749
Autism rule
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
749 points (98.7% liked)
196
16450 readers
1826 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"So what's wrong with me, doc?"
"Says here you strongly oppose injustice, have an increased range of empathy, and are completely immune to mind control tricks."
"Isn't that good?"
"Afraid not."
believing yourself immune to suggestion is one of the greatest vulnerabilities against suggestion tbh
Nah, I won't believe you.
Rule no. 1: People are stupid. A person will believe a lie because they want it to be true, or they fear it might be true. A person's head if full of information, most of it is wrong. People are also convinced that they are perfectly able to determine truth from lies, which makes them all the easier to fool.
Bonus points if you get the reference without googling it.
Lol, I’m the autistic where I just believe other people. Shockingly, it’s worked out poorly.
You're normal in that respect:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aur.1962
In fact, the idea that autistic individuals are immune to propaganda is, itself, media propaganda. The study that those articles report on was a single study that found that autistic individuals show less of a framing effect on their own preferences. It's much more easily explained by autistic individuals having strong, internal preferences for their own likes/dislikes than it is by autistic individuals being immune to propaganda.
Speaking from experience here, too.
i believe we are much morer prone to complöetely change an opinion when someone presents facts and arguments, like, logical ones.
Is that because the information is truly factual and logical, or because the aesthetics of fact and logic are satisfying? E.g. (Early, before true craziness manifested) Jordan Peterson came across as an arbiter of truth to many simply because he spoke well, held status and had confidence in his convictions
Edit: [continued...] despite providing no real evidence to back up many of his claims. Andrew Huberman is another example that springs to mind.
but to clarify: i am easely manipulated by lies and people pretending to be nice, i was convinced countless times to do something to my detriment and their profit.
i had a small buisness selling car parts. i couldnt do that anymore, since people were talking me into all kinds of bad deals. i only realized hours or days later.
i always look for contradicting things. i choose the one with as few contradictions as possible, thats the best model. as far as evicence goes:
I dont really know the earth is round, because i can't experience that. it could also be flat. i am not an astronaut, or a pilot, or a shipfaring guy.
so one guy says to me the earth is round. one guy says to me the earth is flat. How do i choose in what to believe?
I choose the modell that reopresants best what i see in real life with my own eyes, and thas has the best fitting internal logik, with so few contradictions as possible.
so I rule out flat earth, because i have seen ships descent behind the horizon at sea, with my own eys. so that makles sense to me.
as far as jordan peterson goes: he is a phylosopher and psyschiatrist. of course you think he is full of shit when the things he says hurt your ego. that is totally subjective.
andrew huberman: you would be shocked how many nutrionists, keto guys, vegan guys and so on are right on the surface, but wrong in the details. you would be shocked if you would know about the quality of certain studies.
for example: the reason alcohol gives you energy is that you partly metabolize it into acetate acid, and your cell can take that and make energy from it. its impossible to get fat from alcohol.
yet nobody mentions that. so calories in calories out doesnt work for pure alcohol, since what your cells cant burn, you breath out again.
so thats biochemistry, biochemistry doesnt lie.
if somebody says something wrong about acetate metaqbolism, i rule the guy out, because it contradicts biochemistry.
so thats my method.
Same. If it wasn't true, why would they say it?
I am... Not smart lol.
i am really naive. i hate that. i made many mistakes by trusting people.
it makes you shitty in flirting and smalltalk, at least thats what i experience
x: your eyes are as bright as a star
my dumbass: actually, did you know that the sun outputs 3.83×10^26^ W? that's so much that the energy output by the Sun in just one hour could power the Earth for about 56.1 trillion years at the current global consumption rate. Or, if you ....blah blah blah something something Kardashev scale....
yeaaaa not my proudest move
I had women coming up to me, smooching with me a couple of times, i didnt even knew them, saw them for the first time. and I still was like well, thats as far as it goes, must be joke or something, dosn't she know i am like, really unthrusworthy and shit?
(in a social setting of course)
one time, a women send me a message that she just moved, and if i wanted to proof sleep her bed?
I took that as a joke, that person must not be very good at it, as if people talked like that, what does she think of me, why is she pulling my leg? better write something funny but nonccommital back"
one time, in art class, there was this naked model we drew. when we were done we had a little party, because it was christmas, she sat on my lap the whole time and complemented me on my drwaing and stuff. I mean, it was kinda drunk and raunchy?
never saw her again.
one time, i was in this train to wacken, it was coincidence, i had nothing to do with wacken. but those guys started drinking in the ICE bar, and well, it was a real party. some cute chick comes up to me, doesnt talk to me, just kisses me on the mouth and stuff. never even talked to her.
i shit you not, i have a couple more of these stories.
the funny part? i had one girlfriend in life. I had a really hard time trusting her, you know, understanding her. i cant be with people i dont know.
On the other hand, if you average the Sun's energy generation across its entire volume and adjust for that volume's mass, an equivalent mass of human body tissue generates more heat energy.
So your eyes may not have the raw lumen output of an entire star; but, pound for pound, your eyes would outshine a similarly massive piece of one.
i kinda do no get it, can you explain it in some other way?
like, 100 kilos of sun would generate less heat energy than 100 kilos of me?
Yes. On average.
If you specifically take 100 kilos of core material from the Sun, then it would be a no contest victory for the Sun. But the Sun is very, very big, and when it comes to producing energy, most of it is doing absolutely nothing. So it brings the average energy production per kilo way, way down.
thanks, i think i got it! average matter of the sun has less energy density or IR radiation or what have you, than average matter of me. thannks! that will come in händi as trivia.