If mansplaining actually exists, which you seem to think it does, it is not gender specific. Since it is merely a mode of talking it can therefore be done by anyone.
It sounds like she is completely oblivious to what is going on right in front of her. She is so blind to it she assumes it is localized to one place, somewhere far away.
Pretty sad that the people we choose to educate our kids are so completely disconnected from them.
Part of learning anything of any use is that, actually, the world doesn't revolve around your desires, and not everything is going to work according to your whims. If plays and coding are mutually exclusive given the scheduling available, sorry, you need to prioritize one or the other. Incidentally, it sounds like that's exactly what the girls did; they just prioritized something that you and you in particular take issue with.
Isn't that the problem with getting women to work in STEM to begin with? The world does revolve around women, to some degree. They can study whatever they want in school, work a little bit if they like, then marry up and start a family. They determine when courtship, dating, marriage, and procreation starts. It all works according to their whims.
Why the ever living fuck would women put themselves in a position to work incredibly long hours doing intensely grueling mental work that requires precision and meticulousness on a level unparalleled in human endeavors when they have so many other options? Why would they forgo the robust and varied options of guaranteed ease and flexible schedule that almost every other field offers them?
Its not like they have to leverage their mental assets into fungible ones in order to attract a mate.
My wife climbs 100+' trees near Rice university with a chainsaw, removes their limbs, belays them down, and ultimately removes the entire tree leaving the home and yard unperturbed with the exception of a flush ground stump. She is also a black belt and carries a hand gun wherever she goes.
Therefore, every woman should have the physical capabilities to climb trees with a chainsaw and become a black belt, right?
Making general gender statements is a fools game. Every other example is an exception. Using your own anecdotes only reveals your ingrained biases. It doesn't provide any "data."
People are people. Gender is just plumbing. I would attribute the differences in coding acceptance rates to a number of localized phenomena generated both by the company and the chosen female employees that work there. Using this cultured microcosm to make some sort of generalized assumptions about gender in the society at large is irresponsible and stupid. There are too many unknown variables to be responsible for the conclusions reached.
I was walking through our customer waiting area earlier this week and saw something very upsetting. There were roughly 10 people in the waiting area, sitting in chairs all facing the flat panel TV on the wall.
On the TV: a guy in a business suit places a bag over another guy's head in the foreground. He then smashes the guy's head in with a bat. Not one hit mind you, but like 10 or 15 hits. The bag gets bloody, the body falls off of a chair to the floor.
It was not what was on the TV that upset me. Well it upset me a bit. That aside, it was the vacuous and accepting looks in the eyes of everyone else who just witnessed the faux blunt object murder. No one cared. No one was surprised or upset. Not even a flicker of emotion passed their eyes.
This is yet another reason why, no matter what, innocent as an angel or guilty as sin, never, ever, neverever talk to the police. Any misstatement is "changing your story." Any hazy memory is construed as obstruction.
Anything you say will be used to prosecute you, whether you are guilty or not. Nothing you say to police will be used to help you. That's not their job.
Look, you're trying to take the side of a guy who is interested in helping his fellow American brothers and sisters. He is trying to save lives. At worst, he is trying to reduce insurance claims. This seems reasonable to you and me, but not to the government.
You are going up against an organization of people who knowingly allowed the stoplights to be set in such a way that increases property damage, injuries to humans, and also deaths. Why would they do this? Two reasons. You don't matter and because it generates additional revenue.
So, on one side a generous person willing to give of his time and expertise to help his fellow man. On the other a faceless, blameless, murdering gang of thieves. They indiscriminately kill children so they can have additional money in their coffers.
Are you surprised that these hideous bastards would respond with an attack?
By their standards what they did to this guy is considered irrationally polite. They got what they wanted, which is more money, but this time they didn't have to kill anyone to do it. They probably look at it as a win-win.
I used to be able to block ads because of karma. I never did. They weren't obtrusive. They weren't overwhelming. They didn't mess up the scrolling causing my view to jump all over the place when I scrolled. They didn't appear and disappear from my screen. They didn't cover the whole right side of the screen OVER the text of posts.
They weren't obtrusive and they didn't obscure the content I came here for in the first place.
I had hoped for a better response. I see you have nothing to give in return except for your anger and blame.
If I am clueless it was in thinking that there might be some underlying substance or merit to your position. Thank you for so effectively giving me a clue.
