Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: ChristianKl 29 June 2014 02:37:20PM 0 points [-]

The basic framework is using nested loops and metaphors.

If a AGI for example wanted to get someone to get them out of the cage it could tell a highly story about some animal named Fred and part of the story is that it's very important that a human released that animal from the cage.

If the AGI then later speaks about Fred it brings up the positively feeling concept of releasing things from cages. That increases the chances of listener then releasing the AGI.

Alone this won't be enough, but over time it's possible to build up a lot of emotionally charged metaphors and then chain them together in an instance to work together. In practice getting it to work isn't easy.

Comment author: Blueberry 03 July 2014 02:44:02AM 1 point [-]

Can you give me an example of a NLP "program" that influences someone, or link me to a source that discusses this more specifically? I'm interested but, as I said, skeptical, and looking for more specifics.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 15 May 2013 04:06:50AM 3 points [-]

What went wrong when you were with your family?

Zl ulcbgurfvf vf gung gurer jrer gbb znal vagreehcgvbaf naq/be gbb zhpu abvfr sbe lbh gb or ng lbhe orfg.

Comment author: Blueberry 29 June 2014 12:29:09PM 1 point [-]

I'd guess it was more likely to be emotional stuff relating to living with people who once had such control over you. I can't stand living at my parents' for very long either... it's just stressful and emotionally draining.

Comment author: ChristianKl 29 June 2014 10:06:44AM 1 point [-]

I don't have a recording of the event to break it down to a level where I can explain that in a step by step fashion. Even if I would think it would take some background in hypnosis or NLP to follow a detailed explanation. Human minds often don't do what we would intuitively assume they would do and unlearning to trust all those learned ideas about what's supposed to happen isn't easy.

If you think that attacks generally happen in a way that you can easily understand by reading an explanation, then you ignore most of the powerful attacks.

Comment author: Blueberry 29 June 2014 12:26:48PM 2 points [-]

What pragmatist said. Even if you can't break it down step by step, can you explain what the mechanism was or how the attack was delivered? Was it communicated with words? If it was hidden how did your friend understand it?

Comment author: ChristianKl 08 September 2013 06:55:34PM 1 point [-]

The custom of not sharing powerful attack strategies is an obstacle. It forces me - and the people I want to discuss this with - to imagine how someone (and hypothetically something) much smarter than ourselves would argue, and we're not good at imagining that.

If you don't know what you are doing and retell something that actually designed to put people into emotional turmoil you can do damage to the people with whom you are arguing.

Secondly there are attack strategies that you won't understand when you read a transcript.

Richard Bandler installed in someone I know on a first name basis an inability to pee in one of his lectures because the person refused to close their eyes when Bandler asked them directly to do so. After he asked Bandler to remove it, he could pee again.

There where plenty of people in the audience includign the person being attacked who knew quite a bit about language but who didn't saw how the attack happened.

If you are the kind of person who can't come up with interesting strategies on their own, I don't think that you would be convinced by reading a transcript of covert hypnosis.

Comment author: Blueberry 29 June 2014 03:31:37AM 4 points [-]

How did the attack happen? I'm skeptical.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 November 2012 06:11:38PM 2 points [-]

there are real examples of gender bias in biology publications

Like what? Just curious.

Comment author: Blueberry 27 April 2013 12:56:44AM 1 point [-]

See this article on Sarah Hrdy.

Comment author: gwern 24 October 2012 12:27:16AM 0 points [-]

People all over the world are poly, in every country, of every race and class.

I think that remains to be seen, unless one is quietly defining away polyamory as a dull negation of monogamy.

You state:

I didn't state that; Klesse did. Between you and Klesse, I know who I will put more weight on.

Comment author: Blueberry 24 October 2012 01:42:38AM 0 points [-]

Sorry, I couldn't tell what was a quote and what wasn't.

Polyamory is usually defined as honest nonmonogamy. In other words, any time someone is dating two people openly, that's poly. It's how many humans naturally behave. It doesn't require exposure to US poly communities, or any community in general for that matter.

Comment author: gwern 23 October 2012 04:31:45PM 0 points [-]

Yes, yes, and former.

Comment author: Blueberry 23 October 2012 11:44:14PM 0 points [-]

As you discuss in the dropbox link, this is a pretty massive selection bias. I'd suggest that this invalidates any statement made on the basis of these studies about "poly people," since most poly people seem not to be included. People all over the world are poly, in every country, of every race and class.

It's as if we did a study of "rationalists" and only included people on LW, ignoring any scientists, policy makers, or evidence-based medical researchers, simply because they didn't use the term "rationalist."

You state:

While polyamory communities have blossomed for decades in the USA (cf. Munson and Stelboum 1999a; Anderlini-D’Onofrio 2004c), polyamory is still quite unknown in Europe. The social organisation of polyamorous communities is not very advanced in most European countries.

Clearly polyamory is not unknown in Europe, though the word "polyamory" might be. Let's not confuse polyamory, which exists anytime someone openly dates two people, with socially organized communities using the term "polyamory."

Comment author: CronoDAS 23 October 2012 08:33:19PM 1 point [-]

I dunno. The FDA did approve a couple of drugs this year, but they might only be intended for short-term use.

Comment author: Blueberry 23 October 2012 09:01:08PM 0 points [-]

I know that the antidepressant Wellbutrin, which is a stimulant, has been associated with a small amount of weight loss over a few months, though I'm not sure if this has been shown to stay for longer. That's an off-label use though.

I'd guess that any stimulant would show weight loss in the short-term. Is there some reason this wouldn't stay long-term?

Comment author: Will_Newsome 13 June 2012 07:15:58PM *  6 points [-]

If he can convince himself of Mormonism, he is very well capable of convincing himself of just about anything.

Eh. Few "beliefs" and "belief-systems"—or more accurately, decision-policy-systems and social-signaling-systems—are as attractive as Mormonism. I don't think being Mormon is a sign of low epistemic standards so much as a sign of high instrumental rationality.

Furthermore I think Glenn Beck or his ghostwriter understands the Singularity's political situation better than most LWers. That said I've never heard or read anything by Glenn Beck except the above excerpt.

Comment author: Blueberry 23 October 2012 07:56:25AM 0 points [-]

How is Mormonism attractive? You don't even get multiple wives anymore. And most people think you're crazy.

Comment author: CronoDAS 17 October 2012 11:10:50AM 1 point [-]

Let me rephrase: There is no such intervention that is considered less dangerous than being obese.

Comment author: Blueberry 23 October 2012 07:47:07AM 0 points [-]

What about a small amount of mild stimulant use?

View more: Next