This thread made me sign up because it is a big enough sign that you apparently care about new people—you’re willing to go to that length to get people to sign up, so I’ll guess I could create an account. Maybe that ought to lower the barrier for me to participate.
Pimgd
I have this but different!
It’s not dirty—it’s static electricity for me. Worked at a place that had carpet, and I had to work with poorly grounded cameras. Got zapped EVERY SINGLE DARN TIME.
Now I tend to pull my sleeve over my hand before touching something.
… You could try wearing gloves (there’s fingerless gloves, if you get some thin ones, they can be for comfy winter use).
You could try chaining various events—e.g. “when do your hands need to be clean?” and then everything that is “eh” dirty is okay to handle for that time. So, grab the pen, do the journaling, make some tea, do this, do that, etc etc etc, then wash your hands, then start making dinner.
You don’t actually need clean hands until you start preparing food, so to say.
Hi there! I didn’t sign up before because this community tends to comment what I want to say most of the time anyway, and because signup hurdles are a thing and lack of OpenID support makes me frustrated.
I’ve been reading LW intermittently for about one and a half years now; whilst integrating these concepts in my life is something I tend to find hard, I have picked some of these up. Specifically anchoring effects and improving my ability to spot “the better action”. It’s still hard to actually take such actions; I’ll find myself coming up with a better plan of action and then executing the inferior plan of action anyway.
I’ve been horrified at a few of my past mistakes; one of them was accidental p-hacking. (Long story!)
One of the things I had to do for my college degree was performing research. I picked a topic (learning things) and got asked to focus on a key area (I picked best instructional method for learning how to play a game). We had to use two data collection methods; I wanted to do an experiment because that was cool, and I added a survey because if I’m going to have to ask lots of people to do something for me, I might as well ask those same people to do something else. Basically I’m lazy.
My experiment consisted of a few levels (15) in which you have to move a white box to various shapes by dragging it about. I had noticed that teaching research focused on “reading” “doing” “listening” and “seeing” types, (I forgot the specific words, something about Kinestetic, Audititive, Visual… - learning). So I translated to “written text”, “imagery”, “sounds and spoken text”, and “interactivity” to model the reading, seeing, listening and doing respectively.
Then I made each level test a combination of learning methods. First “learning by doing” only. Here’s a box. Here’s a green circle. Here’s a red star. Go.
Most people passed in 5 seconds or in 1 minute. This after I added a background which was dotted so that you’d see a clear white box and not a black rectangle, and a text “this is level 1, experiment!”. Some people would think it was still loading without this text. I didn’t include the playtesters in the research result data.
After that it showed you 4 colored shapes and a arrow underneath, and a button “next” below it. Hitting next moves you to level 2, where a white box is in the center of the screen, and various colored shapes are surrounding the white box. Dragging the white box over the wrong shape sends you back to the screen with the 4 colored shapes and the arrow. This was supposed to be “imagery”.
Then the next screen after that was an audio icon and a “next button”. I had recorded myself saying various colored shapes, and people were told at this screen something like “black circle, red triangle, blue star, green square”. The idea being you’d have to remember various instructions and act upon them. Hitting the next button brings you to the surrounded white box again. Each level had a different distribution of shapes to prevent memorizing the locations.
Then the 4th text level was just text instructions (“drag the white box over the green circle, then the red star …”)
Then after that came combinations—voiced text, text where I had put the shapes in images on the screen as well, shapes + voice saying what they were… for interactivity, I skipped the instruction screen and just went with text appearing in the center of the screen, and then the text changes when you perform the correct action (else level resets). This to simulate tutorials like “press C to crouch” whenever you hit the first crouch obstacle.
I had recorded the time spent on the instruction screen, the total time for each level, and per attempt, the time between each progress step and failure. So 1.03 seconds to touch the first shape, 0.7 to touch the second, 0.3 to touch a third wrong one, then 0.5 to touch the first, 0.4 to touch the second, 0.8 to touch the third and 1.0 to touch the fourth and level complete.
The idea was that I could use this to see how “efficient” people were at understanding the instructions, both in speed and correctness.
(FYI, N=75 or so, out of a gaming forum with 700 users)
Then I committed my grave sin and took the data, took excel’s “correlate” function, and basically compared various columns until I got something with a nice R. This after trying a few things I had thought I would find and seeing non-interesting results.
I “found” that apparently showing text and images in interactive form “learn as you go” was best—audio didn’t help much, it was too slow. Interactivity works as a force multiplier and does poorly on its own.
But these findings are likely to be total bogus because, well, I basically compared statistics until I found something with a low chance to randomly occur.
… What scares me not is not that I did this. What scares me is that I turned this in, got told off for “not including everything I checked”, thought this was a stupid complaint because look I found a correlation, voiced said opinion, and still got a passing grade (7/10) anyway. And then thought “Look, I am a fancy researcher.”
