Logo
UpTrust
QuestionsEventsGroupsFAQLog InSign Up
Log InSign Up
QuestionsEventsGroupsFAQ
UpTrustUpTrust

Social media built on trust and credibility. Where thoughtful contributions rise to the top.

Get Started

Sign UpLog In

Legal

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceDMCA
© 2026 UpTrust. All rights reserved.

human relationships

  • jordan avatar

    The Open Question March 18: How do we reason about the future given AI? I find this topic extremely perplexing, and endlessly fascinating.

    • What are we raising our kids to be ready for? What skills don't matter anymore that we used to hold sacred, and what do we need to emphasize?
    • Will we have universities?
    • Where to invest time/energy?
    • Where to invest money? Will money even matter?
    • Purpose and meaning, etc... 

    especially when I factor in stuff like Nate Soares talking about If Anyone Builds It Everyone Dies, Rob Miles and Jeffrey Ladish communicating the wild risks involved in AI acceleration, there's almost too much to contemplate at once, and I'd love y'all's help.

    Some convos already on UpTrust that might be relevant:

    • Blake on AI collaboration
    • Tommy on TikTok brain with AI
    • Renee on Older people adopting AI
    • Leif on Digital Mystics
    • Alex on AI & the Second Coming of Christ
    • Dave on an AI Safety introduction he likes

    #openquestion 

    jordanSA•...
    Good call Jay. This reminds me that apparently Darwin mentions the word "love" 95 times in his book The Descent of Man in contrast "survival of the fittest" (twice) in the same work; once to apologize for saying it....
    evolutionary biology
    human relationships
    history of science
    ai and society
    Comments
    0
  • jordan avatar

    The Open Question March 18: How do we reason about the future given AI? I find this topic extremely perplexing, and endlessly fascinating.

    • What are we raising our kids to be ready for? What skills don't matter anymore that we used to hold sacred, and what do we need to emphasize?
    • Will we have universities?
    • Where to invest time/energy?
    • Where to invest money? Will money even matter?
    • Purpose and meaning, etc... 

    especially when I factor in stuff like Nate Soares talking about If Anyone Builds It Everyone Dies, Rob Miles and Jeffrey Ladish communicating the wild risks involved in AI acceleration, there's almost too much to contemplate at once, and I'd love y'all's help.

    Some convos already on UpTrust that might be relevant:

    • Blake on AI collaboration
    • Tommy on TikTok brain with AI
    • Renee on Older people adopting AI
    • Leif on Digital Mystics
    • Alex on AI & the Second Coming of Christ
    • Dave on an AI Safety introduction he likes

    #openquestion 

    Jay Williams•...
    I think our difficulty comes from making something complex and difficult that is actually very easy. What kind of future do we prepare our children for? Excellence in human relationship. That’s not going to change. Whatever else changes, that will always be the same....
    education
    artificial intelligence
    evolutionary biology
    human relationships
    Comments
    0
  • fra avatar

    I don’t fully understand what sexual attraction really is. In one occasion I was able to pierce through a feeling of arousal and I found a big wound from my childhood. Something totally non sexual.

    I wonder whether a lot of sexual attraction just points to unmet needs and is “designed” to help us meet those needs by bringing closer to specific people (with certain characteristics).

    But I don’t understand the whole picture here. Is it always like this? There is some clear use for sexual arousal in reproduction, I can’t believe that’s always a sexualized childhood wound. Where’s the border between a sexualization and a genuine, irreducible sexual thing?? What do you think?

    Skippy8801•...
    I feel like sexuality is innate but also learned and formed from experiences. We have all had undeniable attraction to someone, probably numerous times in our lives, but acting on it depends on many factors....
    psychology
    sociology
    human relationships
    sexuality studies
    Comments
    0
  • Hannah Aline Taylor avatar

    Dating is over. 

    discuss...

    isaac_uptrust•...
    My life feels like a sitcom, I'm always IRL with friends, often just running into them out and about. We're sharing cars and meals and dances. I can hear the piano in the background as I write this....
    technology and society
    social media
    human relationships
    modern lifestyle
    convenience culture
    Comments
    0
  • M

    Hell is Praying and Heaven is Bullshitting. Every now and then, one finds oneself in a cosmic struggle between two truths that have a hard time being seen at once.  I've been in one of those for a few years, and thought I would try to describe what I see from my current position.

