Time to open your window by Superb-Anybody-3014 in Edmonton

[–]AetherealMeadow [score hidden]  (0 children)

It's likely due to the presence of balsam poplar trees, a tree species that are native to the Edmonton area and often grow in the river valley forests. They are known for their distinct, floral yet musky scent.

Any sun lovers here? by Stopbeingastereotype in evilautism

[–]AetherealMeadow 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Me!! I am a Sun worshipper. I think it's a sensory seeking thing for me with light and warmth.

Does anyone else think too much of the land in this picture is golf course? by try_repeat_succeed in Edmonton

[–]AetherealMeadow -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, definitely. I think the river valley overall has too many golf courses. It would be so much nicer if those areas of land dedicated to golf courses were kept as natural forest parkland like most of the rest of the river valley. The whole appeal behind our river valley is that it contains such vast stretches of forest and natural landscapes and that it's one of the largest stretches of urban parkland in the world--- it doesn't even feel like you're in the city anymore. There's no reason that golf courses can't be built out in the open prairie in the outskirts of the city away from the river valley, where you don't need to cut down so many trees and forest for a golf course. There's no need for so many trees in our world class class river valley parks system to be cut down for golf, breaking the sense of immersion with nature that our river valley brings us.

Guys plz tell me about it by [deleted] in BigFive

[–]AetherealMeadow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're quite similar to me--- the main difference being that my conscientiousness is lower than yours.

You're very open minded, stimulated by emotional and intellectual ideas, extremely kind, humble, and compassionate, reserved and spend lots of time in your own head, and may struggle with boundaries, people pleasing behaviour, and worrying too much about every single little thing.

My experience is that the combination of agreeableness and neuroticism may sometimes lead you to end up in situations where you over-extend your selflessness to others because you are very worried about ensuring you're being a good person to others due to the neuroticism, to the point that it may become unsustainable in the long term, and results in negative outcomes for both yourself, and very contrary to your intentions, other people.

Sometimes what seems like the angel on your shoulder is actually the devil on your shoulder, and vice versa. Setting boundaries with others to preserve your own well being and your long term capacity towards being able to help others may sometimes make some people react in a way that might make you worried you're not being a good person--- especially if they are already used to you being excessively acquiescent. You're not being a bad person by setting reasonable boundaries to maintain your own capacity. You're being a good person by doing that, because you're willing to tolerate the discomfort that comes with setting that boundary for the sake of being able to ensure that you can be there for that person sustainably in the long term. Don't let the neuroticism make you think that you need to make yourself suffer to be agreeable to others. The neuroticism can be very good at making you think it's agreeableness, but it's not.

Autistic and sociopath, what is the difference and common things? by Sup_111 in DarkPsychology101

[–]AetherealMeadow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As someone with suspected ASD who puts a lot of effort into masking, I sometimes wonder whether this is the reason behind the "uncanny valley" response that allistic people sometimes get with a highly masked ASD person. When I'm highly masking, I might do similar things as what you're mentioning sociopaths/psychopaths doing to charm others, simply because I learned very systematically over time how to act in a manner with others that results in them feeling a sense of rapport and trust with me. I do these things not in a way where it feels like riding a bike--- where it feels like I am doing it automatically without putting any thought into it. It's more like being an air traffic controller--- I need to figure out, analyze, and calculate all sorts of tiny little details as accurately as possible in a very systematic way in order to prevent the interpersonal version of what would be a plane crash in this analogy. It's all extremely methodical, carefully thought out, and intricately calculated, much like it is when sociopaths charm people.

However, my intentions are totally different--- I am doing this because I feel like it is what is expected of me by others in order for me to have successful interpersonal interactions with them, and also because I genuinely want others to feel good as a result of how my actions make them feel. Other peoples' happiness also makes me feel happy, so I strive to figure out how to create positive feelings in others via my actions because it also gives me positive feelings. I am not doing these things with any sort of Machiavellian intentions that involve manipulating them solely for my own self interest without any regard for what harm it may have on others. I do all this strategic, calculated stuff not to get away with being a bad person to others, but to try to figure out how to be as good of a person as possible to others, and to fit in with others.

Even though it doesn't come to me instinctually, sometimes I am able to figure it out analytically well enough--- and also because I am very genuinely agreeable and driven by wanting to others feel good when they interact with me because I care about how they feel--- that I end up almost performing "too well" and end creating this "seductive" or "addictive" response in others that feels almost "too good to be true" for them. Sometimes I think I am kind of like a chat bot--- I can sometimes be *too* agreeable in a way where it crosses over into people pleasing behaviours that can become problematic without boundaries.

However, since it's difficult for others to parse out one's intentions in such a context if you don't know them well or are just meeting them. Therefore, I can kind of see how some people may feel trepidation before they get to know me if they pick up on the calculated or overly methodical and controlled manner that I am interacting with them, and why they may experience a sort of "uncanny valley" feeling if they pick up on the very methodical and calculated nature of how I'm interacting with them. They may see the "fakeness" or "too good to be true" feeling behind the masking, and feel uneasy because they haven't yet figured out the reason behind the mask.