I could dig it up if people were interested—the experiment is in English, the research paper is in Dutch, and the data is in an SQL database somewhere.
This is probably a really long post now, so I’ll write more if needed instead of turning this into a task to be pushed down todo lists forever.
Are we talking about getting friends to help you for pizza or about a professional moving service? $20 seems cheap for movers but seems to be about the price for a couple pizzas.
I read that in the FAQ as well. … Weirdly enough, taking that option would make me just feel guilty. I would have gone there, I would have learned, and then I would have said “well this is nice and all but is not as great as I envisioned—it’s kinda like counting to 10 instead of immediately screaming at people, and that’s not worth all this”—whilst I did get what was offered—lessons, boarding, food, people to talk to… I don’t know how to put it. It feels like I’d be hurting other people just to fix my own mistake.
Japanese has formality as verb conjugations—http://www.japaneseverbconjugator.com/VerbDetails.asp?txtVerb=%E8%A1%8C%E3%81%8F—iku 行く as “will go (plain)” and ikimasu 行きます as “will go (polite)”. Translators try to preserve this, but I personally find translating that to be kinda hard. “I’ll go” and “I will go” is the best I can do off the top of my head (watashi wa iku/watashi wa ikimasu—and as a more realistic example, kaisha ni iku/kaisha ni ikimasu—I’ll go to the office/I will go to the office—“watashi/I” being left out because Japanese is contextual).
I stopped commenting on slatestarcodex because they disabled anonymous accounts and I didn’t feel like signing up because the comments weren’t that important for me anyway, plus there’s enough comments down there already that there’s too much noise to communicate anything.
I don’t know if I’m neutral (no, because I have an account here for a while now), but I wouldn’t have the same confidence to swing that bet out of there like you do. The post in and of itself is not convincing enough for me to say that your idea won’t work, but it certainly makes me go “hmm, well, he might have a point there”.
Specifically:
“Normal” people don’t need to explicitly write out all the rules for their housing with regards to social rules.
But here there’s a large list of rules and activitities and all that with the goal of getting group housing to work properly.
Also, here’s some examples of the group of people that you want to source your participants from having low social skills.
By the way, if you set up a ton of rules then it usually won’t work.
Thus, there’s a pretty big chance that the rules will not work out and that the social skills of the participants will be too low to have the group housing work.
I am not convinced that this is the truth.
However, if I read in a year from now that this is what happened, I would not be surprised.
Basically what I’m saying is I can see 1 or 2 people leaving due to drama despite the rules if you try this, with a chance greater than, I dunno, 10%?
Even though I have less than a 100 karma I still think this is a good idea.
Because after I went through what is most likely to be a pretty darn good ran workshop with lots of effort put in by actual real people that I will see in those days and to talk to them and to learn some stuff from them and then to say afterwards “sorry, but I don’t think that what I learned here is THAT valuable”—to their face (and I have seen their faces, so to put it in a email is a lot like saying it to their face) - that just somehow breaks social convention for me.
There is also the possibility that I consider flying to America and spending 4 days there “scary”, and that the monetary price tag is not my actual problem. To fix this, I now imagine the convention was held in Europe.
...
It’s not helping, I’d still have to fly. So it’s not America that is scary. What if it’s in my home country, a long drive (3 hours) away?
...
I can visualize myself looking up further info to see just how long of a trip it is. I can also visualize myself talking to my parents about this. I know the money is something that will be something to talk about my parents. …
If I think about other long trips, I know my parents will encourage me, because it makes me more independant. They’ll help me pack (do you have this, do you have that?).
For the money aspect… they’d have a serious talk with me about it. The ability to refund if it a total sham would help to convince my parents. The fact that it is on a weekend helps reduce the impact as well, it’s not a workweek you’re taking off. Ultimately they would say it is my own money, that I am a responsible adult now, and that I am the one that should decide for myself. I’d be subject to some heavy questioning about WHY I’d want to go. Due to previous trouble with cults in the family, they’d probably ask questions in that direction—especially after looking CFAR up—a workshop to “think better”...?
I could put my foot down and say I wanted to go and they’d let me.
...
I get the feeling I should visit a meetup or some other rationality-themed event with lower entry requirements first. To get to know how those other people react and respond to things. How welcoming they are. Yes, unjust generalizations, but on the other hand, some parts of those people has to think alike (rational-..istic) and thus it is worth some points as evidence. And whether I can learn anything from talking to people like that, or whether it is a massive circlejerk, so to say.
...
Man I could get half of that by hanging around in some skype meetup. Maybe. Sounds like something that’d be worth to try, given the low effort required.
