Americans Are Retiring Later, Dying Sicker And Sooner In-between

[Nokoni]

Just curious. You mentioned having kids. I don't think there are many older male posters on here, although there seem to be quite a few older women.

My wife is younger. She happens to be from a culture that appreciates asking the father for her hand. My letter to him included the phrase "even though I'm a little older than" she is. His reply included the phrase, mixed inconspicuously into a very kind letter, the phrase "even though you're a lot older than" she is :)

 

[Nokoni]

From Sapolsky's Zebra book:

"Learned helplessness has been induced in rodents, cats, dogs, birds, fish, insects, and primates, including humans. It takes surprisingly little in terms of uncontrollable unpleasantness to make humans give up and become helpless in a generalized way."

"Seligman and colleagues have also demonstrated that unsolvable tasks induced helplessness afterward in social coping situations."

Functioning as a normal male human while embedded in a PC environment that is hostile to normal male behavior is just such an "unsolvable task". Increases in glucocorticoids and declines in androgens are the inevitable result, as are the consequent mental and physical pathologies.

 

[lampofred]

From Sapolsky's Zebra book:

"Learned helplessness has been induced in rodents, cats, dogs, birds, fish, insects, and primates, including humans. It takes surprisingly little in terms of uncontrollable unpleasantness to make humans give up and become helpless in a generalized way."

"Seligman and colleagues have also demonstrated that unsolvable tasks induced helplessness afterward in social coping situations."

Functioning as a normal male human while embedded in a PC environment that is hostile to normal male behavior is just such an "unsolvable task". Increases in glucocorticoids and declines in androgens are the inevitable result, as are the consequent mental and physical pathologies.

or you know, you could just choose to not give up...

learned helplessness at the end of the day is still a choice you make.

 

[Nokoni]

or you know, you could just choose to not give up...

learned helplessness at the end of the day is still a choice you make.

Like I said to you above, empathy can be destroyed. Your contempt for those not blessed with your superior temperament may be a case in point.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

A few years ago, it was measured today's newborns carry 200 artificial chemicals in their blood at birth.

Samuel Epstein, an expert toxicolgist, showed how each year hundreds of new chemicals are poured into the environment without any safety measures.

Nuclear radiation fallout and electromagnestic pollution are absolutely everywhere.

Back in the days, did you see electro-sensible people unable to live in society ? Or people allergic to any kind of chemical products ?

What was the frequency of depression? Of fibromyalgia? Of Lyme? Of Chronic fatigue syndrome?

What about morgellons?

How many 20 year old sportsmen dropped dead from a heart attack during routine training sessions?

And how many teens used semi-automatic weapons to kill their schoolmates and then kill themselves?

Just because the medias don't talk about these problems doesn't mean they're not real and affecting people.

Don't you understand that history is a march of Progress from bad things to good things. Future is better than the past by very definition and I will defend this absolute unquestionable fact with snide remarks and autistic screeching till the end of days.

 

[Constatine]

Don't you understand that history is a march of Progress from bad things to good things. Future is better than the past by very definition and I will defend this absolute unquestionable fact with snide remarks and autistic screeching till the end of days.

Lol.

 

[theLaw]

or you know, you could just choose to not give up...

learned helplessness at the end of the day is still a choice you make.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Nokoni]

Are you sure about that?

Wow. Impressive demonstration of psychological manipulation. But it was also really cruel (“Pushed”). Assuming it was legit, Chris was put through hell. If it wasn’t legit, then he might be the successor to Olivier. Dude was turning purple. Never heard of Darren Brown, who’s clearly a huge talent, but how can you do that to people? That could be shattering. Amazing.

 

[theLaw]

Wow. Impressive demonstration of psychological manipulation. But it was also really cruel (“Pushed”). Assuming it was legit, Chris was put through hell. If it wasn’t legit, then he might be the successor to Olivier. Dude was turning purple. Never heard of Darren Brown, who’s clearly a huge talent, but how can you do that to people? That could be shattering. Amazing.

He apparently profiles everyone ahead of time to find people who can handle these situations (usually thousands apply).

Everyone is "debriefed" by a mental health professional after each special, and he actually seems very conscientious in interviews.

Keep in mind that most people in the UK know him well as he's been on TV since 2000, so if you sign up for one of his specials, you know what you're getting into.

His most controversial special is Russian Roulette, but he also predicted the national lottery on live tv..........oh, and and persuaded several people to rob a bank (Heist).

But he did lose his hair...........

 

[Nokoni]

He apparently profiles everyone ahead of time to find people who can handle these situations (usually thousands apply).

Everyone is "debriefed" by a mental health professional after each special, and he actually seems very conscientious in interviews.

