JustinCEO Topic

No and no.

Yes. I think a big part of the fear is what the ban would say about me morally, if that makes sense. I also would not like the practical consequences, but I think that part is likely fairly obvious.

In my case, a plausible-worst-case scenario actually already happened, so negative visualization isn’t useful for making such fears seem unreasonable.

I’m soliciting opinions on whether or not this is a reasonable format to approach the Gaslighting discussion, explore outstanding disagreements, and try to reach a conclusion. The specific point doesn’t matter too much, though comments are welcome on that. I’m more asking about the format. I expect this will be a multi-hundred-hour project and want to come up with a decent system. “Post” means I’m quoting from a post (isn’t necessarily a whole post), “Comment” means I’m adding a comment in my summary, and the meaning of the other labels should hopefully be apparent. My idea is I’ll go through the discussion organizing points of disagreement in this style, and then pick what seem like the important ones and paste this as a discussion starter, and then any discussion will proceed in a “normal” back-and-forth format (like a typical forum discussion). If I don’t get any criticism or suggestions for improvement very soon, I plan on just moving forward with this as an initial method.

Point of Disagreement: Clarity of DisplayLink Discussion (minor disagreements, possibly a tangent).

  • Context: I criticized another poster’s post as not engaging with mine.
  • Post, JustinCEO: i felt like i was pretty clear about the importance of DisplayLink in my analysis of potential product purchase. mentioned it by name a few times.
    • Post, Elliot Temple: You were not clear originally or in your followup. You have not explained what DisplayLink is or why it matters. And you did not emphasize it or compare it to any alternatives. In your second post you linked to info about it as a “btw” not at something emphasized, and the info you linked is terrible as a relevant summary, so I still have no idea what DisplayLink is, why it matters, or how it fits into this discussion.
      • Comment: I think the thought I had was that I made it clear that it was an important criteria to me, and so therefore I didn’t need to go into these other details. But assuming that I wanted/expected substantive engagement with my post, which I did, I would need to explain these things.
      • Question: Was I unclear? Did I fail to explain what DisplayLink is or why it matters? Did I fail to emphasize it or fail to compare it to alternatives?
        • Post, JustinCEO (Original Post in thread): My iMac is performing badly. I have a MacBook Air which performs way way better. I’d like to use the MacBook Air as my primary computer until I replace my iMac, which might not happen for as long as a year depending on what I decide to replace it with. I’m used to having multiple monitors and want that setup. However, the MacBook Air only supports 1 external display natively. You can use DisplayLink adapters to support extra displays. I have 3 external monitors I’d like to use with MacBook Air. So I’d need a DisplayLink adapter that supports 2 adapters + use my MacBook Air’s native 1 monitor out support in order to support 3 monitors.
          • Comment: I introduced the name of DisplayLink and implied that it was a solution to the MacBook AIr’s lack of support for more than 1 native display externally, but did not explain how it works, or why it was important, or emphasize it, or compare it to alternatives.
        • Post, JustinCEO (follow-up referred to by Elliot): Keep in mind a key aspect for me is the support for DisplayLink for outputting to multiple monitors despite lack of sufficient native ports on my current machine. It’s not just a bare USB 3.0 hub. I agree that at that price point, absent DisplayLink, I’d be looking into TBolt hubs over USB hubs (tho the really nice TBolt hubs - CalDigit mb? - actually go for more IIRC)
          • Comment: I did not explain how it works or compare it to alternatives. I do think that, here at least, I did at least give a strong indication of why it matters and give it some emphasis. Particularly the part “a key aspect for me is the support for DisplayLink for outputting to multiple monitors despite lack of sufficient native ports on my current machine”.
  • Conclusion: Mostly concede Elliot’s points, but maintain minor, tentative disagreement about whether my followup addressed why DisplayLink matters and gave it emphasis.

A couple of points on the above:

  1. I like being able to nest stuff deeply, which is one reason I like this outline type format.
  2. I considered using MindNode, but I think just working with text will be faster and produce a more readable result, especially on more complicated points (whereas a tree might get kind of large).

I wrote a lot, it’s kind of disorganized, but here are my thoughts about both apps.

Sugarmate:

Ok, first about Sugarmate, which is free, and usable with Dexcom G6 or G7. The app has a lot of things that you can set up yourself - graph height, goal/normal blood sugar level, which stats show up, color scheme, etc.

