[Previous] The Four Best Books | Home | [Next] Ayn Rand on Thomas Szasz

Discussion

Discuss anything in the comments below.


Elliot Temple on September 21, 2017

Comments (185)

yay!

FF at 5:19 AM on September 21, 2017 | #9059
Is this meant to be an experiment? To see what we discuss?

MK at 8:11 AM on September 21, 2017 | #9061
> Is this meant to be an experiment? To see what we discuss?

The old Discussion Thread is overflowing!

He creates new threads one in while.

FF at 8:25 AM on September 21, 2017 | #9062

C

one = once (Correction)

ff at 8:26 AM on September 21, 2017 | #9063

Fresh Start

I updated the "Open Discussion" link in the sidebar to point here. The old thread had ~350 comments.

curi at 9:54 AM on September 21, 2017 | #9064
Should we trust our emotions when it comes to preserving our Integrity?

Eg: Stealing violates my integrity so I start feeling bad when I am planning to steal something.

FF at 7:18 AM on September 22, 2017 | #9067
Emotions are really helpful. They can give us clues that we are about to violate a value of ours.

I wouldn't call it "trust", though. Instead, you can be thankful for the clue and then use *reason* to figure out what you should do in the situation and why.

kate at 8:32 AM on September 22, 2017 | #9068
> I wouldn't call it "trust", though. Instead, you can be thankful for the clue and then use *reason* to figure out what you should do in the situation and why.

yeah, I shouldn't have used the word "Trust". Trusting emotions would be a bad thing.

FF at 9:45 AM on September 22, 2017 | #9069

Is matter a constructor?

David Deutsch talks about matter, energy, and evidence, and energy is a constructor for tasks that require a change in energy, and evidence is a constructor for the extinction of bad explanations, so...

Do matter and energy create explanations? Is matter a constructor for anything? Does it use electromagnetism to repel other matter and "construct" changes in the momentum of other matter with some charge?

Is this what allows it to instantiate explanations that are "kept"?

Why does it always have mass, and is that important for its role in knowledge creation?

Evan Oleary at 4:32 AM on September 25, 2017 | #9075
@#9075

There's too much to discuss at once here. I'm going to reply to the first thing, and if we finish discussing it then I can go back and reply to the second thing.

> energy is a constructor for tasks that require a change in energy

it's unclear if you're claiming this or you're stating that DD claims it. can you give a source if you're attributing it to DD?

I question this idea because constructors aren't allowed to undergo a net change during constructions, but using energy changes it by e.g. turning some into waste heat.

Also isn't it *universal* constructors which are of primary interest?

Anonymous at 10:36 AM on September 25, 2017 | #9076

Is matter a constructor?

Ah, whoops, yeah, I'm wrong about that. I thought DD claimed energy was a constructor.

Evan Oleary at 7:54 AM on September 27, 2017 | #9078

Is matter a constructor?

But the point is that DD claims that evidence, matter, and energy are ingredients for knowledge to arise.

Is it sufficient for knowledge to arise? And if it is, then knowledge creation involves:

constructors which perform the possible transformations of energies of inputs (compositions of energy-commensurable tasks)

constructors which perform extinction of errors (evidence)

And my question is, is matter involved in a way where it's a constructor? For transformations of voltage or gravitational potential or something?

Evan Oleary at 8:01 AM on September 27, 2017 | #9079
It'd be better to bring up fewer issues at once. E.g. try to understand FoR/BoI stuff or CT stuff in isolation before mixing them.

> constructors which perform extinction of errors (evidence)

This doesn't make sense. You should try to think of examples of things you talk about, and give the examples, and also give quotes from DD that you're trying to discuss. Also it's universal constructors which are of primary interest, and their primary interest is for understanding the laws of physics (not for understanding e.g. epistemology).

> Is it sufficient for knowledge to arise?

This question is unclear. It could be asking whether there's some 4th thing and knowledge is IMPOSSIBLE without it (not that I know of). That is, is there at least one configuration of any amount of evidence, matter and energy which allows for knowledge creation. Yes there is, e.g. the state of the Earth when biological evolution got going. But I don't even know what we're excluding, isn't everything (including evidence) made of matter and energy? You might say vacuum isn't, that empty space is excluded, but I doubt the question was intended to be about whether some empty space is needed.

> And my question is, is matter involved in a way where it's a constructor?

Yes, matter is involved in knowledge creation. Knowledge is created by evolution which involves replicators (such as dog genes) which are made out of matter.

Anonymous at 9:26 AM on September 27, 2017 | #9080
huh!

Larry at 10:43 AM on September 27, 2017 | #9081
About 20-30 years ago Liberty Fund made several deals with OUP to publish their Collected Works of various classical writers in paperback. (This was great for those who wanted to read these books, because the paper and printing of Liberty Fund was far better than that of OUP at the time.) Liberty Fund, as a matter of course, publishes e-versions of all of its titles for free, either on the net or, collectively, on disk. That was a long established practice.They did that in these cases as well.

Suddenly, one day, for no reason anyone can figure out, OUP informed Liberty Fund that they were still sticking by their deal with respect Liberty Fund's pb copies of the Collected Works of Adam Smith, but would sue for copyright infringement if Liberty Fund didn't immediately remove all electronic copies of these identical volumes. Liberty Fund complied, but everyone is still scratching their heads.

Craig J. Bolton on Facebook at 4:10 PM on September 30, 2017 | #9083
OUP = Oxford University Press

Liberty Fund has free books here:

http://oll.libertyfund.org

Anonymous at 4:10 PM on September 30, 2017 | #9084

Is matter a constructor?

Example would just be any result of a test that problematizes one or more bad explanations that you have (which obstruct you from using and building upon the good ones)

I agree universal constructors are of primary interest, and I'm trying to better understand universal explainers because they're the most important known part of a universal constructor

Evan at 1:45 AM on October 1, 2017 | #9085
#9084 It also has the Quran not just "A collection of scholarly works about individual liberty and free markets."

FF at 8:21 AM on October 1, 2017 | #9086
A piece of paper with the result of a scientific test is not a constructor. It's only capable of constructing any particular thing in very few initial conditions. Just like something is only a replicator if it can replicate in a variety of situations.

Why do you think universal explainers are part of a universal constructor?

Anonymous at 8:58 AM on October 1, 2017 | #9087
Is beauty important? What problems does beauty solve?

Anonymous at 9:08 AM on October 1, 2017 | #9088
the problem of not getting laid

Anonymous at 11:10 AM on October 1, 2017 | #9089
But the result itself is repeatably observable, and it can condition people to construct the extinction of theories which expect something other than it

I think universal explainers are part of universal constructors because that's my best explanation for the regular co-occurrence and co-absence of ability-to-explain-a-lot and ability-to-construct-a-lot. (DD's connection between explanation and transformation)

Also, is there an exact difference between conjecture and criticism?

Anonymous at 8:07 AM on October 3, 2017 | #9090
Is a rock (plain old boring rock i pick up from a beach or field) a constructor for unicorns? if you drop it into the right input scanner for a computer hooked up to an appropriate 3d printer, it will print a unicorn with no change to the rock.

> I think universal explainers are part of universal constructors because

how about a reason involving a quote from DD which directly says it? if not that, a quote from DD followed by a clear, short argument about how it's required by the quoted text?

you're incorrect. a universal constructor doesn't require a universal explainer as part of the constructor. i think you may be unaware of the concept of writing a program for what the constructor does as part of setting up the construction task.

> Also, is there an exact difference between conjecture and criticism?

a conjecture is an idea. a criticism is a type of idea. the words also have different connotations.

curi at 8:55 AM on October 3, 2017 | #9091

twitter comment

140 chars is too short so i'm writing here and linking it. I'm replying to:

https://twitter.com/curi42/status/915685533203931136

Hit "show more replies". I didn't see any way to link directly to the 3 Andrew Adams reply tweets together.

---

Szasz wrote many books and papers. To address Szasz, you need to, in order:

1) understand his idea
2) evaluate his idea
3) write out the reasoning for your evaluation, especially if it's negative

You've pre-judged his idea as false before understanding it and without writing out a considered opinion. I would expect a reasonable negative judgement of Szasz's views to be at least a few hundred words and include at least one quote.

Alternatively, if someone else has already done this, you could endorse and take responsibility for their published evaluation of Szasz's ideas. If you want some pre-existing written criticism to speak for you, that's fine as long as you actually understand it and will treat criticism of it the same as criticism of your own writing.

What you've done instead is ambiguous assert that it's "well known" that Szasz is mistaken, and take for granted the reality of some of the very things at issue. That's not a rebuttal.

curi at 2:31 PM on October 4, 2017 | #9092
> the problem of not getting laid

why does it solve that problem?

Anonymous at 5:00 AM on October 6, 2017 | #9097
> why does it solve that problem?

people who want to bang prefer pretty faces

Anonymous at 11:00 AM on October 7, 2017 | #9098
what if I don't want to get laid?

Anonymous at 7:52 PM on October 7, 2017 | #9099

Anonymous at 5:55 AM on October 18, 2017 | #9186
fixed, thx

Anonymous at 9:56 AM on October 18, 2017 | #9187
Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Onkar Ghate on Free Speech

Streamed live on Oct 19, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP2WlfTiohw

FF at 3:41 AM on October 24, 2017 | #9190
i know that trying to look pretty so that other people like me is bad.

is there anything wrong with trying to look pretty for myself?

AnonGirl at 3:04 PM on October 24, 2017 | #9203
trying to look pretty "for yourself" = trying to look pretty for other people, but internalizing it and being dishonest. that's *even worse*.

read https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html

Anonymous at 3:28 PM on October 24, 2017 | #9205
Is there a way to start a new thread or can only Elliot do that?

I have questions about TCS, coercion in general, induction, and free markets.

