They said it was for the children. For the families. For the soul of America.

But Prohibition wasn’t a war on alcohol—it was a war on the people.

It wasn’t about virtue. It wasn’t about safety.

It was never about saving anyone.

It was about power. About profit. And about punishing the very people it claimed to protect.

Just released my first Special Edition eBook:

Prohibition and the Profit Motive – How the U.S. Sold Control as Virtue

This $5 eBook version helps me keep going.

It funds the next piece.

It keeps the lights on—literally.

Can’t swing $5?

Even a $1 tip makes a bigger difference than you think.

Can’t support at all? Please share this with someone who needs to know.

Thank you for being here.

Every view, every read, every repost—

you’re helping me fight back with facts.

This is a radical 9-page microhistory that exposes:

• How Prohibition was used to criminalize poverty, independence, and rebellion
• How women’s pain was exploited to justify surveill

For example, would removing infinite scrolling help make it less addictive? Would you keep the upvote/downvote system, remove it, or classify posts differently to foster better discussions? How about adding a countdown timer to log the user out after a certain number of hours of use?

If psychological research can be used to keep users engaged on a social network for as long as possible, I believe it can also be applied to help prevent excessive use, improve the quality of discussions, and create a more empathetic environment. That’s why I’d love to hear suggestions from those in the field.

I made a podcast! It's meant to be an audio introduction to the worlds of psychotherapy, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis. I'd love to hear any feedback you have.

You can find the show on SoundCloud, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and most podcast directories.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/19879638

'Askers' vs. 'Guessers'

Are you an asker or a guesser? Short interesting read.

I was curious about how one can begin to understand their child's sense of ToM. I've felt like my child is maybe a bit above the curve in terms of mental development (he is already capable of saying maybe 50-60 words, including names of 5 people and one dog, at 18 months old. He can also combine words to make contextually appropriate statements (for example: if I'm getting my coat on, he might say "daddy bye-bye" as if to say "Dad is leaving"). If he doesn't see his mother he might just say "mom-mom?" while raising his arms in the universal "who knows?" position—or he will say "mom-mom gone". I've been around several 18mos and it seems atypical to me that they're capable of these things so early.

Well today he did something interesting. When he sits on the potty he likes to read a book, and just a few minutes ago I closed the door so I could go to the bathroom, and he slid a book under the bathroom door. Is it just automatic? Or is he forming some prototypical sense of "I like to read

My post was removed because I put it in the wrong category/community sorry for that,

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/5320372

The strange science experiment that blew a worm’s head off… and blew our minds.

This interview is an episode from /channel/UCz7Gx6wLCiPw3F-AmXUvH8w, our publication about ideas that inspire a life well-lived, created with the /channel/UCMJ6QeJUbCUuhOSYZadF7sA.

Michael Levin, a developmental biologist at Tufts University, challenges conventional notions of intelligence, arguing that it is inherently collective rather than individual.

Levin explains that we are collections of cells, with each cell possessing competencies developed from their evolution from unicellular organisms. This forms a multi-scale competency architecture, where each level, from cells to tissues to organs, is solving problems within their unique spaces.

Levin emphasizes that properly recognizing intelligence, which spans different scales of existence, is vital for understanding life's complexities. And this perspective suggests a radical shift i

We are familiar with the social "id" through mob dynamics, crowd control. But is there anything akin to the ego and superego for society or groups? Maybe the media act as a bit of a superego on societies...but maybe the concept just does not extend that easily.

I tend to feel very encouraging and accepting of kinks, I dislike kinkshaming and in order to offer a safe and welcoming space to people with niche kinks I was considering opening a fediverse instance with either lemmy or kbin dedicated to nsfw content. I worry about some kinks being more than just kinks and I wouldn't like to allow things that are unhealthy or hateful. One such kink that worries me is raceplay and other things in that category like blacked, bleached and whatnot (not an expert in that field of kinks so I only know those three, wouldn't be surprised if there was more). I'm ready to bet that at least someone into those is racist but what would the percentage be? Is it something most people browse to get turned on and it ends there or is it some kind of extension of their real hatred for people of a specific type?

R-selection is like having 1000 offsprings, whereas k-selection is like having only 1.

I heard a variation applied to humans in a psychology textbook about how abused humans are more likely to have more kids than unabused and cannot find the name of this theory

Scishow psych is the only one I know of

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUdettijNYvLAm4AixZv4RA

Like should we just settle with things being unfair?

"Angry people tend to demand things: fairness, appreciation, agreement, willingness to do things their way – disappointment becomes anger for angry people