undeather

Hey Jannes, I can relate with your post because I have had similar issues when I was younger. Despite having an IQ in the 130+ range and now a successful career in medicine, I used to find myself in situations where I just did not "get" simple tasks others would have no problem performing. In my later teenage years I used to work in a local factory during the summer - to earn some money during school holidays. To this day I still remember the embarassing moments when my colleagues told me to do a very simple task and I somehow manage to do it wrong in some very weird ways. There are countless of those stories and I also remember thinking that there was something wrong with me. I can almost guarantee you that this has nothing to do with some anatomical or structural issues of your brain. Brain scans, even functional MRI's are very limited in that regard and the findings would be a big bowl of nothing. We know very little about how specific behavioural tendencies relate to the structural integrity and certain brain regions. Also, even if there was something "wrong"(which the chance for is basically 0%), there would not be a potential treatment at the end of it. Much more likely, as it was in my case as well, is that there are certain psychological patterns at play which sometimes inibit aspects of your sensory-cognitive apperatus and lead to those "retard moments" down the line. For me, it was a crippling lack of self-esteem and issues with insecurity. I noticed that when I felt good psychologically, those "moments" would occur less often or even disappear completely. You have already pointed at that in your post, so that's definitely a place worth exploring! What also helped me was to gain a higher sense of introspection. I used to analyze my "retard moments" after the fact to determine what went wrong in that moment. Usually, more often than not, it was some sort of stress response that lead to a panicked action. Just by noticing that, it gives you the ability to adapt your behaviour accordingly when it happens the next time. If you are feeling anxious about potential health implications, go get that brain scan. But let me tell you from yeras of experience that it will most likely come back as a negative (meaning nothing at all). Lifetsyle adaptations (diet, exercise, sleep), a mental hygiene routine (psychotherapy, meditation, psychodelics) and some form of introspective work will propably sovle the issue for you (as it did for me)! Good luck!

As a doctor and someone who has performed dozens of cardiopulmonary resuscitations, let me tell you how incredibly useful this is. Doing chest compressions on a dying individual is one of the most stressful situations you can find yourself in. It does not really matter how experienced you are, when shit hits the fan - you will feel the stress. Studies show that people tend to do really bad in finding the appropriate rhythm (100-120 compressions/minute) and it gets even worse otuside a training-environemnt. A simple song (like Staying alive) can act as the perfect grounding tool for CPR. To this day, I am still humming this in my head during chest compressions and I know that many of my colleagues do this as well. A simple trick that defenitely save lives! Here are some alternatives in a similar BPM-range: Stayin Alive by Bee Gees - 100 BPM Another One Bite The Dust by Queen -110 BPM Baby Shark by Pink Fong - 115 BPM One Week by Barenaked Ladies - 113 BPM I Will Survive by Gloria Gaynor - 117 BPM Just Dance by Lady Gaga, Colby O'Donis - 119 BPM Rock Your Body by Justin Timberlake - 101 BPM American Girl by Tome Petty and The Heart Breakers - 115 BPM Sorry by Justin Bieber - 100 BPM Another Bring In the Wall by Pink Floyd - 104 BPM Dancing Queen by ABBA - 101 BPM Man In The Mirror by Michael Jackson - 100 BPM

Owen definitely exhibits a fair amount of system thinking, which is hallmark of stage yellow. However, he is not a well integrated stage yellow and there are still a lot of first tier shadows he needs to work through.

I have a soft spot for Owen. But I am at a point of my life where I realise that most of my earlier "heroes" (and that includes him) are highly delusional in some very fundamental sense. Real and honest sensemaking skills have become such a rare quality - and while a lot of individuals think of themselves as "critical thinkers", reality hits hard when you actually read what they have to say about a given topic. Leo & others already mentioned that Owen has an anti-establishment/anti-mainstream bias. I would go even further and say that this kind of mind-virus is endemic in personal developement scene.

