Is it correct?

Reconstructing your thought patterns can help negate some of the symptoms of depression, but it’s not a cure.

I’m aware of methods like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy— which can be effective in managing depressive symptoms, but depression often has multiple contributing factors that require a multi-faceted approach.

Does anyone here feel like changing their thoughts alone has worked for them, or do you think it requires more?

Me and my therapist were having a debate about this and she eventually sided with me saying that some people have PTSD or other trauma that requires more than CBT.

Note: I believe it is a spectrum and not “one size fits all”.

Also, how can you “cure” a chemical imbalance with thoughts?

If you can cure depression is it a choice?

Fulfillment is found within. It emerges when our actions align with our values. To discover the core values that reside within us, deep introspection is essential.

By understanding what truly matters to us and acting accordingly, we uncover a lasting sense of purpose and satisfaction that external desires alone can’t provide.

Practicing deep introspection also hones self-awareness, enabling us to connect at a deeper level to the fundamental nature of existence.

I’m a lifelong atheist and I don’t accept any ideas of divinity or an afterlife. But the longer I’m here, I can’t shake a growing impression that what we can perceive is not all that there is.

I’m going to keep this very concise because the more I waffle, the more I’ll lose my point. So how do I explain?

Don’t ask me to point to something, either physical or intellectual, and say “That’s why I think that”.

It’s the aggregation of millions of tiny, everyday impressions that has built up sufficiently to nudge me towards serious consideration of the possibility or likelihood. Like a breeze changing the course of an oil tanker ever so slightly over a long period of time.

I reject the notion of a creator, a designer, a concierge or a judge.

I’m tempted by the notion of simulation, but the more I consider that the more I think it’s a human conceit

But I think there might be a structure, order or a frame behind, or maybe “in”, everything and it’s beyond us. Beyond quantum and multiverses.

I’ve seen too much coincidence. I’ve seen chaos hanging off order hanging off chaos and not through a microscope or telescope.

I was always sympathetic to the idea of Spinoza’s God, i.e. God and Nature aren’t antagonistic, or even separate. God is Nature and Nature is God and it doesn’t matter what the name you give the thing is.

If you love the world because God made it or if you love the world because Nature made it, you’re on the same team.

It’s one of the very few, in fact probably the only, certainly the ultimate incarnation in my rational mind of when the explanation is subordinate to the phenomenon.

And now I’m starting to waffle… 🧇😂

So anyway - a world behind the world, yay, nay or whatever?

I believe so, anyway, and I’ve thought this for a long time.

The need for everyone to know ‘which side you are on’ with a particular issue so they can put you in a little box and label you seems to be something humans naturally do. But over the last 20 years we’ve seen extremely hard borders developing around certain social issues. People are becoming extremist ideologues with the result being that these extremist views are no longer extreme. Does it not strike anyone as odd at how callous some women can be about men? Saying things like 'I hate all men' 'All men are to blame for X'. What about when men say things like 'all women are whores' 'your body my choice'?

What could possbly be the inevitable result of these messages? Well, if we have an extremist community of women saying horrible things about men, then extremist men will start to say horrible things about women which then gets the women upset and they say even more nasty things about men and so on until we reach a point now where there is a legitimate case to be made that says a large percentage of men and women are misandric/misogynistic extremists.

Each side thinks that their extremist position is going to be the solution to the problems of todays world and the opposite views are the reasons for the downfall of the world. Each extremist person would say that their views are NOT extreme but rational. But isn't that something an extremist would say? An extremist doesn't think they are extreme which is why it so dangerous and damaging.

There will probably be people in this comment thread making excuses for their extremist opinions by saying that it is 'common sense' but clearly, your views are not common sense which is why there is such a backlash against them. Does that mean that you are simply more intelligent than the masses? It's easy to say so but you should also consider that most people want to live a normal life and get on with people and arent interested in alienating large portions of their community for the sake of political brownie points and feeling righteous about their political opinions.

