 So I figure it's about time we do the second part of the college experiences miniseries. This one on sort of the bubbling I noticed in college. Now you look enough into sociology research, you definitely can notice that this is a common phenomenon anywhere, anywhere at all. It was just sort of interesting noting the specifics that I would, it came across in my college experience. And I'll talk a little bit on just sort of this, because it's closely related, the reactionary attitude some professors had become more obvious what I mean about that in a bit. So is the best place to start with this was would be a professor I had an addiction. The class was on addiction. She taught sort of drug related stuff in general, whether it was what the drugs did to your body or why people went to certain drugs or whatever, but this class was specifically on addiction or at least supposed to be. Now if you're not super invested in academia or you managed to slip into one of these bubbles, you might not be aware that there's a lot of different schools of thought for basically anything and there's evidence for almost all of it. The world we live in is not so nice and simple as this is why that happened. At least for complicated systems, really simple things, it's pretty straightforward. You trip and fall, your knee hurts because it hit the ground hard. But for more complicated things like why somebody gets addicted to a certain thing, it's complicated. There's not only evidence for one thing, there's evidence for a lot of different things. So well that mind her big thing was a sociological basis of addiction and this is not to discredit her or that theory by any means because there does seem to be a bit of a sociological basis for this. You can absolutely see higher rates of drug use, especially certain kinds of drugs in horror impoverished areas. You can also see on the other side of that generally less drug use but certain drugs get used considerably more in wealthier areas. The great example of that is because they're basically the same drug otherwise, crack, poor, cocaine, rich. So there's definitely evidence for a sociological basis of this but it's quite a bit more complicated than that because we've been noticing that there are also genetic predispositions. Now I want to be very careful with that one because these are predispositions. They make it considerably more likely to see it in that population but they do not decide the trait. Most genes are just predispositions and not specific traits. Sort of like with general system complexity, you really only see genes decide specific traits when it's simple straightforward stuff like eye color or hair color, skin color. But behavior is just predispositions. You can see something like predisposition causes 40% more likelihood of being addicted and so in populations with that gene you see higher rates of addiction but it's not a deciding factor. I'm actually a great example of that most of my biological family are cocads and I've never touched the stuff. That predisposition is there. I'm definitely more likely to develop that. There's a good chance that's going to get passed on to the kids so that's something I'm going to need to pay attention to later on if I ever wind up having kids. These things are complicated. The other part of that, her approach to drug effects was largely that of take the observational approach. That is, you have a set of people who are under the influence of the drug and you're observing what is happening to them. Now that is definitely useful and should be done for certain types of things. For example, observation is one of the best ways of determining whether a drug makes somebody more agitated, less anxious or hyperactive or any of those things that are observable traits and not controversially observable. We'll get into that in just a moment. But that's not the only theory for why drugs do, well that's not the only approach to determining what the different ways drugs behave and depending on the approach you use you can actually get quite different results. As another theory, approach to this sort of broken into two different schools, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetics is medical field on how long it takes drugs to break down into the body, so like half life of the drug and what it breaks down into, so it's metabolites. Pharmacodynamics on the other hand is what receptors the drug binds to and then also looking into when something is bound to that receptor in either the agonist or antagonist fashion, what does that express? Now I'm of the stance that both of these are definitely very important and should be understood. Both of these in that the pharmacology subfields and the observational approach, both of these have their purposes, both of these should be done. Her attitude was largely that only the observational thing is correct and that's the end of it. And there were some really, I sort of like to stir the pot so I guess I could say fun things to bring up in class to kind of poke holes in her thinking, but this wasn't purely trolling just the start shit. I did some rather interesting things like say NMDA receptor antagonists, so you want to look that up and methyl deaspartate. Ketamine is one of them, they're others, that group of drugs is generally known as dissociatives, but it's like so many other things, it's a bit more complicated than just that. It's possible to be a dissociative without necessarily involving yourself in NMDA receptor antagonization. So but that is the most widely recognized group of dissociators. This actually does a bit of that. So alcohol does a bit of NMDA antagonization. If you look at it from a purely pharmacodynamics standpoint, you would come to the conclusion that an NMDA receptor antagonist will decrease cognition, but increase memory retention, this gets a bit complicated because you have the decreased cognition sort of interferes with that. If you can't process what's going on, it's not going to be committed to memory, it's just that the stuff that gets processed gets committed to memory better. So obviously under really high amounts of this, your processing of things would be so bad that nothing gets committed to memory. So under an observational approach to this, you can very easily come to the conclusion that while this decreases cognition and memory, you see why this is a bit of a problem depending on the different school, you see different effects. Now I'm one for, and you can see this regularly in videos that I do, you can see this in this video. I'm one for sort of just expressing all the different theories in a teaching setting instead of this is the way it is because we still don't have a definitive answer. Now I have the thing that I think is most likely and I bet