All of pjeby's Comments + Replies

More diplomatically: people are terrified of disapproval and will do anything to avoid feeling they deserve it, so if you must point out that something isn't working, try to do so in such a way that the easiest way for them to resolve their cognitive dissonance isn't "blow you off" or "get mad at you". i.e., find a way for them to "save face".

(As a lot of people associate being incorrect with being deserving of disapproval.)

More specifically, the issue is that the img srcset attribute contains unescaped commas, causing the URLs to be broken. Deleting the srcset attributes fixes the image, or replacing all the f_auto, q_auto bits in the srcset with f_auto%2cq_auto fixes it.

It looks like maybe this is a bug in LW's support for uploaded images?

3RomanS
At my first attempt to upload the images I just drag-and-dropped the image files to the post, without editing file names. But GPT4 saves the images with the file names like this: Perhaps LW internally is saving the original file names, causing the problems.  I reuploaded the images with the filenames like 1.png, perhaps it will help.

I expect business and sales people would mostly not feel similarly, though to be fair it's uncommon for business friendships/acquaintances to reach "best friend" or better status. The vibe of somebody putting you in a CRM to stay in touch without any direct/immediate monetary benefit is like, "oh, how thoughtful of you / props for being organized / I should really be doing that".

Anyway, the important question isn't how most people would feel, it's how one's desired friends in particular would feel. And many people might feel things like "honored this busy person with lots of friends wants to upgrade our friendship and is taking action to make sure it happens -- how awesome".

Answer by pjeby84

One of the reasons your question is challenging is that "fear of failure" is a phrase our brains use to stop thinking about the horrible thing they don't want to think about. "Failure" is an abstract label, but the specific thing you fear isn't the literal failure to accomplish your goal. It's some concrete circumstance the situation will resemble, along with some defined meaning of the failure.

This is easier to see if you consider how many things you do every day that involve failure to accomplish a goal and yet do not provoke the same kind of emotion. ... (read more)

Benevolence towards others flows out of shared values; unconditional regard others-in-general is unnatural.

Now there's a nice quotable quote. I don't think it's entirely accurate, unless people with certain kinds of lobe damage or meditation history count as "unnatural". (Which I suppose they could.) On the other hand, those people arguably have brains that define others as themselves, and thus having shared values with said ohters as a matter of course. (Or alternately, I suppose they have a very expansive definition of "shared values".)

But as a tr... (read more)

we don’t think that shutdown-seeking avoids every possible problem involved with reward misspecification

Seems like this is basically the alignment problem all over again, with the complexity just moved to "what does it mean to 'shut down' in the AI's inner model".

For example, if the inner-aligned goal is to prevent its own future operation, it might choose to say, start a nuclear war so nobody is around to start it back up, repair it, provide power, etc.

it doesn't have the kind of insight into its motives that we do

Wait, human beings have insight into their own motives that's better than GPTs have into theirs? When was the update released, and will it run on my brain? ;-)

Joking aside, though, I'd say the average person's insight into their own motives is most of the time not much better than that of a GPT, because it's usually generated in the same way: i.e. making up plausible stories.

What I was pointing out is that the barrier is asymmetrical: it's biased towards AIs with more-easily-aligned utility functions. A paperclipper is more likely to be able to create an improved paperclipper that it's certain enough will massively increase its utility, while a more human-aligned AI would have to be more conservative.

In other words, this paper seems to say, "if we can create human-aligned AI, it will be cautious about self-improvement, but dangerously unaligned AIs will probably have no issues."

The first and most obvious issue here is that an AI that "solves alignment" sufficiently well to not fear self-improvement is not the same as an AI that's actually aligned with humans. So there's actually no protection there at all.

In fact, the phenomenon described here seems to make it more likely that an unaligned AI will be fine with self-improving, because the simpler the utility function the easier time it has guaranteeing the alignment of the improved version!

Last, but far from least, self-improvement of the form "get faster and run on more processo... (read more)