Cam at 12:40 AM on November 1, 2017 | #9230
You can request threads. BUt there are already existing threads about TCS, induction, econ, etc, which you can use.

curi at 12:49 AM on November 1, 2017 | #9232
there is a message for you from outside the circles of time

i am an imperfect messenger but this is what it said:

the capsids of your spicules burst with neutrinos

while the echo of your demise travels sideways in possibility

you will remember that one person who dies right in front of you for the longest

schizophrenia is contagious at 5:57 PM on November 8, 2017 | #9235

12 Rationalist Virtues


curi at 1:10 PM on November 10, 2017 | #9238
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/4888618/sex-worker-slept-10000-men-answers-questions-women/

> In fact, in the decade she was in the industry, the most important thing to her clients was “feeling of being needed and wanted. Wanted badly by a horny woman. It is their ultimate fantasy after all.”

so men want approval more than they want sex, even when hiring sex workers.

> She said that it is vital, therefore that whatever sex acts you are doing, “you make look like you want him bad and are enjoying him so much (even if you aren’t).”

heh. this is why women fake orgasms.

What do men want from women/sex? at 10:12 AM on November 13, 2017 | #9249
When will Rami be back? Does anyone know?

FF at 5:57 AM on November 29, 2017 | #9391

MailMate Configs

What's up with the MailMate config files in the FF guidelines? Can't access.

Anonymous at 7:17 PM on December 5, 2017 | #9410
dropbox breaks links sometimes. use http://curi.us/files/MailMate-Config.zip

Anonymous at 7:27 PM on December 5, 2017 | #9411
Has Rami left FI?

FF at 9:51 AM on January 16, 2018 | #9454
He didn't make an announcement about leaving. He just hasn't been posting. Who knows.

Anonymous at 6:00 PM on January 17, 2018 | #9455
#9455 sorry for asking.

ff at 9:38 AM on January 20, 2018 | #9459
Bitcoin is falling. Anyone who took Elliot's advise saved their money.

FF at 8:47 AM on January 22, 2018 | #9460

FI essays

Curi,

I have been reading your essays at http://fallibleideas.com -- good stuff!

I noticed the essays under life articles do not have a heading/title, like the ones under the fallible articles section. I think it would be good to add them -- a few times I returned to re-read an article in an open browser tab and I was initial confused where I was.

Ur thoughts?

Anon69 at 12:40 PM on January 23, 2018 | #9466
added. (it will take some time to show up due to cloudflare caching)

curi at 12:56 PM on January 23, 2018 | #9469

Over-reaching

The Peter Principle: In a hierarchy individuals tend to rise to their level of incompetence.

Anonymous at 9:45 PM on January 28, 2018 | #9482

A Self

What do advice do you have for someone who doesn't have much of a self but wants to have one? That is, someone who doesn't have strong interests or values or ideas.

Anonymous at 12:44 PM on February 12, 2018 | #9517
learn stuff. read and discuss, esp Rand, esp *The Fountainhead*. choose and follow some interests – with objectively measurable performance and good improvement paths available (e.g. speedrunning) – to be **really good**. consider what good values you already have – including major cultural traditions like some respect for reason, individual responsibility and freedom – and build on them by looking at their implications, taking them further. try to understand your situation and problems really well *before* trying to change much (esp risky changes) b/c ppl often make the wrong changes and it doesn't work, and also they think "i already know X is wrong" without knowing enough about it to thoroughly change, so they end up changing 20% of X and refusing to "beat a dead horse" by learning more about it.

curi at 1:51 PM on February 12, 2018 | #9518
I read your most recently newsletter and followed the link to Ann Coulter's post: CARTER PAGE: AGENT 000.

Comments:

> The Department of Justice used the unverified dossier to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against Carter Page, an alleged "foreign policy adviser" to Donald Trump.

It's been reported that Carter Page has been monitored by the FBI since 2013, long before the dossier. For the FISA applications in question, was the dossier the sole evidence used? Which part(s) of the dossier were used? Were they corroborated with other evidence?

I am interested to see the democrat counter memo to see if it sheds light on these questions. I doubt that Nunes, the author of the memo, knows the answers to these questions, because he admits not having read the underlying material.

> the FISA court was not told who had paid Steele to create the "salacious and unverified" dossier.

Nunes subsequently admitted there was actually a footnote that mentioned the information in the dossier may come from a politically motivated source.

> Since it has appeared for quite some time now that there is no collusion, the only thing left for Mueller to investigate is Trump's "obstruction of justice," i.e. Trump being pissed off that his time is being wasted.

How does Ann know what facts and evidence Mueller has in front of him. Why is she pre-judging the investigation?

Looking at past special investigations, these things take time. See: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mueller-is-moving-quickly-compared-to-past-special-counsel-investigations/

I also think the potential obstruction charges are legitimate. Perhaps Ann is joking, but explaining them away as trump just being pissed off about his time being wasted doesn't make sense.

> The reason Rosenstein appointed Mueller was that he believed the "salacious and unverified" dossier. We know that because Rosenstein personally signed one of the FISA warrant applications based on the dossier

non sequitur. I thought the special council was precipitated by the unusual facts surrounding the comey firing and to ensure a non-partisan / independent investigation.

Ann also claims Steele is a trump hater. Maybe, although I haven't seen much supporting that. I've seen the quote from Ohr saying Steele "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." But that can be read two ways: a man biased against trump, or someone who thought he was witnessing crime(s) in progress and was very troubled w/ Trump being president from a national security perspective. Even considering Steele's intelligence may all be wrong, I lean towards the latter after reading about Steele and also having read the Fusion GPS congressional testimonies.

Steele's dossier represents raw intelligence gathered by a single person. It should be treated as such: requiring verification/corroboration. I haven't seen anything with the Russia investigation that suggests it has been treated otherwise.

Anon69 at 4:02 PM on February 14, 2018 | #9521
denies bias of Steele, then links Nate Silver's site as if it wasn't fully partisan.

Anonymous at 4:07 PM on February 14, 2018 | #9522
> I haven't seen anything with the Russia investigation that suggests it has been treated otherwise.

and where did you look? 538?

Anonymous at 4:07 PM on February 14, 2018 | #9523
> denies bias of Steele, then links Nate Silver's site as if it wasn't fully partisan
>
> > I haven't seen anything with the Russia investigation that suggests it has been treated otherwise.
> and where did you look? 538?

I haven't read much of 538 website, but I can see they are left-leaning.

As far as the link provided...I stumbled into that page and thought it did a decent job, e.g. summarizing the history of special investigations, plus a nifty diagram.

Any criticisms of the content?

As far as my conclusions in general and "where did I look?". Read dossier, read Nunes memo, watched or read interviews with various players. As many primary sources as possible. Watch or read congressional testimonies. NYT, WSJ, Politico, WashPost, Breitbart. I've read most of Ann's posts for the last 6 months. Probably 50+ hours of effort in the past 6months.

Do you care to offer any criticism of my comments?

Anon69 at 4:36 PM on February 14, 2018 | #9524
if you're following politics so closely, why did you have no idea who/what 538 is?

did you notice your list of news outlets is 80% MSM? that's super biased.

you are downplaying what 538 is by saying "left-leaning". that is a large understatement. you are showing clear biases.

Anonymous at 4:40 PM on February 14, 2018 | #9525
you have presented no case that there's anything worth investigating.

Anonymous at 4:42 PM on February 14, 2018 | #9526
> if you're following politics so closely, why did you have no idea who/what 538 is?

Here's what I know about 538: Guy named Nate Silver runs the site, I think he's a pollster or something, seems to pop up during elections. I've watched his site a little during elections for real-time results. Haven't spent much time on his site otherwise. The site is occasionally linked to from other sources.

> did you notice your list of news outlets is 80% MSM?

Yes, but I don't see a problem. I have what I'd consider an unusually diverse exposure.

There's kinda bad analysis everywhere. MSM, sites on the right, sites on the left. I am generally suspicious of everyone.

MSM, on the whole, seems to do a better job of presenting the basic facts about the news (aside from "opinion" pieces). When I look a given news event, as reported by more lefty (e.g. HuffPost / Vox) or right leaning (e.g. Breitbart / DailyCaller) they often report on an odd and narrow sliver of the full story...the sliver the supports their biases.

> you are downplaying what 538 is by saying "left-leaning". that is a large understatement. you are showing clear biases.

I wouldn't know (that it's an understatement). I really don't know 538 very well per above.

Anon69 at 6:33 PM on February 14, 2018 | #9527
> you have presented no case that there's anything worth investigating.

Is there a specific statement I'd made, that you'd like to know more about?

Anon69 at 6:35 PM on February 14, 2018 | #9528
> Is there a specific statement I'd made, that you'd like to know more about?

could you present the case for the investigation?

> Yes, but I don't see a problem. I have what I'd consider an unusually diverse exposure.

80% biased is OK b/c other ppl read 90% biased sources? seriously?

you're reading primarily lefty MSM stuff, and now you've attacked Breitbart as if it were similarly bad to huffpo/vox, which is a nasty slander you have backed up with no facts. you're massively biased here.

what are you trying to accomplish? you just don't seem to know or care about what the FI community thinks about this stuff. you aren't asking or curious, you're hostile and way way way to the left of the blog you're commenting at. why don't you go through and write comments on curi's right wing posts telling him where he's wrong? that seems more productive than trying to debate other people instead of debating curi directly.

Anonymous at 6:45 PM on February 14, 2018 | #9529
> what are you trying to accomplish? you just don't seem to know or care about what the FI community thinks about this stuff.

I posted here about something curi linked which I disagreed about...as a starting place to learn more and seek criticism.

I'm in the process of learning about FI. I suspect I don't have a great understanding of all things FI. I do "care", which is the very reason I decided to post.

I wonder if disagreement is being delegitimized here, by calling me biased, hostile, etc

> you aren't asking or curious

Asking or curious about what?

> you're hostile

I'm not hostile, why do you think that?

Anon69 at 8:27 PM on February 14, 2018 | #9530
hi anon69. i think you're jumping into the forest to debate trees before getting the lay of the land. you seem to think Breitbart is comparable to Vox(!!!!!!), while reading a bunch of MSM material. Do you want to talk about that?

In order to detect things like NYT bias, it's important to have a good grasp of what the truth is so you can compare. Or if you don't already know much, you could take some article and start investigating it – perhaps one which some critics have already identified as both important and bad.

