Ach, nuts. I even spent a minute trying to understand where I’d gone wrong, reasoning that it wasn’t all that likely that Jacob’s post would contain something as strange as the thing I thought I was seeing. Oh well.
Leftists blame loneliness on capitalism — single people buy twice as many toasters, sex toys, and Netflix subscriptions.
I know you aren’t saying you agree with this logic, but I’ll just point out that in the case of toasters and Netflix subscriptions, there’s a much more obvious explanation, which is that a couple living together only needs one toaster between them, so on average they only buy .5 toasters each.
I was wondering what people would think of that. I chose this name because it “seemed cool”, which I put in quotes because it refers to a specific kind of feeling that I can’t really articulate. Short titles often give me this feeling.
If you think it’s too short (eg, it seems spammy or you think it might annoy other users to see it) then let me know and I’ll be happy to come up with something that gives a better idea of what the post is about.
reducing those small frictions result in much more notes and less disruption of the current task, you think of something, a note is added in a few seconds and you can continue working on.
I upvoted for this snippet because it’s an important aspect of the situation that I forgot to call out in the main post.
Would you mind sharing your code?
Sure! This one is actually a one-liner: it’s simply “gedit ~/Documents/lists/$1”, which you put in a file called “l” in your ~/bin/ directory. If you prefer a different editor, you can swap out “gedit” for “emacs” or the command used to launch whatever editor you like. (This advice is directed at others reading this comment chain, you probably already know how to do that.)
I found that using some keybindings to rely solely on the keyboard also made a good improvement.
That’s a good idea. I currently have a piece of software that I use to type diacritics (for Toaq) but I’m not super happy with it — it kind of bugs out on occasion and can be slow to insert the characters I want. The software I’m using is AutoKey. What do you use? Are you happy with it?
I recommend also implementing some scripts to search on the web [...]
This is also a good idea. I’m pretty fast at typing and pretty slow with the mouse, so I’d probably instead make a macro for “prompt me for a search key, open a new tab, search that thing, then take me back to the tab I was in before”.
Thanks for the link. Your guess is right: from a cursory glance it looks like this software would be a bit too heavyweight for my purposes. But, I bet somebody will benefit from seeing this.
I automatically admire anybody whose first thought when encountering a new bias is to search for it in themselves.
This is a good point. I’d do well to remember that repeated phrases stick in the mind: I’m currently on a bit of a reification spree where I’m giving names to a whole bunch of personal concepts (like moods, mental tools, etc) and since I would like these phrases to stick in the mind I think I shall repeat them.
I think I prefer the status quo design, but not very strongly. Between the two designs pictured here, I at first preferred the one where the authors weren’t bolded, but now I think I prefer the one where the whole line is bolded, since “[insert author whose posts I enjoy] has posted something” is as newsworthy as “there’s a post called [title I find enticing]”.
Something I’ve noticed about myself is that I tend to underestimate how much I can get used to things, so I might end up just as happy with whichever design is chosen.
The notoriety of the author
I’m out of the loop here—what happened with ialdabaoth?
I just noticed that I’ve got two similarity clusters in my mind that keep getting called to my attention by wording dichotomies like high-priority and low-priority, but that would themselves be better labeled as big and small. This was causing me to interpret phrases like “doing a string of low-priority tasks” as having a positive affect (!) because what it called to mind was my own activity of doing a string of small, on-average medium-priority tasks.My thought process might improve overall if I toss out the “big” and “small” similarity clusters and replace them with clusters that really are centered around “high-priority” and “low-priority”.
Oh wait. Here:
( |00> + |01> - |10> + |11> ) / 2
Are the signs of |01> and |10> reversed by mistake? I would think the components would rotate as follows:
|00> goes to (|00> + |10>) / √2
|11> goes to (|11> - |01>) / √2
Strong upvote for the very clear explanation of the basics. I would definitely read any further posts elaborating on this—for example, if you explained some of the simple quantum gates and maybe an algorithm or two that asymptotically outperforms its classical analog.
