Well, they’re mastery of a different thing. They’re great for entertainment and cool looking demonstrations.
I personally have found FocusMe to be more flexible than Freedom and Self Control.
Possibly because Katas aren’t a very good framework for practice? Most functional martial arts that work in e.g. the UFC will suggest at the very least practicing with a partner, and gradually working up to live resistance. Martials arts that emphasize katas over live resistance tend to not be great at self-defense.
My guess is there’s something similar going on with rationality. Any sort of kata that doesn’t have a heavy component of “gradually working up to interacting with the real world” probably won’t be very effective.
I once saw a fan theory that made me see the movie in a whole new light.
How could Emily Blunt know that the transfusion made her lose her time travel powers—after all, she’s never been able to test it.
Therefore, how could Tom Cruise know that the time loop made him lose his time travel powers.
Therefore, Emily and Blunt are still in the time loop. They’ve “succeeded”, but the moment one of them dies, they’ll find themselves back at the beginning of the same day.
Agreed, it’s more appropriate for making an entire species of animal go extinct though.
Right, but as far as I can tell the method by which we’ve been positive has been genocide?
Of course this analysis involves ignoring other sentient beings. If we take their lives into account, we probably live in a time of unprecedented genocide.
It turns out that loss aversion does exist, but only for large losses. This makes sense. We *should* be particularly wary of decisions that can wipe us out. That’s not a so-called “cognitive bias”. It’s not irrational. In fact, it’s completely sensical. If a decision can destroy you and/or your family, it’s sane to be cautious.
It sounds like much of loss aversion is just an intuitive use of the Kelly Criterion?
and most of the rest of the time will be spent laying in bed doing nothing or timewasting, this person has the most slack.
It depends on how much optionality the person has around changing this behavior. Often busy people have the most slack because they have the most agency to change their behavior.
But what is a good second lens for looking at these conglomerations of atoms that exert power over the future?
One interesting alternative I’ve been learning about recently is the buddhist idea of “dependent origination”. I’ll give a brief summary of some thoughts I’ve had based on it, although these should definitely not be taken as an accurate representation of the actual dependent origination teaching.
The basic idea is that the delusion of agency (or in buddhist terms, self) comes from the conglomeration of sensations (or sensors) and desires. This leads to a clinging on to things that fulfill those desires, which leads to a need to pretend there is an agent that can fulfill those desires. This then leads to the creation of more things that desire and sense(babies, AIs, whatever), to whom we pass on the same delusions. We can view each of these as individual agents, or we can simply view whole process as one thing, a perpetual cycle of cause and effect the Buddhists call dependent origination.
I unironically think this a great example of doing the thing the OP is pointing at correctly.
I think you may mean taking your environment as object? The typical idea behind a subject-object shift is that first you are subject to a lens, then you can take it as an object to look at.
Alright I’m convinced. Does anyone know if I can emulate this if I don’t have an iPhone?
So, in addition to raw comprehension rate, there’s also what kind of knowledge you want to foster. This probably varies from text to text. In some cases it’s best to absorb a broad base of material rapidly. In other cases it’s more useful to get a really detailed understanding, questioning all of the author’s conclusions, working through everything yourself.
I tried to take a stab at when to do which model in this post.
I think Gerald is making the point that perhaps the slope is asymmetric because the risk is asymmetric.
Ahh that makes sense.
In particular, spaced repetition software with judicious use of machine learning on the backend. Technically this breaks the rule of “Same level of technology as today
I’m pretty sure this definitely exists today in apps like Duolingo and Khan Academy, at the very least the originator of spaced repetition wrote an article about it in 1998: https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/english/ol/nn_train
Yeah I mean it’s pretty clear to me when I’m talking about things that make me “cheerful” that my feelings are fairly scope insensitive
It seems to me there was some causal factor that caused the switch to flip to me (maybe it was reading about UDT or something), and I should be seeking to cause that same causal factor in other similar brains.
How does this acausally increase their chances? I still don’t get TDT it just seems obvious that the only way this would increase their chances was it if somehow effected someone else through culture or something.