Questions
This is an open thread for asking and answering questions.
Want to discuss this? Join my forum.
(Due to multi-year, sustained harassment from David Deutsch and his fans, commenting here requires an account. Accounts are not publicly available. Discussion info.)
Messages (168)
are sweat shops bad?
are sweat shops really as bad as people say they are?
many aren't.
there's a key point to consider:
**are the workers there voluntarily?**
if they're slaves, if they're there at gunpoint, if there's a threat to murder their families if they run away ... then yes it's as bad as people think. worse, actually.
but if they are choosing it as a job that they think is worth the pay, and better than the other jobs they can find, then they consider the sweat shop to *make their life better*.
part of what's going on is the rest of their life may be worse than most people realize. they see the sweatshop as a place they wouldn't work, so they think it's bad. but for someone in a much worse situation it could be an improvement.
What is FI's view on Iraq War now?
The Iraq War 2003
saddam hussein was a violent, dangerous thug who was violated law and treaties. he had ongoing participation in violence against the US, among others. he was an active, large, unignorable threat. force against him was justified many times over.
the war would have gone a lot better except the Democrats are traitors who started a campaign of sabotage.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0039PU9XQ/?tag=curi04-20
You think ISIS could have been prevented even after destabilizing the region?
The liberals say ISIS wouldn't have happened if Saddam was still ruling.
No Saddam and no ISIS was possible
How should we treat failure?
Should we not care about result before attempting something?
Are there any objectivist motivational speakers?
> How should we treat failure?
kindly because problems are inevitable. stuff's gonna go wrong. that's alright. look to improve on mistakes, learn from it.
> Should we not care about result before attempting something?
it's good to care about things in life. it's also good to have some flexibility, be able to change your mind after you get new information.
> Are there any objectivist motivational speakers?
idk, sounds likely. but *good* ones? i don't think so.
I read a lot of Hitler Jokes and WW2 Documentaries.
What are the cons of using Hitler references carelessly?
Would it be anti-Semitic even if I didn't mean any harm to jews?
I used the salute for LG last time she didn't like it either.
jews? seems mean to *curi* to bring him up with Hitler.
Why don't you write a book summing up everything you have learnt?
If they have questions/confusions after reading the book they can discuss it on FI.
Instead of repeating everything for every new FI member.
book
Elliot has already written collections of essays that can be read as a unit at
http://www.fallibleideas.com
People new to FI can read the essays.
Why write a book? Books are hard to change. If somebody pointed out a flaw in the FI essays, Elliot could easily change them.
> Elliot has already written collections of essays that can be read as a unit at FI
But they don't tell you how to think in those essays.
Most of the good stuff is given drop by drop at the Yahoo Group.
> Why write a book? Books are hard to change. If somebody pointed out a flaw in the FI essays, Elliot could easily change them.
Maybe an ebook.. he can update the versions when mistakes appear.
what audience, specifically, should this new website/ebook be written for? who should it be targeted to? which problems people have should it address and which should it omit?
writing a one-size-fits-all book is a fantasy.
there have to be criteria used to decide what to include and what to leave out.
Why do some members of FI avoid using capital letters?
> what audience, specifically, should this new website/ebook be written for? who should it be targeted to?
1. People who are new to philosophy
2. People who want to learn how to think.
3. People who want to understand your version of Objectivism.
> which problems people have should it address and which should it omit?
Problems that most second-handers face.
Problems that prevent people from thinking.
> writing a one-size-fits-all book is a fantasy.
It need not contain everything.. just the intro to objectivism and getting the right attitude towards learning & thinking.
capital letters are slightly more work to type. and they make your writing look more formal, fancy, prestigious.
in some ways, audience targeting needs a lot more detail than that.
> 1. People who are new to philosophy
this provides some guidance. e.g. if I have a point from Popper I want to use, I have to explain it first. they don't already know it. and the same with Mises, Godwin, everyone.
that's problematic because i can't explain everything in one website or ebook. there's too many things.
i could put in footnotes and be like "for more explanation of this topic, and some arguments, see chapter X of book Y" but most people would never actually follow one reference like that, let alone the 500 the ebook would end up having.
> 2. People who want to learn how to think.
why do they want to learn how to think? this point indicates they already know something. they have some good idea, some virtue, some good value, something positive.
how do i write the ebook to engage with this good thing they already have? to build on it, refer to it, relate discussion to their good thing? i can't without knowing specifically what it is.
more detail is needed.
i also have concerns about how many people are in this audience and my ability to find them and get my ebook in front of them. maybe there's 500 of them in the English speaking world and i'll find 2, and sell 50 copies of my ebook over 5 years, 2 of which go to the right audience (and i manage to have 48 sales to the wrong people)? that sounds bad. (these numbers don't count the sales to some existing FI people)
> 3. People who want to understand your version of Objectivism.
i don't see how to write things targeted to this without knowing their reasoning.
and i think there's zero people like this outside the FI community. no audience!
they won't already want to understand my version of Objectivism unless they've heard of me and know something about it. in which case, if they really cared, they'd already be reading my websites or joining FI or something.
also i've already tried going to lots of Objectivist discussion places and I found very limited interest and people sucked.
> Problems that prevent people from thinking.
while people could be described as sharing a lot of problems (e.g. 100 different people are all irrational and all share some of the same static memes), they don't share solutions. when they're each 99.99% stuck, the things that could get them unstuck are very specific and vary for each person. the positive things in each person's life and mind (good ideas they already have, resources available, etc) that could be used in a solution are different from person to person.
> It need not contain everything.. just the intro to objectivism and getting the right attitude towards learning & thinking.
that's a huge amount. that's like explaining more than half of current epistemology knowledge, lots of Objectivism, and a bunch about psychology and memes and liberalism. and for beginners you have to put in a million examples and make every little point super clear individually and super clear about how it fits with every other point and how points work together. IMO that's like 500 books worth of material, not 1.
*and* there's still the audience problem.
**and** there's the problem that i don't know how to explain these things in a way that will work for many people (no one ever has known it. Popper, Rand, DD, etc, could not do it. they never wrote a book that more than a handful of people really understood well. Rand may have sold millions of books but where's a single blog by a non-FI person, who didn't know Rand IRL, who seems to actually really thoroughly get what she was saying? i'd take answers in formats other than a blog too. i've so far found *none*.)
What should I do to prepare myself for FI?
did you read much Rand yet?
> did you read much Rand yet?
I started reading Rand with VoS after Rami recommended it to me. It was hard for me so I stopped.
Then Elliot told me to read all the books and discuss/blog about it.
When I told that to Rami he told me that discussing while reading the book is more effective than discussing after reading all of it.
I have nibbled all the books and read none of them completely.
When FI started reading Anthem I nibbled that too.
Maybe I should read in this order Anthem > We the living > Fountainhead > Atlas Shrugged > Who needs philosophy >>>>
The above comment was mine FF ... phew
Under one minute.. Phew
I was focused on replying and forgot to sign.
You shouldn't freak out. There's nothing to worry about.
If you make a mistake, admit it, discuss why it happened, discuss how to fix it going forward. If you do that, nobody good will judge you badly.
> Maybe I should read in this order Anthem > We the living > Fountainhead > Atlas Shrugged > Who needs philosophy >>>>
better list:
Anthem > Fountainhead > Atlas Shrugged > for the new intellectual > Who needs philosophy
we the living isn't a priority.
you can discuss them at http://curi.us/1857-open-thread-objectivism-discussion
> Why don't you write a book summing up everything you have learnt?
>
> If they have questions/confusions after reading the book they can discuss it on FI.
>
> Instead of repeating everything for every new FI member.
if people don't care enough to find information the way it's currently organized (FI posts, blog posts, essays, etc) then they aren't going to learn much anyway.
I am thinking of creating notes for remembering important stuff people said.
When you talk to someone a lot you can't remember everything.. I remember very little.
I thinking making notes about them and their quotes will be helpful in future discussions.
If I call someone a socialist/evil person and do not have any quotes to back my claims that would be bad.
What do you think of the Turkey Coup?
Do you like Erdogan?
How does Elliot deal with disappointments?
His students on FI seem to be disappointing him. A lot are not understanding what he said.. Making him repeat stuff.. and still not correcting themselves.. writing non-answers etc..
What does Elliot feel when he sees such stuff?
you try some stuff and then if it doesn't work you adjust and try some other stuff.
Should you let google remember your passwords?
You use VPN right? What other stuff do you do to protect privacy?
I use Tor, Bleep, Ghostery, ABP, Betternet etc.
Do you use an email server like Hillary Clinton?
Curi@curi.us is short, sweet and private..
I don't want the google ( gmail ) or the govt to spy on me..
Can normal people get private email?
my emails like curi@curi.us are using Google Apps.
my websites are on linode.
What do you think of Whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden?
Should people overcome their fears and disgust?
Like should people eat insects and touch spiders?
My Question #6295.. Is it a bad question?
Did I ask that before? Does FI has no opinion on them?
Should we try to find CPs in all scenarios?
In what cases should we not find CPs but do what we want?
What goes inside Elliot's mind when he is dealing with horrible people?
Does he have complete control of his mind & feelings?
