Also there's a narrative that everyone is broken or suffering from trauma in some form and thus EVERYONE needs 'healing' to manage their lives. And people who deny needing healing are the most broken of all! So they work from the assumption that anyone who hasn't gone to therapy must be broken, and thus therapy will help fix things... even if that person had a perfectly normal, healthy upbringing.
I say this as somebody who used therapy to get over a bad breakup. It helped me work through some things, get my emotions out, process my own role in the events and my own personal failings and then... get back to real life quicker. Its a tool! If it works, you should eventually be able to stop using it.
But end of the day it led me to conclude that I'm doing almost everything 'right' and have an accurate world model and generally a normal response to life events... and its EVERYONE ELSE who needs to get their shit together.
This Eliezer Yudkowsky tweet lives in my head rent free.
I think a lot of people use the need for therapy or the fact that they're in therapy as an excuse to not address actual life circumstances that are holding them back.
And by the same token, if their therapist isn't pushing them to address or change their life circumstances, they're probably just there to collect a check and make the person feel like they're doing something constructive.
I don't know if LLM therapists will suggest actual proactive steps to improve life circumstances.
faceh
3d ago
A group chat that has competent people who are tied in with various industries and specialties in various fields.
And a highly curated twitter feed or set of twitter feeds for other competent people in various fields.
The first one is hard to find, for sure.
The second one takes some effort, because you have to filter out brainless pundits, grifters, kooks, and the occasional psy-op, and identify people with consistently correct analysis or at least an actual mastery of the facts.
Right now there's a LOT of people online who offers 'newsletters' and paid writing (usually via substack) where their whole game is that THEY comb through all the new of the day and analyze it and summarize it to their particular audience. If you found a good one that might suit your needs. But also consider how that person is choosing to present any given issue, and what they might be choosing to exclude.
Ultimately though, accept that you can't keep up, and your own sanity is probably better served by deliberately taking breaks from the firehose. News will happen in the interim, you will hear about it, but it won't take you long to catch up on the stories that ACTUALLY mattered later, rather than trying to identify meaningful stories as they happen.
The crazier the world gets, I assert, the more critical to ensure your own mental peace.
I'm not certain if you're arguing that she was a critical part of creating the wealth and therefore deserves a large cut (i.e. he wouldn't have succeeded if he wasn't married to her) or if you're just saying that the law states she gets a chunk as long as they were married long enough, ergo it is just dandy that she gets what the law says she gets.
The position "a woman can be married to you a long time and then leave and take a huge chunk of your wealth with her" isn't very encouraging, on its own.
faceh
6d ago
It was their money and it was divided in a divorce settlement. Losing a big chunk of the fortune you were able to accumulate because your wife was loyal enough to support you into building a business that turned into the most profitable one in the world is a fair penalty for deciding to cheat on her.
Is it, though? The law says that she is entitled to some percentage of what he earned/acquired during the marriage. But that law presumably was not written with billionaires in mind.
As far as I understand divorce law (admitting it varies between states), the goal is to ensure that the less endowed spouse is not left destitute and is given enough support to live approximately the lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage for the foreseeable future. Punishing the other spouse is not really part of the calculation.
I think $100 mil would be more than sufficient for that purpose. Maybe you disagree.
And regardless, the message this sends to guys is that they can lose enormous chunks of wealth in a divorce (and thanks to no-fault, the cheating part is optional!) and so they probably shouldn't risk getting married if their assets are considerable.
faceh
6d ago
But there's a certain kind of boasting/hypernationalism that you can see sometimes online, a certain level of entitlement to other people's money.
I have to be circumspect, but in the course of practicing law, I've run across these types of clients who have a tendency to haggle about prices and rates from the start. And then once you've agreed on prices they will later on try to get discounts or write-offs, oftentimes by pointing out perceived flaws in the work or failures on the customer service side. And on some occasions just try to screw you over directly.
And when you notice that despite these people belonging to a group that is <10% of your clientele, they are like 80% of this specific type of problem client you encounter, it becomes bad enough that you kind of brace for it when you notice certain names associated with a certain ethnicity pop up.
Now, I have had entirely pleasant interactions and dealings with some of them, but adverse interactions are common enough that I can instantly recall the bad ones, and that can definitely feed into a bias.
