curi blog comments http://curi.us/comments/recent Explanations for the curious en-us Anonymous Cosplay and Effortful Appearances
I know you think social dynamics in general contain tons of meanness. Did you have something more specific than that in mind?]]>
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:46:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8550 http://curi.us/comments/show/8550
Deceptive, dishonest NYT reporting on left-wing violence at Alisa Open Discussion
> [Conservative supporter] Mr. Benitez said that his group would arrive unarmed, as they did last weekend. But in recent confrontations, demonstrators have turned rocks, fireworks and police barricades into weapons — even using a bike lock to wallop someone in the head.
> “The way that they assemble, the tactics that they used, it has not been seen in this region,” said Capt. Alex Yao, the acting chief of the university police force, at a briefing on Thursday.

Left-wing demonstrators did all that! NYT makes it sound like it was conservatives.

The use of the word "they" in the 2nd paragraph is so deceptive. It makes it sound like the right-wingers are the ones being violent, when it's actually the left.]]>
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:17:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8549 http://curi.us/comments/show/8549
Anonymous Compulsory Government Education
truants generally don't dispute the legitimacy of k-12 schooling.

like thieves don't generally dispute the legitimacy of laws against stealing. thieves mostly aren't stealing-legalization-advocates. and truants mostly aren't education reformers.

many homeschoolers and unschoolers just think that lifestyle is right for them, rather than better for everyone.

and even most of the people with really negative opinions about schools do school-at-home type stuff and also think their kid needs to be educated until he's 18.

and of the few people who want to get rid of public (government) schools, most of them still totally accept similar k-12 schools as a good idea. they more often think stuff like: government schools are low quality, badly run, waste money, etc, and the state shouldn't have the opportunity to indoctrinate people.

where are the (other non-TCS) philosophically sophisticated challenges to k-12 schooling? about actual educational philosophy and principles!]]>
Thu, 20 Apr 2017 20:24:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8548 http://curi.us/comments/show/8548
Anonymous Compulsory Government Education
what essay does "that essay" refer to?]]>
Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:59:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8547 http://curi.us/comments/show/8547
This is a free speech zone (or TAZ---temporary autonomous zone)( ishi Compulsory Government Education
Talking about 'real social service' similarily---what is that---registering people to vote, registering them to vote green, libertarian, democrat, republican or telling them not to register because if then you are being complcit with a corrupt political system? do people who join the army (perhaps because they didn't school or college, or because they would be prosecuted for some minor illegal drug or sexual involvement and go to jail unless they enlisted) or those who are 'war resistors' and dont't join doing 'real' service? does some church volunteer get counted as doing real social service by doing day care/tutoring if they also break some rules and provide 'real social service' by providing drugs to youth maybe in exchange for sex?

People do take k-12 schooling largely for granted today though there are some dissidents---free schools, unschooling, home schooling, truancy...

Of course for the state to make this compulsory is authoritarian, and by having a state chosen, sanctioned and required curriculum is a form of intdoctrination. Basically decided compulsion was neccesarry (or at least from a pragmatic view of somethin g that could be implemented) to make sure one did not end up with a nation with 'feral' (wild ) children, or various sects which practiced cannibalism, slavery, and viewed anyone not a member of their sect as a resource to be exploited as desired or eliminated as a toxic heathen.

Nowadays the state allows some modifications or different interpretations of manadatory shool rules--people can choose their own curricula up to a point (they still must know some basic math, science, history, engish language, government and civics, etc. but the rest is up to them including nothing more) and homeschool or start their own school with its own schedule.Some can select their own curricula---eg do 100% science or 100% learn technical trades.

The state replaced th kinds of authoritarian, compulsory indoctrination practiced by traditional familes. Back in the day, for example, at times two men or women or a white protestant and a black or jewish person could not marry, but now they can and in many or most compulsory school curricula this is taught and indoctrinated. In traditional cultures the opposite view was 'fed to or shoved down people's throats or their minds. Perhaps its a choice of the greater of two evils (the state being greater in size, or some other criteria---than small cults of dissenters. In the past if indians saw some corporate polluter show up on their territory they'd be taken out (and this still occurs some places in the world, and usa has its own 'ecoterrorist' types who while not indegenous in g eenral act similarily to corporate polluters). Nowadays polluting corporations have the state on their side--people have been indoctrinated to know its compulsory to follow the laws respecti g corporations 'rights'.)

Personally, theoretically, i dont care however people school their kids or themselves so long as it doesn't interfere with me---eg if they learn in their own communities (by either choice or compulsion--- but babies and children often don't have much choice---they just absorb what is around them and dont really know much about any other choices) that they have the right to exploit or destroy me or my terrritory, then even if it is compulsory and authoritariasn i reserve the right to keep those communities off my territority, even if this means wiping them off the earth or indoctrinating them to follow my rules---ie dont do a single thing that bothers me on my territory--even play music if i dont like and can hear it.

If an authoritarian governemnt is required to force enemy fascist types to leave me alone (perhaps by locking them up) then i support the govwernment on that. (ideally there would be no government, but this is not an ideal world, and sometimes government coercion and force is preferable to that of small minded, pea brained idiotic ideological dogmatists who want governm ent to leave them alone so they can be the big fish in a small pond and force and coerce and indoctrinate their little cult. They tend also to be hypocrites---hate government when it tells them to send their kids to school for example and tell them they can't dump trash in local rivers, but then treasure their government bestwoed property rights which allow them to shoot anyone or anything that ventures on their porperty.)

I'm not sure what the point of that essay was---perhaps involuntary response like farting. nothing deep, or new, or innovative but it just comes out (sortuh like those people with some sort of disease that causes them to swear all the time). alot of religious people and political idoelogues (marxists, anarchists and anarchocapitalists, libertarians, greens...) can't seem to help repeating these old 'truhs' all the tiem. 'god loves you'. 'i want real freedom to do what i want which is not what the governments want but instead is what my small group of pea brained closed minded peers and close knit community who want to be free to do what they know is best as told to them by god---they know god tells them the real truth about what they want to do, and also there is n other source of truth like the government, or scientuists or anything. They know because they learned about the true god from the internet. (thye also pointed iout that the internet was invented by god, as described in the bible--and not by scientists---who basically lie by pretending they discovered it themselves without god'd help.)]]>
Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:51:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8546 http://curi.us/comments/show/8546
FF Open Discussion Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:16:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8545 http://curi.us/comments/show/8545 FF Open Discussion Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:12:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8544 http://curi.us/comments/show/8544 FF Open Discussion
"Referring to the philosophy invented by writer Ayn Rand in the mid-20th century that emphasizes reason, individualism, and capitalism. Wales first encountered the philosophy through reading Rand's novel The Fountainhead during his undergraduate period[19] and, in 1992, founded an electronic mailing list devoted to "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy".[6][100] Though he has stated that the philosophy "colours everything I do and think",[6] he has said, "I think I do a better job—than a lot of people who self-identify as Objectivists—of not pushing my point of view on other people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales]]>
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:10:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8543 http://curi.us/comments/show/8543
FF Health Insurance and Psychiatry on a city block okay on this block there's a red house a greenhouse a blue house and a white house sure red man lives in the red house the green man lives in the greenhouse and the blue man lives the blue hats okay now who lives in the White House?

Guy: the white man

Doc: no sorry the president lives in the White House you're retarded

Guy: wtf!

Doc: here's a pamphlet of details

Guy: did you just call me retarded?

Doc: I just diagnosed you retarded

Guy: I'm not retarded]]>
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 22:10:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8542 http://curi.us/comments/show/8542
FF Health Insurance and Psychiatry Fri, 14 Apr 2017 04:36:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8541 http://curi.us/comments/show/8541 curi Open Discussion Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:12:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8540 http://curi.us/comments/show/8540 CTMU C.M.Langan Explaining Infinite Sets, Measures, and Mappings for Quantum Physics Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:25:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8539 http://curi.us/comments/show/8539 Anonymous Don't Bring Up Your Own Negatives Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:45:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8538 http://curi.us/comments/show/8538 FF Don't Bring Up Your Own Negatives
I always try to reduce the other person's expectation before sharing my favorite book, food or movie. I present them like it's the worst thing in the world and expect them to have a surprise when they see its not that bad. But I fail.. :-( They have a bad experience because they would be thinking about what I said when experiencing it.]]>
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:43:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8537 http://curi.us/comments/show/8537
Anonymous Don't Bring Up Your Own Negatives Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:31:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8536 http://curi.us/comments/show/8536 FF Don't Bring Up Your Own Negatives
I imagined full disclosure of bad stuff was a good way to start. After talking about the horrible stuff the other person would have no expectations left. Then Bombard him with all the good stuff.

But I know your advise is practical and it works in the real world. I have failed many times with my method :-(]]>
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:26:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8535 http://curi.us/comments/show/8535
Anonymous Don't Bring Up Your Own Negatives Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:53:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8534 http://curi.us/comments/show/8534 FF Don't Bring Up Your Own Negatives Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:44:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8533 http://curi.us/comments/show/8533 Anonymous Vacation Travel Is Overrated "My life is better than your vacation"

I'm sure that's not always, and perhaps only rarely, true. But I think they have the right idea in trying to have a life they like all the time. Instead of live a life they mostly hate with the occasional vacation thrown in for fun.]]>
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 07:54:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8532 http://curi.us/comments/show/8532
Anonymous Vacation Travel Is Overrated Sat, 25 Mar 2017 22:59:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8531 http://curi.us/comments/show/8531 curi Open Discussion Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:09:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8530 http://curi.us/comments/show/8530 Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 24 Mar 2017 20:59:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8529 http://curi.us/comments/show/8529 curi Open Discussion Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:50:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8528 http://curi.us/comments/show/8528 Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:13:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8527 http://curi.us/comments/show/8527 curi The Categorical Imperative is Mistaken
this is similar to induction. it's taking some finite set of stuff and then saying "generalize".

he doesn't specify clear, exact rules for what counts as a general theory, nor for which general theories are to be rejected.

if we make up our own reasonable rule for what counts as a general theory, and use the rejection rule of contradiction with our premises, we will end up with infinitely many general theories to choose from. so then we face another hallmark problem of induction: paying biased, selective attention to one out of infinity while blinding yourself to the existence (not even merit, but mere existence) of the rest of infinity. or making up a few ad hoc criticisms of some categories within that ignored infinity (small categories given the context, but large given a standard common sense context) and pretending that's adequate.

the examples given like don't lie can be thought of as data points which are compatible with infinitely many different general, universal moralities. there are, as always, infinite patterns and no specification of which patterns to prefer over others, just a naive bias towards whatever patterns the speak and his culture tend to or whichever patterns reach the conclusions he already had in advance.]]>
Sat, 11 Mar 2017 13:12:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8526 http://curi.us/comments/show/8526
Mysterious J The Categorical Imperative is Mistaken
>Kant asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance. In Grounding, Kant gives the example of a person who seeks to borrow money without intending to pay it back. This is a contradiction because if it were a universal action, no person would lend money anymore as he knows that he will never be paid back.

There's a lot of detail missing here.

Like, maybe the person is borrowing money without intending to pay it back cuz he has a gambling debt he wants to pay off with a bookie so the bookie doesn't break his legs, and he doesn't care about paying back the debt because he's going to be moving overseas soon anyways, and so the credit score hit he'll take from not paying back a debt in his native country is no longer of concern to him.

And so if you universalized the principle "Pay back your debts, unless you are taking out a loan to prevent physical harm from happening to yourself and are indifferent to the financial consequences of not paying back the loan," then the financial system could carry on, cuz that would actually capture relatively few cases and the risk of that happening could just be priced into the interest rate charged.

Now I think Kant would object at this point that that's not how you should go about universalizing the principle. But I don't know that he gives any sort of good explanation anywhere as to the mechanism you're supposed to use to universalize principles. And I don't find his particular way of universalizing principles from certain fact patterns convincing (based on what I've seen from second-hand sources). Like I immediately think "why'd you universalize it this way and not that way?"

More wiki:

>The maxim of this action, says Kant, results in a contradiction in conceivability (and thus contradicts perfect duty). With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language. If it were universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and all truths would be assumed to be lies.

Empirically, people lie all the time, but you can still really on people to tell the truth in lots of situations.

For instance, people notoriously lie in trying to find dates, in job stuff, etc. But if a friend says he intends to meet you on Saturday to go to the movies, that's probably not a lie.

So it basically *is* universally acceptable to lie (to a degree, in certain contexts), and yet the horrible stuff that Kant says should follow from that doesn't follow.]]>
Sat, 11 Mar 2017 07:40:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8525 http://curi.us/comments/show/8525
Anonymous Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/package-dealing,_fallacy_of.html]]>
Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:59:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8524 http://curi.us/comments/show/8524
package deal oh my god it's turpentine Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:16:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8523 http://curi.us/comments/show/8523 Anonymous Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:08:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8522 http://curi.us/comments/show/8522 Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:37:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8521 http://curi.us/comments/show/8521 Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:01:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8520 http://curi.us/comments/show/8520 SN Open Discussion I don't disagree that it's relevant to the subject in general.

