I am sorry I disappointed you. Many times I forget that other people have not read the same clinical papers that I enjoy. I assumed that most people would have some familiarity with the studies done on overcrowding in mischiefs (that is the technical name for a rat colony).

My response was in two parts. First the ambush of Judge K and the horrible way many treated him. I believe strongly that a person must be presumed innocent until proven (not beyond reasonable doubt) by evidence to be guilty. When the evidence against Judge K is examined, it comes up well short of proof. Ford and her wittinesses fell far short in proving a misdemeanor took place. She did not know the date, the place, or time. She could not at first identify how many people attacked her. There was no police report.... in other words it was her word against 12 other people.

The second part addressed the assertion stated and implied that city children are smarter and much better adapted than suburban or small town children. So, now realizing that some, to include yourself, has not read the scientific studies or if they did have forgotten the substance of those studies. Researchers first suggested in the 1930s that urban living might increase the risk of developing schizophrenia. Since then many large epidemiological studies have reported an association between the two, primarily in European countries such as Sweden and Denmark. Converging evidence revealed that growing up in the city doubles the risk of developing psychosis later in life. Studies have also begun to find that urban environments may heighten the risk of other mental health issues such as depression and anxiety. Studies suggest that exposure to urban environments early in life—being born or growing up in a city—matters most. To look more closely at this critical stage of life, a group of researchers led by Helen Fisher, a psychologist at King’s College London, and Candice Odgers, a psychologist at Duke University, conducted a longitudinal study involving 2,232 twin children in the United Kingdom. The findings, growing up in the city nearly doubled the likelihood of psychotic symptoms at age 12, and that exposure to crime along with low social cohesion were the biggest risk factors. Fisher notes, “In some of the other studies where we follow people later in life, we show that [psychotic symptoms] are actually related to lots of other [mental health] problems as well, so it's a broader marker for that.” These problems include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse. “This [study] adds to our own experimental evidence that strongly leads us to suspect that being in the city does something to a specific circuit in the brain that impairs your ability to deal with social stress,” says Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, director of University of Heidelberg’s Central Institute for Mental Health in Germany. Meyer-Lindenberg’s group previously found that people who were living in or grew up in cities showed stronger activation in the amygdala and cingulate cortex (brain areas involved in processing and regulating emotion), respectively, compared with those from rural areas. More recently, they discovered that migration, another well-established risk factor for schizophrenia, led to similar alterations in brain function.

All this was part of the animal studies that I hit on in my response. It is my opinion that city children are not smarter, braver, more clever, or better adapted than children who are raised in the suburbs or rural areas. Yes city children grow up with a greater understanding of human actions but not necessarily a better understanding of the world or normal human nature. Couple developmental issues and later developed mental heath problems.... it seems illogical for Rumi to imply that city children are more adaptive, smarter, or better adjusted to life.

Again, I am sorry that I disappointed you but I stand solidly by what I wrote.

It may, but not likely. The term "well-behaved" is oppressive. No other way to describe it. What does it mean? A fixed reaction to elders. Spontaneity, questioning, stating their own opinion, ignoring them, or just being a child will seem disrespectful in this paradigm. How they are to act is fixed, a demanded and anticipated response to be right. Discipline means "encourage to grow," not restrictions on how to be or what to say. It does not encourage respect and compassion. Defining how one is to behave encourages only resentment and phoniness. Self-restraint comes from the child that knows love and is valued, not trained to do the right thing.

I am sorry I disappointed you. Many times I forget that other people have not read the same clinical papers that I enjoy. I assumed that most people would have some familiarity with the studies done on overcrowding in mischiefs (that is the technical name for a rat colony).

My response was in two parts. First the ambush of Judge K and the horrible way many treated him. I believe strongly that a person must be presumed innocent until proven (not beyond reasonable doubt) by evidence to be guilty. When the evidence against Judge K is examined, it comes up well short of proof. Ford and her wittinesses fell far short in proving a misdemeanor took place. She did not know the date, the place, or time. She could not at first identify how many people attacked her. There was no police report.... in other words it was her word against 12 other people.

The second part addressed the assertion stated and implied that city children are smarter and much better adapted than suburban or small town children. So, now realizing that some, to include yourself, has not read the scientific studies or if they did have forgotten the substance of those studies. Researchers first suggested in the 1930s that urban living might increase the risk of developing schizophrenia. Since then many large epidemiological studies have reported an association between the two, primarily in European countries such as Sweden and Denmark. Converging evidence revealed that growing up in the city doubles the risk of developing psychosis later in life. Studies have also begun to find that urban environments may heighten the risk of other mental health issues such as depression and anxiety. Studies suggest that exposure to urban environments early in life—being born or growing up in a city—matters most. To look more closely at this critical stage of life, a group of researchers led by Helen Fisher, a psychologist at King’s College London, and Candice Odgers, a psychologist at Duke University, conducted a longitudinal study involving 2,232 twin children in the United Kingdom. The findings, growing up in the city nearly doubled the likelihood of psychotic symptoms at age 12, and that exposure to crime along with low social cohesion were the biggest risk factors. Fisher notes, “In some of the other studies where we follow people later in life, we show that [psychotic symptoms] are actually related to lots of other [mental health] problems as well, so it's a broader marker for that.” These problems include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse. “This [study] adds to our own experimental evidence that strongly leads us to suspect that being in the city does something to a specific circuit in the brain that impairs your ability to deal with social stress,” says Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, director of University of Heidelberg’s Central Institute for Mental Health in Germany. Meyer-Lindenberg’s group previously found that people who were living in or grew up in cities showed stronger activation in the amygdala and cingulate cortex (brain areas involved in processing and regulating emotion), respectively, compared with those from rural areas. More recently, they discovered that migration, another well-established risk factor for schizophrenia, led to similar alterations in brain function.

All this was part of the animal studies that I hit on in my response. It is my opinion that city children are not smarter, braver, more clever, or better adapted than children who are raised in the suburbs or rural areas. Yes city children grow up with a greater understanding of human actions but not necessarily a better understanding of the world or normal human nature. Couple developmental issues and later developed mental heath problems.... it seems illogical for Rumi to imply that city children are more adaptive, smarter, or better adjusted to life.

Again, I am sorry that I disappointed you but I stand solidly by what I wrote.

I was looking for a liberal leaning examination of the issue, as you guys seem to really want to debate the topic with me taking the liberal stance. Why don't we all look at this guy's analysis and see where each our own actually differ from his and each other's?

We could go at it by maelstrom and excitedly type whole reams of responses confusedly at once, or we could try a disciplined approach of baby steps to digest it slowly.

If several agree to use this video, and no one has strong objections to the thread topic, (why partisans have differing views on Kavenaugh) being subsumed in this activity, why not start watching it and stop at the first point with which you disagree. Then post an explanation of the u-tuber's point followed by your point(s) of disagreement and supporting opinions/evidence. Stop after one post, each, on this assignment to let others catch up, and when stuff slows down, then we can cross talk about what has come up, and if it's a workable strategy and we are having fun, we could then continue and each post the first thing we agree with the u-tube guy about.....

Shall we agree anyone can drop out or in or back in at will? Some of you guys have jobs, right?

So, the mission, if you should accept, is a several step process, and I'm pretty toasted, so I'll be sure to embarrass myself by messing up...

You guys may laugh and tease....

We will have to keep each other on track. I'll accept any chastisement good naturedly, of course, as I've got a good natural buffer going....

Laissez les bons temps rouler?


https://youtu.be/Yl1VYF0avk4