I intuitively think it’s good, but have in fact noticed myself clicking to dismiss it despite not having read it or thought about whether I’d like to read it.
Rohin argues elsewhere for taking a vote (at least in principal). If 50% vote in favor, then he has successfully avoided “falling into the unilateralist’s curse” and has gotten $1.6k for AMF. He even has some bonus for “solved the unilateralist’s curse in a way that’s not just “sit on his hands”. Now, it’s probably worth subtracting points for “the LW team asked them not to blow up the site and the community decided to anyway.” But I’d consider it fair play.
It could partially motivated by lifesaving but they wouldn’t have donated otherwise. Like, not if they’re a perfectly rational agent, but hey.
I feel like I’d rather live in the world where I could leave slack unblocked and still focus on my codebase that takes 25 seconds to reload on file save.
I felt like this was a scarily accurate description of my focus situation. And then I read the part about the chocolate, and like, good lord, get out of my head.
I’m a complete newcomer to information on Bacon and his time. How much of his influence was due to Novum Organum itself vs other things he did? If significantly the latter, what were those things? Feel free to tell me to Google that.
Sometimes you need someone to give the naive view, but doing so hurts the reputation of the person stating it.
For example suppose X is the naive view and Y is a more sophisticated view of the same subject. For sake of argument suppose X is correct and contradicts Y.
Given 6 people, maybe 1 of them starts off believing Y. 2 people are uncertain, and 3 people think X. In the world where people have their usernames attached. The 3 people who believe X now have a coordination problem. They each face a local disincentive to state the case for X, although they definitely want _someone_ to say it. The equilibrium here is that no one makes the case for X and the two uncertain people get persuaded to view Y.
However if someone is anonymous and doesn’t care that much about their reputation, they may just go ahead and state the case for X, providing much better information to the undecided people.
This makes me happy there are some smart people posting under pseudonyms. I claim it is a positive factor for the epistemics of LessWrong.
I’m really glad to have this comment! It seems much more valuable to know that something passes a first attempt by a second party than to just hear a recommendation from one person’s experience.
FWIW I dramatically misinterpreted what the “people” disagreed with and did not think “AMF is better than a restaurant” was the claim that would be contested.
Do Anki while Weightlifting
Many rationalists appear to be interested in weightlifting. I certainly have enjoyed having a gym habit. I have a recommendation for those who do:
Try studying Anki cards while resting between weightlifting sets.
The upside is high. Building the habit of studying Anki cards is hard, and if doing it at the gym causes it to stick, you can now remember things by choice not chance.
And the cost is pretty low. I rest for 90 seconds between sets, and do about 20 sets when I go to the gym. Assuming I get a minute in once the overheads are accounted for, that gives me 20 minutes of studying. I go through about 4 cards per minute, so I could do 80 cards per visit to the gym. In practice I spend only ~5 minutes studying per visit, because I don’t have that many cards.
I’m not too tired to concentrate. In fact, the adrenaline high makes me happy to have something mentally active to do. Probably because of this, it doesn’t at all decrease my desire to go to the gym.
I find I can add simple cards to my Anki deck at the gym, although the mobile app does make it slow.
Give it a try! It’s cheap to experiment and the value of a positive result is high.
The goal I ended up going with was two edited posts this week, due Sunday.
She mentioned Philip was a client. He’s literally paying to be other-optimized. Also, she’s citing enough evidence to get around the typical problem of a failure to generalize.
Bruce Schneier’s original security mindset blogpost basically just says “look for holes in things.” I thought I remembered the concept as being more interesting when I read it on LW and sure enough, Eliezer’s post was much more cogent. “The reason security is hard is because there’s someone optimizing the system down paths that lead to bad outcomes.”
I take a dim view of how I spent my free time as a teenager. Reverse to how many people see it, I think my school time was great for me and my intellectual development, while my spare time often made me a worse thinker.* In particular, I’ll call out my habit of videogames and YA fantasy novels. Here’s a thing I wish I hadn’t learned.
