Ponder
1yr ago
I was reading a comment about how people that learn rationality often appear unhappy. It caused to reflect and think of a larger pattern.
I think rationality can cause people to go through something like the 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. So, while rationality concepts can cause some people to become unhappy it can often be just a temporary state.
Has studying rationality concepts caused you to go through a cycle of emotional states?
Ponder
1yr ago
In the acceptance stage (the last stage) of grief:
Acceptance and hope: There’s a gradual acceptance of life’s new configuration—and a feeling of possibility in the future.
Acceptance means embracing the present, understanding the extent of the loss rather than fighting it, accepting responsibility for yourself and your actions, and then starting your journey toward a new phase of life with contentment.
I don't know why it is human nature that most people have to go through all the other stages before they can come to acceptance. I just observe that it happens. When something unfair/unjust happens in the world many people will become angry initially. Many eventually come around to acceptance over time. Just because things are unfair the rational action isn't to waste your energy being upset/angry forever.
Ponder
1yr ago
I view most internet arguments as a performance where the goal of the poster is to generate as much engagement (positive/negative) as possible. Once you realize that you are merely an observer of the behavior it quickly becomes boring and not worth watching. If you are not getting paid for your performance in an internet argument there is very for little to gain.
If you were watching a play you wouldn’t shout out that the actors should change the ending of the play because you think it sucks. Doing so would only get you kicked out of the theater and maybe you’d have a small impact on some people in the audience. When internet arguments take place in most spaces the outcome is already determined. The moderators and majority opinion of the group have the power to make the outcome be whatever they decide.
If your goal is to change minds the best thing to do is to find internet spaces where people have a norm/value of wanting to engage in honest discussions and debates.
Ponder
1yr ago
rationality doesn't seem to make people very happy
I've noticed this too, but then I took a step back and recognized a larger pattern. This is something like the stages of grief. I think rationality causes people to go through many stages/emotions and unhappiness is just one they can temporarily land on.
If you look at other examples of people radically changing their belief system later in life you will often observe that they go through a cycle of emotional states.
Ponder
1yr ago
I am wondering whether you have interpreted this norm at the same level of abstraction as its purpose.
I think the purpose of the norm is to improve public perception of the club. The founder gets invited into academic circles to talk about the psychedelic issues in the local community. If the club has a good reputation, then it gains more power to influence academics and public opinion.
Since the group is open to the public the typical disclaimer must be given every meeting in case there is law enforcement present and to deter someone who just watched something like How to Change You Mind and probably need more preparation before they are ready to try psychedelics.
There are many interesting people in the club that I would like to be friends with even if they can’t help procure psychedelics. I will make more of an effort to make friends there.
Phenibut is excellent!
Indeed! I’ve spent a lot of time studying it and it has led me to many insights. I wouldn’t want to be on it more than once a week anyway because it dulls my analytical skills and makes me unmotivated to do cognitively challenging tasks.
My ultimate goal is to internalize the lessons of Phenibut so that they persist even when I’m sober. My current research area is Phenibut and exposure therapy. I do things I’m normally afraid of doing sober while on Phenibut and then slowly lower the dose each time so that I need less and less Phenibut to do the things I’m afraid of. I’m also trying to figure out if I can set ‘anchors’ to retrieve the Phenibut mood when sober. Since Phenibut increases appreciation for music I listen to music when on Phenibut. When I sober up and listen to my favorite songs I feel an elevated happiness compared to my base state!
I’m also curious about if you can use Phenibut to have a night where you combine multiple things you enjoy with something you fear. If you ask your brain how was your night it tends to aggregate certain experiences and say something like, “I had a fun night”. It doesn’t always say I enjoyed X + Y but I didn’t enjoy Z. So if you do X + Y + a minor amount of Z while on Phenibut it might be possible to persuade a part of your brain that Z is less bad than you initially thought.
all us shards inside here ought to be looking for ways to cooperate and love one another and reconcile our differences
Yes, I had a very similar realization. I realized that the more rational part of my brain was just trying to protect me from the more impulsive part of my brain that only thinks about immediate happiness. The rational part of my brain is so strong that it can often completely shut down the impulsive part of my brain (such as “don’t go dancing you’ll look like a fool”). I came to an understanding that I would listen more the impulsive part of my brain so that I can have more fun/enjoyment in life, but at the same time agreed that the rational brain is like a wise parent that sometimes has to say no to the impulsive/child-like thoughts of my brain.
