We often talk about how dumb the brainlets are because it makes us feel better...

The population is plateauing, though.

2nd.

All of those are related to social/biological so-called "sciences", so it's fucking nothing really.

>collaboration and hard work
Neither is up your alley, huh? Because it's obviously the patrician's choice to cry about their average IQ instead of accomplishing anything.

I've found that education studies are pretty much all bullshit made up to push something and be able to say it's "empirically verified".

>Water is not scarce on a global scale either
Potable water is. Water desalination and purification is expensive both in terms of energy consumption and cost. We should make every effort to preserve the sources of freshwater available to us, we're polluting far too many sources and making them undrinkable.

>Myth: Screening for cancer saves lives, and we need to push for more screening
As far as I know, this is indeed mostly false. The reason being that you find so many false alarms when screening that the side effects of treating false alarms outdo the benefits in actual treatable cancers found.

>Myth: Antioxidants Good; Free Radicals Bad
I don't know much about this. I believe consensus is that the depiction above is way oversimplified, but still points in the right direction.

>Myth: The human brain is large in proportion to body size
The human brain IS large in proportion to body size, among mammals, among monkeys, among great apes, pretty much however you mention it. Hell, it is so large that human births are very risky because the heads are as large as they can be within the limitations caused by the size of the birth canal.

>Myth: Individuals learn better when taught in their preferred learning style
>Fact: One-size-fits-all approaches to learning have been empirically verified to be more effective than 'learning style' approaches.
Individuals DO learn better when taught in their preferred learning style. One-size-fits-all TEACHING style is more effective because the amount of resources such as teacher time you want to spend on education is limited, and within that limit one-size-fits-all that can address a group is more effective than individual-style where the amount of time per student is vastly smaller as a consequence. When you can afford one-on-one tutors, the preferred learning style thing is indeed better.

>Myth: The human population is growing exponentially, and Earth is overpopulated (or will soon be overpopulated).
As you say. Very few processes are truly exponential indefinitely. Human population is a resource-bounded exponential, not a true exponential, i.e. it slows down as the population nears the resource limit (not the limit of what's available in theory, but the limit of what you can use in practice, distribution complications included).

I think the issue comes from people moving into your area for a variety of reasons.

>bullshit made up to push something
...could it be ... an AGENDA ?!

>Myth: The human population is growing exponentially, and Earth is overpopulated (or will soon be overpopulated).
>Reality: The human population is not growing exponentially, and is now growing at just half the rate as it was in
>1965. There is also enough food, but it is distributed poorly because surpluses of cereal grains are used for fuel
>and for feeding livestock. Water is not scarce on a global scale either.

You've only considered input to human existence, i.e. water and food. Output paints a far more dismal picture,
and says that we're very overpopulated. There are several garbage continents floating in the Pacific and Indian
oceans, due mostly to Asian waste disposal, where most Asian countries, especially China, use the Pacific as
their own private land fill. The floating garbage is a small fraction of the garbage they're dumping, including
general waste, but also industrial waste chemicals, construction waste, etc. The fish levels Pacific-wide are down
to a fraction of a percent of their 1963 levels (the first time fish populations were counted).

Over 90% of air pollution is, nowadays, produced in Asia. Between Pakistan and Japan - Asia - lives around 90%
of the world's population and they produce 90% of the air pollution. The Philippines has no garbage collection,
so people burn their household waste every day, India not only has a huge public defecation problem, they also
discard trash anywhere, factories release their chemical waste anywhere they like, and the air is permanently
unbreathable. Even though the US, Europe, Canada etc aren't overpopulated, much of the rest of the world is,
especially Asia, with respect to waste.

>Even though the US, Europe, Canada etc aren't overpopulated, much of the rest of the world is,
>especially Asia, with respect to waste.
If anything, the US is overpopulated, because their citizens are individually much less sustainable due to high rates of meat consumption, car ownership, plastic usage, electricity use, and other factors.

>>Myth: Individuals learn better when taught in their preferred learning style
>>Fact: One-size-fits-all approaches to learning have been empirically verified to be more effective than 'learning style' approaches.

OP didn't summarize the article very well. It's not what he is saying.

Option #1 - Teacher explains math to group of 30 students for 1 hour
Option #2 - Teacher gives specialized 1-on-1 handholding to each snowflake for 2 minutes.

This is just a mixture of strawman arguments and only looking at the indicators that suit his views. Cancer Screening drastically increases your life expectancy. The cancer might still kill you anyways, but for most People its a big difference if the cancer kills you when you are 55 or 65 or even 75. So screening works, because it raises your life expectancy, simple as that. You can make similar counter arguments to his other points. Its good he wants to break thinking patterns, but that article is stillshit.