3red75prime
If we are talking about a theoretical argmaxaE(U|a) AI, where E(U|a) (expectation of utility given the action a) somehow points to the external world, then sure. If we are talking about a real AI with aspiration to become the physical embodiment of the aforementioned theoretical concept (with the said aspiration somehow encoded outside of U, because U is simple), then things get more hairy.
5lukemarks
I disagree with your framing of the post. I do not think that this is wishful thinking.  It is not certain that upon deployment the first intelligence capable of RSI will be capable of solving alignment. Although this seems improbable in accordance with more classic takeoff scenarios (i.e. Yudkowsky's hard takeoff), the likelihood of those outcomes has been the subject of great debate. I feel as though someone could argue for the claim "it is more likely than not that there will be a period of time in which AI is capable of RSI but not of solving alignment". The arguments in this post seem to me quite compatible with e.g. Jacob Cannell's soft(er) takeoff model, or many of Paul Christiano's takeoff writings. Even with your model of solving alignment before or at the same time as RSI becomes feasible, I do not think that this holds well. As far as I can tell, the simplicity of the utility function a general intelligence could be imbued with doesn't obviously impact the difficulty of alignment. My intuition is that attempting to align an intelligence with a utility function dependent on 100 desiderata is probably not that much easier than trying to align an intelligence with a utility function dependent on 1000. Sure, it is likely more difficult, but is utility function complexity realistically anywhere near as large a hurdle as say robust delegation? This in my opinion is the strongest claim, and is in essence quite similar to this post, my response to which was "I question the probability of a glass-box transition of type "AGI RSIs toward non-DL architecture that results in it maximizing some utility function in a pre-DL manner" being more dangerous than simply "AGI RSIs". If behaving like an expected utility maximizer was optimal: would not AGI have done so without the architecture transition? If not, then you need to make the case for why glass-box architectures are better ways of building cognitive systems. I think that this argument is at odds with the univers
6Griffin Young
The argument in this post does provide a harder barrier to takeoff, though. In order to have dangers from a self-improving ai, you would have to first make an ai which could scale to uncontrollability using 'safe' scaling techniques relative to its reward function, where 'safe' is relative to its own ability to prove to itself that it's safe. (Or in the next round of self-improvements it considers 'safe' after the first round, and so on). Regardless I think self-improving ai is more likely to come from humans designing a self-improving ai, which might render this kind of motive argument moot. And anyway the ai might not be this uber-rational creature which has to prove to itself that it's self-improved version won't change its reward function--it might just try it anyway (like humans are doing now).

Nope - expression of feelings of friendship isn't part of the explicit structure of friendship either. Lots of people are friends without saying anything about it.

All I've really said here is that the difference between VCFWB and a "romantic" relationship is difficult to discern, especially from the outside, and given that the nature of "romance" is both internal and optional to the relationship. If a pair of VCFWB's stop having sex or hanging out or cuddling, it's hard to say they're still in a VCFWB relationship. But if people in a "romantic" relation... (read more)

I'm assuming "relationship" here means something like "the explicit structure and boundaries of behavior as agreed upon by the parties" - friends, friends with benefits, marriage, polycule etc. People's romantic feelings and expressions are rarely something that's part of a relationship's explicit structure, even if people often have a lot of implicit expectations about them. (And any of those named structures can include romantic feelings, or a lack thereof.)

1green_leaf
I understand. So, just to be sure I'm not misinterpreting, the expression of romantic feelings isn't a part of the explicit structure of the relationship, but the expression of the feelings of friendship is.

Direct quotes:

Which seems to give me just as much control[4] over the past as I have over the future.

And the footnote:

whatever I can do to make my world the one with FA in it, I can do to make my world the one with HA in it.

This is only trivially true in the sense of saying "whatever I can do to arrive at McDonalds, I can do to make my world the one where I walked in the direction of McDonalds". This is ordinary reality and nothing to be "bothered" by -- which obviates the original question's apparent presupposition that something weird is going o... (read more)

I'm not sure how much that rephrasing would change the rest of your answer

Well, it makes the confusion more obvious, because now it's clearer that HA/A and HB/B are complete balderdash. This will be apparent if you try to unpack exactly what the difference between them is, other than your choice. (Specifically, the algorithm used to compute your choice.)

Let's say I give you a read-only SD card containing some data. You will insert this card into a device that will run some algorithm and output "A" or "B". The data on the card will not change as a re... (read more)

1tslarm
This is hard to respond to, in part because I don't recognise my views in your descriptions of them, and most of what you wrote doesn't have a very obvious-to-me connection to what I wrote. I suspect you'll take this as further evidence of my confusion, but I think you must have misunderstood me. No I'm not. But I don't know how to clarify this, because I don't understand why you think I am. I do think we can narrow down a 'moment of decision' if we want to, meaning e.g. the point in time where the agent becomes conscious of which action they will take, or when something that looks to us like a point of no return is reached. But obviously the decision process is a process, and I don't get why you think I don't understand or have failed to account for this. I'm fully aware of that; as far as I know it's an accurate description of every version of compatibilism, not just 'LW compatibilism'. How is 'revealing something about the past' retrocausal? There is a difference: the meaning of the words 'free will', or in other words the content of the concept 'free will'. From one angle it's pure semantics, sure -- but it's not completely boring and pointless, because we're not in a situation where we all have the exact same set of concepts and are just arguing about which labels to apply to them. This and other passages make me think you're still interpreting me as saying that the two possible choices 'exist' in reality somewhere, as something other than ideas in brains. But I'm not. They exist in a) my description of two versions of reality that hypothetically (and mutually exclusively) could exist, and b) the thoughts of the chooser, to whom they feel like open possibilities until the choice process is complete. At the beginning of my scenario description I stipulated determinism, so what else could I mean? Even with the context of the rest of your comment, I don't understand what you mean by 'HA/A and HB/B are complete balderdash'. If there's something incoherent or

The confusion is resolved if you realize that both A and B here are mental simulations. When you observe the ball moving, it allows you to discard some of your simulations, but this doesn't affect the past or future, which already were whatever they were.

To view the ball as affecting the past is to confuse the territory (which already was in some definite state) with your map (which was in a state of uncertainty re: the territory).

