[Previous] Recording Setup | Home | [Next] Pre-Scripted Discussions

Open Discussion

This is an open discussion topic. Discuss whatever you want.

If you want a separate discussion just on a specific topic, find any post related to that topic and discuss there. Or ask me to create a new post for your discussion.

How do you find replies and new discssion to read? Use the recent comments link in the side bar. (Or use the Open Discussion link in the side bar and scroll down to the bottom.) Or leave this page (or the recent comments page) open in a browser tab and refresh it periodically (or use an auto refresh browser plugin). Or use the Comments RSS Feed. Or use website change notification software.

List of prior open discussions.

Learn about new blog discussion features including posting images.

Click here to scroll to the bottom of the discussion.

View only the latest 50 comments. This will make the page load faster. You can edit the URL to the number you prefer and bookmark it. This link also includes a "#latest" anchor to scroll down to the last comment, which you can remove if you don't like it. FYI, setting a comment number limit will work on any post if you manually add it to the URL.


Elliot Temple on July 23, 2018

Comments (50 of 607) (Show All Comments)

> Why will 'if c then a' have a higher probability than a

*a* is *a* universally, unconditionally. *if c then a* is a conditional, limited version of *a* saying that *a* must be true in some scenarios (*c*) but not making that claim for some other scenarios (non-c). so it's a weaker claim.

Example:

a = my dog will die this year

c = my dog is over 50 years old

*if my dog is over 50 years old, then my dog will die this year* is more probable than *my dog will die this year*.

This is a very basic thing. This is supposed to be trivial for a person who is going to follow Popper, so this and many other basic things can be built on and the reader's focus can ~all be directed to more advanced issues. It seems you're trying to read things while missing the important prerequisites. I think you're fooling yourself about your capabilities and it is sabotaging your progress. I don't think you want to hear that criticism. But it's not reasonable to ask for help while not wanting the perspective of someone who knows the answer and thinks in line with this forum's ideas. I think you could learn a lot more, and a lot faster, by a different approach, and this is important, and that you are not open to this possibility and that, given your refusal to even consider doing things a better way, you should stop asking for help from the people you disagree with and are dismissive of.


Dagny at 12:30 AM on November 23, 2018 | #11392 | reply | quote

>If you’re wondering how this insane state of affairs came to be, remember that conservatives aren’t demonized and censored based on how Right-wing they are. They are targeted according to how effective they become. That’s why Richard Spencer and David Duke are still on Twitter, while Gavin, Laura Loomer, Roger Stone and I–some of the most popular and persuasive people in the Trump movement, none of us remotely racist–are all banned.

https://www.dangerous.com/50463/i-too-must-bid-adieu-to-the-proud-boys-a-spunky-pro-western-mens-club-defamed-to-death/


Anonymous at 8:50 AM on November 23, 2018 | #11393 | reply | quote

Consider the part:

> Did you really just compared Zac with Jjonak

> Jjonak is 1000 time better than Zac will ever be

That's a really common type of logical fail. It is complaining about an unlimited/universal comparison (comparing two things *in general*) in response to a limited/specific comparison (comparing two things in *one particular way*). And he's correct that the two things are quite different *in general* (MVP player of season 1 overwatch league vs. a player who was on a tier 2 team, like the minor league basically, and is now gonna be promoted for season 2 and is fairly likely to be a bottom-50% level player, not an MVP.)

I see this a lot. I make a comparison between X and Y regarding issue Z. People say "X and Y are not comparable" because they think of some other point of comparison. It's like "Apples and oranges are a similar size" and they are like "Apples and oranges are not similar, they taste totally different". They wouldn't make this error with that exact example but they will make it when things get slightly more complicated or less clearly communicated, especially when there is some sort of major difference (like literal MVP vs. more middling player, or if you're doing a comparison involving Hitler).

Example where people would fuck it up: you're arguing about some random artist, call him Joe, who you think is a hack. So you discuss a bit and the guy says "artists are all inspired wonderful people" and you say "no, some artists are bad, see hitler" and he says back "Hitler and Joe are totally different, wtf is wrong with you for comparing them?". Logically that's a clueless response, and it's understandable for Hitler to come to mind as an example of a bad person who was also an artist (tho as a practical matter it may be wiser to pick another example if you aren't talking to a highly logical person). Point is it's the same issue where you made a comparison *for a specific purpose* and his response is that the two things are different *in general* (which is true but irrelevant).

The reason this happens a lot is people are what I call *gist thinkers* – they think/read/listen in terms of vague, approximate gists instead of the actual precise meanings of things. They read something in order to figure out the rough idea or ballpark of what it says, but they don't know what it actually says. For a person who does that, they will see two things are being compared (which really is the rough idea of what was said) and respond that way. (Within the methodology of what they are doing, they get everything right! They are correct that the vague gist was a comparison of X and Y, and they are also correct that X and Y are quite different in major ways.) Many people approximate stuff to the rough idea of it all the time (the main exceptions are people who are good at one thing, which is usually their profession, and do some good precise thinking about that – there are quite a few people who are good at something but then dumb in general, and that is more common than being good at two things let alone good at lots of things).

