iprayiam3
1yr ago
I suspect it's parents and general public perception more than advertisers. There's a very thin line, that if you fall over, you're just a porn site. I read the flip flopping as uncertaintly about the right mix combined with futher uncertainty due to AI coming crashing into all content platforms.
Imagine you're a convenience store that decides to start selling drugs. Hey these drugs are a huge cash cow, more consistently profitable than anything else in the store. You end up selling a lot of drugs to people who otherwise came looking for groceries or groceries and drugs.
But if you follow this to conclusion and 90% of your transactions become drugs, then you're not a grocery store, you're a drug dealer, and your entire marketpresence might fall apart.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
iprayiam3
1yr ago
So, anyway, despite the fact that I'm feeling pretty well, I won't be running a full marathon in 2023 because I don't feel that I've done the relevant training to put in a legitimate effort at the distance. Instead, I'll settle for a small half marathon to close out the year, try for one more personal best, and see what happens.
I ran at a D1 university. after getting out of college, I took a break from running, then planned to get back into it and really train for a full marathon. Any time an opportunity came up, I passed on it because I wasn't prepared to run my best possible marathon. A wife and kids later, I'm in my mid 30s and have never run a full marathon, and will never run my best marathon.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I can certainly identify with the 'having an idealize girl' feeling, and the 'adjusting to an actual girl not meeting those ideals', and that led in my dating life to a lot of introspection about whether I needed to adjust my perception or find a better girl. But never anything like
I no longer cared much about them after replacing my idealized version of these ideas with versions based on my experiences.
Any grappling with comparisons to idealized fantasy girls was part of a deep desire to find real girls that fit the bill, never anything like disillusionment with dating girls generally.
All that to say, I can't really help ya. I hope you work through what you need to and decide what is best for you.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I thought the DK effect had been debunked (at least in it's common pop framing) for quite a while? I thought the idea that good people under-estimate and bad people over-estimate, was known to be kind of a mythical tack-on to the central more boring claim that self-assessment isn't super reliable.
And, I thought the tack-on came from misunderstanding the one-directional limiting effects on mis-assessment at the top and bottom of a performace scale.
That is the better you are, the harder it objectively to overstate your competence. and vice versa. being good doesn't cause you to understate your ability, it reduces the error in overstating it.
Imagine 3 people who all take a 3-point basketball shot. All three are likely to correctly estimate their ability. A airballs, B hits the backboard, C makes it. they still respectively rank themselves correctly.
3 more people all take the shot. All three are likely to over-estimate their ability. D airballs, E hits the backboard, F makes it. D guesses he tied for second, E guesses he did the best, F also guesses he did the best.
3 more people all take the shot. All three are likely to under-estimate their ability. G airballs, H hits the backboard, I makes it. G guesses he did the worst, H also guesses he did the worst, I guesses he tied for first.
In these three groups of performance tiers: air-ballers, backboarders, and shot-makers, you have an even mix of estimation ability in each. Yet:
A,D,G collectively slightly over-estimated their ability B,E,H collectively got their average ability correct C,F,I collectively slightly underestimated their abiliy
Traditional Pop-understanding of DK effect, misinterprets this result that ADGs think they're better than they are and CFI thikn they're worse, when that's really kind of inverted. It's rather that ADG has less room to err down and CFI less room to err up.
You could run this again with many more groups and even give ADG a stronger propensity to underestimate and CFI a stronger propensity to overestimate, and you'd still get the DK effect.
Compare:
ADDGGGGGG -> still slightly over estimates their ability on average CFFFFFFFFII -> still slightly under estimates their ability on average
Even though the individuals in the group actually have the opposite propensity.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I never really cared about getting a girlfriend, I just wanted social approval from my peers.
Back when I was single and lonely I could have been at risk of tell myself something exactly backwards from that:
I never really cared about social approval from my peers, I just wanted a girlfriend
That is to say, the desire for female companionship was far stronger and deeper and more substantial than any possibility that it was invented. On the other hand, the longing for social approval, while it objectively was also very real, was somewhat ephimeral and certainly displacable (and especially displacable by romantic approval of a single woman), to the point that I can kind of imagine that if I was slightly different, I could have falsely convinced myself that I didn't really care about social approval at all, it was just a dimension of my romantic loneliness. (and to be fair, once in a serious relationship, non-romantic social contexts do change tremendously and diminish in importance. )
So, what's my point? N=1, but if you can convince yourself that maybe you don't even really want a girlfriend, you're certainly outside of what my experience with normal romantic longing was. Far enough that it's true that you never really cared? I can't tell you that. But if you're looking for an outside measurement check - the ability to hold that thought doesn't resonate with my experience of authentically wanting a romantic partner.
