Happiness, truth, everything

Going big: The wise, and the teenager version

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 05:47:00 +0000

Big can be about optimality, OR about excitement, story etc.

first is optimal, second is usually delusional.

Big is optimal. whacking is at once may do it forever. making a million at once can help you retire (if you are smart) and so on.

yet, big is also about a story. it is something that holds on to our imagination. This story element, this excitement - unless it helps doing smart stuff - is foolish.

maximizable vs. limited upside things

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 04:12:00 +0000

The adage "more is better" is simply untrue for a large part of life.

"More funny" may cease to be funny (and maybe less enjoyable if it mixes you up too much....)
More satiated. etc.

In emotions, more is less many times. a little more arousal and your experience is exhausting. A little more awareness that "this is good" may spoil the whole thing and so on.

nihilism realism and good to believe

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:39:00 +0000

being realistic is sometimes mocked and being "nihilistic" "cynic" etc.

sometimes, being cynical and nihilistic is being coated as "realism"

reality does not care about any titles. it is there.

nihilism or sentimentalism is about emotional attitude. but people tend to mix them up.

when i told a naive teenager that having a kid means paying $100K I was telling a literal truth. the act of telling this truth may or may not have been sentimental enough.

Her cry "but it is about kids, not about money" is a mix of sentimental attitude and lack of knowledge about reality. (sentimental here is not derogatory)

Accepting that life comes about by accidents (marriage out of friends getting away, or pregnancy etc., moving countries out of completely irrelevant incidents etc.) does not equal cynicism. it is realism.

The knowledge feelings trade-off.
the "it is a different domain" is a cheap men's escape. it is different domain. but these do meet. and there is a cost of knowing the truth.

It is true that love is almost always conditional in a way. But knowing and internalizing this reality changes you, and it affects your ability to love and to experience being loved in a satisfying way.

PS. the religion of "truth" as yet another modern lunacy.

Ugly acceptance

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:14:00 +0000

there are bad things in life.
the need to work. mediocre relationships. bad health etc.

"we got to accept it" is the most terrible thing I can hear.

Psychologically - it is desirable to get peace with what we have.

But there is a much sinister attitude here

"we got to accept"

the religious belief that it is desirable to accept and be complacent with these ills.

I have no bitterness towards the slaves who accept their slavery. towards the mantally ill who are happy with their mediocre situation etc.

But when they come to me trying to force me to believe that "this is life"???
THIS I find totally unacceptable.

I am accepting the unchosen reality that I cannot live with such stupidity. I hope that until my last drop of blood, I will not "accept" the avoidable bad.

I accept that I cannot accept such nonsense. (there are other forms of nonsense that I am full of, but forgive me)

Is there a paradox of choice?

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:15:00 +0000

there are voices that we have too much choice. which is sometimes true. But I doubt if it is indeed so.

The famous claim that maximizers are less happy than saisfiers, is simply untrue. New and replicated research has shown that maximizing per se is not bad at all. What happened is that the "maximizing scale" includes Neuroticism Regret too much thinking etc. troublesome traits. when you test maximizing it is even good at times.

Is it agency problem? namely sellers trying to push useless stuff calling it "choice"?
Now, I went to book a low cost flight. Beleive me, the multiple annoying "do you want too....." put me off so much that I left without booking. I was so annoyed that I was even unable to remember whether I indeed have not booked....

So agents trying to push useless variety and "options" put us in a defensive position. we feel distrustful (unpleasant etc.) and confused. because we handle cheating. Gentle and "legal" cheating of course.

Which has nothing to do with "too much choice" it is about too much pollution

The narrow gate of possibility

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:06:00 +0000

Many - too many options in life are forthwhile only under a very narrow set of conditions. (timing, right conditions, doing it right or other conditions)

These are great options. but they work only within this narrow corridor.

Which explains why these are many time overlooked. when we do not manage to enter the narrow corridor, we imagine it does not exist.

Indeed, like many hidden options, it sometimes makes sense to avoid them for "you will not get everything right" which is a heuristic that is right at times, but not always.