The gist thinker thing was one of the main issues in this discussion with Scuro about perception:

http://curi.us/2153-induction--perception-discord-discussion

Specifically when he was claiming that Ayn Rand wrote that *perception develops* in ITOE, the issue was Scuro can't read precisely. He could only read some rough approximation of what Rand said – which he interpreted as himself having read what she actually said (he doesn't know the difference, doesn't know that he's thinking in rough approximations and that other people think more precisely – and if you try to tell him that he'll just hate you and it won't lead to progress). So what would happen is he'd try to show the text said it by quoting a sentence where he saw it being said, and then I would read that sentence and it just plain did not say that. And because he can't think precisely, he could never say *where* in the quote it said what he claimed it said, he couldn't do word-by-word analysis because all he can do when reading is take a whole section of text and then get the gist of it. But there's no clear, precise logical process by which he does that, so he can't break it down into steps and show me, logically, the steps by which he gets from the words as written by Rand to his claim about them. I asked him for that but he just couldn't do it and dropped the subject and moved on to something else (and then a bit later, he went to sleep instead of answering some point and then didn't follow up the next day, nor the next, nor the next) – but then, weeks later, he remembered it as him having won the debate on that point!


curi at 10:17 AM on November 23, 2018 | #11394 | reply | quote

Ayn Rand Institute email newsletter today (they are bad at their jobs so they did not include a link to view it on a webpage, so sorry no link):

> Since 2012, the Tuesday following “Black Friday” has been publicized as “Giving Tuesday.” Touted as a “remedy” for the “selfish commercialism” of the holiday shopping season, the idea is that charitable contributions (“giving back”) will relieve the guilt you’re expected to be feeling.

> Ayn Rand observed that, while there’s nothing wrong with helping others who are worthy of help when you can afford it, charity is not a moral duty. More importantly, she thought people should act on the “trader principle,” freely exchanging value for value to mutual benefit.

> **So, at ARI we decided to turn #GivingTuesday into #TradingTuesday.**

> We are proposing that you make an investment in an ARI program of historical significance—the recording of twelve oral history interviews with people actively involved in the Objectivist movement at the early stages of its development. Your support will allow us to preserve these powerful stories and share them with generations to come.

> Here’s an example of an oral history audio clip with Dina Federman, a philosopher who participated in ARI’s advanced training programs in the 1990s. She lectured and wrote for ARI before her untimely death from cancer in 2016.

> **A group of anonymous donors has pledged to match #TradingTuesday contributions to ARI, up to $50,000.**

> If we achieve our goal of $50,000, we’ll have raised a total of $100,000 (including matching funds). This could produce **twelve oral histories in the next year**, ideally recorded in people’s homes with our video crew. The twelve individuals we hope to interview are in their 80s. Some were close to Ayn Rand and all were present at the founding of the Objectivist movement.

ARI is complaining about "Giving Tuesday" and saying that *Trading* Tuesday would be better.

Then they say they got some *donors* to pledge 50k, they are doing scammy donation matching on it, and they want you to donate too. How the fuck is that trading? They are such dishonest liars. This is total bullshit. This is no different than any other charity asking for a donation and in return what you get is the charity uses the money to fund their mission (and you donate cuz you like that mission, whether it's breast cancer cure research or recording oral history of Objectivists before they die.)

No doubt George Reisman (who is in his 80s) is *not* one of the twelve individuals they would like to interview.

I sign my posts here Dagny. I'm far more worthy of the name than ARI is.


Dagny at 1:12 PM on November 23, 2018 | #11395 | reply | quote

curi at 10:10 PM on November 23, 2018 | #11396 | reply | quote

https://www.reddit.com/r/Vindictus/comments/5p8ck5/sad_news_for_vindictus_na_community/

This is an important point. On official forums for a game, the game company can delete criticism, and they often do. On the Facebook page, they can and often do delete criticism. But they can't delete critical tweets. If you want to see if people are unhappy with a decision by a big company, or what the majority of people's reaction is, looking on twitter will work better than looking on facebook (which they can censor just as much as their own forum).


Anonymous at 12:10 PM on November 24, 2018 | #11397 | reply | quote

curi at 1:13 PM on November 24, 2018 | #11398 | reply | quote

There's something weird about South Park advertising their phone game with Kyle saying phone games are bad. Or more like, it reveals something weird about our culture.

https://twitter.com/SouthPark/status/1066521107367428096


Anonymous at 6:38 PM on November 24, 2018 | #11399 | reply | quote


Anonymous at 7:33 PM on November 25, 2018 | #11400 | reply | quote

> *a* is *a* universally, unconditionally. *if c then a* is a conditional, limited version of *a* saying that *a* must be true in some scenarios (*c*) but not making that claim for some other scenarios (non-c). so it's a weaker claim.

