domain:slatestarcodex.com
So what happens when a Fi gets programmed with highly neurotic/anxious software? Are they discernible to other people as any different from an Fe?
Good question! Under the schema I've presented, they could end up as behaviorally identical, yes. But I don't see that as much of a problem. The point isn't really to talk about behavior (nor is the point even to "sell" you on any particular theoretical view), but rather the point is to talk about the underlying phenomenological experience / thought pattern behind the behavior (which is what Jung's thought is really all about in the first place; the "personality type" stuff, based as it is on behavioral stereotypes, is just a ruse for the normies). Two people can exhibit identical behavior for very different internal reasons.
I believe I've shared this anecdote on TheMotte before, and it's one of the anecdotes I reflected on when introspecting on my own "herd animal" nature. When I was young and naive in the early 10s and I first discovered wokeism, I was immediately taken in by the "vibes". It just felt really good, y'know? I wanted to be a part of a group, I wanted to base my identity on a group, I saw that these people were enjoying themselves and I wanted to be part of that so I could enjoy myself too. But relatively quickly, my rationality kicked in and I realized that their actions violated principles of fairness and impartiality that I held to be important, which made me not want to be woke anymore.
So the movement was from sentiment (based on what I perceived to be the sentiments of others), to dispassionate analysis. And due to typical-minding, I assumed that this was essentially a universal human experience; of course everyone makes vibes-based decisions to determine their identity, and if anyone says they don't, they're probably lying because they're ashamed to admit it. But now all this stuff has got me thinking, well, maybe it's not a universal human experience. Maybe there are (neurotypical) people who don't weigh the vibe in the room, don't care about the vibe in the room, maybe they don't even perceive the vibe in the room because they've deemed it not even worth their time to assess it (obviously in the case of someone with say Asperger's, it would be different because their ability to pick up on emotional and social cues is actually compromised). In their case, they might make the opposite movement, from dispassionate analysis to sentiment: first a dispassionate "well, everyone seems to think woke is right, and they probably have good reasons, so I'll believe it too", but then their own internal "alarm bells" start going off indicating that it doesn't fit their own personal identity. And they could do all this without ever consulting the overall "vibe" of the collective. So we could have two individuals who exhibit identical behavior via very different processes.
Of course the point being, there is no way to observe these underlying processes behaviorally, you just have to introspect on yourself or ask others to introspect on themselves and report back.
That was going to be done regardless of blacks voting. Segregation had overwhelming majorities with or without black franchise when it began.
The guy who loads up on tight ends
I am in this post and I don't like it.
Absolutely recommend Meteora.
Do you think or feel your emotions? It’s obvious a both/and situation. Why dichotomous it?
MBTI
Oh, that’s why
If you mainly feel with your thoughts you probably have alexithymia, a surprisingly common condition
A generalized weakening or strengthening of the anxiety response in different individuals is probably part of the explanation, but it's not an entirely satisfactory theory on its own, as one individual may be highly neurotic about one thing but not neurotic at all about others.
Men are stronger than women, and upper body strength has been found to have a very strong correlation with anxiety/depression rates. Make of that what you will
I joke with love <3
I'm going to need a citation there. I've also seen that claim but I believe that to be a modern projection/cope rather than an actual scholarly argument. 1785 dictionary says:
To RE'GULATE. v.a. [regula, Lat.]
-
To adjust by rule or method. Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication. Locke.
-
To direct. Regulate the patient in his manner of living. Wiseman. Ev’n goddesses are women; and no wife Has pow’r to regulate her husband’s life. Dryden.
I agree to an extent: part of the concern with the Articles of Confederation was that they had discovered early flaws with the national army (originally it was a pure volunteer state by state basis kind of thing IIRC), and so wanted it to be stronger but not so strong that it could crush legitimate internal dissent. It's also true that at least a good chunk of the arms were assumed to be (or even encouraged to be as some states even incentivized such) produced on an individual basis. It's also true that there was often a distinction made between an organized militia that was directed, drilled, and with some kind of chain of command and unorganized militias that were more like mobs, so it's not as if the concept is all wrong.
Despite all of that being true, I want to emphasize that last bit there. The intention was never that random groups should spontaneously rise up formed from ad-hoc combinations of gun-toting individuals! The intention was that localized governance was sufficiently democratic that they could decide to take collective action and associate with ad-hoc combinations of other cities and states to overthrow an overbearing national (or international) government. The distinction is quite crucial there! While I allow some nuance as to how states decide to implement this, the state was in charge at the end of the day of regulating its militias. Drilling and organizing and making them effective yes, but also deciding the proper shape, leadership, and call to action! While an individual owning firearms is useful it's still a bit incidental, because the goal the 2nd Amendment clearly states is merely that militias are capable of protecting liberty from tyranny.