I get hurt a lot when people are presenting their worst selves to me.
Elliot seems to face a lot of crappy people on overwatch. Do you get less hurt than normal people?
personal questions are problematic
> personal questions are problematic
How is it problematic? I didn't ask your address or phone no!
Don't you want to tell us how you control emotions and feelings in your mind?
> not necessarily. you could pretend the problem is solved when it isn't. you could shut it out of your mind and forget about it. you could pay attention to something else and focus on the other thing. there are lots of ways to move on from a problem besides solving it.
Is this what you do when dealing with horrible people?
no
Is mnemonics any good?
Should we use it?
> btw when looking at food prices, a good metric is cost per calorie: $/calories.
I look at quantity,quality and whether I like the food or not.
What if I don't like the food which is cheaper per calorie?
What if the quantity is too little to fill my stomach? Fried foods fill up calorie requirements even before they fill your stomach.
>lots of people sorta habitually think of calories as a bad thing. so they will actually spend more money to get fewer calories.
> whatever you can say about that, it's not the most money-efficient way to eat. the most money efficient approach is get as many calories as you can per dollar. if u eat 1750 calories per day, then the fewer dollars it takes to get that much the better.
What if the food is unhealthiest of all foods?
Some say that not all calories are the same. What do you think of that?
Eating whole wheat bread to get 1750 calories is said to be healthier than eating oily or sweet stuff.
> people should think of calories as how much fuel energy a food has. the more food-fuel you buy per dollar, the better deal you're getting (disregarding other factors like taste).
Wouldn't I be forcing myself by disregarding taste?
Mnemonics are useful for people who enter memory contests, where the objective is something like, recite the most digits of π (at a certain minimum rate of digits per second) or remember the order of all the cards in a deck of shuffled playing cards.
> What if I don't like the food which is cheaper per calorie?
then don't buy it.
> Eating whole wheat bread to get 1750 calories is said to be healthier than eating oily or sweet stuff.
stop listening to propaganda myths about "healthy" food and "nutrition". it's fake science.
> > people should think of calories as how much fuel energy a food has. the more food-fuel you buy per dollar, the better deal you're getting (disregarding other factors like taste).
> Wouldn't I be forcing myself by disregarding taste?
you are illiterate. you just legitimately can't read the text.
it means it's a better deal in terms of one factor but not other factors. it doesn't mean you should disregard taste.
> stop listening to propaganda myths about "healthy" food and "nutrition". it's fake science.
I ignore most of the "New Study Says" stuff, organic & superfood stuff.
But I do believe that slow digesting carbs are better than carbs that gets absorbed quickly. Is that fake science too?
> you are illiterate. you just legitimately can't read the text.
You have called that to others too on FI. So it didn't hurt me now.
Yes, My comprehension sucks.
> But I do believe that slow digesting carbs are better than carbs that gets absorbed quickly. Is that fake science too?
yes. TONS of the "health" stuff is. you can't trust anything telling you how to eat.
> yes. TONS of the "health" stuff is. you can't trust anything telling you how to eat.
So what should I follow instead?
> Glycemic index, GI, is calculated based on how quickly carbohydrates in food lead to an elevation of your blood sugar. The faster carbs rank in a food digest, the higher the glycemic index; the slower they rank, the lower the GI. Glycemic load, another measure of how carbs are digested, reflects the overall level of digestible carbohydrates in food without regard to how long they take the digest. Glycemic index and glycemic load interact to describe how your body digests carbs in food and give an estimate of how your body will handle carbs. A food with both a high glycemic index and high glycemic load may elevate your blood sugar higher than your body can handle, disrupting hormone and metabolism and leading to an elevation in body fat.
Source: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/different-between-fast-carbs-slow-carbs-2306.html
follow this instead:
step 1: eat food you like.
step 2: only consider any changes if you actually have a clear problem in your life.
step 3: only make changes directly relevant to the problem you're trying to solve. only believe info that makes sense to you *and* only after you seek out criticism of it and look for flaws.
> For centuries, artists produced ‘memento mori’, works of art that would remind their viewers of death and usually featured a skull or an hourglass. The point of these works wasn’t to make people despair, but to help them use the thought of death to focus on the real priorities. Vivid reminders of mortality and the transient nature of life put our prosaic obsessions into question. When measured against the finality of death, the true insignificance of some of our worries is emphasised and we’re given an opportunity to feel a little braver about what we really want and feel.
I think this is similar to what Steve Jobs did. Thinking of death to do what is more important to us.
http://www.thebookoflife.org/memento-mori/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A7VrTxuZIE
Crit? Anyone?
Why do you dislike long sentences?
Is it because they(Long sentences) hide confusion and lack of understanding well?
long sentences are more confusing and confused. less clear, readable.
Ayn Rand life video "Draw my life" style By The Atlas Society
https://www.facebook.com/AtlasSociety/videos/10154157345240351/
What emotions/ideas block people from progress the most?
maybe dishonesty and disinterest.
Why are we wiser when we advise or crit others and dumb otherwise?
Will talking to yourself as a different person (like giving advise to yourself) help?
> Why are we wiser when we advise or crit others and dumb otherwise?
check your premises. and speak for yourself.
> check your premises. and speak for yourself.
I am speaking for myself & others who experience it.
Why does that happen?
when you write "we" you speak for others.
> Why does that happen?
> > check your premises.
> when you write "we" you speak for others.
Okay.. But what is the answer to my question.
Why does that happen? You didn't answer that.
in #6479 i quoted your question and put an answer below it. i answered it for the second time. you are so blind you still cannot see it.
literally i quoted your question and answered below it, and then you re-ask the identical question, word for word, and declare i didn't answer it.
you act as if the text i replied to you with literally doesn't exist. you are broken.
> in #6479 i quoted your question and put an answer below it. i answered it for the second time. you are so blind you still cannot see it.
You told me to speak for myself and check my premises.. You didn't answer about why we get overclocked when we give advise to others. I couldn't apply your reply to my question.
You appear hostile to people because you use words a hostile person/a bad parent/bad teacher would normally use. like :- You are retarded, you are so blind, You are illiterate, You are so stupid, bitch etc. People need some time to know that you are not actually angry when you say these words.
A teacher/parent shouts at us stupid, retarded & blind all the time and that makes us associate such words with an hostile or angry person. and that we are supposed to obey such people inorder to avoid such insults.
People usually also get a kick from abusing stupid people/losers.
People/me also think that I am not really(completely) illiterate,stupid,blind or retarded..
Haven't you found any alternative words not used by an abuser?
PS: Rami has explained to me that getting hurt doesn't solve any problem.. So I don't get hurt but I still find it a little weird that you didn't find any substitute to abusive words..I am also used to it because other greats are also getting insulted on FI + people have told me you are not angry or sadistic.
LG critted me harshly a fortnight back but I was calm and relaxed.. it didn't hurt me.. I am getting better at not getting hurt but I don't think I am using a good method though.
The stupid method I use
Useful crit: Use it..
Non-useful crit: your singing sucks ( I don't aspire to be a singer and I don't care if you like it or not so I don't get sad)
I googled the meaning
> If you seem to be confronting a contradiction, then at least one of your relevant beliefs is false.
How does this answer my question?
tralala
can i post?
The above comment is **NOT** me. #6500
I am not trying to impersonate LG
> can i post?
why? it sounds like a bad idea to me because you have a history of trying to hurt people via your posting, such as by trying to out anonymous posters. you also have a history of getting angry.
cause
cause i am not dead yet like the rest of your followers.
and FF is posting my stuff anyway and gossiping about me. and you still seem to consider me "FI community" since you gave me crit on your post.
my anger keeps me alive.
without anger i'd be dead inside.
i don't know how to get rid of it without killing everything else.
how does my anger affect you if you are not second handed to be affected?
can't you ignore a person with a bad tic? ignore my anger.
why said my story was shitty. now that's not ok cause i am badly affected by other ppl. not ok to abuse ppl's flaws. i like my story.
and you shouldn't censor yourself from crit if you truly value it. you shouldn't just get crit from people who you think are already good enough. you need crit. your followers do not give you crit. they didn't even correct your spelling on the psych app, remember? i did. your best friends do not give a fuck about you.
i can't win you at your arguing game.
i kinda miss fi that's all. i'm stuck in limbo. i can't be a common mortal. i can't be fi. i don't have a world to live in.
FF is worried
> The above comment is **NOT** me. #6500
>
> I am not trying to impersonate LG
lol you're cute when you worry like this
i think elliot would not trust your word on this, he'd have to use his own means
> can't you ignore a person with a bad tic? ignore my anger.
anger = wanting to hurt.
trying to hurt people isn't ignorable. it means putting creativity into attacking. defense is required.
trying to out anonymous people is an example of something that can't be solved by just ignoring it.
> and you shouldn't censor yourself from crit if you truly value it.
that's not the issue. and if you'd just write public blog posts i could read your crit there.
i don't think you want to compete over typo corrections. it's silly and i actually have received lots of typo corrections from various people, often privately. some people like offering help with typos because they are bad at offering value in other ways, but that is something they can do rather than nothing.
> lol you're cute when you worry like this
> i think elliot would not trust your word on this, he'd have to use his own means
He should use other methods but he accused me of impersonating in some post without doing that.
