Basman

Contemplation and studying. I haven't read a single book yet 😁.

You clearly have an anti-western bias. I don't know if your Muslim or something. You bring up some interesting points like western bias in spiral dynamics but it comes of as in bad faith rather than genuine interest in learning. Nor do you do meaningfully contribute to the conversation as you rebuke obvious and basic stuff. It should be obvious that spiral dynamics isn't a moral judgement. I'm not going to waste my time on your trolling anymore.

It's a pejorative term that can send the wrong message if that is not your intent. Ask yourself, what is the problem with referring to people from the global south as "blacks" or "N-words"? Global corruption index, standard of living, mean age, freedom of press, economic stability, infrastructure, women's rights, education, global slavery index, per capita income, access to health care, cultural tolerance, technology, security, etc. Would you rather live in Japan or Syria? That is development.

Focusing on the ethnicity of colonization is ironically a colonist concept. Colonization is essentially just another form of domination like the conquest of the Roman Empire or Alexander The Great. European colonization has more to do with geographical and cultural factors that allowed for effective exploitation of less culturally/technologically developed countries. It has less to with ethnicity and more with opportunity and timing. The desire to dominate others is universal because it is advantageous for survival. Focus on "race" or ethnicity is a red herring if the goal is to actually understanding geopolitical domination and a past of such. I believe there is a degree to which people from certain countries that have been affected by colonialism have resentment for Europe/the West and feel justified in being racist towards "white" people, I.E. punching up. Probably also mixed in with a lack of education and a relatively illiberal culture. I have a Greenlandic relative who likes to make racist remarks sometimes, which is apparently common among Greenlanders. I once joined in once because you kind of lose the sense of wrongness of something when everyone supports it. I made a "white" person visibly uncomfortable and I immediately regretted it. Racism is about putting people down so it's never really justified to base a conversation on race unless it is a meta-discussion.

We are seeing a general decline in students enrolling into the humanities in favor of more vocational education with a bunch of humanity degree holders and professors crying about it. While its a shame on the one hand that people seem less interested learning soft skills, philosophy for instance can change your worldview substantially, on the other hand, the decline of humanities is really the bubble bursting for the value of degrees in my opinion. The humanities where artificially large post WW2 till now due to the value of a degree but that value has now plummeted resulting in people to whom a liberal education is a luxury otherwise opting for more vocational education and hard skills. If you think about it, liberal education has been something that rich elites did primarily. Most if not all great philosopher have been elites who didn't have to worry about basic survival. It is correct in my opinion that humanities are shrinking down to a minority. We as a society simply don't need that many philosophers and sociologists and what not. However, I do think a liberal education should be an important part of primary education. It is just that many of the courses that are liberal in nature aren't all that educational in practice in my experience. Foreign languages for instance are glorified cultural exchanges for the most part. Only 15% of students will actually go on to communicate with the foreign language after 4 years of study. That's a lot of time spent learning about tacos and how to say "beer" in Spanish for it all to be just forgotten after exams. Meanwhile people have no understanding of finances. This forums seems to be much more practical in general and I think most here would prioritize hard skills over soft skills. I'd be especially interested in hearing from people who have or are studying a liberal arts degree in what they think about this decline and the value of a liberal secondary education.

The idea that men are picky is really funny and untrue. I've seen bridge trolls get hit on by conventionally handsome men. Guys will fuck peanutbutter jars and melons. Most guys don't have crazy standards. Of course, everyone likes hot chicks but that is another story.

Judging purely by his appearance he does look like the king of groupies and like he experiments a lot with drugs. Wouldn't let him near me daughter.

Brain scans don't lie or make up stuff. In fact, they don't say anything at all. It is just data. To extrapolate any kind of conclusion requires interpretation. What annoys me the most about porn haters is that they present themselves knowing what is best for you when in reality their priority is their arbitrary moral convictions. The veneer of medical authority is a trojan horse to convince you of their ideology and there isn't enough push-back to it. Porn very well may be harmful to a certain extent if presented with the evidence but there is no diligence at all. Maybes are turned into absolutes. I'm most worried about young guys whose head gets filled with this nonsense and are being misinformed. It distracts from proper self-improvement which entails meaningful action. Not magical thinking and half-baked science. Never take medical advice from people that can't even get basic science right.

Wilson's argument boils down to applying the coolidge effect unto humans which is controversial because it is essentially argues that novelty seeking is the root of "porn addiction". But how do you differentiate between "porn addiction" and "internet addiction". Are you a porn addict or actually just an internet addict? It's the same issue as with the previous example, porn could potentially be the cause of brain deterioration but it can't prove definitely that porn is the cause due to lacking that evidence. It is therefor pseudoscience to claim that it does anyway. Wilson has made it his career peddling pseudoscience to an audience of mostly moralists who have already made up their mind on porn. His theories lacks empiricism to support the claims he makes and he isn't academically supported. That's why I don't consider him serious evidence. I don't need to justify myself to anyone unlike moralists who need that justification to feel ideological congruence. The thing is, it doesn't even matter. It's not even a problem to make a value judgement but a lack of transparency is. Misinformation should be treated as such. Here's a good read that criticizes Wilson's theory on porn addiction: https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Between_platonic_love_and_internet_pornography/23449100?file=41265894

You don't think that your response can itself be considered trolling?

