daywalker's recent activity
-
Comment on Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial in ~science
-
Comment on Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial in ~science
daywalker LinkAn article that created the first randomized controlled trial experiment about use of parachutes. It used human subjects. The control group was given parachutes before jumping off a plane, but the...An article that created the first randomized controlled trial experiment about use of parachutes. It used human subjects. The control group was given parachutes before jumping off a plane, but the experiment group wasn't given any parachutes. Weirdly, every member of both control and experiment groups survived. A puzzling finding.
Below is the abstract, emphasis mine.
Abstract
Objective To determine if using a parachute prevents death or major traumatic injury when jumping from an aircraft.
Design Randomized controlled trial.
Setting Private or commercial aircraft between September 2017 and August 2018.
Participants 92 aircraft passengers aged 18 and over were screened for participation. 23 agreed to be enrolled and were randomized.
Intervention Jumping from an aircraft (airplane or helicopter) with a parachute versus an empty backpack (unblinded).
Main outcome measures Composite of death or major traumatic injury (defined by an Injury Severity Score over 15) upon impact with the ground measured immediately after landing.
Results Parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury (0% for parachute v 0% for control; P>0.9). This finding was consistent across multiple subgroups. Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled, participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001).
Conclusions Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.
Funny little article about the discrepancies between controlled trials and real life situations. The point of it is to poke fun at the observation that while creating controlled trials, we sometimes stray too far from situations of any real significance. A scientifically much more relevant example is the use of inbred lines of mice or other organisms in experiments, which minimizes the genetic differences between control and treatment groups, creating a more controlled experiment. But it also leads to them having different genetic makeups to natural populations, potentially impacting the relevance of studies.
-
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial
27 votes -
Comment on How do you build strong online communities? in ~talk
daywalker Link ParentThe fluff principle definitely aligns with my own observations. On reddit, I've seen a lot of users decry "memes being banned from (or restricted in) the main sub" for a fandom, but I argued with...The fluff principle definitely aligns with my own observations. On reddit, I've seen a lot of users decry "memes being banned from (or restricted in) the main sub" for a fandom, but I argued with them that unless there are some restrictions such content takes over a subreddit. I've gotten some heat over it haha. But this takes away focus from better content and discussions. Memes and jokes are fun, but they shouldn't overwhelm a wider community. They are cheap content.
Slight side-tangent, but memes are such an interesting topic. I like them for the easy stimulation and fun they provide, but they are also often very anti-intellectual. Even in simple things, such as whether a character was right or wrong, they are used to strawman the otherside while glorifying your own opinion. This can be ok if it's tongue-in-cheek, but most often it's not. I think such practices are both a result and a cause of anti-intellectualism.
-
Comment on How do you build strong online communities? in ~talk
daywalker LinkMy comment isn't exhaustive at all, but I think one of the key things is definitely being choosy about who you allow and keep in the community. I haven't seen a single online community that hasn't...My comment isn't exhaustive at all, but I think one of the key things is definitely being choosy about who you allow and keep in the community. I haven't seen a single online community that hasn't decreased massively in quality past some threshold. There's a balance to be had between having enough interactions and preventing this. This is why I disagree with the idea that bigger = better. Tildes, to me, seems to be at a very good point in this regard.
Another, related, key element is the user profile. I've seen forums or subreddits that were faulty from the start due to the crowd it attracted. This is also heavily tied to the profile of the administration/moderation team and their vision, especially for spaces where there is heavy moderation.
Speaking of moderation and administration, there have to be mechanisms of checks for their behavior. This can be internal, or external due to user pressure. I think, like almost everything human, a healthy dose of suspicion regarding those with power is a good practice. This is not to say, of course, one shouldn't approach them with good faith, or forget they are human. Again, there's a balance to be had. While people often remember bad interactions due to moderation, good moderation is mostly invisible, and many moderators are just people enthusiastic about creating a community.
Lastly, I don't have a roadmap for this, but there should be both structure and culture that prevent extreme echo chamber effects. I don't think in a space any idea should be welcome, as some are very stupid and not worthy of discussion, and some are simply bad faith, but dogmatism and strict adherence to the popular opinion are enemies to healthy conversations.
