Sorry to hear this has been difficult for you. It sounds like you really want to find a way to make durable change and tried many techniques already.I think it's admirable and impressive to see how passionate and driven you are. But if it's having some negative consequences or making you unhappy maybe a bit of tuning could be useful.How do you feel when you have trouble to go to bed? Taking a wild guess I'd say you might be feeling a bit anxious, inadequate, frustrated or maybe embarrassed. What thoughts do you have? Is there a deep-seated value that drives those? (maybe "a person's achievement drives their worth"?)If this connects in any way, I'd suggest checking out David Burns' podcast or books.It sounds like you enjoy systematic approaches and routines, maybe a 5 minutes journal could help express main goals and take stock.
It can also be good to list the positives (advantages and beautiful things) in self-criticism. It shows honesty, accountability, high standards, ...On the other hand, we often use a double standard (harder on oneself) which can imply a sense of superiority (it'd okay for others to make mistakes, just not for us). Another downside of self-criticism is that spots that we beat down become sensitive and so we may be less receptive to feedback (being defensive).
I apologize if it's a bit tangential, but I want to point out that "should" statements are a common source of distortions (in cognitive behavioral therapy). It is often good to clarify the meaning of "should" in that context to see if it's valid (is it a law of the universe? is it a human law? ...). It often just means "I would prefer if", which doesn't bear as much weight...
David Burns explains this clearly and I was struck when he pointed out the linguistic heritage of "should" and how it connects to "scold". Here's one podcast episode on the topic (there are more, easy to find).I wonder if some of the other distortions (such as "labelling" to sneak a morality judgement) could be subject to a similar treatment. For example, Scott Alexander talks about debates on labelling something a "disease".
Exposure is the most effective remedy for most forms of anxiety. It is also helpful to understand the thoughts behind that anxiety and consider to what extent they are valid or beneficial (there are good reasons to be anxious, but they may only justify it to a mild extent). Many techniques can help such examination. One that is particularly appealing to me is to imagine what I would tell a close friend who is very much like me ("double standard" technique).
Castify was a crowd-funded project that recorded "Rationality: From AI to Zombies" among other things. They closed in 2016, but I made a backup as they suggested. But I don't think the audiobook ended up being hosted on intelligence.org as they announced..."To all Castify customers old and new,
It's been a fun project but it's time to bring Castify to a close. This means all podcast feeds and audiobook files will cease to be available for download at the end of September.
IMPORTANT: If you need to download a fresh copy of your purchases please follow the instructions below before October 1st.
If you’re from Less Wrong please note that the audiobook for Rationality: from AI to Zombies will be available through Intelligence.org in the near future (maybe by the end of the year).
Thanks for being a part of Castify, we really appreciate it.
I've only had a few interactions, but was less than impressed. Some articles that were critical of authors I have much respect for did not give a fair reading in my opinion.
Specifically, does the prevalence of progeny in different groups affect the average time preference of said groups? I would say it raises an empirical question, but the prior seems reasonable. I do not consider such thought horribly offensive or bigoted as suggested, even if you consider that sexual orientation would affect prevalence of progeny.
The thread seemed more woke than rationalist in tone.
Another possibility (not sure how likely): maybe treatment capacity and protocols have improved?
James Burke mentioned such a graph being worked on in a talk he gave in 2009. Not sure how it progressed.
Note: if you’re interested in this topic, check out Burke’s book and TV show, Connections. It’s fascinating (a lot of clever repurposing and also happenstance).
Forget money for a minute, since it’s just a proxy for real resources. Assuming that people involved have a decent understanding of what resources are helpful, then Charity is trying to provide those resources.
For the question of whether we know what resources would be useful and whether they have the desired impact in the long-term, that’s a hard question. GiveWell is an attempt at evaluating the impact of charities. There are others as well.
That presented with a bet that essentially hinges on that thing being true, you take that bet.
Note that actions involve uncertainty and costs, so they involve a form of informal betting.