coffee_enjoyer
☕️
No bio...
User ID: 541
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
"Just exercise (and improve your diet)" is the correct answer It's also 100% true that this is actually very hard and most people don't do it, because exercise is uncomfortable and boring
This is the view that I disagree with. It strikes me as a just so story. If you succeed in exercising, you were able to do the very hard thing because of your implied moral superiority; if you weren’t, you had to try harder, but you could have. The problem with this kind of thinking is manifold. Trump and Elon Musk are extremely goal-driven people (I am choosing them because they are household names). Why are they both fat? Marines went through boot camp. Why can’t they exercise for something more valuable than that? Normally people want to impress others and secure mates and enjoy life. So why can’t they exercise when this enables that? A 30yo fat person may see their obese parents die a slow agonizing death. What human would experience that and not be motivated to avert that state?
It’s very easy to just morally impugn fat people — it’s hard, it’s uncomfortable, you could do it but you don’t want to. The problem is that there is no evidence for this assumed phenomenon. Where is the study showing that fat people don’t wish to be healthier more than those who do exercise? Fat people probably want to exercise even more than those who do exercise. But clearly there is something in the way: more pain when exercising (?); a microbiome which especially wants to be sedentary (?); an extreme deficit in willpower as it relates to physical exertion which requires a dedicated program…
But maybe I’m misunderstanding what you are saying. “ultimately, the answer is that what they need to do is actually very simple but very difficult, hence most people don't”, this to me implies a universality in how difficult exercise is, but I seriously doubt that’s the case.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
If “just exercise” were useful advice then there would be no fat people, as everyone has learned how important exercise is in school, universally every human has exercised before, and exercise has never been so easy — you can turn on a guided video with music to do calisthenics in approximately 8 seconds. Half of our military servicemen are obese, people who have gone the gauntlet of an exercise bootcamp, and three fourths of our veterans are obese. Fat people read “go to the gym” on every trending video of a fat person. So whatever the solution to obesity, it is absolutely not telling fat people to exercise, which has been conclusively disproven through the largescale population experiment colloquially known as “Reality” over the past two decades.
And if willing oneself to exercise were possible, then willing oneself to fast should be significantly easier than that, because the latter is willing oneself to omit an action and the former is willing oneself to engage in complex motor behaviors. If these humans can’t fast, these humans can’t will themselves to run fast either.
patients don't want to hear it
Obese Americans by the age of 35 have likely seen the horrors of obesity inflicted on their relatives. If this were a simple knowledge-motivational issue (“I do not want to become The Whale”) then obesity should be solved by seeing your parent suffocate from their own fat when they got COVID. But this doesn’t seem to be how it works at all. It seems to be something either beyond willpower altogether, or something so intrinsic to willpower that it requires a deliberate longterm regimen of enhancing willpower before tackling exercise. Why is it that fat people are so resilient to exercising? This is a more serious question. Clearly it is displeasing to them especially. Is that because of the microbiome? Is the longterm effect of pollution? Is it because of a insufficiency in the cognitive practice of willpower?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
99.99% an op IMO. DC is the most recorded place in America. You don’t enter or leave it without being recorded. The full weight of intel might would be on finding the planter. It would be a trivial project for deep state to determine the person’s vehicle, the direction of the vehicle, how they obtained the vehicle. I do not believe that a planter could have the sophistication to steal a car, sufficiently hide his appearance while driving, hide the car (dna / prints) somewhere our of sight of video recording and vehicle photographs (no highway) where a different vehicle is waiting. Doing this on a day in which security would be increased makes no sense.
This is as suspicious as the Seth Rich murder, which for some reason has been memoryholed from my own memory — didn’t they find his probable Reddit account pointing to his leak or something?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
If all of the steps are easy for a political party to solve then there is nothing difficult about it. In fact, the steps are trivial just for a normal human being to determine. The problem is not implementation but the incredibly inept and disinterested political class in the cities. The voter has a right to demand things without “educating himself” when the steps are easy.
Come up with a new set of laws which can avoid human bias in a subjective setting
It’s obvious when a person who is suffering from severe psychosis, so the target population can be solved (psychotic). The existence of rare failure modes has never prevented a law being written. When you go to a dentist or a doctor they are going to perform things on you and you trust that they aren’t going to amputate the wrong leg or take out all your teeth. You do not need to do anything outlandish to prevent too many errors here.
