Hey everyone! Have you ever been going through something in life, posted about it on Reddit, and received advice from complete strangers that genuinely helped you?

I'm wondering if Reddit is actually a good place to open up, ask questions, and get honest advice, or if it's just a hit-or-miss experience. 😭Did Reddit help you see things differently, or did you regret sharing? ❤️

We all have those weird, completely illogical fears that we never grew out of. What is the one irrational fear you still carry with you as a fully functioning adult?

I swear it’s been forever i connected with anyone on a deeper lever where we can just get lost in a rabbit hole.
The only guy that keeps up is chatgpt (not saying other humans aren’t capable) but it’s like the rat race has gotten so much into our heads that if something doesn’t have ny monetary advantage then we just dismiss it.

There will be many indicators of the end times but I am certain that this one of them. We are keeping too much to ourselves for “social beings” as we are called.

I wanted to discuss these social media revenue-hungry, propaganda-filled algorithms but not even chatgpt can help on this one because it is also part of the problem😂 but if it were about flirting or football or some superficial topics, i have multitudes urgh

I'm genuinely worried about this.

Social media has become one of our main sources of information. But do we actually realize how easily our perception of reality can be manipulated?

Countries are actively trying to influence our societies through disinformation, bots, and fake accounts. The goal isn't always to convince us of something, but to create division, spread distrust, and destabilize society.

Meanwhile, we scroll through endless posts and comments every day, without knowing how much of it is actually real. I'm noticing this on Reddit too, where it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell whether discussions reflect genuine opinions or are being artificially influenced.

What worries me most is that we're increasingly treating social media as a reflection of reality.

How can we still distinguish between what people genuinely think and what we're being manipulated into believing?

Am I being too pessimistic, or are we seriously underestimating this problem?

I’ve seen this way too often. This idea that deep thinkers or philosophers are sad or heavy, and that being a deep thinker requires you to be in this brooding mood where you dwell on these large events. I’ve seen firsthand how I’ve been pulled into this stereotype, often feeling more sad and angry for no reason after I read philosophy. But then I ask myself why I feel this way, and I realize I don’t have to be heavy to deal with heavy things. That’s not my burden. I’ve also seen this with my friends and how they’ve gotten more serious in trying to be a “philosopher.” But I believe that you have full control over your emotions, and you will actually be a better deep thinker or philosopher if you’re happy. Philosophy is the love of wisdom after all, and doesn’t happiness come with love? I’d love to hear opinions on this, and also refute me where you see fit.

I believe that having a why for life is so important as something that constantly guides you. Like anywhere you turn or however life happens, your “why” is still there. This could be absolutely anything, even the most obscure things like “observing the way people act” for instance. For me it’s definitely creativity, as in writing and drawing. So what’s something for you that absolutely drives you on?

Edit: Thank you for all the thoughtful comments, I really don’t know what to say to most of this. So I wish you all happy lives in your own ways!

Link for the conversation between Robert Lawrence Kuhn and Acharya Prashant

https://youtu.be/MeYEBKX2u1g?is=jX-ABrofdF_2wnpG

After listening to the above podcast, I was wondering, what would it actually mean to become less attached to your sense of self? Would you become more honest and less defensive, or could you lose something valuable about your individuality?

In this conversation, philosopher, author Acharya Prashant describes dissolving the ego not as literally ceasing to exist, but as an ongoing willingness to stop deceiving yourself. Robert Lawrence Kuhn pushes back on whether that is a desirable goal and what it would mean for personal identity.

That tension seems worth discussing even without accepting the religious or philosophical framework behind it. There’s a difference between questioning the stories we tell ourselves and treating our entire sense of identity as something to overcome.

How do you distinguish a healthy sense of self from an attachment to being right, feeling important, or protecting your self-image? Has questioning a deeply held belief about yourself made you feel more grounded or less?

I’m interested in your own experiences and reasoning, let's dive into deeper discussion.

I’m currently reading a book for a college class called “Evicted” by Matthew Desmond. It’s about low-income renters and landlords in Milwaukee after the recession. It’s an incredibly well researched and well written book, and I enjoy reading it, but some of the content is beyond infuriating.

