Jirh

Sexless grannies are the superior sex. They're wiser and less impulsive.

@integral I would expect better usage of "scientific language". You didn't present your claims as personal anecdotes. You presented them as universal truths. And you kept doing that with the LSD dog example. This shouldn't be happening according to your other thread.

@Carl-Richard You asked me to talk to AI and give you the answer back. I didn't. If I did, I would have used quotes (like I did above) or make a disclaimer. You didn't like the answer I came up with, so you dismissed it. But the truth remains is that these reports are personal anecdotes that are extremely prone to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. They are reported by a person, under the influence of mind altering substances (like LSD), in an uncontrolled environment... I'm sorry, but no conclusions can be drawn from such reports that lack every scientific criteria. What you guys are doing is not even pseudoscience. It's just sloppy reasoning. You're drawing broad general conclusions based on anecdotal experiences from individual untrusted sources. Scientists know that some substances are excreted in exhale or sweat or both. You're not making a discovery here. These things have been studied for decades, and the effects you're claiming to be significant are mostly negligible under normal conditions. Nobody needs to be cautious of whomever is sitting in the room with them. That would be neurotic. Here's a thought: By the crazy logic proposed (by you guys), if the ingredients of explosives are gathered in one's body through air (that should be a possible randomality), then we should hear reports of spontaneous explosions of people or animals, which we don't. And here's a final thought: By the same logic, we can propose that doctors should carry every disease they encounter in patients and get it transferred to their bodies through air. Let alone the meds the patients are taking, that would make the doctors chemical soup a tornado of explosives. Then they should die very quickly depending on how many patients they come in contact with. Then doctors would go extinct. You're making a big deal out of nothing, really.

Here's a thought: If women's periods are synced through air (this assumes an original state where synchronization was the norm), why are they and how did they get out of sync in the first place? Since we're all sharing the same air, everyone (at least every woman) should be synced to some 'average' or 'equalizer' source somehow, which is false. As well, virtually, every girl should be in sync with her mother at puberty, then may diverge or not, which is false. Also, women in small tribes should be in perfect sync, which is false.

@Carl-Richard The claims are not false due to statistical insignificance. They are false because they are not true under standard normal conditions. Isn't this the same person who was advocating for higher scientific standards? We shouldn't be lowering them now, should we?

This is absolutely false. No sources, credible or otherwise, are even attached. Please do not spread false information.

Seeking intimacy and connection is a basic human need. You're not getting away with this spiritual bypassing.

@No1Here2c Nice! Thanks for sharing. I wrote that statement as a reminder to myself. When I am truthful, I don't need to defend myself. I wrote it with online debates in mind. The truth is its own defence. When I stick to truth, I don't have to take sides, or defend anyone or anything.

Truth is ugly. Beautiful truth is crazy. Sane beautiful truth is impossible.

I'm not sure. What's the relationship between truth and (imminent) survival?

https://www.sciencealert.com/pcos-is-officially-renamed-after-decades-of-misinformation For decades, the official diagnosis was called PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome). That name turned out to be misleading, making the condition harder to understand and treat properly. I personally know several women who struggled with it and couldn’t find an easy solution. After years of research and refinement, experts have recognized that the condition is far more systemic than just involving the female reproductive system. The new name—PMOS (Polyendocrine Metabolic Ovarian Syndrome)—better reflects how it affects the entire body and hormone system. This change should improve diagnosis tools, medical procedures, and treatment plans—ultimately advancing women’s health worldwide. Stay healthy, y'all!

Take shelter and seek refuge in truth only.

