PhD perjuangan

#TranceFamily
Reading comprehension anda bobrok = block.

[PhD perjuangan @asot_2012]

senyum Indonesia

[Carmen @carmenleelau]

Feedback eaters and how to spot them

There’s a specific genre of person who uses feedback to subsidize their emotional recklessness by placing the burden on others to tell them whenever they have done something wrong instead of reflecting on the patterns in their lives and making appropriate changes. The hostile version of this even uses feedback as a vehicle to assert their own superiority through conflict.

I call these people “feedback eaters” because they have a great appetite for feedback, but when you give it to them it seems to enter a black hole.

This can look like:
- high disagreeableness
- conflict-seeking
- positioning themself as the reasonable, peaceful, open to negotiate one (and subtly casting you as the dramatic, immature one)
- actively soliciting feedback when the situation doesn’t call for it, or you two aren’t actually that close

There’s nuance to this—feedback from others is valuable and if you never receive it then you can’t learn effectively. But if you make your ability to take feedback a point of pride or strong part of your identity, it can sabotage relationships.

I wrestled with this type of person for a long time trying to figure out why they left me feeling bad even though the behavior itself seemed to be in good faith.

My thoughts would sound something like: “Taking feedback is usually really hard. This person seems to do it with ease, so they are admirable, impressive, and stronger than me. They are more committed to their growth. Wow, they’re even asking me for feedback. They’re so humble and care about how their actions impact others.”

And then I’d give the feedback and one or more of the following would happen:
1) No change in behavior, which revealed they weren’t actually committed to improving our relationship. Totally cool to want to exit a relationship, but not cool to pretend you care when you don’t.
2) They argue with the feedback instead of graciously accepting it or asking thoughtful follow-up questions. I feel betrayed because they baited me with receptivity and vulnerability, and then switched to aggression.
3) Subtle ego plays (making digs back at me). It’s mean and irrelevant to the topic at hand to bring up my faults. Neither of us is perfect but we’re trying to help each other.

That’s when I realized that they were using feedback solicitation as a way to dodge accountability. This is actually a genius strategy:
- If they position themself as open to feedback no one can claim they’re closed-off and unwilling to cooperate (even if they’re uncooperative in the discussions themselves). This protects their reputation by appearing pro-social.
- If they can surface the object-level argument and successfully refute it (”prove” the person offering feedback was wrong about them), then they’re actually fine/not a bad person, and nothing has to change.
- If they open themself up to feedback, it gives them permission to offer feedback in return “because it’s only fair” even if they’re putting you down. If they can make it feel like you’re no better than they are, then they can’t be that bad.
- If they make it other people’s jobs to tell them when their behavior is out of line, they don’t need to expend the energy to maintain a filter or internal checker. It’s easier and lower effort.

The last one is more benign, but the rest are protective. Feedback eaters actually care a lot about how people perceive them despite presenting a thick skin, and are invested in manipulating those impressions. The root causes of this tend to run deep and are difficult to change without intensive therapy or emotional work. There is not much you can do to help if they’re not interested in investigating or changing it themselves.

The attitude of “if someone has a problem with me it’s on them to speak up, I’m all ears” is a viable, healthy stance to take until you weaponize it or lean on it as a crutch. Dodging accountability can cause pain to others and stunt emotional growth.

My general advice is if you suspect someone is even subtly trying to position themselves as better than you, or if conversation feels slippery and difficult with them for some reason, don’t take the bait when they ask for feedback. You’re opening up more surface area for personal attack. Or, you can try it, see what happens (how they react and if behavior changes), and go from there.

[Misha Teplitskiy | Science of Science @MishaTeplitskiy]

Who is the greatest scientist of all time (in terms of Google Scholar citations)? Is it Einstein? Or Bengio or Hinton?
No.
It is a humble servant of knowledge, Mr. Rachmad of Indonesia, who has had a rather productive publishing period after the launch of ChatGPT

[Melanie Bennet @MelanieBennet_]

I believe this is another example of the prisoner's dilemma. In this case, high-trust societies “cooperate” by extending openness and reciprocity. Immigrants from lower-trust cultures often continue to “defect” (lower cooperation, weaker norms), and this gap can persist across generations.
Rather than sustained cooperation producing mutual benefit, natives eventually defect too — pulling back from community and institutions. The result: eroded social capital and a breakdown of the high-trust equilibrium that benefited everyone.
When one side doesn’t reciprocate, rational self-protection by the other destroys the collective good.

