I don’t know man, I’m reasonably certain I’m not the only person without blood on their monitor

Fake: no blood on the monitor

Gay: why protest/focus-on “many cases” of short-tempered, thin wristed men if not out of the desire for a yandere twink boyfriend? I mean that’s what we’re all thinking about right? …right?

Fake: anon has girlfriend

Gay: motivated by sticks

Correct, if you’re born without the genes for legs you’ll likely be short lol

The issue with IQ is that human brains are incredibly diverse and even people with major differences (like that recent story about that guy who’s brain volume was actually mostly just a huge pocket of water) who can still function normally.

If you start going down the route of designer babies you likely will eliminate a lot of diseases, but if you start playing the designed intelligence path, you’re going to stop giving birth to people who think differently. You’ll lose opportunities for genius, and you might create a subset of the population that are all now vulnerable to specific neurological diseases or disorders or manipulations.

Epigenetics will likely still give you a lot of diversity, but this probably going to backfire. Imagine a kid who’s parent paid to make sure he had “smart” genes but he’s not living up to those expectations. Now imagine hundreds of them. You’re not just a disappointment you’re literally below the supposed standard of your genes. I don’t think those kids will live happy lives…

There’s also the issue of capitalists just using this BS to claim they are better than everyone because they could afford a stupid medical procedurebecause they have better genes than everyone.

The last major issue is that this will greatly increase the idea of the “fixed mindset.” “Oh I was just born to dumb to do math.” “You’re just good at x because you were born talented”. Etc.

Guess what, science shows that isn’t the case. In fact if you tell people they are just smart or dumb by nature it kind of makes everyone stupid because they are less likely to try new things or learn new skills etc. and when you tell people they aren’t limited by their genes, basically everyone does better and those who may not get the hang of things as quickly as others are able to catch up and/or exceed them.

Your intelligence is not set by your genes or even your brain to a certain extent. Can you admit when you’re wrong? Congratulations all you have to do is be curious and you’re capable of surpassing the intelligence of anyone who can’t.

The good news is that IQ is (first off just bullshit mostly) correlated with education level of the surrounding population implying it isn’t genetic much at all but a product of learning and having access to good education.

Bad news is that people believe eugenics bullshit and don’t like listening to reason.

The only one of these claims that genetics might legitimately correlate with directly is height, but even that has been shown to be dependent on diet with impoverished nations having lower heights or seeing the average height increase as the country develops.

As in “what the fuck is even going on here?”: Serial Experiments Lain.

You know how it’s super depressing that the stars will eventually get so distant that you won’t be able to see any of them so beings born in the far future might never get to look up at the stars and instead think they are entirely alone in the universe? The implications are that that no longer happens.

Thankfully I’m slightly shorter than that, but not by enough that there are many women as tall or taller than me. I think the z-score of a girl in America being as tall as me is like 3.9, so only approximately 0.004% of women are as tall or taller than me.

If you’re over 2.1m you have my sympathies

But I want a very tall person to cuddle with me so that I can feel smol :(

Bertrand Russell? As in the mathematician who wrote Principia Mathematica? Damn my respect for him has grown guess I should read some of his philosophical work

Okay I can’t say I wouldn’t like but I guess I really just wish someone much larger than me would cuddle with me so that I could feel small I guess or like protected? Idk it’s hard to explain

I’m not sure it’s really spooning if she can’t bend at the hips because the end of my back is far below them and basically at the height of her knees. Not sure having to lay down completely straight is a comfortable position lol

I suppose a short girl could spoon me traditionally if she wants to be facing my lower back but that’s not really what I want either

Bro if I could only find a woman who’s like >2m…

I would love to be the little spoon for once :(

If you define “not normal” as “not having empathy” then your argument is vacuously true. Like “I’m a good person because I say I am”

If you define normal as the average of everyone then statistically you’re wrong about empathy. The Stanford Prison Experiment or basically any other social experiment that is now banned proves you wrong (hence they had to ban them because people do shitty things to each other just because).

A good one (which was banned for causing stress to the participants via some amount of empathy) I could name would be the [Milgram Experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment. Most people will question their actions if they can directly see they are harming a stranger… unfortunately most people will also apparently hurt others even while hearing the victim scream and beg them to stop just because an authority figure tells them to keep going and that it’s all part of the plan.

I don’t think that people are sadistic or malicious by nature, but they sure as hell do not have strong empathy by default mate, and the prison experiment alone proves sadism is much more prevalent than you seem to think. As is the existence of the holocaust, the genocide in Gaza, all the other genocides, the existence of Guantanamo bay, the existence of capitalism in the first place, the need for a list of what is a war crime, war itself, etc.

