eos_nyxia

Current Listening Mood: Music to float away to another world: If the elements of the original track were underwater, shaken, suspended, and slowly floating down toward the deep:

Other Stuff: I feel like I'm kind of late to the Mike Oldfield game. Also look, it's Karl Jenkins (of Soft Machine). Part of my musical DNA or w/e. My brother had Adiemus on repeat when I was about 12, and I got pretty sick of then. There's as lot of other stuff worth listening to though that's not Adiemus. Tubular Bells = brought to you courtesy of LSD. Metal Revival: Oh look, it's time to roleplay being 16-17 again! I never had this particular album on rotation that much, but apparently now, it's time. Mostly it has sentimental value because it was favourite of a friend of mine way back when. Not coincidentally, I've been having insane dreams about him lately again. It flows well, it makes good use of the same 2-3 major motifs. To the point that it's kind of repetitive, but then... I've also weaned myself off novelty for novelty's sake. There was a point at which I simply started to tolerate Gothenberg Scene style synths, kind of like tolerating death metal growls. Some people make it work well enough for them, but did I ever really love the sound in its own right? Maybe not. I hadn't heard this until recently, surprisingly. This is WAY better than most of the music I remember listening to in this ballpark genre back then. High effort, etc. I'm gonna listen to old Ulver, it's gonna be a metal album! ...no metal, just chill. It's good music to wander around to in the woods at dusk.

"Catchy Stuff": Hailing from the Orkney Islands: Without the voices: I learned late last year that 1) Matt Berry made music 2) I had actually heard his music before, but didn't realize he was an actor (I saw him in "What We Do in the Shadows") . Eternal post-Kraftwerk synth roll: Featuring baby Cretu and baby Sandra, pre-Enigma. I have a similar sort of relationship with it: not sure if the instrumentals are too cheesy and about as subtle as a whack over the head, and everything is so emotionally out-there. But at the same time, that's the appeal. Zero irony, zero reservation, and a whole lot of intangible things going on emotionally and lyrically. Also, her voice was intriguing back then too.

This isn't what I was referring to when I was referring to weaponized incompetence. I was specifically referring to it within the context of a heterosexual relationship, where men avoid tasks related to domestic labour and childcare, and then the woman has to pick up all or most of the slack to get anything done. And then considering the total energy expenditure in maintaining a home and relationship on top of both people working, it becomes extremely lopsided when you look at both sides. So you end up with things like exhausted, hardworking women who spend pretty much all of their time either working or taking care of their kids and husband, while the husband has more free time and energy and gets to have things like hobbies, cracking open beers with friends, more sleep, checking out after work to play video games, or whatever else it is that they want to do with said free time and energy. On a purely logical level, this is a pretty shit deal for a woman. And I would say that women generally do consider whether it's worth breaking up their marriage because they're unhappy. Maybe many do not (since you brought up the most sociopathic examples), but I would say that this tends to go directly against the aspect of our socialization which encourages us to always consider others' feelings, needs, preferences, and desires above our own. Eventually, one way or another, something's gotta give. Women from older generations are more likely to just suck it the fuck up. And I guess this is what many people consider to be "good marriages"? What, because they haven't divorced? On a personal level, I don't really have this particular sort of workhorse-like fortitude anyway, and cannot do what people like my mother have done. Certainly not as well as she did. I tend not to assume that weaponized incompetence is this super deliberate, conscious thing, and is moreso related to men's societal conditioning. (And I would prefer not to assume maliciousness anyway.)

