The last time I did this, my EQ was 5 🙁
Your Empathizing Quotient is 9. Baron-Cohen (2003) suggests that this means "you have a lower than average ability for understanding how other people feel and responding appropriately".
Your Systemizing Quotient is 35. Baron-Cohen (2003) suggests that this means "you have an average ability for analysing and exploring a system".
Yes, eat that! I'm almost 2x more empathetic than in 2011! Empathy up 80%!
According to Musings of an Aspie:
Continue reading
Just caught this article by chance, and had many WTH moments. Please excuse typos; I had to manually type it up as it doesn't seem to be published on their site. Full article, plus my observations. No copyright infringement intended, but I have to call this writer out (warning: I get snarky when I lose my patience).
Should we be mooving away from 'filk'?
Fake millks may be fashionable, but are they any better for you than cow's milk, asks Nicole Mowbray.
Stand in the queue in a coffee shop and you're almost certain to hear someone ordering themselves a latte with dairy-free soya, almond, rice, oat or coconut milk. Or as I like to call them, 'filks' (fake milks).
"Filk"... Seriously. And in answer to the first question: yes.
A quick glance at recent statistics shows why. Over the past 25 years, there's been a ten-fold rise in the number of Britons purporting to suffer from food and drink allergies or intolerances (the term given to symptoms of irritation or discomfort, rather than violent allergic reactions). And it's not only adults. In the UK, two in every 100 children have an allergy to cow's milk.
Indeed, lactose or other milk intolerances are not to be sniffed at. GPs agree that, for some, dairy products contain some allergenic elements. Alongside lactose, the naturally occurring protein casein can also cause bloating, stomach discomfort, vomiting and sinus issues.
... and what else?
http://www.livestrong.com/article/257495-casein-protein-dangers/
http://nakedfoodmagazine.com/casein-and-cancer/
Cancer, potentially. You forgot to mention cancer.
These issues go some way to explaining why sales of milk have fallen by 30 per cent over the past 30 years. In comparison, the consumption of substitute milks is soaring, up 17 per cent in the past year alone, with the market being valued at £139million.
Except you forgot to mention that there are plenty of other reasons for giving up dairy, not least the fact that the dairy industry inflicts extreme cruelty on the dairy cows and goats.
Continue readingThe folks at WAPF are always good for a laugh. If you're interested in vegan nutrition, you're bound to have come across this claim at some point:
"The most serious problem with soy may be its use in infant formulas. “The amount of phytoestrogens that are in a day's worth of soy infant formula equals 5 birth control pills," says Mike Fitzpatrick, a New Zealand toxicologist. Fitzpatrick and other scientists believe that infant exposure to high amounts of phytoestrogens is associated with early puberty in girls and retarded physical maturation in boys.
-westonaprice.org/health-topics/soy-and-the-brain/
What I find incredibly amusing about claims like this is that the people who love to throw out this "fact" are the same ones pushing milk.
Now let's just get one thing straight. Soya comes from a plant. Plants are not female mammals.
I'm gonna say that again.
Plants are NOT female mammals.Therefore, they do not produce oestrogen. They don't. They just don't.
Now let's think of an animal that does produce oestrogen. Hmm, let me think. Oh yeah! Cows! Cows produce oestrogen!
Now here is an extract from a very interesting article I came across the other day (emphases are my own):
Continue reading
Randomly yesterday, the thought just came into my head of the tragic death of Henry Surtees. I don't know why this suddenly popped into my head, but it has left me feeling so so sad. Even when I'd first read of it, years ago, it made me hurt inside, too. I didn't know him -- I think I'd only vaguely heard of John Surtees's son -- and the last time I watched a F2 race, I believe it was called F3000. And there are so many people dying every day, in much worse ways than this, so why does this one upset me so much and yet others leave me completely unmoved? And it's sad, because he was young, and his parents had to witness the death of their teenage son. And if that tyre had just been a centimetre or two off, or if Henry had just been driving a bit slower or faster, it would have missed him and he'd still be alive. And it's so sad seeing that smiling face and knowing it will never smile again. I don't know why this one particular death upsets me. It just makes me feel so sad, I have such a cloud of gloom hanging over me all the time, and how must it be for his family? Even after these years? And his biography on his homepage still speaks of him as being alive and it's sweet in a way, but heartbreaking, too.
