The Nonlinear Library

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Critique our position - Sickle cell anaemia in sub-Saharan Africa (Cameroon), published by EffectiveHelp - Cameroon on August 19, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. There is a good post exploring sickle cell disease, here: [Cause Exploration Prizes] Sickle Cell Disease - EA Forum (effectivealtruism.org). This is a good starting point before reading this one. Effective Help[1] is a small EA-inspired Cameroonian[2] organization trying to identify local cost-effective projects. We analysed data from 39 local projects and found one standing out, a small monthly cash transfer to families with a child or more suffering from sickle cell anaemia. We decided to partner with the NGO carrying out this project and raise funds for it. We think this is a good way forward for us. Please go through our thinking below and tell us how to improve. Questions: 1. How bad is sickle cell anaemia in Sub-Saharan Africa (Cameroon in particular) for those who suffer it? 2. Are cash transfers to families with children suffering from this problem a cost-effective form of reducing mortality and improving quality of life? Our position: We don't think this is as cost-effective as some of the best causes globally, but we think it compares much better to other local NGOs in Cameroon and to other projects in crowdfunding sites, so we are comfortable raising more funds away from less cost-effective causes and towards this one. The worst that can happen is that we transfer funds to a poor family, at a slightly higher cost than GiveDirectly (because of the small scale of the project, overhead is proportionally higher) and the best is that we save children from early deaths and make them win years of life with as little as 49USD a month (588 a year). We also think the first family identified has such a brutal story, which we won't share here, that the children are significantly worse-off than the average children with sickle cell in Cameroon. We think the effect of the first donations securing the next 3 years of transfers for this family should be higher than if the project had a larger scale and covered hundreds of families systematically. On the other hand, there is a point to be made about prioritizing families when the child is between 1 and 3 years of age and mortality peaks, and this specific family has already passed that stage. You can check out the project on this page. Help children with sickle cell syndrome - GlobalGiving and other sickle-cell projects in GlobalGiving here: Search - GlobalGiving How bad is sickle cell anaemia? We have much better data from developed countries. Life expectancy with sickle cell anaemia could be 42 years for males and 48 for women, as opposed to 75 and 82.[3] Sickle cell-hemoglobin C disease is a bit better: 60 for males and 68 for females. One of the studies we use as a reference followed 3,764 patients of different ages[4], and included investigation on 209 patients who died. 33% of those who died, died during an acute sickle crisis, and there was a high correlation between early death and some key symptoms of sickle cell anaemia: acute chest syndrome, renal failure, and seizures. The information available tells us those living with sickle cell are very likely already to have a shorter life, even when they are accessing good treatment. This is sad and may reduce potential cost-effectiveness for our project (even in the best circumstances, patients tend to live less). How much of the danger can be mitigated with treatment? How much worse is it without treatment? Without treatment or with bad treatment most children die without reaching adulthood. As late as 1973, the median survival age was reported to be 14 years, and 20% of children died within two years. So, we think regular treatment can more than triple life expectancy, over time adding 28 years to someo...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Interdictor Ship, published by lsusr on August 19, 2024 on LessWrong. The standard operating procedure against a primitive forest-dwelling enemy is to retreat to orbit and then bombard the planet until there isn't a forest anymore. However, the only reason the Galactic Empire was in the Alpha Centauri A system in the first place was because of the fragile mineral resources underneath that forest. Dropping tungsten rods at hypersonic speeds would risk destroying the only thing of value on Pandora. Alien aborigines armed with bows and arrows damaged Imperial legitimacy across the galaxy. It was like losing a battle to Ewoks. The Emperor's solution had been to hire an Ewok. Mitth'raw'nuruodo was a dwarf by Na'vi standards, but the blue alien stood a head above most humans. Originally hired as a translator, the Imperials on Pandora quickly noticed that the only patrols who came back alive were those that followed Mitth'raw'nuruodo's advice. Pretty soon, the moon was pacified and Mitth'raw'nuruodo was its de facto king. Nobody liked the idea of an alien being in control of such a strategically-valuable moon. To get rid of him, they promoted Mitth'raw'nuruodo to Admiral. In space, many parsecs away from Pandora, the humans under Mitth'raw'nuruodo's command couldn't pronounce "Mitth'raw'nuruodo". That was fine, thought Mitth'raw'nuruodo. Everyone just called him "Thrawn". Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics. The Imperial Navy Defense Acquisitions Board (INDAB) originally met on Coruscant, but was moved to the Life Star for security reasons. Idle chitchat usually preceded the important negotiations. "What I don't get is why we call it the 'Life Star'," said Chief Bast, "This thing blows up planets. Shouldn't it be called the 'Death Star'?" "Do you want us to look like the bad guys?" said General Tagge, "The Department of Defense isn't called the 'Department of War'. The Department of Justice isn't called the 'Department of Incarceration'. The Department of Education isn't called the 'Department of Child Indoctrination'. Calling this megastructure the 'Life Star' buys us legitimacy for the low, low price of zero Galactic Credits." "But won't people call us out on our Bantha fodder when we call things the opposite of what they really are?" said Chief Bast. "Humans don't. Aliens sometimes make a fuss about it," General Tagge said, "No offense, Admiral." "None taken," said Thrawn. "Speaking of which, I've read your recent report," said General Tagge. He projected the Aurebesh symbols where everyone could see, "I forwarded the report to everyone here, but since nobody (except me) ever reads their meeting briefings, why don't you give us the quick summary." "Of course," Thrawn stood up, "I have two theses. First of all, the Life Star is a tremendous waste of credits. This weapon's only possible use is against a peer adversary or a super-peer adversary. We control two thirds of the galaxy. We have no peer or super-peer adversaries. The Emperor's pet project consumes massive resources while doing nothing to advance our military objectives." "The Life Star killed all the Rebel scum on Alderaan," said Grand Moff Tarkin. "I have always considered you a rational agent," said Thrawn, "I am very curious how you, the commander of the Life Star, came to the conclusion that destroying Alderaan was the best way of advancing Imperial interests." "If you have a problem with my methods then you can bring it to me in private," said Tarkin, "Your second thesis is the topic I hoped to discuss." Thrawn pressed a button and the Aurebesh words were replaced with different Aurebesh words. They continued to go unread. "Rebel terrorists have recently equipped their starfighters with hyperdrives. They can strike anywhere, and will choose the weakest targets. Our current grand strategy is ...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Decision Theory in Space, published by lsusr on August 19, 2024 on LessWrong. "Since you are reluctant to provide us with the location of the Rebel base," said Grand Moff Tarkin, "I have chosen to test this station's destructive power on your home planet of Alderaan." "No. Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons there. It is a loyal planet under Imperial control. Striking Alderaan would destroy your own resources and foment rebellion. Destroying it is irrational," said Princess Leia, perfectly calm. "Nonsense," said Tarkin, "That is a naïve understanding of decision theory. I am a causal decision theorist, but I acknowledge the value of precommitments. I therefore precommit to destroying Alderaan unless you reveal to me the location of the Rebel base. This is not an irrational act if you capitulate to me." "But it is an irrational act if I do not capitulate to you," said Leia, "I am a functional decision theorist. The algorithm I use to select my decision accounts for the fact that you are modelling my mind. You are a rational agent. You only threaten me because you expect me to succomb to your blackmail. Because of that I will not succomb to your blackmail." "I'm going to do it," said Tarkin. "Sure you are," said Leia. "I'm really going to blow up the planet," said Tarkin. "Be my guest," said Leia, with a smile, "Aim for the continent Anaander. Its inhabitants always annoyed me. We'll see who has the last laugh." "I'm really really going to do it," said Tarkin. "I grow tired of saying this, so it'll be the last time. Just blow up the planet already. I have an execution I'm late for…." Leia's voice trailed off. She was suddenly aware of the deep, mechanical breathing behind her. Kshhhhhhh. Kuuuuuuo. Kshhhhhhh. Kuuuuuuo. Everyone in the Life Star command center turned to face the cyborg space wizard samurai monk in black armor. Kshhhhhhh. Kuuuuuuo. Kshhhhhhh. Kuuuuuuo. Vader's cloak fluttered and a couple indicator lights on his life support system blinked, but no muscles or actuators moved. A semi-mechanical voice in the uncanny valley spoke from Vader's mask. "Chief Gunnery Officer Tenn Graneet, you may fire when ready." "Commander Tenn Graneet, belay that order," said Tarkin. The Chief Gunnery Officer held his hand above his control panel, touching nothing. He looked rapidly back-and-forth between Tarkin and Vader. Tarkin turned angrily to face Vader. "Are you insane?" Tarkin hissed. Vader ignored the question and looked at Leia. "Where is the