This single tweet explained to me why I’ve suffered at the Chairs’ and Directors’ Council for 5 years:

autists think all social contexts are epistemic contexts

normies think all social contexts are attunement contexts

they both keep stepping on each other's toes https://t.co/4W0iMT1HGm

— orph (@orphcorp) July 15, 2025

I thought these meetings were epistemic. I thought we were there to get things done and debate issues.

But everybody else was there for attunement. They didn’t want to establish what’s right. They wanted to feel a warm and fuzzy togetherness.

I can do warm and fuzzy togetherness like it’s no one’s business. Really, I can. It’s completely fake but people love fake. But nobody warned me that was the purpose of the meetings. They kept giving me agendas and spreadsheets.

I’ve been completely misled.

the brain is cool bcs if you have stuck or unprocessed emotions/ontologies, it will keep reproducing similar situations to put you in, until you manage to process & overcome them

your models of reality will keep reasserting themselves till you explicitly challenge them

— orph (@orphcorp) July 21, 2025

Yes, and it’s more than that. You inherit these unprocessed situations. If your mother didn’t solve it because her mother didn’t because her mother didn’t, etc, you’ll either have to solve it yourself or your children will.

For instance, my aunts inherited from their mother the need to marry a physically abusive drunk. But my mother managed to overcome that generational need. As a result, her daughters never had violent alcoholics (or any sort of alcoholics) anywhere on the horizon.

The most mind-blowing part is that you don’t have to know about these situations in order to inherit them.

So if you wonder why you keep ending up in the same situation, please know that it’s the most normal thing imaginable. Everybody does it. And some people overcome the problem and exit the pattern. That’s where real freedom lies.

In my profession, we spend years learning and discussing how bad Franco was. And OK, fine. But I’m reading the novel titled Los asquerosos by the author Santiago Lorenzo, and I can’t figure out how what he’s describing is better than Franco.

It’s not this one novel, of course. It’s the reality that pretty much all of contemporary Spanish literature describes. The main character, Manuel, is a hard-working, intelligent young man who’s doomed to go from one precarious, part-time gig to another. He’s superfluous, unnecessary in his own country. Manuel manages to eke out a very modest living but there’s no hope he’ll ever have enough money and time to start a family. Owning his own housing is not remotely realistic.

Manuel ends up in one of those thousands of abandoned villages that litter the peninsula. It’s empty, dead but you can still see what the village looked back when there was life in it. That was back in the Franco era. Which was wildly imperfect but at least it wasn’t this slow-motion death of a nation.

I’ve seen those abandoned villages many times. It’s painful even for somebody who is not from there.

I think we should pipe down with the criticisms of Franco, is what I’m saying. The democratic regime we support created these empty villages and the birth rate of 1.16. And a government that screeches tirelessly about Palestine and the imaginary right-wing menace while millions of dispossessed Manuels lose any hope of ever starting a family.

This is the central problem with higher education in the age of AI.

We can’t require students to do take-home writing assignments (e.g. term papers) any more, because most will cheat and have ChatGPT or Claude or Grok do the writing.

But we can’t teach critical thinking, rationality, perseverance, & scholarship without requiring writing assignments that they work on — researching, drafting, editing, revising, polishing — over a period of days or weeks.

The result may be a whole generation of students who can’t really write, or think, or articulate what they really believe and value, and why.

https://x.com/primalpoly/status/1947431531997176067?t=nMFZS6p3zfXMYxeWZrxBag&s=19

This would be concerning if we hadn’t quit teaching critical thinking and rationality several decades ago. All we’ve been teaching is how to ape the professor’s boutique left-wing beliefs most convincingly. Anybody who tried to figure out what they believe as opposed to what the professor believes would be an academic loser.

So what does it matter if the AI and not the actual students parrot the leftist slop? No thinking gets done in either case.

I asked AI for how long to bake a branzino (my favorite fish of all time with which I am comically obsessed), but the spellcheck changed branzino to Brandon.

The AI bot informed me that baking a person called Brandon “would be dangerous and illegal” (in that order).

I can envision a time when a mistake like this would bring police knocking on one’s door.

On the left, we have people who want to change penises into vaginas and vice versa. On the right, we have people who want to install chips into human brains.

Everybody has a messianic project of radical change. Everybody feels entitled to correct God’s creation.

Billions of people need to be fixed by brain implants. Nothing can be left as-is, unmessed-with.

What can possibly go wrong with this plan?

There’s a mouse in my office. First, I screamed like a banshee, and now I’m afraid to go back in there. I have no idea what it is I’m afraid of since the mouse is tiny but it’s terrifying.

Imagine discussions on entrepreneurship where people would demand respect for their perspective based on how many businesses they drove into the ground. Or discussions on education driven by people who flunked out of 5 colleges. Or on how to save money where people with $60,000 in credit card would condescendingly lecture those with none.

This doesn’t happen in any area of life except dating. It’s extraordinary how many people think that their constant failures entitle them to lecture everybody else. “You have no idea how bad things are! Men / women are terrible.”

No, my friend, it’s not “society” that’s causing your problem. You are causing your problem. I’m only saying it because I was also like this. Then I found the courage to admit that it wasn’t low-quality men who were causing issues but me. Immediately after that, I found great personal happiness.

By the way, I’m also a person who flunked out of two colleges and had a lot of credit card debt. I lay no claim to anything remotely resembling perfection. But I do lay claim to knowing that you can spend the rest of your life whining about how unfair everything is or you can leave this pastime to others.

John Marrs writes thrillers about serial killers, and there’s usually a social critique aspect to his novels. The Good Samaritan is probably the grimmest of his books, offering not a glimmer of hope in its depiction of human vileness. If you want to read something engrossing, fast-paced, and utterly depressing, this is the perfect novel for you.

The Good Samaritan is about a murderous psychopath named Laura who uses her job at a suicide hotline to convince unstable people to kill themselves. There are echoes of the euthanasia debate in the novel, and altogether it’s a metaphor for the poisonous effects of empathy when taken to the extreme. Laura embodies the kind of toxic femininity that destroys men and corrupts any form of male-female relationship. She is so successful because the way we have set up our institutions favors the self-deluded smugness of women like Laura. She’s only one of the shitty women in the novel, and the interactions between well-meaning but weak men and enraged, nasty women make for disturbing reading.