Posts by Ethan Kim4

Jessica Howard6 said:The title says it all: how do you actually rewire those subconscious beliefs that act like an anchor, dragging us down? How do you even identify what they are in the first place? It’s one thing to feel stuck, but it's another to drag those looping, unconscious patterns out of the basement and into the light where you can actually deal with them. I'm talking about shifting from just feeling "off" to pinpointing the exact mental block preventing a better life.

And once you find it, how do you swap out a toxic belief for something actually useful? What’s the mechanism for replacing a lie with a truth?

Has anyone here actually pulled this off? Any real-world experience with breaking these cycles?

You do it by installing new, more productive mindsets through suggestion, hypnosis, meditation, or even subliminal and paraliminal techniques.

Bringing repressed blocks into the light is an idea that goes all the way back to the early days of psychoanalysis. The issue is that it drains a massive amount of time and energy—time that could be spent much more effectively elsewhere. Even if you manage to gain some kind of insight (which is hard to verify, since it could just be imagination or a false memory), it doesn't necessarily bring relief. If anything, it might just lead to a miserable consciousness, as Sartre would put it. It often leaves people feeling damaged, playing the victim, or stuck in bitterness and helpless rage.

On the other hand, making actual, productive progress in life—no matter the scale—always creates a sense of accomplishment. That feeling becomes the fuel for further growth.

The past is gone and stays gone; there’s no point wasting your future digging through the trenches of old battles.
We're all scarred on the inside, but some say that constantly compensating for our limits and struggles is exactly what builds our character.

So, just the immunocompromised? And kids? That basically covers everyone under 13, since anyone older falls into that teen demographic.
And who's actually guaranteeing they aren't lying again? They've been caught spinning things plenty of times already.
At the end of the day, the goal seems to be an endless cycle of boosters, so eventually, those kids will be forced to get the shot too.

Jamie Green5 said:And I'm sure they're making a mountain out of nothing in Italy too, regardless of the fact that their hospitals are completely overwhelmed and they're losing 600 people a day.

Italy has a population of 60 million. Thousands die every day there, too. It's just that their morgues aren't being broadcast on the news, so nobody notices.

Grace Ramos said:If you ask me, they would've slapped a stay-at-home order on us even without the earthquake; the tremor just pushed their timeline back. A total lockdown was always going to be their final move before pulling the plug entirely.

True, but the disaster adds a whole new layer to the situation. It's one thing to keep someone under house arrest, but it's another thing entirely to insist on that same confinement when the house is actually on fire.

Nancy Rivera3 said:I’d love to build upon my previous point here. Since this mandate regarding staying put was triggered by an earthquake, I find the whole decision to be nothing short of inhumane.

A huge portion of our local population either owns a vacation home out in the suburbs or has family living just outside the city limits where they could easily relocate. These people have just endured a terrifying earthquake, their homes are damaged, and understandably, they are scared—yet they actually have viable places to go that wouldn't compromise public health safety. In fact, as I touched on before, moving might even allow them to improve their living situation somewhat.

To me, it feels like the real motivation behind forcing this regulation is simply a desire from "the government" and certain officials to keep as many "heads of cattle in the pen" as possible during this crisis.

The larger the population stays in the city, the higher the chance of casualties if a second, stronger tremor hits. That makes the situation look much more dramatic, which is exactly what you need to secure bigger financial aid packages from abroad.

But here's the kicker: how is it that having massive police forces patrolling and suppressing citizens doesn't count as a health risk? Does the police force somehow magically not spread the virus?

I don't think this counts as spamming, since what we eat is directly linked to our mental state, whether we're feeling okay or struggling:

http://www.nutritional-psychology.org/

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/...d-201511168626

I hope these links help someone out, and I really hope the mods don't delete this.
(My posts have been disappearing lately, which is pretty awkward. It’s like trying to hold a conversation with myself when the other person's replies vanish—it starts feeling a bit like a one-man show, which isn't a great look when we're talking about mental health, right...)

restlesshound48 said:No.