I should clarify when I can. He should also check IP data..
>> can't you ignore a person with a bad tic? ignore my anger.
>
> anger = wanting to hurt.
i disagree.
anger is just an expression of hurt. i use it to defend myself not to attack.
how can i hurt you with words? you're immune to that kind of stuff.
> trying to hurt people isn't ignorable. it means putting creativity into attacking. defense is required.
in what way do words hurt ppl?
> trying to out anonymous people is an example of something that can't be solved by just ignoring it.
you outed sarah and tih.
i can't out anon ppl just by saying "hey, this person is x"
there was no evidence. it was harmless.
i disagree being anon is positive thing and don't like being anon to keep a good reputation with me in their own name of for whatever their purpose is.
if you don't want me to be part of fi anymore don't comment about me anymore. don't call me "fi community"
Leonor: leave. You're not welcome here.
FF: don't use my blog to post other people's private info. if you want to betray leonor or others, do it somewhere else.
why am not welcome here?
why do i upset you?
stop talking about me on FI and calling me FI community then.
leave me alone if i'm not welcome in your life.
it is not fair to crit me and then not want to hear from me.
no, i'm not opening a blog for you and your followers to trash me anonymously. go away.
you're the ones who want to hurt me.
and you didn't crit any of my objections no reply. that's irrational. just "agree with me or go away" attitude.
i have really good crits of you that would help you move fi forward and you don't want to listen. your problem.
don't lie to ppl and say you believe in public crit. you only want crit of ppl you already value.
Leo: you are banned. you are trespassing. leave.
> FF: don't use my blog to post other people's private info. if you want to betray leonor or others, do it somewhere else.
I don't want to betray LG or anybody.
I think sharing philosophy for crit is very important.. I shouldn't accept info without crit.. LG feeds me a lot of info and crits about FI.. I argue back and only accept stuff that I have full clarity..
If I can't put her essays to crit without her permission I should ignore them right?
Accepting them without crit is dangerous.
if i'm banned i'm not FI community so stop talking about me like i was. agreed? leave me alone if you want to be left alone.
You recommend getting a Microwave a lot on FI.
My previous microwave disappointed me a lot so I am unsure about it.
I found all the other options Grill, convection and combos to be shit features. I was stupid and expected it to function like a true convection and grill oven.
So I think getting a Solo Microwave without extra features is good. What do you think?
I add FF all the time.
Is there anymore more I can do to persuade FI members to reply?
Should I stop posting my Ill-informed ignorant thoughts here?
I think some of my posts on Iran and others (LG,Trump,Elliot) made me sound like a troll here.
anymore = anything
Path forward? Any suggestions?
Writing my post on the notepad first and checking whether I am being a troll or not might be helpful. What do you think?
Maybe I came off as hostile and creative in trying not learn. I seem to have posted a lot of garbage instead of asking clarifying questions and being curious.
" i recommend people stay the hell away from him. "
How can change this? There must be some path forward?
you could review some of the problems you've run into and consider solutions and write about what you come up with.
Problem: LG wants me to agree on her opinions on FI but doesn't want me to put them up for crit. Anonymous finds it slandering I think.
Solution: Ignore the stuff LG says if I am not allowed to put it for crit and noone wants to crit it here.
Problem: Curi & anonymous finds my views on Iran dangerous.
Solution: I shouldn't overreach and post evil ideas I haven't fully understood. I should stick to stuff I understand.
Problem: Me Posting crap
Solution: I should post to Curi only when I am in learning & Thinking mode.
What do you think?
No comments?
Did I say anything wrong/offensive? How should I proceed?
My comments on some FI post:
> as usual it's utter bullshit to make claims like this about particular
past discussions without quotes and references. no one can argue with
you. you're just saying something happened sometime. no details.
Trying to crit something while not knowing or trying to know. Is that the problem here?
Making Claims and feelings based rant without good arguments or quotes.
I too may have that problem. Many seem to have it. Ofcourse in every case it is different.
I want to avoid doing that. I think giving FI the benefit of doubt and posting claims about FI only after clearly understood FI and gathered quotes will solve the problem.
> you're a nasty hater who wants to attack FI rather than worry about
being rational, objective, truth-seeking, etc.
I seem to be appearing like a hater too. I don't want to be a hater.
&
How do you know whether the person calling you a hater is not saying that to avoid crits?
you frequently quote incorrectly. look at your post. see how it's wrong? plz stop doing that.
> you frequently quote incorrectly. look at your post. see how it's wrong? plz stop doing that.
I used to be worse before. I think avoiding the errors that I made above need more effort. I don't really know why this happens. My guess is that people add weird spaces and stuff and it gets unquoted. Maybe posting it to an email application/word and pasting it here might help.
Reposting with proper quotes
My comments on the FI post:
> as usual it's utter bullshit to make claims like this about particular
> past discussions without quotes and references. no one can argue with
> you. you're just saying something happened sometime. no details.
Trying to crit something while not knowing or trying to know. Is that the problem here?
Making Claims and feelings based rant without good arguments or quotes.
I too may have that problem. Many seem to have it. Ofcourse in every case it is different.
I want to avoid doing that. I think giving FI the benefit of doubt and posting claims about FI only after clearly understood FI and gathered quotes will solve the problem.
> you're a nasty hater who wants to attack FI rather than worry about
> being rational, objective, truth-seeking, etc.
I seem to be appearing like a hater too. I don't want to be a hater.
&
How do you know whether the person calling you a hater is not saying that to avoid crits?
Why did someone say this " you could review some of the problems you've run into and consider solutions and write about what you come up with."
if they had no intention to reply and continue the discussion? Strange..
I don't know what I am supposed to do!!
don't be so helpless. get your own motor to power your life.
> I don't know what I am supposed to do!!
you're begging for some authority to run your life for you.
> don't be so helpless. get your own motor to power your life.
I am not talking about my life. I am talking about not getting banned and getting my questions answered.
> you're begging for some authority to run your life for you.
I am trying to find a path forward. Nobody wants to comment. It would have been better if Curi let me be anonymous.
Can I be anonymous?
Can I stop signing?
I have sent clarifications to Rami.
Reply to Curi's latest post on me
> you should think about that. put some effort into it yourself instead of expecting me to do all the work and deal with it.
>
> asking me to think about what's to be done isn't helpful. what would be helpful is if you came up with some good ideas.
>
> you're asking me to put more time and attention into this which is the opposite of helpful.
>
> also you're the one who had a relationship with him you deemed suitable for bringing him here. you figure out how to use it to stop him.
Rami is in no way responsible for anything.
You should send your grievances directly to me instead of talking indirectly through Rami. You are creating paths for miscommunication and misunderstanding.
I am trying really hard to be reasonable and fair.
> PS Rami invited FF into my life.
Rami kinda invited a person.. You know who.. (GL) who harasses me a lot. Do I blame him? No
GL = Holmes Leonard
Did you get the email I sent to Rami yet?
> He managed to drag Leonor (who is banned, dangerous and unwanted) into comments.
I didn't exactly drag her.. I mentioned that I forwarded her crit to Curi Blog and she asked your permission to post on your blog > You said it was a bad idea > she continued talking on the blog > you told her to go away or something > she left
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-The-American-Inquisition-466949
Why do people want to be BDS bigots? How do they rationalize it to themselves?
Your VPN PIA looks too inexpensive. 3.33$ while others are charging a minimum of 8.32 after all the discounts.
A lot of these review sites are recommending the much expensive Express VPN. I am confused.
Have you encountered any problems while using PIA that I should know about before subscribing?
Express VPN charges double.. I don't want to pay double just for nice looking website and app.
I will try PIA for one month and see.. I will use it for Torrents..
http://best10vpn.com/private-internet-access-vs-expressvpn/
I think PIA has a lot of users and that helps them be cheap. I have used them for years and it's worked great.
On FI, curi wrote:
> so basically the advice is you do a good job for years and your traffic grows gradually.
>
> but i've done great work for 15 years and haven't gained much web traffic, list members, or audience.
>
> it's partly because i lose audience members with criticism.
>
> it's partly because i aim high and people are more comfortable aiming only slightly above their current ideas.
What does it mean to "aim high"? Are you saying that what you're discussing is too advanced / not useful to them?
> it's partly because people don't understand and don't want to make the effort to learn lots.
>
> it's partly because my stuff is counterintuitive to people in our culture and contradicts lots of stuff they feel certain they already know.
>
> but anyway ... now what? what's to be done?
For me personally, feelings of shame are a big issue with generating ideas/criticisms. I get the impression it's common among others as well.
If someone can't get past feelings of shame / embarrassment / defensiveness when hearing criticisms of their ideas, it's going to be very unpleasant and difficult for them, and they won't learn much and you'll lose them before long.
I wonder if there are other major / blocking issues like shame (e.g. major philosophical disagreements). If these blocking issues aren't addressed early on, the ongoing content in the discussion group / blog / etc are fruitless for those people and they leave.
