Open Discussion (2017)

people are so mean and angry.

in Overwatch someone started yelling at me (in voice chat) for not playing as well as he wanted. (i don't think his judgement of my play or his was accurate at all, but never mind.) this is distracting. it's not going to help. i'm already doing my best and i don't need a distraction.

i said "don't yell at me".

he responded by yelling at me more.

so i left voice chat meaning that no one could quickly give me useful information during the that game anymore, and i wouldn't hear team strategy planning. (it's a larger distraction to figure out who is yelling at me and block them individually, and to figure out if it's only one person being a jerk or multiple. also someone new could start being a jerk which is a higher risk after an interaction like that. just leaving voice chat entirely is the fastest and most reliable way to solve the problem reliably and get back to playing.)

this kind of being an asshole is pretty common.

and this is their recreation.

this is just one example but it's pretty easy to find the same kind of thing in most other parts of life where people interact. and people do it both with strangers and people they know well. for example sometimes i hear couples who are neighbors yelling at each other or at their children. the other day i heard a female voice asking the guy to stop and the guy kept yelling and being angry more and justifying attacking her in response to the request he stop. that specific dynamic is common -- angry people often attack more if you ask not to be attacked. that's so nasty.

From: http://fallibleideas.com/lulie/procrastination

> People procrastinate because they are pessimistic about problem solving. They don't think there are any solutions, any ways forward, that won't hurt. If they knew a way to proceed that would involve no suffering of any kind, they'd do it.

What's a hypothetical scenario of someone being pessimistic about problem solving and this relating to procrastination?

#8201 or use higher level programming constructs like map instead of manual, numerical array indexes?

Found an extremely cheap VPN!! $1.66/month

I wanted to find something cheaper than PIA..

Does anyone have any criticism against ivacy? Has anyone tried it?

https://www.ivacy.com/buy-vpn/

Anonymous browsing

256-bit encryption for ultimate protection

Supreme security over public Wi-Fi networks

5 multi logins

Unlimited bandwidth

Unlimited server switching

Easy and fast access to restricted or blocked content

100+ VPN locations

Split tunneling feature

99% Uptime with unlimited speed

OpenVPN (TCP, UDP), L2TP-IPsec, and PPTP protocols

Simple, secure and anonymous P2P file-sharing support

No logs

Internet kill switch

Automatic purpose selection

Live chat and email support available

7-day money-back guarantee

Apps available for Windows, Mac, iOS and Android

EU utterly confused on what people are, what robots are and what rights are:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38583360

I haven't read the EU report closely, but it looks like garbage. (it's linked in the article)

They want to make robots responsible for their actions. Not just the designer or the owner.

I don't know exactly what they mean by robots being responsible for their actions. I suspect they don't really know what they mean either.

Before anything even happens, they want to make sure it's all regulated in advance. They're terrified of people improving themselves (section 18) or increasing efficiency.

They manage to shoehorn some affirmative action for women in there (section 21).

They lie outright (section 37).

There are a bazillion more problems with this.

More countries should leave the EU before this disaster goes anywhere.

And supposing someone makes AGI this will be applied to them, making the EU slavers.

Right. Not meant to be secret.

I think I was being evasive at first by not picking something more obvious. I wanted plausible deniability in case I was recognised but found it to be a problem and wanted to bail.

I've done some anon posts too. But I've made some progress on my hangups and feel more comfortable signing most of the time.

-Seph

clips of me playing Tracer in Overwatch today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljYIt1iWlHs

(HOW TO SAY NOTHING IN FIVE HUNDRED WORDS)[http://www.mrgunnar.net/ap.cfm?subpage=348270]

> Some of the padding in freshman themes is to be blamed not on anxiety about the word minimum but on excessive timidity. The student writes, "In my opinion, the principal of my high school acted in ways that I believe every unbiased person would have to call foolish." This isn't exactly what he means. What he means is, "My high school principal was a fool." If he was a fool, call him a fool. Hedging the thing about with "in-my-opinion's" and "it-seems-to-me's" and "as-I-see-it's" and "at-least-from-my-point-of-view's" gains you nothing. Delete these phrases whenever they creep into your paper.

> The student's tendency to hedge stems from a modesty that in other circumstances would be commendable. He is, he realizes, young and inexperienced, and he half suspects that he is dopey and fuzzyminded beyond the average. Probably only too true. But it doesn't help to announce your incompetence six times in every paragraph. Decide what you want to say and say it as vigorously as possible, without apology and in plain words.

> Hope u all die lol

why are you here?

https://blog.danslimmon.com/2016/09/07/falsifiability-why-you-rule-things-out-not-in/

A blog post from Sep 2016 that talks about Popper & LScD. Not vouching for the quality, but maybe someone here will find it interesting.

you don't have to say a lot about leaving and returning, but you should say something. people often avoid the issue. Russ just left for a month. hasn't said a word about it. lame. Rami has a history of lengthy absences followed by trying to avoid discussing them even when people bring them up. People also avoid talking about outstanding issues from older discussions, e.g. Rami said please don't give up on him, but then refused to reply further in that discussion, then left for a while, then still won't ever talk about it.

IIRC, SN previous said he'd totally never quit FI and wasn't even interested in discussing the issue of that possibility. then did quit. (rather predictably. but like others before him he didn't want to listen to the person with the perspective to see this predictable problem.) sounds like he'll potentially be more honest this time.

> I don't think "stop posting for a year" = quit.

do you think a 10 year break also isn't quitting? where do you draw a line?

when someone doesn't know much about FI and leaves for years they have no way of knowing what paths do or don't lead back to FI (and most don't), so they can't have a reasonable expectation they'll ever come back.

when one stops engaging with FI ideas, that's quitting.

if one pretends he's still engaging just without communication, that's dishonest. taking critical discussion out of the equation sabotages error correction -- which means misunderstanding FI stuff, not understanding/using/living it.

imagine an atheist converting to Christianity. he goes to Bible study for a while. he has a bad time. he stops going. he says he's going back to his atheist meetup groups for a few years to work on some personal problems with the longterm goal of still converting to Christianity later. it's a bunch of bullshit, isn't it? it's so incoherent that people don't even try to claim that.

(Asking questions would probably help the wannabe pilot. But it's not impossible for him to succeed without doing that.)

> if they aren't posting then where's the error correction? figure everything out themselves without help? no no no. just leads to them doing some of the millions of common errors and not being told about it.

I agree that if you can do the critical discussion effectively that it helps with error correction.

I disagree that everyone can do that effectively.

I disagree that you can't error-correct without FI, which you seem to imply? (I never said without help though)

> this isn't a matter of personal taste, as you imply.

I implied that different people have different capacity to gain from critical discussion.

I didn't imply anything about "taste".

The difference is in knowledge of how to engage in critical discussion effectively.

But I also think this is kind of missing the crux of the issue.

I said:

> I'd just stopped actually doing it while I worked on the issues which meant that I suffered when I interacted with FI.

The suffering is the issue.

I think suffering is bad. I don't do things that result in me suffering.

I don't think you can do learn very well from something that results in suffering.

FI posting resulted in me suffering. I want to resume posting, but I don't want to suffer. The only solution I know is to find ways of fixing the problems that result in me suffering through other channels besides FI.

(Or I could **actually** quit. But I don't want to do that.)

Do you think that:

1. I'm lying about suffering while I was posting on FI

2. I should do FI and suffer anyway and that isn't a disaster

3. Something else?

I wrote that a bit too quickly and carelessly and was unclear.

> Or I guess this could be true...

I meant "I guess this could be true *of what you think*"

>talking with a few friends in private, or figuring everything out yourself, are very low success rate methods.

It's not figuring everything out yourself. But what if it's just figuring out how to engage with FI without suffering?

Also, why do you think engaging with FI is a higher success rate method? Are you just looking at the situation conceptually and it makes sense to you? Or have many people succeeded through that method and now they are awesome?

Like some people have been around FI stuff for a long time and they aren't awesome yet. So what's holding them back? Do they just need to post more?

Or is it something about their character? Maybe they need to learn something crucial, which they haven't yet. Is THAT actually the key?

open critical discussion (OCD) is a huge contributor to error correction, without which one is fucked.

people's problems are basically nothing to do with OCD and leaving OCD doesn't help anything. people's problems are *revealed by* OCD, not caused by OCD.

>FI posting resulted in me suffering. I want to resume posting, but I don't want to suffer. The only solution I know is to find ways of fixing the problems that result in me suffering through other channels besides FI.

i can understand wanting to address the suffering and yet seeing each FI interaction as making the suffering, the confusion, the feeling of being overwhelmed worse and worse and worse. it’s horrible.

it’s mostly your own bad ideas which are causing the problems, but that doesn’t make the suffering not real.

so i can understand wanting to take a break to try to regroup, come up with a new approach, and see if that makes FI go better.

