I grew up fascinated by these essays from maybe age 8 onward.
Now I realize the pervasive bad faith in them, e.g. dismissing Murray (The Bell Curve) and enthronizing the in-retrospect-irrelevant Jay Gould. I knew his novels were kind of silly, but he was supposed to be a Scientist educating us in the scientific view of the world, goddamn it.
> enthronizing the in-retrospect-irrelevant Jay Gould
What? Stephen Jay Gould is not irrelevant.
> I knew his novels were kind of silly
They are not silly. They belong to a different era of Science Fiction, sure. But silly? (He did engage in intentionally goofy humor, of course, but I don't think that's what you meant).
> he was supposed to be a Scientist educating us in the scientific view of the world, goddamn it.
I had a freshmen class where 11 people in a class of 113 got caught directly copying journals you were supposed to maintain over the course of the semester. That's a minimum cheating rate of about 10%.
You can find old surveys asking university students how often they cheat. Let's say they don't paint a positive impression.
Maybe I wasn't receiving the full Fitness Message as someone proudly sedentary, but the way I experienced the world (seen through what I think I know now), it always seemed like people overemphasize weight loss and being thin as a marker of health.
People, people, I know many of you don't want to look like you lift, but skeletal muscle has moby advantages in minimizing the annoyances of old age. It also literally helps in weight loss. I'm also told it regulates insulin. Plus weight training also strengthens your tendons and bones. If you start deadlifting heavy at age 40, you will develop strong spinal erectors which will likely protect you from herniated discs when you're 60.
Losing weight is fine and will help preventing coronary / fatty liver etc diseases. But please make it priority number 2. Build muscle and try, as a bonus, to lower your body fat percentage. If you never do, it's better to be 35% bodyfat and yoked than to be 30% and made of blubber and chalk.
You can always restrict the meaning of "causality".
E.g. Granger casusality means that A is typically detected before B and not the other way around (so not mere correlation). It's a moby useful concept.
Now I realize the pervasive bad faith in them, e.g. dismissing Murray (The Bell Curve) and enthronizing the in-retrospect-irrelevant Jay Gould. I knew his novels were kind of silly, but he was supposed to be a Scientist educating us in the scientific view of the world, goddamn it.