Perhaps a collapsible “karma details” section, so that users still have the option to see a single number for each comment?
ameriver
There are a lot of things that are counter-productive to the exercise of sound judgment. Getting rid of such things largely the point of rationality.
It may be that you are incapable of functioning well around women right now, but don’t you want to do better? By arguing for a “rationalist” group which explicitly cateres to this irrationality, you are already conceding the fight against it.
A few weeks ago, I put a link to “Guessing the Teacher’s Password” into one of my physics class lab reports. My professor followed the link, read several articles, and has shared at least that first one with several other science faculty at the community college I attend.
Doesn’t quite count as non-geeky, but I am nonetheless well pleased.
This is one of the techniques I’ve always thought sounded really useful, but never had a clear enough picture of to implement for myself. Does anyone have an example (a transcript, or something of the like) of groups and/or individuals successfully discussing a problem for 5 or 10 minutes without proposing any solutions? I have trouble imagining what that would look like.
I think the implication is that undeserved guilt serves to signal to others—once the event has actually happened—that those things were not in your self interest. Everyone can see they weren’t, because you are publicly paying a higher cost than the benefit you would receive for having caused them.
Vanilla guilt perhaps helps, but it’s a much less powerful signal to the community. First, you must have committed a crime in the past, so they can know that you are a guilt-feeling person. Second, they have to trust that your personality hasn’t changed since then. Third, they have to know about/remember the incident in question, and fourth they have to make the mental leap of using that memory as evidence in this situation.
Thanks, that was well put (as was the original post). I don’t disagree with any of this, but wanted to point out that the hardwired results of evolution often can’t be counteracted simply by explaining to the meat-brain that they are no longer adaptive.
I think that Luke’s post would have been better served by an example in which the barrier to experimentation was, in fact, an irrational fear of something what won’t really happen, rather than a rational fear of an irrational (but hardwired) negative emotional experience.
If you have access to every single particle in the universe and can put it wherever you want, and thus create whatever is theoretically possible for an almighty being to create, you will know how to fill all of spacetime with the largest possible amount of happiness.
What I got out of this sentence is that you believe someone (anyone?), given absolute power over the universe, would be imbued with knowledge of how to maximize for human happiness. Is that an accurate representation of your position? Would you be willing to provide a more detailed explanation?
And you will do that, since you will be intelligent enough to understand that that’s what gives you the most happiness.
Not everyone is a hedonistic utilitarian. What if the person/entity who ends up with ultimate power enjoys the suffering of others? Is your claim is that their value system would be rewritten to hedonistic utilitarianism upon receiving power? I do not see any reason why that should be the case. What are your reasons for believing that a being with unlimited power would understand that?
I’d also recommend an introductory paragraph, where you explain what the post is going to be about, your basis for believing your information is correct, etc. Something like “this is a post describing a specific strategy for learning a new language. I’ve used it to learn Mandarin, French, Urdu, and Hindi.” First because the opening is rather abrupt, and second because (as you can see) without citations everyone assumes you’re working only from anecdotal evidence. If you aren’t, you should definitely give your sources. And if you are, you should explicitly make that disclaimer, because otherwise it feels (at least, to me) like you’re trying to make a stronger claim than just “hey, here’s something that works for me.”
I was discussing an error I had made in a calculus problem becaues I tried to integrate a function of x with respect to z. I pointed out I made the error largely because my calculus skills are rusty, and I was just remembering a password (“velocity is the integral of acceleration!”) and pushing on a magic button (INTEGRATE!) without remembering exactly what I was doing (calculating the area under the curve of a function of x, which doesn’t make when you try to do it by adding up tiny pieces of z). At the end of my post-mortem, I linked the article and said it talked about some of the issues I was trying to articulate.
This is really interesting. Could you give an example?
I think I may have been using the word “hardwired” a bit flippantly. I didn’t mean something that is literally ROM, but something more like a deeply-worn river bed. I think it is possible to overcome many of our (collective and individual) irrational emotional responses, but it’s not a trivial task. Steven’s comment is right on the mark.