HOWEVER, how are you actually going to know if you are fixing anything successfully if you aren’t coming back *regularly* to test out your new ideas?

if the goal is to be able to interact with FI without suffering, seems like you should have come back more regularly to get feedback on how your new approach is working. e.g. even feedback in the form of “ok. i still feel bad. this still is isn’t good enough. let’s trying something else.”

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

but a year (or whatever) is a very long time to not be testing your ideas out in the actual place where you want to use them.

> So why am I making progress anyway?

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

you have some things you think are progress which you haven't actually exposed to public criticism yet. i don't know about yours, but in general in situations like this it's common the person reinvented (or more like modified slightly from their culture) some typical crap that doesn't work which we already knew about years ago and could have told them about in a few seconds if asked.

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

this doesn't make sense or at least is unclear. how are you going to get away from people? read books written by people? watch anime made by people? do a job creating value for customers who are people? what else are you going to do, meditate? no wait, you got the idea of meditation from people too.

> I interpret it to be implying that I should have known to do that already?

it's saying your posts have been preliminary instead of getting into substance. you keep mentioning some issues you had with FI without giving specifics about them which doesn't let others really comment or form an opinion because we don't know what you're referring to.

should you have known not to do this? i can imagine how a reasonable person could think so, so maybe that's why you think it was implied. but that was not stated. i haven't offered an opinion about that.

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

> I have talked about the problems in other threads.

that's not a real reference to anything. you can't expect anyone to read that and then go find everything you ever wrote in other threads and know which of those other things you're referring to and which you aren't. and you don't give any kind of summary statements mentioning topics that could remind anyone who'd read the stuff before or could allow someone to do a targeted search of comments to find the right ones (as opposed to a "literally read every comment by SN ever" search). hell you might even mean old FI threads, not merely blog comments, i don't know. and i wouldn't even be surprised if you had in mind some thread you'd actually written under a different name (or no name).

---

since you have problems with discussion i'll offer 2 bits of help to conclude.

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

2) you should not treat this as a complete reply and then be disappointed it didn't reply to some other part of your comment you wanted a reply to. and don't assume that means no one will ever reply to that other part. (and even if they don't it's really no big deal, you could, among other things, wait a few days then quote the part you care about, say why you care about it, and perhaps ask why no one replied.) it may help you to know that, as of this moment, i haven't even read every word of your long comment, so not replying to something really doesn't have to have whatever implications you might jump to.

> Or are you saying my rate of progress is so low that I'm not improving fast enough to keep up with reality?

>

> Or that you don't think I've improved at all?

you sure feel judged.

> My bad ideas that are fighting me and torturing me and making me suffer when I push against them, they're resisting change. Causing suffering is the mechanism that allows them to keep existing.

>

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

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

> Which is not at all "basically nothing to do with OCD".

you are ignorant of some ideas on this topic. i can tell because what you say doesn't speak to the issue. and rather than ask a question, you misunderstood and denied.

> Being accused of lying.

>

> This hangup fucked me up very badly when Elliot first called me a liar (about 20 months ago iirc).

you say "this hangup" but what's that a reference to? The text "Being accused of lying." is not a description, explanation or name of a hangup.

> So all I knew how to do for a long time was to take [criticism] as a put-down ... Why? Because of personal shit.

no, because of impersonal shit. that's super generic. it's so typical in our culture. it's not unique to you. it doesn't apply only to your personal situation. your personal details are mostly irrelevant and it works the same for people with vastly different personal situations.

#8344

> if the goal is to be able to interact with FI without suffering, seems like you should have come back more regularly to get feedback on how your new approach is working. e.g. even feedback in the form of “ok. i still feel bad. this still is isn’t good enough. let’s trying something else.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have quite a bit of writing to myself that I intend to post about on FI.

Gonna break from the above crits for something meta.

I'm struggling to process the number of anon posts. I suspect there are multiple anons and that's confusing me because I'm trying to connect them for context. I don't think it's impossible to do this, but it's a layer of complexity that is hard work and is not very interesting to work out (and maybe I'm doing it needlessly and anon posters aren't expecting me to connect their contexts anyway).

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

If you want me to retain context to an anon post, either make yourself recognisable (eg "anon1", "anon2", etc) or tag all previous posts that have your context.

>> Which is not at all "basically nothing to do with OCD".

> you are ignorant of some ideas on this topic.

Like what?

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

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

You dropped context.

Right before that I said:

> My bad ideas

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

If you've got better phrasing other than talking my ideas as "them", what is it?

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

i just took a look at the page and was unable to figure out what text there you were referring to and what your point about it is.

> > > So why am I making progress anyway?

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

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

When you premise an argument on something, it suggests you do expect people to accept that premise. Otherwise the argument wouldn't work for them.

> If you've got better phrasing other than talking my ideas as "them", what is it?

you could talk in terms of reform, self-improvement, learning better ideas and problem solving.

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

>> I didn't.

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

Fair enough.

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

In #8343 I said

> Your posting style is one of the problems.

This was addressed to anon in #8339. This wasn't very clear but also wasn't important.

It would have been better if I'd focused on the details of the style that was the problem, I didn't need to talk about the person doing it directly.

#8361

> #8354 this comment is boring due to lack of examples. it accuses some unspecified authors of making some mistakes with zero quotes of any text SN alleges makes the mistake.

I didn't think it was controversial to say (in #8354):

> An approach I've seen here, and also seen on FI in the past, is assuming that someone is conventional and wanting to be convinced to treat them as anything but.

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

So this part (in #8354) was not particularly relevant.

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

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

Another try:

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

I have these problems with it:

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

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

3. it's also very negative and can seem hostile, it seems like the critic is just creating wild accusations out of nowhere (especially for someone who doesn't know much about conventional mistakes)

#8365

>>> Your posting style is one of the problems.

>>

>> This was addressed to anon in #8339.

>

> what about the posting style?

From #8339

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

The relevant part from #8343

> This seems like a weird way of saying this.

>

> I interpret it to be implying that I should have known to do that already? Like it's a criticism that I didn't know you'd want to know that next and that's how you'd try to argue your case yet? Is that how you meant it?

So to put it another way:

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

Related from #8360:

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

>

> When you premise an argument on something, it suggests you do expect people to accept that premise. Otherwise the argument wouldn't work for them.

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

Is it better to examine premises first before an argument, or argue then find out premises are different because the argument doesn't work?

when you make an argument which assumes premises in passing, instead of clearing laying them out as potentially controversial or worthy of any explanation/argument, it suggests you expect those premises to be accepted.

when you act like something is a *background assumption* -- like how you'd write about cars having a paint color and being able to drive over 30mph -- that's an attitude of expecting agreement with it. you didn't even like state it as a claim or part of your argument. you just wrote *as if* it were true. that showed some kinda error in judgement about what you expected other people to find non-notable and instantly agree with.

#8370

> that showed some kinda error in judgement about what you expected other people to find non-notable and instantly agree with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But in something like a blog or email discussion, it seems like it's not worth doing and I can just treat it more conversationally and find out the disagreements as I go. Then if I wanted to write an essay about what I'd learned in the discussion, I'd include what I'd learned about what premises are relevant and what premises contradict the content.

#8378

when you consider basically everyone a horrible failure, wouldn't pretty much ANY criterion for declaring people a horrible failure seem accurate to you?

#8379:

wtf? no. that doesn't follow at all.

a fair number of people think you're a horrible failure if you don't get into and attend an Ivy League college and graduate summa cum laude. I think that's crap.

#8334:

>Asking questions would probably help the wannabe pilot. But it's not impossible for him to succeed without doing that

it's impossible for him to succeed without asking lots of questions (at least in his own mind) and getting answers to those questions. he has to create knowledge of how to fly a plane and that involves asking questions. and if he's gonna be asking questions anyway, he might as well do it in the most efficient and effective manner possible

> it's impossible for him to succeed without asking lots of questions (at least in his own mind) and getting answers to those questions. he has to create knowledge of how to fly a plane and that involves asking questions. and if he's gonna be asking questions anyway, he might as well do it in the most efficient and effective manner possible

what if SN replied to this with some of the same kinda stuff he's been saying above. what's your rebuttal? here's what i have in mind:

my imaginary SN says back to you: but asking questions, including in my own mind, causes me lots of suffering. so i'm going to go make a bunch of progress without that since suffering won't work. i'll just go do some other (unspecified) stuff which will (somehow) fix my problems enough so that i can like question asking, then start doing the questions you're advocating which i agree sound pretty valuable (but only valuable if you can do them without suffering).

