Testing if lw is eating my comments.
Elizabeth
Karma: 15,669
Epistemic Spot Check: The Demon Under the Microscope (Thomas Hager)
Epistemic Spot Check: A Guide To Better Movement (Todd Hargrove)
Apparently only the thoughtful ones
I want to talk more about the pain model in the book, but I’m deliberately not writing up the principles. I don’t think people would get much from a summary that’s more than what I have here but less than the whole book. Being walked through it was really integral to my getting the benefits.
MCTB?
Epistemic Spot Check: Exercise for Mood and Anxiety (Michael W. Otto, Jasper A.J. Smits)
Ozy, it sounds like you’re counting “time waiting before appointed time” and “time waiting after appointed time” as equivalent. Is that correct?
Okay, I think this is the crux of the argument. For me, time spent waiting after an agreed upon time feels much worse than time waiting before. Morally, time waiting after represents Someone Breaking a Promise in a way time waiting before does not (absent a meta agreement about what “on time” means, which it sounds like you have). Practically, time when I know when I’ll be interrupted is much more valuable than time when I could be interrupted at any moment, and people tend to get angry if you keep them waiting after the appointed time, even if they were late. I can’t start something new if I might be interrupted at any moment and I can’t pick something that will fit in the time slot because I don’t know when I’ll be interrupted, so the time is just *lost*.
What happens if a user with 15 Karma upvotes something, gets to 30 karma, and then removes the upvote? Does it remove the original two karma, or the new three? Or are increases in karma weight retroactive, so your two vote becomes worth three when you reach 25 karma?
I agree that “your own citations support your statements” is a low bar. In general I consider a book’s own citations being good and saying what they claim to be the bare minimum, and if something fails that I won’t go farther. I made an exception in this case because it came so well recommended. For the second chapter I reviewed I happened to have a lot of implicit understanding that would have taken a long time to formalize, via my neurologist and research I did years ago verifying things my neurologist told me.
What you suggest about looking at experts seems like an excellent way to hone in on concepts; I think I’m approaching the same goal, segmented in a different way. I read multiple books in the same vein and run these checks on all of them, and synthesize understanding from there. Segmenting it by book frees up a lot of RAM for me.
I’m torn on looking for counterexamples. On one hand, it’s an easy way to disprove wrong things. On the other hand, even the best theory is fairly easy to poke holes in, especially if you consider claims in isolation rather than the system as a whole. I find if I focus on disproving things, it inhibits understanding and learning, and leads to rejecting things that are imperfect but useful.
Possible solutions to both of these are to involve other people. For synthesizing concepts, you can have each person read on related topics and come together to discuss interactions. For looking for counterexamples, one person can focus on that while the other focuses on understanding in a generous way, without worrying about looking stupid for believing something wrong.
I think this is broken. I tested it on a post of mine with 1 upvote (from me), when I removed the upvote it went down to −2.
[note from Sunshine Regiment] I promoted this to featured because it’s on a topic that is in LW’s bailiwick but gets comparatively little attention/uses an unusual approach. Those are not the piece’s only virtues, but it’s why I moved it to featured instead of simply letting karma handle it.
[Note from Sunshine Regiment] A++ To Conor and cauliflower for asking clarifying questions in response to a low information comment that could easily be interpreted as antagonistic.
[Note from the Sunshine Regiment] A lot has happened in this thread, I’m going to comment at second-to-top level so this gets as seen as possible while keeping its context.
In a nutshell
Yes, there is an obligation to be prosocial here.
There’s a lot of room for debate on what prosocial means and what trades-offs are worth it. This Guide To Comments is a start but insufficient. We welcome input from people as we figure this out.
I’m really torn on the particular comment “Also, it comes from CFAR, which is an anti-endorsement”. I want it to be as cheap as possible to criticize the in-group on Less Wrong, because so many other forces are making it expensive. So let’s be be very clear that
sharing a negative opinion is not in and of itself anti-social.
But as several people have pointed out, this opinion was shared in a way that generated a lot of unnecessary friction. A simple “I think that...” or ”...for me” would have done a great deal to resolve this problem.
The mod team is in private contact with Said over this issue.
What makes you think describing why you personally won’t go to a workshop would get you in trouble?
I find it interesting that some of the things that give slack also take it away. The obvious example is cell phones. Especially at first they gave slack by letting you leave the house while you were waiting for an important phone call, but eventually ate it by creating an expectation that you’d always be available.
I haven’t voted on this comment, but if I had to guess:
The author did not ask for advice. The loss was mentioned as part of context for a different decision.
It is too late to do anything about losing this particular post.
“Write offline” is an obvious solution to the problem, suggesting it comes across as condescending and victim-blaming.
If I understand correctly, ballooning groups make money while being noticeably cheaper because they’re paying for a lot of things with community capital rather than money. A normally purchased activity is done for free because it is fun (like teaching) or because you’re paid in community capital (washing dishes feels better than it would at a restaurant, because you’re getting the esteem of your peers), which may itself be exchanged for goods or services that were acquired at below market rate (starter gear, loaners, leftovers from bulk purchases).
Testing if name change went through.