Kohlrak

Can we have some evidence?

Why does the father sign, when he knows it's a bad deal? Sometimes a bad deal is better than no deal. I've lived in a rural area all my life. My "town" is basically the capital of the "county," since it has the highest population (around 9000 people). I'm 28, approaching 29 fast, and the only jobs I ever got hired for was at the Chicken plant in the next county over (much smaller population that my county) and working in the kitchen of one of the local nursing homes. I'm currently unemployed (left the nursing home of my own accord, because all the red flags and sirens are going off that i needed to get out before the place crumbled around me [they're actually blaming their financial problems on the old people not dying fast enough in one of their news letters, but it was phrased in a more flowery way]). I'm a self-taught programmer of C++, x86 Assembly, ARM assembly, Atmel assembly, with highschool training in Java (4 out of 5 on the "Advanced Placement college prep course test"), Visual Basic. Although now rusty from lack of use, i'm self-taught in spanish and Japanese (i understand the japanese isn't useful in Pennsylvania). When i look for jobs, they either require X number of years of work experience, a degree, or both (and i'm not restricting my self to computer related jobs: i am searching for anything that would allow me to pay the average rent, plus food, car payments [i use my father's vehicles], and other basic utilities). So, what the wise minds online tell me, and their advice is logical, is that I need to relocate to a city, where supposedly these tech jobs are in demand. The problem with this is, even if i was, say, 18, i'd be starting out with nothing, aside from still living at home. Without living at home, I'd be living out of a car (which I wouldn't own, and be making payments on, supposing i could even get a loan to get one), paying the parking fees as rent, supposing i'm not arrested, and without running water for proper cleaning, so it's doubtful i'd pass the interview. The nearest "city" is an hour's drive away, and the area i live in is affected by snow. The nearest city must be reached by traveling over "mountains" which "close." The second nearest city is an hour and a half away, and, to be honest, I'm not sure if those roads close or not. So, I'm inevitably reliant on others, so it should be no surprise that i'm 28 and still in the exact same place i was 10 years ago. Well, so the logical question is to ask where the other people in my class are today, and are they in a different situation. Many of them are. Alot are on welfare, quite a few went to college (see video again for their stories), and i'm noticing a trend towards getting CNA and LPN licenses. I'm from PA, and right now the politics regarding nursing homes make them a high risk, low reward environment: they're all moving towards the rehab model, to make up for the costs of the old people not dying (to be fair, the nursing homes are all having this problem), and this model has large amounts of fluctuation, and it's not unusual to under-staff and blame the nurses when the situation gets unrealistic and blows up on the nursing home (people end up neglected). On the other medical front, Geisinger group is taking over pretty much every hospital and doctor's office, and for some reason unbeknownst to me, they're trying to replace all LPNs with RNs (which ultimately costs more, but this doesn't change what they're doing). Meanwhile, nursing school is a mandatory trade school that requires student loans if you don't have massive financial backing to begin with. To be a state police officer, you need to have a college degree. It doesn't have to be in criminal justice or anything of that nature, they simply demand that you have a degree. The real kicker, when my father was recently hospitalized for a kidney stone, I was talking to one of the RNs there, and if you want to work for an agency, you have to be willing to relocate all over the country, because "if you're only willing to work in a few states, it's too competitive to have a year round job," telling me that this problem is not restricted to my state. The only job my generation and the next is easily able to get without a degree is the low income jobs at 8 to 9 bucks an hour, where even a factory job pays 10-12 an hour. Most people who work do not live alone (shacking up with people they aren't marrying) and/or work 2 or 3 (usually part-time) jobs. Should someone have a child, you aren't going to make rent if both parents aren't working, because they have a hard enough time without the child. So why did the father sign? Well, because despite how bad of a deal it is, it's still better than "no deal." It's for the same reason millennials are asking for 15 an hour minimum wage, even though we all know it wouldn't actually solve the problem. All the borrowing, taxation, outsourcing, etc, has turned the united states into a service economy, which means most jobs are service jobs, which in turn means most jobs are low paying jobs. The boomers, terrified of retirement and/or social security being ripped out from under them are hanging on to their jobs. So, we're desperate. We see the problem before us, that there are few jobs before us, and no one wants to (do millenials really have a realistic chance at, given our wonderful reputation of being just like the boomers?) risk starting a new business, and we really have nothing to provide, while companies aren't doing the age old practice of sending potential job candidates to school under contract to work for the company when they get out. Post-secondary education is expensive, so the businesses can't afford it, so they don't want to invest. The job market is saturated with job hunters, so businesses come up with ridiculous "minimum requirements" to pass to prune out the weakest candidates, and when their requirements are unrealistic, they turn around and blame "those lazy millenials" for not trying to find work in their company (we're looking, but we can't meet the unrealistic standards of having job experience in something where every company has this experience requirement). The whole regulation, the liability, the out of control tort court system, welfare, taxes, rising school prices, outsourcing, and just about everything else that grew out of control under the watch of the boomers is manifesting itself right before us. The reason millenials are so pro-socialism is the fact that we'd rather pass this ugly mantel onto someone else, too. And don't even get me started on what demands are made for promotion, and what promotion usually gets you (nothing but more responsibility and similar pay). I wish i could join people in the popcorn eating, but i'm just another character in this awful play. Don't get me wrong, millennials tend to blame the companies, which are just doing what they need to to survive. Sure, there are things they could be doing better, but they're trying not to end up on the bad end of this deal, either. Someone has to pay the piper, and everyone's pointing fingers at who should give in and take the beating. But this is why the father signs the agreement: at lest if you're in student debt, homeowners debt, making car payments, etc, there's hope for you at the end of all of it. Maybe you'll get lucky and you can use your degree if the system crashes.

