Everybody wins— but I win first. And if I lose, it's everybody for themselves.

Candidate: “It is not possible to see oneself because the eyes are located inside the object of observation.”

Interviewer: “I meant your career trajectory.”

Candidate: “What equation does a career trajectory follow?”

Interviewer: “Well… it doesn't literally follow an equation.”

Candidate: “Then why did you call it a trajectory?”

Interviewer: “…Would you like to interview me instead?”

Candidate: “Alright. I find you unfit for the position that we have to offer because your career trajectory does not intersect with the trajectory of the position, which is stationary.”

Yes, I mind all the time.

I'm sorry, I'll go somewhere else.

What's there to be sorry about? You need minding to live.

What?

Minding is a vital function.

Vampire State Building.

Yes, I mind all the time.

I'm sorry, I'll go somewhere else.

What's there to be sorry about? You need minding to live.

What?

Minding is a vital function.

Bob: Eagle, maybe?

Alice: The Lyre Bird.

"What?"

"Just save them in your personal safe where even you cannot access them"

"It should be, yes"

"It's good that we have Land Rovers"

"Yeah, I think so. Oh, wait— is it the one that causes you to forget the normal flow of time and makes you gamble away your life savings while being married to a stripper in a chapel by an Elvis Impersonator?"

Hi,

​

​

I recently uploaded a conceptual preprint titled:

​

​

"The Möbius Topology of Prosociality: A Non-Orientable Manifold Model De-linking Altruism from Agency"

​

​

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23715.62244

​

​

The paper proposes a mathematical framework in which empathy and altruism are represented as different regions of a single non-orientable manifold (modeled using a Möbius strip). The goal is to explore whether certain behavioral phenomena—such as individuals displaying empathy without altruistic behavior, or altruistic behavior without strong empathic engagement—can be interpreted geometrically rather than as independent psychological variables.

​

​

I should emphasize that I am NOT claiming the model is correct. Rather, I am interested in whether the mathematical formulation itself is coherent and whether there are obvious flaws, inconsistencies, unjustified assumptions, or reasons the framework should be rejected.

​

​

In particular, I would appreciate attempts to FALSIFY the model, identify mathematical errors, challenge the manifold construction, or point out where the analogy between topology and psychology breaks down.

​

​

Any criticism is welcome.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post