I valued the bit of chatting we did a lot. It creates a community feeling , and helps with actually getting me to work :)
But indeed, some people are distracted by the chatting. Having a “lobby” would work. Then the study room could be quiet most of the time, except when the joint hour-synced Pomodoro finishes. If you want to hang out but aren’t working, you remove yourself from the study room.
These would be simple but effective guidelines, I think.
It was my understanding that Main is intended for polished final products, and that drafts, polls, and, well, discussions, belong to Discussion.
That’s a reasonable distinction. But imagine this: A post which is a central place for organizing working together. Such a post is a very valuable final product in instrumental rationality, but it will inherently have continuous activity and discussion.
This post is not fully polished yet, but it’s the best one we have of the sort, and having it as a main post right now increases the chances of this becoming the polished gem we’d like it to be.
I agree with you that if this post “dies out” then it could be replaced by a better version.
I disagree. Instrumental rationality is at least as important as epistemic rationality, akrasia is both one of the largest blocks and one of the most common blocks in daily life, and the survey has shown that co-working is the best tool we have to combat akrasia. Assuming we can make this the nexus of co-working efforts, its place in Main is justified.
I believe this is the research you mention? Effort for payment: a tale of two markets
Alright, so there seems to be enthusiasm for this. The next step is figuring out the practical details.
How do we create a group study room? The first things that come to mind are a Skype group chat, Google hangouts, and the newly developed browser-to-browser video chat. The latter seems undersupported to me, although I haven’t researched it specifically. Skype group chats require at least 1 person to have a premium account, and I’m not sure if you can make a permanent “room”.
That leaves Google hangouts. Some searching shows that it used to be possible to make a permanent hangout link, but this function was removed. On that same page, Dori, Google Community Manager, offers a workaround. If you create an event years in the future, the hangout link won’t change.
To create a lasting link, go to https://plus.google.com/events and look down at Schedule your next hangout. The Hangout link in the created event (under the date/time) is persistent.
This seems like a reasonable solution. Are there any other video group chat options, beside the 3 I mentioned?
Edit: tsakinis has a fourth option, and immediately put it to use: Tinychat.
Should we have a schedule or planning facility, to bridge the time until we get 85 members?
Edit: Shannon suggests that this thread can be used for discussing strategies and experiments.
My sleep schedule tended to drift further into the night as well. I installed f.lux s little over a week ago, and just realized a day ago that I find myself going to bed around midnight consistently! The amount of sleep has also decreased, to about 7.5 hours. sleep quality seems similar. (I’m using ElectricSleep for tracking movement)
Capitalizing on this, I’ve ordered orange-tinted blue-blocking glasses, and have attempted to find something like f.lux for Android. There are custom ROMs that can do it, and there’s apps like Lux that only change brightness. Supposedly you can use Chainfire3D + Chainfire3D Pro + CF.Lumen, although I think that modifies your ROM.
I’m using EasyEyez right now, which can put an ugly red overlay over the screen. I don’t know how effective it is, but at least you’ll need to reduce blue to go from a white colour to a red colour.
YMMV, my girlfriend didn’t notice any change since using f.lux.
It’s an interesting idea, for sure.
For me, though, I really need the coordination part. A global study room where you can come and go wouldn’t work as well for me: it lacks the precommitment I get from agreeing with an individual to work alongside eachother at a specific time and date. I can make the agreement in far mode, and then near mode sticks to it, only if I made the agreement with someone else than myself.
Another thing that popped into my mind when reading this is that you’re trying to create a large joint effort, where everyone involved tends to procrastinate. That might be difficult.
I could imagine a different form of group arising if two individuals start out together, and then add a third at the same time and date, and if that works, keep adding people slowly. This would only work on skype if one person has a paid account, but I guess google hangouts could work.
Edit: An ongoing non-work-intended rationalist hangout would be quite interesting. It might have the same time-sapping risk as #lesswrong on IRC though.
I think money might complicate things: You might want to get paid more for stuff you don’t find that interesting. With trading just time, it feels different. You’d just give the other person X hours of your time, and you get X hours back. It doesn’t matter to you what you do in the X hours you gave away. Perhaps getting money for it also makes it seem like work, instead of a fun, social thing. Then again, maybe it’s a distinction that’s only in my head, so if you can make it work, sure, go for it!
