Masking is a learned behavior - learned specifically because the person in question had sufficiently unpleasant experiences being unmasked that they decided they needed to try hard to mask in order to avoid said unpleasant experience.
No one masks at birth. If you want your child to stop masking, perhaps it’s helpful to investigate what caused them to learn the behavior in the first place and what could be done to make the experience of being unmasked more pleasant and less aversive for him.
Just as you say, masking takes an incredible amount of energy and is exhausting and often backfires. Why would anyone expend such exhausting amounts of energy without some extremely strong motivating factor? The alternative to not masking must be perceived as exquisitely undesirable.
I think people think masking is just for those who have Autism. I think at some level all people mask. Most people behave differently outside of work or in public places when they are alone or with close friends.
I think with Autism the process of masking is just harder, and the ability to read social queues takes extreme focus to understand the general emotional state of others around them.
The truly amazing thing here is how powerful the placebo control was, even despite the fact that as someone who's done ketamine IV treatment before, it's pretty obvious when you're on ketamine and when you're not.
"At week 6, remission in the ketamine arm remained high, although non-significantly versus placebo (69.5% v 56.3%; odds ratio 0.8 (95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.5), P=0.7)."
> The truly amazing thing here is how powerful the placebo control was
1. The "placebo" received standard treatment for suicidal ideation.
2. We should expect a natural regression towards the mean. The vast majority of humans do not experience suicidal ideation in a particular day. People with suicidal ideation tend to move towards the standard human experience of not having suicidal ideation over time.
They are not. Germany is a net exporter, obviously not all the countries can be net exporter at the same time.
You can't have a stable monetary union without a fiscal capacity. The inevitable debt crisis in the Euro-zone are stopped by the ECB buying debt in the secondary markets.
The hypocrisy of the system is obvious to however takes the time to see how it works.
A) If the union has a good chance of increasing wages 400 to 600 per year locally, then that is a great deal for the union organizers, a passable deal for the workers, and a bad deal for Amazon. I didn't say they won't be able to raise wages at all - just maybe not enough to justify the $500 union fees.
B) Not every state is a right-to-work state. So, from a 'worker's of the world unite' perspective then obviously making a union in Alabama will help other places form unions.
I could be very wrong and perhaps the union could get 1 or 2k more per year - but I am skeptical.
^^ Eating animals. Firmly convinced we're on the wrong side of history on this one - when the world finally stops doing it en mass, either because clean lab grown meat has become economically more viable or environmental concerns are too overwhelming, etc., very convinced we'll look back on it as a horrific practice just as we might slavery today.
Aside: this thread escalated quickly from scamming Apple gift cards on reddit
Hardcore vegans already think it's a horrific practice, but for most people it will just be a diet of the time, especially if future people are eating imitation meat.
I don't think many vegetarians or vegans would disagree that meat was historically important for human survival and development. Meat was (and still is in many parts of the world) one of the easiest ways to attain calories and important nutrients.
The difference for you and I -and everyone else reading this- is that we now have easy access to meat-free alternatives. Plant proteins and mycoprotein are readily available in most developed countries. Machine pressed oils give us cheap access to plant-based fatty acids. Today we can easily get all of our calories and important nutrients without factory farming and/or slaughtering animals.
You're comparing life with non-existence. We (as a vegetarian I include myself in those making this "odd" argument) are comparing a more happy life or non-existence with being a slave, having your offspring forcibly taken from you, living only a few years in often terrible and freakishly unnatural conditions to then be slaughtered, possibly in another freakishly unnatural way, just so that someone who might not even pay any attention while they're eating your remains, can eat lazily, often in a suboptimal way for taste and nutrition.
They have no concept of freedom, and for most animals living in the wild is a terrifying existence where they can get killed every day and struggle to find food. Putting aside battery farming, they have a life of luxury compared to their wild cousins.
It's like you believe animals are like humans, they're not, stop anthromorphising them. They're not like Mel Gibson screaming "you can take our lives".
It also makes we wonder if you've ever lived in the country and met wild animals. They are generally not a happy bunch like you see in kids cartoons.
Trap some and I'm pretty sure you'll find they want to escape. They certainly understand the concept of captivity.
> It's like you believe animals are like humans, they're not, stop anthromorphising them
You could instead stop with the childish mischaracterisation of my views, of which you know little. I do not believe they are humans. I do, however, know via increasing amounts of evidence that they suffer and can experience complex emotional and social lives, and that our treatment of them is largely an unnecessary cause of their suffering.
> It also makes we wonder if you've ever lived in the country and met wild animals.
