Sorted by New


Academia as Company Hierarchy

Vao highlights Ryan's journey as a prototype loser/sociopath-in-waiting to sociopath ascendency. In the academic world, both Ryan as loser and Ryan as sociopath don't exist. So is one of many ways the corporate america > academic mapping doesn't fit.

Partly because academic signals are hard to fake by pure posers or pure sociopaths.

Though going with your flow, I think the analysis is right in that academics are essentially clueless. But, within academics you can have the subdivisions, clueless-loser, clueless-clueless, clueless-sociopath.

I disagree on sociopath faculty - my experience is that senior academics are much more likely to be sociopaths than non-senior academics, because they have figured out the rules and manipulate them and break them to their advantage. And so they are more likely to have dark-triad personality traits.

The way I would see it in academia, is that clueless play the game (and play by the rules) because they enjoy it. Sociopaths play the game in order to win (by any means necessary) and losers have given up the game - and often drop out of academia altogether when it gets really bad.

The clueless "game" in academia is one of traditional academic values - advancing knowledge for humankind. And all academics to become academics in the first place must have bought into that game to a fair degree (as they start out clueless). But then the trajectories for some can diverge in more of the directions of loserdom and sociopathy depending on career trajectory, environment and pre-dispositions.

Academia as Company Hierarchy

In the American system its hard to get tenure being a loser, so it selects against losers.

But once tenured, you can easily turn into a loser.

A lot depends on the institution. At high prestige institutions its hard to manage as a loser, and you are going to select for more sociopaths and clueless. Top ranking institutions are going to have more sociopaths.

But at low ranking institutions you are going to find a different distribution - relatively more losers than clueless.

Could someone please start a bright home lighting company?

Also saw this on hacker news today:

one comment "Lighting is a really hard business (especially residential)"

Could someone please start a bright home lighting company?

In terms of consumer product, I think something like this might be ideal:

But more like 300W instead of 28W. So taking the enclosure and remote control of the bathroom type light, with the LED setup of a floodlight. As for CRI, I guess it would be bad. How important is CRI though? Does this relate to subjective sense of "harshness"?

I also found this:

Stresses importance of size, diffusion pads and fresnel lens for creating a soft, diffuse light.

Was thinking a good DIY project would be to take a LED floodlight and wire in behind a busted 50" display as a side panel (artificial window).

So the ideal consumer product might need to have a pretty wide surface area and fresnel lens which would drive up costs.

Could someone please start a bright home lighting company?

The best solution I could find was LED security flood lights, e.g.®-FloodLight-Landscape-Spotlight-Waterproof/dp/B07JMQXXMW/ref=sr_1_9?keywords=500w+led+flood+lights+security&qid=1574927272&s=lighting&sr=1-9

So this would be less than 100 dollars for approx 40000 lumen, with all in one enclosure including head sink, can be wired to mains or wall socket. Also with this design they can be angled.

Not adjustable in brightness or colour temperature, but my preference would be overhead lighting for day, and then incandescent side lamps after dark (a sun above vs. fire).

The Five Main Muscles for a Full Range of Natural Movement, Dynamic Alignment & Balance.

Your argument against the idea that your belief that are 5 muscles of movement is a fake framework is a statement that that there are 5 muscles of movement. I don't find this convincing.

I mentioned there the psoas because of claims from some e.g. :

The psoas muscle (pronounced SO-as) may be the most important muscle in your body. Without this essential muscle group you wouldn’t even be able to get out of the bed in the morning!

In fact, whether you run, bike, dance, practice yoga, or just hang out on your couch, your psoas muscles are involved. That’s because your psoas muscles are the primary connectors between your torso and your legs. They affect your posture and help to stabilize your spine.

The psoas muscles are made of both slow and fast twitching muscles. Because they are major flexors, weak psoas muscles can cause many of the surrounding muscles to compensate and become overused

i.e. some would put these in their list of "main muscles of movement". The psoas are harder to sense than some other muscles - and perhaps less useful for your framework. When I say fake framework, I don't mean what you are saying is obviously "wrong", but that is somewhat arbitrary and subjective (i.e. there is no clear dividing line in "nature" for minor vs. major muscle groups). As you say, thinking about 5 muscles gives you something to focus on to develop "conscious proprioceptive skills" - psoas are not good to focus on, hence not part of your five muscles of movement.

