Hey, thanks for your reply.
I do want advice… how would you suggest I edit the post?
I don’t know what I plan to do with what I study, I just know that it’s very interesting to me. I’m not sure if that’s good or bad.
I’m a native English speaker, and I speak passable Spanish (I can read light novels, hold conversations, etc). I never really considered doing an undergrad degree abroad.
Thanks very much for your reply,
Apparently you’re from Berlin, (I’m sure this is google-able)--are foreign (US in my case) students able to enroll in classes without fees, difficult to obtain visas, etc? Are many courses offered in English?
I’m not really sure what I want to do with my “understanding of the material,” which is largely why I’m not sure if credentials/access to equipment are important to me.
It’s hard to measure, but I think I’m pretty motivated. Unsurprisingly, I don’t have the raw intelligence of Yudkowsky, so I have doubts about how well someone with my skill set will be able to make progress without support/credentials.
Again, thanks for the reply.
First, great post—I’ll put some things to use (already doing some of them).
I’ve found that I’m quite effective using these types of tools to accomplish tasks at work (which are much more “mandatory”), than I am for hobbies/personal projects.
Do you apply these tools equally to your hobbies/personal projects? I guess I just have trouble using these same types of strategies on my own, sometimes not so well-defined projects and interests. Any input would be great.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Admittedly, it contained more jargon than the book itself and was a bit tough for me to follow, but I think I can take something away from it. Once I finish Antifragile I’ll read that post again.
I guess what’s happening is that I’m rather convinced by each author as I’m reading him. I don’t know how to step back and look at evidence for their claims, as I’m unfamiliar with finance, and the evidence that that do present I don’t really understand.
I am quite confident, afterr reading the book and the blog post, that both Taleb and Falkenstein are very confident about their positions and their intellect.
I tend to agree with you both on this point. I haven’t finished the book yet and he’s defined antifragile as something that has a small, defined downside and a large, undefined upside probably six times.
But hey, at least I can provide his definition, so his strategy seems to be working for me as a reader?
I imagine you meant to post this in the Antifragile thread.
Anyway, he does explain why he didn’t use robust or another existing word. He gives and example of shipping an item in the mail.
The item is “fragile” if if will be harmed by being dropped (or more broadly “volatility”).
A “robust” item will remain unchanged if it is dropped (experiences volatility).
An “antifragile” item will improve in value if it experience volatility. For example, muscles improve if they are exposed to volatility (exercise). The quality of restaurant food improves when volatility strikes—that is, when restaurants go out of business (as a category—the quality of food/service improves for clients, not for individual restaurants that close), because only the best food remains, and future competitors need to continually up the ante, like biological evolution.
His basic argument is that robust means “remains unchanged” and resilient means “returns to former state” and that there was not a word to describe things that require volatility for growth/benefit.
My dad used to tell me a very lame story in this vein:
It was a dark and stormy night, and the captain said to the mate, “Mate, tell me a story.” And the mate said, “It was a dark and stormy night...” There was no variation in it. I usually experienced this story with a mixture of genuine frustration, at the lack of creativity, and genuine pleasure, imagining the infinite regress of progressively “smaller” storms, ships, captains, and mates contained inside of the heads (imaginations) of each character, like Russian dolls.
Here’s an idea taken from Steven Pinker’s proof of language’s immense/endless possibilities; just add “he said” and build up the story. This could be an especially fun way for kids to think of all their family members: Grandpa said that Mom said that Dad said that Brother said that Greg (name of the child reciting the story) is a really smart kid. Add a family member with each “generation” of the story. I did something similar to this in a elementary classroom, to great success.
I voted your comment up because I agree that the vocabulary is useful for both the person committing the fallacy and (I think this is overlooked) for the person recognizing the fallacy.
However, I think the point of the original quote is probably that when someone points out a fallacy they are probably felling angry and want to insult their interlocutor.
The “Little Book” summary is very good. Nice work.
But it’s not who you are underneath, it’s what you do that defines you.
-Rachel Dawes, Batman Begins
Is this a similar message to Penn Jillette saying:
“If you don’t pay your taxes and you don’t answer the warrant and you don’t go to court, eventually someone will pull a gun. Eventually someone with a gun will show up. ”
or did I miss the boat?
I’m looking for strategies/techniques/habits for reading non-fiction effectively and efficiently. I’m looking for methods to help me retain concepts, locate main ideas, make connections, etc.
Has anyone posted about this on Less Wrong previously?
Can anyone point me to relevant resources that have worked for them?
Any skills/systems that you’ve developed personally would also be helpful.
Very inspirational! Do you have any resources in particular that helped you learn to cook?
Maybe it’s because the CD is a fixed amount that you can’t withdraw without penalty, so the bank can “bank” on the money being there, in other words, they can guarantee their income.
Right now I’m reading “The Black Swan.” Next, I plan to read “Surfaces and Essences.” So I would say popular science recently.
I know textbooks are designed to do the work of drawing out main ideas, explicitly define main ideas, etc., but I would still be interested in learning how people approach textbooks.
I’ve already read about how to read scientific papers, which seemed like a great resource: http://violentmetaphors.com/2013/08/25/how-to-read-and-understand-a-scientific-paper-2/
I tend to agree with this comment.
If you really don’t have a strong preference for looks, you are at a great advantage for the reasons you’ve outlined (I guess this is the premise for the movie Shallow Hal, now that I think of it).
Another thought, I’ve read that people (I know, citation needed—source amnesia) generally do a good job making first impressions; you can tell a lot about the chemistry you’ll have with another person by looking at them.
I thought it was. Could you explain what you mean?
Seeking Educational Advice…
I imagine some LW user have these questions, or can answer them. Sorry if this isn’t the right place (but point me to the right place please!).
I’m thinking of returning to university to study evolution/biology, the mind, IT, science-type stuff.
Are there any legitimate way (I mean actually achievable, you have first-hand experience, can point to concrete resources) to attend an adequate university for no or low-cost?
How can I measure my aptitude for various fields (for cheap/free)? (I did an undergrad degree in education which was so easy I don’t know if I could make the grades in a demanding field).
My first undergrad degree (education) was non-science, so should I go back for another undergrad degree, or try to fill gaps on my own and do a post-grad in something with science?
I’ve started investigating free online education (lesswrong, edx, coursera, etc) but I have concerns: don’t I need credentials? Don’t I need classmates/colleagues/collaborators to help teach me, motivate me, and supply me with equipment? How do I know if I really understand the material? How do I address these concerns?
p.s. – I’m all for “munchkin” style answers/solutions to these problems, so long as they are actually feasible