"Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers: Stress and Health" by Dr. Robert Sapolsky

I don't know... honestly. I was extremely surprised. I was actually wondering if they switched to some level of human in the loop, because it used to suck in the past, but now is great. I expected people to have good experiences too. I 'm actually shocked to see how disappointed people are here... Here's an example of some stuff that just showed up recently. [1] Some guy camping an exploring an island that used to be a federal prison - [link] [2] A documentary about homeless people racing carts - [link] [3] Fantastic funk music (and I don't even listen to funk!) - [link] [4] Fantastic old school theatrical hard rock from Japan - [link] [5] Sapolsky's must-see lecture on stress - ▶ this video (which I got recommended and was watching this morning in the background while I worked) Just a random sample from stuff that popped up in the recent past. All the above captured my curiosity 100%. Maybe it's a personality thing, maybe I am eager to just discover novel stuff, that the quality level might not be the highest but the novel factor covers for it.

in “I created an alternative to the YouTube algorithm to stop me wasting time” · View on HN

He's also given many talks which are on youtube on the topic, one of which is his talk of the same name at the Beckman institute [1]. It's a little under 90 minutes and is enormously entertaining as well as being informative. [1] ▶ this video

in “Aging-related inflammation is not universal across human populations” · View on HN

A perhaps easier to understand explanation of this is this part of a Robert Sapolsky talk on stress, prepositioned to the bit where he talks about the interaction of stress with the bacteria [1]. The summary is that the body is good at repairing the damage the bacteria do, unless the person is under constant stress which inhibits the repair work. [1] ▶ this video

in “Robin Warren, pathologist who rewrote the science on ulcers, has died” · View on HN

Sapolsky has been at this for many years. Here's a great talk on one of his older books. ▶ this video Especially with regards to his commentary on Selye's theories/lab work with rats. Makes sense if you've read a good number of books on stress (i.e. Stress of Life, Sapolsky's work, etc)

in “” · View on HN

I'm sure it's been said many times, but John Cleese did provide a memorable talk on it [1] and particularly touched on the relation to stress. And if anyone feels like they have troubles with stress/anxiety, Robert Sapolsky provides some great insight into how and why it affects health overall [2]. I'm not sure if Sapolsky's material will help reduce stress, but it was pretty entertaining along the way. Two great speeches that it would be a shame to lose. Now, what was that about keeping up with digital clutter? [1] [link] [2] ▶ this video

in “You're not lacking creativity, you're overwhelmed” · View on HN

The "active amygdala = no empathy" point does not jibe with my lay understanding of the physical phenomenon of empathy. That's the only one that I don't believe models our physiology in a useful way. The rest match up with some of the stuff I've read/watched. Watch some videos by Robert Sapolsky on YouTube. He's a neurostuff prof at Stanford. Good presentations. There's "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" ▶ this video Also an actual academic lecture on the Limbic System which contextualizes & clarifies some of the other assertions in the OP blog post. [link] There are more but hopefully YouTube's algorithm helps you out there. The Stanford lecture series is very interesting though Sapolsky doesn't deliver all the lectures. edit: The only plausible, good faith explanation of the amygdala-empathy claim I can think of is that there are facial recognition studies designed to activate the amygdala [link] that showed some correlation between anxiety levels and ACC-amygdala connectivity. The ACC, or anterior cingulate cortex, is held to be responsible for empathy. So it may be an interpretation of that knowledge the author is talking about. I know that facial recognition tests are used for evaluation of empathy, sexual attraction and so on. This is probably the kernel of accuracy in the claim. Or there may be other science on the topic that reaches a conclusion closer to what the author said. The linked study is extremely interesting read.

in “Practical Facts about the Human Brain” · View on HN