eterrent efficacy of a threatened punishment: its swiftness, its certainty, and its severity.
Interestingly, these correspond to delay, expectancy and value in the procrastination equation. It’s interesting to see “negative” values used to form a kind of anti-motivation.
Maybe I didn’t get enough sleep.
I’ve been lurking on this site for a few months and seeing this in my RSS feed this morning was surprisingly shocking. I guess I just assumed that people trying to be more logical never made this kind of mistake. It was a good reminder that a mistake only invalidates the conclusions drawn from the mistake, so spelling and grammar errors should be pretty low on the list of offenses. It’s kind of saddening that this kind of problem draws my attention much quicker than serious logical problems.
Anti-akrasia tool circa 1925. (Akrasia inducing full article here).
Does anyone know why GiveWell is registered with the IRS under a different name (Clear Fund)? I am including a link to their recommendation for the AMF on a wedding registry and have already gotten a question about about why their name differs.
Thanks for posting this. I don’t normally look at the posters names when I read a comment.
Also, the mother of all repositories, the References & Resources for LessWrong.
Well, that list of references and resources for LessWrong derailed me reading the comments for this thread by about 12 hours.
A charitable explanation for this would be that people are unaccustomed to well written documents and so are more confident with their interrogation skills than your writing skills. Even with a well written document, the reader will need to get into the mindset of the writer, which requires effort. Whereas interviewing the writer allows the writer to share some of the mental effort for bridging the gap.
Several uncharitable explanations leap to mind as well, but they don’t seem helpful here.
I am Pinyaka. I’ve been lurking a bit around this site for several months. I don’t remember how I found it (probably a linked comment from Reddit), but stuck around for the main sequences. I’ve worked my way through two of them thanks to the epub compilations and am currently struggling to figure out how to prioritize and better put into practice the things that I learn from the site and related readings.
I hope to have some positive social interactions with the people here. I find that I become fairly unhappy without some kind of regular socialization in a largish group, but it’s difficult to find groups whose core values are similar to mine. In fact, after leaving a quasi-religious group last year it occurred to me that I’ve always just fallen in with whatever group was most convenient and not too immediately repellant. This marks the first time I’ve tried to think about what I value and then seek out a group of like minded individuals.
I also hope to find a consistent stream of ideas for improving myself that are backed by reason and science. I recognize that removing (or at least learning to account for) my own biases will help me build a more accurate picture of the universe that I live in and how I function within that framework. Along with that, I hope to develop the ability to formulate and pursue goals to maximize my enjoyment of life (I’ve been reading a bunch of lukeprogs anti-akrasia posts recently, so following through on goals is on my mind currently).
I am excited to be here.
It took less time to highlight “Why We Are Fighting You” and search on Google than it took for you to ask for a source. Literally it took three clicks.
The positive side of this is that these are people who are willing to turn over some control in their mate selection process to an algorithm that considers self-reported interest and personality traits.
The electric blanket/programmable thermostat combo means that you don’t need to wake up cold in the morning.
That first article gives the results of a pilot study for the second linked paper so probably shouldn’t be considered additional evidence.
EDIT: Also, the results of the second study show that for the post writing period both the letter-writers and the control had the same response (within a half unit of standard deviation).
Well, until the mid-80′s doctors believed that infants either a) didn’t feel pain or b) wouldn’t remember it anyway (mostly because of this study from the 40′s), so they didn’t use anesthesia for infants when performing heart surgery until someone collected evidence that babies were more likely to live through the surgery if given something to knock them out.
EDIT: Removed extraneous word
I wonder how long lived the new opinions are?
You should send that to errata@intelligence.org.