Corruption seems to me like a phenomena that’s of a different nature then just looking to advance in the politics in an organization by exchanging political favors with each other. If Bob speaks in favor of Alice proposal on A in exchange for Alice speaking in favor of Bob’s proposal B that’s not corrupt.
In my mental model a key factor of corruption is that it’s about exchanging things of a different nature with each other.
If Bob speaks in favor of Alice proposal on A because Alice gives him a personal introduction to a doctor that’s a specialist for an illness under which Bob suffers, that’s corrupt because it’s exchanging things of a different nature.
I haven’t measured my 25(OH)D level since.
When you say “the military” do you mean “the US military” here? I would be surprised if that’s a consistent phenomena over the different militarizes that exist.
Because evolution got sheep to produce wool that’s not made in a way that it’s easy for bacteria to infest. On the other hand cotton + sweat is a combination that gets bacteria to grow fast.
Cotton is simply a crappy but cheap material for making clothes.
Even if they were posturing and not truly passionate, that leaves the question of how to tell from the outside before entering an organization.
Survey response honesty seems to me like a really great way. There’s a way to measure it that’s about where you ask two questions:
1) How many days per week do you on average do X?
2) Did you do X yesterday?
I think it would be great to have such a question pair in the various censi that we have. I think Schwitzgebel had examples such as eating meat in his questions.
Zvi listed multiple points. I think that it’s possible that there are militarizes where the soldiers have a strong belief that they are fighting for the right thing and thus have a lot of soul in the game. A good chunk of the military hierarchy also has skin in the game. Very few people in the military hierarchy would first tell you about there supervisor if you ask them to describe their job.
Archive.org seems to me like the most straightforward way to handle cases like this: https://web.archive.org/web/20190415082549/https://www.times-news.com/cnhi_network/how-those-plush-easter-bunnies-got-so-cuddly/article_8e6a93c7-fbe4-5735-9d94-9426f0b3d164.html
Bob’s reply is not concerned with the truth of whether X did Y in the Bayesian sense. Bob doesn’t argue about what the correct probability happens to be.
It’s concerned with dispute resolution. In a discussion about truth, wanting doesn’t matter. In a process of dispute resolution it matters a great deal.
I find it unlikely that Blinkist provides Slate-Star-Codex-level review’s. That a very different intellectual level then a mainstream outlet hiring a few people to write summaries.
I don’t think “Reading a book” is a particular high bar for acquiring self-help knowledge.
Look at the struggle CFAR had with releasing their handbook because they think that just giving people the book won’t be as impactful as their workshop. Worries about possible bad idea inoculation should be even stronger if you just read a summary and then think you understand the underlying concepts.
In a world where professors at prestigious universities write crappy books like Why We Sleep or Willpower about their research domains I’m not sure who you mean with “trustworthy authors”.
Instead of simply taking claims at face value because an author is supposedly trustworthy, it’s worthwhile to think harder about them and how they apply.
It sounds to me like you are looking for Circling.
It seems to me like there’s a high chance to start with mental models like the dreaming paradox that are based on wrong assumptions about how cognition works.
Being in feedback loops with the external world is fundamentally different then dreaming. Schizophrenics are similar in the way the get lost with internal abstractions and lose contact to being in touch with reality.
Building up sanity by untangling abstractions the General Semantics way and building up self-awareness by mediating does help with being in touch with the truth in a way that a standard approach of logic doesn’t.
The usefulness of money is that it allows you to take options that you otherwise wouldn’t be able to take. It provides a certain kind of freedom.
If all of your time is spend at your job and all of your social bonds are related to status competition at your job you you lose a lot of freedom and there’s no net freedom gain from the job.
It seems to me like you extended the voting period and spent more effort to get people to vote by sending out emails because you believe the voting is important.
When it comes to this post it doesn’t make a case of why you believe it’s valuable to vote here. I’m curious about what your idea happens to be.
When it comes to the interface I think it would be great if the interface would show me my past karma votes on the post. It’s useful to have the information of how I found the post after reading it the first time at hand when trying to evaluate 75 posts at once.
Only a handful of tissues are believed to be non-renewing in humans—e.g. eggs, neurons, and the lens of the eye
Wikipedia says: Un-repaired DNA damages accumulate in non-replicating cells, such as cells in the brains or muscles of adult mammals, and can cause aging.
Weakening of muscles seems to me like a plausible driver of aging.
The idea that someone can just be better at doing the actual job doesn’t parse for them.
That’s not what the quote said. The quote said that the difference between a general manager and a vice-president is not one due to abilities.
There’s another quote which suggests that there’s a belief in are skill differences:
he himself may get done in by his boss’s errors, and, perhaps more important, other managers will view with the gravest suspicion a subordinate who withholds crucial information from his boss even if they think the boss is a nincompoop.
The first quote seems be due to the fact that it’s very hard to actually measure the skill differences. If you make good long-term decisions for the company that pay five or seven years down the road, it’s difficult to reward you for those if you stay three or four years in your position.
In an environment where skill differences can’t be measured in a way on which you can base promotion decisions you get people engaging in behavior that signals a hard work ethic because you can make your promotion decisions based on the willingness to signal.
In the NVC model “I feel alone” would be a “mental emotion” and I agree that there are many cases that distinction is useful.
In the Circling context in which I have been you wouldn’t correct a person into making that distinction but accept “I feel alone” as an authentic expression. The fact that Vaniver uses feel here suggests that the Circling Europe training also didn’t enforce that distinction strongly.
In radical honesty a person saying “I feel betrayed” would be asked to say “I’m angry at you, because X happened and I imagine it means you betrayed me”. The person is often asked to say it multiple times till they connect with the anger.
I don’t think there’s good evidence that the field of psychotherapy knows how to teach skills effectively in a superior way. Neither academic literature nor personal experience with people trained in that form suggest that it’s particularly effective.
As far as the research goes alliance and empathy seem to matter much more then the kinds of things that are taught in psychotherapy training.
On the other hand, I do think that the training that Circling Europe does succeeds at building some empathy with their training.
I see that lack of an ethical codex / oversight is an actual problem. I’m not sure how effective psychiatric oversight happens to be in practice. The group setting does have advantages over 1-on-1 setting as far as having people check the work of other people.
The quote doesn’t say that there’s a personal failing. “I feel alone” isn’t a statement of something being a failure. It’s just a statement about the current emotional state. It’s about authentically expressing what’s there currently without judgement.
Circling Europe does provide professional training. Vaniver and others do have professional certification from Circling Europe. I personally do have other relevant professional training in a framework called perceptive pedagogy.
There’s a discussion about how much professional training someone should have before you go to a circle that they lead but that’s a different discussion from that of Circling as practiced according to the values of Circling Europe.