[Previous] Meta Discussion Isn't Bad | Home | [Next] Learning Overwatch

Elliot Temple on January 3, 2017

Comments (215)

people are so mean and angry.

in Overwatch someone started yelling at me (in voice chat) for not playing as well as he wanted. (i don't think his judgement of my play or his was accurate at all, but never mind.) this is distracting. it's not going to help. i'm already doing my best and i don't need a distraction.

i said "don't yell at me".

he responded by yelling at me more.

so i left voice chat meaning that no one could quickly give me useful information during the that game anymore, and i wouldn't hear team strategy planning. (it's a larger distraction to figure out who is yelling at me and block them individually, and to figure out if it's only one person being a jerk or multiple. also someone new could start being a jerk which is a higher risk after an interaction like that. just leaving voice chat entirely is the fastest and most reliable way to solve the problem reliably and get back to playing.)

this kind of being an asshole is pretty common.

and this is their recreation.

this is just one example but it's pretty easy to find the same kind of thing in most other parts of life where people interact. and people do it both with strangers and people they know well. for example sometimes i hear couples who are neighbors yelling at each other or at their children. the other day i heard a female voice asking the guy to stop and the guy kept yelling and being angry more and justifying attacking her in response to the request he stop. that specific dynamic is common -- angry people often attack more if you ask not to be attacked. that's so nasty.

curi at 2:13 AM on January 5, 2017 | #8177
anger is very bad

Anonymous at 8:44 AM on January 7, 2017 | #8186
From: http://fallibleideas.com/lulie/procrastination

> People procrastinate because they are pessimistic about problem solving. They don't think there are any solutions, any ways forward, that won't hurt. If they knew a way to proceed that would involve no suffering of any kind, they'd do it.

What's a hypothetical scenario of someone being pessimistic about problem solving and this relating to procrastination?

Anon69 at 12:23 PM on January 8, 2017 | #8198

Indices point between elements

https://blog.nelhage.com/2015/08/indices-point-between-elements/

In programming, if you you use indices to refer to array elements, think of them as pointing between the elements.

Alisa at 10:30 PM on January 8, 2017 | #8201
#8201 or use higher level programming constructs like map instead of manual, numerical array indexes?

curi at 1:32 AM on January 9, 2017 | #8202
Found a extremely cheap VPN!! $1.66/month
I wanted to find something cheaper than PIA..

Does anyone have any criticism against ivacy? Has anyone tried it?

https://www.ivacy.com/buy-vpn/

Anonymous browsing
256-bit encryption for ultimate protection
Supreme security over public Wi-Fi networks
5 multi logins
Unlimited bandwidth
Unlimited server switching
Easy and fast access to restricted or blocked content
100+ VPN locations
Split tunneling feature
99% Uptime with unlimited speed
OpenVPN (TCP, UDP), L2TP-IPsec, and PPTP protocols
Simple, secure and anonymous P2P file-sharing support
No logs
Internet kill switch
Automatic purpose selection
Live chat and email support available
7-day money-back guarantee
Apps available for Windows, Mac, iOS and Android

FF at 11:39 PM on January 12, 2017 | #8222
Found an extremely cheap VPN!! $1.66/month
I wanted to find something cheaper than PIA..

Does anyone have any criticism against ivacy? Has anyone tried it?

https://www.ivacy.com/buy-vpn/

Anonymous browsing
256-bit encryption for ultimate protection
Supreme security over public Wi-Fi networks
5 multi logins
Unlimited bandwidth
Unlimited server switching
Easy and fast access to restricted or blocked content
100+ VPN locations
Split tunneling feature
99% Uptime with unlimited speed
OpenVPN (TCP, UDP), L2TP-IPsec, and PPTP protocols
Simple, secure and anonymous P2P file-sharing support
No logs
Internet kill switch
Automatic purpose selection
Live chat and email support available
7-day money-back guarantee
Apps available for Windows, Mac, iOS and Android

FF at 11:39 PM on January 12, 2017 | #8223
oops.. got posted twice.. I was not trying to spam.. I changed the "a" to "an" one sec later. But it still got posted.

FF at 11:40 PM on January 12, 2017 | #8224
EU utterly confused on what people are, what robots are and what rights are:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38583360

I haven't read the EU report closely, but it looks like garbage. (it's linked in the article)

They want to make robots responsible for their actions. Not just the designer or the owner.

I don't know exactly what they mean by robots being responsible for their actions. I suspect they don't really know what they mean either.

Before anything even happens, they want to make sure it's all regulated in advance. They're terrified of people improving themselves (section 18) or increasing efficiency.

They manage to shoehorn some affirmative action for women in there (section 21).

They lie outright (section 37).

There are a bazillion more problems with this.

More countries should leave the EU before this disaster goes anywhere.

And supposing someone makes AGI this will be applied to them, making the EU slavers.

SN at 5:00 AM on January 15, 2017 | #8247
oh i think i just realized what SN stands for. real initials not meant to be a secret?

not even AI researchers have a clue about people, robots, etc...

and the EU is statist, wouldn't expect much respect for rights there.

curi at 5:19 AM on January 15, 2017 | #8249
Right. Not meant to be secret.

I think I was being evasive at first by not picking something more obvious. I wanted plausible deniability in case I was recognised but found it to be a problem and wanted to bail.

I've done some anon posts too. But I've made some progress on my hangups and feel more comfortable signing most of the time.

-Seph

SN at 7:53 AM on January 15, 2017 | #8250
clips of me playing Tracer in Overwatch today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljYIt1iWlHs

curi at 4:49 AM on January 22, 2017 | #8278

Why RethinkDB Failed

http://www.defstartup.org/2017/01/18/why-rethinkdb-failed.html (bold mine)

> When I was a little kid I wanted to build my own radio. I made a box out of plywood, threw some metal junk inside, and connected the box to a power cord. I had books on electronics at home, but didn’t think I needed them – I had unwavering faith that I could do it on my own. Eventually I did build a working receiver, but it took me years to finally realize I needed to learn basic electronics.

Lots of things are hard if you don't take advantage of pre-existing knowledge.

> Early RethinkDB was quite a bit like that. We had no intuition for products or markets, so **we’d go through the motions of building a company without actually understanding what we were doing.**

Cargo cult

> What’s more, **we had enormous optimism bias.** Just like physicians know that gifts from pharmaceutical companies have biasing effects for other physicians but believe they are immune from the effect, we believed we were immune from the laws of economics and the math of running a business. The math, of course, eventually caught up with us.

> Could we have done anything to avoid these mistakes? Not any more than I could have built a working radio as a little kid. **We were unconsciously incompetent, and it took years for that incompetence to become conscious.**

Alisa at 10:51 AM on January 22, 2017 | #8280

Excerpt from "How to say nothing in 500 words"

(HOW TO SAY NOTHING IN FIVE HUNDRED WORDS)[http://www.mrgunnar.net/ap.cfm?subpage=348270]

> Some of the padding in freshman themes is to be blamed not on anxiety about the word minimum but on excessive timidity. The student writes, "In my opinion, the principal of my high school acted in ways that I believe every unbiased person would have to call foolish." This isn't exactly what he means. What he means is, "My high school principal was a fool." If he was a fool, call him a fool. Hedging the thing about with "in-my-opinion's" and "it-seems-to-me's" and "as-I-see-it's" and "at-least-from-my-point-of-view's" gains you nothing. Delete these phrases whenever they creep into your paper.

> The student's tendency to hedge stems from a modesty that in other circumstances would be commendable. He is, he realizes, young and inexperienced, and he half suspects that he is dopey and fuzzyminded beyond the average. Probably only too true. But it doesn't help to announce your incompetence six times in every paragraph. Decide what you want to say and say it as vigorously as possible, without apology and in plain words.

Alisa at 11:04 AM on January 22, 2017 | #8281

OH the IRONY

I hope you fools know what the fruition of your ideals. You vote in the Donald while you claim to worship JEW GODDESS (((AYN RAND))). Hope u all die lol....The new tide is turning and u will see the RESULT!!

L Ron Hobnob at 7:38 PM on January 25, 2017 | #8289
> Hope u all die lol

why are you here?

curi at 8:09 PM on January 25, 2017 | #8290

You're MSNBC is showing

Hope u know that u are voting in ur own demise. Hope...That it's ur demise!!!!!LOL!!! You can't be for CONSERVATIVE WHITE AMERICA without CHRISTIAN GOD AND CHRISTIAN MORALS.

L Ron Hobnob at 8:15 PM on January 25, 2017 | #8291

Falsifiability: why you rule things out, not in

https://blog.danslimmon.com/2016/09/07/falsifiability-why-you-rule-things-out-not-in/

A blog post from Sep 2016 that talks about Popper & LScD. Not vouching for the quality, but maybe someone here will find it interesting.

Alisa at 1:53 PM on January 26, 2017 | #8292
I want to start posting on FI again.

I've been posting here as a kind of warm-up to it. My hangups are less in action here than with FI, posting here is a step I'm comfortable with.

It's been a long time since I was last significantly active on FI. I will write a post about that: what has changed, why it happened, how to avoid it happening in future.

I've noticed a few other people have been through this process of being inactive and returning and I'll check out the discussion around that and see if it is relevant to me.

I will check old posts that I took a note to reply to but never did and either follow them up, or mention why I've lost interest.

I wont make any guarantee of activity level or timeframe. That's not something I can reasonably predict.

There are still problems I have that will make it difficult. I haven't beaten them entirely, but I think I understand them better now and can discuss them better + be more honest about them.

SN at 10:00 AM on January 31, 2017 | #8316
you don't have to say a lot about leaving and returning, but you should say something. people often avoid the issue. Russ just left for a month. hasn't said a word about it. lame. Rami has a history of lengthy absences followed by trying to avoid discussing them even when people bring them up. People also avoid talking about outstanding issues from older discussions, e.g. Rami said please don't give up on him, but then refused to reply further in that discussion, then left for a while, then still won't ever talk about it.

IIRC, SN previous said he'd totally never quit FI and wasn't even interested in discussing the issue of that possibility. then did quit. (rather predictably. but like others before him he didn't want to listen to the person with the perspective to see this predictable problem.) sounds like he'll potentially be more honest this time.

Anonymous at 10:02 PM on January 31, 2017 | #8319
> you don't have to say a lot about leaving and returning

I want to. There's a lot of stuff I've changed. I expect I've made mistakes and could improve on what I changed and how I did it.

I have quite a bit of stuff I've written about the last year that I want to post on FI when I feel comfortable with it.

A tangent about "have to":

I make up things that I "have to" do a lot. They distract and confuse me. I'm used to needing to work out nonsensical unspoken social rules to avoid danger when interacting with people, but take an overcautious approach, so (particularly amongst FI people) I also try to avoid problems that aren't actually there.

I guess I should stop worrying about that unless explicitly warned, or it's something that I already know contradicts the guidelines:
http://fallibleideas.com/discussion/guidelines


> IIRC, SN previous said he'd totally never quit FI and wasn't even interested in discussing the issue of that possibility. then did quit

You remember correctly.

There was some misunderstanding.

I don't think "stop posting for a year" = quit. I always intended to return, so don't characterise it as quitting. (I still don't, I acknowledge that FI people do mean it that way, but I don't think there's much to gain from arguing over how it was phrased?)

I never gave up on *wanting* to take part in FI, I'd just stopped actually doing it while I worked on the issues which meant that I suffered when I interacted with FI.

If I'd been more curious I'd have understood the issue better and known that "stop posting for a year" was amongst the things meant.

At the time when that came up, I had already gotten to a stage where burnout was approaching fast.

If someone had asked "will you post every month" I'd have readily said "no".

I'd confused the issue by being evasive. I knew I was feeling burned out and that I might take a break. I wasn't talking about that.

Part of the reason I made that mistake is that I didn't recognise that it was a mistake. It was normal to me at the time to push myself to exhaustion because I felt like I "had to". I think differently about burnout now. I think it's better to manage my activities and time so I don't *need* to pressure myself, which is the main cause of burnout.

SN at 8:33 AM on February 1, 2017 | #8328
> I don't think "stop posting for a year" = quit.

do you think a 10 year break also isn't quitting? where do you draw a line?

Anonymous at 12:31 AM on February 2, 2017 | #8330
> do you think a 10 year break also isn't quitting? where do you draw a line?

I don't draw one in terms of time between posts.

Why do you? Seems like a poor standard of quitting.

Different people have different problems. It takes them different amounts of time to work out how to do something. Someone with relevant knowledge might work out how to do something in a day that someone with conflicting knowledge would take a year to learn.

Maybe I'm really terrible. Or I've got really disastrous problems. Or both.

Whatever the reason, actually writing posts on FI was not an effective way of pursuing the goal of posting on FI. It made the goal harder to reach, not easier.

SN at 12:13 PM on February 2, 2017 | #8331
when someone doesn't know much about FI and leaves for years they have no way of knowing what paths do or don't lead back to FI (and most don't), so they can't have a reasonable expectation they'll ever come back.

when one stops engaging with FI ideas, that's quitting.

if one pretends he's still engaging just without communication, that's dishonest. taking critical discussion out of the equation sabotages error correction -- which means misunderstanding FI stuff, not understanding/using/living it.

imagine an atheist converting to Christianity. he goes to Bible study for a while. he has a bad time. he stops going. he says he's going back to his atheist meetup groups for a few years to work on some personal problems with the longterm goal of still converting to Christianity later. it's a bunch of bullshit, isn't it? it's so incoherent that people don't even try to claim that.

Anonymous at 3:05 PM on February 2, 2017 | #8332
> when someone doesn't know much about FI and leaves for years they have no way of knowing what paths do or don't lead back to FI (and most don't), so they can't have a reasonable expectation they'll ever come back.

They could have a good idea what problems they have and try what solutions they can think of.

Maybe FI will have *better* solutions, maybe not. FI isn't the only possible source of correct solutions.

But being involved with FI doesn't make someone infallible. Even if it were an effective option (in my case, it wasn't, it made the situation worse), they could still quit.

> when one stops engaging with FI ideas, that's quitting.

Ok, but a period not posting isn't a good measure that they are not engaging.

> if one pretends he's still engaging just without communication, that's dishonest. taking critical discussion out of the equation sabotages error correction -- which means misunderstanding FI stuff, not understanding/using/living it.

Only supposing someone finds they understand stuff better with critical discussion. If that is the case, then yes they are actually avoiding options that they know will improve their progress.

But if someone actually finds understanding harder, progress slower with critical discussion, it's self-destructive to do that until they can work out how to make progress with it.

>imagine an atheist converting to Christianity. he goes to Bible study for a while. he has a bad time. he stops going. he says he's going back to his atheist meetup groups for a few years to work on some personal problems with the longterm goal of still converting to Christianity later. it's a bunch of bullshit, isn't it? it's so incoherent that people don't even try to claim that.

Imagine someone wants to fly a plane.

Does he jump in the cockpit right away and take off? No, he'll probably die (if he even gets it in the air at all).

Has he quit because he doesn't do that? No, he needs to work out how to do it without dying first. He'll read stuff, use simulators, watch other people fly.

SN at 8:27 PM on February 2, 2017 | #8333
(Asking questions would probably help the wannabe pilot. But it's not impossible for him to succeed without doing that.)

SN at 8:28 PM on February 2, 2017 | #8334
> FI isn't the only possible source of correct solutions.

error correction is the only way to get correct solutions with any kind of reliability. it's a total crapshoot otherwise.

error correction is the defining feature of public critical discussion. people hide from it and then errors build up and shit goes wrong.

> Ok, but a period not posting isn't a good measure that they are not engaging.

if they aren't posting then where's the error correction? figure everything out themselves without help? no no no. just leads to them doing some of the millions of common errors and not being told about it.

reading without interaction = misunderstanding.

> Only supposing someone finds they understand stuff better with critical discussion.

this isn't a matter of personal taste, as you imply.

Anonymous at 8:35 PM on February 2, 2017 | #8335
> if they aren't posting then where's the error correction? figure everything out themselves without help? no no no. just leads to them doing some of the millions of common errors and not being told about it.

I agree that if you can do the critical discussion effectively that it helps with error correction.

I disagree that everyone can do that effectively.

I disagree that you can't error-correct without FI, which you seem to imply? (I never said without help though)



> this isn't a matter of personal taste, as you imply.

I implied that different people have different capacity to gain from critical discussion.

I didn't imply anything about "taste".

The difference is in knowledge of how to engage in critical discussion effectively.



But I also think this is kind of missing the crux of the issue.

I said:
> I'd just stopped actually doing it while I worked on the issues which meant that I suffered when I interacted with FI.

The suffering is the issue.

I think suffering is bad. I don't do things that result in me suffering.

I don't think you can do learn very well from something that results in suffering.

FI posting resulted in me suffering. I want to resume posting, but I don't want to suffer. The only solution I know is to find ways of fixing the problems that result in me suffering through other channels besides FI.

(Or I could **actually** quit. But I don't want to do that.)

Do you think that:
1. I'm lying about suffering while I was posting on FI
2. I should do FI and suffer anyway and that isn't a disaster
3. Something else?

SN at 10:12 PM on February 2, 2017 | #8336
Or I guess this could be true...
4. Trying to do FI in a way that doesn't result in suffering counts as quitting FI.

Anonymous at 10:15 PM on February 2, 2017 | #8337
I wrote that a bit too quickly and carelessly and was unclear.

> Or I guess this could be true...
I meant "I guess this could be true *of what you think*"

SN at 10:16 PM on February 2, 2017 | #8338
> I disagree that you can't error-correct without FI, which you seem to imply? (I never said without help though)

there is no realistic method that avoids public discussion.

talking with a few friends in private, or figuring everything out yourself, are very low success rate methods. a reasonable person using such a method should think something like: "ok i'm basically quitting, there is over a 90% chance i'll fail horribly at this."

real talk: people avoid public critical discussion to *avoid error correction*. it's stuff like finding out about errors and problems that's what they don't like. so when they then go spend time in hiding they don't do a bunch of great error correction.

some things you haven't said are any actual problems with criticism (or public discussion or whatever else) that you don't know how to address, any causes of suffering you think you've identified (note you could easily be wrong about what the causes are), any specifics of alternative approaches you think are good.

also, more or less your whole life is full of suffering which you routinely put up with. you're just paying biased, selective attention to suffering that you (probably misleadingly and unreasonably) attribute to FI.

Anonymous at 12:22 AM on February 3, 2017 | #8339
>talking with a few friends in private, or figuring everything out yourself, are very low success rate methods.

