# Random Science Thought/Fact of the Day



## Wirt

I had nowhere to put this, but theres plenty of science facts you guys can probably share

anyway. I ****ing love looking at the moon and this video just encompassed how awesome it is lol. Like I dont care about full moons, or when theres an optical illusion and the moon looks big. But I'm always amazed the moon exists and its just a..ball of dirt in fricken space


----------



## Kevin001

The Earth's axis is tilted at 66.5°


----------



## Dilweedle

I've got Jurassic Park on the brain so here's one, you might already know it though:

The Velociraptors in Jurassic Park aren't actually velociraptors at all. Velociraptors were much smaller and thought to be feathered: 

















The raptors in the movie more resemble Deinonychus, who the creators have admitted they were based on: 

















Also the Dilophosaurus was much too small. In reality it wouldn't have fit in the car with Nedry, though they've said they reduced the size so it wouldn't overshadow the T-Rex. There's also no evidence of it having a frill or spitting venom:









I still love the movies though, accurate or not.


----------



## Wirt

Dilweedle said:


> Also the Dilophosaurus was much too small. In reality it wouldn't have fit in the car with Nedry, though they've said they reduced the size so it wouldn't overshadow the T-Rex. There's also no evidence of it having a frill or spitting venom:


whaaat. i feel like i was lied to. my entire childhood is a sham

I'm a little surprised the raptors didnt have any feathers since that fact came out a longgg time ago. they had quills er something in JP3 so who knows what the thought process was.

----------------------

One question I can't really think through is about the twin paradox and how going close to the speed of light, time slows down for the person traveling. So if someone travels near the speed of light for a year and comes back, it's been a year to them and like 80 years to people on earth. So to the people on earth, are they traveling slowly that it takes them 80 years to travel at the speed of light for a year? Just doesnt make sense since the speed of light is fast as hell..so why would they be moving slowly


----------



## Wirt

because the moon slows down the earth's rotation fractionally, there's a leap second tonight

http://astronomynow.com/2015/06/30/nasa-explains-why-30-june-will-get-an-extra-leapsecond/


----------



## Wirt

venus and jupiter are visible in the sky tonight. but i've yet to figure out where the **** to look lol. websites need to be clearer

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-jupiter-venus-converge-20150630-story.html

i think i missed it


----------



## herk

whats the pyramid on that moon guys


----------



## identificationunknown

Three Gorges Dam is the world's largest power station.

Installed Capacity of 22,500 MW


----------



## BackToThePast

identificationunknown said:


> Three Gorges Dam is the world's largest power station.
> 
> Installed Capacity of 22,500 MW


Also is speculated to be the longest lasting source of man-generated electricity in a post apocalyptic world. That dam could be powering for hundreds of years after we're gone.


----------



## NE2

VipFuj said:


> venus and jupiter are visible in the sky tonight. but i've yet to figure out where the **** to look lol. websites need to be clearer


Awesome program for locating stuff and figuring out what you just saw: http://www.stellarium.org/


----------



## NE2

If faster than light travel is available in all inertial frames of reference, so is backwards time travel.


----------



## identificationunknown

mentoes said:


> Also is speculated to be the longest lasting source of man-generated electricity in a post apocalyptic world. That dam could be powering for hundreds of years after we're gone.


Damn that sounds good..

But i can't really find any info on design life tho on the net anyway..


----------



## identificationunknown

World's population is increasing exponentially and by 2050 it is expected to reach 9 billion.


----------



## Dilweedle

VipFuj said:


> whaaat. i feel like i was lied to. my entire childhood is a sham
> 
> I'm a little surprised the raptors didnt have any feathers since that fact came out a longgg time ago. they had quills er something in JP3 so who knows what the thought process was.


They sort of acknowledged that in Jurassic World. There's a line where someone says the dinosaurs don't necessarily look like they normally would because of genetic modification (like the frog dna that let them change gender in the first film). They went all-out with the idea when they designed the Indominus Rex.



identificationunknown said:


> World's population is increasing exponentially and by 2050 it is expected to reach 9 billion.


Bleh, they need to crack down on that before it becomes a bigger problem. Educate people and make birth control more available.


----------



## legallyalone

Can we request science facts? I'd like to know why lightbulbs always blow out when you turn them on, and so rarely blow out while just being left on.


----------



## Winds

The planet PSR J1719-1438b orbit around it's pulsar so fast that it completes it in 2 earth hours. From the start of our year until today, around 2196 years have past there. It is also thought to be made of mostly diamond due to the carbon at it's core crystallizing. The pulsar itself with a diameter of only 12 miles, can make 10k rotations per minute.


----------



## Perspicacious

legallyalone said:


> Can we request science facts? I'd like to know why lightbulbs always blow out when you turn them on, and so rarely blow out while just being left on.


Fun fact: "There is a lamp in a Livermore fire station that was originally turned on around 1905 then given to the fire station in 1973.*It's called the Centennial lamp, and it's so famous that they have even set up a web cam at*so people can*log on*to see that it's still on."

Http://www.centennialbulb.org/cam.htm


----------



## NE2

legallyalone said:


> Can we request science facts? I'd like to know why lightbulbs always blow out when you turn them on, and so rarely blow out while just being left on.


http://io9.com/5628229/why-do-light-bulbs-burn-out-just-as-theyre-turned-on


----------



## identificationunknown

The world-average ecological footprint in 2007 was 2.7 global hectares per person (18.0 billion in total). With a world-average biocapacity of 1.8 global hectares per person (12 billion in total), this leads to an ecological deficit of 0.9 global hectares per person (6 billion in total).


----------



## Grog

legallyalone said:


> Can we request science facts? I'd like to know why lightbulbs always blow out when you turn them on, and so rarely blow out while just being left on.


They blow because 
In an lamp there is a filament which is just a piece of wire with high resistance so when current flows through it it heats up and glows . After a while this fliiament gets brittle and the inrush of current is to much for it to handle and blows . 
Like when you turn a tap on full and the water rushes down the hose pipe that hose pipe moves a little , well that water is current and that hose pipe is the filament and that movement is enough to break a brittle bit of hard wire

Science thought . Not fact 
Where is a hover board why haven't science invented a overboard yet , come on God damit .


----------



## identificationunknown

Hardwood cutting is a form of asexual reproduction.


----------



## BackToThePast

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/3840x2400.jpg

The Pillars of Creation was actually destroyed by a supernova 1,000 years ago. What we are seeing now are the pillars as they stood 7,000 years ago. The left pillar, a large cloud of dust, is over *4 light years tall* or 252964 AU. Take a moment to wrap your head around that.


----------



## ByStorm

The scientists that landed the probe, Philae, on a comet speculate that it can be a host for micro-organic life. They'll be checking for life when the comet is closest to the Sun on August 13th for whatever micro-organic life may be present becomes "more active" during that time. Fingers crossed.


----------



## SilkyJay

Arguing that God doesn't exist would be like people in the 10th century arguing that germs and microbes didn't exist because they couldn't see them. - Chuck


----------



## Wirt

The new horizons probe will reach Pluto next week. I want some friggin high res pluto pics


----------



## identificationunknown

Elevators were invented in New York City.


----------



## identificationunknown

Electricity is produced through conversion of energies.


----------



## identificationunknown

What string theory is trying to prove is that we live in 11D, not 3D. How much of it is valid, we don't know yet and we won't for years.


----------



## Dilweedle

Certain moths in the Calyptra genus are known to drink blood: 








Only the males are known to do this, unlike Mosquitos where only the females drink blood.

And here's Maratus speciosus, an australian peacock spider: 




I think it's cute because its mating dance looks like someone dancing in a tribal mask.


----------



## Wirt

i've always wondered what inside the kangaroo pouch looked like. i had the same misconception that i thought it was like a long pocket


----------



## Foh_Teej

Yajyklis10 said:


> Arguing that God doesn't exist would be like people in the 10th century arguing that germs and microbes didn't exist because they couldn't see them. - Chuck


Not a science fact or thought but an inappropriate analogy grounded in fiction and fantasy. However, no it isn't. No one usually argues gods and goddesses do not exist because no one can see them. They argue because none have been shown to manifest in any perceivable way and therefor indistinguishable from the non-existent.


----------



## SilkyJay

Foh_Teej said:


> Not a science fact or thought but an inappropriate analogy grounded in fiction and fantasy. However, no it isn't. No one usually argues gods and goddesses do not exist because no one can see them. They argue because none have been shown to manifest in any perceivable way and therefor indistinguishable from the non-existent.


dude.

God bless you


----------



## Foh_Teej

Yajyklis10 said:


> dude.
> 
> God bless you


Dude, after he takes his fist from your *******.


----------



## SilkyJay

Foh_Teej said:


> Dude, after he takes his fist from your *******.


:laugh:


----------



## Wirt

damn. here's aurora borealis from the ISS











__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/632696896797016064


----------



## SilkyJay

VipFuj said:


> damn. here's aurora borealis from the ISS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/632696896797016064


----------



## livetolovetolive

Winds said:


> The planet PSR J1719-1438b orbit around it's pulsar so fast that it completes it in 2 earth hours. From the start of our year until today, around 2196 years have past there. It is also thought to be made of mostly diamond due to the carbon at it's core crystallizing. The pulsar itself with a diameter of only 12 miles, can make 10k rotations per minute.


so cool man


----------



## livetolovetolive

VipFuj said:


> damn. here's aurora borealis from the ISS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/632696896797016064


god the universe is beautiful


----------



## Barakiel

I think it would be cool if philosophers and psychologists reclaimed the word 'psychic' from the charlatans. A few decades ago it was basically synonymous with 'psychological', with the added plus of being three syllables shorter.


----------



## Hollo

> The Norte Chico civilization (also Caral or Caral-Supe civilization)[NB 1] was a complex pre-Columbian era society that included as many as 30 major population centers in what is now the Norte Chico region of north-central coastal Peru. The civilization flourished between the fourth and second millennia BC, with the formation of the first city generally dated to around 3500 BC, at Huaricanga, in the Fortaleza area.[1] It is from 3200 BC onward that large-scale human settlement and communal construction become clearly apparent,[2] which lasted until a period of decline around 1800 BC.[3] Since the early 21st century, it has been established as the oldest known civilization in the Americas.


Fun wiki stub I ran across today. I had never heard about this society before


----------



## Canadian Brotha

The recent pictures of Jupiters Great Red Spot are fascinating


----------



## crimeclub

When we collide with Andromeda the planets and stars will be so far apart that it's unlikely that very many of them will actually collide.


----------



## Canadian Brotha




----------



## WillYouStopDave

We still don't have a frickin clue how we're going to put humans on Mars but we think we know everything else about the universe.


----------



## unemployment simulator

not sure I buy it. I mean, I guess it's possible.. but it seems a bit of a stretch and more coincidental to me.

edit; this is more philosophy but I ain't making a whole new thread just for that.


----------



## crimeclub

WillYouStopDave said:


> We still don't have a frickin clue how we're going to put humans on Mars but we think we know everything else about the universe.


What scientist has said they know even 1% of everything about the universe?


----------



## EmotionlessThug

We don't know the difference between expired or die, but we have a copy of people who're no longer within this existence save on a digital photo and digital video.


How come this existence is still alive to keep rotating to store life forms?

This is an extremely easy question to answer, man.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

crimeclub said:


> What scientist has said they know even 1% of everything about the universe?


 If they don't know everything about the universe how do they know they're not imagining their observations? How do they know they even exist? How do they know magic isn't real?


----------



## crimeclub

WillYouStopDave said:


> If they don't know everything about the universe how do they know they're not imagining their observations? How do they know they even exist? How do they know magic isn't real?


You have to know everything before you can know anything?

Oh that's right, I remember in grade school when they taught me linear algebra so I could move on to understand addition and subtraction.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

crimeclub said:


> You have to know everything before you can know anything?


 No. I don't because I don't claim to know anything other than the fact that people will never know everything. I know that. Or do I? What do you think?

I do know that our boundless faith in ourselves is a bit premature at this point. Sheesh! So defensive!



> Oh that's right, I remember in grade school when they taught me linear algebra so I could move on to understand addition and subtraction.


 Did it twerk?


----------



## uziq

If this were a simulation, I feel it should be logical that all of this could be happening without us perceiving it / having consciousness. So given that we do have consciousness, there is probably meaning in experiencing all of this and that it is not all for naught.


----------



## crimeclub

WillYouStopDave said:


> No. I don't because I don't claim to know anything other than the fact that people will never know everything. I know that. Or do I? What do you think?
> 
> I do know that our boundless faith in ourselves is a bit premature at this point. *Sheesh! So defensive! *
> 
> *Did it twerk?*


Apologies, I was in a bad mood at the time.

I have a PhD in twerking so of course it did.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

crimeclub said:


> Apologies, I was in a bad mood at the time.


 I couldn't tell. 0



> I have a PhD in twerking so of course it did.


 So that's what brought you here.


----------



## Canadian Brotha

Callsign said:


> A very subtle knife.


Did you hear about the advances in gene editing?


----------



## Canadian Brotha

Callsign said:


> I've heard some about crispr


Yeah, that's what I meant. I heard on some science podcasts that they're all set to actually 'design' babies with it now to prevent specific genetic ailments/predispositions or potentially 'enhance' babies...crazy stuff


----------



## Barakiel

The very existence of fringe theories like eliminativism (about consciousness or intentionality) disturbs me. It's not so much the thought of them being true (if mental states don't exist we literally have nothing to worry about right?), but the fact that there are folks out there who actually argue for them.

I can't bring myself to read these arguments in-depth, and I'm more familar with the counter-arguments from their critics (I envy the patience of those who are willing to argue with someone who insists consciousness is a 'cognitive illusion'). But stuff like this is just a reminder of how feeble and fragile I really am, and how I'm not anywhere close to being able to truly engage with philosophy or ideas that repel me.