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

I think it would have been better not to quote #8512 at all and say something about the state of having no known problems instead. Then it would have been a better post.]]>
Sun, 05 Mar 2017 20:31:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8519 http://curi.us/comments/show/8519
curi Open Discussion
https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/5wlrew/game_design_healing_should_give_less_ult_charge/]]>
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 19:58:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8518 http://curi.us/comments/show/8518
FF Open Discussion Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:07:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8517 http://curi.us/comments/show/8517 Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:23:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8516 http://curi.us/comments/show/8516 SN Open Discussion This talks about problems in general, but quotes #8512 and drops the context of specifically problems about creating new rationalisations. Why?]]> Sun, 26 Feb 2017 05:41:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8515 http://curi.us/comments/show/8515 1960 book on scientism Alisa Open Discussion

From the introduction:

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

From chapter 1:

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

> Can the reality of man, permeated with values as it is, be fully understood in terms of value-free concepts and theories? The problem would not arise, however, were it not for a number of influential persons in the field of the social sciences
who ardently believe that it can be done and who work toward the realization of this goal.]]>
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 03:22:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8514 http://curi.us/comments/show/8514
curi Open Discussion
that's a bad sign, not a good sign.

you should expect progress in phases:

- ruining your own life obliviously

- noticing a few ways you ruin your own life

- fixing a few ways you ruin your own life

*in that order*.

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

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

in a life that's going well it's normal to find and solve problems at similar rates, and always maintain some stock of known problems. like you have on average 25 known problems, and you solve 20 per year but also discover or create 20 per year.]]>
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 23:16:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8513 http://curi.us/comments/show/8513
SN Open Discussion >> I don't create more rationalisations for my life pain.

> of course you do.

Well, maybe. I guess it's dumb to conclude I'm not gonna make any more after spending a lot of time making them and not really even thinking about it before. I didn't mean to say I wasn't looking out for the potential of more being there. But I'm not aware of any new ones at the moment.]]>
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 23:06:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8512 http://curi.us/comments/show/8512
Anonymous Open Discussion
of course you do.

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

sure you have more. but they aren't as effective as some others. less time and tradition go into them.]]>
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:09:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8511 http://curi.us/comments/show/8511
SN Open Discussion > why you don't create rationalizations for the FI pain in order to make it more tolerable, like you do with your life pain?

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

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

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

The reason I don't have more FI-pain rationalisations is that no-one is coercing me to take part.]]>
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:33:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8510 http://curi.us/comments/show/8510
Kate Open Discussion
why you don't create rationalizations for the FI pain in order to make it more tolerable, like you do with your life pain? what's the difference which kept you from doing that in the past regarding the FI pain?]]>
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:17:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8509 http://curi.us/comments/show/8509
SN Open Discussion (I refer to this first part as the "original comment" later)
>>1) his whole fucking life is already pain anyway. the only difference with FI stuff is he doesn't have a ton of rationalizations about that pain. so what he's really doing is trying to conform to his existing rationalizations.

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

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

>i wrote:

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

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


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

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

I think it's possible that some FI-active people have pain in response to FI but rationalise it.]]>
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:09:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8508 http://curi.us/comments/show/8508
Anonymous Open Discussion Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:00:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8507 http://curi.us/comments/show/8507 SN Open Discussion > in terms of engagement with FI, when you feel bad, you might wanna post about your best guess as to why so people can give you some perspective. often people think their own emotional stuff is worse than it objectively is because its THEIR stuff. also people are very credulous about the Facebook Version of Happy Life BS that other people represent in public, so they feel like a unique failure for having so much trouble in life.

Yeah, ok

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

It's better to branch off into new subjects if they're more interesting/relevant, especially if not following that new subject will get in the way of following the old subject]]>
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:54:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8506 http://curi.us/comments/show/8506
SN Open Discussion > (like "it happened because Bob said it" - try it without Bob, or "it happened because I was tired" - try it without being tired)

Rewriting for clarity

(like "the feeling happened because of Bob said it" - try it without Bob, or "the feeling happened because I was tired when I did it" - try it without being tired)]]>
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:42:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8505 http://curi.us/comments/show/8505
SN Open Discussion > did you express this problem to FI and ask for help with a solution? did you post something like, "I feel bad about being accused of lying. Is it bad to be accused of lying? If it's bad, is it bad to be the accuser or the person accused? Why? How should one deal with it? What are typical reasons people feel bad about this and solutions to them? What are ways to do introspection to find out why I feel bad about this and fix it? Or should I live in such a way I'm not accused of lying? Or is feeling bad a part of life to accept and live with?" etc etc

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


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

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

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

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

* Come up with ideas for why the feelings happen (potentially from already-known conventional reasons), so you can adjust variables in a more targeted way and test out specific theories (like "it happened because Bob said it" - try it without Bob, or "it happened because I was tired" - try it without being tired)]]>
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:40:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8504 http://curi.us/comments/show/8504
SN Open Discussion
Also reading Rand helps. She makes quite a lot of references to concrete-bound minds and mentalities and the problems with them, so it helps to think about the problems that it causes.]]>
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:48:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8503 http://curi.us/comments/show/8503
SN Open Discussion
> yup. note that you've had issues for years which have such simple solutions. (not necessarily simple *full* solutions but plenty to get started). something's screwy there...

Yeah, agreed.

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

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

I think I've got some issues with change, like at least partially I'm trying to seek stasis. I'm reminded of the phrase "concrete-bound mind". It's like I'm trying to stick to something safe and just stay there and stop trying new things :(
(but then reality comes crashing in because stasis isn't safe anyway)]]>
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:45:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8502 http://curi.us/comments/show/8502
Anonymous Open Discussion
yup. note that you've had issues for years which have such simple solutions. (not necessarily simple *full* solutions but plenty to get started). something's screwy there...

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

you could play games where thinking ahead is required to do well, like Chess or Go. no take backs!]]>
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 12:40:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8501 http://curi.us/comments/show/8501
SN Open Discussion >> (incidentally I think all good humour is of the "grain of truth" variety, I don't find outright lies told in a "humorous" way to be funny)

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

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

Ok I'll explain a bit.

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

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

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

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

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



I don't think I really understand the FI standard of honesty fully. My guess at it at the moment is that if someone has any contradictions with something they say is true, then they're lying.
(and so, because I have a ton of issues like that, so am I)]]>
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:52:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8500 http://curi.us/comments/show/8500
SN Open Discussion > there is a simple solution to this in widespread use in the business world.
> penalty clauses.
> e.g. if you don't follow through on X then you owe the guy $100.
> sign a contract like that and people will make some deals with you even if you're flakey.

Ok, good point.

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

(yes I'm aware that I can also offer money if I particularly want an answer and then will have a much better chance of getting one)]]>
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:23:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8499 http://curi.us/comments/show/8499
curi Open Discussion Sun, 19 Feb 2017 09:59:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8498 http://curi.us/comments/show/8498 curi Scheduling and Thinking
i don't know, and i learned related skills first: RSVP speed reading and watching video faster (mostly TV).

I learned this stuff gradually over a few years I guess. Takes a while.

I mostly gradually increased speed. But also I sometimes set the speed higher than I'm comfortable with and try it for a bit. When going back down, it can make my old speed feel slow.]]>
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 09:57:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8497 http://curi.us/comments/show/8497
SN Open Discussion
>>Maybe I'm focusing too much on effect rather than cause. Like, if my mind were more clear/integrated, I'd be more reliable because what I say is a better prediction rather than because I force it.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I think there's two factors here.

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

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


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

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

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

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





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

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

>So what's that earlier cause?

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

Agreed.


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

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

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

Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this something I can just get better at by gradually working towards it and extending the reach of my long-term thinking or are there important techniques to it?]]>
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 09:41:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8496 http://curi.us/comments/show/8496
SN Open Discussion
Oops.

I meant "judging from my performance not being noticeably worse now"]]>
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 04:40:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8495 http://curi.us/comments/show/8495
SN Open Discussion
I slept 10 hours a night for a few days but that's changed back to my normal 8 now. It was unpleasant for a couple of days (headachey and irritable).

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

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

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

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

I like hot drinks so I switched to drinking squash with hot water.]]>
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 04:39:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8494 http://curi.us/comments/show/8494
SN Scheduling and Thinking
How long did it take you to get comfortable listening at 500 wpm?

Was there some specific skill or technique you needed to get to that?

Is there something more to speed listening than gradually increasing speed and getting used to it?

I currently listen to stuff on Audible at 1.85x speed (or slower for more content-dense stuff) which I'd approximate to be around 250-300 wpm. I'm pretty comfortable with that. I guess I'll try boosting it a bit more. I normally listen on the way to and from work (half an hour walking each way) and sometimes at lunch.

I use a bluetooth earpiece in one ear so I can hear stuff around me with the other.]]>
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 03:30:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8493 http://curi.us/comments/show/8493
Anonymous Open Discussion
the point of penalty clauses is to assure the other guy, when you DO expect you will follow through but he doesn't. (it also deals with ways you could fail but it's not your fault, but you're still responsible)

but here you're trying to make yourself do stuff, not trying to enable greater cooperation with others and reduce risk to them so deals can happen. totally different, unrelated, and awful.]]>
Sat, 18 Feb 2017 18:17:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8492 http://curi.us/comments/show/8492
penalty clauses Alisa Open Discussion Sat, 18 Feb 2017 18:04:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8491 http://curi.us/comments/show/8491 curi Open Discussion Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:49:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8490 http://curi.us/comments/show/8490 curi Open Discussion
because i agree with the statements you consider intentional lies, and i would be happy to say some of them myself, e.g.:

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

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

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

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

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

you believe this from a position of having absolutely no idea what you're talking about. which isn't reasonable, it's overly hostile, and it's what you're focusing on when civilization is at stake. obama was the worst president for a long time (i haven't researched historical presidents much) and Trump is the one people complain about way more and you joined in that mob and not only called Trump factually mistaken but you went into conspiracy theory claims about how he's an intentional liar and I'm apparently his dupe.]]>
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:46:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8489 http://curi.us/comments/show/8489
Anonymous Open Discussion Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:19:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8488 http://curi.us/comments/show/8488 Anonymous Open Discussion
My agreement/disagreement with your political views is mixed. I would guess 50% agreement but hard to estimate, shrug.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I must run but may respond to some of your other comments later.]]>
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:18:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8487 http://curi.us/comments/show/8487
curi Open Discussion
> As we know from Reagan’s amnesty, when nearly 1 million illegal immigrants falsely claimed to have been farmworkers to get amnesty, foreigners who have already broken U.S. laws are not always punctilious about telling the truth to government officials. Under the special agricultural amnesty of the 1986 bill, the INS received nearly one hundred thousand applications from “farmworker” illegal aliens living in the lush, fertile farmland of New York City. Another hundred thousand applications were mailed in directly from Mexico.23 Some “farmworkers” told agents that cotton was purple or described pulling cherries from the ground. Within the first three years of the agricultural worker amnesty, the government identified 888,637 fraudulent applications, of which it approved more than 800,000.24 And consider that the age at which someone who is living in the shadows first began living in the shadows is a lot easier to fake than prior farmwork.

the book contains other information about fraud problems with immigrants.

it also talks about how the Democrats are trying to bring in a bunch of third world poor to vote for them.]]>
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:04:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8486 http://curi.us/comments/show/8486
curi Open Discussion
then you should have said e.g. "Hi, I strongly disagree with your political views. Here is somewhere I think you're making a mistake..." but instead we get:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i think in several ways you miscommunicated. i think you should drop these disputes and try to say something about a political issue you care about, perhaps book related. i haven't yet seen you say anything like "I think X is a good political principle, because Y, and I think it implies Z about situation W." nor have i seen you read some reasoning by me or others i agree with and point out a mistake in it.]]>
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:56:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8485 http://curi.us/comments/show/8485
Anonymous Open Discussion
How does analyzing and discussing the statements/claims of Trump&co in relation to voter fraud amount to attacking the values of this blog?

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

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

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

I have been a FI subscriber/lurker for a few years, and have read many posts here, on FI, and your Fi email newsletter.]]>
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:20:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8484 http://curi.us/comments/show/8484
curi Open Discussion
i meant they are hostile to Trump, America, the values of this blog (my values), etc

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

do you? but you seem uninterested in reading information.