Buying food indeed seems less formal.
Here’s a slightly different idea I’ve been toying with: Trading time
The gist of it is this: You make a plan to get together with a friend, and agree to work for 3 hours on whatever project he wants.You also plan a later date and time at which he comes to you and you work together on anything you want. This could be a hobby project, a difficult study topic you can’t quite grasp, or something simple like painting a wall.
The idea is that nearly everything is easier if you do it with someone else, especially for people that tend to procrastinate. Some things are even more efficient per person, such as pair programming. But even if it’s not, doing something non-efficiently is still better than not doing it at all, and usually more fun with someone else. The way I think of it, this is an opportunity to get those things done you’ve been wanting to do all this time, but never get around to.
Ironically, I’ve been meaning to try this out, but haven’t gotten around to it yet :x
Obviously this doesn’t work for everything: it’s hard to do for writing a thesis for example, but plenty of things can be made to work with some creativity, especially if your partner is there in real life. It’s a different concept than what’s expressed in the blog post, which is more like working at the same time instead of working together on the same thing. I’m currently mainly interested in the former, although I wanted to share this idea here since the topics are similar.
Feel free to contact me to get to know eachother! My email is Nuntius.Marii@Gmail.com, and my skype id is m.qrius.
… he shouted down, soaring through the sky.
Now I can see if a strategy makes a difference and whether I can maintain it for long term.
It’s been nearly a year since this post. I’m curious what your results are, if any.
underscores act weird for some reason.
Escape them with backslashes, \_like so\_.
Ah, but that’s not what it means to run until significance—in my interpretation in any case. A significant result would mean that you run until you have either p < 0.005 that your hypothesis is correct, or p < 0.005 that it’s incorrect. Doing the experiment in this way would actually validate it for “proof” in conventional Science.
Since he mentions “running until you’re bored”, his interpretation may be closer to yours though.
Upvoted for actually testing the theory :)
Obviously, if what you’re actually doing is running a set number of trials in one case and running trials until you reach significance or give up in the second case, you will come up with different results.
I don’t believe this is true. Every individual trial is individual Bayesian evidence, unrelated to the rest of the trials except in the fact that your priors are different. If you run until significance you will have updated to a certain probability, and if you run until you’re bored you’ll also have updated to a certain probability.
Sure, if you run a different amount of trials, you may end up with a different probability. At worst, if you keep going until you’re bored, you may end up with results insignificant for the strict rules of “proof” in Science. But as long as you use Bayesian updating, neither method produces some form of invalid results.
which actually seems fairly obvious in retrospect
Ding ding ding! That’s my hindsight-bias-reminder-heuristic going off. It tells me when I need to check myself for hindsight bias, and goes off on thoughts like “That seems obvious in retrospect” and “I knew that all along.” At the risk of doing your thinking for you, I’d say this is a case of hindsight bias: It wasn’t obvious beforehand, since otherwise you wouldn’t have felt the need to do the test. This means it’s not an obvious concept in the first place, and only becomes clear when you consider it more closely, which you did. Then saying that “it’s obvious in retrospect” has no value, and actually devalues the time you put in.
formatting sucks
Try this:
To make a paragraph where your indentation is preserved and no characters are treated specially, precede each line with (at least) four spaces. This is commonly used for computer program source code.
(From the Comment Formatting Help)
On Lesswrong there’s no real objection against reviving old posts, which I think is a good thing.
Your second point surprises me. As a rational vegan, the animal suffering is the direct reason I don’t eat meat or eggs, via Alicorn’s expected animal suffering hypothesis:
You will save an expected number of animals equal to the number of animals you don’t eat that you would otherwise have eaten.
You seem to disagree about that, and after writing and deleting a full post, I think I understood where our differences came from, and wrote the new reply above.
[I would like to] obtain answers to specific questions about vegetarians’ decision procedures; that’s what I’m still interested in learning about, vs. defending my own.
Those two things are related, in the sense that if your own conflicts with a vegetarian’s procedure, then one of them is wrong and both should be argued.
