Astral Codex Ten Podcast

Last post I thanked some of the people who have contributed to this blog. But once again, it's time to honor some of the most important contributors: the many people who give valuable feedback on everything I write. Here's a short sample of some of…most interesting. I'm avoiding names and links to avoid pile-ons. Some slightly edited for readability. "A cowardly autistic cuckolded deviant Jew who uses his IQ to rationalize away wisdom" "He's part of the self-declared 'Rationalish Community'. Imagine the ridiculous level of self-regard implied by that. Picture cb2 with a graduate degree. Scott Alexander, if brevity is the soul of wit, you're a witless soulsucking...

Today is the fifth anniversary of Slate Star Codex. Overall I'm very happy with how this project is going so far, and I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who's made things work behind the scenes. Trike Apps generously volunteered to host me free of charge. I give them the highest praise it is possible to give a hosting company – namely, that I completely forgot about their existence until right now because I've never had to worry about anything. Special thanks to Matt Fallshaw and Cat Truscott for their kindness and patience. Bakkot has done various things behind the scenes to make the blog more useable – fixing WordPress bugs, helping with moderation tasks, and adding cool new features like the green highlights around new comments. A big part of the success of the comments section is thanks to his innovations; the remaining horribleness is mostly my fault. Rory O and Alice M have also helped with this.

Rereading The Hungry Brain, I notice my review missed one of my favorite parts: the description of the motivational system. It starts with studies of lampreys, horrible little primitive parasitic fish: How does the lamprey decide what to do? Within the lamprey basal ganglia lies a key structure called the striatum, which is the portion of the basal ganglia that receives most of the incoming signals from other parts of the brain. The striatum receives "bids" from other brain regions, each of which represents a specific action. A little piece of the lamprey's brain is whispering "mate" to the striatum, while another piece is shouting "flee the predator" and so on.

At the beginning of every year, I make predictions. At the end of every year, I score them. So here are a hundred more for 2018. Some changes this year: I've eliminated a bunch of predictions about things that are very unlikely where I just plug in the same number each year, like "99% chance of no coup in the US". I've tried to have almost everything this year be new and genuinely uncertain. I've also included some very personal predictions about friends and gossip that I'm keeping secret for now – I have them written down somewhere else and they're for my own interest only.

[All things that have been discussed here before, but some people wanted it all in a convenient place] The most important study on the placebo effect is Hróbjartsson and Gøtzsche's Is The Placebo Powerless?, updated three years later by a systematic review and seven years later with a Cochrane review. All three looked at studies comparing a real drug, a placebo drug, and no drug (by the third, over 200 such studies) – and, in general, found little benefit of the placebo drug over no drug at all. There were some possible minor placebo effects in a few isolated conditions – mostly pain – but overall H&G concluded that the placebo effect was clinically insignificant. Despite a few half-hearted tries, no one has been able to produce much evidence they're wrong. This is kind of surprising, since everyone has been obsessing over placebos and saying they're super-important for the past fifty years.

H/T Robin Hanson: Aeon's The Good Guy / Bad Guy Myth. "Pop culture today is obsessed with the battle between good and evil. Traditional folktales never were. What changed?" The article claims almost every modern epic – superhero movies, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc – shares a similar plot. There are some good guys. There are some bad guys. They fight. The good guys win. The end. The good guys are usually scrappy amateurs; the bad guys usually well-organized professionals with typical fascist precision. The good guys usually demonstrate a respect for human life and the bonds of friendship; the bad guys betray their citizens and their underlings with equal abandon. They gain their good guy or bad guy status by either following the universal law, or breaking it.

Thanks to everyone who commented on the posts about conflict and mistake theory. aciddc writes: I'm a leftist (and I guess a Marxist in the same sense I guess I'm a Darwinist despite knowing evolutionary theory has passed him by) fan of this blog. I've thought about this "conflict theory vs. mistake theory" dichotomy a lot, though I've been thinking of it as what distinguishes "leftists" from "liberals."

