Thank you for your comment. I will try to remember and apply it.
I have a similar concept, which is roughly described as "don't extend your own arm onto the chopping block, but make use of other people doing the same". Don't make presumptions, and you will never be wrong. Don't dig holes for yourself. Be kind, respectful, genuine. Don't throw the first punch, but don't let innocent people get hurt. Find common ground. When they extend out their arm, take their hand and guide them towards truth and goodness.
I do not know your circumstances, but see what you think of this:
I have a nascent theory about human feelings, which goes that the basic feelings we experience are usually perceived through extensive filtering by our personal, social, cultural, etc., beliefs/experiences. The convincing conscious perception of a feeling may be misinterpreted to an extent. Anger is an emotion that can often become misdirected. Supposedly, sexual arousal can be interpreted in translation from fear[0].
Someone who is suicidal may consider suicide seriously, but feel an urge to live in the process of suicide. Circumstance may make certain feelings clear, but by examining removed from circumstance, the person had the capacity for both feelings. There is some "essence" to the person that those feelings, brought on by circumstance, only scratch the surface of. Observing a narrow range of circumstances and assuming it is the essence is a mistake.
I think that more or less every person, in their essence, understands human decency. It may be that some people truly don't have the capacity to appreciate it (thought: aliens?), but usually, I think the real culprit is learned behavior through various factors, and innate cognitive biases. I don't mean to say that it is easy to change people, because the opposite is generally true, but I think it is worth thinking about.
That said, if there was someone who truly needed to, say, murder the way we need to eat, I say that they would do no wrong by murdering, but that we would do no wrong by apprehending them. I wish to get to people at their essences, not their accidents.
100%, our emotions have two components: the initial feeling and the thought-derived reaction. It's like when a toddler falls over and looks back at the mother to decide whether or not it was hurt badly enough that it needs to cry.
the Stoics taught this over 2000 years ago. it is not what happens but how we categorise it that matters.
The optimal decision in the Prisoner's Dilemma is to defect, but in the iterated version, where multiple Dilemmas occur and people remember previous results, Tit-For-Tat is optimal. The real world is even less reminiscent of the Dilemma, so it's not at all clear that the Dilemma's conclusion applies.
(Tit-For-Tat: Prefer cooperating, but if the other person defected on the previous turn, defect on the current turn.)
> The optimal decision in the Prisoner's Dilemma is to defect, but in the iterated version, where multiple Dilemmas occur and people remember previous results, Tit-For-Tat is optimal.
That’s not true. There is no optimal strategy in iterated Prisoner's Dilemma in the sense that defection is optimal in the single-round version; Tit-for-Tat performs well in certain conditions in iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, and less well in others (dependent particularly on the strategies played on the other side); in single-round, defection always produces a better outcome than defection independently of the choice made against it.
Perhaps I am wrong about Tit-for-Tat. It's been a while since I checked my source. In any case, my point (not to say that you deny it) is not to take any result in an idealized game too literally, and that consistent defection is bad.
Same. Somehow there tends to be some "pattern" that stands out, but I guess it's just a mix of the likelihood of "something interesting" and our minds being tuned to pick out "anything interesting". I've memorized a few SSNs and license plate numbers this way, and some digits of pi. I like it; it feels like normal memorization with a twist, without having to resort to "hardcore" techniques.
I don't think it's so easy to get true information out of all the noise in the markets, and in any case, I don't see how this helps with the fact that corruption is bad. So what if I learn that a country will be wrongfully invaded? Can I have someone impeached for it?
If a lot of people have that as their hobby, and some are careless or malicious, people will be harmed. Now suppose that it's not simple to stop the offenders directly. Instead, restricting the sale of nuclear isotopes or cholera samples would probably be highly effective.
Military action would be brutal, but you can only say that it's unnecessary if the alternatives are better. If not now, then how many years down the line? The claims Carney are making are not light in their own right.
I have a similar concept, which is roughly described as "don't extend your own arm onto the chopping block, but make use of other people doing the same". Don't make presumptions, and you will never be wrong. Don't dig holes for yourself. Be kind, respectful, genuine. Don't throw the first punch, but don't let innocent people get hurt. Find common ground. When they extend out their arm, take their hand and guide them towards truth and goodness.