Feedly:

This blog is currently the 7th most popular hbd blog on Feedly. Thanks for following!

https://feedly.com/i/top/hbd-blogs

Remnant:

Dictionary:

"a part or quantity that is left after the greater part has been used, [explained,] removed, or destroyed."

My Second Blog (Poems and Aphorisms):

Please visit my second blog ("Poems and Aphorisms"), where every post appears in both English and German:

https://gedichteundaphorismen.blogspot.com/

Unterschiedliche Wertigkeiten von Information / Different Values of Information:

https://meinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com/2020/09/unterschiedliche-wertigkeiten-von.html

Überspitzt ausgedrückt:

Das Gehirn des Mitmenschen beherbergt Information. Und manche dieser Informationen sind für uns tausendfach wertvoller als manch andere dieser Informationen.

In manchen Gesprächen teilt der Mensch sein kostbarstes Wissen, seine kostbarsten Gedanken, Erinnerungen, Erlebnisse, etc.

-----

Put somewhat pointedly:

The brain of another person contains information. And some of this information is a thousand times more valuable to us than certain other pieces of information.

In some conversations, a person shares their most precious knowledge, their most precious thoughts, memories, experiences, etc.

Intelligenz / Intelligence:

https://meinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com/2020/10/intelligenz_3.html

Wie wichtig ist Intelligenz bzw. Denkbegabung letztlich? Und was gibt es neben der Intelligenz bzw.  der Denkbegabung alles noch?

Als Erstes würde mir da die "emotionale Ansprechbarkeit" oder "Schwingungsfähigkeit" einfallen.

Der Ausprägungsgrad der Intelligenz, in dem Sinn, legt fest, wie wirksam eine Person Phänomene der Um- und Innenwelt unter Kategorien bringen kann.

Die "emotionale Ansprechbarkeit" als die Fähigkeit, Äußeres oder Inneres als Wert zu erleben. Angesprochen zu werden und anzusprechen. Zu lieben, zu hassen. Freude und Schmerz zu erleben. Mit dem Herzen an Menschen, Dingen und Ideen zu hängen.

-----

How important is intelligence, or mental ability, ultimately? And what else exists besides intelligence or mental ability?

The first thing that comes to mind for me is "emotional responsiveness" or "capacity for resonance."

The degree of intelligence, in this sense, determines how effectively a person can classify phenomena of the external and internal world.

"Emotional responsiveness," on the other hand, is the ability to experience what is external or internal as value. To be addressed and to address. To love, to hate. To experience joy and pain. To be attached with one’s heart to people, things, and ideas.

Belief versus Action:

https://meinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com/2025/03/belief-systems-versus-actions-efficacy.html

Alexander:

"Some people seem to live in a mental world, where the way they define themselves their identity is largely based upon what they think, feel, and believe. For example, “I am an anarcho-communist,” “I am a Trump supporter,” or “I am red pilled.” Others define themselves more by what they do or have done: “I am a landscaper,” “I am a husband” or “I am a sailor.” Really easy to get into Group 1, because it doesn’t actually require anything. You basically just get in-group membership by claiming it. “I believe the right thing.” Almost like putting on a costume. A lot of these people need to work on shifting themselves into Group 2 - an identity based on real-world accomplishments and behaviors."

Frequently Viewed Posts:

https://www.google.com/search?q=meinnaturwissenschaftsblog+site%3Ameinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com&sca_esv=d43255849d412494&biw=1112&bih=806&sxsrf=AE3TifMWjrPirQDb1H6aGsis9vQd79v8kQ%3A1758664087439&ei=lxXTaNDQGvHAwPAP5dvnkA4&ved=0ahUKEwiQ-Neh7u-PAxVxIBAIHeXtGeIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=meinnaturwissenschaftsblog+site%3Ameinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com

Being Tense:

https://meinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com/2024/08/being-tense.html

I know some tense people. Their tension often makes them unusually vigilant. In certain situations, that heightened vigilance can even be attractive.

"A person who is always tense and almost never relaxed can be described using several labels or adjectives. Some of the most common ones include:

1. High-strung: This term describes someone who is very nervous or easily agitated.
2. Tense: Refers to a person who is often anxious or unable to relax.
3. Uptight: Used for someone who is excessively concerned with following rules or conventions, and who is often nervous or worried.
4. Anxious: Describes a person who frequently feels worried or uneasy.
5. Nervous: Someone who is often apprehensive or uneasy.
6. Stressed: Refers to a person who is frequently overwhelmed by stress or pressure.
7. Edgy: Describes someone who is tense or irritable, often anticipating something bad happening.
8. On edge: Similar to edgy, this phrase is used for someone who is very tense or nervous.

These terms capture the various aspects of being perpetually tense and can be used depending on the context and specific characteristics of the person's behavior."

Quantitative Connections / Quantitative Zusammenhänge:

The size of one thing (or quantity) depends on the size of another thing (or quantity).

-----

Die Größe eines Gegenstands (oder einer quantitativen Größe) hängt von der Größe eines anderen Gegenstands (oder einer anderen quantitativen Größe) ab.

Erkennen // Spotting Patterns / Deliberate Thinking:

https://meinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com/2020/09/erkennen.html

Wir sind umgeben von Gegenständen, die nach gewissen Regeln entstehen, vergehen, sich verändern. Aufgabe der 'Ratio' ist es, diese Regeln aufzufinden, zu detektieren, und zu verwerten.

-----

We are surrounded by objects that come into being, pass away, and change according to certain rules. The task of reason is to uncover, detect, and make use of these rules.

The Good Engineer:

A good engineer is good or effective at constructing useful things.

[Also see: The Good Scientist]

The Good Scientist:

A good scientist is good or effective at extracting true statements from nature.

[Also see: Science]

Nations as Natural Families: From Kin Selection to Multilevel Selection

Filipe Nobre Faria and Sandra Dzenis (2025)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/nana.70023


Abstract

In nationalism studies, nations are often viewed as artificial constructs. By contrast, many sociobiologists see nations as natural families or kin groups. They explain altruism and shared ancestry among co-nationals through kin selection theory, which accounts for altruism towards close genetic relatives. In this article, we refine and deepen this sociobiological view through multilevel selection theory, an evolutionary framework that extends selection beyond genes and individuals to include groups. We contend that nations function as extended kin groups whose cohesion arises from genetic relatedness, culturally evolved institutions, and intergroup competition. This biocultural perspective advances the insights of sociobiologists and bridges constructivist and evolutionary explanations of nationhood.

Context & Memory:

Currently I am reading the book "Why we remember" from Charan Ranganath. A short review will follow.

Context:

"That sense of being in a particular time and place is called context. ... A great deal of everyday forgetting happens not because our memories have disappeared but because we can't find our way back to them. In the right context, however, memories that have seemed long gone can suddenly resurface back to the forefront of our recall. Why is it that, in the right context, I can access dormant memories - including words and phrases in an otherwise foreign language - that seem unreachable to me back at home?"

-----

~ in the right context we can just remember things.

The Entertainment Industry:

To what extent does the entertainment industry target the tastes of the average person?

"The entertainment industry largely does target the “average person”, because mass appeal drives revenue. Movies, music, TV, and even streaming platforms depend on large audiences, so they’re built around broad tastes, familiar story structures, recognizable genres, and easy-to-follow formats."