#8385 yes scheduling time *after* writing something to ponder more, finish up some thoughts or at least take some notes so you can continue later, is a good idea. people over under-allocate time to stuff and skimping on before and after time is a common problem.

broadly, conventional lives involve schedules which are incompatible with being very interested in things and pursuing them intensively. it's another way it keeps people trapped in shit. and liking stuff a lot and pursuing it a lot, even if you do have time, is deemed a mental illness: mania. what you're supposed to do is only pursue interests in half-hearted unserious ways. with a few exceptions for socially-approved interests like you can practice a fuckton to play football well, then it's not mania or obsession or whatever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOScYBwMyAA

Published in 2011. I didn't watch much of it. Quotes szasz @12:56

#8397 this post has nothing to say and is all faking.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOScYBwMyAA

>

> Published in 2011. I didn't watch much of it. Quotes szasz @12:56

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

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

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyGmJ-q7fEY

I didn't mean to anthropomorphise my memes there seriously. But I don't think it was obvious that I wasn't saying talking about seriously as other entities.

>They really wanted me to get defensive

If I was being serious, I'd have said "I really wanted to get defensive".

> Partially I think it's some pressure I put on myself to respond, like I need to respond quickly or it's a problem.

there are **zero** FI posters who consistently respond fast.

#8398

>this post has nothing to say and is all faking.

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

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

so anon wrote:

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

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

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

is this faking somehow?

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

and maybe since i didn't do that, then that means i was just wasting time thinking about a dumb question, while pretending to be thinking about something interesting? is that the faking you have in mind? or something else?

ok. here's the quote:

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

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

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

i wrote:

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

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

my bad on not linking the post which i was just quoting. it's #8401

#8412

your ignorance of the Urban Dictionary website does not warrant a "wtf" response to people.

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

you're being a dumb jerk here.

Molyneux conducted an interview with Szasz in 2011, which he has chosen to make unlisted on YouTube. I found a link to it on some blog. I linked to about 7:30 since before that Molyneux is talking about Szasz rather than interviewing him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONvsKmiw1fI&feature=youtu.be&t=450

here's someone being very mean to me on reddit comments (about Overwatch, not philosophy), totally unprompted and out of the blue, and then being totally dishonest that they had attacked me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/5sd8a7/how_do_you_kill_a_tracer_when_you_sleep_dart_her/dde73l0/

#8415 Thanks for the link. Molyneux is a very bad interviewer who is clueless about Szasz. Molyneux really makes a fool of himself. But the video is worth watching for Szasz's if you've already read a ton of Szasz books, or if you like videos way more than books. But for most people I'd recommend just reading Szasz's books instead of watching this.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/fornewintellectual/permalink/1867863803457512/

> I was listening to Yaron Brook over the weekend and he said that he thinks George W Bush was a much worse President than Obama.

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

the ARI Objectivist camp is soooo broken.

the Branden and Kelley camps are sooo broken too. they are much worse in many big ways. they have less to do with Rand's views.

#8410

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like a big, dumb animal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the cliffnotes site reliable?

I am using it while reading the book to know the characters better.

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/the-fountainhead/

> Is the cliffnotes site reliable?

no

i gave you the answer.

if you want me to actually click the link and read their stuff and then write up a list of ways they're wrong, you'll have to pay me a lot of money.

cliffnotes are for people, especially students, who don't really want to read books. the site isn't for people like me.

#8440

>Since when I actually read it's rarely "dangerous" like I'd feared. But sometimes I can read *expecting* "danger" because of this and try to find it where it isn't.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

#8458

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

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

Yes.

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

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

I'm sure there are better ways of talking about my problems more literally and explicitly, but I don't know them all yet. I expect as I understand my problems better I will "joke" about them less and be explicit about it more.

> I will point out when I'm joking/not being literal and I don't think it's obvious.

it's not safe to think it's obvious sometimes. nothing is obvious. and jokes and metaphors are especially confusing.

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

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

(#8461 was me too, missed it that time)

#8458

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

#8465

>But being reliable is good, helps to do things with other people. I don't want to end up being so flaky/inconsistent I can't make deals with people because no-one expects me to follow through.

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

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

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

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

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

So what's that earlier cause?

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

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

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

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

> My guess is that Trump was relying on the statements of others when saying the 3-5million thing, but without reviewing or doing any scholarly work.

do you mean Trump didn't PERSONALLY do scholarly work? sounds true. but he has advisors, thinkers, etc, on his *team*, who DID do a rational investigation of the matter.

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

there are a lot of details about this stuff in public which you could find if you cared to. did you even read Adios America before guessing the anti-immigration side is wrong? maybe it's you who is clueless and ignorant, and you're projecting...

so, are you going to stay ignorant or start reading?

you come off as very hostile and unreasonable. where is the value to me in answering the other comments? they're boring. what do i get out of it? i offered one path forward where you could demonstrate some good will and thinking effort, just in case appearances are misleading.

> Why do I seem hostile / unreasonable?

your political views are very false and nasty and immoral, and they aren't offered from a position of like "Hi, I'm a novice, teach me", they are written like you already chose a side (the anti-America, anti-me side).

> And I thought this place welcomed criticism.

you have not said anything substantive, and are ignorant of the topic. and what i did is ask if you will read stuff. you have not shown any willingness to educate yourself on the topic. you've shown no interest in reading and learning, just attacking western civilization. and you haven't asked any interesting questions. so your comments lack value.

> That may be true (I’m open to the possibility), but being offended / interpreting them as hostile is wrong.

i meant they are hostile to Trump, America, the values of this blog (my values), etc

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

do you? but you seem uninterested in reading information.

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

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

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

you came here and, with zero introduction, started aggressively attacking the values of this blog while not having done basic reading on the matter and seeming not to want to. it is still totally unclear to me why you're here. have you read the recent political posts on my blog? maybe you should do that before trying to talk politics with me.

> I have been a FI subscriber/lurker for a few years, and have read many posts here, on FI, and your Fi email newsletter.

then you should have said e.g. "Hi, I strongly disagree with your political views. Here is somewhere I think you're making a mistake..." but instead we get:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i think in several ways you miscommunicated. i think you should drop these disputes and try to say something about a political issue you care about, perhaps book related. i haven't yet seen you say anything like "I think X is a good political principle, because Y, and I think it implies Z about situation W." nor have i seen you read some reasoning by me or others i agree with and point out a mistake in it.

> then you should have said e.g. "Hi, I strongly disagree with your political views. Here is somewhere I think you're making a mistake..."

My agreement/disagreement with your political views is mixed. I would guess 50% agreement but hard to estimate, shrug.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I must run but may respond to some of your other comments later.

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

because i agree with the statements you consider intentional lies, and i would be happy to say some of them myself, e.g.:

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

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

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

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

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

you believe this from a position of having absolutely no idea what you're talking about. which isn't reasonable, it's overly hostile, and it's what you're focusing on when civilization is at stake. obama was the worst president for a long time (i haven't researched historical presidents much) and Trump is the one people complain about way more and you joined in that mob and not only called Trump factually mistaken but you went into conspiracy theory claims about how he's an intentional liar and I'm apparently his dupe.

Re #8466, you could also use penalty clauses to make deals with yourself even in situations when you ordinarily wouldn't expect yourself to follow through.

I stopped using caffeine a week ago. I was a heavy user for about 12 years.

I slept 10 hours a night for a few days but that's changed back to my normal 8 now. It was unpleasant for a couple of days (headachey and irritable).

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

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

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

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

I like hot drinks so I switched to drinking squash with hot water.

>>But being reliable is good, helps to do things with other people. I don't want to end up being so flaky/inconsistent I can't make deals with people because no-one expects me to follow through.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think there's two factors here.

1. my crits of being active on FI

(I've phrased it that way because I don't think it's a problem with FI itself, rather some of the things that come with it)

There are certain kinds of post that trigger my hangups. Being told what I "should" do is something I have a problem with. Lol, such a rebel (jk). I guess that's a hangup from being told what I should do by people are going to coerce me.

I don't need to care that someone else thinks I should do something (caring *why* they think I should is a different matter).

So I guess I need a functional response to someone saying I "should" do something.

It's not all "should" statements though, more when they're just made as assertions. So eg "action X has flaw A so you should do Y" doesn't hit the hangup, because it's got reasoning behind it, but "you should do Y" is an empty assertion and I at least partially want to say "fuck off and die" when I get told something like that. The hangup is also triggered when I'm told something like "action X has flaw A" but I don't know how to understand X or A.

I guess just asking "why?" (or in the case of not understanding, just saying so) is a place to start with that.

2. my lack of decisiveness in giving things up

I find it more fun to just go with whatever I enjoy in the moment, so if flaws come up with something I just give it up and move on.

The problem is that I don't really think through the consequences of dropping things like that (beside being flaky, it also means I'm leaving this unresolved conflict + possibly dropping something fun for bad reasons).

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

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

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

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

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

>So what's that earlier cause?

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

Right.

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

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

I also avoid it when I'm tired.

