I’m high enough on conscientiousness to not fail, but not high enough on conscientiousness to succeed (or catch up to my neuroticism).
NicholasKross
Karma: 44
[Question] Can you gain weirdness points?
Hey how do I be you? The most I got was one time when I drank an energy drink and then I obsessed over a spreadsheet for 2 hours and then crashed after a total of 4 hours.
Can’t wait! I’ve convinced a friend or two of mine to come, hope to see the rest of you there!
Another example of going up/down the ladder/lattice of abstraction, is also given by Paul Graham. In his essay “General and Surprising”, he noted how valuable insights are generally-applicable, usually meaning abstract. However, he noted that it’s often more attainable to say something more specific about already-known-to-be-important-things (as long as that more specific thing is new).
More specifically, being specific seems like it would catch more mistakes/laziness/haziness in reasoning. In contrast, being more general seems better for having new ideas, rather than getting them to specifically match reality well.
As far as I know, being specific is like half (most? (technically all?)) of the core of rational thinking and living. Looking forward to more out of this, based on what’s posted so far!
Spaced repetition is still good for knowledge you need to retrieve immediately, when a 2-second delay would make it useless.
Not sure about other people/situations, BUT I personally have found, in classroom settings relating to math and CS theory, that a 2-second delay can impede understanding. Especially when a definition relies on a combination of well-chunked previous concepts, which is especially the case when dealing with math.
Indeed. Reminds me of how science communication these days has kind of expanded, partly because the tools of (good) design are more accessible. A quick look at the (good) science channels on YouTube shows kinda the opposite. Of course, this can lead to other problems (if science + bad-design = crackpot, people can perceive BS + good-design as = true). Rhyme-as-reason effect, style-as-substance, etc.
Definitely think it’s a good idea to go for the two optimized versions. Kinda like many (most?) of the classic novels from history: cheap mass edition + luxurious “pro” version. (Not that the content would actually differ between them, unless there’s some good reason for that I’m not thinking of; “Hey, the leatherbound version has more original post text and tangents!”).
There is something weirdly powerful about these being in well-printed form, more approachable in form and content. This is something easier to recommend to friends without having to go “By the way this post references a thing that is no longer relevant / is poorly researched” like the Robber’s Cave mentioned.
I’d be interested in more resources regarding the “low-hanging fruit” theory as related to the structure of ideaspace and how/whether nk space applies to that. Any good resources-for-beginners on Kauffman’s work?
This is way clearer thinking than I previously had about this topic. Thank you!