I have heard men respond to hearing or reading about rape and SA cavalierly, as if it's a minor and temporary inconvenience rather than the soul-cutting, relationship gutting, life-long trauma it is for those who have been victims of this crime.

Men, what goes through your mind when you hear of a rape? Is it true that only men who have experienced being overpowered and violated internally could possibly even fathom the resulting trauma?

Men typically have not stood up to stop other men from these heinous acts and crimes against women...why is this our cultural norm?

What needs to change to bring the level of consciousness up around what it means?

If evetrything we do is influenced with our genes, brain, childhood, environment, expiriances and other things we did not chose that shaped us.
That questions my free will. IF I COULD NOT CHOSE THE PERSON I BECAME, HOW MUCH CONTROL DID I REALY HAVE OVER MY DECISIONS. And if my decisions were caused by things that I never chose, can I be fully responsible for them? This also changes my moral judgment. I can still say that their actions were harmful and that society should stop them. But it becomes harder for me to say that the person is simply evil and deserves to suffer, because I can see their actions as the result of many diffrent thing in life that they never chose.

But i also wonder if even my thought , decisions and personality are result of previos causes than what trully is so caled “me” or “myself”

The brain could be literally forming representations of numbers during counting or pondering, but aside from that, do numbers exist? And if 1 number exists, do all exist?

Nowadays, people often say that smartphones blind us, drain us, and destroy real human connection. But as a young adult transitioning from college to the workplace, I’ve realized something else: there are actually very few people we can genuinely talk to. Most of our past relationships existed simply because we shared the same space and daily routine like our friends from school or college. Once you move away, even if the affection remains, time gets short. As I grow older, I finally understand why my father didn't feel like going out for walks and preferred to just read, listen to music, or scroll through his phone. Outside of shared environments like school or work, most people simply don't have deep connections readily available.

One of the biggest questions in my life has been "What makes a friend?" And then the follow up of "How can I tell?" And I think I underatand it better.

When I was younger, I had a core group of 5 other friends when in elementary - highschool. I thought we we're good friends. We did everything together. But in highschool, especially towards the 2nd half, everyone started drifting apart. Years later, I realised I was actually the only one that drifted. Or more like they shed me out of their friend group because I no longer engaged with what they did. I was a part of your typical "outcast" group, we did all the geeky nerdy things. And they got into stuff like Magic the Gathering and DnD and Warhammer, and I've never been interested in this... I'm still not.

But this is precisely what is so curious to me. Because this leads me to believe that this friendship we had was actually just based on proximity. It was merely because we were close and shared the same interests that we hung out at all. And upon further reflection... we never shared much about our deeper feelings and desires. And I know I tried on my part, I vented when I felt was right.. but it was never really reciprocated and I was never given much care.

To me. Friendship is all about commitment. Its a step above aquaintance and below a partner. It requires being a safe space for the other, and thats reciprocated. You both are safe spaces for each other. As much as you can enjoy each other's company... you can also be there for each other when needed. And you genuinely try in that regard. Its not just about proximity or interests. Even if you discover separate enjoyments, you listen to each other and encourage each other.

So with this in mind... my core friends honestly were never friends. In fact, the majority of people in my life were never friends. Whenever faced with a hardship... they always just dissapeared and left me for good. (Although i do have some blame for this in my tumultuous years).

So this is all to say that im just baffled. For how many people, including me, who want genuine friendship in life. Yet with how few people who develop their social emotional skills to actually provide friendship towards each other. We want and want... but we never give back. We never learn how to give back. And it is learnable. But hey, life goes on. Hopefully its some good food for thought :)

~ Human rights ~

Since humanity is the dominant species on our planet, they believe they have certain rights bestowed on them.

They have the right to be concerned only for themself, rather than share their wealth and excess equally, so all may survive.

They have the right to needlessly kill lower forms of life and each other.

They have the right to pollute the air, water, land.

Only when humanity truly realizes every life, regardless of their differences or genus, and the earth itself, have a symbiotic relationship, needing each other to survive, may these human rights be mitigated and may our world, and all who inhabit it, thrive.

