PDF What the Hell are the Neurons Up To?: The Wire-Dangled Human Race

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online What the Hell are the Neurons Up To?: The Wire-Dangled Human Race file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with What the Hell are the Neurons Up To?: The Wire-Dangled Human Race book. Happy reading What the Hell are the Neurons Up To?: The Wire-Dangled Human Race Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF What the Hell are the Neurons Up To?: The Wire-Dangled Human Race at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF What the Hell are the Neurons Up To?: The Wire-Dangled Human Race Pocket Guide.

But there are novel concerns stemming from the impact of fast-developing 21st century technologies. Our interconnected world depends on elaborate networks: electric power grids, air traffic control, international finance, just-in-time delivery and so forth. Unless these are highly resilient, their manifest benefits could be outweighed by catastrophic albeit rare breakdowns cascading through the system. Moreover a contagion of social and economic breakdown would spread worldwide via computer networks and 'digital wildfire'—literally at the speed of light.

The threat is terror as well as error.

What the Hell Are the Neurons Up To?: The Wire-Dangled Human Race

Concern about cyber-attack, by criminals or by hostile nations, is rising sharply. Synthetic biology, likewise, offers huge potential for medicine and agriculture—but it could facilitate bioterror. It is hard to make a clandestine H-bomb, but millions will have the capability and resources to mis-use these 'dual use' technologies. Freeman Dyson looks towards an era when children can design and create new organisms just as routinely as he, when young, played with a chemistry set. Were this to happen, our ecology and even our species would surely not survive unscathed for long.

And should we worry about another SF scenario—that a network of computers could develop a mind of its own and threaten us all? In a media landscape oversaturated with sensational science stories, "end of the world" Hollywood productions, and Mayan apocalypse warnings, it may be hard to persuade the wide public that there are indeed things to worry about that could arise as unexpectedly as the financial crisis, and have far greater impact. I'm worried that by desperate efforts to minimize or cope with a cluster of risks with low probability but catastrophic conseqences may dominate the political agenda.

How do we explain the apparent discovery of the Higgs boson and help our readers understand what an enormous, astonishing—even beautiful—discovery it is. Luckily, here at the Times, we have writers like Dennis Overbye, who not only deal every day with the science of the cosmos, but who can write about it with the poetry it often deserves. But luck is an important ingredient here. The Times remains committed to a deep coverage of science.

But such a commitment feels increasingly lonely. Over the past several years, I have watched science and health coverage by general-interest newspapers shrink. As a health and science editor, I used to pick up other major newspapers with trepidation, knowing there might be a good story we missed or an important angle that we overlooked.

The Times had serious competition. Today, sadly, that is most often not the case. Coverage of health and science in general-interest newspapers has declined dramatically. Reporters whose work I have long admired have moved on to other things or retired or been fired, as science staffs have been slashed. True, there are many, many more good websites and some excellent blogs that cover a wide range of science topics, but most are aimed at smaller segments of readers, who search out information focused in specific areas.

Some general interest papers in other countries continue to value science coverage, but unless you're a reader with access to those publications that doesn't help much. Something quite serious has been lost. And, of course, this has ramifications not only for the general level of scientific understanding, but for funding decisions in Washington—and even access to medical care.

And it's not good for those of us at The Times , either. Competition makes us all better. This decline in general-interest science coverage comes at a time of divergent directions in the general public. At one level, there seems to be increasing ignorance. After all, it's not just science news coverage that has suffered, but also the teaching of science in schools. And we just went through a political season that saw how all this can play out, with major political figures spouting off one silly statement after another, particularly about women's health.

Here at the Times we knew the scientific discourse on these topics had gotten so ridiculous—and dangerous—that we launched a team of reporters on a series we called "Political Science," with a string of stories that tried to set the scientific record straight. But something else is going on, as well. Even as we have in some pockets what seems like increasing ignorance of science, we have at the same time, a growing interest of many.