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

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

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

you came here and, with zero introduction, started aggressively attacking the values of this blog while not having done basic reading on the matter and seeming not to want to. it is still totally unclear to me why you're here. have you read the recent political posts on my blog? maybe you should do that before trying to talk politics with me.]]>
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:58:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8483 http://curi.us/comments/show/8483
Anonymous Open Discussion
That may be true (I’m open to the possibility), but being offended / interpreting them as hostile is wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This doesn't seem like a friendly place to discuss ideas.]]>
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:11:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8482 http://curi.us/comments/show/8482
curi Scheduling and Thinking
one thing you could do is read anything you already wanted to read and work on speed.

rereads also work well b/c if you miss something you can remember it. so e.g. a Rand novel could work well.

could read softer Mises like anti-cap mentality. could read szasz or feynman. feynman is especially easy reading.]]>
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 05:30:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8481 http://curi.us/comments/show/8481
AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking
I think I should. I think it would be hard to go from reading text to audio book and back again because of stuff like finding my place in different mediums and having different retention amounts.

Any suggestion what might be a good audiobook?]]>
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 05:15:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8480 http://curi.us/comments/show/8480
curi Scheduling and Thinking
the errands at the end of the bike ride have zero relevance to using an audio book while riding. that it's already one kind of multitask doesn't mean it can't be several types of multi-task at once. the errands don't interfere here.

safety is a real issue. generally when biking i set my volume low enough to hear my surroundings well. i mostly try to bike on low-traffic roads. so if i can't hear my book when a car passes me, that's alright, most of the time there isn't a car. but this doesn't work well to hear much of the book if you're in city traffic with constant cars. it's also hard to hear on steep, long downhills and i often pause for those (plus that requires focus if there are turns).

biking in traffic sucks anyway and isn't fun. i think it only makes much sense at a pretty limited set of distances. it has to be short enough not to use a car, e.g. so finding parking is too much trouble relative to the trip length (there's also the scenario of not having a car available which I'm guessing isn't your reason). and it has to be far enough not to walk. walking is more pleasant than biking with a bunch of cars and also multitasks with audiobooks great even in noisy environments.

you can also listen to audio books while doing most errands. like shopping.

---

about books, as a starting point i'd suggest reading amounts you can write about the same day. writing in the same session may be better depending how well you remember details later and can continue after an interruption.

i think FoR is a good book to start with. FoR and BoI are so so so must-read and I generally recommend reading them before any Popper. especially whole Popper books -- reading specific essays/chapters/sections of Popper works better early on instead of whole books, but requires knowing which to read.

i think you should have some comments (even if brief) very frequently while reading. if you don't, something's wrong. if you think some comments aren't worth writing down, that's fine as long as you have some you do write down for every reading session. but if you read for 30min and have nothing to say, something's wrong.

say you read 5 pages. if the book says something significant you should have a comment and/or question. if you understand it really well you should be able to add something, criticize something, talk about something related, state some further problems it leads to you don't have answers to but which would be good to figure out, or even explain why you don't think this topic is important for you to focus on (could be b/c you're more interested in something else, e.g. i think the time travel part of FoR is not important for most people. could also be because you identify this part of the book as being parochial details to set up another part of the book which is more important. if you think that, say so. you can write that in a couple sentences and that's way better than silence). and if you don't understand it really well you should have a question or try to explain it yourself and get feedback, or you could try to argue or criticize.

yes you can also ask what you missed or could have said if you have no comments.

a really frequent feedback cycle is crucial until one is very very skilled. and not just feedback from others but writing stuff down is a way to take seriously your own feedback instead of just having it really vague in your head. even if no one ever replied to you, writing down comments frequently would be beneficial.]]>
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:18:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8479 http://curi.us/comments/show/8479
curi Open Discussion
your political views are very false and nasty and immoral, and they aren't offered from a position of like "Hi, I'm a novice, teach me", they are written like you already chose a side (the anti-America, anti-me side).

> And I thought this place welcomed criticism.

you have not said anything substantive, and are ignorant of the topic. and what i did is ask if you will read stuff. you have not shown any willingness to educate yourself on the topic. you've shown no interest in reading and learning, just attacking western civilization. and you haven't asked any interesting questions. so your comments lack value.]]>
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:50:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8478 http://curi.us/comments/show/8478
AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking
I don't know why it wouldn't be either. But I asked because it falls into a category I'll call: things I don't know enough about to make a conclusion without exposing to external criticism.

> it would help if you could also add in some multi-task time such as listening to an audiobook while commuting or exercising. most people already have a fair amount of underutilized time.

I already do a bunch of multi-task stuff, and agree most people already have a fair amount of underutilized time. I don't think I have much additional such time available. I don't expect you to take my word for it generally. Maybe I'm lying to myself. I will say that none of your specific examples apply to me. Commuting, video games, and watching sport/esport play approximately zero role in my life. I exercise, but always either with other people where it already doubles as social/family time, or where the exercise itself is a multi-task (i.e. bike ride to do errands) and I need to keep my audio channel clear for safety reasons.

I think substitution for things I'm already multitasking is a more realistic option for me than finding new multitasking time.

I listen to radio news/talk while I'm in the shower and could listen to an audiobook instead. But that's a fairly small smount of time. And I get more than zero value from the radio news/talk - some of the information I'd want to get elsewhere.

I commonly read things (including FI, but other stuff too) while my audio channel is occupied with work stuff that I'm not directly participating in but need to listen to. I could change what I read under those circumstances some. I also do suitable mundane chores with that time (cordless phone with headset, on mute) which makes those chores unavailable for other audio multitasking.

Anyway, I don't see much opportunity on the multitasking front but maybe a little.

I think the next question goes back to:

> one option is to read and discuss philosophy books.

Considering the option of reading and discussing philosophy books: if I have 1/2 hour each morning + 1 hour in the afternoon 3 days/week would it be better to:
- Aim to read no more each day than I can also post about that day (even if it's something like, "I read chapter X paragraphs Y-Z and have no thoughts/comments - what did I miss?"
- Aim to post only on the afternoon days, or weekly
- Read until I think I have something significant to post about
- Something else?

Also, any crits of starting with FoR?]]>
Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:59:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8477 http://curi.us/comments/show/8477
Anonymous Open Discussion
Not sure why you've jumped to this conclusion. Why do I seem hostile / unreasonable?

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

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

I think, in terms of standard social conventions, you have behaved much more hostile -- but maybe that makes sense if you in turn thought I was being hostile.]]>
Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:36:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8476 http://curi.us/comments/show/8476
curi Open Discussion Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:23:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8475 http://curi.us/comments/show/8475 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:16:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8474 http://curi.us/comments/show/8474 curi Open Discussion Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:15:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8473 http://curi.us/comments/show/8473 Anonymous Open Discussion
> do you mean Trump didn't PERSONALLY do scholarly work? sounds true. but he has advisors, thinkers, etc, on his *team*, who DID do a rational investigation of the matter.

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

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

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

Is that the basis for his claim?

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

Ok - I will look for those.

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

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

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

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

> maybe it's you who is clueless and ignorant

Perhaps -- but to be clear I'm not saying Trump&co is clueless/ignorant. My guess is that Trump&co is lying on purpose because it serves them well. Or that Trump specifically is ignorant/clueless and his staffers are covering up the fact because it would look bad.]]>
Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:12:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8472 http://curi.us/comments/show/8472
curi Scheduling and Thinking
it would help if you could also add in some multi-task time such as listening to an audiobook while commuting or exercising. most people already have a fair amount of underutilized time.

multitasking is more possible with more stuff than people typically realize, especially if you get skilled at it. for example, one can listen to audio books while playing many video games. and one can listen to audio books while watching a lot of video content. for example, a lot of video content can actually be watched muted with little loss, such as tons of sports or esports, which makes it easily compatible with an audio book. (btw if you can't follow a sport or esport when it's muted, and you aren't new to it, that's a sign you're watching it thoughtlessly and not learning much. apparently the announcer is guiding you and you don't know how to guide yourself or think about it on your own.)

another misconception about multitasking with audiobooks (also about speedreading) is you need 100% reading comprehension when you read a book or you aren't reading it right.

suppose you can multitask and get 70% comprehension. what's wrong with that? if the book is important just read it twice while multitasking. it's only if the book is like super super super important that you'd really want to have a very slow, maximal comprehension reading -- in which case since the book is such a big deal you'd still want, in addition to the extra careful reading, several other supplemental readings that don't have to be full comprehension! with low reading skill one might need really careful readings of more books to learn from them but that wouldn't prevent also wanting less careful supplemental readings of those books. and the optimized reading doesn't have to be the first reading. actually the optimal reading *shouldn't* be the first reading, it's easier to do a careful reading when you have a pretty good idea of what's in the book. (there is a common problem though which is people lose interest once they've read a book so they won't do a really careful reading unless it's the first reading. note this clashes with the premise this book is so important to you and you want to learn the details really well. people do it sometimes because of irrationality and sometimes because the book is less important to them than they explicitly claimed.)

if you listen to a book at 500 wpm twice (a very reasonable speed, not super fast, for a skillful reader) you can do that faster than a single really careful, slow reading *and* multitask it. this is efficient!]]>
Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:55:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8471 http://curi.us/comments/show/8471
curi Open Discussion
do you mean Trump didn't PERSONALLY do scholarly work? sounds true. but he has advisors, thinkers, etc, on his *team*, who DID do a rational investigation of the matter.

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

there are a lot of details about this stuff in public which you could find if you cared to. did you even read Adios America before guessing the anti-immigration side is wrong? maybe it's you who is clueless and ignorant, and you're projecting...]]>
Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:58:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8470 http://curi.us/comments/show/8470
Anonymous Open Discussion
> One thing that came up was Trump voter fraud claims. George Stephanopoulos pushed super hard saying Miller didn't have evidence of voter fraud.

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

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

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

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

If they are *starting* to investigate, why are they making claims that would be at the conclusion of that investigation?]]>
Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:05:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8469 http://curi.us/comments/show/8469
AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking > most effort has to go to fixing your broken shit instead of the avoiding coercion topic itself.

#8445
> understanding avoiding coercion is more like 50 books worth of total content, not 1 essay. (all the stuff on the FI site adds up to like 2 books equivalent.) and note one has to actually learn stuff, not just read through it. and 50 books is still rather small.

#8421
> But anyway, what do you do if you don't yet know this method? Learn it. And if you find that coercive? Well that sucks. I dunno. FI doesn't have some clear statement about what to do about that difficult situation. It does not say "whatever you do, don't coerce yourself into learning how to deal with coercion." It says more like "good luck" and also e.g. "try to figure out what resources, abilities, etc, you DO have in your life and make progress with those".

There's a bunch of unaddressed topics in this thread, but I pulled these 3 quotes to focus on what I think matters most. Which is: What should I *do* next?

I break that problem in two: the logistics (my schedule of when to work on philosophy) and the content (what to do/study within the schedule I have alotted). I'll talk about logistics first.

If I'm going to be serious I think I need a schedule. My current mode of doing FI - when I have time and feel like it - does result in somewhat regular participation especially considering everything else I have going on. But it doesn't result in taking FI seriously. Kinda the opposite. I often get to FI when I'm least likely to be interested in taking things seriously.

1/2 hour in the morning would be doable on a regular basis, but more than that is just not logistically feasible without major life upheaval. I can picture ways it might become feasible to do 2-4 hours in the morning, but right now it's not.

In addition to the time in the morning, I could schedule an hour in the afternoon 3 days a week without causing major disruption. I won't be as fresh as in the morning, but it would still be more serious than what I'm doing now.

More than that would require some fairly significant upheaval. Which I can discuss if what I can do without the upheaval is too little to be worthwhile.

Do you have an opinion about whether 1/2 hour in the morning daily plus 1 hour in the afternoon 3 days a week is enough to even bother with trying? Or should I move on to considering more radical options?]]>
Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:36:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8468 http://curi.us/comments/show/8468
Kate Open Discussion
>But being reliable is good, helps to do things with other people. I don't want to end up being so flaky/inconsistent I can't make deals with people because no-one expects me to follow through.

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

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

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


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

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

So what's that earlier cause?

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

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

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

(and i think it's DOING THIS PROCESS over and over and over again with lots of concretes, which contributes to having the more clear/integrated mind you want)]]>
Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:25:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8467 http://curi.us/comments/show/8467
curi Open Discussion
there is a simple solution to this in widespread use in the business world.

penalty clauses.

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

sign a contract like that and people will make some deals with you even if you're flakey.]]>
Sun, 12 Feb 2017 04:38:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8466 http://curi.us/comments/show/8466
SN Open Discussion
#8458
>> I don't want to get into something without seriously thinking I'll stick to it, I don't start stuff anticipating that I give up. So getting involved in a discussion means I'm committing myself to invest an unknown number of hours into finishing it.

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

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

It's kinda like what I was saying about fake before. I can sometimes fake being reliable by forcing it (and finding it stressful), but I'd be better off not making lots of long-term plans until I get better at it, rather than making them and kinda forcing myself to follow through.]]>
Sun, 12 Feb 2017 04:25:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8465 http://curi.us/comments/show/8465
typo fixes curi Open Discussion
*which way*. typo on that last word.]]>
Sun, 12 Feb 2017 02:55:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8464 http://curi.us/comments/show/8464
curi Open Discussion
it's not safe to think it's obvious sometimes. nothing is obvious. and jokes and metaphors are especially confusing.

