All of Ixiel's Comments + Replies

Ixiel11

Not much to add content wise but just to be one data point: I strongly agree and have talked about it with exactly one person. I have no plans to advance the position openly and proactively, largely for reasons stated, but would quietly and strongly support efforts to that end should I become aware of them.

As I've put it to my friend: the worst day for a transcendent AI to emerge is the week after I would die and the best day is the week before. We then argue over where "tomorrow" fits on that spectrum

Ixiel21

Absolutely. Most common similar I've seen is buy-a-brick campaigns but I like the idea of doing things a little differently

Ixiel43

Thanks, just what I sought and quite timely. I appreciate that.

I'm good for the $1k. I'll put a check in the mail (swipe fees are the devil) and keep an eye out for future opportunities

Ixiel120

If I were near a computer any time soon I probably would have mindlessly e-mailed but on reflection posting is probably better in this culture anyway. I have a few questions and notes. For what it's worth, some of these points would have me walk right on from an organization I'm moderately positive toward. LW exceeds that level for me

  1. I've been a casual LW fan off and on for a while, probably over a decade (friend introduced me to The Sequences either shortly after or shortly before completion) and this is the first time I've heard of Lightcone. A li

... (read more)
4Ben Pace
If we set any new concrete, I think it could be neat to write donors' names into the concrete. Or maybe we can simply carve them into a wall somewhere.
7habryka
We used to just be called the LessWrong team, but then we expanded our operations into more than just LW and changed our name.  Agree that a link to our website would have still been useful. Just for posterity, here is one: https://www.lightconeinfrastructure.com/  Yep! We are a fiscally sponsored project by the Center for Applied Rationality, which is a 501c3 organization in the US. I think $1k seems like a reasonable ask for people who are heavy users of LessWrong and have benefitted a lot from it over the years. Though to keep existing I think some individuals/foundations would definitely have to give a bunch more than that. Not currently, though I also like the leaderboard! We do have a physical campus now, and it somehow never occurred to me that we could name rooms or buildings or other structures after people.  My guess is if someone donates $10k+ there is probably an option of having a room or some structure on the campus be named after you or some other name of your choosing. If our operating budget doubled we would probably hire slightly faster, though not enormously so (since I think hiring too fast is a very frequent way for organizations to fail). There are also a lot of projects that I would love to take on that would come with having access to more money. I've been wanting to run more AI Alignment events and conferences.  But I think mostly it would lead to us having more runway, which would open us more generically to taking risks, and what exact risks we would take is really very uncertain right now. I didn't expect to be working on a hotel renovation for the last few months, and I didn't expect I would be doing a bunch of mechanism design for grantmaking a few years ago. Our expenses for the last year are really very heavily loaded towards renovation and construction (most of which ends up capitalized in the property value on which we have a mortgage on), and looks roughly like this:  Campus renovation $6,250,000  ($3,200,000) Also incl
Ixiel10

I look forward to hearing them

Are you saying depression is like pessimism, in the above quote? If so, are you saying they are not in fact different, or are you making a claim I'm missing about the difference?

Also sorry for the premature send if that is externally perceptible

2Pattern
There are other differences between the two, but I would say that depression is stronger than pessimism. (Content warning: depressed/depressing sentiments.) Only the first of these sounds like pessimism.   I don't have a lot to say about the difference. There was a time when I thought things could be better if they were given a critical look. The flip side of that, is that things can be better if improved from an 'optimistic perspective'.  If that benefit is actually realized, maybe the pessimist (often) avoids food poisoning by not eating at fast food restaurants (often). The optimist may gain from realizing/seizing opportunity, or trying things.  ('Maybe squaring the circle is impossible. But I want to know why.' 'Then just read _'s proof that it's impossible.' 'I don't see any reason it can't be done, it seems like I just have to find a way. So I'm going to give it a go.' (According to some proofs, squaring the circle is impossible 'using only a [particular set of tools]'.)) There's also something else there: 'What's the point in doing that? I want to.' I think some stuff like doing less has an association with depression.   I don't know where this is from. (It sounds like it's responding to something.)
Ixiel20

How is ""Depression is just contentment with a bad attitude" false exactly?

I'm not trying to claim its true or sport defend flat earth style. I truly believe it's different.

But back in Covid and even early aftermath I remember so often thinking "There's no reason to go out because we're all so happy at home that out likely wont be any better" which I eventually noticed is awfully similar to "There's no reason to go out because I'm so unhappy out that out likely won't be any better." Seemed like a possible window into others' lived experience.

