Procedural Knowledge Gaps
post by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T03:17:00.845Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 1495 commentsContents
1495 comments
I am beginning to suspect that it is surprisingly common for intelligent, competent adults to somehow make it through the world for a few decades while missing some ordinary skill, like mailing a physical letter, folding a fitted sheet, depositing a check, or reading a bus schedule. Since these tasks are often presented atomically - or, worse, embedded implicitly into other instructions - and it is often possible to get around the need for them, this ignorance is not self-correcting. One can Google "how to deposit a check" and similar phrases, but the sorts of instructions that crop up are often misleading, rely on entangled and potentially similarly-deficient knowledge to be understandable, or are not so much instructions as they are tips and tricks and warnings for people who already know the basic procedure. Asking other people is more effective because they can respond to requests for clarification (and physically pointing at stuff is useful too), but embarrassing, since lacking these skills as an adult is stigmatized. (They are rarely even considered skills by people who have had them for a while.)
This seems like a bad situation. And - if I am correct and gaps like these are common - then it is something of a collective action problem to handle gap-filling without undue social drama. Supposedly, we're good at collective action problems, us rationalists, right? So I propose a thread for the purpose here, with the stipulation that all replies to gap announcements are to be constructive attempts at conveying the relevant procedural knowledge. No asking "how did you manage to be X years old without knowing that?" - if the gap-haver wishes to volunteer the information, that is fine, but asking is to be considered poor form.
(And yes, I have one. It's this: how in the world do people go about the supposedly atomic action of investing in the stock market? Here I am, sitting at my computer, and suppose I want a share of Apple - there isn't a button that says "Buy Our Stock" on their website. There goes my one idea. Where do I go and what do I do there?)
1495 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T21:24:46.272Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Please, please, please, I beg you:
Learn to touch-type. Learn to type with ten fingers.
Computer programs and websites to do this abound. If you find one that's horrible to use, find another. But persist until you do.
I am appalled at how many people I know who use computers typing for hours a day, and never learned how to drive a keyboard. They insist they're just as fast as they would be touch-typing (they're not), and then complain of sore fingers from doing weird stuff to adapt to their inability to type properly.
Anyone reading this site uses computers enough they should know how to type. I would estimate (based on my geeky friends I've seen at a keyboard) less than 20% of you can touch-type properly.
Set up your desk, chair etc per the handy how-to-avoid-RSI diagrams that one can hardly get away from in any setting. Then LEARN HOW TO TYPE. And don't make an excuse for why you're a special snowflake who doesn't need to.
By the way, when I discovered IRC big time (1996), it took my speed from 60wpm to 90wpm. Complete sentences, they're your friend.
My daughter is three and a half. She is already more skilled with the computers at nursery than the staff are. (Can get from the CBeebies games to watching Octonauts on the iPlayer in the blink of an eye!) I'm going to make sure she learns to type properly as soon as possible after she learns to read, dexterity allowing.
Replies from: TheOtherDave, MBlume, Blueberry, D_Malik, Kaj_Sotala, sfb, nilsherzig, SilasBarta, Wei_Dai, None, FiftyTwo, CronoDAS, Pavitra, Evan_Gaensbauer, MartinB↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-10T16:55:57.393Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've always been amused by the "magic feather" nature of my typing.
I don't touch type. I ask my brain about this, and it reports without hesitation that I don't touch type. Honest. Never have.
That said, I am perfectly capable of typing at a respectable clip without looking at the keyboard, with my fingers hovering more-or-less above the home row. I get screwy when I go after unusual punctuation keys or numbers, but when it comes to letters and commas and so forth, it works fine.
For several years, this only worked when I didn't notice it was working... that is, when I became sufficiently absorbed in what I was doing that I just typed. This became clear to me when a coworker commented "Oh, hey, I didn't know you could touch-type" and suddenly I couldn't.
It has become less fragile since then... I am typing this right now without looking at the keyboard, for example.
But my brain remains fairly certain that I don't touchtype.
(shrug)
Replies from: taryneast, jkaufman↑ comment by jefftk (jkaufman) · 2011-09-15T17:06:12.751Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I was in the same state: I could type without looking as long as I didn't think about it. I wanted to get where I could type while looking at the screen or copy from a piece of paper. I rearranged the keycaps on my keyboard in alphabetical order so that if I looked down I would mess up. After a painful couple of weeks (especially with complex passwords) I had convinced my brain that I didn't need to be looking down to type.
My typing is not as good as yours, though, because I don't really use all my fingers. I type plenty fast, but I overuse my inner fingers and move my hands more than you're supposed to.
↑ comment by MBlume · 2011-02-08T21:30:57.380Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Upvoting this did not seem adequate.
I would also like to tentatively suggest an optimized keyboard layout such as Dvorak or Colemak, since the inconvenience is minimal if you're starting from scratch, and there seems to be anecdotal evidence that they improve comfort and lessen RSIs in the long run, but if fretting about what layout to use causes you to procrastinate for even one day on learning to type already then you should forget I said anything.
Replies from: David_Gerard, wisnij↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T21:34:34.055Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Getting people to learn to type will be, however :-D
HOW THE HELL DO 80% OF THE COMPUTER-MAINLINING GEEKS I KNOW NOT KNOW HOW TO TYPE. HOW DO THEY NOT KNOW HOW TO USE THEIR PRIMARY MODE OF HUMAN INTERACTION. Figuring that out will be a study in human cognitive biases, for sure.
Yeah, there's a reason i didn't mention Dvorak or whatever ;-) So as not to put another "thing to do first" in the way. I know in person nobody at all who actually uses Dvorak. I can't think of any Dvorak users amongst online friends I haven't seen typing. (Perhaps there are some and they've just never said anything.)
Replies from: Eliezer_Yudkowsky, Risto_Saarelma, None, Jonathan_Graehl, MartinB↑ comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Eliezer_Yudkowsky) · 2011-02-09T05:54:05.979Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I use Dvorak. It's no faster and no more accurate, but it does tire out your fingers a whole lot less, and just typing one sentence in Dvorak will enable you to see why. I switched to Dvorak after a bout of RSI, and the RSI never came back.
Replies from: None, David_Gerard↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-11T06:26:22.770Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
del
Replies from: handoflixue↑ comment by handoflixue · 2011-02-15T21:59:56.182Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you work someplace that allows you basic administrator privileges, or just has a friendly systems administrator, it isn't very difficult to change the keyboard layout in Windows. It can be set on a software level, or you could just bring a Dvorak keyboard in to work.
Unfortunately, half the jobs I've had wouldn't allow this, so it's not a guaranteed solution. And the software switch is only useful if you have a cover you can throw over the existing keyboard, or can touch-type sufficiently well.
Still, don't think being employed eliminates the Dvorak option. I looked in to it just recently to make sure that learning Dvorak wouldn't give me too much of a headache at work :)
Replies from: None↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-09T08:52:02.717Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That's actually something I've never seen pointed out about Dvorak - every comparison seems to be about the speed relative to QWERTY. (Oh, the Wikipedia article mentions it in the first paragraph.)
↑ comment by Risto_Saarelma · 2011-02-09T12:10:16.114Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Colemak user here. It didn't magically improve my typing speed as I hoped, top speed is 70 wpm and used to be the same with qwerty. I'm pretty sure it's more ergonomic to type with than qwerty, and I do have some wrist problems, so I'm going to stick with it.
I don't think non-mainstream layouts are something people should feel obliged to adopt unless they are having wrist problems. Beyond the ergonomics, it's mostly a weird thing to learn for fun.
Didn't like Dvorak because it makes you type 'ls' with your right pinky, and I type 'ls' a lot on unixlike command line shells.
Replies from: MBlume, MBlume, David_Gerard↑ comment by MBlume · 2011-02-09T18:43:16.073Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It occurs to me that 'l' is also 'move right' in vim. I think I find my rightmost three fingers hovering on the top row when I move about for this reason. Wonder if I should try to remap those movement keys...
Replies from: lightpurpledye↑ comment by lightpurpledye · 2011-02-19T01:45:22.086Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The vim movement keys actually work surprisingly well in Dvorak. Up/Down are next to each other on your left hand, right/left are on the appropriate sides of your right hand.
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-09T12:19:51.032Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The Wikipedia article on keyboard layouts is very interesting and informative.
Replies from: Risto_Saarelma↑ comment by Risto_Saarelma · 2011-02-09T12:34:11.670Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The nice thing about keyboard layouts, now that we have reprogrammable computers, is that there's little need to have holy wars over them. Having more people use the same layout is mostly inconsequential to a single user of the layout. It's very different for operating systems, programming languages and programs, where a lack of users means a lack of support and a slow slide into obscurity and eventual unusability.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T23:52:10.463Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Eliezer uses Dvorak, or at least used to four years ago:
Replies from: randallsquaredI can personally testify that Dvorak seems to be much easier on the fingers than Qwerty - but this is not surprising, since if Dvorak really were inferior to Qwerty, it would soon cease to exist. (Yes, I am familiar with the controversy in this area - bear in mind that this is a politically charged topic since it has been used to make accusations of market failure. Nonetheless, my fingers now sweat less, my hands feel less tired, my carpal tunnel syndrome went away, and none of this is surprising because I can feel my fingers traveling shorter distances.)
↑ comment by randallsquared · 2011-02-09T04:29:01.722Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Except I've been typing for a living for 13 years on QWERTY and never had carpal tunnel syndrome. It's not clear to me that it has anything to do with keyboard layout.
Replies from: bogdanb↑ comment by bogdanb · 2011-02-13T10:19:37.229Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Reasons one may not have carpal tunnel syndrome may be: 1) independent of their keyboard layout, e.g. their carpal tunnels are very resilient, or they may not type enough to injure them; 2) dependent on the keyboard layout, e.g. for the typing one does one layout may be “efficient” enough not to trigger the syndrome.
The observation that one never had CTS doesn’t separate the two hypotheses (i.e., you can’t tell if you never had carpal tunnel because of 1 or 2).
My personal experience, as well as reports from others (e.g. Eliezer), is that typing on QWERTY did cause CTS, and after switching to Dvorak (for many years now), without any other visible change in typing (quantity or kind) the symptoms disappeared.
From this evidence, the conclusion is quite clear that Dvorak is better for CTS than QWERTY. To be unclear about it you’d need to also have observations of people that had CTS with Dvorak but not with QWERTY. (However, it’s also clear that QWERTY is enough for some people, and that you’re likely in that category.)
(Of course, the conclusion is “clear”, as I said, based on the evidence cited. It’s not a lot of evidence, so it doesn’t mean that the conclusion is definite in general. I just pointed out that you have more evidence than your personal experience that you’re ignoring.)
(ETA: Also, it appears that you don’t quite need to worry about it. Similarly, I picked Dvorak when I had CTS, my CTS went away, and I don’t need to worry about layouts better than Dvorak. That doesn’t mean I’m not clear about Dvorak being less efficient than other layouts.)
Replies from: Kingreaper↑ comment by Kingreaper · 2011-02-23T09:47:42.939Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
To be unclear about it you’d need to also have observations of people that had CTS with Dvorak but not with QWERTY. (However, it’s also clear that QWERTY is enough for some people, and that you’re likely in that category.)
Incorrect. As QWERTY is the standard, most people who have no problem with QWERTY don't switch.
Therefore, people for whom QWERTY is more efficient than Dvorak are highly unlikely to ever use Dvorak enough to develop problems (such as CTS). If, say, 10% of the population was better off with Dvorak and 90% was better off with QWERTY, you still wouldn't expect to see people developing CTS with Dvorak, then going to QWERTY, because most people start with QWERTY.
I'm not saying that QWERTY is better for anyone than Dvorak (personally the only reason I stopped using Dvorak was because I couldn't work out how to change the commands for ctrl-c, ctrl-x, ctrl-z, ctrl-s etc. to be in the same positions, rather than spread all over the keyboard) merely that it's a perfectly reasonable possibility given the evidence presented.
↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T02:43:04.502Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My brother has used Dvorak for the past 10 years.
It's easy to learn. You can still retain qwerty proficiency. It does feel nicer for typing English. It doesn't help programming. It's annoying to use multiple/public computers.
There are quite a few layouts that may be better than Dvorak. But probably not by enough to justify the extra effort of choosing one.
Replies from: Hook, MartinB↑ comment by Hook · 2011-02-10T01:17:19.258Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I first learned how to touch type on Dvorak, but switched to qwerty when I went to college so I wouldn't have issues using other computers. I found that I could not maintain proficiency with both layouts. One skill just clobbered the other.
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-10T06:27:24.379Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Maybe that's true once you try to get extremely fast with both.
Since elementary school typing class, I've been 80+ wpm qwerty.
I only learned and used dvorak up to about 50-60 wpm. Perhaps I never could have built maximum competence in both. I definitely noticed some mode-switching overhead.
↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-09T05:54:04.067Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
But probably not by enough to justify the extra effort of choosing one.
I disagree. (And am biased as it gets.) Qwerty is really pretty bad. But looking out for the available once might make a difference in experienced typeability.
The network effect of keyboards is marginally. Some are preinstalled in your favorite OS, some are not. But otherwise you end up with about the same effort for relearning and explaining to other computer users why yours works different, that you can really invest a few hours to first look up which layout suits you the most.
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-10T06:35:30.827Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You may have misunderstood me.
Dvorak is probably worth learning. I'm saying that (except if you spend most of your time typing non-English text, e.g. some programming language that has much more typing time than thinking time), it's probably not worth finding a more optimal layout than Dvorak.
In fact, if you have examples of the types of text you most often type, you can find a nonstandard layout using computer optimization, which is what I was thinking of.
My rough view is that for typical English text, the efficiencies are:
- qwerty: 85%
- dvorak: 97%
- (all other layouts): at most 100%
So it's better to just learn Dvorak now than to choose something that has more implementation effort than choosing the layout from a menu (iphone, windows, mac, and unix will probably all have a menu that includes a dvorak mode, but not some more esoteric 99% efficient layout for your workload).
The efficiency numbers I give are in terms of actual trained speed and accuracy. In fact, by metrics like "finger miles", Dvorak is dramatically more efficient than qwerty. That's not what I optimize, though. I am skeptical that RSI risk scales mainly with "daily finger miles" (I had pretty severe wrist/shoulder RSI for over a year in the past).
This has made me wonder why I don't use Dvorak myself. I think it's mostly because I didn't learn the full keyset I use for programming. And I would probably prefer one of the more-like-qwerty punctuation layouts (that mainly rearranges letter keys), but I don't want to decide ...
I'm guilty of not really following my own advice, so I welcome a refutation :)
Replies from: MartinB↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-10T07:10:07.947Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I try my best, but I also am very biased and probably not an expert.
The main effort in switching layouts is a fixed re:training time, and then some minor hassles when interfacing with other people. It is not the time to install the new driver! (I usually regroup the keys on my keyboards, but thats also a fixed time per keyboard bought and some low level fun.)
There is no research I am aware of that confirms the RSI/finger movement connection. All pleasure derived from my Layout of choice is purely subjective.
The point I tried to make is that it pays to choose well before deciding to spend the effort for training a new layout. Take a few hours to reach a somewhat reasonable decision and then go about it, instead of just following a subcultural trend.
I think you underestimate the possible benefits gained from a better designed keyboard. There is a lot of space at the top.
What makes me like Neo tremendously besides the optimization are the additional layers. Pay attention to the 3rd layer in the overview. All brackets are nicely available in the center field.I would like to see that tacked onto any other layout one might choose.
(I am also disappointed that professional researchers into work ergonomy did not attack this topic on their own. The layouts I checked out seem to be fan projects. And with current technology it is almost trivial to calculate a good one at home.)
And being somewhat of a language buff I can type all latin-based languages natively from my keyboard. Without installing anything extra or switching layouts multiple times. That might not be too important for all-english writers, but for me that means some benefit with my 3rd language and possible later ones.
I would expect that someone interested in the topic is not immediately aware of the possibilities offered.
Actually before relearning I calculated the expected benefits and came out with what economists call a black 0 meaning some minor benefits. It is more valuable to retrain to another layout when young, and when you expect to write a lot of text over your lifetime. Programmers might be on the edge of not benefiting too much from it. But I find the experience of having to relearn highly interesting in itself. It helps in empathizing with computer newbies.
If you decide to go for a new layout, give at least Colemak a good thorough look. If not, no harm done.
Disclaimer: I use NEO since 2006, after a brief try with dvorak]
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-10T08:15:07.973Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I agree that subjective pleasure with your choices is very important.
I just remembered another reason I chose to stay qwerty - emacs keybindings and video games (although I'm video game abstinent for the past few months). The default letters-as-commands mappings would have to be changed or positionally relearned for each such application I'm familiar with (similar: ctrl-z x c v in windows). Overall I didn't feel like investing the effort to resolve the annoyance, but I guess I wish now that I had made the investment; I'd probably enjoy the result as you do.
The effort of installing a new layout isn't much, you're right (unless you hop computers often). It just might be if you use especially limited devices (does the iphone/ipad keyboard even support arbitrary layouts?) that you sometimes need to qwerty anyway.
Replies from: MartinB↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-10T08:46:30.540Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
ctrl-z x c v in windows
The NEO developergroup payed attention to many of those. They also collected common sets of two or three letters from common applications. So the Smiley becomes just one roll over three buttons. I probably reap some benefits from that once I get back into Lateχ. In general I like to use tools that are optimized over my current horizon and can surprise me with thinks already put in way after I started to use them.
I guess I wish now that I had made the investment
You can make the investment at any time you choose. Once you did the calculation changes (thanks to sunken cost) but before that its a matter of finding a convenient time space. Like when one is sick at home, or in holidays.
Iphone/ipad does not have Colemak or generic support for different layouts. Not sure about Dvorak.
↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-09T05:50:44.512Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I know at least 2 Dvorak users, 1 Colemak user, and 1 NEO user personally, and a few who are interested to learn.
For anyone interested in switching layouts: skip Dvorak and go to one of the newer computer optimized layouts right away. I found it an interesting experience to have to re:learn how to type.
↑ comment by wisnij · 2011-02-09T18:54:12.287Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There's a really interesting comparison of popular keyboard layouts and proposed optimizations here: http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/
The author uses dynamic programming to calculate the various costs involved with typing (like finger movement, distance from home row, etc) and uses that to generate better layouts via simulated annealing. I thought it was a nicely quantitative take on a subject that is usually so subjective.
Replies from: MTGandP↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T10:22:03.220Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
They insist they're just as fast as they would be touch-typing (they're not)
I would estimate (based on my geeky friends I've seen at a keyboard) less than 20% of you can touch-type properly
This seems like dogmatic adherence to tradition. Is there actually evidence that the traditional method of touch typing, where each finger is assigned a keyboard column and returns to the "Home Row" after striking a key, is at all faster, more efficient, or ergonomically sound than just typing intuitively?
I ask because I type intuitively with ten fingers. I know where all the keys are, and I don't see the need to return each finger to the home row after every single keystroke, which seems inefficient. If I type a common sequence like "er" or "th," I do it with a single flick of the hand, not four separate ones.
Also, I cover a much larger portion of the keyboard with my right hand than my left, because it's stronger and more natural for me than assigning each finger the exact same amount of keyboard real estate.
Replies from: TabAtkins, wedrifid, TobyBartels, MTGandP, handoflixue↑ comment by TabAtkins · 2011-03-09T06:59:28.227Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If I type a common sequence like "er" or "th," I do it with a single flick of the hand, not four separate ones.Skilled touch typists certainly don't make four separate motions to type "er" or "th". Keyboards are specifically designed to accept multiple keys being pressed at the same time, because a skilled typist naturally presses the next key before they have finished the motion for the previous one. Nearly all keyboards will accept two simultaneous keypresses, with higher-quality ones accepting 3, 4, or arbitrary numbers of simultaneous keystrokes.
To be specific, typing "er" involves lifting my hand upwards, hitting "e" and "r" with my middle and pointer fingers in quick succession, and then dropping my hand back down. Typing "th" involves lifting my left hand at the same time as I shift my right hand slightly leftwards, and striking the "t" slightly before striking the "h" (though I often transpose the two actions and end up typing "hte" or "htat").
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-09T10:35:09.078Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If I type a common sequence like "er" or "th," I do it with a single flick of the hand, not four separate ones.
You do "th" with one hand? I suggest that is less efficient than coordinating two shorter moves by the respective nearest fingers. "rt", of course, is a hand flick. Perhaps my vim navigation has biased me. "h" totally belongs to my right trigger finger and moving my left middle finger all the way over to the 't' so that a left hand flick can pull of a 'th' rapidly sounds like far too far out of the way.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-10T09:49:23.958Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I ask because I type intuitively with ten fingers.
Then you're fine. Two-fingered typing is the curse that we must quash. (But I don't speak for David.)
↑ comment by MTGandP · 2013-08-19T02:16:40.538Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Is there actually evidence that the traditional method of touch typing, where each finger is assigned a keyboard column and returns to the "Home Row" after striking a key, is at all faster, more efficient, or ergonomically sound than just typing intuitively?
I don't know of any studies (although they probably exist), but (a) touch typists I know are much faster than touch typists I don't know, and (b) the world's fastest typists are, as far as I know, all touch typists. Sean Wrona, currently the world's fastest typist, uses touch typing. So did Barbara Blackburn, the previous world's fastest typist.
↑ comment by handoflixue · 2011-02-15T21:53:03.379Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I definitely agree, but that's party because my right hand rests at an odd angle. I'll sometimes lose the home-row on it, but it gives me much faster access to Home/End keys, as well as the numpad and the mouse, and usually those benefits far outweigh the advantages of a "traditional" typing pose.
The problem with tradition is that it's generally only applicable to a specific set of circumstances :)
↑ comment by D_Malik · 2011-02-10T14:45:15.532Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Until about a year ago I couldn't touch-type either. I fixed it painlessly by removing my keyboard's keys and reinserting them in random positions.
This would only help you if you already know more-or-less where the keys are, but you're too lazy to go a bit further and type without looking at the keyboard. It works because looking at the keyboard no longer helps, and you have to keep your fingers on the home keys to keep your sense of where the keys are.
If you manage to memorize the new letter arrangement, just rerearrange.
Replies from: handoflixue, David_Gerard↑ comment by handoflixue · 2011-02-15T21:45:28.426Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I find typing an entire sentence with my eyes closed is one of the best ways to develop good typing skills. It's really weird feeling myself correcting typos before I can svn see them. It also penalizes errors a lot more, and thus encourages a "get it right the first time" style of typing, instead of my usual "make mistakes and fix them" style.
(Typed the preceding paragraph blind. "svn" is a typo for "even", and I was only aware I screwed it up ^^)
It's also a fun "party trick" - I like to creep out co-workers by turning to listen to them and continuing to type :)
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-10T18:43:16.288Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
↑ comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-02-09T14:11:42.726Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
They insist they're just as fast as they would be touch-typing (they're not)
One can get fast enough using intuitive typing that I would imagine that the main bottleneck would be the need to pause and think of what you're writing, not the speed of your fingers.
Although it's frustratingly slow, I seem to have the impression that writing by hand sometimes produces higher quality (unedited) text, because you have more time to think about what you're writing. Of course, because it still isn't good enough without the edits you can really only do with a word processor, overall it's still an inferior choice.
Replies from: David_Gerard, lukstafi↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-09T15:55:31.435Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Depends. If I could type as fast as I talk, I would write more and better.
(I write, speak and think pretty much identically. This is necessary to being a certain species of good writer.)
Typing "cat>>tmp.txt" gives me a terminal where I can only add lines, not remove them. This gets me writing a first draft brain-dump pretty efficiently - to the point where I plug in a larger keyboard, because this netbook keyboard is too slow. (Need a Model M.)
I've seen many authors say that writing in a medium where you can't go back and edit as you're writing gives better results, as you train your brain to get stuff right the first time. Also, typing a second draft completely afresh (rather than word-processing the first draft) gives good results. These are, of course, in the class of techniques for writers to try applying to see what works for them personally.
Back in the olden days, before this "web" rubbish, my friends and I would write multi-page first draft letters to each other, rambling on about whatever rubbish (generally indie music).
↑ comment by nilsherzig · 2024-08-24T07:54:56.684Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Here is good touch typing site, which doesn't force you to type stupid rows of random characters but adapts to your current efficiency per key. https://www.keybr.com/
↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-09T16:23:32.826Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Hm, I seem to be another exception and a new kind of exception.
I had a typing class (3rd grade) and used software for learning typing (Mavis Beacon on a Mac). Neither helped me to touch type, but I still learned to use all fingers when typing, and today I can do ~90 WPM -- although that's brain-to-typed letters; I go slower for transcribing a given text. I also use an ergonomic split keyboard that's much harder to use one-handed.
And the way that I learned was through gradual adjustment after needing to type a lot. Basically, I started out as a hunt/pecker (after trying Mavis and the classroom) and then made it a habit to, every once in a while, type a letter with a nearby finger instead of the forefinger. Over time, my hands moved less and less until they just settled on the method that is touch-typing, depending on what you count as T-T, since I have some quirks.
For example, I usually do capital letters with one hand (pinky on shift, one of the remaining other fingers for the letter) rather than using the opposite hand to shift.
And I actually prefer using the keyboard when possible: for a while I was on a quest to see how long I could go without using the mouse, even so far as to add and edit a firefox extension that let me browse the web with one hand on the keyboard. (I took one of the existing ones and changed it so it only used keys on the left side of the keyboard.)
Replies from: dlthomas, David_Gerard, jhuffman↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-09T19:50:17.029Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For mouse haters who use a Unix: Ratpoison.
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-09T20:02:48.364Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
More general answer: Category:Tiling WMs. (I personally use and help develop Xmonad.)
↑ comment by jhuffman · 2011-02-15T19:40:06.291Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And how does this not make you a special snowflake?
Replies from: SilasBarta, wedrifid↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-15T19:58:38.609Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Huh?
Replies from: jhuffman↑ comment by jhuffman · 2011-02-16T15:30:08.902Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
From the post that you replied to:
Replies from: SilasBartaThen LEARN HOW TO TYPE. And don't make an excuse for why you're a special snowflake who doesn't need to.
↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-16T15:45:17.107Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, I'm familiar with that comment, as I was before you made your first reply, and your point still isn't any clearer. Why don't you try again, and this time, say it explicitly, so I can either appreciate your insight, see your error, or confirm your rudeness.
Replies from: jhuffman↑ comment by jhuffman · 2011-02-16T15:51:01.274Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My point is simply that what you are doing is not touch typing; if you transcribe slower than you can type from your brain then you are not touch typing. People who touch type find transcription a lot faster since they do not need to think at all. I find your narrative an elaborate excuse for not simply learning to type properly.
Replies from: SilasBarta↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-16T16:03:11.242Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Okay, thanks for stating your point -- this should have been your first comment.
Now, could you provide a source for your claim about "people who touch type find transcribing easier"? Your reasoning doesn't make sense: when I transcribe, having to learn what I'm supposed to type is the bottleneck, which is why typing what's already in my head is faster for me -- I skip the stage of reading. I also don't think about each individual letter as you seem to be implying, and I type as fast as the OP touch-typist claims.
I can even type fast enough to transcribe people talking. (The accuracy isn't good, but it's high enough to reconstruct it afterward.)
I use 10 fingers, I base 8 of them on the home row, I type a touch-typing speeds, I use a keyboard optmized for touch typing, I use the keyboard in preference to the mouse; what exactly would "learning to type" include, and how would it be an improvement?
Replies from: jhuffman, TabAtkins↑ comment by jhuffman · 2011-02-16T16:12:59.007Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Maybe I misunderstood you; I guess I leapt to the conclusion that when transcribing your eyes moved between the source and the keyboard. If that were the case then "learning to type" would mean learning to type without ever looking at the keys. It sounds like you do that. If you didn't do that, then its a safe bet that while your 90 WPM is "good enough" you could almost certainly transcribe faster if you could keep your eyes on the source all the time.
Replies from: SilasBarta↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-16T16:15:56.190Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't ever look at the keyboard when transcribing, or typing in general (except maybe on the occasional symbol). The slowdown in transcription is not from having to look back at the keyboard.
↑ comment by TabAtkins · 2011-03-09T06:53:21.520Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I can concur with the reporter's comments in that transcribing is faster for me (as a touch-typist), and more accurate. I can disconnect my brain when transcribing and just let the text flow from my visual center straight to my fingers. When transcribing properly you're not actually "reading" - I, at least, retain very little of texts that I transcribe.
Replies from: JackEmpty↑ comment by JackEmpty · 2011-07-11T16:49:20.161Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is why learning to speed read is so difficult for me.
If I look at a word I've read and subvocalized it. I can't not read a word that I look at. I can try to ignore parsing full sentences and their relation to each other, with limited success, but not at the scale of individual words or letters.
↑ comment by Wei Dai (Wei_Dai) · 2011-02-08T21:46:50.259Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
From this, it sounds like I was lucky that I took a typing class in in high school (mostly because I wanted some easy credits). Do most schools not offer this?
Replies from: None, Desrtopa, free_rip, DanielLC, David_Gerard↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-09T15:36:42.251Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The typing class I took was by far the best, most useful class I had in four years of high school -- and the only one where I could not have learned the material better by simply being left alone in a quiet room with the textbook. (Although being left alone with a computer and a decent learn-to-type program would probably have done just as well; but this was 1994 and my school had typewriters, not computers, so the teacher was actually useful.)
Replies from: Kevin↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-09T15:22:47.273Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think it's pretty common. I had two years of it in middle school. It never really stuck though; all my attempts to learn proper home-row style touch typing were a complete wash. After about six or seven years of computer use, I realized that I had absorbed the locations of the keys in my muscle memory, and was able to touch type in spite of not using proper form; as Kaj Sotala says, the bottleneck is thinking about what to type, not typing it.
I'm not sure how many people are equally ill served by the various teaching programs that are available, but I'd be surprised if I'm the only one.
↑ comment by free_rip · 2011-02-09T10:07:58.192Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Mine has an assessment in it in early high school, but it's not a main part of the course and you only learn it if you take applications. (As opposed to Multimedia, Programming or Hardware.)
Anyway, I got from about 15WPM to 25WPM at school. Then I got my own computer at home, and in two weeks I was up to 60WPM just from using it so much.
I'm now at around 75-80WPM
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T22:09:18.309Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Mine never did (1980-84). I learnt at 23 after I'd been editing a fanzine for a few years, something which required me to type a lot. And learning to type with ten fingers instead of two took me from 15-20wpm to 40wpm within a few weeks. SO WORTH IT.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2012-03-11T19:08:19.388Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Many years ago I learned to touchtype by typing:
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Jackdaws love my big sphinx of quartz.
Platinum blond vixen from wyoming acquires hijacked zamboni
a few times everyday, using the 'proper' finger positions. In a week or two, I was touchtyping.
Some months ago I injured my left hand and had to type using my right hand only (I switched to the right-hand dvorak keyboard layout). I did not have much patience for the above practice sentences; I just practiced them a few times then jumped right into actual typing. A couple of weeks later I was touch typing comfortably with only my right hand.
It may just be a matter of patience.
↑ comment by FiftyTwo · 2011-09-05T17:53:09.496Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm learning to touch type at the moment using some of the information on here.
Currently I am practising with the key board covered using the lessons here. Will post my results as I go on.
