Overcoming Bias. Psychology. Evolution. Psychology. Limerence. In the March 1996 issue of Harper's, there's a short reading on limerence, a term that stands (vaguely) for ``romantic love.'' (Why this is vague will be apparent soon.) Anyway, here's a short message from Mark Israel, the keeper of the alt.usage.english news group. This message consists of excerpts from Dorothy Tennov's book Love and Limerence (Stein and Day, 1979). Tennov was a professor of psychology at the University of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Limerence is what is sometimes referred to as ``being in love'' with someone, as opposed to ``loving'' someone.
Limerence is also sometimes called ``infatuation.'' Symptoms of Limerence ``Limerence has certain basic components: Nonlimerence `` `Nonlimerent' refers to a person who is not limerent at the time. ``The feelings you as nonlimerent may have about another person may include sexual attraction, friendship, and affection, without the compulsive and intrusive fantasizing or the exclusivity. Distinction between ``limerence'' and ``love'' Q.
Dawes on Therapy. I finally had a chance to read Robyn Dawes’ book House of Cards, recommended to us here by Michael Crichton. Here Dawes summarizes evidence on the effectiveness of psychotherapy: Randomized experiments evaluating the efficacy of psychotherapy began appearing occasionally in the scientific journals during the 1960s. … In 1977, Mary L. Smith and Gene V. Glass published a famous article in American Psychologist that concluded that psychotherapy is very effective. They summarized the results of 375 studies of psychotherapy effectiveness that had purported to use random assignment to experimental, and control groups. … Smith and Glass found that someone chosen at random from the experimental group after therapy had a two-to-one chance of being better off on the measure examined than someone chosen at random from the control group. Apparently an intelligent sympathetic ear is mainly what you need if you feel a bit crazy. ShareThis Tagged as: Psychology Trackback URL:
Home On The Strange Forums :: View Forum - The Open-Source Wish. +kenwilber.com. Gene Expression. Greene-Dissertation.pdf (application/pdf Object) You go to hell and you die « Entitled to an Opinion. Antinatalism- The Greatest Taboo. Guernsey McPearson Prose. Contents A Cure for Sea Sickness Guernsey McPearson's Agony Column Guernsey Has a Go Prying for Priors Multi-Centre Trials and the Finally Decisive Argument The Whole Earth Catalogue Good Mixed Centre Practice Giving Power the Elbow A Dip in the Pool The Story of O The Alternative Hypothesis The Fourth Musketeer Credit Rating The Frightfully Drunk Alcoholic The Dance of the Dichotomisers Hard Times and Stiff Competition Gene Genie Of Simples and Simpletons Millenial Medicine Braking the Code Meet the Archies Mote and Beam Amateur Ambitions Invincible Ignorance In Silly Co The Gene-ius of Marketing Dredging for P In the Long Run Continuitis, Dichotomania and the Tetrachoric Coefficient of Correlation Placebo Desponders The Plot Thickens At Loggerheads Power Point Phairy Story Guernsey sums it up Guernsey carries on Balancing Act: Guernsey Scrapes the Barrel A Propensity for Nonsense Suffer the little children Granny Not Shame game Tight rations and titrations Sugar Sugar Been Counting Grub Soup Minding your Ps and Qs Can it?
Dear , Gibberish rock song written by Italian composer to sound like En.
Less Wrong: The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth Abou. Joshua Greene has a PhD thesis called The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality and What To Do About It. What is this terrible truth? The essence of this truth is that many, many people (probably most people) believe that their particular moral (and axiological) views on the world are objectively true - for example that anyone who disagrees with the statement "black people have the same value as any other human beings" has committed either an error of logic or has got some empirical fact wrong, in the same way that people who claim that the earth was created 6000 years ago are objectively wrong.
To put it another way, Greene's contention is that our entire way of talking about ethics - the very words that we use - force us into talking complete nonsense (often in a very angry way) about ethics. As an accessible entry point, I have decided to summarize what I consider to be Greene's most important points in this post. Less Wrong: You cannot be mistaken about (not) wanting to wirehe. In the comments of Welcome to Heaven, Wei Dai brings up the argument that even though we may not want to be wireheaded now, our wireheaded selves would probably prefer to be wireheaded.
Therefore we might be mistaken about what we really want. (Correction: what Wei actually said was that an FAI might tell us that we would prefer to be wireheaded if we knew what it felt like, not that our wireheaded selves would prefer to be wireheaded.) This is an argument I've heard frequently, one which I've even used myself. But I don't think it holds up. More generally, I don't think any argument that says one is wrong about what they want holds up.
To take the example of wireheading. The systems for experiencing pleasure and for wanting to seek out pleasure are separate ones. Therefore, it is not an inherent property of wireheading that we'd automatically end up wanting it. In fact, "I thought I wouldn't want to do/experience X, but upon trying it out I realized I was wrong" doesn't make sense.
QM.pdf (application/pdf Object)