trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Depression and Rationality
by InquilineKea — 2010-11-24T08:03:48.409Z

Okay, this post might be more personal than most on LessWrong. But I think it might serve a more general function for LessWrong readers. It's commonly known that depression is often triggered (and maintained) by fundamentally irrational thoughts. Many thoughts associated with depression are simultaneously thoughts that are fundamentally irrational. Feelings of guilt, feelings of hopelessness, and feelings of worthlessness - many of those beliefs assume conceptions that do not correspond with the real world. And so a *rational* person may ostensibly be less prone to depression. But depression involves other things that can still strike a fully rational person. Loss of capacity to enjoy things. And loss of energy, focus, and ability to concentrate.

So here is my story:

I've finally corrected all my thinking and reconciled myself with the notion that there's a very high chance that my ex (of 7 months) will probably never talk to me again and that i must prepare to live a life without her. She has already refused contact with me for 6 months, and I've pretty much been emotionally broken for that same period of time. There has been one phase of improvement (mostly since I got more information and accordingly corrected my thought patterns), but the improving has finally stagnated.

My problem is, that I think I've lost my capacity to enjoy things. I simply don't enjoy anything anymore. Occasionally, I can try to find things to laugh at, but those things are usually only temporary sources of laughter (the more "severe" the norm-violation, the funnier - if we go by Robin Hanson's definition of "humor"). They're not even sustainable sources of laughter (or enjoyment), since almost all of them involve trolling to one extent or another. I have some problems with energy/concentration, but my Adderall for ADD helps with them. But it's still difficult for me to maintain the attention span to do most other things.

Yes, I do have friends, and yes, I do talk to people. The problem is that talking to people doesn't make me feel any less lonely anymore. Sometimes it makes me temporarily feel better. I know that the world is interesting, that I have friends to talk to, that there are so many things I can do. And my past 12-year old self would be SO happy if he could exchange spots with me. But in the end, I just get bored with everything so quickly. Sometimes I can briefly find th

...
By using Cost Basis Working Capital as the number
by meidang — 2010-11-24T07:28:36.950Z

Investing is a long-term, pandora beads personal, goal orientated, non- competitive, hands on, decision-making process that does not require advanced degrees or a rocket scientist IQ. In fact, being too smart can be a problem if you have a tendency to over analyze things. It is helpful to establish guidelines for selecting securities, pandora charms and for disposing of them. For example, limit Equity involvement to Investment Grade, NYSE, dividend paying, profitable, and widely held companies.

So is there really such a thing as an Income Portfolio that needs to be managed? .For Fixed Income, cheap pandora beads focus on Investment Grade securities, with above average but not “highest in class” yields. With Variable Income securities, avoid purchase near 52-week highs, and keep individual holdings well below 5%. cheap pandora bracelets Keep individual Preferred Stocks and Bonds well below 5% as well. Closed End Fund positions may be slightly higher than 5%, depending on type.

Take a reasonable profit more than one years’ income for starters as soon as possible. With a 60% Equity Allocation, 60% of profits and interest would be allocated to stocks.Monitoring Investment Performance the Wall Street way is inappropriate and problematic for goal-orientated investors. cheap pandora charms Or are we really just dealing with an investment portfolio that needs its Asset Allocation tweaked occasionally as we approach the time in life when it has to provide the yacht… and the gas money to run it?
Inherited Improbabilities: Transferring the Burden of Proof
by komponisto — 2010-11-24T03:40:17.056Z

One person's modus ponens is another's modus tollens.

- Common saying among philosophers and other people who know what these terms mean.

If you believe A => B, then you have to ask yourself: which do I believe more? A, or not B?

- Hal Daume III, quoted by Vladimir Nesov.

Summary: Rules of logic have counterparts in probability theory. This post discusses the probabilistic analogue of modus tollens (the rule that if A=>B is true and B is false, then A is false), which is the inequality P(A) ≤ P(B)/P(B|A). What this says, in ordinary language, is that if A strongly implies B, then proving A is approximately as difficult as proving B.