Your net kung fu is probably better than mine. I've always been weak at finding things i'm looking for. Much more skilled at coding, so if i can't find it, i try to make it. Anyway, thank you. Found it on page 80. I can see the value of the story, as well as how it could easily be applied to almost everyone, including myself. I'm curious what would be if simon were to apply this "self-mastery" on other emotions, instead of thrusting himself into violence again. What if he never found the boxing ring, or was curious enough to try life without trying to find the boxing ring? What if it was neglect, instead of violence that he started out with. Either way, another topic for another time, i guess. We've derailed the topic long ago, and i think we knocked down enough trees.

For what? haggling? How can anyone know what my intentions are? I could say that i intend to buy, and someone could try using that against me, but if it wasn't on the table, why would i be there to haggle? If the prices aren't right, I won't buy. If i can't control my mouth and that which only i know becomes known to those who would use it against me, that's my own fault. If i tel someone, and my enemies found out, either i was bugged (which you can make a moral case for disallowing) or the person I told is the one who broke the trust.

So you're saying the crux of his argument wasn't the debate topic itself (which he abandoned, for the most part), but instead it was to show the hypocrisy of the left? If that's the case, he's more masterful than i realized. I feel though, that the alternative wasn't joining in the mudslinging, but to simply point out the ad hominem, the hypocrisy, then go back on topic, like he partner did. Honestly, I hate the debate format because of the limitation it puts on the arguments themselves. Call in shows with Stefan, have a similar limitation, but aren't as limited in "you have 3 minutes." With a forum, like this, we can focus on the arguments without bothering to consider the arguer. We have plenty of time to do research in between arguments, while we're typing responses, etc. Thus, we can focus on finding the truth and less on the person who makes the case, since the arguments are what really matter, not the person saying it, so if an IQ 60 person manages to pull up statistics on free speech countries, while the IQ 180 person engages in ad hominem, who's really right? Sure, the 180 IQ person is more likely to be right, but if he's biased towards totalitarianism, you'll find that IQ points get lost on their way to the argument.

I thought it was clear from the context: sorry. I mean site layout seems to change. I remember finding UPB, before, without a problem, but now i can't seem to find even that (i have it saved on my computer, though). So "move around and disappear" is reference to how links change (or perhaps layout: moves), while certain other books become published and removed from the free section (disappear), as i've read on another post here. And not just books, videos, too.