-
Comment on The year’s smartest game asks: Is civil democracy just a fantasy? (gifted link) in ~games
daywalker LinkI think the framing of the author is an uncritical hyperreaction, and something that doesn't build toward any kind of solution. Not only does it ignore all the places and times democracy works, it...I think the framing of the author is an uncritical hyperreaction, and something that doesn't build toward any kind of solution. Not only does it ignore all the places and times democracy works, it also just tells you to keep hoping, without offering any insight on anything.
Democrats struggled to communicate that the nation’s economy is healthy. It mattered little to voters who live from paycheck to paycheck faced with high grocery costs and unaffordable housing.
This is a very good example of how the author of this article fails to understand the problem. Healthy economy and living paycheck to paycheck are contradictory statements for a developed economy, which USA certainly is. To me, a non-contradictory and much more reasonable explanation is that Trump and his allies managed to leverage the grievances of people in USA, much of it stemming from the incredible economic inequality of US.
For example, GINI coefficient of USA, which increases with economic inequality, is the second highest among almost 30 OECD nations measured in 2021 for income. For household wealth inequality, which was examined based on data from 2015 or later, it's even worse. By far, USA takes the top spot among OECD countries. For example, top 1% of USA has 42.5% of the wealth, while the second highest country's, Netherland's, top 1% has 27.8% of the wealth. Almost all of the OECD countries' top 1% have wealth in 10s and 20s, but only USA's surpasses 30%, and by a longshot.
People of USA are living under, and suffering from, incredible economic inequalities. For example, why would the members of the richest nation in the world have to live paycheck to paycheck? There is no need. It's just due to billionaires, capitalists, or whatever you call them, hogging up most of the economic benefits.
A lot of leftists have been saying since 2015-2016 that a lot of the voterbase of Bernie and Trump are acting based on the same economic grievances, and that this could be leveraged. For example, AOC recently shared this tweet. But instead of listening to leftists or more left-oriented people, Democratic Party establishment and moderate liberals chose to ignore them. They instead threw charts at people "that show" how great the economy is.
Democracy hasn't failed, nor is it impossible. USA's democracy has been undermined by capitalists and right-wing actors. Capitalists created and supported the inequality, and they also created and supported narratives that take the focus away from this problem. They blame immigrants and people from other nations, instead of sociopathic billionaires. This worked, I think, because of two reasons.
- Democratic Party and its moderate supporters ignored the economic inequality problem.
- Right-wing has been strenghthened by USA's state for decades, while the left-wing has been undermined. This led to right-wing radicalization (likes of Trump) overcoming left-wing radicalization (likes of Bernie).
[Note: Mind that I'm using the word radicalization in the relative sense in the context of contemporary US politics.]
I think, and it's my view as someone who's seen the same process play out in his country, the answer to right-wing radicalization is not ignoring what's going on and keep hoping. Hope without logic is just delusion. If there's to be hope, it has to be created by addressing these grievances from a left-wing perspective. It'll be an uphill battle, but it seems to me the best choice.
-
Comment on I think I've failed the United States in ~society
daywalker (edited )LinkI don't know enough about your situation to give a detailed response, but self-examination is always good, and you have my sympathies. Realizing you let people down can be a hard feeling, but it...I don't know enough about your situation to give a detailed response, but self-examination is always good, and you have my sympathies. Realizing you let people down can be a hard feeling, but it can also be a great teacher.
Feel free to correct me, but it reads to me more like you feel like you let down underprivileged people in USA, rather than USA itself. The distinction, I think, is important, because nationalist rhetoric tries to present them as one and the same. But one is caring about people from an egalitarian perspective, the other is about the imperialist war machine. If one doesn't realize the distinction, they can find themselves in the "USA first!" crowd.
As an outsider who's been interested in US for a while though, I think it definitely has the resources to fix much of the issues its underprivileged populations are facing. It's the richest country in the world, but most of its riches are greedily held by billionaires and similar people. There are also a lot of cruel policies that aren't even about money, at least not directly (e.g. war on the homeless). So, I think, the morally better thing to do would be to focus on these issues, rather than adopting ideologies and policies that would hurt people from other countries. Most popular examples I can think of are what Bernie has been saying vs. what the America first crowd has been saying.
I hope what I said is relevant. Either way, kudos to you for re-examination.
Edit: Corrected typo.