Do you have political principles? A framework you use to interpret the things you read? Tools to catch bad actors and spot their major mistakes?

Do you have a way of evaluating what's correct that you then subject things like the NYT's positions to (and somehow conclude they are superior to breitbart?), or are you reading less critically than that and getting your opinions from what you read in an ad hoc way, or what?

And you say you read primary sources about the Russia investigation, but you didn't present any case for the investigation using them. Want to try that? One of Ann's main points about the investigation is there's no real reason for it to be taking place in the first place. You seem to disagree ... and say you read tons about it (I haven't), so want to explain your view? Meanwhile, you showed a willingness to use hard-left sites you don't know much about as sources without doing any checking first, and then you downplayed the problem instead of wanting to retract it. (I have done multiple fact checks of Coulter, which I posted publicly, which is why I'm wiling to link her even though I haven't followed this particular topic much.)

curi at 8:43 PM on February 14, 2018 | #9531
Curi,

I'm interested in replying to all of your questions as I have more time, but a quick one in the meantime.

> Meanwhile, you showed a willingness to use hard-left sites you don't know much about as sources without doing any checking first, and then you downplayed the problem instead of wanting to retract it.

I stand by the link I sent -- I can't spot any major mistakes with it. I believe it offers an accurate summary about past special investigations, and it offers something to consider in response to, e.g. "It's been X months and there's no proof of Y" regarding the Mueller investigation. It shows how slow the wheels of justice turn.

I think there's an issue of me not understanding / seeing the problem here, rather than knowing it and downplaying it. Can you explain more about what the problem is?

Anon69 at 7:59 AM on February 15, 2018 | #9532
Is there any source you wouldn't trust a claim from without some meaningful fact checking? SPLC? Salon? Michael Moore? Stormfront? MSA? SJP? Anything funded by George Soros?

Nate Silver is really bad – a shameless, dishonest partisan hack. It's your job to check stuff from him and his associates yourself, if you want to use it, not push that checking burden onto others.

curi at 1:15 PM on February 15, 2018 | #9533
The more I learn the more I see that just because a news source is well-respected does not mean that it is unbiased or accurate. This is bad :( It means that a lot of the news we watch or read is giving us wrong information. We need to figure out which sources do a good job before we rely on their information. It takes some work to do this.

anonymous at 1:25 PM on February 15, 2018 | #9534
yeah.

and that issue doesn't just apply to news sources. for example, respect/credentials/prestige/reputation is also very unreliable for science (including medicine and diet/nutrition/health advice) and academic papers.

Dagny at 1:40 PM on February 15, 2018 | #9535
> Is there any source you wouldn't trust a claim from without some meaningful fact checking? SPLC? Salon? Michael Moore? Stormfront? MSA? SJP? Anything funded by George Soros?

When it comes to political news/analysis, there's no source I'd trust without some fact checking. Pretty much anything I read/watch I file under "maybe", until I see primary sources, hear responses from various parties involved, etc.

>Nate Silver is really bad – a shameless, dishonest partisan hack. It's your job to check stuff from him and his associates yourself, if you want to use it, not push that checking burden onto others.

Do you have any examples of partisan hackery by Nate Silver? Just curious to check it out (I haven't read much of his stuff).

Regarding the link I provided on the Mueller investigation, I had prior knowledge about events surrounding Mueller so far and those all checked out. Also about some of the facts w/ prior investigations. Based on your prompt, I went back and fact checked a some of the timelines on the prior special councils...they check out as well.

Anon69 at 7:25 AM on February 16, 2018 | #9538
the article appears to be trying to say or imply:

- the russia investigation is typical or average, and should be judged by a comparison to a typical or average past investigation. (this implies e.g. that it isn't partisan bullshit)
- the investigation has gotten quick, good results (Flynn should burn)
- the specific prior investigations compared to are the correct, representative set

the first two are key points that are not argued, more implied, and the third one is a potential source of bias.

Nate Silver published dozens of attacks on Trump during the election, mostly in the form of predictions that turned out wrong, and which he kept making with no shame about his track record of failure.

Anonymous at 1:56 PM on February 16, 2018 | #9540
> One of Ann's main points about the investigation is there's no real reason for it to be taking place in the first place. You seem to disagree ... and say you read tons about it (I haven't), so want to explain your view?

Sure. There are perhaps two related questions: why the investigation(s) exist in general vs why they’ve been rolled up into the Special Counsel (Mueller) vs just handled by relevant teams in the DOJ or FBI.

As far as the Special Counsel…there's some history as to why that concept exists which I'll leave aside for now. But Deputy AG Rosenstein appointed a Special Counsel back in May 2017 (would have been AG Sessions doing the appointing, but he recused himself from Russia matters). It came to be after the unusual circumstances around the firing of FBI director Comey, where troubling/contradictory statements were made by the WH and Trump about why Comey was fired. Most famously, Trump during a TV interview (w/ Lester Holt) said he would have fired Comey regardless of recommendations from the DoJ (contradicting WH statements about the reason) and tied it to the “Russia thing". And then also, Comey released memos documenting troubling encounters w/ Trump, RE: loyalty and Flynn. All of this raised questions about whether there was just cause for the firing and attempts at obstructing justice. To ensure the existing investigations could proceed in an independent and non-partisan manner and protected from obstruction, Rosenstein appointed a special council to take over the investigations.

The areas of investigation that the Special Counsel is looking at:

- Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election
- Potential collusion/conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign
- Obstruction Of Justice
- Other crimes discovered during the investigation

In addition to the indictments already served, I've looked at it closely and I believe there is substantial evidence for why these investigations should be happening. Along the way, I've been mindful to look for evidence of being politically motived, improper, etc, and haven't found anything significant. I can get into the details of each area if desired.

The investigation is done in secret so to understand the progress we're limited to existing indictments, leaks, etc. Activity known to the public so far:

-Flynn indictment
-Papadopoulos indictment
-Manafort Indictment (conspiracy and money laundering)
-Gates indictment (conspiracy and money laundering)
-Announced today: Indictment 13 russian nationals and 3 Russian entities (conspiracy to defraud the US, wire fraud, bank fraud, and identity theft)
-Reports of various interviews taking place

Here are some signs that the investigation has substantial work ongoing:

-Witnesses continue to be interviewed (E.g. Steve Bannon this week)
-Trump hasn’t been interviewed yet
-Flynn, Papadopoulos (and likely Gates per recent reporting) flipping/cooperating, meaning they have something to offer on other targets to avoid other charges
-Most recent indictments came out today (central to the russia interference part)

Ann made several criticisms of the investigation in her Carter Page blog post which I touched on above. Your thoughts on those or are there others you'd like me to comment on?

In her latest blog post "Anatomy Of A Coup", she summarizes:

> This is an investigation with no evidence of a crime, apart from politically motivated, anti-Trump investigators relying on a Hillary-funded dossier.

The investigation has already served many indictments showing crimes (none involving dossier that I know of). The investigation in general only touches the dossier in a few areas, and no evidence that anything *relies* on it. The people alleged as anti-trump (which I disagree about in the case of Steele) have minor roles.

The Special Counsel's work seems legit and important to continue. I don't understand why Ann attacks it in a way contrary to the facts.

Anon69 at 2:08 PM on February 16, 2018 | #9541
> The areas of investigation that the Special Counsel is looking at:

None of those are the thing you claimed was the reason for the investigation: lack of at-will employment in the government.

Regardless, do those things merit an investigation? You presented no case that they do. You didn't even try. Even though the topic was:

> > One of Ann's main points about the investigation is there's no real reason for it to be taking place in the first place.

so you haven't even begun to address the topic. you just said you could do that in the future if asked. but you were asked already.

---

Overall I don't think you understand that there are a million crimes everywhere, and that this is massive politically-motivated selective attention. If you investigated Obama stuff you'd find a larger number of more serious crimes. What did Trump do, beyond beyond business as usual, to merit so much attention to this investigation *over* other potential investigations?

curi at 2:16 PM on February 16, 2018 | #9542
And if the goal is broader societal and government reform (you might reasonably respond to me by thinking that's a good goal), is this investigation way to do it? No. It's not designed for that purpose.

curi at 2:18 PM on February 16, 2018 | #9543
> > The areas of investigation that the Special Counsel is looking at:
> None of those are the thing you claimed was the reason for the investigation: lack of at-will employment in the government.

I'm having a hard time parsing what you mean here. I'm not sure if this helps but the reason various threads of investigations were rolled up into the special counsel is different than the reasons those investigations are taking place.

> Regardless, do those things merit an investigation? You presented no case that they do. You didn't even try.

Right. I thought we could take things step by step to see if agreement/questions, interesting in continuing, before zooming in.

> What did Trump do, beyond beyond business as usual, to merit so much attention to this investigation *over* other potential investigations?

The investigation is only in part about Trump himself, maybe just the potential obstruction of justice piece, although time will tell as further details emerge.

Mostly it's about other people, such as Trump campaign officials, or Russian nationals such as those indicted today.

As far as attention of this investigation over others...I'm guessing you are not talking about media attention, because that's not really relevant to the merits of the investigation itself. As far as measuring attention within the govt (effort, money spent, number of investigators, etc)...I'm not sure how to measure that.

I saw an article late last year saying about $7 mil spent to date on the Mueller investigation. The FBI's budget for 2016 was $8.7 billion. I recall there being ~20 prosecutors as part of the special counsel. FBI has 35k employees (not sure how many of them are prosecutors though).

How do you assess it as getting undue amount of attention over other investigations?

Anon69 at 2:41 PM on February 16, 2018 | #9544
> I'm having a hard time parsing what you mean here.

You wrote, about non-at-will employment:

> It came to be after the unusual circumstances around the firing of FBI director Comey ... All of this raised questions about whether there was just cause for the firing

You presented the firing as a primary issue, then proceeded to list different things as the topics of the investigation, without explanation, as if it wasn't a total non sequitur.

> I thought we could take things step by step to see if agreement/questions, interesting in continuing, before zooming in.

You didn't do a small steps. You wrote a ton of stuff, it just didn't address the issue.

> How do you assess it as getting undue amount of attention over other investigations?

