Best psychology & counseling books according to redditors

We found 9,331 Reddit comments discussing the best psychology & counseling books. We ranked the 2,895 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page


Adolescent psychology books
Applied psychology books
Child counseling books
Psychology counseling books
Psychology creativity & genius books
Development psychology books
Books about neuropsychology
Experimental psychology books
Books about forensic psychology
History of psychology books
Mental health books
Occupational psychology books
Pathology books
Psychology books on human behaviour
Psychology books
Psychoanalysis books
Books about psychopharmacology
Books about psychotherapy
Psychology reference books
Psychology research books
Social psychology & interactions books
Psychological testing books
Books about psychology & medicine
Books about evolutionary psychology

Top Reddit comments about Psychology & Counseling:

u/ImNotJesus · 2023 pointsr/AskReddit

Historically, you have about a 15% chance of dying due to violence. In the last century, despite two world wars, the chance is 3%. We live in objectively the safest world that has ever existed.

Edit: Source.

u/jbrs_ · 417 pointsr/politics

Here is a graphical representation that is easy to share

Some highlights from the article (didn't realize how short it is, this is basically the whole article):

> The economy added an average of 181,000 jobs a month in Obama's last six months in office compared to an average of 179,000 a month in President Trump's first six months. That's a statistically insignificant difference — and a negative one at that — which shows that Trump hasn't made a diffference on the economy. And why would he have? He hasn't cut taxes or increased infrastructure spending or done anything else that would meaningfully boost GDP. (Going golfing and tweeting #MAGA a lot don't count.)


> This, in a lot of ways, is the archetypal Trump story: trying to take credit for something he inherited. [...] It's been the same with the economy. Trump hasn't actually done anything other than cut a few regulations, but he's made it sound like he's passed a new New Deal. (“No administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days,” he rather ludicrously claimed.) He brags about a “surging economy and jobs,” despite the fact that the economy and jobs are growing at exactly the same rate as before he took office. And, after disparaging the official unemployment rate as being “fake” and “phony” and “totally fiction” while Obama was president, he has apparently decided that it's “very real now.” In other words, Trump has done nothing and has congratulated himself for the economy Obama left behind.


> Well, it's not just him doing the praising. Trump's new propaganda channel is, too. Those, at least, are jobs he really can take credit for.


Edit: Also want plug Jonathan Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Religion and Politics because it is extremely relevant to what is going on. A central theme in the book is that intuition (emotion being a large part of intuition) comes first, reasoning second: that we have not evolved reason to arrive at truth, but rather as a means of justifying our behavior to others and persuading them to join our side. Thus reason is a strategic mechanism that we employ to justify the opinion we already have-- there are exceptions, of course, but this is the general case.


This helps to explain why people hold even more strongly to their opinions in light of disconfirmatory evidence. In this case, Trump supporters are not going to be moved by these facts and figures when employed in arguments. I have not yet finished the book, but this video does a good job explaining one of the main tactics to overcome this problem: speak to the elephant (a person's intuitions) first.

u/austex_mike · 261 pointsr/TrueReddit

A good compliment to this is Jonathon Haidt's The Righteous Mind.

Also, the article said:

> That’s exactly what Americans did after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. People began flying less and driving more. The result, estimated Gerd Gigerenzer, a German risk specialist, was that 1,595 more Americans died in road accidents during the 12 months after 9/11 than would have otherwise.

I don't think more people are driving merely because they are afraid of terrorism. I hate flying now because of all the stupid security theater we are now subject to. I much prefer to get in my car and drive versus going to the airport two hours early, get felt up, make sure all my bottles are tiny, etc. I have made several long car trips because I simply didn't want the hassle of flying.

u/Demortus · 148 pointsr/worldnews

The world is way more peaceful and prosperous than it has been at nearly any other point in human history. Take for instance Rwanda. Two decades ago it was engaged in one of the worst genocides in human history. Now it is run by a very efficient government that has banned tribalism and is presiding over some of the fastest gains in human development in the world.

That doesn't mean that there aren't areas where things are getting worse, but the overall trend is generally positive.

Edit: A lot of you are making valid points that there are some important trends moving in a negative direction: climate change, environmental degradation, the fraying of the international liberal order. While it is still true that humanity has never been more peaceful than it has today (this is objectively true across a wide variety of metrics), I agree that these are pressing problems that if not addressed quickly, threaten our survival as a species in the long-term. But, I want to push back against the deep despair that I know many of you feel, because humanity has survived worse.

Around 70,000 years ago, humanity faced the greatest crisis in its history. A volcanic explosion of gargantuan proportions caused global temperatures to drop as much as 20 degrees in many places. This change caused a massive decline in our population to as few as a few hundred or thousand individuals. But we endured, despite having virtually no recognizable technology to aid us. We bounced back and 60,000 years later, we were building cities and had colonized almost the entire planet. We are now facing the second greatest threat our species has ever seen, but now we have something we never had before: we have science. We have technology. And we have governments that can harness the wealth and intelligence of billions of people to serve our collective will, if we choose to use them. I am not saying that will be enough, but it is a much better starting point than that faced by our ancestors. If I were to make a bet, I'd bet on our survival at a minimum, as humanity has already survived worse with less. I'd even say that given all that we have to fight climate change, that we will probably suffer nowhere near as much as we did then.

Edit2: Thanks for the gold!

u/christianjb · 132 pointsr/funny

Read Harvard Prof Steven Pinker's new book 'The Better Angels of our Nature' in which he shows that the homicide rate has been decreasing throughout history and that the homicide rate in modern societies is much lower than that in primitive societies, despite the myth of the 'noble savage'.

Of course, none of this can excuse the treatment of native Americans and nor does it mean that native Americans had their condition improved upon colonization.

u/slimemold · 122 pointsr/Futurology

Nice related book by a very readable author:

> The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Steven Pinker
> Believe it or not, today we may be living in the most peaceful moment in our species' existence. In his gripping and controversial new work, New York Times bestselling author Steven Pinker shows that despite the ceaseless news about war, crime, and terrorism, violence has actually been in decline over long stretches of history. Exploding myths about humankind's inherent violence and the curse of modernity, this ambitious book continues Pinker's exploration of the essence of human nature, mixing psychology and history to provide a remarkable picture of an increasingly enlightened world

u/[deleted] · 100 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

This is going around reddit today.

Julia Serano points out in her book Whipping Girl, that almost all the issues of sexism, homophobia, transphobia, sissyphobia, stem from the same thing, Oppositional Sexism.

It is the incorrect idea that, man is polar opposite to woman, and that man > woman. The next thing to derive from that thinking then is masculinity > femininity. Then masculinity = strong and helpful, femininity = weak and frivolous. Etc, etc.

But in regards to the homophobia comment, it is true I think, a lot of straight cismale homophobia results from some low level knowledge that they have ingrained in their social conditioning an oppositional sexist view of the world.

edit: added links

u/SunAtEight · 85 pointsr/todayilearned

First this comment ignores that North and South Korea as separate entities didn't exist until 1945 when the US enforced a border. There are no "twins" to speak of. Then this comment ignores that the US bombed the shit out of North Korea under UN aegis. Then this comment totally ignores both North Korea's economic success up to the 1960s (higher GDP than South Korea). This isn't "North Korea = Best Korea" 4channing, since clearly North Korea is a de facto absolute monarchy with immense levels of fucked-upness, it's the fact that the "uppity US" is not some neutral party that gave Namhan a bit of help here and there. For the level of shitholery, I speculate that Kim Jong Un and whatever his support base may be is eyeing a large amount of reform on the Chinese model. I also speculate that with the migration between North Korea and China, for one thing, average North Koreans know more about the world and South Korea's standard of living than we're led to imagine from NK government propaganda.

As for Namhan's help, South Korea had US-backed dictators from the end of the Korean War, with significant popular movements that finally brought the dictatorship down in 1987 along with massacres and mass imprisonments up to that point, and still is part of the US empire of military bases. The party of the current president is a successor of the groups that ran South Korea under the dictatorships. It is still illegal to say things that interpret history or the current situation differently, e.g., blame the US or SK elite instead of NK for the division of the peninsula, particularly when talking to other recruits in that mandatory military service (the "National Security Act".

East Germany today has massive unemployment compared to the West, a burgeoning neo-nazi movement (alongside electing many members of the current incarnation of the former ruling party to the Bundestag in the hopes of restoring some of the things they lost) and depopulation. It's not all hugged out. East and West Germany was a far more unnatural division for Germany than North and South would have been, but they had the experience of being a patchwork of states for centuries, unlike unitary Korea. Gorbachev had a lot more to do with the ending of the Cold War than that "uppity American dude" Reagan.

Also, you seem to view North Korea and North Koreans as children because of your "personification" approach to history. (Although I do really want to read The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters, which from reviews I've read claims North Korean internal propaganda is heavily influenced from Imperial Japanese propaganda and that the propaganda presents the ruling Kim as a maternal figure and the North Koreans as a race childlike in their innocence - indeed, too childlike for this world)

u/Tahoeclown · 75 pointsr/wholesomememes

I donno if this us the book but "Enlightenment Now" by Steven Pinker goes into why things aren't as bad as they seem. In tons of ways its the best its ever been and that trend continues.

u/rockthemike712 · 73 pointsr/news
u/F9R · 71 pointsr/news

"Men on Strike" by Dr. Helen Smith explains all of this perfectly, without gender bias or handwavy PC stuff. Many men, including myself, see that the modern risks of marriage outweigh its benefits. As a result, marriage rates are and have been plummeting. And I'm talking even with the perfect woman, it's just not a smart idea. Long-term cohabitation is the way to go, from a man's point of view.

u/DSettahr · 68 pointsr/Ultralight

One final comment that I'm adding as a separate post since I reached the size limit in my post above: for anyone who is looking for additional information concerning backcountry ailments and injuries, I highly recommend the book Deep Survival, by Laurence Gonzales. In addition to drawing from his own experience, the author analyzed countless reports of backcountry injuries in writing the book. One of the biggest takeaways that I got from Deep Survival is the idea that injuries in the backcountry are rarely the result of a single factor, but rather usually the result of multiple factors- and those factors are often seemingly inconsequential when evaluated on an individual basis. If you can learn to recognize and address various factors as they crop up, then you can generally reduce most of the risk of injury.

u/nahmayne · 66 pointsr/socialskills

If you want advice from an actual black person and not someone who thinks that culturally black people are just so different and being "uncivilized" is a part of it, I'll give it to you.

I'll address the last part of your post first. Whether or not black people want to be seen the way you see them is irrelevant to most black people unless you specifically hinder or slander them in any way so we can throw that out of the window. We simply don't care as we have lives to lead. Stamping out this mindset in the minds of people who have power is a part of that life for many of us.

But as we are people we have other things to take care of as well. That's the first thing. Black people are people first and foremost. We do have shared experiences that only a black person, in America, could have. Sometimes those experiences transcend borders, too. But again, we are people. All with different aspirations, outlooks on life, upbringing, attitudes and a whole host of other traits assigned to humans.

Next time you see a black fight that you're apparently used to seeing now think that if they weren't black would you be assigning anything to them or their culture at all. Odds are you'd just see them as people in a fight that started for reasons you shouldn't really care about. Have you ever seen black kids getting beat up by black kids? White kids beat up by other white kids? Latinos beating up Asians? A good deal of crime happens in areas in proximity to the person doing the crime and America is incredibly segregated.

Now, your second paragraph. That's what we call the "good ones" rationalization. It's the way people can use the word nigger or other epithets and claim they have black friends but one of the good ones. It's flawed thinking and quite a few people in this sub, judging by this thread, would probably have the same mindset.

My advice to you is simple. Interact with people as people. There are people who will hurt you. There are people who will want to love you. Most people don't care about your life enough because they have their own to worry about. Some of these people may be black. Hell, all of them might be the ones that try to hurt you but they're people with their own motivations for doing so and attributing it to a whole group would be as silly as any of the other examples of things you fight. Hell, even those people might want to love you at some point as well.

I would recommend reading, though. Learn the history of black people in this country. Learn the state of black people as a whole today. Learn about why these thoughts aren't anything new or unique to you. Learn about why they have persisted.

A couple books I recommend are Black Power: The Politics of LiberationWhy Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria

I'd also say watch more things made by black creators. Dear White People is getting buzz on Netflix. Read articles from black writers. I'd recommend everything on


u/darthrevan · 66 pointsr/changemyview

I can understand that, and I honestly used to think that way too; but the problem with that kind of thinking is two-fold:

  1. History doesn't repeat itself identically like that. The world today is so dramatically different from what it was in the 1930s - 1940s that to expect the same outcomes this time around would be folly. All you'd guarantee is that a whole lot of people will suffer again, but with no guarantee of whether that will lead to anything good this time around. Is it worth risking the future of millions of people on a hope that everything works out the way it did last time--even though we know almost nothing is the way it was back then?

  2. Wouldn't it be more valuable to seek a more permanent solution to escape the cycle based on our improved knowledge of economics and human psychology, rather than cynically assume we have to break it the same way to fix it the same way? I admit this is extremely challenging, but human beings are not just continuous identical copies of previous generations. We adapt, we evolve, and overall we do improve. Just look at violence: we are in no way like our predecessors and have come a long way. So I believe we should look forward, not backward, for solutions.
u/PopcornMouse · 64 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Hint! They are all men. Men who learned to write stylish, flowing, neat letters. Beautiful script and prose. A time when both men and women (educated) were expected to have exemplary writing skills. That is not to say that there wasn't people with bad writing...but these men are not going against the cultural grain...they are with the cultural expectations of that time period. If writing styles change over time and across cultures, the how can boys be hardwired or predisposed to a certain style of writing, and vice versa, how can girls be hardwired or predisposed to a different style of writing? If there is a biologically meaningful explanation than it should transcend cultures and time.

This is a classic case of societal expectation mixed with confirmation bias. "Because it's a "well-known fact" that women have better handwriting than men, most people are more likely to ignore cases that go against that stereotype, even though they're probably more common than popularly thought." I think this argument for sex-based differences really breaks down when we examine the evidence from other cultures and other time periods.

Would a man from India have the same image of "female" writing in his mind as yours? A woman from rural China? A boy from Russia? A girl from Peru? The image in your head of what is "girls writing" is culturally derived. Other cultures will have other ideas of what constitutes a male or female writing style...or perhaps none at all (e.g. there is no gender/sex divide).

I really recommend the book Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine as an introduction this topic. "Drawing on the latest research in neuroscience and psychology, Cordelia Fine debunks the myth of hardwired differences between men’s and women’s brains, unraveling the evidence behind such claims as men’s brains aren’t wired for empathy and women’s brains aren’t made to fix cars. She then goes one step further, offering a very different explanation of the dissimilarities between men’s and women’s behavior. Instead of a “male brain” and a “female brain,” Fine gives us a glimpse of plastic, mutable minds that are continuously influenced by cultural assumptions about gender."

u/TorsionFree · 58 pointsr/philosophy

> This is why politics fails often, people can not let go of their dogmatic views.

It's not necessarily that their views themselves are dogmatic; it's often that their underlying premises are inflexible. For example, someone who holds the view that the U.S. should deport all undocumented immigrants may think that their position on the issue is fixed, but what's more likely to be fixed is their underlying moral philosophy, such as

  • Fairness (immigrants should pay taxes just as citizens do), or
  • Monoculturalism (preference against difference), or
  • Purity (correlated to nationalism/racial supremacy).

    In other words, their beliefs on individual issues are slow to change no in themselves, but because they're consistent with a much less fluid set of underlying epistemic preferences. Jonathan Haidt makes a similar case in "The Righteous Mind" -- that political liberals and political conservatives disagree because they have different sets of moral "taste buds."
u/SecondWind · 58 pointsr/IAmA

I'm glad it helps. :)

Actually, this is mildly cathartic, having an outlet for all those "should've, could've" thoughts...

Involve others with more experience.

  • If you need to choose a school, ask on /r/lgbt.
  • When it's time to find a therapist, ask on /r/asktransgender.
  • When you need to tell your parents, or even just need to decide whether to tell your parents, find a local peer group (GSA) with whom to practice the discussion.

    Learn about your community.

  • Read "The nearest exit may be behind you", "Gender Outlaws: TNG", "Whipping Girl", "Transgender History". These will not be your problems, or necessarily your life, but you will find your people in them and a connection to an otherwise foreign community. (It sucks to be trans, nobody understands.)
  • Find opportunities to participate in queer culture. Being T is not the same as being LGB. It's tempting to pull away, since yours is an issue of identity and not one of sexuality (and they really are extraordinarily different). Resist the temptation, be a part of something, force your way in and tolerate the inconsistencies, it will be worth it.

    Heal thyself.

  • Your attitude and self-awareness is awesome, but your background and environment is not. I had a virtually identical home life (one fewer younger siblings, but the rest aligns right down to the lawyer parent!), and even after I "got over" it, it took years to really put the internalized prejudices of my youth away. Don't rationalize it away, don't be hard on yourself when you can't just get over it.
  • Go to therapy. Find someone you really click with, and who you feel understands you, and invest the time and trust in that relationship to make the most of it. Don't tell them what they want to hear, tell them what you feel, and remember that they fully expect you to be totally wrong about your own feelings the first few times. Figure it out together. You should be able to get this nearly for free at the right college, make the most of it.
  • If it feels awkward, you're doing it right. Cut yourself some slack, everyone has a hell of a time growing up and finding themselves, and thanks to your situation you'll be doing at 19 what most work out at 12. It's ok. Laugh at yourself, reflect and learn, and move on.
  • Find a fringe benefit. If you dwell on gender dysphoria, it can seem pretty shitty. If you mire yourself in transition, it can seem like a thankless, endless slog. Find something to be excited about, find a part of yourself to enjoy, and don't feel guilty about it. :)

    Finally, and most importantly, you do belong.
    You don't have to be presenting in your preferred gender to go to a support group. You don't have to start HRT to comment on a board. There's a pervasive sense among trans folk that there are real trans people out there and we're not they. But the moment you recognize this part of yourself you're a part of our world whether you like it or not, and all of us feel just as different. Smile, introduce yourself, and share aspects of yourself among friends who have those same parts and who are just bursting for the opportunity to talk about it with anyone who understands.

    Sigh, I could ramble on, but I need to get back to work... I guess I can sum it up in promising, cross my heart, the world is a beautiful and wonderful place, and you're going to love it out here. :)
u/Cybersecurityfart · 54 pointsr/trippinthroughtime

The world is getting less violent, it's mostly the media that makes it seem worse. Here's a book on it:

u/X-peace-X · 50 pointsr/CPTSD

> I was just wondering how many people have CPTSD as a result of emotional abuse and neglect as a child.

My father was a narcissist. My mother was a sociopath. So the entirety of my childhood was lost to narcissistic and sociopathic abuse, which left me with CPTSD.

> I’m worried that as it’s gone untreated for 20 years that I may never get better.

This is factually incorrect. You might want to check your local library for the book titled The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science. This book is rife with verified medical examples of the neuroplasticity of the brain. Neuroplasticity means the brain changes throughout life. The brain does not solidify like concrete once we reach adulthood. This is very good news for people like you and I, because it means the trauma we suffered in our childhood does not have to rule us for the rest of our lives, because our brain literally does change throughout our lives. We can assist it via several methods, such as psychotherapy, meditation and even exercise.

> I’d really like it if people could share their experiences with me and whether they’ve made any headway, recovery, partial recovery.

So if a psychologist with a PhD, who had practiced psychotherapy for the past 3+ decades terminated your therapy, telling you you have nothing left to resolve, would you consider yourself recovered? I do.

> How long did it go on for before you got a diagnosis?

I was diagnosed with PTSD at the age of 21 in 1985. CPTSD wasn't even on the radar in those days. All total, I have spent 22 years of my adult life in therapy. However, that does not and should not mean you will require as much time in therapy to recover.

The science has advanced so far from 1985 when I first began therapy. Back then, psychology wasn't considered a hard science like chemistry or biology. Today, psychology is getting closer to a hard science. From viewing a brain scan, brain injuries like PTSD, or disorders like OCD & ADHD can be diagnosed now. Additionally, trauma therapy did not exist in 1985. It hadn't yet been conceived. So if you have CPTSD, get to a trauma therapist and get to work, because they KNOW what they need to know to help guide you out of CPTSD.

As far as how the therapy works to free you, there will be MANY moments in your life that you will look at in therapy. Each moment will be discussed & analyzed until you fully understand what happened in each moment. After a certain period of time, you will have hundreds or thousands of these analyzed and understood moments in your life which, when chained together, will reveal the entire story of your life. This is when you will understand every moment that you lived & EVERYTHING will make sense. That is when you will know you are free. Or at least, that has been my experience. DO NOT GIVE UP. It is so worth it in the end.

u/SuperRusso · 49 pointsr/tifu

Actually, I can help if you would like to know the for some reason. This is a neuroscience book that explains in great detail why your cheek makes your "hand" feel.

The short answer is that it's because the neurons in your brain that were wired to your hand still need to do something, so they remap in other parts of your brain that are nearby. It actually may mean that you can feel more detail on your cheek than most people in that area.

For a long time "phantom" pains were thought to be purely physiological, This science says otherwise. You may want to check it out. It's a good read.

Also, I'm an audio engineer and musician in Louisiana, primarily in Baton Rouge and New Orleans. I say this to say that I have the privilege of working with some top notch guys. One of the keyboard players I see gigging all the time down here only has one hand. He's got one hand, and one nub. He uses the damn nub. I don't know how he makes this keyboard sound this way, but he does.

With the advent of MIDI technology, there is so much you can do. And with the advent of the Arduino platform, you could even make something yourself. There are so many alternative controllers available for you to express yourself in different and creative ways...don't give up playing and making music. Maybe get a MIDI controller and some simple software?

u/metsuken · 48 pointsr/asianamerican

> North Korea isn't hiding shit. Everyone knows it's horrible there. Everyone knows about the camps and brainwashing and horrendous garbage. Just because it's not the topic at hand doesn't mean they've pulled any wool over any eyes.

They deny the existence of their concentration camps and claim it's a state that offers freedom of religion. So I think it's safe to say they hide things.

And I did acknowledge everyone knows about the camps and the brainwashing. I said as much in my post and I'll quote it again here:

> There is so much information out there about how horrible and dangerous North Korea is but the international community doesn't receive pressure from their constituents to do anything about it because everyone looks at North Korea as a joke.

But the point is there's no pressure to actually take steps in dismantling the country because they know exactly what to say and do to relieve that pressure.

> Just because it's not the topic at hand doesn't mean they've pulled any wool over any eyes.

I disagree. I think they have because people have a terrible grasp of North Korea. I see misinformation about DPRK all the time, both on the Internet and in my regular life, and the crazy thing is that it all derives from DPRK state propaganda. My friends involved in the North Korean liberation movement have always told me that the misinformation is by far the biggest obstacle they face when trying to raise awareness about what the DPRK is actually like and how they operate.

Even world leaders don't understand the DPRK which is why the DPRK has been able to run circles around them in negotiations. In many ways, it's also the difficulty that the West has in dealing with and understanding China. Western political scientists have constantly been proven wrong with all their predictions about China. First it was assuming that there's no way a communist country can adopt capitalism. Then when that was clearly wrong, it was believing that a capitalist society could not co-exist without a one-party state (in other words, that capitalism and democracy are inevitably paired). Then it was that a one-party government cannot possibly eliminate corruption. Well, that's being proven wrong now, too. Just this month, Zhou Yongkang was arrested on charges for corruption, charges that are over a decade old. This guy was a member of the politburo, the highest political authority in China. It would be like Dick Cheney getting arrested and tried for war crimes. A few years ago, something like this was completely unthinkable, but it's because the West's view of China was wrong yet again.

North Korea is no different. In fact, it's an even more extreme example. They're able to keep up this charade because the DPRK understands how the West works. Their elites are educated in western institutions. Kim Jong Un spent his entire adolescent life in Swiss boarding schools.

> Portraying this as about the movie and not about Americans getting pushed around and being told what they can and cannot do by NORTH KOREA is dishonest.

I don't think a private movie company deciding to pull a movie can be compared to relationships between nation states.

> This could be Spongebob Squarepants being canceled there would still be outrage. This could be some shitty porno flick being canceled there would still be outrage. It's not the what, it's the why.

Well I wasn't debating the what or why. I was pointing out that the DPRK is fully aware of how ridiculous they sound and it's an intentional PR move to continue propping up the regime, and the international community is playing right into it. There are horrible things happening in North Korea right now and everyone knows it, but it's shoved into the back of everyone's heads now because it's so much funnier and entertaining to keep talking about the DPRK as cartoon villains.

Like I said, this is the nation that has successfully brainwashed and oppressed 24.9 million people for almost 70 years. If you think they're not self-aware or the statements they make to the West are not calculated mind games, I don't know what to tell you except that you're playing right to their toon. Brainwashing is a lot more than drilling you with state slogans in school and waterboarding until you recite the right answers. It's also about conditioning subjects by preying upon their biases and prejudices, then reinforcing those things.

Think about what the controversy about this movie and the DPRK's statements just did. Think about how much more press and angry responses this has gotten over even the CIA torture reports or the countless news stories we've seen about human rights abuses in North Korea. When people think of North Korea for the next few years, what are they going to think about? Are they going to think about the concentration camps, hostage abductions, forced abortions, gulag gang rapes, and summary executions? Or is the first image that pops into their mind going to be pornos and some funny movies?

That is brainwashing. That is indoctrination.

> The level of protest over this movie is... Getting angry about it on the internet. Just like with the CIA report. This is just the news cycle. Things get replaced with the next big bit of news. Ferguson to Garner to Torture to North Korea.

Except Ferguson, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner had palpable effects. People marched against police brutality. They organized against it. The president pushed forth legislation for police body cameras because of it.

But with North Korea? Crickets. Because people don't take it seriously. If you don't want to take my word for it, talk to anyone from LINK. Read to Dr. Andre Lankov. Read to Dr. Bruce Meyers. Read The Cleanest Race. This is not some fringe theory. There is a very clear difference between what North Korea tells the world and the internal propaganda their citizens receive and it's because the DPRK knows how to play both sides of the fence.

> You're trying way too hard to make it look like people care about the movie itself more than anything else in the world.

Let's do an experiment. Googling CIA Torture Report comes up with 78.4 million results.

Googling The Interview gives us 914 million results. Nearly 1 billion results.

I didn't have to try very hard to demonstrate that yes, people really care about this movie.

u/rseandrew · 42 pointsr/starcraft

Hey guys, producer for Star Nation here. Justin just got back from Europe a couple weeks ago shooting Dream Hack and a lot of footage with WhiteRa. On arriving back into town, he's been putting together a short doc for Complexity because they helped to get us out to MLG Anaheim. Keep an eye out for that. Some of that footage will be good for the feature.

I've been wanting to post a blog on our website about the issue of "relevancy." Numbers-wise, I believe that the majority of documentaries shoot long before release, and most of the time the subject matters are fairly niche. Star Nation isn't a documentary about current politics, so timeliness is less of an issue. We're also not a journalism organization, so it's not critical to have "breaking news" nor release our film immediately after an event.

Take the documentary Anvil: The Story of Anvil as an example. I'm not sure that their story would be any worse if released any later, and we also hope to be able to find a timeless story for our doc. You may argue that Anvil's topic matter isn't getting as much media coverage as StarCraft/eSports to make it irrelevant. Maybe. If that were true, then I would then point you to the last feature documentary I produced, DMT: The Spirit Molecule.


DMT is one of the strongest known psychedelics, and it was also relatively unknown even in the drug community when my director first started shooting the doc in 2005. While we produced the film, ayahuasca (active chemical being DMT) started becoming a huge topic in general media being covered by CNN, TIME, Hustler, reddit, and many more (don't have time to link them all). While a lot of people were discovering DMT in their everyday news and entertainment sources, it absolutely wasn't making the topic matter irrelevant. In fact, it was making DMT all the more relevant to more people. More and more people became fans of our doc's Facebook page as they became aware of our film and topic matter through the media and through fans of our film. Our film didn't particularly have that much more information than was already available to the public especially since it was based around a book, but the film format is just much more easily consumed than other formats (books, articles, etc.).

Since irrelevancy wasn't an issue, DMT:TSM got picked up in 2011 by Gravitas and sublicensed to Warner Bros to get in 100M homes. We become third most popular documentary on iTunes for about 3 weeks. We also became the top most streamed film on NetFlix for a little over 3 days. I regret not screen capping those bits, so you'll have to trust me on those figures. However, I hope that we can get Star Nation in front of that many eyes also.

That said, I agree with HRvi that the pure eSports information in Star Nation may not be news to you guys, but hopefully the documentary footage and story will show you another perspective that you will enjoy while we push eSports out to a much broader audience.

u/arzged · 41 pointsr/videos

War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (and talk on it here)

I haven't got around to reading these books yet, but they seem to say that when you look at the historical archeological evidence, the % of people who die in conflicts has been going down, and societies that killed each other with clubs, poisoned arrows, etc. actually killed a higher % than current societies do with high powered weaponry and bombs. I think the problem is that there's news media reporting everywhere these days so you might get the impression that violence is everywhere/getting worse.

From the video of the talk I linked to, this slide is pretty interesting:

u/AuroraSinistra · 40 pointsr/news

Ironically we are living in the least violent time in human history.

(It's a thick read, but tl;dr a lower % of people die by violence now than ever did)

u/minibuster · 40 pointsr/worldnews

Check out The Righteous Mind, a great and deep analysis of morality.

One of the takeaways I found fascinating is not that liberals and conservatives align differently on morality -- that's not really a surprise -- but that conservatives overall consider multiple different categories very important (e.g. sanctity, authority), while liberals HEAVILY consider fairness as a category that far outweighs the other moralities.

The short version is, it may feel satisfying to say that "Democrats will be fine with all that shit" and just sweep it under the rug, but I don't think that statement is true. I think the Democratic approach to leadership has plenty of its own flaws, but fairness is not one of them. I think Democrats tend to hold their own to higher expectations of fairness behavior than what we're seeing in the GOP.

u/falsehood · 39 pointsr/AskSocialScience

(mods, please remove if my source is bad)

I like the book The Righteous Mind and its discussion of morality. One of the points it makes is that being loyal to one's tribe and obeying authority are deeply moral matters for some people - and that those are more important then being nice, or being fair. The President is the head of a group they identify with and thus they are loyal.

u/barnabomni · 37 pointsr/exmormon

Read better books. Stop watching the local news and definitely don’t believe what Mormons say about “the world”.

Read this

Nobody is coming to save us. But what would they save us from? You see, on the whole, we’re doing a pretty good job of making our lives better. Objectively speaking. At the individual level a person feeling terrified when they actually live in a very safe environment and are extremely well protected ... well that to me sounds like something the individual needs to understand and deal with.

u/misunderstandingly · 36 pointsr/pics

Don't get too used to that! :) The first few weeks are a fake-out. They sleep all the time and then they flip it on you!

Seriously though - buy this book. Personal anecdote is that this was a life changer for our two kids.

Good luck and enjoy every second. My oldest is already three and I know that will turn around and tomorrow he will be 20.

u/urboro · 35 pointsr/TumblrInAction
u/ravennaMorgan · 35 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Yep, the book Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do does a good job explaining this. Regardless of whether you feel it's fair to merge at the end it is faster for everyone and when people try to block people from merging or merge way early it creates backups that can echo for miles.

u/PanickedPoodle · 35 pointsr/politics

This is not about thinking. There have been studies showing that education can make you better at defending incorrect information.

We spread and defend incorrect information because it reinforces a pre-existing bias, often subconscious. Information that is shared virally tends to align with one of humanity's trigger points:

  • Tribalism (racism, they tuk me jobs)
  • Authority (support for police, borders, force)
  • Purity ("dirty" immigrants, "bleeding from her whatever")
  • Sexual dominance ("I just didn't like Hillary", "Pelosi is a bitch")
  • Fairness ("Republicans are hypocrites", welfare queen myths)
  • Loyalty (ok for my guy to break the law)

    When we focus on intelligence, we are demonstrating the Democratic bias toward rules. Education = competence = success. The Republican brain wants to reward personal exceptionalism. "I succeeded, not because of how hard I worked, but because of who I am."

    If we don't understand these triggers, we will continue to be manipulated by them.

    Edit: thanks very much to my anonymous gilder, but the ideas are cribbed from Jonathan Haidt's work. Highly recommend you check out either his book or his TED talk.
u/Ardonpitt · 33 pointsr/AskAnthropology

Best I could offer off the top of my head would be The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt. He's been doing some particularly interesting work with the psychology that makes up the differences in liberals and conservatives.

u/ciarao55 · 33 pointsr/worldnews

I think part of the problem is really that people are looking at only granular parts of problems today and don't have enough historical context. Its useless to follow every story about everyone and every little thing. There are lots of ups and downs in politics and there's no reason to be so reactionary to every single new and probably manufactured "scandal".... that's what's exhausting. I like to keep updated on a few big issues, I follow the careers of a few people I find inspiring (and follow a few that do things that worry me), and spend the rest of the time reading up on topics in book form... they have the advantage of being written over time, and with more vigorous standards for accuracy. The news, while still important where immediate info is necessary, is essentially click bait now. You don't need to get caught in the rip tides that pull you everywhere constantly, just understand the general trajectory of the important things.

edit: to those curious about some book recommendations: I'm by no means an expert in anything really, and the books you read should really be about the topics you personally are interested in, so don't take my word as gospel (or any author's). I like American history, ancient history, international relations, and though I think they're more boring I force myself to read about the health care system and the American education system because I feel they're important. I'm also looking to read some books on the military industrial complex and cyber security/ big data because I don't really know anything about them other than the stuff I see in passing on the news or here on Reddit. So if anyone knows a good overview of those issues, feel free to let me know.

  • For a good start on human history and the beginnings of modern economics/ intl relations (basically why the West has historically dominated), try Guns, Germs, and Steel I believe there's also a documentary if the book is too dense for your taste (it is pretty dense).

  • Perhaps if you're interested in why people get so damn heated talking politics, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation

  • If you wonder why people vote against their own social and economic interest: What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America Full disclosure: I liked this book, but I lean left. I'm not sure if it matters, the point of the book is just to track how the Republican party went from being the party of elites, to the party of blue collar workers.

  • If the Supreme Court interests you at all, I liked Jeffrey Toobin's, The Nine

  • The achievement gap? Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria

  • Health care? There's a lot, but this one is an easy read and it compares the systems of Britain, Japan, Germany, and I believe Cuba (which is very good for their GDP!) and the US's. The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care by T.R. Reid

    This is just some stuff I've listed off the top of my head. Another thing that I find helpful to better understanding intl relations are books about the major genocides of the past few decades, which are hard to get through (because of the brutal content) but... What is the What (Sudan), First they killed my father (Cambodian genocide), Girl at War (more of a autobiography, but still chilling) there's a couple of others I've read that I can't remember now.

    Anyway, just go to Good Reads and look at Contemporary Politics. Perhaps Great Courses has a political philosophy course too that you can draw from if you wanna go even farther back into the origins of society's structure and political thought.

    Also podcasts! I've just discovered these but there's a lot of audio content (FREE!) that you can listen to on your commute and whatnot. I like Abe Lincoln's Top Hat right now.

    Edit edit: wow thanks for the gold!!
u/mhornberger · 31 pointsr/worldnews

> It's just not talked about much.

Good news doesn't sell, and people are sometimes outright hostile to it. Look at the reception to Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature. A great number of people have a visceral what-the-hell reaction to that book. Also try bringing up, in a discussion on "rape culture" in the US, that rape has dropped 85% since the 1970s.

For some people, interjecting good news is tantamount to saying that everything is perfect and thus we shouldn't try to improve anything. Good news takes the edge off their outrage, and in an outrage-driven culture it can get mistaken for apathy.

u/bentreflection · 30 pointsr/IAmA

They have actually. Here's a really good book on it. I don't think people 'decide' to freak out or not. Their brain is either able to perform rationally under extreme stress or not.

During a crisis, there is a period of time where your brain freaks out and doesn't functional rationally. People who are more trained to experience high stress levels recover from this period faster, sometimes fast enough to make it appear that they are calm and collected the whole time, while someone else will look like they're freaking out.

On a side note, this is also why people who can smile and laugh while being threatened seem far more dangerous than people who get angry and start screaming or acting tough. Smiling and laughing while in a threatening situation implies that you're brain does not feel threatened enough to override your calm.

u/w0manity · 30 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

It ignores a large body of experimental research on the topic. The vast majority of studies he cites are not experimental, but observational. That means that the studies he cites are describing what is, not why it is. But he then makes a lot of causational claims about how it is women's biology causing them to be a lot less successful in the sciences. From a scientist, this can only represent intentionally skewing the narrative in a way that is harmful to women, under the pretense that he is "supporting" them. Either he is intentionally skewing the narrative, or he is not as good of a scientist as his degree would imply. He is not citing studies in good faith, for if he were, he would ackowledge their weakness as observational studies and refrain from claiming that they demonstrate universal biological truths.

He entirely ignores the corpus of experimental work that has been done that demonstrates existing bias. He also ignores the large body of evidence that people's career choices and career success are strongly influenced by societal expectations. All humans are affected, for instance, by stereotype threat, and it just so happens that he is perpetuating the stereotype that women cannot code as well as men -- which you now should recognize there is experimentally-backed basis to suggest that this belief being spread would actively harm the productivity of 20% of Google's workforce. Other experimental research indicates that identical resumes are rated worse and/or less likely to be hired with a woman's name than a man's name -- Even at a 5% difference, over multiple hiring and/or promotion cycles this effect would be exponential. He claims that there is scientific evidence of women being poorer leaders, but it seems that overall, women simply tend to rate themselves worse than others rate them. Is this because of biology, or is it because of stereotype threat? His every conclusion is tied to the claim that women's poor representation in the field is because of biology, but again, there is no evidence that it is biology, and honestly anyone who has experienced life in the USA has experienced our differing expectations of men and women, and differing perceptions of men and women. Scientifically, expectations affect outcomes.

I don't have the time or energy to go through every one of his points and do this, but I do want to make it clear that his entire approach was a disingenuous representation of the body of research that is available on gender differences and stereotypes, and it plays in to the "biotruth" narrative that is way-too-easily accepted by people who want to believe that feminism is irrelevant. I do suggest this read as a counterpoint to the idea that gender differences are purely biological.

Note I am not saying that there are NO biological differences -- OF COURSE there are some! But I think that it is actively harmful to our society to claim that things with a net negative socioeconomic effect on group A are caused by biological differences in group A. That should, imo, be the very last conclusion reached, after all others have been explored and rejected -- and we are still exploring the effects of social and cultural expectations.

u/Socky_McPuppet · 30 pointsr/mildlyinfuriating

Stop projecting, and educate yourself.

When two lanes go down to one, study after study and simulation after simulation shows that the best way to get the maximum number of cars through in the shortest period of time is to use all the available roadway - the merge point is supposed to be at the end of the lane that is "going away", not when you first see the "lane ends" sign.

Source: Traffic

u/jub-jub-bird · 30 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

You might be interested in The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt which has to do with the moral psychology of the left and right.

The main gist of the book is that people have several different hard wired foundations for morality... things that we are predisposed by human psychology to see as good vs. evil. He tentatively identified five of them as: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation (and he later added another: Liberty/Oppression). He ran a variety of studies to get people to rank how important each of these foundations were to them and discovered that people on the left prioritized Care/Harm over all others (Fairness/Cheating was also important to leftists but less so... the other three were not important at all). The right surprisingly was almost as compassionate ranking Care/Harm only slightly lower than the left did but they ranked all others much higher to the point where all five (and later six) moral foundations are ranked roughly equally in the right wing world view. In instances where left and right disagree there is almost always one or more of the other moral foundations which the right is balancing against compassion and which the left is disregarding as unimportant.

The book is of course much more involved that that discussing where and how he came up with his thesis, the experiments he did and his speculation about the social utility of each of the moral foundations and why they appear to be hard-wired in our heads and changes he made to his theory along the way. It's definitely worth reading.

u/backtowriting · 29 pointsr/news

Fair points and good comment, thanks. It seems there have been times where she consciously and deliberately lied in order to manipulate people.

What worries me though is that she found herself surrounded by feminist activists and a journalist who were all egging her on to produce a story which fit into their 'rape culture' narrative. And in those conditions it wouldn't surprise me if her lies started to take a life of their own till it got to the point that she really believed them.

There's a great book by Lawrence Wright (author of the Scientology expose Going Clear) about false memories in a Satanic ritual abuse case, which has a lot of similarities to this story. (Activists convince girl she's been subjected to horrific abuse.) That and the psychologist Carol Tavris' book on cognitive dissonance really changed my mind about these sorts of cases and I'm now much more open to the possibility that people who appear to be sociopathic liars are often fantasists who genuinely can't tell reality from their own stories.

u/HaricotNoir · 28 pointsr/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu

The professor did a poor job of explaining a very important point. A possibly more straightforward way would be to explicitly define the term "racism" as a "system of advantage based on race." In a class such as that, it is an issue of semantics, because it requires that the word "racist" and "someone who is prejudiced on the basis of skin color" not be equivalent terms (as the vast majority of people employ them as such).

The students need not accept the teacher's definition outside of the classroom, but for the purposes of the subject and lecture, the teacher can at least preface the discussion that way - by stating outright that she/he will be using that definition of racism for the remainder of the semester.

For further reading on this point, I highly recommend Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria by Beverly Tatum. She eloquently explains this very point in greater detail and with far less indignation.

u/CaptainCalpin · 27 pointsr/IDontWorkHereLady

There's a great book that explains so many people who end up on this subreddit. "Mistakes Were Made (Not By Me)". It's a pretty entertaining read on the psychology of these people.

u/stonerbobo · 27 pointsr/politics

oh man.. just read /r/AskTrumpSupporters.. its depressing.

It really doesn't matter what arguments you make at all. Their intuitions come first, arguments come second. Intuition says Hillary is snobby/rich/evil and Trump is not, end of story.

There are people justifying Trump Jrs collusion with Russians! Anything can be justified with enough mental contortion and denial.

Really, the sooner you realize critical thinking means nothing to a huge group of people the better. Arguments don't form opinions, they are formed after the fact to justify them. Social pressures (what do my friends think?) & intuitions inform opinions.

EDIT: If this is interesting, checkout The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Its where i stole most of this from. Theres also other related stuf in behavioral econ & psychology - Thinking Fast & Slow by Daniel Kahneman, Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. Its the tip of an iceberg

u/2718281828 · 27 pointsr/SRSDiscussion

Julia Serano addresses this question in Whipping Girl. You should read it.

I'm not an expert about this subject, but if I remember correctly she uses the phrase "subconscious sex" to refer to how people feel. Then they can choose to express that in different ways. So a trans woman who wears a dress isn't a woman just because she wears a dress. She's a woman (innately) who expresses her gender (to society and/or herself) through wearing a dress.

And keep in mind that trans people are as diverse as cis people. Not all trans women wear dresses or have long hair. And there are cis men who wear dresses and have long hair. I don't know where our subconscious sex comes from, but it seems to be more than just a desire follow one gender role or the other.

Again, I'm not an expert. I hope someone will correct me if I've messed something up.

u/dkl415 · 26 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Yep. Traffic Everyone merging too early slows the overall flow of traffic, and simply causes the congestion earlier.

u/Crest_of_Tull · 26 pointsr/booksuggestions

Hey, no problem: Here's a couple I really enjoyed that helped me learn how to really articulate what I think and understand what others were saying about politics in those sorts of discussions:

  1. The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. This contrasts how liberals and conservatives think about politics in a way that I think makes sense of what can often be really frustrating arguments.
  2. Justice by Michael Sandel. This walks you through different ways you can reason about politics so that you can develop sharper and more consistent opinions.
u/theocritius · 26 pointsr/lewronggeneration

There is! sorta.

It has a bit more of a positive spin to it though. It's about how violence has gone down despite many people thinking otherwise.

u/pinksphinx · 24 pointsr/philosophy

The most insightful/mind-blowing book I've read in the past few years was "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. It was phenomenal and challenges the long discredited in academic debate idea of cultural impact on our genes. How the success of certain religions/ideas/cultures has directly altered our genes in a far faster manner than had previously been thought.

The book also does a phenomenal job at describing the fundamental moral differences between the most divided people out there today in such an amazing way.

Highly recommend.

u/toodlesandpoodles · 24 pointsr/changemyview

That isn't what racism is. Racism is prejudice or discrimination rooted in a belief of superiority of one race over another. That there are differences in the world navigated by black people and the work navigated by white people that puts different standards on behavior isn't racist, it's culturally responsive.

We all navigate our personal worlds recognising that there are groups we are part of and groups that we are not,and adjust our behavior accordingly. You speak differently with your friends than with your parents, and cringe when your parents try to speak with you and your friends the way way you do, because it rings false, coming across as them play-acting at being part of your group. Parents tpyically love their kids to death, and kids love their parents, but your parents and your friends are different. And you may see your black and white friends as just your friends, but I guarantee your black friends see you as their white friend, because your life is not their life and your culture is not their culture. In the same manner, a rich kid may just have friends, one of whom is poor, but guaranteed that poor person views them as their rich friend, different from their other friends. This is part of the way in which privilege plays out. Those with it often don't recognize its role in insulating them from harsher aspects of life common to those without it.

The N-word was and is used to denigrate and dehumanize blacks by whites. The current internal use of it in black culture can be viewed as a cultural identifier that says, "Hey, we're in this together, dealing with the past and currentjust trying to live our lives while a lot of white people still don't see us as individuals, but just another, n-word." You aren't part of that culture and can't be, because society at large doesn't view you as black or treat you as such. So you don't get to play you are and then complain that people are being racist when they tell you you're acting inappropriately at best, and veering towards abetting racism.

They may tell you they don't sit in the student section because it isn't cool, but the deeper reason is that they probably don't feel comfortable. There are a lot of reasons that could exist for that. What percentage of your school's teachers are black? What percentage of the administrators are black? What percentage of your student government is black? Does your school have a dress code that specifically targets dress or hairstyles common within their communities? Being a majority isn't what matters. What matters is having a voice, having a say, and having ownership. You see it as your school, but do they, or is it just a school that they attend.

You should read, Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria: and other conversations about race.

u/imVINCE · 23 pointsr/atheism

Religion probably served a really important evolutionary function, as well, by ensuring social cohesion around a shared set of beliefs and identities, allowing for tight group bonding which gave some groups a selective advantage. Of course, in today's world this can actually become harmful- particularly when the shared beliefs require a suspension of the sort of objective and reasoned thinking necessary to function in this modern society, or when they inform or motivate antisocial economic or political activities- but I'm not sure it's fair to say that humanity would be better off without it. Maybe on net today, but it's also possible that we may have relied on it in our evolutionary past.

Source, a wonderful book which can really aid in understanding those with whom our worldviews disagree.

u/JoeyJoJoJrShabidoo · 22 pointsr/AskReddit

My theory is for why 'time flies' when you are having fun (or really busy) and why it goes slow when you are bored. It goes beyond simply stating that during these interesting activities you are distracted.

This theory relies upon my assumption that when you are performing an interesting activity your eyes are generally more active. Playing a video game or doing a sport for example most likely requires a lot of eye movement compared to a boring activity.

It is said that when you move your eyes your brain cuts out the transition period during the movement (I can't remember where I read this, perhaps in the book Phantoms in the Brain). This is handy as it cuts out all the useless information that your blurry vision in this period would otherwise be sending to your brain. But what is interesting is that your brain distorts your perception of time in order to cut out this period of transition. This is my layman understanding.

My hypothesis is that time seems to go quicker during interesting or busy activities because pieces of time are actually lost or distorted for the higher number of eye movements that occur during this activity.

Edit: Here is a pdf from a nature article I found relating to this time distortion I am talking about.

u/Oos-PoE · 22 pointsr/conspiracy

It's documented in his book; DMT: The Spirit Molecule.

>From 1990 to 1995 Dr. Rick Strassman conducted U.S. Government-approved and funded clinical research at the University of New Mexico in which he injected sixty volunteers with DMT, one of the most powerful psychedelics known. His detailed account of those sessions is an extraordinarily riveting inquiry into the nature of the human mind and the therapeutic potential of psychedelics.

u/tazemanian-devil · 22 pointsr/exjw

Hello and welcome! Here are my recommendations for getting those nasty watchtower cobwebs out of your head, in other words, here is what I did to de-indoctrinate myself:

Take some time to learn about the history of the bible. For example, you can take the Open Yale Courses on Religious Studies for free.

Read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman

Also read A History of God by Karen Armstrong

Next, learn some actual science. For example - spoiler alert: evolution is true. Visit Berkeley's excellent Understanding Evolution Website.. Or, if you're pressed for time, watch this cartoon.

Read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

Learn about the origin of the universe. For example, you could read works by Stephen Hawking

Read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking

Learn about critical thinking from people like Michael Shermer, and how to spot logical fallacies.

For good measure, use actual data and facts to learn the we are NOT living in some biblical "last days". Things have gotten remarkably better as man has progressed in knowledge. For example, watch this cartoon explaining how war is on the decline..

Read The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker

Another great source is the youtube series debunking 1914 being the start of the last days.

I wish you the best. There is a whole world of legitimate information out there based on actual evidence that you can use to become a more knowledgeable person.

You may still wonder how you can be a good human without "the truth." Here is a good discussion on how one can be good without god. --Replace where he talks about hell with armageddon, and heaven with paradise--

Start to help yourself begin to live a life where, as Matt Dillahunty puts it, you'll "believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible."

u/lucyswag · 21 pointsr/wholesomememes

Here’s a couple of books that will give you strategies to be a more effective educator, especially with low-income students. Realistically the strategies are great for any kid, as all kids can use some support and empathy from the adults in the lives.

“Reading and Reaching Children Who Hurt” by Susan E. Craig - How to more effectively teach children who have experienced trauma (Adverse Childhood Experiences). His experience is the goal of the strategies given in the book. (Amazon) I haven’t read it, but she also has two more recent books, “Trauma Sensitive Schools” K-5 and 6-12

Trauma Sensitive Schools: Approaches that Work - A project by the Massachusetts Advocates for Children and Harvard Law School has free books (downloadable pdf). One focused on the background and the second is about implementing a school-wide approach.

“Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria” by Dr. Beverly Tatum - Covers the theory of racial identity development and how to support positive racial identity in an educational setting. (Amazon)

u/Bluedevil88 · 21 pointsr/baltimore

Roads are like the Field of Dreams, "If you build it they will come" and fill up all the lanes.

Great book on Traffic and Traffic design:

u/Imafilthybastard · 21 pointsr/videos That's an interesting book on survival situations. Some people just freeze when panic sets in.

u/Currently_roidraging · 21 pointsr/IntellectualDarkWeb

The book itself it a hack-job hit piece on men, and Ben Sixsmith's review – which is what's linked – is a great takedown of Plank's "work."

If anyone is interested in further reading regarding actual masculinity and what men face today, here's a small reading list:

  • King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine, by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette [Both of these two gentlemen work is generally worth reading but this is the best breakdown of the positive and negative sides of masculinity that I've found. It also equipped me to start tackling my own masculinity in earnest; especially once I had the "immature masculine" models laid out before me in this book.]
  • The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It, by Warren Farrell PhD and John Gray PhD. [Don't let the title mislead you; Farrell does an excellent job of identifying the overarching issues facing men today and from where they seem to stem. His use of "you're son" in the place of a proverbial "you" takes some getting used to, but it is every bit an eve-opening, depressing, motivating, and forthright read. This was tied for the top of this list with 'KWML. The importance of a present and engaged father cannot be ignored any longer.']
  • The Myth of Male Power, by Warren Pharrell PhD. [Another hard-hitting contribution from Farrell, this entry challenges the dogma of the entire concept of a patriarchy an does so well-armed with stats, studies, and facts. Men being indoctrinated into being expendable with the illusion of gaining/having power could be (I believe it's VERY likely) a huge contributor to the increasing plight of men in western societies, despite the deluge of rhetoric claiming men are so powerful they oppress everyone else.]

    I may even make a separate post for this because it's very important to me. I am in the middle of researching and writing a book that, I hope, does what Plank's drivel claimed to do. The materials here are just a few selections I've come across in my research. Maybe I can elaborate more on my work if I make a more comprehensive 'recommended reading' post re: masculinity. I'd love to see more discussion around this as I believe it's exactly the kind of thing to tackle in a community like this.
u/lakai42 · 20 pointsr/AskReddit

You have to practice. Communication is a subconscious skill. You can't consciously plan your way through an entire conversation because there isn't enough time. It's possible to think of a few things that are good conversation starters, but that's about it.

In order to train any subconscious skill, you have to practice. When you practice your brain starts by trying to make the neural connections necessary to create the movement you want. At first the brain uses a lot of neurons. After more practice the brain finds more efficient ways of creating the movement and uses less neurons. That's how musicians look like they can effortlessly play an instrument the more they practice.

The biggest mistake people make about communication is that they don't approach learning it like they would approach learning a new sport or musical instrument. That's why nerds who like to be analytical about everything suck at communicating, because you have to learn communication by practice; the same way you learn a sport, which is another thing nerds suck at. You can't ride a bike by thinking every time before you move the pedals or handles. You can't make your way through a conversation that way either for the same reason - there's no time.

Practice keeping eye contact and saying what's on your mind without any hesitation. You'll find that after a few conversations you'll be able to do this more easily because your brain has gotten used to the skills. A good rule of thumb is to be yourself, but if you happen to be an asshole, you'll have to change.

If you can't find the courage to talk to random people right away, then start small. Talk to people you've been avoiding, like neighbors, coworkers, or classmates. Come up with a few prepared conversations and see what happens. If things don't go too well, know that you won't be that nervous and awkward during the next talk.

The neuroscience in this comment comes from The Brain That Changes Itself by Norman Doidge, and Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

u/NoLadyBrain · 19 pointsr/GenderCritical

Given my username this is probably not a surprise, but I speak freely about brain sex, no matter how libfem the company. I'm a scientist and I have no patience for ladybrain garbage. I've found that even the libfemmy-est of libfems can't really get offended when I say there is no ladybrain -- or at least they can't get offended aloud without betraying their internalized misogyny.

Here are a couple of book you could read about the subject to bring up and discuss: Pink Brain, Blue Brain is by Dr. Lise Eliot, a neuroscientist, and Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine.

u/cwenham · 19 pointsr/changemyview

> We need to abandon the fear of being wrong before we will accept the possibility of being wrong.

I'm reading a book right now by Jonathan Haidt called "The Righeous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" that has an interesting metaphor: humans are 90% chimps and 10% bees (not literally, of course--we're 99% chimps ;-) We evolved in an environment that made us competitive with other individuals, but were able to form groups and hives outside of kinship to become much stronger through cooperation.

So in addition to pride and the avoidance of humiliation, we have the urge to stay loyal to the hive, even if it means hypocrisy.

/r/changemyview is sorta kinda like a hive where your identity and status is determined by how much you relax your grip on fixed viewpoints. If this sort of thing actually works, and gets copied to other forums and institutions, it might begin to permeate human culture and get people to re-base or re-form their hives on different precepts.

u/witchdoc86 · 19 pointsr/DebateEvolution

Well. Like humans that we are, we do human things. Some of us make fun of creationists here, and some of them make fun of us at /r/Creation.

I try to be civil, as I like to be nice, and hopefully get someone with an opposing view to read what I write, but like most IRL debates, one side swaying the other is very rare.

Beliefs do not occur in isolation - see the foundationalist or coherentist models of knowledge, for example. To change one, often it is necessary to also change other beliefs.

For example, to change one's views on gay marriage, one may need to change one's beliefs on biblical inerrantism and whether sex is dualistic or a spectrum.

