Feeling of powerlessness—tiring.
Fear of suffering if you choose wrong (plus bonus regret), inability to gather info enough to ensure outcome—tiring.
Feeling of scarcity—that you can’t just lock in some “if it turns out I’m wrong, I win anyway, I have this insurance …” security, but instead must really bear an emotionally crushing loss—tiring.
Is an omnipotent omniscient tired out by decisions? No.
It’s not a good book, except it says: focus/visualize on the result you want, not on verbal coaching cues. That can be good advice, but I object: when there’s time+space to consciously plan some part of your gameplay, verbal (self-)coaching is fine.
Proving you made the statement at a given time is as simple as getting a trusted signed timestamp or inserting it in some blockchain-like ledger, but that’s not even close to making yourself accountable for predictive accuracy.
Be sure to publish *all* your predictions so we don’t get file-drawered (except on you as a person which we probably can’t help).
A common technique is to publish a secure hash of your prediction rather than the text (in case you want to avoid it being self-fulfilled or anti-fulfilled or otherwise traded on) (crypto signed w/ your identity, too).
But if we don’t see a stream of plaintext reveals and a means of identifying all such hashes you’ve published, we might suspect you of planting both positive and negative predictions.
Most people prefer to publish their prediction (+reasoning) clear-text because they want to persuade and they want credit for being smart before the verdict is in.
Sleep deprivation is cumulative over the span of weeks. Being short 30 min each day for two weeks is disastrous. Almost no one is near top capability with even 7 hours. Memory formation and recall are especially limited on low sleep, even if you drug to overcome the lapses in attention. Physical health is also severely harmed (look at how attractive someone is after ‘beauty sleep’ vs deprived), perhaps mostly via poor diet choices but honestly why would evolution not layer on physical garbage collection processes when mental ones are already underway … further, a bunch of micro naps doesn’t give you the same concentration of deep sleep as the last 3 hours of an 8.5 hour bout would (8.5 is my ideal; 8 is tolerable).
Similarly, people who don’t have children and don’t realistically hope for extreme longevity have a counterproductive voice in politics. I’d trust intelligent+loving (high investment) grandparents to invest wisely in the future before I’d trust an environmentalist (by way of illustrating the progeny-dependent long-term ‘stakes in the game’ criteria, not to derail us into boring political territory; similarly, uninvolved sires don’t get any credibility).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5UAOK1bk74 - shoot, Vassar does really wear slightly-too-large suits. I’ll assume that he’s A/B tested this to give best results?
You can (or could) watch EY debating (e.g. w/ that presumptuous jaron lanier guy) over videoconference and like many less-polished speakers he has some visible tics while searching for a thought or turn of phrase while feeling under the gun + not wanting to lose his turn to speak.
I liked the excerpts gwern quoted and see truth (and positive things) in most of it. “Hydra-headed” for EY’s writing seems inapt. If you refute one of his essays 3 more will spring up in response?
Not sure what Vassar thinks is 3 in 1000 people—exploring+building boldly? Leadership?
Almost running a red light while buzzed+chatting. Hm. Well, I’m sure we all try to have a healthy respect for the dangers of killing and being killed while driving cars.
Yes, that’s suspicious. Good instinct. I’m sure there’s some bias against publishing a marginally-significant result that’s got a low (outside the framework of the paper’s statistical model) prior. I’d bet some of the unlucky ones got file-drawered, and others (dishonestly or not) kept on collecting more data until the noise (I presume) was averaged down.
However, you might be missing that on an iso-P contour, false positives have diminishing effect size as sample size increases.
Unambiguous mistake or ambiguous parallel construction? I agree w/ your parse, on grounds of the indisputable goodness of truckloads of money.
Thanks for answering that as if it were a sincere question (it was).
“Maybe this universe has invisible/anthropic/supernatural properties” is a fascinating line of daydreaming that seems a bit time-wasting to me, because I’m not at all confident I’d do anything healthy/useful if I started attempting to experiment. Looking at all the people who are stuck in one conventional religion or another, who (otherwise?) seem every bit as intelligent and emotionally stable as I am, I think, to the extent that you’re predisposed to having any mystical experiences, that way is dangerous.
I snore when I’m very tired and sleeping on my back (when my jaw relaxes down in that position it’s harder to breathe even through nostrils). Any cheap advice for that (besides don’t do it)?
Are there harmless allergy meds that would be worth taking for better sleep when I have mild nasal congestion from seasonal pollen etc?
Fair point, but how long does it take to eat+digest (cooked or uncooked) 100 calories of spinach compared to 100 calories of whole milk? How much does it cost? Etc.
I agree that you shouldn’t count the vitamin-fortification of milk as part of the value unless it turns out that milk is an especially good transport for what’s added to it.
I don’t know anything about testicular cancer, but are self-exams useful for breast cancer? I know that the data argues against mammogram-everyone-annually + the ensuing unnecessary surgeries caused by not-harmful tumors or other false positives—no increase at all in life expectancy and presumably there’s a significant psychological (and $) cost.
I think there’s some support for the idea of trying to lose weight slowly, without cutting caloric intake too much more than it takes to see some progress (tricky when to see it you have to average over several days, or, for women, a month)
You’re right to have low confidence in our winning-ness. If we were winning so hard, why would we be so often theorizing about what it takes to win?
Reading and writing well means never having to admit that you didn’t do any research before weighing in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joZV0XARmvA—“Is Amanda Knox Guilty?”—NBC produced docu for BBC.
Summary: Guede might be guilty (I don’t know), Knox+Sollecito lied to try to get out of trouble, there’s interesting DNA evidence with severe technical problems:
a lot of DNA from Solecito (likely making him the one who handled it) on a bra clasp that wasn’t collected from the scene until 46 days later. Unfortunately by then there was plenty of incentive by then for authorities to falsify evidence to bolster their extremely weak case.
A tiny trace of Kercher’s DNA on a knife in Solecito’s apartment—also collected after incentive to falsify (they cheated by running the test when they weren’t supposed to due to insufficient amount of material, at the very least).
faint bloody footprints of the right size in the bathroom. not strong evidence of killing and apparently might not even be blood (they didn’t collect any, just have illuminator dye photos which can trigger off bleach too).
The rest seems like comparatively unreliable evidence to me. DNA of you, even drops of blood, in your own bathroom? Big deal. Accusations from the convicted killer (Guede)? People pressured by police lied to try to get out of trouble? No surprise. I believe ~90% that neither Knox nor Sollecito killed her or helped cover the killing. Most concerning to me are the reasons given by the authorities—it’s mostly pretty lame (“there must have been 3 attackers! there weren’t many defensive wounds! kercher knew karate! not even superman could do that alone. and amanda covered her ears!”)
video interviews of Knox—http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/amanda-knox-prison-meredith-kercher-murder