It's not figuring everything out yourself. But what if it's just figuring out how to engage with FI without suffering?


Also, why do you think engaging with FI is a higher success rate method? Are you just looking at the situation conceptually and it makes sense to you? Or have many people succeeded through that method and now they are awesome?

Like some people have been around FI stuff for a long time and they aren't awesome yet. So what's holding them back? Do they just need to post more?

Or is it something about their character? Maybe they need to learn something crucial, which they haven't yet. Is THAT actually the key?

Kate at 8:20 AM on February 3, 2017 | #8340
> you're just paying biased, selective attention to suffering that you (probably misleadingly and unreasonably) attribute to FI.

Why did you say "misleadingly and unreasonably"?

The cause of the suffering would be his own ideas. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see him blaming FI for the suffering.

If the state of one's ideas are a particular way, won't those ideas conflict with how one interprets FI discussion to be? And then if the person doesn't know how to resolve the conflict, then wouldn't suffering result?

Kate at 8:28 AM on February 3, 2017 | #8341
open critical discussion (OCD) is a huge contributor to error correction, without which one is fucked.

people's problems are basically nothing to do with OCD and leaving OCD doesn't help anything. people's problems are *revealed by* OCD, not caused by OCD.

Anonymous at 8:32 AM on February 3, 2017 | #8342
> open critical discussion (OCD) is a huge contributor to error correction, without which one is fucked.

So why am I making progress anyway?

Or are you saying my rate of progress is so low that I'm not improving fast enough to keep up with reality?

Or that you don't think I've improved at all?


I'm very sure that OCD is very good for someone who knows how to engage in it effectively and doesn't (like me) have a bunch of terrible ideas that obstruct it.

This is a major part of the reason I *am* interested in FI enough to keep trying. I know it's right to pursue, I just haven't worked out how to do it without suffering yet.

As Kate said, it's my ideas that result in me suffering. I don't blame FI for my suffering, as such.
(that's not strictly true, parts of me do, but I think they're wrong and they're losing)


> real talk: people avoid public critical discussion to *avoid error correction*.

Yeah I know.

My bad ideas that are fighting me and torturing me and making me suffer when I push against them, they're resisting change. Causing suffering is the mechanism that allows them to keep existing.

That's why I'm interested in beating them, to the point where I can engage in FI posting without suffering.


> people's problems are basically nothing to do with OCD

OCD requires people. I have problems that relate to people. So my problems have to do with an essential component of OCD.

Which is not at all "basically nothing to do with OCD".



> some things you haven't said are any actual problems with criticism

This seems like a weird way of saying this.

I interpret it to be implying that I should have known to do that already? Like it's a criticism that I didn't know you'd want to know that next and that's how you'd try to argue your case yet? Is that how you meant it?

I'd have said "why do you think you suffer as a result of criticism?" or something to that effect.


I have talked about the problems in other threads.
http://curi.us/1932-indirection

There was another one that was good but I can't find it :/ I'll link if I can work out how to find it


Here's another one:

Being accused of lying.
This hangup fucked me up very badly when Elliot first called me a liar (about 20 months ago iirc).

I've played with it for a long time since then. Accused a lot of people of lying (during the Open Oxford debacle, as well as amongst friends and family and various online people). When I say "played with it" I don't mean to say I used it falsely - people lie a lot, it wasn't hard to find times to say it honestly. I played with it like it was a new puzzle to learn.

I had a big hangup about it, like it was a disaster for someone to say that. But it's not that big a deal, and it's really important to be able to say you think someone's a liar without it being a big drama.



Another:

Your posting style is one of the problems. I interpret lots of things meaning "you should have known to do this" (as I mentioned above) rather than "this is something you can do better". So I take it more like "you're broken and useless for missing this" (and if someone interprets me that way, why discuss? they're not interested) than "here's a thing you can improve on" (yay!).

People posting like you were a factor in my burnout and withdrawal from posting. I found it very upsetting.

It doesn't affect me like it used to. I've made progress on that. I think because I've been challenging people a lot and getting better ideas about ways to positively interpret crit (by thinking about how *I* mean it positively, even if the person I'm talking to takes it badly). Listening to Elliot's FI posting videos helped too in relearning how to interpret criticism more positively.


Overall I think I kinda forgot how to interpret crit positively? Or at least the part of me that could take it positively had been badly damaged/blocked. So all I knew how to do for a long time was to take it as a put-down (ie an attempt to upset me, not actually interested in truth) or threat of coercion (ie a warning that I'll be forced if I don't comply). Why? Because of personal shit.



There's more. But this is already getting hella long.

SN at 10:26 AM on February 3, 2017 | #8343
>FI posting resulted in me suffering. I want to resume posting, but I don't want to suffer. The only solution I know is to find ways of fixing the problems that result in me suffering through other channels besides FI.

i can understand wanting to address the suffering and yet seeing each FI interaction as making the suffering, the confusion, the feeling of being overwhelmed worse and worse and worse. it’s horrible.

it’s mostly your own bad ideas which are causing the problems, but that doesn’t make the suffering not real.

so i can understand wanting to take a break to try to regroup, come up with a new approach, and see if that makes FI go better.

HOWEVER, how are you actually going to know if you are fixing anything successfully if you aren’t coming back *regularly* to test out your new ideas?

if the goal is to be able to interact with FI without suffering, seems like you should have come back more regularly to get feedback on how your new approach is working. e.g. even feedback in the form of “ok. i still feel bad. this still is isn’t good enough. let’s trying something else.”

i think it’s very possible to make *some* progress alone (by reading books and writing to yourself…did you at least do that?).

but a year (or whatever) is a very long time to not be testing your ideas out in the actual place where you want to use them.

Kate at 12:46 PM on February 3, 2017 | #8344
>open critical discussion (OCD) is a huge contributor to error correction, without which one is fucked.

is it the KEY contributor to error correction? number one? what are other huge contributors to error correction, learning, progress?

Kate at 1:03 PM on February 3, 2017 | #8345
> So why am I making progress anyway?

you've provided no evidence of this. you believe it but why do you expect anyone else here to believe it? that you expect us to believe it shows you have a perspective mistake.

you have some things you think are progress which you haven't actually exposed to public criticism yet. i don't know about yours, but in general in situations like this it's common the person reinvented (or more like modified slightly from their culture) some typical crap that doesn't work which we already knew about years ago and could have told them about in a few seconds if asked.

> OCD requires people. I have problems that relate to people. So my problems have to do with an essential component of OCD.

this doesn't make sense or at least is unclear. how are you going to get away from people? read books written by people? watch anime made by people? do a job creating value for customers who are people? what else are you going to do, meditate? no wait, you got the idea of meditation from people too.

> I interpret it to be implying that I should have known to do that already?

it's saying your posts have been preliminary instead of getting into substance. you keep mentioning some issues you had with FI without giving specifics about them which doesn't let others really comment or form an opinion because we don't know what you're referring to.

should you have known not to do this? i can imagine how a reasonable person could think so, so maybe that's why you think it was implied. but that was not stated. i haven't offered an opinion about that.

broadly i think you should stay away from reading a bunch of implications into FI stuff, especially ones you don't like. you'll be wrong a lot and could create a negativity over nothing.

> I have talked about the problems in other threads.

that's not a real reference to anything. you can't expect anyone to read that and then go find everything you ever wrote in other threads and know which of those other things you're referring to and which you aren't. and you don't give any kind of summary statements mentioning topics that could remind anyone who'd read the stuff before or could allow someone to do a targeted search of comments to find the right ones (as opposed to a "literally read every comment by SN ever" search). hell you might even mean old FI threads, not merely blog comments, i don't know. and i wouldn't even be surprised if you had in mind some thread you'd actually written under a different name (or no name).

---

since you have problems with discussion i'll offer 2 bits of help to conclude.

1) you should not make assumptions about who wrote this or that it's the same anonymous as any other anonymous comment.

2) you should not treat this as a complete reply and then be disappointed it didn't reply to some other part of your comment you wanted a reply to. and don't assume that means no one will ever reply to that other part. (and even if they don't it's really no big deal, you could, among other things, wait a few days then quote the part you care about, say why you care about it, and perhaps ask why no one replied.) it may help you to know that, as of this moment, i haven't even read every word of your long comment, so not replying to something really doesn't have to have whatever implications you might jump to.

Anonymous at 4:56 PM on February 3, 2017 | #8346
> what are other huge contributors to error correction, learning, progress?

thinking.

Anonymous at 7:04 PM on February 3, 2017 | #8347
> Or are you saying my rate of progress is so low that I'm not improving fast enough to keep up with reality?
>
> Or that you don't think I've improved at all?

you sure feel judged.

> My bad ideas that are fighting me and torturing me and making me suffer when I push against them, they're resisting change. Causing suffering is the mechanism that allows them to keep existing.
>
> That's why I'm interested in beating them, to the point where I can engage in FI posting without suffering.

you're externalizing stuff into an "me vs them" mentality, when actually *it's you*. also doing "they made me" kinda phrasing to deny responsibility for your actions.

> Which is not at all "basically nothing to do with OCD".

you are ignorant of some ideas on this topic. i can tell because what you say doesn't speak to the issue. and rather than ask a question, you misunderstood and denied.

> Being accused of lying.
>
> This hangup fucked me up very badly when Elliot first called me a liar (about 20 months ago iirc).

you say "this hangup" but what's that a reference to? The text "Being accused of lying." is not a description, explanation or name of a hangup.

> So all I knew how to do for a long time was to take [criticism] as a put-down ... Why? Because of personal shit.

no, because of impersonal shit. that's super generic. it's so typical in our culture. it's not unique to you. it doesn't apply only to your personal situation. your personal details are mostly irrelevant and it works the same for people with vastly different personal situations.

Anonymous at 7:12 PM on February 3, 2017 | #8348
> Being accused of lying.
>
> This hangup fucked me up very badly when Elliot first called me a liar (about 20 months ago iirc).

did you express this problem to FI and ask for help with a solution? did you post something like, "I feel bad about being accused of lying. Is it bad to be accused of lying? If it's bad, is it bad to be the accuser or the person accused? Why? How should one deal with it? What are typical reasons people feel bad about this and solutions to them? What are ways to do introspection to find out why I feel bad about this and fix it? Or should I live in such a way I'm not accused of lying? Or is feeling bad a part of life to accept and live with?" etc etc

no, IIRC, nothing in that ballpark of trying to use FI for problem solving regarding the issue. now you say FI wasn't working for you but in various basic ways you didn't even *try* to use it to solve problems you encountered. perhaps you didn't know how but you could have and didn't (and still haven't) focused attention on learning the very basics of how to use OCD to solve problems. (and really it's mostly the same stuff you'd do in non-dicsussion. e.g. all the questions in the prior paragraphs are things you would want to think of and ask yourself alone too.)

why not *try* to engage in problem solving on FI? some *other* mistake -- more of a crucial root cause kinda mistake -- which you haven't been working on. being upset about some comment about lying is superficial to what went wrong. if you were doing other stuff right that'd be minor and easily handled. the stuff that actually matters is stuff like ignorance of how to solve problems, lack of skill at understanding ideas, bad philosophy. you've been focused on some minor downstream consequences of that. and what you're doing is a typical, predictable pattern which was easily foreseeable.

Anonymous at 7:30 PM on February 3, 2017 | #8349
#8344
> if the goal is to be able to interact with FI without suffering, seems like you should have come back more regularly to get feedback on how your new approach is working. e.g. even feedback in the form of “ok. i still feel bad. this still is isn’t good enough. let’s trying something else.”

I did a few times. Not always with FI posting, I didn't even need to approach that closely to have problems.

I'm sure I made a ton more mistakes than if I'd worked out how to return to FI sooner.

If I do take a break again I think it'll take me less time to return in future.


> i think it’s very possible to make *some* progress alone (by reading books and writing to yourself…did you at least do that?).

Yeah. I've read a ton of Rand. The Fountainhead (20+ times, I like it a lot), Atlas Shrugged (4 or 5 times), The Virtue of Selfishness (4 or 5 times), The Return to the Primitive (4 or 5 times), Philosophy: Who Needs It (twice), The Romantic Manifesto (twice).

Tried Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Peikoff too, not as impressed by that (it has some content, but it talks about induction a lot :/).

Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition by Mises (once).

Psychiatry: The Science of Lies by Szasz (2 or 3 times).

I have quite a bit of writing to myself that I intend to post about on FI.

SN at 10:18 AM on February 4, 2017 | #8350
#8346

> > So why am I making progress anyway?

> you've provided no evidence of this. you believe it but why do you expect anyone else here to believe it? that you expect us to believe it shows you have a perspective mistake.

I don't expect you to just believe anything.

I say stuff. If you don't believe it you criticise it. Then I deal with that. I don't know what you will or wont believe in advance.

>> OCD requires people. I have problems that relate to people. So my problems have to do with an essential component of OCD.

>this doesn't make sense or at least is unclear. how are you going to get away from people?

Ok it's unclear.

It's specifically direct interaction. A book writer isn't talking to me or about my ideas. You are. The context is relevant to my hangups, I don't think a book that disagrees with me upsetting.


> broadly i think you should stay away from reading a bunch of implications into FI stuff, especially ones you don't like. you'll be wrong a lot and could create a negativity over nothing.

I don't think I should act on negative implications I think of without checking if they're right or not.

I don't know how to explain myself well here.

I'm not thinking "how could this person mean this negatively?", I'm more thinking "this way of something means this negative thing".

I already have specific misconceptions about certain ways of saying things, I'm not trying to find them. I think mentioning them when I see them (like I did there, asking if they were intended) is a way of undoing that way of reading things.

By the way, you're reading a bunch of really negative false stuff into what I say. This "could create a negativity over nothing"


> that's not a real reference to anything. you can't expect anyone to read that and then go find everything you ever wrote in other threads and know which of those other things you're referring to and which you aren't.

I referenced a specific page, how's that not a real reference to anything? I guess I coulda been more useful and linked to the first of my comments tho.

I don't expect you to go look for other stuff.


> 1) you should not make assumptions about who wrote this or that it's the same anonymous as any other anonymous comment.

I didn't.

I specifically avoided that (I never said I think you are the same anon as another anon). I realise not everyone who writes in a similar way is the same person.


> 2) you should not treat this as a complete reply and then be disappointed it didn't reply to some other part of your comment you wanted a reply to.

NP.
I don't expect you to reply to anything, let alone everything.

SN at 10:53 AM on February 4, 2017 | #8351
Gonna break from the above crits for something meta.

I'm struggling to process the number of anon posts. I suspect there are multiple anons and that's confusing me because I'm trying to connect them for context. I don't think it's impossible to do this, but it's a layer of complexity that is hard work and is not very interesting to work out (and maybe I'm doing it needlessly and anon posters aren't expecting me to connect their contexts anyway).

I think from here on out I'm going to treat each anon post as completely self-contained and not try to follow context from post to post beside exactly what they quote.

If you want me to retain context to an anon post, either make yourself recognisable (eg "anon1", "anon2", etc) or tag all previous posts that have your context.

SN at 3:50 PM on February 4, 2017 | #8353
Another meta-issue.

An approach I've seen here, and also seen on FI in the past, is assuming that someone is conventional and wanting to be convinced to treat them as anything but.

Ie here as far as I can tell, a poster has an idea of what conventional people are like (specifically: conventional mistakes they make) and assumes I am like that unless I convince them to the contrary.

This is boring to respond to.

1. It's not criticising something I've *actually* done, so it's not highlighting an error I've made directly in many cases and so I've not really got much to learn from it. (or at least, i'm not convinced I've got much to learn from it, I'd happily tackle a conventional mistake I make if I actually make it and it is pointed out directly, rather than *maybe* I make this conventional mistake and *maybe* I should learn about it, I'm more interested in the problems I do have than the problems I maybe have)

2. I think it requires me to know well what conventional people are like, in order to understand the conventional mistakes I might be making. I don't know conventional people well, and I don't think that's interesting to learn about.

SN at 3:58 PM on February 4, 2017 | #8354
>> Which is not at all "basically nothing to do with OCD".

> you are ignorant of some ideas on this topic.

Like what?


>> That's why I'm interested in beating them, to the point where I can engage in FI posting without suffering.

> you're externalizing stuff into an "me vs them" mentality, when actually *it's you*. also doing "they made me" kinda phrasing to deny responsibility for your actions.

You dropped context.

Right before that I said:
> My bad ideas

They're mine. I am responsible for them. I am responsible for failing to solve my problems on FI. I am responsible for working out how to do better. I am responsible for changing my mind. I am responsible for every mistake I make. I am responsible for the disasters in my life. Only I can stop these problems recurring.

If you've got better phrasing other than talking my ideas as "them", what is it?

SN at 4:30 PM on February 4, 2017 | #8355
> I've read a ton of Rand.

Millions of people have read a bunch of Rand on their own without big results. Many of them benefitted a little and I don't want to say it was a bad activity or anything. But almost none of them became decent philosophers or some big result like that. And of those people who didn't learn a lot, many *think* they did.

The method (read Rand, try to understand it yourself) basically doesn't work. Engaging with other people who've read Rand helps dramatically.

Why? Because errors come up as you read -- e.g. misunderstandings -- and you're trying to deal with them all on your own. But why reinvent the wheel which is hard and unreliable? There's already lots of resources addressing many common misunderstandings both directly (talking about a wrong view and why it's wrong) and indirectly (talking about the right interpretation and helping people understand that).

And suppose 100 people read Rand and then chat about it. There's a decent possibility for any misconception to get cleared up which 5 or fewer people had. All those unique misconceptions you come up with while reading, you'll have 95+ people to explain a better view. There's a good chance that, in cases where you're mistaken, among those dozens of better perspectives, you'll be able learn from one of them.

Even if there's a 60/40 split on some issue, it's a big help to find out about the other popular interpretation of that issue. You might consider it and prefer it. Even if you consider the other view and decide it's wrong, it can help you analyze the issue in more detail.

curi at 5:52 PM on February 4, 2017 | #8357
> I referenced a specific page, how's that not a real reference to anything? I guess I coulda been more useful and linked to the first of my comments tho.

i just took a look at the page and was unable to figure out what text there you were referring to and what your point about it is.

curi at 5:57 PM on February 4, 2017 | #8358
> > 1) you should not make assumptions about who wrote this or that it's the same anonymous as any other anonymous comment.

> I didn't.

stop writing "you" a lot then. it sounds like you're making assumptions about who is who. and it's often unclear who you mean.

curi at 5:58 PM on February 4, 2017 | #8359
> > > So why am I making progress anyway?