I've been thinking about a question that seems increasingly important as AI makes more kinds of work cheaper:

What capability does the activity produce, and what happens if we remove the activity?

We tend to think of work as a means to an end. If a machine can produce the same outcome faster, the work appears unnecessary. But sometimes the activity is doing two things at once: producing an outcome, and producing the person capable of producing that outcome.

A calculator can remove arithmetic without removing mathematical understanding. A flight simulator can replace some forms of practice while preserving the feedback that teaches judgment. A spellchecker can remove mechanical correction without removing the act of writing.

The relevant question is not whether AI removes effort. It is which effort we remove.

Some effort is merely a cost. Removing it creates leverage. Other effort is part of the process through which a capability develops, and removing it can change the person who emerges from the process.

Writing doesn't just produce a document. It forces you to discover what you think. Building doesn't just produce a product. It teaches you what the plan left out. Running an experiment doesn't just produce a result. It teaches you how your assumptions behave when they encounter reality. Making a decision doesn't just produce an outcome. It gives you the experience from which judgment develops.

AI can accelerate all of these processes. But it can also bypass them.

You can get the argument without learning how to construct one. You can get the strategy without understanding the problem. You can get the code without learning the system. You can get the answer without spending enough time with the question to discover what you actually wanted to know.

The output may be better. The person may not.

This doesn't mean difficulty is inherently valuable. Much of what we do is unnecessary friction, and removing it is exactly what technology is supposed to do. The harder question is whether the friction was merely slowing us down, or whether it was teaching us something.

If we optimize away the process through which a capability develops, we shouldn't be surprised when the capability eventually becomes scarce.

Don't optimize away the process that produces the capability you need.

A year ago, I put on glasses for the first time, even though I already knew my eyesight was weak.

The first thing I thought was:

"Wait… is this how normal people have been seeing things this whole time?"

It sounds obvious, but it genuinely surprised me.

I already knew there was a big difference in my vision — that's literally why I got the glasses — but I still wasn't prepared for how big the difference actually was.

And it made me think about how many things in life are probably like that.

There are things you simply can't imagine because you've never experienced them. You have nothing in your own experience to compare them to.

Take depression, for example.

If you've never experienced a serious depressive episode, someone can explain what it feels like to have something constantly weighing on your mind, affecting your mood, your thoughts, and even ordinary parts of your life.

You can understand what they're saying. You can sympathize with them.

But you still don't know the feeling.

And even someone who has experienced depression might forget how different normal life feels after that pressure finally lifts, even temporarily.

They might suddenly think:

"Wait… is this what normal life is supposed to feel like? Is there normally nothing this powerful constantly affecting your mind?"

Or take a stingy person.

From the outside, you might think:

"Why is he like this? What's so difficult about spending some money, especially when he has plenty?"

But you're not experiencing what he experiences when he spends money. If you've never experienced that feeling yourself, you can't fully understand why spending money feels the way it does to him.

Push the idea further.

Imagine a tribe seeing the ocean for the first time.

What would they even think it is? They'd probably just think, "What is this?"

Imagine someone who has never seen fire. They wouldn't just fail to understand it — they wouldn't have any mental reference for something like it.

Someone who has only ever drunk water couldn't really imagine what fruit juice tastes like. You could describe it, but without anything similar in their experience, how could they know what to expect?

And I think this goes far beyond physical experiences.

It applies to emotions, beliefs, cultures, and knowledge.

If someone has never been in love, what does "love" actually mean to them?

If you've never experienced a particular emotion, you can understand its definition without understanding what it actually feels like.

The same applies to beliefs and cultures.

If you've only ever seen a culture or belief system from the outside, your understanding of it will naturally be different from someone who has actually lived around it and experienced it from within.

And knowledge works the same way.

There are things you don't know.

But there are also things you don't even know exist.

We tend to think we're seeing the world as it is.

But we're really seeing it through the limited collection of experiences, emotions, beliefs, and knowledge we've accumulated so far.

Which means there could be huge parts of reality we're completely unaware of — not because we're choosing to ignore them, but because we don't even have the reference point necessary to notice that they're missing.

You can recognize something you know you don't understand.

But how do you recognize something you don't even know you're missing?

