Split (1)

train · 6.74k rows

subreddit stringclasses 11 values	text stringlengths 246 28.5k
politics	[Here are the definitions of binge drinking and and heavy aka excessive alcohol use according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.](https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/moderate-binge-drinking) [Here is the CDC echoing the same standards.](https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/pdfs/excessive_alcohol_use.pdf) We can even be generous and ignore the "any alcohol use under 21" and assume it was legal for him to drink at the time. Also note that it specifically says 90% of excessive drinkers binge drink. Binge drinking is a big deal because that's the point of severe impairment and lasting health risks. It also sets up the habitual use that contributes to alcoholism. These are likely the standards he was referring to when he mentioned a chart because they're the most wildly accepted among healthcare providers and in alcohol education. Again, you'll also notice that he wouldn't answer specifically how many beers he had. By these standards, the witnesses are describing binge drinking. There are also references to his excessive drinking in his year book and in his friends' entries like him being president of the 100 Keg Club, announcements about excessive partying from his school at the time, and his bff Mark Judge wrote a book about their behavior that included a character named Bart O'Kavanaugh who regularly got sloppy drunk. You do know all this, right? Like you know and you're just trolling, right? Because otherwise, that'd be incredibly sad.
politics	I didn't know about the fictional book character who is based on judge kavanaugh. If you're clinging to the hope that he committed perjury when he said he didn't drink to excess then you really do have nothing because it's yet another unprovable claim. Just because someone on CNN says he got sloppy drunk sometimes does not mean he drank to excess. By democrat senator standards, drinking to "excess" means drinking enough to lose judgement to the point of attempted rape. Kavanaugh denies that.
politics	You can keep saying this, but this entire exchange has involved me repeating the actual testimony at the hearing and you moving goal posts as far and fast as possible. For instance: >By democrat senator standards, drinking to "excess" means drinking enough to lose judgement to the point of attempted rape. At no point was this stated. This is a conclusion you have drawn that is not based on the actual line of questioning. I'm also not clinging to any particular hope. Only an idiot wouldn't take the GOP at their word that they'd ram this confirmation through even if the allegations were true. I'm quoting reality at you and watching you cover your ears and hum really loudly till it goes away. Which you're welcome to keep doing if it makes you feel better, by the way. Ultimately, you're just carrying water for an entitled prick who doesn't give a shit about you, openly admitted to a crazy conspiracy fueled partisan vendetta, and behaved in a manner disqualifying for any judge. And that's without the credible allegations and witnesses. The GOP could withdraw this shitstain and give you any of the other, presumably more qualified, Federalist Society judges, but they won't, in part because they know you guys will accept and embrace this bottom of the barrel circus. I guess what I'm saying is, we all know the GOP was going to fuck us over with SCOTUS. I just didn't expect them to needlessly lower your standards as much too in the process.
politics	I don't like the term packing because increasing the size of the court isn't the only thing that should happen. I prefer to call it reform. Yes, we need to nullify the illegitimate advantage Republicans stole, and yes, that will involve adding seats initially. But we also need to implement changes to improve SCOTUS and the nomination process going forward, regardless of who's in power. Simply adding justices is an invitation to add even more justices when the tables turn. What we need is a new norm.
science	But is essentially treating people as quotas to fill based on demographics not inherently racist? Ok, sure white peoole are terrible whatever but literally Harvard has been sued by Asian people who are discriminated against by affirmative action requiring them to have like a 600 point higher SAT score than other races to get it. Is it now racist if it's negatively affecting another minority group? It essentially comes down to "on average these groups are more disadvantaged so we will now proceed to give benefits on an individual basis based on statistics that likely don't apply to a majority of the people that are actually benefiting while others still lie in squalor"
science	First of all whites didn’t enslaved blacks there were plenty of free black men in fact the first legal slave owner in America was a black man. We did import black slaves from certain African regions. Also all races have enslaved other races at some point. Yes affirmative action is racist because the main qualification to benefit from this is based on skin color verses merit. You seem to have a very elementary understanding of these issues. Critical thinking is important even though it might make you rethink things.
science	So if you are an economically disadvantaged white person you're responsible for whites on average being advantaged due to having higher wealth, and thus should be penalized, while the majority of people taking advantage of affirmative action and benefiting will still be the small portion of minorities that already were more well off than you? Acting as if any blanket declaration about a person based on their demographic is fact is objectively biased if not outright racist, and the idea that this stolen goods metaphor is at all similar is objectively stupid. The people benefiting from AA are almost always those who were already well off and utilizing it is actually something that generally doesn't affect economic mobility of the majority of minorities it is allegedly designed to help while harming supposedly "advantaged classes" such as whites and Asians who come from poor social/economic standing by putting another barrier to entry into higher economic classes.
science	Socioeconomic status operates independently of race. Poor people of color exist too, and their lot is statistically even worse than poor white people. That’s why one of the things affirmative action also considers is family income. All white people did and continue to benefit from racist policies of the past and their legacies. This benefit isn’t equally distributed along wealth lines, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Your perspective relies on ignoring all of US race history and viewing people as entitled to certain jobs or college admittance.
science	Yes, yes this is absolutely true, and you're correct. [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e92a/f143699142759573938646ad6679f0740b89.pdf](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e92a/f143699142759573938646ad6679f0740b89.pdf) This concept is not even new either, there are many many heavily cited articles that cover this effect, and it is likely due to excessive stress. Think about this from an evolutionary point of view. A child who undergoes a chaotic period of growing up is likely to experience maladaptations to the environment. There is a good reason that a human being should develop depending upon environmental state so as to have an increased rate of survival. For example cold personality traits and indifference may develop as a result of expecting more abuse in adulthood. People become primed to respond to stress more than usual, leading to anxiety disorders. Learned helplessness can form as a result of not being able to change circumstances. In childhood you are weak and vulnerable, unable to do much at all to stave off parental abuse, this will mean you have the perfect environment to develop a sense that there is just no way to affect the outcome of further abuse in later years of life. In this PDF I've given for example, the article references this explicitly: \>Major functional consequences include increased electrical irritability in limbic structures, and reduced functional activity of the cerebellar vermis. These structures are commonly associated with anxiety disorders (for the limbic system) and clinical depression in the case of damage to the cerebellar vermis in the form of lesions. The abusive and toxic atmospheres that these people grow up in are literally giving them brain damage.
science	You should rarely assume that your brain is totally unable to be treated for anything along these "attitudinal" lines. Brains can change a lot even in adulthood. New connections can be made and reinforced to the point that they compete with and crowd out the old ones. But it takes time and effort to do that. It takes changing the environment that reinforces the old pathways. EDIT: There are many injuries and disorders which are "irreparable." But what I'm talking about is treatment and/or improvement. In many cases, there is a potential for those things.
science	But the real question is, when you have severe mental illness to the point of disability, how do you prompt yourself to do things like exercise when getting out of bed itself feels impossible? Because of both physical and mental conditions, I am constantly exhausted -- but I do want to get better. I want to be better, but damn man. Sometimes it feels impossible; I regularly skip eating because I can't muster up the energy to make anything. Also how does meditation work? I've tried that several times, but nothing happens. My therapist is trying a new type of therapy with me (its to do with following motions with your eyes to reprogram your brain) but due to my inability so see visuals in my head, its failing.
science	Yes. The orbito prefrontal cortex, the part of the pfc behind the eyes, is a key part of the entire pfc-limbic system emotional response. In cases of abuse there is excessive pruning of specific brain structures involved in the fight/flight response which includes the inhibitory properties of the pfc on the limbic system. So it would make sense that larger brain volume in the pfc particularly is correlated with resilient personality traits. This excessive pruning has been thought to be responsible for some of the impulsiveness seen in personality disorders, the worst of which appear to have significant trouble with their sympathetic and parasympathetic components communicating. So they can go from 0-100 instantly and then suddenly dissociate soon after.
science	Good questions, in my experience, an anti-depressant (Remeron in my case) gave me a boost in mood and motivation, which allowed me to develop enough strength to get out and exercise. I'm hesitant to advocate for anti-depressants because they are invasive, and every single one of them will have side effects (some temporary some long term). But if your conditions are severe, they can be helpful as a clutch to give you a jump start. On meditation, the most well studied one is probably Mindfulness, you sit and focus on the sensations in your nostrils from breathing. The KEY is: whenever you notice an emotion arises, you simply acknowledge it without any negativity, and let it pass, and move your attention back to the breath. Benefits of meditation takes time for you to notice, it requires consistent and long term commitment, just like you, for a short while I noticed I didn't noticed any improvements, and I gave up. But the whole point of meditation is to be mindful of ALL emotions, including when you feel frustrated at the fact that you aren't noticing benefits, and simply let it pass without any negativity. This will take time, patience, and consistent practice.