Rebel base?" Leia's eyes were wide with horror and her mouth was wide with a silent scream. She clenched her teeth and stared at the floor. "Tatooine. They're on Tatooine," Leia said. "Chief Gunnery Officer Tenn Graneet, you may fire when ready," said Vader. "What‽" exclaimed Tarkin. Graneet lifted the clear cover off of the authorization lever. He moved his hand as slowly as he could. "Commander Tenn Graneet, belay that order," said Tarkin. "Commander Tenn Graneet, ignore all orders you receive from the Grand Moff," said Vader. "Commander Tenn Graneet, I am your commanding officer. Ignore all orders from 'Lord' Vader. If you continue to disobey my orders, you will be court martialed," said Tarkin. Graneet continued the process of authorizing the firing team. Tarkin drew his blaster pistol and held it to Graneet's head. "Stop or I will shoot you in the head right now," said Tarkin. Bkzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Tarkin felt the heat of Vader's red lightsaber a centimeter from his neck. The next seconds felt like slow motion. Graneet paused. Then Greneet continued the firing activation sequence. Tarkin pulled the trigger. Click. Nothing came out of the blaster's emitter. Vader didn't even bother to watch his order get carried out. He just turned around, deactivated his lightsaber, and strode out of the command center. Vader's cape billowed...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Are We Leaving the Individual Behind? The Role of Animal Storytelling in the Animal Rights Movement, published by Ronen Bar on August 19, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. The identifiable victim effect is a psychological phenomenon that describes how people are more likely to offer help or feel empathy when presented with a specific, identifiable individual in need, rather than a larger, anonymous group. When victims are given names, faces, or personal stories, it becomes easier for them to relate. Studies have shown that this is also the case for farmed animals, and that this effect can be limited to a single-identifiable victim (i.e., the singularity effect, the phenomenon where people are more motivated to help a single victim than a group of victims, even when the group is small). Identifying a victim can be seen as a solution to scope insensitivity; people undervalue the scale of a problem when presented with statistics. That insight is the basis of storytelling - showing individuals turns numbers into faces, which forms the foundation of how the media tell stories and how the educational system approaches learning. I personally became aware of this when I studied journalism about 15 years ago, when one of my teachers told me I can't do a story on farmed animals because I don't have anyone to interview. No individual, no story. As a journalist on Israeli TV and an animal rights advocate working with the media, I told stories about facilities, industries, and practices, not individuals. My unchecked assumption is that the most effective way to present a story is with faces and numbers, having a strong connection between the two, and explaining the big statistics through the eyes of one individual. On an anecdotal level, when individual stories of animals are told, they seem to have a significant effect. My Octopus Teacher is an interesting example; the most amazing thing about it is that nothing dramatic happens in this movie - nothing that you wouldn't expect, no twist. Just a guy coming back again and again to visit the same individual animal. The Dodo is based on telling stories about animals, usually those that were rescued, sometimes also farmed animals. Organizations such as DXE have been able to tell stories of farmed animals, such as that of Lily and Lizzie, the pigs they rescued. However, when I look at our movement as a whole, this individual focused strategy seems quite uncommon. Animal Think Tank's messaging guide also includes the need to tell the stories of individuals (like Esther the Wonder Pig). What is a Story? A story involves change over time, highlighting the interactions between an individual and their environment. The more we can tell about this change, the better. If all we have is a picture, it is only a frozen moment; the viewer needs to fill the gap of what happened before and after. A picture is worth a thousand words, but a video is worth a thousand pictures because it shows the change of the individual and the environment through time. Furthermore, the more you can reveal about the animal's personality and the finer details you can describe, the more profound the story becomes. Imagine a boy in Ukraine who excelled in physics but struggled with math. A missile strike on his school took his life. You might wonder why I mentioned his strengths and weaknesses. Logically, it may not seem relevant, but emotionally, it is. It creates a connection, perhaps because you know someone like him - or maybe you see a bit of yourself in him. Our movement lacks stories about individual animals. With the exception of sanctuaries, we are almost a story-less movement, lacking canonical stories that resonate in the collective memory, not of farmed animals and not of wild animals. What is animal storytelling? Animal storytelling is a narrative appro...