Wuzzums

7-8 h of sleep per day is the norm. Less or more will turn you into a zombie. How you get the 7-8h of sleep depends on your preference. There are 2 types of sleep patterns: monophasic and polyphasic. In a monophasic sleep you sleep the needed amount all at once. In a polyphasic sleep cycle your sleeping hours are divided within the day. I don't know of any study that shows clear effects of one sleep cycle over another. The only issue is seemingly the amount of hours slept per total no matter how you get them. There's also the Uberman sleep cycle which promises 2h of sleep per day, six 20min naps divided by 4h stretches. I tried it myself and it works, BUT it turns you into a zombie. The schedule must be kept strictly, if you nap sooner or later it will mess up the whole cycle and won't feel like you've rested enough. So no matter what you do it will have to conform to the 4h stretches of wakefullness. Because it turns you into a slave to the schedule you'll find yourself postponing tasks till after a nap. This wastes more time than it saves. Like you have some errands to run but only have 2h left of your 4h stretch. Because losing a nap means losing the whole day to tiredness you decide to wait the remaining 2h, get the nap, then start doing the errands at the beginning of the next 4h stretch. The hours you'll spend waiting for the nap will add up and will make the Uberman sleep no more time effective than any other method, so I don't recommend it. I myself found sleep a bore and nothing more than a time waster. I was looking at it through a chronological perspective but sleep is more than just that. It helps with coordination for instance. I remember that it didn't matter how well I knew the notes on the guitar of a new song, or how well I knew to play tiny increments of the song, I still couldn't get the fingers to move how I wanted them to move all the time. After a good sleep my fingers suddenly seemed to follow the instructions of my brain perfectly. It helps with processing information, during and after the sleep. When you wake feeling rested you're seemingly not able to focus on one single task. Seemingly because what's actually going on is that your brain is able to focus on several at once. So in that state any new information gets processed more efficiently because the brain is able to connect the new information to more things. Like when you're 100% focused on learning biology, there's a drawer opened in your brain called "biology" in which the new information is stored. But when you've just woken up, lots of drawers are opened and the new information is stored in all of them making it much easier to recall. Lastly, what I see as the most useful element of sleep is dreaming. There's no creativity without dreams. How many times have you heard the phrase "It came to me in a dream?" How many great works of art (be it paintings, movies or literature) were first a dream the artist just happened to remember? Even mathematicians find solutions to complex problems within their dreams. So my advice is to look at sleep more like a tool than anything else. You can't get your head around something? Sleep on it. You can't seem to focus on something and your mind keeps wandering? Sleep on it. You're pacing waiting for the washing machine to finish its cycle? Have a quick nap. It's only your conscious self that goes offline while you're asleep, the rest of your brain is still fully active.

I think it was in the context of a narcissistic parent. If you're raised by a narcissistic parent you don't really exist, your worth is only acknowledged if you're of tangible value to the parent (like they can brag to their peers how much better their offspring is than theirs, or the child is made to do unpaid work, or is used as an emotional cushion, and so on). You then grow up with a desire to be seen and/or hatred towards people like your parents. Then comes the child. The child is very dependent on the parent. The child asserts their needs as superior to the parent (like crying when they're hungry) and doesn't take the needs of the parent into account. This happens only early on of course and it's not selfishness just survival. It's not as if an infant/toddler can forage for food by themselves. You'll see this "neediness" of the child as a direct reflection of your parent's neediness. It brings back memories of being seen more as a piece of furniture or the like and less as a person with needs and wants. You'll thus feel attacked by the child's needs and feel the need to retaliate. You'll take out on the child the rage you had as a kid for your parents.

So "being sleepy" is a psychological disorder now?

I can see the argument BUT 99% of people with Down Syndrome report that they live happy lives . I think the main point he is making is that you shouldn't have kids if they're doomed to a bad life. I agree, nobody has the right to give another person a bad life if they can avoid it. Like for instance in this video a woman tells us about her hardships growing up as a child and the difficulty of being a mother with Moebius Syndrome. There's a 50/50 chance her offspring will have the same syndrome, and what does she do? She has 3 kids, one of which unfortunately has the syndrome. It just blows my mind. You had a bad life and wish you never had the illness, you know there's a pretty good chance your kid will have the illness, you thus know that your child will have a pretty bad life and still decide to flip the coin? 3 times?

