That's fine, but could you please change the font to the default one? Comic Sans is... ehh, not the best choice for most things.

For those interested in further reading: Robin Hanson's take, popularly-written book.

Interleaving is great. After reading about this a few months ago, I realized how I did Anki was bad. I had separate decks for each subject. To interleave, you could put everything in one deck, but you'd only be able to organize by tag then.

I figured out a better way to interleave in Anki. Create a filtered deck which takes X random cards from all your other decks. You can make X as big or small as you want.

Incidentally, this also made me realize how much of a cue studying by deck was. The subject of some cards was no longer obvious because of how I wrote them, so I've slowly been disambiguating them. This is good, I think, as in reality you often don't have such a strong cue that says "use knowledge from X subject".

The value of interleaving is evidence that a lot of conventional education is about teaching people to endure boredom, and this is a very bad mistake.

Why do you think you would be so good at influencing people on Facebook?

like start the next arab spring

So, remind me, how did that turn out?

Do you already have a track record of getting sizable groups of strangers doing things they wouldn't otherwise have done by influencing them on some other social media? Then it might be worth looking into how to game facebook.

If you don't, then the first question is if you should try to get into the social media influence game to begin with. How many people are trying to do it compared to people who have any traction with a number of followers, and what sets the successful people apart? If most people who don't bounce off right away are barely hanging by instead of becoming big and influential, how is life for them? How much is success driven by stuff like outrage clickbait, unrelenting smear jobs at whoever your opponent is, raising twitter lynch mobs and the like, and how comfortable would you be operating in an environment where those might be standard operating procedure?

This whole subthread stinks of Dunning-Kruger. Youthful savvy? Cultish following? Guilt about not using Facebook? Putting internet sales on par with a revolutionary movement spanning several countries? That doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about.

I don't know exactly who you're supposed to persuade, but your track record so far on LessWrong shows that you barely manage to break even with your karma, and that you lack the level of self-awareness of a socially well-adapted person. Whoever you successfully persuade would have to be even more oblivious than you, which is saying something. Given what you said here you'd use Facebook for, I for one am glad neither I nor you are using it.

I don't mean for this to be a pointless ad hominem attack; the reason I'm responding this way is for you to take this as a prompter that you need to get out of your own head and think more clearly about matters involving yourself, or how you come off as. Because the way you think about this whole business is a huge red flag. The fact that self-promoters, salesmen, and slacktivists on FB tend to piss off people more than anything else, and the fact that youth is basically never an indicator of "savvy" are two things that should be obvious to everyone who has even a modicum of experience with the internet or life in general.

... Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

But it is. See the long list at page 284. See also the section about data sources on page 331.

The document points to World Development Indicators 2013 for more detailed references and data which is are more accessible by being placed after each corresponding section,

http://www.eaglobal.org/livestream This is what I know of. I don't know if they needed to post-edit videos; but if they did - that takes time.

In theory inbreeding shouldn't be a problem, but in practice it probably is.

In both theory and in practice, it is a problem: the offspring are more likely to have faulty genomes than the offspring of unrelated people.

But why are you raising this issue? The practical answer is known, and adequately accounts for the feelings around it.

I made comments to a similar effect in a recent OT http://lesswrong.com/lw/mgr/open_thread_jul_13_jul_19_2015/ckh8 :)

Epistemic status: anally extracted

Is sexual relationship between two consenting adult siblings ethically okay

I think it's probably like drunk driving -- most of the times it doesn't result in anything bad, but there's a non-negligible chance of outcomes so bad that the expected value still comes out negative.

should it be legal?

I haven't given much thought to that, but for some reason your proposed solution of "legal unless you have offspring" sounds more reasonable to my System 1 than the analogous "legal unless you have a crash" in the case of drunk driving.

Or maybe a better analogy would be any driving = any sex between siblings, drunk driving = sex between siblings without contraception? Then again, a law against sex between siblings without contraception doesn't sound easy to enforce to me.

ethically okay

Dude, be a consequentialist. Don't use expressions like "ethically okay" or "morally wrong". Use "superior to", "inferior to".

Would you then permit homosexual incest, which doesn't produce children?