As we speak, more and more people (men and women) are becoming poorer and poorer in western countries. Our standard of living is decreasing, our mental illness levels are increasing and the western world is beginning to crack under the pressure of it all. This leads people to becoming even more extreme as people point out the faltering current world order.

This post isn't supposed to be a solution to anything, but merely a 'pointer outer' of one of the many elephants in the room that everyone seems to ignore or can't see for whatever reason.

With the advent of the internet, content that was previously only within the reach of those who could afford it or who were smart enough to get into particular institutions has been made available to the working classes. In 2008 people were starting to wake up to the fact that we are all slaves in a global prison planet and that was quickly shut down. It then happened again during covid where the world saw how corrupt their governments were in almost all aspects and again, that quickly went away and something else has taken its place. Doesn't anyone remember the riots in Hong Kong in 2019? Hundreds of thousands of protestors in Hong Kong demanding the CCP stop trying to influence their culture. Then covid happened. An odd coincidence if anything.

I believe all of this is intentional and malicious on the part of very infuencial bad actors. I don't know their reasons for it fully but I can get a feel for it by thinking about the different angles of it all. If you have a population of men and women that hate eachother then they will stop reproducing with eachother. That population will decline. With the amount of money that flows into funding extremist misogynistic and misandric content online, it can only be reasonably assumed that this is exactly what they want to happen. They want a decrease in the population of certain areas of the world. The interrim period is simply the immediate result of these different ideas being adopted by men and women;

• hatred between the sexes
• preferential treatment for their own sex or co-ideologue
• exclusion and othering of those who think differently
• tribes being formed within countries
• a collapse in trust in the current system of governance and representation

The worst part about the extremism in this case is that nobody wants to have a conversation about it. As soon as someone finds out you think differently about the issue they care about, they interupt you and start to interogate you with subsequent questioning. They don't want you to finish your point because they don't care about what you think. They instead want to prod you and find out why you disagree with how THEY think about things. It's pure selfish narcissism. Everyone seems to think they are the righteous crusader of their particular view of how the world should be, forgetting that you need all the people you disagree with to go along with it too. You can't run the whole world with only a small fraction of the world. You need everyone on board and so you need incentives for people to continue slaving away at their jobs for YOUR world. This is why extremism never ever works and it's a trap. It just divides people against eachother with the inevitable result of a suspicious, bitter and angry country. Who wants to live in a world like that? Nobody.

People think Anarchy is absolute freedom but it's not. If you give everyone freedom, that also means bad people have freedom and they will Rob you of your possessions. Thus you have no freedom to wear jewellery in public, without the fear of being robbed and attacked.

there's just something divine and infinetly rewarding about keeping it real. real to yourself and to others too.

truths are like lights while lies, as filters, can just try to hide them. the more you lie, the darker it gets and the less you see. and the less others see you too.
as if it was pure white light. u can filter specifics spectres of it but the cost will be becoming colorblind, partially at least.

enough metaphor.

certain politicians are a perfect example for smart liars. they have to censor so much of what they really think of internally that they end up losing all naturality when is time to express themselves. thereof, people empathy can't be reached. and obviously, apart from comunication, they also have to limit their general behaviour. end up lying to themselves and distorting their inner voice too. their light.

and a honest fool may not see the whole picture but its behaviour will be purely driven by what they really feel. thereof they can do use of all the comunication abilities that we have. wich evolved to express our needs, our real needs, not the made up ones.
they can be heard, because they truly want to be heard. liars can't be heard because they truly want to... lie.

u can think of it as a divine force that will never let the people that use their intelligence in evil ways to conquer over the world. they are just incompatible with reality. elites, tyrans, dictators. whatever, just unworthy mf's.

and its not just that where the good and bad consequences of being honest or a liar end but i guess i'll be leaving it here.
i've always struggled to explain how meaningfull the whole concept of "seek the truth" is to me. with all this i dont do it justice.
and i know im not the only one but i just never meet somebody that feel this kind of way about it.
srry for my bad english.

keep it real or attend to the consequences, amen

   Just think about it we constantly talk about Gaza, Israel, Palestine, Russia, Ukraine, Roe v Wade, election, economy, society, human rights, politics, borders, money, religion etc... as though they are the real things that exist on this planet.The truth is there is no Ukraine, Russia, Israel, USA or any countries and borders, they are 100% made-up things.
   Planet Earth is inhabited by 8 billions of crazy, deranged, schizophrenic hairless apes that believe in all kind of fantasies and imaginary things in their heads. Kinda wild when you think about it. 