Did you read the meta-analysis he cited, though? It found that only 3 out of 7 of the common screening tests surveyed yielded a statistically significant decrease in disease-specific mortality. That's absurd.

academic.oup.com/ije/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ije/dyu140

>If anything, the US is overpopulated, because their citizens are individually much less
>sustainable due to high rates of meat consumption, car ownership, plastic usage,
>electricity use, and other factors.

Yes, very true ... in 1973. In 2017, however, Asia, especially India and China are by
far the greater problem.

They overpopulated like mad and now have converted to a US-style super consumer
culture. China likes to claim their population as just 1.4 billion, but the last actual census
was in 1989, and their population pyramid hasn't slowed any since then. Their actual
population is around 2.5 to 3.1 billion, depending on how many have "moved" into
neighboring countries. Their most recent doubling rate was 22 years (1980s value),
giving the 3.5B population number. (Your answer is typical of the liberal religion - solve
the problems as they existed in the 1970s). On paper the problem appears to be easing,
but only because China, India and most of Asia avoid posting their real numbers with
regard to population.

India has also adopted a super consumer culture, sans a sewer system or waste handling,
and is beyond the pale with regard to pollution. They surpassed 1 billion around year 2000
and passed 1.3 billion in population in 2011 - they grew by the population of the US in
just 11 years, and continue to double at the same rate. Shit, garbage and pollution of all
sorts is everywhere in India (see image), and I have heard that you can smell the shit and
pollution in an aircraft before even getting to the border.

The US has reduced pollution and consumerism over the last few decades, while Asia,
especially China and India, have greatly increased their population, pollution, and consumerism.

Liberals like to point the finger at the US and Caucasians no matter what, and that seems
to have driven your opinion more than any of the facts.

I'm only going by per-capita pollution, which you seem to have ignored.

This is all fairly accurate and well referenced.
I am however enjoying how many special snowflakes on Veeky Forums are under the impression that they learn vastly differently from everyone else.

The point the article made was that people being taught through different methods were not achieving variant enough results to show a causative link, and I would stand behind that. Sure I have an emotional bias towards a certain method of learning, but I couldn't say for sure that I am better off with that method, because I have never tested it, only assumed it after it happened to work well a few times.

Myth: Nuclear radiation and power exists, therefor so must the bombs we've all seen on video and read about
Reality: youtu.be/sULjMjK5lCI

(pic mildly related)

shitty bait, you can't fool me... wait

>all stone buildings in the hiroshima 'blast zone' were undamaged

well maybe they were strong enough? that doesn't prove anything

>people came back to the 'nuked' cities the same day and didn't die of cancer
thedailybell.com/news-analysis/nuke-hoax-continued-lies-about-trident-hiroshima-nagasaki-and-now-bikini-too/

...wtf?

>Myth: Individuals learn better when taught in their preferred learning style
>Fact: One-size-fits-all approaches to learning have been empirically verified to be more effective than 'learning style' approaches.
False, gifted kids perform better with special education, for example see Reid Barton, Gabriel Carroll and the Polga sisters. They all have in common a certain degree of homeschooling and they are absolute geniuses

>Shit, garbage and pollution of all
>sorts is everywhere in India (see image
That's a misleading image. That image had to do with the tsunami, not open defecation. You on't need to doctor images of India being a shithole. There are plenty of images that are not altered (see my image for open defecation).

>I'm only going by per-capita pollution, which you seem to have ignored.

I only ignore it because it's stupid. It masks pollution under human-pollution: the egregious
over population of Asian countries where humans become a form of pollution. Pollution
and population need to be normalized, both independently, to land area or arable land,
not one to the other. The boundary condition for humans is the land area we have to
live on.

Yeah, that makes sense until you factor in the fact that a large portion of the pollution in China is due to manufacture of goods destined for first-world countries. You can't just say "oh the population in first world countries is much more responsible" because you're ignoring the waste they create by creating a demand for frivolous goods.

How do you know they would be any worse off if they were educated the standard way? Maybe you should conduct some kind of test in order to compare the methods fairly while keeping out the effects of other factors. Unfortunately I know of no such method for determining facts via empirical study.

Myth: Veeky Forums is the smartest board on Veeky Forums
Fact: /a/ is because they've rejected real women

>Water is not scarce on a global scale either.

Man, all these people living in areas that are going to have extreme water shortages soon are going to be so relieved once you tell them in Norway they have way more water than they need.