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

this is basically incomprehensible. you're really overestimating how much your text communicates successfully. i do get the very vague gist but if you gave me some example jokes i'd have no real chance to successfully figure out which ones you judge which ones. e.g. there's no way for me to know which lies you categorize as "outright" and which you don't. i also couldn't come up with canonical examples of what you have in mind for each category.]]>
Sun, 12 Feb 2017 02:54:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8463 http://curi.us/comments/show/8463
SN Open Discussion >>I now think learning to be good at stuff *in the context of it being stressful* is super destructive to progress in the long term, and also kinda fake.

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

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

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

Yes.

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


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


A conventional example would be people cramming for exams and getting super stressed then forgetting everything after. They were never really that good at the material even if they get a distinction, they were just spending tons of time on something they weren't very good at to fake the appearance of being good.]]>
Sun, 12 Feb 2017 02:14:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8462 http://curi.us/comments/show/8462
Anonymous Open Discussion >>I've been trying out being more "relaxed" posting here (like, making jokes *at all*) to try some alternatives and see how they work out. In the least, I enjoy it more.

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

Yes.

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

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

I'm sure there are better ways of talking about my problems more literally and explicitly, but I don't know them all yet. I expect as I understand my problems better I will "joke" about them less and be explicit about it more.]]>
Sun, 12 Feb 2017 02:01:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8461 http://curi.us/comments/show/8461
SN Scheduling and Thinking > no. it's just that particular text needed strong emphasis b/c of how i was using it to contrast my perspective with the perspective AnonITA presents. need to emphasize a big difference there for clarity/meaning reasons.

Right, even my reinterpretation was poor. Like I was still imagining exasperation/running out of ideas. I guess cos I have the problem of exasperation/running out of ideas in discussion. But you're a ton better at it than I am, so it's unreasonable to think you'd get stuck as quickly.


>there's *one* caps phrase in a ton of text and that's what stands out to you?

Right. That's how my "interpreting things negatively" idea works. I pick something out like that, interpret it badly, then *everything* is then read in that context.

(in this case I was more skimming than carefully reading but even if I'm trying to read carefully it has this effect)


I think a common conventional idea to deal with something like this (for people who try anything at all) is to go back, catch it, try a different interpretation. I think this is useful, but I don't think it's enough on it's own to really fix the problem. It's defusing a problem after creating it, rather than working out how to avoid creating the problem.

Understanding *why* the interpretation happened in the first place and finding a solution can stop the problem recurring (so waste less life on misinterpreting and correcting). I think why people react emotionally typically gets surrounded by a lot of irrational stuff, like it being "instinct" or "innate" or something. There doesn't seem to be a lot of people who seriously try to change how they feel about something, they give up and make excuses.


So in my case, I keep trying to think of better ways of interpreting communication. Like I did above (though I was wrong about it this time). Or taking criticism as someone actually trying to *help*, like actually investing their time and energy into someone else's problems, often for *free*.

And if I'm wrong about that interpretation and they are trying to be hurtful? So what? If their criticism is true, they'll have helped me unwittingly anyway. If their criticisms are false, I might still learn about a new crit and work out how to answer it.


Side note: "creating a problem" - I think that's an important concept that I want to acknowledge. How much of my creativity goes to waste imagining problems? Some, at least. Any is too much.]]>
Sun, 12 Feb 2017 01:40:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8460 http://curi.us/comments/show/8460
Kate Open Discussion
This isn't right. It's more like "your 'relaxed' attitude (which involves making some jokes)".

That's different than a joking attitude. It was wrong to imply you said that.]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:25:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8459 http://curi.us/comments/show/8459
Kate Open Discussion
>Since when I actually read it's rarely "dangerous" like I'd feared. But sometimes I can read *expecting* "danger" because of this and try to find it where it isn't.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Is your relaxed and joking attitude serious? Does it bring urgency and attention-to-detail to the matter? Does it recognize that your life is in the gravest danger if you don't learn philosophy (i.e. how to think)?]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:19:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8458 http://curi.us/comments/show/8458
FF Open Discussion
I wasn't recommending the site to you. I was taking the site's help in remembering small insignificant characters from Fountainhead and wanted to know if I am doing anything wrong. I wanted people who are already familiar with the site to share their opinion.]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:47:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8457 http://curi.us/comments/show/8457
SN Scheduling and Thinking
> which link?

side bar, between "Archives" and "More"]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:47:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8456 http://curi.us/comments/show/8456
curi Open Discussion Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:36:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8455 http://curi.us/comments/show/8455 FF Open Discussion
I don't want you/anyone to research it. I guessed someone already familiar with the site might have opinions or crits against it. It seemed like a popular site to lookup info on Rand's fiction.]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:31:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8454 http://curi.us/comments/show/8454
curi Open Discussion
if you want me to actually click the link and read their stuff and then write up a list of ways they're wrong, you'll have to pay me a lot of money.]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:22:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8453 http://curi.us/comments/show/8453
FF Open Discussion > no

How is it unreliable?]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:20:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8452 http://curi.us/comments/show/8452
curi Open Discussion
no]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:16:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8451 http://curi.us/comments/show/8451
curi Scheduling and Thinking
also your interpretation of length is sooo opposite. if i don't like something that generally results in short replies. i write more if it's more interesting.

> So then I thought things like the capslock and swearing are *emphasis*, not anger. Because sometimes when it's really hard to get through to someone, and you explain yourself as well as you can, and it's not getting through or even getting a serious response, there's not much you can do beside add emphasis and be really blunt to avoid any room for evasion.

no. it's just that particular text needed strong emphasis b/c of how i was using it to contrast my perspective with the perspective AnonITA presents. need to emphasize a big difference there for clarity/meaning reasons.

> So wouldn't it be worth including suggested pre-reading to essays then? Like suggest books or other essays that might be worth reading first?

i could do that on like every essay. it's better to do it separately as its own topic instead of repeating it everywhere. and AnonITA is well aware of stuff like various books i recommend. everyone who cares already is. adding some to the essay wouldn't change that. and it's a *big* task to try to explain how to read/*learn* a book to ppl. ppl read books wrong so it doesn't work, so i can't just list a few books.

> btw it might also be worth changing the "Fallible Ideas" link to eg something like "Fallible Ideas essays"

which link?]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:15:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8450 http://curi.us/comments/show/8450
SN Open Discussion
But if you have a particular character you're interested in, I'm happy to discuss :)]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:07:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8449 http://curi.us/comments/show/8449
FF Open Discussion
I am using it while reading the book to know the characters better.

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/the-fountainhead/]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:05:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8448 http://curi.us/comments/show/8448
SN [Videos] How To Write Philosophy Emails
https://youtu.be/T8AvyHG_bOk?t=34m40s
Thinking about this part:
> many times you reply, but leave me wondering where you stand on the issues at stake.

I think I've made the mistake of not being clear when I change my mind before. This makes discussion harder to follow and leaves out important context.

In ongoing discussion I think someone should clearly mention when they change their mind on an issue (just agreeing with a different idea isn't enough). Otherwise it's ambiguous whether they agreed/changed their mind or they're being incoherent when they contradict their earlier comments.

I don't know if Richard was making a similar mistake here, it seems possible.]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 08:33:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8447 http://curi.us/comments/show/8447
SN Scheduling and Thinking
But I was just listening to one of curi's videos, and couldn't imagine curi raging out over this. So thought there had to be a better explanation.

So then I thought things like the capslock and swearing are *emphasis*, not anger. Because sometimes when it's really hard to get through to someone, and you explain yourself as well as you can, and it's not getting through or even getting a serious response, there's not much you can do beside add emphasis and be really blunt to avoid any room for evasion.


#8445
So wouldn't it be worth including suggested pre-reading to essays then? Like suggest books or other essays that might be worth reading first?

How often do you get questions about essays that you answer with a book suggestion? Often enough that it's worth adding the suggestions direct to the essays?


btw it might also be worth changing the "Fallible Ideas" link to eg something like "Fallible Ideas essays"

without pre-existing knowledge of the Fallible Ideas site, the name doesn't have much meaning and I don't think would get clicked out of anything but idle curiosity, adding "essays" adds content meaning even to someone who doesn't know the site]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 08:27:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8446 http://curi.us/comments/show/8446
curi Scheduling and Thinking
and AnonITA doesn't understand that you have to have various background knowledge to understand or use the essay, like certain understanding about reason and problem solving, which he doesn't have.

understanding avoiding coercion is more like 50 books worth of total content, not 1 essay. (all the stuff on the FI site adds up to like 2 books equivalent.) and note one has to actually learn stuff, not just read through it. and 50 books is still rather small. though it's kinda daunting for people who can't read 1 book b/c they put 90+% of their intellectual effort into preventing progress instead of making progress.]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 00:24:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8445 http://curi.us/comments/show/8445
curi Scheduling and Thinking
it takes like X effort to learn the methods of rational problem solving, avoiding coercion, etc

X is small, finite. let's say, 500.

and AnonITA's questions are more or less: what if my starting point isn't 50, or even 0, but -100 or worse? what if my starting point is -9999999? -999999999999999999999999999999? then X is really far off!

yeah if you start at negative a million, then it'd be a long road to 500. this doesn't make 500 big or hard. it doesn't change the nature or difficulty of the problem solving method. it has the inherent properties i talk about. that people destroy their children's minds -- so that easy stuff is kinda beyond them -- doesn't change the objective nature of the method.

i bet you're objecting or doubting or something but you will accept the same point with a different example.

in math, fractions aren't that hard. it'd be hard to invent them in the first place. but they just aren't very complicated to learn now that they are already well understood. it's not very hard to do things like convert fractions to decimals and back, reduce fractions, multiply two fractions, add two fractions, etc.

many people find this hard, get stuck, suck at it for life, etc. that experience does not make basic fractions math objectively difficult.

and btw if you don't know what a number is, it'd take a while to get to understanding fractions. same as if you don't know a language yet, it'll take a while to get to understanding the avoiding coercion method.

but if you have some reasonable background knowledge -- know what a number is, know what addition is, etc -- then it's just not a big deal to learn basic stuff about fractions.

this does not match everyone's experience. the majority of people try to learn fractions at school and have a rough time.

this is not because fractions are actually hard. it's because they're deeply irrational about math and also school is an awful, unhelpful place for learning. neither of those things -- the prior destruction of their mind regarding math (and much more), and the low quality of school education -- makes fractions inherently hard to understand.

AnonITA is mixing up his own status as an intellectual cripple with stuff being hard.

it's important to understand the situation for a variety of reasons including:

-- actually accepting this and taking it seriously could lead to some motivation to fix it instead of thinking one's life is pretty good

-- it totally changes where you direct effort if you want to learn avoiding coercion. most effort has to go to fixing your broken shit instead of the avoiding coercion topic itself.

-- the same ways you're broken and put the majority of your effort into preventing progress when it comes to learning about avoiding coercion, you also do on many other topics.

-- knowing what the problem situation is helps you judge potential courses of action better.]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 00:14:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8444 http://curi.us/comments/show/8444
curi Scheduling and Thinking >
> But I'm not unfamiliar with that method. I think I know enough to talk about it

You overreached here in what you could say about it.

> > you have not learned the method and do not use it.
>
> Right.

The answer "Right." is a very bad answer.

I'm arguing with you. You are trying to reply by agreeing with me. You can't agree with someone who is arguing with you. Someone is wrong.

I wrote what I did for a reason, which you don't understand. You should be asking a question, not posting fake agreement that dismisses the issue and tries to close that aspect of the conversation. And in the alternative if you understood everything correctly, then I'd be wrong -- I'd be misjudging the situation, arguing a point I shouldn't -- so the answer still isn't "Right".

The reason I was talking about you not understanding the method is because I thought you didn't understand it in *relevant* ways to this conversation. You seem to have agreed with me that you don't understand it in *irrelevant* ways. Why would I bring those up!?

you also unquoted my further explanation where i say your caveats are wrong and you don't understand 3 particular sentences. how is that not clear that we disagree or there's some kind of conflict or problem or something? but you selectively quote part of it then say "right". you're evading a dispute and you aren't curious about the stuff i say you don't understand. you aren't trying to think/learn, you're trying to cling to a narrative. it's so blatant. i say you're wrong about something and don't understand something and it's a short paragraph and you selectively quote the paragraph and try, ridiculously, to agree with me and leave it at that and say nothing new. (btw when i contradict what you already said, the answer isn't to quote it back to me as if i hadn't read it. i'm disagreeing with you on purpose. it's an argument. you don't seem to get that.)


