dominicq

Short (2.5 min) in­tro to Effec­tive Altru­ism for busy people

• dominicq 31 Jul 2020 9:10 UTC

  9 points

  on: En­gag­ing Se­ri­ously with Short Timelines

  Some career ideas for non-math and non-finance people:

  Pursue a more primitive lifestyle: live off the land and farm. You can make it escapist (trying to ignore what’s going on in the world) or a strategic fortress (if everything crumbles, I will not starve in the city). Everyone will always need food, so for as long as there are humans, there will be need for those who grow it. Also a good option because you can dial the primitive part up or down: you can either be a secluded monk or a farmer feeding the region.

  Pursue a trade or human contact job: no GPT will replace a nurse, a physical therapist, a plumber, an electrician. For as long as people need things, they will need someone to do these things for them.

Up close and per­sonal with the world

• dominicq 3 Jan 2021 18:51 UTC

  1 point

  on: Alike minds think great

  This is no surprise — as I mentioned, translators are few and far between — but this example goes to show how useful a translator can be.

  In addition to that, they can be explicitly unwanted or feel unwanted. I think that this is partially because translation is often done by people who argue for moderation to give off an air of wisdom which isn’t there.

  But another, maybe more significant part, is the fact that even good translators (like Scott Alexander) have limited power. Not everyone wants to read Scott Alexander-like bloggers, and not everyone wants a competing perspective. That leaves you with the option to stretch your translation, but stretch it too far, and you get to a point where you just have a useless analogy to something your audience already understands. Try to be true to the original worldview and nobody listens you unless they exceed some level of openness.

  Great post.

• dominicq 4 Jan 2021 12:54 UTC

  5 points

  on: Bets, Bonds, and Kindergarteners

  Honestly… parenting goals!

• dominicq 11 Jan 2021 23:40 UTC

  2 points

  on: Rule Thinkers In, Not Out

  A good explanation of the difference between intellectual exploration and promoting people. You don’t need to agree with everything someone says, and you don’t even need to like them, but if they occasionally provide good insight, they are worth taking into account. If you propagate this strategy, you may even get to a “wisdom of the crowds” scenario—you’ll have many voices to integrate in your own thinking, potentially getting you farther along than if you just had one thought leader you liked.

  Having many smart people you don’t necessarily agree with, like, or respect > having an idol you always agree with.

  The prerequisite for all of this is to be a “high-decoupling” person. Rationalists (by definition?) have this personality, but this post is nevertheless very useful as it sketches out why separating the messenger, the context, and the message is good. And potentially, it teaches those with lower decoupling philosophies to stop “respecting” a Person Who Is Correct, but to start listening to many voices and judge for themselves what makes sense and what doesn’t.

Tak­ing money seriously

• dominicq 1 Feb 2021 16:58 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Generallyer’s comment on: Tak­ing money seriously

  I totally agree with “activists are one of the constraints”. And while getting more knowledge can give you greater legitimacy, there’s also significant opportunity cost here. Like, in certain eco-activism circles, you have to specialize. You need to learn skills, and the specialization is even more granular than someone from the outside might expect. Example: there’s a lot of training involved in preparing and releasing banners, or in organizing peaceful demonstrations. You simply don’t have time to learn about the subject matter in depth, because you have to practice your knots, or social engineer your way onto a roof. Doubly so if you have work and family to balance alongside! I could maybe write about this as well.

  Anyway, great observation and analysis, thanks!

• dominicq 1 Feb 2021 18:40 UTC

  2 points

  on: do­minicq’s Shortform

  I want to share one of the most useful articles I read: You Might as Well Be a Great Copy Editor.

  https://​​blog.regehr.org/​​archives/​​1471

  Most writing is MUCH better if it goes through at least one editing pass, with diminishing returns the more editing you do. The trick is not to mix writing with editing—write first, let it be ugly, let your stream of consciousness take you away. And when you’re done, then become the critic and the editor.

• dominicq 3 Feb 2021 10:55 UTC

  6 points

  on: Reflec­tions on the cry­on­ics sequence

  Excellent! I’ve also been cryocrastinating for far too long, this might be the impetus I need to finally start.

Mak­ing friends

• dominicq 25 Mar 2021 8:55 UTC

  3 points

  on: do­minicq’s Shortform

  “Embracing the Extended Mind” is my short film (8 min) about the importance of embracing things outside of your head so that things inside of your head can work better. Watch it here: https://​​www.youtube.com/​​watch?v=xWDp4IzjrQ8

Buy­ing a house and mak­ing friends in un­ex­pected places

Bureau­cracy is a world of magic

• dominicq 29 Mar 2021 12:51 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Ericf’s comment on: Buy­ing a house and mak­ing friends in un­ex­pected places

  Going outside of the world of house buying, I find that 50% of interactions I had with repair people were like that as well. So that definitely makes sense.

  Other explanations are that people are afraid of trying things out, don’t have time, or insist on a reality that simply isn’t there (that when you pay someone to do something, they should reliably do it).

• dominicq 29 Mar 2021 21:02 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Anthropotech’s comment on: Bureau­cracy is a world of magic

  Added to reading list, thanks!

• dominicq 30 Mar 2021 13:58 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: Dirichlet-to-Neumann’s comment on: Bureau­cracy is a world of magic

  That is true, rarely do you get someone who intentionally wants to make you miserable. They usually just make you miserable as a side-effect of not caring enough, but as soon as you’re sufficiently annoying, they do one of those two things.

What are all these chil­dren do­ing in my ponds?

• dominicq 5 Apr 2021 18:28 UTC

  10 points

  in reply to: MondSemmel’s comment on: What are all these chil­dren do­ing in my ponds?

  I’m sorry you don’t find it valuable. It’s an argument that bugged me—I first heard it only a couple of years ago on a podcast completely unrelated to EA, accepted is as valid, but felt that something was off. I worked through my confusion and this is the result. Maybe everyone who hears it immediately thinks of all the criticism you listed, but I doubt it.

  Who benefits from the last sentence? I guess people like me, or whoever hears the analogy and accepts it without first analyzing it a bit.

  It’s not criticism of Singer in general either. Chris says that this analogy is only the beginning of his argument, and I totally agree (and I happen to agree with almost all of Singer’s conclusions, at least those that I’ve read afterwards).

• dominicq 6 Apr 2021 7:27 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: MondSemmel’s comment on: What are all these chil­dren do­ing in my ponds?

  I totally get the frustration, that’s why I felt the disclaimer in the beginning was necessary!

  As for the question of many students—yes, absolutely. Promoting EA is a smart and valuable goal, and will definitely produce more effect (“or you raise awareness in town, and try to explain to others that there are children drowning in some ponds nearby”). And, as you say, it’s precisely what Singer is doing.

  Regarding systemic change: I think that’s a conversation stopper in many cases. People say “X is cool and everything, but what we REALLY need is systemic change”. But that’s, like, a really big task, and it seems to me that it just breeds inaction, as opposed to interventions. I wasn’t going for an applause light, only a very narrow criticism of one specific analogy/​argument.