This is one of the most basic stuff that Elliot has explained many times. It is surprising that I forgot about this. I guess the reason that I forgot about this is because of infrequent interaction with FI which includes not reading articles or thinking about FI things and not posting and discussing them sometimes for months. This makes me realize that I cannot make any substantial progress if I interact infrequently.
I think I should try to do things that lie some in between of (easy ---------- getting a bit difficult).
No.
One other thing that bugged me was I could build a track record of easy stuff but I didn’t see the point of it. For example I could post evaluations of 100 addition problems about adding 3 digit numbers everyday but that is of no use towards my goal. But I see the problem with my thinking here. I was assuming that there are only easy things and extremely difficult things but that is not the case. For example addition will be somewhere close to easy, writing 10 not bad posts everyday will be I guess somewhere in between easy and difficult (I am not sure about this because Elliot says that it would be difficult for me and I trust his judgement more than mine on this stuff) and writing a book like FoR or BoI would be extremely difficult. I guess difficulty of things can be broken way more categorizations than the three I mentioned.
I guess the reason that I forgot about this is because of infrequent interaction with FI which includes not reading articles or thinking about FI things and not posting and discussing them sometimes for months.
I think I should try to do things that lie some in between of (easy ---------- getting a bit difficult).
One other thing that bugged me was I could build a track record of easy stuff but I didn’t see the point of it. For example I could post evaluations of 100 addition problems about adding 3 digit numbers everyday but that is of no use towards my goal.
I am not sure what you currently think about doing easy things and building a track record of success with easy activities.
I am going to suggest an easy activity that will help build a track record of success while - I think - directly interacting with FI:
What if, once every day for a week, you read one article or essay by Elliot, and then respond with 1 of 3 of the following sentences:
- I like this article
- I did not like this article
- I am not sure if I like this article
If you wanted to put any other thoughts into the response like: I especially liked this part of the article then you would have to write another response. So your first response could only ever be one of the 3 sentences, but if you wanted to add more to your response you would have to write another message. I think this would make it harder to get stuck on writing messages (idk if thats a problem u have).
I missed this post when I was responding to things last time. I was trying to respond in order that things were posted and I skipped over it IDK how. I remember thinking that this post would be harder to respond to compared to other things I was responding to.
Here’s a fun short story I wrote some time ago. It’s about as joke-packed as possible — it might even be too much. I think it’s great, though, and I do have plans for yet another case for Braeburn and Devereux. Enjoy!
I guess Braeburn and Deverux are gonna be the dinosaurs in this story. Apparently this is gonna be a story and its very joking
And the case of the health-conscious cannibal who only ate vegans (caught because he mentioned how he only ate vegans in pretty much every conversation).
I thought that was funny. People seem to talk about how vegans mention they are vegan a lot? IDK if thats true. Ive spent to much time responding to this post so on to the next one!
This has some connection to my claims that suppressing positive outliers is extremely bad.
IDK what your claims about suppressing positive outliers being bad are. (NOTE: this sentence I just created seems confusing to me, I dont know how to quickly and easily fix that) I am not sure if i already know what your claims are just from being around FI.
I remember reading something (i think from Feynman talking about Cargo Culting) that mentioned something like: A scientists person thought that the value of something, lets call it A, was 1 when he tested it. But then another scientist came along, measured it, and they got a value of 2, they thought that was to far away from the first scientist so they decided to just call the value for A to be 1.2. But then another scientist measured it and ALSO got the value 2, but they thought it was to far away from the first 2 scientists and decided to say that the value was 1.4
so maybe Elliots problem is something like that? maybe the findings that the value was 2 wouldnt even be published by some people cuz they think its just so much of an outlier that it has to be wrong for no other reason
“We want to fund operations against Israel. And, ya know, the types of attacks we are talking about are Cafes, Schools, and, you know, soft targets”
I thought that was hilarious. I have watched this video before. It seems to easy to get people to agree with you even for stuff like committing terrorist attacks.
I am not sure how many ppl in the video are especially anti-semetic, or if they just agree with things very easily. Like maybe you could convince them to ban Hydrogen Dioxide cuz its a major component of acid rain and its used in nuclear powerplants
Censoring information that questions Vaccines seems like it would create more extremists, cuz they have questions, they see they are getting censored, and they think they get censored cuz their right?
im not sure how well thought out this comment is but im gonna move on.
