Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: lavalamp 06 August 2009 04:46:06PM 3 points [-]

I don't think it applies. When was the last time you heard a guy say, "Man, her shoes were so hot!"

Comment author: inblankets 24 February 2013 07:51:03PM 0 points [-]

All the time. Or they don't know what it is, but they're reacting to the traditional presentation (heels).

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 08 August 2009 04:54:42PM 9 points [-]

How does that account for high heels? The most obvious effect is to make the woman wearing them taller, which decreases a difference between the average man and the average woman.

I suppose that they give the appearance of shorter feet.

Comment author: inblankets 24 February 2013 07:48:31PM 0 points [-]

Physical fragility.

Comment author: incariol 11 November 2012 12:55:37AM 3 points [-]

Another example: as I don't feel like getting in a relationship for the foreseeable future, I try to avoid circumstances with lots of pretty girls around, e.g. not going to certain parties, taking walks in those parts of the forest where I don't expect to meet any, and in general, trying to convince other parts of my brain that the only girl I could possibly be with exists somewhere in the distant future or not at all (if she can't do a spell or two and talk to dragons, she won't do ;-)).

It also helps being focused on math, programming and abstract philosophy - and spending time on LW, it seems. :)

Comment author: inblankets 24 February 2013 04:26:33PM *  5 points [-]

I disagree with the commenters below-- I think you're fairly likely to find yourself wanting to be in a relationship if you're not careful. I'm a female, and I don't want to get married or have kids. Unfortunately, I'm 24, and some part of me/the body is really trying to marry me off and give me baybehs. So I try not to take in too much media that normalizes this vs. normalizing my goals, I don't babysit, and I am open about my intent so as not to attract invitations.

Comment author: Hul-Gil 14 May 2011 02:13:00AM *  0 points [-]

Why nothing about opioids?

Some quick facts about opioids, including heroin. I have written up a version of this with sources if so desired.

0.) Opioids cause feelings of well-being and euphoria, and usually some sedation (though some can be stimulating). They do not generally cause mental impairment, unless enough are taken to cause one to nod off. Negative side-effects are rare at low doses, but increase as dose does, and can include nausea and constipation.

1.) Most opioids - again, including heroin - are not toxic in any manner*. (Meperidine is a notable exception.) One could be on morphine, for instance, one's entire life, and not suffer ill health effects beyond constipation (usually easily fixed with magnesium).

2.) Opioids are very addictive. No qualifiers here.

3.) Heroin addicts are usually so unhealthy because of drug prohibition, not because of the drug itself. Some of the things heroin is cut with are dangerous in combination with it (like quinine), or just plain dangerous; its manufacture is illegal and there is no quality control; and it is expensive, so addicts engage in behaviors like injection or theft.

4.) Opioid withdrawal will not kill you, and opioids are usually fairly hard to overdose on accidentally. Most heroin "overdoses" are actually due either to what is thought to be a contaminant in the heroin, or due to mixing drugs to make a limited supply of heroin last longer (see #3).

*I have read an article stating they can cause dopaminergic toxicity, which is what rewires your brain to require opioids after using them for a long time. As far as I know, this is reversible, however.

I have a theory that most opioid addicts are actually self-medicating for psychological pain. Opioids been found to be efficacious in the treatment of depression and anxiety, but concerns over addiction prevent them from being marketed for these uses. I find this odd, because benzodiazepines are used for psychiatric purposes, but are also (less, admittedly) addictive, and their withdrawal symptoms are much worse.

Comment author: inblankets 24 February 2013 04:08:33PM -1 points [-]

Injection is not just because of pricing. It's not that expensive-- $/effect is greater than many other opioids. Addiction behavior is known to manifest around drugs that have quick onset, quick fade of effect, and an intense peak. Injection yields this. Also snorting it will tear up your nose, possibly because you haven't filtered it yet (which virtually everyone does before IVing).