Not sure. I've told her such, but she doesn't act upon that knowledge. She does agree there's some sort of jealousy, but she thinks the motives are different. I've noticed this correlates with feminism. I have lots of memes to that effect. I have a really good one that i could send you in private, 'cause i don't think it would be very approved of publicly for the shear vulgarity of it. Definitely "locker room talk." That said, these ones you gotta watch out for: relationship experts that can't hold a stable relationship. It sounds to me like she's in a really bad way right now, and she's kinda invested in her opinion, which i'm willing to bet stems from whatever idea she uses to justify her behavior towards men. Single mother (as in her mother) also seems to correlate, so does your friend know her father? Misery loves company, largely because you can move the blame if you don't have a success story near you. I really, really hate to make this suggestion, especially to a stranger, but i recommend you prepare for the worst. I don't know this woman, so i can't tell you to what extent she will go. I don't know if she'll try to "lay a trap" for your husband, if she'll try to frame him somehow, if she somehow sets you up, or whatever, but these people will sometimes justify to themselves that a certain behavior is OK, because they believe it's what's best for you, even if you don't agree with them right away. Not all people who are in her situation or could be described the way we've described her are like that, but some are, so you need to be ready and keep your eye out. It's this kind of situation that "poisonous" women are known for: giving bad advice to other women to either satisfy their jealousy or to have company. She's also likely to try to get her other friends involved in some way, even if she doesn't take dramatic steps. Keep your eyes open for warning signs, and if things get bad, separate yourself from her. If, by chance, she does go for your husband and he displays infidelity, then she was actually right about him, even if her motives were subconsciously (and this is important, as she will consciously justify to herself that she's doing the right thing) selfish. As long as your husband knows she could become a problem, i doubt he'd believe any story she might make up if she's really out there (i rarely see that kind of maneuver, though, from this type [usually i see women make up stories about other women for completely different reasons, like the one time someone tried to accuse me of hitting on her, i think for political reasons, but i can't remember the exact situation, but a few screenshots shined a light onto the real situation]). That's what i've been indirectly trying to imply with my last post. I see this alot, especially with feminists. The correlation between feminism and her situation is like the correlation between being chinese and short. The real question is feminism is the chicken or the egg. Women and agreeableness, aka never directly addressing the issue(s) at hand. At least it's consistent. We guys, being different, often don't face the same issues you do for this reason. I mentioned the reasons a few posts back, so no biggy. It's not like it's always wise to approach problems directly, anyway (especially infidelity: if you suspect but dont' have proof, you cannot approach directly, or they just learn how to hide it better before you do get proof [but you can't live paranoid, forever, either]). Sometimes by "not having the balls" you can become an enabler. That said, enabler or not, they still have their choice and their agency. And don't you love it when you give someone advice and they don't take it, but come back crying later demanding you don't say "i told you so"? Or is that just a guy thing where people ignore our advice? It seems we've found the problem, and it's probably not with your husband. But, given how you've phrased the original post, you already knew that. You came asking for help for dealing with your friends, so i'm going to do just that: watch out. You lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can protest with it that it was begging you to take it to water because it was dying of thirst, and then suddenly it doesn't want to drink. If people aren't taking your advice, but continue to ask you to fix their problems or tell them what to do, why do you continue to do that to yourself? These people can't sort their own problems out, yet magically try to know what's wrong in your life, when your life isn't bad like theirs. Beware: these people might be invested enough in their own bad decisions to cause you problems and convince themselves that they were working with your best interests in mind. These people, the more they are invested, the more they are not going to listen to reason. If you feel up to it, if you really want to try something that people haven't tried before, how about dream interpretations. My girlfriend has a bad habit of not following my advice that's based on reason and evidence, just like your friends, then wonders why things happen exactly why predicted. Her most recent example was a flower she killed, because it wasn't getting enough sun, even though i told her it wasn't (i even told her to get eye level with the plant to see if she could see outside and she was like "meh, it's fine"). I noticed that her dreams sometimes reflect this or other problems in her life. I've noticed my dreams work the same way. Dreams are usually analogies for what the subconscious can't be lied to about. My girlfriend had a dream yesterday that she woke up, she had a baby with her, but she couldn't find me, her mother, or really anyone else to help her figure out what to do. Her dream was a clear analogy that she relies too much on other people to do her thinking for her (ironically, she never follows advice, but she always feels the need to ask for it since she has trouble coming to her own conclusions, which, i can only conclude that stefan is right bout the power trip that people get from not following advice). So, ask these friends what their last nightmares were. See if they're getting attacked by men, are alone, or in a relationship with guys they don't like, or some other clear analogy. It's a long short, but maybe if you can convince them that their own mind is giving he advice, then maybe they'll listen. It's a long shot, though.

I'm asking where i might find it in the book and/or find the book itself.