There were a lot of good comments on yesterday's conflict vs. mistake post. Some were very appropriate challenges: for example, doesn't public choice theory itself assume conflict between special interests? And didn't Marxism start off with a dry incentive-based explanation for why capitalists have to do what they do and how the incentive landscape needs to change? I want to explore these questions further – but first, some data from the SSC survey showing that the distinction does capture something real and important. No questions really matched the conflict/mistake theory distinction, but one of the closest was POLITICAL DISAGREEMENT I: "Which of these plays a bigger role in explaining why some people are wrong about politics – intellectual failure, or moral failure?" This isn't quite the way I would frame it now – but it'll do for our purposes.

Jacobite – which is apparently still a real magazine and not a one-off gag making fun of Jacobin – summarizes their article Under-Theorizing Government as "You'll never hear the terms 'principal-agent problem,' 'rent-seeking,' or 'aligning incentives' from socialists. That's because they expect ideology to solve all practical considerations of governance." There have been some really weird and poorly-informed socialist critiques of public choice theory lately, and this article generalizes from those to a claim that Marxists just don't like considering the hard technical question of how to design a good government. This would explain why their own governments so often fail. Also why, whenever existing governments are bad, Marxists immediately jump to the conclusion that they must be run by evil people who want them to be bad on purpose.

They say money can't buy love. But that was the bad old days of fiat money. Now there are dozens of love-based cryptocurrencies – LoveCoin, CupidCoin, Erosium, Nubilo – with market caps in the mid nine-figures. The 17-year-old genius behind CupidCoin just bought the state of Tennessee. You think I'm joking, but can you be sure? How weird is "too weird to be true" these days, and how confident are you in your answer? Case in point: Luna, which bills itself as blockchain-optimized dating. They caught my attention by hiring Aella, previously featured on this blog for her adventures taking LSD megadoses weekly for a year. They kept it with their cutesy story about how the name "Luna" comes from founder Andre Ornish's first word – adorable, until you consider that any baby whose first word is in Latin is definitely possessed.

On December's survey, I asked readers who had children whether they were happy with that decision. Here are the results, from 1 (very unhappy) to 5 (very happy): The mean was 4.43, and the median 5. People are really happy to have kids! This was equally true regardless of gender. The male average (4.43, n = 1768) and female average (4.49, n = 177) were indistinguishable.

By Ted Chiang, on Buzzfeed: The Real Danger To Civilization Isn't AI: It's Runaway Capitalism. Chiang's science fiction is great and I highly recommend it. This article, not so much. The gist seems to be: hypothetical superintelligent AIs sound a lot like modern capitalism. Both optimize relentlessly for their chosen goal (paperclips, money), while ignoring the whole complexity of human value.

[Content note: Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies! dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions!] I. Allan Ginsberg's famous poem, Moloch: What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?

Alex Tabarrok beat me to the essay on Oregon's self-service gas laws that I wanted to write. Oregon is one of two US states that bans self-service gas stations. Recently, they passed a law relaxing this restriction – self-service is permissable in some rural counties during odd hours of the night. Outraged Oregonians took to social media to protest that self-service was unsafe, that it would destroy jobs, that breathing in gas fumes would kill people, that gas pumping had to be performed by properly credentialed experts – seemingly unaware that most of the rest of the country and the world does it without a second thought.

"Birth order" refers to whether a child is the oldest, second-oldest, youngest, etc. in their family. For a while, pop psychologists created a whole industry around telling people how their birth order affected their personality: oldest children are more conservative, youngest children are more creative, etc. Then people got around to actually studying it and couldn't find any of that. Wikipedia's birth order article says: Claims that birth order affects human psychology are prevalent in family literature, but studies find such effects to be vanishingly small….the largest multi-study research suggests zero or near-zero effects. Birth-order theory has the characteristics of a zombie theory, as despite disconfirmation, it continues to have a strong presence in pop psychology and popular culture.

I started reading Foucault's Madness And Civilization with the expectation that it would be tedious and incomprehensible. You know, the stereotype that postmodernism / post-structuralism / Continentalism / etc. involves a lot of negation of the negation of the inversion of the Other within the Absolute within [and so on for 200 pages]. There was a little of that. But there was also a fascinating look at the history of mental illness, an entertainingly bombastic writing style, and a few ideas that I might have actually half-understood.

At the beginning of every year, I make predictions. At the end of every year, I score them. Here are 2014, 2015, and 2016. And here are the predictions I made for 2017. Strikethrough'd are false. Intact are true. Italicized are getting thrown out because I can't decide if they're true or not.

