Ever since I started my new job, I worry I’m becoming boring. Part of it’s the practical aspects: my schedule is insane. Client meetings, gym, hurried meals of pre-made deli food. Everything that gives-life or is-fun (Writing, socializing, traveling) has lately met the chopping block.
If I was working 60-80 hours/week, I would just collapse at the end of the day. The most I ever worked was 50-60 hours/week and it was basically my whole life. I'm impressed you can even find the energy to exercise
"I don’t know what the solution is. One approach is to split time, daily, switching between creative and practical modes. Another is to accept being broke, and to live within that constraint until a “making it” opportunity arrives, or doesn’t."
The first approach is 'obviously' the better one, but it's not so obvious that I didn't used to do the second -- in general diversifying time investment is as wise as it is with a stock portfolio -- diversification is the only free lunch in investing -- so for instance you could devote a block of time to the topics you mentioned it's clearly irrational not to comment on from your position -- you are passing by THAT opportunity but you can invest in both.
right now your time investment is under-diversified -- in a worst-case scenario you can do simple 'hill-climbing' search: diversify until it becomes a problem and then turn back. Zoom out before you zoom in. Zoom out daily.
I agree that diversification of investment is advantageous. But a big element of these kinds of "simulated annealing" algorithms is to reduce random steps over time - when you first start exploring, you diversify lots, but as you learn about the world, more steps are planned...
I do feel I'm in a phase of life where too much diversification could be disadvantageous.
"I do feel I'm in a phase of life where too much diversification could be disadvantageous." That actually *reduces* the search time, and is a sort of 'paradoxical worry': if no amount of diversification could be 'too much' the algorithm given would never halt:
"diversify until it becomes a problem and then turn back"
So it's actually 'advantageous' that it can be so easily advantageous, as far as the merits of using this search procedure:
If you're at a phase of life where you hit 'too much' diversification sooner then you converge on the first maxima much faster. The key assumption is a continuous search surface.
"But this skill is double-edged. When we install an observer, swell in self-awareness, exert control over spontaneous impulses—doesn’t that risk draining the color and variety from experience? "
Not if what you are constantly mindful of is representativeness of sample and make sure your emotional overton window is expanded, not shrunk -- the idea that adults CAN calm down has been used to FORCE them
No my observer widens mine via evening my coverage of emotional space -- by diversifying my investment in different states of mind--some spaces I don't re-explore but like when you improvise a symphony structure it can't be all one emotion! I have to observe if it's been one mood too long and switch it up. (Usually not suddenly but via integrative processes)
"Ultimately, I am a superstitious person. I believe in signs and omens and fate. I worry I’m spending a moment of great Kairos clinging to boring Chronos. There’s a part of me, locked in terrified paralysis, convinced I’m allowing my destiny to pass me by.
And then the self-criticism chimes in. I’m being narcissistic (it’s not all about me), psychotic (seeing patterns in the noise, really?), narcissistic again (the world will be fine without my opinions, or if not fine, whatever it would’ve been anyway). I worry there’s a real tension here. Between, on one hand, childish grandiosity, and on the other, the necessary realization that life isn’t always interesting, dramatic, and creative—or if it is, I won’t always be the center of attention."
This second voice is simply wrong. Not wrong all the time, but wrong to listen to the average ROI is negative. As I put it, "Second guess your second guess" -- some second guesses turn out to be earlier guesses based on principles from earlier in life or earlier ideas -- follow the truly first guess always and learn so that your next first guess is better -- when this seems too risky manage risk to reach a situation where your intuition can be freed immediately.
I was thinking your voice was notably absent in my recent media landscape analysis: https://adamgolding.substack.com/p/why-peterson-blocked-me Some of these people will speak to you, seek them out. I recently wrote to another friend:
"I posted recently "Where are all the women in the war debates?"
6:00 PM
I g2g now but thanks for chatting.
6:00 PM
well, where are they? [redacted] should be writing about THAT
ttys
6:00 PM
Well I can't leave now
I want to hear this.
6:00 PM
lolol
well that's what feminism always said
toxic masculinity causes war
but the only loud pacificst voices in the jewish sphere are men
and ana kasparian
6:01 PM
How do I be loud?
6:01 PM
where are the LOUD LOUD LOUD feminists now?
Publish a video conversation with a nother woman on the topic of war
eg
6:01 PM
What does that entail. Posting in social media? Going to protest?
