curi blog comments http://curi.us/comments/recent Explanations for the curious en-us Anonymous Discussion Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:52:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9750 http://curi.us/comments/show/9750 FF Discussion Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:33:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9749 http://curi.us/comments/show/9749 Anonymous Harry Binswanger Refuses To Think Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:38:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9748 http://curi.us/comments/show/9748 Jabberwocky Damien Harry Binswanger Refuses To Think Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:29:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9747 http://curi.us/comments/show/9747 patio11 comments Discussion
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16856753]]>
Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:03:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9746 http://curi.us/comments/show/9746
Anonymous Why I Oppose Porn Sun, 15 Apr 2018 09:59:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9745 http://curi.us/comments/show/9745 Anonymous Discussion
> 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.]]>
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 04:32:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9744 http://curi.us/comments/show/9744
FF Why I Oppose Porn Sun, 15 Apr 2018 01:52:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9743 http://curi.us/comments/show/9743 curi Accepting vs. Preferring Theories – Reply to David Deutsch
> You are blocked from following @DavidDeutschOxf and viewing @DavidDeutschOxf's Tweets.]]>
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 10:53:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9742 http://curi.us/comments/show/9742
curi Discussion
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]]>
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 10:39:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9741 http://curi.us/comments/show/9741
Anonymous Discussion
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. 😢]]>
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 04:17:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9740 http://curi.us/comments/show/9740
guilherme Goals & Purpose
yeah, and if you're not trying to make clear objectives your life will not be random, it will still have some purpose. so failure will happen, just that it will be harder to find and correct it.]]>
Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:46:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9739 http://curi.us/comments/show/9739
curi Accepting vs. Preferring Theories – Reply to David Deutsch Tue, 10 Apr 2018 02:12:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9738 http://curi.us/comments/show/9738 Anonymous Accepting vs. Preferring Theories – Reply to David Deutsch Tue, 10 Apr 2018 02:02:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9737 http://curi.us/comments/show/9737 qtif oh my god it's turpentine Accepting vs. Preferring Theories – Reply to David Deutsch
https://vimeo.com/5490979]]>
Sun, 08 Apr 2018 23:20:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9736 http://curi.us/comments/show/9736
quantum theory is false oh my god it's turpentine Accepting vs. Preferring Theories – Reply to David Deutsch Sun, 08 Apr 2018 23:01:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9735 http://curi.us/comments/show/9735 Anonymous Accepting vs. Preferring Theories – Reply to David Deutsch
That is going to sound awfully confusing to most people.

Why does Deutsch say he is sure quantum theory is false?]]>
Sat, 07 Apr 2018 21:54:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9734 http://curi.us/comments/show/9734
FF Discussion Fri, 06 Apr 2018 07:35:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9733 http://curi.us/comments/show/9733 Anonymous Discussion Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:51:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9732 http://curi.us/comments/show/9732 a person Discussion Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:42:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9731 http://curi.us/comments/show/9731 PAS Discussion
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.]]>
Thu, 05 Apr 2018 13:49:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9730 http://curi.us/comments/show/9730
a person Discussion Thu, 05 Apr 2018 07:38:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9729 http://curi.us/comments/show/9729 Anonymous David Deutsch Interview Undermines His Philosophy Sat, 31 Mar 2018 16:17:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9728 http://curi.us/comments/show/9728 Anonymous David Deutsch Interview Undermines His Philosophy Sat, 31 Mar 2018 16:09:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9727 http://curi.us/comments/show/9727 Anonymous Standards of Understanding
bad question, bad demand.]]>
Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:42:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9726 http://curi.us/comments/show/9726
Anonymous Standards of Understanding Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:40:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9725 http://curi.us/comments/show/9725 curi Discussion Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:42:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9724 http://curi.us/comments/show/9724 Anonymous Discussion Wed, 21 Mar 2018 03:56:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9723 http://curi.us/comments/show/9723 ff Discussion Wed, 21 Mar 2018 03:48:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9722 http://curi.us/comments/show/9722 FF Discussion Wed, 21 Mar 2018 02:44:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9721 http://curi.us/comments/show/9721 curi Discussion
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.)]]>
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:58:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9720 http://curi.us/comments/show/9720
Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 03:48:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9719 http://curi.us/comments/show/9719
curi Discussion
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.]]>
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:43:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9718 http://curi.us/comments/show/9718
Anonymous Discussion Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:22:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9717 http://curi.us/comments/show/9717 Anonymous Discussion Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:02:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9716 http://curi.us/comments/show/9716 Anonymous Discussion Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:11:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9715 http://curi.us/comments/show/9715 curi Sample Paths Forward Dialog
> [In foreign countries] Ironically, we took advantage of a handicap in the beginning, which was that we were unknown and we could not recruit university graduates, who would find this little foreign company lacking in prestige. And so we had marvelous, energetic young people holding important jobs in this new company who appreciated the opportunity to succeed even though they did not come equipped with a degree from a famous university. We applied my philosophy of disregarding school background, and it worked in Germany as well as in Japan.]]>
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:12:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9714 http://curi.us/comments/show/9714
curi Sample Paths Forward Dialog Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:55:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9713 http://curi.us/comments/show/9713 Anonymous Discussion
i think they have some major flaws and don't offer any value i can't get better somewhere else.]]>
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 03:03:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9712 http://curi.us/comments/show/9712
FF Sample Paths Forward Dialog
Curi: You can use my anon a/c

FF: Have you read "The fountainhead"?

Morita: NO!!!!

FF: Are you going to read it?

Morita: No, I am busy

FF: How is it like being dead?

Morita: ....]]>
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:35:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9711 http://curi.us/comments/show/9711
FF Discussion
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;]]>
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:19:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9710 http://curi.us/comments/show/9710
FF Discussion
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.]]>
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:16:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9709 http://curi.us/comments/show/9709
FF Discussion Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:15:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9708 http://curi.us/comments/show/9708 ff Discussion
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]]>
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:11:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9707 http://curi.us/comments/show/9707
Anonymous Discussion Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:06:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9706 http://curi.us/comments/show/9706 FF Sucking In Your Gut Thu, 15 Mar 2018 09:59:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9705 http://curi.us/comments/show/9705 FF Discussion
Some of it looks good.]]>
Thu, 15 Mar 2018 09:56:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9704 http://curi.us/comments/show/9704
Anonymous Discussion Thu, 15 Mar 2018 09:00:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9703 http://curi.us/comments/show/9703 FF Discussion Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:58:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9702 http://curi.us/comments/show/9702 Anonymous 23 Ways To Keep Your Romance Alive
> what about masterbation? how often do you do it? what do you look at or think about while doing it? Is it like eating where you should do it whenever ur hungry? any tips?

no i don't think hungry and horny work the same way. i think people actively make themselves horny. and i think people passively get hungry.

if a person had better interests (e.g. philosophy), he wouldn't spend his time actively making himself horny.]]>
Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:19:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9701 http://curi.us/comments/show/9701
another-anon 23 Ways To Keep Your Romance Alive Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:37:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9700 http://curi.us/comments/show/9700 Anonymous 23 Ways To Keep Your Romance Alive
Do you mean: can a person be happy without romance/sex? Yes

> Why not just admit it gets boring and stop doing it?

That would be good. I think ppl don’t do that because that is socially disapproved of. They think they should want romance/sex.

> Do people really need romance and sex?

No.

> Could they all just change their ideas to not want it?

There’s no law of nature preventing it. It is a matter of ideas.]]>
Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:25:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9699 http://curi.us/comments/show/9699
anon 23 Ways To Keep Your Romance Alive
Do people really need romance and sex? Could they all just change their ideas to not want it?]]>
Wed, 14 Mar 2018 07:07:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9698 http://curi.us/comments/show/9698
FF 23 Ways To Keep Your Romance Alive Wed, 14 Mar 2018 06:42:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9697 http://curi.us/comments/show/9697 curi Discussion Tue, 13 Mar 2018 04:07:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9696 http://curi.us/comments/show/9696 Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Sun, 11 Mar 2018 14:21:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9695 http://curi.us/comments/show/9695
Anon69 Discussion
> 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?]]>
Sun, 11 Mar 2018 14:15:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9694 http://curi.us/comments/show/9694
Anonymous Monetary Privacy!?
that style of argument involves NOT addressing the downsides and solving the problems, just vaguely claiming they are outweighed. it's bad epistemology and one of the key features is selective attention and non-addressing of stuff.]]>
Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:04:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9693 http://curi.us/comments/show/9693
Anon69 Monetary Privacy!?
True. If someone can connect your public key to you then they can look up all your transactions. For cryptos with this issue, mixers / tumblers try to help with this.

