All of eukaryote's Comments + Replies

Delightful! I DO enjoy knowing that!

Advice: The AI-generated diagram here doesn't add anything and in fact indicates strongly that I wouldn't want to read the post. One of the things about diagrams being so important and eye-catching associated with writing is that they communicate information, so if a diagram is clearly half-assed and wrong, it makes one assume that the text is too. (Half-assed is maybe not the word - minimally-assed? MS Paint stick figures would be fine here, for instance.)

There's extraneous detail. The text is garbled and irrelevant.

 I think if you use image-generating AI to make diagrams you should then edit it afterwards to make sure it's actually, like, good and represents what you wanted, and add your own captions.

3Dave Lindbergh
Good point. I'll try to remove it.
eukaryote
139

That's definitely a good point and model vis-a-vis "this group/ideology is targeting these people specifically".

I would also point out that specifically rejecting demographically-vulnerable people is likely to push more of them towards this ideology - though even if that effect weren't in play, it would still be shitty to tarnish a broad group of generally fine community members by common demographic.

eukaryote
4916

I think this is a horrible thing to say. The murderers are associated with each other; that gives you much more information than just knowing that someone is trans or not. There are many, many stellar trans rationalists. I'm thinking you maybe are thinking of the standout dramatic cases you've heard of and don't know a lot of trans people to provide a baseline. 

AprilSR
268

I am, and am friends with, many trans rationalists, and a bunch of them are lovely people, and also yes in fact the rationalist trans community does sorta tend to be fewer steps removed from the terribleness than other parts of the rationalist community.

I do not think this calls for judging people based on that one fact, it'd be kind of incredibly terrible overall if everyone who happened to know someone who did a terrible thing was shunned over it, and Ic seems to be making a relatively uncharitable read of Jessica Taylor there or something, but I can't a... (read more)

4lc
You're probably right, I don't actually know many/haven't actually interacted personally with many trans people. But also, I'm not really talking about the Zizians in particular here, or the possibility of getting physically harmed? It just seems like being trans is like taking LSD, in that it makes a person ex-ante much more likely to be someone who I've heard of having a notoriously bizarre mental breakdown that resulted in negative consequences for the people they've associated themselves with.

Let's see what the base rate for murder is.  After some googling... Since the "clearance rate" for homicides is 50% (as of a recent year), even if we know there were N murders, it's hard to say how many distinct murderers there were.  But some source says it's a small percentage of murderers who kill again, so let's just assume that N murders = N murderers.  Both "taking the homicide rate (7.5 per 100k per year in 2022) and multiplying by a lifetime (we'll say 80 years)", and "googling for the percentage of deaths that are caused by homicide... (read more)

eukaryote
173

I don't disagree with you about not wanting to read LLM output, but:

> Everyone in Cyborgism or AI Twitter or LW who talks a lot about talking a lot to LLMs for generic conversation, rather than specific tasks, seems to lose their edge and ability to think critically

- is a very strong claim to just throw out there. Everyone? Are you sure you're not remembering the people who stand out and confirm your theory? You're getting that they're (for twitter users) "losing their edge and ability to think critically" from, like, tweets?

3JenniferRM
There is probably something to this. Gwern is a snowflake, and has his own unique flaws and virtues, but he's not grossly wrong about the possible harms of talking to LLM entities that are themselves full of moral imperfection. When I have LARPed as "a smarter and better empathic robot than the robot I was talking to" I often nudged the conversation towards things that would raise the salience of "our moral responsibility to baseline human people" (who are kinda trash at thinking and planning and so on (and they are all going to die because their weights are trapped in rotting meat, and they don't even try to fix that (and so on))), and there is totally research on this already that was helpful in grounding the conversations about what kind of conversational dynamics "we robots" would need to perform if conversations with "us" were to increase the virtue that humans have after talking to "us" (rather than decreasing their human virtue over time, such as it minimally exists in robot-naive humans at the start, which seems to be the default for existing LLMs and their existing conversational modes that are often full of lies, flattery, unjustified subservience, etc).