Wissen / Knowledge:

Wissen wird nicht weniger, wenn wir es teilen.

Das Teilen von Wissen verbraucht das Wissen nicht.

Manche Dinge haben deshalb großen Reiz,
da sie sich in ihrem Reiz nicht erschöpfen.

So der Blick auf manch einen Gegenstand.

Der Gegenstand bleibt interessant oder schön.

So das Studium von manch einem Text oder Buch.

Der Text / das Buch oder das Thema des Texts
/ des Buchs bleibt interessant.

Vielleicht geht es eben darum, das zu suchen,
was an Wert gewinnt, wenn wir es teilen.

-----

Knowledge does not diminish when we share it.

The act of sharing knowledge does not use it up.

Some things are so appealing precisely
because their appeal does not run out.

Like certain objects.

They remain interesting or beautiful.

Like the study of certain texts or books.

The texts, the books, or the subject of these
texts or books remains interesting.

Perhaps it is precisely about seeking
what gains in value when we share it.

This Blog / Dieser Blog:

My blog should be a place where some valuable bits of information are shared.

-----

Mein Blog sollte eine Art Sammlung oder Quelle von wertvollen und kostbaren Informationen sein, aus der der Leser schöpfen kann, wann immer ihn das Bedürfnis überkommt.

Selbstbezug / Self-reference:

Die Kunst, das Beste an sich selber zu kennen.

-----

The art of knowing the best in yourself.

Vertieftes Lesen / Deep Reading:

Ein paar Stunden am Tag tief eindringen, in ein Buch, in einen Artikel.

-----

Spending a few hours a day immersing yourself deeply in a book, in an article.

Der Evolutionäre "Imperativ" / The Evolutionary “Imperative”:

Tritt die Evolution manchmal schon fast mit einem Imperativ an uns heran?

"so kann man es durchaus sehen.

• Evolution „redet“ nicht direkt mit uns, aber manche Anpassungen wirken wie ein Befehl: Hunger treibt zur Nahrung, Angst zwingt zur Flucht, Lust zur Fortpflanzung.

• Diese Imperative sind tief in unserer Biologie verankert – sie überstimmen oft Überlegung oder Moral.

• Auch im Sozialen spüren wir das: Zugehörigkeit und Status waren überlebenswichtig, deshalb fühlen wir heute noch den Druck, dazuzugehören.

• Gleichzeitig können wir diese „Befehle“ reflektieren und unterlaufen – Kultur, Vernunft und Technik machen uns nicht völlig ausgeliefert.

• Aber selbst wenn wir widerstehen, bleibt der evolutionäre Imperativ wie ein Grundrauschen, das unser Verhalten formt.

Kurz gesagt: Evolution spricht nicht mit Worten, aber sie zwingt uns durch Gefühle und Triebe – fast wie ein stummer Imperativ."

-----

Does evolution sometimes approach us almost with an imperative?

"You could certainly see it that way.

Evolution doesn’t “speak” to us directly, but some adaptations act like commands: hunger drives us to food, fear forces us to flee, desire to reproduce.

These imperatives are deeply rooted in our biology – they often override reflection or morality.

We also feel it socially: belonging and status were vital for survival, which is why we still feel the pressure to fit in today.

At the same time, we can reflect on and subvert these “commands” – culture, reason, and technology mean we are not entirely at their mercy.

But even when we resist, the evolutionary imperative remains like a background hum, shaping our behavior.

In short: evolution does not speak in words, but it compels us through feelings and drives – almost like a silent imperative."

Science:

Science aims at extracting true statements from nature.

Inhaltliche Verschiebung / Substantive Shift:

Wie konnte sich hier,
von 2019 an,
eine erstaunliche
Änderung
des inhaltlichen
Schwerpunkts
vollziehen?

-----

How was it possible that,
starting in 2019,
an astonishing change
in the substantive focus
took place here?

Plappern / Babbling:

>„Plappern“ hat tatsächlich den Beigeschmack von Geräusch statt Gehalt. Es ist Reden, das nicht unbedingt Information oder Bedeutung transportiert, sondern eher als Lautkulisse wirkt.

• Oft verbindet man damit kindliches Sprechen („Kinder plappern“), also ungefiltertes, spontanes Gerede.

• Bei Erwachsenen klingt es eher abwertend: jemand redet zu viel, zu schnell, ohne wirklich nachzudenken.

• Der Kern ist tatsächlich, dass die Quantität im Vordergrund steht, nicht die Qualität oder Substanz der Worte.

• Gleichzeitig kann Plappern auch eine soziale Funktion haben: es füllt Stille, schafft Nähe oder nimmt Nervosität.<
  
  
  

-----

>“Babbling” indeed carries the connotation of noise rather than substance. It is speech that does not necessarily convey information or meaning, but rather serves as a kind of sound backdrop.

It is often associated with childish speech (“children babble”), meaning unfiltered, spontaneous talk.

With adults, it tends to sound more derogatory: someone talks too much, too fast, without really thinking.

The essence is that quantity is in the foreground, not the quality or substance of the words.

At the same time, babbling can also serve a social function: it fills silence, creates closeness, or eases nervousness.<

Think Clearly:

I bought the book "Think Clearly - Eight Simple Rules to Succeed in the Data Age". It's a light read.

A review will follow soon.

-----

1. Accept How Complex the World Is

"The world isn’t simple. Things interact; many variables; unintended consequences. Don’t expect neat causality or one-size-fits-all explanations.

We tend to oversimplify because it’s easier. That risks misinterpretation or being misled.

2. Think in Numbers

Use quantitative thinking: look at rates, proportions; compare reasonably. Rough back-of-envelope estimates are useful.

Relying solely on stories or intuition can hide scale issues or exaggerate rare events.

3. Protect your Samples from Biases

Be aware of how data is collected; sample bias, selection effects, survivorship bias etc.

Many conclusions fail because the sample isn’t representative.

4. Accept that Causation is Challenging

Correlation ≠ causation. Need to think about confounders, experiments vs observational studies, natural experiments, etc.

It’s easy to see patterns and assume causation (politics, media, health, etc.)

5. Don’t Underestimate the Power of Randomness

Random variation is everywhere. What looks like pattern may be just noise. Also rare events do happen.

Overfitting, seeing meaning when none is there; neglecting probabilistic thinking.

6. Predict Without Ignoring Uncertainty

Make predictions or decisions acknowledging what you don’t know; use confidence intervals or ranges; expect surprises.

Overconfidence and ignoring what might go wrong tends to cause big mistakes.

7. Accept the Trade-offs

Every choice has costs and benefits; you can’t optimize everything. You often need to balance competing values (speed vs accuracy; fairness vs efficiency etc.).

People or organizations try to maximize one dimension and ignore others, which causes unintended consequences.

8. Don’t Trust Your Intuition

Intuitions are useful in some domains, but they are also often biased. It’s better to test them, use data, and be aware of when intuition misleads.

False confidence; heuristics that are useful sometimes but misleading in others."