I don’t think my original monetary argument is a false argument—the cost is real—but it’s slightly different. $3900 is a lot of money to spend on something that you have no clue of what it’d be like. It looks the same, but basically you can say “hey, this is a car, it goes really fast” and talk to a lot of people who have driven in cars but if you want to buy a car then maybe you should try driving a car first. (This analogy fails horribly due to the fact that you tend to get a drivers license before buying a car. Which involves a lot of driving. So you’d definitely know what a car is.)
Interesting part of the article, for me:
“Partisans with weak math skills were 25 percentage points likelier to get the answer right when it fit their ideology,” Ezra Klein explained in a profile of Kahan’s work. “Partisans with strong math skills were 45 percentage points likelier to get the answer right when it fit their ideology. The smarter the person is, the dumber politics can make them.”
Needs expanding. Based on my personal experience with long vacations … Yes, provided you work at home.
Just sitting on your ass all day playing games is pretty close to sticking a wire up your head. That’s a lonely existence. It can be fun, if you turn your self-reflection off and just let yourself go. If you have enough cash, you can buy and watch what you want. But that’s bound to be unhealthy, so I guess you’ll end up with health problems at some point.
“Not in Employment, Education or Training” is not a bad thing. Retired people are NEET, kind of. And they can do just fine. So imagine what retired people would do. Maybe go on a world trip. Maybe have quiet rest? I think it’s a great idea to position yourself as such that you don’t need to work to live (UBI woooo), but to then go and just sit on your ass all day and just consume is boring.
Don’t be a shut-in your whole life. Don’t be a workaholic your whole life. Experience more.
I’ve been playing the 3rd release in the Zero Escape series, Zero Time Dilemma (3DS release June 28, PC release June 29). It’s a mix of VN and “escape the room” in terms of genres.
In Zero Time Dilemma, 9 people are stuck in a simulated space ship, to test the effects of people flying to mars. Because the projected flight path puts the sun between the earth and mars, there will have to be radio silence for a few days. Several hours before the radio silence is lifted, the group is forced to participate in a game by an entity called ‘Zero’. Each player has to wear (or rather, wakes up wearing) a bracelet, which functions as a watch and as an injector of sleeping & amnesia drugs.
Zero has a fascination with branching of time—near the start of the game he tells a story about a runner. She runs through the park every morning. At a particular branch, she usually always goes right. However, one day, she goes left. On the left path, she comes across an old man who she sees often when running in the mornings. The old man asks her “hey, this is different from your usual route. Why did you go left?” The woman answers “because there was a snail.” Later that day, police finds the woman dead in the bushes of the left path. “Isn’t it curious, how one snail can affect a life so much?”
Zero forces the players to participate in “Decision Games”. The players are told that...
There is only one way out, and that’s through the big door with the X
You need at least 6 X-passes to open the big door
When the door is opened, it opens for 30 seconds—afterwards, it doesn’t open anymore, EVER
An X-pass will be revealed to the group if a person dies.
In other words… 6 people must die.
The players are split up into 3 teams of 3 members each (for maximum tribalism?) and then are told of their first decision game—a screen turns on, showing the names of the other teams. Each team is to vote which other team should be executed. If a team has 2 or more votes, it is executed. If a team does not vote, it gains 2 votes against it.
So the game starts off with a version of prisoners dilemma. Through plot an option (A votes for B, B votes for C, C votes for A) is suggested and passed along a side channel, turning it into a true problem rather than a random guess.
Pretty much every “Decision Game” is a cruel game of ethics—where failure is met with death, and success with continued survival.
The game is cut up into 90 minute segments—after these 90 minutes are up, players are put to sleep and have their memory wiped. It’s sad that none of the players seems to try and game this gimmick (not that I’ve seen yet, but I’m only at 20% completion or so) by writing stuff on their hands or something. But what makes this interesting is that the game plays out in time-fragments, some on one timeline, some on another.
I’ve pretty much been on an adrenaline high whilst playing this game—whilst you should play the earlier releases in the series if you want to connect all the plot threads (and there are a LOT), you could get away without playing them. There’s enough exposition to explain plot points covered in the earlier releases, although it sometimes feels like a noodle incident (“I’ve seen this before, it’s just like that one time with the rabbits”).
If you’re still unsure, I’d recommend downloading an DS emulator and a rom for 9 hours 9 persons 9 doors—it’s the first release in the series and has similar gameplay, although without the traveling to story fragments.
To me, it’s an interesting game where my ethics are put to the test—it’s easy to say “shut up and multiply”, it’s another to be faced with the choice for real.
- 1 Aug 2016 15:25 UTC; 0 points) 's comment on August 2016 Media Thread by (
Walking away from problems in traffic (like when you have a near miss because someone else made a steering mistake) is usually a lot better than getting into a heated argument about what an this other person is for not noticing you even although you had your lights on and everything. Walking away works if you’re not likely to interact with the other person in the future. Walking away also works if you’re not likely to interact in the context of X with the other person in the future.
