pearls before swine >:[
The post is making me feel optimism about social technology again.
I think I would be a much better-trained rationalist if I did my basic rationality practices as regularly as I do physical exercise. The practices are:
I keep a list of things I have changed my mind about. Everything from geopolitics to my personal life.
I hardly ever go looking outside my echo chamber in search for things that can challenge/correct my beliefs because I find it very effortful & unpleasant. (You know what else is effortful? Pushups).
I sometimes write letters to my future or past selves. I tried giving comprehensive life advice to my 16-year-old self, and ended up learning a lot about advice and spurious counterfactuals...
I sometimes do the Line of Retreat negative visualization. For immediate things, I tend to do it out loud while on a walk. For political beliefs, I slowly add to a private document over time and occasionally review it.
I maintain a list of my disagreements with various public thinkers. Helps me separate tribal thinking from truth-seeking.
I made an Anki deck for memorizing my defensive epistemology heuristics: “is this explainable by selection effects?”, Proving Too Much, “is this claim consistent with their previous claim?”, Reversal Test, etc.
I notice I’m at a point where I can make surprisingly good fermi estimates if I spend a couple minutes thinking really hard, usually not otherwise. Feels like there’s room for improvement.
Hard to practice with regularity, but these days I try to restrain myself from joining into an in-progress debate when I overhear one, and instead sit on the sideline and patiently wait for openings to point out (double) cruxes.
Prompt myself to answer, “what would a slightly improved version of me do in this situation? What would I think if I were more rested and better hydrated?” It’s embarrassing how much mileage I have gotten out of role-playing as myself.
Privately journaling about my internal conflicts or difficult feelings. Simple but underpracticed (much like sit-ups).
I wrote down a page of predictions about the state of crypto tech in 2031, aiming for maximum specificity & minimal future embarrassment. Similar for Twitter in this post. I guess I might call this “conscientious futurism” or just “sticking my neck out”.
Pro/Con lists. They’re effortful & time-intensive. But so is half-focused vacillating, which is what I do by default.
So yeah, those are my rationality exercises, and I really wish I practiced them more regularly. It’s not exactly high-level SEAL-inspired training, and it’s pretty hard to verify, but...it feels like it makes me more rational.
I think a world of widespread economic literacy might be even better than it is depicted here. Speculative sci-fi has traditionally suffered from issues like predicting flying cars instead of smartphones. In Optimism About Social Technology, I wrote that my pet heuristic is:
Imagine how much worse the world would be if there were a worldwide ban on e.g. standard insurance contracts—no health insurance, no auto insurance, no fire insurance.
Now imagine how much better the world would be if we had not only those things but also widespread liability insurance...or dominant assurance contracts, or prediction markets, or something that hasn’t even been invented yet!
I think EY is off to a great start with Dath Ilan, but speculative fiction is hard, so I want there to be a whole genre of Dath Ilan-style world-building.
Conditional payments for paywalled content (after you pay for a piece of downloadable content and view it, you can decide after the fact if payments should go to the author or to proportionately refund previous readers)
-- Vitalik Buterin, On Radical Markets
Good post. I myself have gotten into the habit of referring to an outside view instead of the outside view.
I wonder where the Spiral of Silence fits in here. I guess opposite the Respectability cascade?
society can respond to new information relatively quickly, but does so smoothly. This seems like a good thing.
This makes me think of the Concave Disposition.
I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that these concepts are already well-known.
Well I think independent discovery is underrated anyway.
I think this remains an outstanding, top-tier problem in group rationality. I feel like I encounter it constantly. I’m surprised this post doesn’t have more engagement.
I suspect that the long days break down some of your usual defences. It makes their techniques more effective, but you may not want to provide them with this power over you.
I personally feel less concerned by the long hours than by the notion of “psychological hacks” that lead to testimonials like, “What is, is; and what isn’t isn’t”. That stuff makes me imagine some kind of “leap of faith” maneuver, which I usually see as unreliable and prone to misfiring.
The Western focus on individuality and autonomy can be limiting as often a push is exactly what we need. This may explain part of why they were able to achieve what seemed like remarkable results—psychologists are limited by ethics in a way in which Landmark is not.
Yeah, this is plausible. It’s easy to imagine scenarios where a push from a trusted friend is exactly what I want. However, I’m still wary of hiring an organization of strangers to overpower my narratives & worldview using psychological hacks.
Contrast with certain types of meditation, whereby you can directly observe evidence that challenges your narrative, without ever doing anything epistemically questionable.