> What does it mean to "aim high"? Are you saying that what you're discussing is too advanced / not useful to them?
no it means i have high standards. like i think stuff should be good or great. and other ppl think it should be mediocre and call that "great". and they don't like the criticism that their stuff is mediocre, not good or great. they don't want to deal with that. they want to pretend the stuff they already have is great instead of try to do better.
there are many, many large blocking issues that would be good to address first. but you can't address them all at once. and usually a single person has many large blockers, so you try to talk about one and another gets in the way. so you switch topics and a third one gets in the way. so you speak to it and then the first one gets in the way...
"shame" is also not the actual issue. if i told you shame was unhelpful, so stop feeling it, would that help? no. from what you say, i read you as already knowing that. but you have trouble making no change. there are things involved with not changing your feelings about shame other than shame, such as your epistemology. it's really quite complicated. and the details vary a lot for different people and those details are relevant to solutions.
> making no change
i meant "making that change".
and i meant shame isn't actually the full issue. it's the tip of the iceberg.
> there are many, many large blocking issues that would be good to address first. but you can't address them all at once. and usually a single person has many large blockers, so you try to talk about one and another gets in the way. so you switch topics and a third one gets in the way. so you speak to it and then the first one gets in the way...
Yeah, I see the challenge there. Although I still wonder if highlighting or trying to address the "top 10" or whatever might still help some people make faster progress and/or avoid losing them. A possible area for experimentation.
> "shame" is also not the actual issue. if i told you shame was unhelpful, so stop feeling it, would that help? no. from what you say, i read you as already knowing that. but you have trouble making no change. there are things involved with not changing your feelings about shame other than shame, such as your epistemology. it's really quite complicated. and the details vary a lot for different people and those details are relevant to solutions.
Makes sense.
To expand upon the term "shame"...I meant the idea that when you're wrong you should feel bad / ashamed.
One reason shame doesn't make sense is that it contradicts the idea that everyone is fallible and mistakes are common.
What's the best way to start making progress on the issue?
http://fallibleideas.com/emotions
**Wwhenever** it doesn't match then think about what would match and at least form a quick guess at how to do better next time.
From http://fallibleideas.com/emotions
> Emotions embody traditional knowledge which we don't have a full, conscious understanding of. Emotions are also fallible and possible to change.
What does traditional knowledge mean? I looked up the dictionary definition of tradition and it confuses me as to the intended meaning (I don't think any of the literal definitions match). Like, it's not my grandmother's lasagna recipe.
http://fallibleideas.com/tradition
there are cultural traditions, e.g. throwing rice at weddings and falling in love. some are claimed to be biology, not tradition, by various haters of mankind.
there are cultural traditions about how to treat children (and everyone else) which pass on various ideas including about emotions.
But emotions aren't just ideas from culture, they can arise from our own ideas as well.
The sentence also says that "we don't have a full, conscious understanding of" emotions.
Is that always the case? Later in the essay, it says that if you notice / understand your emotions and the ideas behind it, and if you can react slowly, you can create new/different ideas and emotions. In that ideal situation, you would have a full, conscious understanding of your emotions. Right?
Here's an attempt at putting it in my own words...thoughts?
Emotions are based on ideas. These ideas come from cultural traditions and from our own interpretations of the world. Emotions can happen quickly and we don't always have full/conscious understanding of them.
More from http://fallibleideas.com/emotions
> Some people are pessimistic about their ability to change their emotions. They think that emotions are biological or natural, and that emotions aren't ideas, knowledge or traditions. They think it follows that emotions can't be changed anymore than we can change our hair color.
>
> Of course, although hair color is genetically determined we can change it: it just takes dye. Similarly, if one is born without legs that is a big problem. But it's also a changeable, improvable situation. One can get prosthetic legs or a wheel chair. Genetic causes do not mean we're helpless.
In a sense, someone who dyed their hair *changed* it. But in another sense, they just covered it up and when hair grows out again it will be back to the true/original hair color.
Trying to relate the above metaphors (hair color, no-legs) to emotions…does it say that (some) emotions will always be there, but we can mask them / hide them, in a way? That contradicts with the notion that emotions are based on ideas and when you change the ideas you change the emotions.
> But emotions aren't just ideas from culture, they can arise from our own ideas as well.
the issue was:
> Emotions embody traditional knowledge
"embody" means have some. not all.
your emotions are partly from cultural traditions.
> Is that always the case? Later in the essay, it says that if you notice / understand your emotions and the ideas behind it, and if you can react slowly, you can create new/different ideas and emotions. In that ideal situation, you would have a full, conscious understanding of your emotions. Right?
while it's theoretically possible to understand anything fully and consciously, it's not required for dramatically improving your emotional reactions and doing the stuff in the essay.
> In a sense, someone who dyed their hair *changed* it. But in another sense, they just covered it up and when hair grows out again it will be back to the true/original hair color.
then get a tattoo. lasting skin color change.
it's not hard to dye your hair repeatedly, anyway.
> Trying to relate the above metaphors (hair color, no-legs) to emotions…does it say that (some) emotions will always be there, but we can mask them / hide them, in a way? That contradicts with the notion that emotions are based on ideas and when you change the ideas you change the emotions.
not at all. you're bickering with the example, then trying to a draw a conclusion in line with your bickering rather than in line with what the essay meant.
> you're bickering with the example, then trying to a draw a conclusion in line with your bickering rather than in line with what the essay meant.
There were parts of the essay where I honestly didn't know what was meant. There were other parts where I'd guess I did know what was meant but could easily think of other interpretations. Maybe I should say "I think you mean X but it also could read as Y"
I thought it might be a good idea to take it slow and not assume I know what was meant, and point out places where it's confusing or I see (possible) mistakes.
It helps with the learning process but also might provide an opportunity for the author to improve the essay and reduce miscommunication.
Do you still think I was discussing things that were trivial / petty / not worth considering? Maybe I'm missing it.
i'm saying it doesn't make much sense to object to something an essay said, then try to draw conclusions *from your objection* instead of from the essay.
it's you who objected to the essays' example about hair dye. you said it was only a superficial change. then you tried to build on top of your objection.
More from http://fallibleideas.com/emotions:
> Here is a rational way to use emotions in argument: "If doing that would be good, why do I feel bad about it? Do I have any ideas to change it slightly so that I'll feel good about it? If there is no way to change it to be more emotionally appealing, why isn't there?" This doesn't assume the emotion is true.
I’m finding this hard to understand / too abstract. Maybe a specific example would help?
RE: "If doing that would be good, why do I feel bad about it?"
Guessing this question leads to conjectures about the ideas behind the emotion. What's tricky about this step is that if your stating with your emotion as a black box, it's easy to come up with a bunch of different/contradicting theories about what ideas are behind the emotions. And no good way to pick between them. How to deal with this?
I think one thing to do is think of small experiments to test the theories by considering how you feel in different/related situations (perhaps as a thought experiment or IRL) to get more information about the emotion / it's ideas. Thoughts?
> Guessing this question leads to conjectures about the ideas behind the emotion.
one of the things behind the emotion is ignorance.
if you understood the goodness thoroughly – and it was thoroughly good – then you wouldn't feel bad about it.
so a good way to address this kind of critical questioning is generally to learn the issue better.
> it's you who objected to the essays' example about hair dye. you said it was only a superficial change. then you tried to build on top of your objection.
Right, I was working out the consequences of that (apparently incorrect) interpretation of the hair dye metaphor.
I'm now remembering there were other parts which had me wondering if the author believed some emotions can't be changed in the sense your natural hair color can't be changed (but it could be dyed).
He said "In any case, nature or nurture, there is no reason for pessimism".
And later: "Emotions, genetic or not, must go through multiple layers of interpretation before they are meaningful to complex, high-level world views"
Is it putting forth the following view? Many emotions are based on ideas and when you change those ideas you change the emotions. But there's special category of emotions that are more permanent (due to genetics? other things?). And while you may feel those emotions forever, you can decide how to interpret them / relate to them and act.
> He said "In any case, nature or nurture, there is no reason for pessimism".
this is an appeal to readers regardless of *their* beliefs, not an indication of the author's beliefs.
Elliot has written a variety of stuff on the side of nurture.
> this is an appeal to readers regardless of *their* beliefs, not an indication of the author's beliefs.
Ok, makes sense.
>> Guessing this question leads to conjectures about the ideas behind the emotion.
one of the things behind the emotion is ignorance.
> if you understood the goodness thoroughly – and it was thoroughly good – then you wouldn't feel bad about it.
> so a good way to address this kind of critical questioning is generally to learn the issue better.
What does it mean to *thoroughly* understand the goodness of an idea?
Is that like, exposing the new idea to enough criticism and only then, if it's still standing, the old ideas behind emotion will cease to support / give rise to that emotion anymore?
Something else?
oops, I messed up the quoting. Should be:
>> Guessing this question leads to conjectures about the ideas behind the emotion.
> one of the things behind the emotion is ignorance.
> if you understood the goodness thoroughly – and it was thoroughly good – then you wouldn't feel bad about it.
> so a good way to address this kind of critical questioning is generally to learn the issue better.
> What does it mean to *thoroughly* understand the goodness of an idea?
know more good stuff about it and more solutions to objections/problems/criticism/etc
>>> if you understood the goodness thoroughly – and it was thoroughly good – then you wouldn't feel bad about it.
