I'm older than you my friend, and it's acurallt only something that I came to terms with in my 40s. When I was younger I did feel that pressure and expectation to complete stuff. Now I have no issue switching a movie off after an hour or stopping a book before the end. Life's too short! And sure a story game I'm really enjoying, why wouldn't i finish it? And play the sequel! But if I've played 100+ hours of skyrim without geting close to the end, and I don't think it reduced my enjoyment. And if I'm getting bored of a metrovania I don't see the point in grinding til it's done.
Acamon
Nah, finishing games is overrated. By the time you're halfway through a game, you've seen a lot of what it's going to offer in terms of style and gameplay. For sure, you'll miss some amazing stuff if you don't get to the end, but it's hard to believe you miss as much as the new other game you could have half-completed in the same time.
There are exceptions, and I defintely think completing at least a few games is important. But if I had the choice of only having fully played 20 games in my entire life, or 40 halfway, I'd defintely have learned more, experienced more and enjoyed myself more with the half-assed approach.
An Internet without privacy and encryption sounds awful. But one where it's illegal to talk about politics and religion sounds pretty tempting at times...
Oh wowzer! I've also been have heartedly wishing Boost had amoled dark for years. I even tried out another lemmy client and was jealous of the pure black (but quickly came back to boost because I love it).
Can't believe it was just there in the settings...
Bidwell, J. (1997)
Yeah, when some friends started getting married in our 30s I thought they were being impulsive. We're a bit young to be getting married aren't we?
Antedilluvian
Was just about to post some "what are you talking about?! Lots of people said..." but maybe that says something about the number of diagnosese my friend group have accumulated...
Fish changing sex is the most common, with pronounced physical sex changes. But they also usually simultaneously change gender, starting to behave in the manner associated with their new sex.
And there is some interesting examples of changes that seem to be more gender based. This study discusses behavior changes in wrasses where "male-typical behaviors such as courtship and aggression" start being seen in certain female fish, leading to changes in social status, before any noticeable changes to gonadal organs (the glands that produce many of the sex hermones).
I'm now going to be perpetually frustrated that I'll never be able to find and identify my tree soul!
The aquarium staff hoist the trans flag, and explain that "some fish change gender". The people complaining bring up "gay", but don't seem very well informed about human or aquatic cultures.
I think you are completely misrepresenting the literature in the field. There has been decades of research on inner monologues, but whether anyone truly has no inner monologue is still a matter of debate, and suggesting that it could be as much as 50% is absolutely wild.
One recent example is Nedergaard and Lupyan (2024), who used questionnaires on 1,037 participants and found no one who reported a complete lack of inner speech. They did show a link between lower frequency of internal speech and lower performance on sole verbal cognitive tasks.
But this was frequently misreported in popular science news, which may be where you got the idea. For example, Science Daily's headline "People without an inner voice have poorer verbal memory" and subheading "Between 5-10 per cent of the population do not experience an inner voice" certainly make some bold claims (although still well below your "up to 50%" statistic). But just a few lines into the article it's been rephrase as "between 5-10 per cent of the population do not have the same experience of an inner voice". This is more accurate, as all studies agree that there is a variety of experiences of inner voices / monologues, but a different experience is not the same as an absence.
In another comment you make reference to the experience sampling study (where a buzzer would sound and participants would record whether they were experiencing an inner monologue) which I assume is the work of Heavey and Hurlburt. It's true that they claim that 5 of their 30 participants recorded no instances of inner voice, but let's be clear about what the experimental procedure was: the participant would turn on the buzzer, which would buzz at a random time (an average of every 30 minutes) and the study was based on two periods of five samples. So, ten data points collected over approx five hours.
Even people with strong inner monologues report different frequencies of inner speech depending on their activities. Many people do not experience inner speech when actively engaging in other verbal activity - talking with friends, watching a video; while quiet focused activities such as golf show much higher reporting of inner speech. So the absence for five individuals of any inner speech during those ten particular samples is in no sense equievlant to "16% of peole have no inner monologue". Indeed even the study's authors acknowledge "it is possible that these participants may all have actually had quite similar inner experiences; it is merely the reports of those experiences that differed."
Tldr: I think you're making some very wild claims about this subject, without posting sources. No significant study I know of claims that any sizable percentage of the population have no inner voice, (although there certainly is an interesting variety in how frequent and clearly it is experienced.)