And yet, on the other hand, my spontaneous modification into someone who wears a leather vest given any reasonable opportunity was a somewhat predictable but ultimately unintended side effect of my recent Awesome Leather Vest purchase - I really had planned on it being just a component of one or two special-event outfits. In this case it was a known risk and not a problematic one, but if I hadn't thought that all the way through and leather vests of the type I acquired had more problematic social-signaling properties, it could indeed have been a problem - this is actually a component of why I haven't gotten a cloak, and also I could make an argument on that basis that I shouldn't've gotten a cane when I injured my knee a year ago, since I wasn't intending on modifying into a full-time cane-user and that somewhat-predictably happened anyway and has had repercussions. (I don't mind 'em on net, from here, but being visibly disabled has taken some adjusting to, and peoples' behavior on that count still grates a bit sometimes, and I really should have put a bit more thought into that ahead of time, ideally. OTOH, canes: kinda awesome.)

Not all 'self'-modifications are voluntary. Sunk-cost-based modifications are a subset of the ones that aren't. Being wary of the involuntary ones is not necessarily unwise.

Well first of all, we're not perfect philosophers of perfect emptiness. We get our beliefs from somewhere. So it's true that all sorts of things are true that we have no evidence of. For instance, it's very, very likely there's life outside our solar system, but I don't have any evidence of it, so I act as if it's not true because in my model of the universe, it's very unlikely that that life will affect me during my natural lifetime.

I would even go far as to say that there may be matter beyond the horizon of the matter that expanded after the big bang, or that we're all running on an alien matrix, or that God is real but he's just hiding, and I act as if it's false. Not because they're untrue, or unlikely to be true, as I have no way to tell. But because I am very, very unlikely to ever, ever get evidence about any of those things, and they probably will never, and probably could never (especially in the near future) affect me. Not so much a "Nuh uh," as a "So what?"

You know your partner loves you based on evidence. If you have no evidence (from past experience or otherwise), then you are very likely wrong. Love operates according to mechanisms, and we understand some of those mechanisms.

Similarly, just because you don't understand the mechanism by which your psychic cousin works, doesn't mean there isn't one. He could be getting unbelievably lucky, or he could be playing a trick, or there could be things we don't know yet that really truly give him psychic powers. You don't know what the mechanism is, but you haven't really investigated either, have you? Even if you never find out what the mechanism is, how much evidence is that that there is no mechanism?

Lastly, I'm not sure, "no mechanism" even makes sense. What does it mean for something to have no mechanism? What does a thing that doesn't have a mechanism look like? How would you tell?

So, from the top: A Priori, Making Beliefs Pay Rent, No One Knows What Science Doesn't Know, What is Evidence?, Fragility of Value (Why something is unlikely to be true without evidence of it), Uh what was that one about you failing the art and not the other way around?, and Not Even Wrong.

Poly groups tend to be well-educated well-paid white people; the proper comparison of poly instability rates to monogamous divorce rates is not to 'the general population' but to the comparable demographic group. My understanding was that divorce rates in that comparable group are relatively low...

Works great! Primary relationship still strong, have also three other boyfriends (primary has two other girlfriends). I am well pleased :)

Well, that's what I thought too, but in those schools everyone is (supposed to be) a Catholic, and if not you (well, your parents) can choose a different school, whereas if I understand correctly children are asked to say the Pledge in all American schools, so (short of emigrating) you (and your parents) have no choice.

(Then again, some otherwise non-confessional schools in Italy keep a crucifix in each classroom -- I think it used to be mandated by law, but it no longer is and a few years ago a Muslim sued his son's school for that and managed to have it removed. But keeping around a sculpture that pupils might not even notice --I honestly can't even remember which of certain classrooms in my high school had one and which hadn't-- is a lot less scary than have everyone pledge allegiance every morning, IMO.)

Maybe, but as one small data point, I was really surprised (and creeped out) to just now infer from MaoShen's comment and check on Wikipedia that the Pledge of Allegiance is recited at the beginning of every school day. In my country, the closest cultural equivalent is done once per year, in "Flag Day", and I had previously assumed the American Pledge was like that, being said on July 4th or similar specially significant moments.

Here's a game that might be a little more vivid, and easier to set up, than some of the games that are strictly verbal games. Call it "Tech Support."

There are two players, separated by a screen or barrier so they can't see each other, point, or gesture, only communicate by words.

One player is the Customer. They are trying to figure out how to use or perform some operation on a physical object. (Preferably one they actually don't know how to use!)

The other player is the Expert. They are trying to help the Customer use the object.

A simple musical instrument like a recorder would be a great thing to start with.

"I see two pieces."

"Oh, then you have to assemble it. One piece should have a socket that the other fits into."

"OK, so I put the other piece into the socket?"

"Exactly. Now, one end of the recorder should have a long and narrow slit, the other one should have a circular hole. Do you see that?"

"Yes."

"The part with the narrow slit is called a mouthpiece. Put it into your mouth just a little bit, no farther than the teeth, and close your lips around it."

"Mmm-hmm?"

"Now gently blow"

<toot>

"Now, there will be a row of holes along the recorder, and on the other side a single hole. Do you see that?"

etc.

You could make the game easier by allowing the Expert to see the Customer but not vice-versa.

Or you could increase the challenge level by requiring the Customer to describe the object to the Expert in the first place. (Obviously some research would be required to find pairs of people, only one of whom knows how to use any given object, if the Expert is not to know what the object is.)

I think we agree a lot more than you realize. Pretending that you aren't feeling emotion that you are feeling is a recipe for disaster. In your analogy, I recommend the equivalent of eating.

However, this doesn't mean that you yield to the emotions when they're pushing you towards bad decisions. It also doesn't mean you pretend that it has to be some big ordeal to fix the problem right. Those are both very bad ideas for more reasons than are obvious.

"eating" can be anywhere from a split second automatic response to a extended ordeal. If you know what you're doing, the Phd example is not more than a 5 minute process - I've walked people through worse things in about that time.

No doubt at all? I'd put money on this being wrong. Why would it be outlawed?

There are various laws on treatment of animals already. Ineffective and poorly adhered to, but there are.

I'm not sure that's the relevant problem. The more important problem is "how can we get more and better steaks cheaper?"

Yet more important problem is how we make the most profit. Once there's notable grown-in-a-vat steak industry, you can be sure that the ethics of killing cows will be explained to you via fairly effective advertising. Especially if it costs somewhat more and consequently brings better income for same % markup.