science	I have Aphantasia also. I've also dealt with depressions since my pre-teen years. I still struggle some, but I find counting helps motivate me enough to action. Need to get up for work? Count to 10, 20, maybe 30, then sit up. Count again, stand up. Count again, get dressed etc. Counting and not thinking at the same time help me just auto-pilot through most chores like working out, cleaning and such. It helps me, but it isn't for everybody.
science	Something that's helped me is "setting back the clock." My parents had no chill; everything that might affect them in even smaller ways was an opportunity to freak the fuck out. They also criticized and punished me for the smallest of things, and with bigger things they would talk about sending me away somewhere (by bigger things I mean they caught me lying to them or I got a bad grade, cause I never did drugs or had sex while living under their roof). Every time something upsets me, I stop and critically contemplate the seriousness of the matter. On a scale from one to death, how bad is this? Really, and am I sure I'm being honest? If I rate something above a 3, I double check. If I rate something above a five, I check a third time, etc. There is a point on the clock around 8 or so where checking would be kind of worthless because you'd be in an emergency or just surviving. But anyway, the point is this is helping me destress A LOT. The reason I was living such a stressful and pessimistic life is because I had learned from my parents to make a big deal out of everything. It was hard for me to see this as an adult because they would project on me and tell me that I was the dramatic and sensitive one, and that I has to make a big deal out of everything. Well maybe all that's true, but I was a child and I'd learned it from them. I have countless memories of them exploding, wailing, yelling, swearing, kicking things, because something happened or was going to happen that they thought was a big deal. I've already one upped then by not being in the practice of being physically or mentally violent. These things have taken years and years of work, with and without help from others. Setting my clock back is constant work. I have to be thinking critically every time I'm stressing out, which is still quite often. The work is worth it though, and I promise I've seen great results. Ed: PS, LSD is a great way to gain perspective on how to set your clock, but I would caution anyone against doing party amounts especially if you're a bundle of nerves.
science	I think it's an incorrect stretch, and asymmetric, to draw a comparison of optimism vs anxiety disorders. The proper state to compare to optimism is pessimism/skepticism. Anxiety disorders are on another spectrum entirely, one that, at the other extreme, is unrealistic faith/belief. Optimism is associated with less accurate interpretations of reality & less updating of error tracking & estimation. Optimism doesn't necessarily entail being "smarter" in the pragmatic, intellectually accurate sense but actually "dumber" in those ways. [How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21983684) Nature Neurosci. 2011 Oct 9;14(11):1475-9. doi: 10.1038/nn.2949. However, optimism does facilitate social success, social integration & social networks, all of which are associated with some areas of the brain being larger due to the complexity of social behavior. People who are not optimistic tend to have more accurate views of reality & update their associations due to error detection & tracking mechanisms.
science	It's terrible, right? I've had depression for about 15 years now and I feel like the last decade has flown by in a haze of... nothing. My depression used to be a lot more manageable when I was a teenager, but it feels like the older I get, the worse it becomes. I've been in an apathy hellscape (I'm not sure how else to describe it, I've just felt empty and nothing else for months now). Some days I wake up and I'm able to wash my clothes, brush my teeth, shower, and even eat. I call those good days even though they don't feel that different. I have to admit that, I prefer the vast emptiness to the misery. I lost my last job because I couldn't stop weeping at work. I was lucky that I worked night shift and there was only one other person there, but it likely got old watching some asshat weep and work at the same time. The best coping mechanism I've developed is just... distracting myself. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
science	I'm already on an anti-depressant. I take the maximum dose of Trintellix and Buspar on the side, but my doc is thinking about changing to a different type of anti-depressant again -- the third time in the last year. Sigh. Coming off the Sertaline was the worst though. )8 I've been taking anti-depressants off and on since I was young, but I don't know how much they actually help. Mind you, I also have OCD, PTSD, GAD, and ADHD so... I guess it complicates shit and all. Huh, that sounds interesting, but how do you do the other part -- letting emotion pass without negativity? I guess I've been doing the opposite my whole life. I've done my damndest to crowd out all my intrusive thoughts by not giving myself time to think -- which means constant stimulation and distraction. I don't even shower or drive without an audiobook on so I have something else to focus on.
science	Unfortunately you need to do regular meditation for at least 6-8 weeks to see results. Sessions should be a minimum of 20 minutes. Kabat-Zinn has some available that he used for his study, but there are lots of others. Dr. Laurie Santos said in her lecture "The Science of Well-Being" that the type of meditation doesn't matter, so if you can find a program you like, just keep trying to do that. I personally prefer the Headspace program, but that costs money eventually. Your local library might be a good resource for free. As for the rest....kinda in the same boat, so I don't have much advice there.
science	> Also how does meditation work? Repetition and acceptance/allowance are your best tools to move forward. I recommend you create a daily practice where you invest gradually more minutes practicing, and focus on developing this sort of patience over the days. If thoughts wander into your head and distract you, that's fine - let the thought happen and then let it pass. You are trying to dismantle the arguing going on in your head, so getting frustrated or stubbornly trying to "silence" your thoughts will dedicate energy in the wrong direction. If you do start to feel like its the hard kind of work, or your patience is wearing out - be finished with your practice for the day, and try again tomorrow. If you are consistent I promise you will see progress, and this is the sort of practice where being gentle and compassionate with yourself will go further than "discipline" will. If you can only meditate for 60 seconds your first attempt, that's good. Congratulate yourself for taking the time to learn a new skill, and look forward to practicing again tomorrow.
science	Thank you very much, I appreciate that! I hope the rest of your shift goes well. : D Yeah, I understand and agree though. I spend most of my spare time gaming, though I've found it frustrating to play games that require too much strategizing or quick reflexes. I think my brain might be a little too sluggish to respond adequately? I've largely been playing games like Stardew Valley, simulations, or games that have more focus on narratives (like Mass Effect, the Witcher, Walking Dead, etc). Escapism is nice if you're capable of maintaining interest long enough to get there! ♥
science	Have you been treated for ADHD? I'm asking because I also have ADHD, people with ADHD are more likely to develop other conditions because we tend to have emotional disregulation. So if something bad happens, we get angrier or sadder than the healthy person. I was treated for depression and PTSD first, but it was actually ADHD medication that really made me feel (almost) normal again. About meditation, like you mentioned you (and most people) have been doing the opposite all their lives, it's just going to take time and practice to eventually notice the benefits. Think of it as lifting weights, each time you let a emotion pass is one rep in the gym, when you do enough number of reps your brain will get stronger. The instructions are simple, but it's going to be hard to do day in and day out.
science	Hnng, I don't think I could do 20 minutes at a time. I have a hard time sitting still and doing nothing for 5 minutes -- especially when my brain likes to mess with me. That's my ADHD and OCD though, I crave constant stimulation and it feels like torture to just sit there like that. The intrusive thoughts will set in then. I think I'd rather try and start with 60 seconds and see how well I can manage that first. I'll definitely try and check out the lecture though. I actually like listening to stuff like that while I'm showering and driving. Keeps my brain busy, which is... well, I guess kind of the opposite of what I'm trying to do here. Good luck to you with both the meditation and the rest! I hope we both manage to succeed. : D
science	This is a hard question. Theoretically, yes. I'll start with the philosophical view of it. The brain forms healthily in subjects who do not undergo abuse, therefore, it is feasible that the brain may grow into a healthier configuration at some future point. It is technically possible, but is it possible right now? I don't know of any working examples of people fixing brain lesions, so I'll have a quick look. The definition of a brain lesion is an area of abnormal tissue growth that appears 'different' than anticipated on MRI scans. Then the problem is that the brain has been 'set' in a poor way. When you grow up as a child, and you have all of this growth going on, that affects your brain's development, toxic environments likely cause your brain to be 'set' and to learn that environment. Then we have two problems, one is that these neural networks now exist. And would it be a good idea to remove them? We would likely prefer to 'reform' these neural networks rather than excise the cells. The other is that we need a method to produce a positive growth affect. If it is true that the brain can develop healthily in a good environment then a strong support base would be necessary given that someone had 'new neurons' to grow a more appropriate brain structure in these areas. I don't know how to make a neuron just right now but since we already create neurons naturally then yes I am very confident that it is possible for us to create neurons, glia, astrocytes, etc, in vivo. Consider adult neurogenesis for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_neurogenesis#Adult_Neurogenesis_and_Major_Depressive_Disorder Many researchers today are interested in stimulating brain regrowth and repair, in many different diseases, I think there is a good chance that in the future we will have the capacity to 'heal' things like depression and even diseases that destroy the brain such as MS. As you can see, anti-depressants specifically aim to try to stimulate neurogenesis in the hippocampus, and since this could technically be termed a 'lesion', the answer to your question is yes. Edit; another important factor to think of is genetics. Genetics is a very actively, exploding industry, at the moment, things like CRISPR went mainstream and they even have alternatives today, it's steadily marching on and the future looks pretty bright for fixing things 'genetically'. The problem I see in the future for that is that, cells with different genes to other cells might be rejected somehow. I'm not even sure how that integration works, but, I think given that some naturally occurring genetic differentiation exists in nature, that it isn't as reactive to new genetic alterations as people think. Therefore, retroviral therapies may be pretty suitable for changing people's genetics at the core, and environmental cues may enable epigenetic 'switches' to be pressed that leads to recovery.
