lol, go be yourself on your own time. On my time, you better be normal and happy about it.
None of the many many reasons someone may act this way mean they are broken, and therapy is not about 'fixing' someone to be the member of society you deem appropriate.
Therapy is (or at least can be!) about trying to achieve goals that you have. I’m the GP commenter above. I went to therapy twice a week for two years to get over social anxiety and my entire life has completely opened up in a new way that would never have been possible without that work.
If relating to people is not a goal of yours then I would agree that you should not go to therapy for it. On the other hand, it is difficult for me to believe that anyone with anxiety is truly comfortable, considering that discomfort is the main feature of anxiety.
It is far more helpful to others for you to share the depths of your experience than to go around telling people they need to go to therapy because it works for you.
I see the enthusiasm and that you want better things for others, but the way you are approaching this communication is not doing it justice.
Awesome of you to put words in my mouth. I don't think people are 'broken' for having mental issues, and even I certainly would never imply that someone is somehow 'less' because of mental issues.
Just as someone with a broken leg is not a 'broken' person, their leg still needs fixing.
just fyi: 2 people could have the same mental health issues, but one could get a diagnosis and the other one doesn't. The reason for that is because a 'diagnosis' is basically just a ticket to get treatment, and thus is solely based on the question: "Will this person be able to deal with the disruptions caused by the issue, without professional intervention?".
If someone has a panic attack every time they talk to 3 strangers, it's is very plausible that this can lead to difficulty making and maintaining friendships and relations, which can likely lead to loneliness, depression, even further excerbated social anxiety, etc. All these afflictions make it even harder to deal with these issues which is why some people cannot break this cycle by themselves.
1. yeah, i know, soy is packed full of them though and considered a complete protein hence my reply :)
2. i imagine eating a pound of most unprocessed food sources would be bad, tofu and tempeh are very competitive and have macros similar to egg or cheese
3. not sure where you're going with this? surely you're not referencing the well debunked claim that soy feminizes men or something?
---
I'm not even vegan and I make plenty of room for soy derived foods in my diet because the benefits are so concrete. It helps with muscle recovery and inflammation via soy isoflavones, and the gut health benefit from diversifying protein sources is very important. It has marginally less leucine, but I am ingesting 200g of protein a day because I actually lift so that really doesn't matter.
>3. not sure where you're going with this? surely you're not referencing the well debunked claim that soy feminizes men or something?
pray tell, which part is deboonked - that xenohormones disrupt our own hormone production, or that legumes and some other plants contain a lot of phytoestrogens?
This is stupid thinking indulged in by westerners who were born in the lap of luxury. The market is incredibly moral. When my dad was born in a village in Bangladesh, 1 out of 4 kids didn’t live past age 5. Thanks to market reforms and the resulting economic growth, child mortality in Bangladesh has plummeted. Bangladesh’s under-5 morality rate is better today than America’s was at the same time my dad was born.
If India and Bangladesh hadn’t fucked around with socialism for decades after independence, we could have reached the same point many years ago. Millions of children would have been saved. Talk about immorality.
Bangladesh has done well, in difficult circumstances
Market reforms helped. But those reforms could not have happened unless the state did sensible things
Those same market reforms impoverished the entire middle class in New Zealand, where the state did not do sensible things (the reverse)
Markets are good at fully allocating resources, which feudalism and central planning is not. But they also concentrate wealth into the hands of very few (that is what wrecked New Zealand's middle class) and it takes deliberate government policy to avert that.
> Market reforms helped. But those reforms could not have happened unless the state did sensible things
The state did almost nothing sensible! Bangladesh’s government, and the culture of the people more generally, is one of the most dysfunctional in the whole world. We just overthrew our government again! The free market is just a hardy plant growing in inhospitable ground as long as you don’t completely strangle it.
> Thanks to market reforms and the resulting economic growth, child mortality in Bangladesh has plummeted.
I agree that market reforms have been great for most countries that adopt it, provided they have stable and competent institutions.
However, it doesn't make sense to attribute decrease in child mortality to "market reforms". Cuba, Russia/USSR, North Korea all have seen huge declines in child mortality since 1960.
There’s a Civilization-game style “tech tree” for cultural and social development. Some societies are further along in that development than others.
Pakistan faces the same cultural problem as Afghanistan and parts of the middle east: in large parts of the country, extended kinship groups dominate society, precluding the development of civic institutions and functioning government. That’s not true for the whole country. Parts of Pakistan are culturally like India or Bangladesh: it has a long history of governance by central institutions, even if that governance is dysfunctional. Imagine if 50% of the U.S. population was Appalachians. The U.S. would be a much less successful country also.