@Roy I am bringing up some worst-case scenarios that I have read about and comparing it with your worst case scenarios. I am not talking about how more equitable circumstances would play out. (In this case, where are the actual problems?) In some cases, depending on where you are geographically, there is far more limited (or non-existent) infrastructure when it comes to parental leave. The other things you described (working part time, SAHM) is not so feasible for people who are too close to the poverty line even when both people are working full time and are locked into this sort of loop in order to support their kids, and obviously includes people who don't have the skills to handle their money. The purpose of bringing up what I did wasn't to measure tit-for-tat and to make it into a gender war, exactly. It was again, to bring up some worst-case scenarios on the other side, and to say that on some hypothetical universal scale... the risk of permanent bodily damage via pregnancy, and also the risk of physical and sexual abuse is a much worse cost than getting screwed out of years of your resources. Like if I had to hypothetically pick one or the other, I know which one I would pick. Also, unpaid emotional and physical labour does matter. One partner getting completely burnt out while the other one avoids responsibility does matter. If I was focusing tit-for-tat, I could easily say the same thing about men who entered relationships and marriages with women who screwed them over in the end. Like, you really should have seen it coming because it was your responsibility to know them better from the outset, huh? Otherwise, you wouldn't have gotten into the situation with "divorce rape", or gotten someone pregnant that you couldn't trust. Don't you know, when things really go to shit, no one is on your side, the law might not even be on your side, so act accordingly? Tit-for-tat = You know after you get a woman pregnant that you are responsible for the consequences, and pregnancy is always a possibility. It's not like this is some sort of hidden detail or conspiracy if you actually look around? Legally, you have no real power and you just have to accept that because that's the way things are. It's the society we live in. If she's untrustworthy and you get screwed by the law? (Like she pokes holes in the condom or something?) Yea, you should have been more aware and not stuck your dick in crazy. This is what happens when you think with your dick and you don't vet people for character. You shouldn't have trusted her to be on the pill, or to not make errors with it. You should have been more prepared. You should have seen it coming. Be prepared for all possible consequences or don't get involved. Etc. etc. Really, this could go on and on. This was actually the perspective that I would have held when I was much younger, and I could not for the life of me understand how men were so reckless with their dicks and feelings, because I learned very early in life that if you throw yourself blindly into trusting people, or if you only see what you want to see with people, then yea you're probably gonna get screwed because you lack experience and you don't know what to look out for. Having a shitty childhood will do that for you. Not coincidentally, I married someone who just gets it because he also had a shitty childhood. I'm trying to put myself in other people's shoes though. On a practical, self-survival level, either you learn how to identify problems before they actually happened or you get screwed. Such is life. Should the foundation of your legislation and social infrastructure be based on assuming that the worst possible outcome is probably going to happen? Probably not. It'd be a terrible society to live in. Should all the various worst possible outcomes be addressed and prepared for still? Yes. It's one reason why the law exists and should exist. I admit that I am not that sentimental about birth and child-rearing. I think that it COULD be beautiful and transformative, but all other sorts of adverse life experiences could potentially end up being profoundly transformative. Like cancer. Or being abused as a child. You COULD potentially have an easier birth, but it's still giving birth regardless. It's a roulette. TBH I don't think this sort of perspective means very much from someone who doesn't actually have to do the birthing; you get to just shoot your sperm and get on with your life, physiologically speaking. It means the most from someone who actually has done it, or if woman who goes into it with eyes wide open, and has decided that despite the costs and the fact that getting the sort of family you desire is a roulette, it is still personally worthwhile. Straight up on paper, pregnancy and childbirth is not a good deal for a woman, if we're just talking about cold, hard logic. It's a process driven by impulses and emotion, but also enculturation. It makes us profoundly emotionally and physically vulnerable, and mostly we're just expected to suck it up because it's always been done and because it's been necessary to continue our species. This really is not a revolutionary argument, but it might be outlandish in this space because of how this forum leans perspective-wise...

There's too much going on texturally in most poke bowls for my liking. I'll just take a plain sashimi bowl with a side of wakame salad, thanks. Which is basically just this: I also think mayo/ cream cheese on sushi should be illegal, lol. SO GROSS.

As for weddings, I've always been that girl, even when I was a child: weddings sound terrible and diamonds aren't even that pretty. (If you're going to spend money on me, or we're going to spend money on each other, please let it be on something else. At least take that money, elope, and then go on an extended honeymoon, which is what my brother did.) Not trying to be edgy; I legitimately don't get the appeal. Lately, I've been wondering what goes on in the brains of serial marriers....