Come up with a law to do this
That’s what your politicians are suppose to do… etc.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Scott comes off as cowardly and needlessly pretentious. Doesn’t everyone know that bureaucracy and bad laws are part of the issue?
If your plan is to change the case law around involuntary commitment - to expand the definition of “dangerous to themselves or others” - it probably won’t matter, because most of these decisions are based on vibes that only loosely connect to the written law
Change the laws and departmental policy to make them overrule vibes, which is how most laws work. Do vibes overrule IRS laws?
doctors commit many more people, it still won’t matter, because those people will stay in the hospital for a few days
You can trivially solve this by increasing the time of commitment according to infractions over time.
If your plan is to “lock them up long-term”, keep in mind that (for now) there are almost no institutions equipped to do this
You build them. What kind of point even is this? You build buildings. They can be built. They are frequently built. Who does Scott think he is writing to that the reader would no longer support a cause because it requires a city to build buildings?
Do you expect San Francisco to be good at this?
Vote for any of the millions of Americans who can, and do, competently build buildings.
How long are you keeping people there
A reasonable amount of time. What is a reasonable amount of time? Low enough that a person whose condition is manageable can get out soon, and high enough that a person whose condition is consistently unmanageable stays in longer. So an intuitive and “normal person able to think” solution is to increase it by infraction, and for the institution to gradually allow the patient freedom so as to check his capacity.
and (if the drugs work) appear significantly saner within 2-4 weeks. Best-case scenario, they’re completely sane. Now what?
Most normal people thinking about this issue would be able to solve it. My personal take is that you go from full institutionalization to check-ups, and if you fail checkups you go back to the institution.
Etc. Nothing Scott wrote can justify his assertion that “it might be time to hit the books, learn about hexamethyldecawhatever, and make sure that what you’re demanding is possible, coherent, and doesn’t have so many tradeoffs that experts inevitably recoill”.
Most (?) homeless people are only homeless for a few weeks […] If someone was going to be homeless for a week, and instead you imprison them for a year, you’re not doing them or society any favors
This is a category error. Public displays of psychosis are not found in the median ”transitionally” homeless person staying at a friend’s or relative’s.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
It’s funny that JP’s own hero Solzhenitsyn, who he quotes and praises endlessly, wrote a ~1000 page tome on the influence of Jews in Soviet Russia, criticizing Jewish Russians as well as gentile Russians. Yet Peterson is unable to discuss the topic as it applies today. As if Judaism today is somehow different from the Judaism in 1900 or 900. I think this is just part of his boomer programming. Remember that every boomer westerner has been circumcised with the holocaust narrative: consciously traumatized at a young age in a way that reduces their sensitivity while inculcating a definitive story about Jewish suffering and redemption. Not far from the original circumcision-exodus narrative, just applied to gentiles.
is this part of the right wing sphere dying
Nick Fuentes continues to grow in popularity, he is literally ratioing the Petersons and getting shoutouts from the Tate brothers. Fuentes-adjacent Sam Hyde is sitting down with zoomer influencer Matan and KillTony regulars, and also has a bizarre inroad to underground rap through Joeyy. They sorely lack IRL infrastructure but their influence is expanding I’d say.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Hunter Biden having any influence is hilarious and horrifying. I’m not sure why no one is talking about this. His past drug use isn’t the issue. The issue is that he’s the most blackmailable person in America. His texts talk about Russian prostitutes, he did god knows what in Ukraine in his free time, he did god knows what when he met with the spy chief on China. He demonstrates poor impulse control and poor ethics (selling access to his father to sensitive foreign countries). And now he’s the one influencing the President. He has been so immunized by the media that, like, what the fuck can the media do to even take him down at this point? We’ve all seen the sex tapes, crack pipes and strange messages, we know he was illegally possessing a firearm, we know he took money from China and oligarchs banned from entering the US. I guess you reap what you sow — if Democrats go down because Hunter influenced Joe to stay in the race, that’s beautiful justice.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Men can resist raping. A woman’s discomfort or scream or admonition or disgust (or any other clear biological signal of disinterest) is an immediate turn off to a normal human male. What is unlikely is if they can resist seducing, which can become rape at the whim of a woman because most seduction does not involve affirmative consent. My rule doesn’t give men a pass to rape; after all, a lot of men are trustworthy. But it establishes a right to seduce (attempt), and it requires women to check who they spend time with alone. We can call it the “Baby it’s cold outside” law. Or the “black and white” law, a play on the fact that so many old black and white movies illustrate seduction with zero consent. The important thing is that it deletes immediately this whole neurotic grey area where a man is either icky or a rapist for seducing a woman in a context with no evidence. It does this by putting the responsibility on women to consider who they spend time with alone.