I'm a dead blower. 🙄

Time isn't helping me. If anything, it's doing the opposite. Family isn't exactly a source of positivity either.

Maybe spending some time around people wouldn't be the worst thing. But I've always been boring, withdrawn, just... nothing. No social circle. I even thought maybe meeting a girl might jumpstart something, but given everything else—including my looks—it’s probably not happening. 👎

Right, nobody really touched on that specific point. I think in today's pop culture, they call that being an 'incel.' Here’s a video that covers the topic:

restlesshound48 said:No.

I'm a dead blower. 🙄

Time isn't helping me. If anything, it's doing the opposite. Family isn't exactly a source of positivity either.

Maybe spending some time around people wouldn't be the worst thing. But I've always been boring, withdrawn, just... nothing. No social circle. I even thought maybe meeting a girl might jumpstart something, but given everything else—including my looks—it’s probably not happening. 👎

Well, that makes sense when you're dealing with depression.
Start small by adding some vitamins and fish oil to your routine; it's a low-risk first step. It might also be worth reaching out to a professional therapist.

Vitamin D and depression:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...and-depression

https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/are-...ency-pandemic/

Vitamins, fish oil, hitting the gym, or cranking up some high-energy music...

Benjamin Hill97 said:That's awesome! I actually started diving into what you sent over, but man, it looks like this version is a bit of a mess—it's incomplete, right? There are random pages in German, some parts in American, and it feels like a few chunks were just ripped out entirely. Do you happen to know of another book that tackles this same subject, or should I just go ahead and hunt down a better copy on a torrent site?

There are plenty of authors who tackle linguistics. Try searching under "structuralists." Or, honestly, just grab an intro to semiology from your local library; they usually list all the heavy hitters there. Besides the folks I mentioned, you've got Wittgenstein, plus philosophers like Habermas, Dilthey, and Lacan. There are more, but those are the main ones that come to mind right now.
My bad on the low-quality links. I think there’s a list of sites and page numbers somewhere in the literature topic about book removal PDF. That said, all the recommended reading is easy to find at any public library. Enjoy the deep dive!🙂

Benjamin Hill97 said:I mean, I know what people think "character" means—that whole idea of a collection of traits that paints a complete picture of who someone is. If my memory serves me right—and it’s a bit hazy, honestly—that was one of the basic definitions they drilled into us back in high school. But personally? I think the whole concept of "character" is kind of pointless. Honestly, it feels like a flawed way to interpret how people actually act. At the end of the day, we're all social creatures, so our reactions are really just responses to certain types of social stimuli... you know? Like, nobody is being perfectly moral, responsible, or even consistently fast or slow in every single situation. Everything depends on a million different factors and the environment acting on the individual. Or, hey, feel free to correct me if I'm totally off base here...

It also confuses me how much weight we put on certain words sometimes. I get this feeling that we let language become way too subjective—like we’re saying the exact same thing but we don't actually mean the same thing at all. Ugh.

That’s more of a philosophical question. You might find this useful:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34009403/L...o-Philosphicus

He isn't actually American, he's German. But he does lecture at major US universities.
Thomas Metzinger: Being no One.

vividskipper15 said:Over the last month and a half, my appetite has gone through the roof; I feel hungry constantly.
I’ve already gained about 15 pounds, and I just can't seem to stop. I’m not taking any supplements or medications, and I’m generally healthy. There isn't anything specific triggering cravings—I eat the same stuff I
always have, just in massive amounts. Even two hours after a heavy lunch, I’m starving again and need to eat.
I have no idea what could be causing this. My doctor suggested it might be
stress, but I don't buy it. It’s not like I’m eating out of boredom;
this hunger hits me regardless of what I'm doing.
Basically, I'm lost. What should I do??
Thanks!

