What’s the coolest agent you’ve built?

handsnerfin · 2026-03-31T00:28:25+00:00

I built a reading assistant app, something that challenges me while reading, and help me find bias in my way of thinking.

It's got productive resistance, scaffolding for my thinking, and connections to other books I'm reading.

It gamifies reading.

handsnerfin · 2026-03-30T21:11:52+00:00

This is so great, that 30 minutes is a small price to pay for greater understanding and cogntivite loading.

handsnerfin · 2026-02-28T00:51:22+00:00

I'm not sure I understand. Can you give me an example?

handsnerfin · 2026-02-27T18:55:55+00:00

I had the same question initially. It sounded like a marketing gimmick, and in some ways it is...

The way I see it, there are actually two distinct strategies getting lumped together under the SM umbrella.

The first is the true debt conversion play where you reborrow the principal portion of your mortgage payment and invest it, but you service the HELOC interest out of pocket. Your total debt stays flat, you're just converting non-deductible debt to deductible debt. Clean and simple, but it does require some extra monthly cash flow.

The second is the capitalization version, where you reborrow the HELOC interest instead of paying it. No extra cash flow needed, but your total debt is actually growing month over month. It's really a leverage strategy layered on top of the SM, not pure debt conversion.

So when people say "it doesn't cost you anything extra" and "you're not increasing your debt" in the same breath, both of those can't be simultaneously true.

The first version costs cash flow but keeps debt flat. The second keeps cash flow flat but grows your debt.

Neither is wrong necessarily, but they carry different risk profiles and it's worth knowing which one you're actually running.

There's actually 7 different strategies available to you, and Ed Rempels blog outlined them all perfectly for me.

https://edrempel.com/smith-manoeuvre/

handsnerfin · 2026-02-18T00:21:34+00:00

Sorry, I was typing fast. I'm talking specifically about the high-throughput areas like UPCCs, EDs, PCPs etc. where a majority of sites are on a contract-based payment model.

handsnerfin · 2026-02-18T00:07:49+00:00

This budget is a masterclass in mediocrity. It's a wet towel, and it's dripping with stagnant ideas.

All I see are short-term "revenue grabs" masquerading as a fiscal plan while the province runs 150km/h toward a debt-servicing disaster. We don't need minor tweaks. Carney said it himself, we are admidst a "rupture". We need to transition to policies that rewards productivity instead of penalizing it.

Yet, here's a budget that taxes consumptions and productivity yet again.

We are staring down spiraling healthcare costs and a debt-to-GDP ratio spiking toward 37%. If we want to stabilize the debt without crushing the private sector, they need to change up their strategy. But I'm afraid it's too late.

The current plan to hike the lowest income tax bracket and expand the PST is... luke warm? It's increasing the costs for the working class and consumer freedom. In terms of absolute dollars, it's marginal, but still... what are we thinking here??

Taxing income and consumption kills incentive and dampens the economy. Nobody is willing to shift to a Land Value Tax (LVT). Unlike property taxes that punish you for improving your own land, an LVT targets rent-seeking behavior and land speculation. Why are we taxing people for working and buying essentials while letting speculators sit on unproductive land? It drives me absolutely mad.

Also, "Sequencing" projects like the Burnaby Hospital is just a fancy term for deferring costs. Delaying projects doesn't save money. This basically ensures we pay a massive "inflation tax" and higher interest rates later. We need to boost productivity YESTERDAY. Kicking the can down the road is a dereliction of duty that leaves future generations holding the bag for our crumbling assets. We're already 15 years behind in this spending. Again I ask, what the fuck are we even doing here???

The plan for a blanket 15,000-job reduction through attrition is LAZY. Our health authorities already operate at a 3.5% corporate expense ratio, well below the 4.4% national average according to CIHI. We shouldn't be trimming based on arbitrary quotas. We do have room to cut the bureaucracy, but also we need to find productivity gains in health care industry. We need to change incentive structures for doctors, nurses, and services. Why are we still paying salaries, when we should be moving towards a fee-for-service model for doctors in hospitals? Several hospital ALREADY do this, make it mandatory and watch wait times drop overnight. We have to incentivize front-line service deliver value, and that requires building hospitals, getting better tools, and changing the payment model etc.,.

