Improving the world is hard. At least I've tried tons of stuff. You know a giant book series like The Wheel of Time? I've written way more than that about philosophy in lots of different styles and formats. I've tried tons of different approaches.

Most people won't try much. They aren't good enough to improve the world. You have to know a bunch of stuff before it makes sense to teach others. You need high quality knowledge, well above average, before you should put much effort into spreading it. People get stuck at the part where they need to learn good ideas themselves.

Some people in the TCS/FI community think they know stuff, but still don't do much. Doing they find doing stuff hard? What's hard about it? If you find it hard, there's problems there you don't know how to solve... Learn more!

People can be so passive. They can spend years and years not learning or doing much. It's sad. It makes the world kinda empty. Passivity leaves the memes in control, so all the passive people are kinda the same and sorta aren't really acting entities. They sorta are. They're still people. But it's iffy.

People don't communicate much. Maybe they think no one cares? Why not try anyway? The FI people do stuff. They play games, they date people, they do parenting activities, they make big career decisions, they go on diets, they hang out socially with friends, they watch movies, and so on. They just don't talk about it. They don't think it through or have questions or comments about their life, and they don't try to get criticism and advice to do it better. What the fuck?

I think they talk with their personal friends in private more. Everyone living in their tiny little world when the public internet is right here. But the public is scary because people like me will point out mistakes. Rather than try to improve their mistakes, they hide and live static lives. And they put a lot of their effort into pretending they are pretty rational people learning stuff and making progress and solving problems, rather than actually doing it. They pretend that being able to deal with public criticism is a really high standard, and actually they're doing quite well to the lower-but-high standard of their 5 buddies who think they're quite smart.

And people are so caught up with the standard stuff that fills your life:

• childhood
• school
• career
• dating
• marriage
• parenting/family
• travel
• socializing (IRL events and also Facebook, Instagram, etc)
• food
• exercise
• getting a house and filling it with appropriate stuff
• entertainment (TV shows, movies, watching sports, YouTube)
• the news (there's a kinda standard set of stuff people follow like some politics, some crime, some economic issues, really inaccurate articles reporting on recent "scientific" claims)
• sometimes some Activism for some Cause
• sometimes reading (mostly fiction or popular shallow books)
• retirement

And some of them tried to find good ideas for a bit when they were age 15-25 or so. And they found a lot of disappointment. They read a few books and blogs on philosophy, rationality, improving the world ... and found crap. (Some rejected the crap, others were fooled by it.) They tried talking with people about ideas and it wasn't productive. Some people blame others (sometimes mostly correctly, often very arrogantly) and some know they aren't that great themselves.

Lots of people made some effort to learn about critical thinking, philosophy, etc. And they found bad philosophies. They found Plato and Kant. Quite a few people still kinda liked it and kept trying even though it didn't help them with life. But then they start paying their mortgage and needing to get their car repaired and still get their kid to baseball practice and they can't take a day off work because they were sick for a whole week last month. And so they move on. They finished their education. They finished the phase of their life where they were actively pursuing new ideas (many people never do that, but quite a few do).

Schools really beat the curiosity out of people. Professors are so awful and really discourage anyone from trying to be a good thinker or know much, and point them in the wrong directions for where and what and how to learn.

People under 15 or so don't have much control over their lives and really need to avoid conflict with their parents. So it's hard to interact with them and share ideas. Around 15-30 is when people make some decisions of their own and kinda set up their life and coast from there. But they're already so fucked from 15 years of torture and indoctrination by their parents and teachers.

Lots of people assume someone else knows what they're doing or has it together. Children usually think adults do. Adults sure pretend to and put a lot of work into deceiving children. People aren't very inclined to think they are – or even could be – anyone special or important. That makes it hard to recruit for a community about being exceptional.

i figure it'd be useful to write about how to learn cuz ppl suck at it (and i know about it and like the topic). including how to discuss. ppl suck at asking questions, conceptual thinking, using examples, replying at all, choosing topics, knowing when they understand something (they often think they're done learning something when they're still pretty much clueless) etc, etc

it takes ppl tons of effort to do a little bit of stuff (e.g. learning) badly cuz they use their effort badly.

but if i start with this ppl:

• don't know how to learn it
• don't care, aren't very interested, want to get on with "practical" life

even if they say they care and read it, they usually still don't put much effort/study into it to actually understand it. just superficially look it over.

if i write instead about something people care about – let's say, diet – then ppl don't learn the concepts i'm using. they don't learn to think for themselves, judge ideas well, or figure out the next issue. and they may disagree with me about diet for badly thought out reasons and then have no clue how to seek the truth.

lots of how people judge ideas – about diet or anything – is by whether other people say the author is good. (e.g. gave him a PhD or an award or some praise). i don't want to compete at that stupid approach.

solutions? best approach?

