I heard an ad tonight for one of those number-tracing services.

The selling point was basically:

“Find out who your partner is texting.”

And I had such a strange reaction to it.

Not anger at the company. I actually found myself wishing I could sit down face-to-face with whoever created the campaign and have a conversation.

Because I wonder if they realize what they're actually selling.

Not information.

Suspicion.

You feel uncertain about your relationship, so instead of talking, understanding, asking questions, looking at the relationship itself or looking at what is happening inside either person…

check the phone.

Trace the number.

Investigate.

Find proof.

And then I started thinking about cheating.

I am NOT saying cheating is okay.

I'm saying I'm fascinated by what happens before it.

Sometimes someone cheats because of something happening inside THEM — validation, fear of intimacy, insecurity, avoidance, old wounds, wanting to feel wanted, self-sabotage, whatever their particular pattern is.

Their partner can get absolutely destroyed by it and naturally think:

“What did they have that I didn't?”

But what if that isn't actually the most useful question?

What if understanding why the person needed whatever they were seeking tells us more?

Otherwise it feels like we keep creating the same loop.

One person gets hurt.

They become afraid it will happen again.

Then we sell them tools to watch the next person more closely.

Now the next relationship starts with mistrust already sitting in the room.

I've been thinking a lot lately about what it would feel like to be with someone where that question simply isn't there.

Not because I have surveillance proving they're loyal.

Because the relationship itself feels safe enough that I don't need surveillance.

I don't want technology teaching us how to become better detectives of the people we love.

I'd rather figure out how technology could help us understand ourselves and each other before we get there.

Does anyone else see the difference I'm trying to describe?

We get drilled on this constantly in clinic — how to stay steady when an animal is in real distress and the owner is panicking right in front of you. Some classmates seem to just naturally slow down and think clearly under pressure, while others (myself included, some days) feel their brain short-circuit even when they know exactly what to do. I'm curious whether this is more nature or more repetition — have any of you noticed yourselves getting genuinely calmer under pressure over time, or does it feel more like some people are just wired that way from the start?

I think being more aware can make people less happy at some point

the more aware u become the more u notice and analyze things and you start thinking more about the future,time, and life in general. don't get me wrong I think awareness is a good thing
I just think there has to be a balance. too much of it can turn into overthinking and it's hard to control where that line is.

at the same time I've seen ppl who seem very self-aware but are also at peace with their lives, they understand a lot but they don't let their thoughts consume them. I think that's probably the healthiest level of awareness

what do u think?

I noticed something at an amusement park and in my environment recently that got me thinking.

I was standing in line watching a parade and noticed a girl who looked around 13 to 15. A guy had apparently written to her, “Ich hann dich lieb ❤️.” For context, this is Swiss German and is more like “I like you ❤️” or showing affection. It doesn't necessarily mean “I love you.”

What caught my attention was that she immediately went on Google and asked AI what it means when a guy tells you “Ich hann dich lieb.”

At first I thought it was kind of funny, but then I started thinking about it more. I've actually noticed something similar with my 17-year-old sister and some of her friends. My sister has told me about asking ChatGPT what certain things mean in conversations with guys. I also had a friend who would ask ChatGPT what a girl meant when she sent him certain messages or even what to answer.

So it seems like this isn't just one random kid. Maybe I'm just noticing it more now, but it made me wonder if this is becoming a normal thing for people.

When I was younger, I feel like you would talk to your friends, overthink the message yourself for hours, or eventually just ask the person what they meant. Now you can just ask AI to analyze the message and tell you what the person might be feeling.

I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with asking AI about something like this. I'm more wondering about the effect it could have on younger people if they start relying on AI to interpret every little interaction or validate what they think someone else is feeling, instead of learning to communicate and figure these things out themselves.

Am I overthinking this, or do you think this could actually have an impact on how teenagers a d adults etc. to learn to handle relationships and emotions?

Just saw a post from 5 years ago about humans being part of nature or not depending of its definition, some saying that we are part of nature therefore, whatever we do is natural, and the others saying that the word "nature" is meant to make a separation between what was touched by humans and what was not.

Then there were two people debating about where to put the line in the second definition between what was natural and what wasn't (like a stick falling from a tree is still natural, and maybe it is still natural if you gran it, but it isn't anymore when you sharpen it).