As to evidence, I don’t have any that would distinguish between it being a result of evolution, and, say, something that many of our parents condition into us (which, of course, presumes a pre-existing response to negative parental feedback). I do have evidence that these sorts of things are not entirely—or even mostly—under conscious control.
I think the dichotomy you create of “hardwired” vs. “malleable” is a little bit too simplistic: there is a whole spectrum of brain-habits which run the gamut between them. “The Agile Gene” (popular science...) discusses this issue fairly extensively.
The most valuable lesson I ever learned from martial arts was how to fall down without hurting myself, and I’d say this is a skill that would help most people significantly reduce the number and severity of physical injuries they experience over their lifetime.
Fair point! I’ve certainly used it that way, although not in a very deliberate manner. It would be interesting to pay a bit more attention to that and try and nail how much intoxication, how quickly, etc for optimal social results.
Which is pretty much what lukeprog was talking about in his post anyway. :)
Depending on where you live, mold can become a problem.
FYI, I just tried to click through to your food blog from the link on your wiki userpage, and it is broken, I think.
I am volunteering to be considered. I don’t know anything about engineering jobs, and I’ve moved a few times, but not a ton. I’m good at organizey stuff, and I know a little about low-cost living strategies which make “getting a proper job” less urgent when you move. I have had several positive tribe experiences, as well as some negative ones. I don’t currently live near a LW meetup.
I’d expect that there are other people better qualified than I to help, but I am willing, and so I wanted to give you the option in case for whatever reason no one better volunteers.
In any case, I wish Andrew the best of luck in finding a tribe!
I would say that the analogous objective of rationality is to protect oneself from mental threats: dark arts, misleading questions, tempting but wrong arguments… where specific biases would constitute specific types of attacks.
A couple interesting corellaries from that line of thought: 1) like in a physical situation, mere awareness of the form an attack may take doesn’t always help; 2) like martial arts, in mental defense you have the option of developing a large number of highly specific defenses, or a smaller number of more generic ones
It does seem a little limiting to consider rationality nothing more than a mental form of self-defense, but I would argue that the higher levels of martial arts offer far more than that, and like rationality aim (among other things) for holistic life improvement.
An anecdote from my martial arts background:
A student asked, “Sensei, what would you say if I came into the dojo tomorrow and told you I had been attacked in a dark alley, and that I had protected my child who was with me, and defeated my attackers, and escaped unharmed?”
The teacher responded, “I would say that I had failed you as a teacher, because the ultimate goal of our art is not to defeat attackers, but simply not to be present when the attack comes.”
Over the past decade+ I’ve also found that an ability to monitor and hack your own mood is an incredibly valuable skill. Know what things trigger depression and either avoid them or work out a contingency plan to weather the storm… Have a mind-killer available for when a spiral is coming and force yourself to use it.
This is basically exactly what I’ve been working on to overcome my own depression.
Reading Less Wrong and working on the basic techniques of the sequences has made a huge difference. And note that the “mind-killer” doesn’t have to be a particularly healthy behavior—it just has to be better than the depression (at least to start on).It sounds like your girlfriend is dealing with some heavy external stuff, in addition to chemical brain stuff. I’ve found it helpful to remind myself that that which can be destroyed by the truth should be, but the reverse is also true. For me, being able to feel the difference gives me huge leverage on eliminating the irrational kind.
It occurs to me that when I’m reluctant to chat up a stranger, it’s not “actual” external consequences that I fear, so much as my own feelings of embarrassment, shame, etc (note: I’ve no idea if this is true for others). Feeling embarrassed is a (not insignificant) negative in my utility function. And it happens to be a fact about me that if the conversation goes badly, I will feel embarrassed!
Now, this is just a chimp-brain reflex. I’d willingly take a pill that made me less unhappy about failed social interactions, and it’s on my to-hack list. But I wanted to let you know that, in some cases at least, saying “hey, there’s no actual danger here,” doesn’t address the actual issue, because the anxiety isn’t based on that particular concern.