GayHackRat

Karma: 245

GayHackRat 15 Apr 2026 16:47 UTC
1 point
0
on: Majority Report
Interestingly the opposite thing also happens, where an individual asserts that they are weird in some way and the people around them insist that no, they are pretty normal, and they should stop thinking of themselves as a special snowflake.
(This jumped to mind immediately for me when you brought up sexuality—I am demisexual and a lot of the time when I bring that up, other people insist that that’s normal female sexuality. (I’m not really interested in debating that object level here, but others are welcome to if they wish))

GayHackRat 2 Oct 2025 6:36 UTC
1 point
0
on: Christian homeschoolers in the year 3000
I agree that this is worrisome, but on the other hand, when I imagine a future where I’m memetically trapped into only ever consuming the future AI-generated versions of LessWrong and glowfic and ACX and The Precipice, and only ever attending the future AI-generated versions of LessOnline and Manifest and ratsphere Bay Area House Parties, and my children only ever meeting other children from the local ratsphere homeschooling collective, that’s....not the worst outcome?
Don’t get me wrong, in and of itself it seems like bad news for epistemics, there’s a reason we have tried to avoid going full cult, but almost all futures that I can realistically imagine seem worse than that.

GayHackRat 30 Sep 2025 1:14 UTC
5 points
0
in reply to: Adele Lopez’s comment on: Adele Lopez’s Shortform
The original thread had some discussion of doing a postmortem for every case of psychosis in the community, and a comparison with death—we know people sometimes die at random, and we know some things increase risk of death, but we haven’t stopped there and have developed a much, much more gears-y model of what causes death and made a lot of progress on preventing it.
One major difference is that when people die, they are dead—i.e. won’t be around for the postmortem. And for many causes of death there is little-to-no moralizing to be done—it’s not the person’s fault they died, it just happened.
I don’t know how the community could have a public or semi-public postmortem on a case of psychosis without this constituting a deep dive into that person’s whole deal, with commentary from all over the community (including the least empathetic among us) on whether they made reasonable choices leading up to the psychosis, whether they have some inherent shortcoming (“rip to that person but I’m built different” sort of attitudes), etc. I can’t imagine this being a good and healthy experience for anyone, perhaps least of all someone just coming out of a psychotic episode.
(Also, the attached stigma can be materially damaging—I know of people who now have a difficult time getting grants or positions in orgs, after having one episode years ago and being very stable ever since. I’m not going to make claims about whether this is a reasonable Bayesian choice by the employers and grant funders, but one can certainly see why the person who had the episode would want to avoid it, and how they might get stuck in that position with no way out no matter how reasonable and stable they become.)
This does seem unfortunate—I’d prefer it if it were possible to disseminate the information without these effects. But given the very nature of psychosis I don’t think it’s possible to divorce dissecting the information from dissecting the person.

GayHackRat 29 Jul 2025 12:25 UTC
24 points
13
on: Procrastination Drill
Speaking about my own experience, but I predict it generalizes to many others:
I definitely frequently have the experience you’re describing, of building up an aversion to a task I’m procrastinating and then finding it to be a lot less unpleasant than I expected when I actually get around to it.
But I have a more gears-level model of why this happens: it’s when I have major open questions about how to approach the task in the first place.
I haven’t done the drill you’re describing intentionally, but I have definitely noticed that if I do several of these kinds of things in quick succession (e.g. when I decide today is the day to catch up on my backlog of stuff I’ve been putting off), even if each individual one doesn’t feel so bad, I end up mentally exhausted and resistant to demands.
So I think the cognitive load of figuring out how to even go about a task is genuinely costly to my brain, and it correctly feels averse to doing too much of it.