The appeal trial for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito starts today, and so to mark the occasion I thought I'd present an observation about probabilities that occurred to me while studying the "motivation document"(1), or judges' report, from the first-level trial.

One of the "pillars" of the case against Knox and Sollecito is the idea that the apparent burglary in the house where the murder was committed -- a house shared by four people, namely Meredith Kercher (the victim), Amanda Knox, and two Italian women -- was staged. That is, the signs of a burglary were supposedly faked by Knox and Sollecito in order to deflect suspicion from themselves. (Unsuccessfully, of course...)

As the authors of the report, presiding judge Giancarlo Massei and his assistant Beatrice Cristiani, put it (p.44):

What has been explained up to this point leads one to conclude that the situation of disorder in Romanelli's room and the breaking of the window constitute an artificially created production, with the purpose of directing investigators toward someone without a key to the entrance, who would have had to enter the house via the window whose glass had been broken and who would then have perpetrated the violence against Meredith that caused her death.

Now, even before examining "what has been explained up to this point", i.e. the reasons that Massei and Cristiani (and the police before them) were led to this conclusion, we can pretty easily agree that if it is correct -- that is, if Knox and Sollecito did in fact stage the burglary in Filomena Romanelli's room -- then it is extremely likely that they are guilty of participation in Kercher's murder. A...
Compatibilism in action
by rwallace — 2010-11-23T17:58:04.506Z

A practical albeit fictional application of the philosophical conclusion that free will is compatible with determinism came up today in a discussion about a setting element from the role-playing game Exalted

(5:31:44 PM) Nekira Sudacne: So during the pirmodial war, one Yozi got his fetch killed and he reincarnated as Sachervell, He Who Knows The Shape of Things To Come. And he reincarnated asleep. and he has remained asleep. And the other primordials do all in their power to keep him asleep. and he wants to be asleep.

For you see, for as long as he sleeps, he dreams only of the present. should he awaken, he will see the totaltiy of exsistance, all things past and future exsactly as they will happen. quantumly speaking he will lock the universe into a single shape. All things that happen will happen as he sees them happen and there will be no chance for anyone to change it. effectivly nullifying chance for change. Even he cannot alter his vision for his vision takes into account all attempts to alter it.

And there's a big debate over rather or not this is a game ending thing. Essentially, does predestination negate freewill or not

(5:32:17 PM) Nekira Sudacne: and this is important, because one of the requirements for Exaltation to function is freewill. if Sachervell is able to negate freewill, then Exaltations will cease to function

(5:32:44 PM) Nekira Sudacne: and maddenly enough the game authors are also on the thread arguing because THEY don't agree where to go with it either :)

(5:38:02 PM) rw271828: ah, well I happen to know the answer :-)

(5:39:23 PM) rw271828: one of the most important discoveries of 20th-century mathematics is that in general the behavior of a complex system cannot be predicted -- or rather, there is no easier way to predict it than to run it and see what happens. Note in particular:

(5:39:41 PM) rw271828: 1. This is a mathematical fact, so it applies in all possible universes, including Exalted

(5:40:01 PM) rw271828: 2. Humans and other sentient lifeforms are complex systems in the relevant sense

(5:41:33 PM) rw271828: so if you postulate an entity that can actually see the future (as opposed to just extrapolate what is likely to happen unless something intervenes), the only way to do that is for that entity to run a perfect simulation, a complete copy of the universe

(5:42:50 PM) rw271828: if you're willing to postulate that,...
Fiction: Tasmanian Devil ch. 1
by fictiona — 2010-11-23T15:49:07.296Z

Tasmanian Devil is a story of college love, mystery, magic, logic and ethics. It parodises the human nature to the core. It can get very dark and is based loosely on rationality.