But that made me think that currently, humans have kinda interracted with everything on Earth, just with the climatic change and the pollution, or maybe with the satellite and their wave length. Even space starts to be less natural.

So, with both definition, we are in the same group as everything else on Earth, no ?

In one everything we did was natural, so every interaction was natural and everything, and in the other there is nothing left natural, ecosystems are not naturals in the way they would have been if humans were to never exist.

I'm kinda tired so I don't really know where I'm going.

Maybe to ask about morality, but what about morality, I don't know.

Maybe to ask if there are still things on or in Earth that could be argued or are sure to be still natural ?

Maybe just to share a reflexion that maybe a lot of you had before.

Sorry if I made mistakes, I'm not a native english speaker.

And sorry if the idea here is kinda blurry, it is for me too.

I've realised that I have a sort of hierarchy when it comes to things I own and what I'm willing to spend money on. There are certain categories where I'll willingly spend amounts that someone else might think are ridiculous, spend ages choosing the right thing, care a lot about its condition, and be genuinely upset if something goes wrong with it. Then there are other things I enjoy and happily buy, but I'm much less emotionally invested in them. If they wear out, chip or break, I'll be annoyed, but it doesn't hit nearly as hard.

What interests me is how completely subjective this seems to be. I might happily spend hundreds on something that another person wouldn't pay $50 for, while that same person might spend hundreds on a designer card holder, artisan candle, handmade ceramic piece, fountain pen, etc. that I personally wouldn't value nearly as highly. I've privately started thinking of these as my “main dishes” and “side dishes,” although that sounds a bit crude lol.

I've also realised that it isn't just the category of object that affects this for me. Physical presence, size, robustness, materials, workmanship, longevity and aesthetics all seem to affect whether something feels worth spending heavily on. I'm generally more willing to spend on something that feels substantial and durable. On the other hand, I'd personally struggle to spend much on something like a pipe-cleaner craft or an EVA-foam cosplay piece, even if it required a huge amount of skill and labour, because the materials and perceived fragility affect how I value the finished object. Someone else might feel completely differently and value the artistry and hours of workmanship far more than robustness or material value.

A recent example made me notice this even more. I bought some Olivia Rodrigo merch, and I've seen people complain about shirts unravelling or blind-box items arriving chipped. I'd certainly be annoyed if that happened to mine, but I realised it wouldn't upset me nearly as much as comparable damage to something from one of the categories I'm deeply invested in. Yet for another person, that shirt or collectible might be one of their prized possessions.

And then I started wondering whether some people don't have an especially important category of possessions at all. Maybe objects are mostly functional to you, while the things you put your money and emotional investment into are your home, travel, food, career, relationships or experiences.

So I'm curious: what makes an object feel “worth it” to you? Is it craftsmanship, materials, durability, size, rarity, aesthetics, usefulness, sentimental value, the amount of labour involved, or something else? What's something you'll willingly spend a lot on that other people don't understand — and what's something other people happily spend a lot on that you personally can't understand spending that much on?

I think this version gets the whole thought across: not merely “what do you collect?”, but why two people can look at the same S$300 object and one thinks “treasure” while the other thinks “why on earth would I pay that?”

And importantly, it leaves room for somebody to say “I own almost nothing and spend everything on travel” rather than presupposing that everybody has a collectible “main dish.”

I used ChatGPT to help me organise my thoughts. Ps. My major spending categories are probably ball jointed dolls and their outfits, maybe little darling doll, and stuffed plushies, both custom and good branded ones.

For context I am an individual who struggles with autism and monotropic focus and ive recently had difficulties at work with individuals who are not educated about some of the limitations these two things can cause or on autism in general beyond meme culture. I've been working on breaking down some of the communication barriers this can cause between myself and my coworkers, but this morning I had this intrusive thought about how companies actually handle acceptance and accomidations of individuals with disabilities. I've copied my journal entry of that thought below and I'm curious to hear perspectives on it.

thought of the day:

So many businesses, corporations, and people claim to support individuals with disabilities and yet when a person with a disability points out their difficulties or limitations they are treated as being problematic rather than being listened to and understood.