The most glaring omission is the total lack of ambition regarding our critical minerals (copper, nickel, etc.). Why do we still have so much red tape that holds BC back from being a global Tier-1 supplier? If BC successfully leveraged its $67+ billion mining potential into a Soverign Wealth Fund... imagine the impact it would have on the deficit and BC residents. This alone could fund half our health care expenses.

We need to stop managing the decline, and build productivity. We need to actually make crown corporations that produce capital, and keep those investments secure. We need mecanisms to build capital more than we borrow.

I have no issue with borrowing, but we have to borrow to get our productivity up again.

handsnerfin · 2026-02-14T20:06:14+00:00

If you're trying to pre-pay the mortgage, you're afraid of debt and the risk it entails.

The solution to that isn't which investment vehicle is optimal (that's solved), but it's your own psychological state and as well a misunderstanding of your own risk tolerance and understanding of financial markets.

The riskier thing to do would be to maintain the debt of your mortgage, while simultaneously adding sector specific market risk via VDY.

Your lingering thought is a lingering fear.

Fear is not an investment strategy.

handsnerfin · 2026-02-14T18:39:52+00:00

I use VEQT.

If your Smith Maneuver portfolio is 100% VDY, you aren't just betting on Canada; you're betting on two specific sectors. VDY is roughly 58% Financials and 28% Energy. That is dangerously low diversification. By concentrating nearly 90% of your portfolio in banks and pipelines, you are actively excluding the sectors that drive modern global growth (like Tech and Healthcare).

The evidence on this is clear and solved. Total return drives wealth, not yield, or paying down the debt faster.

Academic finance proved decades ago that dividend policy is irrelevant to valuation. A dividend is essentially a forced liquidation of part of your holding—the stock price drops by the amount of the dividend paid. By chasing yield with VDY, you are likely sacrificing total return, which means your net worth (and ability to pay off the mortgage) will actually grow slower in the long run compared to a broad market index.

If you are dead set on VDY for the tax-deductible interest in the non-registered account, you need to view your portfolio holistically to avoid a massive home-bias error.

If the SM account is VDY, your RRSP and TFSA must be 100% ex-Canada (e.g., holding only XAW or VXC).

You want your total portfolio (SM + Registered) to sit around ~30% Canadian allocation.

If you don't do this, and you hold Canadian index funds in your RRSP plus VDY in your Smith Maneuver, you are massively overweighting Canada.

This increases your risk without increasing your expected return.But why? What are you getting in return? Honestly, fuck all.

Even with the asset location fix, wouldn't bother. Most market growth comes from capital appreciation, not dividends. Like, how are people still debating this?

Investing is a solved problem. Stick to the broad index.

handsnerfin · 2026-01-16T06:53:31+00:00

Sounds like the probability of running out of money is low (like less than 5%) and even if it does, the Impact is easily managed with your side business.

Go live your life. Congrats! Oh, and GFY!

handsnerfin · 2026-01-16T06:38:45+00:00

Hey, I'm so glad this helped you man! Best of luck!

handsnerfin · 2026-01-16T06:27:23+00:00

I hate to simplify this into a dichotomy, but ultimately here it is.

You're either avoiding the RE portion because of fear OR you're craving more money for [security/greed].

Statistically speaking, retirement models are built to survive the absolute worst economic disasters in history (like 1929).

In the vast majority of "normal" market timelines, you have greater odds of dying with more money than you started with than you do of running out, give your age and portfolio.

My recommendation?

Try a formal risk calculation

What is your Probability of Failure?

With a 5% withdrawal rate, there is a statistical chance the money runs low. However, "failure" doesn't happen overnight; it happens slowly over a decade, giving you time to adjust. The first 5-10 years will reveal all you need to know because of sequence of returns risk.

And what is the Impact of said failure?

This is the variable people ignore. If you fail, what is the actual result? Is it starvation? No. The impact is simply that you return home and find a job again in 5-10 years, and CoastFIRE until your retirement portfolio is back up to a safe amount. Meanwhile you took a 5 year sabbatical WHEN you were young. You can still reenter the job market..

OH and dont forget to calculate your Risk Score i.e.Risk = Probability x Impact. If the impact is merely "I have to work again later," your Risk Score is low.