you can't tell. You might think you know at least the things I mentioned here but I try to keep my beliefs as separate from the information as possible. Everybody's biased is seep through. It's going to happen but in an academic setting you should definitely, in my opinion, be trying to just express the different theories and how they explain different phenomena. That's it. I would be okay with expressing your specific opinion as long as you express the general attitudes as well, arguably that's a little bit better because then you're making your biases known while still also presenting the necessary stuff people to formulate their own opinions. There was a lot of that though. She was just sort of the most standout one because there were a lot of being quite a few times where her beliefs didn't seem to fit with any major theory that I could find on the subject and whether it was me or another student asked about that or even just asked for more information, not necessarily calling her out on making shit up or whatever but asking for more information on the subject maybe you just want to read up more about it because find it interesting. She pretty much go off on us, really didn't like being questioned so she definitely stood out for that. Another one and I'll try to refrain from what I think her political beliefs were but it should kind of seep through regardless, you should probably, you'll probably be able to tell just from me explaining this little interaction. Nutrition, we were all assigned a macronutrient that we needed to research and research, look up stuff about, I don't really call that research but learn stuff about it. Diet was iron and over the course of it wound up, obviously you need to look into what the general diet is like in your region, in my case that would be the United States so look up what the iron consumption is for the mean and median for the United States diet but also what the upper and lower quartiles are and upper and lower extremes are and get an idea of what is rich with that macronutrient, what happens when you have an excess of that macronutrient versus a deficiency in that macronutrient, what should seem like pretty obvious stuff and I was able to get all of that, did a presentation on it, during the presentation made a comment just essentially part of the presentation really that I did not understand given the information about the American diet I could find, why such a large percentage of Americans had an iron deficiency, now it's not crazy high numbers by any means but it also seemed way higher than could be explained through some of the obvious ways that iron deficiency occurs, I think most people would interpret that as here's a student, somebody at a learning institution expressing that he doesn't know something, that's an opportunity to teach him right, she interpreted that as me being sexist towards women, the comment of I don't understand how why given the American diet there's this high prevalence of iron deficiency, nothing about sex at all, nothing about any subgroup at all as sexist which is particularly interesting because I even found figures earlier about the prevalence of iron deficiency caused by menstruation, those numbers were extremely low which is part of why I was surprised the actual prevalence of iron deficiency was so high in this country, again so high with respect to the diet we have in general, the overall levels of iron deficiency in this country are extremely low, so it was already with recognition that this is not why this is happening, this seems to be caused by some sort of dietary anomaly or something, she basically went off on me for being sexist in her opinion to which I just responded I don't understand this, why are you accusing me of something instead of explaining why to which she shut up immediately after, I think she realized she got a bit triggered, I have no other way of explaining that, I'm not trying to be mean toward women in any way, I didn't understand something, I wasn't accusing anybody of anything, I did not understand something, why does that make me a bad guy, I'm at college to learn things, clearly I don't understand things, this is why I'm here, but that was interesting, that was interesting, I would eventually, it's just a few weeks after that, still trying to find research explaining why and not being able to find anything, I would eventually go ask another professor at that college who even though this should be irrelevant also happened to be a woman, asked her the same thing and she just explained to me, simple as that, I got my answer, that's all I wanted, it's the freaking answer, yeah she explained it to me nicely and I would come to find out that a few years later that professor who went off of me got fired for sexism, she was grading papers, she got caught grading papers differently based on the individual sex, was rather unfortunate how they caught that because it was because of students cheating, so they would have the same answers the whole way down and she'd grade them differently despite the same exact answers, yeah that's unfortunate, that shouldn't happen regardless of the individual sex, man or woman you shouldn't be advantaged based on your sex, it's a fucking test, answer the questions right, that's the only thing that matters on the test, but I'm sure in this day and age somebody's gonna get pissed off about that, anything else about bubbling, not really, like I said this is actually something that happens throughout all of society, we all do this, I do this, you do this, everyone does this, we like to hear ideas that fit our own pre-existing beliefs, it makes us feel good, this is why you will have a discussion with a friend who says the same fucking things back to you, you accomplish absolutely nothing, but we all do this and it feels good, all of us, it was just something I noticed, now I look at the age demographics and plenty of other statistics about the people who view this on YouTube, they're viewing this in bitchute, they have no analytics for me to look at, so I don't know who you guys are, but over on YouTube I have a good idea of who you've used my channel on, it's a lot of young people, so this just sort of a maybe this doesn't startle you as much as the experiences startled me, because it was quite an eye-opener, you're gonna get bubbling and you're gonna get bubbling for the rest of your life, those clicks that you saw in high school that for some freaking reason people said you would stop seeing afterwards, yeah that's bullshit, you will see that for the rest of your life, and you're a part of that, I'm a part of that, we're all a part of that, it's okay, that's how we work as a people, but just be aware that that's what people are like, that's what we do, have a good one.