>>> so a good way to address this kind of critical questioning is generally to learn the issue better.
>> What does it mean to *thoroughly* understand the goodness of an idea?
>know more good stuff about it and more solutions to objections/problems/criticism/etc
How does this work, specifically in the case of emotions that you don't have a full/conscious understanding of?
One idea: As the the new idea is improved to better address various objections, you’ll be addressing the ideas behind the old emotion, even unconscious ones.
Where this might get tricky is if the unconscious part of the mind uses creativity to shift around. From http://fallibleideas.com/emotions:
> Sometimes we unconsciously use creativity to maintain our current personality. Trying to change it may not just involve working against a static obstacle. It may be an adaptable obstacle that tries to avoid being changed.
How best to deal with that?
i think you need to use examples.
i'll give one but you need to learn to do this yourself to understand much stuff you read.
Donald is a college student. he reads a book and some TCS stuff and decides school is bad. he wants to quit school. but he feels bad about quitting school. he's emotionally conflicted.
now what?
ONE way forward (not the only one) is to learn about the issues more thoroughly. that mostly means learning more about whether and why school is bad. debate school with people, read more books, write anti-school essays and seek criticism, etc. secondarily, try to apply the general ideas to your own situation more – even if most people should quit school you still have to check whether you should quit or you have special circumstances.
this method is not focused on investigating emotions yet it can address emotional problems.
one of the bonuses of this method is even if it doesn't solve the emotional problem, you still are doing worthwhile stuff. it's good stuff to learn about even if you're not in school and none of your friends/family are, so there's no direct personal relevance.
PS this would be easier if you weren't anonymous b/c i think you have public discussion history which is relevant to interpreting you. you're throwing away all the connections to your past comments when you post anonymously, so it's just a bit of a confused fragment, which is hard to deal with without background info or ongoing longterm discussion (which is also prevented by per-post anonymity so there's no ongoing discussion with any particular person).
> this method is not focused on investigating emotions yet it can address emotional problems.
And if it does't resolve the emotional conflict, what's going on there? What can be done to resolve it and change the emotion?
> PS this would be easier if you weren't anonymous b/c i think you have public discussion history which is relevant to interpreting you.
I think you're mistaking me for someone else. I've been lurking around on FI / curi.us for a while but my only posting history is a few messages under Anon69. I'll use that here for now.
> And if it does't resolve the emotional conflict, what's going on there? What can be done to resolve it and change the emotion?
what if i want to go my kitchen but i'm emotionally conflicted about walking there. maybe i should crawl. maybe walking is bad.
doesn't happen. people don't get emotionally conflicted about the sort of stuff they are so sure of they take it for granted and don't have any intellectual doubts.
> what if i want to go my kitchen but i'm emotionally conflicted about walking there. maybe i should crawl. maybe walking is bad.
> doesn't happen. people don't get emotionally conflicted about the sort of stuff they are so sure of they take it for granted and don't have any intellectual doubts.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying or what I should get from this. Can you try explaining it a different way?
Going back to your school example above, you suggested a method to change the emotions, but then mention a scenario where "even if it doesn't solve the emotional problem [...]"
That's the scenario I'm exploring. Specially, I guess it would be like...I've done things to learn the issues surrounding not going to school and considered it carefully and I'm going to quit. So I go to tell someone your quitting school and...uh oh, I still feel bad about it.
What's going on there? Did I simply fail at investigating the issues enough, and just need to double-down in my efforts? Something else?
when ppl find something trivially right, e.g. walking to the kitchen, they aren't emotionally conflicted about it.
so your concern:
> And if it does't resolve the emotional conflict, what's going on there?
doesn't make much sense and you have given no realistic example of it.
the emotional conflict about school will be solved sometime prior to understanding the topic as well as understanding walking to the kitchen. learning about the topic – not emotions – will work to solve the problem. your "what if it doesn't?" is a mistaken which is answered by considering that when ppl understand stuff (trivial examples like walking to the kitchen) they are not emotionally conflicted. they are emotionally conflicted when they have intellectual doubts, objections and ignorance.
> when ppl find something trivially right, e.g. walking to the kitchen, they aren't emotionally conflicted about it.
Make sense. You can't be emotionally conflicted if there are no emotion-related ideas in conflict, as illustrated in the simple case of walking to the kitchen.
>> And if it does't resolve the emotional conflict, what's going on there?
> doesn't make much sense and you have given no realistic example of it.
Ok, lemme try to create something more realistic.
Going back to the school example...Donald thinks school is bad and that he should quit. After having the initial idea, he refines and expands upon it and exposes it to criticism such as how was described above: "debate school with people, read more books, write anti-school essays and seek criticism, etc. secondarily, try to apply the general ideas to your own situation more"
So Donald decides...ok, I think I feel good about this...i'm going to go tell some people I'm quitting school. But you go to do it...and boom, that bad feeling about it is back. Maybe this happens several times after rounds of working on the idea and then starting to take actions.
I think this is a common situation...a persist emotion that after a good bit of reasoning about it, remains unaffected by a seemingly good idea that contradicts it.
I'm trying to think about what's going on here and how to best proceed in this situation
Maybe Donald simply hasn't considered the new idea (quitting school) thoroughly enough. His quit-school idea is not addressing some unconscious objection behind the emotion. He should dig deeper into the merits of quitting school, exposing to more criticism, etc. Eventually he'll be fully convinced.
So it play's out like this: the reason the emotion lingers is because Donald failed to consider an (unconscious/not-well-understood) belief that he should never upset his parents (likely to happen if he quits school). So Donald needs to think about that and trying to improve it, expose to criticism. He decides he's going to try to convince his parents why quitting school is good and if that fails, he proceed anyway and not care about them being upset. After this, Donald tries again to move forward with quitting school and voilà, he feel 100% good about it this time.
> learning about the topic – not emotions – will work to solve the problem
You're saying not to focus on trying to figure out the unconscious ideas behind the emotion. Is that correct?
The above assumes Donald managed to address the unconscious idea behind feeling bad. But if it's unconscious, and if your process of learning the quitting-school idea never intersects with those unconscious ideas, you'll fail.
I think there might be a way to uncover the (currently unconscious) ideas behind emotions by guessing. If you end up with a bunch of guesses and you’re not sure which one it is, narrow it down using thought experiments and testing it out in real life.
Thoughts?
> You're saying not to focus on trying to figure out the unconscious ideas behind the emotion. Is that correct?
i was careful **not** to say that. i didn't say what to do. i talked about one thing that can work. you have a reading problem. i wrote:
>> ONE way forward (not the only one) is to learn about the issues more thoroughly.
this was very clear. did you misunderstand it? ignore it? forget it?
> I think this is a common situation.
you think it's a common situation that someone has the some level of confidence in quitting school as walking to the kitchen, but then feels bad about it?
no. people quit school while having a bunch of issues they only addressed vaguely. it's not like issues they find trivial where they actually know what they're talking about.
the people who quit school and feel bad about it don't find the decision trivial (not trivial to learn in the first place, but trivial given their knowledge now). that isn't common. it's unheard of.
and knowing about quitting school includes knowing how it fits into your life. not just criticism of school but also what to do instead including how to tell friends, family, ppl u want to date, etc. just like walking to the kitchen would also be a problem if you expected people in your life to object to it and you would struggle with that conversation.
> i was careful **not** to say that. i didn't say what to do. i talked about one thing that can work. you have a reading problem. i wrote:
>> ONE way forward (not the only one) is to learn about the issues more thoroughly.
That was posted under "Anonymous" so I wouldn't have know you were careful not to say that. It would be helpful to use a consistent handle to avoid this problem.
> you think it's a common situation that someone has the some level of confidence in quitting school as walking to the kitchen, but then feels bad about it?
No, I didn't think that or say that. What made you come to that conclusion?
> That was posted under "Anonymous" so I wouldn't have know you were careful not to say that. It would be helpful to use a consistent handle to avoid this problem.
you are bitter and trying to attack. why should i try to help you if you're going to get upset and try to hurt me?
>> That was posted under "Anonymous" so I wouldn't have know you were careful not to say that. It would be helpful to use a consistent handle to avoid this problem.
> you are bitter and trying to attack. why should i try to help you if you're going to get upset and try to hurt me?
Hmm, you're mistaken and I'm not sure why you think that. What could be done to convince you otherwise?
Why are you choosing such negative interpretations?
you echoed something back on purpose, where it doesn't fit quite right, to blame me and lash out. very blatant and stereotypical way to call me a hypocrite and to deflect cuz you were defensive.
your ignorance and confusion about what's going on – combined with assuming a conclusion – is a good sign i'm right. anger and lack of self-knowledge typically go together.
> you echoed something back on purpose, where it doesn't fit quite right, to blame me and lash out
I'm not following this. What did I echo back on purpose? What doesn't fit quite right?
this is an echo from previous commentary on posting anonymously:
> That was posted under "Anonymous" so I wouldn't have know you were careful not to say that. It would be helpful to use a consistent handle to avoid this problem.
Hmm, I really didn't give much thought to what I quoted (echo'd). Aside from something like: let me just copy what was in the previous message to carry forward for context. I haven't developed much thinking on when and what to quote, so maybe I'm doing it wrong.
