How did you improve your "content diet" this year?
Spending time with family for the holidays?
Here are 10 thought-provoking questions guaranteed to spark an interesting dinner conversation.
👇👇👇
How did you improve your "content diet" this year?
He adds, “Hard work is a prison sentence only if it does not have meaning.”
Do you feel this way about your work today?
When's the last time you did this?
It's a psychological tool that helps people reason & see the situation from a slight distance
When have you used an alter ego to reduce anxiety & gain confidence?
Anytime you have a small window where your heart rate isn't spiking, you open your phone for a dopamine hit.
Boredom can actually enable creativity by allowing the mind to wander & daydream.
When is the last time you felt bored?
Research shows that the language we speak can influence our thinking, giving us wildly different perspectives of the world.
How has the language you speak shaped your identity?
“A smile, a head nod, even just grunting to show you’re listening—those are all positive,” John Gottman says.
How many positive interactions have you & your partner had today?
Every time you label someone, you filter what you see.
Who is someone you can see through a lens of nuance?
Chef Grant Achatz decided he wanted to open the best restaurant in the country. "Anything else would be a failure."
What is the biggest, boldest, most ambitious goal you could conceive of?
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?