I know, right? It's amazing Of course, that's because there's always a shared context. We are all humans, sharing some context with each other. If there's no shared context, it wouldn't even make sense to try and communicate anything in the first place. Like for example, the equation you posted. I don't have a damn clue what it means. It would be pointless for a scientist to come and cite it for me to convince me of some idea. They would be crazy to even attempt that. I think much of the friction is happening because some specialized topics and concepts are leaking to the layman through easy access and social media. But that's not all. Sometimes, the concepts are used on purpose, to confuse, hypnotize, and appear sophisticated. Like imagine someone goes to the doctor, and instead of them explaining the patient's specific problem, they start spouting advanced medical terms at them. Partly, they might not be even aware that they're doing this, because their knowledge might feel like common sense or second nature to them after years of practice. But the problem remains that you don't understand your condition. "Oh, it looks like you have meningoencephalitis, we're going to have to initiate a targeted anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial intervention protocol with close hemodynamic monitoring and serial lumbar punctures as indicated by your neurological status."

It's actually very possible to express any physics or maths equation in natural language. It's how we originally learn the abstracted language in schools and universities. For example, E = 1/2 mv^2 is easily translated as Energy equals half the mass multiplied by the velocity squared.

Agreed, but the criticism (at least for me) isn't of the use of language to express a perspective, rather it's of the abuse of that feature. Imagine instead of using + for arithmetic operations, I use it to draw a dog, in the form of ASCII Art. But I don't share it as art. I share it as truth. That's obviously problematic. The language has its place and time and usage. That still doesn't excuse the abuse.

I think it mostly has to do with control and power dynamics. Just like how a social media influencer would speak with confidence to get their point through and make it take effect. They have to demonstrate absolute confidence and certainty and sophistication to gain your trust and establish their authority. Typical human behaviour, and totally understandable too. A humble scientist will not be taken seriously by the layman and will not be respected by peer scientists. So scientists have to play these games, even if mostly subconsciously.

Very nice and important. Thank you! Who compiled this, by the way?

Gemini comes with a superpower! A mode called "Guided Learning". It literally becomes a mentor. It walks you through anything step by step, as if you have a perfect teacher that will hold your hand and guide you into and through learning anything you want. And for free! It's awesome! I'm so excited about this feature!

I cannot confirm this, because some stories, no matter how much inspected, still have their full effect. Inspection simply adds awareness to the story. But it doesn't necessarily have an active role. It's mostly a passive observer. Our (mine at least) stories don't create our emotions. It's probably the other way around.

https://www.bootstrappable.org Nice!

In a sense, and for some men, yes. But when it comes to sex in specific, most men aren't really torn between reality and illusion. They are deeply lost in the illusion to the point where they are blind to reality. This is why you are seeing such a question in the first place, because this guy is projecting his own way of thinking onto women. He thinks women are similar to him, and that when they see an objectively attractive man (status, looks, money, etc...), their panties immediately get wet and drop to the floor. While that can be true for some women in some phase of their lives (promiscuous/adventurous/immature/naive), most women aren't wired like that. Most women are wired for safety first and leadership second (not the leader), and attraction builds on that intuitive feeling around a particular man, regardless of their reasoning for it or his reality. The internal narrative for women's attraction is this: "Lead me to safety so I can give you myself and show you my beauty." On the other hand, most men are wired for looks. They see a beautiful young woman and they start drooling over her. Emotions are not included in this equation, nor truth. It's mostly a horny reflex. She's either attractive or not. But beauty is largely subjective. And emotions might develop over time. But this dude probably has no clue about any of this. He's lost in the illusion and making it worse by consuming such toxic online ideas.

You're hinting at the tension between truth and survival, between reality and illusion. There is no easy answer. It's a tug of war. Women are torn between what looks right and what feels tempting in the moment.

The Wikipedia pages for love and truth, if anyone's interested: Love Truth

I'm the kind of person who loves deeply, can be vulnerable, and loves vulnerability more than anything else. I am extremely sensitive and emotional. I can love without boundaries, until I almost lose myself in the other. But I am strong too. And I always do the right thing, regardless of how I feel. I used to comfort my ex during her psychosis. Even kept my support after she broke up with me. Held her in my arms, and cried with her. Some of my best memories. I still cry from gratitude till this day when I remember. I still love her.