Having good and correct norms on Less Wrong
This seems to assume there is one correct set of norms for all conversations. That would be really surprising to me. Do you think there’s one set that is Always Correct, or that the switching costs outweigh the gains from tailored norms?
If someone is building a ship, and someone criticizes the ship for being unsafe, but this criticism is suppressed, that would result in optimism bias at a social scale, since it leads people to falsely believe the ship is safer than it actually is.
This seems to assume that absent suppression of criticism, people’s perceptions would be accurate.
NATO has pushed member states (minus America) to specialize their militaries.
Can you say more about this? Who is specializing in what?
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining.
they aren’t any more expensive than they used to be, they just get allocated a share of the profits from R&D ventures that’re highly profitable overall.
Did you mean “allocated a share of the costs”? If not, I am confused by that sentence.
Tax as in “a heavy demand”, not “a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes”.
Competence might get rewarded—or it might get you singled out and ostracised
That seems incorrect to me. Competence gets more valued as you live close to the edge. People will tolerate the charming incompetent less when eating depends on him getting it right.
is there a reason you’re anchoring at 4 hours in particular?
Interesting, thanks.
a number of noble prize winning scientists have had IQs that would not even qualify them for Mensa, an organization who’s members must have a measured IQ of at least 132, a number that put’s you in the upper 2 percentile of the population.
Did he adjust for the Flynn effect?
I can’t tell if you’re saying eating meat is worse than faking data to you personally, or for a hypothetical academic, could you clarify? And if it is a position you personally hold, can you explain your moral calculus?
I’m not 100% confident in this, but many people cite heart rate variability as a sign of high PSNS activity, especially when the heart rate itself is not elevated.
My personal experience is that physical and intellectual labor come out of almost entirely different pools. I’m curious if anyone experiences differently.
I do think it’s possible that willpower to push yourself in either comes from a shared pool, but since I also think willpower is borrowing future productivity, optimum productivity over long periods of time uses very little.
Update to the update: the book is focused on manual labor, which faces different limits than thought work.
This seems like a reverse all advice thing. The failure mode you describe certainly exists, but so does “grab whatever is nearby in a desperate attempt to look busy (to yourself or others)”
If all of the following conditions are met:
It’s mid-afternoon
I’ve previously been able to focus on the project.
I can’t focus and just seem to keep checking social media.
I either need a nap or to leave for a room with less carbon dioxide.
As someone who’s been a large proponent of the “consider feelings of safety” POV, I want to loudly acknowledge that this is a thing, and it is damaging to all parties.
I don’t have a good solution to this. One possibility is insisting on things that facilitate safety even if everyone is saying they’re fine.