I didn't realize how much of a psychiatrist's time was spent gatekeeping Adderall. The human brain wasn't built for accounting or software engineering. A few lucky people can do these things ten hours a day, every day, with a smile. The rest of us start fidgeting and checking our cell phone somewhere around the thirty minute mark. I work near the financial district of a big city, so every day a new Senior Regional Manipulator Of Tiny Numbers comes in and tells me that his brain must be broken because he can't sit still and manipulate tiny numbers as much as he wants. How come this is so hard for him, when all of his colleagues can work so diligently?

The Silmarillion describes the fate of the three Silmarils. Earendil kept one, and traveled with it through the sky, where it became the planet Venus. Maedhros stole another, but regretted his deed and jumped into a fiery chasm. And Maglor took the last one, but threw it into the sea in despair. Well, Venus is still around. But what happened to the latter two? Surely over all the intervening millennia, with so many people wanting a Silmaril, they haven't just hung around in the earth and ocean? After some research, I've developed a couple of promising leads for the location of the Silmarils in the Fifth Age.

[This post is about the 2018 SSC Survey. If you've read at least one blog post here before, please take the survey if you haven't already. Please don't read on until you've taken it, since this could bias your results.] I'm preregistering my hypotheses for the survey this year. So far I've glanced at Google's bar graphs for each individual question but haven't started exploring relationships yet, so I'm not cheating too badly. I'll still look for things I haven't preregistered, but I'll admit they're preliminary results only. This is the stuff I've been thinking about beforehand and will be taking more seriously:

If you're reading this and have previously read at least one Slate Star Codex post, please take the 2018 SSC Survey. This year's survey is in three sections. If you're strapped for time, just take Section 1. If you have a little more time, take both Sections 1 and 2. If you have a lot of time, take all three sections. Each section will take about ten minutes. There's some more information on the survey itself.

I wanted NSI-189 to be real so badly. Pharma companies used to love antidepressants. Millions of people are depressed. Millions of people who aren't depressed think they are. Sell them all a pill per day for their entire lifetime, and you're looking at a lot of money. So they poured money into antidepressant research, culminating in 80s and 90s with the discovery of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like Prozac. Since then, research has moved into exciting new areas, like "more SSRIs", "even more SSRIs", "drugs that claim to be SNRIs but on closer inspection are mostly just SSRIs", and "drugs that claim to be complicated serotonin modulators but realistically just work as SSRIs". Some companies still go through the pantomime of inventing new supposedly-not-SSRI drugs, and some psychiatrists still go through the pantomime of pretending to be excited about them, but nobody's heart is really in it anymore.

Thanks to everyone who commented on my last two posts, especially the many people who disagreed with me. Two things I will admit I got mostly wrong: 1. I was wrong to say there was "no case" for the tax bill. Aside from all of the minor provisions which can be good or bad, the case for slashing corporate rates is that they're more distortionary and less efficient than other forms of taxation. Thanks to everyone who pointed this out to me. 2. Several people brought up problems with the article saying CEOs say they will just give the money back to shareholders, most notably that giving money back to shareholders may stimulate the economy in other ways.

There was some good pushback on yesterday's article on taxes. But sorry, I'm still right. Many people responded with generic low-tax anti-government positions. Fine. Let's say the government is definitely bad and taxes are definitely too high. The current tax bill is still not the right way to do tax cuts. Budget director Mick Mulvaney claims that the richest 20% of people pay 95% of income tax; the Wall Street Journal's numbers are a little lower, at 84%. Total income taxes are $1.8 trillion, so the poorest 80%'s share comes out to somewhere between 90 and 280 billion. This is around the same order of magnitude as the $100 billion in tax cuts in the current GOP bill. So it looks like one alternative to this bill, no more or less costly, would be to halve income taxes for the bottom 80% of the population, maybe anyone making less than $100,000.

Here is the cost of the current GOP tax bill placed in the context of other really expensive things. Although it's not quite enough money to solve world hunger, it's enough to end US homelessness four times over or fund nine simultaneous Apollo Programs. I'm writing this post sort of as penance. During the primaries, I wrote a post arguing that Sanders' college plan was bad. And compared to any reasonable use of the money, I still think that's true.

