Category: Q & A

Format may have a lot to do with it:

• Some people thrive on reading printed paper or hardbound books in a linear fashion.
• Others excel at retaining information gathered by hopping around quickly through a digital text, as well as the additional options to easily read for a short time (in line at the bank, for example) while also marking one's place as provided by most e-readers.
• Still others find "reading" audiobooks is the best method to ingest and retain knowledge long term for both fiction and non-fiction works.
• Graphic novels blur the line a bit – in some cases retaining key description and dialogue, and replacing a bulk of the text with pictures, which can convey meaning equally, or in some cases, with much greater understanding.
• While there are precious few titles available, even "micro-chunking" a book, by having it sent over time as a series of emails is now an option for some books – see http://www.dailylit.com/ for one example – which again provides an ease of access/lack of routine change element that can bring regular reading to those who otherwise can't push through a 200 page paperback.

Overall, I think we're finding that as scientists discover more details about how different personality/behavioral types learn, the options to accomodate these different types is expanding into areas that aren't thought of as traditional "reading". And as this fragmentation is then perceived (perhaps wrongly) by some as an inability to "focus on reading" in a specific medium.

Thus, it may be the case that people are not losing focus while reading in a given format, simply that their ability to focus while reading is tied to an alternate reading method.

Why do some people find it hard to maintain focus while reading books?

It depends on the type of clone.

In television, books, and the movies, the popular conception of a clone is a "fully formed copy" of the original, with the same memories, skills, physical attributes, etc.

In the hard science of the real world, cloning is already happening, but mostly at the "genetic coding" level – the resulting organisms, while "copies of the original blueprints", are "constructed in different locations/climes", and in a way "from different materials"… Think of it like buying the same size plank of the same variety of wood from Home Depot each week – every one will be just a little bit different, though they'll all "measure up" equally in their specification.

At least in the sense that our memories and experiences make us who we are, such clones would be lacking. That said, there's no reason why cloning as a process could not be advanced to the point where these additional aspects were also recorded, copied and implanted into the clone(s).

Thus, to answer your question, such an outcome may someday be possible, but for now, the best you can hope for is (after 9-odd months) a newborn sibling who may or may not resemble you throughout its maturation, who will grow up in a world vastly different from your own childhood (no matter how hard you try to replicate your own childhood, the food chain, global warming, and Facebook are all working hard to make that a near impossibility.

As such, your clone will likely bear little resemblance to you now when it reaches your current age. Still, you probably won't be able to find a better donor when you need a kidney/heart/lung/retina/bone marrow replacement down the line…

For that reason alone, I can imagine a near-future where Hollywood celebs "adopt their own clones" rather than third world refugee babies.

If there were a clone of me, would the clone think and act like I do? Why?

Pretty sure that's called 'being Minnesotan'.

Is there a term to describe the situation where nobody wants to take the last cookie or other item in a communal bowl?

You can never be sure. That's what will eventually destroy your mind if you're not careful.

If you are applying to jobs with a resume, why would you not be getting a response?

It's almost like the answers here don't walk things back enough – if badges started in the educational system, standardization wouldn't be an issue. Titles as we know them would just be specific "bundles" of other badges, and would be much clearer at signifying competence/prior achievement/likely career aptitudes and vectors to explore.

That, in turn, may help solidify social hierarchies within companies and across/between compatible industries – when you see you're only 3 badges different from that guy down the hall in marketing, or that you both share a particularly hard-to-get specialized badge, it's a lot easier to create and build off that in and outside of work.

A badge system may also help simplify, rather than complicate pay grade and employment issues – promotions would be tied more around performance at a given job versus how well you "fit" the requirements, plus assessment of the "next rung" position. It would both make the fast but focused-vector climbers more appreciable to their peers, while simultaneously allowing for seemingly-inconsistent hops across disciplines more "explainable" via badge-based skillsets/strengths that carry over to the new area.

In short, I think badges at work would be a great idea, so long as they start in everyone's first job – kindergarten – and form part of a clear life-long work/education/career development continuum. Such a system could effectively enforce standards and enable easier re-pathing for workers, employers, and goverment/NGO/NPO support programs as economic needs and environments change.

What if you earned badges at work instead of job titles?