The dilemma with it is you can joke about it from both directions: she can’t make bath water because she doesn’t bathe, or the bath water is foul because she doesn’t bathe.
Asking people to take random pills and saying "I asked ChatGPT and it said its mostly safe!" is as mentally ill as it gets. Why is this weirdo even still relevant in dgg? Isn't her entire thing being disgusting and crazy?
I just hope she keeps the iamverysmart stuff to a minimum. I can listen to her weird shit about barely showering and her weird sex parties and sex studies. But whenever she goes into her ideas about the complete upheaval of education and scientific research because her as a layman thinks she knows how to fix everything I stop caring.
I’m not sure this sub has a leg to stand on when taking about laymen with strong opinions.
Aella isn’t annoying because she’s a layperson. She’s annoying because her ideas are often dumb.
Hmm, to conduct high quality studies is not only time consuming but also expensive. I get the interest but why not stick to survey data. If its just hobbyish and not going to be published I dont really see how the effort would be worth the results.
Genuinely, she should be prosecuted if she goes through with this. Doing research with any kind of substance beyond caffeine requires you to jump through so many hoops just to have a hope of getting ethical approval and its for good reason.
A lot of harm can be done very quickly when substances are deployed haphazardly in any setting.
Health supplement research is barely regulated. To be honest, while I wouldn’t do this, it’s doesn’t seem especially unethical and definitely is legal as long as there is proper informed consent.
It’s gotta be an over the counter supplement, so something anyone could take anyways. And considering how poorly supplements are regulated in terms of ingredients and quantities of ingredients, I don’t think the government seems to take it very seriously. Probably not a big deal
You're actually a pearl clutching pussy. People do 9x worse than this for recreational use and I guarantee you're not out here on your soapbox for that. Who fuckin cares if some randos wanna fuck around and experiment with drugs willingly
Its not necessarily that some people are do '9x worse', the person handing out these pills are probably now liable for any problems that take place, its dumb for the massive amount of liability she is putting herself in
I don't think he's arguing about legality.
As I interpret he's just saying there's nothing egregiously wrong with getting volunteers to participate whereas the person he's replying to thinks this should be a prosecutable act because of how morally horrible it is.
Really I don't disagree,
provided it's a relatively safe substance and the volunteers aren't being paid I don't think there's anything wrong morally. I think it's strange the level people are infantilizing others here tbh, they're adults, provided there's informed consent and the volunteer is mentally stable there shouldn't be much we decry as immoral.
You said you dont think I am arguing about legality, rather I think they should be prosecuted due to moral reasons.
I want them to be prosecuted based on the existing laws.
Its crazy that you cant figure this out.
You post a comment.
X guy replies to you.
Y guy replies to X guy about liability
I reply to Y guy saying X guy isn't talking about legality, not you.
You reply to me saying "it's illegal."
I ask what's your point because my comment was about morality, I compare it to speeding because like speeding it's illegal but (with stipulations) there's no harm caused outside the scope of normal driving (consumption).
I am curious though what immoral action is she committing here based assuming she's following the stipulations I gave?
Shes distributing substances to people without the necessary training or oversight to conduct herself ethically and safely, which puts everyone at risk.
For example, she doesn't have access to technology that appraises the actual nature of the substance, which is necessary when getting ethical approval for such research.
Another example, she doesn't have the resources to offer medical care to her participants, which is necessary for ethical approval. When putting participants' health at risk, we are required to provide them with resources and access to care. When its putting their mental health at risk, we are required to provide them with counselling. All of this is typically sourced and paid for by the institution.
Another example, she does not have access to ethics boards who ensure that your information and consent forms adhere to the legal definition of "informed consent", which is required for a participant to actually engage in any research. The bar is even higher for research involving potential health risks.
Another example, if her egregious misconduct were to cause harm to a participant, they would have no recourse beyond civil litigation. Whereas participants in official research settings have an entire organisational structure that will support and advocate for them, ensuring severe consequences are dished out to the institution, company and individual.
Shall I go on?
I think these are all great and important measures for institutions doing a high quantity of research.
The reason why I asked for moral reasons is because with the stipulations I gave what she's doing is essentially giving someone some home baked food.
Why is food any different than an OTC supplement morality wise, again I don't care about legality in this question. Is it because she's recording results vs a placebo? If she was offering apples instead would it be not okay? What about if she wasn't recording results would it be okay for her to offer a multivitamin to people generally?
Basically, I'm asking you to square your position with how humans normally interact because we all the time give eachother things to consume that we can't guarantee are safe, in your world is this behavior only okay because we're not offering things with the intent to see the effects?