SSRIs
I tried Saffron extract and the side effects outweighed the minor benefit I got. My extremities would sometimes feel like they weren’t getting enough blood flow.
DMT
The DMT study was about the safety of extending the state without using other drugs. The other purpose was to see how the body acclimates/adjusts to being in the state for longer. Like how if you’re intoxicated for a long time the same level of the drug feels weaker and the intoxicated reality feels more normal and natural to you.
There will be more studies about how to actually gain therapeutic effects from the extended DMT state in the future.
have you heard of DDREADs?
No, that sounds interesting thanks for bringing it up.
I have heard about designer drugs though. One thing I recently recall hearing was that underground therapists are finding 3-MMC may be more useful than MDMA because it causes less urges to be touchy/feely.
Ponder
1yr ago
Yes, psychedelics are fascinating indeed! There is a lot of unexplored territory in the psychedelic field. That is exciting because with more research I think humanity can find ways to further enhance the therapeutic effects of these drugs. I think in the planning, guide training, and integration aspects of psychoactive therapy there are many new techniques that will be found to enhance the healing outcomes. With enough data I think we may find that there are overlapping themes and situations that occur in trips and that a guide can help influence the lesson learned by asking a specific question or making a simple observation. I also think there are concepts from Multiagent Models of Mind that can be combined with psychedelics to help someone reconcile competing desires in their mind.
There is also a lot of under-explored areas with the drugs themselves. I was reading about a new study where a researcher figured out how to extend the DMT state for a longer duration by using medical technology used to control IVs. There could also be drug interactions that help reduce the variability of psychedelic trips, giving greater control to the user or guide.
Are there any aspects of psychedelic therapy, or a particular anecdote that really caught your attention? When did you become interested?
I tried Phenibut about 5 years ago and it caused me to become fascinated with drugs. I had always just written of drugs as bad and not for me until I tried Phenibut. The first time I tried it was magical: my social anxiety disappeared, I had a strong desire to socialize, and my mood was highly elevated. Phenibut is no long-term solution though (can only be used 1x a week due to tolerance/addiction) and I went looking for a better solution to the problems in my life.
I started listening too Hamilton Morris and he just makes the world of drugs sound so fascinating!
I found a local psychedelic club and those are the anecdotes that really inspired me. People completely and permanently fixed huge problems in their lives. Some have even gone on to start inspiring organizations in the area due to their personal experiences. Some have said that psychedelics have saved their life.
Even with all the inspiring stories and people in psychedelic club I get anxiety and usually just listen and don’t say much. I still have a hard time connecting with people even when there is a shared interest. Perhaps I am intimidated that most people in the club are much further on their psychedelic journey than I am. There is a rule against buying/soliciting illegal substances and I wouldn’t go against the norms of a group I respect.
Ponder
1yr ago
That was a really good response. The unexpected style was engaging.
I used to play Magic: the Gathering and I was passionate about getting good at it. In doing so I was able to attract others into my life who also shared that passion. We would strategize and practice to get better and we would travel beyond the local community to regional tournaments. I could see how I could use that same model with a new passion to achieve similar results.
I replied to your other post about goals/interests and why I feel stuck right now. I don’t currently have a passion that feels like the passion I used to have for Magic: the Gathering. This lack of a strong passion is probably a big part of the reason why I’m finding it so hard to make social connections now.
Ponder
1yr ago
This sounds fun! I'll play along!
Tell me what you would like to do with your life! What are your goals and interests?