I worked in a butcher shop, I've been to working farms, I've been to cattle auctions. I wonder if you've only ever got your meat vacuumed packed in plastic and tell people you "love" bacon - but I wouldn't use that as an argument because it would be irrelevant and crass, especially on a forum like this that's supposed to represent discussion based on a higher level of reasoning amongst respectful peers.
> most animals living in the wild is a terrifying existence where they can get killed every day and struggle to find food. Putting aside battery farming, they have a life of luxury compared to their wild cousins.
You're using the same arguments people used to justify keeping slaves. They weren't any good then so I'm not sure why they'd be any better now.
> If you believe in sentience, and the value of it, given their low awareness, either you support never even letting them live or what?
If we accept that living is always morally desirable, no matter how much suffering is involved, then it leads to absurd moral conclusions. For one, it would mean that it would be ok to have a baby, then kill it to sell its organs: after all, the baby wouldn't have existed otherwise. For another, it would mean that we should try to increase the world's population as much as possible, even far past the carrying capacity of the earth, because it's better to exist in a world of extreme poverty, starvation, and war than to not exist at all.
Animals might not be aware of things like love or beauty, but I'm pretty sure that a male chick has an unpleasant experience when it's being macerated, and I don't think the couple of days it's allowed to live make up for it.
Preventing wild animals from killing each other would require by far the largest ecological intervention the world had ever seen, which would involve humans either exterminating half the species on the planet, or domesticating them and feeding them engineered vegetarian diets. In either case, it would certainly cause massive ecological damage, and I don't think we have the technology to do such a thing even if we wanted to.
This suggestion sort of like saying "Oh, you think our country should outlaw wife-beating? Well why don't we conquer the entire world and stop every country from practicing wife-beating?"
As for domesticated animals, I think we absolutely should try to find ways to feed them without killing other animals. There are companies out there trying to make vegan cat food, and although I'm not sure whether it's good enough to keep cats healthy yet, I definitely wish them luck in achieving it.
Do you use this kind of formulation to wonder why you or people you know don't go out raping and murdering?
If not, why are you worried about what other animals do? You are a sentient being with the greatest ability to reason and empathise compared to any other species on the planet - their behaviour has nothing to do with your choices.
"Just like us humans, learning to drive and navigate seemed to have a relaxing effect on the rats. In a control experiment, they found rats had higher levels of cortisol when being driven around in remote-controlled cars than when they were allowed to steer themselves."
Seems like a terrible control imo for me to say driving intrinsically has a relaxing effect. A better control would be rats doing nothing vs rats driving and seeing if the rats doing nothing were more stressed than the driving rats, meaning the driving rats were actually lowering their baseline stress.
In this experiment the control of being a passenger in a terrifying vehicle moving all by itself with no autonomy or control over the situation can quite likely be the thing causing elevated stress, rather than rats driving depressing levels of stress. Imagine if someone suddenly strapped you into a bubble that started moving by itself and you have no idea why this is happening, no control over the situation, or where you're going or what's going to happen to you. Stressful af. Hell, people get stressed just being in the passenger seat watching someone else drive.
The vast majority of people prefer having autonomy and control over their own motion vs being helplessly navigated by someone else you don't know/trust with zero context and no idea what's going on. A little misleading if this reflects the actual study.
Two dogs in separate rooms with floors that can give them a mild shock. Arranged so they get exactly the same shock. One dog can turn off the shock by performing an action; the other has no control.
This experiment turns the second dog into a shivering nervous wreck... but the first is fine. Same shocks; only difference was control.
>A better control would be rats doing nothing vs rats driving and seeing if the rats doing nothing were more stressed than the driving rats, meaning the driving rats were actually lowering their baseline stress.
What if it's the opposite? What if rats that do nothing are under a higher stress and driving simply allows them to get back to their baseline stress?
That’s a different thing, the actual control was as you describe (measuring stress markers over time).
The thing mentioned appear to be an attempt to confirm some previous study's finding about self-sufficiency, which is pretty much related to what you say about autonomy and control.
Never assume bad science when bad journalism would suffice.
The article directly addresses the idea that "Being 17...doesn't make you less culpable."
"Of just over 200 released, six have faced new charges, but only one has been convicted of a new crime, contempt. That’s less than a 3 percent recidivism rate. “When you’re looking at the percentages of the guys who’ve come back in court, and compare that to our overall, which is around 40 percent, you really know you’ve done a good job,” Johnson said.