-
Comment on Book review: Eric Turkheimer's "Understanding the Nature-Nurture Debate" in ~science
daywalker LinkI read the full review. Very good review, and the book seems intriguing. For quite some years, I've seen the "nature vs. nurture" debate as very outdated and not reflecting the current...I read the full review. Very good review, and the book seems intriguing. For quite some years, I've seen the "nature vs. nurture" debate as very outdated and not reflecting the current understanding of humanity. This is in support of that. More importantly, it reminded me of an assumption I came to accept in time, mainly due to four reasons.
-
Some years ago I had researched gene and environment evolution, wondering whose effect was stronger. I came upon dual inheritence theory, which argued that both genes and culture evolve, and they influence each other to a significant degree; they are intertwined. This seemed the theory that made the most sense.
-
Reading more about history from a critical perspective made me realize how much more plastic humans are than I -and vast majority of people- assumed, which only further emphasized the importance of "environment" variables. Leftist examinations of history did most of the heavy lifting here. For example, I've been praising "The Dawn of Everything" for some time, even though I still haven't finished the book yet.
-
In time I also started realizing how the simplistic theories, assumptions, formulas, narratives about social aspects of humanity -even if currently held to be scientific- were wildly incompetent to the point of being almost or straight up false.
-
I also reasoned myself that, as a life scientist, I couldn't imagine a single scenario where a gene's or environment's effect on phenotype would be isolated from the "gene x environment" interplay; that trying to isolate an effect should be nigh impossible with current methods.
So, as a result, I started assuming that the effect of gene x environment interplay should be much, much higher than initially assumed, and much more complex in ways we haven't realized yet. This book, if the review is sound, provides a lot of evidence for this assumption. I also seem to have been vindicated on number 4.
If I might add one thing. Even if better methods were used, I think we'd still lowball the effect of gene x environment interplay. It's because of two reasons.
- One is that these studies aren't really done in populations that are wildly different from developed or upper developing world countries (which the review briefly touches upon). What would you find if you compared findings from these countries, and say, Afghanistan?
- The second is that, as history and anthropology show, humans lived in unimaginably different and varied societies throughout the past. How do you account for that? For example, what results would you get if you compared a population from the current developed world and a random hunter-gatherer tribe from 30.000 years ago? That should bring to the fore a lot of effects that previously weren't thought to be confounding factors.
So, there should be much stronger confounding factors than assumed, which would mistakenly lowball the effect of gene x environment interplay.
-
-
Comment on The Game Awards nominees 2024: Controversially, DLCs/expansions can now compete for GOTY in ~games
daywalker Link ParentVery succinctly put. I've always had a problem with media awards, whether they are for games or movies or other stuff, and I don't think they matter much or at all for quality or value. Fans like...Very succinctly put. I've always had a problem with media awards, whether they are for games or movies or other stuff, and I don't think they matter much or at all for quality or value. Fans like to associate their identity with a brand of their choosing, talk a lot about awards and whether an IP was done right or wrong, and do a lot of pissing contests, but it's all incredibly offputting to me. You explained one reason why.
I'm not saying stories or games are entirely the capital aspect of them, or that one shouldn't form attachments to them. But I'd say that forming an attachment based on commercial success or commercial recognition is not a good way to go about it. Sure, it feels good to see a work bring status quo recognition to its creators, but focusing on this aspect shouldn't be a priority.
-
Comment on "Americans get screwed because they can’t read" in ~society
daywalker Link ParentBy academic writing do you mean journal articles or books that are written for other academics? If so, the jargon has a lot to do with terminology of the field in question, and they are also not...By academic writing do you mean journal articles or books that are written for other academics? If so, the jargon has a lot to do with terminology of the field in question, and they are also not written for laypeople or even other academics from different fields.
Regarding the doctor comment, I don't think this can be blamed on academic writing. Undergrad textbooks of international acclaim, such as Pierce's Genetics, are extremely clear in language. They are written that way because writers know young people fresh out of HS or very little into the field will read them, and they should be able to. A physician should've learned the basics of genetics from such sources during their education. If they haven't, there is a failure in the system, but I don't see any way it's because of academic writing. There are tons of amazing undergrad textbooks in every field I've read from, especially in English.
-
Comment on The resistance is not coming to save you. It’s tuning out. in ~society
daywalker (edited )LinkVery typical of a cozy, status quo journalist from the developed world to give up so easily. They don't learn from defeat, from pain, from loss—they lack conviction and perhaps even the ability to...- Exemplary
Very typical of a cozy, status quo journalist from the developed world to give up so easily. They don't learn from defeat, from pain, from loss—they lack conviction and perhaps even the ability to build it.
