Snafui

Stef interviewed the author of Internal Family Systems Therapy: The therapy is not about recovering repressed memories; it sounds like it was just the tool used under hypnosis and/or drug induced states.

Didn't have a lot of time to dive into the discussion but given the initial post perhaps the following will help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZRD1OdHBA4

Much better ritual:

Summary view is that the act that happens is not always traumatic from the child's point of view, but the response by those close to the child can have serious long term consequences. I first looked into this subject around 1990 and learned that most adults blow it out of proportion by they way they respond to the child; the venom should justly be to the one committing the crime and not at the innocent child. That's what this is about.

Stress from anxiety will begin the process of pushing carbohydrate into your bloodstream which is why anxious people tend to over eat. But extreme levels of exercise such as heavy lifting or as you approach the anaerobic threshold increases your body's consumption of the carbohydrate stores because, this too, is stress on the body. Consumption of carbohydrate as a primary energy source is the myth I was stating, so, trying to eat them while exercising is counterproductive as you added. Agreed.

I've had triglycerides above 4000 (not a typo, 4k!) this was when I was about 10% body fat, exercised for hours on end, and followed a high carb diet. Now that I have a high fat, low carb diet my triglycerides are ~500 (they bounce between 300 and 700). I may have created my problem back when I was a body builder and tried to go as low fat as possible ( <10% fat per day--wow, was I grumpy!) Now, after all that, I have zero heart issues to this day. In fact, when I do aerobic activity I am about 5-10 beats above what I should be able to do for age, weight, and level of fitness. Another reason I'm bringing up my experience is that the 200 number for cholesterol, so often cited, is random--I have known this since the late 80s, so I never took those drugs. Only recently more people are discovering that the link from cholesterol levels and heart disease are junk science. At best it was a post hoc fallacy where a whole lot of people took a typical medical correlation creating a scare without ever following it up. At worst, the pharmaceutical companies created a drug, saw what it did, and then defined a disease with an unhealthy maker below the average. A perspective for the high carb vs. high fat dietary issue is this: Trying to run your body on a high carb diet is like trying to run your gas powered car from the battery. Even if you are lean and fit you have far more energy stored in fat than carbohydrate. If you were as low as 15 lbs of fat you would have over 60,000 calories at your disposal; but your body stores no more than 2,000 calories of carbohydrate. Your body runs on fat, in a normal state for most of the day, when reading, sitting, driving (well maybe not in a metro area); it is only when you are in a state of stress that you must burn carbs. Carbohydrate is more like an emergency back up system where the greater the emergency, the more you burn. A recent discovery for me is the following YouTube channel AncestryFoundation where they are discussing these issues.

From the article: Wow, this is epic level research, Mr. Linker! Stef, I have a challenge should you choose to refute this propaganda, could you keep it under an hour on this?

The points made by Earl Doherty on his site The Jesus Puzzle sum it up rather well: if you read the New Testament in the order they were written rather than the order they are presented you see that it was a demi-god myth turned flesh to found a religion. I haven't bothered to research this issue for years now because there is so much information to show that there is no reason to bother: a) Jesus was not real; 2) it was designed to create a new religion; and 3) the Bible is full of errors. You have the internet at your fingertips and if people want the truth they can dive into it, too. Arguing about these issues with a believer is a minefield. It was the studying of the above that led me to philosophy.

The danger of replacing a bad habit with something that would be a good habit is that you could reinforce how enjoyable the bad habit was. Not familiar with the book mentioned by Wuzzums, but I do know this happens--does the book cover that phenomenon? I play video games when I have something to listen to, or watch, but as soon as I have nothing I get bored with the game. Why? Because information is the goal, games are just there to keep my hands busy. While reading I will use various hand exercisers, or sometimes sunflower seeds. I'm a kinesthetic learner, so giving my hands something to do while I'm listening actually helps. Your addiction could also be tied to that need; your hands in motion achieving digital goals keeps you enthralled, so try another tactile hobby?