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Quick look: applications of chaos theory, published by Elizabeth on August 19, 2024 on LessWrong. Introduction Recently we (Elizabeth Van Nostrand and Alex Altair) started a project investigating chaos theory as an example of field formation.[1] The number one question you get when you tell people you are studying the history of chaos theory is "does that matter in any way?".[2] Books and articles will list applications, but the same few seem to come up a lot, and when you dig in, application often means "wrote some papers about it" rather than "achieved commercial success". In this post we checked a few commonly cited applications to see if they pan out. We didn't do deep dives to prove the mathematical dependencies, just sanity checks. Our findings: Big Chaos has a very good PR team, but the hype isn't unmerited either. Most of the commonly touted applications never received wide usage, but chaos was at least instrumental in several important applications that are barely mentioned on wikipedia. And it was as important for weather as you think it is. Applications Cryptography and random number generators- Strong No (Alex) The wikipedia page for Chaos theory has a prominent section on cryptography. This sounds plausible; you certainly want your encryption algorithm to display sensitive dependence on initial conditions in the sense that changing a bit of your input randomizes the bits of your output. Similarly, one could imagine using the sequence of states of a chaotic system as a random number generator. However a quick google search makes me (Alex) think this is not a serious application. I've seen it claimed[3] that one of the earliest pseudo-random number generators used the logistic map, but I was unable to find a primary reference to this from a quick search. Some random number generators use physical entropy from outside the computer (rather than a pseudo-random mathematical computation). There are some proposals to do this by taking measurements from a physical chaotic system, such as an electronic circuit or lasers. This seems to be backward, and not actually used in practice. The idea is somewhat roasted in the Springer volume "Open Problems in Mathematics and Computational Science" 2014, chapter "True Random Number Generators" by Mario Stipčević and Çetin Kaya Koç. Other sources that caused me to doubt the genuine application of chaos to crypto include this Crypto StackExchange question, and my friend who has done done cryptography research professionally. As a final false positive example, a use of lava lamps as a source of randomness once gained some publicity. Though this was patented under an explicit reference to chaotic systems, it was only used to generate a random seed, which doesn't really make use of the chaotic dynamics. It sounds to me like it's just a novelty, and off-the-shelf crypto libraries would have been just fine. Anesthesia, Fetal Monitoring, and Approximate Entropy- No (Elizabeth) Approximate Entropy (ApEn) is a measurement designed to assess how regular and predictable a system is, a simplification of Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy. ApEn was originally invented for analyzing medical data, such as brain waves under anesthesia or fetal heart rate. It has several descendents, including Sample Entropy; for purposes of this article I'm going to refer to them all as ApEn. Researchers have since applied the hammer of ApEn and its children to many nails, but as far as I (Elizabeth) can tell it has never reached widespread usage. ApEn's original application was real time fetal heart monitoring; however as far as I can tell it never achieved commercial success and modern doctors use simpler algorithms to evaluate fetal monitoring data. ApEn has also been extensively investigated for monitoring brain waves under anesthesia. However commercially avail...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Why you should be using a retinoid, published by GeneSmith on August 19, 2024 on LessWrong. If you want the 60 second version of this post that just tells you what to do, click here to skip to the summary. There is a cheap, widely available, extremeley effective treatment for skin aging that has been around for decades and almost no one outside of dermatolists and beauty bloggers seems to know about it. It's called a retinoid. I first learned about their existence a few months ago after looking in the mirror one day and noticing I was starting to get permanent wrinkles around my mouth. Naturally, I wondered if there was anything I could do to fix them. An ex of mine was a skincare addict and had perhaps the nicest skin of anyone I have ever met. I texted her to ask for advice and she recommended I use a retinoid. Since I didn't know what those were or how they worked, I watched a YouTube video. Thus began my 3 month journey down the rabbit hole of skin care product reviews and progress videos. In this post I'll summarize what I've learned. What are retinoids? Retinoids are a family of medications derived