Supplemental questions that I don't know the answers to: how significant are the effects of inbreeding? Are they often so bad that it would be better for an inbred child to never have existed? How does that compare to having non-inbred children with known high risks of genetic defects? To what extent can the effects be tested for (both before and during pregnancy)?

I'd be very surprised if inbreeding was so bad that careful consensual incestuous sex, with the intent of getting an abortion if pregnancy does occur, wasn't worth the risk.

Edit: Okay, inbreeding seems to be much worse than I'd anticipated.

From what I've heard, the genetic risks have a lot to do with how genetically similar the forebears of the couple are. If all the grandparents are from the same small region, it's a lot riskier than if the grandparents are from different continents.

Even though contraception is widespread in this day and age, if large number of siblings have sex with each other, some of them will inevitably end up having kids.

A second problem is that the energy and emotions and time they devote to their incestuous relationship isn't going to a relationship where they might have kids.

5 years ago, I would have thought logically, and said that if they don't want kids and have access to effective contraception then it isn't a problem. But now I would think probabilistically, and say that even if they are 99% sure they don't want kids, they are about 50% likely (assuming standard levels of overconfidance) to change their minds around 30, and now they are really heavily invested in a relationship which cannot lead to healthy kids, and the sister's biological clock is running out of time.

So, it's certainly a bad idea, although that doesn't automatically mean it should be made illegal, depending upon whether you believe citizens should have the right to make bad decisions.

(trigger warning: rape)

How much can we be sure, if this would be made legal, that the consent of the adult siblings would mean the same thing as the consent of two random unrelated people. If someone wants to have sex with their sibling who is not really happy about that idea, how much opportunity would they have to pressure them into "consent", if they merely have to wait until their 18th birthday, as opposed to the opportunity to pressure into "consent" someone who is not a relative?

Even if the person who wants to have sex with their sibling waits with the coitus until the sibling's 18th birthday, they still have plenty of opportunity to "groom" them before they are 18. Imagine siblings with large age difference, where the older sibling uses their mental superiority to "brainwash" their younger sibling, to ruin their other relationships and make them socially isolated, to make them emotionally dependent, so that when the younger sibling becomes 18, they are not in a position to say "no".

Also, many people at 18 are not really ready to be economically independent on their family. Imagine a family with two children, one strongly loved by the parents, the other disliked by the parents. When the unloved child becomes 18, their sibling can blackmail them into sex by threatening that if they refuse, the popular child will convince the parents to throw the unpopular child out on the street. (Yes, blackmail is technically illegal, but you would have to prove it. Also, if you are the unpopular child, getting the popular child thrown in jail will not help you get your parents' love; you will still remain on the street.)

In families there is too much power disparity: parents vs children, but also some children vs other. If we care about consent in sex, it is better to not leave open any paths that would allow abusing this power disparity to enforce "consent". Making sex between close relatives illegal is a simple Schelling point.

From this description alone, it sounds like a good idea if you don't plan on having kids.

Personal experience that it is useful or just from the indirectly linked papers?

Also, note that it may potentiallly insta-fuck your liver.

I've heard people say that it makes them sluggish and dumb - is this first hand experience you're talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

I identify with hating having to scroll sideways to read something.

For those who are preoccupied with lists that can actually be read and hold to the overly strict standard that preformatted text shouldn't be used where bulleted lists are intended, here's that list again in more readable form:

• Is preoccupied with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost.
• Shows perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met).
• Is excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity).
• Is overconscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values (not accounted for by cultural or religious identification).
• Is unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value.
• Is reluctant to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things.
• Adopts a miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes.
• Shows rigidity and stubbornness.

And for those who overconscientiously think that one should cite one's sources, I'll add that these are the DSM-5 criteria for OCD, and that having four of them is supposed to indicate OCD.

I tried it, but at the time I found it very hard to focus. it's a lot like working at home – you need to be very good at creating your own routines and structure, and managing your own projects.

If that's not you, develops those skills first. Getting work where you train those skills is a good approach.

As formulated, zero -- under the rules you posted you never win anything. Is there an unstated assumption that you can stop the game at any time and exit with your stake?

I was thinking that you should take into account the fact that if you got several trillion dollars, that only entitled you to half of America's resources, and if you got infinite dollars it would only give you 100% of America's resources. It turns out that similar notions have already been studied and the expected value calculated for them on Wikipedia (well, they just assumed that the bankroll was US GDP and didn't look at a quantity theory of money solution specifically, but same diff).

