The blogpost author (SquirrelInHell on LessWrong) died awhile ago. I’m not sure who’s currently paying for their website or how long it’ll be up. I don’t have the rights to this, but decided it was important enough to have on LessWrong that I decided to copy-paste this post and… I dunno, own whatever karmic debt I incur.
This is possibly my single-favorite rationality technique. The first day I tried this I immediately ended up teaching myself a valuable rationality-life-lesson due to the feedback loop it created. When I teach this technique at small workshops, typically ~25% of people go “oh wow that was immediately helpful.” I haven’t gotten as much value out of it as SquirrelInHell suggests (i.e. it’s sometimes effortful to think, and they claim if you’re doing it right it basically shouldn’t be), but I also haven’t really sat and trained it deliberately in-depth, and meanwhile I’ve gotten value from it each time I try it.
Text of original article:
Tuning Your Cognitive Strategies
What do you get out of it?
The good.
Better returns on thinking time.
Your cognition is much more powerful than just the part you have conscious access to, and it’s crucial to make good use of it.
A small tweak to how your brain processes information in general is worth more than a big upgrade to your conscious repository of cognitive tricks.
Goal-oriented thinking.
When working on real-life problems, your peak performance matters less than the ability to simply think useful thoughts at all.
For example, if your current top priority is “start my own company”, but you keep having insights about “what I’ll say to my current boss when I finally quit”… that’s maybe not the best way to make progress.
Improved ability to fix cognitive biases.
To the extent that other approaches work, it’s because they manage to change your cognitive strategies. It’s much easier when you know what you are doing.
More creativity and good ideas just “popping into your head”.
There’s no magic to it! Once you understand how the process works, it can be optimized for any purpose you choose.
Less anxiety about performing well in cognitive endeavors.
Once you realize exactly what is and what isn’t under your conscious control, you stop beating yourself about not doing the impossible.
The bad.
Uncanny valley.
Most people already have a thinking style built on top of excessive conscious cognitive effort.
This often involves relying on side-effects of verbal and conscious thoughts, while mistakenly assigning the full credit for results to those effortful thoughts.
When you already have some conscious/verbal thoughts, it is tempting to imagine they are the only result of your thinking, and then try to pick up from there. But this is limiting, because the most power is in whatever generated that output.
As you tune your cognitive strategies you’re likely to lose that thinking style.
While rebuilding from better foundations is certainly a good idea long-term, you’ll probably need to slow down and re-learn some old tricks in a new framework.
Control anxiety.
Having good quality thinking happen effortlessly and automatically is great… unless you are a control freak, in which case you should Tune Your Emotional Processing before even reading this page.
How to tell if you have it?
Note: everyone has cognitive strategies, and challenging yourself with intellectual activity tends to improve them (e.g. mathematicians tend to be very good at a certain specific class of strategies). However, it is very unlikely that you have reached your full potential by blind gradient descent.
You know how to think without “trying hard”.
The cost you pay for high quality thinking is mostly time, which you know needs to be free from other concerns.
You definitely don’t pay the cost in effort or willpower.
Your thoughts don’t get “stuck” when you most need them.
You can recognize and deal with every situation in which your mind stops generating useful output, whether it’s because of going blank, spinning in circles, or going off into fantasy lands.
There’s a constant stream of good ideas occurring to you.
If your brain is well tuned, it is going to produce useful output whenever it is feeling fresh and has a spare minute or two.
How does it work?
Consider this metaphor:
Imagine your mind as a giant bubbling cauldron full of “thoughts”, including “feelings”, “ideas”, “words”, “concepts”, “memories”, etc.
Some of those “thoughts” rise to the top of the cauldron, and get picked up by your conscious attention.
If the conscious “you” is like a cook standing over the cauldron, then the cook has only a very small spoon at their disposal. They can only taste whatever has bubbled to the surface.
Your creativity and thinking power come from the full depth of the cauldron.
The rules of how thoughts interact and form new thoughts are the same, regardless of whether those thoughts are conscious or not.
When you don’t like whatever has risen up to the top of the cauldron, the last thing you want is to try to “fix it”.
You only have access to the topmost layer, so it would be hopelessly ineffective anyway.
But it’s much worse than that—by attempting to “fix” your cognition, you stop being able to see how it works.
How well your cognition works is shown not by what thoughts you have at the moment, but rather by the pattern of how one or more thoughts combine into a new thought (“cognitive strategy”).
Instead, you want to learn as much as possible about the differences (“deltas”) between each thought and the next, as they occur to you.
Your brain already has the ability to update its cognitive strategies (this is called “meta-cognitive reinforcement learning”). However, the usual mechanism works with unnecessary levels of indirection, as in:
Cognitive strategy → Thought → Action → Reward or punishment
You get rewarded or punished for what you do (as measured by your brain’s chemical responses). Good thoughts are more likely to be followed by good actions. Good cognitive strategies are more likely to generate good thoughts. On average, your brain will slowly update its cognitive strategies in the right direction.
Cognitive strategy → Thought → Reward or punishment
You have learned to be happy or unhappy about having certain ideas, even when you don’t yet know how they apply to the real world. Now your brain gets rewarded or punished for thoughts, and on average good thoughts are more likely to be generated by good cognitive strategies. Your brain can update cognitive strategies faster, according to heuristics about what makes ideas “good”.
However, by carefully looking at the “deltas” between conscious thoughts, we can get rid of the last remaining level of indirection (this is the key insight of this whole page!):
Cognitive strategy → Reward or punishment
You have learned to perceive your cognitive strategies as they happen, and developed some heuristics that tell you whether they are good or bad. Now your brain can update cognitive strategies immediately, and do it regardless of the topic of your thoughts.
Even when you generate a useless idea from another useless idea, you can still track whether the cognitive strategy behind it was sound, and learn from the experience.
