As with the education premium, so with inequality. They have risen together.
What I found with many adult clients reading at the "basic" level (roughly, between 6th and 8th grade level) was that with intensive basic skills training, they could improve their skills even further. If they didn't have a GED, they could get one with sufficient preparation. If they already had a GED or high school diploma, they could complete vocational training or a community college program.
Roughly 45 million US adults read below the 5th grade level, including 19% of high school graduates and half of adults under the poverty line .
The downside of living in such an interconnected universe is vulnerability. Between the psychological harm subtly inflicted years ago by our nonmindful parents, to lack of inner harmony and connection with others, to the myriad of “toxins” in our environment, the world is a dangerous place.
Two recent studies compared magical thinking in mindfulness meditators and non-meditators. Meditators scored significantly higher in magical thinking than non-meditators. The study authors suggested two possible reasons for this difference between groups: the mindfulness meditators came from a Buddhist tradition that incorporated magical ideas; and/or mindfulness is associated with greater open-mindedness.
...if the point is to be non-judgmental, non-reactive, and simply aware in the moment, focused on your breath, then interrupted thoughts or feelings may just be a casualty of the practice...
The Harm Principle: "We should allow rational people to be self-determining, except possibly where autonomy should be restricted if, by doing so, we act to prevent harm to others." Don Berkich
How do we prioritize moral principles when they’re in conflict with each other? Why that way and not another way?
Activated brain areas included the insula and amygdala, which are associated with subjective “gut feelings”, disgust, reaction to norm violations, threat detection, and evaluation of trustworthiness.
Most of the individuals I’ve focused on have given some thought to this challenge and formulated basic principles on how to approach the possibility of a changing climate: keep energy cheap, reliable and widely available; focus on adaptation rather than mitigation; and, let the market do the heavy lifting. I submit it is these principles rather than “denying” climate change that elicits so much vilification from environmental activists and the progressive community.
In the past few posts I focused on 11 individuals who have been labeled deniers. As it turns out, only one of these individuals flat-out denies the existence of climate change. The others acknowledge global warming but express uncertainty about the causes, rate, magnitude, or impact of climate change.
Various public figures have been labeled climate change deniers. What are their actual positions on climate change?
Below is a list of 11 public figures described as “prominent climate deniers working actively to mislead the public and delay policy action to address climate change”...
As our moral sense develops, we may find ourselves reflecting less and reacting more. In the beginning we struggle to sort it out. Eventually we become more settled in our judgments. What began as moral reasoning is increasingly replaced by moral intuitions. Some of us may become opinionated and easily outraged...
...to say that thoughts and feelings do not reflect reality or the truth is too broad. I’d rather say thoughts and feelings shouldn’t be considered the last word, or the whole story – they may have a basis in truth but dwelling on some truths can prevent us from seeing other truths.
Next to age and education/skill level, single parenthood is the biggest predictor of poverty and low wages. Single mothers do not have enough time and energy to increase their skill levels or work more than they do if they cannot afford childcare.
Insurers don't have much margin. Insurance premiums are pretty much in lock-step with healthcare costs. If the premiums employers pay for healthcare insurance went down, part of the savings would go to wage increases. If our health care costs could get in line with Western Europe's, that would mean a healthy pay raise for millions of American workers.
More likely someone will be called a denier if he/she doesn't seem all that concerned about climate change or thinks its effects will be minor and manageable.
I’m guessing significance refers to predicted effects of global warming and what actions must be taken to mitigate or adapt to those effects. Thus, if you think the impact will be harmless or even beneficial, that puts you in the denier camp. If you take a “wait-and-see” attitude to global warming, confident that “a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it, you’re a denier. Ditto anyone who advocates incremental and/or purely market-based approaches to climate change, because these approaches are just too wimpy given the enormity of the threat.
“Denial’ is more interesting. In contemporary usage, it assumes that what is denied is the Truth, as in: Denial: “refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings”.