norswap
Most of my mantras are quotes, but I’ll be eliding the author (you can find him/her easily enough).
I have a truckload of them, but I’ll try to make an informed selection.
Take a simple idea and take it seriously.
Often we know things that would good but we do not apply them, or apply them enough (more dakka!).
The unexamined life is not worth living.
I dread thinking what my life would have been if I did not have an introspective bend.
Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life.
I think about this when I get instagram-envy.
I have been impressed with the urgency of doing. Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Being willing is not enough; we must do.
One of many quotes about applying what we know.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Worth pursuing; and it’s also worth remembering that if something seems too simple, it may have taken a lot of work to get there.
Research your own experience. Absorb what is useful, reject what is useless and add what is essentially your own.
Crucially, there is something that is essentially your own.
Above all, try something.
There is one rule, above all others, for being a man. Whatever comes, face it on your feet.
Don’t give up, don’t let the circumstances do the choosing for you.
To be free is nothing, to become free is everything.
Everything is more meaningful when it’s been wrangled from life’s cold fingers. We’re all born in invisible chains we must rid ourselves of.
What is the mark of liberation? No longer being ashamed in front of oneself.
Shame is the motivation-killer.
Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt.
I have a tendency to give many things or people the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes, and in some provinces, you don’t want to do that.
Hotel Concierge: Shame & Society
I didn’t know about the experiment, so I went to read the charter and came back to read this.
What struck me after reading the charter was “How will these people find the time?”
I ran a quick computation, and it turns out that after work and sleep, I have 7 hours left in my day (which, given I sleep 8 hours might be conservative by US standards). Accounting that some stuff just has to be done (hygiene, ya know), the 3 hours that one should theoretically dedicate to house stuff every day is half of your remaining time. Everything else you care about must fit in that three other hours. Seems tiny to me.
So was it the case that people were starved for time? Was it a cause of “soft-defection”?
The 10% Improvement Problem
You should probably specify which generation you’re in =)
I’m 28. I don’t know that the next generation has “gone too far”, but the big difference I see between them and my generation is that we were the last generation to grow up without pervasive internet / smartphones / social networks. Facebook boomed (at least in Europe) right as I entered college.
What it entails is a lack of focus. I won’t say my generation is very focused, but the next one is certainly worse. As a TA, I can witness this firsthand.
I love this article. It’s illuminating and well written.
I do agree with the conclusion, although I probably would have been less generous in my treatment.
I’m firmly on the “micro-ignoring” side of things. But, interestingly, I notice my own small reactions more and more. It’s something I’ve been working. And I noticed them precisely so that I don’t let them affect me, even unconsciously.
That is also the goal of zen, mindfulness, etc… Become aware of your thoughts and feelings, accept them and let them go.
I’m truly baffled that people would become very self-conscious of all the small unease of everyday life and then choose to elevate them as major inconveniences. It’s a bit like discovering who holds your chains and redoubling in bondage and obedience to this silent master.
I’m reminded of the quote:
A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It’s jolted by every pebble in the road.
This is how it feels to me, with small feelings substituted in place of the sense of humor.
I’ve been thinking about this too, and I’m not sure guide suffice. Getting in shape or learning about a topic are simple problems (not that can’t be challenging in their own right) compared to the complexity of actually achieving something.
At this point, we don’t even have good theories or hypotheses on why these things are hard. It’s lot of small issues that aggregate and compound. Motivation is a big class of these issues. Not seeing clearly enough—failure to perceive danger, opportunities, alternative ways of doing things.
To achieve you have to get the strategy, the tactics and the operations right. There’s a lot you can screw up at every level.
One key issue, I think, is that it’s damn hard to hack yourself on some fundamental levels. For instance to “be more perceptive”. You can’t really install a TAP for that. I guess some mindfulness practice can help (although I’d be wary of prescribing meditation—more like mindfulness on the move). Consuming self-help, insights, news, etc etc only seems to move the needle marginally.
So yeah, I don’t know. Just throwing some ideas out there.
Something like this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qwdupkFd6kmeZHYXy/build-small-skills-in-the-right-order might be a nice starting point. Maybe, just maybe, we’re trying to lift heavy weights without having built the required muscles. Worth investigating and expanding.
I have an extremely negative emotional reaction to this.
More seriously. While LW can be construed as “trying to promote something” (i.e. rational thinking), in my opinion it is mostly a place to have rational discussions, using much stronger discursive standards than elsewhere on the internet.
If people decide to judge us on cherry pickings, that is sad, but it is much better than having them control what topics are or are not allowed. I am with Ben on this one.
About your friend in particular, if they have to be turned off of the community because of some posts and the fact we engage with idea at the object-level instead of yucking-out socially awkward ideas, then she might not yet be ready to receive rationality in her heart.
I came to the comment section expecting to see someone pointing out that not washing out your hands so much could improve your immune system by exposing you to more germs, pathogens, etc.
Well, since nobody did. I’m pointing it out. The argument seems sound to me. Is there something to be said against this perspective? Or something more in favor of it?
This was a really heartwarming story that brought a smile to my face!
I’d like to give a special shout-out to
As we go I’m going to continue to try very hard not to pressure or manipulate her, while still giving advice and helping her explore her motivations here.
That’s very important indeed.
