daenerys

• daenerys 10 Jul 2014 21:31 UTC

  17 points

  0

  in reply to: MugaSofer’s comment on: [mod­er­a­tor ac­tion] Eug­ine_Nier is now banned for mass down­vote harassment

  Daenerys, since there seems to be some uncertainty:

  Are you saying that you would prefer if LessWrong increased the height of it’s metaphorical wall, keeping out “anti-feminist or biorealist assholes”?

  Or are you saying that the model of a public forum is inherently “a great way to drive off women and minorities”, and thus you don’t use LessWrong and don’t care about the moderation policy much?

  I’ve seen different people reading your comment different ways.

  Much closer to the latter. I am not making any policy recommendations about LW moderation. I don’t really care, since I’m not on LW anymore (except for things like this where people ask me specifically something).

  I said that one of the reasons I prefer Facebook is that it’s a walled garden. I did NOT say that I want LessWrong to be a walled garden. I would think neo-reactionaries would support the idea of just going to the place that has the rules you like/​ voting with your feet.

  I do think there can be public forums that do not drive off women and minorities, which is where I disagree with your second statement.

  I do not think all biorealists or antifeminists are assholes. I thought EUGINE was an asshole. He was also a biorealist. So he was a biorealist asshole. I’ve already made a comment about that, but people keep saying that I said that anyways. And quoting only me saying “biorealist assholes”. I DO think biorealists and anitfeminists have to be especially epistemically polite (and generally polite) if they want to have any chance of people actually engaging with their ideas.

  As an example:

  Christian asshole: Fred Phelps
  Christian not-an-asshole: Leah Libresco

  Skeptic asshole: Penn Jilette
  Skeptic not-an-asshole: All the CFAR people

  See how I consider “assholeness” as an unrelated trait to whether or not I agree with a viewpoint. If there were prolific skeptic assholes, they would drive off religious users. If there were prolific Christian assholes they would drive of skeptic and LGBTQ users. All assholes tend to drive off all non-assholes.

  This whole “OMG! daenerys says all biorealists are assholes and should be banned11!!!!!1” reaction feels like people are willfully misinterpreting me, putting words in my mouth, and using tiny quotes completely out of context (like “biorealist asshole”) Especially AFTER I wrote a comment clarifying that I meant ONLY what I said an nothing else. This is another reason I don’t LW. Commenting on LW is like reading the comments on a general website. Sometimes you get the impulse to do it, but as soon as you do you immediately remember why you don’t. Note that I’m again, only EXPLAINING why I don’t use LW, and am NOT demanding moderation changes.

  ETA: Also, MugaSofer, I commend (and upvote) you for doing the Right Thing… When a discussion partner says something that you could interpret two ways, and Interpretation A is sane, but Interpretation B would cause you to get super-offended and launch a multi-comment barrage, the polite (non-asshole) thing to do is just to ask if they meant A or B, and NOT to just assume B and get offended and launch the multi-comment barrage. Especially when A is the literal interpretation and B requires quite a bit of twistiness to get to.

  What links here?

  • MugaSofer's comment on [mod­er­a­tor ac­tion] Eug­ine_Nier is now banned for mass down­vote harassment by Kaj_Sotala (16 Jul 2014 10:45 UTC; 7 points)

• daenerys 7 Jul 2014 19:39 UTC

  15 points

  in reply to: Pablo’s comment on: [mod­er­a­tor ac­tion] Eug­ine_Nier is now banned for mass down­vote harassment

  I’m currently driving cross country and typing this on my phone at a rest stop so I can’t comment as much as I would like, but I DO want to clarify that my post meant what it said and nothing more. Eugine himself was an asshole. He ALSO was a biorealist and an anti feminist. When you combine those traits in a prolific user they’re likely to drive away women and minorities.

  Even if it’s epistemically true, discussing those issues in an assholey way is instrumentally unhelpful (for people with goals at all similar to mine).

• daenerys 4 Jul 2014 19:47 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: Daniel_Burfoot’s comment on: [mod­er­a­tor ac­tion] Eug­ine_Nier is now banned for mass down­vote harassment

  I’m pretty sure (but don’t feel like spending time tracking down examples, so I could be wrong) that I’ve seen Eugine saying biorealist things.

  I changed “racist” to “biorealist” in my comment, if you don’t think the two should be equated.

• daenerys 4 Jul 2014 18:10 UTC

  14 points

  in reply to: Stuart_Armstrong’s comment on: [mod­er­a­tor ac­tion] Eug­ine_Nier is now banned for mass down­vote harassment

  Hi Stuart! Swimmer is correct; ChrisHallquist posted a link to this on my facebook wall. Personally, I’m glad Eugine is gone, because even without the downvoting he was an asshole. And having anti-feminist or biorealist assholes running around is a great way to drive off women and minorities.

  Anyways, I prefer the walled garden, and the conversational tone, and the positive emotional support that Facebook provides, so I doubt I’ll come back to posting here.

