Carl-Richard

True. It is comformist, it is safe, not very extreme, not very sexy, not very appealing to testosterone-filled young men. Evolution works by fitness of the entire genome, not just the mutations. Mutations are often deleterious. There again you see holism at play.

I'm not limiting it to science, no. Also, finding a higher order synthesis is also about taking pluralism and deducing some basic underlying principles. It's just that some syntheses are more summarizing while some are more innovative, but you often have a bit of both (integration vs. emergence, "include" vs. "transcend").

And what is that?

That is why hardcore relativism is a midway point between naive realism and pragmatism. You get hung up in the fact that there aren't absolutes (because you've discovered pluralism and relativism), and absolutes is what the naive realist wants, and you want to critique that, but you sort of forget that it's possible to be pragmatic and choose something that works relatively well, or is relatively wise. But you can't go back to absolutism, so the logical choice is to marry pragmatism with pluralism: take a meta-theoretic approach, see common trends in a large selection of wisdom traditions, and boil it down to the basics (find the "systemic" principles). That is how you re-introduce order and hierarchy in a meta-modern framework, and when it comes to wisdom, that is where concepts like holism and balance come in.

What happens when a blind person experiences synaesthesia?

Leo himself has said that this behavior is not ok (read the quotes Gesundheit brought up).

It's good to learn about MBTI and Jung's cognitive functions to understand how your mind works, its preferences, etc., but don't forget that you're not just one type. You may gravitate towards one or a few types more than the others, but your mind is constantly using all the functions.

Just remember that it's indeed harsh behavior and that you don't need to be ok with it.

Firstly, that's flattering ? Secondly, I don't like the word "smart". I think passion is a better word. If there is something I'm passionate about, I'll do it a lot and try to do it the best I can. The "smartest" thing you can do is to find what you're passionate about and do that. If you don't know what you're passionate about, just try something out, challenge yourself. Who you are now is not set in stone forever. You can adapt and learn new things and it becomes a part of you. 3-4 years ago, I didn't know I would be doing what I'm doing now, but I enjoy it. Also, there is always compromise. I've considered three paths that most deeply reflect myself throughout my life: musician, scientist, and spiritual teacher. I'm constantly sort of fluctuating between all of them, but there have been different phases where I've been focusing more on one over the others, and I feel that will continue into the future.

I basically didn't know anything about this before like a month ago ?. I had to read the final chapters of the stats book that weren't included in the curriculum and watch a bunch of videos on how to do hierarchical linear regression in JASP before I felt confident enough to start writing my thesis. Something that I really struggled with when reading about regression with multiple variables was not getting lost in trying to understand how the hell the computer "controls for" multiple variables in a regression model. That is why we let the computer do it, because your brain can't really comprehend it.

No, I haven't seen those terms used in any of our statistics books or in any of the studies I've been looking into in my thesis. We don't really use "mediation" and "moderation" in my language (Norwegian). If I were to translate it directly, it would be "indirect effects" vs. "interaction effects".