It's easy to see, from where I sit, how high that interest is. Articles about anything scientific, from the current findings in human evolution to the latest rover landing on Mars, not to mention new genetic approaches to cancer—and yes, even the Higgs boson—zoom to the top of our newspaper's most emailed list. We know our readers love science and cannot get enough of it. And it's not just our readers. As the rover Curiosity approached Mars, people of all ages in all parts of the country had "Curiosity parties" to watch news of the landing.

Mars parties! Social media, too, has shown us how much interest there is across the board, with YouTube videos and tweets on science often becoming instant megahits. So what we have is a high interest and a lot of misinformation floating around. And we have fewer and fewer places that provide real information to a general audience that is understandable, at least by those of us who do not yet have our doctorates in astrophysics.

The disconnect is what we should all be worried about. Still, I should also take a moment to mention a few things that I am actually worrying less about. And this, too, is a bit of a contradiction. In some cases, in my dozen or so years in the Science Department here at the Times , I have watched as our readers—all of us actually—have become more sophisticated.

Misunderstanding and hype have not gone away. But over the last decade, we all have gained a more nuanced understanding of how our medical-industrial complex operates—and the money that often drives it. And we have a clearer understanding of the complexity of common diseases, from mental illness to heart disease to Alzheimer's.

We have reached a common understanding that there is no magic bullet to fix such diseases or even address the problems in our health care system. While we still have a long way to go, the conversation is beginning to change in these areas and others. The constant drumbeat about obesity is, as we reported recently, showing some signs of having an impact: obesity rates are edging downward in children. We all understand, too, that medicine has gotten too expensive and that there is a lot of overtreatment going on in this country.

Again, we have moved past the point of thinking there are quick solutions to these issues. But more people are talking about such topics—at least a little here and there—without so much shouting about death panels.

Quick links

The universe is relentlessly, catastrophically dangerous, on scales that menace not just communities, but civilizations and our species as well. A freakish chain of improbable accidents produced the bubble of conditions that was necessary for the rise of life, our species, and technological civilization. If we continue to drift obliviously inside this bubble, taking its continuation for granted, then inevitably—sooner or later—physical or human-triggered events will push us outside, and we will be snuffed like a candle in a hurricane.

We are menaced by gamma ray bursts that scrub major regions of their galaxies free of life ; nearby supernovae; asteroids and cometary impacts which strike Jupiter every year or two ; Yellowstone-like supereruptions the Toba supereruption was a near extinction-event for humans , civilization-collapsing coronal mass ejections which would take down the electrical grids and electronics underlying technological civilization in a way that they couldn't recover from, since their repair requires electricity supplied by the grid; this is just one example of the more general danger posed by the complex, fragile interdependence inherent in our current technology ; and many other phenomena including those unknown to us.

When or if the Sun returns to more typical variation in energy output, this will dwarf any other climate concerns. The emergence of science as a not wholly superstitious and corrupt enterprise is slowly awakening our species to these external dangers. As the brilliant t-shirt says, an asteroid is nature's way of asking how your space program is doing. If we are lucky we might have time to build a robust, hardened planetary and extraplanetary hypercivilization able to surmount these challenges.

Indeed, ice ages are the real climate-based ecological disasters and civilization-enders—think Europe and North America under a mile of ice. Whether we know it or not, we are in a race to forge such a hypercivilization before these blows fall. If these threats seem too distant, low probability, or fantastical to belong to the "real" world, then let them serve as stand-ins for the much larger number of more immediately dire problems whose solutions also depend on rapid progress in science and technology.

This raises a second category of menaces—hidden, deadly, ever-adapting, already here—that worry me even more: the evolved monsters from the id that we all harbor e. As the cognoscenti know, the technical term monsters from the id originated in Forbidden Planet. We need to map and master these monsters and the dynamics through which they generate collective delusions if our societies are to avoid near-term, internally generated failure. For example, cooperative scientific problem-solving is the most beautifully effective system for the production of reliable knowledge that the world has ever seen.

But the monsters that haunt our collective intellectual enterprises typically turn us instead into idiots. Consider the cascade of collective cognitive pathologies produced in our intellectual coalitions by ingroup tribalism, self-interest, prestige-seeking, and moral one-upsmanship: It seems intuitive to expect that being smarter would lead people to have more accurate models of reality.