Not really a... (read more)

3Pattern
The initial statement seemed wrong. I've seen stuff about this, but I don't remember where. I remember stuff like (summarizing the idea): How awfully convenient it seems to be, for the optimists and the pessimists. The optimists say, the world is alright, or even, wonderful, awesome, and amazing! (We don't have to do anything.) The pessimists say, the world is awful, terrible, unspeakably bad - but we can't do anything about it.   Either the work is done, or it can never begin. I have more thoughts on depression.
Ixiel60

Heh, we get so caught up in one path we forget others sometimes don't we? That's a great idea. Thanks!

Ixiel00

It seems to not be sending me the reset e-mail. I requested twice last night, separated by five minutes. I'll PM Hab, just in case the system forgot my e-mail address, but still a problem if so that there is no message to that effect.

ETA: Multiple messages sent with no reply. Shall I assume this project is no longer going forward?

Ixiel00

Metaphor makes sense; I'dn't thought of that. Thanks!

Ixiel00

Thanks! That accords with what people have said and with reason better than the former reigning champion.

Sorry for delay; was at a wedding. When I start typing comments on my phone the submit button disappears, so I can only comment from my computer, and I'm trying to avoid thumbs until they fix the asymmetry.

Ixiel00

How do folks use the term "bullying" these days? (links to dictionaries will be ignored)

When I was a kid it was simple: child on child violence. Then people started using it for just word stuff without real physical harm, then for adults, then with an implication of warranting the enforcement of authorities to stop...

I get the impression it's currently either used as "being mean in any sense one could perceive" broadly or "being mean in a way we should get people with some form of authority to force people to stop" but I don't know which, or which is closer, and the ambiguity is enough to change real meaning.

5fubarobfusco
As with "violence" itself, it seems like some uses of "bullying" strike me as being somewhat metaphorical rather than literal; but the folks using it those ways may not agree. That said, my experience in school was that physical violence and "word stuff" could be combined arms in an effort to create misery or to drive someone away: perpetrators could use physical harm when they expected to get away with it; aggressive posturing (e.g. miming a punch) to remind the victim of the possibility of physical harm; and verbal attacks when they expected to get away with those.
Error120

The dynamic I match it to is "being mean for its own sake, to a specific individual, over an extended period of time, in an environment where they can't get away from their tormentor(s)." The social equivalent of a cat playing with a mouse it's caught.

N=1 for this interpretation, and it may not be quite necessary or sufficient even by my own lights.

Edit: A more succinct definition might be: "Bullying: persistent, targeted cruelty."

Ixiel00

It appears so. I sometimes sleep past sunrise since retiring, but I almost never did when I worked at the bank.

All in all, mission success, priors updated :)

Ixiel00

To me, yes. I don't personally know many adults who stay up into the double digits more than occasionally, but it was brought to my attention that does not exactly mirror the global situation.

1Lumifer
I would expect there to be a significant city / country divide. People in the country are more tied to natural daylight and tend to rise early (and so go to bed early). People in cities tend to go to bed late (because all the fun stuff happens in the evening / night) and rise late.
1entirelyuseless
I think the statistics here for LW may be significantly different from the global situation as well.
Ixiel20

Meant college, if one went to college, and whatever schooling one had if not.

College kids staying up into the double digits every night for parties and/or homework is not really what I was wondering about.

Ixiel10

Of people who are more than two years out of school: What was your average bed time last week?

[pollid:1177]

I've heard more grown adults stay up extremely late than I'd assumed. First time trying to do a poll; there may well be errors.

1satt
Might want to clarify whether you literally mean school by "school", or school & university. In context I'm guessing the first?
2Good_Burning_Plastic
After 23 is extremely late?
1Lumifer
Keep in mind that people who go to work each morning generally have fixed schedules -- that is, their bed time is set by the time they have to wake up in the morning + their sleep requirement.
1username2
Whether one has kids is an important factor here.
Ixiel00

Oops, solved

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
Ixiel10

If only we could concurrently disable comments that detract from the reader ;) Any estimate how long until this is fixed?

Ixiel00

I was not aware of the pod making process. I thought there was opportunity for something to be lost in the process, like how pepper is stronger freshly ground &c.

I'd still read a study, but that updates my baseline probabilities. Thanks!

