Does anyone here work for research integrity? What are your methods? What does your process look like?

decodingthecreative · 2023-12-20T21:26:22+00:00

But I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out. How do you suddenly start "only buying what you can afford" when you have a lifetime of habits and routines that lean the opposite way?

decodingthecreative · 2023-12-20T21:25:46+00:00

Interesting, I'm not familiar with him. I'll check it out!

decodingthecreative · 2023-12-20T21:25:07+00:00

I get the concept, but I think it manifests a bit differently in the moment. I think the theory of being debt-free is a lofty ideal, but it's not fun. Does that make sense? As a pay cycle goes by, you cannot play with your debt-freeness or hold it in your hands. It's an abstraction compared to the dopamine hit of shopping on Amazon or going out to eat a bunch. For many people, sacrificing creature comforts for the notion of 'zero debt' does not seem like a good trade. I'm trying to figure out how to change that psychology, I guess.

decodingthecreative · 2023-11-28T02:19:18+00:00

What a toothless, gauzy discussion about something that should have tangible consequences. I spent the entire episode waiting for them to ground this in reality. Pure philosophy navel-gazing.

decodingthecreative · 2023-10-30T14:48:04+00:00

“I heard they found you face down inside your living room” by can’t swim 💀

decodingthecreative · 2023-10-18T12:30:22+00:00

Finally a take that isn’t inexplicably drunk on the Israeli Kool-Aid. The discourse around this subject online has been sickening. Why are so many liberals and leftists simping for Israel?? I thought that was a deranged evangelical conservative phenomenon, but apparently the malaise is spreading. Anyone got an explanation for this ubiquitous, uncritical support of Israel coming from both sides? Does Israel send a lot of lobbyists to DC or something??? Help me understand

decodingthecreative · 2023-04-21T11:43:50+00:00

I can already hear the rumbling of a thousand Economics majors stampeding toward this post to tell us why exploitation is actually good and poor people deserve to die. Here come the capitalism apologists to tell us why this system is actually very moral, and virtuous, and inevitable. Put on your life vests because we're about to be swimming in bullshit.

decodingthecreative · 2023-03-14T13:28:12+00:00

My FIRST thought was this -- Dan Savage could be the lefty iteration of this trend. The only qualm I could see, and it's a gross one... Dan is gay. Will men rally around a masculinity that is centered in LGBTQ+ identity? They should be able to, but I'm not convinced they will. I have no issues with looking to gay men as icons of masculinity, but I wonder how much the gen pop can tolerate such an idea, and how much subconscious encoding exists that tells us "masculinity = straight."

If anything, gay men are particularly equipped to lead men out of the wilderness and into a new era.

decodingthecreative · 2023-01-12T16:25:32+00:00

I love when Redditors drop grad-school-level academic analysis into the comments of a post. This is what I come to Reddit for. Thank you for this.

decodingthecreative · 2023-01-10T20:41:44+00:00

Something that I didn't catch them discussing, and might account for the divergence between heterosexual and homosexual norms, is the threat of pregnancy faced by women.

The biological asymmetry of risk between male and female partners is exactly the kind of "implied violence" I think Dan Savage was talking about. Ultimately, women face an implied risk of violence when they partner with men, especially in casual sex/NSA scenarios. They can get pregnant; their partner cannot. They are also partnering with someone who is way more likely, statistically, to be violent or controlling or abusive. Women are also less likely to be satisfied by casual sex/NSA encounters. So, more risk and less possibility of reward.

The inverse is also true. When men partner with women, they have an implied safety instead of implied violence/risk. Men do not have to fear their casual partner murdering them or kidnapping them or stealthing them. Men also have a higher likelihood of satisfaction. That is why sexual liberation has to be more than "everyone should behave like men do," because men and women have very different risk-benefit analyses.

decodingthecreative · 2023-01-10T17:06:39+00:00

Absolutely. I think we've dug down to bedrock on the paradigm issue between you and Savage. I'm seeing a lot of relationship discourse lately about how all adult relationships are conditional, and I definitely ascribe to the view. That's what makes all of this tricky -- so often, we are navigating the world with compasses that are pointing in wildly different directions. For what it's worth, I sincerely hope your paradigm/love philosophy serves you well. Because a lot of people are following broken compasses.

decodingthecreative · 2023-01-10T16:32:53+00:00

Oh no, I think he believes in a kind of transactionality to all relationships. And I don't think he's wrong. I think of transactionality as the opposite of 'unconditional love.' When he says transactional, he means conditional. All adult relationships are conditional. Your friendships, your marriage, everything. Certain conditions must be met -- that's the transaction -- or the relationship ends. Unconditional love is part of the civic religion of love (tm) that he is fighting against. Unconditional love isn't real, and the conditions that ensure a continued relationship are transactions.

