They're the only board members who aren't notable. After the ousting the board consisted of a prominent CEO in D'Angelo, a prominent researcher in Sutskever, and Toner and McCauley. It's a grouping of two randos, not two women.
You have three people, one of them is at least quite well known to the outside world, or at least his / her company is well known along with an ex Facebook CTO title.
You have two people left, we have no idea what he / she is, their work are not public outside of specific domain, and no Public / PR exposure to even anyone who follows tech closely.
Those two people we group them together. And they happened to be woman. ( At least we assumed their gender ). And we are now being called sexist? Seriously?
Slow metabolic rate triggers a flight or fight response, just like a panic disorder, so no wonder there is an intersection of symptoms.
But there is a big difference: slow metabolic rate leads to eventual cell death (metabolic encephalopathy), while panic disorder is physiologically harmless in comparison. It's hard to distinguish between the two, and not every doctor is able to do that.
As an interesting observation, a metabolic disorder is not responsive to antidepressants alone.
Because your friend may be too close to your problems to be of help, may not speak with candor to avoid harming you/your relationship, may be an active participant in your problem, may have no experience talking/thinking about your problem limiting their ability to offer useful feedback…
Without even broaching the diagnosis and treatment of mental health conditions, there are any number of reasons why paying a neutral third party to discuss your problems could be preferable than talking to a friend at a bar. Nor are they mutually exclusive.
Talking to anyone is pretty good, so you're not far wrong.
A counsellor or therapist has training - think of it as a mental toolkit - to help explore things with you. Depends on their exact approach but most of them wont give advice for example, they will just ask question or reflect what you say back to you to encourage you to figure it out yourself. Or they might look for parallels between your early life and current life, as most people follow repeated patterns in their relationships (or so the theory goes). At least 75% of their skillset is just listening and occasionally asking good questions which is an underrated skill.
There are many different flavours of therapy/psychotherapy/counselling and sometimes the adherents get quite religious about it (ask an integrative therapist what they think of CBT for example). But research generally shows that most 'talking therapies' are roughly equal in effectiveness and the main factor for success is the relationship between the client and therapist - i.e. whether they click. (putting aside for the moment the tricky questions about how to measure effectiveness of therapy - what does improvement look like? how do you have a control group?)
There's a thing called the 'Dodo Hypothesis' - that "all empirically validated psychotherapies, regardless of their specific components, produce equivalent outcomes" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird_verdict
People heavily invested in a particular brand of therapy dont like to hear about the Dodo Hypothesis but broadly I think its an optimistic conclusion - talking to people helps, and if you find the right one, talking to a specially trained listener can help more.
> Depends on their exact approach but most of them wont give advice for example, they will just ask question
Because general advice is rarely useful in such cases, like you can see in almost all of comments giving advice in this topic. Most of them have at least one "yeah, but in my case...".
Bold of you to assume someone with significant issues has a friend, especially when friendship statistics (especially for men) are plunging through the ground.
You’d be surprised to learn how unrealistic it is to expect someone that has learned Latin from 3 years of grammar drills/translation exercises to read any intermediate text comfortably (without translating sentence-by-sentence).
It’s ridiculous to compare native language acquisition by children with second language acquisition. A child has so many advantages: 100% surrounded by ghe native language, people who constantly talk to the child at levels they understand, teachers who work with the child (and yes native children do get grammar lessons). And children also get constantly corrected when making mistakes.
A second language learner lacks most or all of these things.
Readable text provides immersion and context, which allows implicitly absorbing the most common grammatical constructs and intuiting vocabulary.
Anecdotally I can’t recall being anything more than a middling student of English until I reached the end of the translated discworld volumes and figured there was a lot more to read if I but acquired them in the original English. Some contribution can also be credited to getting into computing although mostly because EverQuest required daily interactions with English sites and speakers.
I have, multiple times. I’ve also raised bilingual kids. Adults fare vastly better (an order of magnitude) than kids, when compared on a basis of hours invested. The thing is, kids are exposed to a language learning environment 24/7/365 with few other responsibilities or a mother tongue to fall back on to express themselves.
If you were able to put in the same immersion effort as is forced upon a kid, you’d be fluent in less than a year and native-level a few years later, for most languages.
