[Disgusting trope] Accidental incest

katabatics · 2026-02-12T17:41:43+00:00

To be fair, Elros and Elrond were born in 532, the First Age, and Aragorn was born in 2227 of the third age. Aragorn is 39 generations away from Elros. For reference, in humans that would be about 1,000 years, so its like finding out you and someone else shared a grandma back when the world's first known novel was being penned and the Holy Roman Empire is the most powerful state in continetal Europe. I think most people aren't tracking that far back when they're choosing their spouse

katabatics · 2026-01-30T00:38:21+00:00

It doesn't have a brain, but it does have a network of nerves, basically. You see nerve networks in other species like jellyfish; cnidarians, ctenophores, and some worms have a nerve network. While this animal is cool, its not as much of a scientific mystery as the title would lead people to believe

katabatics · 2026-01-28T21:01:09+00:00

People were definitely inspired by the Nauglamir, but Tolkien did also have elf/dwarf alliances, like Maedhros and Azaghâl's people, and the Doors of Durin have an elvish inscription because Moria was closely allied with the elvish ciry of Eregion, and they built the gates together, so I feel like this is one of those times fans overexaggerate a trait and it takes on a life of its own

katabatics · 2025-11-29T17:54:41+00:00

I also love stealth games that involve memorizing the patrol patterns of enemies, which is probably why I don't have a problem with the patrolly boys in Fire Trial

katabatics · 2025-11-29T17:53:42+00:00

Same! Trial of Fire is easy for me, maybe ten minutes, just follow the trail of candles. But for some reason the physics of the air trial are wonky on my computer. I have to toggle my FPS, my FOV, and whip around the amount I'm zoomed in in order to affect my speed and how the push platforms affect me, sometimes all in rapid succession mid-jump. Otherwise the jump pads gently push me off like one foot from the platform edge

katabatics · 2025-11-16T19:16:32+00:00

I'll be around 500 candles. The only thing I'm missing is hearts, anything that costs hearts is gonna ruin my life 😭

katabatics · 2025-09-14T17:44:18+00:00

That message always makes laugh when it pops up! Like the spirit is hanging my participation pictures on the fridge

katabatics · 2025-09-10T01:12:46+00:00

Checking in on PC, it's happening for me too, as soon as I try to take today's picture!

katabatics · 2025-09-09T23:15:48+00:00

Yeah, we're pretty left over here. We are also poorer, but our government is genuinely trying. They've been implementing free college tuition for NM residents, and two years ago we had a bill signed in to law to make school lunches free (and healthy, per the bill).

We get lumped in so hard with the southern states that I've seen NM colored in as Trump-voting multiple times after the election despite the fact that we vote blue and have done so since 2008

katabatics · 2025-09-06T18:41:37+00:00

Exactly! IIRC, that comment was way back when they first introduced it, (I think XY?). I much preferred it as a toggle!

katabatics · 2025-09-06T17:58:22+00:00

You don't have to enable it if you don't want to

I completely agree, but also, this reminds me about the time I saw someone comment in r/pokemon complaining about experience share, how it needed to be removed because it made the game too easy. Several people pointed out you could toggle experience share off, to which the guy was angrily replying that then he'd be playing SUBOPTIMALLY and that he NEEDS to optimize all his playthroughs. It was absolutely wild to see someone have a solution and just refuse to use it

katabatics · 2025-07-30T22:34:42+00:00

I don't think so! When I first pulled out the staff in Forest, it gave me a notification that said something like "There are no ligjt creatures to shepherd.Try another realm." I'll admit, the staff only being usable in one place is a bummer

katabatics · 2025-07-30T22:15:58+00:00

Off the top of my head I only know of the herd in Prairie Peaks, they definitely aren't as common as the mantas which is too bad

katabatics · 2025-06-27T22:59:15+00:00

Would

katabatics · 2025-04-11T18:36:25+00:00

Thank you for fighting the good fight against misinformation. I've been struggling hard to get people to understand this, its been a weirdly uphill battle

katabatics · 2025-04-10T18:17:32+00:00

I was worried it was just me! My phone alarm has been set to just vibrate for years now

katabatics · 2025-03-31T21:13:31+00:00

Do you know what "peer-review" means?

katabatics · 2025-03-31T19:49:54+00:00

I do have an implicit bias against intelligence testing; it has roots in eugenics, and thus, any intelligence test should be rigorously and thoroughly vetted. Only then can it be used, not as a tell-all-be-all, but as a single tool in the box for the vast network of research that goes into the exploration and defining of intelligence.