It seems like in this case, excessive quoting led to you thinking i'm angry and want to hurt you. I'm still not really sure why. I wish I could somehow assure you I'm not angry and I don't want to hurt you.
I can leave if you'd like, no hard feelings.
you responded to comments about you being bad at reading – without giving it much thought (you just said) – by changing the topic.
to what? a loose reading is:
i previously criticized you for posting anonymously. now you returned the "favor".
this is the kind of thing people do all the time without much thought. cruelty comes naturally to members of our culture.
my comments about name were meant to be constructive, which is how you seemed to take it them initially. however that wouldn't prevent a typical person from using them later when they need something to lash out about.
your comments about name writing don't make much sense. if you weren't reading it as one continuous conversation, then there'd be a LOT of problems. but you didn't bring any up. i was continuing explaining the same stuff before and after i wrote my name, as one continuous conversation. you acted like you understood that and you, too, had before-and-after naming comments which you expected me to treat as one continuous conversation (and i did. cuz that's reasonable).
your excuse that you weren't taking into account anonymous comments – that were part of our back and forth – comes off as a nonsense excuse. but fits perfectly as a culturally-typical attack in reply to me saying something culturally very offensive (reading problem – and also i said illiteracy in the other thread at the same time with an anonymous who may well be you (but i didn't and won't check the IP addresses)).
everything you've said since is compatible with this.
it is totally normal to be a bastard when you don't give it much thought (even more than when you do give it much though), and it's totally normal to get defensive (and deal with being defensive by attacking) without being self-aware about it.
i haven't asked you to leave. try not to interpret what i say in conventional terms b/c it's fairly often misleading when read with convention-colored glasses. reading more literally will help.
typo fixes
> seemed to take it them initially
seemed to take them initially
> (even more than when you do give it much though)
(even more than when you do give it much **thought**)
> you responded to comments about you being bad at reading – without giving it much thought (you just said) – by changing the topic.
I think you misread it. I'm not sure if this helps but here's a play-by-play of my thoughts: You said I had a reading problem because I missed something you wrote. I remembered that quote as something someone else said before you joined the conversation. So I ctrl-F on the text and see it's under Anonymous.
I thought pointing this out would clear up the confusion so we could move on but you've interpreted it as hostile. I'm still trying to piece together why.
> i previously criticized you for posting anonymously. now you returned the "favor".
I actually thought that was good criticism. First I helped clear up the suspicion that I was someone with a lot of public posting history. Then I started using the Anon69 handle so it could be followed now and in the future for continuity. I actually missed a few by accident after that, leaving as Anonymous, but now I think I've developed the habit.
You've interpreted all of this as a tit-for-tat attack, when it wasn't. I was not "returning the favor". Maybe the issue that you are interpreting me in very conventional terms? I'm worried I don't have a chance to be understood here.
> your comments about name writing don't make much sense. if you weren't reading it as one continuous conversation, then there'd be a LOT of problems. but you didn't bring any up. i was continuing explaining the same stuff before and after i wrote my name, as one continuous conversation. you acted like you understood that and you, too, had before-and-after naming comments which you expected me to treat as one continuous conversation (and i did. cuz that's reasonable).
I definitely wouldn't be surprised to learn I've made tons of confusing mistakes throughout the conversation -- I'm trying to learn and make progress.
Could you give an example of the problems I should have seen but didn't bring up?
> your excuse that you weren't taking into account anonymous comments – that were part of our back and forth – comes off as a nonsense excuse
I honestly thought there as an Anonymous person (not you) who I was having a conversation with, and then you came along later to join in. It was unexpected to learn you were Anonymous...not because the ideas seem different than yours, but because I'm not sure why you'd be signing as Anonymous. You're public about who you are everywhere else.
> and it's totally normal to get defensive (and deal with being defensive by attacking) without being self-aware about it
I agree, and I'm trying to be as introspective as possible. I'm open to the possibility I was unaware of being self-defensive, so I'm actively looking for evidence of that, but I'm unable to see it.
I have had some other feelings over the last few interactions. Mostly sadness about being misunderstood and a little fear of rejection. I really want to make progress on understanding emotions and this misunderstand might be a major blocker.
i'll drop the matter now. thanks for taking the criticism well. most people would not have.
some context you may not know:
people fairly frequently vigorously deny being angry, then admit it a little later. e.g. Tessa did this on FI list a few months ago if anyone wants to read through an example. (searching for the subject line "Angry Tessa Should Take A Week Break" will turn up some posts and then look around those dates)
people frequently get angry during discussions and hide it. you know how some conversations end with flaming? a lot of times they were angry for their previous 10 messages before the open flaming, but they were hiding it. that hidden anger – more than stupidity – is why they were discussing so badly.
i think it's (often) best to speak about (possible) problems directly.
being harsh and unfriendly in some ways can find problems earlier on, which can save time for everyone. it's bad to act in a way that gets along well with everyone because some people are better to interact with than others.
> You're public about who you are everywhere else.
I write some of the anonymous FI posts. I don't always type in my name here.
there are only a few people in the world who *might* have been able to write my anonymous comments in this thread. there's not many people with much capability at rational discussion who also know much philosophy stuff. (there's a fair amount of relatively rational young people who don't know much stuff, haven't read many books, etc. and there are some adults who have read a bunch of relevant books and stuff, but hardly any adults who can discuss very rationally.) this is sad but important.
--------------------------------------------
> > you think it's a common situation that someone has the some level of confidence in quitting school as walking to the kitchen, but then feels bad about it?
>
> No, I didn't think that or say that. What made you come to that conclusion?
you were attempting to give an example where that level of thorough knowledge didn't prevent emotional problems. weren't you? you wrote:
> So Donald decides...ok, I think I feel good about this...i'm going to go tell some people I'm quitting school. But you go to do it...and boom, that bad feeling about it is back.
wasn't the example supposed to be that he learns all about it, thinks he's figured it out, then the emotional issue is *not* solved?
and you were replying to context like:
> when ppl find something trivially right, e.g. walking to the kitchen, they aren't emotionally conflicted about it.
weren't you trying to give a counter example? a counter example would require i-should-quit-school knowledge on par (in terms of quality, thoroughness, etc) with the i-should-walk-to-the-kitchen knowledge.
my point is that one way of dealing with emotional problems is to improve your knowledge quality. by the time it gets to the quality of stuff you find trivial (and sometimes considerably earlier) your emotional problem will be solved.
emotion related problems can also be addressed in other ways too. this is just one option. it has some upsides. it doesn't require introspection about your emotions (which can be hard or unproductive, and can feel bad). and it's good in other ways (you're learning about school or whatever) even if it doesn't end up addressing the emotions.
a lot of people spend a lot of time on bad types of introspection where they focus on their bad ideas instead of doing positive stuff. a lot of what you need for dealing with bad ideas is *better ideas* to replace them with. and a lot of confused ideas should just be forgotten and learn some better ones, instead of ever sorting the mess out. some people try to sort out confused ideas just because it's their own ideas, when it'd be better to set aside those ideas and focus attention on learning some good ideas.
dwelling on emotions, or trying to figure out where they come from, is often a bad thing to do. criticizing their current form today – especially aspects that are actively causing problems – is better.
PS feel free to ask anything. **anything**. (doesn't mean i'll answer, especially if it's personal regarding me. but it'd still be no problem.) this is a common thing people say and don't mean. i mean it.
PPS there's downsides to people not introducing themselves. it's up to you. FYI if you haven't seen my newsletters i suggest you sign up and read the prior ones at http://fallibleideas.com/newsletter-archive the first one especially gives some background on who i am, where i'm coming from.
PPPS
> I definitely wouldn't be surprised to learn I've made tons of confusing mistakes throughout the conversation -- I'm trying to learn and make progress.
that's ok. lots of mistakes are to be expected. the important thing is how they're approached. lots of conversations never fix any of the mistakes. confusions happen and you try to recap and clear them up but then more confusions happen during the confusion-fixing process, and then even more things go wrong during the confusion-fixing-fixing process, and so on, and you never get back to the original stuff and lots of mistakes just end up ignored. and lots of people have little patience or perseverance for error correction.
> people fairly frequently vigorously deny being angry, then admit it a little later.
Yeah, I’ve seen this happen. And I’ve done it myself in the past. What are some of the main reasons people to hide their anger?
> i think it's (often) best to speak about (possible) problems directly.
> being harsh and unfriendly in some ways can find problems earlier on, which can save time for everyone. it's bad to act in a way that gets along well with everyone because some people are better to interact with than others.
It sounds like when you suspect someone is angry and hiding it, you will sometimes take the tactic of being harsh/unfriendly to try to expose it. Is that correct?
But if you’re wrong about the person being angry, the downside is the anger accusation becomes a distraction/tangent and most conventional people will see you as the angry / hostile attacker. It puts the conversation on a fast track to ending. Which is bad if the person wasn’t actually angry. Maybe this is a rare case, idk.
> you were attempting to give an example where that level of thorough knowledge didn't prevent emotional problems. weren't you?
No (more on that below).
> you wrote:
>> So Donald decides...ok, I think I feel good about this...i'm going to go tell some people I'm quitting school. But you go to do it...and boom, that bad feeling about it is back.