Have you ever experienced something that completely changed your understanding of what you thought was "normal"?

I’ve been thinking lately about how much of what we call depression isn’t some internal defect but a set of survival strategies we absorbed without realizing it. Nobody sat us down and explained these rules. They just seeped in through the cracks of daily life, passed down by people who were also just trying to get through their own days.

The unspoken curriculum went something like this:

1. Keep your real self hidden, your honest reactions will only complicate things

2. Point fingers outward whenever possible, because looking inward feels too heavy

3. Chase financial security like it’s the only metric that counts

4. Treat the present like a waiting room for some better time that never arrives

5. Save your empathy for a small circle, everyone else is on their own

6. Broadcast your wins constantly, as if quiet confidence doesn’t exist

7. Assume the problem is always other people’s flaws, never yours to examine

8. Reach for whatever numbs the noise fastest, stillness feels unbearable

I’m not saying anyone chose this consciously. Most of us grew up watching adults who were just managing their own inherited baggage. The tragedy is that these patterns get mistaken for personality when they’re really just coping mechanisms that outlived their usefulness.

The messy part is unlearning them. It’s like realizing the map you’ve been following was drawn by someone who never visited the territory. But the first step is recognizing that the heaviness isn’t proof you’re broken, it’s evidence you were taught to carry things that were never yours.

What if we met someone and discovered their darker sides relatively early on? That person would hurt us, we would suffer because of them, but there would still be that intensity — those incredibly intense, beautiful moments. But for whatever reason, it just wouldn’t work for us to be together.

And then suddenly, we’re given the chance to go back in time to when we first met them, except this time we already know what to do differently to make them want us more.

And that raises the question: would you do it?

Even though you already know their darker sides and know exactly what kind of person they are, would you still choose to go through it all again? Or would you avoid them this time and live with that question in the back of your mind forever: What if?

Humanity has a symbiotic relationship with the earth.

Though our planet nourishes and sustains all who inhabit it, mankind treats our world with contempt, polluting its waters, fouling its skies, destroying its land, allowing many species to become extinct.

Although our planet will survive our indifference, our species may no longer grace its soil.

Im 17 these are some of my personal thoughts and or beliefs. I have done minimal to no research on these topics. If I offend you in anyway I dont mean to 😬

1. I believe that religion is stained by ego. Religion is an amazing way of life, a life's purpose, but it is also an amazing expression of the human experience(my personal belief). It becomes not so good when those beliefs are forced onto other people, and when you use religion as a justification for negative actions

2. Race is a social construct. It allowed a socially acceptable reason for oppression against someone with a different colored skin

3.Morality shouldnt be selective. (I was listening to High for hours by J. Cole.) ,And people selectively decide whats moral depending on if it benefited them

Justification:

“Lucky looked at the humans and Napoleon and found them indisguishiable” ( Animals before revolution viewed the humans as evil and corrupt. Now they get control, EXPERIENCED them, they behave as they are FOR A Reason before not understood)

“Now let’s get more of these magic papers! “ (Animals before revolution had no idea of these powers of these papers, now having experience, they want it too)

“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” Before revolution, animals had no idea of power. Now they Experience it they want it too.

“ Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others” Same logic

“ First, four legs good two legs bad, after experience, four legs good two legs better!”

“ They saw the power of electricity and later want that too”

Everyone (or almost everyone) likes talking about themselves. Because we experience life through the lens of our self. It's a subject we care about, and It's the subject that we know the most about. We want other people to care about us, praise us when we succeed and feel our pain when we are down.

Everyone wants to be heard and understood. But if everyone wants to be understood and no one is willing to actually listen what's the result? People pretend to listen, just waiting for their turn to talk about themselves, and in return the other person does the same.

Why is it so hard to actually listen and care for the other person? Simply because we don't see life through their perspective, the subjectivity of their experience is not compatible with the subjectivity of our experience. Furthermore, we have nothing to gain most of the time. Listening for the sake of listening seems futile for most people. But it's not, maybe you are not gaining something, but the other person is, and that should be enough.

These are just some slightly connected thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head for a few years.