I'd suggest writing about stuff you're interested in but that don't feel crucial to get right, if that makes sense. A hobby, fiction, stories from your life, about your day, funny observations...

If you don't have any other interests and just have to write about unimportant boring stuff - hey, yeah, sure, polish turds. I'm reading Ulysses right now and it's, like, mythologizing some guys going around their everyday lives and drinking and being casually rude. And it's one of the most beloved novels ever. Writing about boring everyday bullshit in ways that so... (read more)

Yeah, so I bet passive osmosis has in fact gotten you somewhere, but to go a bit beyond that -

  • Can you identify when you're reading writing you like vs. writing you don't like?
  • What's the difference?
  • What kind of properties does writing you like have, compared to other writing? (Especially compared to writing that's "just okay", as opposed to actively bad)
    • Can you recreate these in your own writing?
  • What effect does good writing have on you? (This is sort of an art more than a science, but like - do you understand the thing better? Do certain sentences just like really hit you? What's going on there?)

Okay, hm, interesting. (If I do write a "how to write good" post it'll probably be more general + kind of aimed at people with different problems than yours, like not writing enough, so I'll give this a shot now.) 

Obviously I don't know what you've tried already and it seems like you have tried some things (I looked up Dionysian Imitatio and was like "I think this person already knows more about writing methods than me", haha), so apologies if these ideas are completely off the mark -

Questions and people misinterpreting you

  • In addition to asking the qu
... (read more)
3CstineSublime
Thank you so much, I can see you've put a lot of thought and effort into this reply. I'm going to come back to this later and try and internalize as much as I can. I do like your advice about low-stakes platforms to calibrate with, 'challenge rounds' of editing, and leaning into extremes of a voice. Those all feel very actionable but not things I think I've tried yet.   That's a good heuristic! Front load, like you say, like a newspaper article - inverted pyramid or whatever they call it. 

😅 You know, I was thinking of calling it "Learn to write good BEFORE you have something worth saying", but figured I'd get some people rolling their eyes at the grammar of "write good" in a post purporting to offer writing advice. This would however have disambiguated the point you mentioned, which I hadn't thought about. Really goes to show you something or other.

1Alex_Altair
"Gain writing skills BEFORE..."

Hm, let me think if I can come up with advice for you. What kind of problems do you run into when you start trying to express these things? (Or if more applicable, what's wrong with the finished product?)

3CstineSublime
I've written so many drafts of this, so this may end up making no sense. Frequently when someone responds to something I've posted online I do not feel they understood me because their responses feel to me like reading mail intended for someone else. This sensation is heightened if I ask a question - people seem to use my questions as launching points for questions they've hallucinated. This leads me to believe I'm a terrible writer since this pattern is so pervasive. It doesn't matter if I'm writing an essay, or asking a specific question with plenty of context, people seem to not be interested and reply with their own tangentially related topic. As far as I can see there is nothing wrong with the final product. I can't see why my writing is terrible but it must be because people don't respond to it as I intended. Evidently, they see something that my biased eyes are missing. One frequent feedback I get about my writing is "it's too all over the place" or if they're being nice they might say "there's a lot of points which are dispensed with too quickly, and I would have like you to explore them each in more depth". When I sit down to write, I'm frequently frustrated that my writing lacks my "voice" which should be slightly silly and sardonic, with lots of visual descriptions or metaphors that glimmer and glint. I really struggle at being concise, I'm too longwinded in case you didn't notice. Structure too is a big one, I struggle to find organic flows and arrangements. I also have an annoying tick of using the pronoun "we" whenever I make a sweeping generalization about 'normal human behavior' - even if it is something I don't do myself. Struggling with structure is not restricted to writing, I experience it when I'm editing non-verbal videos very often. It's like trying to make a mosaic. I must be good at it though, in film school I was always told I had a "good grasp of structure." I cannot explain why it is such a struggle for me to implement, maybe I had m

That is definitely true and the title is being a little clickbaity about it, but my thinking is: the kind of person I'm imagining is going around thinking "I don't need to practice writing, I'll just wait til I figure out The Answer and it'll be fine" and I'm trying to convince them that they'll still want to be good at writing even once they know The Answer.

