FrankAdamek

Ex­is­ten­tial Risk Re­duc­tion Ca­reer Network

Cook­ies vs Ex­is­ten­tial Risk

Ex­is­ten­tial Risk Re­duc­tion Ca­reer Network

• FrankAdamek 20 Jun 2012 4:05 UTC

  14 points

  in reply to: ShannonFriedman’s comment on: How to Run a Suc­cess­ful Less Wrong Meetup

  Shannon really is a long-time and hugely contributive rationalist, hosting a ton of meetups in a great space and making a lot of other contributions as well. Thumbs up.

• FrankAdamek 21 Nov 2010 17:38 UTC

  14 points

  on: What I’ve learned from Less Wrong

  My gains from LessWrong have come in several roughly distinct steps, all of which have come as I’ve been working my way through the Sequences. (Taking notes has really helped me digest and cement the information.)

  1) Internalizing that there is a real world out there, and like Louie said, that ideas can be right or wrong. Making beliefs pay rent, referents and references, etc. A perspective on beliefs that they should accurately reflect the world and be used for achieving things I care about; all else is fluff. That every correct map should agree with every other, so that life does not seem such a disconnected jumble of different domains. Overall these kinds of insights really helped to give focus to my thoughts and clear out the clutter of my mind.

  2) Having a conception of what beliefs should do, LessWrong helps me be aware of and combat various biases that interfere with the formation of accurate beliefs, and with taking coherent action based on those beliefs. I’ve made large gains here, but of course I’m not finished.

  3) Forming a coherent, productive, happy me. Bootstrapping and snowballing effects. As I learn more, I seek out more good information, better. On this point, see Anna Salamon’s posts going back to “Humans are not automatically strategic.” The book “The Art Of Learning” by Josh Waitzkin has been immensely helpful. Learning about Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (this book is good) has been very helpful in being empirical and rational about the self. I believe this is basically the material of the Luminosity sequence, though I read those posts some time ago and should probably review them.

  There’s far too much to go into specifically, but the transformation has been huge, and continues. When conversing with non-rationalists, arguments feel like a match between Bruce Lee and some guy off the street. It’s not that I have any more raw intellectual power than I had before, but my set of tools/​training has improved tremendously. Unfortunately without being a rationalist, a non-rationalist doesn’t (much) realize the extent to which they’re outmatched, and indeed there is seldom a point to “beating someone.” Instead you realize that even a poorly argued-position can be correct, looking out for points you may have missed, and perhaps try and introduce a few concepts. It feels like I’m working at a level above most people, that the conversation is a different thing to me and them; it’s not like I can just tell them all this. I discovered LessWrong through an interest in existential risk and at first it seemed kind of boring, not very useful, this weird academic exercise. I wish I could convey to more people how helpful it’s been, and the extent to which I didn’t know what I didn’t know.

  (A note on the community: I think it’s great that it’s here, and I think that some really great material has been produced, and continues to be produced, beyond the “core” material by Eliezer. That said, I almost never read comments and I only read front-page, promoted posts; the return on time for reading anything else doesn’t seem great enough right now, compared to my other work and studies. Just to give an idea on how I’m using LessWrong.)

  What links here?

  • lukeprog's comment on Stupid Ques­tions Open Thread Round 4 by lukeprog (27 Aug 2012 17:40 UTC; 8 points)

• FrankAdamek 14 Sep 2010 15:53 UTC

  13 points

  on: The Affect Heuris­tic, Sen­ti­ment, and Art

  This seems like a very useful effect, which like komponisto I’ve been using for some time, in my case many years. In my music library I have a few playlists I’ve put together to effect (with an ‘e’) certain emotional states, every song in my library that brings forth and/​or incorporates well with the state. I have one designed for badass determination, which doesn’t appear to have helped that much, beyond serving as good workout music. It just doesn’t seem to translate into a mental state useful for sort of cognitive work we need to be doing; if I were going into battle it might be more helpful.

