Home
I'm amazed by people who can sleep eight hours a night. If I sleep that much I feel like I got hit by a truck the next day. I prefer six to seven hours of sleep per night. I guess I'm lucky because scientists recently discovered that eight hours a night is too much.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080610/hl_time/howmuchsleepdoyoureallyneed


Add the "eight hours of sleep" myth to the eight 8-ounce glasses of water you were supposed to drink per day, the food you weren't supposed to eat before swimming, and the huge amounts of bread you were supposed to eat for a healthy diet.


Seriously, is there ANYTHING I learned when I was a kid that is true?


I'm reasonably sure that if I make a funny face, it will not get stuck in that position. If I go outside without a jacket, I won't catch a cold no matter how much the words cold and cold sound alike. And all of my friends who smoked cigarettes ended up taller than me.


What baloney did you learn as a kid?

 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +17
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 12, 2008
Not answering your question, but:

[We don't really know yet what is cause and what is effect.]
and:
[both very short sleep and very long sleep are associated with many illnesses - with depression,...]

To my knowledge people with depression sleep longer. The depression is the cause for shorter living, the long sleeping is just an effect.

It is real easy to find out your ideal amount of sleep: do not set your alarm clock.


Now to answer your question:

The biggest lie I was told as a kid is 'talk is silver,silence is golden'.
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
Before Xmas, the best room was locked so I should not see the tree and gifts in advance. I was told that if I looked through the keyhole, an angel would blow my eye out.
And if I didn't stop peeing myself in the night, a giant eagle would come and carry me away.
It is a miracle that I am a normal person today (though I might be just imagining that...).
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
When I was a kid, a comic strip author told me there was no free will. Recently, I discovered a better explanation. Now said comic strip author also claims in a separate blog post that it is impossible to be 100% sure, unless you are God of course, which this author is (probably) not. Now in that tiny fraction of a decimal of a chance that he is WRONG, and that there IS free will, said author is in a heap of trouble. So if there is free will, by not believing in it, you are giving up any free will you would have had by believing in free will.

Take that.

-RandomKid#473
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
The trouble with your post is that these are not myths. They are generalizations. All of us are different, with different sleep requirements and water requirements. Water requirements differ according to your size, level of activity, and many other factors.
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
What makes you believe the baloney you're being taught today is any more truthful than the baloney you were taught as a kid?
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 11, 2008
Going blind and hairy palms from playing with it too much...

Apparently I must be doing it just enough since I'm not blind, clean palms and reasonably satisfied in between my semi regular sex with the loverly lady friend!
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
Dear Seamonkey,

You had better check your facts again. The overall temperature of the earth has been constant since 1998. The warmest year in the last 100 was not 1965, as Al Gore told you, but (when NASA redid their figures after a Canadian layman pointed out an error in their methodology), it turned out the hottest year was 1935. Again, if you will check the figures for 2007, even though the correlation is not yet complete, the preliminary indication is that the earth cooled in 2007. All this is fact, not speculation; you only have to check the figures yourself.

This caused the journal "Nature" to state, "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade." "Nature," as I'm sure you are aware, has been on the AGW bandwagon for quite some time - but the facts are becoming overwhelming to at least reexamine their suppositions. In fact, the most likely cause of the gentle increase in temperature prior to 1998 is thought to possibly be due to shifts in the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). Again, check the research.

The $45 trillion figure was not, as you stated, based primarily on economic costs of higher emissions standards. I really wish you would check your facts before weighing in on this kind of thing. Here's a lead paragraph from a recent (June 6) AP story: "TOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday. " You may feel free to read the rest of the story, but that pretty much says what "the world" (read, "The USA"), is expected to have to spend on this unproven theory.

Yes, Seamonkey, I realize "State of Fear" was fiction. I also realize, as you do not seem to, that it was heavily footnoted and that the science presented in it was accurate and based on fact. If you'd like to read Dr. Crichton's take on the situation and on "consensus science" in general, then I would refer you to this URL, which is the text of a speech he gave at CalTech: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf. As I'm sure you are aware, Dr. Crichton is a Harvard MD, not just a fiction writer.

Nothing I nor anyone else can say would ever convince you that AGW is an unproven theory, Seamonkey, because to you, it is more religion than science. If you approached it with objectivity, and looked at the last ten years factually rather than "what you've heard," you would realize that there's something in the theory that is not borne out by the facts. It is your politics, not mine, that makes you believe in it so strenuously. While I can't change your mind, perhaps others reading this will pause and begin to think, to research, and to consider the nature of the theory. One can only hope.
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
Saying "the 'F' word" means you didn't actually say "!$%*".

Of course, the profanity filtering system still believes that, so I'll just let you know that I entered "the 'F' word".
 
 
+5 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 11, 2008
I had a tendency to burst out in song at the table when I was little, and Grandma always told me, "Sing at the table, whistle in bed, the devil will get you before you're dead."