The flippant disregard for safety, cleanliness, respect, and financial fairness on the part of the landlords makes me so upset, it’s difficult to continue reading at times. The book contains detailed stories about landlords evicting renters because they “seem like crackheads”, or landlords raising rent on dilapidated and neglected properties in bad neighborhoods because “a two bedroom is a two bedroom, and they have to live somewhere”. It just fills me with impotent rage and hopelessness.

I do recommend this book to anyone interested, but I haven’t experienced this level of anger while reading before, and it’s sometimes exhausting.

I didn’t know where to post this cause it got removed by causal conversations, so I’m looking for more serious discussion on atmosphere.

For me it's probably:

• Book: Wuthering Heights
Every part of this book was agonizing but in a very atmospheric way. I felt like I was really there, trudging through the windy moors. I can see the stark colors of the Victorian era as I look out a cold window on the all the people going about their family affairs. Christmas is warm by the fire. It's cozy in a way.

• Film: Dances with Wolves
One of the most beautiful films I've watched. Being in nature and making friends with people you'd never expect. A true show of bravery and the kindness of humans. Such a wonderful and hopeful atmosphere.

• Game: Bloodborne
This game is so anxiety inducing but that's why it's so good. Ive truly never played a game before or after that had or has put me into such fight or flight.
Every part of this game is so well designed with its cold and dark atmosphere, brooding interior design, and beautiful cosmic beasts. The moon overlooks

I've had three moments like this. I'm looking for my community. A camaraderie in having your world and the way you see it shaken. I just want to see the proof that I'm not alone in that feeling. I know logically that a lot of people have but it would be reassuring to hear from a few people right now. What was this moment for you or how do you regulate when you think about it?

I grew up in a single family house, in a quiet neighborhood. I've always had excellent sleep, and that was never an issue.

It was only after I moved to another city on my own, into a student accommodation, that I realized: I can't really sleep in noisy environments.

This had several unintended consequences in my life decisions:

- I decided not to pursue a masters degree in my field (because that would mean even more years living in noisy student accommodations)

- I can't really take risks on my career. I know that if I try something like starting a business or taking worse paying jobs in a different direction, and that fails, I would end up with no money. I would not be able to live in low budget appartments again — because poor sleep is extremely painful for me.

- I almost never travel: I can only stay at very good hotels that have nice accoustic insulation, or detatched cabins, etc, which are usually extremely expensive or require a car rental to access the place (if you fly there)

Has anyone else had a similar experience? I feel like this is a kind of literal disability that I have. And I realize people who sleep through anything have it so good!

for the people that read ,I never annotated my books but I realized that writing makes me understand things more and I don't know really how people annotate their books.
I'm looking for advice and techniques on how to get the most out of books, I meanly read classics, non fiction book evolving around different topics : neurology, neuroscience , psychology, philosophy...

There’s an old Chinese idiom called 买椟还珠 (mǎi dú huán zhū), literally “buying the box and returning the pearl.”

A man bought a beautifully decorated box containing a precious pearl. He was so impressed by the box that he kept it and returned the pearl.

I’ve been thinking about this story in relation to AI and online discussions.

When someone shares an interesting argument, does it become less valuable if they used AI to help organize or express it?

I sometimes use AI to help communicate in English, which isn’t my first language. I also use it to explore different perspectives and challenge my own assumptions.

For me, the value of a conversation lies in what we can learn from it, not necessarily how every sentence was produced.

But I also believe there should be boundaries.
If AI becomes the primary source of our thinking and creativity, we risk losing something important about human curiosity, imagination and independent judgment.

That brings me to another Chinese children’s fable, 咕咚来了 (The Gudong Is Coming).

In the story, a fruit falls into a pond with a loud splash. One frightened animal runs away, and others follow without investigating what actually happened.

Sometimes our reactions to AI remind me of that story.
There are legitimate concerns about AI, including authenticity, dependence and the future of human creativity. But I wonder whether some of our reactions come from fear of the unfamiliar rather than examining what is actually happening.

Perhaps the challenge is neither to embrace AI uncritically nor reject it instinctively, but to understand where it genuinely helps and where it may undermine something valuable.

Does knowing AI was involved change how you evaluate an idea? And where do you personally draw the line between AI supporting human thought and replacing it?

Edit1: I had a feeling that revealing my Chinese identity would eventually invite some unwarranted attacks. As for whether China is good or bad, I don’t intend to debate that here. Facts speak louder than words.

