Carl-Richard

Usually when you reference the brain in a non-casual intellectual way like this, you're referencing science and not your personal feelings.

Preference is a synonym for "I like". "I like strawberry ice cream" means you will deviate from other forms of ice cream in favor of that one; i.e., you're not neutral with respect to what ice cream you would like to have. The narrowing of perception towards one source of information over another is called focus, attention or attentional bias. It's a kind of perceptual bias and a driving component of many kinds of perceptual biases. Now, if I focus on one thing over and another and that thing happens to be more relevant to focus on than anything else, is that a pure con? Obviously no. If you weren't attentionally biased towards a very small selection of things that are highly relevant to your survival, you wouldn't be able to wake up and walk to the toilet. Attentional bias of course makes you ignore potentially relevant things which is a con, but it's also a pro because you can get to the point without requiring an infinite amount of information to get to the point. Trying to magically grasp the meaning of words by "contemplating" about them (with or without AI, although AI certainly adds fuel to the fire) is often meaningless or certainly inefficient (like having to process infinite information instead of just focusing on what is relevant). Just look up some definitions and take it from there. Pros of bias right there.

Definitely your taste for strawberry ice cream, that shit's wack. I don't know, up to you. I already put forth some of the "cons" of insularity. Whether you care enough about that to act on it is again up to you.

I remember I sat in a car once on an excursion trip with our biology class at uni with three other people and the driver put on Cannibal Corpse - "Make Them Suffer", which he put on ironically and said "it sounds entirely fucked haha, imagine listening to this as if it's normal". And that was before I had started listening to like really heavy metal, and I was thinking "yeah it does sound fucked, but I'll probably listen to it in a few years seeing the trend of listening to heavier stuff over time". And wouldn't you know it, I've listened to some Cannibal Corpse more than a few times the last years. And there was of course things about the music I didn't get back then that I get now, both from a more purely aesthetic and feelings-based level (resonating with the sounds) but also just from reading through the music history and the evolution of metal as a genre. And that is constantly evolving: even just as recently as a week or so ago, I started to understand where CC's sound (and more generally "brutal death metal") really originated from (which is the band Suffocation). And it was if some jigsaw puzzle rearranged itself in my head after that and I started to "get" the sound in yet another new way. All in all, tons of added perspective changed how I perceive the music.

Which words are you talking about? It's clear that "cognitive bias" involves bias in judgment, "perceptual bias" involves bias in perception, etc. So what is bias then? A distortion. What does the distortion fundamentally come from? Partiality. Where can we expect distortions due to partiality? Preferences, likes vs dislikes, making a judgment, forming an opinion, seeing things from a perspective over another. And it's not just "expect" as it's a potential: it's a constant, only about degrees and types. Seeing something from one perspective literally limits you from seeing it from the other perspective (unless you take the other perspective at another point in time). Seeing the front of your hand means you cannot see the back of your hand. You can't see them both at the same time. And while that is a perceptual example, abstract cognition is an abstraction of, you guessed it, perception. Taking on a perspective cognitively can involve seeing say the concept of child labor from the perspective of biology or from the perspective of 21st century societal norms. You will see that thing from quite different perspectives, and what you see will be quite different. You can't see them both at the same time (unless you're say some systems biologist that integrates the two fields). They give you a limited, a partial, picture of reality.

Ask it what a perceptual bias is and if all perception is at some level inherently biased. And then ask it whether preferences influence perception and thus bias. Also, the fact that I prefer food and not shit for breakfast is not really something I choose.

Not gonna lie, that "coincidence" (I was watching so much Sadhguru and other spiritual teachers at the time) made me think like it was some kind of plan.

My definition includes yours, it's just a gradient. What we call a highly biased person is just an extreme version of ourselves. Mental illness is an extreme version of normal behavior. We make things illegal that offends most people. "Everything is illusion, hallucination, bias, survival". I'm biased towards Leo's way of unifying everything, and gradation/statistics. Many people might think of biases as "cognitive biases" as in biases of judgment like you're pointing out, but "perceptual bias" is also an entire field in psychology (how our perceptual faculties by virtue of being limited distort our perception of the world).

I was gifted Sadhguru's Inner Engineering by a guy in university first year. He just happened to buy it because he was interested in engineering and thought "inner engineering" sounded cool. I read it a bit, until I had to put it down because I was getting insta-awakenings just reading it.

Mhm. Why is "word" a separate word if it can be used to describe multiple words? The distortion is a result of the partiality. The fact that my perception is limited distorts my perception of reality. The fact that my preference is for one thing over another distorts my relationship to those things. The fact that I hold an opinion over another distorts my relationship to either opinion. Bias just tends to be used more often in cases where the distortion is so obvious or normative that it becomes seen as negative. But bias in itself is ubiquitous and part of our limited existence. Saw this before I came on here: Merely having the thing and being excited for it can distort someone's perception to the point where they think they could be biased.

Holy shit he got absolutely blasted right there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias Hence a preference is a bias, perspective-taking is a bias, opinion is a bias, perception is a bias, etc.

