Comment author: gjm 12 April 2012 07:32:56PM 0 points [-]

Aren't you one of the founders of "Truth Strike"?

Comment author: Hicquodiam 12 April 2012 07:53:02PM *  1 point [-]

Yeah, well, not the blog. The forum. The blog is Kevin's.

Kinda confusing... I'm sure there was a point to doing that somewhere.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 12 April 2012 10:57:28AM 4 points [-]

This is an advertisement for your new web page, am I right?

Comment author: Hicquodiam 12 April 2012 07:03:26PM 0 points [-]

Nah; neither of those links are mine.

Comment author: gjm 12 April 2012 12:26:55PM 10 points [-]

I haven't downvoted this because it's already at -7 and that seems low enough, but: to my mind the (closely related) two worst things about this article are (1) that it says almost nothing -- "How to read reality accurately? Just practice the accurate reading of what's going on." and (2) that the great majority of it is taken up with rhetoric: rah-rah, truth is good, self-deceit is bad, yay for being right, boo to being wrong. The only part of the content that isn't obvious to more or less the entire human race is the observation that people are often irrational and don't check their models of the world carefully against reality. For sure, there's an audience that needs to hear that, but I doubt it overlaps much with people reading the discussion section of Less Wrong.

Comment author: Hicquodiam 12 April 2012 07:02:31PM *  3 points [-]

Yeah, okay, you're right.

I didn't really get too familiar with this site before posting that. Thanks for the slap on the face.

Do you know any articles that take this deeper?

Mental Clarity; or How to Read Reality Accurately

-10 Hicquodiam 12 April 2012 06:18AM

 

Hey all - I typed this out to help me understand, well... how to understand things:

 

Mental clarity is the ability to read reality accurately. 

 

I don't mean being able to look at the complete objective picture of an event, as you don't have any direct access to that. I'm talking about the ability to read the data presented by your subjective experience: thoughs, sights, sounds, etc. Once you get a clear picture of what that data is, you can then go on and use it to build or falsify your ideas about the world.


This post will focus on the "getting a clear picture" part.


I use the word "read" because it's no different than reading from a book, or from these words. When you read a book, you are actually curious as to what the words are saying. You wouldn't read anything into it that's not there, which would be counterproductive to your understanding.

 

You just look at the words plainly, and through this your mind automatically recognizes and presents the patterns: the meaning of the sentences, their relation to the topic, the visual imagery associated with them, all of that. If you want to know a truth about reality, just look at it and read what's there.


Want to know what the weather's like? Look outside - read what's going on.


Want to know if the Earth revolves around the Sun, or vice versa? Look at the movement of the planets, read what they're doing, see which theory fits better.


Want to check if your beliefs about the world are correct? Take one, read the reality that the belief tries to correspond to, and see how well they compare.


This is the root of all science and all epiphanies.


But if it's so simple and obvious, why am I talking about it?


It's not something that we as a species often do. For trivial matters, sure, for science too, but not for our strongly-held opinions. Not for the beliefs and positions that shape our self-image, make us feel good/comfortable, or get us approval. Not for our political opinions, religious ideas, moral judgements, and little white lies.


If you were utterly convinced that your wife was faithful, moreso, if you liked to think of her in that way, and your friend came along and said she was cheating on you, you'd be reluctant to read reality and check if that's true. Doing this would challenge your comfort and throw you into an unknown world with some potentially massive changes. It would be much more comforting to rationalize why she still might be faithful, than to take one easy look at the true information. It would also more damaging.


Delusion is reading into reality things which aren't there. Telling yourself that everything's fine when it obviously isn't, for example. It's the equivalent of looking at a book about vampires and jumping to the conclusion that it's about wizards.


Sounds insane. You do it all the time. You'll catch yourself if you're willing to read the book of your own thoughts: flowing through your head, in plain view, is a whole mess of opinions and ideas of people, places, and positions you've never even encountered. Crikey!


That mess is incredibly dangerous to have. Being a host to unchecked or false beliefs about the world is like having a faulty map of a terrain: you're bound to get lost or fall off a cliff. Reading the terrain and re-drawing the map accordingly is the only way to accurately know where you're going. Having an accurate map is the only way to achieve your goals.



So you want to develop mental clarity? Be less confused, or more successful? Have a better understanding of the world, the structure of reality, or the accuracy of your ideas? 


Just practice the accurate reading of what's going on. Surrender the content of your beliefs to the data gathered by your reading of reality. It's that simple.

 

It can also be scary, especially when it comes to challenging your "personal" beliefs. It's well worth the fear, however, as a life built on truth won't crumble like one built on fiction.

 

Truth doesn't crumble.

 

Stay true.



Further reading:


Stepvhen from Burning true on truth vs. fantasy.


Kevin from Truth Strike on why this skill is important to develop.

 

Comment author: Hicquodiam 12 April 2012 06:17:22AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: fiddlemath 12 April 2012 05:17:55AM 4 points [-]

My withdrawals are a couple of lazy days, with a nasty headache about 24 to 30 hours after the last cup. Are yours much worse than this?

Comment author: Hicquodiam 12 April 2012 05:35:53AM 1 point [-]

Haha nah, I'm just overdramatizing the headaches I got - I'm a little baby. They did make me slip back a few times though.

After I cut out the coffee, I had probably about two days of withdraws, then stopped noticing anything.

Comment author: AlexSchell 10 April 2012 05:27:01PM *  3 points [-]

I think it would be much more fruitful to look at the problem the other way around. From the inside perspective of a particular scientific project it is ridiculously easy to think of all the potential benefits your work may have in the future, uncertain as they may be. This is especially so with publicly funded STEM research projects, which won't be funded unless the PI manages to convince a grant approval board that there is some potential for benefit. But from the outside perspective of someone choosing which project to work on, it should be obvious to see that some projects simply have a lot more expected benefit than others (even if you ignore from your consideration alleged trump cards like existential risk reduction, ETA: and probably even if you limit your scope to a particular field you are already trained in).

Comment author: Hicquodiam 12 April 2012 02:22:14AM 1 point [-]

^ Exactly

The cool thing about being human is, our passion's automatically triggered in response to compassion. You find something that'll really help the world, and it'll pull your life with more force than fifty sith lords.

You're in microbiology - shouldn't have to look too hard.

Comment author: Hicquodiam 12 April 2012 02:05:44AM 1 point [-]

When I drank coffee for about a year, I didn't have any noticeable impairments, at least nothing that slapped me in the face.

The withdraws though... oh god the withdrawals.