THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH AS OF SEPTEMBER 2014
- Thread starter nameshy
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I do both, crosswords more than video games and physically I'm feeling every bit of it. My brain though is still hanging on at around age 7, judging by what I tend to say and how I act at times. So, I suppose I'm a poster child for the General's statement.
Well the S.G. shows his/her lack of intelligence once again! Generally speaking cross word puzzles and video games do nothing to keep the mind sharp and youthful. Here's the caveat: Cross word puzzles will help to keep your memory sharp but once you have mastered them they will do nothing for your brain because your brain is now on auto pilot, it does not need to think. What you need to do is do cross word puzzles until you get good at them then switch to something like learning a new language, then a musical instrument and so on. Research on this is pretty conclusive.
You want to really stimulate your brain? Read all the reviews on tobacco and then try to make sense out them them.
You want to really stimulate your brain? Read all the reviews on tobacco and then try to make sense out them them.
Cool, a resort with crossword puzzles! I like them better than video games. Video games are for kids, phhht!! :
:
:
I'd second jitterbug's post. It's struggling with unfamiliar challenges that probably puts the brain through its
paces. One good thing about travel for most people is that it puts them out of their comfort zone and makes
them do new activities under changed circumstances, and also makes them do their habitual things in a new
way. Volunteering, where you work on projects with people you don't know, may have similar good effects.
The Dutch have a saying: A change is as good as a rest. I find reading usually stimulates me, whereas watching
TV leaves me feeling mentally and physically inert. Movies fall somewhere in between.
paces. One good thing about travel for most people is that it puts them out of their comfort zone and makes
them do new activities under changed circumstances, and also makes them do their habitual things in a new
way. Volunteering, where you work on projects with people you don't know, may have similar good effects.
The Dutch have a saying: A change is as good as a rest. I find reading usually stimulates me, whereas watching
TV leaves me feeling mentally and physically inert. Movies fall somewhere in between.
Mental exercises can be a workout in their own right too. I like logic puzzles as you already have the tools; you just need to use them in creative ways... I also really like chess and other strategy games, but it is a lot easier to play video games which I know have improved my hand/eye coordination and reaction time. If you want to be quick play Call of Duty. :lol:
Dude: I do the NYT crossword puzzle, in ink (sometimes there are more than few scratch outs) and do not consider myself to have mastered them. I admit that Monday and Tuesday are pretty easy but by Thursday I am having to puzzle out words. Sunday is the same with the first of the month being the easiest and getting tougher as the month goes on.
Research may support certain findings. I find, however, that research usually supports preconceived notions. I doubt that a cruciverbalist would ever admit to mastering the NYT crossword or other serious crosswords. Keep in mind, the LA Times is not a serious puzzle. Perhaps the researchers only polled or tested those who only work easy puzzles as a time passer. Those crosswords found doing double duty as place mats in fine dining establishments around the world are certainly not challanging to most adults.
An aficionado of crosswords searches out puzzles which challenge. So, research which speaks in generalities is probably not well thought out or conducted. I am very leery of research conclusions unless and until I can lay my hands on the research itself and check the methodology. This is how the global warming, the second hand smoke fiascoes occur (Only 2 of many such occurrences over the years). Remember the sun and that all the planets orbit around earth. Most people just buy off on what they read in the paper, or are taught, unquestioningly. I suppose unquestioningly believing everything one reads makes life simpler.
Certain people posit that smoking has been found harmful to mental health. Too little exercise or, for that matter too much physical exercise can lead to lose of mental acuity. Coffee is bad for you. Coffee is good for you. The conclusions change depending on what the client financing the research desires. Even a odd physicist will doctor research if the prize is worth the risk.
Research may support certain findings. I find, however, that research usually supports preconceived notions. I doubt that a cruciverbalist would ever admit to mastering the NYT crossword or other serious crosswords. Keep in mind, the LA Times is not a serious puzzle. Perhaps the researchers only polled or tested those who only work easy puzzles as a time passer. Those crosswords found doing double duty as place mats in fine dining establishments around the world are certainly not challanging to most adults.
