Sưu tầm – This is the critical number that shows when housing breaks down | World Economic Forum

Homeless man Kel sleeps in the spot where he lives in the subway next to Hyde Park Station in London, Britain, December 19, 2017. REUTERS/Mary Turner  SEARCH "TURNER HOMELESS" FOR THIS STORY. SEARCH "WIDER IMAGE" FOR ALL STORIES.     TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY - RC14F3C0C600

How much of your income do you spend on your rent?

The answer probably depends on where you live. Rents can vary wildly from country to country, city to city and even within regions.

While it probably won’t be news that people living in cities generally spend a higher proportion of their income on rent, new research directly links rent affordability to homelessness and highlights the lack of consistent data on the topic.

 When rent affordability exceeds the 32% tipping point, homelessness rises rapidly.

When rent affordability exceeds the 32% tipping point, homelessness rises rapidly.
Image: Zillow Economic Research

The critical threshold is 32%, with the report showing that American communities where people spend more than that percentage of their income on their rent can expect a more rapid increase in homelessness. The academics, working with online real-estate company Zillow, also estimate that the scale of homelessness in the US has been undercounted by around 20%.

While the work underscores the idea that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to tackling homelessness, it does offer policymakers a way to quantify and anticipate when dynamics may be shifting. Since the median US rental takes 28% of earnings, monitoring how the levels are evolving could help to flag up looming problems.

 Seattle and San Francisco are both facing an affordable housing crisis.

Seattle and San Francisco are both facing an affordable housing crisis.
Image: Zillow Economic Research

“It’s not appropriate to say we don’t have a problem until we hit 32%,” said Chris Glynn, a Zillow Research Fellow and an Assistant Professor of Decision Sciences at the University of New Hampshire. “It’s time to start thinking about when you will hit that threshold, and what will happens afterward and taking a proactive approach, thinking about the trajectory of your affordable housing.”

Hard to measure

Around 150 million people, or about 2% of the world’s population, are homeless, according to Yale University, and a further 1.6 billion, more than 20%, may lack adequate housing. Since obtaining accurate numbers is difficult, primarily because of variations in the way homelessness is defined, the numbers could be higher.

The Zillow academics estimated the true level of homelessness in the US was 20% greater than the official count, and said there was wide variation across the country. In Los Angeles and San Francisco rent affordability has been well beyond the “crucial benchmark” of 32% of income for decades.

While this research focused on the US, homelessness is a problem for every country.

Tenants in England paid an average of 27% of their gross salary to their landlord in 2016, according to data from the Office for National Statistics. That data also shows regional variation, with tenants in London spending nearly half of their salary on rent, while in northern England, the number was much lower at 23%.

 The homelessness rate varies by country.

The homelessness rate varies by country.
Image: OECD, Our World in Data

number of factors can push people into homelessness, including “shortages of affordable housing, privatization of civic services, investment speculation in housing, unplanned and rapid urbanization, as well as poverty, unemployment and family breakdown,” says Joseph Chamie, an independent consulting demographer and a former director of the United Nations Population Division. “Also contributing is a lack of services and facilities for those suffering from mental illness, alcoholism or substance abuse and displacement caused by conflicts, natural disasters and government housing policies.”

Drawing international comparisons can be challenging because of the different ways it is measured. Among OECD countries, Australia, the Czech Republic and New Zealand report a relatively high level of homelessness, but this is partly explained by the fact that they have a broad definition.

In Australia people are considered homeless if they have “no other options to acquire safe and secure housing, are without shelter, in temporary accommodation, sharing accommodation with a household or living in uninhabitable housing”.

 Homelessness is a problem in every country.

Homelessness is a problem in every country.
Image: Zillow

In contrast, the OECD country with the smallest share of homeless people is Japan – 0.004% of the population in 2015 – where figures only refer to rough sleepers.

For policymakers around the world, solving the challenge might mean rethinking ways we live and work or using technology to improve transit.

With the UN predicting that 68% of the global population will live in cities by 2050, innovation and technology can be harnessed to this end, and that’s one of the areas being explored by the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Councilon Cities and Urbanization.

By Emma Charlton

Full link: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/here-s-a-way-of-predicting-when-homelessness-is-likely-to-rise/

Share – Tại sao giới trẻ ngày nay viết lách kém, điều này được lý giải trong 1 bài viết từ năm 1897 — Ngon 24h

Một bài viết từ năm 1897 của tiến sĩ Tiến sĩ Edwin Lewis trong tác phẩm: “A First Book in Writing” (Sách luyện viết cơ bản) đã hướng dẫn, phân tích những lý do tại sao đa phần người trẻ lại viết lách kém đến vậy. Tác giả Annie Holmquist đã phân tích bài viết […]

via Tại sao giới trẻ ngày nay viết lách kém, điều này được lý giải trong 1 bài viết từ năm 1897 — Ngon 24h

Một bài viết từ năm 1897 của tiến sĩ Tiến sĩ Edwin Lewis trong tác phẩm: “A First Book in Writing” (Sách luyện viết cơ bản) đã hướng dẫn, phân tích những lý do tại sao đa phần người trẻ lại viết lách kém đến vậy. Tác giả Annie Holmquist đã phân tích bài viết của Tiến sĩ Edwin và chứng minh rằng, trong thời đại ngày nay, chính người trẻ đang mắc phải 3 sai lầm khủng khiếp được viết cách đây hơn 1 thế kỷ này, khiến cho họ không còn văn hay chữ tốt nữa.

Họ không đọc những tác phẩm văn học chất lượng, những bài viết có chiều sâu

Bây giờ có rất nhiều sách nhưng lại thiếu đi những cuốn sách chất lượng, những tác phẩm văn học chọn lọc, thậm chí ở các trường học cũng vậy. Sách được đầu tư về câu từ, sử dụng chính xác, trau chuốt ngôn ngữ khá ít. Theo tiến sĩ Edwin, một chương trình đọc toàn diện có độ khó cao chính là một trong những chìa khóa để có kỹ năng viết tốt. Thị trường không thiếu những tác phẩm tốt, những bài viết chọn lọc, đầu tư để chúng ta học hỏi.

Tại sao giới trẻ ngày nay viết lách kém, điều này được lý giải trong 1 bài viết từ năm 1897 - Ảnh 1.

Một trong những cách nhanh nhất để học tốt ngôn ngữ là đọc bằng miệng. Việc đọc sẽ giúp tiết kiệm được rất nhiều thời gian và công sức giúp chúng ta có thể viết tốt hơn, đặc biệt là những ai mới tập viết lách. Đọc to mỗi ngày một vài đoạn văn xuôi với cảm xúc thăng hoa chính là một thói quen tuyệt vời.

Không có cách nào giúp chúng ta ghi nhớ từ vựng mới, hiểu được ngữ điệu vô cùng đa dạng của văn xuôi, biết được thế nào ngữ điệu của một câu văn hay bằng cách đọc và thấm từng trang sách. Khi đọc, sự lên xuống của ngữ điệu không chỉ đơn thuần là vấn đề giọng nói; đó còn là vấn đề về tư duy, suy nghĩ của người đọc, người học…

Đọc to các tác phẩm, một bài văn, bài viết được viết một cách tự nhiên với tư tưởng phóng khoáng, hành văn độc đáo, người đọc sẽ cảm nhận cảm xúc của chính mình sâu sắc hơn. Khi hoà mình vào trong tác phẩm, nghĩ mình là một phần của tác phẩm, chúng ta sẽ cảm nhanh hơn, yêu nhanh hơn, ngấm nhanh hơn và trau dồi được vốn từ nhiều hơn.

Họ đọc nhiều nhưng đọc nhanh, đọc lướt

Phương pháp skim – đọc lướt chỉ nên vận dụng khi làm bài kiểm tra chứ không dành cho việc cảm thụ một tác phẩm. Sự phát triển nhanh chóng của internet càng làm cho chúng ta đọc lướt nhiều hơn, học thích xem video, xem ảnh hơn là đọc chữ hoặc nếu có đọc cũng đọc một cách hời hợt, qua loa để nắm thông tin chứ không thấm được câu chữ, cách hành văn của tác giả.

Đọc lướt rất có hại, nó làm giảm khả năng tư duy, suy nghĩ, khả năng cảm nhận… trong khi đây là những kỹ năng cần thiết nhất của một người viết tốt.

“Để học mà nhớ được từ vựng mới và hiểu ý tưởng mới, chúng ta bắt buộc phải đọc chậm. Người trẻ có thói quen đọc quá nhanh đến nỗi bỏ lỡ phần nội dung hay nhất mà tác giả muốn truyền tải. Họ đọc chỉ để nhanh nhanh chóng chóng xem xem bài viết này kết thúc như thế nào, câu chuyện này có phần kết ra sao.

Ai cũng biết một điều rằng, tư duy không thể hiện nổi và đập vào mắt người đọc một cachs trực tiếp và nhanh chóng như câu chữ. Để có thể thực sự hiểu được ý nghĩa của tác phẩm, cần phải nghiên cứu kỹ lưỡng và suy ngẫm khi đọc. Phải hiểu kỹ, rõ ràng ý nghĩa mỗi từ, nắm bắt được ý nghĩa chính xách, nội dung muốn truyền tải trong câu.”

Tại sao giới trẻ ngày nay viết lách kém, điều này được lý giải trong 1 bài viết từ năm 1897 - Ảnh 2.

Họ không chú trọng học thuộc lòng những câu nói, đoạn văn

“Drill and Kill” – giáo dục một cách máy móc, học vẹt và học thuộc lòng đã trở thành những vấn đề nổi bật nhất trong thời đại mà người ta quá tôn vinh sự sáng tạo và cảm xúc. Rõ ràng điều này là tiêu cực. Nhưng sự thật, việc không học thuộc những tác phẩm, bài viết, đoạn văn mình thích có làm giảm đi nguồn tư liệu viết lách có giá trị?

Nhờ việc học thuộc lòng, ghi nhớ những câu mình thích, mình yêu, nhiều người rèn được cho bản thân tư duy sáng tạo không giới hạn, nhuần nhuyễn câu chữ, thành thục cách hành văn.

Các tác giả ngày nay sử dụng tư liệu từ những tác phẩm kinh điển ngày xưa rất nhiều, dường như đó là một kho tàng ngôn ngữ không bao giờ cạn kiệt. Ví dụ như các câu nói của Shakespeare được vận dụng trong các bài thuyết trình rất nhiều. Nhờ đâu mà có việc này, là vì họ thuộc lòng những câu hói đó.

Kỹ năng viết sẽ được cải thiện rõ rệt nếu người trẻ hiểu và vận dụng được 3 phương pháp trên không? Câu trả lời đã quá rõ ràng.

(Theo Annie Holmquist, Takeout)

Theo Mai Anh – HELINO

Share – Ăn vặt lành mạnh không lo tăng cân với khoai lang sấy giòn tan cực dễ làm — Ngon 24h

Bạn cần chuẩn bị những nguyên liệu sau cho món khoai lang sấy: – 6 củ khoai lang – Chút xíu dầu ăn Bước 1 Khoai lang gọt vỏ rửa sạch sau đó thái lát mỏng. Bước 2 Dùng cọ quét một lớp dầu ăn lên trên rack nướng. Xếp đều khoai lang vào rack […]

via Ăn vặt lành mạnh không lo tăng cân với khoai lang sấy giòn tan cực dễ làm — Ngon 24h

Bạn cần chuẩn bị những nguyên liệu sau cho món khoai lang sấy:

– 6 củ khoai lang

– Chút xíu dầu ăn

Bước 1

Khoai lang gọt vỏ rửa sạch sau đó thái lát mỏng.

Bước 2

Dùng cọ quét một lớp dầu ăn lên trên rack nướng. Xếp đều khoai lang vào rack nướng (không xếp khoai chồng lên nhau).

Bước 3

Đặt rack khoai vào lò nướng, nướng ở 100 độ C trong khoảng 1,5 giờ.

Bước 4

Khoai sau khi sấy khô bạn lấy ra khỏi lò để nguội rồi cho vào lọ kín dùng dần.