HOT TAKE: A bad marriage with kids is overall a worse deal for a woman than a man, even if you throw money in a woman's face after divorce. IMO it's a much worse societal con. Personally, I think the loss of money and resources over time is "better" than dealing with any of the issues below, but then, I would never take something from someone who didn't want to give it freely to me in the first place. It makes me feel icky and I would find it hard to live with myself. I guess something like this is considered the worst possible outcome for men, and I assume it happens often enough to be a serious issue?: 1) Imagine being a woman having to work a full-time job, and then doing a disproportionate amount of the childcare and domestic labour. At its worst, it's like being a single mother but now you have to take care of an extra man-child on top of everything else. This is assuming that he also is not also abusive too. I have read of quite a few cases where the distribution of domestic labour and even financial contribution was relatively on par before having children, and then children come, and now they have to deal with men checking out and their weaponized incompetence when it comes to childcare and domestic labour. Oops, it's not what these women signed up for, and now you're stuck with this person in a shitty marriage or else you have to leave, which is a whole ordeal in and of itself. If you're being abused and if you have no other options, then you have to go to a shelter... with your kids. It's hard for me to imagine that there are many women laughing their way to the bank here..... 2) Childbirth and pregnancy are often immensely taxing and destructive to the body. Lots of people of both sexes like to gloss over it or are simply blissfully unaware, and they get very defensive about it. Men get to be clueless because they can be, lots of women have absolutely no idea of the full extent of what they're potentially getting into. (If you're a woman, there will be at least some people who will try to shame and emotionally coerce you into just doing it anyway. Potential and actual partners, acquaintances and friends, coworkers, family, etc. This probably happens to men too, but to a lesser degree, I assume.) For me, $$$$$ will never make up for the permanent destruction to my body, particularly in a marriage where it's questionable how much a man is actually trying or really truly cares. 3) Society's expectations of performing motherhood/ wifely duties tend to be much higher than it does for men. People just expect you to be good at being a mother, and to a lesser extent, a wife. The standard for being a "good dad" are so pathetically low by comparison, lol. On top of that, something else which is not equal: People don't take women's reproductive's rights seriously enough; it's absolutely mind-boggling and patronizing that this is still happening. For example, it's generally much easier for a man to get a vasectomy than it is for a woman to get sterilized. Granted, a vasectomy is a much quicker, less invasive, and more reversible procedure than the female equivalents, but having doctors say things like.... "What if you want to have kids later??" and "What if your future husband/ partner wants kids??" really should not be a thing with grown-ass adults anymore. This happens with women often enough who are over the age of 30 or even 40, and to women who already have kids. You'd think our species was at risk of extinction with the way people behave, lol.

Oh I didn't realize! I found them on Spotify while browsing for new releases, and then YT recommend their Tiny Desk Concert, apparently they won some contest. I think Tiny Desk Concert only does relatively well established artists otherwise. Any recommendations yourself?

An unexpected but appreciated find lately:

This worked more simply and straightforwardly when the world was a simpler place, and society was in a different place. We had different beliefs about what was possible, what was acceptable to show in public or not and under what conditions, and different cultural goals. Also, it's really not a given that everything about your understanding of the past, your habits and ways of thinking are compatible with a more primal, empowered functioning, where your relationship to matter and the universal is more wholly direct. You can still end up reverting to past ways of thinking, feeling, and being in order to think and communicate and be on par with other people. Which is why if you want to keep things simple and clean, the best thing to do is to just leave after. Either leave this body or leave society. It does not magically become easier to reconcile one thing with another afterward, particularly if you had any unfinished business that you decided (or were unable) to end for whatever reason. You just pick it back up, but with perspective that does not require more fundamental revelation at its core. You must fashion it into something which tends to take some amount of time and energy. Probably a lot. At this point (among other factors), it depends what degree of direct interference in this world you can justify. You cannot say anymore that you don't see the big picture, if that is where you truly are? You cannot be mostly on board for higher functioning to work. You're all in, or you are not. Something will go wrong if you hold back or block channels within yourself (but at least you will know exactly what it is if you are truly clearminded). More likely, you will just not be able to make things happen in certain circumstances, like a rocket that doesn't quite get off the ground. ...why is it, do you think, that people who """reach ultimate truths""" so often end up co-opting for the goals of the collective as their own, even if it's not strictly because of moralism (because they "should")? Socially speaking, it's not the age of miracles. It hasn't been for a long time. For a long time, our focus has instead been on technological development and all of the psychological externalization that comes with this. There are prices to pay for steamrolling everything in your path, whether you are successful or not, and really it does not match with the collective state and direction, and hasn't for a long time. There is actually much less you can do in this way at the level of social infrastructure. (Which is why Sadghuru said he opted to change his method of presentation and approach from his past lives part way through this one.) This is especially true in any first world country that doesn't have a strong tradition of believing in the possibility and value of miracles, especially in the plain light of day. There are also certain ways of dealing with people that JUST WORK BETTER. A certain level of mind is shared in order to communicate, and having an extraordinarily high and directly expressed energy level usually isn't it. Even manifestations of that sort of energy have to be given a suitable human face. Just as an example, there is also a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to psychism and receptivity IMO. There are a lot of people talking and theorizing about things they have no direct experience with, and no experience in verifying and working with anything, even on a personal, micro scale. People tend to think of psychism just in terms of influence, like influencing others. When it's RECEPTIVITY first which makes it work well in the first place. ...which then by definition makes you even more susceptible to direct influence as well. This easily makes you more problems. Many, many more problems, unless you have a way of dealing with them effortlessly so they are not a issue in the present. Does anything in your past identity that you've picked back up make more problems? Congrats then, you have a problem. Cause, meet effect.