>Example:

>a = my dog will die this year

>c = my dog is over 50 years old

>*if my dog is over 50 years old, then my dog will die this year* is more probable than *my dog will die this year*.

if c = *my dog is under 1 year old*, then why couldn't the probability of if c then a be 1% and therefore less than the probability of a which is 10%?

And what laws of probability inform your argument? I still don't see how Popper shows that this violates the laws of probability.

>This is a very basic thing. This is supposed to be trivial for a person who is going to follow Popper, so this and many other basic things can be built on and the reader's focus can ~all be directed to more advanced issues. It seems you're trying to read things while missing the important prerequisites. I think you're fooling yourself about your capabilities and it is sabotaging your progress. I don't think you want to hear that criticism. But it's not reasonable to ask for help while not wanting the perspective of someone who knows the answer and thinks in line with this forum's ideas. I think you could learn a lot more, and a lot faster, by a different approach, and this is important, and that you are not open to this possibility and that, given your refusal to even consider doing things a better way, you should stop asking for help from the people you disagree with and are dismissive of.

I don't know why you create paranoid theories about me such as that I don't want to hear criticism the content of which I am unaware of. By commenting on this platform, I am openly subjecting myself to your horrible personality already (and because you replied to me I guess you could predict I *would* read your reply and subject myself to it), and still you don't want to suggest an actually *substantial* criticism because you fear I wouldn't be open to *that*, and you prefer to bear the cost of sinking your time and reputation into insulting me with empty paranoia, rather than state what you think is useful information?


Anonymous at 8:06 PM on November 25, 2018 | #11401 | reply | quote

The probability that your dog will die in the next year IF it's under 1 year old, is the probability that your dog is under 1 year old multiplied by the probability that a 0-1 year old dog will die in the next year. All the times your dog is the wrong age are success cases for the conditional statement. The conditional statement makes a weaker claim, it makes claims about fewer cases, so out of all cases (not just the cases it makes claims about) it's less likely to be mistaken because it says less.

> still you don't want to suggest an actually *substantial* criticism

I don't know what you're talking about. Telling you how logic works – and that you didn't know it – is a substantial criticism. It has substance (about the nature of logic). It addresses the issue. And there is a criticism there, not only positive education.

The format of what I said was to deal with the substance *and* then to also say a second thing.

Your comments about paranoia are unwelcome (unproductive, hostile, Szasz-contradicting, and not backed up with paths forward) and discourage me from responding to you. "horrible personality" was also unproductive nastiness. All of my meta comments were intended to address an actual problem I see, but you don't seem to follow the same policy.

Are you willing to change anything you're doing, or are you just going to keep asking for help with specific chunks of stuff, while offering no value in return (and being quite hostile which makes it way harder), and also not using learning methodology I think is effective? If you plan to continue in the same vein, give me some reasons to respond to you further, or I expect that I won't. (I don't think this problem, involving me considering just ignoring you going forward, is ignorable to focus *only* on the substance, but I did give you the substantive answer too, I did both, which I think is reasonable.)


Dagny at 8:25 PM on November 25, 2018 | #11402 | reply | quote

Evan, one of the reasons I haven't replied to you is that you had a conversation in YouTube comments with Alan where you said at the outset you wanted to go through the issues one by one, but then you stopped responding, without explanation, before even finishing one. It's one of many times you have not finished what you started nor explained what was going on. That makes you a bad person to begin joint projects with. You start things you apparently aren't interested in finishing or reaching success at, and that isn't good for the people offering you free help. You also behaved very badly on FI and were hostile and nasty to me personally, and you have not apologized nor, more importantly, done something to address what went wrong to fix the problem going forward.

I also think your distaste for thinking and talking about goals/plans, background knowledge and learning methodology makes it much harder to help you successfully and also harder to know what success looks like and whether that is even something I would want. (You could use the help to spread misconceptions about Popper while doing a better job of sounding like you know what you're talking about, or just it to impress friends with. You might or might not aspire to do things that are important to me, I don't know. And if you do aspire to things that are important to me, you might or might not have reasonable ways to pursue those achievements, but based on the limited info available to me currently, I'd guess not. This stuff is important. I have helped educate people before who have then used the knowledge for purposes that I think make the world worse.)

If you just want individual answers to individual questions, without any bigger picture being involved, that is tutoring and you should pay money for it. If you aren't trying to engage in a joint project or join the community, you just want help on demand with the problems of your choice for your own unstated purposes, and you don't want to offer stuff in return, then buy it.


curi at 8:39 PM on November 25, 2018 | #11403 | reply | quote

> Why will 'if c then a' have a higher probability than a

I want to try to explain this.

Here are the possibilities for 'if c then a':

c true, a true: 'if c then a' true

c true, a false: 'if c then a' false

c false, a true: 'if c then a' true

c false, a false: 'if c then a' true

'if c then a' is true in the cases when a is true. And 'if c then a' is *also* true when c and a are both false. So it's true in more cases than just those when a is true.

