• 8 Posts
  • 143 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle

  • Defintely, it’s a waste of an opportunity. But as someone also living in non-English speaking country, it’s surprisingly a lot of effort to make sure I actually expose my self to the language. If you’re work and social circles are all predominately English speaking, you need to take active steps to have meaningful exposure (and you most certainly should!)

    I think it’s different now that in the past, because it’s so easy to live in a bubble and spend a lot of time communicating online. Even back in the ‘old country’ I barely spoke with strangers, beside shop interactions. I have my headphones on, listening to music, watching streaming services, and interacting with my friends and family. Now that I’m abroad, I can do pretty much the same thing, I don’t need to watch the local TV channels I can just watch YouTube, I don’t desperately need to make local friends, because I videochat and game with my buddies back home very easily.

    It’s taken a couple of years here to realise that without actively pushing myself, I’m not really picking up much of the language. Now I make myself listen to talk radio in the car, and try to overhear conversations on the train, rather than existing in my normal bubble. It’s absolutely worth it, but if I’d been motivated I could have made myself consume shows, radios, etc in the target language back I the ‘old country’. And while there’s certainly more possible language partners to practice with, if they don’t emerge naturally in your social circle, then it’s not all that much easier than finding someone back home who wanted to improve their English to be my language buddy.

    Tldr it’s a waste to not learn the local language, but failing to do so isn’t so much “doing something wrong” as “not actively pursuing a challenging but reward interest”.


  • Two years certainly could be enough, but it really depends what the environment. If OP, like many English speakers who live in France for a couple of years, was teaching English, or studying in an English speaking postgraduate course, and then socialising with a mix of people from different places, who all use English as their shared language… It can be pretty easy to miss out on a lot of immersion.

    And the level of language to comfortably phone up a hospital, explain a slightly odd request and be bounced around different departments with the administration… I know plenty of native French speakers who would avoid doing that.







  • I love 60s and 70s music, heard a lot growing up from my boomer parents. So many classic, timeless hits. Then my mum found some “Fab No. 2s of the 60s” CD, a compilation of songs that didn’t quite make it to number 1…

    It was truly awful, all clichéd cheesiness and triteness, so many lame songs that sounded like other, better songs. Just sucko-barfo all round. I think there are arguments for why music from the early stages of a genre (like 60s pop and soul) are particaurly good… But there’s also a hell of a lot of selection bias going on.



  • Yeah, I think challenge can be a bit motivator for adhd folks. Once I’ve completed the main part of something, I find it really hard to care about the details, to the extent that the unfinished parts sometimes spoil the bit I had completed.

    I feel like it’s the dopamine of the chase is actually what’s motivating, and challenge is a version of that. I’ll get sucked into finding some obscure game and getting an emulator working to be able to play it and all the way I’m super engaged. Then I start playing this game I was so excited about and meh, don’t care.

    Maybe you could think about ways to refocus that drive? A therapist told me once that adhd people don’t get satisfaction from completing things, but are excited about new things. So, instead of feeling proud of getting into college try and immediately find the new challenge (now I want to get a prostigious internship!) if you succeed at your fitness goals, maybe you can raise the stakes see if you can beat a friend or a record or something?




  • I really got a lot out of the Myres Briggs when I was younger. I know its not scientifically valid, and it’s stupid of folks take it too seriously, but it really helped young me understand that other people weren’t wrong/dumb/weird for approaching things differently. And it helped me understand some of the axis on which difference can lie in a helpful way.

    I think in the post internet age people are very aware of different categories and identities, but growing up in the previous millenium it wasn’t something that we talked about much. The introvert / extrovert division is overblown and overly simplistic nowadays, but before people use to just criticise each other for being “too shy” or “too loud” like there was a “normal” way to be that everyone should get.

    The big five is certainly more reliable and scientifically supported, but I never found that it helped me understand a coworker or friend better. Partly I think conscientiousness and neuroticism sound a little too value laden. People can happily self describe as “detail orientated” (Sensing) or “big picture types” (Intuitive) but nobody really wants to say “I’m closed-off and unconscientious”. And I think that’s why MB has been popular in business / organisation worlds, because it’s a useful way to get people discussing themselves and how they approach problems. It doesn’t matter that in reality my level of extraversion varies depending on the context, or I’m Judging in certain tasks but Perceiving in others.






  • Sorry, genuinely trying to understand here. So are you saying “in movies, women who have strength of character are also shown as being ‘manly’ (big muscles, punches people, etc). Is that how it really is?”

    If that’s what you’re asking, I don’t think it’s true. Some movies have women of very strong character, who are physically weak, pacifist, etc. And some movies have women that have strong characters and are physically strong, cabable of violence, etc. And some movies have women who are douchey, flawed characters who can be physically strong.

    I’m not sure I see any correlation between strength of character and physical strength, or propensity to violence, for either men or women. It’s more of a genre thing - in action movies men and women are more likely to be physically tough, and in political dramas they’re more likely to be physically weak. And there will be a mix of people with “strong character” and people with flawed or weak characters.


  • Can you explain a bit more about why you feel it is easier to learn how to enjoy being alone than learn to enjoy being in a relationship?

    I defintely struggled with giving up my independence, and still find it hard to be responsible for/to another person. But I finally ended up in a relationship with someone who was also independent and we were in a very casual relationship for five years before we started to admit that we were a couple and another few years before we realised how much we now loved each other. I guess all I’m saying is relationships don’t need to be one way. I have a friend who only dates people who live in other cities / countries, because that way they only see each other occasionally and at pre-arranged times, and that works for them.

    But if you really feel you are happier on your own and it’s just internalised social pressure that makes you want a relationship then you could try developing “singleton pride”. Part of the reason gay people historically got into “gay pride” was to help the overcome their own internalised homophobia, because even if you don’t agree with something you still absorb it in your upbringing and it can be hard to get past it.

    So, you could try directly telling people that you’re single for life and that your happy with that choice. If you’re worried that society will think you’re a failure for not having a relationship then confront that fear immediately and get it out the way. You’ll realise that most people don’t care, some people will actually be on your side, and the people who do actually think worse of you are wrong so you don’t need to care about their opinions. But if you’re not confident enough in your decision to proudly stand behind it, then of course doubts will sink in and you’ll repeat the loop again.


  • Don’t think so! Defintely much heavier and more solid than bbq charcoal. I don’t remember it being very smoky, weird less so than wood fires (which have a distinctive and pleasant smell) or peat fires, which were also common in my region but would trigger my asthma. But possibly it was just that I was used to coal? Maybe someone else would have found it gross?

    Edit: Doing a bit of research, it seems like historically home fires would use bituminous coal, but by the time I was a child it was anthracite coal that was used. Which only releases 20% of the smoke of bituminous coal. But it’s still a fossil fuel, and not charcoal.