H3 was considered relevant when I realized the consequences of scrapping H1 and H2. Let me try to explain with my sleepy brain: Ruffault et al. (2016) conducted a study where they found that mindfulness moderates the relationship between two variables: 1. intrinsic motivation towards exercise (independent variable), and 2. physical activity levels (dependent variable). So mindfulness increases the effect that intrinsic motivation towards exercise has on physical activity levels, but since it's a moderation effect, mindfulness does not have to be correlated with physical activity levels for this effect to exist. That was in fact the reasoning that Ruffault et al. (2016) used for choosing the moderation model in the first place: they couldn't find a correlation between mindfulness and physical activity, but they did find a correlation between mindfulness and intrinsic motivation towards exercise, and they of course found a correlation between intrinsic motivation towards exercise and physical activity. On the other hand, had they found a correlation between mindfulness and physical activity, they would've most likely ran a mediation model instead, because mediation is when you have an effect on the dependent variable, but it's mediated by an intermediate variable (i.e. mindfulness' effect on physical activity would be mediated by intrinsic regulation towards exercise). These are subtle differences, but this lead me to my insight about the consequences of scrapping H1 and H2: When you scrap H1 and H2, you have excluded the possibility of a mediation relationship, mainly because mindfulness is not correlated with physical activity. But, it's still possible to find support for a moderation relationship. Why? Because the criteria for a moderation relationship in this case is that mindfulness must be correlated with intrinsic motivation towards exercise (H3), and intrinsic motivation towards exercise must be correlated with physical activity (which was already established in the regression model used for answering H2). The only reason I consider it HARKing has to do with the timing: I ran the analysis, which when I saw the results, made me have to scrap H1 and H2, and then I had the insight. But I could've easily predicted the consequences of scrapping H1 and H2 before running the analysis. It was just me being bad at forward-thinking, and I needed to actually be in the situation of scrapping H1 and H2 in order to prompt me to think about the consequences of that scenario. Anyway, it doesn't matter now as my plan is to be transparent about the whole process and do it under the guise of "Grounded Theory" (which was one of the suggestions from my advisor). That option is so much more freeing than having to shoehorn myself into a more standard format. This is probably way too dense, but fuck it, I'm exhausted from writing my last bunch of clingy e-mails to my advisor lol. Also, post-hoc-ing the H3 wasn't the only problem. I ran a second survey on a different population after seeing some of the results of the first population just out of curiosity (because I saw some patterns in the data that made me ask a very interesting question), and the data from that survey came in much more handy than I expected (again, lack of forward-thinking), and I would feel bad if I had to exclude that data (even though I could easily exclude them). They call me the Zentific Devil. The interesting question I asked myself was: "it seems like many people scored 0 on physical activity in the spirituality-related population, so what if mindfulness doesn't make you "take up" exercise, but instead it just increases exercise frequency in people who already exercise?", hence I made a survey for people who exercise frequently in order to avoid 0-scores and posted it all across lifting-related subreddits and got the same amount of participants in just a few days. And yes, that population indeed turned out to have zero people with 0-scores on physical activity). I just recently did a data cleaning protocol which significantly improved the amount of ugly outliers, so I would have to re-run the comparisons between the two populations to see if there is a difference.

Have you ever been in love before? Have you seen directly how an "empty vessel" can fill up your vessel?

I agree. I'm on your side.

Who will pay you? OnlyFans subscribers? But I agree, I've always seen academia as the second best thing.

But then you could make the argument that he is more inclined to shit on people like Frank because people are shitting on him all the time. It's a complex circular relationship, like all abusive relationships

*cocks ban hammer* "whatchu say?"

I think the guidelines is a good metric in this case.

I can sympathize with being fed up with being told "you ain't shit" by some random dudes on the internet day-in and day-out. Imagine if the forum was a corporation and Leo was the CEO and people went up to him regularly to say "you ain't shit". Those people would disappear pretty quickly. On the other hand, this is a forum, and returning the abuse in a public manner like this sets a bad example. It puts the law-abiding forum members in a double-bind: "should I follow the guidelines or should I follow the owner? The owner regularly calls people idiots, so why can't I?" Also, it just makes people confused and forces them to make up elaborate excuses for behavior that they know is not ok. So what should Leo do? Shut down the forum? Go for a walk? Meditate? That's up to him, but I will keep making the same point every time something like this happens.

I don't see much alternatives though

I don't disagree that an asshole can be deep in many different ways (no pun intended). What I'm pointing out is that you seem to be using being an asshole as an explanation for his deepness.

Ego mainly determines how truth is presented to other people. Truth itself is beyond ego. And isn't it just a weird proposition in general? Why should truth require being asshole?

So somebody is being an asshole, and your explanation is "they must be onto something deep"? What about the explanation that they're simply a bit of an asshole?

If somebody believes that it's easy for people to stop being stupid, and that all it takes is a little push and their behavior could easily change, and that it's not like the momentum of the entire universe is behind it, they would probably get mad at stupid people pretty easily. The more complex you know life to be, the less surprised you'll be when you see somebody acting up. You can't predict it down to each single individual, but you can make attempts to protect general groups. You don't walk into a kindergarten to advertise your OnlyFans