Posts
Comments
Well yes, I am very concerned, because you're talking about convincing people that it won't collapse ecosystems, and not about figuring out whether it'll actually collapse ecosystems in the real world that doesn't care how persuasive you sound.
Considering that psychopaths may indeed be prosocial or ethically motivated.
Does that happen? I mean, there are psychopaths who decide to ignore the tendency and act morally, but would shooting some dudes still be fun then?
User:SuikaSuika can't comment for some reason, but wishes to register interest.
Tuxedage, if you see this, please contact me.
Wait, you mean actually feel safe, as in you can relax just as much as when you're alone with a good book, not just be aware that the person is allied to you? How does that jive with "using your conscious decision to behave nicely to the other person even if at the moment you don't feel emotionally compelled to"?
I was abused as a child. You seem to be very distressed about this, so let me make it clear that my life is pretty good and I don't have any awful traumas or anything. But all sources of advice about how to move on and go on about one's life insist on this: abuse screws up attachment. If I ever (ever, not "before I've healed enough") drop my CONSTANT VIGILANCE!, I will hurt people who love me for the power trip (this is confirmed by experience), and I will be abused again by someone who notices I'm an easy victim (this isn't; Shiny Boyfriend is astoundingly ethical).
There's probably a better way to keep those bad tendencies in check than through fear and guilt, which is why I brought it up. But your version of love seems incompatible with having bad tendencies in the first place.
Thanks! That doesn't match my experience at all, so it's nice to learn about.
maybe that's the gap that you have to overcome using your conscious decision to behave nicely to the other person even if at the moment you don't feel emotionally compelled to
Crushing fear of being abusive, and guilt about having hurt them in the past, works really well for this.
I think your classification is missing something. I've had close trusted friends I had sexual desire for (whether I acted on it or not) without wanting to date them. B, as lucidian suggests, probably contains more sub-components.
Because of this, I can't understand the rest of your post. Thanks for the advice; it's good, but not new.
Does a normal good relationship happen like so?: "You develop obsession and (possibly later) desire, then closeness, then the obsession fades." (I'm not sure many people agree that Mature Adult Love takes less than six months to develop!) What is it like when the obsession fades?
Everyone says "three to six months" (with a few outliers saying one, two, or three years), and I'm starting to think this is evidence they trust what everyone else says over their own experience, rather than separate observations matching, because reported experiences differ wildly. In particular, many people think of love as intense friendship plus sex, while many others have a completely distinct romance drive.
The obsessive part of love only lasts for three or six months
I've never been in Mature Adult Love. Is it a real thing, or just having no particular feelings but deciding you like the company? What is it like?
What's your policy for interacting with Patrick? Do you get along? I have some of the same problems you describe about walking on eggshells around Guessers.
The one I love and hope to spend my life with is a Guesser. This is how I learnt the previous comment. So I have quite a stake in learning Guess dialects. It helps not to mind weirdness, and to develop systems to catch misunderstandings. I'd be grateful for any advice.
This is a horrible thing to do to a Guesser. When you Ask out of turn, you're forcing them to either comply or be rude, and they resent you. When you Tell, you're imposing intimacy on them - making yourself vulnerable and demanding they do the same, and underlining exactly how a refusal would hurt you. That causes terrible guilt.
Downvoted, not because the content of the post is bad, but because it encourages people to list polite ways to get out of annoying conversations, decide they don't count as polite anymore, and throw hissy fits when people won't discuss their pet topic.
print some pages mirrored upside down
This is too good not to hear the story. Google turns up nothing. Tell!
Last year there were 2% "other" answers, versus 13% "polyamorous" and 30% "uncertain/no preference" ones. This suggests there is no need to break down "other" any further, unless people in relationship models like yours pick "uncertain" rather than "other" and would switch if "monogamish" was an option.
Why do you want this to be a separate option, rather than "other"?
Took the survey. Surprisingly short.
Due to fundamental attribution bias, understanding people's motivations deeply is likely to make you love them more and hate them less.
I can't really imagine anything that would elicit these sorts of emotions between two mentally healthy parties communicating by text-only terminals
There's no particular reason why you should assume both parties are mentally healthy, given how common mental illness is.
Some people cry over sad novels which they know are purely fictional. Some people fall in love over text. What's so surprising?
I'm sublimating my urge to get into fights and hurt people.
Taking advice because it's consistent and sounds reasonable, rather than because it's worked in practice.
Gatekeeper looking for AI. (Won two games before.) I'll pay zero or low stakes if I lose, and want the AI to offer as least as much as I do.
I don't believe any human can convince me. I believe there exist possible defense strategies that protect against arbitrary inputs and are easily learnt with training, but I'm not confident I'm there yet so it's quite possible a transhuman intelligence would find the remaining cracks.
Is this still true? I want to be gatekeeper, message me.
Just won my second game as Gatekeeper. Hungry for more. AIs, feel free to contact me.
I've read the logs of the SoundLogic vs Tuxedage AI-box experiment, and confirm that they follow the rules.
Did it once, binge-ate the candy a few hours later, bought more candy, binge-ate it again. Trying again in two weeks (or going to the doctor if still prone to binging).
If UFOs are controlled by a non-human intelligence, assuming they'll behave like human schemes is as pointless as assuming they'll behave like natural phenomena. But of course the premise is false and the Major's approach is correct.
you wouldn't like it if someone folded your ear over
That's not particularly uncomfortable.
This sounds less like normal variation and more like a medical problem. Are there things you do enjoy?
Historically, we have dismissed very obviously sapient people as lacking moral worth (people with various mental illnesses and disabilities, and even the freaking Deaf). Since babies are going to have whatever-makes-them-people at some point, it may be more likely that they already have it and we don't notice, rather than they haven't yet. That's why I'm a lot iffier about killing babies and mentally disabled humans than pigs.