> > you've provided no evidence of this. you believe it but why do you expect anyone else here to believe it? that you expect us to believe it shows you have a perspective mistake.

> I don't expect you to just believe anything.

When you premise an argument on something, it suggests you do expect people to accept that premise. Otherwise the argument wouldn't work for them.

curi at 6:01 PM on February 4, 2017 | #8360
#8354 this comment is boring due to lack of examples. it accuses some unspecified authors of making some mistakes with zero quotes of any text SN alleges makes the mistake.

this reminds me of all the times people say i write mean/bad/whatever stuff, but have zero quotes to discuss which contain the supposed flaw.

curi at 6:05 PM on February 4, 2017 | #8361
> If you've got better phrasing other than talking my ideas as "them", what is it?

you could talk in terms of reform, self-improvement, learning better ideas and problem solving.

curi at 6:06 PM on February 4, 2017 | #8362
#8357
> The method (read Rand, try to understand it yourself) basically doesn't work. Engaging with other people who've read Rand helps dramatically.
>Why? Because errors come up as you read -- e.g. misunderstandings -- and you're trying to deal with them all on your own.

I agree that it is better to discuss. I don't think I have a good sense of how much better it is, I don't think I know enough to judge. Maybe it is as much better as you say.

One of my past mistakes on FI was not thinking through what I said I'd do adequately. I silently flaked out on a lot of things I said I'd do as a result, like talking about the books I was reading. I didn't really work out how I'd fit that in and get it done or think about the problems I have with doing it before I said I'd do it.

So what I'm willing to say is: I'll pursue it when I'm not pursuing other issues. I want to wrap up this discussion first at least (I don't mean in an immediate sense, this could go on for weeks more), then I'll consider writing about a book I'm reading.

I'm trying to be more focused in how I approach my problems, tackling a small number at a time rather than taking on lots and putting them in a queue.

SN at 11:49 PM on February 4, 2017 | #8363
>> > 1) you should not make assumptions about who wrote this or that it's the same anonymous as any other anonymous comment.

>> I didn't.

> stop writing "you" a lot then. it sounds like you're making assumptions about who is who. and it's often unclear who you mean.

Fair enough.

If I need to refer to a specific anon, better if I refer to the relevant comment directly rather than "you" to avoid being confusing.

In #8343 I said
> Your posting style is one of the problems.
This was addressed to anon in #8339. This wasn't very clear but also wasn't important.

It would have been better if I'd focused on the details of the style that was the problem, I didn't need to talk about the person doing it directly.

SN at 12:12 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8364
>> Your posting style is one of the problems.

> This was addressed to anon in #8339.

what about the posting style?

curi at 12:17 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8365
#8361
> #8354 this comment is boring due to lack of examples. it accuses some unspecified authors of making some mistakes with zero quotes of any text SN alleges makes the mistake.

I didn't think it was controversial to say (in #8354):
> An approach I've seen here, and also seen on FI in the past, is assuming that someone is conventional and wanting to be convinced to treat them as anything but.

It wasn't important to focus on who was doing it though. The approach is what's important, not who's using it. I confused the issue by writing about specific people.

So this part (in #8354) was not particularly relevant.
> Ie here as far as I can tell, a poster has an idea of what conventional people are like (specifically: conventional mistakes they make) and assumes I am like that unless I convince them to the contrary.

I can explain the concept I mean without referring to someone in particular.


Another try:

I think the idea of assuming someone is very conventional and criticising them for conventional mistakes until convinced otherwise (rather than pointing out mistakes when they happen) is very problematic. I think it's better to focus on the mistakes people make, rather than the mistakes they may be making if they're conventional.

I have these problems with it:

1. It's not criticising something the recipient has *actually* done, so it's not highlighting an error directly and giving them an actionable problem to solve. It's just saying that they make some conventional mistake which they don't necessarily know about. It's more fun to solve specific mistakes than chase a bunch of maybes.

2. it seems to require the recipient to understand conventional ideas and mistakes well, but not everyone does and I don't think there's enough value to learning about them that it's reasonable to expect someone to learn about them (which is part of the critic expecting to be convinced otherwise)

3. it's also very negative and can seem hostile, it seems like the critic is just creating wild accusations out of nowhere (especially for someone who doesn't know much about conventional mistakes)

SN at 12:45 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8366
> I think the idea of assuming someone is very conventional and criticising them for conventional mistakes until convinced otherwise (rather than pointing out mistakes when they happen) is very problematic. I think it's better to focus on the mistakes people make, rather than the mistakes they may be making if they're conventional.

I don't know what you think constitutes doing this, and you don't provide quotes and analysis of how those quotes do it, nor do you provide clear examples like a hypothetical dialog.

I take it you think some text in this thread did this and that's the reason you're bringing it up. but you aren't explaining your point clearly when you don't mention the text you're actually talking about.

Anonymous at 12:53 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8367
#8365
>>> Your posting style is one of the problems.
>>
>> This was addressed to anon in #8339.
>
> what about the posting style?


From #8339
> some things you haven't said are any actual problems with criticism (or public discussion or whatever else) that you don't know how to address, any causes of suffering you think you've identified (note you could easily be wrong about what the causes are), any specifics of alternative approaches you think are good.

The relevant part from #8343
> This seems like a weird way of saying this.
>
> I interpret it to be implying that I should have known to do that already? Like it's a criticism that I didn't know you'd want to know that next and that's how you'd try to argue your case yet? Is that how you meant it?

So to put it another way:
The style that I think is a problem is a criticism "you didn't do X" or "you didn't say X", I read it as implying that the recipient *should* have known to do or say that before the critic mentioned there was a problem.

Related from #8360:
>> I don't expect you to just believe anything.
>
> When you premise an argument on something, it suggests you do expect people to accept that premise. Otherwise the argument wouldn't work for them.

I don't expect people to agree with what I say or the premises of what I say. An argument can fail because of a difference in premises or because the argument itself is flawed. I think it's better to resolve the disagreement of premises when it comes up just like a disagreement about the argument on those premises.

Is it better to examine premises first before an argument, or argue then find out premises are different because the argument doesn't work?

Anonymous at 1:07 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8368
#8368 was me. Forgot to sign.

SN at 1:09 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8369
when you make an argument which assumes premises in passing, instead of clearing laying them out as potentially controversial or worthy of any explanation/argument, it suggests you expect those premises to be accepted.

when you act like something is a *background assumption* -- like how you'd write about cars having a paint color and being able to drive over 30mph -- that's an attitude of expecting agreement with it. you didn't even like state it as a claim or part of your argument. you just wrote *as if* it were true. that showed some kinda error in judgement about what you expected other people to find non-notable and instantly agree with.

Anonymous at 1:13 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8370
> The relevant part from #8343

that passage was already discussed above. the reason for writing that was already talked about above. you are not expressing any criticism of that reasoning. you're re-expressing an initial position (you already wrote about that specific passage earlier and haven't said anything new now) but you're not being responsive to what was said after your initial position.

Anonymous at 1:15 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8371
#8370

> that showed some kinda error in judgement about what you expected other people to find non-notable and instantly agree with.

I wouldn't say I *expect* agreement on the other things I don't go into. Rather, I expect disagreement on the things I do talk about. I don't know of any reason to expect disagreement on the other issues, but I don't know enough about the interlocutor to expect agreement either.

I don't know a lot about what others consider notable or not and typically wait and see what they point out.

Is it worth thinking so much about what others consider notable like that?

Like if I criticise someone's position, they've said they find that position notable, so I try to explain my criticism of their idea. If I disagree with a premise I focus on that (and explain a bit of how my premises differ).

Is it actually a problem to just leave it until someone points out a disagreement on premises, or I notice one myself?


I suppose if I were trying to write a stand-alone essay I'd care more about covering all these parts and comment on them in the essay. I'd want to be able to eg just post the essay up somewhere and reasonably expect it to survive criticism from a lot of people.

But in something like a blog or email discussion, it seems like it's not worth doing and I can just treat it more conversationally and find out the disagreements as I go. Then if I wanted to write an essay about what I'd learned in the discussion, I'd include what I'd learned about what premises are relevant and what premises contradict the content.

SN at 10:30 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8377
#8333:

>Ok, but a period not posting isn't a good measure that they are not engaging.

it's roughly 100% effective as a measure based on what i've seen IRL.

this applies even when people are engaging in discussion of FI ideas a bit in some non-FI-list medium. because in that case, they are not doing FI list for SOME reason which is causing systematic problems for their life and their learning of better ideas. they aren't avoiding FI list by coincidence. they are avoiding a culture of criticism and rationality because big parts of their personality hate it.

Anonymous at 10:31 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8378
#8378

when you consider basically everyone a horrible failure, wouldn't pretty much ANY criterion for declaring people a horrible failure seem accurate to you?

Anonymous at 10:38 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8379
#8333:

>Imagine someone wants to fly a plane.

>Does he jump in the cockpit right away and take off? No, he'll probably die (if he even gets it in the air at all).

>Has he quit because he doesn't do that? No, he needs to work out how to do it without dying first. He'll read stuff, use simulators, watch other people fly.

trying to live life without FI (including incorporating FI crit into your efforts at taking small beginner steps) = trying to fly the plane without knowing what you're doing in your analogy.

Anonymous at 11:48 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8382
#8379:

wtf? no. that doesn't follow at all.

a fair number of people think you're a horrible failure if you don't get into and attend an Ivy League college and graduate summa cum laude. I think that's crap.

Anonymous at 11:50 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8384
More meta

One of the issues I have is time pressure. I want to sleep, I want to work, etc. This has come up for me a few times since I started discussing here this week.

My first thought in response was a "I don't have time to do all this" sort of thing. But I don't think it's *actually* about not having time, I've got quite a few decades of time.

The problem is about managing my wants. I want to continue the discussion, but this goes against the want to sleep and work. I've been pretty bad at managing that conflict.

What a disaster.

I've been losing sleep thinking about this discussion, and messed up a commitment yesterday (left early) because I was sleep deprived and couldn't take part effectively. I've also posted here a few times in a hurry (and some while sleep deprived), which resulted in making more mistakes than I would have made otherwise.

So a few times I've wanted to toss it the discussion aside with "I don't have time for this". But beside quite strongly wanting to continue this I also think there's something wrong with the "I don't have time for this" idea.

The "I don't have time for this" decision seems to be not just pausing something, but totally abandoning it.

I think the problem is I'm not good at eg thinking "I want to work now, then sleep, then write posts". I don't know how to just *stop* thinking about this discussion because I want to sleep.
(well ok, I know of some ways it can be done, like alchohol, but I don't think that's a good solution to anything, there's also typical "get rid of unwanted thoughts"-style stuff which seems bad at best)


Is it possible to stop thinking about something like that in a way that isn't destructive?

I can't think of a good way. My thoughts aren't unwanted and I don't want to get rid of them entirely. So the solution seems to be just being more aware that I need (say) an hour after any lengthy posting to think it over.



Exactly what I'm thinking over is something else I want to explore, but *I don't have time for this* (jk)
I'll think about it and post later. I suspect there's a major problem causing this stuff I end up thinking over.

SN at 11:53 AM on February 5, 2017 | #8385
#8334:

>Asking questions would probably help the wannabe pilot. But it's not impossible for him to succeed without doing that

it's impossible for him to succeed without asking lots of questions (at least in his own mind) and getting answers to those questions. he has to create knowledge of how to fly a plane and that involves asking questions. and if he's gonna be asking questions anyway, he might as well do it in the most efficient and effective manner possible

Anonymous at 12:19 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8386
#8343:

>I'm very sure that OCD is very good for someone who knows how to engage in it effectively and doesn't (like me) have a bunch of terrible ideas that obstruct it.

this is a bit like those people that say "capitalism's great for rich people, but what about everyone else?"

and it's like, well, it actually benefits them most of all...

you live in a society where, to the extent open critical discussion is applied, it benefits you tremendously (in science, in political reform, in product design...)

so open critical discussion is already good for you. it's already essential to your life.

but for some reason you want to avoid it, limit its influence, and treat it like a dangerous thing, or like something for other people.

here's my take: nobody's discovered a reliably pain-free way to go from an irrational mentality to a rational mentality.

i think it's possible to do so, but nobody's figured it out yet.

so instead of trying to learn in secret so that you can achieve something which has not yet been achieved in the history of the human race, just try and learn and progress as much as you can.

i'm not saying ignore your emotions ... that's a different kind of mistake that you could make. you don't want to build up a big conflict between your emotions and your consciously held ideas. you want to keep reexamining and rethinking such conflicts as you go along.

but OTOH you don't need to always take your emotions so seriously or let them completely control your life. you can try disrespecting them a bit while you're trying to learn and improve, and see what happens.

in terms of engagement with FI, when you feel bad, you might wanna post about your best guess as to why so people can give you some perspective. often people think their own emotional stuff is worse than it objectively is because its THEIR stuff. also people are very credulous about the Facebook Version of Happy Life BS that other people represent in public, so they feel like a unique failure for having so much trouble in life.

if you get help defusing some of the emotional landmines that are causing you to fail at making progress, that might set you up well for more progress down the road. its worth a try at least. much better than current plan.

Anonymous at 2:03 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8387
> it's impossible for him to succeed without asking lots of questions (at least in his own mind) and getting answers to those questions. he has to create knowledge of how to fly a plane and that involves asking questions. and if he's gonna be asking questions anyway, he might as well do it in the most efficient and effective manner possible

what if SN replied to this with some of the same kinda stuff he's been saying above. what's your rebuttal? here's what i have in mind:

my imaginary SN says back to you: but asking questions, including in my own mind, causes me lots of suffering. so i'm going to go make a bunch of progress without that since suffering won't work. i'll just go do some other (unspecified) stuff which will (somehow) fix my problems enough so that i can like question asking, then start doing the questions you're advocating which i agree sound pretty valuable (but only valuable if you can do them without suffering).

Anonymous at 6:48 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8392
> The problem is about managing my wants. I want to continue the discussion, but this goes against the want to sleep and work. I've been pretty bad at managing that conflict.

don't you run into the same problem with other stuff too? e.g. you like a TV show with several seasons of episode. you've watched 5 episodes. you want to watch the rest of the episodes, but also want to sleep and work. now you have to do time management!

same thing happens when you have any kind of interest or hobby at all that you could spend much time on. like hiking? time management. get interested in cooking? time management. etc.

so why do you present this as some kinda discussion problem?

curi at 6:52 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8393
#8385 yes scheduling time *after* writing something to ponder more, finish up some thoughts or at least take some notes so you can continue later, is a good idea. people over under-allocate time to stuff and skimping on before and after time is a common problem.

broadly, conventional lives involve schedules which are incompatible with being very interested in things and pursuing them intensively. it's another way it keeps people trapped in shit. and liking stuff a lot and pursuing it a lot, even if you do have time, is deemed a mental illness: mania. what you're supposed to do is only pursue interests in half-hearted unserious ways. with a few exceptions for socially-approved interests like you can practice a fuckton to play football well, then it's not mania or obsession or whatever.

curi at 6:57 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8394
> here's my take: nobody's discovered a reliably pain-free way to go from an irrational mentality to a rational mentality.

1) his whole fucking life is already pain anyway. the only difference with FI stuff is he doesn't have a ton of rationalizations about that pain. so what he's really doing is trying to conform to his existing rationalizations.

2) his static memes are designed to punish him with bad feelings for anything which is a threat to them. so if he respects those bad feelings basically he's just obeying his static memes and is totally fucked. no solutions will come from static meme compliance.

Anonymous at 7:40 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8395

Stefan Molyneux: There is No Such Thing as Mental Illness

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

Published in 2011. I didn't watch much of it. Quotes szasz @12:56

Alisa at 8:28 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8396
>1) his whole fucking life is already pain anyway. the only difference with FI stuff is he doesn't have a ton of rationalizations about that pain. so what he's really doing is trying to conform to his existing rationalizations.

the following comment isn’t about SN. idk about him. my comment is on the broader issue.

i have a guess: one reason "life pain" results in the creation of tons of rationalizations for people is because they need those rationalizations to protect their self-image.

e.g. here are some typical coercive conflicts that ppl face: going to work, having fights with their kids, restricting how long they play video games in order to do something more "mature" or "productive", going to an event with a friend despite not actually want to go.

so one reason ppl rationalize the coercion (try to pretend it's not there) with this stuff is because these activities (having a career, being a parent, being "mature", being a "good friend") are part of their self-image. and image is crucially important to most people. so rationalizing the coercion is no biggie when it comes to the important task of protecting their cherished image.

now, OTOH, FI is different. FI often poses a *threat* to people’s self-image.

so if someone wanted to protect their self-image (like tons of ppl do), they wouldn’t create rationalizations about FI pain not existing (like they do with "life pain"). instead, they’d EMPHASIZE FI pain. this would then help “convince” themselves to not engage with FI.

maybe this is a similar thing to what you are saying here below, except you are talking about static memes:

>2) his static memes are designed to punish him with bad feelings for anything which is a threat to them. so if he respects those bad feelings basically he's just obeying his static memes and is totally fucked. no solutions will come from static meme compliance.

Kate at 9:47 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8397
#8397 this post has nothing to say and is all faking.

Anonymous at 10:36 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8398
>> The problem is about managing my wants. I want to continue the discussion, but this goes against the want to sleep and work. I've been pretty bad at managing that conflict.

>don't you run into the same problem with other stuff too? e.g. you like a TV show with several seasons of episode. you've watched 5 episodes. you want to watch the rest of the episodes, but also want to sleep and work. now you have to do time management!

>same thing happens when you have any kind of interest or hobby at all that you could spend much time on. like hiking? time management. get interested in cooking? time management. etc.

>so why do you present this as some kinda discussion problem?

I didn't mean to. I thought I presented it as a problem with managing wants.

But you're right that I do time management with other stuff too, and normally do it a lot better than with discussion. I don't have any problem eg fitting in a few hours of vidya or anime around sleep and work.

So I think there's some particular issue I have with discussion. Partially it's not being good at it (like not being always aware that time after discussion is important and not something I should try to skip on).

Partially I think it's some pressure I put on myself to respond, like I need to respond quickly or it's a problem. That makes responding soon seem more important (important enough to put up with sleep debt).

But keeping that up wears me out inevitably. Then I crash and flake out entirely.

Better to stay active on FI *at all* than try to quickly pursue every thread to completion.

Like it'd be better if I pursue every argument to an end (resolving my conflicts, doubts, finding better ideas, having both better knowledge and more clarity and overall gradually improving my mind).