I've been living under a dictator for a long time, and it's not a hyperbolic developed world use of the word either. I watched a man lie motionless in a pool of his blood while a woman right beside him cried out in grief. I, or any of the other people near me, couldn't do anything. We were all exhausted and powerless, while the thugs with batons were everywhere. I still remember three things from that moment: my survival instinct, which was the strongest at the moment, then feelings of hopelessness and rage beneath it.
I still carry all three with me, and while the moment I described is particulary fleshed out, by no means it's the only reason. Years of trying to effect a change led to them. After all, in any struggle, all three have their uses. Self-preservation leads you to act more cautious, more calculated, and it makes it so that you don't go crazy from all the insanity you witness. Hopelessness and rage are intermingled. The despair of the situation creates rage so that you can still keep struggling. You hate them for making you, and others, feel that way. What you felt should never be be forgotten.
Abrahamic religions and some others, and even the secular culture that still carries their smell, chastise emotions such as these, but they exist for a reason. They're the reminders of all the hurt you experience and witness, and they tell you that it's unacceptable. They make you remember the evil you've seen. There are too many stories of them causing harm, but not nearly enough about how they can lead to toppling of tyrants, even though history is ripe with such examples.
I can say a lot of other things, analyze how the author is blowing the things he's citing out of proportion or mischaracterizing them, but I don't want to do it right now. Instead, I just want to say, every time I see someone "give up" because of relatively minor stuff like this, it makes me sick to my stomach. I don't know about others, but allowing myself to become a conformist feels like I would be betraying everything I struggled for until that moment. It would be admitting that I'm comfortable with all the death and suffering caused by these fuckers. It can be alluring, in nights of despair and exhaust, but eventually the very idea makes me furious. In other words, so what? Do you think this is the first time I despaired? I'm very familiar with it, and I've overcome it time and again.
That's how I think. I don't know whether it would resonate with people here, but such weak conviction wouldn't put a single dent in any tyrant's or fascist's armor. A defeat or two are minor things. I don't consider even my experience a major one. I don't want to think that I'm so weak as to give up the struggle while -throughout history- so many people put their lives at risk, and even died, for the fight against fascism and tyrants.
For clarification, I'm not advocating for people to go out there and act in a "heroic" but self-destructive way for no good reason. Refer to my point about the uses of self-preservation. There are a lot of ways different kinds of people can contribute to a cause. The only bad way of doing it is giving up.
The fight against fascism and far right is an uphill battle. If you feel powerless, defeated, in despair, good. Now you know more about how people who are truly affected by them feel, all across the world. Remember this feeling, and remember the enemies who afflicted it on you.
-
Comment on Where does your username come from? (Following up on last year's thread) in ~tildes
daywalker LinkI like vampires, I like gothic things, I have a messed up sleep schedule.I like vampires, I like gothic things,
I like drinking the blood of humansI have a messed up sleep schedule. -
Comment on Why do you live? in ~humanities
daywalker Link ParentThanks. I think there's a misunderstanding about what I mean by mind-dependent and mind-independent. To elaborate, I'll quote the article I shared. For example, the beauty you mentioned is a human...Thanks. I think there's a misunderstanding about what I mean by mind-dependent and mind-independent. To elaborate, I'll quote the article I shared.
At issue between such conceptions is the question: Are things valuable ultimately because we value them, or are at least some things valuable in a way that is robustly independent of our valuing them. According to mind-independent conceptions, it’s the latter: there are at least some things that possess their value in a way that is independent of the evaluative attitudes that we might happen to hold toward them, where by evaluative attitudes I mean mental states such as an agent’s values, cares, desires, states of approval and disapproval, unreflective evaluative tendencies, and so on. According to mind-dependent conceptions, in contrast, there are no independent truths about what is valuable. Rather, if something is valuable, then this is ultimately in virtue of our evaluative attitudes toward the thing — such that if our evaluative attitudes were to change radically enough, so that it was no longer in anyway implied by our own attitudes that the thing was valuable, it would thereby cease to be valuable."
For example, the beauty you mentioned is a human value attributed to nature. Universe would exist even without humans, including the parts you deem beautiful, but this beauty is not an intrinsic part of it. You or other humans attribute it to nature. It wouldn't exist outside of human judgement.