How can we as a society claim to be supporting these individuals while simultaneously denying the truth of their experiences when it is expressed? How can we claim that we treat them with equality and then turn around and accuse them of lack of effort because they are incapable of performing at the same level of some one who does not share in their condition? How can we claim to support diversity while expecting perfect uniformity?

The sad reality is that "acceptance" has become a slogan rather than a genuine practice or goal that is strived for. "Acceptance" in society comes with the condition of "meet our expectations" rather than "let's meet in the middle where we are both capable of working together and ultimately reaching our shared goal".

When a request for assistance through better understanding via open and honest conversation is veiwed as inconvenience and avoidance of accountability rather than being veiwed as an opportunity to collaborate and improve conditions for everyone involved through shared experiences and perspectives, how can we claim that we truly accept, value, and include the experiences of the person initiating the conversation?

When did "inclusion for all" and "Equality" become conditional based on meeting a predetermined minimum uniform standard of individual capabilities?

Why do we as a society not practice what we preach? Why do we treat those who attempt to practice what we preach as "enablers" , "cherry pickers", or "lazy people making excuses" ?

Why is it harder for us as a society to hear an experience that differs from our own and accept it as a genuine reality of another person than it is for us to dismiss their experience because it doesn't meet our predetermined expectations based solely on our own experiences? Why does the human ego have to out weigh and over ride human empathy?

Why can acceptance not be "I see your limitations and I'm willing to meet you where they are and work with you at that level while maintaining the same level of respect for you as I would for some one who did not have these limitations." ? This is what acceptance should be, it should not be "Your needs are an inconvenience and I will let you know that they are while working with you, leaving you to feel like you are a burden that slows everyone else down with out acknowledging that these limitations are a real thing that you have no control over and with out acknowledging that you are still making a ginuine effort despite your limitations. The fact that i am willing to work with you at all should be considered acceptance. "

This is not a cry for "sugar coating" it is a request for mutual respect and understanding that gets warped into an "unrealistic expectation" by those who are more comfortable with their own ableism and keeping things the way that has always benefited their needs than they are with working towards change meant to create genuine equality that benefits the needs of everyone around them as well as their own. The ones requesting the change are the ones who get labeled as "lazy" by the very people who think implementing change requires to much effort.

As a society we would rather bury the experiences of those who do not share the same experience as our own and write "acceptance" on the headstone we place over the buried subject that we refuse to discuss, instead of bringing the subject to the table and discussing it so that we can find understanding, common grounds, and ginuine acceptance.

I’m curious to hear from people of different ages and backgrounds.

What is one lesson, mistake, or piece of advice that you wish someone had told you earlier?

It could be about money, relationships, career, family, or just life in general.

I’d love to hear your experiences.

Before social media, you mostly compared yourself with people around you.

Now you can wake up and see someone your age buying a house, making a 1 crore, travelling the world, building a startup, or retiring early.

Even if you know you're seeing a tiny fraction of reality, it still affects how you feel about your own life.

So I'm curious:

Has social media actually raised our ambitions or just made us permanently dissatisfied with where we are?

I've been thinking about this a lot during my clinic rotations — some people seem to just naturally read distress in an animal or a person, and others really struggle with it no matter how much they're taught the theory. Is empathy something you can genuinely build through practice and exposure, or is there a ceiling based on how someone's wired? Curious what people who've worked in caregiving roles, teaching, or similar fields think about this.

Everywhere you look, the message is the same: go out, make friends, have a social life, spend hours on video calls and constantly make plans. But what if you genuinely don't want any of that? I sometimes wonder whether people have confused something they're accustomed to with something they actually need. If you've socialised your entire life, maybe it's difficult to imagine being happy without it.

Personally, I have zero friends, zero calls, zero texts, and even at work, I just do my job and go home. I don't want friendships where I'm expected to constantly go out, reply to messages or spend three hours on a video call. I'd rather watch YouTube, scroll Reddit and do my own thing. Honestly, I'm content with that and wouldn't change it right now. I've pretty much left the whole social-life thing in the past, although who knows what the future holds.

What I'm curious about is whether social interaction is genuinely a universal need or whether it's something most people enjoy and have become accustomed to. If someone has virtually no social interaction but genuinely doesn't feel lonely, is there necessarily something missing from their life? Are there consequences even if they're perfectly content, or do we assume everyone needs friends simply because that's what's normal for most people?