Replies from: David_Gerard↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-09-14T20:02:34.302Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The thing that really worked for me was that I was writing a fanzine at the time (1990), so had plenty of stuff I had to type. So I learnt all the keys, was at 20wpm which was slightly less than the 23-25wpm I could do two-fingered, and went ahead typing actual stuff I had to type properly with ten fingers.
tl;dr Have actual stuff to type, use your new skill.
↑ comment by CronoDAS · 2011-02-09T04:09:13.953Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I tend to type with just one hand a lot of the time. I've trained with touch-typing software, but I never managed to learn to type all that quickly. My "one-and-a-half-handed" typing is about as fast as I've ever gotten when trying to touch type properly, so I haven't bothered to try to practice more. (I think I do about 30 WPM.)
My father, on the other hand, is a 62-year-old engineering professor who still can't type with more than two fingers. When he tried to get tech support from a chat room once, the support guy kept asking if he was still there.
↑ comment by Pavitra · 2011-02-09T04:22:13.706Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I never had the self-discipline to stop looking down at the keyboard. I eventually forced myself to learn to touch-type by switching to Dvorak. I still have to look at the keys to type numbers (which are the same under both layouts); I should probably paint over those keys with whiteout or something.
↑ comment by Evan_Gaensbauer · 2015-05-11T07:16:35.323Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I never learned how to formally touch type. I seemed more adept than what seems average, based on your impression. As a programmer by trade, my father also knew the importance of me learning how to type, so when I was around ten or eleven he set out in getting me on board with a typing program. I thought it was boring and didn't last very long. By the time I got to the end of high school, what with me having learned touch-typing through brute force from my habit of writing essays for fun in my spare time, let alone for homework, I could type between forty and fifty wpm.
Now, five years later, I can type between fifty and sixty wpm. Since then, my father than others remark they're impressed by how fast I can type. People seem to think I know about computers, because I must use them lots, because I type fast. However, I only know how to type. I've tested my ability multiple times by closing my eyes while I type, and I think I'm able to type just as fast. Typing with my eyes closed produces an error rate that's as good as when I have my eyes open, so that's seems a valid test that I'm touch-typing for real, at all. I think my biggest problem now is my error rate. I think my biggest problem now might be my error rate, and making mistakes. Do you think it would be worth it for me to by training with a formal touch-typing training program or game now, or am I good? For the record, I don't think I'll end up in a career where build software, but I wouldn't be surprised if I spend most of my time on the job behind a keyboard.
↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-09T05:47:26.383Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I might be the snowflake here. Every time I tried to learn 10 finger I got bored and broke off. But I developed a reasonably high speed anyway. A few years ago I started using Neo which is just awesome, but optimized for German. (Still it has some features Colemak and Dvorak are missing, maybe someone likes to dig into this and prepare an engl. version.)
After that I basically had to relearn typing, and did so the same way. My current type speed maxes somewhere at 400CPM which is way more than I actually need.
The OP has a great point. Learn your tools! In case of the computer that includes to use keyboard shortcuts and optimize commonly done activities.
comment by Elizabeth · 2011-02-08T06:43:39.792Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know if anyone can help me with this, but how do I tell the difference between flirting and friendliness? I grew up in pretty much total social isolation from peers, so neither really ever happened, and when they happen now I can't tell which is which. Also, how do you go from talking to someone at the beginning/end of class (or other activity) to actually being the kind of friends who see each other elsewhere and do activities together?
Edit: Thank you, this is good advice. Does anyone have any advice on how to tell with women? I'm bi, and more interested in women, and they are much harder to read than men on the subject, because women's behavior with female friends is often fairly flirty to begin with.
Replies from: None, kim0, MartinB, coup_eye, Blueberry, pabloernesto, therufs, zslastman, TimFreeman, pwno↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-09T13:54:37.237Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's not always this clear-cut, but if a guy touches you at all while he's talking (brushes your hand, etc.), makes an unusual amount of eye contact, or makes a point of being alone with you, it's flirting. If he's talking or joking about sex, it's more likely to be flirting.
How do you become the kind of friends who see each other outside of class? That used to confuse me SO MUCH. The easiest way to transition from "person I've spoken to" to "actual friend" is to say "You want to get lunch together sometime?" It's also possible to ask "are you going to event X?" (I used to find this step nervewracking. But remember, most people are not offended by offers of companionship. Most people want to make new friends.)
Also, notice how people hang around after an event. Most people don't leave right away, briskly. They sort of mosey and talk. If you're like me, your instinct will be to think, "Well, I'm done with that, time to go do something else." But more social people spend a colossal amount of time just hanging around, and they exchange more closeness that way. You can't make friends with people who only see you in brief bursts.
↑ comment by kim0 · 2011-02-08T07:59:19.534Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There often is not any difference at all between flirting and friendliness. People vary very much in their ways. And yet we are supposed to easily tell the difference, with threat of imprisonment for failing.
The main effects I have seen and experienced, is that flirting typically involve more eye contact, and that a lot of people flirt while denying they do it, and refusing to to tell what they would do if they really flirted, and disparaging others for not knowing the difference.
My experience is also that ordinary people are much more direct and clear in the difference between flirting and friendship, while academic people muddle it.
Replies from: wnoise, NihilCredo↑ comment by wnoise · 2011-02-08T10:24:48.152Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
yet we are supposed to easily tell the difference, with threat of imprisonment for failing.
It can be hard to tell the difference, and it can be easy to mess up when trying to flirt back, but it takes rather more than than simply not telling the difference between flirtation and friendliness for imprisonment. There has to be actual unwelcome steps taken that cross significant lines.
The way the mating dance typically goes is as a series of small escalations. One of the purposes this serves is to let parties make advances without as much risk of everyone seeing them turned down, and lose face. It also lets people make stronger evaluations and back out in the middle gracefully.
Flirtatious talk is not an open invitation for a grabby hands. It is an invitation for further flirtatious talk. It may be an invitation for an invasion of personal space and increasing proximity. This in turn can be invitation for casual, brief, touches on non-sexual body areas. The point of no return, where it's hard to gracefully back out and pretend nothing was happening, is usually the kiss. That's usually done as a slow invasion of space, by the initiator, who must watch for the other to either lean in and take position, or lean and turn away. (or occasionally sit wide-eyed and frozen like a deer in the headlights).
Don't take the example order above too seriously. It's more complicated than a straight progression as laid out here. In addition to varying cultural attachments of these behaviors, all of them can vary continuously from completely innocent to drenched in erotic meaning, and escalation can happen in any of them at a given time. A clasp-and-release on the upper arm is an escalation from not touching, but far below resting a hand on the thigh.
And really, you can talk and ask for clarification from people you're flirting with. Heck, asking "are you flirting with me" is itself a reasonable flirt-and-escalate move. Being explicit can kill the mood for some people, but if you're not actually sure where in this dance you are or which direction it's headed, it's generally safer than risking unwanted boundary crossing.
I should also say that with strangers (in a bar say), this whole thing usually starts earlier with looks at someone punctuated with looks away when you see them looking back.
Replies from: MBlume, NancyLebovitz, Raemon, Sniffnoy↑ comment by MBlume · 2011-02-09T18:53:21.765Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That's usually done as a slow invasion of space, by the initiator, who must watch for the other to either lean in and take position, or lean and turn away.
If you're reasonably confident in the other person's interest, simply announcing "I'm going to kiss you now," followed by a brief pause, works quite nicely, signals confidence, builds anticipation, and still gives them the opportunity to back out.
Replies from: HughRistik↑ comment by HughRistik · 2011-02-10T03:51:30.705Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you're reasonably confident in the other person's interest, simply announcing "I'm going to kiss you now," followed by a brief pause, works quite nicely, signals confidence, builds anticipation, and still gives them the opportunity to back out.
Another version: "I'm thinking about kissing you", and offering your cheek.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T14:38:16.137Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And really, you can talk and ask for clarification from people you're flirting with. Heck, asking "are you flirting with me" is itself a reasonable flirt-and-escalate move. Being explicit can kill the mood for some people, but if you're not actually sure where in this dance you are or which direction it's headed, it's generally safer than risking unwanted boundary crossing.
If you need verbal feedback, you're probably better off finding out fairly early whether the person you're flirting with is comfortable with questions or not.
↑ comment by Raemon · 2011-02-08T15:15:46.150Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What I'm particularly frustrated about is not telling the difference between flirting and friendliness (the line is blurry and that's okay) but when specifically it's okay to escalate to physical touching.
Replies from: wnoise↑ comment by wnoise · 2011-02-10T05:15:40.951Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm afraid this isn't going to be helpful, but like everything else, it depends. Touches too can straddle the line between friendliness and flirtation, and mere physical contact needn't be an escalation at all. A glancing contact with someone's hand when passing them something isn't. Prolonging that contact is. Clapping someone on the shoulder is usually just friendly, but adding a squeeze intensifies that.
↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-10T04:22:09.611Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I should also say that with strangers (in a bar say), this whole thing usually starts earlier with looks at someone punctuated with looks away when you see them looking back.
Surely this is more general than that? I mean, you didn't say it wasn't, but ISTM it wouldn't be worth mentioning if that was what you meant. Did you actually mean it in a more inclusive sense?
Or am I just very wrong about interpreting/doing this? :-/
Replies from: wnoise↑ comment by wnoise · 2011-02-10T04:39:20.837Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I didn't mean to imply that trading glances like this was exclusive to strangers. However: it is a larger portion of the initial signaling, because fewer signals are available than between friends or people otherwise interacting. Secondly, it's more noticeable in strangers, again because of the relative lack of other interactions and signals.
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-10T04:47:13.093Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oops, that wasn't the generalization I was thinking of. Sorry; I should have been more explicit. I meant I do this to strangers a lot simply because, e.g., I'm outside and it's nighttime and I'm trying to determine whether or not they're someone I know in the first place, which has nothing to do with this.
Replies from: wnoise↑ comment by wnoise · 2011-02-10T05:06:22.566Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh. Yes, people look at each other a lot, naturally, without any signals being sent. It's going to be near impossible to tell from short textual descriptions whether what you're doing is anything like the sexual signaling, but I would suspect not. It's usually done at a fairly subconscious level
↑ comment by NihilCredo · 2011-02-08T08:31:36.196Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
and that a lot of people flirt while denying they do it
Or without even realising. Several years ago an acquaintance on whom I was developing a crush told me she was aware of this; this puzzled me since I thought I hadn't yet initiated anything like flirting, so I asked how she knew. Then she took my hand and replicated the way in which, a few days before, I had passed her some small object (probably a pen). I didn't realise I was doing it at the time, but in that casual gesture I was prolonging the physical contact a lot more than necessary, and once put on the receiving side it was bloody obvious what was going on.
↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-08T08:51:27.554Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
http://www.wrongplanet.net/ is a community page for asperger/autism people that contains social descriptions on a level that might be helpful. I do not read too much of it, but maybe it is useful.
↑ comment by coup_eye · 2011-02-08T13:25:39.594Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, that's the whole idea of flirting - that you can't really tell the difference. If it's clear and upfront, then it's not called flirting anymore, but rather an advance (friendly or more explicit).
You have a lot of uncertainty arising from a simple gesture/look/invitation, and (I believe) this is where all the fun really comes from: dealing with a lot of different scenarios that have very similar initial contexts but have a wide range of possible outcomes, and choosing the outcome you want with so little effort.
I also believe that your ability to tell the difference between one person's flirting and friendliness is strongly influenced by how well you know that person.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-08T07:34:18.934Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
how do I tell the difference between flirting and friendliness?
Flirting is tinged with sexuality, either explicit or subtle. Maybe a touch on your arm, a wink, or innuendo. A lot of it is context-dependent, as well: for instance, the exact same words and behavior can be flirting when a guy says it to a girl, but not when a guy says it to a guy (the social default is that everyone is straight; this is different in a gay bar, for instance).
Also, how do you go from talking to someone at the beginning/end of class (or other activity) to actually being the kind of friends who see each other elsewhere and do activities together?
You have to actually be active and ask the person for their phone number, invite them to get coffee, go bowling, whatever. It doesn't always work out -- you may not meet up with 90% of them -- but the other 10% will become your friends.
↑ comment by pabloernesto · 2018-04-10T01:43:37.777Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There is a good argument that this is intentional. (See slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/26/conversation-deliberately-skirts-the-border-of-incomprehensibility/)
↑ comment by therufs · 2014-10-28T21:00:59.485Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm very late to this party, but:
Correctly ascertaining others' internal state and responding accordingly is a NEWT-level social skill. It is (at least usually) easier to ascertain your own internal state, specifically as it relates to the particular behaviors of the maybe-flirter, and respond accordingly. Here is how this breaks down for me:
"They might be flirting and I like it":
-> And they are flirting: continue whatever I was doing, remembering that flirting is no guarantee of any particular outcome
-> And they are not: same (such should be the conviction that flirting is no guarantee of any particular outcome.)
"They might be flirting and I don't like it":
-> And they are flirting: Excuse myself from the situation; ask them to modify behavior if it recurs (or avoid them)
-> And they are not flirting: Their take on acceptable platonic interaction makes me uncomfortable, so again excuse/ask/avoid.
So, conveniently, it doesn't matter!
Of course, it's generally a fine idea to just ask, too, remembering that the given response may not be completely reliable. :)
↑ comment by zslastman · 2013-07-03T20:53:48.930Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As someone who has recently gained some, though not much, proficiency in this area, I think part of the problem lies with the question itself. We have been convinced by the media to believe that 'flirting' is a clearly definable mode of interaction that socially competent people have no trouble distinguishing from normal interactions. This is false. In my experience people talk about flirting a lot, but are very seldom able to point to instances of it except when there are very obvious body language cues. Almost all men and most women I know have trouble with this. We nerds I think differ more in how uncomfortable we are with the ambiguity, than in our ability to read the situation. You are not alone.
Having a rough road map in your mind does help. Gradual escalation with careful attentiveness to catch signs of discomfort. Just don't take it as an automatic rejection if you see such a sign, it could just mean, 'slow down'.
That said, as a hetero guy I might be operating under a different ruleset. You could probably be quite a lot more forward as a woman, due to not sharing a karyotype with 95% of the world's violent criminals.
↑ comment by TimFreeman · 2011-05-07T04:21:34.277Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm bi, and more interested in women, and they are much harder to read than men on the subject, because women's behavior with female friends is often fairly flirty to begin with.
Being in a sexual minority is hard. Some people can estimate sexual orientation from body language (the word is "gaydar"), but I can't (but then I'm straight and married so I don't need to). If you can't, you might want to use a dating site when trying to meet up with women, or use the Internet to find nearby places where bi and lesbian women congregate.
I vaguely recall hearing that bars with misspellings in the name are either for gay men or gay women or both. I don't remember which, I don't remember how well defined the convention is, and I don't know if you like bars. (I don't.)
comment by JoshuaZ · 2011-02-07T05:09:49.841Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
An incidental note: lack of these sorts of skills can also create ugh fields around the subjects or surrounding subjects.
Replies from: Nornagest↑ comment by Nornagest · 2011-02-07T19:33:19.676Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Quite. Now that I think about it, I suspect this might be causally related to several social anxiety problems.
Replies from: sark↑ comment by sark · 2011-02-08T17:18:51.000Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, they say some people are better at public speaking than at socializing. Note such people know what to do when public speaking, but they still have no idea what to do in social situations. So the procedural skills we are talking about here may not actually help with social anxiety per se. It might help one deceive oneself into thinking so though.
comment by PhilGoetz · 2011-02-09T00:30:59.912Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
After having about 50 different housemates, I'm shocked by how few people have basic home-maintenance knowledge. Things like:
- Change the oil in your car every 4000 miles.
- Don't mix colored and white laundry and then set the temperature to "hot".
- Remove the lint from the dryer screen before each load.
- Don't put wool clothes in the dryer and set it on "hot".
- Change the air filter in your central heating every few months.
- Wash the stovetop after cooking with grease.
- Use dishwashing detergent in the dishwasher.
- Don't put knives or pots with metal/plastic or metal/wood interfaces in the dishwasher.
- Don't put tupperware in the dishwasher lower rack.
- Don't fill the dishwasher lower rack with pots so that no water reaches the upper rack.
- Open the fireplace vent before starting a fire.
- Wash the bathtub sometimes.
- Knives must eventually be sharpened.
- Turning the thermostat up extra-high does not make it get warm faster.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T01:24:04.658Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Don't put knives or pots with metal/plastic or metal/wood interfaces in the dishwasher.
Don't put tupperware in the dishwasher lower rack.
The others were obvious to me, but I don't understand these two. I've been disobeying them for a long time without any problems.
Replies from: Alicorn, simplyeric, fiddlemath↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-09T01:29:39.273Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Tupperware runs the risk of melting close to the heating element. Metal and plastic/wood expand at different rates in dampness and warmth, so the interface can weaken if they're washed in the high heat of the dishwasher. That said, you can usually get away with both of these things.
Replies from: chronophasiac↑ comment by chronophasiac · 2011-02-09T03:58:51.033Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Most tupperware should be "dishwasher safe", meaning it's been tested to high temperatures and won't melt even in the lower rack of the dishwasher. The real problem with putting tupperware, or indeed any plastic container, in the bottom rack is the water jets. The jets shoot out of the aerator (that's the plastic spinny thing on the bottom), and will blow light objects around the dishwasher instead of scrubbing them out. Putting tupperware on the top rack restricts their movements.
Replies from: None, soreff, MartinB↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-09T19:25:18.982Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Most tupperware should be "dishwasher safe", meaning it's been tested to high temperatures and won't melt even in the lower rack of the dishwasher.
I think there is vocabulary confusion happening here.
Real Tupperware -- the expensive stuff -- is nigh-indestructable. Some of it is made out of polycarbonate, the same material used for windshields in fighter jets and in presidential limos. At the thickness used in the Tupperware line, it is not quite bulletproof, but it is still very, very tough. You don't have to worry about it in the dishwasher.
Lower-end Rubbermaid plastic containers are much cheaper and not made out of the same material. (Rubbermaid does have a "premier" line that is supposedly comparable to true Tupperware.) These bins should not be placed in the lower rack of the dishwasher.
↑ comment by soreff · 2011-05-07T01:39:42.806Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Agreed. Also, for light objects, it is handy to have something to hold them down, even on the upper rack. I have a small plastic-covered-wire rack which I put over light objects (normally plastic ones) on the top rack of a dishwasher to prevent them from getting flipped over.
↑ comment by simplyeric · 2011-02-09T16:40:56.698Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
many people would say: don't put knives in the dishwasher at all.
Meaning, good kitchen knives...tableware is fine. But kitchen knives (slicers, dicers, etc) depend on very thin foils at the blade edge. The chemicals and heat involved in dishwashers can damage the blade.
(this is only marginally resolved by using serrated knives...those may not be damaged by dishwashers as much, but I have yet to find one that works as well as a pretty good kitchen knife that is even marginally maintained)
Replies from: taryneast↑ comment by taryneast · 2011-03-08T21:35:58.551Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Henckels do a really nice serrated knife. That being said - they also do really nice proper knives. They're really expensive, but if you have, say, a mother who never ever sharpens her knives and therefore believes that only serrated knives are "sharp", a Henckels knife is a great present.
↑ comment by fiddlemath · 2011-02-09T16:02:07.821Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Aside from melting the plastic, lightweight containers can get flipped in the dishwasher, fill up with water, and then get not quite clean. If you put them on the top rack, they're farther from the jets of water, and are less likely to be tossed around.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-09T16:51:46.553Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Knives must eventually be sharpened.
(Or replaced with our lifetime stay sharp guarantee!)
Replies from: BillyOblivion↑ comment by BillyOblivion · 2011-02-10T11:42:03.554Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
No.
Those are not called "knives", those are called "saws".
We (family) got some knives at marriage, and just sort of puttered along. Then I bought her some "good" knives, which arrived fairly sharp.
Oh. My. Sourdough bread in SLICES instead of ragged hunks.
Then we used them for a couple years, and I realized that since these were low-end "chef quality" knives (I'm not a chef. I don't much care about cooking, and I don't talk shop with real chefs, so that may not be an accurate statement, but the reviews I read indicated that these were as good as MUCH more expensive knives except in maybe the quality of the handle), that maybe we should get them sharpened, so I found a place in STL that had a knife sharpening service for local restaurants and went there.
They refused to even consider sharpening our steak knives. The guy called them "cheap junk". So we bought some of of the same brand as our other knives (basically the cheapest he had in stock). (Victorinox "Fibrox")
Oh. My. Steak is SO much easier to deal with now. Bread (on the rare occasions we have it ) cuts cleanly. Tomatoes and oranges can can be sliced as thin as you want. Limes for your gin/vodka? Clean cuts.
Knives are tools. Tools need maintenance or replacement.
↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-09T05:23:22.045Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Don't mix colored and white laundry and then set the temperature to "hot". Don't put wool clothes in the dryer and set it on "hot".
Arent these self correcting? I would expect to make this mistake only once.
The combining factor seems to be an ignorance into how things work, and how to maintain them. At least that is my observations of flatmates..
Replies from: taw↑ comment by taw · 2012-02-15T18:39:16.445Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think these are just remnants of times when colors were made of something much less resistant to heat. These days it's not a problem at all.
I've been mixing everything and washing at 90C, and I've only had problems once ever, with some green towels which made everything green. Colored clothes are perfectly fine at that temperature.
Replies from: MartinB, thomblake↑ comment by MartinB · 2012-02-15T19:57:01.606Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I had two mishaps a few years ago. Once A blue pant that darkened a whole load of white shirts, another time a red one. The color wore off after a few washes, but I don't recommend it. Even if most items are fine, just one is enough to ruin a whole load of clothes.
↑ comment by JoshuaZ · 2011-02-09T05:26:30.573Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Turning the thermostat up extra-high does not make it get warm faster.
Ok. I confess that this one more than any of the others makes me seriously worry about how good my theory of mind is. How do they think their heating systems work?
Replies from: Conuly, patrissimo, Blueberry, Vladimir_M, BillyOblivion↑ comment by patrissimo · 2011-02-21T07:31:29.097Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Couldn't it just be an erroneous application of (an intuited version of) Newton's law of cooling, which says that heat transfer is linearly proportional to heat difference? They assume that the thermostat temperature is setting the temperature of the heating element, and then apply their intuited Newton's Law.
Seems pretty rational to me.
Replies from: blashimov↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T08:50:33.149Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is actually implementation dependent. Though the most common implementation of a thermostat is just an on-off switch for the heater, it is possible to have a heater with multiple settings and a thermostat that selects higher heat settings for greater temperature differentials.
Also, turning the thermostat up extra-high means that you don't have to go back and make the temperature higher if your initial selection wasn't warm enough.
Replies from: Vladimir_M, saturn↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-09T21:18:54.782Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Even with an ordinary thermostat, cranking it up can be effective in some realistic situations. If some corners of the house take longer to heat up than the location of the thermostat, they'll reach the desired temperature faster if you let the thermostat itself and the rest of the house get a few degrees warmer first. Or to put it differently, scoffing at people who crank up the thermostat is justified only under the assumption that it measures the temperature of the whole house accurately, which is a pretty shaky assumption when you think about it.
As the moral of the story, even when your physics is guaranteed to be more accurate than folk physics, that's still not a reason to scoff at the conclusions of folk physics. The latter, bad as it is, has after all evolved for robust grappling with real-world problems, whereas any scientific model's connection with reality is delicately brittle.
That's an important lesson, generalizable to much more than just physics.
Replies from: MichaelHoward, MichaelHoward↑ comment by MichaelHoward · 2011-02-16T00:33:11.136Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This general point is seriously deserving of a top-level post.
↑ comment by MichaelHoward · 2011-02-16T00:31:21.467Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This general point is seriously deserving of a top-level post.
↑ comment by saturn · 2011-02-10T03:23:08.859Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Since about 50 years ago all but the lowest-end thermostats are designed to be "anticipators" — they shut off the heat before the requested temperature is reached, then gradually approach it with a lower duty cycle. More often than not, the installer doesn't bother to fine-tune this, in which case it can take a long time to reach equilibrium. Turning it a few degrees warmer than you actually want isn't a completely stupid idea.
(reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermostat)
Replies from: handoflixue↑ comment by handoflixue · 2011-02-15T22:05:26.059Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thank you for reassuring me that I'm not crazy :)
↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-09T09:08:19.210Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Do you actually think a typical person has a coherent theory of how a heating system with a thermostat works?
It's a very human and intuitive way of thinking. People bundle together various things that seem like they should somehow be related, and assume that if something has a good or bad influence on one of these things, it must also influence other related things in the same direction. When you think about it, it's not a bad heuristic for dealing with a world too complex to understand with full accuracy.
Replies from: None↑ comment by BillyOblivion · 2011-02-10T11:49:31.375Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Depending on the type and size of the heater relative to the area to be warmed that statement could very well be false.
I have lived in some places where turning up the heater produced much hotter air than at a lower temperature, which would heat a house much more quickly. These houses had relatively modern central air conditioning systems with electric furnaces, or really good gas furnaces.
I've also lived in places with radiators or really crappy wall mounted heaters where it wouldn't make any difference at all.
↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-09T23:35:43.019Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
- Don't mix colored and white laundry and then set the temperature to "hot".
- Remove the lint from the dryer screen before each load.
- Don't put wool clothes in the dryer and set it on "hot".
Washers and dryers really need to come with more thorough instructions printed on them, for people who don't know anything about clothes. It would be nice to know what the different settings actually meant practically.
Replies from: AdeleneDawner↑ comment by AdeleneDawner · 2011-02-10T01:49:09.801Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Many articles of clothing have instructions like that on their tags, along the line of "machine wash warm with like colors, tumble dry low". This doesn't help someone figure out things like 'red and blue are not 'like colors' but blue and yellow can be' or what to do with a red-and-blue striped shirt, but it's a start.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-10T01:54:50.823Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This doesn't help someone figure out things like 'red and blue are not 'like colors' but blue and yellow can be'
Especially if you like green. :P
Replies from: ikrase, AdeleneDawner↑ comment by AdeleneDawner · 2011-02-10T02:01:46.725Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I wash my dark blues with my black and dark brown clothing, and my medium and light blues with my other non-red medium and light colored clothing, and haven't noticed any cross-contamination of colors. I haven't tried it with reds, but my understanding is that red things are much more prone to bleeding than any other color and should definitely be washed separately.
Replies from: TobyBartels, Alicorn↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-10T10:08:24.997Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I wash all of my colours together, with no problems, but I also always wash them on cold/cold. If I ever have to wash something red on hot, I hope that I'll remember to separate it from the blue clothes, but I might not.
↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-10T02:07:35.636Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I wash my red things with my other colorful clothes. I haven't had problems.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-10T02:12:20.739Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Apart from the first few washes of a red thing I wash all my clothes in together. I haven't had problems either. :)
Replies from: mindspillage↑ comment by mindspillage · 2011-02-11T04:07:46.876Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have had exactly one load of laundry go wrong ever due to colors running. (Purple.) I pretty much blatantly ignore washing directions, except for formalwear and business suits. If something cannot survive being thrown in with the regular wash, it's too much trouble to keep. (It helps that I thrift the vast majority of my wardrobe, so I'm rarely out more than $5 or so if something is ruined.)
Replies from: wedrifidcomment by MichaelVassar · 2011-02-08T16:33:02.409Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I wish I knew how to politely and nicely end conversations, either with friends, strangers, whatever.
Replies from: John_Maxwell_IV, Pablo_Stafforini, Malovich, TheOtherDave, DanielLC, lionhearted, KrisC, sixes_and_sevens, soreff↑ comment by John_Maxwell (John_Maxwell_IV) · 2011-02-09T03:32:26.940Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I know this one!
Shake their hand!
↑ comment by Pablo (Pablo_Stafforini) · 2012-10-08T21:08:54.274Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There is also the somewhat related problem of how to transition from pleasantries and chit-chat to the real point of the conversation when someone calls you on the phone. Sometimes people can stay in this mode for several minutes, and it's hard to convey the message "So, why are you calling me?" in language that is socially acceptable. My solution--which I believe I borrowed from Randy Pausch--is to say, in a friendly tone of voice, "What can I do for you?"
Replies from: ikrase↑ comment by Malovich · 2011-02-08T20:30:43.121Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thank them for their time, sincerely, making sure the beginning of the statement acknowledges the value of the current thread of thought ("that's absolutely fascinating...and thank you for sharing that with me") and make sure your tone of voice descends at the end of the sentence; if they respond with confusion at this abrupt ending (it may appear so to them) let them know why you must go now or soon.
If your reason is impolite ("you're a boring jackass") you may wish to omit what you specifically think of them (the reasons why you think they are a jackass may have less to do with them and more to do with you and how you see the world subjectively, it's something that needs to be checked out at some point) and simply indicate that you are in disagreement with them and that you lack the time and energy to properly present your position and that you may or may not get back to them later.
Works 5/6 of the time.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T20:33:11.547Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This overlaps something I was wondering-- whether there are subtle clues you can give that the conversation is winding down.
Replies from: Blueberry, Malovich↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T01:15:22.985Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes. You can look at your watch, phone, or appointment book. You can adjust your posture and body language to turn slightly away, step back, and shift your weight to the foot farther away from the person, as if you were getting ready to walk away.
You can make comments that summarize the conversation or comment on it more generally: this kind of abstraction is a natural signal that the conversation is winding down. "This is a really good conversation," "It's really good to talk to you," "You've given me a lot to think about," and so forth.
You can also mention other things you have going on, such as "I'm working on homework for X class," "I've got a test coming up," "I've been doing a lot of work getting my house ready to sell," which gives the other person a natural close: "Well, I'll let you get back to your work. Good luck with X."
↑ comment by Malovich · 2011-02-09T06:56:35.062Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, there are specific cues that can be given which indicate non-specific information; descending tones in a sentence tend towards definitive announcements and represent an appearance of authority, while ascending tones are inducements of affirmation or agreement. They are both useful in their context...but when you need to communicate the end of your involvement in a conversation, you may find it less than useful to seek consensus (which is what you would communicate with the ascending tone); instead you may wish to firmly communicate your boundary or limit (which you are more likely to do with a descending tone).
Blueberry's suggestions are methods of breaking rapport, which is usually established by full-body mirroring in most people (mirroring posture, hand position, leg position, head tilt etc); rapport is a method of gaining comfort with someone you are dealing with and people in rapport are usually reluctant to leave it. Making a deliberate choice to do so can be an important step in easing oneself out of a conversation.
However, there are people out there who associate breaking with rapport with rejection of sorts; the reasons vary greatly and it usually boils down to a lack of clear boundaries between involvement in one's life and involvement in another's and where the line of separation is supposed to lie in their model of the world. At times like this, clearly stating your stance and your priorities (I have enjoyed spending time with you; I have a lot going on and need to attend these other things) helps clear some of this up (or at least gives them something to work with and induce a learning in them if you're lucky) as does declaring when you expect to see them next as you go. Just make sure you are congruently communicating to the other person as you do so; mixed signals, as always, confuse things.
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-08T17:50:54.090Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know how polite or nice it is, but what I generally do is wait for it to be my turn in the conversation, visibly react to a timepiece of some sort, and claim an appointment or pressing task that requires my attention. "Oh, geez, is it that late already? I'm sorry, but I really do have to (get going, do X, finish what I'm doing)."
I've known some people who are oblivious to this and essentially reply "Sure, that's fine. Say, let's talk about this other thing!" I find them troublesome. The best solution I know is firmness -- "No, I'm sorry, but I really do have to work on something else now."
In one particularly extreme case, I actually had to say "I need you to go away now," but by that point I'd given up on polite.
