Well, I guess that by "subjective concepts", I mean every concept that doesn't have a formal mathematical definition. So stuff like "simple", "similar", "beautiful", "alive", "dead", "feline", and so on through the entire dictionary.

The only theory-of-subjective-concepts I've come across is the example of bleggs and rubes. Suppose that, among a class of objects, five binary variables are strongly correlated with each other; then it is useful to postulate a latent variable stating which of two types the object is. This latent variable is the "subjective concept" in this case.

How much do we know about reasoning about subjective concepts? Bayes' law tells you how probable you should consider any given black-and-white no-room-for-interpretation statement, but it doesn't tell you when you should come up with a new subjective concept, nor (I think) what to do once you've got one.

So do you have a to-do list that you wrote down "buy a few bitcoins" in? If not, maybe you didn't actually procrastinate; maybe you just forgot.

I take it that by "convergence thesis", you're referring to the statement that all sufficiently intelligent agents will have approximately the same values.

The key is to learn the habit of getting started on a task early, i.e. the procrastinator needs to learn to initiate well in advance studying and preparing for papers and exams. Practice starting studying several times every day. As with exercising, getting in control of starting and making it a routine are the secrets.

I note that making things like studying and exercising habits is not necessary to get them done regularly. It is possible to get these done by setting reminders for yourself, instead of making them habits. Making them habits may, of course, be a good idea.

Ah, that's right. CDT tells you to defect in a prisoner's dilemma against someone identical to you; TDT tells you to cooperate. So TDT wins here.

All right, but how would CDT fail us, if we used it perfectly?

This may not be the best place for this question, but it's something I've been wondering for a while: how does causal decision theory fail us humans in the real world, here and now?

Of course, treating your own belief in a proposition as evidence for that proposition seems like a rather dangerous thing to do.

And after a while it fades away again.

How long is "a while"? Hours? Weeks?