This may sound strange, but often closing my eyes and visualising random images helps ME in overcoming type 2 akrasia.
AshwinV
Karma: 136
This isnt hitting directly at the crux of this conflict, but I wanted to make this recommendation to you since you mentioned this strategy of 49 companies outta 50 failing… you oughtta check out this book called the black swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. It deals with small events having large impacts and how difficult it is to foresee some of these events. Also, he reasons that these events seem very predictable with hindsight. I think it will add significant value to this discussion thread
the part about the “truly strict”. well that doesnt actually clarify it either..
“I was just making a simple factual observation. Why did some people think it was an argument in favor of regulation?”
A (tiny) note of dissonance here. As noted earlier, any knowledge/understanding naturally constrains anticipation. Wont it naturally follow that a factual observation shall naturally concentrate the probability density in favour of one side of the debate (assuming, of course, that the debate is viewed as having only two possible outcomes, even if each outcome is very broad and contains many variants).
In this particular example, if the object of the debate is to decide whether maximum gain (or benefit, or however else it is to be called) can be gained from regulation, then the point about Dr. Snakeoil’s sulphuric acid being harmful to a (very real) section of the population, certainly implies an argument in favour of one side, even if not made with that intention.
I realise of course that this is an honest attempt to understand the problem and discuss it thoroughly before proposing a solution/ coming to a decision, but is there truly a way to be 100% neutral? Especially when in reality, most facts do have consequences that usually point to one side or another (even if the debate is much balanced in the eyes of the public).
What (if any) can be the “litmus test” to distinguish between a factual consideration and a clearly formed opinion? And are there shades of grey in between?
“Clearly, the solution to Peer’s difficulty is to become stupid enough that carving table legs is difficult again—and so lousy at generalizing that every table leg is a new and exciting challenge—”
I’m an in-house counsel at a leading renewable energy company (in other words, an average corporate slave who ends up doing many tasks repeatedly) who has to deal with many different large scale projects, but the truth is that a lot of the work that I end up doing has many similar terms and regulations, so there is some amount of repetition to my work. I am sure that this is the case with a great many number of jobs in the world, not just desk clerk jobs, but even jobs that are more cognitively demanding. I’m quite sure that even researchers in nanotech or space travel have routine jobs that they have to repeatedly perform in order to get to the more exciting aspects of their work.
This form of thinking (I’m now wondering whether it can be classified under the dark arts section) where you enjoy mechanically performing certain functions can in fact be tamed.
Another thought that occurs is that the same function i.e. carving a wooden leg can be viewed as two completely separate activities. If you went and asked Aldous Huxley, he would probably say that this is possible. If I remember correctly, he mentions this form of random perspective on more mundane day to day facts a lot in the Doors of Perception (I may need to refresh my memory, I read it years ago). Timothy Leary (although I’ve only read the Wikipedia page on this one, havent read one of his books yet) also seems to suggest that this can happen through a variety of different methods.
Does anyone think, any kind of effective compartmentalisation is possible wherein we combine the maximum fun that can be obtained while also retaining the ability to think cognitively/rationally when we really need to?
I personally found that after reading that one line, my estimation of Tolkien just shot through the roof. It’s also kind of inspiring, in the sense, you want to now start writing because it just somehow seems.......… cooler.
I guess one problem that crops up when dealing with the issue of lying is that there is no clear litmus test. It may be possible to give broad guidelines such as “it is ok to lie in situations A,B and C, but most definitely not OK to lie in situations D,E and F.” Real life is far more complex and subject to all manner of interpretation (not to mention all manner of bias as well). I strongly suspect that before we can rule on when it is ok to lie, or when it is ok to use a half truth we need to perfect the art of communication i.e. develop a system where we can keep perfect score of what words truly mean and how much deviation there is from the intent as well as how much effect the said deviation will have.
< In intimate relationship I think it’s very worthwhile to be open about feelings so that the other person can react to what you feel. When in doubt, focus on communicating what you feel instead of making judgements.