Read Chapter 1 here. (PG-13; warnings: very dark themes, a few vulgar words)

Teaser:

Baby tooth was a market in which there were several sellers but only one buyer. Economics textbooks called this type of market monopsony. Theory predicted that, due to her bargaining power, the Tooth Fairy could be bitchy all she wanted, buying teeth at a very low price if she wanted to. However, according to Penny’s research, the Tooth Fairy was generous enough to pay up to $6 per tooth! Why?
Rationality is Not an Attractive Tribe
by Alexandros — 2010-11-23T14:08:33.563Z

Summary: I wonder how attractive rationality as a tribe and worldview is to the average person, when the competition is not constrained by verifiability or consistency and is therefore able optimize around offering imaginary status superstimuli to its adherents.

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'

— Isaac Asimov

I've long been puzzled by the capability of people to reject obvious conclusions and opt for convoluted arguments that boil down to logical fallacies when it comes to defending a belief they have a stake in. When someone resists doing the math, despite an obvious capability to do so in other similar cases, we are right to suspect external factors at play. A framework that seems congruent with the evolutionary history of our species is that of beliefs as signals of loyalty to a tribe. Such a framework would explain the rejection of evolution and other scientific theories by large swathes of the world's population, especially religious population, despite access to a flood of evidence in support.

I will leave support of the tribal signalling framework to others, and examine the consequences for popular support of rationality and science if indeed such a framework successfully approximates reality. The best way I can do that is by examining one popular alternative: The Christian religion which I am most familiar with, in particular its evangelical protestant branch. I am fairly confident that this narrative can be ported to other branches of Christianity and abrahamic faiths fairly easily and the equivalents for other large religions can be constructed with some extra effort.

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth"

— The Bible (New International Version), Matthew 5:5

What is the narrative that an evangelical Christian buys into regarding their own status? They belong to the 'chosen people', worshipping a god that loves them, personally, created them with special care, and has a plan for their individual lives. They are taking part in a battle with absolute evil, that represents everything disgusting and despicable, which is manifested in the various difficulties they face in...
Advanced neurotypicallity
by NancyLebovitz — 2010-11-22T23:34:01.635Z

A description of auditioning

--

As an auditioner, this means I try to respect the people behind the table, be genuine and keep them from being bored. I want them to know that I appreciate their efforts, know that their side of the table is awkward too, and thank them for seeing me. And a lot of this, I have to show, don't tell. It's hard. Especially when you've also got to show up with the skills (also, seriously, it's weird do be affable and connected and then be Lady Anne, because she's a lot of things, but affable not so much). If you're auditioning for something, and especially if you're new to auditioning, often, if you're like me, you'll consider your odds of getting cast, and your computations will be quite grim. Well let me tell you something, stop that right now. Because if you can come into the room, say hello to me, make chit-chat for 30 seconds and do your monologue actually facing the table -- you are so ahead of the game. If you haven't sat behind the table, you think I'm joking, but I'm not. I've had people do monologues with their back to me because, they explained, they were nervous. I've had people build a jury box out of chairs (while my mouth hung open) and then proceed to do a spot-on imitation of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. There was the guy with the gun. The people who brought their boyfriends (fine as a safety precaution if I'm auditioning you in a non-standard space; a complete distraction if I'm auditioning you at a rehearsal studio and they want in the room with you).

I found that interesting because I'm apt to space out around people, and the passage is by someone who's "on" a lot more of the time.
Morality in Fantasy Worlds
by lucidfox — 2010-11-22T21:37:47.173Z

This comment by Carinthium in my earlier post has got me to think, and my apologies if this subject was raised before - couldn't find it.

1- In a hypothetical world where God actually existed, it would be an OBJECTIVE belief and thus it would be worth saving people. (Just as with people killing themselves with harmful drugs under almost all real circumstances)

I admit I haven't really thought much about such a topic, so perhaps it deserves a separate discussion.