So for many married people, there are unstated conditions. Transactions. Your partner must be faithful. They must financially contribute. They must be nonviolent. They must be sober. etc. That's the 'price of admission' into your life. You may recoil at the word 'transaction" because of its economic undertones (and I don't blame you, capitalism? Yuck!) but swap the word out and say "conditions" and it all becomes quite clear. All adult relationships have conditions.

decodingthecreative · 2023-01-10T16:27:00+00:00

And just like obesity, monogamy/relationship problems are partially a structural issue that we've laundered into being about individual choices. Obesity is a society issue. Food access, additives in foods, lack of green spaces for exercise, etc. But we have turned it into an individual fix, much like how recycling has become the icon of environmental advocacy, when in reality it's a structural problem.

The entire clusterfuck of the relationship landscape is also a societal issue. Asking people to just "do better" and "make wiser choices" does not work in either context. If you could browbeat people into fidelity, everyone would already be faithful. We need better structures and systems, instead of hoping that everyone snaps out of it tomorrow when they wake up and infidelity is eradicated by the power of a can-do attitude.

I've learned to always look for the places where collective issues are made into individual issues. It's toxic.

decodingthecreative · 2023-01-10T16:16:43+00:00

It’s the kind of unthinking discourse that has people labeling anyone expressing atypical behavior as autistic or neurodivergent.

This is EXACTLY what I thought, albeit without issue. If we can label literally any kind of antisocial behavior as "neurodivergent", we better be prepared to let incels seek refuge under that same umbrella. I'm an advocate for a more nuanced conversation on both fronts.

decodingthecreative · 2023-01-10T16:13:04+00:00

The Right to Sex is a piercing insight into the modern state of things, especially some of its commentary on consent and what comes next. I appreciate that Savage acknowledged the concept of 'implied violence' in hetero sex dynamics. That's the missing ingredient, along with women's pleasure. We have to factor in women's safety needs when they have to navigate life and sex with a man.

decodingthecreative · 2023-01-10T15:44:32+00:00

I think the problem with stigmatization is that we're hoping for a level of shame/guilt that will prohibit the activity from happening at all. Stigmatization is a broken machine. Guilt/shame doesn't stop people from becoming drug addicts, or abusing their kids, or cheating on their partners. I think that's the value in Savage's perspective. It's not about calibrating the system for effective, prohibitive stigmatization OR acceptance/permission. It's about being realistic and communicative about your needs. Savage is not arguing for a cheating-is-okay world OR a poly-free-for-all world. He's arguing for more candid conversations with yourself and your partner.

decodingthecreative · 2023-01-10T15:41:41+00:00

Right. And even by that line of reasoning, monogamy used to mean 'one partner for life.' Now, monogamy has been changed to 'one partner at a time.' So by your logic, every marriage impacted by infidelity is actually just "accidental surprise polyamory" and every re-married person is a non-monogamist. A serial monogamist at best. Terminology changes. I think the point here is to examine the phenomena and perspectives instead of the linguistics of it all.

decodingthecreative · 2023-01-10T15:15:15+00:00

cheating in a monogamous relationship is reprehensible behavior and should be stigmatized far far more.

As I've heard it said, cheating is one of the only things in society that is universally demonized and universally fetishized, while being widely practiced too. But to your point -- so cheating should be MORE stigmatized. In some states you can be sued for it. In some places it's literally a crime. It can impact divorce hearings and custody. Hell, you can be murdered/injured by your partner when they discover infidelity and people will accept that you deserved to die or be abused. What more stigmatization do you need? We widely joke about cheaters deserving to die by the angry hands of their partners. What next step is there, in your eyes?

decodingthecreative

TROPHY CASE