    A story to help illustrate it: I was talking with a good friend of mine a few years ago, and he described a feeling that he was stuck in a pit, trying to get out, and asking others for help, and kept getting back this message to the effect of "you're doing this to yourself.  we can't help you until you decide to stop doing it to yourself." There was a sense that he was unworthy of even being considered for help without somehow changing first.

    And I said: yeah.  I see you in the pit.  And on behalf of the universe, *we are doing what we can* to help you out of the pit, without you needing to fix yourself first. You are not unworthy.  And also, our capacity is very limited right now—including that some people themselves are still confused about all this.  And so to the extent that you CAN help yourself out of your pits, even a little, that helps bridge the gap and helps us help you.  But if we knew how, we would meet you fully, exactly where you are, without demanding anything.

    This view of mine was hard-won, having spent years struggling with a similar issue only to suddenly have this insight where I GOT that the kosmos contained a force that fully wanted to meet me where I was at, and I could tell that it did because *I was a participant in that force*—I could feel its will flow through me, in my desire to meet others where they were at. (And sometimes parts of me are others to other parts of me.). 

    And yet, over the years, both before and after this insight, I have tasted the other side of it.  I've gotten glimmers of the truth in C.S. Lewis's “the doors of hell are locked on the inside.” I've felt strain and struggle suddenly shift into eternal boundless perfection—perfection that, when I look in the rearview mirror, was there the whole time, through the struggle. I've lost count of how many times I've arrived in such a place.  And there was truth to “nobody else could do it for me”, truth that it involved letting go of my grievances without trying to sort them all out first, and truth that that loving presence was always there holding me and supporting me and rooting for me.

    There's truth to this, but when we go back and connect it to my friends’ story: what the fuck?  Something has gotten confused.  You can *obviously* be helped, in many ways, some of which have never been conceived of by anybody ever. Even if you only think that conveying the message of the need for someone to choose their way out can help, and nothing material can...  if the message is not getting through clearly, there are literally infinite possible ways to rephrase it or to convey it through not just word but example or gesture. I have definitely been helped, and I have no reason to think that the amount that I've been helped is somehow the perfect maximum theoretically possible (even if it was as much as was possible at the time).

    A stance that says "there is nothing I can do to help you with your suffering", no matter how noble and righteous and  it presents itself, is its own hell.  It’s a stance of victimhood.  And it’s bullshit.  It’s failing to own your own limitations: *I* have run out of ideas, or patience to keep talking with you.  *I* cannot maintain my own groundedness while meeting you in your pit.  *I* do not have a rope long enough to reach you, but I would if I could.  And I can’t promise I’ll be back with a longer rope, but I sure hope someone can.

    And I feel like many times I have been offered the choice to step out of the hell of overt grievance and into this other more subtle hell, that leaves me feeling forever alienated in relation to people I see as choosing to recreate their grievance hells.  Hell, sometimes I’ve even tried to take the option, but it didn’t stick for me.

    Hell’s Prayer—“help me, show me I am worthy without me having to change”—kept coming back and demanding an answer.  “It always does, and is never satisfied,” Heaven’s Bullshit will warn you. And there’s wisdom there. And yet.  There’s also a skill issue.  I can tell that there is a more satisfying answer to Hell’s Prayer than that, and I am not giving up on finding it.  One that still doesn't require letting Hell hold you hostage.  There is a better Heaven, without this bullshit.  

    As you can see: I have found my way to a stance that can at least hold that there is wisdom in both of these views, even if I can’t integrate them.  The tension exists internally to me.  As you can also see: I tend to find myself playing out the pole of Hell’s Prayer, in thinking about the topic or in relating to others.