On this view, intellectual elites therefore ought to have better beliefs, and should guide their societies with superior knowledge. Indeed, the enterprise of science is—as an ideal—specifically devoted to improving the accuracy of beliefs. We can pinpoint where this analysis goes awry, however, when we consider the multiple functions of holding beliefs. We take for granted that the function of a belief is to be coordinated with reality, so that when actions are based on that belief, they succeed. The more often beliefs are tested against reality, the more often accurate beliefs displace inaccurate ones e.

What the Hell are the Neurons Up To?: The Wire-Dangled Human Race

However, there is a second kind of function to holding a belief that affects whether people consciously or unconsciously come to embrace it—the social payoffs from being coordinated or discoordinated with others' beliefs Socrates' execution for "failing to acknowledge the gods the city acknowledges". The mind is designed to balance these two functions: coordinating with reality, and coordinating with others. The larger the payoffs to social coordination, and the less commonly beliefs are tested against reality, then the more social demands will determine belief—that is, network fixation of belief will predominate.

Physics and chip design will have a high degree of coordination with reality, while the social sciences and climatology will have less. I personally have been astonished over the last four decades by the fierce resistance of the social sciences to abandoning the blank slate model in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is false.

As Feynman pithily put it, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. Sciences can move at the speed of inference when individuals only need to consider logic and evidence.

23. Language

Yet sciences move glacially Planck's "funeral by funeral" when the typical scientist, dependent for employment on a dense ingroup network, has to get the majority of her guild to acknowledge fundamental, embarrassing disciplinary errors. To get science systematically moving at the speed of inference—the key precondition to solving our other problems—we need to design our next generation scientific institutions to be more resistant to self-organizing collective delusions, by basing them on a fuller understanding of our evolved psychology.

If we have a million photos, we tend to value each one less than if we only had ten. The internet forces a general devaluation of the written word: a global deflation in the average word's value on many axes. As each word tends to get less reading-time and attention and to be worth less money at the consumer end, it naturally tends to absorb less writing-time and editorial attention on the production side.

Gradually, as the time invested by the average writer and the average reader in the average sentence falls, society's ability to communicate in writing decays. And this threat to our capacity to read and write is a slow-motion body-blow to science, scholarship, the arts—to nearly everything, in fact, that is distinctively human, that muskrats and dolphins can't do just as well or better. The internet's insatiable demand for words creates global deflation in the value of words. The internet's capacity to distribute words near-instantly means that, with no lag-time between writing and publication, publication and worldwide availability, pressure builds on the writer to produce more.

Global deflation in the value of words creates pressure, in turn, to downplay or eliminate editing and self-editing. When I tell my students not to turn in first-drafts, I sometimes have to explain, nowadays, what a first draft is. Personal letters have traditionally been an important literary medium. White and a thousand others are classics of western literature. Why have no or not many! It's not only that email writing is quick and casual; even more, it's the fact that we pay so little attention to the email we get.

Probably there are many writers out there whose emails are worth collecting. But it's unlikely that anyone will ever notice. And since email has, of course, demolished the traditional personal letter, a major literary genre is on its last legs. Writing ability is hard to measure, but we can try and the news is not good. Recently the London Daily Mail reported on yet another depressing evaluation of American students:.

While students are much more likely to call themselves gifted in writing abilities [the study concluded], objective test scores actually show that their writing abilities are far less than those of their s counterparts. It's hard to know how to isolate the effects of net-driven word devaluation in the toxic mix which our schools force-feed our children every day.

But at any rate, the Internet Drivel Factor can't be good—and is almost certain to grow in importance as the world fills gradually with people who have spent their whole lives glued to their iToys. Even assuming that Sean Penn is a lot more illiterate than most people, the Post is a respectable site and the Penn piece is eye-opening. The conflicted principle here, is that which all too often defines and limits our pride as Americans who, in deference to an omnipresent filter of monoculturalism, isolationism and division, are consistently prone toward behaviors and words, as insensitive and disrespectful, while at foremost counterproductive for the generation of young Americans who will follow us.