----------



## Canadian Brotha

Callsign said:


> I was listening to one where the guy was trying to be reassuring, saying that that was a bit far off and we shouldn't worry about it and some sort of further gentrified society. People will do that as soon as they have the opportunity though won't they? I would certainly want to edit out extreme anxiety, though it could also be intertwined with a lot of things, and changing things could backfire.


Thats the thing about it all, we can all speak to the benefits of removing traits but not at all the side effects of doing so because for all we know they may not be apparent for generations.

Likewise having that power means a few out there will add traits without knowing the consequences as well.

Brave new world...


----------



## Kevin001

I wonder how many people knew about the bacteria NASA pretty much dumped on us today.


----------



## acidicwithpanic

Did anyone else in the SD or LA area miss out on the eclipse? I tried to get a glimpse of it but couldn't see a thing. It was so disappointing.


----------



## Canadian Brotha

The shots of the Eclipse from satellites and the ISS are amazing


----------



## Kevin001

I guess the day the government forces everyone to be implanted with microchips is the day I'll meet my maker because I refuse.


----------



## Barakiel

I wish the word "science" had the broader, inclusive sense it used to have, when there was nothing unusual about refering to history and maths as sciences (Lewis Carroll called logic his favorite scientific pursuit, for example).

I'd like to believe this would help clarify the debates over scientism and positivism, like if science can explain everything or not (what about the mathematical or philosophical foundations of physics or any other natural science?)

Or maybe we'd see the end of clickbait titles treating science like this infallible oracle which is quite unscientific ironically (_science! _proves x, _science!_ says y etc) but then again, probably not lol.


----------



## Barakiel

This is philosophy at it's best 



















There's also "The Book of Tea" by Okakura Kakuzō I hope to read someday, it's all about the aesthetics and culture of tea in Japanese life, what he calls "teaism".


----------



## Clivy

http://science.howstuffworks.com/lif...-feel-pain.htm



> According to researchers at the Institute for Applied Physics at the University of Bonn in Germany, plants release gases that are the equivalent of crying out in pain. Using a laser-powered microphone, researchers have picked up sound waves produced by plants releasing gases when cut or injured. Although not audible to the human ear, the secret voices of plants have revealed that cucumbers scream when they are sick, and flowers whine when their leaves are cut [source: Deutsche Welle].
> 
> There's also evidence that plants can hear themselves being eaten. Researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia found that plants understand and respond to chewing sounds made by caterpillars that are dining on them. As soon as the plants hear the noises, they respond with several defense mechanisms [source: Feinberg]


----------



## Kandice

I wonder if anyone has ever heard of the theory that we're made from stardust and how do they feel about it.


----------



## Eternal Solitude

Kandice said:


> I wonder if anyone has ever heard of the theory that we're made from stardust and how do they feel about it.


----------



## stellabelly

What is above the sky
from Earth --- To Sky

1 Trillion Kms - Inner Oort Cloud
1 Light year - Outer Oort Cloud
10 light years - Neighboring Stars
100 light years - Local Interstellar clouds
1000 Light years - Local bubble
10 Thousand Light years - Spiral arms
100 Thousand Light years - Milky Way
1 million Light years - Galaxy Neighborhood
10 Million Light years - Local galaxy Group
100 million light years - Local Supercluster
1 Billion Light years - Cosmic Web
10 Billion light years - Uniform Universe


----------



## Winds

Reading about curvature as it relates to the shape of the universe, and I'm intrigued.


----------



## Kevin001

Still in awe that there are still people who believe the Earth is flat......um yeah.


----------



## Fun Spirit

^Thank You


Human like robots, Ai's, Voice Command.......I'm not talking to a robot.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

Oh good this thread does exist.

I'm reading these links atm:

https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2019/05/against-human-sexual-selection.html

https://quillette.com/2019/05/09/a-girls-place-in-the-world/

Some bizarre stuff (I've never heard anything quite like this example before, of course homophobic 'corrective' rape is common throughout the world though):



> In the volume Gender Rituals: Female Initiation in Melanesia, anthropologist Brigitta Hauser-Schäublin recounts meeting a woman who had undergone a male initiation among the Central Iatmul fisher-foragers of Papua New Guinea. One day years back, when the woman was a young, pre-pubescent girl visiting her mother's village of Tigowi, she had climbed a Malay apple tree to get some fruit. At that moment, two men were blowing flutes in a fenced-off enclosure nearby and saw the girl in the tree. This was a serious matter, as the flutes were meant to be kept secret from the women and children, who were never supposed to see the men's sacred instruments. The men dragged the young girl back to the men's house, where she was gang-raped. She was then scarified and given a limited version of the men's initiation ceremony, where she learned the secrets of the men's house and their sacred musical instruments.





> When she was finally allowed to leave, she was given a tiny loin covering instead of the grass skirt women were usually granted after going through their own initiation. "Her mother cried at her daughter's state when she returned and immediately brought her back to Palimbei [a different village]," Hauser-Schäublin writes, adding that,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although she had gained what was considered culturally important ritual knowledge, the woman nonetheless felt degraded, dishonored, derided, and incredibly shamed. Thereafter, she led a rather disorganized life, and the way she related her story to me, many decades after, mirrored the feelings she must have experienced and a suffering from which she never really had recovered. I recorded a similar instance in Aibom village. In both cases, the initiation was meant, and experienced, as a severe punishment and stigmatization. By retrospectively legitimating the discovery of male secrets, more-over, the practice seems to have been intended also to protect them. Were the girls not initiated, they would have passed what they had discovered on to others. Initiation, however, ensured that they would never do so.
Click to expand...




> Male cults where men would punish women with rape or execution for intruding on their rituals can be found across cultures all over the world, from hunter-gatherers to agricultural societies. Among the Arunta hunter-gatherers of Australia, anthropologist Walter Baldwin Spencer tells the story of a woman who, desperately thirsty, ventured near a water-hole to drink, and inadvertently saw the men's sacred pool and ceremonial stone. The men decided to punish her with gang-rape, "a punishment which is not infrequently inflicted after the committal of some serious offence, as an alternative to that of being put to death. In consequence of this men of all classes had intercourse with her, and when this was over she was returned to her proper Unawa man [husband]," Spencer writes.
> 
> *Of the Mundurucu horticulturalists of the Amazon, "the men consciously state that they use the penis to dominate their women," * write anthropologists Yolanda and Robert Murphy, noting again the practice of men punishing the women who witness their rituals or sacred objects with gang-rape (in this case flutes, similar to the Central Iatmul of Papua New Guinea). We see the same phenomenon with the Mehinaku fisher-horticulturalists, also of the Amazon.


^ Of course some women do chop off their rapist's dicks.



> While the punishments enacted by these men's cults are extreme, they reflect larger, cross-culturally common efforts-individually or collectively-by males to constrain female autonomy and control their sexuality.





> One morning the village camp was awakened to the sound of terrified screaming from the house directly opposite mine, where Yambabo was sleeping. I looked out of my window and saw Kenge dragging his sister out of the hut by one arm, pulling her over the ground and shouting to the camp that she was no good and should be killed. He pointed to her breasts and said that she had enough milk to feed a dozen children, why did she refuse to marry? Yambabo was as strong as a buffalo, he continued, so why did she refuse to work? He then gave what he considered could be the only reason, which was extremely personal and uncomplimentary. Yambabo tried to get to her feet to hit him, but every time she began struggling he simply thumped her on the back with his fist, still keeping a tight hold of her with his other hand. People came sleepily out of their huts to watch, all rather agreeing that Yambabo really should have married long ago and deserved a brotherly beating. Encouraged by this, Kenge began kicking her, and she responded by biting him in the leg. Moke tried to intervene, but it was no good. Kenge was ready for murder, and by the time he had finished with Yambabo she was a sorry sight, scratched and bleeding, with one eye swollen. And still she refused to marry Taphu. From that morning on, we all accepted the fact that Kenge was going to continue beating his sister until she gave in, and it was just a question of how long she could hold out.
> 
> Eventually, Yambabo's own mother began publicly beating her as well, wanting her to accept the marriage so Kenge could get married to Taphu's sister. "Her mother slapped her once more and asked her if she would marry Taphu or not. Yambabo, with a final wail of protest that everyone had treated her so badly that she would surely die, gave up the battle and said that she would marry Taphu, or anyone else for that matter," Turnbull writes.
> 
> Men (and, less often, women as well) across societies all over the world have used violence in an attempt to control women's reproductive outcomes and limit the choices available to them, and in many circumstances, men have benefited from doing so. As primatologist Barbara Smuts noted, "Male aggression against females in primates, including humans, often functions to control female sexuality to the male's reproductive advantage." Anthropologist Jonathan Stieglitz and his colleagues found that among the Tsimané forager-horticulturalists of Bolivia, "IPV [intimate partner violence] predicts higher fertility for both higher-and lower-status men&#8230;these findings indicate that Tsimané men across the status continuum strategically use IPV to achieve higher marital fertility."


https://www.reddit.com/r/thanosdidnothingwrong/

(except for not completing the job.)



> Woodburn notes further that the men threaten the women with beatings and rape should they intrude on their secret feasts.


Take a shot everytime a man uses rape to limit female autonomy.



> Having noted these evolutionary, historical, and cross-cultural patterns, perhaps we are left with the task of considering where that leaves us today, in our own societies.









> In his 1973 work The Inevitability of Patriarchy, sociologist Steven Goldberg was, in my view, broadly on the right track in recognizing the ubiquity of male dominated power structures across societies historically. However, Goldberg also made a significant error. He noted that even the 'post-industrial' societies at the time had highly male dominated political structures, and argued that this was unlikely to change in the future.





> Having learned from Goldberg's mistake, I would caution against attempting to predict what the future holds based on these historical patterns, or, conversely, overly extrapolating from the more recent changes identified by Hrdy. Our evolutionary history continues to leave its mark, yet the socioecological and cultural forces that contribute to human variation can act in unpredictable ways."


Oh OK, cancel the apocalypse for now then.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

The below quote was taken from the first link in the previous post, but that post got too long:



> Whether a woman wanted to have sex with a man was often irrelevant. Whether she wanted to be paired with him for years of her life was irrelevant. In the world of flesh no Puck arrives in nick of time to grant history's many Hermias the attentions of the men they most desired. A woman's refusal only went so far. She could be stolen and forced into servitude; her family could be killed and she raped; or she could be married off and left defenseless against sexual assault by her partner. If things came to blows, it was the man who would be choosing the circumstances of reproduction, not the woman.
> 
> Any evolutionary narrative of sex-based traits must take these realities into account before I will take it seriously. Occasionally I see that sort of work out there, but it is few and far between. [4] In the lingo of the discipline, parent-offspring competition and violent intersexual competition are quite real. The psychologist who doesn't work them into his or her theories is not trying hard enough.
> 
> I can forgive them for the omission. The majority of scientists who developed theories of sexual selection came from societies calmer and more equitable than the human norm. In their world women have the freedom to reject or accept who they will. Most have never had to worry about the possibility their daughter might be stolen from their homes. They live with the expectation that both their daughters and their sons will choose their mates with little regard of what their parents think of them.
> 
> But this story is not the human story. Had Darwin invented his grand theory in another world, one where the science of evolution developed in some land where humans married and mated as most humans have, I doubt theories of sexual preference would have the allure they now do. These theories match the intuitions of our age. Sometimes those intuitions are WIERDER than we realize.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

> Glass cliffs describe situations in which women are promoted to executive roles in declining organizations. To explain them, some authors suggest that people tend to "think crisis-think female." However, the root cause of this association remains elusive. Using several subfields of evolutionary theory, we argue that biology and culture have shaped the perception of women as being more empathic than men and, consequently, as capable of quelling certain crises. Some crises are more intense than others and, whereas some brew within organizations, others originate from the external environment. We therefore propose that women will be selected to lead whenever a crisis is minimal to moderate and stems primarily from within the organization.
> 
> Men, on the other hand, will be chosen as leaders whenever the crisis threatens the very existence of the firm and its source is an external threat. Leadership is a highly stressful experience, and even more so when leaders must scale glass cliffs. It is imperative that we understand what gives rise to them not only because they place women and potentially other minorities in positions where the likelihood of failure is high, but also because they help propagate stereotypes that undermine their true leadership ability.





> We have articulated that people's perception of women's empathy affects their decisions to hire women leaders for risky positions. We examined this conundrum by setting aside some known and valid discriminatory causes for glass cliffs to reveal a more basic reason explaining why women leaders tend to be chosen to handle conflict, one rooted in a Darwinian heritage. In the first place, our work contributes to theoretical development. By discussing evolutionary and cultural processes in the same breath, we hope to have succeeded in portraying a more complete model of human interaction. This convergence of approaches also has reciprocal benefits, namely that social


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4641904/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cliff



> The glass cliff is the phenomenon of women in leadership roles, such as executives in the corporate world and female political election candidates, being likelier than men to achieve leadership roles during periods of crisis or downturn, when the chance of failure is highest.[1][2]


(this has nothing to do with what I'm about to post about, it's just something I found on Google.)

Human females are more neotenous looking than males. I wonder in part if this is because the less neotenous looking/acting ones inspired less empathy from the male sex and would be more likely to die as a result or piss off males so they killed them. These days more women seem to prefer dating women (due to the fluidity of het-female sexuality I imagine this is environmentally driven to some extent, though it also depends on individual factors such as sex drive.) The more feminine and conventionally attractive bisexual and lesbian women seem to prefer butch to femme women on average (there are a few other patterns especially if into femdom, but not going to list all of them here,) often creating a butch/femme dynamic, and will often alternate between butch women and/or transguys and cisguys over their lifetime opportunistically (unless exclusively into butch women.) Butch lesbian women and straight transguys generally have a more intersex neurological profile and also seem to be more monogamous than the male sex (it's obvious why that is) that might have been helpful I suppose in terms of resources. Clearly a bunch of women whose marriage ends and who have children will decide to start dating women too.