Imagine you live in a fantasy world (like one of the Dungeons & Dragons universes) where the god you worship places you into better afterlife for following virtues that it considers moral. Suppose that we have evidence for the existence of the good and bad afterlives - testimony of resurrected people, etc. - so we know it's not just a groundless threat. Some people would, naturally, not care and engage in behavior that would land them in the bad afterlife. Would it be moral or rational to try and save them from their own folly, or to write it up to personal choice instead?

Things get even more complicated when there are multiple gods, each with its own concept of morality, and you have a choice between them. But that's a whole separate can of worms...
Psychopathy and the Wason Selection Task
by  — 2010-11-22T14:00:31.150Z

The Wason Selection Task is the somewhat famous experimental problem that requires attempting to falsify a hypothesis in order to get the correct answer. From the wikipedia article:

You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) should you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?

Aside from an illustration of the rampancy of confirmation bias (only 10-20% of people get it right), the task is interesting for another reason: when framed in terms of social interactions, people's performance dramatically improves:

For example, if the rule used is "If you are drinking alcohol then you must be over 18", and the cards have an age on one side and beverage on the other, e.g., "17", "beer", "22", "coke", most people have no difficulty in selecting the correct cards ("17" and "beer").

However, apparently psychopaths perform nearly as badly on the "social contract" versions of this experiment as they do on the normal one. From the Economist:

For problems cast as social contracts or as questions of risk avoidance, by contrast, non-psychopaths got it right about 70% of the time. Psychopaths scored much less—around 40%—and those in the middle of the psychopathy scale scored midway between the two.

The original (gated) research appears to be here.
Does cognitive therapy encourage bias?
by fortyeridania — 2010-11-22T11:31:53.303Z

Summary: Cognitive therapy may encourage motivated cognition. My main source for this post is Judith Beck's Cognitive Therapy: Basics and Beyond.

"Cognitive behavioral therapy" (CBT) is a catch-all term for a variety of therapeutic practices and theories. Among other things, it aims to teach patients to modify their own beliefs. The rationale seems to be this:

(1) Affect, behavior, and cognition are interrelated such that changes in one of the three will lead to changes in the other two.

(2) Affective problems, such as depression, can thus be addressed in a roundabout fashion: modifying the beliefs from which the undesired feelings stem.

So far, so good. And how does one modify destructive beliefs? CBT offers many techniques.

Alas, included among them seems to be motivated skepticism. For example, consider a depressed college student. She and her therapist decide that one of her bad beliefs is "I'm inadequate." They want to replace that bad one with a more positive one, namely, "I'm adequate in most ways (but I'm only human, too)." Their method is to do a worksheet comparing evidence for and against the old, negative belief. Listen to their dialog:

[Therapist]: What evidence do you have that you're inadequate?

[Patient]: Well, I didn't understand a concept my economics professor presented in class today.

T: Okay, write that down on the right side, then put a big "BUT" next to it...Now, let's see if there could be another explanation for why you might not have understood the concept other than that you're inadequate.

P: Well, it was the first time she talked about it. And it wasn't in the readings.

Thus the bad belief is treated with suspicion. What's wrong with that? Well, see what they do about evidence against her inadequacy:

T: Okay, let's try the left side now. What evidence do you have from today that you are adequate at many things? I'll warn you, this can be hard if your screen is operating.

P: Well, I worked on my literature paper.

T: Good. Write that down. What else?

(pp. 179-180; ellipsis and emphasis both in the original)

When they encounter evidence for the patient's bad belief, they investigate further, looking for ways to avoid inferring that she is inadequate. However, when they find evidence against the bad belief, they just chalk it up.

This is not how one should approach evidence...assuming one wants correct be

...
Does cognitive therapy encourage bias?
by fortyeridania — 2010-11-22T11:11:53.201Z

(This post might suffer from formatting problems. I'm pretty dumb with computers, so it's not a surprise to me, but if anyone out there knows how to fix it, I'd be grateful for the help.)