Übermensch is Nietzsche's ideal higher human being, but it's not the base of his philosophy. It's what he aims his philosophy to result in. Übermensch is a result of a human being chasing Will to Power to the end. As I mentioned, Nietzsche thought this will was the main drive behind life-affirming attitudes in humanity, and only by its pursuit would one become a life-affirming human, and in its most extreme version, an Übermench. This part is clear in his philosophy. What is not clear is what he meant by Will to Power. There are a lot of different interpretations of it, and some of them approach it as the kind of self-improvement your professor describes. But there are also other parts in his philosophy that seem to defend a Will to Power that seeks domination over others. If anyone's interested in different interpretations, they can look up the book Nietzsche's System or the Stanford entries on Nietzsche (1, 2).
It's not directly related to the topic, but since we're talking about it, one interesting thing in all this is that Nietzsche's definition of "happiness" was extremely different from what we mean. He saw suffering as a good thing, and he wished suffering on people he deemed worthy. He thought, if used correctly, suffering coul lead to growth, which would strengthen the Will to Power. So, he welcomed suffering. I think he constructed this philosophy, because for all his life he struggled a lot with heavy health problems, but still wanted to live and find meaning in life. Since he couldn't escape constant suffering, he created a philosophy that affirmed it as a positive thing. I created a topic about this last month.
-
Comment on Why do you live? in ~humanities
daywalker (edited )LinkThis is one of those questions, I think, that don't have a straightforward answer, but I'm very passionate about this topic so I'll try to explain myself as best as I can. Fair warning before I...- Exemplary
This is one of those questions, I think, that don't have a straightforward answer, but I'm very passionate about this topic so I'll try to explain myself as best as I can. Fair warning before I start, I'm going to mention some triggering topics that revolve around it.
When I fell in love for the first time in my life, it was the best thing I've felt until that moment. I never had such a rush, and never had someone or something that completely emptied my mind of thought. When I looked at them, I couldn't think of anything else, and as an overthinker, this made me incredibly happy.
Then, like with many young people, we broke up due to some issues that could've been resolved by more mature people. Then I learned she had a brush with suicide, and I felt one of the worst pains in my life. I barely remember the first week following it.
This pain and overbearing feeling of sadness stuck with me. After it, I had other people close to me who also had suicidal experiences, and some others who revealed them to me even though I knew them before. Every time, I remembered the same pain and sadness.
It's a very sensitive subject for me, but I think I learned something from it, because when I had (or have) thoughts of suicide, I have the same reaction to myself. Suicide is incredibly sad, and I don't want it to be the end of anyone's tale. We deserve better. I deserve better. This is not even about making other sad, it makes me sad about myself. I simply think I deserve better.
I have a lot of rough days due to chronic health issues, which have a tremendous impact on my life, and I'm also coming from a house of neglect and abuse, so I was already inclined to depressive modes of thinking even before them. But I'm learning to cope better, and I don't know if I'll be able to get old, or get to some point where I'm unable to function, but that's an uncertainty I'm growing to accept. As cliche as it is, there's a lot of uncertainty in life we can't really control, and focusing on things we can do is so much better for mental well-being.
What keeps me going is not one thing but many things. Sometimes it's a good song or a story or a game, sometimes it's spending time with family or friends, sometimes it's contributing to humanity and the planet's well-being, sometimes it's my hatred of nationalists and Islamists, sometimes it's saying a fuck you to all the ordeals and the evil, sometimes it's being able to continue to write or do science, sometimes it's having a good walk while listening to an enriching podcast, sometimes it's a good book or an article, sometimes it's sitting in my warm home and just relaxing while the outside is cold.
There are so many things, because life is rich and complex beyond comprehension. It defies being put into a box and labeled. So, I don't think there can be just one thing. And I'm sure most people would still find themselves continue to live, even if the things (not just material things) they deem most important to them in life were taken away. Speaking based on data, people almost always choose to continue to live. This brings me to my further points.
At some level, we live because we're biologically programmed to live. The instinct to stay alive existed in us long before Homo sapiens developed the ability to form complex thoughts or the ability to talk. So, as much as we might like to think we're special and that our reasons we tell ourselves are the entire story, they're not. The instinct came first, the justifications later. But, and it's a very important but, this is not as simple as it seems. "Instincts", emotions, thoughts, behaviors—these things are not isolated, and they work together to create our psyche. Since the evolution of higher cognitive functions, they never were separable. This is why Cognitive Behavioral Therapy works. It encourages people to act and think differently, which changes one's emotions. If these systems were isolated, this wouldn't have been possible.