A woman’s bother-in-law is not considered eligible mahram in traditional Islam, so a woman cannot spend time alone with her husband’s brother. (I must once again sincerely ask: is Islam right about women?)
For chance public encounters, yeah, people don’t even assume their wives and girlfriends outside, so that’s obviously not an issue.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Scott wrote that well but I think he slants the reader’s perception of the device by describing it in biased language. It’s magical, it’s tucked away, the brain mass decreases (?). A story can be written with roughly the same plot except you have a human to guide you and answer questions. Would that still be a fearsome proposition, the existence of wise mentors and teachers and guides and parents? But they are doing the same thing: attempting to optimize your happiness based on what they know, in a given context.
A reply on that blog says that they wouldn’t use the device because they love the freedom of choice like in a good video game. But video games do not give you freedom of choice. They are designed by experts in fun mechanics to give you the right amount of guidance within a finite set of rewarding choices. It’s funny that his go-to example of loving freedom is actually loving a well-designed, consciously-created walled enclosure, in which intelligent designers have predetermined what choices you will make to give you the most satisfaction. Were we to imagine the development of a device that granted optimal happiness, it would have to include the enjoyment of picking, but that’s a trivial design problem to solve (do what video games do).
I’m tempted to say that humans do not actually like freedom ever, in any sense. They are misattributing what they like to the concept of freedom. They like the act of finding and choosing objects from a set of choices, but only with a predetermined set of mostly positive choices that lack real harm (as their prehistoric ancestors would do according to their tradition of eligible foods). They like the act of trying something and anticipating the result, but only in contexts where there is probable gain and no real harm. They like exploring novel spaces, but only when there are enjoyable things to find. These are all confined activities that lack freedom, and they are most satisfying when they have been designed for us.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Maybe: AI would determine which fantasy traps your attention the best (whether game, drama, porn) and then play that in front of your eyes at all times using Character-AI-like persons and a plotline written by AI according to the media you have consumed and enjoyed previously. AI would realistically predict which aural and visual cues have been associated with the most pleasure in your life and then place that into its stimuli, effectively rewriting your memories in the process. We can easily imagine a corporation supplying the idset in exchange for something resembling slave labor.
The prominence of CharacterAI hasn’t been explored enough. Kids are already addicted to chatting with a fake AI persona, something like 20% of google queries are made by CharacterAI already. That’s just text. It won’t be long until it is a visuospatial and aural VR experience.
Fun thought experiment. Would you use a sophisticated AI/VR headset if it did the following? (Pretend concerns of social judgment don’t apply)
-
Told you, at any given moment, the most realistically valuable thing for you to do, from when to eat and exercise, work or rest, stroll through nature or call a friend.
-
Rather then saying a simple “do this”, it shows you two clips of your probable future, one of more enjoyment and one of less, so that you saliently grasp the optimal choice and freely choose it.
-
Warns you against slips, mistakes, and poor habits by showing you a clip of the consequences in your life. When going for a bag of cookies it will briefly show you where that would lead you in VR reality. You may freely choose, but the presentation would be persuasive.
-
On any given work or hobby, it reminds you of your progress with figures and data, shows you everything you have gained as a result to enhance motivation.
-
Biometrically gauges your vigilance level and informs you when you are too stressfully alert or too relaxed.
-
When you are feeling down or defeated, it reminds you which of your actions have lead to that.
-
It may take on the voice and figure of an inspiring tutor for extra motivational salience.
