All the advice on resisting video games and the like (internet blockers, social support) has been on using tricks of one sort or another to restrict the act, not the desire.
Some advice is about substitution, i.e. you identify the emotional need driving a stubborn behavior, and find a more approved behavior than satisfies the same need.
Interesting concept. I read about something similar in the book Homeward Bound: Why Women Are Embracing The New Domesticity - the author recounts that when working at a dead-end job with no challenge her impulse for creativity got shunted into "DIY" projects of questionable value like stenciling pictures of frogs onto her microwave, and that once she got into a job that stretched her abilities the desire for "DIY" evaporated.
Many people (specifically, people over at RationalWiki, and probably elsewhere as well) see the community as being insular, or as being a Yudkowsky Personality Cult, or think that some of the weirder-sounding ideas widely espoused here (cryonics, FAI, etc) "might benefit from a better grounding in reality".
Still others reflexively write LW off based on the use of fanfiction (a word of dread and derision in many circles) to recruit members.
Even the jargon derived from the Sequences may put some people off. Despite the staunch avoidance of hot-button politics, they still import a few lesser controversies. For example, there still exist people who outright reject Bayesian probability, and there are many more who see Bayes' theorem as a tool that is valid only in a very narrow domain. Brazenly disregarding their opinion can be seen as haughty, even if the maths are on your side.
Out on my parts of the internet, a major reason to reject LWisms is because they are perceived as coming from a "Silicon Valley tribe" that does not share values with the majority of people (i.e. similar to the attitude of the newsblog (?) Pando, which regularly skewers tech startups). The libertarians claiming to be "apolitical", and the neoreactionaries, do not help this perception at all. (Although discussing more of this is probably unwise because politics SPIDERS.)
When I am very angry with my romantic partner, what I feel is anger. I don’t feel the futility of throwing a tantrum, or the availability of other options like honest communication, or freewriting, or taking a deep breath. My attention is so narrowly focused on the object of my anger that I’m likely not even aware that I’m angry, let alone that my anger might be blinding me to my art.
This reminds me of what my ex-wife sometimes said after a dispute with me (which could get quite heated on her side):
"During the dispute I know in the back of my mind what I should say - the right thing to do."
Does this sound familiar?
Is/was she a truth-shouter or a cutlery-loader?
So I figure the causation is probably not mainly exercise -> thinness
Which ought to be nearly obvious to anyone who has compared the calorie expenditures of common physical activities with the calorie contents of common foodstuffs. (Yes, increasing muscle mass increases thermogenesis (but so does caffeine) and I personally feel that doing abs help me feel less hungry because they kind of compress my stomach (but so does wearing higher-rise trousers and pulling their belt tighter), but those are second-order effects.)
I personally feel that doing abs help me feel less hungry because they kind of compress my stomach (but so does wearing higher-rise trousers and pulling their belt tighter)
This is also observed when wearing back-braces and corsets over the long term. In the corset-wearing/waist-training community particularly, some people have observed that without significant changes in behavior, corsets may decrease appetite; the actual effect is of course highly variable, but it's frequent enough to be conventional wisdom in that community, so.
I think what's going on here is that you are so used to hanging out around other socialists that you feel like you're taking a right wing position merely by being a moderate socialist.
For example, I think that a basic income is both practical and achievable (relatively speaking) in a way that turning every single corporation into a worker-owned workshop is not.
What do you mean by "non practical and achievable"? Do you mean that you think they're merely politically infeasible or that they wouldn't work even if they could be implemented?
Huh, you might be right about that. There's also the fact that the word "socialist" is extremely negative in the US (where I live), so it's something that I am leery about explicitly identifying with.
In this case I mean that they might work if implemented - and similar things have worked in the past on small scales - but there may be insurmountable problems in the scaling-up process, not all of them political. (Most of them are, though.)
And yet by some strange coincidence you agree with said socialists on every political issue.
Not on every single one, no. For example, I think that a basic income is both practical and achievable (relatively speaking) in a way that turning every single corporation into a worker-owned workshop is not. This is not seen as a "socialist" viewpoint in the places I frequent. In fact, it is seen as selling out by letting the capitalists pacify the working class by throwing them a few more table scraps. Issues like this are why I do not want 'socialist' in my identity.
I didn't see anything in the grandparent that wasn't part of the standard socialist package.
The only thing there that's vaguely not socialist is being willing to cross the aisle to vote for anti-corruption candidates.
I know many people who are properly Socialist, and for nearly all of them it is a massive part of their identity. I am trying to avoid sticking a political label to my identity. That just seems like it would only lead to bad things.
So you're a socialist but like to pretend you are a special snowflake.
I like the term "libertarian socialist". It really confuses people.
My google skills totally failed me and I know this should be easy but...
I read a story years ago about an emperor and shogun. The emperor was nice and the shogun was harsh, and when they switched places the people loved the shogun and respected him but hated the emperor. I'm telling it poorly.
Anyway I have been totally unable to find it again to cite or pass on. Anyone willing to lend me their Google mastery? Feel free to make fun of me for how easy it was for you ;)
I can't help you directly, but TVTropes' You Know That Show is really good at finding these kinds of things.
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Skincare Addiction is a subreddit dedicated to finding, and sharing tips on how to use, evidence-based skin products. If you are unsatisfied with the condition of your skin, the sidebar links are a good place to start. (I personally found good results from using "double cleansing" [oil cleansing and then water-soluble face cleanser] and an AHA-based exfoliator. I also use a moisturizer afterwards, but that was something I did already. Your results will probaby vary.)