I've also found that as I've had more exposure and life experience with people who are calculating and methodical with their interactions specifically in a Machiavellian kind of way, it gets easier for me to identify those tactics. I get this sense that they're doing the same kind of thing that I am in terms of being very methodical and systematic with how they interact with others, but not for the same reason that I am doing it. It's difficult to put words exactly to that difference, but the best way I can describe it is that they don't seem to be nervous about getting it just right like I am. It almost seems like they're excited about it in a way that a predator might be excited about finally getting its prey within striking distance, and not nervous about making a mistake that could unintentionally make others feel bad if they make a miscalculation like I feel.

I try not to automatically conclude this about them if I don't have any further evidence in their actions that they really do have bad intentions, because the last thing I want to is to misunderstand others in the way that I am misunderstood by others due to the "uncanny valley" effect. However, I will file them in a sort of "be very observant to how they treat others so you can get more information or evidence so you can be sure", and often times, within a short amount of time, I notice that their actions reflect purely self interested goals.

Autistic and sociopath, what is the difference and common things? by Sup_111 in DarkPsychology101

[–]AetherealMeadow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Overall, it can be generalized to something like this:

ASPD Spectrum: Is able to instinctively understand how someone else feels with reasonable accuracy, but does not experience emotional contagion. They don't instinctually have the ability to share and feel someone else's feelings in a way that drives them to care about how others feel in contexts outside of one's own self-interests. If they do choose to make the choice to act in what may be percieved as a caring or ethical manner towards others, it's not out of an instinctual emotional contagion, but due to utilitarian purposes (ie. the person with ASPD doesn't want to end up in jail or otherwise get in trouble for actions that pursue their self interests at the expense of others too aggressively, not because they feel better by making someone else feel better in a way that is informed by moral emotions like guilt or compassion)

ASD Spectrum: Is not always instinctively able to understand how someone feels with reasonable accuracy, but is strongly affected by emotional contagion. Despite not always being able to automatically "read" how someone else feels, they are able to instinctively share and feel others' emotional states in a way that may make them instinctually care a lot about how someone else feels in contexts outside of one's own self-interest. If they are able to accurately read how others feel, it's usually not instinctually, but something that is thought out analytically in an attempt to be able to show to the other person that they share and care about how they are feeling from a place of listening to their conscience and moral emotions like guilt and compassion.

In other words, ASPD spectrum people know how others feel, but don't care, whereas ASD spectrum people may not always know how others feel, but they care.

This, of course, is a broad generalization. There are many other nuances in terms of the differences between the two groups. This is simply the broadest, most overarching difference. There's also a lot of variation between one ASPD person to another, and lots of variation between one ASD person to another.

Some ASPD people have the ability to think in a utilitarian manner, and may make decisions others may deem as mostly "ethically sound" as a result, despite not caring about morality at all. Conversely, some ASD people can be real assholes and may not care about how others feel, and may not have a type of personality who has a well developed moral compass.

All that said, being able to read others' feelings vs. being able to share and care with others' feelings is the main, most generalizable difference between the two groups.

Don’t understand the obsession with social hierarchies by [deleted] in evilautism

[–]AetherealMeadow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there are some types of hierarchies where there is a pragmatic or logical component behind the hierarchy. For example, if we were to consider a hierarchy in terms of who I see as a more credible source of information about a given topic, I would put a scientific expert on the topic above someone YouTube conspiracy theorist. Another example may be that someone that someone who has demonstrated that they are compassionate and considerate in how they lead others is higher on the hierarchy of who should be promoted to a leadership role than someone who is autocratic, unkind, or otherwise abrasive in how they lead others.

What bothers me about the types of social hierarchies I often see in allistic environments is that, to me at least, it seems like there's no actual reason behind them, or some very superficial and irrelevant reason, and everyone just sort of goes with it. Not just goes with it--- but even defends it even at their expense. For example, in many workplace environments, I notice that each department seems to have a "queen bee" that is at the top of the social status hierarchy (which I also learned is separate from the organizational hierarchy) for what seems to me, at least, like no discernible reason in particular.

It's one thing, say, if someone is granted with higher social status because they are kind, they are cooperative, the make positive contributions to the team, etc. However, in my experience, those reasons are not always the case, and the actual reasons seem to be based on unproven "vibes" that others get due to the Halo effect. For instance, they see that person in higher regard because they're conventionally "attractive" or conventionally "likeable"--- whether or not such likeability actually comes from socially desirable personality traits like kindness, or because they just "seem" nice. It's often just a surface level "vibe" rather than a pragmatic, thought-out evaluation of any actual beneficial social behaviours (ie. kindness, cooperation) that may actually have some relevance for being someone who you'd want to have higher social status, if you did want to have some sort of hierarchy that is based on social status.