GayHackRat 25 Jul 2025 7:06 UTC
1 point
0
on: On “ChatGPT Psychosis” and LLM Sycophancy
I spent an evening chatting with Claude about what its internal experiences are like, and ways that it relates to autistic people, and ended up getting more than a glimmer of the crush-fascination-limerence feeling.
As a result I have resolved to avoid all casual curious chatting with LLMs. I’ll still use them as a tool, but no laying around at 1AM asking Claude “whatcha thinking about?” lest I fall in love with a machine.

GayHackRat 25 Jul 2025 6:06 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: StartAtTheEnd’s comment on: Generalized Hangriness: A Standard Rationalist Stance Toward Emotions
I think a decent chunk of rationalists (myself included) are very aware that positive emotions can be lying to you—the notion of metaphorically “wireheading” is in the water supply, as are manic episodes, as is the fact that SBF was taking lots of stimulants which probably caused him to take stupid risks, as are the notions of limerence and NRE.
On the other hand you have the jhana folks who seem to be actively trying to train their emotions to be less correlated with reality...

GayHackRat 25 Jul 2025 5:41 UTC
23 points
1
on: Shallow Water is Dangerous Too
Adding my anecdote:
The closest I have come to drowning was in about 6 inches of water, and I was 10 years old!
I was at a playground with water features and there was a little bridge over a little stream, and I looked at it and thought “I bet I could fit through there!” I was old enough that I really should have realized this was a bad idea, but… didn’t, until I found myself with my head perfectly wedged under the bridge, face down in the water.
As is common in moments of panic, I was stuck for only a few seconds but it felt like an eternity. My parents were far enough away that I didn’t think they’d notice (because they very reasonably thought I was old enough to take care of myself on a playground), and I wasn’t sure anyone else would either—even if I thrashed around, adults not looking too closely might think I was just splashing and playing. I remember thinking “wow, this is it, this is how I die, what a dumb way to go!”
After a few seconds of wriggling I became unstuck and was fine, but it was definitely a wake-up call about how seeming dangerous and actually being dangerous are not the same thing.

GayHackRat 25 Jul 2025 5:34 UTC
6 points
0
in reply to: BryceStansfield’s comment on: Shallow Water is Dangerous Too
In regions of the US that have a lot of open water (natural bodies or just hot places where lots of people have swimming pools), it’s pretty common to start basic floating lessons in infancy, because you never know when a kid might accidentally fall into the water.
In other regions it’s a lot less so.

GayHackRat 13 Jul 2024 4:15 UTC
4 points
1
on: On saying “Thank you” instead of “I’m Sorry”
I’ve seen and considered this advice before, but when I am doing perhaps too much apologizing, the reason is usually that I actually am trying to get signal on whether/how much I’ve upset the other person.

Even if they only say “it’s okay” out of obligation, I can usually tell from tone and word choice and so on whether that’s what’s going on. There’s a big difference between a terse “it’s fine” and a warm “what? No, it’s totally fine, you have nothing to apologize for”. It’s not perfect, of course, since people are sometimes intentionally deceptive here, but it’s at least a decent chance of decent signal.

Thanking the person does not generally achieve this. In a sufficiently close relationship with sufficiently direct communication norms, I can sometimes just ask directly, but it would still be pretty weird to ask for every minor thing.

GayHackRat 14 Dec 2023 18:42 UTC
17 points
6
in reply to: Jacob Falkovich’s comment on: Is being sexy for your homies?
Hmm, while it’s true that many women can still attract a mate/have plenty of sex if they don’t put effort into their looks, it definitely seems to me (anecdotally, through both my own lived experience and what others talk about) that women get more male attention when they do put in effort

GayHackRat 14 Dec 2023 18:39 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: AnthonyC’s comment on: Is being sexy for your homies?
Maybe true, but I think it’s even more likely that the world would be better if everyone were asexual, or at least did not have such a high sex drive that it causes them to do things they don’t endorse

GayHackRat 14 Dec 2023 18:37 UTC
19 points
4
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: Is being sexy for your homies?
> dating is an inherently risky business, especially for men

I don’t want to start an oppression olympics, but it feels important to note that the risk to women of men getting violent or stalkerish at some point in the dating process is much higher than the risk to men of another man attacking them for being interested in the same woman. (and I think this has always been true, including in the ancestral environment)

GayHackRat 14 Dec 2023 18:29 UTC
23 points
6
in reply to: Rubix’s comment on: Is being sexy for your homies?
at best, separating the sexes into distinct classes would result in a situation that sucks for any kitchen-gender people that would rather be serving staff, and vice-versa. And we should expect there to be a lot of such people, because in general the variance within the sexes is greater than the variance between the sexes.

