justmotteingaround
No bio...
User ID: 2002
justmotteingaround
10d ago
Humas seem wired for such entrapment. It pattern matches pretty well to various cults, especially those that grew out of EST Training and its numerous offshoots. A charismatic visionary puts a new skin on old ideas, finds seekers, cordons them off, messes with their brain chemistry (though drugs, fasting, sleep deprivation, conflict, sex) Intragroup adherence is amplified though group activities, financial and relationship ties (which are sometimes totalizing). This pattern pervades Scientology, EST, The Landmark Institute, Osho, original Bikram Yoga, the Peoples Temple, Nexium; probably some companies, families, and churches. Landmark (which grew out of EST), appears to have found a stable payoff matrix. Good for them. As a rule of thumb, if you're invited to The Esalen Institute, you're 1% more likely to be joining a cult. If you hear the word ayahuasca weekly, 2%. If you're suddenly contemplating whether water has a memory, the importance of Ley lines, or past life regression, 50%. If half your discretionary incomes goes to this new group, 200%. When the leader is fucking your wife, you're probably in a cult.
What are your broad thoughts on testosterone? I've long been curious for various reasons. It seems to me like a reasonable tradeoff to a healthy, ageing person, but I haven't looked into it too much.
justmotteingaround
11d ago
Unfortunately old comment but over the years no woman has ever mentioned carrying protection. Hundreds if not thousands of women over decades in major American cities. I've dated a dozen or so. I don't recall the idea even being mentioned, though it probably has. I moved out of the US in 2019. Crime has an absurd socioeconomic divide. My crime bubble is probably 5% of the modal white American. I grew up in a small, isolated town of decent prosperity. I'm 40ish and have never been the victim of anything other than petty crime, and even that rare. Same with my friends in all places AFAIKT. Its one data point, but its an honest perspective. So rarely have I seen crime that it is not something I think about. I'm positive it exists and am happy to pay for competent policing everywhere. Criminal (In)Justice was a good read on the geography of crime. Without any forethought, I have live where crime isn't. And now I shall knock on wood.
justmotteingaround
23d ago
If you feel consigned to your home after sunset, you're more likely to need psychiatric medication than moving boxes. On average, people are moving to cities, and aren't afraid of the dark. I've never known a city dwelling woman to carry any means of protection. Fertility rates have remained about 10% lower in large metro areas than rural areas for over a decade. Not being able to imagine something 10% less frequent is caused by a broken imagination.
justmotteingaround
25d ago
This is fascinating. I would have remained blind to it otherwise, so thanks. I wonder how many other religious people feel this way. I have learned to put conscious effort into empathizing with people taking their religion as literally true. It explains so much, and has changed me for the better. However, I never considered that religious beliefs themselves would be, seem, feel, etc. like they were not a conscious choice.
For example, I prefer exclusively women over men when it comes to having sex. No argument exists which could convince me to sexually prefer men (any more than there is a convincing argument that I prefer eating poo over ice-cream). I'm just not wired to prefer those things. However, I could be convinced to become a Christian or Muslim or Flat Earther or 9/11 truther, or whatever. My non-theism remains a choice. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something or this is all semantics, hinging on free will or something.
Are deeply held religious beliefs experienced the same way as be deeply held beliefs like murdering random people is wrong, or the Sun is driven by fusion, or the govt shouldn't tax unrealized gains, or the US is a great country, etc. How are religious beliefs experienced differently?
justmotteingaround
25d ago
Indeed. To take an easy case, I have to constantly admonish secular people have to such empathy and magnanimity towards religious people. Many secular people consider religious folk mentally diseased and morally defective. This is not meant to be insulting. I just take ethics seriously. It would be easy for me decide that all religious people are intellectually and morally deranged; a lost cause. They routinely claim certainty about something I know they are not certain. Almost always they were indoctrinated about what to believe, and then not to question it. Case closed, right?
But that's not the whole story. I know that religion does so much good for so many people. I know what spiritual yearning and salvation feels like. Order. Comfort. Community. Humility that this world is much bigger than we can even begin to understand. To realize that the purpose life - no matter who is controlling it - is to love whoever is around to be loved. To realize that one friend is all one needs in order to be well supplied with friendship. Imaginary friends should count, too.
So yeah, I think being religious means something is mentally wrong with you. But don't let what I have written tell on me. I - the author of this post - actually, sincerely, earnestly, unsarcastically and unironically, have empathy for religious people.
But this isn't about religion.
