All of jkadlubo's Comments + Replies

I've taken the survey. Possibly my first activity here this year

Interested. Already have 2 kids. Live in Poland and would like to stay in Europe.

Room full of first year pedagogy students, lecturer puts a claim "marxism is not the philosophy of Marx." He explains how marxists distorted original Marx' thought and how the original claims are so great and describe the world and how they should be followed.

If I was generous, I would say he wanted the students to argue, he wanted them to think critically and disprove his weak argument, but he had experience with students and those were 18-year-olds, who would always try to shut down my questions for explanations "because we want to have th... (read more)

This article made me realize how far I've gone in healing myself. My mother abused me. As a coping mechanism when I was about 15 years old I became disattached from pretty much everything I have/can have, in order to not feel much of a loss when it is taken from me. In order not to grieve.

And the fragment about two kinds of grief after a relationship ended made it even more clear. I never imagine the future. I tell myself I live so much in the present that it just doesn't occur to me, but the thing is that I learned not to. Because anything I imagine or wa... (read more)

lots of ways to not let myself succeed at anything.

That seems like a different problem...

And it is a different problem, but it throws shade at everything I do. Before I properly unlearn this, I need ways around.

I haven't thought of signposting, I'll try that!

I've tried it and it doesn't work, unless those are very basic and fast things, e.g. applying night cream, but not going for a run.

I've developed (as protective mechanisms against my mother) lots of ways to not let myself succeed at anything. I know now that I need to move very slowly to get anything done, so I'm mostly untangling my thoughts and aliefs about myself.

This is one of the few occasions when habitually seeing situations and problems from more than one side doean't help.

That seems like a different problem... back to this - if that's what you are trying to do - have you tried signposting yourself; in places that you will see? There was a movie "hollow man" where the main character had a sign above his desk so when he lent back in his chair and looked at the roof he saw it, it said "get back to work".

No actions yet. I tend to ignore any kind of actions that I plan; maybe the problem is the wrong way my brain thinks about it, so this is an attempt to change the brain before I really attemt to change the body.

A suggestion: Can you think of systems that you can set up for you to do the actions tomorrow. It's suprisingly harder to convince yourself to go for a run right now; but surprisingly easier to set up an expectation that you will do it later/tomorrow. Simply the act of preparing your running stuff, (shoes, water bottle etc.), then put it in a place where you can't ignore it. (i.e. a doorway) so that you "just do it". might be a viable course of action to get you to do the desired thing...

To remind myself time and again, until my brain learns and understands it: without a change in diet (or lifestyle) there is no change in weight.

Are you doing any kind of weight, diet or exercise tracking? Often the act of simply keeping track of these things will prompt people to improve in them. If you don't mind: Post your current weight/diet/exercise and your target (date and weight) for next month.

Today I cut my very first self-grown in a pot hokkaido pumpkin. It's 270g and I'm bursting with proud-ness (is this a word?).

That was also my first year of growing any kind of plants and I had some strawberries, nasturtium flowers, lettuce and sweet peas (those formally belonged to my daughter). I also had a tomato plant, but that didn't grow any fruit.

The word is pride.

I had a realization today that does not grant a separate thread.

I'm reading RAZ and got to Mysterious Answers, specifically Explain/Worship/Ignore?

I have kids. Most people know that kids love the question "why?" (If you didn't know - now you do. My family of origin has a joke that the last question of a longest stretch was number 37: why is mummy chewing on the carpet?)

When my daughter asks "why", I give her some answers usually pondering how I can influence the direction of the questions and information that I give her*. But in light o... (read more)

Why questions are very good and should be encouraged! But also, it is worth improving the questions, in addition to just answering them. So if a child asks "why is the bus going?", you can ask for a clarification "Do you mean what makes it move? Or do you mean where is it going?"; this models clearer language and better communication skills, it helps the child get an answer to the specific question that they intended, and it prevents why-questions from becoming the default I'm-bored-so-I-will-say-why-until-people-get-sick-of-talking-to-me routine. Sorry, I know that was slightly off-topic.