How to learn it?
Note: awareness is a muscle. Time spent trying to see your thoughts more clearly is time well spent, regardless of the degree to which you succeed at getting any specific results.
Step 1: basic sanity checks.
For practice, we’ll start with improving some simple local efficiency heuristics. They definitely aren’t the final goal, but will later be useful regardless of what goal you have.
Pick a small problem, question or thinking puzzle of any kind.
It’s best to use something that you think you can solve in at most a few minutes, and which makes it easy to see how well you are doing.
Choose something outside of your area of expertise.
In areas where you have a lot of experience, your thought process will be faster and more automatic.
Beware of “school trauma”: think about whatever you want to think about, not things someone else would like you to think about.
If you bend to external pressure, you’ll just reinforce the pathological pattern that thinking tools are your enemies, because they limit your freedom.
If you don’t have any ideas, you can always pick “picking a puzzle” as your puzzle.
Notice a thought chain.
Load the puzzle into your memory, and let go.
Instead of focusing on solving the puzzle, focus on the question “where do my thoughts go when this puzzle enters my attention”?
At minimum, try to notice a sequence of two thoughts (the shortest possible “chain”): the initial question you asked yourself, and the first thought that occurred to you afterwards.
It’s very important to focus on what feels like very quick, atomic transitions. Do not wait until you have a full word or sentence formed in your mind!
Aim for sub-second timescales. In fact, you can easily have a chain of 5 or more conscious thoughts in one second. If you think you can’t, you’re just missing skill in noticing it.
Repeat as necessary to get a clear read—just trying to do this is already valuable cognitive training.
Definitely change the topic when it gets too boring, which is when you no longer expect to be surprised by what you notice about your thoughts.
Example: just now, my thoughts:
looking at the typed word “Example:” → wanting to know what to type next → flash of dread at not having anything prepared → noticing that flash of dread → noticing that I noticed it → looking at the whole thought chain so far → noticing I executed the technique → realizing I can use this as an example → picking a grammatic form to describe it → …
Extract the pattern of “deltas”.
After you become aware of at least one micro-scale thought chain, you can reflect on the principles that generated it.
This probably shouldn’t be a very detailed or time-consuming analysis—your advantage here is that you have lots of raw data, so you don’t need to be very parsimonious with it.
In fact, the act of reflecting on a thought chain will necessarily generate dozens of a new thought chains. It’s basically impossible to run out of data to reflect on and learn from.
Think which “deltas” are doing good work for you, and which aren’t.
This will send a signal to your brain to learn and update the corresponding cognitive strategies.
Do not try to assume forceful control over what you think! This applies both to thoughts and “deltas”.
All you ever need to do is notice useful deltas, and have that little “oh, nice!” reaction. That’s it. Really.
The delta which moves you into noticing your deltas is very useful. Give it the reward it deserves!
Example 1:
After someone asked me to add examples here, my thought chain was roughly:
feeling of not wanting to bother → checking reasons to do it → noticing a cached thought that it’s good to give examples → doubting if this makes sense → what happens if I just stop doing it → intuition that this would be bad for BWT clarity → flash of reasons why I care about writing BWT in the first place → wanting to make a quick decision → deciding to add an example → …The deltas “planning X → question reasons to do X” (appeared twice) and “suspicious belief → try to negate it” seem useful.
There was also a pair of deltas “reasons feel shaky → investigate” and “reasons feel solid → use cache” which made me go off on a tangent once, but not in the other cases.
This means I’m also tracking in the background what it means for reasons to feel “solid”, and already have cognitive strategies in place which update this information. This is all very useful.
Example 2:
On the other hand, a large amount of low-hanging fruit can be extracted from noticing deltas which are obviously broken, like in this thought chain:
blank mind → noticing having a blank mind → verbal thought “my mind is blank” → feeling of despair → blank mind → …More examples of useful cognitive strategies, and common low hanging fruit:
If you hit an impasse (no new useful thoughts), relax and let your mind wander to related but different topics.
If your mind wanders too much, check why you even care about the problem.
If you think the same thought again, change the topic.
If you know what you are going to think, think something else.
If you think with lots of effort, remember it’s useless and just watch your thoughts happen.
If you don’t know in which direction to think, pick whatever seems fun.
Step 2: make sure to win.
Notice thought chains you generate naturally as you go about your life.
While local efficiency (not getting stuck etc.) is useful, it hardly has the power to change how you play the game. The biggest challenge in an open environment is knowing what to focus on in the first place.
This means that more than anything, you need to learn cognitive strategies that connect you to your goals, and means of achieving them.
For example, you can notice thought chains when you:
choose the next task to do,
do better or worse than expected,
plan your day or week,
process emotions,
change the topic in conversations,
accept or reject offers.
It’s recommended to do it without setting up external reminders.
A far better solution is to reinforce cognitive strategies which would make you naturally remember at the right times.
E.g. one or two straightforward deltas can take you from “feeling of mild dissatisfaction with decision” to “wanting to know how to think better”, from where it’s close to remembering to reflect on your thought chains.
Get the deltas.
Reconstruct as much as you can of how your mind went there. In real life, you are not restricted to the micro scale.
Try to identify both low-level and high-level patterns, such as key insights, emotions, changes of topic, and inspiration.
How does your emotional state influence your deltas?
You probably have a different cognitive style when excited, angry, happy, anxious, overwhelmed, content, scared, restless etc.
Keep your goals in mind.
Warning: this is definitely not about “policing” your thinking. You should never try to put restrictions on the content and style of your thoughts.
Do not use this under pressure (when someone or something tells you what goals you should have).
Also do not fall into the trap of rejecting vague, dreamy thoughts as worthless.
The best use of your brain when tired is probably to let it unwind and think relaxed, creative thoughts.
