In this context, thinking about whether you are “good” is not “constructive.”
Thinking about whether you’re doing something “constructive” is, by contrast, extremely constructive.
Here’s my trajectory:
1.) Worry a lot about “I’m not good”
2.) Improve in some dimensions, also refactor my moral priorities so that I no longer believe some of my ‘bad traits’ are really bad
3.) Still worry a lot about “I’m not good” where “good” refers to some eldritch horror that I no longer literally endorse
4.) Learn the mental motion of going “fuck it”, where I just rest my brain and self-soothe. Do that until I deeply do not give a fuck whether I’m good or not.
5.) Notice a mild but consistent desire to do things that are, not “good”, but “constructive” -- i.e. contribute to the construction of a nice thing that takes time and effort to complete.
6.) Notice that the people around me mostly like it when I do “constructive” things, and call them “good.”
I’m a little more optimistic about calorie restriction mimetics than Aubrey, but I think everybody sensible has pretty low confidence about this.
Practical constraints. The main contributor to the cost of a lifespan study is the cost of upkeep for the mice—so it’s proportional to number of mice and length of the study. Testing 50 compounds at once means raising 50x the money at once (which is out of reach at the moment) and may also run into constraints of the capacity of labs/CROs.
Yep, that is my position.
(I’ve talked a bunch with Aubrey de Grey and he is very much supportive of the LRI’s program. We’re complements, not substitutes.)
Thanks; I think I was just wrong here, I didn’t think of that.
This is not normal behavior on her part. This is domestic violence. The standard advice is to leave people who hit you. Possibly after clearly stating that you are not okay with being hit and you will leave if it continues, and giving her a chance to change her ways. Maybe she should work with a professional to help with her anger problems. But there is a significant risk that a person who regularly attacks you will escalate.
Vaniver is right.
The mainstream biogerontology perspective is that there’s an evolutionarily conserved “survival program”, probably developed for surviving famines, that can slow the aging process somewhat. This is the stuff you’ll find in Cynthia Kenyon’s research, for instance. The hope is that you can find drugs that stimulate these pathways, and thereby slow down the incidence of age-related diseases. This is the approach LRI is taking.
The SENS position, as I understand, is that this won’t work. As you go up from yeast to nematodes to flies to mice, “long-lived” mutants live less long, and perhaps by the time we get to humans these genetic alterations (or drugs that simulate them) won’t be long-lived at all. SENS instead wants to work on reversing the damage caused by aging.
I don’t know with high confidence whether SENS’s skepticism is right; but even if they are, their research program seems to involve a lot of open questions in basic science that would take a long time to resolve.
Give to SENS if you want to invest in basic research that might one day reverse aging altogether; give to LRI to accelerate translational research into treatments that might lead to modest healthspan extension in the next decade or two. (Or give to both!) They’re complementary strategies.
I really don’t relate to the externalization people use about “lotus-eating”, like, ″Facebook is making me addicted, even though I want to be productive.“ Implicitly that means the ”real“ me is into ”good“ meaningful stuff. And that’s not how it feels. It feels like I have very strong drives towards the bad stuff (like ”contacting exes to annoy them″) and Facebook is just a tool that enables me to do what I want, which is why I deleted my account a year ago, because some of my wants harm other people. But the wanting is mine.
In fact, sometimes I feel like “I want to do something cravey but I don’t have anything cravey to do!” That comes up pretty often, tbh: food is only cravey when I’m hungry, videogames and shopping do nothing for me, I quit social media, etc.
I can usually tailor the level of jargon correctly. What I can’t do that well is figure out how to not make my presence burdensome—I can feel that I need to “come up with something to say” that makes it worth talking to me, and I’m not great at coming up with those quickly. (When a kid says “tell me a story”, I can’t do that either. I’m great at discussions, where you have to speak off the cuff in relation to some subject, but open-ended improv is hell.)
I really like this.
Let me try to apply it to an example in my own life. I’m frequently telling people about a project I’m working on. I’d like it to be well received, to make a good impression, and also to enlist help or advice.
This is probably consultation, collaboration, or delegation, depending on whom I’m talking to, right?
And “how to win people to your way of thinking” clearly seems to apply.
“Never say you’re wrong” confuses me—yes, there are people you can’t afford to flatly contradict, but what do you do if you actually need to accomplish a task and the thing they’re suggesting seems like a bad idea? There are cases where “do it their way without complaint” is unwise. So far I’ve been trying to ask a lot of questions to make sure I haven’t misunderstood them, but sooner or later it’s inevitable to encounter someone who really is wrong.
“Let the other person do most of the talking” -- I use this often (it’s also a good social anxiety hack to take the pressure off myself!) but it seems to be more difficult in a scenario where you only have a few minutes of their time and need to “pitch” an idea. Is it wrong to launch into a quick summary in such cases?
“Get the other person saying ‘yes, yes’ right away” -- I know to transition gradually from claims that I know will be agreed with towards claims that might be more controversial or doubtful, but I think I probably err too much on the side of never bringing up things that I don’t expect to get agreement on. Any advice on how to incrementally push further without skipping all the way to becoming shocking/offensive?
“Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view” -- this is just straight up hard for me, especially if I’m talking to a stranger and am also just trying to keep track of the content of what I’m saying and he’s saying, while avoiding social faux pas. It seems about as hard as “remember to multiply three-digit numbers in your head while you have your conversation!” Am I missing something?
And...yep, 33% objective response rates, which is great. https://www.google.com/amp/s/immuno-oncologynews.com/2018/04/20/dynavax-immunotherapy-and-keytruda-fight-head-and-neck-cancer-trial-shows/%3famp
Wanted to make a testable prediction that would be resolved soon.
You took the update “subjective emotional states aren’t very important, because they can happen when objectively everything is fine.” From the same observation, I took the update “objective conditions aren’t very important, because I can still feel lousy when objectively everything is fine, or great when it isn’t.” Is there a reason you took the former approach?
“You can’t pick winners in drug development” rhymes with a cluster of memes that are popular in the zeitgeist today:
“Complicated things can’t be understood from first principles”
“Collecting a lot of data without models is better than building models”
“People don’t engage in abstract reasoning much, they do things by feel and instinct”
“Don’t overthink it”
“What it means to be human” refers to what distinguishes us from machines, not what distinguishes us from animals
Once you clarify any of these claims down to a specific proposition, sometimes they’re true. But there is a general sense that you can get social approval from saying things whose upshot is “Thinking: it’s not that great after all!”
I don’t believe so (at least I’ve never heard of a public one; sometimes large companies have internal prediction markets).