↑ comment by lionhearted (Sebastian Marshall) (lionhearted) · 2011-02-09T11:09:52.575Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"I've got to head out soon, anything else going on?"
For more formal/professional occasions, "I've got to head out in about 10 minutes, anything else we need to cover?"
↑ comment by KrisC · 2011-02-09T03:46:15.012Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Make them laugh and walk away. The laughter distracts them long enough for you to get far enough away that you are not in conversational proximity. Even a chuckle is sufficient.
As an added bonus, people who are not introspective will often hold opinions based around the last emotion they experienced in your presence.
I don't think this method is polite, but it seems to work pretty well.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-09T10:52:01.591Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How do you make people laugh?
Replies from: KrisC↑ comment by KrisC · 2011-02-10T07:11:02.486Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yeah, I walked into that question. Inducing laughter in general is too big a question to answer, but I will explain the technique.
As background reading, I would recommend Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. Mostly because it validates my belief that humor is often cruel. Really it is great reading for any alienated smart person.
I tried to observed my actions today as I used humor to escape conversation, and I was conscious of using the technique five times. I have concluded that actual clever wordplay or other comedic art is not necessary. While I have gotten in trouble for not "speaking like a human" before, this conversational strategy seems surprisingly effective at work or office situations (US, east coast).
- Do not attempt this technique in situations when you can not guess at the social hierarchy or on solemn occasions.
- Be adequately certain that the dominant member of the group you are trying to escape from is not disagreeing with you.
- Demonstrate through tracking eye movement, reactive micro-expression, and body stance that you are engaged in the conversation. Failing that, watch the mouth of the person speaking focusing on the formation of words and sounds.
- Wait for a pause in speaking, lean forward and start to smile with the edge of your mouth and eyes.
- Magic part: Any inane thing you say will be taken as a joke. It's the setup that triggers the response allowing the escape. If you don't want your listeners to think you a moron, say something sarcastic or hyperbolic about yourself, about the topic being discussed if it is innocuous, or about the task you are going to perform. Remember not to step on their memes and to respect their status hierarchies.
- Walk away at a leisurely pace if you want. If they are laughing with you, you may want to stay.
Well, at least I tried to answer the question.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-10T11:28:13.534Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks. This reminds me of something I've found which works well in the short run. I admit I haven't checked for long term consequences.
It makes me crazy when people repeat themselves in short succession. If you listen, it's possible to discover that Waiting for Godot is more realistic than a lot of more interesting theater.
Hypothesis: People repeat themselves if they aren't sure they're being heard, or, oddly (and I've done this myself) if they're unsure of how what they're saying will be received.
Solution: Smile at the person and repeat back what they said. Your body language is "I was so interested I remembered what you were saying" not "I heard it already and I'm bored".
Observation: People stop repeating that particular thing. Yay!
However, they tend to seem a bit taken aback, though not hostile. I don't know to what extent they feel comforted and heard and possibly surprised because they weren't expecting that, and to what extent they've been embarrassed that their amount of repetition has been noted.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2012-02-13T09:45:48.987Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Hypothesis: People repeat themselves if they aren't sure they're being heard, or, oddly (and I've done this myself) if they're unsure of how what they're saying will be received.
I have worked hard to stop doing this. As a teen I'd often repeat something when it wouldn't provoke a response. This is silly. I now realize that 9 out of 10 times the other person heard you perfectly well, so repeating what one said is counterproductive.
Also I've figured out that I should be louder. Everyone knows that one person who nobody likes because ze is too loud, but being too quiet is low status.
Observation: People stop repeating that particular thing. Yay!
Awesome I've tried this and it totally works. Thank you!
Replies from: Plubbingworth↑ comment by Plubbingworth · 2012-11-01T00:17:17.536Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My word, I do it too, and I never realized!
I hated it when it was done to me in my youth, and I still hate it when it's done to me now. In fact, most repetitious and nagging patterns of speech make me shut up like a clam. I'm hardly as loquacious in person as I can be through text.
Except... I teach piano and guitar to children. And, in my teaching of habits of practice, I tend to repeat myself maybe a bit too much. I'm really trying to improve.
And also... hehe... I noticed myself introducing rationality techniques. ^_^; How to analyze and target your confusion and lack of understanding whilst reading new music that contain hitherto unseen musical notations or phrases. That's how I'm used to learning.
↑ comment by sixes_and_sevens · 2011-02-08T17:06:12.387Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What kind of issues do you have at present with ending conversations? How is your current technique deficient?
↑ comment by soreff · 2011-05-07T01:50:37.927Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In a work context, we have a useful convention that we can warn people that we have a "hard stop" at a particular time. Typically we say this at the start of a meeting, typically when we have another meeting (or some similar immovable obligation) at the scheduled end (or if we have to depart partway through).
comment by Nick_Roy · 2011-02-08T14:12:25.614Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm mystified as to how to shave smoothly without cutting myself and without razor burn. I've never been able to accomplish all three of these in one shave. (This is facial shaving I'm speaking of, as I am male). Not shaving is not an option, as I quickly develop a distinctly unfashionable neck-beard whenever I neglect shaving.
Update, one year later: I can report that shaving during a warm shower with no shaving cream has increased the smoothness of my shaves, has drastically reduced shaving cuts and has eliminated razor burn almost entirely. Thanks, Less Wrong!
Replies from: SilasBarta, Matt_Simpson, Clarity1992, adavies42, Caspian, sixes_and_sevens, ikrase, simplicio, SaidAchmiz, TobyBartels↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-08T15:49:23.553Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I had the same problem, but it went away immediately after one simple change: stop using shaving cream. Instead, just apply warm water before you shave (it helps to do it after a shower). Before I made the change, my face was always irritable the day of a shave, and exercising would make it flare up; now, nothing. (Having a good multi-blade razor still matters though.)
I was pointed to this idea by some article by Jeffrey Tucker on lewrockwell.com sometime in '06.
Replies from: David_Gerard, Desrtopa, army1987↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T20:53:20.798Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I second this. Shave in the shower. I haven't used soap or shaving cream in years. My skin is happier too.
↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2012-05-08T10:35:16.149Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I had the same problem, but it went away immediately after one simple change: stop using shaving cream. Instead, just apply warm water before you shave (it helps to do it after a shower). Before I made the change, my face was always irritable the day of a shave, and exercising would make it flare up; now, nothing. (Having a good multi-blade razor still matters though.)
Maybe you're using the wrong cream? Using just water was much worse for me than using cream. (I've also found than massaging for a while to spread the cream rather than just sticking it on my face helps.)
↑ comment by Matt_Simpson · 2011-02-08T16:50:46.590Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This article is supposed to be a life changer when it comes to shaving. I haven't tried all of the suggestions, but the ones I have tried have improved my shaving experience.
Replies from: fr00t↑ comment by fr00t · 2011-02-08T20:22:10.163Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I second the recommendation to learn the art of wet shaving. If you're frugal about it you can make an initial investment of around $75 and have it amortized over a few years compared to cartridges.
The real benefit is that the shaves are much better, and more importantly, it has become an enjoyable ritual that starts my day off with a little class and luxury.
↑ comment by Clarity1992 · 2011-02-08T14:32:24.812Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
While I've never had serious problems shaving such as you describe, I did find it a humungous bore and wholely unsatisfying until someone on Hacker News linked to this guy's videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qSIP6uQ3EI
What made the real difference for me was going from multiblade razor with can of shaving foam, to multiblade razor with shaving oil, to multiblade razor with shaving soap and a proper brush, and finally that but with a neatening up afterwards using a single blade disposable. That final solution gives me a close shave and leaves my skin feeling lovely. I actually make the time to have a proper shave every day and really look forward to it!!!
YMMV, but like all hygiene stuff experimenting with new techniques is pretty useful..
↑ comment by adavies42 · 2011-02-16T05:32:58.621Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
before anything else, if you want to stick with blades, get a "reverse" razor (i.e. gillette sensor, mach3, fusion, etc.) from a reputable brand (gillette or schick, not a drugstore brand). this is a razor where the handle joins the cartridge at the bottom, rather than the top, and this setup (somehow) makes it much, much harder to cut yourself.
second is to figure out if your skin can handle against-the-grain shaving--shaving up (which is, again, much less likely to cut you with a "reverse" razor) produces much smoother skin than shaving down, but my skin can't cope--about 36 hours later i break out in red welts and tiny little sores.
beyond that, experiment with different soaps/creams/gels/foams--i know people who swear by things like aveeno oatmeal foam, and others who insist shaving in the shower with nothing but the incoming hot water is the best.
or try electric. :)
↑ comment by sixes_and_sevens · 2011-02-08T16:10:35.896Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I am astounded by how little people talk about shaving, considering it's an activity that most of the people in our culture carry out on a regular basis. My tips:
Seconding SilasBarta's suggestion on just using warm water rather than shaving foam
Try shaving while actually in the shower, since the humidity helps a lot
Find an optimal frequency for shaving. (I have a magical shaving period of about 50 hours, at which my facial hair is long enough for a razor to gain easy purchase but not so long to need a lawnmower. I have pretty fair hair, though, so I can get away with only shaving every two days)
Get some sort of post-shave moisturising product.
↑ comment by ikrase · 2013-04-13T09:40:54.813Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I use a powered shaver rather than a blade.
Replies from: AndHisHorse↑ comment by AndHisHorse · 2014-03-31T20:42:50.285Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How does that work for you? Have you ever tried a blade? I have not, and I am interested in knowing how the two compare. Particularly whether or not blade-based techniques (such as wetting your face with warm water) are helpful for electric shavers.
Replies from: ikrase, Richard_Kennaway↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2014-03-31T22:20:16.703Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I also use an electric razor, the foil head type. I've used a blade, but I find it far too much time and trouble.
The rules are pretty much the opposite from using a blade. With an electric razor, shave against the grain. Shaving with the grain, the hair lies down in front of the head and isn't cut. Shave dry. Water makes the hair more flexible and slippery, and it more easily lies down. The same applies to any other "product". The razor should have a beard trimming attachment, to deal with hairs that got away and are too long for the razor to do anything about. If you skipped shaving for a few days, go all over with the beard trimmer before using the razor.
Mine's battery powered, so I can use it anywhere. At least, anywhere it's ok to discard powdered hair.
It will never be as close a shave as with a blade, but I don't care. I suspect the need for super-close shaves is an invention of the shaving accessories industry trying to maintain their product churn.
↑ comment by simplicio · 2011-02-08T15:37:20.641Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I would say that the key is to experiment with various techniques, razors, foams & soaps until you find one that works. I had to go through several razors and several soap/foam products until I found a combo that didn't give me burns.
I always shave in the bath, making sure my face has been wet for a few minutes. I lather up with ordinary, cheap-as-dirt soap. The razor I have found works for me is the 5-blade MACH TURBO SUPERSONIC STEALTH type you see advertised all the time these days. Very hard to cut yourself with them unless you move it sideways and with pressure.
One crucial recommendation is to shave upwards from the bottom of your neck to the top. This takes a lot of getting used to and really gave me the willies at first, but it works much better and you miss a lot less hair.
Replies from: Torben↑ comment by Torben · 2011-02-08T19:53:42.767Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
One crucial recommendation is to shave upwards from the bottom of your neck to the top. This takes a lot of getting used to and really gave me the willies at first, but it works much better and you miss a lot less hair.
Really? I have the exact opposite experience. I find that going against the grain, especially on the neck, gives me nicks and rashes.
After having experimented a lot, what works for me is wetshaving using any ol' shaving cream, multi-blade razor, going with the grain.
Since facial hair grows in different directions this means you have to pay attention to it. Briefly, I shave top-down on the face and away from the chin on the neck.
For a very smooth shave, I sometimes do it with the grain, a second time against the grain and a third time with it. I read somewhere that the third time is important to avoid ingrown hair and rashes and in my case it works, but YMMV.
↑ comment by Said Achmiz (SaidAchmiz) · 2014-03-31T21:54:49.656Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why has no one on this thread mentioned safety razors?
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-10T09:05:11.467Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Not shaving is not an option, as I quickly develop a distinctly unfashionable neck-beard whenever I neglect shaving.
If you ever want to try not shaving again, it will look much better after several weeks of growth. You just have to get through that initial phase.
comment by Vaniver · 2011-02-09T19:00:52.361Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How to Buy Stocks
First Option:
- Acquire at least $3,000 in a checking account, and grab your account number and routing number. (It's written on the bottom of your checks.)
- Go to Vanguard.com and open an account.
- Buy into VTSMX, the total market index fund, or VFINX, the S&P 500 index fund. If you have trouble picking, flip a coin; they're very similar funds.
Second Option:
- Go to Sharebuilder.com and open an account. They shouldn't require a significant starting balance, but might.
- Sign up for automatic investing to take advantage of dollar cost averaging.
- Buy VFINX or VTSMX.
Third option:
- List out what you know about a company.
- List out what the market knows about that company.
- If your knowledge is better than the market's, then proceed. Otherwise (including if you don't know how much the market knows), go to option 1.
- Go to your bank and read about their brokerage accounts. If the fees aren't excessive (check Sharebuilder and other banks and stuff like etrade), open a brokerage account, or go to option 2 and open a Sharebuilder account.
- Transfer money to your brokerage account.
- Plan out your trades: under what conditions will you buy a stock? (not "the price now is ok" but "if it's less than $60 I think it's worthwhile.") Under what conditions will you sell a stock? This is mostly a restatement of steps 1 and 2, but it's nice to have these numbers for every individual stock.
- Execute trades; the interface should be straightforward.
The last option is very rarely a good idea. You cannot pick good stocks- good stocks do not exist. What exists are good companies and good opportunities. Companies that everyone knows are good- like Apple- are rarely good opportunities, but sometimes the company is so good that it's worth buying at a premium. I'm up 9x on Netflix over 4 years, even though I bought it at a fairly high price, because I recognized that it was going to reshape its industry and eat Blockbuster's lunch. I'm up 50% on BP because I was able to identify the point of maximum pessimism and buy then. That's 2 significant winners over the last 4-5 years of active investing. I'm in the black overall only because of how awesome Netflix was; there's a lot of stocks I bought that lost a bunch or merely tread water. I now take the opportunity approach seriously.
The moral of the story is that you should hunt opportunities where you have something the market lacks, and then bet big on those opportunities. If you don't have any more knowledge than the market, bet on the market as a whole in an index fund. I had more foresight than the market as a whole when it came to Netflix (but not to many other things I bought) and a sterner stomach than the market when it came to BP, but without that edge I'm not comfortable betting on anything but that the general trend of the market is up.
(You can still lose when you've got an edge- one of my friends called the tech bubble and shorted the market, but was early by a few months and lost quite a bit of money- but it's the best and most consistent way to win.)
Replies from: Unnamed, Raoul589, Solomonsk5, ChristianKl, ChrisHibbert, ChristianKl, None↑ comment by Unnamed · 2011-02-10T02:50:46.332Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why the S&P index (VFINX) and not the Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX), which has broader coverage and the same expense ratio?
Replies from: Vaniver↑ comment by Vaniver · 2011-02-10T21:24:57.208Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The last time I looked, VFINX had better historical performance than VTSMX. I don't know if that is still true / what periods that was true for, but the difference between the two shouldn't be that large. I personally hold both, and consider either a fine choice.
Replies from: Unnamed↑ comment by Unnamed · 2011-02-11T00:01:03.238Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't pay much attention to historical performance. If one segment of the market has been doing better than the market as a whole, that doesn't mean that it will keep it up. And looking at the data here, VTSMX seems to have actually done very slightly better than the S&P 500 since it was created in 1992.
I've invested in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX) since that comes closer to betting on the market as a whole. It's closer to the ideal of diversifying as much as possible, spreading your investment evenly across the whole market rather than concentrating it in particular companies, sectors, or segments of the market. The S&P 500 only covers about 75% of the US stock market and is concentrated in larger companies, while the Total Stock Market Index fund is based on an index (MSCI US Broad Market Index) which covers over 99% of the US stock market and matches the market's balance between large, medium, and small companies.
I agree that the difference between the two index funds isn't large. Investing in the Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX) is basically equivalent to putting three quarters of your money in an S&P 500 index (like VFINX) and putting the other quarter of your money in an index of the rest of the US stock market (excluding the S&P 500). And even that last quarter is highly correlated with the S&P 500.
Replies from: Vaniver↑ comment by Raoul589 · 2013-04-12T08:21:05.598Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have a related question about buying stocks. Suppose (for example) that I knew with 100% certainty that the global demand for home robotics would grow tenfold in the next decade.
If this was the only information that I had that wasn't generally known, is there any action I could take based on this information to reliably make money from the stock market (at least over the next ten years)?
Replies from: shminux, Vaniver, MugaSofer, Richard_Kennaway↑ comment by Shmi (shminux) · 2013-04-12T16:20:09.881Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Suppose (for example) that I knew with 100% certainty that the global demand for home robotics would grow tenfold in the next decade.
If you have 100% confidence in something, you then logically should go for maximum leverage, regardless of the risk, and so stock up on derivatives, like options and futures, rather than buy and hold stocks or indices.
But of course people are generally poorly calibrated, so someone who thinks they are 100% right will probably be wrong half the time.
↑ comment by Vaniver · 2013-04-12T15:45:30.342Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So, from a time savings perspective you would want a fund that specializes in home robotics. If one of those exists, though, that suggests that your knowledge isn't as unique as you'd like.
What I would probably do is find a news website for home robotics producers- a trade magazine is what used to fill this niche, and might still do so- to have a good idea of how relative companies are doing. This looks like a promising place to start, but that gets you as informed as similar investors, and you'd like to be more informed.
Then, try to keep a portfolio that's fairly balanced in all noteworthy home robotics companies. I'd probably go the 'buy and hold' route- try and keep your portfolio roughly apportioned relative to market share by buying up shares of companies underrepresented in your portfolio every month. This is the 'indexing' approach- basically, you trust that the home robotics market as a whole will go up, and that the market is better at predicting who will go up than you will.
If you're more confident in your ability to predict trends, you want to hold companies relative to their expected market share at the end of your trading period- to use an old example, the first strategy would have you holding lots of Blockbuster and some Netflix and the second strategy would have you holding lots of Netflix and some Blockbuster.
There is a giant obstacle here, though, which is that a large part of the stock price is determined by the financials of the company, which take a relatively large investment of time and energy to understand. If you're indexing, you basically offload this work to other investors; if you do it yourself, you can have a decent idea of what the companies are worth on the books, and then adjust by your estimate of how well they'll do in the near future.
Replies from: Raoul589↑ comment by Raoul589 · 2013-04-12T17:42:32.298Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If I was keeping my porfolio indexed to the market, wouldn't I be selling Blockbuster shares each month as Blockbuster lost market share? Why would I end up holding lots of Blockbuster?
Replies from: Vaniver↑ comment by Vaniver · 2013-04-12T18:51:50.700Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I apologize, I was unclear; I'm recommending 'buy and hold indexing' where you correct imbalances by buying the stocks you have less of with new investment income, rather than correcting imbalances by selling stocks you have too much of to buy stocks you have too little of. This is a good way to invest for individual investors who have a constant influx of investment funds and who pay trading fees that are a large percentage of their order sizes.
If you have a large pool of capital that you begin with, or you want to actively manage money you've already invested, then you may want to actively correct imbalances. It's helpful to work out the expected value of a rebalancing trade, and make sure that's larger than the fees you pay (and you may decide to only rebalance once it gets above some larger threshold). Here, you do end up with mostly Netflix- but you bought a lot of Blockbuster when it was expensive, and sold it when it was cheap, whereas the projection investor who knew that Netflix was going to worth 30 times what Blockbuster would be would have put 3% of their money into Blockbuster and 97% into Netflix, and so the majority of their current shares would come from when they put a lot of money into cheap Netflix stock. I haven't heard about that sort of projection investing playing well with rebalancing- and if I remember correctly, it was designed for allocating a large pool which you have complete access to, rather than doing dollar cost averaging with a constant income stream.
↑ comment by MugaSofer · 2013-04-12T11:21:20.945Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
At a guess, I'd say you should buy stock in companies working on home robotics.
Replies from: Raoul589↑ comment by Raoul589 · 2013-04-12T12:42:48.814Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Right. Is there no more sophisticated strategy though?
Replies from: CCC, MugaSofer↑ comment by MugaSofer · 2013-04-12T20:32:39.891Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Buy Google - if home robotics turns into a thing they'll probably be running it, whether because they set a bunch of geniuses on the problem or they bought out the company that first started making these robots.
More seriously, I suppose you might be able to extrapolate some other information from that - for example, human servants would be even less useful, and materials/services used to produce robots might become more valuable.
Replies from: Vaniver↑ comment by Vaniver · 2013-04-12T20:44:43.325Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
they bought out the company that first started making these robots.
In this case, if you're one of the people that bought into the company before Google bought it, you can make quite a bit more than if you bought into Google, just like it would have been better to buy into Kiva than to buy into Amazon. This often requires being a venture capitalist or angel investor, though.
Replies from: MugaSofer↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2013-04-12T20:38:03.189Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Start a company developing domestic robots and make a success of it. Then (optionally) take it public.
Replies from: Vaniver, gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2013-04-12T20:45:16.758Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Given the failure rates for new businesses, that doesn't sound like a very reliable strategy.
Replies from: malcolmocean↑ comment by MalcolmOcean (malcolmocean) · 2013-04-12T20:55:46.135Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The failure rates for new businesses are closely linked to the tendency of entrepreneurs to try solving problems people don't actually care about. If you actually had the certainty that Raoul589 implies, your success rate would be way higher.
Well, okay, that also assumes that you're competent enough to run a business, which I suppose many people aren't. Also Raoul might not actually know anything about making robots. So yeah, that makes sense, gwern.
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2013-04-12T22:41:51.538Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Certainty is irrelevant, even if you are certain you still have serious problems making any use of this knowledge; there is no convenient stock named RBTS you can just buy 500 shares of and let it appreciate.
Example: in retrospect, we know for certain that a great many people wanted computers, operating systems, social networks etc - but the history of computer / operating system / social networks are strewn with flaming rubble. Suppose you knew in 2000 that "in 2010, the founder of the most successful social network will be worth >$10b"; just how useful is this knowledge, really? Do you have the capital to hang out a VC shingle and throw multi-million-dollar investments at every social media thing that comes along until finally in 2010 you know for sure that Facebook was the winning ticket? I doubt it.
Replies from: malcolmocean, Raoul589↑ comment by MalcolmOcean (malcolmocean) · 2013-04-13T08:07:43.720Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Ahh good point. I mean, hence the argument to start your own company. But right, you won't necessarily win.
↑ comment by Raoul589 · 2013-04-13T03:00:27.272Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Suppose that you are literally certain (you're not just 100% confident, you actually have special perfect information) about the future tenfold growth in demand for home robotics. Are you claiming that there is literally no way of using this information to reliably extract money from the stock market? This surprises me.
Would you expect Vaniver's indexing to at least reliably turn a profit? Would you expect it to turn a large profit?
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2013-04-13T03:18:11.361Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Are you claiming that there is literally no way of using this information to reliably extract money from the stock market? This surprises me.
I'll reuse my example: if you knew for certain that Facebook would be as huge as it was, what stocks, exactly, would you have invested in, pre-IPO, to capture gains from its growth? Remember, you don't know anything else, like that Google will go up from its IPO, you don't know anything about Apple being a huge success - all you know is that some social network will some day exist and will grow hugely. The best I can think of would be to sell any Murdoch stock you owned when you heard they were buying MySpace, but offhand I'm not sure that Murdoch didn't just stagnate rather than drop as MySpace increasingly turned out to be a writeoff. In the hypothetical that you didn't know the name of the company, you might've bought up a bunch of Google stock hoping that Orkut would be the winner, but while that would've been a decent investment (yay!) it would have had nothing to do with Orkut (awww!); illustrating the problem with highly illiquid markets in some areas...
Would you expect Vaniver's indexing to at least reliably turn a profit? Would you expect it to turn a large profit?
Depends on the specifics. Suppose the home robotic growth were concentrated in a single private company which exploded into the billions of annual revenue and took away the market share of all the others, forcing them to go bankrupt or merge or shrink. Home robotics will have increased - keikaku doori! - yet Vaniver's fund suffered huge losses or gone bankrupt (reindex when one of the robotics companies suffers share price collapses? Reindex into what, exactly? Another one of the doomed firms?). Then after the time period elapses and your special knowledge has become public knowledge, the robotics company goes public, and by EMH shares become a normal gamble where you could lose money as easily as make it.
(Is this an impossibly rare scenario? Well, it sounds a lot like Facebook, actually! They grew fast, roflstomped a bunch of other social networks, there was no way to invest in them or related businesses before the IPO, and post-IPO, I believe investors have done the opposite of profit.)
Replies from: Raoul589↑ comment by Raoul589 · 2013-04-13T07:03:04.644Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In case it's not clear: I'm not trying to contradict you; I am trying to get advice from you.
Suppose that you got a mysterious note from the future telling you that the demand for home-robotics will increase tenfold in the next decade, and you know this note to be totally reliable. You know nothing else that is not publicly known. What would you do next?
Replies from: gwern, None, MugaSofer↑ comment by gwern · 2013-04-13T16:56:08.223Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Do more research. Is this even nonpublic knowledge at all? The world economy grows at something like 2% a year, labor costs generally seem to go up, prices of computers and robotics usually falls... Do industry projections expect to grow their sales by <25% a year?
If so, I might spend some of my hypothetical money on whatever the best approximation to a robotics index fund I can find, as the best of a bunch of bad choices. (Checking a few random entries in Wikipedia, maybe a fifth of the companies are publicly traded, so... that will be a pretty small index.) But I wouldn't be really surprised if in 10 years, I had not outperformed the general market.
↑ comment by MugaSofer · 2013-04-13T14:07:10.265Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
By "you know this note to be totally reliable" I assume you mean you have a fair idea how it got there (eg you just built a time portal. with the intention of sending through financial advice, and a hand, bearing the same tattoo you have, pushed through with the note) and not that you're psychic and literally know things with 100% certainty? IOW you have a high probability estimate that it's genuine, but not an infinitely high one (seems more realistic and applicable if nothing else.)
↑ comment by Solomonsk5 · 2012-07-25T18:57:52.099Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How to Buy Stocks Note: This is just nuts and bolts. Any terminology you may need can be found on Investopedia.
- Have a bank/checking account
- Sign up with any of the many online stock brokerage sites(ScottTrade, Ameritrade, Sharebuilder,etc.)
- Send the broker an initial deposit of funds. (You'll require your routing and account numbers. You have to transfer funds to the broker, who needs this money to purchase your stocks.) The usual minimum is $2000 but can be as little as $500.00.
- In trade section, you'll need to input the company's stock symbol, #of shares to be bought, and the order type.
- Click Review order and double check you've made the right selections.
- Finalize order.
Shameless Plug: If you happen to fancy Scottrade, I can be listed as your referral so we can both benefit from free trades. Referred by: SOLOMON KNOWLTON ReferALL code: OPRH6640
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2014-10-28T17:51:02.772Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If your knowledge is better than the market's, then proceed. Otherwise (including if you don't know how much the market knows), go to option 1.
Somehow along the line, there should be a check of: "Can I be sued for insider trading if I make this trade"
↑ comment by ChrisHibbert · 2011-02-13T19:56:08.585Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've been investing in stocks (occasionally) and mutual funds (consistently) for about thirty years, and I endorse Vaniver's advice heartily. I think overall, I'm up on stocks, due to doing most of my stock investing in cyclical stocks that I can buy and sell repeatedly over the course of many years. This has worked for me with both SGI and Cypress, which I repeatedly bought at low prices and sold at high prices. If you try this and find that you're not buying low and selling high, then you should stick to mutual funds and a buy-and-hold strategy. I've dabbled in other stocks where I thought I knew something and could time it, but few of those have turned out well. Happily, I knew I was dabbling, and kept the amounts low, so I got a valuable less for a relatively low price.
Mostly, I invest in mutual funds. I have subscribed to a newsletter that specializes in rating No Load funds (there are a couple). This gives me a monthly opportunity to review the performance of the funds I'm invested in, so I can tell when they stop being in the top performers and roll my money over to a different investment.
I record the monthly performance of each of my investments in a spreadsheet (used to be a paper notebook). The newsletter tells me which quintile the performance is in compared to the fund's peers. I highlight 1st and 2nd quintile in green, and 5th quintile in red. When the number of reds gets to be high compared to the greens, I look for a different fund with better recent performance. The commercials always say "past performance is no guarantee of future returns", but it's the only indication you can use. Most of the time performance is consistent over periods of a few years, so you have to look back a year or so when evaluating, and monitor continuing performance in a consistent way.
This whole process takes far more attention than most people are willing to put into it (a few hours a month on an on-going basis, and several hours every six months or so when choosing new investents), and few investors do even as well as the rate of growth of the broad market. That's why investing in the S&P 500 or an even broader market index is a good idea. If you put your money in a broad index and let it sit, you'll do better than 3/4 of investors.
Vanguard is only one decent brokerage. I personally use Schwab, but there are several others with reasonable prices.
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2014-10-28T17:52:03.068Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm in the black overall only because of how awesome Netflix was; there's a lot of stocks I bought that lost a bunch or merely tread water. I now take the opportunity approach seriously.
Did you beat the SAP500 or are you only in the black?
Replies from: Vaniver↑ comment by Vaniver · 2014-10-28T20:09:02.701Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Did you beat the SAP500 or are you only in the black?
For this time period, it turns out that which comparison you make doesn't matter- the S&P 500 was about the same when I started investing in 2006 and when I wrote this comment in 2011. Since I wrote this comment, the majority of my money has been in index funds (I sold BP after I owned it for a year to lock in the 50% gain while avoiding the tax hit for short-term trading), so comparisons to the index funds I'm holding don't seem particularly enlightening. The primary investment decision I've made since then in dollar terms--not investing in Bitcoin when I first seriously considered it because of laziness--turned out to be a huge mistake (but still a retrospective validation of the opportunity approach).
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2014-10-28T08:00:17.475Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My addition to the Third Option would be: if you know something's a good company, wait until a cyclical (but fundamentally extraneous to the company's business prospects) market downturn and buy it while everything is crashing. You almost definitely won't hit buy while the share price is bottoming out, but once the market recovers and the economy overall continues growing, you will probably get good value for your purchase.
(Of course, this depends on you being cash-flush enough to invest countercyclically! Most people can't do this, because most people are going to be in personal cash crunches exactly when the market or economy overall goes down.)
Replies from: Vaniver, ChristianKl↑ comment by Vaniver · 2014-10-28T16:34:44.884Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My addition to the Third Option would be: if you know something's a good company, wait until a cyclical (but fundamentally extraneous to the company's business prospects) market downturn and buy it while everything is crashing.
I think this is basically wrong, because opportunities are time-sensitive. If a company is undervalued now, it's not obvious it will remain undervalued until the next cyclical downturn, and you pass up on the benefits of any market correction in the valuation of the undervalued company.
I do agree that it makes sense to invest countercyclically (where you have more of your wealth in stocks when you think the stock market is undervalued, and more of your wealth in cash / CDs / etc. when you think the stock market is overvalued), but determining whether the stock market as a whole is undervalued or overvalued is a difficult task, and it takes planning and forethought to ensure you are not cash crunched when the economy dips (which you should do now).
