All of remizidae's Comments + Replies

Re the point that mania is very bad, I agree, but people should know that not all mania is associated with bipolar disorder.

It might be a good idea to point out that there is substantial individual variation in how individual women experience their menstrual cycle. Knowing the averages does not enable you to draw conclusions about what any individual is experiencing. If you find yourself saying, "You must be [X] because of your menstrual cycle," stop. Do not lecture women about their menstrual cycle, do not assume you know more than they do about how their bodies work.

I gather there wasn't any data about cyclic changes in sex drive, but that would be an interesting one to study too.

Yes, I completely agree with this point. I hope I made it clear that I like thinking about data like this exclusively for personal "outside view"-y reflection. So things like, "Oh I haven't gotten anything done this morning, maybe it's because of (x cycle variable), so maybe I can do (y intervention) to fix things". And then, generalizing to other women only in the sense that they might find it helpful to think similar thoughts.  They didn't mention sex drive, but the binary variable "had sex" did come up in the study. However individual fluctuations cancelled out any patterns beyond "more sex on weekends" and "less sex during periods". 

Do people in your bubble generally find it difficult to make decisions that might seem "selfish," or might be disapproved of by their peers?

It's very strange to me that a group of people who are, on average, very well informed about COVID, and who are probably aware that the risk of death for healthy non-elderly people is incredibly low, would so often go completely overboard on precautions. Is it hyper-altruism?

I've talked to some people who locked down pretty hard pretty early; I'm not confident in my understanding but this is what I currently believe.

I think characterizing the initial response as over-the-top, as opposed to sensible in the face of uncertainty, is somewhat the product of hindsight bias. In the early days of the pandemic, nobody knew how bad it was going to be. It was not implausible that the official case fatality rate for healthy young people was a massive underestimate.

I don't think our community is "hyper-altruistic" in the Strangers Drowning... (read more)

While risk of death is clearly relatively low (especially when it gets people to consume medical services that might also reduce risk of death), the risk of long COVID isn't clearly very low. 

I mean, this question is why I wrote the post in the first place. It's not hyper-altruism. I think it's an inadequate equilibrium, although I don't know that calling it that actually explains anything. There was a lot of stuff at play here that is hard to write about because it's sort of nebulous and social and I don't remember all the details that well. Perhaps someone else in my bubble could take a stab at it?
The theory I heard postulated (by the guy that used to record the ssc podcast) is that once people start thinking "better" in reductionist frameworks they fail to account non quantifiable metrics (e.g. death is quantifiable in qaly, being more isolated isn't)

I’ve got to ask, what is the most locked-down person you know doing? It’s hard to imagine being more locked down than you are!

One person moved to a cabin (pretty far from things but close enough for grocery delivery) and had no interaction whatsoever except with their partner, who until recently had no interaction with anyone at all either. Another person wears a positive-pressure suit for every interaction, including in some parts of their house.

How much of your stress do you think was the result of living in a group house, and thus feeling that you had to get roommates’ consent to very normal things like going on a date or a walk? I know some people seem to like the group house thing, but damn, I like making my own decisions.

I’d like to see survey data on rationalists’ responses to the pandemic. Does this exist (should i make it exist?) I suspect the incredibly super-cautious are more vocal, thus distorting our perception of what others are doing.

Personally, I’m avoiding indoor restaurants/bars ... (read more)

Ooh you're right that survey data would be cool. I'm kind of wishing someone had thought to make a recurring survey (monthly?) that asks people what precautions they're taking now.

You may be overestimating the amount of time and effort rich parents (especially rich fathers) put towards raising kids.

Also, some people would devote themselves to caretaking activities: lots of kids incl. foster kids, lots of dogs or cats. I’m not saying this is exactly bad, in some cases it’s good, but at extremes it can become hoarding, when the impulse to collect kids/pets overwhelms the motivation to adequately care for them.

I understand how this can be very rewarding, but it is also an activity which requires mental effort (you do not just look after a kid the way you can drink a bottle or the way you can scroll your Facebook feed).  It does not feel to me like the sort of activity in which you can just fall into, while you are planned to do other things. Are there documented cases of pathological dependence by caretaking?

