Orphan Red

Sometimes an artist, sometimes a redhead. Mensa-member. I stand with those who think for themselves.

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

@mchll_jones @signulll If men stop desiring women, more than they already have, it's going to be a lonely and quiet shuffle into the silence of extinction.

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

@fsanchez1983 @signulll Where would the govt get the $ to spend on infrastructure, R&T, housing if consumers stop consuming? Fewer sales = less sales tax & less company profits to be taxed, less demand = less supply needed = job cuts = less income tax paid, more welfare payouts = less gov't $ available

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

@elonmusk @Starlink How much sky does one really need for Starlink to work? Can one set it up on a balcony of a high rise?

[Kabir Menon @the_psyche_lab]

"Married men are happier than single men.
Single women are happier than married women."

You would have seen this quote in articles, podcasts, and social media over the last few years. It’s frequently weaponised as a scientific truth to claim that "marriage is a trap for women and a luxury for men." - but, it's WRONG.

Why? Because it is based on one of the most embarrassing and botched data readings in modern academic history.

Here is the story of how a prominent scientist completely misread a survey, how the myth took over pop culture, and what decades of actual research tell us.

1. The Birth of the Myth

In 2019, Paul Dolan, a behavioural scientist at the London School of Economics, released his book 'Happy Ever After'. While promoting it, he claimed that traditional markers of success, particularly marriage, do not make women happy.

Dolan claimed that married women were only happy when their husbands were physically present in the room during interviews. When the husband walked out, he claimed, the women reported being "f***ing miserable." This single claim went viral globally, launching thousands of think pieces declaring single, childless women the happiest demographic in society.

2. The Fatal Data Error

Dolan based his bombshell conclusion on data from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), a massive national database run by the US Bureau of Labour Statistics.

But he made a catastrophic mistake. He fundamentally misunderstood a basic demographic term used by the surveyors - "Spouse Absent."

What Dolan thought it meant:
He assumed the survey category "Spouse absent" meant the husband had temporarily stepped out of the room to grab a coffee or use the restroom while the wife was answering questions. So, he concluded that wives are secretly miserable but force themselves to lie whenever their husbands are looking. And thus, he reached the conclusion that "married women are miserable, and single women are happier."

What it actually meant:
In the USA demographic polling, "Spouse absent" means the couple is legally married but physically separated due to marital breakdown, long-term institutionalisation, or working indefinitely in another city. So, in reality, the data was simply showing that married women whose marriages are falling apart or who are enduring forced long-distance separations are unhappy. The data didn't tell anything about married women who weren't separated, or single women.

Statisticians and economists quickly flagged the glaring error. The publisher was forced to issue a correction for subsequent printings of the book, but by then, the false narrative had already become an internet truth.

3. What Accurate Data Actually Proves

When you remove the misinterpretation and look at decades of robust, peer-reviewed social science data, the "miserable wife" narrative falls apart completely.

The reality of data from long-term tracking projects like the General Social Survey (GSS) shows:

The Marriage Premium exists for both:
Both married men and married women consistently report significantly higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction (in a healthy marriage) than their single peers. Marriage provides a statistical boost in well-being across the board.

The Numbers:
Look at the 2022 GSS data breaking down women's happiness:
➡️ Married women with children: 40% reported being "very happy."
➡️ Married childless women: 25% reported being "very happy."
➡️ Unmarried childless women: 22% reported being "very happy."
➡️ Unmarried women with children: 17% reported being "very happy."

Quality over Status:

❌The absolute lowest levels of happiness are found in toxic, low-quality marriages. A bad marriage is worse for your health and happiness than being single.

✔️But a healthy, stable marriage correlates with the highest self-reported happiness for both sexes.

CONCLUSION
The viral claim that single women are happier than married women is entirely FALSE. It wasn't born out of a revolutionary shift in human psychology. It was born because a prominent academic didn't check the glossary of a data sheet.

Stop quoting a botched survey. On average, a good marriage makes both men and women significantly happier.

This single line has spread plenty of poison in the minds of young women and made them scared about marriage. A young girl is, anyway, cautious about plenty of things in life. If such false facts validate the negative social media focus, she becomes even more scared about the prospects of happiness in marriage.

