Suggestions in Science, Dismissing SEO, Dreams, Deja Vu and Dr. Oz
Aside from their incessant Facebook posts that occur during the late hours of the evening when one is just trying to chill, I'm generally fond of the Atlantic, but even they, like everyone else, are guilty of publishing studies that have yet to be completed...or so it seems.
I know this isn't anything new, but people love shit like this. Something similar would be the popularity of Dr. Oz, the #1 poster-boy for a deserted vagina in the heat of a menopausal hot-flash or the mother's of Middle American suburbs clinging to now-debunk newspaper clippings that rest under Little Cesar's delivery magnets.
We're gorging ourselves with too many tips and loose facts.
My problem with these types of headlines is that they're deceiving.
How many clicks does it take to sell your soul?
Content now-a-days has a hidden agenda which goes by the name of advertising revenue, and he's one sneaky bastard. Remember when everyone re-posted something on the death of Robin Williams, because just about every website imaginable published something on the death of Robin Williams, and continued to do so to the point where things we're stretched or privacy breached (ABC News). And then came the articles on suicide and depression...But even so, (online) publications condensed these serious matters into sleazy lists...because all can be summarized so easily...
All three subjects were popular search terms last week, so if you have more visits to your site in one month because of this, you appeal to more advertisers, or they're willing to shell out more $ for ad space. So, just like that, you re-post an "article" from a random site that published something on one of the things mentioned above, and are automatically submerged into a pool of eyes, all which have contributed to the site's $revenue$. For fucks sake, stop reading shit sites that attempt to mimic BuzzFeed's business model. Behind those websites are manipulative Wall Street brutes who drool over tragedy and heartache.
*Back 2 the research studies*
the article I'm speaking of is titled: "Those Who Know They're Dreaming Are Savvier When They're Awake."
First off, I'm willing to take 2 inches off my hair when I say that most people have experienced lucid dreaming. Go ahead and coax my ego, call me savvy, but I happen to be human like most (unless you're a robot posing as a set of eyeballs to increase "readership.")
To accompany the assertive headline is one wonky-ass argument/thesis (whatever):
"Research suggests that there may be a benefit to option three: Lucid dreamers, or people with the ability to recognize their dreams as they’re happening, may be better at problem-solving during their waking hours."
And then come the numbers:
"In a study recently published in the journal Dreaming, psychologists from the University of Lincoln in the U.K. divided 68 undergraduate volunteers into three groups based on the self-reported frequency of their lucid dreaming—never, occasionally, or at least once a month. The participants were then asked to complete a series of word puzzles by identifying one word that linked three other words appearing on the screen. (The word linking “aid,” “rubber,” and “wagon,” for example, would be “band.”) On average, those who frequently had lucid dreams solved 25 percent more of the puzzles than those who had none."
"based on the self-reported frequency of their lucid dreaming"
Sketchy, no? That... and all of the other confusing material provided.
Dreams are interesting. They're one of the only ways for us to experience other worlds besides the waking state, unless you're partaking in recreational activities which can boarder between the two. (Sleep deprivation, duh!)
Dreams are hard to recall or record, and I sometimes wonder whether its all just deja vu; a fluke in the memory process that probes us to question the importance of something that may very well bare no significance on our lives.
But I'm heavily interested in Freud and Jung.
The more we're subjected to these seemingly unfinished studies, the more questions we have. With all of this half-knowledge, what is anything worth? In the age of the "expert," or the jack of all trades and master of none, it's so easy to consume and regurgitate (why lists exist for our short attention span) like a half-wit (guilty)...as it is to print business cards with all of your glorious titles.
Perhaps a little less ambition? These studies need to grow and develop before they can prove themselves. A baby doesn't chew before they suck.
Much like we're prone to mistake dreams for experiences, memories, and butterflies for ghosts, we also have the tendency to click and skew information presented in studies that are in limbo. Us Westerners have a problem with settling, spewing and infesting.
I know the real problem lies in the sharp pivot of the internet as far as advertising, SEO and monopoly-bullies go, but that doesn't mean we can't be mindful of what we're choosing to click and read. Unfortunately, diluted and packaged content is appearing everywhere, but the good news is...nothing lasts forever!
Yes, science is so complex that it seems unfathomable, but it's only because we can't visualize the small extremes of a large whole, which is why we have diagrams and charts and maps and tools.
Dismissing small functions may lead to a life of joy but, then again, you probably have a budding relationship with Jesus and detest evolution.
izzy806
pixelskylines
jacobvanloon
areudirty
andulkaphoto
ellievsbear
dededos
tangentwithtanner