Trong những ngày Tết sắp đến gần, bạn muốn tự tay chuẩn bị những món bánh trái ăn vặt cho khay bánh kẹo nhà bạn thì món khoai lang sấy giòn hẳn là một lựa chọn thú vị. Món khoai lang sấy không chỉ ngon miệng, dễ làm mà đặc biệt món khoai lang này sẽ không làm bạn tăng cân như các món bánh kẹo thông thường.

Ăn vặt lành mạnh không lo tăng cân với khoai lang sấy giòn tan - Ảnh 6.

Chúc bạn thành công và có món khoai lang sấy thật giòn ngon như ý nhé!

(Nguồn: newqq)

Sưu tầm – The Return of Mercenaries, Non-State Conflict, and More Predictions for the Future of Warfare

Private armies were the norm in most of military history, and they’re making a big comeback

Everywhere around the world, the nature of war is changing, and the West is failing to adapt. Western powers are already losing on the margins to threats like Russia, China, and others that have made the leap forward and grow bolder each year. Eventually someone will test us and win.

The West has forgotten how to win wars because of their own strategic atrophy. Judging by how much money the United States invests in conventional weapons like the F-35, many in our country still believe that future interstate wars will be fought conventionally. But although Russia and China still buy conventional weapons, they use them in unconventional ways. China has armed its fishing fleet in the South China Sea, turning it into a floating militia. Russia gave T-72 tanks, truck-mounted rocket launchers, and howitzers to its mercenaries in Syria. Tellingly, Russia even cut its military budget by a whopping 20 percent in 2017, yet it shows no sign of curbing its global ambitions. Its leaders understand that war has moved beyond lethality.

Conventional war thinking is killing us. From Syria to Acapulco, no one fights that way anymore. The old rules of war are defunct because warfare has changed, and the West has been left behind. War is coming. Conflict’s trip wires are everywhere: black market nukes that can melt cities; Russia taking something it shouldn’t and NATO responding in force; India and Pakistan duking it out over Kashmir; North Korea shelling Seoul; Europe fighting an urban insurgency against Islamic terrorists; the Middle East goes nuclear; or the United States fighting China to prevent it from becoming a rival superpower.

Traditionalists who view war purely as a military clash of wills will be doomed, no matter how big their armed forces, because they do not comprehend war’s political nature, while their enemies do. There are many ways to win, and not all of them require large militaries.

Changing the way we fight means forging new instruments of national power, starting with how we think. The first step is jettisoning what we think we know about war. Our knowledge is obsolete. The second step is understanding the art of war for the coming age, so that we may master it, rather than be mastered by it.


Inthe future, wars will move further into the shadows. In the information age, anonymity is the weapon of choice. Strategic subversion will win wars, not battlefield victory. Conventional military forces will be replaced by masked ones that offer plausible deniability, and non-kinetic weapons, like deception and influence, will prove decisive. Shadow war is attractive to anyone who wants to wage war without consequences, and that’s everyone. That is why it will grow.

Future wars will not begin and end; instead, they will hibernate and smolder. Occasionally, they will explode. This trend is already emerging, as can be seen by the increasing number of “neither war, nor peace” situations and “forever wars” around the world. The World Bank’s World Development Report 2011 found that never-ending violence is on the rise, despite all the peace efforts around the world. Social science research confirms this, showing that half of all negotiated peace settlements fail within five years. “War termination” is already an oxymoron. Expect this trend to grow.

A new class of world powers, from multinational corporations to super-warlords to billionaires, can now rent private armies.

Mercenaries will once again roam battlefields, breeding war as their profit motive dictates. (I should know — I used to be a private military contractor myself.) International law cannot stop them, while the demand for their services rises each year. Things once thought to be inherently governmental are now available in the marketplace, from special forces teams to attack helicopters. This is one of the most dangerous trends of our time, yet it’s invisible to most observers. That’s by design. Private warfare is the norm in military history, and the last few centuries have been anomalous.

When money can buy firepower, then the super-rich will become a new kind of superpower, and this will change everything. As states retreat, the vacuum of authority has bred a new class of world powers, from multinational corporations to super-warlords to billionaires. Now these powers can rent private armies, so expect wars without states. This trend will grow, fueled by a free market for force that generates war but cannot regulate it. Today’s militaries have forgotten how to fight private wars, leaving us all exposed.

To the conventional warrior, this all looks like disorder and instills panic. The world is burning without a way to put the fire out. But the new warrior sees something different. States are dying as a concept and are being replaced by other actors, who also fight. How they fight is not disorder — it’s the future of war. Rather than panic, let’s master this future.

The good news is that we can win in an age of durable disorder if we understand the new rules. This begins by transforming militaries from conventional forces to post-conventional ones, and by upgrading our strategic education. We should invest in people rather than machines, since cunning triumphs over brute force, and since technology is no longer decisive on the battlefield. We also need a new breed of strategist — I call them war artists — to contend with new forms of conflict, such as private war.

Half of winning is knowing what it looks like, and this requires a grand strategy. In an age of durable disorder, our grand strategy should seek to prevent problems from becoming crises and crises from becoming conflicts. Attempting to reverse disorder is a Sisyphean task because such disorder is the natural condition of world affairs — again, it’s the recent centuries that have been abnormal.

War is going underground, and the West must follow by developing its own version of shadow warfare. Special operations forces should be expanded, since they can fight in these conditions, and the rest of the military needs to become more “special,” too. The West must do a better job at leveraging proxy forces and mercenaries. But the true weapon of choice will be the foreign legion — it maximizes firepower and minimizes risk. It will combine the punch of special operation forces with the staying power of a normal military unit, all without the problems of proxy militias or mercenaries.

In the future, victory will be won and lost in the information space, not on the physical battlefield. It’s absurd that the West has lost information superiority in modern war, given the heaps of talent in Hollywood, on Madison Avenue, and in London. The West’s squeamishness about using strategic subversion only helps its enemies.


No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”

When General Patton spoke these words 75 years ago, they were true. His troops were about to embark on the greatest amphibious assault in history: D-day. Over the course of the “longest day,” 160,000 Allied troops seized a slab of beachhead in Normandy, France. More than 10,000 of them died that day, and individual acts of valor turned a potential military catastrophe into a triumph. From there, the Allies began the long march to Berlin, ending the Nazi empire.

Patton’s words are no longer true.

Today, bastards do not die for their country; they die for their religion, their ethnic group, their clan, money, or war itself. A few, like Afghans and Somalis, say they fight for their country, but the “country” in question is a metaphor and not a modern state. In fact, were there a functional state in those situations, they would probably fight that, too. Patton, were he alive, would be holding his head in his hands.

Countries need to evolve the way they fight, but can they do it? History teaches us that this transformation is difficult. Billy Mitchell was court-martialed in 1925 for having the audacity to suggest that the future of war would be dominated by airplanes and aircraft carriers, not by battleships. He predicted Pearl Harbor 16 years before it happened. His superiors laughed as they convicted Mitchell because it was easier than listening to him — only to be caught “by surprise” on December 7, 1941.

If there is anything to learn from military history, it’s this: warfare evolves before fighters do.

Strategic dogma is stubborn because everything about it is existential. If you get it wrong, the nation dies. This is why strategic leaders are leery to experiment with new approaches, and perhaps why the military calls its tactical playbooks “doctrine.” But such devotion also gets people killed. Typically, blood is required — a huge amount of it — before nations change their way of war, and sometimes not even then.

World War I is a good reminder. Strategists on all sides were stuck in their own past glory days: Napoleonic warfare. However, by the time World War I broke out, fighting had moved well beyond that of Napoleon’s day, and millions died pointlessly because leaders had no strategic imagination. Or they just toed the line. Politicians commanded the generals to win, and they in turn ordered waves of soldiers to assault fortified trenches, only to see them slaughtered by machine guns. Still, this didn’t stop the generals from doing the same thing the next morning. During the Battle of the Somme, the British suffered 60,000 casualties in a single day. That’s more than all the Americans killed in the Vietnam War. The Battle of the Somme was a meat grinder, stealing 1.2 million lives and achieving nothing.

If there is anything to learn from military history, it’s this: warfare evolves before fighters do. War in our time has already changed, but most nations have not. This includes their militaries, political leaders, intelligence agencies, national security experts, media, academic institutions, think tanks, and members of civil society who care about armed conflict. The West’s way of war has evolved little since Patton’s day, and this rigidity has cost us needless lives, just like at the Somme.

There is a choice before us. Either we spill enough blood in battle until we finally realize our problem, or we choose to change now. No one ought to select the former, but the latter is difficult. It will require disruptive thinking and bold steps that conventional warriors will reject but troops on the ground will understand.

It will not be easy, but as any soldier will tell you, nothing worth fighting for is.


From the book THE NEW RULES OF WAR: Victory in the Age of Durable Disorder by Sean McFate. Copyright © 2019 by Sean McFate. Reprinted by permission of William Morrow, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.

By 

Full link: https://medium.com/s/2069/the-return-of-mercenaries-non-state-conflict-and-more-predictions-for-the-future-of-warfare-7449241a04e5

Sưu tầm – How Long Will We Live in 2069?

Naked mole rats, the Church of Perpetual Life, and the quest to discover what the future holds for the human lifespan

There was a time when San Diego’s Town and Country resort was considered a posh destination. These days, it’s best known for its marquee along Interstate 8, which features one-liners like “There’s no way that everyone was kung fu fighting” and “Welcome archery conference — free ear piercing.”

When I visited in September 2018, the property felt suspended between nostalgia and oblivion. Huge swaths of the late-1960’s-era complex, including the fitness center and hundreds of rooms, were shuttered in preparation for a massive renovation. The areas in operation were decorated with a hodgepodge of kitsch: A large Ron Burgundy poster hung on the wall by the front desk, a flock of plastic lawn flamingos were planted in a patch of artificial turf, and faded pop-art murals painted the elevator doors.

But for the approximately 1,000 people who had paid between $395 and $1,995 to attend the third annual Revolution Against Aging and Death Festival, or RAADfest, the visit to Town and Country was their ticket to a virtually endless future. “We’re on a mission,” James Strole, RAADfest’s fast-talking, silver-haired impresario, told the assembled crowd at the event’s opening ceremony. “We’re creating a new world together — a world without pain, sickness, and death.”

Strole wasn’t speaking hyperbolically. Within the next few decades, he said, it will be normal for people to live for hundreds of years in perfect health. “We’re not talking about life in some decrepit state. We’re talking about life getting better and better and better,” he told his audience, most of whom were already well into their retirement years. “Everybody in this room has that opportunity, no matter what condition you’re in. Your body is miraculous, and it can be turned around.”

Strole was followed onstage by a colorful collection of stem cell cowboys, transhumanists, and robot enthusiasts. The weekend’s biggest draws included Aubrey de Grey, a biogerontologist and anti-death evangelist known for an unruly beard that stretches below his chest and his claim that the first human to live to 1,000 is already living among us; Bill Faloon, a former undertaker who runs a “fellowship for longevity enthusiasts” named the Church of Perpetual Life; and Ray Kurzweil, the inventor and futurist who predicts that we will soon be injecting millions of nanobots into our bodies to fight disease and enhance our cognitive abilities.

The unorthodox cast of characters wasn’t the only reason RAADfest differed from a typical scientific conference. Between three and four hours of every day’s programming was given over to an “anti-aging and age-reversal expo” called RAADcity. Inside, vendors hawked $370 on-site IV infusions of an “all-natural, holistic” vitamin therapy, as well as “youngering” stem cell treatments, lessons in “sex magic,” and something called the Theraphi Plasma System, which claimed to reverse aging, tame children with anger and impulsivity issues, and cure end-stage cancer. One Tampa-based doctor was selling a four-treatment package of “young plasma” for $27,000. Add in a steady stream of amateur song-and-dance numbers and a rambling, free-associative keynote from actress Suzanne Somers and it was tempting to write off RAADfest as nothing but a gathering of kooks, crackpots, and hustlers.