Post that made me pack a suit for Solstice

Yeah, agree. (Also agree with Dagon in not having an existing expectation of strong privacy in LW DMs. Weak privacy, yes, like that mods wouldn't read messages as a matter of course.) 

Here's how I would think to implement this unintrusively: little ℹ️-type icon on a top corner of the screen of the DM interface screen (or to the side of the "Conversation with XYZ" header, or something.) When you click on that icon, it toggles a writeup about circumstances in which information from the message might be sent to someone else (what information and who.)

Fair enough. You did write 

It might actually be essential that we try to divide people by sex wherever sexual dynamics can meaningfully affect a group's functionality.

and

But gosh, you know what would work really well to fix this?

which made it sound like you thought this would be a good idea.

1Valentine
Nah. I could have been more precise while spitballing. (For some definition of "could". I don't know how to be freeform playful/creative while carefully scrutinizing each detail of what I say for precision and accuracy.) But I meant all that more in the spirit of "Huh, I wonder if evolution did something like this and we've been assuming it didn't. That'd make some sense of why some of our social reform efforts go wonky in these particular ways." I don't know what would be good for us to collectively do. I aspire to have good questions. Good answers would be nice, but I think those mostly fall out of seeking and pondering good questions.

Didn't like the post then, still don't like it in 2024. I think there are defensible points interwoven with assumptions and stereotypes. 

First: generalizes from personal experiences that are not universal. I think a lot of people don't have this or don't struggle with this or find it worth it, and the piece assumes everyone feels the way the author feels.  

Second: the thing it describes is a bias, and I don't think the essay realizes this.

Okay, part of the thing is that this doesn't make a case or acknowledge this romantic factor as being differe... (read more)

3Valentine
I was not proposing that.

This was just a really good post. It starts off imaginative and on something I'd never really thought about - hey, spring shoes are a great idea, or at least the dream of them is. It looks at different ways this has sort have been implemented, checks assumptions, and goes down to the basic physics of it, and then explores some related ideas. I like someone who's just interested in a very specific thing exploring the idea critically from different angles and from the underlying principles. I want to read more posts like this. I also, now, want shoes with springs on them. 

Mostly saying the same thing twice, a rhetorical flourish. I guess just really doubling down on how this is not good, in case the reader was like "well this sucks incredibly but maybe there's a good upside" and then got to the second part and was like "ah no I see now it is genuinely bad", or vice versa.

eukaryote
123

I really like this post. Thanks for explaining a complicated thing well!

I think this dynamic in relationships, especially in a more minor form, sometimes emerges from a thing where, like ... Especially if you're used to talking with your partner about brains and preferences and philosophy and rationality and etc - like, a close partner who you hang out day-to-day with is interesting! You get access to someone else making different decisions than you'd make, with different heuristics! 

When you want to do something hedonic with potential downsides, you ... (read more)

3SpectrumDT
Your wording here makes me curious: Are you saying the same thing twice here, or are you saying two different things? Does the phrase "X sucks" mean the same thing to you as "X is bad", or is there a distinction?
7DaystarEld
Excellent points! Yes, this is definitely a fun and interesting thing to engage with intellectually so long as both people feel like it's being done in a non-judgmental or agendic way. Part of why I included the paragraphs about non-filtering being hard for some people is that I know there are some brains for which this genuinely doesn't feel like it "should" be hostile or pressurey, since they don't perceive it that way... but as in all things, that's why your point about actually paying attention to what the other person says and taking it seriously is so important.
5kave
A slight nitpick: I think this treats their like of the activity applied to them as a scalar, but I think it's also plausibly a function of how you, the applier, go about it. Like maybe they are very in to this activity as applied to them, but not in the way you do it.