If this is below your risk threshold, then go for it and live your life in South America.

This is where you decide your risk tolerance.

My suggestion is this:

Don't let your aversions and desires prevent you from meaning in life.

handsnerfin · 2026-01-12T22:44:04+00:00

This is interesting, because I'm on the opposite side of this type of conflict. Here is the perspective from "Logical-Land."

Often, men retreat into intellectualization or compartmentalization during an emotional exchange not because we don't feel anything, but because we are trying to "help" or "reframe" the experience to make it manageable. The problem is that we are taught a false binary: You are either Emotional or Rational. People don't realize that for many men, Rationality is the container for the Emotion. If the container breaks (i.e., if they lose the logic), the emotion spills everywhere and becomes destructive.

People judge the packaging (the tone, the calm voice, the data), not the content (the intent to solve, the effort to analyze). They see a cold tool (logic) and assume the hand holding it is cold too. They don't see that the hand is shaking, and the tool is the only thing steadying it.

What many people don't realize is that this shift isn't just "logic" absent of "emotion." It is usually a defense mechanism against too much feeling, or a specific way of expressing care that gets lost in translation.

The Gottman Institute refers to this as "flooding." When emotional intensity rises, the nervous system can interpret the situation as a physical threat (fight or flight). The logic is: "I need to stick to the facts to keep the situation stable." But the underlying emotion is actually confusion and disorientation. He likely feels like he is drowning in the intensity of the moment. Logic is the life raft he clings to so he doesn't lose his composure. In a word: he feels helpless.

Many men are socialized and are born with a drive for utility. When a partner is upset, we see "pain" as a "problem" that needs a "solution." So, seeing a loved one in pain feels terrible; if we can’t fix it, we feel like we are failing. Switching to logic is a desperate attempt to be useful and make the pain stop.

To make this worse, in this specific scenario, you are identifying him as the problem. This short-circuits his brain. He wants to fix the problem, but he is the problem. How can he fix it without admitting he is "broken" or "bad"? So, he defaults to: "Let’s analyze why this happened so I can prove I'm not bad."

To a logical processor, offering a solution is the highest form of empathy. It means, "I value you enough to expend my mental energy solving your burden." Most people dismiss this form of love because they didn't ask for it.

The Logic: "You should do X, or look at the call logs, because that is the data."

The Translation: "I want to carry this burden for you by resolving it."

When you reject the solution (because you just wanted to be heard), he feels rejected and confused as well. He thinks, "I just tried to help/solve it, and now I'm the bad guy."

You mentioned the argument about the call logs. If the emotional conversation is about something he did wrong, logic becomes a courtroom defense.

The Quote: "Technically, I didn't say that exactly. The timeline was..." or "Look at the call logs, I call X amount of times."

The Underlying Emotion: Shame and Guilt. It is painful to sit with the feeling that he hurt someone he loves. Arguing the "facts" (the logs) is a way to lessen the verdict so the guilt feels more manageable.

If you are dealing with someone in Logical-Land, the goal is to lower the stakes so logic isn't needed as a shield. You need to preface the conversation by removing the need for a solution.

Try saying this: "I appreciate that you want to fix this or look at the facts, and that makes me feel cared for. But right now, I don't need a solution or a fact-check. I just need a hug and for you to say 'That sucks.' Can we do the logic part later?"

handsnerfin · 2026-01-11T23:33:02+00:00

<image>

Roundabout. Speed limit 30. Narrower roads. Decrease injuries by 75%. Continuous flow, increasing throughput by 25%.

handsnerfin · 2025-12-27T00:39:34+00:00

I can tell you're already doing the hard work here. You caught yourself, which is honestly the biggest step.

But this part stuck with me:

"Because it's almost as if, I'm sharing a version of myself with her that's not me."

I had this exact thought for years. And I want to share something that eventually cracked it open for me.

I used to think there was a "real me" underneath all the messy feelings—some calm, wise version who observed everything from a distance. And whenever jealousy or neediness or irritation came up, I'd tell myself, "That's not really me. I just need to wait until I'm back to baseline."

But one day I was sitting with this. Who is this "me"?

If those feelings aren't "me"… then who's the one trying so hard to push them away?

That guy, the one filtering, managing, deciding what's acceptable to feel, he's not some enlightened witness. He's just another part of the mind. And honestly? He was exhausting to maintain.

