The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:
-
Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.
-
Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.
-
Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.
-
Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Another test for the Motte:
The Moral Foundations test
I'm listed as being closest to libertarian, which I will admit isn't entirely incorrect, even if I'd prefer to term myself a classical liberal with libertarian tendencies. Ideally I'd prefer a test that broke things down in a more granular manner, but I suppose of the options available here, I can't complain too much it lumped me in with the libertarians.
My results below
/images/1699441366405206.webp
What a frustrating quiz. Is there some reason these are always left so ambiguous? Does Marl give up and close the tab the second he's forced to read more than 50 words in a row? Eg.
I don't think I'm being pedantic here.
This is a flaw of pretty much any poll or quiz, regardless of the nominal goal it seeks, the average person is an attention deficient idiot whose eyes glaze over the moment they spot a caveat in the wild, so everyone is forced to sacrifice clarity for the sake of just getting more responses.
I'm a Bayesian, and I implicitly consider what I think is the most likely/representative scenario. I think the odds of someone serving a shit-cake is far higher if they know they're in an environment where it's not going to make someone puke, and that informed my answer (a solid triple upvote because I'd be mildly tickled at the idea myself, combined with not considering it offensive or worthy of condemnation).
Similarly, I assume the woman euthanizing the puppies isn't being actively malicious, and if they ended up un-adopted in a shelter, most of them would be put down by other means. I imagine the researchers who made the poll were more curious about the visceral gut reaction to the idea of poor little puppies being stoned to death as opposed to trying to tease out more subtle moral considerations, and while I'm a fan of dogs in general, I don't think the scenario I envisioned is condemnable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link