And there are advantages to responding sooner (still fresh in the mind of others, less effort for them to be stay engaged).

But not posting at all because I can't those standards, is worse than being active and not meeting them.

SN at 11:29 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8399

molyneux on mental illness

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOScYBwMyAA
>
> Published in 2011. I didn't watch much of it. Quotes szasz @12:56

I got to about 2 minutes into the video, where Molyeneux reveals the second point on his second slide:

"Internationally 54 million people are taking antidepressants known to cause addiction, violent and homicidal behavior."

Behaviour isn't caused by chemicals. Rather, people do stuff for some reason, e.g. - a person may commit suicide because he is being forced to take drugs he dislikes.

The Szasz quote doesn't explain Szasz's position. Molyneux is just wheeling out experts to back up his position, which is not a principled opposition to dehumanising opponents with mental illness talk. He sez frozen is about madness cuz he disagrees with it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyGmJ-q7fEY

oh my god it's turpentine at 11:50 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8400
#8395
>> here's my take: nobody's discovered a reliably pain-free way to go from an irrational mentality to a rational mentality.

>1) his whole fucking life is already pain anyway

*cries* (jk)

(but there's plenty of pain that I've spent too long hiding from and pretending it's not there, I need to be more honest about that)

> 2) his static memes are designed to punish him with bad feelings for anything which is a threat to them. so if he respects those bad feelings basically he's just obeying his static memes and is totally fucked. no solutions will come from static meme compliance.

I don't always know how to beat them head-on. Posting while crying is hard. Can't check what I've typed easily. Also, exhausting.

So I'm ninja about it. Trying to subvert them indirectly, spy on them, learn their weaknesses, sabotage them. I'm a rebel trying to survive the authoritarian meme regime in the only way that isn't suicide.

That's not to say I never take the memes head on. I can win sometimes. They really wanted me to get defensive in responding to #8395 and deny deny deny deny. But I saw through their lies. I wont say my entire life is pain, but there's plenty of pain in it. Plenty I need to fix.

I get a lot of joy out of beating the memes when I do overcome them. I think it's something like these big painful barriers in my mind breaking down, bit by bit. I guess that's why I laugh, it's laughter of relief.

SN at 11:50 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8401
I didn't mean to anthropomorphise my memes there seriously. But I don't think it was obvious that I wasn't saying talking about seriously as other entities.

>They really wanted me to get defensive

If I was being serious, I'd have said "I really wanted to get defensive".

SN at 11:54 PM on February 5, 2017 | #8402
thanks #8400

i had downloaded the video about mental illness video but i've now deleted it unwatched. even worse than i expected :(

and i'm suspicious he's attacking Frozen instead of Lord of the Rings because children especially like it. it's typical to try to take away whatever children like, e.g. video games.

curi at 12:36 AM on February 6, 2017 | #8403
> Partially I think it's some pressure I put on myself to respond, like I need to respond quickly or it's a problem.

there are **zero** FI posters who consistently respond fast.

curi at 12:41 AM on February 6, 2017 | #8404
the stigma against "over analyzing" social events is an attack on people who have fewer social experiences. it's natural for them to analyze their few data points a lot (if they care about social stuff). whereas if someone is flooded with a ton of social experiences, they won't have time to analyze all of them in a lot of detail.

the person who does little analysis is presenting themselves as the person who 1) has too much to analyze 2) lacks problems to solve via analysis.

Anonymous at 1:53 AM on February 6, 2017 | #8405
#8398

>this post has nothing to say and is all faking.

i want to understand this. do you have an explanation?

maybe a good place to start is i'll share some of my thinking for the post. can you point out how my mind was faking?

so anon wrote:

>1) his whole fucking life is already pain anyway. the only difference with FI stuff is he doesn't have a ton of rationalizations about that pain. so what he's really doing is trying to conform to his existing rationalizations.

i wanted to understand clearly why people create rationalizations for life pain, but not FI pain. there's a *reason* they rationalize about some pain, but not other pain, right? it's not just arbitrary. so what's going on there? this wasn't clear in my mind.

i decided to think of some examples of life pain which people rationalize about. i thought maybe if i look at examples i can see more clearly why people create rationalizations about that stuff, but they don't wrt FI stuff.

is this faking somehow?

do you think i should have criticized the whole question as dumb and not worth my time?

and maybe since i didn't do that, then that means i was just wasting time thinking about a dumb question, while pretending to be thinking about something interesting? is that the faking you have in mind? or something else?

Kate at 7:31 AM on February 6, 2017 | #8406
> i wanted to understand clearly why people create rationalizations for life pain, but not FI pain.

already this is junk. you're assuming something false that wasn't in the quote.

Anonymous at 7:40 AM on February 6, 2017 | #8408
ok. here's the quote:

>1) his whole fucking life is already pain anyway. the only difference with FI stuff is he doesn't have a ton of rationalizations about that pain. so what he's really doing is trying to conform to his existing rationalizations.

so with FI stuff, he doesn't have a ton of rationalizations about that pain.

with life stuff, he does have a ton of rationalizations about that pain.

i wrote:

> i wanted to understand clearly why people create rationalizations for life pain, but not FI pain.

is the false assumption here the idea that people *create* the rationalizations? the quote just says they *have* them. it doesn't say they create them?

Kate at 7:52 AM on February 6, 2017 | #8409
>So I'm ninja about it. Trying to subvert them indirectly, spy on them, learn their weaknesses, sabotage them. I'm a rebel trying to survive the authoritarian meme regime in the only way that isn't suicide.

this is vague. clearly and concretely, what does this look like?

also, you portray these static meme ideas as strong, but in another sense they are *weak*. (see below)

>That's not to say I never take the memes head on. I can win sometimes. They really wanted me to get defensive in responding to #8395 and deny deny deny deny. But I saw through their lies.

yeah. i think being able to *see* irrational ideas operating is huge in terms of helpfulness.

here's something else to think about, though. all of your ideas are *part of you*. and it's not like the irrational ones are clearly labelled with neon lights in your mind. so when they conflict with other ideas, i think it's a mistake to disregard them from the start.

you need to *resolve* conflicts. not delegitimize one side by labeling it "static meme" and treating it as the enemy.

give that side a chance to "say it's piece". does it have any explanations? can it answer criticisms of those explanations? if it's so sure of itself, what are it's arguments? hold it to a high standard. how does it do when you *think* and *use reason* on it? does it now start to actually look weak and dumb?

Kate at 8:51 AM on February 6, 2017 | #8410
my bad on not linking the post which i was just quoting. it's #8401

Kate at 8:55 AM on February 6, 2017 | #8411
#8399

> But you're right that I do time management with other stuff too, and normally do it a lot better than with discussion. I don't have any problem eg fitting in a few hours of vidya or anime around sleep and work.

wtf is a "vidya"?
Videogames?

Anonymous at 9:05 AM on February 6, 2017 | #8412
#8412

your ignorance of the Urban Dictionary website does not warrant a "wtf" response to people.

you could also have found the answer with a Google search like: what is vidya

you're being a dumb jerk here.

curi at 9:37 AM on February 6, 2017 | #8413
#8410

>you need to *resolve* conflicts. not delegitimize one side by labeling it "static meme" and treating it as the enemy.

>give that side a chance to "say it's piece". does it have any explanations? can it answer criticisms of those explanations? if it's so sure of itself, what are it's arguments? hold it to a high standard. how does it do when you *think* and *use reason* on it? does it now start to actually look weak and dumb?

i want to add an example to this to make it more clear.

suppose a part of you wants to wear make-up and do your hair when you meet up with some friends for dinner tonight. another part of you suspects there are irrational motivations with wanting to do this and thinks it’d be a mistake.

but rather than just claiming, “that’s irrational, don’t give in to those sneaky, evil, tough meme bastards!”, try to approach the conflict rationally.

ask questions to that side:

- why is spending time on make-up and hair a good idea?
- what exactly do you think will be achieved by doing that?
- is this a good thing to want and strive to get? why?
- is this idea consistent with your other consciously held convictions and principles, or are you making some sort of exception here? if it’s an exception, that’s risky stuff. what’s the explanation for needing to make an exception from your principles on this?

and then see what answers you can come up with. and crit those. and crit the other side, too. e.g. write out an explanation about why caring about what other people think is a mistake. write about what you’d rather use that time working on (instead of make-up and hair). write about why living a principled life is crucial.

then after all of this, you now have more knowledge. knowledge is power. and you can more easily see the irrational idea as the weak and dumb thing that it really is.

but like don’t skip the knowledge-creating step and jump straight to labeling some ideas "enemy static memes", which you then try to ignore or suppress.

Kate at 12:21 PM on February 6, 2017 | #8414

molyneux interview with szasz

Molyneux conducted an interview with Szasz in 2011, which he has chosen to make unlisted on YouTube. I found a link to it on some blog. I linked to about 7:30 since before that Molyneux is talking about Szasz rather than interviewing him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONvsKmiw1fI&feature=youtu.be&t=450

oh my god it's turpentine at 12:27 PM on February 6, 2017 | #8415
#8414

>but rather than just claiming, “that’s irrational, don’t give in to those sneaky, evil, tough meme bastards!”, try to approach the conflict rationally.

it's like on one side of the coin, you have (most) people indulging their emotions and letting their irrational wishes, urges, static memes run the show. largely, they just do stuff they *feel* like and don't do stuff they don't *feel* like. they don't know why they do what they do, nor why they feel what they feel.

but the other side of that (mistaken) coin would be ignoring some of your emotions because you think really tough static memes are behind them. you vow to yourself not to give in to them and let them win. you want to beat them. but you are trying to rely on willpower to do it.

but rather than relying on willpower, it’s better to rely on knowledge. Ask questions, introspect, write stuff out, and *create knowledge*. Then you aren’t indulging nor ignoring. well, you might do some ignoring of some weird feelings, but you aren’t ignoring actual suffering and pain. i don’t think that’s a good idea.

Kate at 1:19 PM on February 6, 2017 | #8416
here's someone being very mean to me on reddit comments (about Overwatch, not philosophy), totally unprompted and out of the blue, and then being totally dishonest that they had attacked me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/5sd8a7/how_do_you_kill_a_tracer_when_you_sleep_dart_her/dde73l0/

curi at 7:27 PM on February 6, 2017 | #8419
> i want to add an example to this to make it more clear.

...

> ask questions to that side:

all 4 questions given are generic.

so this is a fake example, not a real example. a real example would discuss the example scenario. but you take the scenario and then ask questions you could have easily brought up without mentioning the example scenario at all.

all the text after the 4 questions is also generic. reread it. like look at this:

> and then see what answers you can come up with. and crit those. and crit the other side, too. e.g. write out an explanation about why caring about what other people think is a mistake. write about what you’d rather use that time working on (instead of [NAME OF ANY TOPIC]). write about why living a principled life is crucial.

the post is supposedly applying some ideas to an example scenario about makeup. but it has nothing to say about makeup.

the "example" about makeup doesn't make the comment any better. one could write all the same points without that "example".

curi at 7:41 PM on February 6, 2017 | #8420

Molyneux Szasz Interview

#8415 Thanks for the link. Molyneux is a very bad interviewer who is clueless about Szasz. Molyneux really makes a fool of himself. But the video is worth watching for Szasz's if you've already read a ton of Szasz books, or if you like videos way more than books. But for most people I'd recommend just reading Szasz's books instead of watching this.

curi at 10:32 PM on February 6, 2017 | #8423
> But the video is worth watching for Szasz's

for Szasz's *comments*

curi at 10:48 PM on February 6, 2017 | #8424
https://www.facebook.com/groups/fornewintellectual/permalink/1867863803457512/

> I was listening to Yaron Brook over the weekend and he said that he thinks George W Bush was a much worse President than Obama.

jeez i knew Yaron Brook was dumb but... :(((((((

the ARI Objectivist camp is soooo broken.

the Branden and Kelley camps are sooo broken too. they are much worse in many big ways. they have less to do with Rand's views.

curi at 10:52 PM on February 6, 2017 | #8425
> the stigma against "over analyzing" social events is an attack on people who have fewer social experiences. it's natural for them to analyze their few data points a lot (if they care about social stuff). whereas if someone is flooded with a ton of social experiences, they won't have time to analyze all of them in a lot of detail.

They'll also have some broad knowledge of social, so they'll have a rough idea of what a lot of stuff means already. They'll also have a lot of stuff that, even if they don't know what it means really, they know it's typically safe to ignore (eg a lot of people make casual threats that are pretty meaningless).

> the person who does little analysis is presenting themselves as the person who 1) has too much to analyze 2) lacks problems to solve via analysis.

Or 3) they have more interesting things to analyse

SN at 6:43 PM on February 9, 2017 | #8439
#8410
>>So I'm ninja about it. Trying to subvert them indirectly, spy on them, learn their weaknesses, sabotage them. I'm a rebel trying to survive the authoritarian meme regime in the only way that isn't suicide.

>this is vague. clearly and concretely, what does this look like?

Doing things like changing the variables involved in discussion to see how it changes. Trying out new ways of communicating, pushing my comfort zone gradually. Talking to different kinds of people, different mediums. Reading about good things contrary to them, rather than things that fit with them.


> here's something else to think about, though. all of your ideas are *part of you*. and it's not like the irrational ones are clearly labelled with neon lights in your mind. so when they conflict with other ideas, i think it's a mistake to disregard them from the start.

> you need to *resolve* conflicts. not delegitimize one side by labeling it "static meme" and treating it as the enemy.

I don't do the delegitimising part (I use it more as a label/mnemonic for "that set of ideas that I have a problem with"). But I can see how I could make that mistake if I keep anthropomorphising it.

So mb I should stop doing that entirely, even as a joke.


> give that side a chance to "say it's piece". does it have any explanations? can it answer criticisms of those explanations? if it's so sure of itself, what are it's arguments? hold it to a high standard. how does it do when you *think* and *use reason* on it? does it now start to actually look weak and dumb?

It looks like a big, dumb animal.

Ie it's dangerous in a brute force sense, and doesn't know how to talk.

I don't think it looks weak. I think it's pretty dangerous if I don't approach it right (like a big dumb animal).

I absolutely think I *can* work out how to approach it right, I'm just not quite there yet. In that sense, I think it's weak.



I think there's a few ideas involved in it.

One part is anticipation. I have more difficulty eg coming back here and reading the latest comments than I do *actually* reading the comments. I think that's the fear of danger side. Since when I actually read it's rarely "dangerous" like I'd feared. But sometimes I can read *expecting* "danger" because of this and try to find it where it isn't.

I've been watching curi's FI emails videos before reading. Helps me remember a more positive (and I think typically, more accurate) way of interpreting what I read here. Getting that positive interpretation fresh in my mind helps. I guess I need to keep internalising that process (like it's already there, but it's sometimes weak/overpowered), so I'm less stuck with only negative interpretations on my mind.


Another part is time investment. I don't want to get into something without seriously thinking I'll stick to it, I don't start stuff anticipating that I give up. So getting involved in a discussion means I'm committing myself to invest an unknown number of hours into finishing it. I don't think this is in itself bad, but...

This combines with mistakes like thinking I need to reply to everything. This is a two-parter. One is something like people being mad/ignoring me if I'm not active enough. The other part is being annoyed at myself for being a "quitter".

I guess the "mad/ignoring me if I'm not active enough" is a big misconception of why people stop discussing. I guess it's something I've taken personally too much. I'm more aware now that a *lot* of people are super flaky and will drop contact without warning in general (rather than specifically with me) than when I first came up with that idea that it was about me.


Another factor (that particularly applies to FI/here, but very rarely elsewhere) is viewing certain categories of activity or people like I used to view formal study. Like a "I have to pay attention to all this and get everything and pursue everything or I'll fail in a big disaster" sort of mentality (coming from needing to study full course material and know it all or not get a distinction and not be good enough for anything EVER).

I *like* getting good at stuff and it's helped with that. But it's pretty exhausting and stressful. I now think learning to be good at stuff *in the context of it being stressful* is super destructive to progress in the long term, and also kinda fake. I think it's possible to get really good at stuff and be relaxed about it, and starting to learn about it in a stressful way from the start is just gonna ingrain stress to the whole experience of the skill/knowledge.

I've been trying out being more "relaxed" posting here (like, making jokes *at all*) to try some alternatives and see how they work out. In the least, I enjoy it more.

SN at 7:45 PM on February 9, 2017 | #8440
#8440
> Another part is time investment. I don't want to get into something without seriously thinking I'll stick to it, I don't start stuff anticipating that I give up. So getting involved in a discussion means I'm committing myself to invest an unknown number of hours into finishing it. I don't think this is in itself bad, but...
> This combines with mistakes like thinking I need to reply to everything. This is a two-parter. One is something like people being mad/ignoring me if I'm not active enough. The other part is being annoyed at myself for being a "quitter".

I didn't complete my thoughts here.

These ideas combine to become a problem because between them, discussion branches out rapidly into a ton of potential discussions and I get overwhelmed.

Another idea to solving that is:
Have better criteria than "everything" for deciding what to respond to. Focus more on what discussion interests me first, follow the threads that I think will make a difference to me/improve my life.

SN at 7:55 PM on February 9, 2017 | #8441
Is the cliffnotes site reliable?

I am using it while reading the book to know the characters better.

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/the-fountainhead/

FF at 9:05 AM on February 11, 2017 | #8448
I've not read it and am not going to read it to check it's reliability.

But if you have a particular character you're interested in, I'm happy to discuss :)

SN at 9:07 AM on February 11, 2017 | #8449
> Is the cliffnotes site reliable?

no

curi at 9:16 AM on February 11, 2017 | #8451
>> Is the cliffnotes site reliable?
> no

How is it unreliable?

FF at 9:20 AM on February 11, 2017 | #8452
i gave you the answer.

if you want me to actually click the link and read their stuff and then write up a list of ways they're wrong, you'll have to pay me a lot of money.

curi at 9:22 AM on February 11, 2017 | #8453
> if you want me to actually click the link and read their stuff and then write up a list of ways they're wrong, you'll have to pay me a lot of money.

I don't want you/anyone to research it. I guessed someone already familiar with the site might have opinions or crits against it. It seemed like a popular site to lookup info on Rand's fiction.

FF at 9:31 AM on February 11, 2017 | #8454
cliffnotes are for people, especially students, who don't really want to read books. the site isn't for people like me.

curi at 9:36 AM on February 11, 2017 | #8455
> cliffnotes are for people, especially students, who don't really want to read books. the site isn't for people like me.