I've become inspired by all the exciting research and anecdotes about psychedelic-assisted therapy! One goal is to find a therapist that will take me on as a patient for psychedelic-assisted therapy. I believe that psychedelic-assisted therapy will cause my outlook on life to improve, and may reveal important goals and a sense of purpose that seems to be missing from my life.
If psychedelic-assisted therapy becomes legal I would like to spend my life using my business acumen to support an organization that works in the psychedelic space. I could see myself having a supporting role in running a psychoactive retreat center, or in working for the government in an agency that oversees/regulates the psychedelic programs. I would also like to make friends with psychedelic users.
Sadly, there is a War on Drugs so publicly pursuing anything related to psychedelics gives me anxiety. I'm afraid of legal and social consequences if I choose to further explore psychedelics.
In the meantime my goal is to save up money so I can retire early. My other interests seem far less important than my interest in psychedelics.
Ponder
1yr ago
You don't have "smart" enough people around you? How come?
Because I’m not really even much smarter than average and I get social anxiety in most settings where I could meet new people. At work I can come up with some clever ideas to optimize processes but then people have incentives not to reward me too much because of jealously or thinking that if they give me too much praise then I will demand more money.
I personally took some psychedelics recently
I want to do this under the supervision of a therapist, but the potential legal consequences deter me. It is an excellent of example of where the social games people play resulted in a horrible outcome (locking people up for trying to self-medicate, losing decades of potential research). It reinforces my belief that humans are disappointing and not usually worth the effort.
I appreciate your comment and overall I think you’re right in that I need to make changes in my life in order to get to a more positive mental state.
Ponder
1yr ago
you should be able to … socialize with "normal" people.
I can, I just don’t enjoy doing so anymore.
I get too frustrated that the Overton window is so narrow. If I approach things as a centrist (acknowledge the steelman on both sides) or say something like, “I was listening to Joe Rogan and…” I get treated like a social pariah. People have this attitude that they have to shut down the conversation as soon as someone mentions anything positive about the outgroup.
Ponder
1yr ago
why not focus on all the (contingent) benefits and rewards that come with the “social game”
The better you get at the “social game” the more people will expect you to continue playing it (and at a higher level). I do enjoy money, but if I were to become a manager instead of an individual contributor then I would have to spend much more of my time playing the “social game” with more people.
Since I dislike the “social game” I want to organize my life so that I don’t have to spend much time/effort playing it. I still want to optimize the amount of rewards I can get for the minimal amount effort that I’m willing to expend.
Ponder
1yr ago
I don't see myself as better, I see myself as different. I have slightly improved analytical skills in limited situations, but other people have far better social skills.
I think your point still applies though because if I always view myself as an outsider it will make it harder to connect with people.
Ponder
1yr ago
My interest in being around other people and socializing is nearing an all-time low. I feel like I’m far more motivated by logic/rationality/truth-seeking/optimization than the people I meet in person. I also seem to care far less about social approval than the people I meet. I’m just not motivated or energized enough to play the social games to get positive attention IRL and social media likes. A lot of interactions just seem like I’m pretending to be interested in something so the person I’m interacting with can pretend to like me. Consequently, I don’t have very many friends and my career progress is slower than the people I graduated with.
I’m not motivated much by work anymore because even when I improve something and do an excellent job it doesn’t get me very far. I see people put way less effort and thought into things but they get promotions because they are good at playing the social games/office politics.
Outside of a few places on the internet, like here, I don’t feel like there are many spaces that I can have conversations that are intellectually stimulating to me. Most people just aren’t interested in discussing rationality concepts or contrarian ideas.
How can I become more interested in socializing with other people and playing the social games? I’m currently content spending a lot of time in solitude, but I feel like eventually this lifestyle will take a toll on my mental health. It is already causing me to become more cynical and jaded about humanity.
Ponder
1yr ago
Is religious faith necessary for maximizing happiness in a utilitarian framework?
No because religion teaches you that many things are outside of your control. I believe that research indicates that having a higher internal locus of control is correlated with being happier.
