[Previous] Interests in Problems or Topics | Home | [Next] The Bachelor Discussion

How To Get Unstuck

i wrote this for an FI email. it's important and will apply to pretty much anyone reading this, not just the person i was speaking to:

how do you get started when you don't want to think/learn, and you're bad at thinking/learning? both of those get in the way of learning to want to think or learning to think better.

so what's the solution?

it depends on your situation.

you have to find some good things in your personal circumstances and use them. there's no generic solution. there has to be something good in your life to use as a starting point to build on. you have to find some things in your life to use as leverage.

hypothetically, let's say you really truly valued freedom. then you could find some things you like which contradict freedom and use the genuine really high valuing of freedom to drop the stuff that you find contradicts it. if you valued freedom enough, maybe it could inspire some intellectual honesty to allow for dropping (instead of rationalizing) some anti-freedom ideas.

i expect any real things that would work for you would involve some more parochial details of your life, and some more concrete and simple stuff, not an abstract philosophy theme. and it'd be a bunch of little things instead of one big one.

Elliot Temple on June 3, 2016

Comments (87)

How do you know what's good if you're bad at thinking/learning?

...
> when you don't want to think/learn, and you're bad at thinking/learning
...
> you have to find some good things in your personal circumstances and use them.

If you're bad at thinking / learning, how do you know what's good in your personal circumstances?

I'd guess, but don't know, a large percentage of the population thinks their family is good in their personal circumstances. They love their wife / kids, and think maybe the rest of their life is screwed up but at least that's fine.

Or people will point to their social group / things they do with friends as something good in their personal circumstances.

But I'd also guess FI would say that in most cases those things are actually bad.

PAS at 2:27 PM on June 3, 2016 | #5818
I'm thinking about what this would actually look like when applying it to my life.

Suppose that a good thing in my life is that I can watch and enjoy anime.

One of the things that contradicts that is that I don't always have time to watch very much of it.

So, I could "drop" that time constraint, by doing stuff like rearranging my life so I have more free time to watch anime, or by figuring out how to watch anime at >1x speed so I can watch more of it in the available time.

Either way, I am exercising my ability to solve problems, which means I'm practicing thinking/learning. And maybe in the process of trying to rearrange my life, I realise there's entire activities I could get rid of. Or maybe I realise that there's stuff I actually value even more than watching anime.

Is that the sort of concrete and simple thing you mean?

RF at 3:49 PM on June 3, 2016 | #5819
if you want to treat your family well, and you take that seriously, it'd work fine.

to treat them well, shouldn't you study what sort of treatment of family members is good or bad?

and to study it correctly, instead of messing it up, shouldn't you learn about how to study things well?

the reason this particular one generally doesn't work for people is they don't actually care all that much about treating their family (or self or friends) well. they are content to treat their family about as well as our culture expects. they are content to live up to the ballpark of some social expectations, and no more.

reacting to that social pressure isn't caring about your family. and it isn't a virtue. and that's why this doesn't get people anywhere.

if they had any actual serious virtues related to their family, it'd be fine. maybe some people do. but i don't think there's some really generic ones most people have. some individuals may have some stuff that could work for them, but it won't be so stereotyped that i could just tell anyone what it is offhand, it depends on their circumstances.

curi at 3:53 PM on June 3, 2016 | #5820
> If you're bad at thinking / learning, how do you know what's good in your personal circumstances?

guess badly. try. you might fail. you could listen to me about stuff. most people guess i'm wrong. maybe guessing i'm right is a better idea. i recommend it!

there's no guarantees or anything in life. just try. and try again. and again.

curi at 3:55 PM on June 3, 2016 | #5821
does anime gets some intellectual honesty out of you? like you admit X and Y are problems getting in the way of anime and try to solve them. rather than rationalizing why they aren't problems or why they aren't your fault or why you're helpless or whatever.

if so, cool. that's something.

curi at 3:57 PM on June 3, 2016 | #5822
> does anime gets some intellectual honesty out of you? like you admit X and Y are problems getting in the way of anime and try to solve them. rather than rationalizing why they aren't problems or why they aren't your fault or why you're helpless or whatever.

I think I see. Like, suppose one of the things that stops me watching anime is that I go to hang out with people.

If I just kinda hand-wave that away with "oh I can't give THAT up" and move on to the next topic, then I'm not really learning anything. There's no intellectual honesty there.

But if it inspires me to actually think about why I go hang out with people, and what I do/don't like about it, and how maybe sometimes I'd be better off not doing it, and other times I could optimise how I do it so that it's actually more valuable than watching anime... then I'm learning things and making a little bit of progress.

RF at 4:06 PM on June 3, 2016 | #5823
yeah

curi at 4:11 PM on June 3, 2016 | #5824

What's your guess?

> > If you're bad at thinking / learning, how do you know what's good in your personal circumstances?
>
> guess badly. try. you might fail. you could listen to me about stuff. most people guess i'm wrong. maybe guessing i'm right is a better idea. i recommend it!

What would you guess is good for me to try to use as leverage?