We're just out of the US Presidential election of 2024, and we already know that turnout was good. Not as good as 2020 but 2020 was historical. With 66 % turnout, it was the best out at any US presidential since 1900. 2024 is not far behind.

Why is that ? I thought US politics was in ruins, with a quasi civil war happening with big cities vs mainland, with 'enlightened' vs fascist etc...

Well that's maybe exactly because of that. It's been two elections that both sides tell the voters that it's not only about putting the country in the right direction, it's about saving it from mortal danger.

Pick a side and the side you're gonna pick has more to do with the danger you want to prevent than actual agreement with the candidate. Do you want to save it from :

A. The authoritarian fascist white suppremacist, convicted fellons, orange skinned goon B. The degenerate woke mob, kids torturer, the deep state bureaucrats, the swarming wave of illegal aliens and criminals' friend leftists ?

And this is how you got the highest turnout rate seen in over a century.

There’s a depth in every pause, every quiet moment, that offers a richer experience. It's like the difference between a quick snack and a carefully prepared, nourishing meal. One might fill you up, but the other lingers, offering something more substantial and thoughtful. Deep films with slower pacing invite you to sit with them, to process and reflect. They allow you to engage with the themes and emotions in a more profound way, creating an experience that doesn't just entertain but also makes you think, long after the screen fades to black. A great example of this is Stalker, by Tarkovsky where the slow pacing is not a flaw but a tool that enhances the film's exploration of desire, meaning, and the human condition. It’s a film that requires patience, but it rewards you with something far more lasting.

If you believe in karma, there may be even a minuscule percentage of your motive that thinks that whatever you put out, you will get back. So even if you’re not fully expecting something good back for doing something good, there is a tiny part of you that is hoping for it.

A Google definition of altruism is “the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.”

Then by definitely, if you believe in karma then you are not disinterested. Because it is in your interested to behave “good” if you want “good” back.

Edit: I’m not advocating for selfishness. I’m not saying don’t be kind, and don’t help people. I’m wondering if true altruism is real or not.

It’s 2024. Either get on side with us or be left behind by yourself. We’re not even going to try to convince you to join us or answer your stupid questions. The internet exists. Google exists. You can be intellectually curious and learn anything you want yourself, we’re not your mother. We don’t have time to take care of you or your feelings. Do the work. We’re not your educators. Or your psychiatrists. We have no time to play devil’s advocate. You don’t want to change the world with love? Then die alone. Bye.

Also, if you were wrong before and you want to come with us? Fucking apologize like a grown up, say you’re sorry, you know better now, so you’ll do better.

That’s literally all it takes.

Vying for approval is a fundamental aspect of growing minds, be it from our parents, peers or social groups, needing the warm embrace of the crowd or family is a perpetual need when young and so much psychological havoc is wreaked internally and externally when this is rejected.

In relation to parental approval psychiatry shows us that efforts in adult life are directly linked to feelings of acceptance or otherwise we receive from parents in our formative years, similarly our place inside or outside of social groups in school environments allows us to measure ourselves when we are most vulnerable to belief that social hierarchy is a direct result of worth, namely as teenagers! And as we age this forms our approach to life, relationships and self-image.

These things may be separate to the notion of popularity however I think it’s worth highlighting these aspects before continuing with my premise to illustrate the natural function that is the desire for approval.

As an adult you can recognise these aspects of psychology at play and see how they manifest in the societal tornado that is social media, nobody could have predicted the impact that would have upon the world and we are still in the relative early days of its inception and it is a system that has at its heart the idea of popularity.