Strong agree. I think one of the reason we’re not always honest regarding our feelings (I’m not sure—maybe you’re targeting something more specific here) is that it would be very tiresome if everyone were to do it. Everyone has pangs of sadness, despair and inadequacy, and that’s bad enough—but imagine if you could hear those from everyone else as well?
That being said, I try to tend to more truthful. I don’t try to impress people with something I don’t believe is impressive. I disclose my misgivings about my own work, or popular things. Doing otherwise would feel to close to downright lying. But it isn’t always well received. Even though I’m mild in my expression, there are many people who feel threatened (or more accurately, who feels their illusions threatened). There is a reason why we pretend we all know what we’re doing and that all the children are above average.
It did indeed exist (more or less) before: http://mindingourway.com/stop-trying-to-try-and-try/
In fact this whole series (Replacing Guilt) might very well be exactly what you are looking for: http://mindingourway.com/guilt/
Very recommended.
Not much to add. In my own experience, I’ve had more strife from using explicit communication (when I should have used implicit) than the other way around. I do (and mostly always did) default to explicit though.
Example 1: there are some people with whom I must get pretend-angry with while in an argument. Being explicit gets interpreted as an attempt to assume a haughty holier-than-thou moral position, which enrages them even more.
Example 2: there are some people where you’re better off letting them second-guessing what you’re thinking, or making your unsatisfaction somewhat implicit, and unstated. Coming up with a constructive moderate discourse tends to make them feel like there is little risk in not heeding it, and they will be given ample further warnings.
Some people (who often intersect with the last category), also shut down when you try to criticize them (no matter how gently you handle “the three conversations”). This hyper-sensitivity makes them more likely to course-correct if the criticism is implied but never explicitly stated.
Feels real and definitely reminds of me of some dynamics in which I’ve participated or that I have observed.
This is what causes people like Robert Greene (The 48 Laws of Power) to have a law that says “Infection: Avoid The Unhappy & Unlucky”. Of course this is very cynical and I do not endorse it. Nevertheless, it seems like avoiding misery pits is a good idea, and I think one can tell after observing a person for a little while.
Tells: (1) Does the person make efforts? Are these efforts designed to make a change, or just for show? -- It can sometimes be hard to tell, but when you break it down into simpler and simpler directives, it may become very clear. I once had a person who would not follow simple instructions that a 5 years old could follow, that would have helped her to solve a class problem.
(2) Attitude. Does the person always make excuses for her failings? Or worse, non-excuses: self-flagellation, “I’m like this”. Does she always have a reason why it won’t work? Again, hard to tell. Sometimes, very much, if the person simply has a very different worldview. I do not recommend using this heuristic in general, but for potential misery pits it can be quite telling if the person has tons of problems and if for all of them there is learned helplessness.
That being said… take everything with a grain of salt (as you should always). For contrast, I was (and I guess still am) deeply in love with a misery pit who ended up leaving me after two years spent together. There is something there I don’t quite understand, but I like to think that her redeeming qualities make up for the misery pit quality. But when all is said and done, I’m happy I didn’t take Robert Greene’s advice. But this was also not “another stranger on the internet”.
Might be, but you ought to provide an explanation for the mechanics of it instead of a blank admonition.
I’m strongly endorsing this, having done the same thing you did (spent two evenings looking at this stuff) and having come up pretty much exactly with the same picture, and the same set of questions/uncertainties.
Something I found very interesting is the fact that Ethereum is poised to move from proof-of-work (miners who solve a cryptographically hard problem to verify transactions, minting new coins in the process) to proof-of-stake (where one “stakes” coins for a chance to verify transactions, earning interest in the process — I’m not entirely comfortable with the ideas yet, but here’s an article on the topic by Ethereum’s creator: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/04/07/sharding.html).
If Ethereum successfully transitions to proof-of-stake, this should theoretically greatly lower the transaction costs and make the whole ecosystem more viable.
It worked! Also now that my interpretation has been confirmed, I can bask in the warm afterglow of rightness. What a day.
The question pops up regularly. Jacob (Jacobian on here) wrote an answer here: https://putanumonit.com/2019/12/08/rationalist-self-improvement/
One issue I see is the narrow definition of winning used here. I think that people reflective enough to embrace rationality would also be more likely to reconsider the winning criteria not to just be “become filthy rich and/or famous”. Consider that maybe the prize is not worth the price. I’d be more interested into people that have become wealthy/established/successful in their fields (without becoming a rock star I mean, just plain old successful, enough to be free of worries and pursue one’s one direction).
I watched one or two videos of this channel a while back and was impressed by the seemingly solid—but non-conventional—argument (it was on salt intake). I subscribed and was *dismayed* by further videos. I wouldn’t put much stock into the either the research being quoted (if you didn’t review it yourself) nor the treatment of the research made by this channel.
That being said, I haven’t watched this particular video. What it says might all be true.
Nominating because the idea that rationalists should win (which we can loosely defined as “be better at achieving their goals than non-rationalists”) has been under fire in the community (see for instance Scott’s comment on this post).
I think this discusses the concern nicely, and shows what rational self-improvement may look like in practice, re-framing expectations.
While far from the only one, this was one important influence in my own self-improvement journey. It’s certainly something that comes to mind whenever I think of my own self-improvement philosophy, and when it comes to trying to convince other to do similarly.