Deporting people who are not citizens is required if they are not properly authorized by our government to be here. This is not just for the benefit of the people who live here, but most importantly it is also for the benefit of the people who are here illegally. Also, it is the law.
If you want illegal immigrants to be legal, change the law. Until then, uphold the law.
It really is that simple, and no malice or hatred is required. Well, except on your part, as a necessity of continuing to support the exploitation of human beings by corporations, coyotes, human traffickers, and the like.
As for intolerance, I can assure you what you just wrote is incredibly intolerant. You express immense concern towards what the "right" is doing and who they are, but very little concern for the effect that illegal immigration has on the immigrants themselves and also on the citizens who are displaced by these immigrants.
What you fail to realize is that you are not talking about being tolerant of Mexicans (actually many of the illegal immigrants come from other countries) or "accepting differences." You are talking about being tolerant of illegality. You are talking about subverting the sovereignty of a nation. You are talking about weakening the security and well being of the nation. You are talking about a multitude of issues, none of which actually intersect tolerance and acceptance of differences, but you call them that because who doesn't want to be tolerant and diverse? Mis-definition as an argumentation technique is still disingenuous, no matter how well intentioned your misdirection is.
That you are content with the virtual slavery that some immigrants experience while here is particularly telling. That you express rage at the "right" is further proof that your concerns are not for the lives, health, and well being of other humans.
If you were truly concerned with these people you would be angry at both parties. You would have been screaming your head off at Obama for not taking care of the issue of amnesty during his first two years. You would have been incensed at the number of immigrants that are being used in human trafficking of sex slaves IN MEXICO before they ever get to America.
Instead you see deportation of illegal immigrants as an attempt by the "right" to "destroy America and everything it stands for." America is a Republic. A nation of laws, most of which are mutable and can be changed by the will of the people. You advocate for breaking laws, not changing them. You advocate for breaking these laws on behalf of people who aren't even American citizens. You advocate for this lawbreaking even though it takes jobs, income, and taxes from Americans that need it most.
You are the one trying to "destroy America and everything is stands for," sir. I suggest you stop demonizing people around you and start holding your own political party accountable for the laws that are currently on the books. The sooner we can get politically active people to take responsibility for the political landscape and laws that are in place, the sooner we can create a solution that ticks all of the boxes, namely protection of the US worker and citizens, security of the US border, and prevention of the exploitation of immigrants. Name calling, vituperation, blaming the "other party," and supporting lawlessness are not the American way. Electing political candidates that see a problem and create solutions is. Unfortunately, with your hatred-blow off valve running wide open and facing the opposition you can't generate enough steam to actually make a difference where it matters.
I prefer to preprogram myself when meeting someone new. I will intentionally think of at least three things I like, admire, or want to be more like myself about the person I am meeting for the first time. I try to do this before we even make eye contact.
I encourage others to try this. It has led to some amazing and beautiful interactions. Even if you go out on a limb and think something positive that might not be true, you can usually find evidence for it almost immediately.
I see it as a practical application of the Robert Anton Wilson related idea of "what the thinker thinks, the prover proves."
This verse refers to a common threat in the old world. Certain religions contemporaneous with these early writings advocated having orgies that culminated with the burning of some of the participant's children. Others would use dog pits or bear pits instead of fire. Essentially the orgies were a religious observance, and the children were killed at the culmination of days of religious observances. The sights and sounds of the burning children were reported to increase the ecstatic frenzy of the participants to incredible levels.
It's a sexy word and makes me want to rub one out. Probably because I have a fascination with gender politics, dominant and submissive behaviors, as well as a general female worship thing going on (not just sexual mind you, in fact that takes a back seat to other characteristics.)
You seem wise. My post was in half-jest. An oversimplification based on the presupposition that government and corporations will co-create this tax system and do so in a way that it favorable to them, not the people.
I would ask you this: How do you reconcile instituting an entirely new tax scheme when we already have regulatory bodies in place that monitor and control the means of production in this country?
Meaning, why would it be beneficial to create an entirely new tax system when you can achieve the same end result (lower pollution) by changing regulations for these industries?
I am very wary of giving our coporatist government the impetus and support required to create a new tax system. I have serious doubts that it would be implemented in a way that truly benefits the people of the country. I can see the undue influence of our political system's sponsors and lobbyists creating something that does not work as advertised and our elected officials telling us "you will need to pass it to see what is in it," yet again. Then, once it is passed and we start to see the poor results and broken promises hearing "nobody knew that energy policy could be so complicated."