4morganism
I think you have fewer volatile oils, and packaging in plastic can sometimes leach out plasticizers if hot water is used to flush them, but cold pressing and overnighting is supposedly the best way. Cory Doctorow, in Little Brother, goes on and on about making cold concentrate. You might research the cold press method. http://lifehacker.com/this-cheap-no-mess-cold-brew-system-offers-a-hassle-fr-1582395519 Tea is supposed to better if you don't heat the water to boiling, because you keep the volatile flavors in, just like low temp water bath cooking traps more flavor.
1Lumifer
At this point the particulars of the brewed coffee start to matter. For example, if you grind your beans just before you brew, your grounds are fresher than the grounds in the pod. However the pods are flushed with nitrogen during packaging and the pod is hermetically sealed, so if you ground your beans some time ago, the coffee in the pod might well be effectively less stale than the pre-ground coffee in your jar. As to losing something in the process, that's instant coffee :-/
Ixiel00

I do.

I don't know why there would or wouldn't be; but if there is I'd brew more and pod less.

My intuition, which I do not find reliable for closing issues but sometimes opens good ones, is that brewed might be better. If there's a study I could close the issue one way or the other. Do you have evidence one way or the other?

3Lumifer
I still don't understand why do you think they are different. You take the same ground coffee, you put some into a filter in a brewing basket and you get "brewed" coffee, you put some into a sealed foiled container which will get punctured by a coffee machine and you get "pod" coffee. I could understand a question about the difference between brewed coffee and espresso since in that case the extraction process is different, but for Keurig pods I can see no reason for a difference to exist.
Ixiel40

Has anybody seen a good study on the health benefits of brewed versus pod based coffee?

My GP and I agree intuitively it seems brewed should be better but neither of us knew of an actual study (though to be fair my Google fu is very weak and she hadn't researched and came up wanting, just didn't have one on the top of her head)

3Lumifer
By "pod" do you mean the Keurig/Nespresso things? Why would there be any difference? it's just a matter of packaging.
Ixiel20

Just one point of data: I kept a spreadsheet when I lost 59 pounds in 96 days. I had values for my personal base burn as a function of current weight and per task (usually a rower and hiking), and a daily deficit of 2000 calories correlated fairly well with a daily loss of .55 pounds (in round numbers; I don't want to sound like the proverbial economist with a sense of humor. I also went over some and under some, used nutritional labels and activity estimates that rounded to the nearest 10, &c.)

I was not scientifically rigorous so grain of salt, b... (read more)

1moridinamael
This is a good point. While "calories in != calories out" within a broad range of caloric inputs, because humans have some built-in ability to absorb fluctuations in food intake centered around each person's metabolic setpoints, you can definitely get some play at the extrema of the caloric intake/expenditure axis. In the opposite direction from your example, if someone has a hard time gaining weight, they may find that eating 3000 cal/day has no effect but eating a carefully measured 6000 cal/day definitely moves the needle upward. The problem in general is that maintaining a caloric deficit of 2000 cal/day for weeks is going to be impossible to achieve for most people, and likewise maintaining a caloric excess of thousands of calories per day is a full-time job (ask any bodybuilder).
0Lumifer
Nope, green eggs :-P
Ixiel-10

Yeah, that's a good tool if you have it. Of course, I would still have to convince the spokesman. Though I'm not trying to sell that the aliens and gods made the moon out of green cheese so it's not too hard there.

Ixiel00

That's a good point; sorry for the ambiguity.

I believe my point to be correct and want myself and my interlocutor to agree on the correct answer. Therefore I want both: If we both reach a truth that is not my prior belief, that's a win, and if I get my interlocutor to agree with a true point that's a win. If I'm right and fail to get agreement that is a loss, and if I am wrong and get agreement, that is a greater loss.

So basically: I'm greedy. Answers to both questions please :)

Ixiel20

This is exactly the kind of thing I meant. Thank you for the reply!

Ixiel00

You're quite right of course. I'll probably do both, point out the invalid argument AND have a rock solid argument of my own. Thank you for your input.

Ixiel00

Yeah, for want of a specific book counter that's what I figured. But I figured if there WERE a book method to bypass that this is the community that would know, and it'd be worth knowing. Thanks anyway.