The graph shows you your blood sugar levels, and also lets you add log items as food, medications, exercise, or notes. If you log your exercise in Apple, Sugarmate can get that automatically on the graph, but everything else you have to log yourself.

The graph is accurate and easy to read, and you can easily put your finger on the graph at any point to get the precise number. All your logged items show up on the graph as small icons, and if you tap them, the thing you logged comes up, so you can see/read it. You can log your meals as words or pictures or both. You can also put in numeric values for macros, but I skip that.

The graph is a continuous scroll, so if you want to see previous days, you have to scroll back. There is nowhere to get a full day view or compare previous days to each other, and no way to see previous reactions to meals, etc, besides just scrolling back until you find them.

I recommend Sugarmate if you want to be able to log notes, like, reactions, how you are feeling, etc. And also if you just want a simple/easy way to see your data. I would recommend trying it in any case (if you are using Dexcom), since it’s free anyway, so no reason not to try it.

Levels:

So, Levels has some features that Sugarmate does not have, but it is also missing what I would consider some really basic features and I found it buggy to use. It also has some features and gamification that I dislike, but that is my own personal preference, and I know some other people disagree with me and like those features. So the following is all in my opinion:

Features I like:

  • you can see a snapshot comparison of your previous days. This lets you see the full days, and you can compare and see how you are doing at minimizing spikes
  • searchable meal database with scores. This puts all your meals in one place, gives them each a 1-10 score, and lets you search by specific foods or order them by score. So you can search every time you ate “orange”, say, and see what scores you had an what else you ate with it. This was actually my favorite feature in Levels, and the one thing that I miss from using it. BUT it had problems that actually made it not that useful in many situations, which I will address below.

Problems with meal scores:

  • The meals are done algorithmically. The graph includes 2 hours after the last thing that you ate, and the score is based on your blood sugar at that time compared to the baseline from before you ate. One problem with this is that sometimes my meal reaction lasts longer than 2 hours, so the meal score & graph won’t actually show the full reaction, and the score won’t take it into account. (You can force it to include longer that 2 hours by adding another meal or a note, and it will include 2 hours from the LAST thing, but that is extra work that you have to remember each time, so it makes it less useful as a database that just tracks things for you.)
  • The score is based on how much your blood sugar raised from your baseline, and your baseline is based (I think) on the 30 minutes before the meal. So if your blood sugar just finished coming down from a different meal, it will set your baseline too high, and give you too high of a score for a meal that wasn’t actually good.
  • Another issue is that since it includes 2 hours from the last thing you ate or put in as a notes, any time you doing anything (including adding notes), it will extend your “meal” time by another 2 hours. So, say you eat something at noon, then at 1:30pm you make a note that you feel tired, then you exercise at 3pm, then you have a snack at 4:30pm, then you eat dinner at 6pm. You will end up with a “meal” that goes from noon - 8pm, which is pretty useless. You can get around this by not ever using notes, which takes away basic functionality, and also by either waiting a full 2 hours between meals & snacks, or fudging the time you record it so that it is 2 hours. Another thing people do is they don’t record any “keto” type snacks, or other things that they know don’t affect their blood sugar, so that it doesn’t extend the window.

So even though I liked the meal feature in theory, these problems made it not very useful to me, and frustrating to try to use. It was too much work to try to keep things 2 hours apart, even for things that I had a short reaction to where I was back down to baseline in less than an hour, or to have to add fake notes to extend the window if the reaction went longer. There was also no quick way to get from the meal to the full context, so sometimes the score or graph was really misleading, but there was no way to note that or see that. (Like, you can’t easily see that the baseline was based on a high blood sugar from a previous meal.)

Missing basic functionality:

  • You can’t log notes about your reactions without messing up your meal scores. There is no way to log a note where they don’t interpret it as something that affects your blood sugar, as opposed to a symptom. This is actually a really big deal, because one of the things I wanted to use this for was logging my reactions to high or low blood sugar. The app seems like it is made just to give you algorithmic scores, but not to let you put down your own stuff and figure out your own reactions, outside of what the algorithm does. Not being able to add in notes means that even if I were continuing to use Levels, I would also want to continue using Sugarmate at the same time, so that I could see my data, including my notes, all in one place.
  • The graph only has 2 very faint horizontal lines going across it (at 70 & 110), so it is hard to read it by eye yourself. There are no other numbers on the y axis. It also only has the time every 3 hours on the x-axis, with no vertical lines, so it is hard to read in that way too. I found the sugarmate graph easier to read. Having actual numbers on your graph axis seems like basic functionality to me.

