I think the point is people embody or create anxiety, whether or not it is a choice. As an emotion the anxiety is inseparable from the person, a dead person cannot be anxious etc.
Then you do not have an anxiety disorder, you just experience the emotion of anxiety.
Similarly, you can be sad, and not have depression. The thing that makes it depression is not being able to trivially drop it. If you 'have anxiety', and can flip it on and off at will, then by the clinical definition you do not have generalized anxiety disorder. That's very nice property of the DSM.
That comment had no advice in it, medical or otherwise. It just described definitions.
However, I would really like to know why would anyone "turned on" own anxiety if they have possibility to not turn it on. What are you gaining from that? Sounds like hitting own leg with a hammer. Even if you can do it ... why?
Watching Netflix. You pay people streaming movies that don't provide a good to society and you do alter your state of mind which affects others and you do destroy your health a cost which also payed by others.
The argument you used earlier could be applied to literally anything, so if it's valid, literally everything should be a crime. I don't think the argument is valid.
You can't counter-argue that streaming movies is good for society, but growing plants isn't. I think it's the other way around, actually.
They do produce movies. I think comparing them to producing addictives to keep a mafia and money washing system operating is a bit disingenuous. I also think movies in general do not remove your ability to form clean thoughts, having goals in life and invoke hallucinations and make you paranoid.
Maybe I shouldn't have used a bunch of euphemisms that sound ridiculous when taken literally.
Some drugs are addictive. Some are not. Some are pretty benign. Do you drink coffee? Alcohol? Actually, alcohol is much worse for you than some illegal drugs are. So is Tylenol - that's actually one of the easiest drugs to fatally overdose on, and you can buy it over the counter. Perhaps each substance should be judged on its own merits and not whether it's legal or illegal.
I grew up near a town called "Moodus" in Connecticut which constantly made noises and had small quakes.
But it didn't prepare me for the few small quakes I experienced in the bay area (typically a bunch of car alarms go off and dogs bark, there's a thud, and then a gentle rocking).
There are even earthquakes you can feel in "Old England". Not often, but I've experienced one. Lived in the BA for a few years and felt many small quakes. Lived in a very seismically active part of Montana for 25 years and felt nothing. YMMV.
Sometimes you have to make the Pan hot enough so all the food goes "Tssss!" immediately and loudly when it goes in, and doesn't boil in its own moisture. Doing this appropriately is one thing that separates okay cooks from terrible cooks
My hot take hopeful guess is that heat shock causes upregulation of protein degradation / chaperone activity, thereby disrupting protein aggregation involved in AD, PD, et all. One can hope
If "superintelligence" is such a big deal, how is it that e.g. MENSA members haven't taken over the world yet? Is there evidence of the assumed "superintelligence/dominance" equivalence in existing human population data?
It's like kind of challenging to prove this kind of negative, and the supposed proof here comprises no more than pedigreed words on a page, but here consider the section "What constitutes a good model for AD?": https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-01...
Or 'having anxiety', which diminishes the subject's agency even more