I agree with this part. Derren Brown talks about communication in his book “tricks of the mind”, and about what an important role it plays in relationships. He envisages a situation in which both members of the relationship are actually very much in love with one another, but their inability to express that affection leads to all sorts of complications and a lack of feeling of being loved back. As far as making judgments go, that part is not as much in your control as you think it is. Judgments are speedy mental processes and happen before you even realise that its happening. I doubt any one purposely thinks of all the ways in which their significant other is lacking and tries to use it to improve their position in the relationship (at least not in the kind of relationship that we are talking about here).
I dont believe the earlier part about the habit of lying transferring itself to academia automatically. Most people speak a certain way and write with another style. The difference between the two is that you simply have a lot more time in an academic situation in which you can analyse and decide exactly what you want to put across, something which is quite impractical in day to day communication. So unless you are already pre-decided on committing “Academic SIN” I doubt telling day to day white lies will send you to “Academic HELL”.
I just read the page that you linked. I have to say, that if we hadnt read that interesting bit about how the third act is supposed to be a non sequitur, and I had viewed that strip in isolation, it would have been a pretty lame piece of work.. I suppose it was an interesting way to get the idea across, but it doesnt answer the question as to how effective a form of writing it will be and whether it will be powerful enough to hold the attention of a reader.
I also disagree that this concept is alien to western culture. Many stories use this device in the form of mini sub-plots that may go un-noticed.
I may be biased as a big GoT fan.. but I think Martin does a fantastic job. The depth that many of his characters possess is very very impressive. He certainly seems to follow the many parts formula when it comes to characters like Stannis and Theon.
I ask you to contemplate—not just which world you might prefer to live in—but how much you might want to live in the second world, rather than the first. I would even say that the second world seems more alive; when I imagine living there, my imagined will to live feels stronger. I’ve got to stay alive to find out what happens next, right?
I disagree. However, I may very well be misunderstanding. Given that both worlds are equally novel, (and assuming that novelty/complexity is not more constrained in these imaginary worlds than in our real world), wouldnt it be better that we know as much as we possibly can about what the ‘adults’ know, so that we can spend more time/effort on higher level “fun” things?
As you’ve so brilliantly said it yourself in HPMOR (I forget exactly which chapter), Harry once convinces Hermione that if she knows what she is going to be thinking in the future, she might as well think it right away. (I understand that it may sound like I’m confusing my knowledge in the real world, with my supposed lack of knowledge in imaginary world 2), but isn’t it better to find out something immediately, than wait to find out?
On the flip side, there are major downsides to growing up as well. I certainly would want to live in Imaginary World 1, where the chances of me being blind sided are significantly less. I would like to be told about serial killers roaming the street, and not wait to find out the hard way. I would like to be told about STDs, before I go on my first date.
I don’t believe that in either of these worlds, we actually considered a constraint on the amount of novelty there was, and this may just be a personal preference, but I prefer incremental improvements with no major downfalls over sudden “surprises” and correspondingly negative “shocks”.
my imagined will to live feels stronger
Also, wouldnt this qualify as a case of generalising from fictional evidence? Of course, there might be some gross conceptual error that I’ve made in this argument and would gladly appreciate a clarification.
Economic Weirdtopia: The economic order of the world has been completely re-arranged. Intellectual Property is the new Oil, Gold, and Food Grain all rolled into one. All natural resources that is found in any one geographical territory is automatically donated/dumped/transferred to a large holding by means of “fancy modern technology”. This is done not simply because all countries have banded together to form a socialist unified globe, but because countries are equally keen on avoiding the paradox of plenty.
The global bodies such as the World Bank are overwhelmed with the amount of work they have to do, more specifically computing the value and contribution of each idea that each individual has made to the world. The two key economic schools are (a) those that believe a piece of IP should be accorded a value only based on what it can immediately accomplish, and (b) those that believe that any future ideas that may arise out of one particular idea should be included in the valuation of any one particular idea. Naturally, one limitation/criticism of school (b) is that it favours early filing and is biased towards idea that had been recorded earlier.
Trade barriers exist only with respect to technologies , but not the underlying materials that is used to create those technologies in the first place.