But there were also serious discussions about legitimate, cutting-edge research being conducted at top laboratories and institutes around the world. Faloon, who speaks with the urgency of a door-to-door salesman, enthused about the benefits of NAD+, a co-enzyme with lifespan-extending potential that forms the basis of a new company founded by Leonard Guarente, an MIT professor and aging pioneer. When Kurzweil said he took more than 100 pills and supplements each day, he singled out metformin, a widely used treatment for Type 2 diabetes that prominent longevity researchers believe could treat a range of age-related ailments, including heart disease and cancer. One of the most discussed topics at RAADfest was senolytics, a new class of drugs under development to treat cellular senescence, the scientific term for what happens to our bodies as they deteriorate with age.

“People are fucked up, you know? They’ve been able to trick themselves into thinking that aging is some sort of blessing in disguise.”

This tension between the fringe and the mainstream encapsulates both the dynamic state of aging research and the many open questions about how this research will, in all likelihood, profoundly change the way our species ages in the future. At RAADfest, it is taken for granted that research coming out of established labs across the country will make it possible for humanity to achieve something close to immortality. The prominent scientists who work in those labs, however, overwhelmingly view infinite lifespans as a pipe dream and caution that the interventions they’re working on, while promising, have yet to make humans live longer.

There is nobody who straddles that divide more than de Grey, a 55-year-old British expat who lives in a mountain retreat about 70 miles south of San Francisco. He’s tall and thin, and his ponytail and conspicuous facial hair invite comparisons to Rasputin, the early 20th-century Russian mystic. He’s also a bona fide celebrity in anti-aging circles—when I sat down with him on an outdoor patio during the second morning of RAADfest, our conversation was repeatedly interrupted by admirers who wanted to shake his hand or get his autograph.

De Grey spent the early part of his career as an artificial intelligence researcher and software engineer. When he was 26, he met and eventually married Adelaide Carpenter, a biogeneticist two decades his senior. “Ever since I heard of the concept of aging, it was always obvious that aging was a medical problem and therefore potentially solvable,” he told me as he ran his fingers through his beard. “And so I went through my whole early life just presuming that it was being worked on quite hard by people who were good at that.”

But the more time he spent with Carpenter and her colleagues, the more de Grey became convinced that his presumption was wrong. While technologists like himself were interested in “manipulating nature,” it seemed to de Grey that basic scientists like his wife were content with merely understanding it. (De Grey and Carpenter divorced in 2017; he was at RAADfest with his new fiancée.) “I had never conceived of the possibility that anyone could not think that aging was the world’s worst problem,” he told me. “But when I did, I decided to switch fields.”

It wasn’t long before de Grey was studying aging full-time — with the goal to ultimately cure it. In the 2000s, he helped launch two separate nonprofits to tackle the problem: the Methuselah Foundation, with the motto “to make 90 the new 50 by 2030,” and the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS) Research Foundation.

De Grey’s mad-scientist appearance and willingness to make bold predictions helped garner attention for his efforts, although it often seemed that the media took him more seriously than the scientific community. After de Grey predicted in 2004 that, within 25 years, scientists would develop “effective rejuvenation therapies for humans,” the MIT Technology Review sponsored a forum into whether SENS was “so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate.” A few months after that, more than two dozen leading aging researchers published a piece in a peer-reviewed journal that ridiculed de Grey’s approach by quoting H.L. Mencken: “For every complex problem, there is a simple solution, and it is wrong.”

But a decade and a half later, it looks like de Grey might be getting the last laugh: Today, “radical life extension” has entered both the scientific and cultural mainstream, and de Grey’s foundations are awarding grants to some of the most renowned scientists in the field. When I asked him why traditional geroscience researchers were entirely absent from RAADfest’s lineup, he insisted that some of them were “very much on board spiritually with what we do here” but were afraid of offending conservative “mainstream” funders, like the National Institutes of Health and philanthropists “who would rather die than live forever.”

De Grey refers to this as “the pro-aging trance,” which highlights another challenge he faces: In polls, a vast majority of Americans say they would not want medical treatments that slow the aging process and allow people to live decades longer.

“People are fucked up, you know?” he said. “They’ve been able to trick themselves into thinking that aging is some sort of blessing in disguise.”


The Buck Institute for Research on Aging is just off US-101, about 30 miles north of San Francisco. The modernist, I.M. Pei–designed campus borders the Olompali State Historic Park in the foothills of Marin County’s Mount Burdell; groups of deer often graze near its parking lots. When it opened in 1999, the Buck was the first biomedical research institution dedicated solely to aging; today, it is the best funded and most prestigious independent aging research facility in the world. If major advances are made in the fight against aging, it’s likely the Buck will have a hand in them.

In early December 2018, just a few months after RAADfest, I visited the Buck Institute for a daylong symposium titled “Live Better Longer: A Celebration of 30 Years of Research on Aging.” That wasn’t an arbitrary demarcation: Aging is one of the rare areas of modern science with a specific launch date. In this case, it was January 1988, when Tom Johnson, a behavioral geneticist at the University of California, Irvine, published a paper that linked a genetic mutation he named “age-1” to longer lifespans in a transparent, microscopic, mostly hermaphroditic roundworm known in scientific circles as C. elegans.

Prior to Johnson’s discovery, aging had not received a lot of attention from researchers. In the 1820s, Benjamin Gompertz, a self-trained mathematician, concluded that humans don’t start to break down at some magic age but are constantly declining and losing the ability to repair themselves, a concept now referred to as the Gompertz law of mortality. The first hint that there might be a cellular mechanism underlying the aging process came more than a century later, in the 1930s, when two Cornell scientists discovered that rats kept on calorically restricted diets lived significantly longer than their more satiated brethren.

But overall, the field was mostly known as being a haven for charlatans and quacks peddling immortality elixirs and other magical cures — a reputation that continued even after Johnson’s work was published. “In the early 1990s, this was viewed as crazy science,” Valter Longo, director of the University of Southern California’s Longevity Institute, told me. “When people asked, we used to say we worked on something else. We were almost ashamed to say, ‘I work on aging.’”

But over the course of the next decade, the tools of molecular biology began to reveal the inner workings of how lifespan is regulated. In 1993, Cynthia Kenyon, an assistant professor at the University of California, San Francisco, discovered that mutations on a different gene, called daf-2, caused C. elegansto live twice as long as expected. Several years later, Gary Ruvkun, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, showed that these so-called worm-aging genes were closely related to genes in the insulin-signaling system of humans. Around the same time, MIT’s Guarente and some of his colleagues discovered the first of several genes in yeast — which are also present in humans — linked to dramatically extended lifespan.

Johnson, Kenyon, Guarente, and Ruvkun were all part of the opening panel at the Buck symposium, and it was impossible to ignore how much the field had changed. Kenyon, who in 2014 was hired away from her job at UCSF by Calico — the Google-backed biotech company dedicated to combating aging — described her inability to find collaborators, or even grad students, when she was starting out. Guarente recounted the reaction of his department chair when Guarente shared one of his discoveries: “Just what the world needs — long-lived worms.” A few years later, however, one of Guarente’s former postdoctoral researchers sold a pharmaceutical company named Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, which made products based on some of those long-lived worms, to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for $720 million.

Ultimately, the Sitris research didn’t pan out, and GSK closed the company, but today, more and more aging-related products are available for consumers. Longo founded a company that sells a five-day fasting-mimicking diet meal kit called Prolon, short for pro-longevity, which his research has linked to changes in biomarkers associated with aging, like inflammation. Guarente told the audience about Elysium Health, a company he helped launch that sells a supplement called Basis, which appears to raise NAD+ levels by up to 40 percent. (The salutary effects of NAD+ were one of the things that Faloon, the Church of Perpetual Life founder, enthused over at RAADfest.) Later on, the president of Unity Biotechnology described his company’s development of senolytics, the class of potentially age-extending drugs that also had everyone at RAADfest buzzing, to treat osteoarthritis, macular degeneration, and pulmonary fibrosis.

Whereas in the past scientists hoped to discover one all-important “aging factor” to target, these days the consensus is that paradigm-changing gains in longevity will come from an all-hands-on-deck approach.

“I think the big success of geroscience drugs will be in their combined action against multiple age-related diseases,” Jan Vijg, a molecular geneticist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, told me at Buck. “I think it’s reasonable to predict that maybe three to five years from now, we’ll have a number of drugs based on these little worms that we once thought, well, it’s just an interesting phenomenon.”

Hermaphroditic roundworms aren’t the only unusual animals investigated at Buck for their anti-aging insights. After the day’s second panel, I ducked out of the auditorium to meet up with Rochelle Buffenstein, a native Zimbabwean biologist with strawberry-blond hair, glasses, and a wry sense of humor. While we were having lunch, she told me that her love of food has kept her from adhering to a calorically restricted diet in the hopes of extending lifespan. “I once spoke at a caloric-restriction society meeting and must have looked like the most unlikely person to be there,” she said. “I don’t know if not eating would make me live 20 percent longer, but I’d definitely feel like I was living 50 percent longer.”

Buffenstein has worked as a comparative physiologist in the United States since the late 1990s. After stops at the City College of New York and University of Texas at San Antonio, she was hired by Calico in 2015. When she came out west, Buffenstein brought with her the world’s largest collection of one of the weirdest and most fascinating creatures in existence: the naked mole rat.

Buffenstein keeps her collection of more than 3,500 of the hairless, blind rodents in a series of basement labs at the Buck. Naked mole rats have two massive buck teeth, small holes where their ears should be, and wrinkled, semitranslucent, grayish-pink skin. I’ve been obsessed with them ever since I saw a full-page picture of one as a child, but when I’d visited Buffenstein a year earlier, I hadn’t gotten a chance to visit her animals. (She gave me a naked mole rat plushie as a sort of consolation prize.) Now, after scrubbing my arms up to my elbows and putting on disposable shoe covers and a snood cap, I followed Buffenstein into a tropical walk-in-closet-sized vivarium that housed a colony of several hundred naked mole rats in a series of tubes and clear polycarbonate enclosures that looked like a massive hamster Habitrail.

“Evolution moves by tiny steps, and I think it’s unlikely we’re going to find an intervention that will recapitulate what evolution does,”

Naked mole rats are one of just two eusocial mammal species: Each colony has a single breeding female and a small handful of breeding males. “Lysistrata,” the name of this colony’s breeding female, was written in black ink on a notecard taped to one of the first enclosures in the room. In the wild, naked mole rats live underground, in burrows, and as a result have almost completely lost the ability to regulate their internal temperature, which meant these rooms were kept around 85 degrees Fahrenheit with high humidity.

As soon as we walked in, the animals began chirping. “They have 19 different vocalizations I can recognize,” Buffenstein said before pointing out how the colony designated some of the small, dead-ended enclosures as bathrooms. “They also sometimes eat others’ poop, but only while it is being voided,” she said. (It’s crucial to maintaining a healthy bacteria balance in their gut.) “They really are the most incredible creatures. Do you know they can live for up to 18 minutes without oxygen?”

As amazing as all of that is, the most remarkable thing about naked mole rats — and the reason they are housed at the Buck — is that they seem to have overturned Gompertz’s law of mortality, which is to say their likelihood of dying doesn’t increase as they get older. That doesn’t mean they’re immortal, although a few of Buffenstein’s animals have lived for more than 30 years, roughly 10 times as long as mice and other similarly sized rodents. But naked mole rats, along with Galapagos giant tortoises, rougheye rockfish, ocean quahog clams, and Greenland sharks, are one of a motley crew of creatures that remain active and capable of reproducing right up until they die.

“They maintain heart function, hormone levels — every molecule we’ve looked at in terms of pathways,” Buffenstein said. Put another way: Somehow, even as they get older, naked mole rats don’t seem to age. If Buffenstein can determine exactly how they’re able to do that, the hope is that will help us understand how we might be able to mimic that ability in humans.


With this promising research on the horizon, how long might humans live in the future? Fantastical claims to longevity have existed since the dawn of recorded time, but reliable data about maximum human lifespan only dates to the mid-1950s, when the Guinness Book of World Records began independently verifying claims. Even then, initially corroborated ages can end up disproven: On December 27, Russian researchers published a paper arguing that the current world record holder, a Frenchwoman named Jeanne Calment, who said she was 122 when she died in 1997, had stolen her mother’s identity and was actually 99 at the time.