So, to live, a human has to come up with good or good enough justifications to live. And these should be durable to hardships of life, because life will definitely rip you a new one, at the very least once in a while. So, this then makes it not surprising that a lot of people have suicidal ideation at some point in their life (based on data I've seen repeated in psychological books). But, eventually, vast majority of humans continue to live.
This is because, most of the time, we find some reason to keep going after all, even when faced with extreme hardship and loss of meaning. As Viktor Frankl mentions in Man's Search for Meaning, even people in Nazi concentration camps found reasons to keep going. In another example, sometimes even "yelling" at people how life is meaningless seems to be reason enough (look at the famous philosophical pessimist Emil Cioran, for example, who was aware of this).
This is not to say these reasons aren't worth it, and terror management theory hypothesizes some common ground on which these reasons are built. But even with this "meta" perspective, some of them seem meaningful to me, like having rich connections with people, having a sense of importance and purpose, or feeling like you belong somewhere. Some, less so, like narratives of nationalism and religion.
I think my approval of certain life-affirming phenomena can be attributed to several things.
- Meta-ethics and mind-dependent meaning
In meta-ethics, meaning can be separated into two categories : mind-dependent vs. mind-independent. The latter seeks a meaning in universe that is separate from the human experience, but for an atheist this is impossible. If you're against any sort of metaphysical explanation, there simply is no way to create a mind-independent meaning about human life without contracting yourself. But if you follow a mind-dependent definition of meaning, you realize that the so-called meaning we talk about is only created as a result of human activity. Since humans belong to the same species, and, in very scientific terms, share a shit ton of commonalities, this makes it possible to create some sort of meaning.
Even if there might not be meaning created for the entire species, if you follow the mind-dependent way of thinking, there is enough ground to create meaning for different groups of people or even individuals. For example, a person might find themselves caring enough about other queer people to create a mind-dependent meaningful narrative about this. In another example, a person might find themselves caring for themselves enough to continue living and chasing happiness, despite all the hostilities against them.
You can read more about it in this article, which is the reason I changed my opinion about this topic.
- Nietzsche and affirmation of life as the only sane choice
Nietzsche's philosophy was mainly concerned with affirming life and creating meaning when the belief in God was starting to get shaken, resulting in the collapse of mind-independent narratives of meaning (which were the only dominant narratives about meaning so far). He subscribed to an entirely relativistic way of thinking, saying there is no objective meaning or morality in anything. But, at the same time, he believed that it all depended on perspectives. He hypothesized that, to deny a perspective you have to approach it from another perspective. And since we are all living beings participating in life, creating life-denying narratives would be utter insanity, as we could never approach it from a perspective outside of life.
I think he touched on something profound. Even if we might think and speculate about things grander than ourselves, we will never get to experience anything other than as a human. And as humans, we have certain needs in life that, if met, create happy lives. And I'm not just talking about happiness in hedonistic terms, but also in terms of meaning, belonging, contentness, etc. In other words, I'm also talking about eudaimonic happiness.
Nietzsche thought that the way to affirm life was through will to power, and even though I disagree on that part, I still agree that the rational thing to do as a human being is to chase life-affirming things, as the alternative is just suffering for no reason at all.
This perspective pushed me to learn more about the science of psychology, as I think it's one of the greatest contributions to humanity for creation of a good life. After all, a big portion of psychology is concerned with finding ways you sabotage yourself, resulting in unnecessary suffering, and correcting them. I must say, even in just a few months, it created a significant difference in my life. Among other things, I'm better able to cope with anxiety, and this alone improved my life quality significantly. I'm starting to realize that a lot of my suffering I attributed to inevitable responses to existential conditions, political situations, or whatever, are just my dysfunctional responses. Not all of it, of course, but a great deal of it.
- Dual model of mind: interaction of biology and environment
The title of this item is a placeholder. In short, for a complex enough phenomenon, I don't believe in an explanation of it made on just a single level. And since the question "Why do you live?" is such a complex one, it can be answered on different levels. While the evolutionary explanation might seem like it overrides others, as if it "explains away" all the others, this is not true. As I mentioned, ever since the evolution of higher cognitive functions, systems in our mind started interacting. The biological drive to survive, for example, doesn't really matter if your environment creates highly dysfunctional patterns in you that lead to your suicide. That means, life-affirming patterns in cognition, behavior, culture, etc. still have to be developed. I grouped them all under environment, but each of them, and more, can be their own category.