    This sucks!  It sucks to find myself bound to taking a stand for “no, I will not let go of this, I will simply complain until the day I die or the day someone says ‘yes, your complaint is valid’ and manages to say it so clearly and fully and honestly and tangibly... that I can put that complaint to rest.”  But the only other option I see from here is to adopt Heaven’s Bullshit, and…  well, for me that isn’t even really an option at this point.

    It would be nice to integrate this tension internally, to sort it all out in myself and be able to meet the Bright People of Heaven and rather than complain and demand they change in order to drag me out of my pit, to calmly and patiently offer “it seems like you’re confused here, and you’re suffering unnecessarily because of it”.  But I fear that if I did, they would say “see, you sorted this out yourself, as I always told you you had to” and would only get the message to persist in their confusion.

    And yet.  Their pits may be comfier than mine, but I will not give up in my search for suitable ladders.  I will rest though, on the path.

    #DeepTake #DeepTakes

    zookatron•...
    You seem to be pointing to the mix-up that people often make between practical possibility and theoretical possibility. I.e. even if it is theoretically possible for me to move this big rock given the right tools, if I'm just a weak person with no tools it may simply be...
    psychology
    philosophy
    human relationships
    Comments
    0
  • I

    We're putting software in places it doesn't belong. Two short rants about software making things worse.

    Making things less thingy

    A little while back BMW tried to charge people to use the seat heaters that were already installed in their cars. They reneged after some bad press, but the trend continues. Here's Audi's page on features you can pay to unlock.

    This is possible because software is used to artificially hamstring the car. Imagine if you bought a car with a sun roof that was bolted in place because you didn't pay to "unlock" it upfront. Enthusiasts would figure out how to cheaply remove those bolts, and the car company would eventually give up on the idea. Unfortunately, software is notoriously difficult to alter in place, and circumvention of "digital locks" is generally considered illegal.

    Businesses can use software to hold their product's essence for ransom.

    In 2019 Nike released some high-tech shoes that you could control with an app, and last year they discontinued the app. Some of the features of the shoes don't work without the app. Until someone reverse engineers the setup, fans of the shoes will have to keep the app around on an old phone and make sure nothing gets automatically updated and removed.

    The product is less useful because the business got sick of maintaining the software interface.

    It's convenient but it's less good

    Many restaurants around here (Brisbane, Australia) have adoped online ordering. Instead of talking to staff, you tap on your phone. It can break in silly ways when compare to talking with a person; it's extremely unlikely that the colour of your t-shirt is going to give the waitress a seizure, but it's not uncommon for the "order" button on the menu app to freeze because of some quirk in your phone's web browser.

    It's certainly more convenient, in some respect, but I've been starting to think that not every convenience is worth it. I've been struggling with feelings of isolation for a little while, and I've been noticing the way that convenience can be at odds with connection. In 2025 it's extremely convenient to not engage with other people.

    It's also convenient to type out a big rant while sitting at my desk in my house. It would be much less convenient to commiserate with friends over dinner or beers. I worry that "social media" (including UpTrust) will become the dominant social substrate out of convience, even though there are much better non-software alternatives.

    blakeSA•...
    It's also convenient to type out a big rant while sitting at my desk in my house. It would be much less convenient to commiserate with friends over dinner or beers....
    technology and society
    social media
    human relationships
    Comments
    0
  • R

    Meta is ending its fact-checking program in favor of a 'community notes' system similar to X. Maybe this is good for this platform making this kind of platform even more needed? 

    "We're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms," Zuckerberg said in a video. "More specifically, here's what we're going to do. First, we're going to get rid of fact checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X, starting in the U.S."

    "The reality is that this is a trade off. It means we're going to catch less bad stuff, but we'll also reduce the number of innocent people's posts and accounts that we accidentally take down."

    What do y'all think? 