I also think that correctly pricing downturn risks is a subset of correctly pricing shocks in general. How much damage will the oil spill actually do to BP? How much damage will Jobs's death do to Apple? How much damage will Buffet's death do to Berkshire Hathaway? How much damage will a general economic downturn do to Apple?
I'm pessimistic on Apple's prospects without Jobs, because of what I know about his management style, but time will tell how that turns out. I'm optimistic about BRK's prospects without Buffet, again because of what I know about his management style--and so if the market dips significantly when they take his pulse again, I'll buy BRK (like I bought BP when the market overestimated the damage). And here we're in the same sort of situation- if you think that BRK is will grow in both the short-term and long-term, but there's an upcoming predictable dip (Buffet's death), do you wait for the predictable dip to buy, just buy now, or split some funds out to buy now and other funds to wait for the dip?
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2014-10-29T15:13:03.472Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think this is basically wrong, because opportunities are time-sensitive. If a company is undervalued now, it's not obvious it will remain undervalued until the next cyclical downturn, and you pass up on the benefits of any market correction in the valuation of the undervalued company.
Disagree. The point is not to pick out undervalued stocks, but to ride the cycles.
Replies from: Lumifer↑ comment by Lumifer · 2014-10-29T16:04:40.933Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you want to ride the cycles, shouldn't you just market-time the broad index of your choice? Picking "undervalued" companies to ride the cycles implies that you have two skills (which, I think, are mostly orthogonal) -- the stock-picking skill and the market-timing skill.
Replies from: None↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2014-10-28T17:48:13.968Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My addition to the Third Option would be: if you know something's a good company, wait until a cyclical (but fundamentally extraneous to the company's business prospects) market downturn and buy it while everything is crashing.
This assumes that you can generally beat the market by buying stocks when you think there a market downturn and selling them when you think the market as a whole is high. This assumes that the efficient market hypothesis is wrong on a fundamental level.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2014-10-29T15:11:38.591Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is wrong on a fundamental level -- its stated conditions for market efficiency often fail to prevail in the real world. Panics are one of those times, and being more rational than other people is not a free lunch, but in fact a Substantial Effort for Good Return Lunch.
(I've seen one paper actually proving, rather humorously, that EMH is completely true IFF P = NP.)
comment by gwern · 2011-02-07T04:35:08.448Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
2 deficits of my own come to mind. I didn't learn the alphabet until middle school or so; I covered up my ignorance by knowing pairs of letters and simply looking it up whenever I needed to sort something. (In middle school I realized how silly this was and studied diligently until I could finally remember the alphabet song. For years after that, whenever I needed to know something, I would mentally sing through the alphabet song until I had my answer.)
Until 2 years ago or so, I didn't know the 12 months of the calendar. I got around this by generating a bunch of month flashcards for Mnemosyne. (The cards should be obvious, but if anyone really doesn't know how that would work, I can post them.) I'm still a little shaky but I more or less know them now.
These 2 methods may not be generally applicable.
Replies from: jsalvatier, false_vacuum, TobyBartels, FAWS, Risto_Saarelma, Thomas, thomblake↑ comment by jsalvatier · 2011-02-07T15:53:19.909Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Wait; singing the alphabet song is still how I order letters. Is there a more efficient way?
Replies from: Nisan, Alicorn, bogdanb, gwern, zedzed↑ comment by Nisan · 2011-02-08T05:30:24.431Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I had a Hebrew teacher who assigned the following exercise on the first day of class: Memorize the alphabet backwards. Once the pupils knew the alphabet backwards and forwards, we were able to look things up quickly in the dictionary.
I became much more familiar with the Latin alphabet after I performed the following exercise: Type out every two-letter string, in alphabetical order. This was laborious because I didn't know where the keys were on the keyboard; perhaps that contributed to its effectiveness.
Replies from: SRStarin, wedrifid↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-08T17:21:29.817Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I learned the alphabet very early (~2 years old), and when I was about 4 or 5, I learned how to say it backwards without referring to any outside cues. I can remember saying it backwards and really having to focus on visualizing the alphabet while doing it. It's perhaps because of this forward-backward learning that I know the alphabet in the same way I know the digits 0-9. There is no process to create the list in my mind, it's just there, permanently.
So, maybe practicing saying the alphabet backwards is a good memory aid. But also, visualizing the letters should also be helpful if you are able to visualize letters at all (some people aren't).
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-08T05:35:39.363Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Type out every two-letter string, in alphabetical order.
A similar method works for developing one's ability at scrabble. The "two letter scrabble words" deck in Anki seems altogether too much like an exhaustive enumeration of permutations.
↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-07T16:07:52.311Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Inquiry seconded. I have a vague sense of whether certain letters appear early or late in the alphabet (I don't need to sing to know that B comes before X) but for any finer-grained distinctions I need the song.
Replies from: Benquo, Malovich, CronoDAS, beriukay↑ comment by Benquo · 2011-02-07T18:02:21.860Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You could memorize the numeric values of the letters (A=1, B=2, ... , Z=26); if you can figure out which number is bigger without counting, you can figure out which letter is later.
Disclaimer: I have not actually done this, because memorizing 26 separate, individually useless items is a pain.
Replies from: D_Malik, TobyBartels↑ comment by D_Malik · 2011-02-08T13:59:25.034Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I did this a few years back while bored at school, and it has actually been surprisingly useful.
I find the easiest and quickest way is to try to write the number in a way that makes it look like the letter; eg for H imagine drawing two lines above and below to make it look like an LCD 8. Using this I thoroughly memorized the letters' numbers in about 15 minutes. You'd need to periodically rememorize to keep the numbers fresh, though.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T20:50:55.774Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Like D Malik, I did this as a kid. I managed to invent modular arithmetic as a game; the big insight for me was that, although I had originally set ‘Z’ = 26, it was also true that ‘Z’ = 0. I suppose that it was doing these arithmetic problems (for fun) that allowed me to actually complete the memorisation.
After deciding that counting should begin with 0, I've tried to relearn them, but it didn't take (it's easier to just add or subtract 1).
↑ comment by Malovich · 2011-02-09T06:27:31.690Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
While the song helps to remember the specific order, in order, of the alphabet, I just went ahead and found patterns in the alphabet. Can you remember the vowels? What does the alphabet look like without them? What letters are between a and e? e and i? Which letter is in the middle of the alphabet? Knowing those answers (and others) helps break the entire string up into chunks that you can manage easily and cross reference unconsciously with the entire song memorized so you can recall the relevant information quickly and easily. The practice also familiarizes oneself with the alphabet itself overall and other connections and patterns will be recognized in an out-of-conscious manner.
↑ comment by CronoDAS · 2011-02-08T10:22:55.401Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oddly enough, I seem to "just know" this automatically and extremely quickly. On the other hand, I am sometimes at a loss for a while when I have to do mental arithmetic.
Replies from: sixes_and_sevens↑ comment by sixes_and_sevens · 2011-02-08T16:51:51.298Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've never really thought about it before, but I'm pretty sure I "just know" as well, in most cases. I think there's a bit of ambiguity from P through U, (if you asked me whether Q or T came first, I'd have to think about it for a second), so that suggests that certain parts of the alphabet are easier for my brain to sequence than others.
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T20:58:41.392Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I also just know it, even with the same range (‘P’–‘U’) of uncertainty. (And yes, I'd composed enough of this reply before reading the parent comment that this is an independent datum.) I sometimes even mix up ‘R’ and ‘S’ after thinking about it. (I never go back to the song, although I certainly do know that too.) I have been known to touch-type the alphabet in order when checking out a new font.
This has been useful to me. As a teacher, I alphabetise papers before recording grades, and it's handy to be able to do this quickly and correctly. (I'm pretty sure that I just knew it before I started regularly using that knowledge, however.)
↑ comment by beriukay · 2011-02-08T02:16:13.425Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've never had the need to be very fine in detail, but I've always treated it a an ordered set (much like the numeric values that Benquo suggested, except without as much memorizing). Then I would compare the letter I want with M (being the 13th element, it serves as a useful midpoint), to decide if the element belongs to the first half or the second.
I suppose that doing something similar with the (6th or 7th) letter, and the (19th or 20th) letters could tell you what quadrant of the Alphabet space you were in. So if it comes before F, between F and M, between M and U, or after U, you can focus your attention there. That takes more analysis, but if you are normal in your memorization methods, maybe keeping the alphabet in chunks of 5 to 7 elements could really help your memorization.
Or you could be like Derren Brown, and just use a mnemonic to tie the letters to numbers... searching... he calls them peg words. I use it when jogging to keep track of distance, and he seems to have a way to memorize 52 elements, which could make 26 elements seem pretty trivial.
Replies from: Elizabeth↑ comment by Elizabeth · 2011-02-08T06:24:04.786Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you know the alphabet song, the melody naturally (at least to me) separates the alphabet into a few groups: ABCDEFG HIJKLMNOP QRS TUV WX YZ. This may be easier than memorizing divisions.
Replies from: NihilCredo, komponisto↑ comment by NihilCredo · 2011-02-08T08:16:32.877Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Today I learnt that the two alphabet songs I was taught in age 7 pre-English aren't at all what American kids learn.
(For the record, the slower one went: ABCDEFG HIJKLMN OPQRSTUV WXYZ, while the faster one was: ABCDE FGHIJ KLMNO PQRST UVWXYZ.)
Replies from: Sniffnoy, CronoDAS↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-08T08:42:43.508Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And now you know what jokes about the letter "elemenopee" are referring to.
Replies from: Conuly↑ comment by Conuly · 2011-02-09T03:46:44.316Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Although that's not the only way to divide up the ABCs to sing it to the melody of Baa Baa Black Sheep. You can also do abcd efg hijk lmn opq rst uvw xyz. Took me ages to figure that out after I learned how to sing the alphabet backwards and realized that backwards there was no rushing part.
↑ comment by komponisto · 2011-02-08T16:06:27.403Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
the melody naturally (at least to me) separates the alphabet into a few groups
It's not just you! (And FWIW, it's actually the rhythm: with the exception of W-X, the last letter of each group is held for at least twice as long as any of the others -- four times in the case of LMNO-P.)
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T20:53:21.131Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Even W-X is no exception, if you count syllable length instead of letter length.
↑ comment by bogdanb · 2011-02-08T15:02:49.630Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
We don’t have an alphabet song where I’m from, but I simply remember the list of letters. I’ll just mentally recite “a, b, c, d, e...” very fast. If I need to do figure out what letter’s next after one somewhere in the middle I don’t need to recite all of it from the beginning, but I also don’t immediately recall the next letter; I just start reciting it a bit before, e.g. if you’ll ask me what’s after “N” I’ll do a very quick “m,n,o,p” in my mind and then say “O”. I’m not exactly sure how I pick the starting point, it’s automatic; it seems there are some “fixed” starting points for some reason (that come up often) and I usually pick the nearest one; for instance if you asked me what’s after “o” I’ll also start at “m”. Very rarely it happens that I start with a letter following the reference one, then I’ll stop after a few letters and try again with an earlier stop-point.
(I recite the alphabet mentally in my native language, and I suspect the rhythm of the syllables generates some break-points unconsciously, and they probably differ with language. Though I just tried it and it works in English too, it just seems like it takes a bit more time to “think of” a starting point; I wouldn’t be surprised if my brain did a two-way conversion before I could notice it.)
ETA: I just tried singing the song, and I noticed that after H or so I actually have to stop and do it “my way” very fast to remember what’s next. Apparently having to think of the notes (as I said, I’m not used to it sung) is enough to disturb the recall.
Also, this seems to be my an automatic method for memorizing lists; I have terrible memory and it’s very hard for me to memorize abstract things like names, numbers and dates, but the few that I do manage—a few phone numbers and the first 25 or so decimals of π—I remember as a quick list of individual digits. When I have to tell someone my phone number, for example, I’ll recite quickly digit-by-digit in my head and then pronounce it in a more common format (i.e. grouped into tens and hundreds). Similarly to the alphabet, if the translation to groups is slow enough (e.g. if I have to say it in French or something), I’ll start forgetting after a group or two and have to recite it mentally again to keep going.
Replies from: army1987, jsalvatier↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2012-02-21T22:42:25.100Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
We don’t have an alphabet song where I’m from, but I simply remember the list of letters. I’ll just mentally recite “a, b, c, d, e...” very fast. If I need to do figure out what letter’s next after one somewhere in the middle I don’t need to recite all of it from the beginning, but I also don’t immediately recall the next letter; I just start reciting it a bit before, e.g. if you’ll ask me what’s after “N” I’ll do a very quick “m,n,o,p” in my mind and then say “O”. I’m not exactly sure how I pick the starting point, it’s automatic; it seems there are some “fixed” starting points for some reason (that come up often) and I usually pick the nearest one; for instance if you asked me what’s after “o” I’ll also start at “m”. Very rarely it happens that I start with a letter following the reference one, then I’ll stop after a few letters and try again with an earlier stop-point.
Me too, and I seem to have a checkpoint at M too.
(I recite the alphabet mentally in my native language, and I suspect the rhythm of the syllables generates some break-points unconsciously, and they probably differ with language. Though I just tried it and it works in English too, it just seems like it takes a bit more time to “think of” a starting point; I wouldn’t be surprised if my brain did a two-way conversion before I could notice it.)
Fun fact: it takes me much shorter (not much longer than my usual reaction times) to translate the words for ‘left’ and ‘right’ across any two languages I know than to actually tell which side is which -- I have to imagine I'm holding a pen and that's the right hand, which can take as long as one second.
ETA: I just tried singing the song, and I noticed that after H or so I actually have to stop and do it “my way” very fast to remember what’s next. Apparently having to think of the notes (as I said, I’m not used to it sung) is enough to disturb the recall.
No problem at all with the song, but it's still slower than the other way, by about a factor of 2. Also, I don't have checkpoints with the song, I have to start from A. (Well, I have one at W but it's not very useful.)
Also, this seems to be my an automatic method for memorizing lists; I have terrible memory and it’s very hard for me to memorize abstract things like names, numbers and dates, but the few that I do manage—a few phone numbers and the first 25 or so decimals of π—I remember as a quick list of individual digits.
Some strings of numbers I remember as sequences of digits spoken, others as sequences of digits written, others as a series of finger movements I make to type them -- or in certain cases, to play them on a guitar if they were a tablature. (And I remember the digits of pi through the mnemonic “How I need a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics”.)
↑ comment by jsalvatier · 2011-02-08T16:15:43.449Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
OK, this is actually how I do it now. I shouldn't have said alphabet song, because it's really more of a list. However, I normally find that I have to start at the beginning.
I think I also do this for other common things: social security number, phone number, I think even spelling words.
↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-07T17:09:11.570Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For me, after a while, I think of a letter, say, 't', and then know that 'u' comes next. I don't need to sing 'a, b, c d, e...' and wait until I get to 't' to know what comes next. Like indexing into an array rather than iterating through a list, if that comparison makes sense to you.
↑ comment by zedzed · 2014-04-16T00:19:36.004Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Study math; when mathematicians point letters to things, they typically do it alphabetically. For instance, if we're naming functions, the first is f, the second is g, the third is h. Vectors go u, v, w, and variables go x, y, z. I'm sure there's other triples that just aren't springing to mind.
Anyway, I use triples for fine-tuning and a general sense to know the letters typically used for functions come after the letters typically used for constants, but before the letters typically used for vectors.
↑ comment by false_vacuum · 2011-02-08T06:00:20.638Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is fascinating! I've been told I memorised the alphabet before I was a year old... But it wasn't until I was in college that I finally memorised which hand is called 'left' and which one is 'right'. (Never had an analogous problem with compass directions.)
A possibly related deficit is that I typically think of the wrong word first when I want to name a colour; i.e. for example I want to refer to purple and I have to choke off the impulse to say 'yellow'. And yet I have letter/colour synaesthesia!
Brains are weird.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T21:07:04.817Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A middle-school history teacher once had me memorise the classical Greek alphabet (without diacritics or ligatures, just the 24 uppercase and lowercase letters, including both lowercase forms of Sigma) 4 at a time. Each weak, I'd recite the entire alphabet up to what I had learnt, completed after 6 weeks.
This was largely useless for history but has been helpful for me as a mathematician.
I learnt the modern Hebrew alphabet in high school, using a song (to the tune of Frère Jacques) that a Jewish friend had learnt in shul, but I really only learnt the names. Later I learnt the Russian alphabet by brute force; now I'm back to Hebrew and working (but not hard) on getting the shapes of the Jewish script.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-08-08T01:01:33.425Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think of the Greek alphabet as being the Latin alphabet with a couple of extra letters tossed in here and there (and a couple removed, or un-duplicated). Unfortunately, this doesn't help me remember the positions of theta, xi, phi, psi, or omega.
↑ comment by Risto_Saarelma · 2011-02-07T07:17:30.083Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Finnish has separate words for the intermediate compass directions, northeast, southeast, southwest and northwest are "koilinen, kaakko, lounas, luode". There's no pattern to the words. I still can't automatically match directions to these words, the only way I remeber them is from having learned to list them along the clock face and working back and forth using that.
Finnish also has separate words for the various types in-law relatives such as 'lanko' or 'käly'. I have no idea which is which. I remember other people in my high school English class complaining about not knowing what the Finnish words mean when discussing in-law vocabulary.
Finnish month names don't come from Latin like the English ones do. Most of them have some common Finnish word as their root, but 'maaliskuu' and 'huhtikuu' for March and April both have nonsensical-sounding root words and are right next to each other, so I still have to think a bit sometimes about which is which.
Replies from: Bongo, Kaj_Sotala↑ comment by Bongo · 2011-02-07T15:59:58.505Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
LUKO
LOKA
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T20:47:57.477Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
English has some similar ones: ‘lay’ vs ‘lie’, ‘set’ vs ‘sit’. (Actually, these both derive from a standard construction in Germanic languages that we no longer use. There are equivalents in other Germanic languages.)
↑ comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-02-07T08:26:30.055Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Hey, I have all of those same problems. Except worse, since I wouldn't know the intermediate directions even if given a moment's thought.
(Going to a Swedish-speaking elementary school is probably partially responsible.)
Replies from: Richard_Kennaway↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2011-02-07T09:46:26.276Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So it's true: Finnish is so insanely difficult that even the Finns can't speak it! :-)
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-07T15:13:11.647Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Which makes their PISA scores and educational practices all the odder, to me.
Replies from: Risto_Saarelma↑ comment by Risto_Saarelma · 2011-02-07T18:02:45.005Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's a bit odd how people keep citing the PISA results, but don't seem to ask the follow-up question of why Finns don't seem to be exactly the international science superstars having top academic performance in the world would indicate. For instance, there are about twice the number of Swedes than there are of Finns, but Swedes have 30 Nobel laureates, while Finns have 4, according to Wikipedia. (Ragnar Granit, who emigrated to Sweden, is on both lists, so maybe the numbers should be 29.5 and 3.5 instead.)
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-07T20:01:44.986Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It doesn't necessarily bother me. I know that there are some biases in the Nobels (iirc, Literature has a bias towards Scandinavian authors), and there are plenty of other explanations. Perhaps Finland simply has an atrocious higher education system, which may not reflect in PISA scores. Perhaps Finland and Sweden are similar and some of Finland's better scores come from it being smaller and more susceptible to variation (kind of like the smaller school effect). Perhaps their techniques improve the average but squash extreme variation - like potential Nobelists. Without knowing more, I take the PISA at face value.
Now, what would bother me a lot is if a country had very low PISA scores but very many per capita Nobels. (The other way around only bothers me a little.)
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T20:44:28.456Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The BBC article that you cited suggests precisely that Finland has flattened the extremes. They're proud of this on one end but acknowledge that they need to quit this on the other end.
Replies from: gwernThe Finnish system supports very much those pupils who have learning difficulties but we have to pay more attention also to those pupils who are very talented. Now we have started a pilot project about how to support those pupils who are very gifted in certain areas.
↑ comment by Thomas · 2012-02-12T12:03:24.396Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I wonder how many people (here) know the number of days for every month.
Replies from: DSimon, Desrtopa↑ comment by DSimon · 2012-02-12T13:44:21.416Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There's a great mnemonic for that which helped me a lot: put your hands into fists and hold them side by side, palms down. Now starting from your left, each knuckle represents a month with 31 days, and each valley between knuckles represents a month with 30 days (or fewer, for Feb). The space between your hands does not count as a valley.
Replies from: kpreid, Thomas↑ comment by kpreid · 2012-02-12T16:05:44.838Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Except for the rightmost finger? Else there are 14 items.
Replies from: DSimon↑ comment by DSimon · 2012-02-12T16:11:06.216Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yeah, you stop when you run out of months.
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2012-02-12T17:05:29.842Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh no! December is the end of the knuckle calendar! The world is going to end then!
↑ comment by Thomas · 2012-02-12T13:54:46.993Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
AFAIK many use this technique. I have an instant knowledge about the number of days for every month. Once I thought almost everybody has it, but apparently it is not the case.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2012-02-21T22:25:36.257Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have an instant knowledge about the number of days for some months; for the others I use the knuckle mnemonic (sped up by the fact that I remember that the two consecutive 31-day months corresponding to the index fingers are July and August.) I don't even have to actually close fists anymore, I just do it in my mind now.
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2012-02-12T16:37:19.238Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I still remember this one via the children's rhyme.
Replies from: TheOtherDaveThirty days have September, April, June, and November. All the rest have thirty one, except for February alone, which has twenty eight days clear, except for every leap year.
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2012-02-12T17:01:26.303Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I used to try to remember it this way, except that the rhyming parts don't actually cue the important info, so I was always "30 days have September, April,.... um.... something, and... December? November? Something like that." So I use the knuckle trick instead.
I also never learned the last part of the rhyme, it was taught to me as "...except for February, which is all kinds of messed up."
comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-07T19:36:22.614Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How does a heterosexual male begin a long-term romantic relationship with a heterosexual female? Be sure to cover such issues as pre-requisites and how to indicate what intentions and when.
[For balance, others can post the dual (which is not necessarily the same) question for the other categories of people.]
Replies from: None, None, knb, Benquo, MartinB↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-07T23:05:20.731Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You have to put yourself in environments where you'll be able to interact with a lot of women. College is in a lot of ways set up perfectly for this: if you're not in college right now, consider joining a class or an activity group. Try to make it one where the gender balance will be in your favor. Book groups are one example--they're wildly tilted towards women (I suspect men just, you know, read books, and don't tend to see the value in sitting around sipping coffee and talking about reading books). But if you like girls who wear glasses, try finding a congenial book group. You'll probably be the only man.
Even better than book groups, though, are dance classes. Swing and rockabilly aren't super trendy anymore, but the scenes still exist in a quieter way, and these classes are great for single men: a) they're filled mostly with women; b) dance is an inherently flirtatious activity, and the physical leading/following dynamic is one that many women find very sexy; c) even if you don't find a date in that class, you'll have learned an attractive skill, and you'll be able to participate in events that will introduce you to more women; and d) physical exercise is good for building both confidence and sexiness. Yoga classes might work too, or if you can find a martial arts practice that attracts significant numbers of women (maybe check out your local aikido classes?).
The SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) is also a surprisingly good choice for geeks who want to hook up. Wearing princess dresses is enough of a draw for women that the gender balance, while tilted towards men, isn't too awful, and so many relationships get started in the context of SCA events that there's a joke about it. (The joke is that "SCA" actually stands for "Society for Consenting Adults.")
There are of course singles bars or activities like speed-dating that are specifically designed to let you meet single women, so you could try those too. A lot of people find those environments stressful and frustrating, which is why I'd suggest finding a social scene that is not specifically about dating.
Lastly, let all your friends know that you're interested in meeting women. Ask to be introduced to their friends who are single. This is how people used to meet each other and it is still an important avenue to keep open.
You have to ask women out on dates. This part, I know, is hard, and I'm sorry to admit that many women don't even understand how hard it is. You will be rejected and it will suck every time, but this part is a numbers game. You just have to keep doing it until you find the girl who says "yes."
The pre-reqs for asking a girl out are fewer than you might think. It's best if you have already been introduced and have interacted a bit in a friendly manner. When I say a bit, I really mean just that you've spoken a few times. It is far, far more common for geek guys to err wildly in the opposite direction. Don't do this. If you like her, ask her out, and make your intentions unambiguous. The sooner the better.
If you're following my advice and meeting girls in activity classes, you would do this by approaching her just after one of the classes, maybe as she's getting her things together or as she's heading out the door. Make eye contact and smile. Start with a compliment that references the interactions you've had--"Hey, I've really been enjoying dancing with you [or "sparring with you," or, "I really liked what you said about the book"] and I wonder if I could take you out to a movie next week."
Be really clear about the fact that you're asking her for a date. Try not to say something like "I wonder if you'd like to meet for coffee and talk " because she could interpret this as merely a friendly gesture on your part, and you don't want that. A lot of inexperienced guys think they should establish a friendship before they ask a girl out, but you really don't want to sink a lot of time and energy into a girl who is never going to see you "like that." (It is true that established friendships can make a wonderful basis for romance, but never, ever count on that happening.)
Also, propose a specific activity and a specific time. Don't just say "I wonder if you'd go out with me some time" because a) it sounds a little desperate and b) a lot of women have trouble saying "no" directly (we're socialized not to). Leave her a face-saving way to refuse. If she says "I'd love to but I've been really busy with work/school/life recently," that means no. Move on. (If, on the other hand, she says "I'm going to Guatemala next week, but I'll be back by the end of the month, maybe then?" that means yes.)
Dealing with rejection: When you are rejected, try to be gracious about it, even if she is not. Like I said above, a lot of women truly do not understand how much gumption it takes to put yourself out there by making a pass. If she seems annoyed or condescending or whatever, try to shrug it off; just smile and say "okay, no problem" or something along those lines. Do the same thing if she says "I'd rather just be friends." (But for the love of Pete, do not spend a lot of effort trying to actually cultivate a friendship. Moooooove on.)
It does get easier the more you do it. Just remind yourself that it is a numbers game. The worst thing that can happen is not that you ask ten girls out and they all say no. The worst thing is that you ask ten girls, they say no, and then you stop asking. Because whether it was Girl #11 or Girl #83 who would've fallen head over heels for you, you'll never find her now. Keep looking to meet women, and keep asking them out; these are the two steps that lead to relationships.
Troubleshooting: If you do find that you are consistently rejected, there might be something going on with your self-presentation that is offputting to women. Make sure your basic hygiene is good: that you are wearing clean clothes that fit you, that your hair is cut and that you are clean-shaven. (Facial hair is Advanced Fashion for Men: if fashion is not your ballgame, just shave, trust me.) Ask your friends if there's anything going on with your looks or demeanor that might be getting in your way.
If you are overweight, start an exercise regimen, but do not wait until you are at your ideal weight to start asking women on dates. It is perfectly possible for big dudes to find love, they do it all the time. It IS more important to make sure that you wear flattering clothing that fits you well--a baggy, threadbare tee-shirt and Hawaiian shorts may not cut it. Use Google Images to find pictures of some of the heavier celebrities (like Sean Astin, or Seth Rogan before he slimmed down). Check out what they are/were wearing, and use those pictures as a style guide.
You may also be acting in ways that indicate you don't value yourself, which can make women (and other people in general) instinctively shy away. You will probably need the help of people who actually know you to diagnose these kinds of problems and help you fix them.
In general, though, from my observations, most geek guys are able to get dates so long as they go where the women are, and ask them out. The most common mistake by far is simply failing to execute one or both of these crucial steps.
Replies from: lukeprog, Kaj_Sotala, anonymous259, MBlume, sark, Dreaded_Anomaly, SilasBarta, PaulWright, army1987, cousin_it, None, MichaelVassar↑ comment by lukeprog · 2011-02-08T13:19:10.956Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Lots of good advice here.
One change I'd make is that, imo, a movie makes a poor first date. Do something fun and active where talking is possible, instead.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-12T21:57:31.771Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Agreed!
Can you suggest any specific good first-date activities?
Replies from: taryneast↑ comment by taryneast · 2011-03-08T21:50:54.409Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Depends on your interests. Can be as simple as grabbing a cup of coffee. Could be going for a walk on the beach. Take some sandwiches and go hiking. Pick a shared interest and enjoy it - go to an art gallery, or go ice-skating. Something active is good - and/or something where you get to sit down and chat...
↑ comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-02-08T14:31:41.516Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is excellent advice, and I up-voted it. However:
If she seems annoyed or condescending or whatever, try to shrug it off; just smile and say "okay, no problem" or something along those lines. Do the same thing if she says "I'd rather just be friends." (But for the love of Pete, do not spend a lot of effort trying to actually cultivate a friendship. Moooooove on.)
I may just be reading too much into things, and I acknowledge that this comment is written primarily as a response to the question "how to get into a relationship". Nevertheless, this bit bothers me a bit, as the "for the love of, don't try to actually cultivate a friendship" part seems to imply that there's no point in being friends with women if you're not going to have a relationship with them. That strikes me as a bit offensive.
Even if we're assuming that you're purpose is solely to get women, I don't think befriending lots of them is as useless as you seem to suggest. You say yourself that one's friends may introduce one to somebody one might be interested in. People tend to have more same-sex friends than opposite-sex friends, so being friends with lots of women will increase your chances of one of them introducing you to a friend of theirs. I also suspect that women are more likely than men to do this.
I do admit that this may not be the most efficient approach if you're optimizing purely for finding a romantic relationship in minimum time. But on the other hand, it can wield you rewarding friendships that persist long after the end of your relationship with whoever it was you eventually found, so personally I'd find it worth it.
I should also mention that my experience somewhat mirrors MBlume's, and I find the notion of becoming involved with someone before being good friends with them a little off-putting. Which is not to say that it would never have happened to me, though. (Without going to details, suffice to say that I've both had relationships with women I was friends with from before, and with women where that wasn't the case.)
Replies from: cousin_it, None, TheOtherDave, bigjeff5, David_Gerard, kluge↑ comment by cousin_it · 2011-02-08T20:10:38.796Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Befriending women is sometimes useful for becoming attractive to other women. (Allow me to skip the obligatory part where friendship is good in itself, of course it is, but I want to make a different point.) For example, you can ask them to help you shop for clothes, relying on their superior visual taste. Most of my "nice" clothes that I use for clubbing etc. were purchased this way, and girls seem to love this activity. Also they can bring you to events where you can meet other women; help you get into clubs; offer emotional support when you need it; and so on. If you make it very clear that you're not pursuing this specific girl sexually, being friends with her can make quite a substantial instrumental benefit.
That said, of course I don't mean the kind of "friendship" that girls offer when they reject you. That's just a peculiar noise they make with their mouths in such situations, it doesn't mean anything.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T16:38:00.782Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sorry, that line wasn't clear. If you'd truly like to be friends with a particular woman, then by all means, be her friend! What I'm specifically counseling inexperienced men to avoid is the pitfall where they befriend a woman when they really want to be her boyfriend, and then spend a lot of time pining after her fruitlessly.
And I did mean it when I said, "It is true that established friendships can make a wonderful basis for romance..." My husband was my friend first, so I'm not knocking these kinds of relationships at all. However, it'll either happen or it won't; if there are strategies for making it happen, I don't know them; and I don't think hoping it will happen is a good strategy at all for men specifically looking for a relationship. My impression is that ending up in "the friend zone" with a woman you want to date is a fairly common failure mode for inexperienced men, so I advise SilasBarta to take some care to avoid it. I may have stressed that part too heavily.
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-08T14:49:58.588Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There's a big difference between "If I approach someone for a date, and s/he rebuffs me, it's best not to spend a lot of effort cultivating a friendship with that person" and "It's never worth cultivating friendships."