I also avoid it when I'm stressed/time pressured.

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

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

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

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

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

Is this something I can just get better at by gradually working towards it and extending the reach of my long-term thinking or are there important techniques to it?

>> I can't make deals with people because no-one expects me to follow through.

> there is a simple solution to this in widespread use in the business world.

> penalty clauses.

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

> sign a contract like that and people will make some deals with you even if you're flakey.

Ok, good point.

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

(yes I'm aware that I can also offer money if I particularly want an answer and then will have a much better chance of getting one)

> I guess just asking "why?" (or in the case of not understanding, just saying so) is a place to start with that.

yup. note that you've had issues for years which have such simple solutions. (not necessarily simple *full* solutions but plenty to get started). something's screwy there...

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

you could play games where thinking ahead is required to do well, like Chess or Go. no take backs!

For dealing with that, I try to keep catching myself when I resist change for no clear reason and either work out the reason, or if it seems harmless try it out and see what happens.

Also reading Rand helps. She makes quite a lot of references to concrete-bound minds and mentalities and the problems with them, so it helps to think about the problems that it causes.

#8504

> (like "it happened because Bob said it" - try it without Bob, or "it happened because I was tired" - try it without being tired)

Rewriting for clarity

(like "the feeling happened because of Bob said it" - try it without Bob, or "the feeling happened because I was tired when I did it" - try it without being tired)

#8504 boring vague hindsight list attempting to replace creative thinking. not useful.

#8508

why you don't create rationalizations for the FI pain in order to make it more tolerable, like you do with your life pain? what's the difference which kept you from doing that in the past regarding the FI pain?

> I don't create more rationalisations for my life pain.

of course you do.

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

sure you have more. but they aren't as effective as some others. less time and tradition go into them.

> But I'm not aware of any new ones at the moment.

that's a bad sign, not a good sign.

you should expect progress in phases:

- ruining your own life obliviously

- noticing a few ways you ruin your own life

- fixing a few ways you ruin your own life

*in that order*.

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

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

in a life that's going well it's normal to find and solve problems at similar rates, and always maintain some stock of known problems. like you have on average 25 known problems, and you solve 20 per year but also discover or create 20 per year.

#8513

This talks about problems in general, but quotes #8512 and drops the context of specifically problems about creating new rationalisations. Why?

Do any of you imagine actors while reading fiction?

#8516

I don't disagree that it's relevant to the subject in general.

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

I think it would have been better not to quote #8512 at all and say something about the state of having no known problems instead. Then it would have been a better post.

#8520 no

never

i don't know if you mean what you say or it's some kind of satire, but either way you seem like an idiot.

I just found out Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia Co-founder) is a self-avowed Objectivist,

"Referring to the philosophy invented by writer Ayn Rand in the mid-20th century that emphasizes reason, individualism, and capitalism. Wales first encountered the philosophy through reading Rand's novel The Fountainhead during his undergraduate period[19] and, in 1992, founded an electronic mailing list devoted to "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy".[6][100] Though he has stated that the philosophy "colours everything I do and think",[6] he has said, "I think I do a better job—than a lot of people who self-identify as Objectivists—of not pushing my point of view on other people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales

He calls himself libertarian though.

What do you think of Richard Stallman?

I liked his views on Piracy, copyright & Freedom but he is a Bernie Supporter & a SJW :-(

You were only allowed to post here as FF. You're banned for a month from everything.

Don't test the ban. I'm not going to do anything now, but if you post again then I'll go permanently ban you with the same software that bans Leonor.

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/a-thread-for-further-comments-on-the-misconduct-by-the-hypatia-editors-and-the-defamation-of-prof-tu.html#comments

> I have always taken for granted that what anything properly calling itself philosophy must be committed to includes the following:

> a) the careful, reasonable consideration of a range of topics, including (and perhaps especially) many of the most sensitive and controversial issues there are. Many people do not dare to discuss or even question the accepted views of their culture or subculture on matters of religion, morality, politics, and so on. We philosophers are bold enough to wade in on such issues with reasoned criticisms of all views, including the most popular and sacred, and to promote free discussion on these matters. Indeed, this is one of the great social benefits of, and perhaps the primary justification for, philosophy.

> b) the impartial consideration (or as close as we can come to it) of the best reasoning and evidence on all sides, rather than social pressure or other forms of silencing and exclusion, as the way to resolve the issues we consider.

> c) teaching people to think for themselves rather than to accept our worldviews. A test of this: which of these results would you count as evidence that you were doing an irresponsible job teaching: if your students develop their reasoning skills to a high degree in your classes but use them to come to conclusions of which you strongly disapprove, or if they come away from your courses comfortable in your views but without the intellectual and emotional resources to question them? If the latter, then it seems clear that you are not primarily teaching philosophy but rather engaging in indoctrination.

> d) promoting a professional culture of diverse viewpoints and critical open-mindedness in our service to the profession. Whether one is helping to assemble a colloquium series, a panel, a set of articles to be published in a journal or anthology, or even the members of a department, it runs counter to the spirit of philosophy to limit the range of viewpoints. It is all too easy to justify excluding unfamiliar views and arguments by saying that they do not take into consideration enough of the existing literature. If there are arguments or objections in the literature that someone is overlooking, then one can provide that person with a summary of those arguments or objections. But a true philosopher welcomes criticism from the outside. A solid philosophical position or argument should be able to withstand naïve criticism quite easily. Moreover, it is often those who are the least steeped in the often-invisible ideological commitments of a subdiscipline who can raise the most important objections.

> I'd like to add another criterion to the list of features that seem essential to philosophical discussion: the criterion that anyone can participate. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that anyone's contribution to a discussion is as good as anyone else's. But if there are topics that only certain people are allowed to engage in -- and this can follow, de facto, from an environment in which people who don't fit a certain demographic feel so afraid of being shouted down for daring to participate that they put their objections only meekly or not at all -- then it should not be difficult to see that the free and unbiased discussion that gives philosophy and science their status and power is simply not being respected. The fact that some critics are not steeped in the ideologies of those whose positions and arguments they are disputing is, in philosophy as in science, generally a benefit. It would surely be wrong to rule out such dissenting voices on principle.

> Peter Singer's 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' deals with our duties to those living in absolute poverty, but Singer has never lived in absolute poverty and gives no indication in that article of having steeped himself in the writings of those who have. In his treatment of the same material in _Practical Ethics_, he refers to the work of Robert McNamara, an affluent and powerful westerner, in categorizing what absolute poverty is. But no reasonable person rejects, or would think of rejecting, Singer's arguments because he does not demonstrate familiarity of first-person accounts of extreme poverty. Judith Jarvis Thomson's 'A Defense of Abortion' is, rightly, a much-discussed article. In it, Thomson does not draw our attention to the writings of people who have had abortions. I have no idea from reading the article whether Thomson herself ever had an abortion, nor do I care, and nor should I. Her argument, as any good argument, stands or falls on its own merits. Frances Kamm has written a number of excellent articles on trolley problems, though I presume that she has never stood at a railway switch (or anywhere else) with the weight of a life-and-death moral decision on her own shoulders, nor is her philosophical work weakened by a neglect to refer directly to the words and sentiments and 'lived experiences' of those who have.

> Anyone thinks that these points are legitimate objections against Singer, Thomson and Kamm simply misunderstands the nature and purpose of the philosophical enterprise. Philosophy is not a two-phase process in which there is first of all a contest to see whose life experiences best qualify them as experts on an issue and then a period of listening to those experts in quiet awe as they present the final word on that issue. True philosophy is egalitarian. Anyone at all gets to present any argument at all on an issue, and then anyone at all gets to review that argument for soundness and relevance and raise any objection against the logic, facts, or relevance that they think is objectively powerful. For this process to work fairly, we should ensure that those with arguments and objections that don't conform with what the group is already saying feel _particularly encouraged_ to raise those arguments and objections.

Brian Leiter, the blog owner, is a bad dude. See e.g. http://www.autoadmit.com/leiter.html and the linked "tirade" (he hates autoadmit).

But note the quotes from Alisa are from a blog commenter, not Leiter.

Because the xoxo criticism of Leiter is no longer up and only available from archive.org, I mirrored it:

http://curi.us/files/ciolli.final.pdf

> 16. See id. Leiter states that “[w]ithout a doubt, two of the measures used in calculating the overall rank are sensitive to the number of graduates” and concedes that this favors large schools such as Georgetown. Id. It is unclear why Leiter chose to include these two measures in his ranking formula knowing the bias it introduces.

wtf

> 17. See id. Leiter states that he “studied the usual suspects for the top law schools,” “two schools on the cusp of this elite group,” and four “very reputable, but presumably less national schools” only “[a]s a check on the reliability of the results.” Id. No prior research supports such claims.

sigh

Rebecca Tuvel's article In Defense of Transracialism (*) was the target of an online backlash earlier this month calling for it to be retracted. This backlash was part of what Justin Kalef was responding to in the text quoted in #8558. The Daily Nous has the best summary of what happened.

