My referent for 'heroic responsibility' was HPMoR, in which Harry doesn't trust anyone to do a competent job - not even someone like McGonagall, whose intelligence, rationality, and good intentions he had firsthand knowledge of on literally their second meeting. I don't know the full context, but unless McGonagall had her brain surgically removed sometime between Chapter 6 and Chapter 75, he could actually tell her everything that he knew that gave him reason to be concerned about the continued good behavior of the bullies in question, and then tell her if those bullies attempted to evade her supervision. And, in the real world, that would be a perfect example of comparative advantage and opportunity cost in action: Harry is a lot better at high-stakes social and magical shenanigans relative to student discipline than McGonagall is, so for her to expend her resources on the latter while he expends his on the former would produce a better overall outcome by simple economics. (Not to mention that Harry should face far worse consequences if he screws up than McGonagall would - even if he has his status as Savior of the Wizarding World to protect him.) (Also, leaving aside whether his plans would actually work.)

I am advocating for people to take the initiative when they can do good without permission. Others in the thread have given good examples of this. But you can't solve all the problems you touch, and you'll drive yourself crazy if you blame yourself every time you "could have" prevented something that no-one should expect you to have. There are no rational limits to heroic responsibility. It is impossible to fulfill the requirements of heroic responsibility. What you need is the serenity to accept the things you cannot change, the courage to change the things you can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

I had similar meta-suffering relating to anger. One of the most helpful ideas was Society of Mind, in particular 'self-therapy' (Internal Family Systems Model). I would guess that it has similar effects pertaining to acceptance because it encourages you to consider inappropriate or undesired behavior as (at least partially) the actions of a distinct sub-personality.

The link to the paper is dead. I found a copy here: Taber & Lodge (2006).

Thank you. I didn't expect that. The feedback on this I got earlier wouldn't have suggested it.

Perfectly beautiful nude people, on demand, with infinite rapid novelty is a superstimulus.

I've found 'telling' to be invaluable in most intimate relationships, particularly because of whatever it is that results in 'many minds', e.g. expressing all of the conflicting feelings one has to better explain why one can't ask some particular thing.

By far my biggest problem with the way you discusses rationality is the way that you draw on the tropes of Eastern martial arts instruction, and it's because of exactly this sort of thing - those tropes are appropriate for one who wants to be considered a guru, which is the opposite of your stated aims. It's something I have to warn people about if I'm recommending something you've written.

Memes are at best a thought-provoking analogy - we have no way of being rigorous about them. I'd love to be wrong about this, but I'd be surprised.

Both Q and A seem to be treating unemployment as intrinsically bad, which is a case of lost purposes, a confusion between terminal and instrumental goals.

Roughly half of Americans don't owe anything to the IRS each year. Pre-recession I believe this figure was about 40%. They of course pay other taxes, such as payroll (social security, medicare, which most people consider taxes), state sales tax, property taxes, etc. It'd be nice if they at least didn't have to file tax returns.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505