If in a particular example the probability of both c and a being false is zero, then the probability of a is equal to the probability of 'if c then a'.


Anne B at 6:19 AM on November 26, 2018 | #11404 | reply | quote

> If in a particular example the probability of both c and a being false is zero, then the probability of a is equal to the probability of 'if c then a'.

I initially read this as meaning c and a both can't be false, individually. But I think you meant they can't both be false at the same time, together (but one or the other could be false). The writing is a bit unclear FYI.


Anonymous at 11:08 AM on November 26, 2018 | #11405 | reply | quote

> I initially read this as meaning c and a both can't be false, individually. But I think you meant they can't both be false at the same time, together (but one or the other could be false). The writing is a bit unclear FYI.

Thank you. You are correct about what I meant.

Now I see that I was unclear.

A possible rewrite of my last sentence: If c and a are never both false at the same time (that is, the probability of c and a both being false at the same time is zero), then the probability of a is equal to the probability of 'if c then a'.


Anne B at 12:26 PM on November 26, 2018 | #11406 | reply | quote

Anonymous at 5:15 PM on November 26, 2018 | #11410 | reply | quote

Commercial food photography tricks. Short video:

https://twitter.com/MachinePix/status/1067266284914585600


Anonymous at 8:03 PM on November 26, 2018 | #11411 | reply | quote

So p(if c then a) = p(c)*p(a|c).

Left side is probability of a conditional, second term of the right side is conditional probability.

---

If we *don't* know about the rules (c) of the betting game, p(if c then a) > p(a) because as Anne said

>'if c then a' is *also* true when c and a are both false. So it's true in more cases than just those when a is true.

so that conditional statement can't be what we're betting on.

And if we *do* know about the rules, we *are* betting upon the conditional probability of a: it's p(a|b) because b includes c.


Evan at 1:09 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11413 | reply | quote

Dagny by insubstantial I was referring to your claim that I'm not open to your better way of learning that you won't state. To make that claim out of nowhere is so socially repulsive I would guess you have no friends. You could learn that it's incorrect to do this by going outside ever and talking to someone. Paranoia means theories about people that are irrational and cause you fear.

Elliot you are a person who wastes his time slandering people. I'm sorry I didn't respond to Alan's last comment for awhile but I was homeless and hungry, looking for jobs and places to stay for a few months starting roughly around that time. I fully expect that you will eventually hate me so much that you block me on all your websites or whatever. I don't know what goes on in your head and I find your particular emotional problem uninteresting because you even explicitly oppose altruism. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. I've had moral integrity from a very young age and can't relate. You need socialization badly. I tried to help you in twitter dms. Maybe you have a delusion that you shouldn't do things people recommend until they respond to the games you play with discussions and launching highly irrational criticisms at every detail of people's claims, making your discussions intractable. I come on here to discuss important things like philosophy, and the only use you can find for it is to try to create interpersonal drama. It is no wonder no one likes you, and you will only get dumber and dumber if you keep wasting your time like this.


Evan at 1:24 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11414 | reply | quote

Mentoring and Tutoring

#11403 I think Evan half wants *mentoring* and half doesn't (he partly tries to act like a peer or expert), and won't clearly figure it out in his own mind, let alone present the situation clearly to the other people he is asking for help.

Mentoring is different than tutoring. It's commonly an unpaid, longterm thing done for people who are especially promising/deserving (as against tutoring which is commonly done with whoever wants to hire a tutor, not necessarily a good student). Mentoring is earned by being a great learner who is a joy to work with, so the mentor is happy to pass on his knowledge. In return the mentor gets interesting questions, an energetic person studying and discussing things he cares about, and a new person to share the knowledge with others in the future. There are various ways that Evan is not behaving like a good mentoring candidate. And he hasn't asked for mentoring, nor for tutoring. He just doesn't want to say or think about what he *is* asking for.

In general, a tutor works for a client and helps the client with the client's goals. A mentor has his own goals and the mentee values and helps with the mentor's goals, and is receptive to advice about what to learn, what to do, what goals to have, the mentor's advice about what approaches to use to make progress, etc.

Asking for mentoring basically requires openly admitting being below someone. curi had no trouble doing that (with DD) because he doesn't have a big ego (in the usual sense of the term), but it's a big problem for most people who are age 20+ and think they are smart (and often really are smarter, in lots of ways, than most people they've met). Some people may believe that it's easier to ask DD for mentoring than to ask curi because DD is more prestigious (he has higher social status: a published book and some physics awards and papers back then, and a PhD and being an honorary professor, now a second book and he joined the royal society and gave some TED talks). Those people who focus on social status, and are not adequately impressed by curi's accomplishments, are poor candidates for curi to mentor anyway. They often try to treat curi as a peer, lose several arguments (often they stop replying before a clear conclusion), and then curi thinks that was enough of a demonstration that they should change their attitude but they don't get it.