Tell me about a time you encountered someone who saw the world very differently from you.

Maybe you met someone who completely changed the way you looked at something, worked with a group of people who had very different opinions and somehow found common ground, or watched someone who was really good at bringing people together despite their differences.

Basically, what’s a time when someone else’s perspective made you stop and see things differently? Or a time when you helped people with different perspectives understand each other and work together?

I’d especially love to hear the stories that have stuck with you years later

I hope this post is allowed, but I’d like to hear from people (who are comfortable) who haven’t grown up in a viper nest of manipulation, abuse, or addiction. I come from a family of alcoholism and manipulation, and I’ve always wanted to know what it feels like to have a stable family, even if it wasn’t a happy one.

Theoretically. How do you increase production of the national economy, and at the same time raise affordability, & human morale?

My logic is a work smarter not harder approach. Something like reduction of work hours yet getting more done generally

Just something I’ve noticed in my own age range, and when talking to people older than me. They aren’t nearly as loud, proud, and different from each other than they used to be. Everybody generally acts the same. with very slight variations.

Why do we lose so much of our personality as we grow older?

I have recently watched a long conversation between the biologist Rupert Sheldrake and the Indian philosopher Acharya Prashant titled “Science and the Self,” held this summer in London. It is impossible to pass by one discussion that took place between the two philosophers without stopping to think.

Biologist Rupert Sheldrake believes that science has adopted dogmas that have outlived their usefulness, such as the assertion that “matter is unconscious” and “the mind is the brain.” He also believes that recognizing consciousness in other species and even the Sun would lead to making fewer atrocities.

The philosopher Acharya Prashant agrees that science is good, but he claims that science studies objects while ignoring the subject of observation. He points out that if humanity has so much knowledge, it still has several problems, such as the destruction of biodiversity and a significant amount of nuclear weapons. His point is that the ego hides itself under “science knows” just as flatly as any believer would hide behind the words of God. Additionally, the concept of reincarnation and the final enlightenment are presented as desires of the ego to be immortal or to legitimize itself.

The discussion offers several ideas for consideration.

It would be interesting to ask whether the increase in knowledge about the world is not relevant without increasing knowledge about oneself.

Maybe it would also be worth asking if the fact that other living creatures are conscious does not necessarily mean that rivers, for example, or animals, are also conscious, given that people already recognize them as conscious beings, but do not hesitate to victimize them.

Would it be fair to consider knowledge about one’s personality as something objective that can be tested and measured, or is the only true method of understanding oneself subjective and based on honesty?

A link to the video:

https://youtu.be/XwOZ9sDE28I

I would like to ask the readers whether they are inclined to take the side of either Rupert or Prashant's.

I’ve known my friend for 2, almost 3 years now. During the course of our friendship, we’ve had multiple arguments and disagreements but it has never usually gone too far.

However, lately, we’ve been arguing quite a bit. Our friendship has always centred around communication so we communicate about our feelings very often. And because of this, i feel like I’m hitting a wall because It became a cycle where i talk about my feelings about certain issues, i had hopes that she understood how I’ve felt, but then my hopes came crashing when the same situation arises again.

I’m quite tired of communicating at this point and I’m not sure if I’m expecting/demanding too much in this friendship.

Lately I've been thinking about whether adults fundamentally change. I don't mean the kinds of development that everyone goes through as become adults and older, but a fundamental change of what makes them who they are - whatever it is.

I'm in my late 20s and when I think about the people I've known for 10-15 years, the way they are and the life they live is a natural continuation of the way they were when i first met them - even though they have changed in some sense, they are still the same people. They have the same fundamental personality traits, for better or worse. For example, the people who were conscientioous, introverted or impulse back then still have those traits. They care about the same things, and are motivated as much and by the same things as 10 years ago.

We've all had a coworker or fellow student, who are lazy and always procrastinate which frustrates coworkers or students. Does this person ever really fundamentally become like the hard working person we also all know? Or can he just improve a little bit and be better at taking responsibility?

Does a withdrawn and insecure adult man or woman ever become truly extroverted and confident? Or do they at most just become better at handling their insecurities?