Drugs, alcohol and porn. How many people have a preexisting tendency towards overuse of these substances that is kept in check by the need to get up on time for work and be reasonably productive and presentable at work? This is no limit to the amount of time an addicted person can spend pursuing their addiction.

You could extend this to other potentially addictive activities, like shopping, video games, and social media.

This implies that rich people who don't (or don't need to) work for their living will spend much more time on drugs, alcohol and porn, because they can afford to. Is that the case?
6Stuart Anderson2y
Also, some people would devote themselves to caretaking activities: lots of kids incl. foster kids, lots of dogs or cats. I’m not saying this is exactly bad, in some cases it’s good, but at extremes it can become hoarding, when the impulse to collect kids/pets overwhelms the motivation to adequately care for them.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I’m not too worried about this problem because I tend to assume that people will evaluate my advice in the light of their own circumstances and needs. I have not had a problem with people blindly accepting my advice on faith, without critical thought. Maybe this would be more of a problem for a teacher of young children or famous person or CEO or someone else with a lot of prestige.

Agree, I think the problem definitely gets amplified by power or status differentials.  I do think that people often forget to think critically about all kinds of things because their brain just decides to accept it on the 5 second level and doesn't promote the issue as needing thorough consideration. I find all kinds of poorly justified "facts"/advice in my mind because of something I read or someone said that I failed to properly consider. Even when someone does take the time to think about advice though I think it's easy for things to go wrong. The reason someone is asking for advice may be that they simply do not have the expertise to evaluate claims about challenge X on their own merits. Another possibility is that someone can realize the advice is good for them but overcorrect, essentially trading one problem for another. 

Check them for the alcoholism genes.

Is this possible? I did 23andme and that wasn't included.

Oh... Nevermind!

What does asserting the right to pseudonymity mean?

Good question. I hadn't defined it in any more detail in my mind. But my basic thought is that someone should be able to build an online presence under a pseudonym (from the beginning, without having revealed their real name publicly like Scott had) as long as they comply with the rules of the communities they choose to join, without legal obligation to declare their real name. I would imagine some exceptions would have to apply (for example, in the case of a legally enforceable warrant) but others, including journalists, would refer to the pseudonym if they wanted to report on such a person. But of course there could be unintended consequences of this sort of rule that I haven't considered.

I think this post is really valuable because it pushes people to be in information-seeking mode, rather than hortatory mode. And I’m sorry to see that I’m the only one who’s tried to answer the question, because I’m sure my answer is incomplete.

I’d like to encourage other people to really try to think and learn about why the FDA is acting this way. What is happening and why? What procedures and incentives are they operating with? Don’t jump straight to criticizing them, don’t jump to what you would do if you built the system from scratch. (And no, “fire everybody and replace them with AI” is never going to fly in the federal government.)

If this is ever going to change, we need to know what’s happening first.

I don’t think that’s the obstacle. Lots of different people are looking at the application from different angles, and no one seems to have the sense of urgency we might think is warranted.

I agree. I’m saying that if, hypothetically, this were difficult to check and the FDA couldn’t have checked the intermediate data and if... etc, then you could still hire more people.

I addressed this in #1 above. Even if they’ve already seen data, they’re starting from scratch as far as evaluating the Officially Submitted Data goes. Plus the number of different people and groups involved.

No, it's not clear why you need weeks to a bunch to check whether someone did their statistics right. Analysing clinical trial data isn't rocket science.

I’d love to hear from someone at FDA on this. I do not work for FDA, but here’s my guess.

  1. they need to study the data they’ve been given. Although FDA will have been in communication with the drug company and seen their data all along, they probably have a rule that they can only consider data Officially Submitted as part of an Official Application. In a complex organization, most likely lots of people get involved in a big decision, including managers, lawyers, and political appointees who don’t necessarily have a lot of value to add on safety/efficacy

... (read more)
What kind of study do they need to do besides the statistical tests that are already done. How do you fill weeks with studying the data?