from vitamin A. In the same way that Ozempic was originally developed as an anti-diabetes drug and later turned out to have a broader set of benefits, retinoids were originally developed to treat acne but turned out to do far more than clear up breakouts. These effects can be summed up as "improving almost everything about skin". If we had medications that worked as well for other organs as retinoids work for skin, people would probably live well into their hundreds. It's actually kind of remarkable just how well retinoids work. Exactly HOW retinoids work is a little difficult to describe because they seem to do so many different things. Here's a brief list: Retinoids increase collagen production They decrease degradation of collagen within the skin They protect the extracellular matrix by reducing the activity of metalloproteinases They thicken the epidermis, which tends to thin as we age They increase the formation of blood veseels, which makes the skin's color look nicer and speeds wound healing They increase the levels of fibronectin and tropoelastin, which makes for firmer, bouncier skin These things just sound kind of vague and boring until you start to look at people who have used retinoids for a long time. Here's a screenshot of "Melissa55" on YouTube, a woman in her late 60s that has been using Retin-A (the first available retinoid) for 28 years. That's already pretty remarkable on its own (most people in their late 60s do not look like Melissa), but what's even MORE remarkable is that retinoids can actually REVERSE skin aging after it has taken place. Here's a couple of before and after pictures of various people who used topical retinoids in a study done back in the 90s. This is in addition to their intended use reducing acne, where they perform quite well. Retinoids don't ALWAYS yeild these kinds of results. You can find many pictures online where people essentially look the same after using them. And you can even find the occasional person whose acne got WORSE with use (though this seems to be pretty rare). But the vast majority of people see significant visible improvement in the appearance of their skin, and these benefits only increase with time. Ok, I'm sold. Where do I get a retinoid? The easiest thing to do here is to just buy adapalene on Amazon. Adapalene is a over-the-counter retinoid which seems to work quite well and generally be well tolerated. You can get enough to apply it to your face every night for about $10-15 per month. The most potent retinoid is trentinoin, which is the one all the dermatologists recommend. It's the best studied ingredient for anti-aging, seems to penetrate the skin better and reach deeper layers, and overall seems m...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Liability regimes for AI, published by Ege Erdil on August 19, 2024 on LessWrong. For many products, we face a choice of who to hold liable for harms that would not have occurred if not for the existence of the product. For instance, if a person uses a gun in a school shooting that kills a dozen people, there are many legal persons who in principle could be held liable for the harm: 1. The shooter themselves, for obvious reasons. 2. The shop that sold the shooter the weapon. 3. The company that designs and manufactures the weapon. Which one of these is the best? I'll offer a brief and elementary economic analysis of how this decision should be made in this post. The important concepts from economic theory to understand here are Coasean bargaining and the problem of the judgment-proof defendant. Coasean bargaining Let's start with Coaesean bargaining: in short, this idea says that regardless of who the legal system decides to hold liable for a harm, the involved parties can, under certain conditions, slice the harm arbitrarily among themselves by contracting and reach an economically efficient outcome. Under these conditions and assuming no transaction costs, it doesn't matter who the government decides to hold liable for a harm; it's the market that will ultimately decide how the liability burden is divided up. For instance, if we decide to hold shops liable for selling guns to people who go on to use the guns in acts of violence, the shops could demand that prospective buyers purchase insurance on the risk of them committing a criminal act. The insurance companies could then analyze who is more or less likely to engage in such an act of violence and adjust premiums accordingly, or even refuse to offer it altogether to e.g. people with previous criminal records, which would make guns less accessible overall (because there's a background risk of anyone committing a violent act using a gun) and also differentially less accessible to those seen as more likely to become violent criminals. In other words, we don't lose the ability to deter individuals by deciding to impose the liability on other actors in the chain, because they can simply find ways of passing on the cost. The judgment-proof defendant However, what if we imagine imposing the liability on individuals instead? We might naively think that there's nothing wrong, because anyone who used a gun in a violent act would be