I was reading something that suggested that trauma "tries" to spread itself. ie that the reason why intergenerational trauma is a thing is that the traumatized part in a parent will take action to recreate that trauma in the child.

I know some people who seem (to me) more concerned with receiving VALIDATION for their mental health issues than solving them.

They seem to care most about other people BELIEVING their problems are real.

I'm curious about this.

Like, it's more important to them that people know how debilitating their anxiety is, than to overcome the anxiety.

Or it's important to them that others believe that they're actually depressed, not "just sad."

Or they want people buy into the narrative that they've been traumatized, and might be something like offended if someone minimizes that.

What do we make of this?

1. One possibility is that if solving the problems seems hopeless or even just really hard, you need external support to be able to cope.

If no one cuts you slack because of your mental health stuff, maybe you're in a really bad place, so you need people to believe you.

@JeffLadish I think because the reward structure of being a bio-ethicist rewards saying level-headed sounding, cautious-sounding, conventional wisdom?

Though I'm not sure why that is.

I guess if you want to radically improve the world, you mostly don't go into a field that is about opining on other people's work, you go into something like Engineering and do the work?

I note that Nick Bostrom is what a Bioethicist should be: he thinks hard about tradeoffs and risks, and crystalizes concepts like the Unilateralist's curse and black ball technologies.

But this is starting from a place of "The world could be vastly better. How do we get there?"

I don't know why bioethics doesn't look more like a field of (less smart) Bostroms.

I guess because everyone's disgust reactions are triggered by the actually good proposals, and in order to make those proposals the consensus of the field a lot of people have to bite the bullet and stick their neck out saying "I know this sounds crazy / absurd / vaguely evil...

There's a particular kind of romantic partnership, with a certain sort of person, that I've wanted since I became a self-aware, directed agent at around age 15.

Empirically, this kind of relationship has been hard to achieve. It hasn't worked out yet, at least.

And this sometimes leaves me wondering if my standards are unreasonable.

In years past that desire was often very alive.

These days, I'm rarely directly or viscerally in contact with it.

I sometimes contemplate aiming for some other kind of romantic and/or sexual relationship instead. In part because I might be more effective if I...I don't know, got laid more? But that's not really the thing. More like, if I had someone around whom I could regularly relax.

But mostly, I don't pursue those alternative relationship-setups out of a sense of something like loyalty to myself + a vague sense of wrongness and/or sadness about it. It often feels like giving up or giving in.

[I might elaborate on the wrongness sometime.]

ugh i wanted to do a thread about the wars in Star Wars and how the two outlying wars (the clone wars in the prequels and the cold war/civil war in the sequels) are really weird but i don't feel like it any more.

my first argument is that the Clone Wars were a really complex morally gray moment in Star Wars canon in like, 5 different directions and I'd kind of like to know why Lucas did that.

especially with the direct line that's drawn in the OT with the allegory of WW2 and Vietnam with the rebels being the Vietnamese and the Empire being America. That...doesn't exist in the Clone Wars.

for starters: it's weird it's called the Clone Wars. I get why, because that's what Kenobi calls it in STAR WARS, but the clones are a small facet in the larger story of the war.

the clones basically only exist as a macguffin in AOTC that is...extremely confusing ultimately. Because if you accept that Sidious has this grand master plan to use this war to destabilize the Republic and form an Empire...it's way too complex.

At it's #NewYearsEve we're going to end the year by playing the Agatha Christie game!

I'll show you the book cover artwork by Tom Adams, and you guess the Fontana edition Agatha Christie novel it's from.

Here's your first one...

A little bit trickier for question 2...

A lot trickier for number 3, but the clues are there if you know your Christie...

And here's your last Agatha Christie cover for this round - quite a famous one.

I'll post the answers in a bit, so get your guesses in now please!

Here are the answers to round 1 of the Agatha Christie game. I hope you got a few right, as round 2 will exercise your little grey cells a little bit more...

My (probably) last co-authorship paper from grad school is out!!

The long story short is, any evidence for Planet Nine is gone. It doesn't exist.

This is the most comprehensive study EVER that examines the original clustering argument, led by @kjnapes. Let's get into it!

🧵

First, some background.

In 2014, astronomers Scott Sheppard and Chad Trujillo noted a weird clustering in the orbital elements of the most distant Kuiper Belt Objects they'd found. They hypothesized sorta in passing that a new planet could be responsible.

Enter Batygin & Brown

Mike Brown & Konstantin Batygin originally set out to DISPROVE the new planet hypothesis!

But instead, their simulations suggested a new planet, & even predicted its properties!

The resulting paper set off the biggest planetary debate of the century since Pluto's demotion.

What's the debate?

Well, the argument for the last five years has all centered around the fact that you find objects where you look in the sky.

No surprise there, right?

This problem is complicated though, because the objects we're talking about have some of the most distant and elongated orbits of all the objects in the solar system.

We only find them when they're closest to the Sun, when they're at their brightest.

21 Questions To Ask YOURSELF Before Entering A Relationship: A Thread

1. Am I emotionally available for a relationship?
2. Am I aware of my triggers/how they show up in my relationships?
3. Do I really like this person?
4. Am I familiar or comfortable with this person? There’s a difference

5. Do I have to perform or alter myself to be loved by them?
6. Do our core values and beliefs align?
7. Am I attracted to their heart, values and character?
8. Am I willing to honor our differences?
9. Am I willing to accept their flaws?
10. Do I like who I am with this person?

11. Do I want to be like this person?
12. Do they challenge me to grow?
13. Does this person respect me?
14. Do they respect my boundaries?
15. Are they an active listener?
16. Do they know how to emotionally regulate during conflict?

17. Can they handle constructive criticism?
18. What is their relationship like with their family and friends? Would I be okay if they treated me the same way?
19. Are they self aware? Do they have a healthy sense of self/emotional maturity?