= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The article isn't so much about Reiki as about intentionally utilizing the placebo effect in medicine. And that there is some evidence that, for the group of people that currently believe (medicine x) is effective, the placebo effect of fake (medicine x) may be stronger than that of fake (medicine y) and (medicine x) has fewer medically significant side effects than (medicine y).
Thinking Fast and Slow references studies of disbelief requiring attention - which is what I assume you mean by "easier".
In response to
Rationality Compendium
We're a long way from having any semblance of a complete art of rationality, and I think that holding on to even the names used in the greater less wrong community is a mistake. Good names for concepts are important, and while it may be confusing in the short term while we're still developing the art, we are able to do better if we don't tie ourselves to the past. Put the old names at the end of the entry, or under a history heading, but pushing the innovation of jargon forward is valuable.
Meetup : Maine: Automatic Cognition
Discussion article for the meetup : Maine: Automatic Cognition
Imuli will present about Systems 1 and 2 and more specifically about the Inner Simulator and the group of questions one can ask of it. As this is the first gathering, we'll also talk about plans for future events, what people are interested in, what people want to share, and where and when to meet.
Welcome at 6:30, starts at 7pm.
Inviting all who aspire to be more accurate in belief and effective in action.
Discussion article for the meetup : Maine: Automatic Cognition
In response to
Palatable presentation of rationality to the layperson
I've been introducing rationality not by name, but by description. As in, “I've been working on forming more accurate beliefs and taking more effective action.”
In response to
Brainstorming new senses
- Ionizing Radiation - preferably expressed as synthetic heat or pain with a tolerable cap. The various types could be differentiated, by location or flavor, but mostly it's the warning that matters.
In response to
comment
by
on
If you could push a button to eliminate one cognitive bias, which would you choose?
Not sure what aspect of that is actually an error. All we know is that we judge ourselves different than others, but there is no information whether we judge others accurately or ourselves accurately.
In the past when people used to be stricter, there was a saying nemo iudex in causa sua, nobody be allowed to judge in his own case, because we would be far, far too lenient with ourselves, finding excuses. Today, we live in a world where being soft and forgiving is more fashionable, so today it would be more popular to think we judge ourselves correctly and others far too harshly. But besides these changing fashions of sentiment, do we actually know?
Assuming you, like most modern people, accepted the soft trend, and you think the lenient judgements we tend to give to ourselves are correct and should also be extended to others, have you ever tried to consider the other leg of the dilemma, i.e. what if we judged others as harshly as usual but ourselves too, maybe that would be the most accurate?
The important thing to understand is that prediction and moral judgement are different things. Circumstances predict better than personalities people's behavior. But this simply means being as good as the average is still very bad, allowing our behavior to be made bad by bad circumstances, like the vast majority does, is still something deserving censure. So this line of thought only works if you accept the average, typical person is a bad person - that predicting non-avereage behavior does nothing for judgement.
In response to
comment
by
[deleted]
on
If you could push a button to eliminate one cognitive bias, which would you choose?
There are a significant number of people who judge themselves harshly. Too harshly. It's not fun and not productive, see Ozy's Post on Scrupulosity. It maybe would be helpful for the unscrupulous to judge themselves with a bit more rigor, but leniency has a lot to recommend it as viewed from over here.
If you can write an app that kicks the user back to the lock screen within a specific time window, that would be fantastic
Basic version debug apk here, (more recent) source on GitHub, and Google Play.
The most notable feature lacking is locking the phone when the start time arrives. PM me if you run into problems. Don't set the end time one minute before the start time, or you'll only be able to unlock the phone in that minute.
A more advanced version of this would be to lock the phone into "emergency calls only" mode within a specific time window. I don't know how hard that would be to pull off.
This appears to be possible with the Device Administration API to relock the screen upon receiving an ACTION_USER_PRESENT intent. Neither of which requires a rooted phone.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
My thoughts are that you probably havn't read Malcolm's post on communication cultures, or you disagree.
Roughly, different styles of communication cultures (guess, ask, tell) are supported by mutual assumptions of trust in different things (and product hurt and confusion in the absence of that trust). Telling someone you would enjoy a hug is likely to harm a relationship where the other person's assumptions are aligned with ask or guess, even if you don't expect the other person to automatically hug you!
You need to coordinate with people on what type of and which particular culture to use (and that coordination usually happens through inference and experimentation). I certainly expect people who happen to coordinate on a Tell Culture to do better, but I doubt that it works as an intervention, unless they make the underlying adjustments in trust.