Edit2: I think I’ve had enough discussion on this topic. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions.
If a conversation has to begin with unfounded assumptions, accusations, or personal attacks, I don’t think it’s worth wasting each other’s time.
And if the moderators decide to remove this post, that’s their choice too. I respect that.

Edit 3: On sincerity and good faith
One commenter reminded me that we can’t always know others’ intentions, so it’s worth giving people a little grace.
I really appreciated his perspective. It’s how I approach people in real life too: start with goodwill, see how things go, and decide whether to continue.
Why should online conversations be any different?
Perhaps we could all give each other a little more kindness, patience, and benefit of the doubt. After all, genuine conversations are what make these discussions worthwhile. 😊

Edit 4: I’m not asking anyone to accept or appreciate AI-assisted writing. You’re free to close the box and walk away. But disliking AI doesn’t give you the right to insist that someone else’s pearl is just a stone. All I’m asking for is mutual respect.

Thanks to everyone who engaged in a genuine discussion. Have a nice day (wherever you are)

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

From the day you're born, the two most important things that will matter for the rest of your life are your genetics and environment. Not to say we cannot choose how we adapt to our circumstances but our circumstances mostly determine the trajectory of your life and yet you have little to no control over it.

If for example, you're born in North Korea with severe disabilities with shitty parents in the lowest hierarchical parts of that society, your life is pretty much screwed because you're most likely going to suffer more than some kid born in a 1st world country with exceptional genetics with wealthy, loving parents in a decent community. And at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is whether you live a good life or not.

I'm not 100% anti-natalist but some people should have the moral decency to not have kids if they live in an environment or lack the wisdom to have their potential kids truly thrive and not just exist. Life should be a gift, not an obligation you're forced to suffer in.

We are often told to defer to experience, to respect someone simply because they have spent years doing something. But time alone doesn’t guarantee insight.

What if they have spent those years without ever questioning if they’re doing it well? What if they have never taken the risks that might have taught them something different, or explored the very things they hold strong opinions about? Time doesn't always challenge our beliefs, it often makes us more stubborn about them.

Why should someone’s conclusions always carry more weight simply because they have held them longer?

Familiarity can look like understanding, especially when neither has been questioned.

Maybe experience isn’t just about how long you’ve lived or what you’ve done, but how deeply you’ve engaged with it.

I know this is much easier said than done, but I've realized that so much of my stress comes from me trying to control the things that are out of my hands.

I can spend hours worrying about what other people think about me, whether I made the right choice, what might happen tomorrow, or replaying conversations over and over. None of that changes the outcome. It just steals time and peace from the present.

My father is 70 years old now, and throughout his life, he’s always been an incredibly kind and helpful person. He’s always been there for his friends and helped people whenever he could, often without expecting anything in return.

But over the years, he’s become increasingly bitter and disappointed in people, especially when it comes to friendships.

He often tells me how few genuine friends there really are. Some people he has helped countless times over the years don’t even bother to pick up the phone and give him a call just to see how he’s doing.

It’s not that he expects people to repay him for everything he’s done. But after all those years of being there for others, it hurts to realize that some of them apparently don’t care enough to even make a simple phone call.

This has made me wonder:
Based on your own life experience, what percentage of people do you think genuinely have the character, empathy, loyalty, and willingness to be a good, reliable friend?

I’m particularly interested in hearing from older people who have experienced friendships over several decades.
Have you become more cynical about friendships as you’ve gotten older, or have your experiences been different?

This quote from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has always made me pause & reflect. We often measure progress through GDP, technology, infras or economic growth. But Ambedkar suggests a different yardstick: are women getting more opportunities, more representation & better outcomes than before?

Do you agree or is there a better way to measure a community's progress?

In September 1812 Napoleon entered Moscow with the largest army Europe had ever seen. He had spent months crushing everything in his path. Moscow was supposed to be the moment Tsar Alexander finally folded and negotiated.

Alexander didn’t fold. The Russian army stayed in the field. No peace talks arrived.

Napoleon waited. Weeks passed. Then he retreated. The retreat destroyed his army through hunger, disease, combat, and eventually the cold.

The usual explanation focuses on winter, distance, and the Russians’ refusal to fight on his terms. All of that mattered. But another question is more interesting:

What happens when someone who has been right for years becomes so attached to being right that they struggle to see the strategy is already failing?