Or, if you prefer, what thing(s) do you guess would be good in general for people with conventional enough lives to not hugely stand out, but unconventional enough lives to read and post to FI fairly regularly for a significant amount of time?

You mentioned freedom as a hypothetical. Would you guess that I, or people like I described, actually do value freedom enough to use that as a good thing to leverage?

PAS at 4:33 PM on June 3, 2016 | #5825
> What would you guess is good for me to try to use as leverage?

well that's hard cuz i don't know much about your personal circumstances.

> Or, if you prefer, what thing(s) do you guess would be good in general for people with conventional enough lives to not hugely stand out, but unconventional enough lives to read and post to FI fairly regularly for a significant amount of time?

i don't know of some generic one-size-fits-all answer. i don't think there's some stereotyped thing that works. the stuff all the conventional people have in common doesn't work. it's the stuff that's more unique about them where a solution may be.

try to think about ways you're DIFFERENT than other people, that you think are better, and explore some of those. it doesn't have to be super weird, just not super stereotyped.

our culture has some good themes in it, such as respect for freedom, but they aren't strong enough or well understood enough or taken seriously enough. there's more personal stuff that people are more attached to, so it could work better as leverage.

> You mentioned freedom as a hypothetical. Would you guess that I, or people like I described, actually do value freedom enough to use that as a good thing to leverage?

no. not in a concrete, serious enough way that actually motivates you to do things. i don't think arguments like "if you care about freedom then..." and connecting it to TCS or FI or whatever will motivate you. i don't think saying "since you value freedom, you should study freedom to do it better by reading Mises" will get you to genuinely want to read Mises and have a good time with it and find Mises really interesting.

maybe you have some things you're more attached to, that if you saw the connection between them and e.g. studying how to think (so you could do them better) it'd be positively motivating to you.

are there any things where you really care and try to get every detail right and optimize everything? most people don't have something that great. but some do. like a decent amount of professional gamers will take optimizing stuff about their gameplay really seriously. (they don't all. but some are pretty good at it. not perfect but there's a lot of good there.)

i'd estimate several percent of the population have something like caring about optimizing gaming, or another topic, already, that they take pretty seriously and there's something rather good there (by no means totally consistent and perfect).

for other people it's more messy but many they still have some things where they go more in that direction. some topics where they are more interested in learning more. some values that they care enough about promoting to do some problem-solving thinking to do it better. etc

Anonymous at 5:07 PM on June 3, 2016 | #5826
the above comment http://curi.us/comments/show/5826 was by me.

curi at 5:07 PM on June 3, 2016 | #5827
my situation is like, i've had plenty of personal 'good' interests but each died away for one reason or another. some games were the most fun i've ever experienced, but the games i liked have become stale after playing them so much. or the companies decided casualshit, skinner boxes and movies were more profitable and started doing that instead. i'm also getting old and can't physically play games for as long as i'd like (neck/back/hands).

i really enjoyed talking to this one person and learning FI things before they broke down and became silent.

i enjoy scifi but all the good writers of it seem to have died out without any replacements.

i've spent a lot of time trying to find that special something so i can get my motivation back, but i haven't found much and invested a lot of time searching.

Anonymous at 4:49 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5875
do you stretch regularly, take breaks, have a good chair, etc?

> i really enjoyed talking to this one person and learning FI things before they broke down and became silent.

this is the typical "i was learning FI stuff outside of FI" bullshit rationalizing.

what's so special about having hidden-from-criticism discussions with that particular person who doesn't know the ideas the best?

> i've spent a lot of time trying to find that special something so i can get my motivation back, but i haven't found much and invested a lot of time searching.

TCS? reason? liberalism?

Anonymous at 4:53 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5876
#5876
>do you stretch regularly, take breaks, have a good chair, etc?

i learned how to do stretching routines from my physiotherapist but only after some lifelong damage had accumulated. it's getting better but not enough for things i'd like to do be able to do like d2 speedruns (~8 hours of sitting and clicking). my chair is ok but my desk has an annoying metal bar underneath that my knees hit.

>what's so special about having hidden-from-criticism discussions with that particular person who doesn't know the ideas the best?

the person helped me with a lot of issues i had when i met them. they introduced me to FI ideas before FI. discussions were easier than on FI because that person shared similar knowledge at the time.

>TCS? reason? liberalism?

not a source of motivation.

Anonymous at 5:12 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5877
what do you mean 8 hours? http://www.speedrun.com/d2lod

anyway the vast majority of speedruns are much shorter and i'm guessing you could do many of them. lots to choose from.

> the person helped me with a lot of issues i had when i met them. they introduced me to FI ideas before FI.

you mean before several lists were merged together. but long after there was TCS list, if not others too, which had discussions much like FI list does now.

> discussions were easier than on FI because that person shared similar knowledge at the time.

what does this mean? that no one on FI is dumb in the same ways as you? FI doesn't work well for you because the people are too good?

> > TCS? reason? liberalism?

> not a source of motivation.

why? what do you value?

Anonymous at 5:18 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5878
also you can just do an 8 hour speedrun but take some breaks and pause the timer. you won't get official credit on leaderboards, but other than that it'll work fine.

you could also consider segmented runs.

