Your first point is a good one And your second point successfully annoyed me

I didn't know about that test! Pretty neat, and it seems better than the "color of the apple" one

To be clear I am not pushing back on the notion of aphantasia, although I'm not necessarily a fan

And I don't think I have aphantasia

My point was more about metaphors, and about the fact that much more of our communication relies on them than we realize

Thanks, this is interesting

I was wondering, do retinoids work as an acute treatment as well? I sometimes have annoying acne spots in various places, but I don't feel like preventatively slathering my whole body in the stuff

Of course! Thank you

As a fellow member of the regrettably small overlap between rationalists and adepts of ecological psychology, (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Y4hN7SkTwnKPNCPx5/why-don-t-more-people-talk-about-ecological-psychology), I'm looking forward to seeing your next posts!

Those statist AI doomers never miss a chance to bring I, R, and S into everything...

More seriously, thanks for the history lesson!

Thanks for your answer! Very interesting

I didn't know about the continuous nature of LNN; I would have thought that you needed different hardware (maybe an analog computer?) to treat continuous values.

Maybe it could work for generative networks for images or music, that seems less discrete than written language.

Je suis de Grenoble donc ça fait loin mais sympa de voir des rationalistes en France!

As I understand it, ecological psychology is more of a framework for the interpretation of existing results than a theory, but it does make predictions about coaching interventions, and yeah it seems like the results are pretty robust

Here is a compilation of studies comparing approaches favored by ecologically-minded coaches to more traditional training interventions: https://perceptionaction.com/comparative/

Could be biased of course, but it may be a good starting point