The world's first trillionaire.

No title available
noise dept.
Misplaced Lens Cap

Love Begins
Cosmic Funnies
One Nice Bug Per Day
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Peter Solarz

Origami Around
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
No title available

roma★

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Show & Tell

Janaina Medeiros

No title available

shark vs the universe
tumblr dot com
DEAR READER
dirt enthusiast
seen from T1

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from Poland
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Singapore

seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from Ireland
seen from India
seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States
seen from T1

seen from Türkiye
@4everaditi
The world's first trillionaire.
She got the idea for the study while walking with her advisor at Stanford to discuss her thesis topic, and the paper she eventually published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2014 is sharp enough that it should have ended the seated meeting on the day it came out.
She ran 4 experiments on 176 people. Same person tested twice. Once sitting, once walking. The creativity tasks were the standard ones psychologists have used for decades to measure how good a brain is at generating novel useful ideas.
81% of participants in the first experiment produced more creative ideas while walking than while sitting. In the second experiment, 88%. In the third, 100%. Every single person walked into a more creative version of themselves. On average, people generated 60% more novel useful ideas the moment their legs started moving.
The skeptical question is the obvious one. Maybe it was the fresh air. Maybe it was the scenery passing by. Maybe it was the change of environment doing the work, not the walking itself.
Oppezzo killed every one of those explanations with one experimental decision. She put people on a treadmill facing a blank wall. No scenery. No fresh air. No environmental change. Just legs moving in place while staring at white drywall. The 60% boost held.
Then she ran the experiment that closed the case completely. She took participants outside in two conditions. Half of them walked through a Stanford courtyard. The other half were pushed through the exact same courtyard in a wheelchair. Same outdoor stimulation. Same scenery passing at the same speed. The only difference was whether the legs were moving.
The walkers produced dramatically more novel high-quality ideas than the wheelchair group. The outdoors did almost nothing on its own. The walking did everything.
She also tested the opposite kind of thinking. Convergent thinking. The kind where there is one right answer and you have to narrow down to it. Word puzzles where 3 words share a hidden fourth word that connects them. The seated participants did slightly better on these. Walkers got slightly worse.
Walking is not a general intelligence enhancer. It does one specific thing. It opens up the divergent search inside your brain. The part that generates options. The part that produces unexpected connections. The part that takes a problem and finds five ways into it instead of one.
When you need to converge on the single right answer, sit down. When you need to find the answer in the first place, get up.
The mechanism is now well understood. Walking selectively activates what neuroscientists call the default mode network, the system inside your brain that runs when you are not consciously focused on anything. The DMN is where mind-wandering happens. Where memories cross-reference each other. Where ideas that have been sitting in separate folders inside your head finally bump into each other.
When you sit at a desk and force yourself to concentrate, you suppress the DMN. When you walk at a natural pace, the executive part of your brain gets just busy enough handling the walking that the DMN comes online and starts doing the work that focus was blocking.
The most useful finding in the entire paper is the one almost nobody quotes. The boost did not turn off the moment people stopped walking. Participants who walked first and then sat back down stayed elevated. Their next round of seated creativity work was still significantly better than people who had been sitting the whole time. The rest lingered for at least several minutes after the legs stopped moving.
You do not need to do creative work while walking. You need to walk before the creative work. The brain holds the state.
Edited down a long tweet. (x)
[runs hands down face]
Okay this is the problem with sharing pop science stuff online and content aggregation accounts
The study is real, it's very easy to find by searching up the author's name + study. Give it a read yourself. It's written in a pretty accessible way imo.