About 30% of the victims of sexual harassment are men. About 20% of the perpetrators of sexual harassment are women. Don't believe me? In a Quinnipiac poll, 60% of women and 20% of men said they'd been sexually harassed. Opinium, which sounds like a weird drug, reports 20% of women vs. 7% of men. YouGov poll in Germany finds 43% of women and 12% of men. The overall rates vary widely depending on how the pollsters frame the question, but the ratio is pretty consistent.

Eliezer Yudkowsky's catchily-titled Inadequate Equilibria is many things. It's a look into whether there is any role for individual reason in a world where you can always just trust expert consensus. It's an analysis of the efficient market hypothesis and how it relates to the idea of low-hanging fruit. It's a self-conscious defense of the author's own arrogance. But most of all, it's a book of theodicy. If the world was created by the Invisible Hand, who is good, how did it come to contain so much that is evil? The market economy is very good at what it does, which is something like "exploit money-making opportunities" or "pick low-hanging fruit in the domain of money-making". If you see a $20 bill lying on the sidewalk, today is your lucky day. If you see a $20 bill lying on the sidewalk in Grand Central Station, and you remember having seen the same bill a week ago, something is wrong. Thousands of people cross Grand Central every week – there's no way a thousand people would all pass up a free $20. Maybe it's some kind of weird trick. Maybe you're dreaming. But there's no way that such a low-hanging piece of money-making fruit would go unpicked for that long.

Earlier this year, Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs wrote an article against school vouchers. He argued that private schools would be so focused on profit that they would sacrifice quality, and that competition wouldn't be enough to keep them in line. I counterargued that yes it would, and cited among other things the success of food stamps (ie "food vouchers"). These give poor people access to the same dazzling variety of food choices as everyone else, usually at reasonable prices and low profit margins. If school vouchers worked as well as food vouchers, they would succeed in their mission of improving choice without sacrificing quality. Now Robinson doubles down, sticking to his anti-voucher position and also proposing A Public Option For Food.

Question I'd never thought to ask before: are we sure it's a good idea to let people know what the laws are? The Chinese legal system originated somewhat over 2000 years ago in the conflict between two views of law, legalist and Confucianist. The legalists, who believed in using the rational self-interest of those subject to law to make them behave in the way desired by those making the law, advocated harsh penalties to drive the equilibrium crime rate to near zero. They supported the ideas of a strong central government, equal treatment under law, and written law available to all. Confucianists saw the issues in terms of morality rather than law and the objective not to modify by behavior by punishing and rewarding but by teaching virtue. They feared that a written law code generally available would lead to rules lawyering and supported unequal treatement based on the unequal status of those to whom the law applied…Some early writers argued against making the law code publicly available.

Medieval Icelandic crime victims would sell the right to pursue a perpetrator to the highest bidder. 18th century English justice replaced fines with criminals bribing prosecutors to drop cases. Somali judges compete on the free market; those who give bad verdicts get a reputation that drives away future customers. "Anarcho-capitalism" evokes a dystopian cyberpunk future. But maybe that's wrong. Maybe we've always been anarcho-capitalist. Maybe a state-run legal system isn't a fact of nature, but a historical oddity as contingent as collectivized farming or nationalized railroads. Legal Systems Very Different From Ours, by anarcho-capitalist/legal scholar/medieval history buff David Friedman, successfully combines the author's three special interests into a whirlwind tour of exotic law.

The Alchemist asked if I wanted a drink. I did, but no amount of staring could make my eyes settle on the color of the liquid in the flask. And the gold the alchemists paid the taxmen smelled funny and made crackling noises. I declined. I took the summons and set it on the table between us. The King's son was dying. The doctors, astrologers, witches, and other assorted wise people of the kingdom could not save him. The King had asked for an alchemist, and been given one. He, too, had failed. But he had let on that there were other alchemists in the guild, greater alchemists, who knew far more than he. So the king had demanded that all the guild's top alchemists come to the palace and try to save his son's life. And the alchemists' guild had refused, saying their studies could not be interrupted. So here I was, come to make the request again, more formally but less politely.