There's so many possible directions to go that without any data to work off, it's hard to know where to even look.
My first question would be are gay people actually overrepresented? What is the base rate comparison?
Secondly, given an affirmative to the first questions, I'd ask whether its actually gay representation or out gay overrepresentation. Especially looking at any data prior to say 2010.
You would assume that being publically homosexual in a society where it's disapproved of would come at a significant cost. So it would follow that those most likely to pay it are those able to pay it.
Lets say you have 100 rich men and 100 middle class men in 1960. In each of those 6 are gay and another 10 are bisexual. In the middle class group 4 of those gay men and 9 of the bisexual men are not openly gay for fear of their livelihood and employment. Of the rich, say only 3 of the gays and 7 of the bisexual are closeted.
It would appear that the gays were overrepresnted in the rich. In actuality, rich people have more options.
The next thing I would think would be, as you suggest, among smart and conscientious people, homosexuals would historically be less occupied with supporting their families and minimizing that risk. So of the pool of gay people capable of being a celebrity intellect and proportional straight men, yeah I would assume enough of the straight men would have already invested the critical resources and time and attention toward family formation. Even a small difference would result in overrepresented gays in high status tournament style recognition.
You know, it's really a shame because with a little more effort, the guy could have taken this in so many interesting directions and still kept up posting. e.g. an earnest training log, or better discussion starters about what makes a 'Hock' or a literature review to look for any precedence, etc.
But it's clear at this point, these posts are just a lazy masterbatory exercise. I do feel for the dude. I suspect these posts had become a parasocial avenue for emotional engagement, to be cared about to some degree and evoke some sense of desire for his well-being.
Might I request that you only ban him until the end of the year? He (supposedly) takes off in mid-February, and as roped into his exhibitionist sympathy bait as we are, it's worth knowing whether he went out and his state of preparation and mental fitness. I think many of us would rather suffer a few January posts from him and provide him some last human empathy and discouragement, rather than go on wondering whether that one guy from that forum ended up killing himself.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
You've already gotten explicit answer to this question every time you've brought this up. At this point you're clearly getting off on the attention and using the board to milk it. I find it off putting and exhibitionist. Kindly cease.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I have a few friends for whom the only activity is "drink a few", which unfortunately has dwindled as I drink much less often. On the other hand, grabbing a drink is something that can happen somewhat impromptu. I've rarely had a last minute itch to get out of the house and successfully leveraged that into some kind of organized activity.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Why fear being rejected or making a fool of yourself, when you've just stared death by avalanche or hypothermia or wild animals in the face day after day?
Because it won't make you fearless, it will make you resentful that it didn't work.
Notice in your "presentation Hock" comparison, the thing that made you not fear public speaking was practicing for public speaking? There is no analogy skill transfer between wilderness survival -> improving social awkwardness. You are comparing practicing something that directly improves the thing it applies to, to doing something completely unrelated in hopes that it will reframe you into being better at it. IT WON'T WORK the way you are hoping.
I do beleive that if you went and worked as a mission in a 3rd world scenario, surrounded by others, it would, in fact improve your socialization.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Therefore it seems self-evident that a thing has value because someone is willing to die for it: that person, even if he's a deranged lunatic, has staked his life on that thing. The value of it has been upped to "one deranged lunatic" from whatever it was before.
You're just wrong here. Compare: I love my dog, therefore, I would risk my life for him. to I don't love this dog, but I wish I did. If I risk my life for him, it will make it so. you have causality backwards. In the latter scenario, you are de-valuing your life down to what you value your dog. Not the other way around.
Human life has value: the economists put it at around $10 million per head, if we're talking about Americans.
This bit is a nonsequitor. Risking your life for something without value, doesn't give it $10m in value.
It will potentially make me more conscientious: the attitude that lets me survive the Hock might let me pay a shitload of attention in social situations so I don't miss anything.