Brainstorming some answers to my own question, I think it would help to maintain more standard social boundaries with followers. Avoid group living. Don’t have sex with followers (and don’t let on if you find any of them attractive). Don’t adopt followers into your family. Actively foster other leaders, so that group members’ dependence and demands are not centered solely on you.

How do you think it would be possible for an incipient cult leader to fight the tendency for people to idolize him or her? While still maintaining the group and staying engaged with the group? Are there any examples of people successfully doing that?

It would be possible for the incipient leader to just walk away, and in that case I would expect either the group to lose a lot of its cohesion and the good parts of cultishness—or another incipient leader might step in.

They have some suggestions of how to do that in the episode; one is just exhibiting behaviors that don't fit the idealized image they want to project on you. (Taft: "It's remarkably easy to break, at least for a little while, by just - you know - picking your nose or swearing or something. And if I notice someone doing [the idealization] - because you can tell when it's happening - I just keep breaking it and breaking it and breaking it until it breaks, and then probably they'll go away at that point if that was their goal, you know, 'he was not who I thought he was' and then they lose interest. But if they stick around after that, then they are probably seeing me quite a bit more for who I am.") Another thing that he mentions is that while you do want to maintain boundaries - don't let crazy people call you at 3 AM - it's also good if you can reduce distance and let people in close. If people stay distant and never meet you, then it's easy to continue idealizing you, whereas meeting you in person makes it easier for them to see who you actually are. He used to invite anyone who was interested into his living room for his meditation class, and "while that was probably too much", he says it was good for getting that distance down.
Brainstorming some answers to my own question, I think it would help to maintain more standard social boundaries with followers. Avoid group living. Don’t have sex with followers (and don’t let on if you find any of them attractive). Don’t adopt followers into your family. Actively foster other leaders, so that group members’ dependence and demands are not centered solely on you.

Well, I once charted my mood in relation to menstruation for a few months, and no correlations really emerged, except for an increase in libido early in menstruation. I guess I am lucky...or you're unlucky? I don't really know what the typical menstruation experience is like, tbh.

Probably obvious, but have you talked to a doctor about this? Or several doctors? That sounds terrible.

I don’t have menstruation-related symptoms severe enough to affect productivity. I also don’t use hormonal birth control.

Lucky you!  (Even if it doesn't affect productivity, do you at all notice fluctuations in energy level?)  I've spoken to two doctors. Both seemed to think this was within normal range and advocated for the pill as a tool to reduce painful period symptoms. My impression is that my period symptoms are maybe in the top half of severity, but not the top quartile? 

I think you are talking about the Anki desktop app rather than the phone app or browser app?

The failure point for me was just getting Anki installed. Can I use it in a browser? Only works with Chrome. Can I use the desktop app? Only works with the latest Mac OS. Well, maybe not the latest, but newer than my computer.  So I went with a flashcard app that's not so restrictive. 

1Space L Clottey1y
What flashcard app did you use?

What is “it” when you say “it” makes sense?

I’ll probably wear masks in e.g. the grocery store even after being vaccinated, because I expect the law to lag the reason for the law, and because wearing a mask for ~half an hour is less costly than the risk of conflict if someone tries to make me wear a mask.

As for whether public places should enforce mask-wearing on people who claim to have been vaccinated, well, enforcement is pretty lax as it is, and I expect it’ll just get laxer as vaccination spreads. As it should.

Please define your terms at the beginning of the post. I see you have a link, but it’s broken and it’s better to have a concise definition integrated into the post rather than hoping people will click through.

2Matt Goldenberg2y
Fixed the link!   Edit: Added a short definition.

If I play a zero sum game and win, that’s good for me, and not bad for the world as a whole. I don’t care about what God or an ideal observer would think, since there is no such thing. One way in which Lewis’s values are dramatically different from those of an atheist.

The only question that matters to me is whether seeking to get into the inner ring will make me happy or not. I see Lewis says it would not make me happy, but I don’t find his reasons really convincing (they seem to be a priori rather than drawn from experience).