science	I’ve been collecting research for a study, and the evidence on neuroplasticity (the ability of the brain to change shape/size, make new connections, etc.) is really growing fast. I’m a behavior scientist not a brain scientist, but it appears that there’s good reason to believe that repeated practice is a key factor in neuroplasticity. For my work with individuals with ADHD and Autism, which are both associated with less brain activity in the prefrontal cortex, we’re seeing some success in using behavioral therapy to create and reinforce neural pathways in that region.
science	What type of therapy are you doing? I've found ACT to be extremely beneficial for intrusive thoughts. Rather than attempting to avoid or counter them, it works off acceptance that a vast majority of the stuff going through our minds is garbage that you can just let pass without judgment. This has the effect of it being less distressing when these thoughts occur. A good place to start is The Happiness Trap by Russ Harris. It also appears he has some audiobooks available.
science	Hey, you are seeing a therapist--that's an awesome step you are already taking, so you should feel good about that. I have a loved one exactly in the state you are. We are looking at meds and other therapies for resistant cases with a specialist. [Here's a clinic](http://www.emoryhealthcare.org/centers-programs/treatment-resistant-depression-program/index.html) with examples of their approaches: * Weekly cognitive behavioral therapy * Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) * Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) * Off-label trials of medication * and/or Psychotherapy in our Adult Intensive Outpatient or Partial Hospitalization Program Good luck and keep at it. You are not alone
science	The hardest part for me is getting started, I think. I have mild heart problems so I'm not supposed to do anything that's too strenuous to the heart (I was exempt from gym in high school), but I am allowed to exercise so long as I focus on my body and I don't overdo it. Quick bursts of exercise like this are probably the best way to go about it. I had a membership at Planet Fitness last year, but my social anxiety flared up and I only ever went 2-3 times. I know that, realistically, no one gives a shit that I'm there. I even chose that gym specifically because it has policies against antagonizing people for any reason, but the brain can be stupid.
science	My therapist is doing CBT and she's just started taking lessons on something called EMDR. That hasn't worked out for me at all so far because I'm unable to visualize anything in my head and that's the only way she seems to know how to do it so far. It's a shame because it seemed fairly interesting. I've never heard of ACT. What is that? It sounds like it'd be really helpful! I wrote down that book and I'm definitely going to give that a listen. I'm willing to try just about anything once -- especially if it sounds so promising.
science	You should put your abrasive opinionated subreddits into a multireddit so that you can access them, but they aren't in your face all the time. Then you may wish to stop viewing the multi and unsub to some of them. Reddit can be a very useful website. It can also be a harmless (in all ways except the obvious) timewaster. Or it can be a cesspool of soul-sucking bickering and hatred. Make it into what you want.
science	Thank you very much! I've heard of those different treatments, but the therapist (and psychiatrist) I'm seeing doesn't offer a lot of those. To be fair, I'm not exactly sure how helpful they are because my psychiatrist is pretty disaffected and my therapist seems to be kind of... I'm not sure how to say this without being insulting. She's very kind and I like her a lot, but sometimes I feel like she hasn't kept up to date on mental illness and I have to explain a lot of things to her that she's never heard of? My insurance just doesn't cover a lot of people. Come the new year, I'm going to switch back to Caresource.
science	The affect of abuse and poverty on the brain is fascinating from a legal standpoint. Basically, since there is proven damage to the brain, survivors of a traumatic childhood who go on to be crimals could arguably be said to not be as responsible for their actions as their brain was altered to make them predisposed to violence and making bad choices. Free will is one thing but life isn't fair.
science	Have you tried Headspace app? There are 3, 5, 10, and 20 minute meditations so you can work up to longer times or even stay at 3 minutes. The host helps you through when you think you aren’t doing it “right.” For me, first thing in the morning, right out of bed, is the most effective time to meditate. I still struggle with it after a year of doing it, but it has made a significant difference in my life. I do 10 minutes in the am, and 3 minute “rescue” ones when I get upset during the day.
science	Mindfulness meditation is like training your brain to do what you want, or rather, get better at it. To let go of a thought and refocus on what you want to focus on. I struggle with pretty similar stuff as you. And yeah, constant intrusive thoughts and I distract myself from them, or try to anyway. Remember, you can't fail at meditation because the goal is to simply try. If you're meditating, you're trying. It is training and you do what you can. You wouldn't say someone is failing just because they try and can't do even one pushup. They try, that's training. They're getting better at it. Sit or lay comfortably with your eyes closed, preferrably in a quiet environment. Focus on the sensation of breath going in and out in your norstrils or upper lip or whatever. The thoughts will come. Don't push them away, instead, let them go and refocus on your breath. And just keep doing that. Let go, refocus, repeat. I'm going to meditate now, haven't done it in a while.
science	I've personally found tweaking the balance of what I'm consuming has helped shift my mental state away from one of agitation and aggravation and towards one of compassion and curiosity. For me, this meant less time on reddit (stuff like /r/Eyebleach is fine) and online gaming (HotS triggers me like nothing else). I replaced the news-aspect of reddit with media I found more positive and less superficial (for me this happened to be things like the Current Affairs podcast / magazine). My growing belief in a lack of free-will (non-dualism) also helps with this. I'm much less agitated by others when I consider that some non-zero percentage of people's thoughts and actions are influenced by things out of their control (see: this article and RoseElise's post).
science	Yeah, I've been wanting a new team for a while. I just feel like my psychiatrist doesn't really listen (or care) and my therapist does her best, but it's not effective. I feel like it's just as effective as venting to a friend and that's about what it feels like too. Unfortunately, I have no source of income right now, so I need to keep what I have until I finally manage to score a job. I would love a service that offers me more like that, though. There's a doc that's fairly well known that my family doctor wanted me to go to, but they don't accept my insurance. If I change to Caresource at the beginning of the year, though, I should be able to get them.
science	> once a subreddit hits a certain subscriber threshold (100,000 to 300,000), the content and enthusiasm of the average community tends to go down. This has been my experience for some of the subs I was on that have ballooned in size over the years, with two categories of exceptions: subreddits that were originally intended for 'low effort'/easy to digest content / shitposting, or subs where most 'subscribers' are just there to get a feed of very specific content and don't participate (r/writingprompts, maybe r/polandball). There's a lot of overlap between those categories. It seems a larger subscriber base (particularly when it's grown quickly) leads to a preference for lower common denominator content rising to the top, low-tier jokes and general reddit memes dominating comment threads, and higher rates of people bringing in social/political issues with little excuse (the 'X is leaking' effect). It definitely gives larger subs a very different feel from smaller subs (which often feel a lot more like the forums of yore).
science	I don’t know about music specifically, but when I last studied the subject of violent media it seemed like, in general, the biggest/most reliably observed effect of consuming it was desensitization to other violent media, and it didn’t seem to substantially change aggression or responses to real life violence. I never saw anything suggesting long term changes to personality. However, this was three years ago, and I haven’t kept up with the new research on the subject (and even at the time a lot of the papers I was reading were a bit dated), so I don’t know if the scientific consensus has changed since then.
science	I think this is a very good example. If you know there are things about yourself that are adaptations to things you think are not preferable, change your environment to one that you do prefer and make an effort to adapt to it. Right now I work in an awful place. I grew up around chaos/trauma and while it may or may not have been a choice to wind up where I work with all this chaos specifically, I know I do want to change that so I am looking for a new job. I am looking into the environments of these potential jobs on, say, Glassdoor. What do other employees think of it? Who would my supervisor be and where have they worked in the past? It's not a perfect system, but I have ruled out some places because the writing is on the wall in some cases.