Another reason why some hidden options are not used.

Better social life with facebook and "weak" friends

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:10:00 +0000

There are two kinds of relationship, "deep" long terms etc. etc. and low maintenance "weak" realtionships of which we hold many.

Are "weak" relationships less useful? Most of us do not like these much, while some people with huge networks seem to like it very much.

One may say that "weak" relationships Suffer from "friction" problems. It takes time to start a conversation, to get the basic update on what is up etc.
(vs. the theory that only "deep" relationships are useful. A widespread belief, I am questionaing here)

Friction may decrease significantly with online tools like facebook etc.

If this theory is true, then having more "shallow" facebook friends rather than a few "deep" ones, may simply be that people like it more. And the internet changed the math by reducing friction a lot.

There is an interesting study, where resachers found that kids need very little to feel friends. Just to hang together.
It blows many myths on the "reality" of friendships, but so be it.

May facebook improve our social lives, indeed?

Annoying empathy

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:46:00 +0000

You have barely managed to forget your problem and get relaxed and your dear friend asks (with an extremely empathetic tone) "so, how do you feel about this divorce courts?" f**k you! I am feeling very bad about it, and i am happy only when i do not think about it, now hang up.

Other friends have nothing to talk about, so capitalize on the troubles (newspapers are like that)

Others, give you such a deoressive feeling when they "empasize"
"i like you so much", (you repeated loser)
Or radiate that they are the saints that empathize you, albeit you are clearly mental. But that is what they are saints for.

Making you emotional about your pains is another curse.
Many times we are better off not feeling the pain.
but talking hotly about our troubles, can make the pain more emotionally felt, which is sometimes troubling.

Some people are obviously recording their support. And you know that sometime you will be asked to pay back. You feel that a negative balance has been drafted for the sainty empathy. Give me a break.

Others depress you by making sure you know what you should have done differently. So not only you suffer, you also get the feeling that it was all your fault.

Whereas others tell you to learn to be stupid. "you could have not acted differently". beg pardon, i was stupid, and i hope not to be stupid next time. Do you think getting stupid will console me?

There is geniune empathy.
I express my geniune empathy for your full reading of the above diatribe

The triad. Order, noise, acceptable disorder

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:34:00 +0000

Jobs are notoriousely not fun. Yet, one can be happier at the job than when watching TV.

Freedom is good. Yet, having no limits can cause constant amble with an empty look.

Thus, we have three ways. Order, which can be unpleasant. Yet, it still usually better than utter noise. But some form of lack of "order" is superior to the neurotic order. I cannot put it to words or a definition. But it is this lack of order that is not depressive disorder. Some form of freedom that has a taste to it. Something that is definitely worth living.

The resulting confusion

This brings a lot of confusion and opinion discontent.
Because many compare a specific order to complete noise. And show that the proposed order is superior. While true, it is usually disconcerning. Because the proposed order is inferior to the better kind of mild disorder, that kind that is not noise, but not neurotically ordered.

Thew gift of not feeling secure

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:26:00 +0000

It is bad luck. But very useful

I once had a girlfriend who was very nice. When i was not showering
for a few days, she said i smell still wonderful. After showering she
said my hair is not that curly, discouraging me even further.

Whenever I feel secure, I - naturally enough - give no shit on social
norms. Thus making me sometimes socially bad.

I am very easy to be fooled. My natural tendency is to believe
everything I read, to imitate everyone around.

Thus, it is only my sinister suspicion against the world that keeps me
sane, and by some accounts, even a little bit smart.

The autistic problem of self help

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:51:00 +0000

It is the fantasy that people can be told how to live.
That people cn live out of an instructions book.

There is something autistic about it.

I call it "the great divide"

There are some things that really really can improve life.
But they are divorced from the natural/normal way people live.

An opposite example is Steve Jobs work.
Computers were an autistic thing. Useful but ugly.

Steve jobs, womehow managed to marry the useful with the human, aestehtic, natural, intuitive.

