I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, you're right--I've seen lots of social media memes that basically say stuff like, "Einstein was an idiot, it was his wife that did all the work!" when that's patently a false statement.
But I also know that a lot of that sort of thing DID happen. Women, marginalized groups, etc., were written out of history on a regular basis.
The problem is, the issue requires nuance and intellectually honest discussion. And that doesn't exist when you're trying to create the next biggest clickbait article or meme.
I'm not sure at what point it must have way overcorrected. Most if not every single thing I was taught in school that a lot members of this group did/invented turned out to be an exaggeration or outright lie, I came to find out later.
Which is a shame, because most of their stories are interesting in their own right to have been properly explained. Now, instead of lifting anyone up, we're doing some weird dance of fighting back and forth about who is lying(and usually, the answer is both sides).
> Most if not every single thing I was taught in school that a lot members of this group did/invented turned out to be an exaggeration or outright lie, I came to find out later.
I think this (unfortunately common) impression comes from a misunderstanding of how scientific work actually happens. No one is working independently in their own labs and doing all of the work without help from anyone else, ultimately culminating in a Eureka! All of this work is collaborative, and recognition of individuals who had a particularly compelling insight or experimental result in this collaborative process is not a dismissal or denigration of anyone else who may have contributed.
> Women, marginalized groups, etc., were written out of history on a regular basis.
Written out? Or just not written in? There's a big difference. Almost everyone isn't written into history. But nobody cares about the white men who aren't written in because the people who are were also white men.
It's quite likely the next Einstein will be a man. But that doesn't mean that being a man means you're likely to be the next Einstein.
The problem is we are all obsessed with finding the very best people in each category whether it be science, sports, arts etc. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, it's just what we're like. If you were going to read a memoir would you pick Einstein, or the janitor who cleaned his office?
It just so happens that many of these "top spots" will be occupied by men, for one reason or another. I can see that it sucks if there are no role models that you can relate to. It must seem like boys have all this potential and that's not fair. But 99% of them won't succeed, and that sucks too. The grass is always greener on the other side.
> Written out? Or just not written in? There's a big difference. Almost everyone isn't written into history. But nobody cares about the white men who aren't written in because the people who are were also white men.
I mean, not too long ago there was a very popular movement online about celebrating white man Nikola Tesla, who was seen as not being given his fair place in history for his discoveries. People love a perceived underdog.
Come on... It's 2025. If this were true you don't think by now at least one woman would have published her work under a man's name just to prove a point?
It takes a certain type of brain to be an Einstein. That type of brain is extremely rare in any part of the population, but it's exceedingly rare for women. It's not better or worse, it's just different. It's like red paint or blue paint. You don't have to rank one higher than the other, but you clearly do. Look inside yourself and ask why. If you want to make a difference you'd find a way for everyone to feel great about themselves rather than assume malice.
Completely false. You will never find evidence for this claim because it's a lie.
100 percent of the time when someone writes this lie, they're covering up for their own intellectual shortcomings. You're smart enough to realize that your mind doesn't measure up. But unfortunately, you're not smart enough to learn that you are the one holding back your own intellectual abilities.
With time, I hope you grow into a more serious person.
I donated bone marrow through Be the Match (before they changed their name). It was painful, but I highly recommend the experience to folks whenever it comes up.
You get to save the life of a stranger AND they give you a t-shirt. Win win!
This is what my psychiatrist more or less warned me about when I went on medication; that a lot of people who are suicidal lack the energy and ability to plan their suicide, and medications can sometimes undo those particular symptoms and people manage to end themselves.
I'm not sure what kinds of studies have been done about it, but I've had a few therapists same similar ideas. If it's not a studied phenomenon, then it has folks that believe it exists.
I'd like to make the point that even if this does occur, it doesn't mean, "therefore this medication shouldn't be used/is worse than doing nothing," just that awareness and caution is needed.
I went through a frankly terrible few months on my current meds because they removed the emotional numbness before removing the bad feelings. However, once that was over they effectively gave me my life back after 10+ years of continual exhaustion and brain fog.