I like All Gas No Brakes videos. I dont think he really states his own opinions, he just asks other people things and then they respond with generally pretty extreme opinions.
I set out with a goal of posting 5 messages in 20 minutes. My timer went down to 1 minute 14ish seconds when i posted my last message
No, they’re the detectives.
The name of the post was “Who Murdered the Dinosaurs?”
The first sentence was “Braeburn had worked many odd cases as a crime scene investigator.”
So i should be able to tell that Braeburn is an investigator from the first sentence, and from the title I should be able to figure out that he is going to investigate the murder of the dinosaurs
Bro I’m like barely reading or responding to the links even man. I just read the first few sentences of the link, or of what Elliot wrote, then respond. It seems kind of weird man. But they are in fact posts! they are working towards my goal!
@doubtingthomas why didnt you respond to my post about an easy project i thought you could do? i liked my post i thought it was good. i should probably be doing that post as well.
This post seemed kind of mean or like passive aggressive to me.
It feels like the assumption of the post is that paying for a WSJ subscription is bad. The post didn’t actually state that tho.
I think it’s a general thing where you can phrase a statement as a question and it gives like some sort of deniability that you were actually making a statement, you can be like: Woah bro i was just asking a question!
Do you think that people should [>>>want<<<] to pay for a WSJ subscription to read that article?
I think the “want” in “should want to pay” makes it seem more like a statement and less like a question.
The original problem is something like: you have to pay to read the article. I think theres like a difference between whether someone should pay to view the article, or WANT to pay to view the article. Those 2 things seem pretty closely related but still like noticeably different.
IDK what the Jani stuff is. you said that “A few of you may remember” so i think its fine if i dont know. i spent to much time responding to the text im going to the tik tok now
this is like about psychiatry and schizophrenia im not good at that stuff i havnt read szazz.
Maybe she was on a plethora of medications to treat her schizophrenia assuming it was real! oh wait that was probably the default assumption. i was assuming that the assumption was that the medication is giving Jani schizophrenia symptoms, but i dont think that was what everyone watching the video assumed. i was trying to be contrarian or something
ok so she was trying to doctor shop for a doctor to diagnose her son with schizophrenia. im not how easily that could work for like more real diseases like cancer, or maybe missing an arm. i think like approximately 100% of doctors could agree whether your missing an arm or not, and i think like about 100% of them would agree if you have cancer or not.
but the psychiatry is like not as hard of a science or something so its easier to shop around i guess
oh she failed i was under the assumption she succeeded i think? man im spending a long time on this tik tok
oh hey in the video it said
The most doctors would diagnose him with was autism.
i think that means that not every doctor agreed he had autism. i dont think thats what the literal words necessitate, but i think thats what the sentence means.
Paraphrase: when jani turned 18 her mother was able to take custody of her
i think if someone is 18 they are legally an adult. i dont think you are normally legally able to take custody of an adult. so i think like: her mother drugged her and i think like abused to the point where state thought that jani couldnt be independant and have full controll over their own life, so they let her abuser have custody over her again, custody which then can only give the abuser cuz of the abuse!
suspended for 10 days. tommorow is last day of school. i laughed. i wonder if those 9 extra suspended days could be carried over to the next school year.
i dont exactly know how school works. but i feel like the last day is probably supposed to be extra important. its kind of like where you say goodbye to everyone until school starts again, maybe like your teachers will give you some final advice on what to practice, or maybe school is so fucking crammed that you actually have like the last lesson for the class on the final school day that seems like it would be kinda stupid.
Ok i listened to 10 more seconds of the tik tok and not all of my previous comments accurately understood what happend. im not editing them tho.
I did/do not know how the diabetes worked i did not know you could stop being diabetic.
so she was suspended for prescription drug distribution. that sounds like they would treat it pretty serious and that you could go to jail for that, why would they only suspend her for 10 days? like imagine if someone was convicted of first degree murder and they were sentenced for 3 days, that would be kind of a low amount of time for the crime.
i find it difficult to figure out what to reply to this tiktok with.
does instagram like not ban people for this? do ppl just keep using alt accounts? like it seems like a good thing to ban ppl for unsolicited nudes.
video unavilible on firefox, chrome, edge. tried to check the account url and it says coulnd’t find this account. rip
unavailable
unavailable
next one is available tho!