An argument to the contrary?

I don’t feel the need to try and fit my hypothesis with other frameworks—there’s a lot out there and I just don’t have the time for a start. There are bits of truth in many things but this is ‘the bigger picture’. I believe I am correct. I feel it. I know it.

When you talk about "discovering something" and "feeling" your are correct, my impression goes into "crackpot" terrority, claiming on generalities from n=1. I love crackpot theories, but for a site like LessWrong I think it is reasonable to hold you to higher epistemic standards, which is why I am on your back about this.

Anyhow, one thing that hit home with your writing. I sometimes try to reduce my head forward posture but engaging upper traps, with some glute activation.

When I try to do it more intuitively (in conjunction with thinking about your framework), I realise that I need to work bottom up. So that might involve lengthening of the quads, lengthening of the abs, and only then some trap engagement, but trying to use the lower traps more. This takes a while to do properly, so it helps to sync with breathing (breathing in long etc...).

The Five Main Muscles for a Full Range of Natural Movement, Dynamic Alignment & Balance.

Just to add more to my original comment and to your reply.

I was wondering to what extent this related to other somatic therapies, such as alexander technique, Feldenkrais etc.. e.g.

So there are lots of people who are not only willing to think about these kinds of things, but they base entire careers from this.

Parts of it also reminded me of Eric Goodman's "foundation training", such as breathing to decompress the torso - very much breathing as "longer and stronger".

In Lesswrong parlance, my impression of what you were proposing was that it was a fake framework. So, for example, I don't really think there are "five main muscles of movement". Maybe there are 4, maybe 6. But acting as if there are 5 main muscles is useful.

In understanding your framework, I would want to understand to what extent it aligns and diverges from other frameworks. Where it has things in common, it probably is on more solid ground.

For example, some somatic people are obsessed with psoas muscles. I don't think your framework mentions them.. You mention linea alba as being important, but I don't recall others mentioning these as key. I am not sure what this means, but it makes me think that there isn't really anything special about the linea alba but its useful in your framework to consider it so.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your three posts on this.

The Hard Work of Translation (Buddhism)

a) Imagine a different post on LessWrong:

“Guys, let me share something with you I am really excited about. I have been studying the bible pretty hard, including reading several translations of the original Hebrew in my quest to master the Core Teachings of Jesus, and putting these teachings into practice (and I have reached Nebula Level 4.2, so know what I am talking about). Based on my experiences, and extensive discussions with a variety of my priests, I have figured out the core practice that Lord Jesus taught, and I am going to break it down for you in a way that is easy to understand for a modern audience, in order that Jesus’s teachings can be spread onto the globe and help as many people as possible.

How might this be received differently on Less Wrong? Is Buddhism just hip right now?

b) I do find this post useful though. "Insight" in some Buddhism practices is hard to explain, so this attempt is very welcome.

I am not a fan of the “random miswiring” metaphor. What is random about adaptive responses to stressors based on your genotype and lifetime experiences? Idiosyncratic, yes, but not random. But talking about efficiency makes more sense to me e.g. "‘this type of circuit only needs 20 nand gates, why are there 60..."

Other authors in the somatic tradition have focused on physical tension as the key thing that gets unravelled in these practices - so circuits with too much activity. See for example, Will Johnson, who integrates Buddhism practices and Western Somatic practices, who talks about Sankharas here and relates it to Reich.

Also worth noting this aligns pretty well with SquirrelFromHells BeWellTuned

I think this is where the action is (and where more works needs to be done):

"This would require more speculation about somatic theories that don’t yet have a good evidence base. Subjectively, it feels like building up insights into particular kinds of linkages between physical sensations, feelings, and mental reactions causes areas of your backlog that are particularly heavy in those linkages to get some activation and thus be available to consciousness."

The Hard Work of Translation (Buddhism)

And yet, Batchelor has written several books on "what the Buddha really taught" and the true meaning of Buddhism.

Load More