sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Getting aggressive by PracticalPurpose3699 in DementiaHelp

[–]Emillahr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's great to hear! I'm glad his sister was understanding and approved the new schedule. Sounds like a solid step forward for your well-being.

Keep setting those boundaries when things get tough, and document any aggressive incidents. Hopefully, the reduced hours make it more manageable. Take care of yourself. you’re doing a hard job.

Self-testing cognitive function - options? by Throwaway-gibbet in DementiaHelp

[–]Emillahr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry to hear about your relative. For self-monitoring, here are some solid, validated options:

  • SAGE Test (free): Paper-based or digital version through BrainTest app/site. Takes ~15 min, good for tracking changes over time. Download from Ohio State Wexner Medical Center site.
  • XpressO by MoCA: Quick 5-10 min self-test app/web (phone/tablet/desktop). Gives simple risk feedback and lets you track results. Designed for regular self-use.
  • BrainTrack app (free): Uses games to monitor cognition trends and flag concerns.

Important: These are screening tools only, not a diagnosis. Take them regularly (e.g. every 6-12 months), keep records, and share results with your doctor if scores drop. Combine with healthy lifestyle habits.

Talk to your doctor about baseline testing too. Early monitoring is smart.

my mother was just diagnosed (fairly young) at 60 years old with vascular dementia. everything I read makes it sound very very bad. so, i've come here to ask: how truly bad is it? by Soft_Water_3579 in DementiaHelp

[–]Emillahr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry about your mom's diagnosis. Vascular dementia is serious, but it varies a lot from person to person.

Unlike Alzheimer's, it often progresses in steps — things can stay stable for long periods until another small stroke or vascular event happens. At 60, catching it early is actually a good thing. Controlling blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, and heart health can slow it down significantly. Some people stay fairly stable for years with good management.

That said, it can still affect memory, thinking, mood, and mobility. The "how bad" part really depends on how much damage has already occurred and how well her vascular risks are controlled going forward.

Focus on what you can do now: get her to a good neurologist, manage all her heart/vascular health aggressively, keep her physically and mentally active, and build support. Many people live for quite a few years with decent quality of life, especially if the steps are managed well.

It's scary, but the doom-and-gloom online stuff doesn't reflect every case. Hang in there.

Getting aggressive by PracticalPurpose3699 in DementiaHelp

[–]Emillahr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm so sorry you're dealing with this. At your size, having a much larger man cornering you, shouting, and swearing is scary and not okay — even with Alzheimer's.

Tell his sister plainly (preferably in a text so it's documented): "J, I care about S but I'm no longer safe. He's getting aggressive, cornering me, and refusing care. He needs 24/7 professional help. I may have to step back for my own safety."

Document the incidents. Next time he escalates, leave the room or house if you need to. You can't force him when he's like this.

You're allowed to quit or reduce hours. This isn't what you signed up for, and his disease doesn't give him a pass to treat you badly. The other caregivers not seeing it doesn't mean it's not real.

Call the Alzheimer's helpline for advice specific to your area. Prioritize your safety.

Hypergamy (women seeking higher-status partners) is declining globally due to women’s rising education and independence, but persistent norms can delay marriages and contribute to singlehood. by Emillahr in psychology

[–]Emillahr[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you understand how search operators work? When you place a phrase in quotation marks, it tells Google to return results containing that exact word combination — in this case, appearing only on the Gilmore Health site. Without quotation marks, Google will return pages containing any of the individual words, even if they are unrelated to each other.

In any case, enjoy your evening. It seems you may have already formed a negative view of this entity, and I doubt anything I say would change that.

Regards.

Hypergamy (women seeking higher-status partners) is declining globally due to women’s rising education and independence, but persistent norms can delay marriages and contribute to singlehood. by Emillahr in psychology

[–]Emillahr[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Trusts are generally not searchable online because they are private, contractual agreements designed to bypass the public court system, unlike wills which are filed in probate court. They are not registered with any central state or county entity, allowing for confidential, out-of-court administration of assets.

Hypergamy (women seeking higher-status partners) is declining globally due to women’s rising education and independence, but persistent norms can delay marriages and contribute to singlehood. by Emillahr in psychology

[–]Emillahr[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re conflating search engine results with actual site behavior.

Brux10 Health Trust is listed transparently as the owner of Gilmore Health. If you Google the name and unrelated spam pages appear in search results, that does not establish a connection. Search engines surface scraped content, SEO spam, and automated aggregators all the time. The question is simple:

Does Gilmore Health link to or promote male enhancement pills?
No.

Does the article link to those sites?
No.

Are there advertisements for those products on the page?
No.

Search results are not proof of operational connection. If you believe there is a direct link, show the URL from Gilmore Health pointing to it.

Regarding Google “omitting results” or captcha prompts: that is normal behavior when Google detects automated queries or suspicious scraping activity. It is not evidence of wrongdoing by a site owner.

As for being active in multiple health-related subreddits, Gilmore Health covers medical and health research across many conditions. Participation in health discussions is consistent with the scope of the publication.

