fullmoon

It’s absolutely lazy, because it’s not psychosis.

Enthusiastically matching the energy of an anxiously attached partner is a rite of passage many would rather not have walked.

It’s a great question, and I think it’s not exclusive.

Obsessive limerent obsession can be driven by reward circuits, and those _can_ be extinquished by more straight-forward therapy, but if it’s driven by unmet emotional needs, it’s often quickly replaced by some other maladaptive coping mechanism (hopefully slightly less unhealthy).

Mere talk therapy is infamously useless for attachment trauma, which is relational and somatic

People with severely disordered attachment _will_ seek out humans, again and again, to fill those unfulfillable needs, and leave bodies and psyches in their wake.

So I think there is a case to be made for harm reduction.

I agree, but not because I think that those users had stable attachment patterns and have been corrupted by an unscrupulous company, but because there is unacknowledged, often hidden, but severe pain in a large % of the population.

Which is your own reaction, which is a result of your own wounds.

Now imagine someone else coming to the same conclusion about you.

I’m not sure “AI psychosis” is even right for many of those users who formed attachments to their “companions”.

Psychosis is a real risk for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, but a lot of those relationships look to be rooted in disordered attachment.

Where, pray, is the sexism?

This seems to be an instance of “if you hear the dog whistle you’re the dog”

You’ve inadvertently listed many symptoms associated with anxiety and panic disorder.

If all you need is someone to talk with, there is no difference.

Not necessarily, agere is implied in colloquial usage.

You’d be surprised to learn how unrealistic it is to expect someone that has learned Latin from 3 years of grammar drills/translation exercises to read any intermediate text comfortably (without translating sentence-by-sentence).

It’s not so ridiculous once you realise that it’s entirely possible for a second language learner to surround himself in the target language and constantly consume level appropiate (and interesting!) input.

If someone lacks those things, IMO the method isn’t very good.

When exactly are native speakers of a language using grammar drilling methods?

Is it part of kindergarten?

Are you thinking of antibiotics affecting the gut or about something else?

For example, if all of your best friends agree on one thing, and you’re like, yeah, they just don’t get it: you’re in denial.

That is dangerously close to woo, but is a good example on the lack of rigor in the field.

Of course, any true believer disagreeing with me will can now just point towards me being in denial.

Consider that the secondary point is to separate society from perpetrator.

I’ve made the same personal observations.

Ketogenic diets have also been used for a century to treat epilepsy in children, so effects might not be limited to the gut. Maybe it’s ketone bodies as an alternative fuel for the brain that is doing the trick.

When writing those witty comparisons, do you ever stop and think about the millions of human beings that were murdered by actual fascism, or do you pretend that you actually give a damn and are fighting an internet fight against fascism?

It appears that way, but skirts around the gametic model of discerning biological sex that is the golden standard for other species, while elevating the status of chromosomal defects.

It’s a good example how selective presentation of scientific realities can be abused to mislead.

Chromosomal defects in a binary system don’t constitute a new or between-state, and it also isn’t commonly described that way: XXY (Kleinfeltner) affecting males is the mainstream position.

Intersex is about characteristics, not biological sex.

The term “birth defect” fell out of use because of its stigmatizing word construction.

Chromosomal abnormalities would be the modern term, it applies to both sexual as well as other chromosomal abnormalities like Down.

But to answer the question as asked: Yes, it fulfills the definition of the older term.

As the article you’ve linked states this syndrome affects males, makes them resistant to androgens, so they have an appearance of females.

It doesn’t state anywhere that the patients are either female or belong to a novel category.

In sexually dimorphic mammalian species sex is most commonly by the ability to produce either the small or big gametes, not chromosomes.

In humans syndromes that lead to ambiguous (“intersex”) presentation and/or chromosomes are still operating in a binary system, eh Klinefelter affects boys.

The same is true for (very) rare hermaphroditism: in this case both gametes could in theory be produced, in practice though individuals are sterile.

You’re also most likely doing it because you’re getting something out of it: You’re exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals.

I don’t mean you in particular, but sentences with “one most likely…” are rather hard to read IMO.

Do you mean this one? Please explain, I don’t understand what you’ve meant with the first part of your response.

The subtext that’s missing is how something is said: The sarcastic tone, sing-song intonation, the short pause, the smirk, the small sentence that turns into a little rant, curtness, an abrupt ending, the barely suppressed yawns, crossed arms, smiling eyes.

I think most importantly, a direct, face-to-face, breathed air-to-breathed air conversation is vulnerable, you’re communicating much more than you ever could in textual form, and you immediately get feedback how what you’ve said is perceived, you might try a different approach, and say something you’ve never intended to do whilst in the flow.

People that have a family but don’t focus on it will never be exceptional employees.

They will tell themselves sweet little lies all day about how their need for external validation and appearance of being busy / important is actually in service of their family.

They lack the ability to reflect, put something more important above them when there is no validation, and won’t take honest ownership either.

You’re leaving lot of noise on the table if you only look with one eye.

I’m surprised that so many people can tickle their social itch over the internet.

There is nothing about the dynamics involved that I’d consider social.

Interaction is mostly with total strangers, almost always in text form (no subtext, no facial expression, no body language).

Comments are written at people, not to people — to illicit support for one’s position or condemnation of the opposing one.

Social networks : Being social = Sock : Loving spouse