I wasn't recommending the site to you. I was taking the site's help in remembering small insignificant characters from Fountainhead and wanted to know if I am doing anything wrong. I wanted people who are already familiar with the site to share their opinion.

FF at 9:47 AM on February 11, 2017 | #8457
#8440

>Since when I actually read it's rarely "dangerous" like I'd feared. But sometimes I can read *expecting* "danger" because of this and try to find it where it isn't.

*What* specifically is in danger? Your physical safety? Your self-image? Your rationalizations and lies? Your image *in other people's eyes*? Something else?

---

>I don't want to get into something without seriously thinking I'll stick to it, I don't start stuff anticipating that I give up. So getting involved in a discussion means I'm committing myself to invest an unknown number of hours into finishing it.

Why do you think this? Why not just say that at this point this discussion isn't the best use of your time and then go talk about something more important? It could be a *mistake* to stick with a particular discussion.

Rather than making commitments, *think and make decisions*. Have lots of decision points.

http://fallibleideas.com/lulie/initiative-and-responsibility

YOU initiate your course of action with what you want to talk about and learn. In general, people are too passive and selfless. They just read and reply to what's in their face or cuz they feel pressure or cuz they've been engaged in a particular discussion in the past.

---

>I now think learning to be good at stuff *in the context of it being stressful* is super destructive to progress in the long term, and also kinda fake.

Why do you think it's fake? I get how it's not ideal or good (sounds like a coercive problem to try to solve), but why "fake"?

>I think it's possible to get really good at stuff and be relaxed about it, and starting to learn about it in a stressful way from the start is just gonna ingrain stress to the whole experience of the skill/knowledge.

In your conception, are there two options: either stressful or relaxed?

>I've been trying out being more "relaxed" posting here (like, making jokes *at all*) to try some alternatives and see how they work out. In the least, I enjoy it more.

Is your relaxed and joking attitude serious? Does it bring urgency and attention-to-detail to the matter? Does it recognize that your life is in the gravest danger if you don't learn philosophy (i.e. how to think)?

Kate at 4:19 PM on February 11, 2017 | #8458
>Is your relaxed and joking attitude serious?

This isn't right. It's more like "your 'relaxed' attitude (which involves making some jokes)".

That's different than a joking attitude. It was wrong to imply you said that.

Kate at 4:25 PM on February 11, 2017 | #8459
#8458
>>I've been trying out being more "relaxed" posting here (like, making jokes *at all*) to try some alternatives and see how they work out. In the least, I enjoy it more.

>Is your relaxed and joking attitude serious? Does it bring urgency and attention-to-detail to the matter? Does it recognize that your life is in the gravest danger if you don't learn philosophy (i.e. how to think)?

Yes.

I will point out when I'm joking/not being literal and I don't think it's obvious. When I'm joking it's a way of saying something that has truth to it, but I don't really know how to put super clearly so I kinda guess at something that's is connected and/or is fun.

(incidentally I think all good humour is of the "grain of truth" variety, I don't find outright lies told in a "humorous" way to be funny)

I'm sure there are better ways of talking about my problems more literally and explicitly, but I don't know them all yet. I expect as I understand my problems better I will "joke" about them less and be explicit about it more.

Anonymous at 2:01 AM on February 12, 2017 | #8461
#8458
>>I now think learning to be good at stuff *in the context of it being stressful* is super destructive to progress in the long term, and also kinda fake.

> Why do you think it's fake? I get how it's not ideal or good (sounds like a coercive problem to try to solve), but why "fake"?

>> I think it's possible to get really good at stuff and be relaxed about it, and starting to learn about it in a stressful way from the start is just gonna ingrain stress to the whole experience of the skill/knowledge.

> In your conception, are there two options: either stressful or relaxed?

Yes.

If there's an element of stress to something, it's not relaxed. Like if there's an element of dishonesty to something, it's not honest.


I think there's multiple ways of using "stress" so I wanna clarify. I don't consider eg being focused or being tense as stressful (though they can be). I'm more thinking of context of someone trying to do something *way* above their skill level by just rechecking everything again and again loads of times. Someone who is super good would do better first time without even needing to check anything. So I'm saying it's better to try to break the "something" down into smaller parts and get good at it bit by bit, rather than stressing and trying to do it all at once and checking everything tons of times.


A conventional example would be people cramming for exams and getting super stressed then forgetting everything after. They were never really that good at the material even if they get a distinction, they were just spending tons of time on something they weren't very good at to fake the appearance of being good.

SN at 2:14 AM on February 12, 2017 | #8462
> I will point out when I'm joking/not being literal and I don't think it's obvious.

it's not safe to think it's obvious sometimes. nothing is obvious. and jokes and metaphors are especially confusing.

> (incidentally I think all good humour is of the "grain of truth" variety, I don't find outright lies told in a "humorous" way to be funny)

this is basically incomprehensible. you're really overestimating how much your text communicates successfully. i do get the very vague gist but if you gave me some example jokes i'd have no real chance to successfully figure out which ones you judge which ones. e.g. there's no way for me to know which lies you categorize as "outright" and which you don't. i also couldn't come up with canonical examples of what you have in mind for each category.

curi at 2:54 AM on February 12, 2017 | #8463

typo fixes

> if you gave me some example jokes i'd have no real chance to successfully figure out which ones you judge which ones.

*which way*. typo on that last word.

curi at 2:55 AM on February 12, 2017 | #8464
(#8461 was me too, missed it that time)

#8458
>> I don't want to get into something without seriously thinking I'll stick to it, I don't start stuff anticipating that I give up. So getting involved in a discussion means I'm committing myself to invest an unknown number of hours into finishing it.

> Why do you think this? Why not just say that at this point this discussion isn't the best use of your time and then go talk about something more important? It could be a *mistake* to stick with a particular discussion.

> Rather than making commitments, *think and make decisions*. Have lots of decision points.

Yeah.

I was more thinking about whether I have enough time to follow through than commitments.

But it's true that I often think of things as commitments rather than being more dynamic and pursuing what most interests me. I guess that's why I said "committing myself". I wasn't really distinguishing between a commitment, and just assessing whether I think I can follow through on a plan (but might realise I'm wrong about it later).

I know committing myself has flaws. I've done it before and end up doing stuff I don't really care about and don't gain anything from. But being reliable is good, helps to do things with other people. I don't want to end up being so flaky/inconsistent I can't make deals with people because no-one expects me to follow through.

Maybe I'm focusing too much on effect rather than cause. Like, if my mind were more clear/integrated, I'd be more reliable because what I say is a better prediction rather than because I force it.

It's kinda like what I was saying about fake before. I can sometimes fake being reliable by forcing it (and finding it stressful), but I'd be better off not making lots of long-term plans until I get better at it, rather than making them and kinda forcing myself to follow through.

SN at 4:25 AM on February 12, 2017 | #8465
> I can't make deals with people because no-one expects me to follow through.

there is a simple solution to this in widespread use in the business world.

penalty clauses.

e.g. if you don't follow through on X then you owe the guy $100.

sign a contract like that and people will make some deals with you even if you're flakey.

curi at 4:38 AM on February 12, 2017 | #8466
#8465

>But being reliable is good, helps to do things with other people. I don't want to end up being so flaky/inconsistent I can't make deals with people because no-one expects me to follow through.

>Maybe I'm focusing too much on effect rather than cause. Like, if my mind were more clear/integrated, I'd be more reliable because what I say is a better prediction rather than because I force it.

The DIRECT cause of you being flaky/inconsistent is that you have ideas which think doing that is good. Those ideas conflict with other ideas you hold about wanting to be reliable.

So you could try to figure out the reasons for both sides, criticize both sides, *create knowledge*, and resolve the conflict. *Become* more clear/integrated regarding this slice of your life.


My interpretation of what you think from above: you want a more clear/integrated mind (the cause). The effect of that is you’ll be more reliable.

HOWEVER, there's an *earlier cause* which results in an effect of having the more clear/integrated mind which you want.

So what's that earlier cause?

One big thing it involves is taking actual concrete problems/conflicts in your life (e.g. being flaky/inconsistent vs reliable!) and resolving them.

>It's kinda like what I was saying about fake before. I can sometimes fake being reliable by forcing it (and finding it stressful), but I'd be better off not making lots of long-term plans until I get better at it, rather than making them and kinda forcing myself to follow through.

do you have a plan for how you are going to "get better at it"? in general, having a vague idea of “i’ll be more reliable once i have a more clear/integrated mind” isn’t going to work as well as trying to directly identify and resolve the conflict, which involves a part of you not wanting to be reliable.

(and i think it's DOING THIS PROCESS over and over and over again with lots of concretes, which contributes to having the more clear/integrated mind you want)

Kate at 7:25 AM on February 12, 2017 | #8467
https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/19946

> One thing that came up was Trump voter fraud claims. George Stephanopoulos pushed super hard saying Miller didn't have evidence of voter fraud.

It seems correct that Miller hasn't provided evidence of the 3-5 million illegal votes that Trump claims.

My guess is that Trump was relying on the statements of others when saying the 3-5million thing, but without reviewing or doing any scholarly work. If he and/or miller or others have done it, no one has shared any details.

Why wouldn't Trump and co just say: hey, we have some suspicions and we're going to investigate? Why the unsubstantiated assertions ahead of doing that? It's very odd to make such specific claims but at the same time have no details to support it.

> *libs go “OMG WHAT A WASTE, WHAT A PERSECUTION, WHAT RACISM, WHAT EVIL” when you start to investigate stuff*

If they are *starting* to investigate, why are they making claims that would be at the conclusion of that investigation?

Anonymous at 6:05 PM on February 12, 2017 | #8469
> My guess is that Trump was relying on the statements of others when saying the 3-5million thing, but without reviewing or doing any scholarly work.

do you mean Trump didn't PERSONALLY do scholarly work? sounds true. but he has advisors, thinkers, etc, on his *team*, who DID do a rational investigation of the matter.

there are also public intellectuals, such as Ann Coulter, who have investigated stuff well and shared some of their conclusions.

there are a lot of details about this stuff in public which you could find if you cared to. did you even read Adios America before guessing the anti-immigration side is wrong? maybe it's you who is clueless and ignorant, and you're projecting...

curi at 2:58 AM on February 13, 2017 | #8470
> > My guess is that Trump was relying on the statements of others when saying the 3-5million thing, but without reviewing or doing any scholarly work.

> do you mean Trump didn't PERSONALLY do scholarly work? sounds true. but he has advisors, thinkers, etc, on his *team*, who DID do a rational investigation of the matter.

I have watched or read dozens of statements from Trump and White House ppl over the last month or so regarding the voter fraud stuff. Nothing I've read has clued me into any details / analysis behind the claims. Did I miss it?

What makes you think they've done a rational investigation vs just lying about it?

The only thing I noticed was Trump tweeting: "Look forward to seeing final results of VoteStand. Gregg Phillips and crew say at least 3,000,000 votes were illegal. We must do better!"

Is that the basis for his claim?

> there are also public intellectuals, such as Ann Coulter, who have investigated stuff well and shared some of their conclusions.

Ok - I will look for those.

> there are a lot of details about this stuff in public which you could find if you cared to.

Ok, I can look around. But, wouldn't it be easier/better if Trump&co would reference this stuff, especially given how many people are calling it into question?

> did you even read Adios America before guessing the anti-immigration side is wrong?

I haven't read it, no. How does it relate to the 2016 election voter fraud claims?

> maybe it's you who is clueless and ignorant

Perhaps -- but to be clear I'm not saying Trump&co is clueless/ignorant. My guess is that Trump&co is lying on purpose because it serves them well. Or that Trump specifically is ignorant/clueless and his staffers are covering up the fact because it would look bad.

Anonymous at 4:12 PM on February 13, 2017 | #8472
so, are you going to stay ignorant or start reading?

curi at 4:15 PM on February 13, 2017 | #8473
Why have you have ignored most/all of my questions?

Anonymous at 4:16 PM on February 13, 2017 | #8474
you come off as very hostile and unreasonable. where is the value to me in answering the other comments? they're boring. what do i get out of it? i offered one path forward where you could demonstrate some good will and thinking effort, just in case appearances are misleading.

curi at 4:23 PM on February 13, 2017 | #8475
> you come off as very hostile and unreasonable

Not sure why you've jumped to this conclusion. Why do I seem hostile / unreasonable?

As far as hostile: my subjective experience is feeling clear / clam. And I thought this place welcomed criticism.

As far as being unreasonable -- no doubt, I may be wrong in what I'm saying of course but not sure how that would related to being unreasonable.

I think, in terms of standard social conventions, you have behaved much more hostile -- but maybe that makes sense if you in turn thought I was being hostile.

Anonymous at 4:36 PM on February 13, 2017 | #8476
> Why do I seem hostile / unreasonable?

your political views are very false and nasty and immoral, and they aren't offered from a position of like "Hi, I'm a novice, teach me", they are written like you already chose a side (the anti-America, anti-me side).

> And I thought this place welcomed criticism.

you have not said anything substantive, and are ignorant of the topic. and what i did is ask if you will read stuff. you have not shown any willingness to educate yourself on the topic. you've shown no interest in reading and learning, just attacking western civilization. and you haven't asked any interesting questions. so your comments lack value.

curi at 2:50 AM on February 14, 2017 | #8478
> your political views are very false and nasty and immoral

That may be true (I’m open to the possibility), but being offended / interpreting them as hostile is wrong.

> they are written like you already chose a side (the anti-America, anti-me side).

All I have is my current knowledge and I hope to improve it. I am writing here for the specific purpose of learning / understanding / getting criticism. I thought the best way to do that is to state my thoughts/ideas, and ask questions.

> you have not said anything substantive, and are ignorant of the topic

The situation is symmetrical (from my point of view): you also haven’t said much that is substantive here, and may or may not be ignorant on the topic.

> and what i did is ask if you will read stuff. you have not shown any willingness to educate yourself on the topic

There were clues that you missed: me saying “Ok - I will look for those.”, “Ok, I can look around.”.

Upon the suggestion to read Adios America, I went and read some summaries and came back to clarify if/how it’s related to the 2016 voter fraud claims (which was the main topic we were discussing).

Also, the very fact I am here discussing, asking questions, etc (even if you find those questions boring and uninteresting) is another clue that I’m trying to learn / get criticism.

> you've shown no interest in reading and learning, just attacking western civilization. and you haven't asked any interesting questions. so your comments lack value

I continue to find these conclusions bizarre and aggressive. So quick to jump to the wrong conclusions with such limited information.

After your last message, I actually went and googled around a bunch, looking for Ann Coulter writings related to the voter fraud topic. And read several of them.

This doesn't seem like a friendly place to discuss ideas.

Anonymous at 1:11 PM on February 14, 2017 | #8482
> That may be true (I’m open to the possibility), but being offended / interpreting them as hostile is wrong.

i meant they are hostile to Trump, America, the values of this blog (my values), etc

> All I have is my current knowledge and I hope to improve it.

do you? but you seem uninterested in reading information.

Adios America would give you some basic background. that's a good starting place. it's not reasonable to try to understand Trump without reading one of the main books which heavily influenced his campaign.

and one of the book topics is illegal immigration which is part of the voter fraud issue. a large part of voter fraud is from illegals.

> This doesn't seem like a friendly place to discuss ideas.

you came here and, with zero introduction, started aggressively attacking the values of this blog while not having done basic reading on the matter and seeming not to want to. it is still totally unclear to me why you're here. have you read the recent political posts on my blog? maybe you should do that before trying to talk politics with me.

curi at 1:58 PM on February 14, 2017 | #8483
> you came here and, with zero introduction, started aggressively attacking the values of this blog

How does analyzing and discussing the statements/claims of Trump&co in relation to voter fraud amount to attacking the values of this blog?

It's kinda like you're saying: don't come here and start discussing any opposing views/ideas, until or unless you've done a full review of everything you think is relevant. That's pretty unreasonable and unfair.

What is even more bizarre to me is that I *am* interested in reading more, including from the sources you mention, but you've decided, prematurely and for reasons I don't understand, to cast me as uninterested/nasty/etc.

> it is still totally unclear to me why you're here. have you read the recent political posts on my blog? maybe you should do that before trying to talk politics with me.

I have been a FI subscriber/lurker for a few years, and have read many posts here, on FI, and your Fi email newsletter.

Anonymous at 3:20 PM on February 14, 2017 | #8484
> I have been a FI subscriber/lurker for a few years, and have read many posts here, on FI, and your Fi email newsletter.

then you should have said e.g. "Hi, I strongly disagree with your political views. Here is somewhere I think you're making a mistake..." but instead we get:

> My guess is that Trump&co is lying on purpose because it serves them well.

note I am part of "&co" so you're calling me a liar for some reason.

you're dismissing the position of me, Trump and others as dishonest lies for an agenda, without having much clue what our reasoning is. that's not fair, it's hostile. it actually is conspiracy theory thinking. http://fallibleliving.com/essays/rational-politics/92-conspiracy-theories

> What is even more bizarre to me is that I *am* interested in reading more, including from the sources you mention, but you've decided, prematurely and for reasons I don't understand, to cast me as uninterested/nasty/etc.

you were not responsive re reading Adios. when i asked if you would start reading it, you replied:

> Why have you have ignored most/all of my questions?

you also expressed your ignorance how the book contents would change your mind, which makes sense before you've read it and know what the contents are. you did not demonstate any effort, e.g. by saying you'd read the table of contents and were unable to see any relationship btwn its topics (like illegal immigration) and the topic you care about (which includes illegals voting and also, i guessed, more generally what Trump's policies are and why. if it was purely about voter fraud you'd just research that without calling Trump a liar or speculating about Trump.).

i think in several ways you miscommunicated. i think you should drop these disputes and try to say something about a political issue you care about, perhaps book related. i haven't yet seen you say anything like "I think X is a good political principle, because Y, and I think it implies Z about situation W." nor have i seen you read some reasoning by me or others i agree with and point out a mistake in it.

curi at 3:56 PM on February 14, 2017 | #8485
this quote from Adios America provides some clues about the current voter fraud issue.