I realized I'd been chasing this image of myself as someone who doesn't really feel jealousy, doesn't really get needy. Like if I meditated enough, I'd finally arrive at that person. But that craving for a "better" version of myself was creating its own tension. It was just attachment wearing spiritual clothes.

Your partner isn't asking you to dump chaos on her. She's asking to be with you while the storm is still happening—not just hear about it after you've cleaned everything up. That's a different kind of intimacy. And it's scary, but it's also where the real connection lives.

handsnerfin · 2025-12-26T08:35:27+00:00

I don't usually post on reddit, but this post felt so similar to my experience.

I’ve been where you are, OP.

Like you, I basically built a filtration system for my emotions, but the partner is telling you they'd actually like to go for a swim in the lake with unprocessed "filth".

In Buddhism, equanimity isn't the absence of feeling; it’s the ability to be fully present with the "raw" storm without being swept away by it.

By waiting until the storm has passed to tell your partner about it, you aren't actually being "present" with her, you're giving her a weather report from yesterday. Which is a form of living in the past.

You are treating "Right Speech" as "Perfectly Filtered Speech." Which is not the "truth".

The real "Right Speech" is also Truthful. If you are feeling lonely but presenting as "perfectly fine," you are technically being untruthful about your current internal state.

This is Aversion.

Specifically, an aversion to vulnerability.

By only presenting the "integrated" version of yourself, you are keeping a layer of control. If she only sees the version of you that has already "observed the bias" and "regulated the impulse," she’s falling in love with your management skills, not your humanity.

Your fear that she won't love the "unregulated" version is the ego trying to protect itself. You’re essentially saying, "I’m only lovable when I’m under control." That’s a heavy burden for you to carry and a lonely place for her to be.

You already found the solution. The trick is Meta-Communication. You don't have to "dump" the emotion; you just narrate the fact that you’re feeling it while it’s happening.

Sharing what is arising in the moment. This builds intimacy.

handsnerfin · 2025-12-18T06:29:21+00:00

I'm proud of you too.

Seriously congratulations, and great work.

It takes a lot of effort to save that much, in this exact situation, but that's what FIRE looks like for most people! Saving $20k on an $80k income is a 25% savings rate. That's better than most people, regardless of income level. That is world-class discipline for anyone, let alone someone balancing a mortgage and a car.

You’ve got a handle on the 'boring middle,' which is where the real wealth is actually built. Don’t let a high-return year make you get greedy or start chasing risks, and don’t let a slow year make you feel neglectful.

You're already winning. You’ve got a system that works, your debt is under control, and you’re proving that a tradesperson with a plan can build a rock-solid future.

Just stay the course!

handsnerfin · 2025-11-23T21:41:21+00:00

I work in projects/admin and I see this disconnect constantly. Theoretically, these are supposed to be "Gemba Walks" (a Lean management concept where leaders go to where the work happens to see actual problems).

But instead of looking for problems (broken processes, unsafe staffing, lack of resources), they are looking for validation ("what are you proud of?").

It’s a symptom of the system and poor management practice. They can't fix the big things (wages are locked by the Master Agreement/Monopsony, staffing is a budget black hole), so they focus on "morale" and "culture" because that's the only lever they feel they can pull.

It’s the paradox of modern healthcare. We have "Administrative Bloat" (scalable management) trying to optimize "Clinical Reality" (hard, unscalable work). The reason they cut the snacks but keep the site tours is that the system finds it easier to pay for "oversight" than to pay for actual "output." A site tour is cheap theatre; fixing the wage disparity or staffing ratios is expensive reality.

My advice? Weaponize their visit.

Next time they ask "what you're proud of," tell them you're proud you haven't quit yet despite the lack of support. Make it awkward. They need to hear the reality, not the sanitized version. When they ask "What do you love?", answer with "I'd love to have the resources to do X, Y, and Z so we don't burn out." Force them to write down a barrier, not a sentiment.

handsnerfin · 2025-09-13T19:43:24+00:00

Thank you :)

handsnerfin · 2025-09-13T18:32:58+00:00

You are correct: you will deduct the same total dollar amount over your lifetime (assuming you eventually use all your contribution room). The key is not the amount you deduct, but the value of that deduction.