How well have these particular deltas performed in the past?
This amounts to maintaining a rough “track record” for all of them.
What are they optimized to do?
You’ll often find goals which you don’t necessarily feel proud of, e.g. feel better, impress someone (who?), prove something to yourself.
However, trying to attack those goals would be a terrible mistake—they are there as a result of your real preferences.
If you are surprised by this, it just means you didn’t know enough about yourself.
You need to understand where the patterns come from, and what you really want to achieve in any given situation (see also Tune Your Emotional Processing).
How well do you expect to do if you continue the current trend?
What would it be like to do better than that?
Further Progress
Turn the skill on itself.
Reinforce cognitive strategies that will help you with reinforcing cognitive strategies, and finding better ways to reinforce cognitive strategies.
The skill will then quickly bootstrap itself into your most powerful and general thinking tool.
Worth noting that the reason SquirrelInHell is dead is that they committed suicide after becoming mentally unstable, likely in part due to experimentation with exotic self-modification techniques. This one in particular seems fine AFAICT, but, ya know, caveat utilitor.
This seems reasonable to note; at the same time, I think that a lot of people who end up badly after experimenting with exotic self-modification techniques do so despite rather than because of the techniques.
This technique seems best if your problem is that your thoughts tend to often go down loopy, unproductive, distressing paths, in a way that you can self-diagnose with confidence. Which is totally a real thing! I used to find my brain making up imaginary offenses people had committed against me, and I would feel angry or vindictive for a moment. Fortunately I developed a thought pattern that immediately just notes “… and that NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED,” and then I move on from the moment. That’s a situation where it’s really easy to notice a bad thought pattern and change it, cutting out any real world action. And once I’d done it a couple times, I started noticing this as an overall cognitive strategy.
Another example is from my work as an engineer. During my first year or so doing research, I noticed several bad patterns of thought and behavior: throwing things out prematurely when I’d make a mistake, doing overly complex mental math, and trying to emergency correct mistakes rather than going to my desk and working out an actual plan of solution.
But in these cases, while “noticing my thoughts” was key to the solution, because it interrupted a bad pattern of behavior, it was noting the bad outcome, then working backwards to a specific root cause that got me there. Continuously monitoring my stream of thoughts was not part of this process. It seems like a technique of continuous thought-monitoring would be more important if the problem you were having was with your thoughts themselves. If your problem manifests as behavior, then paying attention to the stream of behavior and figuring out the root cause seems best.
Yeah, I considered explicitly leaving that note at the beginning but felt like this was just sufficiently different from the thing that led to their suicide that adding “WARNING! BUT ALSO I’M NOT THAT WORRIED?” didn’t seem overall worth it.
Romeosteven’s comment updates me a bit, though my current guess is this is still a fairly different reference class of problem (and the post comes with it’s own warnings about the thing romeo is pointing at, assuming I understand it properly)
Man, it does make me sad that whenever I bring up this technique, there’s an obligatory version of this conversation.
That’s understandable. But it does seem like the sort of thing I’d want to hear about before trying such a technique. Hopefully people can take it for what it’s worth.(i.e I don’t think we should automatically discount such techniques or anything)
I think that’s somewhat reasonable in this case, but, want to flag that it should be possible at somepoint to reach an epistemic state where you can say “okay, yeah, it was mostly coincidence, or at least not relevant, that this happened to this person.” Like, if someone invented a car, and then used the car to commit suicide driving over a cliff, you might go “holy shit maybe I should be worried about cars and suicide?”, and if you didn’t know much about cars maybe this would be a reasonable thing to worry about at first. But, like, it shouldn’t be the case that forever after whenever someone sells a car they warn you that the guy who invented cars used them to commit suicide. It’s privileging a hypothesis.
I think in this case it’s less crazy than in the car case to worry about that, but, I do want to push back against the impulse to always have a disclaimer here.
In the car case I think it’s obvious that car usage is not causally upstream of suicidality. If the inventor of the car died in a car accident, I do think that would be a relevant data point about the safety of cars, albeit not one that needs to be brought up every time. And in the real world, we do pretty universally talk about car crashes and how to avoid them when we’re teaching people to drive. From that perspective romeosteven’s comment is probably better and mine just got more upvotes because of the lurid details. (although, tail risks are important. And I think there’s a way in which the author’s personality can get imprinted in a text which makes the anecdote slightly more relevant than in the car case)
In cases like this I strongly prefer to be given the facts (or at least pointed toward them) and allowed to make my own judgment as to how relevant they are.
Whether you choose to join the conversation and present the argument for their irrelevance is up to you, but sharing all the facts that your audience might consider important, rather than deciding for them that some apparently-relevant ones are best left unsaid, is IMO more respectful and reduces the risk of doing preventable harm in cases where your judgment is mistaken.
Is your worry more about “maybe this technique is more dangerous than it looks?” or “maybe people will follow up on this by generally following SquirrelInHell’s footsteps, and maybe not all those footsteps are safe?”
More the latter. Or more like, doing things like this technique too much/too hard could be dangerous.
I think that might be true, but, at that level, I think it kinda makes more sense to put the warning over, like, the entirety of rationality techniques, and I think singling ones that SquirrelInHell wrote up doesn’t actually seem like the right abstraction.
Like, I do generally think there’s a failure mode to fall into here. I don’t think SquirrelInHell is the only person to have fallen into it.
This post does seem like it warrants some specific warnings (which the original post already included). But I think those warnings are mostly unrelated to what ultimately went wrong.
Source/evidence? I believe you but this seems worth checking.
Worth noting that both this and the fixing the motor cortex skill they advocate are very closely related to traditional buddhist insight practices and that without supporting emotional integration (Tune Your Emotional Processing, with Focusing as the particular version that Squirrelinhell advocated though a variety of self therapy modalities can work) it can be destabilizing.