People who don't acknowledge curi as the best living philosopher are not going to respect his time and value his help as much as people who do. So they generally offer a worse deal to curi who, in any case, spends a lot of time on his own stuff which often outcompetes people's requests for help (but he does remain available a fair amount and it could be more if a person or project interested him enough).

Evan is not alone in this ambiguity about what kind of help he wants: mentoring/tutoring/something-else. He also keeps it ambiguous about whether he wants a lot of help (as part of some longer term goals or plans) or just the occasional individual little thing. People on FI are, in general, pretty vague about whether they want mentoring, tutoring, or something else.

And Evan, like a fair amount of people, is very hostile to meta discussion, so it makes it harder to figure out things like this.


Dagny at 1:32 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11415 | reply | quote

> I'm sorry I didn't respond to Alan's last comment for awhile but I was homeless and hungry, looking for jobs and places to stay for a few months starting roughly around that time.

Doesn't matter. You could have continued on your schedule, whenever you were available, e.g. now, instead of switching projects to these Popper questions and to flaming FI people. You have a history of dropping projects, not just by delays but by then focusing on some new project *instead* of continuing, which is different than being busy with non-philosophy for a few months.


Anonymous at 1:39 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11416 | reply | quote

Evan thinks if he isn't actually BANNED then he must be welcome here in some sense, not have crossed the line too much.

There are a lot of ppl who basically only listen to punishments and think if you don’t punish then you aren’t serious and don't mind.

It’s awkward here cuz TCS people don’t like punishing or forcing. So they often *ask* for things instead, but then people react like "oh he's only asking, so that doesn't really matter and I can just do whatever".

So Evan got told he was unwelcome to do certain things, then did that. And he expects to get banned for it, but he does it anyway. He thinks bans are just part of how normal interactions between people go. It doesn't occur to him to stop when he's unwelcome and has been asked to stop, rather than to keep pushing and troublemaking until he has to be banned.

Evan's warning yesterday was posted by curi:

http://curi.us/2124-critical-rationalism-epistemology-explanations#c11408

> Evan, please don't post here unless you dramatically change your attitude. What you're doing is unwelcome.

Evan's response to that is to keep flaming people and doing the unwelcome things, and then also saying:

> I fully expect that you will eventually hate me so much that you block me on all your websites or whatever.

What a jerk to do things he expects to be hated and knows are unwelcome. And why "eventually" instead of literally today? But anyway, he thinks that all verbal requests are minor things and actions (banhammers) speak louder than words. It's a very common and bad attitude to life. Things shouldn't have to escalate so much for problems to get solved.


Dagny at 1:57 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11417 | reply | quote

> Evan thinks if he isn't actually BANNED then he must be welcome here in some sense, not have crossed the line too much.

> There are a lot of ppl who basically only listen to punishments and think if you don’t punish then you aren’t serious and don't mind.

This is kinda like someone thinking that if you don't call the police right away, then they are welcome in your house


Anonymous at 1:59 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11418 | reply | quote

>I don't know what goes on in your head and I find your particular emotional problem uninteresting because you even explicitly oppose altruism. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. I've had moral integrity from a very young age and can't relate. You need socialization badly.

This is a combination of

1) ignorance of Ayn Rand's moral philosophy and

2) vicious, nasty, cruel personal attacks

What's interesting to me is that Evan engages in this combination of ignorance and malevolence while pleading his moral integrity.


❓🤔❓A Mysterious Person ❓🤔❓ at 2:02 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11419 | reply | quote

> What's interesting to me is that Evan engages in this combination of ignorance and malevolence while pleading his moral integrity.

That struck me more as *sadly typical* :/


Anonymous at 2:03 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11420 | reply | quote

>> What's interesting to me is that Evan engages in this combination of ignorance and malevolence while pleading his moral integrity.

> That struck me more as *sadly typical* :/

:-(


❓🤔❓A Mysterious Person ❓🤔❓ at 2:05 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11421 | reply | quote

You can now manually use a start parameter in urls. Example:

http://curi.us/2126-open-discussion?comments=40&start=11400

Unlike the comment limit, it's not maintained if you click links.

This lets you permalink a specific comment and also have a fast page load.

Let's say I like #11419

Then I will use that id as the start, and choose how many extra comments, i want, say up to 9 more after it:

http://curi.us/2126-open-discussion?comments=10&start=11419

This will let me make newsletter links that load faster. The comment limited feature couldn't be used with permalinks before because if you limit to the 20 latest comments and ppl post 20 new comments then the thing you were linking wouldn't be included anymore.


curi at 2:38 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11422 | reply | quote


Anonymous at 2:49 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11423 | reply | quote

#11414

> Dagny by insubstantial I was referring to your claim that I'm not open to your better way of learning that you won't state. To make that claim out of nowhere is so socially repulsive I would guess you have no friends. You could learn that it's incorrect to do this by going outside ever and talking to someone. Paranoia means theories about people that are irrational and cause you fear.

i find it interesting that evan has interpreted the situation as though Dagny is experiencing fear.