I turn 33 today. I can only hope that age brings wisdom. We've been talking recently about the high-level frames and heuristics that organize other concepts. They're hard to transmit, and you have to rediscover them on your own, sometimes with the help of lots of different explanations and viewpoints (or one very good one). They're not obviously apparent when you're missing them; if you're not ready for them, they just sounds like platitudes and boring things you've already internalized. Wisdom seems like the accumulation of those, or changes in higher-level heuristics you get once you've had enough of those. I look back on myself now vs. ten years ago and notice I've become more cynical, more mellow, and more prone to believing things are complicated. For example:

When I wrote about my experiences doing psychotherapy with people, one commenter wondered if I might be schizoid: There are a lot of schizoid people in the rationalist community from what I can tell. The basis of schizoid is not all the big bad symptoms you might read about. There are high functioning people with personality disorders all the time who are complex, polite and philosophical. You will never see this description because mental health industries center entirely around people Failing At Life, aka "low-functioning". As many radicals have noted, mental health tends to constitute itself mostly around "can't hold a job" or "can't hold a marriage". The only thing you need to be schizoid is to dislike contact with other egos, and to shave off the experience of those other egos ruthlessly before they can reach the fantasy world you retreat to.

SSC's review of postmodernism got very mixed reviews. Some of them made a good point: why should I be trying this at all? I'm not a postmodernist, I'm not a philosophy professor, surely someone much more qualified has already written a blog-post-length explanation of postmodernism. This is all true. My only excuse is that trying to figure out complicated concepts requires a different approach than trying to teach simple ones. Some knowledge is easy to transfer. "What is the thyroid?" Some expert should write an explanation, anyone interested can read it, and nobody else should ever worry about it again.

Some of the Seattleites put together a Postmodernism For Rationalists presentation that's been sparking a lot of discussion. It's not quite the way I would have explained things. I'm no expert in postmodernism, and can't give anything more than a very simple introduction to one of many facets of the movement. But I am an expert in explaining things to rationalists. So it's worth a try. Last week, I went over the evidence for and against a European Dark Age. Most people on both sides agreed on some facts in favor, like:

Rat Park is a famous study in which lab rats were kept in a really nice habitat that satisfied their every need. Contrary to the usual results with lab animals, scientists couldn't get these happier rats addicted to drugs. Researchers concluded that drug addiction, far from being the simple biological story everyone assumed it was, was really a just coping mechanism for intolerable social situations. Rats stuck in terrible cages get addicted to drugs, as do humans in terrible slums. But give them other opportunities for happiness, and the problem disappears. This has since turned into popular legend. From HuffPo: The Likely Cause Of Addiction Has Been Discovered, And It Is Not What You Think. From Intellihub: Rat Park Heroin Experiment Shows Cultural Roots Of Drug Addiction. There's even a Rat Park Comic and the inevitable Trump Could Learn From The Rat Park Experiment thinkpiece.

The Baffler publishes a long article against "idiot" New Atheists. It's interesting only in the context of so many similar articles, and an inability to imagine the opposite opinion showing up in an equally fashionable publication. New Atheism has lost its battle for the cultural high ground. r/atheism will shamble on as some sort of undead abomination, chanting "BRAAAAAAIIINSSSS…are what fundies don't have" as the living run away shrieking. But everyone else has long since passed them by. The New Atheists accomplished the seemingly impossible task of alienating a society that agreed with them about everything. The Baffler-journalists of the world don't believe in God. They don't disagree that religion contributes to homophobia, transphobia, and the election of some awful politicians – and these issues have only grown more visible in the decade or so since New Atheism's apogee. And yet in the bubble where nobody believes in God and everyone worries full-time about sexual minorities and Trump, you get less grief for being a Catholic than a Dawkins fan. When Trump wins an election on the back of evangelicals, and the alt-right is shouting "DEUS VULT" and demanding "throne and altar conservativism", the real scandal is rumors that some New Atheist might be reading /pol/. How did the New Atheists become so loathed so quickly?

A good scientist, in other words, does not merely ignore conventional wisdom, but makes a special effort to break it. Scientists go looking for trouble. — Paul Graham, What You Can't Say I. Staying on the subject of Dark Age myths: what about all those scientists burned at the stake for their discoveries? Historical consensus declares this a myth invented by New Atheists. The Church was a great patron of science, no one believed in a flat earth, Galileo had it coming, et cetera. Unam Sanctam Catholicam presents some of these stories and explains why they're less of a science-vs-religion slam dunk than generally supposed. Among my favorites:

Thanks to everyone who made interesting comments on yesterday's post about Dark Ages. Several people challenged the matching of the economic/population decline to the "fall of Rome". For example, from David Friedman: On the graph you are citing, 36 million is the population in 200 A.D. The fall of the Western Empire is commonly dated to about 450 A.D. By 400 A.D., on the same graph, population is down to 31 million–say 30 million by 450.