Tuvel's article begins:

> Former NAACP chapter head Rachel Dolezal’s attempted transition from the white to the black race occasioned heated controversy. Her story gained notoriety at the same time that Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner graced the cover of Vanity Fair, signaling a growing acceptance of transgender identity. Yet criticisms of Dolezal for misrepresenting her birth race indicate a widespread social perception that it is neither possible nor acceptable to change one’s race in the way it might be to change one’s sex. Considerations that support transgenderism seem to apply equally to transracialism.

Tuvel also considers "transabled" people who may feel as if a limb is not part of them and have it amputated.

(*) The link above has formatting problems. A PDF of the article can also be found on sci hub under DOI 10.1111/hypa.12327.

Leiter appears to have blocked my comment talking about qualities of good forums and asking if Justin knew of any. There's no notification of it being blocked, just nothing happens, it doesn't show up, and someone else's comment was approved in the same thread. Talk about a bad forum where you're silently censored for no apparent reason! So I tried again to post just this:

> Justin Kalef (#2, #18) is there an email address where I can contact you? Reply here or email me at curi@curi.us

Popper is terrible on capitalism too so...

I'm sure Einstein ran into capitalist ideas a little bit.

Popper must have known about Mises via Hayek and meeting him at Mount Pelerin.

But people really really hate freedom so...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/duke-divinity-crisis-griffiths-documents/

At Duke Divinity School, a message was sent to a wide distribution encouraging attendance at a "Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training". Professor Paul Griffiths replied to all with a message that discouraged attendance. A university administrator replied, falsely accusing him of racism, sexism, and bigotry.

Paul Griffiths' initial reply:

> I exhort you not to attend this training. Don’t lay waste your time by doing so. It’ll be, I predict with confidence, intellectually flaccid: there’ll be bromides, clichés, and amen-corner rah-rahs in plenty. When (if) it gets beyond that, its illiberal roots and totalitarian tendencies will show. Events of this sort are definitively anti-intellectual. (Re)trainings of intellectuals by bureaucrats and apparatchiks have a long and ignoble history; I hope you’ll keep that history in mind as you think about this instance.

> We here at Duke Divinity have a mission. Such things as this training are at best a distraction from it and at worst inimical to it. Our mission is to thnk, read, write, and teach about the triune Lord of Christian confession. This is a hard thing. Each of us should be tense with the effort of it, thrumming like a tautly triple-woven steel thread with the work of it, consumed by the fire of it, ever eager for more of it. We have neither time nor resources to waste. This training is a waste. Please, ignore it. Keep your eyes on the prize.

University administrator reply:

>It is inappropriate and unprofessional to use mass emails to make disparaging statements–including arguments ad hominem–in order to humiliate or undermine individual colleagues or groups of colleagues with whom we disagree. **The use of mass emails to express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry** is offensive and unacceptable, especially in a Christian institution.

Reply by Griffiths' colleague Thomas Pfau:

> Having reviewed Paul Griffiths’ note several times, I find nothing in it that could even remotely be said to “express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry.” To suggest anything of the sort strikes me as either **gravely imperceptive or as intellectually dishonest.**

Griffiths' follow-up:

> Intellectual freedom – **freedom to speak and write without fear of discipline and punishment** – is under pressure at Duke Divinity these days. My own case illustrates this. Over the past year or so I’ve spoken and written in **various public forums** here, with as much clarity and energy as I can muster, about matters relevant to our life together... I’ve reviewed these contributions, to the extent that I can (some of them are available only in memory), and I’m happy with them and stand behind them... What I’ve argued in these contributions may of course be wrong; that’s a feature of the human condition.

> Elaine Heath and Thea Portier-Young, when faced with disagreement, prefer discipline to argument. In doing so they act illiberally and anti-intellectually; their action shows totalitarian affinities in its preferred method, which is the veiled use of institutional power. They appeal to non- or anti-intellectual categories (‘unprofessional conduct’ in Heath’s case; ‘harassment’ in Portier-Young’s) to short-circuit disagreement.

> [T]he life of the mind... requires openness, transparency, and a willingness to engage.

Part of an email from Griffiths about the disciplinary proceedings that have been initiated against him:

> The complainant’s allegation, so far as I understand it from your brief report, is illiberal, anti-intellectual, and shameful. It is, on the face of it, an attempt to constrain speech by blunt force rather than by free exchange. I’m entirely happy to stand on the record of my exchanges with the complainant, and with other colleagues. I’m confident that any reasonable judge of those exchanges will see them for what they are.

Griffiths has resigned after all this. :(

> Griffiths has resigned after all this. :(

damn.

he wrote some good stuff.

approximately(?) all the universities are so fucked up now.

KIC 8462852 is undergoing another dip.

“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.” - George Orwell, 1984

"Crimestop" - a good word for a way of thinking people commonly exhibit when discussing things with Elliot Temple.

> "Crimestop" - a good word for a way of thinking people commonly exhibit when discussing things with Elliot Temple.

And with you?

Why?

> - Most of my ideas are pretty conventional.

What's an example of a pretty conventional idea you hold?

> Even when people disagree with me, my ideas are within the spectrum of things they are prepared to think about.

What's an example of an idea in that spectrum where people disagree with you?

> My position wouldn't be considered thoughtcrime by them, so they don't need to engage in crimestop in order to avoid thinking about it.

Do you ever do crimestop yourself?

I was curious about what else Orwell says about crimestop. Here's another passage:

> He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions--'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water'--and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation.

So crimestop requires a lot of creativity, at least at first. People are expending their creativity on not understanding. How sad.

> - I don't often express disagreements in a simple and logical way. So people can easily keep discussing with me without doing things like "misunderstanding the simplest arguments".

If you're not expressing disagreements in a "simple and logical way" then I don't see how they can keep discussing without misunderstandings. How does that work?

>> What's an example of a pretty conventional idea you hold?

> That humans are smaller than elephants.

pretty conventional. to hold the opposite you would be “crazy”.

>> What's an example of an idea in that spectrum where people disagree with you?

> That the Warriors are better than the Spurs.

not “crazy”.

>> Do you ever do crimestop yourself?

> Yes.

can you give an example?

>> If you're not expressing disagreements in a "simple and logical way" then I don't see how they can keep discussing without misunderstandings. How does that work?

> How is that relevant? I didn't say they can "keep discussing without misunderstandings." I said, they can keep discussing without

>>> doing things like "misunderstanding the simplest arguments”.

so a simple argument that would not present a problem in convo with you presents a problem in convo with Elliot Temple because his ideas cause crimestop? do i got it?

crimestop seems like a big problem. what’s the solution?

oh just googling and i see that scientology has something similar to crimestop called entheta.

1. A leftist tried to murder anti-Jihad scholar Robert Spencer:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266719/icelandic-leftist-poisons-robert-spencer-robert-spencer

2. Evil Georgetown professor harasses alt-right guy at gym and gets his gym membership cancelled

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/richard-spencer-gym?utm_term=.muvGvzz1NK#.tsw5A00XgD

(note: Richard Spencer's views on race/etc are super bad. But people shouldn't be harassed like this by shrieking libs while peacefully going about their life...)

more on this evil bitch, she's apparently a serial doxxer: http://www.mrctv.org/blog/distinguished-georgetown-prof-spreads-personal-info-political-opponents-intimidate-them

3. Evil U of Hawaii professor tells white male professors to quit their jobs or exist in perpetual moral slavery to people like her:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/16659/racist-professor-tells-white-men-quit-or-be-hank-berrien

I thought this bit of writing from the prof was especially interesting when considered from an Objectivist perspective:

>I know you’re not going to quit your job, but I want you to understand that you should. And to understand that by keeping your job and your other unearned privileges, you are running a continued debt to marginalized people and you should always be seeking ways to pay us back. Not to alarm you, but statistically speaking you are the problem. Your very presence. I can’t tell you what is the best strategy for you to stop blocking my path. I can just ask that you please get out of my way.

4. Some people want to invoke the 25th amendment to remove Trump and that's really dangerous. (Note Krauthammer not exactly a Trump fan -- pretty hostile -- but still realizes this would be a disaster:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-guardrails-cant-contain-trump/2017/05/18/987e4fa4-3bee-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html?utm_term=.824ac204e021

>Republicans are beginning to panic. One sign is the notion now circulating that, perhaps to fend off ultimate impeachment, Trump be dumped by way of 25th Amendment.

>That’s the post-Kennedy assassination measure that provides for removing an incapacitated president on the decision of the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet.