That outcome supports a theory the U.S. Supreme Court first advanced in 2005, when it outlawed the death penalty for juveniles. The Court took stock of “evolving standards of decency,” as well as a growing body of neuroscience suggesting kids’ immaturity makes them less culpable than adults. It also emphasized that kids, more than adults, are amenable to change. The low recidivism rates likely also reflect the reality that criminal behavior declines dramatically as people age out of their teens and early 20s."
There are a million things incredibly unwise things I would have been far more likely to do at 17 than 27 now - I imagine this is a trend that will continue to likely progress for me individually, and I also imagine this isn't a phenomenon singular to myself.
The shockingly low recidivism rate seems to empirically support this notion as well, particularly when contrasted with the general recidivism rate. If these juvenile offenders were just as culpable as anyone else when they had committed their life sentence crimes, presumably their recidivism rate should be similar. 40 percent for the general population and 3 percent for this cohort so far suggests otherwise.
>There are a million things incredibly unwise things I would have been far more likely to do at 17 than 27 now
Yes, I too made very stupid choices in my younger days, which could have killed me many times over. I have not however, done things that could have hurt/killed others. That doesn't make me a saint, it just means I understand the value of human life and that I have no right to jeopardize the lives of others.
These 'kids' took it upon themselves to rob a person while armed, and stab him to death. This person, named Joseph Hayes, had his life forfeit for no doing of his own, his family and friends having him removed from their lives in a most brutal way.
I think the penalty should fit the crime, if you attack and kill someone unprovoked, I don't care if you are 17 years old, or if you were in a group. Your lack of regard for other human life means you should be locked away, both in order to keep people safe from you as well as a strong deterrent. Haywood Fennell is not a victim, the person he and a group of his friends decided to rob and kill is the victim.
>Haywood Fennell is not a victim, the person he and a group of his friends decided to rob and kill is the victim.
"Fennell was the only one convicted in the incident."
An African American 17 year old in 1968 talking to police without a lawyer ... While the crime definitely should have been punished, it sounds kind of questionable whether the justice was served here.
Yeah this also took me a while. I thought someone found a vulnerability in Bitcoin that, instead of burning coins, actually is a valid transfer but somehow without revealing wallet addresses.
As someone who went to Harvard, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of extremely decent universities that all basically provide the same quality of instruction. People just get unreasonably hung up over the 'best' schools, but there are easily at least like 100+, if not several hundred, that provide easily roughly the same educational experience as far as I'm aware.
The peer group may definitely dramatically different from what I can tell, but if you're a serious student and there for the learning above all, very straightforward to get into a school that will teach you just about anything you could learn at Harvard or any other Ivy League or similarly 'elite' school.
The thing is what makes a university good has more to do with the quality of the recruitment of its students than the teaching. In fact much of the teaching in ellite US colleges is done by researchers that are not particularly good at it.
While I agree with you, as someone that is inherently inferior to someone like you (on the basis of not getting into any elite school, much less Harvard) currently that inferiority has a cascading effect throughout life. I think the goal should be to equalize opportunities for everyone instead of just people who might be borderline elites at 18.
The dramatic difference between Harvard and an average university is that at Harvard you're probably going to bump into half a dozen people who will either inherit a business, or a fortune to start a business, or just start a business on their own. Guess what, knowing the CEO of companies is a bloody good way of getting a nice job in that company.
The connections you make are what the elite institutions really do to differentiate themselves.
+1.
A new member in our team has PHD from a top university and an MBA from Columbia business school.I don't how he got there but it was definitely not for the intelligence or smartness. First time I've understood that CBS graduates can be with zero knowledge or smartness.
The thing that still bothers me is the cognitive dissonance of being told by people orders of magnitude smarter than me that institution doesn’t matter. Yeah, if it didn’t you wouldn’t have gone to a HYPSM or out of state public ivy.
There's still a massive difference between schools that don't fall into the private/top-tier bin. Sorry.
I am from a family of 10 kids and we all went to and were accepted to different schools (all non-private/non-top tier)...there is a massive difference in education levels between schools (maybe it won't affect your career trajectory, but I didn't go to college for a career, I went to learn and be surrounded by others of my caliber).
No one masks at birth. If you want your child to stop masking, perhaps it’s helpful to investigate what caused them to learn the behavior in the first place and what could be done to make the experience of being unmasked more pleasant and less aversive for him.
Just as you say, masking takes an incredible amount of energy and is exhausting and often backfires. Why would anyone expend such exhausting amounts of energy without some extremely strong motivating factor? The alternative to not masking must be perceived as exquisitely undesirable.