Jackercrack

Karma: 159

Jackercrack 22 Dec 2014 22:09 UTC
6 points
on: Open thread, Dec. 22 - Dec. 28, 2014
I, like many people, have a father. After a long time of not really caring about the whole thing he’s expressed an interest in philosophy this Christmas season. Now, as we know a lot of philosophy is rather confused and I don’t see any big reasons for him to start thinking truth is irrelevant or other silly things. I don’t think the man is considering reading anything particularly long or in-depth.

So, I’m asking for book recommendations for short-ish introductions to philosophy that don’t get it all wrong. Solid, fundamental knowledge about how we know what we know, why we can know it and so on. The whole less wrong thing really. I think i’ll also send him a copy of epistomology 101 for beginners.

All ideas are welcome even if it’s not 100% the right book.

Jackercrack 11 Dec 2014 15:35 UTC
1 point
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open thread, Dec. 1 - Dec. 7, 2014
You may be right about my lack of tools, and I can’t honestly say I used the try harder in the proper manner seeing as I hadn’t been introduced to it at the time. I played the role of the supportive boyfriend and tried (unsuccessfully) to convince her to go to a therapist who was actually qualified at that sort of thing. I am suspicious, however that you took pains to separate yourself into a new reference class before actually knowing that one way or the other. Unless of course you have a track record of taking massive psychological issues and successfully fixing them in other people and are we really doing this? I mean come on. A person offers to help and you immediately go for the throat, picking apart mistakes made in an attempt to help a person, then using rather personal things in a subtly judgemental manner. Do you foresee that kind of approach ending well? Is that really the way you want this sort of conversation to play out? I like to think we can do better.

I have information. Do you want it or not?

Jackercrack 10 Dec 2014 18:04 UTC
1 point
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open thread, Dec. 1 - Dec. 7, 2014
Yes well I wasn’t a rationalist at the time, nor did I know enough about psychology to say what the right thing to do to help a person whose father… Well I cannot say the exact thing but suffice to say that If I ever meet the man at least one of us is going to the hospital. I’m rather non-violent at all other times. There wasn’t exactly a how-to guide I could read on the subject.

I am also the kind of person that would be drawn out and try to help a person who breaks down crying. You use your energy to help their problems, and have less left for yourself. It starts to wear on you when you get into the third year of it happening every second week like clockwork over such charming subjects as a thoughtless word by a professional acquaintance or having taken the wrong bins out. Bonus points for taking the wrong bins out being a personal insult that means I hate her.

Anyway, that really isn’t the point.Telling me how to solve my rubics cube which I am no longer in contact with is not very helpful. The point is, I’ve been there and I want to help you make the right decision, whatever that may be for you.

Jackercrack 10 Dec 2014 14:34 UTC
2 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open thread, Dec. 1 - Dec. 7, 2014
I’ve had a 3 year relationship with a woman I thought I could fix. She said she’d try hard to change, I said I’d help her, I tried to help her and was extremely supportive for a long time. It was emotionally draining because behind each new climbed mountain there was another problem, and another, and another. Every week a new thing that was bad or terrible about the world. I eventually grew tired of the constant stream of disasters, most stemming from normal situations interpreted weirdly then obsessed over until she broke down in tears. It became clear that things were not likely to ever get better so I left.

There were a great number of fantastic things about this woman; we were both breakdancers and rock climbers, we both enjoyed anime and films, we shared a love for spicy food and liked cuddling, we both had good bodies. We had similar mindsets about a lot of things.

I say all this so that you understand exactly how much of a downside an unstable mental state can be. So that you know that all of these great things about her were in the end not enough. Understand what I mean when I tell you it was not worth it for me and that I recommend against it. That I lost 3 years of time I could have spent making progress in a state with no energy. If you do plan to go for it anyway, set a time limit on how long you will try to fix her before letting go, some period of time less than half a year. I’ll answer any questions that might seem useful.