The only problem with this passage is that it is gibberish. The average ten-year-old hasn't fallen this far yet. But the threat is real, is way under the radar and likely to stay there; prognosis: grim. Most of the smart people I know want nothing to do with politics. We avoid it like the plague—like Edge avoids it, in fact. Is this because we feel that politics isn't where anything significant happens? Or because we're too taken up with what we're doing, be it Quantum Physics or Statistical Genomics or Generative Music? Or because we're too polite to get into arguments with people?

Or because we just think that things will work out fine if we let them be—that The Invisible Hand or The Technosphere will mysteriously sort them out? Whatever the reasons for our quiescence, politics is still being done—just not by us. It's politics that gave us Iraq and Afghanistan and a few hundred thousand casualties. It's politics that's bleeding the poorer nations for the debts of their former dictators. It's politics that allows special interests to run the country. It's politics that helped the banks wreck the economy. It's politics that prohibits gay marriage and stem cell research but nurtures Gaza and Guantanamo.

We expect other people to do it for us, and grumble when they get it wrong. We feel that our responsibility stops at the ballot box, if we even get that far. After that we're as laissez-faire as we can get away with. In the fall of investment banks tottered around like blind, lame giants, bleeding cash and exotic financial instruments.

There followed a huge sucking sound and a queazy combination of explosion and implosion. Some banks survived, some didn't, and my retirement savings halved in value. There wasn't much to do about the money, but there was something I could do to comfort myself and that was to construct a scientific theory of what was happening. When in worry and doubt, work it out, preferably with some fancy equations. At the level of metaphor, the financial implosion of an investment bank resembles the formation of a super-massive black hole in the early universe.

A giant star, a million times the mass of our sun, burns through its nuclear fuel in a few tens of thousands of years. After it has consumed its nuclear fuel, it can no longer generate the heat and pressure required to fend off the force of gravity. Unable to support its own weight, the star collapses. As it implodes, it blows off its outer layer in an explosion moving at the speed of light. In contemplating the financial wreckage, I realized that the similarity between financial collapse and gravitational collapse is not merely a metaphor.

In fact, it is possible to construct a mathematical theory that applies equally to gravitational collapse and to financial collapse. The key ingredient is the existence of negative energy: in both Newton's and Einstein's theory of gravity, the energy in matter is positive, but the energy in gravity is negative. In the universe as a whole, the positive energy of mass and kinetic energy is exactly counterbalanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field, so that the net energy of the universe is effectively zero.


  • Si yo fuera un niño del antiguo Egipto (Spanish Edition).
  • What the Hell Are the Neurons Up To?: The Wire-Dangled Human Race!
  • Swing Away (A Little League Novel Book 1)!
  • ADVERTISEMENT.
  • Heart of the Storm (Wild at Heart Book 1).

The analogue of energy in financial systems is money. Households, companies, governments, and of course, investment banks have assets positive money and debts negative money. When the companies in which I own that stock send me their annual reports, I note with fascination that their assets and net obligations sum—magically—to zero. This magical accounting might have something to do with the collapse of my retirement fund.

So let's look at theories of systems that have positive stuff and negative stuff, where the total amount of stuff sums to zero. Start with gravity. Stars, galaxies, or the universe itself, which possess both positive and negative energy, behave differently from things like cups of coffee, whose energy is entirely positive ignoring the gravitational and psychological effects of caffeine.

In particular, gravitational systems exhibit a weird effect that goes under the name of 'negative specific heat. As the cup radiates energy, it cools down. Bizarrely, as a star, galaxy, or cloud of interstellar dust radiates energy, it heats up: the more energy a star loses, the hotter it gets. The star has negative specific heat. If a cup of coffee had negative specific heat, when you put it down on the counter and forgot about it for a few minutes, it wouldn't cool down: it would get hotter and hotter.

