new log

content/references/definitions.mkd

@@ -200,3 +200,4 @@
 [Cala Sutta]: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.006.bodh.html
 [Pareto]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
 [Kaldor Hicks]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaldor%E2%80%93Hicks_efficiency
+[Runner's High]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin#Runner.27s_high

content/references/references.mkd

@@ -87,8 +87,10 @@
 [Bayesian Empiromancy]: http://dresdencodak.com/2009/01/27/advanced-dungeons-and-discourse/
 [Robo Messiah]: http://www.tripzine.com/listing.php?id=dxm02
 [wallow newsomian]: https://wallowinmaya.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/516-dark-side-epistemology/
-[Caplan Szasz]: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/09/they_called_me.html
-[AntiAN tweet depression]: https://twitter.com/AntiANtrollbot/status/200630646425653248
+[Royal Crown]: http://www.pomade-shop.eu/Royal-Crown-Hair-Dressing-8-oz/en
+[oglaf honor]: http://oglaf.com/honor/
+[Why Are Young Men Angry?]: https://soberdownunder.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/why-are-young-men-angry/
+[Tangled]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangled
 
 <!-- LessWrong -->
 [LW bipolar]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/6nb/ego_syntonic_thoughts_and_values/4igy
@@ -158,6 +160,8 @@
 [Karl Harm]: http://networkedblogs.com/s9u4M
 [Francois Abortion]: https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/category/antinatalism/pro-abortion/
 [Caplan hedonic]: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/12/a_cursory_rejec.html
+[Caplan Szasz]: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/09/they_called_me.html
+[AntiAN tweet depression]: https://twitter.com/AntiANtrollbot/status/200630646425653248
 
 <!-- Moldbug -->
 [How Dawkins got pwned]: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-5.html

content/references/videos.mkd

@@ -54,3 +54,5 @@
 [Befindlichkeit]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3dzy-y1xI8
 [Henry Darger]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DL_AoAyhv0
 [Invocation for Beginnings]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYlCVwxoL_g
+[REDLINE]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovnJ9e_cuWk
+[Internationale]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeQeHstrsc

content_blog/morality/two-scale-utilitarianism.mkd

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+---
+title: Utilitarianism Without Trade-Offs
+date: 2012-05-27
+techne: :wip
+episteme: :speculation
+---
+
+> The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
+>
+> -- Second Principle of Economics, Mankiw
+
+A common criticism of utilitarianism denies the plausibility that utility can be meaningfully aggregated, even in one person and under (near-)certainty. Let's say I offer you two choices:
+
+1. I give you two small things, one good, one bad, of exactly opposite value. (Say, a chocolate bar and a slap in the face.)
+2. I give you two large things, one good, one bad, of exactly opposite value. (Say, LSD and fever for a day.)
+
+The sum of utility for each choice is exactly 0, by construction[^construction], and therefore, you should be indifferent between them.
+
+[^construction]: Don't attack the hypothetical, bro.
+
+This is assumed to be absurd, and therefore utilitarianism is false.
+
+But where exactly does it fail? A chocolate bar is good, that's fact. Let's not focus on whether you may not like chocolate, or can't digest it, or whatever - substitute a different snack. And also ignore whether a snack is *morally* good, like that's a grave and serious problem, and chocolate is only about preferences, not *The Good*. Whatever, don't get hung up on the word. A chocolate *still feels good*, and let's keep it at that. Just a simple observation.
+
+And there are things that are *more good* in that sense. Cake is better. As is [Runner's High][]. Or the Fifth Season of Mad Men. You get the idea. So some things are good, and they can be compared. Maybe not at a very fine-grained level, but there are at least major categories.
+
+There are also bad things. And they, too, can be compared. Some things are *worse* than others.
+
+So we could rephrase the original choice without any explicit sum. First, I observe that you have two preferences:
+
+1. You prefer the large good thing over the small good thing.
+2. You prefer the small bad thing over the large bad thing.
+
+Those two preferences have a strength. There might not be an explicit numerical value to it, but we can roughly figure it out. For example, I could ask you how much money you'd be willing to pay to satisfy each of those preferences, i.e. how much you'd pay to upgrade your small good thing to a large one[^viagra], and similarly downgrade the bad thing.
+
+[^viagra]: This post is a cleverly disguised Viagra advertisement.
+
+Then I tweak the individual things until both preferences feel equally strong. And this seems now far *less* absurd - if you knew I was going to give you a chocolate bar *and* make you sick a week later, and I offered you the choice between *either* upgrading to LSD *or* downgrading to a slap in the face, then, I think, being really uncertain seems very plausible to me.
+
+You might be willing to flip a coin, even.
+
+Alright, so rankings and indifference between choices seem plausible, so why does the original scenario fall apart?
+
+Because it puts good and bad things on the *same* scale. It treats bad things as anti-good things, the same way money works. "Pay 5 bucks, gain 5 bucks" and "pay 5 million, gain 5 million" are, everything else being equal, really the same deal in disguise.
+
+Good and bad things are on *different* scales. There is one non-negative scale for good things, and one non-negative scale for bad things, and they are fundamentally orthogonal. A choice can be simultaneously good and bad, without one cancelling out the other.
+
+So recall the second scenario, the one in which we might be willing to flip a coin. Try to actually *feel* that uncertainty. If you're anything like me, it *feels* very different than the uncertainty you might feel when you can't decide which red wine to buy. It's not a "meh, whatever" kind of indifference - it's "this completely sucks and I wish I wouldn't have to make this decision at all".
+
+
+
+