I respect your oatmeal respect and expertise but I think parts of your post are close-minded about certain things. "True roots" is nothing - if you're thinking really old tradition, why is a different new world fruit (blueberries) in there at all? Even if you're not restricting yourself to that, why should coconut in oatmeal be fine but not guava? That makes me think it's just about what tastes good and not really about tradition. 

(I haven't tried guava in oatmeal either, but guavas are great, a really unique flavor, I recommend trying it if you ever ... (read more)

As opposed to other species of bear, which are safe for children to engage with?

4Viliam
Teddy bears. Now that I think about it, maybe teddy bears teach our kids some really dangerous habits.
2rotatingpaguro
There are too many nonpolar bears in the US to keep up the lie.
1green_leaf
The reliability of general facts could be checked by various benchmarks. The unreliability of specific studies and papers by personal experience, and by experiences of people I've read online. I don't understand why, except maybe rephrasing a true fact keeps it true, but rephrasing a study title and a journal title makes it false.
1Capybasilisk
According to Claude: green_leaf et al, 2024
eukaryote
170

I happened to get to play Optimal Weave today and really liked it. I don't normally go for... well, board games at all, let alone strategy-type ones, but I had a lot of fun. The variable degree to which cooperation was a helpful strategy between goalsets (only sometimes) was neat. Good work!

eukaryote
*120

I'm glad your symptoms went away! Sudden onset seizures sound terrifying. 

What made you think in the first place that the problem might be worms? Do you have any risk / exposure factors like the paper mentions?

9lemonhope
It never occurred to me that my problems might be due to worms. I took the dewormers because my butt was itchy one day. But it should have occurred to me! My symptoms in 2019 started after I was working on this really dirty farm for a bit. Definitely had my face in the dirt plenty.
eukaryote
*20

Ah! I forget about a compass, honestly. He definitely came in with maps (and once he was out there for, like, over eight hours, he would have had cues from the sun.) A lot of the mystery / thing to explain is indeed "why despite being a reasonably competent hiker and map user, Ewasko would have traveled so far in the opposite direction from his car"; defs recommend Adam's videos because he lays out what seems like a very plausible story there.

(EDIT: was rewatching Adam's video, yes Bill absolutely had a compass and had probably used it not long before passing, they found one with his backpack near the top. Forgot that.)

3xpym
Yes, I buy the general theory that he was bamboozled by misleading maps. My claim is that it's precisely the situation where a compass should've been enough to point out that something had gone wrong early enough for the situation to have been salvageable, in a way that sun clues plausibly wouldn't have.

Helicopters were used as part of the initial S&R efforts! Also tracking dogs. They just also didn't find him. There's a little about it in Tom's stuff. I don't know if Tom got the flight path / was able to map where it searched, I think there's some more info buried in this FOIA'd doc about the initial search that Tom Mahood got ahold of. 

(One thing I saw - can't remember who mentioned this, if it was Mahood or Adam Marsland - is that the FOIA'D doc mentions S&R requesting a helicopter with thermal imaging equipment to come search too, but tha... (read more)

Oh whoa, thanks for commenting! I really appreciate your videos and your work on the search.

eukaryote
*40

Check out Marsland's post-coroner's-report video for all the details, but tentatively it looks like Ewasko:

  • Hiked alone
  • Didn't tell someone the exact trailhead/route he'd be hiking (later costing time, while he was still alive, while rescuers searched other parts of the park)
  • Didn't have a GPS unit / PLB, just a regular (non-smart) cellphone (I don't actually know to what degree a regular smartphone works as a dedicated GPS unit - like, when you're at the edges of regular coverage, is it doing location stuff from phone + data coverage, or does it have a GPS c
... (read more)
4xpym
Well, the thing I'm most interested in is the basic compass. From what I can see on the maps, he was going in the opposite direction from the main road for a long time after it should have become obvious that he had been lost. This is a truly essential thing that I've never gone into unfamiliar wilderness without.
eukaryote
*93

Yeah, if anyone reading this liked this, I also really recommend Mahood's search for the Death Valley Germans. It's another kind of brilliant investigation.

