What kinds of behaviors do you want to reinforce? What do you want less of? Is it possible to get more of the good stuff and less of the bad stuff in your current context?

If yes, try it.

If no, I think this is a matter of acceptance. It’s really unfortunate.

PISA results agree with you

Three things that might help:

Shared vulnerability. I’d say this is what you mean with “deep”. Others said it well, if you force it then it’s awkward.

Which brings me to the second thing: progressive self-disclosure. In other words, with each person you meet there’s a set of steps in a staircase. You meet everyone in level one. If you open up a bit and they walk up with you, you can continue going up a bit more and see if they go up with you a bit more. You need to notice where others are: are they visibly comfortable? Are they being enthusiastic about the topic?

The final thing is shared competence. Sometimes, talking “deep” is finding someone who knows the same stuff that you know about and you go on a wild ride, exploring your mental palaces and building new ones throughout the conversation. This also requires going up step by step.

If you’re kind and lucky, you will find people with whom you can have shared vulnerability and people with whom you can have shared competence.

Check out these resources that might help:

• Popular by Mitch Prinstein
• Crucial Conversations

Good.

Sure. We have schemas, or organized thoughts in our memories. Schemas can be molded with our parents, such that we learn “My dad is abusive toward me because I’m a terrible person”. These types of schemas are built even though the child is not responsible at all for their own abuse. But the reality is that many children find it more likely that they are the problem compared to their guardians being the problem.

That same child could have a wonderful teacher in school, someone who is caring, understanding, curious about the child’s interests, and consistent. The child could then learn “I’m safe here with this teacher and unsafe with my own guardians”. That’s how you get different schemas built in different contexts.

You probably know this already, down in your heart. You probably have people that you like to be around, people that are a bit kinder and a bit more consistent than others. And you also probably have people that you don’t like to be around, people that are unkind and inconsistent.

If you want to learn more about this contextual way of looking at attachment styles, you can check out Piaget’s schema theory and contextual behavioral sciences.

Humans, like mammals, like it when we belong. This is pre-verbal and pre-cultural, in the sense that all babies feel good when someone sees them with kind eyes and feel bad when they’re left alone.

However, on top of these pre-verbal drives, we learn about the world through our experience and our thoughts. If our guardians are kind and consistent, we learn to expect that and we ourselves become kind and consistent. If our parents are unkind and inconsistent, we learn that.

By the time we become adults, we bring many of those learnings into relationships. We may be kind and consistent with our partners. Or we may be unkind and inconsistent.

As with many things, we can change. In fact, you can have one attachment style in one context and another attachment style in another context. This depends on the specific schemas or thoughts and experiences that you have.

Midgley’s Ethical Primate changed my life.

So did Hayes’ A Liberated Mind.

So did Welzel’s Freedom Rising.

Currently reading Archer’s Explicit Instruction and Groshell’s Just Tell Them.

I agree that time is part of the equation, but the equation is actually larger:

• time + expectation to do something by X time + inability to make that happen + other variables

Which ones? I don’t.

Gotten anything positive out of interacting with other users?

You bet. All the time!

I feel belonging. In addition, whenever someone tells me they find what I say helpful, it feels great!

I think Lemmy also helps me calibrate my sensors that sense the world. I know what software’s doing well, what software’s not doing so well, and what software is complex.

I get what you’re saying, in that we should take care of ourselves to have capable bodies and minds. However, consuming as much literature as possible seems like learning by coverage, which is worth examining.

Learning by coverage is usually done in contexts where there’s pressure to learn a lot in very little time. For example, this happens to teachers when they’re expected to teach for a test. But the research on this is clear: teaching by coverage results in disconnected, useless knowledge. It ironically results in abysmal test performance.

So what’s the alternative? Learning for understanding and transfer. When someone learns this way, they perform well in novel tasks. They become experts. They are more creative. They feel the thrill of knowing and being competent.

I take this to mean that we shouldn’t aim for consuming as much literature as possible. I take this to mean that we should aim for understanding and transfer.

It sounds as if you think good quality of life is more likely in unequal contexts. However, have you seen the evidence on this? Do you know what the quality of life is in countries that are unequal versus those that are more equal? Have you seen the evidence from something like The Spirit Level?

Here’s an index that represents quality of life mapped against inequality:

Which societies have better quality of life? The unequal ones?

What a great drawing

Your next glasses should have a very thin frame

Or they can still have a thick frame but have them be transparent

Sure. I’ll tell you what I understand, but I’d suggest checking what I say against Girard’s videos themselves.

Anyway, his approach involves supporting your lower back. In a way, it’s almost as if your chair’s back is exclusively there to support your lower back.

Notice that, in this approach, your upper back is not supported by your chair. That means that you have to engage your core and back muscles to support your upper back and your shoulders and head. That is why sitting for long can get tiring and at some point is simply impossible.

Depending on your chair, you might be able to easily lay back, almost as if your chair was a bed. This is fine if you are not typing or using your desk. But I think Girard generally favors the sitting up straight and using your muscles.

I messed up my back years ago. Sometimes I work sitting down for hours. Here’s how I’ve managed:

• Physical therapy and Gold Medal Bodies to learn how to move and strengthen what needs to be strong
• Watching and following Olivier Girard videos. His approach requires naturally using certain muscles while sitting, so maybe this won’t work for everyone. His approach also means that breaks are a must. I cannot sit for too long. Every half-an-hour or so I get up and move.
• Getting good enough chairs and desks. I followed Girard’s guide to buying chairs and desks. This means I can sometimes work for more than half-an-hour straight by lifting my desk so that I can work standing.

Hope this helps! And best of luck with your back

THIS.

Lots of other comments talk about economic hardship. Yes, that’s part of the story, but there are very wealthy people in very wealthy countries who don’t have children. And there also are very poor people in very poor countries who have lots of children.

I guess the question I would ask is:

• If economic hardship is your theory, why do very poor people in very poor countries have lots of children?

So the story is not entirely about money. It’s also about the factors you mentioned.

It’s alright.

I think I see where the confusion started.

I was referring to @CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de’s comment (where they say “I’ve blocked that instance.”) and you were referring to OP (who hasn’t said they blocked .ml).

Does that sound right?

Oh this is actually eye-opening. Thanks for explaining it. Had no idea.

It still feels sad and frustrating, but it feels a little less sad and a little less frustrating

And umm yeah nice to meet you

To see where we’re all standing, I agree that my comment doesn’t answer the question.

Here’s my answer: I do not identify myself with the characterization of .ML as mindlessly supporting States that are not democratic. Instead, I (a member of .ml) fundamentally believe in the creation of human capabilities for humans to be free to choose how to live their life.

Some of the ways we build capabilities in humans are well understood: clean water, access to preventive medicine, access to education, access to networks like cosmopolitan cities or the internet.

I don’t assume the world is linear and teleological. Therefore, I don’t assume human development has to happen a certain, pre-specified, linear way. Instead, I assume the world is complex. Therefore, we need to constantly probe the world and ask “How do we get more capability-bolstering and less capability-undermining?”

If you want to label me, I think complexity science-aware and human development proponent fits.

As to making up what another person said, I’m not really following. Could you specify what you mean? The other person said they blocked my instance, and I played with that implication. I guess I missed something, but I can’t really see it.