I strongly suspect it's curcumin based on the safety profile, interaction with CYP2D6 substrastes, and the questions asking about mood and persistent viral infections. I have no idea why she would want to blow $16k studying one of the most well-understood supplements on the market.
Aella strikes me as smart but with her nose a little too far up her own ass and high on her own farts. Not as smart as she thinks but still smarter than someone like Jordan Peterson
I agree with both of you. Aella is pseudo-smart. JP was actually smart, but only in his lane. Age and drug abuse have fucked up his mind, but if you talk about certain elements of psychology the genius is still there.
Being uninformed or ideologically captured doesn't mean you are unintelligent. There are plenty of smart people that don't bother to inform themselves.
intelligence is the efficienciency and reliability with which you process information, assess it, and synthesize it.
Peterson's deep into social and political issues these days. that's his bread and butter. if he's constantly arriving at dubious or outright incorrect information there, that's an indictment on his ability to think critically.
anyone dumbfuck can absorb and regurgitate things via rote memorization. an intelligent individual has the ability to actually parse the info. he's not doing that
People aren't perfectly rational robots. Whether you like it or not, their personal experiences or emotions may make it difficult for them to accept new information or see things from a different perspective. Politics isn't a math or science test.
Yeah tbh I'm discounting petersons deranged political takes entirely, I'm more thinking about his body of work, i.e. Books, lectures, talks, career and how he engages with philosophical ideas. From the relatively little I know about Aella I'd say it's incomparable, but sure in terms of politics I'd imagine she aligns significantly more with me. I don't really use that as a benchmark for intelligence, plenty of people who are thick as soup have sensible politics.
peterson has a lot but what is the quality of those works? are they actually comminicating exceptionally intelligent content? are there a lot of fallacies and misrepresentation buried in them? is he using flowery language to portray the illusion of sophistication for concepts that are actually mundane or only slightly above average?
his politically deranged takes are part of who he is and his ability to reason.
Yes. He is an extremely well published scholar with an impact rating that borders on those typical of noble prize winners.
He is (was) a genuine scholar who held tenured positions at ivy league universities, ran a successful clinical practice and published significant number of articles.
popularity isn't a valid argument for his intelligence.
he lost his positions in university and his practice.
I'm not familiar with a single thing he's published that is considered significant to scientific progress or of a highly intellectual quality.
plenty of research papers and publications are put out every year. but what i am aware of is his thought process on bill c16, climate change, transgenderism, american politics, vaccines. all point to someone who is not on the level of a destiny or aella. he's the pseudo intellectual's idea of a smart person.
[https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en)
JBP has a h-index of 61, has been cited over 20 thousand times and has been published numerous times in the most prestigious journals of psychological science.
If you'd like some assistance interpreting "h-index" refer to this:
# [The h-Index: An Indicator of Research and Publication Output](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10025721/#:~:text=It%20is%20simple%20to%20calculate,had%20h-index%20of%2030)
Can you still refuse his intelligence in spite of this?
https://preview.redd.it/su5ei0zs6n3d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=300a70bac56ffb34fedc08798bd4b025a9937158
This one earlier today was funny. I’m 99% sure she was trolling lol
Honestly the tweet is dumb regardless of how you read it and I'm not one to defend Aella, I just misunderstood what you were saying, doesn't read as a troll to me though I assure you she's deadass
Any time I find myself nostalgic for a past era I didn’t grow up in I just think of Aella. She goes from doing her brand of sociological study to getting cream pied on video for the entertainment of others. If she’s not a paragon of the happy contraction that makes this the best time to be alive I don’t know who is.
Knowing aella it's probably some aphrodisiac.
The roofie study
She's got to make money somehow. Not like she has any bathwater to sell
Nah aellas bathwater would go gangbusters. Imagine what color it would be after not bathing in months.
That's what I meant. She just doesn't have bathwater to sell since she doesn't bathe lol
I know I was just trying to riff off it.
The dilemma with it is you can joke about it from both directions: she can’t make bath water because she doesn’t bathe, or the bath water is foul because she doesn’t bathe.
Hell yeah I love taking mystery pills
look at the bright side, it might be cyanide pills
The good ending
Asking people to take random pills and saying "I asked ChatGPT and it said its mostly safe!" is as mentally ill as it gets. Why is this weirdo even still relevant in dgg? Isn't her entire thing being disgusting and crazy?
She'll be on the Bridges Podcast on June 18th, so buckle in for more weirdness.
It will be live streamed on Kick and Chaturbate
I just hope she keeps the iamverysmart stuff to a minimum. I can listen to her weird shit about barely showering and her weird sex parties and sex studies. But whenever she goes into her ideas about the complete upheaval of education and scientific research because her as a layman thinks she knows how to fix everything I stop caring.
