I think that the one that I first filled out for my son was maybe a little longer, but not much. As I filled it out I noticed that my own score was high too. That one sheet of paper changed my life—and my son’s. 

I was ultimately assessed for four hours over two days. The medication turned out to be a big help, but the biggest change was I had a lot of guilt for my personal failings, which mostly turned out to be symptoms that many people with ADHD experience.

It took a while, but I let go of that shame and guilt. I started using cognitive prostheses (calendar events, timers, physical notes, etc.). Now when I have an ADHD meltdown, it no longer throws me into a depression and self-recrimination.

The drugs have been a great help too. It’s lessened my symptoms, and just made things easier. I’m so thankful for that initial assessment. 

If you’ve read the above assessment, and it indicates you should get further testing, DO IT. Your life may be changed too  

It’s also appropriate to apologize when you’ve purposely taken some action that caused harm as a by-product, even when you do not regret the action taken, but regret the harm you caused. 

I would argue that process apologies are less important than outcome apologies. A process apology is about what could have happened. 

That sounds like an intentional response, and a way to fight against trolls. I’ve certainly used that strategy before. 

I’d add Hubris too. Intelligence is a virtue, but it comes with a weakness of not listening to those that are viewed as less intelligent for one reason or another. Also, intelligence and wisdom in one field, makes someone more likely to fall for the Dunning-Krueger Effect for others. We must be mindful of this trap, and seek to err on the side of humility. 

Hubris can take other forms too, such as presuming a solution will scale or apply universally. Expanding Internet access is great, but if the people being serviced don’t have electricity, there isn’t much point. Providing resources to poor families may be less effective than just giving them money, so they can do their own prioritizations. If we are going to help people, those people should have a say in the solutions.

RSS here too. I scroll past a bunch of them, but find gems and I comment where I have something to say. 

I suppose that this is very dependent on how you know, and how confident you are. I have seen cases where I agree, but I’ve also seen the opposite problem of being too selective breeding homogeneity, resentment, and cults.

The times I have seen communities dissolve were not due to people that weren’t a good fit, but instead it’s been the people that fit well (usually in leadership), but had a big falling out with other members (usually leadership). 

From personal experience, I’d be weary of defending the community from drama. It’s a dangerous motivation: that’s one way to enable abusive behavior. Saving people by hurting them is a dangerous motivation too, as it’s easy to justify one’s own bad behavior—yeah, I’ve done that too. 

Again though, this is all highly context dependent. I am not familiar with most of your examples, so I can’t talk to specifics. I have also regretted not stepping in sooner. 

Community leadership is hard, y’all. 

In any case, thanks for the perspective, and the reminder of that line. 
 

I really like this analogy. I use a few mental stances in my practice. 

- “Be hurt, not angry” — I use this when I’m getting upset.  Often when I am angry, it’s because I’ve been hurt, and anger isn’t as useful as vulnerability and curiosity. Anger is sometimes useful, but this helps me take a beat to decide if this is one of those cases. 
- “Later is a lie” — Not only am I prone to procrastination, but I’m also terrible to doing or thinking something at a later time. This stance helps me take a step back from whatever I am doing and either do the thing right now, or create some external system to remind me of whatever the task is. 
- “First, be kind” — This is a stance I use when I’m about to have a difficult conversation with someone. It’s a reminder the truth isn’t an excuse to cause harm. It helps me take a moment to engage my empathy and assumptions of good intentions. 
- “Being weird doesn’t make it weird” — This is something I picked up just this past weekend, but I’m going to use it when I’m feeling socially anxious. It’s a reminder that while I may be considered weird by a lot of people, that doesn’t mean they won’t like me; they may even like me because I’m weird. 
- “This is a problem that can be solved by patience” — This gets the most use while driving and I’m stuck behind someone driving really slowly. I also use it any time I’m feeling impatient and frustrated. It’s served me well as a father. 

I’ve just thought of them as little catch-phrases, but mental stance is a much better way of describing them. Thank you. 

I don’t think I have known anyone that has struggled with suicidal ideation, that is outwardly angry. They don’t want to hurt others. Moreover they think so little of themselves that they feel like their continued existence hurts others. They’ve thought of suicide as a kindness to themselves and to those they affect.

To be clear, I know that suicidal violence is a real phenomenon, but i believe it is much more rare than depression—and way over-represented in media. 

Can you define Goodness here? It feels very subjective, and therefore a weak egregore at best. Maybe this is because of my moral relativist philosophical commitments. 

Do you mean “goodness” as a moral objectivist might describe it? If so, isn’t this essay mostly an argument against moral objectivity? 

To me “goodness” is a loose collection of goals and practices that differs by culture centered around the wellbeing of others. There are obvious Schelling points, like the aforementioned prohibition or murder, theft, etc., but the details vary by culture—ideas of hospitality are extremely culture-specific.

I don’t know if I’m a Goodist or Agoodist. 😆 I am a compatibilist regarding deontology and consequentialism: intent matters, but we’re also responsible for our action when they cause harm, regardless of intent. 

Often the sort of arguments that you describe above seem to be about definitions than substance. (and here I am asking you to define the word in question. 😅) Call it goodness, honor, ethical philosophy, or fleeb. Taboo the word and double-crux it, and the disagreements often dissolve. 

I’m not sure that is what you mean though. 

Man, oh man, does this point out one of the biggest problems with working with AI for software engineering. A competent human will question my assumptions, and help me see from a different perspective. Right now, all of the LLMs just sort of run with whatever I tell them, like a well-read and fast-typing intern.

I know that this is an active area of development, and I hope that we find solutions to this problem for all of the reasons you described above.