> As we know from Reagan’s amnesty, when nearly 1 million illegal immigrants falsely claimed to have been farmworkers to get amnesty, foreigners who have already broken U.S. laws are not always punctilious about telling the truth to government officials. Under the special agricultural amnesty of the 1986 bill, the INS received nearly one hundred thousand applications from “farmworker” illegal aliens living in the lush, fertile farmland of New York City. Another hundred thousand applications were mailed in directly from Mexico.23 Some “farmworkers” told agents that cotton was purple or described pulling cherries from the ground. Within the first three years of the agricultural worker amnesty, the government identified 888,637 fraudulent applications, of which it approved more than 800,000.24 And consider that the age at which someone who is living in the shadows first began living in the shadows is a lot easier to fake than prior farmwork.

the book contains other information about fraud problems with immigrants.

it also talks about how the Democrats are trying to bring in a bunch of third world poor to vote for them.

curi at 4:04 PM on February 14, 2017 | #8486
> then you should have said e.g. "Hi, I strongly disagree with your political views. Here is somewhere I think you're making a mistake..."

My agreement/disagreement with your political views is mixed. I would guess 50% agreement but hard to estimate, shrug.

> > My guess is that Trump&co is lying on purpose because it serves them well.

> note I am part of "&co" so you're calling me a liar for some reason.

No, Trump&co was shorthand for Trump and those who speak directly on his behalf, i.e. White House staff. Going back and re-reading my first use of it, I'm not sure why you would have grouped yourself in there.

> you're dismissing the position of me, Trump and others as dishonest lies for an agenda, without having much clue what our reasoning is.

I voted for Trump, and agree with many political views / ideas he is aligned with.

But Trump is just a man, flawed like the rest of us. I believe he is making a mistake (possibly lying?) when he claims 3-5mil people voted illegally. I'm increasingly concerned with his statements and others from the WH. Trump might actually be more dangerous than I originally anticipated.

I don't doubt that there is some amount of voter fraud happening. And investigating it and doing things to reduce it...all sounds great.

But you seem to have zoomed out / lumped your world view / broader political views, with my criticism of Trump&Co's claims on voter fraud.

There's this common thing, when people are on a "side", they overlook or avoid acknowledging or discussing any criticism of their side. Is that what you're doing? You've conflated a specific comment/criticism with some broader attack on political views and I'm not sure why.

I must run but may respond to some of your other comments later.

Anonymous at 5:18 PM on February 15, 2017 | #8487
P.S. I bought Adios America and will read it

Anonymous at 5:19 PM on February 15, 2017 | #8488
> No, Trump&co was shorthand for Trump and those who speak directly on his behalf, i.e. White House staff. Going back and re-reading my first use of it, I'm not sure why you would have grouped yourself in there.

because i agree with the statements you consider intentional lies, and i would be happy to say some of them myself, e.g.:

**there was massive voter fraud (MILLIONS!!!!! i'd guess *more than* 5 million but i haven't carefully researched the exact number) in the 2016 prez election.**

Trump is trying to save the country. I stand with him. You came here and joined the chorus of the left trying to attack and discredit Trump. The end goal of attacking Trump, our savior after 28 years of bad presidents, is to destroy civilization. This comes out in lots of specifics like e.g. the movement to shut down our power plants and the movement to destroy Christianity and Judaism while favoring Islam. In the midst of this chorus of evil -- which my blog stands proudly and vocally against -- you threw in your voice. You did not complain about any of the million huge evils of the left, you decided to spend your time attacking Trump on a topic you don't even know much about. like did you even google it? info is so easy to find that i found your initial comments either confusing or indicating lack of willingness to read stuff online. but maybe you're just bad at using google and don't know that's your problem? Here maybe this is what you want: http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/01/27/voter-fraud/

click every link in that article and you should find enough information to figure out more stuff to google for.

this issue is a little harder to google than most stuff because if you just google something like voter+fraud then the front page of google is covered in lefty propaganda. but if you add a search term like breitbart you'll find lots of info easily.

> I believe he is making a mistake (possibly lying?) when he claims 3-5mil people voted illegally.

you believe this from a position of having absolutely no idea what you're talking about. which isn't reasonable, it's overly hostile, and it's what you're focusing on when civilization is at stake. obama was the worst president for a long time (i haven't researched historical presidents much) and Trump is the one people complain about way more and you joined in that mob and not only called Trump factually mistaken but you went into conspiracy theory claims about how he's an intentional liar and I'm apparently his dupe.

curi at 5:46 PM on February 15, 2017 | #8489
i'm well aware of a variety of bad things about Trump (e.g. economic protectionism and his comments on Garland) and have posted about them, especially during the primaries. there are, however, a lot worse things in the world than Trump who is actually a really good thing. you managed to find one of his non-flaws to not only attack him over but start making nasty psychological claims about how he doesn't even believe it himself and it's just dishonest propaganda, and you did this with zero disclaimers to differentiate yourself from the leftist haters, zero statements that you support Trump's presidency overall, zero attempt not to make your comments help further the left's evil agenda. (whereas i've been clear even when i criticize Trump that in the bigger picture I like him and recognize he's a really good thing for our country.)

curi at 5:49 PM on February 15, 2017 | #8490

penalty clauses

Re #8466, you could also use penalty clauses to make deals with yourself even in situations when you ordinarily wouldn't expect yourself to follow through.

Alisa at 6:04 PM on February 18, 2017 | #8491
#8491 that's dumb.

the point of penalty clauses is to assure the other guy, when you DO expect you will follow through but he doesn't. (it also deals with ways you could fail but it's not your fault, but you're still responsible)

but here you're trying to make yourself do stuff, not trying to enable greater cooperation with others and reduce risk to them so deals can happen. totally different, unrelated, and awful.

Anonymous at 6:17 PM on February 18, 2017 | #8492
I stopped using caffeine a week ago. I was a heavy user for about 12 years.

I slept 10 hours a night for a few days but that's changed back to my normal 8 now. It was unpleasant for a couple of days (headachey and irritable).

I'm not sure *why* I was irritable.

Irritable seems to be a super common consequence of stopping caffeine, but I don't really know what process resulted in me finding stuff more irritating than usual.

I guess it was a lack of concentration/alertness, so it was harder to deal with typical interaction with people. So when someone did something irritating it was more of a stress on my capabilities/*seemed* like it was more of an imposition than usual because it took me more effort to ignore.

Now I can hardly tell the difference with how I was on caffeine. I think I notice myself being tired more, but I don't think this is a bad thing (I think I was tired a lot when I was on caffeine but couldn't really tell before, judging from my performance being noticeably worse now).

I like hot drinks so I switched to drinking squash with hot water.

SN at 4:39 AM on February 19, 2017 | #8494
> judging from my performance being noticeably worse now

Oops.

I meant "judging from my performance not being noticeably worse now"

SN at 4:40 AM on February 19, 2017 | #8495
>>But being reliable is good, helps to do things with other people. I don't want to end up being so flaky/inconsistent I can't make deals with people because no-one expects me to follow through.

>>Maybe I'm focusing too much on effect rather than cause. Like, if my mind were more clear/integrated, I'd be more reliable because what I say is a better prediction rather than because I force it.

>The DIRECT cause of you being flaky/inconsistent is that you have ideas which think doing that is good. Those ideas conflict with other ideas you hold about wanting to be reliable.

Yeah, I guess so. Like all my other mistakes, I need to acknowledge responsibility for this. If I want to do something, no matter how much conflict I have with that want, it's dishonest to claim I don't really want to do it.

And presupposing that the reliable/consistent ideas are going to win out of the resolution is closed-minded. Like, maybe the flaky ideas will win when I actually resolve the conflicts. I don't think so, but I need to take them seriously.


>So you could try to figure out the reasons for both sides, criticize both sides, *create knowledge*, and resolve the conflict. *Become* more clear/integrated regarding this slice of your life.

I have no problem being reliable in work. I sometimes have small conflicts (like "I'm tired", or "I want to watch anime" or "I want to play vidya" or "I want to finish a post"), but I can always set those aside to be resolved later and do stuff like be there on time. I care about being reliable at work because I like getting paid and most of the time I like the work.

I don't have problems with most other things either. Like planning to go gaming or watch something with friends I suspect I'm way more reliable than I need to be for them (but I'd rather be on time, and then spend a bit of time waiting/listening to audio books, than use their (badly-defined) standards of how to make an agreed-upon meeting).

I've been flaky with other things in the past. Typically that's because I've thought of stuff I don't like about it, and don't really work it out properly and kinda just stop doing it without making a clear choice.

I'm flaky *with FI*. I have ideas that hate FI and I look for excuses to stay away.

So at the moment FI is in that category of other things I've flaked on.

I think there's two factors here.

1. my crits of being active on FI
(I've phrased it that way because I don't think it's a problem with FI itself, rather some of the things that come with it)
There are certain kinds of post that trigger my hangups. Being told what I "should" do is something I have a problem with. Lol, such a rebel (jk). I guess that's a hangup from being told what I should do by people are going to coerce me.
I don't need to care that someone else thinks I should do something (caring *why* they think I should is a different matter).

So I guess I need a functional response to someone saying I "should" do something.
It's not all "should" statements though, more when they're just made as assertions. So eg "action X has flaw A so you should do Y" doesn't hit the hangup, because it's got reasoning behind it, but "you should do Y" is an empty assertion and I at least partially want to say "fuck off and die" when I get told something like that. The hangup is also triggered when I'm told something like "action X has flaw A" but I don't know how to understand X or A.
I guess just asking "why?" (or in the case of not understanding, just saying so) is a place to start with that.


2. my lack of decisiveness in giving things up
I find it more fun to just go with whatever I enjoy in the moment, so if flaws come up with something I just give it up and move on.
The problem is that I don't really think through the consequences of dropping things like that (beside being flaky, it also means I'm leaving this unresolved conflict + possibly dropping something fun for bad reasons).

I don't think I'm good at long-distance thinking in certain circumstances. I noticed this earlier when I was playing a puzzle game earlier (Lara Croft GO), it's almost entirely open information so it is *possible* to work out every consequence of every action (and sometimes work out the solution without making a move). But I don't and find it hard work to even start thinking ahead. I think if I were better at long-distance thinking, "whatever I enjoy in the moment" would *be* thinking it through more of the time.

I guess if I had some major conflict with work, I might even become flaky with that because of the problem of not working out conflicts. So this seems like a potential disaster just looking at things already in my life.

So I think lack of good long-term thinking is at least a major part of the problem, if not most of the problem.





>My interpretation of what you think from above: you want a more clear/integrated mind (the cause). The effect of that is you’ll be more reliable.

>HOWEVER, there's an *earlier cause* which results in an effect of having the more clear/integrated mind which you want.

>So what's that earlier cause?

>One big thing it involves is taking actual concrete problems/conflicts in your life (e.g. being flaky/inconsistent vs reliable!) and resolving them.

Agreed.


>>It's kinda like what I was saying about fake before. I can sometimes fake being reliable by forcing it (and finding it stressful), but I'd be better off not making lots of long-term plans until I get better at it, rather than making them and kinda forcing myself to follow through.

>do you have a plan for how you are going to "get better at it"? in general, having a vague idea of “i’ll be more reliable once i have a more clear/integrated mind” isn’t going to work as well as trying to directly identify and resolve the conflict, which involves a part of you not wanting to be reliable.

>(and i think it's DOING THIS PROCESS over and over and over again with lots of concretes, which contributes to having the more clear/integrated mind you want)

Right.

Which I think goes back to being bad at long-term thinking.

I know I avoid it sometimes (like in the puzzle game example) because it's *faster* to just plough through a bunch of possible solutions until something works, just working out each few moves by trial and error.
I also avoid it when I'm tired.
I also avoid it when I'm stressed/time pressured.

I don't think the first two are bad (but I would *like* to be skilled enough to solve puzzle games by thinking ahead more and trail&error less). But the third one is a major problem, I imagine a lot of time pressure for most things. I've become more aware of the consequence of submitting to time pressure recently, and the mistakes it results in. So here's another conflict: I worry about taking too long to do things, think I have too many things to do, and try to rush them all so I can keep up.

There's one part of that conflict that I'm not willing to discuss in detail. In general terms, there was a part of my life that was very destructive for a long time and I felt very guilty about it. I've changed it recently, but still feel bad about it having been there. The guilt made me feel under pressure to get more done with my time, like I had to do enough to make up for it but couldn't really judge how much was enough, so always felt like I had to do more and sucked at lots of things because of it.

Another part is that I'm bad at "cooling off" after a high-intensity period of action when I *am* under time pressure. Like at work I'm often facing time constraints, then after work I take a long time to get out of that mindset and relax and be more open to being dynamic with my time. I usually multitask puzzle games and watching anime or cartoons at that time until I unwind a bit and can try to sleep.

I'm not sure how I can get better at long-term thinking. I try to apply it more when playing games (like if I play that puzzle game more later, I'll try to think ahead more if I'm not tired). I guess it will be easier as I make my mind clearer too (it's easier to think more steps ahead if I am more clear about each step - otherwise later steps start from unclear premises).

Are there good books on getting better at long-term thinking?

Is this something I can just get better at by gradually working towards it and extending the reach of my long-term thinking or are there important techniques to it?

SN at 9:41 AM on February 19, 2017 | #8496
#8494 yeah constantly using caffeine sucks and having a replacement hot drink is good.

curi at 9:59 AM on February 19, 2017 | #8498
>> I can't make deals with people because no-one expects me to follow through.
> there is a simple solution to this in widespread use in the business world.
> penalty clauses.
> e.g. if you don't follow through on X then you owe the guy $100.
> sign a contract like that and people will make some deals with you even if you're flakey.

Ok, good point.

If there's a discussion you don't want to get into with me because you don't want to spend your time only for me to flake out, I'd seriously consider a penalty clause.

(yes I'm aware that I can also offer money if I particularly want an answer and then will have a much better chance of getting one)

SN at 10:23 AM on February 19, 2017 | #8499
#8463
>> (incidentally I think all good humour is of the "grain of truth" variety, I don't find outright lies told in a "humorous" way to be funny)

>this is basically incomprehensible. you're really overestimating how much your text communicates successfully. i do get the very vague gist but if you gave me some example jokes i'd have no real chance to successfully figure out which ones you judge which ones. e.g. there's no way for me to know which lies you categorize as "outright" and which you don't. i also couldn't come up with canonical examples of what you have in mind for each category.

I wasn't clear saying "outright lie", "outright" didn't really clarify what I meant and I could have dropped it. I'm not good at talking about honesty/lying in clear terms.

Ok I'll explain a bit.

So jokes can be literally true. I'm fine with that.

Jokes can be metaphorical or an exaggeration, but referring to a real issue. So eg pointing something out by comparison to a similar situation, or highlighting it by exaggeration such as a caricature. Not literally true, but still fine.

They can also be lies. Making up stuff for status, or to be mean, or to confuse people, and using humour to hide the intent and try to get people to like it anyway. I don't find that funny in itself.

They can also be lies in the sense of faking reality, pretending things are true that aren't. As above.

I find jokes about lies useful sometimes (even if it seems like the writer actually thinks the bad ideas are true). Sometimes I find them funny because they highlight some mistakes I make and give me more information about what's wrong with them. So I laugh because of some personal insight into my mistakes, not because the joke itself is good.



I don't think I really understand the FI standard of honesty fully. My guess at it at the moment is that if someone has any contradictions with something they say is true, then they're lying.
(and so, because I have a ton of issues like that, so am I)

SN at 10:52 AM on February 19, 2017 | #8500
> I guess just asking "why?" (or in the case of not understanding, just saying so) is a place to start with that.

yup. note that you've had issues for years which have such simple solutions. (not necessarily simple *full* solutions but plenty to get started). something's screwy there...

> I'm not sure how I can get better at long-term thinking. I try to apply it more when playing games (like if I play that puzzle game more later, I'll try to think ahead more if I'm not tired).

you could play games where thinking ahead is required to do well, like Chess or Go. no take backs!

Anonymous at 12:40 PM on February 19, 2017 | #8501
>> I guess just asking "why?" (or in the case of not understanding, just saying so) is a place to start with that.

> yup. note that you've had issues for years which have such simple solutions. (not necessarily simple *full* solutions but plenty to get started). something's screwy there...

Yeah, agreed.

Like even having this strategy prepared isn't going to stop me giving bad responses. I'm going to find it hard to use sometimes.

I've noticed moments like this before where there was an obvious easy change to make but I didn't just do it right away (and not even when I had some major emotional hangup about it like I do about "should").

I think I've got some issues with change, like at least partially I'm trying to seek stasis. I'm reminded of the phrase "concrete-bound mind". It's like I'm trying to stick to something safe and just stay there and stop trying new things :(
(but then reality comes crashing in because stasis isn't safe anyway)

SN at 8:45 AM on February 20, 2017 | #8502
For dealing with that, I try to keep catching myself when I resist change for no clear reason and either work out the reason, or if it seems harmless try it out and see what happens.

Also reading Rand helps. She makes quite a lot of references to concrete-bound minds and mentalities and the problems with them, so it helps to think about the problems that it causes.

SN at 8:48 AM on February 20, 2017 | #8503
#8349
> did you express this problem to FI and ask for help with a solution? did you post something like, "I feel bad about being accused of lying. Is it bad to be accused of lying? If it's bad, is it bad to be the accuser or the person accused? Why? How should one deal with it? What are typical reasons people feel bad about this and solutions to them? What are ways to do introspection to find out why I feel bad about this and fix it? Or should I live in such a way I'm not accused of lying? Or is feeling bad a part of life to accept and live with?" etc etc

In general, yes when feeling bad about some event pursuing typical reasons and how to deal with that may provide better information.


Thoughts on how to introspect and identify why feelings happen:
(not in a particular order)
* Replay the process and try to identify the chain of thoughts that occurred between the event and the bad feeling, identify when the bad feeling begin, if there were multiple stages of feeling, identify which part of the process was critical (but think about all the parts and whether they made sense)

* Think about similar situations you've had before - if they also resulted in the feeling, what was the same? if they didn't result in the feeling, what was different?

* Think about the situation which resulted in the bad feeling.
Identify the factors involved (eg what happened, who was involved, where did it take place, were there other issues/emotions active), think about these factors and ideas related to them, which may set context that was part of the bad feeling

* Find out more by trying out similar experiences and adjusting the variables involved, see how the feeling differs, work out why

* Come up with ideas for why the feelings happen (potentially from already-known conventional reasons), so you can adjust variables in a more targeted way and test out specific theories (like "it happened because Bob said it" - try it without Bob, or "it happened because I was tired" - try it without being tired)

SN at 5:40 PM on February 23, 2017 | #8504
#8504
> (like "it happened because Bob said it" - try it without Bob, or "it happened because I was tired" - try it without being tired)

Rewriting for clarity

(like "the feeling happened because of Bob said it" - try it without Bob, or "the feeling happened because I was tired when I did it" - try it without being tired)

SN at 5:42 PM on February 23, 2017 | #8505
#8387
> in terms of engagement with FI, when you feel bad, you might wanna post about your best guess as to why so people can give you some perspective. often people think their own emotional stuff is worse than it objectively is because its THEIR stuff. also people are very credulous about the Facebook Version of Happy Life BS that other people represent in public, so they feel like a unique failure for having so much trouble in life.