The opposite is true! You’ll get farther in life when you realize that how groups of people are socialized to behave matters a lot—and that’s true whether you’re talking about corporate culture or a country’s culture.
People whose brains are as soft as their hearts sell false equality, but its harmful. It’s like telling the obese person they’re great and that their problems are due to “bad genetics” or factors outside their control. It’s a polite lie and it is damaging.
Understanding that culture is just a type of technology is how you get miracles like Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20045923. He thought culture was destiny, and he harnessed that realization to make his culture rich.
> And you'll get a lot farther in life if you stop thinking of real people and their development and culture as video game abstractions.
Oh, it’s far too late for that. As the kids say, he’s cooked. He’ll be complaining about hypothetical Appalachians invading New England or New York or the United States (all actual examples, see below) in the nursing home.
I don’t understand. Do you (1) think Appalachia is great, or (2) you agree that Appalachia lags the rest of the U.S., but think that has nothing to do with how Appalachian parents socialize their children to behave what they teach their kids to value?
Pakistan spent quite a bit on education in East Pakistan up until 1971. and I've even pointed you to the article in Prothom Alo where Bangladeshi experts admitted that but you do you. It's not like Ibn Khaldun didn't hit on similar points with asabiyya but saying we have A/B testing here is wild.
You mean the Socialism that produces higher quality of life in Scandinavia as compared to to say the US where the oh so moral market decides if you weren't born into the upper end of society you deserve to die of disease and conditions that can be treated?
The market is not moral, it is amoral and it serves those with the money to direct it.
I know a number of people who have immigrated from Scandinavian countries to the US, generally for high-prestige or high-paying work. If quality of life in Scandinavia was consistently higher than in the US, they wouldn't be doing this.
People also immigrate in the other direction. And more generally, it obviously happens sometimes that people move from one country to another with a lower average quality of life.
How are you extrapolating overall quality of life from some anecdotes of high-prestige or high-income workers? Seems like a fallacy of composition slipped in somewhere.
My understanding is that a large portion of Scandinavian socialism is paid for by sovereign wealth funds, ultimately backed in their oil production and reserves.
> You mean the Socialism that produces higher quality of life in Scandinavia as compared to to say the US where the oh so moral market decides if you weren't born into the upper end of society you deserve to die of disease and conditions that can be treated?
Scandinavian countries have highly market oriented economies. Denmark and Norway are in the top 10 in Heritage Foundation’s economic freedom index and Sweden is #11. Capitalism is what generates the surplus to feed the socialists in Scandinavia.
Every single one of those economies are highly regulated to prevent 'the free market' deciding peoples lives.
Without it, you get the US. You get the life your wealth dictates, if you're not wealthy, you didn't deserve life.
Sweden's costs for insulin are over 10 times lower than that of the US, because the US let the free market decide and Sweden has a socialist political system.
At a place I lived earlier, my neighbour got out of the hospital after heart surgery with a $100k medical bill that they never recovered from. My dad had heart surgery in Canada and left the hospital with a $150 parking bill.
But no, please lets continue to try and argue the free market is moral and just.
> than that of the US, because the US let the free market decide and Sweden has a socialist political system.
Sweden doesn’t achieve lower prices for insulin through “socialism” or regulation. In Sweden, middle class people tax themselves heavily to pay for insulin for poor people. It has nothing to do with free market versus socialism. It’s free-market capitalism with very high taxes on individuals and low taxes on capital and corporation.
> But no, please lets continue to try and argue the free market is moral and just.
It is just and moral. Before Sweden had the free market, it was poor as shit and one quarter of the population of Sweden came to America. Whatever socialism you think Sweden has now, it got only after becoming rich through capitalism.
It’s not unique at all! When my dad was a kid in the 1950s, Singapore, China, South Korea, and Taiwan were poor—all under $1,000 GDP per capita. They were a little ahead of Bangladesh but less than a factor of 2. The U.S. at the time was around $10,000.
Today, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea are rich, and China is getting there. Multiple dirt poor Asian countries getting rich within a few generations thanks to One Simple Trick!
> all mounted network shares where the user has write permissions
This is very literally what 'basic hygiene prevents these problems' addresses. Ransomeware attacks have shown time and again that they way they were able to spread was highly over-permissioned users and services because that's the easy way to get someone to stop complaining that they can't do their job.
Basic security hygiene in the modern world is "assume your employees can be a threat", either because they're incompetent ("I accidentally deleted the shared spreadsheet, I thought it was my copy"), malevolent ("I will show them all!") or compromised ("I clicked a link in my email and now my computer is slow.")
