Roko Keeps his eyes on the prize. Focus your modeling efforts on the issues most relevant to your goals. Be able to quickly refocus a train of thought or discussion on the most important issues, and be able and willing to quickly kill tempting tangents. Periodically stop and ask yourself “Is what I am thinking about at the moment really an effective way to achieve my stated goals?”.
I disagree, it seems to me that it was a good risk.
I too disagree. Even the act of writing this publicly is sure to have given insights into his own strengths and weaknesses. It would be rather difficult to not gain some benefit from introspection as your brain realises it is exposing itself to criticism and the status threat it entails. Any actual feedback from others he receives is just a bonus.
Criticism would be good from people who know you better. What you write online is probably a bad indication of your rationality. We don’t know what you behavior looks like in your daily life. I know I’m vastly more irrational than what I write here would lead people to believe. To the extent that reading what you wrote could tell us something important about you, it is fairly likely it would have come up already. And the time you have spent on this thread could probably have been used doing something more likely to help your rationality.
Bizarrely, the best way to prove me wrong would be to accept this criticism as extremely helpful.
What about only as a little helpful? Would that fail to prove you wrong?
Prove what wrong, exactly? That criticism would be good from people who know him better? Maybe those people are too close for objective criticism—maybe those people have too many good reasons not to provide honest criticism. Maybe Roko is looking for criticism of only how he behaves online.
Is Roko really proving you wrong by accepting the advice, or are you proving yourself wrong by offering advice you yourself believe to be relevant and worthwhile? How does Roko accepting the criticism make the criticism itself less accurate or helpful?
Finally, isn’t the best way to prove you wrong to show a flaw in your reasoning?
What about only as a little helpful? Would that fail to prove you wrong?
If my comments on this thread have been more enlightening to Roko than whatever he could have been studying instead of posting this then my argument is wrong. I sorely doubt that since my comments only conclude that Roko should have done something other than post this (Less wrong might be the only place on the internet where you can say this to someone). My comments weren’t extremely helpful. At best they were marginally helpful and that is why I’m not actually contradicting myself.
Prove what wrong, exactly?
The criticism that this post wasn’t worth the time.
Is Roko really proving you wrong by accepting the advice, or are you proving yourself wrong by offering advice you yourself believe to be relevant and worthwhile? How does Roko accepting the criticism make the criticism itself less accurate or helpful?
See the first answer. I don’t think the criticism was extremely helpful. And the criticism’s accuracy doesn’t change. But the extent to which Roko gains from reading it is less objective.
Finally, isn’t the best way to prove you wrong to show a flaw in your reasoning?
No. It is a lot more fun to performatively render someone’s point circular.
Roko Keeps his eyes on the prize. Focus your modeling efforts on the issues most relevant to your goals. Be able to quickly refocus a train of thought or discussion on the most important issues, and be able and willing to quickly kill tempting tangents. Periodically stop and ask yourself “Is what I am thinking about at the moment really an effective way to achieve my stated goals?”.
Voted down because this thread is probably not an effective way to achieve your stated goals.
I disagree, it seems to me that it was a good risk.
I too disagree. Even the act of writing this publicly is sure to have given insights into his own strengths and weaknesses. It would be rather difficult to not gain some benefit from introspection as your brain realises it is exposing itself to criticism and the status threat it entails. Any actual feedback from others he receives is just a bonus.
why? Specific criticism and ideas for improvement would be good.
Criticism would be good from people who know you better. What you write online is probably a bad indication of your rationality. We don’t know what you behavior looks like in your daily life. I know I’m vastly more irrational than what I write here would lead people to believe. To the extent that reading what you wrote could tell us something important about you, it is fairly likely it would have come up already. And the time you have spent on this thread could probably have been used doing something more likely to help your rationality.
Bizarrely, the best way to prove me wrong would be to accept this criticism as extremely helpful.
People keep telling me this, then failing to come up with anything remotely plausible. It took about 15 mins to write.
I have about 100 articles bookmarked for later reading. 15 minutes is good for getting through 1 or 2.
Of course there are a lot worse things you could have done with those 15 minutes too.
What about only as a little helpful? Would that fail to prove you wrong?
Prove what wrong, exactly? That criticism would be good from people who know him better? Maybe those people are too close for objective criticism—maybe those people have too many good reasons not to provide honest criticism. Maybe Roko is looking for criticism of only how he behaves online.
Is Roko really proving you wrong by accepting the advice, or are you proving yourself wrong by offering advice you yourself believe to be relevant and worthwhile? How does Roko accepting the criticism make the criticism itself less accurate or helpful?
Finally, isn’t the best way to prove you wrong to show a flaw in your reasoning?
Lord. I was just chuckling at the circularity.
If my comments on this thread have been more enlightening to Roko than whatever he could have been studying instead of posting this then my argument is wrong. I sorely doubt that since my comments only conclude that Roko should have done something other than post this (Less wrong might be the only place on the internet where you can say this to someone). My comments weren’t extremely helpful. At best they were marginally helpful and that is why I’m not actually contradicting myself.
The criticism that this post wasn’t worth the time.
See the first answer. I don’t think the criticism was extremely helpful. And the criticism’s accuracy doesn’t change. But the extent to which Roko gains from reading it is less objective.