Yeah, ok

I think I was being kinda passive with FI threads before, trying to follow the subject too much (because I was committing myself to them or something dumb like that)

It's better to branch off into new subjects if they're more interesting/relevant, especially if not following that new subject will get in the way of following the old subject

SN at 5:54 PM on February 23, 2017 | #8506
#8504 boring vague hindsight list attempting to replace creative thinking. not useful.

Anonymous at 6:00 PM on February 23, 2017 | #8507
#8409
(I refer to this first part as the "original comment" later)
>>1) his whole fucking life is already pain anyway. the only difference with FI stuff is he doesn't have a ton of rationalizations about that pain. so what he's really doing is trying to conform to his existing rationalizations.

>so with FI stuff, he doesn't have a ton of rationalizations about that pain.

>with life stuff, he does have a ton of rationalizations about that pain.

>i wrote:

>> i wanted to understand clearly why people create rationalizations for life pain, but not FI pain.

>is the false assumption here the idea that people *create* the rationalizations? the quote just says they *have* them. it doesn't say they create them?


The mistake here is that the original comment was talking about SN conforming to his life rationalisations and not having rationalisations for FI pain. Result: life pain gets tolerated (ie not fixed in most effective ways) and FI pain doesn't get tolerated (not posting on FI).

The original comment wasn't saying anything at all about making rationalisations for FI pain.

I think it's possible that some FI-active people have pain in response to FI but rationalise it.

SN at 6:09 PM on February 23, 2017 | #8508
#8508

why you don't create rationalizations for the FI pain in order to make it more tolerable, like you do with your life pain? what's the difference which kept you from doing that in the past regarding the FI pain?

Kate at 6:17 PM on February 23, 2017 | #8509
#8509
> why you don't create rationalizations for the FI pain in order to make it more tolerable, like you do with your life pain?

I don't create more rationalisations for my life pain. The ones I have have existed for a long time. I created them as an escape from trying to stop the life pain but being blocked by coercion.

> what's the difference which kept you from doing that in the past regarding the FI pain?

Actually I did have some FI-pain rationalisations at one point from self-coercion. I stopped doing that.

The reason I don't have more FI-pain rationalisations is that no-one is coercing me to take part.

SN at 6:33 PM on February 23, 2017 | #8510
> I don't create more rationalisations for my life pain.

of course you do.

> The reason I don't have more FI-pain rationalisations is that no-one is coercing me to take part.

sure you have more. but they aren't as effective as some others. less time and tradition go into them.

Anonymous at 7:09 PM on February 23, 2017 | #8511
#8511
>> I don't create more rationalisations for my life pain.

> of course you do.

Well, maybe. I guess it's dumb to conclude I'm not gonna make any more after spending a lot of time making them and not really even thinking about it before. I didn't mean to say I wasn't looking out for the potential of more being there. But I'm not aware of any new ones at the moment.

SN at 11:06 PM on February 25, 2017 | #8512
> But I'm not aware of any new ones at the moment.

that's a bad sign, not a good sign.

you should expect progress in phases:

- ruining your own life obliviously

- noticing a few ways you ruin your own life

- fixing a few ways you ruin your own life

*in that order*.

all you're saying is you don't currently have any leads. (you also, as it so happens, have no substantial solutions to any difficult issues that you've exposed to public criticism.)

lack of leads does not prima facie indicate lack of problems, it prima facie indicates lack of awareness of problems.

in a life that's going well it's normal to find and solve problems at similar rates, and always maintain some stock of known problems. like you have on average 25 known problems, and you solve 20 per year but also discover or create 20 per year.

curi at 11:16 PM on February 25, 2017 | #8513

1960 book on scientism

Scientism and Values. A few quotes:


From the introduction:

> Certain models of society, certain techniques which this volume evaluates, and for which we suggest the label "scientism," appeal sometimes to insecure individuals and groups because such use of science in human affairs supposedly would allow one to "fix," to freeze the world once and for all.

From chapter 1:

> By "scientism" I mean here a boundary transgression or a misuse of otherwise legitimate procedures and attitudes of science.

> Can the reality of man, permeated with values as it is, be fully understood in terms of value-free concepts and theories? The problem would not arise, however, were it not for a number of influential persons in the field of the social sciences
who ardently believe that it can be done and who work toward the realization of this goal.

Alisa at 3:22 AM on February 26, 2017 | #8514
#8513
This talks about problems in general, but quotes #8512 and drops the context of specifically problems about creating new rationalisations. Why?

SN at 5:41 AM on February 26, 2017 | #8515
#8515 it's a reply b/c it applies.

Anonymous at 12:23 PM on February 26, 2017 | #8516
Do any of you imagine actors while reading fiction?

FF at 6:07 AM on February 27, 2017 | #8517
#8516
I don't disagree that it's relevant to the subject in general.

My point is that because #8513 drops context from the quote (a specific kind of problem) and imposes it's own (problems in general), it implies that that is the full context of #8512.

I think it would have been better not to quote #8512 at all and say something about the state of having no known problems instead. Then it would have been a better post.

SN at 8:31 PM on March 5, 2017 | #8519
you like marie curie?

Anonymous at 4:01 AM on March 10, 2017 | #8520
#8520 no

Anonymous at 10:37 AM on March 10, 2017 | #8521
when will trump legalize killing of ugly destructive immigrants?

Anonymous at 9:13 AM on March 24, 2017 | #8527
never

curi at 3:50 PM on March 24, 2017 | #8528
ugly non-white non-english speaking destructive immigrants have no right to live

Anonymous at 8:59 PM on March 24, 2017 | #8529
i don't know if you mean what you say or it's some kind of satire, but either way you seem like an idiot.

curi at 9:09 PM on March 24, 2017 | #8530
Why should missile strikes be proportional? The goal ought to be effective defense, not what's proportional.

curi at 4:12 PM on April 10, 2017 | #8540
I just found out Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia Co-founder) is a self-avowed Objectivist,

"Referring to the philosophy invented by writer Ayn Rand in the mid-20th century that emphasizes reason, individualism, and capitalism. Wales first encountered the philosophy through reading Rand's novel The Fountainhead during his undergraduate period[19] and, in 1992, founded an electronic mailing list devoted to "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy".[6][100] Though he has stated that the philosophy "colours everything I do and think",[6] he has said, "I think I do a better job—than a lot of people who self-identify as Objectivists—of not pushing my point of view on other people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales

FF at 8:10 AM on April 17, 2017 | #8543
He should join FI.

FF at 8:12 AM on April 17, 2017 | #8544
He calls himself libertarian though.

FF at 8:16 AM on April 17, 2017 | #8545

Deceptive, dishonest NYT reporting on left-wing violence at

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/us/berkeley-ann-coulter-speech.html

> [Conservative supporter] Mr. Benitez said that his group would arrive unarmed, as they did last weekend. But in recent confrontations, demonstrators have turned rocks, fireworks and police barricades into weapons — even using a bike lock to wallop someone in the head.
> “The way that they assemble, the tactics that they used, it has not been seen in this region,” said Capt. Alex Yao, the acting chief of the university police force, at a briefing on Thursday.

Left-wing demonstrators did all that! NYT makes it sound like it was conservatives.

The use of the word "they" in the 2nd paragraph is so deceptive. It makes it sound like the right-wingers are the ones being violent, when it's actually the left.

Alisa at 5:17 PM on April 22, 2017 | #8549
What do you think of Richard Stallman?

I liked his views on Piracy, copyright & Freedom but he is a Bernie Supporter & a SJW :-(

FF at 2:45 AM on May 4, 2017 | #8552
> if you make a new account to evade your discord ban again, you will be permanently banned from everything the same as leonor.

You could have not banned me and ignored my initial replies. I would have agreed on not outing. ( as if I have interested in outing people.. It was a weird misunderstanding)

I didn't think you expected a SUPER urgent reply agreeing to not out people!!

Okay I will not create discord accounts!

BANNED PERSON at 11:14 PM on May 7, 2017 | #8553
You were only allowed to post here as FF. You're banned for a month from everything.

Don't test the ban. I'm not going to do anything now, but if you post again then I'll go permanently ban you with the same software that bans Leonor.

curi at 11:21 PM on May 7, 2017 | #8554
Plus I told you not to contact me for a year minimum, and this comment was obviously directed at contacting me rather than being general discussion.

The year starts over after your month ban.

curi at 11:24 PM on May 7, 2017 | #8555

Justin Kalef's list of features essential for a philosophical discussion

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/a-thread-for-further-comments-on-the-misconduct-by-the-hypatia-editors-and-the-defamation-of-prof-tu.html#comments

> I have always taken for granted that what anything properly calling itself philosophy must be committed to includes the following:

> a) the careful, reasonable consideration of a range of topics, including (and perhaps especially) many of the most sensitive and controversial issues there are. Many people do not dare to discuss or even question the accepted views of their culture or subculture on matters of religion, morality, politics, and so on. We philosophers are bold enough to wade in on such issues with reasoned criticisms of all views, including the most popular and sacred, and to promote free discussion on these matters. Indeed, this is one of the great social benefits of, and perhaps the primary justification for, philosophy.

> b) the impartial consideration (or as close as we can come to it) of the best reasoning and evidence on all sides, rather than social pressure or other forms of silencing and exclusion, as the way to resolve the issues we consider.

> c) teaching people to think for themselves rather than to accept our worldviews. A test of this: which of these results would you count as evidence that you were doing an irresponsible job teaching: if your students develop their reasoning skills to a high degree in your classes but use them to come to conclusions of which you strongly disapprove, or if they come away from your courses comfortable in your views but without the intellectual and emotional resources to question them? If the latter, then it seems clear that you are not primarily teaching philosophy but rather engaging in indoctrination.

> d) promoting a professional culture of diverse viewpoints and critical open-mindedness in our service to the profession. Whether one is helping to assemble a colloquium series, a panel, a set of articles to be published in a journal or anthology, or even the members of a department, it runs counter to the spirit of philosophy to limit the range of viewpoints. It is all too easy to justify excluding unfamiliar views and arguments by saying that they do not take into consideration enough of the existing literature. If there are arguments or objections in the literature that someone is overlooking, then one can provide that person with a summary of those arguments or objections. But a true philosopher welcomes criticism from the outside. A solid philosophical position or argument should be able to withstand naïve criticism quite easily. Moreover, it is often those who are the least steeped in the often-invisible ideological commitments of a subdiscipline who can raise the most important objections.

> I'd like to add another criterion to the list of features that seem essential to philosophical discussion: the criterion that anyone can participate. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that anyone's contribution to a discussion is as good as anyone else's. But if there are topics that only certain people are allowed to engage in -- and this can follow, de facto, from an environment in which people who don't fit a certain demographic feel so afraid of being shouted down for daring to participate that they put their objections only meekly or not at all -- then it should not be difficult to see that the free and unbiased discussion that gives philosophy and science their status and power is simply not being respected. The fact that some critics are not steeped in the ideologies of those whose positions and arguments they are disputing is, in philosophy as in science, generally a benefit. It would surely be wrong to rule out such dissenting voices on principle.

> Peter Singer's 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' deals with our duties to those living in absolute poverty, but Singer has never lived in absolute poverty and gives no indication in that article of having steeped himself in the writings of those who have. In his treatment of the same material in _Practical Ethics_, he refers to the work of Robert McNamara, an affluent and powerful westerner, in categorizing what absolute poverty is. But no reasonable person rejects, or would think of rejecting, Singer's arguments because he does not demonstrate familiarity of first-person accounts of extreme poverty. Judith Jarvis Thomson's 'A Defense of Abortion' is, rightly, a much-discussed article. In it, Thomson does not draw our attention to the writings of people who have had abortions. I have no idea from reading the article whether Thomson herself ever had an abortion, nor do I care, and nor should I. Her argument, as any good argument, stands or falls on its own merits. Frances Kamm has written a number of excellent articles on trolley problems, though I presume that she has never stood at a railway switch (or anywhere else) with the weight of a life-and-death moral decision on her own shoulders, nor is her philosophical work weakened by a neglect to refer directly to the words and sentiments and 'lived experiences' of those who have.

> Anyone thinks that these points are legitimate objections against Singer, Thomson and Kamm simply misunderstands the nature and purpose of the philosophical enterprise. Philosophy is not a two-phase process in which there is first of all a contest to see whose life experiences best qualify them as experts on an issue and then a period of listening to those experts in quiet awe as they present the final word on that issue. True philosophy is egalitarian. Anyone at all gets to present any argument at all on an issue, and then anyone at all gets to review that argument for soundness and relevance and raise any objection against the logic, facts, or relevance that they think is objectively powerful. For this process to work fairly, we should ensure that those with arguments and objections that don't conform with what the group is already saying feel _particularly encouraged_ to raise those arguments and objections.

Alisa at 8:08 AM on May 8, 2017 | #8558
Thanks Alisa. I wrote a reply which is pending moderation:

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/a-thread-for-further-comments-on-the-misconduct-by-the-hypatia-editors-and-the-defamation-of-prof-tu.html#comment-6a00d8341c2e6353ef01bb099927e0970d

Here is the text of it:

Hi Justin Kalef. Re. comments #2, #18:

I appreciate the values you bring up, such as allowing anyone to discuss and not judging ideas by the experience (or other sorts of authority) of the speaker.

Do you have a philosophy forum or know of a philosophy discussion forum which meets your criteria?

I run one[1] but I've never been able to find another. I've looked. A lot.

----

One of the main objections people have to letting anyone discuss is that it takes too long. I think they're badly mistaken and have written on the topic[2]. Do you have a written position answering that objection, written by yourself or others, that you agree with and could link to? I'd like to read it.

An example of often-unwelcome outsider criticism is criticism from children. Children are less steeped in the typical biases of their culture.

There are some additional things I think are crucial to good philosophy discussions which I often find lacking. Here's a couple:

1) Timelessness. If I think of an additional argument next month, I should be able to followup then. Topics shouldn't just last a few days and then die off and get ignored, as they do on e.g. reddit, facebook, twitter and most blog comments. Many forums actually discourage or ban "necroing" which refers to raising old topics from the dead.

2) Quoting. People talk past each other all the time. Frequent use of exact quotes, including with several layers of nested quotations, helps address this problem. This is especially needed when people disagree. If you're going to say someone's claim is false, you ought to quote it and point out what's false rather than summarize it (or not even that) and seriously risk misrepresenting it. I've had many bad experiences trying to get most people to do things like give any page number or quote that they disagree with when they say they disagree with a book/author.

3) Self-contained posts with permalinks. This is related to quoting. When people refer vaguely to things like "your argument" or "what you said earlier" then it's really hard to follow. And also if the post is linked to, it can't be read as a standalone contribution because of the non-specific references to prior discussion which aren't quotes or links.

4) No moderation. Moderators block some contributions to discussion. They keep some ideas out. What is the point of the moderator if not to prevent contributions which disagree about matters such as style, relevance, the quality of various ideas, etc? (I'm fine with very limited moderation for purposes like blocking automated spam advertisements of viagra and disallowing posting the home addresses of other members.)

[1] http://fallibleideas.com/discussion-info

[2] http://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward

curi at 9:41 AM on May 8, 2017 | #8559
Brian Leiter, the blog owner, is a bad dude. See e.g. http://www.autoadmit.com/leiter.html and the linked "tirade" (he hates autoadmit).

But note the quotes from Alisa are from a blog commenter, not Leiter.

Anonymous at 9:42 AM on May 8, 2017 | #8560
http://web.archive.org/web/20070127161049/http://www.autoadmit.com:80/studies/ciolli/

> Several individuals have responded to U.S. News’s deficiencies by creating their own noncommercial employment rankings,12 but these too suffer from serious defects.13 Perhaps the most well known rankings scheme was devised by Professor Brian Leiter.14 Although Leiter attempted to account for specific factors such as regional differences, firm quality, and class size, his study fails to distinguish between recent hires and individuals hired a long time ago, fails to adjust for differing student sectoral preferences and for differing student regional preferences, does not properly adjust for LL.M. graduates, draws its data from an incomplete and inconsistent information source, makes questionable choices regarding which employers to include,15 uses an arbitrary methodology biased towards large schools,16 and starts with a preconceived notion of which law schools are “national.”17

Anonymous at 9:43 AM on May 8, 2017 | #8561
Because the xoxo criticism of Leiter is no longer up and only available from archive.org, I mirrored it:

http://curi.us/files/ciolli.final.pdf

curi at 9:47 AM on May 8, 2017 | #8562
> 15. See id. Exclusively using the 2003 edition of Vault’s guide to determine which employers are elite may be misleading. Even if one assumes that regional Vault rank perfectly correlates with regional firm prestige, one must remember that Leiter’s study includes individuals who were hired over a period lasting several decades. Id. While these 45 employers might be the most elite in their region in 2003, they might not have been the most elite in their region in 1983 or 1963.

lol rekt

Anonymous at 10:27 AM on May 8, 2017 | #8563
> 16. See id. Leiter states that “[w]ithout a doubt, two of the measures used in calculating the overall rank are sensitive to the number of graduates” and concedes that this favors large schools such as Georgetown. Id. It is unclear why Leiter chose to include these two measures in his ranking formula knowing the bias it introduces.

wtf

> 17. See id. Leiter states that he “studied the usual suspects for the top law schools,” “two schools on the cusp of this elite group,” and four “very reputable, but presumably less national schools” only “[a]s a check on the reliability of the results.” Id. No prior research supports such claims.

sigh

Anonymous at 10:28 AM on May 8, 2017 | #8564
> 41. See id. Leiter’s analysis includes all attorneys hired at these firms, whether they were nonpartnership-track counsel who graduated in the early 1990s, senior partners who graduated in the 1960s, or first-year associates who graduated in 2002. Id. Leiter concedes that the study “reflect[s] not only who Ropes & Gray was hiring in 1995, but some of whom they were hiring in 1970.” Id. Leiter also acknowledges that this bias had a significant impact on his rankings. Schools like Michigan and Duke, which Leiter claims were more prominent in the past, may have been artificially inflated in his rankings, while schools like NYU, which may not have been as well regarded in the past but have risen to greater prominence in recent years, may be ranked low relative to their contemporary placement. Id.

ppl frequently don't seem to think doing a good job is possible and don't really even try.

then they get confused when i think they should reject anything with just one criticism explaining why it's false!

