All of Michael Cohn's Comments + Replies

100% agree with the principle that buying peace of mind can be a good deal whether the peace of mind is quantitatively justified or not, and the broader principle that we shouldn't be disdainful of emotions. But while emotions aren't entirely rational, they're not entirely irrational either. I expect that learning and applying the method in this post will help the user feel peace of mind at a level of insurance that's somewhat closer to optimal than they would have otherwise. 

It's also probably useful to learn the quantiatively optimal strategy so you... (read more)

Maybe it's because I've read other posts like this, but I read it as expressing the unspoken assumptions of a particular group, not trying to get others to adopt them. That is, I took the scare quotes around "be reasonable" as actually self-effacing. I mean, it's obvious that the author does think these are good things, but the post came across to me as descriptive. If the post were written so as to imply that some people actively endorse the opposite of these things, eg, "pointless busywork is cool" then that would be obnoxious, but it seems worthwhile to... (read more)

Thanks, that clears up a lot for me! And it makes me think that the perspective you encourage has a lot of connections to other important habits of mind, like knowing how to question automatic thoughts and system 1 conclusions without beating yourself up for having them.

I'm a little surprised by how you view the subtext of the ice cream example. If I imagine myself in either role, I would not interpret Bryce as saying Ash shouldn't like ice cream in some very base sense. I interpret conversations like that as meaning either:

1) "You might have a desire for X but you shouldn't indulge that desire because it has net bad consequences" 

or

2) "If you knew all the negative things that X causes, it would spoil your enjoyment of it and you wouldn't be attracted to it anymore." 

or

3) "If you knew all the negative things tha... (read more)

If I look at depression as a way of acting / thinking / feeling, then it makes sense that there could be multiple paths to end up that way. Some people could have neurological issues that make it difficult to do otherwise, while others could have the capacity to act/think/feel differently but have settled there as their locally optimal strategy. 

The "horse tranquilizer" thing goes back to long before the pandemic. I was hearing it in the aughts in relation to recreational use. My guess about the term is that 1) among drug warriors, it's good moral panic fodder, 2) among drug users, it sounds really funny, and 3) I imagine it's easier to divert doses from the veterinary system than from the human pharmacy system, so it may have originated with dealers whose supply literally had the words "horse" and "tranquilizer" on the label. 

I know of at least one telehealth service that reportedly has a pretty low bar for writing a ketamine prescription. My understanding is that everyonesmd.com is fully legit and a month's supply of ketamine costs less than one dose from Mindbloom. Now, on the other hand, some people probably shouldn't turn themselves loose with a month's worth of a mind-altering drug to be used ad lib -- but if you have a promising regimen in mind, and the medical system isn't delivering, this could be a big deal.

(everyonesmd.com looks VERY sketchy but based on online review... (read more)

Another thought on this is that people often talk about smothering social norms or moralities by giving examples of petty, infantilizing rewards for behaving in infantilized ways. What about a libertarian-oriented society that enforces rules primarily intended to prevent people from restricting one another's behavior? What about an economic system that encourages entrepreneurship and invention by doing things like enforcing contracts, or providing a social safety net so that more people can start businesses or create products without worrying that they'll ... (read more)

This description does a good job of providing two kinds of evocative theme but I think it doesn't draw out the connections or distinctions that need to be clarified when people are interacting with is vs ought, or perhaps with cosmos vs. society. When describing everyday life as a physical object in the universe, I think a rock-bottom existentialism is obviously right: The universe does not owe you anything. God isn't going to punish your oppressors or reward you for being good, and God also isn't going to punish you if you get what you want by being arrog... (read more)

I didn't know much about this subject when I made the original post, because I was interested in handicapped parking as a design pattern rather than a specific topic, but it turns out that the ADA has a very clear answer: 2-4% of all spaces, with a minimum of 1 space. 

I don't know how they came up with that percentage or if there's any mechanism for updating it based on the prevalence of mobility limitations. Requirements are considerably higher for hospitals and rehab facilities, which does seem sensible.

This is a topic I'd like to learn more about s... (read more)

That makes sense, thanks. I should think more about cases where design for accessibility just generally makes something worse. You could shoehorn that into the handicapped parking paradigm but it's not really the best fit -- the challenge there isn't allocating a limited resource, though there probably is an underlying limitation in terms of budget or attention. Those are frustrating because usually you can imagine a thoughtful solution that would make everyone happy, but you can't count on it actually working out that way. 

I also don't think it's useful to try and learn much about pronouns qua pronouns social battles over them. Using the pronoun people ask you to use has become a proxy for all sorts of other tolerant/benevolent attitudes towards that person and the way they want to live their life, and to an even greater extent, refusing to do that is a proxy for thinking they should be ignored, or possibly reviled, or possibly killed. 

I don't think everyone proxies it that way -- I know there are some people who are just old-fashioned, or passionate about prescriptive ... (read more)

That's an amazing story, thanks for sharing! I would not have expected that outcome, and I hope the folks in charge take other lessons / hypotheses from it too. 

I agree that allocation is hard and in particular that if regulations overboard with trying to ensure that there will always be more handicapped spots than there are people who need them, there's a point at which adding spots becomes net negative. As for the point about injuries, you're right -- I wasn't thinking clearly there and it doesn't apply, at least not in the current US implementation of handicapped parking.