There is no reason to think it will do anything like this. if you want to become more conscientious, go do something extremely social for 3 months. Go be a missionary in Uganda.
If not net 0, the Hock will make you more detached and withdrawn in social situations. Consider the soldier who comes home from war, and has trouble adjusting back into civilian life. If not nothing at all, you're going to mostly experience a wall between you and others.
Imagine you're at some social event, say some meet-up at a bar. You're standing there, drink in hand, watching everyone else, seemingly mingling effortlessly. Why not you, dammit. You're hyper-conscientious about your own milling around, you try to stand next to others talking to eachother, but feel unsure where and how to jump in naturally. Damn you feel awkward. Still! What's more, now you feel resentful, angry even at the frivolty of it.
3 months ago, you were struggling to get a match lit with your half-frost bitten hands. It was a race against the cold and wind, and you were losing. Once that fire was roaring, your body was still in freezing agony sore all over, but hell, the relief and triumph was simultaneously better and worse than anything you'd ever known.
Back to the room. Fuck these people. You survived that night, and so many other after it. Something significant, something none of these people will ever know. What are they talking about now, some twitter drama? So shallow, they have no idea. Your triumph would humble them if only, anyone cared to ask. If only there was a way into the conversation... fuck it, these people have nothing in common with you. You've been through so much.
This is the optimistic way of it playing out.
Survivormanning alone in the woods will not address social competence in any kind of a positive way or provide any useful frame for engaging social scenarios more healthfully.
Yes. The Hock is going to freeze most or all of the hypocrisy off of me,
I don't know what this means, so I'll reiterate. In small, very temperate doses, it will make you slightly more attractive to women, but not anywhere near proportional to the effort you are putting in.
I'll end by granting you that on some deep level, it's quite possible this will improve your self-possesion and perspective in a way that will manifest much deeper into a relationship in a much more nuanced way. But these effects will not appear (and may appear counterproductively) on a group-level or in initial and high level interactions.
Again to the soldier analogy. The things he learned and survived in the hellishness of war may make him a demonstrably better father, with deeper values and worldly detachment. But those are mostly going to come at the cost of social grease and 'gracefullness' and connectedness to the people around him.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
It doesn't even matter whether it's easier. It will be dramatically more effective.
What's your take?
My take is that I've never seen so comically insane of an instance of Goodhart's Law (When the measure becomess the target, it ceases to be a meaningful measure).
Having values you are willing to die for is getting badly translated into Being willing to die for something gives it/you value. Dude you are way off base, and you should take it as a sign of your ultimate disappointment and disillusionment that everyone EVERYONE has told you so, and you stubbornly refuse to adjust your perspective even a little.
I approve of setting goals and taking on endurance challenges etc, so I have no reason to talk you out of that, generally. But you cannot allow yourself to go do something until you've cleared yourself as mentally competent enough to take on the risk. So here is a quick sobriety test:
1. You do fully understand that completing the Hock will not make you not awkward? It won't directly or indirectly help awkwardness at all.
In fact, I would bet it will make you feel slightly more awkward in social settings because it will be another point of distance between your inner self and those around you. "These people have never been through what I have been through" will become a resentment crutch, when you realize it did nothing to directly affect your social awkardness.
2. Do you understand that it will make you only slightly more attractive to women? Slighlty and in a very limited way, which will be quickly undone and reversed if you try to milk it.
Let me unpack that. I recall you said previously that you used to do competitive downhill skiing in high school. I'd put the Hock at objectively 30% as attactrive as that, but with the compensating benefits of recency. (If, you're say, under 35, I imagine the skiing will remain more interesting). Thriving in a competitive social and physical environment is far more interesting to women than pursing a loner hobby.
For another comparison, it will register as about as attractive as if you've recently completed a marathon. Maybe slightly more if the "I put my life on hold for 3 months" registers as financial secuirty. So, I'd say about as interesting as recently completing a marathon during a trip to Europe.
Now here's why I say it is limited and will be quickly undone, and listen closely because it has everything to do with the awkwardness issue: To present it attractively, you can only bring it up briefly once or twice, and should mostly act uninterested in talking about it, like it wasn't that interesting, so mundane for your life that you're amused she's even interested. Basically, if you harp on it in any way like you have here, you'll be repelling the ladies like youre name is Pepper Spray. Thus there is a hard and very low cap with the usefulness of this bit of 'proof of value' that can be used with any given woman. (Unless she is herself an autistic survivalist, which is fine. Maybe even seek those out after this)
If you in anyway try to: Go into long details about the trip, get too enthusiastic, present any philosophical musings, bring it up regularly, make it obvious that your sense of identity or self-worth is connected to this, call yourself a Hockist etc, you will be flagged (unfairly or not) as weird and unattractive by the average woman.