science	Lurk moar, talk less. If you really feel you have to post, then do, but read it over carefully. By breaking a negative cycle one should engage in positive habits, recognizing and acting on positive interactions helps increase overall health. That's why I like the big editor feature on desktop, I can see, read and discard at my nature, and truly ask myself if this is a positive action to make with only my words on the screen. I can understand the gatekeeper effect, subs are ripe targets for social engineering, a hostile takeover can breed toxic effects, even the precieved threat of one. Trust is fundamental to the public good.
science	There is also body scan! From the top of your head, focus your entire attention on each body part, and notice a slight sensation in that part. As soon as you feel a sensation, any sensation, you move three inches down, keep repeating until you reach your toes. From there you scan back up to the top of your head. Two things that can be difficult with this: 1, How the hell do you feel any sensations in a body part where it's not touching anything? Well remember there's millions of nerve endings beneath your skin, you CAN feel it, but you have to really focus on that part, eventually you can actually feel the physical existence of each body part. 2, when you feel an itch or pain, don't scratch or move, just meditate on that sensation, ask yourself what it feels like, and what's your emotional response to it? Believe it or not, eventually the itch or pain actually goes away if you meditate long enough.
science	I have the opposite problem to what you describe in part 1. I feel my body too much. I'm hyper aware of every tiny little sensation at all times, and I have incredibly severe anxiety. If I focus on my body at all (with the exception of feeling pleasure), especially my breath or my heartbeat, I detect and magnify little quirks that make me think something is wrong and have a panic attack.
science	Take this with a grain of salt because I'm no doctor and don't have any experience in anxiety, but are you able to mindfully observe your anxious feelings? That's really the key point in meditation, whenever negative emotions and feelings arise (in Buddhism they call it your 'monkey brain', we all have it), we have a higher consciousness that can observe and say 'OK I'm noticing I'm being anxious now, I will not react to this emotion in any way, I will simply observe and accept whatever is happening in the present moment.'
science	>My therapist is doing CBT and she's just started taking lessons on something called EMDR. That hasn't worked out for me at all so far because I'm unable to visualize anything in my head and that's the only way she seems to know how to do it so far. It's a shame because it seemed fairly interesting. Heres the thing. CBT is great, but it takes numerous sessions. Sticking to your daily routines and making micro adjustments to how you are living your life can be very effective. For example, wake up in the morning, MAKE YOUR BED, go for a run, THEN take a shower. Thats your routine... do it, and stick to it for like 3 weeks. While at the same time you're doing this, do your CBT once or twice a week, however much you usually do it. Micro-routines and CBT are similar to going to the gym and working out. Your mind is just like going to a gym. No one goes to a gym once and thinks "okay well thats done and now I'll never need to workout again", no. It takes work, and more over, it takes perseverance. Do not quit. As for EMDR, one of the things that helped me with that was cannabis. Mindfulness meditation + cannabis, combined with CBT and EMDR -- I felt like a new person. &#x200B;
science	I don’t know about music specifically, but when I last studied the subject of violent media it seemed like, in general, the biggest/most reliably observed effect of consuming it was desensitization to other violent media, and it didn’t seem to substantially change aggression or responses to real life violence. I never saw anything suggesting long term changes to personality. However, this was three years ago, and I haven’t kept up with the new research on the subject (and even at the time a lot of the papers I was reading were a bit dated), so I don’t know if the scientific consensus has changed since then.
science	I actually ended up at ACT after doing CBT and liking some parts a lot, but finding that challenging my thoughts constantly was exhausting and not terribly productive. Visualization was a problematic thing for me, as well, as I would either not be able to come up with anything or it'd be absurdly elaborate to a distracting point ("visualize putting your negative thoughts in a box" "ok, so I have this post-apocalyptic underground bunker, its contents barely visible by the dim light of a single bulb pentrating a dusty haze filling the air."). While I haven't done much EMDR personally, my therapist's position is that it mainly works by distracting you while providing exposure to whatever distressing topic you're working on. Its efficacy is questionable in some respects such as for anxiety, but for some people it works really well, especially with PTSD. It may not be for you, but it's good you're open to trying things especially with how exhausting the process can be. ACT actually uses components of CBT, but the focus is more on disentagling yourself from your thoughts and feelings. Rather than assuming a healthy psychological state is one free of negative thoughts occuring, it posits that these thoughts are normal and that we can choose to act differently in spite of them. You might FEEL like garbage, but it doesn't mean you ARE garbage or have to act like garbage. For someone like me, this has been an extremely useful approach as I don't ever see being a huge fan of myself but I want to keep improving and be good to those with the questionable taste of liking me. Essentially identify your values and goals, work on not judging your thoughts as good or bad and accepting that they will occur, and learning to act according to your values and goals rather than reacting to and attempting to control your thoughts and feelings. Also, it may be worth examining what other things could be triggering anxiety. Sounds weird, but turned out I have a food allergy with a cardiovascular reaction that was causing constant anxiety along with panic attacks. I didn't take it seriously for a long time but once it progressed to anaphylaxis and I eliminated the offender completely, my GAD disappeared. Taking vitamin D without also taking magnesium also results in tachycardia and palpitations for me. Honestly I could go on more, but I'm wall of texting you already, haha. So definitely feel free to ask more questions if you have any! *Edited for clarity regarding vitamin D and magnesium
science	Something I think a lot of people don’t account for properly is the fact that a lot of these people aren’t adults, they’re literally children. When you know you’re talking to a child you can easily compensate for that when gauging their reactions and how they view things. On reddit there’s really no way of knowing who you’re talking to. I’ve often had arguments on here and then finally realized after a few exchanges I was clearly talking to someone no older than 12. There are A LOT of angsty confused teens on reddit.
science	Not sure if you know anything about CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), but that type of therapy is based on breaking unhealthy pathways and forming new/healthy ones. Previous to the 6-month intensive work I did with a CBT therapist, I had spent pretty much all of my life in a state of anxiety. It peaked at age 24, where I stopped driving, was too afraid to leave the house, would only wear specific clothes and colors, and only left my bed to eat. Eventually even eating and going to the bathroom and showering caused such great anxiety that I barely did those things. My world was so limited that I spent much of my days thinking about death. I finally got help, doing online CBT skype therapy. In a short period of six months I was driving, got a full-time job as a designer, made a handful of new friends, got my own apartment and even went sky diving. I was raised in a chaotic, abusive environment by way of my violent alcoholic father. All the therapists I saw before either helped none or made things worse. I will add that I never and still do not take medicine (I was always too scared), so my success was completely based on my changed thought patterns. So, I'm not perfect by any means...but changing the brain pathways is absolutely, 100% attainable. I'm happy/lucky/blessed to be proof of that.
science	Exactly. The brain is always changing and adapting quickly to the environment. It’s a fascinating organ that has enabled us to become on top of the food chain, even though we are not the strongest species, a bear or tiger could easily rip us to shreds without breaking a sweat. Eventually in evolution our bodies and brains realized that if we become smarter rather than stronger, we have a better chance at survival by outsmarting our predators. Doing things to promote new neural pathway growth is essential to changing your mindset and the way you think, or else your brain will just continue to use the same old pathways under the assumption that it is positively sustainable and necessary for survival. As you said it takes a lot of time and effort, actively observing the thoughts in order to send them in a different direction or to alter your internal conceptual framework of the way life is.
science	Actually it takes much less time than two months to form new neural pathways, they grow very rapidly. I think what they were probably referring to was actually making the change of the brains preference in which neural pathways to utilize and how much less likely you are to use the old patterns. Let’s say your brain uses pathway A, a negative electrical response to stimuli like police for instance, maybe because you had a bad experience with them once. Well if you actively try to alter your thinking and mindset to this newly formed pathway B, which let’s say is a detached neutral response, reminding yourself that they are here to protect and not to harm you, then it would take 2 months or more to fully make the switch over to the new pathway. The brain becomes so used to using the same pathways, up to a few months or several years, so it takes a while for it to become accustomed to using a different new neural pathway which evokes a different emotional response to a specific subject. This all depends on the severity of the response which indicates the strength of the pathway, and also how active the individual is at consciously trying to utilize a different mode of thinking, or pathway B.
science	I'm not a mental health professional nor do I know the severity of your depression, but have you tried just scheduling active stuff and then just following through the motions? I understand that you have a severe lack of motivation but a rational will to get better, then perhaps forcing yourself to go through the motions in stuff like going for a walk in a park once a day might be doable. Don't do it because you want to, do it because you don't want to do anything so following your schedule is as good of an alternative as anything. This might still be impossible for you, I understand that, I'm just trying to help and I really hope you get better.
