Carl-Richard

Too hard music, don't let me bring up the band names about human anatomy.

Is L-tryptophan bad? Is 5-HTP bad? Is fluoxetine bad? Is MDMA bad? It's all a spectrum. If eating too much turkey makes you have serotonin syndrome, then maybe L-tryptophan is bad.

I have a theory (not a conspiracy theory): the people who get strongly drawn to conspiracy theories are the same people who get drawn to supernatural ideas, like God creating the universe from their own predetermined plan (not simply evolving spontaneously through "natural law"). They are fine with explaining reality top down through an elaborate narrative. There is a seeming plan behind everything, behind world politics, behind alien invasions, behind wars, behind ancient history, and they all connect to a grand meta-narrative of control, of manufacturing, of conscious creating, rather than natural systems acting spontaneously. Those who criticize conspiracy theories point out how that level of organization, of top-down control, is unlikely if not impossible, because of the natural tendency towards spontaneous order and the infeasibility of controlling complex systems. In the "naturalist critique", everybody is a victim of systems, even the supposed people in power, while in the conspiracist's mind, the people in power are the controllers of the systems and the powerless are the victims. Whether one is more correct than the other is actually hard to say, and a naturalist that claims otherwise would then become a conspiracy theorist in their own right, thinking they have the level of insight and knowledge to be able to predict complex systems. As for myself, as a general predisposition, I've noticed I'm fine with either (naturalism or supernaturalism). While for example Bernardo Kastrup says he is strongly opposed to supernaturalism simply as a personal predisposition (which is why he says he sees no point in doing philosophy if nature is not simply naturalistic; no "God" at the top planning it all, intervening into nature and changing the natural course of things). But I would also challenge this idea of naturalism, that you could still try to deduce the "laws" behind God's planning so to speak, and it won't be a completely pointless endeavour, simply a more interesting one. Like trying to understand the psychology of God rather than the "physics" of God.

What are their arguments? Or is it simply "not enough evidence to conclude, so we side with the lobbyists until we're obviously behind all other classification systems"? ICD-11 has "gaming disorder" as a form of addiction. Classification systems are generally slow at recognizing new disorders/addictions. Gambling addiction (not gaming) only became recognized in 2013 in DSM-5 and in 2019 in ICD-11. Whether you want to go by general definitions or specific definitions from slow-moving institutional entities, it's up to you. And at the end of the day, some can engage in a behavior that can lead to an institutionally recognized addiction and not be addicted while others can't (e.g. hardcore drugs). And it would not be unwise to expect the opposite can be true (i.e. you can be addicted to something that is not institutionally recognized to cause addiction). It's always an individual thing.

You just haven't heard local Norwegian rappers from Ørsta/Volda rapping about fjords and the beautiful mountains and biking on acid.

Conspiracy theorists are taking a huge blow after the evolution of AI generated images and videos. They actually have to doubt everything they see, and therefore their narratives weaken. A good example is claims of cloning.

Essentially self-determination theory and its neurological and psychological correlates. As feelings of control decrease, the neurology associated with control also weakens (and systems assessing goal discrepancies, i.e. anxiety, worry, rumination, which positive side is creativity, become hyperactivated).

I might have slightly misremembered the data. There is data that says most convicted child molesters are not pedophiles, they are simply sociopaths on a power trip (which is actually consistent with some of @Cred's reasoning). But are most pedophiles child molesters (convicted or unconvicted)? Maybe harder to pinpoint. But even there, the data seems to indicate that most pedophiles are not child molesters (but again, harder to pinpoint). I think I remember reading some statistics in a psych book about this but I would have to dig to find it.

1. You're describing having a moral perspective on pedophilia, not merely being sexually attracted to children. It's hard to pin down the data exactly, but the data says probably most pedophilies don't act it out, probably because they know it's not morally or socially acceptable. 2. You're describing being in a relationship with a child as pedophilia, not merely being attracted to them sexually. This is like saying you're gay if you want to marry men but not sleep with them on a one night stand. In other words, most pedophiles are not amoral sociopaths, and most pedophiles are probably not in a relationship with a child (i.e. child molesters). You had bad luck running into this forum with all the (ex-) Mr. Girl fans. We know pedophilia inside and out 🙂 (but we're not pedophiles 🙂 ... but it's a spectrum anyway 🙂). You would actually benefit from watching Mr. Girl's discussions with Destiny from back in the day where they discuss psychology, relationships, mental illnesses, etc. I think it would get you to question your DSM-5-heavy framework. Mr. Girl is actually a genius (or that was at least my impression 5 or so years ago, and granted he has a mountainous "self", which is subtle but still massive when you spot it). Also, a curious clash of worlds: Mr. Girl was one of the most vocal public people around Dr. K's therapeutic misconduct and reported him to the Massachusetts medical board along with a few other people, and eventually, Dr. K got a reprimand on his license.

