Ramifications of 'blind' TD E/I-minimization in the News
k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Sun May 4 04:47:50 EST 2003
I just realized that there's a Flaw in my logic with respect to my smoking-micronutrient-cancer-weight-gain hypothesis.
If it were a generalized micronutrient uptake-blocking, then smoking wouldn't be correlated with cancers that are associated with body areas that physically encounter the 'smoke'. It could be a lcalized blocking of micronutrient uptake, and that could still be correlated to the post-smoking-cessation weight gain, but this hypothetical 'connection' becomes less-strong to the degree that increased cancer incidence in smokers is correlated to smoke-passage local irritation.
If, however, other types of cancer also increase in smokers, then my hypothesized 'connection' still seems to have 'merit'. I don't know the general cancer statistics with respect to smokers. [Anybody here in b.n know?]
It just seems so probable that the weight-gain is part of a catch-up with respect to some smoking-induced nutritional deficit that the hypothesis 'attracts' me.
Anyway, since I realized that my hypothesis is, possibly, Flawed in this way, it's necessary for me to post this 'caveat' discussion.
So many interesting questions.
So little 'time' left.
K. P. Collins
"Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"
"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message news:Aq2ta.65396$cO3.4407341 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
A couple of articles whose subject matter "can't see the forest for the trees":
"What Your Genes Want You to Eat", By BRUCE GRIERSON
Gees louise! All one has to do to take care of one's nutrition is walk around a grocery store while attending to one's salivary glands. :-]
A much more important preliminary use for the efforts that'd be expended in 'nutritional genetics' would be to develop a micro-nutrient map with respect to dis-ease processes.
I've discussed one example of the need for such in the past - with respect to smoking and cancer etiology. My hypothesis was [and still is] that the weight-gain that 'typically' accompanies cessation of smoking correlates with the possibility that excess nicotine [or something else absorbed while smoking] blocks the uptake of micronutrients that're essential with respect to some key molecular steps that control cell proliferation. It's probably just a tiny step in an otherwise long chain of events. Block these micro-nutrients, and, as the body's supply of the micro-nutrient is depleted, cell proliferation tends toward running wild. It could be something as simple as a signal step with respect to 'normal' handling of wayward cell development - absent the 'signal' the 'cavalry' is not called it to eliminate the 'mess-up' before it gets out of hand.
Why my hypothesis holds that it's a micro-nutrient deficiency that's involved is that the post-smoking-cessation weight gain probably constitutes an enforced accelerated resupply with respect to the micro-nutrient - since it is(?) a micro-nutrient that's involved, one has to eat a lot of food before one ingests a sufficient quantity of the micro-nutrient that exists only in trace quantities in 'normal' food.
'Course, the weight gain could also result from the fact that one can actually smell food after smoking cessation :-]
But I do think it's as above - because inability to smell probably isn't what precipitates the onset of cancer.
Anyway, my reaction to the stuff of this article was, "Gees, what a waste!" And that it seemed to me that this genetic-nutrition stuff is yet another attempt to separate naive folks from their money. 'cause, like I said, all one has to do to take care of one's nutrition is walk around a grocery store while attending to one's salivary glands. :-]
Our nervous systems analyze our body's nutritional 'balance' and 'whisper advice' to us through our 'cravings'.
'Course, it also helps if one can actually purchase the foods that one's nervous system's nutritional analysis 'points to'.
The 'racial' differentiation that's addressed in the article needs to be cross-correlated with respect to personal histories, in particular, with respect to Infants adopted at birth =and= in a general way with respect to socioeconomic background. The last thing will tower above genetics with respect to sufficiency of nutrition - which is why I 'smell' 'money-hunger' in the stuff that's Reported-on in this article.
Half the world is starving, and folks're interested in stuff that only rich folks would be able to take advantage of?
You know - "Come on!"