  Another playlist I have is designed for things like compassion, humility, peace, “grace”, warmth, (platonic) love, etc. [Example] This one has been tremendously helpful, at many different points in my life. For one thing, it’s great when I’m feeling troubled by something smaller, that wouldn’t be a problem if I could just feel alright about it. And while I can’t say with certainty that it was necessary, the songs have been very present in several major periods of emotional growth I’ve had since making the playlist (I also add new songs over time). I use it deliberately sometimes, especially so with a certain simple procedure: After spending amounts of time thinking about such subjects, finding good reasons to feel more that way (better interpersonal relationships, much more enjoyable, etc), I’ll listen to the playlist and continue contemplation, hitting both affect and reason at the same time. Contrasted to the “badass determination” playlist, perhaps this one has been more useful as it engenders an emotional state that is lower effort and intrinsically rewarding.

  To generalize from that example, we have to remember that the subconscious is a funny thing. Mere willpower doesn’t stop it from misbehaving: it has to be tricked. You have to hack into the affect heuristic, instead of trying to override it.

  I think “trick” isn’t a very accurate way to describe the process, rather it feels like speaking the right language, like “tricking” a Martian by speaking in Martian rather than English. A better analogy would be interacting with animals. You don’t construct well-reasoned arguments and then debate them with a horse or dog. If you want a dog to do something, you make it friendly, moving slowly, offering a hand so it can smell you, give it treats, pet it. It seems less like a trick than the correct interface; a dog just doesn’t have systems for reasoning out logic.

  For another example, I began earnestly seeking to become more rational after reading the Beisutsukai stories, as they emotionally made it much more awesome, giving a visceral (though fictional) demonstration that more is possible.

• FrankAdamek 16 Apr 2010 13:47 UTC

  10 points

  on: The many faces of status

  Thanks for the post. I feel that status is not difficult (for me) to assess in a group, but I appreciate your pointing out the lack of a solid and predictive definition.

  I think that PJ Eby’s comment has been closest so far, but that it could be more specific. My best definition so far is:

  “The ability to determine the social interaction”. (Excluding physical interactions, those having additional complexity). By “determine the interaction” I refer roughly to the ability to control the topic of conversation, and plans of the group.

  Everything else discussed feeds into this, and this in turn often feeds into those same things. I.e. Having self-esteem or wealth may help you with this, and having this may help you gain self-esteem and wealth. Extrication is difficult.

  At the same time, none of the other factors are required in all interactions. You may have someone who has very low self-esteem, at least generally, yet is the expert on the original Transformers show on a web forum, and has sway there (and acts confidently with sub-communications). You can have a wealthy and famous scientist, who in a group of “regular folks” is extremely diffident. Having the ability to determine the interaction without ANY of the factors discussed (including confidence) seems exceedingly unlikely.

  I’ve been viewing status as a system which resides mostly in the unconscious of the participants in an interaction. Everyone is assessing theirs and others’ ability to determine the social interaction, for that group in that situation. These unconscious systems react by controlling the voice, posture, etc, and act as cues for others regarding that person’s own assessments. It is simply too difficult for the conscious mind to quickly handle all these assessments and signals.

  The group usually will come to a group assessment, based on the assessments of each member. E.g. if everyone else is treating someone as high status (able to determine the interaction), you are more prone to make the same assessment. If someone acts like they have this ability, your unconscious is thinking that they probably have this ability, and will be more likely to react like they do. The system is there in order to quickly and effectively determine who leads a group, and over time the most capable members of a group will tend to assess their own ability the highest and project the strongest signals (conjecture). It also displays who has the most “resources” (such as ability, supporters, food, and furs). I’m doubtful that currency and prestigious specialty professions have been around long enough for us to adapt specifically to them in an evolutionary sense.