To change a YECer's point of view, again, it may be necessary to change their view on biblical inerrantism/belief that Satan in in charge of this world, clouding scientist's eyes/what the context and purpose of Genesis 1&2 is.

To flip my view (back to creationism), YECers need to change my beliefs on the evidence, purpose of Gen1&2, and biblical inerrancy, amongst others.

This is difficult as this is complicated by confirmation bias and the backfire effect which are very real phenomena.

In addition, although we think we are rational, we [are not] ( ; our passions direct our beliefs to a great extent.

u/peenoid · 19 pointsr/KotakuInAction

I love Jonathan Haidt. His book "The Righteous Mind" is, I think, one of the most important books written in the past century and should be required reading for all high-schoolers and then read again yearly for anyone going into the social sciences or humanities.

u/Ho66es · 18 pointsr/books

Off the top of my head, in no particular order:

The Undercover Economist: Easily the best of those "Economics in everyday life - books"

The Blank Slate: Steven Pinker on the nature/nurture debate. This really opened my eyes on questions like "Why are the same people who fight against abortion for the death penalty", for example.

Complications: This and his second book, Better, gave me an incredible insight into medicine.

Why we get sick: Very good explanation of the defence mechanisms our bodies have and why treating symptoms can be a very bad idea.

How to read a book: An absolute classic. Turns out I've been doing it wrong all those years.

The Art of Strategy: Game Theory, applied to everyday situations. Always treats a topic like Nash equilibrium, Brinkmanship etc. theoretically and then goes into many examples.

A Random Walk Down Wall-Street: Made me see the stock market completely differently.

The Myth of the Rational Voter: The shortcomings of democracy.

The White Man's Burden: Fantastic account of the problems faced by the third world today, and why it is so hard to change them.

u/Lightfiend · 18 pointsr/psychology

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature - evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics. (probably most interesting from a Freudian perspective, deals with many of our unconscious instincts)

Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces The Shape Our Decisions - Unconscious decision-making, behavioral economics, consumer psychology. Fun read.

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion - Most popular book on the psychology of persuasion, covers all the main principles. Very popular among business crowds.

Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships - Social neuroscience, mirror neurons, empathy, practical stuff mixed with easy to understand brain science.

Authentic Happiness - Positive Psychology, happiness, increasing life satisfaction.

Feeling Good - A good primer on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Also widely considered one of the best self-help books by mental health practitioners.

The Brain That Changes Itself - Neuroplasticity, how experience shapes our brains. Some really remarkable case studies that get you wondering how powerful our brains really are.

The Buddhist Brain - The practical neuroscience of happiness, love, and wisdom from a Buddhist perspective.

That should give you more than enough to chew on.

u/actanonverba8 · 18 pointsr/MensRights

Andrew, I would like you to please consider doing something. Please consider taking all this wonderful knowledge you have about this "14 times" myth and attempting to get it published in a major periodical.

I think your best bet is the shotgun-approach--sending the information to multiple people and hoping one or more will run with it. I think you should consider sending your information to all of the following (it´s just copy/pasting after the first one):

  • Christina Hoff Sommers. She´s a brilliant writer who eats feminist myths for breakfast. She publishes with several popular media sources including The Atlantic and Time magazine. Both her and her assistant´s emails are on the page (to the right of her photo). I would email both.

  • Barbara Kay. Not afraid to criticize feminists. Writes about a variety of issues. Publishes in the National Post.

  • Dr. Helen Smith. Her contact email is: [email protected] Dr. Smith is very sympathetic to men and boys. She normally publishes at Pajamas Media.

  • Send a letter to the editor in to the Toronto Star (the newspaper you linked to here). The email address is: [email protected] Your letter probably won´t get published, but it just might. It shouldn´t take long, mostly just copy/pasting what you´ve already done.

    Well, I would like to thank you for your excellent post and I hope you´ll consider what I´ve proposed. Keep up the good work.
u/kumay · 18 pointsr/suggestmeabook

May not be exactly what you're looking for, but I read this book (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion) over the summer and it really helped me get into the heads of people with different ideologies than my own (liberal). Worth a read!

u/idkydi · 17 pointsr/Ask_Politics

Alright, it's not a "convervative" resource, but I read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind and it made me less politically angry. What I previously saw as callousness and bitterness I now see as responding to different moral cues. Here's the TED talk summarizing part of the book, and here's the Amazon link.

u/MissCherryPi · 17 pointsr/TheBluePill

>societal feminazation of male traits

I don't know what that means.

I know that in general people have hormones that influence their behavior - estrogen and testosterone.

But that they also have cultural influences that influence this behavior.

For example, right now computer software coding is an overwhelmingly male dominated field. But there is nothing inherent to writing software that has to do with having a Y chromosome, a penis and testicles, facial hair, upper body strength, etc.

In fact, in the 1960's USA coding was considered a traditionally female job because you have to sit at a desk and type all day and people associated it with secretarial work (which, was done by men before it was done by women).

In Western Europe, soccer is a large part of male culture. In the United States, it's for little girls. Is one perception more "correct?"

So that there are "male traits" and "female traits" is true in that we can see patterns in human behavior - men and women are more likely to choose different majors in college, but there's no evidence that this is due to anything inherent about male or female biology.

The problem with physiological studies of the brain is twofold - first the brain is plastic. People who share common behaviors and thought patterns will share similar brain structures. For example, people who are piano players may have similar neural structures, or people who are gymnasts. One could hypothesize that these neural structures are the cause of skill at playing the piano, or that they were built up in the brain after years of study and practice. There is no way to know if differences in brain structures between men and women are "natural" or due to lived experience as their gender.

Secondly, studies that find a difference in the brains of men and women are more likely to be published than studies that find no difference. We are missing a large part of the argument.

If you think that "Men are acting in ways that are traditionally feminine," I would ask - according to what definition? In the 1700's men wore powdered wigs, tights and high heeled shoes. This clothing is traditionally feminine, no? Men at that time also took a big part in the education and raising of their children. This differed greatly from the idea of the stoic, uninvolved father of the mid 20th century, and we have seemingly swung back to the baby bjorn wearing hipster dad of 2013. In Middle Eastern cultures, heterosexual men will hold hands, hug and kiss on the mouth - something we could perceive as behavior typical of gay men. That doesn't make them gay.

To all of this I say - so what? Ideas about sexuality, about masculine and feminine change over time. You might not like how they change, and that's fine. But what you can't do is argue that they have a concrete and unchanging definition.

u/mulch17 · 17 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

Asking redditors to explain conservative goals and values is the perfect political Turing test. The answers are always awful.

The more time I spend online, the more I keep agreeing with Jon Haidt's research. He's a self-described liberal that uses his moral foundation theory to explain the underlying moral values of each party, and why it leads to the "Conservative Advantage" - that conservatives are way better at understanding liberals than vice versa. In other words, conservatives generally think liberals are naive and misguided, while liberals generally think conservatives are evil, insane, etc.

He wrote a whole book about it called The Righteous Mind, but this is a good intro if you're interested in learning more. I've never been able to look at politics the same way after reading Haidt's work. He was a life-changer for me.

u/naraburns · 17 pointsr/TheMotte

> We pretty much all feel like something's fucked, we just don't know how to fix it.

What boggles me about this feeling is that human beings have never had it so good. Evidence that "something's fucked" is shockingly thin, unless it's evidence that what's fucked is people's expectations, and the whatever-it-is-we're-doing to give them those expectations. There is definitely suffering out there, there are winners and losers, and it is difficult to hear that "the world is better than ever" when you're the one whose ship never seems to come in (so to speak). But ideologies built on the idea of impending apocalypse are at least as ancient as Christianity, and they historically appeal to society's worst-off for precisely this reason--this feeling that "something's fucked."

I call that feeling "the human condition." It's okay to want to make the world better. And we should definitely do that where we can. Following that feeling is how we built the amazing world we live in today.

The trick is to also be grateful for the amazing world we live in today, too. It's possible to do that and still want to make things better. It's that gratitude, I think, that staves off a tumble into nihilism--which I suspect is a much better name than "socialism" for what the teenagers calling themselves "socialists" today are feeling.

u/blargnoodle · 17 pointsr/IAmA

Well this is a very dear topic to me, as schizophrenia has completely shaped my life. My dad was diagnosed paranoid shizophrenic when I was very young and my relationship with him was mostly via periodic long distance phone calls. His story is basically the same as A Beautiful Mind, just a different Ivy League school. Most of my life has been consumed by the fear that one day my brain would turn on me, feeling like a ticking time bomb that could go off any moment, particularly when I smoked a lot of THC I went to very bad places in my head and could literally see the line, if not crossing it for moments.

Having vomited all that out, a few questions:

  • One of the major issues with paranoid schizophrenia is that taking pills from doctors (who may or may not be double secret government agents) is a major fear inherent in the delusion, so the medication often isn't taken. Do you think family members should be given more authority in these situations and the person suffering needs to have their rights to refuse treatment overrided?

  • When I heard Joe Rogan talk about DMT, and subsequently read the book by Dr. Rick Strassman it, to me, completely explained schizophrenia. If this endogenous chemical is indeed what causes dreams as the evidence seems to point to, then blurring that line makes a lot more sense. Have you read up on DMT and do you think with focused studies it could lead to a cure?

    In the book, Dr. Strassman explains studies were making headway in the 60's before a ban on all hallucinogenics shut down the research, even though it occurs naturally in the human body.

    I like to think of it as like a valve to the dream world, if you do too many hallucinogens, or simply have shortages of regulatory brain chemicals to keep the DMT under control, I feel this is the most logical explanation. For example, when your brain releases it while you are asleep, your mind and body are prepared so this is normal... but if that same chemical was leaking into your mind while you're awake, couldn't that explain the hallucinations occuring and how they seem so real?

    NOTE: I know virtually nothing about chemistry, brain chemistry, biology, psychology or anything, so I'm sure some of this stuff can be easily dismissed, these are just the best explanations I've been able to come up with in my own research. Would love to hear from someone more knowledgable from a science perspective as well.

u/FS959 · 17 pointsr/sweden

Jag vet att folk gillar nordkoreansk propaganda, men varför inte läsa något ur en nordkoreans perspektiv istället för samma trötta charterresa? Det bor över 20000 nordkoreaner i Sydkorea, och en majoritet av dem har flytt dit under det senaste decenniet.

Här är några bokrekommendationer:

  • Nothing to Envy: Fokuserar ganska mycket på svältkatastrofen på 90-talet men också många skildringar av vardagen i Nordkorea. Släpptes nyligen på svenska.

  • Escape from Camp 14: Biografi om den enda person som fötts i ett nordkoreanskt koncentrationsläger och lyckats fly landet. Över 200 000 personer tros sitta i dessa läger och Camp 14 är det absolut värsta, i klass med Auschwitz-Birkenau vad gäller grymhet. The Aquariums of Pyongyang handlar om ett annat läger.

  • Några bra böcker som inte är skrivna av/med "avhoppare" (dvs nordkoreanska flyktingar) är The Cleanest Race (om Nordkoreas interna propaganda; väldigt bra för den som undrar "hur de kan tro på det där"), North of the DMZ, och Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader (nästan encyclopedisk bok om nordkoreas historia).
u/callouskitty · 16 pointsr/ainbow

Whipping Girl makes a convincing argument that even as homosexuals and women have gained greater equality in our society, femininity has become taboo - especially in the LGBT community.

u/SewHappyGeek · 16 pointsr/AskHistorians

Re: the supernatural aspects. It seems this was an evolutionary process. For example, in the early days it was normal to refer to Stalin in NK propaganda and put him on a similar pedestal as KI-S. but as time went on and the policies proved egregious, it became more pressing to present Kim as a sort of spiritual leader/demigod as well. All mentions of Stalin were quietly retired. At the same time, the pictures and stories about Kim start to become more and more godlike - he has supernatural ability to understand what a factory's problems are and solve them in 2 seconds. So things like the story of how he kicked Japanese ass near Mount Pikchu started evolving too, because that further demonstrates how godlike he is and how his destiny was mapped. Then, when KJ-I needed to be groomed for the leadership position, stories about his 'birth at Mount Pikchu' started circulating, and his astonishing output of important Juche/Communist essays started getting larger.

When KJ-I went to uni, he seems to have kept himself aloof and was always intensely private. So he didn't show up in photos, or was largely inconspicuous in the background. But when he was coming to the fore as future leader, suddenly we need to explain why he's not in the centre of the photos!! Ah! We have the answer! He was so humble (echoes of Jesus here?) that he refused to be in the centre, no matter how much his astonished classmates begged him. So they first make a virtue out of it, then that transforms into proof that he's the Chosen One.

So it was a slow process, and probably wasn't intentionally planned or mapped out. Circumstances demanded further 'proof' of why it was absolutely imperative for the Kims to stay in power, and one easy way to do that is take advantage of the fact that the communist ideology had suppressed traditional religion by substituting it with a Kim religion - all the while increasing The Kim political grip on the country as shit gets worse and worse. You should read Bradley Martin's Under the Care of the Fatherly Leader. Also see B. R. Myers The Cleanest Race for a discussion of the propoganda. It's short and scary as hell.

Hope that sets you on the track! It's fascinating and extremely disturbing to read.

Edited for clarity as the kind aubgrad11 pointed out.

u/Bluedevil1945 · 16 pointsr/baltimore

It is basically garbage and a waste of my hard-earned taxdollars. The reason it is garbage is because the assumption is that building highways reduces congestion. This is not true. What it does is increases capacity which means more people will then drive as the capacity has you end up back where you started...a congested road. This is what will happen in the short-term.

This, coupled with trends of one-car ownership and the beginnings of driverless cars, means this is a waste of taxpayer dollars as the demand won't exist either so there is not a need to build more highways. This is what will happen in the long-term.

Indeed, sticking what what already exists may be enough to meet the demand of a reduced car culture and more efficient and computerized driving patterns.

Arguably, a better solution is to build out more efficient regional public transportation such as trolleys, busses, rail, bike lanes, etc for a more long term solution. In the short-term shore up what already exists.

Great book on the topic:

u/vibrunazo · 16 pointsr/brasil

Se está interessado em se aprofundar no assunto de por que violência aumenta ou diminui. Sugiro ler esse livro do Steven Pinker que é referência mundial no assunto.

O livro foca mais no cenário global como um todo. Aonde a violência está diminuindo na média. Mas reconhece que em alguns focos na América latina violência está indo em direção contrária.

O livro é extremamente extenso, a explicação não é simples, são diversos fatores diferentes. Mas uma das teclas que ele bate bastante e nos parece bem familiar no Brasil, é um Estado ineficiente na área de segurança. Apesar de alguns políticos populistas estarem apelando pra sugestão de que deveria ser responsabilidade de cada indivíduo se defender sozinho. O que o livro mostra é que historicamente a evidência é bem forte de que quem faz segurança é a polícia. Os estados brasileiros aonde a polícia está mal paga, com greves, paralisações, é justamente aonde estão os piores focos de violência.

u/girafa · 16 pointsr/movies
u/streamentry · 16 pointsr/slatestarcodex

The Perilous State of the University: Jonathan Haidt/Jordan B Peterson
>I recently traveled to New York University to talk with Dr. Jonathan Haidt about, among other things, disgust, purity, fear and belief; the perilous state of the modern university; and his work with Heterodox Academy ( an organization designed to draw attention to the lack of diversity of political belief in the humanities and the social sciences. Dr. Haid is Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business and a social psychologist. He studies the psychology of morality and the moral emotions. He has been described as a top global thinker by both Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines. Dr. Haidt is the author of three books: The newest is The Coddling of the American Mind: How Bad Ideas and Good Intentions are Setting up a Generation for Failure ( The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion ( The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom ( His writings on diversity viewpoint for the Heterodox Academy are at (

u/spektor211 · 16 pointsr/AskWomen

I listened to an audio book called Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker. the author wrote the book for this very reason. its empirical evidence of how the world is getting better in several ways. I was feeling really pessimistic about the state of the world until this book gave me some perspective. Top 3 best books of my 2018.


u/CEOofEarthMITTROMNEY · 16 pointsr/IAmA
u/StuTheSheep · 15 pointsr/Teachers

I highly recommend this book:

It's a discussion about the role of self-segregation in the formation of identity. While it's primarily about race, you can also apply the ideas in the book to the formation of gender identity, religious identity, and various subculture identities. It ties in very well with the adolescent stage of Erikson's psychosocial development theory.

u/noodles0311 · 15 pointsr/AskLibertarians

Would you rather have your landlord be able to send you off to die in war and be both judge and jury if you got accused of a crime, or do you like a volunteer military and having 12 peers be your jury? To anyone who legitimately thinks things are no better than during the middle ages, try reading Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress

I guess the definition of centralization needs to be discussed as well. A lord would be your military leader, judge, legislature, essentially your whole government. Is that decentralized just because his geographic span of control is small?

u/emptyheady · 15 pointsr/TrueAtheism
  • What is humanism?

    >Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually, and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).

  • Why atheists often mention humanism:

    >As the ethical movement began using the word in the 1930s, the term "humanism" became increasingly associated with philosophical naturalism, and with secularism and the secularisation of society. The first Humanist Manifesto, formalised at the University of Chicago in 1933, identified secular humanism as an ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, while specifically rejecting supernatural and religious ideas as a basis of morality and decision-making.

    So humanist (and atheists) prefer reason over (religious) scripture to look for (moral/human) values.


    I relate to this, since I reject any authority on human values. I encourage intellectual discussions. I am open to religious scriptures to function as starting point or inspiration, but never (!) as authority. Same goes for god's words. In that sense, I am pretty in line with Christopher Hitchens, an anti-totalitarian himself and seeing god as a dictator.


    >I ask mostly because browsing around this sub-Reddit, it seems most people are utter twat waffles when it comes to being humanists, by definition.

    Is that so...? How can you tell whether someone is being a humanist or not, by just reading their comments?

    >It seems the most humanistic behavior happens after tragedy or when species-driven comforting needs to happen.

    Is it after tragedy or after the attention in media? I suspect the latter.

    >but damn are we some villainous creatures.

    I assume that you are pointing at the fact that we can do evil, implying that we can also do some good.

    Throughout the history, violence has declined and we are now living in the most peaceful time, ever - Steven Pinker.

    Our nature has not really changed that much. So that means that more people choose to do good (or more people choose to do less evil).


    Your post is rather resentful philippic towards humans. Why? You seem to completely ignore the good side of men and the decline of violence.
    Suggesting that we live in a society that looks like that of Game of Thrones. Empirically false. :-/
    I am quite optimistic about the development of humanism in society, for good reasons:
u/Jess_than_three · 15 pointsr/ainbow

"Genderqueer" is a pretty broad term. As I understand it, it encompasses pretty much anything that doesn't fall under the categories of:

  • Male

  • Female

  • Bigender (i.e., alternating male and female identifications)

  • Agender (i.e., no gender identification)

    It's generally considered outside the standard binary, and I think in general genderqueer identities tend to encompass both maleness and femaleness to some degree.

    Also, my understanding is that it's fairly common for trans people to identify as genderqueer for a while - like, my assigned gender doesn't fit me, but I don't really fully identify with the "opposite" gender either - before realizing that that's not quite right, and coming to identify as the "opposite" gender. (Julia Serano talks about her experience having done this in her excellent book Whipping Girl.)
u/viviphilia · 15 pointsr/lgbt

I don't know why people on this thread are telling you to wait. I mean if you're OK waiting, well then whatever, go ahead and wait. But it doesn't sound like you're OK with that. If it were me, I'd think about fighting, using reason and information as my weapons. But if you want to use those tools, you need to learn first, and that can take time. You need to educate yourself on what it means to be transgender. That means a lot of reading and information seeking. You need to listen to the stories of other people who have been in your position - and there have been people in your position. You need to learn about techniques they used to get out and find techniques that will work for you.

When I hear trans kids say things like they wish they were dead, it really worries me. I wish that I could do more to help you fight for your life, but all I can really do is point to the path. I hope you take it.

u/omgwtf_throwaway · 15 pointsr/asktransgender

I posted this a few days ago. Hope it might be helpful for someone else. :)

> I'm a planner and a plotter by when I wanted to come out to people, I wanted to have this big speech laid out and a massive carpet bomb of information ready for everyone once I told them. I even wanted to tell people at the right time...not around anyone's birthday or holidays or anything, but when the moment was just right. It was just hindering me coming out. So, first tip: RELAX. Some planning is nice, but don't overdo things. You can take notes in, but don't write a letter or an essay. :)

> The good points I'd take from my experience thus far:

> let your family members know you wanna talk to them before you do. It's a thing they need to make 15-20 minutes of time for and not something you may wanna just casually throw in after dinner while watching TV.

divide and conquer. Separate out the family members you think will be most comfortable (for me, it was my mother and sister over the phone) and speak with them first in private about it. It's a lot harder to come out to several people than just one.

> when you talk, talk to them about how you've felt first. Tell them it may be an awkward conversation, tell them that you're nervous talking to them, tell them how you've felt uncomfortable or dysphoric or how this has manifested in you. Put the 'I'm trans' near the middle/end.

they may ask questions about it. You may not know all the answers just yet. That's fine. Stand firm, it's okay to not know everything or where things will end up.

> give them some time to wrap their head around things and don't push them.

If everything goes well...bootstrap. ask the people you've told to help you with the people you haven't. I told my father and brothers, who helped me talk with my aunt, who helped me talk with my grandparents.

Addendum - good resources on trans stuff that I found:

The Praeger handbook of transsexuality. I was so lucky to have a copy in my local library, has some of the few studies/surveys i've seen, covers a lot of ground, trans guys and trans gals. Kinda technical though and a few years old, but I loved it. Learned so much!

Whipping Girl by Julia Serano. I think it really helps you understand society's fascination with trans ladies, but more mtf and activism focused of course.

PFLAG booklet I think it covers the basics okay for friends and family.

WPATH v7 standards of care Lots of fancy documentation about treatment of trans* individuals, expectations of HRT, etc.

I also read She's not there by jennifer finney boylan. i thought it was okay and I think it provides a more personal narrative to the whole thing, especially for me and my family because she's a fellow Mainer. Also mtf focused. Sorry trans guys, hopefully someone else can get you some cool resources. :(

edit: added some links. Also remember that while books are expensive, library cards are usually free and interlibrary loan is the coolest thing ever. :)

u/iyzie · 15 pointsr/asktransgender

Does that mean that cis women who want to be sexy are fetishists?

Most likely they worry about trans women being fetishists because their own deeply internalized misogyny causes them to see female bodies primarily as sexual objects.

Whipping Girl is a must read.

u/Heterogenic · 15 pointsr/asktransgender

Any answer I could give would be trumped by reading Whipping Girl. It's basically the canonical answer to all the questions you've posed here today. It is a treatise on the intersections of feminism and transsexuality, and also quite a good read.

u/skadefryd · 15 pointsr/AskHistorians

B.R. Myers (author of this book and this book) would argue that North Korea is much closer to being a fascist state than a communist one. It successfully co-opted communist imagery and rhetoric, but Juche is a sham ideology devoid of content, and references to Marxism-Leninism are now more or less absent from North Korean rhetoric and founding documents. Juche exists to cover up the country's right-wing nature, including veneration of a "parent" leader who is believed to have supernatural powers (Myers would argue this is directly borrowed from fascist imperial Japan), ethnocentrism (the reverence of the Korean people as morally pure but needing a strong leader to protect them), erratic, belligerent military posturing aimed at projecting an image of strength to their citizens, and so on. The fascist state has survived, it seems, by convincing the world that it is not fascist at all.

I would be interested to know from other North Korea experts whether Myers' thesis is generally accepted.

u/oyp · 14 pointsr/todayilearned

This slideshow is essentially the same thesis as Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature. A great book.

u/SyntheticAperture · 14 pointsr/Colonizemars

As someone left of center and an environmentalist.... Free markets and enlightenment values have lifted humanity out of squalor and superstition into modern day lives of plenty and comfort. Check out Steven Pinker's works if you don't believe me.

As long as we bring both to Mars with us, we'll be fine.

u/meermeermeer · 14 pointsr/AskReddit

Hey there. I'm not trans, but my girlfriend is, so while I cant personally relate to your situation, I hope I can offer some good advice/perspective.

My girlfriend transitioned about 3 years ago, and while her family had a really hard time at first, and are still not 100% cool with it, they are using the right names and pronouns around her and still enjoy spending time with her, whatever that's worth. They are slowly coming around, and for a couple of republicans, that's a huge deal. To her, transitioning was the single best decision of her life.

My advice is, you're an adult, and you should do what makes you happy, and its really hard to be happy if you're not happy with who you are. I know it must be really hard to do something your family might not like, but your well being and self esteem is more important than their judgment. My parents hoped my lesbianism was a phase at first, but they've come around. I wouldn't trade the love I share with my girlfriend for the complete love and acceptance of my parents any day.

If you are not financially dependent on your parents, you hold the bargaining chips, you can decide how much a part of your life you want them to have. You can pass without hormones, which shouldn't be a deciding factor if you're trans, on whether you should transition or not, but it really does help. I hope whatever you decide to do, it makes you happy.

Here's my advice: Read as much as you can, research, find some voices you can relate to and some advice that seems right for you. I highly reccommend "Whipping Girl" by Julia Serrano. There are plenty of great folks down at r/transgender and r/lgbt who have been in your shoes and are more than willing to spend some time chatting with you. Good luck.

u/AJs_Sandshrew · 14 pointsr/biology

For those who don't want to watch the video:

Big Ideas in Brief by Ian Crofton

Sapiens: a Brief History of Human Kind by Yuval Noah Harari

Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind by Sandra Blakeslee and Vilayanur S. Ramachandran

Do No Harm: Stories of Life, Death, and Brain Surgery by Henry Marsh

How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer

Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers by Robert Sapolsky

The Brain: A Beginner's Guide by Ammar Al-Chalabi, R. Shane Delamont, and Martin R. Turner

Ill go ahead and put in a plug for the book I'm reading right now: The Gene: An Intimate History by Siddhartha Mukherjee

u/stillnotking · 14 pointsr/TumblrInAction

Just as a starting point of comparison, you might want to read this.

If you're really interested in the topic, and it is an interesting topic, I'd highly recommend this book.

As bad as things are for some Americans, the everyday realities of life for nearly everyone in medieval Europe were much worse in every conceivable way.

u/RaccoonGiraffePizza · 14 pointsr/UnresolvedMysteries

Some of these rules are also from my experience with SAR:

  1. When hiking (or other outdoor recreation) always have a whistle on you. So many people who get lost in the woods are actually close enough to other people that they could be heard if they had a whistle. Screaming uses a lot more energy and people might not interpret it as cries for help.

  2. People on day outings/day hikes are less likely to be prepared in the event of an unexpected situation (like bad weather or getting lost) because they assume they can just walk out and go home. Bring enough stuff with you that if you had to spend a night somewhere (even though it would suck), you could survive.

  3. Keep basic survival stuff in your car at all times. There's just no reason not to and if you break down, you'll be glad. Have a blanket, firestarter kit, headlamp/flashlight, paracord, painters tarp, and first aid kit.

  4. Assume your cellphone won't work. People are too reliant on cellphones and forgo basic safety steps because they assume they can use the map on their phone, call for help, use the flashlight, use the compass, look something up, etc.

  5. Don't drive to unknown places without at least half a tank.

  6. Be loud and make eye contact, if possible, when someones giving you the creeps. "Why are you following me?" loudly or "What are you doing?" can throw an attacker off. Many of them instinctively don't want to draw attention to themselves.

  7. If someone tries to get you into a car, fight like hell. I'd rather them find my body in a parking lot then never know what happened to me.

  8. Don't drink and swim.

  9. If there's someone you can trust this with, share your phone location with them in an ongoing way (like find my friends) and give their phone number to one of your family members. If they're worried you are missing, they can call that person and have them check out your phones location. (If you don't feel comfortable just giving that family member access to your location all the time)

  10. Recognize behavioral red flags in the people around you and take them seriously. A significant other that seems paranoid and controlling, a coworker who seems fixated on getting back at your company.. etc. If someone freaks you out, listen to your gut.

  11. Don't engage in road rage, public confrontations, etc. You never know if the stranger you're arguing with is as sane as you are. Call 911, back off, or deescalate the situation as best you can if you find yourself in an angry confrontation with a stranger.

  12. When you're drunk, stay with the group. If your drunk friend insists on going off alone, agree on a time that you'll call them and if they don't pick up you'll call the cops for a welfare check.

  13. If you're having a mental health crisis, do not go off alone. So many disappearences happen after a person in a mental health crisis wanders off or leaves alone. When you're alone and dealing with a mental health crisis, you are more likely to harm/kill yourself, to experience an accident, and to become a victim of someone nefarious. (I know that most people in crisis lack the ability to think rationally... definitely no blame here. It's just something to remember if you have the wherewithal to practice)

    I really recommend the book Deep Survival by Laurence Gonzales. for some interesting survival reading.

    Edit: Uh, I'm sorry this is so long. I just started back on my meds for ADHD and sometimes this happens.
u/lilactaffy · 13 pointsr/GenderCritical

Anyone who enjoyed this talk will be delighted to hear that Cordelia has a book out called Delusions of Gender, which is excellent and, redundantly, has made a lot of men very upset.

u/noodleworm · 13 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

I think there are lots of interesting lines of thought behind the whole topic. I am greatly frustrated by how often people fall back on 'its biological'. I'm currently reading Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine which seems to share my frustration but is reassuring that the science is not at all cut and dry in that area. That most people grossly overestimate the data on 'hard wired' differences.

I think we also need to remember, that while kids do go to the gendered toys, kids can also be little gender police.

I bet most people here, during their childhood, had another kid tell them they could or couldn't do something based on their sex.

During an early stage of child development, kids learn rules, and try to fit the world into that. Some little kids literally think 'girls wear dresses, if I wear a dress then I am a girl' .

They just make assumptions very easily. No matter how many trucks you give them, your daughter is going to come across some girls's stereotypes, make the link (she's a girl - I'm a girl - this is how I be a girl!).

I think the most important thing is to early on teach your kids to be critical, and accepting of variation.

  • You can like princess dresses, but you can like superheroes too! Anyone who says you have to choose toys for girls is silly. You can pick either!*

    I think the most important thing though is to not segregate kids. In a gender egalitarian society, men and women need to see each others as equals and stop placing rules on the basis of gender. People who grow up without positive experiences with the opposite sex (friends, parents, siblings) often have a harder time relating to them.
u/TakeTwoPlacebos · 13 pointsr/ShitRedditSays

I read a fabulous book that dovetails very nicely with this issue (If you dig sociology and social psychology this book is the tits)

Tldr: Working dads aren't disadvantaged in hiring, promotions or wages while working mothers have a hell of a time with it. And even women without offspring and discriminated against for loads of subconscious crap that society feeds us.

u/neuromancer420 · 13 pointsr/psychology

Or better yet, read V. S. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain. He has been working on solving this problem since the 90's and created the mirror technique.

u/therealdrag0 · 13 pointsr/dataisbeautiful

In "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined", Pinker talks a bit about honor culture and how it's persisted in the south and how that effects violence.

If I remember correctly there was one study that showed that southern employers are more forgiving of candidates who murdered someone for retribution than of someone who stole cars, whereas for northern employers it was the opposite. Kinda crazy...

u/Bilbo_Fraggins · 13 pointsr/progressive

We have one of if not the freest healthcare market in the developed world. The systems that are much further from free market health care are the ones that are 1/2 the cost with better outcomes. When you can only fathom applying more of what doesn't work, you're stuck in an ideological bind.

"Watching politics" is about the least accurate way of understanding why people act the way they do. You might try reading moral and political psychology where they actually study why people believe and push for the things they do with scientific methods. I highly recommend picking up a book like The Righteous Mind or Moral Tribes if you want to begin to understand current political realities more deeply.

u/lithium_violet_no9 · 13 pointsr/meettransgirls


I can call myself that... I dunno if you should...

Read Whipping Girl and give us an essay with your thoughts first.

u/Tangurena · 13 pointsr/asktransgender

One book that may be helpful for answering your questions is Self Made Man. The author spent about 18 months living as a man, in some all-male spaces (the monastery seems cool, but I'm positive that if I went to one of those Iron John camps, I'd be murdered). In the end, she had a nervous breakdown. Along the way she learned totally positively that she is neither a transvestite nor transgender. If Norah (the author) ever comes to Denver, I'd like to buy her a drink.

Two previous links on this subject that I've saved are:
I'm certain that there are others. But I think these anecdotes from people who have been both genders, and the jarring differences that they experience might be something you ought to read. Things like:

> I wouldn't call it the better gender, though things are much easier in a lot of respects. I was recently promoted to electronics at Target. My boss basically said, "you're a guy so you must know a lot about electronics". My female coworker, who obviously knows more about electronics, had to fight tooth and nail to get the same position. She and our boss still but heads occasionally because he treats her as if she is incompetent. I think that's it really. When you're a guy, for the most part you are assumed competent until proven otherwise. With women, the opposite happens. You have to prove yourself competent before you're offered anything.

Another good book that I think you might be interested in is Whipping Girl.

u/aliandrah · 13 pointsr/asktransgender

How to describe what it feels like to be trans? I have two different ways of describing it to people that generally work okay, depending on their perspective. Of course, these describe my experience and are not meant to represent any sort of "trans narrative" that you have to experience to be trans.

  • Just about every day since I started puberty, there's always been this voice in the back of my head. Sometimes it was quiet, barely a whisper, sometimes it was screaming so loudly that I could hardly think. Regardless of how loud it was though, it was always there with me, always speaking, and always saying the same exact thing; "^Something ^is ^wrong. Something is wrong. Something is WRONG." It never told me what was wrong. It never pointed me in a specific direction. The only way I could figure it out was by the things that caused the voice to go from whispering to screaming. It took years of self-reflection, but eventually I found out what was wrong. That's when I started HRT and a few weeks later the voice finally shut the fuck up and I finally had peace and quiet for the first time over 15 years

  • Imagine that there's this scale from -10 to +10. -10 is "I want to kill myself" levels of depression. 0 is "Eh, whatever, I woke up today". +10 is "Holy crap! Today is my wedding!" levels of happiness. Until I hit puberty, I had the full scale. I could be mildly happy, exceptionally sad, grumpy, whatever. At some point though, I lost part of that scale; +1 through +9 became completely closed off to me. Every day started with, "Eh, whatever, I woke up today," at best. Without cause, I simply could not be happy. There was no such thing for me as being in a good mood for no reason. There was a whole range of emotion that I was physically incapable of experiencing and it affected every aspect of my life, both personal and interpersonal. After I started HRT though, that entire range of emotion finally opened up for me. I could wake up in a good mood for no reason. I could smile for no reason. I finally understood how normal people go about their lives and why I always came across as such a stick in the mud. And now that I've tasted of this life, there's no way I could ever go back to the way things were.

    As for book recommendations, I haven't read it, but I've heard phenomenal things about Whipping Girl, by Julia Serano. Also, while it's not a book, this article was very eye-opening for me. It practically read as a biography of my life with my name redacted...
u/zoink · 13 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

The Righteous Mind - Jonathan Haidt

>The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

u/checkChaCheckItOut · 12 pointsr/atheism

While these videos are very good at explaining real experiments and citing them, I'd like to point out that they vastly simplify the psychology of beliefs.

For further detail you should check out Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion", or for a tl:dr, check out his interview with Stephen Colbert.

u/iWish_is_taken · 12 pointsr/LifeProTips

This book is a must for anyone having kids. So many people read so much about how to raise their babies and kids, but never figure out how to train their kids to sleep properly. This book teaches you how...

u/BarryMDM5757 · 12 pointsr/ireland

A regular perusal of the news can falsely lead one to believe that the world is going to shit. In reality, it's getting better. Media outlets much prefer to report negative happenings and glance over most of the positives. The fact that the news is dominated by 'bad' stories should tell one that 'good' or 'neutral' events are the norm, and not the other way around.


On the Late Late Show last night there were three guests talking about the 'homelessness crisis' in the country. It was pretty much all negativity. While I'm not ignoring the fact that there are people struggling in this country in many ways, compare the situation now to 100 or fewer years ago. Read about the Tenements in Dublin before the 1960s, for example.


Quality of life is increasing pretty much all over the world. This is a good book for anybody interested in learning more about that fact. I'm not surprised by the sarcastic comments here: people really take for granted just how lucky they are to live in a Western European country in the 21st century, and Ireland is a great country to live in. If only we had time machines that could transport people back 200, 150 or 100 years ago so they could see how much life has improved and how lucky they are.

u/ANewMachine615 · 12 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

The idea that this is the least violent time in history comes from a book called The Better Angels of Our Nature by Stephen Pinker, which purports to show that violence has been decreasing over time, and we live in the least violent period in history. That is not to say that our world is not still too violent, but rather that it is not as violent as it once was.

u/Unconscioustalk · 12 pointsr/pics

I'm sorry? Wars in the past were way more horrific and casualties were significantly higher than they are now, we are living in one of the most peaceful eras in history.

Here is a good book that discusses this exact subject.

u/Keep_Flying · 12 pointsr/asktransgender

Whipping Girl by Julia Serano is commonly mentioned around here, and it's a good starting point. It's written by a trans woman and is basically a look at gender in society, sexism, and feminism among other things. It's main theme and her views on femininity are interesting. People had been suggesting it to me for a long time, but I kept putting it off until I found myself working in an environment with a lot of feminist identified people and knew very little on the subject. I'm not quite done yet but I've enjoyed it.

u/adamsw216 · 11 pointsr/Art

For Korea in general I took a lot of East Asian history courses, including courses on relations with the west, in college. I studied abroad in South Korea for a time where I studied Korean history (ancient and modern) as well as Korean culture and sociology (mostly South Korea). I also had the pleasure of speaking with someone from North Korea.
But if you're interested to know more, these are some sources I can personally recommend...


u/wmccluskey · 11 pointsr/videos

White Americans commonly have a condition called "white guilt," and any mention of ethnicity makes them extremely uncomfortable.

There is nothing inappropriate about mentioning the most easily noticed distinction between the two actors. The negative comments shows how strained race relations are in the US that white people don't feel comfortable even mentioning something so obvious.

There's a great book that discusses this:

u/PunjabiPlaya · 11 pointsr/IAmA

My best friend got me this book for my birthday because he said I'm too pessimistic. It's a really good read that reflects that letter.

u/BadLaziesOn · 11 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Yes. This was my first Haidt content ever - and I'm into his work ever since. I also highly recommend the book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

u/nilstycho · 11 pointsr/AskSocialScience

You might be interested in Jonathan Haidt's Moral foundations theory and his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. He finds that both progressives and conservatives value fairness. Here's his TED Talk if you prefer that.

u/Parmeniscus · 11 pointsr/worldnews

you're so eager to be offended you can't even hear what is being said. A smaller percentage of the population dies violent deaths due to wars and homicide than in the past. Steven Pinker writes extensively on this. The geography of the commenter has nothing to do with this fact.

u/matthewdreeves · 11 pointsr/exjw

Hello and welcome! Here are my recommendations for de-indoctrinating yourself:

Take some time to learn about the history of the bible. For example, you can take the Open Yale Courses on Religious Studies for free.

Read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman

Also read A History of God by Karen Armstrong

Watch this talk from Sam Harris where he explains why "free will" is likely an illusion, which debunks the entire premise of "the fall of man" as presented by most Christian religions.

Watch this video on the Cordial Curiosity channel that teaches how the "Socratic Method" works, which essentially is a way to question why we believe what we believe. Do we have good reasons to believe them? If not, should we believe them?

Watch this video by Theramin Trees that explains why we fall for the beliefs of manipulative groups in the first place.

This video explains why and how childhood indoctrination works, for those of us born-in to a high-control group.

Another great source is this youtube series debunking 1914 being the start of the last days.

Next, learn some science. For example - spoiler alert: evolution is true. Visit Berkeley's excellent Understanding Evolution Website. Or, if you're pressed for time, watch this cartoon.

Read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.

Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.

Watch this series where Aron Ra explains in great detail how all life is connected in a giant family tree.

Learn about the origin of the universe. For example, you could read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking.

Learn about critical thinking from people like [Michael Shermer] (, and how to spot logical fallacies.

For good measure, use actual data and facts to learn the we are NOT living in some biblical "last days". Things have gotten remarkably better as man has progressed in knowledge. For example, watch this cartoon explaining how war is on the decline.

Read The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker.

Watch this Ted Talk by Hans Rosling, the late Swedish Statistician, where he shows more evidence that the world is indeed becoming a better place, and why we tend to wrongly convince ourselves otherwise.

I wish you the best. There is a whole world of legitimate information out there based on actual evidence that we can use to become more knowledgeable people.

You may still wonder how you can be a good human without "the truth." Here is a good discussion on how one can be good without god. --Replace where he talks about hell with armageddon, and heaven with paradise--

Start to help yourself begin to live a life where, as Matt Dillahunty puts it, you'll "believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible."

u/Anonymocoso · 11 pointsr/RedditForGrownups

I'm not sure about those "poor results"?

Violence is lower than ever. Unless you count exceptions like Baltimore, which we are not allowed to talk about.

I think abortion should be legal and widely available. But it's at an all time low. Birth control is getting better.

u/deus_voltaire · 11 pointsr/news

It's not a study so much as a thesis that analyzes many different studies, but I would highly recommend Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature as a jumping off point.

u/iliikepie · 10 pointsr/CPTSD

Your life isn't pointless. Right now you may be at a low point, even the lowest point you have been in. I believe that struggling in some way, or being sad/depressed/angry/hurt/etc means that you care about something. Something feels like it's not right to you and you want it to be better. Even if it's a vague feeling, or you are struggling because you actually feel nothing at all, this says something. I'm not sure what you are going through since you didn't post many details (which is totally fine), but I wanted to let you know that there have been many times that I have struggled greatly. Due to my past trauma I've had terrible physical problems, emotional problems, dissociation, anxiety, depression, difficulty making and maintaining friendship and connection with others....and on and on. There were times when I was in so much pain (either mentally, emotionally or physically) that I couldn't get out of bed or even barely move for long periods of time. That is a very desperate feeling. I have felt utterly and completely alone in this world, as if I had nothing and no one, and that I would be broken forever.

One thing that really helps me is reading. It was a long journey for me to learn to recognize my own thoughts, feelings, and emotions. There are still some areas where I can struggle with this, but I have made so, so much progress it's almost unbelievable to me when I think back to the person I once was. I couldn't identify my own emotions or thoughts, but when I read about scenarios and other peoples emotions/thoughts in certain situations, I could tell when it felt right. Like, "Yes! That is how I felt when _____ happened to me." A few books that really helped me are The Body Keeps Score, and Running On Empty. Other resources that have helped me immensely are hypnosis (one in particular was Michael Mahoney's IBS Audio Program 100 (this cured the IBS I had had for ~25 years, since I was a child)), and Annie Hopper's Dynamic Neural Retraining System. The very first book that I read that gave me hope that I could change my life was The Brain that Changes Itself. I read that book 9 years ago and it set me on a path of real change. It gave me inspiration and hope and the belief that I could really change and improve my life. If you want any other book recommendations let me know, I've read a lot of books and I have even more favorites that have helped me.

There are still areas of my life that I am working to improve, but I am nowhere near the person I was before I started reading and learning. Working through this stuff, and figuring out how to even do it, are very challenging and difficult tasks. But it is so, so worth it. I wish I could really show you and explain to you the profound changes we can make as people. Every epiphany I've had about myself and my life has been amazing and life changing. To me it almost feels like the essence of what it means to be human. I'm not sure if people who don't go through trauma get the chance to experience such profound epiphanies, realization, and change. Maybe I'm just rambling now, but I want you to know that there is hope. You may not have it, but I have it for both of us right now. Read. See a therapist. Learn. Practice. Journal. Seek support. Seek out ways to make a change. It doesn't have to be profound or monumental. Go at your own pace, just be sure that you are going.

u/beetjuice3 · 10 pointsr/changemyview

Pretty much all historical civilizations were sexist, since women were denied fundamental rights in them based on gender. Even if one were to agree with everything else you've written, your final conclusion/suggestion does not follow. I can't think of any significant, historical civilization that might be called non-sexist.

Biology is a fact of nature; you cannot "fight biology". That would be like fighting physics. No matter what you did, the laws of physics would still apply. What you are talking about, such as "scholarships for women only, to get them into areas of technology, engineering", and "specialized programs for boys only to help them in reading & writing" do not in any way fight biology, they leave biology just as it is. However, they do change society. Scholarships are societal creations designed to redistribute access to education, which is another societal creation. Education doesn't grow on trees; human beings artificially created the system of education. Hence, the educational system is an aspect of society, not biology.

The fact that there are some gender differences in the brain, statistically speaking, should be no big surprise. But many popularized studies tend to exaggerate or misinterpret these differences. I would suggest you read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, or Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences for a deeper look at these topics. Broadly, a study that shows no differences in how men and womens' brains, on average, perceive a topic won't make a good headline or blog post, so it will be unlikely to be reported compared to one that finds a difference.

Secondly, it's not clear what these differences have to do with social roles. For example, what does the fact that men have more spatial reasoning, on average, mean for social roles exactly? Since there are many intelligent and successful women in programming and engineering fields, and many men who suck in these areas, it does not follow that there is a casual relation between gender and STEM fields. On the other hand, engineering is clearly coded as a masculine profession in society, and girls may be turned away from studying engineering for fear of being seen as unfeminine. Scholarships that seek to counteract that would then be playing a positive role.

Finally, I see an assumption through your post that what is "nature" is automatically good and must be accepted by society. However, the whole point of civilization and society is go beyond nature itself to build something for ourselves, as humans. Is medicine natural? We are programmed to die from birth, yet we still use the medical system to prolong life. Since men are physically stronger than women, should men then dominate women and impose our wishes on them? No, we created a system of laws where all citizens are equal before it because we recognize the equal moral worth of each person. Freedom is the fundamental issue. Humanity as a whole, and individual people for their own lives, must have the freedom to define its own path and create its own society without being told that a certain path is required due to unnecessary extrapolations from natural facts.

u/pirateundies · 10 pointsr/TheRedPill

>The reason that all men are considered potential rapists and pedophiles, is because we ARE all potential rapists and pedophiles.

This statement you made in one of your other comments really struck with me and brought me to respond. You also state that you're trying to do research and find things to read, so I'll see what I can provide. It will likely be a combination of articles, research studies, and comments from other redditors.

As for the topics of rapists, pedophiles, domestic abuse - these might be something you'll find better answers for over at /r/mensrights. They're typically more informed on things like how the CDC, according to its own policy, doesn't recognize that women can rape men. Or how men are as likely to be victims of domestic abuse by women, yet no one in America seems to care. And what's worse is the researcher writing in the Introduction about how publishing that would probably damage his career.

From my perspective, the 'Manosphere' is this meeting of game with Men's Rights issues to deal with the fact and the frustration that men will have to learn to seduce, as well as just generally live, in a world that sees men only as potential criminals and not victims. Women can cry rape and face no repercussions and when they resort to general crime they typically receive less than half the jail time that a man would. This creates a view that they are being raised to feel entitled to anything rather than aspiring to anything through hard work.

You obviously have tons of personal experience with game itself, so if you're looking for other primers on the social/political issues you could also check out this great post by FrenchFuck or the book Men On Strike. There's a lot of anger on here, but anger is a secondary emotion that's almost always preceded by some form of fear or sadness.

u/Prince_Silk · 10 pointsr/slatestarcodex

If you haven't read Jonathan Haidt's, The Righteous Mind, I would recommend checking it out. It's a fabulous book that looks into the psychology of people with different political beliefs. What qualities do people value more and how those qualities translate to supporting one belief or another.

u/Sea_Soil · 10 pointsr/blackparents

It's not a children's book, but there is a great book for parents (and anyone) called "Why are all the black kids sitting together at the cafeteria?" it's a very easy read that gives great examples for teaching race/racism in the USA to your kids and other adults too. I highly recommend it!

u/nowtherebecareful · 10 pointsr/slatestarcodex

Check out The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell if you have not already! It's actually mentioned in the second paragraph in the Wikipedia article you linked. It's one of my favourite books of all-time.

As for why we seem so naturally/innately receptive to these narratives, personally in my opinion I think to some extent we think that's true because of confirmation bias. "Oh look at how so many people love Stars Wars." I think if we look we can see a number of narratives don't follow the Hero's Journey. But for those that do, I think the hero's journey is still so engaging because from one POV it can just be summarized as: a protagonist has a problem, the protagonist goes to solve the problem, they experience challenges in doing so, they receive help as well, and then finally they solve the problem. A story's gotta follow those broad strokes.

But great book from Joseph Campbell nonetheless!

Edit: Whoops, just noticed you asked about other universal plot structures, you didn't ask to read more about the hero's journey. Unfortunately I don't know of other universal plot structures off the top of my head. I'm still gonna leave this comment.

u/tomo89 · 10 pointsr/aww

That’s a nice fairy tale, isn’t it? The fact that you insult over me saying something completely reasonable doesn’t put you in a very good position.

I didn’t say they were actors or anything was staged. You’re arguing a point I never made. Nice job.

Brooding about our “sick society” doesn’t pass the shit test, unless you’re a C+ college freshman. I have a suggestion for you. Or this one. Why read when you can dismiss arguments with pictures of tin foil hats, though, right? We all know how smart 16 year olds are...

u/simmelianben · 9 pointsr/sociology

Try the book below by Tom Vanderbilt. It's a decent look at some of the social issues that come up in driving along with the mathematical background that makes them problems. Very interesting and changed my driving patterns substantially.

Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)

u/Shiner_Black · 9 pointsr/Libertarian

Your experience is a good example of Jonathan Haidt's findings in his book, The Righteous Mind.

A person's mind is kind of like a rider on an elephant. The rider is Reason and the elephant is Passion. The rider just follows wherever the elephant wants to go. As David Hume said, reason is a slave to the passions.

To get someone to change their mind about something important in politics, you have to talk to the rider. If the person talking about the moral case against the Drug War had mentioned libertarianism positively, that would've immediately caused your elephant to dig in its heels and not listen any further, and that would prevent the rider, Reason, from doing anything else.

u/EmmaGoldman-Sachs · 9 pointsr/SRSDiscussion

The book Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine is absolutely brilliant.

u/cincilator · 9 pointsr/TrueReddit

I think that what really happened with that gamergate shit (on meta-level) is that it split social constructivists on one side and geneticists/culturalists on the other in culture war. If you believe that any inequality in outcome is always result of oppression you will inevitably find lots and lots of oppression. If you believe inequality is result of cultural or genetic differences you'll find very little. You can also believe in something in between in which case you'll find something in between.

To continue with gaming as an example, if you look at gender disparity in gaming you can conclude one of two things: Either there is pervasive sexism that repels women from gaming. Or, most AAA games are designed to cater to hunting instincts of 16yr old males - thus sexism is the result of lopsided gender ratio, not the cause. (or, again, it is something in between)

Now, the geneticist side was seen as literally Hitler for a long time. And there is no doubt that it was endorsed by some literal Hitlers. But if you read Blank Slate by Steven Pinker (Harvard psychologist, not a neonazi) then it does seem that there is plenty of evidence that genes influence IQ and personality to a large degree. At least on individual level, he says nothing about differences between groups.

The evidence of genetic differences between groups is far more dubious and uncertain. It obviously doesn't help that the whole argument attracts some terrible people who misinterpret evidence to make differences seem much bigger than they probably are. (Although there are some seemingly convincing arguments for increased Ashkenazi Jews intelligence) Culturalist explanations are more convincing, however.

What I think annoys many people -- not all or even most of them Neonazi -- is that social constructivists are completely dominant in academia, and are thus in position to interpret every power differential as result of oppression.

u/patienceinbee · 9 pointsr/actuallesbians

Well, owing that you're a cis person, I am going to challenge you.

If I may direct you to references of authority, you will realize not only that this tack is inappropriate, but also inaccurate and quite offensive.

Julia Serano (around pages 28–32 of Whipping Girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of femininity has written and published on this subject. What I have already explained a few replies up on this thread echoes that thesis. Another regular redditor, catamorphism, has touched on this subject several times over the last several months.

Also worth review:

  • "Put the goddamn space in 'Transwoman', 'transfeminism', 'transmasculine', etc (language politics #1)"

  • "What not to call trans people"

  • "Transperson vs. trans person" [re: Press for Change (UK) 2011 amendment in style use]

  • "Why I use cis and trans as adjectives rather than prefixes"

    • >Also, since when is it "American-style" to create neologisms? Never mind; don't answer that. You've started responding to me with sarcasm and mild, personal insults. It's clear that this conversation isn't going to go anywhere positive.

      American-style refers to the American propensity to render compound words out of concepts which otherwise (and elsewhere) are not compounded elsewhere.

      As for the tone of my responses I am directing your way, I am being quite direct and quite serious with you. There is no sarcasm or insult coming from me. If you'd like, I could change that.

      But I would much rather read a straightforward response from you which gets to the crux of what
      I believe you're thinking and what you know you're thinking with respect to trans women whose bodies are morphologically transitioned: are they off-limits for/repulsive to you the same way a morphologically un(der)-transitioned body of a trans man is OK* with you — that is, "If they're A.F.A.B. then it's a'OK with me"?

      You need not answer for my sake. If you want to be forthwith, do it for others. I know already where you stand.
u/kitanokikori · 9 pointsr/Parenting

I think him finding a therapist specifically who is Black will be a big thing for him - he needs a mentor who understands what being Black in America is like, and while you can be supportive and uplifting (and that's awesome!), you just don't have that experience.

Some coworkers in the African American Employee Support Group at my work recommended this book as well -, it might help (for both you to read as well as for him)

u/blindcamel · 9 pointsr/Bad_Cop_No_Donut

Someone told you a lot of cops fear for their lives because of that statistic? I'd say you can safely disregard anything else that person says about race and criminal justice in America. Police are just one piece in dealing with Black crime.
Here's a great book to get you started.

u/wmup · 9 pointsr/StopGaming

Time enjoyed is time invested

Either you’re enjoying yourself or working on yourself. Now that you’ve noticed its your choice; go take a run, read a book (bill gates yesterday recommended Enlightenment now by Steven Pinker ), don’t regret the past, rather plan your future.

Good vibes

u/GetsEclectic · 9 pointsr/science

Phantoms in the Brain is a great book by Ramachandran concerning what we can learn about how the brain works by studying brain damage and diseases.

u/Franks2000inchTV · 9 pointsr/HumansBeingBros

Yeah it's pretty amazing. The doctor who discovered phantom pain wrote a book about it, if you're interested:

It's from 1998 so the science has probably progressed a fair amount, but I think it would still be an interesting read.

u/jason_mitchell · 9 pointsr/freemasonry

As loathe as I am to broach the subject given the general lack of credible research, the book every molly lover cites is "DMT: The Spirit Molecule"

You can also find some articles on in by Steve Burkle and P.D. Newman (alternately credited as Philip or Danny or Daniel) on Piettre Stones; especially concerning the poorly structured arguments that the MM degree is an instruction on extracting DMT from acacia (which one, as not all of them contain is never approached).

Are you sure, you couldn't convince your WM for a better topic?

u/vgSelph · 9 pointsr/exchristian

Please don't take this post from me as aggressive, I just wanted to point out a few things about your post.

You make a few mistakes early in your post. One is you're making the No True Scotsman argument. Essentially you're arguing that the bad Christians you assume we've met or are the cause for us leaving the church, aren't real Christians anyway. I think we need to trust people. If they say they're a Christian, I believe them.

Also, things aren't that bad here on the Earth. We've got some issues, but the things you mention are actually better now than at any point in history. Allow me to point you toward a great, great book about this, Steven Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature. It's a great book about this exact topic, I think it may allay some of your fears.

