Kimmi Del Prado

73 posts

Kimmi Del Prado

Kimmi Del Prado

@Kimmi_DP

A mother of two, an unschooling and drug policy reform advocate, a rebel and freedom fighter.

Republic of the Philippines Katılım Ekim 2022
103 Takip Edilen13 Takipçiler
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
The biggest thing holding you back isn't lack of talent. It's listening to people whose opinions don't actually matter.
English
1
10
17
1.5K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
I always felt something was off about modern psychology. Then I read Jung. He found what Freud missed and what most therapists still ignore today. Here's the idea that changed everything:
Kevin Tanaka tweet media
English
9
26
121
16.4K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
We don't have a happiness problem. We have a gratitude blindspot.
English
2
12
38
2K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺@im_Mateus_·
In 1933, a Norwegian philosopher studied a dead species and concluded humanity should follow them into extinction. The Irish elk didn't die because it was weak. It died because its antlers grew too large. So magnificent they became impossible to carry. Peter Wessel Zapffe saw the same thing in us. Our consciousness, the very thing that makes us human had grown beyond what we were built to handle. We became aware of death, of meaninglessness and of a universe with no built-in answers. So we developed four ways to carry the weight ↓ 1) Isolation: We quarantine the terrifying thoughts. Lock them in a room and1 pretend the door isn't there. 2) Anchoring: We cling to fixed points like religion, career, nationalism. Anything that gives life the illusion of meaning. 3) Distraction: We flood our minds with noise. Scrolling. Busyness. Anything to keep the silence at bay. 4) Sublimation: We transform the existential dread into art, philosophy, science. We make something beautiful from the unbearable. These aren't solutions. They're just ways to file down the antlers before they grow back. Zapffe's darkest conclusion? Stop reproducing. End the line. Spare future generations the burden of consciousness. "The Last Messiah," the name he gave to the one brave enough to say it. Here's where the rational optimist disagrees entirely ↓ The elk's antlers were a dead end. Ours are an engine. That same consciousness that confronts death also invented vaccines, rewired diseases out of existence, and extended human life beyond anything nature intended. Zapffe's four "coping mechanisms"? Look closer: • Anchoring built civilizations and raised children who outlived plagues • Distraction became exploration. The restless mind that couldn't sit still discovered continents • Sublimation produced the enlightenment, democracy, modern medicine • Isolation gave us the focus to do hard things The strategies aren't escapes from consciousness, they're consciousness at work and the extinction argument collapses against one simple fact: We are the first species capable of choosing our own future. The elk had no such option. Zapffe saw a burden. The optimist sees the only tool in existence powerful enough to solve the problems consciousness creates. The antlers aren't killing us. They're just getting started. — Thanks for reading! Enjoyed this post? Follow @BigBrainPhiloso for more content like this.
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺 tweet mediaMateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺 tweet media
English
1
12
37
4.9K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺@im_Mateus_·
"You are not a stranger in the universe. You ARE the universe experiencing itself." — Alan Watts Most people live their entire lives seeking approval from others. Watts said this was the deepest philosophical mistake a human being could make. Here's why ↓
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺 tweet mediaMateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺 tweet media
English
9
19
85
6.1K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
Hot take: The most powerful person in the room is rarely the loudest.
English
6
24
127
4.8K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
Your brain is lying to you right now. And the worse part? The more confident you feel, the harder the lie is to detect. Here's the Nobel Prize-backed research that proves it:
Kevin Tanaka tweet media
English
4
47
184
10.7K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺@im_Mateus_·
In this archival footage, philosopher Bertrand Russell explains why he rejected Christianity not out of rebellion, but through rigorous teenage inquiry. When asked why he is not a Christian, Russell states plainly: "Because I see no evidence whatever for any of the Christian dogmas. I've examined all the stock arguments in favor of the existence of God and none of them seem to me to be logically valid." His departure from faith wasn't sudden or emotional. It was methodical. Russell explains that between the ages of 15 and 18, he dedicated nearly all his spare time to examining Christian doctrines, searching for any rational basis to sustain belief. By 18, he had discarded the last of them. What's striking is his framing: "I never decided that I didn't want to remain a believer." He wasn't looking for an exit. He was looking for evidence and simply couldn't find it. Russell also addresses the popular notion that atheists and agnostics convert on their deathbeds. He dismisses this largely as myth, noting that "religious people, most of them think that it's a virtuous act to tell lies about the deathbeds of agnostics and such." It's a sharp observation: the deathbed conversion narrative says more about those who spread it than about those it claims to describe. What stands out most about Russell's account is the intellectual honesty at its core. He didn't reject religion to be contrarian. He subjected it to the same logical scrutiny he applied to everything else and followed where the evidence led. A reminder that the most durable convictions are the ones we arrive at through genuine inquiry.
English
6
22
48
6.6K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
In 1928, Freud's nephew published one book. It became the blueprint for controlling modern society. "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society." That's not a conspiracy theory. It was written by Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda. He built a system to control what millions think, feel, and buy. It still runs the world today ↓ Bernays weaponized his uncle's most dangerous insight: Freud discovered humans rarely act on logic. Our decisions are driven by unconscious desires we don't know exist. A man doesn't buy a car for transportation. He buys it because it symbolizes status. We think we're rational but we're not. Bernays realized if you bypass the conscious mind and target hidden desires, you can make people do almost anything without them knowing why. But he needed one more ingredient... Group psychology. Freud and psychologist Gustave Le Bon found that when people identify with a group, critical thinking shuts down. The individual stops questioning. Stops thinking for themselves. Why? Because belonging feels more important than truth. You don't even need to be in a crowd. The crowd is a state of mind. Scrolling your phone at 2am, you're still under its influence. Bernays understood that mastering these levers meant forming an invisible government. The true ruling power behind society. His playbook: • Link your ideology to those desires • Use group identity to crush critical resistance • Repeat until the belief feels like the person's own • Identify unconscious desires (status, fear, belonging) The most disturbing application? Divide and conquer. A united population is stronger than those who rule it. Fracture them along race, class, gender, or ideology and rational discourse becomes impossible. The population fights itself. The invisible government operates unnoticed. Here's where it gets personal ↓ Today, Bernays' playbook hasn't just survived. It's been supercharged. Social media algorithms exploit the same triggers: fear, outrage, belonging at a speed Bernays never imagined. Deepfakes manufacture false realities. Disinformation fractures nations overnight. Influencers run psychological operations disguised as content. The propaganda isn't on posters anymore. It's in your feed. Every day. It works because the psychology hasn't changed: • We still crave belonging over independent thought • We still act on unconscious emotions, not reason • We still mistake manipulation for free choice Freud offered the only antidote: rise above the group mind by developing a scrap of independence and originality. That scrap is everything. Question your tribe. Examine your impulses. Ask why you believe what you believe. The moment you stop thinking for yourself is the moment someone else starts thinking for you. — Thanks for reading! Enjoyed this post? Follow @BigBrainPsych for more content like this.
