Markimus

joined 2 years ago
[–] Markimus 5 points 9 months ago

Regularly and intentionally spend time considering the opposite.

This helps you to check your paradigms.

It also helps if you search for content which contradict your current thinking rather than support it, just to get that perspective.

For example, if you're super organised, a book like A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits Of Disorder may help you to see things in a different light.

[–] Markimus 3 points 9 months ago

Oh ok, sure, I didn't think of it that way 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–] Markimus 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'm delighted when people text back and we have a conversation, though I don't find it frustrating when that doesn't happen.

This is mainly because I keep track of important conversations in some external system, messages I'm waiting for, etc.

You never want to be sitting there waiting for a response, the only reason that's annoying for you is because you have that tug on your mind and you're not able to do other things until that tug has resolved itself. Keeping track of it externally means that you're not having to keep track of it internally. That's what you're really frustrated at, that pull at your attention that means you're not able to focus on other things.

[–] Markimus 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Consider another market: businesses looking to identify current topics of interests / discussions that are relevant to what they are doing.

The AI could summarise the posts and offer suggestions on what to post, when to post, where to post, etc., with references to the posts / threads that they're basing this information on.

This is all bundled as an online marketing tool, targeted towards small businesses focused on growth.

[–] Markimus 2 points 10 months ago

To add to this, “Where is the missing sheep?” is an example of a leading question. The question is based on the assumption that there is a missing sheep, when in fact there isn’t, leaving you flustered as you try and reconcile that.

This assumption is emphasised by framing the erroneous 29 you’ve created (where you’ve added this random extra 2 sheep) against the original 30.

If you paired up the actual number (27) against 30 instead, you would have the total number of sheep given back to the shepherders (3).

All sheep are accounted for here, as long as you do your maths correctly.

[–] Markimus 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
Shepherders Troll Sons
30
30
25 5
3 25 2

Everything is fine, up until this bit:

Twenty-seven plus two is twenty-nine.

The total amount given to the troll and sons were 27 sheep (25 and the sons kept 2).

Where it gets confused is saying "The trolls kept 2" as if this were 2 more sheep on top of the 27 sheep. This leads to you erroneously getting to 29 sheep somehow. The 2 sheep are part of the 27, you can't do this.

The 3 other sheep out of the original 30 are now with the shepherders after the sons came and returned them.

[–] Markimus 2 points 10 months ago

Sorry, to be clear I meant it can mimic the conversational symptoms of depression as if it actually had depression; there’s no understanding there though.

You can’t use that as a metric because you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between real depression and trained depression.

[–] Markimus 5 points 10 months ago

Yep, it says things though has no understanding of what it is saying: much like strolling through a pet shop, passing the parrot enclosure, and hearing and recoiling at the little kid swear words it cheeps out.

[–] Markimus 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It was thought that sodium ions and lithium ions couldn’t be used together in a single solid-state electrolyte system due to their chemical qualities, but the AI system indicated that such a material was possible. When the researchers tested the idea, it turned out to be true.

[–] Markimus 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Hey, that’s okay, it’s something I learnt the hard way and am dealing with catch-up at the moment.

In the book How to Win Friends and Influence People, it talks about how you should apologise after some wrongdoing as soon as possible.

This is a similar concept, following this concept the apology is the boulder. It would be uncomfortable talking about nonsense / small things when this hasn’t yet been cleared up.

In the news recently there was this talk about two long-lost twins who found each other on social media for the first time, and they then had to confront their adoptive parents on that big boulder there. For the step-parent, that boulder would have had to have been sitting there for 19 years! Imagine the relief and the safety / comfortability that would arise when that boulder was finally lifted. They could finally talk about the more nuanced things without that weight on their shoulders, that filter. It opened a whole new channel of conversation.

 

What's the secret here?

 

Has anyone read this book? What did you think of it?

I've been studying this book a lot recently and a few things have consistently come up:

  • Stay open.
  • Remove the parts of you that get unhappy/bothered.
  • Be unconditionally happy.
  • Deal with the stored Samskaras inside of you through conscious relaxing and releasing.

This has got me feeling very zen, though it's also made me realise how many people are walking around with both sensitivities and damage inside that they are storing within them. It's a perspective-changer for sure.

view more: next ›