All of Blueberry's Comments + Replies

Can you give me an example of a NLP "program" that influences someone, or link me to a source that discusses this more specifically? I'm interested but, as I said, skeptical, and looking for more specifics.

In this case, I doubt that there writing that get's to the heart of the issue that accessible to people without an NLP or hypnosis background. I'm also from Germany so a lot of the sources from which I actually learned are German. As far as programming and complexity there a nice chart of what taught in a 3 day workshop with nested loops: [] If you generally want to get an introduction into hypnosis I recommend "Monsters and Magical Sticks: There is No Such Thing as Hypnosis" by Steven Heller.

I'd guess it was more likely to be emotional stuff relating to living with people who once had such control over you. I can't stand living at my parents' for very long either... it's just stressful and emotionally draining.

What pragmatist said. Even if you can't break it down step by step, can you explain what the mechanism was or how the attack was delivered? Was it communicated with words? If it was hidden how did your friend understand it?

The basic framework is using nested loops and metaphors. If a AGI for example wanted to get someone to get them out of the cage it could tell a highly story about some animal named Fred and part of the story is that it's very important that a human released that animal from the cage. If the AGI then later speaks about Fred it brings up the positively feeling concept of releasing things from cages. That increases the chances of listener then releasing the AGI. Alone this won't be enough, but over time it's possible to build up a lot of emotionally charged metaphors and then chain them together in an instance to work together. In practice getting it to work isn't easy.
I don't have a recording of the event to break it down to a level where I can explain that in a step by step fashion. Even if I would think it would take some background in hypnosis or NLP to follow a detailed explanation. Human minds often don't do what we would intuitively assume they would do and unlearning to trust all those learned ideas about what's supposed to happen isn't easy. If you think that attacks generally happen in a way that you can easily understand by reading an explanation, then you ignore most of the powerful attacks.

Sorry, I couldn't tell what was a quote and what wasn't.

Polyamory is usually defined as honest nonmonogamy. In other words, any time someone is dating two people openly, that's poly. It's how many humans naturally behave. It doesn't require exposure to US poly communities, or any community in general for that matter.

Many humans behave in a serial monogamy manner - which is not poly. Many humans behave in a covert polygamy manner - which is not poly. Whether there is very much left after that which matches US polyamory, I wouldn't know...

As you discuss in the dropbox link, this is a pretty massive selection bias. I'd suggest that this invalidates any statement made on the basis of these studies about "poly people," since most poly people seem not to be included. People all over the world are poly, in every country, of every race and class.

It's as if we did a study of "rationalists" and only included people on LW, ignoring any scientists, policy makers, or evidence-based medical researchers, simply because they didn't use the term "rationalist."

You state:


... (read more)
I think that remains to be seen, unless one is quietly defining away polyamory as a dull negation of monogamy. I didn't state that; Klesse did. Between you and Klesse, I know who I will put more weight on.

I know that the antidepressant Wellbutrin, which is a stimulant, has been associated with a small amount of weight loss over a few months, though I'm not sure if this has been shown to stay for longer. That's an off-label use though.

I'd guess that any stimulant would show weight loss in the short-term. Is there some reason this wouldn't stay long-term?

There are a lot of drugs that people develop tolerances to when used over long periods of time (the body's various feedback mechanisms recalibrate themselves to compensate for the drug's presence), but I can't say with any authority that this applies to mild stimulant use and weight loss.

How is Mormonism attractive? You don't even get multiple wives anymore. And most people think you're crazy.

What about a small amount of mild stimulant use?

I dunno. The FDA did approve a couple of drugs this year, but they might only be intended for short-term use.

Why would you not want to be someone who wears a cloak often? And whatever those reasons are, why wouldn't they prevent you from wearing a cloak after you buy it?

If it follows the pattern of the vest and the cane, I'll want to wear it All The Time, whether that's a good idea for signaling and aesthetic reasons or not - and I'm not sure it would be a good idea on either of those counts, but sensory considerations often trump those when it comes to things that I actually own and have experienced and gotten used to at all. In other words: Right now I'm physically comfortable not wearing a cloak. If I get it and it's as awesome along the physically-comfortable axis as I expect it will be, then I will quickly become the kind of person who is not physically comfortable when not wearing a cloak, and if it's socially unacceptable to wear a cloak, or socially unacceptable to wear a cloak with my vest that I'm now uncomfortable when I'm not wearing, then that change could be a problem. (For values of 'socially unacceptable' that include 'changes how people react to me in ways that are sufficiently bad'.) If I could predict what peoples' reaction to me-wearing-a-cloak would be without actually wearing a cloak to find out, this would be less of a problem, but as of right now I don't know that they'd react acceptably.

it's very, very likely there's life outside our solar system, but I don't have any evidence of it

If there's no evidence of it (circumstantial evidence included), what makes you think it's very likely?