Also, why is this life not enough? Why do you deserve more than this life? You're saying that unless you have the potential at eternity, this life isn't worth living. Why not? I've got an amazing wife, and I choose to spend some of my limited time with her. She's so great, that makes it worthwhile. I've got two great kids, my daughter is going to turn 5 in a few weeks and she's super fun to be around. I've got a 1.5 year-old son. He's crazy, no fear, always wants me to pick him up and throw him around through the air. I like to do woodworking and make really, really nice pieces for my family and friends that I just give away. I love looking at the beauty in the world. There's no intent behind it, but that doesn't make it any less beautiful and awesome. Why is that not enough? Why do you need more?

You also forget that your third option also includes a place of eternal torment for people like me. You sincerely believe that I am going to burn in Hell forever. I try to be a good person, I put a TON of effort into thinking about ethics and philosophy. I like to help people, give away my time, and just generally do what I can. But as I'm sure you know, the Bible says that we aren't saved by works. So in spite of all my efforts, because I am unable to have faith, I have eternal torment to look forward to.

It isn't Christians that made me an ex-Christian. They were largely just people where I grew up. It's the religion that I reject and everything about it. Just food for thought.

u/namtog1 · 8 pointsr/DaystromInstitute

You might want to look at The Better Angles Of Our Nature by Steven Pinker;

u/Brewingupabrownstorm · 8 pointsr/RedPillWomen

Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette - King, Warrior, Magician, Lover : Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine

I found this deeply interesting and useful :)

u/mavnorman · 8 pointsr/evopsych
u/Ohthere530 · 8 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Read a book on the psychology of politics. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt is a good one. (Here's an NY Times article on the book.)

He argues that liberals and conservatives process moral questions very differently. In particular, conservative people often focus on "disgust". Does something feel unclean or gross? Gay sex, especially between men, triggers this feeling. To get a sense of "disgust", think of other religious taboos. Don't touch a woman on her period. Don't each "unclean" food. And so on.

Liberal people focus more on fairness. They don't focus much at all on disgust. It's not that conservative people don't value fairness at all. They do. It's just that disgust out-ranks it.

Me? I'm in favor of gay marriage. Classic liberal. So I'm not defending the conservative mind-set. Just trying to give you a sense of it.

u/NoMoreIllusions · 8 pointsr/exmormon

I think that if she can learn to critically examine her own thinking and beliefs, and understand how and why people come to believe what they believe, that this will definitely be more effective than addressing just the factual problems.

Here are some book recommendations that I think can accomplish this, if she's willing to read them:

Why We Believe What We Believe - Newburg and Waldman
Mistakes Were Made - But Not By Me - Tavris and Aronson
The Outsider Test for Faith - John Loftus

I have a section on this in a PDF I recently wrote: Examining Church Claims

But take your time; pushing things will only create more resistance.

Good luck!

u/Mankowitz- · 8 pointsr/ottawa

If you are interested by this video, I would highly recommend the book Traffic. It is aimed at a layperson, and it touches on this and other sometimes counterintuitive concepts in Traffic. It is actually a really good read with a lot of academic sources (although they are just listed at the end of each chapter without direct citations).

The hook of the book: is it better for traffic flow if, when faced with a lane that will soon end, you merge over as soon as you can, or wait until the lane ends? (Spoiler: either works as long as everyone agrees, but no matter what, late merging is more efficient).

The synopsis says a lot more about it so I'll copy paste it:

>In this brilliant, lively, and eye-opening investigation, Tom Vanderbilt examines the perceptual limits and cognitive underpinnings that make us worse drivers than we think we are. He demonstrates why plans to protect pedestrians from cars often lead to more accidents. He uncovers who is more likely to honk at whom, and why. He explains why traffic jams form, outlines the unintended consequences of our quest for safety, and even identifies the most common mistake drivers make in parking lots. Traffic is about more than driving: it's about human nature. It will change the way we see ourselves and the world around us, and it may even make us better drivers.

u/kodheaven · 8 pointsr/IntellectualDarkWeb

Seeking Truth

Do your best to stay away from YouTube reactionaries or YouTube Personalities, the truth is rare there and often distorted.

Some other recommendations:

u/Amp4All · 8 pointsr/AcademicPsychology

There are a few titles I really love. I hope you like a few things on the list, if you have any questions let me know.

u/alecbenzer · 8 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

I wouldn't claim that conservatives are universally logical and rational, but all people resort to emotion. We're more or less built to deal with morality and politics via intuition, not reasoning (see The Righteous Mind). And I'd say this applies to liberals quite a lot as well.

u/thepasttenseofdraw · 8 pointsr/MorbidReality

Any one interested in high altitude survival should check out . its dedicated to survivors of immense freefalls.
Here's the world record: Vesna Vulovic was a stewardess on a Yugoslav DC 9 jet airliner that blew up in January of 1972 (probably as the result of a terrorist bomb). She fell more than 33,000 feet in the wreckage of the plane, which hit a snow-covered slope. The only survivor, she was badly injured and was paralyzed from the waist down, but later recovered and now can walk.
And here's two of my favorites:
In March of 1944, Nicholas Alkemade was the tail gunner in a British Lancaster bomber on a night mission to Berlin when his plane was attacked by German fighters. When the captain ordered the crew to bail out, Alkemade looked back into the plane and discovered that his parachute was in flames. He chose to jump without a parachute rather than to stay in the burning plane. He fell 18,000 feet, landing in trees, underbrush, and drifted snow. He twisted his knee and had some cuts, but was otherwise alright.
And the father of Deep Survival author Lawrence Gonezeles (an amazing book about the psychology of survival and WTL
In January of 1945, Federico Gonzales was a pilot of a 398th Bomb Group B-17 whose wing was shot off over Dusseldorf. He was unable to bail out of the spinning plane and fell 27,000 feet. He was pulled alive from the wreckage. Everyone else died . -what's not included are the incredible events that occurred immediately after being pulled from the wreckage... Gonzales had broken most of the bones in his body. The civilian who found him produced a pistol and tried to execute him. The pistol jammed and before the civilian could run the action a nearby German officer stopped him... Talk about fucking luck.

u/kris10leigh · 8 pointsr/MovieDetails

Children aren't aware of gender differences, but their caregivers are.

Cordelia Fine addressed a similar study in her book where babies were shown different toys like this, but it was later shown that the people presenting the toys to the babies were enforcing stereotypes themselves by shaking the toy they expected the baby to want more than the other.

u/meat_sack12 · 8 pointsr/daddit

You need a pack n' play.

You don't need a car baby mirror.

You need about twice the number of pacifiers you have already bought. Because they disappear.

You don't need the head insert for the car seat.

Your wife needs a boppy.

You don't need special "burp cloths." You know what works great? Dish towels.

You need a baby monitor.

You don't need special baby Q-tips.

You need diaper rash cream. Boudreaux's, whatever.

You don't need wipe warmers.

You need those fabric boxes. Like these. You will put a lot of stuff in them.

You don't need a ton of toys. Especially the make-your-kid-a-genius ones. You don't need those. Know what they will want to play with? The spatula. Your keys. You know, whatever you are holding.

You need this book. It is the best thing I have ever read...both kids sleep through the night like rocks because of this book.

At least, those are the lessons I think I learned.

u/DeviousBluestocking · 8 pointsr/AskFeminists

Honestly, what you are going through is a normal stage of identity development. You are disoriented and self conscious, and I'm guessing you feel guilty for things other men do.

Feminists don't want you to stay in this state if for no other reason than that it is unproductive. We also don't want you to veer into anger and bitterness.

One of the best books on identity development is Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria . I highly recommend that you read this book, and learn about healthy identity development from someone who has guided tens of thousand of people through the process. She focuses on race, but her work is also applicable to gender.

u/HeTalksToComputers · 8 pointsr/civ

Totally. I am reading Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker which makes exactly this point.

u/P1h3r1e3d13 · 8 pointsr/IAmA

You may be interested in Phantoms in the Brain. It covers some of that weird, mind-body disconnect stuff.

u/Jyana · 8 pointsr/science

In case anyone is interested: DMT, The Spirit Molecule

u/psycho_trope_ic · 8 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Your evidence was not directed at your premise. The evidence that we have advanced as a species and are more peaceful is from history.

You did not condemn any system, you complain about humans. That is not the same thing.

u/frostylakes · 8 pointsr/comic_crits

Even if this is supposed to be a part of something larger, it should have its own arc. You know what's supposed to happen as the author, so maybe to you, it seems like its fine. But you need to look and craft these things from the perspective of the audience.

I'll use, say, Cowboy Bebop as an example. It's almost entirely a series of self-contained episodes, save for a few episodes that touch on this relationship between Spike and Vicious. But, the self-contained episodes are often iterating and riffing on some of the same overall themes that these connected episodes are built on. Or, when they aren't, they're carried on pure entertainment value. They feel good. They're flat out fun to watch. Or they revel in the absurd, which ties into the show thematically and also rides pure entertainment value.

Fallout: New Vegas does this as well. Side-quests seem self-contained, more or less, but they build on your understanding of the world and they often build on this theme of nostalgia for the Old World, or Old World Blues, as the game eventually puts it. All of the companion character side-quests riff on this theme of clinging to the past or moving forward, the factions all follow in this theme (whether its the major factions modeling their selves after Old World powers or the Brotherhood of Steel finding that they don't belong in the world anymore, so they either need to adapt or cling to the past and die). All of these side quests are self-contained, thus having their own arc and feel satisfying to complete, but also they build on the overarching theme of the game and give the player something to think about once everything is said and done.

You can do this with your own work. You can figure out what it is that you want it to be about and make build on those themes, even just from the start. If you have ideas and themes you want to explore, you can explore them from the start in whatever way you want, and tie it all into something more grand later if you're telling an overall story, or just keep riffing on them in different self-contained scenarios. The main, best thing to keep in mind though is that if this is intended for an audience, you need to write it with the audience experience in mind. Your ideas could be incredible, but the audience would never know it if you've written it to be impenetrable to them, or just so boring that it's unlikely they'll continue to read to get to the good parts.

As an example, I love the show Eureka Seven. Somewhere towards the middle of its run, it has a small arc with a couple of characters named Ray and Charles that culminates in some of the best TV I've ever had the pleasure of seeing. But, I can almost never recommend this show to anyone. The first ~10 to 15ish episodes are a chore. The show sort of acts like you should know who all the characters are already, or doesn't give you a whole lot to work with in terms of giving you something to come back for. For this reason, it took me from when it aired back in 2005 all the way until 2014 to finally finish the show from front to back. There was a ton of good there, but it was so, so difficult to get to it through the start of the show.

So, Entertainment value. Have you read Fiona Staples' and Brian K Vaughan's Saga? The very first panel of the very first page oozes entertainment value, while also giving some great banter to help establish the characters and introduce us to the world. This is a strong opening, and even if there is some lull to the comic afterwards (which there may or may not be depending on your tastes), its given you a taste of what it is and a promise of what its capable of delivering. This is a really great thing to have. If you're aware of Homestuck, it's the GameFAQs FAQ that serves as the end of the comic's first Act that suddenly shows you how the comic will format itself: Lots of nonsensical goofing around until hitting an emotional climax that re-contextualizes the events you had just seen. This isn't at the start of the comic, but entertainment value carries the comic until that point, assuming you're into programming jokes and goofball shenanigans. But, this scene comes so comparatively late that it's likely you've already dropped the comic before getting to the "good part" if these jokes didn't carry the comic for you.

Actual Advice and Critique

Comics are hard, because, unless you have a writer or have an artist to partner with, you're doing both jobs, and the quality of the thing depends both on being well-written and well drawn (or at least some balance between the two that makes it palatable to read). I think that if you think in an actual episodic way, you could improve your writing a ton. With this comic, the arc would be "how did Lasereye become Lasereye?" It's potentially a pretty good premise, right? You'll establish a character and have plenty of chances to create entertaining scenarios because... It's your story! Lasereye became Lasereye in whatever way you decide he did. Go crazy, tell us a story! How did some young, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed kid turn into some dude in a slum with one eye glowing brighter than ever and the other dim and jaded? Telling this in three pages would actually be a great exercise.

Your art is rough in that it looks like you could use learning some base fundamental things like human anatomy. Your palette and the food stand itself reminds me of Kill Six Billion Demons though, which is great. You've created a good atmosphere in panels 1, 2, and the last panel on the last page, despite the artwork itself being rough. That's great! You know how a thing should feel. That's a great thing to have down pat that will only continue to be a boon as your technical skill improves (and it will if you work at it!). I think that if you buckle down and grind through learning how to draw, you could make very great, visually appealing work.

There's a problem in page flow on Page 2. Here I've shown how your page directs the eye with red lines. The way the page is laid out, you end up reading the fifth panel before you read the fourth panel, which will cause a reader to have to double back to read things in order. You don't want that. You'll wanna keep an eye out for how your pages read in the future. Just give them a once-over and ask where the eye would naturally go following the lines on the page.

So, if you aren't currently, learning human anatomy would be a great place to start placing effort. If you have access, figure drawing classes and the such would be a great way to start working on that. It helps immensely to have others around who can help you if you aren't sure what you're doing at first. Books on comics in general would be a good place to go as well. Understanding Comics and Making Comics, both by by Scott McCloud, are good introductory texts. Graphic Storytelling and Visual Narrative by Will Eisner and Comics and Sequential Art: Principles and Practices from the Legendary Cartoonist also by Will Eisner would be good as well.

For writing, Dan Harmon's Channel 101 guides will be great tutorials as he's one of the best working writers today in episodic TV. I'm aware this isn't directly comics, but the best writing advice is rarely going to come from a comics-focused book. Will Eisner will tell you how to use visuals to your advantage in telling a story, but the nitty-gritty of actually writing will have to come from somewhere else. The Hero of a Thousand Faces by Joseph Cambell may help you understand structure further. This is what Dan Harmon is riffing on and working off of with his Story Circles, but adapted slightly for the sake of episodic television. Film Crit Hulk, an online movie critic/ the Incredible Hulk has a screenwriting book called Screenwriting 101. It's invaluable. I highly recommend it, even if it isn't directly about comic writing. You'll be able to adapt the advice as you work in your own medium.

u/Montuckian · 8 pointsr/Frugal

Weight is a combination of diet and exercise, but that doesn't mean that they share an equal part. Most of your weight gain or loss is going to be governed by your diet (think 80%). Keep in mind, you can't outrun your fork.

That's okay though, as eating well is frugal. Start here.

If you don't know what your goals are, you'll likely never change your behavior. Find your maintenance calorie intake, eat at or below this while fulfilling nutritional requirements (MyFitnessPal isn't a bad way to track this), and then use exercise (body weight or otherwise) to increase your calorie deficit even more.

Keep in mind that lean body mass (LBM) will burn more calories than that fatty stuff, so doing body weight or dumbell exercises is always a good path to take. Head over to /r/fitness for some good workout advice that will meet your goals and budget.

Good luck, and if you need a little extra help and motivation, /r/loseit isn't a bad subreddit to frequent.

u/kissfan7 · 7 pointsr/GetMotivated

>Simple, lustful, non thinking people are akin to animals.

Humans are animals. We are members of the animal kingdom. "Animal" is not an insult.

And you're assuming all three of those descriptors automatically go together. You're certainly assuming a lot about a woman from just one picture.

If you're not into sex for the sake of sex, fine. Don't have sex for the sake of sex then. Just don't shame other people for wanting what you don't want. It doesn't help them, it doesn't help you, and it's just a waste of electricity.

>They seldom render any great service to their fellowmen. They are just very small, weak creatures that draw blood and reproduce.

You must be a hit at parties.

>well we are already reaching the point where we are counting the straws that will break the camels [sic] back.

And this woman is one of the straws?

Read this book. It won't turn you into a Pollyanna, but it'll make it slightly harder for you to come off like a pseudo-intellectual, pessimistic cliche.

>A big war could break out any day, we don't know.

There's already a petty big war going on right now.

>Do the world a favor and care a little.

And now we're getting personal.

I work at a non-profit law firm that does foreclosure defense, prisoner's rights, bankruptcy protection for the indigent, and consumer debt. I keep families in their homes. I still find time to volunteer outside this job. This job, by the way, gets me less than $900 per month, 10% of which I donate to charity.

I'm not exactly Jonas Salk, Baynard Rustin, Susan B. Anthony or [insert your own hero here], but I carry my weight and still like to occasionally get laid. I care as much as you, more than you, or maybe slightly less than you. But caring about things and caring about the sex life of a woman you've never met isn't the same thing.

>It's complacence with crime to perpetuate this ideal, which is underscored in this very image, this is the sapience of the ego distilled in this image.

Put down the thesaurus and listen up.

First, "crime" does not mean what you think it means. Second, there are many accomplishments that may mean a lot to one person, but nothing to another. This man, through hard work and discipline, looks super fine. You have not established a connection between his fineness and the fact that many people are "addicted to drugs" along with the other random stuff you listed.

There are many things wrong with the world. His six pack and her admiration of his six pack isn't one of them.

Sex-negativity, on the other hand, is one of them.

u/behemothpanzer · 7 pointsr/fantasywriters

You have talent, keep working and you'll be fine.

The harshness,

You're making simple verb-tense errors all over your piece. Is it taking place in past-tense? he fed small grapes into her mouth
Or is it taking place in present-tense? she pouts to him, before he looks to her with an icy scowl

Both are acceptable. I personally prefer present-tense because I feel it adds immediacy and tension, but that's entirely a personal thing and should have no bearing on your own choices, but you need to make a choice and stick with it.

You need to format your writing properly before you show it to people. Things like paragraph breaks and indentations for lines of dialogue, and there are a couple of sentences where meaning completely breaks down, To an outside observer, he might seem slightly schizophrenic with his self affection, and quite considerably moronic of Strel, there was an observer. I have no idea what the second part of this sentence is supposed to convey.

There are a few points where your sentence construction gets a little clumsy, where the words get in the way of meaning or feeling, Strel made a vicious grin as a robed and turban-bound being huddled where it once was. (Made a vicious grin? Where what once was?)

wild were the actions of the people enamored with it (Enamoured with the market? How were their actions wild?)

However, there is a clear sense of creativity in your writing and a sense of determination to put words together in interesting ways that is impressive for someone of your age. If I were your English teacher, and I teach High School English, I'd be encouraging the hell out of you to keep writing because I think there is a lot of potential here.

Right now my suggestions would be to read everything you can. In particular, look beyond fantasy to books which are highly regarded for their literary merit. I'd strongly recommend Salman Rushdie (The Satanic Verses), Orhan Pamuk (My Name is Red), and Hillary Mantel (Wolf Hall).

As a fantasy fan there are things to really like in all of these books, and they're all examples of what writers at the absolute peak of the craft are capable of doing with language.

The second thing I'd suggest is to practice writing short pieces. It's all well and good to leap into a novel, but the ability to structure a beginning, middle, and end to a story is vital. If you can get classic story-structure skills mastered at a young age you're way, way, way ahead of the curve.

Finally, read The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. It's a non-fiction book about what Campbell calls "The Monomyth." A classic mythical story-structure repeated over and over and over again in mythic tales from around the world, and utterly essential reading for anyone who wants to write Fantasy.

u/shenjh · 7 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Another book covers similar issues, focusing more on the cognitive psychology side. It's not focused on religious experiences, but the topics it covers are still very much applicable to such experiences.

Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts - Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

u/superduck85 · 7 pointsr/Atlanta

They should hand out free copies of Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do by Tom Vanderbilt to explain how/why this works.

There's solid science behind these signs...but of course you have to have signs that actually function correctly.

edit: added link to book.

u/TheAlchemyBetweenUs · 7 pointsr/CollapseSupport

I think this book might help sort out political differences.

Trump was surprisingly cogent during the election. He mentioned that the US economy was in a bubble. He pointed out that not provoking war would be a good thing. On the other hand, his energy policy and circumlocution on climate change should have made him a non-starter for most humans. He tapped into the despair and sense of betrayal that many Americans rightfully feel.

But then he started bombing Syria without adequate proof, applying reverse Robin Hood policies, and rolling back years of hard fought environmental regulations that protect the greater populace.

You might be able to get through to your SO. I mean Trump is probably collapse-aware on some level (esp. with Bannon on board), so maybe talking about collapse topics would be fruitful. If he's a climate change denier and can't fix that after an intervention, it suggests a level of infantile stubbornness that will be a challenge in other areas.

Bottom line, is this someone you want to raise a child with? If you listen to your intuition and the answer is no, move on. If yes, perhaps it's a viable project.

u/puppy_and_puppy · 7 pointsr/MensLib

I'm not sure if this would work or not, but I would try redirecting people who have conservative or right-wing leaning views at least toward better thinkers than Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and toward optimistic views of the future of society, to cull some of the us-vs-them and zero-sum thinking that plagues these discussions.

Sometimes it feels like men, especially, feel existentially threatened by other modes of thought, so being at least sympathetic to the good bits of their ideas and offering something similar but that promotes openness and liberal ideas may help.

Hans Rosling's Factfulness presents a pretty optimistic view of the world. It's all getting better! Seriously!

Jonathan Haidt (and Greg Lukianoff for the first book)

u/raxical · 7 pointsr/DebateAltRight

How about a whole book on it written by a respected democrat in academia?

You really should just read that book. It's going to answer all your questions and give you things to think about you had never considered.

u/Newtothisredditbiz · 7 pointsr/blog

According to Steven Pinker's book, The Better Angels of our Nature, violence has been on the decline over the millennia, and we're living in the most peaceful times in human existence.

However, he says:

>The decline, to be sure, has not been smooth; it has not brought violence down to zero; and it is not guaranteed to continue.

Pinker presents five forces that favour peacefulness over violence, but there have always been people fighting against them. They are:

  • The Leviathan – the rise of the modern nation-state and judiciary "with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force," which "can defuse the [individual] temptation of exploitative attack, inhibit the impulse for revenge, and circumvent ... self-serving biases."

  • Commerce – the rise of "technological progress [allowing] the exchange of goods and services over longer distances and larger groups of trading partners," so that "other people become more valuable alive than dead" and "are less likely to become targets of demonization and dehumanization."

  • Feminization – increasing respect for "the interests and values of women."

  • Cosmopolitanism – the rise of forces such as literacy, mobility, and mass media, which "can prompt people to take the perspectives of people unlike themselves and to expand their circle of sympathy to embrace them."

  • The Escalator of Reason – an "intensifying application of knowledge and rationality to human affairs," which "can force people to recognize the futility of cycles of violence, to ramp down the privileging of their own interests over others', and to reframe violence as a problem to be solved rather than a contest to be won.

    We should be very concerned when leaders fight against these forces, because these forces are what make humanity better.
u/lolzfeminism · 7 pointsr/news

I highly disagree, if anything the last 10-20k years of human history has shown our capacity to be extraordinarily kind to each other.

Here is Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of our Nature" lecture on this subject. If you don't want to watch hour long lecture, here is a 20 minute segment by him on the same subject.

I highly recommend the book itself though.

u/cashmeowsighhabadah · 7 pointsr/IAmA

What is your opinion on the decline of war in the world? Because iit turns out we live in the most peaceful time in human history.

Here is a video summary of my argument, easier to understand, but I have transcribed the important parts here.

This chart shows deaths in wars by millions since 1950

This chart shows the increase in world population, which is going against the trend in deaths in war

If war was getting worse, these two charts should be in line with each other or at the very least, maintain their respective ratios. Instead what we see is that as population increases, deaths by war go down, meaning the percentage of people dying directly because of a war is declining.

The following maps show conflicts that were ongoing in the years 2013-2014.

This is a map of countries that have had conflicts that led to the death of more than 10,000 people.

This is a map of countries in orange where there were conflicts that killed more than 1,000 people

This is a map of countries in lighter orance where there were conflicts that killed more than 100 people

A lot of conflicts had to do with colonial rule or taking back control from another country who had usurped the rule for an area.

This is a map from 1845 of areas that were under colonial rule

This is a map of today of areas that are under colonial rule today

Having countries govern themselves takes away a lot of tension and potential for conflict. Additionally, most wars of the 19th and 20th century were fought for resources, including land. However, nowadays, it's more profitable for countries to negotiate trade deals instead of entering into wars over resources.

If you still don't believe that we live in the most peaceful period in human history, you can check these non-partisan, non-religious links to studies into the subject.

u/PM_me_y0ur_squanch · 7 pointsr/australia

> everyone knows america is basically a gun-crazy failed state at this point

Tell me, where have you visited in the US, specifically?

The media has done a fantastic job terrifying everyone. You're something like 100,000 times more likely to witness violence in the media than in real life, according to Dr. Steven Pinker. With a population of 325,000,000 people and news being disseminated at light speed, things are bound to look worse that they are. You know what doesn't make the news - nothing. Nothing, as in mundane life. Violence will make the news, however.

The media has got everyone living in fear and clutching their rosaries, so to speak.

u/BearsandCowboys · 7 pointsr/lgbt

There is a really good book, Whipping Girl by Julia Serano, that would answer your questions. You could probably just read the first couple of chapters.

It's a bit of an oversimplification to say that gender is a social construct. We tend to use gender to mean anything that is not physical, anatomical sex, but to get to the root of what it means to be or feel like a man or a woman, we need more specificity than that.

Gender roles are societal expectations for how people of a certain gender should look, act, and live. These are relative to the culture and can be man/woman, or three genders, or six, depending on the society.

Gender expression is the personal choices people make to signal to themselves and to other people what gender they are. The specifics of gender expression also vary depending on the culture. So, one culture might see pink as a "girl" color, one might see it as a "boy" color, or the same culture might even change its mind. It's all relative.

Gender identity is a person's sense of which gender category in their society is right for them based on their own relationship to their body, and to other people. The ways in which people talk about gender identity vary from culture to culture (for example, Native Americans refer to gender fluidity or being dual gender as being Two Spirited).

Nevertheless, every culture has had to answer the question "what does it mean that there are males and females?" The specifics of that question and its answers may vary, but the question itself is based in humanity confronting its own biology.

The vast majority of people never really feel a disconnect between the sex their society designates them to be and the gender they see themselves to be, as you probably know. Some people don't have a problem with their biological sex, but they do have a problem with the gender roles that are expected of them. Other people have no issue with either, but they like to have an atypical gender expression because it feels authentic to their sense of self. So, there's a vast number of ways people can relate to gender without it coming into direct conflict with their sex assigned at birth.

Regarding people who are transgender, genderfluid, etc, this often refers to a specific relationship between physical sex and gender identity that goes beyond roles and expectations that society has of different genders. Usually there is a feeling of disconnect or dissonance with the gender identity assigned to you based on your sex. It just "feels wrong," so people who are transgender do a lot of exploration to figure out what feels right, and that has lead to a proliferation of terms for different gender identities because our own society hasn't been very accepting of gender diverse people and our language hasn't caught up yet. So people are trying out a lot of terminology trying to figure out what this all means.

I can't speak for agender or genderfluid people since I am not one.

I can only speak for myself as a transgender man who is also somewhat gender non-conforming. My sense of "being a man" or "being male" is the best language I have to describe the feeling that my body is supposed to be physically male and I am like other people who are male. It's like my brain expects a male body to be there and sometimes perceives it anyway despite what my biology is like. But my sense of what it means to be a man is definitely shaped by the culture I grew up in. I look at other men and women and locate myself within the spectrum of gender laid out for me in my social world. I compare myself to others and through self-exploration realize that it feels more authentic for me to align myself with other men than with women or non-binary people. This doesn't mean that I imitate them, just that it feels more natural for me to move through the world with others perceiving me as a man. So, the socially constructed parts of gender are ways I can live my gender with other people as opposed to just feeling it as this private thing.

[Edit: going back to the whole identity vs. expression vs. roles thing: One of the first things I did when I transitioned was go out and buy a pink men's shirt. I could never wear the color pink before because people saw me as a girl wearing pink. I did not want to be a girl wearing pink. I am a guy who likes the color pink. I found it uncomfortable to express myself through signals of femininity because people saw my role as female/woman and my identity was male. But once I had a male social role, I found it much easier to express my gender with things traditionally associated with femininity. I wanted the feminine expression to be seen in relation to my maleness, not to my perceived femaleness. I know that's convoluted! In practice it just means I stress out a lot less over the color of my clothing than before.]

For you, I would suggest you probably feel more male than you realize, it's just not at the forefront of your consciousness because it is not in conflict with anything. An analogy...When you are lonely, you become acutely aware of your individuality, your longing, your desires, and the various obstacles to ridding yourself of loneliness. When you are with loved ones, that individuality does not disappear, but you no longer feel lonely. Feeling yourself to fall outside of society's gender constructs of man vs. woman is like a type of gender loneliness. If you've always been in the company of people who validate your gender and are in agreement with you about your sex, you're probably not going to dwell on it much.

u/Fayedrus · 7 pointsr/asktransgender

Not a story per se, but try reading Whipping Girl by Julia Serrano:

u/so_jelly · 7 pointsr/asktransgender



She's a Boy I Knew (autobiographical documentary)


She's Not There by Jennifer Finney Boylan (memoir)

Whipping Girl by Julia Serano

Fiction (young adult):

Luna by Julie Ann Peters

u/porkchop_d_clown · 7 pointsr/Economics

This is not a new idea...

Men on Strike

u/Genghis-Brah · 7 pointsr/AsianMasculinity

Yeah personally I think it's very dangerous for Asian men especially in the western countries to marry.

Marriage strike

I think it would do well for a lot of Asian guys in this sub to read this book Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters by Helen Smith. A lot of Asian men are liable to get divorced raped and should be completely cautious to the women they choose to be with. Especially if they're white women or born again Asian women who rode the cock carousel in their college years but now want to settle down. Asian culture preps a lot of Asian men to be a provider for a woman but with low sexual rewards. It's vital so you won't get played as a utility to be disposed as. Alimony is not cheap and getting half your shit taken from you is not fun.

u/aussiehank · 7 pointsr/australia

> necius wrote ...(western) world is a better place for both men and women...

The western world has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going 'on strike'. Males are dropping out of uni, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates.

Enjoy the decline.

u/sansmalice · 7 pointsr/Survival

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but I really enjoyed this book -

u/Lummine · 7 pointsr/AskWomen

Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine. Because I like gender issues and topics.

u/qwertypoiuytre · 7 pointsr/feminisms

Read the newly released "Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society" by Dr. Cordelia Fine for an introduction to this topic. It's very entertaining and easy to read, and also very informative - about the last 50 pages are notes and citations of the studies she mentions that you can investigate further if you wish.

>“Goodbye, beliefs in sex differences disguised as evolutionary facts. Welcome the dragon slayer: Cordelia Fine wittily but meticulously lays bare the irrational arguments that we use to justify gender politics.”―Uta Frith, emeritus professor of cognitive development, University College London

>Many people believe that, at its core, biological sex is a fundamental, diverging force in human development. According to this overly familiar story, differences between the sexes are shaped by past evolutionary pressures?women are more cautious and parenting-focused, while men seek status to attract more mates. In each succeeding generation, sex hormones and male and female brains are thought to continue to reinforce these unbreachable distinctions, making for entrenched inequalities in modern society.

>In Testosterone Rex, psychologist Cordelia Fine wittily explains why past and present sex roles are only serving suggestions for the future, revealing a much more dynamic situation through an entertaining and well-documented exploration of the latest research that draws on evolutionary science, psychology, neuroscience, endocrinology, and philosophy. She uses stories from daily life, scientific research, and common sense to break through the din of cultural assumptions. Testosterone, for instance, is not the potent hormonal essence of masculinity; the presumed, built-in preferences of each sex, from toys to financial risk taking, are turned on their heads.

>Moving beyond the old “nature versus nurture” debates, Testosterone Rex disproves ingrained myths and calls for a more equal society based on both sexes’ full, human potential.

Her previous book "Delusions of Gender" is also quite good.

u/schawt · 7 pointsr/psychology

If people are interested in how this kind of research tends to get stretched beyond its boundaries, check out Delusions of Gender.

u/Jessie_James · 7 pointsr/Parenting


  1. Have kiddo watch Signing Time on Netflix. It is an amazing show that will help with his language development. No guilt.

  2. Get the book Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child. Our 2 year old sleeps from 5pm to 7am every day, and our 6 month old just started doing the same thing with only one wake up overnight. There are, of course, several naps throughout the day. Yes, my son and daughter sleep around 14 hours each night and with naps they sleep a total of around 17 (2 yo) to 18-20 (6mo) hours PER DAY. More kid sleeping time means more relax time for mommy and you.

  3. Give her every Friday night off. Tell her to get out of the house. Find a friend of hers, make plans if you have to, send her to dinner or a movie or SOMETHING.

  4. Do you have a spare room? Arrange to let a nanny live rent free (room and board) in exchange for assistance 20-30 hours a week.

  5. Pick a whole WEEK where each person is on overnight duty. One week you are on duty. You feed little one every time. Next week she is on duty. I read a study that showed doing this week by week made a HUGE difference in the amount of sleep each partner got and their ability to function. Do not take "no" for an answer here. She needs to be able to sleep. Have her pump her breastmilk into bottles and so you can help feed the little one overnight that way.

  6. Do you have a spare room? Put the baby in there immediately. My wife was unable to sleep with our baby in our bedroom because when she made the tiniest noise it would wake my wife up. Putting the baby in the other room allowed both of them to sleep MUCH better.

  7. Is she depressed? Post Partum Depression is real. My wife got put on some meds and it made a world of difference. (For the record, I am anti-meds unless it's really necessary ... and these were amazing.) Have her talk to a doctor, it can improve her quality of life DRAMATICALLY.

    Divorce doesn't seem like a wise option. Are you going to take care of the kids? Don't be silly!
u/robbed_irl · 7 pointsr/brasil

Estou lendo o livro mencionado logo no início do artigo, do Steven Pinker, e não fiquei nem um pouco surpreso ao encontrá-lo nesse texto. Digo isso pois vejo um contraste muito grande entre o artigo e os textos do Pinker.

Não sei se é por conta da minha ignorância no assunto (extremamente provável), ou se está relacionado à forma como abordo discussões sobre a condição humana, mas tenho bastante dificuldade em levar a sério um texto desse tipo. As quatro qualidades do ego quieto e a tal da escala proposta são tão arbitrárias e subjetivas que, a meu ver, tiram toda a credibilidade de se tentar encaixar essa teoria como algo suficientemente distinto dos conceitos amplos relacionados à filosofia humanista.

Dito isso, acho que o problema está em mim mesmo. Se parasse para ler tudo que foi mencionado e apreciar o trabalho que deve ter sido empregado por trás do artigo, provavelmente teria uma opinião diferente. Vindo de um campo técnico, minha visão certamente está muito enviesada a favor de argumentos objetivos e pautados em dados, e, voltando ao início do comentário, é justamente isso que me atrai ao trabalho do Steven Pinker.

u/theshizzler · 7 pointsr/askscience

I believe I remember reading that V.S. Ramachandran had an insight to this when he was dealing with phantom limb patients. The area of the brain that maps foot and toe sensations is right next to areas which are involved with sexual stimulation. When an area of the brain (especially involved with perception and sensation) lose their means of input and become disused (as in someone losing a limb), those neurons are gradually recruited by nearby brain regions to supplement their functioning. So, in some cases of people losing their lower limbs, those foot-sensation areas became cross-linked with the sexual stimulation areas causing the people to have a sexual reaction when imagining their phantom toes being sucked on.

This may be a neurological explanation for foot-fetishism, but I don't know off the top of my head if this has been followed up with concrete study; it only suggests an avenue for further experimentation. This also does little to explain some of the other, less common fetishes (tickling, scatalogical). It also doesn't concretely answer the question as far as genetic/environmental. We have genetic dispositions for particular brain areas being more interconnected than others, but environmental factors play a huge role in this as well, especially as far as deviations from normal development during childhood. As such, though I don't necessarily agree with them, I also can't 100% discount ideas like sexual imprinting.

tl;dr: This, like most other neurological questions, is really complex and the answer lies somewhere on the continuum between genetics and environmental factors.

edit: Looked it up to be sure. For those that are interested, this was discussed in Phantoms In The Brain.

u/americangoyisback · 7 pointsr/conspiracy

Yeah, whoever that idiot was... who told you that... perhaps do not get that info from him.

Read this:

DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences by Rick Strassman.

Pretty much ALL the subjects of the experiment at an American university reported contact with "intelligent entities" when they went away from their bodies.

u/magicjuniormint · 6 pointsr/Parenting

This is such a hugely controversial topic that I hope you don't get the "How could you let your child cry??" responses. But for me personally, I read the book "Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child" and it helped me tremendously. It explains the science behind the whole concept of sleep training and my soon to be 4 year old daughter has been sleeping great since she was 6 months old. It started off rocky, like you're experiencing and I would literally turn off the monitor and go to the other side of the house so I wouldn't have to hear it. But eventually all the crying started to taper off. She never woke up angry with me. As soon as I saw her smile, I knew that there was no resentment. After a week or so, she'd cry for maybe 5-10 minutes before a nap. Usually at night she wouldn't cry at all. Quickly after that, she started sleeping through the night (once my Dr. said it was ok to drop the middle of the night feeding) because she had learned to put herself to sleep which allowed her to fall back asleep. Since then, we've had very few troubles with sleeping even when we travel or when her schedule gets thrown off. I fully credit sleep training for that. I wish you the very best!

u/the_saddest_trombone · 6 pointsr/beyondthebump

For anyone else saving this for future reference I'd like to add Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child to your reading list.

We did gentle CIO the first time and it worked great, but as Dr. Weissbluth points out in the book all kinds of stuff happens (vacations, colds, dropping a nap) where you kind of have to start again, although it's far easier each progressive time. I've reread sections of that book a dozen times and each time they make the process far smoother.

CIO is so hard, but truly my baby is happier and more alert when she gets good sleep. It IS for her benefit and it's probably far harder on me than it is on her.

u/Maxpowr9 · 6 pointsr/AskAnAmerican

I'll preface this by saying I went to a Catholic high school:

Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? by Beverly Daniel Tatum

As a "lily white boy" growing up in suburbia, this was very much an eyeopener for me. The reason I prefaced the Catholic high school was because it was assigned for my junior year Theology class whose subject material was "Catholic Social Teaching".

u/count_machuki · 6 pointsr/videos

If you like this, you should definitely check out his book, Phantoms in the Brain. It's one of the most fascinating things I've ever read.

u/DrDiv · 6 pointsr/AskReddit

Phantoms in the Brain, if you enjoy learning about neuroscience or how the mind works and what happens when something goes wrong upstairs, this book is for you.

u/ArticSun · 6 pointsr/changemyview

I read this book 2-3 years ago "The Brain That Changes itself Self" super fascinating all about neuroplasticity and how the brain can re-wire itself. One chapter talked about porn regarding people losing their jobs, relationships, social life etc. Because of porn, it can also lead to impotence. I will just take some quotes:

> [A 2001study] found that 80 percent felt they were spending so much time on pornographic sites that they were putting their relationships or jobs at risk.

>When I asked if this phenomenon had any relationship to viewing pornography, they answered that it initially helped them get more excited during sex but over time had the opposite effect. Now, instead of using their senses to enjoy being in bed, in the present, with their partners, lovemaking increasingly required them to fantasize that they were part of a porn script.

I can't suggest this book enough. My recommendation would be to combine through that chapter if you are interested.

EDIT: This book is on amazon and is well worth the cash side note I realized when I ordered it was in 2012....time is strange

u/FluffyApocalypse · 6 pointsr/todayilearned

>How could someone in his position be such a cold hearted person?!

Because the bigger the mistake people make, the harder they work to justify it. Not everyone is this bad (I hope) but we all do it. You should give this book a read. Mistakes were made (but not by me)

u/kempff · 6 pointsr/Roadcam

Yep, I do the same thing.

Most people don't understand that tailgating is what causes waves of stop-and-go traffic.

More info:

And I am dismayed that so many people don't understand this concept:

u/hindu-bale · 6 pointsr/IndiaSpeaks

> I see what you are getting at -

I'm unconvinced of arguments involving game theory and utilitarianism. Although, it's easy to latch on to them. Going down a path of "articulated objectivism" in a world dominated by new atheists touting Science as above morality and philosophizing, there isn't much else to fall back on. So I understand why one might want to base their arguments such.

My own break from this approach involved (1) reading "The Evolution of Cooperation", which is as Game Theory and Dawkins as it gets, with its thesis based almost entirely on computer simulation, then simultaneously reading (2) Greg Mankiw's piece on "When the Scientist is Also a Philosopher", which to me was largely an admission from a top Economist, then finally (3) reading Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" that showed me the possibility of an entirely alternate perspective. Particularly impactful were his citing of Fehr & Gachter's Altruistic Punishment in Humans, his case about Kant and Bentham being autistic - implying they weren't socially capable of understanding how people actually functioned in social settings, and his takedown of the New Atheists including Dawkins.

> in part rhetorical :)

Yes, in part, the other part being sincerely open to being convinced otherwise :) .

> I think there is so much more that ails the legal system today

What do you believe ails the legal system?

To me, Dharma is at the least evolved for India, in comparison to Western canonical law. Dharma is still well embedded in our cultural consciousness, we grow up on stories involving Dharma. If you're thinking in terms of Schelling points, Dharma should be an obvious solution to many of India's societal woes. It is at the least far more intuitive for us Hindus. Western legalese on the other hand is mostly about being "technically correct" "as per the law". Maybe it works for the West, probably because it bakes in their Schelling points, but I don't see how it's good for India.

Of course I'm not suggesting overhauling legal vocabulary, but instead, dumping vocabulary altogether. Being technically correct is not the same as being correct. Subjective judgements should be acceptable. The Western legal system, for all its rhetoric about living "by the rule of law", never got around subjective judgement of judges.

u/Enginerd · 6 pointsr/slatestarcodex

Since nobody seems to have mentioned it already, I would recommend Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind. There's a lot in there, part II is most similar to this essay, he comes up with a theory of moral foundations, for which classical liberals essentially use 3 (care, fairness, liberty) and conservatives all 6. The "care/harm" foundation sounds a lot like empathy, "authority/subversion" sounds a lot like discipline.

u/ic2drop · 6 pointsr/skeptic

I'm not sure of all the things this person believes, obviously, but there is a certain level of credibility to this post. An interesting read, based on documented science experiments and the pineal gland could be found here: DMT: The Spirit Molecule. It is very well done and very neutral in its balance. Worth a read.

Again, not saying that all that glimmers is gold, but that dismissing all of this without a second thought could be a mistake. The advice about having positive friends, eating healthy, exercising, and generally being a well balanced person is certainly sound advice for anyone.

The fluoride thing, however, I've never been sure on. I know that at higher levels fluoride can be dangerous, but I'm not sure what levels those are versus the levels of fluoride in our drinking water.

u/MIBPJ · 6 pointsr/HistoryPorn

Its interesting to reflect on how alien that attitude seems to us today. As creepy as it is to see that grin, its even crazier to think that just a few hundred years earlier people were publicly tortured to the delight of a crowd (that included children) for minor offenses, many of which were victimless. For a lot of these tortures, decapitation would have been seen as the merciful end to the spectacle.

Sorry if that seems a bit offbeat. I'm reading Stephen Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature right now so human's nearly monotonic decrease in violence is something that's been on my mind a lot lately!

u/funkykingston · 6 pointsr/todayilearned

Reading Steven Pinker's new book now. That violence has precipitously declined over the centuries and millenia is the central premise.

He has a ted talk about it.

u/sharplikeginsu · 6 pointsr/news

I really enjoyed the book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. It's huge and he first shows that by any possible way you can measure it, things are getting less violent all the time. The second half explores possible reasons why.

So yes, lots of glitches, but less and less every passing year.

u/HellhoundsOnMyTrail · 6 pointsr/OkCupid

The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell, a Jungian psychoanalyst.

Basically he looks at a bunch of the world's myths and relates it to the hero's journey. Really right down my alley with my dream interpretation and creative pursuits.

u/catchierlight · 6 pointsr/occult

> I wonder if humanities curious nature towards mysticism is inevitable and that all paths, no matter how diverse, will always use the same formats and formulas to tell their tales.

This is one of the central tenants of Jung's research (well you know "research") and Joseph Cambell basically wrote the book about it... sorry if Im being didactic/eg if you already knew that... its a really facinating question/idea. As far as "Embedded in our DNA" eg for a more scientific approach this book is AMAZING, even though it does veer from the purely scientific, the idea is that our brains have certain regions which act on our spiritual relationship to our "gods" which manifested themselves as voices in our earlier evolutionary states and that as we became more rational our brains still retained these functional but at the same time "disfunctional" anatomy leading to experiances that result for some in uncontrollable states, like schizophrenics for example ... the way he "proves" all of this stuff is a comparison of his experiments in neuroscience with historical texts, legends, sagas, and other implements of earlier humanity like archeological finds. if you are interested in this topic this is an absolutely Mindblowing book right here just saying!

"Is this part of our evolutionary growth or yearning for divinity?
Our ego's thirst for magical power or trying to step out of our physical limitations?" I think you are right in that we yearn because, I beleive at least, our evolutionary state has one foot in the past and one in the future, we have evolved beyond our normal need for mere survival and we now use our brains for complex creation and navigation of human institutions but we dont really know "why", we dont really know what meaning is becuase "meaning" is a brand new thing! and without it the universe seems devoid of purpose and therefore I beleive we fill in those gaps with these notions and art, music etc, art and literature helps us define ourselves and music helps us 'engage' with the harmonics/vibrations of the universe on deeper levels (as it is really the only category here that actually relies on the schientific make up of the universe i.e. the ways that ratios of harmonic waves sound pleasing or displeasing based on their relationships in time...). I just love this stuff, am also agnostic but love to celebrate all ideas no matter how objectively "wrong" they may be, thats of c why Im on this sub! Love your questions/keep on searching!!!

u/Wegmarken · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

Personally I think a better questions is 'how should one read Jung?' I have a friend who studied psychology with a neuroscience concentration, and that area doesn't tend to take Jung or most psychoanalysts seriously, and while that's not my background, I can see why. I used to be someone who took those methods of self-description and analysis very seriously, but in addition to occasionally taking me some weird places, it's really not taken seriously by most professionals in the fields of, say, psychology.

That said, there are a couple reasons to still study psychoanalytics. One is if you're interested in things like art, film or literature, which were all hugely influenced by ideas about the subconscious. I read a lot of James Joyce and Marcel Proust, and those writers can't be fully understood without some decent understanding of the understandings of psychology that fed into those authors works (Joyce even had his daughter be analyzed by Jung). Artists like Picasso and Pollock were heavily inspired by psychoanalysis, and much can be said for numerous filmmakers, and even some interesting religious study has been done with their work (Joseph Campbell comes to mind here). So if you're interested in that angle, I'd say go for it, as they've got a lot of interesting insights into how art, literature and even religion work.

Another way you can read them is for personal growth, rather than as a transmission of analytic information (I'm not sure I'm phrasing that very well; apologies). I have a few authors that I love to read, but would hesitate to use them to back up some assertion made in an academic paper, unless it was for a very specific purpose, or maybe just finding some flowery quote that I put at the front of a chapter to be pretentious. Jung's been great for me to understand myself, but I would be wary of using him in some academic setting (outside of some where it makes specific sense). I read him like I do Joseph Campbell, Peter Sloterdijk and Allan Watts.

TLDR: Yes, but only sorta. Expect personal growth, but not rigorous psychology, and you should find a lot of value in his work. I'd also recommend Joseph Campbell, since he developed a lot of psychoanalytic stuff into some somewhat more accessible work, and even edited some of Jung's work into an anthology.

u/Arguss · 6 pointsr/AskALiberal

For both sides, I'd recommend (and have several times at this point recommended) Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory, as laid out in his book The Righteous Mind. You can also find YouTube videos from various talks of his that basically explain it all for free.


After that, I'd have them try to look at policies by adopting the other's moral foundations, instead of having their own as a base assumption. This is rather difficult, but it's easier when you at least know what the other's moral foundations are.

u/potatoisafruit · 6 pointsr/TrueReddit

> I think there's not enough writing out there taking a look at the totally understandable emotional reasons why people engage in identity politics.

You're looking for Jonathan Haidt. There's also a TED talk.

Haidt points out that there are six moral "receptors", similar to senses, and that conservatives experience all six, while liberals focus primarily experience only two.

Each of these moral receptors can be exploited. We are hard-wired to respond to these set-points and base our decisions on those gut feelings. We use our intellect (especially on Reddit!) to justify those emotional decisions, not to question them.

Liberals are not going to change their settings. However, they can become better at this game and learn to trigger the four missing receptors to better bring conservatives over to their pet causes.

For example, why don't conservatives respond to the statement: "Trump should release his taxes?" Liberals see this as an issue of fairness and pretty much only fairness - everyone else did it, it's good for the majority to have the information, why is this even a question?

Conservatives bring in a whole host of other moral flavors. They are loyal to Trump. They respect his authority. They believe fairness is about proportionality, so because Trump is rich, he must also be good (those with the most assets have earned a right to lead). All of these cross-currents prevent them from supporting something that is obviously beneficial to society.

Until liberal learn to trigger those switches, they will continue to lose elections. We are ultimately still monkeys.

u/ScienceBreathingDrgn · 6 pointsr/politics

I'm reading a really interesting book right now that talks about the origins of morality, and how they likely have come about because to flourish we need to be a society, and to be a society, we need to think about the greater good.

I know that probably wouldn't go over well with some religious folks, but I'd take it back WAY past prehistory (which some religious folks might also find objectionable), and talk about early man working in groups.

I really enjoy trying to come up with a reasonable and rational argument that at the same time isn't offensive. It's a unique challenge, but I find the results pretty beneficial for my own thought.

Edit: Dur, the name of the book is The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

u/permanent_beta · 6 pointsr/SocialEngineering

[Edit : Formatting, links]

Well, it's hard to do this over facebook/online, especially if the other people are already feeling defensive. "Once you engage the psychology of teams, it shuts down open minded thinking" J. Haidt.

But in general:

First, you have to understand the other person and your own beliefs. And you have to appeal to intuition (emotion) as much or more than to reasoning.

This article is a good introduction to understanding this approach: Reasons Matter (When Intuitions Don’t Object)

Haidt wrote a book, The Righteous Mind, that covers this topic in depth. What's good about his approach is that he uses experiments in Sociology and Psychology to explain and understand ourselves and each other.

He did a TED talk before he finished the book so it's not as complete, but it's also a good introduction: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives


Here's a review of The Righteous Mind:

You’re smart. You’re liberal. You’re well informed. You think conservatives are narrow-minded. You can’t understand why working-class Americans vote Republican. You figure they’re being duped. You’re wrong.

This isn’t an accusation from the right. It’s a friendly warning from Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who, until 2009, considered himself a partisan liberal. In “The ­Righteous Mind,” Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature. Like other psychologists who have ventured into political coaching, such as George Lakoff and Drew Westen, Haidt argues that people are fundamentally intuitive, not rational. If you want to persuade others, you have to appeal to their sentiments. But Haidt is looking for more than victory. He’s looking for wisdom. That’s what makes “The Righteous Mind” well worth reading. Politics isn’t just about ­manipulating people who disagree with you. It’s about learning from them.


To the question many people ask about politics — Why doesn’t the other side listen to reason? — Haidt replies: We were never designed to listen to reason. When you ask people moral questions, time their responses and scan their brains, their answers and brain activation patterns indicate that they reach conclusions quickly and produce reasons later only to justify what they’ve decided. The funniest and most painful illustrations are Haidt’s transcripts of interviews about bizarre scenarios. Is it wrong to have sex with a dead chicken? How about with your sister? Is it O.K. to defecate in a urinal? If your dog dies, why not eat it? Under interrogation, most subjects in psychology experiments agree these things are wrong. But none can explain why.

The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others. Haidt shows, for example, how subjects relentlessly marshal arguments for the incest taboo, no matter how thoroughly an interrogator demolishes these arguments. ...

u/Jickled · 6 pointsr/Mountaineering

Deep Survival -- an informative read of when things go wrong in the wilderness and how the survivors make it out alive. It shines upon the personalities and characteristics that tend to have the highest survival rate by analyzing the craziest stories of people that have lived and also sometimes died. Such a good read in fact that it's the only book that could hold my attention for the last 4 years. ^((I don't really like to read))

u/BetAle · 6 pointsr/GenderCritical

>I guess this is my kinda of my issue. How do you explain transwomen who date and marry ciswomen? If what you were saying is true all transwomen would be dating cismen and exclusively cismen. Right?

They’re heterosexual males with a sexual fetish.

Anne Lawrence


No. I said that they tell homosexual children (a small subset of trans) that they are the wrong sex and then sterilise them using cross-sex hormones after puberty suppression.

Then, we have transwomen telling lesbians (homosexuals) that they are bigoted for not liking penis or wanting to have sex with people that maintain or have previously maintained those organs.

There is a big hint in the word homoSEXual that would lead you to understand that sexual orientation for heteroSEXuals and homoSEXuals is based around the SEX of the person.

Telling lesbians (or gay men) that they must like people of the opposite SEX based on their “GENDER identity” is creepy and disgusting.

People are not obligated to re-evaluate their attractions because of someone else’s “identity”.

Years ago, psychologists and psychiatrists used to try and force homosexuals into liking people of the opposite sex. This is no different.


>I think gender is a set of ideas on how someone acts and looks that is typically based on sex. That is to say that usually female people act and look in a certain way as a woman.

What.the.fuck? Act and look as a woman based on sex? That right there, straight up fucking misogyny.

What does a woman “act” like? You realise that is the antithesis of feminism. That women “act” and “look” a certain

How does sex, one’s reproductive capability, have anything to do with how someone acts?

>I don't know if gender roles are innate, I really don't think they are.

Good. Because they aren’t.

>I don't know if its more real or less real. I think sex is pretty complicated in general and can't be decided by one characteristic but by using multiple different criteria simply because theres no real one defining characteristic that says you're either male or female. for this kind of stuff I typically look to places like the Olympics

Production of gametes. Bam. Simple.

Failing that? Structures for the production of gametes.

Failing that? Genetics.

Failing that? Organs.

Reproduction is real. Human biology is real.

How do you propose we classify people then? How is gender real? How does the way a person "acts" affect anything about their physiology? Things like rape shelters, bathrooms, prisons are all based around people's physiological needs.

Women can get pregnant to males, menstruate and pee sitting down. We have different cancers and different levels of medication tolerance (and alcohol tolerance) because of our physiology.

Men can impregnate and pee standing up. They do not need access to abortions or gynaecological medicine. They may need access to medicine based on their prostates and testicles. They have difference levels of tolerance to medicine and alcohol based on their physiology.

Why would you look to the Olympics? Why not ask a biologist?

>I think this would fall under gender roles again. I don't think a woman is really any one thing. Gender isn't based in your body and how it looks but rather in how you act.

Wrong. A woman is an adult female human.

How is gender then more important than a biological reality again? How is the way someone “acts” overriding this?

Am I no longer a woman because I don’t “act” like one?

The fuck?

Who governs these rules for how someone should act?

Why can't people act however they want? Just because you have certain bits doesn't mean you act any particular way.

Your physiology is just a fact of nature and your ability to produce offspring through the exchange of genetic material.

>If you mean a woman again I don't know if that's a biological reality meaning that you can definitely say that you identify with and are more comfortable with that set of gender roles.

And what of the millions (billions?) of women who aren’t happy with the gender roles place upon us? What if we’re not happy with ANY gender roles for anyone?

What is a gender role and why is it even important?

>If you mean female, I think that's more of a thing that happens as you transition rather than something you just become.

Nope. Males cannot become females. We are not gastropods or fish.

How does a male born become female? That makes absolutely no sense.

>It gets a little worrisome because this kind of thinking can lead to transwomen being excluded from places that most other females are allowed to be. Bathrooms, locker rooms, etc and I'm not sure if that's ok to do, although I'm a proponent of non-segregated bathrooms and changing rooms, I think its a little silly that we separate by sex.