Yes. You don't know what you don't know. None of the resources you shared is serious evidence. If porn use has serious medical consequences, then why aren't we seeing a proportional response from the medical community or governments? If it so bad, then why aren't we seeing people's lives ruined relative to the amount of porn being consumed, like for example the opium wars in China? Why not? How do you know that that wouldn't work and what is informing your perception? Keep in mind that perception isn't pure data but an interpretive process, so if you see a street orgy and you feel that is bad, how do you recognize the effect that preconceived ideas about social norms and chastity aren't influencing your view? How do you know whether or not it is actually unethical? Ethics is a serious matter that demands diligence and critical thinking. Postulating and assuming the conclusion isn't wholly sufficient for leading to a healthy society nor should the goal of society be to perpetuate a particular religious/conservative identity.

You shouldn't make a strong empirical claim like that porn destroys your brain if you can't provide serious evidence. It's essentially misinformation. It's fine to a have hunch about porn being bad but the lack of transparency comes off as deliberate and misleading. This is a different argument, that porn is a distraction. You would have a much stronger case against porn use if you focused on lifestyle over pseudo-science. In my own experience, overindulging on porn is bad not for health reasons but because it is an unproductive waste of time. Though I think there is still a degree of moral attitude steering the conversation. The problem with moralizing is that it's an arbitrary attitude relative to the individual/culture which is not inherently accurate of reality or applicable/desirable to everyone since people are different. Why even rail against porn so much if you don't have a moral conviction about it? If young men are not taking their lives seriously and wasting their time watching porn, what else are they missing in life? Too much porn is just a symptom in the majority of cases in my opinion.

The rare times that I spar with girls during my kickboxing training it's like sparring with a kid due to their lack of size and strength and they are really slow and bad at coordinating complex moves even those that trained longer than me. You can really feel their frailty and you have to put the kids gloves on to not hurt or scare them.

Teal Swan talks a lot about "containment" and how necessary it is for women in dating. It's basically just a fluffy way of saying to take care of women's survival needs and make them the focus of your attention. Remembering their birthdays and shit.

An idealistic perspective alone isn't sufficient for meaningful dialogue because we live in a non-ideal world. Society is a cooperation which necessitates the existence of different perspective. There needs to be room for conversation, which an idealistic perspective isn't equipped to deal with. It just wants to push its conclusions. Assuming meaningful dialogue is the goal.

This is sloppy stuff... Finding less grey matter in heavy porn users doesn't directly conclude that the cause is porn. That is an assumption. What if a lack of grey matter is the cause of heavy porn use? Or another example, what if a lack of grey matter is due to a lack of brain stimulating activities like learning or exercise that could correlate with heavy porn use? This is a good example of porn addiction lacking evidence. There is not enough evidence to make a conclusive statement here. Doesn't mean it can't be true but you are assuming the conclusion. The irony of porn haters is that you don't even need to make the argument that porn is addictive to make a value judgement, however that would instantly just make it "your opinion" and less of a political tool. That doesn't mean that porn can't be potentially addictive but what is going on here most likely is that people already have the conclusion in hand that porn is bad and are backwards rationalizing their moral belief. The biggest predictor of self-reported porn-addiction is in fact religiosity (religiosity can cause various sexual problems in fact). Another fact is that porn-addiction isn't an addictive disorder but an impulse-control disorder in the case of genuine "porn addiction" in the medical sense (excluding moral conflict during diagnosis). Here's a good read: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction#Diagnostic_status

Information that your AI spews out you can just copy-paste into your CPJ. Good organization should make it plenty easy to find your notes in addition to the fact that many note taking apps have a search function. I can see the appeal of giving an AI prompts to find and create novel information based on its memory on you though. It would have to be a regular note taking app with an AI feature rather than the other way around in my opinion.

Maybe she doesn't have complaint about your dad like you do because she has different needs relative to your dad. It sounds like you yearn for your dad's respect and support.

They got that dawg in them.

Norway has always been quiet pro-Palestine, at least since the mid 1940s when the then government rejected Zionism as unethical. It is part of the culture of Norway to be supportive of Palestine. I think it is in part because Norwegians feel a duty to help them considering how well off they are comparatively in addition to the more direct political support of Palestine since the 70s and 90s cementing the sentiment as part of their identity. It is one of the positive aspects of a Stage Green culture.

Same energy:

Art is meant to be shared.