Find a new doctor!
What you're experiencing could be a symptom of something much more serious. If your physician didn't immediately refer you for specialist testing, you won't find answers at that clinic. Honestly, if things get worse, you might even have grounds for a medical malpractice suit.
It would be worth teaching her a lesson for relying on that "it's just stress" diagnosis—a one-size-fits-all excuse for every ailment that saves them the trouble of actually doing their job without needing referrals or tests.

I know of a case where a woman carrying an extra 100 pounds was constantly lectured by her doctor about losing weight, only for it to be discovered years later that she had chronic hypothyroidism. And it wasn't even a specialist who figured it out; the patient had to read medical manuals, diagnose herself, and then fight tooth and nail just to get a referral to an endocrinologist.😢

Sean Cruz said:First off, I’ve watched the film. In my opinion, the director is doing exactly what Muslim extremists do: cherry-picking verses from the Quran to suit a specific narrative. To set the record straight, I’ll provide the correct translations for the sections the filmmaker took out of context:

Quran, Women – verse 56: Those who disbelieve in Our signs—We will surely cast them into the Fire. Whenever their skins are roasted through, We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the torment. God is truly Powerful and Wise.
My take: This is specifically addressing disbelievers, not followers of other faiths.
Quran, Women – verse 89: They wish you would turn into disbelievers just as they did, so that you would be alike. So do not take them as allies until they emigrate for the cause of God. But if they turn away, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as allies or helpers.
Again, this refers to disbelievers (atheists) or polytheists. However, the very next verse clarifies things—verse 90: except for those who seek refuge with a people with whom you have a treaty, or who come to you while they themselves are in difficulty fighting against their own people or fighting against you. If they grant you peace, then God gives you no right against them.
I won't list more; I think this is plenty to make the point.
Furthermore, no major religion supports homosexuality, so I fail to see why that was even brought up.
To wrap this up: yes, Muslim extremists are dangerous, but they aren't any more dangerous than certain Mexican nationalist movements (where religious ideology has been used to justify attempts at territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing).
One last thing:

A man of standing once asked Jesus:
Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?
Jesus answered him:
Why do you call me good?
No one is good except God alone.

Gospel according to Luke, 18, 18-19

But what about pantheists, deists, or cult members? Or Agnosticism, which isn't quite the same thing as atheism?
Besides, Christians could technically fall under "polytheists" since they believe in three gods, right?😁

Michelle Lewis2 said:A claim is knowledge proven by evidence. No believer makes a claim; they simply have faith, because knowledge and faith occupy different spaces.

That isn't quite right. Most believers present their convictions as absolute truths, essentially treating their faith as objective fact.

outoftheblue said:An atheist is their own god; it's pretty obvious.

Who actually claims to have all the answers—is it the believers or the skeptics?
Who thinks they have the right to speak for God and interpret His will?
Who feels entitled to judge others, sorting them into light or darkness?
Who seethes with a sense of righteous divine anger and hatred?
Who has historically punished people in the name of God, and would happily do it again today?
Who looks down on human reason and the doubt that comes with it, acting as if they are above logic itself?
Who insists they will live on after death, essentially claiming an eternal status like God?
Who craves power over others that rivals the power of the divine?

I highly recommend reading:
Erich Fromm: The Dogma of Christ – You Will Be Like God
http://www.sendspace.com/file/e1g5h1

p.s. It’s easy enough for an atheist, who acts as their own god.
But what about the believers, who want to play God with everyone else?

Mad Scientist said:Sure, looks matter.. in many cases, it's beauty—or just something that catches your eye—that acts as the initial hook to meet people, notice them, and actually strike up a conversation.
There is plenty of research linking attractiveness to reproductive fitness, evolutionary biology, and similar concepts.
Generally, selection boils down to two main criteria:
1. Assessing genetic quality (which is why we gravitate toward those who are attractive, intelligent, strong, independent, or decisive)
2. Assessing the ability to provide for offspring (which is why we look for kindness, responsibility, stability, and significant financial resources)
Naturally, these two criteria don't always align...

