Rana Dexsin

You see either something special, or nothing special.


Sorted by New


Bad names make you open the box

Regarding the definition of "regress", I mean in everyday life. I've never heard of it meaning "move down", "decrease", or "deteriorate" in a broad sense; I only know of it meaning that in the case I mentioned above, when the contextual assumption is that moving up or increasing has already been happening and is now being undone. In particular, a climb up one side of a hill of quality followed by a fall down a different side into a different worse state would not be a regression (though this can get blurry depending on which parts of the state are considered relevant).

However, because "regress" is used so commonly in that sort of context, the connotation of deterioration does exist, so you could make a reasonable case for the term "regression to the mean" being less clear than it could be on those grounds—that it pushes a default mental image of the deviating state being above or better than the mean, even though this is not an intended implication. It doesn't mean "move closer" though—that's derived entirely from the "to" part.

Bad names make you open the box

The term "regress" sounds like it means "move down", but instead it just means "move closer to".

It means "return to(ward)", with the implication that the observed difference from the mean is (partially) transient, so you're returning to a past state. An example of why it sometimes implies "worsen" or "decrease" is that in a developmental context, most of the relevant change over time is assumed to be improvement, so a regression is by default a return to a lesser or worse state. This doesn't necessarily invalidate what you said about it in a broader way, but that's how the association comes out in my mind.

If You Want to Find Truth You Need to Step Into Cringe

In this case, if you followed social norms, you would deny the truth about if you like anime or not, and you would pursue something else that would make you less happy.

Why would this happen rather than "you would be pushed into experiences and thought patterns that resolve the highly path-dependent determination of which things you enjoy in a way that makes it smoother for you to bond with the social groups around you"? Here I'm not asserting that the "deny" form is (generally) false, only that it doesn't seem clearly true. Experiential evidence suggests that there's a wide gradient, and indeed that alief-preconceptions about how much of one's identity is social themselves skew the gradient a lot.

MikkW's Shortform

Language clarification: is "deserve to spend less of…" used in the sense of "deserve that less of … is spent [not necessarily by them]" here?

CollAction history and lessons learned

We’re not focused on 1 particular problem (like climate change, plastics, poverty, or loneliness among elderly, etc.) but we’re posing a new way to solve all kinds of collective action problems. This generally does not fit many funders’ buckets / categories

I'm not sure if you were implying the following situation (though this is what my imagination initially came up with), but: if there are a number of potential funders, each of which would benefit somewhat from a better mechanism for solving collective action problems, but each of which finds it too weird/illegible or not individually valuable enough to fund a general mechanism for collective action problems, does this mean you could ask those funders to commit to funding/promoting the collective action problem site a certain amount only if enough other funders also collectively do enough, and then… ?

Open and Welcome Thread - April 2021

If you're going to push “take the content warning at the top seriously”, then may I suggest being careful about what you subsequently quote from the same page directly in the comment thread without it‽

"Taking your environment as object" vs "Being subject to your environment"

I would expect the imagined version to not work as well for someone who isn't already used to trying to see their environment from the outside, since they're likely to just imagine someone else who's used to the same environment (because it's normal and obvious, right?), after which the explanation can just be the “official” explanation. Any experiential information on that?

IQcaptcha enters beta

The tweet example indicated as “blocked” also points way past “offensive satire” to me; the description of “I can't use this shampoo” is charitably read as pointing toward a real difference in hair-care needs which isn't being covered by a business, plus some vent-driven/antagonistic emotional content. That's not “unintelligent”, that's more like “exhibiting conflict or cultural markers in a way that makes you uncomfortable”, and it aligns with culture war in an alarming way. (Of course, there can exist sites where posting such things is off-topic or otherwise outside the norm, but displaying it as connected to the ostensible purpose reads as trying to sneak in a wild claim, and the choice of example is bizarre to begin with.)

I notice that ‘ballerburg9005’ only joined today and this is their only post. My probability that this is being posted in good faith is quite low given the above. I have strong-downvoted the post.

Covid 4/1: Vaccine Passports

Mostly meta, mostly with the motivation of explaining a vote in case it would otherwise seem like an attack:

I believe you that you're pointing this out because you want to avoid very unjust and harmful outcomes that might not be easily anticipated just by looking at the first step. And that's good!

But you're also leaning hard on a highly-publicized, highly-emotionally-charged single incident in a discussion about broad public policy. And that's bad. Not only can it raise others' emotions in ways that impede truthseeking, but it's easy to make serious errors extrapolating that way in the first place.

I have downvoted this comment for that reason—but I want to contrast that your other comments have been quite good. In particular, you brought up the same issue in a more nuanced and explained way in another comment; that comment also included a lot of other useful perspective, and got an upvote from me.

I also think it's very possible that you have further information we don't (possibly intuitive, experiential information that is hard to unpack or transmit; and in fact you have already pointed at much of this in the other comment!) that does point in the direction of, say, “‘vaccine passports’ deployed in certain ways would cause people to forge them, and then cause enforcers to detect this and escalate the situation in such a way as to cause violent disasters” (or something similar—don't anchor on that if you have a better idea!). If so, I would encourage you to keep trying to reify that connection if you can (though certainly don't think you have to keep sinking energy into it regardless of anything), but also to try not to be too impulsive if people start picking it apart or depicting worlds in which not all the links hold up.

[Some edits and corrections shortly after posting.]

Covid 4/1: Vaccine Passports

Regarding the mandatory quarantine thing, the first hypothesis to my mind in that situation is “if vaccine/testing proof from abroad is too easy to fake, it's much easier to have everyone go through locally-verified quarantine than try to figure out who's faking and risk political blowback and/or catastrophic outbreaks depending on which mistakes you make”, or more weakly “that was the evaluation of some part of the Canadian government independently of whether it is actually true”.

This is doubly true for any kind of “I have recovered from” attestation, and (especially if not from a medical system) that has the extra dice-roll of “was the disease properly identified”. In both of these, the risk will come substantially from the worse end of the distribution, so even if median people are reliable-and-trustworthy enough, too much variance could be a huge deal.

Edited to add: also, the Twitter link in that paragraph points to a tweet about FDA authorizing tests without a prescription, which seems like it might've been mixed up with a different link?

Load More