Why is hostile low-quality resurrection almost inevitable? If you want to clone someone into an em, why not pick a living human?

Frozen people have potential brain damage and an outdated understanding of the world.

"By manipulating your belief system, you can lessen your inhibitions, by lowering the perceived threat of less control."

I don't follow this sentence

So I might read “trust the universe” and get closer to a flow state, or forget exactly what I meant by that.

Yes, this is the problem when signifiers detach from the signified. In my post on personal heuristics I mention something similar: the issue where many "stock wisdoms" turn into detached platitudes.

This is also reminiscent of spiritual practices (like meditation instructions) that turn into religious dogma.

For me, there's a difference between having techniques that are dependent on reminders (like telling yourself "trust the universe"), and techniques that are more descriptive (like "take slow belly-breaths with long exhales" or "act upon your immediate impulses")

This is an enormous topic that is under-theorized, agreed that language is somewhat lacking.

When I'm very in tune with my short-term desires, emotions and agency - acting according to instinct and impulse rather than ideas, plans or similar.

It's a mindset/state of being I can go into, which has a very particular "flavour" to it, it's light-hearted, unconcerned & in tune with what I want/like, in the moment.

I guess different people have different "modes" or "headspaces", a kind of equilibria for how they experience the world, their own agency, and themselves. Different equilibria fit different situations. What I wanted to exemplify in the post was the potential of knowing what "modes", "equilibrias" or "headspaces" you have access to, and try switching into non-standard ones when your default headspace doesn't resolve the situation at hand.

If we want to shift group dynamics, I see these things as important shifts:

• conflict theory -> mistake theory
• general complaints -> specific solutions
• overconfidence -> humility

One way to go about this, inspired by Scott Alexander, is to ask for more concreteness: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/details-that-you-should-include-in

In general, though, I think the info content of the outrage is low. For most people, it mainly means "I read this thing online, and it resonated somehow". I see most outrage group discussions as extensions of newsfeeds, best to be ignored.

For solid discussions, find the people capable of deep analysis, and read their work.

Do you mean "alert and active" as in:

• Dealing with group-outrage situations without zoning out?
• Staying up to date with politics and having an influence?
• Shifting your social contexts to become less outrage-oriented?
• Other?

This happened a while ago, and I've since migrated my social circles to distinctly non-partisan ones. I still want to help you, and would like to offer some ideas. Some of them might not fit your specific contexts. I trust you to pick the ones that seem promising.

Ideas:

• Say something akin to "I get depressed talking about those people. I've decided to focus on people I like instead. Have you been excited about anything recently?"
• Bring up the negative consequences explicitly. In a highly polarized state, not engaging in the outrage might be interpreted as a sign of betrayal. Explicitly bringing it up might be weird, but it gives you a non-traitor reason for not engaging in outrage
• Look into authentic relating - a bunch of practices for deepening communication & connection. Nonviolent communication & circling are included in this category, as well as general "authentic relating". You get some new tools for relating, and/or new friends.
• Try to get people to reduce time spent on news & social media. Phone-free family gatherings?
• Get people addicted to mobile games, so they spend their time on candy crush instead of culture wars
• Become a hermit, build a log house under an oversized rock

For reference, most of the people I hang out with are involved in the nordic branches of the wider burning man community. They are busy actually doing things, rather than complaining about politics. YMMV, but equivalent spaces where you're located might serve as a source of non-bitter connections.

See my response to mako yass :)

The article is party written from a past-me perspective, and I agree that it is a bit harsh. Also, there are multiple things converging to create an expectation mismatch.

I guess it's possible to say both things, and I failed at disambiguating between the content of what was said and the tone. Most people looked at me like I was a beaten dog, offering support in the same ooh-that's-horrible tone people vibe into during charity galas.

I get that it might be a (sub)cultural thing, but I've gotten a lot of appreciation for actually trying to understand the person's situation. Guess vs ask culture maybe?

1. The medical opinion was that: "That's an inappropriate question". It works for dogs, so why not? :D

2. "No, we are going to split it up into millimetre sized cubes and analyse it". (They went full hitchhiker's on me.)

3. "Some people don't lose their hair" (empirically, the answer is "yes")