Is your emergency fund $100bn? Tax brackets exist. No one's talking about you.
Is your emergency fund $100bn? Tax brackets exist. No one's talking about you.
They were wrong about that too
Do we have selfawarewolves yet?
Eh its a meme at this point. Everyone knows to what you're referring and recognises the shared experience of overconfident stupid people. Everyone educated on the topic understands that it's a pop psychological misrepresentation of some very interesting work.
I wouldn't say it shows a lack of education. If anything it's more prevalent in populations that have had an excess of a certain type of unhelpful "executive" education.
He's being "made fun of" because he's a misogynist, a sophist, and a hypocrite. The crying is incidental. Less obviously heinous people overwhelmingly receive sympathy in their vulnerability. If I'm getting your argument right you're saying: "people are mean to men who cry so indeed men shouldn't cry". The takeaway is surely, "be less of a dickhead" rather than "cry less".
And wasn't that mention itself a joke about the obsession among the player base with the romances I the game?
The huge difference with the professions you mention is that in all of them successful participants don't wed themselves to any premise. They can allow for the possibility of two competing premises, or even usefully imagine a world with a counterfactual premise, and accurately communicate the uncertainty or incongruence of their views (it is technically possible for political science to work this way too, but rare to find someone who hasn't picked a "team" outside of academia).
The irrationality and intellectual danger lies not in adopting hypothesis but in granting them the status of dogma.
I would also argue that the potential for real world harm of adopting a wrong premise is way less for a cosmologist or mathematician than for a religious leader or politician. Relevant SMBC: http://smbc-comics.com/comic/purity-3
It's funny when - a man who spent his career reinforcing the bullshit societal biases that make it harder for men to share emotions - cries and shares his emotions.
Fixed that for you. Decidedly not sacasm.
I am sorry that he had to suffer such trauma, but hopefully it helps people realise how full of shit he was.
It's kinda poetic for them to go down next to the titanic, itself a story of complacency and excess/opulance.
It's not a culture fair observation to be sure. Your Nobel prize winners I guess we're old (hence part of a generation when smoking was more widespread). There are also countries where smoking is more or less universal.
Shut up and dribble amiright
We all just read an article about it, so this is obviously the most impactful and public place these people could have possibly gone to protest...
You're throwing out unevidenced, and frankly not very relevant, generalizations again.
Can you honestly not see that a man why literally describes women as inherently chaotic, and men as inherently ordered, who advocates openly for "forced monogamy", is hateful. If so I guess we have nothing more to say to each other. Just because he dresses it up in flowery language doesn't make it less repulsive.
You think a guy who graduated from MIT and got a job at fucking Jane Street is "stupid". No. His problem is the missing moral compass, he's got the smarts all day.
Do they? Do you have any evidence of that.
I'm going to be generous and assume you haven't read his work, at least not critically. You should go listen to the episodes of the "behind the bastards" podcast about him or read more or less anything written about him:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
Edit with non paywalled link
Nah the people he grifted were "misguided". He had all the time in the world to realize the toxic impact he was having on the world, he was intellectually gifted and granted extraordinary power and influence (as a direct consequence of his deliberately reactionary positions he took), at that point you have to be giving a truly naive amount of benefit-of-the-doubt to not conclude malice.
Absolutely. Smaller communities are often even better, more a conversation and less of an overwhelming hive mind.
Euchre can be gambled on right? So at least there is some angle where it's "undesirable".
What?
I expect the great leap forward in LLMs and AI art to dramatically change this at some point. They can already write pretty interesting plot with OK prompting, surely only a matter of time before someone is able to wrap that in a game.
Yeah you said that a few times on this thread. I think it's a weird view in the case of people who are likely to continue to harm people (if like SBF they show no empathy or contrition) but sure.
Why are you so motivated to comment on the case if you haven't followed it? Maybe just read and learn something.
Colour discrimination sounds super important to finding camouflaged prey animals and landmark sense sounds super important to wide ranging and unpredictable hunts. I dunno dude, unless you can cite experts in exolutionary biology supporting that inference, I'm going to say you're taking out of your arse.