  I’m still extremely active in the meatspace community though, and I have a friend who will be posting some very exciting news here in a couple days about a new rationality non-profit! Also, I’m moving to NYC, and a group of us are starting up a new rationalist house there.

  ETA: Another upside of posting on facebook is that it does a better job of raising the general sanity waterline than posting here. It exposes rationality ideas and conversations in a friendly/​humanising way to people who would never have sought them out (all my non-rationality friends), and it allows them to participate and interact with those ideas in a much more supportive way. :)

  What links here?

  • buybuydandavis's comment on [mod­er­a­tor ac­tion] Eug­ine_Nier is now banned for mass down­vote harassment by Kaj_Sotala (5 Jul 2014 6:09 UTC; 6 points)

• daenerys 29 Apr 2014 2:30 UTC

  20 points

  on: LessWrong as so­cial catalyst

  I use LW as a social networking device more than anything else.

  • I got three jobs through the LW community, through a mix of job postings here and social networks, the succession of which has pretty much raised me from poor/​lower class to middle class.

  • The vast majority of my romantic partners since getting involved with rationality are through the LW community, often met at meetups or through related social networks.

  • Almost all of my friends are through the rationalist community, especially if you expand that to include some of the related atheist networks.

  • I’ve hosted two LWers when they were visiting the city I was in, and an internet acquaintance who only knew me through the atheist/​rationalist community recently hosted me when I was visiting NYC.

  • I’m currently looking for a rationalist apartment-mate (let me know if you’re in NYC and interested! (and clean))

• daenerys 22 Apr 2014 21:41 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: free_rip’s comment on: Open thread, 21-27 April 2014

  That quiz looks like it could use an update to fit modern society. It was hard to answer questions about “channel surfing” or “renting videos” in the modern era of hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime. Also, thinking back to the days of actual video rental stores, it was much easier to choose a movie there than it is to choose one on Netflix. Possibly because the Netflix selections tends towards “second rate movies I’ve never heard of OR first rate movies that I’ve already watched or am not interested in”)

  Anyways, I am a natural maximizer, which causes lots of stress towards decisions, so I’ve trained myself towards being a satisficer. I often try to think of decisions in the framework of “it doesn’t matter that much WHAT I decide to do here, so long as I just make a decision and move forward with it”.

  I think about research where they show that the hardest decisions are the least important (if it was obvious which option was significantly better, then it wouldn’t be a hard decision.) I think about research where they show that people are happier with decisions when they can’t back out of them, so don’t second-guess them. I think about cost-benefit analysis and how maximizing that particular decision probably isn’t worth the time or stress.

  A specific example: I tend to have trouble deciding what to order at restaurants. Knowing that whatever they serve at a restaurant is going to be relatively good, it’s not that important what I decide. So when the waitress asks if everyone is ready to order I say “yes”, even though I’m not ready, knowing that I will have to choose SOMETHING when it gets to me, and in reality I would be happy with any of the options.

• daenerys 14 Apr 2014 22:21 UTC

  8 points

  in reply to: Optimal’s comment on: [Re­quest­ing ad­vice] Prob­lems with op­ti­miz­ing my life as a high school student

  A great way to track time spent on activities (especially fluid and unpredicatable ones) is an app called TagTime. It works best on Android, but you can also get it on your computer if you’re hacky. It pings you at random intervals that average out to be worth 45 minutes each, and asks what you’re doing at that exact moment. You create tags for different activities, so you just click on the relevant tag(s), and don’t have to type in anything. It also integrates with Beeminder, if you’d like to track things that way.

• daenerys 7 Apr 2014 1:47 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: jefftk’s comment on: Items to Have In Case of Emer­gency...Maybe.

  In the US the guest is still expected to bring them, but as a host it’s really nice to be able to provide for your guest if they need it.

  This.

  Plus, there are many emergencies where a guest wouldn’t be prepared. For example, maybe someone who was coming for a couple hours to hang out/​play games had their contact fall out. Or maybe a date went really well, and somebody stays the night who wasn’t specifically packed for such. Maybe a friend needs last-minute emergency crash space, etc.

Items to Have In Case of Emer­gency...Maybe.

• daenerys 2 Apr 2014 23:52 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: iarwain1’s comment on: Open Thread March 31 - April 7 2014

  I have a draft of a post relating to Emergency Preparedness. I can probably fish it out and post it.

• daenerys 11 Mar 2014 10:11 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: chaosmage’s comment on: Open Thread: March 4 − 10

  Organizing is investment cleaning. It takes a lot more time in the beginning (it will even look WORSE mid-project), but once you have a place for everything it is SO much quicker and easier to put everything in its place. If your area isn’t organized, then you have to think about each think you pick up or clean. Where does this go? Where should I put it? Once you’ve organized, cleaning is a simple process of putting things back where they belong.

  Some heuristics: Things you use frequently should be easy to get to, and easy to put away. For example put your most frequent coat on a hook, not hanger. You want to have shelf space and or a canvas box that is currently empty, to use for future miscellaneous items. Don’t be hesitant to just get rid of things.