NO! Males cannot become female.

You DO NOT produce oocytes, have menses or gestate and birth young. (Yes, I am aware that not all females can either)

Males disproportionately attack females for violence and sexual assault.

Look at the FBI or WHO statistics if you don’t believe me.

And “transwomen” maintain MALE levels of criminality which makes them just as likely as any other male person to cause us harm.

Males and females are separated because SEX is the only thing that is different between us. We can get pregnant and get “gender” bullshit because of that. We are somehow "weaker" and "less capable". We're also vulnerable because of our ability to get pregnant.

Males and females have different physiology, different medical needs.

You propose what? We separate on “gender”?

How is gender real?

IT FUCKING ISN’T. It was created by society. Biology wasn’t.

Here’s some links to transwomen violence:




(This is a person who gained access to a women’s rape shelter by claiming to be a woman and then SEXUALLY assaulted women)

And I have more.

> would that teenagers are typically below the age of consent, IE below 16 and thus can't legally make a decision to have sex no matter what age the other person is.

But teenagers and children are able to consent to hormones and puberty blockers?

And yes, the brain develops as it gets older. Atrophy and damage can halt and stop the development.

So, how is "brain-age" less real than "brain-sex"? How is it any different to "negro-brains" or "jugglers-brains"?

If I scanned my brain and it had the same volume in certain parts as a medical professional does that make me a medical doctor?

>I think the only difference is the fact that there is some actual research done on the brains of transwomen vs ciswomen which shows some of the same structures not present in cismen.

Yes. We’ve all seen those.

First off, NONE of those studies have been reproduced which makes for bad science.

NONE of those studies identify why they are able to determine what a “woman’s brain looks like”

Actually, here’s a really succinct link that breaks it down

And I’m more than happy to refer you to read Sheila Jefferies new book Gender Hurts, Cordelia Fine’s Delusion of Gender and Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen

>I tend to defer to medical organizations for things like this and typically take them at their word if they say that the cause of transgenderism is due to different brain structures.

Medical organisations used to advocate for lobotomies of the mentally ill, the castration of gay men, and the “hysteria” of women.

You also can see examples of bad pharmaceutical practice in Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science

I’m not saying I agree 100% with any of the above texts. It pays to be well informed and to complete your own research.

Do not “take them at their word” about things like “brain” sex when the methodology for their premise is so unbelievable flawed.

>Does that make sense?

It didn’t make any sense, even a little.

I mean seriously? Fucking gender roles in 2014? We’ve come a long way baby from Suzie-Homemaker and Captain America.

u/hypnosifl · 6 pointsr/slatestarcodex

After coming across this interesting article in Skeptic summarizing the evidence surrounding sex differences in cognitive ability I decided to pick up a book on the same subject by the author (Diane Halpern), Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, which I haven't read through yet but I noticed it did have the following discussion of Baron-Cohen's hypothesis:

>Numerous researchers have offered stern criticisms of the idea that female and male brains are "essentially different," especially in ways that Baron-Cohen has suggested (e.g., Eliot, 2009; Spelke & Grace, 2007). According to Baron-Cohen, it is high levels of prenatal testosterone that make the male brain good at systemizing. But males who are exposed to very high levels of testosterone while still in the womb (i.e., CAH males) are not more masculine or better at male-typical tasks than males who are exposed to normal levels of prenatal testosterone. In fact, the idea that high levels of prenatal testosterone cause autism, which might be expected from this theory, has not been supported. In addition, one prediction from this hypothesis is that autistic boys would be "hypermasculine," which is not supported with any research (Eliot, 2009). The experiment with newborns that Baron-Cohen frequently cites as evidence that girls are born with an interest in faces and boys are born with an interest in objects has been criticized on methodological grounds, including experimenter bias, small sample size, and failures to replicate (Spelke, 2005). ... In addition, numerous studies have found no sex differences in aptitude for science or mathematics in young children (Fine, 2010).

u/Laboe · 6 pointsr/india

At the risk of sounding complacement, maybe India isn't in need of dire saving. After decades of being in the doldrums, it's finally rising at a quite rapid pace. GDP per capita is starting to reach critical mass. India in 2020 will be where China was in the year 2010 according to the IMF(PPP-adjusted).

So its just a decade behind. A big concern is the slowdown in jobs growth. That would cause significant instability if the trend persisted, given that India has about 1 million new entrants into the labor market every single month.

If you look at absolute povery measured by the world bank, the numbers have come down dramatically. India's TFR will also basically converge to replacement rate levels by 2020, something which is necessary to avoid instability and more rapidly increase the wealth of each citizen.

Chidabaram had an interesting talk recently where he talked about India today and its potential. He essentially said neither India nor China could ever reach Western levels of prosperity on a per-capita basis. I wouldn't be so certain. The main constraint today is energy, specifically oil.

That can be overcome(see EVs). Then you have food and whatnot, but that will be possible to bypass by growing your own food in a lab. Water usage can still be streamlined far more than it is today, even in most developed countries. Add to this the general decline in violence over the past several millenia, and you have a decent foundation to build prosperity on. The major risk out there is climate change.

u/nullshun · 6 pointsr/slatestarcodex

> all the worlds religions and ethnicities should stop being jerks to each other. However, that seems unlikely.

It's very likely. It's been happening throughout history. It's happened while wealth inequality increased, as in the Pacification Process, when warring bands of relatively egalitarian foragers unified into larger, more stratified farming states.

> If we look at a lot of wars in the world we can see that its rich people (US Army) killing people with much less money.

I don't think wealth inequality causes that kind of violence at all. Except maybe indirectly, in that USA thinks they can get away with killing Iraqis, because Iraqis are too poor to defend themselves. And if you can force the rich to give away their money to the poor, surely you can just force the rich to not kill the poor.

Anyway, it's not that the rich hate the poor, for being poor, and so go out of their way to hurt the poor. If anything, this is an argument for more free markets. Allow the rich to benefit from "exploiting" (aka employing) the poor, so they won't want to fight the poor.

u/bearily · 6 pointsr/ainbow

Notice how people react more violently to men (or people perceived as men) in women's clothing than the other way around? It's rooted in misogyny.

Check out Whipping Girl by Julia Serrano. Good stuff.

u/7wap · 6 pointsr/MensRights

Wow, I'm floored. That woman came across better than any MRA I know. She's articulate, knows the issues, and isn't hateful. Does anyone know if her book is this good?

u/MyPoopIsHere · 6 pointsr/AskMen

I think Men On Strike tackles a whole lot of issues we see here - especially around divorce, marriage, and custody.

The Author, Dr. Helen Smith, did an AMA a couple months ago that turned me onto the book. Whether or not you agree with everything she says, she provides some compelling facts.

u/Platypuskeeper · 6 pointsr/AskHistorians

> Japan may have helped, but certainly not in the way you're wondering about.

Certainly not? BR Myers, who's studied North Korean propaganda for decades, wrote a whole book on his thesis of how North Koreas system and cult of personality are a direct descendant of the Imperial Japanese rule that preceded it. Mt Baekdu taking on a similar mythological role to Mt Fuji, one that it hadn't had earlier in Korean history.

He also makes a lot of arguments that North Korea is not at all "Confucian". To mention some, they usually refer to their country as the "Motherland" or more literally "mother homeland" (even if it's more often "Fatherland" in KCNA English-language propaganda). How does that fit with Confucianism, where a mother is subordinate to even the youngest of her sons? Or the fact that Kim Il-Sung, in the 1980s, wrote paeans to his son and to-be-successor. That's also at odds with the Confucian father-son relationship.

u/TheAllBeing · 5 pointsr/asktransgender

As mentioned countless times in this subreddit before (and for good reason), the go-to book for better understanding is definitely Julia Serano's Whipping Girl. There is a section in it that I've found really helps my cis friends and family better understand the pain caused by trying to live in the wrong body. It's where she talks about cognitive dissonance and in one paragraph writes:

"Sometimes people discount the fact that trans people feel any actual pain related to their gender. Of course, it is easy for them to dismiss gender dissonance: It's invisible and (perhaps more relevantly) they themselves are unable to relate to it. These same people, however, do understand that being stuck in a bad relationship or in an unfulfilling job can make a person miserable and lead to a depression so intense that it spills over into all other areas of that person's life. These types of pain can be tolerated temporarily, but in the long run, if things do not change, that stress and sadness can ruin a person. Well, if that much despair can be generated by a forty-hour-a-week job, then just image how despondent and distressed one might become if one was forced to live in a gender that felt wrong for twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week."

u/RedditBlueit · 5 pointsr/AskMen

Funny you should ask....

> So as it stands today, there are large numbers of middle-class men who were upstanding citizens, who were subjected to divorce against their will, had their children taken from them, pay alimony masked as child support that is so high that many of them have to live out of their cars or with their relatives, and after job loss from economic conditions, are imprisoned simply for running out of money.

> If 10-30% of American men are under conditions where 70% or more of their income is taken from them under threat of prison, these men have no incentive to start new businesses or invent new technologies or processes. Having 10-30% of men disincentivized this way cannot be good for the economy, and is definitely a contributor to current economic malaise, not to mention a 21st-century version of slavery.

See also, Men On Strike:

> American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?

> As Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.

tl;dr: Men are responding to the signals women (via society) are sending them.

u/sunman331 · 5 pointsr/starcraft

So what is your experience? This is nothing worth fighting over, but in my experience, I have witnessed many interracial marriages between Japanese and foreigners, yet almost none of Koreans and foreigners. There are countless stories of Korean parents who disapprove of their sons/daughters dating non-Koreans.

There is even a book:

I understand this is talking about North Koreans, but culturally North Koreans and South Koreans still share significant overlap in cultural values. After all, they only split off in 1950.

My experience: Lived in Taiwan for 6 years of my life, speak fluent Mandarin, have many Korean and Japanese friends, including Caucasian expats living in both Korea and Japan, and have been to Seoul twice (actually just got back a week ago) and Tokyo 3 times.

u/cricket_monster · 5 pointsr/asianamerican

> What is a "police state" please define that using historical materialist evidence that isn't literal CIA propaganda.

How about as defined by literal North Korean refugees?

Brought to you by the CIA shills over at the Washington Post.

> Which border? The one propped up by Americans using the fascist Syngman Rhee as a puppet?

Yeah, TIL Rhee Syngman is just as bad as Kim Ilsung who appropriated Japanese imperial propaganda to portray himself and his family as divine rulers.

> That'd be the dictatorship of the bougeoisie in America.

TIL the United States is literally worse than North Korea.

By the way, how does your precious revolution against the bourgeoisie (you should spell your own buzzwords correctly) stack up against the communist elite who live large in the west and send their kids to the top European boarding schools in the dirty, imperialist west?

I guess some people are just more equal than others, comrade.

> How are they not a bastion against imperialism? What have they done that could be considered imperialism literally anywhere on Earth? They supported Assad against US imperialism, Yemen against Saudi imperialism, and Libya against French and US imperialism all within the last decade.

So I guess concentration camps are fine as long as you hate America.

> "Something about American imperialism" haha yeah no big deal that American imperialism. Am I supposed to take this dudes opinion seriously?

Dude, you're a tankie.

u/WastedP0tential · 5 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

To the contrary. Science has shown that human violence has declined and still is declining rapidly. Steven Pinker has written a brilliant book on this. Here he is talking about it on TED.

u/EnderVViggen · 5 pointsr/Screenwriting

I can't recomend or say this enough.

You need to read three books:

  1. Save The Cat. This book will give you the basics of how to write a script, and what points to follow.

  2. Here With A Thousand Faces. This is the same information you would get in Save The Cat, however, it's way more involved. This book isn't about screenwriting, it's about story/myth and how we tell them. READ THIS BOOK!

  3. The Power of Myth. Another book by Joseph Cambell, which explains why we tell stories the way we do, and why you should write your stories using the 'Hero's Journey' (see Hero With A Thousand Faces).

    It is important to learn these basics, as you need to learn to walk, before you can fly a fighter jet.

    Happy to answer any and all questions for you!!! But these books are a must!!! I read them all, and still have Hero & Power of Myth on my desk.
u/Fey_fox · 5 pointsr/pagan

It is confusing, but not something that can be easily summarized in a post. is still a good breakdown of the modern pagan movement and different groups you might find. looks like it was designed in the 90s but is still a good resource and is updated, you can find groups there too. is a news blog if you want to see what’s going on today. There are other sites but that’ll get you started.

You can probably tell some folks are a bit sensitive about history. Some swear up and down that their traditions go back unbroken since forever, others will say that all neopagan traditions are reconstructionist and formed in the last century or so (give or take 50 years). The sensitivity comes from people feeling that the newer the tradition the less legitimate it is… but aren’t all religions and spiritual paths made up by someone?

Here’s the thing. You are in charge of your own spiritual journey and your connection to whatever you call your higher power/s is your own and no one else’s. Imho humans are creatures of habit and ritual. It sets the mind to task, even if that’s getting a cup of coffee and reading your email before work to help set up your day. Pagan rituals are a fame work to help you create sacred space, and there’s a psychology to it. What Wiccans call raising a cone of power is similar to what Jim Morrison did in his trancelike long performances where they would speed up and slow down the tempo, ending it in a release. Lots of pagan rituals across many paths use this old technique of syncing heartbeats with music. Other religions use this to a greater or lesser degree but most pagans use it with intent along with myth and symbolism of the wheel of the year which is a death/rebirth myth we re-enact over and over. It’s up to you to figure out what it all means. Beyond historic fact you decide your truth. There’s no dogma really. All the different traditions do is provide structure to work in. There’s no ‘true’ path. Just yours.

If you like more academic reading, I suggest The Hero with a Thousand Faces (The Collected Works of Joseph Campbell)
Out of Your Mind: Tricksters, Interdependence, and the Cosmic Game of Hide and Seek
Women Who Run with the Wolves: Myths and Stories of the Wild Woman Archetype
None of these are ‘pagan’ books, think of them more as companion philosophy/psychology behind myths. The last book is geared more towards women but it’s a good read regarding the female archetype in myth.

Nobody can give you concrete answers. You gotta do what anyone curious must do. Read and figure it out for yourself.

u/cuadradoroja · 5 pointsr/conspiracy

Historically, human beings have rarely ever been aware of the control exerted upon them. Supposedly, realizing that control exists can be both an empowering and traumatizing event.

>When I became conscious of what my situation was, I thought of the best way to escape without being caught. I knew that if I didn't find that way, I could be killed.

Also, Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces can aid readers in recognizing the timeless narrative techniques that are used to shape societies -- one mind at a time.

u/TempestheDragon · 5 pointsr/fantasywriters

Okay, I read it all. And here's my critique, Blangy. :-)
While the read is still fresh in my mind, I want to talk about my overall opinion on how your story can improve.

  1. There are too many flashbacks that aren't relevant to what's happening. What is happening is Peter is traveling and trying to hitch a ride... but... most of the chapter is dedicated to flashbacks that don't have anything to do with hitching a ride and are about a crown and his mom. However, I feel almost all your flashbacks can be used... just scattered around when they become more relevant.

  2. I feel you're introducing too many ideas (defeating guards, crowns, and mother-related flashbacks. These brief flashbacks on, I'm assuming, significant ideas (if Peter mentions he bests guards and talks about a crown, I'm going to guess he will be beating guards and wear a crown at the end) All of these ideas smashed into only a few pages make me feel everything is bouncing too quickly. I'm only getting a brief sketch, of say, Peter's memory (that was really intense). As a reader, I feel cheated of not being able to experience the event. Instead, I have to sit here and read about it. This makes me resent the story and loses my attention.

  3. I feel the beginning... makes no sense. All I see is a boy in the woods with his dog. What significance does this have? Why do I care?

    Maybe try Watching the opening scenes of really good movies. Pixar and Disney have it good. They know when to start. You can also (re)read the first chapter of a book you like. Ask yourself: Why does it start here? What is the opening conflict? For a bit more info, I'd highly recommend this video on How to Write a good first chapter and this video on How to write a good first page

  4. I resent the flashbacks even more because I want to get to know Peter, not his past. Reading the first page or so, I was excited to see where it would go and was disappointed when it just... spiraled into his past and went to brief outlines of his memories instead of crisp and clear present day.

    Maybe try reading The Hero With One Thousand Faces. It's a classic and is full of information on how to structure stories. :-)

  5. I just... don't buy that he's super strong.
    > His belt felt heavy, weighed down by the heavy scabbard in which sat his castle-forged steel sword. He had, like most of things he owned, won it in a brawl with some unsuspecting mercenary or lordsguard.

    Mercenary? Lots of them were knights who were paid soldiers. They were highly trained from the age of 14 to 21. If they weren't knights, they would still be tough dudes. How would he encounter them?

    > Whilst he seemed somewhat skinny, his height hid his true strength.

    Lots of guys were tall. This gap of logic made me lose interest in the story.

    Maybe try Giving him some training in swordsmanship. Maybe a relative could have helped him..? For giving Peter training, you'd have to work on a word building bible because I don't think there were that many opportunities in medieval times to get sword training that wasn't second-rate. I'd recommend this video on making a world-building bible I just wanna say that I love this girls' videos and I'd recommend all of her other ones, too. :-)

    >The dying fire flickered weakly as it clung to its last few embers.

    Right off the bat, I expected the entire chapter to be about the feeling of... well... something dying. The first sentence of a chapter is important. A good deal of the time, it can set the tone of the chapter. But I was disappointed when that didn't happen.

    Hmm... that's all I can think of right now for improvements. There are some sentence structure tidbits, too. But those are minor. I just want to focus on the big picture.

    Now, on to things I liked about it.

  6. This one really struck out to me.

    > He could only remember her long auburn hair that he had buried his face into on countless nights when nightmares stopped him from sleeping.

    Then later,

    > The last thing he had seen of his mother was just a brief moment of her kicking and scratching at the guards as they forced her away from her son, pulling her from the auburn hair that had kept Peter so safe.

    Damn... that association and then that connection later was very poignant. I think that little tidbit can be really useful if it's presented at different times. But yeah, it was beautiful, Bangly! :D

  7. >His fur was matted from the rain and dirt, and looked black where it had once been brown. Peter had forgotten the name the buxom innkeeper from whom he had bought the dog off of had given him, but Mud seemed to be happy no matter what Peter called him, and the name did suit the dog well enough.

    This struck out to me because it describes the dog in an interesting way. Well done. :-)

  8. Overall, even with the flashbacks and such, I felt it was well-written. Your writing is the reason why I think: "Why don't I give critiques on this sub more often?" I quite enjoyed reading your work and I'm really looking forward to reading more of this story. It has potential... strong emotions and good writing... it's just needs some previsioning and I'm sure it can be a great story! Thank-you for the read. :-
u/LocalAmazonBot · 5 pointsr/asktransgender

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Link: Whipping Girl


This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting).

u/wothy · 5 pointsr/consulting

Personally I've found there to be few helpful books which directly relate to management consulting / business strategy. The only one that I've found really helpful is:

  • Winning - an overall look on business strategies and philosophies used by Jack Welch (former CEO of GE)

    But here are some books that are very helpful in developing people / soft skills essential to effective consultants:

  • Getting to Yes - an incredible book on negotating skills.
  • How to Argue and Win Every Time - not as argumentative as it sounds, this is a great book which is hugely helpful on how to present your positions and how to get the best outcome for everyone in a situation.
  • Influence - brilliant book on the ways in which we are influenced to do things.
  • The 48 Laws of Power - a very Machiavellian put pragmatic look on the ways in which personal power is gained / lost.
  • Vital Lies, Simple Truths - how to recognise self deception that we're all prone to and how to overcome its limitations
  • The Blank Slate - a mindblowing book on human psychology and what we're naturally predisposed to be. Helps you to better understand people and their motivations in not just business but all aspects of life. Read from Part 2 onwards.
u/brijjen · 5 pointsr/books

Books like The Brain that Changes Itself, Phantoms in the Brain and The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat are all really great reads. They're different cases and accounts of patients treated by the authors who are, I believe, neuroscientists and psychologists. I learned a LOT about how the brain works and relates to the body - but I'll warn you, when you see how flawed our perceptions of the world can be (how easily damaged, fooled or changed), you may have a slight existential crisis. I did. :)

u/Mooshaq · 5 pointsr/TheRedPill

Yes, there are lots of studies about the addiction patterns in the brains of video game players. I don't think he is implying that massive amounts of video gaming is healthy either. But 303030... is right. It is an addiction that affects a lot of things about you. If you want to read a layman's explanation by great neuroscientists, read The Brain That Changes Itself (there's a section specifically about porn) or The Compass of Pleasure (touches on masturbation, orgasm and I think porn).

u/jforres · 5 pointsr/LifeProTips

There are lots of great techniques (like these) to help you remember specific things, but if you want to train your brain to remember things better, you have to work daily on this effort. I've been using Lumosity for the last few months for this reason. I'm not sure yet whether it's actually improving my memory, but at the very least it's a nice way to get your brain going in the morning and brush up on a few basic skills.

There are different games focused on various "brain skills" (memory, focus, spatial recognition, etc...) - I love the games that help you remember names and faces. Thus far the only research about this was sponsored by the company- hopefully others will dig into this interesting topic soon. Still, everything I've read about brain plasticity suggests these kinds of activities do improve your thinking skills.

I signed up for the 30 day free trial and set a calendar reminder to cancel it by the end of the trial, but after 15 days of using it I was hooked. I get to work and do this for the first half hour or so instead of obsessively checking Facebook and it wakes up my brain and makes me feel productive without having to do real work before the coffee kicks in. There's at least one other website doing the same kind of thing called Posit Science, but I haven't tried it.

You could get a similar result by playing free games that use your memory every day, like matching games, but I like that Lumosity training programs give you different games to play each day so you don't burn out. I just click "Start Training" and it will give me 5 games to play. I also like the ability to track my progress.

If you join, add me- I have the same screenname on there. :)


u/highxfive · 5 pointsr/psychology
u/ReddisaurusRex · 5 pointsr/Parenting

Congrats! Here are my tips . . . (Cut and pasted from another post.)

  1. Stay positive - your attitude/outlook can really make a difference :)

  2. Watch (don't read/or read after watching) The Happiest Baby on the Block film (see below.)

  3. I see you are a reader - I felt like after reading the below books and listening to my parent friends' experiences, I was prepared for almost everything pregnancy and the first couple years of parenthood threw at me (I learn best from reading, and this was just my personal method that worked for me in making confident and informed decisions, or figuring out where to go for more research) - I know a lot of people don't learn best this way/get frustrated trying to implement something really specific if it doesn't work for their baby, rather than just taking pieces of everything they've heard/read about and adapting it to work for them.)

    These helped me make better decisions because they presented me with many options to try for trial and error, or good jumping off points for further research. I have honestly never had a "what do I do now?!" parenting moment because I have read so much that I have back up plans in my pocket if the first thing I try doesn't work. I have also never had any of the struggles with my son that a lot of people have around sleeping, eating, behavior, etc. and while I know some of that is because we have a healthy kid, I truly believe a lot of it comes from being an informed parent who explores all the options and tries the ones that have the most evidence for working well in combination with what feels right for me and my family.

    I tried to just list the neutral/middle of the road books that are fun and/or give enough indepth information on most sides of an issue to be a great jumping off point for exploring particular parenting styles, options, etc.

    In no particular order:

  • Bringing up Bebe - Tells the parenting story of an American expat. living in Paris, and how she observed different parenting techniques between American and French families, and how that plays out in children's behavior. It is a fun "experience" story and I think it lends some interesting insights.

  • Pregnancy, childbirth, and the newborn - I think this is the most informative, neutral, pregnancy book out there. It really tries to present all sides of any issues. I can't recommend this book enough. From here, you could explore the options that best fit your needs (e.g. natural birth, etc.)

  • Taking Charge of Your Fertility - Look into this if you find you are having trouble conceiving, or if you want to conceive right away. Really great tips on monitoring the body to pinpoint the most fertile times and stay healthy before becoming pregnant.

  • The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding - This is published by Le Leche League and really has everything you need to know about breastfeeding, pumping, etc. After baby is born, is a good resource for quickly referring to for breastfeeding questions later, but seriously don't skip this book - it is great!

  • Dr. Spock's Baby and Childcare - Really comprehensive and probably the most widely read book about every aspect of child health and development (and also a lot of what to expect as parents.)

  • NurtureShock - by far the most interesting book I've ever read in my life. Basically sums up research on child development to illuminate how many parents and educators ignore research based evidence on what works well for raising children. If you read nothing else in this book, at least read the sleep chapter!

  • What's Going on in There? - This book was written by a neuroscientist after becoming a mom about brain development from pregnancy through about age 5. It has some of the same research as NurtureShock but goes way more in depth. I found it fascinating, but warning, I could see how it could scare some people with how much detail it goes into (like how many people feel that "What to Expect When Expecting" is scary.)

  • Happiest Baby on the Block - There is a book, but really you can/should just watch the DVD. It has 5 very specific techniques for calming a fussy baby. Here are some recent reddit comments about it. Someday I will buy Dr. Karp a drink - love that man!

  • The Wholesome Baby Food Guide - this book is based on a website which has some of the same information, but the book goes way more in depth about how to introduce food, with particular steps, to set baby up for a lifetime of good (non picky) eating habits.

  • A variety of sleep books, so you can decide which method you might be comfortable with (I believe the Baby Whisperer and Healthy Sleep Habits Happy Child are pretty middle of the road, but you can look into bedsharing (The Dr. Sear's books) or the other end (Babywise) as discussed in other comments already here, etc. - these last two links I am letting my personal bias show - sorry, but I just think it is good to know all sides of an issue.)

  • Huffington Post Parents section often has "experience" articles, and browsing subs like this can help with that too.

  • A lot of people love the Bill Cosby Fatherhood book too, but my husband and I haven't read it, so I can't say for sure what is in it, but I imagine it is "experiences" based

  • The Wonder Weeks - describes when and how babies reach developmental milestones, what to expect from those, and how to help your baby with them.
u/lanemik · 5 pointsr/Parenting

I'm sure you're getting great advice. I just wanted to put forward a book suggestion that helped my family immensely. Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child.

u/mousedisease · 5 pointsr/education

Hi there,

When you say 'under privilaged' and mention that you are white - I assume you are about to work with a population that is primarily not white.

If that is the case, you have a very real challenge ahead of you - the challenge of recognizing and addressing your own biases before entering the classroom.

Teachers often unintentionally create classrooms full of bias and environments for negative 'self-fulfilling prophecies' for certain students. It is best to be very intentional about avoiding these common pitfalls from the start.

I'd recommend these books as a good place to start:

Other Peoples Children

Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together....

For White Folks Who Teach In The Hood...

u/dontrubitin · 5 pointsr/racism

Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria: And Other Conversations About Race has a lot of helpful discussion about talking about race with kids. Here's a quick primer on anti-racist parenting, and another good one. I've also had friends recommend this short e-book, but I haven't read it yet.

u/Anonymous999 · 5 pointsr/videos

This famous book's author argues that because white people don't actively give up the privileges that their skin color gives them, they continue to perpetuate a two tier system of equality. I always find the premise of the book funny...the author to me argues that whites need to "level down" instead of blacks "leveling up."

If you really want to rage, read that book. It's really famous among race theorists.

u/fortis-in-arduis · 5 pointsr/fiaustralia

So you want /u/UtilitarianOutcomes to somehow summarise the hopes and dreams of the likely several billion people who could broadly be categorised as "optimists"?

Honestly what fucking answer do you expect?

u/Jxhyctc · 5 pointsr/europe

While it is no doubt true that people of means have more influence of the democratic system than regular joes, it seems to me borderline conspiratorial to say the laws are set by them and solely for their own benefits, considering the fact that if that to be the case, we would have a flat tax system, rather than the progressive tax system that is adopted throughout the western world , including the US, where The top 1 percent paid a greater share of tax than the bottom 90 percent combined. (I am sure the situation is even more extreme in France.) There are various reasons of income inequality, but the undeniable fact is the vast majority of people today have a better living standard than people even 30 years ago, ( souce: enlightenment now) thanks to the system of capitalism where people getting rewarded for satisfying the needs and wants of others, rather than a socialist system wheres some angry people on reddit( or god forbidden, politicians and bureaucrats) decide, arbitrarily whose labour is worth how much. Steve Jobs became a billionaire, not because he worked 1 million times harder than a struggling artist, but because it is 1 million times more "useful", reflected by the great willingness of consumers to buy his product. It is certainly not perfect, and there are various ways the market can be distorted, including the tragedy of commons etc. but I would rather making pragmatic adjustments to a system that has proved astonishingly efficient at satisfying want rather than a hypothetical ones which accords with your sweeping and moralistic declaration that the existence of billionaire is a policy failure, which presumably means, that one would rather live in a world where people continue dying of cancer rather than a world where some drug companies become filthy rich for providing drugs that successfully cure cancer, which they no doubt will have to invest heavily and take on considerable financial risk to develop?


I also don't agree with the implication that tax dodging( minimization) is a flaw of character. I usually judge people based on what I would have done in their shoes, and if I were a billionaire, I would no doubt also try to minimize my tax obligation as much as possible, as I believe most people would too, including I suspect, you. Isn't it rather strange to cast aspersion on someones' character for things that you are doing and would have done? It is up to the politicians to set up a system of taxation that they believe is fair and just and efficient, is it not? Besides, France is the most heavily taxed country on earth(10 percent more than Germany or Canada) , followed closely by Italy, and consider both countries are mired in high unemployment and economic stagnation, it seems to me empirically that a country that spends more energy and time trying to figure out ways to take money from someone and give it to someone else is not exactly an ideal place to live, even for ordinary people. ( I have a lot of french friends here in Montreal looking for jobs, thanks to the dismal job market in France) Canada is also a quite progressive country, but it seems to me that here people think tax as a way to pay for this or that programs that deems beneficial to the society as a whole, while in France, the mood seem to be tax as a way of punishment, to punish people who dare to be successful. I honestly don't begrudge smart and successful people for wanting to emigrate from France.

Also, a side note. I admit I don't know much about the situation in France, but at least in Canada, where I have an acquaintance who works as a firefighter, the fire fighters are extremely well compensated(especially comparing to their education background) and only works alternative days. I could be wrong of course, with regards to the situation of France, but since it is a country that is world famous for its public sector union, I doubt it would be much different. So I am not convinced any of the hypothetical 2.5 Billions. would somehow go to the firefighters, rather than another costly and inefficient government programs that serve more to win applauds for politicians and give cushy jobs to the politically connected than actually helping people in needs.

u/OliveSnooked · 5 pointsr/rupaulsdragrace

Gurl, the brain is the true dick of the body. It is a trickster. If you ever want a fascinating read, pick up "Phantoms of the Brain"

u/ryanloh · 5 pointsr/neuroscience

Some excellent popular book options are:

The Tell Tale Brain - V.S. Ramachandran

Phantoms in the Brain - V.S. Ramachandran

Synaptic Self - Joseph LeDoux

Also mentioned by other posters, Norman Doidge and Oliver Sacks.

All of these are really approachable for beginners and I enjoyed them all greatly as an undergrad way back when.

u/zzolo_tv · 5 pointsr/DMT

Hey dude! Glad to see you're interested. DMT is a very mysterious psychedelic. Not much is known about it but I'll provide some cool links for you to check out!

DMT Nexus - If DMT had a website for itself, this would be it. Personally, I love to read trip reports here!

[DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences](DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences - A book by Rick Strassman that I highly recommend.

u/Tiredandupset · 5 pointsr/Psychonaut

I'm not familiar with any psychonaut themes, but there is this

u/unnamedstripper45 · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

Absolutely! Maybe I'm inexperienced but it's equally as frustrating finding that from time to time I end up on this side as well. I feel kind of like an asshole after...

side note edit: Thought it might be worth mentioning that this is actually becoming a big interest in the field of moral psychology, (though most of the research I'm familiar with centers around moral debates). You might find Haidt's The Righteous Mind particularly interesting; it's a neat book that goes over some experiments about how arguments (especially philosophical ones) can become honorific and somewhat hopeless in the wrong contexts. I found it cathartic.

u/japanesepiano · 5 pointsr/exmormon

Rebuilding is the tricky part. You have to figure out your morality. The good news is that many Mormons are very moral when they rebuild. I recommend some light reading, including the righteous mind to get you started.

As for your mom, be genuinely loving. You may want to wait to come out. My mom was crushed by me (and other siblings) leaving. But we love her, and we show it, and it's going to be okay. My mother has dementia, so when she's with us I suck it up, dress up, and take her to church, and that's a good thing because it helps her be in a better mental state.

u/Homeless_Nomad · 5 pointsr/GoldandBlack

A lot of them are written with the intention of "trapping" people into situations that they feel are morally wrong, but cannot explain why rationally due to a lack of consequence or victim. Haidt lays out where this particular line of moral psychology came from in his book, which I highly recommend.

u/Fuzzy_Thoughts · 5 pointsr/mormon

Thank you very much! These are some really excellent thoughts and I'm grateful for the additional context from someone who has not only been here for a while, but from someone who was a mod/head mod. I showed up on /r/mormon about a year ago when my faith transition started (I only used /r/latterdaysaints prior to that for a couple years), so that "battleground" context is probably very important.

The Righteous Mind comes to mind for all of us and whatever group we might generally align ourselves with.

u/Ahaigh9877 · 5 pointsr/im14andthisisdeep

Yeah, but it feels like things are getting apocalyptically scary, and how awesome exciting terrible that it should be happening to us, in our lifetimes!

Unfortunately happily, you're right: violence of all kinds has been on a downward trend for ages.

u/Gazzellebeats · 5 pointsr/LetsGetLaid

>I don’t regret having one, just extremely ashamed of being sexual and communicating it to girls and also showing it to the world. Attracting girls’ attention and whatnot isn’t very hard but progressing things to dating, holding hands and eventually sex is impossible. I can’t even call them or message them on Facebook or Whatsapp because I just feel like an idiot for doing so. Making a move in clubs and bars is also difficult although I once got close to leaving with a girl but she didn't want to. I got made fun of a lot growing up for not having a girlfriend and this made me feel like i do not deserve one. It doesn't matter if I've got the green light to go ahead I just feel really ashamed do it. Even something like looking at a fit girl wearing a short skirt makes me feel bad for checking her out and that I shouldn’t be doing it.

I know what you mean. I've been there myself, but even when I was there I was entirely self-aware of my shame and I was skeptical of the validity of my emotional reactions; I realized they were ingrained. Being aware of your emotional reactions allows you to be emotionally proactive. Your sex-negative problem is mostly an emotional issue, and not much else, right? I've been there. I wouldn't doubt that you are also decent looking and have both latent and actualized social skills. Most intelligent introverts have a lot of potential to be who they want to be because they know themselves more deeply than others. You must use your introverted nature to your advantage and recognize the differences in others and yourself. In all honesty, there are an infinite number of unwritten rules; everyone's abstract/emotional logic is different. Many of them are foundational and predictable, however; including yours and mine. Like anything else, being emotionally predictable is not a black/white issue. It is a grey area, and you have to balance your reliability with creativity.

Being made fun of for not having a girlfriend is just as sexist as being made fun of for not having a boyfriend; gender equal too. Were you ever shamed for not having a boyfriend? It's clearly a matter of groupthink and extroverted style; not for everyone. Dating relationships, for extroverts especially, are often attention-getting and showy. They wear their relationships like trophies won. Usually introverts prefer a more private relationship because they have less social desire and are often shamed because of it. Introverts are “themselves” more often in private. Extroverts are “themselves” more often in public. There is no shame deserved either way, regardless of popular opinion. Both styles have their strengths and weaknesses, and you should try to introject some of the traits that you enjoy in others; regardless of type. That is how you become balanced.

>I’m receiving counselling from a pastor who advocates the whole “no sex before marriage” thing and believes that people should only date to get married and sex is only for making kids which is stupid IMO because I do not plan on getting married anytime soon.

Counseling from a Catholic pastor? Watch out, that is one of the most notorious sex-negative societies out there. They own the abstinence-only charade while they parade horribles. Marriage is not the answer to anything; it is an institution of the state. Anything else attached is sentimental.

If you haven't already, I recommend doing an in-depth study of animal sexual behaviors; especially the most intelligent animals. All animals have sex for pleasure, but some animals are only driven to have sex at certain times of the year; humans are on a 24/7 system.

>I’ve tried the no fap route and gotten very high days counts but that hasn’t really helped me at all.

Sexual frustration doesn't help anyone. If you are mindful, then you can use your libido to further your goals, but it is not an all-cure.

>Got any sources to help overcome sex-negative perspectives? I’m interested in recreational sex not baby making sex.

Absolutely. I recommend starting with actual sex science and learning about male and female psychology and neurology. Then work your way into reading about sex culture. You should also study developmental psychology as you will probably need the clinical context in order to objectively self-evaluate your childhood influences; it is necessary for self-therapy. The best therapy will always be self-therapy; no one will ever know you better than yourself.

Evolutionary Science and Morals Philosophy:

The Selfish Gene

The Moral Landscape

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?

Sex Psychology, Science, and Neurology:

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex

The Female Brain

The Male Brain

Why Men Want Sex and Women Need Love

What Do Women Want

Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)

Sex: The world's favorite pastime fully revealed

Behavioral Psychology and Abstract Economics:

How Pleasure Works


Quiet: The Power of Introverts In A World That Can't Stop Talking

Thinking Fast And Slow

We Are All Weird

Developmental Psychology:

Nurture Shock

Hauntings: Dispelling The Ghosts That Run Our Lives

Empathy Building:

Half The Sky

The House On Mango Street

Me Before You

The Fault In Our Stars

Also check out James Hollis' Understanding The Psychology of Men lecture if you can find it.

Movies: XXY, Tom Boy, Dogtooth, Shame, Secretary, Nymphomaniac, Juno, Beautiful Creatures, and The Man From Earth.

All of these things are related, but it is up to you to make the connections; pick and choose which material suits your interests best. These are the things that came to mind first, and they have all influenced my perspectives.

u/DarknessMonk · 5 pointsr/brasil

> E, observando o longo prazo, o mundo nunca foi tão pacífico quanto é agora.

Passando só pra linkar o livro do Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined que fala exatamente sobre isso. Conheci via um amigo, e já está na minha lista de leituras faz algum tempo.

u/geewhipped · 5 pointsr/IAmA

Thanks! I'll check these out... and maybe I'll reread the Dark Tower series, so friggin' great.



Amazon links:

The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley

Abundance Peter H. Diamandis and Steven Kotler

Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker

Stephen King's Dark Tower Series

Patrick Rothfuss's Name of the Wind (Kingkiller Chronicles)

Scott Lynch's Gentlemen Bastards series

(yeah, these are links... if you aren't already supporting some organization with your Amazon purchases, how about my kid's school's PTA?)

u/gregorsamsa07 · 5 pointsr/confession

Read this book, full of hard research that shows we are living through the most peaceful period in human history.

u/balanced_goat · 5 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind is a bit more focused than some of the other suggestions, but incredibly fascinating, readable, and does a great job of documenting the evolution of an idea in social psychology, which may give him insight into what it actually means to be a social psychologist. Wish it was available for me to read when I was his age.

u/sasha_says · 5 pointsr/booksuggestions

If you haven’t read Malcolm Gladwell’s books those are good; he reads his own audiobooks and I like his speaking style. He also has a podcast called revisionist history that I really like.

Tetlock’s superforecasting is a bit long-winded but good; it’s a lay-person’s book on his research for IARPA (intelligence research) to improve intelligence assessments. His intro mentions Kahneman and Duckworth’s grit. I haven’t read it yet, but Nate Silver’s signal and the noise is in a similar vein to Tetlock’s book and is also recommended by IARPA.

Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind was really eye-opening to me to understand the differences in the way that liberals and conservatives (both in the political and cultural sense) view the world around them and how that affects social cohesion. He has a few TED talks if you’d like to get an idea of his research. Related, if you’re interested in an application of Kahneman’s research in politics, the Rationalizing Voter was a good book.

As a “be a better person” book, I really liked 7 habits of highly effective people by Stephen Covey (recommend it on audiobook). Particularly, unlike other business-style self-help about positive thinking and manipulating people—this book really makes you examine your core values, what’s truly important to you and gives you some tools to help refocus your efforts in those directions. Though, as I’m typing this I’m thinking about the time I’m spending on reddit and not reading the book I’ve been meaning to all night =p

u/pastebin_sniffer · 5 pointsr/pics


I was thinking the exact same fucking thing.

If you hear the man-stewardess in the video say, "oh don't worry, it's only the fuel burning", I was going out of my mind.
Read 'Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why' then tell me you wouldn't have pulled the emergency exit and got the hell out of there.

Amazing. Glad I wasn't in that situation.

u/mpjanning · 5 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Well, you could take a look at Cordelia Fine's book Delusions of Gender.

Here's a quick overview of her argument.

However, given the tone of your comment, I sincerely doubt you will take any time to consider the evidence. And I suspect that there isn't anything that will change your perception. You, therefore, are part of the problem. Bitch.

u/00Qant5689 · 4 pointsr/atlanticdiscussions

>The key to understanding both Conservatism and the Conservative Media is to understand they believe they are at War, and "Liberals" are the enemy. Just like during a War, say WW2 for example, people will blindly follow their own governments propoganda not because it is true or not but because their side said it and to believe your own side is to support the war effort.

It's not just the whole "siege mentality" that makes conservative media so effective and widespread. Once you distill it down to the essentials, conservative media appeals to the base fears and underlying psychologies of many viewers in such a visceral and primal way that it overrides their higher reasoning. It's no surprise that a lot of what you see on Fox, Breitbart, and InfoWars, etc. is over-the-top, sensationalized, and fairly short on facts a lot of times: it's specifically aimed at stoking, reinforcing, or sparking the emotions and pysches of specific viewers who generally vote conservative. And as long as this keeps up, there would be very little reason for Trumpsters and those on the right in general to break free of these self-reinforcing loops or the groupthink bias and siege mentality of conservative media.

I've oversimplified this considerably because I haven't read this source material in more than two years by now, but Jonathan Haidt covered this in greater detail in The Righteous Mind. If you haven't read it already, I'd highly recommend it.

u/boothofthebeast · 4 pointsr/nba

I would say it's not dissimilar to the partisan fanaticism in most other democracies but it does seem it's become worse. Well, it's pretty bad in the UK too.

A great book on the topic of partisanship in general (and correlated issues):

u/SMYFFL · 4 pointsr/Capitalism

What you've asked is an incredibly deep question that likely has no right answer. Having said that, there are probably wrong answers - one of those is assuming that all individuals are absolutely logical decision makers that will always try to make the most objective decision.

Rational choice theory is the fundamental underlying thought behind economics (and capitalism by extension). However, moral psychologists are starting to believe that human do not make judgments based on rationality, but instead run off of intuition and then use logic post hoc in order to explain why their gut was right. This may be the type of thought that you've stumbled upon, and if you'd like to read more on the idea, Haidt's book The Righteous Mind is a good place to start.

u/ItsAConspiracy · 4 pointsr/technology

I thought these people were idiots until I read your comment. It's also worth noting that it was a loaner car. From now on whenever I drive an unfamiliar car, I'm going to test putting it in neutral, so I can do it without thinking about it.

A great book on the things that go through people's heads in dangerous situations, and how it gets them killed, is Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why by Laurence Gonzales.

u/ifonly12 · 4 pointsr/books

Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why? by Laurence Gonzales

Swimming to Antarctica : Tales of Long Distance Swimming by Lynne Cox

Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach

I was home for a holiday, and found these laying around my mother's book stash. She recommended all of them and I thoroughly enjoy each one. Although, usually I read fiction. All of these books are intriguing, well-written, and educational. If you never read non-fiction a good place to start is reading Mary Roach. Here is her TED talk about orgasms.

u/Neemii · 4 pointsr/askGSM

Honestly, as convenient as it is to point to studies showing brain differences and claim its a biological difference, there are also studies that indicate there isn't much brain difference between men and women to begin with. I don't believe that being trans is determined solely by biology, even if that does turn out to be a factor for some people.

The real truth is that no one is 100% sure why some people are trans and some people who present and act almost the same way are not. There's no way to tell who will be trans and who won't.

Think about a quiet person, who is sitting on their own in a busy coffee shop. They could identify themself any number of ways - maybe they are shy and anxious and wish they could reach out to people. Maybe they are introverted and enjoy being there on their own. Maybe they are just waiting for someone. But their behaviour looks the same to an outsider regardless of their internal identity. Only they know the truth of the matter.

Gender identity is a combination of many factors. It can be related to sex, sexual orientation, or behaviour for some people, and for some people it has nothing to do with any of those things. Gender identity is the personal relationship that you have to your body (i.e. to your biology), your relationship to the way other people view your body as a gendered body (i.e. to society's ideas about your assigned gender), and your relationship to your own thoughts and feelings about gender (i.e. how you have incorporated ideas about gender from society). If you grow up and all of these things align in a positive way, you are cisgender - you feel that your internal thoughts and feelings about your gender, the way society sees your gender, and how your body looks to you all match up. If one or more of these things don't gel with you, you might be trans or you might just play around with gender.

It's really something that most people have to explore for themselves to figure out - while there are some trans people who just inherently know they are actually a different gender than people say they are from a young age, there are also many trans people who have to experiment until they find out what works best with them and then base their identity off that. There are cisgender (non-trans) people who experiment with gender presentation but still feel most comfortable identifying as the gender they were assigned at birth.

Basically, what it means when someone says they are 'male' or 'a man' means that they identify as and are a man. Just think about the immense amount of difference between cisgender men. There are feminine cisgender men, masculine cisgender men, androgynous cisgender men, cisgender stay at home dads, cisgender businessmen, every possible variation under the sun. Almost half our population is made up of cis men. What does it mean to belong to such a huge population? Well, it's dependent on what that man's culture says being a man is, and how that man relates to that, and how that man relates to himself. It's entirely determined by us, whether we are cisgender or transgender.

(edited to add links to an article about Cordelia Fine's research and the amazon page for her book, Delusions of Gender)

u/unique-eggbeater · 4 pointsr/NonBinary

This is a recent and well-acclaimed book on the subject, although I have not read it myself.

u/Skydragon222 · 4 pointsr/AskFeminists

I once had the pleasure of hearing the feminist biologist, Marlene Zuk, speak. She was fantastic and I think you should check out her book [Sex on Six Legs] (

Also, if you're not afraid of delving into psychology and neuroscience. I'd also recommend Cordelia Fine's [Delusions of Gender] (

u/anoxymoron · 4 pointsr/SRSUni

At the risk of further entering a debate in which I have already blundered, Cordelia Fine's excellent book Delusions of Gender discusses a number of examples of early gender socialisation including a self study done by a feminist woman on how her attitude to her unborn child changed after she discovered it was female. Fine's commitment to nurture brings up problematic issues with regards to trans* individuals experience of an internal gender dissonant with how they have been socialised, but her analyses of existing studies are worth reading.

u/AHusbandAnd2Cats · 4 pointsr/beyondthebump

2 months is too young to 'sleep train', but they're never to young for you to train yourself how to help them sleep :). We read this book "Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child" by Dr. Weissbluth

It starts from birth and talks all about how important sleep is, how to recognize tired cues, how to get your baby to sleep, etc. So its 'sleep training' but its not 'cry it out'. But really your 2 month old may not go more than 3-4 hrs during the night at this stage.

u/syneater · 4 pointsr/askscience

The book he wrote discussing his work on phantom limb sensations is called 'Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind'. I found the experiments and really the whole book fascinating.

The Mirror Box, at least to me, shows how bizarre and flexible the human brain can be while also showing a relatively simple hack that can help reduce the pain and unpleasant sensations from a phantom limb.

Edit: modified some wording

u/humanasfck · 4 pointsr/DMT

The book The Spirit Molecule was written by a psychiatrist that did IV DMT research on patients. There were notable similarities between their experiences, though I believe it is best categorized as 'esoteric' in the sense that it is essentially indescribable in a linear, human way.

The only way to know what it is like, is to experience it firsthand since there are literally zero words that accurately depict it.

For an ELI5 analogy: It is equivalent to describing to someone who is blind and has no sense of smell what it is like to stand outside and see a rainbow while breathing in the fresh air after a rainstorm.

u/Super_novy · 4 pointsr/worldnews

They actually did another study on dmt (the active psychedelic in ayahuasca) at the university of New Mexico from 1990-95 where they synthesized pure dmt in a lab and gave over 400 various doses and placebos to nearly 5 dozen human volunteers. I've read the book and watched the documentary on Netflix (dmt: the spirit molecule) and it is very interesting if you have some time to look into it. You can find the book here DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences and the wiki link here:

u/Halo6819 · 4 pointsr/Fantasy_Bookclub

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond: An amazing look at how civilization was formed

On Killing by Dave Grossman: If your characters kill anyone, know what it will do to them

*edit: Hero of a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell: You think Eragon is a rip off of Star Wars, or that Star Wars is a rip off of Jesus, or that Jesus is a rip off of some obscure norwegan god, find out the true origins of just about everything you have ever read and find out why Harry Potter had to die and had to come back from the dead!

u/Xais56 · 4 pointsr/fantasywriting

Have a read of this.

Basically you need to be living and breathing story structure, to be at the point where an idea naturally slots itself into the pattern, rather than you struggling to work out how to access it.

If you want something a bit more formal read this, it's basically the university textbook version of the blog post I linked.

u/tiny_birds · 4 pointsr/funny

On EMTs refusing care to trans people: Maybe pbjay is thinking about Tyra Hunter.
> Tyra Hunter, a transsexual woman who died in 1995 after being in a car accident. EMTs who arrived on the scene stopped providing her with medical care—and instead laughed and made slurs at her—upon discovering that she had male genitals.

Quoted here from Whipping Girl by Julia Serano.

On the less extreme side, the National Transgender Discrimination Survey Report on Health and Health Care found 5% of survey respondents reported that EMTs treat them unequally.

On legally attacking and killing trans people: "Trans panic" is a legal defense against assault and murder charges that asserts the defendant became temporarily insane because they were so freaked out their victim was trans. The "trans panic" defense hasn't been used very often or successfully. The most famous "trans panic" case is the murder of Gwen Araujo. Other examples include Chanelle Pickett whose murderer was acquitted of the three more serious charges—first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter— and found guilty only of assault and battery.

If you want to read more about the "trans panic" defense, I suggest (Trans)forming The Provocation Defense by Morgan Tilleman

  • edited for (still not awesome) formatting
u/smischmal · 4 pointsr/Minecraft

I don't fully agree with that. Gender is a complex and nuanced topic. Some portions can rightly be regarded as social constructs, however not all parts can. For instance, gender explained as entirely a social construct fails to account for transgender people who feel strongly identified in a way that is discouraged by cultural norms. There is clearly some intrinsic part of them that is drawn to these cross-gender activities or characteristics.

For a more in depth examination of this topic, I highly suggest you read Whipping Girl by Julia Serrano.

u/bushiz · 4 pointsr/todayilearned

yo. For one. Situations defined as real are real in their consequences. Ergo, gender is real. Even independent of some hypothetical evidence about gender being entirely performative and phenomenological (which there really isn't. I mean, western society obviously hyperexaggerates the difference between the masculine and the feminine, but to flat out deny that there's any reality to gender is almost as bad as being a complete essentialist.) the differences exist in society. Deities probably not existing doesn't mean that the catholic church doesn't exist.

For two: read this: because it's basically the best book on the situation ever.

u/DreamSynthesizer · 4 pointsr/asktransgender

People here recommend it a lot, so you may have already heard of this book, but you might take a look at Whipping Girl. It was the first book about trans topics I read that made me feel like my experiences were legitimate.

P.S. Legos, dinosaurs, etc. aren't necessarily "boy toys;" it sounds like you just liked stuff that was awesome.

u/Huwawa · 4 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

A book that deals extensively with this subject ("male" traits being valued more than "female" traits) is Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity by Julia Serano. I highly recommend it to everyone, especially my cis-sexual friends.

u/Cautiously_Allie · 4 pointsr/asktransgender

She's Not There: A Life in Two Genders: This would be my highest recommendation. Jennifer Boylan is a great writer, and succinctly articulates what a lifetime of low-level dysphoria is like. This one or something like it, would help greatly with fleshing out your character's personality.

Whipping Girl: Probably needs to be read so that you don't make a tremendous misstep and offend a ton of people. Julia Serrano is an activist. She comes off as a political warrior, which was a bit off-putting for a mostly apolitical person such as myself, but her information is solid and comprehensive.

Warrior Princess, A U.S. Navy Seal's Journey to Coming Out Transgender: I haven't read this one yet, so I can't really say if it's an interesting read but, this one is sure to have some of the qualities that you're searching for. For someone to complete Seal training, and succeed in that extremely masculine environment, while suppressing her female nature seems to be just the kind of insight you need for your story.

Also, you can gain a better understanding by reading up on "dysphoria" here on AskTG. The experiences of the people here are vast and varied, so you may find a better feel for your character by delving into this subject. Does your protagonist just feel as though something is slightly off? Do they feel shame for wanting to be female, because of the lower social station? Does your character experience crippling fits of anxiety and depression, or anger at their plight?

Hope you find what you're looking for. We could use more trans-positive literature to counteract the bile that has been present for far too long.

u/interiot · 4 pointsr/transgender

Read Whipping Girl, it's an awesome book.

Regarding this, the author suggests that it's often used as a way to say that transgender feelings aren't legitimate, by classifying the trans-feminine impulses as either 1) repressed homoerotic urges (when it's a trans-feminine person who's attracted to guys), or 2) autogynephilia (when it's a trans-feminine person who's attracted to women). I think she even goes so far as to suggest that some outsiders use this as a way to say that no trans-feminine person is legitimately transgender.

I don't think it's quite that pernicious -- I know someone who openly identifies as autogynephiliac, and they have lots of experience exploring themselves. But it does seem to be an overly convoluted explanation, that you trick yourself into becoming what you're attracted to. Since there aren't a lot of people who, after a lot of contemplation, identify this way (and many end up deciding that's not the best explanation), it seems like Occam's Razor is enough to say that those urges aren't so convoluted, that you really just want to become the way you honestly see yourself.

u/Ripplinghurst · 4 pointsr/TheRedPill

Relevant book, just out:

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters

u/poktanju · 4 pointsr/funny

This exact strategy is outlined in The Cleanest Race, though it's more to give him legitimacy by making him physically resemble his predecessors. Rumors are even plastic surgery was involved.

u/hyperrreal · 4 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

>What I am saying is that There are men and boys that do have male figures in their life. There's no dearth of male role models. They just don't resemble the 2D archetypes of the highly gendered 1950's.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with 1950s. But there is a dearth of male role models. My point was that the existence of fathers and coaches is not evidence of anything.

>My issue is that the OP (and now you) are saying male role models don't exist because they don't exist for you.

No I was bringing up my own experience as evidence that the mere presence of a father in someone's life does not necessarily equal the presence of a mentor.

>The modern trend is to have fathers and male family members being more involved. So that raising children is not something solely in the realm of women. This is a good thing.

>Distant fathers were common when gender stereotypes were the norm. Younger men want a more active role in their children's' lives than their fathers or grandfathers did. I can already see it in my age group.

I agree this is a good thing, but it's not a true solution to the problem. In King Warrior Magician Lover Robert L. Moore sums up the problem pretty well. It's not just a lack of male involvement with their children, it's a "crisis in the masculine ritual process."

Real male mentorship involves a mature man or group of mature men bringing a boy into a manhood in some kind of formalized or ritualized process. For this to occur a 'sacred male space' and presence of mature men (elders) is required. Both of these things are in critically short supply.

>So going back to you not growing up with a male figure. RP points it's finger at feminism as the culprit. To me that shows they don't understand. Especially when feminism is one of the primary forces responsible for fathers having a more active role than they did prior.

