Girzo

@TheAlchemist no, most of the pharmaceuticals are on the safe side, safer than harmalas. You need to check your exact substance individually to know if you need to be careful with it.

Yet, the reality shows that things like BRICS never rise up to their promise. Maybe there's an inherent structural issue to the authoritarian countries that make them unable to cooperate at that level. Or maybe it's just the current setup of the world divided in a center, semi-perriferies, and perrifferies, that make such cooperation a net-negative for all the parties involved no matter what.

@ici What makes it ugly is that it is AI generated, sounds like shit But It's like a good sketch on a napkin that you could give someone to skilled to execute on and actually create some music and record some real vocals. Or maybe even AI vocals, but manually-steered.

@CARDOZZO Are you writing a sci-fi book? I think your readers might not buy the 'quantum energy from the brain' concept. The sci-fi readers nowadays have got sophisticated taste and quantum mumbo jumbo doesn't satisfy them anymore.

@Bobby_2021 You indeed are pulling things out of your ass. You are talking to a sociologist, I know when you pull stuff straight out of nowhere. I am done throwing bricks at this brickwall of your ideology.

Also, Bobby, I think your attitiude comes from thinking of social constructs as something worthy of the word "merely." Social constructs are real and very powerful. Money is a social construct. Gender is a similarly powerful social construct. They are not "merely" social constructs. They are so important and powerful you are willing to heatedly discuss about them online, spending your precious minutes of life on this instead of doing self-actualization. Very important.

"There is clear research that shows that the vast majority of women show less interest for engineering than men." This is ok. The END. Put a stop there. That's my whole argument. If you go further into venturing into saying with certainity about why that is, you will probably make a mistake. We can say our ideas of possible explanations, state our opinions, that's all good, to argue indefinitely defending them, or treating them as some proven truth is foolishness.

Have you read about this topic? First, it's about gender, so it's culture. Then, even on the wikipedia page there are descriptions of people arguing about the 'why's', because they are not obvious, no where are genetics pointed as the main factor as to why. Exactly what I was saying. You noticing the existence of the Gender Equality Paradox, that's great, we are describing reality. You jumping to conclusions as to why, no bueno, that's imagination. Everything. Culture, psychology, genetics, environement, life experience, etc. Both at the individual and collective levels. You are building up an argument as to why you shouldn't say WHY things are for sure, as even experts can disagree for a long time, but also 100% agreement is never needed for science to go forward, science is a dynamic process of discovery and inventivness not a religious dogma. You are doing what you accuse the feminists of. You boil everything down to some stupid patriarchy. Patriarchy is a bullshit explanation. Social reality is way more complex and there are other things that influence these results, as you have mentioned by mentioning the gender equality paradox. No you don't know, you don't even read the books or the current scientific research and it's very visible. My man, you say you want clarity but you are not willing to spend 10 minutes to clarify for yourself what 'gender fluidity' means by reading a wikipedia article about it. Gender-fluid is an identity that an INDIVIDUAL can have, not a fucking concept that everyone's gender is fluid, the hell. It just tells you that there are some individuals who don't have a stable gender identity. SOME. INDIVIDUALS. It is your misunderstanding of the basic meaning of the term 'gender-fluid', you don't even know what it relates to, as I have said above. Just read them for yourself if you care and don't listen to others' opinions. Otherwise, you will just end up as opinionatied as them. Ups, too late. Replication doesn't mean shit. I cannot replicate a tsunami hitting the Fukushima nuclear plant. Does that make the measurements of the impact invalid, because I can't measure it again? The fuck no. Every branch of science has a subbranch called Methodology and it deals solely with the problem of how to construct the research and do it properly. The replication problem you describe is meant to describe the shit that happens in STEM science, for example in chemistry, where mainly Chinese or Indian researchers mass-produce papers with fake results - they fail to prove something but write it worked to get money and points for publication, etc. Social science has different important issues than the replication problem. The problem with skipping them arises when these complexities are absolutely crucial for understanig the topic.

This is toxic spirituality. I would give you a kick to the ass if I ever had some permanent medical condition and you told to my face that I wished to be born with problems.

No no no man, you don't have proof for all that, now you are doing not more nuance, but more bias. You can't say it's because of genetics, because you DON'T KNOW that. You don't know causation and many other things. It's safe to always just share the insight of HOW you see things to be and not WHY they are this way. Because without you being a researcher on the topic or directly citing some advanced paper, your reasons why will probably be very ungrounded. It's hard to explain the 'why' in most topics in social science. Stay aware that if you do hypotethical, ungrounded 'why's' then yours are as good as the opposite side's. Also you are mixing gender and sex all the time. Women this, women that, yes but being a woman is a cultural thing, culture makes up what being a woman means. It's what you do, not what you are. What it entails changes across time and cultures. "Do men have such encouragement from society? Nope. They become engineers at large because of their neurological wiring." Obviously they do. If you are a man then you get social acceptance of your choice and family support, etc. Lots of encouragement. My only thing I want you to take with you after this conversation. Get comfortable with not-knowing and don't assume you know why society looks a certain way, stay grounded with your observations. Some Peter Ralston would do you good and many other people at these forums.

This is such bullshit man, go study any social science at an uni, and then tell us how it is, not before doing that.

@Alexop If you read her then you should be aware of the distinction between sex and gender. On average, being of certain sex gives you advanteges in certain career like engineering. No-one disputes it. The same goes for an acquired cultural gender. "Men are more suited for engineering roles, and women are for nurses." If you think that this exact sentence wouldn't be published in a book, that's only if it were read in strawmanning-manner as completely lacking nuance, thus factually wrong. Nuance being it's only true on average, there's many women who excel in engineering roles. Another nuance would be what Bobby thinks about proportions of this tendency, true proportions can be scientifically found out more or less. Another is the inclusion of factors why is it so, not only sex but also the whole fucking society. No wonder less women are crane operators when all the safety equipment, etc is desgined male-sized. The same goes for rifles in the military, etc. Nuance and context, then you can say it.

Your numbers are straight out of ass. As a sociologist I have to oppose such statements. About your last statement. Clearly, you have not read much literature or even any literature on the topic and just share your imaginations about what is in the books and not what actually is in there. Start with some Judith Butler or something.

@Bobby_2021 The problem is her depression and bipolar. For me it was hell to even simply take care care of a person with a severe bipolar sympotoms for 1 day, and I was done, I can't imagine strain it would make on people who interact with that person everyday and on the person themsleves.

@Davino how the hell is 2-fluoro meth less toxic than MDMA I press the Doubt button, just based on the name. 4-AcO-DMT is the same as mushrooms in my experience and all the other psychedelics can get very deep, depending on the set and setting.