0g_pepper
The standard "book counter" would be to point out that the objection is a fallacious argumentum ad hominem. However, unless you are in a formal or quasi-formal debate situation or addressing an academic audience, Lumifer's suggested approach is preferable, IMO. ETA: I wonder why this was downvoted; it seems like a non-controversial comment that is relevant to the topic.
Ixiel00

Yeah, we have "Code Blue Saratoga" in the winter (branding, nothing to do with respiration) to provide extra shelter to the homeless when it gets below a certain temperature, so temperature is a factor.

It's actually quite a bit overfunded (charity, not taxes). I really hope it moves into some other ways to serve the people it's there to serve, even if not exactly in the way intended. I don't expect a "Red Cross didn't give my disaster relief check to the right disaster!" outcry here. Food is pretty much at equilibrium, but there might be some comfort items possible.

Ixiel00

Yup. And being at K&C for most of my life, any windfalls get passed forward, so I'm not competing with anyone for those going forward. But not especially helpful in replication.

Oops. Hit a one way button. Will just use edit to rewrite next time But now I know what "retract" does :)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
Ixiel60

Overcoming Eager Evidence

Does anyone know any good way to make a point that one believes is true on its own merits but clearly benefits the speaker or is easier for the speaker?

Suppose a poor person is saying we should all give more money to poor people, are there ways to mitigate the effect of “You're only saying that to benefit yourself” beyond either finding someone else without that perceived (and likely actual, but maybe less than perceived) bias or just taking the hit and having a strong enough case to overwhelm that factor?

0Tem42
From the rhetorical side, you can sometimes gain an edge by starting with a leading question or with stating a problem. "I recently found myself in the unusual position of having some money to spare; so I asked myself, where can this money do the most good?" Your audience may have any number of answers, but you've started by framing the matter in a favorable way (not "can I spare the money", but "when I have money to spare", and not "talking about economics" but "talking about morality"). This has the added advantage (or disadvantage) of encouraging alternate solutions... Someone in your audience might make a good argument for AI research, perhaps even convincing you to change your mind :-) This should be applicable to most arguments: riding bikes ("When we're looking for ways to be more healthy..."); veganism ("If we are looking for ways to reduce our ecological impact..."); protectionism ("How can we keep Americans in their current jobs?"). Sliding just a bit more to the dark side, try stating another possibility, preferably one that you suspect that your audience has already heard of and is suspicious of, and then giving good reasons against it. Of course, this requires that you know your audience well enough.
1WalterL
Find a spokesperson.
1ChristianKl
There are two ways to read "good way". The first is norm of rational discussion. In those norms people who make statements where they have conflicts of interests disclose those conflicts of interests. The second way to read "good" is to look at persuasive power. There are various rhetorical stratagies to use to be more persuasive.
0James_Miller
"This is in my self-interest, I honestly admit that, but trust me it's still true."
4Fluttershy
I've noticed that my System 1 automatically discounts arguments made for points that benefit the speaker even more when the speaker sounds either prideful, or like they're trying to grab status that isn't due to them, than when the speaker sounds humble. I've also noticed that my System 1 has stopped liking the idea of donating to certain areas of EA quite as much after people who exclusively champion those causes have somehow been abrasive during a conversation I've listened to.
4Lumifer
Well, provide enough evidence/arguments so that the point stands on its own merit. The general stance is "I'm not asking you to trust me, look at the evidence yourself".
Ixiel00

Hmm, that's interesting data, thanks. None of that is true in my nearest city but that in no way proves it's not the norm. If a person is actually mentally incompetent you're probably quite right, and organized crime could be a wrench in a lot of systems if it's organized enough.

Though maybe economics should - if you'll forgive the allusion - remove the log from its own eye first, and maybe then if it has any spare juice move on to solving health care problems and law enforcement problems. I haven't given this enough thought to be sure about it, but it's a thought.

0Viliam
This probably depends a lot on local laws. Essentially, what does the law say about people who are so insane they are unable to handle the basic economical tasks, but who refuse to be institutionalized. In some countries, the consent is not required, insane people are institutionalized against their will. They are removed from the streets, and average people don't see them anymore. This was e.g. the situation in my country during communism. In some countries, as long as the person is not clearly dangerous to themselves or to others (i.e. not agressive nor suicidal), they have a right to refuse institutionalization, which usually means they will leech off their relatives, and then end up begging on the streets. Sometimes they starve or freeze to death, but the idea is that if they choose this way of life, they have a right to do so. This is e.g. the situation in my country now. Some countries may allow them the freedom to do what they want, and provide for them enough free food and free accomodation, so they will neither starve nor freeze. But that requires money and organized help in every city. Not sure if there is a place where this system works well. It's probably easier in places where freezing isn't a big risk for geographical reasons.
Ixiel20