> Elliot you are a person who wastes his time slandering people. I'm sorry I didn't respond to Alan's last comment for awhile but I was homeless and hungry, looking for jobs and places to stay for a few months starting roughly around that time. I fully expect that you will eventually hate me so much that you block me on all your websites or whatever. I don't know what goes on in your head and I find your particular emotional problem uninteresting because you even explicitly oppose altruism. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

How would evan know that elliot’s position on altruism is dumb? he doesn’t say whether or not he’s even investigated it, let alone understood it to the point that he could make an honest judgement of it.

> I've had moral integrity from a very young age and can't relate.

I don’t think Evan knows what the word integrity means. he's sorta implying that elliot has doesn't something that goes against his principles but as far as i can see, elliot has not done that, and evan has not explained (nor even stated without explanation) that elliot has acted contrary to his principles.

> You need socialization badly. I tried to help you in twitter dms. Maybe you have a delusion that you shouldn't do things people recommend until they respond to the games you play with discussions and launching highly irrational criticisms at every detail of people's claims, making your discussions intractable.

evan doesn’t seem to be giving elliot the benefit of the doubt. whether or not somebody should take somebody else’s suggestion depends on whether or not he’s convinced that doing the suggestion would benefit him. so if somebody suggests that i read something, i’m not doing it unless i’m convinced i’ll benefit. that may involve asking the suggestor to tell me what’s good about it, how it will benefit me, etc. if that discussion ends without me being convinced, i’m not reading what was suggested.

> I come on here to discuss important things like philosophy, and the only use you can find for it is to try to create interpersonal drama. It is no wonder no one likes you, and you will only get dumber and dumber if you keep wasting your time like this.

but it’s not true that no one likes elliot. i think he’s the best. i’m glad to know him and glad for our interactions.

one thing i especially like about elliot is his honesty. especially his honesty about how i’m behaving. *especially* his honesty about cases where i’m being dishonest. he’s shining a light on something that i’m refusing to shine a light on myself (and no else i know has shined a light on). i appreciate that very much. No one else is good/smart enough to treat me that way. (Well maybe there are others who are good/smart enough but they haven’t done it, so I wouldn’t know.)


44783 at 3:01 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11424 | reply | quote

#11424

thx

FYI the Twitter DMs Evan is referring to began with

> Try meditating to porn. rsd fucked me up.

Then there are 5 more messages (that's it) on the same topic. RSD is Real Social Dynamics (a PUA group that i think is pretty good) e.g. https://www.youtube.com/user/RSDTyler

Saying he tried to help me in Twitter DMs is not honest. It wasn't even about philosophy. He just tried to get me to hate/reject PUA or something ... while knowing absolutely nothing about my personal/dating life and what problems it does and doesn't have.


curi at 3:10 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11425 | reply | quote

> but it’s not true that no one likes elliot. i think he’s the best. i’m glad to know him and glad for our interactions.

god i have *so many* fans i'm not even confident about guessing who wrote this. can't keep track of them all! i feel a bit confused. commonly when ppl write that much i can tell who it is.


curi at 3:25 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11427 | reply | quote

> i find it interesting that evan has interpreted the situation as though Dagny is experiencing fear.

This comment is either passive-aggressive (against Evan) or it's really socially oblivious. "Interesting" can be literal, but it's a very commonly used word for equivocations and not directly saying what one actually means. In this case, it appears to be a standard interesting=bad kinda use where the person meant that Evan was wrong and dumb, and wanted to draw attention to the issue, but didn't want to say it openly.


Dagny at 5:18 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11428 | reply | quote

>> i find it interesting that evan has interpreted the situation as though Dagny is experiencing fear.

> This comment is either passive-aggressive (against Evan) or it's really socially oblivious. "Interesting" can be literal, but it's a very commonly used word for equivocations and not directly saying what one actually means. In this case, it appears to be a standard interesting=bad kinda use where the person meant that Evan was wrong and dumb, and wanted to draw attention to the issue, but didn't want to say it openly.

That’s interesting too.

How can I or you figure out which one it is?

If I was passive aggressive I wanna fix that and never do it again.


44783 at 6:21 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11429 | reply | quote

#11429

Oh and if it’s socially oblivious, I wanna know more details. Oblivious of what social thing ?


Anonymous at 6:23 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11430 | reply | quote

#11430

Maybe the social thing I was oblivious of is that Evan didn’t really think that dagny was paranoid and rather it was just an attack for the audience to see.


44783 at 6:25 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11431 | reply | quote

The social thing you may be oblivious of is the issue I already brought up, e.g.:

- "interesting" is vague and unclear

- "interesting" often means "bad"

- "interesting" is a way to draw attention to things while avoiding saying what you think about them

- "interesting" is a way to attack people while having plausible deniability that you attacked them (you can say they are overreacting to nothing if they respond negatively)


Dagny at 6:57 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11432 | reply | quote

https://www.americancommitment.org/content/senate-republicans-are-blocking-trump-appointments

> President Trump has hundreds of unfilled presidentially appointed positions because Democrats have stalled the nominations process out as much as their diminished power in the post-nuclear Senate has allowed. But it is the Republican majority that has placed a total blockade on the usual safety valve for temporary appointments – the recess appointment power – by refusing to go on recess for the last two years. And with Democrats set to take the House and be in position to deny the Senate consent to recess starting January 3, there is a real possibility that President Trump will go an entire presidential term without being able to make recess appointments.