> It's insoluble as presented because I know of no other way to think about it and present it.
>
> If I knew of a way to think about it and present it that was soluble, my guess is I would've solved it already. Like the hundreds of other problems in life that I am successful in solving.

it's extremely common to have problems that are in the middle ground of being neither solved nor insoluble from one's perspective. both problems you're working on and also problems you've heard of but aren't working on.

problems you've already solved were in this state previously before you solved them.

i think you believe a cure for cancer is possible. and a solution for aging is possible. those problems are neither insoluble nor solved. i'm confident if you actually thought about it you could easily list dozens more problems which are in this middle ground category you're denying and don't want to discuss problems from.

---

less stuck means e.g. you haven't just run straight into a wall and see zero options, you have various open leads to try (but it's still not going very well and you still aren't confident these leads will work).

also less stuck means you're putting less effort into staying stuck. there are some problems where, when you deal with that area, you put 99% of your creativity, effort, etc, into preventing a solution. then it's really hard to make progress. you're really stuck. but there are other areas where the figure is only 50% or 20% so you're less stuck, it's much more plausible to make progress.

---

> What does that [patient tolerance] look like in practice?

you shouldn't have written "that", it makes your question unquotable/answerable on its own. and as usual it's not even very clear what specifically "that" is meant to refer to.

an example is you fear spiders. while working on this problem you avoid visiting the spider exhibit at the zoo.

similarly if needles are that big a deal to you you could just not get a flu shot one year. that isn't really that costly and would provide you enough time to solve the problem before the next flu season if you were actually doing problem solving. (this patient tolerance thing works well when paired with problem solving, is not a recommendation for what to do with lifelong unsolved problems)

---

> what if part of you is being unreasonable and you don't know how to change or deal with that part?

you mean: what if YOU ARE UNREASONABLE and you don't know how to stop being so fucking irrational?

step 1, stop making excuses and downplaying it and trying to disown it.

step 2, learn philosophy and use it.

doesn't have to be done in this order.

---

note most of this is about AnonITA discussing badly. he's sidetracking the discussion instead of getting things focused on learning.]]>
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 00:03:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8443 http://curi.us/comments/show/8443
FF [Excerpt] Personal Information Sex: What are y Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:38:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8442 http://curi.us/comments/show/8442 SN Open Discussion > Another part is time investment. I don't want to get into something without seriously thinking I'll stick to it, I don't start stuff anticipating that I give up. So getting involved in a discussion means I'm committing myself to invest an unknown number of hours into finishing it. I don't think this is in itself bad, but...
> This combines with mistakes like thinking I need to reply to everything. This is a two-parter. One is something like people being mad/ignoring me if I'm not active enough. The other part is being annoyed at myself for being a "quitter".

I didn't complete my thoughts here.

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

Another idea to solving that is:
Have better criteria than "everything" for deciding what to respond to. Focus more on what discussion interests me first, follow the threads that I think will make a difference to me/improve my life.]]>
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:55:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8441 http://curi.us/comments/show/8441
SN Open Discussion >>So I'm ninja about it. Trying to subvert them indirectly, spy on them, learn their weaknesses, sabotage them. I'm a rebel trying to survive the authoritarian meme regime in the only way that isn't suicide.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

It looks like a big, dumb animal.

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

I've been trying out being more "relaxed" posting here (like, making jokes *at all*) to try some alternatives and see how they work out. In the least, I enjoy it more.]]>
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:45:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8440 http://curi.us/comments/show/8440
SN Open Discussion
They'll also have some broad knowledge of social, so they'll have a rough idea of what a lot of stuff means already. They'll also have a lot of stuff that, even if they don't know what it means really, they know it's typically safe to ignore (eg a lot of people make casual threats that are pretty meaningless).

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

Or 3) they have more interesting things to analyse]]>
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 18:43:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8439 http://curi.us/comments/show/8439
AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking
Right. What I said was "I'm not unfamiliar with that method. I think I know enough to talk about it and to make a guess about why I'm not currently able to use it effectively in some areas of my life."

> and what you presented about the needle problem is only loosely connected to your real life situation and basically designed to be insoluble as presented.

It's insoluble as presented because I know of no other way to think about it and present it.

If I knew of a way to think about it and present it that was soluble, my guess is I would've solved it already. Like the hundreds of other problems in life that I am successful in solving.

> [...] and don't seem interested in trying the method on stuff you're less stuck on.

I don't understand / can't apply the concept "less stuck".

The examples I listed were all situations I'd categorize as "stuck". There are different reasons for being stuck regarding boring HR classes than regarding needles. But I wouldn't consider either to be more or less stuck than the other.

There are other problems that I routinely solve or at least make progress on that I judge acceptable. I'd call those cases "not stuck".

I literally cannot think of anything to try the method on where I think I'm "less stuck". It's possible that the reason I can't think of anything because of lack of interest. But that's hard to judge.

> you could adopt an attitude of patient tolerance for your bad ideas as you work through them [...]

What does that look like in practice?

I think I know what the opposite of "patient tolerance" looks like in practice. With the needles example, it would mean go to an acupuncturist or donate blood or whatever. Deliberately seek anxiety-provoking exposure to as many needles as possible to habituate myself to them, so that flu shots cease to provoke an emotional response. Psychiatry routinely suggests that kind of shit as the "solution". I have rejected that approach.

But how would I implement "patient tolerance"?

> but the premise of your question is more or less what if you're being unreasonable?

True, but I think less helpful than a more specific characterization of my premise:
what if part of you is being unreasonable and you don't know how to change or deal with that part?]]>
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 11:56:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8438 http://curi.us/comments/show/8438
curi Scheduling and Thinking
i can't tell you solutions to your problem with needles, and various others, because you have not provided adequate information for me to figure everything out for you. (note it's very hard to provide adequate information about some problems.)

and what you presented about the needle problem is only loosely connected to your real life situation and basically designed to be insoluble as presented. your question really boils down to "what if i have 2 contradictory non-negotiable preferences. how do i solve that?" and the answer is more or less that solutions are only available to people who prefer problem solving to being stuck. if you're not willing to change your mind about anything then there are no answers. if you want to engage in problem solving you could learn to do that. if you choose to be stuck you can do that, and it's not fault of any method that you're choosing to stick to some bad ideas. you also deny responsibility for this choice which also isn't helping solve anything.

and you don't know how to create your own solution, and don't seem interested in learning the method including background knowledge, and don't seem interested in trying the method on stuff you're less stuck on. that's your choice. i think it's a bad one. anyway it doesn't add caveats to ideas.

you could adopt an attitude of patient tolerance for your bad ideas as you work through them (you won't fix them all overnight) and in the big picture being happy that you're making progress even though not everything is ideal in the short term. that'd be an example of a reasonable thing to do. but the premise of your question is more or less what if you're being unreasonable? and the answer is there is a rational problem-solving method which could help you, *if* you chose to be reasonable and use it. it is not a method of making you be reasonable if you don't choose to be though -- you have to want to solve your problems and choose to use the method, it doesn't make you use it, it doesn't somehow control you to prevent self-sabotage, self-destruction, etc.]]>
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 08:23:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8437 http://curi.us/comments/show/8437
AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking > How cheaply and quickly does this stuff work? Enough to not be coerced. Enough it's useable in your life.

It seems like this needs a caveat: The method works cheaply and quickly enough not to be coerced unless one of the sources of disagreement is emotions you have super-entrenched terrible ideas about.]]>
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 08:10:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8436 http://curi.us/comments/show/8436
AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking
I don't know how to apply this advice.

At a high level, there's roughly:
(1) problems I know how to solve and solve without self-coercion, and do in fact solve
(2) problems I don't know how to solve without self-coercion

I was asked for examples of the latter, so I gave 5 examples.

Then I was asked for more detail about one of the examples (shots), and also the method of avoiding coercion was brought up.

I thought it'd be easiest to discuss self-coercion in the particular example I was asked for more detail about. That's why I picked that example to discuss (and said so explicitly).

So, are you advising:
- That I should discuss only problems I already know how to solve without self-coercion?
or
- That I should discuss problems I don't know how to solve without self-coercion, but not one of the examples I gave?
or
- That I should discuss one of the other examples?
or
- Something else I'm not getting?]]>
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:28:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8435 http://curi.us/comments/show/8435
AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking
Re-reading the method I think what you're trying to say is that one of the pre-requisites of the method is not being met. From the method:
> We're only going to discuss avoiding coercion when both people want to avoid it

And in the case of the needle, the anti-needle emotions represent one of the people. And those emotions don't want to avoid coercion. So the pre-requisites aren't met.

If that's what you're saying, then yes I agree.]]>
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 10:26:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8434 http://curi.us/comments/show/8434
Anonymous Scheduling and Thinking Wed, 08 Feb 2017 10:20:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8433 http://curi.us/comments/show/8433 AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking
I think "it" above out to relate to different parts my statements, whereas you're treating "it" as a single thing.

My first statement ("Why do you think I'm not?") refers to what I'm *doing* in my life. I am solving lots of problems in my life. I deny that I'm not solving problems in the 99% of life where I don't have super-entrenched terrible ideas about.

My second statement refers to what I'm *discussing*. I am discussing the most problematic areas. And yes, I'm discussing those areas on purpose.]]>
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 10:15:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8432 http://curi.us/comments/show/8432
Anonymous Scheduling and Thinking
well you picked the needle example.

> I expect the return on discussing the most problematic areas of life to be higher than the return on discussing less problematic areas of life.

wait, so first you deny it, then you give a reason you're doing it on purpose?

anyway your emotions aren't a disagreement and aren't participating in the avoiding coercion method. they are not playing the role of a delegation at a mediation which has your best interests as a person at heart. they aren't willing to try to figure out the best thing for you. they aren't seeking solutions.

if you don't do the method -- if you don't seek solutions -- it won't work.

what to do about your unwillingness to do the method is a tricky topic. the solution is not to start stipulating that "given one part of me is active and rejects problem solving, avoiding coercion, reason, etc..." and think you're still doing the method. you have to have some part of you that is willing to do the method active and in control to do the method.

the problem you've brought up here isn't really about needles, it's about having ideas along these lines: "i want X bad thing and i won't negotiate this demand in any way. solve that!" and then you think you're in some way pointing out some flaw or limit or difficulty with rational problem solving.]]>
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09:58:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8431 http://curi.us/comments/show/8431
AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking I can't talk about everything at once. I don't think it makes sense to talk about both the avoiding coercion topic and the emotion topic at the same time. So ya, for purposes of the discussion I was taking the emotions as a given in order to talk about the avoiding coercion method. In doing so I thought I was relying on the instructions in the method itself.

From the avoiding coercion method:
> The method of constructing P2 goes like this: given we disagree about P1, what should we do? P3 is constructed like this: given we disagree about P1 and P2, what should we do?

Seems the whole point of the method is to take some disagreement as given. Not given forever, but given for now (which is what I was talking about). So it seemed entirely reasonable according to the method to take the disagreement between my emotions about needles and my explicit ideas about needles as given.

It's possible I'm misunderstanding the use of "given" in the avoiding coercion method. In that case please explain it to me. I didn't claim to be an expert.

> Why not start solving problems in the 99% of life he doesn't have super-entrenched terrible ideas about?

Why do you think I'm not?

I expect the return on discussing the most problematic areas of life to be higher than the return on discussing less problematic areas of life.]]>
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09:19:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8430 http://curi.us/comments/show/8430
Anonymous Scheduling and Thinking
It's: Given I'm *irrational* about X -- that is, not using rational methods like the avoiding coercion method to think about it -- then the method doesn't work for me about X.

It doesn't work when you don't use it. Whether you genuinely want to solve problems, or prioritize other things like being emotional, is a separate matter than the complexity and efficacy of this problem solving method. No method works when it isn't used.

Emotions are ideas. The "omg needles noooooooo" emotion is not participating in the avoiding coercion method. It's reaching conclusions in a different way. His ideas -- his thinking process -- isn't following the method.

He's clinging to non-negotiables on conflicting sides of an issue. One doesn't have to do that and should not do that.

Broadly, it takes a rational attitude to life to solve problems. Not e.g. being 100% non-negotiably in the thrall of arbitrary nonsense like "no needles because [no reason]".

Why not start solving problems in the 99% of life he doesn't have super-entrenched terrible ideas about? Start with the easy cases. Or does he have terrible ideas about most of life and no clue how to change or improve them?]]>
Tue, 07 Feb 2017 20:28:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8429 http://curi.us/comments/show/8429
Kate Scheduling and Thinking
first of all, assume that I'm bad at introspection, thinking, and solving problems. ok now that we have that all set, the “avoiding coercion” method doesn’t seem to work for me.

like in this example with the flu shot, i'm left facing a choice to either self-coerce and get the shot or self-coerce and not get the shot.]]>
Tue, 07 Feb 2017 20:03:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8428 http://curi.us/comments/show/8428
AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking
I assume the method you're referring to is the one described at:
http://fallibleideas.com/avoiding-coercion

If you meant something else, please let me know what you meant.

I won't claim a philosophically serious knowledge about the method I linked to. Not the least because I don't know what would actually meet that standard.