> I recently read a Facebook status update from an acquaintance that stated, "I don't understand why lesbians date women who look like men. If you're into chicks that look like dudes, just get with a dude." I was not only surprised that this status post was written by a self-identified lesbian, but also that most of the comments under the status lauded her assertion that lesbians should only date women who are feminine. My acquaintance's sentiment is shared by many and, as a feminine lesbian whose fiancé falls more on the androgynous side of the feminine-masculine spectrum, I'm often asked point blank why I just don't date men. However, I've only been asked about my preference for androgynous women by heterosexuals and gay men, never by another lesbian. *It's not that I think that lesbians are immune to adopting such archaic views, but I usually hear the opposite from them: that they think femme/femme and butch/butch relationships are "unnatural."* Irrespective of who holds these views, both of these perspectives tend to be casually stated as matter-of-fact without giving any thought to how they might be rooted in the misogynous, gender-normative, and heterosexist values so deeply ingrained in our society.


Post is purely about the neurotypical folk. Since autistic, schizotypal etc sexuality and psychology appears kind of alien and gender defiant. Though having said that femme lesbians/bisexuals tend to be a bit different too (anecdotally more alternative and nerdy/geeky,) but obviously.. Because otherwise they'd identify as heterosexual. On the other hand, of course _I_ would come across people like that via self-selection.

Still I'm sure there's something going on there, because I seem slightly more drawn to quirky femme bisexual/lesbian women than straight women. Just on average. I notice I've ended up following a lot of YouTubers like this as well (without knowing initially.) Also suddenly remember some science article or something I came across lol about how it was expected for wiccans to be bisexual or something, maybe this is related.... Oh yeah this one lol:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299711003609724

I guess there's an overlap with emo/goth culture and bisexuality too.

(yes what I'm doing in this post is weird, annoying and abnormal I know.)


----------



## Fever Dream

crimeclub said:


> When we collide with Andromeda the planets and stars will be so far apart that it's unlikely that very many of them will actually collide.


Blast for the past quote!

Here's a video for reference. He had to leave town for the nearest star, so yeah, space is vast.


----------



## unemployment simulator

bruce lipton sounds a bit of a charlatan, all this stuff on epigenetics doesn't really seem to be questioned. almost like we accepting it all as truth. tbh some of what he is saying makes sense but it also sounds not too far removed from woo psudoscience. I have no problem with people doing that sort of thing, some of it is quite interesting but a lot of the time that community doesn't present it as the truth or empirical. they just say hey, you ever considered this? whereas with this stuff it's like everyone is talking about it like it is the truth. I have no doubt this guy has got loads of work through through talking about this, i'm not sure though that promoting the idea you can cure cancer with positive thoughts is really very good.


----------



## Barakiel

Reading about Charles Sanders Peirce inspired me to pick up a book about stars by Andrew King again, and I find it a lot more enjoyable and less intimidating than I did last time. It helped reading about Peirce's work in astronomy and spectroscopy specifically, as well as his endeavors in science and philosophy in general:

"[&#8230;] it has never been in my power to study anything,-mathematics, ethics, metaphysics, gravitation, thermodynamics, optics, chemistry, comparative anatomy, astronomy, psychology, phonetics, economics, the history of science, whist, men and women, wine, metrology, except as a study of semiotic".

"The entire universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs."


----------



## Barakiel

The Stars book mentions this prediction by Auguste Comte too:


----------



## Persephone The Dread

> we're bravely, but in a quarrelsome and merely verbal fashion, pursuing the principle that natures that aren't the same must follow different ways of life. but when we assigned different ways of life to different natures and the same ones to the same, we didn't at all examine the form of natural difference and sameness we had in mind or in what regard we are distinguishing them.
> 
> No, we didn't look into that.
> 
> Therefore, we might just as well, it seems, ask ourselves where the natures of bald and long-haired men are the same or opposite. And, when we agree that they are opposite, then, if the bald ones are cobblers, we ought to forbid the long-haired ones to be cobblers, and if the long-haired ones are cobblers, we ought to forbid this to the bald ones.
> 
> That would indeed be ridiculous.
> 
> And aren't we in this ridiculous position because, at that time we did not introduce every form of difference and sameness in nature, but focused on the one form of sameness and difference that was relevant to the particular ways of life themselves? We meant, for example, that a male and female doctor have souls of the same nature. Or don't you think so?


.


----------



## bad baby

Karen Horney (_Neurosis and Human Growth_) seems to warn about the mental trap of Descarte's "I think, therefore I am". Same with Yumeno Kyūsaku's novel _Dogra Magra_, although here it comes in the form of an unreliable character narration so validity is thrown into question. In some way this reminds me of Virginia Woolf's "sane truth and insane truth", that perhaps the boundary between objective truth/reality vs. fantasy exists perpendicular to instead of overlapping with the distinction between (what we perceive to be) sanity and insanity. I will be able to formulate more detailed thoughts after finishing her book, but this was an interesting point of consideration.


----------



## truant

Omg. Dying.

Old gas blob from Uranus found in vintage Voyager 2 data



> Buried inside data that NASA's iconic Voyager 2 spacecraft gathered at Uranus more than 30 years ago is the signature of a *massive bubble* that may have stolen a *blob* of the planet's *gassy* atmosphere.


Low-hanging science reporting fart joke fruit, but I'm a cheap date.



bad baby said:


> Karen Horney (_*Neurosis and Human Growth*_) seems to warn about the mental trap of Descarte's "I think, therefore I am". Same with Yumeno Kyūsaku's novel _Dogra Magra_, although here it comes in the form of an unreliable character narration so validity is thrown into question. In some way this reminds me of Virginia Woolf's "sane truth and insane truth", that perhaps the boundary between objective truth/reality vs. fantasy exists perpendicular to instead of overlapping with the distinction between (what we perceive to be) sanity and insanity. I will be able to formulate more detailed thoughts after finishing her book, but this was an interesting point of consideration.


I haven't read that yet, though I own it. I've read some of her other stuff. It's sort of amazing how much saner Horney is than Freud, even though she's working in the same tradition. It's like she's only reluctantly Freudian, because there were no other options.

I have many thoughts about the distinction between sanity and insanity myself. If you ever formulate those thoughts, I'd love to read them.


----------



## bad baby

*On insanity*

cc: @*truant* . I would love to hear your thoughts and insights on that distinction.

*

I sat down and tried to summarise all my thoughts on this topic but there were just way too many. I'll use Virginia Woolf's "insane truth" as a starting point. It's clear that her character of Septimus in _Mrs. Dalloway_ had post-war shellshock, what we know today as PTSD. It seems to me the general category of "psychosis" manifesting in many types of mental disorders - bipolar, schizotypal, PTSD, etc. - is the mind under duress struggling for a solution. I think of it as an expansion of consciousness, to re-equilibrate at a new level in attempt to self-heal whatever trauma or affliction it had experienced.

In the shamanistic spiritualities of primitive cultures we see this in action. Typically the shaman has experienced psychotic episodes at an early age, they are then taken under the wing of a wise elder who has been through similar and can guide them in a safe way to transcend. RD Laing cautions against an over-romanticised generalisation. It seems shamanistic cultures fall on one extreme of the spectrum (glorification), whereas our industrialised societies fall on the other (pathologisation). Some psychotic experiences (or forms thereof) may be benevolent, and the experiencer perhaps knows them to be so during the experience. But other forms could be more malignant or destructive.

I have this very PNW analogy in my mind: that of the salmon run. Every year the salmon swim against the current and make a huge leap against gravity to a higher spawning ground. Some make it, others don't and fall to their deaths. Similarly the injured consciousness is trying to make a leap in the form of psychosis. Full-on (permanent? irreversible? I am really out of my depth here) insanity is the "failed outcome", the dead salmon at the bottom. But the analogy is not quite correct - in any case, certainly if one succeeds, the Freudian "Ego" part of one's psyche always dies. So everyone ends up as dead salmon at the bottom, only some of them make it to Heaven.

[The new, expanded "Ego-less" consciousness seems to resemble a state of spiritual enlightenment described in many religions. In Buddhism and I believe many other religions as well this is not one destination but varying levels/stages. Perhaps there is an infinite gradation, and "Nirvana" (and its many analogues) is just the highest form that we know to be humanly possible so far. Religious stories follow this pattern, roughly, of: _awareness - suffering - transcendence_. For example in Christianity, from the Garden of Eden, the expulsion, all the way through to the eventual Messianic Time. It is the allegorical path of yearning of the human mind. But I digress.]

It seems we know too little at this point about the factors in a successful "leap". Sometimes perhaps the brain/mind is not ready for an expansion. Like, I don't know, one or more small bugs in a million lines of spaghetti code. How do you even begin to debug or figure out where the problem lies? Perhaps the experiencer's inability to process it in their rational mind is a contributor. That is probably a problem of reconciliation or integration common to many mental illnesses. Even in the case of (full, partial) understanding, it might still be too much for them to handle - the complete fragmentation or shattering of the "Self" as they know it. There's also the "coming down" part, returning to regular life after such experiences, functioning in society again on a day-to-day basis under the added strain of such experiences. At least the shaman don't have to worry about that part.

In a way psychotic individuals are the frontier explorers into the outer reaches of the mind (or the inner reaches of the psyche, but I mean these are just linguistic conventions and make little difference), but they have no reliable guides, least of all themselves. Medical professionals may be knowledgeable and clinically experienced but they lack the _personal_ experience, and anyway they come from a perspective of societal functionality rather than of individual validation. From a collective point of view none of our personal inner histories or experiences matter, unless it happens to pose some kind of threat or problem. This flies in the face of the oft-repeated mantras telling us that we are each of us unique and valuable. We spend our lives reconciling this seeming contradiction, and some people lose their way in the process.

In Orwell's _1984_, Winston is sane and O'Brien is mad, that is one conclusion that makes sense _to our contemporary sensibilities_, even though in the novel's dystopia the labels are reversed. We are able to form our verdict because it is clear to us which side Orwell falls on. Someone, I forget who, said that works of art are valuable to the extent that we have a sense of where the author stands. In real life there is no "author" who has the, let's say expertise, to make this kind of call. For millennia people clung to various representations of "God(s)" to appease this uncertainty, but those seem to have fallen to the wayside now, and Existential Dread is the only logical consequence, in the absence of some other satisfactory resolution.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

bad baby said:


> I have this very PNW analogy in my mind: that of the salmon run. Every year the salmon swim against the current and make a huge leap against gravity to a higher spawning ground. Some make it, others don't and fall to their deaths. Similarly the injured consciousness is trying to make a leap in the form of psychosis. Full-on (permanent? irreversible? I am really out of my depth here) insanity is the "failed outcome", the dead salmon at the bottom. But the analogy is not quite correct - in any case, certainly if one succeeds, the Freudian "Ego" part of one's psyche always dies. So everyone ends up as dead salmon at the bottom, only some of them make it to Heaven.


 Oddly, earlier this morning when I woke up, the first thing that popped into my head was salmon swimming upstream. Well, not just that lone thought. For some reason my mind was in the middle of thinking about how when I was growing up people kept trying to pound the fact that this is a thing that happens into my head and I just kind of ignored them. It kind of annoyed me that now I realize they were trying to tell me in a gentle way that life is gonna suck and be an endless battle against the current and the whole thing is really just about breeding and dying from the struggle of it.

It was a strange (however appropriate) thing to think about first thing when you wake up and I thought so even as I thought it. Weird coincidence that I see this on SAS now.


----------



## truant

@bad baby I haven't had time to respond to your post, but I'll try to get to it soon. Out of curiosity, have you read anything in transpersonal psychology (eg. Stanislav Grof)? What do you think about psychedelic therapy? I have thoughts about the nature of consciousness, too.


----------



## bad baby

@WillYouStopDave That's a random thing to have pounded into you lol. I thought the whole point of human civilisation was that we _didn't_ have to be like those salmon. But maybe we are just better at hiding the true aim of the game and fooling ourselves?

Actually came across a book called _Pathways to Madness_ that talks about the subtle ways in which the American education system instils values (such as cutthroat competition) it claims to disavow in the students. I wasn't able to track down a copy of it, I mean this is probably not gonna be on the required reading list for future educators, but it's an interesting idea, the ways in which societal practices actively contradict the "official story".

@truant I've come across the name but haven't read anything of his, for reasons that I can't remember now. Curious to hear your impressions of that branch of psychology. I'm also looking into anthroposophy, which may or may not be something.


----------



## truant

@bad baby I'm not sure where I stand on transcendent states of consciousness. I spent a lot of time meditating and studying stuff like shamanism, Zen, etc., and I think there are definitely achievable perspectives which alter how you frame and respond to experience. From my perspective, for example, there is no mind/body problem, and the equal worth of every person is self-evident to me (though I won't go into the details). I've never experienced 'enlightenment', or ego transcendence, but I can't rule it out because, until I had my first lucid dream, I wasn't convinced they existed, either.

Transpersonal psychology is an attempt to unify the spectrum of psychological experience from the lowest to the highest; the model allows for transcendent states of consciousness and attempts to solve problems that wouldn't normally be tackled by conventional therapy ('spiritual' problems, birth traumas, altered states of consciousness, or problems related to reincarnation or near-death experiences). Psychotic states are definitely a part of that, and I believe they tried to treat patients with psychosis with hallucinogenics (modeled after shamanic practices). It's been a while since I read Grof, though. If you're interested in this stuff, you might also want to read Ken Wilber, who approaches transpersonal psychology from a philosophical perspective. I've never looked into anthroposophy.

