Nah, no insult meant beyond the sample being biased, which I trust we are all rational enough here not to take as an insult. I think it is fair to guess that you have mean IQ well over 100, which too is enough to ruin applicability of experiments.
That’s certainly what you can expect in the extreme case. More often, however, people simply end up with fewer experiences with fewer people and must be satisfied with relationship arrangements that are perhaps less than they could have been. Or, at the least, must counter the aversive emotions that may otherwise have been an inconvenience while going after what they want despite their inhibitions.
I agree, actually. But see, there’s the example of big problem for smart individuals in general: you do have that hyperbolic discounting, and you do have anxiety, you can’t think them away, you must train them away, and that doesn’t even fully work. Then you have your wild overestimate of the probability of success when some conditionals are met, and you can think this away easier.
Even if combined with the former it makes a fairly solid strategy, implementing a strategy on tweaked biases. See, there’s also environment of ‘cultural adaptedness’, or ‘memetic adaptedness’, if you wish, and its at least hundred years back, and hundred years back it is NOT safe to hit on strangers unless some conditions (them flirting) are met. And it still works pretty well now. Not ideally—thanks to anti-murder laws, it is much safer to hit on strangers now—but it works. edit: actually, scratch that. Only in 5..10% of population it is perfectly safe to hit on strangers, and even there, you have a ton of harassment laws so even though you aren’t likely to be beaten up, you can be screwed over.
edit: and for full disclosure, I also sucked at hitting on strangers. Its extremely uncomfortable. The point is that the overconfidence after conditions (flirting) are met is compensating, and makes a two way conditional implemented on biases: if (not flirting ) don’t proceed ; if ( flirting) do proceed ; Hmm. To think about it maybe we came up with some truth here from disagreement. You can implement simple agents (similar to game AIs i can code) by combining biases, if you can tweak biases. And that is a plausible way how evolution can implement logic without wiring up individual neurons. The results are ultra messy though and have a ton of strange side effects, and become deregulated when one tries to get rid of some of the biases.
Nah, no insult meant beyond the sample being biased, which I trust we are all rational enough here not to take as an insult. I think it is fair to guess that you have mean IQ well over 100, which too is enough to ruin applicability of experiments.
You should by now be aware that the claim (that I had previously assumed to be completely uncontroversial) is nothing to do with people at a particular training program (which related only to experiments with a solution) but rather with humanity in general. It isn’t presented as the outcome of my own experiment but rather as a matter of both common and expert knowledge.
also known as social phobia, is an anxiety disorder characterized by intense fear in social situations[1] causing considerable distress and impaired ability to function in at least some parts of daily life.
I took it as the social anxiety disorder if the anxiety leads to impaired ability to function. In social situations there’s considerable loss of status from rejection, by the way, and the status is good for finding new mates, so I am entirely unconvinced that humanity in general suffers from some anxiety-impaired ability to function, especially given how the over-confidence hits an override on the anxiety, in the vast majority who haven’t thought of explicitly calibrating themselves. edit: on top of that you are in the privileged 5% maybe for whom the loss from rejection is only having to try with someone else. Even in your country there’s nonzero chance of getting beaten up from hitting on strangers. Everywhere else (outside first world) the chance is not even all that small.
It is not my claim that the entire population of the world has a clinically diagnosable anxiety disorder. That would be crazy (and given how ‘disorder’ is used, only a hop and a step away from outright oxymoronic).
Nah, no insult meant beyond the sample being biased, which I trust we are all rational enough here not to take as an insult. I think it is fair to guess that you have mean IQ well over 100, which too is enough to ruin applicability of experiments.
I agree, actually. But see, there’s the example of big problem for smart individuals in general: you do have that hyperbolic discounting, and you do have anxiety, you can’t think them away, you must train them away, and that doesn’t even fully work. Then you have your wild overestimate of the probability of success when some conditionals are met, and you can think this away easier.
Even if combined with the former it makes a fairly solid strategy, implementing a strategy on tweaked biases. See, there’s also environment of ‘cultural adaptedness’, or ‘memetic adaptedness’, if you wish, and its at least hundred years back, and hundred years back it is NOT safe to hit on strangers unless some conditions (them flirting) are met. And it still works pretty well now. Not ideally—thanks to anti-murder laws, it is much safer to hit on strangers now—but it works. edit: actually, scratch that. Only in 5..10% of population it is perfectly safe to hit on strangers, and even there, you have a ton of harassment laws so even though you aren’t likely to be beaten up, you can be screwed over.
edit: and for full disclosure, I also sucked at hitting on strangers. Its extremely uncomfortable. The point is that the overconfidence after conditions (flirting) are met is compensating, and makes a two way conditional implemented on biases: if (not flirting ) don’t proceed ; if ( flirting) do proceed ; Hmm. To think about it maybe we came up with some truth here from disagreement. You can implement simple agents (similar to game AIs i can code) by combining biases, if you can tweak biases. And that is a plausible way how evolution can implement logic without wiring up individual neurons. The results are ultra messy though and have a ton of strange side effects, and become deregulated when one tries to get rid of some of the biases.
You should by now be aware that the claim (that I had previously assumed to be completely uncontroversial) is nothing to do with people at a particular training program (which related only to experiments with a solution) but rather with humanity in general. It isn’t presented as the outcome of my own experiment but rather as a matter of both common and expert knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anxiety_disorder
I took it as the social anxiety disorder if the anxiety leads to impaired ability to function. In social situations there’s considerable loss of status from rejection, by the way, and the status is good for finding new mates, so I am entirely unconvinced that humanity in general suffers from some anxiety-impaired ability to function, especially given how the over-confidence hits an override on the anxiety, in the vast majority who haven’t thought of explicitly calibrating themselves. edit: on top of that you are in the privileged 5% maybe for whom the loss from rejection is only having to try with someone else. Even in your country there’s nonzero chance of getting beaten up from hitting on strangers. Everywhere else (outside first world) the chance is not even all that small.
It is not my claim that the entire population of the world has a clinically diagnosable anxiety disorder. That would be crazy (and given how ‘disorder’ is used, only a hop and a step away from outright oxymoronic).
I do maintain the things that I have actually stated.
Who’s ‘we’ here anyway? Mankind? I’m sure >95% can get beaten up for hitting on strangers. 5% ? There’s still the status loss from rejection.