Perseverance is the #1 Stage Red virtue (probably hyperbole, but it could be true).

Yes please. That's unironically my kind of music (depending slightly on the style of monkey scream).

I was more referring to the Tool part :,) Sorri, deuronivergent here :,)

Fawk me, I mean, yeah.

@Sincerity Then, with all due respect, I want you to contemplate this seeming discrepancy: And then I'm maybe done being a nasty boy.

😂😂😂 I wrote that while listening to music btw 😁

I can't really use music while doing anything that requires serious thinking. I must be deuronivergent or something.

Wut There are people who think it's neutral, there are people who think it's the devil, and then there are people who think it depends. I don't think it's merely neutral, neither that it's the devil, but that it depends. Does doing drugs make you a useless, criminal tumor on society? It depends. Does making a lot of money make you a spiritually dead capitalist drone? It depends. Does doing psychedelics make you have insightful and true insights into reality? It depends.

That's not what was said. Those were particularly pertinent examples. And the definition involves where you put your attention. That is why I concluded porn can be that wedge for some people. It just depends on strong the effect is. And you can't necessarily put a strong dichotomy there whether it's a definite wedge that would be detrimental or if it's simply a way of using one's time. That's why you have a problem definitely defining it as cheating.

I literally do not see the point of this. "You were 'soft imposing', therefore it was not the 'highest form of love' in my definition". Ok, I mean, sure. Or just state it as it is: I was saying what I think Leo should do in a situation, I was not saying I know for absolute certainty that this is the best thing to do, and I was doing that from a state of caring and identifying with Leo as I've been a follower and consumer of his content for many years (although less lately, perhaps for the aforementioned reasons). I know it comes off as confrontational, I know you as a follower want to defend him, I know I was challenging the status quo of letting certain behaviors fly past as normal, but clearly I was doing something meaningful as a large percentage of people agreed about what I was pointing out. That's as plain-cut as you can get it.

Wut

My view is cheating is doing something that would likely create a wedge between you and your partner (it's not an exclusive definition, but it works for the phenomena of cheating in my opinion). Seeing another person might likely do that, having sex with another person might do that. These examples are particularly pertinent because they involve another person, someone who could replace your partner in full (given we treat partners as fungible items, which we can do here for the sake of it). Now, does watching porn do that? What about watching porn in a magazine? What about masturbating to a movie scene? What about simply masturbating? Maybe it depends on the person. If you are that consumed by masturbating to things that your relationship with your partner suffers greatly, perhaps that could be called cheating.

The difference, colloquially, is in the degree. Love is fundamentally inclusiveness of identity. That which you include, accept, embrace, you love; that which you exclude, reject, deny, you don't. Colloquially, weaker identification might register as "care", stronger identification might register as "love". Whatever you choose to do as a human is less than God's love. And that includes refusing to do something. If you refuse to do what you think and feel to shield somebody else from yourself, you lack love for the impulse to do that thing. But yes, that's besides the point in a discussion about human love. Is this not what I'm actually saying though by saying "I can't know whether you actually need therapy, it's my guess, my feeling"? See how you're gotten caught up in a word game? This is what is called equivocating, @zurew will attest to this, he is a master at pointing it out. I have already said I don't know what is best for Leo. To then conflate this with what I "think" I know is best for Leo, that is equivocating. Yes, I will say what I think is best for Leo, but I will also say I don't know what is best, so I'm having a "honest masculine feedback" like with your friend. I don't see how in the discussion about therapy, I lacked respect for Leo. Maybe in the original topic and leading up to the therapy discussion, "exposing" his faults, it had a definite element of harshness and "lack of respect", but that I was fully aware of, the Machiavellian that I was in that moment. But then let me also not draw your attention back to why I thought that was a good idea and what the content of the post contains.

Tough love? I think love is when you care and identify with someone. How you choose to express that love is up to you. Carefree love, passive love, unimposing love, unresponsive love, is only one way to express love. If somebody you love is being bitten by a snake, or is stuck in a bear trap, you removing that from them might hurt them and they might scream to stop in the short term, but it might ultimately help them and that's your goal. Love in a relationship does without a doubt benefit from valuing what the person you love thinks and feels is right to do. That's why I suggest and don't impose. Although that also depends on the situation.