I mean, from the abstract it looks like what the study did was localise the specific network of right hemisphere neuronal clusters that, when damaged, predict religious fundamentalism. Since they only studied patients with TBIs, they weren’t testing the claim that brain damage increases the likelihood of fundamentalism. The rate of fundamentalism in the general population could, hypothetically, be higher than among TBI patients (i.e., if brain injuries actually reduce fundamentalism) and this study’s insights would still hold.

Australian here, heard it all my life. Also, in our dialect you can use fuck to mean pretty much anything, as long as it’s clear from context what sentiment you’re going for

Thanks! Appreciate learning something new!

Sounds like a great way to evolve vaccine-resistant rabies

Your and his age are gonna be major variables here. Conversations and relationships work very differently at different life stages.

You sound like you’re maybe a teenager? Try asking interesting questions that require some thought to answer, but still leave room for your friend to give an easy thoughtless answer if they want to. Where do you think we’ll be in X years? What’s something you thought you wanted but as you’ve gotten okay have realised you actually don’t? What do you think we do now thar future generations will think is crazy? Listen to his answers and ask followup questions.

Personally, I’ve always been most impressed by directness, honesty, intelligence and courage.

Wow, what a terrible article. The author doesn’t engage with any of the substantive points Radiohead and Nick Cave are making, he just disparages them and insists on his obvious moral superiority. It’s dressed up in some, admittedly, very nice writing, but this is just childish name calling.

Still, interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

Nah, that’s great because you can so easily escalate to heavy talk. Disagree with the political opinion. Insist car culture is just pointless fashion fads. Dive into the morality of reality TV.

Either they disengage and you’re free, or you get to have an actual meaningful debate instead of echoing hollow platitudes.

The actual results are in the text. 56% personifiers among autists vs 33% among not autists, p<0.05. Self report is p=0.06.

Scientific papers are often titled “What it’s actually about: something witty.” This one is about object personification and so after the colon they personify the paper itself by giving it an emotion.

1. the whole point of statistics is to extract subtle signals from noise, if you’re getting wildly different results, the problem is you’re under-powered.

Thanks for taking the time to post these links, just letting you know you’re efforts have benefited at least one person who’s gonna enjoy reading this.

That sounds awful, I’m sorry you have to go through that. They have those extra leg room exit row seats, but they seem to allocate them at random instead of to tall people.

You say you stand up right away because you’ve been jammed into your seat for hours, so I’m wondering why you didn’t stand up during the flight. Then you wouldn’t be jammed in for hours…

Why not stand up during the flight?

Why didn’t you just stand up during the flight?

Lol, ironic in thread about tolerance

Pretty sure both groups are doing that to each other…

If it were easy, there wouldn’t be this much disagreement.

Phew, lucky that there’s no disagreement in this society about what right and wrong is and what should and shouldn’t be tolerated. Otherwise we might devolve into two antagonistic political factions mutually condemning each other.

Okay, how do you assess that harm has occurred?

I claim that your post just harmed me. You should be excluded from the social contact.

You violated the rules my god laid down. Harmful to me and all my fellow believers. You’re out.

Your flagrant homosexuality is harming my children. Excluded.

Your campaign to take away my guns is harming me and all my descendants. I was just minding my own business until you came along with your intolerant gun removal policies. Excluded! Burn him.

This only solves the dilemma in a trivial way, if harm is transparent and uncontentious. It doesn’t address the real dilemma, which is widespread disagreement about what should and shouldn’t be tolerated.

The perfect colinearity of most of the lines is very suspicious too.