Bobby_2021

The case with surgeons was an exaggeration to prove a point. It doesn't mean that there is no psychopathy among general doctors. It also applies to doctors, but to a lesser extent. I have visited several doctors who tried to scheme into getting unnecessary tests & lab work, talk for too long on their own lives when they were free, tried to scare me for petty lumps etc. And I am not even someone who visits the doctors so often. Have you watched the video? I have seen plenty of people online who appears to support these claims.

Like what? YouTube survival games.

That claim is applicable for surgeons, not doctors in general. I have corrected it in the original post. But for real though, psychopathy has some overrepresentation among surgeons. The original claim is made by the expert on cluster B personality disorders, Sam Vaknin. (Video is linked) The claim is not widely absurd. There are also articles that shows validity to such claims.

IF you want men to honor your agency, you need to act like you have one. Men are more than willing to give enough agency to women if they can show him that they can handle it. Most women want their man to decide where to eat, plan where to go, what to speak and make those little decisions. You do not wait for others to give agency to you. You can already see the message you will be sending him. So he will be the one who have agency by default. Women are free to take it into their own hands. Most women will do not. Agency will require you to handle matters more directly and communicate clearly. All you can do that, then men will not stand in your way. In fact they will be even more welcoming.

It would have absolutely broken my heart to see them making a mockery of something as beautiful as Physics & Cosmology.

But something tells me that it has gotten so rotten after 2020 as opposed to 2010. Or it could be the case that social media is making the corruption and bullshit so glaringly obvious, among other things. Most people coming to academia are doing so for idealistic reason like to advance the frontier of knowledge for humanity. They do know yet that they are going to be playing even more survival games in academia. It pays to first take care of survival and then do real science like Sabine did.

Because she dedicated her whole life to advancing physics. We live and think every day on physical and the questions about existence. So petty stuff will not be held in the same grounds as physics at all.

1. Ukraine would not have been invaded if they had nukes in the first place. 2. Ukraine would not have been invaded if you did not allow their entry into NATO. (muh open door) This is after explicit warning from Russian foreign ministry. (All related documents linked in the last post I made in this thread.) 3. If Ukraine had joined NATO, you are risking nuclear war among two entities with the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. 4. Fund the war with the tax money from the average American when America itself is swarmed by hundreds and thousands of illegal immigrants and collapsing social order. Even people of Ukraine do not want to keep fighting this war. The only people winning are the heads of the miliary industrial complex. All major wars (and genocide) in the 21st century happened due to bad policy making of the United States. It's appalling that people are still in denial about this.

Jesus, if this is what is happening in Germany, you could already imagine what is happening in less developed parts of the world including the states. Dodged a bullet by not pursuing academia further than a degree although this was the career path expected of me from myself. Reality has a harsh way of bursting your bubble. People should really be more honest and work explicitly on survival the right way before we delve in to more serious stuff like science or philosophy.

Strongly agree.

A random guess.

As far as people who do get sucked into these niche ideologies like red pill, incel etc most of it has to do with a lack of self awareness. They simply cannot look at themselves doing this shit. Also a big part of the problem is also that it gets tied to your identity and you get mired into group think. This is why it's not a good idea to declare yourself belonging to any ideology, publicly. If you want to be a member of such groups do so in private and leave it when you exhausted the karma. You would feel no obligation to defend your position forever.

Are you suffering more now than you used to? I assume yes.

The relationships are a bit complicated. Being low in IQ means that you are likely to earn less money over the lifetime. This is true of Individuals and communities. On the other hand, if you are a high IQ individual being born in a poor country, then you cannot generate much wealth over your lifetime, unless you migrate to a developed country. IQ needs societal infrastructure to be nurtured and it takes high IQ people to build that infrastructure. The relationship is not straightforward. Happiness does correlate with wealth. The more wealth you have the happier you feel. IQ is a good predictor of wealth, but it is not perfect. IF you want to explore the relationship between IQ and happiness alone, then I would say that your happiness increases from 100-125. From 125 to above and more, you are more likely to be miserable and suffer with each point increase in IQ. So, the relationship is not linear. IQ also increases your capacity to suffer, beyond a point. So, after that point, which is roughly around 125-130, you will suffer a lot. Because society is not built to accommodate you. You will feel left out and forgotten. Society is made for midwits. Dumb and depressed usually do not go hand in hand. Although all these statements are a massive generalization. The circumstances you are in have to do with it a lot. High IQ people are more likely to be depressed. And they come from rich countries. There is a sweet spot when it comes to IQ & wealth. You will be severely miserable if you are out of that zone, both in IQ and wealth. Average IQ of a philosophy major is 130. So yeah, your ability to do philosophy or spirituality is dependent on your IQ. Is the relationship perfect? no. But it tends to be the case more often than not. To be interested in abstract stuff like philosophy and spirituality is a high IQ trait.

Whichever is more.😄

These "resources" are people who have lives just like us. They also have families, jobs and children. Enough of making men spill blood just to sell western weapons. You guys have profited enough. Give up the land to Russia. Stop the bloodshed. Learn from the past. No more stupid policy making.

