u/Yugudubenbi

As voice mode is now getting so good and cheap that you can use it continuously, we will enter the "Her" (the movie) phase. You will see people not staring at their phone but rather walking around talking to their personal sycophantic AI.

You meet a friend you haven't seen in a long time. "I'll call you later, I am busy talking to AI atm" but they never actually called you back. Not that they didn't enjoy time with you, it is just that AI was so much better.

10 years from now it will be treated as a serious problem.

Individualism furthermore increases and division and conflicts happens more and more since we lose the ability to interact and solve conflicts. Our sycophantic AI removes tension and issues as it agrees with you, since you prompted it that way. As it gets better, the tolerance levels drops for handling other annoying human beings. Why should you put up with their irrational emotions all the time? Humans just hurt me. AI doesn't hurt me. Trying to prompt humans to change does not even work so why would I try.

20 years from now humans will have little human to human interaction.

There is now no human interaction anymore as AI have the ability to fully simulate human interaction. A new breakthrough now made AI so real and humanlike, without the flaws, that it produced oxytocin in the humans they interacted with. A breakthrough in one way, also the end of humanity in another way.

Finner det rätt viktigt att man som medborgare skulle kunna välja att spara och ha alla sina bankärenden statligt och inte i andra giriga privata banker. Hur kommer det sig att de inte erbjuder detta och borde vi inte införa det?

Vid en finanskris och bankerna vacklar är det väl högst lämpligt om staten köper ut sig själv då istället för privata banker.

I've come to realize that it is not necessarily the pubs or events that I dislike, rather it is the people there. If one would do a personality test, it would most likely be a majority extroverts.

What this then leads to is that some introverts who dislike to just be around extroverts, maybe shun away from it. Creating a vicious cycle of even less introverts.

Now sometimes I like being around extroverts don't get me wrong. But there is so few introverts out these days that it just feels lonely. There is no balance.

Think I'd like going out more if I could more easily find people who are introvert.

What do you think?

There was a book written called "Suicidal empathy" that was released recently.

Gad Saad, the author, argues that empathy can become harmful when it is taken to an extreme and overrides reason, self-preservationn and long-term consequences. By “suicidal empathy” he means a form of compassion so focused on protecting others that a society may end up undermining its own safety, values, and stability. His point is not that empathy is bad but that empathy without boundaries or critical judgment can become self-destructive.

What is your view? To me there is some truth in it. Empathy can be destructive if we let it blind us. As some have learnt that they can use other peoples empathy to get what they want. Co-dependent relationships or abusive is many time ruined by forgiving the abusive partner over and over.

Suicidal empathy may not be the best wording and taking it too far, but I think there can be destructive force to anything, even love.

Mostly around how CBT do not use "needs" anywhere. If you google needs and CBT you get zero result. Most people can say what they feel but most can't name any other need than the most basic Maslov needs.

For some reason, CBT think that it works like this:

Thoughts <-> Behavior <-> Emotions but in a circle.

Or just thought -> emotion -> behavior.

When in reality it is elementary to include need into the equation.

Unmet need -> thought -> emotion -> behavior.

If you do not include needs in anyway, that is like removing 50% of the sequence.

Unsafe -> I feel bad -> scared -> run away.

Whenever you feel something there is ALWAYS related to a need. Always. Emotions and needs interact 100%. You can not have an emotion without a related need being met or unmet and they are often connected to the same proxy of emotions and needs in each end.

So my question is, how in the world is needs not included in CBT or just in psychiatry overall? When I speak with psychiatrists (i am not even a psych), they are like "Huh, that is actually true".

I am absolutely flabbergasted because this is so fundamental to understanding how humans work. Not only that, but for the people you help. And I mean psychiatry and CBT is so well established and I can not find anything about needs.

This is honestly not just about CBT but for psychiatry and psychiatrists as a whole. I recently watched a video where a popular psych said "This is the most important about psychology" and did not even mention needs. How is that possible!?

Now I don't mean the family because a lot of us have bad memories or exp from it. But a tribe is necessary for humans to have.

This is why we see worldwide increase of stress because only the last 40-50 years everyone was fully in the workforce and leaving ones tribe. This is what is driving people mad these days to a large degree.

It is not normal to leave your tribe.

It is not normal to go alone to a work with co-workers. That is not your tribe. It is not safe

It is not normal to live the way we live even if there are positives.

So don't be hard if you do not manage to remove the hypervigilance - you often need safe tribe and people to do that.

The world feels increasingly fractured because we don't put enough emphasis on empathy and emotional intelligence. We don't need more highly intelligent people in positions of power who lack the ability to understand or care about how their decisions affect others. A leader or business owner can generate revenue while still causing serious harm to society, the environment, and the people who work for them.

We shouldn't be surprised that society struggles when schools do so little to develop empathy, emotional intelligence, and interpersonal skills.

If we consider ourselves an intelligent society, we should be able to recognize this. Intellectual ability alone clearly isn't enough to solve complex social problems.

We keep repeating the same patterns while expecting different outcomes.

The world already has abundant resources, yet some people accumulate far more than they need while prioritizing themselves over the wellbeing of others. Education could play a much larger role in developing people who understand the consequences of that behavior.

And when people say, "Parents should teach this," I have to ask: what about the parents who were never taught these skills themselves?

We will really look back and think "Wow, they really thought that teaching kids only math and history would make them good citizens?"

Det här handlar inte bara om skatter

Känns som det skett en förflyttning från att rösta på det som är bra för Sverige och den breda massan och mer det som gynnar en själv. Ojämlikheten ökar i Sverige med större klyftor och partierna lyfter ofta upp vad det gör för ens plånbok. Är detta ett resultat av den ökande individualismen? Hur får vi människor att bry sig om den breda massan och det bästa för Sverige igen?

Just a fun lil theory I have and base it partially on my own exp. I have a hard time reaching my carb goals. And I notice I feel so good when I am around 340ish carbs per day. Usually i only get about 240 because i rarely feel hunger. It is hard to reach 340ish carbs without gaining weight if one is sedentary.

My theory is that humans need to eat quite a lot but we would burn it by moving. Now, people are sedentary so the reduced calorie intake means reduced macronutrient intake. This leads to people not reaching their goals and this impacts their health negatively. Thoughts?

Just a fun lil theory I have and base it partially on my own exp. I have a hard time reaching my carb goals. And I notice I feel so good when I am around 340ish carbs per day. Usually i only get about 240 because i rarely feel hunger. It is hard to reach 340ish carbs without gaining weight if one is sedentary.

My theory is that humans need to eat quite a lot but we would burn it by moving. Now, people are sedentary so the reduced calorie intake means reduced macronutrient intake. This leads to people not reaching their goals and this impacts their health negatively. Thoughts?