Until someone manages to marry the useful,scientific with the natural human way of going aobut life, nothing is useful. It is theoretical scientific autistic advice that nobody utilizes.

Bridging this divide is the real challenge

How measuring clouds the effect of multiple hidden parameters

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:18:00 +0000

Many things are affected by multiple parameters. (heart rate affected by mineral balance, mood, room temperature, sitting of lying down etc.)

At any given time most of the effects are hidden. But many of them act simultaneously,

Many more effects are potentials. These do not act commonly, but have the potential to affect strongly, (heart drugs etc.)

Scientific investigation will prefer the measurable parameters. And also the easily manipulable ones. Thus, a drug will take precedence is research over a frown (which clearly affect the heart rate). Any clear parameter will take precedence on the subtle ones (combinations, harder to measure, or those parameter that are not easily taken to the extreme, hence do not show strong effects in laboratory manipulations)

These biases will over time make a part of the effects scientifically known, while all other effects will not be seen. And the clouding of knowledge will be considered "scientific".
Instead of full appreciation of the variety of parameters that make things happen, we will have a focus on those measurable. Those manipulable in the lab etc.

when many things affect a single outcome the bias is much stronger.
To the exclusion of all other effects, the effects that enter easier into a scientific experiment get all visibility, and the illusion builds that these are central.

In fact, there are many causes. Many of whom are subtle and not easy to see and measure.

Also, many effects are usually minor. But become large when artificially enlarged. See my piece extreme and special cases and causes

To sum up. We have complex phenomenons that are affected by multiple small and big, clear and subtle effects. Scientific enquiries will concentrate to those that are: easy to measure and Easy to take to the extreme. Creating the illusion that those are the central causes to the exclusion of all else and of complexity.

See also the academic bias. This article is a special case of the academic bias

News and the delusion of relevance

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:21:00 +0000

I told a friend I am not following the news.

the moron says I am "detached from reality"
Now almost all news are of zero relevance to my life. Reading the news is living in a fantasy world, where irelevant things take center stage.

besides news makes me unhappy, and stupid. I am not doing stupid things no matter what "reality" and other nonsense are invoked to justify it.

I suspect that reading the news is a weakness for most. The rest is justifications

Why fine tuninng works. And why nonody gets it right

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:53:00 +0000

Fine tuning is what is usually played in ICU (intensive care). You manipulate every bodily parameter in every possible way. And it works wonders in critical cases.

Common sense suggests, that without any new theoretical advance, similar forms of fine tuning should work. But they need caful parametrization, adherence and lots of experimentation and rigorously studying the data all along.

In a less sophisticated way, but i guess successful case, i think this lady managed to treat various maladies with endless play of supplements. She seems to check all the time the effects, and she did it for twelve years. So lots of data, lots of fine tuning.

Every success case here cannot be generalized.
This is probably why most grand scale supplement studies failed to show effects, while for people with specific conditions we have a lot of successful randomly controlled studies. these games are not generalizable. (beside the need for combinations etc.)

But the public is blind. polarized poinions prevail.
either one believes in complementary medicine and (to whatever level) scorns rigor. placebo effects never occur. etc.

Or, he is a technical believer in institutional experiments. Anything that is not completely done under the umbrela of the full protocol is irelevant.
An example to this blindness is the selenium experiment for cancer prevention (SELECT). it found no effect.
Supporters of selenium claimed that selenium helps to those with baseline deficiet in selenium.

makes sense. no? the author of the selenium trial has not even bothered to check the data for this. He has all the data. and the idea that selenium works for those with baseline deficiet is the most expected possibility (its a priori reasonableness is even higher than that of flat supplementation works!).
But he only said like "the trial showed negative results" and refused to carry even the simple test for which he had ALL the data on hand! dismissing it as secondary analysis

We need rigorous thinking even when outside the formal experimental design!