Kevin Tanaka tweet media
English
31
568
1.3K
54.5K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
Gabor Maté on why women bear the greatest burden of illness: "Women have 70-80% of autoimmune disease." They're also twice as likely to be diagnosed with PTSD and far more likely to be prescribed anti-anxiety or antidepressant medications. During COVID, the New York Times ran a headline calling women "society's shock absorbers," describing how women took on the stress of their families and spouses, then felt guilty when they couldn't alleviate it. Maté argues there's nothing mysterious about these statistics once you understand what culture demands of women: "If you understand how the culture then imposes its own expectations on certain groups, adding to their stress, then there's absolutely nothing miraculous or nothing mysterious about why women have more autoimmune disease." He points to the patriarchal assignment of emotional labour as the root cause. Women are expected to absorb the stress of everyone around them and are made to feel guilty if they don't. As Maté puts it: "Women's guilt is another control mechanism on the part of the culture." He then raises a striking example: the changing gender ratio in multiple sclerosis. In the 1930s, the ratio was roughly one to one. Today, it's three and a half women to every man. Maté systematically rules out the usual explanations: "Can't be the genes, because they don't change in a population over 80 years. Can't be the climate or the diet, that didn't change more for one gender than another." What did change? The role women were asked to play. Women were already carrying the emotional weight of their families. But over recent decades, they've also taken on the role of wage earners driven by economic pressure on middle and lower classes and by their own desire to build lives outside the home. Maté is clear that this shift could have been manageable had one critical thing happened alongside it: The emotional burden being shared. "All of which would have been okay had the other role of sharing the emotional burden been shared. But it hasn't. It still falls upon women." The implication is sobering: the diseases women disproportionately suffer from aren't random biological misfortune. They're the physical cost of a culture that keeps adding to women's load without ever redistributing it.
English
57
600
1.6K
49K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺@im_Mateus_·
Franz Kafka died at 41, unknown, unpublished, and convinced his writing was worthless. His final wish? Burn everything I've ever written. His best friend refused. That betrayal created one of the most influential literary legacies in human history and gave us a word that describes the modern world better than any philosopher ever could: Kafkaesque. Here's the story they don't teach you ↓ Prague, 1883. A small, anxious boy is born to Hermann Kafka, an aggressive, successful businessman who wanted a son in his own image. Franz was the opposite. Quiet. Sensitive. Terrified of his father. He became Hermann's psychological punching bag. A constant source of disappointment. What did young Kafka do with all that anxiety, guilt, and self-hatred? He wrote. But his father had other plans. He forced Franz into law school. Then Franz ended up working for an insurance company buried alive in absurd bureaucratic systems and mountains of meaningless paperwork. He was miserable. Yet something extraordinary happened in the margins of that misery ↓ While trapped in a system that crushed his soul by day, Kafka wrote masterpieces by night: • The Trial • The Castle • The Metamorphosis He left most of it unfinished. He believed none of it was worthy. Then tuberculosis took him at 41. On his deathbed, he begged his friend Max Brod to destroy every unpublished manuscript. Brod looked at the work. Then looked at his dying friend. And chose to betray him. Over the next decade, Brod published everything. Kafka became one of the most significant writers of the 20th century with his life's work nearly lost to a drawer and a match. But here's what makes Kafka's philosophy so powerful: His writing doesn't offer hope. It offers something better. The bitter truth. In The Trial, Joseph K. is arrested without explanation. Subjected to a corrupt, senseless trial. Found guilty without ever knowing his crime. In Metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa wakes up as an insect. His first thought? How am I going to get to work? This is the Kafkaesque condition: Your reasoning meets inescapable senselessness. Success is impossible. Logic fails. The system doesn't care. And yet the characters try anyway. That's not despair. That's the most honest portrait of being human ever written. Kafka understood something most self-help refuses to admit: • You can't control everything • The struggle itself is unavoidable • Some systems will never make sense • False hope is more dangerous than hard truth His radical message? Stop waiting for the world to become logical. Confront the absurdity directly and face the darker aspects of yourself instead of hiding behind false optimism. And despite all the senselessness of the universe, choose to continue anyway. Kafka wrote from a drawer, expected nothing, and nearly vanished from history. Instead, he gave us the most accurate word for modern life. Maybe the greatest insights come from those who never expected anyone to listen. — Thanks for reading! Enjoyed this post? Follow @BigBrainPhiloso for more content like this.
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺 tweet mediaMateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺 tweet media
English
21
282
1.4K
63.6K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
Carl Jung studied the human mind for 60 years and made a chilling discovery. In today's performative social media culture, it hits harder than ever. The more you curate yourself for others, the further you drift from your purpose. His 7 Laws of Purpose:
Kevin Tanaka tweet mediaKevin Tanaka tweet media
English
13
209
1.3K
146.8K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
"I don't want to be this character anymore." Jim Carrey explains why depression might be your body's way of demanding authenticity over performance.
English
5
4
13
949
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
This Valentine's Day, love freely. Don't possess. As Ram Dass put it, wanting to own the beloved is the quickest way to lose the experience of love.
English
0
1
6
535
Kimmi Del Prado
Kimmi Del Prado@Kimmi_DP·
"The Epstein files exposed a psychological blueprint for how brilliant minds become blind"
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka

