Thanks. The “drawing what you see” vs “drawing what you think” distinction combined with the images helped me understand the idea better.This seems somewhat related to what Scott Alexander called “concept shaped holes.” So you’re saying that some people have a “concept of how to draw what you see” shaped hole, and that Edwards has some techniques of helping you fill that gap.Are you specifically looking for conceptual shifts that would allow you to do something better? Or is just being able to understand something you previously didn’t understand enough? Like if someone didn’t “get” jazz and there were some way to help them appreciate it, would that count?
Thanks for writing up your thoughts here. I hope you wont mind a little push-back.There’s a premise underlying much of your thought that I don’t think is true.
But as the world of Social Studies consists of the interactions of persons, places, and things, they are subject to the Laws of Physics, and so the tenants of Physics must apply.
I don’t really see how the laws of physics apply to social interactions. To me it sounds like you’re mixing up different levels of description without any reason.Yes, at bottom we’re all made up of physical stuff that physics describes. But that doesn’t really mean that the laws of physics are particularly useful when trying to explain human scale phenomena like why people get hungry, or angry, or why people have a hard time coordinating, or (more to your point), why people sometimes believe the wrong things. The fields of psychology, evolutionary biology, sociology among others seem like they’d be more relevant than physics. The different fields of knowledge exist for a good reason.
I think some question in this area would work well for this collaboration I’m proposing: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oqSMn6WEXPdDEvyyt/what-question-would-you-like-to-collaborate-onIf you add a question there and it gets picked I’d be happy to work on this with you.
Ya I thought it was worth a try. Looks like exactly one person is putting forward a question so far. Do you have any questions you’d be interested in working on?
Thanks for being the first person to submit a question!
It turns people who have “no drawing talent” into people who can easily draw anything they see, not by strenuous exercise, but by a conceptual shift that can be achieved in a few hours.
Did that work for you, or do you know of any evidence that that’s the case? I’m skeptical that a few hours can allow anyone to “draw anything they see” but would be happy to change my mind on that. I guess you didn’t say how well they’d be able to draw after just a few hours of “conceptual shift.” But I read you as saying anyone can draw very well after just a little effort.I guess I’m not really understanding the question. Is the question something like:”What are some small shifts people can make in their mental model of some skill that would have a very large impact in the skill level of the person making that mental shift?”
going for a walk
taking a long bath or shower
going to the gym
taking a nap if I’m tired
I’m a bit worried that my question will be picked and then I’ll be the only one working on it. So to give this thing a better chance of at least two people collaborating, I’m not submitting a question.
Thanks. I’d heard of wikispore, but not wikifunctions. That looks cool.
“I wrote first wrote”Thanks for the post!
A really easy way to set up your own wiki is to use a github repo. You can make it private if you don’t want people to see it. If you use markdown and use the .md file extension, github will show the pages nicely and will even make links to other pages work.
do you ever go back to old free form notes and find yourself unable to reconstruct what you originally meant?
I don’t think I’ve ever had that problem.
Or find the task of wading through your old free form notes unpleasant, since they’re not polished?
I think it’s fun. I’ve never found it unpleasant. And if it’s on a computer you can always use the search function for topics you’re interested in pursuing further.
Also make sure to check out the other posts with the note taking tag if you haven’t seen them already: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/note-taking
I like using a wiki for notes. Something like this: http://evergreennotes.com/. There are a lot of ways to set up a wiki.
1) How consistently do you take notes when you’re reading up on a new skill or subject?
I take notes for things that I want to eventually write something about, so for most things I don’t end up taking notes.
2) Do you regularly refer back to old notes?
Sure. Especially keeping track of relevant sources is super useful for future me.
3) Do you approach note-taking differently for different subjects or purposes?
For notes that I don’t want people to see because they involve private information, I just use a repository with some files and folders on my computer. For anything that I’d be ok with people reading, I use this wiki: openquestions.wiki.
4) Have you adopted a specific note-taking method and used it consistently for more than a few months?
Yep.I’m not sure if the method has a name. For my personal notes I have a folder for free form babble type thoughts. Each filename is just the date that I’m writing. Then I later go through and find anything related to some topic I want to do more work on and copy past the good bits into files separated by topic.Some of those notes in my private repo end up being something I’d like to share with friends, so I post ’em to my wiki.
5) What role does note-taking play for you? Is it a way to focus your attention? To make extracts from the text for easier reference later? To comprehend the material better through the act of making notes?
The free form writing helps me to get down my thoughts quickly for possible future reference. Sometimes I go back to what I wrote 5 months ago and find some gems.Sometimes when I’m researching a topic, just copy pasting links and relevant text has been useful.Taking notes helps me keep track of fragmentary ideas for future processing and helps me do the processing.
If you’re just looking for the arguments. This are what you’re looking for:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism
How do you know that disinterested (not game-theoretic or instrumental) altruism is irrational / doesn’t make any sense?
What is “disinterested altruism”? And why do you think it’s connected to moral anti-realism?
Thx. I’ll check it out.
I agree. My two questions with regards to that are:
Would they accept this as a sister project? The last time they took on a sister project was something like 10 years ago (iirc)
Would it be better placed as it’s own Wikimedia project or could it be merged with Wikiversity?
StackExchange only flags duplicates, that’s true, but the reason is so that search is more efficient, not less. The duplicate serves as a signpost pointing to the canonical question.
Ya I get that. But why keep all the answers and stuff from the duplicates? My idea with the question wiki was to keep the duplicate question page (because maybe it’s worded a bit differently and would show up differently in searches), have a pointer to the canonical question, and remove the rest of the content on that page, combining it with the canonical question page.
Also, StackExchange does indeed allow edits to answers by people other than the original poster. Those with less than a certain amount of reputation can only propose an edit and someone else has to approve it, and those who have a higher level of reputation can edit any answer and have the edit immediately go into effect.
Huh. That’s new to me. Thanks for the info. That may affect my view on the need for the question wiki. I’ll have to think about it. Maybe I gotta take a closer look at stackexchange.
Ya I think you’re basically right here. Which is why I’m not really hoping to “grow large enough to be comparable to Stack Exchange and still remain good.” In fact even growing large enough and being sucky seems very hard.My goal is just to make something that’s useful to individuals. I figure if I get use out of the thing when working alone, maybe other people would too.
I’m not sure I’m getting your question.I think mediawiki (the software that runs both wikipedia and this question wiki) only allows text by default. But there’s no reason why the pages can’t just link to relevant sources. And in fact probably some questions should be answered with just one link to the relevant wikipedia page. Ideally pages should synthesize relevant sources but I think just listing sources is better than nothing.