>One-size-fits-all approaches to learning have been empirically verified to be more effective than 'learning style' approaches.
I'm sure that there are learning approaches that work optimally. But i think what is really meant by the idea of "preferred learning style" is the idea that some people learn better out of books, and some people learn better when a person explains it to them. The approach itself can still be the same, it's just verbal vs non-verbal.
For me, you can show me something 50 times and i still can't do it. But i read it once and i'll understand it easily. I guess it has to do with social anxiety.

Informative posts on Veeky Forums.
Bravo.

>Myth: Screening for cancer saves lives, and we need to push for more screening
I read the article because I could not believe that, and turns out that some types of cancer still benefit from screening, like lung cancer, while others don't. Why is that, can someone smart explain? Is it because treating those cancers early doesn't significantly decrease the mortality or what?

That's about the learner types bullshit, like visual learner, etc., and not about people with disabilities or other groups that needs special ways of learning.

I'm not OP and I'm too lazy to find a study, but I would imagine they grouped one group of people into smaller subgroups based on their learning style (either based on their self-reported preferred learning style, or by having them fill out a "what is your learning style" test), and compared those against another group that was taught "normally", and found no significant difference.

>garbage contintents

What a fucking idiotic term. An imperceptible film of plastic is not a continent you enviro-sperg.

>food is distributed poorly
So what you're saying is that in some areas they can't produce enough food and drinking water to sustain the local population? Isn't that like the definition of... overpopulation?

The question is whether the world as a whole is overpopulated. It's not.

Race realism
>This triggers the redditt outpost known as Veeky Forums

I fucking hate the >muh US argument. If the habitable parts of the world were as densely populated as mainland US, there would only be 3 billion people or less right now. People in the US bloody well deserve their fucking living standards, and should not lower them just because some fucktards thousands of miles away can't fucking stop reproducing.
t. someone not from the US

Why are you still here then?

I know, right? Instead of dropping a 16 kiloton nuke, they literally dropped 16 thousand metric tons of TNT on the Japs, the equivalent of dropping 1400 MOABs, or what you could transport in 72 Antonov An-225s, the plane with the largest cargo capacity ever built.

Why haven't Indians improved their infrastructure yet?
Is it because only Romans (and Chinese) and people raped by Romans (and Chinese) know how to make proper sewers?

bc i liek scinece.

I agree, that wackjob is out there suggesting they carpet napalmed it like they did to Tokyo, fucking retards think they could hide a bunch of planes with napalm instead of simply inventing and using the new megabomb we all know for certain exists.

Fucking moron thinks no victims would be able to leak what they saw after US occupied Japan and told us everything we know about the radiation burns and shit, gullible conspiracy buff shit-eaters, I say

"Here's a whole bunch of bullshit with no cited sources"
Hey thanks OP, nice scienceing with you.

Fuck you too, whiny bitch ass.

Fact: Veeky Forums is gradually becoming another /pol/.

>a large portion of the pollution in China is due to manufacture of goods destined for first-world

Idiotic liberal mind-washing at work again. The Chinese have captured US manufacturing only because
of unethical business practices such as controlling their currency. The average salary in China is about
10 cents a day, which is quite enough to live on because all prices are equally forcibly depressed, but
which leads to first world being unable to compete price wise. They have forced themselves to do that
by overpopulating like vermin. If those same items were manufactured in Europe, the US or elsewhere
in the first world, there would have been legitimate waste disposal laws, pollution laws, wage controls
for labor, etc. none of which exists in China.

The inability of Asians to control their population or even understand that it should be controlled has led
to the pollution problem, and to their unethical domination of the manufacturing market. Both are due
to Asian overpopulation, again, not one leading to the other.

From a philosophical standpoint, it's astonishing to me how completely liberals are able to shut down their
critical thinking. It takes only the tiniest bit of critical thought to overcome so idiotic a premise. It seems
impossible to me that so many people would be unable to see though so obvious a misrepresentation. I
don't know how or why liberals suppress free thought, but it certainly isn't helping matters.

>What a fucking idiotic term. An imperceptible film of plastic is not a continent

Call it what you like, it's continent sized, and not so imperceptible that ocean vessels
aren't forced to divert around them like a land mass or that wildlife aren't choked and
starved by the continually decaying debris (perpetually replace by newly discarded
garbage). The world needs to stand up to China, India and the rest of Asia and demand
that they stop using the Pacific and Indian oceans as land fills.

So is every other board

Fact: you should go back to instead of whining and shit posting here.