Some of the smartest psychologists in the world couldn't see a predator standing right in front of them. The Epstein files exposed a psychological blueprint for how brilliant minds become blind ↓ Epstein wasn't just a financier. He was a Visiting Fellow in Harvard's Psychology Department. He funded neuroscience labs. He dined with some of the world's most prominent scientists. And after his 2008 conviction, many kept coming back. Why? Prestige bias. We overweight the opinions of high-status people. The logic is seductive: "If Harvard accepts him, he must be fine." "If Nobel winners attend his dinners, I'm overthinking this." Epstein surrounded himself with so much prestige that questioning him meant questioning everyone around him. Once academics accepted his money or flattery, a second trap activated: cognitive dissonance. Multiple researchers later claimed they had "never had the slightest knowledge of the darker sides" and wished they had "asked more questions." That's textbook self-justification. When actions clash with our self-image, we don't change the self-image. We change the story: • "No one really knew" • "I just saw him as a donor" • "His conviction seemed minor" The mind protects its owner even at the cost of truth. Then came the most insidious mechanism... Gradual moral disengagement. Emails show academics joking about whether female students were "cute." One scientist asked for the email of "the redhead" he'd met through Epstein after the conviction. These weren't grand crimes. They were micro-fails. Laughs that should've been silence. Emails that should've been deleted. Questions that should've been asked. Complicity never starts big; rather, it starts small enough to excuse. And Epstein himself? Forensic psychologists point to the Dark Triad: psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism. But those traits only became dangerous because institutions amplified them. Lenient plea deals. Universities accepting donations. Networks offering access. A predator without enablers is limited. A predator inside a prestige machine is unstoppable. These academics weren't uniquely bad. They illustrate vulnerabilities we all share: • Excusing what benefits us • Outsourcing moral judgment to prestigious others • Underestimating the damage of "just looking the other way" Epstein didn't just exploit victims. He exploited the psychology of everyone around him. The scariest part? He didn't need sophisticated tools. Just our own biases, handed right back to us. — Thanks for reading! Enjoyed this post? Follow @BigBrainPsych for more content like this.

