Good points. This may be another case where we evolved to have probability-weighted-by-utility intuitions, and where we work backwards from these intuitions when ask for a model of raw probability.

Can we finance cryogenics by revival awards?

Create a market for frozen humans. The reward is for the agent who performs the revival. Investors can either search for revival technology and patent it, or they can invest in frozen humans, which they can sell to agents who wish to attempt revival.

Has anyone here ever had the "location" of their sense of self change? I ask because I've recently read that while some people feel like "they" are located in their heads, others feel like "they" are in their chests, or even feet. Furthermore, apparently some people actually "shift around", in that sometimes they feel like their sense of self is in one body part, and then it's somewhere else.

I find this really interesting because I have never had such an experience myself; I'm always "in my head", so to speak--more precisely, I feel as though "I" am located specifically at a point slightly behind my eyes. The obvious hypothesis is that my visual sense is the sense that conveys the most information (aside from touch, which isn't pinned down to a specific location), which is why I identify with it most, but the sensation of being "in my head" persists even when I have my eyes closed, which somewhat contradicts that hypothesis. Also, the fact that some people apparently don't perceive themselves in that place is more weak evidence against that hypothesis.

So, any thoughts/stories/anecdotes?

I hypothesise a lower proportion of drinkers than the rest of the population. (subject of course to cultural norms where you come from)

Curiously, high SES in the United States is correlated with more frequent alcohol consumption.

The discussion itself is a good case study in complex communication. Look at the levels of indirection:

• A: What is true about growth, effort, ability, etc?
• B: What do people believe about A?
• C: What is true about people who hold the different beliefs in B?
• D: What does Dweck believe about C (and/or interventions to change B)?
• E: What does Scott believe about C (by way of discussing D, and also C, and B, and A)?

Yikes! Naturally, it's hard to keep these separate. From what I can tell, the conversation is mostly derailing because people didn't understand the differences between levels at all, or because they aren't taking pains to clarify what level they are currently talking about. So everyone gets that E is the "perspective" level, and that D is the contrasting perspective, but you have plenty of people confusing (at least in discussion) levels ABC, or A and BC, which makes progress on D and E impossible.

Should I consider it a rationality failure if I exhibit resistance to psychotherapy?

What is this sentence like without the word rationality?

I just cannot map them unto my own experience. My therapist says I'm not giving her enough to work with.

Can you articulate to your therapist why you are having difficulty? It could be that the two of you are not a good match, or it could be that she can work with you, so long as you're open.

While I'm not very sure that a therapist can or would be sufficiently subtle or insidious to modify me in a direction of which I do not approve, I'm worried that this is a possibility or that it is required in order to get any positive effects out of it.

If you're good at fixing the parts of yourself that you let yourself fix, you should expect that the thing you would get the most benefit from fixing is likely to be a part of you that you don't let yourself fix.

My recommendation here is to differentiate long-term and short-term changes. You can make significant changes on a probationary basis, and change them back if they aren't working out for you.

I'm not sure what a therapist can do to help me out of it.

Broadly:

1. A narrative shift. Therapy could propose, or help you discover, a narrative that fits your situation but has a more hopeful interpretation.

2. A mental behavior shift. Therapy could help you identify the beginning of negative spirals, and cut them off before they get too strong.

3. A social behavior shift. Therapy could help you interact with and relate to people in a different way.

Those three are highly related, and so they can't really be separated--but it is useful to think of them on different levels.

I don't know about inflammatory, but it's pretty clearly a waste of time. We're more likely to find out what is true by looking for that rather than guessing about what Thiel is thinking.

You should give more credit to the emotional part of your brain :) It's not that stupid. There's a little extra something in-between the pain and the person causing it, that triggers the reaction of hatred against the person -- probably the expectation of hostile intentions. It's likely not a simple two-item person+pain=hatred association arc; even our emotional selves know this.

So, has there been an influx of new participants into LW who only want to argue politics? I haven't noticed any.

It's also worth pointing out that we mostly debate political philosophy and not politics. Politics debates look like "Should Obama just ignore Congress and ram through whatever regulations he can?" or "Is Ted Cruz the greatest guy ever?" or "Shall we just tell the Greeks to go jump into the Aegean sea?" and we do NOT have them.

I'm a bit curious what prompted you to post this?

What I've been noticing is that right now, Slatestarcodex is sort of the place people go to talk about politics in a rationality-infused setting, and the comments there have been trending in the direction you'd caution about. (I'm not sure whether to be sad about that or glad that there's a designated place for political fighting)