• 2 Posts
  • 416 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 7th, 2023

help-circle




  • I’ve never been in a situation where I needed insurance to replace all my stuff, and hope I never do.

    My priority are lives (people, pets, etc.), and data that can’t be replaced.

    The high value items are important to replace, because I couldn’t afford to replace them all at once.

    For stuff like clothing, if I had to replace it all, I’d probably take the minimalist route and get the bare minimums. I’d probably prefer that, even if EVERYTHING could be replaced.


  • I tend to keep things simple. I’ll keep a folder with high value items listed in their own sub folder.

    I’ll keep a copy of the receipt; photos of the serial number and UPC; depending on the item, I’ll have photos of it; and a text document with the warranty period listed.

    It’s easy enough to find the right folder when I need it. And since it’s rare that I’ll need to retrieve this information, I don’t put any more effort into it than that.










  • The first one is based on brain scans, which is hard to refute.

    Yes, but the participant selection was dubious.

    Also, while brain scans are used, it’s impossible to form a conclusion based on it.

    For instance, do men with less grey matter watch more porn? Or does watching more porn cause men to have less grey matter?

    A similar study was done on vegetarians. I don’t recall the details, but it went somewhere along the lines of “vegetarians have more brain activity associated with empathy”. Does that mean vegetarianism improves empathy? Or do empathetic people naturally gravitate towards vegetarianism?

    Behavioral studies are so much harder to do compared to health studies. I don’t envy the study coordinators!

    But more data can always bring us closer to answers, so I’m glad that at least some informational gaps are being filled.


  • There seems to be a lot of issues with the methodology used in those studies.

    For example, “…reported hours of pornography consumption per week…”. Hours seems excessive. What’s the average duration for all visitors?

    And, “Women were excluded from the research, because men more easily encounter such problems due to their frequent contact with pornographic materials.”. That’s an assumption. Women can also have "frequent contact " with porn, so they should have included women.

    And one of them seemed to suggest that men who watched more porn had ED. But maybe men with ED first, have had to use porn to help? Chicken and egg situation.

    I’m not defending porn, and I tend to make data driven choices.

    But I’m acutely aware that methodology can have averse effects on the conclusion, and I tend to be highly skeptical of studies that appear to manipulate the outcome with their selection bias.