In that context, a state can be somewhat strict in its regulation if the core purpose is accomplished. The test is all about core purpose, but some people have substituted an individual right-test in its place. This is subtly wrong. A state could probably choose to implement its core militia duty via individual gun-rights, but is not compelled to do so. A more modern-left state may well decide to be more discerning provided they meet the end goal. In practice, these might end up appearing similar, but they don't have to be!
Shay's Rebellion actually illustrates this, taking place in the Confederation period. Informal and ad-hoc groups of farmers and former soldiers banded together to revolt. They were not official local militias! In fact they raised themselves up in parallel to actual state legal authority, in defiance of such. Remember that that is where a lot of the power lay - the revolutionary Congress was formed from state delegations, in almost all cases with official representation!! That's where their legitimacy came from! Many people today fail to notice that, it wasn't an "extra-legal" effort, the original Revolution proceeded directly from local democracy. This was very front of mind for Constitutional drafting and party of why Washington himself and many others opposed Shay's rebellion (to be fair Jefferson was more sympathetic but he was always a little more radical in his ideas on the topic). They were an individualized mob, not a democratic effort against tyranny. The amendment was crafted in part this way to distinguish that stuff like Shay's rebellion was not the proper method of resistance (and also because at the end of the day the issue was about the policies of debt structure, not a core liberty, which farmers had failed to get implemented by official legitimate democratic means).
So the history of the matter rejects the modern framing by gun-rights advocates that it's a purely individual right. The history suggests that local democracy is important, that local democracy should be empowered, and that gun ownership is helpful to those aims. It's not saying that individualized gun ownership is a cornerstone by itself, supreme to everything else! Merely that a local repository of legitimate resistance is a duty of states to maintain.
FWIW, I changed from experiencing emotions as intense thoughts to bodily sensations and I feel my appreciation for emotions has gotten much deeper.
Yes, that's one reason the combinations are popular, but not the reason oxy with APAP (Percocet) is so favored over oxy with ASA (Percodan, no longer available) or oxy with ibuprofen (Combunox, no longer available). That's drug warrior pressure.
There is a bunch of research out there suggesting that OTC and milder agents are just as good as stronger agents for managing acute pain. Example:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2786200
Lots of research. You might not find that research convincing but it is absolutely out there.
Additionally APAP is a safer choice than ASA or Ibu if taken as prescribed, which is easier to ensure in an acute course (less potential for severe side effects or interaction with chronic medical conditions).
What are you talking about with 10 round magazines? In most states, you can currently purchase any size you like. Just 16 restrict it.
One also imagines that the sort of person who is willing to wage asymetrical violent civil war against the government of the USA might also have something of an itchy trigger-finger for his cordless drill -- making this argument indicates that the person doing so does not have the knowledge to make any serious comment on the broader issue, either.
synergistic analgesia
Yes, that's one reason the combinations are popular, but not the reason oxy with APAP (Percocet) is so favored over oxy with ASA (Percodan, no longer available) or oxy with ibuprofen (Combunox, no longer available). That's drug warrior pressure.
But ultimately society is organized around tradeoffs in your rights to enable you to have rights and the conveniences of civilization.
No, society is organized around what those with power want.
You may or may not be willing to see Los Angeles as a colony ruled by an appointed, authoritarian governor
Always has been:
In principle, you can let doctors, Catholic hospitals, etc opt out of any obligation to provide assisted suicide, even if it's "medically necessary" under some rubric. Even if you're extending the concept of coercion to taxpayers being forced to fund assisted suicide, you can block government funds from being used for it.
In practice, I recognize the slippery slope here.
My APAP related disgust is reserved for drug warriors who ensure that oxycodone with APAP is the most available formulation of oxycodone, because they consider people trying to abuse it dying horribly to be a feature and not a bug.
I think these days they would argue that the reason is mostly because of synergistic analgesia (which is not incorrect) but yes I agree it's a questionable cost/benefit.
But ultimately society is organized around tradeoffs in your rights to enable you to have rights and the conveniences of civilization. Having to deal with mildly annoying blister packs or smaller bottles doesn't seem like a high price to pay for the amount of pain you can prevent.
That being said, I like guns, and wish I lived in a jurisdiction where I could shoot beer cans with the boys over a barbecue. And not the anemic shotguns or hunting rifles can get in the UK, those bore me to tears. Give me a minigun in Vegas, and give me the salary to fire it for more than a few milliseconds.
I know you're in the UK, but if you ever swing across the pond to the US, DM me. If you're gonna be in my area I'll take you shooting. I, tragically, do not have an actual machinegun (my username can be considered more aspirational than factual) but I do have many interesting guns.
Does this seem like a lot to you? Because to me it kind of does...
It reads as LLM output to me as well -- more importantly failing the everpresent tl;dr criterion.
So while I'm not sure how posting a bunch of screenshots of you chatting with an LLM is supposed to make people think that you didn't generate the post using an LLM, if it's the case that you take so much input from the LLM that your post sets off people's LLM alarms, even though you typed it all out using your own fleshy hands -- maybe you are just working a little to hard on this, and it would be better to simply give us the straight slop?