Assuming Calment wasn’t a fraud, since 1955, 46 people have made it to age 115. Nine of them have made it to 117 — and only two, Calment and an American woman named Sarah Knauss, have made it past 117. (Knauss died in 1999 at age 119). Over that same time frame, just under 11 billion people have been alive. That means roughly .0000004204133 percent of people have made it to 115. You’re 79,333 times more likely to get hit by lightning than you are to live to 115; 22,455 times more likely to end up in the emergency room from a golf cart accident; and 11,817 times more likely to get murdered.

That’s why 115 to 125 is often used as a range for the maximum human lifespan. Some researchers believe that supercentenarians, similar to naked mole rats, are impervious to major age-related diseases like cancer, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s until just before they die. If scientists can figure out how to disrupt the underlying mechanisms that cause our cells to age, the thinking goes, then supercentenarians will become as common as 80-year-olds are today.

Of course, significant challenges remain. Vijg, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine molecular geneticist, emphasizes that researchers still don’t understand the relationship between aging and the diseases associated with it. During a coffee break at the Buck symposium, I asked Vijg, who has a shaved head and an impish smile, what exactly he means. “We define [aging] in very vague terms, like ‘accumulation of damage’ or ‘accumulation of errors in biosynthesis,’ something like that,” he said. “But in fact, we don’t really know what it is. What is the basic mechanism of aging? We don’t know the process.”

Judith Campisi, a Buck scientist and one of the world’s leading senescence researchers, agreed. “Take the 30-fold difference in lifespan between the mouse and the human,” she said. “We don’t understand what it is that makes a mouse age in two to three years and a human age in 50 to 70 or 80 or 90 years.”

“Evolution moves by tiny steps, and I think it’s unlikely we’re going to find an intervention that will recapitulate what evolution does,” she said.

That’s one reason Campisi and Vijg, along with virtually all of the aging scientists I spoke with, think it’s very unlikely that any breakthrough will be able to help us live to 500 — or even to 150, for that matter. “If you’re super, super healthy and you are already going to be a centenarian or a supercentenarian, will those drugs work for you?” Vijg asked me. “Will they now make you live, instead of to 110, will they make you live to 130 or 140? My guess is no.”

Of course, a future where it’s commonplace to live to 110 or 115 would represent a seismic expansion in human lifespan. The speakers and the audience at RAADfest seem to believe that’s the absolute minimum that will result from this esoteric branch of science. The scientists at the Buck symposium, one the other hand, are much cagier about making predictions based on promising initial results. Many of them remember the optimism of the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the initial rash of aging discoveries helped fuel a belief that a “treatment” for aging was just over the horizon.

“It turns out it takes a lot longer to translate from mice to humans than you might expect,” MIT’s Guarente told me toward the end of an hour-long conversation in his office in mid-December. “And we still don’t know for sure that any of this is going to work.”

By 

Full link: https://medium.com/s/2069/how-long-will-we-live-in-2069-f03e698f6de2

Share – When you eat can be just as important as what you eat — ideas.ted.com

By doing something as small as adjusting your mealtimes, you can re-set your body clock and improve your health, says chronobiologist Emily Manoogian. Every weekday for the month of January, TED Ideas is publishing a new post in a series called “How to Be a Better Human,” containing a helpful piece of advice from a…

via When you eat can be just as important as what you eat — ideas.ted.com

By doing something as small as adjusting your mealtimes, you can re-set your body clock and improve your health, says chronobiologist Emily Manoogian.

Every weekday for the month of January, TED Ideas is publishing a new post in a series called “How to Be a Better Human,” containing a helpful piece of advice from a speaker in the TED community. To see all the posts, click here.

When you think about eating better, what comes to mind? Adding servings of fruits and vegetables to your lunches and dinners? Cutting down on processed foods? Consuming more locally grown produce?

Chronobiologist Emily Manoogian has found that adjusting one specific factor — when we eat — could improve our lives just as much as changing what we eat. She says, “Much the same way that you should eat a healthy meal every day, you should also eat it when your body expects it.”

Our bodies run on a 24-hour clock — right down to our cells. “Pretty much anything that you would get tested at the doctor’s office has a circadian rhythm. For instance, your heart rate and blood pressure naturally rise in the afternoon and are lowest while you sleep,” says Manoogian, a researcher at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. This rhythm “helps us be alert when we wake up, it has our digestive system ready to process food when we eat, and it helps our organs rest and repair while we sleep.” In her research, Manoogian monitors the timing of daily habits in thousands of people around the world to gain insight on how these affect their health.

In our busy and highly stimulating world, our circadian rhythm could use some assistance. “The two biggest cues you can give your body to tell it the time of day [are] light and food,” says Manoogian. “Evolutionarily, those were very reliable cues to know the time of day. But in modern society, light and food are available around the clock. This can lead to circadian disruption.”

Such disruption is associated with an increased risk of heart disease and diabetesThe World Health Organization has listed it as a probable carcinogen when it becomes a regular feature of life due to shiftwork patterns. Even our treasured weekends and holidays can throw off our body’s schedule in a phenomenon known as “social jetlag,” simulating the feeling of having crossed several time zones as as result of staying up or sleeping later, or eating and drinking at odd hours.

“You need to keep your body on its schedule so it can prepare itself for what it needs to do,” says Manoogian. “This means using those external cues to support your biological clock: tell it when it’s morning and when it should be awake, and decrease simulation at night so it can get a proper rest.”

One way to help our bodies is by practicing “time-restricted eating.” What that means is this: Eat within the same 10-hour window every day. That’s it. So if the first thing that you consume is at 8 AM, your last meal should be at 6 PM.

The end of your 10-hour eating window should not coincide with your bedtime. (Water is fine, however.) “Leave at least three hours before you go to bed … so your body can get that proper rest,” says Manoogian. “[Your body] needs at least 12 hours of fasting every day to function properly.”

If you decide to try time-restricted eating, this does not mean you can never go to a party again or have a midnight snack. When you do exceed your 10-hour window, just get on track the next day. But you may find the benefits of this practice outweigh the inconvenience. “Time-restricted eating … can improve glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity, can lead to about a 5 percent weight loss, improves endurance and decreases blood pressure,” says Manoogian.

If you’re interested in participating in Manoogian’s research and in tracking your own rhythms, check out the free tracking app MyCircadianClock (which was co-created by Manoogian).

Watch her TEDxSanDiegoSalon talk here:

Share – Everything You Know About Global Order Is Wrong — Foreign Policy

If Western elites understood how the postwar liberal system was created, they’d think twice about asking for its renewal.

via Everything You Know About Global Order Is Wrong — Foreign Policy

If Western elites understood how the postwar liberal system was created, they’d think twice about asking for its renewal.

U.S. President Donald Trump and China's President Xi Jinping arrive at a state dinner at the Great Hall of the People on Nov. 9, 2017 in Beijing, China. (Thomas Peter/Getty Images)

Klaus Schwab, impresario of the World Economic Forum, released a manifesto in the run-up to this year’s annual meeting at Davos, Switzerland, in which he called for a contemporary equivalent to the postwar conferences that established the liberal international order. “After the Second World War, leaders from across the globe came together to design a new set of institutional structures to enable the post-war world to collaborate towards building a shared future,” he wrote. “The world has changed, and as a matter of urgency, we must undertake this process again.” Schwab went on to call for a new moment of collective design for globalization’s alleged fourth iteration (creatively labeled Globalization 4.0).

Schwab is not the first to make this kind of appeal. Since the financial crisis, there have been repeated calls for a “new Bretton Woods”—the conference in 1944 at which, in Schwab’s words, “leaders from across the globe came together to design” a financial system for the postwar era, establishing the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in the process. It was the moment at which U.S. hegemony proved its most comprehensive and enlightened by empowering economist-statesmen, foremost among them John Maynard Keynes, to lead the world out of the postwar ruins and the preceding decades of crisis. Under Washington’s wise leadership, even rancorous Europe moved toward peaceful and prosperous integration.

This is a story with wide support in places like Davos. It’s also one that deserves far more scrutiny. Its history of the founding of the postwar order is wrong; more important, its implicit theory about how international order emerges—through a collective design effort by world leaders coming together to reconcile their interests—is fundamentally mistaken. What history actually suggests is that order tends to emerge not from cooperation and deliberation but from a cruder calculus of power and material constraints.

Bretton Woods may have been a conference of experts and officials, but it was first and foremost a gathering of a wartime alliance engaged in the massive mobilization effort of total war. The conference met in July 1944 in the weeks following D-Day and the final Soviet breakthrough on the Eastern Front. As a wartime rather than a postwar meeting, disagreements were minimized. Though the conference was about the future order of the international economy and though the aim of the talks was to link national economies back together, the building blocks were centralized, state-controlled war economies. The Bretton Woods negotiators were government officials, not businessmen or bankers. As they had done since the collapse of the global financial system in the early 1930s, central bankers played second fiddle to treasury officials. The Americans who were bankrolling the Allied war effort called the shots.

The basic monetary vision of Bretton Woods was to create order by establishing fully convertible currencies at fixed exchange rates, with the dollar pegged to gold. But the tough conditions of the Bretton Woods monetary architecture set by the United States proved far too demanding for war-weakened European economies. When Britain, the least damaged economy in Europe, tried to implement free convertibility of pounds into dollars, its attempt collapsed at the first hurdle in 1947; the social democratic Labour Party government in London quickly moved to stop the subsequent drain of precious dollars by reimposing exchange controls and tightening import quotas. Meanwhile, the grand design for a free trade order embodied by the Havana Charter and the International Trade Organization fell afoul of the U.S. Congress and was thus stopped in its tracks. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was its cumbersome and slow-moving replacement.

The talk of a connection between the present and the Bretton Woods moment is legitimated perhaps above all by the claimed continuity of the IMF and the World Bank, which were duly set up in December 1945. But beyond institutional titles, this supposed continuity is largely false. Within a year of the founding of its key institutions, almost the entire global agenda of Bretton Woods was put on ice. Already in 1946 the Soviet Union absented itself from the formation of the IMF and the World Bank.

With the Cold War paralyzing the U.N. institutions that had originally been intended to frame Bretton Woods, what emerged under U.S. hegemony was a far narrower postwar order centered on the North Atlantic. The Marshall Plan of 1948 was not so much a complement to Bretton Woods as an acknowledgement of its failure. For true liberals in both the United States and Europe, who hankered after the golden age of globalization in the late 19th century, the resulting Cold War economic order was a profound disappointment. The U.S. Treasury and the first generation of neoliberals in Europe fretted against the U.S. State Department and its interventionist economic tendencies. Mavericks such as the young Milton Friedman—true advocates of free markets in the way we take for granted today—demanded a bonfire of all regulations. They insisted that rather than exchange rates being fixed, currencies should be allowed to float with their value defined by competitive markets. In the 1950s, Friedman could be dismissed as eccentric.

The reality of the liberal order that supposedly came into existence in the postwar moment was the more or less haphazard continuation of wartime controls. It would take until 1958 before the Bretton Woods vision was finally implemented. Even then it was not a “liberal” order by the standard of the gilded age of the 19th century or in the sense that Davos understands it today. International mobility of capital for anything other than long-term investment was strictly limited. Liberalization of trade also made slow progress. The gradual abolition of exchange controls went hand in hand with the lifting of trade quotas. Only when these more elementary limitations on foreign trade were removed did tariff negotiations become relevant. GATT’s lumbering deliberations did not begin making major inroads until the Kennedy round of the 1960s, 20 years after the end of the war. And rising global trade was a mixed blessing. Huge German and Japanese trade surpluses put pressure on the Bretton Woods exchange rate system. This was compounded in the 1960s by the connivance of U.S. Treasury and U.K. authorities in enabling Wall Street to sidestep financial repression and launch the unregulated eurodollar market, based in bank accounts in London.

