Here are the lessons illustrated by my story, which happens to be a heterosexual story because I’m heterosexual:
Until you explicitly notice the cached rules for what you’re doing, you won’t start thinking of them as something to be optimized. Ask yourself: Which parts of romance do you currently think of as subjects of optimization? What else should you be optimizing?
Respond to the value of information. Once you notice you might be running in the wrong direction, don’t keep going that way just because you’ve got momentum. Stop a moment, and invest some energy in the thoughts or information you’ve now realized is valuable because it might change your policies, i.e., figuring out which direction to go.
Know your fields of incompetence. If you suspect you may be incompetent, sanity-check yourself by asking others for advice, or by Googling. (E.g. “how to break up with your girlfriend nicely”, or “how to not die on a motorcycle” or whatever.)
Use scholarship. Especially if you can do it efficiently, scholarship is a quick and cheap way to gain a certain class of experience points.
Be especially suspicious of rationalizations for not obeying the empiricist rules “try it and see what happens” or “test yourself to see what happens” or “get some concrete experience on the ground”. Think of the cost of time happening as a result of rationalizing. Consider the opportunities you are missing if you don’t just realize you’re wrong right now and change course. How many months or years will your life be less awesome as a result? How many opportunities will you miss while you’re still (kinda) young?
Use empiricism and do-it-yourself science. Just try things. No, seriously.
Have a sense that more is possible. Know that you haven’t yet reached the limits of self-modification. Try things. Let your map of what is possible be constrained by evidence, not by popular opinion.
So… I notice I’m confused. How are these lessons “only useful if you’re a heterosexual male”?
It is as though I just told a story about an Arabian prince that illustrated a few very general lessons about how to succeed in business, and then somebody objected, “But I’m not an Arabian prince! This isn’t useful to me!”
Oh. Those are important examples and events in my own story; not surprisingly, they are heterosexually framed because I’m heterosexual. But four examples/events being heterosexually framed amidst the 7 labeled rationality lessons that are neutral to gender orientation does not make the post “only useful if you’re a heterosexual male,” I don’t think.
So I’m still confused about what you seem to be reacting against. When I read a book and some small section of it doesn’t apply to me, I don’t write the author to complain that there was a section of what they wrote that didn’t apply to me. I just skim past that part and note that it didn’t apply to me, and then get back to the parts that do apply to me, if I’m finding the book useful at all—and if I’m not, I just don’t read the book.
So, I’d love to be “showing some sign” of understanding the “some of your post doesn’t apply to me” objection, but I’ll need to have you help me understand it first, I’m afraid. :)
What exactly is the problem with the cited portion?
Methinks you are reading things into Luke’s comments that are not really there. This is sadly common when dealing with ‘touchy’ issues (sexuality, race, gender, etc.). Sometimes a person reveals their overly sensitive nature about things rather than true points in such instances.
Also, before one insists upon edits one ought to justify why such things are necessary. If you a really intent on upping a person’s rationality you need to provide an argument that justifies your suggestion.
Here are the lessons illustrated by my story, which happens to be a heterosexual story because I’m heterosexual:
So… I notice I’m confused. How are these lessons “only useful if you’re a heterosexual male”?
It is as though I just told a story about an Arabian prince that illustrated a few very general lessons about how to succeed in business, and then somebody objected, “But I’m not an Arabian prince! This isn’t useful to me!”
If none of this was actually important to your point, might I suggest cutting it?
Oh. Those are important examples and events in my own story; not surprisingly, they are heterosexually framed because I’m heterosexual. But four examples/events being heterosexually framed amidst the 7 labeled rationality lessons that are neutral to gender orientation does not make the post “only useful if you’re a heterosexual male,” I don’t think.
So I’m still confused about what you seem to be reacting against. When I read a book and some small section of it doesn’t apply to me, I don’t write the author to complain that there was a section of what they wrote that didn’t apply to me. I just skim past that part and note that it didn’t apply to me, and then get back to the parts that do apply to me, if I’m finding the book useful at all—and if I’m not, I just don’t read the book.
So, I’d love to be “showing some sign” of understanding the “some of your post doesn’t apply to me” objection, but I’ll need to have you help me understand it first, I’m afraid. :)
What exactly is the problem with the cited portion? Methinks you are reading things into Luke’s comments that are not really there. This is sadly common when dealing with ‘touchy’ issues (sexuality, race, gender, etc.). Sometimes a person reveals their overly sensitive nature about things rather than true points in such instances.
Also, before one insists upon edits one ought to justify why such things are necessary. If you a really intent on upping a person’s rationality you need to provide an argument that justifies your suggestion.