you can't objectively say that he can't say it's objectively bad

Im not angry, just disappointed

also might have had a bit too much of those beers already

<3

m8 i was in the sun tasting all these fancy beers but had to hurry home to play videogames and now THIS

http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/imagecache/Node_Page/images/4e2d838beddc6c698b002c8b.jpg

M50's are good. They have the classic V-shaped sound signature (emphasized lows & highs, recessed mids), which I don't really like, but most people seem to gravitate towards. It's the default sound signature for lower end headphones/speakers so you'll likely be familiar with the sound from whichever cans you step up.

Still you should try and listen to them for yourself before you buy, and make a comparison with an open headphone in the same price/quality range. The M50's do extremely well for being closed headphones, but they still come with that typical closed headphone sound, which comes across to me as kind of "artificial". I'd definitely try Kiler's recommendation for instance though.

Try to find a set of headphones that is more mid forward too, for comparison. It makes music feel more upfront, palpable, "live", and a tad more agressive. Maybe you'll enjoy it. Grado headphones are a good example.

As for recommending certain headphones for certain genres: I don't really get that. Preferring one sound signature over another has not much to do with a genre of music. Not to mention that something like "rock" as a genre has very little meaning. Even if you'd make a huge generalisation about "rock" and "hiphop" you could come to the conclusion that the more popular stuff in that genre is mixed in a V-shaped manner too, so why would you emphasize that with your choice of headphones? I'd rather compensate for such a thing by EQ or using a headphone with an opposite frequency response.

Mark McNairy, but I would never spend such an amount on shoes. I would ruin them too quickly.

Fun fact: I was actually on a team with this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m75skhYy68w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDswCfevrLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_IqBZaNiZc

"Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impaired social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior. "

• Not participating in the discussion at hand, but posting a completely unrelated statement: impaired social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication
  
• Calling out autism at random on the internet as a meme: repetitive behavior

I'm not qualified or anything erkston, but you'd might want to talk to your doctor about this.

Yes, and this is why nations have collaborated for ages to decipher the human genome. Jeez, I'm really not educated enough on this topic to properly argue for it, but I know that there's loads of research initiatives for genetically fine-tuned invidualized medicine. I already mentioned this, but apparently I need to mention it again.

Yes, ADHD is a made-up disorder. Actually, all mental disorders are made up. We classify them by consensus, through things like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. What is not made up though, are the symptoms of mental disorders. These symptoms can have a impact on daily life. When the impact of these symptoms becomes so significant that it causes the individual suffering or an inability to lead a normal daily life, it becomes a disorder. When the impact is very small, it's just a "personality trait" I guess.

Also: Eisenberg (the guy who you mentioned as the "founding father of ADHD") is not even remotely amongst the most important people related to classifying ADHD as a mental disorder. But sure, go ahead, trust your sensationalist internet journalism websites as much as you want.

"ADHD doesn't exist" is such a fucking cliche by now. Please point me to the studies that supported Eisenbergs claim btw, it might be entertaining to read up on that bullshit.

One thing that IS gaining more and more consensus though, is that the diagnosis "ADHD" is applied waaaay too easily. I'd probably agree with that. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just a problem of bad diagnostical practices (or maybe involvement by the pharmaceutical industry, trying to push things, I wouldn't even disagree with that). If every doctor would suddenly tell everyone they had AIDS, that wouldn't make AIDS a made-up disease now, would it? The difference is that (up to this point in time, with our current standings in medical technology) we can identify physical diseases by observing the disease and not just the symptoms, unlike mental disorders.

It's funny that I got all of these replies, cause all I said was, if there's a drug that would be (mental)-performance enhancing, and wouldn't have any negative side effects for me, why wouldn't I take it? Nobody has yet really replied to that point.

Ok. Yes? I guess?

I'm not sure why you are aiming this directly at me, cause I would never disagree with such point. When I mentioned my PPI usage for instance, I specifically only referred to my own experience with it.

Really? How can you be that cynical about the future of the scientific/medical world? That "never" part just sounds like "640K ought to be enough for anybody"-type talk.

I'd rather have a non-observable headache than an observable one. Thank you very much.

edit: To clarify, how can "no side effects" and "non-observable side effects" NOT be conflated? Scientifically, they're the same thing, since what you cannot observe can also not be falsified.

Bullshit. There's already loads of medicine out that that works fine for people without side effects (for myself for instance, long term usage of PPI's doesn't affect me in any negative way). And thats just old fashioned "dumb" medicine. Think about when smart medication (biochemical medicine engineered to the individuals genome, or completely different tech like nanowizardry) will be mainstream.

Also, I'm bad at English. I should've said "If there WOULD be no negative side effects", to avoid misinterpretations. I don't know anything about alleradd, and it sounds like snake oil tbh, but I was just responding to Bona's general statement.

If there's no negative side effects, why not?

(disregarding the fact that medication without side effects barely exists, for the sake of discussion)

religion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNS8ukKHsWw

damn i was gonna post that