I wrote (in Hebrew, alas) two years ago, about locally-useful methods that doesn't have stopping condition. I'm sure there are people out there that will benefit from exposure. the attitude you described come from them, and from people whose bubble includes mostly them.

the problem is the luck of stopping condition. who many tries before you decide this method doesn't work? before stopping and re-evaluating? before trying something else instead?

also, what Scott Alexander wrote about exposure, and Trapped Priors. 

I think you make the same mistake the exposure people do? you. are in a bubble when insight is what needed, so you advocate insight without stopping condition.

the interesting question, to me, is when, in for who long, try either. 

It should be possible BOTH avoid denying reality AND not accepting magical explanation. it's even not that hard! but people fail at that  ALL THE TIME! the "this thing happen as you described, but i don't accept your interpretation of what happened" is very underutilized option. probably a bucket error. 

When was the last time you (intentionally) used your caps lock key?"
today. and yesterday. and the day before that. I... can't say that about escape. i used that when i tried to close window in computer game that stuck? i can't think about other examples easily.


 

this is not my experience. it's sort of the opposite of my experience. if i went and play video game or read book all evening, i replenish my desire and ability to do useful work. if i have a vacation for week and just stay home and do what i want (aka "lazy", by this post frame that i don't accept. lazy is not natural category), then after some days i will be filled with enthusiasm and desire to do things (and then do and do them). on the other hand, i tried the "just use willpower" and find in counter-productive almost always. 

disclaimer: i didn't read all the post. i start to read, decide it will be actively harmful, and stopped. then skimmed it. 

maybe there are people who need to use willpower, but in my experience it's Fabricated Option. 

what about, instead of forcing yourself do something you don't want, try to work with all your different parts, instead of crashing some of them?

I donated 100$. It's not a lot, but I don't live in USA and don't expect to get any benefit from the physical infrastructure, and not convinced on this being effective from EA point of view. so this is only for the benefit of sporadically reading the site.  

in my own frame, Yudkowsky's post is central example of Denying Reality. Duncan's Fabricated Options are another example of Denying Reality. when reality is to hard to deal with, people are... denying reality. refuse to accept it. 

the only protection i know is to leave line of retreat - and it's easier if you do it as algorithm, even when you honestly believe it's not needed. 

not all your examples are Denying Reality be my categorization. other have different kind if Unthinkable things. and sometimes they mess together - the Confused Young Idealist may be actually confused - there are two kinds if Unthinkables. the one when if someone point it up to you you say - wow, i would have never thought that myself! and then understand, and the one when the reaction is angry denial (and of course it's not actually two, and there are a lot of space on the spectrum between the two).


not very helpful, but... i'm struggling with how to talk to people who do that. I tried various strategies, and came back to tell it as it is. it's actually get me better results then trying to sneak around this. not that i got good results, but... i think it reveal useless conversations faster, AND let good potential conversations to actually occur.  

Are you sure the math hold up? there are a bunch of posts about how spend money to buy time, and if I need to chose between waste 50 HOURS on investigation and just buy the more expensive product, it's pretty obvious to me that the second option is best. maybe not in this example, though I see it as false dichotomy - I tend to go with "ask in the specialized good-looking facebook group" as way to chose when stakes are high.

In the last years I internalize more and more that I was raised by poorer people then I am now, that my heuristics just doesn't count all the time that I waste comparing products or seeking trusted professionals, and it would have been best for me to just buy the expensive phone, instead of asking people for recommendations and specs. 

also, and this is important - the interpersonal dynamics of trust networks can be so much more expansive then mere money. I preferred to work and pay for my degree myself then ask my parents for help. I see in real time as one my friend that depend on reputation for her work constantly censure herself and fret if she should censor herself. 

basically, I would have give my past self the opposite advise, and what i want is an algorithm - how to know if you want more trust networks or more markets?

or, actually, i want BETTER MAP. facebook recommendations are not exactly trust network, but not markets, either. I don't think this distinction cut reality at the joints. there is a lot to explore here - although I'm not the one who should do the exploring. IT will not be useful for me, as I try to move to the direction of wasting less time and more money on things. 

it sometimes happen in conversations, that people talk past each other, don't notice that they both use the word X and mean two different things, and behave as if they agree on what X is but disagree on where to draw the boundary.

from my point of view, you said some things that make it clear you mean very different thing then me by "illegible". prove of theorem can't be illegible to SOMEONE. illegibility is property of the explanation, not the explanation and person. i encountered papers and posts that above my knowledge in math and computer science. i didn't understand them despite them being legible. 


you also have different approach to concepts in generally. i don't have concept because it make is easier for people to debug. i try to find concepts that reflect the territory most precisely. that is the point of concepts TO ME.

i don't sure it worth it go all the way back, and i have no intention go over you post and adding "to you" in all the places where it should be add, to make it clearer that goals are something people have, not property of the teritory. but if you want to do half of the work of that, we can continue this discussion. 

this is one of the posts when i wish for three examples for the thingy described. because i see two options:
1. this is weakman of the position i hold, in which i seek the ways to draw a map that correspond to the territory, and have my estimations of what work and what no, and disagree with someone about that. and the someone instead of providing evidence that his method providing good predictions or insights, just say i should have more slack.

all you description on why believe in things sounds anti-Beysian. it's not boolean believe-disbelieve. update yourself incrementally! if i believe something provide zero evidence i will not update, if the deviance dubious, i will update only a little. and then the question is how much credence you assign to what evidence, and methods to find evidence. 

2. it's different worlds situation, when the post writer encountered problem i didn't.

and i have no way to judge that, without at least one, and better more, actual examples of the interaction, better linked to and not described by the author. 

list of implicit assumptions in the post i disagree with:

 

• that there are significant amount of people that see advise and their cached thought is "that can't work for me".
• that this cached thought is bad thing.
• that you should to try to apply every advice you encounter to yourself.
• that it's hard.
• that the fact that it hard is evidence that it's good and worthy thing to do.
• that "being kind of person" is good category to think in, or good framing to have.

i also have a lot of problems with the example - which is example of advise that most people try to follow but shouldn't, and should think about their probability of success by looking on the research and not by thinking that "you can be any kind of person" - statement whose true value is obviously false.