You have to delineate between processed food and "processed food". There is no clear cut definition outside of "altered in some way during preparation", which is a rather vague description. That would involve anything from making a homemade legume tofu to adding a shitton of additives, salt & preservatives to an already unhealthy product. When we colloquially talk about processed foods, then we mean the kind of chemically fortified, high energy density, low nutritional value, high saturated-fat, high salt, simple carbohydrate based Frankenstein creations that are so ubiquitous in our current dieatry environment. The products that are engineered to be hyper-palatable and therefore come with a shitload of ingredients that will increase our chance of death over the long run.

A groundbreaking philosopher & (in my opinion) the most important biologist alive have an amazing discussion about Michael's work and the parallels/implications with ontological idealism. I really, really enjoyed this one - some really thought-provoking gems in there!

I have a thick german-english accent as well, so don't worry about that. I am having a 24h shift at the hospital starting tomorrow at 7:00 am - still your call, just saying. We can keep it private or record it for this forum. I dont mind either way.

oooof.... Are you willing to debate this on Discord right now?

"A stranger on the internet asked me to lend him 100.000$ - Initially, I was insecure about the propositon, but then I decided to do it anynwaysince he promised me an interest rate of 30000%. Months flew by, I have been following him on instagram - He did buy a new car. He did buy new clothes. He did buy a Rolex. Yet everytime I messaged him about my money, he just ignored it. But dont worry, I know 5 other strangers who all told me that he is an honest man. They also showed me all the amazing things they bought with his interest-money. After all, why would he scam me? Finally he answered - he told me his online-bank (I have never heard of) needs another 20.000$ in transcation-fees to finally give me back my well invested money. Damn, I can't pay that fee. What do I do. This all seems legit as fuck and there is nothing to learn. Better ask the guys on actualized.org."

Old generation H1- antihistamines do have annoying side effects. Worth a try, but I had bad experiences perscribing those. If Mirta helps, maybe try Trimipramine, Quetiapine or maybe even Daridorexant.

Acting thoughtfully (not instinctievely) is EXACTLY what implies a moral value system. A moral system IS a set of values derived from from thoughtful considerations and basic rationales. Using your metacognitive abilities to include factors outside immediate ego gratification IS the basis for morality. Schizo, you absolutely have an ethical framework. If I would ask you :"Is it okay to set my neighbours newborn on fire - even if I want to do it?" - your answer is (hopefully) a strict "No!". Why? Because, we can all agree that this would cause an immeasureable ammount of suffering to anyone involved. There are dozens of good arguments ranging from inherent value of human life, respect for autonomy, the categorical imperative or social contract theory. But there is really no good argument why the answer should be "yes" outside of "I feel like doing it". You see the underlying heuristic? By using rationality, empathy & reason, we can determine actions which are utilitarily in line with a greater good that exists outside of your immediate egoic wants and needs. We can see that our actions do have consequences that either increase or decrease the suffering in a given moral reference-frame. Stop dancing around the obvious - your take is the definition of inconsistency and I know you are smarter than that. Extend what I just said there to include non-human animals and you have a bullet-proof case for vegan ethics. Again, this is not about judging each other. I do eat meat - and I just came home from a barbeque with my family. I dont give a shit - but let's at least be intellectually honest about it.

Well, I do teach at a very respectable university - but it isn't Harvard obviously - Internal Medicine - Cardiovascular Risk Prevention - Gastroenterology - Integrative medicine

"Siri, give me an example of sophistry"

Well, it really boils down to basic common sense and knowledge about how the internet works. Don't feeld bad about it, it really can happen to anyone who is not acquinted with the space. Here are some rules: 1) SCAMs are ubiquitous and extremely common. This is especially true for the crypto-space. Be very careful with your private information & money transfers. The bigger and more established platforms (like the big crypto exchanges) are usually the safer choices. 2) If somebody promises you fast and easy money, it will be almost certainly a scam. 3) Any offers shared on telegram are highly suspicious (It's THE tool for scammers to look for prey) 4) People bragging about their earnings = red flag. 5) Use google ato check for reports about a certain platform (like people getting scammed). Also, watch this:

It's a SCAM! Those individuals stole your money. There is no trading at all. The numbers you see in your wallet are a means to an end. A way to delude you into thinking you actaully made money. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

This is a textbook example of an online-trading scam. Unrealistic profit margins, "instant" $-returns shown in your wallet on some dodgy trading-dashboard, a telegram group with a lot of "users" pledging for the legitimacy of the program, an insane fee you have to pay upfront to get the payout (they could just subtract your total amount).... Do NOT transfer any more money to their account's. In fact, your only chance to (maybe) get your initial money back is to contact a attorney for legal advice. In some places there are consumer protection agencies which will help you for free. The chance is slim, but maybe worth a try!