I’m interested in more details about the failure modes to watch out for here. i.e. what sort of things might you notice happening to you if you were en route to being destabilized?
The post does explicitly warn about this, but I happened to a) already have some flavor of focusing by the time I started, and b) never actually ran at it that hard, so, I might still be underestimating how worried to be about it despite the warnings.
One possible issue that comes to mind is that if you start paying more attention to the low-level movements of your thoughts, you might start noticing thoughts that parts of you get triggered by, e.g. if they feel like particular kinds of thoughts are shameful to have. One concrete failure mode that I think many rationalists would be susceptible to, would be to notice something like
and then feeling additional despair and shame over your mind being stuck in an unproductive cycle and feeling that you should be able to do better. That may then create another layer of shame and despair on top of the original one. Although the original instructions say that you shouldn’t use this to police your mind, getting triggered in this way may create a compulsion to do so anyway.
Another could be mysterious feelings of dread and feeling bad, if you started noticing various thoughts/emotions that parts of you had been trying to block. Though I would expect that the most natural consequence of that would be you just losing the motivation to use the technique pretty rapidly, with it becoming another of those “that felt really useful but for some reason I don’t feel any interest in doing it anymore, shrug” things.
I think the main risk there would be if you had used this technique extensively enough to build up an increased introspective awareness that was harmless at first but then started catching more of whatever blocked trauma you had and had by that point been built up sufficiently that just stopping the practice wasn’t enough to bring it down anymore. That kind of a scenario would be similar to the cases where people start getting trauma symptoms from doing mindfulness practices; if one has already tried that kind of a thing before and hasn’t felt bad, then it might be an indication (on top of the base rate, which I think is reasonably low) that it’s low-risk.
There’s also the fact that the thought processes themselves may be protecting you from various traumas or doing other subconscious things for you. Since this tuning process isn’t based on introspection but on conscious judging of your subconscious processes, you could accidentally tune yourself away from emotionally load-bearing coping strategies.
Compulsive deconstructors shouldn’t be handed a full toolbox is one way I have thought of it.
I meant that emotional integration (like focusing) is helpful for avoiding destabilization.
I would say the signs are the normal sort you ’d see in mental health breakdowns:
One of my “responsible use” notes in “How To Observe Abstract Objects” seems directly relevant here:
The “notice something new” exercise in that post is extremely similar to “pay attention to the delta between thoughts”. Seems to me that it’s directing attention toward the same psychological event type, just not in the context of attempting to solve a problem.
I think it’s worth sharing here some details about SquirrelInHell’s suicide, specifically to point out to new people that Cognitive Tuning was not what killed SquirrelInHell.
This comment is from Slimepriestess, who is a friendly former-Zizian. I wouldn’t necessarily trust 100% of everything said by a former Zizian (and who should definitely not be treated as a pariah). But it’s pretty well known that SquirrelInHell was doing a ton of over-the-top shit at once (e.g. simultaneously attempting to use dolphin-like sleep deprivation to turn half of their brain into Lawful Evil and the other half into Transgender Good), and was simultaneously hanging around a bunch of violent and dangerous people, and they were all doing hardcore Roko’s Basilisk research.
Generally, I think people should be deferring to Raemon on the question of “is Cognitive Tuning safe?” and should, at minimum, message him to get his side of the story. This situation is a really big deal; if Cognitive Tuning works, that’s successful human intelligence augmentation, that is world-saving shit. Cognitive Tuning alone could become an entire field of intelligence augmentation, AND something that anyone with average intelligence can contribute heavily towards, since having a more typical mind will yield more insights that can be picked up and worked with by other people with more typical minds).
As of writing, I have spent about four months experimenting with the Tune Your Cognitive Strategies (TYCS) method and I haven’t gotten any visible direct benefits out of it.
Some of the indirect benefits I’ve gotten:
I discovered introspective ability and used that to get more insight about what is going on in my mind
I found out about the cluster of integration / parts-work based therapy techniques (such as Internal Family Systems), and have fixed some issues in the way I do things (eg. procrastinating on cleaning up my desk), and have also unraveled some deep issues I noticed (due to better introspective ability)
The biggest thing I’ve learned is that better introspective ability and awareness seems to be the most load-bearing skill underlying TYCS. I’m less enthusiastic about the notion that you can ‘notice your cognitive deltas’ in real-time almost all the time—this seems quite costly.
Note that Eliezer has also described that he does something similar. And more interestingly, it seems like Eliezer prefers to invest in what I would call ‘incremental optimization of thought’ over ‘fundamental debugging’:
On one hand, you could try to use TYCS or Eliezer’s method to reduce the cognitive work required to think about something. On the other hand, you could try to use integration-based methods to solve what I would consider ‘fundamental issues’ or deeper issues. The latter feels like focusing on the cognitive equivalent of crucial considerations, the the former feels like incremental improvements.
And well, Eliezer has seemed to be depressed for quite a while now, and Maia Pasek killed herself. Both of these things I notice seem like evidence for my hypothesis that investing in incremental optimization of the sort that is involved in TYCS and Eliezer’s method seems less valuable than the fundamental debugging that is involved in integration / parts-work mental techniques, given scarce cognitive resources.
For the near future, I plan to experiment with and use parts-work mental techniques, and will pause my experimentation and exploration of TYCS and TYCS-like techniques. I expect that there may be a point at which one has a sufficiently integrated mind such that they can switch to mainly investing in TYCS-like techniques, which means I’ll resume looking into these techniques in the future.
If you are willing to share, can you say more about what got you into this line of investigation, and what you were hoping to get out of it?