  Factors such as class, wealth, and prestige affect how strongly you assess your ability to determine the interaction. When visible to others, depending on the person they may affect how strongly they assess your ability to do this. Apparent knowledge of a domain helps to provide this ability in a given situation. Being interesting, funny, or beautiful also helps to provide this ability. Though even in these cases it would still be possible to be ignored, if the majority of participants didn’t assess you as having the ability to control the interaction, for whatever reason. (Beauty might take you far, but beauty without knowledge won’t serve you that well in an esoteric scientific discussion with many participants).

  A different kind of “status” would be when visible wealth or prestigious attracts others to a person, based on more conscious preferences and assessments of benefit, separate from actually caring what that person says. You might have a billionaire who couldn’t for the life of her convince a group where they should eat for lunch without paying for them, but well, she COULD pay for them. Of course, a person could have both types of status.

  The assessment of ability to determine the interaction varies based on situation (a bunch of fellow scientists vs a bunch of attractive women, perhaps), but the underlying system changes on the time scale of any largely unconscious process. It may “have a rule” that when someone compliments you on your ability, your’e more able to determine the interaction, but it’s hard to change those rules, such as “you don’t know what you (can) say around a bunch of attractive guys”. If the system were easy to “game”, it wouldn’t make for a very good way to actually organize groups. I know of some very smart people who hate working in groups, partly because unconsciously they don’t currently assess or project a high ability to control the interaction, and are therefore unable to get people to listen to their good ideas.

  Relating to PUA literature “shit tests”, people can test others’ signals (and assessments) of their own ability to control the interaction. If you apply a little pressure and their assessment changes, it wasn’t that strong. If they still are convinced they have that ability, it makes it seem more likely that they really do, (and have the skills and resources to back it up).

  I don’t have much in the way of references or data, my hope is that if what I’ve written makes sense, your experiences with people will corroborate it. I agree that it seems unlikely that humans would lack any dominance theory, and it seems like we have one, albeit a complex and potentially loose one.

Up­com­ing meet-ups: Ban­ga­lore, Min­neapo­lis, Ed­in­burgh, Melbourne, Hous­ton, Dublin

Weekly LW Meetups

• FrankAdamek 28 Sep 2009 10:19 UTC

  9 points

  on: Your Most Valuable Skill

  Considering that we aren’t designed to be consistently happy, I have a Buddhist perspective that the best way to be happy is to want less, rather than achieve more. It might be called “letting go”. This applies to things who’s only or primary function is to make you happy, as opposed to making others happy or allowing you to survive to experience more happiness. E.g. rather than fall into the cycle of getting and being dissatisfied with larger and larger houses, to learn to be completely content with the house you already have. Said another way, it’s a self-modification of one’s emotions and utility function. One is then free to give up certain things to achieve greater utility elsewhere, altruistically or selfishly, not to mention enjoying both new and old houses quite a bit more.

  The ability to do this to a significant degree is one of my most valued skills. In particular, coming to be extremely content with being single provided immense utility, both inside and outside of relationships (comparing my relationships to others). It also really helped me to find relationships. Note: as I’ve experienced this, it does NOT require that you cease the pursuit of something, just that you become very content with failing to achieve it. Being in a nice relationship might be preferable, but doesn’t have to stop the lack of one from being a great time.

  Achieving this skill to the extent I did took a long time, including a lot of struggling and complication. For those interested, particularly useful were music (able to add beauty to all manner of things with the right perspective) and general practice with enjoying subpar outcomes.

  Focusing on existential risk I get to enjoy this less than I used to. By so affecting mine and others’ ability to achieve future utility, the avoidance of such a disaster is far more valuable than being content with failure. Shucks.

New LW Meetup: Lyon

Up­com­ing meet-ups: Ban­ga­lore, Ot­tawa, Ed­in­burgh, North Carolina, Paris, Lo­gan, Irvine

• FrankAdamek 11 Sep 2010 19:15 UTC

  8 points

  on: More art, less stink: Tak­ing the PU out of PUA

  I’m very interested in this, and for some time have been working to improve social skills without a strong desire for sex. I almost wish I had more desire, because it seems to be a great motivator, and also provides tangible results, or tangible lack thereof.

