I love this word: nonmarket. It explores how prevalent capitalism is in our society without being inflammatory. I would argue that some of these things have been feminized (care, service) and that is often why they are avoided, while others (solidarity, justice) remain gender neutral but non profitable.

This is a revealing question and one that is not asked often enough.

I think this is why pursuing meditation and mindfulness has become so popular. It adds value to the present moment (when we're not over-stimulated or excited). It appears healthier to accept the ups and downs of life versus the expectation of being constantly entertained.

Politicians get nervous when you put the situation into absolutes like this. (I'm thinking of the idea of an income cap.) But I suppose the question is: is there a different solution? What would it look like if we defined obscene wealth as 'immoral' (as many believe it is).

This is an incredibly succinct summation for such a widespread issue. The wording reminded me, immediately of Jordan Peele's horror film, Get Out. A fetishization of a problem (and/or the black body) sounded like the thesis to that piece.

I know that I have a handful of causes I support online, but the idea that some of them might be fabricated to cause dissension is eerie. It's easy to see how people might agree with what appeared to be a group of voices, when so many of us operate almost solely on emotional responses.

Using pollution as a metaphor for the spread of disinformation through our media feels poignant. It really paints a picture of how widespread this problem is.

I have to imagine that this would be more obvious if companies had not immediately jumped on profit-driven advertisements and controlling where our attention drifts to. I think the companies that are shaping these platforms have just as much responsibility as the people using them, as they profit from the discord.

These decisions (to leave a bad movie or meal) feel like they could be correlated to a variety of contributing factors versus economists who have completed absorbed sunk-cost fallacy.

My assumption has been that there's a time and a place for both rational and emotional thinking (what's presented as good stories). I'm not sure what the benefit is of knowing the couple you're watching marry is just as likely to divorce as any other couple. Is the goal to be able to predict future events? Or to manage expectations, possibly?

I was under the impression that the IKEA effect was the inverse: that your savings are due to the company saving on assembly labor. Meaning I feel competent enough to provide my own labor for cheaper than a factory worker doing the same job?

I'd be curious to see if this information is true across multiple generations, or if this is most true for younger folks. I think the economy has been harder on millennials than the previous generations would like to admit. And when the economy feels so unpredictable, it makes it harder to trust in the systems of savings that older generations bought into.

See, this sounds incredibly human to me. Artfully transcribing something that can be pulled apart and blinked through, then pressed for more details.

I would say this disproves Carr's theory that we're destroying the humanity of our thoughts with technology. Instead, we appear to be evolving the way we think of thinking, Which is actually kind of beautiful

It's so interesting to me that it's harder to read with intention and effort on screens. I have this issue with electronic versions of textbooks: It takes much longer to gauge chapters and is much more difficult (sometimes impossible) to annotate.

I wonder if it's so deeply ingrained that screens are used for our entertainment or leisure time, that we struggle to make the shift in using them for our deep thinking? Using my iPad for reading e-books is just fine, but I do end up with a period of adjustment, since I'm not playing a game or watching a show (what I normally do with said iPad).

I think it's important to note that although most European readers were reading deeply, they were also reading the same types of texts (biblically and locality based). It doesn't surprise me that this time coincides with the Enlightenment period. The expansion of work available in comparison to just 100 years before is staggering. It sounds like the popularization of education really followed this evolution.

This sounds very philosophical, without any practical solutions.

I think this is a really odd analogy, and one that is more easily achieved when the US farming industry keeps us separated from the process of growing our own food.

Perhaps the discussion should shift to how bloated and large our government is? Would it be more appealing to vote for something smaller?

Another word for a boxer or a fighter is a pugilist, which comes from the Latin pugil, "boxer or fist fighter." This root is also related to the word pugnus, "fist," and pugnacious, "combative or fond of fighting."

This has been the default in the Western world for so long, it feels absurd to consider otherwise.

It's odd to note that even though it's something of a default setting, it's remained very difficult to achieve in practice.

I appreciate that this was acknowledged, knowing the way this is used, to this day, to disenfranchise vulnerable individuals. I'm curious that the next step isn't mentioned: moving towards differentiated education: finding ways to reach voters across that spectrum of knowledge levels.