Competing in zero sum games rather than looking for positive sum games to play is not good for the world (and probably not good for you either on average, unless you have reason to think you will be better than average at this).

I don’t agree that a one-off or “drive-by” comment is a bad thing. Yes, it might be nice sometimes to have a lengthy discussion, but, you know, this is just a website, commenting is not my job, and people have other shit to do. I’d rather get a single good comment than get nothing at all from a person who has time to write one comment but not time to be on LW every day checking to see if their comment got a response.

Agreed! That's why, as long as your comment has at least one non-PONDS characteristic, it would pass muster. It can be warm, give a reason or motivation for the criticism, offer some synthetic reflection on the original arguments as a whole, or show that you've read and considered the whole post/comment thread that you're responding to.

I think this post is conflating two categories of facts about myself that I might want to conceal: the weird and the disreputable. 

Example: if I only listen to 18th-century Japanese music, that's weird but not disreputable. If I'm addicted to phenibut, that's weird and disreputable. (There are also "normal" facts that are disreputable, such as "I'm depressed.") OP's example of "personal problems" would fall into the disreputable and potentially weird category.

A person's answer to the "should I be openly weird" question might not dictate their answer t... (read more)

Re #2: you’re conflating the First Amendment and free speech. The First Amendment is one particular legal instantation of the idea of free speech, applicable in limited circumstances in one country. Establishing that there is no First Amendment problem does not establish that there is no free speech problem. And although I agree that there are important differences between government censorship and censorship by private actors, the classical liberal argument for free speech supplies reasons why even private censorship is harmful. You need to engage with these pro-free-speech arguments and explain why they don’t apply here.

Fair point re: #2, but the ultimate point is unchanged. For the same reasons that Less Wrong and SSC engage in content moderation, Twitter does the same. Banning Trump, on balance, will not be harmful.

>Suppose that you earn $4M over the course of your career, and want to spend $2M on yourself over the course of your life.

There's also a difference between MMM and EAers over how long to work. A Mustachian might earn $1M, retire, and donate any funds they happen to have over what they need. The EA person might work for decades longer, make $4M and donate $3M. So there could be very big differences in total amount donated even if the Mustachian and EA person spend the same amount on themselves. 

(Average lifetime income is in the range of $1M, is beside the point, but I couldn't resist looking it up.)


4Adam Zerner2y
I think that is true for a typical Mustachian, but at the same time there's nothing about Mustachianism that says you should do this. The idea is to be frugal and retire early because retiring early allows you to pursue what you are passionate about and stuff. If making more money and donating it to effective causes is what you are passionate about, Mustachianism doesn't say to avoid it. (That's my interpretation of it anyway.) Huh, that seems low, at least for a wealthy western country. Iirc average income in America is around $50k. Over 40 years that is $2M. Adding on interest makes it even more.

Thanks for these thoughts, they resonated with me as an ambivalent Mustachian.

The tension between Mustachianism and effective altruism might be relevant to some on this site. You CAN both save aggressively and give to charity, especially at a high income. But you cannot make both your #1 priority: you have to choose. MMM himself seems to have chosen saving first, and giving to charity after financial independence (he advocates on the blog for effective charities, which I admire). This is my strategy as well on the principle of saving yourself before others... (read more)

4Adam Zerner2y
Thanks for the compliment :) Hm, in thinking about it it seems to me that the tension you describe is moreso a matter of the time value of money than it is about where you choose to allocate your money. Suppose that you earn $4M over the course of your career, and want to spend $2M on yourself over the course of your life. You can 1) focus on saving your money first and donating it later, or 2) donating it now as you earn it. In both cases the amount you're spending on yourself versus others are the same, but in the former case you are the one who benefits from the time value of money (earning interest) instead of the charities. (Additionally, perhaps charities can put money to better use now versus later.) This matter of timing that I describe seems like a question that is separate from the question of how much to spend on yourself versus others. Eg. spending $2M on yourself over a lifetime versus $1M versus $3M. Perhaps this is also something that EAs and Mustachians disagree on? I'm not sure. My impression is that a large majority of EAs are ok with or even recommend a lifestyle that is at least as spendy as a Mustachian lifestyle, if only for the purpose of: standard of living → happiness → productivity gains → better at making money that could be used altruistically. But I also recall hearing philosophies that are more about: "you can feed ten families in Africa if you eat ramen instead of chicken and rice".