As an aside: this is one of those situations where someone will say, Continue reading
There seems to be an awful lot of hate towards wholegrains from the online community. I believe most of this comes from fans of the Weston A Price Foundation (aka WAPF), an influential group who advocate a diet high in animal products (more of this later).
I hadn't heard of this group at the time when I first started reading these articles about how soya and wholegrains are really bad for you, will give you osteoporosis and bad teeth and kill you in any other number of ways. I was intrigued at first, as these sites, such as Mercola and Wellness Mama, seemed to be in accordance with what I believed about diet, i.e. natural, minimally processed, home-made, organic is best. So I was curious about this info.
One study that seemed to crop up a lot was this one (I am quoting from wellnessmama.com)
To prove this theory, the Drs. Mellanby did a study on children with existing cavities. The children were put into three groups:
- Group One: Regular diet plus oatmeal (which is high in phytic acid)
- Group Two: Regular diet plus vitamin D
- Group Three: Diet low in phytic acid plus vitamin D.
And then this graph:
Now the first thing I have a problem with is: Continue reading
I'm utterly addicted to these burgers, which I have now named Quin-Bean Burgers. I think I have been a bit low on protein on account of only having 2 meals per day (including breakfast). So I came up with this recipe to boost my protein a bit, inspired by lunchboxbunch's bean burger recipe. As I said, sweetcorn makes everything better.
Recipe uses metric cups (1 cup = 250ml), but you can be flexible with ingredients and quantities.
You can use sprouted quinoa in place of cooked, but you'll get a crunchier texture. Don't like sweetcorn? Then just leave it out, or use your favourite vegetables, sauteed or boiled, instead. If you don't have flax, you can use more flour or breadcrumbs as a binder.
I like to make double the quantity, using one tin of white beans and one tin of a different kind of bean, then freeze for later.
Ingredients:
Breadcrumb coating (optional)
Note before you read: Oil pulling is best done with organic cold-pressed raw sesame oil. It's way more palatable and less likely to induce gagging. I personally use the ClearSpring brand from Real Foods. Coconut and sunflower are also good. Do not use olive oil, trust me.
Note #2: Do not use the bicarb no-poo, it's REALLY bad for your hair. I now use Mistry's Shampoo, or you could try making a decoction of soapwort/soapnuts/shikakai or a combination of those. Both should be allowed to soak for about 10 minutes before rinsing with vinegar water. Don't use things that are alkaline on your hair and scalp. That's enough note.
I've been seeing a lot of websites extolling the wonder of the no-poo method for washing one's hair. The formula is: Continue reading
You know, as someone with object empathy, I tend to hang on to stuff for ages, usually forever. Trade in my DSi XL for a 3DS XL? Are you kidding? Ain't gonna happen. But of course there comes a time when one has to let go.
First of all, there is my phone. Now let me tell you, I've had this baby a long time. 9 years to be exact. September 2003: I still remember the day. You wanna know the model? It's a Nokia 3310. It's silver right now. But at other times, it's variously navy, red, blue, green or yellow. They disconnected my SIM in 2010 because I didn't top up for 2 years. What I'm saying is, it makes no sense for me to splash out on a fancy new phone every year, when I hardly ever use it. That's asociability for you. Why do I even have a phone, then? For emergencies. And here is the problem.
Continue readingI thought the last version was supposed to be the final version. Now it's gone from 150 questions to 188 questions, and ones I've never seen before. Oh well anyway, my graph still looks awesome flying saucer.
Your Aspie score: 142 of 200 Continue reading
I contacted Quackenbush about a comment he left on Amazon, viz:
The Bates Method has never stated that accommodation (focusing near and far) occurs by the cornea changing. Dr. Bates believed the external eye muscles produced accommodation. This is mostly wrong; but is irrelevant. The lens is the primary mechanism of accommodation. It is controlled by the ciliary (internal) eye muscle. If this muscles is not functioning normally, then accommodation will likely not occur. (There are some reports of lensless accommodation.) Who cares what the mechanism of accommodation is when people improve their eyesight naturally?