Klein Eleventh, Kleintober Seventh. See I can also be a dad.

Bias is inherent in perspective-taking, in having an opinion, in the very act of perception.

Lack of collaborators, allies, identity with a larger movement. Creates insularity and lack of feedback. Also limits reach. And one-off interviews don't count.

dafuq does homelessness have to do with Ethan Klein

I have a feeling antidepressants may have contributed. There is a thing about SSRIs leading to affairs, but there is not really data on it.

Pop music that only sing about partying and drinking are also Stage Red. It also tends to be incredibly simplistic musically (e.g. Black Eyed Peas "I Gotta Feeling" or Rebecca Black's "Friday"). Metal music that sings about gore (e.g. Cannibal Corpse) is also Red, but some metal music with gore lyrics is also relatively complex musically (e.g. Necrophagist, Suffocation). So again we can distinguish between aesthetic (and expression) and actual cognitive complexity. Even if I wanted to write a classic brutal death metal album, I would still be the cognitive complexity I am. My relationship to the music could be perhaps also ironic or nostalgic rather than a honest/authentic expression of the values in the music. More classic examples of Red in music: lyrics about sex and women in 80s hair metal (e.g. Guns and Roses "Welcome to the jungle", essentially every Whitesnake song). Satanism in music, e.g. some early "black" metal (Venom) and thrash metal (Slayer), death metal (Morbid Angel), Norwegian black metal (Mayhem, Emperor, etc.; some of these people actually killed people and burned down churches so you could say they lived the expression of the values). Most of the honest expression of Red you see happens in teenage years (which is where the examples you've listed and also my examples tend to originate from). You could say teenage years (in the West) is a time where you're authentically Red-Blue and being encouraged by the surrounding society to transition to Blue (authentically) while downward-assimilating code from that society (Orange and Green). People who are seemingly jumping from Red to Orange might actually only have adopted a simplified version of Orange consistent with their cognition and true code at Blue or so. True authentic expression of Orange might happen later (or earlier depending on what kind of person you are). That's also an explanation for the "Red-Green conflation" phenomena I've described before: teenagers downward assimilating Green code ("just be free yo") to fit their Red true code and cognitive complexity.

Please watch, the madness starts at 3:00 (current timestamp is for lead-up) and ends at 4:39 (not really but that's the moment). I started howling "noooooooooooo" when I realized it.

I have the habit of going on a 10-minute walk after every meal, and if I don't and I sit down and try to work, I'm all over the place, complete chaos lord, can't gather my thoughts, jumping tasks, can't commit to a task, can't find a structure to follow. I think many people with ADHD symptomatology could actually be helped by simply lowering their blood glucose after a meal. The idea that kids get hyper after eating sugar is perhaps not such a big myth. Imagine what you think is an illness could just be about feeding your body carbohydrates and trying to fight the impetus you've created for moving your body after putting it in such a state. Blood glucose and adrenaline are essentially parallel processes. If you think you're restless because it's just innate to your genetics, maybe first try to calm down your nervous system by stabilizing your metabolism.

So you're saying you don't know the distinction between a pointer and what it is pointing to?

I think my answer to this ethical altruism conundrum is that we don't just value the sheer quantity of human life or even alleviating human suffering, but we value things like music, art, and we need different people to do different things to make society go around. We need air traffic controllers, train station workers, nurses, physicians, academics, politicians, etc. Even people who suffer, value music, art; they might go to those things to alleviate their suffering, and if you take that away from them but you assure their life through Malaria prevention, you might have made their life less worth living. So what to do?: Do what you feel called to do. A person who feels called to do something, who feels motivated to do it, will do it better than somebody else who does not feel as motivated. And that way you will contribute greater to that part of the world you choose to contribute to. If you feel very called to donate money to Malaria prevention programs, do that. If you feel very called to find a cure for cancer, do that. Charity is a way of using your time on something you think is valueable. So use your time on something you think is valueable. "But can't you donate like 5% of your savings to Malaria prevention and save a big chunk of lives that way and still do what you feel called to do?" Well, yes, but what about other programs like water sanitation, cancer prevention, other disease prevention? "Just choose one that has a high life-saving conversion rate". Well, why do you ought to use 5% of your savings on initiatives with high immediate life-saving conversion rates and not say finding a cure for cancer or just landing a recording contract?

Uhm ok. So don't be so concerned about what I think (?). It is. Ok. You did a simple equivocation of "actually, if I redefine what you mean by 'talking about', you're wrong!". I don't think that's worth responding to. You clearly know the difference between a pointer and what is pointed to. No need to play equivocation games.

Based(?)

Me sharing my opinion about what words I think are useful for teaching in which situations shouldn't lead to a crashout where 1. you call the holder of such an opinion not awake or "clueless" by virtue of holding it and 2. feeling like you're being personally persecuted. I will of course react strongly to that (especially the former), as it seems entirely unwarranted and rhetoric devoid of substance (like asserting "you're wrong" without explaining yourself). I hope @cetus understands this and other moderators.