EDIT: By way of analogy, overall I feel like you're a guy trying to prove he isn't autistic and directionless by... building a giant model trainset in the basement. The harder you go all out on this, the more counter-productive it's going to be.
Don't get me wrong, a giant train set sounds fun and cool, and I endorse it. Just be clear about what it is and isn't going to accomplish for you.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
There's a lot of reasons but in as a hypothetical negotiating tactic, I think this is backwards:
Why would you tell a employee the lower bound?
Suppose I want to buy something from you, (like your time in exchange for money). If I come out of the gate and tell you the absolute most I'm willing to pay, you should read that as a floor. (and in, every one of the 4 full time jobs I've ever had, I negotiated higher than the stated 'ceiling', twice very significantly higher).
As a general rule, pyscologically speaking people don't open with their final offer and it's bad negotiation technique because it's hard to make the other party believe you're being fully transparant rather than unwilling to engage.
This is why usually, jobs don't list salary ranges and the recruiter asks you your starting price before telling you the actual range. They're trying to understand whether your expectations are within their true negotiation band.
When companies do tell you their range (min and max), sometimes it's legally mandated, and other times, it's to signal actual transparency about their negotiation range or trick you into thinking that at least, and bounding your negotiation. If I tell you my range is 100-180, people uncertain about their candidacy are going to ask for less than if I tell them the max is 180. Because the former signals that 180 is for the improbably qualified candidate, the latter could represent a true range of say, 160-180.
Suppose I give you only one number my (supposed) max. What are you going to ask for? Something around the max*. So what's the supposed harm in them giving out a min if they've already given a max? Even in the off chance that you still super lowballed yourself out, you're either an idiot, are hiding something or you've created a flight risk as soon you realize your mistake. Companies don't budget for 'steals' from rubes, and the risk isn't worth the possible reward of a few thousand saved paying under market rate.
*If you've only been given one number (or even a range, and it isn't a legal transparency thing like a gov job), then you should ask for slightly above it, especially early in the process, but convey willingness to lower your expectations if the job seems great. Then after you get the offer, push for a little more than slightly above what you asked.
If you haven't been given a number before they ask you, you should try to guess slightly over what you think the max is.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I don't see how it stands as an example against what I wrote above.
No, I suppose it doesn't. You've sufficiently removed my doubt about how I was to interpret your point.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Point taken, but im interested in what counts in Walterodims heuristic of 'can afford an expensive watch'. I don't think I could really call myself 'broke', as I have quite a bit in net worth and a positive cash flow. But simultaneously I can't 'afford' an expensive watch, in terms of having several thousand to spend on myself.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
The 'For Real For Real' no longer works so well, at least in my area. Any "good" contractor has enough other work to do that they won't play by custom terms of scrupulous project managers.
Re: "For the REALEST", I was on my way to this before having a few kids. The time evaporated to the point that it's no longer practical. Unless you're willing to make that your job, your spouse is willing to not see you in the evenings, or your spouse is willing to live in an endless construction zone, it's just not an option imho.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
It's not even that. Imagine a guy, with 3 kids, who's wife homeschools, who bought a house in say, 2021, paid a fortune for an old house needing tons of maintainance but locked in at a good rate. The guy could be making 100k+ and is likely still living so tightly that he couldn't imagine buying luxury jewlery for himself or adjusting his budget by 5k without significant pain.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
To be honest though, I generally don't have much respect for people beyond a certain age that would have trouble coming up with $5K...I am disinclined to treat them as "substantial" if they're 40 and can't afford to buy a nice watch if they wanted to though.
This seems unnecessarily condescending, but regardless, I wonder how far you define these boundaries.
I'm in my mid 30s, and while I make a pretty good salary, every dollar I have is basically accounted for and then some. I have no debt outside of my mortgage and I'm not living pay-check-to-paycheck, but the productive things that I want to spend my money on far far outstrips my income, to the point that there's plenty of things I can't 'afford' to spend money on, and a nice watch is actually on that list.