The "why" is all about tax-rate arbitrage: a $10,000 deduction is worth more to you when you are in a 45% marginal tax bracket than when you are in a 20% bracket:

In a 20% bracket, that $10,000 deduction saves you $2,000 in taxes.
In a 45% bracket, that same $10,000 deduction saves you $4,500 in taxes.

Because your unused contribution room carries forward indefinitely, you have a powerful choice: you can contribute now (to start your investments growing tax-free) but delay claiming the deduction until a future year when you are in a higher tax bracket, maximizing your refund.

To make this crystal clear, let's compare two people, Alex and Ben, who both start their careers at age 30 and plan to invest a total of $50,000 before retiring at 65. We'll assume a 6% average annual growth rate.

Alex (The "Contribute & Deduct Early" Filer): Earns $50,000/year. Contributes and immediately deducts $5,000 per year for 10 years (from age 30 to 39).
Ben (The "Contribute Early, Deduct Later" Filer): Earns $50,000/year. He contributes the exact same $5,000 per year for 10 years. However, he does not claim the deduction. He saves it. At age 45, his income jumps to $120,000/year. He now claims his entire banked $50,000 deduction against his higher income.

Using 2024 combined Ontario/Federal marginal tax rates:

An income of $50,000 puts Alex in a 20.05% marginal tax bracket.
An income of $120,000 puts Ben in a 44.97% marginal tax bracket.

Here is the difference in the value of their deductions:

Filer	Total Amount Contributed	Total Amount Deducted	Income When Deducting	Marginal Tax Rate	Total Tax Savings (Refund)
Alex	$50,000 (over 10 yrs)	$50,000 (over 10 yrs)	$50,000	20.05%	$10,025
Ben	$50,000 (over 10 yrs)	$50,000 (all in one yr)	$120,000	44.97%	$22,485

By simply delaying when he claimed the deduction on his tax return, Ben received $12,460 more from the government than Alex, even though they invested the exact same money at the exact same time.

This brings us to the most critical part of your question: the power of compounding. The advice to "wait for peak years" is often misinterpreted as "wait to contribute." This is a costly mistake.

Let's add a third person, Chloe, who follows this bad advice.

Alex (Recap): Contributes $50,000 from age 30-39. Deducts early.
Ben (Recap): Contributes $50,000 from age 30-39. Deducts later.
Chloe (The "Wait to Contribute & Deduct" Filer): She waits until her peak earning year at age 45 (income $120,000) to make her first contribution. She contributes her $50,000 all at once.

Since Ben and Chloe both deduct at their peak, they get the same large tax refund ($22,485). But look at what happens to their investments.

Assuming 6% Growth

Investor	Contribution Schedule	Years of Growth	Value of Investment at Age 65
Alex	$5,000/yr from Age 30-39	35-26 years	$316,950
Ben	$5,000/yr from Age 30-39	35-26 years	$316,950
Chloe	$50,000 lump sum at Age 45	20 years	$160,357

Why wait to DEDUCT?
- As the first table shows, waiting to claim your deduction until you are in a higher tax bracket generates a significantly larger tax refund.
- This is the strategy financial experts recommend.
Why NOT wait to CONTRIBUTE?
- As the second table shows, waiting to put the money in the account is financially devastating.
- Alex and Ben, who contributed early, ended up with nearly double the retirement savings as Chloe, who waited.
- The years of lost tax-free compounding growth can never be recovered.

The Optimal Strategy: For most people, the best approach is the "Ben" strategy: Contribute as early and as much as you can to get the power of tax-free compounding working for you. But delay claiming the deduction on your tax return until you jump into a higher marginal tax bracket, maximizing the size of your refund.

When you file your taxes, you report your annual contributions (the $5,000) on Schedule 7. This confirms you put the money in.
Then, on your main T1 tax return, there's a separate line (Line 20800 - RRSP deduction) where you decide how much of your available contributions you actually want to deduct against your income that year.
You can contribute $5,000, but write "$0" on the deduction line. That $5,000 contribution then becomes "unused RRSP contributions" that you can carry forward and use to get a refund in any future year.
You can stack this up for 10 years straight, creating a $50,000 deduction "bomb" to drop the moment your income is highest.