At this point feminism is just a hate cult against men. Men enjoy providing for and spending time with a family: take the kids away from him and make him a slave. Men enjoy videogames: destroy the hobby by shaming the gamers and accuse them of promoting rape. Men enjoy courting women: make women believe that flirting is tantamount to rape. Men enjoy beauty: promote the most unattractive features to be the most attractive and shame anyone who doesn't agree. etc. Frankly it's hard to find any action a man does that's not offensive to those maniacs. From posture to breathing, from making eye contact to not making eye contact. These people are completely insane.

I'm pretty sure it's fake. The camera work is way too top notch. Zooms in on the character depending on who's talking, never puts a character in the center of the frame (this is a composition trick called rule of thirds), when he enters his brother's room it pans nicely to the whiteboard as if he knew it was there already. Does another nice trick when he zooms in unfocused, then centers the character then focuses (technique made famous by the tv show Firefly). And no portrait mode. Also why would the father bother taking the games out and leaving the cases to nicely sit on the floor as if rummaged through when he could have easily mowed them over too? Putting the verity of the video aside, I think that suddenly taking away self medication from someone by force is pure sadism. Saying it's for their own good is also bs. It's as if I suddenly decide to teach my friend how to swim and throw him blindfolded in a lake without prior warning.

Below are just a few examples of DC covers rank with objectification which do nothing but alienate the male readership:

There's actually more truth to this: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=girl

Another resource: http://academicearth.org/online-college-courses/ My favorite is Introduction to Psychology held by Paul Bloom.

There are a lot of reasons why college is not worth it but this guy tries to make the point why it's worth it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpP_f4zgn8c

I just finished watching this movie.

Thanks for posting this. His definition of vulnerability was always something I greatly admired but never had a name for because I too took "vulnerable" to be synonymous to "weak". The closest I had gotten to describe it is "comfortable in one's own skin". A fictional character that fits his descriptions perfectly is Al Swearengen from the tv-show Deadwood. I've been fascinated by the character for years and now I can finally put it in words.

Upload it on an image hosting site like imgur.com (simple drag and drop method) then right click -> copy image, then hit paste in the comment box OR in some cases copy-paste the link directly and the comment box embeds the image automatically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y:_The_Last_Man

"The whole town came together recently to help buy a huge widescreen TV for our community centre so we can all watch soap operas together." Well I'm sold. I also like the retro dirt-road style they have going on. Pretty edgy for the 21st century.

This is my favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Sx_dZyzhI

Did Al Gore also lie about Manbearpig?

Well you're not having much empathy for her whilst making a case as to why she should have more empathy for males (such as yourself). She's doing breast cancer research because she's a woman... with breasts... which might get cancerous at some point... and has a relative with breast cancer (i.e. has a genetic proclivity in her family gene pool). It's simple as that. If you're worried about cancer that can affect you directly, I don't think it's fair to ask Brittany to do the research for you.

Waitaminute... Stefan never chews gum. IMPOSTOR!

I wouldn't mind using an app called "Grammar Nazi" but I'm just me and you need to sell your product to as many people as possible. What's the difference between Hydrox and Oreos? None apart from the name. Who marketed their cookies first? Hydrox. Who has more success? Oreos. Marketing is serious stuff.

Gotta say that I agree with the only guy that posted in the thread. Even though the link between ancap and one's personal life is clear to you and I, why would it also be the case for someone that was just exposed to the idea? Wouldn't a thread about the relationship between micro/macro ancap be a more effective way to make the argument rather than just throw a bunch of seemingly random information and hope a connection is made? You can't teach someone the alphabet by showing them the first and last letter and just assume they can infer from that the middle content.

I'm guessing Bill is at least taller than you? These assholes always pick on what they perceive as the weaker target. This way they make sure the target will take it and not fight back. From my experience they back off immediately if you make it clear to them that you will fight back if it gets to violence. It's because they never were in a fight in the first place since none of the targets ever fights back.

Waitaminute. You said "helping" which implies you were asked by her personally. But how can she ask you to help her if she's been brainwashed to the point where she might pull the "it's my problem" card? It's not something you decided by yourself to do for her because you think she'll benefit from it in the long run, right?

Planning on listening to any mermaid songs in the near future? The way I see it it's like self defense against yourself by proxy. Self defense does not violate the NAP, I cannot use self defense against my own body, I know I must use self defense against my body because I will not be myself for a period of time, I can delegate said self defense to a second party. The second party cannot be accused of violating the NAP in the same manner a bodyguard cannot be accused of violating the NAP when they protect someone through violence even though they themselves weren't the ones being attacked.