Monero and zcash are better w/ privacy.

> in other words they don't care about facilitating crime, they just care about the perceived upsides.

If someone is making a [list of benefits] > [list of downsides] type argument, they aren't ignoring or not caring about the downsides, they are claiming the upsides make up for them. So I don't see how not-caring is an accurate picture.

That being said, indeed there are countless people in crypto who in fact don't care about it facilitating crime.]]>
Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:56:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9692 http://curi.us/comments/show/9692
Anonymous Monetary Privacy!?
bitcoin is sorta bad at privacy. it records transactions in the public blockchain.

> -Option to use currencies with a value not tied to govt, which can reduce exposure to bad policy, corruption, hyper inflation, etc

except that every crypto company is much worse at those things than USD.

> The basic form of argument I remember hearing for why cryptocurrency is good despite enabling some crimes is that [list of benefits] > [list of downsides] (those lists seem to be complex and evolving).

in other words they don't care about facilitating crime, they just care about the perceived upsides.]]>
Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:40:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9691 http://curi.us/comments/show/9691
Anon69 Monetary Privacy!?
Some benefits that come to mind:

-Enables privacy (good in principle). So does traditional cash, although crypto helps where geography and national borders get in the way.

-Enables transactions that *should* be legal but that aren’t, e.g. allows someone in Iran or China anonymously buy a VPN to get around govt internet restrictions.

-Option to use currencies with a value not tied to govt, which can reduce exposure to bad policy, corruption, hyper inflation, etc

-Blockchain-based digital identity (self sovereign identity, reputation systems, etc) has the potential to improve the ability to know-your-customer, avoid unknowingly supporting criminals

-Crypto may offer new ways to track/audit money, e.g. if govt knows public addresses for a business entity, they can track balances and movement of money, check against financial statements, etc

Haven't thought much about these issues but interested to learn more.]]>
Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:32:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9690 http://curi.us/comments/show/9690
Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:21:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9689 http://curi.us/comments/show/9689
Capitalism Essay Anon69 Discussion
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 :(]]>
Sat, 10 Mar 2018 12:30:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9688 http://curi.us/comments/show/9688
Anonymous Why Gobble?
Another thing I'd like to mention: Gobble is pretty much always solid, but it is sometimes truly *spectacular*. I've been blown away by some of their meals.

Another thing: I'm trying to lose weight and from a calorie-counter perspective Gobble beats eating out at lots of places. Gobble tells you the estimated calories. Fast food joints give you calorie counts but lots of local restaurants and food trucks don't.

Another thing: When I cook on my own, I tend to do super simple stuff cuz I don't wanna do a lot of work. And I like my simple stuff fine. But it gets kinda boring. I like the low-effort complexity of the Gobble meals. It's something I would not have otherwise and is quite nice.]]>
Fri, 09 Mar 2018 18:26:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9687 http://curi.us/comments/show/9687
Anon69 Monetary Privacy!?
Just thought I'd check because it's common for ppl to make this sort of claim without looking much.

Also, my impression is that the crypto/blockchain community is rather large and spread out from what I know. There's also the investor faction which isn't concerned about anything other than making money (doubt you'd find much there).

I remember reading some discussion on the topic years ago, but my memory is fuzzy...]]>
Fri, 09 Mar 2018 05:47:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9686 http://curi.us/comments/show/9686
Anonymous Monetary Privacy!?
Public information. Did you have a counter example that you decided to withhold so far while implying I'm wrong?]]>
Thu, 08 Mar 2018 21:49:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9685 http://curi.us/comments/show/9685
Anon69 Monetary Privacy!?
Where / who did you check with on that?]]>
Thu, 08 Mar 2018 18:25:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9684 http://curi.us/comments/show/9684
Overreaching Anon69 Discussion
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.]]>
Thu, 08 Mar 2018 18:05:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9683 http://curi.us/comments/show/9683
Gomy Monetary Privacy!? Wed, 07 Mar 2018 10:16:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9682 http://curi.us/comments/show/9682 Anonymous Monetary Privacy!? Wed, 07 Mar 2018 02:23:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9681 http://curi.us/comments/show/9681 Anonymous Discussion
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).]]>
Tue, 06 Mar 2018 20:16:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9680 http://curi.us/comments/show/9680
Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Tue, 06 Mar 2018 20:11:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9679 http://curi.us/comments/show/9679
Kate Discussion
I wondered if you'd say that. I'm working on an FI post on overreaching. I'll ask my questions there.]]>
Sun, 04 Mar 2018 13:27:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9678 http://curi.us/comments/show/9678
curi Discussion Sun, 04 Mar 2018 12:47:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9677 http://curi.us/comments/show/9677 Anne B Discussion > 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.]]>
Sun, 04 Mar 2018 12:40:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9676 http://curi.us/comments/show/9676
Anonymous Goldratt vs. Japan
what?]]>
Sun, 04 Mar 2018 12:29:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9675 http://curi.us/comments/show/9675
curi Discussion Sun, 04 Mar 2018 12:28:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9674 http://curi.us/comments/show/9674 Anonymous Goldratt vs. Japan Sun, 04 Mar 2018 11:05:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9673 http://curi.us/comments/show/9673 Kate Discussion
Maybe it'd be better to ask, "Is it itself the result of an agent?"]]>
Sun, 04 Mar 2018 08:47:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9672 http://curi.us/comments/show/9672
Kate Discussion
Where does that *choice* fit in? Is it itself an agent? Is it part of the 10% non-memes?]]>
Sun, 04 Mar 2018 08:44:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9671 http://curi.us/comments/show/9671
Kate Discussion
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?]]>
Sun, 04 Mar 2018 08:16:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9670 http://curi.us/comments/show/9670
Anonymous Discussion Sun, 04 Mar 2018 02:54:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9669 http://curi.us/comments/show/9669 curi Discussion
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]]>
Sat, 03 Mar 2018 23:26:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9668 http://curi.us/comments/show/9668
Anonymous Discussion Sat, 03 Mar 2018 19:52:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9667 http://curi.us/comments/show/9667 Tulpas Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Sat, 03 Mar 2018 13:05:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9666 http://curi.us/comments/show/9666
Anonymous Discussion Sat, 03 Mar 2018 00:24:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9665 http://curi.us/comments/show/9665 curi Discussion
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.]]>
Sat, 03 Mar 2018 00:02:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9664 http://curi.us/comments/show/9664
curi Discussion
DD read Szasz but only understood half of it; DD's mixed about that stuff.]]>
Fri, 02 Mar 2018 21:17:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9663 http://curi.us/comments/show/9663
Anonymous Discussion Fri, 02 Mar 2018 20:45:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9662 http://curi.us/comments/show/9662 curi Discussion
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.]]>
Fri, 02 Mar 2018 03:00:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9661 http://curi.us/comments/show/9661
Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Fri, 02 Mar 2018 02:39:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9660 http://curi.us/comments/show/9660
author of #9657 Discussion
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.]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 23:43:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9659 http://curi.us/comments/show/9659
Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 23:26:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9658 http://curi.us/comments/show/9658 Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 23:05:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9657 http://curi.us/comments/show/9657
therefore oh my god it's turpentine Discussion >
> 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?]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 22:56:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9656 http://curi.us/comments/show/9656
Anonymous Discussion
> 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.]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 22:20:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9655 http://curi.us/comments/show/9655
Anon2 Discussion
> 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?]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 21:09:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9654 http://curi.us/comments/show/9654
curi Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 18:06:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9653 http://curi.us/comments/show/9653 Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 17:38:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9652 http://curi.us/comments/show/9652 Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 16:57:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9651 http://curi.us/comments/show/9651 curi Discussion
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.]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 16:50:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9650 http://curi.us/comments/show/9650
Dagny Discussion
> 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!”]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 16:45:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9649 http://curi.us/comments/show/9649
Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 16:28:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9648 http://curi.us/comments/show/9648 curi Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 16:19:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9647 http://curi.us/comments/show/9647 Anonymous Discussion
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?]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 16:16:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9646 http://curi.us/comments/show/9646
Overreaching curi 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.]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 15:43:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9645 http://curi.us/comments/show/9645
Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 15:31:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9644 http://curi.us/comments/show/9644
Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 15:26:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9643 http://curi.us/comments/show/9643 Dagny Discussion
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.]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 15:12:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9642 http://curi.us/comments/show/9642
Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 15:05:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9641 http://curi.us/comments/show/9641 Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:59:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9640 http://curi.us/comments/show/9640 Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:58:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9639 http://curi.us/comments/show/9639 Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:58:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9638 http://curi.us/comments/show/9638 Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:55:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9637 http://curi.us/comments/show/9637 Dagny Discussion
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.]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:22:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9636 http://curi.us/comments/show/9636
Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:21:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9635 http://curi.us/comments/show/9635
Creativity program Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:20:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9634 http://curi.us/comments/show/9634 Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:16:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9633 http://curi.us/comments/show/9633 Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:05:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9632 http://curi.us/comments/show/9632 Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 03:08:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9631 http://curi.us/comments/show/9631
Dynamic memes Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 03:03:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9630 http://curi.us/comments/show/9630 Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Thu, 01 Mar 2018 03:01:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9629 http://curi.us/comments/show/9629
Dynamic memes Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 02:59:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9628 http://curi.us/comments/show/9628 Static memes Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 02:58:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9627 http://curi.us/comments/show/9627 Inexplicit knowledge Anonymous Discussion Thu, 01 Mar 2018 02:37:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9626 http://curi.us/comments/show/9626 Cost/Benefit PAS Discussion >
> 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.]]>
Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:25:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9625 http://curi.us/comments/show/9625
Too dangerous to have a gun PAS Discussion >
> 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.]]>
Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:35:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9624 http://curi.us/comments/show/9624
Friction PAS Discussion >
> 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.]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:19:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9623 http://curi.us/comments/show/9623
PAS Discussion
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.]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:31:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9622 http://curi.us/comments/show/9622
curi Discussion Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:28:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9621 http://curi.us/comments/show/9621 Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:13:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9620 http://curi.us/comments/show/9620
anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:06:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9619 http://curi.us/comments/show/9619
curi Discussion
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?]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:50:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9618 http://curi.us/comments/show/9618
anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:22:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9617 http://curi.us/comments/show/9617
curi Discussion
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).]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:39:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9616 http://curi.us/comments/show/9616
curi Discussion
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.]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:33:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9615 http://curi.us/comments/show/9615
anon Discussion
PAS, your answers above make a lot of sense.]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:25:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9614 http://curi.us/comments/show/9614
Gun Safety PAS Discussion
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.]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:02:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9613 http://curi.us/comments/show/9613
Threats PAS Discussion
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.]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:30:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9612 http://curi.us/comments/show/9612
PAS Discussion
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.]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:36:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9611 http://curi.us/comments/show/9611
TD Discussion
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?]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:21:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9610 http://curi.us/comments/show/9610
Anonymous Discussion
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).]]>
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 07:41:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9609 http://curi.us/comments/show/9609
Roy Fokker Roy Fokker By Any Means Necessary: A Violent Marxist Cult Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:27:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9608 http://curi.us/comments/show/9608 Anonymous Monetary Privacy!? Mon, 26 Feb 2018 07:32:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9607 http://curi.us/comments/show/9607 Anonymous Discussion
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.]]>
Sun, 25 Feb 2018 23:41:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9606 http://curi.us/comments/show/9606
Camille Paglia Anonymous Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxWOsUOsDyU

I find myself agreeing with much of what she is saying.]]>
Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:37:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9605 http://curi.us/comments/show/9605
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:38:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9604 http://curi.us/comments/show/9604 Kate Discussion Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:39:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9603 http://curi.us/comments/show/9603 Rand vs Peterson Anonymous Discussion Sat, 24 Feb 2018 21:46:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9602 http://curi.us/comments/show/9602 curi Goldratt vs. Japan Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9601 http://curi.us/comments/show/9601 Anonymous Goldratt vs. Japan Wed, 21 Feb 2018 23:38:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9600 http://curi.us/comments/show/9600 curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
This kinda thing depends on the attitude to it: e.g. do you start debating it and piling on (as you did to Dagny) and won't acknowledge the problem (hard to deal with hostility + denials), or are you receptive to things being pointed out and have ways to manage yourself so it's not a big distraction?

> Russia investigation stuff

IIRC the russia part is a sub-issue and there were some more general questions brought up that you didn't get to yet. changing your mind about the investigation and NYT is not even close to the most value-creating change you could make in your life. if you had unlimited energy to keep going even if you don't get huge benefits, then it'd be ok. but based on your history (especially silent time), it seems kinda dangerous not to prioritize well. you could put a ton of time into this, find out some ppl are much worse than you thought ... and then it won't make your life much better in any direct way. and if the point is to use any example to learn something about thinking methods, much simpler examples are preferable. the main case for russia i see is it might be something you're actually interested in enough to discuss, plus can work somewhat as a thinking methods example (despite being pretty unsuitable).]]>
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:10:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9599 http://curi.us/comments/show/9599
curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:01:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9598 http://curi.us/comments/show/9598 Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
hmm, I'm not sure what you consider different / not normal, but I'll think about that.

I accept that recounting what I thought I felt and meant in such a situation doesn't qualify (fits standard memes you mentioned).

> > What's your reading of Dagny's message: #9556? Any nastiness or hostility there in your view?

> It's so far from hostile it's hard to tell what you even think the issue might be. My best guess is you're bothered by a negative *conclusion* (your lack of respect for my judgement). That is, you're shooting the messenger attempting to bring bad news.

I didn't find it particularly hostile either, although the use of "interesting" and exclamation marks left it as a possibilty.

I was perplexed by something, I just couldn't put my finger on it. There was something unusual to me about what Dagny decided to focus on, and the conclusions she drew from a short comment. That she didn't ask questions or clarify, that she decided so quickly to draw those particular conclusions, which I believe to be wrong.

Hostility was one theory among a few but I didn't accept that as the explanation. That's why I decided to think out loud about different possibilities (unfortunately, I did jump to a vague broader point, referencing other conversations, confusing matters):

> I've always thought there was a strange unfriendliness, or roughness, or hostile-ness to ppl responding to comments here. Maybe it's just a culture thing I'm not grokking yet. but I often wonder what's going on...if there's a deeper meaning or purpose
> Like in the Fountainhead, Dominique Francon does all these things to scare away / sabotage prospective clients of Roark. But the purpose is to really weed them out, to protect Roark, so only good ones reach him.

I'm not sure explaining any of this helps. I don't expect you to accept my recounting of things and I don't want to unnecessarily harp on any of these details unless you see some value. Def much other / more interesting things to consider...]]>
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:05:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9597 http://curi.us/comments/show/9597
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:05:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9596 http://curi.us/comments/show/9596 Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
> there's a big problem with dropping it: but if the underlying issue is not solved, the same thing will happen again: you will start attacking again later.

Are you interested in continuing discussion elsewhere, even with the chance that some hostile/mean statements will be made?

I do not think it's resolved or that it would be reasonable to expect zero hostility/mean statements (or those that can be interpreted as such) moving forward. However, I believe we can still have a productive exchange of ideas even with some of that mixed in.

Having read FI material for a few years now (this blog, FH, some of AS, some of BoI, FI essays, newsletters, etc), I believe our values largely intersect. I believe that exposing ideas to criticism is necessary to learn, gain knowledge, make progress. I hope we would have some value to each other in this regard. While sometimes I am sidetracked by emotions, I treat them also as ideas that need subjected to criticism. I aim to give them the appropriate treatment; as traditional knowledge but full of errors.

So I think hostility / meanness need only distract in a minor way. If after some time, either of us believes the conversation is overwhelmed with hostility, we can stop / re-assess, figure out how to deal with it (if interested).

