The "Soldier Mindset" flag is a fair enough call, I guess this could be seen as persuasion (a no-no). Perhaps, I would rather frame it as bypassing emotions (that are acting as barriers to understanding) in order to connect. Correctly understanding the other person's position, or core beliefs, you actually have to let go of your own biases, and in the process might actually become more open to their position.

An idea I'm workshopping that occurred to me while developing the Contagious Beliefs Simulation.

Cognitive Bias is A Feature Not a Bug:

Understanding that cognitive bias is a feature not a bug, is key to negotiation and changing minds. I find that in arguments, I only really convince someone by relating my case to the values they find important, sometimes those are the same as mine, which makes it easy, if they are clearly different I try to understand their core values. Sometimes people will reject this approach posturing as an objective rational agent, at this point I treat "rationality" as their cognitive bias, because we are not rational agents, we are irrational agents who are driven by desires over which we have no control, and for which the goal is not truth, but the reduction of mental tension and uncertainty, social acceptance and cognitive coherence—a measure of how well new information aligns with our current knowledge and views (the opposite of cognitive dissonance).

In this way bias is deleterious, so why has it survived natural selection? Because it is highly adaptive, and cognitively efficient (cheap). And when we think about it, if we discount the existence of a designer it's also logically impossible for it to be otherwise, unless it was hardwired (like imprinting instincts in animals) how else would we get this knowledge, it would be entirely inflexible, making us capable, but not intelligent, like a dog's supremely powerful nose that it uses to sniff other dogs' butts. It is our ability to use previous knowledge to assess and adopt or reject incoming information that is the core mechanism of intelligence.

So, when faced with someone you are trying to convince of something, if they don't already agree with you, they might have some important previous knowledge you need to help them square with this new info.

I'm trying out podcasting as a format for the ideas I share here and on the blog. Keen to hear if people think it translates well, or needs more tweaking—do you need to be more verbose in a spoken form to allow more time for absorption? Any ideas how to clearly describe payoff matrices in an audio format... tear it apart guys.

Yes, I would see falling valuations as an additional solution rather than a problem. Paine's proposal would absolutely affect housing prices, correcting their inflation rate to that of other goods (rather than being 5-10x higher). Housing would cease to be a threshold for runaway wealth accumulation (and inequality), and would become affordable for ordinary people.

I say this as a person who owns two houses, this is not technically in my individual interest right now, but it's a fairer system. As you say, I'll still be able to afford a haircut.

I agree measures would need to be taken to protect people who are over-leveraged, and would have to be implemented gradually so as not cause massive instability. Paine benefitted from the fact that his economy was only just beginning (well, at least amidst a revolution), while ours is in full swing.

Good catch, and thanks for introducing me to the 'conceptual rounding error'.

I think there would be more overlap with a memeplex with the 'remainder' (in my conception of the term) being one of loose personification, like in the case of Moloch or Trump, where the dividual entity seems to have some central motivation, but is otherwise entirely multifarious.

I guess my inclination is that individuals have always been permeable to some extent, but exposure to many varied memeplexes (like religions, political ideologies or algorithms) can make that permeability pathological. The difficulty of defining what side of the equation 'the dividual' is, the cause (the memeplexes) or the resulting hyper-permeable individual, is reflective of the dividual's own paradoxical nature.

Hi Olli (sorry about the 10 month late reply, somehow missed this),

in a 45 min class, have half of your classes begin with a 15 minute well-made educational video explaining the topic, with the rest being essentially the status quo

I appreciate all the points you've made here, and when you clarify that you're talking about a supplement to traditional teaching, I can picture that as a very effective situation. I'd hold to the point that this will be costly for the reasons given above, but I have no problem increasing education funding dramatically, I think we should.

As well as my experience making educational resources my daughter and I get a lot of value out of the freely available Khan Academy (we are working through Calculus together) videos, and I can see that a more professional outfit might be able to take those as a scaffold to build something even more engaging for students.

school is critical infrastructure that we run professionally

I totally agree with this, and with your point that improvised amateur hours should be spent outside of the school environment (where it can thrive in a more free-market of ideas). At present I notice (with my daughter's schooling) that media is often used in a scatter-gun way, drawing bits and pieces from Youtube, mixed in with ads and other unhelpful messaging, because it's not purpose-built for schools. So, your perspective of seeing it as "critical infrastructure that we run professionally" is key.

This hit home for me, as I can quite easily create psychosomatic conditions for myself, and often I will notice someone's flaws, which make them seem tortured, artistic or mysterious and pine (successfully) for that same flaw, I remember after watching a 
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford I developed a blinking issue (like Pitt's portrayal of James) and after listening to John Green talk about his struggles with anxiety, I developed a major anxiety issue, neither of these were cool or mysterious, but instead made me look and feel like an idiot.

I also find myself taking pride in "over-thinking" as if that's somehow a mark of great intelligence, when in fact it's an irritating characteristic that alienates friends and creates problems that are entirely avoidable.

Personally I like the "You’re not allowed to identify as these flaws." approach of this post, and intend to employ this in life. Thanks for giving me a fresh perspective on this issue.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

... at a global scale, energy, which is the foundation of all utility, is conserved globally, meaning that a global scale, everything must be a 0-sum game.

If this were the case, there would be no life on earth. The "engine of progress which made basically everything positive sum" is the sun. The sun provides a constant stream of energy and will continue to do so for billions of years. So, "at a global scale" the system is positive-sum, not zero-sum, no breaking of the first law of thermodynamics required. While the total energy on earth remains constant that is because we dissipate heat through entropy. The fact that we take in energy (order) and dissipate heat (disorder) is a byproduct of global "work" which can continually take place as long as the sun survives.

It seems very strange to make arguments referencing the laws of thermodynamics to explain the specifics of civilisation without recognising the role of the sun. Sorry to seem argumentative, I really think you're mistaken on this point.