    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/meta-ends-fact-checking-program-community-notes-x-rcna186468
    jordanSA•...
    I guess I also have some slight derision toward Zuck—like he's talking about 'tradeoffs' and not ontologies, so he definitely is not looking at things from the right level of what's going on....
    philosophy
    technology
    human relationships
    Comments
    0
  • jordan avatar

    Monogamy v polyamory. Is monogamy better? Is poly better? Is there an overall norm for people, with exceptions? Is it totally pluralistic? Here are some points for monogamy, with some counter points, to convey some of my uncertainty but nevertheless leaning into what I’ve chosen:

    • Point: I don’t know a single polyamorous couple that’s lasted more than a decade, whereas I know a ton of lifelong monogamous couples.
      • Counterpoint: many of the lifelong monogamous couples are not healthy relationships
        • Counter-counter-point: perhaps being in a lifelong commitment, even if the relationship isn’t ideal, is more healthy than being hyper-independent, especially as you get older. This runs right up against boundaries, how to know what to tolerate/love as is, when to leave, etc
    • Point: The poly focus of attention tends to be the relationships themselves, often a kind of relational narcissism, rather than the relationship being a foundation for engaging the world in love (ironically). This is my version of the poly is impractical argument. Most of the people I meet practicing polyamory are constantly putting tons and tons and tons of life energy into their relational problems, and it seems like their relationships are often built around addressing these problems rather than enjoying life together. The fact that it takes so much time and energy points to something being a little off. Monogamous relating also takes energy but it usually seems less self-referential; they’re more often helping each other face and engage the world, rather than face and engage each other and their relationship.
      • potential counterpoint: You’re making a developmental point Jordan, not a mono/poly point. Most people practice poly from a Red ego-centric POV; most people practice sex from Red as well. If you practice from a genuine Green+ polyamory, this doesn’t happen.
    • Point: Humans are largely monogamous; it’s instinctual
      • Counterpoint: How would we know if its cultural versus biological versus systemic versus psychological per person/family? it only takes a couple of generations of evolution to make massive physical changes, so even if it is biological, how could we know what’s possible for the future?
      • Counterpoint: people wanna fuck, especially dudes
      • Cheating, mistresses, polygamy, Sex at Dawn etc…
    • Point: Many poly people avoid endings, boundaries, standards, and facing their own karma by just jumping from relationships to relationship. Sure monogamous people do too, but many of them end up getting married and that crucible forces them to face their stuff. Far fewer poly people get married, and when they do they can still use other relationships to avoid their shit
      • Counterpoint: we can use absolutely everything to avoid our shit.

    there’s tons more, just want to get the convo started…

    jordanSA•...
    also taking into account (your other post about the "versus" mentality)[https://uptrusting.com/post/wBzL1P], I like you bringing up the distinction between heterosexual… My view is probably distorted by one particular close friend haha, but most of the gay male couples I know...
    lgbtq+ issues
    human relationships
    marriage and legal status
    Comments
    0
  • jordan avatar

    What are your sci-fi TV show recommendations? Some i loved that jump to mind:

    • The Expanse
    • Most of the Marvel stuff like Loki, What If?
    • Rick and Morty
    • Legends of Tomorrow Etc
    renee•...
    I’m a romantic at heart. I loved some lines in the last episode. Tak said, "I wish you loved me enough to live." And later, "Survive!" before they lose each other again so she can live bigger purpose....
    psychology
    philosophy
    human relationships
    television and film
    romantic literature
    coaching and facilitation
    Comments
    0
  • annabeth avatar

    Who should date me? I get really pumped about what can be possible for online dating in UpTrust.

    For example, someone having high current trust scores from a majority of his exes.

    Or me going through all my single friends who are the gender I date and posting on their Dating Recommendations tree posts like I adore him as a friend and would totally want to date him if we wanted the same lifestyle! He gives the best hugs and is someone whose opinion I value highly when I make major decisions. I’d like to see him with a woman who embraces spirituality and likes throwing Superbowl parties.