If you aren't designing your systems to be robust against insider threats, they will fail.
(If you design them to be robust against insider threats, they will probably also fail, so you have to be constantly working to understand how to limit the consequences of any individual failure.)
Well for one, when you purchase something from a corporation, you know where the money went because you got the thing or access to the service you just paid for. With a donation you don't have that and because you're donating you probably care about whatever subject you want to improve so you'd like to know that is were your money is going instead of finding out later it just went to the CEO of whatever to blow on blackjack and hookers.
In the case of Mozilla, you actually know donating to the Mozilla Foundation does not in any way benefit Firefox or Thunderbird, which is probably the whole reason you were actually donating in the first place. Donating to the Mozilla Foundation funds all the pointless side projects they they decide to pick up and pay the CEO quite frankly an undeservedly large salary.
> But the manuscript that Otto Frank pitched to Dutch editors didn’t contain his daughter’s entire diary. Anne herself had begun editing large swathes of her diary with publication in mind after hearing a radio broadcast that called on Dutch people to preserve diaries and other war documents. Otto respected some of those editorial decisions, but overlooked others – for example, he included material about Anne’s crush on annexe dweller Peter van Pels.
> Frank’s candid words on sex didn’t make it into the first published diary, which appeared in English in 1952. Though Anne herself edited her diary with an eye to publication, the book—released eight years after her death from typhus in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp at age 15—contained additional cuts. These were only partially restored in 1986, when a critical edition of her diary was published. Then, in 1995, an even less censored version, including a passage on Frank’s own body previously withheld by her father, was published.
> In response to Minister Bolkestein's appeal on 28 March 1944 on Radio Oranje to keep wartime diaries and letters, Anne Frank decided to rewrite her diary into a novel: "Imagine how interesting it would be if I published a novel of the Secret Annex, from the title alone people would think it was a detective novel."
> Anne rewrote and edited her diary on loose sheets of duplicator paper. On Saturday 20 May 1944, she wrote: "Dear Kitty, At last after much contemplation I have begun my 'the Secret Annex', in my head it is already as finished as it can be, but in reality it will be a lot slower, if it ever gets finished at all." Anne's rewritten version, known as Version B, ends with the diary entry of 29 March 1944.
Thank you, I remember reading this background as well.
There is no 'unedited' version of Anne's diary, as Anne herself intentionally edited and re-edited her work during her time in the Annex. A remarkable young woman. What was published to readers are various versions that have additionally been further somewhat edited by others and in places censored, with the trend being towards gradually less censorship over time.
> Yeah I don't know why people are saying that speed doesn't matter. I use Homebrew and it is slow
Because how often are you running it where it's not anything but a opportunity to take a little breather in a day? And I do mean little, the speedups being touted here are seconds.
I have the same response to the obsession with boot times, how often are you booting your machine where it is actually impacting anything? How often are you installing packages?
Do you have the same time revulsion for going to the bathroom? Or getting a glass of water? or basically everything in life that isn't instantaneous?
They'll do what they always do, it'll be the greatest thing ever just getting minor tweaks for 3-4 releases and then will be superseded by the greatest thing ever.
What if an investigation is based on finding the same specific people near another specific person that they're tracking, but they only know about the one person, not the others.
And by doing this they stop a terror attack?
One more thought - if they buy just data for specific people related to an investigation, the seller of the data is tipped off. If they just buy all the data, then there is no potential tip-off to the target.
You get a "geofence warrant." They exist and are ubiquitous. You then go to Google or any other provider and you demand the data for a specific location in a specific time window. You then use the data to capture criminals. Any other data would not meet the standards of evidence and probably couldn't be used in court anyways. It's only function is for "parallel construction."
Then again, what I _really_ want is for the FBI to prevent crime. If their only solution is to let crime happen and then use a giant dragnet to put people in jail then they are less than worthless... they are actively dangerous to democracy.
What if we put cameras and sensors in every home? What if we require groups of three or more to register their gathering with the government?
What if we could torture someone to have a chance at stopping a terror attack? What if we could torture someone to find where they stashed a stolen car? What if publicizing the errant torture of innocent people is bad for public morale, so we outlaw publishing stories about it?
When does it stop?
These are basic philosophy of law questions but I tend to stand on the side of liberty from an ever more powerful government.
You can justify anything and everything, including torturing random innocent civilians for information, under the guise of preventing terror attacks. Which is why it is a bullshit excuse.
None of the many many reasons someone may act this way mean they are broken, and therapy is not about 'fixing' someone to be the member of society you deem appropriate.