As far as psychosis goes, there's a lot of evidence accumulating for something like: genetic predisposition -> psychological conflict -> stress -> autoimmune response, which attacks the brain. Psychotic episodes certainly appear to be a breakdown of normal psychoneuroimmunological functioning in response to stress. The particular content of a psychotic episode, however, is clearly related to the conflicts the individual has or is experiencing. (And this is where Laing may be useful.) My sister has delusional episodes from her PTSD and her delusions are directly tied to her fears and conflicts. The episodes could serve as an attempt to grapple with the conflict, but in the same way that avoidance serves as an attempt to grapple with social anxiety: in a negative sense, that, while allowing a person to avoid a conflict, ends up making the problem worse. It's possible, however, that some people do manage to resolve their conflicts this way, and that talk therapy could help some patients by helping them resolve their conflicts. (There's an analogy here to dream interpretation -> psychosis interpretation.)

Part of the challenge, however, might be that psychotic episodes lead to experiences which are transpersonal in nature and can't be integrated with conventional (consensual) reality; the therapist may simply be unable to provide the patient with a model which allows them to understand and integrate their experience. So there's one area where transpersonal psychotherapy may be more useful. But this is all highly speculative and I am far from an expert. In any case, there's a fairly clear connection between stress, stress hormones, and brain malfunction, so anything that reduces a person's stress is likely going to be helpful for restoring whatever level of normal brain function they're capable of having. (I think studies have shown that meditation can be useful for reducing the symptoms of even psychosis.)

I've never actually read any of Woolf's novels. (I know, I know! _Just A Room of One's Own_.) As far as "works of art are valuable to the extent that we have a sense of where the author stands" goes I'm not sure that's true. I don't think we're ever really sure where Shakespeare stands, but no one questions the value of his work. I think it's more true to say that works of art are useful for supporting particular ways of viewing the world, and that some of those perspectives seem better for us than others. Whether they are better or not is another question. I agree that, in life, we are all ultimately left to our own devices. There is no one in a position to tell us how we should live our lives; we have to decide for ourselves. Even if such a person existed, we would have to decide whether or not to believe them. Personally, I find that liberating, but I know a lot of people don't like it.

I could talk a lot more about this stuff, but I have to budget my time, curses!


----------



## bad baby

@truant I am curious as to what you mean by "there is no mind/body problem", if that is something you're not averse to explaining briefly.

Transcendental states probably share some similarities to more common experiences, like sexual orgasms and substance "highs". It's been said that sex can be thought of as an attempt to transcend the boundary of individual subjectivity. Or the even the more mundane experience of "losing yourself" in a certain situation. The feeling of awe. I imagine it would be difficult to know if you are following the path to transcendence correctly through self-study, but not impossible, if you are able to honestly reflect on your own mental states.

Ken Wilber's _No Boundary_ looks interesting. I've added it to my list, and perhaps when the moment feels right I will dive into it. The content of psychosis is an interesting topic, I've read that, anecdotally, shamanistic cultures have more positive psychotic experiences whereas in industrial societies they contain more elements of hostility and horror. On a speculative note I wonder if mystical insights are actually very low-level and/or fleeting physical phenomena that are imperceptible to the average person. Something akin to microexpressions, or perhaps closer to synethesthaesia. The predictive/healing aspects may not always be on point though.

I was surprised by how much I got into Laing's work. His theories on interpersonal relationships manage to describe something I've intuitively sensed all my life through experience. But at the same time it's hella depressing, even if no less valid than any other reality. I also started reading Sartre, which is giving me much more optimism and perspective.

With regards to Shakespeare, it's usually clear who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Sometimes the good guys die in the end, those are his tragedies, and so on. What I thought of when I read the quote was more in the realm of unreliable narration. Like in _American Psycho_, even though you know the protagonist is insane, you're still not sure if the events he describes actually happened or if they are all in his head. That is not to say the work doesn't have value (who am I to judge?), but it's certainly disorienting to say the least.

Yes I agree the Existentialist way of life is ultimately liberating. It's taken me a long time to see this. I've had a tendency to see coercion everywhere and feel powerless in response. Determinism is a difficult bind to snap out of, it's antithetical to the very notion that one is _choosing_ to subscribe to a deterministic view. Personally I've found that neurobiological explanations only add to that feeling of helplessness. I spent the first 20+ years of my life praying to science and fighting off some vague spiritual impulse inside. I think it's a false dichotomy, the solution may be neither and found in the blind spots of both.


----------



## truant

@bad baby The similarities between the experiences lie in the loss of self consciousness. When the ego/self is temporarily suspended by the overwhelming nature of another experience, the experience is transcendental (transcending the ego). None of the qualities we normally associate with our 'self' are present in the experience, so we are 'not ourself'. In that moment, we _are_ whatever it is that we're experiencing. This can be very liberating ('awesome').

We're used to thinking about our experiences in dualistic terms; as 'me' and 'not me'. When we look up at the sky, we think it's 'up there'. But, in fact, the sky is as much 'us' as anything we identify as being us; it fills up our consciousness; and what are we if not what we're conscious of? That's why a mystic can look at everything and say, 'That's me and that's me and that's me.' Ofc, they're not thinking of it in those terms. The barrier between 'me' and 'not me' is simply not there for them. Which is why it's called nondual awareness. Suchness or thatness. I am that.

This is related to why I say there's no mind/body problem. The line between mind and body is drawn by us. Our awareness is, originally, and by nature, nondual. It's a seamless whole. But mind has the power to draw distinctions between things, and to categorize the things that it defines. We put some of those things in one category, 'mind', and other things in another category, 'body'. We're so used to classifying things this way, we forget that we're doing it. When we try to figure out how mind and body are connected, we're in the same position as someone wondering why the boundary of France lines up so perfectly with the boundary of Germany. We forget that we've drawn that boundary ourselves. The fact is, there is nothing that is purely mind or body. You can look at the objective structure of a cell through a microscope, but you can't look at it without the subjective experience of looking at it. The cell doesn't exist, in that context, without our mental perception of it. It's not even correct to say it's a mental perception; it's only when we divide the cell from the mind that 'mental perception' arises. At that point, we need it to explain the connection between the cell and our subjectivity.

We draw a line between the object we're studying and the act of studying it, but in reality the two are the exact same experience. Some of that experience seems more like 'matter', and some of it seems more like 'mind', but they're still one, unified experience. Just like the bottom of a ball is not a separate object from the top of the ball. There is only 'ball', which we divide into halves called 'top' and 'bottom'. To be clear, I'm NOT saying that 'everything is mind'. I'm not arguing for solipsism. What I'm saying is that reality is prior to our categories 'mind' and 'body'; it is a something that is BOTH mind and body at the same time. (One could even use the word 'consciousness' to refer to that nondual nature; that consciousness is divided into 'mind' and 'body'. Which is how we could explain something like cosmic consciousness.)

When we talk about self and nonself, we're talking about the same kind of division. We draw a line between things that have no division in nature. There is no division between myself and the sky; all there is is the consciousness of the sky. But we draw a line between them because we can't control what the sky does the way we can control what our arm does. The same thing applies to freewill and determinism. In fact, there is no division between them. There is only consciousness. We just call some things free and some things determined depending on the kind of experiences we have of them. Though we feel compelled to act certain ways, it's impossible to escape the subjective feeling that we're making our own decisions. There is no experience of determination without our awareness of our lack of freedom in those moments. As Sartre says, we're condemned to be free.

Like the microscope analogy above, you can't have determinism without freedom. You couldn't be consciously aware that you were being compelled without the experience of not being compelled to compare it to. There is a continuum of freedom and determinism; a continuum of self and other; a continuum of mind and body. Some things are closer to one end of the spectrum or the other, and we like to polarize them and oppose them, but none of them are divided in nature. I think the feeling of freedom is inescapable because, as the subjective pole of experience, our self-awareness is located at that extreme end associated with absolute freedom. We're 'over here' in freedom, looking 'over there', at determined nature. The more subjective something is, the freer it is.

I think I see what you're saying about literature now. About knowing what's real and what isn't. I actually enjoyed _American Psycho_, fwiw.


----------



## bad baby

@truant Without the subjective experience of things being this way or full confidence/grounding in my logical reasoning, I have no basis for distinguishing between the multiple interpretations of reality wr/t to mind-body or other dualities.

It seems if I want to take a phenomenological approach in the Sartrian way, the theory should be based on my perceptions of the world. Otherwise I would have to assume some kind of a priori "truth" ancillary to any consciousness. Sartre seems to be doing neither, hence it feels very counterintuitive to me, with nothing really to combat that.

I can only say I can't reconcile with a view of non-differentiation, when I clearly feel sensations on/in my body but not on other things like the sky. Perhaps I could view nature as a whole being and localise the sensations to the "me" portion of it, but that's a conceptual distinction that wouldn't change the quality of my experience.

A continuum appears to me simply a duality that's been infinitely divided. The two poles become asymptotes, perhaps unattainable but nevertheless still there, even if only as conceptual possibilities. So I could still sample any two points from the spectrum and make a value comparison using my duality model. Although quite likely now things no longer seem so clear-cut to me. Boundary behaviour.

Sartre might be right to emphasis the individual consciousness. There's something called aphantasia, the inability to form mental imagery. I don't exactly have it, but my mental images are (I suspect) quite poor, and I tend to think in neither words nor images, unless there's a need for it (such as writing out my thoughts). Supposing you and most people think in one of these two modes, my conscious experience/awareness probably differs from others in certain ways, which might then impact any empirical "data" I can gather with it.


----------



## truant

@bad baby Well, the tools in your conceptual toolbox certainly matter. Many perspectives have to be achieved; you need to build certain kinds of mental tools that allow you to frame certain kinds of experiences in certain kinds of ways. Only then can you understand the object that you're looking at in the way that another person with the same set of tools sees it. That's what education is all about. A biologist doesn't look at the world the way the owner of a logging company does.

Most people tend to assume that we all have more or less the same sorts of experiences, because there are hard objects out there we can all stub our toes on, but there's actually a great deal of diversity in how people experience the world. The kind of tools we start developing as children determine where and how we focus our attention, and that results in the accumulation of different kinds of evidence. Some people see goodness in everyone; because they _look_ for it. And other people think everyone is rotten. Because they look for _that_. And that evidence is your "reality". But your reality could look very different from my reality. I built different tools, noticed different things, and accumulated different evidence.

This is where your native gifts/limitations come into play, such as aphantasia. My friend has aphantasia, and I have a very good visual imagination, so there's a definite gap in our experience. As far as the consciousness stuff goes, I wasn't talking about non-differentiated states (like a formless haze) or a priori truths; I was talking about directly experiencing what's there without dividing it into "me" and "not me". About something that's more like those magic eye pictures. Most people can only see the world from the perspective of an isolated ego divided from the world; but some people, by looking at the image long enough, see through the illusion. They see that they've drawn that boundary themselves.

I can be aware of the sensation in my arm, and of my ability to move my arm, and how that differs from my sensation of the sky, and my lack of ability to control the movement of the clouds, without saying that part of that (my arm) is "me" and part of that (the sky) isn't. My perception of the sky IS me; as much me as my perception of my arm. It's _my_ perception. The point is that, we don't have to stop at our bodies and thoughts and emotions because that's where we've learned to draw the line. We can experience our entire consciousness, which can include the entire sky and its millions of stars, as "me" because it is originally, prior to the dividing action of thought, all part of the same, single, seamless phenomenal consciousness.

When that happens, you no longer think of yourself in the way that you normally do. You're no longer the personal ego. What you used to think of as "you" becomes an object of consciousness that you observe in an impersonal way. You're still acting in the world but you're no longer identified with the actor. You're identified with the whole thing; the entire field of your consciousness. So "you are the world". You are everybody that you meet, even though, like the sky, you have no control over their behavior. They are still part of your consciousness. And from this perspective, because other people are as much "you" as the old you was, things like violence and conflict make little sense. Which is why you usually see a correlation between expanded states of consciousness and kindness, compassion, love, etc. When everything is "you", there's nothing to be afraid of.

Anyway, that's how I understand it intellectually. I'm not an enlightened sage, obv. But I did study this stuff, on and off, for several years. Ftr, I loved _Being and Nothingness_.


----------



## bad baby

@truant Sartre seems to be saying that there exists some undifferentiated thing he calls "Being", and our consciousness brings in the distinctions of objects, values, interpretations, etc. Since we cannot know anything beyond this consciousness (he argues that there is no existence prior to/without a consciousness there to perceive it), we should take it as the be-all end-all. (I have not read _Being and Nothingness_ so it's possible that I've misinterpreted things, or otherwise drawn from his older arguments that were later revised.)

It seems to me that a lot of philosophical history is the delineation between what's noumenal and phenomenal. Walter Benjamin has said that every movement is a reaction against the lack/oversight of the previous movement. I'm not well-studied in philosophy; I can draw an analogy from music history, which I know marginally more of. Solipsism is a reaction against Objectivism, the same way that Romanticism was a backlash against the structural rigidity of Classical, and so on. All the schools of philosophy nonetheless claim to derive their conclusions from rationality and logic. From the standpoint of an "absolute truth" they can't all be right. But then absolute truth is perhaps unknowable, or maybe it doesn't even exist. And anyway there are multiple logic systems.

