"Learned helplessness" is a quasi-popular-therapy word for this.

It's a terms that means something else:

Learned helplessness is a psychological state in which a person (or animal) stops trying to change their situation after repeated experiences of powerlessness, even when escape or improvement later becomes possible. The concept originated from experiments by Martin Seligman and Steven Maier in the late 1960s: dogs exposed to unavoidable shocks later failed to avoid shocks they could escape. 

In the situation the OP talks about it's possible to change the situation by signaling being in pain to other people and then getting help from those people or those people otherwise accepting behavior of the person to change the situation that they might not otherwise expect.

I'm not entirely sure how this relates to seeing this pattern in others. If they're your friend, you typically take a two-pronged approach: help superficially and get them to address the root problem to the extent you're aware of a root problem.

Who's that "you"? There's stereotypical situation where a wife tells her husband about one of her struggles and then the husband tries to superficially help which actually doesn't lead anywhere. 

I think a good default response is listening and holding space for a person that suffers. There are also higher skill options that involve not accepting the frame. If you want to understand more in that regard jimmy's sequence is good. 

I like geeking out over masks and there are a lot of options. I have a bunch of models, and if you'd like to come try them sometime (next EA Boston meetup on 10/26?) I'd be happy to show you what they're like. 

I think it would be great if you can gather some data about how many people prefer which of the options and publish it. 

Let's say you have a leader of a company that uses AI a lot. They make some decisions based on the advice of the AI. People who don't like those decisions say that the leader suffers from AI psychosis. That's probably a scenario that plays out in many workplaces and government departments. 

• I'm a good prompt engineer
• You are vibe coding
• He has AI psychosis

A new major study finds that alcohol causes cancer, so government worked to bury the study. Time and time again we get presented with the fact that small amounts of drinking correlate with improved health in various ways, fooling many into thinking a little alcohol is healthy.

That seems a pretty uncritical way to frame the issue. 

It turns out when you put a few people who believe that nutritional research with it's correlational observational studies is crap into leadership positions, they don't take that kind of nutritional research very seriously. MAHA was never about trusting the existing nutrition researchers, so this should not be surprising. 

If you do report on the issue, I think it would make sense to focus on the actual merits of a policy choice instead of just "Trump administration doesn't like the status quo that nutritional experts propagate - Nutritional experts are so worthy of respect that disrespecting them is bad".

It's visible in several frames as he walks away, otherwise it blends in with his legs.

What time stamps do you mean?

Which blob are you talking about?

While the moment right before he jumps might have a blob that's consistent with a lot of different items, it seems to me like the time he walks, there's no such blob as far as I (and GPT-5 Pro) seem tobe able to tell. 

It's worth noting that the government document says that him carrying an object consistent with being a rifle is visible while he runs across the roof. The moment where he prepares his jump is not a moment he runs over the roof. 

I have not told it anything about me not seeing the rifle. I did give the link to my chatlog and the questions I asked, and my follow-up questions. In a previous chat I just asked it fairly objective questions about what the official timeline is. Given the way GPT is set up, if anything that should bias it toward validating the official version.

I don't think GPT-5 Pro's capability is absolute proof, but it's another set of eyes and GPT-5 likely know a bunch about how artifacts from low resolution in videos are supposed to look like that I don't know. 

If you create a system based on your own experimentation in a psychological field where you deviate from what's normal and you crate a bunch of terms to have a handle on what you are doing, you should assume that those handles are unique to yourself. 

There might be someone who does something similar than you, but they are likely not using the same vocabulary. 

If you want to ground yourself, journaling frequently about the process is a good idea. It's also good to expose yourself to real world feedback. 

Also, is your akrasia progress an example that came from reading this post, or something you picked up on elsewhere which happens to mirror this post? If the former, what made it click, exactly?

Understanding cause and effect generally isn't easy. I think I have read half of the sequence in the week beforehand. One key aspect is agency. Reading it motivated my to exert agency, reading it motivated me to look at my procrastination more as a puzzle to be solved than something that's given. 

I think the structure of what was in my mind was. "If I do X, I will likely make some mistakes -> I should not do X because X is high stakes" this then lead to procrastinating X. After looking at it more explicitly I got "If I do X, I will likely make some mistakes -> It completely fine to make some mistakes, mistakes just would lead to me being asked to fix them -> do X". Kinesthetically, making that shift came with some relaxation. 

The sequence suggest that if I do procrastinate, then there's likely a reason why I'm procrastinating so applying the sequence to the problem was about looking for that reason. Beforehand the procrastination was puzzling because I did have a firm belief of "X has to happen before deadline X / procrastinating it is bad".

You yourself gave the example where your wife had to tell you "Aren't you saying you can help other people with problems like this?" to actually apply the concepts when it matters. Michael Smith who created the CFAR curriculum in the early days once told me that the key aspect of what the 4-day CFAR workshop is about is to put people in an environment where they actually feel the agency to make changes. From that perspective, just putting a book with the workshop topics online wouldn't do what the CFAR workshop is about.

In the introduction to your sequence you write "This sequence comprises nineteen posts, totaling approximately 70,000 words. If you want to test the water and verify that there's real insights to be gained, try your hand at the challenges, then check the solutions." I would hope that your goal isn't just insights but people actually putting ideas into practice.

Long before I actually really applied NLP and hypnosis there was a time where I was reading a lot of the relevant online discussions. The first time I was actually applying something was when I was emotionally hurting because I had a crush on a girl. In the same token, it might be that someone with chronic pain feels like they need to actually apply your sequence when the time comes when they don't have another choice.

It would be better if the sequence would succeed in people having a clear idea of how they could actually apply the concepts to their lives and then doing that.