Feminism is partly to blame, and a mature feminism should have no problem accepting responsibility for some of the mistakes it has made. For one, feminism has spent significant energy destroying male spaces my forcing them to open up to women. In many cases this way just and necessary, but the reality is this that men and women need 'sacred spaces' for themselves, and feminism has taken this away. Now the closest things are immature organizations like gangs, the military, and many fraternities or sororities.

Another way feminism has contributed to this problem is by trying to break down masculinity and say that its unnecessary, that it doesn't exist, it's harmful and violent, should be deconstructed, etc. In essence feminism has confused immature masculinity (aka patriarchy) with masculinity itself, and as a result attacked them both.

>If you want to fix a problem, you have to understand the underlying causes behind it. Poverty and financial problems, neighborhood and resource distribution, education.

I agree about the importance of the underlying cause, however, I think you have no identified this cause correctly. If anything, problems in education or poverty are related to the more emotional/psychological/existential/spiritual whatever you want to call it issue that I am raising.

>Notice, sports are encouraged to 1) get young men off the street and 2) have contact with a coach. Sports coaches can have an incredible impact on youth.

Again, the existence of sports, which in this day and age is basically a trivialization of masculine energy anyway, does not necessarily meet any of needs I have described. I think OP, like many men, is aware of a serious decay within masculinity, and is looking for answers.

u/seifd · 4 pointsr/dndnext

If those archetypes interested you, I'd suggest checking out the book the video was probably based on.

Anyway, I think your choice of classes is pretty much spot on. I'd add that for the wizard, you'll want to specialize in transmutation.

The only problem is that the archetypes are meant to be cumulative. The fully actualized man is a warrior, a lover, a magician and a king, like the ending of that popular John Hughes movie.

u/ExOttoyuhr · 4 pointsr/monarchism

Constitutional. Chad's just going to catch a dozen STDs and die in a bar fight before he's 30, like the Bourbons did.

I'd be happiest with a system that was close to the US, but with a king instead of a president and a bit more decentralization of power. But I think that even a crowned republic is better than an uncrowned one; Jung believed implicitly, Lewis explicitly, that a country is happiest with a king.

u/jwolfgangl · 4 pointsr/Jung
If he's not much of a reader there's a great YouTube series on King, Warrior, Magician, Lover by 'Like Stories of Old'. About 10 minutes each and examines how films portray these male archetypes.

u/truebuji · 4 pointsr/changemyview

Maybe you are just within your ideological bubble within google? it has been know to happen... unless maybe they only hire progressives now? you know the memo did claim conservatives didin't feel confortable coming out, neither did classical liberals, and im sure libertarians neither... anyways.. here is a recompilation of people who claim other sciences disagree on social constructionism of gender, or at least that is more defined by Biology that they claim.

u/porscheguy19 · 4 pointsr/atheism

On science and evolution:

Genetics is where it's at. There is a ton of good fossil evidence, but genetics actually proves it on paper. Most books you can get through your local library (even by interlibrary loan) so you don't have to shell out for them just to read them.


The Making of the Fittest outlines many new forensic proofs of evolution. Fossil genes are an important aspect... they prove common ancestry. Did you know that humans have the gene for Vitamin C synthesis? (which would allow us to synthesize Vitamin C from our food instead of having to ingest it directly from fruit?) Many mammals have the same gene, but through a mutation, we lost the functionality, but it still hangs around.

Deep Ancestry proves the "out of Africa" hypothesis of human origins. It's no longer even a debate. MtDNA and Y-Chromosome DNA can be traced back directly to where our species began.

To give more rounded arguments, Hitchens can't be beat: God Is Not Great and The Portable Atheist (which is an overview of the best atheist writings in history, and one which I cannot recommend highly enough). Also, Dawkin's book The Greatest Show on Earth is a good overview of evolution.

General science: Stephen Hawking's books The Grand Design and A Briefer History of Time are excellent for laying the groundwork from Newtonian physics to Einstein's relativity through to the modern discovery of Quantum Mechanics.

Bertrand Russell and Thomas Paine are also excellent sources for philosophical, humanist, atheist thought; but they are included in the aforementioned Portable Atheist... but I have read much of their writings otherwise, and they are very good.

Also a subscription to a good peer-reviewed journal such as Nature is awesome, but can be expensive and very in depth.

Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate is also an excellent look at the human mind and genetics. To understand how the mind works, is almost your most important tool. If you know why people say the horrible things they do, you can see their words for what they are... you can see past what they say and see the mechanisms behind the words.

I've also been studying Zen for about a year. It's non-theistic and classed as "eastern philosophy". The Way of Zen kept me from losing my mind after deconverting and then struggling with the thought of a purposeless life and no future. I found it absolutely necessary to root out the remainder of the harmful indoctrination that still existed in my mind; and finally allowed me to see reality as it is instead of overlaying an ideology or worldview on everything.

Also, learn about the universe. Astronomy has been a useful tool for me. I can point my telescope at a galaxy that is more than 20 million light years away and say to someone, "See that galaxy? It took over 20 million years for the light from that galaxy to reach your eye." Creationists scoff at millions of years and say that it's a fantasy; but the universe provides real proof of "deep time" you can see with your own eyes.


I recommend books first, because they are the best way to learn, but there are also very good video series out there.

BestofScience has an amazing series on evolution.

AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism is awesome.

Thunderfoot's Why do people laugh at creationists is good.

Atheistcoffee's Why I am no longer a creationist is also good.

Also check out TheraminTrees for more on the psychology of religion; Potholer54 on The Big Bang to Us Made Easy; and Evid3nc3's series on deconversion.

Also check out the Evolution Documentary Youtube Channel for some of the world's best documentary series on evolution and science.

I'm sure I've overlooked something here... but that's some stuff off the top of my head. If you have any questions about anything, or just need to talk, send me a message!

u/103683 · 4 pointsr/stroke

From you are describing your grandfather is doing pretty good and it is looking positive for him as he can walk and say some words. It is possible for him to be functioning like before but it is hard to predict how he will recover.

I had a brain hemorrhage: what I learned from this on going experience is that it takes a lot of time to heal; months and years. Some people won't have any side effect from a brain injury, others will die. Your age and your lifestyle will affect how much and how fast you will recover but luck is an important factor also.

A brain injury is not like breaking an arm or losing a leg : those type of injuries are simple, you can see them and they don't affect the brain directly, they heal quickly. A brain injury is invisible and it is hard to predict the outcome.

After having read Ziferius comment, I would suggest watching this ted talk by Jill Bolt Taylor and reading this book : The brain that changes itself. Here a link to an episode of the nature of thing on CBC (Canada) talking about the book which I found interesting.

I wish your grandfather and you good luck on your journey !

u/luftwaffejones · 4 pointsr/NoFap

What book are you reading? I've been reading The Brain that Changes Itself. I believe it mentions the same experiment with the monkey.

I also remember reading a line that said addiction causes permanent brain damage. Scary stuff.

u/timfitz42 · 4 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Got a few days? LOL!

Start with the source material for The Better Angels Of Our Nature by Steve Pinker.

This is from a large group of data sets from many many sources compiled.

u/rickg3 · 4 pointsr/FCJbookclub

I read books 4-6 of the Dresden Files. I blame Patrick Rothfuss for getting me started and duckie for keeping me going. Coupla assholes. After I finish the other 8 books, I have some nice, solid non-fiction lined up.

In no particular order, I'm going to read:

The Information by James Gleick

The Better Angels Of Our Nature by Steven Pinker

The Math Book by Clifford A. Pickover

The Know-It-All by A.J. Coastie Jacobs

And others. I'm gonna nerd out so hard that I'll regrow my virginity.

u/cbarx · 4 pointsr/chicago

In the event that you are genuinely curious about what causes traffic jams, I'd highly recommend checking out "Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)" by Tom Vanderbilt.. Better yet, listen to it on tape while you crawl the Kennedy.

u/AndersBakken · 4 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

This is actually the optimal way to drive. Every bit of road should be used. You may seem like an asshole if you're the only one doing it but ideally everyone would do it. It leads to better traffic flow. Source is somewhere in here:

u/with_the_choir · 4 pointsr/todayilearned

This is part of what bothers me about all of the vilification of driving with cellphones. It's not that cellphones aren't bad on the road, it's just that the proportions of the crackdown don't match up with the data about the actual danger.

In Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us, the author delves pretty seriously into the data about distracted driving. The real moments of danger are picking up the phone, dialing, and hanging up. Talking with the phone to your ear is not particularly problematic once you get to the point that you can keep your eyes on the road.

u/Hepcat10 · 4 pointsr/cincinnati

Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)

You would probably enjoy this book. Seriously. I read it and now dealing with traffic is kinda fascinating, watching as all this data compiled yields insight into patterns, and how to anticipate and avoid them. (Yes, all puns intended)

u/cocineroylibro · 4 pointsr/Denver
u/mrj1013 · 4 pointsr/Showerthoughts

I read a book about this. Pretty interesting stuff. Also that if people actually obeyed variable speed limit signs they would get there faster than when they tailgate and the accordion effect jams everything up.

u/Snaztastic · 4 pointsr/YouShouldKnow

Yeah, we have all been brought up to see those people as self-righteous assholes, but transportation engineers have determined that a zipper merge, occurring as close to the point of obstruction as possible, is most efficient (40-50% more efficient than current practice). The Minnesota DOT recently adopted this practice and began a campaign of awareness.

If traffic interests you, check out the book Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt. Super interesting quick read, and you'll learn a lot about interacting with urban traffic efficiently.

Michigan DOT Citations 1 2.pdf

u/C0git0 · 4 pointsr/Seattle

There is also much research that shows that the more rules you give someone, the less they think logically. This creates a problem when things happen that do not have prescribed rules as the driver/biker is used to a operating in an environment on "auto-pilot."

The book "Traffic" is a fantastic read and details a couple of studies, a really great read, highly recommended:

u/matrixclown · 4 pointsr/Charlotte

There's a link between how at ease you feel as a driver and the speed that you drive. If you feel perfectly at ease, like when you're on the highway and no one is around you, you'll drive faster. If you feel unease, like the road is narrow or there are kids playing with a ball near the road, you'll drive slower.

It seems a bit counter intuitive that making an unsafe road smaller makes it safer, but it really does change driving behavior. I'd recommend Tom Vanderbilt's book Traffic if you're interested in this kind of thing.

u/SpinkickFolly · 4 pointsr/videos

I agree. From the book Traffic, it mentions a study where 1 in 3 accidents occur from not paying at attention at the exact wrong moment where a reaction needed to happen to avoid a collision.

She also had enough distance to actual stop in time. Anyone is a liar if they never admitted to having a near miss from not paying attention. It happens, people can make it happen less by paying attention more, its never 100% though. Its why drivers are supposed to leave a good following distance or never perform aggressive lane changes, it allows a buffer to be able fuck up and prevent a potential collision.

u/30plus1 · 4 pointsr/politics

Not All Conservatives.

Just because the right doesn't want grown men in dresses using the restroom with their daughters doesn't mean they want gays thrown from rooftops. They're on the side of traditional family values.

Really good book on the relationship between the right and left here:

Highly recommend it if you get the chance.

u/w0wser · 4 pointsr/Libertarian

If you are interested in moral psychology and politics I'd recommend reading The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics & Religion by Jonathan Haidt.

if you don't have time to read the book, watch his TED talk or listen to the interview he gave on Econ Talk recently.

u/pums · 4 pointsr/polyamory

OK. Great. So, embedded in what you're saying is a bunch of assumptions that aren't specific to this particular argument but are much more meta - they have to do with what counts as evidence, who gets standing, and even what kinds of values are important. For instance, you refer to "the basic idea of freedom in letting consenting adults choose their own private life." That frame is one that a lot of people would actually object to because the idea of "adults having maximum freedom to choose what they want" isn't how they frame issues having to do with family and marriage. In fact, framing it that way is a very contemporary/educated/western way to frame this sort of thing - another way of talking about these issues would be to reference values like personal autonomy way less, and you'd end up with different conclusions if you did that.
There's a lot to go into here, and (luckily) a lot of other people have already done it. I think it'll be helpful to get a better understanding of the values/assumption/narrative that lead to different views about marriage, in addition to reading specifically about this.
Some places to start include the "simple rules for simple people" discussion in Diverging Family Structure and 'Rational' Behavior: The Decline in Marriage as a Disorder of Choice. I'd also recommend Jonathon Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory work - I liked his book, but I'm sure you can find it packaged in smaller things. For work specifically on sexual ethics, I'd recommend Eve Tushnet and Rod Dreher, but they're both going to be a lot to get into initially, because, as bloggers, they're not really listing their assumptions each and every time they write.
With all of this stuff, you're going to be able to make counterarguments. But they can make counterarguments, too - it's never that hard. I would suggest that to understand other people's arguments, you apply the Principle of Charity. In this case in particular, because your argument seems foreign and clearly wrong to the majority of humans, I think it's especially important to understand their arguments.

u/notmuchofaroller · 4 pointsr/videos

I recently read a book The Righteous Mind that covers this collective behavior from a psychological perspective. It's a great book and really helps explain this sort of "crazy" behavior in a way that gives me quite a bit more empathy for these people instead of just seeing them as others. Excerpt:

> But human nature also has a more recent groupish overlay. We are like bees in being ultrasocial creatures whose minds were shaped by the relentless competition of groups with other groups. We are descended from earlier humans whose groupish minds helped them cohere, cooperate, and outcompete other groups. That doesn't mean our ancestors were mindless or unconditional team players; it means they were selective. Under the right conditions, they were able to enter a mind-set of "one for all, all for one" in which they were truly working for the good of the group, and not just for their own advancement within the group.

Another example provided: concerts or raves. Although they don't have the same supernatural underpinnings, it is quite easy to get "lost in the crowd" and go crazy in a similar way.

u/MusikLehrer · 4 pointsr/news
u/AdamColligan · 4 pointsr/atheism
  1. The press environment in the US is very free. That does not mean that there are no serious challenges to press freedom here, especially on specific national security issues. However, several indices on the subject tend to fairly seriously under-represent important elements bolstering US press freedom. Some of these are: strong underlying freedom of information law at state/local as well as federal level, very aggressive judicial protection in First Amendment cases, and an effective and still-burgeoning system of recourse to counter strategic lawsuits against public participation. The three isolated examples you gave are not even good ones. With regard to the Snowden saga, the actual journalists working on the story have actually enjoyed much more legal leeway and suffered much less harassment in the US than in the UK and some other places. And while a better statutory defense should be available for Snowden with regard to presenting justification for the crimes he committed, the lack of one is not any kind of distinguishing feature of the US system. Similarly, Chelsea Manning and Barrett Brown's actions would have been considered serious crimes in every country on the planet. The idea of Barrett Brown being a press hero is laughable, and it's especially ironic given that the Stratfor hack was essentially an attack on the privacy of an independent media company and its readership. [Full disclosure, I worked at Stratfor for a bit in the mid-2000s and still know people there, and the paranoia people have about that company never ceases to amaze].

  2. Your point about lobbying has some technical merit, but it's really just another version of the same misconception. There are really separate ideas here: bribery, campaign donations, and persuasive lobbying. Straight-up bribery involves a politician getting personal, pecuniary benefit in exchange for policy. Bribery renders people less free, since they are no longer able to effectively control government through voting. It happens, and it's a problem in all governments, but America doesn't especially stand out from its peers in this area. Campaign donations are of course problematic and also often discussed as a form of "bribery". But, as I pointed out above, this muddles an important difference. When the campaign money is just being spent on dumb ads, it does not really reduce the voters' freedom. Your reply is that a ton of money is also spent on lobbyists. However, (1) much of this is the same money -- lobbyists do a lot of work sourcing campaign donations; and (2) to the extent that lobbyists are actually lobbying, this is just putting politicians in the same shoes as voters. And, frankly, many of those conversations are also about how much campaign money could be raised to unseat them if they do the "wrong" thing. Access can be important to the forming of impressions, but politicians have a ton of tools at their disposal to manage to whom they listen and for how long. Politicians that are stuck in the culture of lobbying-cash-fear are guilty of cowardice, but they aren't "not free" and neither are their constituents.

  3. The way you make this argument, your point of view is never falsifiable. If a poor person votes Republican, you can just say it's because their society must be so "not free" that they were mind-controlled / brainwashed into voting against their interests. If only they were better educated, they would be "free" to vote for the things that you think are in their interests rather than the things that they think are in their interests. This perspective just dehumanizes the very people that you are trying to claim are being robbed of their agency by American society. Of course I think it should be made even easier for Americans to be better-informed and even easier to participate in political life. But surely freedom has to be recognized for what it is regardless. Nobody can force voters with stupid ideas to go out and correct them. But the practical barriers to any voter doing so -- even a voter with low education and no personal wealth -- are remarkably low in the US.

  4. (5) The GPI is not a good measure at all of "how safe the streets are", which was your original point. It includes lots of variables that have nothing to do with that. The US homicide rate is on par with the Baltics; the US assault rate compares pretty well to many of its peers. But the larger point is lost in these snapshot comparisons. Pretty much all current OECD societies are on the sharp tip of a very dramatic decline in violence. Yes, there are some places in America that are blighted and dangerous. And we still have more violent crime than we should have. But in general, I absolutely stand by the statement that America is a very safe place by any rational standard. Having double the murder rate of 2012 Finland is like doubling your risk of being struck by lightning or exposing yourself to double the normal level of background radiation. It's more dangerous, but it isn't not safe.

    To your last point: there are significant threats to important freedoms in the US. Personally, I am especially concerned about not only surveillance in particular but the general attitude in successive federal administrations about the rule of law in general. And I am not alone in that at all. But, especially when it comes to essential political liberties and the freedom of conscience, our underlying legal and social protections remain very strong. And they are just now being given the opportunity to more directly confront the latest threats. We have a long way to fall before it would start to make sense to talk about being "not free".
u/iowanaquarist · 4 pointsr/DelphiMurders

This book is a great read on this topic to help gain perspective.

u/mac_question · 4 pointsr/space

I don't think we're going to cure aging for another couple of centuries. The human body is an unnecessarily complicated piece of hardware just for supplying nutrients and input/outputs for a 2 pound chunk of grey matter.

I do think that we'll be downloading our consciousness to a digital medium within the next 100 years, though. Or otherwise keeping brains alive in vats, with the ability to communicate digitally.

Then things get weird. You can either live forever in a VR world, or you need a robotic body to travel in.

The poor will never be "euthanized" as such, although it will take money to live forever.

And if that sounds like some kind of horrible world with inequality you couldn't possibly abide, well... yeah. Super fucked up, but we're already in that world.

And things have never been as great as they currently are, and continue to get better.

So yeah, there will be an awkward period where some rich folks are chillin in VR heaven and tons of poor children are still dying of starvation. But the long-term trend should be for the best.

I feel like the #1 thing that isn't talked about is the rate of change we've had for 50+ years, and which has been accelerating, has absolutely no precedence in history. Shit is nuts.

u/MisanthropicScott · 4 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

Hmm... Absolutely none of these represent any kind of scientific fact.

I"m going to ignore the prophesies for the future because they cannot be verified. So, from your list from the present, that you believe have already been fulfilled:

> Naked, destitute, barefoot shepherds will compete in building tall buildings.

Can you provide an example of this?

> The slave-woman will give birth to her master or mistress.

Who or what is this supposed to represent?

> A trial (fitnah) which will enter every Arab household.

I can't possibly check on this.

> Knowledge will be taken away (by the death of people of knowledge), and ignorance will prevail.

We learn more year by year. So, no.

> Wine (intoxicants, alcohol) will be drunk in great quantities.

A prediction that was true then and now. So, not much of a prediction, IMHO.

> Illegal sexual intercourse will become widespread.

I'll refrain from a discussion of what this might mean to a follower of Islam. I honestly don't want to know.

> Earthquakes will increase.

I'm not sure there is any evidence that they have.

> Time will pass more quickly.

I don't believe this to be true. For each of us, as we age, time appears to speed up. But, objectively clocks on the surface of the earth tick at the same speed now as they did in the time of Mohammad.

> Tribulations (fitan) will prevail.

I have no idea how this could be measured.

> Bloodshed will increase.

Surprisingly, even with the holocaust and Stalin in the 20th century, an individual's risk of dying a violent death has been decreasing century over century since the evolution of humanity.

I promise I'm more surprised by this than you are. Check my username. But, Steve Pinker did a very exhaustive study on the subject.

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined - Steven Pinker

> A man will pass by the grave of another and wish he was in the latter’s place.

This has happened for a long time. Depression is nothing new.

> Trustworthiness will be lost, i.e. when authority is given to those who do not deserve it.

This is also nothing new and has happened for as long as there have been humans.

> People will gather for prayer, but will be unable to find an imam to lead them.


Anyway, as I said, not a scientific claim in the bunch. I was looking for something more than this.

u/Sigeberht · 4 pointsr/de

Da es nicht mit im Text steht: Pinkers Buch zum Thema ist The Better Angels of Our Nature. (oder als Übersetzung)

Sehr umfangreich und sorgfältig recherchiert, sehr empfehlenswert aus meiner Sicht.

u/puntinbitcher · 4 pointsr/UpliftingNews

He wrote a book about it.

u/who-is-this6843 · 3 pointsr/latterdaysaints
u/my_derping_account · 3 pointsr/Showerthoughts

Here, read this book and criticism of it to start your journey:

Don't just skip straight to the criticism and assume the book is wrong.

u/Mablun · 3 pointsr/exmormon

Maybe your prayer worked. Evil does seem to be dramatically lessening in the world. And it would explain why the 2nd coming hasn't happened yet...

Thanks a lot. You might have messed up the entire plan.

u/y0nkers · 3 pointsr/IAmA

Ah I didn't really mean it like that. I meant that having advanced technology is a sign of being around a long time which would've given them time to transition out of primitive behavior -- like we are slowly doing. But maybe their technology progressed at a more exponential rate than ours and their social evolution wasn't as fast. This is all so speculative and we only have one example (us) so it's really just a fun guessing game.

You make a good point about how long it takes us to advance morally. But the key idea is that we ARE advancing. A great book on this is The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Stephen Pinker. Things now are immensely better than they were even 100 years ago.

One unnerving thought is how little our treatment of animals has progressed. Arguably, it has gotten worth with our factory farming methods. Perhaps this is insight into how we would treat other species. We have a threshold for what we deem as worthy of protection laws based on our interpretation of intelligence. Will that threshold be raised if we advance our intelligence through artificial means? Do beings of lesser intelligence deserve and equal chance at life as those of higher intelligence?

u/Secular_Response · 3 pointsr/exjw

This is one excellent way out of the JWs, and it is a morally uplifting one at that. When the person is reduced to arguing that the world is awful just to maintain 'hope', the battle is 90% over. Pinkers' book is highly recommended. Best $20 I ever spent.

u/TehGinjaNinja · 3 pointsr/confession

There are two books I recommend to everyone who is frustrated and/or saddened by the state of the world and has lost hope for a better future.

The first is The Better Angels of Our Nature by Stephen Pinker. It lays out how violence in human societies has been decreasing for centuries and is still declining.

Despite the prevalence of war and crime in our media, human beings are less likely to suffer violence today than at any point in our prior history. The west suffered an upswing in social violence from the 1970s -1990s, which has since been linked to lead levels, but violence in the west has been declining since the early 90s.

Put simply the world is a better place than most media coverage would have you believe and it's getting better year by year.

The second book I recomend is The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil. It explains how technology has been improving at an accelerating rate.

Technological advances have already had major positive impacts on society, and those effects will become increasingly powerful over the next few decades. Artificial intelligence is already revolutionizing our economy. The average human life span is increasing every year. Advances in medicine are offering hope for previously untreatable diseases.

Basically, there is a lot of good tech coming which will significantly improve our quality of life, if we can just hang on long enough.

Between those two forces, decreasing violence and rapidly advancing technology, the future looks pretty bright for humanity. We just don't hear that message often, because doom-saying gets better ratings.

I don't know what disability you're struggling with but most people have some marketable skills, i.e. they aren't "worthless". Based on your post, you clearly have good writing/communicating skills. That's a rare and valuable trait. You could look into a career leveraging those skills (e.g. as a technical writer or transcriptionist) which your disability wouldn't interfere with to badly (or which an employer would be willing to accommodate).

As for being powerless to change the world, many people feel that way because most of us are fairly powerless on an individual level. We are all in the grip of powerful forces (social, political, historical, environmental, etc.) which exert far more influence over our lives than our own desires and dreams.

The books I recommended post convincing arguments that those forces have us on a positive trend line, so a little optimism is not unreasonable. We may just be dust on the wind, but the wind is blowing in the right direction. That means the best move may simply be to relax and enjoy the ride as best we can.

u/justsomemammal · 3 pointsr/BabyBumps

I am starting to feel like a shill for this book because it's the third time I've mentioned it on reddit in as many days. There is a wonderful book by the cognitive neuroscientist Steven Pinker called The Better Angels of Our Nature. It talks about, in great detail (maybe too much), all of the overwhelming evidence that we live in a more peaceful and harmonious time than ever before in civilization. I read it last year when I was pregnant and having some of the same thoughts you are and it did help to put my mind at ease.

Every organism is always dealing with some kind of threat and the possibility of an imminent catastrophe. All we can do is work with the environment we're in and do our best. So far, so good :)

u/gogreatergood · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

It is referring only to the levels of violence in the US. Of course, your questions are excellent. It is often argued that violence worldwide overall is decreasing as well (including wars, etc.). The most prominent piece on this is probably "The Better Angels of our Nature" by Steven Pinker.

u/B3de · 3 pointsr/latterdaysaints

I highly recommend you read Pinker's book "The Better Angels of our Nature."


u/DameonKormar · 3 pointsr/politics

That's a pretty dire view of the future.
There is a constant march towards equality and a more moral and just human race; it's just a slow process. Just look at the history of violence, slavery, and gay tolerance (and thousands of other examples) for proof of that progress.

I'd recommend reading The Better Angels of Our Nature.

u/koshdim · 3 pointsr/ukraina

кому интересна история насилия, есть отличная книга про этот случай там тоже есть. книга серьезная, с ссылками на документы и графиками

u/Bzerker01 · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

There is a great book on this subject, Called Better Angels of our Nature, which actually discusses this in depth.

u/iamcrazynuts · 3 pointsr/history

We read this book for an international relations class recently, I think it is appropriate for this conversation. It's a great read with lots of data and explanation for this hypotheses [Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker] (

u/noconverse · 3 pointsr/AskALiberal

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the summation of your argument is that the current structure of human society produces more harm than it prevents. If you really want a detailed and largely data-driven answer to this, read the book "Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker. It will give you a better answer to this question than anything else you'll find.

But to surmise the arguments in the book, the answer is a resounding NO. History has shown, time and again, that as society has become less structured by norms, rules, and laws, it becomes significantly more brutal. A big part of this is that, as you have more and more people competing with each other for limited resources, you get this never ending cycle of what are called Hobbesian traps ("I must strike at my enemy first and annihilate him or else he'll do the same to me") that creates these perpetual cycles of violence between groups. This violence then hinders or even reverts technological developments that could then lead to increasing these resources via increased production or more efficient use (who has time to produce pesticide when you've gotta constantly be keeping an eye on the village 2 miles away?).

Railing against globalism is kind of a fad nowadays, but few people realize just how much it has helped reduce overall violence in the world. As much as I hate what trade agreements have done to the American middle class, I can't deny that it's made major power war much less likely by creating huge economic incentives against, while at the same time significantly improving the living standards in many countries (China especially).

u/TheGreasyPole · 3 pointsr/PurplePillDebate


The single best evo-psych book I can think of is

The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker. It's extremely readable as well as very informative.

Where you'd want to go next depends on what you'd like to learn more about, and whether you liked Stephen Pinker as an author.

If you'd like to know more about the genetics that underlying the evo-psych then you want.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

If you're interested specifically in what evo-psych has to say about human sexuality you want

The Evolution of Desire by David Buss

And if you really like Stephen Pinker and want to know what evo psych means for human societies I'd recommend

The Angels of our Better Nature by Stephen Pinker

or (if you don't like Pinker)

Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley.

I've given you US Amazon links, and no. I don't get a cut :(

u/christgoldman · 3 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

> There appears to be an innate drive in humans towards something that is moral, existential, and transcendent

And that would be because we've evolved as a social species, and rather than acting selfishly, we act as a community to better propagate our genes. (Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene; Steven Pinker [again] The Better Angels of Our Nature)

> the lack of a clear universal and very specific "sensus divinitatis" doesn't inform us either way about the divine existence.

It does, when you start positing specific deities. If your deity punishes non-belief, your deity is positively immoral without instilling a natural sense of sensus divinitatis. See another comment of mine on this thread for more on that.

u/alsoathrowaway · 3 pointsr/lgbt

Not 100% on the topic of your question, but it's quite good, and potentially very helpful if having a difficulty understanding transgender folks is something you'd like to correct. Also available slightly cheaper in Kindle form (which is how I read it, to avoid potential awkward questions from coworkers...).

u/trulyl · 3 pointsr/asktransgender

Here are some of the resources I've read, and what I think about them:

  • Transgender 101: A good introduction covering a lot of what you mention above. It's more focused on the transsexual experience, though. Non-binary identities and others under the "transgender" umbrella get their own chapter, but it's stuck at the back of the book. Chapter 6 has a really good section on whether transgender should be considered a mental disorder, and talks about the insurance issue.

  • Whipping Girl: Although it's not too hard to get through, I'd consider this to be "advanced reading" for those who already have a grounding in basic trans thinking/terminology. I really enjoyed it and agree with many of Serano's arguments, but it's less textbook and more opinion piece (although Serano has also written a number of academic papers for respected journals). It's mainly focused on the MTF transsexual experience.

  • True Selves: You might hear this one mentioned in lists of good trans books, but it's now 20 years old, is very heavily weighted toward a limited view of the transexual experience, and it defends the gatekeeper mentality. I'd honestly avoid it, unless you're interested in reading about how things used to be, in which case I'd highly recommend Harry Benjamin's The Transsexual Phenomenon (who knew that people used to be arrested just for crossdressing?). Don't show that one to your professor!

  • WPATH Standards of Care v7: Presents a good overview of gender non-conformity and dysphoria with references to contemporary research. Written for a medical/academic audience but easy enough for a general audience to understand too. Focuses significantly on mental health aspects of transgender and medical transition options. The standards of care seem to have become more liberal with each new version, to the extent that they're now presented as guidelines rather than hard rules and are approaching the "informed consent" approach. Still, they're an example of the gatekeeping approach, which some people are dead against.

  • National Geographic magazine gender special edition: Has some good stories covering the whole range of transgender people (i.e. talks about non-binary identities as well as the traditional transsexual experience). Also interesting is the wide discussion of gender issues in various world cultures, although this is of less relevance to what you're looking for.

    Obviously there's a lot more out there, and I'm sure others can add to this and/or argue with my take on the above list. This is just some of my admittedly limited reading - please don't take this in any way as an authoritative list of the best resources!

    I'd be careful relying on websites and blog posts for information. You need to be critical of the authors' credibility and biases, and there is a lot of poorly-researched, poorly-written stuff out there, some of which is downright wrong, made-up, nonsensical or hateful (I've read a lot on Blanchard's typology and the paraphillia/fetish view of transsexualism, and I'd advise you to avoid it at all costs!). On the other hand, I'd say don't stick entirely to books and academic papers, because there are a lot of interesting thoughts/perspectives from those in the community who don't write books or publish papers.
u/phonicparty · 3 pointsr/asktransgender

>I'm not surprised everything we thought was incorrect. Every time anyone has a discussion about this stuff at my school it turns into a circlejerky who is the most PC contest and I think most of these people get their information from tumblr

Probably. There's nothing wrong with asking questions - it's healthy and wanting to learn is never a bad thing.

>You've lost me a little. I don't understand the difference between gender identity and gender roles. I can understand wanting to identify as another role, but I don't understand what gender identity is without sex or roles.

Okay so to really simplify -

Gender identity: whether you're a man or a woman

Gender role: how society says men and women should act

They're entirely separate and unrelated, although there is obviously a strong correlation between people who are men and people who like to act masculine, and between people who are women and people who like to act feminine. But that's all it is - a correlation. There are plenty of people who are men who don't like to be masculine but do like to be feminine, just as there are plenty of people who are women who don't like to be feminine but do like to be masculine. And there are masculine trans women and feminine trans men. At the end of the day, though, a feminine man is still a man and and a masculine woman is still a woman. Preferring a particular socially constructed gender role doesn't change your innate gender identity. Liking dresses doesn't make a man not a man, you know?

This would be much easier to understand, I think, if we didn't use the term "gender identity". It leads to far too much confusion of exactly this type and I think something else would be a better term (Julia Serano - who writes brilliantly - uses the term "subconscious sex" as in the sex of your subconscious, which I quite like), but the important thing to take away is that although they happen to be similar phrases they're very much not the same thing, or even similar. One is who you are, the other is how society says you should act based on that.

(Also in terms of gender identity there are non-binary people who don't feel themselves to be men or women but something else or both, and there are agender people who don't feel any gender at all)

>Okay you're starting to make me think this is where I lie. I really don't understand feeling a certain gender in context outside of social roles or genetics. I hate periods/the ability to get pregnant/having a uterus in general. I hate that my friendships with males always fall apart when I don't want to fuck them. I hate feeling unsafe walking around at night. I hate feeling worth less than male and socially would definitely DEFINITELY rather be a dude. But all of this is just out of convenience. I'd never transition because if I did, I'd never be treated like a cis dude

You probably would, though. Most people greatly underestimate the power of hormones (and other things such as surgery) and their potential to change someone's appearance from undeniably female to undeniably male (or vice versa). Most trans people end up blending back into society eventually and being treated just as cis men or women. Trans people that you see who are obviously or visibly trans are usually early in transition (or are just unfortunate) and aren't representative of trans people generally.

>and half the inconveniences would still be there + new ones would be created. Basically, how I feel about this is basically "let's do whatever is most beneficial/convenient". In the same way everyone wants to be rich instead of poor since it's simply the better option. IDK.

In an ideal world would you rather be male or female? Or neither, maybe?

If you started growing thick facial hair tomorrow how would you feel about it? If your voice dropped how would you feel about it?

>I just don't think I'm going to understand, as much as I'd like to. I feel like a lot of that comes from being a cis female though.

No, I don't think this is the case. A lot of or even most cis (or nominally cis) people - I think those with a stronger sense of their own maleness or femaleness - get it instinctively when it's explained to them, some don't. The latter tend to either be people who have just never thought about it and can't imagine that it would cause any problems to just switch sex because they don't know what they're talking about, or people who - like you, I think - just maybe don't have a particularly strong sense of their gender, or even might have no gender at all.

It might be really helpful for you to read about non-binary identities or agender people - if they don't resonate then fair enough, but you might find they do. You might even find out that you're not quite as cis as you thought you were. But that's entirely up to you.

> For some reason I just can't wrap my head around genders having feelings though

So it's not like genders have feelings, it's that you innately know and understand yourself to be one gender rather than another.

When I think about myself I think "woman" or "girl" or "female". When I look around at other people I subconsciously group myself with the other women rather than the men. I want to fit in and be accepted as a woman not as a man. When people mistake me for a man it makes me uncomfortable. Having a body that is more female feels right in a way that having a body that was more male never did. That's how it works for me, roughly, if such an abstract concept as gender identity can ever be put into words. It's kind of like trying to describe hunger to someone who doesn't need to eat, it's always going to be difficult to properly get it across.

u/lunarstar · 3 pointsr/AskFeminists

Well, I strongly identify as a trans-feminist, and I am often hesitant of feminist spaces that aren't queer-centric for the very reasons that you list. However, for me it is important to educate those feminists who are transphobic or cissexist etc to help broaden feminist thought into a more intersectional frame of thought that addresses the sexism of all different identities.

I personally really care about LGBT+ things (and as you can see the LGB movements have not always been trans friendly either), and feminism as well. I assure you that not all feminists are like those individuals your friends experienced, and I am sorry they both had to go through that. It sounds like what they experienced is what Julia Serano has called "cissexism" or, "the belief that transsexuals' identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals." This sort of sexism is something that I think the feminist movements would benefit from addressing.

I know that it can get really depressing reading and experiencing feminists being transphobic and cissexist etc, but one author (and really great speaker) who I have really enjoyed reading is Julia Serano, who is a trans woman and a feminist. You can check out her book "Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity" and I am looking forward to her new book coming out called "Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive" which I think is something you might be interested in looking into.

u/isleepinahammock · 3 pointsr/asktransgender

Ok, so it's a fantasy story where one of the characters happens to be trans. I'll go down the list of your original questions:

a) The no big deal approach is a good way to handle it.

b) Pitfalls? Read The Whipping Girl. That should help you with that.

c) I would use the "whatever pronouns they use at the moment" approach if you're having the character realize they're trans somewhere within the novel. Maybe have the character come to a realization, and from there on refer to them as that pronoun.

d) This seems to contradict the idea of making it "no big deal." Illustrating a trans woman is uncomfortable by saying "her testicles retract" Really??? That's incredibly strange. Stay far away from such things. I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.

e) Read the book I suggested. Spend a few weeks just reading through the archives of this subreddit. Also read through r/ftm. Just by reading through the questions and answers people have posted, you'll gain quite a bit of insight into the diversity of issues and experiences trans people face.

f) We already touched on this, but essentially don't use magic as a way to trivialize trans people's struggles. A lot of what trans people struggle with is coming to terms with what is feasible and possible. As a trans gal, I need to make peace with certain limitations. I'll never be able to get pregnant. I'll always have a few masculine features, scars from my past. I'll always have people who consider me something less than a "real woman." I need to learn to live happily even with these limitations. If your trans character ultimately finds happiness and becomes whole through magical transformation, it suggests that trans people in the real world can never find happiness and never be whole. Be very, very careful with this.

u/Winterlong · 3 pointsr/MaleFemme

I'm currently reading Whipping Girl, by Julia Serano. I'm finding a lot of it applicable to me, particularly chapter 17, "Crossdressing: Demystifying Femininity and Rethinking 'Male Privilege'". I might post some choice quotes later.

u/noteventrying · 3 pointsr/KotakuInAction

If youre interested in the topic, the unmentioned inspiration for milo's piece is this book

u/GCanuck · 3 pointsr/AskMen

Not 100%, but I believe it was a quote from the author of Men on Strike (who was quoting one of the men she interviewed for this book).

Check out her AMA, I believe it's in there as well.

u/Plavonica · 3 pointsr/MensRights

A link to Helen Smith's book.

u/Nutz76 · 3 pointsr/TheRedPill

Here's the US link to her book:

And here's a fantastic overview that was posted here a few days ago:

u/KaliYugaz · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

This itself is actually a myth. The DPRK does not have a divine cult surrounding the Kim family, and indeed is actually quite careful to not make any statements in its domestic propaganda that go against its people's common sense and experience.

The Kims and the Party obtain their legitimacy from two things: The threat of an invasion by the "barbaric, rapacious Yankees", and a kind of Korean racial supremacist ideology that portrays Koreans as a maximally pure and morally perfect "child race" that requires the motherly protection of the Party and the "Dear Leader" in order to survive in a cruel world.

The whole "crazy North Korea" trope is actually from DPRK foreign propaganda, which deliberately attempts to portray the regime to outsiders as insane and confusing in order to mask its true ideology and to string the outside world along in attempting sanctions, threats, negotiations and aid to get the DPRK to "open up". All these attempts play into the hands of the DPRK elite in their strategy to retain power over their people. Negotiations and aid are spun as reparations or tribute payed by the inferior, apologizing Americans to the superior, pure Koreans, and threats/sanctions are spun as proof of the urgent Yankee menace, as well as the supposedly innate American tendency to be treacherous.

A good book on this subject is The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why it Matters by Brian R. Meyers.

u/nwabrautigan0123 · 3 pointsr/books

I don't know if this helps, but: "The Cleanest Race". About North Korea

u/elbac14 · 3 pointsr/worldnews

If you're interested in learning more about the history of North Korea check the book reading list at r/northkorea.

For the question of what is Juche and is North Korea really communist, I highly recommend a book called The Cleanest Race by B.R. Myers. It was released in 2010, so before the time of King Jong-Un but still very relevant to understanding the two previous leaders.

u/veldurak · 3 pointsr/DebateaCommunist

>After a bloody revolution, usually came a bloody war, followed by years of bloody repression, before the bankrupt regime finally crumbles, resulting in more hardships.

USSR: broke the Tsar state, turned a backwards feudal country into a modern one, universal education greatly raised literacy, universal healthcare wiped out typhus, cholera, and maleria - greatly raising quality of life and increasing life span by decades. Played a vital role in defeating Nazi Germany, which would not have been possible without the advances caused by Communism.

Cuba: Broke free of Batista. Universal health care and a very high doctor output. Universal education with complete literacy. Low birthrates. Have you compared Cuba to much of Latin America?

NK: Not even close to Marxism. Juche is out of whack in almost every way, and more of a Japanese fascism then communism.

There is much to criticize... but don't act as if there weren't positive effects of these struggles. Regardless, didn't other liberal democratic revolutions fail or break down at first? You don't hear many people denouncing the French Revolution, for example.

u/threebrightstars · 3 pointsr/Parenting

My doc recommended this book as a manual for new parents. He didn't recommend any other books. It's a bit rambling, but it gets you through the rough patches.

u/MasterForgery · 3 pointsr/toddlers

Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child

It's my bible. Friends with kids come over and say 'ohmygod that is the best book.' Basically trouble shooting baby sleep for a bunch of different scenarios.

u/creamportion · 3 pointsr/daddit

This is our child sleep bible. Healthy Sleep Habits Happy Child. Our kids are 5, 4 and 2 and it is still useful.

u/robertpaulsin · 3 pointsr/Parenting

I'm going to sound like a broken record on this site when it comes to sleeping, but everyone whose ever told me about the sleeping problems of their child gets a copy of "Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child."


The problem you have sounds like one our friends were having when the child was seven. The book explains sleep, the importance of sleep, and the evolution of healthy sleep habits that has helped literally everyone I know who has read the book and followed through. Your situation was solved by my friend in seven days after five years of frustration. I personally think her victory came because she was given a very educated explanation of why it would work and she stuck with it. Process was a lot of it, but the real lesson is, stick to what you find working until it works. Don't give up. It may take two weeks, but then you are done forever.

For your particular sleep routine, I believe the book would recommend sitting in a chair right beside the child's bed until they fall asleep. No talking to them, just gentle putting them back in bed when they try to 'escape'; no real interaction other than a gentle 're-tucking-in' to mimic your initial tuck and establish the continuity for later when your child finally gets it.

My friend's child was seven and she sat by the bed 2.5 hours the first night reading (today we would have an ipad and reddit vs. a book, times change). Something quiet and out of sight (and interest) to the child. The next night, she did the same thing for about an hour and a half; less the third and fourth night but I remember her showing amazing resolve for four nights. On the fifth, sixth, and seventh nights respectively, she was staying in the room less and moving the chair closer to the door. Night Eight, she was outside the room with the door cracked for about twenty silent uneventful minutes and the child dozed off. Night nine, she got a good nights sleep and my wife and I got two comp'd airline tickets anywhere in the continental US. Woot!

I have recommended/given this book to perhaps thirty couples. Some get offended at the thought of getting a book to rear a child, but I really champion sleep habits as I've seen the impacts on the families who try the book; the relationships between parent and child and the interpersonal relationships between spouses. We've seen 'tough' children take a toll on everyone involved including grandparents who won't watch the kids and friends who avoid another's house around bedtime, dinner time, eating out, etc. The beauty of the book is the "quick tips" sections at the end of each chapter so you can start in minutes and 'catch up'. We were behind with my first child and literally by the book with our second. We spent a grand total of six nights on developing the sleep habits of two children that are still strong today at ages 8 and 9.

One thing that I hear a lot, and not trying to instigate in anyway, but it is an underlying theme of the book that I observe to be true in all families: "we've tried everything". Children are taught AND parents are taught. The child wants attention at bedtime and that is what you have to be disciplined enough to remove. No interaction. The friend I described above had the oldest child I've known these lessons to work on. He was seven, and I think she had the toughest challenge I've seen and showed the best discipline in 'ignoring' the child. When her child resisted initially, she would firmly and gently hold him in place until he stopped. The woman was a saint.

The "total meltdown" you describe is the payoff for the child. They don't infer victory, but there is an innate need that is fulfilled by that attention and if it never comes, it does subside. Remember that you've been taught how you are going to act at bedtime by your child for two and a half years and it may take a bit of reprogramming for both of you, but each time you stray from the continuity of the lesson, you are actually succeeding in teaching a different lesson. I really hope this helps. You need some rest!! (this will work for /u/underthewisteria as well, I believe) Good luck all!

u/svferris · 3 pointsr/Parenting

Babies under 4 months have no set sleep pattern at all. Waking every 2-3 hours at night is perfectly normal. Hell, my son didn't even sleep through the night completely until like 18 months, I think. My daughter started doing it at 1 month, but I think it is because she pretty much didn't nap all day long. Every kid is totally different.

I highly suggest picking up Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child. It's a really great book and goes into detail about the sleep habits of kids at various ages, as well as how to get them on a set sleep routine. It was invaluable for my wife and I. 4 months is a good time to start sleep training.

u/GodOfAtheism · 3 pointsr/WTF

Depending on who's talking about it, that would be the case. Beverly Tatum wrote a book, "Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the Cafeteria", which, at one point, basically says that while active racism is what we'd normally consider being racist, if white people aren't fighting against it, they're being passively racist, since they benefit from the inherently racist system. She goes on to say that the best a minority can be is racially biased, but not racist, as racism is a systemic issue, and not an individual one.

I think the argument is a bunch of semantic bullshit personally.

u/jonathansfox · 3 pointsr/changemyview

I put very little stock in the concept of gender, but I'll use whatever pronouns a person asks me to. Let's call it the "Don't Be An Asshole Principle" -- if something is important to someone else but not to you, respect the fact that they care about it, instead of treating everyone as if they share your values.

I find myself influenced by the book "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?", by Beverly Daniel Tatum. It's been more than a few years since I've read it, but the message I took away was about how much youth and teenage years are about finding our place in the world, how we fit into the fabric of society. To a degree this happens throughout life, though the most intense searching happens in those transition years, where we're becoming an adult.

I personally find the entire concept of gender about as useless as you find additional genders beyond male and female. The whole social construct seems pretty specious to me. But I recognize that it's a way of processing and making sense of the world, a way of finding our place and making peace with society; the concept is intended to reconcile the social baggage that comes with being "male" and "female" by creating a separate division from anatomical sex, so that they become separate axes, permitting people to find a description that seems to fit them more easily.

But again, I find it pretty empty. In my mind, gender is sort of like defining geeks vs goths vs jocks as a central and important part of a person's self-image. It's not a "real" axis, just a description of some social conventions, and it's by no means comprehensive of all human society. To me, someone who identifies as "agender" or otherwise rejects the standard gender dichotomy is doing nothing more than just rejecting the social conventions and expectations that come with being male or being female. It's like everyone wants to call them goth, but they really don't identify with that scene at all; they don't identify with any of the standard cliques, so they carve something out that they feel comfortable with, call it emo, and then ask others to respect that to help craft the expectations and assumptions others will have about them.

So I personally identify as cisgendered male, not because I put any stock in gender as an inherently extant thing which matters outside its presence as (what I perceive to be) a completely fake social category, but because others find it useful and they want to know how to treat me. I say treat me like all the other guys. Though I wouldn't really care if the treated me like a girl or something else because I don't give a shit.

The thing is, I also respect that it does matter to some people. They don't identify with the categories presented to them, and are alienated by the gender constructs that we've created as a society, so they're finding their place by defining new categories. I get that and I practice the non-asshole principle of respecting what is important to other people.

u/EntropicClarity · 3 pointsr/FIREyFemmes

Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress

By Steven Pinker and recommended by Bill Gates.

(I'm mostly just suggesting books on my "to read" list at this point.)

u/squonk93 · 3 pointsr/DebateAChristian

> I would actually rather have more “nones” than “cultural” Christians. It does more harm than anything to have self-identified Christians who likely aren’t actually saved and are “Christians” either just because they’re parents were or because it’s “the American belief.”

Growing up, my parents always emphasized to me & my brothers the importance of having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” We stopped attending church when I was relatively young (church politics), but my parents retained a zeal for Christianity. They were PRO-Christian, ANTI-Christian culture.

I’ve watched my parents beliefs turn around, over the years. Today, they like being involved in Christian culture, (i.e. church) but they certainly aren’t the evangelical Christians they used to be. My Mom likes Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity and complains that she can no longer relate to her more “fundamentalist” Christian friends. My Dad told me that reading Steven Pinker convinced him that Christianity isn’t even a spectacular force for good in the world. His twin brother, who remains an evangelical Christian, now thinks that my Dad is going to Hell. My Dad now thinks it’s ludicrous; people claiming to know what (if anything) happens after we die.

A good friend of mine works for the Christian church, and he tells me that he struggles with the fact that he sees no good reason to believe in the existence of God.

Why is it so hard to accept that real Christians might change their mind about Christianity?

u/Bowlslaw · 3 pointsr/InternetIsBeautiful

Another great optimistic outlook is Steven Pinker's new book, [Enlightenment Now](

u/TheSlinky · 3 pointsr/neuro
u/chase_what_matters · 3 pointsr/musiccognition

V.S. Ramachandran's The Tell-Tale Brain goes into detail regarding synesthesia, among other curious neurological topics. See also: Phantoms in the Brain.

Both books are very easy to read and deliver amazing insight into how the brain actually works. Ramachandran addresses synesthesia (along with mirror neurons and empathy, which are fascinating as shit) more in The Tell-Tale Brain.

u/chops893 · 3 pointsr/books

I agree with The Selfish Gene and Surely You're Joking and would like to add:

u/bytesmythe · 3 pointsr/psychology

First, read Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind.

Then do your presentation on pretty much anything in the book. It is about how physical changes to the brain can cause very weird psychological results, and not just your standard "Phineas Gage" personality changes, either. We're talking the inability to perceive motion, or hallucinating cartoon characters in blind spots... all kinds of crazy stuff.

u/nixonisnotacrook · 3 pointsr/zen

"Can you walk?"

"Sure I can walk." Mrs. Dodds had been lying in her bed or sitting propped up in a wheelchair for the past two weeks. She had not taken a single step since her fall in the bathroom.

"What about your hands? Hold out your hands. Can you move them?"

Mrs. Dodds seemed mildly annoyed by my questions. "Of course I can use my hands," she said.

"Can you use your right hand?"


"Can you use your left hand."

"Yes, I can use my left hand."

"Are both hands equally strong?"

"Yes, they are both equally strong."

Now this raises an interesting question: How far can you push this line of questioning in these patients? Physicians are generally reluctant to keep on prodding for fear of precipitating what the neurologist Kurt Goldstein called a "catastrophic reaction," which is simply medical jargon for "the patient starts sobbing" because her defences crumble. But I thought, if I took her gently, one step at a time, before actually confronting her with her paralysis, perhaps I could prevent such a reaction.

"Can you touch my nose with your left hand?"

Her hand lay paralyzed in front of her.

"Mrs. Dodds, are you touching my nose?"

"Yes, of course I'm touching your nose."

"Can you actually see yourself touching my nose?"

"Yes, I can see it. It's less than an inch from your face."

At this point Mrs. Dodds produced a frank confabulation, almost a haullicnation, that her finger was nearly touching my nose. Her vision was fine. She could see her arm perfectly clearly, yeet she was insisting that she could see the arm move.

I decided to ask just one more question, "Mrs. Dodds, can you clap?"

With resigned patience she said, "Of course I can clap."

"Will you clap for me?"

Mrs. Dodds glanced up at me and proceeded to make clapping movements with her right hand, as if clapping with an imaginary hand near the midline.

"Are you clapping?"

"Yes, I'm clapping," she replied.

I didn't have the heart to ask her whether she actually heard herself clapping, but, had I done so, we might have found the answer to the Zen master's eternal koan or riddle - what is the sound of one hand clapping?


from Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind

my thoughts: mere curiosities

u/jeffhamrick · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

I would recommend books by neurologist V.S. Ramachandran such as Phantoms in the Brain

From a more psychiatric slant, books by Ronald K Siegel like Whispers and Fire in the Brain are collections of case studies about delusions and hallucinations

u/mkm2835 · 3 pointsr/Neuropsychology

I would love to do this, I suggest Phantoms in the brain.

u/GrayPoupon · 3 pointsr/WTF

I haven't seen this come up in the comments yet, but there is well known condition called Phantom limbs and phantom pains. It was well-documented in a book called phantoms in the brain by VS Ramachandren (sic?).

In the book he describes people that were in accidents and had amputations but still felt very real pain in their Phantom limbs. He discovered that the solution was to create an illusion of the missing limb by using a mirror contraption, and then somehow performing therapy on the reflection of the limb. There's something about the visual feedback of seeing the phantom limb undergoing therapy that helped.

Edit: phantoms in the brain -]

u/loudnessproblems · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

you should check out this book, there's a whole chapter for each

u/NolanVoid · 3 pointsr/Invisibles

The Republic by Plato.

Religion and Cultural Freedom by E.M. Adams. This may be a more digestible introduction for anyone who is interested.

The Philosophy of Freedom by Rudolf Steiner.

The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle.

Book of Lies: The Disinformation Guide to Magick and the Occult is pretty much modern magick 101 and can't be recommended highly enough.

Liber Null by Peter Carroll.

DMT: The Spirit Molecule by Rick Strassman, M.D.

u/weewow · 3 pointsr/Drugs

I really enjoyed the film - it was well edited and had lots of mesmerizing visuals. It serves as a great way of getting people more interested/informed about a substance which many people have never even heard of - it certainly would have made me want to try DMT. However, having already experienced it, I found that the movie did not have nearly as much to offer me. I would highly recommend reading Rick Strassman's Book as I found it to be much more informative than the movie.

u/katrina1215 · 3 pointsr/TheOA

There is a book by a slightly different name on this topic.

The spirit molecule

u/allinallitsjusta · 3 pointsr/changemyview

>If President Trump is ideologically Conservative, why do his positions change so frequently?

Nobody makes decisions ideologically. This is why it is seemingly so difficult to convince people to change their minds with just information. You only change people's minds by influencing them socially / appealing to morality, etc.

Trump tapped into a moral framework (like most conservatives candidates) that covers the things that people than lean conservative care about. Conservatives, even people that are super far right, or super religious, voted for Trump and sincerely trust Trump because he appeals to the things they care about. This is why many conservatives will openly say that they will never vote for a Democratic candidate -- they don't feel that Democrats care about the things they care about (and they are right)

>My understanding is that he doesn't support any ideology

He certainly leans conservative but he is generally pretty moderate and does things based on what his supporters want.

>is there an implied hierarchy in the numbering?

Nope, all 6 are equal. But Liberals literally only care about (1) and (2) while conservatives tend to care about all of them relatively equally.

If you want to read a book entirely about this:

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Really fascinating read, especially in today's political climate. It humanizes the other side because right now liberals think conservatives are evil and conservatives think liberals are insane. But if you realize that they are just working with different starting materials you can understand why they value the things that they value, and why it is so difficult to change a person's mind with facts.

u/Tall_for_a_Jockey · 3 pointsr/news

Now that is some Jonathon Haidt-level shit right there! Thank you for sharing the full text of her message. I'm relieved to find that nowhere in the text does it say "you should be able to do or say whatever you want without social consequences," and I'm disappointed to hear that there's a new label for people we disagree with. "Regressive left" seems pejorative in the extreme. My hope is that people who believe different things will actually do what she suggests and talk to each other about what they believe. That is a very hard, but very necessary, thing to do.
Anyway, I wanted to share something that the letter reminded me of that was written at a time when America was even more divided. Here are the last few sentences of Abraham Lincoln's inaugural address:

>I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

u/retrogamerpenis · 3 pointsr/exmormon

Read The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt:
It turns out humans are expert at justifying their own actions.

u/keylimesoda · 3 pointsr/latterdaysaints

I keep saying, atheists need a church. The social support structures provided by a healthy church group is incredibly valuable to the community.

