Steve appears to have two separate and very different evidence thresholds. In the “25,800 deaths” case, he accepts evidence in one direction readily while ignoring evidence from the same source in the other direction.
Anyone who’s serious about medicine has different evidence thresholds for risks and safety of drugs. That’s why the FDA takes a lot of evidence to allow a new drug to be marketed while at the same time withdrawing a drug from market.
Elon generally is not public about the likelihood of various events in timelines and speaks about his timelines as being optimistic guesses.
Elon is one of the least delusional people. Not many people start companies like Elon when they believe there’s only a ten percent chance of success.
Elon sets goals that often won’t be archieved but that’s not the same as having delusional beliefs.
inventing and spreading various rationality techniques
Besides belief reporting, which rationality techniques did they invent and spread intot he community where they should get credit?
psychiatry uses secrecy
In psychiatry there’s no secrecy for treatment protocols and there are no secrecy rules for patients that prevent them from sharing about their experience.
The real problem is to have the belief that you are the only organization with a plan that might work while at the same time requiring secrecy that prevents the participants from feedback from the outside world that might make participants doubt that this is the case. If you then add strong self-modification techniques that also strengthen the belief, that’s no good enviroment.
Just because an organization provides transformational experiences doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s a belief that only the techniques of the organization can provide those experiences.
If you for example ask the Dalei Lama about Christianity, the Dalei Lama will grant that it provides transformational experiences for some people and might be good for some people. That’s very different then Scientology which claims that everything that Hubert didn’t develop doesn’t really provide transformational change.
Credibility is a quite complex thing. There’s a tradeoff between taking no action and requiring a lot of evidence and taking action based on too little evidence.
Besides the lying one of the problems with people in the establishment like Fauci is that they require a lot of evidence and as a result we still haven’t updated our vaccines to the delta spike protein. Kirsch is one the other hand of that spectrum.
Taking a lot of bets and not needing all to payoff is likely what makes him a good venture capitalist. I do think it’s worthwhile to listen to people on all parts of that spectrum.
Even if what Steve is saying about the vaccines producing problems in the ovaries which can cause infertility would be true, that shouldn’t matter to your dad because he doesn’t have ovaries. I haven’t heard any claims for male infertility.
Also, Steve said this: “Biodistribution of lipid nanoparticles which carry the mRNA show that the ovaries get the highest concentration” … but this is clearly untrue.
My question is, does this reduce the credibility you attach to Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone? If not, why not?
My view of Kirsch is at the moment is that he strongly pattern matches and this seems to both result in fast detection of issues and also in overmatching and seeing patterns where there are none.
Here there’s more concentration in the ovaries then in most other tissues according to the EMA documents but saying it’s the highest concentration is overstating it.
Generally, I haven’t meet anyone who had clear negative consequences from the vaccine in the way Kirsch describes so I find the thesis that the side effects are so common falsified.
Participation in the project involved secrecy / privacy / information-management agreements.
How strong were those agreements? How much were the participants allowed to share privately with friends, family or outside therapists?
When I hear that a few people within Leverage ended up with serious negative consequences because of charting, it’s unclear for me from the outside what that means.
It’s my understanding that Leverage did a lot of experiments. It could be that some experiments ended messing up some of the participants. It could also be that “normal charting” without doing any experiments messed the people up.
The fact that something is difficult for you doesn’t mean that it’s difficult in general. CFAR for example teaches Gendlin’s Focusing. If you do Focusing and name the handle you either have a felt shift or you don’t. It’s clear and there’s not much room for self deception.
Sure, it isn’t fundamentally impossible – much like psychosomatic healing of some diseases isn’t impossible if you are a Tibetan yogi.
It’s nontrival but it doesn’t take being a Tibetan yogi. Grinberg practioners do that pretty reliable in a Western setting.
Yet we often say “don’t be sad,” or “stop being angry” and even ascribe blame to it – somehow assuming that they are free to change this just by willing.
That’s not a sentiment I hear often. I don’t think that it’s within the social context where I’m operating to often say those things. The last time I said something similar it was to a person who had a strong meditation background and it got her out of a depressive phase in which she was the prior two months.
With such technology, we could no longer lie to others, or to ourselves, about what we really care about and want in life, who we love, what job we enjoy doing, and what gives us the subtle gnawing feeling of wrongness we’d rather not see.
Those things are much more complex then just emotions. If you want to stop lying to yourself about those things belief reporting from Leverage research is more useful then such a tool would be.
I’m not up to date with the current technological capabilities but a decade ago we had objective emotional measurement via sensors that was good enough to be useful for advertisers. High resolution heartrate + skin conductance + machine learning goes far.
I personally have emotional perception of base emotions in other people that’s does not depend on seeing someone’s face. It doesn’t work when the emotion is disassociated but I don’t think there’s an easy way to conceal.
As further reading The Emprint Method: A Guide to Reproducing Competence by Leslie Cameron-Bandler et al is good at describing the different ways people can do things and providing notation for it. With that framework you can go and study how successful people do what they do.
Whatever you do in an event will turn off some people. There’s probably a market for people who want to go to clubs but want to avoid “rape culture”.
For a dance venue to be successful it has to mainly appeal to women. If women like it and come, the men will come because the women are there.
Instead of talking about more education it might be worthwhile to talk about better education. A lot of education in third world countries is cargo culting Western education and then gets used as a credentialing system.
Education that would focus on teaching accounting and other business skills would likely be much better then a lot of what passes as education currently in those countries.
If he bought the supplies earlier, then he creates a signal to the producers of those suppliers at the time of his purchase that they have to produce more. That’s good.
There’s also a good chance that the toilet paper he sold was on average more valuable to the buyers then the toilet paper was to those buyers when he brought his supplies.
I think stories like those during the Texan blackout (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-power-outage-griddy-lawsuit-electricity-bills-2021-03-26/) are a better example for problems that might be prevented by some price regulation.
The problem with general advice to look at YouTube instructual videos is that if you don’t have any skill in the subject, you have little way of knowing which instructors know their craft well and are good at teaching it.
It sounds to me like you don’t know what Kleros is.
Kleros is a human court and when you write the rules well it can choose not to enforce abusive contracts perfectly fine.
Hanson wrote about bounty hunter justice and you can do that for enforcement.
It seems that Leverage currently in planning to publish a bunch of their techniques and from Leverages point of view, there are considerations that releasing the techniques could be dangerous for people using them. To me that does suggest a sincere desire to use provided information in a useful way.
See from https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3GgoJ2nCj8PiD4FSi/updates-from-leverage-research-history-and-recent-progress :
If there are particular people who feel that they have been damaged, it would be great to still have a way that the information reaches Leverage. Maybe, a third-party could be found to mediate the conversation?
Is there anything else you could think of that would be a credible signal that Leverage is sincere about seeking the information about harms?