In light of these perspectives, I'm trying to create a better life for myself by including more and more life-affirming things, and less of life-denying ones. It's sometimes straightforward, like deciding to work on my anxiety, and sometimes complex and hard, like my relation to politics and my conviction to change the world, which are both sources of meaning and suffering.
It's an ongoing process, like most things in life. As Rustin Cohle would say in his colorful way: "Nothing is ever fucking over." But just the process itself creates a lot of joy in me. In fact, I was in a sour mood when I started writing this reply due to a bad health day, but as I wrote more I started feeling better and better. Partially because I remembered my goals.
My aim, I guess, is to create a psyche that gets its life-affirmation 1) by tending to my neglected needs; and as a child of neglect who has internalized it, it's both hard and very rewarding 2) from a lot of different things, in order to prevent creating too much dependency on just one thing, which would create a weak point.
As I stated at the start, it's not a straightforward answer, but I think it's worth it. Hopefully, some of it will resonate with other people.
-
Comment on I've added ~society for topics related to politics, law, policies, and similar societal-level subjects in ~tildes.official
daywalker Link ParentInstantly thought in similar ways. Should Joker-posting become a thing there? Maybe a monthly "Living in society" topic! Jokes aside, this decision seems reasonable, and kudos to both the admin...Instantly thought in similar ways. Should Joker-posting become a thing there? Maybe a monthly "Living in society" topic!
Jokes aside, this decision seems reasonable, and kudos to both the admin and the tagger(s?) who keep the infrastructure running.
-
Comment on Sorry for the mess (post mortem for a Topic that went sideways?) in ~tildes
daywalker Link ParentI don't know about any potential change in the last week, but I've never watched right-wing stuff on Youtube, and in fact I watched plenty of stuff before Shorts came out from the so-called...I don't know about any potential change in the last week, but I've never watched right-wing stuff on Youtube, and in fact I watched plenty of stuff before Shorts came out from the so-called Breadtube creators (Contrapoints, Lindsay Ellis, Cuck Philosophy etc.). Youtube still regularly recommends me red pill, alt-right, and Islamist stuff every week on Shorts. I also get ads from Islamists semi-frequently.
There's definitely a very heavy algorithmic bias toward right-wing content. I've never had a single left-wing creator recommended to me on Shorts, but got recommended plenty of right-wingers. And this is despite the fact that my viewing habits are heavily against this stuff.
The Islamist stuff shows this is not limited to American content either, because it solely recommends it based on the fact that I live in ME. I've never watched a single video on religion, even from the anti-theist crowd.
There's an alternative hypothesis, that I get recommended right-wing videos based on their association with the topics I was previously interested in, the mentioned Breadtube content. After all, it can be argued that algorithm might have recommended this content to me based solely on correlation. But this doesn't hold up because of two reasons. 1) As I mentioned, I haven't gotten recommended a single left-wing video on Shorts, despite my history of watching it on regular format 2) I've never watched a single video on religion, positive or negative or neutral, yet I regularly get recommended Islamist content.
Youtube Shorts algorithm is incredibly fucked.
-
Comment on Is ADHD really that debilitating? in ~health.mental
daywalker LinkIt's a spectrum. It has different types, and varying intensities of different symptoms. I (a man) don't have much problem with it generally, but I found that my executive function is higher than a...It's a spectrum. It has different types, and varying intensities of different symptoms. I (a man) don't have much problem with it generally, but I found that my executive function is higher than a lot of other people with ADHD, and I'm also lucky enough to be pursuing a lifelong passion of mine in my professional life. If I couldn't do that, I might have had a much more miserable life. The reason is that I get extremely passionate and hardworking about things I like, but even simple things that aren't interesting to me feel unimaginably harder. Without the satisfaction and gratification I get out of my professional life, I would be at a much worse position. Lack of stimulation is very painful for ADHD. I'd even call the chase for stimulation an existential condition for me, as its abscence tremendously impacts my mood and mental health.
I also think it makes my anxiety worse, and I suspect the reason is, when I get anxious I get many more anxious thoughts than neurotypical people. I also suspect it's a major reason why I have OCD, because I remember when and how it developed. In my early teen years I went through a really rough time, which led to a lot of anxiety. The constant barrage of anxious thoughts made me think I was going crazy, and I tried to control them, but since I didn't know what I was doing I ended up developing compulsions. This led to a dysfunctional thinking pattern, which manifested as OCD.