Anonymous at 5:21 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5879
#5878
>what do you mean 8 hours? http://www.speedrun.com/d2lod

https://www.speedrun.com/d2lod#Any_Hell_HC

>you mean before several lists were merged together. but long after there was TCS list, if not others too, which had discussions much like FI list does now.

i mean before they told me about FI. not as in before FI existed.

>what does this mean? that no one on FI is dumb in the same ways as you? FI doesn't work well for you because the people are too good?

this comes off as really dismissive like you haven't put any thought into it.

>why? what do you value?

not sure how i'd put it into words, esp for ppl here, but i def dont like being bored.

Anonymous at 5:27 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5880
yes i saw that the longest category is 6:15

> i mean before they told me about FI. not as in before FI existed.

oic

> this comes off as really dismissive like you haven't put any thought into it.

am i mistaken about something? what? and what did i dismiss?

> not sure how i'd put it into words, esp for ppl here, but i def dont like being bored.

so then learn Popper and Rand to not be bored?

Anonymous at 5:30 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5881
>> discussions were easier than on FI because that person shared similar knowledge at the time.

>what does this mean? that no one on FI is dumb in the same ways as you? FI doesn't work well for you because the people are too good?

for instance there can be some great books on calculus but things may not click conceptually until you get that one niche explanation you didnt know you needed. sometimes people are used to a different style of explanation. it's more about compatibile stuff.

Anonymous at 5:39 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5882
you're making excuses. one of the many things you've chosen not to try is posting to FI and requesting a certain style of response.

Anonymous at 5:45 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5883
>#5883

what? first that requires knowing the style you want enough to describe the important qualities. you also have to be correct about them. you also need the time to study them. i'm not sure how you'd do any of that when the whole thing is in the past and inaccessible now. besides, these sorts of things are highly inexplicit and developed over a person's lifetime.

Anonymous at 5:52 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5884
you prefer pessimism to trying potential solutions. this is why you're stuck.

you could have had a discussion about style. how hard is it REALLY to say anything useful about styles? how effective might some partial style changes be? how possible is that? (some people can change at least some aspects of style easily). you didn't ask, discuss, try.

Anonymous at 5:54 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5885
#5885

i'm pretty sure ppl have already brought up these issues before. ppl have certainly brought them up with me because of whatever style has rubbed off reading so much FI. it's the abrasive rude signaling that gets to ppl, even if you think that isn't part of the message.

i talk with some very nasty ppl most days and i'm always amazed by how the curi style seems to outdo them. it comes off like you want to push the other person until they agree and you aren't making genuine attempts to understand what other people are saying. they get upset *really* fast by this because it creates conflict with the idea that you want to talk to them and not be coercive, meanwhile they have to deal with this hostile lecturing aura they're getting at the same time.

Anonymous at 6:20 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5886
> i'm pretty sure ppl have already brought up these issues before.

you'll have to give a reference or do it fresh.

> it's the abrasive rude signaling that gets to ppl

you could give a quote that you think is "abrasive rude signaling" and we could discuss it. i don't like to discuss this kind of claim with zero example quotes. too vague. fair?

> i talk with some very nasty ppl most days and i'm always amazed by how the curi style seems to outdo them. it comes off like you want to push the other person until they agree and you aren't making genuine attempts to understand what other people are saying. they get upset *really* fast by this because it creates conflict with the idea that you want to talk to them and not be coercive, meanwhile they have to deal with this hostile lecturing aura they're getting at the same time.


quote an example we can discuss.

Anonymous at 6:27 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5887
#5887
>you could give a quote that you think is "abrasive rude signaling" and we could discuss it. i don't like to discuss this kind of claim with zero example quotes. too vague. fair?

yes. this is better stylistically too.

>quote an example we can discuss.

#5878:
>>what does this mean? that no one on FI is dumb in the same ways as you? FI doesn't work well for you because the people are too good?

the first reaction i have in mind when i read this is some IQ obsessed person throwing insults. it fits a certain stereotype. but i move on quickly.

then i consider the examples and think you've dismissed the point i was making with an intelligence weighting of some kind. it's so mentally distant from where i'm at it's jarring.

Anonymous at 6:55 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5888
> yes. this is better stylistically too.

better than what?

> the first reaction i have in mind when i read this is some IQ obsessed person throwing insults. it fits a certain stereotype. but i move on quickly.

> then i consider the examples and think you've dismissed the point i was making with an intelligence weighting of some kind. it's so mentally distant from where i'm at it's jarring.

you misunderstood the quote.

first of all it's *questions*. it's trying to *find out* rather than claim. you didn't answer.

it was a reply to you writing:

> that person shared similar knowledge at the time.

when you say "similar knowledge" one reading is you mean both of you don't know stuff together, both dislike public criticism together, etc. i guessed you meant similar *lack* of knowledge, or put another way similar knowledge situation, similar amount of knowledge, similar skill level. this is what being dumb (below FI list level) refers to.

another reading is you were both superior to Elliot, DD, Alan, etc. i didn't think you meant this.

another is unspecified specialist knowledge (so not more or better overall, but more in some narrow niche), which could easily be a rationalization or excuse.

since there were multiple interpretations, i asked about what you meant.

i started with a neutral question. i also asked a question about what i thought was the best guess at your meaning (the first interpretation i've listed). you were evasive about what you meant; i think it's important to state things more bluntly.