The duplicitous response received on this comes from an appeal to authority. Most systems of ethics are handed down by a supreme being, or authority, which gives people a false basis for adherence*. So, with science many are culturally taught that men in white coats are close to supernatural beings: priests in a cult of science or demons stealing your soul. So, in the West where the words, "a new study" is enough for people to change behaviors in ways contrary to their nature, and often to their detriment, can be contrasted to the spread of AIDS and Ebola in Africa where a lack of trust is killing people. So, what you have are responses to the source from a cultural bias: From a scientist and some will have an, "oh, I get that." But a system of ethics not from authority you get, "are you insane! Who's in charge here!?" I'm not saying that this is not a great way to point out how they are asking for utopia in the case of ethics and not science, but that there will be backlash from these cultural based norms. *Perhaps this be why Stef is seen as a cult leader so quickly? He's "handing" down an ethical code therefore he must be! *facepalm*

If you have a piece of paper from the state saying you are "married" then you have to go to the state to divorce. Stop going to the state for that paper in the first place is my view.

Of my several sisters: The eldest was a dancer/choregrapher that had some world renown but now is a lead manager at an insurance agency One was a model that became an airline pilot Another wound up being an exotic dancer (a lot of money for a few hours a week as a single mother) The youngest is currently modelling and acting They will tell you--with great pain--that they have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than meeting people who will treat them like a whole person. They are above average intelligence but because of looks society deemed that their only value was physical. They tried to go to college but were treated like idiots*. They maintained those professions as stepping stones. They responded to an obscene social standard to their advantage. The song is aiding this view not standing against it. *One has a 180 I.Q. She left college because of how frustrating it was to be talked down to all the time.

I listen to lectures, audiobooks (both fiction and non-fiction), and podcasts while at the gym. It did take me some practice to do this with a lot of rewinding at first

Were the medications necessary in response to an actual epidemic shouldn't those involved in "science" be looking for causation rather than applying a pseudo-bandage? (My question on the article from facebook.) Thank you for answering, marginalist. At least someone is looking.

The above definitions provided by dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com show the problem with the attempt to debate this: the default position is that God does exist because an atheist is actively disbelieving. This is an oxymoron. When working from first principles the default *should be, "a lack of belief in a diety." If this cannot be established then you will be wasting a lot of time because you are trying to radically change a world view. Short of someone's world crashing down around them, where they are now seeking for new meaning to events unfolding around them... well, just change your name to Sysiphus or move on. I am not saying to reject those that are willing to engage you but beware of those that cannot understand the given definition is illogical. *should The using of should is a clue that banging your head against a wall will, at some point, ensue.

Where is the balance? The sex life of an individual needs balance between casual and intimate sex, or people wind up unsatisfied. Using role-play, pornography, multiple partners, will cover casual aspects; but intimacy is really handled one way--marriage. The error is to assume that the intimacy is created by a marital relationship rather than continously earned. What are you doing to increase your partner's desire to remain monogamous or are you using sex as a weapon? If the latter, you kill the intimacy you both need. It is the use of force applied to a monogamous relationship. Also, why marry if you lose individuality to a collective goal? Are the needs of both parties met in marraige? The individual may need others to achieve their goals but when the individual is more often sacrificed to a collective over what they gain, they quit. The balance between individual goals and voluntary collective action is lost to collective goals by force. These people are going Galt--their sex lives is one way to do so. Women are in far more control of the direction of a culture than most would like to admit. Another observation is the fantasy of the young virginal schoolgirl, who is sometimes willing, but also has the skills of a 30 year old divorcee after a several years dry spell is not something you should be looking for in real life. It seems they took this to an extreme and this article might be showing the backlash.

So a roast of Stefan? Quite epic if Stefan did it himself!

Could you find the information used to support the professor's claim? Because I have had issues with the nomenclature for quite a while now: Heterosexual being a desire for the opposite sex; homosexual for the same sex; bisexual for both. As individuals, we are attracted to particular characteristics in an individual. We express preference and disdain over certain practices. But by the usage of these terms shouldn't we be attracted to anyone in the corresponding group?Also, the development of sex in an individual is not binary but develops on sliding scales: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/me-my-sex-and-i/