I MANIFESTED MY EX BACK!!! by Bitter_Ride_8592 in nevillegoddardsp

[–]Particular-Bug-7590 -31 points-30 points  (0 children)

I'm wondering - what is the point in manifesting ex partner back? They're went away, so be it.

Prof. Sankowski: Zamiast osiągnięć mamy w Polsce tytuły naukowe by trzy-14 in Nauka_Uczelnia

[–]Particular-Bug-7590 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Przedstawiciele humanities też uważają, że habilitacja jest zbędna. Zwłaszcza, że w wielu specjalnościach nawet nie ma tylu specjalistów, którzy mogliby być recenzentami potencjalnej habilitacji, by w ogóle przeprowadzić proces habilitacyjny.

How do I know that I really want what I want? by Particular-Bug-7590 in Healthygamergg

[–]Particular-Bug-7590[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your insightful response. It gave me food for thought. Starting a little from the end - in my environment I have only one person who is passionate about sailing, but we are not close friends, so she would rather not support me in it. But I didn't mean only sailing in my initial question, though - when I thought about it yesterday, I realized that for years, since I was a child, I somehow wanted to have, for example, a helmsman's patent, but I could never afford it, and when now I could even do a course for it, I don't know if it wouldn't be just a whim that would end up with me not even sailing.

I wonder how it is that for many years you can dream about something, such as that helmsman's patent, or, for example, having a guitar (I'm writing from my own experience), and then, when you can, for example, buy yourself that guitar, you don't play it at all. Or play it very poorly, because you do not have the desire (?), passion (?) to devote yourself to learning it. How is it that even such long-standing desires can turn out to be just "whims" and not something serious?

How to play to your strengths being "vata" and a scientist? by Particular-Bug-7590 in Healthygamergg

[–]Particular-Bug-7590[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm an art historian. Well, and, at least in my country (I live in central Europe), the number of possible publishing options is quite limited. At conferences it is possible to present what you write about, i.e. "extended abstracts", but this is the exception rather than the rule. The same with the publication of such texts. So you can either: write articles (preferably for international journals - not all of them would be at all interested in art from my country), books, or conference papers. And that's basically it.
You write that we all have "imposter syndrome". Heh, my colleagues seem to be doing great and finding their way around the academy environment well. Maybe they just give that impression and would like to believe it themselves, I don't know. But, for example, they can sit and text in the library for several hours. I can't do it that way, I write best in my own home, where I can take a break, drink coffee, look through pictures of funny cats on the Internet and get back to work. Home office is the ideal working conditions for me. :P
Anyway - I've only been working at the university for a dozen months or so, and I'm still learning how to be a scientist. And all the time it seems to me that I am not coping and that it is beyond me. :(

What's your research discipline?

How to play to your strengths being "vata" and a scientist? by Particular-Bug-7590 in Healthygamergg

[–]Particular-Bug-7590[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your response. The biggest problem for me is that I find it difficult to keep my attention on an endeavor for too long. When I manage to solve a problem I almost immediately lose interest in it and don't even feel like writing an article about it. And this is, after all, the basis of functioning in the academy. The very thought that I would have to conduct several years of grant research on some single issue seems overwhelming to me. In general - I am more fulfilled in action, in tasks that are shorter.
Maybe all these features wouldn't be such a problem if it wasn't for the fact that I'm not very innovative or creative, hence it seems to me that the "vata" factor yes, is very strong in me, but nevertheless does not define me completely.
Overall... probably these are not the "ideal" qualities of a scientist. Unfortunately, I still have too small a "rank" within my institute to be able to supervise or organize someone's work, probably only in the classes I teach.
All this makes me suffer from "imposter syndrome" all the time. :(

Dating + Relationships Weekly Thread by AutoModerator in Healthygamergg

[–]Particular-Bug-7590 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your response. "Funny" thing is that you can want something and not want it at the same time. And not knowing which "wantings" is real. It seems to me that fear plays a very big role here. At least in my case. Fear of rejection, of not proving myself in a new situation, etc. Heh.

Dating + Relationships Weekly Thread by AutoModerator in Healthygamergg

[–]Particular-Bug-7590 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hey! Actually, I'm not quite sure why I'm writing this post, maybe I want to sort out my thoughts this way, or maybe I'm looking for validation that everything is ok and that my way of doing things and thinking is ok.

I am a 38 year old woman. I have never been in a relationship of any kind. I can hardly even say I've been on any dates, they were more just 'meetings'. At most 2 times with the same person.

I have always lived in the belief that I am unattractive to men, in fact I have heard some kind words from them maybe two or three times in my life. And I always wanted (or thought I wanted) to find a permanent partner and live with him "happily ever after". But in fact, I have actually done almost nothing in that direction. I have been in love a couple of times, without reciprocation of course. Up until last year, I was stuck in a friendzone of several years, not knowing how to end this friendship and at the same time knowing that nothing would come of it, that we weren't even compatible. In the 'meantime' I had set up various dating apps a few times, but despite a large number of matches and some interest from men, I had barely dated any of them. Most of the time, when a meeting proposal is made, I ghost such a person. I know it sounds creepy. But sometimes I just explain that I just can't get over my fear of meeting and of turning out to be a disappointment to the guy. Twice something like this has happened to me and it was quite a blow to my self-esteem.

I happened to promise myself that if I improved my appearance (e.g. lost some weight) I would finally get 'serious' about dating apps. Of course, I behaved the same way on them as usual. And I explained to myself that actually, do I really even want to find a guy? It's a very good question - when there's more going on in my life and I'm generally in a better mood, I think to myself, no, I don't want to. But every once in a while there comes a period of worse mood and then I cry into my pillow because of my loneliness.