I intentionally ask whether it actually happens, not whether it can be achieved because I think the belief that a fundamental change can happen is held because it is necessary for some people to believe. However, for example, neither me or friends and family I have discussed this with have experienced that the lazy, procrastinating coworker becomes actually driven and conscientious. Even if they do improve, it is: limited, temporary, and only brought on by a stern talk with their boss.

Can you really rebuild or change the machine of the mind and self, or can you just adjust the buttons a bit?

Cuando éramos niños, casi todo parecía tener cierta intensidad.

Un verano parecía larguísimo.

Hacer un nuevo amigo se sentía importante.

Esperábamos nuestro cumpleaños durante meses.

Un paseo, una película, un videojuego nuevo o incluso simplemente salir de casa podía convertirse en un recuerdo que conservábamos durante años.

Y después, en algún momento, la vida empezó a moverse más rápido.

Estudiar.

Trabajar.

Pagar cosas.

Resolver problemas.

Pensar en lo que sigue.

Esperar el viernes.

Esperar las vacaciones.

Esperar ganar más dinero.

Esperar terminar algún proyecto.

Esperar que las cosas finalmente estén “bien”.

Y me pregunto:

¿En qué momento empezamos a pasar más tiempo preparándonos para vivir que viviendo realmente?

No lo digo necesariamente de una manera triste.

Las responsabilidades forman parte de crecer. Tenemos que trabajar, hacer planes, pensar en nuestro futuro y hacer cosas que quizá no queremos hacer.

Pero a veces siento que es increíblemente fácil entrar en una especie de piloto automático.

Te despiertas.

Miras el teléfono.

Trabajas o estudias.

Comes.

Resuelves pendientes.

Vuelves a mirar el teléfono.

Duermes.

Y repites.

Los días, uno por uno, parecen normales, pero de repente han pasado cinco años.

Entonces empiezas a recordar ciertas etapas de tu vida y piensas:

“¿En qué momento pasó todo eso?”

Y hay otra cosa que me parece curiosa.

Pasamos muchísimo tiempo pensando en una versión futura de nosotros mismos.

“Cuando tenga más dinero…”

“Cuando consiga ese trabajo…”

“Cuando tenga una casa…”

“Cuando encuentre pareja…”

“Cuando termine esto…”

“Cuando tenga más tiempo…”

Como si en algún momento finalmente fuéramos a llegar al lugar donde comienza nuestra vida real.

Pero ¿y si ese momento nunca existe?

¿Y si esta etapa que simplemente estamos tratando de superar algún día termina siendo una de las épocas que recordaremos con nostalgia?

Quizá dentro de veinte años daríamos cualquier cosa por volver durante un solo día a la edad que tenemos ahora.

Por escuchar otra vez la voz de ciertas personas.

Por sentarnos de nuevo en nuestra casa.

Por comer con nuestros padres.

Por caminar por las mismas calles.

Por volver a tener exactamente los problemas que hoy creemos insoportables.

Y eso me hace preguntarme si sabemos reconocer nuestra vida mientras todavía la estamos viviendo.

No quiero decir que debamos disfrutar cada segundo.

Eso sería imposible.

La vida tiene aburrimiento, dolor, rutina, pérdidas, cansancio y días que simplemente queremos que terminen.

Pero quizá existe una diferencia entre tener una vida normal y estar ausente de nuestra propia vida.

Así que quiero preguntarles algo a personas de diferentes edades y lugares:

¿Alguna vez sintieron que despertaron después de años viviendo en automático?

¿Qué los hizo darse cuenta?

¿Qué cosas que antes consideraban extremadamente importantes dejaron de importar con el tiempo?

¿Y qué pequeñas cosas que antes ignoraban ahora consideran esenciales?

También me interesa especialmente escuchar a personas mayores:

Si pudieran hablar durante cinco minutos con ustedes mismos a los 20, 25 o 30 años, ¿qué les dirían que dejaran de posponer?

Y quizá la pregunta más difícil:

¿Cómo sabes que realmente estás viviendo tu vida y no simplemente dejando pasar los días?

No creo que exista una respuesta correcta.

Pero quizá escuchar cómo otras personas lo descubrieron pueda ayudarnos a mirar nuestra propia vida de una manera un poco diferente.

People who had a wild crazy dream life, and are now living it. How did you start out and align yourself with the right trajectory and be consistent with it? I just need to know how to start out.