Yes, making friends is worth doing. Agreed. And if it so happens that the person I'm making friends with is someone I'd previously wanted to date, great! I have numerous friends in this category, and some of them are very good friends indeed.
But even with that in mind, I mostly agree with siduri.
Mostly that's because I know very few people who can make that decision reliably immediately after being turned down. Taking a while to decide whether I'm genuinely interested in a friendship with this person seems called for.
Replies from: None, Kaj_Sotala↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T16:53:19.883Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I also meant the "spend a lot of effort" part to act as a qualifier, since for me true friendships tend to develop spontaneously and easily, in contrast to a situation where I'm actively courting the other person and they're kind of pulling back. In my own life, I've learned it's better to just let those second kinds of friendships die in the bud.
However, I recognize on reflection that for more introverted people, developing any friendship probably takes significant effort--so advice along the general lines of "if you have to push it, it's probably not meant to be" is actually probably bad advice for a lot of people. Instead, I think the question should be "would you be satisfied with friendship alone, if nothing further ever developed? Would the friendship be a source of happiness to you, or a source of frustration and pain?"
I just don't think guys should spend the time and energy being friends with women if friendship isn't truly what they're after. In a case like that it's much better for them to focus their attention on other women, who might reciprocate.
↑ comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-02-08T15:11:21.079Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Fair enough. I can agree with that.
↑ comment by bigjeff5 · 2011-02-08T23:20:40.971Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I believe the point is that if you want a romantic relationship with a woman, cultivating a friendship with her in the hopes that romance will develop is almost always a bad idea. Occasionally such romance sparks "out of the blue", but more likely nothing will ever happen, and it is a huge investment of time and emotion that basically never pays off. So if you aren't interested in the woman for the sake of friendship alone, it is better to just forget about her and move on.
If you find a person interesting and worth being friends with, by all means don't reject such an opportunity just because the person is a woman. That's idiotic. It's just a terrible dating strategy, that's all.
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T22:26:57.511Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
sark hit upon a good point here: think of meeting many women as a special case of meeting many people.
How good are you at generally meeting people? Improve that and you'll meet more of the half of them you're interested in. General social skills are good to exercise.
↑ comment by kluge · 2011-02-08T17:06:56.947Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think there's also the question if the "I'd rather just be friends." said in the context of rejecting an invite to a date actually means "I want to be your friend." or is just a polite way of saying "I don't want to go on a date with you.". In the former case trying to cultivate a friendship will be more useful than in the latter...
↑ comment by anonymous259 · 2011-02-08T20:55:57.778Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
b) a lot of women have trouble saying "no" directly (we're socialized not to).
I cannot possibly stress enough how non-obvious this is to "geeky" males.
Replies from: Blueberry, army1987, TobyBartels↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T00:55:08.587Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't think this is accurate. People generally don't say "no" directly. It's not a matter of gender socialization, it's just how language works. A direct "no" is seen as rude, and refusals are usually couched in vague or tentative language.
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-10T02:55:57.614Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
But people seem to understand refusals anyway, which means the question is whether refusals are more vague and tentative in this case.
Replies from: Blueberry↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-10T03:10:50.705Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Valid point. Though I think people generally understand refusals even in this case.
"I'd love to but I've been really busy with work/school/life recently," that means no.
is a little extreme. Though this could be an very ambiguously worded "polite" refusal, it can also be honesty from someone who actually is interested. Whereas "I'm sorry, I can't, I've been really busy with life" is a clear refusal, "I'd love to but..." isn't always and is worth at least a follow up.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-12T21:54:51.048Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Whereas "I'm sorry, I can't, I've been really busy with life" is a clear refusal, "I'd love to but..." isn't always and is worth at least a follow up.
Your experience may differ, but I disagree. Unless she suggests another time, this is meant as a polite brush-off. For most women, pursuing potential mates is a very, very high-priority activity, and no matter how busy their schedules may be, they can clear out an evening for a guy they're truly interested in.
In the few situations where the woman really is booked solid (such as the example where she's going out of town, or maybe if she's studying for a very important upcoming exam) she'll let you know when she expects to have some time free.
Replies from: taryneast↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-05-25T09:13:34.557Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think that there are cultural differences about that, too: where I am, ISTM that (assuming it's unambiguous that you're asking for a date, which is what siduri was recommending) “I'm not interested in dating at the moment” is perfectly socially acceptable.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-10T07:13:42.061Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I used to have trouble with this. (I was a geeky male at the time.) I knew perfectly well to accept No as an answer, but I never quite seemed to get that answer. (There were other problems too.)
↑ comment by MBlume · 2011-02-08T05:46:58.863Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You have to ask women out on dates.
This is not strictly true from my experience. I've had three girlfriends thus far and in all three cases, we were basically just friends who eventually realized we wanted to date one another. Of course, all three were also housemates, so I may be an odd case.
I've tried the "ask women out on dates" approach from time to time, but keep coming back to the impression that I'm the sort of person who just slides into romantic relationships with friends, and that if I want more romantic relationships, I need to make my social circle -- not my circle of acquaintances, but my circle of folks I see on a daily basis -- more generally co-ed (kind of a problem since it's mostly folks I know from Singinst/Less Wrong these days).
Or become bisexual. If anyone posted a procedural comment on how to become bisexual, I would upvote it immediately =)
Replies from: khafra, ata, lukeprog, Desrtopa, Will_Newsome↑ comment by khafra · 2011-02-08T17:30:47.263Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The way to become bisexual is to regularly extend your exposure to erotic stimuli just a little further than your comfort zone extends in that direction. I'll use drawn pictorial porn as an example erotic stimulus, but adapt to whatever you prefer: start with Bridget. Everyone is gay for Bridget. Once you're comfortable with Bridget, move on to futanari-on-female erotica, male-on-futanari, then futanari-on-male, paying attention to your comfort levels. You'll run across some bizarre things while searching for this stuff; if any of it interests you, just go with it.
By now, you should be fairly comfortable with the plumbing involved, so it's just the somatically male body you need to learn to find attractive. Find art featuring bishounen types, then pairing them with other male body types, and pay attention to what feels most comfortable.
It may take a while to go through this process, but I believe it's entirely achievable for most people who don't view heterosexuality as a terminal value.
Replies from: David_Gerard, oliverbeatson, Kaj_Sotala, Nick_Tarleton↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T22:28:38.484Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The Bisexual Conspiracy commends your insidious efforts at propagating memes advantageous to us and has sent you several HBBs of assorted gender orientations by overnight delivery.
↑ comment by oliverbeatson · 2011-02-09T01:47:52.670Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I wonder how much this would work for a homosexual male.
I've actually been trying this essential thing, although with less persistence as it requires a certain amount of effort to attend to something that just seems so immediately boring to myself. Perhaps living in a hetero-normative culture ensures that when a man decides that he's gay, he is more likely to have discovered a roughly immutable biological fact?
Replies from: TheOtherDave, David_Gerard, khafra↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T02:34:42.220Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Two related thoughts come to mind.
One is that male anatomy is more familiar, and therefore presumably less intimidating, to straight men than female anatomy is to gay men.
Another is that in a heteronormative culture, men who aren't strictly monosexual are more likely to identify as straight than as gay. If what this technique actually does is make men who aren't monosexual more aware of their non-monosexuality, then I'd expect it to get more noticeable results on men who identify as straight. (I'd also expect there to be a wide range of effectiveness among straight-identified men.)
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-09T12:13:35.669Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Despite subcultural normativity being strongly biased against bisexuality, really quite a lot of gay-identifying men have experimented with heterosexual behaviour, but are - ha! - closeted about it.
Replies from: oliverbeatson↑ comment by oliverbeatson · 2011-02-10T14:19:53.446Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Alas the benefits of being open about a very slight sexual curiosity are probably not often great enough to make complete honesty seem worthwhile. Also such curiosity tends to signal a lack of self-knowledge and thus to an extent lack of trustworthiness, probably hence the vague stigma that many people have against dating bisexuals.
Replies from: David_Gerard↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-10T18:44:39.827Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The Bizarre World of the Bisexual - it's all 100% true! [1]
[1] Statement of 100% truth may not be 100% true.
↑ comment by khafra · 2011-02-09T02:02:39.316Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you're finding it boring, you may be trying to go too straight too quickly, or you may not be using your preferred form of erotica--I used hentai as as example, but I could've used textual fiction, videos, etc.
Or you could just be immutably gay; I am generalizing from just a few examples.
Replies from: oliverbeatson↑ comment by oliverbeatson · 2011-02-10T13:45:34.223Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Hmm, I'll experiment with a variety, and report back if I make findings.
↑ comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-02-09T13:40:41.315Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I suspect how well this works probably depends on exactly how hetero- or homosexual one was from the beginning. (I'm basing that on personal experience with regard to both bisexuality and various fetishes.)
Instead of a strict straight/bi/gay split, I prefer to think of it as a spectrum where 0 is completely straight, 5 is completely bisexual and 10 is completely gay. I'm guessing it's possible for you to shift yourself a couple of points towards the middle of the spectrum, but not an arbitrary amount. E.g. if you started off at 0 you might shift yourself to 2, or if you started off at 8 you could shift yourself to 6.
I'd also note that there's a difference between sexual attraction and emotional compatibility. I'm rather mildly bisexual and using these techniques, could probably become a bit more so. But my main issue with pursuing same-sex relationships is not the sexual attraction as such, but the fact that I find it a lot easier to relate and connect to women on an emotional level. These techniques probably wouldn't help in that.
Replies from: Peter_de_Blanc, TheOtherDave, Desrtopa, JoshuaZ↑ comment by Peter_de_Blanc · 2011-02-09T18:15:07.487Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Instead of a strict straight/bi/gay split, I prefer to think of it as a spectrum where 0 is completely straight, 5 is completely bisexual and 10 is completely gay.
Hah! You're trying to squish two axes into one axis. Why not just have an "attraction to males" axis and an "attraction to females" axis? After all, it is possible for both to be zero or negative.
Replies from: Strange7, Cyan, TheOtherDave, Kaj_Sotala↑ comment by Strange7 · 2011-08-28T18:58:40.061Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I would say there are more than two axes which could be meaningfully considered, here. Male and female body types, personalities, and genitals can exist in a variety of combinations, and any given combination can (in principle) be considered sexy or repulsive separate from the others. For example, there are those who prefer [feminine/curvy/penis] having sex with [masculine/buff/vagina] over all other thus-far-imagined pairings.
↑ comment by Cyan · 2011-02-10T01:50:50.291Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You're trying to squish two axes into one axis.
Dimension reduction is not automatically an illegitimate move. That said, I grant that in this case it's worthwhile to keep at least two axes.
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T19:55:12.799Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In a similar spirit, many discussions of sexuality separate "attraction" from "identity" from "experience" onto different axes to get at the differences between a man who is occasionally attracted to men but identifies as straight, vs. a man who is equally often attracted to men but identifies as bi, or various other possible combinations.
Replies from: AdeleneDawner↑ comment by AdeleneDawner · 2011-02-10T01:28:24.210Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Something related is common in the asexual community: Many asexuals identify as hetero/homo/bi/pan/a-romantic. I could certainly see someone being hetero- or homosexual and bi- or pan-romantic, or bi- or pansexual and hetero- or homo-romantic.
↑ comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-02-09T19:00:02.716Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
An excellent point.
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T19:51:41.807Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I would be surprised if the kinds of gradual-exposure techniques khafra endorses here for making same-sex partners more erotically compatible didn't work equally well (or poorly) for making them emotionally compatible.
Of course, in that case you wouldn't want to use erotic stimuli.
I'm not exactly sure what stimuli you would use, because I'm not exactly sure what you mean by relating and connecting to people on an emotional level... but whatever it is, I suspect you could test khafra's approach by identifying specific activities that qualify, and then looking for the closest thing to that activity involving men that you find easy, and attending to that thing.
Let me stress here, though, that I'm not asserting you ought to change anything. There's nothing wrong with being heterosexual, and there's no reason you should feel like your heterosexuality diminishes you in any way.
Replies from: Kaj_Sotala, Blueberry↑ comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-02-09T20:58:05.739Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I would be surprised if the kinds of gradual-exposure techniques khafra endorses here for making same-sex partners more erotically compatible didn't work equally well (or poorly) for making them emotionally compatible.
Umm, no. To make erotic stimuli more attractive, it's enough that you think about the stimuli often enough and learn to like it. It may be slow, but there's relatively little risk. Learning to bond and relate to the kinds of people you've always had difficulty bonding and relating to requires you to open yourself up to them in an attempt to connect with them. At worst, you can end up embarassed and hurt and have an ever harder time trying to connect to them in the future.
It's also a lot more complex, since it's not enough to modify your own reactions. You also need to learn how to get the right responses out of other people.
I'm not saying it can't be done, or that you couldn't apply similiar techniques as you would to developing an erotic attraction. But those are techniques are only a small part of it, and it's a lot harder.
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T21:19:08.198Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Agreed that learning to get the right responses out of other people, and risking social penalties, are eventually required for this sort of social conditioning. (Though not necessarily initially required.)
It seems to me the same thing is true of erotic conditioning of the sort we're talking about. That is, if I want to train myself to respond erotically to X, sooner or later I have to stop exclusively interacting with pictures or books or whatever and start actually interacting with X, and that can be difficult, and risks social penalties. But I don't start there.
That said, I'm pretty much speaking hypothetically here; I've never actually used this technique. So I could easily be wrong.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T20:29:52.114Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That shouldn't be as much of an issue, because there's so much variation in emotional compatibility with men. If you're sexually attracted to penises, it shouldn't be hard to find at least someone you're emotionally compatible with who has a penis. The main problem is getting attracted to the "other" set of genitalia. If you're attracted to one penis, you're probably attracted to all of them, whereas emotional compatibility is more complicated and subtle.
There isn't really a one-size-fits-all emotional compatibility with men, the way there is with sexual orientation.
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T20:47:00.846Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If Kaj_Sotala tells me that emotional compatibility is more of an issue for him than sexual attraction, I'm prepared to accept that... I don't see the value in challenging his observations about what "the main problem" for him really is.
That said, like you, I don't consider it likely that this describes very many people. Then again, I also don't find it likely that "If you're attracted to one penis, you're probably attracted to all of them" describes very many people.
Then again again, the world is full of unlikely things.
Replies from: Blueberry↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T22:08:27.751Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, think about it like this. I also get along better and generally find it easier to get closer to women than to men. But there are some men I can connect with as well, because there is so much variation in men's personalities. So the problem here is just finding the right ones.
Now compare this to sexual compatibility, which requires the right sex organs. This is a much bigger obstacle. I'm attracted to female genitalia and not male ones. Unlike with personality, this is a binary issue: you either like male genitalia or you don't, and if you don't, this rules out half the population.
Then again, I also don't find it likely that "If you're attracted to one penis, you're probably attracted to all of them" describes very many people.
Really? Why not? I would think it obviously describes everyone. You may not be attracted to the person attached, but you're either sexually attracted to male genitalia, or you're not.
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T22:22:38.753Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, the short answer to "Why not?" is "Experience."
The longer answer is, I suspect, longer than I feel like giving, since it's clear that you and I have very different models of how attraction works.
Suffice to say that there are various attributes along which individual genitalia vary, to which I expect different people assign more or less value, resulting in different judgments. For many people I expect that this list of attributes includes the contexts established by the attached person.
Replies from: Blueberry↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T23:56:58.680Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I may not have spoken clearly. Let me try again, and tell me if this makes sense to you.
A lot of people are strongly monosexual: that is, no matter what a person looks like, what their personality is, or how emotionally compatible they are, if the other person has the "wrong" genitalia, this will preclude any possibility of dating, sex, or a relationship, because they won't be able to sexually connect.
If you think about dating as going through a series of hurdles, the first and most important hurdle is having the "right" genitals. After that, there are other attributes, like looks and personality, which I think is what you're talking about. But if someone has the "right" genitals, there is at least the potential for a sexual connection. That doesn't mean there will definitely be sexual attraction.
Does that seem right? Am I missing something?
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-10T00:49:51.112Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think you're being clear; I just don't agree with you. Yes, I think you're missing things.
For one thing, you treat gender as equivalent to having particular genitalia. It isn't. Even people exclusively attracted to men sometimes find themselves attracted to people without penises.
For another, you treat all genitals of a particular category as being interchangeable for purposes of attractiveness. They aren't, any more than all voices or all hands or feet or all eyes are interchangeable. You may not care about individual differences in a particular category, but that doesn't mean other people don't.
For a third, your whole structure of "the first hurdle" and "the most important hurdle" strikes me as arbitrary. The idea that someone to whom I am not attracted is someone I have a "potential sexual connection" with simply because they are a particular gender, or have the proper genitals, is a perfectly legitimate perspective... but to privilege that dimension over the myriad other parameters that allow or preclude attraction is not obviously justified.
Replies from: Blueberry↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-10T02:58:44.981Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For one thing, you treat gender as equivalent to having particular genitalia.
No, I was thinking of gender as a separate hurdle. For instance, a straight cisgender male is most likely primarily attracted to persons with vulvas, whether they identify as men or women. He might secondarily prefer women, but that's a lesser "hurdle". that is, there would be a possibility of sexual attraction to a FtM (gender = man, bio-female) but not a pre-op MtF (gender = woman, bio-male) because of genital incompatibility.
I don't think the attraction is "exclusive to men" as much as it is "exclusive to people with specific genitals." Though this is probably very variable, and monosexuals may well be divided on whether genitalia or gender is more important to them. I'd be curious to know the breakdown.
For another, you treat all genitals of a particular category as being interchangeable for purposes of attractiveness.
to privilege that dimension [genitals] over the myriad other parameters that allow or preclude attraction is not obviously justified.
I was thinking like this. Suppose you are a monosexual on a desert island with one other person. You will likely want sexual contact. At least for me, the most important quality of your island-mate (for purposes of sexual contact, that is) is that they have the "right" type of genitals; while other qualities may be unattractive or undesirable, they can be overcome if you want sexual contact enough, but having the "wrong" type of genitals can't. To put this another way, as a straight male, someone I am not attracted to who has a vulva may be less than ideal, but still sexually satisfying; someone without a vulva couldn't possibly be.
I had thought this would be universal for monosexuals; your comments lead me to think I was wrong, and it's more complicated than that. I'm curious how common my view is, and the specifics of other views.
(BTW, I wish I could upvote you several times just for using 'myriad' correctly.)
Replies from: TheOtherDave, TheOtherDave, gjm, DSimon↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-10T04:16:30.906Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
a straight cisgender male is most likely primarily attracted to persons with vulvas, whether they identify as men or women. He might secondarily prefer women, but that's a lesser "hurdle". [..] I don't think the attraction is "exclusive to men" as much as it is "exclusive to people with specific genitals."
Huh.
So George, a straight cisgender male, walks into a dance club and sees Janey dancing. He can tell she presents as female from the way she dresses, her hair, her body shape, etc. He talks to her for a while, and he can tell she identifies as female -- or at least claims to -- from the things she says.
But her pants are still on.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying George does not know at this point whether he's sexually attracted to Janey, because the "primary hurdle" hasn't been crossed yet?
If so, you and I have very different understandings of how sexual attraction works. It seems relatively clear to me that George makes that determination within the first few minutes of seeing her, based on a variety of properties, many of which are components of gender.
If not, then I'm not really sure what you're saying.
Replies from: Blueberry, Jiro, MugaSofer↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-10T05:06:28.138Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It seems relatively clear to me that George makes that determination within the first few minutes of seeing her, based on a variety of properties, many of which are components of gender.
Yes, he does. And you're right: he is attracted to her even though he doesn't know what her genitalia are like. He's probably making an assumption that might or might not be correct, and this assumption is based on the gender properties he observes. If he's not correct, this may change his attraction. Or not.
My mistake was using the word "attracted" in the quoted portion of my comment. What I should have said was "capable of sexual satisfaction with," "sexually compatible," or "genitally compatible," which aren't the same thing. While he may be initially attracted, he still doesn't know whether or not he's sexually compatible with her (though he assumes he is, which inspires the attraction).
I think you are also right that genitalia is not the most important thing for all monosexuals. I would bet it is for most, though. And at some point this is just a matter of how we define 'monosexual' (or 'straight', or 'gay'). We could think of a 2-D version of the Kinsey scale, similar to what you discuss in an earlier comment, where gender is one axis and genitalia is another.
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-10T14:51:45.251Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What I should have said was "capable of sexual satisfaction with," "sexually compatible," or "genitally compatible," which aren't the same thing.
I'm not sure that helps. Many people, even entirely monosexual people, are perfectly capable of sexual satisfaction with one another despite injury to or loss of their genitalia. So I would similarly object to defining "capable of sexual satisfaction with" and "sexually compatible" primarily in terms of genitals the way you do.
I'll agree with defining "genitally compatible" that way, though.
If you're willing to define people for whom genital compatibility is not primary as not-really-monosexual, then your claim is trivially true. That said, at that point you have also defined a lot of people as not-really-straight who would disagree vehemently with you.
↑ comment by Jiro · 2013-06-14T19:30:06.265Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think that given that not all traits are observable, we make assumptions about common ones. Someone who doesn't know that a female-appearing person has a penis is attracted to a false image of what that person's like, said false image not completely matching the real person.
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2013-06-14T19:42:30.834Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That's certainly true.
It seems unjustified to claim that in this case, they are attracted to that person because of their (false) belief that this person lacks a penis, or that they are attracted to that person because of their (false) belief that this person has a vulva, without further data.
↑ comment by MugaSofer · 2013-06-13T14:18:50.794Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think "genetalia" is being used as shorthand for all sexual characteristics, both primary and secondary. Otherwise the idea of slowly going from women to futnari to men would be nonsensical, right?
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2013-06-13T15:04:51.426Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know how to make that interpretation compatible with, for example, Blueberry's claim that a straight cis male would not be attracted to a pre-op MtF, given that many sexual characteristics typical of women are present in a a pre-op MtF. (And, indeed, my understanding of the real world is that straight cis males are not infrequently attracted to pre-op trangender MtF people.)
But I would certainly agree that the claim that the "primary hurdle" for sexual attraction is the set of all sexual characteristics, both primary and secondary, is a much more sensible claim than the one I understood Blueberry to be making.
Replies from: MugaSofer↑ comment by MugaSofer · 2013-06-14T13:44:27.064Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Blueberry's claim that a straight cis male would not be attracted to a pre-op MtF, given that many sexual characteristics typical of women are present in a a pre-op MtF.
Did they actually make that claim? I saw you say it followed from their claim...
Well, whatever. As you say, it's a more sensible claim regardless of whether anyone was actually making it :-P
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2013-06-14T16:34:43.265Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Quoth Blueberry:
For instance, a straight cisgender male is most likely primarily attracted to persons with vulvas, whether they identify as men or women. He might secondarily prefer women, but that's a lesser "hurdle". that is, there would be a possibility of sexual attraction to a FtM (gender = man, bio-female) but not a pre-op MtF (gender = woman, bio-male) because of genital incompatibility.
I'm pretty sure "a straight cis male would not be attracted to a pre-op MtF" is reliably implied by that quote, though of course I could be wrong.
This is precisely why I asked them to clarify the claim in the first place.
Replies from: MugaSofer↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-10T03:37:13.367Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
(Well, you can -- just create multiple accounts for the purpose -- but I'd rather you didn't.)
As I understand it, there are many cases of men who identify as heterosexual but who, in all-male environments, nevertheless participate in sexual encounters with other men.
That suggests to me that for many heterosexual men, having the "right" genitals isn't as singularly definitive a property as it is for you.
Granted, another possibility is that such men aren't actually heterosexual, they merely think they are, and your description is accurate for genuine heterosexuals. If so, it seems genuine heterosexuals are noticeably rarer than people who identify that way.
Replies from: Blueberry↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-10T04:21:49.922Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
One theory is that there is a difference between sexual orientation and relationship orientation, so that there are men who prefer romance and relationships with women, but are sexually bi. Since our language and culture don't typically make this distinction, such people might just identify as straight.
Another is that sexuality is flexible, so in the desert island example, or in all-male environments, the men adapt over time to become capable of getting sexual satisfaction from other men in a way that they weren't before. This is similar, in a way, to the gradual-exposure techniques khafra talked about.
But -- and this was my main point -- before such a shift in sexuality occurs, a straight man would be out of luck even if he had 100 males to choose from. But once such a shift occurs, all he has to do is find one out of the 100 he's emotionally compatible with (assuming he's looking for emotional compatibility). This is why I said the sexual shift was the hard part: males are not an emotional monolith and out of 100, at least one should be more or less emotionally compatible.
↑ comment by gjm · 2013-06-13T15:15:11.374Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I very frequently find someone attractive, or not, long before seeing their genitals. Indeed, there are dozens of people in the world whose genitals I have never seen, and yet I am still able to find them either attractive or not.
Compatibility of genitalia is surely important for answering the more specific question "am I going to have sex with this person or not?" but that's not the same thing as attraction. For most of us, there are plenty of people in the world who are very attractive but with whom we will never have sex. Many people choose to have sex with people they find not all that attractive (e.g. because they are in some sort of long-term relationship, and either their tastes or the appearance of the other person have changed over time).
[EDITED once, to fix a trifling typo.]
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-10T07:10:41.170Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Instead of a strict straight/bi/gay split, I prefer to think of it as a spectrum where 0 is completely straight, 5 is completely bisexual and 10 is completely gay. I'm guessing it's possible for you to shift yourself a couple of points towards the middle of the spectrum, but not an arbitrary amount. E.g. if you started off at 0 you might shift yourself to 2, or if you started off at 8 you could shift yourself to 6.
By this metric, I started at a zero (unable to find other males sexually attractive,) and ended at a zero. My attempts to influence myself to have a sexual interest in men achieved null results.
I have no problem finding other men attractive, but they're still about as sexually appealing to me as plants.
↑ comment by JoshuaZ · 2011-02-09T19:10:39.640Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The scale you are talking about when used by psychologists and others when discussing sexuality is the Kinsey scale. Under the standard scaling it goes from 0 to 6 with 0 being complete heterosexuality and 6 being complete homosexualty.
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-10T07:04:40.113Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It should be 0 for female-attracted and 6 for male-attracted (or the reverse, but I'll go this way since Kinsey used it first on men). The idea that homo- and hetero- are the basic orientations is asinine, but surprisingly common.
I'll admit to being a 2 on the scale that I just described, but I refuse to be placed on Kinsey's scale at all.
↑ comment by Nick_Tarleton · 2011-02-08T22:35:26.466Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I take it this is a process that's worked for you?
Replies from: khafra↑ comment by khafra · 2011-02-08T22:39:27.810Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Accidentally, but yes. I've also seen it work on other people who frequent /b/, both for bisexuality and many paraphilias.
Replies from: Matt_Simpson↑ comment by Matt_Simpson · 2011-02-09T01:12:02.935Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
heh, I had a suspicion that /b/ had something to do with this
↑ comment by ata · 2011-02-08T05:59:41.548Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Or become bisexual. If anyone posted a procedural comment on how to become bisexual, I would upvote it immediately =)
Within the nearby cluster in personspace: I think Robin Lee Powell has said that he chose to become bisexual, if you want to ask him to elaborate on that process. :)
(I've gotten a bit more bisexual over time, and I occasionally wonder if I actually pushed myself in that direction (since I remember wishing that I could be, as early as 14 or 15), or if that's just the direction I was drifting in anyway and I happened to be open to it in advance. But it's probably hard to tell in retrospect.)
↑ comment by lukeprog · 2011-02-08T13:20:27.664Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Or become bisexual. If anyone posted a procedural comment on how to become bisexual, I would upvote it immediately =)
Beware that if you manage to become bisexual somehow, this can significantly damage a man's prospects with many women. For a huge percentage of women, bisexual men are not as attractive (manly) as strictly heterosexual men.
Replies from: Vaniver, MBlume, Lila, David_Gerard, wedrifid, Blueberry↑ comment by Vaniver · 2011-02-11T00:36:24.006Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have heard from some people that having a reputation as bisexual has increased their prospects with women. I suspect this is dependent on location, social circle, and attractiveness.
It may also be that a large percentage of women are no longer interested, but enough of the women that remain are significantly more interested- and so you go from, say, 20 women who might date you to 10 women who might date you, of whom 2 want to. Overall prospects down, but easy prospects up.
(I will comment, though, that this probably has to do way more with the masculine/feminine balance of the people in question than their sexual history or orientation.)
↑ comment by MBlume · 2011-02-08T18:27:57.763Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For the foreseeable future, I'm going to be exclusively dating poly or poly-friendly girls anyway. I don't think being bi would hurt me within that subpopulation -- does that seem wrong?
(One data point: my girlfriend has only-half-jokingly claimed that if I really want to make her happy, I ought to make out with one of my male friends and send her photos)
Replies from: David_Gerard, CronoDAS, lukeprog, TheOtherDave↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T21:05:12.554Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It won't hurt in any way. The pure heterosexual or pure homosexual are slightly odd in most poly scenes.
And everyone knows about straight guys kissing to get the chicks ...
↑ comment by lukeprog · 2011-02-08T20:54:47.872Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Don't do it!!!!
She definitely wants to have something she can blackmail you with if the need arises!
Replies from: Alicorn, MBlume↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T21:01:45.595Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
He can only be blackmailed with such photos if he would mind having them displayed to some third party.
Replies from: MBlume, anon895, MartinB↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-09T07:58:25.151Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I do not get how making out with a male is considered a blackmail worthy offense.
Replies from: Blueberry↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T08:04:45.531Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, it would likely prevent a guy from running for political office or becoming a CEO of a major corporation, for instance. Or at least make it very difficult. There are only a few openly gay politicians, and even then they have to fit certain social ideals.
Replies from: MBlume, MartinB↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-08T21:12:05.568Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
does that seem wrong?
Poly-friendly != bi-friendly, necessarily, but I'd definitely agree that your odds are better than in the mainstream community.
↑ comment by Lila · 2011-02-10T03:21:18.193Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I didn't select my friends from (a conservative Christian) college for lgbt-friendliness or non-conformist dating styles or really anything at all, besides maybe an enjoyment of genre television or some connection to friends I already had. And yet it turned out that at least a third of the women in my social circle share my love of hot bi guys and m/m in general. Also, m/m fanservice for the benefit of female fans seems to be rather a common thing for hot young male celebrities to do in certain cultures, such as Japan.
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T21:04:31.479Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Beware that if you manage to become bisexual somehow, this can significantly damage a man's prospects with many women. For a huge percentage of women, bisexual men are not as attractive (manly) as strictly heterosexual men.
I've found that just meeting more people solves this one nicely. The percentage difference is not overwhelming, and you really won't want those people anyway.
Replies from: lukeprog↑ comment by lukeprog · 2011-02-08T21:18:46.018Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I disagree with the "you really won't want those people anyway." I suspect the loss of attraction many women feel if they hear a guy has been with another guy has marginal 'conscious choice' in it.
But anyway, I've followed this thread too long. I don't really have any expertise on bisexuality - I've just heard lots of straight women tell me it turns them off.
Replies from: None, David_Gerard↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T21:42:59.545Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think the reason for that is that so many gay men go through a phase, as part of their coming out, where they claim bisexuality for a while. This, combined with the fact that there seem to be relatively few numbers of truly bisexual men, means that a significant percentage of the pool of men presenting as bisexual are actually gay. So going out with a bisexual guy is really risky from the woman's point of view.
