BC HEALTH
Saved by @jacobhtml

I know some people who seem (to me) more concerned with receiving VALIDATION for their mental health issues than solving them.

They seem to care most about other people BELIEVING their problems are real.

I'm curious about this.

 Like, it's more important to them that people know how debilitating their anxiety is, than to overcome the anxiety.

Or it's important to them that others believe that they're actually depressed, not "just sad."
Or they want people buy into the narrative that they've been traumatized, and might be something like offended if someone minimizes that.
What do we make of this?
1. One possibility is that if solving the problems seems hopeless or even just really hard, you need external support to be able to cope.

If no one cuts you slack because of your mental health stuff, maybe you're in a really bad place, so you need people to believe you.
(Though of course, just like any time you set up system that will grant resources to someone on the basis of a signal, there's now an incentive to fake the signal.
I'm sure there are people who are fooling themselves about how bad their mental problems are as a way to buy that slack for themselves.)
2. In some cases there is more at stake than simply getting slack in order to function. If you can claim to have been "traumatized" or "abused" (in a way that will be believed), you can use that to marshal political support,
because "abuse" like "racism" is loaded word that points out something that contemporary culture has coordinated to oppose heavily.

https://t.co/07v275i2gt
(A recent example of this is the AOC video about the capital attack.

While she said some things I agree with, I rolled by eyes at her use of the word "trauma" because it seemed to me a transparent way to show political support to folks who's trauma narratives are important to...
them, while simultaneously making a social attack on the other side, by claiming to have been harmed "a lot" by them.)

I guess there's a general thing here: the more you can claim to have been harmed, the more likely people are to rally to support you.
So, if someone is denying that you were traumatized, that's threatening, because they're making a move to take away the foundation of your social power.
3. Another tact: Assuming _I_ was engaging in this kind of behavior, what would be happening for me?

I was once in a social dynamic where I would construct things such that I was visibly sad or put upon, because that was the only way I knew to revive (a type of) affection.
So one plausible story is that the ONLY way that a person knows how to get sympathy (or maybe some particular kind of sympathy) is by dint of their mental health stuff.

They need it, and they need it to be believed, because that's the only way they can feel loved and supported.
4. Maybe the simplest story is that this doesn't have anything to do with mental health stuff, in particular. People just have a need to have their narratives validated, and this is just one special case of that.

(Though that begs the question of WHY people have that need.)
Notably, it seems that the mechanism of most therapy is "a prestigious person gives you attention for a while, validating that your problems / experience is real.
5. A more specific version of the above hypothesis is that people feel a latent shame about their mental health stuff, because some part of them thinks it is personal weakness.
But if the establishment certifies them as having a medical condition, or they otherwise construct a narrative about how this is a thing that is happening to them instead of a thing that they are doing, then they have a kind of security from blame and/or shame.
But if someone doubts that narrative, the latent shame comes roaring back, and so they feel threatened.
5.5. Another flavor of this basic idea:

The establishment certifies that this problem is HARD, you're not expected to just be able to trivially solve it. Which gives one protection against others' claims (or even demands) that you can and should.
(Which, surprisingly, seems to be almost a reformulation of my first hypothesis.)
Are other people familiar with this phenomenon, either in yourself, or in other people?

Do you have a story for what's going on?
(All of this was almost definitely influenced by and exchange with @HiFromMichaelV, plus some other stuff.)

More from Eli Tyre

Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
CritRats!

I think AI risk is a real existential concern, and I claim that the CritRat counterarguments that I've heard so far (keywords: universality, person, moral knowledge, education, etc.) don't hold up.

Anyone want to hash this out with


For instance, while I heartily agree with lots of what is said in this video, I don't think that the conclusion about how to prevent (the bad kind of) human extinction, with regard to AGI, follows.

There are a number of reasons to think that AGI will be more dangerous than most people are, despite both people and AGIs being qualitatively the same sort of thing (explanatory knowledge-creating entities).

And, I maintain, that because of practical/quantitative (not fundamental/qualitative) differences, the development of AGI / TAI is very likely to destroy the world, by default.

(I'm not clear on exactly how much disagreement there is. In the video above, Deutsch says "Building an AGI with perverse emotions that lead it to immoral actions would be a crime."
SOCIETY
Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
There's a particular kind of romantic partnership, with a certain sort of person, that I've wanted since I became a self-aware, directed agent at around age 15.