Keep in mind that most people in the UK know him well as he's been on TV since 2000, so if you sign up for one of his specials, you know what you're getting into.

His most controversial special is Russian Roulette, but he also predicted the national lottery on live tv..........oh, and and persuaded several people to rob a bank (Heist).

But he did lose his hair...........

Yeah that makes sense. Certainly no question he's really talented. Seems odd he's not better known over here. He puts on a great show.

 

[Broken man]

Question is " Are healthy people happy?"

 

[lollipop]

Question is " Are healthy people happy?"

Good question. There is considerable research showing the opposite. Happy, positive, optimistic people are healthier. The mental state contributes to the health. I collect this research.

 

[lollipop]

Don't you understand that history is a march of Progress from bad things to good things. Future is better than the past by very definition and I will defend this absolute unquestionable fact with snide remarks and autistic screeching till the end of days.

I sooo agree @Hugh Johnson - P.S. Eloquently put - made me chuckle.

 

[GAF]

Male born 1956. It was 500 times better to be a kid in Texas starting then, than it was when my kids were born in Texas in the early 80's, and 1,000 times better than when my four grandbabies were born 2 yrs ago.

In my family anyway, as a kid, I grew up in the sunshine, independent and stress free and playful - relatively speaking.

Just my POV

 

[Nokoni]

Male born 1956. It was 500 times better to be a kid in Texas starting then, than it was when my kids were born in Texas in the early 80's, and 1,000 times better than when my four grandbabies were born 2 yrs ago.

In my family anyway, as a kid, I grew up in the sunshine, independent and stress free and playful - relatively speaking.

Just my POV

Same here, in big town/small city Pennsylvania. Bound out the door in the morning, back for meals or call from a friend's house, then back inside when dad hollered out into the neighborhood that it was time to come in. Best be within earshot by dusk. Free and easy and tons of fun. People not from the 50's have no idea how much has been lost.

 

[alywest]

As a woman it's a struggle to be financially dependent on a male (if you choose to do the more "feminine" thing and stay home with the children) but still have a life and not feel helpless. One could argue that the feminist movement was a reaction to a pervasive learned helplessness that women were being imposed with during the previous decades/centuries. If men were able to treat women as equals while being the ones to bring home the paycheck, perhaps this struggle never would have taken place. Instead of us working it out within the family dynamics, women felt forced to go out and get their own paycheck so that couldn't be held over their heads. Are men or women to blame for this? I would say both. Men for not making women feel like their role is just as important even if they're not earning the paycheck, and women for jumping to the extreme "solution" of being financially independent, thereby eliminating the need to work things out together. And then there are the women who feel forced to stay in a bad relationship because of their lack of independence (learned helplessness). And men feel helpless because they are being forced to accept a societal change that didn't really address the underlying issue. It's like trying to find balance by vacillating between two extremes: helplessness and aggression. What is the middle ground? Cooperation, respect, communication...all the things that seem to be lacking in modern society as a whole because it's lacking in many homes. I would say that the men and women who fall into the middle because they had relatively healthy families are left out in a world where extremities rule the day. Politics would be a great example of this.

 

[Tarmander]

As a woman it's a struggle to be financially dependent on a male (if you choose to do the more "feminine" thing and stay home with the children) but still have a life and not feel helpless. One could argue that the feminist movement was a reaction to a pervasive learned helplessness that women were being imposed with during the previous decades/centuries. If men were able to treat women as equals while being the ones to bring home the paycheck, perhaps this struggle never would have taken place. Instead of us working it out within the family dynamics, women felt forced to go out and get their own paycheck so that couldn't be held over their heads. Are men or women to blame for this? I would say both. Men for not making women feel like their role is just as important even if they're not earning the paycheck, and women for jumping to the extreme "solution" of being financially independent, thereby eliminating the need to work things out together. And then there are the women who feel forced to stay in a bad relationship because of their lack of independence (learned helplessness). And men feel helpless because they are being forced to accept a societal change that didn't really address the underlying issue. It's like trying to find balance by vacillating between two extremes: helplessness and aggression. What is the middle ground? Cooperation, respect, communication...all the things that seem to be lacking in modern society as a whole because it's lacking in many homes. I would say that the men and women who fall into the middle because they had relatively healthy families are left out in a world where extremities rule the day. Politics would be a great example of this.

You should check out the marxist underpinning of feminism. If you are looking for someone to blame...

 

[alywest]

You should check out the marxist underpinning of feminism. If you are looking for someone to blame...