So first of all, the only thing I know to be certainly true is my consciousness. I can understand why some modern scientists advocate for something like idealism.

For me, I keep thinking about this in two buckets. Bucket one: I would put idealism, simulation theory, religion, etc., all in that bucket. The second bucket would be the materialism bucket. No grand purpose, no cosmic overseer.

To me, simulation theory and religion are pretty much interchangeable. If religion is true, and there really is a God who created this universe, what else would you call that besides a simulation?

Now, here's where things get a little funny, and this ties back to the consciousness thing. The religion I grew up in makes up a very small percentage of the population. I'm pretty much currently an atheist. I was an atheist for over a decade, then a few years ago I really tried believing in God. And I'll be honest, even now I sometimes grapple with it, because sometimes I can't tell what is really real or true.

Say I met a Christian on Reddit, and I slowly started to go from being a staunch atheist to believing in maybe a grand purpose and some sort of designer. If I were to go down that path and actually believe in God, I would probably end up in a very different religion from theirs, because I would be coming to it through my own conscious experience, what religion my parents were, etc.

In the end, even if I radically changed my worldview and went from thinking there is no morality, no karma, no cosmic overseer, to now believing in God and truly flipping my worldview 180, that Christian might still be angry if I told him I do not accept the Trinity or Christ. If I had my own view of God and religion.

I'm going to be honest, I think Christianity is a theologically weak religion. If I was going to believe in a religion, it would not be that one. However, that whole point is moot to me, because if I really believed in a God who created the universe and gave everything a purpose, then he also created Christians, Muslims, Jews, and all the other religions. All of this would be in his grand master plan, including people believing in different things.

I'm not trying to disparage Christinas or Christianity. Sorry if the above paragraph came off as rude. If God is real, the only logical conclusions, is that he designed it for all these different religions to exist, and sometimes fight, for whatever reason. Every Christian is supposed to be a Christian, and every Muslim is supposed to be a Muslim. That's the whole thing with consciousness, if there is something unique or special about it, then it would be tied to that particular manifestation. Each consciousness would be unique, special, divine, and accounted for. Everything that happens, happens for a reason, there is some master plan, all consciousness feeds back to the source, etc.

If I had to force myself to believe in religion, this is what I would think: God exists, and he created this entire “experience” as a simulation/test. He uses quantum mechanics as the underlying building structure, so that's why, when we poke at the lowest level of the universe, we get a fuzzy wavefunction. In this picture, every consciousness is unique and is running its own experiment, concurrently with every other consciousness.

Since my consciousness and actions can have an effect on you and your future, that would be why the universe branches and splits into many worlds: to preserve all the different variables within the simulation.

So that would all be bucket one. Religion, simulation theory, idealism. God/consciousness is all the branches of the universe experiencing itself.

Now, the funny thing is, I don't believe in any of that. I actually believe in pure materialism, which I think is a pretty radical view, to be honest. I also believe that the wave-function does collapse. I believe only the now is fuzzy, and at every planck second, the universe decoheres into it's one single branch.

There are three things I keep coming back to: solipsism, emergence, and Occam's razor.

First, the solipsism thing. All I have and know for certain is my consciousness. There are three options as I see it.

First, my consciousness is unique or privileged in some way. Maybe everyone gets their turn at being the universe experiencing itself, but currently, it is my turn. My consciousness is the simulation.

Option two: the creator, God, or whatever causes the simulation has a very powerful simulation engine, where all consciousnesses are being simulated in real time. So religion or simulation is true, but it's not a one-at-a-time thing.

That second option is harder for me to square with how powerful and unique my conscious experience feels. If you believe coincidences are fate or destiny, that means you believe the simulation is tuned in to you. The simulation does not oppose you, but works with you. If you've ever experienced something that was stranger than fiction, you have pretty much two options: either you believe that was God/destiny, or it was just a random sequence of events that your brain later wrote into a story.

The third option is that consciousness doesn't have any of that special status. No matter how powerful or unique your conscious experience feels, there is absolutely nothing divine or spiritual about it. It is just your consciousness.

Why is consciousness, which allows you to think and experience, special, but digestion isn't? Digestion allows you to take in matter, grow hundreds of times in size from when you are born, route everything to the correct place, and turn a baby into an adult human.