Cracked offers Five Ridiculous Myths You Probably Believe About The Dark Ages; number one is "The Dark Ages Were A Real Thing": The Dark Ages were never a thing. The entire concept is complete and utter horseshit cobbled together by a deluded writer. The term "Dark Ages" was first used in the 14th century by Petrarch, an Italian poet with a penchant for Roman nostalgia. Petrarch used it to describe, well, every single thing that had happened since the fall of Rome. He didn't rain dark judgment over hundreds of years of human achievement because of historical evidence of any kind, by the way; his entire argument was based on the general feeling that life sucked absolute weasel scrotum ever since Rome went belly-up. Likewise There Were No European Dark Ages, The Myth Of The Dark Ages, The Myth Of The "Dark Ages", Medieval Europe: The Myth Of The Dark Ages, Busting The "Dark Ages" Myth, and of course smug Tumblr posts.

Pop science likes to dub dopamine "the reward chemical" and serotonin "the happiness chemical". God only knows what norepinephrine is, but I'm sure it's cutesy. In real life, all of this is much more complicated. Dopamine might be "the surprisal in a hierarchical predictive model chemical", but even that can't be more than a gross oversimplification. As for serotonin, people have studied it for seventy years and the best they can come up with is "uh, something to do with stress". Serotonin and brain function: a tale of two receptors by Robin Carhart-Harris and David Nutt tries to cut through the mystery. Both authors are suitably important to attempt such an undertaking. Carhart-Harris is a neuropsychopharmacologist and one of the top psychedelic researchers in the world. Nutt was previously the British drug czar but missed the memo saying drug czars were actually supposed to be against drugs; after using his position to tell everyone drugs were pretty great, he was summarily fired. Now he's another neuropsychopharmacology professor, though with cool side projects like inventing magical side-effect-free alcohol. These are good people.

From Boston Review: Know Thy Futurist. It's an attempt to classify and analyze various types of futurism, in much the same way that a Jack Chick tract could be described as "an attempt to classify and analyze various types of religion". I have more disagreements with it than can fit in a blog post, but let's stick with the top five. First, it purports to explain what we should think about the future, but never makes a real argument for it. It starts by suggesting there are two important axes on which futurists can differ: optimism vs. pessimism, and belief in a singularity. So you can end up with utopian singularitarians, dystopian singularitarians, utopian incrementalists, and dystopian incrementalists. We know the first three groups are wrong, because many of their members are "young or middle-age white men" who "have never been oppressed". On the other hand, the last group contains "majority women, gay men, and people of color". Therefore, the last group is right, there will be no singularity, and the future will be bad.

Last post talked about individual differences in whether people found others basically friendly or hostile. The SSC survey included a sort of related question: "Are people basically trustworthy?" The exact phrasing asked respondents to rate other people from 1 ("basically trustworthy") to 5 ("basically untrustworthy"). 4853 people answered. The average was 2.49 – so skewed a bit towards higher trust. The overall pattern looked like this:

A few years ago I had lunch with another psychiatrist-in-training and realized we had totally different experiences with psychotherapy. We both got the same types of cases. We were both practicing the same kinds of therapy. We were both in the same training program, studying under the same teachers. But our experiences were totally different. In particular, all her patients had dramatic emotional meltdowns, and all my patients gave calm and considered analyses of their problems, as if they were lecturing on a particularly boring episode from 19th-century Norwegian history. I'm not bragging here. I wish I could get my patients to have dramatic emotional meltdowns. As per the textbooks, there should be a climactic moment where the patient identifies me with their father, then screams at me that I ruined their childhood, then breaks down crying and realizes that she loved her father all along, then ???, and then their depression is cured. I never got that. I tried, I even dropped some hints, like "Maybe this reminds you of your father?" or "Maybe you feel like screaming at me right now?", but they never took the bait. So I figured the textbooks were misleading, or that this was some kind of super-advanced technique, or that this was among the approximately 100% of things that Freud just pulled out of his ass.