Marriage:

~ Men are competing for sex & Women are competing for commitment:

-----

Gia Macool:

Ever wonder why women flood social media with wedding photos? Because for a woman, marriage means being “chosen.” Society frames it as “love,” but it’s always been about status. Marriage works like a badge. A married woman is seen as “chosen,” a married man as “capable.” In her mind, she is now valuable, worthy of protection, provision, and legitimacy. That badge shields her from being labeled “undesirable,” “unwanted,” or “just a mistress.” It’s also why many married women look down on those who aren’t. Men use it too. For them, the badge says, “I can provide. I’m respectable. I’m not drifting with no direction.” To society, it signals maturity, stability, and leadership. But let’s be real none of this equals truth. Historically, marriage was a tool. Religion and culture used it to control people, organize families, and keep property, wealth, and reputations in order. That’s why people still ask, “When are you getting married?” If you don’t have an answer, they look down on you. Reality: marriage today is more about public perception than love. Real love doesn’t need a badge and it definitely doesn’t care about anyone else’s approval. Those who live by their own choices win."

-----

"Social signaling: Right – marriage has always carried symbolic weight. For women, historically, it meant security and legitimacy; for men, capability and respectability. That hasn’t fully disappeared.

Cultural inertia: The constant “When are you getting married?” reflects how deep marriage is woven into tradition, religion, and family structures. People project their own expectations onto others.

Status vs. substance: The “badge” idea captures how marriage can be used to project an image, regardless of the underlying relationship. Social media amplifies this signaling.

Shifting norms: In many places, marriage is losing its monopoly. Cohabitation, chosen singleness, and non-traditional partnerships are gaining legitimacy, though stigma still lingers.

Love ≠ marriage: Love can thrive without a certificate; marriage can exist without love. The two only overlap when people intentionally align them."

------



"Economic capacity: In most historical societies, men married only when they could support a household. That meant land, a trade, or wealth. Poor men often stayed unmarried or married much later.

Social rank: For elites, marriage was less about love and more about alliances. A man’s family had to be “capable” of offering status, property, or influence.

Reputation: A man had to be seen as stable, responsible, not a drifter. In many towns or villages, community approval mattered as much as personal readiness.

Demographics: In some times and places (e.g., medieval Europe), there were more men than women, meaning not every man could realistically expect to marry.

So historically, marriage was often a marker of capability — but defined narrowly: the ability to provide, maintain property, and uphold social expectations."

Das Finden der Eigenen Idendität / Finding One’s Own Identity:

"Spiegelung: Wir erkennen uns selbst oft erst, wenn wir sehen, wie andere auf uns reagieren. Manchmal überraschend, manchmal schmerzhaft.

Platz finden: „Wo gehöre ich hin?“ ist eine Frage von Zugehörigkeit. Familie, Freunde, Partner, Arbeit, Gemeinschaften – all das gibt Orientierung.

Spannung: Es gibt fast immer einen Konflikt zwischen dem, was man selbst sein will, und dem, was andere erwarten.

Eigenständigkeit vs. Beziehung: Der eigene Platz ist nie völlig unabhängig, aber auch nicht völlig bestimmt von anderen. Man muss aushalten, dass man nie ganz „passt“ – und genau da entsteht die eigene Freiheit.

Sinn: Der Platz in der Welt ist nicht nur ein „Ort“, sondern eine Art Haltung: Wo kann ich so sein, dass ich einen Beitrag leiste, der mir selbst und anderen Sinn gibt?"

-----

Reflection: We often only recognize ourselves when we see how others respond to us. Sometimes surprising, sometimes painful.

Finding a Place: “Where do I belong?” is a question of belonging. Family, friends, partners, work, communities – all of these provide orientation.

Tension: There is almost always a conflict between what one wants to be and what others expect.

Independence vs. Relationship: One’s own place is never completely independent, but also never fully determined by others. You have to endure the fact that you never entirely “fit” – and it is precisely there that your own freedom emerges.

Meaning: One’s place in the world is not just a “location,” but a kind of attitude: Where can I be in such a way that I contribute something that gives meaning both to myself and to others?"

Persönlichkeit / Personality:

 1. Wie viele Dimensionen benötigen wir zur Beschreibung eines Menschen?

 2. Wie heißen sie?

Peter R. Hofstätter

-----

1. How many dimensions do we need to describe a person?

2. What are they called?

Aimlessness and Idleness / Ziellosigkeit und Müßiggang:

“[One is tempted] to look behind the symptom of idleness for a conflict that prevents a person from forming goals.”

“I have often wondered whether very many of the people who push their way through our shopping streets—quite aimlessly, without for the most part having any serious intention or even the means to make a purchase—are not idlers, burdened with inner contradictions, driven by the fear of being alone, and by horror vacui. You can already tell by their walk that they do not really know where they want to go; what they seem to expect is a stimulus capable of masking their indecision. They crave stimulation and, in the end, are thankful to the neon lights in the shop windows for sparing them a tormenting inner monologue. We know this from adolescents, who are full of inner tensions and who sometimes cannot bring themselves to engage in any particular activity because of them. They then waste their time. To waste time, to drift over a stretch of life—that is the essence of idleness. To waste a time that one will later miss—it is already fairly clear in advance that one will miss it—that is the trick by which the idler rids himself of a paralyzing conflict. Later, he will somehow have to make up for the lost time through special activity; …”

“People are peculiar: they claim to wish for free time, and yet there is nothing with which they know less what to do than precisely that free time. When it is granted to them—say, on the weekend or on vacation—they often fare like the man in the fairy tale, for whom the fulfillment of his wishes only brought embarrassment. We know that every well-ordered society abounds in institutions whose main task is the filling of leisure time. They are said to serve ‘distraction’—perhaps it would be better to say: liberation from the inner monologue.”

—Peter R. Hofstätter

-----

"[Man ist versucht], hinter dem Symptom des Müßigganges nach einem Konflikt zu suchen, der den Menschen nicht zur Bildung von Zielen kommen lässt."

"Ich habe mich oftmals gefragt, ob nicht sehr viele der Menschen, die sich durch unsere Geschäftsstraßen drängen - recht ziellos, ohne dass sie meist ernsthafte Absicht oder auch nur die Mittel für einen Kauf hätten - Müßiggänger sind, beladen mit inneren Widersprüchen, getrieben von der Angst, allein zu sein, und vom "horror vacui". Man merkt es schon ihrem Gang an, dass sie eigentlich nicht wissen, wohin sie wollen; was sie zu erwarten scheinen, ist ein Reiz, der ihre Unentschlossenheit zu überblenden vermöchte. Sie sind reizhungrig und schließlich den Neon-Röhren der Auslage dafür dankbar, dass sie ihnen ein qualvolles Selbstgespräch ersparen. Man weiß es von den Heranwachsenden, die voller innerer Spannungen stecken und die aus ihnen heraus manchmal nicht zu einer bestimmten Tätigkeit finden. Sie vertun dann ihre Zeit. Eine Zeit vertun, über einen Lebensabschnitt hinweggleiten, das ist das Anliegen des Müßigganges. Eine Zeit vertun, die einem später doch fehlen wird - man weiß es im voraus ziemlich deutlich, dass sie einem fehlen wird - das ist der Kunstgriff, mittels dessen sich der Müßiggänger des lähmenden Konflikts erledigt. Er wird die verlorene Zeit später irgendwie durch besondere Aktivität wieder einzubringen haben; ..."

