4 ms·

Racehorses and Psychopaths

33 points by jger15 5y ago

mcculley 5y ago
In the essay: “There’s a remarkable study where participants were shown a video of a hand being stabbed, while their empathic response was measured by fMRI.” I am astounded that such claims are made on the web without references. It was what the web was made for. I would have enjoyed following a link to this study.
- mdorazio 5y ago
  Probably this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6079240/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6079240/
rini17 5y ago
The linked interview with Philip Shepherd made the premise clearer to me. Hope I can someday sustain that kind of being. Trying for a long time already, occassionally did it for a while then got overwhelmed, back to dumbing myself down with meat, with pointless fun, with busywork, many things. Pity it's all so easy to mix with flashy esoterics.
version_five 5y ago
I know this is off topic, but I wish this type of essay had an abstract or thesis statement at the beginning that could help me understand if I want to read it.
- fullshark 5y ago
  The first paragraph even explicitly says what the point is and it was all over the place and I had trouble following. I think this is the key point: > The universal principle that comes out of all of this is of the power of your filter. Perhaps the simplest and best definition of wisdom I’ve heard is “knowing what information is important.” This kind of knowing is not solely done in the intellect. Data is constantly being fed into your unconscious, then cross referenced against your experience.
  - Jeff_Brown 5y ago
    Feels like advice the author needs. I'm not being (intentionally) snarky. A lot of writing isn't has little point beyond sharing the set of things floating around lately in an author's head. "I haven't quite made sense our of these things but they seem important, maybe you can." You could argue that's perfectly legitimate -- but it's never presented that way. The conceit is always that you'll learn something useful.
    - Jeff_Brown 5y ago
      To be fair, i thought the introduction telegraphed quite well that it would be mushy and without any clear purpose. Not sure why I didn't stop there.
- throwaway81523 5y ago
  It is imho a disorganized article that burps up some interesting points from Scott Siskind's review of Julia Galef's book (linked in the article) and a few other places. There's not really a central point made, except maybe that certain cognitive distortions reinforce other distortions. I read the book review itself a week or so ago and having that in the background probably helped make sense of the article. I do like reading Siskind (aka Scott Alexander), at least in small doses, and it may be more worthwhile to read his stuff directly. His stuff is longwinded but usually stays on its topic. The racehorses article is more like free association.
  - jrussino 5y ago
    At the risk of venturing too far off-topic from the linked article: isn’t it in poor taste to be citing this author using his real name, given that he recently went so far as to take down his blog in protest of a rumored NYT article that would have doxxed him? From what I can tell the cited book review is published under his pen name (Scott Alexander) so it seems to me like the author of the linked article is going out of their way to use his real name.
krona 5y ago
The connection between racehorses and psychopaths in this article seems to be large left ventricles and extreme left-brain lateralization. I could read this article again but I think I'd just become even more confused if I did.
Nevermark 5y ago
I believe I understand the essay and really liked it. But it does seem to be at the intersection of more than one interesting theme. That cross section obviously is important to the author, and I feel like I got it. But I will need to re-read the essay later to see if I can identify each theme more clearly, and then better understand the convergence of ideas the author sees. For a start, maybe: - Humans are making a mess of things - Priding ourselves on the individual internal overcomplicated unreliable maps of the world we each have built, causes a great deal of this harm. - [EDIT: ADDED] This is a deeply toxic dual breakdown of both rationality and motivation/values. - Maintaining focus instead on continually getting only the most important things about the world right, would help us think more clearly and effectively. - Obtaining an explicit understanding of the subconscious values we each individually operate from, would help each us make better choices in terms of values.
kayo_20211030 5y ago
Maybe there are some good ideas in here, but, for god's sake, get an editor.

33 points by jger15 5y ago

In the essay: “There’s a remarkable study where participants were shown a video of a hand being stabbed, while their empathic response was measured by fMRI.” I am astounded that such claims are made on the web without references. It was what the web was made for. I would have enjoyed following a link to this study.

mdorazio 5y ago
Probably this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6079240/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6079240/

rini17 5y ago

The linked interview with Philip Shepherd made the premise clearer to me. Hope I can someday sustain that kind of being. Trying for a long time already, occassionally did it for a while then got overwhelmed, back to dumbing myself down with meat, with pointless fun, with busywork, many things. Pity it's all so easy to mix with flashy esoterics.

version_five 5y ago

I know this is off topic, but I wish this type of essay had an abstract or thesis statement at the beginning that could help me understand if I want to read it.

fullshark 5y ago
The first paragraph even explicitly says what the point is and it was all over the place and I had trouble following. I think this is the key point: > The universal principle that comes out of all of this is of the power of your filter. Perhaps the simplest and best definition of wisdom I’ve heard is “knowing what information is important.” This kind of knowing is not solely done in the intellect. Data is constantly being fed into your unconscious, then cross referenced against your experience.
- Jeff_Brown 5y ago
  Feels like advice the author needs. I'm not being (intentionally) snarky. A lot of writing isn't has little point beyond sharing the set of things floating around lately in an author's head. "I haven't quite made sense our of these things but they seem important, maybe you can." You could argue that's perfectly legitimate -- but it's never presented that way. The conceit is always that you'll learn something useful.
  - Jeff_Brown 5y ago
    To be fair, i thought the introduction telegraphed quite well that it would be mushy and without any clear purpose. Not sure why I didn't stop there.
throwaway81523 5y ago
It is imho a disorganized article that burps up some interesting points from Scott Siskind's review of Julia Galef's book (linked in the article) and a few other places. There's not really a central point made, except maybe that certain cognitive distortions reinforce other distortions. I read the book review itself a week or so ago and having that in the background probably helped make sense of the article. I do like reading Siskind (aka Scott Alexander), at least in small doses, and it may be more worthwhile to read his stuff directly. His stuff is longwinded but usually stays on its topic. The racehorses article is more like free association.
- jrussino 5y ago
  At the risk of venturing too far off-topic from the linked article: isn’t it in poor taste to be citing this author using his real name, given that he recently went so far as to take down his blog in protest of a rumored NYT article that would have doxxed him? From what I can tell the cited book review is published under his pen name (Scott Alexander) so it seems to me like the author of the linked article is going out of their way to use his real name.

krona 5y ago

The connection between racehorses and psychopaths in this article seems to be large left ventricles and extreme left-brain lateralization. I could read this article again but I think I'd just become even more confused if I did.

Nevermark 5y ago

I believe I understand the essay and really liked it. But it does seem to be at the intersection of more than one interesting theme. That cross section obviously is important to the author, and I feel like I got it. But I will need to re-read the essay later to see if I can identify each theme more clearly, and then better understand the convergence of ideas the author sees. For a start, maybe: - Humans are making a mess of things - Priding ourselves on the individual internal overcomplicated unreliable maps of the world we each have built, causes a great deal of this harm. - [EDIT: ADDED] This is a deeply toxic dual breakdown of both rationality and motivation/values. - Maintaining focus instead on continually getting only the most important things about the world right, would help us think more clearly and effectively. - Obtaining an explicit understanding of the subconscious values we each individually operate from, would help each us make better choices in terms of values.

kayo_20211030 5y ago

Maybe there are some good ideas in here, but, for god's sake, get an editor.