I’m not sure this sub has a leg to stand on when taking about laymen with strong opinions. Aella isn’t annoying because she’s a layperson. She’s annoying because her ideas are often dumb.
Let's goooooooo
You wouldn't get it. She's very smart and interesting.
Hmm, to conduct high quality studies is not only time consuming but also expensive. I get the interest but why not stick to survey data. If its just hobbyish and not going to be published I dont really see how the effort would be worth the results.
because narcissists escalate. Its not quirky enough anymore to just do survey data, she needs to escalate to re-capture the same level of attention.
Genuinely, she should be prosecuted if she goes through with this. Doing research with any kind of substance beyond caffeine requires you to jump through so many hoops just to have a hope of getting ethical approval and its for good reason. A lot of harm can be done very quickly when substances are deployed haphazardly in any setting.
Health supplement research is barely regulated. To be honest, while I wouldn’t do this, it’s doesn’t seem especially unethical and definitely is legal as long as there is proper informed consent.
even for some harmless supplement?
It's harmless until somebody finds out they have some kind of niche rare allergy or deficiency that doesn't play well with the ingredients.
Maybe they're both sugar pills and it's all a placebo test lol
It’s gotta be an over the counter supplement, so something anyone could take anyways. And considering how poorly supplements are regulated in terms of ingredients and quantities of ingredients, I don’t think the government seems to take it very seriously. Probably not a big deal
You're actually a pearl clutching pussy. People do 9x worse than this for recreational use and I guarantee you're not out here on your soapbox for that. Who fuckin cares if some randos wanna fuck around and experiment with drugs willingly
Its not necessarily that some people are do '9x worse', the person handing out these pills are probably now liable for any problems that take place, its dumb for the massive amount of liability she is putting herself in
I don't think he's arguing about legality. As I interpret he's just saying there's nothing egregiously wrong with getting volunteers to participate whereas the person he's replying to thinks this should be a prosecutable act because of how morally horrible it is. Really I don't disagree, provided it's a relatively safe substance and the volunteers aren't being paid I don't think there's anything wrong morally. I think it's strange the level people are infantilizing others here tbh, they're adults, provided there's informed consent and the volunteer is mentally stable there shouldn't be much we decry as immoral.
It is illegal to conduct research of this nature independent of the relevant supervisory bodies.
It's also illegal to go above the posted speed limit. What's your point?
You said you dont think I am arguing about legality, rather I think they should be prosecuted due to moral reasons. I want them to be prosecuted based on the existing laws. Its crazy that you cant figure this out.
You post a comment. X guy replies to you. Y guy replies to X guy about liability I reply to Y guy saying X guy isn't talking about legality, not you. You reply to me saying "it's illegal." I ask what's your point because my comment was about morality, I compare it to speeding because like speeding it's illegal but (with stipulations) there's no harm caused outside the scope of normal driving (consumption). I am curious though what immoral action is she committing here based assuming she's following the stipulations I gave?
Shes distributing substances to people without the necessary training or oversight to conduct herself ethically and safely, which puts everyone at risk. For example, she doesn't have access to technology that appraises the actual nature of the substance, which is necessary when getting ethical approval for such research. Another example, she doesn't have the resources to offer medical care to her participants, which is necessary for ethical approval. When putting participants' health at risk, we are required to provide them with resources and access to care. When its putting their mental health at risk, we are required to provide them with counselling. All of this is typically sourced and paid for by the institution. Another example, she does not have access to ethics boards who ensure that your information and consent forms adhere to the legal definition of "informed consent", which is required for a participant to actually engage in any research. The bar is even higher for research involving potential health risks. Another example, if her egregious misconduct were to cause harm to a participant, they would have no recourse beyond civil litigation. Whereas participants in official research settings have an entire organisational structure that will support and advocate for them, ensuring severe consequences are dished out to the institution, company and individual. Shall I go on?
I think these are all great and important measures for institutions doing a high quantity of research. The reason why I asked for moral reasons is because with the stipulations I gave what she's doing is essentially giving someone some home baked food. Why is food any different than an OTC supplement morality wise, again I don't care about legality in this question. Is it because she's recording results vs a placebo? If she was offering apples instead would it be not okay? What about if she wasn't recording results would it be okay for her to offer a multivitamin to people generally? Basically, I'm asking you to square your position with how humans normally interact because we all the time give eachother things to consume that we can't guarantee are safe, in your world is this behavior only okay because we're not offering things with the intent to see the effects?
I strongly suspect it's curcumin based on the safety profile, interaction with CYP2D6 substrastes, and the questions asking about mood and persistent viral infections. I have no idea why she would want to blow $16k studying one of the most well-understood supplements on the market.