Anonymous at 7:02 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5889
it sounds like you're bad at

- culture clash
- iterative discussion
- clarifying questions
- expecting, spotting and clearing up misunderstandings and not being upset about them

and you want to learn from people who share the same biases, stereotypical ways of "softening" criticism (at the cost of intellectual content), etc.

that's a big mistake. when you find you get along with someone without having to solve any problems it's cuz you share irrational static memes.

Anonymous at 7:05 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5890
#5889
>better than what?

better than previous.

>first of all it's *questions*. it's trying to *find out* rather than claim. you didn't answer.

the questions and where they came from are still alarming.

>when you say "similar knowledge" one reading is you mean both of you don't know stuff together, both dislike public criticism together, etc. i guessed you meant similar *lack* of knowledge, or put another way similar knowledge situation, similar amount of knowledge, similar skill level. this is what being dumb (below FI list level) refers to.

i dont get this. maybe you're misunderstanding me. if two people spoke chinese and one knew some intro FI content it would be far easier to learn that with the person than to seek help on FI with shitty translations. the shared similar knowledge works like that, but as ways of thinking about things and going about explaining them to another person.

>i started with a neutral question. i also asked a question about what i thought was the best guess at your meaning (the first interpretation i've listed). you were evasive about what you meant; i think it's important to state things more bluntly.

sharing the guesses does more harm than good when you dont know enough about the person you're talking to. it just adds a whole lot of noise.

Anonymous at 7:23 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5894
> i dont get this. maybe you're misunderstanding me. if two people spoke chinese and one knew some intro FI content it would be far easier to learn that with the person than to seek help on FI with shitty translations. the shared similar knowledge works like that, but as ways of thinking about things and going about explaining them to another person.

i said one reading is X. you then replied: "i dont get this. maybe you're misunderstanding me. [another reading is Y.]"

> sharing the guesses does more harm than good when you dont know enough about the person you're talking to. it just adds a whole lot of noise.

stating what i think you mean is noise? you need to learn basic patience and also consider that i might have a point about some of this. you can make mistakes without realizing them that i can recognize.

from what you've said the thing you're so pleased with is irrational and your mindset about it is destroying you in the present, so it needs challenging.

Anonymous at 7:56 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5896
> better than previous.

it'd also really help if you didn't use vague non-references.

Anonymous at 7:58 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5897
like don't use them ever, but *especially* don't use them as replies to explicit requests for clarification.

Anonymous at 7:58 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5898
you want me to be "nicer". you don't say this because you can't or won't specify what that means b/c what you want is irrational.

Anonymous at 7:59 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5899
you also want something like the benefit of the doubt (from your perspective) which consists of people pretending you're better than you are. like you say something that sounds irrational and they bend over backwards to come up with a story in which it isn't and then focus on that story. that's counter-productive. evading problems isn't how you solve them.

Anonymous at 8:01 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5900
you're going well off into your own thing now. i haven't even dealt with the earlier misunderstandings and you're forging on ahead.

Anonymous at 8:07 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5901
so what? just write what you want to.

Anonymous at 8:37 PM on June 13, 2016 | #5902
did you ever try talking to other people like Justin or Alan since you dislike me?

Anonymous at 2:43 AM on June 14, 2016 | #5903
http://curi.us/comments/show/5903

> did you ever try talking to other people like Justin or Alan since you dislike me?

Anon knows you have.

Why ask a question he already knows the answer to?

I guess because he wants to make a statement disguised as a question.

Is this mean?

Anonymous at 3:10 PM on June 14, 2016 | #5904
hi, i am the anon from #5903

i believe i know who i'm speaking with (the d2 speedrun guy who dislikes me).

i admit i think i already know the answer to my question. i was asking it primarily to make a point.

but i think the answer goes the other way: he hasn't ever talked with them much. he's never put much effort into engaging with them. he never gave that much of a try.

in that context, so he can read my question as a suggestion.

Anonymous at 3:14 PM on June 14, 2016 | #5905
another reason for asking: while i believe i know the true answer to the question, i'm less confident that he sees it the same way as i do. he might have much lower standards for what counts as trying to talk with them. if he said he had tried, then i was planning to ask him about how much.

Anonymous at 3:15 PM on June 14, 2016 | #5906
> i'm also getting old and can't physically play games for as long as i'd like (neck/back/hands).

being COLD makes this MUCH worse. have you tried putting a heater right next to your chair?

have you tried a heating pad for your back or neck?

have you tried HotHands for your hands?

Anonymous at 7:51 PM on June 15, 2016 | #5907
another thing is a lot of gel ice packs say they are for cold OR hot. u can microwave them and use them as hot packs. have you tried that?

Anonymous at 7:52 PM on June 15, 2016 | #5908
#5903
nothing deliberate. from reading a lot of their posts i don't think i'd be that into it unless they have other things to talk about i haven't seen.