Nevertheless, I respect tapping out, and would like to thank you for the discussion so far. Feel free to reply anyway if you change your mind!
Am I responsible for my moral choices?
Yes.
Is John in front of the burning orphanage responsible for his moral choices?
Also yes.
But can I be angry at John-1 if he runs away?
I find that I can’t. Not when my anti-Correspondence bias-heuristics kick in, when I envision his situation, when I realize he is the product of a specific set of understandable environmental factors and psychological factors, which are the product of a specific combination of nature and nurture. Yes, some babies dying is John-1′s fault. But John-1 is the “fault” of his upbringing.
I find I can’t be honestly be angry, and I can’t honestly blame, when I have considered this reasoning. I can be sad, sure, but that’s different.
For myself, it doesn’t give me a catch-all excuse. I have a choice, I make it, and I am responsible for making it, even if I am a product of nature and nurture. This agrees with the viewpoint expressed in the article, as far as I understand it.
As for law, these views unfold like this: Most people still need to be punished for transgressions, in order to conserve the law’s pre-commitment that produces the negative expected utility upon transgressions. For some people, there’s also a sense of “justice” involved with it, but that doesn’t come into play for my rational reasoning.
As it turns out, these views are also predicted and recommended as the future of law in the paper that TGGP2 linked. I’ve only read the abstract so far though.
As a Dutch person with a German girlfriend, I’m in both countries quite often. It’s common knowledge in both countries that the Dutch are good at English, and it’s common knowledge in Germany that the Germans are not very good at English. Apart from that, fully English courses, or just English lecture slides, are common in our exact sciences university. In Germany apparently not so much, although I don’t have first hand experience.
Looking up actual numbers, this seems to be somewhat true. The English Language in Europe wikipedia page has a nice bar graph and map, created from data from an EU survey
In the Netherlands, 87% indicate that they speak English. In Germany it’s 51% and in Belgium it’s 52%. Across all of Europe, it’s 51%.
Oh, and if you’re ever back in the Netherlands, you’re welcome to drop by :)
So your argument, if I understand it correctly, is this:
Cheap meat comes from farms that treat their animals badly.
More expensive meat comes from farms that treat their animals better.
Your conclusion is then that we shouldn’t force farms into financial trouble, because then the second type turns into the first type due to needing to cut costs.
Here is my view of things:
Farms that treat their animals badly are large, cost-efficiënt farms, solely focused on profit. The only reason their meat is cheap is because that’s the optimal sales/price ratio.
Farms that want to treat their animals better produce inherently more expensive meat.
For your view, the causal relation is from the meatprice to the animal welfare.
For me it’s the other way around: the animal welfare causes the meatprice.
Current fairtrade farms aren’t fairtrade because they want to sell expensive meat. Instead, they want to treat their animals well, which means they’re fairtrade and which results in higher meat prices.
Now, to tie this worldview back into the argument we were having:
If 1000 people who previously bought from the supermarket stop buying, megafarms won’t start treating their animals worse. After a while, they would reduce their chicken output over time in order to minimize leftover chickens.
If 1000 people who previously bought locally decide to stop doing that, it might increase cost for the rest of the fairtrade buyers, reducing their motivation for buying fairtrade. However, it wouldn’t make the fairtrade farmers promptly drop their fairtrade motivations. It also wouldn’t suddenly turn them into megafarms, since they don’t have the volume for that.
Oh nice, I had never considered that! Thanks for this new conclusion that flows naturally from two of my beliefs: Brain size differences between species don’t correlate strongly with intelligence differences*, and suffering is bad.
*It’s mostly brain-to-body mass ratio that seems to correlate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio
Within 1 species, there seems to be correlation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Intelligence
I would think so too, but at least 1 person has requested chats that chats be at a minimum, even if he turned off the sound and notifications.
Besides that, a lobby has the advantage that you can hang out without working. Here’s the failure mode I’m anticipating and trying to avoid: Let’s say this becomes big, and there’s plenty of people in the study room. Some will just hang out, and not specifically be working at that time. This creates an environment in which it feels “okay” to just hang out and not work when you’re there.