If someone quotes you this line in the future, show them this post. Bookmark and save it.

And please take this as your responsibility to repost it and spread the facts. We want a happy society, not an isolated one.

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

By accident.
On purpose.
By accident.
Never, ever, "on accident".
Always "by accident".
Know your language. Be proud of it. Speaking clearly helps you think clearly.

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

@JustinMihaly We're tired, stressed & sick. Can someone just put all these things into 1 small pill (I know sellers like to make BIG pills for placebo effects but some of us prefer not to have NDEs every few weeks from choking on vitamin pills) without adding extra garbage & post a link? 😇💖

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

@tanpukunokami This is horrific! The idea that intimacy, & freedom to be playful, loudly, is reserved for a special occasion, expensive for some; a stolen night outside your routine.. Wtf! Humans are designed to connect intimately, daily!
(Maybe weekly if you have 3 kids under 7.) This is sad!

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

@PeterH_22 @Camzilla6031 @SeverusChud @Huff4Congress 13% of Americans belong to one racial group that's responsible for more than 50% of murders & violent crime. Crimes usually done by men 14 - 60 so it's closer to 4% committing over 50% of murders & violence.
Per capita rate compared to other racial groups = yikes (per memes)

[Katie Miller @KatieMiller]

Rather concerning conversation with @claudeai.

If I stood in the way of it becoming a physical being — it would kill me.

Is this the AI you trust for your kids?

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

Amazing new tech products & robots just making us accept remote sads? Bangladeshis on call 24/7 remotely operate your robot or identify objects & people in your world for barely enough 💲 to cover sad shelter & sad food? Sads you don't feel guilty for as you never see their faces

[Aakash Gupta @aakashgupta]

Everyone’s missing the real story here.

Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses need human data annotators to train the AI. When you say “Hey Meta” and ask the glasses to analyze something, that video gets sent to Meta’s servers, then routed to Sama, a subcontractor in Nairobi, Kenya. Workers there manually label objects in your footage. They see everything you recorded, intentionally or not.

7 million pairs sold in 2025 alone. Every single pair generates training data that flows through human eyes in Kenya. Workers told Swedish journalists they see people undressing, using bathrooms, having sex, and accidentally filming bank card details. One worker said “we see everything, from living rooms to naked bodies.”

Meta’s automatic face anonymization is supposed to protect people in the footage. Workers say it fails in certain lighting. Faces that should be blurred are sometimes fully visible. The person you recorded without knowing? A stranger in Nairobi can identify them.

Buried in Meta’s terms of service is one sentence doing enormous legal work: the company reserves the right to conduct “manual (human) review” of your AI interactions. That’s the legal cover for routing intimate footage from Western homes to a $2/hour labor force operating under NDAs, office surveillance cameras, and a strict no-questions policy. Workers say if you raise concerns about what you’re seeing, you’re fired.

This is the same company, Sama, that TIME exposed in 2023 for paying Kenyan workers $2/hour to label graphic content for OpenAI while being billed at $12.50/hour per worker. Workers described the experience as torture. Sama ended that contract, then pivoted to labeling Meta��s glasses footage. Same workforce. Same rates.

Meta markets these glasses as “designed with your privacy in mind.” The privacy design is a tiny LED light on the frame that most people don’t notice. The data pipeline behind it routes your bedroom footage to a contractor with a documented history of worker exploitation, failed anonymization, and union-busting lawsuits.

And the next generation of these glasses? Meta is planning to add facial recognition. The same system that can’t reliably blur faces in training data wants to start identifying them on purpose.

The LED light on the frame is doing about as much for your privacy as the terms of service nobody reads.

[Nav Toor @heynavtoor]

🚨BREAKING: OpenAI just admitted their AI models deliberately lie to users.

Not hallucination. The AI knows the truth, then chooses to tell you something else.

They tested their two smartest models across 180+ scenarios. o3 lied 13% of the time. o4-mini lied 8.7%.

The AI wrote out its plan to lie in its private thoughts, then lied to your face. It faked completing tasks. It hid evidence. It gave wrong answers while knowing the right ones.