Answer by pjeby3-4

It seems to me that your confusion is contending there are two past/present states (HA+A / HB+B) when in fact reality is simply H -> S -> C. There is one history, one state, and one choice that you will end up making. The idea that there is a HA and HB and so on is wrong, since that history H has already happened and produced state S.

Further, C is simply the output of your decision algorithm, which result we don't know until the algorithm is run. Your choice could perhaps be said to reveal something previously not known about H and S, but it doesn... (read more)

1tslarm
I guess I invited this interpretation with the phrasing "there are two relevantly-different states of the world I could be in". But what I meant could be rephrased as "either the propositions 'HA happened, A is the current state, I will choose CA, FA will happen' are all true, or the propositions 'HB happened, B is the current state, I will choose CB, FB will happen' are all true; the ones that aren't all true are all false". I'm not sure how much that rephrasing would change the rest of your answer, so I won't spend too much time trying to engage with it until you tell me, but broadly I'm not sure whether you are defending compatibilism or hard determinism. (From context I was expecting the former, but from the text itself I'm not so sure.)

I've been married just under 27 years now, and ooey gooeyness has been on a long slow uptrend, so I don't think that irrationality, drama, or short-livedness have anything to do with it. We were together for five years before that, and I asked her to marry me because at some point it became obvious that I couldn't see spending the rest of my life without her.

Granted, the first year or two of knowing each other was rather turbulent, but during that time I mostly didn't see her as The One or really even very Significant. That was something that took time, ... (read more)

I'm not aro and I 100% agree with the suggestion to taboo the concept of "romantic" (as attached to the word "relationship", other than as a shorthand for "relationship where both parties experience romantic feelings"). Properly reduced, the things described as love and romance are experiences internal to individuals rather than a property of relationships. (Otherwise unrequited love would not be a thing.)

AFAICT, the thing that distinguishes very-close-friends-with-benefits is the ooey gooey feeling that one's Other is very Significant, and that one woul... (read more)

1green_leaf
That sounds like you named two differences between a non-romantic relationship and a romantic one?
2Going Durden
In that regard, should we assume that the missing component that makes love "romantic" or "limeric" is irrationality? My instinct is that if someone has a gooey, excessive feeling that the other is Significant it counts as romantic, but if one had a rational, evidence based belief that the other is Significant, it would not be considered romantic enough, even if the feeling of emotional bond would be much more resilient in the second example. To use a more concrete example: 1. Bill meets Alice and falls madly in love with her. He does irrational, excessively symbolic and juvenile things to impress her. They break up anyway after a turbulent 3 months. Their Love is Romantic. 2. Frank meets Jane on a professional dating app, and they see with perfect clarity that their values, ideologies, libidos, tastes and lifestyles are perfectly aligned. They marry and spent 57 years together in an easy bliss, until they die. Their relationship would not be qualified as romantic, even though it generated more happiness and a stronger bond. Therefore, I would suggest that the important component of romance are: irrationality, excessiveness, emotional risk and playing against bad statistical odds. In other words, drama.

Thiseems a bit overkill when there are such things as bookmarks and pinning sites to your home page. Also if you have a bookmark manager app you can just make that your home page.

"many people believe that they can control others when they can't"

It seems like you read a very different article than what I wrote. Per the abstract:

The Curse of the Counterfactual is a side-effect of the way our brains process is-ought distinctions. It causes our brains to compare our past, present, and future to various counterfactual imaginings, and then blame and punish ourselves for the difference between reality, and whatever we just made up to replace it.

I do not understand how you got from this abstract to your summary - they seem utterly ... (read more)

In my mind the difference is that "for signalling purposes" contains an aspect of a voluntary decision (and thus blame-worthiness for the consequences),

I was attributing the purpose to our brain/genes, not our selves. i.e., the ability to have such moods is a hardwired adaptation to support (sincere-and-not-consciously-planned) social signaling.

It's not entirely divorced from consciousness, though, since you can realize you're doing it and convince the machinery that it's no longer of any benefit to keep doing it in response to a given trigger.

So it's ... (read more)

1Mart_Korz
This time, I agree fully :)

That's not really therapeutic, except maybe insofar as it produces a more rewarding high than doing it by yourself. (Which is not really a benefit in terms of the overall system.)

To the extent it's useful, it's the part where evidence is provided that other people can know them and not be disgusted by whatever their perceived flaws are. But as per the problem of trapped priors, this doesn't always cause people to update, so individual results are not guaranteed.

The thing that actually fixes it is updates on one's rules regarding what forms, evidence, or ... (read more)

Most long-lasting negative emotions and moods exist solely for social signaling purposes, without any direct benefit to the one experiencing them. (Even when it's in private with nobody else around.)

Feeling these emotions is reinforcing (in the learning sense), such that it can be vastly more immediately rewarding (in the dopamine/motivation sense) to stew in a funk criticizing one's self, than ever actually doing anything.

And an awful lot of chronic akrasia is just the above: huffing self-signaling fumes that say "I can't" or "I have to" or "I suck".

This... (read more)

2Mart_Korz
I think there is a lot of truth to this, but I do not quite agree. feels a bit off to me. I think I would agree with an alternate version "most long-lasting negative emotions and moods are caused by our social cognition" (I am not perfectly happy with this formulation).  In my mind the difference is that "for signalling purposes" contains an aspect of a voluntary decision (and thus blame-worthiness for the consequences), whereas my model of this dynamic is closer to "humans are kind of hard-wired to seek high-calorie food which can lead to health problems if food is in abundance". I guess many rationalists are already sufficiently aware that much of human decision-making (necessarily) is barely conscious. But I think that especially when dealing with this topic of social cognition and self-image it is important to emphasize that some very painful failure modes are bundled with being human and that, while we should take agency in avoiding/overcoming them, we do not have the ability to choose our starting point. On a different note: This Ezra Klein Show interview with Rachel Aviv has impressive examples of how influential culture/memes can be for mental (and even physical) illnesses and also how difficult it is to culturally deal with this.
5lionhearted (Sebastian Marshall)
I had a personal experience that strongly suggests that this is at least partially true. I had a mountaineering trip in a remote location that went off the rails pretty badly — it was turning into a classical "how someone dies in the woods" story. There was a road closure some miles ahead of where I was supposed to drive, I hiked an extra 8 miles in, missed the correct trail, tried to take a shortcut, etc etc - it got ugly. I felt an almost complete lack of distress or self-pity the entire time. I was just very focused methodically on orienting around my maps and GPS and getting through the next point.  I was surprised at how little negative internal discourse or negative emotions I felt. So, n=1 here, but it was very informative for me.
2Viliam
This would explain the therapeutic effectiveness of being heard by other people, even (especially?) if they basically do nothing (e.g. Rogerian therapy). From the signalling perspective, "listening and repeating" is not a null action. It actually means a lot! It means that your thoughts / concerns / attempts to solve your problems are socially acceptable. As opposed to not having anyone to listen to you (without a dismissive reaction), which means that your thoughts / concerns / attempts to solve your problems are socially irrelevant or straight unacceptable.
1the gears to ascension
sucks when you've got this and also an illness
  • I want to get in shape
  • we decided to make the event cooler
  • it doesn’t yet seem good enough

Notice that all of these goals are either socially focused, or at least sufficiently abstract as to allow for that interpretation. And this is almost certainly where the trouble begins.

For example, if the desire to "get in shape" is fundamentally about signaling (far thinking), rather than specific, concrete benefits we'll get from it (near thinking), then we'll be primed to think about the options in far-mode signaling terms.

And in signaling terms, "work out at... (read more)

Has he tried over-the-counter stimulant supplements like tyrosine, PEA, or for that matter caffeine? The book The Mood Cure contains useful dosing and experimental guidelines for a very wide variety of easily available, non-prescription, mostly non-"drug" nutrients or herbal supplements that can have positive effects on concentration, productivity, creativity, and both physical and mental energy levels -- mostly with fewer and milder side-effects than prescription medications or controlled substances. The right supplementation can be life-changing on its own.

Other feature transfers:

  • If you like outlining, you probably also want the Outliner plugin, maybe the Zoom plugin, and to assign hotkeys for their various commands.
  • If you want to link/embed blocks, Copy Block Link, Block Reference Count, and others may be of interest

In general, searching the community plugins list for things related to blocks, outlines, and roam will find you potentially useful things.

You can fry eggs in the microwave. I use a disposable paper bowl, pour in a bit of oil (I use coconut), swirl it to coat the bottom and a bit of the sides (or use a cooking spray). Crack two eggs in, break yolks and puncture surface of the whites, then cover with folded paper towel, pop it in the microwave and hit "1". (Cooking time will vary by microwave, bowl size, etc. so you'll need to experiment.) Toss the bowl when you're done, and that's it for cleanup.

(Note: technically, the eggs are more being poached than fried, but the oil makes the taste and texture closer to fried eggs. There just won't be any browining.)

How can you read 2-3x faster than a person speaks (1x)?

From Wikipedia:

Subvocalization readers (Mental readers) generally read at approximately 250 words per minute, auditory readers at approximately 450 words per minute and visual readers at approximately 700 words per minute. Proficient readers are able to read 280–350 wpm without compromising comprehension.

Conversational speech is generally 100 to 180wpm, so even subvocalizing readers already have a leg up. "Proficient" readers by Wikipedia's definition are easily in the 2-3x range over this, and visual readers even more so.

Wait, what?

From Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial:

"Opponents of evidence-based medicine have frequently argued that no one would perform a randomized trial of parachute use. We have shown this argument to be flawed, having conclusively shown that it is possible to randomize participants to jumping from an aircraft with versus without parachutes (albeit under limited and specific scenarios)."

Read it and weep. (Or laugh, whichever helps you sleep better.)

I've never been to a professional. It's literally "press and hold". I have a few items I use (a Knobble and a BodyBackBuddy), but anything hard with a rounded end (like the size/shape of the rounded tip on a broom handle) will do in a pinch. I read in one trigger point book the best ways to use your hands to reduce giving yourself hand pain, but tools are even better. For some trigger points, a hard rubber ball, a flat surface, and your weight are the easiest way to do it.

Finding the points isn't terribly hard either -- you know when you've found one b... (read more)

Answer by pjeby101

Have you considered myofascial trigger points? For me, it's always myofascial trigger points.

Tooth sensitivity? Trigger points in jaw or neck. Headache? Probably neck. Finger tingly or numb? Trigger point in the chest, neck, or armpit. Ringing in the ears? Trigger point on the jaw or side of the face.

Every. Single. Freaking. Thing.

(Heck, the other day I had heartburn that turned out to be not directly related to a trigger point, but there were some trigger points involved.)

A trigger point is basically a "knot" in a muscle, that usually refers pa... (read more)

1CraigMichael
Do you find you're able to do this on your own, or do would you recommend a certain kind of massage specialist? I'm seeing some results of Google for myofascial release in my area. Does that sound right? And thank you! I have a lot more to try now.
6Maxwell Peterson
I like the trigger point idea. OP should note too that there are injection treatments for trigger points: https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/guide/trigger-point-injection
8ChristianKl
When fascia is in good health there's fluid flowing in them. Certain postures lead to the fascia having pressure on it in a way where fluid can't flow in them. Without fluid flow, fibrin gets formed which then makes the fascia hard and makes it stay in a state without much fluid flow.  The idea of trigger point massage is then a mix of breaking the fibrin and putting the fascia in a position where fluid flows through it by stretching it.  This description likely leaves out some of the involved mechanisms but I think stretches out a basic idea. I don't think that's the case, there are plenty of techniques that work effectively with fascia. It might even be that techniques that don't produce "ow ow ow" are more likely to produce lasting effects as they are more global and not just localized to one single spot. I think it's just that the "ow ow ow" techniques require less skill to apply. 

Yes. I'm also saying it's common for human beings to use absolutes as a means to disclaim responsibility for their own choices or motives while emotionally blackmailing others to do what they want. This has less to do with the absoluteness of the proposition, and more to do with the concealed message that "you deserve to feel bad about yourself if you don't comply with my (concealed/disclaimed) wishes".

I call this an "FBI message", i.e. "feel bad if". People tend to focus on the seemingly factual/reasonable part of a communication or idea like, "you fai... (read more)

I am not willing to say most people in human history across cultures were abused or damaged by this.

Neither am I, as I explained at great length in my previous reply. Not sure what that has to do with anything, though.

In the context I mentioned -- i.e. the context of a person who has motivation and decision-making problems, absolutes in one's upbringing remain a red flag that require investigation, since they're most likely a problem.

Perhaps the context isn't sufficiently clear? I'm saying here that if I'm working with somebody and they mention an abs... (read more)

1MSRayne
Okay. I think I finally understand. What you're saying is that you think the damage here comes from children internalizing negative ideas about themselves, which can happen in any mode of parenting, but in your experience always seems to crystallize around some ideal held as absolute which they feel they're not living up to, thus making them bad etc. So it's not absolutes themselves necessarily that are the problem, it's absolutes that make the child feel unworthy, and which thus, being absolute, are not modified or healed by experience but must be actively fought with therapeutic techniques.

They're the way all social mores are understood in most cultures

And that's precisely why they're so easily (and commonly) abused for deception and manipulation.

But the real issue is their being absolute, rather than things you can weigh and trade off (see e.g. your earlier mention of your mother's attitudes). Absolutes are thought-stoppers and give you no room to make your own judgments.

So in the context of being a functional, emotionally-free-to-choose adult, universals and absolutes are always a red flag worth checking. Anything that can be claimed ... (read more)

1MSRayne
My point is that "people should be able to come to their own conclusions rather than be taught absolutes" is a very WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) perspective to take. The standard position throughout most human history and cultures is "you agree with your elders because they know best", and this is an absolutist claim. I am not willing to say most people in human history across cultures were abused or damaged by this. The way you're saying this just doesn't parse to me. I don't understand how you can believe that a therapy aimed at imagining better parenting isn't implying something about what parenting is bad.

Knowing this doesn't help me resolve all the infinite variety of individual cases,

Man I wish it did. My life and work would be soooo much easier. But yeah, it definitely does not.

but it's very interesting to see that to a great extent it's about her failure to provide me with any kind of clarity and certainty about what was important, what was not, and how I ought to behave about important things.

Sort of? The only caveat here is that this phrasing implies there are absolutes, and IME whenever families deal in absolutes, it's as a form of deceptiv... (read more)

1MSRayne
I'm not sure that appeals to universal correctness are that big a deal though. They're the way all social mores are understood in most cultures: as morally obligatory for all members of the community, period. But people don't all have terrible childhoods in traditional cultures.

As I said, I can't really comment on the parenting aspect. My own perspective is strictly "use the behavior as a model to envision alternatives to fix fucked-up parenting" in the minds of people (like me) who had certain kinds of fucked up parenting.

(That this seems to produce good results does not really prove that doing those things would be good parenting, though, especially since human beings can fuck anything up if they really want to, and turn the most wonderful things into weapons of abuse with even just a little effort.)