The best way to turn on this is for MGTOW (or at least identify the bad women and leave them out to dry), but at the same time we gotta keep our eyes on the prize with the migration thing. We have incentives for population control of the traditional population (whites and blacks, via abortion), while we have also incentives in population growth among immigrants (via importing). It reminds me of The Dark Knight where a choice must be made between Dent and his girlfriend, except this isn't a movie, and the consequences are real, and it's more loose-loose in the long term rather than win-loose: we solve the woman problem and end up with a black-white minority, but if you don't solve the problem, you have a bunch of white and black children growing up with only lefty mothers raising them. We kinda can't win on this. But, then again, the immigrants will take the women we don't want, just like the jobs that we supposedly don't want.

I just now got a notification for this response. With the response i made to your other posts following it, it really messes with my head. Not your fault, though. see my response in the private chat.

Me and my girlfriend have been together for about 10 years. I told her i'm not sticking a ring on it until me and her are at least both financially stable to justify being with each other as well as able to justify the likely children. Now, she has this "best friend," whom doesn't like me. To be fair, her dislike of me has more to do with our direct interactions than anything else. This very lefty friend has just went to whore town, at about 28, for the first time (she was supposedly just super flirty for the previous years). She passive-aggressively attacks our relationship: she fights hardest for my girlfriend's attention when she knows i'm around, and even playing some games which, from an outside perspective, look alot like trying to test my girlfriend's priorities between me and her. My assessment: she has a hard-on for my girlfriend, and i won't bother going into it, but there's plenty of evidence for this. I think she's gone full whore mode thinking he might make my girlfriend jelous or something. Due to the privacy of not just her, but other people as well, i can't publicly state what the event was, but there was an event that ultimately triggered her open whoring (i think she was sleeping around alot before, but only very recently opened up to my girlfriend about it). She's constantly talking telling my girlfriend not to "judge" her, yet she insists on constantly trying to rub her activity in my girlfriend's face. This friend also "has a problem with fuckboys," which she (the friend) is really upset about, while she turns around and sees me as "a meanie," and other things, but my dear girlfriend, while she's worried about the future, is otherwise much happier than the friend. I really see no evidence to suggest she'd rather have my girlfriend unhappy, but i do see evidence that i mess with her worldview, which she has committed to, to late 20s, which is kind of the point of no return for such worldviews: she's in it, she has to fully commit, because if she's wrong, she's in a bad situation, and it's likely too late for her (in her own eyes, too, most likely). In other words, if me and my girlfriend are right, and she's wrong, she's about to live a very bitter life because she isn't going to find someone like me, or better: all she has is "fuckboys." She also happens to be in the area, tonight (she moved out of the area a few years ago). If i hear anything of note that i can say openly, i'll be sure to respond in this post. Sometimes it's more than just one thing, and while it usually is jealousy, it isn't always necessarily jealousy, but jealousy is usually the result of a conflict of world-view to reality. Sometimes if you have something that is in conflict with what someone believes, they have to destroy that thing, or "discover the lies" in order to continue their warped worldview. More than jealousy, i want you to focus on this, because simply giving her the opportunity for, or the thing itself, that she wants, doesn't mean she'll take it and leave things alone. The way to respond to jealousy vs worldview issues can be different in certain scenarios, so you want to be absolutely sure before you commit to an idea of a solution.

He didn't though. He stayed on the trap. He didn't move on, but instead let it become the focus of the rest of the conversation. Maybe that was poising, but that wasn't the purpose of the debate.

This merits a whole topic of it's own, and perhaps a proper study: Why is it that a choice to be or remain passive is not seen as an active choice made?

Please do, as i imagine it would be helpful to many, especially if you can ultimately show us how you came to your conclusion. Plus, that would also give us the opportunity to help you double check yourself, just incase you may have a bias. Finding the truth is about getting as much fact out there as possible, and the truth will reveal itself.

Mybe, but i don't think government cares as much about that. One interesting thing i've heard, before, is that since cash can't be traced, neither can people who only use cash.

Sometimes it is enough to let down a roper or ladder if it is a pitfall type trap. While you're saving people, many, many more traps are being laid.

Never attribute to malice what you can more easily attribute to stupidity. Feminists have an inherent bias that leads to ignorance. She may be otherwise smart, but she is clearly biased. My conclusions also attribute a potential malice, but it not necessarily be so. If she's not malicious, just stupid, the OP will see this and not see the wisdom in your other words, 'cause you're, at least in her mind, starting off on a false premise. She's coming here for help with her friend, so she naturally assumes her friend isn't out to get her. Propose possibilities, not guarantees. Through possibility, if her friend is malicious, she can still be saved. Women do not think this way. She's clearly here asking about her friend, not her husband. She's not talking about her husband, really. she's talking about her friend. Keep your eye on the prize.

