Arguments like this make me suspect that the proponents have simply a malformed theory of mind. If I'm being really catty, I'll say it's because they have below average levels of self-awareness.

What Big Five test rated you on your interest in science? It only rates 5 factors by definition.

Right? It was a weird test. It started with OCEAN — which got a completely different result than the real OCEAN tests I've done — and then moved to a weird interest/aptitude test. It's clearly some BS marketing thing.

So you completed some BS online test, realized it, but still use its results to criticize the properly administered tests. This is weird. Just make a credible test (e.g. Jordan Peterson hosts one) and only after that draw conclusions.

So you've read a lot of bad books.

Productivity hacks and pop psychology are not what we're talking about here. We're talking about interesting works of non-fiction. And if it's fiction, and you think that there is "one idea" and you can skip the rest, I don't know what to tell you.

It's a shame that Joseph Campbell was wrong about everything, because he is an entertaining writer in the pseudo-profound register.

What was he most wrong about?

that's an abominable assessment of campbell. I'm not even going to bother responding to it, other than to point out this absolute nonsense:

> The monomyth is Campbellian imperialism. It's an appropriation of things he despises -- 'dreamlike mumbo jumbo', 'mystic[s]', and 'bizarre Eskimo fairy tale[s]' -- normalising them in an effort to make them tolerable

Jung, who is as associated with dreams as anyone, was one of campbell's greatest influences. Campbell deeply revered dreams, and you could probably find 1000 references of him talking about that's where myths come from.

I think it is a form of scientism to say Campbell is "wrong" but people love scientism. For many it is standard orthodoxy and a blind spot of mass stupidity.

I think Campbell is the pop version of The Golden Bough. I have only read a little of the The Golden Bough but is so immense, alien and unrelatable. I have also read how James George Frazer was also "wrong". As if the conclusions of a 19th century Victorian somehow negates the 12 volumes of collected mythology. Independent thought and reasoning though is not a strength of those prone to scientism.

You avoided the actual substantive critique in the post. Namely, that Campbell's system doesn't even work for the most canonical works in Western literature.

I don't know what Jung has to do with anything. But if helps, I also think he was a crank, and the collective unconscious is a neat metaphor and nothing more.

The fact that the LessWrong crowd will reference a memeified version of Leo Strauss is very telling. To be anti-philosophy but really into Leo Strauss. Curious. I wonder where they encountered his ideas?

Edit: Not sure why I was being coy. I'm talking about the Claremont Institute.

Sweeping self-loathing statements like that are actually a defense mechanism. Fear of rejection is so great that one would rather believe that one is worthless than have another person think one is slightly annoying. Better to self-sooth with self-abnegation than face the uncertainty of other's judgment.

Well, if you’ve been excluded your entire life, like I have, if your invitations are rejected, if you’re never the one being invited, if you search for people who never search for you, and if every connection you manage to form is shortlived and ends in ghosting, it starts to make you doubt your own humanity a little. I think my experience, like the OP, allows me to entertain the idea that there’s something fundamentally wrong with me, as if I’m somehow not fully human.

I can understand being in the wrong contest once or twice in your life, but I’ve lived in five different cities. I’ve gone to college three times. I play multiple instruments and have played in bands and orchestras. And yet here I am: completely alone. I have no one to text for a little chat, no one to grab a beer with me on a Saturday night, no one to plan a coffee with, no one to reassure me when I’m struggling. I’m moving through life entirely on my own, rawdogging it, doing everything alone.

At this point, I’ve given up on relationships, on friendship, on love. The few people I’ve ever called friends eventually disappeared. It feels less painful to stop hoping altogether than to keep sinking my already low hope that it is actually all a misunderstanding and that someday I’ll finally find a circle of people who choose me back.

Unfortunately, you are under a curse. The only way to lift the curse is to build a physical space that attracts people. People cannot resist an interesting place.

Stack stones, hang lights, collect interesting things. Or join a project where people are doing this, like Sandland: https://www.southeastiowaunion.com/life/ottumwa-native-creat...

Joining may be easier and nobody turns down a volunteer. You may have to start something new if nothing is nearby.