That's amazing! I've become a lot more athletic and stronger as an adult, but I was THE MOST unathletic kid. I would absolutely have loved to have your natural athleticism. I often got picked last at team sports unless I was good friends with the person doing the picking. (Fortunately, I was pretty good at making friends growing up, for a time.) For myself, I've had to accept that I will not be anywhere near as athletic (as in literally, rugged, robust) as someone who works much less hard because I've had to work with the limitations of my physical body. I am much more injury-prone. I totally get this feeling though. You're definitely not alone. In my experience: at the absolute worst times in my life when I was having full-scale psychotic breakdowns, no one seemed to be worried because I looked ok/ good. But I was also masking a lot behaviourally. I spent a lot of time with this cope (at least on one level): hey, at least if I don't have my shit together by society's standards, at least I apparently look good??? It's a real shitty cope if it ever comes down to that, lol. Dangerously close to death and a hazard to my physical wellbeing? Catatonically depressed to the point that I can't move or think, and barely able to get out of bed for weeks on end? Not sure what I want to do with the rest of my life and time? Not sure if any of this all is worth it? What if my childhood trauma and life is completely irredeemable? See and hallucinate weird shit because of ESP? What if I am just too weird/ strange underneath it all? Hey, at least I look good/ young. It becomes part of your mask. At the same time: wow, my best achievement in this world might have literally been leaving behind a reasonably good looking corpse. ...because that's a satisfactory cumulation for anyone's life?? Recently I rewatched this video, and I was reminded... there is pretty much always the other side to perceived privilege. There is not being able to properly perform girlhood/ womanhood if you're neurodivergent enough, and having other women/girls turn against you. Or performing it well enough so people literally have no idea why you inevitably fail in one way or another. (The girl in the video was diagnosed with autism when she was 15). There's legitimately having even less of the necessary skills to be able to cope with male attention since a young age, which tends to be violent and predatory. TBH I can't say that I fault people for getting plastic surgery to get their external image to match their internal image of themselves.

It can be very very hard to unwire ourselves from this narrative, but I think age is one area where we really do have the opportunity to relax more into our body and experience. To stop displacing and splitting from ourselves, and the full potential of our subjective experience of beingness. (Like if I'm >X< then finally I'll be the best version of myself, that feels the best, that I actually deserve.) This is despite the negative attitude toward aging, especially when aimed toward women. Which is why so many women say that being in their teens and 20s was crap, and being 30-40+ was actually a much better experience, despite one's teens/20s supposedly being the "prime" of a woman's life. You could say this is a cope: in a way, it is. But it is always better to not be bound, including when you have the opportunity to profit off your "privilege". Then you have the option to enjoy the ride more. I doubt anyone who has an eating disorder, or who is even a little bit self-conscious (especially in the age of online social media), is having a having a truly awesome time being in a female body, even if they do enjoy the perks. I mean, do they truly enjoy the experience of being a woman or girl? Anyone who isn't completely clueless surely feels the insecurity because of how utterly conditional it is: the hands that feeds you (or praises you) will either be gone later, if it doesn't just strangle you. I have to laugh when guys call this "love". No, it makes your peepee hard and influences all of your decision making, whether they go with or turn against the desire. Have you never had the exact opposite experience? Often I feel less radiant because of attention directly placed on me, because I have spent a lifetime (especially childhood) feeling easily constrained by my perception of other people's expectations of me. People often have very rigid expectations of how attractive women should behave, and what their behaviour means. If you are not "strong", or insensitive/ "callous", or stubborn enough to block out people's reactions toward you, or to never perceive and interpret them in the first place, then you may find yourself locked in very tightly. Like a gilded cage, or a choke collar made out of solid gold. It may be pretty but you're still stilted rather than empowered by all of the so-called benefits.