> It has been nearly eight years since the United States Senate officially recessed – a streak aided by the practice of holding so-called pro forma sessions every three days throughout every adjournment.

> President Bill Clinton used the recess appointment power 139 times, including 96 full-time positions. President George W. Bush used it 171 times, including 99 full-time positions.

> You might reasonably expect no president will ever get recess appointments again except when the same party controls the House, Senate, and president. But for the last two years, the same party – the Republican Party – has in fact controlled the House, Senate, and president. And yet, the Senate has never recessed.


Anonymous at 11:44 PM on November 27, 2018 | #11434 | reply | quote

#11417

> What a jerk to do things he expects to be hated and knows are unwelcome. And why "eventually" instead of literally today? But anyway, he thinks that all verbal requests are minor things and actions (banhammers) speak louder than words. It's a very common and bad attitude to life.

I’m unsure about this last part. How do you integrate it with this:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fallible-ideas/rbw7OXCH6Jw/PuGYDOqSBwAJ

>These people – almost everyone – only state requests as a last resort, as a major escalation. So if you make a request to them, they think it's an ultimatum, a very strong demand with no flexibility, no remaining opportunity to negotiate or discuss.

My guess is that in most social situations Evan would probably act like most ppl and consider a verbal request a big deal. He’d want to get along with ppl and have smooth social interactions. In order to achieve this, he’d take requests seriously. Furthermore, like most ppl, he’d often try to guess what the other person wants and then preemptively do that so they don’t even have to verbally ask (this fits with him being altruistic).

But this social situation is *different* to him.

I don’t know exactly what’s going on, but he clearly doesn’t give a fuck about the interaction going well. He’s fully expecting (maybe welcoming??) being banned or hated or whatever and doesn’t seem to care. So, with these ideas by his side, maybe he’s given himself license to be a jerk and try to attack and hurt ET. He sort of comes off as though he’s fed up (with something?) and not going to take it anymore. Also, he sort of comes off as though he’s testing the situation. And when there’s no downside to him (e.g. he’s not afraid of being banned or hated in this case), then he’s willing to see just how far he can push it.


Anonymous at 7:35 AM on November 28, 2018 | #11436 | reply | quote

> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fallible-ideas/rbw7OXCH6Jw/PuGYDOqSBwAJ

>> These people – almost everyone – only state requests as a last resort, as a major escalation. So if you make a request to them, they think it's an ultimatum, a very strong demand with no flexibility, no remaining opportunity to negotiate or discuss.

> My guess is that in most social situations Evan would probably act like most ppl and consider a verbal request a big deal. He’d want to get along with ppl and have smooth social interactions. In order to achieve this, he’d take requests seriously. Furthermore, like most ppl, he’d often try to guess what the other person wants and then preemptively do that so they don’t even have to verbally ask (this fits with him being altruistic).

Evan being relatively conventional when it comes to requests is also consistent with him not wanting to come out and directly ask for what he wants. Dagny talked about this in #11415.

>He just doesn't want to say or think about what he *is* asking for.


Anonymous at 9:15 AM on November 28, 2018 | #11437 | reply | quote

xkcd ignorantly flaming Popper with "it's a joke" to hide behind if called on his bullshit:

https://xkcd.com/2078/


Anonymous at 11:12 AM on November 28, 2018 | #11438 | reply | quote

how to block ads in youtube videos:

get ublock origin.

for chrome just google it. for safari use this link:

https://safari-extensions.apple.com/details/?id=com.el1t.uBlock-3NU33NW2M3

alternative: download the videos, e.g. with youtube-dl


curi at 1:43 PM on November 28, 2018 | #11439 | reply | quote

One SPICY Coulter column today, even for her:

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-11-28.html


Anonymous at 1:48 PM on November 28, 2018 | #11440 | reply | quote

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/12/04/samsung-portrait-mode-fraud

Fraud by Samsung. Advertising the pictures their phone can take using pictures taken by other cameras. Again.


Anonymous at 12:41 PM on December 4, 2018 | #11446 | reply | quote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/06/hes-not-capable-trump-has-achieved-nothing-tucker-carlson-says/

> “His chief promises were that he would build the wall, defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Obamacare, and he hasn’t done any of those things,” Carlson said, adding that those goals were probably lost causes. Trump, he said, doesn’t understand the system, and his own agencies don’t support him.

> “He knows very little about the legislative process, hasn’t learned anything, hasn’t surrounded himself with people that can get it done, hasn’t done all the things you need to do, so it’s mostly his fault that he hasn’t achieved those things,” he added.