And fine tuning seems a very very lucrative route that is highly ignored, but which can ameliorate many ails when done correctly

Nested vs. Unnested thinking

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:07:00 +0000

Nested thoughts assumes stage one enforces the possibilities on stage two. It brings illogical behavior. I generally assume that with sleeping more i will have more energy. But when i slept little, assuming that game is over is depressive, and may not be smart. It is locking oneself into the assumptions of stage one. The delressive..... The use now. First, the assumptions of stage one use the average expected value of the stage one plan. I must sleep enough, because on average my theory is that I am functioning better with enough sleep. Once i have not slept, we are now, where i need to see if now i am exhausted, not if i should have been tired. Nested thinking locks you in the theoretical generalized thinking of stage one. Closed mindedness. Nested thinking does not accept new possibilities. Now, even if i Am tired, i may find comoletely new plans. Nested and unnested thinking are two different models to assess the world. Both have realistic aspects. Somehow, nested thinking is delressive. And i suspect is how more depressed people think. I like more unnested thinking. But i hope i am not overdoing it with stupid openmindedness. But the reason i am thinking that way, is because i am very irrational, and was always much better with getting out of trouble than in not entering it. I also found outting a line osuk costs a major aspect of rationality. Hence nested thinking is not good for me. More to the point i hate it. I would leave the meitculous utilitarian calculation of which way is more "rational" to those that can bear self forcing via rationality.

Not worth doing

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:15:00 +0000

Worth but not worth doing There are many things that are really worth doing. But they are not worth doing. When doing refers to the action of doing, rather than having them done without the effort. It is better to be on time. But it may not be worth doing. If doing entails obsessing for two hours to make sure you come on time (+ the later pain and discomfort when not arriving on time) it is not worth even to have it on your list. So it is usually really best to be on time, but when accounting for the cost of doing it, it is not worth it. (and accounting to later pain when late, not even worth having it on your list...) Small improvements usually are the same. Lofe can be wastly better if we introduce nedless small improvements. I mean it. Because a million small improvements accumulate to even a completely different life. But usually the small things a not worth the effort and place in mind of *doing* them. Here comes the knowledge part. When people do not do something, they usually make themselves beleiving it is worthless. Just to be able not to do it (there is a natural bias that if something has value we must do it, so it is easier to avoid something by having a full belif it is useless.). The second reason is to feel comfrotable about not doing it. We fool ourselves that it is totally worthless in order to feel good. A wish person undstands that if its not worth doing it is not worth to do @even@ if it has some value. No pain. Because it makes no sense to do. And.... No stupidity. You still acknowledge its value. Sometimes, the knowledge of this small value is useful.

The autodidact advantage. 2 : Much more aspects

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 11:38:00 +0000

The weighting problem. In reality, the distribution of the importance of different parts of knowledge, is highly skewed. Some ideas are immensly more relevant than others. I suspect that formal training makes you treat all knowledge with the same importance (got to pass exams;))

Very exciting to think freshly and at your own interest and pace.

Since everyone thinks that formal education is where the wisdom is, there is much more place to invent and learn in the less trodden way. It is like digging gold in a new continent. You do not dig gold in newyork city center.

Since most formal training is not teaching you much, it is a huge waste that can be utilized to much more effective study.

If you want a hundred papers looking for minor variances of known phenomena maybe you are better off with those people who are "in the trade". If you prefer a single breakthrough, you may be better off trying to listen to foreigners

Being AD, you can concentrate on the areas where you have the most advantage. i.e. you can optimize your learning inline with your personal strengths. (remember the 20/80 adage "You win by entering the races where you have an advantage, not by striving to improve your performance in 'the race'" – The 20/80 principle P.142).
You may also focus your learning toward your goals.

The mistake of selection. Some notice that people with degrees are sharoer on average. Yet the degree is probably not the cause. Smarter people have higher chance to enroll and finish formal studies.
Most of the effect of formal degrees is to signal who is capable. Possibly the study itself is not adding (there is no easy data on how much of degrees effect to salarie is signaling and selection, but it is very plausible)

Looks like learning and reading without the purpose of passing exams and writing a paper may be much more optimal. Because you can do shortcuts, and once you get the point you are done.