That said, I also agree with the article's author (and Jonathon Haidt) that it's hard to motivate such organization in the absence of religious guiding principles.

u/garcia_reid · 3 pointsr/Nodumbquestions

Matt's comment about the White House, (paraphrasing) "people want the same end result but just have different ideas about how to get there" made me think of this book I just listened to.

It's not the easiest read in the world, but I really enjoyed it and learned a lot.

And of course, it fits very well with the NDQ attitude.

It's by Jonathan Haidt.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Check it out and enjoy! And most importantly, share it with people who need to hear it.

u/cyberhistorian · 3 pointsr/vegan

I think that the problem with non-monogamy is not just the act itself, but principally the effect of dishonesty with one's partner. Being transparent about what and why one holds a specific diet and acknowledging its effects addresses a similar, if more minor, concern.

When Peter Singer talks about the "Paris exception", he isn't describing an epicurean whim as a moral good, but rather arguing that the moral criticism should be grounded not in a purity principal but with respect to animal welfare. In the same way, there is a puritanical ethical argument against non-monogamy that while nearly (but not entirely) universal, is less cogent than a critique of the likelihood of an affair impairing one's family's happiness.

Ethical feelings are grounded in evolutionary traits, the purity principle is grounded in taboos around what is healthy. Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind acknowledges that vegans have a similar response to eating animals, as many conservatives to do homosexuality or Orthodox Jews do to eating pigs. While this purity principle isn't necessarily wrong, grounding ones ethics in Utilitarianism and animal welfare allows veganism to have a much more universal ethical appeal.

u/wolfnb · 3 pointsr/goodyearwelt

>It didn't really change anybody's mind, and one's view on it was 99% shaped by what they were already thinking.

These books are about why they think that way. Hillbilly Elegy is about communities (mainly the non-urban communities that gave Trump huge support) that feel left behind and the recent history and thinking of those groups. The Big Sort is about the homogenization of social groups and thinking in the US, leading to why people feel comfortable throwing "grenades". The Righteous Mind is a book on the psychology of morality and politics in the US and why the ideologies are so different.

Trump may have won big with white voters of all stripes, but he also did better among Latinos than Romney, so it's obvious that it isn't just "poor uneducated whites", but if people don't try to figure out why the division is so strong and where the other side is coming from, what chance do we have for uniting and restoration?

I live in the most liberal district in one of the most liberal cities in the US. I have no difficulty in understanding that perspective and its driving forces. The other view is not so well illuminated

Edit: though I shouldn't have said anything in the first place. This is the one place I can go to avoid all the cross-talk about politics and ideologies. I like all of you guys and our light conversations about shoes. I'd rather not ruin that for myself.

u/bguy74 · 3 pointsr/changemyview

The accessible version is covered by the book by Haidt (who I thinks is also an author of the study I'm about to try to go find). it is:

u/sftysw · 3 pointsr/WildernessBackpacking

Can be a bit depressing at times, but I enjoyed "Deep Survival" by Laurence Gonzales. The most surreal part about reading this book while backpacking near Cathedral Peak in Yosemite was the chapter about two climbers that were struck by lightening while summiting Cathedral Peak. It was weird to be sitting at the base, reading the intense situation and being able to look up and see the rock faces that the author was describing.

u/Beeip · 3 pointsr/medicine

It's a well-documented phenomenon that catastrophic events are simply the last occurrence on a long chain of small, otherwise trivial mistakes. I really enjoyed this book on the topic if anyone wants to further their knowledge.

Annnnd jzc pointed out the 'Swiss Cheese Model' below. Such a great analogy.

u/Capolan · 3 pointsr/IAmA

Read "Emotional Intelligence" and "Deep Survival". Seriously. Go google them right now. If you like the human brain - get those. Absolutely fascinating books. Trust me.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Here: Links for you

Emotional Intelligence

Deep Survival

u/GSnow · 3 pointsr/tipofmytongue

Deep Survival, by Laurence Gonzalez, perhaps?

Edit: the other one I know of which is along those lines is "The Unthinkable" by Amanda Ripley

u/mrsamsa · 3 pointsr/skeptic

I don't think there will ever be a perfect rule that can be applied across all possibilities without fail, but for me one of the major things I look for is whether the author is a respected scientist actively working in the field (or, if they're retired, had an active history in the field).

So your Gazzaniga and Brown books I wouldn't even hesitate to recommend to others, without even having read them. It helps that I've read other books by those authors and their research, but their names alone are enough for me to give them a tick. Of course that doesn't guarantee that they're good books, but if you're asking for a rule on how to judge a book before reading it, then that's probably going to result in more success than failure.

The second thing I look for is whether the author has a history of writing polemics and intentionally controversial books in order to increase sales (a sort of "clickbait" approach to books), and whether their names are associated with criticism for misrepresenting basic issues in the areas they discuss. As such, people like Gladwell and Pinker would be ruled out by this.

>I'd also love to hear /r/skeptic 's suggestions for reading specifically about learning, drive, motivation, discipline...

My personal suggestions would be:

Understanding Behaviorism - William Baum (touches a little more on rigorous academic work rather than being a purely pop work, but still has some good pop chapters).

The Science of Self-Control - Howard Rachlin

Breakdown of Will - George Ainslie

Some related books but not directly on those topics:

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat - Oliver Sacks (It's a cliche suggestion but still a good book).

Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience - Sally Satel and Scott Lilienfeld (More methodological issues with neuroscience research and reporting).

Delusion of Gender - Cordelia Fine (Critical look at some of the research on gender differences).

u/armrha · 3 pointsr/gaming

I don't really agree with him.

This whole 'you can't flip masculine things and feminine things' is just a social construct like 'masculine' and 'feminine' things are to begin with. I also don't think 'believability' is a relevant trait considering we're already dealing with fantasy universes. Who is to say that women aren't just as strong as men in Random Fantasy Universe #754 or whatever? I mean, they already have magic and completely impossible creatures. It doesn't seem like that big of a stretch.

The whole idea of gender as some immutable thing with factual qualities that can't be defied in any way and any attempt to do so innately repulses people pretty much just reinforces the gender norms of society, which I think we'd be way better off without anyway. Delusions of Gender, a really good book, goes into how false ideas about the immutability of gender do real damage to people.

u/AnnaLemma · 3 pointsr/femmit

This is probably more of a question for a neurologist than a psychologist, but - have you read Delusions of Gender? I found it to be pretty damned compelling but it's well outside of my field of study so I can't gauge how authoritative it is. Thoughts?

u/mawalie · 3 pointsr/indieheads

sure! I took a women's studies course my last semester of college so I'll go ahead and use the books I read for that class as a starting point since they were a great introduction to feminist lit for me:

  • Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine (a hilarious and REALLY great read that challenges the notion that men and women are intrinsically a certain way; debunks a lot of famous studies and cites a lot more to make her point)

  • Girlfighting by Lyn Mikel Brown (challenges the whole "girls are nasty" stigma)

  • Appetites: Why Women Want by Caroline Knapp (absolutely incredible memoir that recounts the author's struggle with an eating disorder while also making SUCH smart insights about women's relationship with food, shopping, and sex amongst other desires - I can't recommend this one enough!)

  • Flirting with Danger by Lynn Phillips (also loved this one - talks about women's relationships with men and the various discourses surrounding women's sexuality as well as how women make sense of their negative sexual encounters)

    the links aren't necessarily for the least expensive versions you can find, so I'd suggest doing some digging :-)
u/glaneuse · 3 pointsr/AskFeminists

It should be noted that not every study about gender is accurate or trustworthy. According to this book on neurological studies, often the studies without any rigourous methodologies get a lot of press because they promote existing ideas about the gender binary, while studies that do not conform to our existing idea of gender will get no press whatsoever, no matter how well executed the study was. It's worth examining the methodologies behind a study before believing that it holds water! (I highly recommend the book, if studies on gender interest you! It is so engrossing and well written, good for laypeople and more scientific folks alike!)

u/sangetencre · 3 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

I prefer science to belief. Brains are different, but it's more about the individual than the sex.

>Brain imaging techniques have simultaneously offered an increasingly detailed profiling of brain activity, giving researchers access to enormous data-sets. There has also been a discovery that our brains can actually be moulded by different experiences, including those associated with being male or female. This clearly illustrates the problem of the biological determinist approach. It also shows the need to account for variables such as education, and economic and social status when comparing brain characteristics.

>Psychologists have also started to show that many of the psychological traits we think of as either male or female actually exist on a spectrum. A recent studyrevisiting a number of such behavioral characteristics, showed that they typically do not fall into two neat, non-overlapping binary categories. Even men’s “superior” skills in spatial cognition—a well-established stalwart—has been shown to be diminishing over time, even disappearing. In certain cultures, the situation is actually reversed.

>And it doesn’t end there. The very concept of a “male” and “female” brain has been found to be flawed. A recently reported study showed that every brain is actually a mosaic of different patterns, some more commonly found in men’s brains and some in women’s. But none could be described as fully male or fully female.

u/NapAfternoon · 3 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

One of the books on your list that looks promising is Sexing The Body. While it may not provide an in depth overview of human biology it will likely provide the appropriate background information. Many other books under the gender studies umbrella do explore and explain biological sex (male, female, intersex), prominent scientific studies, and current areas of research. One book not on the list is Delusions of Gender and it is just one book to explore these issues.

At the end of the day that's a reading list to get the PhD student started. By the end of their PhD they will have ready 3-4x that many articles and books. Those of their choosing will focus in on areas of research that they are interested in. That may include basic research on human anatomy, biology, and sex.

I guess the question is what do you think is missing from these books that discuss gender and sex from a biological perspective that can only be gained from human biology textbooks?

u/modalt2 · 3 pointsr/socialjustice101

I find people recommending Delusions of Gender a lot. Seems to relate more to debunking "scientific" explanations of differences between men and women, but it could be a good foundation for looking over some cultural assumptions about gender.

u/ComIntelligence · 3 pointsr/socialism

That's called "biotruths", friend, and those are fairly strongly debunked by science. A decent basis in psychology, anthropology, or any of the other social sciences will lead you to notice that nearly all differences in men and women are based in social conditions and the society they are raised in than based on physical differences or hormones. Men are not naturally prone to violence, this is based upon cultural assumptions of gender normatives which forces the penchant for violence upon the child, regardless of the personal family environment of the child.

Remember that there are far greater differences between individuals within a single gender than there are between individuals in separate genders. A good way of thinking of this is to imagine that we have put numerical differences upon the traits and men score around 1 - 85 and women score around 15 - 100. Sure, there are differences, but there's so much variety within the genders that the differences are basically irrelevant. Most people are a smattering of "masculine" and "feminine" traits.

You should engage the social sciences, friend. There's a lot of interesting and exciting data coming out of the field of gender studies!

Suggested Reading:

Hyde (2009) The Gender Similarities Hypothesis

Cordelia Fine (2011) Delusions of Gender

Peterson and Hyde (1997 - 2007) A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on Gender Differences in Sexuality

Article: There really is no difference in men and women's math abilities

Article: Transsexual differences caught on brain scan

EDIT: A good place to learn and discuss Trans issues is /r/SRSDiscussion. There's a large variety of different users on there with deep knowledge of the topic at hand. I highly suggest you post any questions you have regarding Trans issues there with them. If you think that "some kind of cis-sexism may be based in biological reality, not culture", then I'm sorry friend, but you have very little understanding of what Cissexism is and have a lot to learn about gender. Start there and read more into the topic. It's a fascinating topic. I think you'll enjoy it!

u/ImStillAwesome · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

There's little dispute that women are better at giving birth and men are better at growing mustaches, but almost everything else is, to a certain extent, a social construct rather than a biological truth. The notion that men are better at mathematics has to do with generations of girls being discouraged from pursuing higher education. The notion that women are better caregivers comes from generations of (almost) every career save motherhood being closed to women.

Most studies that have sought to "prove" that one gender is better than the other at whatever have been deeply flawed, and carried out by researchers more interesting in confirming their own beliefs than in gathering actual data. There are a ton of examples in this book.

It's also interesting to note that people who are stereotyped as being bad at something perform worse when reminded of those stereotypes, even indirectly. For example, female students and black students perform worse on math tests when required to fill out demographic information beforehand. Food for thought.

u/workAcut · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

really? REALLY?! your brain searching your memory?! what a load of poppycock.

The fact is, no one knows what happens when you die, but clinical studies and the power of actual SCIENCE is leading us to believe the brain is dumping all it's Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) at once. when you dream it lets out a very small drop, we're talking not visible to the naked eye. supposedly the pineal gland may contain up to .2 fl oz (about a small clear eyes bottle) of DMT at any one time and when this "flash" occurs, it is all that DMT being dumped at once. Essentially, it's natures last hurrah -aka TRIPPING BALLS MAN!!!


u/burning_consciousnes · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

You are subjected to the most intense DMT trip you could imagine and then fade away into light.
Reading DMT: The Spirit Molecule completely changed my view on death. I'm not excited to die, but part of me is looking forward to the trip.

u/Amisten · 3 pointsr/Drugs

You might enjoy the book

u/ihavemoments · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

And then read about DMT. Also, Strassman's work with the chemical is fascinating to read about.

u/question99 · 3 pointsr/Showerthoughts

OR you get assraped by a crocodile (if I remember one of the stories correctly from this book).

u/esthers · 3 pointsr/science

I recommend reading Rick Strassman's DMT: The Spirit Molecule

u/dankbrownies · 3 pointsr/nosleep

This is stupid as fuck. Sorry, but you can downvote me all you want.

Edit: Read a damn book

u/justdownvote · 3 pointsr/Heavymind

Which explains why this piece was chosen for the book DMT: The Spirit Molecule. Awesome book, BTW.

u/scrotumbrau · 3 pointsr/exmormon

Here's another great resource for this with mountains of research:

u/FrenchFuck · 3 pointsr/AskMen

For me personally there are many but the one that keeps drifting back into my mind is Steven Pinker. His book on The Decline of Violence was for me a perspective changing experience on how much humanity has evolved and how much work still needs to be done. I think framing of a problem effects the outcome and I believe Steven has done a fantastic job in re-framing and challenging our embedded views of human nature.

u/Lungri · 3 pointsr/bestof


What's this—all actions have consequences, and "victims" sometimes engage in behaviors that make them targets (for degenerates, no doubt)?

Rape will be eliminated shortly after murder ceases to occur—and as a species we have made remarkable leaps toward a world without them that an any point in history.

u/DrJosh · 3 pointsr/IAmA

Personally I don't believe in the Singularity

so I'm going to assume my lifetime is finite.

I think we will reach a point where we have self-reproducing swarms of complex machines that adapt and help humans. We'll get there through a combination of advances in machine learning, 3D printing, Big Data, genetics and neuroscience.

However, I think attaining machines with 'human-level' abilities is a long way off: how would a machine empathize with us? In other words, how would it know what it's like to be a human? Much of our behavior is predicated on our ability to empathize with our fellow humans, predict what they'll do next, and either move to cooperate or compete with them. Steven Pinker's latest book provides a good overview of the neural correlates of empathy.

u/rocketvat · 3 pointsr/news

Let me start out by saying I'm totally willing to concede that, as a group, people with concealed carry permits are probably much more responsible and better trained than the general gun-owning population. That seems to make sense, and I've never seen any data to suggest otherwise.

That said, gun ownership is significantly down in the last 40 years, according to the General Social Survey, and so is the violent crime rate (ignore the headline on the second article and look where they are getting their numbers-- FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, I would have linked through to the reports but the government shutdown has made the DOJ webpage unavailable).

Of course, you're talking about concealed carry laws passed in the early 90s that coincide with the decrease in violence I'm talking about, but a report from the National Research Council found no causal link between the introduction of those laws and the violent crime rate.

More broadly, if you enjoy looking at this kind of stuff and want to read about the nature of violence in human society and its downward arc over time, Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker is an incredibly eye-opening work that genuinely changed my mind on a number of issues.

u/ashlykos · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook
  • Save the Cat is the structure used by nearly every Hollywood blockbuster.
  • Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces is a classic. The Story Circle is arguably a form of Campbell's Hero's Journey.

    (edit: formatting)
u/Pr4zz4 · 3 pointsr/Jung

There are several. Here’s just a few I’ve enjoyed.

King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine

Iron John: A Book about Men

The Hero with a Thousand Faces (The Collected Works of Joseph Campbell)

u/CupBeEmpty · 3 pointsr/AskAnAmerican

Oh my dear sweet child.

American movies are so secular?

I mean, how dense are you? American movies are rife with religious connotation, tropes, or just outright straight religion. Have you not watched a movie in a couple decades?

PM me your address and I will literally buy you this book.

I will also illicitly give you a link to The Passion of the Christ.

u/avogadrosemail · 3 pointsr/writing

Unfortunately I haven't read Silmarillion, so I have to defer that question. But I still suggest looking into The Monomyth and The Hero with a Thousand Faces

The idea is simply that stories have taken very similar forms since the beginning of history. Joseph Campbell noticed how the mythologies of different cultures who could never have interacted were eerily similar: how Hercules or Gilgamesh or Cuchulainn were basically the same guy.

In recent years people have studied the psychology of this phenomena, and now we specifically reference it as a story telling tool. There are plenty of criticisms, saying it's paint by number etc... You can boil any story down to the basic "A hero goes somewhere to do something" which is so generic that it's meaningless. But that's why there is no point in directly comparing your work to LOTR. They will have to have similarities if you dig deeply enough.

Where is the point where they are different enough? Nobody can tell you without reading it. But from what you've already described you sound fine. I personally would draw the line somewhere around characters named "Blundalf the Blue" and "Leafbeard".

u/SS465 · 3 pointsr/islam

I'm pretty sure Joseph Campbell talked about this. I definitely recommend checking out his book, "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" ( Also check out the Netflix special based on his lectures, "The Power of Myth," where he touches on this as well. Interesting stuff!

ETA: he specifically does mention the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and how his story fits this paradigm. Enjoy!

u/slowlybutsurelyknee · 3 pointsr/writing

John Truby's Anatomy of Story is a great one. Joseph Cambell's A Hero with a Thousand Faces is also where The Hero's Journey comes from and worth a read to see what kinds of universal motifs and beats exist in stories.

Also second On Writing & The Elements of Style! Brandon Sanderson is also great, and he does FAQ Fridays on his blog where he answers questions on writing as well!

u/TheLorax86 · 3 pointsr/gaming

I mean, Jesus is just all other heroes by the same token. Ancient greek literature, which predates the story of Jesus follows the same archetypes. I'll just leave this here.

u/azsincitymagic · 3 pointsr/dbz

In this book the author discusses his theory of the journey of the archetypal hero found in world mythologies. it explains it all.

u/GurlyBoy · 3 pointsr/asktransgender

I like the idea of a trade off. She's not the only one with a viewpoint here and if she wants you to understand where she's coming from, it's only fair for her to gain an understanding of where your coming from. For the record, the reference to Serrano is regarding Whippping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity, by Julia Serrano.

Edit: Verbiage

u/aelendel · 3 pointsr/AmIFreeToGo

A brilliant book that covers how this kind of culture arises is Mistakes were made, but not by me. Very informative about what we, as citizens, are dealing with.

u/CaptainExecutable · 3 pointsr/exmormon
u/MadRaymer · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

"Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)" is a good book on the topic. Here's an amazon link:

u/frostmatthew · 3 pointsr/programming

That should probably be "Supply and demand works perfectly if we are perfectly rational actors" - and I agree it does not work perfectly and there are occasional exceptions, but the hypothesis with the least assumptions is that the law of supply is applicable regarding developers. [i.e. since an increase in price usually results in an increase in supply we should assume it is applicable here unless there is sufficient evidence otherwise - not the other way around].

As for negotiation skill, I find it hard to believe that so many people in finance, medicine, and law are amazing negotiators but nearly everyone in software engineering is completely lacking. Top earners in those fields routinely make over 10x the bottom earners (and they do this without founding their own companies, playing startup equity lottery, or receiving ridiculous counter-offers). At most software companies a "top earner" engineer might be making at most double what an intern or entry level dev makes.

PS - I've read Drive, it's a good book, if you enjoyed that you may want to check out Mistakes Were Made, But Not by Me

u/PixelWrangler · 3 pointsr/lgbt

The best thing you can do is to educate yourself. Read opinions on both sides of the divide. Try to understand why those who are opposed to equality think they way that they do. The anger is absolutely natural, but it doesn't help.

Especially with the lousy economy, many people are just looking for someone to blame. They pick an easy target. It takes slow, gentle reason and a lot of time to steer them away from these views. In contrast, responding with anger will often cause an opponent to cling even more tightly to their views, no matter how illogical they may be.

To try to understand why people cling to illogical views, consider reading Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me).

u/GKezele · 3 pointsr/atheism

Agreed. I read an awesome book on cognitive dissonance that I would recommend: Mistakes Were Made, but Not by Me!

u/doctorace · 3 pointsr/sanfrancisco

If you're interested, you could read Mistakes Were Made, (But not by Me)

u/dustgirl · 3 pointsr/psychology

I would strongly recommend you read Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me).

>Why do people dodge responsibility when things fall apart? Why the parade of public figures unable to own up when they screw up? Why the endless marital quarrels over who is right? Why can we see hypocrisy in others but not in ourselves? Are we all liars? Or do we really believe the stories we tell?

If you can read that book without ending up with an appreciation for (social) psychological research and how it can help us to better understand ourselves and others, then I can't think of much that would change your mind.

u/Impune · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

Have you studied cognitive dissonance theory at all? It's very relevant to what you're wondering about. I'd recommend checking out Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson if you're wondering how clinical psychologists have investigated this phenomenon. I personally found it very interesting (and convincing).

u/AfterSpencer · 3 pointsr/news

I just finished reading a book called "Mistakes were made but not by me" that was very eye opening to me. It spent a good deal of time talking about police officers and prosecuting attorneys who, even after DNA proves that the 'criminal' they had a confession from was not guilty, still maintain that they guilty and why they feel this way.

I highly recommend it.

Spoiler: the answer to why is cognitive dissonance and self justification is how they get over it.

u/FlyingPhotog · 3 pointsr/Roadcam

If you read the book "Traffic," it specifically says that vigilantism like what the Civic attempted just breeds contempt in the eyes of bad drivers, and doesn't actually serve as any sort of corrective measure. The truck may not have thought he did anything wrong, despite the Civic.

u/piecrazy47 · 3 pointsr/PublicFreakout

You should read this book, it's pretty informative on this topic

Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)

u/cavedave · 3 pointsr/sysor

Traffic is a great book. I bore everyone by recommending it constantly.

I t deals with the paradoxes of human cognitive biases and traffic. Economist Tyler cowen likes it

u/happywaffle · 3 pointsr/Austin

A good starting place would be "Traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt. But all you need to do is watch the behavior of beans falling down a chute to observe the exact same behavior (see my other reply).

u/gigglyweeds · 3 pointsr/running

On a bike you are moving at or near the speed of traffic, in other words you make sense to drivers. Running you are not, it is best to leave it up to your own instincts.

If you read the book Traffic it describes how poorly drivers react to things moving slower than they are. It's chock full of statistics and law.

u/dudeArama · 3 pointsr/Louisville

I live on a road that connects to Chenoweth Lane and really fear a widening. There's always foot traffic along the road, even a crosswalk so students can walk to Chenoweth Elementary. If the road is widened and it looks more like a speedway than a lived-in area, cars will act accordingly. If you all are interested in how traffic patterns affect our behavior, I really recommend this book:

u/Infini-Bus · 3 pointsr/bikecommuting

Reminds me of a book I read that suggested driving a car inflates our sense of personal space and in turn, our ego. Interesting book for people who drive.

I don't get violent road rage, but I do get verbal road rage. The other day I was driving my girlfriend home from work and someone made a bad lane change or turn and I was like "I hope everyone in their family dies. sees dog by a house OOH! LOOK A DOGGY!" I don't really mean the things I say of course, it's just shit talk (except when I see a dog).

u/nottings · 3 pointsr/WhitePeopleTwitter

There is a book by Tom Vanderbilt, “Traffic”, that actually debunks this fallacy. You don’t even have to buy the book to read the section apropos to this topic. see excerpt here

u/jakdak · 3 pointsr/funny

I believe I read that in Tom Vanderbilt's "Traffic"

But it's been awhile and I don't have the book handy to check.
Worth reading in any case.

u/Dekker · 3 pointsr/videos

There was at least one chapter on this in Traffic: why we drive the way we do. Removing signs and other 'safety' warnings forced people to be more perceptive and careful when driving. Also mentioned that many of the 'dangerous' roads (no guardrails, cliffs, etc) were actually safer than normal highways because people drive more carefully in those situations.

edit: from an interview with the author:

Q: You write, "The truth is the road itself tells us far more than signs do." So do traffic signs work?

A: We’ve probably all had the somewhat absurd moment of driving in the country, past a big red barn, the pungent smell of cow manure on the breeze, and then seeing a yellow traffic sign with a cow on it. Does anyone need that sign to remind them that cows may be nearby? To quote Hans Monderman, the legendary Dutch traffic engineer who was opposed to excessive signing, "if you treat people like idiots, they’ll act like idiots." Then again, perhaps someone did come blazing along and hit a crossing cow or a tractor, and in response engineers may have been forced to put up a sign. The question is: Would that person have done that regardless of the sign?

The bulk of evidence is that people don’t change their behavior in the presence of such signs. Children playing, School zone? People speed through those warnings, faster than they even thought, if you query them later. To take another example, the majority of people killed at railroad crossings in the U.S. are killed at crossings where the gates are down.

If this is insufficient warning that they should not cross the tracks then is a sign warning that a train might be coming really going to change behavior? At what point do people need to rely on their own judgment? We as humans seem to act on the message that traffic signs give us in complex ways — studies have shown, for example, that people drive faster around curved roads that are marked with signs telling them the road is curved. We tend to behave more cautiously in the face of uncertainty.

u/CascadianArms · 3 pointsr/Cascadia

For everyone that's intimately following this thread, I recommend the book The Righteous Mind . It meets at the intersection of anthropology, sociology, psychology, and theology. If anything; I think Cascadia needs some sort of moral compass that everyone in the region can align themselves with.

u/oiuyt2 · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Of course, I suspected as much from your user name and my response is taylored to account for that.

I too have taken several asian studies courses, Asian philosophy courses, asian language courses, I've read the sandard literature such as Journey West and Three Kingdoms and I've tried to apply all of this to my life as lived in Korea for 8 and a half years.

No matter how I tried to twist this conventional wisdon I found myself constantly rewriting everything I knew every month. There would always be discrepencies, inconsistencies and hippocrisy. There was never a consistent narrative from which I could draw a predictive conclusion. Until about several years in when I realized in my attempt to learn about Korea culture I instead learned more about American culture and that everything they did that was some how different and confucian was something we did in American we just thought of it differenlty cause you know, 'murica.

Now if I had those biases what about people around me? It finally made sense why I could never trust a Korean to give me an honest account of Korean Culture, or someone from China to give an honest account of Chinese culture. or even trust myself to give an honest account of American Culture.

Then I read a good book on moral psychology, and it made even more sense.

> I can tell you there is definitely a cultural difference from the 6 years I have been here in my experience.

I can tell you there is a definite contectual bias in being amongst people you consider a different culture. Especially when you expect it.

> What you seem to be suggesting is that all differences are a fantasy and that there is no Confucianism or Judeo-Christianity.

What I am suggesting is that Confuciansim and Judeo-Christianity ultimately turn into tools for the lazy who want to make facile post hoc explanations for things and be done with it. You'd be right more often if you just treated people as people and pretended the concepts didn't exsist.

If we want to talk about instances where we can find differences in a controlled scientific setting (as opposed to uncontrolled instances on reddit of throughout ones day to day experiences) I would again suggest the book by Jonathan Haidt. His model of Moral Foundations Theory does a much better job of accounting for differences in a unified model instead of constantly going back to the drawing board for every culture.

u/unpopular_speech · 3 pointsr/OutOfTheLoop

RE: actions are mischaracterized, I’m going to go with the low-hanging-fruit example of FOX news. Wikipedia has a great entry over FOX news controversies:

Of course, FOX isn’t alone in this. MSNBC will exaggerate the words and actions of the right, too. And many other organizations. I only offer FOX because it’s the easiest.

RE: tribalism preferred over truth, there are a plethora of example, and tangent examples (like the echo chamber model) which support this, but for an actual source, I could go with Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind.

Haidt explains that our tendency to form social groups enforces a expectation for social conformity, which favors group ideas and beliefs over external views and information even when that external information is demonstrably true.

We can see this behavior in religion as well. People insist that men have one less rib than women despite our ability to count them in xrays. Faith over fact.

u/Shaneydev · 3 pointsr/changemyview

What do you mean by politically disingenuous?

Associating political beliefs with the values of individuals is the primary research focus of Jonathan Haidt, one of the world's leading social psychologists. He wrote The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion which goes into deep detail about how a person's underlying psychology and subsequent value system (as well as a certain amount of environmental upbringing) form their political beliefs. So a lazy association? No.

The same guy, Jonathan Haidt, himself a liberal professor at NYU, is one half of the pair who wrote the most widely cited non-academic piece on Victimhood Culture, bringing it from academia and into the mainstream media with this article, called "The Coddling of the American Mind", which he further expanded upon in his own website here.

Though Professor Haidt says people on either side of the right/left spectrum can be prone to getting 'sucked into' victimhood culture, he says that "the narrative of oppression and victimization is especially congenial to the leftist worldview (Haidt 2012:296; Kling 2013; Smith 2003:82)".

But I want you to explain what is "politically disingenuous" about my above comment.

u/chrises67 · 3 pointsr/exmormon

You are absolutely right – there is no one true way. Good for you for not falling into that trap again. Here is an amazing book I’ve been reading that explores morality and has helped me better form my own morals while understanding morals of others. I highly recommend it.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

u/bananab33 · 3 pointsr/The_DonaldBookclub

The Righteous Mind by Jonathon Haidt really improved my debating skills with liberals. I don't know why the author is a liberal, I feel like he might be secretly conservative.

u/RedditJusticeWarrior · 3 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

This may not be the exact one I'm looking for, but it looks close thumbing through it.

The works of Jonathan Haidt are what you wanna focus on though. As he said in his book, The Righteous Mind,

> In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

> The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

u/svefan · 3 pointsr/Suomi

En voi muuta kuin suositella lukemaan, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.
Ihmiset eivät keskustele rationaalisesti, vaan pyrkivät selittämään tunnereaktiot rationaalisin argumentein.

u/lev_spark · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

I'm working my way through The Righteous Mind right now and it has lots of fun insights into why humans react the way they do to various external situations.

u/danish_lamanite · 3 pointsr/exmormon

I think what they all have in common is certain people's tendency to defer to authoritarian thinking. Three fascinating treatments that I would suggest to you:

  • David Campbell - mormon stories #504 explores link between Republican = more religious, and Democratic = less religious.
  • David Christian - mormon stories #558 discusses differences between conservative & liberal mindsets w/in context of community building, based on the work of Dr. Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind.”
  • And best of all, Bob Altemeyer's book The Authoritarians. Decades of legit research on Right Wing Authoritarian thinking, written in 2006 during the George W Bush presidency and Iraq war. Easily one of the most prophetic things I've ever read, considering the current MAGA/Trump movement.
u/nicktroiano · 3 pointsr/politics

How about my favorite book on this topic? Besides the Centrist Manifesto (obviously), I'd suggest: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

It's a brilliant explainer on why we are so tribal in our politics... and what we can do about it.

u/timk85 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I just vehemently disagree. I don't think being left is the same as being Liberal, either. There's room for a lot more nuance than you're letting on.

If you're really interested: Check out The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt. I would also recommend A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell if you want further reading.

If you don't have the time and aren't interested, here's my summary: Someone's personality traits can pretty successfully predict their political leanings. Some people are biologically and environmentally predisposed to being Liberal or Conservative. Society needs the balance of both Liberals and Conservatives to be as good as possible. Conservatives bring order, Liberals bring ideas. Too much of one or the other causes division and if it gets too extreme, genocide and destruction. It is my belief that God has designed it this way. It will always be unhelpful to think along the lines of "conservatives are wrong" or "liberals are wrong."

Comments like, "The left has way more in common with Christianity than the right..." make me sad because I think it's horribly misguided. It misses the big picture completely.

The same Jesus who told us all to love also reprimanded a disciple for criticizing a woman who spent money on Jesus as opposed to giving it to the poor. He is both.

u/kaffinator · 3 pointsr/Reformed

Moral Foundations Theory keeps confirming itself.

In short, leftist folk care exclusively about the moral virtues of justice and care. Those on the right have a wider palette of virtues including justice, care, loyalty, purity, and authority, giving these five roughly equal weight.

To the left, the right appears to be uncaring, because the right prioritizes virtues the left disregards.

To the right, the left appears to be ignorant of other legitimate virtues, because, well, it is.

I think this has probably always been so. I would prefer a world where a right-leaning person could value the left's deeper commitment to care, with the left appreciating how successful human societies require the employment of all five virtues. But, we live in a time where more political power can be derived from division than unity, and here we are.

u/btwn2stools · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson
u/WordGame · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

you sound young a naive, not receiving or perhaps accepting the respect and acknowledgment of your families love - not realizing it yet, that love of the self and life. Really loving life. Maybe because you have not come close to death, I mean really close to cold, dark, death. More so, you sound like all fresh and stupid young boys do right when they leave high school; assured of their understanding of the world, an understanding that drastically changes every three to five years. Until one day, thirty years from now you look back and say, "I knew nothing when I was young". It's then that you realize this was all a feeling. One long feeling you had, that lasted days and years, as time seemed to slip by so painfully slow. Where a gut feeling of needed mobility took over and forced your fate into a position that only forgiveness and toughing it out can save for. A feeling of longing; Longing for adventure and a chance to prove oneself - a man's journey or hero quest. This feeling in men (and women) has been known since ancient times, only they had positive ways of promoting such innate human drives. Today, we have fraternities and the military, the factory or gangs. All shadow concepts of masculinity, all captivities shaded in brotherhood and silly concepts of sacrifice.

This is what the US military hopes for, besides all the other young and stupid children who knocked up a girlfriend and need money, or inner city kids who need a direction outside of gang life. The world you live in has been designed this way. To take the poor and wanting, and to place them in the machine. You're not going to fight for freedom, that fight belongs at a poll, and in protest, in letters to senators and special interest groups. The only freedom you'll find toting a gun in some foreign land is the same freedom men from constitutional nations always find, a small stipend to spend while corporations colonize foreign markets and people who would never sit by you at a table bank on your ignorance and hard work. You will be yelled at and broken, all for bits of ribbon or a tab. Told you're finally a man now, that you have found discipline, that you gained 'leadership skills'. All the while these traits were inside you, never on the outside, waiting to be emboldened and brought out of you; waiting for a moment of maturity and expression.

The only thing you seek in the military is a chance at expression, for something that is already there, just waiting for an outlet. If you don't want to die, don't be a soldier. If you're patriotic, then your nearest fight for liberty is at home against corruption and greed. If you want to be a man, become one of peace - because I assure you wholeheartedly, there are plenty of ex soldiers who are now men in pieces. Broken, berated and disturbed by the horrors that is war and a tighter bottom line.

Coast guard, if you must. But remember, all your life you will be searching for some semblance of inner peace, and that will never be found holding a weapon.

Works to consider:

u/NeverSophos · 3 pointsr/selfimprovement

As mentioned about Carnegie is a must. Otherwise I'd recommend King, Warrior, Magician, Lover, Staying Healthy with the Seasons (some of the nutrition info is out dated but the core of the book is still great), The Book of Five Rings.

u/sonofanarcissist · 3 pointsr/books

The end of Franny and Zooey by J.D. Salinger is really good. It's a short book, worth a read.

Mindfulness in Plain English is a really useful book.

I recommend some Robert Bly. His classic book is Iron John. He writes about being a man beautifully.

King Warrior Lover Magician is a great book for men.

There are some great talks with Robert Bly in audible. I listen to them at least once a year.

u/confusedneuron · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

As far as the book recommendations go, it would be good if you could qualify what kind of books you're interested in (e.g. philosophy, psychology, history, science, etc.).

Books I recommend:

Psychology (or: On Human Nature)

The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime

Thinking, Fast and Slow (my personal favorite)

The Undiscovered Self

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature


Strategy: A History

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism


Economics in One Lesson

Basic Economics


Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

As always, the list of books to read is too long, so I'll stop here.

u/Octavian- · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

I don't know of anywhere else it's available. It's more aimed towards researchers and serious academics than for everyday readers though.

For more accessible and cheaper reads I recommend these books:

and the chapters on violence and gender in this book:

All of those should be available at any library.

u/The_Eleventh_Hour · 3 pointsr/neuroscience

If you want to delve into layman level reading on this sort of thing, look up books and videos by Robert Sapolsky. The book Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers will teach you a lot about chronic stress, and why it's a bad thing.

Stress in and of itself is not bad, but chronic, prolonged bouts of the stress response, leads to a lot of issues. There are a plethora of physiological things going on, so it's sort of beyond the scope of this one post for me to list all of it, hence why I'm pointing you towards something to read on the layman level.

You can also read up on glucocorticoids.

EDIT: Just 'cause I like when people link me to stuff (I know the laziness, it is strong in us all), here:

Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers

Monkeyluv: And Other Essays on Our Lives As Animals

The Trouble With Testosterone

The Brain That Changes Itself

The first three are R. Sapolsky, who is amazing. He also has a bunch of video lectures online you can find. I have to go do stuff now, so I can't go link to those, but they should be easy to locate on YouTube.

The last book is one that deals with neuroplasticity stuff, which is what you seem to be interested in, speaking on the malleability of the brain and all that. It's fascinating stuff, I know - that's what got me to pursue neuroscience all those years ago.

If you have anymore questions, or want more resources, just ask - I have a ton of stuff bookmarked or on harddrives, just have to set aside time to locate it.

u/narcsBgone · 3 pointsr/CPTSD

> Truthfully, I've never actually been seen by anyone about my PTSD beyond being prescribed Xanax and various antianxiety antidepressants.

You've treated the symptoms, but not the cause.

> I almost called a therapist the other day. But of course phone calls are too scary.

What about online therapy, via messaging?

> Also I've never had a particularly good experience with them. I was seeing one during my abuse and they didn't pick up on it.

Have you tried a trauma therapist?

> I feel like admitting I need help makes me weak and makes them the winner.

This is a false belief, not a feeling. If you need help, getting help will meet your need. You deserve to get your needs met.

> All this to say, I feel dumb. Specifically emotionally dumb.

This is perfectly ok. It's not a block to getting help. Seek rational understanding, if you feel your emotions are blunted.

> Like I'm stuck in the mind if a twelve year old. I just can't explain it other than sometimes I feel like a petulant teen-ager, but totally justified in my actions.

This perfectly ok too. A good trauma therapist can work with this.

> My brain is just WRONG.
>I simply tell him to treat me like I've got a brain injury

This is a result of trauma. It contains two sides;

  1. In some sense, those of us who lived through trauma in our childhoods, suffer 'brain damage' of a sort. Our brains form in response to the trauma, which is not how the brains of those without trauma form.

  2. It leads us to believe we are forever brain damaged. However, this simply isn't true. The brain is plastic and changes throughout our lives. We can heal ourselves from trauma. Although it isn't trauma focused, you might want to check out the book The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science. This book is full of real life stories, as well as experiments, which repeatedly prove how capable the brain is of repairing itself, whether from strokes or far worse.

    > Will I ever feel safe again.

    This I can't say. I don't feel safe myself. I was born into trauma and suffered it from birth to age 18. We can create safety for ourselves, but ultimately, there is no such thing as 100% safety at all times.

    > Good god reading that last bit, I'm a fucking monster.

    You're no monster. You've been traumatized, for quite a long period of time.
u/pinkswansays · 3 pointsr/science

The Brain the Changes Itself is a good laymen's book on brain plasticity.

Another book I read said that some amputee patients would feel like someone was touching their face when they tried to move their amputated fingers because of the proximity of those areas on the sensory/motor cortex. (Guessing the sensory area for the face took over the motor area for the fingers?).

If anyone remembers the book? It was the professor that come up with the mirror trick to help with pain after amputation.

u/-bryden- · 3 pointsr/Parenting

The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science

This book will probably bring you more hope that her life will be normal than any comment here could. It's very scientific, and has a lot of reassuring information for you.

Please check it out!

u/KrazyA1pha · 3 pointsr/INTP
u/SmashTheKyriarchy · 3 pointsr/AskFeminists

So a couple of things:

1.) Just because something happened out of necessity, doesn't mean we should KEEP DOING IT.

2.) In a way you are saying male aggression makes male aggression necessary. I don't say this flippantly or to blame the victim. I am pointing out how this is a self reinforcing cycle that can only be disrupted by outside forces, namely the criminal justice system. There is a strong correlation between how much of the population can rely on the governement for justice, and how much inter-personal violence there is in that society.

u/AlwaysUnite · 3 pointsr/vegan

Hmm I look at it this way. Indeed morality is simply a product of the human mind, and this is exactly what makes it objective. And I don't mean like "I think this is right, therefore it is". It is bigger than that. Morality is real, natural and objective the same way water is wet and planets are things. There isn't anything wet individual H2O molecules. Yet through their interaction a property we call 'wet' is presented. The same goes for planets. They are really just big balls of elementary particles. But it doesn’t help anyone to think of it this way. There are still laws like Newton’s law of gravitation that describe how planets work. This is the idea behind reductionism. While things are really made out of ever smaller parts (until you hit quantum mechanics), it is still useful to describe reality at higher levels of generalization.

For morality the same works in two steps (ending the line of reduction down at the human individual). Imagine two strangers meeting each other. They both need medical attention due to a civil war. Now the other could provide the medical attention but also pose a threat. When these people interact one of two things can happen. Either they cooperate or they oppose each other (cooperate/defect in the Prisoners Dilemma as it is called in game theory and economics). Now when people oppose each other nothing really changes compared to when they didn't interact with each other. All participants are still selfishly trying to achieve their own goals regardless of anything or anyone else. But when they cooperate something new is created. A unit of several individuals that works together towards a common goal. This unit of people is similar to water being wet. But this is not morality yet. This is more like selfish cooperation.

The difference lies in the fact that humans can do one thing that water molecules can't. And that is reproduce, both sexually and intellectually (by changing other people’s minds they in effect let you copy a part of you, namely your thoughts, into them). This gives rise to a second level of effects due to evolutionary theory. We find that there is another more general way to look at human behaviour that can be described using scientific laws just like planets can. Not only do people sometimes cooperate, but whenever they do they also generate profit. In fact they generate more profit compared to when they had worked alone. The only additional route to this is in a perfectly competitive market, but as anyone who has taken econ 101 may remember there are at least 12 separate conditions that need to be fulfilled in order for this to work. Making cooperation the dominant mechanism by which people become rich.* Because cooperation=profit there is a force acting towards individuals, small groups of people and societies to cooperate more with each other. There is ample evidence for this (see for example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Morality is therefore (at least in my mind) the tendency for more cooperative societies* to grow and flourish while societies which exploit, oppress, oppose each other and their members are retarded, stagnant or collapse.

From this follows what I think of as objective morality. In societies where no cooperation at all takes place society is destroyed, civilization collapses, and humanity is reduced to a collection of wandering individuals constantly trying to survive and kill each other (basically an unending version of the Purge but more extreme). In society where everyone cooperates to rationally find the best solution to bring everyone happiness, individuals live longer and the amount of suffering, pain and death is minimized/eliminated. I would call the first Evil and the second Good but really I don't have to because humanity as a whole has already done this by. Words are defined by the majority of opinions after all (Luckily regardless of what name we give this phenomenon the effect remains real).

Incidentally these 12 conditions basically never occur so whenever someone says “the market will solve everything” I recommend to take a very very close look at what they are actually proposing.

**In the sense of the prisoners dilemma not the communistic/socialistic sense. The communists didn't in fact base their society on the community but on the communist party. And everyone else got kicked into the dirt.

u/Harmacc · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

No, some books I listen to multiple times. I’m on listen 4 for this book which I recommend.
King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine

u/fuckthatpony · 2 pointsr/DeadBedrooms

Lots to unpack here! I think you've done an excellent job of listing all the things that are contributing. With this list, it is no surprise that sex is suffering. Sex/intimacy can often be an early indicator (canary in the coal mine) that something is wrong.

It really feels like you both need some help with body, mind, and soul. I could post what I use, but that's a novel.

I know that when finances are rough, it effects everything and makes everything much harder. Maybe you can both work as partners to address this as the highest priority--with the statement that you will work on more than one thing, but bills gotta get paid.

The other part of this is that we all need a purpose. Can he get a $15/hr job and really work on showing up and keeping that job? It can have a massive mental boost.

35? I highly suggest that you put whatever you were in the the past. It doesn't matter if you were HL or if he was. Our bodies change, our responsibilities change, and our New Relationship Energy for our partner goes away. We're left with having to figure out how to be real adults and actualize our best self, and figure out how to long term couple.

I recommend (a lot) a few experts to watch and read up on. One might have a voice that speaks best to you. None of these links are long, but they all can make it clear that it is not hopeless, and what you are going through is common.

I'm very optimistic because of the positive changes I've experienced. I'm happy to discuss more if needed.


u/RedCrotch · 2 pointsr/TheRedPill

I recommend this book to those who are thinking the same questions, how to get what you want without causing harm.

u/Wolvenfire86 · 2 pointsr/manprovement

Oh god, where do I start!? That is such a loaded question, lol. I mean, it's hard to answer cause everyone's station is a little different.

I guess the most important thing is to invest in Love. For your fellow man and yourself. All people have a need to express their appreciation for others, but most men never do it until they are dating someone. That's not right. You should be open with your friends (the family you chose). If I die right now, it would break my friends hearts and I know it will...because they told me so. I told them I love them too. Drunk, lol, but I told them. Spend nights drinking with good friends, and often. Especially in your early 20's when you still can. Don't look for girls on these nights. Just have fun. Talk about stupid ideas. Curse. Get lost. Eat at a place you'd never been to. Throw rocks in a lake and talk about anything.

Remember this: men bond shoulder to shoulder. That means we make friends when we DO things. You gotta go out with your buddies. Paintball, drinking, festivals, parties, hell fight club idk. But go out with them.

With that said, never let a women tell you what it means to be a man. They don't know. They never will. And neither will we know what it's like to be a women, so we should also not tell them how to act/feel. But your masculinity is very real, and it matters. Pruning\e through the toxic shit requires some real deep digging. But it's worth it.

Listen to dad more. And grandpa (especially). And the guy who is a few years older than you who is where you want to be. Advice is flattering to a lot of men; don't be afraid to ask for it. If they're bad role models, then you'll know what not to do.

I also suggest this book.

u/kogsworth · 2 pointsr/TheRedPill

A good book I've read recently about understanding your self was King, Warrior, Magician, Lover. Really helped me understand what was missing/imbalanced in my personality.

u/throwaway1239838 · 2 pointsr/AsianMasculinity

From my personal understanding, I think they're talking about archetypes of masculinity and it comes from this:

and you can get a primer of the book from this:

and further more, you can listen to David DeAngelo / Dr. Paul talk about it on this:

u/trt13shell · 2 pointsr/Jung

So far all I know is within these small videos:

In a similar method one might use mythology to observe reoccurring themes in human values and archetypes this guy does it with movies and connects it to the contents of this book which describes 4 archetypes having to do mostly with masculinity.

I personally identify most strongly with the magician and perhaps the lover as well altho mostly with the shadow functions of the lover sadly

u/emilfranord · 2 pointsr/LARP

It's probably "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine" by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette. Although that book seems to only talk about 4 and not seven archetypes.

u/cspayton · 2 pointsr/nottheonion

While I don't have the answers to many of your questions, I, too, feel a sense of exasperation when I try to engage in a dialogue about this topic. To me, popular opinions on rape, anything perceived as "victim blaming," and drunken coitous have become "moralized," meaning that the topic has, essentially, become morally offensive to question. Asking further questions aligns you with not a differing opinion but with depravity, as if even asking is akin to committing the original offense. I'm sure many other philosophers have discussed this idea, but I came to it through Steven Pinker's book "The Blank Slate." A quote to summarize from his New York Times article may be better:

> Moralization is a psychological state that can be turned on and off like a switch, and when it is on, a distinctive mind-set commandeers our thinking. This is the mind-set that makes us deem actions immoral (“killing is wrong”), rather than merely disagreeable (“I hate brussels sprouts”), unfashionable (“bell-bottoms are out”) or imprudent (“don’t scratch mosquito bites”).

To me, I find it fair to question the statistical confluence of rape culture on campuses (as I think you accurately describe it) with party/drinking culture. This is often viewed as victim blaming since it puts the victim and perpetrator in similar situations prior to the rape. What if, by some miracle, people stopped gathering in tight confines with copious amounts of intoxicants and no supervision and we saw a dramatic decline in these types of rape cases? If there was a decline, would it not require both young men and women to take the responsibility on themselves to change the society in which they want to relax and have fun? For now, though, as the stronger sex, men need to take far greater care in their drinking habits. I think this is a conversation worth having. This is a good article that is opening the discussion and complicating it - although I disagree on some points.

Also, to me, I think it is also fair to ask "is a sober person who rapes someone more heinous than a drunk person who rapes someone?" Obviously, the victim winds up with the same result, but I don't think that - superficially - those two rapists are equitable. Somewhere, a mitigation must occur in the sentencing of the latter, but how can it be approached when the court of pop opinion and the media frenzy surrounding it looks like this?

Also, welcome to the controversial comments section.

u/MarcoVincenzo · 2 pointsr/atheism
u/hiighCalibre · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Yeah but it's damn refreshing when compared to the current post-modern paradigm of endless social constructs socially constructing with no clear imperative or starting point. It's no more a cocktail science than social science in general and both can be valid when they offer us repeatable tests, and both should be taken with a grain of salt. Studying bonobos and chimps and then extrapolating for homosapians is not going to be 100% conclusive, but neither is a dodgy survey.

We can learn a whole lot from the animal world but for a long time thought has been focused on distancing us from said world and I think it's a mistake. I think there are other valid ways to view society than the ones we've devised in academia... I, like Steven Pinker in 'The Blank Slate' also think that genetic science and neuroscience are going to deal some serious blows to other disciplines in the coming decades and that the social sciences have overstepped their bounds and have it coming.

u/fingerthemoon · 2 pointsr/TheRedPill

I've been coming across information lately about scientists who bring up controversial topics and how much shit they have to deal with afterwards. Often their careers are ruined, they have to face angry mobs and their lives are threatened.

In Steven Pinkers The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature he devotes chapter 7 to this topic. There are many examples but off the top of my head I remember one guy who did some studies on left-handed people and discovered they are prone to birth defects and some other genetic disorders. He was sued, attacked and eventually the University he worked for made the topic illegal to study.

Another example is Charles Murray's The
Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life
. He has one chapter about IQ tests and race. He talks about the repercussions in this video Charles Murray -- The Bell Curve Revisited. But basically he was labeled a raciest for simply talking about the data.

I don't know if you're familiar with Richard Dawkins but he has also faced extreme criticism for his world changing book The Selfish Gene.

There are many examples and I can't list them all, but suffice it to say, people will take your words out of context, flat out miss quote you and spin your words in order to discredit what you say and have you labeled negatively. Just look at Trump and how they've done this to him. He is compared to Hitler and seen as the epitome of evil itself.

I'm finding that most people are immune to logic. Many people believe that race and sex are social constructs. 40% of Americans deny evolution. Libertarians are demonized and dismissed as idiots all over the place....

I've come to the conclusion that the information I've acquired pertaining to politics, social science, anthropology, evolution, religion, and sexuality, however much it is backed by science and reason, is very, very unpopular, and it's wiser for me to pretend to be and think like others. Getting tingles from some women at a party because you challenge their beliefs is not worth the very real possibility of having your character slandered and your carrier ruined.

You might be more intelligent than I and able to pull it off but I'm probably older, and I've been around long enough to see just how shitty and back-stabbing people can be, even those you considered friends. So I'm playing it safe and keeping my thoughts on controversial topics to myself.

u/MorganWick · 2 pointsr/philosophy

This is only tangentially related to this comment, but I find it odd that Pinker, who's now known for arguing for the notion of perpetual progress and humans constantly becoming less violent and more rational, also wrote this, which is all about the existence of human nature with inherent biases to violence and without pure rationality. I wouldn't consider the recognition of human nature pessimistic when looked at in the right light, but from a simplistic viewpoint of one who believes in a malleable human nature, it's funny comparing his present reputation for "optimism" with his past "pessimism".

u/mehatch · 2 pointsr/Cosmos

The Blank Slate or How the Mind Works by steven pinker

u/greatjasoni · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Your first point about blaming seems absurd to me. How can anyone be blamed for evolution or biology? The idea of ascribing agency to someone for a factor beyond their control is absurd to me. In this case we're talking about evolution which is an extremely large scale abstract process. You can't blame anyone for that except whatever you call God, certainly not women. And as I said in the edit to my first comment, if you did "blame" women for this (blame having a negative connotation) it would be a hugely positive since the increased selection pressure on humanity is what drove us to evolve so far beyond the other species on earth. That said, I don't see how anyone is to blame for evolution. It's too large a process.

Your observation that the discussion hinges on my claim that status is human nature is pretty apt. Disagreement over human nature is the deepest conflict between left and right. The left leans towards a blank slate theory, and the right leans towards some sort of human nature. Most political ideas can be gotten by assuming something along that spectrum and then extrapolating from there.

This is the scientific concept I'm referring to. Unfortunately because of the political ramifications of these ideas, psychology is massively fractured into many different fields and some engage with evolution more than others. Evolutionary biology is an especially hard field to make firm pronouncements on. There are a huge number of competing theories and because of the political ramifications, social scientists and social critics get involved too. I doubt anything I link will be up to your standards of irrefutable proof by authority (status), because of the politics. Some theories of social dominance informed and were informed by Marxist conceptions of hierarchy, and that throws a wrench in things as well.

I think the most well established advocate of these ideas is professor Steven Pinker, who wrote a whole book on this exact subject.

There's a huge amount of evidence on hierarchy among animals and it isn't in dispute at all. There's also a lot on humans. There's no one study I can link you that proves this finding (it would be hard to prove with a single study), so I'll link what I can find.

This article explains a lot of the ideas.

This one by the same author refutes a good bit of criticism.

Here's a study on economic status and partner selection. It found a woman would rather an unattractive partner in high status clothes than an attractive one in a burger king outfit.

David Buss has done a lot of work on this subject. Buss has done large studies spanning many cultures to figure out sexual preferences.

This summarizes a lot of his findings, you can find shorter ones on his wikipedia page. Men emphasize fertility and youth, while women prefer age and status across cultures.

Here is a cross cultural study from Buss.

This section summarizes findings in womens sexul selection preferences.

This study finds women prefer older men, which correlates with higher status.

A study finding womem prioritize status and men prioritize physical attactiveness.

This one shows how the evolution of language can be traced to Primate knowledge of hierarchy.