There were studies on than with kittens or pupps and it seems that in fact this works like this:

"When I do this trick, I get a reward! Let's do the trick! I didn't get the reward? Maybe I should try again! I got the reward, the world works like it should, yay! Let's get another one! No reward? Maybe they didn't notice? I have to try harder! Still no reward? Let's try again, I'm sure I'll get it this time".

The puppies noticed the reward, not the punishment. If it was as regular as one out of four, they would notice this regularity and act according to the expectation of the result - not try when a punishment was due and try when a reward was due.

I had this at uni. It was a long time ago, so I can't really provide references.

If you want to learn something new, you need to reinforce each time

When you already know you can do the whole thing, then it's a good idea to start intermittent reinforcement. It should gradually go from 100% to 0% rewards, so you could e.g. take a d10 and roll it; first week anything over 1 gives you the reward, second week - anything over 2 etc. The die is essential, you need to randomize the reward, not just say "every 1 out of 4 gets a reward" - that in fact works worse than 100% rewards.

I used it to potty train my kids, worked like a charm.

Do that. AND come to the next LWCW.

I came to LWCW2015 struggling. This spring has been personally difficult for me, and so I didn't even want to talk about what I do, what interests me. I didn't even have it in me to tell Christian that my lightning talk was supposed to be cancelled.

This time there were places to hide from people and places to come to people. There was time that needed my own ideas. There were enough people so that I wouldn't feel awkward not knowing someone who joins my table at lunch on Sunday. Enough people so that "everybody hugs" would not be the default.

In g... (read more)

I used to have migranes from about 17 until I was 25, and since my solution is strictly for women, I comment here.

My migranes were not a huge problem, mostly because they rarely lasted longer than "until the next day".
And then, when I was about 27 I realized they stopped. They stopped when I had a baby. Last few months I had some bad days, as if the migranes were cominig back, but 5 free years is still nice.

I would say that the whole thing took about 3 hours (maybe more if the walk to the cemetery took a lot of time), so now that Harry used his last hour, he's about 3 hours before his past self gets the note. He has to occupy that time, and what better way than to try to free Dumbledore?

I don't mind him not succeeding - I already have my "as good as possible" ending.

In that case, the big explosion would happen about 2 hours before his past self gets the note, which would make the timeline inconsistent, since no such disturbance of the Quidditch match occurred while past!Harry was there. Given that constraint, everything that happened since Harry time-turned five hours back must have taken at least five hours.

I wouldn't agree. As some early point she grfgrq ure yvzvgf naq qrpvqrq fur pbhyq qvivqr ure nggragvba orgjrra nal ahzore bs ohtf jvgubhg nal fbeg bs qenjonpx. Fur ybfg ure zvaq jura Cnanprn punatrq ure oenva, fb gung zvtug zrna pbagebyyvat uhznaf jnf gur gvccvat cbvag be vg jnf Cnanprn'f zvfgnxr.

I suspect he's gone. Remember when Dumbledore told Harry about phoenixes? Those who get a chance, get one chance. From then on it's their own phoenix and it can never be given to someone else. Mybe he died, maybe he left for wherever phoenixes come from.

In canon he just flies away after Dumbledore dies, after doing a sort of lament.

It's the same as with Hermione's body and the unicorns. They are stones as long as they are Transfigured. When Transfiguration stops, they will soon suffer. That's why Harry kept Hermione's body and now thinks about sustaining the Transfiguration of Voldemort all the time - he wants them to stay Transfigured until their state can be helped. He's kind of frozen now.

Ah, thanks.

For me chapter 114 was all I wanted it to be (and possibly more) and chapter 115 was lovely.

I did stop thinking at "so he could transfigure a tip of his wand or maybe his fingernail into a nanotube, but I have no idea what he could do with that, because there is practically no way for him to talk his way out".

No. He just learned to dispell Transfiguration without a wand when he dispelled the one on Hermione's body.

