>Runoffs are something people understand, IRV is conceptually similar and makes intuitive sense to people, it's very easy to explain to people, 'if nobody gets a majority, eliminate last place and redistribute their votes, repeat'.

> Compare that to to some of the other systems which often have complex mathematical descriptions which are hard for people to wrap their heads around.

> Another thing is how big a deal is 'non-monotonicity' is it actually going to be something that will affect elections all the time, or is it something that's more minor than say turnout which honestly has no solution and on one side you have USA where turnout is low so the game is all about making sure your base turns out, or on the other side you have Australia where voting is mandatory so making sure people who don't care, don't vote at random is a big part of the game.

> Runoffs are something people understand, IRV is conceptually similar and makes intuitive sense to people, it's very easy to explain to people, 'if nobody gets a majority, eliminate last place and redistribute their votes, repeat'.

Compare that to to some of the other systems which often have complex mathematical descriptions which are hard for people to wrap their heads around.

It's fascinating how a similar constraint arises in industry software engineer; more than fascinating

>I would stay away from acid if I had known schizophrenic antecedents in my family. But that's like with anything: be aware of risk factors, act accordingly. Don't eat too much sugar if you are diabetic, don't explore caves if you are claustrophobic, and so on.

You're assuming everyone has the _ability_ to know that prior to discovering this

>‘Thus,’ write the researchers, ‘the main effects of the intervention were wholly positive, and no costs of extraverted behaviour were detected for the average participant.’ The advantages were to a large extent mediated by participants acting more extraverted more often – though, interestingly, not by being in more social situations: ie, by changing the quality of their social interactions, not the quantity of them.

I was under the impression the extrovert/introvert distinction was essentially one of quantity: the introversion demand less social interactions, extroversion more. This conclusion reads to me as if it said, "It is mentally healthy to consistently assert yourself" which I take to be true regardless but that also kinda calls into question this whole distinction to me.

>How much of your anxiety boils down to just not feeling confident about the appropriate actions to take or words to say in social situations?

You're enabling your own prescription by making the problem easier, viz. reducing the problem of anxiety to "not feeling confident about the appropriate actions to take", which, I might add, is also a redundant claim since its taking an effect of anxiety and elevating it to the cause.

I'm not reducing the problem. I'm defining it, so that it can be solved.

Anxiety, for most people, is not unsolvable but is just tedious because it often comes from multiple sources. I'm diagnosed bipolar, ADHD, OCD, you name it... I am no stranger to anxiety and the physical aspect of it which cannot be dealt with "logically".

But lack of confidence, in one's life, one's friends, one's job, one's ability, etc... this is a major source of anxiety in the modern world and is very treatable.

Asking how much was due to a specific cause isn't "reducing the problem". Anxiety is among the most treatable of all mental illness.

I've been there myself wrt marijuana addictions as a response to stressors, but if it wasn't herb it was alcohol would likely be the next best thing in the cases in the article. Legalization and regulation is key regardless as Drug War legislation and it's effects are uniquely tied to legalization/regulation. The real problem for America unfortunately in the face of the addictions issues is that there's just too little mental health support for people publically and privately, and too many seemingly anonymous forces bearing on the stability of our lives. No amount of Munchausen-esque pulling oneself up by the hairs on one's head can respond to that kind of complexity. We simply aren't evolved for it at the present time.

>Personally, I view this as a distinct upgrade. Instead of being coerced into lots of interaction with people I may have nothing in common with except vague geographical proximity, I have the option of interacting with people who actually share my interests or concerns or hobbies. To me, this isn't isolated loners. It's the first real community I've ever known. The first one I've ever actually felt like I was a part of, where I was always welcome and could always rely on finding people like me.

Apologies, but I don't agree that's nearly sufficient enough an "ontology", in the philosophical sense if you will, of community. You are involved in a community the moment you hear someone screaming out for help nearby; you are involved in a community when you're one of those scmucks stuck communicating to work in a packed trainer in the morning, you're involved in a community when you respond to the presence of minorities or certain of other races in a manner which may make them uncomfortable (100% not alleging a thing btw, most certainly not the point right now); you clearly join a community when you join the military, but you have, for better or for worse, shockingly few rights and freedoms therein.

My point is that, for human beings, we are by definition, as social animals, involved in a community some way, some how, because we inherently respond to one another's presence, even when that response is indifference (perhaps in the face of someone screaming out for help nearby). This is almost, for myself, the entire lesson of watching Mister Rogers (if you're an America, I don't know if you are).

Choosing a community for yourself, therefore, shouldn't be a reprieve, relief, or, worse case, a retreat from those other communities you're involved in, like your neighborhood or family. We all may have run into that person who appeared to us to be way too chatty and friendly in some public space that we were constrained to, say, the train; they're just answering to their involvement in a different way.

>As far back as the Ancient Greeks Socrates wrote extensively on exploiting emotions to achieve success in argument

I'm guessing you meant Plato, Socrates was likely illiterate.

Except it's prohibitively expense to compete in that space hence the regulation.

That's a pretty lay way of gauging responses, a neurotic will respond to allegations as if they were actually guilty, regardless of verity