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-08T23:32:06.754Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'll admit, when I run into people who talk like this, I generally assume that they are weighting the costs of a relationship ending badly due to a boyfriend turning out gay significantly higher than the costs of a relationship ending badly for other reasons.
But perhaps that's unfair of me; perhaps, as you suggest, it's really just about probability estimates.
Would you mind putting some numbers around "really risky"?
That is... if S is the chance of a relationship ending badly with a partner who identifies as straight, and B is the chance of it ending badly with a partner who identifies as bi, what's your estimate and confidence level for (B-S)?
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T23:58:10.698Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That is... if S is the chance of a relationship ending badly with a partner who identifies as straight, and B is the chance of it ending badly with a partner who identifies as bi, what's your estimate and confidence level for (B-S)?
Well, my numbers would be a bit skewed by the fact that I quite happily date bisexual women (I am one myself). Should I put the non-straight women in S or B? Or make a third category L?
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T00:12:18.548Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Your skew is fine... I'm just interested in clarification of your original claim, however skewed it may be, that going out with a bisexual guy is really risky because a significant percentage of the pool of men presenting as bisexual are actually gay.
That said, given that your original claim was about men, I should have said if S is the chance of a relationship ending badly with a male partner who identifies as straight, and B is the chance of it ending badly with a male partner who identifies as bi. Point taken.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-09T02:11:22.944Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, for S, most relationships end "badly" (in a breakup, at least), so I guess I'll ballpark that at 90 percent.
For B, I estimate that 34 percent of men presenting as bi are actually gay (going from this study.) I'll assume that a relationship with the other 66 percent of bi guys would have the same 90 percent failure rate as the S group, but that a relationship with one of the 34 would have a 100 percent failure rate. So B overall is 93.4.
It's only a few percentage points higher, yes, but the fact that S is already high doesn't do much to change the fact that if you have one (small) dating pool where fully a third of the dudes are essentially just looking for beards, a straight woman loses little by excluding that pool, and improves her prospects overall.
Replies from: TheOtherDave, Douglas_Knight↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T02:43:16.935Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Agreed.
↑ comment by Douglas_Knight · 2011-02-09T06:15:38.997Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For a more extreme position, Rieger, Chivers, and Bailey (ETA: here) find that 75% of self-identified bi men get erections from gay porn, 25% from straight porn, though reported arousal is bisexual.
ETA: that is a quote from press coverage. It pushes a bit farther than the paper and does not match the data. The direct quotes in the press coverage suggest to me that the fault is the authors, not the reporters. The text of the paper is more cautious, but I think also misleading.
Eyeballing the data, I would say that 1/2 of bis respond only to gay porn, 1/4 only to straight porn, and 1/4 uniformly. Also, 1/4 of straights and gays respond uniformly. (this is after removing 1/3 of all orientations that have no genital response)
What is more interesting is that reported arousal to the porn fits self-identification pretty well. It would be interesting to how the gap between genital and reported arousal varies across individuals. Some patterns would suggest that people are lying to themselves while others that the gap is due to sexuality being complicated. I was amused that straights admitted to being aroused by gay porn, while gays did not admit to being aroused by straight porn; but I suspect that the sample of straights was pretty biased.
Replies from: TheOtherDave, wnoise↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T13:52:06.674Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
One of the things that amused me about that report when I read it was realizing that while I am often aroused by actual women, most mainstream straight porn does nothing for me.
I can only assume that many straight men find porn more arousing than actual women, since the whole point of porn is to be a superstimulus, so there seems to be a difference there.
Replies from: Blueberry, Douglas_Knight↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-10T22:06:36.520Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
while I am often aroused by actual women, most mainstream straight porn does nothing for me.
One of the numerous problems with that study. I consider it completely worthless.
I can only assume that many straight men find porn more arousing than actual women, since the whole point of porn is to be a superstimulus
Wait, what? No! Not at all! The point of porn is to help you when you don't have an actual woman to have sex with. It's never as arousing as an actual woman. It's like a microwave dinner when you're hungry but don't have the time or money to cook or go to a restaurant.
Replies from: TheOtherDave, Desrtopa, Nornagest↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-10T23:07:24.545Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I didn't mean "...to have sex with." I meant actual women. Who can sometimes be arousing even if I'm not having sex with them. As can men. Others' mileage may, of course, vary.
Replies from: Blueberry↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-12T20:51:07.294Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I suspect mileage varies a lot here. But I'm a little confused. You're comparing porn, which depicts people without clothes, in explicitly sexual positions and acts, with people in general? With clothes on? Do you mean just someone walking down the street? Obviously someone without clothes, or in a sexual position or activity, is generally going to be more arousing than a person in a non-sexual situation: this seems like it would be fairly robust across all genders and orientations.
Do you mean arousal from women in non-sexual situations? Or do you mean arousal from women in sexual situations but not from photos or videos or textual depictions of women in sexual situations? Or is this just about "mainstream" vs. alternative depictions? I'm curious what you mean.
I've noticed that people critical of porn (I don't mean you) have a very narrow view of what "mainstream" porn is that doesn't match my experience; it's very common for someone to complain about porn in general because they object to a few specific things that are only in some porn.
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-12T21:12:52.352Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, I was saying that I often find actual women, even those in non-sexual situations, even those wearing clothes on, more arousing than women in porn, depicted without clothes, in explicitly sexual positions and acts.
I hope that clears things up.
I can easily see where this might be an artifact of a relatively narrow porn sample; I'm not especially a connoisseur of porn.
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-10T22:18:56.081Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The point of porn is to be as arousing as possible so people want to watch and hopefully pay for it. I doubt that nobody finds it more arousing than having an actual partner, because it can depict things they're unlikely to be able to see or do with a partner. I don't think I've heard of anyone claiming to find live action porn more arousing than real sex, but 2D complexes appear to be a real thing.
Replies from: Costanza↑ comment by Costanza · 2011-02-10T22:52:32.305Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I doubt that nobody finds it more arousing than having an actual partner, because it can depict things they're unlikely to be able to see or do with a partner.
True. Also, sexuality is one area in which...your mileage may vary. It's a big world. I'm pretty sure that if you looked hard enough, you could find someone for whom X is more arousing than Y for quite a few values of X and Y.
↑ comment by Nornagest · 2011-02-10T22:16:10.538Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think I'd split the difference. Porn can't give you interactivity or a lot of partner stimuli, so it attempts to compensate by superstimulating what it does have access to. It would of course be good for porn producers if they came up with something that was better than actual sex for most people, but thanks to the format's limited sensory bandwidth that's probably impossible.
If the Rieger/Chivers/Bailey results are reliable, this might suggest that male bisexuality's associated with a preference for sexual stimulation other than what straight porn gives you. This ought to be testable, but I don't know of any studies that have made the attempt.
↑ comment by Douglas_Knight · 2011-02-09T16:20:51.785Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In the study, 1/3 of the men, uniformly across all orientations, had no genital response. Also, 1/3 had no subjective response, though I don't see any indication in the paper whether they were the same people.
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T16:24:43.871Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
(nods) I would also be interested to see what the correlations were between response-to-porn and response-to-people. Lots of interpretations of studies of this sort seem to treat the former as a proxy for the latter, so if it turned out that they were not strongly linked the interpretations might be misleading.
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T21:32:42.787Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I would say, speaking from other bisexual men I know as well as myself, that if bisexuality turned someone off that would in fact reduce their attractiveness, in the general case.
But yeah, we both only have anecdotes at this stage :-)
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-08T21:41:58.406Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm reminded of coming out as bi to a high-school friend of mine, who allowed after some consideration that he was pretty squicked by the notion, but he saw no particular reason why either one of us should pay much attention to that reaction.
Which I can respect, actually.
Though admittedly it would turn me off in a prospective partner.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-08T14:42:06.847Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Beware that if you manage to become bisexual somehow, this can significantly damage a man's prospects with many women. For a huge percentage of women, bisexual men are not as attractive (manly) as strictly heterosexual men.
Nobody is required to signal their sexual preferences far and wide. That is personal information, to be revealed if and when you deem it appropriate or beneficial. This means that becoming bisexual merely gives you more options, without interfering with your existing options unless you choose to let it change your signalling strategy. That said, humans are notoriously bad at making decisions when burdened with extra choices!
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-08T14:54:46.103Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Also, a lot depends on whether the people I am approaching for dates share a social community.
If they do, then if I want to keep control over who becomes aware of my sexual preferences, I need to expend additional effort to prevent that information from traveling through that community... that is, it stops being "private" and starts being "secret."
This is otherwise known as "being in the closet" in some communities.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-08T15:07:16.517Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is otherwise known as "being in the closet" in some communities.
Fortunately it is a closet full of beautiful women who you find highly attractive. Such a better closet to be in than the one homosexuals have had to hide themselves in at times. :)
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-08T16:09:40.449Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sure, given a choice between having to keep all of my sexual attractions secret, and only having to keep half of them secret, the latter is far better. Agreed.
Of course, even better is to not have to keep any of them secret, and to instead be able to reveal whatever information about my sexual preferences I choose to reveal without fear of negative consequences.
All of that said: perhaps I've lost track of context.
MBlume's parent comment framed bisexuality as an improvement, and lukeprog warned that there were costs to it. You countered that those costs can be averted by keeping one's bisexuality secret. But that seems to completely subvert MBlume's original point... if I'm in the closet about being bisexual, how is that an improvement over being heterosexual?
Replies from: wedrifid, Blueberry↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-09T02:07:58.584Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sure, given a choice between having to keep all of my sexual attractions secret, and only having to keep half of them secret, the latter is far better.
It seems the choice is, instead, between having your attraction and sexual appreciation mechanism biologically crippled so as to halve the potential partners or to give yourself the option of specialising your signalling as to optimise your chances within a specific target niche or of seeking more diverse experience.
But that seems to completely subvert MBlume's original point...
Neutral returns as a worst case makes the point a good one. :)
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T15:13:21.439Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, in my own life, the additional option of living in a social context in which honest signaling about gender-selection with respect to attraction and sexual appreciation doesn't have especially negative consequences became available, and that has worked pretty well for me.
I've lived the "specializing my signaling" lifestyle before; I don't prefer it. The returns of such signal-specialization can be worse than neutral in some cases.
But if it works for you, that's great.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-09T15:47:14.414Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
But if it works for you, that's great.
Alas, a process by which I can modify myself to broaden the scope of those to whom I am sexually attracted is not available to me - I can't give testimony either way. But I can always wish for it.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T00:44:35.618Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
if I'm in the closet about being bisexual, how is that an improvement over being heterosexual?
You don't have to be in the closet with everyone. Just treat it as something personal that you only tell people once you know them and trust them enough, and you've gauged their reaction to casual mentions of bisexuality.
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T00:57:20.286Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Agreed that avoiding keeping just most people from knowing about my relationship preferences isn't as difficult as keeping everyone from knowing about them.
Of course, as above, even better is to be able to reveal whatever information about my relationship preferences I choose to reveal without fear of negative consequences.
↑ comment by Will_Newsome · 2011-02-09T11:39:44.277Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I strongly prefer heterosexuality on aesthetic grounds. I wonder how common that is.
↑ comment by sark · 2011-02-08T18:34:53.282Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Is it purely a numbers game though? Most people have this thing nerdy academics call a 'mate value sociometer' and they use it to help decide how hot a female to pursue. Of course, this sociometer has to be calibrated, so you really want to be rejected often enough to know where you stand. My point is, it might be better to keep this sociometer in mind (especially since non-neurotypicals tend not to have this instinct), to at first target your proposals to be as informative as possible, and then later on target those girls your mate value can buy. (this is in fact what studies have found neurotypicals to be doing)
Replies from: David_Gerard, None↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T21:02:38.829Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's not purely a numbers game. However, it really helps if you can interact with a number of people that's at least in double digits.
Get used to meeting new people. It's good for you. You grew this great big brain to do chimp-chimp interaction better, after all - you have an aptitude for this sort of thing. MEET MORE PEOPLE!
Replies from: sark↑ comment by sark · 2011-02-08T21:27:40.571Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If someone takes my point as an excuse not to meet people, that person is wrong. Because that is not what it says at all. And also, meeting girls and meeting new people are not quite the same. Though the point does apply to the latter.
Perhaps you are saying people already adjust their expectations in light of their successes and failures, in which case my pointing out that sociometer point does more harm than good.
Replies from: David_Gerard, army1987↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T21:31:19.533Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sorry, I was speaking more generally of "dating as numbers game", not disagreeing with you. I find many people who worry about the idea of a "numbers game" see that as a problem rather than an opportunity.
I must note that I am almost pathologically gregarious and outgoing myself, and have an unfortunate habit of offering unhelpful advice on such to those who aren't - and if I seem to you to have done that, I most sincerely apologise.
Replies from: sark↑ comment by sark · 2011-02-08T21:58:50.809Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Ah ok. I was puzzled I guess as that didn't seem otherwise very relevant. Yes, thinking of meeting many girls as a special case of meeting many people does make it seem less daunting to me!
Replies from: David_Gerard↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T22:23:24.056Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, thinking of meeting many girls as a special case of meeting many people does make it seem less daunting to me!
I do believe you've hit upon an important perspective trick. It's meeting people. This also allows you to do the "don't think about it" Zen mind trick.
↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-05-21T16:26:00.179Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
meeting girls and meeting new people are not quite the same
I'm approximately 97% sure that at least one of the next five people I'll meet will be a woman.
I'm also approximately 100% sure that at least five of the next five women I'll meet will be people. :-)
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2013-05-22T01:34:13.764Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm approximately 97% sure that at least one of the next five people I'll meet will be a woman.
97% seems high. Same sex groups are relatively common. Even if the expected number of women out of the next five people is 2.5 there is probably more than 3% chance of the next five being male.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-05-22T11:21:06.807Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
But then again, more of the people I meet are female than male; I guess those two effects roughly cancel out. Trying to remember when the last few times I met five males in a row were seems to confirm that the number is roughly in the right ballpark. (OTOH, the probability that none of the next five people I met is a man probably is a few times larger than the naive binomial model would predict.)
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T19:23:26.458Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I mostly agree with this, although I suspect it might be more complicated than a single hot-or-not scale. Like, indie rock chicks are looking for a different kind of dude than cheerleaders are. Both the indie rock chick and the cheerleader might be blazing hot, but they're going to pick out different boyfriends. So if a guy is making a lot of passes at certain kinds of girls and getting nowhere, perhaps he should consider targeting girls who are closer to his own "type."
Replies from: sark↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-08T23:28:40.911Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This seems like very good, thorough, general advice. However, I wonder how many of us (heterosexual males reading Less Wrong) have romantic preferences that are as general. I realize that the "reading Less Wrong" part of that descriptor wasn't specified in the question, but it seems implied.
In general, a heterosexual man might describe the set of his potential romantic partners in the following way: a woman whom he finds physically attractive, with whom he shares interests, and with whom his personality is compatible. (That the woman is currently single is also important for many, including myself, but I recognize that it's less general than the former three, given the existence of polyamory/fidelity.)
However, for myself, I would add to this a fairly strict qualifier, that the woman is an atheist. I simply don't feel that I would be able to be emotionally intimate with a woman who holds an irrational, i.e. religious, worldview. Atheist doesn't necessarily mean rationalist, but religious almost definitely means irrational, i.e. P(rationalist|atheist) >> P(rationalist|religious), and even more so for P(would be open to rationality|atheist). I find it to be a sound heuristic that prevents me from embarking on relationships very likely doomed to failure. I doubt that I am alone among LWers in taking this into account.
Unfortunately, I have found it really damn hard to meet atheist women. I can count on one hand the number I have met in college. A large part of that is that I attend a science/engineering university which has a student body comprised of only ~30% women, but even then, my expectation before entering the university was that a population self-selected for interest in science/engineering would have a larger proportion of atheism than the general population. That expectation was not met by reality, and I recognized that I was confused, but trying to resolve that confusion (see below) didn't appreciably help my goal of meeting atheist women.
Studies have shown that women tend to be more religious than men. I also hypothesize that women who do select a science/engineering university are more likely to have gone to a private high school (76% of private schools are religious). As women tend to be socialized away from an interest in science, a stronger educational program than exists in the average public school might qualify as a "push" to counter that trend. I have met a fair number of women at this university who went to a religious school, but the sample size isn't large enough to confirm that hypothesis.
In any case, the problem remains: atheist women seem to be hard to find. The types of general activities you've suggested are good for socializing, but unlikely to have a larger-than-average atheist population. Are there activities similarly strong in socializing that would have a larger atheist population?
(Note: I don't mean to slight the obvious effort you put into this post; it's just that my own issues on this subject, and I suspect some others' issues as well, are more involved than just social awkwardness/inexperience.)
Replies from: None, ChristianKl, CronoDAS, sfb, Desrtopa↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-09T00:17:22.983Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So this is an interesting challenge. My first thought is that it's actually a challenge shared by theists--Mormon men who want a Mormon wife, for example--but these people share a whole social structure (their religious community) that is already working to bring them together. Without this, atheists do face a special hurdle.
Studies have shown that women tend to be more religious than men.
Wow, those numbers are high. Yes, when you're limited to 14 percent of women, general dating strategies become a lot less useful.
Other groups faced with numbers like these have to create (and advertise among themselves!) special spaces for meeting and flirting. (I'm thinking about gay bars now.)
The types of general activities you've suggested are good for socializing, but unlikely to have a larger-than-average atheist population. Are there activities similarly strong in socializing that would have a larger atheist population?
I hope others can suggest more, but the only one I'm coming up with is political activism. If you are in the U.S.A., you could look for events put on through http://secular.org/ or any of the Member Organizations. Even though men are more likely to be atheists, women are more likely to be volunteers, so you may find that the gender balance evens out.
Replies from: MBlume, Dreaded_Anomaly↑ comment by MBlume · 2011-02-09T00:34:48.341Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
From what I recall, if you filter for "active in atheism/rationalism/secularism" you get an even stronger male skew than if you just filter for "atheist/rationalist/secular" =(
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-09T02:24:38.437Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In-person groups too, not just talking about online advocacy?
In that case, I wonder if it might not be worth it to date in the wider pool, with the aim of finding a woman who is open to deconverting. Generally it's a bad idea to enter a relationship hoping to change the other person, but religion has long been a sort of special case: a lot of LTRs do involve one party or the other converting or at least modifying their religious views.
Otherwise, the numbers on this are just really daunting for atheist men.
Replies from: MBlume, Desrtopa, Dreaded_Anomaly↑ comment by MBlume · 2011-02-09T02:34:56.787Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have a dear friend who loves rationality, reads Methods rabidly, quotes 'That which can be destroyed...' at the top of her FB profile... and still identifies as Christian. She's young and has had the kind of sheltered upbringing that makes it possible to actually believe your religion without lots of doublethink.
I expect to have her deconverted within a year or two -- I'd have managed by now if we weren't half a state apart.
Replies from: Dreaded_Anomaly, CronoDAS↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T23:00:00.760Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I would be interested to know how she responded to, for example, Chapter 39 "Pretending to be Wise, Pt 1".
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-09T15:00:02.066Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In that case, I wonder if it might not be worth it to date in the wider pool, with the aim of finding a woman who is open to deconverting. Generally it's a bad idea to enter a relationship hoping to change the other person, but religion has long been a sort of special case: a lot of LTRs do involve one party or the other converting or at least modifying their religious views.
This strikes me as a very high risk strategy, and probably a low reward one as well. Deconversion tends to take a long time, and even gentle attempts could strain a new relationship. Going by my own experience observing religious deconversions, it's likely to take months at the lower end, which you could have spent looking for someone else, and there's a high probability that it simply wouldn't work out, in which case your time investment is wasted.
The numbers for atheist men aren't very good, it's true, but keep in mind that a rationally minded intellectual is filtering rather strongly for atheists simply by looking for partners they're compatible with.
Replies from: TobyBartels, MartinB↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-10T07:33:50.516Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I recently began dating an old friend with conservative Christian religious beliefs. Obviously, I don't have the rationalists-only filter that DA has, and I don't want to deconvert her. (Her personal relationship with Jesus --that is, the mental feelings that she's constructed around the idea of Christ-- are important to her, and I don't want to destroy that.) Nevertheless, here's what's happened:
In conversation with me, she quickly clarified some nagging doubts about the inclusiveness (and other characteristics) of her old, conservative church. She's started attending a Congregationalist church instead. (For those unfamiliar with Christian denominations in North America, this is as liberal as you can get and still be explicitly Christian). For a while, she even considered attending the Unitarian Universalist church, since I would be willing to join it with her, but in the end she decided that it didn't fit.
When we started, I expected the relationship to founder on religious differences, but I agreed to give it a shot anyway. And I seem to have affected her religion instead. I'm not sure what this proves, even when restricted to the one example, but it's been a surprising few months for me.
↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-09T15:29:30.907Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In my view the ideology matters surprisingly little. Do not make the mistake of choosing your partner for having the right convictions.
Replies from: Dreaded_Anomaly, Desrtopa↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T22:42:17.894Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In my view the ideology matters surprisingly little. Do not make the mistake of choosing your partner for having the right convictions.
Emphasis added to point out the non sequitur.
Also, my "atheist qualifier" is intended to prevent me from choosing a partner with the wrong convictions, not to encourage me to choose one simply for having the right convictions.
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-09T15:40:37.605Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If that's not something you care about in a relationship, by all means don't concern yourself with it. But if you feel like you have to decide not to care about your partner's convictions, then it's a significant issue, and one that's likely to surface in the future however you try to suppress it.
Replies from: MartinB↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-09T16:01:27.633Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I meet many people were their religion has little or no practical influence on their daily lives. If you limit your partner search to the LW/similar cluster you might find it problematic to get a suitable partner. And even then ideological similarities are no guarantee for a happy relationship.
Might be interesting to poll what people look for.
Replies from: Desrtopa, Desrtopa↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-09T16:11:06.733Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Of course ideological similarities aren't a guarantee of a happy relationship; for me and for many others, they're necessary, but I know of nobody for whom they're sufficient.
Dating a person with religious beliefs which do not have a practical influence on their lives, I have tremendous difficulty respecting them. This is not a hypothetical matter, it's a mistake I've learned to avoid. I know people for whom it does not seem to be an issue, but anyone for whom it is is better off taking it seriously than following advice to exercise tolerance.
That sounds like a fair idea for discussion post. I'll make one later today, unless you feel like doing it first.
↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T04:40:06.070Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In that case, I wonder if it might not be worth it to date in the wider pool, with the aim of finding a woman who is open to deconverting. Generally it's a bad idea to enter a relationship hoping to change the other person, but religion has long been a sort of special case: a lot of LTRs do involve one party or the other converting or at least modifying their religious views.
That sounds like an exhausting process without a way to judge openness to atheism quickly. It seems like converting from one religion to another would be less jarring than dropping religion altogether, so I'm not sure how much better the numbers would actually become. Also, that sort of pressure seems like it could make the initial uphill climb of a relationship (getting to know the other person) into cliff-scaling.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-09T14:46:31.855Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That sounds like an exhausting process without a way to judge openness to atheism quickly.
I think you could suss it out on the first date. You might have to use some trial-and-error -- and conversations with other atheist men -- in order to come up with the perfect line that raises the question without coming off as overly aggressive, but you can get a pretty good picture of how committed a woman is to her religion just by asking her.
The general advice to people with specific requirements (I admit I'm getting this from Dan Savage's advice to people with particular sexual fetishes) is to disclose early, but to present it as a bonus rather than an onerous hurdle that must be overcome by potential prospects. So instead of "Just so you know, I have a foot fetish, so being with me means you're gonna have to be into that" the foot guy would say something like "Your shoes are super hot. I kind of have a thing for feet. Do you like footrubs?"
Following that formula, I think the thing to avoid would be lines like "Just so you know, I don't date religious wackos." Maybe something like "I'm an atheist, so I'm always looking for ways to celebrate earthly life on Sunday mornings. Do you like strawberries and mimosas?" That's just a stab at a formulation that could start the conversation without killing any romantic momentum you've got going at that point.
Replies from: Dreaded_Anomaly, taryneast↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T22:45:18.182Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
At the least, that advice presents a reasonably positive strategy, which is appreciated. My attempts to be realistic about this issue are certainly prone to drifting into the sort of pessimism that comes from spending my entire undergraduate career single.
Replies from: None↑ comment by taryneast · 2011-03-08T22:06:59.726Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Actually just the simple act of trying to book dates on a Sunday morning could give you a quick decision of Christian-or-not.
Replies from: Sniffnoy, JoshuaZ↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-03-09T00:58:45.834Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Or awake-in-the-morning or not.
Replies from: taryneast↑ comment by taryneast · 2011-03-09T15:26:51.998Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
True :)
But then you don't actually have to really make real plans for Sunday mornings... just ask if they're available then and see what they say when turning you down. "Sorry, I'd prefer the afternoon" is different to "Well, if you'd like you can come along to my church group" :)
↑ comment by JoshuaZ · 2011-03-08T22:13:51.727Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Not necessarily. There are a fair number of Christians who strongly self-identify as Christian but don't go to church that regularly (in the US at least there are some very weird patterns. People claim in surveys to be going to church much more frequently than church attendance rates suggest.) This also won't rule out other common religious groups, such as semi-religious Jews.
Replies from: taryneast↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T04:40:21.374Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I will look into that, thanks.
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2011-02-09T21:17:06.545Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The reason to go into environments where you interact with a lot of women isn't only an issue of having a lot of opportunities. It's also a matter of practice.
Even if you don't like to date the woman at a dance class the class will still teach you basic skills about interacting with women.
If you don't have the practice with regularly interacting with women than you are unlikely to have success when you find a woman who would be a good match because she fulfills your criteria.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-05-22T11:31:21.598Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Even if you don't like to date the woman at a dance class the class will still teach you basic skills about interacting with women.
But the skills about interacting with women platonically aren't all of the skills about interacting with women romantically. The infamous so-called “friend-zone”, anyone?
(How comes I'm making a point nearly diametrically opposed to what I said 21 hours ago, anyway?)
Replies from: wedrifid, ChristianKl↑ comment by wedrifid · 2013-05-22T13:46:32.489Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
But the skills about interacting with women platonically aren't all of the skills about interacting with women romantically. The infamous so-called “friend-zone”, anyone?
The point is a good one. That said, as far as interacting with girls platonically goes dancing is rather far from the most emasculating influence.
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-05-22T13:15:35.050Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't think it makes much sense to seperate skills into platonically/romantically.
If you look at some PUA who goes for a one-night stand "romantic" isn't the label I would use to describe the interaction. On the other hand it's a word that I could reasonable use to describe an intimite Bachata dance between two people who just meet.
The ability to be physically intimite with the opposing sex without getting tense is valuable.
In dance the man leads the woman. For a shy male that's a valuable skill to learn.
Dancing doesn't teach you everything. It doesn't teach you having good conversations. The things that it teaches you are still valuable.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-05-25T09:22:13.287Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
On the other hand it's a word that I could reasonable use to describe an intimite Bachata dance between two people who just meet.
In that context, I meant “romantic” as ‘leading to romance’, rather than the colloquial meaning. So I wouldn't call a dance between two people who aren't looking to sleep with one another “romantic”.
The ability to be physically intimite with the opposing sex without getting tense is valuable.
As was pointed out before in this thread, physically intimate while dancing != physically intimate while having sex. (And ISTM that the latter is the more common meaning of that phrase.)
In dance the man leads the woman. For a shy male that's a valuable skill to learn.
Does that transfer to domains other than dancing? (And anyway, IME it's more accurate to say that the more experienced partner leads the less experienced partner. There are certain moves where from the outside it looks like the man is leading, but that's not necessarily what it feels like from the inside.)
Dancing doesn't teach you everything. It doesn't teach you having good conversations. The things that it teaches you are still valuable.
In my scale of “platonic” vs “romantic”, having good conversations is even more platonic than dancing.
Disclaimer: I have taken extremely few dancing classes in my life, extremely few of which were partnered dances. OTOH, when I improvise people often ask me if I've been taking classes (but I'm not sure they are serious).
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-05-25T15:19:56.687Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As was pointed out before in this thread, physically intimate while dancing != physically intimate while having sex.
Getting good at sex and getting good at the things that lead to sex are two different things. The problem of nerds isn't that they have a lot of one-night stands but are bad at sex and therefore the girl doesn't want to see them after they have sex.
And ISTM that the latter is the more common meaning of that phrase.
No, I don't think that many people think that sex is the only action that can be described as physically intimite. While sex is more physically intimite than dancing you can't conclude that dancing isn't physically intimite.
You might be right that the stuff that you dance in your first dance lesson isn't intimite. At the beginning you have to learn to move. When I dance I do have to be aware of the level of intimacy that the girl I'm dancing with is comfortable with.
On the one hand you do have girls that find a lead where the hand of the guy touches their hips too intimite for them. On the other there are girls with whom I can dance in a way where both of our arms are wrapped around each other and the whole body from face, chest, hips and legs touches each other.
I don't think that you can reasonably deny that dancing with full body contact is intimite.
Does that transfer to domains other than dancing? (And anyway, IME it's more accurate to say that the more experienced partner leads the less experienced partner. There are certain moves where from the outside it looks like the man is leading, but that's not necessarily what it feels like from the inside.)
The man chooses which moves happen at which time. If you are at a beginner class where the techer calls the moves, you know nothing about a dance and the girls who are there haven't yet learned that they aren't supposed to lead. It takes some time for a girl to learn to follow just as it takes time for a guy to learn to lead.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-05-26T08:59:59.030Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As was pointed out before in this thread, physically intimate while dancing != physically intimate while having sex.
Getting good at sex and getting good at the things that lead to sex are two different things.
I meant A != B as in “A doesn't imply B or vice versa”. IOW, my point was that dancing doesn't necessarily lead to sex and sex isn't necessarily preceded by dancing -- especially the kind of dancing taught in classes, as opposed to the kind of dancing people improvise in night clubs. (Let me see if I can find the previous comment about this... EDIT: here.)
No, I don't think that many people think that sex is the only action that can be described as physically intimite.
I said “more common”, not “only common”, but... [googles for physical intimacy
] Fair enough. But then again, stuff like hugging is also described as physically intimate, so it seems an overly broad concept to use in this context. (For example, I have no problem with being “physically intimate” in this sense with men even though I'm straight; or, women are often “physically intimate” with me in front of their boyfriends/husbands. (OTOH, I realize that there are cultural differences with this kind of stuff and what applies here in Italy needn't apply in (say) Canada -- but these are probably more about where the thresholds are than about the qualitative differences between the ends of the spectrum.))
I don't think that you can reasonably deny that dancing with full body contact is intimite.
The point is not whether a given English word can be used to label a given behaviour, but whether skills learned in one domain (dance classes) transfer to another (trying to start a relationship). To some extent they do, but they are nowhere near either necessary (I know people in LTRs who pretty much can't dance at all) or sufficient (see the comment I'm going to link above).
The man chooses which moves happen at which time. If you are at a beginner class where the techer calls the moves, you know nothing about a dance and the girls who are there haven't yet learned that they aren't supposed to lead. It takes some time for a girl to learn to follow just as it takes time for a guy to learn to lead.
And most women (I guess) haven't taken many dancing classes, so if you're taking dance classes to “basic skills about interacting with women [outside the class]”, you can't rely on a random woman knowing whether or not to lead. (Nor can I see what the big deal about this is -- indeed because they don't know that, they probably won't particularly care if you follow rather than leading.)
