Interesting Links for 07-04-2016

[andrewducker]

Britons learn everything is a massive con and then go back to work (tags: society tax inequality satire ) What is a "Good Job"? (tags: jobs psychology work ) Discovery of 1,000-year-old Viking site in Canada could rewrite history (tags: history canada ) 'Scunthorpe' is a four-letter word: Facebook stops band from promoting Lincolnshire gig (

Comments

[bart_calendar]

I would be astounded if those paternity rates held up in future studies.

[drdoug]

I dunno. The full article [PDF] cites some evidence that the rates fell when modern contraceptives became available. Their argument is that measures in contemporary populations are low, and that one might think that was due to the availability of modern contraceptives, but the work in this paper suggests that the rate has been low historically too.

Anecdotally I know quite a few men (and indeed women) who are contributing to the welfare of kids who are not their own - but everybody involved knows fine they're stepkids. It'd be surprising if the rate of fathers being wrong about the paternity of their kids went *up* as the technology to check becomes much more available.

[bart_calendar]

Yeah. I just know many, many situations where I would be very surprised if the husband was the dad but the dad's just don't question it because they see what they want to see.

I can't imagine that the women I know are that hugely different from the population as a whole, but who knows.

How many people actually undergo paternity tests? While the technology is there the potential for heartbreak is so huge and the human potential to see what you want to see is so high, the motivation to use it is fairly low.

[drdoug]

Well, at least I know for sure that the women I know are hugely different from the population as a whole! :-)

More data here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/#.VwZOZhMrL6A

How many people actually undergo paternity tests?

That's a really interesting question! I have no idea. Thinking about it, it probably is fewer than I thought.

The sugar conspiracy.

[drdoug]

I am pretty convinced that dietary fat is not the main problem in contemporary human diets, and that its role has been oversold in the past.

I am not convinced that dietary sugar is the main problem either.

[gonzo21]

What do you think the main problem might be then?

[andrewducker]

Sugar's definitely a big part of it.

Lack of exercise is another one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_trends#UK

Microbiome (gut bacteria) is definitely having some kind of effect - and the things that we're discovering affect _that_ are many and varied.
http://nautil.us/issue/31/stress/what-your-microbiome-wants-for-dinner

And I strongly suspect that this varies dramatically from person to person:
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/10/future-of-dieting-is-personalized-algorithms.html

[gonzo21]

Exercise, yeah. It is ultimately quite hard to cheat the basic calories in / calories out equation.

[momentsmusicaux]

That public art map story has been badly reported everywhere, or at least badly headlined here. The map part is not illegal. Just the photos. Which is stupid, yes.

[kalimac]

1) If we already know that the Vikings had a settlement in northern Newfoundland, to discover that they also had one in western Newfoundland is extremely interesting and adds quite a lot to our knowledge, but "rewrite history" tends to imply a massive paradigm shift in our understanding that doesn't seem to be on offer here

[gonzo21]

1) The 'Paradigm' in our thinking in this regard would be if we could SOMEHOW get away from thinking about how whoever might have 'discovered' the Americas, and for it to become the consensus understanding that America had already been discovered by the people who lived there long before Europeans turned up.

[kalimac]

The only "discovery" mentioned in the article is the discovery of this particular archaeological site. There's nothing about the Vikings "discovering America."

The paradigm I'd like to get rid of is the one that demands that something can only be discovered once. If you find something that you didn't know about and isn't generally known in your cultural milieu, you've discovered it. That's how the word is used. Should we not say that the archaeological site was discovered by archaeologists because, after all, the Vikings had lived there long before the archaeologists turned up?

[lilchiva]

I have agreed with 100% of everything you have typed on this thread. Thank you so very much.

[octopoid_horror]

we don’t describe a person with a muscular body as “proteiny”

IF ONLY WE DID

[drdoug]

I have to say that if I heard someone describe a man with a muscular body as "proteiny", I would infer something quite rude.

[octopoid_horror]

At some point I will stop using "protein shake" as ironic slang for masturbation. But not at any point soon.