For my part, I don’t feel like I have many issues/baggage/trauma, so while some of the “fundamental debugging” techniques discussed around here (like IFS or meditation) seem kind of interesting, I don’t feel too compelled to dive in. Whereas, techniques like TYCS or jhana meditation seem more intriguing, as potential “power ups” from a baseline-fine state.
So I’m wondering if your baseline is more like mine, and you ended up finding fundamental debugging valuable anyway.
I’m not mesaoptimizer, but, fyi my case is “I totally didn’t find IFS type stuff very useful for years, and the one day I just suddenly needed it, or at least found myself shaped very differently such that it felt promising.” (see My “2.9 trauma limit”)
Burnt out after almost an year of focusing on alignment research. I wanted to take a break from alignment-ey stuff and also desired to systematically fix the root causes behind the fact that I hit what I considered burn-out.
I felt similar when I began this, and my motivation was not to ‘fix issues’ in myself but more “hey I have explicitly decided to take a break and have fun and TYCS seems interesting let’s experiment with it for a while, I can afford to do so”.
Another thing I notice after a few years of using this:
The OP says:
I think the author thinks of this as the primary insight here (i.e. getting to: “Cognitive strategy → reward/punishment”). And… I’ll be honest, I think this works and it makes sense to me, but it doesn’t work so obviously that I’m like “yes this underlying theory definitely checked out.”
But what I think is both more obvious, and still a useful stepping stone, is transitioning more from “Cognitive strategy → Thought → Action → Reward or punishment” to “Cognitive strategy → Thought → Reward or punishment”. A lot of my thoughts are obviously dumb (or useful) upon first glance. And shifting how much of my feedback loop happened within ~3 seconds vs longer timescales still seems very helpful.
Does anyone who knew SquirrelInHell know the subskills in the skill tree they never got around to writing?
EDIT: To clarify, are there any known skills which are equivalent to the Red subskills in BWT’s skill tree? I am very impressed with the exposition on BWT, and would guess the remaining skills were just as high value. Perhaps more than I’d naively guess, if there’s some synergy between them. If you think you know them, please speak out so we can get the complete BWT skillset.
I didn’t know them and can only speak to how I did the tuning ontology thing. For about 2 weeks, I noted any time I was chunking reasoning using concepts. Many of them familiar LW concepts, and lots of others from philosophy, econ, law, common sense sayings, and some of my own that I did or didn’t have names for. This took a bit of practice but wasn’t that hard to train a little ‘noticer’ for. After a while, the pace of new concepts being added to the list started to slow down a lot. This was when I had around 250 concepts. I then played around with the ontology of this list, chunking it different ways (temporal, provenance, natural seeming clusters of related concepts, domain of usefulness, etc.). After doing this for a bit it felt like I was able to get some compressions I didn’t have before and overall my thinking felt cleaner than before. Separately, I also spent some time explicitly trying to compress concepts into as pithy as possible handles using visual metaphors and other creativity techniques to help. This also felt like it cleaned things up. Compression helps with memory because chunking is how we use working memory for anything more complicated than atomic bits of info. Augmenting memory also relied on tracking very closely whether or not a given representation (such as notes, drawing etc.) was actually making it easier to think or was just hitting some other easily goodharted metric, like making me feel more organized etc.
With regard to ‘tracking reality with beliefs’ the most important thing I ever noticed afaict is whether or not my beliefs 1. have fewer degrees of freedom than reality and thus have any explanatory power at all and avoid overfitting, 2. vary with reality in a way that is oriented towards causal models/intervention points that can easily be tested (vs abstraction towers).
This seems like a potentially quite helpful concept to me.
I’d be interested in more details of how you go about checking for degrees of freedom.
I think when I do this sort of sanity-checking for myself, things I sometimes do include “wait, why do I believe this in the first place?” and “consider the world where the opposite is true, how would I know?” but those seem like different mental motions.
Easiest is a fictional dialog between a pro and anti position person. The anti person brings counter evidence and then gets to see how the pro position responds. If they respond by remapping the moving parts of the model in a different way, that indicates extra degrees of freedom. Then you can have an easier time noticing when you are doing this same move, ie back peddling and trying to ‘save’ a position when someone gives you push back on it.
how did you figure these things out if they were never published on be well tuned?
I didn’t, I’m naming some similar things based on their writing that I went through.
So you came up with it yourself?
yes
I think that list would be very helpful for me.
Can you form a representative sample of your “list”? Or send the whole thing, if you have it written down.
partially exists here, but very little explanation https://conceptspace.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Lists_of_Concepts
My unedited notes while reading this post, including an initial exercise log:
”Your cognition is much more powerful than just the part you have conscious access to, and it’s crucial to make good use of it.”
heck yeah
“A small tweak to how your brain processes information in general is worth more than a big upgrade to your conscious repository of cognitive tricks.”
absofuckinlutely
“More creativity and good ideas just “popping into your head”.”
oh that is appealing; pregnancy killed this and it’s coming back but i’m still starving
“Once you realize exactly what is and what isn’t under your conscious control, you stop beating yourself about not doing the impossible.”
is this true?
What does it mean to “tune” your “cognitive strategies”?
“Having good quality thinking happen effortlessly and automatically is great… unless you are a control freak, in which case you should Tune Your Emotional Processing before even reading this page.”
oh shoot, am I a control freak? i think i might be a control freak. but maybe not in the way Squirrell’s talking about? probably i should read both essays but i bet i’m ready for this one.
“How to tell if you have it?”
this section reminds me a lot of a bit of my writing that Duncan shared to LW once. i wonder if i can find it.
no i cannot find it.
Duncan found it for me!
Though I think what I demonstrate in this email does match the second two bullet points, it doesn’t really match the first. This session of thought was difficult, and required willpower. That’s why I don’t do it (in this much depth) constantly.