It’s not so ridiculous once you realise that it’s entirely possible for a second language learner to surround himself in the target language and constantly consume level appropiate (and interesting!) input.
If someone lacks those things, IMO the method isn’t very good.
I learned English in exactly that way: Massive input. I learned nothing back in elementary and middle school - they tried to drill grammar, in the form of "I am, you are, he/she/it is, we are, you are, they are". Didn't work.
But I got interested in microcomputers in the mid seventies, when I was a teenager, and most of the material available was in English, so I subscribed to Personal Computer World after finding issue 1 in a local shop. Drank it all up, slowly at first, then faster, and later on I just continued - not in order to learn English, I just wanted to read what I wanted to read. And there were of course movies etc. I didn't get past technical English until much much later, when I started to read English books because that was what was available when travelling. I got all my English vocabulary and grammar from that.
English is admittedly a bit special in that it's easy to immerse even if you don't live in an English-speaking country. There's no problem finding comprehensible input (a term I hadn't heard until recently, but looking back that's what I was doing).
I can manage in more languages, to a survival level, using exactly the same method. And I've worked for many years trying to learn Japanese, by more traditional methods (I couldn't just start reading.. I thought) - and I got almost nowhere. Yes, I can describe basic grammar, but I can't (or couldn't) understand Japanese outside of greetings, and I couldn't speak to save my life. But some months ago I switched to what we're discussing: Acquire the language by comprehensible input. Fortunately there are now people around who prepare material for you, and that's what I'm using. Suddenly I'm finally getting somewhere. It works. The fog is lifting.
As to "And children also get constantly corrected when making mistakes" - no, that's not really true. That's a myth. If you look, you'll see that children's mistakes are only corrected if it's serious. For the rest, except for a small amount of corrections, children simply gradually correct themselves. And they don't need teachers to work with them to learn the language. Children are fully fluent when they enter school, what they learn is more vocabulary (something which continues for the rest of their lives, of course), expressions etc. But that's not teachers teaching them said expressions. They simply come across them as part of everything else they do.
"people who constantly talk to the child at levels they understand"
Again, that's not how children learn the majority of speech. What they do is to constantly (but in a relaxed, passive way) listen to adults and other older people talking between themselves. They're surrounded by input. And that's how they acquire their language.
An adult actually has an advantage most children don't have: A great ability to read. If they can read, and understand a lot of interesting topics, adults have access to massive input which is not typically accessible (at least to that level) by children.
I think the nature and number of corrections a child receives depends upon the people. For example I'm a parent of a bilingual child, and I've spent literally years correcting pronouns - as his native language doesn't have them.
So many times I've said "Your mommy is a she, not a he". Or "She said". Similarly correcting words like "I did fall" to "I fell".
I accept that teachers probably wouldn't be that picky, and most of the other English-speaking / bilingual children let things slide so long as he's understandable.
(I don't want to be "strict", but I have a social circle here who ask for corrections so it's an easy habit for me.)
They start in the womb, and are still being corrected at times in elementary school. So if you're willing to take that kind of time under that level of immersion, then you don't have to drill, either.
The article is exaggerating to make a point. It is usually, or almost always, true that people around you know more about what you should do in such situations than you do.
> people around you know more about what you should do in such situations than you do
Nobody knows the entire story of what you're going through better than you. People around you know bits and pieces. They do not have the time and energy to devote to your problems, they are making quick and dirty judgments. The often suggest something you've already tried. Or a solution they think solved a problem of theirs that superficially resembles yours. Or just what the current culture generally accepts.
And since we're talking psychology here I'm gonna go ahead and be keyboard Freud: saying that everybody knows better than you is just your low self esteem talking. I would have had a miserable life if I went with what people around me thought I should do.
Ketogenic diets have also been used for a century to treat epilepsy in children, so effects might not be limited to the gut. Maybe it’s ketone bodies as an alternative fuel for the brain that is doing the trick.
it's really interesting. I wish I'd be a researcher. I'd try to science the sht out of ketones.
There's anecdotal evidence that cocos fat helps with dementia and alzheimers as well. It already has MCT which can be forwarded by the liver to wherever it's needed.
I actually get migraines from most plant-fats, but not from cocos!
This seems to be an instance of “if you hear the dog whistle you’re the dog”