aurum

Yes, but it’s more than that as well. You have to have the natural potential / talent. The natural potential is the lottery part. Practically, you don’t have control over of this. But that does not mean success is random.

Survivorship bias does not eliminate that there are real factors that determine success. Like skill. Skill trumps everything. If you are skilled and committed enough at something, you will eventually be successful.

I watched the video you linked. That was more than enough.

Sounds like typical new age, influencer BS.

If there were only relative truths, that would be an absolute.

This would not be good at all. Some degree of wealth inequality is important in a society.

Bro that cannot work in a real relationship. Your lifestyles are going to clash, it's inevitable. The question is how benign it is and whether it should be considered a dealbreaker. Assuming a decent partner, most lifestyle quirks people have are pretty benign and can be easily compromised on. The idea that you will never have to compromise in a relationship is absurd. Decide what you want. Do you want relationship and compromise, or zero compromise and isolation?

Okay, then it sounds like your standard is you don't like when people have particular ways they want things. Is that reasonable?

Marathons are definitely problematic. I see so many people destroying their bodies over these.

It's a tradeoff. If you're literally not willing to budge at all, then of course you cannot be in a relationship. It's just a question of what do you actually want. Also, consider if your standards are actually legitmate or just self-imposed absurdities. I could make a standard that no one I live with is allowed to breathe within five feet of me, and this would immediately ensure I just cut out 99.99% of people.

Yes, it's an ideological bind.

Liberals are incapable of properly understanding the manosphere, no matter how well intentioned they might be.

It's not safe to assume she has had some deep, personal transformation. Politicians flip all the time. That's just how power games work.

Anti-psychotics, yes. My understanding though is that current anti-psychotics are pretty limited. They genuinely help with the most obvious symptoms, but struggle in other areas. It seems analogous to taking an SSRI for depression.

I find the question of how to treat schizophrenic patients fascinating. If you're a psychiatrist, you cannot just tell your patient to hallucinate a stronger boundary. True or untrue, this is unlikely to be useful advice for them. So the question is, how would you translate the metaphysical truth (porosity of mind) into some kind of tangible protocol or medicine? If that protocol already existed and was part of standard of care, then I would expect a lot less people who are suffering from schizophrenia. Which makes me think that protocol does not exist. Or, perhaps such a protocol cannot be sufficiently scaled / standardized at all.