Perhaps an even stronger bias on my part is that I want to see more people in the world who are like me, i.e., who are interested in and capable of solving some of the same problems as me. When I look back on my life and try to see how I got here, it seems like “not caring much about socializing and social skills” is a big part of it, since that freed up a lot of time and energy to think. I’m worried that things like LW and mini-camp with their message of “being a good rationalist means you should learn social skills” are “killing off” those future people.
Paul Graham made a similar point in “Why Nerds are Unpopular”. It’s true that socializing doesn’t help me solve hard problems, but I still do it because it makes me happier.
It’s true that socializing doesn’t help me solve hard problems, but I still do it because it makes me happier.
I wonder how much of “socializing makes me happier” has to do with alcohol. (I have a genetic condition somewhat common amongst East Asians that makes my liver unable to process alcohol properly, so I can’t drink.)
Also, sorry to tell you this, but I consider your happiness secondary to getting my list of questions answered. :)
I wonder how much of “socializing makes me happier” has to do with alcohol.
I’d say this hypothesis is false. Even in places like where drinking is out of the question, like most workplaces, people are normally much happier if they’re surrounded by others with whom pleasant socializing is possible. My work, for example, demands long periods of intense individual concentration, but my happiness, morale, and ultimately also productivity would still suffer greatly if I were surrounded by completely unsociable coworkers, even if formal work-related communication with them went flawlessly.
I gave you an up vote, but I’ve got mixed feelings about it.
I dress casually, and not to impress, but I wonder if I’m missing something.
Is it plausible that people who want to affect the world should find a way to care enough about social skills to trot them out for occasional use, but mostly (especially when young) spend most of their time on other things?
Maybe a rationalist community can share the mental work of dressing well (keeping track of fashion and good deals) so that it’s less onerous for individuals.
Where dressing better and social skills are important is if you want to go outside of the solving problem arena and try to spread solutions to other people.
Edit: From person to person, rather than through writing.
Parse “dressing badly” as “dressing as you would if clothes signaled nothing”. It is costly (social cost), and it is signalling, but it’s not costly signalling in the same sense as “I’m going to buy a suit instead of diamond-studded ice cream”.
I have the same suspicion as lucidfox. Also,
This is self-defeating, no? Dressing badly to send a signal is costly signaling.
Perhaps an even stronger bias on my part is that I want to see more people in the world who are like me, i.e., who are interested in and capable of solving some of the same problems as me. When I look back on my life and try to see how I got here, it seems like “not caring much about socializing and social skills” is a big part of it, since that freed up a lot of time and energy to think. I’m worried that things like LW and mini-camp with their message of “being a good rationalist means you should learn social skills” are “killing off” those future people.
Paul Graham made a similar point in “Why Nerds are Unpopular”. It’s true that socializing doesn’t help me solve hard problems, but I still do it because it makes me happier.
I wonder how much of “socializing makes me happier” has to do with alcohol. (I have a genetic condition somewhat common amongst East Asians that makes my liver unable to process alcohol properly, so I can’t drink.)
Also, sorry to tell you this, but I consider your happiness secondary to getting my list of questions answered. :)
I’d say this hypothesis is false. Even in places like where drinking is out of the question, like most workplaces, people are normally much happier if they’re surrounded by others with whom pleasant socializing is possible. My work, for example, demands long periods of intense individual concentration, but my happiness, morale, and ultimately also productivity would still suffer greatly if I were surrounded by completely unsociable coworkers, even if formal work-related communication with them went flawlessly.
Very implausible. (I also don’t like socializing. And don’t drink...)
I gave you an up vote, but I’ve got mixed feelings about it.
I dress casually, and not to impress, but I wonder if I’m missing something.
Is it plausible that people who want to affect the world should find a way to care enough about social skills to trot them out for occasional use, but mostly (especially when young) spend most of their time on other things?
Maybe a rationalist community can share the mental work of dressing well (keeping track of fashion and good deals) so that it’s less onerous for individuals.
Where dressing better and social skills are important is if you want to go outside of the solving problem arena and try to spread solutions to other people.
Edit: From person to person, rather than through writing.
Parse “dressing badly” as “dressing as you would if clothes signaled nothing”. It is costly (social cost), and it is signalling, but it’s not costly signalling in the same sense as “I’m going to buy a suit instead of diamond-studded ice cream”.
Yes. As long as we all occupy meat-space, I don’t think this is a game that we can opt out of.
Hacker culture at least prefers simple t-shirts to anything fancy or expensive. But even there, a clever one is probably better than a plain one.