Gamification:

  • they give you scores for each day and scores for the meals. I can see the point of the meal scores, because it helps you sort your meals, and see when you had good vs bad reactions to meals, find ones where you had lower reactions. I don’t really like the day scores though, and I think that can of thing can encourage unhealthy behavior in people who are just optimizing for a better score at the expense of their actual health. It is easy to get a good score if you just don’t eat any carbs, or if you just fast all day, but that’s not actually best for everyone.
  • they also give you points for other things, like sleep and exercise. You get a checkmark & points if you sleep at least 7 hours, and there is nowhere to turn that off. It will also give you “tips” telling you to sleep more. I think they mean to try to “encourage” people to sleep more, but as someone who gets insomnia, it just felt annoying that the app kept reminding me that I wasn’t sleeping enough when I was trying to sleep over 7 hours a night. Like, if I just had a bad night and wasn’t able to sleep, it’s kind of annoying to also have an app tell me I need to prioritize my sleep more and not give me my daily “points”.

other stuff:

  • app hard to navigate, hard to find things, plus they keep changing it
  • buggy: my meal photos would sometimes just disappear. this was especially problematic because I will log meals with photo only then go back and add words later to make it searchable. But I can’t do this when they photo disappears!
  • buggy: sometimes the app would take too long to respond to touch. no other apps on my phone were having this problem
  • graph doesn’t let you define your own normal range - they use their own default of 70-110, which I don’t think is appropriate for everyone. It’s also harder to read than the sugar mate app.
  • the app seems to really be pushing low carb/keto. the scores are really against your blood sugar going up much at all, and I’m not sure how evidence based that really is. I read the blog articles they have, and I couldn’t find anything in their sources that actually justified how much they seem to be pushing keeping your blood sugar in that range.
  • the app gives you “tips” based on what you enter in your logs, which I sometimes found annoying. A lot of them were giving you ideas for food swaps, which I can see some people liking. But I usually just got stuff that wasn’t relevant to me, e.g., more than once I got tips about cutting sugar or eating “glucose-friendly” desserts, based on a log item I made with a dessert-like name, even though the actual thing I ate had no sweetener.

I know a lot of people really seem to love Levels, but I don’t think it was suited to me. I didn’t like the scores and gamifications, and the app made it hard for me to actually use it to get basic information about my own reactions to meals. If I was happy just using their scores and algorithms, and wasn’t trying to figure stuff out on my own, then maybe I would have liked it more. I still don’t like their algorithms sometimes though, and the fact that you can’t correct it and tell it when to end a meal if it is ending too soon or too late. And the app doesn’t offer customization, so it isn’t very useable if you don’t want what they are pushing, in my opinion.

To their credit, their customer service is good, they are a convenient way to get a CGM, and they will refund your membership fee if you don’t want to continue with them.

1 Like

My guess is this is because I didn’t leave an extra line break before “I ask because”. I hadn’t noticed that I’d been missing it habitually and will pay more attention to it going forward. If there’s something else wrong I’m not aware of it.

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Silent Spring

On second thought and on reviewing the prior Gaslighting discussion some more, i think that taking this approach might be repeating some previous mistakes, so I’m back to not being sure what to do.

there are no links, which makes it hard for anyone else to comment on the actual content, if they think you missed context, if they agree with your summaries, etc.

if there had been links in the outline thing you posted, i would have clicked them to go and check things. it would be a lot of work for me to go find the posts you are talking about and cross reference them with what you say. if you want other people’s feedback on your analysis, i would recommend links.

Gaslighting discussion (split from: Justin’s Miscellaneous Posts).

I think I’m not avoiding higher levels of the discussion tree so much as I’m not really sure what they even are in this anonymous’s conception, even at a very very rough, general level. Would “what is a reasonable plan for you to do next” be in the discussion tree, or was that just a general meta question being raised? Does a discussion tree always potentially include a bunch of standard meta questions, but they’re normally “invisible” (like all the zeros after the decimal in a whole number) unless you need to bring them into the discussion? I think my idea of what a discussion tree is is more bound to the specifics of a particular discussion.

For now, unless I’m asked to stop, I’ll plan on continuing to post my thoughts about problems I’m having approaching this discussion.

Good suggestion, thanks.

A post was merged into an existing topic: Silent Spring

In light of the helpful criticism above, I thought I could at least add links to this bit that I already wrote, even if I don’t write any more:

Point of Disagreement: Clarity of DisplayLink Discussion (minor disagreements, possibly a tangent).

