= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Leonhart comments on More "Stupid" Questions - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (495)
Upvoted for blowing my mind.
Every time I think I've finally taken the measure of the Typical Mind Fallacy... Anyone want to announce that they dislike oxygen and rainbows? Let's get it over with!
Actual answer: for many people, including me, it's an incredibly useful mind-altering drug, that allows powerful immediate manipulation of my emotional state. In fact, I should really abuse it a lot more strategically than I do.
There's little I enjoy more than getting rid of that damn oxygen in my lungs!
(Rainbows are cool, though.)
So you're saying you can subjectively distinguish oxygen days from placebo days?
I've been looking into how to blind this, but I'm afraid the hood just makes the whole thing that much more sexy and erotic.
And thus the new fetish of double-blind bdsm was born...
Meh. I've never seen why they have this position of being axiomatically good. I mean they're nice, but are basically just some colours in the sky.
One confounding factors may be that I'm slightly colourblind (r/g) so maybe I'm not getting the full effect.
I like rainbows as a pattern to some extent, but the actual ones in the sky seem underwhelming to me. Too subdued, I'm used to my colours being more vivid. I am pro-oxygen, though.
For me: I find some forms quite hedonic, and also very powerful emotional manipulation. In fact, it's the only effective emotional self-manipulation I know of that doesn't require obtrusive or expensive setups (such as live plays) or distract me completely from my tasks.
Can also be a kind of useful semi-distraction.
What lavalamp is trying to say is that people listen to music because it makes them feel good, but it's hard (or impossible) to explain why it makes one feel good. It is a subconscious thing; it happens in your neurons and you aren't aware of the pathways and the sequence of neuronal firings that causes it to happen.
Maybe someday we'll have a theory that makes it possible to take some information about you (anything from a 'psychological test' to a full-blown brain scan), a sample of music, and determine whether you will enjoy it or not.
I was more surprised by someone who said they found Stockhausen more accessible than Mozart than by James Miller saying he didn't like music.