If you’re going to download it, try the torrent option! That way, you can give back to the community that gives you LibreOffice.

Please mark it as NSFW :)

Huh. I see the idea of divide and conquer. But I got a bit lost with “killing bazillions of people as some kind of a ‘market reset’ to drive up shareholder value”. I’m thinking of the black plague, which killed millions, but that increased worker power because survivors had less competition and therefore could demand higher wages.

That’s it!

There’s a Know How or How To (I don’t remember the name of the YouTube channel; EDIT: @executivechimp@discuss.tchncs.de found it. The video is linked in their comment) that explains why we used to believe moderate alcohol consumption is healthy.

Turns out, those surveys only ask “How many drinks do you have a week?” Notice they tacitly ask about the present, how many drinks now and not in the past. If you were a very heavy drinker in the past and got sick from it, you likely stopped drinking altogether.

Not only that, but people with chronic illness many times choose to not drink at all.

These two populations (sick ex-drinkers and chronically sick non-drinkers) make it seem as if not drinking is not that healthy. But remove those groups from the data analysis or control for past alcohol usage and pre-existing conditions and you end up with a clear pattern: drinking alcohol in any quantity is unhealthy. The more, the worse.

Sorry for the lack of sources; I’m on mobile. I think there’s a WHO report titled “There’s no safe amount of alcohol” or something like that.

Indeed, he could. It sounds like it’s an expectation from you, and that if he doesn’t then he is entirely a Trump or Republican supporter.

I’m so sorry. You’ll think I’m annoying and stupid, but would it be absurd to ask for clarification regarding what you mean? I couldn’t really understand your point and it sounds like you have a passion for this topic and a clear point of view.

That’s one take: that Andrew Yang is a Trump supporter. However, another take is that he made a massive mistake by making it seem as if he supported Trump, even though he was talking about something specific and narrow.

https://insights.priva.cat/p/a-follow-up-on-does-proton-still

Is this a shitpost?

It sounds frustrating. I’m sorry it has been that way.

Fair points:

• I see how that joke can be fine in the sense that, if everyone in the group shares values, there is no need to consider how a staunch Trump supporter will respond to the joke. After all, I think there are very few staunch Trump supporters reading this.
• I also see that it can be very hard to convince people to reconsider tightly-held beliefs, or at the very least gain perspective on them. It sounds like you do not believe changing perspectives is even possible, that no dialogue can ever be worthwhile or useful.

I see you appreciate facts and information, the scientific process and the institutions that enable it. We have that in common. That’s why, ironically, I’ll start with anecdotal facts and then move on to more robust and generalizable findings. Do you know about my friend who went from defending “one dollar, one vote” (a couple of years ago) to explaining how the lack of third spaces is associated with inequality (a couple of weeks ago)? I don’t expect you to at all, so do you know Contrapoints’ impact on radicalized people who reach out to her (https://www.vice.com/en/article/contrapoints-interview-2019-natalie-wynn/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nrz4-FZx6k)?

These may sound like cherry-picked examples, but there’s actually evidence of massive shifts in people’s political views: the World Value Survey. Do you know how world values have changed ever since the WVS started?(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIXdRVe92gg)

In the face of the WVS shifts, it may seem like value changes only occur when material conditions allow for it, but there’s evidence within the WVS literature that material conditions are not as important today (in particular, the variance that explains the change in values used to be mostly explained by material conditions, but now it is mostly explained by connectivity). However, we can also look at another set of scientific literature that shows that the way that things are presented can lead to changes in political attitudes. Do you know about the moral reframing literature? I’m sorry for the paywall https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12501 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337861541_Moral_reframing_A_technique_for_effective_and_persuasive_communication_across_political_divides

lol I interpret this as sarcasm, as with many of your other comments around Lemmy. If they are so, I think they’re funny and so far I agree with what you actually value, democracy. However, it took me some time to understand your sarcasm. This might be just me, but I wonder if your comments could be subjected to Poe’s Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe’s_law). Is it impossible that they could be interpreted as candid?