English
0
0
0
12
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
In 1985, doctors told Jane Hawking she could switch off her husband's life support. Stephen Hawking was in a coma. Ventilated. Dying of pneumonia in a Swiss hospital. The doctors said he was "so far gone" that letting him go was the humane option. He was 43. Already trapped in a wheelchair by motor neuron disease. Halfway through writing the book that would change science forever. The medical logic was cold: A severely disabled man. A foreign hospital. A ventilator doing the breathing. A future promising only more pain and less independence. To the doctors, ending it looked rational. Jane saw it differently ↓ The hospital presented two options: 1) Authorize them to turn off the machine 2) Stand by and watch him die Jane rejected both. She invented a third choice nobody offered: fly him back to England and fight. It was reckless. Transporting a ventilated patient across countries was dangerous. The prognosis was grim. She didn't care. But saving his life came with a devastating cost... Surgeons performed a tracheotomy to keep him breathing long-term. The procedure permanently destroyed what remained of his natural speech. Hawking later called those weeks "the darkest of his life." Fully conscious. Unable to speak. Communicating through crude letter boards and the patience of those around him. Then from that silence, something extraordinary emerged. Engineers helped him adopt a speech device operated by a single cheek muscle. It was painfully slow. But it did something nobody expected: It focused and amplified him. Every sentence became an act of pure will. Every appearance became proof the mind inside was blazing. What happened next? He finished A Brief History of Time, the very book pneumonia almost killed. It sold over 10 million copies and was ranked among the most influential books in history, behind only the Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species. Then the awards followed: • Wolf Prize in Physics (1988) • Companion of Honour from the British Crown (1989) • Presidential Medal of Freedom from Barack Obama (2009) • The Copley Medal, the world's oldest scientific prize, previously given to Darwin and Einstein (2006) He appeared on Star Trek and The Simpsons. Held Isaac Newton's old chair at Cambridge for 30 years and became the most recognizable scientist on Earth. All of it: every book, discovery, award, and iconic moment existed on the other side of a decision that almost went the other way. Because one person refused to accept the only options she was given. The psychology is profound: When someone presents you with two impossible choices, you don't have to pick one. You can reject the frame entirely and build a third door. Most people never think to try. Jane Hawking did. And it changed the course of science. — Thanks for reading! Enjoyed this post? Follow @BigBrainPsych for more content like this.
Kevin Tanaka tweet media
English
81
427
2K
188K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
Free trials didn't start in Silicon Valley. They started on street corners. Give away product free. Create demand. Convert to paying customers. Here's what illegal markets reveal about human psychology and entrepreneurship ↓ Dealers practice a surprisingly broad set of applied business skills daily: • Sharp intuition for supply and demand • Tight branding and reputation management • Risk management through trusted networks • Constant innovation when conditions change • Intense customer focus and reliability obsession • Gritty financial discipline with margins and cash flow Every skill learned under immediate, high-consequence feedback. No theory. Pure application. But here's where it gets interesting... Security scholar Rodrigo Nieto-Gómez calls cartels "the Silicon Valley for non-medical pharmacology." His analysis? They're not just masters of logistics moving product from territory A to territory B. They're also "the Hollywood of pharma" — the only ones who can research, develop, and iterate on new products without going to prison. They centralize cash, seed dozens of small ventures, expect many to fail, and scale the winners. Sound familiar? It's the exact portfolio logic Silicon Valley VCs use. The innovation parallels are striking ↓ When encrypted apps appeared, trafficking networks adopted them quickly. When cryptocurrency emerged, they integrated it. Dark-web marketplaces like Silk Road used customer reviews, escrow systems, and user-friendly interfaces. They treat enforcement as a design constraint, not a wall. Every new obstacle simply changes the engineering problem. Tunnels. Drones. Semi-submersibles. Corrupted truck routes. They A/B test which method offers the best risk-to-profit ratio. The psychological insight ↓ Nieto-Gómez describes a ruthless Lean Startup culture at the edge of the law. Small operators act like minimally funded founders. Given product on consignment. Told to figure it out. If their method works, they scale. One mistake wipes them out. Because there's no intellectual property protection, successful innovations get copied immediately. This creates what researchers call a "Red Queen race." Constant iteration required just to survive. The uncomfortable truth? Decades of pressure, prohibition, and massive demand have forced these networks into a hyper-competitive, experiment-driven model. Only the most adaptable survive. It reveals something universal about human psychology: When consequences are immediate and stakes are survival, humans optimize faster than any business school could teach. — Thanks for reading! Enjoyed this post? Follow @BigBrainPsych for more content like this.
English
0
10
24
3.7K
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
4) Kuebiko A Japanese term for exhaustion and apathy from sensory overload. It's burnout's quieter, more insidious cousin. You feel it when you're running on empty. You are mentally depleted. Emotionally numb but unable to explain why.
Kevin Tanaka tweet media
English
1
3
6
638
Kimmi Del Prado retweetledi
Kevin Tanaka
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka·
You've been feeling emotions your entire life that the English language has no words for. But other cultures named them centuries ago. Here are 9 emotions you've felt before but couldn't describe (and how to label them):
Kevin Tanaka tweet media
English
2
25
67
10.5K
Kimmi Del Prado
Kimmi Del Prado@Kimmi_DP·
"If you were sailing on a dangerous voyage, who would you want steering the ship? Just anyone? Or someone educated in seafaring?"
Kevin Tanaka@ItsKevinTanaka

