Very good, you've actually change my view on the gender oppression with this article
It's really counterintuitive, in your previous post there is an implication that the harder thing is to do, the smarter it makes you, and therefore more preferred it is. It seems as a stronger claim then mere "being locked in attention trap of facebook feed/videogames is bad".
But obviously (for me) it's better to make some content easier to comprehend, not harder, how making it easier can make a content worse? Like, I did a couple of things to increase my ability to gather/generate information (learned English, studied fast typing, use automatic grammar check), do you think those have a negative side effect?
Can you please elaborate what specific criteria you use to decide did some specific content makes you dumber or smarter? It's quite difficult to trace the exact imipact of one blog post to your life.
What's the difference between antimeme and just knowledge which is hard to attain? Why do we need a new definition "Antimemecy" when we already have "Complexity"? To prove it wrong it should be a meme that is complex and difficult to understand.
And for any useful knowledge when you start to use it you tend to remember it
Thank you, great sharing.
I want to add my 2 cents about things I disagree.
1) In the last post there was a thought like "I'm rational and proactive, and they're lazy and irrational, and therefore I do not prosper". That can be very dangerous mindset and it's incorrect by definition I think. That's not about pro poker players don't want to take +EV decisions. Vice versa, they have a lot of +EV decisions (check out new software, watch/read theory, discuss hands on forums, private discussions, group/individual classes, soft skills development, analyze statistics in Holdem Manager etc etc). The cost is not only $, but thier time as well, and your option just doesn't seem to them to be "the most profitable", not "just profitable". That's the bar you need to hit, not just to be +ROI.
2) I played poker professionally some years ago, and a lot of (full-time) players I was interacting don't have a flopzilla. I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly Equilab is free analog to flopzilla (which is less powerful, but still, moving to more complicated software may just seem not the most valuable investment of your time, like when you still have some simple leaks jin your game which you can try to fix).
Anyway, best of luck in the future projects
I'm from Samara (that Russian city from the experiment), and I sometimes face with unappreciation of contribution. Usually altruistic people are treated like idiots (why they are taking from thier own and thier close circle to feed some commonwealth?), and sometimes with negative reaction. I tried to explain it by myself and friends with the question "why then to be a contributor?" and my view what's going on was clumsy. Thanks for that, this article is a good explanation of my native thoughts.
Why can't you start shoveling those CoDs to pull off dragons from it? I'm not very familiar with therapy, but revision of business process (a what-to-do-in-which-case instruction) is usually a good way to handle power/responsibility problems. Finding occurancies when people have responsibility for something but have no power to change it and defining how to manage these cases should help reducing overall CoD. I'm a bit confused that article predicts that it only will make a CoD worse, I wonder why.