By the late 1960s, barely more than 10 years old, Bretton Woods was already in terminal trouble. And when confronted with demands for deflation, U.S. President Richard Nixon reverted to economic nationalism. Between 1971 and 1973, he unhitched the dollar from gold and abandoned any effort to defend the exchange rate, sending the dollar plunging and helping to restore something closer to trade balance. If our own world has a historic birthplace, it was not in 1945 but in the early 1970s with the advent of fiat money and floating exchange rates. The unpalatable truth is that our world was born not out of wise collective agreement but out of chaos, unleashed by America’s unilateral refusal any longer to underwrite the global monetary order.

As the tensions built up in the 1960s exploded, foreign exchange instability contributed to a historically unprecedented surge in inflation across the Western world. We now know that this era of inflationary instability would be concluded by the market revolution and what Ben Bernanke dubbed the “great moderation.” But once again hindsight should not blind us to the depth of the crisis and uncertainty prevailing at the time. The first attempts to restore order were not by way of the market revolution but by the means of corporatism—direct negotiations among governments, trade unions, and employers with a view of limiting the vicious spiral of prices and wages. This promised a direct control of inflation by way of price setting. But its effect was to stoke an ever-greater politicization of the economy. With left-wing social theorists diagnosing a crisis of capitalist democracy, the trilateral commission warned of democratic ungovernability.

What broke the deadlock was not some inclusive conference of stakeholders. The stakeholders in the 1970s were obstreperous trade unions, and that kind of consultation was precisely the bad habit that the neoliberal revolutionaries set out to break. The solution, as U.S. Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker’s recent memoirs make embarrassingly clear, was blunt force wielded by the Fed. Volcker’s unilateral interest rate hike, the sharp revaluation of the dollar, deindustrialization, and the crash of surging unemployment dealt a death blow to organized labor and tamed inflationary pressure. The Volcker shock established so-called independent central bankers as the true arbiters of the new dispensation.

They put paid to what Margaret Thatcher referred to as the “enemy within.” But the global victory of the liberal order required a more far-reaching struggle. The world of the market revolution of the 1980s was still divided between communism and capitalism, between first, second, and third worlds. The overcoming of those divisions was a matter of power politics first and foremost, negotiation second. The United States and its allies in Europe raised the pressure on the Soviet Union, and after a period of spectacularly heightened tension, Mikhail Gorbachev chose to de-escalate, unwittingly precipitating the union’s collapse.

The truth is that the postwar moment that the Davos crowd truly hankers after is not that of 1945 but the aftermath of the Cold War, the moment of Western triumph. It was finally in 1995 that the Bretton Woods vision of a comprehensive world trade organization was realized. A sanitized version of this moment would describe it as a third triumph of enlightened technocracy. After Bretton Woods and the defeat of inflation, this was the age of the Washington Consensus. But as in those previous moments, its underpinnings were power politics: at home the humbling of organized labor, abroad the collapse of Soviet challenge and the decision by the Beijing regime to embark on the incorporation of China into the world economy.

Since 2008, that new order has come under threat from its own internal dysfunction, oppositional domestic politics, and the geopolitical power shift engendered by truly widespread convergent growth. The crisis goes deep. It is not surprising that there should be calls for a new institutional design. But we should be careful what we wish for. If history is anything to go by, that new order will not emerge from an enlightened act of collective leadership. Ideas and leadership matter. But to think that they by themselves found international order is to put the cart before the horse. What will resolve the current tension is a power grab by a new stakeholder determined to have its way. And the central question of the current moment is whether the West is ready for that. If not, we should get comfortable with the new disorder.

BY 

Full link: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/30/everything-you-know-about-global-order-is-wrong/

Share – Giới thiệu về tâm lý học lâm sàng (Clinical Psychology) — Exploring Psychology – Khám Phá Tâm Lý Học

Tâm lý học lâm sàng là phân nhánh của tâm lý học liên quan đến đánh giá và điều trị các bệnh lý tâm thần, các hành vi bất thường và các vấn đề tâm thần khác. Phân ngành này lồng ghép khoa học tâm lý vào điều trị các vấn đề phức tạp ở […]

via Giới thiệu về tâm lý học lâm sàng (Clinical Psychology) — Exploring Psychology – Khám Phá Tâm Lý Học

Tâm lý học lâm sàng là phân nhánh của tâm lý học liên quan đến đánh giá và điều trị các bệnh lý tâm thần, các hành vi bất thường và các vấn đề tâm thần khác. Phân ngành này lồng ghép khoa học tâm lý vào điều trị các vấn đề phức tạp ở con người, tạo nên một lựa chọn nghề nghiệp lý thú cho những người đang tìm kiếm một lĩnh vực vừa thử thách vừa bổ ích.

Clinical psychology is the branch of psychology concerned with the assessment and treatment of mental illness, abnormal behavior, and psychiatric problems. This field integrates the science of psychology with the treatment of complex human problems, making it an exciting career choice for people who are looking for a challenging and rewarding field.

therapy.PNG

Lịch sử hình thành. Early History

Những ảnh hưởng đầu tiên lên lĩnh vực tâm lý học hành vi là công trình nghiên cứu của nhà phân tâm học người Áo Sigmund Freud. Ông là một trong những người đầu tiên khai thác ý tưởng cho rằng bệnh lý tâm thần có thể được điều trị qua trò chuyện với bệnh nhân, và chính sự phát triển liệu pháp trò chuyện này hay được trích dẫn trong nhiều văn bản, đây cũng là lần đầu tiên mà thuật ngữ tâm lý học lâm sàng được sử dụng trong bối cảnh khoa học.

Early influences on the field of clinical psychology include the work of the Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. He was one of the first to focus on the idea that mental illness was something that could be treated by talking with the patient, and it was the development of his talk therapy approach that is often cited as the earliest scientific use of clinical psychology.

Nhà tâm lý học Lightner Witmer đã mở ra phòng khám tâm lý đầu tiên vào năm 1896, tập trung đặc biệt vào trẻ gặp khiếm khuyết trong học tập. Cũng chính Witmer là người đầu tiên giới thiệu thuật ngữ “tâm lý học lâm sàng”trong một bài luận năm 1907.

American psychologist Lightner Witmer opened the first psychological clinic in 1896 with a specific focus on helping children who had learning disabilities. It was also Witmer who first introduced the term “clinical psychology” in a 1907 paper.

114d8967bad33237bb300741c4fee94e--psychology.jpg

Witmer, trước đây là học trò của Wilhelm Wundt, định nghĩa tâm lý học lâm sàng là “ngành học nghiên cứu về từng cá thể, bằng quan sát hoặc thực nghiệm, với mục tiêu khuyến khích sự thay đổi.” Ngày nay, tâm lý học lâm sàng là một trong những nhóm ngành phổ biến nhất và là lĩnh vực thu hút nghề nghiệp lớn nhất trong tâm lý học.

Witmer, a former student of Wilhelm Wundt, defined clinical psychology as “the study of individuals, by observation or experimentation, with the intention of promoting change.” Today, clinical psychology is one of the most popular subfields and the single largest employment area within psychology.

Đến năm 1914, đã có thêm 26 phòng khám thực hành tâm lý học lâm sàng được thành lập tại Hoa Kỳ.

By 1914, 26 other clinics devoted to the practice of clinical psychology had been established in the United States.

Sự phát triển của ngành trong các cuộc chiến tranh thế giới. Evolution During the World Wars

Tâm lý học lâm sàng được định hình nhiều hơn trong Thế Chiến thứ nhất khi các nhà chuyên môn mô tả được sự hữu ích của các bài đánh giá tâm lý. Năm 1917, Hiệp Hội Tâm Lý Học Lâm Sàng Hoa Kỳ được thành lập, mặc dù hai năm sau, nó đã bị thay thế bởi Hiệp Hội Tâm Lý Học Hoa Kỳ (APA).

Clinical psychology became more established during the period of World War I as practitioners demonstrated the usefulness of psychological assessments. In 1917, the American Association of Clinical Psychology was established, although it was replaced just two years later with the establishment of the American Psychological Association (APA).

Trong suốt Thế Chiến thứ hai, các nhà tâm lý học lâm sàng được huy động đến để giúp chữa trị căn bệnh mà thời đó gọi là sốc do đạn pháo, còn ngày nay nó được gọi là Rối loạn căng thẳng sau sang chấn. Hồi đó, các chuyên gia phải điều trị cho nhiều cựu chiến binh gặp vấn đề sau chiến tranh, tạo nên sự phát triển cho tâm lý học lâm sàng trong giai đoạn này. Trong suốt những năm 1940, Mỹ không có chương trình đào tạo cấp bằng chính quy nào cho ngành tâm lý học lâm sàng. Cục Đặc Trách Cựu Chiến Binh Hoa Kỳ đã thiết lập một số chương trình đào tạo tiến sĩ và đến năm 1950, hơn một nửa số bằng tiến sỹ tâm lý học là được trao cho nhóm tâm lý học lâm sàng.

During World War II, clinical psychologists were called upon to help treat what was then known as shell shock, now referred to as post-traumatic stress disorder. It was the demand for professionals to treat the many returning veterans in need of care that contributed to the growth of clinical psychology during this period. During the 1940s, the U.S. had no programs that offered a formal degree in clinical psychology. The U.S. Veterans Administration set up a number of doctoral-level training programs and by 1950, more than half of all the Ph.D.-level degrees in psychology were awarded in the area of clinical psychology.

Thay đổi trọng tâm. Changes in Focus

Mặc dù trọng tâm ban đầu của tâm lý học lâm sàng phần lớn là khoa học và nghiên cứu, nhưng các chương trình đào tạo dành cho nghiên cứu sinh đã bắt đầu thêm vào một số ưu tiên, nhấn mạnh vào tâm lý trị liệu. Trong chương trình đào tạo tiến sỹ tâm lý học lâm sàng, mô hình này có tên gọi là nhà khoa học – bác sĩ hành nghề hay Mô hình Boulder. Sau này, bằng bác sĩ tâm lý xuất hiện, tập trung nhiều hơn nữa vào thực hành chuyên môn thay vì nghiên cứu. Bằng tiến sỹ tâm lý học lâm sàng định hướng thực hànhđược gọi là bác sĩ hành nghề – học giả hay Mô hình Vail.

While the early focus in clinical psychology had been largely on science and research, graduate programs began adding an additional emphasis on psychotherapy. In clinical psychology Ph.D. programs, this approach is today referred to as the scientist-practitioner or Boulder Model. Later, the Psy.D. degree option emerged which placed a greater emphasis on professional practice rather than research. This practice-oriented doctorate degree in clinical psychology is known as the practitioner-scholar or Vail model.

Lĩnh vực này đã tiếp tục phát triển mạnh và nhu cầu việc làm cho các nhà tâm lý học lâm sàng vẫn còn mạnh mẽ. Sổ tay toàn cảnh nghề nghiệp của Cục Thống kê lao động Mỹ dự đoán rằng những nghề nghiệp trong tâm lý học lâm sàng, tư vấn và tư vấn học đường sẽ tăng trưởng 14% từ 2016 đến 2026, cao hơn tốc độ phát triển bình quân.

The field has continued to grow tremendously and the demand for clinical psychologists today remains strong. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Outlook Handbook predicts that jobs in clinical, counseling, and school psychology will grow 14 percent from 2016 to 2026, which is faster than average.

Đòi hỏi đào tạo chuyên môn. Education Requirements

Tại Hoa Kỳ, các nhà tâm lý học lâm sàng thường sở hữu bằng tiến sỹ tâm lý học và tiếp nhận đào tạo tại các phòng khám. Yêu cầu học vấn cho nhân sự làm trong tâm lý học lâm sàng khá khắt khe, và hầu hết các nhà tâm lý học lâm sàng dành khoảng từ 4 đến 6 năm đào tạo sau đại học sau khi đã có một bằng cử nhân.

In the U.S., clinical psychologists usually have a doctorate in psychology and receive training in clinical settings. The educational requirements to work in clinical psychology are quite rigorous, and most clinical psychologists spend between four to six years in graduate school after earning a bachelor’s degree.

Có 2 loại bằng cấp khác nhau – bằng tiến sỹ và bác sĩ tâm lý. Nói chung, các chương trình tiến sỹ tập trung vào nghiên cứu, trong khi bác sỹ tâm lý lại đi sâu vào thực hành. Một số sinh viên cũng có thể tìm đến các chương trình sau đại học cấp bằng thạc sỹ chuyên ngành tâm lý học lâm sàng.