Oh I'm not worried. I was just saying I had assumed that it was that and missed the signal for the noise and might have picked up that I was making a mistake earlier if I hadn't. Though when "Thanks for your help" gets downvoted... maybe it's not zero effect :)

It's like when I waited tables. I don't think I'm alone here, but when I got a bad tip, as long as I didn't pour coffee on the customer's lap, there was only one reason for a bad tip. The customer was a cheap bastard of course. Might be why I never stopped being a very bad waiter until I stopped being a waiter :)

Ixiel20

I hadn't thought of that, good point. It still rings of the best example I have, but maybe not by as much. I have zero experience with actual people dying on actual streets so I use what I've got.

Yeah, I hope if experiments are done they're done well. A half-baked experiment could easily do more harm than good.

Ixiel00

Thanks again In; this definitely answers a question about which I was curious.

Ixiel20

Why do you think so? What I've seen from GiveDirectly and the conversations I've had with poor people don't bear this out. I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have factual support for this I could see?

0[anonymous]
Are you talking about poor people, or the fellow dying in the street. There's a difference.
8gwern
GiveDirectly and the direct transfer RCTs in Africa/Third World countries don't answer the question about First World poverty because almost everyone, including the industrious and drug-free and high functioning people, in those countries is dirt-poor; in the First World, there is a much stronger correlation of pathology and poverty. To give an example, the direct transfers in Africa work because people there really are in poverty traps where $100 can make a big difference in letting them buy a cow or a motorcycle, and this is why the direct transfer RCTs show benefits; no one in America will show big benefits from a few transfers of $100 because poor people there have problems which can't be solved by some cash. The upcoming YC-funded experiment will help test the generalizability of basic income results, and the original American experiments decades ago suggest that a basic income wouldn't cause lots of self-destructive behavior (or at least, wouldn't make things noticeably worse), but on the other hand, the natural experiments of lotteries in the USA and elsewhere like Sweden show minimal benefits to random shocks of wealth (which could've been invested for income). So I wouldn't be totally pessimistic, but I also wouldn't be surprised if BI experiments in the USA do worse than one would predict from the earlier GiveDirectly results.
Ixiel40

Amen, and amen, and amen. I agree with everything you say here and consider none of it refutation.

Fresh eyes: I fell into a trap here. "Because I plan on doing some more serious campaigning for a more aggressive GBI (among other things) " was poorly phrased, and I fell into a pattern of defending it. I focused there because it seemed the nearest point of contact to this community. My intent was largely to dodge answering questions about my actual thesis because I'm not public with it yet.

In doing so, I sound like a bad parrot of all the o... (read more)

2Viliam
Don't worry much about the downvotes; we have a local village idiot who automatically downvotes every single comment made by anyone whom he suspects of left-wing opinions -- I guess you were just added to his list. (He got already banned for this, but he just makes another account, and the tech support is too busy to deal with him effectively. Sigh. Long story I don't want to start here, it's just the explanation that seemed most likely to me at the moment.)
Ixiel30

Just genetic lottery. My family owns a chain of convenience stores in upstate NY, and after some time in banking I decided I'd prefer not to work any more. I am writing a book, but I don't feel comfortable calling myself an author until I publish it.

I'm comfortable talking about it as long as I don't feel like I'm being perceived as bragging about something over which I have no control (which is stupid, and which I see in other people all the time)

1Viliam
I guess the important question for most of us is: "Is that something I could try to replicate?" Obviously no, unless your family is planning to adopt some LessWrongers. :D Still, we can hope that your experiences will be useful for our children one day.
Ixiel30

1a. I don't think that follows. I'm not saying people should work according to their ability, but that on the whole, the output humanity will have anyway will run the world. As time goes by, we can and have gotten more inequality, and by some measure I saw once (citation needed, but I'm preparing to host a party soon. Delaying not deferring) the achievements of some group of say 100 people have done more than the rest of the world put together. I do not think most of them were in it to keep body and soul together, but more research is needed.

