Don't assume we spend all our time talking about the deep, ultimate truths of the universe. Last time, we spend far more time talking about our lives and social rationality than (in the one example I remember occurring) the computability of the universe. If you want to socialize, there's no real pressure to be thinking "DEEP THOUGHTS". People (around here) tend to be biased against changing their routines and trying new things, so you should try to correct in the other direction. I promise you will enjoy yourself.

Fun quote. I bet you could read quickly, but also pause to think.

The average US reader reads at 300wpm, but speech is typically 150wpm. I feel like the 1.4x speed option on bloggingheads doesn't reduce my comprehension at all, even for technical material.

I'll be attending!

A little later on: Personal life extension conference Oct 9-10

It is, in fact, illegal to argue a quantation of "reasonable doubt."

I'm a fan of the jury system, but I do think quantation would lead to less, not more, accuracy by juries. Arguing math to lawyers is bad enough; to have lawyers generally arguing math to juries is not going to work. (I like lawyers and juries, but mathy lawyers in criminal law are quite rare.)

Could you help end news/TV enjoyment with this method? Take and then watch TV, play video games, browse reddit/CNN/etc. End political identity biases? Take and then go to a political party meeting, religious service or read a bunch of politically charged information. Food cravings? Take and stuff your face with ice cream and greasy mexican food. Dirty gossip? Take and gossip about who your friends have slept with, who hates who, etc.

Do any of these activites involve the endorphine mechanism related to drug use that it's used for currently? Are you suggesting that this is a possible ticket to becoming a LessWrong superhero?

Would it be reasonable to request a LW open thread digest to accompany these posts? A simple bullet list of most of the topics covered would be nice.

"Pseudoscience" isn't the only possible criticism of cryonics. One could believe that it may be scientifically possible in theory, still without thinking that it's a good idea to sign up for cryonics in the present day. (Basically, by coming up with something like a Drake equation for the chance of it working out positively for a current-day human, and then estimating the probability of the terms to be very low.)

You're right, that most of the popular criticism of cryonics is mere non-technical mocking. Still, there's a place for reasoned objections as well.

I've been trying to ease some friends into basic rationality materials but am running into a few obstacles. Is there a quick and dirty way to deal with the "but I don't want to be rational" argument without seeming like Mr. Spock? Also, what's a good source on the rational use of emotions?

I live in Richardson.