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-05-26T11:34:57.053Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
IOW, my point was that dancing doesn't necessarily lead to sex and sex isn't necessarily preceded by dancing -- especially the kind of dancing taught in classes
That's not something I argued.
If you take the average nerd and put him into physically intimicy with a girl he tenses up. It takes time and effort for him to relax.
Romantic chemistry that created in a dance context doesn't lead with the same probability to sex than the same chemistry outside of a dance context.
It's still romantic chemistry and when your brain learns to become comfortable with it in one context it can also handle it in other contexts much better.
I said “more common”, not “only common”, but... [googles for physical intimacy] Fair enough. But then again, stuff like hugging is also described as physically intimate, so it seems an overly broad concept to use in this context.
You can learn the same skill through hugging. Basically you run around with a free hugs sign and do 15 minute hugs with the people who are willing to hold the hug that long.
The point is not whether a given English word can be used to label a given behaviour, but whether skills learned in one domain (dance classes) transfer to another (trying to start a relationship). To some extent they do, but they are nowhere near either necessary (I know people in LTRs who pretty much can't dance at all) or sufficient (see the comment I'm going to link above).
Dancing isn't the only way to learn the useful skills that you can learn in dancing. The fact that someone doesn't dance in no way implies that he hasn't learned the same skills in other context.
That said a billionaire won't have much trouble getting into a long-term relationship even if all his skills relating to attracting woman are awful. There nearly nothing that is a necessary condition for getting into a relationship with a woman.
you can't rely on a random woman knowing whether or not to lead.
I don't advocate to rely on anything. There are woman who might lead. If you have however inhibitions to leading yourself you won't have success when a woman doesn't lead.
indeed because they don't know that, they probably won't particularly care if you follow rather than leading
People don't feel emotions because of the knowledge that they have. Successful leading demonstrates power and power is sexy for evoluationary reasons.
Replies from: army1987, army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-05-26T17:59:27.580Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's still romantic chemistry and when your brain learns to become comfortable with it in one context it can also handle it in other contexts much better.
Does it? IME, dancing with someone doesn't magically make me that much bolder in non-dancing situations than I already was (I can even remember at least one case when it actually made me more awkward), and I'd expect the effect to be even smaller if we were made to dance together in a class than if we did so on our own accord. I guess YMMV.
You can learn the same skill through hugging. Basically you run around with a free hugs sign and do 15 minute hugs with the people who are willing to hold the hug that long.
That would mainly teach me resistance to boredom (and it would likely kind-of make me look silly, though that's not necessarily a negative because counter-signalling). Probably not the best use of time.
Dancing isn't the only way to learn the useful skills that you can learn in dancing.
Then why learn them by dancing (and in dance classes, rather than (say) night clubs), of all things? If it isn't the only way, it's unlikely a priori that it's the most efficient way.
That said a billionaire won't have much trouble getting into a long-term relationship even if all his skills relating to attracting woman are awful.
(I was going to say “if a billionaire won't have much trouble getting into a long-term relationship, then making money is a skill related to attracting to women”, but the billionaire might just have inherited it or something.)
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-05-26T18:54:06.757Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
IME, dancing with someone doesn't magically make me that much bolder in non-dancing situations than I already was (I can even remember at least one case when it actually made me more awkward), and I'd expect the effect to be even smaller if we were made to dance together in a class than if we did so on our own accord.
You only had a few lessons and that alone doesn't have much of an effect on your interaction with woman in general.
That would mainly teach me resistance to boredom (and it would likely kind-of make me look silly, though that's not necessarily a negative because counter-signalling). Probably not the best use of time.
If that's true and you actually would find it boring you lack in the ability in the realm of perceiving the other person. Dancing helps with the perception part. For most people with asberger there a lot of anxiety that comes up during the process that can be worked through.
I know multiple guys who thought that a single 15 minute hug with another guy was an experience that was very worthwhile to overcome some of their anxiety.
(I was going to say “if a billionaire won't have much trouble getting into a long-term relationship, then making money is a skill related to attracting to women”,
The point I want to make is that two people who are both successful with woman might be successful due to different skills. One very strong skill allows you to succeed even if you have some weak points.
Then why learn them by dancing (and in dance classes, rather than (say) night clubs), of all things? If it isn't the only way, it's unlikely a priori that it's the most efficient way.
Is you dance something like Salsa, Bachata, Tango or Swing as a man you need to take dancing lessons before you go into night clubs where you can dance those dances. Once you moved actually can dance, I would advocate to go to the night clubs to also dance outside of lessons.
Why structured partner dance over a regular nightclub with pop music? Approaching in a nightclub enviroment is more likely to lead to stressful rejections. Those rejections tell your brain that it's right to show anxiety in those situations.
Why do I recommend it over the hugging route? Signing up and going to a dance class is relatively easy compared to print a free hug sign and go around with it. People have more resistance to doing the free hug exercise. Getting a stranger to practice a 15 minute hug isn't as straightforward either.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-05-26T20:37:03.494Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You only had a few lessons and that alone doesn't have much of an effect on your interaction with woman in general.
I wasn't talking about dance classes, I was talking about ‘improvised’ dancing -- as I expected the second part of the sentence to make clear (but on re-reading it I can see it wasn't as clear as I thought). Why would lessons have more of an effect than improvisation? I'd expect it to be the other way round, especially given that you mentioned the “chooses which moves happen at which time” thing before.
If that's true and you actually would find it boring you lack in the ability in the realm of perceiving the other person.
Or maybe I have other things to do with 15 minutes than hugging a random stranger. Opportunity costs, anyone?
Dancing helps with the perception part.
Yes, but wouldn't that apply more to improvised dancing than to beginners' dancing classes?
For most people with asberger there a lot of anxiety that comes up during the process that can be worked through.
My AQ as measured by the online test linked to in the latest LW survey (FWIW) was 25, and still I usually feel little to no anxiety while dancing; if anything, I usually feel less anxiety while dancing than the rest of the time.
Why structured partner dance over a regular nightclub with pop music?
False dichotomy. Those aren't the only two places you can dance.
Why do I recommend it over the hugging route?
So, when you said “the fact that someone doesn't dance in no way implies that he hasn't learned the same skills in other context” you were thinking of going around wearing free hugs signs? That sounds even less plausible to me.
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-05-27T10:20:53.419Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Or maybe I have other things to do with 15 minutes than hugging a random stranger. Opportunity costs, anyone?
That's a completely different objection than saying that the activity is boring. If you change around your objections in that way it's likely that you are in the process of rationalizing some fear of intimicy.
Yes, but wouldn't that apply more to improvised dancing than to beginners' dancing classes?
What do you mean when you say "improvised dancing"? Do you already have the skills to spend a significant amount of time dancing closely with a women in nightclub settings?
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-05-27T12:30:23.087Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That's a completely different objection than saying that the activity is boring.
Isn't the feeling that you could do something more fun with your time what boredom is?
If you change around your objections in that way it's likely that you are in the process of rationalizing some fear of intimicy.
For such a broad definition of “intimacy” as yours, I'm pretty sure I have very little fear of intimacy itself.
What do you mean when you say "improvised dancing"?
e.g. this (I'm the tall guy with glasses and a black T-shirt). (That was over a year ago, I may have gotten better --or worse-- since.)
Do you already have the skills to spend a significant amount of time dancing closely with a women in nightclub settings?
What amount of time would you consider to be significant, and are you talking about women I already know or about strangers? (Also, “in nightclub settings” isn't a terribly homogeneous category IME, women tend to be fussier in some of those than in others.)
Replies from: ChristianKl, TheOtherDave↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-05-27T16:09:31.169Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Isn't the feeling that you could do something more fun with your time what boredom is?
I don't advocate doing it primarily for fun but to learn something. Sometimes good learning experiences are boring.
e.g. this (I'm the tall guy with glasses and a black T-shirt). (That was over a year ago, I may have gotten better --or worse-- since.)
At the beginning of the video you are touching the hand of a girl but expect for the part where you spin her it doesn't look like you have much contact with her. When it comes to the girl on the end you have a bit more contact but not much more.
If dancing like that feels like you aren't leading the girl it's because you actually aren't leading.
Most of the time that this video goes you aren't touching a woman. If you are taking a dancing lesson you are basically all the time touching.
Let me give you a link to a beginner kizomba lesson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbYChD5b9VE Watch that video and compare the amount of physically intimacy that you have in your video with the women and the amount of physical intimicy that you see in that beginner kizomba lesson. Some beginner kizomba lesson might be a bit less intimite but that level of intimicy can exist in beginner kizomba lessons.
If you do a lot of that kind of improvised dancing that you showed in your video, I would recommend you to take Bachata lessons over Kizomba lessons. Beginner bachata lessons are a bit less intimite than beginner kizomba lessons but you learn a bunch of things that will improve your improvised dancing.
Once you learn Bachata decently it looks like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y5YAdHfT9Q&list=PL07372236D9BBFDBD . That an average dance that you could see between two strangers who just meet at a decent social Bachata event.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-05-27T16:36:19.035Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
(I often do have more contact than that (depending on what the music is like, who the woman is, and my mood), though I'm not sure whether anyone has shot any decent videos of that. OTOH, I'm pretty sure I'm a lot clumsier than the people in your videos.)
Thanks for the feedback (people usually say that I am doing great, but probably they just say that in order not to discourage me -- or maybe in a few cases because they can't tell the levels above theirs apart¹) and for the pointers, anyway.
- Try improvising something on the E♭ minor pentatonic scale (aka “the black keys of the piano”) in a room full of non-musicians, look at their faces, and you'll know what I mean.
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-05-27T17:52:49.643Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for the feedback (when I ask people (and sometimes even when I don't), they usually say I am doing great, but probably they just say that in order not to discourage me) and for the pointers, anyway.
It always depends on what your comparision is. If you manage to let go, move to the beat and visbily have fun while doing it you might be better than 50% of the people who do improvised dancing at a nightclub.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-06-03T11:25:47.242Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you manage to let go, move to the beat and visbily have fun while doing it you might be better than 50% of the people who do improvised dancing at a nightclub.
And if you manage to implement FizzBuzz in a couple minutes you might be better than 50% of the people who have a comp sci degree.
The standard threshold of non-crappiness is the 90th percentile, not the 50th... :-)
Replies from: Error, ChristianKl↑ comment by Error · 2013-06-06T13:47:38.791Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I thought the standard threshold of non-crappiness was the 90th percentile, not the 50th. Tsuyoku naritai.
To get to the 90th, presumably you have to pass through the 50th.
Nevertheless I'm adding that to my fortune file so that I will be regularly reminded, because it really is important.
Replies from: CronoDAS, army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-06-09T08:09:25.325Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sometime between when you read my comment and when I read your reply, I edited my comment to make it less harsh, e.g. replacing “tsuyoku naritai” with a smile; maybe I should edit it back? :-)
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-06-04T14:23:32.215Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And if you manage to implement FizzBuzz in a couple minutes you might be better than 50% of the people who have a comp sci degree
The point is that whether you are good depends on the people to which you compare yourself.
I danced Salsa/Bachata for the last 4 years 2-3 nights per week. That means that I will see different things in your dancing than the average person that you meet.
I do improvise within my dancing and deviate from dance school pattern. I'm still not the person who regularly tries to dance in nightclubs to pop music or the kind of music that exists at the place of your video.
Replies from: army1987, army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-06-09T21:32:30.420Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That means that I will see different things in your dancing than the average person that you meet.
How does that mesh with “people don't feel emotions because of the knowledge that they have”? :-)
(FWIW, one of the people who sees me dancing much of the time (the girlfriend of one of the karaoke jockeys in that video) and sometimes compliments me, and has also danced with me in nightclubs a few times, is a belly dancing instructor, but that may be too different from anything else to be relevant; her sister is a Bollywood dance instructor, and also usually compliments me dancing, but that's generally in the context of thanking me for being the only male in this thing she'd organized and/or of trying to convince me to take classes with her again, so she might be gilding the pill on purpose.)
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-06-10T05:11:58.729Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As far as I understand belly dancing isn't something where the guy has to lead the girl. There, the criteria of what good dancing equals is different.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-13T21:18:12.363Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I must have misunderstood something, because you appeared to be claiming or hinting that:
- the reason why people are reluctant to pursue long-term relationships with me is that I'm bad at some particular skill;
- that skill is an integral part of certain styles of dance, so by taking dance classes I would get better at that skill; there aren't many more efficient ways of practising that skill short of stuff like wearing a “free hugs” sign and hug a stranger for 15 minutes straight;
- when someone bad at that skill is dancing (any style of dance), that is obvious to people's elephants/System 1s and comes across as unsexy; on the other hand, their riders/System 2s won't notice there's anything wrong unless they are experts at one of those particular styles of dancing specifically;
- more than 50% of people in my demographic are even worse than me at that skill, but this doesn't mean they'll never get a relationship, because they can compensate by e.g. being insanely rich.
This hypothesis is already so complicated that it'd take lots of evidence to come up with in the first place, and what evidence I have seems to point against it; there isn't much of it I can communicate short of divulging anecdotes about potentially identifiable individuals, so suffice it to say that:
- ISTM that many fewer than 50% of people my age in my geographic area are single (though I'm not sure my sample is unbiased), and hardly any of them makes money by the truckload or anything similar;
- [ETA: I haven't seen any people wearing “free hugs” signs in years, and the last few times I did it was in somewhat unusual situations (e.g. carnival parties);]
- people usually do have some idea as to whether something is sexy, even though it might not always be clear to them why;
- why would it be long-term relationships that this emotions thing would hinder me with? That sounds almost exactly backwards -- I mean, if Alice doesn't get horny when around Bob because he comes across as tense, I wouldn't expect her to lose interest after a couple dates or so: I would expect her to never ask him out in the first place. The type of ‘elephant’ responses you seem to be talking about generally act on the timescales of minutes, not months.
(Probably I'm just reading too much in what you said, though.)
In this epistemic state, taking expensive, time-consuming, and possibly status-lowering Salsa classes on the off chance that it improves my chances to get a LTR would feel a little bit like giving money to Pascal's mugger. [ETA: (More specifically, I suspect that the low-hanging fruits could be picked by watching videos on YouTube or something and practising during my spare time with people I already know, and any further improvements that the high-hanging fruits would yield would be way too small to be worth the bother.)]
[paragraph deleted]
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-07-14T09:21:10.033Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
more than 50% of people in my demographic are even worse than me at that skill, but this doesn't mean they'll never get a relationship, because they can compensate by e.g. being insanely rich.
I'm not arguing that feeling no anxiety to physical contact and having the self confidence to lead woman in general is sufficient to be good at partner dancing.
I'm rather arguing that being good at partner dancing usually leads to feeling no anxiety to physical contact and having the self confidence to lead woman.
I mean, if Alice doesn't get horny when around Bob because he comes across as tense, I wouldn't expect her to lose interest after a couple dates or so: I would expect her to never ask him out in the first place.
In PUA literature there the idea that making a girl horny while at a club, asking her for her phone number and then calling a day later to make a date is not the way to go. Having the girl in a state of being attracted, comfortable and connected is supposed to be more conductive to getting a date than the girl feeling horny.
I think the problem is that you model being attracted and being horny as the same thing when the two are different categories for myself. You don't have a mental model in this domain with a lot of categories and therefore it's hard to follow the points I'm making. (Just for the record, I don't think having a mental model with a lot of categories is necessary to have success with woman)
Also, you appeared to suspect that I might have Asperger's (something which FWIW none of my meatspace friends, who include several psychology graduates and a neurology resident, appears to have noticed lately) based on my reluctance to wear a “free-hugs” sign.
I don't think you have full Aspergers. I think you are 'in your head', but that's not a label that I would expect to be well understood on LessWrong. When on LessWrong I rather try to use categories that are popular on LessWrong.
You are probably the kind of person who thinks that they have a body instead of who thinks that they are their body. You probably think that you are your brain and the rest is just there to serve your brain.
On the other hand I do think that your reluctance to wear a free-hug sign is purely based on a irrational fear of physical contact. Wearing the sign is the rational thing to do.
FYI diagnosing people with mental disorders based on so little information is likely to make actual mental health specialists take you very unseriously
I choose the kind of language I use depending on my audience. I would use different lanague when discussing with a mental health specialist. A mental health specialist probably also wouldn't take you seriously when you talk about giving money to Pascal's mugger.
Replies from: army1987, Swimmer963, army1987, army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-28T23:09:22.717Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've just noticed that you yourself in a different thread recommend a course of action for a couple finding themselves in the guy-is-too-nervous scenario which is IME vastly cheaper, quicker, and more effective than for the male to have practised partnered dance¹ while fully clothed and not kissing or anything else sexual, or hugged random people he's not necessarily sexually attracted to. (Granted, I haven't practised partnered dance by paying an instructor or hugged random people by wearing free-hugs signs, but I can't see why that would make much of a difference.)
Am I missing something?
- That can actually backfire in the very short run (a couple hours) if (say) the guy is sleep-deprived, as he'll be more tired, which IME doesn't exactly help.
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-07-28T23:28:59.254Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There are two different problems:
1) How can a girl effectively interact with a guy who's nervous?
2) How can a guy get confident?
Replies from: army1987, army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-28T23:44:35.960Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So by “confidence” you didn't mean ‘lack of nervousness’, but the epistemic sense instead? Makes sense, but I can't imagine how being sure about how to dance Salsa would help people in the bedroom. ISTM that only a tiny part of the procedural knowledge needed for the former would transfer to the latter.
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-07-28T23:55:45.750Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
No, I'm not hung up on the difference between “confidence” and ‘lack of nervousness’.
In focusing on the difference in what the man can do versus what the woman can do to fix the situation.
Makes sense, but I can't imagine how being sure about how to dance Salsa would help people in the bedroom.
In most cases there's physical interaction before being in the bedroom.
Holding hands would be one example. It's not something that platonic friends usually do. If a guy tries to transition from not holding hands to holding hands he could be nervous about it.
The kind of body contact that happens during dancing would condition the person to be less nervous about holding hands.
Holding hands is an example. I'm not saying that it happens in every interaction, but usually their physical contact between a guy and girl that exceeds the normal contact of a platonic friendship before the two go to the bedroom.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-29T13:39:27.613Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In focusing on the difference in what the man can do versus what the woman can do to fix the situation.
Er... Why? You realize that the man and the woman can communicate with each other, and thence ‘trade’ (in a LWesque general abstract sense)? If it would take months for me to achieve something but minutes for her to achieve the same, it'd be most daft for us to do the former. (And it feels off to call what you mentioned in the other thread ‘something the woman can do’ -- it's not like the man isn't playing any role; it sounds as weird to me as calling walking ‘something my legs can do’ rather than ‘something I can do’.)
It depends on gender and culture. For example, physical contact tends to be closer among females or between females and males than among males, closer in warm countries than in cold countries, and closer among left-wingers than among right-wingers. (I grew up mostly hanging around with left-leaning Italian females, and as a result I occasionally would come across as touchy when interacting with right-wingers, males, or northern Europeans.)Holding hands would be one example. It's not something that platonic friends usually do.
If a guy tries to transition from not holding hands to holding hands he could be nervous about it. The kind of body contact that happens during dancing would condition the person to be less nervous about holding hands.
Yes it would, but if someone gets nervous at the thought of even just holding hands with someone else (other than due to epistemic uncertainty about whether the latter would like it etc.), then I guess that what the former mainly needs isn't a Salsa instructor, it's a psychologist.
I'm not saying that it happens in every interaction, but usually their physical contact between a guy and girl that exceeds the normal contact of a platonic friendship before the two go to the bedroom.
Sure it does, but AFAIK it's not like dancing classes teach how to make out, either.
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-07-29T15:51:43.817Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I grew up mostly hanging around with left-leaning Italian females, and as a result I occasionally would come across as touchy when interacting with right-wingers, males, or northern Europeans.
In that case you might not that profit much from become more touchy.
You might still profit from improving your dancing abilites as you dance frequently. Salsa might not be optimal here. Salsa has the issue that there a pause on 4 and 8, which isn't easy to lead. Merengue and Bachata moves are easier to throw into the kind of dancing you do in the video you showed.
Er... Why? You realize that the man and the woman can communicate with each other, and thence ‘trade’ (in a LWesque general abstract sense)?
Framing a romantic interaction as a trade, cheapens the romantic interaction for a lot of people. If you try to handle your relationship with a woman on an abstract level instead of handling it on a emotional level that significantly decreases your pool of potential mates.
Making a trade on an abstract level doesn't make anyone feel horny.
A woman cares about how the interaction with you makes her feel. If all your interaction is on an abstract level she likely won't feel the kind of emotions that she thinks are a requisite to starting a relationship with you.
I'm not against open communication but you should always understand what you are communicating. Communicating your desires in a way that isn't needy is not something that easy.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-29T19:40:30.252Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
you dance frequently.
Actually these days I usually only dance once or twice a week, and sometimes even less than that.
If you try to handle your relationship with a woman on an abstract level instead of handling it on a emotional level
That's not what I meant. I meant ‘trade’ as in, the partners jointly trying to fulfil each other's wishes, rather than each one only thinking about themself. That doesn't require suppressing emotions.
that significantly decreases your pool of potential mates.
So what? We're talking about long-term relationships, not hooking up with as many distinct people as possible. See the “Mean and Variance” section of this.
A woman cares about how the interaction with you makes her feel.
You don't say?
If all your interaction is on an abstract level she likely won't feel the kind of emotions that she thinks are a requisite to starting a relationship with you.
If something makes us both happy, why should we give a damn how likely anyone else would be to like it? It's not like there are sex auditors watching us or anything.
I'm not against open communication but you should always understand what you are communicating. Communicating your desires in a way that isn't needy is not something that easy.
It also depends on who the listener is. My new girlfriend and I don't seem to be having much trouble with that so far.
↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-28T23:34:08.780Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So by “confident” you don't mean ‘not nervous’?
↑ comment by Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) (Swimmer963) · 2013-07-14T19:03:38.995Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Came across this discussion accidentally, but it fascinates me because I'm "in my head", have some Asperger's-like characteristics, have a lot of anxiety around physical contact, particularly dislike dancing and have in fact made my date leave a dancing event early because I couldn't make myself do it any longer, etc...but I'm a girl. And I can get dates pretty easily. (They usually aren't very fun for me, though).
This discussion made me realize that if I were male, but otherwise unchanged, I might not be able to get dates easily. This confuses me. I'm curious as to what you think the difference is in the male-female dynamic.
Replies from: army1987, army1987, army1987, ChristianKl↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-28T22:52:11.502Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Came across this discussion accidentally,
And that's why I think “repository” threads belong in Main. That would have been much less likely to happen if this thread had been in Discussion.
↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-14T22:58:01.428Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm "in my head"
Have you tried small amounts of alcohol, and/or mindfulness meditation?
↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-14T21:15:59.554Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This discussion made me realize that if I were male, but otherwise unchanged, I might not be able to get dates easily.
What do you mean “otherwise unchanged”, same level of attractiveness broadly construed (to the extent that this makes sense), or same percentile of attractiveness broadly construed within your gender and age group?
Replies from: CronoDAS, Swimmer963↑ comment by CronoDAS · 2013-07-14T22:52:52.609Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yeah, being the other biological sex is complicated, but a roughly equivalent statement might be "If she could (convincingly) present herself as male and attempted to get dates with women, she expect to find it much harder than she does getting dates with men while presenting as female."
↑ comment by Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) (Swimmer963) · 2013-07-14T21:53:51.177Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Same percentile, I guess?
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-14T22:44:05.776Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
ISTM that the n-th percentile man is less attractive to women than the n-th percentile woman is to men (at least for n not very close to 100), and as a result has less ‘bargaining power’, if you will.
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-07-14T20:12:36.947Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And I can get dates pretty easily.
I think "getting dates" isn't the goal for most people. The question is whether you get into relationships with guys that fulfill your criteria of being good mates.
(They usually aren't very fun for me, though).
I would guess that they would be more fun for you if you overcome your anxieties around physical contact.
I think that you do can overcome some of it by taking dancing classes.
I'm curious as to what you think the difference is in the male-female dynamic.
If you are a pretty girl than many man are willing to chase you and wait some time till you are ready. At the same time a guy that's empathic is less likely to ask you for another date if you don't enjoy the first date.
Replies from: Swimmer963↑ comment by Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) (Swimmer963) · 2013-07-14T21:01:40.181Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think "getting dates" isn't the goal for most people. The question is whether you get into relationships with guys that fulfill your criteria of being good mates.
You're right, this is a different problem. Which is still unsolved for me.
If you are a pretty girl than many man are willing to chase you and wait some time till you are ready.
I have had a guy go to fairly epic lengths to do this. We had what I think most people would call an awesome relationship afterwards, and lived together for some time...but a year and a half later, when we broke up, I basically wasn't upset at all and actually got a happiness boost from having my own space and better sleep again. If I was upset, it was because "what, I put all those months of effort in, and I don't even get a partner to have kids with?"
So yeah, unsolved.
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-07-14T22:10:19.056Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think you would probably profit from going to a Salsa course. While doing it keep in mind that you want to enjoy physical contact but don't get so close that it makes you uncomfortable.
At the beginning it would probably be good to just ask a male friend that you know and with whom you are comfortable to take a Salsa class with you.
↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-14T11:22:23.628Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A mental health specialist probably also wouldn't take you seriously when you talk about giving money to Pascal's mugger.
Unlike Asperger's syndrome, Pascal's mugging isn't something that's got to do with mental health, so your comparison is invalid. On the other hand, decision theorists wouldn't take me seriously either, so your point stands.
↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-14T10:00:58.196Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In PUA literature there the idea that making a girl horny while at a club, asking her for her phone number and then calling a day later to make a date is not the way to go.
You don't say? :nicholascage:
Having the girl in a state of being attracted, comfortable and connected is supposed to be more conductive to getting a date than the girl feeling horny.
Ah. If that's what you mean by “being attracted” (myself, I'd usually call that “liking”), then I think that there are tons of things that have a waaaay larger effect than anything one could learn easily learn by formal dance classes but not otherwise, though it depends on the person (for example, certain people seem to be attracted to intelligence, others repelled).
I think you are 'in your head',
That much I do usually agree, though it varies on whether I'm sleep-deprived, whether I've been drinking, how much and what I've been reading lately, and other factors. (In particular, I think I'm much less “in my head” when I'm with people I'm at ease with, which is a proper superset of the people I'm willing to date long-term.)
You are probably the kind of person who thinks that they have a body instead of who thinks that they are their body. You probably think that you are your brain and the rest is just there to serve your brain.
FWIW, I'm the kind of person who thinks that what “I” means depends on the context, so whether I am my body or my brain isn't even a well-defined question (both literally and metaphorically).
On the other hand I do think that your reluctance to wear a free-hug sign is purely based on a irrational fear of physical contact. Wearing the sign is the rational thing to do.
Even taking in account status signalling? (A way to make that moot would be to wear such a sign somewhere I don't expect anyone I know, or anyone who knows anyone I know and is likely to talk about that, to see me.)
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-07-14T10:36:45.988Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Even taking in account status signalling?
I don't know the company that you keep. Most people I personally care about impressing wouldn't see it as low status.
If someone tells me: "I read about this free hug thing and then I tried it out", what does that tell me about the person? He's signalling that his adventurous and willing to do things that are a bit outside of the social norm that produce good feelings for other people.
Doing creepy pickup approaches can be a low status signal if people you know get wind of it. I don't see that problem with running around with a free hug sign.
How about you ask one of your female friends whether they would think less or more of someone who did the "free hug" thing you read about on the internet? Does she thinks it's cool?
I mean what do you do for signaling high-status? Playing golf?
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-14T14:13:59.764Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If someone tells me: "I read about this free hug thing and then I tried it out", what does that tell me about the person? He's signalling that his adventurous and willing to do things that are a bit outside of the social norm that produce good feelings for other people.
I seem to have a vague recollection of someone in one of my social groups watching a video (or something) of some guy doing the free hugs thing, and commenting something to the effect that (loosely paraphrasing) he must be a loser pathetically looking for pretexts to convince girls to hug him who otherwise wouldn't; and indeed, very few people seemed eager to hug him. (I can't remember more details about that.) Looking back at all the times I remember people wearing such signs, they were almost always males, usually not terribly attractive, and often in religious or political associations; none of these sounds high-status to me, if by “status” we mean social power rather than structural power. And the only times they seemed to be received well was during New Year's/carnival/similar celebrations, where ISTM it's also socially acceptable to ask random people for hugs who are not wearing free-hug signs.
Doing creepy pickup approaches can be a low status signal if people you know get wind of it.
I dunno; extrapolating from the closest things to that that did happen to me, they would either applaud my boldness or excuse me because creeping each other out is something people (especially when drunk) sometimes do by accident and it doesn't mean they are evil. Unless you have in mind values of “creepy” sufficient for the bouncers to kick me out of the club, but even then IME people I already know will react with sympathy, not disgust.
How about you ask one of your female friends whether they would think less or more of someone who did the "free hug" thing you read about on the internet? Does she thinks it's cool?
The last time I mentioned to a female friend something about me sometimes getting anxious when around people and trying to overcome that, she was like ‘what the hell are you talking about, you're one of the most laid-back people I know’ (incidentally, the same person said something similar when I said I wasn't that good at dancing and was trying to get better at it). You know, people usually are reluctant to criticize their friends, and while I try to indicate that I operate under Crocker's rules that often only goes so far. (I know that's not exactly what you suggested me to ask, but I'm under the impression that in such contexts “someone” would be so obvious an euphemism that it would defeat the point.)
I mean what do you do for signaling high-status?
Mostly, stuff like singing, dancing (but not paying people money to do that, except occasionally for night club cover charges), drinking a lot but still functioning enough for stuff like this, dressing extravagantly (but not particularly expensively), telling people about my travels abroad, or posting witticisms and photos on Facebook. Why?
Playing golf?
Hell no. That sounds expensive, posh, and not terribly fun. And not the kind of thing I'd likely be good at. :-)
Replies from: CronoDAS, ChristianKl↑ comment by CronoDAS · 2013-07-14T22:33:53.197Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I seem to have a vague recollection of someone in one of my social groups watching a video (or something) of some guy doing the free hugs thing, and commenting something to the effect that (loosely paraphrasing) he must be a loser pathetically looking for pretexts to convince girls to hug him who otherwise wouldn't; and indeed, very few people seemed eager to hug him. (I can't remember more details about that.) Looking back at all the times I remember people wearing such signs, they were almost always males, usually not terribly attractive, and often in religious or political associations; none of these sounds high-status to me, if by “status” we mean social power rather than structural power. And the only times they seemed to be received well was during New Year's/carnival/similar celebrations, where ISTM it's also socially acceptable to ask random people for hugs who are not wearing free-hug signs.
"Free hugs" signs are also a fairly common feature at anime conventions. Many of the people I've seen with them have been cute girls.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-14T22:51:12.369Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"Free hugs" signs are also a fairly common feature at anime conventions.
Never been to one of those, but I guess that I would feel much less out-of-place wearing such a sign at an anime convention (conditional on me not feeling out-of-place at the convention without the sign) than in a street downtown. (Though now that I try to think of it more in near mode, even the latter would depend on the time of the day and my blood alcohol content. Hmmm.)
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-07-14T14:49:19.244Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I seem to have a vague recollection of someone in one of my social groups watching a video (or something) of some guy doing the free hugs thing, and commenting something to the effect that (loosely paraphrasing) he must be a loser pathetically looking for pretexts to convince girls to hug him who otherwise wouldn't; and indeed, very few people seemed eager to hug him.
