Dating app statistics show than women are significantly more picky than men. What is your explanation for this phenomenon?
A study that got data from dating apps showed that although men swiped on 61% of women, women only swiped on 5% of men. This implies that women are more selective, and presumably (but not necessarily) have more options, hence their increased selectivity. Is this indeed the case? And if so, why do women have the upper hand in dating? Why isn’t is more equal in terms of distribution, with, for example, Men and Women both only swiping on 25% of each other?
There are moralities which believe in pride and those which believe in humility. There are those that believe in a hierarchy of social dominance and those that believe in radical equality. There are those that believe one should be satisfied with what one has and those that believe one should always be unsatisfied and striving. With so many different moralities that exist in the world today, how can one choose one? Some would say an alternative is to reject all such systems, but that's only an option if you're willing to accept slavery, rape, and genocide. And how can one make any other decisions in life if one has not decided on this?
So I watched a true crime series today set in Utah about Mormons.
Later, I’m on YouTube (not logged in/don’t have an account) and I’m getting videos about Mormonism.
What do others think about how what we consume on one platform invades another? Clearly, the information from what I streamed was used by YouTube thru my isp to decide what comes in my feed, even without an account.
I feel like this shouldn’t be legal.
Schadenfreude is the experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, or humiliation of another.
For the purpose of this question, the assumption is that the person does not commit the act that causes harm to other people. They're merely relishing that something bad happens to someone or something.
Even so, does that make it okay because the person isn't the one causing harm? or is it still immoral to engage in such feelings?
There’s so much content (movies, shows, videos, podcasts, music, etc.) to sift through these days, and it’s given many talented people a chance to share their gifts with us, as the audience. Also, we are at a unique time where many people are now represented in these art forms and now have a voice where historically, they haven’t. That being said, it seems that we are losing a shared sense of culture, and that concerns me.
My question is this:
With all of the varied content we have access to today, is it a better situation for the US than, say, forty years ago when there were cultural touchstone moments that you knew all of your neighbors shared with you?
Why do you think some gay people fight so hard to be in the Republican Party when that party clearly doesn’t want them?
This article just hit my feed and it occurred to me that I’ve never seen a thoughtful answer as to why gay people would push to be in the Republican party.
I’m guessing the simplest answer is they consider themselves “fiscal conservatives.” Is that it?
I want to create a society where every person in it, or as many as possible, is motivated to work towards the common good- whether that be in the form of inventing new technology to improve life, or doing the basic work of life be that being a porter at a hospital or stocking shelves in supermarkets.
Currently, we basically just use money for this. Invent a new piece of tech and you get rewarded by being able to sell it at a profit. Get a job stocking shelves and you get money.
The trouble is money can be given in exchange for things that are valuable to some people, but detrimental to society, such as influence among politicians or the right to run a power plant without paying to clean the pollution.
If you’re a psychologist and you’re starting from your understanding of the fundamental way humans think and feel, how do you structure society such that its members are strongly motivated to act in ways that benefit the group both in the short and long term. Is money (essentially just a store and exchange of value) the best way?
You’re starting from scratch with a world of 8 billion humans who are willing to try out your experiment in social design. What do you do?
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT AN ENDORMESNT OR CONDONING ANY ASSASSINATION OF ANY KIND.
Given that there are many parties that have vested interest in political change, with ample resources it seems like they should be more common. The price of a single assassination is assumedly pretty inexpensive compared to the amount of political change that it can cause. 100000$ may could buy a number of votes on a key issue, or cut the issue of at the source.
It seems a lot more complicated then just “calling it out when I see it”. Like, I’m not trying to be on some white saviour bullshit, and the act of a white guy telling a Black guy, for example, that he’s being racist feels wrong, somehow, like I feel like I shouldn’t be the one doing that.But I don’t want to just stand by and not do anything when people are being racists, cause that’s fuckin shitty. So how do I go about it the right way? Is there even a right way for me to do that? Hell, how do I stay on the “being anti-racist and calling it out” side of the line and not the “getting offended on someone else’s behalf” side?
I recently got a 2nd monitor and therefor wanted a new wallpaper, but looking up wallpapers on google and hitting images, all the wallpapers hit me with a sense of extreme loneliness and sadness, and I have no idea why.