  Re: Picking Up- The number one most important thing to take care of is trash/​garbage. Pick it up, put it in a bag, take it out. Do not let it accumulate. This leads to smells and contributes most to a feeling of “grossness”. Kitty litter also falls under this category. Number two thing to pick up is clothes. They go in a hamper. For people on this site, number three is probably books. Clothes and books both have the quality of being large, often strewn about, and easy to pick up.

• daenerys 4 Mar 2014 20:39 UTC

  15 points

  in reply to: Scott Garrabrant’s comment on: Open Thread: March 4 − 10

  I would say the big one to start is Family Traditions, and the like. Ideas:

  • A weekly or bi-weekly date night where you go do something different (no dinner-and-a-movie.)

  • If you don’t usually have a “Family Dinner”, make one day of the week a “Family Dinner” night.

  • Weekly or monthly get-together where you can hash out plans, see what’s been problematic, hopefully correct things before they lead to arguments, etc

  • The yearly traditions such as: having a jar where you write down all the awesome things that happened on slips of paper, and read the paper on New Years, various holiday traditions, or yearly vacations, or whatnot

• daenerys 1 Mar 2014 6:29 UTC

  10 points

  on: Open Thread Fe­bru­ary 25 - March 3

  Someone was asking a while back for meetup descriptions, what you did/​ how it went, etc. Figured I’d post some Columbus Rationality videos here. All but the last are from the mega-meetup.

  Jesse Galef on Defense Against the Dark Arts: The Ethics and Psychology of Persuasion

  Eric on Applications of Models in Everyday Life (it’s good, but skip about 10-15 minutes when there’s herding-cats-nitpicky audience :P)

  Elissa on Effective Altruism

  Rita on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

  Don on A Synergy of Eastern and Western Approaches

  Gleb on Setting and Achieving Goals

• daenerys 1 Feb 2014 23:01 UTC

  13 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: Fe­bru­ary 2014 Me­dia Thread

  It’s been mentioned before a couple years ago, but I highly recommend The Steerswoman’s Road. Definitely what we would consider to be rationalist “fantasy”, though as the protagonist applies logic and scientific reasoning, it becomes more of a sci fi.

  From a blogger who explains better than I could: “Too much science fiction glorifies mere scientific fact and appeals to scientific authority. Such books are doomed to obsolescence as the state of the art passes them by. Rosemary Kirstein’s books, in contrast, are made timeless by their emphasis on the process of science, which anyone can do. The Steerswoman is a fun work of fantasy fiction with dragons, sword fights, and magic — and also a well-honed work of science fiction, demanding to know the answers to hard questions and the logic behind the magic. The Steerswoman lets the reader watch as the characters use the scientific method to discover the true nature of their world. I cannot recommend this book, and its sequels, highly enough.”

• daenerys 22 Jan 2014 3:48 UTC

  9 points

  in reply to: NoahTheDuke’s comment on: De­ci­sion Auc­tions aka “How to fairly as­sign chores, or de­cide who gets the last cookie”

  I don’t speak Computer, but this is the bot: http://​​aaronparecki.com/​​articles/​​2011/​​02/​​12/​​1/​​loqi-the-friendly-irc-bot

  We use him in a company hipchat room, and I don’t know if he has been altered/​reprogrammed in any way to run auctions.

• daenerys 21 Jan 2014 22:43 UTC

  11 points

  in reply to: Prismattic’s comment on: De­ci­sion Auc­tions aka “How to fairly as­sign chores, or de­cide who gets the last cookie”

  In the article I linked to, Bethany argues that separate finances are a requirement to this, and I tend to agree.

  A workaround might be having a joint account, AND separate accounts that are used for whatever fun/​luxury you each want. You each get $x/​month in your fun/​luxury accounts, and that is the money you use to yootle with (and pay for dance class, and buy a new sewing machine with, and whatever other luxury, etc)

• daenerys 21 Jan 2014 22:38 UTC

  7 points

  in reply to: pianoforte611’s comment on: De­ci­sion Auc­tions aka “How to fairly as­sign chores, or de­cide who gets the last cookie”

  I’ve lived with other people (either spouses or roommates) pretty much my entire life (30 years), so I feel like I’ve already acquired the social skills to do without it. Other people’s situations may be different. I am generally in support of people learning social skills, so yootling might not be the best answer if it is a replacement for that.

• daenerys 21 Jan 2014 21:46 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: jefftk’s comment on: De­ci­sion Auc­tions aka “How to fairly as­sign chores, or de­cide who gets the last cookie”

  The bot doesn’t run the money transfer. It runs the auction (collects bids from everybody, displays bids when all have been collected), and runs a random number generator.

  We have also used the same bot to play a Schelling Point Game, where someone names a category (eg “a book”) instead of a thing to auction, and we all make a guess (e.g “Strategy of Conflict” or “The Bible”) instead of a bid. You get a point if your guess is the same as someone else’s.

De­ci­sion Auc­tions aka “How to fairly as­sign chores, or de­cide who gets the last cookie”

Meetup : I moved to Port­land! I want to meet you!