I agree the monetary price isn't so bad – though there's still a ton of other higher priority things to investigate. But it's costing a ton in terms of attention, it's a huge distraction. So, why was it started? Who decided to pour tons and tons of attention on this, for what purpose? What was the thought process there? Did they evaluate many potential investigations, and with what criteria? Is it just partisan political fighting? Or what?

curi at 2:56 PM on February 16, 2018 | #9545
> > I'm having a hard time parsing what you mean here.
> You wrote, about non-at-will employment:
> > It came to be after the unusual circumstances around the firing of FBI director Comey ... All of this raised questions about whether there was just cause for the firing
> You presented the firing as a primary issue, then proceeded to list different things as the topics of the investigation, without explanation, as if it wasn't a total non sequitur.

Ah, I see the confusion. The comey stuff was part of why the investigations (including *existing* investigations) were roll-up in the Special Counsel. The comey firing may or may not be relevant for one particular thread (the obstruction of justice) but otherwise, unrelated to the other topics.

I brought up all of that to separate the issues of 1) should the investigation(s) exist? vs 2) should the special counsel exist? Which I've have found are sometimes conflated / not well understood.

Will respond later, RE: other questions and more about reasons for investigations.

Anon69 at 3:08 PM on February 16, 2018 | #9546
i am not very interested in the form of the investigation, and also i thought Comey should have been fired on day 1 along with a lot more ppl, so firing him does not impress me as a reason to investigate.

curi at 3:18 PM on February 16, 2018 | #9547
> i thought Comey should have been fired on day 1 along with a lot more ppl, so firing him does not impress me as a reason to investigate.

Maybe Comey should have been fired day 1. But hypothetically...if Trump disagreed with you, but then later fired Comey to stop / slow down investigations into his friends / colleagues, or even himself...that would be bad, no?

I'm not saying such obstruction has been established, but I believe lots of circumstantial evidence suggests it should be looked at...

Anon69 at 3:33 PM on February 16, 2018 | #9548
if the investigations were bad, then firing their leader would be good.

and i think the reason Trump kept Comey was not that he thought Comey was good, it was an overly compromising approach to politics, which then came back to bite him.

Trump thought he could leave some people in place and they would act reasonably, but he quickly found himself betrayed.

and you can't have important obstruction until after there's stuff worth investigating, so that's not a primary point, so let's focus on stuff to investigate in the first place.

curi at 3:52 PM on February 16, 2018 | #9549
Thanks for the link!

Kate at 7:39 AM on February 25, 2018 | #9603

Camille Paglia

Anyone know much about Camille Paglia? Picked up on her after watching a conversation between herself and JP. She's a first-wave feminist who is highly critical of third-wave feminism, like here:

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

I find myself agreeing with much of what she is saying.

Anonymous at 10:37 PM on February 25, 2018 | #9605
Says a bunch of things I agree with then says she was a Bernie Sanders supporter :(

On Rand:

> Many people have noticed the very real parallels between Ayn Rand and me. (I was born in the United States, however; my mother and all four of my grandparents were born in Italy.) A New Yorker profile of Rand several years ago in fact called her “the Camille Paglia of the 1960s.”
>
> Ayn Rand was the kind of bold female thinker who should immediately have been a centerpiece of women’s studies programs, if the latter were genuinely about women rather than about a clichéd, bleeding-heart, victim-obsessed, liberal ideology that dislikes all concrete female achievement. Like me, Rand believed in personal responsibility and self-transformation as the keys to modern woman’s advance.
>
> Rand’s influence fell on the generation just before mine: In the conformist 1950s, her command to think for yourself was brilliantly energizing. When I was a college student (1964-68), I barely heard of her and didn’t read her, and neither did my friends. Our influences were Marshall McLuhan, Norman O. Brown, Leslie Fiedler, Allen Ginsberg and Andy Warhol.
>
> When my first book finally got published in 1990, a major Rand revival was under way. I was asked about her so often at my book signings and lectures that I researched her for the first time. To my astonishment, I found passages in her books that amazingly resemble my own writing: This is certainly due to the fact that we were inspired by the same writers, notably Nietzsche and the High Romantics.
>
> The main differences between us: First, Rand is more of a rationalist, while I have a mystical 1960s bent (I’m interested in astrology, palmistry, ESP, I Ching, etc.). Second, Rand disdains religious belief as childish, while I respect all religions on metaphysical grounds, even though I am an atheist. Third, Rand, like Simone de Beauvoir, is an intellectual of daunting high seriousness, while I think comedy is the sign of a balanced perspective on life. As a culture warrior, I have used humor and satire as the most devastating weapons in my arsenal!

Paglia is all over the place and even admits she is not an intellectual of "daunting high seriousness". I don't think I'll give her much more attention.

Anonymous at 11:41 PM on February 25, 2018 | #9606
how much gun control should there be?

should any guns be illegal?

at what age should people be allowed to own guns?

what severity of crime should make it so you are not allowed to have a gun anymore?

should people who are much more likely to commit a crime, but have not committed a crime in the past, be allowed to own a gun?

should any ammo types be illegal?

i am pro gun, but im not sure what the limits should be (if any).

Anonymous at 7:41 AM on February 27, 2018 | #9609
more gun questions:

should gun owners have to learn gun safety like drivers do?

are there guns for which the only purpose is killing a lot of people at once? if so, should those guns be outlawed?

should people who threaten to kill other people be allowed to have guns?

TD at 8:21 AM on February 27, 2018 | #9610
As background, understand that in any society with significant freedoms any evil person who really wants a gun is going to get one regardless of what the law says about it. The law affects primarily good people who follow the law, and only secondarily makes things harder for evil people who don't follow it.

Over time it will get easier for evil people to get guns rather than harder because of technology. 3D printers facilitate easier and more distributed manufacturing of everything, including guns, gun parts/modifications, and ammunition. The internet facilitates anonymous commerce transactions, even black market trade in guns, gun parts, and ammunition.

With that background in mind perhaps some things become clearer:

Making certain types of guns or ammunition illegal will not be effective over the long run. And attempts to enforce such laws will require increasingly draconian rules on both the internet and 3D printing technology, both which have severe and far-reaching impacts beyond guns.

If a person is old enough to control a 4000 pound car capable of running down people in crowds, they are old enough to have a gun. We let people drive at age 16. I don't have a criticism of that tradition generally, and think it should be a starting point for discussing gun ownership.

If a person is too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to be let out of jail. Think that through. Let it sink in. Maybe the right answer is that some criminals need to be in jail longer. But the point is "keep convicted felons from getting guns" is a dangerous lie perpetrated on the public.

Turning a convict loose on society with the rule "you are free again except you can't have a gun" is a lose-lose proposition: If the convict has actually reformed, you leave him undefended against people who are still criminals. And if he hasn't actually reformed, he'll disregard the laws and get a black market gun for his evil deeds anyway.

PAS at 8:36 AM on February 27, 2018 | #9611

Threats

Seriously threatening to kill someone is a crime in itself. A person can (and should) go to jail for it.

There is room for judgement as to whether a particular threat is serious. Someone who says "if you scratch my car I'll kill you" while smiling and handing over the keys to an old friend borrowing the car is not making a serious threat and the person should not go to jail.

However, when the seriousness of a particular threat is in question one component of the judgement is whether the person has the means to carry out the threat, and whether they reference such means.

All else equal, a threat made by someone who has a gun is more serious than a threat made by someone who does not have a gun. A threat which references a gun as the means (like, "I'm going to shoot you") is more serious than a threat that doesn't reference the means.

Someone who threatens to shoot an ex-lover's new boyfriend and posts pictures of himself with his guns while doing it should be taken very seriously. That's a crime, and the person committing that crime should go to jail. They should not be let out of jail until they no longer pose that threat. Determining that length is a separate and very hard problem, but I'm referencing the principle here.

Merely taking away the threatening person's gun is totally the wrong approach. The threat-maker can always get another gun (see my previous message), or use some other weapon to carry out his threat instead.

PAS at 9:30 AM on February 27, 2018 | #9612

Gun Safety

A reasonable person will learn how to use a gun safely before owning one just like a reasonable person will learn how to drive safely before driving. So the issue is, what about people who aren't reasonable?

There are several issues with government requirements around training, registration, or certification. Most of these apply to both cars and guns.

On the one hand, short of really draconian monitoring and intrusion such requirements don't effectively prevent untrained people from using a gun or driving. An untrained person can get the keys to a car, turn it on, and drive. It happens all the time. The main forces that limit it are cultural and financial incentives, not legal.

Similarly, an untrained person can pick up a gun and fire it. Requiring some kind of government "gun license" won't change that. And there's already plenty of cultural knowledge about limiting untrained people's access to guns.

On the other hand, short of instituting extremely high and expensive standards that few people could pass, such requirements don't effectively insure the supposedly-trained person knows how to safely drive or handle guns. "Training" and "testing" are, in general, awful with regard to both driving and guns. Certifying someone has been trained and passed a test does very little to insure they actually know and will apply safe practices.

Plenty of people who have driver licenses are in fact quite terrible and unsafe drivers, and I'd expect the same with any sort of gun license. Such regulations give people a false sense of security...I'm licensed, so that must mean I know what I'm doing. WRONG.

So no, I don't think licensing drivers actually makes roads safer and I don't think licensing gun owners would actually reduce unsafe gun practices.

Additionally, one difference between guns and cars is there's not much historical precedent for using drivers licenses or car registration as a step toward banning driving or car ownership. Nor is there a significant and powerful movement to ban driving or car ownership. The extreme greenies who want that are, at least for now, pretty marginalized.

But there is such a precedent and large/powerful movement with regard to banning guns. That makes gun licensing and registration a more risky thing to allow the government to do than driver licensing and car registration.

PAS at 10:02 AM on February 27, 2018 | #9613
What (non-gun-control) things could we do to reduce mass shootings and other murders in the US?