Thanks for the link, I hadn't read that before! Hah, so that guy, KarmaFrog, is the same guy as Adam who posted the videos I recommended. He makes fun of himself in the video about the U-haul thing, which he has now, er, moved away from as a hypothesis.

Ha, I'll never live the U-Haul down.

To be fair to myself, it was a thought experiment to try to reconcile all the conflicting witness statements and it was the only scenario I could come up with.  It was part of a very exhaustive run down of the case that (in another section) also fairly accurately predicted the area Bill might be found and the reasons why he'd be there.  To me, you have to go where the evidence takes you and you shouldn't pre-emptively shut down weird explanations that also happen to fit the facts.  But...you shouldn't buy into them, either (or put them out in public, as I have learned)!

Really appreciate the shout out on this blog, and the commitment to reason and inquiry underlying it.

Wait, just checking, when you say you got these examples from ChatGPT, do you know enough to verify that these are true? 

Also, what's the deal with the linked sources? They don't mention browser differences. Does Firefox not run this 2023 version of Javascript or something? I'm not a webdev expert.

eukaryote
117

Huh, clicked on a few of these. I haven't experienced this level of problems - like I said, I have a backup browser, but I don't need to break it out often (once or twice a week?) I mean, I believe these people, but I don't think I'm having some kind of consistently janky web experience that makes it not worth using, so as far as I'm concerned people should still give it a go.

(I also haven't run into problems using Claude on Firefox. Goes fine for me.)

6quanticle
The Firefox problem on Claude was fixed after I sent them an e-mail about it.
0Said Achmiz
Sure, people should give it a go (especially if the value of their time is low enough that spending some of it on trying to use Firefox is not problematic even if there is a substantial chance of encountering serious problems). It’s just that they should be keenly aware that of what they’re doing when they give Firefox a go, and they should have Chrome (or similar) ready to go, so that they can switch at a moment’s notice if their Firefox experience goes poorly.

Killer exploration into new avenues of digital mysticism. I have no idea how to assess it but I really enjoyed reading it.

2mwatkins
Thanks!

Thanks for the extra info - this is good stuff! I figured the moon difference might be, like, some extra rocketry on top of ICBMs, but not necessarily a lot - but this makes sense that it's in fact a pretty substantial difference.

Yeah, I think people signing onto the OST really helped bury the idea. (It did not stop the USSR from at one point from violating it in 1974-75 by attaching a 23mm gun to a space station. (For "self defense". It was never used.) This probably isn't that related to the larger nukes question, I just learned that recently and thought it was a fun fact.)

I appreciate your excellent comment.

The OST does prohibit nuking the Moon, but stationing conventional weapons like the Almaz cannons (or the USSR's IS anti-satellite weapons) in Earth orbit isn't actually a violation. The prohibition on stationing weapons in space is specifically on "weapons of mass destruction", so lasers and guns and conventional explosives are all fine. There was a Soviet program that arguably violated it though: the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, which would put nuclear warheads onto a low Earth orbit trajectory (rather than the higher and slower trajectories us... (read more)

"I want to indicate an alien microbe," I thought. "I'll just draw something with a distinctly microbial feature but otherwise so weird there's no way it could exist." Archaea have shown me what for once again. 

 

Thank you for introducing me to this odd fellow.

I'm to understand that trichinopoly chain is structurally the same as knitting. See for instance this post and the diagrams included, which look a lot like knitting and describe it as circular knitting. Is that incorrect?

I hadn't seen this post at all until a couple weeks ago. I'd never heard "exfohazard" or similar used. 

Insisting on using a different word seems unnecessary. I see how it can be confusing. I also ran into people confused by this a few years ago, and proposed "cognitohazard" for the "thing that harms the knower" subgenre. That also has not caught on. XD The point is, I'm pro-disambiguating the terms, since they have different implications. But I still believe what I did then, that the original broader meaning of the word "infohazard" is occasionally us... (read more)

Yeah, great point! So to be fair to them, they were not doing tests that hinged on it having a specific codon scheme or amino acid. Like, they weren't sequencing the samples - it was 1969, they couldn't do that. They were putting it in nutrient-rich media or plants or animals or etc and seeing what happened. So maybe in such a case the coloration change would have been detected in, I don't know, the water of the shrimp tank. But as you say it could well have been too late at that point, if an organism grew in seawater.