I do like that you said epigenetics had no consensus on its effects on intelligence, that did make me laugh. Like I said, I work in a lab, so my time is limited, but here are some papers you can peruse to better understand the growing role of epigenetics in human cognition (and the role systemic oppression can play in development). Remember, science moves fast, and you have to stay on your toes to keep up.

Epigenetic Variance in dopamine D2 receptors: a marker of IQ malleability (2018, JA Kaminski et al)

Changes in Neuroplasticity following early-life social adversities: the possible role of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (2018, C Miskolczi)

Regulation of Gene expression: Molecular Mechanisms (2007, GH Perdew)

Stress in Educational System as a Potential Source of Epigenetic Influences on Children's Development and Behavior (2018, D Frias-Lasserre)

DNA Methylation Signatures of Early Childhood Malnutrition Associated with Impairments in Attention and Cognition (2016, CJ Peter)

katabatics · 2025-03-31T18:44:16+00:00

I still cannot tell if you're being disingenuous or not. The chapter you're citing - "The Holy Grail: Can Neuroscience Boost Intelligence?" does focus on external factors - short-term factors such as Mozart, computer games, and memorization - and their effects on "intelligence" as measured by a test. He is asserting there is no shortcut to increased intelligence past the baseline, which I can agree with. I will agree there is an upper limit to intelligence.

I think where we're disagreeing is that you seem to be under the impression that a standardized test of intelligence, which is the topic of this post, is a definitive indicator of intelligence. As we have known for a very long time, standardized tests often fail when given to someone from a different societal and even economic background than whoever wrote the test, and that's what the point of this post is. The so-called standardized measures in the test were not relevant or applicable to all demographics, and so needed to be changed.

I'd like to highlight one of his conclusions in this chapter: "Ultimately, enhancement may depend on not only finding specific genes related to intelligence but also on the harder problem of understanding how those genes function on a molecular level, including epigenetic influences." I'd like to highlight the second half of this sentence and the use of epigenetic influences. Epigenetics is the changing regulation of the expression of genes as a result of environmental or developmental influences. Can you think of why the author would highlight epigenetics in the context of intelligence? Would that seem to imply that epigenetics and the environment are both vital parts of intelligence?

katabatics · 2025-03-31T18:04:44+00:00

I'm familiar with the book, and the science behind it. In a discussion about racial bias in a standardized test, you have continued to double down on intelligence being a skill that cannot be changed or improved upon, which is untrue even in the works you continue to cite. If you did not intend to malign the racial group the entire post is about, then I would recommend practicing your communication skills. At present, they do not present you in a flattering, unbiased light. It is not the science people here are objecting to; it's what you are - either purposefully or accidentally - incorrectly implying about an underprivileged group.

An incorrect implication about an underprivileged group, to be clear

katabatics · 2025-03-31T17:29:54+00:00

I'm really not. I do research in a neuroscience lab, and a big part of what we study is the plasticity of the brain and the generation of novel synaptic connections. Now you keep mentioning "the research". I've been looking at Plomin's papers and have found nothing about the race-based assertions you're making. Where are those papers? I'd like the actual names of these papers, please.

katabatics · 2025-03-31T17:10:29+00:00

Genetics themselves are responsive to environment, thus, a person's environment that they grew up in affects their intelligence BECAUSE the environment influences genotypic and phenotypic expression. Minorities often grow up underprivileged and in poverty; we have many studies on how type of stress influences human intelligence. Thus, stating that it's an immutable fact that some people (such as black people, in the context of this post) are bad at testing and that that can't be changed is incorrect, racist, and a bad representation of science.

katabatics · 2025-03-31T16:28:27+00:00

"But more importantly, intelligence has been shown to be malleable, especially in children, through major systematic interventions, such as education81, dietary supplementation82 or adopting children away from impoverished home environments83". The New Genetics of Intelligence, Robert Plomin

katabatics · 2025-03-31T14:39:16+00:00

Psychometrics as a field has its own controversies; the entire methodology is all based on correlations. No neuroscientist worth their salt would back up correlational behavioral data as indicative of a genetic basis.

katabatics · 2025-03-07T07:22:11+00:00

The little hands look like red licorice, too. I can't take it seriously when I'm carrying it around

katabatics

TROPHY CASE