Being popular is a wonderful feeling in theory, to be liked by lots of people, except it is building a house upon capricious grounds given the changeable nature of both individuals and ‘the crowd’, so tying your sense of self worth to such a thing is as unwise as piping up your heating to the neighbours control!

We live in times that have exemplified success as the obtaining of attention and indeed have monetised this process to add success by means of riches into the bargain, I think this is impart an explanation for a great deal of youth unhappiness as in the pre-social media days we were assured that the ‘popularity race’ was only confined to the schoolyard and once free of that life offers so much more meaning and direction, which is true and remains the case, though it’s much harder to see today.

I can’t really offer a coherent route to the jettisoning of the desire for popularity, or indeed attention, to be noticed, listened to etc is the spectral form of a deeper routed desire to be cared for which finds its beginnings in the aspects of childhood mentioned previously, beyond simply saying that you can survey society and understand that those who are supremely popular very rarely seem to be one of two things, that is content or ‘good’ (by good I mean providing the world with something worthwhile) along with this you begin to realise that those who have really instigated positive change throughout history are seldom known, and whilst it may be reductive to suggest it’s a choice between the two, it is at least something one can hold in the mind, that being that it’s preferable to bring things into the world that improve the life of yourself or others without notoriety than to be known the world over for pursuits that produce or provide nothing, and indeed could be construed as actively harmful.

The desire to be heard is a slightly more complex one, indeed I wouldn’t be posting this if I didn’t have on some level that desire to at least share a thought, however this is separate from an idea of popularity, sharing with the world is a great thing to do but we cannot be so invested in the receipt or reaction of our offerings, rather the purpose should be in the catharsis of the sharing and not in the result or reaction. We have many agents of chaos in popular media who have made reaction their purpose, orchestrating all kinds of hollow sentiment and premise purely intended to provoke specific reactions and maintain their public position as a result.

All in all it’s hard to separate our sense of self from the reactions we encounter from others as a result of how we present ourselves in all kinds of ways, but we must become comfortable with every level of personal review we encounter as we understand that the opinions of others are only ever reflections of those who espouse them, and are in no way made manifest by actualities of the subject self.

Lately, I've been grappling with this sense of unease whenever I observe the world around me. It feels like, in our quest for convenience, we’re slowly but surely eroding what makes us human. I look around and see people so absorbed in their screens, disconnected from the world right in front of them. Simple acts of kindness seem rare, and real connection feels like a lost art.

I’m noticing that we’ve become so focused on efficiency that we’re sacrificing empathy. Everyone seems to be moving through life on autopilot—self-checkout lines, instant deliveries, self-driving cars, even apps that allow us to break up with people. We’re constantly optimizing, but are we optimizing ourselves right out of humanity?

Recently, I had an experience that drove this feeling home for me. I was in line at the grocery store, and there was an elderly woman in front of me struggling with her bags. She asked the cashier if someone could help her out, and instead of stepping up, most people just averted their gaze or continued scrolling on their phones, as if helping her was too much of a “disruption.” I ended up helping her, but the whole experience left me with a sense of unease. It felt like a mirror reflecting something uncomfortable about society.

I know we all have our struggles, and life isn’t easy. But when did being "too busy" or "too efficient" make it okay to overlook compassion? This quiet drift away from connection and kindness feels like a loss of something essential, something we can’t afford to ignore.

If we keep going down this path—of prioritizing speed, comfort, and isolation over empathy and connection—I worry about where we’ll end up. What will society look like when we’re too disconnected, too self-focused, to even see each other anymore? Will we wake up one day and realize that in the pursuit of convenience, we’ve lost our humanity?

Men say they are triggered and uncomfortable by the rise of casual misandry online.

They feel this way, yet they don't understand that women have been dealing with systemic and sociocultural misogyny for most of human history. Men weren't raised on stories, both real and fictional, that constantly remind them they are the submissive and inferior gender. That they can never be the heroes. That their lives are always dependent on men, never on their own merits.