People think changing emotions is really hard and limited. They have a bad perspective. These two stories help:

In the UK they drive on the left side of the road, in America on the right side. Alastair (who's British) was visiting America and traveling around by car. This quite a while back before smartphones, GPS, computer maps, etc. Signage was a lot worse. Driving was newer and the rules of the road were much less well known.

Alastair was driving on a small road out in the countryside with no one around. Suddenly another car comes along, around a bend. It's coming right at Alastair! He slams on his breaks. The other guy slams on his breaks. They stop just short of each other.

Alastair gets out of his car and starts yelling. "What the hell are you doing? Get on the left!"

Alastair is mad as hell. He's really steaming. This fool came pretty close to killing him. Alastair's seeing red. He's considering punching the guy.

The stranger gets out of his car. He's mad too, and yelling. He shouts, "The right! Drive on the right!"

And all of a sudden, Alastair wasn't mad anymore. He saw he was in the wrong.

The moment Alastair recognized intellectually that he was mistaken, his anger disappeared. Instantly he felt sorry and started apologizing.

Fortunately, once Alastair admitted he was in the wrong instead of yelling, the other guy didn't feel threatened anymore and relaxed a little bit. When Alastair explained he was from Britain, and they drive differently there, the stranger saw what happened and his anger faded too.

The lesson is that very strong emotions can change in an instant to match your intellectual view on what happened. E.g. if you're mad about someone's mistake, but you realize (with total clarity) that you were the one who made a mistake, then it's common to immediately stop being angry. And it's common to completely stop being angry with no lingering anger and no effort to suppress any anger.

This is not guaranteed. Some people would stay angry. But a lot wouldn't. It's completely achievable to dramatically change emotions like this in accordance with reason.

The second story comes from William Godwin:

let us suppose a man to be engaged in the progressive voluptuousness of the most sensual scene. Here, if ever, we may expect sensation to be triumphant. Passion is in this case in its full career. He impatiently shuts out every consideration that may disturb his enjoyment; moral views and dissuasives can no longer obtrude themselves into his mind; he resigns himself, without power of resistance, to his predominant idea. Alas, in this situation, nothing is so easy as to extinguish his sensuality! Tell him at this moment that his father is dead, that he has lost or gained a considerable sum of money, or even that his favourite horse is stolen from the meadow, and his whole passion shall be instantly annihilated: so vast is the power which a mere proposition possesses over the mind of man. So conscious are we of the precariousness of the fascination of the senses that upon such occasions we provide against the slightest interruption.

In other words, in the heights of sexual lust, people will forget all about sex if you tell them their father died, tell them they gained or lost a lot of money, or tell them their horse was stolen. People are so familiar with the fragility of sexual emotions that they take steps to avoid interruptions.

Read the whole chapter, The Voluntary Actions Of Men Originate In Their Opinions. Actually read the whole book, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice And Its Influence On Morals And Happiness. Godwin was one of the all time greatest thinkers. Not for his time (1756-1836), but period.

There's a new tape out. Trump said some rude stuff about women in the past. Trump has issued a great apology.

The left is attacking Trump. The media is attacking Trump. And a variety of Republicans are attacking Trump too:

Mitt Romney tweeted:

Hitting on married women? Condoning assault? Such vile degradations demean our wives and daughters and corrupt America's face to the world.

My reply: Why aren't you this mad about the much worse things the Clintons have done?

Ted Cruz tweeted:

These comments are disturbing and inappropriate, there is simply no excuse for them.

My replies:

1) Hillary's said much worse in public. Can we hear more about that? You don't have to attack a Republican every time the media is really mad.

2) Do you find #TrumpTape surprising? If so you're dumb. If you already knew he was like this then nothing's changed, so focus on immigration

Jeb Bush tweeted:

As the grandfather of two precious girls, I find that no apology can excuse away Donald Trump's reprehensible comments degrading women.

My reply: Why don't you attack Bill Clinton's reprehensible, sexist actions and Hillary's reprehensible comments about them?

David Horowitz's reply to Bush:

What an asshole. And there are many out tonight. This is a guy who will put his arm around Bill Clinton who actually raped & groped women.