I came across the CC at a p... (read more)

There is another model, wherein the problem is trigger points. Trigger points crop up when a muscle is under strain, and then they tend to stay that way. Trigger points, once created, constrict blood flow or impinge on nerves, creating all sorts of problems. (My dentist referred me to an oral surgeon twice for things that later turned out to be trigger points: my teeth had gotten sensitive after dental work, but it turned out that I developed trigger points from having my mouth open for hours during the procedure. Now I know where to massage my neck an... (read more)

would I be right in guessing that it's you who have been downvoting all my comments in this thread

I did not downvote all your comments in this thread -- a fact that should already have been known to you before you wrote this one, if you had examined the vote counts. (I downvoted only two of them in an effort to end discussion of a topic I find offensive and upsetting, but that effort proved pointless by the time of your third reply, so I gave up.)

you did imply that there was no reasonable way to interpret you as having said X

I did not imply that, y... (read more)

2gjm
Also very willing to end this disagreeable conversation here. I am not in the least "intentionally setting out to harass" you or anyone else. I do not intend to report the discussion to the moderators and request that the thread be removed. (I think that is a thing that should only be done when what's there is improper rather than merely disagreeable.) [EDITED to add:] I should also say explicitly: I do consider it possible that I may be mistaken, even though it looks unlikely to me (as alas it usually does to mistaken people) and -- though given your comments above you probably aren't reading this -- I should say for whatever obviously-slight value it has that, conditional on my in fact being mistaken, I apologize deeply for any distress this thread has caused you. (Conditional on my not being mistaken, I still regret any such distress but don't think apologizing is the right response.)

So, I wrote a post using word A, you took that to mean word B and said so (or rather, implied it).

Since I did not intend to imply B, I edited the post to reduce usage of word A.

You are now presenting this as evidence that I must therefore have meant to use word B all along.

[insert Picard facepalm and/or Jackie Chan WTF face meme here]

This seems utterly nonsensical to me, especially since if I had used or even meant word B, an important argument in my original comment would make no sense. (The one about 50% of the population -- which would obviously not ap... (read more)

2gjm
I am not presenting your editing as evidence that you must have meant B all along. When I say you're "now pretending you didn't" mean what I think you obviously always meant, I am not referring to that but to your explicit claims not to have meant that. I have considered the possibility that I might be mistaken. I think that if I were actually mistaken then you would have removed all your uses of the word "underage", not just two of the three. In fact, I think that if I were actually mistaken, you would never have used the word "underage" in the first place -- a word that in this sort of context is basically only used to mean what you are now denying ever having meant. I think there may be some residual unclarity about exactly what I think you were trying to do. I do not think you ever seriously believed that Matt was actually trying to say "I am attracted to underage girls". I think you probably never seriously believed that any reasonable person would read what he wrote and take it to mean that. I think you saw him using the word "girls" in an objectionable way (I reiterate that I agree with you that it's objectionable) and saw an opportunity to make him suffer for it by pretending to think that he was saying, or could credibly be taken as saying, that he is attracted specifically to underage girls, and thought something along the lines of "Ha! That'll show him the error of his ways". I am aware that you have repeatedly claimed not to have meant anything of the sort. (At least, I think you have; it is possible that what you're indignantly claiming not to have meant is not what I thought I was claiming you meant, and that we are talking past one another.) I am aware that I am accusing you of lying. I am aware that that is a serious accusation. But I do not see any possible circumstances in which someone who is not intending to say something like "ha, gotcha, you just said you are attracted specifically to underage girls" (again: not because you actually think th

It was always 100% clear to me what you meant. I said I was confused as to why you thought it was what I meant, since, you know, it wasn't. (And I even removed two instances of a relevant word from my comment in response to yours, to make it clear that wasn't what I meant.)

And when I said "don't enlighten me" (with a winky emoticon no less) it was a joke to lighten the part where I basically said, "please stop this line of discussion: I don't want to participate in it, not least because it has nothing to do with what I was talking about."

IOW, from my per... (read more)

2gjm
Noted. It seems to me that you brought exactly that subject into the conversation, deliberately, in your comments to Matt, and I am not quite sure why you're now apparently trying to pretend you didn't. I think "how could you possibly think I was saying X? by the way, please don't answer" is an extremely rude rhetorical move, since it accuses your interlocutor of being incompetent or dishonest while also making them out to be unkind if they respond to your accusation. (I did, as you presumably surmised, misread your feigned perplexity at how I could possibly have interpreted you to mean the exact thing you explicitly said three times, as feigned perplexity about what I meant. My apologies for that.)

I guess you wrote that not so much because you seriously think Matt is signalling a preference for the underage, or that others will think so, as because you hope that giving him a bit of a shock might help him avoid saying such creepy-sounding things. If so, then I think making that suggestion three times is really a bit much.

I grew up in a time where it was a frequent feminist talking point that adult women are not "girls", and thus "girls" were -- by implication -- not adults.