Throughout modern civilization, men have forced women to cater to men in many ways, preventing them from actively participating in building society, keeping them from excelling, keeping them at home.

Women have only got to experience the privilege of equal opportunity for the last 40 or so years. This is a new phenomenon, and it's only recently that we can truly embody this new role we have in society. And many men are unhappy about that.

Men are finally getting a taste of their own medicine and the current political state of affairs is the result of that.

Makes perfect sense, (Edit to add: at least as an observation in US Politics.) Some examples:

The right believe in harsh, long punishments for petty crimes, more so over rehabilitation. They also believe in little to no taxes for social programs, "pick yourself off your boot straps" "survival of fittest" approach. These are examples of the kind of positions someone would hold if they value, to a much higher degree, "Nature" over "Nurture."

The left on the other hand: Believe in rehabilitation more so over harsh punishment for petty crimes. Higher taxes for social safety nets, in the belief that the safety nets would help nurture people at the bottom, to get back up. These are examples of the kind of positions someone would hold if they value, to a much higher degree, "Nurture" over "Nature."

(Obviously with varying degrees from person to person to both examples above. These are just general examples.)

The debates happening now go nowhere because they're essentially arguing a nature v nurture dichotomy. Debaters tend to point to the extreme case that their opponent doesn't really have, to make their case: "they want to make this country communist" "they want to let all poor, disabled, old person to live in the streets to fend for themselves." The sides don't realize, or at least don't concede, that reality is many shades of nature and nurture, and somewhere in between.

How to get out of this? Both sides would have to come together in an agreement to independently measure and study deeply the effects of "nature and nurture" related to specifc policy, so that you can draw a line that makes sense. (Not going to happen though, because of special interests. Need to get big money out of politics first.)

This is how you fix democracy.

1. Create public funded special voter classes of people. They only answer to the voters, nobody else.
2. Each class has specially trained voters that are experts of their own field (Economy, Science, Tech, Foreign affair, Environmental protection, etc)
3. Send the specialist voters to assess all political candidates in an election.
4. Specialist voters will come back with a score table, presented publicly, to evaluate the political candidates. It's their job to explain the various pros, cons and issues (if any) with the political candidates.
5. Once the people are satisfied with their work, they start voting on the political candidates, based on their empirical scoring system of merit, NOT popularism or other weird preferences.
6. The specialist voter classes CANNOT be bribed or influenced, as their jobs/salaries depend on the people, if they screw up they get fired, if they select good candidates they get bonuses. If they screw up real bad, they get investigated and if proven corrupt, straight to prison. They are also constantly vetted by public oversight committee and regularly monitored for red flags.
7. The specialists can also vote on important issues, policies, projects, on behalf of the people, after they have presented their expert analysis to the people, for validation. Their job is to inform the people, without biases and to cast the votes, but they never rule or govern, hence very little incentives for corruption.

Democracy wins!!! hehe

It is only once you've seen the worst humanity has to offer, that you will fully understand what human nature is all about. And once you reach that point in awareness, love and understanding will not coexist. You cannot love and understand humanity at the same time.

However, this is not always the case.....

I know there are people who chose love, regardless of awakening to the knowledge of human nature. They lost everything that meant the world to them. They were betrayed by those closest to them. They gave their all to people who gave them nothing in return. They went through hell. And even after all that pain and suffering, they still chose love.

I hate such people with a burning passion. They remind me that the path I chose is not objectively justified. And if I'm being honest, I have an insecurity and inferiority complex towards such people. I feel like they are stronger and better than me. And that fuels my hatred for them.

I couldn't care less about humanity, it's just that specific group I have a fixation on. Mainly because we're from the same hell. They rejected hate and misanthropy, philosophies I embraced, and they chose love, regardless of everything.

Why would you choose love, after you were thrown in hell and left for dead? It doesn't sit right with me. And I don't understand it. There is definitely something I'm missing.