required to pay compensation to the victims which in principle could be set high enough to deter offenses even by wealthy people. However, the problem we run into in this case is that most school shooters have little in the way of assets and certainly not enough to compensate the victims and the rest of the world for all the harm that they have caused. In other words, they are judgment-proof: the best we can do when we catch them is put them in jail or execute them. In these cases, Coaesean bargaining breaks down. We can try to recover something like the previous solution by mandating such people buy civil or criminal insurance by law, so that they are no longer judgment-proof because the insurance company has big coffers to pay out large settlements if necessary, and also the incentive to turn away people who seem like risky customers. However, law is not magic, and someone who refuses to follow this law would still in the end be judgment-proof. We can see this in the following example: suppose that the shooter doesn't legally purchase the gun from the shop but steals it instead. Given that the shop will not be held liable for anything, it's only in their interest to invest in security for ordinary business reasons, but they have no incentive to take additional precautions beyond what make sense for e.g. laptop stores. Because the shooter obtains the gun illegally, they can then go and carry out...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: What is "True Love"?, published by johnswentworth on August 18, 2024 on LessWrong. Meta: I recently entered the dating market, so naturally I have lots of random thoughts on the subject which you all get to suffer through for a while. Your usual diet of dry math and agency theory will resume shortly. Obviously the phrase "true love" has been so thoroughly overdone in so much fiction as to lose all substantive meaning. That's what happens when we leave important conceptual work to would-be poets. We're here to reclaim the term, because there's a useful concept which is very naturally described by the words "true" and "love". You know that thing where, when you're smitten by someone, they seem more awesome than they really are? Your brain plays up all the great things about them, and plays down all the bad things, and makes up stories about how great they are in other ways too? And then you get even more smitten by them? All that perceived-wonderfulness makes your attraction a steady state? That's part of normal being-in-love. … and there's something "false" about it. Like, in some sense, you're in love with an imaginary person, not the real person in front of you. You're in love with this construct in your head whose merits are greater and shortcomings more minor than the real person who triggered the cascade in your heart. But what if you can see the target of your affection with clear eyes and level head, without the pleasant tint of limerance skewing your perception, and still feel a similar level of love? What if they are actually that good a fit to you, not just in your head but in real life? Well, the obvious name for that would be "true love": love which is not built on a map-territory mismatch, but rather on perception of your loved one as they really are. And that does actually seem like a pretty good fit for at least some of the poetry on the subject: loving your partner as they truly are, flaws and all, blah blah blah. Alas, "false" love can still feel like "true" love from the inside as it's happening. To tell it's happening, you'd need to either be really good at keeping a level head, rely on feedback from other people you trust, or just wait until the honeymoon stage passes and find out in hindsight. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: I didn't have to avoid you; I was just insecure, published by Chipmonk on August 18, 2024 on LessWrong. I don't usually post stories on LessWrong so I'm curious to see how this is received. The first time we spoke, you asked me some questions that felt really invasive. I didn't want that to happen again, so I avoided you the entire following year. So when you said "Hi" at a party and suggested catching up, I hesitated. But curiosity won out. You still asked probing questions like "Why did you quit your job?" and "What did you think of your manager? I hear they don't have a great social reputation." These weren't questions I wanted to answer. But this time, something was different. Not you - me. In the past, I would have felt forced to answer your questions. But I'm sure you can remember how I responded when we spoke again: "Mm, I don't want to answer that question", "I don't want to gossip", and even a cheeky, "No comment :)" It didn't even take effort, that surprised me. And nothing bad happened! We just spoke about other things. I realized that I was protecting myself from you with physical distance. But instead I could protect myself from you with "No." So simple… Too simple? Why didn't I think of that before?? Oh, I know why: When I first met you, I was extremely afraid of expressing disapproval of other people. I didn't know it consciously. It was quite deeply suppressed. But the pattern