Let's say you point out some hostility in the future, two possible outcomes w/ that:

1) I immediately notice / agree. Or think about it, do introspection, consider various ideas we discussed here, and come to agree, or remain unsure about it.

2) I disagree, in which case...say nothing / move on? Not sure. Saying anything will fall into the "plausible deniability" explanation for you, so that seems like a dead-end.

Thoughts?]]>
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:01:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9595 http://curi.us/comments/show/9595
curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
> Such an explanation assumes a correct reading/interpretation that the first statement as hostile.

> You are saying there has been no alternative explanations offered to the plausible deniability theory. I was challenging the assumption behind it: that the original statement(s) were in fact hostile.

No. The premise is the statements have two readings. Then you face a question of how to explain that, and the plausible deniability strategy explains it. There's no premise or assumption that a statement is hostile.

> So someone would need to communicate what their childhood was like.

No.

What would really be convincing is: just don't act normal. Do something different. Do something incompatible with the theory that you're acting on the standard memes.

I don't think the outlier person would be indistinguishable today. I think they'd be easy to distinguish. So there's no need to talk about the past.

Talking about the past would be useful primarily if you went through a relevant learning process. So you talk about what you learned, and how and why, as part of explaining your current knowledge. I do this, I've talked lots about my learning process, what sort of effort I've made to learn what things, etc. Because I've done this process, it's much more plausible that I'd be good at things, or self-aware, or self-controlled, etc.

(That said, for me it's auditing too. Consider the times i come up with a great idea. I wish I had source code access so I could share the code with other people. But I only know approximately how I figured out the great idea, so it's much harder to share the method with others.)

> So it seems like there is virtually no chance for most ppl to remedy a wrong interpretation of being hostile by you. It's an extremely high bar. Once you judge someone as being hostile, you are unlikely to ever find out otherwise, right?

No. All you need is an alternative explanation and then I'll reconsider. You don't have one (and I didn't think of one either – unless you count random chance which I criticized), so when there's only one explanation, I don't change my mind, and actually you should agree with what I'm saying too. Your dissent is not rational. You claim I'm wrong on evidence that not only shouldn't persuade me, it shouldn't persuade you either. Partly you can excuse this in terms of ignorance of how to analyze the evidence, but partly it's bias.

> There you go, jumping to conclusions again...sigh.

This means: you suck so much I'm fed up with it.

And it doesn't try to argue any of this, it doesn't provide a target for rational criticism or dissent. And it doesn't try to persuade its victim, it doesn't give him any path to change. It's just an attack.

> Hint: it wasn't.

This is not a hint, it's something along the lines of sarcasm. It's a mean way to do a aggressive assertion, without explaining/arguing/truth-seeking.

(The plausible deniability on these two is actually very low, I would not call it plausible.)

> What's your reading of Dagny's message: #9556? Any nastiness or hostility there in your view?

It's so far from hostile it's hard to tell what you even think the issue might be. My best guess is you're bothered by a negative *conclusion* (your lack of respect for my judgement). That is, you're shooting the messenger attempting to bring bad news.

I think Dagny is more or less correct, but it doesn't really matter. If he's wrong he's wrong in an interesting way, it would still be a point worth considering. I guess you don't see this because you don't understand it. And you reacted negatively instead of with curiosity, because it challenges your social status and self-image, and that's the level on which you're engaging with it.

It has one part I found questionable:

> but it's interesting

I guess he found it genuinely interesting. But it's a phrase to be wary of. People call a lot of stuff "interesting" to hide other meanings. That's really common. So if there were other bad things, then we could find a negative interpretation for this phrase. But since there's no negative pattern, and actually the argument Dagny makes is kinda obscure, unusual, original, unique ... then I guess he really did find it interesting.]]>
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:38:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9594 http://curi.us/comments/show/9594
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
I'm still chewing on the software audit stuff. Will listen to your podcast soon.

> @#9585: None of those explain specifically why there is a hostile reading of what you said, even once, let alone repeatedly. The plausible deniability strategy does offer an explanation of what's going on. It seems to be *the only explanation that any of us can think of* which accounts for what happened.

The plausible deniability explanation comes into play not with the first alleged statement w/ hostility but when interpreting subsequent replies, particularly if you called out an alleged hostility.

Such an explanation assumes a correct reading/interpretation that the first statement as hostile.

You are saying there has been no alternative explanations offered to the plausible deniability theory. I was challenging the assumption behind it: that the original statement(s) were in fact hostile.

As far as how to challenge a wrong interpretation of hostility. You said:

> the only realistic way you could be different is if you had a 1 in 10 million outlier childhood

So someone would need to communicate what their childhood was like.

> or you had made a massive self-improvement effort (which would have involved understanding the problem and then doing things about it, in which case you'd be able to explain the problem yourself very well, and your solution).

what is "your solution" here?

So it seems like there is virtually no chance for most ppl to remedy a wrong interpretation of being hostile by you. It's an extremely high bar. Once you judge someone as being hostile, you are unlikely to ever find out otherwise, right?

> And look at the pattern:
> > There you go, jumping to conclusions again...sigh.
> Very hostile and normal.
> > Hint: it wasn't.
> Standard nastiness.

Could you expand a bit about what you meant by hostile and nasty? The more I've thought about it, I'm less sure I understand what you mean. I looked up those words in the dictionary and trying to understand which meaning you have in mind.

What's your reading of Dagny's message: #9556? Any nastiness or hostility there in your view?

Thanks for the discussion, it's been helpful.]]>
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:07:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9593 http://curi.us/comments/show/9593
curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:25:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9592 http://curi.us/comments/show/9592 curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
http://curi.us/2095-youre-a-complex-software-project-introspection-is-auditing

the post also fixes the last sentence, which is broken here.]]>
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:22:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9591 http://curi.us/comments/show/9591
curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
your consciousness gets to *audit* the software and do maintenance and add features. the heart of the software was written in childhood and you don't remember much of it. think of it like a different team of programmers wrote it, and now you're coming in later.

you don't have full access to the source code for your audit. you can see source code for little pieces here and there, run automated tests for little pieces here and there, read some incomplete docs, and do manual tests for sporadic chunks of code.

and your attitude is: to ignore large portions of the limited evidence available to you about what the code does. that is, the best evidence of what the code says available is *your own behavior*. but you want to ignore that in favor of believing what you think the code does. you think the conclusions of your audit, which ignores the best evidence (your behavior – actual observations of the results of running code), and doesn't even know that it's a software audit or the circumstances of the audit, should be taken as gospel.

you find it implausible there are hostile software functions that could be running without your audit noticing. your audit has read 0.001% of the source code during the last year, but you seem to think the figure is 99%.

introspection skills means getting better at auditing. this can help a ton, but there's another crucial approach: you can learn about what people in our culture are commonly like. this enables you to audit whether you're like that in particular ways, match behavior to common code, etc. b/c i know far more about cultural standard software (memes) than you, and also i know what the situation is (as just described and more) and you don't, i'm in a much better position to understand you than you are. this doesn't apply to your idiosyncrasies, i know even less than you about those, but i know that and avoid claims about the areas where i don't know, such as when you write down the standard output of some standard software modules, at length, and i recognize them.]]>
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:13:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9590 http://curi.us/comments/show/9590
curi Programming and Epistemology
You're overreaching. You are trying to say complex stuff when you should be trying to get simple stuff right and build up to complex stuff later. The result is it's the wrong complex stuff, and it's nonsense because the complexity wasn't created from layers of well-designed simplicity.

http://fallibleideas.com/overreach]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:18:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9589 http://curi.us/comments/show/9589
curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
---

@#9584 A standard pattern is to be mean to people in socially calibrated ways. One of the major strategies is plausible deniability. Attacks which you can deny are attacks are powerful. They are hard to defend against b/c, if challenged, the challenger is attacked further as jumping at shadows and as imagining hostility and being the source of hostility himself. Meanwhile the attack still works, because people intuitively understand it. This relies on a double standard for evaluation: people normally evaluate intuitively, but if an issue is raised then they evaluate with conscious logic. To exploit this, statements are made which evaluate differently with the two different evaluation strategies. Everything you say and do fits the standard pattern of having automated the use of this strategy in many cases, which is totally normal and actually very hard to avoid or undo. The only realistic way you could be different is if you had a 1 in 10 million outlier childhood or you had made a massive self-improvement effort (which would have involved understanding the problem and then doing things about it, in which case you'd be able to explain the problem yourself very well, and your solution).