Because you know, in his book, he says definitely he agrees with Bates that it's the external muscles and not the lens, and that the purpose of the lens may well be something else besides accommodation. But what he replied was:
I do not agree with Bates. The primary mechanism of accommodation has been reverified by modern instrumentation showing that it is definitely the lens.
In any case, on a practical level, it doesn't really matter to me or many others. Improving vision naturally is the most important issue for most of my students.
Okay, fair enough, but this leaves so many questions. This is not something my brain can allow to slide!
Let's start at the beginning. Orthodox theory states that those with myopia (we will just concentrate on myopia for now) have eyeballs that are too long and the lens cannot cannot compensate for this and as the lengthening of the eyeball is permanent and genetic, it cannot be reversed naturally.
Bates spent two years trying to prove that this was correct, but failed. He found instead that the abnormal lengthening of the eyeball is caused by the external eye muscles pulling the eye into this longer shape, and that relaxation of the mind causes relaxation of these eye muscles, returning the eye to its normal, round shape.
See, now what I don't get is, if Bates's theory is wrong, and the orthodox theory is right, how on Earth does relaxation do anything at all? If the lengthening of the eyeball is genetic and irreversible, then no amount of relaxation should do anything to improve the sight. And yet it's been shown that it can and does.
So I'm stuck. I'm willing to accept that the orthodox theory is in fact the correct one after all, but only if someone can explain this discrepancy to me. Because right now, it doesn't make any sense.
Yaiiieeee! Okay, my eyes definitely feel better since I stopped wearing glasses (a thousand curses upon you, ye treacherous pieces of glass!). I know this because I found my old specs - the ones that caused me to discard them forever - and good gracious! They were so strong. But still my eyesight is far from normal and now I think I know why.
It was pure chance that I came across a negative review of Quackenbush's book on Scamazon and noticed he himself replied and it turns out, you know, I was doing it wrong all along. Here's what he said, anyway:
Continue readingA few more ramblings on the Bates method for better eyesight...
Think of it this way: if you've had your legs in a cast for 4 months, you will not expect, after one or two days' physio, to be able to walk perfectly. Your eyes are also controlled by muscles. You can't expect, after torturing your eyes for months, or even decades, to be able to see perfectly after a day of Bates treatment. Be patient. This does entail a bit of hard slog, but I think you'll find it's worth it in the end.
I shall mention here the words of another eye-specialist, Joseph J. Kennebeck O.D., who later came to reject the orthodox teaching that the lens is the determining factor in accommodation:
No one is blind without glasses. Anyone who can see with glasses can also see, in a way, without them, at least well enough to get along until his eyes improve. Only the blind ARE blind, and they cannot see even with glasses. Too many of them are blind from wearing glasses. Let it be understood that near-sighted eyes can do close work easily without glasses.
The severe cases of today were the mild cases of yesterday, just as the mild cases of today will be the severe cases of tomorrow, from wearing glasses. There are eye troubles — that is true — but no one is so bad in the beginning that he has to resort to glasses and wear them as he does, to supposedly see with or to supposedly save his eyes. One might be able to see with glasses until they need changing, but the glasses will not save his eyes. Of course if one does not live very long, it makes little or no difference if he wears glasses, but no one knows how long one will live. If one lives to a ripe old age, he will have the poorest eyes, at middle age and past, if he wore glasses before. Therefore, one must fight off glasses at a younger age to have the best eyes at an older age. One cannot wait until it is too late to do it. No one would be hurt by fighting off glasses, as much as all are hurt who resort to glasses.
Loyalty to the old tradition of glasses is widespread, and practically universal. As said before, all must save face and not be proven wrong in what all have believed in throughout the years. If all were as loyal and true to their eyes as they are to glasses, all would be better off in the long run. But all have more confidence in glasses, and less confidence in their eyes; too bad. Those who wear glasses think that they are wiser than those who do not, and will not, wear them. Why be so loyal to glasses, when glasses are not loyal to eyes?
More on eyesight improvement at I-See.org