PAS, your answers above make a lot of sense.

anon at 12:25 PM on February 27, 2018 | #9614
> What (non-gun-control) things could we do to reduce mass shootings and other murders in the US?

stop forcing kids to go to school who don't want to. this is important both for the bullies and their victims. both sides of that is a bad experience. happy people who want to be at school would not be bullies, and also we make their victims keep going to the same place to get bullied more. plus many kids believe – often correctly – that their teachers are cruel idiots, the textbooks are horrible quality, school is a waste of time educationally, etc. making someone go to that for years and years can really sour them on how good a world they live in, make them resentful, etc.

if young people had more control over their lives, they would value their lives more. it makes sense that people don't value what someone else (their parents and teachers, cultural authorities, static memes, etc) are controlling.

and if ppl actually learned good ideas, that would help too! wise ppl don't want to be murderers.

curi at 12:33 PM on February 27, 2018 | #9615
> What (non-gun-control) things could we do to reduce mass shootings and other murders in the US?

build a wall, deport illegal aliens, end anchor babies, stop letting in third world and muslim immigrants who won't be a benefit to the country and commit way more crimes, have more cultural confidence and start assimilating people who do come here (and if they don't want to be assimilated to our values, don't let them come).

curi at 12:39 PM on February 27, 2018 | #9616
> As background, understand that in any society with significant freedoms any evil person who really wants a gun is going to get one regardless of what the law says about it

True. However, friction matters. Wouldn't making it harder to buy a gun reduce gun murders and mass shootings?

> Making certain types of guns or ammunition illegal will not be effective over the long run.

True. But in the short-term, until society becomes more rational, it may have some effect of reducing gun murders.

> If a person is old enough to control a 4000 pound car capable of running down people in crowds, they are old enough to have a gun

The benefits of driving a car outweigh its dangers.

The benefits of owning a gun apply only to limited circumstances. But the dangers to the gun owner and those around them are significant.

> If a person is too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to be let out of jail. Think that through. Let it sink in. Maybe the right answer is that some criminals need to be in jail longer.

I'd guess something like 25%+ of today's gun owners are too dangerous to own a gun because they are not skilled enough to use them safely. And/or too irrational. But I don't think it makes sense to jail all these people.

anonymous at 2:22 PM on February 27, 2018 | #9617
friction helps stops petty crime that isn't very motivated, and emotional crimes without forethought. it doesn't matter much for big, planned crimes with motivations that last over time.

friction also disarms lots of victims cuz they don't expect to be victims, so they don't want to put a big effort into defense.

why do you hate guns so much? do you hate other types of tools equally? do you have an attitude of relying on the authorities to take care of you?

curi at 2:50 PM on February 27, 2018 | #9618
> why do you hate guns so much?

I don't hate guns. I own a gun and glad that I do.

> do you hate other types of tools equally?

no.

> do you have an attitude of relying on the authorities to take care of you?

no.

anonymous at 3:06 PM on February 27, 2018 | #9619
> it may have some effect of reducing gun murders.

this is one example of many biased comments in a short post. if a gun murder is replaced with a knife murder, how does that help? trying to reduce "gun murders", rather than "murders", is a biased goal.

Anonymous at 3:13 PM on February 27, 2018 | #9620
#9619 I see you're not interested in discussing the friction issue, and you're not curious why you came off as anti-gun.

curi at 3:28 PM on February 27, 2018 | #9621
> What (non-gun-control) things could we do to reduce mass shootings and other murders in the US?

In addition to what's already been said for mass shootings:

Stop encouraging (culturally and institutionally) people gathering in mass for dumb reasons - stuff that can be done better, cheaper, safer from home like education, entertainment, shopping, finding dating or hookup partners, etc.

Where there is a good reason for people to gather in mass, either:
(1) Expressly allow attendees to bring defense weapons including guns.
OR
(2) Have a security screening system that's actually effective at enforcing a weapons prohibition, doesn't cause its own mass gathering at the gate or other entrance, is perimeter protected by armed guards, and (after Las Vegas) is not susceptible to incoming fire from outside the venue.

Since (2) is super hard and expensive to accomplish effectively, I recommend (1) in almost all cases.

In addition to what's already been said for murders in general:

Legalize recreational drug use, gambling, and prostitution. That would eliminate 3 major sources of black market trade with its associated gangs, turf wars, and violence as the primary recourse for resolving disputes.

PAS at 4:31 PM on February 27, 2018 | #9622

Friction

> > As background, understand that in any society with significant freedoms any evil person who really wants a gun is going to get one regardless of what the law says about it
>
> True. However, friction matters. Wouldn't making it harder to buy a gun reduce gun murders and mass shootings?

Friction matters as I will discuss, but I don't think it helps.

Perhaps you're imagining a law that can introduce enough friction to reduce the number of armed would-be murderers while adding little or no friction to decrease would-be defenders. I don't think it works that way in reality.

One huge problem with such an idea is people don't come pre-labeled with "would-be murderer" and "would-be defender" stickers on their foreheads. We can't sort people out in advance. So you have to craft measures that create friction for everyone. You hope the measures create more actual friction for would-be murderers than for would-be defenders, but often it's the reverse!

Also would-be murderers can be, and often are, much more highly motivated than would-be defenders. Mass shooters are usually especially motivated. So while friction matters to them, it isn't decisive until it reaches extreme levels like: the would-be murderers doesn't know of any place where guns are, or might be, that isn't actively guarded 24X7 by other people with guns. In other words, total gun bans for ordinary citizens in ordinary homes.

Would-be defenders, on the other hand, generally just want to live their lives in relative safety. And when defense situations are relatively rare, it's easy to think having effective defense isn't worth a lot of hassle. So while the level of friction it takes to discourage a would-be murderer can be quite high, the level of friction it takes to discourage most would-be defenders is pretty low.

Also, would-be murderers typically don't mind lying or using black market channels to get around the friction. Whereas would-be defenders typically are not willing to take such alternative paths and therefore experience the entire effect of whatever friction there is.

So even if you can introduce what seems like a lot of friction for the murderers compared to the amount of friction you introduce for defenders, in practice the friction is going to tilt the balance away from defenders compared to a free market.

PAS at 5:19 PM on February 27, 2018 | #9623

Too dangerous to have a gun

> > If a person is too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to be let out of jail. Think that through. Let it sink in. Maybe the right answer is that some criminals need to be in jail longer.
>
> I'd guess something like 25%+ of today's gun owners are too dangerous to own a gun because they are not skilled enough to use them safely. And/or too irrational. But I don't think it makes sense to jail all these people.

You turned my "to be let out of jail" into "to jail". Your version is vague, but implies putting people in jail (for what crime? incompetence?) who aren't already there. I wasn't suggesting that.

It may not have been clear that I was specifically addressing the question, "what severity of crime should make it so you are not allowed to have a gun anymore?" My answer is "none", apart from the exception that prisoners are not allowed to have guns while in jail.

The explanation for my answer is: If the nature of someone's crimes give us reason to believe that person will be dangerous to society if they get a gun, then the only effective way to deal with that problem in a free society is to keep them in jail for those crimes.

Does that make sense?

With regard to lack of skill and irrationality with guns, most acts along those lines are already serious crimes where most people live. ANY discharge of a firearm made outside of a gun range that's not in defense of innocent life is a crime within the limits of most cities I know of. Even in rural areas, non-defensive discharge in the direction of people or occupied structures is a criminal offense. If someone does ex: negligent or celebratory discharge, and through the legal process we determine they are likely to repeat such behavior in the future then *yes* that *criminal* should remain in jail for his *crime* until we determine that a repeat is no longer likely.

PAS at 5:35 AM on February 28, 2018 | #9624

Cost/Benefit

> > If a person is old enough to control a 4000 pound car capable of running down people in crowds, they are old enough to have a gun
>
> The benefits of driving a car outweigh its dangers.

According to what values, in what circumstances, as judged by who? Certainly not according to all values, in all circumstances, as judged by everyone, right?

> The benefits of owning a gun apply only to limited circumstances. But the dangers to the gun owner and those around them are significant.

As with the car: what values, in what circumstances, as judged by who? I think the dangers of being disarmed are significant to both the disarmed person and those around them.

Philosophy note: I remember that BoI criticizes the idea of weighing in decision making. I'm not sure if/how that criticism applies to your argument.

I do, however, assert that:

- The argument I made was not about weighing anything. I think the same age-dependent explanation that applies to car access applies to guns also. My argument is that both guns and cars share a common determining characteristic: They are tools which can be useful to individuals but also have the capacity to cause significant harm to others.

- If your argument involves weighing, then you need to address BoI's criticism of weighing. You also need to specify what you are weighing, how it is to be weighed, who is to judge the result, and how the result is to be applied.

PAS at 8:25 AM on February 28, 2018 | #9625

Inexplicit knowledge

What are some good strategies for learning inexplicit knowledge?

Anonymous at 2:37 AM on March 1, 2018 | #9626

Static memes

Is the primary target of all static memes children?

Anonymous at 2:58 AM on March 1, 2018 | #9627

Dynamic memes

Do dynamic memes evolve faster than static memes?

Anonymous at 2:59 AM on March 1, 2018 | #9628
> Is the primary target of all static memes children?

no, e.g. static memes target parents. and all kinds of stuff.

children are a particular target b/c how children are treated is super important to the survival of memes in the long term.

Anonymous at 3:01 AM on March 1, 2018 | #9629

Dynamic memes

Do dynamic memes always tend in the direction of increased explicit knowledge content?

Anonymous at 3:03 AM on March 1, 2018 | #9630
> Do dynamic memes always tend in the direction of increased explicit knowledge content?

no. i think it'd help if you said more of the motivation for your questions, what you're thinking, why you think these questions are important, what you think the answer might be and why.

Anonymous at 3:08 AM on March 1, 2018 | #9631
trying to think up questions about memes that I haven't seen people ask. is there a good FAQ somewhere with these kind of questions? sometimes I don't know the importance of a question until it is answered.

Anonymous at 2:05 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9632
what do u want to understand about memes? what problem(s) do you want to solve? your questions seem like the standard way ppl are aimlessly trying to be clever but not following real interests/problems.

Anonymous at 2:16 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9633

Creativity program

Is it possible for the creativity program to be entirely memetic? If not, and if it is not entirely genetic, what are the minimal requirements on the genes for the creativity program to bootstrap itself memetically?

