snek_boi

joined 3 years ago
[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago
[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago

I love this blog. I discovered it when I also discovered PbtA games. So good

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Thanks for sharing your method.

As to your take on Anki, I think it's fair and accurate. I agree with you in that the learning curve is not in the features or the interface, but as you said: in the pacing. I really hope I can try to space the cards as much as possible, so that a regular practice doesn't become burdensome.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm generally skeptical of comments on the internet, so almost every time I have read comments like this one that you're reading right now, I've been like "yeah right". Kinda like how "lol" means "laughing out loud" but when you read it online you don't really expect whoever wrote "lol" to have laughed out loud? Anyway, I was drinking coffee, I read your comment, I snorted in laughter, and now my white shirt is full of coffee.

I guess I'm also kinda mad at myself for laughing so hard at such a silly joke. Regardless, have an updoot 👍

 

It seems like it can tick many of the boxes for effective long term learning if used properly (including not just surface learning but also deep conceptual understanding). However, my impression is that there is a learning curve and a cost associated to using it consistently, which leads to it not being used as much. Idk. What’s your experience?

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

and Bostrom's simulation hypothesis and Pascal's wager, all subject to serious validity threats. All of these thought experiments are unfalsifiable. They can all be explained with different theories. They all rely on circular reasoning. They all anthropomorphize entities that maybe don't resemble humans at all. They all fall for the mind projection fallacy. They all are prey to selection bias, because they cherry-pick scenarios among countless alternatives.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I agree that economics has serious problems that can leave it looking like a shriveled science not worthy of the title "science". There is a reason for this. Economics has been undermined for more than a hundred years.

When capitalism was born, classical economics had the goal of describing and understanding these new dynamics. It sought to answer questions such as how prices are determined or how labor dynamics affected profits, to name a few. It came up with answers through observation, statistical modeling, and what we would call today the scientific process.

It was later, in the late eighteenth century, that economics shriveled as a science and bloomed as an ideological and political tool. Many of the classical observations —such as how pricing is set by firms, how costs change through time, or how labor affects the production process— were scrapped. This new perspective didn't see the market as turbulent, war-like, and aggressively cost-cutting. Rather, it portrayed the market as a perfectly lubricated machine that optimally distributes resources, maximizing personal utility as well as social utility.

This perfect machine was not science, but a political tool so that classical economists wouldn't dare being critical of market economies. Even more so, this perfect machine was built so that politicians would not dare interrupt the motions of the machine.

If you're interested in learning how this perfect machine was built and how classical economics sees the world, you can check out Anwar Shaikh.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

Alright. Given that you're interested in psychology, feel free to check these resources out: https://dnav.international/video-audio-resources/ https://dnav.international/wp-content/uploads/DNA-V-workbook-april-15-2020.pdf

These are introductions to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.

You can also check out the Healthy Minds Program https://hminnovations.org/meditation-app

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It sounds like you really care about fairness, in the sense of giving credit to the hard work behind learning. Do you know the phrase “dead metaphor”?

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 weeks ago

Came here to say this. I would like to know the definition (and its theory behind) to have a conversation about it, but I won’t watch three hours of a video to get the answer (or not!).

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

You mention not having money for therapy. There is evidence suggesting that therapy like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is effective even if learned through books. What is important is to learn the mental processes that matter.

Here is an approach to therapy that you could try: https://youtu.be/o79_gmO5ppg

Sorry if my questions sound harsh. I genuinely want to know if this could help. How do you feel about reading books? Have you done it before? Do you have a place and time to read without distractions? Would reading from a device be feasible for you?

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 weeks ago

I wonder if progressive/conservative is what the charts are getting at. Heck, I wonder if we could even put it in terms of Welzel’s Democratic/protection values.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Totally. The history of intelligence has sadly also been the story of eugenics. Fortunately, there have been process-based theories and contextual theories that have defined intelligence in more humane and useful ways. In this view, IQ tests do not measure an underlying characteristic, but a set of mental skills. Seen this way, intelligence becomes something people can gain with nurturance. If you’re interested, check out Relational Frame Theory.

 

It seems that Microsoft is (perhaps inadvertently) employing dirty tactics to entice users like myself. Without having a Microsoft account, I am regularly receiving verification codes to log in. I'd usually dismiss these messages, but they come from official Microsoft.com domains. What's more, I'm receiving hundreds of them. These messages may lead me to believe that someone else has created an account using my email address or that there's a potential security risk associated with my email address.

By creating this sense of urgency and fear, Microsoft could be encouraging users like myself to create accounts out of concern for our own safety and the integrity of our personal data. This tactic plays on our natural desire for self-preservation and can lead us to take actions that may not have been initially intended.

However, it's essential to note that this entire post is based on two facts:

  1. I've received hundreds of messages from official Microsoft domains claiming to have my verification codes.
  2. I don't have a Microsoft account with that email address.

Is this a tactic that a middle manager can use to claim they brought in more users? Is this just another example of the awful tactics that Microsoft uses? Or is this post in the wrong community and it's more of a bug that they should fix?

 

Apparently, the researchers contacted some VPN providers. Perhaps Proton is one of them.

 

Thinking a thought is like watering a plant in a garden. Your attention is the sprinkler. The more you water a plant (up to a point, of course), the more the plant grows.

Similarly, the more you think about a thought, the more that thought network grows. The denser a thought network, the likelier it is that you will end up thinking about/through that thought network. There are more entry points and the paths are better paved.

In other words, thinking thoughts make it likelier that you will think those thoughts in the future. This can cause psychological rigidity.

However, psycholofical flexibility can be developed through mindfulness. In particular, I am talking about mindfulness developed through meditations like mindful breathing. In that kind of meditation, you start by noticing your breath. When you're distracted by something, you pay attention to it, but you return to the breathing. The point is to develop flexible attention. You choose what to pay attention to, even when your attention is pulled by something.

That is why I say that experienced meditators would notice earworms just like anyone else (after listening to the song or remembering it because of another related memory), but because they can choose not to pay attention to it and feed that thought network, there is a lower probability of having those networks reinforced. Their sprinklers can turn off with more ease than non-meditators'.

Meditators can choose not to feed the cognitive network. Non-meditators could find themselves feeding the network.

 

Semantic satiation happens when repeating word or a phrase over and over makes it temporarily lose its meaning. This was first written about in the psychological literature by Titchener, in case you search it online and find that name.

Because word repetition causes defusion (in the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy way), these professors could actually be more cognitively flexible than other people, at least in terms of whatever it is that they're grading.

view more: next ›