He would tell he can do it, but not necessarily how it works. Of course knowing that problem is solvable facilitates solution, but since we know the solution, we also know it would take time for Voldemort to find and use it.

So it is buffing, but with a time delay. That's why I think it's the simplest solution. Quirrelmort did start reading a book on physics, but is certainly far from understanding it deeply enough to do partial transfiguration.

This move would simply buy Harry time. It won't solve the problem of Voldemort threatening the world, but will kee... (read more)

Thing is, dying isn't the worst tactical option here. There is a chance buying the farm will just throw Harry into the horcruxi. Not certain enough to do it deliberately, but enough that any plan you come up with has to be better than the option of "Do nothing, die, hope to hang out in the horcruxi until Voldemort buys it again, let resonance remove you both from play" Which is a non-negligible bar to clear. Telling him a trick which might be the power he knows not to buy another minute of breathing doesn't pass muster. Telling him of the possibility doesn't pass muster. There are very few things which are both true and acceptable to tell Voldemort, simply because any information you give him, he will use against the world. If you give him information he can't use, he will ignore it.

About Sirius we only have the story from "Skeptical Wizard" (about Weasleys' rat) and some mentions in the Azkaban - nothing to suggest he was good.

True, but also nothing to suggest any changes from canon, where we were also led to believe him evil until The Reveal. Well, there is the possibility that someone in Azkaban is thought to be Sirius but isn't, which is a sign that Sirius may have imprisoned someone in his place, and that would be an evil act. But even if this is so (which it may not be), it may well be a justifiable act from the perspective of the Order of the Phoenix (for example, if Sirius imprisoned Peter in his place, and otherwise the characters are as in canon). Edit: Add the potential justification involving Peter (which is not an idea original to me, BTW).

He didn't put them on his bones; remeber the part, where resurected Voldemort takes some sticks from Quirrell, attatches them to himself and tests flying? Voldemort would likely enchant his own bones later, but right now he has sticks attached to his limbs.

True, but what matters is if he attached the sticks stickily enough.

Could he tell Voldemort aout partial transfiguration and request his own life spared?

He could certainly request it, but he won't get it.
Buffing the dark lord further is not an option. There is tonnes of things Harry could infer and then tell him that would make him delay. But this would be trading moments of life for further fucking over the world. Not a good trade.

BUT The students were issued with portkeys in the form of toe rings and Harry got rid of his explicitly.

I would say no to the Flamingo, but yes to any object ever mentioned in the story (e.g. car engine that he tried to use in the first battle), after all, Harry prepared his pouch for anything and everything that he could fathom.

In pouch, no. Transfigured in his glasses, maybe... but Harry is not allowed to move his hands to touch the glasses. Unless the glasses already a contain a killing machine operated by eye movements. Then Harry can kill everyone with a blink of an eye. (Undiscriminate killing would also hit Hermione, but she would survive.)

And people stopped stating the beginning and expected end of a pomodoro on chat. Almost everybody uses Complice's pomodoro timer which just rings the beginning of a pomodoro and this might be slightly confusing for people without the timer when the chat suddenly goes all quiet for no apparent reason.

John Medina's "Brain Rules". I also recommend/give all future* parents his "Brain Rules for Baby". I have not yet had time to read his other works, but these two make me want to.

*Also to parents of small kids. And to anyone thinking about having children.

A few years ago I flossed for a whole January, but then became complacent and stopped. It might have been an altogether too hard NYR for me, so this year I have one good idea and a firm intent to keep it:

  • If somebody tells me I should check something with a doctor, I will.

I have a few reasons for this. I was raised to believe that if I visit a doctor more than once a year, I must be a hypochondriac. So I just didn't. Plus, since I almost never see any doctors, I don't really know what is worrisome and what is normal, I just used to ignore anything happe... (read more)

You could raise your kids entirely in atheism and forget about Christmas altogether.

Let me point out that not having a holiday when everyone around you does (...) is not going to make your kids happy.