Anonymous at 2:20 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9634
what do u mean "entirely memetic"?

genes are necessary to build the hardware and do some initial programming. memes can't do that, they don't even exist until after that's done.

Anonymous at 2:21 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9635
> genes are necessary to build the hardware and do some initial programming. memes can't do that, they don't even exist until after that's done.

this is kinda obvious. i think you would know this yourself if you thought about it. there's something wrong with your approach to discussion. you should do what was suggested above: say something about ur own thoughts on the subject. u want ppl to answer ur questions but u don't say what u already do and don't know, and there are always a million possible answers, and u give no guidance about which one u want.

Dagny at 2:22 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9636
Have read Deutsch, Dawkins, Dennett, and Blackmore. Deutsch has the best understanding and explanations. Am re-reading hence my questions. Have you read Dennett's Freedom Evolves and his Darwin's Dangerous Idea?

Anonymous at 2:55 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9637
do you have any questions about specific things any of them said? all your questions are vague and you're still not giving any useful context about what your problem situation is.

Anonymous at 2:58 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9638
what do you want to *do* with answers you receive?

Anonymous at 2:58 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9639
do you think you have a single clear picture of how memes work, with no contradictions? if not, you should try to sort our the contradictions in your thinking – perhaps with targeted questions relating to actual issues, combined with some actual explanations of what you think. if the point isn't to sort out your own thoughts – which requires actually talking about them – what could it be?

Anonymous at 2:59 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9640
Dagny - I wrote #9634 but not #9635. My question comes from Deutsch's speculation at the end of one of the BoI chapters on memes where he suggests the creativity program is installed partly from genes and partly from memes.

Anonymous at 3:05 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9641
> Dagny - I wrote #9634 but not #9635.

i know. why would i point out you should have thought of something yourself if i thought you also wrote the reply comment stating it?

anyway your questions are unproductive and aimless, and you seem uninterested in fixing it or talking about any of your own ideas.

Dagny at 3:12 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9642
I know genes must construct the hardware but my question was about the software and in particular the minimum software. I'm wondering how Deutsch's suggestion can work because how can you split a universal program so that only part of it comes from genes? If whatever comes from genes is not universal until memes install the rest how does that work?

Anonymous at 3:26 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9643
you are not communicating coherently, and behind that you don't have a coherent concept of the issues you're trying to talk about. it's confused in your own mind, and much worse after it goes through a communication process to others. i'm guessing you're unwilling to put a lot of work into fixing this, and therefore the only way forward is for you to spend your life ignorant.

let's test this. would you donate $500 to FI right now as a minimal indication of seriousness, or will you admit you care less than $500? the requirement to actually make much progress and be good at this stuff is more like $100,000 worth of seriousness (mostly not in the form of money, but still genuinely valuable). your questions seem to ask to know far more than e.g. a college education would provide at a higher price in money alone, plus 4 years of time! but there's no indications of competence, seriousness, etc, to make that level of knowledge realistic.

Anonymous at 3:31 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9644

Overreaching

hi guys. anon #9643 you're overreaching a lot. you aren't good enough at discussion (and knowledgeable enough) to deal with this topic. you're trying to talk about complex stuff before simple stuff. you need to build from simple stuff to get to complex stuff. i know this isn't the answer you wanted but i cannot help you directly (i might be able to fool you so you think you were helped and praise me, but it's beyond my power to actually do something effective here. the best way to reply to your questions more directly, instead of talking about the methodological issue, would be with a whole book that starts at the start and goes through all the building up from simple to complex that you aren't doing in the discussion!).

http://fallibleideas.com/overreach

if you want to talk with me about overreach, pick a handle so you can be differentiated from other anons and tell me if you're new or not.

i could go through and point out issues with what you write and debate you, but it will not be productive for either of us. when i say this people always accuse me of arrogance and want demonstrations. when i give demonstrations, they want more demonstrations. even regulars ppl who have had dozens of demonstrations still often demand them. the issue is, clearly, they aren't taking the point from the demonstration. so i'll briefly give you one demonstration:

> I'm wondering how Deutsch's suggestion

this is a major writing error b/c you refer to "Deutsch's suggestion" without specifying what that is.

do not respond to this by clarifying it. this is representative of your inadequate skills. fixing this problem will not change the broader situation: this is one example of many (even in that single comment there are a dozen errors). there are methodological problems behind this writing error which cannot be addressed just by fixing this particular error.

curi at 3:43 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9645
> this is a major writing error b/c you refer to "Deutsch's suggestion" without specifying what that is.

I was referring to what I said in #9641:

> My question comes from Deutsch's speculation at the end of one of the BoI chapters on memes where he suggests the creativity program is installed partly from genes and partly from memes.

Here's the quote in BoI:

> Therefore, my speculation is that the creativity program is not entirely inborn. It is a combination of genes and memes.

So I think I not only had specified Deutsch's suggestion but fairly accurately too. Do you have another demonstration?

Anonymous at 4:16 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9646
an inadequate attempt to debate the point (you say it was an unclear reference to something that is itself inadequate) followed by a request for another demonstration! kinda exactly what i predicted and preempted. no thanks.

curi at 4:19 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9647
No, it was not an unclear reference and I did not say it was unclear. You were blatantly wrong that I had not specified what Deutsch's suggestion was. And when I clearly point out how I referred to it you say I made an inadequate attempt to debate the point. No. You were wrong.

Anonymous at 4:28 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9648
Atlas Shrugged:

> Taggart could not understand the transition from the laughter to the sudden tone of Dagny’s voice; the voice was cold and harsh: “Drop it, Jim. I know everything you’re going to say. Nobody’s ever used it before. Nobody approves of Rearden Metal. Nobody’s interested in it. Nobody wants it. Still, our rails are going to be made of Rearden Metal.”

> “But . . .” said Taggart, “but . . . but nobody’s ever used it before!”

Dagny at 4:45 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9649
> No. You were wrong.

Want to bet $1000 on the matter, or are you not really so confident after all? You're demanding a lot of my time while, from my perspective, being an aggressive, arrogant fool. You aren't offering value to me and you don't seem to value my time or appreciate what I wrote to you.

curi at 4:50 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9650
btw,it was not like you had to scroll up far or even at all to see what I was referring to. What I was referring was in my immediately preceding comment and the only intervening comment was Dagny's, who I was talking to. You are trying to peg me with having typical static memes - and I am open to that idea - but please if you are going to do so do it accurately.

Anonymous at 4:57 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9651
Before I agree to the bet I would need a precise description of what the issue is and for us to agree on that and also for the terms of adjudication and that we agree on those.

Anonymous at 5:38 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9652
You're boring.

curi at 6:06 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9653
>> Is it possible for the creativity program to be entirely memetic? If not, and if it is not entirely genetic, what are the minimal requirements on the genes for the creativity program to bootstrap itself memetically?

> what do u mean "entirely memetic"?

> genes are necessary to build the hardware and do some initial programming. memes can't do that, they don't even exist until after that's done.

Yes -- in this sense a computer must exist before software can be installed and run. But I think the question is asking how the software gets installed. The "creativity program" could be installed entirely from our genes. In other words, it is entirely inborn. It could be installed partially from our genes and partially from our memes. In other words, it is partially inborn. Or it could somehow be installed almost entirely from our memes. If it is only partially inborn, presumably that component is not a universal explainer for if it were there would be no need of the memetic component. So I think the second part of the question is asking how does the memetic component get installed if the genetic component is not already a universal explainer?

Anon2 at 9:09 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9654
> when i say this people always accuse me of arrogance and want demonstrations.

> You're demanding a lot of my time while, from my perspective, being an aggressive, arrogant fool.

Kinda ironic complaining you get called arrogant then saying just that to someone.

Anonymous at 10:20 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9655

therefore

>> Therefore, my speculation is that the creativity program is not entirely inborn. It is a combination of genes and memes.
>
> So I think I not only had specified Deutsch's suggestion but fairly accurately too. Do you have another demonstration?

The sentence you quoted starts with "therefore", so there was an argument before the sentence. Why are you asking what other people think instead of posting your own analysis of that argument?

oh my god it's turpentine at 10:56 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9656
> Kinda ironic complaining you get called arrogant then saying just that to someone.

you came to curi's blog, ignored 80% of what he said, and don't seem to value him, and then you get upset he has better things to do than answer your bad questions (when you don't want to even consider changing your methods or dealing with overreach issues).

and your posts have not even tried to say anything important. you're a beggar, asking for free help, and biting the hand that feeds you, who doesn't seem to appreciate the situation he's in.

Anonymous at 11:05 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9657
#9655 wasn't me (the one asking the questions)

Anonymous at 11:26 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9658
> #9655 wasn't me (the one asking the questions)

anonymous posting is confusing sometimes :/

and it's not your fault. it's the other guy's fault. he wrote a post using the same name as you and didn't write "not the OP but..." in front (as people sometimes do, quite reasonably, on reddit. even though on reddit they have unique usernames. but ppl don't always read the usernames carefully, so it can be a good thing to say.)

anonymous posting has advantages too. i don't know an ideal solution.

author of #9657 at 11:43 PM on March 1, 2018 | #9659
GP OMGIT

Here's my thoughts on what was before Deutsch's "Therefore".

Deutsch says that animals like apes can pass on pre-creative memes because of hard-coded programs installed into their brains from their genes. He says that in the precursors to modern humans the hardware for supporting pre-creative meme replication was being heavily selected for and meme bandwidth was simultaneously increasing. The hardware, primarily by virtue of acquiring more and better memory, gained the capacity to support creativity although it did not yet do so. Deutsch suggests the hardware benefited also by acquiring mirror neurons for elementary language sounds but mirror neurons flag junk science to me so I'm not buying that part. Pre-creative language memes that are gradually getting more sophisticated sounds plausible though.

As I read Deutsch, he is saying these pre-creative memes are relying on hard-coded programs from genes to replicate but because the hardware now also supports creativity some mutation in the genes for these programs caused an evolutionary jump to universality. After that memes can spread by creativity alone. These new type of memes displace the other type and their programs are no longer needed. All that is now required is genes that can install a creativity program.