Empirically, this kind of relationship has been hard to achieve. It hasn't worked out yet, at least.

And this sometimes leaves me wondering if my standards are unreasonable.

In years past that desire was often very alive.

These days, I'm rarely directly or viscerally in contact with it.

I sometimes contemplate aiming for some other kind of romantic and/or sexual relationship instead. In part because I might be more effective if I...I don't know, got laid more? But that's not really the thing. More like, if I had someone around whom I could regularly relax.

But mostly, I don't pursue those alternative relationship-setups out of a sense of something like loyalty to myself + a vague sense of wrongness and/or sadness about it. It often feels like giving up or giving in.

[I might elaborate on the wrongness sometime.]
FOR LATER READ
Advertisement
Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
My catch all thread for this discussion of AI risk in relation to Critical Rationalism, to summarize what's happened so far and how to go forward, from here.

I started by simply stating that I thought that the arguments that I had heard so far don't hold up, and seeing if anyone was interested in going into it in depth with


So far, a few people have engaged pretty extensively with me, for instance, scheduling video calls to talk about some of the stuff, or long private chats.

(Links to some of those that are public at the bottom of the thread.)

But in addition to that, there has been a much more sprawling conversation happening on twitter, involving a much larger number of people.

Having talked to a number of people, I then offered a paraphrase of the basic counter that I was hearing from people of the Crit Rat persuasion.
POLITICS
Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
I was reading something that suggested that trauma "tries" to spread itself. ie that the reason why intergenerational trauma is a thing is that the traumatized part in a parent will take action to recreate that trauma in the child.

This model puts the emphasis on the the parent's side: the trauma is actively "trying" to spread.

This is in contrast to my previous (hypothetical) model for IGT, which puts the emphasis on the child's side: kids are sponges that are absorbing huge amounts of info, including via very subtle channels. So they learn the unconscious reactions of the people around them.

(I say "hypothetical", because all while this sort of thing is in my hypothesis space, I haven't seen clear enough evidence that intergenerational trauma is a meaningful category that I solidly believe it is real.

More like, "here's a story for how this could work.")

On first glance, I was skeptical of this "active trauma" story.

Why on earth would trauma be agenty, in that way? It sounds like too much to swallow.
CULTURE
Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
@JeffLadish I think because the reward structure of being a bio-ethicist rewards saying level-headed sounding, cautious-sounding, conventional wisdom?

Though I'm not sure why that is.

I guess if you want to radically improve the world, you mostly don't go into a field that is about opining on other people's work, you go into something like Engineering and do the work?

I note that Nick Bostrom is what a Bioethicist should be: he thinks hard about tradeoffs and risks, and crystalizes concepts like the Unilateralist's curse and black ball technologies.

But this is starting from a place of "The world could be vastly better. How do we get there?"

I don't know why bioethics doesn't look more like a field of (less smart) Bostroms.

I guess because everyone's disgust reactions are triggered by the actually good proposals, and in order to make those proposals the consensus of the field a lot of people have to bite the bullet and stick their neck out saying "I know this sounds crazy / absurd / vaguely evil...
SOCIETY

More from Health

Adam Wagner
Adam Wagner
@AdamWagner1
🚨New lockdown regulations just published, in force tomorrow

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 3) and (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

https://t.co/L5jwlTDaIE

(Thread)


These are not a new set of regulations: they are amendments an old set of regulations

Which we thought were gone! But they are back

Welcome back No.3 regulations

A quick thing before we continue!

I have been analysing these laws for free for 9 months now - if you want to say thanks and have a few £ to spare please give to my @LawCentres fundraiser

They give free legal advice to people who need it

They also amend the All Tiers regulations

Oh god it's all amendments by paragraph references

Basically all of England now in Tier 4 and Tier 4 is amended but not by a huge amount

This really is a terrible way to make laws on the fly - who can possibly understand it?!