Poland is one of very few countries in the world, where you can be sentenced to prison for hurting somebody's religious feelings. Of course, only catholic religious feelings count. It's a country where even atheists baptize their children, because everybody does so. My son is the first child in the history of his school to not attend religion classes (an... (read more)

That's not unusual. Ok, that part is unusual. In most countries it's only Muslim feelings.
I don't see much need to avoid Christmas. It's really an old pagan holiday, celebrating the winter solstice, that the Church took over and adapted for its purposes (a very common move for the Catholic Church, by the way). No one who looked into the matter thinks Jesus was actually born at the end of December and I think it's viable to accent the "holiday" aspects (the tree, the lights, etc.) and downplay the religious aspects (the Advent, the Nativity displays, etc.)

When I told my first family that we're not going to baptise our son and we'll raise him atheist (and implicated the same for any future children), my father asked: then how will you teach him morals, what is good and bad? Only religion can do that!

Note how in the context of a church, with adults bringing their children, even if you primarily intend the Noble Lie for your children, you can hardly fail to notice that they're are some adults just as credulous as the children. Likely you'll think that the Noble Lie Show is a good thing for those credulous adults as well. And isn't that kind of the point of a faith community? To reinforce each other's faith? Drill that kind of thinking in them when they're young, so it will stick when they're older. Santa/Jesus are pretty well interchangeable for children. He sees you when you're sleeping He knows when you're awake He knows if you've been bad or good So be good, for goodness sake You better watch out You better not cry You better not pout I'm telling you why Santa Claus is coming, to town I don't think it's just a strange coincidence that Santa leaves a lump of coal in your stocking.

As much as I agree with the second part of your comment, I think that mentioning the small stuff is important. I know this topic is quite trivial compared to the AI topics that have overtaken LW, but we don't have to change young people into critical thinkers when they reach puberty, we can work from the very first years. And on LW there is next to nothing about parenting.

How would you phrase that truth to a 2-year old?

I don't want her to lie or believe falsehoods, but I cannot just say "it's a lie most adults tell children" (yet). Aside from her ability to understand such a complicated statement, there are other, very catholic, children in the family. Children, who got two cardboard versions of the Bible for their second birthday (because the first one was still too advanced). I think the "fairy-tale of Claus" does this quite well.

The thing is all of the other takes on this topic start from a point, when a child (usually 5-9 years old) asks "Is ... (read more)

you'll have a real choice about whether to continue relating to them or not. You won't be coming from a place of neediness and shame, and will be able to set better boundaries. Nobody can predict exactly what form your relationship with them will take. You may find that you can love them for who they are, or you may find that you don't actually enjoy their company and choose not to spend time with them. You may find that you can set effective boundaries. Who knows?

I'll save this for future reference.

Right now I feel cutting myself from my parents from m... (read more)

A grudge is what the algorithm for "they owe me and I think I can collect via social pressure" feels like from the inside. This implies that you still believe: 1. They owe you something, and 2. It's possible to collect Both of these statements are false, but it's easier to start with the second one. Admit the truth: barring a miracle, you are never going to collect this "debt", because it's not one your parents will ever acknowledge. Indeed, I would guess that if someone held a gun to their heads and insisted they repent, they'd be like, "What are you talking about? We didn't do anything to her!" When you finally admit to yourself that this is true, there won't be a grudge any more, because the grudge is nothing more than your brain's insistence that you should be able to collect, in denial of the fact that you can't collect. Use the Litany of Gendlin and the Litany of Tarski here, or the questions from The Work of Byron Katie [], which is particularly effective at resolving grudges and judgments directed at other people. One of the things Byron Katie sometimes says about these kinds of judgments is that in order to free yourself, you have to want to know the truth, more than you want to be right, or than you want to get whatever it is from that person. The truth will set you free, but first it's going to annoy the hell out of you. ;-)

This reply made my cry more than any other. But I know this kind of crying - it happens when somebody opens my eyes to a different perspective, so it's good crying.

My hope was mostly broken, but I kept trying to fix it. Popular psychology makes people believe that they can make almost any relationship work. Yesterday evening I felt lighter. I could start thinking "I can let go of trying now."