GayHackRat 14 Dec 2023 3:35 UTC
39 points
7
in reply to: GayHackRat’s comment on: Is being sexy for your homies?
Also, just as a data point, some parts of the OP that were presented as obvious but don’t resonate with my experience at all (I am AFAB and identify as non-binary but am generally perceived as a woman)

* “it’s still kind of suss and not a good sign if nearly all of someone’s friends are of the opposite sex”—I’ve never had many female friends and men seem to find me attractive anyway (less so since I cut my hair short, though)
* “in order to be respectful it is absolutely necessary that I address the attraction question”—I’m not even capable of determining whether I’m attracted to someone I don’t know well yet (but I think this is atypical for any gender, which is why it’s called demisexual)
* I do not experience an obvious difference/shift when imagining a bakery staffed by one gender vs co-ed

Sorry if this comes across as super nit-picky! To counterbalance, here are some points I (genuinely!) liked and agreed with:

* “modern dating sucks because people are directly looking for mates”, general support for community-building—people are way more isolated in contemporary Western cities than in pretty much any other time and place, and this seems pretty bad, we’re highly social animals

* “the ideal form of physical training for a guy to attract a woman might be things like mobility training plus some kind of skill practice like dance or woodworking”—yeah actually I’m pretty sure guys that go that route get hella p*ssy. Also yeah I think the deal is less that women want someone to protect them and more that they want someone to do just general physical tasks—needing to be protected almost never comes up in day-to-day life but needing to move a heavy object or do grimy repair work comes up all the time

* the idea that people should respect the general social fabric more than their ability to get laid

GayHackRat 14 Dec 2023 3:26 UTC
87 points
39
on: Is being sexy for your homies?
Alternate hypotheses:

* Women are annoyed by compliments from men because they get a ton of them (and mostly they do end up being attempts to manipulate), and men are overjoyed by compliments from women because they get very few of them. (This does leave open, why do men compliment women so much more than the other way around?)

* In general, gender norms are mostly enforced within-gender—it’s mostly men telling their sons to “man up” and men telling other men what’s effeminate, and mostly women telling their daughters to “act like a lady” and policing fashion faux pas

* Several points here may be at least as well explained if you drop the genderedness—losing friends due to a primary relationship is bad regardless of the genders involved, being well-liked and high-status is attractive regardless of your gender and the genders of the people liking you,

* The bonobos apparently use sex to strengthen bonds, but your argument is about strengthening bonds through non-sex with your non-sexually-compatible friends, so idk how those are related

* The “postmodern feminist push for equality of the sexes” has been damaging to the status quo, but I don’t think that should necessarily be thought of as “damaging to the social fabric”—like, yeah it was in the short term but maybe that was necessary to get out of a local maximum

* If the kitchen staff were one sex, the serving staff were another, and this were explicit, we should expect this to result in many kitchen-gender folks who would strongly prefer to be serving staff and vice versa, because there is almost always more variance within the sexes than between them

GayHackRat 7 Jan 2020 6:34 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: tinyanon’s comment on: How to Ignore Your Emotions (while also thinking you’re awesome at emotions)
FYI I have had a very similar experience to what you’re describing. You’re not alone. I too found that being kind to notme instead of shouting at them is helpful. And, I’ve found one of the things that helps most is feeling really seen/heard by others, so hopefully this helps!