The longer you forgot about it, the hotter and hotter it would get, eventually exploding in fountain of super-heated coffee. Conversely, if an ice cube had negative specific heat, the more heat it absorbed the colder it would get. If you left such an ice cube on the counter, it would absorb heat from its hotter surroundings. As it absorbed heat, it would get colder and colder, sucking more and more heat from its surroundings until it and everything around it was drawn inexorably towards absolute zero.

Negative specific heat doesn't immediately lead to a catastrophe. In a star, the hydrogen fusing into helium at temperatures of millions of degrees has positive specific heat that counterbalances the negative specific heat of gravitation, leading to an harmonious generation of lots of free energy over billions of years. Life on earth is a product of this harmony. Once the sun burns through its supply of nuclear fuel, however, gravity will dominate and our star will collapse.

Now turn to financial systems. But the possibility of implosion always exists. Here's where the detailed mathematical model can help. Around , the physicist Paul Ehrenfest was trying to understand how molecules bounced around in a gas. He constructed a simple model, now called the Ehrenfest urn model. Take two urns and a bunch of balls. Initially all the balls are in one of the urns. Pick a ball at random and move it to the other urn. What happens? Initially, the balls move from the full urn to the empty urn. As the initially empty urn fills up, balls start to move back to the other urn as well.

Eventually, each urn has approximately the same number of balls. This final state is called equilibrium. In the Ehrenfest urn model, equilibrium is stable: once the number of balls in the two urns becomes approximately equal, it stays that way, with small fluctuations due to the random nature of the process.

what the hell are the neurons up to the wire dangled human race Manual

The mathematical model that I constructed is a simple generalization of Ehrenfest's model. As a result, the number of white balls is always equal to the number of black balls, but the total number of balls is not conserved. In this model, there are two types of processes: balls are moved at random from urn to urn, as before, and balls can be created or destroyed in pairs within an urn.

The urn model with creation and destruction has two distinct forms of behavior. If pairs of balls are created and destroyed at the same rate in both urns, then the behavior of the system is similar to the Ehrenfest urn model: both urns end up with roughly the same number of balls, which fluctuates up and down over time in stable equilibrium. By contrast, if the urn with more balls is allowed to create pairs at a higher rate than the urn with fewer balls, then the behavior is unstable: the urn with more balls will acquire more and more balls, both black and white.

If destruction also occurs at a higher rate in the urn with more balls, then the number of balls in that urn will explode and then collapse. In physical terms, this unstable behavior comes about because the allowing the 'wealthier' urn to create balls at a higher rate gives the overall system negative specific heat, so that stable equilibrium is impossible. In financial terms, creating a pair of balls is analogous to creating debt, and destroying a pair of balls is analogous to retiring debt.

The urn model implies that if wealthier institutions, with more balls, can create debt at a higher rate than less wealthy institutions, then the flows of assets and debt become unstable. That is, if wealthier institutions have higher leverage, then economic equilibrium goes unstable. Lehman Brothers was leveraged at around thirty to one at the time of its collapse: it had been able to borrow thirty dollars for each dollar it actually possessed.

The urn model's criteria for instability were met. The signature of unstable equilibrium is that ordinary transactions such as banks lending money, no longer lead to the best allocation of resources or something close: instead, they lead to the worst allocation of resources!

Sound familiar? So what to worry about? Don't worry about the end of the universe or our sun collapsing into a black hole. But if banks leverage to the hilt again, then you should worry about hearing another big sucking sound. Last year, Google made a fundamental change in the way that it searches. Now, besides the traditional keyword search, Google also performs a "semantic search" using a database of knowledge about the world. In this case, it will look for entities that it knows to be museums that are located within the geographic region that is named New York. To do this, the computers that perform the search must have some notion of what a museum is, what New York is, and how they are related.

The computers must represent this knowledge and use it to make a judgment. The search engine's judgments are based on knowledge of specific entities: places, organizations, songs, products, historical events, and even individual people. Sometimes these entities are displayed to the right of the results, which combine the findings from both methods of search. Google currently knows about hundreds of millions of specific entities. For comparison, the largest human-readable reference source, Wikipedia, has less than ten million entries.

