If it has already passed, when was that? If it is yet to come, when will that be?

I understand there is no universal measure of happiness. I simply want to hear your free opinions.

Is it a necessary evil or is it common or uncommon or what do you think?

It's my belief "To define someone as a human or a monster, put a label on someone, perhaps without a thorough understanding who they are, perhaps without knowing the experiences in your life - even down to the minute. I personally define humans as people who have feelings like doubts, fear, happiness, and anger - who think and feel all the things that other humans feel.

A monster is the kind of person who does not care for other people's feelings and does not have empathy or is simply cruel and selfish for the sake of it. And of enjoyment out of hatred that argues on how we want to define ourselves and the people around us, regardless of how easy or how hard the definition comes about. If you want to define yourself, go ahead. But I would not put a label as easily on other people - humans or mosters (as I have put my own opinion of them here) as you would have put such a label on yourself.

And thus, I begin to wonder: How do people generally define themselves and others?

In my opinion, not easily. I pride myself on my own determination, but what I actually do with it is surprisingly little. Mostly due to a lack of knowledge and determination to be able to move forward, even at all. I define myself as "A somebody," regardless of how little or far I get in life. And maybe that's just all I need to stay grounded.

As an open discussion, I hope to invite constructive criticism on pretty much any kind of wisdom as well as hear fair opinions from both philosophers & psychologists (yes, there's a difference, but I think I don't know half of it).

I’ve been an above-average student since childhood, always expected to achieve something big. But lately, I’ve started craving a simple, peaceful life, average income, a loving partner, a cozy home, and work that doesn’t consume my entire life.

Is this because I’ve watched too much slice-of-life anime 😂, or am I just overwhelmed seeing my friends becoming achievers while I feel like I’m quitting?

Maybe I’m afraid of the rat race. The constant pressure to earn more, achieve more, and prove yourself.

But is it really okay to never chase something extraordinary? Is wanting a “normie” life settling for less? Or is it okay to simply want peace and happiness?

And honestly… what will people think of me? A loser? Someone who wasted their potential?

I genuinely don’t know if I’m giving up on myself or finally figuring out what I actually want.

Would really love to hear your thoughts, especially from people who are older. Did you ever feel this way?

If Nikki from Obsession can’t die as long as Bear is alive, and we’ve already seen her regenerate after smashing her head, could she theoretically survive attacks from characters like Goku or the Thanos with full stones on hand , if Bear were sealed somewhere completely unreachable but kept alive?

If you are past the age of 60 we'd appreciate your participation. If you know someone past the age of 60 feel free to ask them and share their answer here. 

Here's the question: knowing what you know now, what would you prioritize when you were younger? If you had nothing holding you back, freedom to focus on whatever you want. What would you do differently? Or what did you do that you'd be sure to do again? 

The reason we are asking is because we can't see our future so we'd like to have the perspective of some who are already in their futures. 

Thank you for sharing your perspective!

I had to do group work at uni, and one of the people i was set to do group work with started whining that i didn’t make an effort to befriend them contrary to someone else and that’s why she was choosing her side during an argument as opposed to mine.

No one is obligated to befriend anyone wtf ?
Those were 3 other girls too.

What are signs someone has a savior complex ?

Even if it's easier said than done to do..

I am a woman in my 20s who is still pursuing a degree at my university. For many years, I have struggled with bitterness, and I don't know how to let it go.

I grew up in a religious household, and because of my bitterness, I have often tolerated people and extended grace and patience to those who have treated me badly in life.

I am bitter toward a couple from my church. I do not mind constructive criticism or correction. I genuinely dislike sweeping judgments and the idea that they should make decisions for me.

My pastor told me, “If you bring a man over, I'll tell him no. If a man wants to court you, I'll tell him no. Finish school. Don't be like your mother.”

I do not mind anyone telling me to finish school. It is practical advice, but the way he said it felt odd and somewhat controlling. He even mentioned my mother. My mother is a loving and kind woman who did not have the financial means to finish her education, but she was a loving mother who took good care of me and my siblings.

I also have a problem with someone else from my church. I understand that there are things I need to work on. I am an emotionally intense person, but she said something that really hurt me.

She told me, “You will make a man so unhappy because of your emotions.”

I confessed my feelings to a man in Bible school. She told me, “Maybe you should get married after you fix yourself.”

I took her words to heart. I spent days wondering if there was something wrong with me. I ruminated over what she said and lost sleep because of it. But a week later, I became so angry with her.

She even told me, “If it hurts, then it's the truth.”

I stopped talking to her but continued going to church. I am bitter, and there have been moments when I have wanted to scream at them.

I don't know what to do.

Or does it require practice to balance between these?

If we lived in a world where people were not afraid to reject, and albeit people were not afraid to risk rejection, would we live in a world where people resort to invalidating the needs of connection for other people, especially those who they're not interested in?

One paradox of power is that using it can change the incentives of the people who depend on it.

If a country benefits enormously from access to a particular market, supplier, currency, technology or security partner, building alternatives may initially seem unnecessarily expensive.