In YA novels, if you’ve ever spent 10 minutes living in the woods, you’re now an A+ expert on all things forestry. It doesn’t matter if you’re up against an adversary who logically would have spent years training for this, don’t worry, if a single person on your team has some plausibly related piece of backstory, you’re going to have an advantage.
Additionally, your primary talent is probably something where you have a god-given advantage over the rest of the world.
So fantasy novels are unrealistic. I noticed this while reading them. I still think I’d rather read books that will leave my system 1 with a more accurate understanding of talents. But what I noticed recently was that I didn’t quite appreciate that these novels (and books) had discontinuities of talent. Many talents are power law distributed, to be sure, but more commonly they are normally distributed.
I’ve noticed myself appreciating that I/my friend/coworker/acquaintance are good at something, and then it taking a while to realize how not-special their talent is, to the detriment of my predictions about the world.
Another anti-useful learning: I spent years training my intuitive appreciation for how often a 90% accurate attack will miss on game THAT LIED ABOUT IT’S ACCURACY.
* I think I still am my best self doing productive things and often my spare time is spent unproductively.
For this purpose there are two related dynamics. How much activation energy it takes to start, and how much energy it takes to leave (usually inversely related). Like an object in a potential energy landscape, being in a low energy state makes it harder to move to a high energy state. I agree there’s a surprising lack of correlation between low energy states and relaxing states. Meditating is a clear example of a high energy state, but it is pretty restorative. I don’t find binge watching restorative after maybe the first episode or so, but I do find reading a blog for 10 minutes to be so*.
*Possibly because by “blog” you’re thinking “intellectual blog like SSC”, and I’m talking about what’s half the time a tumblr blog.
For sure. This is actually something that made me curious about the internet writ large. If the WWW was just one thing built on the internet, then why do I get mostly answers for the WWW when I look up history of the internet? (Because the WWW was so useful.) Why did the internet already exist when the WWW came along? (Because it was just the phone lines and some modems.)
I’ve had discussions recently about how to spend free time. I’m blessed with a job with relatively well-specified boundaries (I don’t typically work on weekends or outside the hours I’m at the office), but I often still feel like I’m sucked into “unproductive” things in my free time. Here are some things I could want to do during my free time:
1 Maximize global utility directly
2 Maximize moment-to-moment hedonic happiness
3 Maximize long term hedonic happiness
4 Maximize mental recovery for later productivity
5 Use a virtue heuristic for doing things that seems “worthwhile”
6 Do whatever one feels like in the moment
7 Try to accomplish things that sound cool
(1) Seems penny-wise, pound foolish, and paradoxically hurt my altruistic efforts. All of the ones with maximize I endorse caring about to some extent, but not maximizing. I’m especially interested in 4. I feel like 5 has led to some great victories for me. 6 obviously guides a lot of what I do. I’m happy that I do it, but I don’t want to elevate it the way some people do. I like doing 7 sometimes, but often it trades of against 1, 2, 4, and 6, in which case I mostly end up not doing it. Thus I think most of my accomplishments have come during work hours. I’m basically ok with this.
Sometimes 6 ends up tanking efforts to do 1-5,7. Here’s a list of some things that I don’t endorse doing:
1 Binge watching netflix, youtube etc.
2 Scrolling through facebook, twitter, etc.
3 Playing a videogame that grows to consume my time
4 Writing code < 1.5 hours before I’d like to go to bed
5 ~Half of the times I stay up late at parties
I claim that these are usually bad for essentially all of the other goals.
Here are some things that I endorse doing:
1 Visiting individual blogs are reading through what I’ve missed
2 Churning my personal Evernote todos
3 Trying to answer something I’m curious about
4 Hanging out with friends/boyfriend
There’s a gap here where the unendorsed list has a bunch of things I can do even when I’m exhausted, and the endorsed list usually requires at least a little bit of awake-ness. This often makes me very reluctant to take stimulant holidays. The problem I think is that zero effort things are very low points in the energy landscape. This is what makes individual blogs so useful. They’re pretty low energy, but they run out of content quickly.
I’d be interested in other recommendations for low energy but finite activities and additions to the goals list.