It seems to me that what we know is a "quick-and-dirty" heuristic. Certainly one geared towards the cooperative survival of our societies rather than the pursuit of pure truth for its own sake. We have only to quiz the average person's grasp of statistics/probabilities (e.g. Wason selection task) to get a hint of the logical errors. Most people don't have the ability to "think clearly", there is a lot of haziness and trapholes to their critical thinking, but it's good enough for everyday functioning, and in any case we don't perceive it to be "unclear thinking", it's just the norm, the default. I suspect some mental illnesses stem from "hyperlogic" that flauts basic societal filters on thinking/behaviour. It's a hypothesis that many people might not want to look into or accept, and for good reason.

Our education, arithmetic and science etc., are built on systems (derived from a system that wasn't universal in the first place) that are fundamentally unprovable (Gödel: a formal system cannot prove its own consistency). But we learn to assume definitive faith in such systems, in order to learn the necessary knowledge: e.g., that 2+2=4, 2+2≠5, and the answer can't be both 4 and 5 at the same time; or that a dog is a mammal and not a vegetable. The law of excluded middle (something is either A or not A) is a "hard" form that has been challenged with alternatives in more recent development in mathematics - e.g., that something is either provable as A, or unprovable although we suspect it to be "not A".

In that sense, to me at least, our boundaries between "ourselves" and "other objects", and our boundaries between "oneness with everything" and "the true nature of things" (absolute/'objective' truth), seem equally real or unreal to me - in terms of provability. Accepting Sartre's theories is a leap of faith, though he attempts to move the reader through rationality. So too, accepting the hard facts of Physics is a leap of faith; at the very limits of our understanding of the subject, we don't know what quarks and gluons and antimatter and dark matter are, we have to take somebody's word for it. This isn't an attempt to wipe out the significance of discoveries, but merely that in an overall perspective, there is a kind of a knowledge gap.

Solipsism is not so ridiculous in view of the "either A (mind) or unprovable as A" framework. Even in the sense of "only mind; nothing else exists", it's an entirely different proposition when we re-evaluate what we mean by "exist". We tend to conceptualise existence as a static, either something is there or it's not. This question was put forth in a philosophy class: if we replace the parts of a chair one by one (leg x 4, seat, backpost, etc.) until it's completely changed, at what point does the old chair become the new chair? Is there even such a turning point, or are they still "essentially" the same chair?

The Madhyamaka Buddhist scriptures posit that our perceptions of "existence" are faulty; everything is empty, but we cannot see that because our conception of "emptiness" is also faulty by default (since we only understand it in terms of the opposite of existence). The original chair was never a static "thing" even though we perceive it as such. Oneness/erasure of the self-other boundary is perhaps also just a linguistic convention to acknowledge the subjective experience of "emptiness" as default. I expect I'll have more to add to this thread as I make my way through the text; it's certainly a fascinating discussion from all aspects, ontological, cognitive, mereological, linguistic.


----------



## truant

Sorry, I haven't had time to respond to this. And I'm only going to respond to a part of it:



bad baby said:


> Solipsism is not so ridiculous in view of the "either A (mind) or unprovable as A" framework. Even in the sense of "only mind; nothing else exists", it's an entirely different proposition when we re-evaluate what we mean by "exist". We tend to conceptualise existence as a static, either something is there or it's not. This question was put forth in a philosophy class: if we replace the parts of a chair one by one (leg x 4, seat, backpost, etc.) until it's completely changed, at what point does the old chair become the new chair? Is there even such a turning point, or are they still "essentially" the same chair?


"New chair" and "old chair" are the ideal, absolute poles on the spectrum "this chair". When the old chair becomes the new chair is whenever we decide it does; which all depends on the criteria we use. Existence and non-existence is also a spectrum, not an either/or: the chair I just stubbed my toe on certainly exists; if it didn't, I couldn't have stubbed my toe on it. But what about my memory of the chair? What about the idea I have for a new kind of chair? What about the chair in my dream? Or the chair in a painting? Or a hallucinated chair? Or a chair mimed by an actor? What about the abstract concept of a chair? Do these chairs "exist"? They must, or we couldn't talk about them. But you can't stub your toe on any of those chairs. (Except in imagination, of course. And then you have a partially existent toe stubbing, as well.)

Imo, "only mind; nothing else exists" is logically equivalent to: "there is only top; there is no bottom", or "there is only left; there is no right"; ie. it is logically meaningless. Imo, solipsism is logically meaningless. So is "there is only matter; mind doesn't exist" (materialism). They both make the same logical error, but in a different direction.

The fact is, our existence is prior to our conceptions about that existence. Our existence is there, regardless of how we categorize it and classify it. The mind/matter "problem" is only a problem when we forget that we have made that division ourselves, through our thinking about our experience. There is no real problem involved in the "relationship" between my desire to move my arm and the act of moving my arm; the fact is that this desire to move my arm and the movement are a single, unitary experience. It's only when we look at it from a divided perspective that we wonder how "mind" can 'influence' "matter". Mind influences matter because we have taken what is a unitary phenomenon and divided it in half: into mind and matter. The border of France perfectly matches the border of Germany because that's where we have drawn the border.

There is no mystery here. There is no mystery in the relationship between mind and matter because everything is both mind and matter simultaneously. Some parts of our experience are more 'mindish' or 'matterish' because we have classified mind and matter in particular ways. The intention to move my arm is the 'mindish' part of the movement of my arm, and the contraction of my arm muscles is the 'matterish' part, but they are never separated because they have never been separate things. They only appear to be separate things when we divide our experience into parts. (Which we tend to do when there are 'problems'; like during sleep paralysis, for example.) We only wonder how the "ghost in the machine" moves our body around in meatspace when we forget that we are the ones who have divided the ghost from the machine. It's equivalent to asking how the top of a ball moves the bottom around, or how the eastern hemisphere pulls the western hemisphere after it during the earth's rotation.

So, there isn't a _philosophical_ problem to solve, imo, even though the relationship between the external environment, sensory neurons, brain, and motor neurons is an interesting _technical_ puzzle. Science is about creating a more and more accurate model of how things work. If we can't understand it, the problem is with our models, not with reality. The problem isn't "out there" in the world ("How does mind influence matter?"), but "in here", in the model we've created of it ("What's wrong with our model?"). Just my opinion, obv.


----------



## bad baby

@truant I see what you mean. And yes, I would agree with your conception of the mind-body problem. I seem to recall being bothered by it once upon a time, when I was trying to understand this whole business of consciousness, but somehow I don't really 'feel' it as something needing explanation anymore. I'm not sure what changed. I guess when I posed the question to you, it was more in light of our existence or relation to the world, like the transcendental oneness that you described.

I do see your point about chair (and to a lesser extent existence) being a spectrum. In terms of solipsism, I was thinking more along the lines of an "illusion of coherence and permanence", if you will. Like how, for instance, in our body cells die off and regenerate every so often, such that after a fixed amount of time I am composed of 100% a different collection of cells. But I still experience myself as the same person physically. Like how a rapid series of still images can trick our mind into seeing it as a moving video. Materially there is no continuity, but our brain perceives it as a fluent sequence.

These types of examples make me wonder if our sensation of physicality (such as a solid chair which causes me pain when I stub my toe) could be another "illusion" of a similar nature. You are right of course that existence preceded any conceptions of it, but the chair might not be _a_ "thing", but rather a bunch of our mental superimpositions of some non-unified existence that may be "by itself" wildly different from what we perceive it to be (i.e. what we call a "chair").

I have a feeling this might relate to hallucinations somehow, but I am unable to articulate it at the moment.


----------



## bad baby

Apparently Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy is still alive and flourishing in certain pockets around the world even today, disguised as liberal arts institutions known as Waldorf Schools. There were some bizarro cultish aspects to his teachings - which may or may not have been passed on in these schools - encompassing views on humanity and the natural sciences that had major influences on both the Völkisch movement (precursor to Nazism) and organic/chemical-free farming (i.e. new-age hippiedom).

So when the Nazis said "blood and soil" they actually meant _soil_ more in the sense of pesticide-free topsoil rather than the fatherland, lol.

Steiner was a student of one Madame Blavatsky, founder of a "religion" known as theosophy, who had some strongly anti-Christian and anti-Semitic views, but was instrumental in disseminating Oriental (esp. ancient Indian) philosophy/spirituality in the West since the turn of the 20th century.

Anyway, someone had recommended Steiner's book _How to Know Higher Worlds_ in connection with understanding psychosis and shamanism. I read the first chapter a while back, and it has some vague but firm criteria about being ripe for the initiation, sort of like "you don't talk about Fight Club"-type rules. I didn't think I was ready so I ditched. Now I wonder how much of an enlightened being Steiner really was, given his ridiculous ideas on nearly everything.

But it's interesting nonetheless how much they have shaped the history and culture of the 20th c overall.


----------



## Blue Dino

Rubbing a small dab of shaving cream onto glasses can help prevent its lenses from fogging up.


----------



## sprinter

At the quantum scale there is no reality independent of the choice of measurement.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

I don't get why Camille Paglia and Jordan Peterson seem to think the female sex don't have identity crisis? (I say the female sex because I'm not sure they factor in deviations and reduce a lot to 'has womb' I suppose Paglia does since she mentions certain groups):



> She argues that there is a biological basis to the Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy, writing: "The quarrel between Apollo and Dionysus is the quarrel between the higher cortex and the older limbic and reptilian brains".[10] Moreover, Paglia attributes all the progress of human civilization to masculinity revolting against the Chthonic forces of nature, and turning instead to the Apollonian trait of ordered creation. The Dionysian is a force of chaos and destruction, which is the overpowering and alluring chaotic state of wild nature. Rejection of - or combat with - Chthonianism by socially constructed Apollonian virtues accounts for the historical dominance of men *(including asexual and homosexual men; and childless and/or lesbian-leaning women)* in science, literature, arts, technology and politics. As an example, Paglia states: "The male orientation of classical Athens was inseparable from its genius. Athens became great not despite but because of its misogyny".[11]


And I know Camille Paglia kind of identifies as transgender now (despite her position on various things...) but like. This idea that women are somehow just content with life because they have the capacity to create life and don't have some major issues with reality and trying to find an identity/meaning seems wrong to me.

Also reminds me of this quote from a trans woman:



> In the year before her death, Elbe had divorced Gerda, given up painting and was embarking tentatively on a relationship with a French art dealer. "It is not with my brain, not with my eyes, not with my hands that I want to be creative, but with my heart and with my blood," She wrote. "The fervent longing in my woman's life is to become the mother of a child."


I don't want to say it's because I'm trans or whatever my sexuality is that I don't relate (which is clearly what Paglia does, that and making exceptions for lesbians.)



Camille Paglia said:


> Most women I know are perfectly content to live. They see reality for what it is. They're perfectly content to live in reality and the moment they menstruate they know they're women.


I know Peterson has said something similar about women knowing who they are and not searching for meaning etc, but I'm too lazy to dig up a quote/video right now.

I know I've posted this **** before too but it's honestly the most annoying part of their work. I feel like Paglia is mostly motivated by a urge to differentiate herself from women. And I know why, but it's so.....

This popped into my head and I forgot there's actually a mention of her in the quote HAHAHA. Cannot get away from her.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...D7cQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false



> To become more androgynous is not necessarily to become a transvestite priest of the Great Goddess; androgyny need not be the abject submission to the chthonian so brilliantly described by Camille Paglia in her recent book. It is rather a matter of precarious balance, a surfacing of what was once submerged, *a conscious attempt to place masculinity and femininity into a dialectic rather than a hierarchic dualism.*
> 
> Every man who is able will find his own way to integrate the feminine; others will remain polarized. ... But to the man who fears that he will be feminized the drive toward androgyny appears as a terrifying embodiment of a female Other because he cannot accept her for what she is - the deepest part of his own soul or *anime*.


anima but the typo is hilarious so keeping it.


----------



## truant

Persephone The Dread said:


> I don't get why Camille Paglia and Jordan Peterson seem to think the female sex don't have identity crisis


I think they're both wrong. And most feminists would agree. A lot of 2nd wave feminism was about identity crisis (_The Feminine Mystique_, _The Bell Jar_). But with the way traits are associated in our culture, the way it manifests in men and women is different.

If most positive traits are associated with masculinity (ambition, success, wealth, power, intelligence, courage, etc.) and most negative traits are associated with femininity (apathy, failure, poverty, powerlessness, stupidity, cowardice, etc.) then two things follow:

1. It is very hard for a male (or anyone else) to be a man; ie. a person with many of the traits associated with masculinity. It's extremely hard to be successful, rich, powerful, intelligent, courageous, etc. So a man must constantly struggle to achieve manhood, and his identity is constantly at risk ("fragile male ego"). On the other hand, not only is he not prevented from pursuing greatness, everything is pushing him toward it. Everyone wants him to be great, because all of those traits are positive traits and therefore good for family and culture. He can strive to his heart's content and no one will stop him.

2. A female (or anyone else) can basically do nothing and still be considered a woman (or a 'not man'); ie. a person with many of the traits associated with femininity. It's easy to be a failure, poor, powerless, stupid, and fearful. Just don't do anything. The problem for women is that conforming to femininity means conforming to an existence which is unsatisfying, if not harmful. Most people instinctively want to improve their situation and be more successful. But if you're a woman, every move you make to improve the quality of your life (aside from nabbing a rich husband) makes you more and more "masculine", and the more masculine you are, the more people try to put you in your place. So the identity crisis comes from trying to escape the condition of womanhood. ("Should I choose a career or be a mother?")

To me, it's understandable why so many trans women used to do a 180 to stereotypical femininity: after a lifetime of failing to live up to the ideals of manhood, it's tempting to chuck it all away, throw up your hands, and say, "Well, I'm just a silly girl, so don't expect anything from me!" It's precisely people like that who feel comfortable identifying as women.