So, to explain, you need 2 documents open if you want to understand what is going on:

All Tiers regulations (Tiers 1-4, 2 December as amended) https://t.co/IraPQ112ak

And amendments https://t.co/L5jwlTDaIE

No sensible way of doing except by track changes, on it now, back soon
HEALTH
Dr. Joolz Denby\U0001f499
Dr. Joolz Denby💙...
@JoolzDenby
We’ve done menstruation, let’s talk about the menopause! Because only women however they present can have the menopause although men who have had treatments for prostate cancer can have symptoms mimicking the menopause. There’s nothing scary about

the menopause. It’s a perfectly natural function of the body but it’s tied up with a thousand stereotypes of women, ageism and ‘old women are frightening’. True, old women are often very frightening to young men because look! A woman who doesn’t give a rat’s

arse what you think of her now all her mating hormones have gone and with it your charm as a potential mate. Now you’re just another annoying lad. That’s gotta hurt. Menopause means Wisdom, like it or not and it’s not always nice or cosy. Old women

are encouraged to refer to themselves as ‘young at heart’ and ‘as young as you feel’ and other such crap and told to ‘never give in to age’ which is ludicrous. Cosmetic surgery is now a thing but I can tell you what the surgeons and marketing

men won’t - it does not make you look young. You’re just an old woman who looks like at best, she’s had a great holiday and at worst like she was was trapped in a wind tunnel. Old is good. Old is meritorious. Old is survival. Old means you didn’t die young
HEALTH
Advertisement
Starks\u262a\ufe0f\U0001f1f9\U0001f1e9
Starks☪️🇹🇩...
@MegaIntelIect
Thread on how atheism leads to mental retardation (backed with medical citations🧵💉)

To start with, atheism is an unnatural self-contradicting doctrine.

Medical terminology proves that human beings are naturally pre-disposed to believe in God. Oxford scientists assert that people are "born believers".

https://t.co/kE0Fi588yn
https://t.co/OqyXcGIMJn


It should be known that atheism could never produce an intelligently-functioning society and neither ever will.

Contrastingly, Islam produced several intellectuals & polymaths, was on the forefront of scientific development, boasting 100% literacy


It is also scientifically proven that atheism led to lesser scientific curiosity and scientific frauds, which is also why atheists incline to pseudo-science.

Whereas, religion in general and Islam in particular boosted education.

https://t.co/19Onc84u3g


Atheists are also likely to affected by pervasive mental and developmental disorders like high-functioning autism.

Cognitive Scientists and renowned Neurologists found that more atheism is leads to greater autism.

https://t.co/zRjEyFoX3P
HEALTH
Avraham Z. Cooper, MD
Avraham Z. Cooper, MD
@AvrahamCooperMD
1/15
Why can cefepime cause neurological toxicity?

And why is renal failure the main risk factor for this complication?

The answer requires us to learn about cefepime's structure and why it unexpectedly binds to a certain CNS receptor.

#MedTwitter #Tweetorial


2/
Let's establish a few facts about cefepime:

🔺4th generation cephalosporin antibiotic
🔺Excretion = exclusively in the urine (mostly as unchanged drug)
🔺Readily crosses the blood-brain barrier (so it easily accesses the brain)

https://t.co/rjYG1BfGPR


3/
The first report of cefepime neurotoxicity was in 1999.

A patient w/ renal failure received high doses of cefepime and then developed encephalopathy, tremors, myoclonic jerks, and tonic-clonic seizures.

✅All symptoms resolved after hemodialysis.

https://t.co/u7JLVitQpp


4/
Cefepime neurotoxicity is surprisingly common, occurring in up to 15% of treated critically ill patients (w/ symptoms varying from encephalopathy to seizures).

💡The main risk factors = renal failure and lack of dose adjustment for renal function.

https://t.co/nxbnzSq8AR


5/
What about cefepime induces neurotoxicity?

One clue is that it's not the only antibiotic that causes neurotoxicity, particularly seizures.

This actually is a class effect w/ other beta-lactam antibiotics (including penicillins and carbapenems).

https://t.co/Lf4BhON9IY
HEALTH
Ottawa Public Health
Ottawa Public Health
@OttawaHealth
THIS IS A CATCHY & ATTENTION-GRABBING TITLE

Today, the Province will likely announce what zone of the reopening framework we'll shift into as of Tuesday. Whatever is announced, though, doesn't change what we need to do. Why?

Kindly read these 14 tweets & we'll tell you. (1/14)

Fun fact: COVID-19 does not follow us on Twitter. COVID doesn't know, or particularly care, if we're in the Red or Orange zone.

The behaviours of the virus do not depend on the current ‘zone’ of public health restrictions. And, to be perfectly candid, neither should ours. (2/14)

Once upon a time we used to say #WeAreInThisTogether in our messaging. Here's the thing: we are, but we aren't. Not everyone is experiencing this pandemic the same.