Am I just too distrusting? Do you have faith that the US government would implement a sweeping new taxation policy in a way that doesn't end up fleecing the US electorate?
So we, the citizens, own the air. And the government will tax corporations that put CO2 and other pollutants into our air. Then, those corporations will raise their prices to cover the cost of the tax.
So we, the citizens who own the air, will be paying to have our air polluted............!
This is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard of.
Surprised but not surprised you got modded down. You pointed out a moderate position, in that some of the people who voted in the last election were neither crazy liberals nor crazy conservatives. This does not jibe with the liberal ideals of "everyone who thinks different than us enjoys hurting women, children, the downtrodden, and minorities." The people who think this way are incredibly vitriolic and vituperative, and do not recognize when their diatribes are alienating the very people they need to accomplish their goals. Apparently they would rather attack people than try to convert or engage them, thus the vote down for a moderate position.
I long for the days when being a liberals opposed rather than espoused oppression, stood up for freedom instead of trampling on the freedom of others, and had at the center of their being a bleeding heart that oozed a decidedly squishy kind of love for everyone. As sappy as it was, it was light years better than the feces slinging rage monkeys that have taken over the party today.
And he would have learned zero about running large organizations, created no jobs, and added no value except to himself and his brokers.
I don't like the guy, but I can see the desire to take some capital and through sweat and tears create something of your own. I can see how it has shaped him, his own desire and his journey through different companies, bankruptcies, the spotlight, etc. His efforts earned him a spot in the White House. Mere investment would not have resulted in the same man. It would certainly not have resulted in the presidency.
I am not defending Trump here. I am calling out your criticism of him as short sighted and misguided.
There are plenty of other reasons to bang on the guy. The one you picked is just kind of stupid. You just said he should have never worked a day in his life. Some people find hard work virtuous. Many look at trust fund babies and inheritance based investors as a plague, not something to be respected.
I see his choice to work his ass off as a feather in his cap, not the other way around.
What you point to is merely the absurdity of the human experience, in total, as explained by someone who has had their pretensions, facades, and defense mechanisms stripped away by a powerful psychoactive substance: Ye become as little children.
What I am referring to is peer reviewed memory studies that point to a chemical change in the activation potential of neurons associated with long term memory making them energetically easier to activate. There really is no comparison between what you are referring to and what those scientists are referring to.
An example would be asking someone to name all of the concepts they can think of with the word "tooth" in them in 45 seconds. Or naming all of the words that come to mind starting with the letter E in 1 minute. Dosing with THC will increase the number of concepts or words one can recall.
What is very interesting is that while it allows easier access to long term memory, it seems to short circuit short term memory to some degree.
The primary effect of LSD on people who want to be at the effect of something is to have altered perception, yes. This is obvious, as it happens frequently. Generally the first time someone takes it they will experience being under its effects, a wanderer in a new landscape, driven if you will, by the effects of the drug.
What if I were to tell you that with practice one could learn to not only eliminate the perceptual problems of hallucination, but that one could also enhance their perceptual acuity drastically while under the influence of LSD?
What if I were to tell you that LSD is for some, a master, and to others a servant?
This may be unfair, but I feel that you would reject such thoughts and ideas completely. I feel you would not question them, nor look for proof or examples. You would dismiss them outright.
This is the fulcrum point on which the debate of the usefulness of hallucinogens rests. I know something to be objectively true, experienced and verified by others concurrent with the experience. It is repeatable and can be generated in others with some guidance. It is fact.
You, or maybe I give you too little credit, lets us say some, a vast majority, would reject it unconditionally.
It has been theorized that THC decreases the energy required to access long term memory. This theory came about from the results of cognitive experiments under the influence of THC. People were able to perform better on some cognitive tests when using THC, especially those that required longer term memory and recall.
The conjecture is that with easier access to long term memories you can make more disparate connections and see more obtuse or less obvious relationships between ideas and concepts.
Slashdot Mirror
Dead on balls accurate sir. Thank you.
If mansplaining actually exists, which you seem to think it does, it is not gender specific. Since it is merely a mode of talking it can therefore be done by anyone.
Like you for instance, whatever you identify as.
It sounds like she is completely oblivious to what is going on right in front of her. She is so blind to it she assumes it is localized to one place, somewhere far away.
Pretty sad that the people we choose to educate our kids are so completely disconnected from them.
Stop. Just stop.