  • Context: I criticized another poster’s post as not engaging with mine.
  • Post, JustinCEO: i felt like i was pretty clear about the importance of DisplayLink in my analysis of potential product purchase. mentioned it by name a few times.
    • Post, Elliot Temple: You were not clear originally or in your followup. You have not explained what DisplayLink is or why it matters. And you did not emphasize it or compare it to any alternatives. In your second post you linked to info about it as a “btw” not at something emphasized, and the info you linked is terrible as a relevant summary, so I still have no idea what DisplayLink is, why it matters, or how it fits into this discussion.
      • Comment: I think the thought I had was that I made it clear that it was an important criteria to me, and so therefore I didn’t need to go into these other details. But assuming that I wanted/expected substantive engagement with my post, which I did, I would need to explain these things.
      • Question: Was I unclear? Did I fail to explain what DisplayLink is or why it matters? Did I fail to emphasize it or fail to compare it to alternatives?
        • Post, JustinCEO (Original Post in thread): My iMac is performing badly. I have a MacBook Air which performs way way better. I’d like to use the MacBook Air as my primary computer until I replace my iMac, which might not happen for as long as a year depending on what I decide to replace it with. I’m used to having multiple monitors and want that setup. However, the MacBook Air only supports 1 external display natively. You can use DisplayLink adapters to support extra displays. I have 3 external monitors I’d like to use with MacBook Air. So I’d need a DisplayLink adapter that supports 2 adapters + use my MacBook Air’s native 1 monitor out support in order to support 3 monitors.
          • Comment: I introduced the name of DisplayLink and implied that it was a solution to the MacBook AIr’s lack of support for more than 1 native display externally, but did not explain how it works, or why it was important, or emphasize it, or compare it to alternatives.
        • Post, JustinCEO (follow-up referred to by Elliot): Keep in mind a key aspect for me is the support for DisplayLink for outputting to multiple monitors despite lack of sufficient native ports on my current machine. It’s not just a bare USB 3.0 hub. I agree that at that price point, absent DisplayLink, I’d be looking into TBolt hubs over USB hubs (tho the really nice TBolt hubs - CalDigit mb? - actually go for more IIRC)
          • Comment: I did not explain how it works or compare it to alternatives. I do think that, here at least, I did at least give a strong indication of why it matters and give it some emphasis. Particularly the part “a key aspect for me is the support for DisplayLink for outputting to multiple monitors despite lack of sufficient native ports on my current machine”.
  • Conclusion: Mostly concede Elliot’s points, but maintain minor, tentative disagreement about whether my followup addressed why DisplayLink matters and gave it emphasis.

This sounds annoying. I often have periods where I’m just sort of snacking over a period of time - some yogurt, nuts and berries, cheese and celery - and I think that wouldn’t mesh well with the meal feature as you describe it here, since I’d end up with a super long meal.

I made a mental connection between the video in the link and this quote How to Think Like a Roman Emperor. The context is the masses enjoying gladiatorial games but Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (a Stoic) disliking them (bold added, italics in original):

Marcus came to loathe all such public events, but he was obliged to attend them at the insistence of his friends and advisors. He seems to have found unnecessary bloodshed vicious and barbaric. Indeed, as emperor, Marcus began to impose many restrictions on the cruelty of the games. He insisted that the gladiators before him use blunted weapons so that they would be fighting like athletes, without any risk to their lives. The thrill of the chariot races was likewise about bloodlust, as horses and charioteers were frequently maimed or killed in this dangerous sport. Marcus tried to see beyond the excitement of the crowd. He adopted a more philosophical attitude to the events unfolding before his eyes, asking himself, Is this really what people consider fun?

For Stoics, feelings of pleasure in themselves are neither good nor bad. Rather, whether our state of mind is good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, depends on the things we take enjoyment in. Marcus compares Roman society to the idle pageantry of a procession, where people seem distracted by trivialities, but he reminds himself that he must take his place in it with good grace. Nevertheless, a man’s worth can be measured by the things upon which he sets his heart.5 Enjoying the suffering of others is bad. Taking pleasure in watching men risk death or serious injury would therefore be considered a vice by the Stoics. In contrast, enjoying seeing people flourish is good. You might think that’s obvious; however, we can be blinded by pleasure to its consequences for both others and ourselves. Marcus had been taught by his Stoic tutors to examine the sources and consequences of pleasure very closely. He was therefore able, to some extent, to see beyond the prejudices of his own culture. We should likewise learn to enjoy things that are good for us and others, not things that are bad for us. Indeed, there’s a type of inner gratification that comes from living consistently in accord with our deepest values, which can make ordinary pleasures feel superficial by comparison. Marcus has that in mind when he repeatedly tells himself that the goal of his life is not pleasure but action.