This is an early example of semantic search. Eventually, every major search engine will use similar methods. Semantics will displace the traditional keywords as the primary method of search. A problem becomes apparent if we change the example from "Museums of New York" to "Provinces of China. This is a controversial question. With semantic search either the computer or the curator of the knowledge will have to make a decision.

Editors of published content have long made such judgments; now, the search engine makes these judgments in selecting its results. With sematic search these decisions are not based on statistics, but on a model of the world. What about a search for "Dictators of the World"? Here the results, which include a list of famous dictators, are not just the judgment of whether a particular person is a dictator, but also an implied judgment, in the collection of individual examples, of the very concept of a dictator. By building knowledge of concepts like "dictator" into our shared means of discovering information, we are implicitly accepting a set of assumptions.

Search engines have long been judges of what is important; now they are also arbiters of the truth. Different search engines, or different collections of knowledge, may evolve to serve different constituencies - one for mainland China, another for Taiwan; one for the liberals, another for the conservatives. Or, more optimistically, search engines may evolve new ways to introduce us to unfamiliar points of view, challenging us to new perspectives.

Either way, their invisible judgments will frame our awareness. In the past, meaning was only in the minds of humans.

Account Options

Now, it is also in the minds of tools that bring us information. From now on, search engines will have an editorial point of view, and search results will reflect that viewpoint. We can no longer ignore the assumptions behind the results. Sexual deception, the difficulties of attracting viable marriage partners, intimate partner violence, infidelity, mate poaching, divorce, and post-breakup stalking—these diverse phenomena are all connected by a common causal element: an unrelenting shortage of valuable mates.

The dearth of desirable mates is something we should worry about, for it lies behind much human treachery and brutality. Despite the fact that many equate evolution with survival selection, survival is only important inasmuch as it contributes to successful mating. Differential reproductive success, not differential survival success, is the engine of evolution by selection. You can survive to old age. But if you fail to mate, you fail to reproduce, and your genes bite the evolutionary dust.

We are all descendants of a ruthless selective process of competition for the most valuable mates—those who can give our children good genes and an array of resources ranging from food and shelter to the social skills needed to scramble up the status hierarchy. People are uncomfortable placing a value on other humans. It offends our sensibilities. But the unfortunate fact is that mate value is not distributed evenly. Contrary to yearnings for equality, all people simply are not equivalent in the currency of mate quality.

Some are extremely valuable—fertile, healthy, sexually appealing, resource-rich, well-connected, personable, and willing and able to confer their bounty of benefits. At the other end of the distribution are those less fortunate, perhaps less healthy, with fewer material resources, or imbued with personality dispositions such as aggressiveness or emotional instability that inflict heavy relationship costs.

The competition to attract the most desirable mates is ferocious.


  • Die Strippenzieherinnen (German Edition).
  • Hot Shots FC v Aerial FC.
  • What the Hell Are the Neurons up To?: The Wire-Dangled Human Race;
  • Les Anges mont dit: (French Edition).
  • #1620 EDDY SWEATER VINTAGE KNITTING PATTERN.
  • Account Options.
  • LEVEL-HEADEDNESS - Definition and synonyms of level-headedness in the English dictionary.

Consequently, those most valuable are perpetually in short supply compared to the many who desire them. People who are themselves high in mate value succeed in attracting the most desirable partners. In the crude informal American metric, the 9s and 10s pair off with other 9s and 10s. And with decreasing value from the 8s to the 1s, people must lower their mating sights commensurately.

Failure to do so produces a higher probability of rejection and psychological anguish. As one woman advised her male friend who bemoaned his frustration about his lack of interest in the women attracted to him and the unreciprocated interest by women to whom he was attracted, "you're an 8 looking for 9s and being sought after by 7s.

Another source of problems on the mating market comes from deception. Scientific studies of on-line dating profiles reveal that men and women both try to appear higher in mate value than they truly are on precisely the dimensions valued by the opposite sex. Men exaggerate their income and status, and tack on a couple of inches to their real height. Women present as 10 to 15 pounds lighter than their real weight and some shave years off of their actual age. Both show unrepresentative photos, sometimes taken many years earlier. Men and women deceive in order to attract mates at the outer limit of their value range.