I assume they meant direct evidence. It's truth or falseness do not affect us, we must extrapolate from our knowledge of the structure of the universe.

Poly groups tend to be well-educated well-paid white people

I'm baffled by this. Are you saying most studies tend to be done on this group? Do you mean in the US? Are you referring to groups who call themselves poly, or the general practice of honest nonmonogamy?

Yes, yes, and former.

Are you polysaturated yet? Most people seem to find 2-3 to be the practical limit.

I don't see very much of the two boyfriends who don't live in my house, so no. (They have other girlfriends to keep them occupied.)

I actually never was asked to say the Pledge in any US school I went to, and I've never even seen it said. I'm pretty sure this is limited to some parts of the country and is no longer as universal as it may have been once. If someone did go to one such school, they and their parents would have the option of simply not saying the Pledge, transferring to a different school (I doubt private or religious schools say it), or homeschooling/unschooling.

As another datapoint, the pledge was announced over the loudspeaker but students weren't required to recite it at the first high school I went to (though we were required to stand respectfully and most everybody still did the salute even if they didn't recite), and theoretically required for any student that didn't have a religious exemption note at the second high school I went to. I have a funny story about the second situation, too. I'd been one of the ones who didn't say the pledge, before I moved, and decided that I wasn't going to change that unless they made me. The result of this was that the other students in my homeroom class stopped saying it, too - first the ones nearest me, then the ones next to them, and so on across the room. I happened to have a desk in one corner of the room, and by the end of the year a handful of the students in the other corner of the room were the only ones still saying the pledge, and they generally shouted it, raucously or sarcastically depending on their mood. (Makes a pretty interesting complement to the Asch conformity test, come to think of it.)

For what it's worth, I've never seen it said in any of the US schools I've attended. It's not universal.

I've played that game, using various shaped blocks that the Customer has to assemble in a specific pattern. It's great.

There's also the variation with an Intermediary, and the Expert and Customer can only communicate with the Intermediary, who moves back and forth between rooms and can't write anything down.

Precommiting is useful in many situations, one being where you want to make sure you do something in the future when you know something might change your mind. In Cialdini's "Influence," for instance, he discusses how saying in public "I am not going to smoke another cigarette" is helpful in quitting smoking.

If you think you might change your mind, then surely you would want to have the freedom to do so?

The whole point is that I want to remove that freedom. I don't want the option of changing my mind.

Another classic example is the general who burned his ships upon landing so there would be no option to retreat, to make his soldiers fight harder.

If you know what you're doing, the Phd example is not more than a 5 minute process - I've walked people through worse things in about that time.

Please elaborate!

I "cheated" a bit, in that I had them spend ~15-20 minutes with a chat bot that taught them some skills for getting in touch with those parts of their mind. Actually working through the problem was a few minutes of text chat that basically pointed out that there was no magic option and that they needed to let go of the problem emotions. All the real magic was in putting them in the state of mind to shut up and listen. I talk about it a bit here []

I don't want to eat anything steaklike unless it came from a real, mooing, cow. I don't care how it's killed.

I'm worried I'm overestimating my resistance to advertising, so I'm hereby precommitting to this in writing.

I think you overestimate how much you'll care about this post in few years. On top of this - see, you are acting in a mildly self destructive manner. The vat grown steak can be considerably safer, or taste better, but you pre-commit anyway without even tasting it. Clearly this pre-commitment not to maximize the utility in the future, is a net expected loss of utility. That's the issue. Evil is generally self destructive, the more evil, the more self destructive it is. I believe that's in part because it is hard to define self in such a way that the evil is only hurting the others like you but not self, future self, parts of self, etc. That's just not easy to define, and not easy to process. Take extreme example, psychopaths. They are very self destructive. They do things on spur of the moment at expense of their future selves - perfectly rational selfish action as the future selves are to some extent different people - but not effective for an agent. There is not much more reason to care about future yourself, than to care about anyone else.
[comment deleted]

Would "servant" not otherwise be justified?