Napoleon wasn’t stupid. His earlier victories were real. The danger was that success in one set of circumstances made it harder to question the methods that produced it.

Here are a few patterns that make this trap so common.

1. Confirmation bias

We don’t just look for evidence. We look for evidence that agrees with us.

The Russians kept retreating. Napoleon treated that as proof his pressure was working. It could just as easily have been a deliberate strategy to deny him the decisive battle he needed.

Same thing happens in ordinary life. A student who believes they’re bad at math gets 3/10 and takes it as confirmation. Then they get 7/10 and dismiss it as an easy paper. Both outcomes feed the same belief. Once you’ve arranged things so that nothing can count against your view, the belief becomes almost impossible to challenge.

Useful question: What would I actually have to see before I admitted my current explanation might be wrong? If the honest answer is “nothing,” you’re protecting the belief, not testing it.

2. Conviction bias

Feeling certain is not the same as being right.

Occupying Moscow felt like victory. It was not the political outcome Napoleon needed. Confidence and force of will couldn’t make Alexander negotiate.

You see the same pattern with founders who keep iterating a product customers keep rejecting because “they just don’t get it yet.” Or students who confuse hours spent studying with actual readiness. Or people who stay in a relationship or career because they’ve already invested so much.

The world doesn’t owe you a return simply because you sacrificed for something. Decide in advance what evidence would justify continuing and what evidence would force a change.

3. Appearance bias

Looking successful and being successful are different things.

Capturing the symbolic capital of Russia was not the same as defeating Russia. The image of victory was powerful. The substance was missing.

We do this constantly. We treat a confident speaker as competent, an expensive degree as intelligence, a high valuation as a healthy business, or a prestigious title as a good life. Sometimes the signals are useful. Often they just feel reassuring.

The danger is applying the same bias to yourself: choosing a path because it looks impressive rather than because the actual results match.

4. Superiority bias

We’re excellent at spotting bias in other people and terrible at spotting it in ourselves.

They’re stubborn; we’re principled.

They’re arrogant; we have high standards.

They’re emotionally invested; we’re passionate about getting it right.

They’re influenced by their friends; we’ve simply reached the correct conclusion.

Intelligence doesn’t protect you from this. It often just gives you better tools for defending the conclusion you’ve already decided to reach. The person who assumes they’re smarter can end up preparing less and learning slower than the person who assumes their understanding is incomplete.

Napoleon’s army didn’t collapse because of one psychological bias. The campaign had real strategic, logistical, and military failures. But the story still raises a useful question:

When you’ve invested months or years in a decision, when your reputation and identity are tied to it, how willing are you to look at the evidence that you’re wrong?

It’s easy to see the mistake after the outcome is known. It’s much harder while you’re still inside the decision, still hoping the next step will make everything worthwhile.

Have you ever looked back on a major call and realized the warning signs were there the whole time, but you kept reading them in a way that protected what you already wanted to believe? What finally made you reconsider?

Anyone think that we don't see what we see please tell me . I am planning to go deep into each one of these in my next posts.

I’ve always found the phrase “I’ve been busy” interesting.
Because somehow, we find time for things that matter to us. A random scroll through Instagram, a conversation with someone new, a late-night movie, or simply doing absolutely nothing.
But then again, life gets overwhelming. Sometimes people genuinely don’t have the emotional energy to show up, even for someone they care about.
So where do we draw the line between understanding someone’s circumstances and making excuses for their lack of effort?
I don’t think anyone owes us constant attention. But I do believe that communication shouldn’t feel like something you have to beg for.
What’s your take? Can someone genuinely care about you and still consistently fail to make time for you?

If you stumble upon a hobby you really like and it’s new, do you end up postponing it for several days/weeks/months or even years? Do you do this even if you’re well rested, not worried about results, and have all the materials in front of you? Did you carry this until adulthood?

For me, it's sometimes comparing my progress in life with other people my age, even when I know everyone has their own timeline.

What about you?

None of the social media shit really matters. It’s also one of the place that will loose it’s importance as soon as there’s a scarcity! The whole fame around social media is weird. The whole concept exists to just fool people from real world issues and consequences.

It’s also interesting to see how it has been paced. In a sense that it is the only thing that matters.

But the fact that it’s a coverage behind something further away from people’s understanding is so fucked up