Jackercrack 24 Nov 2014 16:01 UTC
6 points
on: November 2014 Monthly Bragging Thread
On 6 of the past 7 days I’ve succeeded in doing 50 minutes of exercise and 2 hours of job searching a day. I’m now talking with 3 different recruitment agencies and it seems likely that I’ll be having interviews shortly! I’ve been wanting to get into running for years so i’m spending half the exercise periods doing a couch to 5k program and the other half on bodyweight workouts. This may not seem like much but as a person who have been struggling to get anything done at all for the past 5 months it really is a big deal. Thanks to /u/peter_hurford for his guides on productivity which were brief enough that I couldn’t procrastinate by reading them.

Jackercrack 21 Nov 2014 22:52 UTC
2 points
on: Productivity 101 For Beginners
Thanks for the write up. I used these tips, and they’ve been effective for 5 days in a row so far which is great because I’m finally getting callbacks about job interviews now after putting off applying for so long and all my muscles hurt from working out. It was short enough that I couldn’t do what I normally do and put off taking action till I’d finished reading the book/presentation/whatever. Ended up skipping step 2 due to having plenty of free time in the schedule, which probably doesn’t apply to most employed people but hey, feedback.

I found it useful to set and write down a series of specific rules for myself to follow beforehand to prevent excessive weasling out of things. It seems that although I’m not above some motivated rules-lawyering I can stop myself from breaking the rules if I make them sufficiently bulletproof beforehand. For example, one rule was that if I was going to skip a time slot to do something else, I had to make time to get the work done before-hand in order to stop myself from infinitely putting it off and to prove that it was actually a thing important enough to me to re-schedule around and not just an attempt to get out of it.

All in all, very useful. I’ll be reading your other posts on the subject.

Jackercrack 17 Nov 2014 13:57 UTC
0 points
on: Doublethink (Choosing to be Biased)
I had the happiness of stupidity once. While younger I edged into the valley and recoiled. I believe I even made a conscious choice and enforced it through various means. It was a good time over about two years, and it was unsustainable. I made the mistake of continuing to gain knowledge about human nature, I kept my curiosity and my fascination with how things worked and thus was my ignorance doomed. I dipped deep into the valley and eventually found this place, where I (hopefully) hit critical mass of bootstrap.

If I had stayed in that bubble of wilful ignorance I would probably be happier, but long term I think my current path will overtake it. It’s better this way, I couldn’t have stayed in that state without maiming my own curiosity and growth.

Jackercrack 5 Nov 2014 18:36 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: A discussion of heroic responsibility
And neither of us have the evidence required to find this point (if indeed it is just one point instead of several optimal peaks). I’m tapping out. If you have any closing points I’ll try to take them into account in my thinking. Regardless, it seems like we agree on more than we disagree on.

Jackercrack 5 Nov 2014 11:59 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: A discussion of heroic responsibility
You misunderstand me. I am not saying that a large government is definitely better. I’m simply playing devils advocate. I find it worrying that you can’t find any examples of good things in larger government though. Do socialised single payer healthcare, lower crime rates due to more police, better roads, better infrastructure, environmental protections and higher quality schools not count as benefit? These are all things that require taxes and can be improved with greater spending on them.

Edit: In retrospect maybe this is how a changed humanity looks already. That seems to fit the reality better.

Jackercrack 4 Nov 2014 22:58 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Azathoth123’s comment on: A discussion of heroic responsibility
Achieved almost entirely by fighting through normal means, guns and such so I hardly see the relevant. Suicide bombing kills a vanishing small number of people. IED’s are an actual threat.

Their original goal as rebels was to remove a central government and now they’re fighting a war of genocide against other rebel factions. I wonder how they would have responded if you’d told them at the start that a short while later they’d be slaughtering fellow muslims in direct opposition to their holy book.

Jackercrack 3 Nov 2014 10:44 UTC
0 points
in reply to: the-citizen’s comment on: Open thread, Oct. 20 - Oct. 26, 2014
Really? I was not aware of that trend in the field, maybe I should look into it.

Well, at least I understand you now.