An atheist can have a trained belief in a final ultimately good hereafter. You can believe that death can ultimately be defeated by humanity. Not in your lifetime but you can contribute to moving humanity in that direction by discovering something that extends the life expectancy of humans (like a vaccine or penicillin). That is your ultimate heroic purpose to get humanity closer to defeating death. If humanity always keeps moving in that direction than death may someday be defeated. You know you won’t physically or consciously live forever but because of your contribution to society a part of you will live on and be part of the reason that humanity was able to defeat death.
Also, it is possible to temporarily chemically achieve states of happiness that are happier than anything that is possible when sober. Or you could achieve non-religious enlightenment by believing you don’t really die (like thinking your real body is somewhere else and this world is just a simulation/dream. You don’t believe that you die upon death, but instead you just wake up somewhere else).
Ponder
1yr ago
I like the idea of a “psychedelic safety fine”. You could even design it so that it escalates if you get repeat offenses. Maybe on the first offense the fine is very small and you have to take a drug education course. Then if you get fined again it goes up to $500 and any future offenses would increase in dollar amount.
As you have noticed there is a lot of nuance and things to be worked out when it comes to psychedelic policy. One other thing I think about a lot is how to you encourage people to take psychedelics with a sober trip sitter? I think that would prevent a lot of the bad outcomes, but at the same time there are many people who can take psychedelics without a trip sitter and not experience any problems.
For now I’m just in favor in anything that moves psychedelics directionally toward decriminalization or legalization. There will be many things to optimize as the legal status changes.
If psychedelics become legal here are some other policy optimization considerations:
- Affordable access – If psychedelics can only be done in clinical settings and insurers don’t cover the cost then how do you make it affordable for those in need?
- What to do about things like Peyote and the Sonoran Desert toad that produce psychedelic compounds but are in danger of being overharvested. Synthetic analog compounds exist so maybe different policies are needed from an environmental conversation perspective.
Ponder
1yr ago
Social work instead of policing is a false premise to begin with. They aren't substitutes.
I think there is a small bit of overlap. For instance, if someone is engaging in anti-social but not arrestable behavior the police often provide information/encouragement on social worker resources available to them (such as referring them to the homeless shelter or to a mental health facility). Police also do things like have public events and engage with the public to get feedback about what is happening in the neighborhoods. They understand who many of the repeat-offenders are and might know their backstory much like a social worker would know about their patients backgrounds after working with them for a while.
Imagine a hypothetical world where the US has universal mental health care and adequate supply of therapists. In that world it is conceivable that there might be less crime and therefore less money would need to be spent on policing.
When police have to prevent crime by making an arrest then the rest of the criminal justice system processes the arrest ultimately leading to a punishment to the person arrested if they are found guilty. At various stages of this process you can add an off-ramp from the criminal justice system to the social work system. Example: instead of going to trial you could give someone the option to go to rehab and be monitored by a social worker for a while. If they successfully complete the alternate punishment then the system theoretically won't have to police them on that issue in the future.
Ponder
1yr ago
Another question: is virtue signaling bad
I think virtue signaling itself is neutral, it is just communicating a fact about your beliefs to the world. The problems related to virtue signaling are:
-
If someone has what they believe is a virtue, but it is actually something bad for society.
-
The virtue signaling competition where people need to come up with more extreme signals to stand out. Then the signal becomes ridiculing the out group in extreme hyperbole that some people can misinterpret as literal.
Ponder
1yr ago
Theoretical drug policy has been a hobbyhorse of mine lately so I’m going to push back a little on a few parts of your comment.
the next time somebody bangs on about decriminalising/legalising Fun Party Harmless Substances, they should be made stand in front of a crying five year old
Coke is illegal now and the bad outcome still happened. The law did not prevent the mom from using drugs and causing bad outcomes for her child. In this example Coke being illegal makes the situation worse because the mom faces stigma and potential legal consequences for using coke that make it harder to dig out of the hole (such as making it harder to find jobs/shelter if convicted of drug possession).