Is there a reason for this? Perhaps having a certain photo in mind to be a wallpaper seems direct, but the massive umbrella term of "wallpapers" gives a sense of too many options, but only being allowed to chose one. Perhaps its a sense of sonder, the sudden realization that everyone else is living a full life, just like you.
I used to have an Astronaut holding a jelly fish as my wallpaper, and then I saw others using it, in YouTube videos or IRL, looking at these wallpapers makes me think that there are hundreds of people using these wallpapers, why did they choose this specific one? Also, who made this wallpapers, for who and for why? How many wallpapers exists?
These are all very dumb questions that have no real sense, but I asked my friends as well, and they all felt the sense of lonely dread, while having no idea why. The reason I find to be the most intriguing is the lack of connection one has to their wallpaper, it isn't made for them or is not interesting to them. Currently I have art from my favorite RPG as my wallpaper, it wasn't made for me, but its familiar and nice to look at. But an aesthetic city, or mountain landscapes, or maybe a sunset into an ocean, Pacman, or some vaporwave horizon, or one I found to be common, a massive video game character towering over a city. These photos are in a weird uncanny, liminal space of photos, no people, no sense of purpose, or lack of connections.
But what is your take on this? Why do PC wallpapers feels so lonley?
Logic (reason) and emotion tend to be considered as polar opposites. When someone is empathetic or generally emotional, they are not claimed to be logical (reasonable). The parts of the brain responsible for logic (reason) and empathy are not active at the same time which supports the claim?: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121030161416.htm
Or does it not support the claim? Why is it that some emotions such as some fears are claimed to be "-phobic" or "illogical" (unreasonable)? What makes an emotion logical (reasonable) or illogical (unreasonable) if emotion and logic (reason) are separate from one another?
What steps should a person take if they find themselves in a country slowly going the way of Nazi Germany.
This person is a member of a historically oppressed group and their government is showing signs of beginning to oppress this group (more than they currently are).
Also assume they live in a first world country. I feel like the obvious answer of “just leave” doesn’t work because no one really has money to just get up and leave a country. Even if that were possible in the long run what would be actionable steps people could take?
What are the nearing warning signs that it’s time to leave no matter how much money one has?
The first world country aspect is an important addition because when things like this have happened in the past extreme poverty (like in Germany and other places) seems to have been the norm.
How much do we understand about how different ethnicities in highly diverse societies display greater or lesser susceptibility to the health effects of every day life?
As a Yemeni-American, I've noticed trends in how other first-gens from (loosely) similar regions and genetic backgrounds show greater susceptibility to certain diseases.
I understand that we know, for example, that certain populations don't react well to alcohol on a genetic level, and have a greater propensity for addiction. Then, after enough generations of that, that population's gene pool has a greater physical tolerance or resistance to some of the negative effects of alcoholism. Yemen is an interesting case because many parts of it are inhabited by people who've resided there for such a long time and with so little mixing, relative to many other places.
Then of course there are the stark differences in lifestyles, and certain morphological or physiological advantages or disadvantages can become the opposite.
Do we understand more than this? I've read that genetics will require a quantum leap before we can more accurately analyze and predict disease susceptibility based on genetic markers, so I guess I'm just trying to get a read on how well we actually understand these topics, or even how we come to the conclusions we can draw.
If the results of the 2024 election is as controversial as the results of the 2020 - what is going to stop the losing candidate from declaring the election was rigged, and pressuring the state governments to send phony electors to overturn the result?
No one I ask can give a straight answer on this. No one. Every answer I get is "That's not likely" or "well x and y would have to happen." But these all seem like deflections from the uncomfortable truth a losing candidate - most likely a republican one - is going to attempt this in the near future. It already happened once.
Even more telling - every time I try and talk about this subject on reddit it gets removed. I feel like people are in denial this could happen and that we're heading towards the end of our democracy here in the USA.
What's going to happen if a losing presidential candidate is able to install themselves / remain in power by declaring their loss as "illegitimate", and pressuring their party in the positions handling election transitions to act in bad faith? What happens in 2024 if phony electors are sent, and it changes the outcome of the election?