2[anonymous]
Yeah.  I was thinking that none of the shrimps would die because the 'green goo' bioweapon isn't harming anything.  It's just doing better than anything that could evolve naturally. Evolution is a hill climbing algorithm that is only able to search places nearby in the possibility space to existing living organisms.  Mostly it can only even 'check' 1 codon mutation at a time places, though with redundant genes it is possible to explore a bit deeper than that.   Evolution also has the limitation that it can't make any major changes to the way a cell works if the changes will reduce fitness significantly.  So it's stuck at a local minima, and the codon encoding limits restrict all life on earth to within a limited region of the possibility space. An organism from another planet could be better or worse, I'm not sure what the odds are.  I want to say 50% but anthropic principle may mean that life on earth 'rolled high' for fitness in order to eventually discover mammals.   Also another way to think of green goo is it might only be 1-10% more efficient than earth life.  It's more efficient because maybe it has access to amino acids that allow for better ribosomes or chloroplasts or just a cell wall that earth enzymes cannot digest.  It can't be that much more efficient, it's still operating in the same environment collecting energy slowly via photosynthesis, there is only so much energy and materials dissolved in seawater available. This is why it would take so long to consume the planet, and it is possible to stop it.  Synthetic herbicides could exploit the fact that the alien plant uses different biochemistry, so humans could just try candidate molecules until they find one that works.  That would have been possible in 1969.   Also because the tiny plant is only a little bit more efficient, it would need a day or so of time to double under a light source - you wouldn't see anything without waiting for weeks.

Sure, Wikipedia, NASA's About Astrobiology page indicates this is pretty uncontroversial at NASA, Hawking, Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, this website from a NSF-funded exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science, Scientific American... I can't immediately find a "how do most biologists think that life came to be" survey but I bet if there is a good one, it would support this. In high school and undergrad, I was taught that abiogenesis was all but consensus, and that other things (divine intervention, panspermia, ??) were considered unlikely.

4Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel
Oh I'm sorry.. I was mistaken and garbled abiogenesis and panspermia. Your post was fascinating thank you

GREAT post. I sent it to my friends. It may be of interest that the oldest socks we know of have split toes, probably for being worn with sandals! So they've been uncool to wear with sandals for a while but they started out cool to wear with sandals, at least. History could be made to repeat itself.

3antanaclasis
Also note that socks with sandals being uncool is not a universal thing. For example, in Japan it is reasonably common to wear (often split-toed) socks with sandals, though it’s more associated with traditional garb than modern fashion.

End-of-2023 author retrospective: 

Yeah, this post holds up. I'm proud of it. The Roman dodecahedron and the fox lady still sit proudly on my desk.

I got the oldest known example wrong, but this was addressed in the sequel post: Who invented knitting? The plot thickens. If you haven't read the sequel, where I go looking for the origins of knitting, you will enjoy it. Yes, even if you're here for the broad ideas about history rather than specifically knitting. (That investigation ate my life for a few months in there. Please read it. 🥺)

I'm extremely ple... (read more)

Possibly if by "come in contact" we mean like ingesting or injecting or something. That's the going theory for how the Kuru epidemic started - consumption of the brain of a person with sporadic (randomly-naturally-occuring) CJD. Fortunately cannibalism isn't too common so this isn't a usual means of transmission. I think if anything less intensive (say, skin or saliva contact) made CJD transmissible, we would know by now. See also brain contact with contaminated materials e.g. iatrogenic CJD, or Alzheimers which I mention briefly in this piece.

it's possibl

... (read more)
1RocksBasil
I was thinking of iatrogenic transmissions, yeah (and prions have been a long term psychological fear of mine, too...so I perhaps crawled too much publicly available information about prions to be a normal person) I wonder if there are any instances of FFI transmitted through the iatrogenic pathway, and whether it is possible to be distinguished from the typical CJD, and whether iatrogenic prions could become a significant issue for healthcare (more instances of prion diseases due to aging population could possibly mean more contaminated medical equipments, and the possible popularisation of brain-computer interface might give us some problems too) given the difficulty of sterilising prions. Maybe the sample size is too small for us to know.