>This is the worst idea since Leno at 10 p.m. It perverts the very intent of the amendment. It was meant for a stroke, not stupidity; for Alzheimer’s, not narcissism. Otherwise, what it authorizes is a coup — willful overthrow by the leader’s own closest associates.

>I thought we had progressed beyond the Tudors and the Stuarts. Moreover, this would be seen by millions as an establishment usurpation to get rid of a disruptive outsider. It would be the most destabilizing event in American political history — the gratuitous overthrow of an essential constant in American politics, namely the fixedness of the presidential term (save for high crimes and misdemeanors).

5.. Man from Burundi doing his Master's in Accounting in the US flees to Canada as "refugee"

https://twitter.com/therebeltv/status/865886325446066177

6. Trump called the Manchester terrorists evil losers. he is correct!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/23/politics/trump-manchester-remarks/index.html?adkey=bn

7. Is cultural marxism taking over mainstream conservatism?

http://www.vdare.com/articles/yes-virginia-dare-there-is-a-cultural-marxism-and-its-taking-over-conservatism-inc

>Not only does Cultural Marxism exist, but it now appears to be taking over Conservatism Inc. Thus even with Paris burning, National Review was still attacking to the Right. In the second round of the French election, Tom Rogan urged a vote for Emmanuel Macron on the grounds Marine Le Pen is insufficiently hostile to Vladimir Putin and is a “socialist” because she “supports protectionism.” Macron’s actual onetime membership in the Socialist Party, and his view that there was no such thing as French culture, apparently was not a problem [French election: American Conservatives Should Support Macron, April 24, 2017].

gp @ the absurdity of supporting an actual socialist over a protectionist cuz of wanting to stop socialism.

8. Spanish Gen Y-ers are suing their parents for financial support

http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/spanish-gen-yers-are-suing-their-parents-for-financial-support/news-story/c8e961fba92989b1337da45f1a8445be

9. Trump's conversation with Duterte has been leaked and its kinda funny in some parts:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3729123-POTUS-RD-Doc.html#document/p1

>>>> Do you ever do crimestop yourself?

>>>> Yes.

>>> can you give an example?

>> Look through my FI-list discussions with Elliot.

> I searched with the keyword "crimestop". Nothing turned up.

How is that relevant? You asked me for examples of when I *do* crimestop myself, not for posts where I discuss it.

> How is that relevant? You asked me for examples of when I *do* crimestop myself, not for posts where I discuss it.

I was expecting posts which had an example where you crimestopped and someone identified and discussed that problem. Have you discussed it? Have you solved it? If so, how?

> Then why didn't you ask for that?

You said to look through your FI-list discussions with Elliot. That is not to give an example but to say in a vague way how to *find* an example. If the examples on the list are clearly identified then no problem. If not, then I have to dig and my interpretation of what is an example will be different to yours. That is, you haven't actually given any unambiguous example. So I think I had the wrong idea about how helpful you were prepared to be and misjudged the context.

Given I now think you don't want to be very helpful, I won't ask for the above in #8658. I'm happy to go dig.

> I said that in response to your request for an example where I do crimestop myself. You still didn't answer the question.

The answer was:

> So I think I had the wrong idea about how helpful you were prepared to be and misjudged the context.

if i had guessed you were just gonna say there are examples somewhere on FI list i might have initially asked more specifically for one that was clearly identified and discussed. i had the implicit idea that you had given me more help than you had. i had the idea that you pointed me to FI list because there were clear identified examples which had been discussed. btw, this is not a complaint. i have nous enough to go find these things.

am I correct about why I didn't ask? or is there some other reason I didn't ask?

> sooo much parochial he-said/she-said meta discussion!

exaggeration about the amount. there is a problem here. Alisa brought up the issue of "crimestop" then doesn't want to discuss. she's avoiding my questions about it. like I asked if she discussed and solved her crimestop problem. that would be interesting to discuss but she wants to discuss meta. is this crimestop in action?

> Alisa brought up the issue of "crimestop" then doesn't want to discuss.

you interrogated Alisa instead of discussing the issue. at length. Alisa was extraordinarily patient and responsive. you controlled the conversation and ran it into the ground.

you're extremely dishonest. you had every opportunity to talk about crimestop and didn't.

SOL, absurd rape-related allegations are a serious matter. They're not OK. You're trivializing rape, trying to smear someone as a violent criminal, and attempting to start a witch hunt.

Take a break for a few days to calm down.

Then never post here (or on FI) again while angry.

> SOL, absurd rape-related allegations are a serious matter. They're not OK. You're trivializing rape, trying to smear someone as a violent criminal, and attempting to start a witch hunt.

when someone says "fuck you" how should I read it? what is that person doing if not wanting to threaten violence?

> Then never post here (or on FI) again while angry.

I'm not angry.

SOL says:

>it was to say my opinion is worthless and that i deserve to be raped for holding worthless opinions.

your entire comment is bullshit (inventing motives of other people) but the part i quoted is *ridiculous* bullshit.

why the fuck do you keep bringing rape into it?

you realize "fuck you" has nothing to do with rape? it's more like "go to hell."

and in context it meant "go to hell for trying to deny the reality of what i wrote." So it was condemning willful misinterpretation/evasion.

you're being willfully obtuse and profoundly intellectually dishonest here.

SOL, why are you here? What, if anything, do you like about FI? Do we have some common ground? Is there anything positive you want to talk about?

> SOL, why are you here?

cuz i learn stuff. like when Alisa brought up the idea of “crimestop" i learnt that idea right then and there. then I was curious about it and went off and read “1984” for the first time. from that i learnt the “blackwhite" concept. the book also talked about “doublethink”, which i already knew about. I was then curious about how to solve the problem of someone doing “crimestop”. i wondered if it is something i do myself. i wondered how common it is even in free societies. very common was my guess. Alisa said she did it then i was curious for an example and also curious how she may have stopped herself doing it. that discussion turned into a bloody mess as you know. so then i’m thinking i’m not good at discussions or at asking questions or something. that also gets me curious about why people want to tell me to “fuck off” or “go to hell”. i never say that to people. ok, some deeply evil dude i might. but ordinary people in my life are just flawed people with good and bad ideas. they are the people who make countries like america awesome and don’t deserve to be told to go fuck off and die or whatever. i kinda went off on a tangent there but i’ll let it stand as i want to say it. back to the beginning: i learn stuff here.

Elliot, wtf, I thought Leo was banned.

LOL thought anon actually got me banned for a moment.

I don't like to write FI emails because I don't know how to write sentences and paragraphs properly. Sometimes I have trouble figuring out how to say my thoughts in a way that people can understand. I have trouble writing long sentences. But there are a lot of questions I want to ask and things I want to learn. How can I get better at writing?

>why do you need to write proper sentences and paragraphs?

i want to be able to write clearly. sometimes when i write it is just a mash of words that is hard understand.

this isn't just a problem with writing. i also have the same problem with talking.

>can you write IMs?

yeah, i'm pretty sure i can

>can you write how you talk outloud?

i mean i feel like anyone could. it just involves having to type the words you are saying. but then you have to actually add commas and periods. i don't know where to put the commas and periods.

i also have trouble figuring out how to say things outloud. so even if i write how i talk, that's not enough to make it easy for me to write.

>can you keep it simple? long sentences are bad. just don't write them.

why are long sentences bad?

i will try to write short sentences. i don't really see any problems with writing short sentences.

>the writing in your comment is pretty good. the sentences are pretty short. there's no big or obscure words. there's no commas, dashes, semi-colons, colons, or parenthesis 😀

i didn't write my comment. someone is helping me.

>lots of "proper" writing is *bad*. it's not focused on clarity. it's not about being easy to understand. it tries to sound smart.

that makes sense to me. i would like to be easy to understand. there doesn't really seem to be any point in trying to sound smart. unless you are trying to impress someone. like at a job interview or something.

>it sounds like you have some ideas about how you're supposed to post to FI. but they sound like normal ideas, not FI ideas. so maybe you're pressuring yourself to do writing stuff that we don't actually like anyway.

i just want to be able to write clearly to FI. and not have people have to ask what i mean all the time.

>if FI is hard for you, you could ask questions here.

i don't think this is any easier than FI

>> i don't know where to put the commas and periods.

>commas are small pauses and periods are big pauses.

so is it fine if i mess up commas and periods? does it matter much?

anti-socialism kills people

Democratic Socialism FTW!

i want a computer for gaming. does this seem good? i want to get 144 fps in games, with low settings. or get 60 fps with higher settings

https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/7gtgcc

>i think you need a CPU fan

the CPU comes with a fan

>and i have no idea if you need a case fan

this guide recommends a minimum of 3 fans and the case i am planning on getting comes with 2

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/692-how-many-case-fans-should-you-have

re-reading the article made me realize that it suggests getting more than 3 fans so i should probably get 4

My one month FI ban is over. (Message to FI members & admins but not to E.T)

I will be posting here from now. Please don't think my posts are for Elliot. (I will be banned again if I contact Elliot)

Is it bad that I like Elsworth Toohey as a kid?