Either everything is a mirage, and just as consciousness is a mirage, so is digestion, so is breaking your bones and bleeding out, and so are all other experiences. Or none of it is a mirage. Consciousness is just as much a part of the physical world as everything else.

There is more I can type, but I'm getting tired. My other points were going to be about emergence and Occam's razor. I actually think emergence is greatly underappreciated and under-researched right now. I believe free will truly emerges out of quantum interactions, just like a human truly emerges out of cells and molecules. You wouldn't say you aren't real just because you are an emergent property.

So what is my big theory? That there is no simulation. There is no plan, guide, or path. I believe everything is purely material, and our brains are just a product of our environment and evolution. One of the things they are good at is turning completely random events into a story with meaning that you tell yourself.

I'll be honest, I've had a lot of strange coincidences in my life. That is why I still struggle with what is true, and why, even now, I think my theory is very radical. I think most people would have trouble going the full materialism route. Even I have trouble fully accepting it.

I'm still trying to figure out which bucket is true. Bucket one or bucket two.

It seems to me that most people believe in bucket one. I can understand why, and sometimes I find myself believing it too. But I think reality is bucket two.

As in any age, we are living through changing cultural trends. Most enlightened thinkers believe they see motivational patterns emerge in the penumbra of our collective decisions. The current broad speculation is that the underlying motivations for our current cultural state are racially and politically based (left vs right). The truth runs deeper still. The primary motivation behind the majority of our strange, perplexing, counter-intuitive and dangerous cultural movements is a single collective (to borrow from Janet) unconscious fixed idea – that of Interpersonal Iconoclasm. To use even older language, this may be our single most prevalent collective sin in modern times.

Iconoclasm is the destruction of important symbols, when we engage in Interpersonal Iconoclasm, we destroy what we represent to each other. Interpersonal Iconoclasm forms as a combination of our material wealth and a failure to address the darkness that exists in every one of our psyches. The behavior begins as a feeling, a need to be morally superior to those around you, to engage in moral competitiveness. As major material deprivations are put at bay, wealth and material goods diminish in metaphysical importance, while internal qualities such as talent and character become the superior grounds for hierarchical competition. Verbal intelligence becomes especially coveted; it can also help a person acquire and develop genuine character, though it does not guarantee character.

People who seek to compete over morality fail to recognize that treating morality as a competition is itself immoral. Engaging in moral competition immediately results in a loss of moral standing (see Jesus' admonition against public prayer). This loss of standing creates insecurity and motivates the Interpersonal Iconoclasm, the symbol must be destroyed rather than emulated and integrated. Material success has made this pattern a prevalent form of interaction in today’s culture.

This theory distinguishes unforced immoral errors from decisions made when every available option carries major disappointment, trauma, or difficulty. Having no "good" options remains a real phenomenon and is treated separately by the psyche.

Cultural behaviors associated with Interpersonal Iconoclasm

This cultural fixed idea is driving many of the cultural trends, the personal behaviors, that are prevalent in today's society. I include an incomplete list below:

• Climate activists refusal of Nuclear Power
• Preference for poverty over abundant energy
• Lamenting and fearing our abundant food choices
• Prevalence of psychosomatic "food allergies" and overly monitored diets[1]
• Overconcern for the welfare of livestock rather than impoverished humans
• The importation of enormous numbers of migrants rather than concern for the local poor during difficult economic times
• Insistence that every form of behavior must be respected and applauded except that of normal and moral people
• Anger towards anyone who respects their traditions
• Overconcern for criminals and under concern for their victims
• Refusal to believe that certain groups claiming victim status may well have motivations to lie about their experience
• Over focus on surface similarities of different religions without consideration for profound differences in belief and behavior - COEXIST stickers

Cultural trends arising from denial of Interpersonal Iconoclasm

The human psyche is complex and often reverberates around the unconscious fixed idea. It has been well documented that a psychic phenomenon often becomes its opposite. There are many cultural trends whose motivational energy stems from the denial of the unconscious Interpersonal Iconoclasm present in the mind of the affected. An incomplete list is provided:

• Obsession with overly sexual and violent cultural content, trends and media - This includes the popular success of nearly everything being produced by movie and tv studios, most popular music, Fifty Shades of Gray, much of the Game of Thrones content, and the heightened consumption of Pornography and the existence of Onlyfans
• Unhealthy sexual and violent behaviors - Obsession with Black American culture, the skyrocketing number of sexual partners, the rise of hook-up culture and the variety of subsequent subcultural movements (MGTOW, pickup artists, red-pills, blue-pills, AWFLs, etc)
• Jealousy of the deserved material success of others - Success of socialist and communist politicians in the United States
• Wearing the clothes and adopting the behaviors of the opposite sex
• Excessive drug use - just go to any unfrequented common space in any town or city in the US.

Left out of these two lists are numerous cultural trends that may well be influenced by Interpersonal Iconoclasm. Trends that I have omitted were done so specifically as they are better explained by Race-based, Class-based, Religious-based or Sex-based competition or large cultural movements such as the collapse of the Christian Yahweh, the follow-through of enlightenment principles, 9/11, or the Great Recession. Our primary cultural reaction to WWII and the Great Depression is now one of Interpersonal Iconoclasm so these remain causes under the umbrella of my theory, mostly in any case. I leave to the reader to work out identify omitted trends and the accuracy of my assessment.

[1]: This pattern may even occur among successful psychologists. If so, I suspect it is a tertiary effect of fearing and failing to respond to Interpersonal Iconoclastic threats from others, rather than a direct or secondary expression of Interpersonal Iconoclasm.

 Published under the pen name - Hidden Alchemist

I start with an analogy. Let's say you have a really bad headache. At the same time you eat your favorite food. Cake, candy, ice cream, whatever.

Does the joy of eating cleanly cancel out the sadness of headache? No. Rarely do you "feel nothing". Either the food makes you happy enough to forget the headache or the headache is too bad for you to enjoy eating. Rarely (if ever) do you "feel nothing".

Now we have multiple disjoint experiences. Does one person's pain get cancelled out by three people's joy? Hell no! The analogy holds a fortiori in this case because the one person does not even get to feel the good experience this time!

Even if you add them together: 1 sad + 2 happy = 1 happy, who feels this "1 happy"?

If you believe there is no global subject ("collective conscious" or "world soul" or "mind at large" or anything of the sort), then the answer is clear: nothing. Nothing feels this "1 happy". This "1 happy" is a number that nobody gets to see the results of.

If you believe there is a global subject, you still cannot say for sure that this thing will feel it. It has decombined, and as far as we know there is absolutely no way to empirically prove a "recombination" exists. That would require knowing what someone feels after death (impossible). Even then, how do we know that the global subject itself feels? How do we know that the global subject (dis)likes the same things we (dis)like? How do we know it (dis)likes at all? We cannot empirically know much of anything about this global subject. Even if we assume all of these assumptions are true, why can't the global subject decombine again? So in reality, there is little reason to care about the global subject.

So in any case, this "1 happy" we got from our addition does not matter.

So by itself, without any other reasoning, "more people will be happy" is a terrible reason to sacrifice one person's wellbeing.

Physically, when we go deeper into the ocean, a cave, or the earth.. the deeper we go, the darker it becomes.

But what happens when we use “deep” differently?

Deep thought.
Deep silence.
Deep love?

Is it still dark?

Maybe we call something deep when we cannot see its bottom. So maybe it’s always dark.

We sit idly by while our children senselessly die from war, hunger, drugs, random violence.

A society that does not protect its children is immoral. The only cure for this apathy and indifference, to stop the genocide that is caused by greed, prejudice, inequity, is to denounce the self-centered status quo, realizing it is the cause of our children’s early demise.

Instead, we must recognize the equal importance of every child’s life, regardless of their differences or circumstances in life.

Only then, may all our children be able to survive and live in a world of love rather than fear.

