The Artist Formerly Known

Joe Rogan just took time out of his podcast to express genuine concern for his friend Theo Von. He admitted that some of Von’s recent behavior after getting on SSRIs “freaks me out” — especially his comments about suicide. ROGAN: “Theo Von’s going through the exact same thing and last time he was on the podcast he was explaining it to me.” “It freaks me out because I know Theo has had conversations before...like even publicly.” “He had a Netflix taping and it didn’t go well. It was like they actually never...they shelved it. They never used it.” “And you know there was all these stories from people that were there saying he bombed. I think he just had a kind of a breakdown.” “And when he was talking to the crowd and there’s a video of it, he said, you know, the people were saying, hey, we still love you.” “He goes, thank you. Look, I’m just I’m trying not to take my own life.” “And like you hear stuff like that and you just go like, oh, Jesus Christ.” “I’ve known too many people that I didn’t think were going to kill themselves and then did.” “And then he goes down these spirals where he starts talking about world events and freaking out. I’m like, oh, Jesus Christ! Like, I got to help this dude.”

Researchers found the atoms inside the human body were forged inside ancient stars. This suggests humans are literally made from stellar material.

A Black American woman said African-Americans were once eaten and skinned during slavery while debating oppression on a podcast. The discussion got even more intense after claims about Christopher Columbus were mentioned, leaving the host completely stunned.

I kind of hate this abuse of language, specifically the use of overstretched analogies to act like you're making a fresh bold claim. Of course it has something analogous to an immune system, and this has been common sense forever in the cognitive sciences. Oh you mean we protect against bad ideas? We already understand the way we model the world by targeting prediction errors and minimising them, recalibrating the categories we use to perceive/make-new-predictions (perception is understood as a best guess and a filling in/predictions/assumptions). We typically resolve cognitive dissonance unless the 2 dissonant beliefs both have high enough utility which leads to compartmentalisation. Probably the most interesting "cognitive immunity" function is whatever the hell mirth/humor is based on... how we get a reward (mirth/funniness) when we discover the correct reinterpretation of a mistaken initial interpretation of what was meant, which again fits the error prediction minimisation model of general cognition, but is a more interesting particular case of it. Look, this stuff is terribly interesting and there's so many angles and so many good questions worth investigating... but I hate how we act like this is some new theory. This is standard. They're just renaming what we're already talking about by stretching an analogy (a good analogy to draw but its been drawn for decades at minimum by practically every single person working in cog sci and phil of mind). The paper might be great. Might give a great overview of the subtopics. But can we stop just naming new things and acting like we're rediscovering the wheel? It's a fucking plague. Yes, I'm jaded by this practice throughout theory making. Sorry. These authors might have some inkling of something novel, but it's certainly not the idea that our brains have something like an immune system. And these authors are far from the only ones... and there are many cases where there's literally nothing new being said while ignoring those before them who have elucidated the exact same ideas using different words to represent them. Sorry. It struck a massive pet peeve of mine.

Things that regularly happen in movies that rarely happen in real life: (1) Ordering food or drinks at a restaurant or bar and then not eating the food or drinking the drink, and leaving without paying. (2) People ending phone conversations without saying goodbye. (3) Female protagonists beating up muscular and much larger male bad guys. (4) Statistically improbable mixed-race romantic pairings (e.g. East Asian man and black woman). (5) Characters driving vehicles and not looking at the road while engaged in conversation with a passenger. (6) Having sex under the sheets. (7) Important business meetings in a conference room lasting about a minute or two. (8) Middle-income characters living in expensive homes or apartments that they couldn't possibly afford. (9)Ordinary people casually dropping f-bombs every sentence or two. (10) Women waking up in the morning with make-up on and perfectly arranged hair.

So you agree? Sex is a primary and mandatory requirement for men to be in relationships with women and without sex they would abandon you?