But I'm not unfamiliar with that method. I think I know enough to talk about it and to make a guess about why I'm not currently able to use it effectively in some areas of my life.

Since someone asked for more information about the shots example I'll use that one. What I don't like about shots is anticipating the shot and the shot itself. I have an emotional reaction that's best described as a combination of fear + disgust, at the thought or experience of a needle piercing my skin. This is just about the needle. It's not about what's going in to me (vaccines don't bother me as such, and I've taken i.e. some specialized oral vaccines for some stuff before traveling with no unwanted emotions). Nor is it about the possibility of blood (seeing blood, even my own, doesn't bother me). But even like stick pins in clothes or sewing needles do bother me in approximately the same way as flu shots. I have trouble trying on new shirts etc. until I make sure there are absolutely no pins in them. And BTW I've also looked into nasal flu vaccines and they haven't been available to me.

Anyway, I don't like/want those emotions about needles and I don't consider them to be the correct response to getting a shot of a vaccine against an unwanted disease.

But I have the emotions anyway, and don't know how not to have them. I have read http://fallibleideas.com/emotions but haven't made progress on these emotions. Which is a topic in itself, but back to the method.

P1 = Should I get flu shots each year?

My explicit ideas say get flu shots. I have strong criticisms of not getting a flu shot like getting the flu is a big productivity hit, it sucks, and could even lead to more serious complications or death. And I know flu shots aren't 100% effective but they're effective enough that getting one is better than not getting it.
My emotions say don't ever get any shot at all, including flu shots.

P2 = Given my explicit ideas about the flu shot and my emotions about shots disagree, what should I do?

If it's not yet the right time to get a flu shot, continue to think about it and work on the emotions until it's actually time to get the shot. OK fine, but as I said I hasn't been effective on the emotions. And time does eventually run out.

P3 = Given my explicit ideas about the flu shot right now and my emotions about getting the shot right now disagree and it's now the right time to get a flu shot if I'm going to get one, what should I do?

Explicit ideas say do it; emotions say delay further. Don't know any way to make the problem easier (I can't think of any effective P4). I either get it now, or I don't(1). So I just self-coerce, tell my emotions to STFU, get the shot, and once it's done I'm glad I did.

(1) "Now" is contextual. Sure, I could get the shot tomorrow instead of today. But ultimately too many tomorrows adds up to not getting it at the right time.]]>
Tue, 07 Feb 2017 17:16:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8427 http://curi.us/comments/show/8427
Yvette Felarca of BANM planned violence, riots at Milo's Berkeley appearance Alisa Today's Left is Especially Bad
The destruction in Berkeley at Milo Yiannopolous's talk on Wednesday was planned for by BAMN and other like-minded people. According to Yvette Felarca (quoted below), it wasn't just a few bad apples.

> This isn't a question of violent versus peaceful protest. I was there, and there were thousands of people out there who were united. It was a mass protest. It was a militant protest, and everyone was there to shut [Milo Yiannopolous] down. And so whatever it was going to take to do that, we were all there with a united cause and we were stunningly successful."

> We need to make sure that we have more mass protests, more militant protests that are mass and militant.

> [Wednesday] was people fighting united in a mass effort, in a united effort, and by any means necessary."

> Q: "So no regrets at all about what took place."

> A: "No. I think what we need to do we've got to draw lessons from this in terms of how we can build and build even stronger, how we can make sure that we build the movement, and also that we continue to organize, because it's not spontaneous. This is about organizing and fighting by any means necessary."]]>
Tue, 07 Feb 2017 14:14:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8426 http://curi.us/comments/show/8426
curi Open Discussion
> I was listening to Yaron Brook over the weekend and he said that he thinks George W Bush was a much worse President than Obama.

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

the ARI Objectivist camp is soooo broken.

the Branden and Kelley camps are sooo broken too. they are much worse in many big ways. they have less to do with Rand's views.]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 22:52:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8425 http://curi.us/comments/show/8425
curi Open Discussion
for Szasz's *comments*]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 22:48:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8424 http://curi.us/comments/show/8424
Molyneux Szasz Interview curi Open Discussion Mon, 06 Feb 2017 22:32:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8423 http://curi.us/comments/show/8423 curi Scheduling and Thinking Mon, 06 Feb 2017 20:42:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8422 http://curi.us/comments/show/8422 curi Scheduling and Thinking
yeah. and no general-case, straightforward solution to this is known.

for any given situation, there's a way to make progress. but it depends on lots of details of your situation like what resources you have and your preferences. and i don't know a ton about those. so i can't tell you what to do very well b/c there isn't just a generic answer and i don't know tons about you.

this is different than lots of other issues. should you hit your kid? NO. i don't need to know a bunch of details about your life to answer that one. i've got a one-size-fits-all answer which is easier to share with people.

> FI says not to coerce yourself?

FI doesn't say that. FI says there are always better options.

And FI says there's a way to always find better (non-coercive) options fast enough which people can learn and it's pretty small/simple, rather than something that'd take decades to learn. And it works as long as people use it rather than e.g. getting caught up in their irrationalities and doing dumb shit.

This is a big deal because it's fast enough and cheap enough in terms of resource use. The claim "Problems are always solvable given unlimited time and resources." is pretty easy for many people to accept and not that big a deal. It's easy to imagine if you had a few decades and a billion dollars to figure something out, there'd be a solution.

But there's a method for getting non-coercive solutions one can use in their life instead of only hypothetical solutions given more time/resources. (These are solutions to the standard of non-coercion, they don't solve everything. E.g. it doesn't mean you can build a nuclear fusion power plant cheaply and quickly. But you can cheaply and quickly *not be coerced* over your inability to build it.)

How cheaply and quickly does this stuff work? Enough to not be coerced. Enough it's useable in your life. And the method itself is pretty small and learnable, not something that'd take 500 years of study.

But anyway, what do you do if you don't yet know this method? Learn it. And if you find that coercive? Well that sucks. I dunno. FI doesn't have some clear statement about what to do about that difficult situation. It does not say "whatever you do, don't coerce yourself into learning how to deal with coercion." It says more like "good luck" and also e.g. "try to figure out what resources, abilities, etc, you DO have in your life and make progress with those".

And what do you do if you know the method but sometimes don't use it? Try to learn. But there's no super clear answer. The method doesn't guarantee you use it. It's a tool you can use. But for various reasons people often sabotage stuff, make bad choices, etc. What's needed is progress, self-improvement, etc. And in the meantime, uhh, things are tough. So it's really urgent to improve!

> Should I continue to keep intentional self-coercion off the table with regard to learning FI?

that's really up to you. but i don't know why you heard "there is a better way" as "never do your current way even before you know a better way, but only apply this limitation to learning FI stuff".]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 20:40:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8421 http://curi.us/comments/show/8421
curi Open Discussion
...

> ask questions to that side:

all 4 questions given are generic.

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

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

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

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

the "example" about makeup doesn't make the comment any better. one could write all the same points without that "example".]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 19:41:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8420 http://curi.us/comments/show/8420
curi Open Discussion
https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/5sd8a7/how_do_you_kill_a_tracer_when_you_sleep_dart_her/dde73l0/]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 19:27:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8419 http://curi.us/comments/show/8419
Anonymous Scheduling and Thinking
>I don't like getting shots. But I need to get routine vaccinations like flu shots. If I had waited until I felt OK with getting shots I'd have not done it in prior years and risked getting the flu, tetanus, etc. Instead I just make myself get the shots when it's time for them.

what's the issue here, exactly?

last time i got a flu shot i got it at the supermarket. so i went to the pharmacy counter and got a shot and then did some shopping and stuff. i was totally 100% fine with it. it was quick and convenient. and it's valuable cuz it reduces the chance of getting sick. and its not expensive. what's not to like?]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:27:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8418 http://curi.us/comments/show/8418
AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking
I don't like getting shots. But I need to get routine vaccinations like flu shots. If I had waited until I felt OK with getting shots I'd have not done it in prior years and risked getting the flu, tetanus, etc. Instead I just make myself get the shots when it's time for them.

I don't like re-doing status reports. Sometimes a big-wig at work wants a status report in a particular place/format. If after doing the socially calibrated level of pushback I'm allowed to do, sometimes they still want it. I don't want to do it, but I make myself do it anyway so I can keep getting paid.

Another work example is there's this yearly "class" HR requires in what I guess is fairly typical corporate PC bullshit. Don't harass your co-workers or do unethical shit blah blah blah. It's boring, I already know it, don't want to do the class. But I make myself do it anyway every year so I can keep getting paid.

I don't like doing taxes. I've hired the help it makes sense to hire (as an aside, too much / the wrong kind of help in this area can expose a person to unnecessary financial risk). I never feel like doing taxes, but I make myself do what I need to in order to neither pay a bunch extra to the government I don't have to, or be at risk for fines or tax evasion.

I don't like looking for things. I have processes and routines that mostly avoid the need to look for things. But sometimes those don't work. if I know I have something, don't know where it is and I need it and can't easily get another one, gotta search. I make myself do the search even though I don't like doing it.

Caveat: these are all examples that people might have suggestions on how to solve without self-coercion. Maybe some of the suggestions I haven't already thought of, but lots I probably already have. I'm not describing everything I have thought of or tried before self-coercion as that's not the purpose here.]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 13:25:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8417 http://curi.us/comments/show/8417
Kate Open Discussion
>but rather than just claiming, “that’s irrational, don’t give in to those sneaky, evil, tough meme bastards!”, try to approach the conflict rationally.

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

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

but rather than relying on willpower, it’s better to rely on knowledge. Ask questions, introspect, write stuff out, and *create knowledge*. Then you aren’t indulging nor ignoring. well, you might do some ignoring of some weird feelings, but you aren’t ignoring actual suffering and pain. i don’t think that’s a good idea.]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 13:19:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8416 http://curi.us/comments/show/8416
molyneux interview with szasz oh my god it's turpentine Open Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONvsKmiw1fI&feature=youtu.be&t=450]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:27:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8415 http://curi.us/comments/show/8415
Kate Open Discussion
>you need to *resolve* conflicts. not delegitimize one side by labeling it "static meme" and treating it as the enemy.

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

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

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

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

ask questions to that side:

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

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

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

but like don’t skip the knowledge-creating step and jump straight to labeling some ideas "enemy static memes", which you then try to ignore or suppress.]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:21:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8414 http://curi.us/comments/show/8414
curi Open Discussion
your ignorance of the Urban Dictionary website does not warrant a "wtf" response to people.

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

you're being a dumb jerk here.]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 09:37:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8413 http://curi.us/comments/show/8413
Anonymous Open Discussion
> But you're right that I do time management with other stuff too, and normally do it a lot better than with discussion. I don't have any problem eg fitting in a few hours of vidya or anime around sleep and work.

wtf is a "vidya"?
Videogames?]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 09:05:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8412 http://curi.us/comments/show/8412
Kate Open Discussion Mon, 06 Feb 2017 08:55:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8411 http://curi.us/comments/show/8411 Kate Open Discussion
this is vague. clearly and concretely, what does this look like?

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

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

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

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

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

give that side a chance to "say it's piece". does it have any explanations? can it answer criticisms of those explanations? if it's so sure of itself, what are it's arguments? hold it to a high standard. how does it do when you *think* and *use reason* on it? does it now start to actually look weak and dumb?]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 08:51:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8410 http://curi.us/comments/show/8410
Kate Open Discussion
>1) his whole fucking life is already pain anyway. the only difference with FI stuff is he doesn't have a ton of rationalizations about that pain. so what he's really doing is trying to conform to his existing rationalizations.

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

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

i wrote:

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

is the false assumption here the idea that people *create* the rationalizations? the quote just says they *have* them. it doesn't say they create them?]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 07:52:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8409 http://curi.us/comments/show/8409
Anonymous Open Discussion
already this is junk. you're assuming something false that wasn't in the quote.]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 07:40:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8408 http://curi.us/comments/show/8408
Anonymous Scheduling and Thinking
Can you give some examples of when you've done this?]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 07:34:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8407 http://curi.us/comments/show/8407
Kate Open Discussion
>this post has nothing to say and is all faking.

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

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

so anon wrote:

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

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

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

is this faking somehow?

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

and maybe since i didn't do that, then that means i was just wasting time thinking about a dumb question, while pretending to be thinking about something interesting? is that the faking you have in mind? or something else?]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 07:31:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8406 http://curi.us/comments/show/8406
Anonymous Open Discussion
the person who does little analysis is presenting themselves as the person who 1) has too much to analyze 2) lacks problems to solve via analysis.]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 01:53:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8405 http://curi.us/comments/show/8405
curi Open Discussion
there are **zero** FI posters who consistently respond fast.]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:41:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8404 http://curi.us/comments/show/8404
curi Open Discussion
i had downloaded the video about mental illness video but i've now deleted it unwatched. even worse than i expected :(

and i'm suspicious he's attacking Frozen instead of Lord of the Rings because children especially like it. it's typical to try to take away whatever children like, e.g. video games.]]>
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:36:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8403 http://curi.us/comments/show/8403
SN Open Discussion
>They really wanted me to get defensive

If I was being serious, I'd have said "I really wanted to get defensive".]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 23:54:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8402 http://curi.us/comments/show/8402
SN Open Discussion >> here's my take: nobody's discovered a reliably pain-free way to go from an irrational mentality to a rational mentality.

