It seems counterintuitive that such common, everyday activities such as taking a shower are considered dangerous and have a high risk. Studies have shown that Americans tend to exaggerate the risks of events that are out of our control, such as terrorists, plane crashes, or nuclear radiation. While at the same time, people underestimate the risks of events that we can control and may result in ordinary causes of death. In New Guinea, the people practice the attitude of “constructive paranoia”, which describe their increased state of alertness toward repeated low risks. The people of New Guinean must think thoroughly about dangers due to their lack of availability to doctors, police officers or emergency dispatchers. On the contrary, Americans rely too much on having emergency services at their disposal, causing them to overlook the hazards of everyday activities. This, of course, should not be seen as a reason to stop living life or to live in continuous fear. This should be a reminder to be cautious and to not overlook risks that may seem miniscule in retrospect.
That Daily Shower Can Be a Killer
It seems counterintuitive that species considered hidden or cryptic are actually more common than previously thought. Cryptic species are described as animals that seem identical but are genetically distinct, and the reports of cryptic species have increased considerably over the past two decades with the help of DNA sequencing technology. Scientists had previously thought that cryptic species were primarily found in insects and reptiles in more tropical regions, however new data revealed that cryptic species are found equally throughout all key branches of the animal kingdom and throughout all biogeographical regions. This revelation brings into discussion how species that seem abundant could be made up of various cryptic species that are highly endangered in reality. It is now up to scientists to determine whether cryptic differentiation is merely an early stage of morphological differentiation – the transition to a new category-however, the initial results suggest otherwise.
‘Hidden’ species may be surprisingly common
It seems counterintuitive that mirrors, which are supposed to be reflections of our true selves, are showing us a false and distorted visual. When staring into a regular mirror, your right eye looks at your right eye and your left eye at your left eye, which is the reverse of how we perceive each other in reality. This is influenced by John Walter’s Hair Part Theory which shed light on the behavioral analysis of how humans respond depending on which side their hair is parted on, concluding that parted left is masculine and parted right is feminine. If you take the mirror into consideration, people have not had the opportunity to see which part they agree with more, which then modifies how they behave and how they are perceived. This realization has led to the creation of the True Mirror, which shows you how you appear to others, but then lose the control found in normal mirrors. Mirrors have been an accepted truth for such a long time, all while displaying a skewed sense of ourselves.
I’m impressed that you’re working so much content into just a few words, ZZbird. Your goal is well worth pursuing. Let me see if I can help you clarify a few things for your reader that I would never have understood if I hadn’t read the source material.
—This is very intriguing. High marks for “setting the hook.” However, there’s a bit of obscurity here in the “supposed to be.” Who says they’re “supposed to” provide us anything? That implies a promise or an obligation. I think all you mean is that we “trust them to be” true reflections of how we look.
—It’s hard to see what you mean by “the reverse of how we perceive each other” when your example is of us looking at ourselves. I don’t know how you could, in just a few words, point out that when we look at SOMEONE ELSE our right eye looks at their left eye, and the reverse, but that seems to be what you’re going for. Wouldn’t it be easier to point out that OTHERS see US differently than WE see OURSELVES in the mirror?
—Your “this is influenced by” has no antecedent. There’s no influence here, and we don’t know what “this” refers to. You might mean that the mirror phenomenon is in part “illustrated” by the Hair Part Theory. But we’re also confused what you mean by “humans respond depending on which side their hair is parted.” Surely we don’t respond to ourselves based on our hair part. But, in a way, you DO mean that. You seem to mean we CHOOSE our hair part and perceive OURSELVES as looking a certain way and even BEING a certain way by how we appear in the mirror. Your explanation doesn’t help us decide which version you mean.
—What does “which part they agree with more” mean?
—This starts to clarify your point, that we might NEED a True Mirror to show us how others perceive us. (Maybe then, for the first time, we could perceive the same subliminal signals our hair parts are sending to others. Is that what you’re getting at?)
—I like the way you echo the original counterintuitivity here.
Again, I like your instinct to communicate as much as possible as concisely as you can. But it’s hard work. Every phrase must be clear.
You may revise this post or not depending on how much time you’re willing to spend on a minor assignment, but I do expect you to respond to feedback to show your respect for the process, ZZBird. Thanks!