Outcomes:

1 flip --- $1 probability 1/2
2 flips -- $2 probability 1/4
3 flips -- $4 probability 1/8
4 flips -- $8 probability 1/16
...

The expected value doesn't converge but it grows extremely slowly, where almost all the benefit comes from an extremely tiny chance of extremely large gain. The obvious question is counterparty risk: how much do you trust the person offering the game to actually be able to follow through with what they offered?

If we think of this as a sum over coin flips, each flip you think is possible gives another $0.50 in expected value. So if you think they're probably only good for amounts up to $1M then because it takes 20 flips to pass $1M the expected value is $0.50 * 19 or $9.50. Similarly if you think they're good for $1B then that's 29 flips max for an expected value of $14.50. You could be fancy and try to model your uncertainty about how much they're good for, but that's probably not worth it. And you do want to take into account that someone offering something like this with no provision for how they'll handle extremely large payouts is probably not entirely on the level.

Expected value is also not the right metric here, since we all have diminishing marginal returns. Would you enjoy $1B 1,000x as much as $1M? Even if you're giving your winnings to charity there are still some limits to our ability to effectively use additional donations.

Short answer: $5. (This trusts them to be good for $1024, and is in a range where utility should still be pretty much linear in money.)

I'm not sure what "lifetime manic features at age 22 – 23 years" means. Lifetime, or between ages 22 and 23?

But the numbers:

There was a positive association between IQ at age 8 years and lifetime manic features at age 22–23 years (Pearson’s correlation coefficient 0.159 (95% CI 0.120–0.198), P>0.001).

I shall be generous and take the upper end of their range for the correlation, and round it up to c = 0.2.

The shared variance is c^2 = 0.04. That is childhood IQ "explains" (in the technical sense of that word) 4% of the variance of "lifetime manic features at age 22 – 23 years".

For the following calculations I assume, for no reason other than mathematical simplicity, that we are dealing with a bivariate normal distribution. However, I doubt the overall message would be very different for whatever the real distribution is.

The mutual information between the variables, is log2( 1/sqrt(1-c^2) ) = 0.0294 bits.

What can you do with 30 millibits? You might try to use IQ at age 8 to predict "lifetime manic features at age 22 – 23 years". How much will knowing the former narrow your estimate of the latter? The ratio (standard deviation conditional on that information)/(unconditional standard deviation) is sqrt(1-c^2) = 0.980. That is, the spread is 2% smaller.

Suppose you try to predict from IQ at age 8, whether their "manic features" will be above or below the average? By random guessing you will be right 50% of the time. By using that information, you will be right (1/π)acos(−c) of the time = 56%.

Perhaps, if the IQ is really high, the "manic features" will be more significantly above the average? In principle, yes, but in practice, not enough to matter. The probability that an individual has an IQ high enough to be 95% sure that they will be above average for "manic features" is 7.5 x 10^-14. Of course, the bivariate normal approximation cannot be observably accurate so far out, but I think it gives an indication of the scale of the matter.

The mathematics underlying the calculations can be found here. The figures at the end include a scatterplot of what c=0.2 looks like. That was the lowest correlation for which I thought it worth while to include in the tabulations.

It appears that the consensus is that saturated fat significantly increases blood cholesterol and arterial plaque formation

Nope -- that's a hotly debated topic. There used to be a consensus that saturated fat is bad, but AFAIK it doesn't exist any more.

In particular, the low-carb and paleo approaches to nutrition strongly assert that saturated fat is NOT bad -- that's why "Bulletproof stuff" involves a lot of it.

I don't think so... probably less so than other behaviors, in fact.

Often, yes, but this is highly dependent on the task -- and sometimes the sub-task. For example, when writing finding the correct word for an idea is motivating, but proofreading for spelling is a chore. I can name a good number of tasks that I do because I am internally motivated, including looking up definitions, washing my hair, organizing my bookshelves, making checklists and flowcharts, grocery shopping, gardening... but just as many (and probably more) that I don't do unless I really feel I need to because it is expected of me.