Comment author: Hul-Gil 12 April 2012 05:33:18AM *  -1 points [-]

I don't think so - acetic anhydride is really the only other reagent involved in the step we're considering, and an excess wouldn't be harmful in any way... except, possibly, making the product a bit uncomfortable to ingest, if too much acetic acid was left over. (An excess of acetic anhydride is commonly used so as to make sure all the morphine reacts; any excess will become acetic acid - i.e., vinegar - as well.) It's common for a little to be left over, giving heroin its characteristic (vinegar-y) smell, but I don't think it's dangerous.

So I'd say that there's no danger here... but lack of quality control in general is definitely a big problem indeed.

Comment author: inblankets 24 February 2013 04:03:28PM 0 points [-]

I don't know about other cities, but I've used heroin in NYC off and on for almost 5 years, and I can safely say that, although I attempted to control for nutrition etc., I almost always had some deleterious effects on my skin etc. from (presumably) additives, even using "pure" stuff. If you're taking something in intravenously, very pure is not pure enough.

Comment author: inblankets 19 February 2013 06:14:27PM 0 points [-]

I wouldn't state the motivation for a "diverse charity portfolio" as positively desiring warm fuzzies-- rather, I think the aversion to a mixed set (note that I doubt we would usually want an only-hands-on set of charities-- too much work and would feel like pushing a boulder up a hill) is about potential exhaustion at repeatedly doing the one "most efficient" thing to the point that you're not taking 60 seconds of mental refreshment. Psychological viability is the missing element here, causing us to intuitively sense that the proposal isn't actually best, utility calculation be as it may (the actual calc would not have such problems).

Comment author: Caledonian2 01 February 2008 03:30:48AM 2 points [-]

If I know that the situation has resolved itself in a manner consistent with the hypothesis that Omega has successfully predicted people's actions many times over, I have a high expectation that it will do so again.

In that case, what I will find in the boxes is not independent of my choice, but dependent on it. By choosing to take two boxes, I cause there to be only $1,000 there. By choosing to take only one, I cause there to be $1,000,000. I can create either condition by choosing one way or another. If I can select between the possibilities, I prefer the one with the million dollars.

Since induction applied to the known facts suggests that I can effectively determine the outcome by making a decision, I will select the outcome that I prefer, and choose to take only box B.

Why exactly is that irrational, again?

Comment author: inblankets 20 December 2012 08:23:04AM *  0 points [-]

Prediction <-> our choice, if we use the 100/100 record as equivalent with complete predictive accuracy.

The "weird thing going on here" is that one value is set (that's what "he has already flown away" does), yet we are being told that we can change the other value. You see these reactions:

1) No, we can't toggle the other value, actually. Choice is not really in the premise, or is breaking the premise.

2) We can toggle the choice value, and it will set the predictive value accordingly. The prior value of the prediction does not exist or is not relevant.

We have already equated "B wins" with "prediction value = B" wlog. If we furthermore have equated "choice value = B" with "prediction value = B" wlog, we have two permissible arrays of values: all A, or all B. Now our knowledge is restricted to choice value. We can choose A or B. Since the "hidden" values are known to be identical to the visible value, we should pick the visible value in accordance with what we want for a given other value.

Other thoughts:

-Locally, it appears that you cannot "miss out" because within a value set, your choice value is the only possible one in identity with the other values.

-This is a strange problem, because generally paradox provokes these kinds of responses. In this case, however, fixing a value does not cause a contradiction both ways. If you accept the premise and my premises above, there should be no threat of complications from Omega or anything else.

-if 1 and 2 really are the only reactions, and 2 ->onebox, any twoboxers must believe 1. But this is absurd. So whence the twoboxers?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 04 November 2012 04:49:35AM 1 point [-]

Unless Omega is quite sure that you have precommitted to never opening Box A ever

Well, this isn't quite true. What Omega cares about is whether you will open Box A. From Omega's perspective it makes no difference whether you've precommitted to never opening it, or whether you've made no such precommitment but it turns out you won't open it for other reasons.

Comment author: inblankets 20 December 2012 07:49:45AM 0 points [-]

Assuming that Omega's "prediction" is in good faith, and that we can't "break" him as a predictor as a side effect of exploiting casuality loops etc. in order to win.