Sometimes they deceive themselves. Despite valiant efforts, men's attempts to increase their market value in women's eyes do not always work. Many fail. Dating anxiety can paralyze men brave in other contexts. Some spurned men become bitter and hostile toward women after repeated rejections. As Jim Morrison of 'The Doors' once noted, "women seem wicked when you're unwanted. Mating difficulties do not end among those successful enough to attract a partner.

Mate value discrepancies open a Pandora's box of problems. An omnipresent challenge within romantic relationships derives from mate value discrepancies—when an 8 mistakenly pairs up with a 6, when one member of an initially matched couple plummets in mate value, or even when one ascends more rapidly professionally than the other. Jennifer Aniston's hold on Brad Pitt proved tenuous. Mate poachers lure the higher value partner, driving wide initially small wedges: "He's not good enough for you;" "She doesn't treat you well;" "You deserve someone better.

The lower mate-value partners typically struggle mightily to prevent infidelity and breakup. They use tactics ranging from vigilance to violence. Intimate partner battering, abhorrent as it is, has a disturbing functional logic. Since self-esteem is, in part, a psychological adaptation designed to track one's own mate value, blows to self-esteem cause reductions in self-perceived mate value.

Physical and psychological abuse predictably harm the victim's self-esteem, narrowing the perceived discrepancy between a woman's and her partner's mate value, and sometimes causing her to stay with her abuser. Those who succeed in breaking up and leaving are sometimes stalked by former partners—typically men who know or sense that they will never again be able to attract a woman as valuable as the one they have lost.

Studies I've conducted in collaboration with Dr. Many stalkers are sustained by the false belief that their victims truly love them, but they just don't realize it yet. Andy Dawkins, Take it from me, the real, twinscrew, double-funneled, copper-bottomed level- headedness of this broad and pit-fall'd world is all in the women. Men are the dreamers and fanatics, the superstitious and the gullible. Their level-headedness has Mary MacLane, Michael R.

Brown, Bojana Novakovic, Emmanuel C. Eze, Our editor, Vince Grzegorek — whose level-headedness betwixt company-wide restructuring and the eternal stressors of editorial management With her ability and level-headedness , chances are she'll return better than ever, maybe even at the British Open next week. Here's hoping. Through 53 years of marriage he received unfailing support from Gloria, whose understatement and level-headedness brought balance to their Chinx's 'Welcome to J.

Saunders said he was very impressed with the year-old McNealy, citing his level-headedness and patience as things he could learn from. It's going to take level-headedness , self-control, and reasonable action, he added. Commenting on Wednesday's announcement by Reform Jordan Spieth's ferocious will to win faces ultimate test at the Open.

For all the striking maturity and level-headedness of this year-old golfing sensation it would be utter folly to ignore his ferocious will to win. Add to cart. Be the first to write a review About this product. About this product Product Information "Know Thyself. It was given in response to those who sought her counsel regarding the course their destiny was likely to take.

It is still sound advice for most of us in the modern world. To come to "really" know oneself-discover one's distinctive temperament and character-requires frequent self-scrutiny. It is well nigh impossible to know what makes one "tick" without recognizing the nature of one's attitudes and responses to life in the outside world, while also acknowledging the highly personal inner psychological drives of feeling, thought and imagination.

The consciousness that impels us is psychologically deep and wide-ranging. The search for the essential Self requires a "Sherlock Holmes" mentality and discipline: it's a hell of a job to unify outer and inner "consciousnesses. Every chapter can be seen and read as its own "story" describing an especially significant aspect of consciousness.

Cumulatively, they are meant to help readers attain a sense of their own body-mind-spirit complexes and "who" they are as entities unto themselves. And then to ask the question as to where "reality" is to be found: in the mental life of thoughts and feelings. Additional Product Features Publication Year. Show More Show Less.