Since I couldn't read your post (my AI detector involves reading normally, which for me means a lot of skimming -- and when I start to skim after two lines and... just don't stop, I figure LLMs are involved somehow and am almost always right) my comments on the actual content will be sadly limited -- however from the perspective of an actual Canadian who knows a couple of elderly & sickish people who did choose assisted suicide I can say this:
While I'm in favour of people being "allowed" to do more or less anything they want (direct and deliberate harm to others aside), in practice the whole thing feels... not good, in the pit of my stomach -- mostly I don't like the "assisted" part all that much, nor the moral preening that seems to go along with it. Could be that people just don't know how to do this thing correctly yet, but I'm not sure that's all there is too it.
The motte is a cancer riddled 96 year-old in constant pain, marking the minutes and waiting for the sure-enwinding arms of cool-enfolding death -- the IRL bailey (IME) often seems to be rather different from that.
Tylenol is somewhat uniquely dangerous, it would possibly not have been approved as over the counter in the U.S. in today's regulatory environment.
I'm not sure we'd have any OTC drugs in the US starting from zero in today's regulatory environment. Analgesics especially even get banned for prescription use (like the COX-2 inhibitors), because regulators refuse to consider that trading off risk of death against pain is valid in the first place.
That's a failing of today's regulatory environment, and has no bearing on whether I should be able to buy a big bottle of death.
My APAP related disgust is reserved for drug warriors who ensure that oxycodone with APAP is the most available formulation of oxycodone, because they consider people trying to abuse it dying horribly to be a feature and not a bug.
As always, there's a relevant XKCD (even if it came out after the comment was posted).
We're planning a trip to Greece. Where should we go beside the obvious Parthenon / famous sites / etc?
Anyone following the new South park season? You can get a sneak peak here.
https://youtube.com/@southpark/videos
Unsurprisingly they are going after Trump's administration and hard. So far the first episode was offensive incoherent mess, the second is offensive coherent mess. I hope the rise in quality will improve. They are obviously trying to bite Trump administration into retaliating and seems to be succeeding - seem to have the uncanny ability to find the snowflakes - starting with the snowflake in chief. Vance is playing it cool, so I suppose his mocking will diminish.
“This show hasn’t been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention,” the statement read. “President Trump has delivered on more promises in just six months than any other president in our country’s history – and no fourth-rate show can derail President Trump’s hot streak.”
I am confused what is better for USA now - Trump to die now and Vance to take reigns now and only have 2 mandates or to die after the midterms and have two and 1/2.
Fi is more like a programmable CPU; it can do almost anything, and the exact "software" that is being run will vary greatly between different Fi users.
So what happens when a Fi gets programmed with highly neurotic/anxious software? Are they discernible to other people as any different from an Fe?
Think that it’s a bit silly to worry about what people think about guns, mostly because the people who are against gun don’t really know much about them. And furthermore, it doesn’t answer the question of whether or not guns are actually contextually good. If I lived in a place where the police and legal system were unable or unwilling to enforce the laws that keep people and their property safe I would want a gun because I need to protect myself and my family and my property. If I lived in Japan I wouldn’t want one because it’s pretty safe even at night.
Tylenol is somewhat uniquely dangerous, it would possibly not have been approved as over the counter in the U.S. in today's regulatory environment.
This is for a couple of reasons.
-The therapeutic and toxic range are way too close (aka it's really easy to overdose accidentally, which does happen).
-It has significant interaction with some medical problems (aka liver metabolism). This is admittedly pretty minor in most situations.
And most importantly:
-Tylenol overdose is one of the worst possible ways to die. It is long, and slow, and for a while you think you are fine. This gives people lots of time to decline in misery knowing they made an irreversable choice. It's awful. Most other forms of overdose kill you quickly or rapidly alter your sensorium.
This creates agony on the part of the victim and their family, and also a significant amount of angst and distress in the healthcare team.
If you like you aren't paying for the minor inconvenience of harder to pull out of the packaging pills vs. fewer suicides, you are doing to reduce clinician burnout and doctors and nurses in the workforce longer.
It's also expensive to manage.
That question in particular wasn't related to any "MBTI dichotomies" (although I suspect it might be correlated). It was just a way to get people to start thinking about the diversity of emotional experience.
And for what it's worth, a number of people in the reddit thread said they experienced them as thoughts only.
That's the thing though, I don't think I have "emotional blindness". I've never felt unable to identify what emotion I was feeling; I do it easily and often! I'm practically trauma dumping in my group chat on a regular basis about every subjective impression, positive and negative. I just... don't get bodily sensations with them. Except for, as previously mentioned, anxiety.
(Although, since learning about this stuff, I may have suddenly become consciously aware of bodily sensations associated with other emotions on a couple of occasions, and... I'm not really into it. I think I'd rather nip this in the bud before it gets too far. I have quite enough on my hands to deal with as it is, best not to go throwing all new ingredients into the mix.)
More options
Context Copy link