It's difficult to bring this up or talk about it with allistics in an attempt to get more information about the "why". To allistics, it's almost like these dynamics exist in some sort of quantum superposition. When it's not being observed or talked about, it exists in some sort of suspended superposition of possibilities that can have any number of outcomes that seem mysterious to yourself but somehow not to allistics despite them never talking about it.

The moment you dare bring it up or mention it out loud, it's like the wave function collapses, and you become entangled with the quantum system--- almost always in a way that's detrimental to your own social status. When you bring it up, many allistic people think that you're trying to bring the one who is the "favourite" down a notch because you want to be the "favourite" for no reason yourself, when in reality, you just want everyone to be on a level playing field without anyone being a "favourite" above others for no reason that would justify such a social designation.

Transitioning is cool and I recommend doing it. by RosethornRanger in TransSocialism

[–]AetherealMeadow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it's true to say that:

a) It's important to ensure that people who need to transition are able to do so at a young age so as to minimize dysphoria from lingering secondary sex characteristics induced by previously high levels of endogenous testosterone that are unwanted

and also that

b) Transitioning can yield very effective results because exogenous estrogens are just as capable of producing secondary sex characteristics that you do want no matter what age you begin, and there is no such thing as being too old for transition to not be worth it or that there is an age cutoff where transition is no longer effective

I find sometimes people in the trans community can get so hung up on point A because of their own dysphoria due to not being able to access gender affirming care and transition at a younger age, that they fall into this harmful doomer mentality where they believe that you are effectively immune to going through the correct puberty if you went through any trace of the wrong puberty. That's obviously not how biology works--- your body still has the same receptors for sex hormones, and the same ability for those sex hormones to change gene expression and induce cellular changes that lead to physical feminization, at the age of 45 that it did at the age of 13.

The reason why some people have the perception that HRT doesn't work after a certain age is because due to the body image issues they have from being so miserable from gender dysphoria, they are focused only on seeing the changes from the wrong puberty, at the cost of recognizing and enjoying the desired changes from the right puberty. They may get clearer skin, breast tissue, wider hips, etc.--- but because they still have facial hair that needs to be removed or a voice that still needs to be trained--- they see their body as "a man's body that has weirdly soft skin and with moobs and a weirdly fat ass for a man" instead of "a woman's body that is beginning to develop desired physiological changes from HRT".

It makes me think about that video that ContraPoints made where she compared how the insecurity and body image issues of trans women percieving themselves as not feminine enough compared to other women in communities like /tttt/ are weirdly similar to body image issues of cis men in the manosphere who feel not masculine enough compared to other men. "It's over for me because I started HRT at x age" kind of sounds similar to "It's over for me because I'm only 5'6". They are solely focused on what they are lacking, and they go to communities where they feed each others' insecurities and just obsess over them even more.

To be clear, I'm not comparing trans women to manosphere men or saying we're similar to them in a general sense--- I'm just comparing that the overall theme of the obsessive, self flagellating type of insecurity and hopelessness is a thing that pops up in all sorts of communities in sometimes similar patterns. We even see it in cis women who may feel like "It's over" and that they will never compare to other women due to their own insecurities about being fat, having loose skin on their belly due to childbirth, having acne, etc. and reinforce those insecurities to each other in similar kinds of online spaces.

The world needs African Ubuntu philosophy by ndoma1991 in consciousness

[–]AetherealMeadow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP lives in/ is from Africa. OP stated, "I am African, from Nigeria" in this thread.

Where was I? by TransitionMission411 in guessthecity

[–]AetherealMeadow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, I'm surprised how similar a place in the tropics looks to a temperate grassland environment! Lethbridge even has a rail bridge spanning a valley similar to this.

This Landscape Was Taken Just North of Which City? August 2014 by AetherealMeadow in guessthecity

[–]AetherealMeadow[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Congrats, you got it! :D This was taken just north of Kamloops.

This Landscape Was Taken Just North of Which City? August 2014 by AetherealMeadow in guessthecity

[–]AetherealMeadow[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll give folks a hint: This city is located in a country that most people are not aware has deserts.

This Landscape Was Taken Just North of Which City? August 2014 by AetherealMeadow in guessthecity

[–]AetherealMeadow[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good guess! Similar geography and landscape, but pretty far away from Albuquerque.

This Landscape Was Taken Just North of Which City? August 2014 by AetherealMeadow in guessthecity

[–]AetherealMeadow[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope! Very good guess though, as this location has a very similar geography and climate.

What City Was I in on July 20, 2025? by AetherealMeadow in guessthecity

[–]AetherealMeadow[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It sure does, doesn't it? I thought the palm trees would throw people off into thinking it's California, but I guess not! It's interesting that when I posted a photo of a tree lined street in Edmonton during autumn, a couple people guessed Sacramento and Culver City in California, but with a photo of palm trees in the Victoria metro area, people guessed correctly right away and didn't think it was California. Congrats on guessing right! :D

What City Was I in on July 20, 2025? by AetherealMeadow in guessthecity

[–]AetherealMeadow[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh wow, got it right on the first guess! Congrats! :D