I will check that out, not because I'm looking for someone to blame, though. As I said, both genders could be blamed, but I think it's political. I'm a woman so of course there is this tendency to want to be more aggressive, but I don't think that's accomplished much. I think both genders could stand to learn more effective ways of relating to one another.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

As a woman it's a struggle to be financially dependent on a male (if you choose to do the more "feminine" thing and stay home with the children) but still have a life and not feel helpless. One could argue that the feminist movement was a reaction to a pervasive learned helplessness that women were being imposed with during the previous decades/centuries. If men were able to treat women as equals while being the ones to bring home the paycheck, perhaps this struggle never would have taken place. Instead of us working it out within the family dynamics, women felt forced to go out and get their own paycheck so that couldn't be held over their heads. Are men or women to blame for this? I would say both. Men for not making women feel like their role is just as important even if they're not earning the paycheck, and women for jumping to the extreme "solution" of being financially independent, thereby eliminating the need to work things out together. And then there are the women who feel forced to stay in a bad relationship because of their lack of independence (learned helplessness). And men feel helpless because they are being forced to accept a societal change that didn't really address the underlying issue. It's like trying to find balance by vacillating between two extremes: helplessness and aggression. What is the middle ground? Cooperation, respect, communication...all the things that seem to be lacking in modern society as a whole because it's lacking in many homes. I would say that the men and women who fall into the middle because they had relatively healthy families are left out in a world where extremities rule the day. Politics would be a great example of this.

I agree with your feelings about the matter, and I would like to point out that the idea that men work bringing in the pay and women stay at home is an abnormality. It has existed in the rich during the past and was popular during the 50s America. Working class women have always worked.

The situation you are pointing to was a strange time in which the industrial society required people to leave home to work in factories while the homes and gender relations were coming from a time when men and women would typically work at home. Then you had the situation where one paycheck would pay for a home and a car, but the running a home would require a lot of work due to not having the modern amenities. So the middle class would have women stay at home, and this then became the "normal" state of affairs.

Unrelated to that, I want to discuss one potential issue with the current direction we seem to be moving to. The western societies would force monogamy on the population because the Church did not want to take care of all the single mothers and their kids that the old system was causing. So you force everyone to get married creating a social system in which men were more or less required to protect and provide for women. Now this is being torn down, which is likely to lead to a lot of trouble.

When it comes to children, men can leave, women can not. There is the Big Lie repeated that men and women are the same, we are not. Those gender roles evolved to solve the impossible problem of human life, and while obsolete and imperfect, they still had value. Single mothers are in a very vulnerable situation, and while we live in a rich society we can deal with that, but the impoverishment of the society is going to continue and at some point this will come to a head. And what will the women than have to do to provide for themselves and their kids?

 

[alywest]

I agree with your feelings about the matter, and I would like to point out that the idea that men work bringing in the pay and women stay at home is an abnormality. It has existed in the rich during the past and was popular during the 50s America. Working class women have always worked.

The situation you are pointing to was a strange time in which the industrial society required people to leave home to work in factories while the homes and gender relations were coming from a time when men and women would typically work at home. Then you had the situation where one paycheck would pay for a home and a car, but the running a home would require a lot of work due to not having the modern amenities. So the middle class would have women stay at home, and this then became the "normal" state of affairs.

Unrelated to that, I want to discuss one potential issue with the current direction we seem to be moving to. The western societies would force monogamy on the population because the Church did not want to take care of all the single mothers and their kids that the old system was causing. So you force everyone to get married creating a social system in which men were more or less required to protect and provide for women. Now this is being torn down, which is likely to lead to a lot of trouble.

When it comes to children, men can leave, women can not. There is the Big Lie repeated that men and women are the same, we are not. Those gender roles evolved to solve the impossible problem of human life, and while obsolete and imperfect, they still had value. Single mothers are in a very vulnerable situation, and while we live in a rich society we can deal with that, but the impoverishment of the society is going to continue and at some point this will come to a head. And what will the women than have to do to provide for themselves and their kids?

Interesting thoughts. I have often thought that it makes a lot of sense for women to band together to share the childcare, some sort of cooperative arrangement that involves everyone pitching in but also giving every woman some time without her children, whether to work or get some rest. Our society strongly values "independence" and we are told that our ability to stand alone without help is what we must strive for. This makes sense for the males, but as you pointed out females have different responsibilities towards children and yet we have to fit our childrearing into the structure created for men and by men. As a result there are huge discrepancies in the way children are raised between the rich and elite to the struggling single moms. Public schools are not equal and if you can't afford to live in the wealthy part of town, your child's school will most likely not be as good. If you have a strong family unit then the lesser school might not be as huge of an issue, but there are of course many children who experience awful things at home. Who's really paying attention to those kids? CPS? Ha! The whole thing is a mess. If moms participated in some sort of cooperative childrearing, there would be more of a "village" mentality that is clearly missing in society today. Church, as you pointed out hardly constitutes the village, it's more like an extension of the welfare system.