He seems like a very good kid.

https://25iq.com/2017/04/28/how-to-make-decisions-like-ray-dalio

> “What I’ve discovered in that process is that I was learning so much. So just imagine what a fantastic path to think.” “Let me go after the person who has got the opposite point of view, who is really smart, and let me have quality conversations, quality disagreement.” “I get clear feedback. The goal is: don’t be too wrong. Be more right than wrong. So in that process I can take personal accountability. If I don’t learn personal accountability, if I don’t learn, then I’m going to pay a terrible price. So that process itself lent itself to this kind of very open-minded decision. Also the making mistakes, and the loving the mistakes.”

>

> “There’s an art to this process of seeking out thoughtful disagreement. People who are successful at it realize that there is always some probability they might be wrong and that it’s worth the effort to consider what others are saying — not simply the others’ conclusions, but the reasoning behind them — to be assured that they aren’t making a mistake themselves. They approach disagreement with curiosity, not antagonism, and are what I call ‘open-minded and assertive at the same time.’ This means that they possess the ability to calmly take in what other people are thinking rather than block it out, and to clearly lay out the reasons why they haven’t reached the same conclusion. They are able to listen carefully and objectively to the reasoning behind differing opinions. When most people hear me describe this approach, they typically say, ‘No problem, I’m open-minded!’ But what they really mean is that they’re open to being wrong. True open-mindedness is an entirely different mind-set. It is a process of being intensely worried about being wrong and asking questions instead of defending a position. It demands that you get over your ego-driven desire to have whatever answer you happen to have in your head be right. Instead, you need to actively question all of your opinions and seek out the reasoning behind alternative points of view.”

> Recognize that your goal is to come up with the best answer, that the probability of your having it is small, and that even if you have it, you can’t be confident that you do have it unless you have other believable people test you.

What Dalio means by "believable", from https://inside.bwater.com/publications/principles_excerpt:

> People who have repeatedly and successfully accomplished the thing in question and have great

explanations when probed are most believable.

Back to the original article:

> Understand that the ability to deal with not knowing is far more powerful than knowing a) Embrace the power of asking: ‘What don’t I know, and what should I do about it?’ b) Finding the path to success is at least as dependent on coming up with the right questions as coming up with answers.

> Remember that your goal is to find the best answer, not to give the best one you have.

> While everyone has the right to have questions and theories, only believable people have the right to have opinions.

> Constantly worry about what you are missing. a) Successful people ask for the criticism of others and consider its merit. b) Triangulate your view.

> People are so attached to being right, and yet the tragedy is it could be so easy to find out how you’re wrong. If you just said to yourself, “I’m not sure that I’m right, and let me go find people who have alternative point of views and let me have quality conversations.” Not to pay attention to their conclusions, but to the thought process. So thoughtful discussion, worrying about being wrong but not to the sense of being paralyzed. Or moving forward, but in the sense of trying to create discovery, to have an exchange. To go after the person who has the most different point of view, who is the most thoughtful, and then have a conversation to see their point of view. Whether a person could be both open-minded and assertive at the same time, that creates a discovery process. It creates a fabulous learning. That process itself reduces the probability of being wrong and produces a great deal of learning. People are so hung up on being right. Starting their discussion and deriving some sort of satisfaction if, at the end of the discussion, they were where they began the discussion. That doesn’t make any sense, because there’s not going to be any learning. So ego plays an important role in that. The people that feel like, ‘I’m good. I’ve got it,’ won’t learn. If you’ve got it, you won’t learn. So you have to get rid of this ego barrier, ‘I’ve got it’ thing.”

> “... The most important thing is to have humility, and to think about, how do I get the best decision? It doesn’t have to come from me. I just want it to be right, right? If comes from other people, that’s good. The greatest tragedy of mankind is people holding on to wrong opinions that could so easily be rectified and that are doing them harm because they’re making wrong decisions.”

Is my Discord Ban still active? (Asking Justin, Rami & others)

In Scientific Cuddles vs. Criticism, Julia Rohrer writes:

> If nobody criticizes my work, I won’t learn that I’m wrong. Or probably I will know that I’m wrong because that’s my null hypothesis, but I will never learn that I am much wronger than I think I am and in a multitude of ways. We all need critical feedback from our scientific community to learn. Sparing others from the potential negative emotions will do them a disservice in the long run, because science is about figuring out the truth, not about feeling good.

> But even though valid scientific criticism can help us learn, it need not be constructive in the sense in which the word is normally used, ”maybe instead of trying it this way, wouldn’t it be nice if you tried it that way?” If somebody points out a valid problem in my work, it is not their job to suggest a solution—that is first and foremost my job, because I decided to dive into that particular research question and now have to figure out the best way to address it. If there is actually no proper solution, tough luck—for me.

> Scientific criticism does not even need to be nice and friendly. Sure, I generally prefer people who don’t act like assholes, and I firmly believe that being an asshole is not the most effective way to interact with others. But the question of whether a critic is being an asshole is orthogonal to the validity of the scientific argument they raise. If they make a good point, they make a good point.

(h/t @RetractionWatch)

"Thorn" commented on YouTube:

> the term People of Color is used heavily by the left, because it is person first language. But whites are called whites without regard to personhood (or "peoplehood", maybe more accurately, since it's about the group rather than the individual). In fact, whites are only allowed to see themselves as a people in the context of guilt and shame. PoC's are allowed to feel good about their peoplehood.

Interesting point. The left doesn't call whites "People of Whiteness" because that would emphasize their personhood.

" a " audio quality is bad.

do you like ALL of Gail Wynand? he has good parts.

Why do Roark & Wynand want to own Dominique? do they not believe in ARR?

> “You wish to reject an opportunity like this, a spot in history, a chance of world fame, practically a chance of immortality ...” “I don’t work with collectives. I don’t consult, I don’t co-operate, I don’t collaborate.”

why doesn't Roark co-operate? should we all prefer to work alone like him?

group projects are often full of compromises, people who aren't useful, and a bunch of extra work trying to argue with the other guys.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7445

> **FP:** You discuss the horrifying suffering that women endure under the vicious and sadistic structures of Islam’s gender apartheid. You touch on the eerie silence of Western leftist feminists on this issue, noting “Where two pieties – feminism and multi-culturalism – come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence.”

> To be sure, the Left has long posed as a great champion of women’s rights, gay rights, minorti rights, democratic rights etc. Yet today, it has reached out in solidarity with the most fascistic women-hating, gay-hating, minority-hating and democracy hating force on the face of the earth – Islamism.

>What gives? It’s really nothing new though is it? (i.e. the Left’s political pilgrimages to communist gulags etc.)

> **Dalrymple:** I think the problem here is one of a desired self-image. Tolerance is the greatest moral virtue and broadmindedness the greatest intellectual one. Moreover, no decent person can be other than a feminist. People therefore want to be both multiculturalist and feminist. But multiculturalism and feminism obviously clash; therefore, you avoid the necessity to give up one or the other merely by disregarding the phenomena. How you feel about yourself is more important to you than the state of the world.

oops.. I googled a bit. It seems to be a anti-rand movie.

and there are rebuttals like:

https://www.amazon.com/Passion-Ayn-Rands-Critics-Brandens/dp/1930754671

> The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens

(i don't know how good that rebuttal is.)

be aware also that

1) Rand had a major falling out with the Brandens

2) Barbara Branden waited until a bit after Ayn Rand died to do her book. this prevented Rand from contradicting it.

the falling out was 1968, Rand died 1982, and Barbara published 1986. she had a long time to do the book before Rand died.

roark feels pain only upto a certain point. what does that mean?

> the really bad problems are the ones with no end to them, which take over your whole life, which have nothing to keep them under control

Like Peter Keating's problems?

oops I replied to Elliot's reply by mistake. Please don't ban me.

amazon says the print length of FH is 752 pages.

so you're showing 80% of a print page per phone page. that's actually most of it. you must be using a small font.

> amazon says the print length of FH is 752 pages. so you're showing 80% of a print page per phone page. that's actually most of it. you must be using a small font.

The font size, portrait mode and the size of my phone changed the number of pages to 935 for me. I am reading from a epub book not a pdf book( Fixed number of pages)

Dominique had different ideas earlier in the book, and Roark had a less clear life situation. if he does things his way AND WINS (therefore he gains a position in society), combined with Dominique figuring some things out, then he'll get her.

> “I think I should have understood. You married Peter Keating. Right after the Stoddard trial.” “Do you wish to know everything? I want to tell you. I met him when he was working in a granite quarry. Why not? You’ll put him in a chain gang now or a jute mill. He was working in a quarry. He didn’t ask my consent. He raped me. That’s how it began. Want to use it? Want to run it in the Banner?”

why is she saying that it was rape without consent?