This is about empathy. Not pity. Not sympathy. And certainly not about condoning actions one finds immoral. Empathy isn't best derived from an analogous personal experience. Thoughts can overcome emotion. As a straight guy, I too find depictions of men blowing and butt fucking one another to be inherently gross. According to John Haidt, this is fairly normal as when some straight men are show such images, areas in brain related to disgust become active. However, I have the analogous feelings of love and lust to fall back on. When a gay person says "I want that too" my emotions are easily overcome. When it comes to trans related issues I'm more at a loss. I have hated myself in one way or another, but never in a way that altering my outward appearance would be useful. I'm quite open to experience, so when a trans person tells me they want to be trans on their own time, I have to felt sense or moral or ethical implication, and am willing to make reasonable accommodations in kind. However, when trans activists make a religion out of woke, I can delineate what and is or is not a reasonable accommodation in kind. Importantly, I can still have empathy for the terminally woke. It probably is genuinely distressing to think the Cass Report is bigoted pseudoscience, or that there is some sort of trans genocide, as is often hysterically claimed. Empathy has a role to play in destroying bad ideas.
justmotteingaround
26d ago
Another case of why having principles sucks. The state offered him a sweetheart deal and then reneged. The worst person you know was a darling, but then a victim, of the state. The former doesn't inveigh on the latter as it would enshrine a terrible precedent.
his career is effectively over.
This would be interesting to bet on. It amazes me how people can eek out public careers for decades despite being vile. How many millions would tune in to a reality TV show featuring Smollett, now or in the future? We know he's shameless.
justmotteingaround
26d ago
This mirrors issues in Bill Bishops 2009 The Big Sort - Why the Clustering of Like-Minded American is Tearing Us Apart. Worth a read or re-read. Its been visible online for as long as I can remember. Outrage and polarization maximize quarterly metrics. In the long run, people mostly want to hear news that confirms their priors.
Twitter (assuming its a business) has the lead and should allow seamless experience filters: default, left wing, right wing, no mod, heavy mod, institutional truth, conspiracy truth, puppies, etc. It wont solve the problem of information siloing, but it would keep people on platform while maintaining neutrality.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
The election doesn't effect the argument not to agitate against Swift. If it was a bad idea prior, its a bad idea now.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Take away the subsidy and let ABC, NBC, or CBS bid on the broadband. Use the money to pay down debt.
Thats an entirely different argument. If thats where the goalposts are, then Reason types would be on board, as it isn't about one man labeling something "fake news". The context is very different from what is being proposed team Trump which sneaks in viewpoint discrimination under the guise of free speech.
If he is actually consistent of free speech, then there wont be objections by reason types.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
I think it'll be a continuation of the polarization arc, guided by the incentives of profitable content. Obama was a Marxist Kenyan and we got the Tea Party. Trump was Hitler and we got Wokeist nonsense. Election conspiracies and QAnon notwithstanding, I think Jan 6th was peak derangement. Biden was more honestly criticized than either Trump or Obama because it simply wasn't profitable to publish election conspiracies for 4 years. Bidens brain really was mush. He really was hiding. The border really did get worse. Crime really was being minimized. Trotting out ye olde "this president controls gas prices" chestnut was practically quaint.
Conservatives are dominating media. The MAGA narrative and style really are popular. Liberals will have to find or wait for a narrative and delivery that actually resonates. People are sick of race and trans obsession and a style of condescension. Harping on these issues isn't nearly as profitable as it was in 2016. For the last four years it was hard to get rich running ads on dem narratives. It was much easier to get rich harping on US foreign expenditures, inflation, the plight of the working man, the plight of men, crime, and just straight up duking on dem talking points. The anti-Trump machine is comparatively weak right now. It'll have to pivot or die as the well that pays the bills is running dry. Orange man bad will still work to a degree, but nothing like in 2016.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
My response is silent on the subsidy. I'm asking who decides what is "fake news", or whether speech "undermines the public?". Trump says his regime should determine that, in accordance wit his whims. The Reason article points out why this might be a bad idea as far as the 1A is concerned.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Because of the 1A. Fox News and OAN should be allowed to broadcast their opinions. The regime shouldn't be in the business of telling them what they can and cannot say. Trump is arguably a public figure, although some people are saying he is a Marxist born in Kenya. Big if true.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
If 1.5ppm causes 2-5 points of IQ loss, how much does 1000ppm in toothpaste cause?
You're claiming this is a huge scandal on the level of leaded gasoline. Given what the report found, that seems hysterical.
2-5 IQ points are very important. Getting fluoride via toothpaste is superior solution.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Belief precedes action by necessity. This will boil down to a debate about determinism, but other objections to the assertion made are irrelevant.
Homogenous Japan doesn't feel compelled to attack itself - and hadn't for 250 years - but they became enthrall to attacking their nearest neighbors for a period, then they got nuked, and then they formed warm relations the formerly enemy distant genome.
My point is that John Walker Lindh chose to fight because of idiotic Iron Age beliefs. No advanced social mechanism was necessary. High IQ might help to build better systems for producing beneficial beliefs, but its not dispositive, and doesn't preclude the intrusion of bad ideas. Adopt a low IQ tribe-baby, raise him in the west, and I don't think they'd grow up with a burning desire to return home and fight the Afro-McCoy's.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Knowing the reason we fight is pretty much just genetics is a downer.