I couldn't bite through a plastic straw if I tried. I'd have to gnaw on it for quite a while. I don't think this is a crux or anything but if you are able to bite through a plastic straw, and the straws you get are the same as the ones I'm used to, then I'm impressed. 

From the tone of your text I feel like you're expressing disagreement, but as far as I can tell we're in agreement that not every accommodation is a win-win curb cut effect. I'm a lot more enthusiastic about the good outcomes of many accommodations than you are but I fervently agree that 1) sometimes there are negative tradeoffs and 2) it's harmful and dogmatic, not to mention infuriating, when people insist that this never happens or that negative consequences to non-users are unimportant. Am I missing someplace where my post dismisses the issues you're talking about?

I only know the very basics of design for screen readers so I'll stick to talking about your first example. I agree this isn't a case of the curb cut effect, because the curb cut effect by definition refers to an accommodation creating benefits for a broader set of people than it was originally intended for. Part of my goal was to make it clear that we can't always expect that to happen. If an accommodation makes life worse for non-users then it's at best what I'd call a handicapped parking effect, meaning that designers have to make a hard tradeoff. It's ... (read more)

I've only ever read a little bit about this but my understanding is:

1. Much of what you say is right, and braille signage is not a perfect and comprehensive solution to accessibility for all blind people, but
2. It's still useful because public spaces are designed with a lot of regularities that make it not-that-hard to predict where signage will be, especially given that
3. Many blind people are unbelievably good at exploring unfamiliar spaces, relative to what a sighted person might imagine. 

Good point that building for accessibility is often much cheaper than retrofitting for it! 

For every plastic straw alternative, I've read a harrowing explanation of why it's awful for some particular kind of person. eg, this article

But paper straws and similar biodegradable options often fall apart too quickly or are easy for people with limited jaw control to bite through. Silicone straws are often not flexible — one of the most important features for people with mobility challenges. Reusable straws need to be washed, which not all people with disabi

AFAIK all the major texting programs have far more volunteers than they need. It's such a great opportunity for people who live in areas without major canvassing operations (usually because everyone is disenfranchised by the electoral college), and it's so much less anxiety-inducing than door-knocking or phone calls. 

And I agree, by 2028 I'm sure it will be almost 100% bots. 

Thanks for sharing this! It sounds to me like the folks in the comments saying this doesn't track for them are thinking about the intellectual challenge aspect of sudoku. If I think of it in terms of mental energy / annoyance / tedium, it definitely matches my experience of depression. The way tasks become more and more fine-grained is especially resonant, and painful to even read about. 

Agreed that this always makes any kind of appreciation feel more meaningful to me. For that matter, I also think putting some detail or mechanistic thought into apologies is a good idea. If I've actually done something wrong then I think it's worth the effort to show the other person I understand what it was and have some idea about how to not do it again. And if I haven't done something wrong, then trying to express my reasoning should help me recognize that I'm apologizing for having needs / existing / "making" the other person help me. 

I agree that there are many cases where the two go very well together! It would have been good for me to go into that. Also agreed that there are a lot of ways you can add detail and specificity. 

I'm finding it funny to think about "my mistake" in this context -- in some subcultures (including rationalists, but also others) I think of saying "my mistake" as actually coming across as a self-confident, high status thing to do! At least, when you've obviously made a mistake and it's only a matter of acknowledging it. 

Hunger might cause cognitive and emotional regulation problems through the same general process as any other aversive experience, but for many people there's also a very specific physiological pathway going through low blood sugar. If this is a frequent problem, it might be worth investing in a continuous glucose monitor, or just trying to eat a very slow-carb diet (avoid most concentrated sources of carbs and eat lots of beans, or just increase protein, or just go full keto). Improving blood sugar regulation is life-changing for some people, even without any weight loss. 

I'll preface my comment by acknowledging that I'm not a regular LessWrong user and only marginally a member of the larger community (I followed your link here from Facebook). So, depending on your intended audience for this, my comments could be distinctively useful or unusually irrelevant. 

I'm terribly grateful for the context and nuance you offer here. The guidelines seem self-evidently sensible but what makes them work is the clarity about when it is and isn't worth tolerating extra energy and pain to follow them. A few notes that are almost entire... (read more)

Note to anyone reading that this post is from 2021 -- the SF group is not currently meeting!

Total restriction is tyranny – ruled by a despotic tomato, and forced to work like a robot.

I've heard some people describe the unnaturalness of the pomodoro method as a benefit. The reasoning is that if you take breaks when you feel like it, you're likely to do it 1) after completing a task and before starting the next one, or 2) when the task you're on becomes unusually unpleasant. This timing makes it more difficult / painful to get moving again after the break. If you instead take breaks when you're interrupted by a timer, there's an obvious point... (read more)

In terms of naming / identifying this, do you think it would help to distinguish what makes you want to double down on the current solution? I can think of at least 3 reasons: 

1. Not being aware that it's making things worse
2. Knowing that it made things worse, but feeling like giving up on that tactic would make things get even worse instead of better
3. Being committed to the tactic more than to the outcome (what pjeby described as "The Principle of the Thing") -- which could itself have multiple reasons, including emotionally-driven responses, duty-based rea

Weather reminder: It will be around 55F on Monday evening, so please dress warmly! And if you have an extra sweater or jacket on hand, consider bringing it to lend to a fellow attendee who finds themselves underdressed.