Anonymous at 2:30 PM on December 6, 2018 | #11449 | reply | quote

#11449 Tucker is partly saying that to imply that *he* knows how to do those things if he were Prez. He would surround himself with the right ppl (and way more ppl think that means them than there are slots for), he knows how legislation works and can get things done, etc.

This kind of self-serving self-promotion is not reliable as information about other ppl like Trump.

Also, when Carlson says those things – wall, fixing healthcare, stop tax-funding PP – are lost causes, doesn't that mean he in fact *does not* know how to get things done? Cause it doesn't sound like he's saying they are lost cause *for Trump* but he could do them. We need a prez who thinks those are NOT lost causes! (esp wall and healthcare, the PP thing is a way smaller issue)


Anonymous at 2:40 PM on December 6, 2018 | #11450 | reply | quote

> #11449 Tucker is partly saying that to imply that *he* knows how to do those things if he were Prez. He would surround himself with the right ppl (and way more ppl think that means them than there are slots for), he knows how legislation works and can get things done, etc.

> This kind of self-serving self-promotion is not reliable as information about other ppl like Trump.

I agree Tucker is self promoting but his criticisms also seemed kinda fair overall.

> Also, when Carlson says those things – wall, fixing healthcare, stop tax-funding PP – are lost causes, doesn't that mean he in fact *does not* know how to get things done? Cause it doesn't sound like he's saying they are lost cause *for Trump* but he could do them. We need a prez who thinks those are NOT lost causes! (esp wall and healthcare, the PP thing is a way smaller issue)

It was ambiguous to me what he meant by lost causes. He could mean doomed to fail from start, or lost cause at this point in Trump's term with Dems taking House (but maybe hope in future), or now a lost cause forever cuz Trump failed.


Anonymous at 5:18 PM on December 6, 2018 | #11451 | reply | quote

i watched a video called "This Is Why You're Fat" by the infographic show, it was really bad.

it literally never mentioned calories in vs calories out, and at 6:25 it says "stick to low fat and low calorie food", how does that help for weight loss? so what if its 50% fat? how many calories is it? calories is the only thing that matters for long term weight loss

it dissed fast food as well for no reason. i guess its a common enough cultural believe that fast food is bad, that you can mention fast food in passing in a video on how to lose weight, and it implies fast food is bad.

it also is spreading myths to make you eat more, at 2:46 "everyone knows you cant have dessert until after you eat your dinner, but maybe its time to skip dessert all together", but what if dessert is my favorite part? does that mean i HAVE to eat dinner if i am only interested in the dessert? why cant i just skip dinner? or maybe have a dinner i actually like so i dont feel like i need dessert. it never answers those questions, or gives alternatives.

good advice in the video: dont shop while hungry, that makes sense. when your shopping for food, youll look at a food and think "yeah id eat that" and then buy it, even if you dislike it compared to other foods that you usually buy, or you buy to much food cuz you constantly think "id eat that" cuz your hungry right now.


internetrules at 6:20 AM on December 7, 2018 | #11452 | reply | quote

George Reisman followed me on Twitter:

He wrote a *very very very* good book on capitalism. Left sidebar: http://capitalism.net


curi at 8:04 AM on December 7, 2018 | #11453 | reply | quote

The Ayn Rand Institute: seeking donors on the basis of their special government privileges. I think getting the privilege may be OK, and mentioning it too, but not *focusing lots of attention on it, as if government privileges are a major selling point*. Ayn Rand would be appalled.


curi at 1:38 PM on December 7, 2018 | #11454 | reply | quote

https://www.takimag.com/article/the-merits-of-nepotism-and-boasting/

> Take that ghastly soul-destroying document, the curriculum vitae. It is as inherently inflationary as clipping the coinage or fiat money. A friend of mine, whom I knew to be competent and conscientious, consistently failed to be appointed to positions for which he was eminently qualified. My wife, who knew the ways of modern appointment committees, asked to see the curriculum vitae he was supplying with his applications for the jobs.

> She was horrified: He would never get a job with such a curriculum, it was far too old-fashioned. It gave merely his formal qualifications and the positions he had previously held, with references. No, no, said my wife to him, what you need is to boast. You have to make out that your piddling research might be chosen very soon for a Nobel Prize, that your occasional good deeds were as at great a personal sacrifice as those of Mother Teresa, and that you are a person whose outside interests are carried out at levels equal to the professional; in other words that you are multitalented, multivalent, and quite out of the ordinary. Moreover, your ambition must be to save the world, to be a pioneer and a path-breaker, not merely to do your best in the circumstances. You must be grandiose, not modest.

> Of course, every other applicant would be similarly boastful, and so, like star architects trying to outdo each other in the outlandish nature of their buildings, my friend’s boasts had to be preposterous, quite out of keeping with his admirable character. But once he had swallowed the bitter pill of realism, he was appointed at once. We all have to be Barons Munchausen now.


Anonymous at 6:08 AM on December 9, 2018 | #11456 | reply | quote

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)