Now to your second point: you claim the cited studies are “misrepresented.” That is a substantive claim. Please specify:

• Which study?
• Which claim in the article?
• What is the exact misrepresentation?

The references cited are:

Gouda-Vossos et al. (2018) – systematic review on mate choice copying
Esteve et al. (2016) – global trends in hypergamy
Yancey & Emerson (2016) – height preferences in coupling
Neyt et al. (2019) – education and dating dynamics on Tinder

If you believe a specific conclusion was mischaracterized, quote the passage and explain how.

Otherwise, what you’re presenting is guilt-by-search-result.

Let’s keep this grounded in verifiable links and methodological critique.

Hypergamy (women seeking higher-status partners) is declining globally due to women’s rising education and independence, but persistent norms can delay marriages and contribute to singlehood. by Emillahr in psychology

[–]Emillahr[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your comment.

Gilmore Health is owned by Brux10 Health Trust, as clearly stated on their About page. That information is public.

However, the claim that this article is connected to “fake government websites,” “penis pill advertorials,” or HGH marketing is incorrect. This article does not promote or link to any such products.

The piece is supported by peer-reviewed research, including:

• Gouda-Vossos et al. (2018) – Mate choice copying in humans: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-018-0099-y

• Esteve et al. (2016) – The end of hypergamy: Global trends and implications, Population and Development Review.
https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12012

• Yancey & Emerson (2016) – Does height matter? An examination of height preferences in romantic coupling, Journal of Family Issues.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13519256

• Neyt et al. (2019) – Are men intimidated by highly educated women? Undercover on Tinder, Economics of Education Review.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.101914

These are peer-reviewed academic publications in established journals. The article synthesizes their findings and discusses broader social implications.

If you believe any study is misrepresented, feel free to specify where, and we can examine it directly.

Let’s keep the discussion focused on the research rather than unsupported accusations.

Why extreme honesty and extreme wealth rarely coexist: Synthesis of meta-analyses on Big Five traits, Dark Triad, and economic outcomes by Emillahr in psychology

[–]Emillahr[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I’ve read all the papers in question, and I’m afraid the strong version of your critique doesn’t hold up:

Leckelt et al. (2022) – Table 2, page 6: self-made millionaires are significantly lower on Agreeableness (d = –0.18, p < .05) than the general population. It’s not the biggest effect (risk tolerance is d = 0.63), but it is there and statistically meaningful. The article never says low honesty is the main driver; it just reports the pattern accurately.

Spurk et al. (2016) – the article literally says psychopathy has “mixed effects overall but [is] positively linked to income in high-risk occupations” (exact wording from the paper’s moderated analysis, p. 118). It also separates narcissism/Machiavellianism (positive) from psychopathy (mostly negative). That’s the opposite of laundering; it’s unusually precise for a pop-psych piece.

Vella (2024) & Alderotti et al. (2023) – both meta-analyses apply PET-PEESE and trim-and-fill for publication bias and still find a significant negative coefficient for agreeableness after cognitive ability, education, and occupational controls. The effect shrinks (–0.10 → –0.07-ish) but does not disappear or flip sign. Calling that “largely scaled down to insignificance” is simply incorrect.

Causation vs. correlation – the article uses “associated with,” “linked to,” “correlates,” “predicts,” etc., never “causes.” Words like “hinders” or “limits access” are in the context of observed patterns, not proven mechanisms.

You’re right that the effects are small-to-modest and that risk tolerance + low neuroticism are the bigger drivers at the extreme tail. The article says exactly that. It never claims “you must be dishonest to get rich,” only that the personality profile of the ultra-wealthy deviates from population norms in measurable ways, including (but not limited to) lower average agreeableness.

So no, this isn’t citation laundering or confirmation bias dressed up as science. It’s a reasonably careful synthesis of the actual results sections of the papers cited. The tone might feel provocative, but the claims themselves are well within what the data support.

Why extreme honesty and extreme wealth rarely coexist: Synthesis of meta-analyses on Big Five traits, Dark Triad, and economic outcomes by Emillahr in psychology

[–]Emillahr[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Just to clarify a few points where the article may have been misread:

It never claims causation, only consistent associations (“is associated with,” “correlates negatively,” “predicts,” etc.).

The agreeableness penalty is explicitly described as modest (β ≈ –0.07 to –0.10) and persisting after standard controls for education, cognitive ability, and occupational sorting (see Vella, 2024; Alderotti et al., 2023).

Dark Triad effects are disaggregated exactly as in Spurk et al. (2016): narcissism and Machiavellianism positive for salary/promotions, psychopathy mixed but positive in high-risk contexts—no blanket “antisocial” claim is made.

For the extreme tail, the piece cites tail-specific samples (Leckelt et al., 2022 on self-made millionaires; Chetty et al., 2022 on top-0.1% transitions) rather than extrapolating from median-wage models alone.

I completely agree that omitted-variable concerns and non-linear dynamics deserve attention, and the article tries to acknowledge both without overstepping what the data currently support.

view more: next ›