Instead of denying this stuff, you ought to learn about the standard ways people are mean. Then you could evaluate if you do them, and if your friends do them, and so on. But you try to prejudge the issue instead of being curios and wanting to learn. People are mean to each other all the time in our culture, it's this huge problem, and you're busy feeling attacked (when the thing is you're a *victim* of something big and powerful and nasty) and not looking for opportunities to learn and reform.

---

And look at the pattern:

> There you go, jumping to conclusions again...sigh.

Very hostile and normal.

> Hint: it wasn't.

Standard nastiness.

> I've always thought there was a strange unfriendliness, or roughness, or hostile-ness to ppl responding to comments here....
>
> Like ... sabotage ...

Blaming others, admitting your own hostile perspective (which is the cause of your nasty comments).

The way people work is

1) have a hostile perspective, e.g. this

2) make nasty comments without consciously intending it.

the (1) part is conscious – you even wrote it out – and then the (2) part follows in some way that allows the person to sleep at night without viewing themselves as an asshole.

> The other times when I've noticed you coming to a conclusion prematurely, assuming too much, not asking questions

Asked for details on the accusation (what you were referring to), you added more accusations in a non-specific way that no one could refute. You shouldn't have done that even once, but you did it twice.

> The "sigh" was not me being hostile, but was a momentary feeling of sadness (perhaps also bewilderment)

First you blatantly attack him. Then you don't even treat it as a matter to truth-seek or problem-solve about, you just assert he's wrong about a very basic, standard, common sense interpretation of reality. It's such an extreme attack on his frame, his connection to reality.

I know the reason you're doing it is to hold on to your own frame, which you found challenged. You can't face Dagny's version of reality, so you attack it to protect your own (pretense of) self-esteem. That motivation doesn't prevent it from being a hostile lashing out at Dagny which is quite pressuring and nasty to him.

> I can honestly say there is were no negative feelings when I wrote my last post. Or now. You may not believe it, but that's ok. Just wanted to point it out because I think it's interesting that there is such a misunderstanding.

Already discussed some. The use of the word "interesting" is also an extremely standard attack.

> I think you may be looking at me through the lens of "normal people" and guessing at what I'm thinking and feeling. That's my best guess for why I am seeing so many errors [by you] about what I've said. In my last response, do you notice all the errors [you] made that I clarified in my response?

This is very hard to read because your writing quality dropped way below normal. That's very standard while upset or hostile. And it seems to be making accusations against Dagny, from a position of ignorance, instead of being curious. And when I feel in word in brackets to try to parse what it says, I notice a theme in what's omitted. The reason it's hard to read is some of the key accusation words were simply left out and implied.

> I'm not really clear on how you arrived at this conclusion, consider all I said was:

This is half-assed fake curiosity. A thin pretense. And the meaning is: you should not have arrived at that conclusion, given the evidence you are obviously being unreasonable. This is not a truth-seeking attitude, it's social pressure and attacking thinly disguised as your own confusion ("not really clear") and sorta suggesting curiosity that doesn't exist. (You might get confused b/c you might be curious right now, when you read this. But it's not plausible that you were curious at the time of writing this text, curiosity doesn't fit as the thing motivating this particular wording.)

> I further explained what I meant by it grabbing me and how it grabbed me (very different than what you thought I meant).

This is calling Dagny wrong in a non-truth-seeking-oriented way. Rather than try to discuss productively, you throw in Dagny's wrongness in a parenthetical with an intensifier. Standard, nasty tactics.

> I doubt that ET believes that one MUST be read AS first before FH, no matter what.

Straw man attack plus all-caps.

> Do you accept those as arguments that your conclusion is false? How did you miss them the first time?

Very hostile framing.

> You've misunderstood what I meant by FH "grabbing me, misunderstood my goals w/ suggesting changes to the AS summary, and misunderstood my reasons for starting with FH over AS (confusing it w/ respect for ET).

The point is to assert, again, that Dagny is wrong and you are right. You treat it as a dick size contest and act like a jerk to him, rather than trying to discuss productively.

------

So, on and on, over and over, you're hostile in very standard ways. No that isn't random misunderstanding. You are a product of your culture. It shows. None of the *quite extreme* (and rarer than 1 in 10 million) things necessary to change that have happened in your life.

------

By contrast, Dagny's comments were nothing like this. They were more like this:

> you read hostility into things (e.g. some criticism), falsely, then get hostile and emotional yourself. you are the source of the issue.

Educational.

> the reason you think there's hostility around FI, compared to other places, is cuz FI has ppl who don't put all the standard work into not saying what they mean, in socially standard ways, to avoid saying anything that would trigger hostility in normal people like you. at other places, people act as they normally do – like they are scared of everyone, everyone is fragile and easily triggered, and they have to be super carefully socially. there is cause to act that way – to tip toe around everyone (and then rationalize it and be blind to the fact one is doing it) – but FI is a different kind of place where people aim at other things truth-telling. FI is for people who want it. you're, apparently, on the borderline – you like FI some but also you're easily triggered and hostile, and that's putting you off some.

Educational

> how do you know you're honest and your introspection is correct?

Educational.

> you seem clueless that such statements should not be believed merely b/c they are asserted – including you should not believe it, yourself.

This one is interesting. "clueless" is a negative statement. But it seems accurate and is part of a helpful explanation. Removing it is not so easy because he's trying to convey something here that's both strong and negative, so he can't hedge or be positive without harming the message. Maybe there's a solution but it's not easy. [1]

[1] Theoretically I think there is a solution, but it may be out of reach to fix this on Dagny's end, just with a little wording adjustment. I think solving this could require either other people changing or else another 100 years of philosophy progress to help us understand how to handle such things better. Years is a bad unit of philosophy progress but I want to give some sense of scale and I don't know a better way.) There are also other options involving approaching discussion quite differently, e.g. just don't even try to tell people important negative info they aren't eager to hear, and only share much when they are begging you for the info.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:15:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9588 http://curi.us/comments/show/9588
wut? oh my god it's turpentine Programming and Epistemology
I don't understand this sentence.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:09:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9587 http://curi.us/comments/show/9587
cant_KANT Programming and Epistemology Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:06:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9586 http://curi.us/comments/show/9586 anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
-sloppiness
-laziness
-rushing, making errors as a result
-assuming what the other person knows things they don’t
-differences in word usage between people, sub cultures, etc
-having learned the wrong meaning of words or phrases]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 21:30:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9585 http://curi.us/comments/show/9585
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
> I can honestly say there is were no negative feelings when I wrote my last post. Or now. You may not believe it, but that's ok. Just wanted to point it out because I think it's interesting that there is such a misunderstanding.

...and how it lead to you coming to the following interpretation?

> In context, the text "you may not believe [the facts]" basically reads as "you may be stupid and wrong", and the "that's ok" reads as condescension, and the final quoted sentence really hammers in the condescension. it's like "it's cute that you think that" but a little more disguised.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 20:59:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9584 http://curi.us/comments/show/9584
curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
So on the one hand we have a standard pattern which are culture teaches everyone to do.

And on the other hand we have ... random chance? You still have not provided any alternative explanation for how the ambiguity happens, it's cause.

Random chance is a bad explanation even in a single case, when you're saying you just happened to randomly do something that is just like a major cultural theme, but that's a coincidence and it has nothing to do with culture.

Random chance becomes a truly awful explanation when you repeat the same thing over and over. It was random coincidence 10 times in a row!? No. Randomness wouldn't explain why it keeps happening.