science	I’m so happy that I could help! Just know that it is 100% possible at any age to change your mindset and ways of thinking. The brain is made to never stop learning and changing. The best thing to do is start small with babysteps to change your thinking, this will get you going and ultimately get your life in a perpetual motion of change and transformation. I imagine it kind of like pushing a car, it’s hard as hell at first to get it moving, but once you do it becomes easier and easier to keep it moving. There are rough times ofcourse where you want to just give up, but those are the most crucial points to persevere to create stronger and more positive thinking patterns. I had a pretty stressful childhood as well. Both of my parents were alcoholics. I was never physically abused, but certainly mentally and emotionally, and also very neglected. Although it took a long time and a lot of effort with mental training, it is the best thing I could’ve done with my life. It was worth every second of trying to change myself. I think the best thing for me was when I went to California with a friend. It was so therapeutic and helpful to rehabilitate my mind since I was independent, away from any past stressors in the forms of people and places that once made me mentally in pain. It really helped me to find myself and eliminated any possibilities of negative energy from my past to find its way back into my life again. After a while I completely stopped using those destructive neural pathways that were so routine before, and created new healthy ones that were able to facilitate a constructive and positive mindset. Now when I go back to these things that previously stressed me out, I have no issue detaching myself or being positive. I even used to have horrible anxiety, now it’s virtually nonexistent and replaced with a healthy confidence. You don’t have to go to California for this, but anyway to free yourself or avoid these is helpful. Edit: my reddit door is always open if you have any questions or want any help or just to vent!
science	No problem! It’s certainly a healthy sign that you’re able to address it openly. And moving is just an example, DEFINITELY not necessary at all. Any type of temporary detachment from past stressors is therapeutic, this eliminates the need for using past neural pathways to deal with the stress, and encourages opportunities to create new ones, though again this isn’t necessary either. I wish the best for you and hope you have growth with the babysteps and your progress! Again if you have any questions or anything feel free to PM me, I have quite a bit of knowledge with neuroscience and psychology, and personal experience with trauma and mental illness. Good luck friend :)
science	I'm someone who suffers C-PTSD, from horrible physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in Foster Care, from 9 to 17, with most of the sexual stuff happening from 9 to 13. I had a lot of horrible things happen to me. Really bad. And while I am not a Doctor, or a Psychologist, I can assure you maladaptation is a very apt term. The thing is, unless you actively work at it, and consciously attempt to right it, and bumper your thoughts and actions into being normal, all the trauma peaks through. I'm pretty resilient, but everything for me is an extreme counter balance, and not just a bit of regulating my behaviour. You or anyone else would never know, unless you understood the tell tale signs, and really watched me, and put me under duress. My brain, I am absolutely sure, is a byproduct of my circumstances growing up. It tiring to try and right a ship that always pulls aft, but its the only choice I have. Its tiresome, but I refuse to give up. The key is to play the cards your dealt, the best you can, and accept that you're always going to be at a defect, that things are stacked against you. And not to look at losing as a personal loss, but as a valiant effort with the odds stacked against you. Have pride in your triumphs, no matter how infrequent, or how seemingly insignificant. Thats how I go about it at least. People who suffered far less, have my far poorer choices, which is proof positive that we all deal with trauma in very VERY subjective ways.
science	I'm not sure that the prefrontal cortex sends inhibitory signals to areas responsible for stress, but I do know that stress has adverse consequences on the PFC. The most noticeable of these is cognitive performance. As you are more stressed, it is harder to think in some situations, and it also primes habitual behaviours when this happens (to the amygdala, which is responsible for fear and aggression). The PFC also loses its capacity to handle stress as age increases, this means the elderly are more susceptible to the deleterious mental effects that stress will cause them. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352289514000101 For reference; noadrenergic neurotransmitters are things like norepinephrine, which is part of the fight-or-flight response. This means that under chronic stress, people can become habitually responsive to this stress by activation of fight-or-flight. This is anxiety disorder and possibly others. In this case, the study is checking out PTSD. Though in the same article they are also proposing a solution which is to have noadrenergic agonists to act as a blockade during these episodes.
science	First, let me preface by saying I am definitely NOT an expert. My background is in psych and I do a lot of reading in affective neuroscience and (borderline) personality disorder, but, again, I'm not a PhD level clinician by any means. With that disclaimer, my present belief is that anything in the cortex is malleable enough throughout the lifespan to be responsive to therapy. The deeper problem is with the older rostral limbic system function. It's not clear to me from what reading I've done just how plastic this system is, if it can, in adulthood anyway, be a good target for change vs management. I'm going to answer your question from that more conservative orientation. Yes, there are treatments that can work. Your primary problem is likely a kind of learned helplessness writ large. Your problem is likely twofold: 1) your appraisal mechanisms (of social stimuli in particulary), which seem to be housed in the (right) cortex and therefore can definitely change, make you prone to misinterpreting (social) reality, e.g., thinking someone is angry at you when they're not, and 2) because of issues with the limbic system your physiology, your emotional response, is exaggerated, which ends up reinforcing your appraisal mechanisms. Very similar to OCD where a ritual may get rid of an unwanted thought but in its success, it reinforces the percieved reality/truth of the content of that thought, e.g., if avoiding cracks, avoids breaking my mothers back -> i avoid cracks and my mother's back never breaks -> therefore, it must be true that avoiding cracks avoids breaking my mother's back -> reinforcement of avoiding cracks behavior and the belief in the false relationship of cracks and my mother's back. In your case, your appraisal mechanisms of social stimuli don't capture reality quite correctly, but your phsyiological response is exaggerated, reinforcing your exaggerated appraisal, keeping you stuck like an OCD patient. That's a rudamentary way of looking at it, problems like yours are more complicated (which is why CBT may work for OCD behaviors but it likely won't work for yours). In my opinion the best treatment for this is DBT skills with a serious mindfulness component and schema focussed therapy. We can talk in PM, if you like, about what this is supposed to look like/entail. DBT is popular right now, so there are a lot of BS programs that market themselves as DBT-oriented/informed when they're pretty much garbage or just do a little skills training--nothing that will actually help you. But, in short, DBT with schema focussed therapy can potentially reduce the intensity of your felt affect, teach you how to regulate your affect earlier in the dysregulation chain, and give you the skills to reevaluate a situation and be more interpersonally effective, which should lead also to reduced frequency of dysregulation events. Once you're able to regulate affect well, you could likely work on the appraisal mechanism restructuring. If you can't regulate your affect, then in the face of recalling the abuse/neglect, you'll likely get dysregulated to the point of being unable to learn and take anything away from therapy, or get angry at the demands of therapy and quit. Anyway, there's a ton more to be said. Entire series of books have been written on this stuff, so, if you have any questions, just PM me.
science	A well-balanced diet with fish rich in fatty acids like omega 3, plenty of sunlight and a bit of exercise. Try salmon every other day, really good. Barring that, supplements. Plenty of sleep, and a reduction in stress. I would also learn coping strategies for anxiety and consider therapy. These should be good for you even if you are not cured but for some it might even remove their symptoms entirely. For the rest antidepressants are getting better.
science	I don't understand how it works though. My therapist is like: imagine that there is a light raining down on you. What does it feel like? Me: uhhh. The sun? Her: what color is it? How does it make you feel? Me: increasingly more uncomfortable: yellow, like the sun? And I guess hot... Her: and why did you choose yellow? Is there something specific about it that draws you to the color? Me: ...the sun is yellow...?
science	I really appreciate the thought! It's kind of circumstantial for me. Some days I have the energy to do this and some days it's entirely impossible. The issue then becomes anxiety because my OCD focuses on potential death and physical torment that could happen on my end thanks to my intrusive thoughts. I don't feel comfortable going to the park along because I live in a dangerous area. So I invitably end up stressing myself out and triggering a migraine. I think I need a friend to join me, but all of my friends have long since moved away.
science	I've found that I really like walks. My favorite thing is long, scenic trails with a friend. I love just getting to relax and talk to a friend. It's easier when you have someone there beside you, but nixing that, I found that using headphones and listening to an audio book while at the gym helps a little bit. At least for me, it helps distract my brain from stupid anxious thoughts that are trying to trip me up.
