I have since tried to adopt my colleague's habit of tempering pure optimism with a sincere effort to locate counterexamples. Even if the result is true and counterexamples do not exist, these efforts often "map out the negative space" and leave a lot of clues as to how the proof of the positive result has to proceed, for instance by directly identifying the most dangerous putative counterexample scenarios and suggesting what the right "weapons" are to defeat them. 5/5
Astrology also encounters notable discontinuities when passing from one star sign to the next: a pair of twins, one born a minute before midnight at the end of one star sign period, and one born a minute after, would have significantly different horoscopes; similarly if they were born on opposite sides of a border between time zones (or better yet, the international date line). (2/2)
i am objectlevelmaxxing. i am cutthroughthebullshitpilled. i am in my simulacrum 0 arc. living the hugquerycore
My literal advice to anyone is to find the biggest, densest, most scholarly book that interests you and read it cover-to-cover. Take as much time as you could possibly need. Get to know it intimately, so much that you can explain the logic of its internal structure, terminological choices, etc. Then try to identify the book that that book's author read, or argued against, and repeat. Take as much time as you need. Your quality of intellectual life will skyrocket.
I remember Richard Ngo making the suggestion that the science of the interactions between individual humans is going to end up being similar to economics:
The main claim was that human interaction can be modeled as ongoing microtransactions of status.
E.g. take boasting: it's a sort of staking/investment/prediction in the status of a thing associated with a person, the harder the boast the bigger the "staking". Others can either join in (add stake) or in a grou you can then have a KBC-ish thin
I operate by Crocker's rules[1].