Part of learning anything of any use is that, actually, the world doesn't revolve around your desires, and not everything is going to work according to your whims. If plays and coding are mutually exclusive given the scheduling available, sorry, you need to prioritize one or the other. Incidentally, it sounds like that's exactly what the girls did; they just prioritized something that you and you in particular take issue with.
Isn't that the problem with getting women to work in STEM to begin with? The world does revolve around women, to some degree. They can study whatever they want in school, work a little bit if they like, then marry up and start a family. They determine when courtship, dating, marriage, and procreation starts. It all works according to their whims.
Why the ever living fuck would women put themselves in a position to work incredibly long hours doing intensely grueling mental work that requires precision and meticulousness on a level unparalleled in human endeavors when they have so many other options? Why would they forgo the robust and varied options of guaranteed ease and flexible schedule that almost every other field offers them?
Its not like they have to leverage their mental assets into fungible ones in order to attract a mate.
My wife climbs 100+' trees near Rice university with a chainsaw, removes their limbs, belays them down, and ultimately removes the entire tree leaving the home and yard unperturbed with the exception of a flush ground stump. She is also a black belt and carries a hand gun wherever she goes.
Therefore, every woman should have the physical capabilities to climb trees with a chainsaw and become a black belt, right?
Making general gender statements is a fools game. Every other example is an exception. Using your own anecdotes only reveals your ingrained biases. It doesn't provide any "data."
People are people. Gender is just plumbing. I would attribute the differences in coding acceptance rates to a number of localized phenomena generated both by the company and the chosen female employees that work there. Using this cultured microcosm to make some sort of generalized assumptions about gender in the society at large is irresponsible and stupid. There are too many unknown variables to be responsible for the conclusions reached.
A metric ass-ton of falsified credit applications call bullshit on your claim.
I was walking through our customer waiting area earlier this week and saw something very upsetting. There were roughly 10 people in the waiting area, sitting in chairs all facing the flat panel TV on the wall.
On the TV: a guy in a business suit places a bag over another guy's head in the foreground. He then smashes the guy's head in with a bat. Not one hit mind you, but like 10 or 15 hits. The bag gets bloody, the body falls off of a chair to the floor.
It was not what was on the TV that upset me. Well it upset me a bit. That aside, it was the vacuous and accepting looks in the eyes of everyone else who just witnessed the faux blunt object murder. No one cared. No one was surprised or upset. Not even a flicker of emotion passed their eyes.
Regardless he will hang for it.
This is yet another reason why, no matter what, innocent as an angel or guilty as sin, never, ever, neverever talk to the police. Any misstatement is "changing your story." Any hazy memory is construed as obstruction.
Anything you say will be used to prosecute you, whether you are guilty or not. Nothing you say to police will be used to help you. That's not their job.
Get a lawyer. Shut your mouth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Look, you're trying to take the side of a guy who is interested in helping his fellow American brothers and sisters. He is trying to save lives. At worst, he is trying to reduce insurance claims. This seems reasonable to you and me, but not to the government.
You are going up against an organization of people who knowingly allowed the stoplights to be set in such a way that increases property damage, injuries to humans, and also deaths. Why would they do this? Two reasons. You don't matter and because it generates additional revenue.
So, on one side a generous person willing to give of his time and expertise to help his fellow man. On the other a faceless, blameless, murdering gang of thieves. They indiscriminately kill children so they can have additional money in their coffers.
Are you surprised that these hideous bastards would respond with an attack?
By their standards what they did to this guy is considered irrationally polite. They got what they wanted, which is more money, but this time they didn't have to kill anyone to do it. They probably look at it as a win-win.
Burn them all.
I used to be able to block ads because of karma. I never did. They weren't obtrusive. They weren't overwhelming. They didn't mess up the scrolling causing my view to jump all over the place when I scrolled. They didn't appear and disappear from my screen. They didn't cover the whole right side of the screen OVER the text of posts.
They weren't obtrusive and they didn't obscure the content I came here for in the first place.
What the FUCK happened?
Good stuff! Do you read Greek or are you only able to parse English translations?
Also, are you actually concerned with what the book says, or are you "coming from" a certain viewpoint and looking for something that matches that?
I had hoped for a better response. I see you have nothing to give in return except for your anger and blame.
If I am clueless it was in thinking that there might be some underlying substance or merit to your position. Thank you for so effectively giving me a clue.