Anonymous at 7:55 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5981
#5907
my hands are at least room temp (22-24°C) at all times since winter ended. i don't consider this cold. i also drink a lot of tea so any extra heating would be uncomfortable. i plan to experiment a bit with direct heat applications.

Anonymous at 8:00 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5982
you should keep your hands at that kinda reasonable temperature during winter too!

Anonymous at 8:02 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5983
> nothing deliberate. from reading a lot of their posts i don't think i'd be that into it unless they have other things to talk about i haven't seen.

do you have a criticism...?

Anonymous at 8:03 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5984
look: i could in fact help you more in ways that you want. i don't want to. if i actually believed you'd stick around and keep trying, i'd be more interested. what you want is very expensive and problematic. also you haven't done anything to demonstrate you're worth putting substantial effort into.

meanwhile Justin and Alan are both milder and you're not interested, which helps reveal the real problem: you dislike reason and critical discussion.

Anonymous at 8:16 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5985
a better way forward would be for you to change what you want and expect. you could be much more tolerant, patient, interested in ideas, etc. you could adjust yourself and learn about why my general talking policies are good, rather than wanting expensive personalized customizations for free (which, most likely, you'd end up spitting on and quitting anyway).

Anonymous at 8:20 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5986
>#5890
>it sounds like you're bad at
>
>- culture clash

yes. i don't know anyone who is good at this kind of thing.

>- iterative discussion

no one ever does this unless they're wearing their academic hat. i quite enjoy this type of discussion but other issues eventually conflict. or there's just no one with my interest that expects the discussion to be possible.

>- clarifying questions

as in questions incoming to me or outgoing?

>- expecting, spotting and clearing up misunderstandings and not being upset about them

generally the problem is becoming overwhelmed by too many misunderstandings to move to begin fixing them.

>and you want to learn from people who share the same biases, stereotypical ways of "softening" criticism (at the cost of intellectual content), etc.

no. at least i don't think i do. why do you think this? can you give more words.

i have non-standard ideas about politeness and about mutual respect in open discussions.

>that's a big mistake. when you find you get along with someone without having to solve any problems it's cuz you share irrational static memes.

i don't follow. anything can be interpreted as solving a problem. ppl can get along online in video games just fine. are they automatically sharing irrational memes? i understand ppl get together romantically with little exchange of information because they're enacting certain memes. ppl can ride the bus without any problems because of cultural memes. what part makes you think there's irrationality involved?

Anonymous at 8:27 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5987
i'm good at culture clash.

> no one ever does this unless they're wearing their academic hat.

you're denying that i exist, to me.

> i quite enjoy this type of discussion but other issues eventually conflict. or there's just no one with my interest that expects the discussion to be possible.

this is partly lies and excuses. it's partly that you have much lower standards than i do, so you read things to have a different meaning than i do (your readings are more typical to our culture, less literal or objective)

> as in questions incoming to me or outgoing?

meant outgoing. but both, sure.

> > and you want to learn from people who share the same biases, stereotypical ways of "softening" criticism (at the cost of intellectual content), etc.


> no. at least i don't think i do. why do you think this? can you give more words.

you told a story about liking learning from a particular person who is far worse at ideas, and far more socially "nice" and normal. from a person who shares various biases with you, socializes with you (and everyone), softens criticism with everyone, and pretends to be super smart and have great ideas but hasn't actually learned much for many years cuz their approach to discussion is actually unintellectual (but impressed u...).

> ppl can get along online in video games just fine. are they automatically sharing irrational memes?

managing to play a game together without actively fighting (with e.g. the common strategy of not communicating at all), and actually getting along with a person more broadly (like in conversations), are different things.

by getting along with someone i meant actually being able to interact substantively and it goes well, not just having some very minimal interaction like paying for something at a store and not fighting with the cashier.

Anonymous at 8:43 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5988
> no one ever does this unless they're wearing their academic hat.

oh also you're completely wrong about academics, who suck at discussion.

Anonymous at 8:43 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5989
#5985
i was following the discussion and explaining the issue. if you wanted to do something with the information i gave then cool. i'm not asking you to change. it doesn't make sense from your perspective to invest time in personality alteration or whatever for someone just passing by. you could arguably get more value as the change would benefit other ppl with the same issue. but i think you have those ppl marked as low quality anyway.

#5986
saying i should change what i want and expect sounds a lot like part of me should just die because it's incompatible with you.

>you could adjust yourself and learn about why my general talking policies are good

how much of this can you explain already?

Anonymous at 8:44 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5990
> how much of this can you explain already?

why is the word "already" there? why are you asking for an amount instead of for the explanations themselves?

> saying i should change what i want and expect sounds a lot like part of me should just die because it's incompatible with you.

yes, parts of you should die. because they are incompatible with **life and reason**. the incompatibility with me is secondary and is due to me being the #1 living representative of life and reason. but, like Popper says, let your ideas die in your place. you don't have to die as a whole.

it'd be better not to think of changing your mind about some of your mistakes as *death*. it's actually necessary for a worthwhile *life*.

