loqi

I'd be interested in reading more about your top ten cool possibilities. They sound cool.

My takeaway: Sometimes people don't behave in aggregate the way we think they should. By replacing their money with money\k and convincing them it's still just money, we can manipulate their behavior by jiggling k.*

And it apparently goes without saying that the coupon-issuer has a good way to distinguish "legitimate" reasons to cut back on going out. E.g., flu outbreak, new compelling indoor family activity, all the other stuff no one's even thought of yet, etc.

The Keynesian "key to enlightenment" is that we can cram a knob onto the economy and jack with it?

...as long as you don't mind listening to Sagan drone out "millions, and billions, and millions" for millions, and billions, and millions... basically number-novocaine delivered verbally.

And surely aliens are everywhere, we just haven't noticed them yet.

I tried watching Cosmos about a year ago, and quickly stopped. Is there a case to be made that it's worth soldiering through the awfulness?

Please quote me where I accused you of having faith that you're more reliable than those people.

Right here:

Thanks!

I also won't engage with people who refuse to answer reasonable questions to let me understand their position.

Thanks!

Please quote me where I accused you of having faith that you're more reliable than those people.

Do you agree that the tone of your post is a bit nasty?

Yes. It's a combination of having little respect for the feelings of typically-wrong pseudonymous internet posters as well as faith in my own ability to look at incomplete justifications for sloppy reasoning and draw snarky conclusions.

So, to summarize why you didn't update:

• You didn't know the names of the people commenting.
• You have faith that you're more reliable than those people.
• You would lose your job if you weren't so great at seeing through bullshit.
• You have often failed to see through bullshit.

Boy was Upton Sinclair ever right.

My inner Hanson asks me

So you've got a case of the Inner Hanson, eh? My estimation of your psychological fortitude is hereby incremented.

Good point, there is some ordering information leaked. This is consistent with identical likelihoods for both setups - learning which permutation of arguments we're feeding into a commutative operator (multiplication of likelihood ratios) doesn't tell us anything about its result.

If you don't mind sharing, how do you plan to do this? Is it as simple as "this controlled substance makes my life better, will you prescribe it for me?" Or are you "fortunate" enough to have a condition that warrants its prescription?

I ask because I've had similar experiences with Modafinil (my nickname for it is "executive lubricant"), and it is terribly frustrating to be stuck without a banned goods store.

Hooray!

Thanks for following up on Almond. Your statements align well with my intuition, but I admit heavy confusion on the topic.

Thanks, that's a concise and satisfying reply. I look forward to seeing where you take this.

And what, if I may ask, are your plans for your grandmother?

All I see here is Tegmark re-hashed and some assertions concerning the proper definitions of words like "real" and "existence". Taboo those, are you still saying anything?

Have you read any of Paul Almond's thoughts on the subject? Your position might be more understandable if contrasted with his.

Intuition is extremely powerful when correctly trained. Just because you want to have powerful intuitions about something doesn't mean it's possible to correctly train them.

If you can't think intuitively, you may be able to verify specific factual claims, but you certainly can't think about history.

Well, maybe we can't think about history. Intuition is unreliable. Just because you want to think intelligently about something doesn't mean it's possible to do so.

Jewish Atheist, in reply to Mencius Moldbug

Ceteris paribus, I would prefer not to be sad when my friends are sad. But this is incompatible with empathy - I use my sadness to model theirs. I can't imagine "loving" someone while trying not to understand them.

Same here.

The assumption that we can better determine toxicity with our current understanding of human biology than thousands of years of natural selection seems questionable, but peanuts are certainly a good lower bound on selection's ability.

I also don't have much confidence that the parties responsible for safety testing are particularly reliable, but that's a loose belief.