WaddyJones

Did you read my comment? I never said having children is the highest purpose in life, or that it’s the highest good. Your comment bears zero relation to mine

I said that abandoning children is contemptible and all child abandoners including bourdain deserve vilification.

I agree 100%. In theory it’s good to consider all perspectives and not acquire hyperfocus/tunnel vision on any one plan or destination. But I n practice, people seem to find leaders with tunnel vision far more convincing and worth following than those who take a more multi faceted/ less focused approach to leadership IMO

Maybe that’s because, it seems like the practical reality of discussing ones attempts to be bias-free always comes off as disengenuous no matter how genuine those attempts may be. So fuck it man. Embrace bias :)

Fascinating comment all around. I fully agree. It never occurred to me that “silent thinking” and “silent reading” are relatively new phenomena. But after reading this comment it’s so obvious that they are.

Is being raised by ones uncle really more popular than being raised by ones grandparents, on a global scale? Somehow I doubt it. In many Asian countries being raised by grandparents is the norm but being raised by an uncle would be more of an uncommon arrangement.

so real

When I start to actually give a shit about politics I know I’m unhappy

It’s also a great way to rationalize why I write off all politically minded ppl as simply unhappy — when I am politically minded it is always solely the result of personal unhappiness — when I am happy I don’t care about politics

>As for Gates, he had the drive and interest to spend his time learning how to program and explore business while he was a kid. While most of his peers were likely using that time to watch TV or party. That's an essential difference and no amount of privilege is going to bridge that.

Dude his drive and interest was solely determined by his physical appearance aka the fact that he considered himself ugly. If gates could choose he would have been a good looking tv watching party chad. But he was an uggo so he statusmaxxed instead.

There is no such thing as an individual who is not susceptible to hypnosis because all hypnosis is self hypnosis. In fact you had to hypnotize yourself into believing that you’re not susceptible to hypnosis, which proves that the opposite is true.

On another note—

Actually, you do hear voices. You just don’t notice them because you assume that they are your “inner voice.” If you just gave the process of thinking your thoughts a different label, you could easily call it “hearing a voice.” I’m not trying to be a smart ass here, don’t you think that this is true ? IMO, the idea that “thinking thoughts” and “hearing voices” are just different vague metaphorical labels for the same internal phenomenon makes a lot of sense.