My suffering is as high as ever nowadays. There seems to be no stopping it. This is effectively suffering. Is it a valuable life to you, if you are suffering your whole life, but creating light out of it. I think so yes, Suffering that makes you think, especially about suffering, usually creates vastly more suffering. I absolutely hate romanticizing suffering like a lot of people do. I just do not see the point. But if you have to live with it, perhaps it is not a bad idea to romanticize it. You have to live with it anyway.

The exact same Bucharest summit that led to the invasion of Georgia, also led to Ukraine war. The only difference was that US was inviting Ukraine to join while they also had a pro-western president. So, the idea that Ukraine would never be joining NATO anyway is pretty baseless. Russian foreign minister tried to talk them out of this less than 2-3 months before the invasion. https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-a-press-availability-13/ "Open Door"

I was talking about the policy of America. Of course, China does not have any ambiguity. America also honors a one China policy. But it does not tell you the government who is controlling the whole of China, agreeing in principle with both China and Taiwan. Genius if you ask me. The United States, deepening its ties with Taiwan might end up creating a mess like in Ukraine. At this point, it seems like taking over Taiwan is an impossibility.

Putin being a romantic lover of the lost glory of the USSR is a western creation. Creating such an empire is too unsustainable. Putin is not dumb enough to not see it. For former Soviet Republics having, pro-Russian governments, absolutely yes. That is the ideal case for Putin. But them being neutral was good enough. What do you mean a "democratic coup". It was a coup that overthrew a democratically elected minister. A big bias from the west is assuming anyone who isn't pro-western must be anti-democratic. They also run the same propaganda in India. Modi must be anti-democratic, even though he came to power from winning elections alone. In reality, the west wants power, not democracy. Putin wanted a seamless free flow of trade and harmony between the former soviet republics and a pro-western president would block this. The encroachment of NATO is the problem, not per say of Ukraine joining NATO. Of course, in the long run, it would end up in Ukraine joining NATO. Nah Putin has won the strategic war. Ukraine as a country is doomed. NATO would never dare to touch Russia for threats of nuclear escalation, and you do not want to do that. Listen, you cannot isolate and pretend to not take into account the interest of a country as big as Russia. IF you corner them, they know to fight back real hard. Also, what Putin really hates is a western sphere of influence which is slowly creeping over Ukraine, of which getting NATO membership is the final ritual. It is not going to change anything even if Ukraine was not planning on joining NATO. Russia's plan is to avoid that exact scenario and it seems he did well to succeed in it. Anyways the United States was indeed expecting Ukraine to join NATO in the name of FREEDOM. in NOV 2021 https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/ The exact same Bucharest summit that led to the invasion of Georgia, also led to Ukraine war. The only difference was that US was inviting Ukraine to join while they also had a pro-western president. So, the idea that Ukraine would never be joining NATO anyway is pretty baseless. There were plenty of executives in the CIA that warned of this outcome. The video goes into the details. It is even more impressive when Mearsheimer literally predicted the invasion of Ukraine right from 2015. That is an impressive prediction. He saw it coming. So, you might want to take him more seriously.

Not living in accordance with your genetics can be seriously detrimental to your well being. The higher your intelligence, the more your capacity for suffering. The most intelligent people in the world suffer the most. This is taking immense responsibility on yourself. You cannot half ass life like anyone.

Or work hard and build character to be worthy of existence again. And change the existence (external reality) itself. I think DaVinci had immense shame associated with living a wretched existence. That's they he was always on his toes to live life intentionally in accordance with his highest values. Unconscious shame can be a problem because you don't have any means to reverse it, even though you could have possibly worked on it. There should be some reason for being invalid. If you can work on it, then do work on it. If you can't work on it, then it's not a good idea to shame yourself on it. Feeling shame for things you can't change is a serious problem. In that scenario, I agree with you that the correct path of action is self love. But if you can work on yourself, then just get it done. That's the best love you can do to yourself given your circumstances. Context matters. The fundamental problem is ignorance and unconsciousness.

I feel strong emotions of shame for not having to lived upto masculine ideals. I work on the shame by getting those things done. The reason why men are such pussies is that they don't have enough shame at all. That's why they live like total losers and other men kept them in check by shaming them, not that it's particularly healthy. There is no abstract way to work on shame & men are direct and straightforward in the way they deal with reality. When men say they want something, they really want that. Not getting that is what results in shame. And treating shame is like treating the symptom instead of cause.

The best way to understand the matter is to compare it with a scenario where the united states did succeed with correct policy. Taiwan - China. Taiwan was always under the threats of being annexed by China. If Taiwan pursued aggressive "freedom" movement then they would have been a bloody war already. They refused to have autonomy with most of the world not even recognizing Taiwan as an independent state capable of governing itself. Even the united states honors the one China policy, at least in theory. It's a policy of strategic ambiguity and maintenance of status quo. Don't go into favouring either the west or the east while maintaining relationships with both. This is exactly what Putin wanted of Ukraine. Not to mention that Putin wasn't even explicitly interested in annexing Ukraine from the beginning. You can sell weapons as much as you want. Do trade as much as you want. But don't give away your allegiance to either side. NATO was perhaps not going to get Ukraine into NATO in the shortwhile. But they definitely wanted to get them in the long term. Putin didn't like it.