1b. Mo... (read more)

0[anonymous]
A basic income won't help here. The lazy fellow dying in the streets will squander the money you give him on booze and drugs and then still be dying in the streets. Original thread here.
2entirelyuseless
"The output humanity will have anyway will run the world." In the first place, at least some people would stop working. That would mean that less goods would be produced. That would mean that the price of goods would increase. If it increased too much, then the quantity established as a "basic income" would no longer be enough to support people. Then if you wanted to maintain the system, you would have to increase the amount of the basic income, and a cycle would ensue. It is not clear where that cycle would end. It is possible it would end with enough people working to support everyone else. It is also possible that it would not, in which case money would become worthless, and each person would either survive on his own work, or die. I do not think it is a good idea to simply assume that the first thing will happen. I agree with Lumifer that, to a first approximation, no one in America or Europe today dies of starvation because they are lazy. I would be surprised if anyone can find even a single example of this happening. But part of the reason for this is the existence of social incentives that move many lazy people to work anyway. If you take away those incentives, there is no guarantee that lazy people will not actually die.
1Lumifer
Sure, but at which level? Hunter-gatherer societies have no "jobs" and "run the world" (or at least used to) -- would you like to go live in one? First, no one in America will die of starvation because of unwillingness to work. Right here, right now, no one. Second, I don't see the need for the black-and-white approach: GBI or nothing. There are nuances and incentives matter. How about medical care? In any case, if you want to discuss the issue it would help to get specific. For example, your main point is that GBI would be great. So specify how large ($/year) and what does "great" mean (what are you going to measure and what you will be willing to trade off for that).
Ixiel20
  1. Well I have a much longer argument for this in the book, but I propose that the amount of work people will do because they want to is more than enough to run society. 40h per person per week (ish) is, in my view, largely makework.

  2. Of course.
    The markets have a major confound, imo, in the form of pro-job policy. I believe, and I have some support for this but not enough to prove the point yet, that if "jobs creation" did not occur as a political activity, the market would normalize below the level people would produce without, again using the provocative language descriptively not manipulatively, the lingering threat of dying of want.

0Lumifer
That's classic Communist utopia straight out of Karl Marx. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Why do you believe this to be true? Another question, related to the role of the markets as conduits of information, is why do you think the work people will do is the work that other people need? As a first-order approximation I would expect that you won't have any problems having your portrait painted, but your clogged toilet will stay clogged for a long time. First, that's not self-evident. Job creation policies mostly reallocate labour (from productive use to less productive). Getting rid of make-work jobs, in the absence of other regulations, will just free up these people to be employed in other areas where their talents can be utilized better. The net effect would be higher productivity but not necessarily a lower level of employment. Besides, do you want this "below the level"? You interpret this a lots of leisure. I interpret this as a poor society.
Ixiel40

Because I plan on doing some more serious campaigning for a more aggressive GBI (among other things) than what a lot of people advocate. I plan on making the case that there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone deciding to just live off the dole and not work, and that people who choose that are often more in the way of people making progress than helping them when they show up to clock hours. I also plan to assert that people who don't have to work, effectively on penalty of death if I want to sound dramatic, will have a better wheat/chaff ratio for ... (read more)

4Lumifer
Within which framework? From an individual point of view, sure. From the point of view of the society, not so much -- someone has to produce value which this person will consume. Arguing that it's psychologically healthy to not work isn't a relevant argument here. You know that the primary function of the markets is provide incentives for wheat and disincentives for chaff, right? They perform this function quite well. You will argue that without the guiding prod of the market people will produce more of better stuff all by themselves?
Ixiel00

Thanks for that Vil. I accept these benefits, and agree that there might be a better way, but it's always good to know what issues are likely to occur to one.

Ixiel30

Thanks for that Walter. I feel like I have a sense of this phenomenon (I retired at 33 and was expecting to be WAY more bored and less satisfied than I am), and am very interested in a full study (I haven't found it; any of y'all run psychological studies for money?), but I hear more stories like yours than the alternative.

Were you looking for employment, or were you on the fence between retirement and a break? Knowing you have to go back eventually might be a factor.