science	Routines are also supposed to be really good for people with ADHD, like me! I struggle with them a lot, so I have to set alarms even for simple things like remembering to take my medicine. I would love to get a good routine going, though my knees are way too busted to run without dying. I should definitely keep up with other exercises though, my physical therapist would be mad at me for having stopped months ago. )8 I do get CBT every week though and that's good. Aaaaa. Yeah, I've heard pot can be really good for anxiety and depression if you get the right strain! I've tried pot once (an edible a friend made), but it just made me conk out and sleep for like 6 hours so I must have gotten it wrong. I don't live in a state where it's legal yet, though, and now that I've moved I've no idea where to even find it. Aaaa, one day... : P
science	Hahahahaha. You should write a book, you've got some good details there! For me, visualization is just impossible. I don't know how and I can't even daydream. My therapist gets frustrated with me and, from the way people explain it, it kind of sounds like they're having a hallucination? I'm not sure, my brain just doesn't work like that. Pfft. You're so knowledgeable about this stuff that I would love to talk to you in more detail about it. I'm fairly sure that I have more than one type of depression, for example, but not all the time. I think I get Seasonal Affective Disorder when my vitamin D levels hit deficiency (I worked night shift for 3 years and never saw the sun) because once that happens, my anxiety and depression spiral to critical and potentially suicidal levels of out of control. So it feels like I get SAD on top of my normal Depression for some kind of hellish double depression. It goes away eventually, though, once my doctor prescribes me Vitamin D supplements. I agree with you on CBT. I have a really hard time trying to challenge my thoughts like that. I spend so much time just trying to distract myself from negative or intrusive thoughts and I get them constantly and have since I was a little girl. I don't know of its possible to get rid of them, but I would love to be able to let them pass through me diaseffect by them instead of being paralyzed with irrational "what if" fears. I have no idea what triggers the underlying anxiety/intrusive thoughts, but regularly all it takes is something like: Me: -gets into a car- My brain: what if there's someone hiding in the back seat waiting for you to sit down. They'll grab you from behind and you'll be raped and tortured and mudered.- Me: -walking down the stairs- My brain: you're going to trip and fall. You'll break your neck and die or end up paralyzed from the waist down. Me: -walking by an open window- My brain: a hand is gonna reach out and grab you as you walk by! You won't be able to get free! You'll be abducted and sold into human trafficking!! Me: -at 12 years old waiting for the school bus to arrive- My brain: -with every car that drives by- they're going to slow down and grab you when no one is looking! By the time your family finds out you're missing, you'll already be dead!! It's stupid and irrational and I get it dozens of times a day over innocuous stuff. Logically, I know that not everyone is put to get me or anything like that, but I have these stupid mental ruminations and routines I have to go over and over with in my head to feel safe. Like bringing "decoy" water bottles with me to work just to be sure no one is going to try and poison me. No one is. I know that. But I'll still have a panic attack if I don't do it cause my brain loops on these thoughts. I'd love to be able to have them and just let them go so they can't bother me. Just like... Acknowledge that they're a thing, but they're ridiculous and not worth the emotional toll. ACT sounds really interesting and I definitely want to broach the topic with my therapist to see what she knows of it. I'd love to get started on that and see what happens.
science	I have just come to realize I’ve suffered from abuse as a child and am learning to improve brain quality. After reading this I got scared because I’ve been unaware of the damage for a long time and I’m seeking help of any kind. I appreciate you all sharing this post to remind me of what I need to be focusing on. Improving my mind and learning what I am truly capable of.
science	You do right by accepting it and seeking help. That’s being responsible with yourself. Remember, many things can scar a child. I was physically beaten as a child, and in my culture (spanish) this used to be the norm. Spank your child to correct his behavior. But to me, as a child, I could only perceive it as violence by those who I looked up to and loved most in the world. Our goal is to disrupt the chain in our own lives.
science	On mobile but I highly recommend Behave by Robert Sapolski. It directly addresses this and about a hundred other questions in this thread. I understand that the amygdala is over developed while the frontal cortex (and other regions) are under. The increased amygdala response can help improve survival chances in dangerous living conditions. But when the abuse ends, the young person's amygdala unfortunately doesn't just shrink back down. So you have more paranoia, emotional overreaction, and less will power and self control later in life, unfortunately. I'm no scientist so I'm sure I'm not perfectly characterizing that, but that's the gist I got from those chapters.
science	I can understand your concern and it is certainly not for everyone so do a lot of research before trying if you decide to go down this path. With that said mushrooms have show great efficacy for treatment of depression and anxiety. I can personally attest to this and many friends can as well. In some cases they could be far more effective than antidepressants and come without side-effects outside of the potential for a bad trip. All classic psychedelics really show great potential for treatment of a range of mental illnesses. Along with that the addiction potential is ridiculously low and due to the effect they have mentally they can even help great addiction due to stripping away your ego and allowing you to see yourself clearer. If you decide to do this just have someone you trust completly with you to tripsit you and potentially some benzos present to kill anxiety if you get it during a trip. Some places to get unbiased information include; erowid, psychonautwiki, psychedsubstance and drugslab
science	Yes, I am telling you how you felt. Im not a magician, I'm an addiction specialist/therapist, and a recovering addict that was on methadone for almost a decade. You don't understand the science behind the pharmacology. It's physically impossible to be on opiates long term and not build a tolerance. The very way they function on the brain creates tolerance. So yes, in that way, they do effect everyone the same. The reason You might think you didn't develop a tolerance is methadone is not euphoric, and don't act on the same pleasure receptors as full agonist opiates. The bottom line is your body had to react differently to it the day you started vs the day you last took it.
science	> It's physically impossible to be on opiates long term and not build a tolerance. What counts as long term and how steep is the tolerance curve? I had partial amputation of my ring finger and a bone fusion/pin in my middle finger due to an accident. My surgeon put me on around 30 mg oxycodone a day. This dose was reasonable for the first couple of days of recovery, but I found it made me way too sluggish and hazy so I began cutting my dose. Two weeks post-surgery I was down to about 10 mg per day and held at 5-10 mg per day for the next 3 months. I found on my own that 5 mg in the morning often brought durable all-day pain relief -- I had some pain spikes in the evening, but they weren't bad and only on days where I had overused my hand did I feel like a re-dose was worthwhile, often a half-pill or 2.5 mg was enough. Waiting to dose until I had more acute pain later in the day meant less pain relief with less duration of relief, doing that would have been a sure 15 mg per day. When I quit taking oxycodone I was actually expecting some withdrawal symptoms, but I never had any. I always wonder why my experience with tolerance seems so different. I got the same relief with the same dose and found it pretty easy to cut back and manage dosing schedules. I do think the euphoria part wore off quickly, by about week 3 my doses of oxycodone weren't really producing anywhere near the euphoric sensation but the pain relief stayed about the same. I guess I wonder if the tolerance that builds up is less about decreased pain management and more about decreased euphoria, with addiction prone people chasing the euphoria. I don't quite get how they put up with the hazy, sluggish long-term effect of large doses of opiates. I found that to be quite unappealing, a mixture of low energy, sleepiness and sort of a depression.
science	What happened with you is your tapered down over time to a low enough dose that you're brain was able to adjust to producing its own endorphins again. The word endorphins comes from "endogenous morphine”, meaning morphine produced internally. When our body gets fed them and doesn't have to produce them naturally to help with pain it kinda forgets how for a while. The process of abruptly stopping the supply of the morphine/opiates that the body got used to not having to provide is why we feel withdrawal, and why it's extra painful until the brain can catch up. When you cut down you did exactly what everyone should do and what every Dr should push for and be more hands on about. Most Dr's are not and don't mind throwing a patient out after a few months or for a bad urine sample. That leads to inevitable extreme pain which leads to that person seeking other means to get opiates, just to get rid of the pain. That leads people to heroin or Dr shopping. Both usually lead to jail, which leads to more heroin. I'm not blaming just the Dr's, but a lot of heroin addicts could be avoided by a proper taper where the patient never has to experience any of that. Another thing is yes, the tolerance build up definitely effects the euphoric aspect the most. If you noticed, that pleasure began to decrease quicker each day. One morning you decide to take two 30's instead. Feels great so you do it for a week. Now when you go back to one 30 you hardly fell it, and since your body started adjusting to the extra amount you don't even get the same pain killing effects from it anymore. Basically, once you start using it to get high it's a downward spiral. Everyone can taper like you did though. Like in my instance I had to taper off methadone for a year, then switch to suboxone and continue tapering for it to finally not be Hell where I had to take off work for weeks to go to a rehab.
science	There are a lot of highly intelligent people who are not particularly financially successful. Meanwhile, there are lots of people many would consider stupid and ignorant who have achieved substantial wealth. My observation is that financial success depends more on factors like ambition, perseverance, and a willingness to take risks in pursuit of wealth than on a high IQ or perceived intelligence. And of course, this is aside from the fact that most well-off people were lucky enough to be born wealthy, or at least not poor or members of a minority.
