I am super-duper surprised she says it took a few weeks to teach the Outside button! It took about… 15 minutes to teach my dog to use her Food bell. And then the Outside bell and Treat bells were similarly fast. I don’t think button pressing is inherently harder than bell ringing, so that shouldn’t make a difference. I guess if the dog was starting at zero training it would take two weeks. (Robin already knew how to Target an item, which she learned after learning hand Touch, which she learned as part of the process of teaching how clicker-like training with positive reinforcers works in the first place. )I can imagine abstract words like “Tomorrow” and “Where” taking a whole lot longer, but the words that are just ways to obtain concrete things are extremely easy to teach. Outside bells are a very well-known and frequently-done thing. Look them up on Amazon and you’ll see about 20 options for sale.
My dog does this unusual roundhouse butt attack when she’s playing with other dogs. It’s unusual enough that people comment on it.
I’ve definitely noticed other dogs start doing it too after playing with her a bunch.
There also SEEMS to be a thing where in e.g. Berkeley the dogs at the park play quietly. I wondered how they taught their dogs not to bark while playing, because this is NOT the case in midwest dog parks. But apparently it’s “cultural”. If the dogs don’t bark at the dog park you frequent, your dog will also not bark.
I’d do this! Right now my dog is my accountability partner, but she adjusts to waking up later herself! :) I’m in Pacific timezone
You can simplify the problem into straight behaviorism.… I’d have to look up which book I read this in (Don’t Shoot the Dog, maybe?), but there is a game you can teach dogs, dolphins, etc where you give them a box or something, and only reward them for novel behavior. So you reward them the first time they push it with their nose, but not any subsequent times. This seems to “teach” creativity, in that animals that play this game regularly get good at quickly coming up with unusual actions. Note: I’m not saying the CORRECT thing to do is ignore all the substeps, conditions, pre-requisites, etc and go straight to “just reward the thing you want”. It was just a cute anecdote that seemed relevant.
But they’d probably have to have years and years of correctly predicted boring missions to make up for the amount of incorrect 99% predictions, right?Maybe the Star Trek universe has low key solved aging, so even though it doesn’t seem like years between episodes, it really is. :P
There’s the counter-identity of scorning people who “pick stuff up and put it down again” and calling all sports “sportsball”, etc.
I think it’s related to what Julia mentioned about having an identity that’s just against some other group.
Thanks! (Updating accordingly)
Oh wow. There is an example of a person who used to be certain they didn’t want kids and changed their mind later, but felt awkward about it because older people used to be very patronizing about her desire to not have kids and would assure her that she’d change her mind when she got older.
This is me. Practically word for word how I’ve written about it. I would be certain this was literally me if it weren’t for the fact that I’d expect Julia to have mentioned if she were using me as an example. And I know Scott Alexander has talked about really common issues amongst his clients that feel personal enough that he thinks if his clients read them they’d think they were talking about them in particular as opposed to a general thing. And it’s probably not an uncommon thought to express.
But it’s the most I’ve ever felt that feeling of “that is literally me being quoted there” before. And I feel like maybe I’m a paranoid person.
Chapter 2: What the Soldier Mindset Protects
Comfort, Self esteem, Morale, Pursuasion, Self Esteem, Belonging
Chapter 1: Two Types of Thinking
“Can I believe this?” (searching for evidence something is true) v “Must I believe this?” (searching for evidence something is false)
Scout Mindset is the ability to see things as they are, not as you wish they were.
“Was I in the wrong in that argument?”
How do we NOT self-decieve?
Realize that truth isn’t in conflict with your other goals
Learn tools that make it easier to see clearly, e.g. the Outsider Test
Appreciate the emotional rewards of Scout Mindset
I expect this book to be well-written and have interesting examples, but I expect it will mostly cover ground I’m already familiar with. That’s okay with me, the more I go over things, the more they get into my head and new examples help internalize thoughts in a way factual knowledge doesn’t.I expect I will learn at least one new thing that isn’t just an example. I expect that after listening to this book these ideas will be more in my head for the next week or month and so I will notice relevant issues and opportunities in my own life, which will help further internalize the ideas. But I also expect that big “in my head”-ness will diminish after a week or two.
Meta—I often relate to things with personal examples, so that might be a lot of my commentary. The title and cover image reminds me of my grandfather who had been a Soviet scout in WW2. His job was to go far ahead closer to enemy lines, and radio back how to adjust their artillery fire to hit more accurately. He got shot out of a tree when the Germans saw the glint off his binoculars. Being a scout can be dangerous!
Amusingly, the example of humans that are scared of dogs most reminded me of my rescue dog who was scared of humans! Common internet advice is to use food to lure the dog closer to humans. That way they can associate new humans with tasty treats.
While this might work fine for dogs that are just mildly suspicious of strangers, it is actually bad for fearful dogs and reinforces the fear/stress response in the way Scott describes. Not knowing this, we tried the typical route and were surprised when our dog got even more reactive towards people. If she saw us talking to people, this was a sign that WE MIGHT MAKE HER GO TO THE PERSON (even though we never forced her, but luring her with treats was enough), so now just seeing us talking to people was enough to raise her stress levels and get a reaction. I got a very good trainer, and she used the example of how if your boss hands you a paycheck while holding a gun to your head, the goodness of the paycheck doesn’t overcome the gun to your head. Instead of trying to get her to go near strangers, we told all strangers to completely ignore her. We taught her to run away from strangers, and tossed treats away from the strangers. If a stranger is nearby or even talking to me, they won’t do anything scary like “look at her” (her previous life taught her that Attention From Humans is Dangerous), but instead she gets treats for running away. Now she is still a little shy around strangers, and might bark once while running away if someone freaks her out a bit, but she volunteers to go up to people of her own will, and NOW we let strangers give her treats if she is willingly going up to them and sniffing around their hands without any prompting from any of us (and I continue to give her treats if she runs away as well)
Consider doing some epistemic spot checks
The issue here is that the easy, straightforward facts are all legit to the best of my knowledge (e.g. the basic history of the Bronze Age collapse and such), but the points that his thesis is more strongly built upon are not just straightforward fact checks (e.g. Pretending to be a deer helps you hunt deer, and tribes with shamans outperformed tribes without, etc)It’s like you list a bunch of real facts and real knowledge in order to make your point sound legit, and then put a bunch of wild speculation on top of it. (I’m not saying that’s what he’s doing, but that it’s a really easy thing to do, and really hard to tell apart).
His solution is to create an “ecosystem of practices” (such as meditation, journaling, circling and such) that are practiced communally. Sometimes he also calls it “The religion that isn’t a religion”
Two episodes / two hours in and he hasn’t mentioned any of this that I recall. I feel like the introductory session should at least vaguely mention where he’s going to be steering BEFORE you’ve invested many hours.
I’ve just watched two episodes now, and while it’s interesting, it’s also… throwing up a lot of epistemic red flags for me. He goes off on all these interesting tangents, but it feels more like “just so stories”. Like he can throw all this information at me to get me to nod along and follow where he’s going, without ever actually proving anything, and because there’s all these tangents I feel like he can slip stuff in without me noticing. I’ve been listening to him for two hours now, and I still don’t quite get what his thesis is, except “There’s a meaning crisis.” I feel like he’s trying to push me towards a solution without being upfront from the beginning about what that solution is.… “Traditionalism”, maybe? Or like maybe he’s saying something simple in a very complex and long-winded way in order to feel deep? But maybe that is the required method of saying it to get it deeper into your brain.
His digression about shamans really getting into the mindset of a deer in order to better track them reminds me of a skill “Pretending to Be” that I think is useful for many skills.