Personally, I think Paglia is descending to gender mysticism. She's conflating the way traits have been associated in our culture with masculinity itself. There's no _inherent_ reason for any of those traits to be associated with men; they simply are associated with men because men managed to dominate women historically and framed everything that was "good" as manly. They were in a position to dominate women because women spent so much time pregnant and nursing.

Peterson is just a superficial thinker, imo, and I think they're both confusing how easy it is to have your womanhood recognized with identity integrity, and they're obviously not the same thing (eg. trans people). (Honestly, that's just embarrassing for a professor of psychology.) Jung's animus/anima thinking was fine for it's time, but it's still just gender mysticism. There is no "feminine" side; there are simply those traits which you try to conceal or repress because they're considered feminine traits culturally and expressing them would put your identity at risk. If you want to dress up a collection of traits as a "feminine essence" or anima you can, but I think "masculine/feminine soul/energy/spirit" stuff is all arrant superstition on about the same level as astrology.

Just my personal opinion, obv.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

@truant

tbf most women don't identify with or relate to feminism, and I suppose feminists wouldn't disprove some of what she's said (at least older feminists - it's become more of a pop culture sensation/cash grab in the last decade,) since many of them are/were 'childless and lesbian-leaning.'

But yeah they've kind of connected bio-essentialism with mysticism.

I think symbolically the 'feminine' side is portrayed as just as powerful if not more so than the 'masculine' side. And the 'feminine' side (which is usually dark femininity,) isn't really a feminine side, it's mostly a male projection because it represents male fears (though of course certain kinds of women relate to that too.) It's also not easy to map one or the other onto either side's stereotypes because of the diversity of gendered characters and traits on both sides, but nevertheless many people have tried. Obviously the placement of a lot of traits symbolically and otherwise makes no sense though. And what they're drawing from is all very European. For example some of the symbolism that is demonised in Europe is not in Asia. Jordan Peterson was actually asked about that on his YT channel (I think well it was some clip I found where he answers questions from people maybe from his patreon I don't know the original source):






I do think most people view gender hierarchically though, and that some things are devalued culturally and not objectively better/worse. I don't see masculinity as being more positive either personally there are some positive traits and a lot of negative ones. But I also don't really view various traits as being feminine just because they're not masculine because I think something can be not masculine or feminine and that's where I put being a failure but that's just how I personally view stuff.

There's also - and this is actually highlighted by Jordan Peterson - a complete devaluation in the role of a male parent. Like he makes it out that women's role in life is to be a mother and men's role is just to figure it out lol.... But he doesn't bring up parenting which is interesting.

I think when I think of masculine/feminine I tend to think of what's more common statistically as well. Also factoring in my age group which I'm more exposed to and stereotypes about it, and where I live so being unemployed/a failure is more common for men, being homeless, being a NEET I think is about equal now (used to be more women,) although you would think it was male based on stereotypes, being a hikikomori in Japan, being into geeky stuff, being uneducated (less likely to go to uni,) being a CEO (and you know all the classic male stereotypes.) It's a really mixed bag. Some of this is where the idea that women are automatically fine comes from I imagine.

I mean even my little pony has an overabundance of adult male fans now.. But of course it's still coded as feminine yet if I think about MLP I think 'brony' I mean I don't know any kids now do they like MLP probably but are kids an illusion? Probably


----------



## truant

@Persephone The Dread

Everyone is going to have a different schema for "man" and "woman", and therefore different ideas of what counts as "masculine" and "feminine". That's based on their sex-role socialization ("Do as I say,"), their observations of others ("not as I do,") their exposure to mass media, and their exposure to scientific data (if they're into that sort of thing). This is obviously going to vary by culture, which is why you get different symbolism for things like dragons. I'm not trying to map traits to one stereotype or the other, just trying to determine where other people in this culture have mapped them. I don't believe that any trait is inherently masculine or feminine, because I think these are empty categories we stuff with meaning. If you believe that a particular trait is somehow inherently linked to XY or XX chromosomes, though, it's going to affect how you perceive people and the kind of conclusions you draw.

The association between masculinity and "success" isn't obvious and most people aren't going to consciously make it. But it runs all through culture. A successful man is more of a man than an unsuccessful man. That's partly how male hierarchies are established. It's why we have expressions like "self-made man". It's why most romance is written about successful men instead of unsuccessful men. It's why many men are threatened by successful women. And it's partly why women tend to date up and men to date down (hypergamy). We expect many women to be gold diggers, and even think of it as a feminine trait, but a male gold digger is in many ways an absurd, unmanly man. But it's obviously not like facial hair, where the association is obvious and automatic. The association: masculine, subject :: feminine, object isn't obvious either, but it's there. To turn a man into an object is to feminize him, which accounts, in part, for the awkwardness we feel about things like male strippers; it's "unmanly" to reduce oneself to an object like that, even if your robustly masculine physique conceals this feminization. No one feels the same kind of awkwardness about objectifying women because we already tend to think of women as objects and being "arm candy" or "decoration" as one of their roles ("just stand there and look pretty").

The "feminine side" is portrayed as "just as powerful" because they're oppositional: if "order" is "masculine", then "chaos" is automatically "feminine" (Pandora, Eve), and abstract, cosmic traits like these are of equal magnitude (good and evil, light and darkness). But at the level of mundane human traits, there are a greater number of associations between culturally valued (ie. positive) traits and masculinity than there are between culturally valued traits and femininity; and most of the culturally valued feminine traits are other-directed: mercy, compassion, kindness, nurturance, cooperation, pacifism are all feminine traits; they're valued culturally, but they're also all about giving one's time and energy to others instead of building businesses and empires. The particular way that these traits are associated channels men toward creative enterprise and women toward supporting roles; and as all the fame and glory comes from creative enterprise there is a strong association between masculinity and empire-building, even though women have put just as much time and effort into building those empires. Hence gender hierarchy at the level of culture but not at the level of symbolism. The feminine is always a threat to culture because it's everything that people fear; and they fear these things because they're negative traits: dissipation, sensuality, impulsiveness, corruption -- chaos. When people talk about how "there would be no culture without men" they're just essentializing and mystifying their own cognitive processes. If there were no men, we would simply have masculine women and feminine women, and we'd be talking about how "there would be no culture without masculine women".

The bifurcating nature of binary thinking is what produces "tops and bottoms" and "butch and femme". If you took all the butch women and put them on an island, they'd just divide themselves into "butch butch" and "femme butch". And so on. (Which is not to say their behavior would change, only how they saw each other.) Which is why, imo, the idea of getting rid of gender is basically impossible. Even if you managed to "eliminate stereotypical behavior" in this culture, you would only produce a culture in which people make finer distinctions (like Inuit and snow). In that culture, people who were moderately feminine or masculine in our culture would become the new hyperfeminine or masculine and you'd still have people saying "we need to eliminate stereotypical behavior", and so on, ad infinitum. Just like, if you got rid of all the really tall and really short people, who counts as really tall or really short would change and we'd still have heightism and people would still be talking the same way about tall and short people the way they do now. In a world where everyone is 6' tall, someone 5'8" is a freak.

This is why you have to be able to separate the brain's binary, polarizing nature from the specific traits or people that you're studying. It's not enough to look at statistics because people's brains don't operate on statistics alone. My schema for "women" or "men" is based not only on my socialization, observation, media exposure, and scientific literacy; it is also based on my tendency to see people with more of a given trait to be _more_ feminine or masculine than people with less of that trait. That's just how the brain works. I expect a big rock to be heavier than a little rock, a big animal to be stronger than a small animal, a big drop to be more dangerous than a small drop. I don't have time to test everything to see if my expectations are true (and sometimes they won't be) but I couldn't survive without my brain's ability to make these kinds of predictions and the world would make no sense without them.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

@truant

I think if you removed men, then because there are more feminine women than there are masculine women masculine women would be demonised for their traits and feminine traits would be higher status like the baboon group where they all became less masculinised because all the alpha monkeys died off after eating some meat. When new monkeys came along they'd be really aggressive and masculine but then they got socialised into the general behaviour of the group after 6 months or so.






I think some people think that certain traits are eternal and that there's always a balance of these traits kind of like 'there must always be a lich king'* like if men in theory become less masculine women will just take over with all the same traits. I don't buy it if the traits _truly _ disappear (like the above.) Separately you can also see in certain subcultures that people compete over traits that are not considered positive in mainstream society because they've changed what they see as positive or negative (hence all the discussion of degenerates and cultural degeneration.) So it's also possible for what's seen as a positive/negative trait to change as well.

I have been accused before (spoken about this before though) a few years ago by some guy online (along with some other similar people responding to him) of being essentially a replacement for 'useless omega males' even though I am a complete failure he pretty much portrayed me and people similar to me as successful villain misandrists trying to overthrow men and replace them with ourselves and sexually sadistic abusers who predate on effeminate men because we believe masculine men have wronged us and so on bunch of stuff about penetration and Rome. It comes from a similar place I'm sure to the claims that feminine men compete through feminists/certain groups of women etc. Which people who follow Jordan Peterson claim and I don't think Jordan Peterson has put it in exactly those terms but he gets very close to doing so. You know in that one video.

I'm not doing anything significant or dating anyone, but sure I can larp that. I have nothing better to do and men of his type do disgust me. (Also he likes trans women but only straight + passing ones and mostly Asians, very misogynistic, often ranting about autogynephilic people.) But why would I have ever framed myself in such limited terms if not for the existence of *******s like him? I certainly didn't pre-the last ****ty few years. He (and others,) need to exist for me to be a similar kind of villain. Like Joker largely makes no sense without Batman.

But even if things change materially (like with the baboon tribe say,) people might remain hypersensitive to signs of differentiation and come up with new lines, it's true. Humans can compete and argue over almost anything. I think certain cultures are worse for this than others though depends on how much trust exists in a group (very little in Western culture.) Also probably somewhat the degree of homogeneity and how much alienation exists.

But yeah I brought that mythological thing up because Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia are often talking about chaos and order in myth and then using it as evidence somehow for various things. Also it's all so subjective you can read anything into it depending on your own personal temperament, culture etc. Like you can view everything through different lenses. He likes Sleeping Beauty a lot I can think of several very different ways to interpret it.

*off topic WoW spoiler ****

* *




(well lol Sylvanas the stupidly over powered did have other ideas. I'm mostly still pissed she burned down Teldrassil and the writers keep claiming these figures are supposed to be morally grey but oh no actually evil, but now I find myself identifying with the analogy here I guess I'm only annoyed that she's represented as too powerful to be believable instead. This would fit really well with that Florence and the machine song 'I don't want your crown, I've come to burn your kingdom down' tbh I think they just created this story because after so many people were annoyed about Teldrassil they were like 'well we can't have the Horde seeming evil the two factions have to be balanced (even though everyone always lowkey believed that,) so let's just sever Sylvanas from the Horde.') Also obviously I'm more aligned with the horde :') but I do like the night elves.



> So let me get this straight. You are telling me that when I raid Icecrown with my raid of 40 people, we have a slim chance of getting to the final boss BUT Sylvanas just walks up without fighting/aggroing any mobs and wrecks the lich king ALONE. Not to mention she gets the rarest drop and has the audacity to disenchant it


Personally when I was playing I wanted Vol'jin to be warchief and he was later, but you just can't keep warchiefs it's like the defence against the dark arts position.


----------



## truant

@Persephone The Dread

Well, sure, the culture could change. Every culture is different. But those masculine women would still be considered _masculine_ relative to other women. Maybe they would become lower status and the culture would associate "success" with femininity, because all the most successful people in that culture (however they define it) have valued feminine traits. My point was simply that, even if you eliminated every man on the planet, you would not eliminate masculinity, because masculinity and femininity are the outcome of comparison; they don't exist in particular traits or chromosomes, but in the contrast between the extreme ends of every trait.

If you make every man act more feminine than he currently acts, as many are apparently trying to do, you may change the frequency or magnitude of certain traits but you won't fundamentally alter the number of people who are perceived as masculine or how much masculinity you feel there is in the world; if you hate masculinity, you will just demand more and more feminine behavior. If you hate femininity, because you think it's "artificial", and you try to get women to stop being feminine, you will simply demand more and more masculine behavior of them. Nothing will ever be good enough.

Masculinity and femininity always exist by contrast and they're not going to disappear until human brains lose the ability to distinguish one thing from another. There is no world in which there is more masculinity than femininity, or vice versa, just as there is no world where there is more left than right. That doesn't mean that some cultures aren't more masculine or feminine _relative_ to ours, or that our future culture may not be more masculine or feminine than our is, but that itself is an observation we can only make through comparison and contrast.

All of this is just to say that I think trying to pin masculinity or femininity to biological traits, and the idea of "smashing the gender binary" (or that, if everyone stopped conforming to stereotypes they'd suddenly become more "androgynous"), is a misunderstanding of how gender works. This is not something we find in nature, but something we impose on nature through comparison. We may (if we're lucky) get to a point where we stop enforcing gender _norms_, and gender expression may finally be truly free, but we will never be beyond gender itself. Just like we will never be beyond length, width, or height.