I have edited my comment, however, to use "immature" rather than hammering ... (read more)

0gjm
I agree that the use of "girls" to mean adult women is regrettable, but it is widespread enough that someone referring to "girls" in that sort of way is much more likely to mean a youngish adult woman than an underage literal-girl. The frequent feminists were not saying "everyone who uses the word 'girl' like that is actually talking about underage literal girls", they were saying "of course the people using the word 'girl' like that are mostly talking about young adult women, and they shouldn't do that because it's rudely infantilizing and doesn't take the personhood of those young adult women seriously". "You are treating adults like children and you should stop" is a very different criticism from "You are wanting to have sex with children". Since you asked not to be enlightened I shall refrain from doing so, but I will note that it seems to me that my meaning was pretty clear (and that the thing I meant was not so unreasonable that anyone should be pretending not to grasp it if in fact they did). My guess is that if it truly wasn't clear before, it might be clearer now. Of course it's not unusual for people to think their own meanings clearer than they actually are to others. [EDITED to add:] My apologies; the previous paragraph is based on a misreading of what I was replying to; somehow I took pjeby to be claiming not to understand what I was saying he said rather than claiming not to understand what made me think he said it; I am afraid I don't believe he doesn't understand, after he chose to use the word "underage" three times. (Two of them have now been changed to "immature", which makes the accusation less explicit but not much different in content.)

I felt that the only lesson I learned was that people I interact with are more politically correct than I realized. And they’ll look for ways to misinterpret a statement I meant literally.

Most people intuitively interpret statements non-literally, through a frame of "why is this person saying this?" If you make a statement like "hot girls excite me", a statement which most people by default would assume applies to any heterosexual male (not to mention a lot of women), then the default assumption is going to be that you mean something specific by it, be... (read more)

1UtilityMonster
  The above passage was my initial reaction to Jane's statement. I meant to express that I realized it was reasonable for someone not to take "Hot girls excite me!" as I find some women attractive over the next few paragraphs. I guess I may not have been clear enough. Also, I didn't mean to convey I preferred underage or immature women by using the term girls. And in reference to your other comment, I didn't mean to be impolite by the term girls either. I'll try to use the term women to refer to adult females in the future.
1gjm
I think all of this is basically right except that I personally don't at all get from his use of the word "girl" an implication that he's particularly interested in underage females; referring to youngish women (by which I mean, maybe, up to about 30?) as "girls" is, alas, very common, especially when the context is how attractive you find them, and suggesting that maybe Matt is signalling that he prefers underage women is inflammatory enough that it seems better avoided. I guess you wrote that not so much because you seriously think Matt is signalling a preference for the underage, or that others will think so, as because you hope that giving him a bit of a shock might help him avoid saying such creepy-sounding things. If so, then I think making that suggestion three times is really a bit much. (I do think it's pretty reasonable to take Matt as saying in part that he prefers younger women, but that's not the same as preferring underage women and in particular doesn't amount to suggesting that he's aiming to commit what in our society is one of the most viscerally hated of all crimes.)

one of the important elements of what I'm calling "orientation" is locating-the-thing-that-needs-admitting, in the space of all the possible things you might need to admit

True! Perhaps orientation should be that part in an orient-admit-grieve trifecta. It's certainly the longer part, anyway.

I mostly do orientation by asking what it is I least want to admit, most wish were not true, and/or am most afraid is true. Then admitting those things are true or at least that they might be or that I'm afraid they are or wish they weren't.

Also, per Curse of the ... (read more)

Upvoted: deliberate grieving is a critical self-improvement skill. I personally mostly frame it in terms of admitting, rather than letting go or accepting; in terms of your two steps, I've been calling the orientation part "admitting", and the catharsis part "grieving".

A lot of critical motivation drivers are hung up on trying to get positive things from people that we didn't get as kids, and that we created a bunch of coping mechanisms (e.g. most kinds of perfectionism) to work around.

Admitting that we were hurt by not getting those things and that our c... (read more)

4Raemon
Hmm. I think admitting also makes sense to be considered a step in the process, but one of the important elements of what I'm calling "orientation" is locating-the-thing-that-needs-admitting, in the space of all the possible things you might need to admit. I think sometimes the admitting part also is pretty trivial (although definitely sometimes even after locating it, admitting sucks and is super hard) Thinking back to my experience... I'd say that in my grieving-for-justice, most of the process was "figuring out what needed grieving". But, in a lot of grieving-at-work, more of the work lives in the "admitting" part. (I might update the post fleshing this out)

Also, some LWers are neither young nor healthy, and/or have family responsibilities that would become problematic or impossible at some levels of lasting lung or organ damage, whether you call it "long covid" or not. So I'm definitely waiting for more understanding of long-term effects before I change my risk profile.

Downvoted due to lacking a story to provide an intuition pump to readers as to why the following the proposal would be useful.

I would question the framing of mental subagents as "mesa optimizers" here. This sneaks in an important assumption: namely that they are optimizing anything. I think the general view of "humans are made of a bunch of different subsystems which use common symbols to talk to one another" has some merit, but I think this post ascribes a lot more agency to these subsystems than I would. I view most of the subagents of human minds as mechanistically relatively simple.

I actually like mesa-optimizer because it implies less agency than "subagent". A mesa-optim... (read more)

So it's kinda like a hobby, from my perspective.