Nurses, doctors, paramedics & healthcare workers have experienced things much differently than most of us. (3/14)

Some people have been home & isolated for months, while others haven't been able to stop working.

Business owners & hospitality workers have been on a rollercoaster of openings & closures.

Students, parents, teachers & school staff have had to adapt to going from online (4/14)

to in-person learning (and back again) numerous times.
And this virus has disproportionately affected some groups more than others.

But there's the thing: while our experiences of this pandemic haven't been shared, we do have a shared goal.

And we can reach it together. (5/14)
HEALTH

You May Also Like

Emperor\U0001f451
Emperor👑
@EmperorBTC
Technical Analysis Masterclass- Part 2

'Entering the trade'

Entering a trade without ascertaining a certain things is gambling.

In this masterclass we will learn the pre-requisites to enter a trade.

DON'T ENTER A TRADE WITHOUT DETERMINNG THE FOLLOWING.

Please share.

We understand what reward to risk (popularly called risk to reward) is.
It will be denoted by R:R.

We will also try to bust a few myths about R:R and how to avoid losing trades.

Before entering a trade, you need to determine 3 things.

1. Entry trigger
2. Stop loss
3. Target

1. Entry trigger = Reasons for entering a trade. There could be multiple reasons or a single reason for entry.

Generally a set of reasons AKA confluence is a higher probability trade and a generally a safer entry.

Example of an entry trigger.


2. Stop Loss.

The price in the opposite direction of the trade where the trade is exited, at a loss.

At this level, the reason for the entry becomes invalidated according to TA and the price can then move in the opposite direction, probabilistically.


3. Target is the possible price level that the asset might touch based on previous trends or confluence AND where a possible reversal could occur.

Target is the next path of least resistance from where the price might reverse.

We will always ONLY use TA to determine all 3.
TRADING
Karol296
Karol296
@Karol296
Wracając do sedna dzisiejszego zamieszania z artykułem autosportu / motorsportu. Kubica mówi w nim, że podejmie swoją decyzję w ciągu kilku dni. Rozważa opcję z Williamsem lub posadę kierowcy symulatora w Ferrari. Więc za kilka dni dowiemy się co go czeka za rok. #F1PL

Autosport / motorsport zmienił nagłówek swoje tekstu, bo pierwotnie sugerował on że Kubica jest numerem jeden na liście Williamsa na tytuł mówiący tylko tym, że nadal jest na liście kandydatów. Zrobili to po interwencji zespołu. Same wypowiedzi Kubicy z wywiadu się nie zmieniły.

Trudno powiedzieć czy autor się pośpieszył i wyciągnął inne wnioski niż powinien, a może wie coś więcej, ale nie mógł tego otwarcie napisać. Słowa Kubicy brzmią jednak jednoznacznie: decyzję podejmie w ciągu kilku dni.
SPORT
Advertisement
UN Watch
UN Watch
@UNWatch
The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW
SOCIETY
Khatvaanga
Khatvaanga
@khatvaanga
Starting my 2nd thread on Sringeri Parampara. This will cover the Jagadgurus after Sri Vidyaranya to Sri Shivabhinava Nrisimha Bharati.

It is really very tough to match the brilliance and achievements of Vidyaranya. After whom came 15 - Chandrashekara Bharati [1386-1389].

The next Acharya was Nrisimha Bharati [1389-1408]. Harihara raya found a town for this Acharya - Narasimhapuram. Acharya helped the king by guiding him in political affairs. He also initiated the kind with mahamantras for spiritual development.

Subsequent Acharyas were
15-Puroshottama Bharati [1408 - 1448]
16-Shankara Bharati[1448 - 1455]
17-Chandrasekhara Bharati II [1455 - 1464]
18- Nrisimha Bharati II [1464 - 1479]
19-Puroshottama Bharati II [1479 - 1517]

20-Ramachandra Bharati [1517 - 1560]. Sadashiva Raya was emporer of Vijayanagara during this time.
21-Nrisimha Bharati III [1560 - 1573]
22-Nrisimha Bharati IV [1573 - 1576]
23-Nrisimha Bharati V [1576 - 1600]

24-Abhinava Nrisimha Bharati [1600-1623]. When he visited Malahanikareswara temple for first time he noticed there was no Vinayaka there so he took piece of turmeric and drew outline of Ganesha on a pillar and offered puja.
ALL
Jim O'Shaughnessy
Jim O'Shaughnessy
@jposhaughnessy
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
ALL