I think that part of this is that unmotivating tasks tend to stick in your mind as always present and demanding, but the things you enjoy doing are all too fleeting. It is also possible that you are unconsciously defining conscientiousness as "things you should do but don't want to", in which case by definition they will require an external force.

This is exactly how conscientiousness feels to me - not wanting to do something but doing so because it's the Correct Action For This Situation. Generally, this applies to things that don't give me a direct, immediate benefit to do, like cleaning up after myself in a common space.

That depends on what you consider to be the main purpose of a sports team - winning matches or providing entertainment and selling tickets to their games.

They don't seem to be exactly cheerleaders. Their function seems to very similar to that of hostesses in nightclubs.

My instinct is that cheerleaders don't improve results for sports teams, but that that also isn't their function.

On the original topic, I've actually encountered the situation of "environment filled with dude programmers with poor social skills suddenly gets a few very attractive ladies who have incentives to be nice to them." My frat went co-ed senior year.

To put things mildly, productivity did not improve.

On the other hand, a lot more guys wanted to join up. So my guess is that the office cheerleaders do not make existing programmers more productive (and may in fact do the opposite), but that they may make the office more desirable as a work environment to prospective hires.

The best response to that article that I've seen so far:

Sure, blue balls always help me code better

-- burgerissues on reddit

Possibly. It depends what you hire them to do. See "The Wolf of Wall Street" for an example of effective (in the short term) motivation.

Related:

1. most people want to socialize with the opposite sex, and are unhappy (and hence unproductive) if they can’t;
2. the conscious reasons for wanting to socialize with the opposite sex often have nothing to do with “fluid exchange” (to use the John Nash character’s phrase from A Beautiful Mind),
3. let he (or she) who is without subconscious Darwinian motivations cast the first stone,
4. human beings didn’t evolve to live their lives in an 85%-male environment,
5. by the Pigeonhole Principle, not every straight male will be as lucky as I was to find a girlfriend in the remaining 15%, and
6. computer science departments could attract and retain better people of both sexes if they felt less like monasteries or pirate ships.

-- Scott Aaronson

The ability to reason about large amounts of code seems to be more a memory and computation speed problem, than a logic problem. Computers already seem to be better than humans on these counts, so it seems like they may be better at understanding large pieces of code, once we have the whole "understanding" thing solved.

There's certainly ways you can usefully modify yourself. For example, giving yourself a heads-up display. However, I'm not sure how much it would end up increasing your intelligence. You could get runaway super-intelligence if every improvement increases the best mind current!you can make by at least that much, but if it increases by less than that, it won't run away.

Why questions are very good and should be encouraged! But also, it is worth improving the questions, in addition to just answering them. So if a child asks "why is the bus going?", you can ask for a clarification "Do you mean what makes it move? Or do you mean where is it going?"; this models clearer language and better communication skills, it helps the child get an answer to the specific question that they intended, and it prevents why-questions from becoming the default I'm-bored-so-I-will-say-why-until-people-get-sick-of-talking-to-me routine.

Sorry, I know that was slightly off-topic.

Have you tried spray-on sunscreen?

I was told a while ago that Asian sunscreen is different and less greasy and I bought some Japanese sunscreen from the internet. It feels much better than the regular American stuff.

Basic sunscreen is zinc. To get that into an applicable form it is usually put into an oil suspension. As mentioned you don't like the oil. You can also get alcohol based suspension sunscreens that feel a lot nicer; and sunscreen in spray form. The benefit of oil is that it doesn't wash off so easily. But there's no point being stuck with oil based sunscreen if they make you feel that uncomfortable

This link might help: http://www.skinacea.com/sunscreen/physical-vs-chemical-sunscreen.html#.VdunDbKqqko as should https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunscreen

Sunlight increases risk of melanoma but decreases risk of other, more deadly cancers. If you're going to get, say, 3 times your usual daily sunlight exposure, then sunscreen is probably a good idea, but otherwise it's healthier to go without. I'd guess a good heuristic is to get as much sunlight as your ancestors from 1000 years ago would have gotten.

Eliezer used an approach of gradual but entertaining introduction so that a good many people stayed interested even though he was also encouraging them to make significant changes in the way they think. He also offered varied and interesting examples so that people understood what he meant.