There are two different types of degrees availablea Ph.D. and a Psy.D. Generally speaking, Ph.D. programs are centered on research, while Psy.D. programs are practice-oriented. Some students may also find graduate programs that offer a terminal master’s degree in clinical psychology.

Trước khi chọn chương trình đào tạo tâm lý học lâm sàng, bạn nên kiểm tra và đảm bảo rằng chương trình này được Hiệp hội Tâm Lý Hoa Kỳ chứng nhận. Sau khi hoàn thành một chương trình đào tạo chính thức, những nhà tâm lý học lâm sàng tiềm năng phải hoàn thành thêm một khóa đào tạo và kiểm tra có giám sát nữa.

Before choosing a clinical psychology program, you should always check to be sure that the program is accredited by the American Psychological Association. After completing an accredited graduate training program, prospective clinical psychologists must also complete a period of supervised training and an examination.

Yêu cầu về chứng chỉ hành nghề cụ thể sẽ khác nhau tùy tiểu bang, vì vậy, bạn nên kiểm tra với ủy ban cấp bằng ở bang của bạn để tìm hiểu thêm (chỉ áp dụng với Hoa Kỳ – ND)

Specific licensure requirements vary by state, so you should check with your state’s licensing board to learn more.

Sinh viên tại Anh Quốc có thể theo học tiến sỹ về tâm lý học lâm sàng (Tiến sỹ tâm lý lâm sàng hoặc bác sĩ tâm lý) qua các chương trình do Cơ quan quản lý dịch vụ y tế quốc gia tài trợ. Những chương trình này nói chung khá cạnh tranh và tập trung vào cả nghiên cứu và thực hành. Sinh viên muốn đăng ký vào một trong các chương trình này phải có một bằng cử nhân tâm lý do hiệp Hội Tâm Lý Anh Quốc chấp thuận, chưa kể đến những yêu cầu khác về kinh nghiệm.

Students in the United Kingdom can pursue a doctorate level degree in clinical psychology (D.Clin.Psychol. or Clin.Psy.D.) through programs sponsored by the National Health Service. These programs are generally very competitive and are focused on both research and practice. Students interested in enrolling in one of these programs must have an undergraduate degree in a psychology program approved by the British Psychological Society in addition to experience requirements.

Môi trường làm việc và vai trò công việc. Work Settings and Job Roles

Các nhà tâm lý học lâm sàng thường làm việc trong môi trường y tế, các cơ sở tư nhân, hoặc vị trí học thuật tại các viện trường. Một số nhà tâm lý học lâm sàng làm việc trực tiếp với khách hàng, thường là người mắc nhiều dạng rối loạn tâm thần ở nhiều mức độ. Những nhà tâm lý học lâm sàng cũng có thể làm việc trong các cơ sở cung cấp điều trị ngoại trú ngắn hạn và dài hạn cho những người cần giúp đỡ xử lý các vấn đề tâm lý. Một số người lại làm việc ở những vị trí khác như, thực hiện nghiên cứu, giảng dạy các khóa học của trường đại học và cung cấp dịch vụ tư vấn.

Clinical psychologists often work in medical settings, private practice, or in academic positions at universities and colleges. Some clinical psychologists work directly with clients, often those who suffer from various types and degrees of psychiatric disorders. Other clinical psychologists may work in private therapeutic settings offering short-term and long-term outpatient services to clients who need help coping with psychological distress. Some clinical psychologists work in other settings, performing research, teaching university-level courses, and offering consultation services.

Một số nghề trong ngành tâm lý học lâm sàng:

Some of the job roles performed by those working in clinical psychology can include:

– Đánh giá và chẩn đoán các rối loạn tâm lýAssessment and diagnosis of psychological disorders

– Điều trị các rối loạn tâm lý. Treatment of psychological disorders

– Cung cấp lời khai làm chứng trong bối cảnh pháp lý. Offering testimony in legal settings

– Giảng dạy. Teaching

– Thực hiện nghiên cứu. Conducting research

– Điều trị lạm dụng ma túy và rượu biaDrug and alcohol treatment

– Tạo dựng, quản lý các chương trình can thiệp và phòng ngừa các vấn nạn xã hội. Creating and administering programs to treat and prevent social problems

Những hướng tiếp cận. Approaches

Các nhà tâm lý học lâm sàng làm ở vị trí nhà tâm lý trị liệu thường tận dụng những hướng điều trị khác nhau khi làm việc với khách hàng. Trong khi một số bác sĩ tập trung vào một hướng điều trị rất cụ thể thì nhiều người khác lại sử dụng cách tiếp cận chiết trung (chọn lọc trên phạm vi rộng – ND). Tức ta sẽ rút ra nhiều phương pháp lý thuyết khác nhau để phát triển kế hoạch điều trị tốt nhất cho từng cá nhân người bệnh.

Clinical psychologists who work as psychotherapists often utilize different treatment approaches when working with clients. While some clinicians focus on a very specific treatment outlook, many use what is referred to as an eclectic approach. This involves drawing on different theoretical methods to develop the best treatment plan for each individual client.

Một vài góc nhìn lý thuyết lớn trong ngành tâm lý học lâm sàng:

Some of the major theoretical perspectives within clinical psychology include:

– Góc nhìn tâm động học: Đây là một góc nhìn hình thành nên từ công trình của nhà phân tâm học Sigmund Freud, ông là người tin rằng tâm trí vô thức đóng một vai trò quan trọng trong hành vi của chúng ta. Các nhà tâm lý học sẽ sử dụng liệu pháp tâm động học như liên tưởng tự do để tìm hiểu những động lực vô thức, ẩn sâu bên trong của khách hàng.

Psychodynamic approach: This perspective grew out of the work of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, who believed that the unconscious mind plays an important role in our behavior. Psychologists who utilize psychoanalytic therapy may use techniques such as free association to investigate a client’s underlying, unconscious motivations.

– Góc nhìn nhận thức  hành vi: Các tiếp cận này được phát triển từ trường phái tư tưởng hành vi và nhận thức. Các nhà tâm lý học lâm sàng sử dụng góc nhìn này để tìm hiểu tương tác giữa những cảm xúc, hành vi và suy nghĩ của khách hàng. Liệu pháp nhận thức hành vi (CBT) thường tập trung vào việc thay đổi những suy nghĩ và hành vi góp phần gây ra những vấn đề tâm lý.

Cognitive behavioral perspective: This approach to clinical psychology developed from the behavioral and cognitive schools of thought. Clinical psychologists using this perspective will look at how a client’s feelings, behaviors, and thoughts interact. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) often focuses on changing thoughts and behaviors that contribute to psychological distress.

– Góc nhìn nhân văn: Cách tiếp cận này hình thành từ công trình của những nhà tư tưởng nhân văn như Abraham Maslow và Carl Rogers. Ở các tiếp cận này, ta sẽ tìm hiểu khách hàng một cách toàn diện hơn và tập trung vào những thứ như sự tự khẳng định mình và giúp mọi người nhận ra tiềm năng đầy đủ của họ.

Humanistic perspective: This approach to clinical psychology grew out of the work of humanist thinkers such as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. This perspective looks at the client more holistically and is focused on such things as self-actualization and helping people realize their full potential.

Kết luận. A Word From Verywell

Tâm lý học lâm sàng là một trong những lĩnh vực phổ biến nhất trong tâm lý học, nhưng ta cần đánh giá mối quan tâm của từng người trước khi quyết định có nên đi theo ngành này hay không. Nếu bạn thích làm việc với con người và có thể xử lý căng thẳng và xung đột tốt thì tâm lý học lâm sàng chính là một lựa chọn tuyệt vời. Lĩnh vực tâm lý học lâm sàng sẽ tiếp tục lớn mạnh và thay đổi do nhu cầu thay đổi của mọi người cũng như những sự chuyển biến trong góc nhìn của quốc gia về chính sách chăm sóc sức khỏe. Nếu bạn vẫn chưa chắc chắn đây là ngành nghề dành cho mình, hãy thử thực hiện những bài tự kiểm tra đánh giá ẩn danh trên mạng.

Clinical psychology is one of the most popular areas in psychology, but it’s important to evaluate your interests before deciding if this area might be right for you. If you enjoy working with people and are able to handle stress and conflict well, clinical psychology may be an excellent choice. The field of clinical psychology will continue to grow and evolve thanks to the changing needs of the population, as well as shifts in the nation’s approach to healthcare policy. If you’re still unsure whether clinical psychology is right for you, this psychology career self-test may help.

Tham khảo. View Article Sources

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Psychologists. U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Updated January 30, 2018.

Carr A. Clinical Psychology: An Introduction. London: Routledge; 2012.

Trull TJ, Prinstein M. Clinical Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2013.

Nguồn: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-clinical-psychology-2795000

Như Trang.

Sưu tầm – When Something Breaks

If a close friend had their home broken into, you’d comfort them and tell them that it was only stuff that had been stolen. If your child broke their favorite toy, you’d tell them that these things happen and try to get them to play with something else. If a waiter spilled on your friend, you’d calm them down by saying it was an accident. Basically, when stuff happens to other people, we’re able to see it clearly with some perspective and some detachment.

But when our stuff breaks or is lost, it’s always so much different. It’s suddenly a tragedy, or worse, a deliberate misdeed that has been wrongly inflicted upon us. I lost so much. But I really loved that toy. You ruined my favorite shirt. You meant to do that. We take it personally, because it is personal–it happened to us.

And then we’re miserable.

That’s why the Stoics try to practice detachment. Not in the sense that they don’t love other people or that they avoid relationships or possessions, but in the sense that when something happens to one of those things, they try to see it with some perspective. Epictetus points out how when someone we know loses a loved one, we can say, “that’s just life.” But when we lose a loved one, it’s suddenly, “Poor me!” And yet it is fundamentally the same event. We’ve just decided to indulge the more severe judgment–the one that doesn’t bring back the person we grieved, and only makes us feel terrible.

Epictetus’s advice when we get upset is to remember how we feel when we hear it has happened to someone else. We care, sure, but not so much that it deeply distresses us. We’re empathetic but unbroken. We’re calm, we’re collected, we understand.

And then, we move on.

Sưu tầm – I Wish I’d Known My Mother Couldn’t Be Trusted When I Was Young

My mother doesn’t know that I can hear her muttering downstairs when I’m upstairs in my bedroom. Lying awake at the quietest hours of the night, I hear my mother protest invisible offenders. Her torturers.

“Stop it,” she angrily whispers. “Stop it right now! Jerks! You’re evil… jerks!”

5-4-3-2-1. I remind myself to breathe and not get too caught up in the muttering I overhear. Though I do wonder how loud she’s actually whispering since I can hear her so well from up here.

There’s this side of mental illness no one really likes to talk about. How our hands are often tied with our loved ones who refuse to get help. Especially when it’s our parents.

In fact, “healing,” when it comes to mental health, requires a willingness to help oneself.

And my mother doesn’t want to help herself. That’s been her MO in one way or another for my entire life.


My days are spent writing and caring for my nearly 5-year-old. It’s a little bit awkward lately because my mother has been living in our living room since the end of November.

Close quarters doesn’t really begin to describe it. It’s more than that.

My mother spends her days sitting in a folding chair, staring at her tablet, and playing some random tablet game. My mother calls me lucky for being a single mom supporting herself. For building a better life. But I don’t waste my hours playing games. She insists these games help sharpen her brain, but whenever she wanders through YouTube, I have to remind her not to believe every video she sees.

Just like I have to fact check the articles she tells me she’s read and clearly taken for news.

The other night, my mother wanted me to watch a video on Youtube depicting a woman flipping out in a bookstore. My mom thought it was a real event caught on camera.

I struggled with the best way to tell her that it was fake. Great entertainment, but nothing real.

“How did somebody know to film her?” I asked. “If it wasn’t a setup, they wouldn’t have known this customer was going to turn out to be volatile.”

“That’s what people do today,” my mother spoke as if she had insider information.