AD is a selection toward true interest in the topic, and a real interest may increase truth seeking and investment is whatever needed to know better. But formal learning is usually oriented toward a goal, and when your goal is to accomplish your PhD, truth and intellectual curiosity is not the highest value.

{copied}"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world," wrote George Bernand Shaw. "The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
we need sutodidacts that are not in the habit of accomodating themselves to the system

The autodidact advantage. The beginning......

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 04:23:00 +0000

Ultimately Being autodidact is about creativity. The difference between predictable ways of doing knowledge and autonomously chosen wyas, is what differs institutionally taught thinkers and self learned. Creativity and self created order is a double edged quality. But only a moron will say that predefined order is always better.

Autodidact is about enjoying learning and thinking. When you are free, you tend to learn with joy. In enjoyable ways. You choose the most interesting subjects and so on.
Ultimately, the more you enjoy the process the more productive you are. And more creative ( good mood breds ceativity, research shows)

Self study has more relevance. You have no system to force you, so you gravitate towards what is naturally most interesting. Which is usually the more relevant questions

More practically oriented.

Better odds for interesting findings. Much of academ is about doing thing is a quite known way. Hence, many people act similarly and may get incrementally better results, but not much unexpected breakthrough. Autodidacts have better chnaces to find really new things (steve jobs was thinking differently)

No domain insulation. Much insights come from combining different fields. Autodidacts are less field secluded.

Do not listen to phds about this
The self interest of the phds is against autodidacts. Every critic of this that has a phd, is suspect. As he has a strong self interest to exalt the value of his institutional (and overvalued) "knowledge"

Why voting is rational

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:51:00 +0000

Assume the value of difference between two candidates is half a trillion dollar (reasonable with crises, iraq etc.).

With twenty or less million votes being critical, the probability of a. Sngle vote changing who is president is 1/20,000,000.

The expected value of a single vote is the soceity value ($500,000,000,000) times teh probability of the vote being pivotal. * 1/20,000,000

==== $25,000 value of a single vote.

This is the value for soceity.

Thus, if voters care about their soceity as a whole, they are very reasonable in spending one. Hour to vote and giving. The public $25,000 in value.

Your first idea, vs. the rest of newere ideas

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 05:38:00 +0000

You have a first idea that come to your mind. then you start entertaining other possibilities. maybe maybe and maybe.
there is the one first idea, and the myriad of alternative ideas. who is better? (on average)

The first idea that comes to mind, compared to every single other idea, is generally better. Not better than all the ideas. But better than the next one, or if compared to one idea of the bunch chosen randomely.
the reason is that what comes first to mind is not coming first for no reason. the system is usually bringing the seemingly best idea first, and every additional idea is on average of lower quality.

Now one of the additional million ideas, is probably better tahn the first one. But this is only this idea that is the best of all the rest.

So if you select the best idea of all the all the newer ideas, you can get a much better idea than the first. But the average idea is worse.
PS> related to stupid openmindedness post above

stupid openmindedness

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 03:14:00 +0000

being open minded is many times bad. very bad.
open mindedness is useful only when the outcome of opening ones mind is better than the closed minded alternative.

So opening your mind when stupid people are around, or those who do not understand your issues etc. is stupid.

I am now walking on the street and a couples of advertising teenagers stop me to give me a leaflet of a boxing match. This is distracting and useless.
Openmindedness suggest that I will think again "maybe I hsould take the leaflet?"
This is stupid openmindedness.

stupid open mindedness is very common when we have an emotional want to something. trying again with the ex? do nto be closed minded, give it a chance.
some newspaper is on the desk, you know it is poisenous for the brain and the psyche (only troubles there), yet you are enfatuated to read it. so you become openminded "maybe there is still something useful" + " do nto be so sure on your opinion, some people find newspapers sueful" etc.

The same idea holds when people that have a vested interest tell you to be openminded and listen to them. I have a rule "never listen to self improvement advice from someone currently arguing with you / complaining. Note that the very giving of advice in this case is highly inelegant. Again, stupid openmindedness makes you listen, and again you r self interest.

assumptions (theories) and local optimizaitons of individuals

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 03:00:00 +0000

some peopel ahve a grand theory of life. Like having a specific health approach, or to thinking.