“When you don’t like whatever has risen up to the top of the cauldron, the last thing you want is to try to “fix it”. You only have access to the topmost layer, so it would be hopelessly ineffective anyway. But it’s much worse than that—by attempting to “fix” your cognition, you stop being able to see how it works. How well your cognition works is shown not by what thoughts you have at the moment, but rather by the pattern of how one or more thoughts combine into a new thought (“cognitive strategy”). Instead, you want to learn as much as possible about the differences (“deltas”) between each thought and the next, as they occur to you.”
Oh wow. Another take on the problem solving/study framing, I think.
From “Getting Started with Naturalism”, in [the section](Starting Place 2: Try Catching the Spark (All Of It, Or Just Part Of It)) where I summarize “Catching the Spark”: The final section of the procedure, “Choosing Your Quest”, leads you to reconnect with your intuitions from the beginning, then to choose a “quest”, a related question that will guide your investigations going forward. Going through this part of the process tends to be especially important for people who started out desperate to solve a problem (provided naturalism is in fact a good approach for them); it requires that you re-frame whatever you hope to solve as something that might be understood, something whose workings may be discovered through careful investigation.
It recommends something a little different though. It’s a goal orientation-->study framing, but “learn as much as possible about the deltas between temporally adjacent thoughts” is a place to focus attention that I don’t believe I’ve ever attempted.
this seems like pretty much an obvious, complete, ready-to-go technique that i could immediately implement the moment i chose to. however i do not think the “obvious” version would be “effortless” or “not requiring of willpower”, so perhaps i’m wrong about what the technique is supposed to be.
meta: i appear to be halfway through the post and part of me is still waiting for the post to start because it’s happening in the form of bullet points, which apparently i categorize as “part of an introduction, not the body of a post”. but actually i think this just is the post.
“However, by carefully looking at the “deltas” between conscious thoughts, we can get rid of the last remaining level of indirection (this is the key insight of this whole page!): Cognitive strategy → Reward or punishment You have learned to perceive your cognitive strategies as they happen, and developed some heuristics that tell you whether they are good or bad. Now your brain can update cognitive strategies immediately, and do it regardless of the topic of your thoughts. Even when you generate a useless idea from another useless idea, you can still track whether the cognitive strategy behind it was sound, and learn from the experience.”
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. hmmmmmm. hmm.
this.… seems...........… great if you’re happy to rely on your existing taste network. this is what the part in Zen and Motorcycles is about, where the guy demonstrates to the students that they already know how to write well.
granted, i think most people are shit at putting their existing taste network to use when doing almost anything deliberately, precisely because they don’t know how to observe experiences that are quiet or fleeting, and so there’s a ton of value here.
but apparently i was expecting something different, and something about the distance between what i expected and what i heard made me be all “this some kind of dangerous/bad/circular”
oh oh oh i think i’ve got it. what happened was, i thought this was going to tell me about improving my thoughts. instead it is telling me about improving my actions by listening to my thoughts.
no, reading back through, i think that’s not what happened.
suppose i read this section while being deliberately grumpy at it. what stands out?
“punishment”
(oh, some curiosity seems to have made it through the grumpiness: what is “cognitive strategies”?)
“whether they are good or bad”
“sound”
what are the grumps picking out here? they seem to be picking out things about judgement and rejection.
i suspect i do not disagree with Squirrel anything propositional here. my current story is that they and i have different aesthetic intuitions about how to relate to preconscious thought, and my introspective skill rests heavily on my aesthetic taste. wait, surely that *is* a substantive disagreement? no, i think it’s not; i think it’s likely they accomplish almost exactly the same thing using almost exactly the same strategies, but their version of the strategies feels a little different, and it sounds a little different when described. hmmmmm. i’m still conflicted on this. ah, ok perhaps the thing is:
there’s a type of strategy with parts X, Y, Z. they and i have the same Y and Z. X can actually be several different things, as long as it has properties that allow it to fill the right roles in the strategy with Y and Z. their X’ involves something judgement-flavored. my X″ involves something awesomeness/discernment/beauty-flavored. both X’ and X″ function basically the same in the overall strategy. (obviously discernment is mostly another word for judgement.)
“Note: awareness is a muscle. Time spent trying to see your thoughts more clearly is time well spent, regardless of the degree to which you succeed at getting any specific results.”
yes ok fine. i will compile and publish the load of attention stuff that seemed kind of tangential and i wasn’t sure people would be interested in.
“Pick a small problem, question or thinking puzzle of any kind.”
I will divide 347 by 16 in my head. (i am bad with numbers and this may be embarrassing if anybody reads this but i will do it anyway.)
“Beware of “school trauma”: think about whatever you want to think about, not things someone else would like you to think about.”
do i want to think about dividing 347 by 16? no not really. i do sort of want to be able to mental math, but perhaps i can find a better topic for this exercise. what do i actually want to think about? what is exciting to me right now? music, especially Arvo Pärt. but i’m not sure i have any live puzzles on that at the moment. there’s “why do i keep being unable to read the bass line year after year?”, but i think i’m reaching for a less fully internal problem. same with “how is it that i’m still only reading tabs for guitar instead of standard notation?” there’s of course this problem i’m trying to solve at this very moment, but i don’t want something so self-referential either. still, i’m drawn to “something with this guitar, since it’s right here and also about music.” hm what if i tried to describe Pärt’s tintinnabuli compositional method *spatially*, using the guitar neck? i’m not really sure that makes sense, but if i succeeded, i imagine it would allow me to *improvise* guitar music in tintinnabulation! yes bingo that is a small external non-self-referential problem i want to think about. (i don’t know if it’s a “thinking puzzle”; i don’t know what “thinking” is.)
“If you don’t have any ideas, you can always pick “picking a puzzle” as your puzzle.”
oh lol apparently Squirrell didn’t share my intuition about self reference.