I don’t have much to add to this discussion, but I want to note that I’m extremely interested in any further insights you have about this, because this problem has always bothered me.
I expect you’ve already thought of this, but you might get some epistemic mileage out of looking at what primary documents a fact traces back to and reasoning about what those documents can/cannot possibly prove about the past. For example, if the claim about boat sizes had traced back to a set of documents about boats only in Europe, you would know to be suspicious.
Oh, I see. Reading through his post again, I think I actually agree with you that Jacob was conflating the two. Thanks for clarifying, the whole conversation seems reasonable now.
Ahh, I see. Thanks for this analysis, now I see where the posts above mine were coming from.
I’m starting to feel frustrated (and confused) by this conversation, because it feels to me like people are responding to something other than what I’m saying. Let me try to clarify what I’m getting at.
As far as I know, this conversation began on Put A Num On It, where Jacob used the phrase “overcoming intuition” as a name for one of his hypotheses about why rationalists are more polygamous than others. He says:
The willingness to entertain the idea that your intuitions about truth may be wrong is a prerequisite for learning Rationality, and Rationality further cultivates that skill.
So it seems to me that he was trying to bind the phrase “overcoming intuition” to the idea of overcoming the tight grip that intuitions hold over most people. Not throwing out all of our intuitions’ conclusions (I completely agree that that would be bad) but rather getting our intuitions under control so that we don’t just automatically obey them at every turn.
Do you agree that this is what Jacob meant by the phrase? Separately, do you agree that this is a reasonable thing to do?
Since I am confused, I will generate some hypotheses about what’s going on:
I have completely misunderstood Jacob’s intent for what the phrase means.
Evidence in favor of this hypothesis: This is going to sound sulky, but I cross my heart that I’m just trying to be a good rationalist: I seem to be the one with the less popular opinion here. Obviously it might just be the case that I really do have an unpopular opinion, but it’s also exactly what you’d expect to see if I was on a different page than everybody else about what we were talking about.
Others are jumping into the conversation late and are not aware of the commentary given about the phrase by the person who wrote it.
Evidence in favor of this hypothesis: The comment at the top of this chain says “I absolutely hate this phrase and everything it represents”, but I don’t see why OP would feel so strongly about “the willingness to entertain the idea that your intuitions about truth may be wrong”, which is what the phrase is being used to represent here. This makes me think that the phrase represents something other than that to OP.
Before I joined the site, there was some divide between people who really did think that we should throw out all of our intuition’s conclusions and people who did not acknowledged that sometimes correct conclusions could have illegible conclusions, and people responding to this comment chain are thinking of that divide when they profess their hatred of the phrase “overcoming intuition”.
Evidence in favor of this hypothesis: Even though I pointed out that Jacob was using the phrase to mean a certain thing, two different people have insisted that the phrase really means something different. That makes me think that the phrase has a history in this community.
Why not?I’m sorry if I’m being dense, but my understanding is that this community’s main focus is fixing the issues that human intuitions have. All it takes is a relabeling of “bias” with the word “intuition” to describe this process as “overcoming intuition”. Is that not what the phrase stands for? Or, a more specific guess, does it stand for a specific variant of rationality in which the whole intuition really is what you try to overcome?
(Or, yet another alternative, do you disagree with this community’s main stated goal? This isn’t my main guess because it looks like you’re a fairly prevalent and popular participant here, neither of which I would expect for somebody with fringe views.)
I absolutely hate this phrase and everything it represents.
if a group prefers X to Y, and prefers X to Z
There’s no group that prefers Kasich to Trump and also prefers Kasich to Clinton. It’s 2⁄3 in each case, but those two groups of 2⁄3 only have an overlap of 1⁄3.
I’m not familiar with voting theory, so I might be missing the point, but the sentence “there exists a 2⁄3 majority of the voting population all of whom prefer Kasich to any other candidate” is false. (The problem might be the ambiguity of the English language: it is true that “for any candidate besides Kasich, there exists a 2⁄3 majority who prefers Kasich to that candidate”.)