the analysis in scott's most recent post i think is completely wrong. should i write a post explaining why and what i think is going on instead
Conversation
this is the crux of what i think scott's missing: he takes it for granted that experiencing and acting on fear is fundamentally aversive. not true! that aversion is *learned* like any other. there's only one kind of learning and sometimes it gets applied to internal states
3
23
you could easily imagine seeing a lion, successfully running away from it, and feeling *exhilarated.* wouldn't that feel great? i've almost died before and it felt great. i felt more alive than i had in years
his whole argument turns on this sentence!
Replying to
imo for what you’re saying to contradict his argument, it would have to be true that it’s possible to feel no aversion at all, to anything
but as long as you *do* feel aversion to some state, you’ll learn not to seek out information that would confirm that that state is the case
2
4
i think it *is* possible. my point is generally that there's only one kind of learning but that it gets applied to internal states, and that this explains everything he's confused about in the post. worth writing out in more detail i guess
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
He often jumps to wrong conclusions and then writes at length on his “insight.” I stopped reading his stuff when I noticed this.
1
Replying to
lots of soldiers report this and they even miss it when they don’t have access to it anymore. the thrill of danger and warfare
2
7
heck, civilians too
Quote Tweet
"I wouldn't mind having an evening like it, say, once a week - ordinarily there's no excitement." - a Londoner who missed the air raids of WW2
Show this thread
1
5
Show replies
Replying to
Could be that fear of checking about taxes is related to fear of being irresponsible (which is separate from legal consequences), and not looking actually helps maintain image.
I feel like there's a pattern across Scott posts of, this is nobody's fault, nobody's choosing this
1