There's also Jordan Peterson, who used to teach at Harvard and has numerous citations in his field. He constantly makes the argument of the lobster. It basically says that lobsters organize themselves into hierarchys, and we split off from them billions of years ago which means hierarchy's are something billions of years old. The reason he picks lobsters and not some other animal, is that they're so old, evolutionarily speaking, that it makes the example dramatic. The part of your brain responsible for hierarchy is ancient, and a core structure right up there with breathing and eating. Hierarchy is not caused by capitalism, or male power, or whatever social effects you want to ascribe them to, because hierarchy existed before any of that. Those things are rooted in hierarchy, but removing those things won't remove the hierarchy.

The more general argument is that hierarchy is observed in many many many animals in our evolutionary lineage. It is also observed in humans. Animals act based on instinct so if they organize and select for status, it is a biological behavior not a learned one. For your worldview to make sense, you'd have to reason that humans do organize themselves into hierarchys but that it has nothing to do with biology. Somehow that part of our biology, which is observed in our recent primate ancestors, got bred out but also that we arbitrarily made it the core of our social structures. It just doesn't make any sense. It's biological in animals, and it's biological in humans.

u/J_Hampsta · 2 pointsr/AskSocialScience

You might have better luck in /r/askscience, and your question is rather vague so I'm not 100% sure if you're asking about just smartphones or actual technological advancements. I read an interesting book called "The Brain That Changes Itself" and one of the chapters focused on the research done by Paul Bach-y-Rita, a neuroscientist that focused on neuroplasticity and sensory substitution. The case in the book, if I remember correctly, was about a woman that was unable to stand due to her vestibular system being unable to relay messages to the brain. Bach-y-Rita solves this by attaching a tactile devile to her tongue that "replaces" the function of the vestibular appartus and, with training, her brain is able to reorganize to recognize her tongue as the center of balance rather than the faulty vestibular apparatus.

In a separate article he notes this phenomenon: "Persons who become deaf or are without balance usually lose only the peripheral structures relating to sound transduction (the cochlea) or positional orientation (the vestibular apparatus). The input from a sensory substitution system can reach many brain structures including those anatomically and physiologically related to the lost sensory modality. Providing information from artificial receptors offers an opportunity to restore function" (taken from the abstract).

I hope that helped somewhat! I'm not very educated on the topic but could probably look up more articles if you're interested in this example.

u/French_Bulldog · 2 pointsr/sex
u/redlightment · 2 pointsr/Buddhism

try these four steps method by Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz

If you can't open that page , here's a quick summary:

Recognize that the intrusive obsessive thoughts and urges are the RESULT OF OCD.

Realize that the intensity and intrusiveness of the thought or urge is CAUSED BY OCD; it is probably related to a biochemical imbalance in the brain.

Work around the OCD thoughts by focusing your attention on something else, at least for a few minutes: DO ANOTHER BEHAVIOR.

Do not take the OCD thought at face value. It Is not significant in itself.

Here are some books that helped me:

You Are Not Your Brain: The 4-Step Solution for Changing Bad Habits, Ending Unhealthy Thinking, and Taking Control of Your Life

The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science

u/margirtakk · 2 pointsr/videos

If you have any interest in the science and strategies behind these kinds of recoveries, this book is amazing.

The Brain That Changes Itself

u/gottabtru · 2 pointsr/politics

The Brain that Changes Itself a book about how scientists are learning how to help people overcome many problems using "brain plasticity". It's not a book about torture and it doesn't touch on that very much but it does mention people in solitary, how it impacts their mind and how they had to adapt to maintain sanity. According to the book and the case studies that it presents, the brain has incredible power to overcome things that many people didn't believe could be overcome. But it can also be it's own enemy...and be distorted by traumatic things. To me, solitary is a particularly cruel form of punishment.

u/the_shib · 2 pointsr/videos

Crazy! I'm reading a book right now on brain plasticity and it's amazing how the brain can be re-taught how to us that hand (through repetitious exercises like stacking blocks for 8 hours a day)

The book is The brain that changes itself. It's really good and anyone will understand it. Check it out!

u/orderedchaos · 2 pointsr/AskReddit


Read the chapter on sexuality. Providing you take in the information and use it then this will help you much more than any Ask Reddit post.

Seriously, it will change the way you think about sexuality forever (and about a lot of other things aswell)

and ignore brock_lee. He is wrong.

u/procrastinatingfromp · 2 pointsr/medicine

These are a few that I really liked:

Lisa Sanders, Every Patient Tells a Story

Norman Doidge, The Brain That Changes Itself

u/ProjectVivify · 2 pointsr/SleepApnea

I'm 35years old and have recently been diagnosed with mild sleep apnea ~10 AHI. I've bought an auto CPAP and have been on treatment for around one week. I feel better so far although I'll need months to quantify the improvement.

Prior to this I was on a 1 month trial where I couldn't identify how crucial CPAP was until the trial ended (which I've been told is common for mild sufferers). It was around 2 months without treatment between the end of the trial and when I bought the machine a week ago.

Like you I suffered from chronic fatigue, anxiety, depression, memory issues, brain fog etc. After treatment it was clear to me that many of the fears I had were based on cognitive patterns developed while under the effect of a physiological anxiety and depression.

So in plain english, things aren't likely to be as bad as you perceive them to be. I'm not trying to downplay the potential need for rehabilitation because now that I'm on CPAP I intend to create a brain rehabilitation plan that includes the items below.

For you in particular I would do the following:

  • Read a few books on Neuroplasticity. (Eg The Brain that Changes Itself, The Power of Neuroplasticity)

  • Get therapy to fix any maladaptive cognitive behaviours you've developed while under the influence of apnea created anxiety. You want a therapist specialised or familiar in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. If you can't afford a therapist, get a self-help book like Feeling Good. Frankly, I think everyone should undertake some CBT sometime in early adulthood anyway, but I think you could use it in particular.

  • Fix your habits now that your mind is working again. Create good sleep hygiene by cutting out blue light (f.lux app for computers/phones) and turning off electroncs an hour before you sleep (which should be ~10-10:30pm). Eat a balanced diet and supplement with Omega 3 fish oil for healthy brain function. Exercise ~ 3 times a week (preferably weights, but otherwise cardio/sport). Consider cutting down or eliminating alcohol and other drugs that may cause cognitive impairment.

  • Take up Meditation which has been shown to improve executive function. 20 minutes per day concentrating on your breathing, nothing fancy. There are guides to simple forms of breath meditation all over the place.

  • Non-electronic based brain teasers. Get a big book of puzzles and fit it into your routine. I recommend non-electronic because the semi-dissociative state induced by videogames doesn't activate all areas of your mind.

  • Find a good memory training program. I don't have much experience with this yet, but I've heard there are some good books on this.

  • If you have easy access to medical care, consider getting a referral to a neurologist for an MRI and talk your concerns over with him. Maybe there is little to no atrophy of your brain. You can't really tell from the inside except for poor memory/brain fog. Try getting another MRI in 6 months to a years time on your recovery regime to see how things have changed.

    Beyond all this I think its important to just do the best you can with the resources and knowledge you have available and not beat yourself up for what might have been and things beyond your control.

    Good luck.

    edit: broken links the bane of my life
u/twerq · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

There is a whole chapter devoted to it in The Brain that Changes Itself.

Really cool book, I think a lot of you would enjoy it. Talks alot about how plastic your brain is, and about a lot of cool technology for repairing damaged brain function (walking after strokes, helping the blind to see, the deaf to hear, etc).

u/bluebox1 · 2 pointsr/NoFap

Everyone needs to pick a new hobby. New skill you learn engages brain in a good way. I read this in 'The brain that changes itself'

u/castillar · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

[edited to fix quoting issue]

Chess. Currently, I suck at it, but then Anatoly Sharansky probably wasn't the world's greatest player either, when he went into solitary:
> Anatoly Sharansky, the Soviet human rights activist, used mental chess to survive in
> prison. Sharansky, a Jewish computer specialist falsely accused of spying for the
> United States in 1977, spent nine years in prison, four hundred days of that time in
> solitary confinement in freezing, darkened five-by-six-foot punishment cells.
> […] During this extended period of sensory deprivation, Sharansky played mental
> chess for months on end, which probably helped him keep his brain from degrading.
> He played both white and black, holding the game in his head, from opposite
> perspectives--an extraordinary challenge to the brain.

From The Brain That Changes Itself, Norman Doidge.

(A fantastic book -- Amazon link)

u/sub-dural · 2 pointsr/ChronicPain

Neuroplasticity: neurons that wire together fire together.
Neurons that continually alert your brain to pain alter the mapping of your brain and more areas become wired for pain.
This unwires other brain functions.. memory, concentration, everything.
This is why it is hard to concentrate when you are in pain and the 'mental fog' therein.

There are some good books on the matter..
The Brain that Changes Itself by Doige
If you do not understand the science or anatomy/physiology of brain stuff, Dr Doidge does a great job explaining everything.

I am reading this one by Dr Doidge as well..

u/ctphoenix · 2 pointsr/EnoughTrumpSpam

That's generally what I think, but I also think people's behavior is highly contingent on social circumstances. If I had to pick a book that represents my view, it would be Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature.

u/MortalitySalient · 2 pointsr/AcademicPsychology

Try This by Stephen Pinker.

u/pseudoLit · 2 pointsr/writing

One thing it really drilled home for me is just how important our physiological state (if we're tired, hungry, stressed, etc.) is to our emotional reactions. That's an easy thing you can thrown into a story for added realism. It also helped me pin down what an emotional reaction actually is in a way that makes it easier for me to think about.

It doesn't really help with motivation, though. I think that's a separate topic. For character motivations, I find Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory and his model of social intuitionism really useful. His book The Righteous Mind is a nice introduction.

u/Zybbo · 2 pointsr/Christianity
u/michaelrch · 2 pointsr/environment

This misinformation is like a "greatest hits" of climate change denialism. Every single point has been comprehensively debunked to the point that they now sound like clichéd parodies of the nonsense that deniers come out with, and yet to the average Heartland supporter, they are just as comforting as the day they were coined.

While I'm here, I might as well admit that this used to really mystify me until I read these two excellent, though grim, books

Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

u/RacyOldDottist · 2 pointsr/politics

If you're also interested in more contemporary study of morality, there is "Moral Minds" by Marc Hauser. And I heard a lot about Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind" when it came out, though I still haven't read it.

u/Dookiet · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

A great book for a truly in depth description and a far more nuanced one than you get from a short TED talk is Johnathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind.

u/thexfiles81 · 2 pointsr/milliondollarextreme

> often times the answer seems self-evident at a certain point, even if it would be difficult to convince someone else

I feel this way a lot too. Sometimes it feels like even if you were to find an absolute truth, nobody would want to listen anyways.

>For what I'm working on tonight, trying to develop ideas of how belief systems get constructed in people, and what it takes to make them change or shift them.

I've been reading a book on this sort of thing lately. Here's a link. I'm most of the way through and it seems to be a pretty well put together book that makes some good points about how and why people end up believing the way they do. You might like it.

u/cornybloodfarts · 2 pointsr/worldnews

this book may give you some insight into why many folks do think there is a strong genetic component to ideological leanings. It's an interesting read, regardless of if you agree or not.

u/cassander · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Political affiliation is a LOT like religion. Name your party, it'll have prophets, saints, holy texts, rituals, and a number of proscriptions on how to live a righteous life. Ultimately people's reasons for choosing one or the other will come down not to fact, but to some moral principles they can't be reasoned out of, almost regardless of evidence. And if you want to know why politics isn't rational, read this, though bear in mind leaves self interest almost completely out of the calculation.

u/Syracuss · 2 pointsr/belgium

You've now handwaived my entire response, the question I posed is one neither one of us can answer, so I'm a little bit confused at how you came to a conclusion.

This might be a bit too forward of me, but if you ever have the time, I'd highly recommend this book. It doesn't take political stances, instead it showcases research on why political debates never end. I massively enjoyed reading it years ago, and gave me some introspection into why I took the positions I did back then, and my immobility of changing my point of view at times.

u/litatavle · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

For a bit of social psycholohy try The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Gives som good food for thought on human nature.

u/frackaracka · 2 pointsr/ABCDesis

The one book that I recommend to every single person I run into is "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion".

The book is a summation of research by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt that really changed the way I thought about how different people arrive at different moral values and perspectives, as well as articulated and crystallized what I already intuitively understood.

It had particular relevance to me as an Indian-American because when it comes down to it, the culture clash between Desi and Western values really revolves around different moral values, and the book really helped me understand the nuance and approach behind both.

u/diamondshamrock · 2 pointsr/INTP

For me, it's really just wanting to be able to change the world and impose what I believe to be logically sound on others. My love of politics stems from my love of history.

In the words of Dennis Van Roekel, "For anyone who cares about the direction of the country, engagement in the political process should be a lifetime commitment." In other words, you should ALWAYS vote. Many people never take any action because they believe their voice is so minuscule that it will not matter.

Here are some books I'd recommend if you really are wanting to start up.

u/uncletravellingmatt · 2 pointsr/atheism

I never read that book, although it seems well reviewed. I just saw the author's TED talk (again, I now remember seeing it on reddit several years ago):

If you're in college and disagree with the outlook of a book or of a professor, you have the option to transfer to another class, depending on how much you like the subject matter you'll be studying. If you just disagree with some things in one book, though, you might sharpen your best points through a little research and save them for class discussions.

u/GettingReadytoLive · 2 pointsr/exmormon

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has done a lot of research on the ideas of religion, morality, empathy, biases, villifying others, etc. He approaches morality from an evolutionary perspective. Watching and reading his work really helped me have more compassion and diffuse some of the anger I've felt. Haidt is a liberal atheist, but he acknowledges the value that can be gained from certain conservative ideals and traditions. I felt like he validated my Mormon experience and the experiences of my loved, while at the same time deconstructing them.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

TED talks:

In any case, I've gained a lot of empathy from this stuff. It probably saved my marriage and family relationships. It made me feel OK with my family as they are, even if they never change.

u/thomas-apertas · 2 pointsr/Christianity

It's nice, right? I stumbled across it in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, but IIRC it's not original to Jonathan Haidt either.

u/bluebearepeat · 2 pointsr/audiobooks

A righteous mind by Jonathan Haidt

You can find the audiobook Oh the pirate Bay of you're so inclined. It's worth purchasing though imo.

u/CptGoodnight · 2 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

There's a book by a psychologist named Jonathan Haidt called "The Righteous Mind." I found it there. Here is the excerpt:

From page 334 of The Righteous Mind (emphasis added):

In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in Care and Fairness. You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal newspaper the Village Voice, when he wrote:

>Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm)

One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic-who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living-to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own. Morality binds and blinds.

u/guymn999 · 2 pointsr/SandersForPresident

I think when talking about politics with ANYONE it is good to remember that all humans are emotional first, and rational second.

Rider and the elephant.

book recommendation on the subject

edit: check your local libraries.

u/Xenomoly · 2 pointsr/Documentaries

Yeah - that's what I was trying to convey. Jonathan Haidt wrote a lot about the phenomena in [The Righteous Mind](


I was a Democrat all my life so I remember the programming well. Around the middle of 2016 I decided to learn the Republican arguments so that I could deconstruct them and convince the Republicans that they were delusional and wrong about everything.


That backfired.


I ended up red pilling myself accidentally and when I talked to my progressive friends about it - their "wrong think" alarms went off and they went ape shit. Purged a lot of FB friends that summer. But I would not go back to the ignorance.


There is certainly still ignorance on the right and the left -- but the blind media bubble acceptance - the John Oliver parroting, the Bill Maher parroting --- that all seems so fucking hollow and stupid now. I would love to sit myself down decades ago and explain reality to my younger self before the shells of media bullshit were installed.


Thankfully - both the red pill and black pills have fully peaked and I see the whole travesty for the sick farce it is. Honk honk.

u/sidecontrol · 2 pointsr/suggestmeabook

It has been a while since I read either of the two, but I really enjoyed both Deep Survival by Laurence Gonzalez and Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl.

They both address the ability to continue on in the face of adversity. How people are able to keep going when things get really shitty, and how you can as well.

u/fullstop_upshop · 2 pointsr/CampingandHiking

[Not Without Peril: 150 Years of Misadventure on the Presidential Range of New Hampshire] ( by Nicholas Howe is a fascinating book filled with hiking and backcountry history, adventure, and misadventure.

Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies and Why by Laurence Gonzales is an interesting look at survival in the wilderness, which is always handy for those of us who spend a good deal of time in the backcountry.

u/SanJoseSharks · 2 pointsr/pics

No I'm not. I troll it from time to time for beta on routes and stuff. I believe I used to post there during my active climbing years (I started doing tree work for a living and have since slowed down much on my climbing).

I didn't even know who he was at the time. I was camping out there about to start the JMT and decided to shoulder tap to get some beer. He said Sure! and i asked if he spent much time in Yosemite. He laughed it off and said yea, 8 or 9 seasons...

We briefly spoke about a book he was reading ( Deep Survival )

He was such a nice guy. Told me to climb certain routes and stuff....

Then I humped my gear up the death slabs to the base of half dome to start my JMT hike and while running away from a rock fall (you can hear it coming) I sliced my heel open and ruined my opportunity to complete the JMT.

So i bummed around the valley for a about a month and climbed and set up slacklines over the river below middle cathedral.

u/stalker007 · 2 pointsr/MorbidReality

Deep Survival by Laurence Gonzales is good as well.

u/daringStumbles · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

Delusions of Gender

I'm not sure exactly if this fits into the kind of book your are looking for. It goes into a lot of detail about expectations and how we set ourselves and each other up to act certain ways depending on gender expression. The core I guess of the book is trying to get you to think outside of the biology of gender as absolute and focus more on the cultural influence.

u/accusative · 2 pointsr/Gender_Critical
u/ComradeGlad · 2 pointsr/IncelTears

Allow me to clarify on my first point: There are no behavioural differences between men and women that cannot be explained by nurture.

I'd direct you towards Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine:

When I was far younger, I was convince by books like The Male Brain, The Female Brain, Why Gender Matters, Boys Adrift, and Girls on the Edge that sex played an enormous role in behavior and function. I am now very skeptical of that notion. You linked three articles within your earlier post; I read the meta-analysis and the abstracts of the other two and agreed with their findings for the most part: There are substantive physical differences between a male and a female brain. However, this proves little towards behavior. Two brains can have different structure yet function at the same level, accomplish the same goal.

My argument is: Just because a male and female brain have different structure, it does not follow that their functionality is different. That leads to the dangerous psuedoscientific thought that men and women must be better at different things, and thus maintain different spheres, so on and so on. It's the sort of justification scientifically backed sexism uses.

If you want to actually prove to me that the differing structure of male and female brains is a significant cause of behavioral differences, you'll have to do a bit more digging. I would posit that the reason men and women bear behavioral differences is because of the differences in their bodies, which have led to different treatment and power dynamics throughout history.

When the sex-equals-brain-function argument really gets me going is when it starts to suggest that men aren't capable of empathy, or women aren't capable of complex problem solving. That's patently untrue, and it dehumanizes each.

u/berdbergs · 2 pointsr/TiADiscussion

And this study published last year in PNAS concluded that "human brains cannot be categorized into two distinct classes: male brain/female brain."

I'm not saying that the PNAS study (or any other study -- including the ones you cited) is 100% of reliable or methodologically perfect. I'm not a neuroscientist; I don't know enough about the subject to critically examine the methodology or results of any of these studies. But enough bad science has been done in this field that a psychologist wrote a whole book about it.

Nevertheless, thanks for the links. It's always interesting to read about the science behind trans issues.

u/ClockworkDream13 · 2 pointsr/asktransgender

This may help

A helpful way to visualize it might also be to consider it this way. Sexuality is a spectrum, similarly gender identity, and gender expression are also two different spectrums. While these three spectrums influence each other, no single one is completely influenced by another. One can even make the arguement that physical sex is also a spectrum given intersex people and other variations in physical sex.

A person who is Transgender is someone whose gender identity doesn't align with their physical sex

Transsexual is more of a medical term to describe transgender folk who have made steps or are making steps to change their physical sex to correlate with their gender identity, whether through hormones or surgery.

While all people who are transsexuals are transgender, it is not the case that all people who are transgender are transsexuals. Given that being transsexual is essentially a medical status it is often more useful for us to simply go with a shorthand when describing ourselves and say that we are trans. After all you wouldn't go around telling people about whatever medical procedures or treatments you might be going through.

Now a Cisgendered person is someone whose gender identity matches up with their physical sex. Being cisgendered is to being transgender as being heterosexual is to being homosexual, just different spectrums.

What your describing in your post isn't necessarily transgender behavior so much as a deviation from the norm of gender expression. You may enjoy stereotypically female behaviors, but you probably still identify as male, prefer male pronouns, present yourself as a male to others ect, ect.
Variations in gender expression is why we can have butch ladies and effeminate dudes, they're not trans necessarily they are just in different areas on the gender expression spectrum. Keep in mind though that since gender expression and gender identity are two separate spectrums you can have people like a butch trans-woman, or an effeminate trans-man, but trans and cis pretty much exclusively describes the relationship between physical sex and gender identity.

If you're looking to do a bit of reading I highly recommend Julia Serano's Whipping Girl for a pretty in depth analysis of these topics, and a fantastic read on top of that.

u/yousaythatbut · 2 pointsr/TheBluePill

Julia Serano's Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity discusses this concept in detail! ebook versions are available with a Google search if you can't afford it and your library doesn't have it.

u/DebasedAndRebased · 2 pointsr/funny

Yeah, that's... what she's saying isn't inaccurate, I guess, but there's really no reason to respond like that. Even when that level of anger is justified it doesn't usually accomplish anything.

Someone more eloquent than myself already wrote that book.

And thanks for not being asshole. Well, as long as you don't actually go through with outing your friend, anyway. I live every day with the fear that someone I know will flip out and do that and possibly ruin my life. Seriously, it's not cool.

u/just-a-bird · 2 pointsr/asktransgender
u/veiak · 2 pointsr/MtF

> Did any of you have similar experiences and, if so, can you please give me some advice?

I have had very similar experiences. My parents didn’t actually comprehend me when I said that I wasn’t cis until I consistently insisted that I was a woman — before that they kept selectively forgetting and their response to me mentioning anything about being a woman was along the lines of “Why didn’t you tell us before??”.

> Do any of you have any general advice for someone who recently figured out her mind?

Something that helped me trememdously was reading a book called Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity by Julia Serano (Amazon Link) because it validated my experiences, encouraged me in fighting against discrimination I may experience, and provided me with the theoretical tools to explain and understand gender in a more complex way.

Another thing to keep in mind is to avoid gaslighting yourself by questioning whether the things you experience are really valid or actually legitimate, as this spirals into a ton of mind games and just is a huge pain in the ass.

Try presenting yourself how you want to, even if it is just wearing panties or bright socks or leggings under pants a little bit of makeup. Small stuff really does make a difference and it can feel liberating to de-mystify a lot of the stuff you never learned about growing up.

Also, maybe try thinking of a name that you would like to go by and calling yourself it. In my experience, having a name allowed me to begin conceptualizing who I want to become when I couldn’t think of anything. You sort of get attached to the idea of you as {GirlNameHere} and it helps you feel out your identity.

> Is it relatively "normal" for me to be dealing with this stuff at 18?

It is totally normal. I am 19 and have been dealing with it since I was 14 when I first asked my parents if I could wear makeup.

u/icecoldbath · 2 pointsr/asktransgender
u/eoz · 2 pointsr/WTF

Um, no.

My understanding is that it's full of all the salacious medical details, but is devoid of any understanding of what it's actually like to be intersexed. Yet another cis person making assumptions and guesses while drowning out the voices of people who they're claiming to represent.

Fuck that shit. I could have cut out half a decade of my life being miserable because the media represents trans women as men in dresses or sex workers or deviants and never as someone who felt the way I felt. It was only when I stumbled upon an actual trans person talking about what it actually felt like to actually be trans that I came to admit my own feelings to myself. I finally realised that being trans wasn't all these things that people who didn't know were telling me it was.

If you want an actual introduction to trans issues, you should look at Whipping Girl by Julia Serano.

u/yipely · 2 pointsr/LGBTQbooks

I don't have them yet, but I just ordered Whipping Girl and Transgender History.

Last book I read about LGBTQ stuff was probably Gender Outlaws by Kate Bornstein.

Edits: can't type on a tablet to save my life, let alone do reddit formatting.

u/stackedmidgets · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Just an aside, but I finished reading "Men on Strike" [1] yesterday.

Not one but two libertarian women were quoted in it: Wendy McElroy and Rachel Rabbit White.


u/feminista_throwaway · 2 pointsr/TheBluePill

>And your tiny anecdotal experience = the whole rest of the US.

Dr. Smith's book wasn't research - a quote from her:

This book is not a research study, but a treatise, a call to action.

and if you read her actual book - you'll see on page 5 - accessible here online that she sourced her book from information that she gathered from internet comments on her blog and men's rights places.

Basically, she sold these men back their own words from their own forums, formatted just so it would feed seamlessly into the whole feedback loop going on. Except she charged them twenty bucks for the pleasure.

Don't fool yourself into thinking she did anything close to questioning the whole US - she just proved what suckers these men are. If I had no conscience, I would do the same. Chumps will buy anything.

u/McDoner · 2 pointsr/TheRedPill
u/iongantas · 2 pointsr/MensRights

It's all stuff that a regular reader of MensRights will know, it just happens to be this one radio journalist and the author of Men on Strike chatting about it.

u/Unharmonic · 2 pointsr/AskMen

Source 1

Source 2

I've read the article.

u/Caius_Cassius · 2 pointsr/DebateFascism

The short answer is "yes". The longer answer is still yes, but requires a little more meat.

/u/zxz242's comment portrays authoritarian communist states as being fundamentally fascistic in their basic nature. This is in line with an increasing trend in alt-right circles towards re-framing the USSR in a "fascist" light. See Kerry Bolton's "Stalin: The Enduring Legacy". North Korea is no exception to this line of thought, even if you accept the notion that it is an orthodox example of Stalinism at work.

"The Cleanest Race" is a fascinating book, based on a meticulous analysis of available North Korean primary sources. It convincingly argues that the North Korean regime subscribes to an ideological pedigree that boasts Japanese fascism - not Russian communism - as its primogenitor. Repeatedly and emphatically, the propaganda portrays the Korean people as a unique and exceptional race. The Party views its primary mission in terms of preserving the purity, the "cleanliness" of that race. This book is unique in that it takes the North Koreans at their word, instead of interpreting their actions in the context of an outdated cold war dichotomy.

Finally, /u/AgainGlummest's whistle-stop review of Kim Jong-Il's "On The Juche Idea" ought to give you enough grounds to make up your own mind, and come to the same conclusion as the other two sources listed in this post.

North Korea is fascist. Or at least, as fascist as it is possible to be without actually being Italy in the 1930s.

u/relax_guy · 2 pointsr/NorthKoreaNews

I've read similar synopsis of propaganda in this book, interesting read

u/mikitronz · 2 pointsr/northkorea

This is an old interview, as Christ0ph mentioned, but I thought I might add a couple things to update this and make the most a little more helpful. Kim Han Sol has a leadership page on nkeconomywatch here (though take note the compendium link is broken and the permalink url is wrong--i.e. you're looking at his only page there). That has newer news (e.g. the Sciences Po thing in 2013) but nothing significant.

He was only 18 in the interview too, so while an adult, he isn't fully up to speed on how the world works and his perspectives are not particularly helpful except to indicate what extreme elites and their families are exposed to. On the interview, things I noticed were:

  • You didn't post the second part of the video

  • 4:42: Notable description of American and South Korean schoolmates as "really great friends". This would be punishable by death in NK in other circumstances.

  • 10:00: Expresses seemingly sincere understanding and appreciation of what might be the seeds of an internationalism. Kim Jon Un initially gave similar but ultimately unfulfilled hope.

  • Throughout, he makes casual references to North Korea and South Korea, probably indicating a lack of understanding that the terms DPRK and ROK are chosen intentionally to signify singular legitimacy. This is evidence that he is not involved with official international business of NK (no one has said he is, but e.g. it doesn't appear he has received significant training on the topic).

  • In video 2, at the 1 minute mark: "My South Korean friends" is repeated, describing disagreement with official policy to avoid South Koreans. "Really close friends and travel together." It is likely that this means he does not have even unofficial security provided by NK. SK has very particular rules about this kind of camaraderie (heh) but given that it is internationally done I doubt that is relevant.

  • Interviewer, a former defense minister (???), talked about the sadness of starvation while seeing military parades while he nodded, indicating a lack of support for the regime's political choices of Songun, and a distinct lack of disagreement on what is officially held to be international lies designed to undermine the state. Some argue (here recently, here famously) that Songun isn't a real policy or that it is misunderstood. That may or may not be so, but it is what the state chooses to make public statements about, and this isn't in line with that.

  • 6:12, 6:28, 7:00: While appropriately qualifying it, he guesses that his dad, the older sibling, is not the "dictator" because he is not interested in politics. Then refers to KJU as a dictator at 6:28. Then to KJI at 7:00. This choice of words is...surprising. This makes me think this is not a scripted propaganda push from within the North (e.g. we have moderates), not a scripted push from NK elites outside trying to get back in (e.g. not Jong Nam trying to vie for power through his own family network as this just goes too far to be credible within NK and because it crosses generations), and likely just a sign of an 18 year old trying to be amiable and not realizing the impact of these statements.

  • 10:26: "Always dreamed of going back and making things easier for the people there." Always dreamed of unification (because 1) sad and 2) can't hang out with my friends in South Korea).

  • Future: volunteering, advanced degree, contribute to building world peace, especially at home in a divided Korea, perhaps beyond 10 years.

  • 13:25 interviewer says she would like to have him as her own grandson. Awkward.

    Edit: formatting


    I forgot to add a funny tidbit after this came out: He apparently was reported missing by his friends link and later found. The same thing happened after the execution of Jang Song-thaek.
u/Red_Desi · 2 pointsr/asianamerican

>How about as defined by literal North Korean refugees?
>Brought to you by the CIA shills over at the Washington Post.

Defector stories can't be trusted. That's coming from imperialist media. And WaPo is hardly trustworthy when it comes to railing against US imperialism. They've been pro-war for well over a decade including Iraq.

>Yeah, TIL Rhee Syngman is just as bad as Kim Ilsung who appropriated Japanese imperial propaganda to portray himself and his family as divine rulers.

Yes Syngman Rhee was a literal fascist who committed genocide and supported US imperialism as a means to gain a foothold in Korea. Can you find any firsthand evidence from any actual piece from the DPRK that states they're divine rulers of any sort?

>TIL the United States is literally worse than North Korea.

Glad I could teach you something.

>By the way, how does your precious revolution against the bourgeoisie (you should spell your own buzzwords correctly) stack up against the communist elite who live large in the west and send their kids to the top European boarding schools in the dirty, imperialist west?

Yeah those stores are for people who come from overseas. There's a reason why they're cash only. It's almost as if the DPRK has faced embargoes and sanctions for literal decades keeping it at the position of a developing nation and not the home of the absolute finest institutions in the world compared to nations that have been built on literal Nazi gold. Excuse me for making a spelling error, but a word that's been used for literally over a century in mainstream Western nations is hardly a "buzzword."

>I guess some people are just more equal than others, comrade.

The end goal is to end that system. I suppose supporting inherent inequality is much easier for you though seeing as how the vast majority of Asian Americans are wealthy and come from well off families.

>So I guess concentration camps are fine as long as you hate America.

From that article, "The report is based on testimony from North Korean defectors." Well as I've demonstrated earlier DPRK defectors are hardly reliable witnesses or evidence to anything significant so without actual material proof (we as leftists tend to hold historical materialism to a much higher regard.

>Dude, you're a tankie.

I don't know how liberals got a hold of this word but it's hilarious to see. Define "tankie" if you would.

u/Pro_Quote_Maker · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Oh and Hitchens is not just basing it off his one experience with a tour guide. He's also basing it off of the book that the article is reviewing: The Cleanest Race, which is a great read. It convincingly argues that North Korea is misunderstood in the West--it isn't really a communist state so much as a totalitarian racist hate state. The point of this article is the book, so he's talking about what the book talks about. He just uses his experiences to put his review in perspective.

u/dethswatch · 2 pointsr/northkorea

it's great, and when you're done with that, the Cleanest Race is also good.

u/Therunningrock · 2 pointsr/unitedkingdom

This book is my favourite, it demonstrates how the North Koreans can excuse getting aid, whilst also being hostile. (The propaganda states that North Korea is a perfect child. It is always precious and righteous but needs protection and help due to it being a child) TBH I think the best situation would be for internal politics in the region to collapse. Any sort of revolt would most likely be crushed by the (relatively) massive army that North Korea has.

u/jcbsmnz · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Glad I could help! For more info, you should check out Steven Pinker's The better Angels of Our Nature.

u/Autodidact2 · 2 pointsr/DebateAChristian

I don't base my views on my own experience, but on more objective sources. You may be interested in, and surprised by, The Better Angels of our Nature, by Stephen Pinker. It is fascinating and surprising.

Also, I'm almost 59, so I'm not sure whether I'll have another 20 years or not.

u/zombiesingularity · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

You are mistaken. I suggest you read the following book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" by Steven Pinker.

If you are a fan of history, statistics, and extremely exhaustive and careful analysis, you will be compelled to change your mind on the issue of historical violence rates.

u/Surprise_Buttsecks · 2 pointsr/news

> Maybe I'm just getting old and falling victim to 'Back in my day' syndrome.

It's entirely this. Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature has lots of statistics to back up how crime and violence have declined, but it also has some accounts (first couple chapters) of how casually cruel life was 100+ years ago. And not just casually cruel, but that shit was basically celebrated. Things are much better now.

u/ristoril · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

Just what was described in Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature was good enough to make it clear that humans can be extensively and creatively despicable.

u/Albertican · 2 pointsr/MapPorn

An interesting take on this is in The Better Angels of our Nature by Stephen Pinker. He argues quite persuasively that it's not wealth that determines level of violence in a society, but the degree to which citizens have surrendered to the authority of their government. In other words, how much they have agreed to the notion that a monopoly on violence should be granted to the state.

For example, in much of the American West and South, the government was much weaker until much more recently. Police and the legal system couldn't enforce people's rights, so people dealt with perceived injustices themselves, and that typically involved violence.

In New England (as well as "old England"), in comparison, the police and courts have been functional and reasonably effective for hundreds more years. People are more comfortable granting the government a monopoly on violence, and they are more trusting that the government will provide justice to them if they're wronged.

The argument goes that even after "the law" reached all parts of the country, areas that were settled in lawlessness tended to have ingrained habits of violence that have carried through to today. As you can see in this map showing violent crime by state, the West and South clearly have more violence than New England. I think you could also argue that this process is present in Canada as well (legend in article) - generally the oldest, most established provinces have lower crime rates, namely Quebec and Ontario. Impoverishment is still an issue, but note that the struggling Maritimes have lower crime rates than booming Alberta.

u/Issachar · 2 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

> states are necessarily brutal.

States are objectively less brutal than the alternative. And with your comment about wanting falsifiable theories, you'll be glad to know that this is confirmed by the sheer weight of historical evidence.

If you want a good summary, try this:

It's long, but that's only because he takes his time utterly obliterating the fantasy that a stateless society is anything other than orders of magnitude more violent than state societies.

The anarchist fantasy world is just that... a fantasy. It only works when it lives in the protective shadow of a state, which is to say... it doesn't work.

u/bloomindaedalus · 2 pointsr/AskMen

Yeah i wasn't being snarky. just dorkily name-dropping. (cause im uncool like dat)

In fact, as somebody who almost seriously went to graduate school for linguistics and/or cognitive science, I can attest that though Pinker is an old hero of mine, when he started getting all positive about the world i wasn't all in at first..

But he is persuasive.


For those playing "life sucks but i want to believe it is getting better" along at home here's a start:






u/Praesentius · 2 pointsr/atheism

I get the feeling that you probably already know about this stuff, but here is is anyway: Steven Pinker at Edinburgh

And the book.

The book is pretty long, but worth it from cover to cover. The lecture at Edinburgh is a nice summary.

u/yager13 · 2 pointsr/samharris

>This doesn't make you not racist.

That's just semantics.

> And what are those racial differences?

Let's start with the obvious. Clearly, given the sheer size of the population, Chinese and Indians ought to dominate the Olympics 100m-dash. But they do not. Almost all of the medalists have come from descendants of West Africa. Interestingly, as of late, Jamaicans have outperformed African-Americans despite coming from poverty-stricken environment with inferior training infrastructure. Same story with long distance running and marathons, where East Africans have dominated. These people are at a severe environmental disadvantage, so the case for cultural difference doesn't make sense in this case. So what is the reason? Well, a gene called ACTN3 - sometimes called a "sprint gene" - which is expressed primarily in fast-twich muscle fibers, were found in high frequency among the West-Africans. So, more ACTN3 genes you have, the more likely you will run faster in short distance. On the other hand, slow-twitch fibers aid you in endurance sports - such as distance running - and East Africans tend to have more of them than fast-twich fibers.

If you are interested, have a look at "The Sports Gene" by David Epstein, where he goes into depth on this topic.

The science is already pretty clear on this issue : There are meaningful, statistically significant differences between varying ethnic/racial groups. And this is common sense, if you think about it. The reason Japanese are shorter on average than Dinka people of Sudan is not because they are more poor and nutritionally deficient.

So, the burden is on you to explain to me why there can't be any differences in terms of mental capacity or personality traits between races - of which there are some scientific evidence, although not as conclusive - when there are clear differences regarding physical makeup and ability. If you take animals of the same species and let them evolve in separate environments for centuries, exposed to varying degrees and kinds of selection pressure, they will show significant differences in physical strength and temperaments. Why shouldn't the same law of nature apply to human beings? Not all scientific facts are in favor of liberal/leftist ideology. Just as right-wingers are in denial about climate change, liberals have their fair share when it comes to scientific blind spot.

>I don't think it's so much that the west are the only ones who have done it. It's that the west has done it to far greater effect and has done far greater damage with it than anyone else. And sure, I'll bet if Southeast Asia was in a position to colonize Europe, they would have. I don't see why that should matter, though.

>You're not supposed to "feel sorry" for Southeast Asia as though the region itself has feelings. Individual people were harmed by colonialism, and are still by its lingering effects.

That's just sheer display of ignorance.

You can easily make a case that Mongol Invasion of Europe and other continents in 13th century were more devastating in terms of the number of people died as a proportion of the world population at that time. Do you also feel sorry for all the casualty deaths incurred by Muslim invasion of the West that happened throughout Middle Ages and up until 19th century by the Ottoman Empire? If you do not, you have very partial understanding and biased view of world history.

Yes, the West has done some damage to the world in recent times. At the same time, a lot of great modern scientific breakthroughs and technological innovation of the Western civilization have brought about unprecedented amounts of wealth to this world. People are living longer than ever due to advances in medicine, and we are living in one of the most safest, peaceful, prosperous, and most egalitarian (with regards to human rights) time period than ever before.

u/Steven81 · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

As far as lay public goes, start here:

Possibly the best researched book around violence directed to lay people... His sources especially are eye opening...

u/TheAbyssGazesAlso · 2 pointsr/starcontrol

I highly recommend both Sapiens, and also The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker (which Bill Gates calls "the most inspiring book I've ever read")

They'll make you think (a lot) but they're good reads and super interesting.

u/GenerativeSeeds · 2 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Also, was that citation needed a request for my source? Steven Pinker wrote a great book about violence, to combat many of the misconceptions and speculations that people have surrounding the topic.

u/zajhein · 2 pointsr/news

Obviously people's changing perspective affects their behavior along with cultural and social norms, from views on slavery to civil rights or from war to types of government over the ages, but all of that and our reactions to it are based on human nature. We all have biases, complex motivations, and evolved tendencies which can make us get jealous, angry, and so on resulting in horrible mistakes, while also causing us to fall in love, express gratitude, and feel empathy with others, along with the unintended consequences and unexpected results which can always haunt us.

That doesn't mean we can't temper unwanted behavior through laws criminalizing violence, shunning bigotry in media, or removing incentives to cheat, while supporting desirable behavior by promoting education, rewarding cooperation, and building helpful institutions, which people have been attempting to do for millennia. Sometimes these attempts succeed in addressing one problem yet cause other issues we didn't expect, such as the rise of globalism. Other times they fail miserably and hurt even more people than they were meant to help, like the war on drugs.

Our perspectives on the world motivate or discourage us from implementing the changes we think it needs, yet through it all we are still bound by human nature and the consequences of trying to apply our lofty ideals onto the slippery nature of reality. Meaning that no matter what perfectly moral laws we create, people will still react with violence in times of stress. That however much we condemn racism, people are prone to categorizing others as different. And while we can educate people better than anyone else in the past, ignorance will always cause problems.

This doesn't mean the world hasn't been getting better than the past, it truly has in many ways, but that unless we start changing our DNA, some humans will continue to make the same old mistakes we've made for millennia, only with fewer and fewer people making those mistakes as progress marches on.

(I realize this was less an answer to your question and more of a concept I wanted to express to anyone willing to read it. And for anyone wanting to know more on how things are actually getting better, The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker, and Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think by Hans Rosling explain things much better than I could.)

u/ThomasEdmund84 · 2 pointsr/askpsychology

Stephen Pinker does a great book on how violence has been on the decline historically.

I have reflected on this issue a lot and the main conclusion I've come to is that all people are caught between a central conflict of: "do I whats best for me and mine, or work for the greater good" For many self-interest rules their behaviour. Furthermore people disagree on what is best for the world, i.e. left and right wing politics. So even if all people wanted to work towards the greater good they disagree on what will get to the greater good.

Finally there is this viscous cycle in the world of endless retribution. Most of the Western world hates ISIS at present due to their terrorist acts, (fair) but I would also say that half the reason ISIS exists is out of the military actions of the western world in the Middle, but of course those military actions were likely prompted by the LAST horrific terrorist acts, and so on. The problem is that if people don't want to see the actions of their enemies in historic context with any sort of justification, they see their enemies actions as simply evil acts.

u/succulentcrepes · 2 pointsr/changemyview

If you find the video interesting, I highly recommend the book on the same subject. I'm reading it right now, and if offers a pretty good case (so far) that we should be optimistic about the future, largely by showing that humanity and life has been consistently getting better throughout history so far. We have a natural tendency to assume the past was better than it really was.

u/theobrew · 2 pointsr/Christianity

>Why all these warnings not just against murder, but against Christians being murderers? It seems God knew these things would happen and wanted to warn His church about it before they did.

Thats my point. Crusades and inquisition are over. For the most part Christianity has gotten back to its roots and is more peaceful comparatively. If God was going to strike when Christianity was at it's most corrupt state God missed the ball there.

>That's really not academic. You know very well that violent death during the 20th century has skyrocketed compared to all other centuries.

Except for the research that this Psychologist has research that says otherwise. Also check out this article.

You see when I make a claim I have research to back it up. Your claim that violent death has skyrocketed is unfounded and based on tuthiness and not fact.

Your little war video doesn't factor in the realization that smaller skirmishes happened earlier in history and were not recorded as often. So these recorded 'battles' have a stronger weight toward the modern understanding. And then the video even has the audacity to include many of these smaller skirmishes towards the timeline because we have a better recorded history of them. Not to mention that a video like this is not peer reviewed and is heavily steeped in confirmation bias.


>I never said "I KNOW FOR A FACT."

>If it's true, then why not proclaim it?

Man you like to contradict yourself in just a couple of lines.

>If I truly believe it, and can see plain evident signs of it, then why not proclaim it?

Because your "plain evident signs of it" have been around since the beginning of humanity. Nothing you have stated as a sign of the end times hasn't been true of the entire history of humanity. I emphasize this point by showing how not only are we not living in the most corrupt time in human history but that the opposite might be true.

Show me one sign that couldn't have been said to have been true 10,000 years ago and I will concede. And Israel doesn't count because the generation that saw its creation was going to be the end so that is out as well because the statue of limitations on it being a sign is up.

I'm not saying your not allowed to believe what you want to believe. But don't believe it under false pretenses. EVERY generation has had its handful of people who honestly believed they were living in the end times. This is because EVERY generation of humanity has been corrupt in some way. Evil exists in this world. We look forward to the eschaton in hopes that one day no more evil will exist in this world.

But as for right now mine and what should be your goal as well is to bring Christ's kingdom to the here and now. How do we do that? If we see an injustice we squash it. If I can reach out to one person tomorrow and help take some of their pain away and squash just a little bit of evil in this world I am working towards bringing christ's kingdom to the here and now. I'm working towards taking that eschatological hope for the future and rather than longing for it in the distance I am working for it here and now.

What I see you doing is waiving your arms in the air crying out for God to come save humanity from evil when God is looking back going "Hey! you see that guy you're telling the end is near? guess what he's in pain help him destroy that little bit of evil in the world and get off your butt and help bring my kingdom to earth!". That isn't done by preaching God's word alone. It also requires action.

It requires things like rather than fighting congress for a bill to end abortion that you are in the city streets fighting for an end to the evil where women feel it is their only viable option. God's kingdom isn't on capitol hill in the laws of the land. It's in the homes of the broken. Its with the 19 year old who's parents kicked her out and found love in all the wrong places. Show her God's kingdom not God's condemnation. When we can end the cycle of abuse and poverty then we are working to end evil.

St. Francis of Assisi "Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words."

u/HaiKarate · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

I've been reading a book by Steven Pinker called The Better Angels of Our Nature; it's about the decline of violence over the entire history of man.

One of my takeaways so far is that religion has had almost nothing to do with the decline of violence; it has existed as far back as we have recorded history. And, in many cases, ancient religious texts actually encourage violence (such as the Old Testament). "Thou shall not kill" only applied to Jews, as they were commanded to kill the men, women, and children of many other nations; there was also the problem that their god commanded the murder of many within their tribe for religious disobedience.

What has most effectively lowered violence and increased morality, I think, is our growing interdependence on one another. As hunter/gatherers, the world was horribly violent; it was literally "kill or be killed". Then we banded together in larger tribes for mutual protection. Then we became farmers, which required long periods of peaceful co-existence to produce crops. Then we formed large cities, where many of the necessities of life were outsourced, and we traded money for necessities that were produced by others rather than creating them ourselves.

As society grows more and more sophisticated, I think that an increased emphasis on morality is the byproduct; it has become a necessity in order for people to live together in community.

Rather than reducing violence, I think that religion encourages violence, because it encourages the thinking that people can be divided into two groups: the Chosen and the Fallen. And the Chosen often believe that they must advance the kingdom of their god in society by any means, including acts of violence.

u/inboil · 2 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

One paper does not 'prove' anything, but I did look at it, and I looked at the law and economics literature in general and it seems like there is indeed a concensus on there being both gender and racial bias in the us justice system.



and here

Here is a nice review on the issue of gender and crime. Among other things they looked at FBI arrest statistics which show that males are arrested with much higher frequency than females. I checked the official statistics for my country, Norway

>Female perpetrators are still rare, but are nevertheless more common than
before. Out of a total of 307 000 sanctioned in 2007, 66 800 were women,
which represents 23 per cent.

It appears we also might have a judicial bias according to the following from same article:

>Approximately 9 per cent of new inmates in prisons are women. However,
women are given shorter sentences than men, which means that only just
below 6 per cent of inmates are women. The corresponding figure was 3 per
cent 25 years ago.

So the bias emerges from the fact that although 23% of perpetrators are women, only 6 per cent of inmates are women. I feel we now have established that the US juidicial system and possibly the norwegian are biased towards women. But it is also clear that women commit far fewer crimes. And this holds true across cultures, although I honestly can't find a good source for it, if you find one let me know.
The gender difference in crime is there. And there have been many attempts to try and explain it, from many different perspectives, including many different evolutionary explanations. Here is one example.

Whenever something is a cultural universal it is a strong indicator that something biological is going on. If something is specific to certain cultures (like the oppression and social inequality of black people) it is more likely historical cultural and socioeconomic explanations.

I admit I am probably biased towards a biological explanation than a sociological, or historical explanation because it is closer to my field. I do think it's because of biology, but there are no interdisciplinary concensus on this, (as far as I know, I am no expert on the subject).

Lastly I recommend Steven Pinkers book the better angels of our nature. This is probably the most famous and comprehensive examination of the history of violence. Pinker has this to say on the subject of gender and violence:

>Violence is largely a guy thing. In all societies, most of the homicides and assaults, and the preponderance of rapes, are committed by men, together with virtually all the tribal warfare, which is often motivated by the abduction of women or revenge for past abductions. Boys in all cultures indulge in far more rough-and-tumble play than girls do, and grown-up boys consume more violent entertainment, have more violent fantasies, and are more hawkish in their opinions and voting patterns. This is not to say that women never commit violence or are always dovish – just that there’s a large statistical difference, particularly when it comes to certain categories of violence, such as the establishment of dominance or the carrying out of revenge. The biological explanation for this psychological difference is straightforward: In virtually all mammals, males can reproduce more quickly than females, so males take greater risks to compete for mating opportunities than females do.

The main problem with subjects regarding gender is that it is highly political, making intellectually honest discourse very difficult. There is massive statistical evidence that men are more violent, and more prone to crime than females. anthropology, sociology, economics and law, psychology, are some of the disciplines that have tried to answer the question why this is. I think that biological differences is by far the most likely explanation, although it is probably a mixture of different ones. Hope this helped to illuminate my position.
PS: I just realized some of my sources might be behind a paywall if you are not affiliated with a university or read scientific journals as a hobby/profession, let me know if you need me to email you pdfs.

u/noobprodigy · 2 pointsr/daddit

Get this book.

My first little guy is 5.5 months old, and he had been needing to be held to go to sleep. He was going to bed around 10, waking up two times per night and needed to be held to go back to sleep. Now, he goes to sleep at 8, wakes up once around 3 or 4 to eat and immediately goes back to sleep until about 7:30.

It also teaches you about the signs of when they are tired during the day so that you can put them down to take naps at the right times. Timing their sleep cycle can be hard work, but now that we are in a routine, my wife, my baby and I are all happier.

I cannot recommend this book enough. My wife has been doing it all, so I don't know how early the book recommends using some of these techniques, but do yourself a favor and get it. Don't suffer through sleepless nights like my wife and I did.

u/Burn-Baby-Burn · 2 pointsr/Parenting

Kids need consistency and love a schedule. You (not your son) need to set the time and stick with it. We did the let them cry method, but there are other methods as well if it's too hard to deal with.

re: the 5.30 wakings. if you can, let him cry until it's the time you want him to get up. he'll eventually get the picture that he isn't supposed to be up or at least be quieter. This can take a week or two which is hellish, but just keep an eye on the prize.

Lastly, for my wife and I the book Healthy sleep habits happy child has been huge. It has a lot of excellent advice on how/when to alter sleep patterns depending on what age/problem they are experiencing, and different methods to deal with them.

u/CrispyBrisket · 2 pointsr/toddlers

Not that this helps - but my daughter used to drink 64oz+ of formula a day, about half at night until we switched to food when She cut down to 40ish ounces. The pediatrician always thought it should be less but we never got there. She's skinny for her age but we share meals and she usually eats a bigger breakfast, lunch and dinner than I do plus 3 or 4 healthy snacks (cheese, nuts, hummus, fruit, etc)

I give her a sippy full of water every night and she usually finishes it. I personally wouldn't be freaked about diabetes/whatever unless she's drinking that much water at night. Kids are different, and some eat way more than others.

I'd get rid of milk, cold turkey and just offer water. My daughter never accepted water in a bottle so we just put a non-leaky sippy in her crib with her at night. It seems to me like the milk is how she's soothing herself back to sleep and she's just going to have to learn to do that part on her own, minus the milk. It's tough and there's a lot of differing opinions, but I'm (now) a big believer in cry it out. I like this book and it's gotten us through everything so far.

As far as neighbors, I'd be really honest and really nice. Go down, tell them you are trying, the next 3-4 days will be rough. Maybe bring them cookies and ear plugs as well. We lived in an apartment when my daugher sleep trained and my neighbors were surprisingly nice about it when I gave them a head's up on what was happening and apologized both before and after.

u/xboxwidow · 2 pointsr/Mommit

Start with this book on sleeping.
Drop one feeding at a time, replacing the daytime ones with meals. I would call a lactation consultant at your local hospital, they can really help guide you through this part of the process as well.

u/CatAnxiety · 2 pointsr/Parenting

I know Weissbluth recommends earlier bedtimes to make sure they are getting enough sleep (it's easier to put them down earlier than to get them to sleep in, allegedly). It works for us (daughter is two and goes to bed at 7:30, and is up by 7:30) but every parent has to do what works best for their families. I also appreciate having adult time with my husband for a few hours a day, it helps us reconnect and unwind after a stressful day.

u/atchemey · 2 pointsr/CFB

Education. It is when more important in China than here for economic advancement. The "awesome experience" is definitively subjective. Just as you or I would be lost in China, and think their customs and habits odd, it would be rude for them to expect us to conform. Obviously, that is the intent of some exchange students, but to coerce (by force or social pressure) is to be violent against them.

There is quite a lot of anti-international violence and stigmatizing that goes on. I'm on a few boards and committees about discrimination and the like, and we hear complaints all the time. I guarantee you, it is a problem. When people start saying things that are problematic, I call them out, in the hopes of exerting some sort of pressure on them to help things get better. Standing by or making jokes isn't good, so I challenge it when I hear it, as I did here.

I recommend the book, "why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?" by Dr. Beverly Tatum.

u/ravencrowed · 2 pointsr/Anarchism

it depends what you mean by identity politics

certain socially ascribed identities are obviously a means of power and hierarchy reproduction that need to be destroyed.

However when well meaning activists work within the twisted logic of those identities, they inevitably prop up the social hierarchies, even though they appear to be attacking them.

Here's a good example:

"Anyone who's been to a high school or college has noted how students of the same race seem to stick together. Beverly Daniel Tatum has noticed it too, and she doesn't think it's so bad. As she explains in this provocative, though not-altogether-convincing book, these students are in the process of establishing and affirming their racial identity"

In this example, the well meaning author is using the liberal language of anti racist activism, yet far from actually destroying the paradigm of "race" she is encouraging it to be reproduced.

We all know that modern race ideology was a European colonial/imperial invention. The ideology has permeated and continues to permeate the world and racism is very much alive and well, hence the need for identity politics to make us aware of this. However, true anti-racist politics will work outside of racial ideology and continue the slow and steady process of anti racist activists who prioritize the individual and negate the very concept of race itself.

So, no identity politics is not killing the left, but we need to be careful about what IP is and if there is an oppressive hierarchal ideology, IP must work to destroying it's currency, not working within it's oppressive frameworks.

u/daretoeatapeach · 2 pointsr/education

Dumbing Us Down by John Taylor Gatto

The opening essay of this short read is a condemnation of traditional schooling techniques---and it's also the speech he delivered when he (again) won the NY Teacher of the Year award. Gatto gets at the heart of why public schools consistently produce pencil pushers, not leaders. Every teacher should read this book.

How to Survive in Your Native Land by James Herndon

If Dumbing Us Down is the manifesto in favor of a more liberal pedagogy, Herdon's book is a memoir of someone trying to put that pedagogy in action. It's also a simple, beautiful easy to read book, the kind that is so good it reminds us just how good a book can be. I've read the teaching memoir that made Jonahton Kozol famous, this one is better.

The Montessori Method by Maria Montessori

In the early 1900s, Maria Montessori taught literacy to children that society had otherwise assumed were unreachable. She did this by using the scientific method to study each child's learning style. Some of what she introduced has been widely incorporated (like child-sized furniture) and some of it seems great but unworkable in overcrowded schools. The bottom line is that the Montessori method was one of the first pedagogical techniques that was backed by real results: both in test scores and in growing kids that thrive on learning and participation.

"Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?": A Psychologist Explains the Development of Racial Identity by Beverly Daniel Tatum

While not precisely a book on how to teach, this book is incredibly helpful to any teacher working with a diverse student population, or one where the race they are teaching differs from their own. It explains the process that white, black, and children of other races go through in identifying themselves as part of a particular race. In the US, race is possibly the most taboo subject, so it is rare to find a book this honest and straightforward on a subject most educators try not to talk about at all. I highly recommend this book.

If there is any chance you will be teaching history, definitely read:

Lies My Teacher Told Me and A People's History of the United States (the latter book is a classic and, personally, changed my life).

Also recommend: The Multi-player Classroom by Lee Sheldon and Teach Like a Champion by Doug Lemov

Finally, anyone who plans to teach math should read this essay, "Lockhart's Lament" [PDF at the bottom of the page].

PS, I was tempted to use Amazon affiliate links, but my conscious wouldn't let me.

u/Joel928 · 2 pointsr/unpopularopinion

If you held a press conference and rolled-out a functioning teleporter - people would complain about the loss of community in airports, and the missing "me-time" found on the fucking bus.

Not to mention that the ability to travel anywhere, do anything, or become virtually anyone - makes them, you know, depressed.

People, you are running out of excuses for being a loser.

I was born in the late-60's and saw Star Wars in a theater, watched Jaws uncut on HBO when my parents were sleeping and was amazed the first time I saw images from the World Wide Web as a twentysomething on my 9600 baud modem.

Not to mention the proliferation of smart phones - which is literally Star Trek technology come to life. Instantaneous global communication at a throw-away cost - absolutely astonishing. Oh yeah, and global, free, video communication to a billion people from your living room. CHECK.

We live in an incredible time, in fact, we're experiencing a new Golden Age (as Scott Adams would say). The entire world has never been healthier, safer or more productive - not to mention we are closer to actual WORLD PEACE than we ever have been as a civilization. (OMG - A BOOK!)

Remember this the next time there's a power failure - that's how your Great-Great-Grandparents, and thousands of generations before them lived. In fucking darkness. Often dying - of diarrhea.

If you can't get your shit together now, the problem isn't The World - it's YOU.

u/freshfired · 2 pointsr/fatFIRE

Try to keep in mind that popular media rarely presents a proportionately balanced view of the world. Due to fundamental incentives, media tends to be biased toward particular kinds of attention-grabbing sensationalism and pessimism.

Wanting to accurately perceive the state of the overall world beyond our personal experiences is admirable, so good for you. Investing the time to increase understanding helps us react rationally and responsibly.

A useful starting place is this brief TED talk by the amazing statistician Hans Rosling. Good books include Pinker's "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress" and Ridley's "The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves".

u/electricworkaid · 2 pointsr/news
u/remphos · 2 pointsr/trippinthroughtime

The author released a book just this year called Enlightenment Now if you want an updated take.

>Also, it bugs me when people point out stuff like a global decline in violence without acknowledging that the global trend can be good while the American trend is bad.

Violence in America has decreased too.

Also I don't think that waning power in thr US will necessarily lead to more global violence, because the factors that maintain broad peace (interconnected economies, nuclear weapons, etc) still remain.

u/Vinyalonde · 2 pointsr/BABYMETAL

I think that there is a lot of exploration going on of the ideas that the author, Harari, explores in this book. We are at a crossroads as a species I believe and we really do have some major issues to sort out such as overpopulation, income disparity between the haves and have nots, providing a greater standard of living for more of the world's population, and the ever-present climate change.

For my part, I do not think we are approaching the end of days, and in fact I believe that there are many good things about our lives today (for example, BABYMETAL). On the other hand, many perils surround us (for example, triple baconator hamburgers at Wendy's, a plot if ever there was one, put upon us by some unknown force of evil).

The author Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now offers a very upbeat outlook.

Thanks for the reference to the book. I now have two new books to read.

u/DIYjackass · 2 pointsr/ifyoulikeblank

Phantoms in the Brain

Great book, read it for a class in college in addition to Sacks' book. Foreword for the book is from Sacks as well.

u/flipmosquad · 2 pointsr/videos

phantoms of the brain by V.S. Ramachandran.

Very nice and interesting read

u/alreadyredschool · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Do you count body brain mapping as real? Do you think it possible that some cross wiring happens? Do you accept that scientists draw conclusions between such things?

Are you happy with such a theory until we create a 400 billion truman show like experiment which breaks all ethical rules?

Atoms probably don't look like that but our model is dann useful and that's important. Until we have real evidence we go with that model.


u/phantominthebrain · 2 pointsr/airsoft

Based on this book actually - great read, got me into Cognitive Science. :D

u/SynesthesiaBruh · 2 pointsr/samharris

How to Read a Book. No joke. Just getting into reading. Only read most of the Harry Potter books as a kid and just sparknoted everything I've had to read for school. So I need to learn the basics.

After that, I plan on reading What Liberal media by Eric Alterman. I torrented all episodes of The Daily Show a few weeks ago and in one of the earlier episodes Eric came in for an interview to plug the book. It's basically about how our "liberal" media is just establishment media.

After that I'm not sure, but there's a million books I want to read and I need more time on my hands...

EDIT: Actually no, after HTRAB I'll be reading Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind by V. S. Ramachandran and Sandra Blakeslee as it's a much easier read than What Liberal Media. Already read some of it, it's very fascinating.

u/3gr3ious · 2 pointsr/neuro

V.S. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain is an easy, interesting, read that covers a lot of basic brain functions in a general way using colorful stories from Ramachandran's clinical experiences. The Purves book was my first neurobio text in undergrad, but without a biology & chem background Ramachandran's book might be easier to swallow, especially since it is peppered with interesting cases of neurological disorders (i.e. Capgras syndrom, phantom limbs)

u/freakscene · 2 pointsr/IAmA

I second the reading idea! Ask your history or science teachers for suggestions of accessible books. I'm going to list some that I found interesting or want to read, and add more as I think of them.

A short history of nearly everything by Bill Bryson. Title explains it all. It is very beginner friendly, and has some very entertaining stories. Bryson is very heavy on the history and it's rather long but you should definitely make every effort to finish it.

Lies my teacher told me

The greatest stories never told (This is a whole series, there are books on Presidents, science, and war as well).

There's a series by Edward Rutherfurd that tells history stories that are loosely based on fact. There are books on London and ancient England, Ireland, Russia, and one on New York

I read this book a while ago and loved it- Autobiography of a Tibetan Monk It's about a monk who was imprisoned for 30 years by the Chinese.

The Grapes of Wrath.

Les Misérables. I linked to the unabridged one on purpose. It's SO WORTH IT. One of my favorite books of all time, and there's a lot of French history in it. It's also the first book that made me bawl at the end.

You'll also want the Adventures of Tom Sawyer, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Great Gatsby, The Federalist Papers.

I'm not sure what you have covered in history, but you'll definitely want to find stuff on all the major wars, slavery, the Bubonic Plague, the French Revolution, & ancient Greek and Roman history.

As for science, find these two if you have any interest in how the brain works (and they're pretty approachable).
Phantoms in the brain
The man who mistook his wife for a hat

Alex and Me The story of a scientist and the incredibly intelligent parrot she studied.

For a background in evolution, you could go with The ancestor's tale

A biography of Marie Curie

The Wild Trees by Richard Preston is a quick and easy read, and very heavy on the adventure. You'll also want to read his other book The Hot Zone about Ebola. Absolutely fascinating, I couldn't put this one down.

The Devil's Teeth About sharks and the scientists who study them. What's not to like?

u/usernametaken8 · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Everything you will ever experience happens in your brain. Books by Oliver Sacks and V.S. Ramachandran are entertaining without being totally overrun by misrepresentations of science.

u/rastacola · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Obviously there is zero evidence to support the theory, it just is interesting. I took a lot of theology classes and almost have a minor in the field, but I am in no means qualified to speak about Eastern religions without butchering the actual beliefs. I strongly believe that their world-view and perception of the self is different than my American Catholic upbringing, but I can try and ELY5 and not feel like I'm doing some injustice..

Basically, there are hundreds of variations of Hinduism and Buddhism that can be vastly different, but a common theme in them is mediation and the concept of Om. Om is the sound of the universe and the point of repeating the mantra during mediation is that it's a way of "melting" back into the great cosmic soup. They think (and are right) that everything in existence is part of everything else. You and I are both made out of stars. You share atoms with dinosaurs. All that good stuff.

Simply put: They think that the sound Om is the sound of the universe. the sound at which everything '"vibrates." String theory is the idea that all of the matter in the universe is connected by "vibrating strings."

I can't recall where I read that, but I am pretty sure it was in Dr. Rick Strassman's book, DMT: The Spirit Molecule.. I am fascinated the link between psychedelics, science and spirituality. If you are too, I recommend the book.

u/FlyingOmoplatta · 2 pointsr/Drugs

Prove it. The last Dmt study was by Dr Rick Strassman and it shows that peoples experiences were extremely similar to eachother Not just random hallucinations but similar experiences in almost every patient. You can read the book for yourself.

u/Supervisor194 · 2 pointsr/exjw

Ah yes, Terrence McKenna. Food of the Gods was quite an interesting read.

You might also like The Spirit Molecule, if you haven't read it already.

u/ShijinModan · 2 pointsr/LucidDreaming

This is not always true. Time perception is more often distorted in a dream. (As theoretically it is simply a reaction in the brain with nn,DMT. Outlined in the book DMT: the Spirit Molecule.)

u/kris_barb · 2 pointsr/atheism

Sure check out Dr Rick Strassmans published findings in his book released in 2000

He was one of the only sciencists authorised by the DEA to inject and study 60 patients with DMT.

u/citizen113 · 2 pointsr/atheism

Dopamine makes you feel good. Dimethyltryptamine makes you the ocean.

u/Sazrak · 2 pointsr/atheism
  • A small introduction by Joe Rogan.

  • The book he references in his talk.

  • Wikipedia,

  • And Science!

    DMT is a neurotransmitter that fools the brain by taking the place of Seratonin when active, altering the way neurons interact. The WikiPedia article goes more in-depth on this. According to Wikipedia it's core function is undetermined. It may or may not be released in large quantities before death, and may or may not play a significant role in dreaming. My speculation lower down is based on it performing both those functions as, if it does neither, there is nothing really to speculate about. I have not tried it, and highly doubt that I ever will. I would at the very least wait until some proper science on the subject is performed and you can read some more reliable information about it, there is a lot of speculation at this point.

    As the last article explains, there are physiological explanations available for the common geometric hallucinations associated with DMT (and described by Joe Rogan). I expect that in order to explain the more complex illusions such as visions of religious figures or what have you the explanations needed are more psychological than neurological (insofar as the two are separate). There have been testimonies denying this, but it is unfortunately hopelessly anecdotal. However, we can safely assume that if DMT is what produces our dreaming effects, that trying to find wisdom or truth from a hallucination is about as sensible as trying to read your dreams for answers on life.

  • Because I love to speculate, the rest of this post will pretty much be pure conjecture. I do not hold any beliefs as to the validity of any of this, until there is more information on the subject the right thing to do is suspend judgment. That isn't any fun though, so for the sake of argument, here we go:

    If there is an "alternate reality" that you can only perceive through the intake of extremely heavy hallucinogens, that is different from the reality in which we spend the majority of our time, then it is not likely that the drug-induced reality is the one that corresponds the most closely with physical reality. That's just not an evolutionary advantage - if DMT gave the benefit of penetrating a deeper layer of reality and increased perception, and our brain is capable of producing that neurotransmitter, it seems likely that we'd be doing that while awake and the other thing while sleeping if at all. Just like our observable reality is really constructed by our brain, so is this hallucinatory construction, although the functions involved in producing this reality are different - perhaps because the main input in the case of REM sleep seems to be the assimilation and dissemination of memories collected during the waking hours. The reality you perceive when you are awake and not on DMT in turn corresponds to sensory input from your sensory organs, and is more likely to be correlative to what is actually going on outside of you. If you want to figure stuff out about how your brain works, it's not completely impossible that a controlled trip might glean some insight. However, if you want to find out real stuff about how reality works, I think you are better off staying sober. If I had to guess, I would say it might be one stage in the process your brain uses to filter, organize and store the information it collects. You don't remember it, because the observable phenomena of the whole affair really isn't that important and may even be disruptive to the clear perception of actual reality.
u/HariTerra · 2 pointsr/Psychonaut
u/skafast · 2 pointsr/atheism

The first part was literally proposed by the psychiatrist behind The Spirit Molecule.
>Strassman's research connects DMT with the pineal gland, considered by Hindus to be the site of the seventh chakra and by Rene Descartes to be the seat of the soul. DMT: The Spirit Molecule makes the bold case that DMT, naturally released by the pineal gland, facilitates the soul's movement in and out of the body and is an integral part of the birth and death experiences, as well as the highest states of meditation and even sexual transcendence.

As you can see, one part does not exclude the other. I agree with you (and I've been through some crazy shit on mushrooms), but someone who doesn't won't be convinced by this text.

u/NicaraguaNova · 2 pointsr/RationalPsychonaut

The Spirit Molecule covers DMT and the clinical study on it that Rick Strassman did, its very interesting.

DMT The Spirit Molecule

u/Dennerman1 · 2 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Two great books on this very topic, but the short answer is you have the best chance to change someone's mind when they see you as someone "on their side" or in their group/tribe. If they perceive you as someone from the "opposition" then they will get defensive and no amount of convincing, facts, or persuasion is likely to have an impact on their point of view.

The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

u/gualdhar · 2 pointsr/politics

Moral Politics by George Lakoff, and The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Both are solid books on why conservatives and liberals think differently, though the first is a little dated with its references.

u/Myceliated · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive
  1. cant get addicted to dmt.. if anything it could help cure addiction

  2. don't really know what that means exactly. but simply doing dmt is not going to get you arrested.. possession however would be bad.

  3. dmt is found in every living thing.. it's known as the spirit molecule. Not a drug like any that you have ever known. It's cool if you don't want to do it, of course it isn't for everyone but I'd love if you'd take the chance and read a book by a scientist who did research on it.
u/3meopcpnumberonefan · 2 pointsr/Drugs

DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences

u/JimmyHat · 2 pointsr/Glitch_in_the_Matrix

You should check this book out

it has some insights on the exact moment that the soul enters the body through the pineal gland

u/treectma · 2 pointsr/Psychonaut

Read DMT: The Spirit Molecule.

And then check out the DMT-Nexus.

If you want the tl;dr version: There is no evidence that the pineal gland plays any role in endogenous DMT production. A ton of plants contain DMT, check out this list.

u/TotallyNotNew · 2 pointsr/ems

You should read the book "The Spirit Molecule". It focuses on DMT and near death experience, although it gets a little iffy on the spiritual side. But overall it pretty comprehensively covers what we know about this by a Dr.

u/PlayaDustBunny · 2 pointsr/Showerthoughts

There's a book about it by Dr. Rick Strassman ( that was made into a documentary (
Also, erowid is the best resource I know of for information on psychoactives.
Drugs aren't bad, ignorance and misuse are bad. =)

u/social_norms · 2 pointsr/Drugs

Its still somewhat scientific, but DMT: The Spirit Molecule was written by a psychiatrist who was overseeing a series of experiments on the effects of DMT.

The guy writes incredibly well and delves deep into the mind and intense psychedelic experiences. He makes an excellent blend of science and spiritualism that might be what you are looking for.

Otherwise, I would try reading the personal experiences on Some writers are pretty detailed and capture the moments well.

u/DarthContinent · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

You could research DMT, get some grant funding from the government, and go out to the middle of the ocean, toke up, and then try to establish communication with various sentient undersea denizens. You could try to talk with them while you're tripping balls, ask them to meet you at so-and-so coordinates (kind of in the style of Aquaman, only without the real-time sea denizen command) then stand by and wait for them to arrive.

u/raptormeat · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

Non-historian here- what do you think about the argument put forth by Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of our Nature, that violence is/has been declining over time?

u/percussaresurgo · 2 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

I do agree that it's natural for humans to be generous and share resources. But if you look at what we know about human civilizations before agriculture, cities, and the modern state, the level of violence in those societies was extremely high throughout the world and without any significant periods of decline. It wasn't until the "Leviathan" of government was put into place that we began to see the relatively peaceful societies we have today as the rule rather than the exception. Steven Pinker wrote a very good book on this that makes a far more compelling case for this and than I can here, supported by a mountain of evidence.

u/lars_ · 2 pointsr/videos

Steven Pinkers The Better Angels of our Nature is a deeply researched book that has this point as its main message.

u/flyingorange · 2 pointsr/europe

Read the book The Better Angels of Our Nature, it deals exactly with this issue. It seems that before the invention of cities, violence was around 150 times greater than right now. Same was observable with native Indians and some isolated tribes in the Amazonas and Indian ocean today.

u/DonOntario · 2 pointsr/worldnews

There's a great book on this subject, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker, that deals with not only with the "long peace" but also with the decline in warfare over longer periods, in other inter-communal violence, in homicides, and abuse and torture.

Specifically regarding the long peace of the last 60 years, I would cite the following as reasons why US hegemony and/or NATO, although important things, are not the primary causes:

  • It is a continuation of a much longer trend. (See my source above.)
  • Commerce. Much higher and accelerating trade of goods, intertangling of economies, and exposure to foreign people and ideas.
  • Increase is cosmopolitanism in much of the world. Increased exposure to other cultures and ideas, more people in country X with ties to country Y.
  • "Feminization" - increased inclusion of women in societies and increased consideration of them.
  • De-romanticization of War. It can be hard to get across to modern people, but not that long ago, war was widely seen as a good thing. I don't just mean a justifiable or necessary thing, but as something good in and of itself for the individuals involved and for the national health and spirit of the countries. That attitude was dealt a serious blow in many countries after WWI. It was almost finished off after WWII with the defeat of Nazism/fascism and then later with the decline of communism - both utopian ideologies that glorified and predicted great wars to produce a better world.
u/sonofaresiii · 2 pointsr/Filmmakers

All of them, really. Absolutely no harm will come from reading all the books out there (for a while). At worst, you'll learn ways of doing things that DON'T work for you but it's still good knowledge to have.

After a while, eventually, you'll start noticing though that all the new books out are just copying and rephrasing the books that came before them. That's when it's time to stop.

Some of the popular ones are syd field's book, Robert McKee's book, Joseph Campbell's book (and imo a book called The Writer's Journey by Christopher something that analyzes Campbell's book and puts it into modern story telling terms). That'll get you started. I have varying opinions of each of those books and none of them should be adhered to by law, but they ALL contain concepts and theories that, as a professional writer, you'd do well to expose yourself to. If for no other reason than that you can be aware of the concepts when others talk about them.

Tangentially, Stephen king's On Writing and William Goldman's books are great reads but don't necessarily apply to the craft of screen writing directly. Also useful to read any interviews or collections of interviews with screen writers. You may also want to check out some podcasts, Jeff goldsmith's interviews with screen writers is great and I have no idea if it's still available or even what it's called but I used to listen to one titled something like Sam and Jim Go to Hollywood (I am positive I got those names wrong) about two guys who up and quit their careers as restaurant owners and moved to Hollywood to become writers and share what they've learned. Ted Rossio and Terry Elliot also run, or ran, a website with forums (which are eh) and and a collection of articles about screen writing which are fantastic.

This was all stuff I was into years ago, so I don't know how much of it is still relevant, because like I said when you get to a certain point you've kind of read everything out there and it all starts repeating itself, and you realize all that's left is to read screenplays and write a ton.

Good luck.

e: back on my computer, here are some links:

Syd Field's Sreenplay (he has several books out, that's the one you should start with as it lays the foundation for basic story structure of nearly all modern movies. IMO, it's also the best one out there because he never says these are rules in any way, he simply analyzed a bunch of movies and lays out his findings for you to do with as you wish)

Robert McKee's Story

Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces

and Christopher Vogler's The Writer's Journey

Stephen King's On Writing which describes his writing style and, while I don't prefer it, is a very interesting style similar to the Cohen Brothers

William Goldman's Adventures in the Screen Trade and Which Lie did I Tell? two accounts of William Goldman's experiences as one of the top writers in Hollywood, and dealing with the business. Writer of The Princess Bride, Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid, and many others. Dude's a legend.

Jeff Goldsmith's Q&A podcast he also did the same style podcast while working for a screenwriting magazine, though the name escapes me right now

Sam and Jim Go to Hollywood holy shit I got their names right I can't believe it. Seems to be dead for a few years but it looks like their podcasts are still up.

Wordplay, Ted & Terry's website read every single one of those articles

e: BONUS! Not that useful as an educational resource, but it's fun to read Ken Levine's blog, writer on MASH and Cheers Ken's blog (no, not the guy who made BioShock)

u/franran · 2 pointsr/OneY

I suggest you stop thinking about finding/dating women and start working on yourself. Who are you, what do you stand for, who do you want to be(come). Focus on yourself. Read this

Stop the pity party, take one step forward everyday. Not toward a girl, but toward the man you are.

u/Tyler_023 · 2 pointsr/awakened

My response is: study comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism.

I would start with Joseph Campbell

u/danceswithronin · 2 pointsr/writing

I'm having a derpy autistic moment, so I can't tell if you're joking or not, but in case you're not joking, somebody [totally has written this book.] ( :D

EDIT: typo

u/moreLytes · 2 pointsr/PhilosophyofReligion

I am fascinated with both topics as well.

Recommendations on anthropology of religion:

u/scdozer435 · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

I second The Hero With a Thousand Faces as a semi-philosophical but very interesting and indirectly spiritual book. Very accessible, and a great gift (I've gifted Campbell numerous times by now).

Pascal's Pensees would be great, being very spiritually oriented and all. Kierkegaard's a bit more dense, but also has a lot of interesting things to say on sprituality. Try Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing.

u/Belskirnir_ · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

IM BLUE DA BA DEE It is called blue and the artwork is blue! what more could you want!!! its the bluest thing in the world! da ba dee da ba diiii

Summer Rae Her wwe ring name is Summer Rae, which is like summer rays which are what tan us whilst chilling in the summer. She is also hot like the summer!

Watermelon Slicer its like an apple slicer but freaking massive!!! not seen anyone ever use them but i need one in my life for the perfect melons

Elvis Searcher CD this would be for my dad, we havent always had the best of relationships but we are starting to really get along right now, would be nice to treat him with the newest album of his favourite artist that we both love, after all he has done for me recently

Karl Pilkington Book this series was one of the funniest tv shows i have ever seen and this book is just as funny, its a diary of the events and its just so stupid in places that it is sidesplitting!!!

Guitar Picks They are the best pick because they literally are picks ;)

Star Wars Doggo Costume! This is a costume for dogs and fits all sizes! You know it will be funny and cute to see the doggo walk around with a stormtrooper on him!!! ( or her)

Banana Armour I think this is useless because who puts bananas in positions where they are unarmed and need to be protected! i do need it tho

Mulan It is one of the greatest films in the world, it promotes feminism, there is romance, guilt, family honour and values, the moral of not judging a book by its cover as well as you being able to achieve anything you want, its soundtrack is a masterpiece and helped launch the career of Christina Aguilera AND it has Stevie Wonder and Donny Osmond, a panda, a cricket, batman references, a homosexual subplot, and a talking fucking dragon voiced by Eddie Murphy... what more do you want

DIY Enema kit it would be helpful because not only can it make sure your bowel movements are okay, it can be used for sexual pleasure, to help with drug or alcohol intake, it can be used for a punishment on someone who has wronged you and im 90% sure it can be used in some way to benefit the population and aid in childbirth

Nutribullet!!! to help me get healthier and lose weight before my university graduation and cousins wedding in india

Pesky Penguin Bottle Opener Its an add on and its something that Benedrillt Cumberpatch cannot say!

Tottenham Hotspur Scarf! THEY ARE THE BEST AND I LOVE THEM!!! im going to guess you are a fan of the spurs! because tottenham are also called spurs! get it?! sorry im bad at this stuff aha dont know any american teams really

Some rare pokemon haloween plush for this price i hope this is super rare and something that is signed by pikachu himself

Unicorn Poop This is special candy! real unicorn poop, trust me, its real... i promise... i think... i lied

Sweet Candies Yankee Candle this is my fav scent! its what i imagine the wonka factory smells like!!!

Pokedex!!! pokemon was my fav growing up and i used one of these bad boys to go round and try to hunt them down!

The Hero with a thousand faces book this is a book that really shows the basic outline and plot for most films and characters that the world loves! it hellped my dad and his friend when they were writing a screenplay and i feel like its a great place to start and look at !

WWE Seth Freaking Rollins Funko Pop! this is a combination of 2! i love wwe and wrestling and Seth Rollins is my current favourite wrestler! i actually wanan try to become a wrestler! and also funko pops! i am a huge collector and obsessed with them!

Random Ass Bollywood Vinyl This is one of my fav bollywood films and has a banging sountrack, just is funny that it is on vinyl!

This was a lot of fun! thankyou for this!

EDIT: Sorry still getting used to this new reddit and didnt realise the linking has changed!

u/BadnNglish · 2 pointsr/AskAnthropology

You may have read it already, but I've always found Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces to be relevant when bridging the gap between philosophy, anthropology, and psychology in debates with friends.

u/theredknight · 2 pointsr/Screenwriting

Yeah no worries happy to help, definitely PM me. I'm happy to offer you suggestions if that's useful to you.

If you're at all curious about the mechanics of what you're trying to work with your audience, it might help you to understand it based on brain science. The problem with forcing a symbol onto a character or a character into a symbol sets up a battle between your right and left hemispheres of the brain.

The right hemisphere lacks language so it largely works in meaning, symbols, images, and lives in the moment. The left hemisphere (specifically the portion behind your left eye) is constantly trying to generate a story of what it's seeing and make predictions of what will happen next based on what happened before. It also seems to contain language primarily.

So, in my opinion, symbols ideally should be generated by your right hemisphere which is responding to reality but unable to coin it words. From there, your left hemisphere should gather that up and codify it into a storyline. However, by trying to craft the symbol first, that's likely how you got a blockage. You're telling your left hemisphere to create the symbol which is disconnected by meaning because the left hemisphere doesn't really care if things are meaningful or not. It just wants to generate a story to cover it's ass.

There's a good writeup about how they learned all of this mentioned in Jonathan Gottschall's book The Storytelling Animal. Basically, in the early 1960s, a man's corpus callosum (the median between his two hemispheres) was severed and so his hemispheres couldn't talk to each other. Then, they gave the man a divider and began to show each of his eyes different things. So they might show his left eye a picture of chickens and his right eye a field of snow. They'd offer him objects and his immediate reaction came from his right hemisphere, so he'd grab a snow shovel. However, his left hemisphere had to justify why it had done that and so when questioned why he went for the snow shovel, he said "To pick up the chicken poop!"

The point is the right hemisphere is the center you want to trigger deeply in your audience. That's why peculiar symbols and mythic motifs stir people in deep ways. It's the right hemisphere that wants to swing a light saber for example, or responds to conversations in Tarantino films about food. The problem with a lot of screenplays is there's a lack of understanding of these core ideas and as a result, some people just let their left hemisphere generate story thread garbage that doesn't really make sense or work.

Now that's not to say that you have to have an insane understanding of symbolism to write a good screenplay. You don't. We all understand these things deeply in our own right hemispheres. You should, however, be aiming to be inspired by your own deeper meaningfulness but also willing to share your ideas with others to polish your storytelling. This is why oral storytellers are constantly re-working their stories.

The shortcut of course, is to utilize standard mythological motifs. However, there's problems with this as anyone who learned Joseph Campbell's Hero Journey can see. Just because you're using a mythological motif doesn't mean you're utilizing meaningful symbolism. The Hero's Journey is a collection of 12 or so motifs that Campbell saw. Well those aren't the only motifs out there. Vladimir Propp's version has about 31 core motifs (he calls functions) and Stith Thompson's collection has over 46,000 motifs and are quite useful for story generation if you develop an eye for updating old storyforms. (I've done quite a few story creation experiments using Thompson's stuff).

If you don't work from an understanding of meaning and symbolism, it's like creating a person whose bones are all dislocated from each other and therefore can't move. If your story can't move, it definitely can't move your audience. You need meaningful symbolism to pull that off, and it doesn't take much to be honest. Stanley Kubrick would write his films around 6 to 8 meaningful symbolic ideas, which he termed "non submersible units" and then craft the story around that. Ray Bradbury in his book Zen in the Art of Writing describes hiding meaningful moments from his childhood into his stories in order to give them soul as well. You get the idea.

u/slick8086 · 2 pointsr/movies

> It is sad that none of these people can come up with an original idea

Joseph Campbell would like to have a word with you

u/JerBearGRR · 2 pointsr/exmormon
  • How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee by Bart Ehrman. He provides a much more plausible explanation of who Jesus actually was and who he was not than what you'll hear in chapels.
  • The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. The same pattern of the "hero" story repeats itself countless times over thousands of years and through different cultures. The story of Jesus fits the pattern.
  • And if you want your mind blown, Freedom from the Known. The most influential book I've ever read. It provided me courage to let my own ideas and perspectives guide my worldview. It teaches that it was OK to disagree with a perceived authority.
u/LewsTherin177 · 2 pointsr/freefolk

Are you familiar with Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces or The Seven Basic Plots?

That's ultimately why, even though I like GRRMs' work, I take his critiques of authors like Tolkien with a grain of salt. Narratively there's only so many stories you can actually tell. And why I don't rate him as highly as Tolkien or Herbert or Jordan.

Like we're seeing with Jon Snow in the show, and probably will in the books, ultimately it's just another hero's journey.

GRRM just added more peripheral stories and used the narrative weights to try to make the story seem more complex – but you can't really escape the structure ultimately.

Or as Christopher Nolan so succinctly summarizes via Harvey Dent's character in The Dark Knight, you either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain. That's the tension of anyone making a difference.

u/tammuz1 · 2 pointsr/filmmaking

Possibly (and I personally have issues with his attitude and viewpoints on filmmaking) but that's beside the point. The point is a lot of young filmmakers found/find this book inspiring and empowering, even though it's probably outdated for the Youtube generation.

And to be fair to my housemate (he's a screenwriter, which is what the OP is interested in), it took him a while to come up with a book that he can recommend and at the same time not too technical, after I shot down a couple of other titles (like this, this and this.)

u/ajdzis · 2 pointsr/writing

The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell sounds like what you're looking for. While it's not a "how to" guide, the book is an artfully written exploration of mythology, psychology, and the concept of "monomyth" -- universal symbolism and meaning structures across cultures and time-periods. It also guided/inspired Star Wars.

edit: lined to book

u/Reasonable_Thinker · 2 pointsr/exjw
u/ursineduck · 2 pointsr/books

there's another one called Hero with a thousand faces i totally picked seven randomly because "i heard somewhere that stories..... are based on "n" different themes where n is a real rational integer in R^2 such that f(n) is smooth..." seemed a bit unnecessary but i like that i am goddamn spot on.

u/nxvd · 2 pointsr/transgender

Ironically, trans men are often counted as women before trans women. Take, for example, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, which will let people on the FtM spectrum attend, but not people on the MtF spectrum, because they "aren't womyn-born womyn" (trans men apparently are).

For those wondering: Yes, I did just finish reading Whipping Girl.

u/Socrateswasacowboy · 2 pointsr/conspiratard

Thanks for the recommendation. I read a whole lot. I did, in fact, read that article I just have some criticisms as you know.

You must realize you have just made a snide remark. I hope. I would suggest you read this book that I really enjoy: "Mistakes Were Made, but Not By Me"

It is truly an excellent book by very accomplished social scientists.

u/h1ppophagist · 2 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

>it doesn't magically make them less lazy or ignorant, it just greatly increases the consequences of the fact that they're lazy and ignorant.

I couldn't agree more.

I have a couple of points to add which don't directly support either your or shawndw's side in the argument, but which add a layer of complexity to the picture.

Shawndw had said that

>Under direct democracy people will have nobody to blame except themselves

The problem with this is that, to take one of the best examples of direct democracy we have, according to élites in ancient Athens like Plato and Xenophon, the Athenian demos/people did not blame themselves; rather, when "the people" made a bad decision, individual citizens denied having voted for it and avoided the responsibility for the decision. Funnily enough, however, this could actually be an advantage, for because responsibility for a decision wasn't placed squarely on the shoulders of specific individuals, the demos was quite willing to admit its mistakes and change its collective mind on a decision.

In a system where responsibility is clearly held by certain officials, however, these officials are propelled by the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance/disconfirmation bias to cling to their beliefs more strongly when the flaws in them are pointed out. The reaction of the Bush administration to the non-discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is cited by some as an example here.

So I suppose this point isn't directly related to what you were saying—that direct democracy is unlikely to lead to greater knowledge among citizens, and therefore to more correct decisions, a claim with which I completely agree—but what I'm saying does indicate that collectivities may be more willing to correct their mistakes when they do screw up than officials blinded by pride, or simply by their habitual way of seeing a matter of policy.

u/troglozyte · 2 pointsr/LessWrong

To add to the booklist from /u/fubo -

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts

by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

- This may be exactly what you're looking for.

Review (Part 1) -

Review (Part 2) -

Interview with co-author Carol Tavris -

u/jbs398 · 2 pointsr/InsightfulQuestions

For further discussion, read "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts". Some excellent discussion on memory and interactions with motivation and actions.

u/pricecheckaisle4 · 2 pointsr/Edmonton

You might enjoy this - it was a fun read, full of great nuggets like the above.

u/ood_lambda · 2 pointsr/askscience

I'd recommend reading Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us). It's an excellent introduction to traffic science and why certain certain laws and recommendations exist. My only real complaint is it should have been about 100 pages shorter and I found myself skipping several large sections.

u/walkinthecow · 2 pointsr/funny

You would likely enjoy this book

It was very interesting, and quite an easy read, contrary to the multitude of people who said to me, "you're reading a book about...traffic?"

u/-PM_ME_YOUR_SMILE- · 2 pointsr/videos

There is a really interesting book by a man named Tom Vanderbilt called Traffic: Why we drive the way we do (and what it says about us). I suggest anyone that finds this video interesting to check this book out.

u/Jrix · 2 pointsr/DoesAnybodyElse

Most people use that strategy, even the people you're judging probably use that strategy most of the time. I'm not really sure of the relevance of this counter point. Are you suggesting there is no benefit to the "hope light turns green" strategy?

You seem to be suggesting that you do not laugh when they make a green light, even though the decision remains the same. (Your "laugh" is obviously a reference to the person, not the circumstances)

Btw I recommend this book. Maybe it can help shed your attitude a bit (sorry about the high horse and all, the ground's all dirty).

u/Erythrocruorin · 2 pointsr/pics

You live in that? Oh my. If that represents their very best ideas about how to design good traffic flow, I'd be terrified to think about what other "brilliant" ideas they come up with. My heart goes out to you.

For something uplifting, check out Tom Vanderbilt's fantastic book on traffic.

u/FatBabyGiraffe · 2 pointsr/Economics

Thanks for sharing. Only problem I see is getting drivers used to riders sharing lanes. You can pass as many laws as you want, but if social norms dictate otherwise, people will ignore them.

A great book on driving in general is Traffic

I would love if Illinois got behind this. We have terrible roads as is.

u/Reedpo · 2 pointsr/Denver

You might enjoy this book. Or hate it... The prologue is titled: "Why I Became a Late Merger (and Why You Should Too)"

u/firenze86 · 2 pointsr/Calgary

This is correct. Good Work! People who downvote this are retarded. Only problem is there are humans involved (like the ones down voting common sense) and they are good at fucking everything over for their own personal gain.

Though I almost always go out of my way to never let Escalades merge no matter the circumstances are!!!

Edit: Everyone should have to read this book before getting a drivers license. You can read the late merging section in the preview.

u/drushkey · 2 pointsr/CitiesSkylines

That's a difficult question for me to answer. Someone working in career placement (or whatever it's called - someone who helps you chose a career) could probably give you a better general answer.

In terms of games, you could try playing OpenTTD (Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe) or Cities in Motion 2 (the game Colossal Order made before Cities: Skylines). Both have a much stronger transportation focus, with a good deal more micromanagement and therefore a steeper learning curve, and are a notch closer to what I do IRL. If you can play either/both for days without getting bored, you might want to be a traffic engineer.

If you'd rather read, you could get Traffic: Why we drive the way we do. I think it's a good read for anyone who lives on a street. If you read that and think "I wish this was 10 times longer and also my life", you might want to be a traffic engineer.

If you want to dive into some more technical stuff, wikipedia has some good articles, e.g. on the Braess paradox (the math is interesting, but you can probably skip over it since it's pretty high-level, abstract stuff). If you get to the bottom of that and start clicking all the "See also" links, you might want to be a traffic engineer.

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask :)

u/ikidd · 2 pointsr/Whatcouldgowrong

Read Traffic. It actually corroborates what /u/alexmg2420 says. Assuming, of course, that the receiving lane acts civil and lets traffic alternate in.

u/EyesEarsMouthAndNose · 2 pointsr/exmormon

Read The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt. In depth analysis on this very subject.

u/nantesorkestar · 2 pointsr/amiugly

Except your assertion of them being "awful" is subjective, not grounded in objective fact. Sure there are awful Trump supporters but as you said yourself, you can't hate a whole group of people for the actions of a few. At your age, I was also very set in my ways and thought my views were morally superior to others. As I got older, I realized I knew a fraction of what I thought I did. I recommend reading [this book.] (

I despise Trump and I'm as "Left" as you can get but it's very off putting to see liberals act in such an authoritarian and closed-minded manner.

u/PopcornTruther · 2 pointsr/exmormon
u/BeetleB · 2 pointsr/changemyview

I'm not disagreeing with most of what you say, and I'm not necessarily agreeing with OP, as I honestly am not sure what he is trying to say.

I agree that requiring a court of law in all cases is not ideal for the general citizenry.

The problem I personally see is that people, in my opinion, have a low bar of evidence before rendering a judgment in their minds. Most people I know cannot handle a "I don't know" stance. They feel they must make a judgment one way or other. I find that problematic.

What I find even more problematic is the lack of a real standard, altogether. You say:

>vastly exceeds the standards of proof most people use in their everyday lives

My personal complaint is that most people do not even have a standard of proof. They cannot enunciate what their standard is, or if they can, they keep changing the standard to justify their judgment(s). Most people judge based on biases, and discussing their standard usually exposes those biases.

The Righteous Mind is a great read. He presents strong evidence of what I'm saying: For most people, the judgment comes first, and the rational mind exists to justify the judgment post hoc. The way to fight this is first to have a personal standard, and second to justify changes to the standard to someone else - most people are good at fooling themselves, and need to work a lot harder to fool others.

u/jhilden13 · 2 pointsr/CGPGrey

This isn't technically productivity as much as it is the human condition, but I would absolutely love to hear your and Mike's take on The Righteous Mind (Jonathan Heidt)

u/Fortunate_0nesy · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

To answer this question, and really understand it, I suggest reading this book:

Haidt has studied these things for several decades, and his findings blew my mind.

I'm not going to try to summarize as I will just mangle his findings, but you can listen to this in about an hour and get a pretty good summary.

u/generalT · 2 pointsr/politics

everyone does this.

i highly recommend this book.

u/anechoicmedia · 2 pointsr/texas

>Things that don't match their values are evil or sinful.

This is language typical of someone who can't conceptualize right-wing ideas in their moral system.

I am immersed in the right and I've never seen someone call transgenderism a sin or an evil. It is usually seen as a sad diversion, or maybe a mental illness, a confusion they do not want to see spread to nearby developing minds.

The right does not want non-passing trans people using their non-biological bathroom because they don't belong there. Public infrastructure is built to suit the needs of normal people, and they're not normal. Someone is going to be disappointed so it may as well be them.

u/twitchKeeptrucking · 2 pointsr/politics

What is not opposite, and why it makes sense, is that it is the brain throwing arguments after something it has deamed good for me. Read Jonathan Chaits The Righteous Mind:

u/Trumpy_Poo_Poo · 2 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

It has nothing to do with America and nothing to do with politics. I’m a huge fan of Johnathan Haidt, who wrote an entire book explaining how “us vs. them” is hardwired into human beings.

u/All-Iwantisthetruth · 1 pointr/exjw

I'm currently reading a book [Mistakes Were Made But Not by Me] ( It discusses the psychology behind why people justify their actions and beliefs. It shows that everyone has blind spots, false memories, biases and how an otherwise good person could convince themselves that committing a crime is justifiable. It is helping me to deal with anger and frustration that comes from dealing with hurtful delusional people.

u/heterosis · 1 pointr/skeptic

Mistakes were made only covers a few fallacies, but with great depth. It's an excellent read.

u/generous_cat_wyvern · 1 pointr/ffxiv

This is the book that introduced me to the concept of Cognitive Dissonance, and it's absolutely fascinating:

The most interesting thing about it is that nobody is immune, even people who study it professionally. One of most insidious parts of being in self-deception is that it is apparently to almost everyone but ourselves. You brain is actively working against believing the contradicting evidence.

u/venusisupsidedown · 1 pointr/skeptic

So this may not help you directly to argue better, but check out this book for a good read and some great info on why it's difficult to change people's minds.

u/forcrowsafeast · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

The book is stupid droll. Given what we know of neurology and psychology our intuition is pretty shit, it was 'good-enough' for 'cave-peoples' increasingly not so much modernity.

u/HiddenRisk · 1 pointr/fatpeoplestories

I'm basing my understanding of "cognitive dissonance" on what I read in the book "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)", and I could very well be wrong.

However, as I understood it, essentially it's very uncomfortable for a person to hold two opposing opinions at the same time. As a net result of that, it's easier to change ones mind to fit a poor decision (rationalize) than to face that decision head on or accept/notice that ones behavior doesn't line up with ones perception of themselves.

u/otaku_convention · 1 pointr/BlackPeopleTwitter

Late, but I recommend Traffic , from Tom Vanderbilt.

u/lettuce · 1 pointr/transit

Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt. There's also a good blog but isn't updated very often anymore.

u/CNoTe820 · 1 pointr/nyc

Actually I'm indifferent to the question of whether to add a subway to staten island. If it goes through Brooklyn then the commute will still be long and it won't be a rush to move there. If there's a tunnel straight to lower manhattan there will be a huge rush to move there.

I think Triboro Rx would help more people since it would help three boros instead of one, and it would help connect the outer boros in a way that might let businesses open outside of Manhattan and ease the pressure on the Manhattan side. But at the same time I see the fairness in making sure all 5 boros have a subway. Hence my indifference.

> Are you saying that people should suffer long inconvenient commutes so property values are kept low? Who would want that?

Lots of people want that. If you read the book Traffic ( they talk about how the average commute has stayed at 30 minutes throughout thousands of years of human history. Technological changes like cars and subways just allow us to live further out while maintaining the same average commute time.

So yes, some people want a very short walkable commute and are willing to pay a lot of money for that, some people are ok with a 30 minute commute for more moderate rent, and some people are fine with a 1.5 hour commute for even cheaper real estate. A lot of people would be very upset as the rents go up, just like they are in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx right now.

u/Delysid52 · 1 pointr/news

but seriously widening roads does cause more congestion. increasing more lanes does the same thing. more people start using it

u/Francis_the_Goat · 1 pointr/sandiego

I read about it in this book:
Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)
by Tom Vanderbilt

It's a really interesting book, highly recommended,

u/ChillSygma · 1 pointr/boulder

Still, be careful. Eye contract improved pedestrian recognition a bit but doesn't even come anywhere close to 100%

I believe there are also studies where motorcyclist perceived eye contact but the drivers were blind to the situation. Can't find that one so I am not 100% certain. It was referenced in what I think is one of the best books ever that everyone should read. And then also become a late merger.

u/designerfx · 1 pointr/changemyview

I recall the book traffic talks about these kinds of things actually helping traffic flow and generally improving the scenario. I'd recommend reading . What the book says tends to echo this article:


>If you're traveling this holiday weekend, you might want to know the most efficient way to merge--and it's not what most drivers consider to be common courtesy.
>Say you're driving along in the center lane on a traffic-filled highway, and the left lane is ending in a few hundred yards, due to construction or the way the road is built. The polite drivers in that left lane put their blinkers on right away, and move over as soon as someone lets them in. The rude drivers zip to the end of their lane--passing you and many other drivers in the center lane. Then they merge in as soon as they can, effectively cutting in front of you and other center-lane drivers in the process.
>You might be annoyed enough to respond to one of those rude drivers with an obscene gesture. But guess what? A lot of studies show those rude drivers are helping traffic flow better. It makes sense if you think about it: Those apparently rude drivers are putting more of the roadway to use and thus helping speed things along, in much the same way water flows faster through a funnel than through a straw.

So, it's normal to feel the rudeness of the other person as you see them as "not being a part of your group" but in reality not only do they a: not have a sense of self (and a sense of you) from a brain standpoint (your brain sees it as another car, not another person), but you have almost NO method to communicate with them. So, whether you let them in or not your communication is disregarded. There's psychology behind that too but it'll take me a while to find the reference.

The book references that because you don't "See" people, you don't like to cooperate with them either.



u/buddhabelly18 · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Also, a lot of the reason this occurs is because we do not perceive cars to be "human," so some of the social cues and norms we take from face-to-face interaction / eye contact tend to go out the window because we unconsciously forget that humans are in other cars.


u/theJAW · 1 pointr/pics
u/ILXXLI · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

there's a very interesting book called Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do.

Basically, a small fluctuation in the flow of traffic on a highway will have repercussions that will affect dozens and dozens of miles of road and last for hours after the fluctuation. Now, consider how many fluctuations there are every minute on a crowded highway, and you can begin to understand what causes traffic congestion.

u/DaPM · 1 pointr/government

Did you read Traffic ?

That book had some very interesting insight on how streets can be made safer by making them less safe...

u/er0k · 1 pointr/Roadcam

Check out this book if you are interested

u/elus · 1 pointr/Design


This book had great overview of various design choices taken in different countries.

u/lepht · 1 pointr/AskReddit

You should read Traffic then. Just got done reading it on my Kindle, and it's damn interesting, if a bit dry at times.

u/Drew707 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

You would like this book:

Check this out on AMZN:

u/CaptainH0ok · 1 pointr/The_Donald

Did it ever occur to you that I didn't vote for Obama either? Seriously, why does it seem like 75 percent of trump supporters get their political education from click bait articles. All you tards have this "If they're not 100% with me, they're 100% against me". There is a fucking middle ground you anti-intellectual cock goblin. Ugh... That is all I have to say. I don't even care who the President is. Nothing is going to change. The only thing that will change is instead of Obamas SJWs all over the fucking web, it's you fucking trump-tards. Ugh...

Fuck it. Here is something that may help some of you not be condescending fuckwits and help restore a very divided country.

u/whitethunder9 · 1 pointr/exmormon

>You accused the left of not being patriotic

Wrong. I did not. Let me re-phrase: It is when left-of-center folks shun patriotism (especially where all can see and hear) that they lose all influence over the right-of-center. This does not imply that the entire left is not patriotic. I am left-of-center and consider myself patriotic. But it seems to have become cool in liberal circles to publicly hate on the US, and that's how we end up with someone like Donald Motherfucking Trump as president. Moderate conservatives were won over by such a dipshit because all he talked about was "Make America Great Again!" If you haven't read the book I recommended, you need to.

>Three examples that clearly don't bother you

Wrong. You are assuming. Please note that I said nothing about Russians whatsoever. Don't pin that shit on me.

I get the feeling that what you're thinking of patriotism and what I'm thinking of patriotism are not the same thing. Is colluding with Russians to win an election anti-patriotic? Of course it is. However, so is saying things like "my country is arrogant and the general populace is stupid". Totally an over-generalization and I guarantee you if any democratic candidate says anything of the sort, moderate conservatives will be turned off.

u/_Zer0_Cool_ · 1 pointr/Libertarian

Any theories for why this is the case?

I’m thinking it’s that people view us as double-agents looking to water down their beliefs while simultaneously siding with the enemy.

I call it the “Anakin” syndrome. E. G. If you’re not with me then your my enemy.

Because the Sith on both sides seem to only deal in absolutes. IMO It’s due to the climate of extremism and tribalism caused by the two-party system gone rampant.

Like... “How dare you have a moderate view? Can’t you see that [other political party] is Hitler!? They just want to murder puppies!”

Lol. Uh. No. They’re Americans with different moral values that believe the are doing what is right.

I’d like to take a moment to plug Jonathan Haidt’s work on Moral Psychology theory —

u/travisdy · 1 pointr/ffxiv

Human nature isn't a matter of opinion--modern psychology and associated disciplines show humans to genuinely care about behaviors that show good will toward most strangers. The idea of humans as having a selfish core with a friendly exterior has been labeled "veneer theory" by the leading primatologist Frans de Waal and thoroughly debunked in that form. The idea that humans are generally unsociable and won't be nice to strangers if given zero motivation to do so has been shown to be incorrect by social psychology. The "Lord of the Flies" view of humans as unable to self-organize in uncertain times is also false as argued by cognitive psychologists. Humans are severely interested in being nice to other humans, according to the latest multicultural research in moral psychology.

I could give scientific articles instead of books, but these books are actually fun to read!

u/hackersmage · 1 pointr/Republican

It sounds like you would be very interested in this book.

u/Not_Pictured · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

I've been reading The Righteous Mind and find it incredibly enlightening.

I come from a conservative background and am now a right anarchist (anacho-capitalist) and it helps explain my own moral journey in a way that fits global trends and humanity in general.

I really think liberals stand to gain the most from learning about the differences you talk about.

Good video:

u/lesslucid · 1 pointr/AskALiberal

My answer to this is a bit complicated, but the short version is: it's important to try to keep an ear open for the the best arguments made by reasonable conservatives, but one shouldn't expect to hear any of those arguments being made by the mainstream of American conservatism, who have essentially expelled reasonableness from their ranks.
For a longer version, I'd say, watch CGP Grey's "This video will make you angry", read David Roberts on NYT conservatism, and read Jon Haidt's "Righteous Mind", maybe also Yglesias on "The Hack Gap".
I'd explain more but that's probably a whole essay of stuff. But yes, you shouldn't be at all surprised that your efforts to engage in good faith with the best arguments your "local republicans" have to offer end in frustration.

u/FantasticMikey · 1 pointr/Liberal

I highly recommend the book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" - it's about this very thing. About how we usually make up our judgements based on feeling, then justify our judgements with reasoning. When we go to talk to someone else about it, we're using reasoning, but they're still on feeling.

u/Necoras · 1 pointr/Christianity

A few things. You're correct that he doesn't define morality here. It's a 20 minute TED talk. His complete wouldn't have fit, nor would it have been convincing if he'd presented it without any reason backing it up. It takes him 11 chapters of reason and logic in his book (which I highly recommend) before he presents his definition. I will link to his definition here, but it likely won't be particularly convincing without his background on why (and I'm paraphrasing from the book here) 1) rationalism is problematic, 2) morality is about more than harm and fairness, and 3) morality must be seen in a groupish context rather than solely as how it relates to individuals.

But he does expressly say that his definition is functional. That is it

>"define[s] morality by what it does, rather than by specifying what content counts as moral."

So he's trying to explain morality based on what we do with it and how it's useful to humanity as a species, rather than saying "X is always right and Y is always wrong."

Moving on,

> conservative morality we find it has a basis in adherence to religious rules

This is incorrect. Conservative morality has a strong basis in authority, group loyalty, and purity. Those are not inherently religious in nature, though it is very common that the supreme authority figure is a god or gods. Rather they are traits which encourage cohesiveness of groups (family, city, nation state, corporation) as contrasted to the liberal "do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." Consider the contrasting views on sexuality, and the potential moral outcomes of each viewpoint.

Liberals mostly believe that sex before marriage is fine; indeed they often view it as morally wrong not to have sex before making a long term commitment. Multiple partners are fine, so long as everyone is consenting. Homosexual relationships are fine, again assuming consent.

Conservatives mostly believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. It leads to the breakdown of families, a rise in single parenthood, the spread of disease, and the general degradation of society. Correspondingly they're also anti-pornography.

So what are the potential outcomes on both sides? Well, pre-birth control and pre-antibiotics the conservative argument was pretty compelling. Unwed mothers led to babies who weren't cared for as well as they otherwise would be. Families where one parent refuse to take responsibility break down social structure (as we see today in many African American communities). That has direct moral and economic impacts not only on the families themselves, but the communities as a whole. Non-monogamous sex also led to the spread of disease, sometimes with disastrous consequences as in the gay community in the 80's. With regards to pornography, women are degraded, their lives destroyed. It was obvious (to a conservative leaning brain) that sex is sacred and not treating it as such leads to obvious problems.

On the other hand, treating sex as sacred and only to be partaken of in the context of marriage has its own problems. It can lead to "purity culture" where you have young men and women who are so terrified of sex because of what they've been told by their parents and churches that they're unable to have healthy sex lives once they're married. It can lead to LGBT youth who are depressed as to the point of suicide because of the treatment by their communities. It can lead to marriages where both partners are unhappy with their sex lives for decades. It's obvious (to a liberal leaning brain) that treating sex as sacred is unhealthy and that treating it as such leads to obvious problems.

So which one's right? Which perspective is "moral?" Well, it depends greatly on the culture and society at hand. In reality the truth of what works best (in modern day America and Western Europe) is somewhere in the middle. In a less technologically advanced society, you arguably need social mores to constrain sexual activity in a community to promote strong family structures and prevent the spread of disease. Even in our own community there are significant problems associated with single parenthood. Any parent knows that it's hard enough even when there are two fully involved adults. And while STDs are largely treatable today, with the rise of antibiotic resistance they're again becoming a concern.

Now, you could do the same thing for authority, loyalty, and other forms of purity and point out that both are important, and that liberals and conservatives both have valuable opinions based on their viewpoints.

Finally, to your argument that

>conservative morality means something only to those that share that same rule set

these 6 moral foundations (his term, not mine) are found to some degree or another across all cultures on the planet. They certainly take different forms (head coverings here, marriage rites there, food taboos in a third place), but they are found everywhere, amongst all peoples. All peoples respond to authority in some way or another, whether it's authority to a father figure, local government, teacher, or a god. All peoples feel some group loyalty, whether it's to a sports team, a state, a country, or a religion. All people see some things as sacred, whether it's nature, human rights, or holy scriptures, and some things as profane, usually death, decay, and waste, among others.

You are entirely correct that the specifics differ between cultures, but the foundations are shared. They're built into our brains. We can't help it.

u/elbowbrunch · 1 pointr/Christianity

Nope, several arguments about complexity of choice between actual outcome, lack of choice, new globalist moralism in a shrinking world, simple paradigms, the righteous mind of politics, the differences between American Citizens vs a Christian Citizenship, and I also talked about ranked voting. Lots to discuss here why so dishonest?

u/DonkeyOatie · 1 pointr/changemyview

I read the article; thank you for providing it.

There is a huge gap in our assumptions (a la Haidt) and I don't think it would be fruitful to continue. I appreciate your good faith interaction.

u/JakeMakesSteaks · 1 pointr/books

This might be up your alley. I thought it was fascinating.

u/coke_and_coffee · 1 pointr/worldnews

> I’m sorry but all Republicans are vile and vicious. I can’t see how anybody can see it another way,

Lol. This is called being stuck in an filter bubble. There are plenty of Democrats who are horrible people you just see them as “on your side” so you excuse their behavior any way you can. I urge you to step outside your echo chamber and gain some perspective and stop generalizing. Heres a good book if you really want to learn some empathy for differing viewpoints:

You don’t have to agree with republicans but at least learn to stop seeing them as evil. You’re attitude perfectly reflects the major political problem in this country.

u/scarpoochi · 1 pointr/The_Donald

Great post and great book. I just finished reading Haidt for an ethics and moral class. He also talks about a 6th moral pillar: 'liberty/oppression' and a conservative advantage in using these 6 moral foundations. I recommend the book to everyone in this sub.