By the time I pay for my kids, their preschool school, put money away for thier future years of Catholic schooling, daily living expenses, pay my bills and mortgage, put money into my 401k and other retirement vehicles, tithe, and put money into the savings account for a smallish home expansion (since I'm priced out of ever moving), yeah I don't even have enough income to put as much into each of those buckets as I would like.
My windows need to be replaced, my roof will need to be attended to eventually, there's some other non-trivial home repair to be addressed, and so forth. I'd like be able to afford to to take my wife out on a date and pay a babysitter more often, my phone and my wife's phones are hopelessly outdated. I wish we could afford to go on the same type of vacations our middle class parents took our families on. Our hand-me-down sectional is on it's last leg. Our water heater ought to be replaced soon. There are several hobbies I'd like to invest in with my kids. None of those things make the budget without taking something out of the above list.
This is not to say I couldn't tighten up my weekly expenses. And I could certainly hand you 5k tomorrow if I needed to without blowing up my life. But, no I can't really justify paying for a $2-3k watch, even though I've been thinking about it for some time.
Am I of no substance to you or @FiveHourMarathon ?
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Re 1, I'm mostly where @2rafa is on Adderall. I used it to get stuff done in college on occasion, and yeah it was wild. I also found that I enjoyed it quite a bit, which deterred me from really ever using it anymore or ever trying a stimulant recreational drug.
As I've gotten older, I similarly enjoy the feeling of caffeine buzz, somewhat more in quality (though not as intense of course) than alcohol. Sometimes I'll find myself taking extra caffeine drinks not because I'm tired or need to focus, but for the buzziness.
I constantly have to cycle down my caffeine tolerance, so that I can build it back up again. Possibly relatedly, I can fall asleep on caffeine quite easily, and sometimes if I'm already tired (fatigued or lacking in sleep), it knocks me the fuck out and I'll sleep sounder on a cup of coffee than not. This is supposedly a symptom of ADHD, so, who knows. (@self_made_human is that true or am I mistake?). I don't know how exactly to describe it, but it works both as a stimulant/nootropic and as a sleepy drug sometimes at the same time.
Finally, and this is probably 100% placebo, but am I the only person who feels like they can snap themselves into adderall-esque state (with out the fun / high feeling)? It doesn't last nearly as long and it's not as intense, but on Adderall, my brain was in a state of focus / flow that I remember quite distinctly, and can basically 'recall it' when necessary to focus.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
That said, does "lefty therapy" ever fix these issues?
I'm mean, I am generally skeptical, though I am unfamiliar enough with something as grave as suicide that I don't want to throw support or detraction around flippanly.
That is however, not my point. slider is free to dismiss therapy as ineffective. I was noting his framing of the percieved issue to be addressed was essentially a Russell's conjugation:
Your mental health issues
My real issues of feeling inadequate and emasculated and socially maligned.
I'm planning to leave my job at the start of the year for a new opportunity. I had been planning to make this move for a while, and over the past few months, I had been neatly winding up my projects. I hardly interact with my boss anyway, and I was glad to tie it all up.
Unfortunately, rather recently my boss drove by and dropped two new projects on my lap. I found myself in an awkward position, where I wasn't ready to announce my impending departure, and would also feel dishonest turning down work when I had availability.
But it has been very hard to get invested in it. One of these projects is realtively minor, but has a late January delivery, and nobody to back me up. It will require me to now put in a lot of holiday hours to get it to a passable state. The other one is a major intiative that would realistically require most of my time next year. I've basically (unintentionally) slow-walked it over the past two months, and I guess I will just drop it altogether in the new year, and leave the stakeholders with essentially 2 months wasted delays.
It's something I feel really bad about mishandling, not for the "company's" sake, but for the humans left hanging, the weird, but necessary duplicity when discussion things January and beyond, and the general failure in doing an good job I can be proud of.
Every other role I've ever left, I put in my notice pretty much immediately after being sure of my next role, and left within 3 weeks. This has been a new experience for me, and I feel weird and like I mishandled it. On the one hand, I wish I had told them 2 months ago, I'd be out at the end of December and to plan accordingly. On the other hand, it would have been a real financial hit to my family if I had been let go immediately in response.
Perhaps this is my Hock.
More options
Context Copy link