For consistency, if you're even going to have the pretense of "moral equalism" (as in, people have the same intrinsic worth regardless of their gender, not that we are and should all want to be clones of each other lol), gender swapping your terms is a pretty easy thing to do. Try it on and see how it sounds. As I did above. Feasibly above, what's called "masculine" is what anyone needs to self-actualize in this world. Not everyone who has a few terrible experiences becomes bitter and hateful and ends up making this the focal point of their life and using it to justify their life philosophy and decisions (this includes those of us who have been literally chronically physically and sexually assaulted), though we all have our own personal limits to start with, as well as varying abilities to cope, adapt, and make sense of it all. Really not sure the OP was just venting.

Oh, I'm sure there are more of us out there. Honestly I've probably read 10x that over the course of my lifetime. ......I don't really think of it as a defining personality feature or anything either.

Personally I don't think a little over 1.5 books a day is a big deal... especially if you're serious and passionate about research as an endeavor, or if you are a professional researcher/ academic. But I'm a fast read so... Getting bored out of your mind reading similar enough ideas over and over again is a separate issue though, lol.

Found the 3rd world pro-natalist.

RIP OP's stomach....

@soos_mite_ah This is my new account (modmyth). I don't post very much anymore (though I still lurk sometimes), and I tend to eventually delete all of my overly personal posts here because of terrible experiences with ""actual harassment"" on my previous account. After that point, I had no illusions that anyone here really supported women, lol. Or maybe they wanted to, but the infrastructure here offers no real support for them. There was barely even the pretense of caring except maybe from one mod and often any issues I've had on this site were straight-up blanket-addressed as "starting drama" regardless of whether I actually instigated anything or not. Maybe it's out of sheer stubbornness that I continued to sometimes post here, but IRL calls... It's pretty unfortunate too, since I do think the topics being brought up do deserve to be discussed seriously. Last time I talked to her about this, she wasn't that comfortable posting here either.

"Manly cope", and not really at the heart of the issue. EXHIBIT A: this is some of the absolute worst that this forum has to offer, and it tends to go all over, everywhere. But especially in the dating/ sexuality part of the forum. Mix in this superiority complex with spirituality and it's pretty ridiculous. What is with this tone?? If women talked in a similar tone on this forum (as opposed to trying to bridge this perceived communication gap), dudes would (and do) lose their shit. So much for ""manly stoicism"", ""rationality and logic"", "openmindness", and "commitment to truth". Actually, I've had the direct opposite experience. Most of the women that I've talked to here are far more balanced in their perspective, and willing to consider other perspectives... which is probably why they're willing to tolerate being in such an inhospitable place as this in the first place where we're always THE FEMALES THIS, THE FEMALES THAT.

Yea... whatever this all is, I don’t want to be a part of it moving forward. I can't do it in good faith. I am not personally convinced that this is in the collective best benefit moving forward (claiming monopolies on The Truth in a non-inclusive way, which is very much the "old way"). Nor do I find the method to be in good taste either. (Not that there isn’t a point to the message itself minus the vehicle.) Like as circular and hopelessly self-referential I (personally) find most of these dialogues to be, I recognize that they're not really meant for me. But there are also very important reasons for the breakdown of "spiritual authority" based on words, perceived social status, and claimed authority, because the things that cannot somehow be shared directly, as in through direct experience, are arguably more of the same as what came before in human history. For reference, I am one of those “born exceptionally gifted” human beings in a spiritual sense (and in a few other senses). Almost everything that I’ve done and experienced for most of my life has been in the complete absence of added substance. I try not to talk (or think) down toward people who used substance to get where they have, but to be fair, I don’t think what is talked about here on this forum AT ALL accounts for what is possible with human hardware minus substance. It's not like those people are there by accident either. Like... I don't think it's well understood what "the gifted" are capable of, but then probably you're not part of the actual conversation anyway. IMO you should be able to know pre-emptively if you are at a "true peak" before or during having a “peak” experience. To not be able to do so betrays a certain lack of both knowing and experience. Even if it's on some purely instinctive level, you need to know enough to know that you are where you are feasibly and what it definitely means, and to not be changing the goal posts repeatedly in a “this is the new peak experience!” sort of way. You should also be able to properly account for all direct human experiences with some measurable, clear, meaningful means, including for all the people who just never talk, and never would talk. Otherwise... what is the point of being at “”the peak”” and then telling people about it? This doesn't even start to get into the issue of extra-sensory powers and what not, which at their root, are not intrinsically split off from perception itself.