Everyone debates democracy like it's flawless. But the man who invented Western philosophy saw its fatal flaw. Athens killed him for exposing it. Here's what Socrates understood that we still ignore: In 399 BC, Socrates stood trial before 500 Athenian jurors on trumped-up charges of "corrupting the youth." By a narrow margin, they voted guilty. His sentence? Death by hemlock. The tragic irony ↓ Socrates had spent years warning that untrained voters would make catastrophic decisions. His own execution proved him right. In Book Six of Plato's Republic, Socrates poses a devastating question: "If you were sailing on a dangerous voyage, who would you want steering the ship? Just anyone? Or someone educated in seafaring?" Obviously the expert, his student Adeimantus replies. "Then why," Socrates asks, "do we think any random person should decide who rules a country?" His point was radical: Voting is a skill — not a random intuition. And like any skill, it must be taught systematically. Letting uneducated citizens vote is like putting untrained passengers in charge of a ship during a storm. But here's where it gets uncomfortable... Socrates wasn't elitist in the traditional sense. He never believed only the wealthy or powerful should vote. He believed only the *thoughtful* should vote. There's a crucial distinction: • Democracy by birthright = anyone born here can vote • Intellectual democracy = anyone who has learned to think deeply can vote We've completely forgotten this difference. The Doctor vs. Sweet Shop Owner Socrates asked his students to imagine an election between two candidates: One is like a doctor. The other is like a sweet shop owner. The sweet shop owner tells voters: "My opponent hurts you! He gives you bitter medicine and tells you not to eat whatever you like. I'll give you feasts of pleasant things!" The doctor's honest reply? "I cause you discomfort and go against your desires in order to help you." Socrates asks: Who do you think wins that election? The answer is obvious. And terrifying. We are wired to choose comfort over truth. The result? Demagogues. Athens learned this the hard way through figures like Alcibiades — a wealthy, charismatic, smooth-talking politician who eroded basic freedoms while telling people exactly what they wanted to hear. Socrates saw it all coming. And was executed for saying so. The lesson that haunts modern society: Democracy is only as good as the education system that surrounds it. Without teaching citizens *how* to think — not *what* to think — we don't get wisdom. We get sweet shop owners. We've elected many of them. And very few doctors. — Thanks for reading! Enjoyed this post? Follow @BigBrainPsych for more content like this.

English
0
0
0
2