Deporting people who are not citizens is required if they are not properly authorized by our government to be here. This is not just for the benefit of the people who live here, but most importantly it is also for the benefit of the people who are here illegally. Also, it is the law.
If you want illegal immigrants to be legal, change the law. Until then, uphold the law.
It really is that simple, and no malice or hatred is required. Well, except on your part, as a necessity of continuing to support the exploitation of human beings by corporations, coyotes, human traffickers, and the like.
As for intolerance, I can assure you what you just wrote is incredibly intolerant. You express immense concern towards what the "right" is doing and who they are, but very little concern for the effect that illegal immigration has on the immigrants themselves and also on the citizens who are displaced by these immigrants.
What you fail to realize is that you are not talking about being tolerant of Mexicans (actually many of the illegal immigrants come from other countries) or "accepting differences." You are talking about being tolerant of illegality. You are talking about subverting the sovereignty of a nation. You are talking about weakening the security and well being of the nation. You are talking about a multitude of issues, none of which actually intersect tolerance and acceptance of differences, but you call them that because who doesn't want to be tolerant and diverse? Mis-definition as an argumentation technique is still disingenuous, no matter how well intentioned your misdirection is.
That you are content with the virtual slavery that some immigrants experience while here is particularly telling. That you express rage at the "right" is further proof that your concerns are not for the lives, health, and well being of other humans.
If you were truly concerned with these people you would be angry at both parties. You would have been screaming your head off at Obama for not taking care of the issue of amnesty during his first two years. You would have been incensed at the number of immigrants that are being used in human trafficking of sex slaves IN MEXICO before they ever get to America.
Instead you see deportation of illegal immigrants as an attempt by the "right" to "destroy America and everything it stands for." America is a Republic. A nation of laws, most of which are mutable and can be changed by the will of the people. You advocate for breaking laws, not changing them. You advocate for breaking these laws on behalf of people who aren't even American citizens. You advocate for this lawbreaking even though it takes jobs, income, and taxes from Americans that need it most.
You are the one trying to "destroy America and everything is stands for," sir. I suggest you stop demonizing people around you and start holding your own political party accountable for the laws that are currently on the books. The sooner we can get politically active people to take responsibility for the political landscape and laws that are in place, the sooner we can create a solution that ticks all of the boxes, namely protection of the US worker and citizens, security of the US border, and prevention of the exploitation of immigrants. Name calling, vituperation, blaming the "other party," and supporting lawlessness are not the American way. Electing political candidates that see a problem and create solutions is. Unfortunately, with your hatred-blow off valve running wide open and facing the opposition you can't generate enough steam to actually make a difference where it matters.
I prefer to preprogram myself when meeting someone new. I will intentionally think of at least three things I like, admire, or want to be more like myself about the person I am meeting for the first time. I try to do this before we even make eye contact.
I encourage others to try this. It has led to some amazing and beautiful interactions. Even if you go out on a limb and think something positive that might not be true, you can usually find evidence for it almost immediately.
I see it as a practical application of the Robert Anton Wilson related idea of "what the thinker thinks, the prover proves."
This verse refers to a common threat in the old world. Certain religions contemporaneous with these early writings advocated having orgies that culminated with the burning of some of the participant's children. Others would use dog pits or bear pits instead of fire. Essentially the orgies were a religious observance, and the children were killed at the culmination of days of religious observances. The sights and sounds of the burning children were reported to increase the ecstatic frenzy of the participants to incredible levels.
...where the biggest cheering was for building The Wall...
Please forgive my ignornace, but I still haven't had a coherent and rational explanation of what is wrong with defending your country's borders?
Or, said in another way, why is building a wall so wrong?
It's a sexy word and makes me want to rub one out. Probably because I have a fascination with gender politics, dominant and submissive behaviors, as well as a general female worship thing going on (not just sexual mind you, in fact that takes a back seat to other characteristics.)
You seem wise. My post was in half-jest. An oversimplification based on the presupposition that government and corporations will co-create this tax system and do so in a way that it favorable to them, not the people.
I would ask you this: How do you reconcile instituting an entirely new tax scheme when we already have regulatory bodies in place that monitor and control the means of production in this country?
Meaning, why would it be beneficial to create an entirely new tax system when you can achieve the same end result (lower pollution) by changing regulations for these industries?
I am very wary of giving our coporatist government the impetus and support required to create a new tax system. I have serious doubts that it would be implemented in a way that truly benefits the people of the country. I can see the undue influence of our political system's sponsors and lobbyists creating something that does not work as advertised and our elected officials telling us "you will need to pass it to see what is in it," yet again. Then, once it is passed and we start to see the poor results and broken promises hearing "nobody knew that energy policy could be so complicated."
