I did the survey (while I was still a lurker).
ilzolende
Karma: 454
I fixed my anger issues! It used to be that when I was extremely angry at someone, I would sometimes feel a desire to physically attack that person. This was not something I wanted, because having a desire to attack people is a risk factor for hurting people in certain circumstances. However, the main solution that I heard about to this problem was to calm down whenever I was angry, which wouldn’t actually be in my best interests, because anger is useful.
Once I figured this out, and realized that I had forced myself out of a “wanting to hurt someone” state once when I’d realized that it was entirely counterproductive, I just forced myself out of the “wanting to hurt someone” state the next time I entered it without calming myself down completely, and it worked.
Now I can be angry, but I’m not at as much risk of committing a crime while angry. The last thing I did out of anger was encrypt my computer and backup drive, because I caught my mom listening in on a phone call. I do not regret this.
Assuming you just want people throwing ideas at you:
Make it illegal to communicate in cleartext? Add mandatory cryptography classes to schools? Requiring everyone to register a public key and having a government key server? Not compensating identity theft victims and the like if they didn’t use good security?
I take daily antibiotics for acne (doxycycline), and have done so for years. How much harm am I actually doing by increasing antibiotic resistance?
I would say that smartphones should have age filters on them
I agree. We should encourage children to develop an interest in anonymous filter-dodging web access systems like Tor, securely encrypting their messages such that they can’t be monitored for inappropriate language usage, and other related skills while they’re still young.
Thanks for showing us that there are autistic cryonics patients in the world. I am more likely to sign up when I am old enough to legally do so without parental permission, because now I know I wouldn’t be the only autistic person in the future, no matter what happens when people develop a prenatal autism test.
I can’t give you evidence, but I saw lots of posts about freezing the death eater’s heads before today.
The real trick to both use and deflect this is to have some piece of information about yourself that sounds very personal but that you would be fine sharing with everyone. I use autism disclosure this way, not only for this purpose, but also so that when people who I have met try to think of examples of autism, they don’t just think of fictional evidence.
Also, this shows up in HPMoR’s chapter 7, titled Reciprocation.
How would someone donate to GiveWell in an externally verifiable manner? I am permitted to do fundraisers as volunteering projects, and donating or (if online) having customers donate to an EA organization seems like an obvious choice.
Somebody is going to mention cryonics here, so it might as well be me: Cryonic preservation! We don’t have the brain scanning technology that would be needed to reproduce someone’s mind based on physical access to their brain yet, but we can preserve the brain in good condition such that someone’s mind could be reproduced/revived after their death in the future.
Also, about the getting lots of voice data for machine learning purposes: I’m sure the NSA has been doing something like that. If you just want to record yourself, a typical iPod Touch has good storage capacity for hours of audio and can record from inside a bag. The one thing is that some states require 2-party consent before a private conversation can be legally recorded, so even if you consent to record yourself, you might have to ask the other person for permission or stop recording. On the other hand, you probably wouldn’t get in trouble for having an illicit audio recording unless you do something with it that leads to you getting caught, so just recording a conversation for personal use and not using it as evidence or posting it online would probably not get you in trouble.
This article seems to mostly avoid the problems Yvain listed with AI reporting. It does talk about economic impacts, but it treats those as a short-term problem instead of the main problem.
Also, I still can’t believe that a news anchor mentioned a paperclip maximizer on the air.
What is paul-boxing?
I think this writing is very good, but the way the words look is not normal. The words have letters with more lines than they need to have, stuck onto the ends of other lines, but the other writing on the Less Wrong shared computer thing uses letters with only as many lines as they need, and the words under each other are closer together.
Tell Alex that swearing a lot weakens the value of your swearing as a signal. If you get a reputation for not swearing, then the one time you do, people will take you more seriously than if you used profanity on a daily basis. Also, swearing is a much cheaper signal than any alternatives you might want to signal with if you’d made your swearing meaningless.
This is the actual reasoning I (high verbal IQ, boundary testing 16-year-old) end up swearing < once/month.
Not sure if this will get the result you want, but it will approach what you want.
I’m sorry if this is a rude request, but I’m very new to the LW commenting process, so if anyone knows why my comments here were downvoted, I’d really appreciate it if that person would tell me, so I can improve my future participation on this site.
Thanks in advance!
Also, Kevin Simler’s Melting Asphalt is great and has lots of insightful essays about things. Warning: Still doesn’t have archives, you’re going to need to go through the meta posts to read old things.
I suppose there isn’t really a standard progressive view, but I attend Young Democrats meetings, my school voted with something like a ⅔ majority for Obama in the last mock election, and I read newspapers and magazines that target a progressive audience, so I encounter a lot of progressive viewpoints.
I thought that the “tools of oppression and domination” was a reference to how stereotypes are used, not how they are formed. I don’t really picture a bunch of people in positions of power deciding that the best method to oppress people was to assume insulting things about them, instead of, say, passing harmful legislation, so I assumed that other progressives would agree with me on that point.
Also, I wanted to discuss stereotype origins without using phrasing that made the originators of those stereotypes look immoral, because I thought that doing so would distract for advancedatheist from the point I was trying to make, so I shied away from that explanation.
I endorse discussion of virtue ethics on LW mostly because I haven’t seen many arguments for why I should use it or discussions of how using it works. I’ve seen a lot of pro-utilitarianism and “how to do things with utilitarianism” pieces and a lot of discussion of deontology in the form of credible precommitments and also as heuristics and rule utilitarianism, but I haven’t really seen a virtue ethics piece that remotely approaches Yvain’s Consequentialism FAQ in terms of readability and usability.
I like Eneasz Brodski’s Death is Bad. Not as moralizing as the title sounds, has lots of fun book reviews.
I overheard a normal-speed conversation between two native speakers of a language I’m learning and understood over 90%.