductive to increasing performance.
That has been known in Psychology and Economics for awhile.
But it is when one applies it to sociology where I think it becomes iffy, but IMHO, important.
As the narrator mentions it, after a certain point, the lack of performance for more rewards observed in humans sounds like something a socialist would point out, I would say those experiments explain in part why there is so much trouble for capitalist and socialist nations when they apply solutions that actually do not fit all.
As it turns out it is mostly educated and more economically independent people the ones that would understand the benefits of more socially minded systems while the ones that do more physical work and are less wealthy react better to simpler solutions and incentives.
I think there are many exceptions, but the experiments explain a lot regarding the failure of many solutions attempted in the past and present.
I strongly suspect human-caused “global warming” is a bunch of B.S. But I also concede there is evidence humans have contributed to global warming.
But I still think it’s B.S.
That anti-depressants are extremely dangerous drugs that do not work and that cause more problems that they supposedly solve. They are supposedly for chronic, long term depression, yet everyone who says “I feel a little down” to a shrink will get them. And they are addictive and hell to kick.
The only reason they are on the market is to make money for the drug companies.
This is a facinating topic, I believe that more is understould about this than we give ourselves credit for understanding because the ones that seem to understand it go unnoticed. I believe that we are wired to only fully respond to a reward when it stimulates something in our nuerons that feels good. Money is kind of like food, we like it but initself is not very stimulating.
Years ago I owned a small telemarketing company. By far I had the most liberal pay plans in town. Money was not enough to keep my turnover down. I found rewarding a successful evening of calling by a good conversation and some personnal attention did much more to slow down my employee turnover than raisng the pay plan.
Interesting. I like it.
My theory is that anything that the SDMB’ers say can not positively, under any condition, no way will ever be or can be; means that it has either already been done or it will be done or is already.
I do not believe there is anything wrong with most children who are diagnosed as having ADHD. In most cases I believe it is simply a way to legally administer drugs to a child so that they become an easy-to-manage zombie. The problem is with the parents, not the children.
I believe most people on disability are not disabled, and are simply taking advantage of the system. Same goes for people on welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc.
I wasn’t sure what you were talking about for a minute. I looked up the peripheral vision entry on wikipedia and it says: " In addition, there are two types of receptor cells, rod cells and cone cells; rod cells are unable to distinguish color and are predominant at the periphery, while cone cells are concentrated mostly in the center of the retina, the fovea." This doesn’t preclude people being able to see colour in their peripheral vision.
I believe some people are the human equivalent of Easy keepers, and can only lose weight on a strict low-carb diet, which works great for them but not necessarily for “normal” people.