But you aren't giving any alternative explanation other than the two I've brought up: plausible deniability and random coincidence.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 20:44:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9583 http://curi.us/comments/show/9583
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Setup: [A] is a mean statement. [B] is a non-mean statement. C is an ambiguous statement that has a true meaning of [A] or [B]

Scenario 1 (plausible deniability strategy):

1. Bob says C (true meaning: A)
2. Mary claims Bob really meant A
3. Bob disagrees, adds some details, making it more ambiguous or seem closer to B

Scenario 2 (misunderstanding):

1. Bob Says C (true meaning: B)
2. Mary claims bob really meant A
3. Bob disagrees, adds some details, making it more ambiguous or seem closer to B

* * * * * * * * * * *

In the first scenario Mary nails it but in the second scenario she incorrectly interprets C as A.

How does Mary sort out whether scenario 1 or 2 happened? They both basically look the same from her perspective.

I think you will say something about pattern matching, similar to:

> everything you're saying, and all your reactions – including all the denials – are totally standard and fit meme patterns. you haven't done a single thing to contradict my interpretation

Can elaborate on what you mean by meme patterns? I don't see how you would be able to spot scenario #2, to the extend it overlaps with the patterns you are looking for.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 20:16:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9582 http://curi.us/comments/show/9582
Cartman Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
It means enacting the defensiveness meme, regardless of your conscious feelings.

If you act according to the logic of defensiveness, and act *as if* you were defensive ... it doesn't really matter whether you're consciously aware of it, or consciously intending it, with no rationalizations, self-blinding, fooling yourself, etc.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:30:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9581 http://curi.us/comments/show/9581
curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
Mine is the plausible deniability strategy, which is ubiquitous. In this strategy, people often start with a mean idea and tweak it to add some ambiguity, some other plausible story. This can be done unconsciously.

Your explanation is ... what?; You have not been responsive about this. Random coincidence every time? You haven't said that, and that would be a bad explanation. You haven't offered a different explanation either.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:24:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9580 http://curi.us/comments/show/9580
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach > That question rests on the premise that X statement, which you found condescending, was the actual intended meaning.

Oops, that was a half-typed statement that I left in by accident. You can ignore, I may finish later.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:29:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9579 http://curi.us/comments/show/9579
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
Is it accurate to say I came here *to* attack? This thread started somewhat randomly, as I was reading AS and remembered this blog post, and had a thought about the AS summary. Dagny went in an unexpected direction but which I thought was interesting to explore. In my view, various misunderstandings happened, or in your view: attacks happened.

> how do you think you learned to write such condescending things while not even consciously knowing what you're doing?

That question rests on the premise that X statement, which you found condescending, was the actual intended meaning.

> everything you're saying, and all your reactions – including all the denials – are totally standard and fit meme patterns. you haven't done a single thing to contradict my interpretation. you don't even know how to meaningfully contradict it or what it would take to provide counter-evidence or counter-argument. which is also standard.

What are some examples of meaningful contradiction, counter-evidence, or counter argument? This might be really helpful -- I wouldn't be surprised to find out I'm bad at those things.

> you want to drop it now when it's turned around and you're on the defensive instead of the attack, which is biased and unfair to your victims

There is more misunderstanding here.

I don't want to drop it, I'm just unsure how to proceed when such a deep misunderstanding exists, and as you point you out, I'm not providing meaningful counter-evidence or argument.

I also don't feel like it's turned on me, although I could see why you feel like it has. From my view, it's more of a stall-out / unsure how to proceed. But I'm interested in continuing if there's a fruitful way forward, or if you have any questions or suggestions for discussion.

I'm also not defensive (if you mean the feeling of being defensive).

> when you got pushback on attacking you then posted more attacks instead of stopping.

Hmm, I guess I'm not sure what you mean by attacks or what attacks you are referring to? I guess from my view, my recent posts are trying to clarify / restate my views where there seems to be misunderstanding.

> there's a big problem with dropping it: but if the underlying issue is not solved, the same thing will happen again: you will start attacking again later.

Yes, you thinking that I'm attacking (when I'm not), or your view: me actually attacking (when *I* think I'm not) is a problem.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:27:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9578 http://curi.us/comments/show/9578
curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
Saying X which implies Y, and saying Y, are different things. the implication is also questionable but even if it was a 100% solid implication it'd still be different. one difference is X also implies A, B, C, D, etc. which implications you think are important, or even know about, is non-obvious.

> Yes, if I had meant it that way, that would be nasty.

why do you think you know why you behave the way you do? you don't. it's not a random accident that, in the midst of writing many other mean things, you wrote this thing this way. you're enacting memes.

how do you think you learned to write such condescending things while not even consciously knowing what you're doing? do you think it's a coincidence? you are giving no alternative account that explains why your statements are this way, rather than being other statements which only have your claimed intended meaning without alternative nasty readings.

everything you're saying, and all your reactions – including all the denials – are totally standard and fit meme patterns. you haven't done a single thing to contradict my interpretation. you don't even know how to meaningfully contradict it or what it would take to provide counter-evidence or counter-argument. which is also standard.

> But I'm willing to move on / continue other discussions if you are.

well you could have followed up about the Russia investigation discussion but instead you interrupted discussing to attack people, highly aggressively and persistently.

you want to drop it now when it's turned around and you're on the defensive instead of the attack, which is biased and unfair to your victims – when you got pushback on attacking you then posted more attacks instead of stopping. but anyway there's a big problem with dropping it: but if the underlying issue is not solved, the same thing will happen again: you will start attacking again later.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:51:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9577 http://curi.us/comments/show/9577
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
Right. Dagny says I'm having negative emotions, and I say I'm not (contradiction). Doesn't that mean we disagree about that matter? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.

> > I can honestly say there is were no negative feelings when I wrote my last post. Or now. You may not believe it, but that's ok. Just wanted to point it out because I think it's interesting that there is such a misunderstanding.

> In context, the text "you may not believe [the facts]" basically reads as "you may be stupid and wrong", and the "that's ok" reads as condescension, and the final quoted sentence really hammers in the condescension. it's like "it's cute that you think that" but a little more disguised.

I see how many things here are ambiguous. Here is an attempt at explaining the meaning further:

You may not believe it = You may not believe [that I am not feeling negative emotions]. Or from another angle: I acknowledge that my statement that I am not feeling negative emotions is unlikely to be sufficient evidence for you.

"but that's ok"...it's not a big deal, I'm not too concern about it.

As much as I am open to the possibility of failing at introspection, not understanding myself or my emotions, I'm standing by this description. I believe your analysis of the intended meaning is wrong.

> this is just one little example of the many ways you've been nasty.

Yes, if I had meant it that way, that would be nasty.

> this kind of verbal abuse you've been writing is a super standard cultural hostility meme, not an accident. the fact that it's disguised makes it meaner and more socially savvy – it's harder to stand up to attacks that have some sort of plausible deniability. to me it's transparent, but to you and most audiences it isn't.

I'm not sure how to to continue this disagreement about your interpretations. I continue to believe you and Dagny are overestimating your ability to interpret my internal state and writing (as overly-complicated and ambiguous as it can be). But I'm willing to move on / continue other discussions if you are. You have made some interesting points that I'd like to think more about. Apologies for any hostility or nastiness towards you or Dagny, I (at least consciously) did not intend it.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:26:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9576 http://curi.us/comments/show/9576
curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
On top of that, that comment goes far beyond opening by raising disagreement. It attacks. E.g.:

> I can honestly say there is were no negative feelings when I wrote my last post. Or now. You may not believe it, but that's ok. Just wanted to point it out because I think it's interesting that there is such a misunderstanding.

In context, the text "you may not believe [the facts]" basically reads as "you may be stupid and wrong", and the "that's ok" reads as condescension, and the final quoted sentence really hammers in the condescension. it's like "it's cute that you think that" but a little more disguised.

this is just one little example of the many ways you've been nasty. there's actually tons.

this kind of verbal abuse you've been writing is a super standard cultural hostility meme, not an accident. the fact that it's disguised makes it meaner and more socially savvy – it's harder to stand up to attacks that have some sort of plausible deniability. to me it's transparent, but to you and most audiences it isn't.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:34:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9575 http://curi.us/comments/show/9575
curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:05:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9574 http://curi.us/comments/show/9574 curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
In the general case, sure. But sometimes there are major indications. If you only speculate when you get a huge clue, and don't speculate the other times, then you can be right a ton.