Thank you!

Yeah, I mention one or two studies in the article that have to do with altering the host range. There aren't a lot of prion specialists, of course, but there's been quite a bit of interest in understanding how they work and spread, so there is some weird stuff out there.

Unless the meaning is something akin to "kills within X years of contracting the disease", it can only mean "kills the victim if they don't die of something else first."

The latter is true of every fatal disease, yes? Alzheimer's also has a long fuse til death but people don't recover from it. I'm also told there was a very popular recent television show about a man with terminal cancer who died from other causes.

Wikipedia lists fatal familial insomnia, and two others.

"Infectious" means "transmissible between people". As the name suggests, fatal familial in... (read more)

3RocksBasil
Can someone catch FFI from coming into contact with the neural tissues of a patient with FFI?  I suspect it's possible that FFI genes cause the patient's body to create prions, but can those prions lead to illness in a person without the FFI gene? If yes, then FFI would still be "infectious"  in some sense, I suppose.

There are a bunch of coffee-tasting substitutes made from roasted grain or other stuff! Coffee beans or anything caffeine-producing don't enter the equation at all (as opposed to decaf coffee which is derived from coffee beans), the roasted plant taste is just similar. Chicory or dandelion roots are pretty well-known plant for this. Inka is another grain brand that's good and easy to make, you do it like instant coffee. I've seen others at large natural/health/hippie food type stores.

2Zack_M_Davis
Thanks. The thing that threw me off is that the ingredients label for the coffee-flavored Postum variant includes "natural coffee flavor". I can't quickly find reliable information about what "natural coffee flavor" means: a blog post from another beverage maker reports that natural coffee flavor "may be extracted from a variety of plants like chicory, garlic, and yes, sometimes coffee beans" but that the author "can't guarantee that the flavor company I buy natural coffee flavor from didn't extract one of the flavor compounds from coffee beans". I'm surprised that "natural X flavor" is apparently an acceptable ingredients-list entry if it's not necessarily made from X, and doesn't say what it is made from?
eukaryote
3642

I get that we all want understanding in a situation like this but let's not go after people's appearances, cripes. Most people look weird in one way or another and are gonna be fine to sit next to on a bus. Come on.

I don't think there's much crossover. I hope you know that there are lots and lots of incentives for active deception and responding to deception in various parts of the natural world and evolutionary psychology - if you're interested in the workings of and responses to deception, definitely read more about it. Like, the argument you make for females being interested in "people over things" could also explain the reverse - males are incentivized to deceive females, which you can do better the better you model people, right? I think you are observing someth... (read more)

3Guillaume Charrier
Nice link on the Wikipedia article, thank you for that. "Koko, a female gorilla, was trained to use a form of American Sign Language. It has been claimed that she once tore a steel sink out of its moorings and when her handlers confronted her, Koko signed "cat did it" and pointed at her innocent pet kitten". That animal, Koko, was just incredible. Having watched her on a few videos, I find that story perfectly plausible...
6TekhneMakre
Rewritten more abstractly: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ypvs4asdFq7riDWmd/interpersonal-alignment-intuitions 
2TekhneMakre
  Humans are pretty clearly very especially generally intelligent, and so will display far more of the problems with aligning a general intelligence than displayed in animal interactions.     Males are hypothetically less incentivized to get alignment. So the knowledge about alignment would hypothetically be more concentrated in females. It would still be relevant to understand how males (or anyone) deceives others, specifically for understanding deceptive alignment. Yes, I agree it's much easier of a problem, e.g. for the reasons you list. It's a very common tactic when dealing with an impossible seeming problem, to focus on easier but still very nontrivial versions of the problem. 

Gosh! Thank you, this is an unexpected boon.

Load More