LessWrong 2.0 Reader

We're talking about a tablespoon of oil and vinegar mixed for a serving of simple sharp vinaigrette salad dressing, yeah. From a flavor perspective, generally it's hard for the vinegar to stick to the leaves without the oil.

If you aren't comfortable with adding a refined oil, adding unrefined fats like nuts and seeds, eggs or meat, should have some similar benefits in making the vitamins more nutritionally available, and also have the benefit of the nutrients of the nuts, seeds, eggs or meat, yes. Often these are added to salad anyway.

You probably don't want to add additional greens with the caloric content of oil to a salad; the difference in caloric density means that 1 tablespoon of oil translates to 2 pounds of lettuce (more than 2 heads), and you're already eating probably as many greens as you can stomach!

You can go through an archive of NYT Connections puzzles I used in my leaderboard. The scoring I use allows only one try and gives partial credit, so if you make a mistake after getting 1 line correct, that's 0.25 for the puzzle. Top humans get near 100%. Top LLMs score around 30%. Timing is not taken into account.

This is shockingly similar to what I'm going through.  And the fries that fucked me up the other night are indeed fried in canola oil. I'm cautiously optimistic but I know how complicated these things can be -_-. Will report back!

Someone on a subreddit said "free testosterone" is what matters and they usually just measure uh "regular testosterone" in blood or something. I have no idea if that's true. Know what those studies measured?

Wildly guessing here, but my intuition is that estrogen would have a greater impact on neuroticism than testosterone. Although I can't even say which direction.

Like what exactly? That seems unlikely to me. I suppose we will have results from the ongoing gender transitions soon.

I only linked the U-shaped study to mention that someone had said something vaguely similar. Notice my words "people have posited a U-shaped curve...". Study indeed seems like garbage. Perhaps i should've said that explicitly.

But it still doesn't really prove the causality - lots of things presumably influence intelligence, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them influence T as well.

Yes so the experiment is that a million people are starting up in taking hormones/blockers now. I don't think proper results are in but what I have myself observed seems like strong evidence that blocking T preserves or raises intelligence on the margin.

I would consider adding salt to something to be making that thing less healthy. If adding salt is essential to making something edible, I think it would be healthier to opt for something that doesn't require added salt. That's speaking generally though, someone might not be getting enough sodium, but typically there is adequate sodium in a diet of whole foods.

We often combine foods to make nutrients more accessible, like adding oil to greens with fat-soluble vitamins.

I would disagree that adding refined oil to greens would be healthy overall.

Not sure how much oil we're talking, but a tablespoon of oil has more calories than an entire pound of greens. Even if the oil increases the availability of vitamins, I am very sceptical that it would be healthier than greens or other whole plants with an equivalent caloric content to the added oil. I believe it's also the case that fats from whole foods can offer similar bioavailability effects.

At the same time, as far as I'm aware some kinds of vinegar might sometimes be a healthy addition to a meal, despite it's processing being undoubtedly contrary to the general guidelines I'm defending, so even if I don't agree about the oil I think the point still stands.

I do think you're offering some valid points that confound my idea of simple guidelines somewhat, but I still don't think they're very significant exceptions to my main point.

Appreciate the dialogue:)

It is a fiction.

Is this an independent reinvention of the law of attraction? There doesn't seem to be anything special about "stop having a disease by forgetting about it" compared to the general "be in a universe by adopting a mental state compatible with that universe." That said, becoming completely convinced I'm a billionaire seems more psychologically involved than forgetting I have some disease, and the ratio of universes where I'm a billionaire versus I've deluded myself into thinking I'm a billionaire seems less favorable as well.

Anyway, this doesn't seem like a good solution since even for every "me" that gets into a better universe, another just gets booted into the worse one. As far as the interests of the whole cohort go it'd be a waste of effort.

Wegener’s theory of continental drift was decades ahead of its time. He published in the 1920s, but plate tectonics didn’t take over until the 1960s.  His theory was wrong in important ways, but still.