There is lots of social encouragement to find certain things pleasurable, and rather than examining the sources and consequences of pleasure, people take whatever they pick up from society as a given. This is the case even when their pleasure contradicts apparently obvious things like “Enjoying the suffering of others is bad.” (To give a different example besides Roman games and messed up sex stuff: I found it weird that people would laugh so hard at those “funny home videos” shows when the videos seemed to portray people being injured, especially when children were the ones suffering. What’s funny about that?).

Continuing the discussion from Project: Part 0: Considering major life choices:

I agree. I wrote some posts in a values clarification exercise on my microblog recently and the upshot was that I lacked a clear answer to “What’s ultimately the most important thing in life to you?”, which was troubling. I have some values, to be clear, but there’s not a clear hierarchy. It’s a bit of a muddle. I suspect this is very common.

1 Like

I also have the impression that this is a common thing. I’d guess most people pursue what makes them happy, but they don’t really understand why it makes them happy. A lot of people seem to think that what makes them happy is in-born or something like that, which could explain why they don’t care to understand it more deeply.

My ideas on my purpose are not very clear. They’re a subject I intend to explore and seriously consider more (possibly as the next part of my meta-project, once I finish part 0). Currently my thoughts on it are roughly “build cool stuff” (which I don’t have a less vague explanation of yet), “survive” (or perhaps “continue not dying”) and “understand reality”.

Continuing the discussion from MC studies more grammar (Peikoff course):

@MetaCreation
I went through Peikoff’s grammar course before and posted my notes and homework here. Thought you might find this useful.

1 Like

Continuing the discussion from What Kind of World Do We Live In?:

Based on the video, it sounded like the other person wasn’t understanding what was being asked and was falling back to a a generic response rather than admitting they didn’t understand the question. People can be really really bad at dealing with questions involving numbers on the fly.

I think the idea that the other person was falling back on a generic response sounds plausible. That makes me think of some other things that could be going on with the other person.

First, they might just be trying to avoid what they perceive to be a potential conflict. Sometimes people get upset when they get feedback and the manager might have perceived the back and forth discussion as the beginning of a negative escalation in the conversation. If the manager thought that they were upsetting the person in the video then they might have just wanted to end the discussion without resolution rather than get their employee upset with them.

Second, the other person might be pretty insecure, especially about their communication and managerial abilities. The generic responses could be coming from a feeling of imposter syndrome. They would rather just end discussion than show any of what they perceive as flaws in their competence as a manager.

Elliot’s recent articles on peer review (such as this one) got me thinking about an issue I came across once. I briefly reviewed submissions for publication for a journal at my law school once. I don’t remember all the details, but I remember us having to review a submission and give it some kind of score or rating regarding whether it should be published in the journal. The thing is, the submissions weren’t blind, and we were told explicitly to take into account the prestige of the author/the school they were affiliated with in determining our score. I found an old article from around the time I was in law school that talks about non-blind review and raises some concerns. I remember thinking even at the time that taking prestige into account seemed profoundly unmeritocratic and biased, that that the submissions should be blind. Here is a quote from the article:

Effectively, most student-run journals use a single-blind review method to decide*
whether to publish manuscripts that they receive. 1 Authors of submissions do not know the name of the article editor(s) who make(s) an initial decision about their submissions. However, the articles editors who read submissions to student run law journals almost always know the identity of the authors whose submissions they evaluate.’ Many authors submit cover letters or C.V.s along with manuscripts when they submit to student edited law journals, and student editors routinely review these documents side-by-side with manuscripts.’ 3 In this article, I term the practice of student jownals in reviewing manuscripts without masking the author’s identity as “non-blind review.”

Non-Blind Review and Bias
Despite its prevalence, the practice of non-blind review at student edited law journals causes several harms. Research suggests that non-blind review of journal submissions makes it harder for women and non-U.S. scholars to publish, leads to prestige bias that hurts younger scholars, and undermines the perceived fairness of the submission review process among authors. Non-blind review may also reduce readers’ confidence in the reliability of the journal.

It then goes on to discuss specific categories of potential bias.