I will be sure to include a transcript in all future episode descriptions/show notes.

This is perfect, thanks.

Done! Link to the transcript has been posted in the description, and also here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MjTM4revF1upDvO00y0v8jF8G6HUbcABtFDxVYiLyPc/edit?usp=sharing

Is there a different venue/format for the notes you had in mind?

I had not heard of "sphexishness" before. But my fledgling blog seems to be hell-bent on respectfully prying apart what I there termed "automatic" thoughts/behaviours.

I'm not sure about component #2 of sphexishness there - it appears the wasp achieves its goal of nurturing very well! But, I'm just going off the info referenced here, for its definition.

Lacking neo-cortices and executive function, wasps obviously wouldn't have the power (and the stress) of conscious goal-setting and future-planning. Its behavioural routines are innate, dictated by its genes, fixed throughout its life; (though they may be activated/inactivated at certain life stages or in response to trigger events. I'm no entomologist, I don't know the specifics.)

To me, this is worlds apart from the myriad habits and routines that humans learn to integrate into their lives. The fact that different humans have different habits indicates it is something learnt individually, be it through conscious or through unconscious intent. This is quite unlike the described wasp behaviour, which presumably applies to all Sphex ichneumoneus indiscriminately.

As such, it seems to me foolhardy for a human to wage war on one's own behavioural presentation of phenotype, which is what I understand sphexishness to be. However, auditing one's habits (or for a real challenge, try objectively examining one's own biases) - that which you call "noticing" - is surely invaluable for any adult human who values life beyond being a proverbial drone within the hive.

Right, this an honest dynamical model, the curves from the followup post is the opinion bots converging or diverging as they interact. I thought I explained it, and I think it's in one of the blog posts, but looking back at it, apparently not on this site. Thanks!

It seems like we are talking about something similar. If you interpret MWI as "anything can happen with some probability, and, given that we are here observing it, the posterior probability is obviously high enough", then you can use it to explain anything. I agree that my usage was not quite standard, but it fits somewhat, because you can use MWI to justify any conclusion, including an absurd one.

I'll do that tonight!

Hmm, it looks like it was written in the draft-js editor. In any case, I fixed it for you.

After rereading the post a few times, I think you are just misunderstanding it?

Like, I can't make sense of your top-level comment in my current interpretation of the post, and as such I interpreted your comment as asking for clarification in a weirdly hostile tone (which was supported by your first sentence being "What is that sentence supposed to tell me?"). I generally think it's a bad idea to start substantive criticisms of a post with a rhetorical question that's hard to distinguish from a genuine question (and probably would advise against rhetorical questions in general, but am less confident of that).

To me the section you quoted seems relatively clear, and makes a pretty straightforwardly true point, and from my current vantage point I fail to understand your criticism of it. I would be happy to try to explain my current interpretation, but would need a bit more help understanding what your current perspective is.

The criticism is actually so loosely defined, and universally applied, that one of my express purposes in writing this was to articulate as best I could the criticism itself. And because of the universality of its application, it's brought up in most relevant literature as almost an obligation. Its lack of clear definition required my very own to be sort of "idiosyncratic". I think Formal Theory in Sociology: Opportunity or Pitfall? is one of the best introductions to the subject; and it happens to be what I was implicitly, at the back of my mind, referring to as I wrote this. (It's a fun read.)