"white men in the like 25-45 range" does seem to be the least bad male demographic to be in.
In terms of dating and mating success I bet this is true. But I think the sharp understated problem is that the more success they achieve, the greater their overall risk becomes, too!
That is, white men will likely have more to lose/further to fall from getting me-tooed, divorced, or arrested.
To put it bluntly, losing a few billion dollars in a divorce is a patently absurd, and extremely harsh outcome, and even if we admit that it doesn't render the guy destitute.
And that's what white males, (almost every male, really) are sensitive to. Their success built over years or decades being threatened by picking the wrong woman or running afoul of the wrong social group. Because those are the conditions everyone currently operates under.
And no this isn't a "won't somebody PLEASE think of the Wealthy WASP guys?" post. Its a "if it can happen to them, it can happen to ANYBODY" post.
So yes, I'd grant white guys are going to have it better ("less worse"), but they're not escaping the conditions that are plaguing everyone.
faceh
6d ago
If it truly is a situation of molochian hypercompetition, NOBODY is getting the "better" end of it. Everyone is working harder than ever for less reward than ever.
It's crab buckets everywhere, and any perception that it is better somewhere else is just grass is greener effect.
faceh
7d ago
What does this have to do with anything? Ron's nickname was "desanctimonious".
Yes, and as we can see running against Trump in the primaries and getting a nickname doesn't suddenly mean Trump won't turn around and treat you favorably later.
faceh
7d ago
but that's mainly because we don't think anyone under 18 (21? 25? 120?) is actually a human being
I mean, it shouldn't be controversial to say that youth is a form of 'mental disability' that most people overcome through age and experience.
I'd be in favor of there being some kind of basic test that someone can past to 'remove' that disability in a legal sense, rather than having a blanket age of consent.
faceh
7d ago
Desantis was the one who was quickest to see where the winds were blowing and endorse the guy without reservation.
By comparison, I still remember when Trump's nickname for Rubio was "Little Marco."
And it is also obvious that replacing a Senator is a much higher-leverage move than replacing a house member, in general.
Why not do this against Murkowski instead, a senator who voted to impeach Trump?
Would she accept?
faceh
7d ago
'Zactly. On the one hand I don't mind free-riding by, say, using ad-blocker on sites where I was never going to click the ads anyway.
On the other, I really don't like to think that I am getting something for free because somebody else is vastly overpaying relative to the value they're getting. It is easy to imagine they're some rich loner who has endless spare cash, but it is still a predatory model. Also, in game settings, the 'free' players are arguably there just to be easy opponents for the overpowered paid whales. Not really a fan of playing the role of disposable mook so some other guy can live out his power fantasy.
faceh
7d ago
Yes, but the policy debate is going to have to consider that the damages being caused to a majority of the teens out there might outweigh the loss to the comparative handful of teens who benefited from unrestricted internet access.
faceh
7d ago
5D chess move would be he removes him from his Senate seat, which gives Desantis the pick to replace him.
And Desantis will pick someone closer to Trump's ideal so the Senate will be a bit more favorable to the Trump agenda.
And Rubio gets fired as SecState inside 2 years, probably.
faceh
8d ago
Yep. I have a reflexive dislike for ANY business model that is entirely reliant on a small number of customers spending 10-100x of the average to stay profitable.
Has at least something to do with me being EXTREMELY sensitive to attempts to hack my psyche, which is the hallmark of such places. Oh, your game is "free to play?" Pardon me if I don't want to spend mental effort resisting the 1001 ways your game is constantly trying to convince me that spending in-game money is more important than food.
faceh
8d ago
Ah, regression to the mean, the eternal enemy of miracle cures and performance enhancing supplements.
I think those disclaimers are a fig leaf in this case. At best.
Its like having people sign a waiver that they understand "Gravity is a powerful force that pulls you downward" before you enter the pit zone. I don't think psychological "nudges" are actually a real thing, honestly.
To me, a 'guardrail' is something that physically prevents you from falling in. Unless you climb over it. In this case that may be something like a restriction on your bank account that prevents you from depositing money into an app or withdrawing cash at a Casino after a certain period of time or above a certain amount.
