25 Comments
User's avatar
SHIFT 30's avatar

I love your writing ❤️

Expand full comment
Arielle Friedman's avatar

Thank Tiffani :)

Expand full comment
Wesley Fenza's avatar

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

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

"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.

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Arielle Friedman's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

"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.

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

There's nothing 'random' about the topics people notice themselves avoiding... -Yours Truly, a Freudian

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

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

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

"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

Expand full comment
Arielle Friedman's avatar

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"

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

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)

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

"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!

"

Expand full comment
Arielle Friedman's avatar

Bari Weiss? Mikaela Peterson? It's true that most commentators have been male.

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

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

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

"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).

Expand full comment
Arielle Friedman's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

When you have nothing against them, they aren't external.

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

You aren't assuming the boundaries of the self correspond to your flesh prison, are you? lol

Expand full comment
Arielle Friedman's avatar

So the self is everything we don't oppose?

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

I mean I don't need to risk such a high-content definition to make the point

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

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

Expand full comment