Besides the use case for technology, this is interesting as a metaphor for the superego (or conscience, moral spirit, mindfulness, God, whatever). Everyone’s mind already attempts to do this, with varying degrees of consciousness, maturity, and accuracy. And we already use external tools to help us. Calendars, managerial accountability, peer ranking, reminders of positive experiences, and so on in dozens of ways. Prayer beads for counting one’s blessings (literally) have been independently invented across cultures. Even Video Games have seen an increase in the externalized superego with increasingly externalized measures of progress. The Quake free for all has transformed into the competitive grinding of Call of Duty with leaderboards, ranks, counts, milestones, calendars, etc. Same for running apps. So there appears to be linear progress in the externalization of the superego with AI plausibly perfecting our efforts. The future battle over mankind will be fought between the superego headsets and the id headsets.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
I don’t know how many layers of celestial trolling we have ascended, but (1) that’s a real passage by Bernard, (2) I am situating Bernard in his historical significance, being Dante’s final guide, (3) the Comedy being a creative work does not deny its significance but heightens it, (4) the Comedy is considered one of the greatest works of Catholic writing, (5) it was not written as a political polemic, though it includes aspects of polemic, (6) he had children, ergo was not frustrated, (7) you are probably misunderstanding his relationship with a possibly fictitious Beatrice, (8) I do not care if he was a “misogynistic incel” as this would simply place him in even more legendary creative company.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
I know that in the Catholic tradition, masturbation was seen as a “worse” sin than going to a prostitute because a prostitute was closer to what God intended than masturbation (which lacked the woman part of sex). Aquinas and Augustine defended the legality of prostitution because without it lust would topple society. I know the Taoists believed that if you masturbated you lost vital energy, and so did the Victorians. Not sure about other cultures.
So that’s why it was seen as wrong to masturbate. But did you mean, “why didn’t they become overwhelmed with a desire to masturbate?” Those weren’t pornographied times. You could go months without seeing a woman’s ankles. As for today, I just think high status men have a habit of not masturbating because they are instead fixated on social rewards, like the attention of women, as a primary driver of their elite behavior. If you had two Gaimans and one of them “release valves” himself every night, but the other looks forward to the attention of women acquired through his writings, the latter is going to be be motivated to write harder and faster. So top performing men in a given domain are IMO likely to just not use pornography or masturbate, though I am conjecturing here.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Fine. How about the ever-clairvoyant Saint Bernard, that absolute dog, Dante’s final guide in the highest heaven —
To be always with a woman and not to have sexual relations with her is more difficult than to raise the dead. You cannot do the less difficult; do you think I will believe that you can do what is more difficult?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Outside the church it was also a rule that young people of separate genders do not spend time alone, so the idea was not limited to that institution. Re: the church, if monks believed that they could overcome temptation, surely “avoid obvious temptation” would no longer be necessary? In any case, I think this a typical mind problem. And the problem is exacerbated as lifestyle differences and health increase between elite men and the rest. I am not like Neil Gaiman or Donald Trump but I would hazard a guess that their lifestyle is higher testosterone than the typical Twitter feminist pundit. Socially dominant people have higher testosterone, they are healthier, they are probably less likely to use pornography, they are preselected to ruthlessly pursue social rewards (including women — especially women). I think it’s impossible to conclude it can be resisted unless you’ve been there, and our ancestors who have been there and done that seem to believe it can’t be resisted — hence rules. I can imagine resisting from the comfort of my desk right now but that’s just that, imagining. I am not a tired Neil Straightman returning home from a stressful interview to find a nanny in my bath begging to be spanked (per texts). I can easily imagine that being irresistible and I have a third of their vitality, sorry.
starting from fact that fathers occasionally have daughters.
This isn’t remotely similar, humans also evolve to not find their kin attractive. I think through scent? But yeah, just don’t pull a Woody Allen. Or an Errol Musk.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Seduction laws were much more specific, no? They were applied in cases of misrepresentation or pregnancy usually
The victim had to have been moved “by some promise or artifice, . . . by his flattery or deception.” Likewise consent, or failure to resist, or evidence that “she had previously prostituted herself to the embraces of other men” could be a defense for the man
that “the person seduced must have been previously of chaste character — that she has yet preserved that priceless jewel that is the peculiar badge of the virtuous unmarried female.”
Lewd women, bawds and adventuresses were not welcome in courts, nor were prostitutes or immoral characters.