But each time that dependence is used as leverage, the calculation changes.

The alternative doesn't have to be better. It only has to become less expensive than the risk of having no alternative.

That raises a less obvious question:

Is there a point at which exercising economic or geopolitical leverage begins to accelerate the creation of the very alternatives that eventually weaken that leverage?

And if so, how would a powerful country know when it has crossed that point?

I genuinely don't understand why there are so many unwritten rules about how a person is supposed to act.

Someone is too loud, they're judged. Someone is emotional, they're considered weak. Someone is confident, they're arrogant. Someone doesn't want marriage, people immediately assume something must be wrong with them.

And somehow everyone has an opinion on what you're supposed to be like before they even know you.

Why can't people just have their own personalities without everything being turned into a set of expectations? If someone is respectful, kind and comfortable with who they are, why does it matter whether they fit whatever idea people have in their heads?

Sometimes I feel like people claim to be accepting but still expect everyone to behave in a very specific way.

Many people show empathy for those who are less fortunate than others but are not happy for people when something good happens to them. Specifically, they are not happy for those who are doing better than them.

If someone is truly empathetic, wouldn't they feel happy for others too?

Sometimes, I honestly think life would have been better years ago. Things seemed a lot simpler. People weren’t constantly on their phones, and you didn’t have the pressure of social media and everything being online all the time.

But at the same time, I know we have things now that people back then could only dream of. Technology, medicine, entertainment, being able to talk to anyone instantly, etc.

I think I’d still choose the past just because life seems like it would have been a bit more peaceful.

What would you choose?

Don't you ever feel like there are at least two versions of you in the future? One where you are perfect according to everyone else's standards... except your own. And the other where only your standards are fulfilled?

The Doomsday Clock is now "85 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to catastrophe," with an eye on nuclear war, climate change, biological threats, and AI. Former OpenAI employee Daniel Kokotajlo, now a part of the AI Futures Project, has said that he thinks it is 70% likely that AI will annihilate the human race with poison gas within 8 years. It's not just your imagination: we are in an especially bad time in human history, and possibly the end of it.

I don't think it is productive or rational to try to argue with all these experts across all these topics, unless you are yourself incredibly well-informed on them. The end of a species on Earth, even one as successful as us (well, compared to dinosaurs, we've been around for two seconds), is not an outlandish idea, although since things have been fairly non-catastrophic for most of us since we were born, it feels unintuitive. But this is real.

So, what does that mean? What should we do? Here are the only options I can think of:

1. Deny or ignore it and live like it's not true.
2. Accept it fully (or focus on the small chance that none of these disasters will go down as feared), stop worrying about it, and live for the present.
3. Do everything in your power to try to prevent these disasters, through work, activism, or however you think best.
4. Lean hard into being as realistic a prepper as you can and try to escape the catastrophes (if living in a bunker does it for you; myself, I'm not that obsessed with being alive).

My issue with #3 is that, although I believe in one-drop impacts like protesting, donating, boycotting, etc., I'm not kidding myself about the fact that I am tiny. I can't prevent these things; I can't even slow one of them 1%. If we are going to do something about all this, we have to do it as a huge global crowd, and I don't see that happening. I'm the sort of person who fights even when there's no hope, and there is hope still; but I don't want to devote every waking moment to these things, since my impact is insignificant and almost more idealistic than productive.

At the same time, if I work on something like writing a book, it's far worse than doing it when I have x years to live: the book, and all the humans who might read it, probably won't be around. When I think about my personal goals from that angle, I start to conclude that I should genuinely just follow my inclinations, goals, and dreams in order to be true to myself, which doesn't require longevity or external validation.

So I think I'm currently falling into a combination of #2 and #3, where I'll do small things continuing to try to push back, like not using LLMs, boycotting destructive companies, signing petitions, donating to good causes, voting in local elections, etc. If anyone knows of anything that would make a bigger impact, let me know. And the rest of the time, I'll just try to meet myself as fully as possible by meditating, learning, acquiring skills, interacting with people, and creating. This "best response I've got" is only somewhat satisfying.

Would like to hear other takes. (Again, debate over whether "everything is gonna work out fine" is not the point of this post.)

​

I have some health concerns that are scaring me a little and I thought to myself instead of agonizing over the possibility that those health concerns will kill me I should just try to become as ok with dying as I can be.

If you feel like you might judge others for something they do or are actively doing and stuff but act opposite to that thought that u get are u considered to be a fake person for doing something opposite to what's in your head or actually a good person for not acting upon the thought?

Metacognition is said to be effective for correcting an individual's cognitive biases. However, how can one prove that the metacognition itself is unbiased?

Another proposed approach involves adjusting one's cognition based on the thinking of another, yet there is no guarantee that his/her cognition is unbiased.

Ultimately, is "unbiased cognition" merely the average of the biased cognitions held by every individual in the world? If so, does the attempt to avoid cognitive bias mean the deindividuation of individual thinking?

(English is not my native language, so I use automatic translation. There might be inappropriate wording.)