But beware the monkey’s paw: once the people come, you will not be able to get rid of them easily.

Sometimes I feel the same, though I did get married, which just happened because I took desperate measures and started using Russian Brides style websites! I was lucky and can’t really recommend these days as it’s mostly scam, but it did work for me 15 years ago. I used to have one good friend, and he was the one that got called by everyone, and I just cruised along. But after he moved away I lost all contact with everyone, it’s like everyone forgot me and it was a one way street as I tried to keep in touch. I wish I lived in a small town where you just meet people you know already by going out where everyone is or something. Having to take measures like organizing a club, or try to invite people you don’t really have a connection with and probably will not come, feels just too much to me and not sustainable.

>I wish I lived in a small town where you just meet people you know already by going out where everyone is or something

I actually grow up in a small town, like 4000 people in total, in Italy. It is even worse: if you're just a little bit strange and you don't form some kind of friendship while in grade school, the rest of your social life is basically determined to be over.

First of all, respect for using "sex without a condom" as a metaphor for solitude.

Second, it's weird that what you've written comes off as entirely insincere. It's like you've been assigned a high school essay to "write what a sad person sounds like."

You aren't even really talking to me at all. It's a story you're telling yourself that is actually deeply self-absorbed, maudlin, and also clearly false. I don't think you find your life pleasant, but I believe there is something you are not telling me, or yourself, about why that is. Good luck figuring that out. I don't know you at all, but I think you're capable of it.

For some of us, there’s no uncertainty about other’s judgement - it’s just the op experience all the way down.

Let's apply Occam's Razor. Which is more likely? Every person you've ever met and will meet thinks you are terrible, or, you think you are terrible?

I'm not erasing the existence of the many people you've encountered who don't like you. But what if negative experiences in your past have eroded your distress tolerance and you now cannot distinguish normal human conflict from an affront to you, personally? Or, what if you have given up on human contact because, subconsciously, you made a calculation that simulacra of human contact might be unsatisfying but, like methadone, they give you just enough to avoid the real stuff?

I don't think any of the psychological pictures I have painted are necessarily correct. But I do know that what you're telling me is BS.

This is the most jaundiced, obviously false, and self-pitying statement I have maybe ever encountered. Have you seen a group of people paint Warhammer figurines together? Or do Gunpla? Or play a roleplaying game? Are they cool and attractive? No! Are they having fun and bonding? Yes! The only incentive one would ever have to deny this is self-loathing covering up a fear of rejection. Go out there and do something dorky with people.

All I'm saying is if you're going to invite people to something dorky, you will have better success if they are dorks.

I know many "hot" dorks and many "uggo" dorks. The difference in how much fun they have doing Warhammer is negligible.

To a dork the most attractive quality is dorkiness, whether you are hot or an uggo doesn’t matter as much.

Popular Mechanics is like Popular Science right? Extremely bullish on new technologies to the degree of taking one study and turning it into a breathless article about how we're 1 year away from flying cars?

Sorry for the cynicism, but I grew up subscribing to Popular Science and I gained a very jaundiced view of this kind of science/technology popularizing

Yep, you nailed it.

Yes, they loved the moller sky car, frankly these magazines would have been great if they just accurately caveated stage of development and leaned into a speculative "The World of Tomorrow" attitude for these types of things. As a result of NOT doing that they really poisoned people against the very idea of progress (of which we make a ton.)

I wonder if at the time the "world of tomorrow" is how we think of it now with fondness.

I found this Substack to be an excellent explainer of the paper:

https://open.substack.com/pub/michaelhalassa/p/the-latest-ad...

It was also gratifying as somebody who has been diagnosed with ADHD but who is seemingly resistant to treatment with stimulants.

Is this a trick question? Yes it was. A horse could go over any terrain while a car could only really go over very specific terrain designed for it. We had to terraform the world in order to make the automobile so beneficial. And it turned out that this terraforming had many unintended consequences. It's actually a pretty apt comparison to LLMs.

who would I be trying to trick if it was? you didn't answer the question anyways. I'm not wondering whether cars were seen as strictly better than horses in all situations. I'm wondering if people disagreed so vehemently about whether cars were faster road transportation than horses