An aficionado of crosswords searches out puzzles which challenge. So, research which speaks in generalities is probably not well thought out or conducted. I am very leery of research conclusions unless and until I can lay my hands on the research itself and check the methodology. This is how the global warming, the second hand smoke fiascoes occur (Only 2 of many such occurrences over the years). Remember the sun and that all the planets orbit around earth. Most people just buy off on what they read in the paper, or are taught, unquestioningly. I suppose unquestioningly believing everything one reads makes life simpler.
Certain people posit that smoking has been found harmful to mental health. Too little exercise or, for that matter too much physical exercise can lead to lose of mental acuity. Coffee is bad for you. Coffee is good for you. The conclusions change depending on what the client financing the research desires. Even a odd physicist will doctor research if the prize is worth the risk.
Let me clarify a bit. What I said earlier is absolutely true. Even if someone has never mastered a crossword puzzle and does them everyday does not automatically mean they are maintaining/improving their brain function. This is best understood in light of experiments that have been done using PET scans. When a bunch of Engineer/Math type people were hooked up to a PET scan and asked simple through complicated math problems their brains barely lit up. Even tough some of the math was hard their brains were used to calculating difficult problems so it was already wired to do this. However; when a bunch of History/Art majors were shown the same problems their brains lit up like fire. When the experiment was switched (math people asked about history) the situation reversed itself with the math people's brains lighting up like Christmas trees.
So what the research shows and has pretty much always showed is that you need to challenge your brain in a new way every so often. Most of the so called preconceived notions people talk about usually come from the fact that almost all Americans get their information about EVERYTHING from the evening news. The cross word puzzle idea has always been misrepresented by the mass news media so much so that everyone believes it to be so... even the Surgeon General!
So what the research shows and has pretty much always showed is that you need to challenge your brain in a new way every so often. Most of the so called preconceived notions people talk about usually come from the fact that almost all Americans get their information about EVERYTHING from the evening news. The cross word puzzle idea has always been misrepresented by the mass news media so much so that everyone believes it to be so... even the Surgeon General!
I agree with the observation that most of us get our info from sources intent upon selling a product other than the truth or reality. The evening news.
Once again, I'll provide the link to my daily brain teaser...JumbleWordScramble
http://www.uclickgames.com/jumble/online/daily/tmjmf?fpr=AwsOas&
I was really stuck on the solution this morning.
Once again, I'll provide the link to my daily brain teaser...JumbleWordScramble
http://www.uclickgames.com/jumble/online/daily/tmjmf?fpr=AwsOas&
I was really stuck on the solution this morning.
I have no problem with getting one's news from the on-air talent. The problem is when we buy into one side of a debatable subject, hook, line and sinker. TV news readers usually raise more questions than they answer these days, in my book. In today's news climate the importance of a story is determined more times than not by the answer to the question: "Will it sell advertising by attracting viewers?" This is Followed by: "Do we have tape?"
The availability of video will always move a story up the list of importance for producers. Cronkite and video changed the political face of "Nam." A rather mundane hostage situation, deserving only of a fleeting mention on national news, becomes a full blown international crises when video is available.
Helicopter fly-overs, on-camera interviews with victims, cops, and "eye-witnesses" makes for good theater and attracts viewers. The sound of "flash-bangs and sirens sucks us in, rivets us to the TV to watch a story, which in the larger view impacts us not at all. That is unless we live in the area of the event or know someone involved. We all want to see the "hut hut" team charging out of the truck, weapons on display, run, creep and crawl into position. It's like . . . it's like . . . good theater! Ratings go up and advertisers find rates raising.
All I'm saying is, look at today's news sources with a jaundiced eye. Do a bit of research on subjects which interest and possibly confuse you. Getting your information exclusively from one side or the other with respect to debatable subjects, and many news readers do have an agenda, is not the way to the truth. And, for God's sake, learn the difference between a pundit, an investigative reporter, and an "anchor." Anchor's readings are often tainted by voice inflection, facial movement, "tsk tsks" and other such "tells." (My not too sincere apologies to any anchor I have offended.)