science	I would agree that financial success depends on ambitions and perseverance. My previous boss was Trump level narcisist, but unlike Trump, true workoholic. He owns small car carrier haulier company. We frequantly went on business trips with him and his best friend a lawyer who's also devoted christian (almost everytime we were on business trip he would read bible and talk about stories, morals and implications of it). The lawyer often discussed my bosses workoholic practice as he had more easy approach towards work/life balance. Once he was reading bible or something about the siege of Jerusalem and gave my boss this example: "Dorian(name of the boss), Imagine you are right now in Jerusalem, which is being sieged, diseases, starvation and hanibalism is all around you. No matter how hard or how much you will work, it wont be better, you are there sitting waiting to be massacared by the army outside the gates" You know what his answer was? He literally said "if you work hard enough there's always a solution" No matter that my boss never finished the highschool, this attitude brough him financial success.
science	From the paper: > Dr. Hampton: Besides being limited to the US, we were also slightly limited by our online sample. We did not test, for example cognitive ability or generalized intelligence, which are currently still best measured in-person. We did however, collect education level, which has consistently been correlated with intelligence, so we don’t feel that this is a major flaw. I would also be extremely surprised if a person’s ability to delay instant gratification did not correlate strongly with IQ.
science	Yep, I'm not going to doubt the statistics, but this is my experience as well. In my experience people who were raised in rough backgrounds tended to grow up to be in that same socio-economic sphere, whereas people raised in more supportive and well-off homes tended to go on to be successful. It would be ludicrous to say that poor people are naturally less intelligent. I know plenty of measured, well-rounded and bright people who are more than capable of working in a highly skilled occupation but have failed to reach their ceiling due to other factors.
science	>It's pretty well documented that being poor makes you less intelligent How does this make sense? The number of zeroes in your bank account determines your mental capabilities? Think of the billions of people who live in poverty around the world. Are they in that situation because they're all dumb? I think pushing this idea that "being poor = dumb" is very dangerous and is the first step towards dehumanizing the worst off in our society. Now, that's straying into politics more than science, but it's important all the same.
science	Many factors are correlated with financial success, with intelligence being only one of them. If you factor out the others, I trust you'd find that intelligence was a much smaller factor than most would have initially assumed. For example, I've observed workplaces (in sales environments) where many of the better performing employees had striking deficiencies in areas one would normally associate with intelligence (grammar, spelling, math, and knowledge of history or technology.) Their strengths were ambition, tenacity, single-minded focus, certain social skills, and a strong work ethic. These folks would make terrible engineers, doctors, or analysts but they excelled in sales. This also crosses into a related topic, which is that there are several distinct kinds of intelligence.
science	I agree, but I think ignoring/surpressing data because you think it might be dangerous is also dangerous. It feeds a sort of conspiratorial worldview by giving stupid people ammunition. And yes, that's basically how it works. If you're poorer you are less able to solve complex problems, probably due to stress, nutrition, etc. You can literally test the same person's IQ after they've had major windfalls/setbacks and they tend to perform better when they've got more money. I'm not saying it accounts for anywhere near the entire income disparity, obviously. Nobody would claim that. But it's burying your head on the sand to dispute that there's any correlation between intellect and wealth. A board room at a major company is overwhelmingly likely to contain cleverer people than a homeless shelter or a queue for people picking up their social security cheques. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But that doesn't mean that some of the people in the homeless shelter could be cleverer than anyone in the board room - it just means that, on balance, it's more likely that they are less intelligent.
science	Well our understanding of the brain will always be a limit. Let me put it another way. I don’t think there is a single trait in your mind/body/whatever called intelligence. There are different kinds of intelligence. Someone with a natural ability to understand structures and physics may be utterly shit at understanding human facial expressions. Another person could be a mathematical genius but terrible at anything that would require spatial reasoning skills. Lots of musicians have trouble understanding math, even though they’re using it every time they write a song. My original point was that “intelligence” is extremely complicated, multifaceted, culture/language dependent, and many other complexities. And as you pointed out, our understanding of the brain will always limit our understanding of the mind. Having said all that, my basic point is that reducing these things all down to one number can give you some interesting correlations. Maybe even useful ones. But there is a difference between your score on a test, and your actual intelligence (whatever that is). Does that make sense? I’m at work so I’m kind of rushing these responses. My problem isn’t with the notion of intelligence. My issue is the idea that a single number can really tell you everything you need to know about someone’s abilities.
science	No idea, I'd think that to verify a correlation to 'conscientiousness' as in the big 5 personality construct, they'd technically need to give every person participating the actual test questions for it, which would add a lot to the work that needs to be done. I seems somewhat obvious that 'ability to delay gratification' is at least an aspect of conscientiousness, but they chose to focus on just this one operationally identifiable aspect rather than that they went off a personality questionnaire as input data. So my guess is that they just decided that the personality inventory was too broad a scope and maybe not the most suitable test (compared to a practical test, for example) to measure the specific metric of interest for the correlation they were checking for.
science	> There are different kinds of intelligence. Someone with a natural ability to understand structures and physics may be utterly shit at understanding human facial expressions. [...] Yes, that's true. And I don't think anyone's claiming that IQ, a single number, could explain everything about a person's strengths and weaknesses. Like you said, the data doesn't fit: there are people good at X but bad at Y, and those good at Y but bad at X. At the same time, sometimes one person is better at X, Y, Z (etc.) and the other person is worse at all of them. Leonardo da Vinci was great at everything, and some people are bad at everything. So it seems like you're deliberately ignoring a big part of why people study intelligence in the first place! If everyone was equally intelligent but in different ways, then the world would look much different than it does. You wouldn't find people good at everything. You wouldn't find people good at nothing. But we do. > Lots of musicians have trouble understanding math, even though they’re using it every time they write a song. To gratuitously expand upon my point: aren't you surprised that there are some people good at math and music, and some people who are bad at both (and also maybe need to be cared for their entire lives because they can't hold a job)? What do you think explains that? (Please don't say "social factors", because we can see these differences even when we control for social factors as hard as we can.) > Having said all that, my basic point is that reducing these things all down to one number can give you some interesting correlations. Be careful to avoid a strawman: IQ "realists" are not claiming that IQ predicts "everything". It is not about reducing "everything" down to "one number". It is more about observing that one number does seem, experimentally, to predict rather a lot. Almost as though some brains are different from others in ways other than just "different zero-sum allocation of a similarly-sized pool of resources". Which isn't surprising: after all, humans are better than chimpanzees at everything (apart from "being strong"), and that's uncontroversially caused by genetics. > But there is a difference between your score on a test, and your actual intelligence (whatever that is). If there is an "actual intelligence", presumably that would affect your life in many ways. Shouldn't it be possible to experimentally detect this? > My issue is the idea that a single number can really tell you everything you need to know about someone’s abilities. Again, I think that is a strawman. Nobody (well, nobody here) said anything about "telling you everything you need to know".
science	One interesting observation that has come out of delayed gratification studies is that your willingness to delay gratification reflects, to a large extent, how trusting you are of the authority figure that is promising the future gratification. If you have had bad experiences with authority, you are more likely to take the reward now, and devalue a promise of a reward later. What seems like impulsiveness can in fact be perfectly rational for someone who expects to be screwed over. For this study, that would mean that people whose upbringings lead them to trust in authority tend to have higher income, which makes sense.
science	It is not just about authority. Exhibit A is people's ability to delay the instant gratification of junk food/fast food now (and who among us has never faced the temptation of fries, potato chips, alcohol, etc.) versus being healthier and more attractive in the future. There is no authority that will grant you better health and a better figure if you skip the beer; only your own ability to delay instant gratification.
science	Yes, that’s real life. But the delayed gratification experiments are artificial situations involving authority figures (such as kids getting marshmallows). What I am saying is that the involvement in the experiment of an authority figure whose trust must be valued may make those experiments unreliable predictors of the ability to make lifestyle choices of the type you describe. Someone could have the ability in real life to work towards their own long-term goals, but still rationally take the immediate reward in an experiment due to distrust. Also, there are parallels in real life — like believing your teachers when they say studying hard will pay off later. If your experience tells you the world is unfair, that may be harder to rely on. There is learning on this: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4622
science	That delta between "reliable" and "unreliable" experimenters is remarkable; 12 vs 3 (mean) minutes to eating the marshmallow. But I have to ask what they were testing. You want to isolate a single variable in an experiment. To me, these two experiments are probing two very different things. What they showed here is that in an environment where reward is de-linked from effort, people pretty much say fukit; which sounds pretty reasonable. It would also suggest that a better variant of the marshmellow test is one where the kids were all first primed with a reliable experimenter bringing the crayons to calibrate the kids' expectations.
