I prefer oppositely, to not break the flow of reading. Not to have a hypothetical vocalization of the text switch its moment-to-moment purpose to being a bibliography, let me compress to, “the author linked an article they claimed said shrimping was a fundamental drill for grappling”, and move on. Often, I’d even prefer to leave out the “according to this article”, and make the statement itself link text.
If this doubled such attacks, it would not be a feather on the scales, and you know that.
Hmm. Problem with crossposting is that in-text links aren’t really visible here. Last time I tried it, at least one person didn’t notice a link to a post, without which they misunderstood my post. Have discussed this with some devs, and remain convinced I need visible links. Y’all go your way, I’ll go mine.
Edit: Actually I have more reason not to want automatic crossposting than that.
Upvoted for minding long-term evolution of the structure. On the fence about whether it’s worth it. Maybe “livingness”? (Would that help much or be almost as confusing?) I don’t think I could pick anything but a synonym and not obscure the concept.
This sounds like it was written for one of my draft posts to be a response to. Excellent.
Edit: summary is, your conception of productive is probably distorted by your refusal to engage the circuits that a reframing like this turns off. If you refuse a gate, you end up in a parallel universe where the actions you take seem correct and the gate seems unusuable anyway. If you go through, it feels like there’s nothing you can do about it and you’ve destroyed hope for nothing, until you start to rebuild your mind in the more complete view of the world.
Nope. That’s just a process this thing is calling into. See this for more info on the context for this technique. (And the primary use case for this is where neither of the belifs/aliefs is wrong, and you end up grokking they are separate instead.)
Thanks for linking that. From shallow accesses to caches because I’m in the middle of something, “side-taking” morality is too specific. I call this component “trade morality”.
Oh shit, I was gonna write that up before I published this and then I forgot. Will fix later. (Edit: posted with slightly more detail [here](https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/XYzKEic8CovkWNwtb/the-o-brien-technique))
I’m naming it after the character from 1984, it’s a way of disentangling social reality / reality buckets errors in system 1, by holding two different contradicting verbal statements in your head, “2+2=4”, “2+2=5“, and contrasting them and their uses and anticipations until they split apart into not seeming to be talking about the same thing. (Use “2+2=5” to anticipate social reality, use “2+2=4” to anticipate reality.) Try guiding the “that’s inconsistent” processes it spins up to focus their efforts along two separate planes, or something like that.
It should not end in doublethink. I.E., when you get the S1 shift, then you are done with verbal contradictions, and can just think “2+2=5” in quotes with an implicit “this is a lie” tag. Sort of it’s a way of getting your S1 to feel the quotes.
Practice it a bunch and you may build up immunity to social reality.
Yes, something like that.
I also mean to imply the consequence of severing yourself from the Khala is profoundly disturbing isolation. It is done by deciding that no one is your ingroup or something like that, resulting in a feeling of stepping outside of a game containing all social interactions.
Thanks. I have considered and tried to implement strategies like that, and I think it’s better for me to do what I’m doing because:
I do model-building primarily for my purposes of using models to decide things in real life. This kind of content, with a bunch of dependencies because it was made based on pulling from my entire worldview, is the content which already exists. The subset which I can link something to explain the dependencies is what I can write in the course of my life which is mostly not about writing, without spending time generating sort-of-related surface-level content. A much larger chunk of the work for doing the writing I’m doing is “free” in that I’m already doing it. And in practice that makes it something that I actually have time to do sometimes.
Also, I think you’d be surprised. I’ve had at least one person who didn’t know me personally get it, I think.
I just added a link to the OP, apparently the original wasn’t working even though it was a public post. Have not reviewed the utility of giving a how-to-mind-control guide here. But light on technique, heavy on direct consequences of having much higher mana than someone and not giving up.
> At one point during the 2016 presidential election, the PredictIt prediction market—the only one legally open to US citizens (and only US citizens)—had Hillary Clinton at a 60% probability of winning the general election. The bigger, international prediction market BetFair had Clinton at 80% at that time.
Is it just that there is percentage-income-taxed error in prediction markets’ guesses, and this 20% discrepancy falls under this, or are markets unable to Aumann agree if they can only watch each other and can’t arbitrage?
I once found a $20 bill on a sidewalk at a marina. I searched the surrouning sidewalk, grass, and bushes and found 3 more. It reminded me of the mentioned talk from Eliezer and I was thinking, “this event would make really good propaganda for the boat startup I’m in, too bad I don’t believe in omens no wait believing in them doesn’t make them real.”