There's a (strong) case that banks shouldn't be peeking over their clients' shoulders and judging what they use money on, so I'm really trying to think of ways to put something TANGIBLE in place that might allow someone to slide right up to the point of absolute ruin, but stop at the edge and have a chance to retreat, or at least think over the implications before jumping in.
And of course, degenerate gamblers will just borrow money from 'friends' or loan sharks if their bank cuts them off, so there are no 'foolproof' solutions.
faceh
8d ago
Yep. Physical barriers to harmful behaviors are a pretty decent brake to keep them from proliferating throughout a society. Low agency people are more susceptible to those behaviors, but also probably less likely to go to the trouble of accessing them if its difficult enough.
In Florida, most gambling was relegated to Seminole Tribe casinos, so they necessarily couldn't proliferate beyond the boundaries of the reservations. Florida has a deal with them where they pay up a chunk of the revenue and the state bans gambling elsewhere in its territory. It in theory keeps gambling minimized in the rest of the state and makes it easier to supervise and regulate the places where it does occur.
Now, the Seminoles have worked to make it maximally enticing to come out to the Casinos, and maximally difficult to leave once you're there, but at least it required you to physically drive there, and at some point you'd have to go home. So in a sense it beat, and still beats having a mini-casino on every street corner, which is harder to regulate and will probably ruin more people.
Las Vegas does this on a much grander scale, of course.
Digitizing the casinos... man. Its the rough equivalent of hooking up a pipeline to everyone's house that could dispense heroin, meth, and/or crack cocaine on demand. If you don't have to venture into the seedier parts of town and risk getting mugged to get your fix, I'm sure more people will partake.
One involves cognition, but that doesn’t alter the addictiveness.
The argument perhaps goes that you can mentally train yourself to resist the effects of a given stimuli when the source of the neurological effect is entirely local to your own brain. End of the day, you can make a 'choice' to stop pushing the button.
But there's no training yourself to resist the introduction of exogenous drugs.
That’s because the choice is not actually free. It’s either coerced by an illusion or coerced by an animalistic instinct.
I'd object to the use of the term 'coerced' here, but otherwise mostly agree. I think its mostly based on the idea that they are not psychologically or philosophically prepared to give 'informed consent' to behaviors that have complex long-term implications. They literally cannot comprehend the effects, so while they can 'agree' to the terms, the consent lacks the actual 'comprehension' which is necessary for someone to truly consent to and accept the risks of a given transaction.
And the world has only gotten more complex, not less, so normal legal standards around 'age of consent' are, arguably, entirely outmoded for addressing this issue.
I think the most palatable change would be something akin to banning those under age 16 from having social media accounts. Maybe a step further, banning them from possessing smartphones altogether (yes, enforcement would be a bear. No arguments there). Give them a basically functional blackberry-esque device that can send and receive messages and has GPS functionality and bluetooth, and no app store.
I think there has been vastly insufficient discussion of superstimuli and policies that address the proliferation of ways one can completely wreck their life in short order. Just like drugs are more potent than they were 50 years ago, marketing companies are much, much better at their jobs and barely-legal scams are more efficiently predatory than ever before. And meanwhile, humans are, if anything, a little dumber on average.
Like, I am libertarian as fuck when it comes to social issues, but I've experienced the rush that gambling brings and my sincere belief is that we HAVE to provide some 'friction' in place to prevent people from slipping into deep, DEEP holes from which there is no escape, or at least they'll be stuck climbing out for years.
Consider if you owned a property with an extremely deep sinkhole on it, that was surrounded by smooth, polished rock with low friction coefficient on a 20 degree slope, so that anyone who wants to approach the edge of the pit would find it very difficult to climb back out without special equipment, and some % of people are going to slip and fall into the pit. If you're charging admission to view the pit, I argue we can reasonably say you're being extremely negligent (and therefore at least partially responsible) if you didn't provide people with adequate warnings, safety equipment, and AT LEAST a guardrail around the edge to keep people from sliding in.
ESPECIALLY if you were enticing people to come view the pit with the promise that some small number of guests would get fabulously wealthy, and the closer they get to the edge of the pit, the more they could possibly win.
Even my deepest belief in personal freedom doesn't require that the pit must be tolerated as-is, in its maximally dangerous state.
