fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2929 ]

[ SECRET POST #2929 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2929 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 088 secrets from Secret Submission Post #419.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm currently reading this philosophy book on capitalism and the news cycle, and it's fairly interesting... and THEN I got to a page where the guy is arguing that "emotional states have been pathologized to sell pharmaceuticals" and that people who are on medication for disorders like bipolar and depression have had their "nervous systems modified".

What?

I mean, by all means, you can criticize the pharmaceutical industry and it's scientific studies, you can criticize a tendency to focus more on medications than long-term changing of behaviour and thought patterns.

But the instant you start equating depression with "just feeling sad" or panic attacks as a normal state of being... that's where I stop taking you seriously.

Apparently people taking medication for their bipolar are tools of capitalism, now.

F!S, when was the last time you heard somebody smart say something really fucking stupid?

Well-studied in one area definitely doesn't mean well-studied in all areas. I have plenty of comp sci major friends who like to insist that men and women are "extensively genetically different" all the time.

The extent of the genetic difference between men and women is ~3 genes on the SRY region of the Y chromosome. The rest is developmental, environmental, endocrine, differential cultural factors...

But shit, trying to explain all that to someone who is convinced that genes are a magical blueprint for your entire life is just so tiresome sometimes.

*facepalms into forever*

Why? Why do people keep repeating stupid urban myths and BS like "women and men are different species" and "you only use 10% of your brain"?

Why don't people more people read Snopes?

While I wouldn't say it's appropriate with disorders like bipolar, there is most definitely a medicalization of emotional states that are well within the normal range of human emotion going on.

I would say that there are many cases where it is extremely challenging to draw the line between those two things.

I used to argue a lot with a old-school monarchist. He once told me that I was entitled to my own opinions, but not to my own facts. The fact he was using was that bottle-fed children have lower IQs than breast-fed children. The conclusion he was arguing was that gay men shouldn't be allowed to adopt children.

Every time I bring this up to someone, they come up with a different, entirely separate reason for why the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Everything else aside... I've gotta wonder how your monarchist thinks a straight couple would breastfeed an adopted infant.

He probably thinks women are always producing milk and doesn't realize that they have to have been recently pregnant. He doesn't even know it, but he's basically arguing that no one should be allowed to adopt.

Wow, then I guess women who can't produce breast milk shouldn't have kids either!

Sometimes I wonder how these people jump from A to B. I am completely baffled.

I did eventually piece together one thing about the monarchist: so far as I could tell, he could not understand the idea of different values outweighing each other in different circumstances. If, say, he believed in the value of "honesty" and he believed in the value of "kindness," he would rank "honesty" over "kindness," and then whenever the two conflicted, he would always follow "honesty," regardless of the situation. He could not figure out that there were people who would be honest sometimes and kind other times, so other people's behavior deeply confused him.

I have no idea how that relates to that particular argument, though. Sometimes, he was just cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

I honestly love arguing with serious, hardcore monarchists

they're so ridiculous

Not say something stupid, but when I was a student at College, I would regularly see my Physics professors struggle with opening doors. It's as if the smarter they got, the less common sense they had!

haha that's actually adorable

It's hilarious for sure!

Einstein used to forget where his house was.

The valedictorian of my graduating class.

How so?

Right before the big test, he asked where the Cold War was fought. Even barring everything else, that's the thing that's stuck with me most, even 10 years later...

Wow. That's... truly stunning.

Hey, some people aren't good at history. Or it may have been the set up to a joke.

na

you don't have to be good at it to know an very basic fact about recent history, especially since it was such a long lasting period and had far reaching effects that weren't just in the USSR and America

Uh, yes you do. Recent history in this case starts as far back as the 1940s (50s?) and ended in the 90s. People in their twenties right now weren't old enough to remember it, and it wasn't history enough to be covered in most basic USA history classes. I didn't learn much about the Cold War until college.

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

(Anonymous) - 2015-01-11 04:33 (UTC) - Expand

Goddamit, now he's referencing this one study and claiming that television watching causes autism.

I can't. I just can't.

*throws book across room*

There was this story about a previous physics professor who set up an experiment to demonstrate how air resistance affects conservation of momentum in his auditorium classroom. He had a long cable with a bowling ball at the end which hung about five feet above the ground and he stood over to one side and pulled the ball up so it was just touching his chin. He was supposed to just stand in the same place and show that the bowling ball would not reach his chin again because of the air resistance. And if he'd just let the ball go instead of giving it a little push...

That shit actually makes me mad. Like fuck you, depression isn't just "feeling sad". >:C

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2929 ]

The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met

OP

Physics will get you every time.

Re: The dumbest smart person you've ever met