The pundits job is to offer up their personal take on events, not to enlighten the viewer. Pundits have a view-point. They are well paid to go on the air and share their position, the more outrageously the better. And, well trained, professional reporters, few and far between in my experience, present only the "who, what, when, where, and how" of a story. This should be done with no embellishment or interjecting of personal bias. I'm not interested in the reporter as a person. I don't care how bright or deductive they are. I care how thorough they are, how deep they dig for relevant information.
Remember, a bit of cynicism on the part of the viewer and the listener, followed by a modicum of research will create better informed, less biased members of society.
And the poor tobacco reviewer? Unless he/she have access to a well equipped lab, all they can really impart to readers is their learned opinion and a description of how their body interacted with a certain blend. A noble undertaking for certain. Also under-appreciated undertaking fraught with pitfalls as each person's physiology dictates how a blend in is perceived.
If a reviewer is to have an impact on my selection of blends he/she will have to have posted a review of a tobacco we have both smoked and have come to similar or dis-similar conclusions. I will now know that the reviewer has similar/dis-similar tastes and can weigh the conclusions based on that knowledge.
The availability of video will always move a story up the list of importance for producers. Cronkite and video changed the political face of "Nam." A rather mundane hostage situation, deserving only of a fleeting mention on national news, becomes a full blown international crises when video is available.
Helicopter fly-overs, on-camera interviews with victims, cops, and "eye-witnesses" makes for good theater and attracts viewers. The sound of "flash-bangs and sirens sucks us in, rivets us to the TV to watch a story, which in the larger view impacts us not at all. That is unless we live in the area of the event or know someone involved. We all want to see the "hut hut" team charging out of the truck, weapons on display, run, creep and crawl into position. It's like . . . it's like . . . good theater! Ratings go up and advertisers find rates raising.
All I'm saying is, look at today's news sources with a jaundiced eye. Do a bit of research on subjects which interest and possibly confuse you. Getting your information exclusively from one side or the other with respect to debatable subjects, and many news readers do have an agenda, is not the way to the truth. And, for God's sake, learn the difference between a pundit, an investigative reporter, and an "anchor." Anchor's readings are often tainted by voice inflection, facial movement, "tsk tsks" and other such "tells." (My not too sincere apologies to any anchor I have offended.)
The pundits job is to offer up their personal take on events, not to enlighten the viewer. Pundits have a view-point. They are well paid to go on the air and share their position, the more outrageously the better. And, well trained, professional reporters, few and far between in my experience, present only the "who, what, when, where, and how" of a story. This should be done with no embellishment or interjecting of personal bias. I'm not interested in the reporter as a person. I don't care how bright or deductive they are. I care how thorough they are, how deep they dig for relevant information.
Remember, a bit of cynicism on the part of the viewer and the listener, followed by a modicum of research will create better informed, less biased members of society.
And the poor tobacco reviewer? Unless he/she have access to a well equipped lab, all they can really impart to readers is their learned opinion and a description of how their body interacted with a certain blend. A noble undertaking for certain. Also under-appreciated undertaking fraught with pitfalls as each person's physiology dictates how a blend in is perceived.
If a reviewer is to have an impact on my selection of blends he/she will have to have posted a review of a tobacco we have both smoked and have come to similar or dis-similar conclusions. I will now know that the reviewer has similar/dis-similar tastes and can weigh the conclusions based on that knowledge.
Damn! I just saw the above on the board. I've got to stop responding when I've only had coffee and a cigarette in the morning. Verbose? Way too verbose! Here-on I will refrain from responding until I have a bit of food in my stomach. Sorry to have subjected all of you to my screed.
LOL! But puzzles aside, I've a strong belief that keeping the mind active fends off dementia. I'm rarely bored: I read a lot, I draw, I meditate. I've no concerns, strokes excepted, that my brain will significantly degenerate.
- Status