The world is no longer lacking for any basic needs, poverty and world hunger have been successfully eliminated, but there still exist international organisations whose prime function it is to ensure that every individual has a square meal at least three times a day. Unfortunately, the balance of credit is such that any attempt to dissolve these institutions or alter their ownership/functionality in any way carries the very high (and very probable) risk of having the entire system collapse in on itself. Indeed the world reached this phase only with all nations (the ones that survived from this day) pledging support and interest to these supportive organisations.
It is very unlikely for a single individual to amass any amount of wealth with which he might actually make a difference to the world, and stories such as those of the Oracle of Omaha have become stories of an unimaginably tall order, which a lot of the world’s population dismisses as “mythology”. However, any individual ambition can always be gratified as most people receive credit for the ideas they generate.
Nice.. Maybe there should be performance incentives such as bonuses or public adulation, and coaching classes/remedial tuition for the under performers.
Technological Weirdtopia: Artificial Intelligence is deemed to be an impossiblity. Any form of technology that relies on random access is plainly futile. The efforts of humanity over the last 100 years have been proven to be fruitless. Search engines break down and for some reason only begin to function at a very primary rudimentary level, not anywhere near the efficiency of Google. However, data storage is a field in which remarkable strides of progress are made. What once took the entire internet to store can now be stored in a micro chip (even today the entire information on the internet does not take too much space )and the amount of information that has been recorded in human history is increasing super exponentially. However, the amount of information is rapidly reducing. There then develops a technocrat class whose speciality it is to learn and retain in memory large chunks of information, and these are then employed by large corporations in lieu of R&D departments. Smart phones will no longer be smart, but all phone calls all over the world would simply be free.. there is just that much additional bandwidth. No service company exists any more, there simply is just a mass of optic fibres and cables running the world over, giving even the poorest free phone calls. Similarly, its very easy to send your photos all over the world, to anybody at extremely high vivid, life like resolutions. However, it is far more difficult ( to be read as “impossible”) to pull out the picture of that cutie pie with blue eyes and dimple smile whom you were “sooo into” last month. Ground breaking inventions are created, perfected and then simply lost, leaving the inventor and the world at a loss until somebody comes along and does the exact same thing ten minutes later. It is ridiculously easy for anyone to change their identity, as plastic surgery , retinal chromatographic surgery, epidermal coloration surgery etc. have all been made possible easy and accessible to the common man. Or at least that was the case last week. No one has a fixed identity any longer as no one can keep track of who does what. The jail system works in a rather strange manner. Terms are extremely short, but horribly unpleasant. Various versions of the Ludovico treatment have been found to be used. No one remembers on whom though. Nevertheless, the fear of such torture is enough to keep people from walking down the road leading to a life of crime. At least for the most part. Surges in renewable energy have made energy so abundant that it would be cheap and affordable for the whole planet, if they could only find an effective way to transmit all the electricity. Unfortunately, most of the energy is wasted and there has not been no advance whatsoever in storage technologies, rendering the entire system a waste. There has been significant advances in biotechnology, not only do they have the know how to create new cells and organs, it is no possible to bio-engineer specific custom designed species, combinations of Darwin’s finches and Crocodile Hunters best friends which were not thought to be possible by the illuminati of the previous century.
It also tells us which “new terrain” to prioritise :)
It sort of does.. I haven’t read snow crash, but the quote prima facie seems to support the virtue of narrowness
What about this version:
The modern corporation is as intelligent as its leader, but has a learning/doing disability in areas such as __ {fill in areas looked after by least intelligent employees who have a free hand in decision making in those areas}.
I know this isnt a perfect version, but I feel that some thought needs to go into judging the performance ability of different corporations.
I dont think they resemble anything like an AI, or anyhting at all in the sense in which the phrase AI was originally coined, but it is sometimes useful to think of corporations as people.
Legally speaking companies are treated as juristic people. This is true of my jurisdiction and my guess that it is so for most.
Uhm.. yeah. I guess. Just saying that no one guy can do everything or know everything, therefore its not possible to develop knowledge in all fields like that.. dont know what context was used in Snow Crash though..
It’s dismissive of thinking about things
That wasn’t my intention :D
Just that you have to know when to admit you don’t know enough about something.
This may sound strange, but often closing my eyes and visualising random images helps in overcoming type 2 akrasia.