Am I just too distrusting? Do you have faith that the US government would implement a sweeping new taxation policy in a way that doesn't end up fleecing the US electorate?
So we, the citizens, own the air. And the government will tax corporations that put CO2 and other pollutants into our air. Then, those corporations will raise their prices to cover the cost of the tax.
So we, the citizens who own the air, will be paying to have our air polluted. ...........!
This is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard of.
Surprised but not surprised you got modded down. You pointed out a moderate position, in that some of the people who voted in the last election were neither crazy liberals nor crazy conservatives. This does not jibe with the liberal ideals of "everyone who thinks different than us enjoys hurting women, children, the downtrodden, and minorities." The people who think this way are incredibly vitriolic and vituperative, and do not recognize when their diatribes are alienating the very people they need to accomplish their goals. Apparently they would rather attack people than try to convert or engage them, thus the vote down for a moderate position.
I long for the days when being a liberals opposed rather than espoused oppression, stood up for freedom instead of trampling on the freedom of others, and had at the center of their being a bleeding heart that oozed a decidedly squishy kind of love for everyone. As sappy as it was, it was light years better than the feces slinging rage monkeys that have taken over the party today.
+1 Fnord for the Illuminatus! reference.
And he would have learned zero about running large organizations, created no jobs, and added no value except to himself and his brokers.
I don't like the guy, but I can see the desire to take some capital and through sweat and tears create something of your own. I can see how it has shaped him, his own desire and his journey through different companies, bankruptcies, the spotlight, etc. His efforts earned him a spot in the White House. Mere investment would not have resulted in the same man. It would certainly not have resulted in the presidency.
I am not defending Trump here. I am calling out your criticism of him as short sighted and misguided.
There are plenty of other reasons to bang on the guy. The one you picked is just kind of stupid. You just said he should have never worked a day in his life. Some people find hard work virtuous. Many look at trust fund babies and inheritance based investors as a plague, not something to be respected.
I see his choice to work his ass off as a feather in his cap, not the other way around.
What you point to is merely the absurdity of the human experience, in total, as explained by someone who has had their pretensions, facades, and defense mechanisms stripped away by a powerful psychoactive substance: Ye become as little children.
What I am referring to is peer reviewed memory studies that point to a chemical change in the activation potential of neurons associated with long term memory making them energetically easier to activate. There really is no comparison between what you are referring to and what those scientists are referring to.
An example would be asking someone to name all of the concepts they can think of with the word "tooth" in them in 45 seconds. Or naming all of the words that come to mind starting with the letter E in 1 minute. Dosing with THC will increase the number of concepts or words one can recall.
What is very interesting is that while it allows easier access to long term memory, it seems to short circuit short term memory to some degree.
The primary effect of LSD on people who want to be at the effect of something is to have altered perception, yes. This is obvious, as it happens frequently. Generally the first time someone takes it they will experience being under its effects, a wanderer in a new landscape, driven if you will, by the effects of the drug.
What if I were to tell you that with practice one could learn to not only eliminate the perceptual problems of hallucination, but that one could also enhance their perceptual acuity drastically while under the influence of LSD?
What if I were to tell you that LSD is for some, a master, and to others a servant?
This may be unfair, but I feel that you would reject such thoughts and ideas completely. I feel you would not question them, nor look for proof or examples. You would dismiss them outright.
This is the fulcrum point on which the debate of the usefulness of hallucinogens rests. I know something to be objectively true, experienced and verified by others concurrent with the experience. It is repeatable and can be generated in others with some guidance. It is fact.
You, or maybe I give you too little credit, lets us say some, a vast majority, would reject it unconditionally.
It has been theorized that THC decreases the energy required to access long term memory. This theory came about from the results of cognitive experiments under the influence of THC. People were able to perform better on some cognitive tests when using THC, especially those that required longer term memory and recall.
The conjecture is that with easier access to long term memories you can make more disparate connections and see more obtuse or less obvious relationships between ideas and concepts.
It has been proven repeatedly that these states of consciousness can be productive at problem solving, both in science and in personal matters.
If they were random it would inhibit these processes. Confusion and delirium would result from random firing. The opposite is quite true.
Just look up "psychedelics in problem solving" or some such. There is plenty of objective data for you to read.