Your Huckleberry
- 2 Posts
- 46 Comments
Dopamine is the get-shit-done neurotransmitter. Our brain’s dopamine system is broken. Normies complete a task and get a satisfying feeling of accomplishment, that’s dopamine. You complete a task and get nothing. When you did those tasks before, and got no dopamine, your brain labeled them as useless. Your brain is literally telling you that doing nothing is better than the tasks you need to do. Better to be lazy and save calories for important tasks. You’re not procrastinating, that’s something normies do, you won’t ever do those things. You’re not putting off an unpleasant task, you’re conditioned not to do them.
You need to condition your brain to expect a reward when you complete a task. Figure out what things do give you dopamine, and reward your brain with them.
Clean the house - play video games for 15 minutes.
Do laundry - 15 minutes on social media.
I’ve had varying results combining activities, like cleaning while listening to my favorite podcasts.
It also helps me to spend a moment being mindful of the results of the task. “Look how much better this room is now that it’s clean. I’m proud of myself for accomplishing this task.” It sounds dumb but it works.
I try not to beat myself up about it. I remind myself that everyone has off days, and everyone deserves some R&R.
Dinner tonight was one of my favorite meals, BFMC. Bread, fruit, meat, cheese. A loaf of fresh bread, a hunk of tasty cheese, a little bit of cured meat like salami, and some fruit. If you want to get fancy you can add some nuts and olives.
That’s how I found the word, I saw that diagram.
1·11 months agoI don’t think using terms that you disagree with is necessarily a straw man. If we had been arguing about the possibility of flight and my position was that all previous attempts had failed, you’d come back and say, “those weren’t attempts at flight, those were bad bird impersonations.”
On a separate note, I’ve got a question for you. If capitalism inevitably leads to people being poorer, why does this graph show that over the last 200 years the number of people in poverty has steadily declined?
30·11 months agoI don’t want to constantly have to fight against my ADHD just so I can be average. Can you imagine any other disease getting this kind of treatment? “Yeah, you have cancer, but it’s not killing you so just deal with it.”
I prefer positive reinforcement. If I do a task, I reward myself with a dopamine hit. I play a game or hit Lemmy or Mastodon for 15 minutes after.
“We’ll never survive!” “Nonsense. You’re only saying that because no one ever has.”
I really want to believe that a communist world is possible. Maybe I’m like the pessimists that doubted humans could ever fly. I just don’t see it ever working.
I really like that you defined all these terms. It makes it much easier to discuss the ideas when the language doesn’t get in the way. Thank you.
Would it be correct to state that every attempt at bringing about communism has failed thus far? From the Bolsheviks to Mao to Castro, none of them have succeeded. Is communism not what those movements were attempting to accomplish? Yes, things went badly, and the end result was not communism, but that doesn’t change the fact that those movements had the aim of ending capitalism, in favor of communism.
Every unregulated capitalist economy has devolved
Right, but I’m not arguing for unregulated capitalism. I think capitalism should be highly regulated. I’m arguing for fair markets that reward good actors and punish bad. I’m arguing for continually refining capitalism and fixing the problems. Which is why I keep having this argument. You’re obviously an intelligent person, motivated to change society for the better, with a good moral compass. I want you on my side. I want people to want to work on the actual problems, and not pin their hopes on some big idea that will fix everything, because that doesn’t exist.
Sure, there have been authoritarian governments that said they were socialist for PR.
This is the cognitive dissonance about Marxism that bugs me the most. You believe that a system such as Capitalism is so flawed that it must be replaced with something else, but you are unwilling to see that Socialism is also flawed in different ways. If you adhered to the principles of pure Marxism, you would see that Socialism as well must be discarded for a better alternative. Instead of seeing that, you will label every failed Socialist state as a fake. We need something else.
Steam engines literally led to the development of electric motors. Steam engines led to steam turbines which led to dynamos which led to electric motors, each invention building off the knowledge gained at the previous step.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Algernon_Parsons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo
Your analogy is doubly flawed. Each type of engine you mention has strengths and weaknesses that depend on external variables. Internal combustion isn’t better at producing electricity for instance, which is why we mostly use external combustion to do that. Electric motors aren’t better than internal combustion, except that internal combustion is causing climate change. It’s also flawed because history has shown that Socialism doesn’t work better than Capitalism. I could see, if this were purely theoretical, someone arguing the benefits of Marxist ideas, but it’s been tried. In several places around the world, people tried to put in place the kind of changes you’re advocating. In every case it led to authoritarianism, brutal repression, and starvation. Does it suck that poor kids don’t have enough to eat, while Bezos builds space yachts? Yeah it sucks, but it’s not millions-starving-to-death levels of suck like we actually, not theoretically, got every time we tried Communism or Socialism or any kind of take-their-stuff-and-give-it-to-me-ism.
Was it straw man, or ad hominem? Are you thinking that I shouldn’t have called Marx stupid, or that I misrepresented his concept?
China, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba. Every single time, the state becomes authoritarian and repressive, ignoring human rights, starving and imprisoning huge populations. Eventually it either fails, or the state keeps the authoritarianism, but gets rid of the communism. Look at China and Vietnam. They’ve transitioned to a mostly market based economy, but kept the authoritarianism.
These are examples of everyone starving because centrally planned economies are a bad idea.
Why do Marxists always assume people who disagree just aren’t smart enough to understand Marxism? It’s not difficult to understand the concept, it’s just dumb. Marx was old school I-am-very-smart.
I can absolutely draw you a line from the development of the steam engine to the electric motor to NASA. Every little thing that was wrong with steam engines led to better and better technology. Marxism is like saying, “the steam engine has problems, obviously mechanical engineering is doomed, lets breed better horses.”
Damn it. I fell for another stupid internet fallacy.
92·11 months agoA couple reasons off the top of my head, 1.) You can’t let 20-30 kids loose without it ending in pandemonium, but you need kids to practice time management skills before college. Homework is a time where kids can learn to manage a workload, outside of the controlled environment of school. 2) Kids can’t candle a 9 to 5, they need recess and art, and music, and gym to give their brains a break. In the 7.5ish hours that kids go to school, there’s probably only 4 hours of work done. (but Bob, I only work like 30 minutes of any given day, and I’m an adult…)
MeBurger!