6:01 PM
no men in the room
6:01 PM
Ok.
6:01 PM
no long-form conversation
that would be my best idea
6:01 PM
Hmmm sounds good.
6:02 PM
*no, long-form
they say ukraine and russia can't reach a deal with american and britain in the room
6:02 PM
What if I don't know enough
6:02 PM
then interview someone to learn
6:02 PM
Ok
6:02 PM
or invite a third party to discuss the other side
6:02 PM
I can do that, as a therapist I'm pretty good at questions
6:02 PM
maybe a plaestinian woman and a jewish woman lol
yes you would be amazing
6:02 PM
Yeah
Thanks
I felt pretty helpless despite doing some protests and talking to folks at work about it in our anti oppressive practice group
This sounds better
More usedul
6:03 PM
good I think it's right
6:03 PM
Useful
6:03 PM
mental health requires a civic platform imo
not just private kvetching
ps the ban on polyamory in judiasm recently expired!
Bari Weiss I have not heard clamouring for peace on bill maher or anything like that -- mikaela is not jewish and her main contribution was platforming finkelstein
"constraints are essential to creative production."
As Igor Stravisnky is quoted in the opening to "Constraint Handling Rules" (not a music book) "The more one constrains oneself, the more one frees oneself" -- in that context the emphasis is on 'constrains' but in response to you my emphasis is on 'oneself' -- the constraints need not be externally imposed by bigots, and in exposure therapy the constraints *must* be self-imposed, otherwise the treatment is the same as the cause and you have a paradox if it works (it doesn't, in that case).
Self-imposed constraints can indeed be valuable. But I've got nothing against externally imposed constraints - they're arguably more generative, as they'll tend to be surprising.
I only need the one axiom stated "When you have nothing against them, they aren't external."
It's not true that we need both necessary and sufficient conditions for all terms, we can define any word implicitly, via the axiomatic method, which is how axiomatic set theory defines 'elementhood' for example
I love your writing ❤️
Thank Tiffani :)
If I was working 60-80 hours/week, I would just collapse at the end of the day. The most I ever worked was 50-60 hours/week and it was basically my whole life. I'm impressed you can even find the energy to exercise
"I don’t know what the solution is. One approach is to split time, daily, switching between creative and practical modes. Another is to accept being broke, and to live within that constraint until a “making it” opportunity arrives, or doesn’t."
The first approach is 'obviously' the better one, but it's not so obvious that I didn't used to do the second -- in general diversifying time investment is as wise as it is with a stock portfolio -- diversification is the only free lunch in investing -- so for instance you could devote a block of time to the topics you mentioned it's clearly irrational not to comment on from your position -- you are passing by THAT opportunity but you can invest in both.
right now your time investment is under-diversified -- in a worst-case scenario you can do simple 'hill-climbing' search: diversify until it becomes a problem and then turn back. Zoom out before you zoom in. Zoom out daily.
I agree that diversification of investment is advantageous. But a big element of these kinds of "simulated annealing" algorithms is to reduce random steps over time - when you first start exploring, you diversify lots, but as you learn about the world, more steps are planned...
I do feel I'm in a phase of life where too much diversification could be disadvantageous.
"I do feel I'm in a phase of life where too much diversification could be disadvantageous." That actually *reduces* the search time, and is a sort of 'paradoxical worry': if no amount of diversification could be 'too much' the algorithm given would never halt:
"diversify until it becomes a problem and then turn back"
So it's actually 'advantageous' that it can be so easily advantageous, as far as the merits of using this search procedure:
If you're at a phase of life where you hit 'too much' diversification sooner then you converge on the first maxima much faster. The key assumption is a continuous search surface.
There's nothing 'random' about the topics people notice themselves avoiding... -Yours Truly, a Freudian
You also don't have to frame the two as oppositional -- this event is a perfect synthesis, see you there!: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/night-economy-town-hall-tickets-772277652247
"But this skill is double-edged. When we install an observer, swell in self-awareness, exert control over spontaneous impulses—doesn’t that risk draining the color and variety from experience? "
Not if what you are constantly mindful of is representativeness of sample and make sure your emotional overton window is expanded, not shrunk -- the idea that adults CAN calm down has been used to FORCE them
I'm not sure I see the link? The idea I'm trying to get across is that installing an observer will necessarily shrink the emotional "overton window"
No my observer widens mine via evening my coverage of emotional space -- by diversifying my investment in different states of mind--some spaces I don't re-explore but like when you improvise a symphony structure it can't be all one emotion! I have to observe if it's been one mood too long and switch it up. (Usually not suddenly but via integrative processes)
"Ultimately, I am a superstitious person. I believe in signs and omens and fate. I worry I’m spending a moment of great Kairos clinging to boring Chronos. There’s a part of me, locked in terrified paralysis, convinced I’m allowing my destiny to pass me by.