Perhaps cash rations. Governments prefer you be on the system, so it could be the overton window keeping people from holding precious metals. Or it could be the usual logical gymnastics of government.

Peterson, i think, showed a weakness in that he didn't call out the ad-homs as logical fallacies to attack their intellect, and simply move on to actual points.

Stefan cites his sources in his video descriptions, but, as RichardY stated, you're going to have to tackle some other narratives first. Debate formats typically prevent you from making your whole case, so you're fighting an uphill battle. A different angle you might want to take, is letting the have everything they want. Let them have the IQ equality and try attacking different angles: as more people pour in, the crime rates rise, which is bad for the immigrants, as they're the ones going to jail the most or being victimized the most, so let someone who knows what they're doing adopt them. I'm sure you could come up with a few more angles, as well. If you're going to debate lefties, quit arguing about what's important to you: they're already doing that, and they don't care about the same things you do. Find out what's valuable to them, and show them how the immigration hurts their policies on women's rights, gay rights, etc. Show them how importation hurts them, even if it's worse in their home country, you're keeping them from being imported by someone who could handle it better. Make it about the victims themselves, and if they show they don't care about the victims, go for their jugular: their self-righteous moral stances. If you can vilify them for not caring about the rights of other, especially the immigrants, it will eat them alive.

I could think of a number of things. First thing to note is, men are physically strong and have a hierarchy, thus have a tendency to prefer settling disputes directly. Women, much the opposite. It doesn't always hold true (per situation, not per person), but Stefan has talked about this a few times, even. You must understand this to understand what i'm proposing next. 1. A hardcore femminist has their own worldview that men are better than women. By taking on your traditional roles, either you are, or you appear to be (to the feminist it doesn't matter, because in her eyes you actually are), letting that man have control over you while you sit there and say "yes, master" (regardless of whether this is only slightly in his favor, or if he has complete control). In this case, she's trying to protect you from him. 2. Like case 1, except because of her hatred and bias towards men, she can't enjoy that situation, even if she, herself, is into that sort of thing. In this case, she's not only jealous, but your happiness is in conflict with her world view, which means that everything she does to men is not only wrong, but she then has to admit to herself that she's been doing the wrong thing, and, depending on her age, it might be too late for her. 3. Maybe she wants what you have. She likes what she sees, and she likes the friendship, but "can't help herself." So perhaps she wants him out of the picture for self-control, or to take a shot at him herself. 4. Maybe she wants what he has. I've read articles about two different studies (yes, one of them was the pupil study, and the other i'm having trouble finding but i'd love to find it if you, by any chance, have any recollection of it, as i'd love to start that discussion here and/or elsewhere) that suggest that while homosexuality and heterosexuality are common among men (mostly heterosexuality), women have a tendency towards bisexuality (over heterosexuality). Personally, i think more studies should be done regarding this, especially as the sample size was relatively small for the kind of conclusion it came to (suggested there were no straight women), with only a couple hundred participants. However, regardless of the study, i'm sure if you have any friends who work night shift (since these women tend to be more open about it, from my experience) you'll probably see these numbers inflated enough to consider the possibility. 5. Maybe she just hates men and doesn't like seeing them happy. 6. Maybe there's a history (i highly recommend saving this conclusion for last, because both men and women [actually, contrary to popular belief, men are more susceptible to this than women] have a tendency to check this first, even though you can never really prove innocence, but only guilt, therefore putting this idea first will eat at you and your marriage). 7. Like 2, except you're happy. 8. Maybe, other than a history, knows something you don't. Beware this one, as well, because some people have a tendency to "know" things that they actually do not. She already has an inherent bias against men, as you admit by calling her a femminist. 9. Maybe she just wants to stir the pot because her life is boring, and by stirring the pot she can get people more interested in her to compensate for the lack of interest in her (as opposed to her body, assuming you come with the counter-argument that she gets plenty of male attention). I could probably go on if i sat and thought long enough. One of the many reasons for the roles we've traditionally had amongst our sexes was due to this tendency for indirect conflict with women (not to say this justifies things, as some men have the tendency as well, and plenty of women can be direct), because this sort of "poisonous" confrontation where people can't be direct with what their real beef is is absolutely destructive not just of the friendships but also the marriages, and sometimes it can have a domino effect into other peoples' lives. If at any point you feel this could get out of hand, do yourself, your husband, and perhaps your other friends a favor, and her a favor, too, by cutting her loose. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a great friendship for your own personal good. It's not just about your husband, it's about you too. She's not respecting your feelings, and this is indicative of a larger issue with the friendship.