> it doesn't make sense from your perspective to invest time in personality alteration or whatever for someone just passing by.

i was not talking about altering my personality. personality is a bad way to think about this anyway. personality basically is a word for biases. this is about objective policies. and the stuff i consider expensive is even more expensive for regular people – paying such a high price is where a lot of their resources go and helps explain why they are so bad at lots of other things. (the problem with people in general is more about where they direct their efforts than any lack of capability)

> but i think you have those ppl marked as low quality anyway.

more specifically, they are unable to offer value.

Anonymous at 8:50 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5991
> if you wanted to do something with the information i gave then cool.

you shouldn't be surprised to hear that you provided no new information about this.

Anonymous at 8:52 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5992
>i'm good at culture clash.

examples?

>you read things to have a different meaning than i do (your readings are more typical to our culture, less literal or objective)

>this is partly lies and excuses.

such as?

>it's partly that you have much lower standards than i do, so you read things to have a different meaning than i do (your readings are more typical to our culture, less literal or objective)

you mean the thing ppl shame as 'autism' because you completely drop established meaning for whatever you've decided is the objective reality?

>you told a story about liking learning from a particular person who is far worse at ideas, and far more socially "nice" and normal. from a person who shares various biases with you, socializes with you (and everyone), softens criticism with everyone, and pretends to be super smart and have great ideas but hasn't actually learned much for many years cuz their approach to discussion is actually unintellectual (but impressed u...).

the biases at the time were advantageous. yes, apparently this person socializes with a lot of people. i did not know about that at the time. i haven't witnessed a whole lot of it directly.

i didnt pick up on the person's (now) obvious flaws because i was getting out of a very long period of isolation. my mind was focused on other things. and this person was forwarding new and awesome ideas to me at a very fast pace. it took a small amount of time to notice where the ideas came from. it took a lot longer to notice the person had dropped *all of it* and hadn't done any thinking on it for years.

so yeah, my standards were low enough to be impressed. i think they still are. just nice ppl are a huge improvement in my life.

>by getting along with someone i meant actually being able to interact substantively and it goes well, not just having some very minimal interaction like paying for something at a store and not fighting with the cashier.

ok. but things didn't go well. after the person ran out of giving me their old borrowed ideas they redirected me here. i kept (and continue up to this point) wanting to resume old topics. i have a goddamn backlog going back years of disagreements that were dropped that i keep asking be brought up again. at this point more of the backlog is about confronting the backlog and the unwillingness than other content.

Anonymous at 9:12 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5993
> > i'm good at culture clash.

> examples?

read my stuff. there's tons. apparently your familiarity with a bit of stuff didn't satisfy you. i don't know what would satisfy you. you haven't told me what you're looking for that you didn't find in what you already read. (also it could be that you didn't happen to read some particular things that would satisfy you. but it could also be that you misread some things.)

i also don't really see a point to this. it's not something i really care about debating.

> such as?

if you really liked and appreciated iterative discussion as much as you say you'd have less history of dropping discussions.

> the biases at the time were advantageous. yes, apparently this person socializes with a lot of people. i did not know about that at the time. i haven't witnessed a whole lot of it directly.

you socialized with them. they did various stereotypical social stuff with you and you liked them better than me because of that difference. you interpreted those conventional traits as them being nice, among other things. (actually like all other conventional people they have a mean side. being mean is a trait that exists in conventional dynamics. i am never mean because i don't deal with the world in that kinda way.)

> backlog

they have a backlog with other people too. the backlogs will never be addressed unless some systematic problems are addressed first. those systematic problems include being very very dishonest and also, for various reasons, not participating in rational, critical discussions.

> ok. but things didn't go well.

yeah i agree! irrational methods of interacting are very unreliable. (people's judgements that stuff is working are also unreliable.) it often doesn't end up working out even by very low standards.

Anonymous at 9:25 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5994
#5991
>why is the word "already" there? why are you asking for an amount instead of for the explanations themselves?

already as in now, without adjustment to myself. can you give the explanations as is? any? some?

>yes, parts of you should die. because they are incompatible with **life and reason**. the incompatibility with me is secondary and is due to me being the #1 living representative of life and reason. but, like Popper says, let your ideas die in your place. you don't have to die as a whole.

for about the last 6 months i've been struggling just with wanting to stay alive. i'm very stubborn and that part of me apparently isn't going so simply. even in the face of overall death.

>it'd be better not to think of changing your mind about some of your mistakes as *death*. it's actually necessary for a worthwhile *life*.

i have little motivations for a life. i hate most ppl i encounter. what remains to move me is the desire to avoid more suffering and alleviate the expanding boredom.

Anonymous at 9:27 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5995
did u try reading a bunch of Rand? she's the best and most inspiring for sense of life problems.

> can you give the explanations as is?

your question is unclear but in short: i can explain a ton of it IFF it was an iterative discussion, but not in a way that will work for you right now as an upfront essay.