  IMO, Real Social Dynamics has some very good material for this kind of thing, especially their most recent video program, The Blueprint Decoded. Every time I’ve gone through even a fraction of my notes, I experience significant and immediate gains to confidence and social skill. (I still have a ways to go to fully incorporate all the material.) It’s basically very general information and unifying theory to the majority of social interactions, distilled from their prior experience in the area. It’s great for pick up as well, but the main ideas are very general. It’s still sold as pick up material rather than general self-improvement because only as pickup material can they ask $600 for it. To say a little more about it, I can’t recall any notably deceptive tactics, it’s mostly about how to be confident, fun, and socially dominant (without needing to put anybody down). This isn’t so much the appearance of what people are looking for as the substance of it. Also, Alicorn and AnnaSalamon have seen a little of it and thought it was good material for both genders. I suggest watching disc 5 first for the best idea of the type of material it is.

• FrankAdamek 18 Aug 2009 13:30 UTC

  8 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_Golovin’s comment on: Ex­pe­ri­en­tial Pica

  I feel like we ought to start letting go of evolutionary goals as if they are our own. I explicitly do not wish to reproduce. I’d enjoy being a father but I’d be plenty happy adopting and raising a child who already exists and is parentless. A higher incidence of shared alleles and some related cultural temporal idea of “my genetic child” mean nothing to me. There’s some gut instinct for being a genetic father, but it’s minor. Evolution doesn’t really give a shit about my happiness (i.e. utility function) and the feeling is mutual.

• FrankAdamek 22 Jul 2009 1:36 UTC

  8 points

  in reply to: orthonormal’s comment on: Of Ex­clu­sion­ary Speech and Gen­der Politics

  It occurred to me some time ago that there’s a lot I don’t know about communicating with people, a suspicion I’m happily finding to be true. So I browsed reviews of some books on the topic, many of which said most books are basically just “How to Win Friends and Influence People” in different words, and figured I ought to go to the source even if I had this conception in my head of the book as highly manipulative.

  Having read it I agree with Cyan’s (best-of-all-possible-colors btw) and pjeby’s statements, and thought I’d say a few more things and recommend the book to those who are interested. The author (I only have this by his own admittance) did extensive reading of biographies and historical accounts before writing it, supposedly over 100 biographies of Teddy Roosevelt alone, and even hired a researcher for a year to help him out, which is probably why most books are largely a rehash.

  I was surprised to find it’s generally quite respectable and considerate to the targets of persuasion (which includes all human beings), and a lot of it is good ideas which might seem obvious in hindsight but often go unused. Some are small like smiling and remembering people’s names, others are more substantial like admitting your own errors promptly and earnestly and understanding the other person’s view before you react to it. Another idea like ‘genuine interest’ that shows up multiple times in the book is that it really doesn’t get you anywhere to bludgeon people over the head with your ideas, even if you’re right, it tends to just make people more obdurate.

  Admittedly in response to orthnormal he doesn’t really have any advice on how you are supposed to develop that genuine interest, so it could be through something like method acting, though he says once something like “people will tell if you’re faking”. Some of the points are mildly manipulative, not in the sense that you are ever promising someone something they won’t get, but in the sense of taking advantage of and satisfying what may be subgoals we’re wired to pursue, like feeling an active part of discussions, or wanting to live up to praise someone gives you.

  Overall I’d recommend it as a good book for very civil and effective discourse, especially for those who care more about getting their points across than just looking really intelligent (which seems happily to be the majority on LW). The stigma around the book I thought was largely unfounded, and shouldn’t be allowed to maintain a state of affairs where only the truly self-interested read it.

Meetup : Twin Cities, MN (for real this time)

New LW Meetup: Oslo

New LW Meetup: Rochester NY

Weekly LW Mee­tups: Oakville ON, At­lanta, Berkeley, Melbourne, London

New LW Meetup: Kyiv