I think you're overoptimistic about equivalent sequences for other subjects. I hope I'm wrong.

http://eco-comics.blogspot.com/ <- For economics - not a sequence, per se, but covering a broad range of material in an entertaining and (AFAIK) novel way. http://eco-comics.blogspot.com/2009/06/justice-league-and-comparative.html <- Probably the best post there

If you already know that square circles cannot exist, it follows that in fact they do not exist; nothing impossible happens, so a proposition like "I saw a square circle" automatically gets a truth value = 0 without having to bother examining it.

How can P(x doesn't exist) < P(x is logically impossible)? That's... well, logically impossible.

It makes more sense to think in terms of probabilities here, than "is or isn't". To what probability would you give god being a logical impossibility?

While I don't agree with the way they phrased their explanation, it's akin to saying "I'm not sure if 2 + 2 = 4 is true, but I am sure it can't equal anything else." Then falling back to "but there could be oddities in the foundation of mathematics that I'm not aware of" when pressed on the inconsistency.

If you claim that your understanding of logic isn't exhaustive, I don't see how you can also claim that X is logically impossible. ("I'm not a car expert but there is no possible way the problem is with the engine")

I'm not certain where the problem lies, but I suspect that you may be misunderstanding the term "logical impossibility". It would not be used to indicate that you have come up with an argument that shows that something is impossible. Instead it would be used to indicate that something is actually impossible in any consistent universe.

To clarify, if I make the argument that 1. Socrates is a man, and 2. all men are mortal, that does not make it logically impossible for Socrates to live forever; it just means that I can show logically that Socrates won't die as long as these statements hold.

Logically impossible things are generally things like a square circle (exactly 4 right angles and exactly 0 angles in the same 2d shape); if they exist, it is because you misunderstand the terms being used in some way; if someone claims that this qualifies as a square circle, they have misunderstood what I am trying to communicate.

Likewise, people may say that an entity cannot be perfectly good and have allowed the holocaust; this might qualify god as a logical impossibility -- if we accept this judgement of morality, if we believe that god is perfectly good, and if we believe that the holocaust happened.

You could perhaps come up with a scenario in which God, being perfectly good, absolutely needed to implant memories of the holocaust into each of our memories.... or you could simply define god as an evil being. so I would say that "logical impossibility" is a bit strong.

Maybe it's because I'm not bayesian enough:

If I accepted that:

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. P(H | E) > P(H) if and only if P(H | ~E) < P(H). Absence of evidence may be very weak evidence of absence, but it is evidence nonetheless. (However, you may not be entitled to a particular kind of evidence.)

You cannot expect[2] that future evidence will sway you in a particular direction. "For every expectation of evidence, there is an equal and opposite expectation of counterevidence."

Then I may not hold my current attitude. But I don't see reason to believe those premises.

Why can't I be unsure about the truth value of something just because it's a logical impossibility?

If you're using logic to determine truth values, then a logical impossibility is false. The reason is that if something is logically impossible, then its existence would create a contradiction and so violate the Law of Noncontradiction.

Free marketeers just conjure evolution to serve themselves.

Sure. What are the alternatives? Letting the most power-hungry people fight against each other with the winner taking all? A competition who can get most followers by using clever memes that appeal to their cognitive biases? I hope you also see their drawbacks.

My conclusion: all these solutions are imperfect.

The only strong evidence for capitalism that I see is the general increases in wealth during capitalist periods compared to socialist periods.

Okay. How much evidence for other economical systems do you have?

I've read a little Geertz, and I think part of what he means is that a culture is people doing stuff, not a body of knowledge or a bunch of patterns which can be abstracted away from the people engaging in a culture..

He's supposedly the most-influential American anthropologist.

Yes, but that's because he was doing stuff in the 50s and 60s, when there were a lot of old theories that were ripe for refining and overturning. He made a name for himself by saying a lot of things that seem obvious to us today -- questioning structuralism and functionalism as dominant paradigms was big news in the day. I would say that his work on theory is not worth the trouble it takes to get through it, but I have a low tolerance for bushwhacking through tangled prose. When you get to applied cases, he does make more sense, and can be engaging. I remember Peddlers and Princes being worth reading, although I think he had a good number of page-long paragraphs there too.

There's this, both for dealing with the aftermath of the break-up, as well as the break-up itself.