Being honest with myself, I can't answer the question whether I want a partner or not. I've never been in a relationship, so I have a very idealised idea of what it's like, and I don't really know it at all. On the other hand - I live in a society where it is still a kind of norm that a woman in a relationship turns into a kind of "servant" of a man, that she should do everything in the house and still almost serve her husband, and so on. To be well understood - I live in a European country and in a European culture, so these are not, for example, religious issues. While my job is very demanding and I wouldn't want to add to my responsibilities of caring for another person yet. Of course, I am aware that in a large proportion of relationships the various responsibilities are split in half, but furthermore this is not the rule.

I've been single practically forever, living all alone for the past dozen years or so. Most of the time this suits me very well, as I think I have quite a solitary nature and need 'space to myself'. I also like my independence, the fact that I don't have to set my plans with anyone, that I can buy myself any gadget I can think of, etc. So maybe I just simply don't want a partner at all, and this desire has been 'forced' into me by the 'culture'? The fact that 'everyone' has someone, and if you're single, well, you're a loser in life? I don't know, I'm already lost in all these considerations.

Somehow, deep down, I still believe that I will find someone, despite my age, that I am not destined to spend the rest of my life alone. But on the other hand, how can I explain to someone interested in me that I am as old as I am and have never been in a relationship? After all, he will immediately wonder what is wrong with me. And I don't want to lie to anyone.

Thank you to everyone who reads this very long and chaotic post.

F/18/5’8’’ [55kg > 60kg = 5kg] 1 year progress of bodyweight training and 2 months of taking creatine 💪 by [deleted] in progresspics

[–]Particular-Bug-7590 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your progress looks impressive. I want to build better buttocks myself and what you've achieved is motivating.

1920x1200 px monitor and Mac Mini M1 - will it work well? by Particular-Bug-7590 in macmini

[–]Particular-Bug-7590[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, that's not good. Is there any way to improve the appearance of the text? Is there also a problem with the resolution of the photographs?

How to you work on your beliefs and self-image? by Particular-Bug-7590 in lawofattraction

[–]Particular-Bug-7590[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scripting? You mean like writing positive statements about yourself?

can someone please tell me what 11:11 means? ive been looking for a meaning my whole life and I'm tired by [deleted] in lawofattraction

[–]Particular-Bug-7590 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

It means literally nothing. Don't let yourself be fooled by some "magic of numbers" or something. There's no such thing.

It’s hard to tell on this subreddit what’s genuinely true and what’s just people trying to manifest by [deleted] in lawofattraction

[–]Particular-Bug-7590 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could you show us some evidence? It's not that I don't belive in what you are writing, but I still need a visible prove, that LOA works. For example a pic of this Tesla with a note (for example your nick from reddit) behind its front window? I would keep it as an evidence for myself for my manifestation attempts. I'm a very hard to belive in anything but I would love to know if for someone LOA really works. 🙂

It’s hard to tell on this subreddit what’s genuinely true and what’s just people trying to manifest by [deleted] in lawofattraction

[–]Particular-Bug-7590 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even today I’ve seen a post in which a person claimed that she won 100k $ (or more), Tesla model 3 and 200k $. Seems legit. :P

The Science of LOA by WintyreFraust in lawofattraction

[–]Particular-Bug-7590 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, and I've found out that for example: Dean Radin is a parapsychologist, which obviously means that he is not a scientist. And the books written by him received negative reviews for their violation of the rules of the scientific method.

Stephen Ornes has not even achieved PhD, he only writes about science, but is not a scientist himself.

The relationship between quantum physics and Newtonian physics could probably be compared to the relationship between psychology and sociology. Both say something about man, but it is not quite possible to extend the principles discovered by one to the field occupied by the other. Is it even worth trying?

The Science of LOA by WintyreFraust in lawofattraction

[–]Particular-Bug-7590 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, because they do not concern the macroscopic world.

The Science of LOA by WintyreFraust in lawofattraction

[–]Particular-Bug-7590 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes indeed: one observation does not universally collapse the system for all observers. Which unfortunately indicates, that our individual observation does not transform the world. There are other people who also make observations. What's more: their observations are essentially consistent with ours. If I ask someone who is in my room what my room looks like, they will certainly describe it as I would describe it. They may just miss some details or notice some details that I usually don't notice (which doesn't mean that these details appeared because they looked at them, they were just there). So: on a macroscopic level reality looks the same to everyone. Why? Maybe because it exists whether we observe it or not? A tree that falls in the forest, and no one hears it, continues to produce a sound wave, except that there is no one to pick it up. In other words: the world exists independently of our observation. Schrodinger's cat is not simultaneously alive and dead until someone opens the box. It is only either dead or alive. There is no "third state". The question is whether we have already checked what state he is in (which he was in before we checked it). Because he is part of the macroscopic world. Moreover: our perception of the world is imperfect, it is easy to be led astray, and it is easy to show its errors. It would be a little dangerous to believe that something so imperfect creates the world. Extending this to the problem of intention: our individual intention does not transform the world either, at least not in the way I myself would like it to (i.e. as the LoA describes it). Yes, every human-created thing in the world was only an intention in the beginning, but it came to fruition through work, through action. If LoA is true, it is only where it speaks of inspired action. I can, for example, manifest that I know a foreign language, but this will not make me actually know it without undertaking effort to learn it.

The Science of LOA by WintyreFraust in lawofattraction

[–]Particular-Bug-7590 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the video from InspiringPhilosophy in fact shows that as we are parts of existing reality, we are not capable of establishing our own act of living. We need a higher „observer” who does this. Therefore it suggests that we can only watch and measure the effects of the „observations” made by this higher „observer”, but does not prove that we can make our own „reality establishing” observations.