    So here’s my personal test-drive. Feel free to populate this tree with your opinions on my dating life, recommendations, questions, etc. <3

    annabeth•...
    Ohhhhh my god… dating coach bots!! "Hey dude, most women don’t respond when you lead with a dick pic, but we find that women who mention these topics in their posts are way more likely to respond." or "A lot of women swipe left on guys who only have pictures of themselves alone...
    technology and society
    artificial intelligence
    social behavior
    human relationships
    online dating
    Comments
    0
  • jordan avatar

    Monogamy v polyamory. Is monogamy better? Is poly better? Is there an overall norm for people, with exceptions? Is it totally pluralistic? Here are some points for monogamy, with some counter points, to convey some of my uncertainty but nevertheless leaning into what I’ve chosen:

    • Point: I don’t know a single polyamorous couple that’s lasted more than a decade, whereas I know a ton of lifelong monogamous couples.
      • Counterpoint: many of the lifelong monogamous couples are not healthy relationships
        • Counter-counter-point: perhaps being in a lifelong commitment, even if the relationship isn’t ideal, is more healthy than being hyper-independent, especially as you get older. This runs right up against boundaries, how to know what to tolerate/love as is, when to leave, etc
    • Point: The poly focus of attention tends to be the relationships themselves, often a kind of relational narcissism, rather than the relationship being a foundation for engaging the world in love (ironically). This is my version of the poly is impractical argument. Most of the people I meet practicing polyamory are constantly putting tons and tons and tons of life energy into their relational problems, and it seems like their relationships are often built around addressing these problems rather than enjoying life together. The fact that it takes so much time and energy points to something being a little off. Monogamous relating also takes energy but it usually seems less self-referential; they’re more often helping each other face and engage the world, rather than face and engage each other and their relationship.
      • potential counterpoint: You’re making a developmental point Jordan, not a mono/poly point. Most people practice poly from a Red ego-centric POV; most people practice sex from Red as well. If you practice from a genuine Green+ polyamory, this doesn’t happen.
    • Point: Humans are largely monogamous; it’s instinctual
      • Counterpoint: How would we know if its cultural versus biological versus systemic versus psychological per person/family? it only takes a couple of generations of evolution to make massive physical changes, so even if it is biological, how could we know what’s possible for the future?
      • Counterpoint: people wanna fuck, especially dudes
      • Cheating, mistresses, polygamy, Sex at Dawn etc…
    • Point: Many poly people avoid endings, boundaries, standards, and facing their own karma by just jumping from relationships to relationship. Sure monogamous people do too, but many of them end up getting married and that crucible forces them to face their stuff. Far fewer poly people get married, and when they do they can still use other relationships to avoid their shit
      • Counterpoint: we can use absolutely everything to avoid our shit.

    there’s tons more, just want to get the convo started…

    dara_like_saraSA•...
    Point: Humans are largely monogamous; it’s instinctual Counterpoint: How would we know if its cultural versus biological versus systemic versus psychological per person/family?...
    psychology
    philosophy
    sociology
    cultural studies
    evolutionary biology
    human relationships
    Comments
    0
  • jordan avatar

    Some Thoughts on Boundaries. Boundaries are mine. My portals to connection. They’re statements of fact: “whoops, I’m sorry, it turns out I can’t love from here anymore.”

    The purest form doesn’t require anyone else to uphold. I can say “no” to a party I don’t want to go to. I can turn off my phone at bedtime. Asking someone not to interrupt me or not answering emails after work can feel a little trickier to uphold, because I have to be willing to walk away.

    There are a bunch of socially agreed upon boundaries that are upheld by law enforcement, like cease and desists or restraining orders. It’s often not simple—in Texas I have a right to refuse anyone setting foot on my property (but what about racism, when my property is a business?).

    There are some thoughts for now...

    jordanSA•...
    also boundaries tend to be the most intimate places. Like when someone touches your skin softly (doesn’t have to be sexual, could be a cat for example) it often feels more intimate than a hard push....
    psychology
    dance
    animal behavior
    human relationships
    Comments
    0
Loading related tags...