I tried a hard lockdown in March-June with no friends, no restaurants, no travel, limited shopping, and it certainly was not a "trivial" loss. Our lifestyle and our sanity matters. I could feasibly lock down for a month or two, but I have no faith in my ability to accurately assess when that month would matter.

Where I'm coming out here is that it is not going to be feasible for most people to either lock down hard or intentionally get COVID. It's not a comfortable conclusion, because we as humans like to pretend we are in control, but aside from the extreme I-will-never-leave-my-apartment outliers, who are never going to be more than a small minority of the population, we are not in control of whether or when we get Covid.

5Rob Bensinger2y
Yeah, I should have said "relatively simple" or "relatively straightforward" instead of "relatively trivial".

I’m having trouble thinking of a feasible and ethical way to get Covid intentionally. Don’t think the hospital would take kindly to a random person showing up and wanting to hang out in the Covid ward. I could increase my level of risk by going to unmasked protests or illegal parties or wherever crowds are, but if I got infected doing that, seems like in the time period between infection and test there would be a significant chance of infecting someone else, and I’m not sure that’s ethical. (Not sure it’s unethical either, given that others who engage in high risk activities have chosen the risk voluntarily, but it’s enough to give me qualms.)

I would say the ethical aspect comes from what you do after your effort to become infected. Since your intent is to become infected, your next action is to self-quarantine for (up to?) 14 days and test. Without imposing your quarantine after the infection attempt you are shifting some risks to third parties. I assume your goal is to avoid the rush and get your immunity sooner rather than later and not wait until you are eligible for a vaccine. Perhaps an alternative would be to try the DIY vaccine and then test for antibodies. 
9Rob Bensinger2y
Two other reasons it may be unethical: many of the people taking on unusual risk are uninformed (which from my perspective, makes it feel at least a little more like I'm tricking them if I fully indulge them); and increasing their exposure puts one more COVID-infected person in the world, which can put third parties at risk who didn't intend to throw caution to the wind.
1Ben Pace2y
Why get it intentionally? Surely you should just "stop caring about it" and then you might get it, but you also might not, and that's the best of all possible worlds.

Thanks for the recommendation for Library Genesis. I found 4/10 of the books I searched for on there, so not as good as my local library, but it eliminates having to wait.

I'd encourage people, though, to avoid reading books on a smart phone if possible. Reading on the one device that is most likely to distract you from reading seems like a failure-prone plan. I use a Kindle for ebooks, and it's old and slow enough that I am not tempted to do anything but read on it. 

Maybe it would be also useful to use two web browsers, or two different profiles of the same browser, one for "serious work" (e.g. online banking) and one for "distractions" (e.g. social networks), with blockers set up to prevent misuse. Two different sets of bookmarks, different autocomplete answers, etc. This would make transition from work to wasting time less convenient. The autocomplete mechanism is like offering someone a drink just when they try to stop drinking.
That's surprising low for LibGen. Are you perhaps looking for fiction works and forgetting to search the fiction database? It's separate from the nonfiction (one of a number of really bad usability issues LG has is fragmented databases).

Jeez, California is really trying to drive people away, huh? I’m sorry you have to live there.

Maybe true - it's a REALLY pleasant place to be, so perhaps they're figuring out how to make it less so to reduce the significant crowding and public-choice problems they have. More likely, the case rate is very high and hospitals are at capacity, so they're taking extreme measures to make it rather annoying rather than (even more) horrifically fatal.

Yes! I kind of suspected you might be in a strict-lockdown bubble and overgeneralizing from that. BTW, you can’t legally see a single friend?!