Can we please try to win the election instead of sucking up to the outraged media? Hillary will do her best to destroy the country. Trump will do his best to Make America Great Again!

If Hillary is elected it'll materially increase the chance of civilization being destroyed (we're at war and Obama has been trying to lose, a policy Hillary will continue). And it'll mean tens of thousands more die in the war even if we win.

As just one of the issues that matter: Hillary will continue the Obama policy of helping Iran acquire money and weapons (including nuclear weapons and missles that can hit the US). Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism, wants to destroy the West, and has been actively taking steps to harm the West (including killing lots of people) for decades. And, by the way, a lot of women will be treated very badly when Hillary enables radical Islam to conquer and hold more territory.

Bill Gates:

"Our priorities are tilted by marketplace imperatives," [Bill Gates] said. "The malaria vaccine in humanist terms is the biggest need. But it gets virtually no funding. But if you are working on male baldness or other things you get an order of magnitude more research funding because of the voice in the marketplace than something like malaria."

Malaria already has a great solution called DDT. Gates is upset that people aren't spending a ton of money on difficult scientific research to address a problem which doesn't directly affect their lives and is caused by governments.

We don't need a malaria vaccine, we need the governments of rich countries to stop depriving poor countries of the wonderful, cheap anti-malaria technology we already have. The West has killed millions of third world poor people. There is a genuine lack of empathy here, but Gates isn't pointing it out, he's just attacking capitalism which isn't at fault for government technology bans.

And the other side of the issue is the governments (or lack thereof) in third world countries. Why do they get malaria when we don't? Because they are poor. They have too many swamps and too little civilization. And why are they poor? Lack of capitalism. Lack of liberalism. Violence. Bad governments that don't provide law and order. Corrupt governments. Local thugs who won't being stopped by the police (and sometimes are the police).

Bill Gates ought to know about this. He's a major philanthropist. But you can't just throw money at a country full of corruption, violence and theft. Then you're just giving money to the thugs. (Or if not money, then food, medicine, etc.)

Richard Branson:

Capitalism is a system that has offered opportunities and success to millions, but it’s time it helped all people and the planet thrive. As Paul said: “When we begin to put justness on par with profits, we get the most valuable thing in the world. We get back our humanity.”

Translation:

Capitalism is a system that has offered opportunities and success to millions. But lets stop now while there are still billions of poor ppl in China, India, etc, who want opportunities and success. Fuck them, all my friends are rich enough.

Elon Musk:

Elon Musk personally cancels blogger's Tesla order after 'rude' post

What a bastard who doesn't like criticism, doesn't value customers, doesn't have the ethos of "the customer is always right", and isn't willing to treat business transactions impersonally.

Imagine if Kellogg's wouldn't sell cereal to some health food blogger who criticized their sugary cereals. That'd be ridiculous and wouldn't fit the wonderful capitalist attitude of not messing up a trade for mutual benefit over some separate issue.

Musk again:

The path to the CEO's office should not be through the CFO's office, and it should not be through the marketing department. It needs to be through engineering and design.

There should be more than one path to the CEO's office!

Musk doesn't respect money and profit. CFOs tell you if you're making or losing money. In other words, are you wasting resources or creating more than you use? And he doesn't care about that. He pursues massive government subsidies while pushing expensive solar power.

And disrespecting the marketing department is bad too. The marketing department is the communications department. You have to communicate the value of your product to people. Making something people understand and want is important.

Musk again:

It's not as though we can keep burning coal in our power plants. Coal is a finite resource, too. We must find alternatives, and it's a better idea to find alternatives sooner then wait until we run out of coal, and in the meantime, put God knows how many trillions of tons of CO2 that used to be buried underground into the atmosphere.

We have a lot of coal left. Switching isn't just the sooner the better. Why does he refuse to consider prices? As we start getting low on coal then prices will go up and we'll switch efficiently. He wants to just switch now, never mind price. He doesn't care about economic efficiency. He doesn't understand the basics of capitalism.

I consider Brandon Sanderson the best fantasy author. Unfortunately, despite being a Utah Mormon, he's got a bunch of trendy lefty ideas. They help him fit in with other writers.

I just saw something even sadder. He's really anti-criticism:

... A famous author once said to me early in my career, “Don’t worry. If your book works for me, I’ll talk about it. If it doesn’t, I just won’t say anything.”

That has always stuck with me as being the best way for another writer to approach reviews. The last thing that authors need is to feel that someone prominent in the field is gunning for them.