“Load the puzzle into your memory, and let go.”
i’m not sure what they mean by “into my memory”. but i will pick up the guitar and try to get a handle on the problem. and then “let go”? interesting that i chose the phrase “get a handle on”.
i think i need to read more before i get going.
“Instead of focusing on solving the puzzle, focus on the question ‘where do my thoughts go when this puzzle enters my attention’?” <3<3<3<3<3
“Aim for sub-second timescales. In fact, you can easily have a chain of 5 or more conscious thoughts in one second. If you think you can’t, you’re just missing skill in noticing it.” who the fuck is this is this me from a parallel dimension what is going on. i feel electrified right now. like watching Stephan Lambiel on the ice.
me in What It’s Like To Notice Things: “(”Can you really distinguish between 200 and 500 milliseconds?” Yes, but it’s an acquired skill. I spent a block of a few minutes every day for a month, then several blocks a day for about a week, doing this Psychomotor Vigilance Task when I was gathering data for the polyphasic sleep experiment. It gives you fast feedback on simple response time. I’m not sure if it’s useful for anything else, but it comes in handy when taking notes on experiences that pass very quickly.)”
ok this seems like a good point at which to try a bit, before moving to the next step
it’s unfortunate that i can’t hold the guitar and type a the same time. “easily”; i can’t hold the guitar and type easily at the same time. i play a string. there’s a fruit fly here. the string i play is A. but i don’t need to know that it’s A, because i’m doing this spatially. i suspect i am not doing “let go”, unless “let go” is in contrast to something i’m already not doing. what if i “let go” more though? what if i load the problem into memory more though. i have a guitar, but where is tintinnabuli? there is force here, when i do that. do i want the force? i suspect i do not want the force, but i do want tintinnabuli present. what if i invite it with openness, while holding the guitar. i play the second string. i kill the gnat, and i’m sad and conflicted about killing the gnat. i refocus on the guitar. i play the second string, and i plan to play the second string over and over while inviting “tintinnabuli”. i imagine “down”. the first string comes to mind. “two steps”. but! but up could happen also. it is a rule, a rule that is not yet established. “the t line has a relationship to the melody. i haven’t yet invented that relationship.” i think words, and i want to think spaces. curious: what are these concepts spatially? i’m aware of frets.
all right that’s enough of a sample for now. i’ll continue reading.
ah i think i have not captured the level of granularity Squirrell wants. i didn’t realize we were working so small. i’ll try again.
left hand fingers on the strings in a familiar pattern-->settling in-->plucking as comes naturally with my right hand-->happiness/comfort/”harmony”/resolution-->”arpeggio”
the act of typing is definitely getting in the way as i hold the guitar. if i want a reflective record, i think i’ll either need to record my voice, or plan not to record during and rely on my memory.
“Think which “deltas” are doing good work for you, and which aren’t.”
this part gives me the grumps again
“All you ever need to do is notice useful deltas, and have that little “oh, nice!” reaction. That’s it. Really.”
i’m not sure what “useful” is doing here. but also i feel grumpy at “useful”, and i feel reflectively grumpy at “i’m not sure what ‘useful’ is doing here” because it’s a smoke screen for feeling grumpy at “useful”. “i’m not sure what ‘useful’ is doing here” sounds like it involves curiosity but mostly it doesn’t. if i meant it for real, i’d want to know what “useful” is doing here, but mainly i just want “useful” to go away. however, “wanting ‘useful’ to go away” isn’t allowed, so i pretend i am expressing ignorance or confusion. anyway, i don’t need to do anything besides… wait, hang on a second. it’s the space between thoughts. that’s the point. not the thoughts. i thought i had the hang of it but i was wrong. try again. don’t write it down this time, just figure out how to improvise tintinnabulation spatially, and look at the space between thoughts.
uuuuuuhhhhh ok this might be a big deal. i can’t tell yet. it’s a little unfamiliar and not yet easy. i’m not certain it’ll go anywhere. but it feels different, and good. i’ll describe what i was doing.
first of all, i got rid of words. words were obviously in my way. way too cumbersome. i don’t think in words, especially not when engaging with music. instead i put my hands on the guitar and started doing things. i tried to rest my attention on the spaces between thoughts while doing things. on the transitions. “thoughts” is certainly a misleading term here, for me. “impulses” is much more accurate. “the things that moved my fingers”, perhaps. but smaller than that even; sometimes it was the things that moved my fingers, sometimes it was the redirection of my attention in response to what i heard, sometimes it was the way my chest felt. but i tried to… no, “rest” is the wrong word. i did not rest my attention on the space between mental movements. my attention *surfed* the space between mental movements. i wouldn’t describe it as “effortless”, but it was not at all “thinky”. and i did begin to make progress on the problem, “using only system one” or something. it felt nice. but i didn’t get very far. i’m not sure the “progress” was real.
more concretely, what did i do, with my fingers? i played some notes, and i liked some of them in sequence. so i replayed those notes, and then i added more afterward, and then i felt the completion of a phrase. i repeated the phrase several times. then i started adding notes on top of the melody. well, beneath the melody. but at first i didn’t like the notes. i felt a traffic jam, and looked for its source, and realized that i was trying to play two different notes on the same string. i searched for the note i wanted on the string below, and found it. oh, i hadn’t realized this before now, but i did uncover an important principle of spatial tintinnabuli composition: the fifth fret of the adjacent lower string equals the open string. i knew this already, of course, but i had not contextualized it this way. i had used this information to tune the instrument, and sometimes i had intellectually-top-down transcribed something into another physical chord configuration using this principle, but i had not visualized the sixth and seventh frets of the adjacent lower string as copies of the first and second frets of the string above it. i really did make concrete progress on the problem in practice without thinking about it intellectually.
oh fuck i just remembered that the very earliest version of my attempt to communicate about “naturalism” qua comprehensive method was called “how to solve a problem before you know what the problem is”. that sounds an awful lot like what i did here. but this method is smaller and a little different. this is for immediate right-in-front-of-you-all-at-once problems. (maybe it’s for other kinds of problems also.)