It's fairly benign, but looks a little archaic -- not so archaic that it'd have to be medieval, though. The rest of the phrasing is fairly modern, or I'd probably have assumed it was a quote from anywhere from the Enlightenment up to the Edwardian period. It has the ring of something a Victorian aphorist might say.

That's a good reminder but I'm not sure how it applies here.

A quote that calls the holder of a potentially wrong belief a "skeptic" rather than a "believer" is more useful since it makes you more likely to identify with him.

It also fails in the case where the strangest thing that's true is an infinite number of monkeys dressed as Hitler. Then adding one doesn't change it.

More to the point, the comparison is more about typical fiction, rather than ad hoc fictional scenarios. There are very few fictional works with monkeys dressed as Hitler.

[comment deleted]
Indeed, I posted this quote partially out of annoyance at a certain type of analysis I kept seeing in the MoR threads. Namely, person X benefited from the way event Y turned out; therefore, person X was behind event Y. After all, thinking like this about real life will quickly turn one into a tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist.
Depends on the infinity. Ordinal infinities [] change when you add one to them. If we're restricting ourselves to actual published fiction, I present Cory Doctorow's Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town []. The protagonist's parents are a mountain and a washing machine, it gets weirder from there, and the whole thing is played completely straight.

Yes, "sweet" is a great description. Why, how would you describe it?

Also judging from his other quotes I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant...

I guess, but that seems like a strange interpretation seeing as the speaker says he's no longer "a skeptic" in general.

The point of rationality isn't to better argue against beliefs you consider wrong but to change your existing beliefs to be more correct.

Thanks... I'm still going through the most recent Callahan novels. Jake Stonebender does kinda have a temper.

Downvoted and upvoted the counterbalance (which for some reason was at -1 already; someone didn't follow your instructions). You're surprised people like power?

no, it's the specific description of the feeling that surprised me: "sweet." edit: and thanks for helping me out.

I suspect you overestimate how much most people like cows...

You'll like the cows when there's vat grown steak and we make the ads for it :) . (I do some CGI for advertising).

There's no doubt that killing cows like we do now will be outlawed after we find another way to have the steak.

No doubt at all? I'd put money on this being wrong. Why would it be outlawed?

Including the problems like 'how to have a steak without killing a cow'.

I'm not sure that's the relevant problem. The more important problem is "how can we get more and better steaks cheaper?"

There are various laws on treatment of animals already. Ineffective and poorly adhered to, but there are. Yet more important problem is how we make the most profit. Once there's notable grown-in-a-vat steak industry, you can be sure that the ethics of killing cows will be explained to you via fairly effective advertising. Especially if it costs somewhat more and consequently brings better income for same % markup.

I must be misinterpreting this, because it appears to say "religion is obvious if you just open your eyes." How is that a rationality quote?

LW's standards for rationality quotes vary, but in any case this does allow for the reading of endorsing allowing perceived evidence to override pre-existing beliefs, if one ignores the standard connotations of "skeptic" and "missionary".

Ok, but... wouldn't the same objection apply to virtually any action/adventure movie or novel? Kick Ass, all the Die Hard movies, anything Tarantino, James Bond, Robert Ludlum's Bourne Identity novels and movies, et cetera. They all have similar violent scenes.

I can't think of any point in Die Hard where John McClane kills prisoners in cold blood (in fact, there are two times where he almost dies because he tries to arrest terrorists instead of just shooting them). And I do consider all such scenes objectionable-- for instance, in Serenity, when Zny fubbgf gur fheivivat Nyyvnapr thl sebz gur fuvc gung qrfgeblrq Obbx'f frggyrzrag, or when gur Bcrengvir fnlf ur vf hanezrq, fb Zny whfg chyyf n tha naq fubbgf uvz, I had the same squicky reaction.

Jura gurl'er nobhg gb encr Wraavsre? Ur qrfreirf gung naq vg'f frys-qrsrafr

Ertneqyrff bs jurgure fbzrbar "qrfreirf vg," zheqrevat pncgvirf va tehrfbzr naq rkpehpvngvat znaaref vf orlbaq gur cnyr. Gung'f nyfb abg frys-qrsrafr ol nal fgnaqneq gung V xabj bs, fvapr gur crefba va dhrfgvba jnf nyernql haqre gurve pbageby.

Not me, Harry. Harry, being a rationalist, wants to know the truth about his world, and he wouldn't be happy with a Watsonian explanation that ignored important facts about how the world he lives in came to be.