I'm making a big deal out of this because _this_ is the difference between sex and gender. We can define males and females in terms of chromosomes, gametes, genitals, hormone profiles, and secondary sex characteristics; we can look at all of that under a microscope. We know that there are two (and only two) reproductive roles in humans (and most other higher organisms). But _gender_ isn't a product of biology; it's a product of _comparison_. It is entirely psychological, a product of the way the mind interprets, categorizes, classifies, compares, and contrasts individual human organisms. And it is precisely for _this_ reason that a person's gender can be at odds with their sex and why trans and nonbinary people exist. It is only necessary to be psychologically identified (through isomorphism) with so many culturally masculine or feminine traits for a person to experience themselves as a man or a woman or something in between.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

@truant

I dunno it seems impossible to say. Right now masculinity and femininity are quite balanced since it's easy to group most people into one or the other overall, and the sex ratio is fairly equal and most people aren't physically androgynous and reproduction is still divided into two. So it's easy to focus on that and compare but in a world where there's less contrast in this area people might focus instead on other traits or wouldn't divide things into two. Like the idea of masculinity and femininity comes from there being clusters of traits associated with each sex if that stopped being the case for some reason, then I'm not sure people would continue to lump traits in that way. They would stop seeing people as opposites or they would have other outgroups like you have political in/outgroups now so you'd still have that, and other groups.

However I think it's unlikely to change because most people are happy. Ideas like xenofeminism and postgenderism are considered bad by most people including most trans people. They are appealing only to people like me who cannot exist happily in this world.

edit: but I don't think you can remove gender associations entirely without removing sex differences, probably anyway. I mean based on observation from global culture, and people's comments online among other things, I think it's easier to break down the association between sex and femininity than sex and masculinity. And there are obvious exceptions to this but... The sex role thing isn't symmetrical. edit: just realised this probably doesn't make sense but when I say sex role I mean in a sexual context. Like reproductive/sexual position (even without the capacity to have kids.) Uh the same reason that in porn trans women are portrayed as switches basically, cis women with strap ons essentially take on that role too and trans men are always bottoms. It results in a very weird gendered situation. This is a generalisation but that's what I've come across. I assume there's probably a minority of lesbian/bi/het female porn (because porn made for/by lesbians is less common, or women generally) where there's a butch lesbian/trans man crossover appeal where they're a top in that but since most ftm porn is aimed at gay men who want to top or bi/straight men who have certain sexual interests, it's literally more feminine. It's amazing but it seems to be the case. It's one of the more interesting paradoxes of gender but of course is really about sex.



> If you make every man act more feminine than he currently acts, as many are apparently trying to do,


I mean I don't have any power to do this. I have to ****post about something before someone breaks in through my window and shoots me to death. Which I don't think there's a statistically high chance of happening.

Maybe in a few years I'll become a normie lesbian (like that whole compulsory hetero masterdoc likes to suggest,) and it will be fine because it doesn't **** with heteronormativity (that's not the right word but whatever it doesn't **** with gender roles I mean,) at all.



> Only/mostly being into guys who are gender nonconforming or feminine in some way.
> 
> ...
> 
> You prefer/are exclusively attracted to "feminine" men, (i.e. men that wear traditionally feminine clothing, have traditionally feminine behaviors or appearances, and like traditionally feminine things) basically you only like men if they're "womanly" enough.
> 
> You're repulsed by the dynamics of most/all real life m/f relationships you've seen and/or regularly feeling like "maybe it works for them but I never want my relationship to be like that".
> 
> You think "i'm not attracted to physical appearance, only personalities" or "i only like feminine men" or you find ways to make yourself aroused by men by imagining them in all kinds of unusual scenarios until you hit one that appeals to you
> 
> Your fantasies about men still somehow turn out to be a little gay. Maybe you're penetrating him, you don't have to look at his face/don't want to look at his face, you want a threesome with another woman, he's very feminine, etc. It might be a "straight fantasy" but you've altered it in a way straight people might not be totally interested in.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6qGAzzibnRJFin_c8U2OBm0588M-V0NmfobQnRii44/edit#


----------



## Milco

I think the whole world would be better off if we ignore Jordan Peterson.
(Yep, including the penguins in Antarctica - especially them!)


----------



## Persephone The Dread

Persephone The Dread said:


> @truant
> 
> I think if you removed men, then because there are more feminine women than there are masculine women masculine women would be demonised for their traits and feminine traits would be higher status like the baboon group where they all became less masculinised because all the alpha monkeys died off after eating some meat. When new monkeys came along they'd be really aggressive and masculine but then they got socialised into the general behaviour of the group after 6 months or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think some people think that certain traits are eternal and that there's always a balance of these traits kind of like 'there must always be a lich king'* like if men in theory become less masculine women will just take over with all the same traits.* I don't buy it if the traits _truly _ disappear (like the above.) Separately you can also see in certain subcultures that people compete over traits that are not considered positive in mainstream society because they've changed what they see as positive or negative (hence all the discussion of degenerates and cultural degeneration.) So it's also possible for what's seen as a positive/negative trait to change as well.


OK so I was watching a YouTube video by a right wing Swedish guy who uploads videos about masculinity and this is a perfect example of the viewpoint I'm talking about that was in the comment section of one of his videos:



> Women are now competing with men instead of partnering with them.
> 
> 
> 
> You people don't understand.
> When there is very very little masculinity, women mentally and biochemically adapt by becoming masculine to ensure their own survival(biology).
> Women are not masculine because they want to be, they are BECAUSE THERES NOT ENOUGH MASCULINE MEN.
> 
> A woman can only be feminine if a man is so masculine that he draws out that femininity in her and makes her truly feel like a precious woman.
> Very rare today.
> 
> Blaming women for today's issues is like Adam blaming Eve in the garden of eden.
> 
> You're all repeating the same ancient human mistake. Stop. Let's move on and actually fix things as men do...
> 
> What men must do is become more masculine, become better, improve our lives.
> 
> Set an example for men to follow, and for women to be so inspired that you draw out their femininity and make them feel like a woman again. This is the answer. Stop blaming women, men, government, and look deep in you. Even if the problem was an outside source, it would not affect us if we were all manly ANYWAY.
Click to expand...

It's almost mystical.

Also uke at the last paragraph. Why don't you just focus on the feminine women (I mean you can find a bunch of them simping in the comments section lol, not in short supply) and **** off.

sorry this is really more political than philosophical at this point and I'll try not to clog this thread like others but it was just the perfect example of what I was talking about in this post and of course I've stumbled upon many posts like this over the last few years.


----------



## mt moyt

.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

Emil Cioran:



> The obsession with suicide is characteristic of the man who can neither live nor die, and whose attention never swerves from this double impossibility.





> Every thought derives from a thwarted sensation.





> We derive our vitality from our store of madness.





> I am displeased with everything. If they made me God, I would immediately resign.


----------



## Barakiel

Persephone The Dread said:


> Emil Cioran:


I skimmed his wikipedia article a long time ago and what I found most memorable was him saying something along the lines of Bach being proof that the universe wasn't a complete mistake after all, it's nice that he was able to find a little bit of optimism in music.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

Barakiel said:


> I skimmed his wikipedia article a long time ago and what I found most memorable was him saying something along the lines of Bach being proof that the universe wasn't a complete mistake after all, it's nice that he was able to find a little bit of optimism in music.


Reminds me of this:






The title is apparently from a film called The Lives of Others:

'Do you know what Lenin said about Beethoven's Appassionata? "If I keep on listening to this I won't be able to finish the revolution." Can anyone who heard this music - who really heard it - be a bad man?'


----------



## uziq

There are fungi that parasitize other fungi


----------



## Blue Dino

The original 7up contains an chemical used for bipolar disorder treatment.


----------



## Barakiel

This is a delightful name for an academic book.


----------



## Barakiel

Being a proper philosopher means immersing yourself in works you find annoying, irritating, or even disgusting -










Not that I haven't tried, but I certainly didn't last as long as Aron Gurwitsch did here (sticking with this book for months apparently?) and I'm more like a religious seeker as far as my choice of reading goes tbh.


----------



## Barakiel

Persephone The Dread said:


> Emil Cioran:


I found a more positive version of the idea expressed in the first quote I think -

"Suicidal feelings are not the same as giving up on life. Suicidal feelings often express a powerful and overwhelming need for a different life. Suicidal feelings can mean, in a desperate and unyielding way, a demand for something new. Listen to someone who is suicidal and you often hear a need for change so important, so indispensable, that they would rather die than go on living without the change. And when the person feels powerless to make that change happen, they become suicidal. Help comes when the person identifies the change they want and starts to believe it can actually happen. Whether it is overcoming an impossible family situation, making a career or study change, standing up to an oppressor, gaining relief from chronic physical pain, igniting creative inspiration, feeling less alone, or beginning to value their self worth, at the root of suicidal feelings is often powerlessness to change your life - not giving up on life itself."
- Will Hall


----------



## crimeclub

since the universe expands much faster than the speed of light we can use a telescope and literally look into the past and view a time so long ago that earth wasn't even in existence as a planet...while we stand on earth. pretty cool.


----------



## Fever Dream

I keep hearing about how close we are to practical nuclear fusion power. I'd really to see it in my life time.


----------



## Barakiel

Not in the details, but I do relate to existential anxiety over philosophical issues like this but sometimes being fortunate enough to come across something that delivers me ataraxia -


----------



## Barakiel

^ if things like this get to be a bit too much, there are much more bearable ideas in philosophy too.


----------



## movingbee

Blue Dino said:


> The original 7up contains an chemical used for bipolar disorder treatment.


:O:O:O I did not know this :roll Is the 1st batch of 7up a medical experimentation?


----------



## Blue Dino

A whale can shoot up to 5 gallons of semen in a single ejaculation.


----------



## Fun Spirit

Blue Dino said:


> A whale can shoot up to 5 gallons of semen in a single ejaculation.


I didn't need to know that. :teeth

Sent from The Secret Sevice using Obama's Tapatalk


----------



## john.myles

99.9999999% of our bodies is _empty space._ It's the same with all matter.


----------



## Fever Dream




----------



## john.myles

In 240 B.C., Eratosthenes accurately calculated the Earths circumference to be around 40 to 45 thousand kilometres. And it is in fact around 40,000 km's.


----------



## mt moyt

Parrots can live for up to 100 years. apparently because of the way their cells handle oxidative stress. always thought it was interesting to see some parrots older than i am, usually small animals don't live for so long. Bats also have relatively long lives. i wouldve thought 4 years but its closer to 20. 

and I learned today Greenland sharks can live up to 500 years. never would've guessed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WillYouStopDave

This is probably not the best video for this but it's one of the few I've actually watched so I'll put it here for those who are interested...






I think this might be the easiest thing for them to try and do because hey. If you're trying to get anywhere near the speed of light, it totally makes sense to use light. It seems a bit far-fetched that they'd even get this off the ground though. Especially considering it's going to be a really long time before it pays off. It would be cool as all get out to know we sent something to another star though.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

> In 1860, Charles Darwin wrote that "The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail makes me sick." How could such a cumbersome, seemingly pointless trait evolve? His eventual answer: The tail isn't a survival tool; it's a mating ornament, shaped by the peahen's mate preferences.


That seems like a strange reaction to have to it, and kind of reminds me of the way certain people talk about certain male expressions in Humans...

'disgusting' 'frivolous' 'narcissistic' (happens with female expressions too obviously but yeah.)

Oh I guess maybe it made him sick because it didn't fit his general theory about survival.


----------



## Myosr

This is off topic. Not sure if I should post here or in a different thread.

@Persephone The Dread


* *







> 'disgusting' 'frivolous' 'narcissistic'


too bad God appointed a peacock to manage the world

(timestamped):





^ I like taking myths seriously (for fun).

It's interesting looking up how people imagine Tawus Melek now (I doubt any of them are actual Yezidis). It's just interesting to see how artists anthropomorphize peacocks different from one another in terms of how masc/fem they are [artistic value aside]:





__





Google Drive: Sign-in


Access Google Drive with a Google account (for personal use) or Google Workspace account (for business use).



drive.google.com




^ These are all from a google image search.

I think peacocks represent different things to different people/cultures not necessarily related to gender expression.





---

all things considered though, male peacocks are kind of creepy during mating imo  . I'd rather them be a bit more coy lol:






I like how the peahen doesn't even care and pretends he doesn't exist.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

@Myosr

I like peacocks/peacock feathers because of the colours and they're sort of associated with Art Nouveau which is an art style I like too.

Apparently peahens don't actually like that now anyway lol:

Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains - ScienceDirect



> The elaborate train of male Indian peafowl, _Pavo cristatus_, is thought to have evolved in response to female mate choice and may be an indicator of good genes. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of the male train in mate choice using male- and female-centred observations in a feral population of Indian peafowl in Japan over 7 years. We found no evidence that peahens expressed any preference for peacocks with more elaborate trains (i.e. trains having more ocelli, a more symmetrical arrangement or a greater length), similar to other studies of galliforms showing that females disregard male plumage. Combined with previous results, our findings indicate that the peacock's train (1) is not the universal target of female choice, (2) shows small variance among males across populations and (3) based on current physiological knowledge, does not appear to reliably reflect the male condition. We also found that some behavioural characteristics of peacocks during displays were largely affected by female behaviours and were spuriously correlated with male mating success. Although the male train and its direct display towards females seem necessary for successful reproduction, we conclude that peahens in this population are likely to exercise active choice based on cues other than the peacock's train.


----------



## Myosr

Persephone The Dread said:


> @Myosr
> 
> I like peacocks/peacock feathers because of the colours and they're sort of associated with Art Nouveau which is an art style I like too.
> 
> Apparently peahens don't actually like that now anyway lol:
> 
> Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains - ScienceDirect


ya I like the colors. I don't like the "eye" thing on their tails though. I get a weird reaction looking at it (like a lot of people get looking at large spiders or some particular shapes).


* *













The Eyes in the Peacock’s Tail – Out of Ambit


Once upon a time, the King of the Greek gods, Zeus, was getting ready to cheat on his wife again. His latest target was a beautiful mortal girl named Io, whose resistance he'd been wearing down by sending her a series of racy dreams of which he was the star. Having finally arrived on her...




www.dianeduane.com








^ I feel like I'd scream if I see this pattern near me irl :'D brrr. It looks ok from a distance though.