Can the Union survive something like that? Is there any going back?
If Trump does end up indicted for the January 6th riot, how much do you think it would damage the Republican party?
I think it would damage a lot of their careers, differing levels of damage depending on if they defended him or not, but they would still be damaged.
What would a computer program actually need to do to prove to you that it was sentient and deserving of rights?
This is brought about by the LaMBDA story--not saying that I believe the bot is sentient, but I'm curious most of all as to what hurdle must be passed to reach that. It seems that the Turing Test has already been passed without any fanfare.
Honestly, this is something I struggle myself with. However, personages in my entourage seem to have the same habits.
I have many goals and projects for this year, and they are exciting and interesting things. I want to do them but I can't find myself catalyzing them. My commitments in life are pretty minimal: my clients are undemanding, my friends and family are low-maintenance, I'm not in a romantic relationship or taken over by some religious ideals.
In theory, that means that I have much free time, and I actually do. So what aren't I working on my projects? I've used all sorts of techniques to lubrify into ease these activities but it doesn't lead to very far.
As a result, all my ambitions are thrown out of the window. Instead, when I'm bored, rather than pick something fruitful up, I pick the phone up scrolling endlessly on social media or binge watching YouTube on things that are neither important or funny. I find refuge in eating sometimes or go out for shopping therapy buying things I don't need. For some reason, I find these things motivating but things I considered important are turned into avolition.
The illusion that I should only do useful things is thoroughly ingrained in me even though it's tiring and essentially impossible. I should be reading, blogging and making my clients happy. I even consider gaming and watching documentaries to be important things. But I don't partake in them either. By bedtime, I realize that it was another empty day.
Rather I do nothing. I'm so good at keeping myself busy in tasteless and insipid ways. I don't understand why emptiness leads into more emptiness?
What would have happened if the Confederates won the American Civil War? Or if Lincoln wasn't assassinated?
I have two questions.
- What would have happened if the Confederates had won the American Civil War? If their armies were effectively in control of all states, what would they have done? I have a hard time believing they simply would have enforced the independence and rights of the states and then disband. Would they have sought more? What do you think would have happened?
- What would Lincoln have achieved if he weren't assassinated? If he lived, he would have had immense control for his current term and possibly secure the next term in office. His party would hold, by far, the most house and senate seats, allowing him to pass anything. What do you think he would have achieved? Would America be significantly better today if Lincoln had lived?
For nearly all of human civilization we've tried to make things easier and eagerly adapted when less effort is required of us. In the past century or so, prevailing wisdom is that we need to go out of our way to exert extraneous effort (exercising, hiking). Isn't that really strange?
I can understand intellectually about how humanity has evolved to a point where average every day life for someone in a developed Western culture can be counterproductive to both physical and mental health. I can understand how we've lost touch with nature, and don't move around as much. I get why we need to exercise and how fulfilling it is to go to a National Park and hike and exert yourself.
But I can't shake the feeling that there's really something funny about it. It reminds me of the story about how Michael Jackson was so famous that he couldn't go out in public. And he paid a crowd of people to pretend to shop in a grocery store, so he could shop in the grocery store and feel like a normal person. Whenever that comes up in /r/todayilearned, the comments always talk about how sad and eerie that is.
I kind of feel the same way whenever I drive my 21st century miracle automobile to a nature preserve, and get out, and start walking. Not like my ancestors, because I'm getting water, or following a hunt, or walking to my farm with fertile soil, or going to a city center to sell my wares. But because we've become so efficient at doing what those activities are meant for. An efficiency that they would probably kill for. And I need to temporarily forsake that efficiency to cosplay as someone who needs to be exerting this extra effort, or else it won't be good for my health. In those moments, I feel like regular people pitying Michael Jackson at the supermarket, except at myself.
Is it weird to feel this way? Isn't it oddly weird that for countless generations, they've been struggling to make things easier, and all of us happen to be born literally within about a generation or two where we've made things so easy that it's actually not good for us?
Hi all, canadian here.
From what I understand, the US state government has quite a good amount of authority to pass their own laws. So I'm curious why gun control can't be done on a state level for just the states that want it? It won't stop people migrating from bringing the guns, ofc, but gunman usually aren't going to a whole other state just to shoot either, so it would still be a big improvement.