The reason any of these happen is because people care more about the status quo or themselves than certain other people. Soldiers kill soldiers because their desire to live and not be shamed as a defector outweighs any pain they’ll cause others. Ergo, there is seemingly an endless supply of people who will choose themselves/self-interest over others, in contrast to your hope that universal empathy is the default.

You can feel bad for others and do shitty things just like you can be a psychopath and do kind things. Empathy doesn’t necessarily make someone good and the lack of it doesn’t make someone bad. Unless you define good and evil to mean that in which case there’s no shower thought just another definition of good and evil.

The claim that humans are always terrible by default is false, but claiming the polar opposite is also false.

Many people have empathy, but not all, and it varies in strength/quality from one person to another.

Many well adjusted people do not feel empathy. Many people are depresssed/over-stressed and not well adjusted because they have empathy.

As for PTSD, the ability (or inability) to adjust to or move on from traumatic experiences is not directly correlated to empathy.

Furthermore the ability to kill those who wish you (or those you care about) harm is evolutionarily advantageous. Anger and violence in response to stress and pain allows you to fight off predators/enemies/sources-of-pain. The majority of humanity feels these emotions.

When in a state of anger and pain it is harder for us to think about our actions. Your claim that someone with empathy will always feel conflicted about hurting others is therefore false.

Now most people with empathy might feel remorse but if their mind doesn’t put enough weight on that moment to remember it, there’s nothing for them to feel sorry for later. Does that mean they don’t feel empathy? Nope, they can still empathize with friends and family and characters on TV shows, they just don’t have a mind that catalogues their guilt. (There are unfortunately many people like this)

I do think many people cause significant pain to others. But out of ignorance not malice. And there in lies a major problem with empathy. If you don’t think someone is actually hurting you won’t feel empathy for them even if you feel empathy for others. So if you aren’t aware of the pain others might feel around you, you won’t experience empathic responses even if you might for other kinds of pain.

People might not be generally good or generally bad but we are typically stupid.

If you can convince someone that some person is “just faking it for attention” they won’t feel empathy. Now the reverse is also typically true: if you can convince a person with empathy that that someone else’s pain is real they’ll feel empathy. Unfortunately people don’t like being told they’re wrong or having to change viewpoint or listen to evidence rationally so there are many people you cannot convince to feel bad for certain other people.

Another thing to note is that many of the terms you’ve used are indefinite. What does well-adjusted mean? Psychopathy is prevalent in many fields and psychopaths can live healthy/stable lives. (Sadism and psychopathy are different btw) Are they well adjusted?

What does good mean? The greater good or empathy? Because those two do not agree on everything. How far does empathy need to go for someone to be good in your opinion? Are people who eat meat evil because they lack empathy for animals?

If there was a trolley problem-esque situation where you could save five lives but only if you killed a child with your bare hands, would your idea of a good person commit murder or let five people die because they couldn’t overcome their empathy?

Lastly—and slightly unrelated—I’d like to note that I just had an odd thought: if you tried to logically dichotomize all actions into good or bad, you would need arithmetic to deal with the idea of a greater-good / utilitarianism. However by Gödel’s theorems, in any logical system in which arithmetic can be performed, there will be things that cannot be proven good or bad no matter how many axioms you add to the system. In other words it is actually by definition impossible to dichotomize actions into good or bad. Adding a third category won’t even fix it. Right? Any mathematician/logician/philosopher that can back me up or tell me I’m wrong?

The real fascinating thing is that Impossible Colors exist, which means it’s kind of impossible to actually represent all colors or impossible to precisely represent them.

Imo it seems colors are relative to how our brain and eyes are adapting to their current field of view, meaning the color you experience is not fully dependent on the light an object actually reflects nor the activation of your rods and cones but is dependent on the way your brain processes those signals with each other. Ergo, you can’t actually represent all colors precisely unless you can control every environmental variable like the color of every object in someone’s field of view and where someone’s eyes have been looking previously etc.

Thanks, it wasn’t too bad. Like I felt like I generally knew what the questions were asking for, but I didn’t really have time to scan for mistakes so who knows how well I actually did. I hate timed exams.

I wasn’t able to get a refill for last week. This sucked because I had an exam and two major projects to work on. My mother however seemed very happy to learn I wouldn’t be taking meds.

They’re good memes, keep up the good work!

I heard that it might be that they want the traction, like something they can dig their claws into while they convulse