Jackercrack 3 Nov 2014 1:15 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: A discussion of heroic responsibility
It finally makes sense, you’re looking at it from a personal point of view. Consider it from the view of the average wellbeing of the entire populace. Zoom out to consider the entire country, the full system of which the government is just a small part. A larger government has more probable failure modes, but a small one simply outsources its failure modes to companies and extremely rich individuals. Power abhors a vacuum.

You and I are not large enough or typical enough for considerations about our optimality to enter into the running of a country. People are eternal and essentially unchanging, the average level of humanity rises but slowly. The only realistic way to improve their lot is to change the situation in which the decision is made. The structure of the system they flow through is too important to be left to market forces and random chance. I don’t care much if it inconveniences me so long as on average the lot of humanity is improved.

Edit: I fully expect you to disagree with me, but at least that’s one mystery solved.

Jackercrack 3 Nov 2014 0:41 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: A discussion of heroic responsibility
That large government is worse than small government.

Jackercrack 2 Nov 2014 9:27 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: A discussion of heroic responsibility
A theory of government is not an terminal value, it is an instrumental one. You believe that that particular way of government will make people happy/autonomous/free/healthy/whatever your value system is. What is lacking is evidence that this particular government actually achieves those aims. It’s a reasonable a priori argument, but so are dozens of other arguments for other governments. We need to distinguish which reality we are actually living in. By what metric can your goals be measured and where would you expect them to be highest? Are there countries/states trying this and what is the effect? Are there countries doing the exact opposite and what would you expect to be the result of that? Your belief must be falsifiable or else it is permeable to flour and meaningless. Stage a full crisis of faith if you have to. No retreating into a separate magesterium, why do you believe what you believe?

Jackercrack 1 Nov 2014 22:54 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: A discussion of heroic responsibility
Right, well would you please continue? I believe the question that started all this off was how do you know said theory corresponds to reality.

Jackercrack 1 Nov 2014 22:52 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: A discussion of heroic responsibility
Not yours specifically, but the general average across humanity. lukeprog wrote up a good summary of the factors correlated with happiness which you’ve probably read as well as an attempt to discern the causes. Not that happiness is the be-all and end-all of terminal values, but it certainly shows how little the average person knows about what they would actually happy with vs what they think they’d be happy with. I believe that small sub-sequence on the science of winning at life is far more than the average person knows on the subject, or else people wouldn’t give such terrible advice.

Jackercrack 1 Nov 2014 21:53 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: A discussion of heroic responsibility
Right, it’s time we got back on track. Now that we using the same definition of power and we’ve come to the conclusion that a reduction in tax revenues can reduce physical projection of power but is unlikely to remove the laws that determine what maximum level of power is legally allowed to be projected.

I believe you were talking about optimal levels of power when compared to growth?

Jackercrack 1 Nov 2014 21:50 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: A discussion of heroic responsibility
It’s a statement of fact, not a political agenda. Neuroscientists know more about people’s brains than normal people do, as a result of spending years and decades studying the subject.

Jackercrack 1 Nov 2014 15:46 UTC
0 points
in reply to: the-citizen’s comment on: Open thread, Oct. 20 - Oct. 26, 2014
Ah, I think you may have gotten the wrong idea when I said truth was incidental, that a thing is incidental does not stop it from being useful and a good idea, it is just not a goal in and of itself. Fortunately, no-one here is actually suggesting active self-deception as a viable strategy. I would suggest reading Terminal values and Instrumental Values. Truth seeking is an instrumental value, in that it is useful to reach the terminal values of whatever your actual goals are. So far as I can tell, we actually agree on the subject for all relevant purposes.

You may also want to read the tragedy of group selectionism.

Jackercrack 1 Nov 2014 11:16 UTC
4 points
in reply to: skeptical_lurker’s comment on: Meetup : Bath, UK: Agreement, practical meetups, and report from last meetup
Statements can still be used for calibration even if you don’t know the answer, but it’s always more fun if you have at least an inkling of the answer. It’s always good to add more fun to things like this, so any chance I could convince you to bring along some of the type of questions you think would be good?