September 2010 Southern California Meetup

INTERESTING: As soon as the pizza was in the process of being ordered, people got up and moved around. It went from one discussion with everyone seated around the table to several discussions with people seated/standing in a more chaotic and casual seeming manner.

I'm not sure what the topic of discussion was in the other groups was, but my conversation at the time started with nutrition and then gradually moved back to rationality related stuff. Maybe people saw it as "oh, well we're talking a break from 'rationality talk' to socialize".

INTERESTING: We put the moderated suggestions for things to do up on the projector and there was interest but we didn't really implement any of the suggestions. My guess is that the top rated activity suggestions involved self-revelatory content and we just didn't know each other well enough to feel really safe talking about that in front of a large group full of new people. If we keep having meetups with the same crowd I think self-revelatory activities will work better, but we might have needed more "ice breaking" kinds of activities?

BAD: I was caught in traffic and showed up late to the meetup that I announced. At the previous meetup I was there to hand out "Hi my name is..." stickers but this time I snuck in by the back door while someone was already presenting at a whiteboard. I think next time I will try to pad my driving schedule so I'm more likely to be there an hour early instead of an hour late.

GOOD: We had some people from the previous meetup and also lots of new people. The turnout pattern was roughly consistent with the theory that the next couple meetups located in different parts of Southern California will pull in new local people to each one, while people who have been to previous meetups will be more willing to travel. If we keep up the meetups, in new places around Southern California, I think we'll build up a group whose size, cohesion, and diversity will significantly exceed what we've seen at the first two meetings... which were already better than I was initially hoping for :-)

GOOD: Lots of people showed up.

BAD: It was hard to remember everyone's name. We should use name tags like we did in the previous meet up.

(Grouped because they are related)

BAD: limited and not-too-healthy choice of food and drink. (It feels presumptuous to post this, as I forgot to bring anything at all.)

GOOD: The venue was quiet and roomy, with comfortable chairs, whiteboards, and an overhead projector, and it was easy to find.

It is probably hardest to think rationally about high-impact, emotional subjects, and also high value to think rationally about such subjects.

Accordingly:

Have everyone who is willing to share name a major mistake they have made, and what role self-deception (including targeted failure-to-think, e.g. because the subject was painful to think about) may have played in the mistake. Then, brainstorm heuristics as a group for noticing when such failure modes are especially likely, and for reducing their likelihood. Post the results to LessWrong.

Give out pen and paper, and separate out for five minutes to think and jot notes. Everyone chooses a belief that substantially affects what they do. Ask: “Why do I believe what I believe?” Ask: “Given how I actually came to believe this, should I expect my belief to be accurate?”

After jotting down answers, reconvene and share.

Inspired by the recent PUA thread, and by behavioural experiments from CBT:

Take turns approaching random strangers (at a bar, bus stop, etc) and try to build rapport with them for a minute or so. Everyone else observes and provides feedback on their approach and body language.

We could try paranoid debating, as jimmy suggested to me during an IM conversation. One thing to note is that it would be good if rules and suggestions for the game were actually spelled out in the wiki in more detail... the article there is sort of a stub, and could use advice on optimal group size, how long a game runs, a scoring rule, and so on.

Someone could bring a laptop, loaded up with their favorite dual N-back software (like this one?), and have it available for demo purposes. The short term goal would be to inspire some people to be exposed and try it, the longer term goal would be to get people to keep using it long enough to get effects, still farther out we'd hope that the positive effects had a detectable and positive effect on people's lives. The first two outcomes seem relatively easy to measure and the third much harder.

Again, separate for five minutes and jot notes on the following question:

Exercise: How does the idea of choosing your beliefs “from evidence” make you feel? Are there fears that come up? About what specific beliefs does the idea of choosing your beliefs "based only on evidence" prompt some fear?

Special cases worth attention:

• beliefs about yourself
• beliefs about friends, family, and other allies (whose feelings you might hurt, or who you might alienate, if you seem to hold negative beliefs about them)
• beliefs about what goals are worth hitting

Then, reconvene and discuss (honestly, without rigging the discussion) what the consequences of accurate beliefs on the noted subjects are likely to be.

Go around in a circle and name something you protect, and what subjects you need accurate beliefs about in order to protect it effectively.

In my experience there tend to be several quiet members of a group, who don't speak much in the group setting but will talk in one-on-one settings. It could be a fun exercise to break up into pairs, and have each pair chat individually for a period of time, before rejoining the group conversation.

This would be useful just to build stronger connections between individual members of the group, but it is especially useful if you're trying to have a focused discussion. Usually a few voices end up dominating, and if that occurs from the very beginning only a few ideas get discussed.

Disclaimer: the experiment I've linked to is highly susceptible to priming, so I would advise anyone who will be going to the meetup not to read it (with the exception of JenniferRM, obviously)

Try this breathing experiment out, and document the results for posterity.

"What is your super origin / how did you become a rationalist?" is a question that seemed to spark a lot of interesting conversation.

Hi Darius - If no one else is driving through Burbank, I can backtrack and pick you up.

Both!