Just this guy, you know?
"Contempt porn"? Related to "outrage bait", which describes much of the rest of social media. Both imply a sort of trick played on the brain, without outright saying there's no place for a little of the base emotion.
Or perhaps go further - I figure out if contempt is ever a useful emotion. It can save time and help choose strategy for dealing with aliens (including children and <dispreferred political party>). But in all cases, accurate modeling would be more useful. And it's certainly not beneficial to most stated goals to seek out things to be contemptuous of.
In any case, I don't think "isolate yourself from the sources" is the best primary approach (though it's perhaps part of the approach, or an effect of a working approach). Figuring out something like https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wJutA2czyFg6HbYoW/what-are-trigger-action-plans-taps for the undesirable reaction is probably a better direction. Notice when you're attracted to this judgement, and interrupt it with a more compassionate and nuanced evaluation.
Interestingly, for me, pith and sass have always been suspect. It's only recently that my skepticism of longer, more factual-appearing (but even if true, very often cherry-picked and misleading) posts and articles has started to catch up.
I believe a default skepticism toward all group and mass communication is appropriate.
I turned it off long ago, and had forgotten it exists.
A lot of your ideas suffer from the problem of trust and value of trade. All of these are hard to do the math to calculate the conditional expected value. A lot depends on the specific counter-party and their distribution of beliefs about timelines and impact, as well.
Can you describe what specific timeline you want to bet on and what the even-money-equivalent longer-timeline you're seeking to bet against is? What timeline should make someone indifferent to your wager (and therefore, a longer timeline or weighted mean timeline estimate would make it attractive to bet against you)?
Agreed. Note that many maps describe other maps, with a fairly long chain back to territory (which is much weirder than atoms; atoms are just another map).
I wonder if I am (or you are, or both of us) falling prey to the typical mind fallacy. I get a lot of value in structuring my ideas for writing, even if not shared. I get a fair bit of value as a reminder as well, for later consideration. I guess that could be "transmission and dialogue" with my future self, but that doesn't feel like a simple model.For me, I also get value from anonymous lists like this, even if I can't estimate the frequency or weight of such beliefs in others - it can spark ideas or help me analytically update aspects of my models to even consider things that I hadn't before.
This is not quite right - pain isn't the unit of effort, but for many things it's correlated with whatever that unit is. If you avoid unpleasantness, you'll likely be putting in less actual effort than is rewarded for many of your goals.
Unfortunately, all of the relevant inputs are hard to measure, so it's VERY hard to know when it's too much or too little.
This means there's much better reason to think that Omega will actually reward you in an alternate universe than Nomega.
That's exactly what others are saying about priors. But really, it's about your probabilities (including posteriors once someone appears). The "simple hack decision theory" works for all of these cases - multiply the conditional probability by the value of each possible outcome, and pick the condition that's gives the largest utility-contribution.
If you assign a much lower probability to nomega than to omega, and assign a high probability of honesty to the setup, you want to pay. With other beliefs, you might not.
The purpose for writing and thinking about things isn't only to talk with people about. I keep such a list (encrypted and not online) for my own internal exploration of truth and prediction.
Anonymous surveys like this (if I actually thought it were truly anonymous) could be useful if they show that the Overton window is closer than I thought to my private thoughts. And could be incredibly useful if it give me ideas (even if held privately) that let me model the world better.
if poor children had access to better food, better housing, and parent's with more free time and energy?
It's going to end up being an empirical question if any real UBI implementation does those things. Presuming it replaces, rather than supplements, current low-income government programs, it's likely neutral or even negative to the disabled and non-working poor. It could be a noticeable boost to the working poor, and it remains to be seen whether it leads to healthier food and lifestyle choices, or "just" more pleasant lives. Or as payments to warlords (in a capitalist system, that's mostly drugs and black-market purchases, not direct violence).I support large-scale trials (major metro areas or smaller US States), and I have hopes that it could make things somewhat better. But it's not guarantees, and it's not a panacea.