But then I'm puzzled when he speculates that the creativity program is not completely in-born and is partly installed by memes.

I can sort of see how. It could be that some pre-creative meme program that has been installed in a brain can be dynamically changed. And changed by memes in such a way as to cause a jump to universality. Initially, pre-creative memes caused the jump but now creative memes do and much more efficiently and reliably. In this view the jump to universality happens afresh in each growing child. There is no universal creativity program in the genes just some non-universal precursor.

I don't know if Deutsch would agree with this or if it is what he meant.

Anonymous at 2:39 AM on March 2, 2018 | #9660
Mirror neurons are junk science as I explained to DD multiple times before BoI's publication. What sort of junk science? *Autism junk science!!!!!!* So it's particularly nasty. DD used to care about such things: http://web.archive.org/web/20030620082122/http://www.tcs.ac/Articles/DDAspidistraSyndrome.html

After publication of BoI, in public discussion, DD had no answer to challenges like:

> if you could provide any paper on the matter [mirror neurons] that isn't riddled with errors, that might be good. or do you accept all the people in the field are incompetent, but think the idea is good anyways?

his reply to that message simply omitted that part. also omitted and unanswered was:

> In BoI you write:

> "But there may also have been hardware abilities such as mirror neurons for imitating a wider range of elementary actions than apes could ape – for instance, the elementary sounds of a language."

> so did you change your mind about it being a hardware thing?

this was because DD had said

>> I have no idea whether mirror neurons are physiologically different from other neurons. I see no reason why they should be

which appears to contradict the "hardware abilities" claim in BoI by doubting that mirror neurons are differentiated from other neurons at the hardware level. but DD did not wish to address the problem.

> I don't know if Deutsch would agree with this or if it is what he meant.

I do know.

curi at 3:00 AM on March 2, 2018 | #9661
Thanks for the link. Interesting. Seems like Deutsch has read Thomas Szasz and R D Laing. I agree that the idea of mental health is a crock and there is no such thing as mental illness. Has Deutsch written about Szasz? Sad he fell for the mirror neuron thing. It's a shame and harmful when well-known scientists put there weight and prestige behind this kind of thing. Kudos at least to Steven Pinker for recognising mirror neurons as a myth.

Anonymous at 8:45 PM on March 2, 2018 | #9662
Szasz and Laing are not similar. Szasz wrote at length explaining the differences to address that misconception. Please don't spread that myth.

DD read Szasz but only understood half of it; DD's mixed about that stuff.

curi at 9:17 PM on March 2, 2018 | #9663
> You're boring.

It'd be better to say, "You're being boring." I don't know much about the person in general, I know about their messages in this particular conversation. Being more precise makes it easier for people to treat a negative message as information instead of deciding to spend their attention and energy being offended.

curi at 12:02 AM on March 3, 2018 | #9664
Didn't mean to imply they are similar. My understanding is that Szasz was a libertarian whereas Laing was a socialist. They had very different philosophical outlooks. I mentioned Laing because Laing was big in Britain during Deutsch's youth. My mother had "The Divided Self" on her bookshelf and I read it as a teenager. I hadn't seen psychiatry questioned before and hadn't questioned it myself. So it changed my outlook on that. I imagine I would find a lot to disagree with now if I were to re-read it.

Anonymous at 12:24 AM on March 3, 2018 | #9665

Tulpas

https://www.reddit.com/r/Tulpas/wiki/faq

Some people deliberately try to create another self in their mind. I guess this is possible. But it sounds like it could be dangerous if you and your tulpa don't know how to resolve conflicts. I don't know if it's even desirable at all.

Anonymous at 1:05 PM on March 3, 2018 | #9666
Nearly everyone already has the problem of internal conflicts. The self -- the thing we call the "I" -- is a kind of lie. It's a construct made up by your mind so you can answer questions like "Why are you doing that?" Your mind pushes out a kind of spokesperson that tries to explain what is going on but half the time it doesn't have a damn clue. Think of your mind as a huge collection of semi-autonomous agents. They create knowledge and can do things but have specialised purposes. Agents communicate with each other and with your conscious mind but most do not use a spoken language. Only the very high level agents do. Memes know how to target particular agents. Only people who have properly integrated their mind can have a spokesperson that isn't making things up on the fly to explain what is going on.

Anonymous at 7:52 PM on March 3, 2018 | #9667
> Memes know how to target particular agents.

This is misleading. First, because it says "memes" when it presumably means "static memes". Second, because the primary things memes do is they *are* agents, rather than targeting agents.

To a first approximation the agents in your mind are:

60% static memes
30% dynamic memes
10% non-memes

curi at 11:26 PM on March 3, 2018 | #9668
Yes, I meant static memes and, yes, memes are agents. By "target particular agents" I meant static memes have knowledge about other specific agents in your mind such that when you acquire those static memes they damage or displace or contribute to those other agents. Your proportions of memes sounds right.

Anonymous at 2:54 AM on March 4, 2018 | #9669
> Think of your mind as a huge collection of semi-autonomous agents.

Why are the agents semi-autonomous rather than fully autonomous? What's restricting their autonomy?

Also, how does the concept of choice or free will fit into this explanation?

Kate at 8:16 AM on March 4, 2018 | #9670
Consider choosing to take initiative vs choosing passivity (which puts you more at the mercy of the static memes in your mind).

Where does that *choice* fit in? Is it itself an agent? Is it part of the 10% non-memes?

Kate at 8:44 AM on March 4, 2018 | #9671
>Where does that *choice* fit in? Is it itself an agent?

Maybe it'd be better to ask, "Is it itself the result of an agent?"

Kate at 8:47 AM on March 4, 2018 | #9672
@kate: overreaching

curi at 12:28 PM on March 4, 2018 | #9674
> To a first approximation the agents in your mind are:
> 60% static memes
> 30% dynamic memes
> 10% non-memes

What's an example of a non-meme agent in the mind? I don't understand.

Anne B at 12:40 PM on March 4, 2018 | #9676
to be a meme something needs knowledge to cause its own replication. most ideas you create are terrible at replicating. most of those don't last long in your mind though.

curi at 12:47 PM on March 4, 2018 | #9677
>@kate: overreaching

I wondered if you'd say that. I'm working on an FI post on overreaching. I'll ask my questions there.

Kate at 1:27 PM on March 4, 2018 | #9678
> What are some good strategies for learning inexplicit knowledge?

This is relevant question for me in the following way. Recently I developed an inner ear problem that is affecting my sense of balance. Basically, my inner ear is sending incorrect messages to my brain about my position in space. When my mind interprets this data the interpretation conflicts with interpretation of data from my eyes and from my sense of kinesthesia. This can lead to feelings of severe dizziness and nausea and is debilitating. As part of the healing process I can train myself to compensate for the error coming from my inner ear. This requires creating new inexplicit knowledge. So I need to think about strategies for doing that.

Anonymous at 8:11 PM on March 6, 2018 | #9679
#9679

i bet there's a video game where your sense perception is warped in some way, and part of the point of the game is you learn to get used to it. i know some games have short sections where e.g. the controls are reversed (left = right and vice versa) and ppl learn to play with it (while still being able to play normally, they can switch back and forth between play styles).

Anonymous at 8:16 PM on March 6, 2018 | #9680

Overreaching

I'm reading some of the recent discussion about overreaching and thought I'd try to summarize my thinking / understanding of it.

Overreaching:

I try to accomplish a goal. But I fail because I made mistake(s) either in choosing the goal or in overestimating the knowledge / abilities / resources needed to accomplish it.

Bad responses to this situation:

- Ignore the failure and pretending I was successful
- Continue trying and incurring the costs of failure. Which might mean wasting time / resources, incurring damages, etc. Not making any progress.

Good responses:

- Analyze the goal: does the goal itself contain a mistake? is it vague? Doesn’t have clear definition of success/failure?
- Consider an easier / less ambitious version of the goal, that better fits for your knowledge / abilities / resources
- Revisit my priorities — consider tabling this goal for now and focus on something else you can make progress with
- Are there prerequisite knowledge/skills I could level-up first before returning to this goal? If so, work on those before trying again.

Anon69 at 6:05 PM on March 8, 2018 | #9683

Capitalism Essay

Reading: http://fallibleideas.com/capitalism

Background: I am pro-capitalism and like/agree with this essay.

Wondering about the argument near the end:

> Consider when force will be used. It will never be used when the people in power have a persuasive argument. They won't use force when they could get their way with words alone. At the least, words are much cheaper than force, and will maintain a better reputation for them. Instead, force will be used in exactly the cases where their argument is weak. Force will be used when they cannot persuade people. They pretend to back up their decisions with force because they are wise, but in fact they do it because their reasoning is weak. So a system that uses force, at all, will be less rational and make less good decisions. (This argument is due to William Godwin.)

I don’t think this accounts for the scenario where someone makes a good/correct argument but ppl are irrational, refuse to listen, etc. Granted, making a good/correct arguments is hard/rare and if you can’t persuade ppl, reconsidering the validity of your argument should be top of list.

I think this relates to a common leftie perspective that people tend to be bad/evil and will never be persuaded, therefore govt must use force :(

Anon69 at 12:30 PM on March 10, 2018 | #9688
people are persuadable somehow. if you don't know how, that is in fact a weakness in your knowledge. you don't know how to address all their objections, issues, etc.

most of the time, despite people being dumb or irrational in various ways, persuasion works OK and no force is used. but in some cases people fail at persuasion – there is a failure to explain things well enough – and so force gets used.

> I don’t think this accounts for the scenario where

how is it not accounted for? it tells you what is going on in that scenario (inadequate persuasive arguments). it doesn't tell you everything there is to know, but it does cover the scenario with correct knowledge as far as it goes.

if you're going to try to say stuff is wrong, you should try a bit more. you read general arguments and then claimed some case was omitted without really trying to elaborate.

Anonymous at 1:21 PM on March 10, 2018 | #9689
Good points, thanks.

