Yes, amongst additional benefits.
romeostevensit
Karma: 11,663
For a while now I have been recommending anyone working in an adversarial environment to read the book Character Disturbance by Dr. George Simon. Blurb from amazon: psychologist George Simon explains in plain English:
How most disturbed characters think.
The habitual behaviors the disturbed use to avoid responsibility and to manipulate, deceive, and exploit others.
Why victims in relationships with disturbed characters do not get help they need from traditional therapies.
A straightforward guide to recognizing and understanding all relevant personality types
Smart people I know still regularly fall for personality disordered patterns, and I have seen people I met with personality disturbances successfully apply for grants. I think this is highly underrated and tractable knowledge.
Yes, recommend John Cleese’s Creativity talk. See also research on brainstorming.
Stop to appreciate how amazing that is!
Not if it’s curve fitting, which most historical theories are. Would be interested to find out how much of the data was blinded/actually predicted.
Page three does not match people’s lives experience. In social reality believing things harder together makes them more real.
Thank you for documenting the real world in a way that might help others. I think one of the most important things I’ve learned in life is to notice when people are paying zero cost for their signaling of moral principle.
How are your actions different as a result of all this? Does worrying make some morally superior to less worried people if they both have no theory of change?
I think we don’t need to posit super persuasion. Mundane increases in PR competence will make everything else described substantially easier.
I agree with Korzybski that our problems are representational. As extremely cognitively limited beings much of our progress stems from which sorts of problems we can easily represent and communicate about, such that a variety of humans can become interested and work on them. My unusual claim in this area is that we had an aborted attempt to transcend the modernist representations when they proved insufficient in the face of problems in foundational math, physics, philosophy of science, and politics (impossibility results in attempts at preference aggregation). The Martians made some progress, but the interruption+trauma of the world wars interrupted whatever intellectual tradition was generating them and we aborted mid paradigm shift to a newer representational language that, per Korzybski, would have represented these new paradigms in a new representational language conducive to parallelizing work on them. Instead we got post modernism slop and fell back. Quine was the last bit of real progress on philosophy of science. His main successful student, David Lewis, took a crack at the problem (including the frame problem) by trying to develop a representational notation for counter-factuals, but seemingly failed. We’re now stuck. We keep attacking the object level problems, like voting theorems, meta-ethics, and decision theory with the older, well developed representational languages of modernism and coming up with the same irremovable inconsistencies in different formats. I’m not sure what to do about this other than return to Quine and see if there are any promising dead branches.
LLM suggests: The Dead Branch: Look to Gotthard Günther (poly-contextural logic) and Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form (1969). Spencer-Brown introduced a representational calculus based not on truth values (
I was following up until ‘he is not uncertain about what he currently believes.’ colloquially, if I give a range it is ‘i expect to fall in this range on further consideration/effort to converge.’
Scene: Michel Foucault, having been transported forward in time to see that he has won, at last feels that he will be understood, sits down with a nyt reporter. Foucault slowly realizes that winning precluded not just him getting understood, but the possibility of understanding. Comedic timing, make no mistakes, unless they would be funny.
Bet settlement unreachable is a very sharp formulation.
In person psychology research and ml dabblers. Overlaps with some existing interest in micro expression research.
Yeah, we’ve been talking about training a classifier for it because it’s very prominent but without having it pointed out to you with a bunch of cases it can’t be directly described. It clearly has something to do with facial tension. It seems to have a surprisingly low rate of false positives and false negatives, but haven’t demonstrated that empirically yet.
Just noting for the record that he has narcissism face. Don’t know the relevance compared to base rate politicians. Increases my credence that he is doing gradient descent on popularity and doesn’t have any principled stances.
What is the evidence that swaying outcomes under a 2 party system has large positive effects on policy?
Thinking of doing something like this on a twitter or signal gc.
Prioritization and ambiguity avoidance seem to me to be interacting with the increasing competition for attention/dopamine-batna environment.
Perennial Problem: explaining the solution to the problem is fairly trivial, but the motivated stupidity of the pushback it receives discourages people from spending time explaining it, so there are always huge numbers of people who have never heard the simple explanation.
I noticed lots of reward type stuff didn’t work for me, but also I ate a cheeseburger and milkshake after going to the gym for years and it did seem to affect gym motivation since it is the only time I do that.