= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
My current approach is to make the subagents more distinct/dissociated, then identify with one of them and try to destroy the rest. It's working well, according to the dominant subagent.
My other subagents consider that such an appalling outcome that my processor agent refuses to even consider the possibility...
Though given this, it seems likely that I do have some degree of built-in weighting, I just don't realise what it is yet. That's quite reassuring.
Edit: More clarification in case my situation is different from yours: my 3 main subagents have such different aims that each of them evokes a "paper-clipper" sense of confusion in the others. Also, a likely reason why I refuse to consider it is because all of them are hard-wired into my emotions, and my emotions are one of the inputs my processing takes. This doesn't bode well for my current weighting being consistent (and Dutch-book-proof).
My understanding is that this is what Internal Family Systems is for.
So I started reading this, but it seems a bit excessively presumptuous about what the different parts of me are like. It's really not that complicated: I just have multiple terminal values which don't come with a natural weighting, and I find balancing them against each other hard.
In response to
"Stupid" questions thread
In the process of trying to pin down my terminal values, I've discovered at least 3 subagents of myself with different desires, as well as my conscious one which doesn't have its own terminal values, and just listens to theirs and calculates the relevant instrumental values. Does LW have a way for the conscious me to weight those (sometimes contradictory) desires?
What I'm currently using is "the one who yells the loudest wins", but that doesn't seem entirely satisfactory.
How do you account for the other two thirds of people who don't believe in Christianity and commonly believe things directly contradictory to it?
There are also various Christian's who believe that other Christian's who follow Christianity the wrong way will go to hell.
I can't upvote this point enough.
And more worryingly, with the Christians I have spoken to, those who are more consistent in their beliefs and actually update the rest of their beliefs on them (and don't just have "Christianity" as a little disconnected bubble in their beliefs) are overwhelmingly in this category, and those who believe that most Christians will go to heaven usually haven't thought very hard about the issue.
The effort involved is not the only cost. Tigers are sentient beings capable of suffering. Their lives have value. Plus there is value associated with the existence of the species. The extinction of the Bengal tiger in the wild would be a tragedy, and not just because of all the trouble those guys with guns would have to go to.
Surely a more obvious cost is the vast number of people who like tigers and would be sad if they all died?
In response to
"Stupid" questions thread
To what degree does everyone here literally calculate numerical outcomes and make decisions based on those outcomes for everyday decisions using Bayesian probability? Sometimes I can't tell if when people say they are 'updating priors' they are literally doing a calculation and literally have a new number stored somewhere in their head that they keep track of constantly.
If anyone does this could you elaborate more on how you do this? Do you have a book/spreadsheet full of different beliefs with different probabilities? Can you just keep track of it all in your mind? Or calculating probabilities like this only something people do for bigger life problems?
Can you give me a tip for how to start? Is there a set of core beliefs everyone should come up with priors for to start? I was going to apologize if this was a stupid question, but I suppose it should by definition be one if it is in this thread.
I'd be alarmed if anyone claimed to accurately numerically update their priors. Non-parametric Bayesian statistics is HARD and not the kind of thing I can do in my head.
In response to
"Stupid" questions thread
How do I get people to like me? It seems to me that this is a worthwhile goal; being likable increases the fun that both I and others have.
My issue is that likability usually means, "not being horribly self-centered." But I usually find I want people to like me more for self-centered reasons. It feels like a conundrum that just shouldn't be there if I weren't bitter about my isolation in the first place. But that's the issue.
I second what gothgirl said; but in case you were looking for more concrete advice:
- Exchange compliments. Accept compliments graciously but modestly (e.g. "Thanks, that's kind of you").
- Increase your sense of humour (watching comedy, reading jokes) until it's at population average levels, if it's not there.
- Practise considering other people's point of view.
- Do those three things consciously for long enough that you start doing them automatically.
At least, that's what worked for me when I was younger. Especially 1 actually, I think it helped with 3.
Buss Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology 2004
Pinker - Family Values and Love chapters on How The Mind Works
Mating Intelligence, the one from 2007 and the 2011 ones, many authors (including Helen Fisher) both linked above.
Robert Trivers theory of parental investment, conflict etc... - 197x
Lots of conversations with dozens to a hundred friends about their current sex lives.
PUA - Mistery Method - Rules of The Game - The Layguide (assumption: the older ones had less economic incentive to create vocabulary and new complexity out of the blue, therefore are more accurate and less Bullshitty)
Helen Fisher (presentations, vidoes, some articles)
Lots of conversations with a friend who read lots of evopsych and would spend the pomodoro intervals explaining the article he just read to me.
Personal experience.
The Eternal Child, Clive Broomhall
The Mind in the Cave - forgot author
MIT The Cognitive Neurosciences III (2004)
Primate sexuality (1999)
This video is also great, Why do Women Have Sex? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA0sqg3EHm8
It is hard to unscrable it all to give specific citations, but that is a list of stuff I've read that deals with related issues that come to mind.
Thank you. This is appreciated. I know it's hard work, but from our point of view we can't take your word that you're not just making most of it up off the top of your head. (Also a lot of people like to independently assess the reliability of sources.)
In response to
Using Evolution for Marriage or Sex
I approve of this post, everything in it seems pretty reasonable (my current OH did about 80% of the long-terming male list), though I do wish you could've added a list of citations; this is quite a lot of content to just pull out of the hat.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
What does your processor agent want?
I'm not entirely sure. What questions could I ask myself to figure this out? (I suspect figuring this out is equivalent to answering my original question)