---

I haven't heard about this study before  . I think if peahens keep selecting for bigger tails the species could go extinct. Kind of reminds me of the Irish elk. I remember the MRAs used to bring it up a lot to prove that female sexual selection can be destructive. Just did a quick search now:



wiki said:


> Historically, its extinction has been attributed to the encumbering size of the antlers, a "maladaptation" making fleeing through forests especially difficult for males while being chased by human hunters,[16] or being too taxing nutritionally when the vegetation makeup shifted.[32] In these scenarios, sexual selection by does for stags with large antlers would have contributed to decline.[46]
> 
> However, antler size decreased through the Late Pleistocene and into the Holocene, and so may not have been the primary cause of extinction.[38] A reduction in forest density in the Late Pleistocene and a lack of sufficient high-quality forage is associated with a decrease in body and antler size.[47] Such resource constriction may have cut female fertility rates in half.[38] Human hunting may have forced Irish elk into suboptimal feeding grounds.[3]


there are other explanations apparently. 

I think they looked cool though. I wouldn't mind having huge antlers, lol.










^ a zombie irish elk would be terrifying lol. Their skeleton looks satanic. 










^ I keep seeing them as creepy hands attached to their heads.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

@Myosr

The eye pattern doesn't bother me but I can see how it could bother people because it's one of those weird pareidolic shapes. Also kind of reminds me of this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_eye



Manosphere discussion focusses on the side effects of female selection in Humans too much especially when it comes to physical appearance considering the big impact male selection has had. Male Humans have a lot more choice than many other species. Women (in general, and in probably 'WEIRD' samples, but there appear to be similar patterns elsewhere in the world) select for averageness (or androgyny both in faces and hands,) and men (if straight,) strongly select for neoteny and femininity. This selection process reminds me of the concept about the US political parties 'ratchet effect' but off topic (apparently it's applied elsewhere but yeah.)


* *




Neoteny in humans - Wikipedia

A study was conducted on the attractiveness of males with the subject of the skull and its application in human morphology, using psychology and evolutionary biology to understand selection on facial features. It found that averageness was the result of stabilizing selection, whereas facial paedomorphosis or juvenile traits had been caused by directional selection.[47] In directional selection, a single phenotypic trait is driven by selection toward fixation in a population. In contrast, in stabilizing selection both alleles are driven toward fixation (or polymorphism) in a population.[48] To compare the effects of directional and stabilizing selection on facial paedomorphosis Wehr used graphic morphing to alter appearances to make faces appear more or less juvenile. The results concluded that the effect of averageness was preferred nearly twice over juvenile trait characteristics which indicates that stabilizing selection influences facial preference, and averageness was found more attractive than the retention of juvenile facial characteristics. It was perplexing to find that women tend to prefer the average facial features over the juvenile, because in animals the females tend to drive sexual selection by female choice and the Red Queen hypothesis.[47]

Because men generally exhibit uniform preference for neotenous women's faces, Elia (2013) questioned if women's varying preferences for neotenous men's faces could "help determine" the range of facial neoteny in humans.[49]




And then some guy is infamously found asking










where's my jawline? I dunno where's your piano?* Where's gigachadette? Why is Grimes so useless at turning Elon Musk into a catgirl? It's because she's not an alpha clearly. It's no good only Contrapoints can pull off that aesthetic. (This isn't a nonsense paragraph if their mum is Gigachadette and their dad is gigachad than jawline for days.)





> How is there a channel called Resplendent Trash, 100% of whose videos are Contapoints-related, and still 1/3 of the comments are "who is this"? Like uhhh who are YOU? How did you even get here??


This is good though because now I don't have to timestamp videos I can't post because some content is probably too 18+ or stuff.

*Remember that Goosebumps story Piano Lessons Can be Murder where the guy is


* *




Stealing his students hands to make the perfect music?

When Jerry tells Dr. Shreek he's quitting, he flies into a rage, and says he cannot leave, as he needs Jerry's hands. He chases Jerry all across the school until Jerry eventually reaches the recital hall. In the room, Jerry witnesses floating, disembodied hands playing the pianos. Dr. Shreek catches up to Jerry, and grabs ahold of him. Luckily, Mr. Toggle comes to his rescue and shuts Dr. Shreek off, revealing him to be another robot he created.

Before Jerry can leave, Mr. Toggle stops him, saying he still needs Jerry's hands. He explains that he wishes to create beautiful music free of human error, but hands are too complex to build. To compensate, Toggle takes real hands for his creations. Jerry tries to escape, and as he does, the ghost girl appears. She tells Jerry she tried to warn him of the dangers of the school. The ghost summons a horde of other spirits who attack Toggle, and drag him away to an unknown fate.

Several months pass, and Jerry's life returns to normal. The piano is out of the house, and he is now a part of a baseball team. Everyone tells Jerry he has great hands.




He had approximately the right idea. Piano Hand maxxing.



> ^ a zombie irish elk would be terrifying lol. Their skeleton looks satanic.



Yeah I'm just thinking about Moder from The Ritual now lol.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

CBESS Discussion Paper 09-01 (ueaeco.github.io)










Height is apparently being selected against genetically as a trait in the UK at the moment. But I guess.... I might have already known that because I recently read some article or something which mentioned that British (?) people were getting shorter (though there are other possible reasons for that obviously.) As opposed to Koreans getting taller. General pattern too:

People Around the World Are Getting Shorter, New Study Finds (globalcitizen.org)

That being said could have fooled me. I'm usually the shortest person around at 5'2"

(This is not actually the most interesting/worrying finding in this paper titled 'Human capital mediates natural selection in contemporary humans.')



> Natural selection has been documented in contemporary humans, but little is known about the mechanisms behind it. We test for natural selection through the association between 33 polygenic scores and fertility, across two generations, using data from UK Biobank (N = 409,629 British subjects with European ancestry). Consistently over time, polygenic scores associated with lower (higher) earnings, education and health are selected for (against). Selection effects are concentrated among lower SES groups, younger parents, people with more lifetime sexual partners, and people not living with a partner. The direction of natural selection is reversed among older parents (22+), or after controlling for age at first live birth. These patterns are in line with economic theories of fertility, in which earnings-increasing human capital may either increase or decrease fertility via income and substitution effects in the labour market. Studying natural selection can help us understand the genetic architecture of health outcomes: we find evidence in modern day Great Britain for multiple natural selection pressures that vary between subgroups in the direction and strength of their effects, that are strongly related to the socio-economic system, and that may contribute to health inequalities across income groups.





> Also, across the board, polygenic scores have stronger relationships with fertility among specific subgroups. *Selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education,* among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners. Outside these groups, effects are weaker and often statistically insignificant. In some subgroups, the direction of selection is even reversed: polygenic scores predicting higher education and earnings are associated with higher fertility.





> Polygenic scores which correlate with high (low) earnings and more (less) education are being selected against (selected for). In addition, many of the phenotypes under positive selection are linked to disease risk. *Many people would probably prefer to have high educational attainment, a low risk of ADHD and major depressive disorder, and a low risk of coronary artery disease, but natural selection is pushing against genes associated with these traits. Potentially, this could increase the health burden on modern populations, but that depends on effect sizes.* Our results suggest that naïve estimates can be affected by sample ascertainment bias. This problem may be less serious in surveys which aim to be representative (as the UK Biobank does not). However, there is still scope for bias, since not all respondents consent to the collection of genetic data. For instance, completion rates for genotype data in the US Health and Retirement Study were around 80-85% (HRS 2020). Researchers should be aware of the risks of ascertainment when studying modern natural selection
> 
> We also do not know how estimated effect sizes of natural selection will change as more accurate measures of genetic variation are produced. And we are unsure whether genetic variants underlying other phenotypes will show a similar pattern of natural selection to those studied here. In addition, genetic effects on educational attainment have been shown to be inflated in population-based samples as compared to within-family designs, likely because of indirect genetic effects, gene-environment correlations, and/or assortative mating (Lee et al. 2018; Selzam et al. 2019; Kong et al. 2018; Howe et al. 2021). In short, it is probably too early to tell whether modern natural selection has a substantively important effect on the genetic make-up of the population. Nevertheless, we note that selection effects on our measured polygenic scores are still relatively small, even after reweighting to account for ascertainment bias
> 
> *Because selection effects are concentrated in lower-income groups, they may also increase inequality with respect to polygenic scores.* For example, Figure 7 graphs mean polygenic scores for educational attainment (EA3) among children from households of different income groups. The blue bars show the actual means, i.e. parents’ mean polygenic score weighted by number of children. The grey bars show the hypothetical means if all households had equal numbers of children. Natural selection against genes associated with educational attainment, which lowers the mean, is stronger at the bottom of the income distribution, and this increases the differences between groups. Overall, natural selection increases inequality for 29 out of 33 polygenic scores, with a median increase of 14.45% in the difference between highest and lowest income groups (Appendix Table 5). If inequalities in polygenic scores are important for understanding class mobility and structure (Belsky et al. 2018; Rimfeld et al. 2018), then these increases are substantially important. Since 15 many polygenic scores are predictive of disease risk, they could also potentially increase health inequalities. In general, the evolutionary history of anatomically modern humans is related to disease risk (Benton et al. 2021); understanding the role of contemporary natural selection may aid in mapping the genetic architecture of current health disparities
> 
> [graph I'm too lazy to take a screenshot of goes here]


That sounds fun.

Something something this:






Oh lol!



> Existing evidence on human natural selection has led some to *“biocosmic pessimism” (Sarraf, Feltham, and others 2019).* Others are more sanguine, and argue that natural selection’s effects are outweighed by environmental improvements, such as those underlying the Flynn effect (Flynn 1987). The evidence here may add some nuance to this debate. Patterns of natural selection have been relatively consistent across the past two generations, but they are not the outcome of a universal, society-wide phenomenon. Instead they result from opposing forces, operating in different parts of society and pulling in different directions


Biocosmic Pessimism | SpringerLink



> We argue that it is highly doubtful that humans, especially given their current limitations, could devise an artificial selection regime able to promote the subtle and complex array of desirable traits most auspicious for traditional civilization, and so critique eugenics. We further argue that transhumanism presents grave dangers, in that it could deface all of humankind in an irrevocable way insofar as it may amplify the effects of pathological human qualities that modernity has engendered. Absent the guidance of what has typically been called virtue (i.e. group-selected moral values and behavioral dispositions), the outcomes of transhuman “augmentation” could be highly undesirable. *We then conclude the book on a pessimistic note regarding the prospects of human life in particular and, more generally, intelligent life in the universe.*


Again. Fun.

Imagine if I was doing what I was supposed to be doing right now though. I'm still uninspired/unmotivated though.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

.


----------



## Blue Dino




----------



## either/or

This animation is really cool. Really puts the scale of the universe into perspective. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450804100388384771


----------



## crimeclub

either/or said:


> This animation is really cool. Really puts the scale of the universe into perspective.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450804100388384771


I can't get enough of this kind of stuff, I love bingeing documentaries like The Cosmos, How the Universe Works, etc, it really changes your perspective on life.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

This was circulating because 'lol how funny it's always obvious' but you know there was actually a case in court involving this:



> For one woman, pregnancy was not enough to prove motherhood.
> 
> After taking a DNA test, Lydia Fairchild of Washington State was shocked to find that she was not the mother of her own children — the same children that she remembered conceiving, carrying and giving birth to. What had gone wrong?
> 
> As a struggling single mother of two with a third child on the way, Fairchild, then 26 years old, decided to apply for government assistance. In order to qualify, Fairchild was required to undergo DNA testing to prove that she was the mother of children for whom she was claiming. When the test results came back, her world was shattered by an incredible revelation – she was not the mother of her two children.
> 
> Now facing criminal charges for fraud, Fairchild was ordered to have a court representative be present at the birth of her third child for an immediate DNA test, which revealed the same results.
> 
> Further DNA analysis showed that Fairchild was more like an aunt to her children than a mother, but Fairchild didn't have a sister. Then, the discovery of a similar case in Boston brought to light another possibility.
> 
> It turned out that Fairchild had a rare genetic condition known as chimera — essentially, she had a twin in her own body. Graham Noble of guardianlv.com has more on the condition:
> 
> _Those rare individuals, dubbed "Chimeras", had started out as twins; in the early stage of pregnancy, one of the twins had merged with – been absorbed by, one could almost say – the other twin. The cells of the consumed twin, however, did not disappear and remained alive in one concentrated area of their sibling's body. In essence, a human chimera is one person made up of two separate sets f genetic material; they are, in fact, their own twins._
> 
> Fortunately, once Fairchild's condition was discovered, all charges were dropped and her case was dismissed.


In addition to this it's theoretically possible that during ivf someone could mix up the embryos. And of course if something's theoretically possible search engines will deliver:

IVF wrong embryo: Couple sues, says wrong embryos implanted by IVF clinic in "unimaginable mishap" - CBS News

So genetic maternity can not be verified 100% of the time. Though to be honest women have to take these tests too anyway, like the first example in this post where she had to prove she was her child's mother by DNA testing to get government assistance. Though I don't understand why it's necessary in that instance, unless she gave birth outside a hospital and they didn't have birth certificates etc.

The framing is a little odd though. I mean, at that point it's more like you have two sets of genetics because there aren't two people but only part of your body is genetically related.


----------



## crimeclub

^Off topic but why is it so common in the 'manosphere' to say 'woman' instead of 'women'? I've noticed this as far back as 2011. I assume it's along the same lines as their need to say 'females' instead of 'women'.


----------



## mt moyt

AI seems like the answer to move past the great filter.


----------



## bad baby

Is John Searle's Chinese room thought experiment just an elaborate explanation of imposter syndrome lol?


----------