"Stalin to Saddam: So Much for the Madman Theory", By ERICA GOODE
"Malignant narcissism, as defined by psychiatrists, is a severe form of narcissistic personality disorder. Like classic narcissists, malignant narcissists are grandiose, self-centered, oversensitive to criticism and unable to feel empathy for others. They cover over deep insecurities with an inflated self-image."
The stuff that's Reported-on in this article has a high-B.S. quotient that derives in an apparent absence of understanding with respect to the Psychology of commonplace experience in Iraq.
Some of what's involved in my 'criticism' was vividly displayed in the rampant looting that took place in the first days of American Troops taking of Baghdad.
There's huge behavioral inertia that derives in the cultural instability that became the 'norm' in Iraq due to it's colonial occupation.
That cultural instability, xombined with the pre-existing tribal nature of the Iraqi population, precipitated interactive instability within the population as a whole.
This sort of circumstance 'begs' for a strong form of control, and, if Saddam Hussein hadn't become that 'strong' controller, some other man would've.
Hussein's 'personality' traits derived, in the main, as a Consequence of the way he reacted to the circumstances in which he rose to power. He controlled via Murder, Torture, etc., and, as is discussed in AoK, Ap8, doing so establishes groupwise behavioral "inward spirals" which tend, strongly, to become self-sustaining. In the face of such, Hussein's world got 'scary', and he adapted by 'withdrawing' into a 'coccoon' of heightened personal security. This tended to cut him off from the 'normal' breadth of experience in Iraq, which induced his 'personality' to become increasingly experientially-inbred. All his 'weirdness' derives in this, because people become what they experience, and, once the experiential-inbreeding gained a foothold, it, 'two' became a self-perpetuating "inwardly-spiralling" dynamic, within which literally =anything= acquires the quality of 'being normal' via the mere fact of it's repitition while the nervous systems of those involved undergo 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization.
It's [Tragically] 'hilarious' that a version of this same-stuff is obviously occuring in within the Beltway these days.
Anyway, the fractured population-wide "behavioral inertia" of the Iraqi Citizenry will tend to create another 'Saddam' if it is not otherwise addressed and ameliorated, over the =long= term.
This's why, before the War, I spoke-out against going to War in Iraq, and 'fussed' about there being a "better way". The War was very-little relative to the work that must be accomplished with respect to the fractured "behavioral inertia" that stems from the upheaval of the former colonialism, three or four Wars, Brutal Dictatorship, more than a decade of stringent economic sanctions, dilapidated Educational processes, tribalism, including outright tribal hatreds, competeing religious sects which also compete with secularism, etc., that the Iraqui Citizenry has endured for most of the past century.
Instead of bombing the hell out of them, why not just give folks the understanding through which, by using their own good noggin's, they could've taken care of the dictator and lifted themselves up, too?
It's that within-the-Beltway experiential-inbreeding that 'thinks' it it 'can, and has to 'control' everything.
All that's necessary is to =let= folks understand how and why their nervous systems 'strive', 'blindly' and automatically, to achieve TD E/I-minimization. This's the =permanent= solution to the problem of achieving Peace within the Human Family.
It's 'hilarious' - I've monitored the reaction to my speaking-out against the War, and it's obvious that I've been further 'ostracized' because I did so - and the article discusses Saddam's skewed view of things?
I mean, how 'skewed' is it to 'ostracize' one who took a position that could've saved the Lives of 130+ U.S. Warriors, saved a =lot= of wear and tear on valuable Military equipment, prevented the disclosure of U.S. Military technology [think about it], saved the U.S. Treasury hundreds of billions of dollars, and fostered Enduring Peace?
I Understand that posting this msg will augment my 'ostracization'.
What else is 'new'?
With what's left of my Being, I want to 'move toward' Truth.
[Besides, they flipped the 'off' switch while I was writing this. That's 'funny', too. It's happening more and more frequently. "Oh well."]
K. P. Collins
"Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"
"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message news:q29ia.8918$cO3.535999 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Neur-sci