fits the data. It seems that I was so afraid of this, that when you asked me those questions when we met for the first time, the thought didn't even cross my mind that I could decline to answer. If I declined a question, I unconsciously predicted you might get mad, and that would make me feel terrible about myself. So that's why I didn't say "No" to your questions when you first met me. And that's why I avoided you so bluntly with physical distance. (Although, I also avoided everyone during that year for similar reasons.) Why am I telling you all of this? You helped me grow. These days, it takes very little effort - and sometimes none at all - to reject others' requests and generally do what I want. I'm much more emotionally secure now. Also, I noticed a shift in how I perceived you. Once I realized I didn't have to avoid you, I began noticing qualities I admire. Your passion for your work. Your precise and careful reasoning. I want to learn from these traits. And now that I don't have to avoid you anymore, I can :) Addendum: Beliefs I have Emotional security is the absence of insecurities In my model, emotional security is achieved by the absence of emotional insecurities - ie: I had those unconscious predictions like, "If something bad outside of my control happens, then I'm not going to be able to feel okay." But it seems I unlearned most of mine. I don't encounter situations that make me anxious in that way anymore, and I can't imagine any new ones either. Rejecting others (and being rejected by others, same thing) has ceased to carry much unnecessary emotional weight. (The one exception I can think of is if I was afraid that someone was going to physically harm me. But that's rare.) It's about present predictions, not past trauma One might wonder, "What happened to you? What trauma caused your inability to say 'No'?" But that's all irrelevant. All that matters is that I had that unconscious prediction in that present moment. Thanks to Stag Lynn, Kaj Sotala, Damon Sasi, Brian Toomey, Epistea Residency, CFAR, Anna Salamon, Alex Zhu, and Nolan Kent for mentorship and financial support. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: You're a Space Wizard, Luke, published by lsusr on August 18, 2024 on LessWrong. "My father didn't fight in the wars. He was a navigator on a spice freighter," said Luke. "That's what your uncle told you. Basic security protocol. You don't tell a young child sensitive information about your participation in an ongoing civil war. Which reminds me. I have here something for you. Your father wanted you to have this, when you were old enough. But your uncle wouldn't allow it. Quite sensibly, in my opinion. He feared what you might do with it," said Obi-Wan. Obi-wan dug through a chest and withdrew a textured metal cylinder with an activator button. "What is it?" asked Luke. "Your father's lightsaber. This is a weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as nonsensical or random as a blaster," said Obi-Wan. "Does that imply…?" asked Luke. "You're a space wizard, Luke." Luke activated the lightsaber, making sure to keep the emitter pointed away from his face. "An elegant weapon, from a more civilized age," said Obi-Wan. "I'm confused," said Luke, "Just how old is this thing? Bringing a melee weapon to a blaster fight sounds like suicide. Can I block blaster bolts with it?" "Of course not," said Obi-Wan, "I mean, it's theoretically possible. But I advise against it. The reflexes necessary to do so reliably are beyond the limits of human biology." "Does it have magic powers then?" said Luke, "That's how the story is supposed to go when the wise old mentor gives a rod-shaped weapon to the young hero. I wonder how old that is. Did our simian ancestors tell stories about magic sticks?" Obi-Wan leaned forward, as if he was about to share the most important secret in the universe. "When you activate this lightsaber…" Obi-Wan said. Yes. Luke leaned forward until his nose almost touched Obi-Wan's. "…everything around you will follow the laws of physics," Obi-Wan finished. Some narrative instinct deep in his brainsteam caused Luke to gasp. Then disappointment washed over his face as his frontal cortex processed the literal meaning of what Obi-Wan was saying. "But everything ALWAYS follows the laws of physics," objected Luke, "That's not even a law of science. It's a tautology. Physics is DEFINED as the laws by which everything follows." Obi-Wan smiled. "In our deterministic Universe, a thorough understanding of physics is true power." "You're wrong, you crazy old man," said Luke, "Science alone is not sufficient to kill Vader and overthrow the Empire. I need a fleet. I need allies. I need industrial capacity." "You need a heroic narrative," said Obi-Wan. "Can I at least have a blaster?" asked Luke. "No," said Obi-Wan. "Why not?" asked Luke. "Because when you're ready, you won't need one," said Obi-Wan. Luke rolled his eyes. "How did my father die?" asked Luke. "Vader killed him," said Obi-Wan. "I bet if my father had a ranged weapon instead of this glorified stick he might've killed Vader instead," said Luke. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org