Note that it does not put forward any explanations for why this effect happens, only that it does. In the conclusion it posits many possible reasons for why, and that it's most likely nothing to do with the specific action of walking, merely any semi automatic repetitive activity. They also acknowledge the study did not account for the social company the walkers were in, which is a pretty massive factor imo. Considering the conclusion brings up MANY alternative explanations and future experiment possibilities, it's decidedly not "killed every alternative explanation" like the tweet says. The actual paper ends like most scientific papers, listing alternative possible explanations, these are preliminary results, more research is needed, wider demographics of people need to be included, etc.
Another thing is the phrasing of these tweets are like red flags flapping in the wind to me. Any short form social media content that's 1. Pop science 2. Conveys absolute certainty 3. Ends with self improvement biohacking adjacent advice, should set off alarm bells.
Look at the implications that if the tweets were true, it would mean wheelchair users and people with mobility issues would be inherently worse at creative tasks.
So who is this person that's tweeting this, rephrasing this paper in a "helpful" way that is sure to get shares from people who really value being creative and are looking for any way to become more creative in their -
OFC ITS AN AI BRO
You wanna see what his recent articles look like?
CAN WE STOP GETTING BAITED INTO PLATFORMING GRIFTERS
Thank you! There were so many red flags in the first post's language. The original paper straight up says that the mechanisms weren't isolated! Also there is no single part of the brain responsible for creative idea generation, it involves communication between multiple brain networks.
Glad I wasn't the only person who looked at this and thought that it was weird to say this study is SO perfect when the way it's framed here directly implies that people who can't walk are inherently less capable of being creative than people who can.
I can't leave a reply but to the disabled people in the notes who now genuinely seem to believe their mobility issues have robbed them of their ability to be creative pls don't think that! That's not what this study said! You're dealing with ableist misinformation from an AI bro, the study did not make these claims. I encourage everyone who's shared the version without the corrections to take them down, this misinfo is hurting already clearly hurting disabled people and should not be spread.
Imagine that one day as you're walking on a hot sunny path, your hat jumps off your head and lands into a muddy ditch. And you look at your muddy hat and ask it: "What did you do that for?"
"I don't want to be a burden anymore", your hat answers. "You are always carrying me around, and I can't carry you. That's not fair."
"I don't mind carrying you, little idiot", you tell your hat, "you hardly weight anything at all, and you shelter me from the sun."
"But that's different", your hat protests. "I don't mind the sun scorching on me. That happens anyway. It's literally no trouble for me to shade you too."
"Just the same it's no trouble for me to carry you. But now, because you wanted to stop inconveniencing and bothering me, I am now hatless and you are in the dirt."
hello Aesop; how's the underworld been?
Every day I wake up and Hades kicks me in the nuts.
Listen to me. Listen to me. Listen to me. Listen to me.
I know there is a lot of discourse (tm) around this right now but listen to me
sometimes you do just have to lie to children.
If, when my toddler is, you know, toddling around saying “mama? Big ball?”
If I were lean down and say “unfortunately the big beach ball for some reason fills you with such an unadulterated rage that is beyond human comprehension that you scream until you pass out, so mama had to remove the beach ball from the premises until you can better regulate your emotions” she would simply stare at me like I had 3 heads full of equal betrayal.
So, for now, instead “big ball went night night!”
Please understand when I say “removed the ball from the premises” I mean I popped it in a fit of exhausted confusion. I murdered the beach ball.
See I’ve lied to you all too and it was better this way.
you can’t just leave this in the tags etc.
You can’t be funnier then me on my own posts, I’m in tears from laughter
still my favourite onion headline of all time
Not to start discourse but I will be forever mad that every time I go into the Goncharov tag I see people complaining that they watched the movie expecting a soft queer romcom about pure cinnamon rolls and instead they got a complex and violent film about deeply flawed people where everyone dies.
By all means, engage in fandom however you choose. But don’t blame the source material for not being consistent with some random fanon on tumblr. Kinda wild to get mad that the movie about violent, morally dark grey criminals has violence, crime and moral greyness in it. You know? Also, imho given the time this movie was made, the queer coding was daring; this is NOT an example of queerbaiting.