[Sean McClure @sean_a_mcclure]

3Blue1Brown Math Videos
https://t.co/s0ITwkY095

[PROFESSOR @SIGMAPROFESSOR]

Intelligence changes nothing. Madness does. Debates don't create revolutions; delusional conviction does. Sharpening your arguments accomplishes nothing. Sharpen your skills.

[DR22 Ω 🪬🎭 @DejaRu22]

This or nothing

[Philip N Cohen @familyunequal]

How does that compare to how couples would look if people married at random? I broke the couples up, spawned 10 copies of each, randomized them and paired them up again. We see that people pair up with fewer woman-taller and man-much-taller couples than chance would produce
3/

[Gun Gun @goent79]

@petanirumah Pinjaman bank bunganya besar, apalagi suku bunga BI naik, kalau tidak paham aturan pengadaan barang jasa pemerintah dan hanya bergantung dari eforia maka resiko besar menganga didepan, klausul utama yg perlu diperhatikan dalam pbj pemerintah adalah “selama anggaran tersedia”

[Machiavelli Bot @UnmodernmanBot]

You should study what makes you defensive. The topic you avoid, the joke that irritates you, the question that feels insulting, the feedback you instantly reject. Defensiveness is usually the guard dog sitting in front of a weakness you have not trained yourself to face.

[Hunter Ash @ArtemisConsort]

No matter what your theory about birth rate collapse is, there’s some data point that disproves it. Japan didn’t have the pill when fertility collapsed. There are highly patriarchal countries where fertility is collapsing. It’s collapsing in countries that are still poor. It’s collapsing in places with more generous social support for families. It’s almost like a psychic alien just decided to phase humans out.

[3rd Wave Nationalist @alexnilych]

> even the best romance written by women have been written by 'male-brained' women with fluid sexualities

I would take this further to state that the best fiction in general is created by male-brained women. It's why Asian women have consistently produced quality media that speaks even to boys/men

Probably has to do with testosterone and spatial IQ, Asians tend to be less sexually dimorphic so it wouldn't surprise me if, despite their physical femininity, Asian women are more "male-brained" on average than other women

[kale @kalistohenituse]

SAAT KELULUSAN, SEMUA ANAK SD DIBUATKAN GAMBARAN ΙΜPIAΝΝΥΑ ΜΕΝGGUNAKAN ΑΙ.

contoh penggunaan AI yg benar 🥹

[Optimus_My_Destiny @Optimus_Destiny]

@elonmusk

[Millie Marconi @MillieMarconnni]

A British biologist looked at 200,000 years of human history and found that the entire reason humans broke out of poverty was not intelligence, not language, not even agriculture, but one mechanism so simple a 6-year-old could explain it.

His name is Matt Ridley.

He is a zoologist by training, an evolutionary biologist by career, and in 2010 he wrote a book called The Rational Optimist that quietly argued the most important fact about human progress had been hiding in plain sight for the entire history of economics.

Naval Ravikant has been telling people to read everything Ridley has ever written for the last 15 years. The reason is the argument inside this one book.

For 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans walked around with the same brain you have right now. Same skull size. Same neural architecture. Same raw capacity for language, planning, and abstract thought.

For roughly 190,000 of those years, almost nothing happened. Generation after generation lived and died inside the same Stone Age toolkit their great-great-grandparents had used. Then somewhere around 50,000 years ago, the line on the chart of human progress started to tick upward. Then it bent. Then it exploded.

The question Ridley spent years on was the only question that mattered. What changed.

It was not the brain. The brain had been the same for 190,000 years. It was not language, which had existed long before the takeoff. It was not even agriculture, which arrived only 10,000 years ago and was actually preceded by the upward bend, not the cause of it.

What changed was that humans started trading with strangers.

This sounds too small to be the answer. Ridley argues that it is the answer to almost everything. The moment one human exchanged a useful object with another human from a different group, something happened that no other species on earth had ever done.

Two ideas that had developed in isolation came into contact. The flint knapper learned what the spear maker had figured out. The fisherman from the coast learned what the hunter from the forest had figured out. The two pieces of knowledge fused into something neither side could have produced alone.

Ridley calls this ideas having sex. The phrase sounds frivolous and it is meant to. The point is that ideas, like genes, get better when they combine with other ideas from different lineages.

An idea sitting inside one head, no matter how brilliant the head, eventually hits a ceiling. The same idea exposed to ten thousand other ideas does something genes do under sexual reproduction. It mixes. It recombines. It produces offspring nobody planned.

The cleanest proof of this argument is the most uncomfortable case study in the book. Tasmania.

Around 10,000 years ago, rising sea levels cut Tasmania off from mainland Australia. A population of roughly 4,000 humans was now isolated on an island, with no possibility of contact with the rest of humanity. They had the same brains. The same language. The same starting toolkit as their cousins 150 kilometers north. The natural experiment was now running.