>1) his whole fucking life is already pain anyway

*cries* (jk)

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

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

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

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

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

I get a lot of joy out of beating the memes when I do overcome them. I think it's something like these big painful barriers in my mind breaking down, bit by bit. I guess that's why I laugh, it's laughter of relief.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 23:50:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8401 http://curi.us/comments/show/8401
molyneux on mental illness oh my god it's turpentine Open Discussion >
> Published in 2011. I didn't watch much of it. Quotes szasz @12:56

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

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

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyGmJ-q7fEY]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 23:50:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8400 http://curi.us/comments/show/8400
SN Open Discussion
>don't you run into the same problem with other stuff too? e.g. you like a TV show with several seasons of episode. you've watched 5 episodes. you want to watch the rest of the episodes, but also want to sleep and work. now you have to do time management!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not posting at all because I can't those standards, is worse than being active and not meeting them.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 23:29:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8399 http://curi.us/comments/show/8399
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 05 Feb 2017 22:36:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8398 http://curi.us/comments/show/8398 Kate Open Discussion
the following comment isn’t about SN. idk about him. my comment is on the broader issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

>2) his static memes are designed to punish him with bad feelings for anything which is a threat to them. so if he respects those bad feelings basically he's just obeying his static memes and is totally fucked. no solutions will come from static meme compliance.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 21:47:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8397 http://curi.us/comments/show/8397
Stefan Molyneux: There is No Such Thing as Mental Illness Alisa Open Discussion
Published in 2011. I didn't watch much of it. Quotes szasz @12:56]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 20:28:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8396 http://curi.us/comments/show/8396
Anonymous Open Discussion
1) his whole fucking life is already pain anyway. the only difference with FI stuff is he doesn't have a ton of rationalizations about that pain. so what he's really doing is trying to conform to his existing rationalizations.

2) his static memes are designed to punish him with bad feelings for anything which is a threat to them. so if he respects those bad feelings basically he's just obeying his static memes and is totally fucked. no solutions will come from static meme compliance.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 19:40:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8395 http://curi.us/comments/show/8395
curi Open Discussion
broadly, conventional lives involve schedules which are incompatible with being very interested in things and pursuing them intensively. it's another way it keeps people trapped in shit. and liking stuff a lot and pursuing it a lot, even if you do have time, is deemed a mental illness: mania. what you're supposed to do is only pursue interests in half-hearted unserious ways. with a few exceptions for socially-approved interests like you can practice a fuckton to play football well, then it's not mania or obsession or whatever.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 18:57:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8394 http://curi.us/comments/show/8394
curi Open Discussion
don't you run into the same problem with other stuff too? e.g. you like a TV show with several seasons of episode. you've watched 5 episodes. you want to watch the rest of the episodes, but also want to sleep and work. now you have to do time management!

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

so why do you present this as some kinda discussion problem?]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 18:52:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8393 http://curi.us/comments/show/8393
Anonymous Open Discussion
what if SN replied to this with some of the same kinda stuff he's been saying above. what's your rebuttal? here's what i have in mind:

my imaginary SN says back to you: but asking questions, including in my own mind, causes me lots of suffering. so i'm going to go make a bunch of progress without that since suffering won't work. i'll just go do some other (unspecified) stuff which will (somehow) fix my problems enough so that i can like question asking, then start doing the questions you're advocating which i agree sound pretty valuable (but only valuable if you can do them without suffering).]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 18:48:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8392 http://curi.us/comments/show/8392
curi Presupposing Intelligence in Epistemology
I'm not very familiar with ARI's denial of this but ARI is terrible on lots of things so I'm unsurprised. Note Binswanger banned me from his forum for arguing with him about epistemology. http://curi.us/1930-harry-binswanger-refuses-to-think

Ayn Rand was a fallibilist, and being a fallibilist was the number one thing that got me banned from HBL.

BTW I have some criticism of Objectivists in my bad scholarship blog category: http://curi.us/archives/list_category/77

For example: http://curi.us/1615-aris-false-statistics

If this was simply a mistake it wouldn't be that big a deal. But it's not. It's a pattern of being *and staying* wrong. There's no error correction, no listening to critics and fixing mistakes. They don't have mechanisms to stop being wrong about minor things like this or more major things like their very wrong and dangerous over-estimating of the Democrats. (I talked with Binswanger about that too. He was ignorant of a lot of facts and political writings and unwilling to educate himself or discuss it in a serious, detailed way. E.g. he didn't know much of anything about Alinsky, Soros, David Horowitz and Front Page Magazine, Breitbart, etc. And his grasp of the facts about Trump was heavily biased by the eftist mainstream media he gets his facts from and he didn't want to learn from primary sources like I do. He gets fooled by stuff like Nate Silver and the New York Times. He thinks he already knows they're biased but then he accepts far too much of what they say and gets fooled anyway, which is pretty common among non-intellectuals too.)

I don't know about this "universal consciousness" thing but they're very very wrong to advocate for open borders which will destroy the USA. Laws need to be enforced and letting in criminals and terrorists is bad! And we can only take in a limit amount of people until we repeal a lot of welfare policies! They actually come off kinda like libertarian anarchists on immigration, IMO. And more generally they really hate religion and they like prestige and social popularity and status, and those two things both bias them heavily to the left wing. The left has all the prestigious intellectuals. These same people also care a ton about getting PhDs, publishing in academic journals, etc. And the left controls the universities! And academic journals are mostly trash and peer review is in many cases basically a scam with an inflated reputation. But so many supposed Objectivists really want to impress people and be influential. They're such second-handers. Oh and of course Ayn Rand herself wasn't hateful of Christianity in the way these people are, she was reasonable about it. The supposed followers of Ayn Rand, like ARI, aren't getting their mistakes from Ayn Rand who was so consistently great.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 18:26:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8391 http://curi.us/comments/show/8391
PAS Learning Overwatch The FCC used to require a morse code test for any ham radio license with HF privileges. The first level ("Novice") test was at 5 wpm. By the time I was involved, those seeking to meet it almost never were interested in learning the code for its own sake. Voice and data modes were far more interesting than morse code (also called "CW" for continuous wave)

At 5 wpm it is possible to copy down the raw code as it comes in by writing dots and dashes. Then you can take as long as you care to decode the dots and dashes into text. Since this technique is known, not prohibited on the test, and most people just wanted to pass the test, that's what they did.

Which is, as the book suggests, a terrible way to start if your aim is getting to higher speeds. You have to hear the sound combinations as letters. It's kind of like learning a foreign language with only two sounds (di- and dah-) that combine to make letters instead of words. You write down the letters and then when you're done, read it back to make sense of the message. It's about as easy to copy morse code in a language you don't know as one you do (as long as it uses the same alphabet) - just when you get done you can't make sense of the message!

If the FCC was going to have a test at all they should have made the first bar too fast for writing dots and dashes. That would've been better for people getting actually proficient with CW. But there was a desire to "not make it too hard" to get more people into the hobby and so the disaster that was the 5 wpm test.

Fortunately the FCC has dropped the morse code test requirement and now the people learning morse code (at least for ham radio) are doing it solely because they want to. Personally, I'm not interested in it and never was. A computer does a far better job of CW encoding and decoding than a human can anyway and that's been true since at least the early '90s. But if you are interested there's plenty of training apps and people to chat with on-air.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 17:31:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8390 http://curi.us/comments/show/8390
AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking I think I need to start by discussing whether to rule out options that involve intentional self-coercion.

From a discussion I'm not involved in: http://curi.us/1950-open-discussion#c8387
> nobody's discovered a reliably pain-free way to go from an irrational mentality to a rational mentality.
> [...] you don't need to always take your emotions so seriously or let them completely control your life. you can try disrespecting them a bit while you're trying to learn and improve, and see what happens.

My current problem with FI is not "pain" per se. I don't find the posting I do here, or on FI list, painful. If nothing else, it's a fun & interesting break from other stuff I do. I think it's more than that too - I get good insights sometimes, learn helpful stuff, etc. But point is, I'm not currently making myself do anything here that I don't want to / feel like doing.

But as has been observed in this thread, what I do on FI isn't really serious either. I think taking FI seriously would be painful/coercive.

Like when someone recommends reading and discussing philosophy books. At any given time I've tried that, I don't want to / feel like doing it. So I don't.

Or when someone recommends pursuing a few threads to completion rather than letting them drop. I don't want to / feel like doing that. So I don't.

etc.

I know FI claims that by taking FI seriously I could change how I feel about doing stuff like the actions FI recommends for learning FI.

But it's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem: how do I seriously learn FI if I never want to / feel like doing the things that it takes to seriously learn FI, and FI says not to coerce yourself?

BTW, I don't think I avoid intentional self-coercion in any other area of my life that I take seriously.

It's not like all of my days are filled with intentional self-coercion. Far from it. But if I judge that something really needs to get done in some non-FI area of my life and I don't want to do it and I can't find another way to deal with it fairly quickly...oh well. I just make myself do it anyway. And usually afterwards I'm glad that I did, and things turn out better for me than if I hadn't.

One of the (not fully developed) criticisms I have of FI's coercion concept is that it seems to me the more successful people in the world have the right mix of BOTH doing stuff they really love to do AND making themselves do some things they don't want to but are nevertheless important to their success. I realize FI disagrees with that view, which is one reason why I've exempted FI from deliberate self coercion.

Anyway, my question is:
Should I continue to keep intentional self-coercion off the table with regard to learning FI? Or should I consider options that include making myself do some things that I might not want to / feel like doing at the time?]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 16:28:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8389 http://curi.us/comments/show/8389
Learning morse code Alisa Learning Overwatch
> "The first step in learning the code is to memorize the dot and dash combinations representing the letters. They must not be visualized as dots and dashes, however, but rather should be "auralized" as sounds. There is no such word as auralized, but if there were it would express the correct method of grasping the code. The sound dit-dah (meaning a dot followed by a dash) in the head telephones must impress your mind directly as being the letter A, for instance, without causing black dots and dashes to float before your eyes for an instant. This is a point that always troubles beginners, but if you learn from the first to recognize the sounds as letters immediately without reverting to dots and dashes, you will make much better progress."

This book suggests that it's faster to learn to "read" (listen to and understand) Morse code by listening to the letters at a fast enough speed to allow you to easily hear the distinct sound of each entire letter, rather than learning their individual dot-dash patterns and trying to decode the letters that way.

The way I would have tried to learn, which I guess is the common, inefficient way, is to first memorize the alphabet symbols, then learn to hear each letter slowly (5 wpm? - morse code is measured in "words per minute" where a standard word is 5 letters, so if you add a space after each word, that's like 30 letters per minute, and each letter consists of multiple dots and dashes), then keep increasing the speed until I'm "reading" at a regular/traditional speed used for communication (25-50 wpm?). Apparently a lot of people people who try that approach get stuck at lower speeds, though. They struggle to break through the "barrier" They learn to think about morse code in ways that work for slow speeds and find it hard to get up to 10 or 12 wpm.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 16:22:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8388 http://curi.us/comments/show/8388
Anonymous Open Discussion
>I'm very sure that OCD is very good for someone who knows how to engage in it effectively and doesn't (like me) have a bunch of terrible ideas that obstruct it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

if you get help defusing some of the emotional landmines that are causing you to fail at making progress, that might set you up well for more progress down the road. its worth a try at least. much better than current plan.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 14:03:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8387 http://curi.us/comments/show/8387
Anonymous Open Discussion
>Asking questions would probably help the wannabe pilot. But it's not impossible for him to succeed without doing that

it's impossible for him to succeed without asking lots of questions (at least in his own mind) and getting answers to those questions. he has to create knowledge of how to fly a plane and that involves asking questions. and if he's gonna be asking questions anyway, he might as well do it in the most efficient and effective manner possible]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 12:19:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8386 http://curi.us/comments/show/8386
SN Open Discussion
One of the issues I have is time pressure. I want to sleep, I want to work, etc. This has come up for me a few times since I started discussing here this week.

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

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

What a disaster.

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

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

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

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


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

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



Exactly what I'm thinking over is something else I want to explore, but *I don't have time for this* (jk)
I'll think about it and post later. I suspect there's a major problem causing this stuff I end up thinking over.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 11:53:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8385 http://curi.us/comments/show/8385
Anonymous Open Discussion
wtf? no. that doesn't follow at all.

a fair number of people think you're a horrible failure if you don't get into and attend an Ivy League college and graduate summa cum laude. I think that's crap.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 11:50:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8384 http://curi.us/comments/show/8384
Mrs Christine McNulty Presupposing Intelligence in Epistemology
This is also the opinion of Prof. Steven Pinker who wrote the popular and much acclaimed book, 'The Language Instinct'. I think the ARI's leading lights would agree with Pinker.