Mind telling us the amino acids which you can't get through plants?

That's such an ill-considered argument. Moral relativism is exactly why vegans are able to ground their propositions on such a robust, ethical baseline. The same heuristic that applies to our fundamental code of conduct (don't kill/steal/rape - i.e reduce suffering) can be exteneded to include non-human animals as well. By saying "ethics is an abstract and realtive concept in your head" you are saying absolutely nothing by being technically right. I mean, the nazis thought they were doing their world a favor by killing all those jews. Now, even though there is no absolute ethical framework, would you not agree that killing all those innocent people was a terrible thing to do? Thought so. Millions of people lead healthy and happy lives under zero percent animal product consumption. I was a semi-professional tennis player for years, eating an almost 100% vegan diet - and I felt great. Refering to ones intuition is fine with me, but thinking that "my intuition" is somewhat of a proxy of what other people should or should not eat is a bit of a schizo-take. Because it's delicious. Unhealthy food can be fucking delicious. What does that even mean..... If your definition of an "optimal" diet is one which doesn't require any form of supplementation, then yes - it's not not an "optimal" diet. If you want to talk about health outcomes, then a diet with high amounts of animal products is not "optimal". The need for supplementation is mainly a byproduct of our food-ecosystem and not the diet itself. A diet of purely white sugar + all supplements (macros + micros) will make you feel miserable and if you disagree with that, you need to take a basic course in physiology. Outside of certain oils, the vast majority of SFA-sources are animal based. Lol. That's like saying that meat consumption is not natural because it makes you prone to overeating - and that's why so many americans are fat. That's obviously a complete strawman and non-sequitor. Over and underconsumption of calories is a complex phenomenon with a whole host of interacting, bio-psycho-social factors. Eating disorders are found in any dietary pattern. I (obviously) used the example to point out an unhealthy user bias in that sample. Can you see what you are doing here? You are taking the worst of the worst example from a study design perspective and therefore declare the whole field of epidemiology as inadequate. Does that mean that randomized controlled trials are useless if I find you a shitty one? Look, there is good reason to shittalk epidemiology and I have done so multiple times in the past. However, the truth is that there are extremely well designed epi-studies out there. The art of the good and honest scientist is to find out which data is reliable and which is not. Some epi-studies are so well designed, that the data quality is even superior to some RCT's. Black and white thinking will lead you nowhere. I agree that those kind of studies are SOMETIMES used to serve a political or corporal agenda. However, its a logical fallacy to think that now ALL epi-studies are bad. That's just not the case....and if you really think that, you need to learn more about the subject. Do you even know what the science says about veganism? I doubt that. I agree with you that some vegan groups use "SCIENCE®" to promote absurd health claims and fuel their propaganda pieces. I would include the Game Changer documentary, some of the ARTE stuff and Dr. Michael Greger/Neil Bernard in that category. But then to come out saying stuff like "linking veganism to science is false" is such a painfully stupid argument. I mean we have an abundance of data looking at all the different diets under very controlled conditions. And the truth is that vegan diets, if done properly, can be extremely healthy. In terms of some hard outcomes it still get's outperformed by mediterranian patterns, but that's it, really. There is surprisingly little discussion about what a healthy diet looks like within circles of professionals who know the data. I am not even advocating for vegan diets - I usually place emphasis on plant based, but never vegan. There is also a reason why some food-socieities dont reccommend veganism to pregnant women or children - and that's very simple. Because people are usually very bad at adherence when it comes to restrictive diet patterns. Ok, I have spent way too much time on this. Anyway, just wanted to clarify some stuff.