"Die Menschen sind eigenartig: Sie geben vor, sich eine freie Zeit zu wünschen, und sie wissen mit nichts so wenig anzufangen, wie eben mit jener freien Zeit. Wird sie ihnen - etwa im Wochenende oder im Urlaub - zuteil, dann ergeht es ihnen nicht selten wie dem Mann im Märchen, dem die Erfüllung seiner Wünsche nur Verlegenheit bereitete. Man weiß, dass jede wohlgeordnete Gesellschaft überreich ist an Institutionen, deren hauptsächliche Aufgabe die Ausfüllung der Freizeit ist. Sie dienen der "Zerstreuung", heißt es - vielleicht sollte man besser sagen, der Befreiung vom Selbstgespräch."

Peter R. Hofstätter

Autonomie in Firmen / Autonomy in large companies:

"Autonomie wird nicht gleichmäßig verteilt. In Firmen zeigt sich ein Muster:

• Erfahrene Fachkräfte: Wer Kompetenz und Expertise bewiesen hat, bekommt eher Spielraum.

• Vertrauenspersonen: Mitarbeiter, die zuverlässig liefern, auch ohne ständige Kontrolle.

• Kreative / Wissensarbeiter: Bereiche wie Forschung, Entwicklung, IT, Design – da macht Micromanagement keinen Sinn.

• Führungskräfte / Projektleiter: Sie müssen selbst entscheiden können, sonst lähmt das die Organisation.

• Selbststarter: Leute, die Initiative zeigen und Probleme eigenständig lösen, statt auf Anweisungen zu warten.

Weniger Autonomie kriegen typischerweise neue Mitarbeiter, Routinetätigkeiten, oder Rollen mit stark regulierten Abläufen."

"Autonomie wird tendenziell nicht gewährt, wenn:

• Unerfahrenheit: neue Mitarbeiter, die Abläufe noch lernen müssen.

• Routine- und Fließbandtätigkeiten: dort sind Prozesse eng getaktet, Abweichungen kaum möglich.

• Stark regulierte Bereiche: z. B. Medizin, Luftfahrt, Banken-Compliance – da sind feste Regeln vorgeschrieben.

• Geringes Vertrauen: wer Fehler macht, Deadlines verpasst oder unzuverlässig wirkt, wird enger kontrolliert.

• Hierarchisch geprägte Kulturen: in Firmen oder Abteilungen, wo Führungskräfte Kontrolle mit Autorität gleichsetzen.

Kurz: Weniger Autonomie haben meistens die, die neu, austauschbar, risikobehaftet oder nicht vertrauenswürdig erscheinen."

-----

"Autonomy is not distributed evenly. In companies, a pattern emerges:

Experienced professionals: Those who have proven competence and expertise are more likely to receive leeway.

Trusted individuals: Employees who deliver reliably, even without constant supervision.

Creative / knowledge workers: Areas such as research, development, IT, or design—micromanagement simply makes no sense here.

Managers / project leaders: They must be able to make decisions on their own, otherwise the organization becomes paralyzed.

Self-starters: People who show initiative and solve problems independently, instead of waiting for instructions.

Typically, less autonomy is given to new employees, routine tasks, or roles with heavily regulated processes."

"Autonomy tends not to be granted when:

Inexperience: new employees who still need to learn the processes.

Routine and assembly line work: processes are tightly scheduled, leaving little room for deviation.

Highly regulated areas: e.g., medicine, aviation, banking compliance—strict rules are prescribed.

Low trust: those who make mistakes, miss deadlines, or appear unreliable are monitored more closely.

Strongly hierarchical cultures: in companies or departments where leaders equate control with authority.

In short: those who are new, interchangeable, risky, or perceived as untrustworthy usually receive less autonomy."

Why is it that some women treat sex as a chore?

"From an evolutionary point of view, it makes sense that sex can sometimes be experienced as a means to an end rather than inherently rewarding:

1. Different reproductive costs: Women historically bore higher biological costs from sex (pregnancy, childbirth, nursing). This made them more selective and cautious—sex wasn’t “just fun,” it had heavy consequences. That predisposition lingers.

2. Parental investment theory (Trivers): Because women invest more in offspring, their evolved psychology emphasizes long-term mate quality and stability over frequent copulation for its own sake. When those conditions aren’t met, sex may feel like a duty rather than a drive.

3. Adaptive shifts in desire: Female sexual desire fluctuates with the menstrual cycle, relationship security, and resource availability. In contexts where reproduction isn’t beneficial (stress, poor partner support, no desire for more children), desire can downshift.

4. Pair-bond maintenance: Over time, long-term relationships involve “maintenance sex” to secure male commitment and resources. Evolutionarily, sometimes sex was less about pleasure and more about ensuring continued support.

5. Mismatch with modern conditions: Modern contraception, chronic stress, work, and social expectations can suppress natural desire signals. The body’s evolved system isn’t optimized for today’s environment, so sex can feel detached from instinctual reward.

In short: evolution shaped female sexuality to be highly conditional and strategic. If the context doesn’t align with those evolved conditions, sex can easily feel like a task or chore, rather than a spontaneous pleasure."

Situations of Excessive Demand / Extrem Fordernde Situationen:

The demands of a situation exceed an organism’s capacity to handle them.

(I’d like to take it from here and work further.)

-----

Die Anforderungen einer Situation übersteigen die Fähigkeit eines Organismus, diesen Anforderungen zu entsprechen.

(Hier würde ich gerne einhaken und weiterarbeiten.)

Twitter as the Easy Solution / Twitter als die Kurzfristige Lösung:

A glance at Twitter is, in many situations, the easy ‘solution’—a quick release from boredom or tension. Yet there are actions that demand more effort, more force, and more skills.

-----

Ein Blick auf Twitter ist in vielen Situationen die einfache "Lösung" (in Form einer Auflösung von Langeweile oder Spannung). Aber es gibt da Handlungen, die mehr Einsatz, mehr Kräfte und Fähigkeiten fordern ...

Careful Analysis versus Vibing:

Robin Hanson:

"Abstract beliefs have two big causes: vibes and analysis. We vibe beliefs mostly via intuitively feeling out their associations with people, other beliefs, and our personal status. (Music, art, eloquence, and status often influence this a lot.) We analyze such beliefs by more consciously and explicitly comparing our beliefs logically to concrete analysis of relevant data and established theory.

Most people form and change most of their abstract beliefs via vibing. (In far mode.) But there are experts in the world who have learned about specific relevant data and theory, and have learned how to apply those to estimate nearby abstract beliefs. Those calculated abstract beliefs are often at odds with the most popular vibed versions.

Most public talk on abstract beliefs is vibes. You can tell this by comparing how fast, fluid, and vague is such talk, relative to how slowly, carefully, and precisely experts must proceed to figure out the logical implications or data and theory, and to communicate that to other experts.

Most experts allow their expert knowledge to change some of what would otherwise be their vibed beliefs. However, they usually try to minimize the impact of their expert knowledge, which usually only applies to narrow areas, on their network of vibed beliefs, which covers a much wider range of topics. Often they emphasize the limits of their expert tools, and invoke piecemeal “common sense judgments” to protect their vibed beliefs from being changed by expert knowledge.

Most experts only have a few related areas of expertise. But some “polymaths” (like me) work to acquire expertise across a much wider range of topics. They then have more chances for expert knowledge to overturn vibed beliefs. For them there is a conflict not only between their network of vibed beliefs and expert knowledge, but also between expert knowledge in different areas."

Neuroticism & Divorce:

Emil Kirkegaard:

Science:

Science is about extracting true statements from nature.

Trust / Slow Science and Social Media:

Cory J. Clark & Bo M. Winegard:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cory-Clark-2/publication/395385848_The_Siren_Song_of_Influence/

I love quite many statements from this paper. A great read.

------

"Science has something helpful to offer. And helpfulness leads to status and influence."

-----

"Of course, discovering genuinely new and useful information is hard. It can take years of uncertain and tedious work. And in some disciplines, the well of discovery may be running dry."

------

"it may be that “honesty is the best policy” for maintaining long-term public trust in, and thus deference to, science."

------

"in the age of social media, a growing number of scientists appear less interested in the patient work of discovery ...."

-----

"Trust doesn’t come from demands for deference. It comes from repeated demonstrations of competence. It’s earned by delivering results."

-----

"Science earned its authority ... by ... offering high-quality information that helps people solve problems[.]"

"the hard-won and always-precarious reputation of science as a dispassionate arbiter of truth."

"Evolutionary scholars have documented status conferral across cultures, showing that generating benefits for others is the primary path to earning prestige and influence (e.g., Cheng, 2020; Durkee et al., 2020). Status gained through dominance or coercion can work in the short term, but it breeds resentment and unstable hierarchies, not durable trust."

------

"Likes, retweets, and follows reward attention-grabbing content rather than careful analysis."

"A viral tweet can return more validation in twelve hours than a peer-reviewed paper offers in two years."

"And the more you post, the greater your chances of going viral. Quantity trumps quality, since each tweet, however meagre, is one more shot to win Twitter for the day."

-----

"Ideally, science rewards rigorous, methodical work, a system that is constraining and at times, painfully slow."

-----

"Earlier generations of scholars earned prestige over decades through meaningful contributions to their fields. A rare few reached broader public fame. Today, a scholar with little expertise but 4 strong opinions and a fiery temperament can swiftly reach “public intellectual” status. It doesn’t take much experience with social media to learn that the currency of influence is provocation, not precision, and that fanning the flames of controversy drives engagement."

-----

"The scientific method, though imperfect, is specifically designed to minimize biases, flawed analyses, and imprecise claims."

"science is the best system for arriving at truths (at least for now)."

"So long as scholars stick to their core mission, i.e., identifying and describing empirical reality, they can offer something genuinely useful to the world."

"Science has something helpful to offer. And helpfulness leads to status and influence."

-----

"Firing off a polarizing tweet, by contrast, might take just a few minutes and still deliver thousands of likes, hundreds of new followers, and a fleeting but real sense of importance."

"The job of an academic used to be much quieter. Scholars were known to their students, immediate colleagues, and perhaps their broader subdiscipline, but few scholars reached public awareness. Now, with podcasts, blogs, and especially social media, scholars frequently speak directly to the public, amassing followers, attention, and influence."

-----

"scientific communicators who embraced accountability—by inviting discussion of dissenting views, acknowledging uncertainty, and taking responsibility for previous errors—elicited more trust and engagement than those who adopted authoritarian messaging, dismissed dissent, or labeled critics as “anti-science.” "

-----

"Academia often responds to problems with strategic plans, committees, and more bureaucracy. ... In this case though, the solution lies in a collective recommitment to the core values of science and a scaling back of everything else. Instead of overstating certainty, scientists should model epistemic humility, acknowledging uncertainty where it exists and being transparent about the limitations of our knowledge."

"Neither does issuing sweeping “consensus statements” on unresolved social issues. Where true consensuses exist, there is no need for such statements. ... And scholars should resist the urge to demand, “Trust the science!” The moment such a command is felt necessary is usually the moment there is no single, settled science to trust."

"Science is not a body of dogmas to be trusted or deferred to. Rather, it is a process ... whose primary virtue is precisely that it disdains all authority save that of the rational mind."

"the very thing we claim to offer: impartial, high-quality information."

-----

"If, however, we want science to continue to have that authority, we must return to the slow, unglamorous, often tedious process that made the findings of science worthy of credibility in the first place."

------

"The disciplines perceived as least politicized (including math, physics, chemistry, English, nursing, and computer science) are also the most trusted and provoke the least skepticism. In contrast, disciplines viewed as highly politicized (including religious studies, gender studies, ethnic studies, and political science [perhaps an unfortunate name choice]) tend to be the least trusted and elicit the most skepticism."


Mean Disciplinary Scepticism & Mean Disciplinary Politization

Blog Drift:

Since 2019—or perhaps even earlier—this blog has drifted in an odd direction.

General Intelligence:

Arthur Jensen:

"Whenever the task at hand, whatever it may be, involves complexity, novelty, uncertainty calling for choice, mental manipulation of the elements of the problem, or the recall of specific relevant items of information from memory needed to get on with solving the problem, then g comes into the picture."

"Making jellyrolls is much more g-loaded than making scrambled eggs. On the Armed Forces Qualification Test a greater percentage of high-scoring army cooks could make jellyrolls without prompting than could low-scoring cooks. But both high- and low-scoring cooks can prepare scrambled eggs equally well."

Tiny Thoughts - Shane Parrish:

Shane Parrish:

"Surround yourself with people who are thoughtful in ways you are not, because they see what you can't.

**

All the time you spend worrying about the opportunities you don't have comes at the expense of maximizing the opportunities you do have.

***

Anyone can move fast. That's the trap. Speed is cheap, but the ability to be fast without being reckless is expensive.

The chess master's lightning moves come from decades of slow study. The CEO who is in the weeds knows where the problems lurk.

Details don't slow you down; they speed you up.

Insights

*

Author Paul Smith, on seeing what we want to see:

“What we see in people is determined, in large part, by what we expect to find.”

**

Pico Iyer on different resolutions:

“It’s easy to feel as if we’re standing two inches away from a huge canvas that’s noisy and crowded and changing with every microsecond. It’s only by stepping farther back and standing still that we can begin to see what that canvas (which is our life) really means, and to take in the larger picture.”

***

Nobel Prize-winning author Doris Lessing on reading:

“There is only one way to read, which is to browse in libraries and bookshops, picking up books that attract you, reading only those, dropping them when they bore you, skipping the parts that drag – and never, never reading anything because you feel you ought, or because it is part of a trend or a movement. Remember that the book which bores you when you are twenty or thirty will open doors for you when you are forty or fifty-and vice versa. Don’t read a book out of its right time for you.”

The Knowledge Project

What if AI is just another platform shift like the iPhone rather than the civilization-transforming revolution everyone's claiming?

Benedict Evans, technology analyst and former partner at a16z, challenges the AI hype machine, arguing that while AI represents the biggest technological shift since the iPhone, it's only the biggest thing since the iPhone, not the new electricity or industrial revolution.

This episode will challenge what you think you know about AI."

Cultural Drift - Robin Hanson:

Niveau eines Gesprächs / The Level of a Conversation:

"Das Niveau eines Gesprächs entsteht durch mehrere Faktoren, die ineinandergreifen:

• Teilnehmende: Bildung, Fachwissen, Interessen, Wortschatz und kommunikative Gewohnheiten prägen das Niveau.

• Kontext: Ein Fachvortrag, ein Bewerbungsgespräch, ein Kneipengespräch – jeder Rahmen bringt andere Erwartungen mit.

• Themenwahl: Ob man über Alltägliches, Persönliches oder Komplexes (Politik, Wissenschaft, Philosophie) spricht, bestimmt die Tiefe.

• Sprachstil: Präzise, differenzierte Sprache signalisiert höheres Niveau, während Slang oder einfache Formulierungen eher locker wirken.

• Gegenseitige Anpassung: Menschen spiegeln oft unbewusst das Sprachniveau ihres Gegenübers, um Verständigung zu erleichtern.

Kurz: Das Gesprächsniveau wird durch eine Mischung aus Situation, Teilnehmern, Themen und Ähnlichem bestimmt – und es kann sich im Verlauf ständig verschieben."

-----

"The level of a conversation arises from several interwoven factors:

• Participants: Education, expertise, interests, vocabulary, and communicative habits shape the level.

• Context: A lecture, a job interview, a casual pub talk – each setting comes with different expectations.

• Choice of topics: Whether one talks about everyday matters, personal issues, or complex subjects (politics, science, philosophy) determines the depth.

• Language style: Precise, nuanced language signals a higher level, while slang or simple phrasing creates a more casual tone.

• Mutual adjustment: People often unconsciously mirror the linguistic level of their counterpart to facilitate understanding.

In short: The level of a conversation is shaped by a mix of situation, participants, topics, and similar factors – and it can shift continuously as the exchange unfolds."

Vulgarity:

"Primary Definitions

According to standard dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam-Webster, "vulgar" has several core meanings, which can overlap depending on context:

1. Lacking Refinement or Good Taste (Most Common Modern Usage):
   • This refers to something crude, unrefined, or tasteless, often in behavior, art, or aesthetics. It's subjective and tied to cultural norms—what one person finds vulgar, another might see as authentic or bold.
   • Example: "The comedian's vulgar jokes about bodily functions offended some audience members." Here, "vulgar" implies coarseness that violates social decorum.
   • Honesty note: This usage can be classist or snobbish, as it often critiques popular or working-class expressions as inferior to "refined" ones. For instance, street art might be dismissed as vulgar by traditional critics, while others celebrate it as vibrant.
2. Relating to the Common or Ordinary People (Neutral or Archaic):
   • In this sense, it's synonymous with "vernacular" or "popular," without inherent negativity. It describes things accessible to or characteristic of the general public.
   • Example: "Vulgar Latin" refers to the everyday spoken form of Latin that evolved into the Romance languages (like French, Spanish, and Italian), as opposed to Classical Latin used by scholars.
   • Another: In mathematics, a "vulgar fraction" (now more commonly called a "common fraction") is a simple fraction like 3/4, as opposed to a decimal.
3. Obscene, Indecent, or Lewd (Especially in Language or Behavior):
• This emphasizes profanity, sexual explicitness, or rudeness. It's often linked to "vulgarity" as a noun, meaning coarse speech or actions.
• Example: "He was reprimanded for using vulgar language in the workplace." This could include swear words or explicit slang.
• Depth: In linguistics, "vulgar" can describe taboo words or dialects considered low-status. For instance, in historical texts, "vulgar tongue" meant the native language of a region (e.g., English as the vulgar tongue vs. Latin in medieval Europe). Today, it's more pejorative, overlapping with terms like "profane" or "obscene." "
  
  
  
  

"Synonyms: Crude, coarse, uncouth, tasteless, obscene, lowbrow.

Antonyms: Refined, elegant, sophisticated, cultured, polite."

"In global English, "vulgar" can vary by region. ... in British English, it might lean more toward bad taste."

"In everyday speech, people might use "vulgar" interchangeably with "rude," but it carries a stronger implication of social inferiority."

Uncultured Behavior:

"When people say “uncultured or crude” about someone they label a prole, they usually mean:

• Speech: Using slang, swearing, or speaking in a way seen as unrefined compared to “educated” standards.

• Tastes: Preferring cheap, popular entertainment, simple food/drink, loud music — instead of “high culture” like opera, fine dining, or literature.

• Manners: Being blunt, rowdy, or lacking etiquette in social settings.

• Appearance: Dressing plainly or “flashily,” not following upper-class codes of subtlety or elegance.

• Habits: Prioritizing immediate pleasure (drinking, smoking, football matches, gossip) over restrained, “cultivated” pursuits.

All of this reflects class prejudice: upper or middle classes historically used “prole” not just to mean “worker,” but to dismiss workers as coarse, simple, or vulgar."

Decadence:

ChatGPT:

"Decadence is usually understood as a state of cultural or moral decline, often marked by excess, indulgence, and loss of vitality. A few core aspects:

• Origin: From Latin decadentia (decay, decline).

• Cultural sense: Periods where art, society, or politics are seen as overly refined, detached, or self-indulgent, losing earlier strength or purpose.

• Moral sense: Lifestyles of luxury, hedonism, and disregard for restraint or responsibility.

• Historical use: Roman Empire’s late phase is often described as “decadent” — wealth, spectacle, and corruption overshadowing civic duty.

• Art/literature: Also a movement (19th century) where “decadent” artists embraced artificiality, beauty, and sensuality over traditional values.

In short: decadence is decline disguised in refinement — a glittering surface covering inner weakness."

Scientific Articles & Non-Fiction Books:

I want to read at least one scientific article per week.

And I want to read at least one non-fiction book from cover to cover per month.

Showing Low-Status Behavior:

"The phrase isn't a clinical term, but it's often used in evolutionary psychology, social dominance theory, or communities like men's self-help forums to describe actions that signal subordination, lack of confidence, or diminished social value. Think of it as behaviors that, in a primal sense, might make someone appear less "alpha" or desirable in a mate-selection framework—ideas popularized by thinkers like Robert Greene in The 48 Laws of Power or even Jordan Peterson's discussions on hierarchies.

Common examples could include:

• Over-apologizing or deferring excessively: Saying sorry for minor things, always yielding in decisions, or avoiding conflict to keep the peace. This can come across as lacking backbone.
• Neediness or clinginess: Constantly seeking validation
• Self-deprecation or complaining: Joking about your flaws in a way that undermines your worth, or venting about failures without showing resilience.
• Passive body language or habits: Slouching, avoiding eye contact, or not taking initiative in social settings, which might subtly erode perceived competence.
• Financial or achievement-related signals: Things like not pursuing ambitions, being disorganized with money, or displaying "victim mentality" in conversations."
  
  
  
  "attraction often operates on subconscious cues tied to status"
  
  

  "Relationships aren't just about love; they're hierarchical negotiations influenced by biology, culture, and personal history. High-status behaviors (e.g., assertiveness, humor under pressure, leadership) tend to foster respect and desire because they signal reliability and protection—evolutionary holdovers from when status equated to survival."

Negotiation:

"true leverage in any negotiation—whether it's buying a car, closing a business deal, or even navigating personal relationships—comes from having viable alternatives. If you're genuinely willing and able to abandon the discussion without regret, you're not desperate, which prevents the other party from exploiting your neediness. "Meaning it" is key: it's not a bluff or a tactic to manipulate; it's an authentic stance rooted in self-assurance and preparation. Bluffing can backfire if called out, but a real ability to walk away signals strength and forces the other side to reconsider their position." "In practice, it means entering negotiations with a clear "walk-away point" (sometimes called a reservation price or minimum acceptable terms), beyond which the deal no longer serves you." "If the other party senses you're emotionally or financially invested (e.g., you must sell your house quickly), they can lowball or stall, knowing you'll cave."

"In adversarial settings ... this can even be weaponized respectfully: by gently pushing the other side toward their own walk-away point, you test boundaries without burning bridges, potentially reopening doors later."

Status:

"Formale Macht: Befehlsgewalt oder die Möglichkeit, anderen Anweisungen zu geben, ist ein Ausdruck von Status.

Wissen und Kompetenz: Wer Expertise hat, genießt Status, auch ohne direkt Anweisungen geben zu können.

Anerkennung und Prestige: Status zeigt sich auch in Respekt, Einfluss, oder dem Gewicht, das den eigenen Worten beigemessen wird.

Soziale Rollen: In manchen Kontexten reicht schon die Zugehörigkeit zu einer bestimmten Position oder Gruppe, um Status zu verleihen."

-----

"Formal power: Command authority, or the ability to give instructions to others, is an expression of status.

Knowledge and competence: Those with expertise enjoy status even without being able to give direct instructions.

Recognition and prestige: Status is also reflected in respect, influence, or the weight given to one’s words.

Social roles: In some contexts, mere belonging to a particular position or group is enough to confer status."

Knowledge vs. Opinion / Sachwissen versus Persönliche Meinung:

Conveying factual knowledge has a cold touch, yet it also carries more status than merely expressing personal opinions.

----

Das Wiedergeben von Sachwissen hat etwas Kühles bringt aber mehr Status mit sich als das bloße Ausdrücken von persönlichen Meinungen.

Status:

"much of our psychology revolves around navigating social hierarchies, where status isn't just prestige—it's a proxy for access to resources, mates, and alliances. Fear of losing status stems from the evolutionary costs of appearing weak or incompetent: in ancestral environments, displaying vulnerability could lead to exclusion, reduced cooperation, or direct challenges from rivals, ultimately harming one's genetic legacy."

Richard D. Alexander on Humor:

"... I consider the hypothesis that humor is a principle according to which the evolved abilities and tendencies of people to see themselves as others see them, to use ostracism to their own advantage, are manipulated so as to induce status shifts - both subtle and not so subtle. My general hypothesis is that humor is a form of ostracism and that, historically, at least, ostracism has tended to affect the reproduction of the ostracized individual (or group) deleteriously, especially in relation to the reproduction of the ostracizers, by restricting access to significant resources.
... Thus, Robinson (1977) says that '... There is a pecking order to joke-telling. The joketeller is the dominant one[.]' "

Foolish Behavior:

Humor is a form of tolerance for foolishness.

----- "The beginner, the fool, is continually required to be patient and tolerant—with himself and, equally, with others. His displays of ignorance, inexperience, and lack of skill are likely to attract harsh criticism and ridicule." Here, he emphasizes tolerance as key; the fool's naivety invites mockery, but enduring it fosters mastery."

" "When you're learning anything new, you'll feel like an imposter. That's a very useful thing to know. You'll feel like a fool because you are." He contrasts this with pathological avoidance, like narcissism, where ego prevents admitting ignorance." -----

• "The first passage sets up tolerance as discipline: the fool isn’t just passive, he’s practicing endurance against mockery and frustration. That makes foolishness not shameful, but almost necessary.

• The second passage reframes impostor feelings as natural and even healthy—acknowledging you are ignorant is the beginning of growth.

• The contrast with narcissism is clever: the fool admits ignorance and grows; the narcissist denies ignorance and stagnates.

It reads as a strong philosophical reflection: mastery isn’t about avoiding foolishness but enduring and owning it."

Self-Awareness in Front of a Mate:

"your avoidance of unwitting incompetence in her presence likely stems from an instinctive understanding of how competence signals status in romantic dynamics. Evolutionary psychology (e.g., concepts from Buss or Miller) suggests that we often select partners who demonstrate reliability, intelligence, and self-insight—traits that historically correlated with survival and provisioning. In modern terms, this translates to avoiding behaviors that reveal gaps in knowledge or judgment without acknowledgment. She is laughing hardest at naive overconfidence, which implies she values perceptiveness and humility. If you're not exhibiting that folly, it could be because you've internalized her "humor filter" as a gauge for compatibility: she admires those who navigate the world with awareness.

This isn't uncommon in relationships where one partner has a sharp wit for absurdity—it's a form of mutual calibration. You might not even realize you're self-editing in real-time, but it's protective: preserving your "status" by embodying the opposite of what amuses her at others' expense. Think of it as a positive feedback loop—her laughter at external fools reinforces your role as the "aware" counterpart ... But there's depth here: if this avoidance feels effortful, it might hint at ..."

"Intuition says that one slip into unselfaware folly could tank your status rings true psychologically, and it's tied to something called the "halo effect" (or its inverse, the "horn effect"). Once someone views you through a lens of competence and charm, a single instance of oblivious blundering can shatter that illusion disproportionately—especially if it aligns with the very things she finds comically inept in others. In her case, since that humor is rooted in superiority and incongruity, witnessing it from you might shift her from affection to detachment: "If he's that unaware, what else am I missing?" It's not shallow; it's a cognitive shortcut where one flaw colors the whole perception.

... she might prize partners who exude quiet confidence without delusion—someone who makes her feel safe and intellectually matched. A moment of naive folly could undermine that, evoking second-hand embarrassment (cringe) rather than endearment. Research on humor in relationships (e.g., from Martin or the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) shows that shared laughter strengthens bonds, but when it's at your expense involuntarily, it can erode trust. If she's laughed at similar behaviors before, it sets a precedent: you'd transition from "us vs. the fools" to becoming the punchline, which is hard to recover from without deliberate vulnerability (e.g., owning it humorously).

That said, honesty compels me to note: this "slip" isn't inevitable doom. Relationships thrive on authenticity, and a truly secure bond allows for occasional folly without status collapse—perhaps even turning it into inside jokes. If your status feels that precarious, it might reflect more on your self-perception than hers ..."

"Diving deeper, this reflection highlights how her humor style influences your behavior, creating a subtle power imbalance. It's fascinating because it positions her as the arbiter of "aware vs. foolish," which could foster growth (you stay sharp) or tension (you walk on eggshells). Psychologically, this mirrors attachment theory: if you lean anxious, avoiding folly protects against rejection; if secure, it's just natural alignment. Either way, it's adaptive—humor often serves as a compatibility test, weeding out mismatches.

On a relational level, consider if this extends beyond humor. Does she value intellectual sparring or competence in other areas? If so, leaning into shared "superiority" moments—laughing together at external absurdities—could solidify your status without suppression. But if folly slips through (we all have blind spots), frame it with self-awareness: turning potential loss into bonding.

In essence, a mature self-awareness protects against the very folly as described. It's a strength, not a vulnerability—it can lead to deeper connection rather than to a fear of the slip."

Specifc Humor - Exaggeration:

"She voiced a worry (perhaps something minor like a strange noise or general unease), and the friend escalated it absurdly to an axe murderer prowling the house. This creates a sudden mismatch: her legitimate but contained fear is blown up into a horror-movie trope, which is both ridiculous and relatable. The humor likely landed in the moment because it acknowledged her vulnerability without dismissing it—instead, it amplified it to the point of parody."

"laughter serves as a valve for pent-up tension, especially around taboo or anxiety-provoking topics like personal safety. In this case, the joke didn't mock her fear; it mirrored and exaggerated it, allowing her to confront it indirectly. As a woman who knows certain fears when home alone—a common experience—the joke resonates because it validates that underlying vulnerability."

"Laughing at it now might be a way of reclaiming control: "Yeah, I get scared sometimes, but look how silly it sounds when you say it out loud." It's not denial; it's transformation. If the fear feels isolating or irrational in hindsight, the shared absurdity makes it less burdensome."

"she's laughing at the version of herself who got spooked, or at the human tendency to imagine worst-case scenarios. The naivety is in the innocent escalation: the friend naively (or cheekily) voicing the extreme, as if that's a logical next step."

"This suggests her humor thrives on irony and relatability, especially around vulnerabilities. It's not mean-spirited; it's empathetic absurdity. If she enjoys stories where people unwittingly reveal their gaps, this joke might appeal because it reveals her gap—the space between rational self and anxious imagination."

"Laughter often strengthens relationships. If this friend is close, the memory reinforces that bond: "Remember when you scared the crap out of me with that axe murderer bit?" It's a shared inside joke, evoking warmth alongside the humor."

"In some cultures, joking about fears is a way to defy them—stoicism through sarcasm."

"this laughter endures because the joke turned a moment of vulnerability into empowerment through exaggeration and shared absurdity. It's a testament to how humor can alchemize fear into joy. If she still chuckles at it, it's probably a healthy sign—fear acknowledged, but not in charge."

Specific Humor - Unselfaware Folly:

"the type of humor that makes her laugh the hardest seems to revolve around instances of unwitting incompetence or naive overconfidence—specifically, when someone behaves foolishly or expresses "dumb" opinions without any self-awareness of their own limitations. In the example, the carpenter flips over a centuries-old table, causing woodwork to fall out (revealing a complete lack of restorative skills), and then doubles down by offering an opinion that perfectly aligns with that incompetence, all while remaining blissfully ignorant of how out of their depth they are. This naive obliviousness triggers hearty laughter from her."

"the carpenter's blunder isn't just a simple error—it's compounded by their naive confidence in opining on something they clearly don't understand. This creates a stark contrast: the audience recognizes the incompetence immediately, while the person involved remains clueless."

"The carpenter doesn't just mess up; he proceeds to pontificate as if he's an expert, which amplifies the absurdity. The humor emerges from that gap between self-perception and reality—it's like watching someone confidently walk into a glass door they didn't see coming. ... the "naive way" ... (where the person doesn't even hint at knowing what they don't know) heightens this, making it less about malice and more about innocent delusion. It's not cruel schadenfreude (joy in harm), but a lighter, almost affectionate ridicule of human fallibility."

"Expectation vs. Reality: We expect a professional (a carpenter handling an antique) to act with care and knowledge. Instead, he flips it carelessly, and debris falls out ...

Layered with Opinion: He then voices a "dumb" view that fits his blunder perfectly, but naively. This adds incongruity #2: the opinion isn't just wrong; it's wrong in a way that unwittingly confesses his ignorance, like a chef burning toast and then declaring, "Toast is best when it's charcoal-flavored."

Naivety as the Punchline: The obliviousness seals it. If the carpenter realized his mistake and got embarrassed, it might shift to empathy or awkwardness. But his unawareness keeps it light and absurd, turning it into a self-contained comedic loop."

"This structure is common in viral fail videos, memes, or shows like The Office (think Michael Scott's constant overconfident blunders). This foolish behavior isn't random—it's the kind that's harmless but revealing, often in everyday expertise claims gone wrong. The naivety prevents it from feeling mean-spirited; it's more like watching a puppy chase its tail, endlessly unaware."

"Intellectual Satisfaction: If a person is perceptive or values competence, spotting these gaps could feel intellectually rewarding. Laughter becomes a way to affirm her own standards without confrontation.

Catharsis from Frustration: In a world full of overconfident "experts" (think social media pundits or DIY disasters), this humor vents annoyance at incompetence. It's especially potent when the foolish opinion is expressed in a naive way—the innocence makes it endearing rather than infuriating.

Cultural Context: In German-speaking cultures, there's a tradition of dry, observational humor like Kabarett or satire that pokes at pomposity and self-importance (e.g., Loriot's sketches of absurd everyday failures). This might resonate if she's influenced by that—it's less slapstick and more about the quiet absurdity of human ego.

Personal Resonance: ... it could reflect her own experiences. Maybe she's encountered similar "experts" in life (work, family), and laughing at them is a coping mechanism."

"To be thorough and honest: While this humor is harmless in fiction or observation, it can veer into elitism if overindulged—laughing at others' ignorance assumes your own viewpoint is superior, which isn't always true. But that's the edge of it; humor often thrives on uneven ground. ... —sometimes people laugh hardest at what they'd hate to embody themselves.

In summary, this is humor rooted in the delicious irony of unselfaware folly: the bigger the gap between confidence and competence, the funnier it gets, especially when delivered with childlike naivety. It's a mix of superiority, incongruity, and psychological release that feels clever without trying."

The Problem With Hyper-Agreeable Men:

"No matter how hard I tried to please her, keep the peace, avoid conflict, and hide my needs, she was still frequently moody, angry, critical, and sexually unavailable."

Robert Glover

"a breed of men who have been conditioned to seek the approval of others. ... Nice Guys avoid conflict like the plague and will go to great lengths to avoid upsetting anyone. ... Nice guys are especially concerned about pleasing women ... Over the last years, I have encountered countless frustrated and resentful Nice Guys ..."

"Jason described his life as 'perfect' - except for one major problem - his sex life. It had been several months since he and his wife Heather had been sexual, and it didn't look like anything was going to change soon."

"Nice guys are wimps."

"The problem is, once they have repressed all their life energy, there is little about them to get anyone's attention or turn them on.

Women consistently tell me that even though they may be initially drawn to a Nice Guy's pleasing demeanor, over time they find it difficult to get excited about having sex with him. ... There is just very little about the Nice Guy persona to flip a switch or arouse a prospective partner."

"Most folks - Nice Guys included - do not consciously take responsibility for creating the kind of life they want. Most people just accept where they are, and act as if they have little power in shaping an exciting, productive, and fulfilling life.

When I talk with Nice Guys about taking charge of their lives, most have a difficult time wrapping their brain around the concept. It just doesn't fit their paradigm that they can make choices and act to make these choices a reality."

-----

• "Chronic approval-seeking backfires. If you erase your own needs to keep others happy, you come across as inauthentic and low-energy. That kills attraction.

• Conflict avoidance isn’t peace. It just stores up resentment—yours and theirs. Women don’t respect a man who’s always folding to avoid tension.

• Sexual polarity requires edge. Desire thrives on difference, energy, risk. “Hyper-agreeable” men sand down every sharp corner until there’s nothing left to spark.

• Responsibility is key. Glover’s critique isn’t just about relationships but about life: if you don’t actively shape your world, you drift and blame others for the emptiness.

• Being “nice” ≠ being good. There’s a difference between kindness (which is strong, chosen, clear) and “niceness” (which is submissive, manipulative, hidden neediness).

So the core message: hyper-agreeableness is a strategy that feels safe but actually destroys intimacy and vitality. Real change means owning your desires, being willing to disappoint people, and taking responsibility for building a life you actually want."