And then the self-criticism chimes in. I’m being narcissistic (it’s not all about me), psychotic (seeing patterns in the noise, really?), narcissistic again (the world will be fine without my opinions, or if not fine, whatever it would’ve been anyway). I worry there’s a real tension here. Between, on one hand, childish grandiosity, and on the other, the necessary realization that life isn’t always interesting, dramatic, and creative—or if it is, I won’t always be the center of attention."
This second voice is simply wrong. Not wrong all the time, but wrong to listen to the average ROI is negative. As I put it, "Second guess your second guess" -- some second guesses turn out to be earlier guesses based on principles from earlier in life or earlier ideas -- follow the truly first guess always and learn so that your next first guess is better -- when this seems too risky manage risk to reach a situation where your intuition can be freed immediately.
I was thinking your voice was notably absent in my recent media landscape analysis: https://adamgolding.substack.com/p/why-peterson-blocked-me Some of these people will speak to you, seek them out. I recently wrote to another friend:
"I posted recently "Where are all the women in the war debates?"
6:00 PM
I g2g now but thanks for chatting.
6:00 PM
well, where are they? [redacted] should be writing about THAT
ttys
6:00 PM
Well I can't leave now
I want to hear this.
6:00 PM
lolol
well that's what feminism always said
toxic masculinity causes war
but the only loud pacificst voices in the jewish sphere are men
and ana kasparian
6:01 PM
How do I be loud?
6:01 PM
where are the LOUD LOUD LOUD feminists now?
Publish a video conversation with a nother woman on the topic of war
eg
6:01 PM
What does that entail. Posting in social media? Going to protest?
6:01 PM
no men in the room
6:01 PM
Ok.
6:01 PM
no long-form conversation
that would be my best idea
6:01 PM
Hmmm sounds good.
6:02 PM
*no, long-form
they say ukraine and russia can't reach a deal with american and britain in the room
6:02 PM
What if I don't know enough
6:02 PM
then interview someone to learn
6:02 PM
Ok
6:02 PM
or invite a third party to discuss the other side
6:02 PM
I can do that, as a therapist I'm pretty good at questions
6:02 PM
maybe a plaestinian woman and a jewish woman lol
yes you would be amazing
6:02 PM
Yeah
Thanks
I felt pretty helpless despite doing some protests and talking to folks at work about it in our anti oppressive practice group
This sounds better
More usedul
6:03 PM
good I think it's right
6:03 PM
Useful
6:03 PM
mental health requires a civic platform imo
not just private kvetching
ps the ban on polyamory in judiasm recently expired!
"
Bari Weiss? Mikaela Peterson? It's true that most commentators have been male.
Bari Weiss I have not heard clamouring for peace on bill maher or anything like that -- mikaela is not jewish and her main contribution was platforming finkelstein
eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhvfRxJ3ul0&ab_channel=TheFreePress
"constraints are essential to creative production."
As Igor Stravisnky is quoted in the opening to "Constraint Handling Rules" (not a music book) "The more one constrains oneself, the more one frees oneself" -- in that context the emphasis is on 'constrains' but in response to you my emphasis is on 'oneself' -- the constraints need not be externally imposed by bigots, and in exposure therapy the constraints *must* be self-imposed, otherwise the treatment is the same as the cause and you have a paradox if it works (it doesn't, in that case).
Self-imposed constraints can indeed be valuable. But I've got nothing against externally imposed constraints - they're arguably more generative, as they'll tend to be surprising.
When you have nothing against them, they aren't external.
You aren't assuming the boundaries of the self correspond to your flesh prison, are you? lol
So the self is everything we don't oppose?
I mean I don't need to risk such a high-content definition to make the point
I only need the one axiom stated "When you have nothing against them, they aren't external."
It's not true that we need both necessary and sufficient conditions for all terms, we can define any word implicitly, via the axiomatic method, which is how axiomatic set theory defines 'elementhood' for example