Now you might say making coke legal would make the bad outcome more prevalent but some people are just bad parents and will mess up their child regardless of what the laws are. Instead of being a cokehead they become an alcoholic. If alcohol was illegal they would find some other form of escapism such as getting high off chemicals from the hardware store or gambling.
But the thing that frustrates me most about drug debates is this tendency to group all illegal drugs together and make arguments that they should be treated the same (either legal or illegal). This prevents us from having any sort of sensible drug policy if we group all the Schedule 1 substance together and then apply the same laws to them. Some should be legal, some should be legal only under the supervision of medical professional, some should remain illegal. The ones that mess up more lives should be treated more harshly than the other ones.
Going through some of the main drugs:
- Marijuana should be legal and treated similar to how alcohol is.
- The psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Psilocybin) are medicines that allow people to quit more dangerous drugs like alcohol. They can inspire users to invent things, become more connected with the world, or feel a greater sense of purpose. They are non-addictive and physically safer than other drugs. Psychedelics should be legal.
- MDMA has a track record of being used successfully in conjunction with therapy. It is showing promising results in clinical trials for PTSD. However, it is addictive and can be physically dangerous in high doses (serotonin syndrome, high blood pressure). It should be legal under medical supervision and follow a similar model as Ketamine therapy.
- Coke/Meth/Opioids – These are the ones that seems to ruin the most lives and cause the most problems. They should remain on Schedule I/II and not be used outside of their current medically accepted uses.
- All the other Schedule 1 drugs – I’m not informed enough on but they should probably stay illegal because they are physically dangerous/addictive.
Ponder
1yr ago
Thanks for sharing the link. I have encountered the signaling theory of education prior to reading the book and it is something I’ve felt intuitively for a long time.
How far down do you have to go before you hit a real belief, rather than something intended as a signal?
Well the real belief should be whatever the person would do in the privacy of their own home if they knew nobody could ever find out that they did it. For instance, wearing sweatpants in their own home because sweatpants are comfortable.
But when 2 people interact then a person’s behavior falls into 3 buckets:
- Person A is intentionally sending a signal and is consciously aware of it (wearing a suit to an interview to impress the potential employer)
- Person A is sending a signal but they are unconsciously aware that they are sending it
- Person A is communicating a real belief
Then person B is interpreting the behavior and signals and trying to determine what is a real belief vs. signal. Then also using those observations to make predictions and assumptions about Person A.
If person A has a dog just because they like dogs (so a true belief) then person B might interpret that Person A is signaling that they are good with commitments and are good at raising kids. This interpretation happens even if Person A has a real belief that they don’t want kids.
If Person A wears sweatpants in public it will still get interpreted as having some meaning regardless of it is a true belief (Person A believes it is the most comfortable choice of attire) or signal (Person A intentionally did it to show they don’t care about appearance).
IIRC Hansen warns us against psychoanalysis. We can never be certain why another person behaves a certain way, it is always a guess.
It is also impossible to intentionally signal something and guarantee that other people interpret the signal in the way you intend.
To me the point of signals is:
- Help predicting a person’s future behavior, but realize that this is just an uncertain prediction
- Analyzing your own behavior to make sure you aren’t sending signals that you’re not intending to
- Finding X is not just about Y situations so you can design good policies and procedures or explain unexpected outcomes
Ponder
1yr ago
social workers are a better use of money than police for solving it
Arguments for: It is more humane than locking people up and fining people for their anti-social behavior. In some cases it will be more effective than policing (If someone gets proper treatment for a mental health disorder it will prevent the anti-social behavior. This is more effective than processing them through the criminal justice system because it addresses the underlying cause of the anti-social behavior. If you don’t address the underlying cause of the behavior they may keep reoffending in spite of the legal consequences).
Arguments against: Look at San Francisco where social deprivation policing is way more lenient than it is in a more conversative city. If you don’t use police to deter social depravity crimes then more people will commit those crimes.