Did I say something wrong?

rape is sexy

finished reading FH

> Like people who talk about neurons when they can't seem to write a sentence that says what they mean.

exactly. that was so blatant. and she was recently told about this very issue and just *ignores advice* and then gets discouraged that people don't want to reply to her a ton.

> i know these ppl will NOT discuss anything to a conclusion

Does a person need to read all the popper material to bring a discussion to a conclusion?

Will listing out idea changes pre and post discussion enough?

> not if they can understand the issues without reading it all, or come up with any other way of proceeding.

Elliot has written reading recommendations and listed chapter numbers too (He hadn't done that before). He might create more essays or gumroad stuff if people waited longer. People might get a easy version of popper on gumroad.

Is Converting blog posts into audio books better than blitzskimming older blog posts?

> why do black ppl talk differently than others?

> is it because they’re jealous?

> is it because they want people to know they are proud of being black?

I have found this while googling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English

Howard Roark is ready to give up his life for Wynand but not live for him. Why?

My guess is that living for someone else causes suffering. Dying is end of suffering. Doing something risking your life is not a big deal compared to living a long life as a second-handed slave.

#8875

If somebody answered your question correctly, what would you learn? If nothing, then it's a bad question.

Your idea is either wrong or it's not. It's either refuted by one or more criticisms, or it's not.

your question is like asking: how many criticism of my idea do you know?

If somebody answered with: I know 5 criticisms of your idea, that doesn't help you learn what those criticisms are. It doesn't help you judge the criticisms.

#8872

You'd get more discussion if you used quotes and if you presented your question on fi.

@ cinder grill – have had it for a while now. recommend it at price i paid (210 with tax and shipping) but not at current price (> 500). has some good things about it, but not perfect, and heavy/big. one thing it’s missing is software for doing controlled fast cooking where you turn up the grill to be hotter than the temperature you want the inside of your food and then cook it in the normal way like you’d use a pan. your choices are sous vide slow style or else manually set a temperature and guess when to take it off or use your own food thermometer.

it’s more convenient than water sous vide for making steaks. no bag, no water, and it can sear without separate stove/pan.

>If someone you know has some character flaw, one of the objectively kindest things you can do is judge them negatively and point them out, because it gives them the opportunity to correct the flaw.

Yep. FI is the kindest, most valuable place in the world. :)

rather than learn to pass tests, school children also have the option to learn to deal with the consequences of failing tests. some do this. e.g. they learn how to minimize and live with parental and school punishments for being a "poor student".

----

the reason rote learning appears to work, in some cases, is the child also does some non rote learning (it can be in his head while doing the rote learning, or at a different time). the rote part is sometimes useful – in which case it could be done voluntarily – and often a waste of time and distraction.

in the past when children were physically assaulted for failing tests, some children *still* learned to deal with the consequences of failing instead of learning the material. e.g. some children injured themselves at home, instead of studying, in order to be better prepared to tolerate being injured publicly by their teacher without crying in front of people.

I think what underlies this is a substantial question and not just playing with words.

Is biological evolution problem-solving? But isn't it automatic?

When something is automated, that means it's following some program that instructs the automation. When an automation appears to overcome a new problem, what's actually happening is that the solution already existed in the program. (I.e., the knowledge was already there in the program, which then instructed the behaviour to 'solve' the problem.)

The reason biological evolution isn't 'automatic problem-solving' is:

1. That would require the knowledge to get *from the problem* (something in the evolutionary environment), back into the thing evolving (genome).

This is the misconception that Popper called "instruction from without".

To take an exaggerated, Lamarckian example: it's the difference between a giraffe neck evolving by selection pressure of genes ('within'), and it evolving by the tree being too tall and thus causing the giraffe to develop a stretched neck (tree height and giraffe behaviour = 'without').

2. There is no guarantee that evolution will solve any given problem. It's random.

"Automatic problem-solving" only makes sense in a limited way (e.g. when speaking loosely -- for instance, if you were speaking of an email organiser as automatically solving your email problems). New knowledge can't come from without, so either the solution is already there in the automation program, or it's creative instead of automatic.

As for 'blind' evolution:

In our minds, we may not be aware of our creativity consciously. Something started the problem-solving process. Being unaware of it consciously doesn't mean it's automatic -- it can still be 'directed'; it just means that this direction is happening at a different level / we may not be aware of it.

Biological evolution is a little different, because it's not 'directed', it's random. So, calling it "problem solving" may be misleading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15085693

Per capita spending on lotteries in Chicago's poorest neighborhoods is about ~$600 per year, of which the state of Illinois pays back about ~$100 to advertising agencies to continue to immiserate its own poor people, because if they don't constantly market the games sales go down.

Whether you can easily make your own examples is a good indication of whether you understand a concept well.

FF, are you the guy posting racist stuff on my ask.fm? like:

> wtf!! You don't care if blackies, brownies and tiny eyes rule the world? We need to stop that. Colored people have low IQ. No offence intended, No Racism intended.

https://m.xkcd.com/883/

https://m.xkcd.com/904/

https://m.xkcd.com/978/

https://m.xkcd.com/985/

https://m.xkcd.com/1014/

Rand's not like that at all. she argues that capitalism has raised the standard of living for everyone, and that exceptions to capitalism hurt people. for example, you bring up monopolies. Rand, economist Ludwig von Mises, and others point out that it's the government which creates monopolies by using force to suppress competition. that's where the cable monopoly, the post office monopoly, and others come from. recently in the US, the government prosecuted Apple for selling ebooks when Amazon has by far the most sales, so the government was suppressing competition and helping Amazon get closer to a monopoly. so the bad reputation of monpolies is unfairly blamed on capitalism when it's actually due to lack of capitalism (due to government actions).

capitalism is what you get when you apply freedom to economics. if you have a criticism of freedom, or an explanation of how capitalism diverges from freedom, that would be an example of a way to argue with Rand and argue with others like Mises or myself.

freedom is connected to reason, because you need to be free to use your own mind to judge ideas and then act according to your own judgement. if you take freedom away from people, you're not letting them do their best to use rational thinking to run their lives. authorities controlling people's actions is an infallibilist approach, so it's incompatible with Popper's epistemology. Popper says (similarly to Rand) that we all may be mistaken so we shouldn't impose our ideas on others (it's OK to persuade them on a voluntary basis, but not to use violence which is the opposite of reason).

yeah Peterson didn't understand Rand's books. not even close. and he slanders the quality of her philosophy from a position of ignorance. he's missing out. so sad.

> yeah Peterson didn't understand Rand's books. not even close. and he slanders the quality of her philosophy from a position of ignorance. he's missing out. so sad.

A Pro working class socialist woman gave him those Rand Novels mixed with George Orwell and other books. Maybe if an Objectivist like you introduced those books to him he wouldn't have dismissed them like he did.

@Rand's heroic characters, the complaint that they all seem the same is a common one

Note I am not saying the below explains why Peterson would have the misunderstanding he does. I'm thinking more of regular people.

The basic idea is that all Rand's characters share some really distinct traits. And each trait is one which people regard as unusual/unrealistic by itself. And if you combine the traits into one character, it becomes enough to start to seem like a "type."

One trait is that Rand's heroes all take themselves really seriously. They think their life matters and don't self-deprecate at all.

Another trait of Rand's heroes is that they are all very confident in themselves and their abilities in at least some area of life.

Another trait of Rand's heroes is that they think ideas are important and talk about them at length.

There are substantive differences between the characters, but to perceive them requires an engagement with ideas. If "thinks ideas are important" stands out enough as a defining character trait to you -- and is maybe something that you only experience when watching a documentary describing a great thinker -- then you're not gonna be able to make the relevant distinctions.

> One trait is that Rand's heroes all take themselves really seriously. They think their life matters and don't self-deprecate at all.

Roark doesn't get angry. People consider getting pissed off while others don't value his/her work as taking things seriously. Roark seems calm all the time. He just does his thing without caring what opinions others have of him or his work.

http://fallibleideas.com design updated

#12788 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliyahu_M._Goldratt#Bibliography

Reading *The Goal* first is good. I particularly recommend the business novels and the order they were written is pretty good. *Critical Chain* deals with project management which is a huge deal in software in general, though less of an issue with two people.

I like *The Choice* but it's more of a philosophy book than a business book.

I have short summaries of Goldratt's best ideas for sale, as well as a bunch of videos:

https://gumroad.com/l/TpyYV

Reading the summary material first would give an overview and would let you then look for examples and details of each idea as you read the books.

There's also this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592

Upsides: focused more on tech startups, has some of goldratt's ideas

Downsides: has non-goldratt ideas too, some of which are mediocre or even bad.

Also, follow patio11 on twitter.