everybody say thank you ao3
h
Cosmic Funnies
Jules of Nature

izzy's playlists!
ojovivo
YOU ARE THE REASON

titsay
Three Goblin Art
todays bird

@theartofmadeline
KIROKAZE

Discoholic đȘ©

JVL
tumblr dot com
hello vonnie
No title available

â

oozey mess

Janaina Medeiros
Sweet Seals For You, Always

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Belgium
seen from Romania

seen from Japan

seen from United States

seen from Belarus

seen from Peru
seen from United Kingdom
seen from T1
seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from United States

seen from South Korea
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Lithuania

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
@boneslenm
everybody say thank you ao3
writers, instead of asking ai for help, you can always use your childhood trauma and repressed issues to help you with that fic
She got the idea for the study while walking with her advisor at Stanford to discuss her thesis topic, and the paper she eventually published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2014 is sharp enough that it should have ended the seated meeting on the day it came out.
She ran 4 experiments on 176 people. Same person tested twice. Once sitting, once walking. The creativity tasks were the standard ones psychologists have used for decades to measure how good a brain is at generating novel useful ideas.
81% of participants in the first experiment produced more creative ideas while walking than while sitting. In the second experiment, 88%. In the third, 100%. Every single person walked into a more creative version of themselves. On average, people generated 60% more novel useful ideas the moment their legs started moving.
The skeptical question is the obvious one. Maybe it was the fresh air. Maybe it was the scenery passing by. Maybe it was the change of environment doing the work, not the walking itself.
Oppezzo killed every one of those explanations with one experimental decision. She put people on a treadmill facing a blank wall. No scenery. No fresh air. No environmental change. Just legs moving in place while staring at white drywall. The 60% boost held.
Then she ran the experiment that closed the case completely. She took participants outside in two conditions. Half of them walked through a Stanford courtyard. The other half were pushed through the exact same courtyard in a wheelchair. Same outdoor stimulation. Same scenery passing at the same speed. The only difference was whether the legs were moving.
The walkers produced dramatically more novel high-quality ideas than the wheelchair group. The outdoors did almost nothing on its own. The walking did everything.
She also tested the opposite kind of thinking. Convergent thinking. The kind where there is one right answer and you have to narrow down to it. Word puzzles where 3 words share a hidden fourth word that connects them. The seated participants did slightly better on these. Walkers got slightly worse.
Walking is not a general intelligence enhancer. It does one specific thing. It opens up the divergent search inside your brain. The part that generates options. The part that produces unexpected connections. The part that takes a problem and finds five ways into it instead of one.
When you need to converge on the single right answer, sit down. When you need to find the answer in the first place, get up.
The mechanism is now well understood. Walking selectively activates what neuroscientists call the default mode network, the system inside your brain that runs when you are not consciously focused on anything. The DMN is where mind-wandering happens. Where memories cross-reference each other. Where ideas that have been sitting in separate folders inside your head finally bump into each other.
When you sit at a desk and force yourself to concentrate, you suppress the DMN. When you walk at a natural pace, the executive part of your brain gets just busy enough handling the walking that the DMN comes online and starts doing the work that focus was blocking.
The most useful finding in the entire paper is the one almost nobody quotes. The boost did not turn off the moment people stopped walking. Participants who walked first and then sat back down stayed elevated. Their next round of seated creativity work was still significantly better than people who had been sitting the whole time. The rest lingered for at least several minutes after the legs stopped moving.
You do not need to do creative work while walking. You need to walk before the creative work. The brain holds the state.
Edited down a long tweet. (x)
[runs hands down face]
Okay this is the problem with sharing pop science stuff online and content aggregation accounts
The study is real, it's very easy to find by searching up the author's name + study. Give it a read yourself. It's written in a pretty accessible way imo.
Note that it does not put forward any explanations for why this effect happens, only that it does. In the conclusion it posits many possible reasons for why, and that it's most likely nothing to do with the specific action of walking, merely any semi automatic repetitive activity. They also acknowledge the study did not account for the social company the walkers were in, which is a pretty massive factor imo. Considering the conclusion brings up MANY alternative explanations and future experiment possibilities, it's decidedly not "killed every alternative explanation" like the tweet says. The actual paper ends like most scientific papers, listing alternative possible explanations, these are preliminary results, more research is needed, wider demographics of people need to be included, etc.
Another thing is the phrasing of these tweets are like red flags flapping in the wind to me. Any short form social media content that's 1. Pop science 2. Conveys absolute certainty 3. Ends with self improvement biohacking adjacent advice, should set off alarm bells.
Look at the implications that if the tweets were true, it would mean wheelchair users and people with mobility issues would be inherently worse at creative tasks.