From an ethical standpoint, there is really no good argument to justify eating meat - or even broader, any animal product at all. I have listened to many debates about this topic since it's a question I have been intellectually wrestling with for years. In the end, if you are truly honest, veganism just trumps any proposition with the superior arguments. That said, I will still keep eating some animal products because I just enjoy the shit out of them. I do eat primarily plant based (and have been vegan before), but life without parmesan cheese, eggs or some good steak here and there just takes so much of lifes zest away for me personally. I will keep living with the cognitive dissonance and that's it. Lab grown animal products will solve this dilemma in the future. From a health perspective, things become a little bit more difficult in my opinion. The vast majority of individuals will do extremely well on a proper, whole food oriented, vegan diet. You can also argue that by cutting out most sources of saturated fat, the diet is inherently anti-atherogenic. However, there are many, many, many case reports of people reporting feeling shit after cutting out animal products. The usual counter-argument from the vegan side is that those individuals usually eat too little calories, don't supplement properly (B12, D3) or follow a ridicolous FAD-diet pattern (like raw-veganism, fruitarians etc.). I am not at all conviced by those arguments - they will explain some but not all cases. There will always be outliers who just won't fit the bellcurve. While general patterns are true (a more plant based lifestyle is health promoting), the complexities of the human body will always leave room for if's/and's/or's. We are complex biopsychosocial contructs after all. I think @Jason Actualization's case is pretty interesting. Even though I fundamentally disagree with his approach (which is inherently unscientific), one just can't ignore the effect his lifestyle-change had on his health (if he is telling the truth, which I think he does). Anyway, enough blabber from my side.

After reading through some of OPs previous posts, I second this. This sounds oddly psychosomatic, even psychotic to some degree. I would really advice OP to seek help in real life. Problems like these need to be adressed properly and through the hands of a professional. Online health advice culture is not suited for these kinds of problems.

The propensity of your hair follicles to get fucked by DHT is genetically set. Everyone has DHT, but only a few unlucky individuals start losing their 20s/30s. This is not a binary question either - your genetic blueprint kinda sets a "timer"for that kind of thing. Some will still have a full head of hair in their 70s, while most people will have to deal with thinning through the later stages of their lifes. If you have the genotype for "DHT fucks hair follucle", anything androgenic (i.e steroids) will increase the absoluite amount of androgenic substrate and the total amount of DHT - therefore it will speed up hair loss as well. Note that not every bodybuilder suffers from hair loss. Some of them still have a full head of hair after years of substace abuse. (Jay Cuttler for example) E2 is basically the antagonist to any androgenic hormone. Note that the body is a complex system, so even if you use an aromatase inhibitor like exemestane in male bodybuilders, it could come to paradox side effects which would indicate a loss of male virility. Equillibria between sex hormones seem to be as important as total numbers!

Testosterone (even at a very high levels) does NOT (in the vast majority of cases) lead to hair follicle miniaturization outside the mechanism of DHT conversion through increased substrate resourcing. The receptor site at the hair follicle is only a lose fit for the testosterone-molecule, while the paracrine DHT with the it's additional hydrogen-bond glues itself to it. The slight difference in chemical structures increases DHT's affinity for the androgen receptor two-fold and decreases the rate of dissociation five-fold relatiove to testosterone. This also leads to major differences in protein-synthesis down the line. If you block out at least 60% or more of the DHT conversion through Finasteride/Dutasteride (5-AR-inhibitors), you will stop hairloss in 80-90% of patients, regardless of their T-levels. I also dont agree with your point that one should "ignore" their test-levels when there is abundant evidence that there is a collective decline of testosterone levels in the general population, while we also know that there are various benefits of keeping it in a high-normal to high range through all stages of life.

That was a painful watch. Bernardo had tougher debates than someone saying "this was stupid" to his face. Not the best performance of my man.

Physicalism vs. Panpsychism In my humble opinion, both ontologies are clearly inferior to idealism - but still an interesting showcase of the respective blindspots. Enjoy.

Where did I say it‘s a SSRI? Not all antidepressants are of this specific group. Mirtazapine is a tetracyclic antidepressant okay, in that case I would say it’s propably just a random fluctuation