This theory is a science-free zone. It seems far more likely that the drug induced sudden, overwhelming suicidal thoughts than someone said "I feel the best I've ever felt and life is looking up. I think I'll kill myself and make all the good feelings go away".
Furthermore, if the latter were true, it would be an indication that depression was a symptom rather than a cause and the psychiatrist misdiagnosed and improperly treated the patient.
EDIT - I ask because the only results I get when searching are a Harvard article debunking it. I'd rather hear the opinion of someone that actually believes in it before I read about why it's all malarky. I believe in arguing against the best version of someones argument.
It was just the best “every man” link I could provide for understanding how efficacy of toxin-clearing (toxicity) could be related to depression, other struggles with homeostasis.
I’m not quite following the previous conversation here, but your comment brings to mind that one theory of a possible “function” of depression, is as a “sickness behavior” to help isolate a sick animal from others to protect the group. A sheep or cow getting sick and going off on its own is a common thing.
I’m not sure if it has a technical name or if it’s been rigorously studied, but it’s a common observation which even I’ve seen (and reported to growers I work for).
> but your comment brings to mind that one theory of a possible “function” of depression, is as a “sickness behavior” to help isolate a sick animal from others to protect the group. A sheep or cow getting sick and going off on its own is a common thing
It's one explanation of the phenomenon. I'm not remotely convinced by it, but that doesn't mean I think it's untrue.
What I do think we can conclude is that we have no evidence depression is caused by infection. (Singularly and universally, as OP implies.) With higher confidence I believe I can conclude that interrogating chatbots designed to keep your attention is a poor way to resolve this.
> we have no evidence depression is caused by infection
Besides talking to patients and reading case files.
You can wait another decade or three for someone to spend the money on a specific study that meets your individual criteria (I'm sure very high), for doing obvious things like:
1.) Treating known infections, testing for others,
and
2.) Addressing nutritional gaps, as well as tracking circadian/endocrine, and nervous symptoms (which often intertwine with depression symptoms!)
but I will not wait.
I'd prefer to no longer be depressed, and/or unwell.
So I'll do the obvious things – even if they're not obvious to you, yet.
Stopping back in, because I unironically came across someone's almost-surely AI assisted summary that does a better job than I have summarizing the processes being discussed:
==
===
Why the Sick Get Sicker
Most people think illness progresses because of pathogens, toxins, or genetics — but the deeper truth is that tension, stress, and breathing patterns control the trajectory of health more than anything else.
When the body is stressed, the breath changes.
When the breath changes, the lymph stagnates.
When the lymph stagnates, toxins accumulate.
When toxins accumulate, inflammation accelerates.
And that is how sick becomes sicker.
Here’s the breakdown:
1. Stress Immediately Changes Your Breathing Pattern
When the nervous system senses stress — emotional, physical, mental, or energetic — breathing becomes:
• shallow
• rapid
• high in the chest
• tight in the ribs
• limited in diaphragm expansion
This cuts oxygen supply, raises cortisol, and signals the body to brace.
Bracing = stagnation.
2. Your Breath Controls Your Lymphatic System
The lymphatic system is the body’s drainage system, and it has no pump of its own.
It relies entirely on:
• diaphragmatic breathing
• muscle movement
• fascia softness
• a calm nervous system
Shallow breathing = no diaphragm movement.
No diaphragm movement = lymph stagnation.
When lymph stagnates:
• waste can’t drain
• toxins recirculate
• inflammation builds
• swelling increases
• the immune system gets overwhelmed
This is why people in long-term stress decline rapidly.
You've contributed nothing curious to this thread whatsoever, just threw some doubt in, then buggered off during the replies – more or less communicating "stuff I can't directly or completely refute is AI slop".
That's....disappointing.
I saw this textpost made by someone else, and literally thought of you, JumpCrisscross.
It's still IT, but it's not necessarily coding work: cybersecurity and/or pen testing.
It'd still use your coding chops--you know where programmers usually get lazy and make security mistakes--and problem solving, without (necessarily) being coding.