Anonymous at 10:30 AM on May 8, 2017 | #8565

"In Defense of Transracialism" by Rebecca Tuvel

Rebecca Tuvel's article In Defense of Transracialism (*) was the target of an online backlash earlier this month calling for it to be retracted. This backlash was part of what Justin Kalef was responding to in the text quoted in #8558. The Daily Nous has the best summary of what happened.

Tuvel's article begins:

> Former NAACP chapter head Rachel Dolezal’s attempted transition from the white to the black race occasioned heated controversy. Her story gained notoriety at the same time that Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner graced the cover of Vanity Fair, signaling a growing acceptance of transgender identity. Yet criticisms of Dolezal for misrepresenting her birth race indicate a widespread social perception that it is neither possible nor acceptable to change one’s race in the way it might be to change one’s sex. Considerations that support transgenderism seem to apply equally to transracialism.

Tuvel also considers "transabled" people who may feel as if a limb is not part of them and have it amputated.

(*) The link above has formatting problems. A PDF of the article can also be found on sci hub under DOI 10.1111/hypa.12327.

Alisa at 2:45 PM on May 8, 2017 | #8566

Circumcision is super bad

Cutting off parts of kids' genitals for dubious health benefits or religious stuff is totally not cool :(

(applies to both genders)

J at 4:58 PM on May 8, 2017 | #8567
Leiter appears to have blocked my comment talking about qualities of good forums and asking if Justin knew of any. There's no notification of it being blocked, just nothing happens, it doesn't show up, and someone else's comment was approved in the same thread. Talk about a bad forum where you're silently censored for no apparent reason! So I tried again to post just this:

> Justin Kalef (#2, #18) is there an email address where I can contact you? Reply here or email me at [email protected]

curi at 8:02 PM on May 8, 2017 | #8568
Albert Einstein sucks

https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

> I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

so bad. did he never come across the ideas of people like von Mises? if not, how did he miss them? if so, why does he not criticize their arguments? Popper talked a lot with Einstein. what the fuck did they talk about?

Anonymous at 9:13 PM on May 8, 2017 | #8569
Popper is terrible on capitalism too so...

I'm sure Einstein ran into capitalist ideas a little bit.

Popper must have known about Mises via Hayek and meeting him at Mount Pelerin.

But people really really hate freedom so...

Anonymous at 9:24 PM on May 8, 2017 | #8570
Guessing that Einstein was shit at paths forward.

Anonymous at 1:45 AM on May 9, 2017 | #8571

Paul Griffiths on totalitarian "diversity training"

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/duke-divinity-crisis-griffiths-documents/

At Duke Divinity School, a message was sent to a wide distribution encouraging attendance at a "Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training". Professor Paul Griffiths replied to all with a message that discouraged attendance. A university administrator replied, falsely accusing him of racism, sexism, and bigotry.

Paul Griffiths' initial reply:

> I exhort you not to attend this training. Don’t lay waste your time by doing so. It’ll be, I predict with confidence, intellectually flaccid: there’ll be bromides, clichés, and amen-corner rah-rahs in plenty. When (if) it gets beyond that, its illiberal roots and totalitarian tendencies will show. Events of this sort are definitively anti-intellectual. (Re)trainings of intellectuals by bureaucrats and apparatchiks have a long and ignoble history; I hope you’ll keep that history in mind as you think about this instance.

> We here at Duke Divinity have a mission. Such things as this training are at best a distraction from it and at worst inimical to it. Our mission is to thnk, read, write, and teach about the triune Lord of Christian confession. This is a hard thing. Each of us should be tense with the effort of it, thrumming like a tautly triple-woven steel thread with the work of it, consumed by the fire of it, ever eager for more of it. We have neither time nor resources to waste. This training is a waste. Please, ignore it. Keep your eyes on the prize.

University administrator reply:

>It is inappropriate and unprofessional to use mass emails to make disparaging statements–including arguments ad hominem–in order to humiliate or undermine individual colleagues or groups of colleagues with whom we disagree. **The use of mass emails to express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry** is offensive and unacceptable, especially in a Christian institution.

Reply by Griffiths' colleague Thomas Pfau:

> Having reviewed Paul Griffiths’ note several times, I find nothing in it that could even remotely be said to “express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry.” To suggest anything of the sort strikes me as either **gravely imperceptive or as intellectually dishonest.**

Griffiths' follow-up:

> Intellectual freedom – **freedom to speak and write without fear of discipline and punishment** – is under pressure at Duke Divinity these days. My own case illustrates this. Over the past year or so I’ve spoken and written in **various public forums** here, with as much clarity and energy as I can muster, about matters relevant to our life together... I’ve reviewed these contributions, to the extent that I can (some of them are available only in memory), and I’m happy with them and stand behind them... What I’ve argued in these contributions may of course be wrong; that’s a feature of the human condition.

> Elaine Heath and Thea Portier-Young, when faced with disagreement, prefer discipline to argument. In doing so they act illiberally and anti-intellectually; their action shows totalitarian affinities in its preferred method, which is the veiled use of institutional power. They appeal to non- or anti-intellectual categories (‘unprofessional conduct’ in Heath’s case; ‘harassment’ in Portier-Young’s) to short-circuit disagreement.

> [T]he life of the mind... requires openness, transparency, and a willingness to engage.

Part of an email from Griffiths about the disciplinary proceedings that have been initiated against him:

> The complainant’s allegation, so far as I understand it from your brief report, is illiberal, anti-intellectual, and shameful. It is, on the face of it, an attempt to constrain speech by blunt force rather than by free exchange. I’m entirely happy to stand on the record of my exchanges with the complainant, and with other colleagues. I’m confident that any reasonable judge of those exchanges will see them for what they are.

Griffiths has resigned after all this. :(

Alisa at 9:51 AM on May 10, 2017 | #8572

"Everything is Problematic"

Here are some snippets I liked from Everything is Problematic, an essay in the McGill Daily by Trent Eady. The essay talks about how and why the author's political views changed from radical leftist to merely left-leaning.

> One way to define the difference between a *regular belief* and a *sacred belief* is that people who hold sacred beliefs think it is morally wrong for anyone to question those beliefs.

> Anti-intellectualism... manifests itself in the view that knowledge not just about what oppression is like, but also knowledge about all the ethical questions pertaining to oppression is accessible only through personal experience. The answers to these ethical questions are treated as a matter of private revelation. In the academic field of ethics, ethical claims are judged on the strength of their arguments, a form of public revelation. Some activists find this approach intolerable.

> Perhaps the most deeply held tenet of a certain version of anti-oppressive politics – which is by no means the only version – is that members of an oppressed group are infallible in what they say about the oppression faced by that group.

Author goes on to point out that some gay people may tell you that homosexuality is wrong, while other gay people will tell you it is fine.

> People who belong to oppressed groups are just people, with thoughts ultimately as fallible as anyone else’s. They aren’t oracles who dispense eternal wisdom. Ironically, this principle of infallibility, designed to combat oppression, has allowed essentialism to creep in. The trait that defines a person’s group membership is treated as a source of innate ethical knowledge. This is to say nothing about the broader problem of how you’re supposed to decide who’s a source of innate knowledge. Certainly not someone who innately “knows” that homosexuality is disgusting and wrong, but why not, if you’re simply relying on private revelation rather than public criteria?

> It is an ominous sign whenever a political movement dispenses with methods and approaches of gaining knowledge that are anchored to public revelation and, moreover, becomes openly hostile to them.

> Ever since I was a child, the pursuit of knowledge has felt like my calling. It’s part of who I am. I could never turn my back on it. At least not completely. And that was the crack through which the light came in.

> There is no shortcut that allows you to avoid thinking for yourself about oppression simply by deferring to the judgements of others. You have to decide whose judgements you are going to trust, and that comes to the same thing as judging for yourself.

Alisa at 10:09 AM on May 10, 2017 | #8573
> Griffiths has resigned after all this. :(

damn.

he wrote some good stuff.

approximately(?) all the universities are so fucked up now.

Anonymous at 10:31 AM on May 10, 2017 | #8574

Justin Kalef again

Justin Kalef (commented at Leiter Reports on May 09, 2017)[http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/one-of-the-authors-of-the-open-letter-defaming-tuvel-and-calling-on-hypatia-to-retract-her-article.html#comment-6a00d8341c2e6353ef01bb0999abee970d]:

> Where people feel afraid to even discuss an issue philosophically, that issue will be resolved by whoever's authority is permitted to go unquestioned.

Alisa at 9:08 AM on May 12, 2017 | #8577
KIC 8462852 is undergoing another dip.

Anonymous at 8:40 PM on May 20, 2017 | #8606
Is your apartment building up to Earthquake code? Is your street safe from liquifaction? Are you in a tsunami zone? Do you have a good plan for the big one? I used to not worry too much about these things until two massimother fuckers struck close to home. People were badly caught out in so many ways.

Anonymous at 4:39 AM on May 21, 2017 | #8621

Crimestop

“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.” - George Orwell, 1984

"Crimestop" - a good word for a way of thinking people commonly exhibit when discussing things with Elliot Temple.

Alisa at 3:05 PM on May 22, 2017 | #8636
> "Crimestop" - a good word for a way of thinking people commonly exhibit when discussing things with Elliot Temple.

i agree :(

curi at 3:08 PM on May 22, 2017 | #8637
> "Crimestop" - a good word for a way of thinking people commonly exhibit when discussing things with Elliot Temple.

And with you?

SOL at 7:54 PM on May 22, 2017 | #8639

Crimestop

No.

Alisa at 8:33 PM on May 22, 2017 | #8640
Why?

SOL at 9:04 PM on May 22, 2017 | #8641
- Most of my ideas are pretty conventional. Even when people disagree with me, my ideas are within the spectrum of things they are prepared to think about. My position wouldn't be considered thoughtcrime by them, so they don't need to engage in crimestop in order to avoid thinking about it.

- I don't often express disagreements in a simple and logical way. So people can easily keep discussing with me without doing things like "misunderstanding the simplest arguments".

Alisa at 7:14 AM on May 23, 2017 | #8644
> - Most of my ideas are pretty conventional.

What's an example of a pretty conventional idea you hold?

> Even when people disagree with me, my ideas are within the spectrum of things they are prepared to think about.

What's an example of an idea in that spectrum where people disagree with you?

> My position wouldn't be considered thoughtcrime by them, so they don't need to engage in crimestop in order to avoid thinking about it.

Do you ever do crimestop yourself?

I was curious about what else Orwell says about crimestop. Here's another passage:

> He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions--'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water'--and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation.

So crimestop requires a lot of creativity, at least at first. People are expending their creativity on not understanding. How sad.

> - I don't often express disagreements in a simple and logical way. So people can easily keep discussing with me without doing things like "misunderstanding the simplest arguments".

If you're not expressing disagreements in a "simple and logical way" then I don't see how they can keep discussing without misunderstandings. How does that work?

SOL at 8:21 PM on May 23, 2017 | #8649
> What's an example of a pretty conventional idea you hold?

That humans are smaller than elephants.

> What's an example of an idea in that spectrum where people disagree with you?

That the Warriors are better than the Spurs.

> Do you ever do crimestop yourself?

Yes.

> If you're not expressing disagreements in a "simple and logical way" then I don't see how they can keep discussing without misunderstandings. How does that work?

How is that relevant? I didn't say they can "keep discussing without misunderstandings." I said, they can keep discussing without

>> doing things like "misunderstanding the simplest arguments".

Alisa at 9:08 PM on May 23, 2017 | #8650
>> What's an example of a pretty conventional idea you hold?

> That humans are smaller than elephants.

pretty conventional. to hold the opposite you would be “crazy”.

>> What's an example of an idea in that spectrum where people disagree with you?

> That the Warriors are better than the Spurs.

not “crazy”.

>> Do you ever do crimestop yourself?

> Yes.

can you give an example?

>> If you're not expressing disagreements in a "simple and logical way" then I don't see how they can keep discussing without misunderstandings. How does that work?

> How is that relevant? I didn't say they can "keep discussing without misunderstandings." I said, they can keep discussing without

>>> doing things like "misunderstanding the simplest arguments”.

so a simple argument that would not present a problem in convo with you presents a problem in convo with Elliot Temple because his ideas cause crimestop? do i got it?

crimestop seems like a big problem. what’s the solution?

oh just googling and i see that scientology has something similar to crimestop called entheta.

SOL at 2:35 AM on May 24, 2017 | #8651
>>> Do you ever do crimestop yourself?

>> Yes.

> can you give an example?

Look through my FI-list discussions with Elliot.

> so a simple argument that would not present a problem in convo with you presents a problem in convo with Elliot Temple because his ideas cause crimestop? do i got it?

No.

Alisa at 8:25 AM on May 24, 2017 | #8652
1. A leftist tried to murder anti-Jihad scholar Robert Spencer:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266719/icelandic-leftist-poisons-robert-spencer-robert-spencer


2. Evil Georgetown professor harasses alt-right guy at gym and gets his gym membership cancelled

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/richard-spencer-gym?utm_term=.muvGvzz1NK#.tsw5A00XgD

(note: Richard Spencer's views on race/etc are super bad. But people shouldn't be harassed like this by shrieking libs while peacefully going about their life...)

more on this evil bitch, she's apparently a serial doxxer: http://www.mrctv.org/blog/distinguished-georgetown-prof-spreads-personal-info-political-opponents-intimidate-them


3. Evil U of Hawaii professor tells white male professors to quit their jobs or exist in perpetual moral slavery to people like her:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

I thought this bit of writing from the prof was especially interesting when considered from an Objectivist perspective:

>I know you’re not going to quit your job, but I want you to understand that you should. And to understand that by keeping your job and your other unearned privileges, you are running a continued debt to marginalized people and you should always be seeking ways to pay us back. Not to alarm you, but statistically speaking you are the problem. Your very presence. I can’t tell you what is the best strategy for you to stop blocking my path. I can just ask that you please get out of my way.



4. Some people want to invoke the 25th amendment to remove Trump and that's really dangerous. (Note Krauthammer not exactly a Trump fan -- pretty hostile -- but still realizes this would be a disaster:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-guardrails-cant-contain-trump/2017/05/18/987e4fa4-3bee-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html?utm_term=.824ac204e021

>Republicans are beginning to panic. One sign is the notion now circulating that, perhaps to fend off ultimate impeachment, Trump be dumped by way of 25th Amendment.

>That’s the post-Kennedy assassination measure that provides for removing an incapacitated president on the decision of the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet.

>This is the worst idea since Leno at 10 p.m. It perverts the very intent of the amendment. It was meant for a stroke, not stupidity; for Alzheimer’s, not narcissism. Otherwise, what it authorizes is a coup — willful overthrow by the leader’s own closest associates.

>I thought we had progressed beyond the Tudors and the Stuarts. Moreover, this would be seen by millions as an establishment usurpation to get rid of a disruptive outsider. It would be the most destabilizing event in American political history — the gratuitous overthrow of an essential constant in American politics, namely the fixedness of the presidential term (save for high crimes and misdemeanors).


5.. Man from Burundi doing his Master's in Accounting in the US flees to Canada as "refugee"

https://twitter.com/therebeltv/status/865886325446066177



6. Trump called the Manchester terrorists evil losers. he is correct!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/23/politics/trump-manchester-remarks/index.html?adkey=bn


7. Is cultural marxism taking over mainstream conservatism?

http://www.vdare.com/articles/yes-virginia-dare-there-is-a-cultural-marxism-and-its-taking-over-conservatism-inc

>Not only does Cultural Marxism exist, but it now appears to be taking over Conservatism Inc. Thus even with Paris burning, National Review was still attacking to the Right. In the second round of the French election, Tom Rogan urged a vote for Emmanuel Macron on the grounds Marine Le Pen is insufficiently hostile to Vladimir Putin and is a “socialist” because she “supports protectionism.” Macron’s actual onetime membership in the Socialist Party, and his view that there was no such thing as French culture, apparently was not a problem [French election: American Conservatives Should Support Macron, April 24, 2017].


gp @ the absurdity of supporting an actual socialist over a protectionist cuz of wanting to stop socialism.


8. Spanish Gen Y-ers are suing their parents for financial support

http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/spanish-gen-yers-are-suing-their-parents-for-financial-support/news-story/c8e961fba92989b1337da45f1a8445be


9. Trump's conversation with Duterte has been leaked and its kinda funny in some parts:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3729123-POTUS-RD-Doc.html#document/p1

Unmysterious J at 10:49 AM on May 24, 2017 | #8653
> Look through my FI-list discussions with Elliot.

I searched with the keyword "crimestop". Nothing turned up. Given you introduced the term here I didn't expect it to. I'm guessing the idea gets discussed but not named as such in threads about anti-rational memes and TCS-coercion?

SOL at 6:08 PM on May 24, 2017 | #8654
>>>> Do you ever do crimestop yourself?

>>>> Yes.

>>> can you give an example?

>> Look through my FI-list discussions with Elliot.

> I searched with the keyword "crimestop". Nothing turned up.

How is that relevant? You asked me for examples of when I *do* crimestop myself, not for posts where I discuss it.

Alisa at 8:09 PM on May 24, 2017 | #8655
That should be, "... not for examples of me discussing it."

Alisa at 8:11 PM on May 24, 2017 | #8656
> How is that relevant? You asked me for examples of when I *do* crimestop myself, not for posts where I discuss it.

I was expecting posts which had an example where you crimestopped and someone identified and discussed that problem. Have you discussed it? Have you solved it? If so, how?

Anonymous at 9:57 PM on May 24, 2017 | #8657
> I was expecting posts which had an example where you crimestopped and someone identified and discussed that problem

Then why didn't you ask for that?

Alisa at 10:11 PM on May 24, 2017 | #8658
> Then why didn't you ask for that?

You said to look through your FI-list discussions with Elliot. That is not to give an example but to say in a vague way how to *find* an example. If the examples on the list are clearly identified then no problem. If not, then I have to dig and my interpretation of what is an example will be different to yours. That is, you haven't actually given any unambiguous example. So I think I had the wrong idea about how helpful you were prepared to be and misjudged the context.

Given I now think you don't want to be very helpful, I won't ask for the above in #8658. I'm happy to go dig.

SOL at 12:33 AM on May 25, 2017 | #8659

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)