They are immensly successful and have many success stories of followers as well.

These guys are efficient, smart, and are DOERS.

Being efficient, smart and a DOER is a good way to have lots of success.

Yet, they attribute their successes to their grand theory of things. Instead to plain old doing things well, maximizing, working hard etc.

This is a huge delusion, and very easy to fall into.

Germ free pigs, air condition, and the optimized life

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 02:56:00 +0000

Pigs that are grown with zero germs are healthier than the average pig.
This statement is highly misleading. Wile technically true, it ides the fact that these pigs are very very sensitive.

They must get a very special kind of food. Small change in food and they are dead.
If by whatever accident they get a bacteria - end of story.

So they are healthier in case they were perfectly handled (which is the case much of the time).

The same story holds for some technical innovations.
Air condition in the hot summer improves feeling for most, and we can see that work performance gets better (for every temperature decrease from 30c down to 22 you improve work by 2%).

Yet....
When you do not sterelize the airconditioner from accumulating bacteria, you get lots of upper respiratory infections. Solution is available. Yet until you do, there is lots of damage.
The sudden change of temperature when going out of the cooled room is dangerous. So, either you keep the in-out changes to minimum, or you minimize moving in-out. Again, the average user is not taking care, and many like extreme cooling etc.

I have not researched that, I I think there is a driness problem. Again, completely solveable, but very few do.

In sum, a good improvement IF and a huge if you do all parameters right .

The average.
What counts for practical life is not the theoretical usefulness, nor the effect on some specific person. But the average over all people and the average parameter.

Here the germless pigs are LESS healthy than the average pig. Because we count all pigs, including those who died by some infection, and those who by some case got the less-than-perfect food.
We want to nkow how much is moving to this regime faring on the sum of all cases, not a subgroup that is imagined to be the best one....

Same with aircondition. For practical purposes one may say that airconditon is bad (assume the sum of the side effects is not wirth the results).

This fairly represents many modern "improvements" where a sub group is better of. In theory it is better of, but when considering the whole thing, it is going backwards. (like marriage where ALL research ignores the terrible effects of marriage on the divorced)

Bulshit, vs. Strange models and ...

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:38:00 +0000

The idea "i do not want to be like my parents" sounds delusional. Logically, what you want is a good life for ,your, life, and your life is so different.
Moreover, there is so much emotional involvement in the. Parental comparison that it is hard to thik straight when this comes to mind.

Yet, this can be a useful heuristic. The model you see is a mind model, which is as stupid and as partly useful as a ny model and frame of thinking.

In a way, many of our thoughts that we consider delusional have some meaning. Many seemingly irelevant ideas and memories that "perturb" thinking bear at times some knd of relevant ideas and attitudes to the question at hand.

P.s. This is a subtle justification to stupid thoughts. Most of the time, stupid is stupid

The one dimensionality problem

noreply@blogger.com (Jazi Zilber) — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:17:00 +0000

Sometimes, we discover a dimension of our existence that is central. For example, we discover that lack of sleep is what makes us feeling bad, and that changing this single parameter (napping, or more sleep) will produce a big change in our lives.

The side effect is that we tend to forget that there are other dimensions. And there will always be other relevant aspects.
Once you put all your energy in one thing, you tend to later forget the multi dimensionality of life.

This is especially crucial for artificial solutions that avoid the source of the problem.
Consider asid/base balance. It is shown that modern diets are biased towards over acidity, thereby causing a constant state of overacidity illness (weak form of the disease acidosis).
There is an easy solution to ts problem. Take potassium bicarbonate supplements. This is the base mminerals that will balance it back. And there are hints in the resach that this works.

Doing this is super. Do it. Yet the central problem of nutritional imbalance is not solved. There are clearly other aspects of health affected with unhealthy food.

Clearly do it. Clearly do not think about "there is something better" because this is a non doing saying for losers. You improve and do not care about perfectionism. Yet still, there are other aspects untreated.