These two books have helped me enormously in having transformative conversations:
And you can understand their way of thinking and how to communicate better ideas with
I’m glad we both want to see fairness and kindness in the world. I see you interpret cruelty, abuse, and dishonesty’s effects as respect. I see it a bit differently. When I see cruelty, abuse, and dishonesty, I usually see fear, terror, hiding, lying— anything but respect.
If I see a serial killer who tortures people, I would never respect them. I’d probably fear them. But fear is not respect.
To me, respect is deep admiration. It involves feeling aligned in values, feeling that someone is doing things right and well. If someone is doing things wrong and cruelly, I’d feel deep disrespect towards them.
I suppose our cultures have wrongly conflated respect and fear. People don’t command respect. They deserve it and earn it. They deserve base respect for the mere fact of being human trying to be happy in a brutal world. And they earn admiration-like respect when their hearts are aligned with virtue.
Huh. I hope we can get to understand the post by talking about it. I'm not trying to be condescending or annoying. I'm trying to see what you see. What did you think at first the image showed and how did the comment about tankies lead you to second-guess?
My grandpa was born and raised in an industrial town that didn't have access to pools or anything like that. He decided to learn to swim by reading a book and practicing in his living room. He would lay down on a bench or a seat and practice the motions. Every year, he'd go to a nearby town that did have a pool, and he'd sit for hours hearing how kids were taught to swim. He'd then go back to his living room and practice based on that.
So, how did he swim? Luckily, looking at him swim was something I could do with my own eyes. And just by the look of it, you'd never tell he learned on a bench.
After careful forensic analysis, I have concluded the entire thing was created by a single person. I call this the One Author Theory (OAT). Let me present to you OAT's evidence.
First, notice almost every tally is similar to its immediate neighbors. They have the same color and the same thickness. This suggests the tallies were all made with the same marker and with similar techniques.
We can see similar techniques elsewhere. First, notice that each category has tallies. Then, within each category (for example shit), focus on the rightmost tallies. Notice that the tallies tend to curve in a similar way. This suggests those tallies were created under similar conditions, with a similar technique.
You may have noticed that the piss tallies are thicker and straighter than the jerk it tallies. This may suggest my One Author theory is wrong, but my theory does incorporate this fact. The fact is explained by a change in technique. Therefore, the OAT cannot stand on its own. It requires another theory to grab onto. This other theory is the Progressive Degradation of Commitment (PDC) Theory.
I will now give evidence for the PDC Theory. Notice the shit category. Its topmost row has a consistent left-to-right pattern. The tallies become smaller and smaller. They also become curved at the end. This suggests a consistent loss of commitment.
The PDC Theory appears to struggle with the jerk it category. After all, the bottom row starts with small tallies and progressively has its tallies grow tall and straight. This we shall call the Jerk It Anomaly (JIA). However, concluding that the JIA proves that the PDC Theory fails is incorrect. If one uses the PDC Theory correctly, it can actually explain the JIA.
How? First, we need to remember that the PDC Theory shouldn't be limited to rows. We saw an example of this when PDC Theory explained piss' thickness in relation to jerk it's thickness. In other words, PDC Theory can scale. It can explain rows of tallies but it can also explain columns of categories. So, if we apply PDC Theory to the entire work, we can assume that the entirety of the last column (jerk it) was built with little commitment. The author could've been pressured for time. It is reasonable to speculate that the author felt a sudden urge to attend to his unfinished business, be it pissing, vaping, shitting, or jerking it. In either case, the PDC Theory comes out intact.
Ultimately, the OAT uses the PDC Theory to address validity threats like the JIA. The author may have attempted to dupe us into thinking the census was representative of a population. However, the One Author Theory lets us see that the author's work is more representative of his purposes, capabilities, and proclivities.
It's important to note that this does not necessarily reduce the author's merit and the piece's impact. Future studies could evaluate to what extent this apparent census creates a sense of community and connection in the bathroom-stall goers. I, for one, would appreciate going to the bathroom and finding this piece. I wouldn’t necessarily appreciate vaping or jerking it, but I would appreciate shitting or pissing next to it.
There’s actually research on this. There are groups of people that donate more than others. There are two groups of people that really matter for this: people who have protection values and people who have democratic values.
People with protection values care about themselves and their people (their family, their clan, their tribe, their religion, their nation). People with democratic values care about humans in general, regardless of their religion, nationality, what family they come from, etc.
So, who donates more money? People with democratic values.
You can check out Christian Welzel’s Freedom Rising for more on this :)
Ghosts are the creation of our minds. And it turns out that our minds are flawed machines. This was shown by someone and they won a Nobel Prize for it (Daniel Kahnemann). If we understand our flawed minds, we understand why ghosts aren’t racist.
When you think of something, you run a simplified simulation of it. When you run these simulations, you don’t think about other things. For example, when people fantasize about achieving something, they usually run the simulation of having gotten the job and the money or having solved the tough problem. However, they usually don’t think about the path to achieving that goal. This is called the planning fallacy. It’s also called the Motivation Wave in Behavior Design.
Another example of these simplified simulations is the halo effect. The halo effect starts when you notice something good about someone. Maybe they’re attractive. Maybe they’re on your same team or political group or religion or whatever. The thing is that you end up building a good preconception of that person. You assume they’re kind and smart and many other positive things. Again, your mind is running a simplified simulation. Even if you notice bad stuff about the other person, you may ignore it because our mind is a flawed machine and it’s stuck with the idea that the other person is good.
So, how do simplified simulations lead to non-racist ghosts? Well, we all share an idea of what a ghost is. We tell each other ghost stories or we watch movies with ghosts in them. All of that feeds the simplified simulations we run when we think of ghosts. And we don’t include racism in those simulations.
This doesn’t mean that we can’t escape simplified simulations. This is a tough problem that many people have tried to solve in many different ways. These attempts have resulted in an arsenal of methods: psychological flexibility exercises, mental contrasting, pre-mortems, the Delphi method, red team blue team exercises, weak signal detection, etc. Notice that all of these tools try to transform our preconceptions.
Of course, a very simple way of transforming our preconceptions is to prove them wrong. I suppose in the case of non-racist ghosts, it’s a matter of creating racist ghosts. This project, however, brings up the old adage: just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
If you’re interested in simplified simulations, I recommend Lisa Feldman Barret’s books. You can also check out Daniel Kahnemann, Gary Klein, and Dave Snowden.
This post tickles a fond memory of mine. I was talking to a right-wing libertarian, and he said there should be no research done ever if it couldn't prove beforehand its practical applications. I laughed out loud because I knew how ignorant and ridiculous that statement was. He clearly had never picked up a book on the history of science, on the history of these things:
Ah that makes sense. Maybe it's a European/US difference, but it could be just a Time Timer thing. My air fryer is from an American company and it has the same timer as you (wind it up clockwise, then the hand moves counter-clockwise).
I wonder if both types of timers (wind up clockwise and wind up counter-clockwise) seek to distinguish themselves from normal clocks in different ways:
Earplugs come in different sizes. Maybe it's a matter of experimenting?
Image by lucy-in-the-sky.deviantart.com
Oh I assumed it was a cocktail thing, but now I’m not so sure