content_daily/log/52.mkd

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+title: Remote Trolling is totally a thing
+date: 2012-05-26
+techne: :done
+episteme: :log
+---
+
+So, more results from the no-poo front because I'm abandoning it. Because I'm slightly bored of talking about my hair, only bullet points. I'm mostly writing this down for later reference.
+
+- hair did eventually stabilize without shampoo, but always felt slightly nasty
+- vinegar is vital for shape, but fucks up my skin
+- baking soda mostly fixes all problems, but is tricky to dose right
+- no-poo hair dries *very* slowly, and almost requires sitting in the sun for a while or it will turn into a mess
+- gave up, bought shampoo[^shampoo] again, happy now
+- plan to use shampoo 1-2x / week, otherwise only water - so far, works
+- no-poo *could* work *if* you have soft water and/or get the baking soda concentration *just* right and never use normal water (or have robust hair and skin[^robust])
+
+[^robust]: Chemie bringt Brot, Wohlstand und Schönheit!, sag ich da nur. DDR + Chemiestandort = Haut permanent im Arsch.
+
+[^shampoo]: Fructis Anti-Schuppen Mint Fresh - the only product series that I tolerate
+
+(And yes, I've tried all obvious variants of "use filtered / boiled / ... water", "change concentrations", "use boar bristle brush" etc.)
+
+Also, pomade is fucking awesome. Got myself some [Royal Crown][] and that's me all day:
+
+<%= image("cat_brushie.jpg", "Cat Brushie") %>
+
+I mean, sure, you can make a case that natural healthy hair is oily and flexible (and real paleo men hunt their own meat <del>[and fuck other oily men][oglaf honor]</del>) but I definitely prefer it stripped of all oils (electrified feeling, whee!) and then *forced* into shape, and that has absolutely nothing to do with me being a neurotic control freak.
+
+And because I'd pull a Dharma & Greg on pomade and marry it after the first date if I could, means hair length doesn't matter much anyway, and I'll just fix some irregular spots as soon as I find the time. For some reason, I'm now completely relaxed about the whole thing. Hm.
+
+---
+
+Speculation: the trick to staying in (hypo)mania territory (and not slipping back into depression) is *enjoying* the constant drama and catharsis you go through. I'm not sure if it's turning me into a melodramatic attention whore (and if that's better than a whiny pessimist), but introspectively, it feels more like I'm (finally!) turning *camp*. I *seem* to get more stuff done that way, and at least half the time I'm calm and reasonable, (and the only crazy thing I do is write [overly dramatic posts][Ontological Therapy] from time to time, not start flame wars, kill someone out of jealousy or invade Poland, you know), and I'm *definitely* enjoying it more.
+
+---
+
+I note that I have accidentally tricked myself into a very regular exercise habit. I started using Fitocracy as a simple way to track basic fitness requirements - earn X points per week, nothing more. I started really low (like, 10 points / week) because I suck, and then one day, I went running on too much DXM for like 150 points and I couldn't handle the (comparatively) huge surplus. So I changed my schedule to 100 (then 150) / week because I knew I could just run for about an hour once a week, roughly, and that's it. Did that till April, then got lazy and didn't want to run anymore.
+
+So I had to deal with 10-20 points/day, and I looked for easy-but-efficient exercises, like crunches, and I'm still *intending* to run any time now, seriously, just you wait, but actually, I'm now at like 2x30 crunches every day (or something equivalent). Small and easy enough that I can do it even when tired and at 10 minutes before midnight (to not fail the contract), but demanding enough that I feel more energetic and make progress. (From barely 1x20 crunches to routinely 2x30.)[^father]
+
+That's like the lamest actual victory due to laziness and economic pressure ever. Still, I'll take it.
+
+---
+
+Also, read more, freaked out more, started writing (what I thought was) a quick post about utilitarianism and putting benefit and harm on the same scale vs. different scales, but then half-way through, I noticed that the point was actually more interesting than I thought and then spent 3 hours thinking through what a multidimensional utility function that obeyed VNM would actually look like.
+
+Then noticed that it looks exactly like Bayesian math, with each dimension acting as a moral prior, and that "probabilities are preferences" is not just an obscure thing, but really a deep similarity. (I also wondered if Pascal's Mugging disappears when you use a proper utility function, i.e. one that sums to 1, like probabilities. Easiest way: imagine agent that use Solomonoff prior as its utility function, can it be mugged?)
+
+And then I got pissed that I re-derived the position I wanted to argue against, and how dare the utilitarians be right in the end. So I'm confused now and need to think more.
+
+[^father]:
+    Sometimes I think I have Daddy Issues, but with an old friend (the "closure" boy in the [poem][After the Singularity]) instead of my father. One day during (I think) 7th grade, during swimming lessons, he saw me without a shirt on for the first time, and a fairly noticeable physical deformity I have freaked him out, and that killed my self-esteem about my body forever hence. (Not that I was ever comfortable before, but at least I thought it was all in my head.)
+
+    And it *shouldn't* bother me, and it's not his fault at all, but this (and other) deficiencies eat at me, and (way too often) I think what could I do to please him, and so he has become my internal gold standard of rejection-due-to-me-sucking-too-much, and I think I can never have any kind of meaningful relationship until *all* of this shit is fixed, until *I* find that I pass this standard, and I try to live up to it, try to improve, but I know that what-is-possible is way below what-should-be, and no matter how much anger I feel, I won't ever be Tyler Durden or a pretty princess, and that I'm at best a damn pity-fuck.
+
+    And then I shut up, let the hate take over, and do one more set of push-ups.
+
+
+