> wasn't the example supposed to be that he learns all about it, thinks he's figured it out, then the emotional issue is *not* solved?
The example was supposed to illustrate how he *thinks* he’s figured it out, but in fact he hasn’t. He was mistaken that quitting-school was trivially right like the walk-to-the-kitchen example.
After that I said:
> I think this is a common situation...a persist emotion that after a good bit of reasoning about it, remains unaffected by a seemingly good idea that contradicts it
Here, *seemingly* is an important word. It *seems* like he understands the quit-school idea well and that he’s fully convinced, but it ends up he’s mistaken when his emotions kick back at him later.
After that, I gave a hypothetical of how is was mistaken…e.g. he failed to account for an unconscious objection to quitting school…one that related to not wanting to disappoint his parents.
To restate some of my general (and possibly poorly formed) questions i’m exploring: what are some things to consider when this happens? Should you 1) focus on improving the new idea (e.g. quit-school) or 2) try to understand the idea(s) behind the emotional conflict via introspection? #1 is important to do but if it fails to address objections in #2, you won’t resolve your emotional conflict. I think the short answer might be: you should try both. But I suspect there are a number of important pitfalls to consider with each (and I have some ideas about what they are). You made some interesting points about problems with introspection above, for instance.
I have a draft emotions essay which was an attempt to put your emotions essay in my own words. That exercise seems to be helping to think through various issues and learn things, etc. I’ll continue to post questions here if that’s ok. Open to other ideas for how make progress on this sort of stuff.
> What are some of the main reasons people to hide their anger?
some are:
they think being angry is just how life is, it's normal and no big deal, and the thing to do is try to go on anyway.
they think admitting their anger would admit weakness and discredit their arguments. they avoid admitting weakness and mistakes of all kinds.
they have past experience that if they say they are angry the discussion will be ruined.
> It sounds like when you suspect someone is angry and hiding it, you will sometimes take the tactic of being harsh/unfriendly to try to expose it. Is that correct?
i will sometimes speak about it, which people in our culture will frequently but incorrectly interpret as harsh and unfriendly. lots of perfectly good discussion violates some social rules.
> The example was supposed to illustrate how he *thinks* he’s figured it out, but in fact he hasn’t. He was mistaken that quitting-school was trivially right like the walk-to-the-kitchen example.
well what's the point?
i said if he DID figure stuff out, that would solve the problem.
if he mistakenly thinks he did, but didn't, then of course it may not work.
> Here, *seemingly* is an important word. It *seems* like he understands the quit-school idea well and that he’s fully convinced, but it ends up he’s mistaken when his emotions kick back at him later.
i think, in practice, what commonly happens is it only seemed that way due to low standards and naivety.
> #1 is important to do but if it fails to address objections in #2, you won’t resolve your emotional conflict.
what i'm saying is that #1 always works if you do it well enough.
this doesn't mean you should always focus on #1. it's a step in understanding one's options.
i think you're skipping steps and jumping to conclusions, which is really typical. you're trying to take early statements and then figure out what they say about the big picture. this is hard and error prone.
logically correct details can be much easier to understand and accept when you don't tie them together with some broad conclusions.
> I’ll continue to post questions here if that’s ok.
you are welcome to.
>> The example was supposed to illustrate how he *thinks* he’s figured it out, but in fact he hasn’t. He was mistaken that quitting-school was trivially right like the walk-to-the-kitchen example.
> well what's the point?
There was no point aside from just talking through the example. Some questions came later in that post.
> i think you're skipping steps and jumping to conclusions, which is really typical. you're trying to take early statements and then figure out what they say about the big picture. this is hard and error prone.
I didn't notice I was doing that. Can you give an example?
> logically correct details can be much easier to understand and accept when you don't tie them together with some broad conclusions.
Do you have an example of this as well? What you describe would be a problem but I'd like to understand how I'm doing it.
Missing Author
I forgot to set the author...that last post was from me, Anon69.
detail:
> what i'm saying is that #1 always works if you do it well enough.
trying to jump to the big picture:
> Should you 1) focus on improving the new idea (e.g. quit-school) or 2) try to understand the idea(s) behind the emotional conflict via introspection? #1 is important to do but if it fails to address objections in #2, you won’t resolve your emotional conflict. I think the short answer might be: you should try both.
I’m interested in learning whether I should eat certain foods for good health.
I’m wondering if what I eat will affect my health for better or worse as I get older. I’ve heard claims that poor diet can lead to heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, and more.
I get the impression that our knowledge about food’s effects on the human body are limited and not well understood. I've noticed a lot of controversy and unresolved disagreements.
Some people are very confident about their opinions about food. A lot of people have very low quality arguments and appeals to authority and they haven’t subjected their ideas about food to much criticism.
Any ideas on this stuff? Should this topic be a high priority?
> I get the impression that our knowledge about food’s effects on the human body are limited and not well understood.
yes.
and there's a lot of superstitions about food which are disguised as science.
> Any ideas on this stuff?
don't eat when you're not hungry.
this requires sometimes eating smaller portions then waiting a bit. cuz a common thing is you stop needing to eat mid meal but your body doesn't give you an update on your hunger instantly.
don't be scared of "processed" foods with "additives" or "chemicals" or "gluten". don't be scared of "artificial" foods.
even if you try to eat a "balanced" diet, balance your overall food for a week rather than for a single meal or day.
> Should this topic be a high priority?
people suffer a lot with yo yo dieting, avoiding foods they enjoy, etc. and they fuck with their kids diets. so, maybe. depends if you have a problem.
> depends if you have a problem.
I have a broad problem and some more specific problems.
The general problem is about whether eating a healthy diet (whatever that means, which is controversial) will allow me to avoid various health problems, diseases, etc, and perhaps live longer. For instance, most proponents of healthy diet ideas make a claim along the lines of: the body needs various nutrients (e.g. vitamins/minerals, etc) and when you have a deficiency or imbalance of them, it can lead to various dysfunctions / diseases in the body (the actual arguments are much more detailed). And that the typical diet fails to contain adequate nutrients.
Some of the specific problems: as me and people I know have gotten older, we've developed some of the health problems implicated in diet-poor-in-nutrients ideas. I’ve had doctors who ran blood tests and find markers that may be early indicators of problems (e.g. excessive inflammation, low vitamin D, high cholesterol).
Some of the info / arguments I'm starting to look at are from sources like:
http://chrismasterjohnphd.com
http://perfecthealthdiet.com
https://chriskresser.com
got an immediate problem? you could start eating a healthy diet later if it's a good idea. starting 2 years later maybe makes little difference.
and when you don't have enough nutrients in your diet you get e.g. scurvy or blindness. typical Western diets do not result in problems like that. whatever problems they are talking about – that they claim affect typical diets (most people) – are either a lot more subtle and/or lot more imaginary.
there are a lot of third world people with actual nutritional problems, hence initiatives like golden rice. you can see what missing nutrients do, what it looks like. first world people don't have those problems.
---
my broad advice is learn as much as you can about *how to think* ASAP. the better you are at thinking and learning and problem solving, the more *efficiently* you can do other stuff like address diet. efficient includes faster and fewer errors. the speed is a big deal but the errors are a much bigger deal – people often spend tons of effort on something for years and get it badly wrong.
> and when you don't have enough nutrients in your diet you get e.g. scurvy or blindness. typical Western diets do not result in problems like that. whatever problems they are talking about – that they claim affect typical diets (most people) – are either a lot more subtle and/or lot more imaginary.
The first-world healthy-diet people’s claims are def subtle in the sense that the supposed effects of poor diet work against the body over the course of years or decades.
Example: heart disease, which I remember hearing is the leading cause of death in the US. Doctors will say something like “high cholesterol leads to heart disease” which is an over simplification from what I’ve learned.
I have a limited understanding but the basic jargony idea is that cholesterol and other nutrients are packaged up inside of lipoproteins for transport through the blood.
When the lipoproteins are small/weak and are exposed to stress or spend too much time in the blood, they degenerate and become a danger to the blood vessel walls. The body quarantines the degenerated lipoproteins by surrounding them with a plaque. These plaques build up over time and when they become unstable, they rupture and cause a heart attack.
The heathy-diet people have ideas about using diet to prevent to the lipoproteins from degenerating in the first place and how to get organs like the thyroid and liver to consume them in an optimal way.
I haven’t spent much time checking out the details and understand them yet. But my thought is that I probably should, given that it might improve my health or keep me alive longer.
> my broad advice is learn as much as you can about *how to think* ASAP. the better you are at thinking and learning and problem solving, the more *efficiently* you can do other stuff like address diet. efficient includes faster and fewer errors. the speed is a big deal but the errors are a much bigger deal – people often spend tons of effort on something for years and get it badly wrong.
That sounds good. Some things I’ve been doing recently:
1) Reading this site, FI essays, and FI email list which are a high quality source of ideas
2) Writing comments here
3) I read the first three chapters of BoI. Really good!
Any other suggestions?
When old people die of heart disease, they were often going to die of several other things in the next few years anyway. The problem is often general frailty, decay, disrepair, etc, more than really being about heart disease.
