I note that in your description of atheists, "quiet and nonhostile" go hand in hand, as do "vocal and hostile".
Daniel Dennett is a very vocal atheist, yet I find it ridiculous to consider him a hostile person. Further, one might compare the hostility that atheists show theists to the hostility that theists show atheists for some needed perspective on "hostile atheists".
I was specifically thinking of the worst group of all, the atheists of r/atheism who are both very vocal and very hostile. For an issue like this, there's hostile people on either end of the spectrum and being vocal helps makes them more so. A quiet and hostile person isn't particularly threatening and neither is a vocal and nonhostile person. I was not trying to suggest that being vocal alone makes someone hostile.
I would note how theists often call atheists arrogant and hostile. When you find someone else hostile, that's information about both of you.
The quiet, nonhostile atheists are not the ones heard about, so this is selection bias. The theists offended probably do meet unjustified hostility from the vocal and hostile atheists, so in this case it's a very weak sign of being deserving.
In some situations, such as leading a group, if you meet unreasonable hostility or dislike everyone, yes, there is something wrong with that your leading abilities. Labeling assholes as such would be making the fundamental attribution error.
One of the basic P/S/As:
You can say no.
Which might mean: By declining to do favors/tasks for people, you may feel like a selfish person, but limiting what work you take on you will reduce your stress, increase the quality of your work, and and increase your status. Plus you don't feel used or resent being helpful.
A good strategy could be to decline first, check schedules, then accept if possible: "I may be able to do that, but let me check my schedule first." Good for many situations.
High Intensity Interval Training (H.I.T.T.) may have the same benefits as running and is a more efficient use of time: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-scientific-7-minute-workout/
Read the linked journal article.
Don't do HITT with low available glucose (blood and liver); your body will eat through what's present quickly, won't have enough time to prepare more, and will break down skeletal muscles for energy instead. I doubt this should prove problematic, but omitting this caveat is simply irresponsible.
Thanks! The 7-minute workout sounds reasonable and I might consider adding elements of it into my 4-minute abs workout I have already. It wouldn't replace running altogether since 1) I enjoy running, so it is not time lost and 2) I'm training for 5k cross country races.
I've been using HabitRPG for around a month now to increase the amount of exercise I do and decrease the amount of chocolate I consume. It's caused successful habit formation—I've reduced the motivation needed to do unpleasant strength exercises and 3+ mile runs, even on days where I get no points for completing them. I have little success with decreasing my chocolate consumption, partly because I eat first and pay for it with the game-gold later. I'll keep using this system.
HabitRPG may work for me because I have freakishly great self-motivation and this helps me channel it. It's also my to-do list, though the site crashes with annoying frequency.
99 life hacks around the house: http://siriuslymeg.tumblr.com/post/33738057928/99-life-hacks-to-make-your-life-easier
The recent xkcd supports that small hacks have a large time-saving potential.
(1) ties into the adage "Say it strong, even if you're wrong." Speaking quietly only compounds the problem.
How can I alter my Big 5 personality traits? (In particular, conscientiousness and extroversion)
Related: Should I alter my Big 5 personality traits?
The state of exercise science is absolutely deplorable. You're stuck with what coaches who train athletes say after having trained lots of people.
Similar for music and other arts. Despite the lack of science, the successful teachers tend to produce the best students (or they wouldn't be successful). Yes, this forces each new teacher to start from scratch, but old, good teachers should be fairly trustworthy after years of internalized, natural experiments.
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Congratulations for putting the dilemma to test. That was the hardest survey I've taken since the 2012 one.