107 karma · joined March 18, 2023
Author hasn't done his homework. The belief thoughts = words has been well-debunked. The first hit from a lazy Google search is a Scientific American article all about it, helpfully titled 'You Don't Need Words to Think".
Or, if you like scientific papers better, see "Language and thought are not the same thing: evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients"
Be aware that well-meaning people will read your post, not realize your situation is outside of their own experience, reinterpret your problem into something that makes sense to them, and then give you useless advice based on their reinterpretation.
I've meditated on and off for years and, although it's pleasant, it sidesteps the real problem without actually addressing it. My conscious mind can be clear but a feeling of subconscious pressure remains, as though I'm in a shelter but I'm still aware of a storm outside that never stops trying to blow open the windows and doors. Have I just not meditated enough? Maybe, but that's unfalsifiable.
The best solution I've found isn't emptying the mind, it's occupying it with pleasing, intentionally-chosen, low-stakes mental puzzles or creative exercises.
This approach doesn't solve the root problem either, just avoids it, but it helps.
I've been waiting for "Lottery Ticket Hypothesis" breakthroughs and I hope this is the beginning.
And their carefully-considered recommendation is to raise taxes and cut nonmilitary spending to massively increase US armor and airpower in Europe? The same kind of weaponry getting obliterated by teenagers flying $1000 Chinese-made drones with grenades duct-taped to them?
Instead, how about: - A top-to-bottom audit and "rightsizing" of military procurement and operational spending. - Vulnerability assessment of legacy weapon paradigms in the age of drones. - Extension of service life of existing systems.
Defense industry shills gonna shill but The Economist should be embarrassed at credulously retweeting this claptrap.
If you're really just after physical fitness and self-discipline, a martial art may not be the best solution. Maybe yoga, acrobatics, or some forms of dance training. If you really want a martial art but aren't interested in combat, consider Tai Chi. The techniques do have combat applications but very few instructors teach it that way. The emphasis is usually on fitness, balance, bodily harmony, and a calm mind.
I'm no expert but I did four years of (very) traditional Okinawan karate and three more of a full-contact non-traditional "mixed" style called Jeet Kune Do, plus limited practice in other styles via seminars and training exchanges with different schools.
Schools teaching classic Asian arts like Karate, Kung Fu, Tae Kwon Do, etc tend to incorporate Asian culture and teaching methods as part of the package. A lot of people in that world are drawn to it because of that Asian-ness. If you're after discipline, regimentation, attention to exact form, and immersion in Asian history, that's where you'll find it. Emphasis on fighting effectiveness varies widely, as does the mood of various schools. One school may seem like it's full of bullies and another teaching exactly the same style will feel welcoming and supportive.
But don't count out the more combat-oriented arts. Krav Maga, for example, was originally developed as a hand-to-hand fighting system for the Israeli army and still keeps that spirit in mind, but there's a heavy emphasis on teaching and students' personal development. There definitely is contact but they're careful not to throw you into situations you're not ready for. You may find that becoming gradually acclimated to that physical rough-and-tumble in a safe enviroment (apart from the fighting per se) can transform your sense of self-confidence.
All martial arts training, including familiar western forms like boxing and wrestling, build self-discipline and personal development. It may be more tangible and visible in the Asian arts because of how they're taught (standing in lines, standardized exercises, ritualized greetings, etc) but it's there, just not as performative.
As others have said, the experience can vary hugely from one school and one instructor to the next. My advice would be to look at a number of styles and see if one of them resonates with you in a non-intellectual, intuitive way. One approach is to find seminars or exhibitions where practitioners of multiple styles do demonstrations and short instructional sessions. Trust your feelings more than your head. Wear comfortable gym clothes you can move and sweat in and go see what it's like.
The author glosses over the actual point of contention, saying "through some mechanical trickery it will blend then together with some randomness to create something that is a new song".
'Blending together' is not what's happening. The "mechanical trickery" is the transformative part.
Recent meta-studies propose that people suffering from mental illness self-medicate to relieve distress. That is, mental illness appears to drive drug use. Or a third cause drives both.