“Do what?”

“They tape strangers. Society is terrible today.”

I couldn’t help but sigh before changing my approach. “Well, the thing is… this is posted by a channel named Underground Theater. And the writer she’s talking about is a Stephen King character. Not a real writer. This is a skit.”

I pause. It’s awkward because I don’t want to embarrass my mother. I don’t want her to get upset with me and complain that she can’t talk to me about anything.

Thankfully, she doesn’t get upset this time. Instead, she claims that the more she watched the video, the more she thought it was fake.

Okay, sure.


I have spent so much of my life afraid to disappoint or upset my mother. Too much. Most of my days have been tamped down to avoid having her call me rebellious. Up until recently, I still lied about my life to appease her.

It’s hard to explain to people who have felt very little guilt over living their own lives against a parent’s wishes. But my guilt has been thick and palpable since childhood.

I grew up believing that any of my individual beliefs and dreams which didn’t line up with a certain brand of Christianity made me evil. That there was something inherently bad within me, and would one day reveal me to be everything my mother claimed I was. Like possessed by demons and “against” god himself.

Now that I’m a parent to my own child, I can’t help but think my life would have turned out so much differently if I’d simply known my mother suffers from mental illness.

Prior to motherhood, I never knew I had the right to decide much of anything for myself. I believed that my wants came last–after god’s, after the church’s, and after my mom’s.

At 36-years-old, this is the first year I’ve allowed myself to stand up for myself around my mom. To contradict any of her firmly held beliefs. And it’s pretty damn awkward if you ask me.


One of the hardest things to explain to other people is the way a strict and overbearing parent can fuck up your life with a hefty dose of evangelicalism. A lot of people think it’s as easy as saying no, and simply doing your own thing anyway. But that isn’t how it usually works.

Children with my background first grow up to adore their parents, and then fear them. Ultimately we grow up fearing hell, god, and even ourselves.

People will ask me about my past and why I dated terrible men, or why I didn’t leave my evangelical ways behind a long time ago. Like much earlier. Often, they question me in accusatory ways, falling just short of calling me a sheeple.

They don’t understand that it wasn’t my fault that I got indoctrinated into such terrible shit. Like so many of my exvangelical peers, I was a good kid who wanted to change the world.

What could be so terrible about that?


We all know that expression, you don’t know what you don’t know. But never are those words truer than when you are a child trusting the adults in charge of your life.

I naturally trusted that my mother wanted the best for me. At some point, I even recognized that she was too strict and something was not quite right. Yet even then, I thought she was overzealous at best.

It wasn’t until adulthood that I realized my mother is mentally ill, and that she’s been that way my entire life. Had I any understanding of that fact, I believe it would have changed my life.

These days, I’m playing catch up. There’s no use getting stuck in what might have been. Now that I know better, I’m trying to take back the life I never really believed was mine in the first place. Trying to undo a swarm of unhealthy habits and thought processes.


For the most part, children believe what their parents (and other adults) teach them. When children develop unhealthy beliefs as a result, we don’t call them stupid kids. Instead, we look at what was wrong with the adults in those young lives. Even if a child “disobeys” or is “rebellious,” they tend to take whatever has been said about them to heart.

My family was pretty much filled with mentally ill adults who refused to get help, and unsurprisingly, the children suffered. Minus the incest, our family has been enmeshed in some pretty deep, Flowers In the Attic shit.

Our grandma was always convinced that mom was trying to poison her. Our aunt left her husband and twin sons not long after their birth, and their family told the boys she was dead. Both my mom and grandma pretended to be dying or chronically ill through the years.

We had an uncle who was widely known for being a habitual liar, though to be honest, that was a common theme among most of our adult family members. These people were often like grown varieties of The Boy Who Cried Wolf–you never knew when to believe that they were really sick, or that some amazing thing had actually happened to them.

My sister and I were surrounded by adults who rarely took charge of their own lives. Most family on our mom’s side lived on disability and became hermits who rarely ventured outside.

Even as kids, there were weeks where we hardly saw the outside world. But overshadowing our lack of sun was the coaching to never let other people know what we really were–welfare trash. And supposedly kids from a line of sexual abuse.

Even today at 36, I don’t know how to unpack the weirdness of my childhood to help anyone else understand. I mean, it took me decades to begin to grasp how crazy it all was.


Now that I’m a parent, I try to consider all of the shit which crowded out my own happiness as a kid. I don’t want to pass on any garbage as normalcy, though I’m far from perfect myself.

How many kids grow up with mentally ill and abusive parents without ever knowing what’s really going on? For the vast majority of impacted kids, nobody sits you down to say your normal isn’t okay. That the abuse isn’t your fault. And that you don’t have to live in the shadow of your parent’s poor mental health.

I worry about my daughter and all of the ways I never want her to pay for my personal struggles with my mental health. I think about how much I want to protect her from my painful and unnecessary experiences.

Luckily, I think these difficult lessons have made me a better parent. Not perfect, but honest. Not infallible, but real. I think my daughter will have an easier time growing up simply because she’ll know that she can come to me without fear.


My mother doesn’t talk much to me about conspiracy theories now. I already told her that was the main condition for her to stay temporarily with me and my daughter. I understand that her mental illness tells her that her health conditions are all related to one form of government torture or another.

When my mother mutters and cries in the middle of the night, she is acting out due to mental illness. She prefers to believe that the government is using radiation to cause her pain. It’s easier to believe wild conspiracy theories than it is for her to take medication and see how she feels.

As an adult child, I find myself torn between frustration and awkward love. How can I tell her that she is loved despite our disagreements? I’ve spent my whole life afraid of disappointing my mom. I don’t know how to explain to her that my boundaries are neither rejection nor evil, but just me trying to survive better.

I don’t think the guilt will ever go away, not really. And I don’t know how to foster a deeper bond with this person who’s one part stranger, one part caregiver, and three parts bat shit crazy.

All I know is that nobody tells you how to manage your life and love your parent when you’re the child of severe mental illness. And I wish somebody had told me not to trust my mother when I was young.

By Shannon Ashley

Full link: https://medium.com/@Shesreallyfat/i-wish-id-known-my-mother-couldn-t-be-trusted-when-i-was-young-27efdced1580

Sưu tầm – Want to Be More Successful? Write Better. Here’s How.

Your ideas will never take off if you lack the necessary tools to get them out into the world.

Want to Be More Successful? Write Better. Here's How.

I wrote my way up. From an intern to a community manager to an entry-level sales rep to a manager to a senior manager to a director. But when I started out, I didn’t understand what writing was. At least, not in a professional sense. To me, writing was simply a way to communicate basic information. It was short bursts of words starting off with, “FYI…” “Just to let you know…” and “I don’t know if you saw this, but…” It was quick replies to brief questions: “Will do,” “Got it, thanks,” “Understood.” Regardless of if I was indeed going to do something, if I actually did get it, or if anything, at all, was understood. Man, I was lost.

Everything changed when ideas — for better processes, how to motivate the team, and faster ways to scale — began pouring out of me. The only challenge was I had nowhere to go with them. Catching the CEO for a few minutes became harder as we raised new rounds of funding. Conversations over coffee with colleagues was always helpful, but nailing down results that would actually lead to action was difficult. Everyone has ideas, and while that doesn’t mean all ideas are created equal, most ideas will never see the light of day because the one who thinks them often lacks the necessary tools to get them out into the world.

Related: 5 Ways to Effectively Communicate With Employees

So instead of accepting defeat and grabbing beers with friends only to vent about how, “I have, like, so many ideas, man. So, so many ideas for how to do things differently. You don’t even know…” I wrote an email to the CEO. And when I received a thoughtful reply, encouraging me to move forward with my ideas, I began to write more. And more. And more. I would write emails to the CEO, to other senior employees, and anyone else who I believed could help me put my ideas into action, tell me they needed to be fleshed out, or just that they were garbage, but to keep going. I wrote weekly updates, detailing what was going well and what wasn’t. I surfaced issues threatening the business, paired with solutions, whenever they arose. I wrote it all. Because it was then I discovered that writing isn’t just a way to communicate basic information; writing is the execution of ideas through words. And the more you believe that the more you will be able to change your life in ways you may have never imagined.

“But what if I don’t have ideas?” you may ask. That’s fine because they will come. But even if they don’t, being able to coherently put a sentence together and present it in a way that allows people — e.g. your colleagues, manager, or future employer — to understand your thinking is a foundational skill that, “According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers, 73.4% of employers want.” Not only that, but, as Jason Fried, Founder of Basecamp, stated in his book, Rework:

If you are trying to decide among a few people to fill a position, hire the best writer. Their writing skills will pay off. That’s because being a good writer is about more than writing clear writing. Clear writing is a sign of clear thinking. Great writers know how to communicate. They make things easy to understand. They can put themselves in someone else’s shoes. They know what to omit. And those are qualities you want in any candidate. Writing is making a comeback all over our society…Writing is today’s currency for good ideas.

Related: 5 Simple Ways to Identify Business Ideas That Could (Really) Change the World

The challenge here is that, in the States, young adults aren’t gaining the necessary writing skills to thrive in college, no less a professional workspace. In a 2017 article for The New York Times titled, “Why Kids Can’t Write,” Dana Goldstein, writes:

Three-quarters of both 12th and 8th graders lack proficiency in writing, according to the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress. And 40 percent of those who took the ACT writing exam in the high school class of 2016 lacked the reading and writing skills necessary to complete successfully a college-level English composition class.

It’s no wonder that, as Kayleigh Moore states, “businesses are spending as much as $3.1 billion on remedial writing training — annually. Of this budget, $2.9 billion was spent on current employees — not new hires.” $3.1 billion.

What does this mean for you? It means we need to reconcile our relationship with the written word, no matter how proficient you may or may not be. It means we need to ask ourselves if the way we write in a professional setting is helping or hindering our efforts to rise. And, above all, it means we need to internalize the fact that better writing, while not being the end all be all solution, helps to even the playing field when office politics, favoritism, and other workplace ailments, like institutional racism, run rampant.

Related: Why Richard Branson and Warren Buffett Write Regularly

More specifically, it means you need to take your professional destiny into your own hands and put those hands to your keyboard. Write weekly updates detailing your progress, goals, and areas of improvement. When you have ideas, write and edit them, then send to your most senior colleague who can help put them into action, or at least see the effort you’re making. If you identify issues, write those down, paired with tangible solutions, and send those. And, if you’re in a workplace where email isn’t the norm, write all of the above on paper and put it on the appropriate recipient’s desk. Documenting all of this, and ensuring it gets into the right hands, will both help and protect you in more ways than one.

A few more tactical pieces of advice:

  • Proofread your writing, and not just for spelling or grammatical mistakes, but for unclear thinking.
  • Don’t write in large chunks containing enough run-on sentences to complete an ultramarathon.
  • If writing an email, include a short, informative subject line.
  • Make your writing pop. The last thing anyone wants to read is something unengaging, no matter what it is.
  • When writing an update, frame it as a narrative with a beginning, middle, and end. And understand your updates form a larger narrative spanning weeks, months, and, possibly, years. You and your colleagues are characters in that narrative and what takes place in your professional workspace is the plot.
  • If you need or want something, say it clearly. Writing, like our physical voices, takes on specific tones based on our intentions. Confidence is key when asking for something, but doubt is also okay when soliciting advice.

But most of all, just write. And write well. You’ll be surprised by how far it takes you.

By Mateo Askaripour

Full link: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/327092

Ẩm thực – 20 Tips for Choosing Healthy Alcoholic Drinks

Although drinking alcohol does not directly lead to weight loss, there are some tricks you can employ that will help you prevent extra pounds from packing onto your frame.

20 Tips for Choosing Healthy Alcoholic Drinks

When it comes to the best strategies for weight loss, it’s no surprise that cutting back on alcohol or totally hopping aboard the ol’ sobriety wagon is the ideal option.

Of course, green tea is the better thing to sip on when it comes to shedding belly fat, but—real talk—sometimes that glass of red wine at happy hour does more good for your soul than that 90-minute yoga class does.

So, here’s the good news! If you’re going to imbibe, there are certainly ways you can incorporate alcohol (in moderation) into your healthy eating plan.