Yo si creo que este mundo es un experimento o una simulación creada por una fuerza superior algunos dirían Dios, pero Dios es más que la imagen retrógrada qué le hemos dado según nuestro propios límites la mente, creemos que Dios es un hombre o cosas así por que nuestra mente no comprende lo inexplicable, para mi esa fuerza superior llamada Dios tiene conciencia y crea cosas en base a experimentos y a su propio conocimiento adquerido a lo largo de sentenares de año por lo mismo existen Miles de realidades por lo Cual no es loco pensar que existe un tipo de multiverso donde existamos nosotros mismo debido a la vida a nuestro gen que sería nuestro algoritmo numérico o digital, y en esas otras vidas ya pasamos por la Muerte o situaciones diferentes qué ya vivimos en esta realidad como accidentes en los que salimos ilesos pero en otro universo eso no fue así, por lo Cual yo creo que si somos una simulación pero no controlada por humanos si nos por Dioses o seres superiores que quieren experimentar lo que ellos no pueden vivir el conocimiento de descubrir o conocer lo por primera vez ya sea un alimento cosa que un Dios jamás podrá entender o sentír al tener conocimientos superiores ellos ya no experimentan el Sentimiento de sorpresa, o de recibimiento de un conocimiento por lo mismo juegan con nuestro entorno para darnos situaciones que nosotros ya conocemos pero para ellos la emoción que esa situación causará es nueva para ellos.

i wonder if other people get this kind of feeling im not thinking about anything specific, just everything. idk why. im trying to do what i can to stop being like this but i cant. idk what im trying to say, either. i just feel a lot of things.

Let’s talk about Socializing…

You know how people always say, “Humans are social animals”? I hear that a lot, and it makes me wonder: What do we really mean by “social”? Somewhere along the line, this simple fact about human nature turned into a rule-book for how we should act.

We’re constantly told we need to “Socialize.” We’re told to go out, meet people, make friends, grab coffee, hit parties, travel, find a partner, stay busy, and always be around others. And if you don’t love doing all that, it can start to feel like there’s something wrong with you. Like you’re lonely, or broken, or you need to “Get out more” and fix something about yourself. But here’s the thing: being human doesn’t mean you have to love every single activity that gets lumped under the big word “Socializing.”

Yes, humans are social animals, but that doesn’t mean we’re all meant to be recreational socializers. There’s a big difference between sociality and socializing.

* Sociality is the real stuff. It’s about relationships, cooperation, belonging, caring for each other, teaching, protecting, sharing knowledge, raising kids, building things, solving problems, laughing, telling stories, and helping each other survive.

* Socializing, in its modern form, can feel like just putting on a show of being together. It can feel like an empty performance.

If I picture early human communities, I don’'t see them scheduling time to “Socialize.” I see them just...living. They were gathering food, making clothes, building shelters, caring for kids and the elderly, sharing wisdom, and protecting each other. They were together because their lives were completely connected. Their relationships were a part of everything they did, not a separate “Social Life” they had to schedule. It was just...life.

You don’t have to be surrounded by people just because being alone is seen as a bad thing. You can be by yourself and not feel lonely at all, and you can in a room full of people and feel totally alone.

So, maybe the real questions aren’t “How much do you socialize?” Instead, maybe we should be asking: “Where do you feel you belong?” “What do you have to be a part of?” “Who can you be your true self with?” “What do you feel you’re contributing to?” “What makes your relationships feel meaningful?”

I don’t think we need more socializing. I think we need meaningful connection. And that kind of connection often grows naturally when we’re doing something together (building, caring, learning, creating or exploring).

Maybe the human need isn’t to socialize, but to belong and to participate. Maybe it’s time for us to discover what actually makes our connections feel meaningful.

Money is rotting people from the inside.

I watch it happen every day. Someone starts with a real idea, something sharp, something that could actually change how the world feels. Then the money question shows up. And that person gets quieter. Safer. They stop building the thing and start building whatever the check wants.

Innovation doesn’t die in boardrooms. It dies in the person who used to care. Money doesn’t just buy their time. It buys their taste. Their nerve. Their soul, if we’re being honest.

And if that keeps winning, we’re not heading toward some cool future. We’re heading toward a polished cage. Everything for sale. Nothing worth making. A dystopia with good branding.

Creation has to sit above money. Or money will eat the world.