Ben Hoffman

@ben_r_hoffman

Here is my anonymous feedback form - please use it if you have anything to tell me but don't want to say it directly:

41.060011,-73.533751
Vrijeme pridruživanja: srpanj 2011.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @ben_r_hoffman

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @ben_r_hoffman

  1. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 53 minute

    credit to Wallace for refusing to entertain "the crime was very bad" as any sort of relevant answer to "was this man wrongly convicted"

    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    2. velj

    and *that* is sexier than someone who expresses a gender-atypical range of emotions in a state of insecurity

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    2. velj

    without making claims about what "all women" want, I think what's sometimes going on here is: someone who expresses a full range of emotions in a state of security is sexier than someone who expresses a gender-typical, narrowed range of emotions in a state of these insecurity

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    Okay, we've got the worst plague in decades, the worst locusts in decades, so what's next, the worst earthquakes, floods, & war?

    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    This section does indeed need expansion, because I want to know more about the first gummi candies in human history, the mysterious and slightly haunted-sounding “Unclaimed Babies”

    Poništi
  6. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    31. sij

    That's a change of 12 years in only 14 years!!! Holy shit! If CEOs are 82 on average in 2048, that'sroughly the same as US life expectancy then on its trend. How does that compare to the USSR before Gorbachev?

    Poništi
  7. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    30. sij

    I often struggle to explain that: 1. Generally, the range of things you could possibly do that are worse than nothing is larger than the range of things that are better AND 2. Trying most things is cheap & when trying in earnest, humans are good filterers of possibility space

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    30. sij

    Broadly speaking, humans are prone to get into serious trouble when they attempt massive-scale things straight out of the gate, but they also don't try to do nearly *enough* things

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 31. sij
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 31. sij

    Even so, it's the first book on the subject of PTSD that I was able to *actually use*, and led to immediate opening up, creating clarity about and processing trauma, and I'm grateful to Pete Walker for writing it.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 31. sij

    It leans harder than I'd like towards blaming parents, which I think may be an unavoidable developmental stage for people still stuck in a scapegoating mentality, but is unjust and I'd have liked a more precise finesse of that issue (as well as more clarity on systemic abuse).

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 31. sij

    Its description of the Inner Critic layer was sufficiently verbally loaded that I wasn't able to notice mine for a while - for me, it consists of the *feeling* of shame about engaging in triggered behaviors, not verbalized self-judgments. (I have the same problem with CBT.)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. 31. sij

    It also implies a much lower level of institutional betrayal than in fact exists, claims that it's safe to assume that the authorities are on your side. Blind to Betrayal and Achilles in Vietnam might be a useful corrective to this.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 31. sij

    The book's explicit model logically implies that nearly everyone has CPTSD (e.g. it points out that recovery from CPTSD creates above-"normal" emotional intelligence), but it stops a bit short of being willing to actually say this.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. 31. sij

    The 4Fs model (fight, flight, freeze, fawn) is good, but the typology is too rigid, favoring crispness and clarity over accuracy. I was able to recognize my triggered behaviors by believing the types, but NOT the "combination" types.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 31. sij

    Strongly recommended, but I'm gonna talk about the books' weak points as well in this thread.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 31. sij

    Updated to clarify main point: the "large funding gap for cheap interventions" story implies a large opportunity for cheap (relative to existing large donors), decisively persuasive experiments. No experiment opportunity = small funding gap.

    Poništi
  18. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    31. sij

    Anyway here’s the weirdest Hollywood screenwriting job I’ve ever had... /thread

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    "The fact that false high-precision claims are generally more damaging than false low-precision claims is important ethically." 😍🤩

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    30. sij

    Anybody have a good source on how bird cognition works? (They have virtually no cortex, but corvids and parrots can rival primates in the complexity of tasks they learn.) Do birds have some equivalent of the hierarchical/filter-bank image processing structures mammals do?

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·