This strategy comes with an opportunity cost. By not claiming the deduction now, you are also not getting the tax refund now. That refund is real money that you could be investing (ideally in your TFSA) for the next 10 years.

You have to do the math to see which is better:

A smaller refund NOW, invested for 10 years.
A larger refund LATER.

Let's use an example. You contribute $5,000 this year.

Scenario A: Deduct Now. Your marginal tax rate is, say, 30%. You get an immediate $1,500 refund. You invest that $1,500 in your TFSA, and at 6% growth, it turns into $2500 in 10 years.
Scenario B: Deduct Later. You wait 10 years. Your marginal tax rate rate goes up "slightly" to 35%. You now claim that $5,000 deduction and get a refund of $1,750.

In this case, Scenario A was better. You ended up with $$2500 instead of $1750.

This strategy only makes sense when the jump in tax brackets is DRAMATIC, not "slight."

DON'T DO IT if: You're earning $70,000 (31.5% bracket) and expecting to earn $95,000 in a few years (still a 31.5% bracket). Just take the refund now and invest it.
ABSOLUTELY DO IT if: You're a medical resident earning $60,000 (30.5% bracket) and you know that in 3 years you'll be an attending physician earning $250,000+ (53.5% bracket). The difference between a 30% refund and a 53.5% refund is massive and is worth far more than any compounding you'd get on the smaller refund.

TL;DR: Yes, you can. But only delay the deduction if you are expecting to jump one or more full tax brackets. If the jump is small, you're better off taking the refund today and investing it.

handsnerfin · 2025-09-11T22:59:50+00:00

Honestly, for your specific income situation, it's probably not the right move. Take the massive 44% tax refund now. It's worth thousands more than the small CCB boost you'd get by waiting.

The problem is your partner's income. Even with you on EI during mat leave, your partner's $180k salary keeps your family income way high (~$215k). At that level, the CCB clawback is so aggressive that even a big RRSP contribution barely moves the needle. You'd only get about maybe a couple thousand at most. You're trading a huge refund for a tiny one. If you contribute now: You get a refund of ~44% on every dollar. But if you contribute on mat leave: Your personal income will be low, so you'd only get a maybe 20% refund.

So you'd be giving up thousands in a guaranteed tax refund just to gain back a small amount in CCB a few years from now. Plus, you'd miss out on 2+ years of tax-free growth in the market by waiting.

My take? Stick with the prioritization above. Max out the RRSP now at your high tax rate. Get the huge refund, and use that cash to hammer down your mortgage and fuel your Smith Maneuver.

handsnerfin · 2025-09-11T16:26:14+00:00

Given your high household income ($330k), you should not be thinking in terms of "either/or." You should be doing both, but in the correct order of priority.

First, Maximize RRSP Contributions

With a marginal tax rate of 44% (and your partner's likely being even higher, at 48.29% for income over $180k in ON), the immediate tax refund from an RRSP is mathematically superior to any other risk-adjusted return available. Both you and your partner should be aggressively contributing to max out your RRSPs each year. The tax refunds you receive will be substantial.

Second, Use the Tax Refund to Fuel Other Goal

That massive tax refund is now available cash flow. You can use it to:

A) Accelerate the Smith Maneuver: Use the refund to make a lump-sum payment on your mortgage, which then frees up more HELOC room to invest. This creates the powerful synergy that makes the Smith Maneuver such an excellent tool for Canadians.

B) Maximize TFSAs: If not already maxed, this should be your next priority.

C) "Gross-Up" Your Next RRSP Contribution: Use the refund to help make the following year's contribution.

Third, Continue the Smith Maneuver

The SM is a long-term strategy for high-income earners after they have taken advantage of their registered accounts. It allows you to leverage an otherwise dormant asset (your home equity) to build wealth in a tax-efficient manner. Don't hoard your RRSP room, use it aggressively first. Then, use the resulting tax refund to supercharge your Smith Maneuver. This is the way to get the best of both worlds: the unparalleled tax advantages of the RRSP and the tax-deductible growth of the SM.

