@hmmthereabouts - Tumblr Blog

Can't decide whether it's funnier to say "my hungry ass could never work at a" and then say something that implies you're eating something truly grotesque or something that just, makes no sense

skopostheorie

"my hungry ass could never be a brain surgeon" awful. 10/10

"my hungry ass could never be a truck driver" ????? 10/10

yanoharuhito

EATYIGNIN TIJOK;L'HE????

see-the-wires

naamahdarling

You're right, that would be shocking.

byjove

hey man, I can’t make it tomorrow. mom just told me I have to go into grandpa’s funeral barrow and fight his draugr for the family heirloom cursed sword. it’s probably going to be an all day thing. yeah, I know. I’m sorry.

only-tiktoks

picturesque-about-it

naamahdarling

That has to be the most humiliating way to describe one of Earth's most terrifyingly effective predators.

sapphic-and-stupid

Picture of her from the USA Today

teaboot

I would let her kill me for sport

vaelus-malewife

shower-thoughts-last-responder

enki2

superhelldeactivated

I've realized recently that every time I'm asked for socials my response is sorta "oh i don't have twitter" "I'm not on Instagram much" "i uninstalled TikTok a few months ago" and this has led people into believing I'm just someone who doesn't do social media but in reality you can find me in here lets get it on cunts monday through shawty like a melody sunday, 9am to 12am, posting blorbo.

televisionenjoyer

I was going to be like "well that certainly was not true cause you deactivated" and then I looked at the blog and. that's literally my old blog.

pooblet

SOURCE

I SAW THIS & IMMEDIATELY THOUGHT OF @shrimp-bird

gallusrostromegalus

@montereybayaquarium

wardoftheedgeloaves

POWEROUS

tharook

I love this, because there’s obviously something very clever going on to analyse patterns of language, but it’s also profoundly ignorant.

imgdesczone

[ID: A screenshot of a Grammarly correction, labelled “clarity: conciseness”. The original text reads “Every book, which wasn’t many…” This is crossed out with the suggestion “Everyn’t many book” and the note “Consider shortening this phrase.” /end id]

intermittentlysmitten

Story time: this reminds me of some kids in an English class I’m in. They were doing written work and the teacher and I were going around checking their work. They had to do like, “do/do not”, and one example was “prepare”. Something like “My father does not/doesn’t prepare dinner”. I look at this one kid’s paper and this galaxy-brained child had written “My father preparen’t dinner” and it took everything in me to not lose it laughing right there like. This child saw a pattern and ran with it and I respect that.

naamahdarling

Intermittentlysmitten hid this in the tags and shouldn’t have.

kyraneko

Reminds me of that post on how Irish(?) doesn’t have a way to use “yes” or “no” to answer a verb question, or something like that, so that if somebody asks if you murdered somebody you can’t say “yes” or “no,” you have to say “I did murder” or “I didn’t murder,” which led my brain to produce the negative verb “murdidn’t.”

kyidyl

In the spirit of this post: *shouldn’t’ve hidden it in the tags. 😂

leafcrunch

a woman alone will download pdfs. two women together will send links and articles. three or more women? that’s a library

twiststreet

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)

cacophonila

[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

keepingitreluctant

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.

lastoneout

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.

lastoneout

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.

ovid

it’s psychological horror to YOU. to me it’s a romcom

allbuthuman

it's a romcom to YOU. to me it's psychological horror

voyagers-stone

btw if youre young and scared of doing adult things without your parents ive learned that like 90% of the time you can just tell the doctors office or the dmv "haha sorry ive never done this without help before... can you show me how to do this?" the employee will not care. if that means anything to you

liopleurodean

literally walked up to a desk in the courthouse, said "is this where I register a car or is it the next one?" and she said it was the next one. and the lady at the next desk helped me. it feels embarrassing but I promise you can just ask

aspiringwarriorlibrarian

One of the most important lessons I learned in customer service is that no matter how much help you need, as long as you're nice about it, you won't even crack the top five of worst customers they've had to deal with that day. I will walk an old lady through every step on that pin pad with a smile as long as she's polite, because two calls ago I had to deal with someone screaming about politics for 45 fucking minutes because I wasn't allowed to hang up on him.

Everyone has their first time doing something, everyone makes mistakes, everyone has dumb moments, and as long as you're choosing kindness I'll just laugh it off and help out. Because no matter how dumb you think you are, there was already someone who was just as dumb but was determined to ruin my day over it.