I have Notes from Underground, but haven’t yet read it. Would you tell me what impressed you in it?
ABranco
Karma: 375
I’ve read Meditations.
Many wise aphorisms and thoughts there. Would recommend it for tougher times, as with any other stoic in general. Don’t read it when feeling incredibly happy, or you are bound to have your emotional state flatten.
This is the nth time someone recommends me Borges. Although I have never felt particularly attracted to his writings by sampling pages of his books, I am reaching some kind of irresistible threshold I am about to cross. Will read something from him.
Remarkable quote, thank you.
Reminded me of the Anorexic Hermit Crab Syndrome:
The key to pursuing excellence is to embrace an organic, long-term learning process, and not to live in a shell of static, safe mediocrity. Usually, growth comes at the expense of previous comfort or safety. The hermit crab is a colorful example of a creature that lives by this aspect of the growth process (albeit without our psychological baggage). As the crab gets bigger, it needs to find a more spacious shell. So the slow, lumbering creature goes on a quest for a new home. If an appropriate new shell is not found quickly, a terribly delicate moment of truth arises. A soft creature that is used to the protection of built-in armor must now go out into the world, exposed to predators in all its mushy vulnerability. That learning phase in between shells is where our growth can spring from. Someone stuck with an entity theory of intelligence is like an anorexic hermit crab, starving itself so it doesn’t grow to have to find a new shell. —Josh Waitzkin, The Art of Learning
I would love to see an ongoing big wiki-style FAQ addressing all possible received critics of the singularity — of course, refuting the refutable ones, accepting the sensible.
A version with steroids of what this one did with Atheism.
Team would be:
one guy inviting and sorting out criticism and updating the website.
an ad hoc team of responders.
It seems criticism and answers have been scattered all over. There seems to be no one-stop source for that.
For survival skills, I’d suggest buying this one before the disaster, while there’s still internet.
The argument that no one person in the face of Earth knows how to build a mouse from scratch is plausible.
I’ve had some dozens of viewquakes, most minors, although it’s hard to evaluate it in hindsight now that I take them for granted.
Some are somewhat commonplace here: Bayesianism, map–territory relations, evolution etc.
One that I always feel people should be shouting Eureka — and when they are not impressed I assume that this is old news to them (and is often not, as I don’t see it reflected in their actions) — is the Curse of Knowledge: it’s hard to be a tapper. I feel that being aware of it dramatically improved my perceptions in conversation. I also feel that if more people were aware of it, misunderstandings would be far less common.
Maybe worth a post someday.
P (H|E) = P (H and E) / P(E)
which tends to be how conditional probability is defined, and actually the first version of Bayes that I recall seeing.
Interesting article: http://danariely.com/2010/08/02/how-we-view-people-with-medical-labels/
One reason why it’s a good idea someone with OCD (or for that matter, Asperger, psychosis, autism, paranoia, schizophrenia — whatever) should make sure new acquaintances know of his/her condition:
I suppose that being presented by a third party, as in the example, should make a difference when compared to self-labeling (which may sound like excusing oneself)?
Or putting it differently:
One thing is to operationally avoid gaining certain data at a certain moment in order to better function overall. Because we need to keep our attention focused.
Another thing is to strategically avoid gaining certain kinds of information that could possibly lead us astray.
I’d guess most people here agree with this kind of “self-deception” that the former entails. And it seems that the post is arguing pro this kind of “self-deception” in the latter case as well, although there isn’t as much consensus — some people seem to welcome any kind of truth whatsoever, at any time.
However… It seems to me now that, frankly, both cases are incredibly similar! So I may be conflating them, too.
The major difference seems to be the scale adopted: checking your email is an information hazard at that moment, and you want to postpone it for a couple of hours. Knowing about certain truths is an information hazard at this moment, and you want to postpone it for a couple of… decades. If ever. When your brain is stronger enough to handle it smoothly.
It all boils down to knowing we are not robots, that our brains are a kludge, and that certain stimuli (however real or true) are undesired.
It’s not obvious that knowing more always makes us better off — because the landscape of rationality is not smooth.
The quote in Eliezer’s site stating that “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.” sounded to me too strong a claim from the very first time I read it. Many people cultivate falsehoods or use blinkers that are absolutely necessary to the preservation of their sanity (sic), and removing them could terribly jeopardize their adaptability to the environment. It could literally kill them.
Hi, Michael.
Can you expand that thought, and the process? Doesn’t adopting the other person’s criteria constitute a kind of “self-deception” if you happen to dislike/disapprove his/her criteria?
I mean that even if, despite your dislikes, you sympathize with the paths that led to that person’s motivations, if reading a book happens to be a truly more interesting activity at that moment, and is an actionable alternative, I don’t see how connecting with the person could be a better choice.
Unless… you find something very enjoyable in this process itself that doesn’t depend much on the person. I remember your comment about “liking people’s territories instead of their maps” — it seems to be related here. Is it?
He referred to something along the lines of “the sensation of being surprised”, if I recall it correctly. Would you choose to know everything, if you could, but then never having this sensation again?
I think that would be great. Any initiative here? Quantifying the results Amazon-like would be great.
That’s very interesting, and makes lots of sense. Reminds me of the technique of kicking the wall to stop the headache.
How to know which substitutions are the most suitable? For instance, what would you use to substitute for bad memories of the past? Fears of the future? Boredom with the task at hand?
I happen not yet to be a great specialist in brain anatomy...
Why did you choose 50% chance of reward of the gummy, and not 100%? Or half a gummy?
Nice post, John. Please post more on those topics.
Question: not sure I understood exactly what you meant by “I started eating a gummy worm with 50% probability each time I did the chore at a pre-determined time early in the evening.”
You won me in the first paragraph and your description of Vassar’s psyche.
I could promptly visualize his curious face investigating the walls, wrinkles between his eyes while he tries to draw mental connections between 11 different sources before coming up with an “Aha!”, followed by an elegant (normally accurate) explanation he’ll be pleased to share.
Developing over Rain: if you have time, you are curious and can make the other person at ease, questions will take you miles into the conversation. You’ll learn, and the other person will be pleased to share.
However, I also agree with JoshuaZ: inane subjects are a problem. One should not fake curiosity, and all subjects are not equally interesting. If the person only talks about something you don’t give a damn, faking interest wastes time and poisons your soul.
Talking to this person then becomes a gamble: “what is my expectation of maybe reaching something interesting here, if I keep asking questions enough for the next X minutes?”. Of course, given enough time, you’ll reach something interesting. But time is finite, and nobody seems to have enough time anymore, anyway.
So, with this person you could:
a. learn in the meta level (observe the dynamics of the conversation, or try to figure out his/her behavior); or
b. be the talker (if the person likes what you have to say, or you think you can help with something); or
c. just present her to someone who happens to also like celebrity gossips, make both happy, and excuse yourself to go find the waiter with the valuable cheese appetizers.
The visual guide to a PhD: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
Nice map–territory perspective.