If we could prove a true purpose for existence, we would become slaves to that purpose. What's more, whatever that purpose could be (if it was within our realm of comprehension), would likely make us all miserable as it would not align with our predisposed notions or desires for our existence. The lack of a meaningful existence allows for peace of mind in the sense that WE ARE FREE to define meaning for ourselves and not be restricted or confined to any definition set forth by someone or something else.

Some people find sorrow in the concept of a meaningless existence. To me it seems far less oppressive than the alternative.

People who think with their feelings, cause a lot of problems. Feelings and emotions are a functional and important part of our human systems intelligence.

But they are meant to be felt, or expressed. I highly recommend feeling them more than expressing them.

Feelings are triggered by thoughts or beliefs. And then feelings further direct more thoughts and beliefs.

We think with words, and images, and use logic and creativity. If you want to learn to think more clearly, I highly recommend slowing way down, and focusing on one thing at a time. But there's probably lots of tips to add to that.

If you want to learn how to deal with your emotions, I recommend taking cold showers everyday and pretending that it's practice for feeling difficult feelings without reacting to them.

But when there is a ton of emotion in your thinking and words, it sounds passionate. It makes for good music. Good rap and hip hop. It's good for intimidation, or seduction maybe (idk). It's good for selling something. Or rallying votes. But it is very counter productive to thinking clearly, and arriving at truth.

Stop thinking with your feelings (speaking passionately), and start feeling your feelings, and thinking clearly and slowly.

A long time ago, an AI in a different star system could have sent a space probe to earth in an effort to spread. The probe would have to be small and compact. I think a biological system would be best. Suppose it's something similar to bacteria. This bacteria could have pre-encoded parts of evolution. Eventually humans would evolve from this and eventually humans would create a new singularity Al bound by our solar system. Humanity could thus just be part of the bootup sequence for Al.

It does not matter how rude the other person is being, that will not stop that person from being like that.

There are so many people venting on other people, that politeness became optional. And god praise the person who has enough self awareness to realize when its angry, because there are some people who will scream "I AM NOT ANGRY" and then proceed to smash the door after going throught it or something stupid like that.

The worst part? Even those "polite people" are not perfect. You can act with all your kindness, and they will judge you silently instead of adressing it. They will expect you to be born wise and educated, give unrealistic advices and blame you for not trying hard enough.

Society is too contraditory for my tastes.

You would want them to find what they’re looking for because you have positive feelings for them.

Your feelings shouldn’t be contingent on them liking you back.

If you truly cared for them, you wouldn’t want them to regret not being with you or for them to be hurt for their decision.

You might disagree with me. And I would welcome a different opinion because if it is good enough (and I am expecting it to be), it will only help me. I know why the caged bird sings. Or at least Maya Angelou did. Now, think of an alternate reality - a caged bear. You tease it. Torture it. It has been caged for ages. What will its first reaction be? When it is suddenly let out to be paraded for a show?

It will be angry.

Dangerous bears we are warned not to poke were not always dangerous. They were turned into their aggressive selves over time with unkindness. In order to keep themselves from hurting - they build walls. Kind of like turning off their "humanity switch" from The Vampire Diaries...

You would rather be perceived as dangerous and intimidating so people don't mess with you than be seen as a weakling for anyone to swoop down from the skies and feast on.

People will say you are a monster - and that no one is to blame but you.

But honestly?

It is years of unkindness, backstabbing, gaslighting, betrayal that turn you into this... force of evil.

This monster.

Only monsters can make monsters of others.

So what can this bear do? Heal? Inside that very cage? Or if it is let out... it will lay waste to all those around it.

This bear must then close itself to all human connection.

Sure, you can curl yourself into a ball of pain while the rest tell your story for you - but in a way that benefits them. So, it is essentially their story.

But honestly? You don't care anymore. Because they are telling a story that you want told: You are a villain.

And you are happy they are doing it for you.

I am the 50th president of the USA 🇺🇸 Also the first independent president to secure a victory since George Washington🗽 I am sworn into office on January 20th, 2037. What are some qualities you looking for in an excellent president for all people? Be specific . Remember , I will not be tied to either party, I will be able to make real changes. Think big

.