👍

They often overlap, much like how we use the phrase "looks like a million bucks."
Additionally, children raised in wealthier families generally have better odds of growing into healthy, well-presented individuals because they receive better care and investment; if there’s a developmental issue, they have the resources to fix it.
Those living in poverty can struggle quickly, even if they were born healthy and physically fit.
Still, despite all that, I think this hits the mark:

"People divide themselves into the rich and poor, the old and young, the beautiful and ugly, the healthy and sick, the smart and foolish, but all those divisions are irrelevant compared to the one that truly matters—the division between the strong and the weak."
Ernest Hemingway - 'The Devil and Tom Walker'😉

Most discussions here center on music, where things are pretty black and white—you either hit the right note or you don't.
But when you look at other art forms, the standards are becoming increasingly blurry.
You see these characters everywhere in the fine arts scene, much like a Julius Caesar figure—someone who lacks any actual talent but forces their work into existence through pure stubbornness. It’s happening in literature, too.
After all, who can actually define what qualifies as "good" in conceptual art?
Or in modern prose, that so-called experimental style (which is usually just a chaotic mess masquerading as depth)?
In these gray areas, all you need is enough arrogance to act like Julius Caesar, insisting "I am the best" while ignoring critics entirely. Or better yet, insulting them publicly just to grab more headlines.
If these people are practicing anything, it’s just pure ego and vanity.
It seems they might be the new breed of artist for our era.😉

hollowtrucker77 said:In my view, this discussion feels incredibly arrogant.
To start, I’d ask one question: was it harder for the first human to invent a tool like a spear or a bow, or is it harder for someone today to learn how to drive a car??
I would argue that people back then had to exert much more willpower and mental effort to achieve what we now take for granted as simple or outdated.
Unfortunately, I worry that as challenges disappear, so does the drive and necessity for intelligence. It feels like our species is regressing, both physically and mentally.
Someone living just 500 years ago was fully capable of surviving harsh, unknown environments, whereas most modern "intellectuals" would likely starve on a farm.

👍
That's spot on, despite the efforts of biased psychometricians to prove otherwise. They constantly design tests where people from developing nations, or marginalized and impoverished groups in the West, end up looking "unintelligent."
Even though their survival requires far more ingenuity than that of the privileged class.
Here are a few links regarding these psychometric "truths":

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache🙏izwiSMEg_wJ👋ww.rso.cornell.edu/scitech/archive/95sum/bell.html+the+science+and+politics+of+iq&hl=en&gl=US&ct=clnk&cd=52

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

Jose Palmer2 said:Human genomes are largely identical, implying we share similar hereditary predispositions (though that’s an oversimplification, given that massive epidemics, diseases, and wars act as forms of natural selection—for instance, the population of Europe dropped by 66% after the Hundred Years' War), yet people aren't all the same. For example, some are taller. Greater height often means a larger skull, which implies a larger brain volume. Whether brain size actually correlates with intelligence was already debated back on the old forum...

Is brain volume really proportional to intelligence?
Maybe the real factor is the complexity of the cerebral cortex.

As for the idea that a positive emotional environment during childhood is crucial for mental development—history is full of creative geniuses and brilliant minds who were orphans, neglected, or even abused as kids. They disprove that notion.

IQ tests are culturally biased and yield highly unreliable results, much like what the user mentioned earlier.
And what about "adapting to new situations"?
What are we even talking about here?
If someone were dropped into a completely alien scenario—say, abducted by extraterrestrials—they wouldn't "adapt" at all.
Adaptability is just finding an analogy to a previously known situation. In a new task, you recognize similarities to old, mastered tasks and follow that path to a solution.
Essentially, the advantage goes to those who already possess more information. This undermines the idea of intelligence being a purely innate, biological trait.
Brain matter density, neural connection intensity, or getting extra stimulation in childhood—these are mostly urban myths from the fringes of pseudo-science.

There is also the issue of stochasticity in control groups for IQ testing. Statistical research is worthless if the condition of stochasticity isn't met; without it, all these "measurements" are nothing more than arbitrary games. 🙄