A quick way to begin poking holes in this belief is to imagine that you have done everything perfectly to their desire, been the exact person they wanted y

... (read more)
The key thing to focus on here is that even when you were better, they still didn't treat you with the love or respect or appreciation that you are looking for. That's the part you need to connect with, to realize on an emotional level that it's not really about you. Your brain is doing something I call the Prime Conclusion/Prime Assumption pattern. It goes sort of like this: * The Prime Assumption: If I were good enough, then other people would care. * The Prime Conclusion: If others don't care, then I am not good enough. The Prime Assumption is actually false: your parents wouldn't care even if you were good enough, as your experience already proves. There is no level of "good enough" that is sufficient to make them act differently. The really good thing is, once you break this assumption, the conclusion is also broken. You will realize then that, if no amount of "good enough" will get you care, then that means the care is not under your control. It is not your responsibility to do anything to make them care, and you will stop feeling "not good enough". (More precisely, you'll no longer interpret your parents' behavior as meaning you're not good enough, and it will be more difficult -- though not impossible! -- for your parents to make you feel inadequate.) I don't say the relationship is unfixable, actually. When you actually let go of wanting/needing pats on the back from them, then you'll have a real choice about whether to continue relating to them or not. You won't be coming from a place of neediness and shame, and will be able to set better boundaries. Nobody can predict exactly what form your relationship with them will take. You may find that you can love them for who they are, or you may find that you don't actually enjoy their company and choose not to spend time with them. You may find that you can set effective boundaries. Who knows? What is unfixable is not the relationship per se, but your intention to obtain love, appreciation, etc. from the

Now this is part is surprisingly relevant to me.

One version of family history says I was an accident (so there was a choice: should they bother with abortion or keep the baby and marry). The other version (never spoken aloud) says she used me to marry my father. I always wanted to believe the first one (and so oblige her to love me since she chose me), but the other made somehow deeper sense.

Thank you, I really needed that spelled out.

Fun fact about the questionare: when I excluded all "I don't know" and "sometimes" answers - I got "yes" exactly 80%.

This does read like a textbook case of narcissistic parents. I speak from both experience and research.

In a way I have been doing the same past 10 years, but only superficially. I treated my withdrawing from any emotional contact as a shielding technique, not as the only way we can have any kind of social interaction without me being in very low mood the next day.

So more or less you have already found the correct solution (it's not that difficult, if you make different experiments and observe the results), you just blame yourself for not being able to find even better solution which would magically make everything great. The next step is to stop blaming yourself for not doing the impossible.

I bought it the next day you told me about it. Started reading but not yet finished the preface.

Christian, you've met me in person, in Berlin... I live in Poland, more catholic than the Pope, as I often say. Poland, which mentally is still under 19th century partitions, so people are raised to believe that anyone of power is evil and family is the only good space in the world. It's difficult not to be driven by the culture in which I am living.

You may be up against a logistical problem as long as you live in Poland, if there are relatively few people who are alienated from their families for you to form a chosen family with.
The question is not so much whether it's difficult but whether you want to follow those values. I'm personally busy enough trying to live up to my own values, that I don't put that much emphasis about trying to live up to other people's values. At the moment you are probably trying to live up to the general values of your culture because your upbrining left you with low self confidence. Additionally it's worth thinking about if you get into problems with other people besides your family if you would cut contact with your mother and father. Start thinking about the unthinkable in detail to make it less scary. Once you done that the next step is being open and then letting the chips fall where they may. If you act in a way you consider to be right, then other people can choose how to react, so that they get a outcome that's also right for them. There's free right to move within the EU. If you don't like the culture of the place you are living you are free to go somewhere else.
Sounds like a pretty good heuristic.

A close friend would offer those things.

This "is family somehow more important than other people" question is something I've been reluctantly thinking about for some time. I want to find a "yes", but I don't see it. Then I start doubting my expertise on the subject and scream to myself "confirmation bias!!!". And then I shut the screamer up with "but you always doubt yourself, maybe this time you are right?"