I’m so sorry you’ve been struggling so much. It sounds like you’ve tried multiple avenues and they haven’t been as rewarding or transformative as you thought.

I know you’ve had a disappointing experience with therapy. You will think that what I will suggest has a low likelihood of succeeding. However, it sounds like you’re also open to options that could help.

Imagine the longest essay you’ve ever had to write for school. A dozen pages? Two dozen? Now picture it in front of you, printed out, on a desk. Imagine there’s ten copies of your essay spread around the desk. Add another layer of essays on top. And another. And another. A hundred times. If you organized the documents into a single stack of paper, it would be 1.2 meters tall. That is how many randomly controlled trials there are on the effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT).

Here are two places where you can look at the evidence: one and two.

ACT has changed my life and that of hundreds of thousands of people. While I would suggest to get an ACT therapist (and a good one!), there is evidence that you can learn the skills of psychological flexibility if you engage in the appropriate mental processes, regardless of how. You can learn about how to do ACT exercises in A Liberated Mind, which you can find here https://stevenchayes.com/.

I have to concede that I personally like the way that ACT is explained by Steven Hayes. After all, he is a developer of ACT and of the theory behind it that explains why it works. However, there are many ways of becoming more psychologically flexible. Other people in this thread have mentioned meditation, for example. What’s important is that it works for you!

I wish you the best of luck and please feel free to ask questions!

I’m really glad you found something that works so well for you! Self-love is indeed wonderful. For others reading who might want to try affirmations, it’s worth noting that research has found they affect different people differently. What helps one person might not help another, or could even decrease mood in some cases, especially if the affirmations don’t feel authentic to where someone is in their journey.

If you’re curious about building self-love, you might want to experiment mindfully with different approaches to find what resonates for you personally - whether that’s self-compassion practices, ACT, gradual behavior change, or other methods. Pay attention to how different practices actually make you feel rather than how you think they ‘should’ make you feel.

1. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy exercises. I learned them well, and now I can do them wherever, whenever. Life changing.
2. Visible Thinking Routines by Harvard’s Project Zero. Every time I want to learn something, I think visibly about it!

Sorry if you know this game, but I’ve met plenty of people who haven’t and I’ve never seen it mentioned online until I searched for it today: Contact!

Professionals have large networks of neurons. They are sturdy and efficient from repeated use. Memory palaces help to start the construction of these large networks of neurons. Afterwards, as another commenter noted, the knowledge is deeply processed. Mnemonics are replaced by networks of meaning. It is no longer “This algorithm rhymes with tomato”, but “This algorithm is faster if the data is stored in faster hardware, but our equipment is old so we better use this other algorithm for now”.

Broadly, the progression of learning is: superficial learning, deep learning, and transfer. Check out Visible Learning: The Sequel by John Hattie for more on this.

Edit: To directly answer your question, experts have so many sturdy neural hooks on which to hang new knowledge that mnemonics become less and less necessary. Mnemonics may be particularly helpful when first learning something challenging, but are less necessary as people learn.

You could also check out a paradox called the expert paradox. We used to think memory is boxes that get filled. This idea was directly challenged by Craik and Lockhart’s Levels of Processing. Levels of processing supports the idea that “the more you know, the faster you learn”. Note that this is domain-specific. In other words, an expert in dog training won’t learn quantum mechanics faster than anyone else.

I’d say feeling admiration for others. People who are kind, patient, insightful, and critical thinkers. People who look at how political goods (including wealth) are distributed and can think critically about it. Nutomic and Dessalines for sure.

I see your concern for truth in any scenario, and I agree validity should be a constant consideration! However, bias and astroturfing are different. Bias is the lens that we use to look at reality. Astroturfing is forcing lenses onto many others without them knowing. It is a deliberate campaign.

I agree with you: the FSF can seem unwavering in their stance, even in the face of practicality. I’m really sorry for this incredibly nit-picky detail, but I think practicality is ideological too. For better or for worse, we can’t escape ideas or be free from them, so we have to choose which we value. For example, while I tend to choose software freedom over practicality, I also have, at times, chosen practicality over freedom.