Social media are deliberately and effectively engineered for engaging responses of System 1; therefore using social media for information consumption and production for an aspiring rationalist is an equivalent of drunk driving.
AndrewS
Karma: −6
Yes, all the things in the world can be classified into exactly three categories.
Did you spend some time today to use instrumental rationality to make your life better, or do you continue to consume rationalist-branded content to feel smart?
When you work in log odds, the distance between any two degrees of uncertainty equals the amount of evidence you would need to go from one to the other.
What does “amount of evidence” in this sentence is supposed to mean? Is it the same idea that “bits of evidence” mentioned in these posts previously?
The only way I can interpret this sentence as a definition of “amount of evidence”, but then I don’t understand what’s the point of highlighting the sentence as if it’s saying something more significant.
Never mind, posted the comment before reading the whole thing.
I don’t understand the point of this post other than to make fun of some beliefs without mentioning them; I’m pretty sure that I haven’t got all the references and ones that I’ve got (e.g. about panpsychism) aren’t as widely understood as the potential audience for a text on rationality.
Reading this feels like a waste of time to me. I suggest removing this one from sequences; I’m pretty sure that there are better ways to achieve the stated goal of this text.
Around a tenth of the times I turn in early, I find a dead sheep the next morning.
I don’t know if that’s nitpicking, but the fact that protagonist of the story talks about a fraction of the times before even being able to count sheep is mildly amusing
I should try to think as if everything I read about in history books had actually happened to me.
It looks to me that this requires to consciously force yourself to believe the historical events to have happened in the exact way the material you’re reading describes them; which is basically leaning into a fallacy “comprehending an argument tends to make people believe it” as described in an experiment in this post
You wouldn’t want to inappropriately transfer thinking skills from one context to another.
The link in this sentence is broken
Today the Center for Applied Rationality is working on repairing this huge mistake of mine in a more systematic fashion.
Given that the post was written 8 years ago, was “this huge mistake” repaired?
Not really IMO, I’d say the most prominent features of social media people get addicted to are high volume of posts and ML-optimized feeds.
I guess if reading/writing on LW also activates your System 1 response the same conclusion would still apply though.