Anonymous at 9:31 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5996
#5996
>did u try reading a bunch of Rand? she's the best and most inspiring for sense of life problems.

i enjoyed reading Rand's books years ago. it started a fire that changed me dramatically. before that i was indifferent to people and wanted to be left to my own shitty things. i started to make real effort to do things outside of games. but i didn't know much so it was mostly misdirected. i learned to resent ppl though.

i fear my situation is far too deviant and fucked up for me to handle anymore. what i lack stems from more of a social/cultural issue than of moral knowledge. i've read all of Rand's books. i have played the audiobooks countless times while playing games. i've read others like Popper and other obscure things. i've watched hundreds of movies and tv series. this is where the bulk of my cultural knowledge comes from. and it's apparently distorted and perverse.

Anonymous at 10:00 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5997
> i've read all of Rand's books.

all? i really doubt you mean it. do you seriously literally think you read all of them?

it's easy to misunderstand Rand, Popper, etc. more than 99% of readers do. the solution is error-correcting discussion. you should read *and discuss* in order ot learn it better.

Anonymous at 10:14 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5998
>all?

all of the fiction works except (looking now, Ideal (2015)). there are some i dont recall having read in her non-fiction category.

>it's easy to misunderstand Rand, Popper, etc. more than 99% of readers do. the solution is error-correcting discussion. you should read *and discuss* in order ot learn it better.

i agree discussion is vital but it just leads back into unresolved issues. i'm also skeptical there is relevance to my current problems. assuming the relevance part i still can't see myself resolving my existing ideas in addition to restudying one of these books with my existing workload, health issues, and possible death looming over my shoulder. it doesn't seem realistic.

Anonymous at 10:29 PM on June 21, 2016 | #5999
i don't get how understanding Rand correctly instead of incorrectly, on many issues, wouldn't be *relevant*. u said Rand helped u a lot in some ways. it could be 10x or more more effective if u understood it better.

Anonymous at 11:51 PM on June 21, 2016 | #6000
> assuming the relevance

wait. one step at a time.

Anonymous at 12:03 AM on June 22, 2016 | #6001

Hats suck

>>- iterative discussion
>
> no one ever does this unless they're wearing their academic hat.

Academics don't do this well. But leaving that aside, why would you have to wear a specific hat to act rationally?

Also, critical discussion can't stop at boundaries. You have to be able to follow a discussion wherever it goes to make a lot of progress. So if academics only critically discuss when acting out a particular role, then they're going to suck at it. That's part of why they do suck at it.

For the rest of why they suck at it, read about Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged.

hatless at 2:12 AM on June 22, 2016 | #6002

misunderstanding Rand

BTW the fact that you didn't understand the crits of academia in Atlas Shrugged well enough to discuss them is a big problem.

hatless at 2:16 AM on June 22, 2016 | #6003
> For the rest of why they suck at it, read about Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged.

For more, not all the rest.

Anonymous at 7:49 AM on June 22, 2016 | #6004
#5989
#6002
more specifically, i dont encounter ppl thinking seriously unless they engage their intellectual/academic mindset. i do not refer to actual academic ppl.

>why would you have to wear a specific hat to act rationally?

because ppl compartmentalize knowledge. e.g. https://u.sicp.me/mm8MQ.png
it's a known problem and most ppl ignore it. ppl like having a sandbox where they can pick and choose ideas by convenience rather than reality.

>Also, critical discussion can't stop at boundaries. You have to be able to follow a discussion wherever it goes to make a lot of progress. So if academics only critically discuss when acting out a particular role, then they're going to suck at it. That's part of why they do suck at it.

sure. the apologists will say society cannot operate without specialists.

i don't follow why the sudden focus on academia. i'll mention that i only have high school paper that i was forced to get.

Anonymous at 2:54 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6005
> i don't follow why the sudden focus on academia.

you brought academia up. positively!

FI and Objectivism both have big problems with academia. you should have known that.

Anonymous at 4:19 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6006
> because ppl compartmentalize knowledge.

we don't do things that way around here.

Anonymous at 4:20 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6007
>you brought academia up. positively!

did you even read what i wrote?

Anonymous at 4:30 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6008
> no one ever does [good discussion] unless they're wearing their academic hat.

you said academic mindsets help make discussion way better and non-academic mindsets don't allow for good discussion.

Anonymous at 4:34 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6009
> did you even read what i wrote?

this is a stupid, hostile, unproductive comment with no content. you could do better.

Anonymous at 4:34 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6010
> no one ever does [good discussion] unless they're wearing their academic hat.
>[good discussion]

Anonymous at 4:38 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6011
somehow you've interpreted some weird shit from what i said about hats. i don't know how to reinterpret it to match whatever you're confused about. i followed up earlier but that apparently wasn't enough to change your mind. maybe i'm overestimating your ability to figure out what i'm saying. maybe i just don't have much of your attention.

so to be clear:
-academia is awful.
-schools are awful.
-telling ppl what they have to learn is retarded.
-the existing culture forcing kids to suffer this retardation is evil.
-the ppl that come out of schools are mostly awful.
-academic ppl are awful. they somehow abide all the evil because they think it's the best option or force is necessary.
-i do not think it is necessary.

when i see iterative discussion it is when normal ppl have decided to do something acadmeic (in their mind). otherwise they don't care or they act unserious. some ppl are geniuenly surprised if you expect them to take something seriously outside of school or work. it's awful.