22 of 37 state laws requiring that the “prosecution must show either a promise of marriage or a feigned or pretended marriage.”
https://time.com/5776805/seduction-law-history/
I agree courting works fine.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
“Happened to be alone” is an exceptional case, not a normative case. So such an exceptional case is unique and would need to be considered uniquely. The rule in traditional societies, from what I recall reading, is that no one would believe a woman regarding rape if the woman by her own volition went off to meet a man. I’m not sure what’s up with the specific nanny allegations. According to Twitter the alleged texted him “I think you need to give me a huge spanking very soon. I'm fucking desperate for my master." So there is more to the story than “happened to be alone”. It certainly throws a wench into the allegations.
monogamy exists and functions
It only ever functioned when there were strict rules about gender mingling. That’s my point. Does it function well today? I don’t know, divorce stats don’t look good. I know that kings were quite promiscuous in European history, because they had the power to override gender mingling rules.
Civilization is about tempering and overcoming the biological imperative
Hard disagree. But it’s interesting that we may have found a key point of divergence. I think civilization is about orienting, redirecting, confining and filtering our instincts. This is probably not very Christian of me, but I do not actually believe that you can overcome the sexual urge except with limited Herculean cognitive effort. The monks had to keep themselves away from women, after all, and yet even Peter Abelard fell for Heloise. The monks would fast and rejoice in their self-control but really their low caloric intake reduce the sexual drive.
Dominant men’ succeed every day in remaining faithful, it is no impossible expectation to believe they can hold themselves back from fucking groupies
Gates, Musk, Bezos, Trump… I really don’t know. I think the ones who succeed are the ones who eschew any context where temptation may arise.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
My rule is preferable because male sexuality is the aggressive risk-taking sexuality. This is evidenced by history and ape studies. Because male sexuality involves more risk-taking, your rule allows women to victimize men by continually inviting men alone who will take the risk. (Men are more likely to meet strange women than vice versa, more likely to swipe on dating apps, etc). My rule makes sense according to human nature: women take less risks and seek for fewer mates and are more cautious, so are less likely to be tricked into being victimized. Your rule gives women even more power, my rule equalizes the power of the genders by requiring the careful gender to expend due care. Ultimately what we want is less total sum victimization and stress. I think every sophisticated civilization from the Middle East to Europe and Asia abided by a rule like this: when determining rape they would consider the conduct of the woman.
you can’t fuck unlimited numbers of young groupies and not risk getting MeToo’d anymore
Well, inform the millions of years of biological equipment that cause the dominant man to be dominant that it needs to turn off its evolutionary engine. That’s the issue. The sexual instinct is stronger and older than the shame instinct. If you devise an unnatural standard you are going to find a lot of violations to the standard. Yelling and shaming a man for doing what a man is designed to do (procure consent of fertile woman, seduce) is ill-conceived. It just makes everyone more stressed. A simple rule can delete that stress efficiently without burdening the legal system.
If you put a 60-year-old man in the room with an attractive 20-year-old woman, the one with all the power is the young woman. She possesses a quality that motivates every male mammal, sexual charm. Given her age, she has greater cognitive flexibility, resilience, and mate choice. The old male is motivated by something so deep in his nature that it evolved before humanity even walked the earth. But the young woman is motivated by vanity, greed, fame, and self-image. By any serious consideration, the young woman has power over the old man. And her motivations are less excusable as they are conscious and vain. The male motivation exists outside the plane of morality, which is why history’s moral teachers do not say “don’t seduce” but “stay away from any context in which you could seduce or be seduced”. That’s the lever of moral control here, well before you are lead into temptation. (Islam is right about women?)
No one in history really conceived of a level of self-control that would permit you to be alone with an attractive young woman for an extended period of time. The most well-trained monk was still barred from being alone with a nun. The absurdity today stems from the typical mind fallacy. Unhealthy men whose sexual drives are damaged or reduced imbue their lack of vigor onto vigorous men. Men with vitality are often successful and successful men often have vitality. So the lacking man mistakes his impotency for self-control, when in fact he experiences 10% of the impulse that the healthy man experiences. It’s like a starved man and a hungry man deliberating cannibalism — it’s no virtue to abstain from the flesh when you’re merely hungry. So we aren’t criticizing immorality here, we are criticizing health and nature, and in an especially dumb and gross way.
