Maybe this should be in the Open Thread?
Nonetheless, I feel that if you can’t explain it without using jargon, that gives some evidence for you not understanding it in the first place (whatever it is).
Ratcourse
Karma: 152
In response to this post: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2013/02/which-biases-matter-most-lets-prioritise-the-worst.html
Robert Wiblin got the following data (treated by a dear friend of mine):
89 Confirmation bias
54 Bandwagon effect
50 Fundamental attribution error
44 Status quo bias
39 Availability heuristic
38 Neglect of probability
37 Bias blind spot
36 Planning fallacy
36 Ingroup bias
35 Hyperbolic discounting
29 Hindsight bias
29 Halo effect
28 Zero-risk bias
28 Illusion of control
28 Clustering illusion
26 Omission bias
25 Outcome bias
25 Neglect of prior base rates effect
25 Just-world phenomenon
25 Anchoring
24 System justification
24 Kruger effect
23 Projection bias
23 Mere exposure effect
23 Loss aversion
22 Overconfidence effect
19 Optimism bias
19 Actor-observer bias
18 Self-serving bias
17 Texas sharpshooter fallacy
17 Recency effect
17 Outgroup homogeneity bias
17 Gambler’s fallacy
17 Extreme aversion
16 Irrational escalation
15 Illusory correlation
15 Congruence bias
14 Self-fulfilling prophecy
13 Wobegon effect
13 Selective perception
13 Impact bias
13 Choice-supportive bias
13 Attentional bias
12 Observer-expectancy effect
12 False consensus effect
12 Endowment effect
11 Rosy retrospection
11 Information bias
11 Conjunction fallacy
11 Anthropic bias
10 Focusing effect
10 Déformation professionnelle
08 Positive outcome bias
08 Ludic fallacy
08 Egocentric bias
07 Pseudocertainty effect
07 Primacy effect
07 Illusion of transparency
06 Trait ascription bias
06 Hostile media effect
06 Ambiguity effect
04 Unit bias
04 Post-purchase rationalization
04 Notational bias
04 Effect)
04 Contrast effect
03 Subadditivity effect
03 Restorff effect
02 Illusion of asymmetric insight
01 Reminiscence bump
How do you correct your mistakes?
For example, I recently found out I did something wrong at a conference. In my bio, in areas of expertise I should have written what I can teach about, and in areas of interest what I want to be taught about. This seems to maximize value for me. How do I keep that mistake from happening in the future? I don’t know when the next conference will happen. Do I write it on anki and memorize that as a failure mode?
More generally, when you recognize a failure mode in yourself how do you constrain your future self so that it doesn’t repeat this failure mode? How do you proceduralize and install the solution?
benthamite, have you had success using decks you have not built yourself?
I once tried with the list of cognitive biases, and again with german and it was an atrocious experience. I thought then that I was violating rule 2:
“Learn before you memorize Before you proceed with memorizing individual facts and rules, you need to build an overall picture of the learned knowledge. Only when individual pieces fit to build a single coherent structure, will you be able to dramatically reduce the learning time. This is closely related to the problem comprehension mentioned in Rule 1: Do not learn if you do not understand. A single separated piece of your picture is like a single German word in the textbook of history.
Do not start from memorizing loosely related facts! First read a chapter in your book that puts them together (e.g. the principles of the internal combustion engine). Only then proceed with learning using individual questions and answers (e.g. What moves the pistons in the internal combustion engine?), etc.”
Maybe it is possible to study the material by yourself first and then use someone else’s deck—experience will tell, for me it doesn’t work. Then again I can imagine that different people build different models of the same information and thus require different cards.
If you had success (or not) using other’s people decks please reply (also mention which subject—I predict something like multiplication tables or such that is just “hard memorizing” and little understanding is easier)
I expected a pointing at a solution. Nothing came. I can imagine some books have higher priority than others. I can also imagine that some insights have higher priority than others (in my case, more than 20 insights a day get forgotten, so I have to put an upper bound on how much I learn per day).
Looking at what people you already consider bright recommend most highly might be a way.
Rationalists should win, I feel your pain, but sketch me a solution.
Did my best to get Cat to come to Vienna. Applied for C-FAR minicamp. Publicly precommited to doing 4 papers or wouldn’t go out on weekend. Have started using music when doing non-important work (raises happiness, minimal work impact). Started using rewards to make myself do work (after a bout of work watch a short tv series or something).
Is this really want went trough your mind or is it a rationalization?
I can’t understand. LW is obviously important to you. You know this is a touchy topic. Why not provide sources (who’s burden is it if not the author’s?) and turn this into an amazing post? If you have sources for everything that you claim this is an amazing work. If not, it’s worse than useless: it imprints wrong thoughts that will hang around for a while.
I don’t understand.
Meetup : Vienna Meetup 9th March
Found out intimate relationships are a part of my life in which I feel I could do better. Found out it is overlooked in x-rationality groups. Bought The textbook on it. Am learning it.
Upvoted, but it felt more like a lament than a stab at a problem. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Vienna Meetup: Saturday 9th March
Intimate relationships by Miller/Perlman/Brehm
Meetup : LW Vienna Meetup #4
Meetup : Rationality Meetup Vienna
Meetup : Vienna Meetup #2
Meetup : Rationality Meetup Ljubljana
Meetup : Vienna meetup #3
Corrected, thank you
Yes, a blank spot and one that makes everything else near-useless. This needs to be figured out.
WRT S.M.A.R.T. goals, Nick Winter says in the motivation hacker:
Nick Winter knows about habit formation