That doesn't really address my argument: that we said space was infinite, as in the universe continued to infinity in spacial axes. This has changed, in order to make room for the big bang and allow time to be infinite. If there is a bounce, a suck, we really can't say that space is infinite, like we did before. Moreover, the cycle itself should have a beginning. Even the proverbial slinky down the escalator would need a push. The cycle itself needs a point of origin, or at least a cause. Given the connection with time, this gets difficult. Well, a good question is whether or not things are to repeat themselves. If not, why not? If so, why so? Not that finding an answer is probable, but it's worth exploring. Ok, so here's he conundrum: Time is said to me manipulable and malleable, but also an axis (this alone begs some question). If time moves forward, does it do so independently of the cycles? If so, how can things within the cycles affect them. If not, then the big suck never actually happens, because it needs a beginning, but how do you go from time moving forward to time going in reverse if time is an axes through which the whole process itself moves? Everything that is, presumably, is observed at reference points through time, therefore the beginning of the big suck is ultimately the end of time. Should time not freeze? The only solution is that time must move forward independent of the cycles, otherwise they aren't even cycles. But, this presents a problem, when the bang and suck, as well as things within the bang and suck, supposedly have influence on time, but how can that be if time is independent? Or are there 2 time axes, one for normal time, and one for time's time to avoid this paradox? To put it more bluntly, time is supposed to be affected by the cycle, yet you can't reference a single point in time where the cycle is in reverse, because time itself would also be in reverse, but to even conceive this we'd need to imagine a constantly forward moving time. Not so much that. It specifically stems from the idea of there being more than one universe (perhaps heaven, or overall multiverse theory), and if God is in another universe, He's not here. Therefore, God exists (in another universe) but does no exist here, or, rather, he exists overall, but doesn't exist by our definition since our definition only includes the current universe. By this, we can explain how someone suddenly can "become not," meaning cease to exist, while simultaneously presenting this as a positive thing (presupposing that existence is regained at another location, either in space, time, or another universe). To put it bluntly, it's an attempt at profundity by mere word play, which is only slightly worse than the number play that quantum physicists are doing (either could be right, but we're merely turning the gods of the gaps into abstract constructs, calling it a discovery, when there's no evidence for the original gods that we describe, merely we're trying to adapt new theories for the old gods that helped us avoid the failures of our logic and/or understanding regarding the universe around us).

Russia has indeed shown signs of ambition, though. The whole Russia-Ukraine situation is messy enough to merit consideration. That said, I really don't think Russia wants Sweden, but remember, they don't believe that their policies are bad. They probably think that with their regulation and so forth that Russia's just aching to take over their utopia out of jealousy (else they wouldn't do the crap they do).

Funny until it happens. Given Sweeden, though, the knowledge is probably more damaging than how things would turn out if no one got the thing.

Usually the reason you talk to people in the first place is, because you can't find the answer on your own. If we're wrong, we're wrong, but if you keep trying there's a chance that someone will get it right. As for Stefan, you also have to consider the situation might seem more than he wants to handle at the moment, too. Or maybe you're right. We don't know without asking Stefan, but i don't think he'll answer, here. Plus, he's not the only one choosing who gets his attention, too. You can keep trying, if it isn't too much trouble. So you were actually diagnosed with ADHD and they gave you opioids as a prescription, or was that your own choice? I could talk to you about the research i've done on ADHD, as well. My guess is the opioid helps, but for that same reason weed was proposed as a potential treatment, too. Me, personally, i'm quite happy being unmedicated. I've noticed some strange correlations with people who have the symptoms of ADHD but go diagnosed and IQ, as well as people such as myself who are undiagnosed and our IQs. Let's just say that ADHD might just be an indicator of something, and the studies suggesting ADHD does not correlate didn't take ADHD meds into consideration. But, that's just my theory, and i have a bit of anecdotal evidence to back it up. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence doesn't count, but i also don't have the ear of anyone who could go about making studies, though i'm not sure if ADHD is the first thing i'd have them look into.