Please write more about every part of your experience. As we know from a related field; "people who are sleep deprived don't know how sleep deprived they are". People in an abusive relationship don't know they are in an abusive relationship (until the moment of clarity) any writing about noticing things will help people potentially get away from bad relationships.

Edit: have some karma to help you recover and/also reap successful feeling from your present adventure

Does anyone know of any posts or resources that are targeted at rationalists that help with extracting yourself and recovering from an abusive relationship?

I hope you don't wait with getting help until you find something targeted specifically for rationalists. Get all the help you can right now. A little bullshit here and there may annoy you, but non-rationalists can also have a lot of domain-specific knowledge.

GO BACK, YOU HAVE TO HELP HER

If there are any methods -- rational or not -- to erase this feeling from your mind, do it a.s.a.p. That is priority #1. Stop your brain from ruining your life.

Congratulations on telling your family. Actually, telling anyone. Saying certain things aloud allows one to think about them more clearly.

Buy and read this book right now: "No More Mr. Nice Guy" by Robert Glover

(I can't tell from your post whether you are male or female, but it doesn't matter. The book is equally good for either.)

In essence, this book may help you learn how to stop being a victim, how to set your own limits, and how to get your own needs met. It also may inoculate you against getting into future relationships like this.

Speaking as somebody who could easily be on the other side of that equation, except for a very rigorous moral system, including a rule to stay the hell away from people who scream "Victim!" into my brain, I can tell you exactly how you got into that situation.

She became whatever you needed her to be, in order for you to be the target she wanted you to be. (I can manipulate anybody into doing anything. I just have to become the person they would do that thing for - and my self is flexible in ways most people couldn't imagine.)

In particular, she became somebody who needed help, because you would try to help her.

It's important to realize - she doesn't need help. She never needed help. The person you want to help doesn't exist, and never did. That person was a mask that the person who threatened you wore to make you vulnerable.

Allow yourself to mourn the person you thought she was. But do not imagine that that person was ever her.

If someone threatens you and/or abuses you, call the police. That stuff is illegal. Do so as soon as you safely can.

As someone who has been through a lot of abuse, beware. Your future self, not your current self, feels the fallout from the abuse more so than your current self. You have adapted to your abusive situation, when it goes away, you will be maladapted. Get out. Just take it on blind faith that you should get out if you have to. You don't want to end up like me. In my case I was indeed subjected to violence like what might happen to you. To this day, I regret not retaliating, killing my abuser or torturing them back to save myself from even a portion of it. And I'm well aware that's very much not normal. Now, even though I have the opportunity, I don't want to and won't, but if I could go back in time, well...the point is that you should get out, and that's not at all going to be the hard point from there.

It sounds to me as though the problem is that neither of you are very enthusiastic about any of the choices. One possibility is to identify a list of what's tolerable and then use a random method for choosing.

Another is to talk with each other about what each of you really like at a time when you aren't distracted and tired.

It's conceivable that one or both of you aren't good at remembering what you really like, in which case keeping records would help.

This happens to my spouse and me very often. We've gotten pretty good at noticing after the second "I dunno, what do you want to do" round that we need to switch from ask mode to tell mode. Don't give options, just propose something, and say "any objection must take the form of a counterproposal" (yes, we say literally this sentence to each other a few times a week).

Especially when one partner is more tired than the other, we can instead just have the more engaged partner pick something and the tired one get one or two vetos before being forced to step up and actually accept something. This isn't always comfortable, especially when it's unclear that there exists a good solution.

Therefore a proof that it doesn't halt does exist (this one), and it will eventually find it.

Gödel's incompleteness bites here. What theory is your halt-testing machine H searching for a proof within? H can only find termination proofs that are derivable from the axioms of that theory. What theory is your proof that H(FL,FL) does not terminate expressed in? I believe it will necessarily not be the same one.

There is no program such that no Turing machine can determine whether it halts or not. But no Turing machine can take every program and determine whether or not each of them halts.

It isn't actually clear to me that you a Turing machine in the relevant sense, since there is no context where you would run forever without halting, and there are contexts where you will output inconsistent results.

But even if you are, it simply means that there is something undecidable to you -- the examples you find will be about other Turing machines, not yourself. There is nothing impossible about that, because you don't and can't understand your own source code sufficiently well.