Isn't this backwards? The two genetically similar groups fight each other for tribal reasons. The US nukes Japan and within a decade both are cooperating to get rich as hell, improving the lives genetically distinct populations. I'm a realist when it comes to genetics, but en masse we seem to fight often because of the ideas we have.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Doesn't the actual article imply that this could only possibly effect 0.6% of water systems in the US? And even then only to children and pregnant women. And even then the cause is not government addition of fluoride, but rather government failure to remove fluoride below the separately arrived at EPA number?
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
But yeah, I think putting literally any medication in the water supply is foolish.
You have to count the hits and the misses. Lets just concede that fluoride in drinking water was or is now a mistake. There is still chlorine/chloramine. Also gov't mandates and/or influence in the food supply: iodine, vit D, niacin, folate, iron, thiamine, riboflavin etc.
Interestingly, the gov't got I think niacin temporarily wrong, assuming the cause of pellagra was a corn heavy diet, delaying the addition of niacin. Which is fine I guess as extreme caution with the food supply is probably a good idea.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Per the article, as of 2015 the US has the same 0.7mg/l recommendation as the upper limit. 0.6% of water systems in the US are above the 1.5mg/L studied. The EPA limit was arrived at separately, the impetus being fluorosis.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Nothing was more "move fast and break things" than entire neighborhoods of kids riding their bike behind "the fog truck" spraying DDT everywhere.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Its worth keeping in mind the pitfalls of the media landscape. A fund manger posts screenshots of an AP article to 1.5M followers, with the incisive commentary "wait, what?!" What does the payoff matrix look like in this environment?
On one hand, information is spread widely and quickly. Great! On the other hand, I have an aunt who has long told me that Hitler put fluoride in the water to shrink the pineal glad of the populace, reducing their creativity and making them obey. She teaches anatomy and physiology at a community college, and loves listening to Coast To Coast on the AM radio. Crank it up fuckers!
But what does the article say? Well, the AP reported on this "long awaited study" two months ago. We didn't find this out this until quite recently. However, it seemingly only applies to 0.6% of US water systems, and then again only to children and pregnant women. For adults, more study is needed. The 300 page report was done by the National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. In 2015 Federal authorities revised their recommended level of fluoridation down from 1.2 mg/L to 0.07mg/L. This study pertains to levels of fluoridation of 1.5mg/L and above. How much above? I don't know, but the WHO currently thinks that 1.5mg/L is safe. The EPA actually mandates that water systems contain less than 4mg/L, the impetus in that case being fluorosis. This study extends research done in China in 2006 about cognitive effects of fluoride - naturally occurring and otherwise - and wait, what!? This is fucking booooooring. A bunch of nerds debating a the effects of less than one PPM of fluoride in a country that already recommends half the level studied? Fuck that. Give me Hitler. Give me chemtrails. Inject me with autism. Lets blast some Coast to Coast on the AM radio!
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
I'm pretty comfortable and drink liters of tap water daily. Always have. I always saw drinking bottled water at home as low class coded, like buying furniture on credit, or keeping a cc balance. Who pays that much for water? Tap water where I grew up and live has been pristine. Superfluous bottled water at events, or premium branded water is the real divide in America. I'd bet that anywhere in the developed world the the risk adjusted ROI for drinking bottled water is massively negative barring govt alerts (ie blue baby).
Trump got 12M more votes vs 2016. Fraud? I asked chatgpt to make a table of voter turnout by year, % turnout for D's and R's, and voter registration rate - for the last 5 elections. It supposedly took data from here:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/demo/p20-585.pdf
2020 had the highest values in every singly category. I think a lot of people voted in 2020.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
If a weather forecast says there is a 50% chance of rain tomorrow, and it does not rain, was the forecast wrong? If a betting market says there's only a 40% of rain, and it doesn't rain, did the betting market crush the weather forecast?
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
This is kind of how it worked at the top levels of online poker in ~2016ish. Various groups spent 100kish each to build analysis software years before a dev released a version for sale. Top regs eventually pooled resources to build GTO bots, prompting top poker sites to learn how to ban them. For prediction markets the stats are way different (ie fewer trials, lots of noise) and a 10% edge wouldn't translate translate into a lot of money unless you could bet many millions, plus the variance would be insane. With active trading (ie more trials) I could see decent profits, but I don't know what liquidity looks like.
Been in a similar situation. It was nerves. PDE 5 inhibitors are extremely well tolerated and possibly safter for general health than not taking them. When I'm in great shape my boners and morning wood are awesome, even at 41. But for new encounters, I love Cialis. Takes my mind off things, which relaxes me in the bedroom. Women prefer it (though I've never mentioned it, they do mention noticing how turned on I must be, which is a turn on for them) Great erections, no headaches or sinus trouble. I have 20 mg tabs and break it into rough thirds.
More options
Context Copy link