But metaphorically speaking, we're apparently allowing thousands of these sorts of pits to dot the psychological landscape, with bright flashing advertisements drawing in patrons and no mechanisms in place to 'rescue' those who fall in.
It is bad enough for adults who get sucked in, kids whose entire development was awash in these stimuli might not even develop basic defenses, since this is what they would consider 'normal.' The kids these days have gambling mechanics in ALL their video games, they've already made and lost minor fortunes in Crypto, they can gamble on literally any sports event they want, and they grew up watching influencers shilling them on the most harebrained of get-rich-quick schemes.
And meanwhile, financial literacy is barely ever taught.
Also, it is patently absurd that the rules as they exist allow anyone over 18 or 21 to throw money away gambling, but if they want to invest in early-stage startups they have to have a certain amount of wealth built up already.
The 'problem' such as it is, if we start investigating and making rules for those who have addictive personalities, or are easily manipulated, or simply don't understand odds/statistics and restrict their ability to use their own money in ways they wish. Maybe they have restricted bank accounts that limit them to, say $500/day withdrawals. Maybe they're not allowed to take on long-term debt, or we legally cap the amount of debt they can take to some specific % of their net worth. Or require them to pass an annual financial audit to exercise certain rights...
Because if we don't, there's a certainty that many of them will blow up the entirety of their savings and becomes a burden on the rest of us later on. And thus we can only do our best to mitigate this externality.
Well, we're essentially carving out a different class of citizens with reduced individual rights due to their vulnerabilities. What's the justification for letting such people vote? Or have a bank account at all? Or have kids?
faceh
8d ago
Probably a lot, if they are pursuing actual promising ideas and not spending time on crypto scam #4192.
Real question is how many people, if they weren't trying to "live life while they're young" would actually be able to switch into hardcore productivity mode for that long.
I think part of the reason Johnson is able to do such absurd things to regain youth is because he's already the type of person with the ability to commit to very hard, very uncomfortable, almost psychotically meticulous projects.
THAT'S the part that will stump most people.
faceh
8d ago
I think it presents an interesting calculation though.
It makes it more palatable to sacrifice your 20's and 30's in the pursuit of wealth (rather than social life, sex, etc. etc.) and then, once you achieve amazing wealth, spend some portion of that to get yourself back to the vitality of your 20's (or close to it) and make up for your lost time, with a LOT more money than you'd usually have.
If money can buy back some time and health, it makes it much more palatable to sacrifice those earlier on.
faceh
8d ago
ALLEGEDLY it helps clear out toxins, heavy metals, and other 'forever' chemicals that the body can't otherwise process.
I believe it.
Also supposed to help with blood pressure, which anecdotally seems to be the case for me (I give blood, sometimes double red, on a very regular basis).
faceh
9d ago
There seems to be a rapid shutdown mode where the body calls it quits and nothing can reverse this.
My rough model is that you can do a lot of interventions that will improve general health, and if you can stave off cancer you WILL live longer on average... but once some major subsystem in the body starts to go, the knock-on effects will lead to rapid deterioration across the board. A complex system will run smoothly until something important fails... then you see a rapid cascade of failures which looks like 'sudden' onset of death.
I.e., maybe you have the skin, liver, heart, and lungs of a 50 year old, but if your kidneys give out then that will barely matter, it'll all start to go unless you do a drastic intervention. Which subsystem fails is somewhat of a diceroll.
So yeah, you can gain a few extra healthy years on average via good habits and preventative care, but its still a question of which of your internal organs will be the first to betray you.
Yeah. There used to exist forums with competent moderation that allowed quality, technical, high level discussion among members and yet random onlookers could view the discussion, and many of them were indexed by search engines so you could find them when needed as well.
Reddit sort of replaced this but shit the bed because
A) Useful subs get overwhelmed by casuals and Eternal September kicks in
B) Useful subs go private to avoid the above and can't be accessed or indexed or searched OR
C) Powermods capture the useful sub and turn it into an ideological echo chamber.
Wikipedia could probably step up and fill a massive gap here, but there's signs it is ideologically captured a swell.
I am not satisified with AI 'replacing' the open internet that we had, even if it manages to match the general quality.
More options
Context Copy link