There's a certain breed of progressives that want to push widely-held positions out of the Overton window. While I feel a few shitloads more comfortable around such people than around people who are sympathetic to said positions, this worries me.
Shutting up debate (in every place Proper Decent People talk, not just specialised places where people want to move past the basic questions) is always somewhat dangerous, though admittedly that applies to every position. This can be circumvented by yelling at people who imply or baldly state these ideas are true, but not at those who argue them with enough formality and apologetic dances.
Condemning popular positions is going to make you yell at half the people you meet and isolate you from the mainstream. Inconvenient.
If we make it unpalatable to argue for one side but not the other, the goalposts shift to Crazytown quickly. Cull the least feminist person at every turn and soon enough Twisty Faster is sounding reasonable.
Relatedly, not having 101 debates over and over allows for semantic shift. It's all very well and good to point at horrific things and call them "ableism", but when the same word is then used to yell at me for saying "Crazytown" there is a leap in logic few think to plug.
Generic dangers of thinking people who disagree with you are evil rather than mistaken about what policies are helpful, and that there's no value in understanding their model of the world. (Even though you have a whole body of work about how these mistakes are made and you are ignoring it in favour of calling them mean names, rarrr.)
Start out on a volunteer basis, use donations to accumulate wealth, and use that, rather than political power, as a lever to keep the Jews/women/poor down and make people have kids and other fascist policies? You can't use violence, but you can get a monopoly on everything and make people obey or starve.
I've heard this joke before I heard of the paper, and found it funny. I'm surprised nobody's come up with that one before.
But but peak/end rule!
Betcha it'd work. I'm going to set a piece of candy in front of me, work for half an hour, and then put it back, at least once a day for a week.
Empirically, heaping scorn on everyone and seeing who sticks around leads to lots of time wasted on flame wars.
Can you send me yours? Please PM me here or on IRC. I already know the most famous one here.
Thanks! You're right, I don't get it. I do have questions, though:
- How do you recognise success? I don't think I could distinguish it from giving up or going numb.
- What do endpoints look like? Like, can I answer "I wish he wasn't going to die" with "Because then he won't be alive and that's bad, duh" or do I need to find some way to pick that apart?
- How does looping back work? "Why do I wish he'd sign up for cryonics? Because if he doesn't he will die. I wish he wasn't going to die." works, but I don't know what to do with "Why am I even acknowledging things? Because jimmy said I'll be more effective at preventing things if I come to terms with them".
It seems comprehensibly big. It would take between three and four years to walk around the Earth, walking for a sustainable number of hours at a reasonable pace every day, if you could walk around it in a straight line.
How does one go about doing that? I can tell whether I have a plan to prevent a bad thing or deal with its consequences, and whether I'm repressing thoughts of bad things happening, encouraging them, or letting them happen, but I'm not sure how I know I've come to terms with something.
What's the downside of lust?
It's definitely terrible and to be avoided if at all possible, but it is kind of fun. We can and do get back a small part of that feeling with roller coasters and action movies and fighting sports.
That sounds like fun, from a LaVeyan-ish perspective. Fighting and killing are more exciting than singing Kumbaya. Does she just not like raw meat?
It's pretty obvious why you wouldn't want to go into details, but this seems rather too vague to be of use. Should I think of plans in case I need to find a student in Hogwarts, to fight a troll, to convince a student to disobey McGonagall? Should I do a headcount every time I walk into a room and try to guess where missing people are and what will happen if someone announces there's a troll in the castle? Should I sign up to Defense classes and duelling clubs and the Armies so I'll get training in thinking and acting under pressure? Should I think of possible ways Hermione could end up dead or hurt or in Azkaban and ways I can prevent that? Should I imagine those outcomes in excruciating detail so that I won't be too shocked if they happen? Once Hermione gets eaten by the troll, how do I use the replays and alternate versions in my head to become better?
Does it actually help? My usual reactions are "Ha, yeah, I totally do that. Silly human foibles eh?", "Screw you, anonymous proverb author, just because you don't mention what makes this a least-bad option doesn't make it worse", or "Yeah, that's the problem. Do you have a solution?".
Not a known side effect of that one, but that's certainly a possibility. I'm trying to go off it, so I'll see.
It's not project-specific. It's not repulsive so much as slippery - I happily begin working, but constantly lose focus. I was diagnosed with depression over a year ago, but I'm on meds and it's pretty much gone, and I don't have trouble focusing on things that don't require much insight.
I assume this means close to, if slightly below, the level of the average pro
No, just very haphazard. I know how to do many things, but I don't know how to do many other, often easier, things, and I seem to have become oddly unable to learn. Of course nobody wants a CSS whiz who never learnt HTML5.
I'm not completely stupid. I used to be a decent programmer. I'm now a halfway-decent programmer. I'm unable to make any progress, and my ability to hold a job of any kind is dubious. What am I doing wrong?
I'm in Saint-Etienne. I can make it to Lyon, but as I'm completely broke, if there are few people and nobody particularly minds taking the train, I'd rather have the meetup in Saint-Etienne.
No. High oxytocin is present whether you orgasm or not, as we just established. I expect this to help productivity. I also expect that orgasm would
- Hurt productivity, because "so sleepy and satisfied, why do anything?" (from low dopamine, possibly from high prolactin)
- Help productivity, because "feeling so relaxed, doing things that normally make me so anxious and icky is so easy right now" (from high prolactin; sex without orgasm (high-oxytocin, low-prolactin) does provide some pleasant feelings but not this specific effect)
- Help productivity overall, relative to sex without orgasm