That never happened. Although, to the devil's credit, we have been on 2 dates.
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
On the sleep issue as I have stated before I get 5.5-6 hours a night. While I may not live longer i get 16% more "life" in daily. Since all I have is today I might as well use it.

There is plenty of time to sleep when you're dead
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
That "self-gratification" will make you go blind. It only made me need glasses.
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 11, 2008
That if I played with beads I was going to develop female features, especially boobs.

That if I played with fire I'd pee in my pants the following night!?

P.S. Damn, I wish I had played with beads a lot more...
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
money isn't everything

all you need is love

size doesn't matter

I've found the first two to be true, the third is a blatant lie!
 
 
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 11, 2008
"Going out in the cold can cause a cold (as explained in another comment) due to a weakened immune system."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong...

Going out in the cold will not <cause> a cold ever. All it might do is make you slightly more susceptible to it.

The virus will <cause> the cold (Actually the symptoms most people are referring too when they talk about a cold are caused by your body fighting the virus.)
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
Everybody is different. I'm better if I get 6.5 to 7 hours sleep, where as the Mrs. is a bear if she doesn't get at least 8 hours.

I'm going to save some of these things to teach my kid when he's old enough.
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
Oh, and ina - Someone's profession does not necessarily measure their intelligence. If famous scientists have larger brains than famous artists, you cannot conclude that intelligence plays a factor because it wasn't measured - only the professions of the participants was measured. A lot of famous artists have high intelligence. Maybe in a different way than the scientists, but they certainly aren't stupid. Maybe you could conclude from the study that people will smaller brains are more inclined to express themselves through the arts rather than turning to the sciences, but that says absolutely nothing about how intelligent they are.
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
Reminds me of a study that was announced that said New Yorkers are the most polite people in the world. They went to several countries and states in the US and performed tests such as accidentally dropping papers on the floor to see who will pick it up, etc. In some countries nobody helped, but in others they did. They concluded that in the countries/areas where they helped the most, they were the most polite, and in the countries where they did not receive help, they were rude. The entire study was ridiculous, though. They were judging the politeness of the entire world based on New York's standards of what is polite. And guess what turned out to be the most polite city? New York. Some cultures would find it RUDE to help someone pick up a mess they had made because it's a violation of their personal space. But that's not taken into account.

I was in a Psychology class a couple of years ago and one of the requirements for the class was to participate in experiments (non-dangerous, usually just surveys). One of them was a survey where they listed a bunch of menial tasks such as using the mouse, riding a bike, etc. They asked us on a 1-5 scale (bad, not good, okay, great, awesome) how "good" we felt we were at performing the tasks. After the study was finished they announced that the purpose of it was to test their hypothesis that "People usually think they're better than everyone else at simple tasks." But that wasn't anywhere in the study. If I think I'm "great" at riding a bike, I'm not comparing myself to anyone else. I'm only judging my own abilities. Everyone else in the world could be "awesome" and I could be just "great." The study didn't make any sense. I didn't tell them this, but I feel like I should have. To this day it still bugs the heck out of me that they got all the way to the study stage and NOBODY pointed this out to them. Not one person.
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
It's been said before, but corelation does not equal causation. Especially for something with as many possible confounding factors as life span.

The author of the study even says so in the article:

"We don't really know yet what is cause and what is effect. So we don't know if a short sleeper can live longer by extending their sleep, and we don't know if a long sleeper can live longer by setting the alarm clock a bit earlier. We're hoping to organize tests of those questions."

There's a whole lot of subtlety that comes out of every published scientific article. Even if the results are good, the nuances are usually lost and this is what creates mass confusion with the public.

Oh, and something I was taught as a kid that isn't true....Always listen to your elders.
 
 
Jun 11, 2008
Phantom II: I read state of fear (which was fiction, you might be interested to know) too, and also spent four years studying geology at Caltech, and I would be curious to see where you've gotten your facts. There is no question the earth has been warming for the past four decades or so, and while it is warming towards temperatures that the earth has experienced in the past (the dinosaurs liked it hotter), it's doing so at a rate far faster than has happened previously. Defining "consensus" and "fact" as different things is foolish semantics, (also e=mc^2 isn't a fact, its an equation that only holds true in certain specific !$%*!$%*!$%*!$% and the idea that scientists have sometimes been wrong meaning that they are always spewing lies is just ludicrous. Sometimes it rains, but that doesn't mean you should never go outside without an umbrella.

As for your 45 trillion dollars, that number is almost certainly based primarily on the "economic cost" of higher emissions standards and environmental laws, and completely ignores the positive portions (your car may cost more now, but the technology developed will benefit the economy in the long run).

Don't let your politics decide what you believe is a myth.
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 11, 2008
That Columbus discovered America
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog