by cloudier

It’s a common misconception that the microwaves in a microwave oven excite a natural resonance in water. The frequency of a microwave oven is well below any natural resonance in an isolated water molecule, and in liquid water those resonances are so smeared out that they’re barely noticeable anyway. It’s kind of like playing a violin under water—the strings won’t emit well-defined tones in water because the water impedes their vibrations. Similarly, water molecules don’t emit (or absorb) well-defined tones in liquid water because their clinging neighbors impede their vibrations.

“This is going to be a piece of cake,” Dellelo recalls thinking when the door closed behind him. Whereas many American supermax prisoners—and most P.O.W.s and hostages—have no idea when they might get out, he knew exactly how long he was going to be there. He drew a calendar on his pad of paper to start counting down the days. He would get a radio and a TV. He could read. No one was going to bother him. And, as his elaborate escape plan showed, he could be patient. “This is their sophisticated security?” he said to himself. “They don’t know what they’re doing.”

After a few months without regular social contact, however, his experience proved no different from that of the P.O.W.s or hostages, or the majority of isolated prisoners whom researchers have studied: he started to lose his mind. He talked to himself. He paced back and forth compulsively, shuffling along the same six-foot path for hours on end. Soon, he was having panic attacks, screaming for help. He hallucinated that the colors on the walls were changing. He became enraged by routine noises—the sound of doors opening as the guards made their hourly checks, the sounds of inmates in nearby cells. After a year or so, he was hearing voices on the television talking directly to him. He put the television under his bed, and rarely took it out again.

I think the biggest shock to me was realizing that my entire worldview had been wrong FOR DECADES. That was the most shocking. That the shitty treatment other people whined about was indeed true, and that just because I didn’t experience it firsthand did not mean it wasn’t a reality. I would think to myself, “Well, if they would just project a more positive attitude, people would respond with positive attention.” I was very naive about the depth of the beauty privilege until I experienced both sides. All those bullshit things I believed simply weren’t true. No matter how well put together I was, how well groomed, how charming and funny I tried to be, I could not overcome it.

It wasn’t losing my attractiveness that was the biggest mindfuck, being ignored or even being treated badly. It was the idea that I really didn’t understand how the world worked for so long. It was the idea that I believed you could overcome this enormous force around you everywhere you went — all day, every day — by simply being more cheerful and charming.

I am currently trying a new trick to estimate how much my perception of others and my behaviour are skewed by their looks.
The first part is easy: if the person is good-looking, try to picture him/her as very ugly in your head, and vice-versa. The results are usually quite surprising: you realize you would not even be talking to a person if she weren’t ‘hot’, let alone laugh at their jokes. Conversely, you discover how awesome a plain friend really is.
The second trick is a bit weird but works wonders: try to reverse the gender of the person. Think about that very hot girl you know, now she’s a boy. Bet you realized “But…that guy is a dick ! “. Yes, yes she would be if she were a boy. She only gets away with it because she’s super hot.
Well here you go, that’s what I do when I am bored. I also sometimes imagine all of my friends are celebrities, or have an amazing talent, and listen to what they have to say in that mindset. You pay so much more attention.
After all, the are the very best in the world at being themselves. I can spend an incredible night if I contemplate the chance I have, to be with them, and how unlikely it is in the grand scheme of things.

Tl;dr: For some people, especially people who introverted, socializing and getting with women, whether dating them or sleeping with them or whatever, is an acquired skill that does not come naturally. You’d be surprised how many men this is true of. When a woman rejects a guy’s, particularly an introvert’s, romantic advances, he stops giving a shit about her because he is wasting his energy trying to maintain a relationship that will not be satisfying to him. He was using his social skills to engage in a certain kind of relationship which is no longer possible.

tl;dr: tl;dr: Socialize not easy for all. Already have friends. Don’t want more. Not DTF? Seeya.

When you are trolled, you are given an extremely propagandized argument that very often contains a logical fallacy, or you’re given a premise which is founded on false grounds. In some way, basically, the argument is wrong. But unless you’ve tackled the argument before, you only have a fuzzy idea of what’s wrong with it. If you ignore it, you don’t really have to sit down and take the time to figure out what’s wrong with it. If you tackle it though, your mind constructs a line of reasoning to refute a certain type of bad argument. From then on, arguments which follow a similar structure are easily refuted.

Think about how this works in politics. We often dismiss people we don’t like by saying “well, they’re trolling.” Yeah, that works to make yourself feel better. But for every troll, there is a person who can believe that troll. There is a person out there who will read a troll and say “hey, this person makes a lot of sense.” You are not going to be able to make those people think the trolls are wrong simply by applying the “troll” label — one, it’s brute forcing your ethos, and two, it doesn’t say why the person is wrong. When you say “that guy’s a troll” you’re not addressing their inner question of “and I should believe you because?”, you’re just saying “that guy’s a troll, trust me, I know.” Except they have no reason to trust you, and they have no reason to believe you know.

But when you take the time to figure out what exactly is wrong with a troll’s proposition, you’ve prepared yourself. You have crystallized a particular line of reasoning. If you don’t think you do this already, you’re kidding yourself. Everyone does this in politics to some extent — there are reliable kinds of arguments we fall back on. They exist in metaphysical debates too, and if you don’t believe me witness how many people fall back on Dawkins’s arguments from The God Delusion. The strength of an argument is often independent of the person who makes it, and while it certainly makes you more persuasive to be an authority, in the arena of Being Right the best argument wins. When you crystallize arguments like this and crystallize them often you are expanding your armory of reliable arguments. In short, by doing this you develop cognitive shortcuts; heuristics, essentially.