The best solution to solve the social neuroticism: you can no longer accuse a man of rape if you willingly spend time with him alone. This solves a vast amount of rape and the only drawback is that a woman can no longer pretend to have a platonic friendship with a “guy friend”.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Absolutely + absolutely; the third question is bit complicated for me — if he did demonstrate a virtue closest to perfection (there’s no one better at universally important skill x) and if I subscribed to the idea of a “general American” pantheon then yes. IMO this is the best use of our instinct to like heroes. Flaws in heroes can then help us to remember the inevitable flaws of all humans (our own Achilles’ Heel). If I could extend the ideal further for no reason, the “special and rare” virtue of the pantheon is social humility, the great untold heroic quality behind every civilization. People love this quality, eg the internet loved when the owner of Arizona Iced Tea talked about purposefully keeping the price a dollar. Now maybe the owner lacks the virtue of prudence but that’s another digression.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
IMO heroes are not quite the issue. The Left has heroes, they are just continually written into and out of the political story. Their heroes come and go like musical productions. Obama was a hero, now he is not, and AOC is a hero for those who “subscribe” to her but one day she won’t be. What the Left doesn’t have is any permanent hero, definitely not any old white ones from the white tradition. I mean… Marx? I don’t know. The parasocial relationship that young left Americans have with Hasanabi is pretty indicative of “hero worship” — watching for hours, imitating, buying merch, as an example.
My apolitical opinion on hero worship is that it’s an essential biological feature of humans that will never go away, because it’s shared social imitation. Ideally we should appreciate the specific virtues of specific heroes and not care about about the rest, and possess a large repertoire of heroes to pull from. For a culture, it’s optimal to have a number of heroes as points of reference in conversation and as stories for the young and as “self-checkups” for our own conduct — that’s kind of what the medieval virtues were all about.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
I imagine the motive here is to further deny the white public from admiring their supremacy in any way. It is a reminder that you can’t have white heroes or stories, not in the foundation of the Republic (what we saw a few years ago) and not even in the misguided women’s rights movement, and certainly not in pseudohistorical entertainment (Bridgerton, Hamilton). You have to let them know that every white achievement is stained in blood and evilness. So to have a musical — the culture of the wealthy liberal base — extol heroic white women is a faux pas that must be balanced by blackening their reputation. Expect an update story and cast in future productions. At least to me this genuinely has the most predictive power for which things are criticized and altered. It’s not actually about purity spiraling, as we know (for instance) that MLK was a pro-rape plagiarist [2]. There won’t seriously be change to the connotation of MLK because of this.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
I’m confused about the coup talk. Because the decision reads
At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."
It is the Government's burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump's alleged attempts to influence the Vice President's oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.
Wouldn’t a coup attempt fall squarely in the non-core function of the President? The Government would then have a trivial time proving that its prosecution does not “pose dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” So the court would find that the coup attempt constitutes a punishable crime.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Rejoice in your heart! Forgetfulness profits you. Follow your heart as long as you live! Put perfume on, dress in fine clothes, clean and adorn yourself like a god. Heap up your happiness, let your heart not sink! Follow your heart and your happiness. Do your things on earth as your heart commands! When there comes to you that day of mourning, no weary-hearted god hears your mourning — wailing saves no man from the pit! Make holiday and do not tire of it! No one is allowed to take his goods with him and none who depart come back again!
Maybe a word or there gives it away, but this is not in fact some 19th century American poet’s life advice (perhaps a Whitman or Emerson), but actually a 4000-year-old poem for an Egyptian tomb — “the Harper’s song”
Way too many successful fat people IMO. Elon, Trump…
Right, but why do you contend that fat people lack motivation to not be fat, when it’s one of the most salient and omnipresent features of their life? There is nothing that should be more clearly motivating than being fit, which hints to a problem beyond motivation and willpower.
But this can be survivorship bias. What do you believe is special about your case that could have been utilized by the average fat American but wasn’t? We have studies on fat people and dieting / exercise regimens that show poor longterm retention.
Okay, but why were you more motivated than the average fat 40 year old who has seen relatives die, or who has received dire prognoses from their doctor? This is why motivation is a “just so” story. There’s no way to empirically validate that those who ameliorate or cure their obesity are, indeed, more motivated. And if could just as easily be something that boils down to (1) exercising is less painful, due to something related to health or microbiome, (2) food is less desirable, due to same reason.
More options
Context Copy link