Summary: Cognitive therapy may encourage [motivated cognition](http://lesswrong.com/lw/km/motivated_stopping_and_motivated_continuation/). My main source for this post is Judith Beck's [Cognitive Therapy: Basics and Beyond](http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Therapy-Judith-Beck-Phd/dp/0898628474/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290418167&sr=1-1)

"[Cognitive behavioral therapy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy)" (CBT) is a catch-all term for a variety of therapeutic practices and theories. Among other things, it aims to teach patients to modify their own beliefs. The rationale seems to be this:

(1) Affect, behavior, and cognition are interrelated such that changes in one of the three will lead to changes in the other two.

(2) Affective problems, such as depression, can thus be addressed in a roundabout fashion: modifying the beliefs from which the undesired feelings stem.

So far, so good. And how does one modify destructive beliefs? CBT offers many techniques.

Alas, included among them seems to be motivated skepticism. For example, consider a depressed college student. She and her therapist decide that one of her bad beliefs is "I'm inadequate." They want to replace that bad one with a more positive one, namely, "I'm adequate in most ways (but I'm only human, too)." Their method is to do a worksheet comparing evidence for and against the old, negative belief. Listen to their dialog:

[Therapist]: What evidence do you have that you're inadequate?

[Patient]: Well, I didn't understand a concept my economics professor presented in class today.

T: Okay, write that down on the right side, then put a big "BUT" next to it...Now, let's see if there could be another explanation for why you might not have understood the concept other than that you're inadequate.

P: Well, it was the first time she talked about it. And it wasn't in the readings.

Thus the bad belief is treated with suspicion. What's wrong with that? Well, see what they do about evidence against her inadequacy:

T: Okay, let's try the left side now. What evidence do you have from today that you are adequate at many things? I'll warn you, this can be hard if you

...
Does cognitive therapy encourage bias?
by fortyeridania — 2010-11-22T09:52:44.215Z

Summary: Cognitive therapy may encourage [motivated cognition](http://lesswrong.com/lw/km/motivated_stopping_and_motivated_continuation/). My main source for this post is Judith Beck's [Cognitive Therapy: Basics and Beyond](http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Therapy-Judith-Beck-Phd/dp/0898628474/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290418167&sr=1-1)

"[Cognitive behavioral therapy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy)" (CBT) is a catch-all term for a variety of therapeutic practices and theories. Among other things, it aims to teach patients to modify their own beliefs. The rationale seems to be this:

(1) Affect, behavior, and cognition are interrelated such that changes in one of the three will lead to changes in the other two.

(2) Affective problems, such as depression, can thus be addressed in a roundabout fashion: modifying the beliefs from which the undesired feelings stem.

So far, so good. And how does one modify destructive beliefs? CBT offers many techniques.

Alas, included among them seems to be motivated skepticism. For example, consider a depressed college student. She and her therapist decide that one of her bad beliefs is "I'm inadequate." They want to replace that bad one with a more positive one, namely, "I'm adequate in most ways (but I'm only human, too)." Their method is to do a worksheet comparing evidence for and against the old, negative belief. Listen to their dialog:

[Therapist]: What evidence do you have that you're inadequate?

[Patient]: Well, I didn't understand a concept my economics professor presented in class today.

T: Okay, write that down on the right side, then put a big "BUT" next to it...Now, let's see if there could be another explanation for why you might not have understood the concept other than that you're inadequate.

P: Well, it was the first time she talked about it. And it wasn't in the readings.

Thus the bad belief is treated with suspicion. What's wrong with that? Well, see what they do about evidence against her inadequacy:

T: Okay, let's try the left side now. What evidence do you have from today that you are adequate at many things? I'll warn you, this can be hard if your screen is operating.

P: Well, I worked on my literature paper.

T: Good. Write that down. What else?

(pp. 179-180; ellipsis and emphasis both in the original)

When they encounter evidence for the ...