science	The delayed gratification experiments involved an authority figure, but much of the delayed gratification research nowadays uses things like the Kirby Delay Discounting Task: https://expfactory-experiments.github.io/kirby Or some other Intertemporal Choice (ITC) or Temporal Discounting task. These are generally computerized and self-administered. In these tasks, you're asked to make a series of choices between a smaller reward that comes sooner, or a larger reward that would come at a later time. Different types of rewards and time-frames can be used. I've built & used some of these in research myself. This study used a task just like these, which you can read about in the methods section https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01545/full#h3
science	Thanks for that -- interesting. Though a choice between money today and money in the future is still really a choice about what you will receive today -- money or a promise from someone to pay you later. Also, the incentive specified on the first page references a bonus payment based on the choices. So making choices to delay in the test is itself an act of belief in the test-provider (a) not screwing you over in calculating the bonus and (b) actually paying the bonus. I'm sure all this is accounted for by the test providers, but just saying.
science	I agree, there is still arguably some element of authority. Until such a time that these sorts of transactions are fully automated and totally reliable, there will be a human element and thus an element of trust. But the influence of an imagined authority is probably much less a factor in these experiments than it was in the original marshmallow tests, given the authority has no physical presence (and thus, no markers of ingroup / outgroup status, or other indicators that might lead one to feel they are more or less trustworthy, like the prototypical white lab coat of a scientist).
science	I think even in a "fully automated" version you will have an element of authority - the subject must trust that the program was written to treat them fairly. "Presence of an authority" does not necessarily mean a literal test administrator who is able to choose your outcome at that second, it can also mean the general system in which the test takes place. An analogue in our laws would be the difference between "are the laws written to treat everyone fairly?" and "are the laws enforced fairly?" If you mistrust either the authors/interpreters or the enforcers then you don't trust the authority even if the whole thing is automated.
science	I hear you. Honestly even most small business owners are anti-establishment and don’t trust anyone. I don’t think ambition and individualistic values based on trust issues mean overwhelming failure. I do however believe that instant gratification is counterproductive for anybody. That’s just a given. Nothing comes quick or easy if it’s of high value. Also, I would imagine that many poor, unsuccessful, instantly gratified, and anti-authority people probably became bitter, cynical, and against authority after their life had already played out and they realized their failures in life. There’s also way more people out there who do conform than not conform and get a cushy safe career and don’t ask for much else.
science	The marshmaallow study is very racist. It first started in trinidad where they tested Indians vs. blacks in trinidad. the Indians were able to deprive themselves and able to postpone immediate gain for a bigger gain in the future. The black took the smaller reward if they could get it right away whereas the Indian waited if they could get a bigger reward in the future. They have also done this test on blacks and whites in the Caribbean as well as the US multiple times and the results are always the same when it comes to racial differences in the degree in which they delay gratification.. This is left out of the wikipedia entries but not from the actual study itself. http://www.grad.umn.edu/sites/grad.umn.edu/files/experimental_study_in_psycholo_0.pdf
science	> The marshmaallow study is very racist. It first started in trinidad where they tested Indians vs. blacks in trinidad. the Indians were able to deprive themselves and able to postpone immediate gain for a bigger gain in the future. The black took the smaller reward if they could get it right away whereas the Indian waited if they could get a bigger reward in the future. > > They have also done this test on blacks and whites in the Caribbean as well as the US multiple times and the results are always the same when it comes to racial differences in the degree in which they delay gratification.. I'm not claiming it's not racist (I haven't read up enough on it to claim such a thing), but I don't see how the rest of your post would indicate that that is the case? Testing various demographics and noticing differences isn't necessarily making normative statements or arguing essentialism. A big difference between between e.g. black and white US habitants doesn't imply racial essentialism; there's other rather obvious reasons why black children might distrust authority more than white people on average.
science	I don't think 'authority' is the key component here, but rather 'trust'. A person who has suffered misfortune or a lack of good fortune, who occupies the social position of poverty and experiences being treated accordingly, is less likely to be able to trust that a benefit deferred will ever be delivered. As such the calculation made between the immediate small reward and the deferred larger reward changes - the poor person is likelier to value a smaller realised gain over a larger unrealised one.
science	Millennial here. I know some people who are seriously considering maxing out their debt to enjoy life before everything goes to hell. I'm on the older end of my generation (33 years old) so I can still remember a time when things weren't always on a slow decline, but some younger millennials have never known anything else. From their perspective, maxing out their debt and ruining their credit forever is the rational choice because it will never get better in the future. For people like me, I have to constantly weigh whether something will pay off in the future or if I'm going to get screwed anyway so fuck it.
science	I read about this as well, certainly significant but there are many more common scenarios that can be used gauge financial impulsivity. For example, the difference between window shopping and a shopping spree, choosing between an oil change and a night on the town, staying home because you're saving money even though your friends are going to a theme park. Driving your old faithful around for 10+ years though it looks like garbage you can afford a new car. Most important choices are about having what you want now, or having much more later.
science	I don't know the answer to that, to be honest. There are demographic variables related to delay discounting, but these are characteristics that identify populations who in theory have problems with impulsivity -- i.e., people with addictions mostly (gambling, drugs, food). I don't know what credible hypothesis you could make for certain races being higher or lower on trait impulsivity. Socioeconomic status, maybe, and race might be indirectly related to that.
science	> One interesting observation that has come out of delayed gratification studies is that your willingness to delay gratification reflects, to a large extent, how trusting you are of the authority figure that is promising the future gratification. If you have had bad experiences with authority, you are more likely to take the reward now, and devalue a promise of a reward later. Well that certainly seems relevant to ethnic/racial minorities work a history and contemporary experiences of discrimination.
science	Our entire lives we've been inundated with multiple ways the world could end in the next 50 years. Climate change, nuclear war, pandemics, asteroids, yellowstone volcano, etc. It's not rational, but a lot of young people really think the world, at least as we know it, will not be around in 50 years. Edit: also, the 2008 recession happened at a time many of us were first starting to think about money and economics. We grew up knowing that life savings can be wiped out after a few bad days.
science	I'll just chime in since I'm 23: I'm in my last semester of college and poor as dirt. I make enough to get by with tutoring in math and being a teaching assistant for a business class - thankfully they pay fairly well - but I'm living essentially on pasta and eggs every day and just barely making enough to pay rent and my bills. Now imagine I wasn't lucky enough to have jobs that can pay well on limited hours. I'd have to balance 40 hrs of studying a week with 20 hrs of a minimum wage job that wears out my body/health and potentially with a boss that'll treat me badly. I thankfully am in a position where I know that I'll make good money about a year down the line as an actuary, but for people who didn't go into lucrative majors or are stuck working minimum-wage jobs I can see how easy it is to develop a fatalist attitude and just say "fuck all this shit. I work too hard to make this little progress." Then after that moment, start smoking or spend what little money they do have on alcohol and drink heavily. Fatalism doesn't develop from people being lazy, it develops when people work hard for years on end and are no further then when they started; when they look in the mirror 5 or 6 years into their dead-end job and the only thing they have to show for it is male-pattern baldness. It's at that point when you stop caring about your future, because you can't see one where you have the opportunity to be happy.
science	Or that delayed gratification will make anything better. If the reward might be the same now as in the future, and I want it now, whereas I might not want it in the future, why wouldn't I take it now? On the trust issue, I don't even think it's about trust in authority. I think it's about faith in general. I see the reward in front of me now. What if circumstances arise that don't allow me to benefit from the reward later? We treat opportunism as a morally loaded character trait, when not only is it a coping mechanism, it is also a survival strategy.
science	Yes you do. You need to trust yourself, and in order to do that you need to know you are safe and ok. You can't achieve your goals without believing in yourself, and a good authority figure grants you the ability to do that. If you are a father and Everytime you promise your kid that an achievement Will grant him "x" and then you screw them over, or give them "x" but take away "z" ( where "z" is equivalent or greater than "x") the kid will not only rationally decide to take the instant and safe reward, but will emotionally feel "less" or incapable, because somehow he has "failed" and is unable to achieve big goals, Wich require time and the ability to enjoy the small and slow coming rewards.
science	I highly doubt this would be a factor. I'll flip it around. This experiment is normally performed on toddlers and four year olds. That is an age where parents still exert maximum control over their kids' dietary intake and the kids least likely to have experienced food scarcity are the ones most likely to have a parent obsessing over their nutrition. For those kids, a marshmallow is more likely to be a rare treat.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.