Do You Think There Is Any Truth To The Phrases

"Use it or lose it": How true is this phrase?

I believe the truth in this phrase depends a great deal on what knowledge or skill you're actually referring to and how well it was mastered in the first place.Learning second and subsequent languages would, in my experience, definitely be in the use it or lose it category.  I've studied three languages beyond my native English -- German, Spanish, and American Sign Language.  I never reached conversational fluency in either German or Spanish, and while I still retain some of the basic grammatical knowledge, most of the vocabulary I learned has evaporated.  I didn't continue to use them beyond the classroom.  Sign Language was a different story.  I reached a level of conversational fluency in less than two years and became a teacher for the Deaf and hard of hearing.  In that job I used the language every day -- all day.  That level of use continues today in my work as a sign language interpreter.  My ability to use sign language has become automatic and relatively permanent.  If I stopped using the language, would those skills atrophy?  I believe they would begin to do so at some point.  However, most automatic or permanent skills are very much like riding a bike.  If you mastered it previously, once you get on and get going again, it comes back quickly.

Is there any truth to the phrase "Those who can't do, teach?" If not, where did it come from? Do people still believe in this, or are there examples in common thought that go against this idea?

Yes, there's some truth there. Though the saying is still a bit rude.One reason I suspect this is true is that if you are the best in your field, you generally get compensated more for doing than teaching. This means many of the best in their field who might otherwise teach, will choose instead to "do", where they are compensated better. It should be said that there are other perks to teaching, few of them monetary, so this argument isn't watertight.Also, there are people who are better at teaching than doing. This isn't necessarily a slight. People sometimes forget that relating information in a digestible form to another human being is a skill, just like any other skill. I have teaching skills, and I have math skills. On the whole, I'm probably a better teacher than a mathematician, so I'm applying my skills where they go best.Finally, it should be said that those who can't teach, do. There are people in industries that, while very knowledgeable, would be horrible teachers. I'm glad that we live in a world where people do what they do best. We just don't necessarily have to be condescending about it.

Is there any truth to the phrase “alpha fucks and beta bucks”?

There are two broad classes of men whose dicks get hard for women: men who love women, and men who hate women.“Alpha fucks, beta bucks” is the kind of sexist sewage spilled from the pie-holes of men in the latter category.No, there’s no truth to it. In fact, it’s fractally wrong. It’s false on every level at every degree of magnification. The premise is wrong. The assumptions are wrong. The understanding—a term I use with some trepidation—of biology is wrong. The attitude is wrong. The ideas about what women want are wrong.“Alpha fucks, beta bucks” starts with the idea there are “alpha men” and “beta men.” This notion comes from observations that dysfunctional wolf packs in captivity come to be dominated by a single individual, and people are exactly like captive wolves, right? I mean, human beings act just like captive wolves, right?It turns out that “alpha” and”beta” don’t have any meaning in nature,[1] but hey, let’s not let facts and evidence get in the way of rampant self-pitying sexism!The thought-process that goes through the skulls of the men who regurgitate this nonsense goes something like this:“Women are all gold-diggers who are driven by the biological urge to reproduce with the strongest, most powerful alpha male, because wolf biology and survival of the fittest and stuff, but they also all want money and stability. So they have sex with burly he-man alpha men of manly manliness, then settle down with a weak pathetic loser to mooch off his money. But they don’t have sex with Mr. Beta Weak Pathetic Loser, because evolution and survival of the fittest mean they only want to breed with the manly men.”It’s the sort of nonsense that can only be subscribed to by people who don’t understand biology, evolution, or women, but really really want to think that whatever failings they may face in their own romantic lives, it’s All Women’s Fault.tl;dr: It’s even more wrong than using cold fusion to create antigravity that will repel Planet X from colliding with the moon, killing all the Nazis on its far side.Footnotes[1] Why everything you know about wolf packs is wrong

What is the meaning of the phrase by devdutt patnaik?

Hi! This is what I feel the phrase might mean.“Within infinite myths lies the eternal truth” -Amidst the innumerable and countless stories that surround everything, the things told to us by people around us, the myths and the stories about our religions and cultures that we have grown up with, we think there might not be any truth. We, as millennials are often too cynical about things and have glorified the idea of being an atheist to death . So here, Pattanaik says, rather believes, that amidst all of this chaos is hidden the eternal truth. Now this truth, might hold a different meaning to everyone. But I think he’s talking about the Divine truth. The truth of the Almighty, the Supreme Creator as we know Him. And we all know, that every myth starts with an assumption of truth. All we need to do is peel off the superficial crust and get to the real thing. So now, who is able to peel off that crust, or see through it?…“Who sees it all?” -Which one amongst us humans, is capable of seeing that Truth? Are we even capable of seeing it? More importantly, do we, each one of us, even deserve to see that Ultimate Truth? Are we equipped with the right tools yet…?“Varuna has but a thousand eyes, Indra has a hundred, You and I, only two.”The great Devas (deities) Varuna and Indra have many eyes. This is symbolic of their omnipresence and maybe, their relative proximity to the Divine. It also very humbly depicts the difficulties that Man faces on his way as a seeker, in one phrase.Basically, this phrase might also be a humble declaration. That yes, I am aware of the Divinity around me, of the Truth around me, and of the possibility that our mythical creatures might be true. And even though I am only a mere human, with only two eyes, I am willing to witness that truth, that I am seeking that Eternal Truth.So in the end, it all boils down to one word- Belief.Happy Reading! :)