Blog

Introduction #

A complex array of motivations drives dishonesty. They include: financial gain, self-preservation, social approval, ethical dilemmas, cognitive biases, and fear of punishment. Men are often more dishonest than women.¹ Cultural and social factors also shape attitudes towards honesty.²

Dishonesty in a relationship creates several challenges:

• Erosion of trust: Trust is a fundamental building block of any healthy relationship. When one party in the relationship is dishonest, it erodes the trust that the relationship has amassed over time. Rebuilding trust can be a long and difficult process.
• Emotional toll: Being lied to or discovering dishonesty can be emotionally devastating. It can lead to feelings of betrayal, hurt, anger, and insecurity. Coping with these emotions can be exhausting and challenging, making it difficult to move forward in the relationship.
• Communication breakdown: Open and honest communication is essential in any relationship. When dishonesty is present, it disrupts communication because it is hard to know what to believe or how to address the issue.
• Questioning reality: When someone is consistently dishonest, it can make their partner question their own perception of reality. This gaslighting effect can be mentally and emotionally destabilizing.
• Fear of recurrence: Once dishonesty shatters trust, a lingering fear may remain that it will happen again. This fear can be a barrier to true emotional intimacy and can lead to ongoing stress and anxiety in the relationship.
• Decision-making dilemmas: When dishonesty comes to light, individuals in the relationship may face difficult decisions. They must consider whether they can forgive, rebuild trust, and move forward, or if it’s best to end the relationship altogether. These decisions can be complex and emotionally fraught.

To explore different ways to address dishonesty, imagine a fictional scenario. Suppose Alice and Bob are in a relationship. Alice got pregnant via Bob but tells Bob that she isn’t pregnant. Carlos is Alice’s platonic friend. There are a variety of ways that Bob and Carlos can address Alice’s dishonesty.

The math is way over my head, but I appreciate hearing from the guy that proposed Twistor theory.

Start with this short version:

Or

Here’s a longer interview:

This article was published in PARTS & SELF magazine and is reprinted here verbatim.

Richard Schwartz derived the Internal Family Systems (IFS) method through clinical experience. While many reports of positive outcomes attest to the method’s validity, IFS is seen by some as a somewhat separate and niche approach within the broader field of psychology. One way of placing IFS in a historical context is to look for theories of psychological evolution that hinge on the differentiation of Parts from a mono-mind. The Bicameral Mind Theory, advanced by Julian Jaynes, is one such theory. This controversial and unconventional theory is outlined in his book “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” (published in 1976).

Original in de Volkskrant published 21 Oct 2023

By Anneke Stoffelen

A message from ‘ice man’ Wim Hof, this spring on Instagram: ‘Don’t worry about your fears. Embrace them!’ In the video you see the 64-year-old wellness guru stepping into an apparently icy lake in front of a brown rock. His gray hair drips in wet strands over his shoulders. “The fear of cold is logical,” says Wim Hof’s voice in the voiceover, while on screen he blows out short bursts of air above the water surface. “But if you do the breathing first, you will see that the fear disappears.”

I wish I had known this in the 1990s.

Sapolsky, R. M. (2023). Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. Penguin Press.

The Origins Podcast interview

I submitted more testimony in reference to the letter CALL FOR THE REPEAL OF THE PROVISIONS ENACTED PURSUANT TO OREGON BALLOT MEASURE 110 (2020) order 192-23.¹

Specifically, I read from Eight Moms, One House, and a Road Map Out of Drug Addiction.

Also see my testimony from Aug 2023 and last week.

Purely based on subjective experience, I estimate the pharmacodynamics as:

pm <- function(x) 7.5*dchisq(4*(x-.5), 6)

The x axis is hours and the y axis is scaled so that 1 = a capsule of dried Pm mushroom powder.

plot(function(x) pm(x), 0,6, xlab="hours",ylab="capsules")

Using this function, you can estimate the effect of multiple capsules taken at different times. For example, suppose you take 2 at 10am, 1 at 10:45am, 1 at 11:15am, and 1 at 11:45am. If you space out 5 capsules like this then the peak is only about 3.5 capsules worth at 1pm:

On Sep 27, Oregon Public Broadcasting published an article, “Study says drug decriminalization in Oregon did not cause more overdose deaths”¹

Three years after Oregon voters elected to decriminalize drugs, a new study has concluded that the first-in-the-nation law has not led to increased drug use or drug overdoses. The conclusion counters an increasingly common narrative that Oregon’s drug problem is unique in the country — and that decriminalization is to blame.

...

I spent about a decade in the Southeast. I lived in Charlottesville, VA from 2011 to 2017 and in Richmond, VA from 2017 to 2021. Although I identify as one of the most privileged demographics, a white heterosexual man, I suffered from the racism of the Southeast. There is a subtle vibe of cruelty that taints everything from wealthy suburbs to the decaying downtown. I am so glad to leave that place.