Thank you for clarification, Vladimir, I anticipated that it wasn’t your intention to cause a bunch of downvotes by others. You had all the rights to downvote and I’m glad that you read the post.
Yep, I had a big long post that is more coherent, the later posts were more like clarifications to it and so they are hard to understand. I didn’t want to grow each new post in size like a snowball but probably it would’ve been a better approach for clarity.
Anyways, I considered and somewhat applied your suggestion (after I’ve already got 12 downvotes :-), so now it’s obvious that people are encouraged to downvote at their heart’s desire.
I decided to try some other avenues to share the “lets slowly grow our direct democratic simulated multiverse where we are the only agents (no non-biological agents, please, until we’ve simulated all the futures safely) towards maximal freedoms for all” framework a few days ago anyway, so it’s not a big deal that I cannot post here for a few days because of “my karma”.
Wish you all the best,
Anton
P.S. According to the recent meta-analyses of the best treatments for anxiety (they basically agree that Beck’s cognitive therapy is most effective long-term, tablets work, too, but they are as good as cognitive therapy so better to combine the 2 and of course listen to doctors and not me), and one of the core unhelpful though patterns there is catastrophizing. So I claim, perpetual catastrophizing is not great for rationality, because it can make all processes (even the ones where you only saw one or 2 examples of) look exponential and leading to some dystopia-like scenario. Imagining the very worst scenarios is great for investigating AGI/AGI risks but if we’ll apply it everywhere in life, without at least thinking once about the most realistic outcome (and, if you’re like me, sometimes the utopic ones, I was thinking about the worst dystopias and best utopias for the last 3+ years), it can become hard no support great relationships with people (for example, every short interruption can start to look like eventually this person will try to completely shut us down and forbid us to talk, but if we’ll think about the most realistic outcome, too, for a moment, we’ll understand that there can be hundreds of reasons why this person interrupted that are not related to us at all, so it’s quite likely not intentional at all: another person could’ve been too excited to share something, got distracted, their definition of interruption is not as strict as ours...).
P.P.S. So mild anxiety can be fixed with a book according to Beck himself even though he had (sadly, he passed away recently, he was a centennial) material motivation to say that it’s not the case, for they mostly earn money by teaching courses and certifying specialists, not just selling relatively cheap and unpopular (I’m shocked why, books are phenomenal, easy to read and are much cheaper then therapy, plus good therapists encourage you to have the book as a reference anyway) books for self-help, I think. This book helped me tremendously to fix my anxiety, social anxiety, anger management problems (there is another book focused on it by Beck that I also read), even suicidality (there is another book focused on it by Beck that I also read), it’s basically like a “secular nirvana” now :) Not trying to understand and the resulting fear is the core of all irrationality, I have reasons to claim. Ethics and psychology teach counterintuitive things but most people think it’s all simple and obvious. For example, meditating/eating chocolate/breathing deeply every time a person worries decreases worrying short-term but makes that person worry more long-term by basically making him think (in case he is catastrophizing): this little thing makes me worry so much, I’ll die/collapse if I won’t meditate immediately
Thank you for clarification, Vladimir, I anticipated that it wasn’t your intention to cause a bunch of downvotes by others. You had all the rights to downvote and I’m glad that you read the post.
Yep, I had a big long post that is more coherent, the later posts were more like clarifications to it and so they are hard to understand. I didn’t want to grow each new post in size like a snowball but probably it would’ve been a better approach for clarity.
Anyways, I considered and somewhat applied your suggestion (after I’ve already got 12 downvotes :-), so now it’s obvious that people are encouraged to downvote at their heart’s desire.
I decided to try some other avenues to share the “lets slowly grow our direct democratic simulated multiverse where we are the only agents (no non-biological agents, please, until we’ve simulated all the futures safely) towards maximal freedoms for all” framework a few days ago anyway, so it’s not a big deal that I cannot post here for a few days because of “my karma”.
Wish you all the best,
Anton
P.S. According to the recent meta-analyses of the best treatments for anxiety (they basically agree that Beck’s cognitive therapy is most effective long-term, tablets work, too, but they are as good as cognitive therapy so better to combine the 2 and of course listen to doctors and not me), and one of the core unhelpful though patterns there is catastrophizing. So I claim, perpetual catastrophizing is not great for rationality, because it can make all processes (even the ones where you only saw one or 2 examples of) look exponential and leading to some dystopia-like scenario. Imagining the very worst scenarios is great for investigating AGI/AGI risks but if we’ll apply it everywhere in life, without at least thinking once about the most realistic outcome (and, if you’re like me, sometimes the utopic ones, I was thinking about the worst dystopias and best utopias for the last 3+ years), it can become hard no support great relationships with people (for example, every short interruption can start to look like eventually this person will try to completely shut us down and forbid us to talk, but if we’ll think about the most realistic outcome, too, for a moment, we’ll understand that there can be hundreds of reasons why this person interrupted that are not related to us at all, so it’s quite likely not intentional at all: another person could’ve been too excited to share something, got distracted, their definition of interruption is not as strict as ours...).
P.P.S. So mild anxiety can be fixed with a book according to Beck himself even though he had (sadly, he passed away recently, he was a centennial) material motivation to say that it’s not the case, for they mostly earn money by teaching courses and certifying specialists, not just selling relatively cheap and unpopular (I’m shocked why, books are phenomenal, easy to read and are much cheaper then therapy, plus good therapists encourage you to have the book as a reference anyway) books for self-help, I think. This book helped me tremendously to fix my anxiety, social anxiety, anger management problems (there is another book focused on it by Beck that I also read), even suicidality (there is another book focused on it by Beck that I also read), it’s basically like a “secular nirvana” now :) Not trying to understand and the resulting fear is the core of all irrationality, I have reasons to claim. Ethics and psychology teach counterintuitive things but most people think it’s all simple and obvious. For example, meditating/eating chocolate/breathing deeply every time a person worries decreases worrying short-term but makes that person worry more long-term by basically making him think (in case he is catastrophizing): this little thing makes me worry so much, I’ll die/collapse if I won’t meditate immediately