HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

dontbeevil1992

no profile record

comments

dontbeevil1992
·4 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
[flagged]
dontbeevil1992
·4 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
that's awesome. I think CBT is really reductive. Quite pessimistic, as well - CBT seems to hold little hope of actually healing many issues, but only aims for symptom management. I think that's because it's not a very good therapy for many (most?) situations so it has to rationalize it by saying true healing is impossible.
dontbeevil1992
·4 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
IFS is amazing.
dontbeevil1992
·4 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
in gestalt therapy this is called being at an impasse - you are in touch with yourself enough to know that you're not happy, but not yet sure how to change your life to be happy. long term I do believe it is better to be in touch with yourself even though there may be periods of discomfort or confusion. it's better to do that than to be humming along feeding your trauma until you reach the age of 50, have a mid-life crisis and realize you've wasted so much time not in touch with yourself.
dontbeevil1992
·4 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
very cool! some similar themes to LotR. Did you intentionally make the crows names use mainly phonemes from the word "crow"? That's a cool technique
dontbeevil1992
·4 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
I'll say it again: I'm not saying that we can use past lack of nuclear war to predict future lack of nuclear war. All I'm saying is that each year's probability is not independent, meaning the model of a probability of no nuclear war which geometrically goes to 0 is not accurate.
dontbeevil1992
·4 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
I might not have said this clearly enough - I'm not saying that conditioning on "did we have a nuclear war" will change the probability to be less. I'm saying that the event "did we have a nuclear war in year n" is not independent from "did we have a nuclear war in year n+1" "n+2", ... because there are shared factors influencing them. Therefore the model of independent probabilities multiplying year over year and seeming to imply that nuclear war is inevitable because (1-p)^n goes to 0 as n grows doesn't make sense mathematically speaking.
dontbeevil1992
·4 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
Another issue with this logic is that the probabilities are not independent.

Saying that you have probability x of nuclear war every year and so probability (1-x)^n of no nuclear war in n years assumes independence. In fact, if you don't have nuclear war on year 1, I would assume that the reasons for that lead to inferences and correlations that would affect the probability of nuclear war on year 2, possibly making it lower.