What happened next is something no economist or geneticist had ever predicted.

The mainland Australians kept inventing. Boomerangs. Spear-throwers. Fishing nets. Bone needles for sewing fitted clothes. Watercraft with paddles. Their technology compounded slowly across the centuries.

The Tasmanians went the other way. They did not just fail to invent the new tools their cousins were developing. They started losing the tools they already had. Fishing was abandoned within a few thousand years. Bone tools disappeared. Fitted clothing disappeared. They forgot how to make fire from scratch and started carrying lit firebrands from camp to camp instead, relighting their fires from a neighbor's whenever their own went out.

By the time European explorers arrived in the 17th century, the Tasmanians had the simplest toolkit of any human society ever recorded. Their material culture had gone backward for 8,000 years.

The archaeologist Rhys Jones called it a slow strangulation of the mind.

Joseph Henrich at Harvard later proved with formal mathematical models that there was nothing wrong with Tasmanian brains. There was something wrong with their network. A toolkit requires a critical mass of people exchanging skills to maintain itself.

The act of teaching a skill is imperfect. Every generation loses a small percentage of what the last generation knew. If your population is large enough and trading widely enough, those losses get caught and corrected by someone else who still remembers.

If your population shrinks below a certain threshold and stops mixing with outsiders, the small losses compound until entire technologies disappear.

This is the part that should haunt anyone reading this in 2026.

Intelligence is not a property of the individual brain. Intelligence is a property of the network the brain is connected to. A genius in isolation will produce less than a mediocre thinker inside a dense exchange of other mediocre thinkers.

The thing your ancestors needed in order to break out of 190,000 years of stagnation was not better brains. It was better connections between brains they already had.

The implication for any individual is direct and uncomfortable. If you are smart and isolated, you will be outproduced by people half as smart who are connected.

The most successful people in any field are almost never the smartest people in it. They are the ones positioned at the intersection of the most idea flows. They are reading more authors than their competitors. They are talking to more people from more disciplines. They are in the rooms where ideas from different lineages bump into each other.

Ridley ends the book on the line that sounds optimistic but is actually a warning its this "The future will be invented by people who connect ideas, not by people who guard them."

[LifeMathMoney ₿ | Unapologetic Truths. @LifeMathMoney]

Red flags in people:

- Not respecting their parents
- Making a *big show* of loving animals/nature
- Being well liked by everyone, never saying anything that might cause them to be disliked
- Traditional/Religious clothing with non-traditional/irreligious beliefs
- Needlessly cruel to lower class people and animals
- The perpetual victim (usually female)

[PhD perjuangan @asot_2012]

@theralkia or maybe because I am reframing them as "challenges" to get some gacha or something

[MIT CSAIL @MIT_CSAIL]

9 distance measures in data science w/algorithms (v/@MaartenGr).

[Sleeping in your walls @sholonkymonkey]

@JohnnyMcIvor You're forgetting the insane amount of 'gays' who were raped as a child and became gay as a coping mechanism (this is how gays reproduce)

[世界縦断ネコ歩き @2Doramimon]

@konwakubot 中身の水はほぼタダで。
ペットボトルの料金は容器代と輸送費だから。
容器代も輸送費も、大きい方が重量あたりのコストがかからない。

[Race @multiplanet1]

Elon Musk's ex girlfriend Amber Heard once made him cry in front of his entire staff.

Multiple sources close to Musk have said that the relationship with Heard was the only one where he wasn't in control. Not of her. Of himself. He described the breakup as one of the most painful experiences of his life. A man who watches rockets explode and feels nothing said a breakup nearly destroyed him.

His biographer Walter Isaacson wrote that Musk entered "demon mode" during and after the relationship. The intensity of his work at Tesla and SpaceX during that period wasn't ambition. It was escape. The same man who can't be present at dinner with a partner suddenly couldn't stop working because stopping meant feeling.

His friends said they'd never seen him like that. Not after failed launches. Not after billion dollar losses. Not after public humiliation. A woman did what the entire aerospace industry couldn't. She got past his defenses.

This is what nobody understands about the hardest people you know. They're not hard everywhere. They have one crack. One frequency that bypasses everything. And when someone finds it, the collapse is worse than anything the public version of them would suggest is possible.

Musk rebuilt rockets after explosions in weeks. It took him over a year to rebuild after Amber Heard.

The man who colonizes planets couldn't protect himself from the one thing engineering can't solve. That tells you everything about where real power ends and where real vulnerability begins.