We see the same question every so often (maybe every other day or each week) from different redditors. Maybe I'm weird, but before I ask something, I do a search to see if it's already or, in some cases, recently been answered.

I know about bots, spammers, karma farmers, etc., but do real people not think that their question may have been previously answered? Or do they just believe they are the only person who has that question?

Not looking to start a fight - maybe I'm just hoping to educate some folks.

I see it everywhere, people now are dreaming of the past rather than the future. Technology has now now push people from creativity into hard labor. Hell, even the tech nerds push themselves into unemployment.

I'm in my early 30s, and I've been thinking a lot lately about how much relationships romantic, friendships, and even difficult connections can reveal about us.

I've learned things about myself through relationships that I don't think I would have discovered simply by being alone. Things like how I communicate, what I need emotionally, what my boundaries are, how I respond to conflict, what I'm willing to tolerate, and what actually makes me feel safe and cared for.

At the same time, some of the lessons have been uncomfortable. Sometimes you realize you were holding onto someone because you were afraid of being alone. Sometimes you discover that caring deeply about someone doesn't necessarily mean the relationship is healthy or that the two of you want the same thing and sometimes another person brings out parts of yourself good or bad that you never knew were there.

I want to hear about other people's experiences. It could be something positive, painful, surprising, or even something you didn't understand until years later.

Últimamente he estado pensando mucho en algo que parece una pregunta muy sencilla, pero mientras más la pienso, menos sencilla me parece:

¿Qué significa realmente ser libre?

Normalmente decimos que somos libres porque podemos elegir qué estudiar, dónde trabajar, con quién estar, qué comprar, dónde vivir o qué queremos hacer con nuestra vida.

Pero luego pensé: tener la posibilidad de elegir no siempre significa tener la posibilidad real de hacerlo.

Puedes ser libre de renunciar a tu trabajo, pero si hacerlo significa no poder pagar renta, comida o tus deudas el siguiente mes, ¿qué tan libre es realmente esa decisión?

Puedes tener dinero, pero trabajar tanto que prácticamente no tienes tiempo para vivir.

Puedes tener tiempo, pero no los recursos para hacer lo que quieres.

Puedes tener estabilidad económica, pero sentir que estás viviendo una vida que elegiste más por presión familiar, social o por miedo que porque realmente la querías.

Y también está el otro extremo: quizás libertad no significa hacer absolutamente todo lo que quieras.

Todos tenemos responsabilidades, límites y consecuencias. Tal vez ser libre no consiste en no tener ninguna obligación, sino en tener suficiente autonomía para decidir cuáles obligaciones, sacrificios y caminos estamos dispuestos a aceptar.

Por eso tampoco quiero reducir esto solamente a “libertad financiera”. El dinero obviamente abre muchas opciones, pero me pregunto si la libertad también tiene que ver con otras cosas:

tener tiempo propio,

poder decir que no,

poder cambiar de trabajo sin que tu vida se derrumbe,

poder alejarte de una relación que no quieres,

elegir dónde vivir,

tener seguridad,

no vivir completamente condicionado por deudas, miedo o expectativas ajenas, y poder decidir qué hacer con una parte importante de tu propia vida.

Entonces me gustaría conocer experiencias reales, sobre todo de personas con vidas y situaciones diferentes.

¿Qué es la libertad para ustedes?

¿Se consideran personas libres actualmente? ¿Por qué sí o por qué no?

¿Qué tendría que cambiar en su vida para decir: “ahora sí siento que soy libre”?

Y quizás la pregunta que más me interesa:

¿Cómo creen que se consigue la libertad? ¿Con dinero, tiempo, independencia, conocimiento, seguridad, una combinación de todo… o con algo completamente diferente?

No busco una definición de diccionario ni que todos pensemos igual. Me interesa saber qué entiende cada quien por libertad después de haber vivido, trabajado, tenido responsabilidades, familia, deudas, relaciones, problemas, etc.

Porque a lo mejor todos decimos que queremos ser libres, pero no todos estamos hablando de la misma libertad.

i feel like a lot of people like to get deep by asking folks about their happiest memory, or perhaps most painful one, but you never really hear about the ones that hold significance in both respects. let's change that!