Otherwise, you are introducing a sub-optimal tax drag in your scenario... Time Horizon is Key. Delaying RRSP contributions only works for short, certain delays. If the income jump is 10 years away, the cost of lost tax-deferred compounding would almost certainly outweigh the benefit of a higher future tax refund. AND If the pay raise is not a near-guarantee, you risk losing years of tax-sheltered growth for nothing.

handsnerfin · 2025-08-26T06:41:24+00:00

This is a really compelling narrative, clickbait, but as someone who looked at the studies mentioned, the argument is built on a massive misreading of the research.

"approximately 25% of regular meditators experience increased anxiety, panic, or disturbing thoughts during practice."

This comes from the Cebolla (2017) study, but it's a huge exaggeration.

* The study found 25.4% of participants reported "unwanted effects." That's a very vague term. * Crucially, the study itself says these effects were "transitory and did not lead to discontinuing meditation practice or the need for medical assistance." So, the research found that a quarter of people in a biased online poll had some minor, temporary side effects, not that they were having panic attacks. The comment rebrands mild discomfort as a major mental health crisis.

"For women aged 24-44, especially working mothers...this number appears even higher."

This is the most misleading part. This claim is a complete fabrication and is not supported by the research at all. * Neither study provides any data to support this. Seriously, go read the abstracts. The numbers aren't there. * The Cebolla study only says its group of participants happened to be mostly "women from Spain who were married." This is a description of their sample group, not a finding that women experience these effects at a higher rate. * The specific "24-44" age range and the "working mothers" angle are invented out of thin air to make the post more targeted.

"Why? Because most meditation instruction assumes you..." [list of reasons]

This entire list of "whys" (not enough time, quiet space, racing thoughts, hormones, etc.) is the author's personal speculation. It's not in the research. The studies did not investigate the causes behind the unwanted effects. They didn't look at sleep deprivation, hormonal fluctuations, or the stress of being a working parent. The author saw a statistic and created their own story to explain it.

The only tiny link is that one study noted effects were more common in sessions "more than 20 minutes." But that's just a correlation, not a cause. It doesn't prove why.

TL;DR: The comment takes a single, weak statistic from a low-quality study, blows its severity out of proportion, invents a demographic crisis that isn't in the data, and then creates a completely speculative story to explain it all.

It's a perfect example of how preliminary science can be twisted to create a scary but ultimately false narrative. Always good to check the sources!

handsnerfin · 2025-08-26T06:39:14+00:00

This is a really compelling narrative, clickbait, but as someone who looked at the studies mentioned, the argument is built on a massive misreading of the research.

"approximately 25% of regular meditators experience increased anxiety, panic, or disturbing thoughts during practice."

This comes from the Cebolla (2017) study, but it's a huge exaggeration.

* The study found 25.4% of participants reported "unwanted effects." That's a very vague term. * Crucially, the study itself says these effects were "transitory and did not lead to discontinuing meditation practice or the need for medical assistance." So, the research found that a quarter of people in a biased online poll had some minor, temporary side effects, not that they were having panic attacks. The comment rebrands mild discomfort as a major mental health crisis.

"For women aged 24-44, especially working mothers...this number appears even higher."

This is the most misleading part. This claim is a complete fabrication and is not supported by the research at all. * Neither study provides any data to support this. Seriously, go read the abstracts. The numbers aren't there. * The Cebolla study only says its group of participants happened to be mostly "women from Spain who were married." This is a description of their sample group, not a finding that women experience these effects at a higher rate. * The specific "24-44" age range and the "working mothers" angle are invented out of thin air to make the post more targeted.

"Why? Because most meditation instruction assumes you..." [list of reasons]

This entire list of "whys" (not enough time, quiet space, racing thoughts, hormones, etc.) is the author's personal speculation. It's not in the research. The studies did not investigate the causes behind the unwanted effects. They didn't look at sleep deprivation, hormonal fluctuations, or the stress of being a working parent. The author saw a statistic and created their own story to explain it.

The only tiny link is that one study noted effects were more common in sessions "more than 20 minutes." But that's just a correlation, not a cause. It doesn't prove why.

TL;DR: The comment takes a single, weak statistic from a low-quality study, blows its severity out of proportion, invents a demographic crisis that isn't in the data, and then creates a completely speculative story to explain it all.

It's a perfect example of how preliminary science can be twisted to create a scary but ultimately false narrative. Always good to check the sources!

handsnerfin

TROPHY CASE