So gather around ye olde punch bowl as top nutritionists reveal their go-to booze tactics that help to keep weight gain at bay. Then, grab a low-calorie cocktail mixer and make sure you’re not guilty of these weird reasons you’re gaining weight so fast.

1

Choose ‘Ultra Brut’ Champagne

“Ultra Brut” in the champagne world is the same as “no added sugar” in the nutrition world. And that means fewer calories (and a lower chance of a pesky hangover the next day). What doesn’t count, however, is serving your Ultra Brut Champagne as a mimosa, which will cut your alcohol content in half, but fill it up with even more sugary liquids. And while you have breakfast cocktails on the mind, find out the best breakfast habits for weight loss!

2

Take Water Breaks

Ice water with lemon - healthy alcoholic drinks

Ice water with lemon

“Make sure you have at least one or two glasses of water for each drink—and that you never drink on an empty stomach,” says Abbey Sharp, RD, of Abbey’s Kitchen. And have a hearty meal before drinking, too. “Alcohol is absorbed through the stomach, so having food in your belly will help slow down the rate at which the alcohol is absorbed, taking a longer time to get drunk,” adds Rebecca Scritchfield, RDN, and author of the book, Body Kindness.

3

Use Low-Cal Mixers

“The best mixers are ones that are lower in sugar and calories, such as seltzer, unsweetened iced tea, unsweetened coffee, or a touch of 100 percent juice,” says Toby Amidor, MS, RD author of The Greek Yogurt Kitchen and owner of Toby Amidor Nutrition. For an epic cocktail, add fresh ingredients like herbs or cucumber slices, or muddle raspberries, suggests Amidor. You’ll have a fancier-looking cocktail without the calories of those sugary fruit juices. Or, you can buy one of these premade low-calorie mixers.

4

Get in A Barre Class After—or Before—the Bar

We know—working out during a hangover sounds like the worst idea ever, but it’s actually the best. “High-intensity interval workouts keep your blood pumping and help your body with the detoxification process,” says Cassie Bjork, RDN, of Healthy Simple Life. She also recommends squeezing in a HITT class before you head to the bar. “It doesn’t give you license to overindulge, but it can provide a metabolic boost and help you better maintain energy levels.” Just make sure you stay hydrated and also hydrate before your post-drinking workout sesh.

If you can’t handle such an intense routine, take a walk, suggests Scritchfield. “Some movement will help your body speed up the metabolizing of the alcohol.” So, in short, something is better than nothing.

5

Choose a Mojito Over a Rum and Coke

You might be thinking that a mojito sounds like the wrong pick over a simple one-two punch of rum and coke, but think again: “Rum drinkers [should] choose a mojito over a rum and Coke,” advises says Erin Palinski-Wade, RD, CDE, author of Belly Fat Diet for Dummies. “The shots of seltzer mixed with fresh lime, mint, and a splash of simple syrup contain less added sugar than a soda mixer such as a cola. Also, the fresh mint and lime pack in a source of antioxidants to add to the nutritional value of your beverage.” Just make sure they go easy on the simple syrup. Request the bartender just use a smidge of sweetener, or even leave it out altogether and ask for extra mint.

6

Opt for a Black Russian Over a White Russian

Sorry, Big Lebowski fans.”While the black russian is made just with vodka and coffee liqueur, the white Russian is much sweeter,” comments Lisa Hayim, MS, RD, registered dietitian and founder of The WellNecessities. “And it’s made with kahlua or cream, which is high in fat and total calories.”

7

Order a Vodka Soda Over a Vodka Tonic

There is a huge misconception that seltzer and tonic are the same. But vodka tonic drinkers, listen up: “Mixed with soda [seltzer] and a lime, a vodka soda is the much slimmed-down version of a vodka tonic in which the tonic mix adds 80 calories from sugar per eight ounces,” says Palinski-Wade. “Replacing any sugary mixer with seltzer is a great way to slim down a mixed drink and remove much of the added sugar.”

Mitzi Dulan, RD, author of The Pinterest Diet: How to Pin Your Way Thin and team nutritionist for the Kansas City Royals adds: “Seltzer is simply carbonated water with zero calories. There are a lot of flavored options that are also zero calories with no artificial sweeteners—so you can mix up your own or ask if the bar has any.” Tonic is more similar to soda with a large amount of sugar. Cut down on your sugar consumption in general with these easy ways to stop eating sugar.

8

Avoid Creamy or Sugary Shots

Each shot of hard liquor is about 100-130 calories; but once you add the mixer for the shot (sugar, cream, etc.), you’ll most likely double or calories at least, say The Nutrition Twins, Lyssie Lakatos, RDN, CDN, CFT and Tammy Lakatos Shames, RDN, CDN, CFT, authors of The Nutrition Twins’ Veggie Cure. “Stick with hard alcohol such as vodka, whiskey, gin, and rum, which after distilling have nothing left but the alcohol and no carbs.”

Bottom line: Choices like apple pie shots get two thumbs down.

9

Vodka Fan? Pick Cranberry Juice for Your Mixer

Vodka with diet sprite clocks in at 70 calories per 8.5 ounces, and diet cranberry juice and vodka is also 70 calories per 8.5 ounces. “Although the calories are equal, we’ll give the edge to the drink made with cranberry juice since research seems to show it can fight urinary tract infections,” The Nutrition Twins say.

10

Indulge in a Vodka Pineapple Over a Piña Colada

“While the piña colada looks like an innocent vacation beverage, they can run up to 500 calories—much of which comes from its saturated fat and added sugars,” states Hayim. Still want that pineapple flavor? Try vodka and pineapple juice instead. And make sure to eat some pineapple, too, if you’re making it at home. Toss any leftover pineapple into your next morning smoothie. Check out these smoothie recipes for weight loss for inspiration and how-to’s!

11

Skip the G&T

“G&T, please” may roll off your tongue easily by now, but nix the habit and swap it for a gin and soda to save a whole lotta calories and sugar. “Tonic surprisingly has almost as many calories and sugar as sodas such as Coke and Sprite,” says Hayim (See Tip #7!). “Soda water, on the other hand, better known as seltzer, is just carbonated water; it’s got no calories or sugar.”

12

Raise a Glass of Bubbly

Did you really need an excuse to bring on the bubbles? Instead of wine or beer, opt for some champagne, Prosecco (Italian sparkling wine), or Cava (Spanish sparkling wine); a four-ounce glass is around 85 calories. Bonus: “Champagne is bubbly, so it can help slow you own if you tend to guzzle your alcohol,” add The Nutrition Twins. But do know that carbonated beverages can make you bloat a bit—in which case you’ll need this comprehensive guide on how to stop belly bloat fast!

13

Order an Amaretto Sour Over a Long Island Iced Tea

Don’t make either of these drinks a regular in your routine. But if deciding between the two, go for an amaretto sour. “Although neither drink is a slimming option, an eight-ounce Long Island iced tea packs in as much as 780 calories!” cautions Palinski-Wade. “Compared to 560 calories in an eight-ounce amaretto sour, you can get the same sweet and sour flavor while saving over 200 calories.” Bonus: The lower alcohol content can help you to avoid a wicked hangover the next day.

14

Try a Sea Breeze

This elegant-sounding drink is as refreshing as it sounds. “A sea breeze with four ounces of grapefruit juice, one and a half ounces of cranberry juice, and one ounce of vodka will be about 180 calories,” says celebrity nutritionist Lisa DeFazio, MS, RDN. Grapefruits also just happen to be a wonderful pick when it comes to selecting the best fruits for fat loss.

15

Choose Red Over White

“When consumed in moderation, the resveratrol (an antioxidant) found in red the wine is believed to have heart health benefits as it helps prevent blood vessel damage and reduces your ‘bad cholesterol,’” offers Hayim. “And although red wine contains slightly more calories than white, it can still be the best choice thanks to its higher resveratrol content. In addition, a recent study found the allergic acids in red wine may help delay the growth of fat cells and slow the development of new ones,” adds Palinski-Wade.

16

Even Better: Make it a Red Wine Spritzer

Made simply with red wine and sparkling water or seltzer (plop in a few berries, if you’d like), you can unwind guilt-free at your next festive gathering with one of these smart drinks. “Red wine, known for its powerful polyphenols helps to keep the heart healthy when enjoyed in moderation (one a day) certainly takes the prize! But your best bet is to make a wine spritzer to cut the calories and add bubbles to prevent guzzling!” share The Nutrition Twins.

17

Skip the Frozen Stuff

Frozen margaritas, frozen daiquiris, frozen coladas—they’re all calorie bombs. And yes, even on vacation. “Have a margarita on the rocks versus a frozen margarita, which has more sugar and calories,” advises Dulan.

18

No Matter What You Drink, Savor Slowly

Whatever your sipper of choice, drink it slowly and mindfully. “Keep in mind that alcohol not only makes you hungrier but it also lowers inhibitions and makes you care less about what you’re eating, too, so temptations can get out of hand! Drinking slowly will help you to consume fewer calories,” elaborate The Nutrition Twins. Find out the foods that make you hungrier so you don’t accidentally do too much damage!

19

Beware the Big Groups

A night out—or hey, a really great afternoon—with friends and some imbibing can help relieve stress, strengthen relationships and bonds, and lead to all sorts of memories. We’re not about to tell you not to hang out with your big ol’ crew. But you should know that, according to a 2015 study by the University of California, San Francisco, people consume more drinks per hour if they’re with a large group. In fact, there’s a direct correlation between the number of drinks and the number of people. So if you just feel like hanging with a couple of your best buds instead of rolling with a squad of 10, this is a fine excuse!

20

Rethink Red Bull as a Mixer

We all know the rule that you shouldn’t mix energy drinks and alcohol—but many people still do. Perhaps you justify your “just one” vodka Red Bull to yourself because you feel you need it to rally when it’s 11 p.m. on Saturday, and you’d rather be curled up on your couch. But if the risk-to-your-heart warnings aren’t enough, then remember that energy drinks—even the sugar-free ones—are more often than not packed with chemical-y concoctions, caffeine, calories, and all sorts of additives.

21

Drink a Bloody Mary Over Pretty Much Everything else

Sweet news for brunch aficionados: “A bloody mary is low in calories with a little added alcohol, and you can enjoy ’em while eating low-calorie celery. You’ll also get a hint of nutrition from the tomato juice,” explains Dulan. “It’s also a better brunch option than a mimosa, as a Bloody Mary has around 125 calories, and less sugar, with the tomato juice offering vitamin C, potassium, and vitamin A,” adds DeFazio. Just be sure to skip the bacon; more healthy toppings include: olives, string beans and protein-packed jumbo shrimp, if available. If you’re in the mood for a second to wash down your meal, try ordering a virgin bloody. The taste profile is pretty much identical, and you’ll save yourself from excess calories and a sluggish feeling later.

22

Sip on a Hot Apple Cider Over a Hot Toddy

“A hot toddy is usually made with tea, brandy, and honey,” says Hayim. “The honey amount varies and can add up to a shocking amount of almost 200 calories! The hot apple cider, on the other hand, will likely not have added sugar, and may even contain some nutrients.”

23

Drink Light Beer to Save Yourself 1 Pound Every Month

“It’s a no-brainer, but the light beers really save your waistline!” offer The Nutrition Twins. Light beer has one-third fewer calories than regular beer. So a regular beer is 150 calories, and the light version is 100. “You may not think of this as that much, but with the way many people love to chug beers, every five beers you’ll save 250 calories,” they say. That would be half a pound, or 1 pound every month if you were to consume that much once every other weekend.

24

Toast to the Good Times with This Healthier Riff on a Margarita

If you’re a margarita enthusiast, try this: “Instead of a margarita, order tequila on the rocks with club soda, and add a squeeze of lime. This eliminates all of the sugar and many of the calories in a margarita,” suggests DeFazio.

By PERRI O. BLUMBERG

Full link: https://www.eatthis.com/healthy-alcoholic-drinks/?utm_source=nsltr&utm_medium=email&utm_content=healthy-alcoholic-drinks&utm_campaign=etntNewsletter