“The delta which moves you into noticing your deltas is very useful. Give it the reward it deserves!”
yeah i seem to really hate this reward/punishment framing, yet i can’t belief report that it doesn’t accurately describe what i’m doing (and what i endorse doing)
I just reread this.
Since writing this post I’ve tried to do this in workshops a few time. People struggled a lot with it. One thing I noticed here was Logan is pretty skilled at the related subskills here, and it still requires a lot of attention and iteration to grok it and get the hang of it.
I’m not sure whether I grokked the skill or not when I first did it. I think I was doing a cruder thing that was still really helpful. I’m honestly still not sure whether the thing with the deltas is helpful over the raw stream of thoughts.
After iterating in workshops a bit, I now start people off with ’load the puzzle up, and then notice the very first thing that pops into your mind and then stop. And then look at it a bit. And then go back to the puzzle again and notice the first two things that happen in your mind, and stop. And only then go on to observing yourself as you solve the puzzle.
ITT: links to the original post on various archives.
Previous discussion: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hGtBH7SJy6Y2SmAj6/tune-your-cognitive-strategies
Longevity-wise, https://squirrelinhell.blogspot.com/ should be up indefinitely since AFAIK, Blogspot/Blogger has no nasty deletion policies (although I have not checked specifically, they are one of the oldest blog hosts on the Internet, and apparently they are considered safe from Google axing because they are used internally so much for Google official posting). http://bewelltuned.com/ seems to duplicate a lot of the content, and the copyright date suggests most of it has been there for at least several years, and it looks easily crawled, so it should be well-archived.
perma.cc
archive.ph
Wayback machine
looks like https://github.com/squirrelinhell/bewelltuned is the HTML source on GitHub
The way I’ve personally used this technique/practice is to have a lapscreen, with two pages side by side – one as a notebook where I can jot thoughts down, and one with whatever puzzle I’m trying to solve. (I found brilliant.org to be a good source of puzzles)
I try to jot thoughts down as I have them (often with very rough notes that only make sense to me since trying to write down too much would slow down the process too much)
The post emphasizes noticing thoughts at the sub-second level. Obviously, writing out a focus-handle for 5 different thoughts in the space of a second isn’t practical. But what I do here is often let myself have a few thoughts/impulses in a row, then go back and try to notice/remember them all, and then write them down after-the-fact in an attempt to crystallize them and reinfoce the noticing process.
Do you think having a well-defined puzzle (like a math problem) is a better way to make the usefulness of this technique clear?
A lot of what I work on are more open-ended questions like trying to remember how techniques work or concepts are about (ie ANOVA). In these cases, the process is more about recalling or reconstructing various insights, definitions and equations, with no clear stopping point. I’m wondering if I’ve been trying to apply this cognitive tuning technique to a problem it’s not well suited for?
I think the technique is relevant to basically all cognition, but working on well-defined problems is useful for the “figure out if it’s actually helping” and “fine-tune your approach to ensure you’re using it usefully”.
(When I use this technique for more open-ended problems I think it’s still useful to have two screen-pages open, one of which is still more for rough-unstructured notes and one of which is more for “here’s my distillation of my current understanding of the problem.”
It seems to me like people here started focusing on the wrong things. People who knew SquirrelInHell know that the suicide was likely caused by SquirrelInHell simply starting out already over the edge, e.g. hardcore obsessive Roko’s basilisk research.
The issue at hand with the matter of tuning cognitive strategies is not “does this drive people crazy”, it is “does delta reinforcement actually work”, because if delta reinforcement actually works, then that is
As in, like, comparable in value to the rest of Lesswrong put together. If this works, even if it only works on 10-25% of people (which Raemon’s testimony indicates), then this is basically the world-saving nearterm human intelligence augmentation (which yud wants to scale).
Everything we have so far, on alignment and macrostrategy, came from human minds that were not really tuning their cognitive strategies. High-output passive thinking, and fun downhill thinking, have immense potential to set the world up so that someone, somewhere, eventually thinks of a solution to the world’s most pressing problems.
This is not something to sleep on.
I don’t think that’s true. I’d independently intuited my way into something like this post, and I suspect that a lot of people successfully doing high-impact cognitive work likewise stumble their way into something like this technique. Perhaps not consciously, nor at the full scale this post describes, but well enough that explicitly adopting it will only lead to marginal further improvements.
Which is the case for a lot of LW-style rationality techniques, I think. Most people who can use them and would receive benefits from using them would’ve developed them on their own eventually. Consuming LW content just speeds this process up.
So this sort of thing is useful at the individual level, but in most cases, you ain’t “beating the market” with this — you just do well. And a hypothetical wide-scale adoption would lead to a modest elevation of the “sanity waterline”, but not any sort of cognitive revolution (second-order effects aside).
Gahhhh I’ve been waiting for the rest of BeWellTuned for a while now. I was hoping it was held up for a happy reason, like the author being busy with work they found important. :(
I grabbed a personal copy. You can use
wget --recursive --level=inf --convert-links --page-requisites --wait=1 "http://bewelltuned.com/″to do so. This will not overload the website, both because the total number of pages is small and because it waits a bit in-between each page. I really wanted to go through this next year and don’t want to lose the ability to.:(
The LessWrong Review runs every year to select the posts that have most stood the test of time. This post is not yet eligible for review, but will be at the end of 2024. The top fifty or so posts are featured prominently on the site throughout the year. Will this post make the top fifty?