It definitely wasn't the only reason, but I also suspect it's why I isolated myself in the past (lived the neet/hikikomori life for some time). All this unchecked anxiety was unbearable to me at the time.
I'm much better now, but I can see how it can be debilitating for some others. It can make the daily responsibilities much harder for some; it can lead to avoiding responsibilities in professional or academic settings, which leads to a lack of discipline, and that results in potential going unrealized; it can make some ADHD people be volatile emotionally, leading to problems in relations; it can lead to or make comorbid conditions worse; it can lead to substance use disorders or other addictions.
I'm sure there are many more ways it can heavily impact people, but circling back to my initial point: it's a spectrum, it depends on the person in question (and how well they're coping). However, there are still enough commonalities to be categorized under the same umbrella. If anyone wants to learn more about ADHD, I'm still early on in this book, but "ADHD: What Everyone Needs to Know" by Oxford University Press seems really good. It's written with a lot of different demographics in mind, and it's only around 200 pages. And for fellow ADHDers, the chapters are short, and it provides a summary at the end of each chapter.
-
Comment on Who is allowed to practice identity politics? in ~society
daywalker LinkHaven't read the essay yet, but the graph in it doesn't necessarily mean this isn't a statistical fluke. You'd have to compare distributions of different years, and not just the ones with five or...Haven't read the essay yet, but the graph in it doesn't necessarily mean this isn't a statistical fluke. You'd have to compare distributions of different years, and not just the ones with five or more elections, to see whether this year's results have different enough distributions to be deemed statistically significant.
-
Comment on Understanding the leftist that didn't vote: "Everybody else gets one, but not me" in ~society
daywalker Link ParentIf I was an overlooked minority in US or another demographic that got glossed over by Dems, I'd have tried to convey that perspective too. But I'm not. What I am instead is a leftist who interacts...If I was an overlooked minority in US or another demographic that got glossed over by Dems, I'd have tried to convey that perspective too. But I'm not. What I am instead is a leftist who interacts a lot with American leftists, one who has a lot of shared feelings and thoughts. That's why I shared my perspective, by making clear the limitations and strengths of it for the relevant situation.
Another reason is that on social media a big witch hunt is going on for non-voter leftists. My post is an addressal of that phenomenon too.
I'm not trying to hog the spotlight, so to speak, or make this all about leftists. It's certainly not. But for one to share their perspective, or draw attention to a problem, it doesn't have to be the biggest problem. But by any means, any and everyone is welcome to create topics and discussions about how the democratic party failed to get votes from different kinds of people. They alienated a lot of different demographics, and I would definitely welcome critiques of it.
-
Comment on Understanding the leftist that didn't vote: "Everybody else gets one, but not me" in ~society
daywalker Link ParentThanks for the kind response, and especially the last remark. If the general response was a constructive one, I'd gladly admit that nobody knows for sure what exactly is the right option, and that...Thanks for the kind response, and especially the last remark.
If the general response was a constructive one, I'd gladly admit that nobody knows for sure what exactly is the right option, and that we're all operating based on guesswork. Despite the claims of certainty, and very proudly repeated cliche idioms of "wisdom", nobody ever knows with high confidence what their choices will result in. There's a lot of uncertainty, and both voting and not voting for Dems have their own risks. "Damned if I do, damned if I don't." So, both options are understandable, and people shouldn't be blamed for choosing either.
That's the exact reason I created this topic. I put much emphasis on how someone like me feels, how those feelings are created, how they impact the choices one makes. Rather than trying to start a debate, I was trying to convey the perspective of people like me to others. I did this, because on the internet I see a zealous witch hunt going on for non-voter leftists and minorities, and a lot of shaming and blaming is being done. The healthier option is to obviously have a constructive approach, but for that to happen, one first needs to understand how people feel and think, instead of dismissing their opinion or attacking them.
It seems most people here are a fan of that dismissive approach, though, and don't realize the self-defeating nature of it. The most hostile response that created a comical perversion of my argument is more popular than the post itself. It's very anti-intellectual, and the exact alienating and othering phenomenon I criticized. The words are polite, but the message is one of a knife.
This whole topic reminds me of this quote from MLK.
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice..."
Ah, before posting I searched the site with the link, but didn't find any results.