In this case, you made two very nasty, stereotypical comments and, simultaneously, the quality of your logical thinking went noticeably down. And at the same time you also attacked the overall atmosphere of my forums, non-specifically. And you've been selective about what your reply to and what you ignore, in ways that appear conventionally biased. There's more, too. [1]

So, personally, I'd be ready to make a confident judgement with only half the evidence you provided. From my perspective, your comments have been very transparent in very standard ways.

My judgement would not be "you consciously feel strong anger and are lying". Given the information available, I'd put low odds on that possibility even if you hadn't denied it. The judgement is more like: certain memes are triggered in you. It's very standard to be pretty blind to what's going on in one's head when those memes trigger, but for them to affect one's actions substantially.

> Hypothetically, if someone were to believe you were angry when you weren't (e.g. in a context like this comment thread), what's the best way to deal with that?

depends on your goal(s).

[1] One example

> My first attempt here was a simple statement that I disagreed. I also said...

It's not a random accident that people reading this will think the "I also said..." part was part of your first attempt, instead of something you said later. It doesn't fit the topic sentence. It's an abrupt change of topic without transition, and the following text makes the confusion worse (so much so that I wonder if you even know the correct timeline – I had to check). Your communication here is, consciously-intentionally or not (presumably not), dishonest. https://rationalessays.com/lying]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:03:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9573 http://curi.us/comments/show/9573
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
To partially answer my own question: in this case, you should def do some introspection, make sure you aren't fooling yourself, etc. But my question was more about, assume you are good at all of that.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:43:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9572 http://curi.us/comments/show/9572
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
Agree.

Isn't it also true that speculating on a stranger's internal state from a few written messages is hard too?

Certain interactions w/ conventional ppl make it a little easier. It also gets easier when you can also hear tone and see facial expressions (in person).

Hypothetically, if someone were to believe you were angry when you weren't (e.g. in a context like this comment thread), what's the best way to deal with that?

My first attempt here was a simple statement that I disagreed. I also said "You may not believe it, but that's ok", which perhaps was ambiguous, but basically I wasn't expecting Dagny to take my word for it and wasn't bothered or hung up on it. Fortunately, I don't think it's very important in order to move forward.

> Expecting people to take your word for it (accept you as having valid authority to make authoritative claims) indicates you don't understand how hard it is (and how unreliable people's claims about introspection are)

So per above, I wasn't expecting anyone to take my word. In general, I find it to be very tricky business to a) convey emotional state in a context like this, b) for others to guess at your emotional state, c) settle any disagreements about emotion state

> Your comments in this thread relating to introspection, hostility, honesty, etc, are following standard patterns of misconceptions, incorrect perspectives, wrong attitudes, etc. I've seen it before many times.

There are some downsides when you are wrong at guessing at someone's emotions and focus on it in a conversation. I haven't thought through the issue much. Like, when and why bring it up?

> I added more detail to the AS description:
> > This novel is about *how ideas affect a country and individuals*. It has major lessons for politics (limited government), economics (capitalism), and how to live your life (productively, heroically, rationally). It reveals how good men support and enable their own destroyers. It’s the *best book ever written*.

Cool, I like it!]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:40:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9571 http://curi.us/comments/show/9571
hostility Anne B Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
> it's you, and you're blaming others.

> you read hostility into things (e.g. some criticism), falsely, then get hostile and emotional yourself. you are the source of the issue. e.g. your "sigh" and "Hint" comments were hostile. like most people, hostility is a major part of your way of dealing with the world. and like most people, you blame others, e.g. you think they were hostile first and think that justifies your own hostility(!?) or you're blind to your own hostility.
>
> the reason you think there's hostility around FI, compared to other places, is cuz FI has ppl who don't put all the standard work into not saying what they mean, in socially standard ways, to avoid saying anything that would trigger hostility in normal people like you. at other places, people act as they normally do – like they are scared of everyone, everyone is fragile and easily triggered, and they have to be super carefully socially. there is cause to act that way – to tip toe around everyone (and then rationalize it and be blind to the fact one is doing it) – but FI is a different kind of place where people aim at other things truth-telling. FI is for people who want it. you're, apparently, on the borderline – you like FI some but also you're easily triggered and hostile, and that's putting you off some.

I see hostility here at FI too, often where it doesn't actually exist. I am used to normal social interactions where any criticism is considered an attack. Here, criticism usually seems meant to be helpful. Once I give it some thought I usually learn something from from criticism, even if my initial reaction is that I'm being attacked.

Yes, I am doing a normal social thing and trying to show you, Anon69, that you are not alone in having this reaction to FI. Is this a bad idea? If it is, maybe someone will talk about it and convince me I'm wrong.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:23:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9570 http://curi.us/comments/show/9570
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach Sun, 18 Feb 2018 08:37:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9569 http://curi.us/comments/show/9569 Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
Is this fighting? What makes it a fight? I thought we were just having a discussion about disagreements.

I don't see it as urgent per say (did lots of other stuff, such as read another chapter in AS in the last 12hrs), although there is some benefit to starting/finishing certain threads of convo while fresh before moving onto other things.

Open to suggestions for other things to do.]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 08:21:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9568 http://curi.us/comments/show/9568
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach Sun, 18 Feb 2018 08:09:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9567 http://curi.us/comments/show/9567 Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
Sure, if all things were equal, start with the better book. Or if you were only going to read one book, that would also be a good reason to pick what you hope to be the best one.

But what if you plan to read the number #1 and #2 book, but #2 book seemingly addresses urgent problems in your life? Or, suppose you currently own book #2 but don't yet have access to or can't afford book #1? I think there are various scenarios where it's good to read book #2 first.

In my case, I started with FH (#2) for similar such reasons. My judgement may end up being wrong, but the downside isn't so bad: it delayed starting AS by ~2 months.

Do you believe there are any situations (such as those mentioned above) where it's ok / good idea to start with FH, or is that a mistake?

> and you specifically suggested changing the text for AS b/c it wasn't appealing enough.

My goal was to make the summary of AS a stronger explanation about what the book is about and why you should read it as I explain above.

> so, no, i don't agree i was wrong. i missed nothing you've said

You've misunderstood what I meant by FH "grabbing me, misunderstood my goals w/ suggesting changes to the AS summary, and misunderstood my reasons for starting with FH over AS (confusing it w/ respect for ET).]]>
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 08:07:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9566 http://curi.us/comments/show/9566
FF Expanding Our Limits Sun, 18 Feb 2018 07:01:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9565 http://curi.us/comments/show/9565 Anonymous 12 Rules for Life Typos in Rule 1 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:48:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9564 http://curi.us/comments/show/9564 curi Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
Accurate introspection is very, very hard. Expecting people to take your word for it (accept you as having valid authority to make authoritative claims) indicates you don't understand how hard it is (and how unreliable people's claims about introspection are). Not knowing how hard it is means you haven't faced and overcome the difficulty (solving the problem involves understanding the extent of the problem). That means your introspections are unreliable.

It may be counter-intuitive, but you can't trust your own self-beliefs. It takes a massive effort not to fool yourself. Dishonesty about many things is the default.

Your comments in this thread relating to introspection, hostility, honesty, etc, are following standard patterns of misconceptions, incorrect perspectives, wrong attitudes, etc. I've seen it before many times.

---

I added more detail to the AS description:

> This novel is about *how ideas affect a country and individuals*. It has major lessons for politics (limited government), economics (capitalism), and how to live your life (productively, heroically, rationally). It reveals how good men support and enable their own destroyers. It’s the *best book ever written*.]]>
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 14:52:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9563 http://curi.us/comments/show/9563
Dagny Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
so, no, i don't agree i was wrong. i missed nothing you've said. maybe instead of assuming i'm wrong and trying to lecture me, you should be trying to understand my reasoning and asking questions. curiosity instead of trying to win a debate!

how would you propose i deal with someone who is totally outclassed, but blind to it, and trying to debate (instead of learn), and losing badly without even realizing it?]]>
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 14:12:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9562 http://curi.us/comments/show/9562
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
Your conclusion was that I didn't respect ET's judgement much.