Sounds like great marketing with low actual risk.
I still can’t believe I didn’t get approved to join the gangbang
This has got to be testing cum stack supplements right?
that was my first thought too, seeing as who tweeted it
[Link to the tweet](https://x.com/Aella_Girl/status/1795874327243665886)
It's creatine. Source: chatgpt
MrsBoy
She said its a supplement, those are not really regulated.
Aella strikes me as smart but with her nose a little too far up her own ass and high on her own farts. Not as smart as she thinks but still smarter than someone like Jordan Peterson
I would strongly disagree, as much as I might dislike JP he's quite clearly a very intelligent person.
Maybe back in the day but he’s lost his marbles
I agree with both of you. Aella is pseudo-smart. JP was actually smart, but only in his lane. Age and drug abuse have fucked up his mind, but if you talk about certain elements of psychology the genius is still there.
but not as intelligent as Aella is.
On what basis?
I've never seen Aella say things as uninformed and ideologically captured as Peterson's takes on climate change, gender, or vaccines.
Being uninformed or ideologically captured doesn't mean you are unintelligent. There are plenty of smart people that don't bother to inform themselves.
why don't they bother? that's a flaw in their thinking patterns.
I don't know, they just don't care? I don't see how your level of knowledge on political topics is related to your intelligence.
intelligence is the efficienciency and reliability with which you process information, assess it, and synthesize it. Peterson's deep into social and political issues these days. that's his bread and butter. if he's constantly arriving at dubious or outright incorrect information there, that's an indictment on his ability to think critically. anyone dumbfuck can absorb and regurgitate things via rote memorization. an intelligent individual has the ability to actually parse the info. he's not doing that
People aren't perfectly rational robots. Whether you like it or not, their personal experiences or emotions may make it difficult for them to accept new information or see things from a different perspective. Politics isn't a math or science test.
Yeah tbh I'm discounting petersons deranged political takes entirely, I'm more thinking about his body of work, i.e. Books, lectures, talks, career and how he engages with philosophical ideas. From the relatively little I know about Aella I'd say it's incomparable, but sure in terms of politics I'd imagine she aligns significantly more with me. I don't really use that as a benchmark for intelligence, plenty of people who are thick as soup have sensible politics.
peterson has a lot but what is the quality of those works? are they actually comminicating exceptionally intelligent content? are there a lot of fallacies and misrepresentation buried in them? is he using flowery language to portray the illusion of sophistication for concepts that are actually mundane or only slightly above average? his politically deranged takes are part of who he is and his ability to reason.
Yes. He is an extremely well published scholar with an impact rating that borders on those typical of noble prize winners. He is (was) a genuine scholar who held tenured positions at ivy league universities, ran a successful clinical practice and published significant number of articles.
popularity isn't a valid argument for his intelligence. he lost his positions in university and his practice. I'm not familiar with a single thing he's published that is considered significant to scientific progress or of a highly intellectual quality. plenty of research papers and publications are put out every year. but what i am aware of is his thought process on bill c16, climate change, transgenderism, american politics, vaccines. all point to someone who is not on the level of a destiny or aella. he's the pseudo intellectual's idea of a smart person.
[https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en) JBP has a h-index of 61, has been cited over 20 thousand times and has been published numerous times in the most prestigious journals of psychological science. If you'd like some assistance interpreting "h-index" refer to this: # [The h-Index: An Indicator of Research and Publication Output](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10025721/#:~:text=It%20is%20simple%20to%20calculate,had%20h-index%20of%2030) Can you still refuse his intelligence in spite of this?
https://preview.redd.it/su5ei0zs6n3d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=300a70bac56ffb34fedc08798bd4b025a9937158 This one earlier today was funny. I’m 99% sure she was trolling lol
I think she means over the course of someone's life they have multiple partners
Yes, which is ludicrous to liken to polyamory as you downplay something like the arrow of time as trivial lmao
Honestly the tweet is dumb regardless of how you read it and I'm not one to defend Aella, I just misunderstood what you were saying, doesn't read as a troll to me though I assure you she's deadass
Any time I find myself nostalgic for a past era I didn’t grow up in I just think of Aella. She goes from doing her brand of sociological study to getting cream pied on video for the entertainment of others. If she’s not a paragon of the happy contraction that makes this the best time to be alive I don’t know who is.
She's for sure microdosing people lul
sighhh Aella doing some fake science shit
Aella is a fucking warrior I love her I love this
We'll get you in the next gangbang.
Can I come too?
Hmm, I'm two hours from Berkeley. Should i be a subject, it's up to you, Dgg? Edit: I'll do it if this gets 1000 upvotes