Anonymous at 8:25 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6012
> somehow you've interpreted some weird shit from what i said about hats.

who is "you"? there's multiple people here.

Anonymous at 8:54 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6013
do you think academics do iterative discussion?

> when i see iterative discussion it is when normal ppl have decided to do something acadmeic (in their mind).

example?

here's a counter example (non-academic iteration):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql8OsBb_QvU&list=PLKx6lO5RmaesaCfm2dXGUfbycDYEXJoU9&index=7

Anonymous at 8:58 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6014
> somehow you've interpreted some weird shit from what i said about hats.

you seem impatient and to be reacting negatively to some form of misunderstanding (which could easily be on your end or your fault).

Anonymous at 9:00 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6015
> > somehow you've interpreted some weird shit from what i said about hats.

> who is "you"? there's multiple people here.

quotes help a lot. he doesn't seem to appreciate quotes nearly enough.

Anonymous at 9:01 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6016
>do you think academics do iterative discussion?

no.

Anonymous at 9:08 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6017
>you seem impatient and to be reacting negatively to some form of misunderstanding (which could easily be on your end or your fault).

the replies i'm getting are so off base they come off like someone is playing with me. and then my followup replies are taken as hostile. i wait multiple hours to reply and then i'm called impatient.

Anonymous at 9:15 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6018
>who is "you"? there's multiple people here.

everyone replying with the academia shit.

Anonymous at 9:22 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6019
> the replies i'm getting are so off base they come off like someone is playing with me.

you are intolerant of misunderstandings. you are openly admitting it. and you are impatient for them to be cleared up with a very small amount of iteration.

you are bad at discussion. that's the problem. you expect error-free discussion instead of for there to be a process of error-correction. when a misunderstanding happens you think there's malice. you have no familiarity with real discussion in which non-malicious misunderstandings are common.

(how can that be? perhaps you're used to stereotyped discussions in which little is ever actually communicated.)

Anonymous at 9:22 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6020
> everyone replying with the academia shit.

you're being imprecise and generally refusing to think seriously about this.

Anonymous at 9:22 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6021
> the replies i'm getting are so off base they come off like someone is playing with me. and then my followup replies are taken as hostile. i wait multiple hours to reply and then i'm called impatient.

you also jump to blaming other people for problems that come up in discussion.

Anonymous at 9:23 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6022
#6020
it hadn't occurred to me the error rate would be this high. it completely passed my mind that i've spent the last year adapting my thoughts and communication to a particular culture and to little else. highly my fault!

Anonymous at 9:37 PM on June 22, 2016 | #6023
#5988
>you read things to have a different meaning than i do (your readings are more typical to our culture, less literal or objective)

you do a similar thing with my words. the difference however is you know very little about how i've reworked things. you don't pick up on being wrong almost all the time reading anything i write. i wouldn't expect that of anyone. but after you're repeatedly told about misunderstanding you don't even try to come up with alternatives.

you're too accustomed to boxing everything into two cateogries: your ivory tower world view and *everything else*. this is how i make sense of what you're doing in these failed discussions.

at this point i'm not going to continue trying to communicate with someone that has no leniency for alternatives and can only see everything i say in some conventional light. each exchange is very taxing to me. and you see it as low value for yourself.

you could try explaining here:
#5986
>learn about why my general talking policies are good

cause otherwise nothing new has been discovered with this recent attempt to establish a stable form of communication. i'm sorry that you've taken some of my words to be hostile. hostility was never a part of my intention.

Anonymous at 8:37 PM on June 24, 2016 | #6061
> you do a similar thing with my words. the difference however is you know very little about how i've reworked things. you don't pick up on being wrong almost all the time reading anything i write. i wouldn't expect that of anyone. but after you're repeatedly told about misunderstanding you don't even try to come up with alternatives.

you have yet to correct me on any significant point with arguments (rather than mere assertions).

i'm good at this. i'm experienced at this. you're saying lots of typical things. if you're so special *demonstrate it*. do something different. still waiting. shrug.

but here you are giving up before making even one good argument about anything. so typical. so compatible with the possibility that i nailed all my interpretations.

> i'm sorry that you've taken some of my words to be hostile. hostility was never a part of my intention.

nevertheless, whatever your conscious intention, you are hostile to various things, including some of FI's and Oism's values.

Anonymous at 9:02 PM on June 24, 2016 | #6062
> you're saying lots of typical things. if you're so special *demonstrate it*. do something different. still waiting. shrug.

he is. you just interprate everything as convention so you don't see it. even when he explicitly asks you to stop doing that and take him seriously. and gives tips on how you could be misunderstanding him.

Anonymous at 2:35 AM on September 11, 2016 | #6628
@#6628 i think you may be mixing up who is who in different parts of the discussion because multiple people posted as "Anonymous". it's hard to tell what you mean though.

do you mean that curi is the one being misunderstood or doing the misunderstanding?

Anonymous at 1:03 PM on September 11, 2016 | #6631

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)