
i love when people use wrestling terms for stuff that has nothing to do with wrestling it's so funny to me
Mitch Brown
9.2K posts

@ExtravertedFace
Evolutionary Psychologist from Cleveland with a big neck @UArkansas #LetsGoOilers | Motivation | Social Perception | Mate Preferences | Formidability |

i love when people use wrestling terms for stuff that has nothing to do with wrestling it's so funny to me







We now have evidence that gentle parenting doesn’t work. Here’s an uncomfortable truth about parenting no one wants to say out loud: The data is not kind to gentle parenting. According to teenagers, strict curfews. strict bedtimes, screen limits, device drop off times, dedicated homework blocks, and sleepover restrictions IMPROVE higher relationship quality. And yes, parenting difficulty goes up. Of course it does. Leadership is harder than appeasement. For the past decade we have been sold a watered down, Instagram friendly version of “gentle parenting” that often collapses into boundary avoidance, endless negotiation and emotional processing without enforcement. Parents terrified of saying no because they do not want to rupture connection. But connection without authority is not connection. It is dependency. When parents impose structure, the relationship improves. Teenagers report better parent child relationship quality in homes with curfews and rules. Younger kids report better relationships in homes with screen limits and bedtimes. Even device drop off times correlate positively. Why? Because structure is not cruelty. Structure is love made visible. A bedtime says: your brain matters more than your entertainment. A screen limit says: your dopamine system is not fully developed and I will guard it until it is. A curfew says: your safety matters more than your social standing. That is not authoritarianism. That is caring. Boundaries create friction. Friction creates growth. The parent absorbs the short term discomfort so the child does not pay the long term cost. Children do not experience well calibrated limits as rejection. They experience them as stability. The human brain craves predictability. Predictability reduces anxiety. Reduced anxiety strengthens attachment. That is why relationship quality goes up. Notice something else in the data. The strongest effects are around time structure. Bedtime. Homework. Devices. Outside play. These are environmental constraints. They scaffold executive function. The winning formula is not tyranny. It is high warmth plus high structure. The modern failure mode is high warmth plus low structure. That is just abdication of responsibility wrapped in empathy. Children need leadership, not negotiation. They need adults who can tolerate their anger. They need boundaries that do not move every time emotions spike. They need someone whose prefrontal cortex is fully myelinated. The harder path produces the stronger bond. Because when a child feels that someone is strong enough to hold the line, they relax. And relaxed nervous systems build durable relationships.




how does one decide which nhl and pwhl teams to root for?? like i want teams that are at least kinda good and not full of bigots

🎓 Academic freedom doesn’t mean everyone must agree. It means scholars shouldn’t be shamed out of inquiry. Mitch Brown (@ExtravertedFace) explores the costs of moralizing scientific disagreement:

Lawyer uses ChatGPT to help write a brief, ChatGPT hallucinates cases and quotations. Court sanctions lawyer and 4 co-counsel (for not catching the errors). The lawyer who used ChatGPT "has practiced for over thirty years." He prompted ChatGPT: "write an order that denies the motion to strike with caselaw support ...." He told the court that he normally doesn't use ChatGPT and used it this time because he was caring for his dying family members. He said none of his co-counsel were aware of this use of generative AI. Court says that because "all five ... attorneys signed both documents that included these errors, and they admit that not one of them verified that the case law in those briefs actually exist ..., their conduct violates Rule 11(b)(2).

The sad reality is that most people don't care about Iran. It doesn't bring clicks or "likes" and it's not the "fashionable thing" to be outraged about. Which means that those of us who do care, have to shout even louder Be their voice Free Iran!!


Newfound disappointment both as a scientist and as an editor: receiving shallow peer reviews that are entirely AI-generated. The whole point is critical feedback from YOU as a real expert. If reviewers are outsourcing to AI, I think we've lost the plot 🤷♀️ Not sure the solution.



A statement from the University of Oklahoma: