[M]aybe being yourself and open works for people who happen to already be relationship-compatible. People who are not would be worse off by trying to be themselves. I think I have been burned in the past a lot by that kind of advice, although my experience is too much of an anecdote to infer an average.
I think you are maybe using a different definition of "worse off." I would submit that a relationship that is maintainable only by being inauthentic and unopen is, in the long run, significantly worse than no relationship, both because of the experience of being in it, but also because of opportunity cost.
That's different than holding some things back at the beginning, or keeping some impolite thoughts to yourself sometimes. But if your goal is a long-term partnership, you move further away from that goal by spending time and energy on someone you know you aren't compatible with.
IDK, I think this comment warrants the level of karma. OP is proposing messing around with a drug class that kills thousands of people per year. Even only counting benzo overdoses that don't involve opioids, it kills ~1500 people per year. Source: https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates (you can download the data from that page to see precise numbers).
It's not often that a forum comment could save a life!
Oh, I wasn't saying that student debt is variable interest, just making a point about debt and inflation in general.
I think people experience rising prices as inflation, but rising wages as a result of their own hard work. Thus, "inflation" feels bad, even if it actually benefits you. Also, wages are stickier than prices, so even if overall wages are rising your own personal wage might not rise smoothly along.
Also, if your debt is variable-interest, then inflation doesn't necessarily benefit you. It only benefits you if you have fixed-interest debt.
I feel like this comparison of the enforcement here with the TikTok ban is not directed at the actual primary concern about TikTok, which is content curation by its opaque algorithm, not data privacy per se.
By analogy, if a Soviet state-owned enterprise in 1980 wanted to purchase NBC, would/should we have allowed that? If your answer is "no," keeping in mind how many people get their news via TikTok, why would/should we allow what effectively seems to be a CCP-(owned or heavily influenced) company to control what content our people see?
I am not a mediator so maybe you have me beat, but it's not immediately clear why you would assume this
But don't the non-diseased copies not just need to generally meditate, but to do some special kind of meditation where they forget the affirmative evidence they have that they don't have the disease?
In this scenario, why are the non-disease-having copies participating? They are not in a state of ignorance, they know they don't have the disease.
Asteroid impacts are a prime candidate to stop global warming.
I dunno man, Randall Munroe thinks that they would cause global warming.
So I guess I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think it might be easier to support what I'm saying in the negative. Some example of inauthenticity or un-openness might be:
The problem with doing these things is that, to the extent that doing them was necessary to gain the relationship, you are now stuck with a relationship that is built on a papered-over incompatibility. If your plan is that you will fake a completely different personality/goals/interests, then you will now be in a relationship where you have to permanently keep faking that stuff while constantly being wary that your new partner might find out you were faking plus you have to spend a lot of time and energy doing stuff and/or interacting with someone you don't actually like, or else ending the relationship and being back at square 1, except that you've invested time/energy that you won't get back. There can be toned-down good versions of this bad strategy tho, I think, which are more like "putting your best foot forward" than like "being inauthentic."
Truth: Looking for a life partner, getting desperate
Good strategy [probably depends on age, for this one]: Open to various possibilities, see how it goes.
Bad strategy: Your date says they are really only looking for short term fun, and you agree that's all you are looking for too.
Truth: A talkative person who loves debating ideas
Good strategy: Tone it down a little, try to listen as much as you talk and try to "yes, and" or "that's interesting, tell me more about what led you to that" your date's points rather than "no but" (you can often make similar points either way)
Bad strategy: Just agree with everything your date says; even if you actually have a strong opposing view
Truth: Don't really care for hiking much
Good strategy [when trying out someone who loves hiking]: "I haven't been too into that before, tell me what you love about it? I'd be open to giving it another shot"
Bad strategy: "OMG I love hiking too!"
The problem that all these bad strategies have in common is that if they are successful, you end up with something you don't want.