However, Rand chooses to quote John Locke, who said, humans are born tabula rasa. They have to learn to speak, to think - and to acquire their humanity.

I say language is not an instinct. It is the antithesis of instinct. And I can prove it. As Rand said, humans are not born with an automatic suite of stereotyped behaviours.

This is where the ARI intellectuals go wrong. They are in thrall, for whatever reason, to the notion that there exists a universal consciousness and that if the peoples of the world can just all link up, sans borders and sans annoying nation states, all will be well and peace will prevail. They see a world government - no doubt with themselves advising a bunch of ex-dictators and deracinated politicians on the virtues of rational egoism - in sole charge of a docile flock of lesser but grateful intellects.

Hubris? I think so! Utopian? definitely! Dangerous? Yes!

Chris]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 11:49:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8383 http://curi.us/comments/show/8383
Anonymous Open Discussion
>Imagine someone wants to fly a plane.

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

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

trying to live life without FI (including incorporating FI crit into your efforts at taking small beginner steps) = trying to fly the plane without knowing what you're doing in your analogy.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 11:48:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8382 http://curi.us/comments/show/8382
curi Presupposing Intelligence in Epistemology >
> Will someone give me a platform?

this is a platform. you're welcome to post here.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 11:26:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8381 http://curi.us/comments/show/8381
Mrs Christine McNulty Presupposing Intelligence in Epistemology
Volitional consciousness, and its 'development' (note, I do not say 'evolution') from instinct-driven animal consciousness, has not yet been explained. It remains an enigma. Rand's definition of the role of language is an important insight and was the jumping off point for my research. Some of my writing on the subject has been published in the UK's popular weekly magazine, New Scientist.

As a developmental biologist, I have thought this through - but when, on a number of occasions, I have raised the question with Harry Binswanger, I have encountered cynical dismissal. Over many years as an Objectivist, I have come to the conclusion that the ARI is not interested in furthering the two areas of knowledge that Rand believed would be important, when more fully developed: neuroscience and mathematics. They are!

I want to explain how - and why.

Will someone give me a platform?

Warm regards,

Christine]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 11:24:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8380 http://curi.us/comments/show/8380
Anonymous Open Discussion
when you consider basically everyone a horrible failure, wouldn't pretty much ANY criterion for declaring people a horrible failure seem accurate to you?]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 10:38:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8379 http://curi.us/comments/show/8379
Anonymous Open Discussion
>Ok, but a period not posting isn't a good measure that they are not engaging.

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

this applies even when people are engaging in discussion of FI ideas a bit in some non-FI-list medium. because in that case, they are not doing FI list for SOME reason which is causing systematic problems for their life and their learning of better ideas. they aren't avoiding FI list by coincidence. they are avoiding a culture of criticism and rationality because big parts of their personality hate it.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 10:31:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8378 http://curi.us/comments/show/8378
SN Open Discussion
> that showed some kinda error in judgement about what you expected other people to find non-notable and instantly agree with.

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

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

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

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

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


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

But in something like a blog or email discussion, it seems like it's not worth doing and I can just treat it more conversationally and find out the disagreements as I go. Then if I wanted to write an essay about what I'd learned in the discussion, I'd include what I'd learned about what premises are relevant and what premises contradict the content.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 10:30:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8377 http://curi.us/comments/show/8377
Anonymous Scheduling and Thinking
more to lose = more to lose IF YOU DON'T MAKE PROGRESS.

you automatically lose if you don't make progress because problems are inevitable so you always need rapid progress or you're fucked. so if you have a lot to lose, that's incentive to make progress!!!!]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 08:45:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8376 http://curi.us/comments/show/8376
Mysterious person Scheduling and Thinking
>Rand's life, Trump's life, Hitler's life, my life, and a crack whore's life are (or were) all problematic. True, but misses the point. Some people have a lot more to lose than others. They have a lot more to lose because they've done more good things in their lives than people with less to lose.

>I think having more to lose matters to what problems they should work on solving and how they should go about that work in terms of things like risk and starting over.

you need to keep making tons of OPEN ENDED progress or u r dead. so having some good things going isn't an argument against making open-ended progress...

actually, having a lot to lose makes it MORE URGENT that you make open-ended progress, if u look at it a certain way...

Having a lot to lose means you've got some good stuff going on already. Which means that what you could reasonably accomplish in your life is more than someone with way less good stuff going on -- they'd have to roughly get to your level first before considering better stuff, and that could take lots of time.

But that means your near-term opportunity cost of doing stuff besides making progress is way higher than theirs.

Like if a loser welfare recipient learns enough good values to become self-supporting, that is great progress, good for him. If he doesn't he just stays a welfare recipient, and that sucks. But it doesn't affect stuff a bunch if you have one less welfare recipient and one more low wage worker. He'll need to make more progress than that if he really wants to have a good life (and not just a not-super-awful life)

OTOH if a person who isn't a loser fails to make progress, they could be giving up the possibility of actually doing something really interesting and worthwhile in the fairly near term!

Or like, thinking of civilizations ... if you are some shitty primitive tribe, and you don't make progress by e.g. instituting liberal ideas, that sucks, you're missing out, but basically its just status quo. you're already pretty close to the bottom rung of what's possible in terms of human existence, and you're staying there.

OTOH if Western civilization doesn't make progress and learn how to defend itself against leftism and Islam, we'll be literally giving up the somewhat near-term possibility of SENS and nanotech constructors and Mars colonies, and plunging into a new totalitarian dark age. Sad!]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 08:01:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8375 http://curi.us/comments/show/8375
Anonymous [Excerpt] Parenting TCS is the true parenting Sun, 05 Feb 2017 05:17:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8373 http://curi.us/comments/show/8373 Anonymous [Excerpt] Parenting TCS is the true parenting Sun, 05 Feb 2017 04:53:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8372 http://curi.us/comments/show/8372 Anonymous Open Discussion
that passage was already discussed above. the reason for writing that was already talked about above. you are not expressing any criticism of that reasoning. you're re-expressing an initial position (you already wrote about that specific passage earlier and haven't said anything new now) but you're not being responsive to what was said after your initial position.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 01:15:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8371 http://curi.us/comments/show/8371
Anonymous Open Discussion
when you act like something is a *background assumption* -- like how you'd write about cars having a paint color and being able to drive over 30mph -- that's an attitude of expecting agreement with it. you didn't even like state it as a claim or part of your argument. you just wrote *as if* it were true. that showed some kinda error in judgement about what you expected other people to find non-notable and instantly agree with.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 01:13:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8370 http://curi.us/comments/show/8370
SN Open Discussion Sun, 05 Feb 2017 01:09:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8369 http://curi.us/comments/show/8369 Anonymous Open Discussion >>> Your posting style is one of the problems.
>>
>> This was addressed to anon in #8339.
>
> what about the posting style?


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

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

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

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

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

Is it better to examine premises first before an argument, or argue then find out premises are different because the argument doesn't work?]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 01:07:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8368 http://curi.us/comments/show/8368
Anonymous Open Discussion
I don't know what you think constitutes doing this, and you don't provide quotes and analysis of how those quotes do it, nor do you provide clear examples like a hypothetical dialog.

I take it you think some text in this thread did this and that's the reason you're bringing it up. but you aren't explaining your point clearly when you don't mention the text you're actually talking about.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 00:53:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8367 http://curi.us/comments/show/8367
SN Open Discussion > #8354 this comment is boring due to lack of examples. it accuses some unspecified authors of making some mistakes with zero quotes of any text SN alleges makes the mistake.

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

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

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

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


Another try:

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

I have these problems with it:

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

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

3. it's also very negative and can seem hostile, it seems like the critic is just creating wild accusations out of nowhere (especially for someone who doesn't know much about conventional mistakes)]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 00:45:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8366 http://curi.us/comments/show/8366
curi Open Discussion
> This was addressed to anon in #8339.

what about the posting style?]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 00:17:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8365 http://curi.us/comments/show/8365
SN Open Discussion
>> I didn't.

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

Fair enough.

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

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

It would have been better if I'd focused on the details of the style that was the problem, I didn't need to talk about the person doing it directly.]]>
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 00:12:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8364 http://curi.us/comments/show/8364
SN Open Discussion > The method (read Rand, try to understand it yourself) basically doesn't work. Engaging with other people who've read Rand helps dramatically.
>Why? Because errors come up as you read -- e.g. misunderstandings -- and you're trying to deal with them all on your own.

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

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

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

I'm trying to be more focused in how I approach my problems, tackling a small number at a time rather than taking on lots and putting them in a queue.]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 23:49:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8363 http://curi.us/comments/show/8363
curi Open Discussion
you could talk in terms of reform, self-improvement, learning better ideas and problem solving.]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 18:06:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8362 http://curi.us/comments/show/8362
curi Open Discussion
this reminds me of all the times people say i write mean/bad/whatever stuff, but have zero quotes to discuss which contain the supposed flaw.]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 18:05:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8361 http://curi.us/comments/show/8361
curi Open Discussion
> > you've provided no evidence of this. you believe it but why do you expect anyone else here to believe it? that you expect us to believe it shows you have a perspective mistake.

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

When you premise an argument on something, it suggests you do expect people to accept that premise. Otherwise the argument wouldn't work for them.]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 18:01:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8360 http://curi.us/comments/show/8360
curi Open Discussion
> I didn't.

stop writing "you" a lot then. it sounds like you're making assumptions about who is who. and it's often unclear who you mean.]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 17:58:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8359 http://curi.us/comments/show/8359
curi Open Discussion
i just took a look at the page and was unable to figure out what text there you were referring to and what your point about it is.]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 17:57:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8358 http://curi.us/comments/show/8358
curi Open Discussion
Millions of people have read a bunch of Rand on their own without big results. Many of them benefitted a little and I don't want to say it was a bad activity or anything. But almost none of them became decent philosophers or some big result like that. And of those people who didn't learn a lot, many *think* they did.

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

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

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

Even if there's a 60/40 split on some issue, it's a big help to find out about the other popular interpretation of that issue. You might consider it and prefer it. Even if you consider the other view and decide it's wrong, it can help you analyze the issue in more detail.]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 17:52:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8357 http://curi.us/comments/show/8357
curi Scheduling and Thinking
one option is to read and discuss philosophy books.

if you don't like it and some others, there's always the option of discussing options. you could post some options you're aware of and what you don't like about them, and ask about other options you don't know about and ways to modify options you do know about to fix your complaints.

i don't want to give you an introductory list of options here because i think it'd be a waste of time since i think you already know some and it'd be better to move on to the next step of the discussion.]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 17:42:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8356 http://curi.us/comments/show/8356
SN Open Discussion
> you are ignorant of some ideas on this topic.

Like what?


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

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

You dropped context.

Right before that I said:
> My bad ideas

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

If you've got better phrasing other than talking my ideas as "them", what is it?]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 16:30:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8355 http://curi.us/comments/show/8355
SN Open Discussion
An approach I've seen here, and also seen on FI in the past, is assuming that someone is conventional and wanting to be convinced to treat them as anything but.

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

This is boring to respond to.

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

2. I think it requires me to know well what conventional people are like, in order to understand the conventional mistakes I might be making. I don't know conventional people well, and I don't think that's interesting to learn about.]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 15:58:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8354 http://curi.us/comments/show/8354
SN Open Discussion
I'm struggling to process the number of anon posts. I suspect there are multiple anons and that's confusing me because I'm trying to connect them for context. I don't think it's impossible to do this, but it's a layer of complexity that is hard work and is not very interesting to work out (and maybe I'm doing it needlessly and anon posters aren't expecting me to connect their contexts anyway).

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

If you want me to retain context to an anon post, either make yourself recognisable (eg "anon1", "anon2", etc) or tag all previous posts that have your context.]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 15:50:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8353 http://curi.us/comments/show/8353
AnonITA Scheduling and Thinking
> actively seek to be/become more of a thinker.

Suppose I agree this would be a good thing. What concrete steps would I take?]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 15:19:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8352 http://curi.us/comments/show/8352
SN Open Discussion
> > So why am I making progress anyway?

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

I don't expect you to just believe anything.

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

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

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

Ok it's unclear.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

I didn't.

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


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

NP.
I don't expect you to reply to anything, let alone everything.]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 10:53:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8351 http://curi.us/comments/show/8351
SN Open Discussion > if the goal is to be able to interact with FI without suffering, seems like you should have come back more regularly to get feedback on how your new approach is working. e.g. even feedback in the form of “ok. i still feel bad. this still is isn’t good enough. let’s trying something else.”

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

I have quite a bit of writing to myself that I intend to post about on FI.]]>
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 10:18:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8350 http://curi.us/comments/show/8350