Yup! "All gatherings with members of other households are prohibited in the Region except as expressly permitted herein." "Nothing in this Order prevents any number of persons from the same household from leaving their residence, lodging, or temporary accommodation, as long as they do not engage in any interaction with (or otherwise gather with) any number of persons from any other household, except as specifically permitted herein." As far as I can see, the only exceptions are for "worship" and "political expression".

I think people who are immune are often either 1) risk-averse enough not to change their behavior or 2) responding by changing their own choices rather than pushing for changes to government restrictions.  I think your surprise is coming from over-estimating the extent to which people's behavior is driven by government rules.

The difference between my behavior currently and my probable behavior post-vaccine or post-infection would be almost entirely about changing self-imposed restrictions. I could already legally eat in restaurants outdoors, work in r... (read more)

Ah, you've made me realize that I haven't thought through the variability between cities and states. As someone living in California, I currently cannot: eat in restaurants (indoors or outdoors), go to bars (ditto), gather in groups outside my "household", or get my hair cut.

I strongly disagree with this idea that only a few vaccine experts should be debating the topic. Aside from a few basic technical concepts, the basic question here is ethical. Everyone can judge ethical questions. And if the past year has taught us anything, it’s that medical ethics questions are too important to be left to the experts.

I agree; it seems like the contrary argument assumes that experts make better decisions and take a more flexible approach on issues where there's less direct public pressure, awareness, and debate. Instead, it seems to me they're like to say "that seems weird, I'm busy, so why bother listening to your weird proposal." Reminds me of Big Block of Cheese Day [] from the West Wing.

I found it, but the page would not allow me to select it.

I did this, but they are not allowing donations to any of the top-ranked charities I searched for (Give Directly, Malaria Consortium, Against Malaria). 

The first one you mention appears in the list as one word, GiveDirectly.  I initially had trouble finding it.
I think you just need to use the search function and they should be available as long as they are US incorporated nonprofits. I donated to Animal Ethics Inc.
Hi, I believe these should all be available (and I personally checked Malaria Consortium and saw that it was available). Did you try using the Search function to find the charities at the bottom right of the page listing the charity categories?

Re #6: why don’t people have people they can talk to about depression?

I’d like to hear more about this. Is it because people want to talk to someone about mental health but don’t have a person to talk to? Or they do have a person but don’t want to talk?

Personally I find myself keeping quiet about a lot of the important things in my life, because either 1) it’s bad and I don’t want to look bad or have the information get around, or 2) it’s good and I don’t want to brag, especially if my friend is doing less well.

3Stuart Anderson2y

>You cannot discover new knowledge for humanity by reading a book written by a human.

But you can discover new knowledge for yourself. Unless you think you've already read enough that you know all human knowledge. This is why rationalists so often get accused of reinventing the wheel—because if you aren't well-read, you can't tell the difference between a genuinely new idea or insight and an old one. And you may come up with a good idea but be unaware of all the downsides that other people have pointed out in books.

Maybe some people need this advice. But most people read dramatically too few books, and in particular too few books from before the 21st century.

I've heard that criticism too, but it's hard for me to come up with specific examples that I agree with. Do any of these [] count as reinvented wheels? EDIT: On second thought, whether or not rationalists already do reinvent the wheel, I strongly claim that they should reinvent wheels at least sometimes. Seems like really good practice for inventing novel things.
I agree. Another advantage of reading is to keep open the option of discovering unknown unknowns, shifting your worldview, finding mental tools and maybe even better philosophies in unexpected places (for example, I have been (mentally) referencing cryptonormativity [] quite alot recently, and Nerst pulled it from reading Habermas – not quite rationalist canon). The idea of the intelligence explosion was sitting [] in a text by I.J. Good for around 35 years until people seriously thought about what implications that might have, and what could & should be done about it. This ties in nicely with reading books from before the 21st century (and perhaps even before the 20th century!). Also, one should consider reading books that noone from one's main intellectual group has read.

Have you considered the harm to physical and mental health associated with unemployment?