That particular source is actually not as bad as the name would suggest, since it refers to the guy fighting back and standing up for himself when he's already in an abusive relationship and financially unable to leave. He doesn't recommend it to people in general.

What's funny is that I liked your comment even before I knew about the domestic violence thing. It read more as silly and sarcastic than insulting.

The classic is Andrew Tobias, "The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need." You can trust it because he's not selling anything and teaches common-sense, conservative advice: no risky speculation or anything.

Sorry, I was attempting to be clever, cynical and hip. This apparently impeded effective communication. Let me rephrase it so that it is more difficult to misunderstand: All financial advice should be received with reservation and taken with caution. Better?

Well, he was advocating domestic violence earlier. So it was appropriate.

I didn't read him as advocating it and I am very familiar (unfortunately) with the debate you spoke of.

The slogan needs a Futurama reference in there somewhere.

Heh, I like to joke about giving my computer cocaine to make it run faster.

Do you think this because of the Brad Pitt question?

That, and the fact that the participants were asked to guess how good in bed their friend or a random person was. The qualities that make someone seem good in bed are also qualities that people find sexually attractive, e.g. confidence, fashion sense, dancing skill. Also, a big part of sex is mental, so people you find attractive will be better in bed.

I actually think we have good evidence that our culture does not teach men how to (literally) please a woman sexually, nor require it, and that one man

... (read more)
Yes. And it leads to... complications. Actually, everything they try to do with time in that movie leads to complications, but almost never in the straightforward way you'd expect. For example, it's not the stock market manipulation itself that causes problems.

I'm trying to understand exactly what squicks you, and I'm not doing a very good job... the Revolution in Night of Power was pretty peaceful as revolutions go.

Gur cneg jurer gur znva punenpgref zheqre n pncgvir (be pncgvirf? Vg'f orra n juvyr) ol fcenlvat tyhr vagb gurve abfr/zbhgu naq pnhfvat gurz gb nfculkvngr vf n tbbq rknzcyr bs jung V sbhaq fdhvpxl nobhg gung obbx. []

I love what I have read. I've only read a few of his novels though. Which one has that plot turn and what's the plot turn?

It was a Callahan's novel which came out in the past ten years or so. It might have been Callahan's Key. Wnxr, gur ivrjcbvag punenpgre, chavfurf na vashevngvat naq culfvpnyyl htyl punenpgre engure frireryl (snvag zrzbel fhttrfgf yvgrenyyl qhzcvat fuvg ba ure). Xnezn rafhrf. I'm really sorry, but I don't remember the details.
There was this post on LessWrong about thinking an AI could be prevented from being angry by cooling it down using a freezer. I can't seem to find it now though.

Actually, Draco muses on the history of House Malfoy at some chapter I can't find right now, and how they're always the second-in-command to greatest leaders. Saying Draco would never agree to service is probably disregarding important and relevant information.

I was more looking for an excuse to get Harry and Draco married. ;)

But no, I think Draco is way too proud to swear subservience to Harry.

Namely, that you place such a high value on dominant roles for males and submissive roles for females that your perception is skewed. I'm curious if you think

... (read more)

I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you mean our culture doesn't do a very good job teaching men to be attractive?

"perception of sexual capabilities" has nothing to do with actual skills in bed, and everything to do with how (sexually and non-physically) attractive someone is.

... Because it obviously does not? Anyone who ever people watches when eating in town can tell this. That, and very few men ever get the One True Sex Tip. "your orgasm is a kill-switch on your libido. Everything you want to do tonight has to precede it, or it wont happen, or at least, wont be any fun.".
Do you think this because of the Brad Pitt question? I actually think we have good evidence that our culture does not teach men how to (literally) please a woman sexually, nor require it, and that one man [] without training would find this far more difficult than an alien might suppose. We'd therefore expect any woman with a shred of rationality to expect less pleasure from the random "attractive" man the study asks her to imagine. Given what you point out about perception of danger with the friend's proposition, the following seems like at least weak evidence against the conflation of perceived sexual capability with attractiveness:

Why would it be "obvious"? Even completely ignoring these questions still leads to useful insight for the majority of cases in practice.

It was the first thought I had. The association in my mind went something like

girl with lots of partners ---> girl is sexually awesome ---> female partners and group sex ---> if someone thinks having multiple partners is bad, is that bad?

Saying "I like girls who [have the characteristic X]" sounds as if you like such girls for non-serious, shorter-term relationships in which you have the

... (read more)
Load More