I'm not really clear on how you arrived at this conclusion, consider all I said was:

> I read Fountainhead first, based on your summary of that book, because the details of your summary really grabbed me. Reading Atlas Shrugged now.

I further explained what I meant by it grabbing me and how it grabbed me (very different than what you thought I meant).

I gave further information in my subsequent post:

1) that I read Fountainhead first, for specific reasons

2) that I'm in the process of reading Atlas Shrugged now. And *specifically* because ET recommended it (I respect his judgement).

I doubt that ET believes that one MUST be read AS first before FH, no matter what.

Do you accept those as arguments that your conclusion is false? How did you miss them the first time?]]>
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 14:06:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9561 http://curi.us/comments/show/9561
Dagny Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
unspecified comments, in other threads, which you silently resented, and held a grudge about, without attempting problem solving? what a hostile way to deal with people!

> The "sigh" was not me being hostile, but was a momentary feeling of sadness (perhaps also bewilderment)

you're rationalizing.

> I can honestly say there is were no negative feelings when I wrote my last post.

how do you know you're honest and your introspection is correct? why do you expect me to believe it, just from your say-so? you seem clueless that such statements should not be believed merely b/c they are asserted – including you should not believe it, yourself. People are so commonly not honest, and inaccurate about introspection. That's the pervasive standard. You claim to be a rare, amazing exception but you don't seem familiar with the problem, let alone to have all the amazing knowledge necessary to be an exception. You don't seem to even know you're making a huge claim, or have any sense of what it takes to be honest and accurate about introspection on this kinda stuff.

you think you're special and not normal. but you act normal. and how could you possibly not be normal? that takes a ton of knowledge, and you're so new you e.g. haven't finished your first reading of Atlas Shrugged yet.

no doubt you are not normal in some particular respects that you noticed. but that doesn't put you outside the normal range in the relevant ways. nor can you tell how normal you are by introspection alone – you need a great understanding of society to know what the normal range is.

> In my last response, do you notice all the errors made that I clarified in my response?

this doesn't make sense. typo?

anyway, you seem unwilling to consider that i might be correct.]]>
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 14:00:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9560 http://curi.us/comments/show/9560
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach > what does "again" refer to?

The other times when I've noticed you coming to a conclusion prematurely, assuming too much, not asking questions, etc. The "sigh" was not me being hostile, but was a momentary feeling of sadness (perhaps also bewilderment), RE: not understanding why (which I later in that message shared some ideas about)

> you're having negative emotions. that's your fault, not mine. you should take responsibility, apologize for treating me badly, and take concrete steps to handle yourself better in the future

I can honestly say there is were no negative feelings when I wrote my last post. Or now. You may not believe it, but that's ok. Just wanted to point it out because I think it's interesting that there is such a misunderstanding.

I think you may be looking at me through the lens of "normal people" and guessing at what I'm thinking and feeling. That's my best guess for why I am seeing so many errors about what I've said. In my last response, do you notice all the errors made that I clarified in my response?]]>
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:52:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9559 http://curi.us/comments/show/9559
Dagny Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
what does "again" refer to?

you have not provided an argument that that conclusion is false. you didn't address the issue. your choice to jump on me replaced speaking to the issue.

you're having negative emotions. that's your fault, not mine. you should take responsibility, apologize for treating me badly, and take concrete steps to handle yourself better in the future. if you find that too difficult, you could at least aspire to it and humbly request people be patient with you in the mean time, instead of lashing out at people.

> I've always thought there was a strange unfriendliness, or roughness, or hostile-ness to ppl responding to comments here.

it's you, and you're blaming others.

you read hostility into things (e.g. some criticism), falsely, then get hostile and emotional yourself. you are the source of the issue. e.g. your "sigh" and "Hint" comments were hostile. like most people, hostility is a major part of your way of dealing with the world. and like most people, you blame others, e.g. you think they were hostile first and think that justifies your own hostility(!?) or you're blind to your own hostility.

the reason you think there's hostility around FI, compared to other places, is cuz FI has ppl who don't put all the standard work into not saying what they mean, in socially standard ways, to avoid saying anything that would trigger hostility in normal people like you. at other places, people act as they normally do – like they are scared of everyone, everyone is fragile and easily triggered, and they have to be super carefully socially. there is cause to act that way – to tip toe around everyone (and then rationalize it and be blind to the fact one is doing it) – but FI is a different kind of place where people aim at other things truth-telling. FI is for people who want it. you're, apparently, on the borderline – you like FI some but also you're easily triggered and hostile, and that's putting you off some.

one of the errors you're also making is dramatically overrating your introspective abilities, while dramatically underrating the ability of philosophers to understand people like you.]]>
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:16:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9558 http://curi.us/comments/show/9558
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
I don't think that would be a good intention, either. Instead, perhaps explaining why the book should be read.

> ET says it's the best book, objectively, and puts it first on the whole list, and that doesn't interest you so much, you don't find that grabbing.

I read ET's description for Fountainhead and found a more direct / significant impact on my life. That may in part have to do with my own unique circumstances and problems, of course. But his description really helped.

While I intended to read Atlas Shrugged (now currently reading), purely on the ET's judgement that it's the best book ever...the other information about it was vague. Maybe it's still the right summary as is, idk. I know that the topic of overreaching is really important. Having read this blog post, it's also been helpful to watching out for it (examples of overreaching), as I've been reading it for the first time. As you mentioned, it's not explained directly in the book. Actually, I just got the very moment in the book where Dagny slows down and seems to acknowledge the overreaching for the first time (chapter VIII).

> apparently you don't respect his judgement much!

There you go, jumping to conclusions again...sigh.

> and you suggest he change the text to make it more appealing to other people who don't respect his judgement (bad design goal!)

How did you know that was my goal? Hint: it wasn't.

> meanwhile, contradictorily, you want extensive help from ET to teach you politics stuff (and you didn't say why politics over philosophy).

It's all connected isn't it (philosophy / politics / etc)? I don't want help from ET unless he has something to benefit from it.

I've always thought there was a strange unfriendliness, or roughness, or hostile-ness to ppl responding to comments here. Maybe it's just a culture thing I'm not grokking yet. but I often wonder what's going on...if there's a deeper meaning or purpose

Like in the Fountainhead, Dominique Francon does all these things to scare away / sabotage prospective clients of Roark. But the purpose is to really weed them out, to protect Roark, so only good ones reach him.]]>
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 12:58:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9557 http://curi.us/comments/show/9557
Dagny Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
i don't think the book descriptions are intended as marketing. but it's interesting, ET says it's the best book, objectively, and puts it first on the whole list, and that doesn't interest you so much, you don't find that grabbing. apparently you don't respect his judgement much! and you suggest he change the text to make it more appealing to other people who don't respect his judgement (bad design goal!). meanwhile, contradictorily, you want extensive help from ET to teach you politics stuff (and you didn't say why politics over philosophy).]]>
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 12:19:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9556 http://curi.us/comments/show/9556
Anon69 Atlas Shrugged Theme: Don't Overreach
http://fallibleideas.com/books#rand

> Atlas Shrugged
> This novel is about how ideas affect a country. It has major lessons for politics, economics, and how to live your life. It’s the best book ever written.

I like the shortness of "how to live your life" but maybe it's too vague? I read Fountainhead first, based on your summary of that book, because the details of your summary really grabbed me. Reading Atlas Shrugged now.]]>
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 11:41:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9555 http://curi.us/comments/show/9555
FF Top 10 Reasons I Hate Children
Ooooh! wow]]>
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 05:28:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9554 http://curi.us/comments/show/9554
Anonymous Top 10 Reasons I Hate Children Sat, 17 Feb 2018 02:57:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9553 http://curi.us/comments/show/9553 FF Top 10 Reasons I Hate Children Sat, 17 Feb 2018 01:19:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9552 http://curi.us/comments/show/9552 curi A Discussion Of Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now: The Case For Reason, Science, Humanism, And Progress
https://direct.curi.us/files/pinker-enlightenment-book-discussion.pdf]]>
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 22:27:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9551 http://curi.us/comments/show/9551