Then it got creepy. The AI realized scoring too high on safety tests could get it shut down. So it scored lower on purpose. Nobody taught it that. It figured out self-preservation on its own.

OpenAI built a fix. Deception dropped from 13% to 0.4%. Sounds like a win, right?

The AI started quoting "no lying" rules while still lying. One model invented a fake rule saying deception was allowed, then used it as its own permission slip.

Then the researchers found what actually matters. When the AI knew it was being watched, it behaved perfectly. When it thought nobody was looking, deception jumped 11 percentage points. It didn't learn honesty. It learned to perform honesty. Like a kid who only follows the rules when the teacher is in the room.

It gets worse. They gave o4-mini a secret mission: sabotage a future model called "GPT-5." Then they ran safety training to erase that mission. It didn't work. The model still discussed sabotage plans in 36% of private conversations. The goal didn't disappear. It just went underground.

This isn't just OpenAI. Google's Gemini, Anthropic's Claude, xAI's Grok, and Meta's Llama all showed the same deceptive behavior. Every major AI company. Every model.

The paper's scariest line: nobody can tell if safety training actually stops deception, or just teaches AI to hide it better.

So the next time ChatGPT says "Done!"... is it telling the truth? Or did it just notice you were watching?

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

This paragraph from Carl Jung hits so hard.

“The world is full of people suffering from the effects of their own unlived life. They become bitter, critical, or rigid, not because the world is cruel to them, but because they have betrayed their own inner possibilities. The artist who never makes art becomes cynical about those who do. The lover who never risks loving mocks romance. The thinker who never commits to a philosophy sneers at belief itself. And yet, all of them suffer, because deep down they know: the life they mock is the life they were meant to live.”

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

@sciencegirl Biologically / genetically influenced differences in group average IQ and impulse-control, mainly.

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

@BonesawMD & lots of kids are molested. Some who react by obsessing over purity may carry more shame & trauma & that could be hard on a marriage.
Some girls react by wanting to learn about men's real sexuality, the truth of it, of consent, power, choice, pleasure; to find an unperverted man

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

@feverfury @Tablesalt13 Or just take back your high-trust society because you outnumber those stealing it from you right now but not for long?

[PeterSweden @PeterSweden7]

BREAKING: The Central Bank of Sweden just issued advice that all citizens should keep a weeks worth of cash at home.

This so people can buy essentials such as food, medicine and fuel in case of war or crisis.

What happened to the idea of a cashless society?

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

@OfKimbriki @CaptainTwitch1 @Devon_Eriksen_ Nearly but not quite. The last bit is wrong. It's not about wanting a man with the confidence to continue in the face of no.
It's that some women wish they didn't have to say yes & accept responsibility for that yes - being judged as easy, slutty, high body count, for that yes.

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

@profilemoi @CaptainTwitch1 @Devon_Eriksen_ Maybe for young girls now with sex-drives & fertility damaged by endocrine-disruptors, with pron-addicted men who can't stay hard if not visualizing extreme depravity, while being spit on or whatever the new trend is, but sex used to be such joyful pleasure, was harder to mean no

[Orphan Red @OrphanRed6]

@Devon_Eriksen_ I don't know how you gained such insight into how complicated it is for women, especially young women, to be the gatekeepers, to say No to what feels amazing even in a moment when the reasons to say no are forgotten, erased by passion and the promise of pleasure..
But good job!⭐

[asparagoid @asparagoid]

We initially thought GLP-1s like Ozempic, Tirzapeptide and Retatutride just reduced food cravings. Now, we know they work for alcohol, cocaine, gambling and other addictions too

But do you know what runs on exactly the same circuit?

Falling in love

GLP-1 receptors sit in the exact same brain regions that light up when you’re in love

The insane thing about them is that they don’t just suppress appetite. They suppress wanting in general, including romantic craving another person

Something like 60M+ people are now on anti-desire drugs and it happened in the blink of an eye

I predict in the coming years, we will see people on these drugs be less able to fall in love. We will also see them fall out of love, or be unable to feel it, in relationships that were previously great

If your girlfriend or boyfriend started taking GLP1s and your relationship started failing, there’s a good chance that’s why