> most of the time, despite people being dumb or irrational in various ways, persuasion works OK and no force is used

Is it true persuasion works most of the time irl? I’m having a hard time quantifying that but in my personal experience, it’s pretty mixed, maybe 50/50, maybe worse. People really suck at this stuff and give up quickly.

The quote from the essay talks about using force when you're wrong / unable to persuade.

I'm thinking about the issue where your right (on a given issue) but unable to persuade because of other issues, resources available, etc. An unknown amount of time needed to persuade (or be persuaded) and settle the disagreement.

Something like this: two people disagree about issue X, and let’s say hypothetically person A is correct and person B is mistaken.

You may think you’re Person A when you’re actually person B and that’s an important issue itself. But let's assume Person A is right on issue X.

Let’s say that person A learns more about person B’s issues etc, which include progress-blocking irrationalities. Like evasion / refusal to think because [fill-in-the-blank]. Person A, given enough knowledge and resources should be able to solve this and all other related issues and ultimately persuade person B about issue X. Progress is always possible and that is the right aim to have.

But there are situations where it makes sense to focus on something else, go your separate ways, stop cooperating on given thing (for now). E.g. in Atlas Shrugged, the producers made some attempts at persuasion but decided to withdraw from society and stop participating in the economy.

I think even in this case where you’ve made a lot of effort and still think you’re right, force is bad. Is that true? What are the arguments/issues related to this?

Anon69 at 2:15 PM on March 11, 2018 | #9694
> Is it true persuasion works most of the time irl? I’m having a hard time quantifying that but in my personal experience, it’s pretty mixed, maybe 50/50, maybe worse. People really suck at this stuff and give up quickly.

you think people fight over irreconcilable differences, or part ways, ~50% of the time? and even parting ways is something people often correctly agree on and reasonably think is best in this case, at this time, for just this issue.

> I'm thinking about the issue where your right (on a given issue) but unable to persuade because of other issues, resources available, etc. An unknown amount of time needed to persuade (or be persuaded) and settle the disagreement.

if a particular form of persuasion is expensive and should not be done, you can recognize that, say so, and try to persuade people of the actual best way to proceed.

Anonymous at 2:21 PM on March 11, 2018 | #9695
I just edited a video from 94min (1 continuous section) to 517 parts and 55min. Final Cut Pro had a bug and lost all my ~40 speed increases (which save ~7min) and I had to redo them all. It was beachballing so I quit it and it took a minute to end background tasks then quit. Reopened and the speedups were gone but all my other edits (including the one i did last) were present. Submitted the bug to Apple.

curi at 4:07 AM on March 13, 2018 | #9696
What does FI think of Stoicism?

FF at 8:58 AM on March 15, 2018 | #9702
What do you think of Stoicism FF

Anonymous at 9:00 AM on March 15, 2018 | #9703
> What do you think of Stoicism FF

Some of it looks good.

FF at 9:56 AM on March 15, 2018 | #9704
FF can you share some quotes or ideas from stoicism that you like

Anonymous at 10:06 AM on March 15, 2018 | #9706
> FF can you share some quotes or ideas from stoicism that you like

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination than from reality.

Epictetus refers to the possibility of suicide by the metaphor of an “open door,” the idea being that if life truly becomes pointless then one has the option to live. More importantly, it is precisely this ever present option that makes it possible for us to live a virtuous life, free of fear.

Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of the ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the world to work together...

The philosophy of Stoicism - Massimo Pigliucci - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9OCA6UFE-0

PHILOSOPHY - The Stoics -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu7n0XzqtfA

ff at 2:11 AM on March 16, 2018 | #9707
I also liked the part where they advise to live like a homeless person to train ourselves for the worse.

FF at 2:15 AM on March 16, 2018 | #9708
Stoics taught to transform emotions in order to achieve inner calm. Emotions – of fear, or anger, or love, say – are instinctive human reactions to certain situations, and cannot be avoided. But the reflective mind can distance itself from the raw emotion and contemplate whether the emotion in question should (or should not) be given “assent,” i.e., should be appropriated and cultivated.

To be a little more specific, the Stoics distinguished between propathos (instinctive reaction) and eupathos (feelings resulting from correct judgment), and their goal was to achieve apatheia, or peace of mind, resulting from clear judgment and maintenance of equanimity in life.

FF at 2:16 AM on March 16, 2018 | #9709
the Stoic tries to deal with the world as it is while pursuing self-improvement through four cardinal virtues:

practical wisdom,

the ability to navigate complex situations in a logical, informed, and calm manner;

temperance,

the exercise of self-restraint and moderation in all aspects of life;

FF at 2:19 AM on March 16, 2018 | #9710
Peikoff covers the stoics in his history of philosophy audio lectures.

i think they have some major flaws and don't offer any value i can't get better somewhere else.

Anonymous at 3:03 AM on March 16, 2018 | #9712
You have communicated that LT was the world's second best philosopher. You no longer think that. Why have you not posted to say why?

Anonymous at 4:11 AM on March 18, 2018 | #9715
I never said that.

Anonymous at 10:02 AM on March 18, 2018 | #9716
#9715 i'm curious as to what evidence you have regarding your claim "You have communicated that LT was the world's second best philosopher"

Anonymous at 11:22 AM on March 18, 2018 | #9717
Don't attribute claims to me without sources. If you had checked the source you're talking about, you would have seen that I said something different. You might have also noticed the context and followup explanations.

Anyway, I wrote extensive analysis of an LT facebook comment on FI. Look for subject lines including:

- Elliot's LT Analysis
- Exercise: Analyzing Lies

There's a big thread. Timeframe is around Oct 2017.

If you or others would engage with that thread, that'd be wonderful. It got inadequate engagement IMO, so I'm glad to hear someone may be interested in the topic. I did a really serious, detailed analysis and would appreciate discussion of it.

curi at 11:43 AM on March 18, 2018 | #9718
Yeah you said something different - I was going by memory. The context was people who will make the most progress in the next hundred years. Will take a look at the thread you mentioned. Was prompted to make my comment after reading some LT/DT tweets.

Just saw this one:

> Criticism is only ever good relative to a context. If it doesn’t address a problem you have + are interested in + are currently working on, it’s not helpful.

https://mobile.twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/975752347707199488

Most people have major problems but are not interested in hearing about them let alone solving them. How is one supposed to begin to criticise them then? Is LT saying to be silent? If criticism must engage a person's interest in a problem how does one criticise these people's interests and tell them they are interested in the wrong thing? LT is saying it is hopeless isn't she? It sounds like she is making excuses for not listening to criticism herself.

And DD: thinks global warming is a threat to the planet despite years of evidence now that the science is bad.

Anonymous at 3:48 AM on March 20, 2018 | #9719
To be clear: LT seems to have failed. RIP.

Her tweets are often bad and she doesn't want criticism of them. she seems to have quit FI.

@DD he's careful with precisely what he says so that he's not wrong about global warming. you seem to have potentially gotten the wrong idea, which is his fault cuz he communicates in a not-wrong-but-misleading way about it. (it's also possible he got more sloppy and said something that's actually wrong and i didn't see it.)

curi at 11:58 AM on March 20, 2018 | #9720
Are people allowed to talk to Banned members now?

FF at 2:44 AM on March 21, 2018 | #9721
since lg has stopped trolling et. are people allowed to talk to her?

ff at 3:48 AM on March 21, 2018 | #9722
you can talk to her

Anonymous at 3:56 AM on March 21, 2018 | #9723
LG might start trolling again. Don't remind her that I exist.

curi at 10:42 AM on March 21, 2018 | #9724
what's a good way to find out about general current news without spending a lot of time on it? i want a source that is truthful and not biased, to the extent that's possible.

a person at 7:38 AM on April 5, 2018 | #9729
#9279 what purpose do you have in mind for the news you're looking for?

Some examples:
- For material to start or understand small talk with co-workers
- To sound smart and in-the-know at parties
- To know who/what to vote for in the next election
- To prepare for changes in society that are likely to affect you personally
- For a required "current events" report at school
- To feel connected to your society

Different ways of getting news are better for different purposes.

PAS at 1:49 PM on April 5, 2018 | #9730
to know what people are talking about in conversation. to feel connected to society. to know more about who or what to vote for. to prepare for changes in society that might affect me.

a person at 5:42 PM on April 5, 2018 | #9731
Try Breitbart. If you find it unsatisfactory in some way, say what way to help figure out what else to try.

Anonymous at 5:51 PM on April 5, 2018 | #9732
I use google news

FF at 7:35 AM on April 6, 2018 | #9733
David Deutsch on anti-semitism:

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidDeutschOxf/status/984769600406605829

> Yes, it's a derangement—the most harmful and dangerous in Western society. Very widespread. But *it's not hatred*, though it sometimes causes that. Nor racism (occasionally causes that too). It's a compulsion to legitimise hurting Jews. 'Antisemitism' is a misleading term for it.

Deutsch is diminishing anti-semitism by attributing it to ficticious mental illness. 😢

Anonymous at 4:17 AM on April 14, 2018 | #9740
I just saw that DD blocked me on twitter. I guess it was a response to this?

http://curi.us/2102-accepting-vs-preferring-theories-reply-to-david-deutsch

God DD's gone downhill. See also this followup about anti-semitism:

https://twitter.com/j_mallone/status/985154706510053376

curi at 10:39 AM on April 14, 2018 | #9741
The O'Neil article referred to in the twitter thread does not even mention derangement or compulsion. Deutsch seems not to have noticed this. Deutsch is correct to say:

> But one can't understand *why* something is happening if one has drastic misconceptions about *what* is happening.

Unfortunately Deutsch himself is under drastic misconceptions about what is happening. Moral failures are not mental illnesses. I guess Deutsch is not really interested in the truth. He doesn't want to be seen to lose status. That's why he banned ET for stating the truth about critical preferences.

Anonymous at 4:32 AM on April 15, 2018 | #9744
I am not receiving many FI posts!! I am reading the reply posts for the original posts.

FF at 8:33 PM on April 23, 2018 | #9749
Join the google group. Yahoo is broken

Anonymous at 8:52 PM on April 23, 2018 | #9750

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)