You speak as if this is some sort of given. It is not. Most of this is just being loved for your packaging. You get a slightly different version of this, no? If you are the recipient of this, you only believe this "love" to be true if you are very young and/or naive. Self-improvement is an "anyone" kind of thing... If you want "respect" rather than what you call "love" (blanket attention/ approval/ etc.), then you have to work on yourself and your circumstances..... just like absolutely everyone else. (And obviously, even then, it's not a given that you will get it.) Guess what? How often do you hear women complaining specifically about not being respected? If you are vulnerable to exploitation, then at least some people will attempt to exploit you (if they think you have something of value). The other side of this is being a target with an X mark on your back. Having more people who would willingly like to exploit you, given the chance... is that really a definite plus? Also, is having someone willing to perpetually rescue you from your weaknesses and vulnerabilities always an upside? I think not. Too much coddling and you become stunted. Being stunted and being actually, truly happy are not compatible factors. Any woman (or man for that matter) with any sense knows when they're dealing with fake ass shit.

Off the cuff, all or one of these could apply: 1) Some version of "your trauma is attracted to their trauma" on a sub or semi-conscious level. 2) Some version of finding "normal, healthy", perfectly well adjusted, perfect on paper" boring and/or unrelatable, or even vapid. (Even if you feel that you are supposed to feel a different way.) 3) Someone mentioned the saviour complex. Often this strikes me as a way of deflecting from being with your own feelings, especially being still and alone with them. On a purely selfish level, it's easier to focus on "fixing" someone rather than yourself. And it makes people feel good, and gives them a sense of purpose to their lives. 4) There's also simply wanting someone to feel like you're better than someone. Or more put together, more stable, more accomplished... whatever it is, really. That layer of judgement prevents you from interacting as if you were on par, simply and openly as one sentient being to another. As a couple, it's so you can literally feel like the better half in comparison. I honestly think this is probably more common than people would care to admit. Even if you don't exactly say anything or overtly do anything to show this, I sense that lots of people get some silent sense of vindication and self-worth this way. It saves people from focusing on themselves, simply on their own terms.... God forbid that you also "be a mess"... Only you can look at yourself decide what is honestly true though, I suppose. (Coming from someone whose childhood automatically makes them "damaged goods" on paper, one way or another.)

I've spent some time over the years using websites like Nutrition Data to get an idea of how my micros/macro stack up on a daily basis. For the last year, I've occasionally been using this app called Cronometer from the same purpose. So this is something that I've noticed: there are a lot of nutrient dense plant foods which are very rich in micros, especially ones like magnesium (which many tend to be low in), but also B vitamins (that you would have in plant foods) and also tend to have reasonable amounts of zinc/ selenium. However, they often have a lot of manganese in them. When I'm meeting and exceeding all of my other micros, my manganese tends be WAY over the RDV (often by about 7-10 times) and technically exceeding the daily recommended MG by a decent amount. The worst offenders tend to be foods that are generally considered "very healthy" like: 1) organic sprouted, whole grain breads 2) hemp hearts 3) leafy green vegetables 4) legumes (e.g. lentils). Should I be concerned about this over the long term? I did a quick search on existing studies and info, and it's very conflicting. Quite a few sources say: it's only manganese from non-dietary sources (including manganese in water) and supplements that cause negative effects, and dietary sources are not known to cause any side effects. Other sources say: it doesn't matter what the source is, too much is too much. For what it's worth, I tend to take RDV with a grain of salt... for example: I'm not that concerned about having too much vitamin D particularly, especially with dreary Pacific Northwest winters where you wake up and it's dark and cloudy all day. Yet overdosing on fat soluble vitamins is also something that you're warned against in... what should I call it? "generic nutritional science"? @Michael569 If I remember right, you've read quite a few studies on nutrition. Is this something you know anything about?

TBH you're probably going to have to buy some sort of hippie/ specialist brand, and even then you're probably going to have to check the labels because of "greenwashing". Like I used to use both of these back in the day. I'm pretty sure they're both local brands though; I imagine what is available depends how ingredient conscious people in your country/ local area are. Like this one I think is a salon brand... ...and this one I used to pick up at a grocery store, but it was moderately expensive for a grocery store shampoo. For the last couple years I've mostly been using this, which I got from Amazon: If you can't find anything, IME almost all shampoo bars are pretty minimalist ingredient-wise; I assume it's because they don't need to add liquids so the don't need to account for preservation and the texture of the liquid shampoo itself. You could even try using diluted Dr. Bronner's as shampoo (some people apparently swear by it), but it didn't work for me personally. It made my hair feel gross. Sub in any other castile soap.