So who is this person that's tweeting this, rephrasing this paper in a "helpful" way that is sure to get shares from people who really value being creative and are looking for any way to become more creative in their -
OFC ITS AN AI BRO
You wanna see what his recent articles look like?
CAN WE STOP GETTING BAITED INTO PLATFORMING GRIFTERS
Thank you! There were so many red flags in the first post's language. The original paper straight up says that the mechanisms weren't isolated! Also there is no single part of the brain responsible for creative idea generation, it involves communication between multiple brain networks.
Glad I wasn't the only person who looked at this and thought that it was weird to say this study is SO perfect when the way it's framed here directly implies that people who can't walk are inherently less capable of being creative than people who can.
I can't leave a reply but to the disabled people in the notes who now genuinely seem to believe their mobility issues have robbed them of their ability to be creative pls don't think that! That's not what this study said! You're dealing with ableist misinformation from an AI bro, the study did not make these claims. I encourage everyone who's shared the version without the corrections to take them down, this misinfo is hurting already clearly hurting disabled people and should not be spread.
I love, love, LOVE it when I can tell a fic author has integrated their specialized knowledge in a fic. I was reading a fic that at some point included the character going to visit an art therapist, and it's so clear that the author is an art therapist themself, and the details included are just immaculate and I love it. I've previously read about a character doing fencing for no other reason than the author clearly wanting to write a sport they understood. A character being given a hyperfixation on bugs just so the author can infodump themselves.
I eat it up every time, it brings such a smile to my face
New favourite addition
curious. anyway,
Never forget how far youâve come, despite how far you still have to go
"christian characters in movies are poorly written because the writers are atheist" "atheist characters in movies are poorly written because the writers are christian" stop fighting. all human experience is poorly written in movies because the writers are californian
HAVE THAT CHARACTER GAIN WEIGHT AS A SIGN OF HEALING: NOW
I will reblog this every time it crosses my dash.
People who donât get this infuriate me
like a fuckin' child (10,179 words) by boneslen
Fandom:Â The Boys (TV 2019) Rating: Mature Relationships: Billy Butcher/The Homelander | John Additional Tags: Angst, Fix-It, Implied/Referenced Child Abuse, Implied Childhood Sexual Abuse, The Homelander | John Whump, Character Study, Childhood Trauma, Sexual Tension, No Smut, Blood and Injury, Internal Conflict, Canon Rewrite Summary: It all collapses onto Butcher, a single moment of pain, the sort of empathy only his brother was capable of. He canât merge the monster with the child in front of him. Like heâs suddenly wearing red boots five sizes too large in a costume thatâll never fit, confused at why this big, scary man is hurting him.
Or; Butcher tries to kill Homelander, but only sees a childâand what was done to him.
Iâm scared
simple metaphors are boring! instead, write the most confusing and incoherent metaphor ever to confuse your readers into thinking its actually good!
writing is so fun until you run out of pre-planned plot and you stand at the precipice and slowly realise that you never really had a plot in the first place
An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works
Chapters: 1/1 Fandom: Pluribus (TV 2025) Rating: General Audiences Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply Relationships: Manousos Oviedo & Carol Sturka Characters: Carol Sturka, Manousos Oviedo Additional Tags: Short One Shot, Discussions of sexuality, Implied/Referenced Homophobia, Manousos Oviedo & Carol Sturka Friendship Summary:
âSo. Was there someone in your life?â
He doesnât reply right away. The thing about Manousos, sheâs realizing, is that he calculates everything to a tee. A thousand possibilities seem to run through his brain in the span of a half-second before he finally reveals what heâs decided on.
"What are you reading right now?" My own wip because apparently I forgot my own writing style
liam gallagher trying to open a bottle of water for 10 seconds.
writing advice i live by (as someone who writes as a hobby):
your first draft is allowed to be awful. let it be awful, you can always improve it later.
if youâre writing as a hobby, it should be enjoyable and not feel like a chore.
if youâre stuck on a scene and canât get the words out, skip it. write a note for yourself to come back to it later and move on to the next scene. sometimes you just need to look away from the scene and come back to it with a fresh pair of eyes for the words to flow again.
that also applies to finding the right words and metaphors.
consuming media is one of the best cures for writerâs block.
another thing that helps writerâs block is asking yourself: âwhat is the most fun/best/most devastating thing that could happen next?â
do not rush your writing. quality work takes time, so donât ever beat yourself up for being a âslow writerâ. itâs always worth taking your time building the right plot and finding the right words to make something youâre proud of.
youâre allowed to take a break from your writing. writing is hard work and burn out happens. take a break if you need, and come back to it when youâre ready. writing is not a race.
writing a story/plot you love > molding your plot to trendy tropes you donât enjoy.
when youâre writing as a hobby, your work doesnât need to be perfect. it just needs to make you happy. thatâs it.
having more words doesnât mean higher quality work. donât feel bad for having a low word count.
if you like your own story, chances are others will too.