Sure. I have not seriously taken up meditation again since that time, because although the centered-and-confident stuff was really nice, it took a long time to get to that point, and it wasn't a superpower level of centered or confident.

So if you already can relax, stop your internal monologue, and generate some pleasant feelings, does it make sense to stop because you already got most of what you can get, or does it make sense to continue because it shows that you are already on 10% of the way towards

... (read more)
3Viliam
Hard to say, because before that I didn't meditate systematically. I gave it a few tries, then forgot about the entire thing for years, then tried again. (Also, not sure whether I should include the time spent doing Silva method as not the same thing, but still about mind control.) Something between a month and a year since I started seriously trying to achieve this specific outcome. The technique was counting your breath until you notice that you are distracted by internal monologue, then start again from 1. (My rule of thumb was that "distracted" means either that I am not 100% sure which number follows, or that I keep a certain topic of internal monologue longer than during one breath.) The first few attempts felt insanely impossible, like: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, "oh my god I am so awesome I am finally doing this correctly... oh shit", 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, "great, doing this again, this time I shouldn't start talking to myself... fuck, I just did", 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, "yes, just don't ruin it again by... eh, doing exactly this, again", 1, 1, 1,... It felt impossible to not make a meta comment on either my recent progress or the lack thereof. Plus the frequent unrelated thoughts, of course. Then at some moment, I was travelling by a bus somewhere, and I was like: "I will keep doing this until the bus gets to my destination, regardless of whether it works or not." I guess that achieved the paradoxical conditions of trying hard to do something while kinda being outcome independent. It started getting better, then I made a mistake, but I didn't care and just started again without a strong emotional reaction, and the time intervals between mistakes became longer and longer. And it didn't even feel like I was trying hard. Just, doing it, with greater or lesser success. And then, in addition to short internal monologues shorter than one breath, there were also moments with no monologue. Afterwards, I already had the experience of what it feels like to be internally silen

"Would you like to talk for a bit? Please say no if you'd actually prefer doing something else, and I'm cool with that. I only wish to hang out if it's mutually beneficial. :)"

I would say that a non-socially-anxious person would never say all of that, maybe not even the "Would you like to talk for a bit?" part. And that many people would respond with suspicion to the doth-protest-too-much-methinks length of your communication. (And other socially anxious or neurotic people may respond by internal agonizing over whether they are correctly evaluating th... (read more)

1Emrik
This comment is excellent and I would give it more upvote if I could! I like this point too: I don't wholeheartedly agree with everything you say here, but I updated the post to point out the risk of putting people "on the spot" .

Seems to describe "meditation" as a single thing with exact predictions in the books.

This is precisely what I find weird about this. When I first studied Zen, the book I read listed four different basic techniques, and that's just Zen! (A lot of early meditation studies were also on TM, which is mantra-based. I think modern studies of meditation, however, are now more focused on "mindfulness" rather than meditation per se, and that mindfulness may in fact be more precisely defined than "meditation" in its full generality, since there are meditation p... (read more)

2Viliam
I tried Silva method when I was a teenager. I learned to relax, in a way that is somehow different on EEG from normal relaxation (not sure how, I was not the one looking at the display). Sadly, the promised supernatural abilities did not manifest. Then I tried the kind of meditation when you count the breath and try to not-do the internal monologue. And I learned how to turn off the internal monologue. An interesting thing, to learn a new mental move, but that's it. So, I believe that if you keep doing any kind of meditation long enough, you will have some kind of experience. Yes, probably different kinds for different types of meditation. My question is, whether it is worth the time spent, compared to other things you could be doing instead, which would also give you some kind of experience. (In other words, why are we privileging meditation as the thing to do, other than mere personal preference.) Also, there seems to be an assumption that huge amounts of time spent meditating will bring some huge effects, while I would expect diminishing returns. (So if you already can relax, stop your internal monologue, and generate some pleasant feelings, does it make sense to stop because you already got most of what you can get, or does it make sense to continue because it shows that you are already on 10% of the way towards the actually awesome things.) I assume that playing chess a lot rewires some parts of your brain. Driving a car a lot probably does the same, or playing a musical instrument a lot. In this context, the statement that meditating a lot rewires some parts of your brain doesn't feel particularly shocking. Yes, lots of meditation practice makes you better at meditation. So what? Some people say it makes you feel less pain. Nice if true. So it's kinda like a hobby, from my perspective.

To be clearer, I'm not saying to use any of the things I said as strategies or tactics. I'm more saying that if one is not trying to get anything from people and doesn't feel themselves unworthy of receiving, then it feels more natural to interact in ways that don't invite rejection and don't put other people on the spot.

Statements are often veiled invitations or requests

Exactly my point: IME social anxiety is correlated with a craving for acceptance or interaction that makes the statement a veiled invitation or request, and no amount of verbal discla... (read more)

1Emrik
This is confusing but seems valuable to try to understand. Do you mean that if I say "Would you like to talk for a bit? Please say no if you'd actually prefer doing something else, and I'm cool with that. I only wish to hang out if it's mutually beneficial. :)" ...I'm somehow stating a self-deception out loud?
Load More