I think family should be given some extra slack-- for example, if your family is kind of boring and/or irritating, but basically supportive, it's probably worth your while to maintain your connections. However, if you have clear evidence that your family is not on your side, you would do better to build relationships with other people.

Yes. Child 1 is 5 years old and lives with Krabbe disease, Child 2 is 3 and as far as anyone can tell is healthy.

I find your writing matter-of-factly. I know lots of people who find this idea repulsive and they never hold their tongues. OTOH I live in a highly religious country.

For the first time I did it!

And want to thank the person who included "homemaker" in occupations list.

Excercises in small rational behaviours. E.g. people genrally are very reluctant to apologize about anything, even if the case means little to them and a lot to the other person. Maybe it's "if I apologize, that will mean I was a bad person in the first place" thinking, maybe something else.

It's a nice excercise: if somebody seems to want something from you or apparently is angry with you when you did nothing wrong, stop for a moment and think: how much will it cost me to just say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you". After all, tho... (read more)

tkadlubo's employer doesn't know about LWSH and tkadlubo's opinion is that this is none of their business as long as it does not interfere with his work.

As far as I remember, at some point the previous employer found out but didn't complain.

(oh, and I quote his opinions because I'm his wife. Maybe not as reliable source as the man himself, but close.)

I wouldn't call that a problem. This way if you just stumble there you have the most important information. And also the link to the second room in case the first one is broken.

Random tinychat users are so rare that I think this way has more utility.

I think there were too few people wearing no-touching tags to make them work (well enough). At some point I freaked out and everyone who saw me in distress and wanted to help just hugged, patted and generally invaded me - ignoring the tag and the semi-obvious reason for freaking out.

What I do not agree is what you call the ironic status of those tags. I talked to some people about it and aside from straight "I want a lot of hugs" and "don't touch me at all" there was also the opinion "I don't feel comfortable being hugged (or touch... (read more)

Possibly a middle ground is not actually needed- a "do not initiate physical contact" tag could serve the purposes of both people who do not want hugs at all, and people who are okay with hugs from certain people, but do not want others to initiate. Anyone can hug someone with a "do not initiate contact" tag with permission or the other person's initiation, but nobody with such a tag is required to give either. However, I think it's probably preferable that both hugging and non-hugging people wear tags, rather than specifying only one. Even if one group is in the majority, I think that people in the other group are less likely to feel uncomfortable by marking themselves out with explicit signs if the other group is also wearing signs. Plus, it can help foster a standard etiquette of "examine tag before initiating hug."
Perhaps "Please hug me," "Please ask first," and "Please don't hug"? Not quite a solution, for reasons to be discussed shortly. The underlying problem, I suspect, is the different desires for physical / social intimacy. So long as that exists, you're going to have some level of awkwardness and deadweight loss, and the question is where it falls. Similarly, the underlying reason behind a 'please ask first' tag is that there are people you want to hug, and people you don't want to hug, and oftentimes the people you don't want to hug want to hug you. So even with a 'please ask' tag, they ask, and then you say no, and then there's awkwardness, especially if you just hugged someone else, say, or want to hug someone else immediately afterwards. Perhaps it is enough to acknowledge the costs- having to check tags, having to ask, having to deal with rejection- as the price for when things do work out. (One of my friends was in a theater group that would have cast parties after the show where, basically, everyone was assumed to consent to make out with anyone else- and she described the experience as "trying to catch the people you were interested in while trying to avoid the people you weren't interested in," which led to a large amount of circling around the room for a party.)
Fair point. Apologies to anyone else wearing the no-hug tag.

This quota idea is a really interesting one. I like how it uses side effects (more men lured by higher pay) to get to the real goal (higher status of job). This should be done more often!

Right now know only 2 men working as kindergarten teachers (or, more specifially, one of them is working and I lost contact with the other one when he entered the job market), and it makes even me uneasy to see the first one at my son's kindergarten. On one hand I feel "yay for equality" but on the other hand I can't stop thinking "what's wrong with this guy?"

Load More