You could argue that people don't take that into account when deciding not to work (so that I can make the world better by forcing people to work for their own benefit). The first step would be believing that people who stop working because they don't have to end up being less healthy, I have no idea if that's true. It's a bit hard to study, since interventions like "inherit a bunch of money" and "receive a UBI" mostly affect health via the channel of "now you have a bunch of money," and that obscures any negative effect from not having to work. (And on the other hand, comparing the employed to the unemployed is extremely confounded and I'm skeptical it gives any evidence on this question. It would be pretty surprising if people who had a harder time finding work weren't less healthy and happy.) The best would be to compare people receiving an unconditional transfer to people receiving a transfer with a work requirement, but I'm not aware of studies on that. You could also have some anecdotal evidence about that. People I know who are voluntarily unemployed seem to eat and exercise better, but they are probably not representative of the people affected by a welfare work requirement.

Of course, for every person who spends their volunteering or gardening, there will be ten people who spend their time getting high, binge-drinking, watching TV, or playing videogames.

>getting themselves fit and healthy (exercise time +cooking healthy food time)

What is with this idea that you can't be fit and healthy and have a job? A hour for exercise per day is plenty, half an hour for cooking. It's not at all difficult to do that and have a job too. 

3Donald Hobson3y
I don't have the idea that its impossible. There are plenty of healthy people with jobs.  The question is, how high is getting fit on the persons list of important things to do? It depends how long the hours are, and commute, and other demands on time. 
Most people who cook spend way more than half an hour a day cooking (and cleaning up afterwards, which has to be included).  More critically, spending 25% of your non-work/non-sleep time exercising is a very different proposition than spending < 10% of that time.

Outdoor dining in a tent has a lot more ventilation than being inside. But less ventilation than being fully outdoors. So I see your point, but it's about harm reduction. If you make people choose between being outside and unsheltered on a December evening and being inside, most of us will choose inside, so the tent, while probably more risky than fully outdoors, reduces the risk.

It would be an unusual partner who would agree to no physical intimacy (possibly including kissing and hugging) for two weeks so that OP can "reflect on the relationship." That sends a strong signal that you're about to get dumped. 

Good thing I only date unusual people :P I mean, people "take a break" all the time, I don't see why this kind of break in particular would be more alarming. Also, this was meant more as a rough example of a policy that could be taken from this knowledge than anything; you can use it any way you see fit (including doing nothing about it of course).

The big failure mode I see with physical intimacy is people rushing into major commitments (kids, marriage, moving in together) in the first two years of a relationship, when they’re still in the tempestuous, exciting, misleading phase of being “in love.” The solution is to be slower to commit.

I am not sure you can avoid the cognition-distorting effects of these hormones by avoiding physical intimacy. It’s very possible to be in love without any physical contact.

For sure, it's possible to be in love without physical contact, and I've personally experienced it. However, based on the article I shared about toxic relationships (which mostly focused on the effects of hormones) and my own sexual experiences, I'd say without being completely avoided, these hormones are produced in far less quantity without sex, and so their effects are mitigated. I do agree that being slower to commit leads to avoid the failure you point out, and I personally have some rules as to how long I wait for some steps in a relationship (which are kind of arbitrary and open to changes). But I thing that's a generally pretty agreed-upon belief, and so I preferred to focus on impacts less talked about in this post.

I appreciate this question—good to see someone willing to go against the hyperscrupulous LW consensus. I think many people want the vaccine because of a vague idea that it will accelerate the time at which things are back to normal. Most people have suffered more from the indirect effects of the pandemic (job losses, business closures, stress, isolation) than from COVID itself.

This vaccine has been approved much more quickly, and in an environment of much higher political pressure, than most. That is a reason to be more cautious about it than one might be about, say, the flu or pertussis vaccines.

Whether you think there is evidence of "lasting" negative health consequences is going to depend on what you interpret as "lasting." There is lots of evidence SOME people still have symptoms a few months after infection. 

The priors we have from SARS suggests that those symptoms are lasting. 

More nuclear power. Less hysteria over child sex abuse. More lenient crime policy.

In general, people would worry less about very-unlikely attention-grabbing events, which I expect would lead them to take more risks. 

Very Serious People/Doom Patrol.

Load More