Less Anti-Dakka

post by Mateusz Bagiński (mateusz-baginski) · 2024-05-31T09:07:10.450Z · LW · GW · 5 comments

Contents

  Examples:
None
5 comments

It is written in More Dakka [LW · GW]:

If something is a good idea, you need a reason to not try doing more of it.

Taken at face value, it implies the following:

If something is a bad idea, you need a reason to not try doing less of it.

Labels/concepts, such as More Dakka [? · GW], Inadequate Equilibria, etc point to a puzzling phenomenon. When more of X gives better results (consistently, ~proportionally to the dose of X, etc), people surprisingly often stop adding/doing more of X long before they hit the point at which the costs of more X start to outweigh the marginal benefits of more X.[1]

We should be just as puzzled by the dual phenomenon. When less of X gives better results (consistently, ~[inversely proportionally] to the dose of X, etc), people typically stop decreasing X long before they hit the point at which the costs of removing X (e.g. because you need some amount of X to survive/live comfortably/whatever) start outweighing the marginal benefits of there being less of X.

Examples:

I'm not making any claims, just raising questions. Answer each of these (or any subset of them you like, including ) for yourself.


If something is a bad idea, you need a reason to not try doing less of it.

What constitutes "a (valid/good) reason for not doing less of it"? Sometimes you have a reason. Sometimes you have an excuse that masquerades for a reason. Some examples of either include:

  1. ^

    Those returns include stuff like "willpower", time, opportunity costs, "social credit, and other "squishy human stuff".

5 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by lsusr · 2024-06-01T08:29:15.278Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

If you feel slightly more free whenever you eliminate some unnecessary clutter, maybe you would benefit from removing all the clutter.

I took this to the extreme and it more than paid for itself. Benefits have been massive. Costs have been trivial.

Replies from: Algon
comment by Algon · 2024-06-01T11:04:38.639Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

What were the benefits?

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-01T16:04:03.288Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Before doing this, I thought "finding things easily" would be a big one. While I do find things more easily, that's actually a minor benefit. The biggest benefits are:

  • Lower baseline mental overhead.
  • It was really easy to upgrade things. There's no point to upgrading junk. It's counterproductive, but when I have only a small number of things, it's affordable to upgrade. It's easy to buy nice clothes when I only own a tiny number of them. I also replaced most of my books with an e-ink tablet that works way better, at least for me.
comment by joseph_c (cooljoseph1) · 2024-05-31T16:53:48.850Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

includeIt is written in More Dakka:

If something is a good idea, you need a reason to not try doing more of it.

Taken at face value, it implies the contrapositive:

If something is a bad idea, you need a reason to not try doing less of it.

 

This is not the contrapositive. It is not even the opposite.

Replies from: mateusz-baginski
comment by Mateusz Bagiński (mateusz-baginski) · 2024-05-31T18:03:34.007Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

You're right, fixed, thanks!