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

Comment author: [deleted] 24 August 2015 12:41:30PM 0 points [-]

To be clear, in my heart I feel that I'm against this because for example if people in our family got together it would probably destroy our family. That's what makes it so interesting because it goes so much against my feelings, but it's still something that could be right in principle.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open Thread - Aug 24 - Aug 30
Comment author: CWG 25 August 2015 02:00:55AM *  0 points [-]

it would probably destroy our family

That's about your family's attitudes, rather than about anything intrinsic to the act.

I would be surprised and possibly grossed out if this happened in my own family, but that would be the moral equivalent of a vistigial limb,* something to get past.

*I was going to say appendix, but the appendix does actually have a function).

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 24 August 2015 02:00:06PM *  14 points [-]

Do any digital nomads read LessWrong? What region are you in? How did you setup your remote work? What is the best/worst feature of the lifestyle? What was the biggest surprise? Is anyone else thinking about trying out the lifestyle?

Comment author: CWG 25 August 2015 01:48:31AM 5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Jack 16 March 2010 03:18:50AM *  1 point [-]

So I think I just figured out the motivation behind this tactic which wasn't obvious to me before (maybe it was to you). I doubt straight men innately dislike kissing or showing affection toward men. It seems more likely to me that they (okay, we) are either homophobic or wary of the status cost of being seen as gay or bisexual. Thus a straight male who declares himself to be bisexual demonstrates a rejection of homophobia and in part shows that he doesn't think being gay or bisexual is low status and refuses to accept some (but not all) of the privileges he has as a straight male (the privilege language is obviously controversial but it probably isn't to the people who do this).

The problem is part of the anti-gay narrative is that homosexuality isn't actually an important part of anyone's identity, that it isn't innate but basically just people choosing to be "sinful". Identifying as bisexual for political reasons bolsters this position. "If these straight males can choose to behave like bisexuals, then the bisexuals can choose to behave like good, church-going straight people!" Also, the fact is a straight male really can't take on the same persecution non-heterosexuals face. They can always opt out and they are never told that a part of their identity is immoral (their told that the act their putting on is immoral, but that isn't the same thing). And of course in some circles being gay or bisexual is a status booster- my friends would be suspicious I was "coming out" for these status-benefits, not out of a genuine attempt at solidarity. Actually, I've seen this complain leveled at some college-aged bisexual women.

Comment author: CWG 05 June 2015 11:14:50PM *  1 point [-]

I doubt straight men innately dislike kissing or showing affection toward men.

I went to a kissing workshop. (Things escalated slowly and nothing was mandatory.) I was turned off more quickly than I expected by kisses with guys - just by a very short closed-mouth kiss.

(I like hugs though.)

I'm certain I'd also benefit from the bisexual pill, and my aversion to the idea is irrational.

"I hate spinach, which is a good thing because if I liked it I'd eat it all the time, and I hate the stuff." - half remembered second-hand quote, apparently from the 19th C(?)

Comment author: CronoDAS 15 March 2010 07:26:26PM 12 points [-]

Technically, given that most people are heterosexual, Woody Allen's quote - "The good thing about being bisexual is that it doubles your chance of a date on a Saturday night." - is inaccurate. It only increases your chances by the percentage of people of your gender who are open to same-sex encounters.

Comment author: CWG 05 June 2015 11:05:59PM *  1 point [-]

It only increases your chances by the percentage of people of your gender who are open to same-sex encounters.

But the other people of your gender are also restricted to this smaller pool in their search for a pairing, giving you a better chance of being accepted/selected by a particular individual that you're attracted to (assuming you spend significant time around people in this pool). So this factor may not have a big effect.

Comment author: CWG 21 April 2015 09:47:39AM *  2 points [-]
Comment author: CWG 21 April 2015 09:44:15AM 0 points [-]

The 2014 camp was interesting, fun, great for meeting new people, and a good time was had by many (hopefully all).

Comment author: CWG 18 April 2015 07:03:29AM 0 points [-]

And there's also no discernible difference between seeing a psychotherapist and spending the same amount of time talking to a randomly selected college professor from another field. It's just talking to anyone that helps you get better, apparently.

Unless this has been tested for random people other than just college professors, there's a stronger case for saying that talking to a person of a certain intelligence and education level helps you get better. And I suspect that it doesn't generalise to "talking to anyone that helps you get better" but I haven't looked into it.

(I'm sure there are other factors, but I'm just going by what was said about college professors.)

Comment author: aausch 17 March 2009 05:54:04PM *  10 points [-]

I believe the video you were looking for is here:

[censored the link on account of comment below]

http://www. yachigusaryu. com/blog/2007/02/no-touch-knockout-fraud-exposed.html

Comment author: CWG 18 April 2015 06:33:38AM 0 points [-]

That now redirects to a porn site.

Comment author: JesseGalef 17 May 2013 02:09:54AM *  20 points [-]

Regarding the music: I found video game soundtracks to be especially perfect - after all, they're designed to be background music. But I think there's more to it than that. I've had years of conditioning such that when I hear the Warcraft II soundtrack I immediately get into a mindset of intense concentration and happiness.

Obviously it depends on your tastes and whether you have attachments to particular video games, but here are my favorites:

(non-video game music that go into the rotation)

Comment author: CWG 23 February 2015 03:46:45AM 0 points [-]

Choose music that you're very familiar with it and put it on a loop. New music is much more likely to distract you. (Tip from Matt Mullenweg, interviewed by Tim Ferriss.) That might be more significant than the type of music, although we'd expect instrumental music to be less distracting. I know a health professional (who has ADHD, and works with people who have ADHD) who finds that AC/DC is best for helping to concentrate. I'm not an AC/DC fan, but I'll try some fast heavy music one day when I need an extra concentration boost, and see if it works.

Comment author: CWG 23 February 2015 03:28:45AM 0 points [-]

So it's better to view our taste buds as an adaptation fitted to ancestral conditions that included near-starvation and apples and roast rabbit,

And those apples were crab apples. I doubt that many of our distant ancestors would have experienced anything like our bred-for-sweetness fruit varieties on a regular basis. Those new fruit varieties are probably still very healthy – I'm just further highlighting the enormous gulf between what our ancestors ate and the concentrated sugar-fat-salt concoctions that we eat.

View more: Next