Ponder
1yr ago
I recently read The Elephant in the Brain and a review of it (https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2017/12/31/book-review-the-elephant-in-the-brain/)
One of the main ideas is that humans have competitive tendencies that helps them gain access to limited resources and mates. Humans need to signal that they are a good ally and mate in order to get some of the things that they desire. Instead of directly signaling (such as trying to impress people with our bank statement) people send indirect signals (such as wearing expensive clothes). Signaling indirectly gives us plausible deniability and even allows us to deceive ourselves (example: I wasn’t wearing expense clothes to show off my wealth, I just wore them because I like the way they look).
The book goes through Body Language, Laughter, Conversation, Consumption, Art, Charity, Education, Medicine, Religion and Politics to explain hidden motives. Examples:
-
Conversation isn’t just about exchanging information it is also about signaling intelligence and social skills.
-
Politics isn’t just about policy, it is also about alliances.
What are some hidden motives that you’ve noticed?
Some I’ve noticed is dancing is about signaling social confidence to potential mates. Brightly colored hair usually signals loyalty to left-leaning politics, the signal is costly because non-leftists may detect the signal and be biased against the signaler.
Ponder
1yr ago
Banks can't take risks like that because if they fail they lose depositors money, not just their own. Without FDIC insurance that would mean a bunch of people losing their life savings even though they didn't personally make risky investments. There are regulations to prevent banks from making risky investments.
If venture capital takes that risk and fails it doesn't create wider problems to the financial system. Only the firm and possibly a few individuals go bankrupt.
Ponder
1yr ago
I’ve become much more sympathetic towards the issues that poor people face recently. The pandemic and inflation have had huge impacts on the economy that resulted in a large wealth distribution effect in favor of people that already had accumulated wealth (such as owning houses or stocks). Houses are much more unaffordable today than they were before the pandemic due to the mortgage rates increasing so much. For many people expenses (rent, food, etc.) have risen much faster than incomes. Many employers kept raises under inflation partly because they know most people won’t go through the hassle of looking for a new job.
The result for renters is that it is now much harder to save for a downpayment for a house that costs 100k+ more than it did 3.5 years ago and has a higher monthly payment due to mortgage rates. Many poor people are in a worse situation today through no fault of their own. It is because the pandemic policies created so much fraud/waste/inflation that made rent and housing less affordable. Poor people can’t just work harder when the government stacks the system against them further.
Anyway, to answer your question about the utilitarian arguments against wealth distribution imagine a world where there are no billionaires or double digit millionaires. It becomes much harder/impossible for someone to start an innovative business that may go bankrupt or take many years to become profitable. In today’s world there is a venture capital model where the rich can bet on many of these visionary businesses and they only need a small percentage to succeed to make money. They know some will go bankrupt but that is just a cost of their investment strategy. The banks don’t have an incentive to fund these businesses so private investors must fund them. If there are no ultra-rich investors it becomes much harder to get funding.
Additionally, accumulated wealth earned allows people to influence policy (such as through political donations and advertising). In theory if accumulated wealth is the result of merit then it gives those people more influence in public policy. If they are smarter than average than it may result in better policy overall. In practice the people with accumulated wealth often influence policy to enrich themselves/their friends instead of shaping policy in what is best from a utilitarian perspective.
I have many ideas where I haven’t found another good place to discuss them. Often, they are unrefined theories and I need outside feedback to refine them and find the flaws with them.
My best friend doesn’t have the same interests and background knowledge that I do. Sure, he will let me nerd out about signaling theory or whatever my latest intertest is, but he can’t provide the same kind of intellectual stimulation that I get here.
I also find it to be therapeutic to share ideas that the people around me ‘don’t get’. I’m getting acknowledgment that there are other people that share the same interests and think in rationalist-adjacent ways.
Also, I’d like to give a huge shout out the Wellness Wednesday threads. I really like being able to share a problem/challenge that I’m facing and get multiple perspectives on it. The multiple perspectives help me see multiple ways I can approach something. I feel like there are a lot of high-effort and helpful responses that people have just given me for free and I appreciate that. If I were talking to a therapist or close friend I would get a much narrower (and potentially more biased) perspective.
More options
Context Copy link