Rocky: Grace say Hail Mary archives have all Human media yet Rocky still cannot find classic film Goncharov for movie night statment.
Grace: ....What?
Rocky: Grace not know own earth greatest mafia movie ever made question?
Grace: .......
Grace: What?
Standing in a checkout line, when an older man asks me about my Goncharov t-shirt. I say "It's a movie, " when the person behind me chimes in, "Oh, yes, Scorsese."
The original gentleman goes on to tell me about the author Goncharov, his favorite of his novels, and a famous character from one of the novels. The three of us discuss whether the main character in the movie is intentionally named after the author, referencing that character, or whether it just sounded good to the film maker. We discuss how steeped the movie is in symbology.
Two of us are having a very different conversation than the third.
these guys haven't seen goncharov
“Of course we’re in love, that’s why i tried to shoot you” “if you really loved me you wouldn’t have missed” is such a raw ass line you would think it comes from Goncharov (1973) and you would be right
Remove immunity and require each officer to carry insurance. The more fucked up the department the higher their insurance and individually it swings further based on claims.
Hit their pocketbooks the way they hit their wives and kids.
Mara and Luke need to hold hands and/or cuddle for her to be able to understand the birds with The Force oh i'm suure
If youre a closeted person somewhere out there thinking "I want to transition but it would be less progressive/unique/countercultural for me to be that gender instead of this one" please know that you are a real person not a character in a narrative and cant live your life based on what is good media representation. You are real you can only be yourself and theres no moral weight to any identity over another
Liberal transphobes enjoy positioning trans identities as regressive compared to cis queerness or like non-transitioning transness or anything else they can leverage to make transphobia look progressive and I think its easy to absorb that message subconciously. But in real life we just are what we are and no ranking of validity can change the fact that you have an identity that is NOT chosen and is just your unchangeable truth. Not only should you not have to live a life dictated by what is most countercultural to identify as or whatever but also: being trans is extremely countercultural and feminist and leftist to begin with and theyre only trying to convince you otherwise bc theyre bigots
"Why cant you be a feminine man society hates feminine men 🥺" and "all the butch lesbians are becoming men we need u 🥺" = stay in the closet for the noble purpose of being an abstract representation point in my new york times opinion column. You wont actually be a gnc cis person youll be a closeted trans person who uses the wrong words but I need you to do that because i hate you
sure i had to wake up at 3 am here in norway to watch the u.s. men's national team, but i 4-1 have no regrets.
I picked up an German school edition english language copy of Looking for Alaska from a public bookcase a few days ago and just finished it. Loved it.
At first I was annoyed by the pencil annotations and highlighter, but in the end I found myself being endeared by the girl‘s personal writing. She seemed to be resonating with it more and more, at first noting „oh no you stupid guy :(„ when Miles puked on Lara, then towards the end when Miles went to Lara‘s room to talk to her again „A certain someone could do the same sometime soon…“ in German, in between a few „yay!!“s, smileys and highlighting some metaphors.
Beneath the passage of the Old Man telling the class about everything falling apart eventually, she wrote „Meine Perlen sollen bleiben“ - „my pearls shall last“. I have no clue what it means. I want to know. I’ll probably never find out and that’s okay.
P.s. when the Colonel gets drunk to test himself with the breathalyzer, there’s a bottle of Mountain Dew that turns into a bottle of Gatorade, right? Or are they meant to be different bottles? It reads like they’re supposed to be same? Are they?? I tried to look it up but didn’t find anything. This I need to know
Thank you for sharing this marginalia with me. It is so lovely to think of people writing on and around my writing, responding to my words with words of their own. I hope her pearls last.
I have no idea if that's a plot hole! I wrote that book (literally!) half my life ago! I remember almost nothing about it! I am just delighted to know it is still finding readers in Germany and elsewhere.
I was talking to my mom about John Green today and I mentioned that “he’s still on tumblr” and she asked why that would be weird and I said that no one is on tumblr these days, “except him and I guess me”
So
I don’t know what all of you guys are doing here, because clearly this website is occupied only by me and John Green
just the two of us / we can make it if we try.