7gjm
Apologies for the digression and please feel free not to answer, but I'm curious: How were you able to retire at 33? Successful startup? Family money? Working in finance plus reasonable frugality?
0WalterL
Initially I thought I'd take a few months, veg out, etc. After I lived that way for a while though I became interested in getting a new job again. Took a couple weeks from deciding to work again to getting the job. So, sort of both? Started out with no strong opinions on work again vs. not, migrated to looking for job.
3Lumifer
Why are you interested in a study? Studies typically tell you about the averages and in many cases the averages are not what you need. In some cases, they are, actually, what no one needs. Some people fall apart without externally imposed structure, but some people thrive in the absence of constraints. The latter are often called "self-directed" or "self-motivated" or some other term like that. Both types exist, not to mention the intermediate cases, of course.
Ixiel00

Yeah, even scrolling up to my own comment, referring to NY as a "mostly rural state" only works since in most cases with which I interact, the NYC residents don't count as TRUE Scottsmen... ;)

Edit to comment on link also: Wow, that is definitely NOT the data I remember. Older, but still. Thanks for that. It all started in a stockholders' meeting for my family's business (employing 2500-7500 people largely in what this report calls the capital district depending how you count) so motivation for bad data is not hard to identify. This year's meeting is in a few weeks and I'll definitely be bringing this up. Thanks as usual.

Ixiel20

I suppose that makes sense. Still raises my heart rate when I hear it, but that's my problem not the speaker's, and I'll defer to people with more experience on propriety.

Ixiel10

Mentally challenged person. I wonder if it's considered less offensive among people who use etymologically similar words, like firemen (flame retardant) or biologists (to retard growth.)

Like for me, "faggot" is not in my calling-people-it vocabulary - AT ALL; I know like five gay people, all of whom cool, one of whom my uncle, and of none of whom am I afraid, so please don't think I'm homophobic - but in hearing others' reactions it seems to be more offensive to people who collect less firewood. If the 'n' word were also a day to day common noun, I wonder if I would be more okay using it demonstratively even with such an evil history.

1Lumifer
It's less offensive among those who actually work with retarded people :-/ "Mentally challenged" type of insults seem to have their own cycles of use. Words like "idiot", "imbecile", or "cretin" used to be a clinical diagnosis, then stopped being medical terms, and nowadays are considered to if not mild then non-horrible.
Ixiel20

Update: Gov's office didn't dig up the study. On facts in evidence, including a closer look at whatall is included in Manhattan, my most plausible explanation is that the study results were not what I remember, whether that was misdirection or misremembering. Even though I could see a case for the tax draws being even bigger, it doesn't overcome the prima facie implausibility.

Thanks for the update; "it ain't what you don't know but what you know that ain't so that kills ya," as I've seen attributed to Twain (but every quote has been attributed to Twain so grain of salt)

1Lumifer
One more possible explanation. NY state is not the most coherent organization and I've seen sets of statistics for NY counties that just did not include NYC boroughs. Evidently, even though they are counties, they are considered a special enough case to just ignore them on occasion. So maybe your study just said in a small footnote somewhere "Oh, we'll pretend NYC does not exist". By the way, you might find this report interesting.
Ixiel10

It's somewhere a little below the 'n' word or the 'r' word, but above "douchebag" or "liberal." As one might imagine, it doesn't come up much. And again, I was commenting on how it feels from the inside, not on how it looks to the audience.

0Lumifer
The rankings of insults in subcultures is a fascinating topic :-) What's the "r" word, redneck?
Ixiel-10

I see similarities, but the differences are useful too. Thanks for the reply.

I've self-identified as three of those things as the same person (retired, housewife, and independently wealthy ("trust fund kid" feels like I'd imagine the 'n' word feels to a black man or "faggot" to a gay one. Pretty unoffendable myself, but just fyi) )as full disclosure.

If I find the study I want, I'll let you know. Thanks for the help!

0Lumifer
So, them's fighting words in your neck of the woods? Does uttering them dramatically raise the probability of someone being punched in the face in the immediate future? or gasp! not being invited to the next bbq?
Ixiel20

Oh? I was thinking of a study I saw and lost, but differences in benefits to those groups sound fascinating to me also. I would not have guessed the answer to be all that different, again net of pay. I won't ask you to run me a free study (but if you want to... ;) ) but do you have any basic ideas on the matter philosophically?

2Lumifer
A study requires data which I neither have nor can easily get :-/ Handwaving my guesses about job benefits... * Housewives: more growth and development (capabilities, self-respect, etc.), less reliance on the breadwinner, larger social circles, a chance to achieve something notable. * Trust fund kids: similar to housewives but without the reliance issue. Also, a lesser chance to spend your life being a nobody doing nothing, * Welfare recipients: potential to climb out of the poverty pit, breaking dependence habits, reintegration into productive society, etc. * Retired people: less boredom and social isolation, a potentially meaningful way to spend your time, a (limited) purpose to get out of bed each morning and make oneself presentable.
Load More