There's certain stuff that kills frail people and a lot of people are living to be old enough to get frail.
A bigger concern is why the body gets frail as it ages. The answer to that is not diet. No matter what healthy diets people eat, and what supplements they take, etc, they end up getting old and frail.
At best the right diet, etc may, be a large effort, buy you a few more years. But you'll only have maybe a 20% chance it works since you'll have to guess between a bunch of contradictory advice and they can't all be right. I think the real chance of having much success is considerably lower given the poor information available today.
There are better things to do and bigger gains to pursue. If you really want to live much longer (especially *healthy*, independent years, not a few extra frail, weak, dependent years), what's needed is better reparative medicine.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001ANSSKA/?tag=curi04-20
SENS has a lot of problems including major unpopularity (causing major lack of funds) and major thinking errors by everyone involved (I would know because I had a lengthy discussion with Aubrey de Grey http://curi.us/archives/75 )
Why is SENS so unpopular? And why do the people involved make large thinking errors? Bad philosophy throughout our culture.
Cryonics is worse.
Long story short, improve a lot of people's thinking dramatically, hope someone else does it for you, or die.
I think this is a lot more interesting and important than trying to slightly extend your life while accepting death.
Hardly anyone is in a position to help me with this, because their ideas suck. Hardly anyone is trying to fix that by energetically learning a ton. Sad situation.
> Any other suggestions?
tons and tons of misunderstandings are more or less inevitable when you read things like BoI chapters or FI essays.
most people who have read BoI haven't understood much of it.
people also massively underestimate the effort level to understand stuff. e.g. they usually don't even reread things.
besides thinking it over more carefully, and other alone activities, it's also crucial to discuss your understanding of things you read. check them against other people's understandings. do they match?
do you have questions, comments, improvements or criticism? if not, it's doubtful you understood much. if you do, share them and see if other people think they make sense or not, and why.
can you apply the ideas to other contexts? in a way anyone else agrees with? people often read stuff and think they understand it but they can't invent their own examples or use it for anything.
early on, i'd recommend getting feedback on your understanding of what you read every few pages. more often if you disagree. more often if you feel some confusion.
you can slow down the feedback interval after a track record of success. e.g. if you can talk about a 3 page section successfully, 5 times in a row, maybe then you could go 5-10 pages at a time before feedback.
lots of people are, for whatever reasons (they've never been able to explain any good ones to me), highly resistant to this. if it doesn't work for you, don't despair, it's still possible to learn other ways. but it's most efficient with the short feedback cycles so misconceptions get addressed ASAP instead of getting built on top of.
i suggest the FI discussion group where more people will reply more. you'd have to learn to format emails though. you could also use an open thread here. see http://fallibleideas.com/discussion-info
Responding to the diet stuff below. Planning to respond to the other stuff separately / later.
>When old people die of heart disease, they were often going to die of several other things in the next few years anyway. The problem is often general frailty, decay, disrepair, etc, more than really being about heart disease.
>
>There's certain stuff that kills frail people and a lot of people are living to be old enough to get frail.
>
>A bigger concern is why the body gets frail as it ages. The answer to that is not diet. No matter what healthy diets people eat, and what supplements they take, etc, they end up getting old and frail.
Right, there are a lot of things going on with aging (i.e. the seven types of aging damage outlined by Aubrey de Grey). And those things don’t have anything to do with diet.
> At best the right diet, etc may, be a large effort, buy you a few more years.
How do you arrive at the estimate of “a few more years"?
If I had to speculate, I’d guess between -5 and 20 years. -5 because mistaken health foods might actually harm us. It seems like that might have been the case for the low-fat diet stuff, for example. And then 20 for the upper limit because it might explain some of variance in life span we see now.
Also of interest is that healthy-diet people claim a healthy diet helps to address a lot of the vague issues that seem to come up starting in middle age…e.g. injuries that heal very slowly, chronic pain, being overweight, poor fitness, cognitive decline, difficulty moving around, low energy, etc. Things which delay the onset of the frail/weak/dependent years. Perhaps no impact on life span but these positive effects would have some value.
> There are better things to do and bigger gains to pursue. If you really want to live much longer (especially *healthy*, independent years, not a few extra frail, weak, dependent years), what's needed is better reparative medicine.
Agreed about needing regenerative medicine stuff like Aubrey proposes. But not convinced healthy diet isn’t also worth pursuing (that is, learning more about it, to inform decision about whether it’s worth it). Interested in more criticism if you still disagree.
maybe you're getting 20 years by comparing an especially bad diet to an especially good one, where i was thinking more of a normal diet vs a good one which will be a smaller gain.
> Also of interest is that healthy-diet people claim
i think their list of claims is more discrediting than interesting. are you perhaps selectively focusing on the ones on their laundry list you find most plausible? i think that'd be the wrong method and you should look at the dumbest ones and realize they don't know what they're talking about.
> Interested in more criticism if you still disagree.
people put massive amounts of money and effort into diet and it's such a bad use of their life and attention. and the reasons often have a lot to do with sex even if they won't admit it. and a lot to do with mysticism about purity, cleansing, avoiding dietary sin, pretending it gives them control over aspects of their life they want to control but don't know how to, etc.
the topic is full of irrationality and bad ideas which fool many people. it's dangerous.
>> Also of interest is that healthy-diet people claim
> i think their list of claims is more discrediting than interesting. are you perhaps selectively focusing on the ones on their laundry list you find most plausible? i think that'd be the wrong method and you should look at the dumbest ones and realize they don't know what they're talking about.
Sorry, that was just my list of random things I hear middle aged people talk about in their own words about health issues.
Researchers who are pro-healthy-diet are much more specific in their statements. But they often claim very specific things might relate to the general vague things people complain about. E.g. your experience of "low energy" might be explained by something broken in how the body processes energy due to insulin resistance or whatever.
> people put massive amounts of money and effort into diet and it's such a bad use of their life and attention. and the reasons often have a lot to do with sex even if they won't admit it. and a lot to do with mysticism about purity, cleansing, avoiding dietary sin, pretending it gives them control over aspects of their life they want to control but don't know how to, etc.
>
> the topic is full of irrationality and bad ideas which fool many people. it's dangerous.
Yes, those are good points. I also see people thinking they can figure out whether diet X or supplement Y is good or not by just having a vague understanding and reading support/testimony and reviews, and fool themselves in how they interpret their personal experiences. I thought this was addressed really well in the double blind study you linked: http://www.orthorexia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Double-blind-studies.pdf
Back to the topic about learning how to think better. You wrote:
> lots of people are, for whatever reasons (they've never been able to explain any good ones to me), highly resistant to this.
(where "this" was getting feedback on understanding frequently, e.g. every few pages you read in a book for starters).
What would you guess are the bad reasons people are highly resistant to this?
some reasons people resist serious discussion are:
- don't know what to say, don't have much in the way of ideas, questions, interests, etc
- bad at touch typing, slow at reading, bad at spelling
- don't want anyone to see their ignorance
- don't want anyone to see them learning (which is childish)
- don't want anyone to see them make mistakes
- don't want to receive criticism in public (or at all)
- used to culturally normal stuff, resist anything unusual that people would find weird, they don't have role models for how to do it, their teachers never told them how to do it, they never read about it being done in books, etc
- don't find it fun
- say they value it, but actually value lots of other stuff more, so it rarely or never is the thing they most want to do
- tried discussion in the past and failed
- don't want to change their ideas
>- don't want anyone to see their ignorance
>- don't want anyone to see them learning (which is childish)
>- don't want anyone to see them make mistakes
>- don't want to receive criticism in public (or at all)
These four can be avoided by having a pseudonym or way to post anonymously.
I suspect a lot of people don't consider this at first. I harbor some of these ideas and honestly didn't think creatively enough at first to realize I could get around them with a fake name.
> These four can be avoided by having a pseudonym or way to post anonymously.
people often still feel bad about this stuff even if they are anonymous.
>maybe you're getting 20 years by comparing an especially bad diet to an especially good one, where i was thinking more of a normal diet vs a good one which will be a smaller gain.
yeah, i'd be interested in a comparison of a normal diet in a non-overweight person vs a "good" diet (according to whatever ppl happen to be claiming is good now). my guess is that isn't anywhere close to 20 years.
The truth about PIA
>Your VPN PIA looks too inexpensive. 3.33$ while others are charging a minimum of 8.32 after all the discounts.
>A lot of these review sites are recommending the much expensive Express VPN. I am confused.
I write for a review site and here's the real truth: These sites promote ExpressVPN so heavily because they get paid much higher commissions for ExpressVPN than PIA. If you wonder why some sites have Express ranked #1 for every single VPN usage, this is the reason.
Don't get me wrong, ExpressVPN is a decent service and I like their software, but it's not 3x as good as PIA, nor twice as good as IPVanish. In fact, I would probably choose both of those services over Express for any usage except for Netflix streaming (ExpressVPN is still netflix compatible).
And if you're concerned about privacy, ExpressVPN keeps metadata logs, whereas PIA keeps no logs whatsoever (a claim that was even tested by the FBI in court).
**Sources**
http://www.vpnuniversity.com/review/private-internet-access
https://www.expressvpn.com/tos