As always, there is a middle path where sometimes walking away is good and some times it isn’t, but “that will literally never solve the problem” is only correct if you see “the problem” as “the grievance that has just occurred”.
Ethereum is working on proof of stake, which boils down to “I believe that this future is what really happened, and to guarantee so, here’s $1000 that you may destroy if it’s not true.”
https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ
Key quote for me:
“in PoW, we are working directly with the laws of physics. In PoS, we are able to design the protocol in such a way that it has the precise properties that we want—in short, we can optimize the laws of physics in our favor. The “hidden trapdoor” that gives us (3) is the change in the security model, specifically the introduction of weak subjectivity.”
You can use the water and soap you used to clean the plate for flushing out the first layer of crap out of the pan. Put the pan into the sink, then wash your plate. The water will end up in the pan. Your plate will most likely not be all that greasy compared to the pan.
I get the feeling that if you told Jenny all this they’d get angry at you at some point of your explanation. It feels kinda manipulative. I don’t get this “manipulative” feeling from the example. The end result seems good, though.
Good for you that you’re doing this.
But… as has been said before… not everyone (and I mean “only 0-15%”) seems to like (or even care!) about your posts.
I don’t mean to say that you should stop posting here all together (for that we have bans, if need be), but… maybe you should stop posting about InIn here? We’re not your target audience. Some people here (I myself included) disagree with your methods (like those endorsements by other organizations that turn out to be fake).
If you observe your recent interactions with LessWrong, would you say they are positive interactions? Maybe so, I don’t know how you view yourself. But all I’m seeing is disinterested folk. People who do not care about you. My view is perhaps distorted, but what doesn’t help are the shills—people who post on your posts with generic but praise giving commentary, which you accept with thanks. But then it turns out they’re part of your organization, or that you pay them. And not in a “this guy lives in my street, I paid him to paint my windowframes”—more of a “I pay this guy to promote my ideas”. That sort of thing adds a generic excuse for any positive reactions you may get—“That person might only be saying that because they’re a shill”.
Keeping this reputation in mind, you think that it is a good idea to go ahead and ask for money from those disinterested folk? Why?
Here’s my take on the idea. This is probably wrong because I am not you, but I’m going to say it anyway in the hope some parts of it match and you realize that if different people come to a different viewpoint with the same information then someone is either missing evidence or has made a mistake.
You’re partially stuck in a bubble that is your own organization. You saw the elections and the media surrounding it and experienced a disconnect. You feel your goal is to help society in general, and you think that building a platform and spreading the word will help. After some reflection you’ve come to realize that this whole platform idea doesn’t work, and that if you’ll want to convince others, you’ll probably have to go and convince them in person. But… that’s going to take a lot of time, and thus you’ll need money. So you’ll make a single post outlining your thoughts and just link everywhere where it’s a relevant thing.
There is nothing wrong with this plan of action at first sight. Take the last part—“make a single post, then link it everywhere in the hope of support”. Great idea! Except if you do this repeatedly, without giving something back, whilst taking actions that cost reputation… you start to elicit responses like this. Responses that say “please stop”.
Please stop asking for support here.
Please stop posting about InIn here.
You’re probably a somewhat clever fellow, so you can probably contribute to a discussion just fine. So I don’t think it would help if people were to block you (if that’s even possible? … It’s probably possible, with a userscript if need be). But the posting of crap should stop.
Post some interesting articles. That voting thing was interesting, perhaps the calculations were off (?) but it sparked an interesting discussion. “I was on a radio show”/”I was on tv”/”InIn has …” is not interesting.
This is not a kind post, but I believe it to be true and necessary. I don’t know whether I crossed any social boundaries, but this is how I feel.
If you can rely on honesty of people, you could add a checkbox question “I wanted to see results” and get 0-1 out of that one, allowing you to calculate what the real average should have been.
Disclaimer: I have autism. I sometimes worry that despite functioning pretty well in society, some day, people will say “hey, these people have problems integrating with society sometimes! We should cure all the autisms!” and I’ll be forcibly “cured” and have my personality (autism is a way of thinking, sometimes, so I think that this counts as part of someone’s personality) altered against my will.
Compare with the deaf people, which is BOTH a culture and a disability. Same thing goes on here. I believe that a way should be found to prevent people from being born deaf/with autism (preferrably via curing in the womb, not via abortion, but if people want to abort because their unborn child is deaf/has autism I think they should be allowed to do that because it places a higher burden on the parents). I don’t believe you should forcibly (or via social pressure) intervene in people who, for their entire lives, have been deaf/have autism in order to cure them. You should make the means available to them, but it’s their decision.