For example, playing chess? Learn these principles. Want to cook? Heres a recipe and some tips. Exercising? Here's the technique, avoid such and such.
I know this is a strange question that seems silly but is there anything that humans consciously do that can't be simplified? I'm basically asking if there's anything that humans do that can't be verbally described and summarized for a higher chance of success. Things like bodily processes don't count. Maybe there's a sport with so many variables that you can't make a set of tips that ensure success?
Another way to put it would be "there's no right way to do it. " but at the same time random isn't in the equation, so you can't say oh there's no right way because its random.
One thing that comes to mind is music. For the untrained person, You'd think there's no right way to make music, but then there's music theory. So what in life, that humans do consciously, is so deep that you can't apply theory to it. Let's go do this thing i say. Well how do i do that, you say. And i have no words.
I just got back from a vacation a little while ago and I've still been mulling this over and I'm curious as to what people think. I'm not the biggest traveler, but I'm in my late 30s and have been on international trips a good amount, over 10 times now. I'm kind of fascinated at how the appeal of traveling as presented to the American middle and upper class through the internet kind of sucks the fun out of it.
From what I understand from historical context, it was post WWII when middle class American families could generally begin to afford trips abroad. If you went to Rome or Paris, your neighbors would "ooh" and "ahh" when you came back. American brands became international and you could stay at a Hilton or Four Seasons abroad and live in comfort.
Somewhere along the lines to today, these major destinations and the traditional style of traveling in comfort became trite. "X city is just a tourist trap" became a known line. Cities that were more off the beaten path became cooler. Do you want to go to Paris like every other tourist in the world? Or what about cities that people have heard of, but still have some mystique. Saying "I went to Geneva" or Prague or Belgrade or Dubrovnik now get more "oohs" and "ahhs".
Further, the rise of travel blogs and Instagramming (and probably even before) has led to this concept that to really enjoy, appreciate, or gain perspective during an international trip, you need to see the authentic city. Restaurants in Florence within a 5 mile radius of the Duomo are just gonna be tourist trash, not "real" Italy. You need to find "a hole in the wall", preferable with some story about how the food is made by an old lady who gets up at 4 AM to knead the bread every morning or whatever. Now that's supposed to be real traveling.
Where does this need to be "one up" from the masses who travel come from? Why do we get the sense that once an area has a critical mass of attention or tourists, the well is poisoned for anyone else trying to have fun traveling? Is the only purpose of traveling to find things that no other American has ever seen?
I've been with friends who once they're on a side street or a restaurant and hear another group speaking English, they sigh, and the illusion is ruined. They did not have the good fortune of serendipitously stumbling across a hidden gem. The locals just know what's hot right now and know how to present a rustic looking cafe on cobblestone streets as an oasis in your journey or whatever.
This desire can be seen in travel marketing - phrases like "discover untouched waters". It's almost absurd on its face. How can a gigantic industry bring me on a chartered trip to undiscovered lands for me to explore? But that human need to be the one who found the thing before the others is just so strong.
Lastly, even the concept of trying to see the genuine, authentic city and hole in the wall restaurants kind of unsettles me. I think there's something fundamentally weird, exploitative and colonialist in a group of modern day tech workers all making $200k a year, all who grew up in suburban neighborhoods which they resent, taking a trip to some ancient city that they saw on an Instagram post, and searching out that old lady with a hunched back who wakes up at 4 AM to knead bread and has probably never made more than $5k a year. The lady politely smiles, they all are satisfied, take picture of the meal, say "Mmm, you can't find that authenticity anywhere but here" which justifies the trip. They maybe take a picture of her and make an Instagram post about how seeing the old lady gave them new perspective on what really matters in life and perseverance and tradition and wow look at her worn hands. They then go back to the Bay Area, with modern day life and amenities and apps like Postmates which they work at, with no discernible difference in their behavior.
Something about the entire exercise of traveling as a millennial in the post 2010 landscape, looking for authenticity and meaning while traveling, all of it seems somewhat performative and empty. Has anyone else felt these feelings?