"He" is the operating word. The fox and the sour grapes.
I dunno; extrapolating from the closest things to that that did happen to me, they would either applaud my boldness or excuse me because creeping each other out is something people (especially when drunk) sometimes do by accident and it doesn't mean they are evil.
I'm not saying that everyone who does PUA is creepy but there are people who persue it in a way that alinates friends. I can understand why someone might not want to be seen by people he knows when he's doing random cold approaches on the street.
Mostly, stuff like singing, dancing (but not paying people money to do that, except occasionally for night club cover charges)
I think that in both domains that you will get more status over the long term if you invest in professional training which costs money to build your skills.
I think you will get more status over the long-term by building your skills as effectively as possible than by self handicapping.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-07-14T18:06:16.904Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"He" is the operating word. The fox and the sour grapes.
I think that the person who commented about him was female, though I don't remember for sure.
I can understand why someone might not want to be seen by people he knows when he's doing random cold approaches on the street.
Why not? IME wingmen provide social proof. (Though there are cultural differences from place to place -- for example, I would do that in the town where I study now but not where I grew up, as most of the population of the latter respond to random cold approaches on the street by frowning at you then looking away.)
I think that in both domains that you will get more status over the long term if you invest in professional training which costs money to build your skills.
Yes, but 1) I'm already 26, so I dunno how much sense it still makes to invest in "the long term" in this kind of things, and 2) the difference would be only noticed by people who are themselves sufficiently high-status in those domains (I've already had several people who asked me where I took singing classes and seemed surprised where I told them that I didn't), so I'm not sure the game is worth the candle given that I'm not looking for a professional career in singing. (I might try to take singing and/or dancing classes next year if I'm not as strapped for time as now, but it's not a priority.)
↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-06-09T09:38:13.484Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That means that I will see different things in your dancing than the average person that you meet.
How does that mesh together with “people don't feel emotions because of the knowledge that they have”? (not an entirely rhetorical question)
(I'm trying to recall whether that one guy I know who dances salsa regularly has ever seen me dancing -- I'm not sure, and anyway, I don't trust his judgements about me to be unbiased, given that I know that there's such a thing as the halo effect and I've repeatedly heard, from several different people, that he's always telling people at parties how I was the best student in the mathematical physics class where he was a TA in the past freakin' decade.)
(One person who sees me dance much of the time (she's the girlfriend of one of the karaoke guys in the bar in the video I linked), and has also danced with me in a nightclub a few times -- she's a belly dancing instructor, which may be too different from anything else. Her sister is a Bollywood dancing instructor (from whom I once took a few classes), and she's also always complimenting me; anyway, in case this is relevant to anything, she incorrectly thought that I had spent lots of time rehearsing for this (I'm the male one) while I had actually spent maybe 10 minutes -- so I guess that's the halo effect and/or gilding the pill to avoid discouraging me.)
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2013-05-27T15:14:12.175Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Isn't the feeling that you could do something more fun with your time what boredom is?
Not in my experience, except in a very degenerate sense. There seems to be some threshold of entertainment below which I'm inclined to describe my state as bored; above that threshold, I may not be having as much fun as possible, but that's not the same thing at all.
↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2013-05-26T17:16:31.874Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's still romantic chemistry and when your brain learns to become comfortable with it in one context it can also handle it in other contexts much better.
[citation needed]
↑ comment by sfb · 2011-02-09T03:09:13.871Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
From reading your whole comment, it seems this:
I simply don't feel that I would be able to be emotionally intimate with a woman who holds an irrational, i.e. religious, worldview.
would be the easiest bit to change to remove the problem from your life.
Replies from: Dreaded_Anomaly↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T04:35:48.748Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm not interested in a relationship in which I can't interact honestly with the woman, because I wouldn't find it to be fulfilling. I'd rather be single than have to tiptoe around my romantic partner's irrational beliefs. Changing that implies either ceasing to care about rationality, or dramatically lowering my expectations for a relationship. Neither of those sounds particularly appealing.
Replies from: sfb, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by sfb · 2011-02-09T05:47:48.595Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Are you suggesting that a non-religious person would have no irrational beliefs to tiptoe around? This seems unlikely.
Are you suggesting that if you didn't tiptoe around religious beliefs that would be a problem? Because it seems that religious people are extra-resilient in their beliefs, so that might be less of an issue than you fear.
Are you suggesting that it isn't possible to have a relationship where one person is religious and another atheist without them having to fight about it or lie about it? That your relationships must have zero tolerance and absolute agreement on all points?
Replies from: Dreaded_Anomaly↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T05:56:30.459Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Are you suggesting that a non-religious person would have no irrational beliefs to tiptoe around? This seems unlikely.
No, but a religious person is definitely going to have such beliefs.
Are you suggesting that if you didn't tiptoe around religious beliefs that would be a problem? Because it seems that religious people are extra-resilient in their beliefs, so that might be less of an issue than you fear.
Yes, I am. It's not a matter of resilience in beliefs; telling my significant other that I can't take their opinion on [evolution/gay marriage/abortion/insert religiously-tinted issue of your choice] at all seriously doesn't sound like a recipe for a harmonious relationship.
Are you suggesting that it isn't possible to have a relationship where one person is religious and another atheist without them having to fight about it or lie about it?
It's not possible for me, because I believe atheism is the rational position and religious belief is objectively unjustified. I don't think the idea that relationships between religious and nonreligious people are unlikely to succeed is an uncommon one; I've had religious friends express agreement with it.
That your relationships must have zero tolerance and absolute agreement on all points?
This is a straw man argument, as I did not make such a statement.
Replies from: endoself, Blueberry↑ comment by endoself · 2011-02-09T19:52:59.121Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Many people are religious without really examining the consequences of their beliefs. Also many people have religious beliefs that do not cause them to think irrationally about evolution, gay marriage, or abortion. I would expect many of these people to move toward atheism during a long-term relationship with a LessWronger.
Replies from: Dreaded_Anomaly↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T22:39:28.386Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Many people are religious without really examining the consequences of their beliefs.
Yes, I've made that argument for abortion. However, that generally doesn't stop such people from being extremely convinced of their beliefs. I haven't had any success changing someone's mind about abortion with the aforementioned argument, despite how obvious it becomes that the person is merely acting out instructions without thinking about them.
Also many people have religious beliefs that do not cause them to think irrationally about evolution, gay marriage, or abortion.
Those were meant as examples, not a definitive list of topics. There are very few people whose religious beliefs don't cause them to think irrationally about some important issue.
I would expect many of these people to move toward atheism during a long-term relationship with a LessWronger.
I understand that, but I would be setting myself up for disappointment to expect that from any specific romantic partner who fell into that category.
Replies from: endoself↑ comment by endoself · 2011-02-10T04:15:56.184Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Those were meant as examples, not a definitive list of topics. There are very few people whose religious beliefs don't cause them to think irrationally about some important issue.
I realized this, but there seems to be a cluster in personspace of theists who are no less rational about the concepts on your list than the average atheist. If there are any topics that even these theists are irrational about, can you give examples?
I understand that, but I would be setting myself up for disappointment to expect that from any specific romantic partner who fell into that category.
Good point.
Replies from: Dreaded_Anomaly↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-10T04:50:54.163Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I realized this, but there seems to be a cluster in personspace of theists who are no less rational about the concepts on your list than the average atheist. If there are any topics that even these theists are irrational about, can you give examples?
To be honest, I really haven't met enough theists in that cluster to be very confident about any examples. I can see the matter of church attendance (in general, in terms of the course of the relationship if it moves toward marriage, and later in terms of raising children) being an issue. It's not necessarily something that will come up right away, but I would see the specter of it hovering overhead. There's also the irrationality of religious beliefs themselves, e.g. the idea that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or the idea that Jesus performed miracles.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T08:29:00.300Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There are, in fact, plenty of couples who have diametrically opposed ideas on politics or religion. You just need to either a) agree to not discuss it or b) be willing to honestly debate and challenge each other without getting upset.
I agree that you should interact honestly and not tiptoe around what you think, but that doesn't mean you have to agree on everything, even religion.
For what it's worth, as irrational as religion is, I'm willing to bet that any atheist here has equally irrational ideas that they stick with.
Replies from: Desrtopa, Dreaded_Anomaly↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-09T14:24:12.964Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Any atheist here, and equally irrational? That's a bet I'd take.
It's one thing to disagree with a person on a number of points, and another thing to be unable to respect their epistemology. On difficult matters, where it's hard to locate an error, you can consider another person's reasoning sound to respectable standards without agreeing with their conclusions (we're only human after all,) and on matters of opinion, disagreement does not necessarily imply conflict of epistemology. Religion falls into neither category.
I used to be open to relationships with religious individuals, but eventually I came to the realization that I had been putting more effort into convincing myself that I was tolerant than being realistic about my preferences. I couldn't be happy with such a relationship beyond the extremely short term.
↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T14:27:53.646Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Desrtopa makes the main points below; I'd like to add:
For what it's worth, as irrational as religion is, I'm willing to bet that any atheist here has equally irrational ideas that they stick with.
Even accepting that premise, the difference is that I'm willing to update my map. If a religious person had the same willingness, ey already would no longer be religious.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-09T11:21:16.910Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Could you be comfortable with an agnostic? That would expand your pool somewhat.
Replies from: Dreaded_Anomaly↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T14:31:18.014Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, most likely. I don't see much of a difference between agnosticism and atheism in practice. If a person doesn't know if God exists (agnostic), ey probably won't hold an active belief in God (atheist). There are exceptions to that, of course, but in a minority of cases.
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-09T14:47:12.790Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Have you tried using OkCupid? It allows you to filter by religion, and it appears to be the preferred dating site among Less Wrongers, and possibly young intellectuals in general. We already have a thread dedicated to optimizing your profile for positive attention, so it may worth trying out.
Replies from: Dreaded_Anomaly↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T22:26:24.726Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I haven't ventured into online dating, but if I do, I will keep OkCupid in mind.
↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-07T23:48:34.451Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks, this is what an informative answer looks like.
↑ comment by PaulWright · 2011-02-08T12:21:45.570Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Even better than book groups, though, are dance classes.
Amen to that. I'd add a slight caution that chemistry generated on the dancefloor can sometimes just be about the dancing, and telling when it is more than that is possibly an advanced skill. So, as this Mefi comment says, don't push your luck on the dancefloor itself.
Workaround: ask after the class or when you're standing around chatting (assuming you don't dance all the time). Don't be the guy who asks everyone in turn: the women talk to each other :-) EDIT: I elaborate on what I mean by this below...
Replies from: MBlume↑ comment by MBlume · 2011-02-09T00:41:30.119Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Don't be the guy who asks everyone in turn: the women talk to each other
This has mostly frightened me off so far. I've been tentatively pushing at it the last couple weeks.
Replies from: PaulWright, Blueberry↑ comment by PaulWright · 2011-02-09T12:38:42.282Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Perhaps I should amend that to "don't be obviously indiscriminate in a sleazy way". The bad thing isn't finding lots of people attractive, it's apparently caring nothing for them as a person (which is about having had no conversational interction with them before asking them out, some small amount of buildup is necessary, though as siduri says, if you're a decent chap, it's probably less than you think) or alternatively appearing desperate (which is about demeanor, I think). Things I've heard remarked upon have been bemusement at dinner invites following a dance with a stranger with no prior conversation, or demeanor problems.
If you actually like more than one person and have talked to the people concerned a bit, I don't see the harm.
(There's usually a niche for being the confident guy who flirts a lot with absolutely everyone: you get a name for yourself, but it's more as the loveable rogue than the creepy guy. That's possibly an advanced skill, though.)
Bonus link: only try these moves with a consenting partner ;-)
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T01:21:51.374Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This has mostly frightened me off so far.
Don't let it. I actually disagree with the original advice for this reason: any benefit you get is likely to be outweighed by the additional anxiety from worrying what other people think.
My general take on this is the opposite: go ahead and ask many people if you're interested. Don't worry about what they think. Most of them won't care or mind anyway, as long as you're not rude or hostile about it. There's nothing wrong with asking out a lot of people.
In fact, this is a common internal obstacle to asking people out. A lot of guys seem to have the idea that it's somehow wrong or dirty to do so, as if they were being the bad guy by expressing interest in someone.
↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2012-05-13T01:55:48.711Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It does get easier the more you do it. Just remind yourself that it is a numbers game. The worst thing that can happen is not that you ask ten girls out and they all say no. The worst thing is that you ask ten girls, they say no, and then you stop asking. Because whether it was Girl #11 or Girl #83 who would've fallen head over heels for you, you'll never find her now. Keep looking to meet women, and keep asking them out; these are the two steps that lead to relationships.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-07T23:07:31.194Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The auto-formatting has changed my #2 to a (duplicate) #1--can anyone tell me how to fix that?
Replies from: arundelo↑ comment by arundelo · 2011-02-07T23:36:38.466Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If each list item consists of multiple paragraphs, your source code should look like this:
1. First paragraph of first list item.
####Second paragraph of first list item.
####Third paragraph of first list item.
2. First paragraph of second list item.
####Second paragraph of second list item.
except replace the "#" characters with spaces.
Alternatively, you can defeat automatic numbered list formatting like this.
Great comment, by the way.
Replies from: None↑ comment by MichaelVassar · 2011-02-08T16:28:41.091Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think dates are... well... dated. Maybe they still do them in the US Heartland, but on the coasts people just hook up.
Replies from: Blueberry, pwno, None↑ comment by pwno · 2011-02-08T18:57:48.669Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Dating is for people who have trouble hooking up without making their intentions explicit.
Replies from: David_Gerard↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T22:24:39.625Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
YMMV. "You're hot, but I'm really quite keen on knowing if I can bear to be around you for a few hours" can be a good thing to establish.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-07T20:34:05.332Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If anyone figured out the asexual variant of this, I'd love to know, too. (Gender shouldn't matter that much.)
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-07T22:09:02.690Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If anyone figured out the asexual variant of this, I'd love to know, too.
Alas, asexuality among humans is notorious for making it difficult to form long-term romantic relationships.
(Gender shouldn't matter that much.)
When it comes to following protocol it is matters more what it is than what it should be. The various permutations of gender and romantic preference do matter that much. (And looking at things as they are instead of how they 'should be' is probably step one.)
Replies from: Antisuji↑ comment by Antisuji · 2011-02-10T17:51:48.259Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It sounded to me like muflax was asking about making friends, not asexual romantic relationships. It's true though that when making friends gender matters quite a bit more than it seems like it should, at least in some social circles.
If I'm wrong and that's not what muflax was asking about, I'll ask it myself: how does an adult make friends with other adults?
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-10T17:58:53.121Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What works for me is engaging in group activities that interest me (in my case that's mostly community theatre), and spending time talking with other adults engaging in that same activity, and from time to time inviting them to hang out together away from that activity. (The latter is useful for identifying people who aren't actually interested in being friends with me, just in the group activity.)
At the very least, they share an interest with me, which is a plausible place for a friendship to start.
↑ comment by knb · 2011-02-07T23:44:22.930Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There are a million ways to start, but this is the most formalizable method I have used.
- Go to craigslist.com.
- Look at personal ads from women seeking men.
- Respond to ads you like. If she responds positively, talk online for awhile.
- Schedule a meeting.
- Go on casual date (i.e. meet for drinks at a bar).
- Be attractive, wealthy, and interesting.
- If you like her, suggest another date.
- Go on another date. (repeat 8 until LTR)
↑ comment by Benquo · 2011-02-07T22:12:13.765Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Depending on exactly what you mean by "begin", this question is likely to be way too complicated tor a comment-sized answer. Since there are lots of different ways to do this, depending on local culture, etc., you would pretty much have to write a fairly thick book to get into anything close to the level of detail necessary, while addressing the variety of possible cases.
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-08T00:01:42.194Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is why I didn't ask about cooking... well, minus the "local culture" part (that restricts what food you can obtain, but that's not really the relevant part).
Replies from: TheOtherDave, None, Alicorn↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-08T01:32:45.781Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I recommend the book "Now You're Cooking" -- it's a cookbook explicitly written for people not familiar with cooking techniques.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T00:10:28.989Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Judging from the comments, cooking seems to be a big area where Less Wrongers feel tentative. I'm really surprised, as I'd think that paying attention to recipes and following the directions carefully would be an activity that analytical types would master quickly.
I like cooking and I do it a lot. I'd be happy to give advice if you can explain what the specific barrier to entry is? Is it understanding the terminology, choosing the equipment, finding reliable recipes...something else?
Replies from: Nick_Tarleton, Kaj_Sotala, SilasBarta↑ comment by Nick_Tarleton · 2011-02-12T09:27:31.261Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Recipes are typically badly underspecified for someone inexperienced at cooking, and the sense this creates, that there's some optimal thing to do that I'm expected to figure out but probably not going to be able to, is something I can find seriously demotivating (despite any explicit knowledge that whatever I end up doing will probably be satisfactory). I wouldn't be surprised if (something like) this is a common problem for LWers.
Replies from: None, apophenia, Sniffnoy↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-12T17:22:26.491Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This problem definitely exists and I've been bitten by it personally(1), but it used to be harder to get around than it is now. In previous generations it was assumed that basic cooking knowledge would be transmitted within the family--daughters learned by helping their mothers in the kitchen, and sons, well, they'd go through a brief bachelor period of poor nutrition, but people married early and getting hot meals again would be a good inducement towards "settling down."
When this cultural context died, cookbooks were slow to catch up--they were still mostly written for people (women) who already knew their way around a kitchen. However, this has changed, and there are now excellent cookbooks available that will explain all the things other recipes assume you already know. Mark Bittman's "How To Cook Everything" and Alice Waters' "The Art of Simple Food" are two good ones.
The "America's Test Kitchen" show on PBS is also good for seeing what the cooks are doing when they talk about julienning carrots or making an herb chiffonade or whatever.
(1) When I first started cooking for myself I didn't understand the true purpose behind browning meat, and of course none of my cookbooks explained the Maillard reaction directly. I noticed that all recipes involving meat would specify that the meat be "browned on all sides" in separate batches over high heat, but I thought the purpose was simply to get it cooked more quickly. As a result I would sometimes skip this step, or even if I performed it I would crowd as much meat into the pan as I could--resulting in meat that wasn't truly brown, but grayish because it had actually been steamed rather than seared. It also tasted dull, for which I blamed the cheap cuts of meat I was buying. Actually it turns out that some of the cheaper cuts of meat have the most flavor, if you cook them right. (Filet mignon is pricey because it's a very tender cut of meat, but it has much less flavor than a cheap sirloin steak.)
Replies from: JGWeissman↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-02-12T17:52:35.223Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This advice to brown all the meat's surface area, and to even cut it into smaller pieces to increase the available surface area, to increase the effect of the Maillard reaction is setting off superstimulus warnings for me.
What are the nutritional effects of this reaction? A Google search has turned up mostly academic papers that discuss feeding large quantities of treated food to rats and chemical analysis of the result of applying heat to some mix of organic chemicals, which I am not sure how to draw conclusions from. This abstract has negative conclusions about the nutritional effects, but doesn't really answer the question: How does the nutritional value of a piece of steak change when you brown it?
Replies from: saturn, None↑ comment by saturn · 2011-02-13T04:32:46.908Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The nutritional effects do seem to be rather negative.
Replies from: JGWeissman↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-02-13T05:34:08.697Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That article, and its external links, indicate the chemicals resulting from the Maillard reactions (AGEs) accumulated over time and contribute to the aging process. Young, apparently healthy people may have accumulated lots of AGEs but don't realize it because the symptoms are delayed.
I would say that the fact that browning meat (and vegetables) can accelerate aging is among the things that people should systematically learn before they become adults.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-13T05:52:32.847Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I would say that the fact that browning meat (and vegetables) can accelerate aging is among the things that people should systematically learn before they become adults.
How much accelerated aging do you get per unit of tasting really really good? Do I stop browning meat before or after I consider it worthwhile to start a calorie restriction diet?
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-12T20:33:07.842Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This advice to brown all the meat's surface area, and to even cut it into smaller pieces to increase the available surface area, to increase the effect of the Maillard reaction is setting off superstimulus warnings for me.
Why? Roasting meat over a hot fire produces the same reaction. This is caveperson science.
Replies from: JGWeissman↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-02-12T20:55:01.174Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The effect only occurs near the surface of the meat, as the interior moisture limits the temperature. So roasting a large piece of meat over a hot fire will cause the reaction in a much smaller proportion of the meat than cutting it into small pieces and deliberately browning all surface area. So roasting the large piece could make the surface tastier while leaving nutrition of the much larger interior intact, while cutting and browning can make the entire piece of meat tastier and less nutritious. The superstimulus is the non-ancestral concentration, and possible disassociation with indicated benefits, of the ancestral stimulus.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-12T21:42:58.685Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Cutting meat into small pieces is hardly a modern invention. Shish kebabs go way back.
Replies from: JGWeissman↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-02-12T22:11:18.791Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How way back? Ancient (thousands of years ago) civilizations may have had variants of kebabs, but did we have them pre-agriculture?
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-12T23:43:32.894Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is not high technology: all you need is a knife, a stick, a fire, and some meat. I'm pretty sure the technique is about as old as cooking. It just wasn't until Maillard that people understood what was happening.
Replies from: JGWeissman, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-02-13T00:17:33.738Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You seem to be trying to convince pre-agricultural hunter gatherers who did not even eat meat all that often and had to work hard for every calorie of food they consumed to put a substantial extra effort into cooking their meat that you yourself, with your modern access to inexpensive raw ingredients and pre-manufactured metal cookware, often skipped when told to do so by a recipe because you didn't think it did anything more than cook the meat faster.
Replies from: gwern, None↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-13T00:49:36.958Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You seem to be trying to convince pre-agricultural hunter gatherers who did not even eat meat all that often and had to work hard for every calorie of food they consumed to put a substantial extra effort into cooking their meat
They didn't have to work hard, and they ate meat more than most humans could eat. I just finished reading the part of Clark's A Farewell to Alms where he covers how hunter-gatherers where far better off than basically any farmer. Going through my notes, I see:
Replies from: JGWeissmanThe surprise here is that while there is wild variation across forager and shifting cultivation societies, many of them had food production systems which yielded much larger numbers of calories per hour of labor than English agriculture in 1800, at a time when labor productivity in English agriculture was probably the highest in Europe. In 1800 the total value of output per man-hour in English agriculture was 6.6 pence, which would buy 3,600 kilocalories of flour but only 1,800 kilocalories of fats and 1,300 kilocalories of meat. Assuming English farm output was then half grains, onequarter fats, and one-quarter meat, this implies an output of 2,600 calories per worker-hour on average.32 Since the average person ate 2,300 kilocalories per day (table 3.6), each farm worker fed eleven people, so labor productivity was very high in England. Table 3.13 shows in comparison the energy yields of foraging and shifting cultivation societies per worker-hour. The range in labor productivities is huge, but the minimum average labor productivity, that for the Ache in Paraguay, is 1,985 kilocalories per hour, not much below England in 1800. The median yield per labor hour, 6,042 kilocalories, is more than double English labor productivity....Primitive man ate well compared with one of the richest societies in the world in 1800. Indeed British farm laborers by 1863 had just reached the median consumption of these forager and subsistence societies.
In contrast [to the monotonous English diet] hunter-gatherer and subsistence cultivation diets were widely varied. The diet of the Yanomamo, for example, included monkeys, wild pigs, tapirs, armadillos, anteaters, alligators, jaguar, deer, rodents, a large variety of birds, many types of insects, caterpillars, various fish, larvae, freshwater crabs, snakes, toads, frogs, various palm fruits, palm hearts, hardwood fruits, brazil nuts, tubers, mushrooms, plantains, manioc, maize, bananas, and honey.
↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-02-13T03:52:18.471Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Since Clark seems to know so much about hunter-gatherers eating habits, does he say how they cooked their meat?
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-13T04:08:01.352Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Since Clark seems to know so much about hunter-gatherers eating habits, does he say how they cooked their meat?
Just a guess... but probably not with enough precision that they could avoid getting the outer layer particularly hot if they hoped to cook at all.
Replies from: JGWeissman↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-02-13T04:11:35.409Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think we are all in agreement about that, the question is about how much surface area relative to volume the meat has.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-13T17:01:31.002Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, look at the list: these people are eating (among other things) "...rodents, a large variety of birds, many types of insects, caterpillars, various fish, larvae, freshwater crabs, snakes, toads, frogs..." In other words, small animals.
The bottom line is that the Maillard reaction is not a modern superstimulus. It's not in the same class of things as a candy bar. It's a reaction that occurs naturally when meat is seared, not something like a Snickers bar that can only be created through a tremendous amount of artificial processing using modern technology. This whole debate over whether cavepeople had the tools and insight to make toad shishkebobs is absurd. The basic question is settled: Humankind has unquestionably been exposed to the Maillard reaction ever since we started cooking, and has been deliberately exploiting it for a very, very long time.
Replies from: JGWeissman↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-02-13T18:22:09.216Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The bottom line is that the Maillard reaction is not a modern superstimulus.
The bottom line is that the products of the Maillard reaction are unhealthy for humans and taste better to humans that healthy alternatives. Whether or not the Maillard reactions were less concentrated (note, this does not mean non-existent) in our evolutionary path has bearing on a possible explanation of this bottom line, which we can directly observe in modern times.
It's not in the same class of things as a candy bar.
A candy bar does involve more processing and is a greater superstimulus in absolute terms, though the Maillard reactions are in a way more insidious. Any adult human eating a candy bar will be aware that they are consuming an unhealthy desert, but most adults consuming browned meat will be under the false impression that they are eating something healthy.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-13T18:37:12.383Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The bottom line is that the products of the Maillard reaction are unhealthy for humans
I'm kind of stunned at your ability to jump to certainties based on extremely flimsy evidence. And the way you're clinging to a hypothesis that has no historical support. This is strongly anti-rational behavior.
It doesn't seem like continuing this discussion would be productive.
Replies from: AdeleneDawner↑ comment by AdeleneDawner · 2011-02-14T22:06:14.434Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think you're missing part of JGWeissman's argument, which is somewhat understandable as he hasn't explicitly spelled it out.
The fact that the Maillard reaction was, most likely, present in ancient cooking does not imply that the results of that reaction are harmless. It's evidence in that direction, but it's not conclusive. In particular, the fact that the compounds caused by the Maillard reaction build up over time and lead to a somewhat earlier death, rather than being a faster-acting kind of poison, make it hard for evolution to select against liking those compounds. (It's similarly hard for evolution to select against other things that happen after organisms are mostly done raising their offspring, such as Alzheimer's.) Thus, it's not particularly improbable that both 'the Maillard reaction has been used by humans for many thousands of years' and 'the products of the Maillard reaction reduce human lifespan' are true, and if there are studies that say the latter, they aren't in conflict with the former.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-14T22:48:53.180Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The fact that the Maillard reaction was, most likely, present in ancient cooking does not imply that the results of that reaction are harmless.
Yeah, that's a somewhat different topic than the question of whether the Maillard reaction can be described as a "superstimulus" in the way Eliezar defined the term here--if you read the link, you'll see that he's talking specifically about "a point in tastespace that wasn't in the training dataset - an impossibly distant outlier on the old ancestral graphs. Tastiness, formerly representing the evolutionarily identified correlates of healthiness, has been reverse-engineered and perfectly matched with an artificial substance." This description applies well to a Snickers bar, but does not apply at all to the Maillard reaction, which was in fact very present "on the old ancestral graphs."
The question of whether cooking food makes it less healthy is one that applies to all food, not just meats and veggies that have undergone the Maillard reaction. One of the mistakes JGWeissman made was to do a quick Google search looking only to confirm his preconceptions, and to stop there, instead of trying to figure out how the research he'd found fits into the broader picture of truth (rather than how it could be twisted to score a point in a silly argument). In fact, the overarching question is one that's being rather hotly debated, as you can figure out quickly if you Google terms like "raw food diet." The food science on this is complicated, not at all settled, and I am not an authority on the subject so I'm not going to try to summarize it here--but suffice it to say that if we start wading into this we won't be just talking about the Maillard reaction anymore.
Replies from: JGWeissman, AdeleneDawner↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-02-15T02:45:17.442Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
One of the mistakes JGWeissman made was to do a quick Google search looking only to confirm his preconceptions
My "preconceptions" were that this process I just read about which breaks down amino acids and carbohydrates (which makes them tastier) might be destroying the nutritional value of the amino acids and increase the amount of of simple sugars that cause blood sugar spikes. I was very uncertain about the size of the effect, expecting it to be somewhere in between this completely destroys the nutritional value of the affected meat, to this is a negligible affect that leaves most of the nutritional value in tact (and I should use this technique when cooking). I was surprised to learn (not from my own Google search, but from following links from Saturn's comment), that the results of the reaction are actively harmful.
and to stop there
I posted a comment expressing my dissatisfaction with the amount of information I got from search, including the closest thing I found to an answer and further questions that I had.
instead of trying to figure out how the research he'd found fits into the broader picture of truth
Fitting things "into the broader picture of truth" sounds like a nice ideal, but I don't see how to cash that out into a concrete action here.
(rather than how it could be twisted to score a point in a silly argument)
The question of nutritional effects is what I have been primarily interested in here. It seemed appropriate to me to clarify that the hidden query I was really asking with "Is this a superstimulus?" was about nutritional values and what I should do about it, not the ancestral environment.
In fact, the overarching question is one that's being rather hotly debated, as you can figure out quickly if you Google terms like "raw food diet."
It usually works better to separate out a single question, and control other factors when conducting experiments to answer it. Trying to figure out the effects of advanced glycation end products, phytonutrients, killing bacteria, and pure veganism all at once is likely to cause confusion.
↑ comment by AdeleneDawner · 2011-02-14T23:52:35.697Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
(The existing downvote isn't from me. I'm probably not going to respond to this, but if I do it will be no sooner than tomorrow - I don't have the time or energy to properly parse it right now.)
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-13T01:48:39.620Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's not that much extra effort, and if I ate more meat at the time I would have discovered the (substantial) effect much sooner. Also, if I'd been taught to cook by a human being instead of teaching myself from cookbooks, I would never have made the faulty assumption about that step being skippable. The insight about browning meat fully is easy to discover, and once discovered is normally transmitted to other cooks as part of their training.
Respectfully, you seem to me to be clinging rather hard to an unevidenced theory.
Replies from: JGWeissman↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-02-13T03:50:55.233Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's not that much extra effort
Try cutting up the meat with a bone knife that you make and sharpen yourself, instead of your metal store-bought knife, and skewering it on a stick you find that is strong enough to skewer the meat, but small enough not tear apart the small pieces of meat, instead of browning in a metal pan or skewering on a metal skewer, and then tell our hunter-gatherer ancestors that it's not that much extra effort.
if I ate more meat at the time I would have discovered the (substantial) effect much sooner.
That is speculation. What we know is that you didn't discover it from the amount of meat you did in fact eat.
The insight about browning meat fully is easy to discover
Hindsight bias.
Respectfully, you seem to me to be clinging rather hard to an unevidenced theory.
I don't accept your theory that humans have been cutting meat into small pieces and browning all the surface area since they invented cooking. Your theory has no evidence stronger than tenuous speculation based on modern cooking that doesn't seem to take into account the differences of the ancestral environment.
Replies from: None, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-13T04:20:11.544Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Try cutting up the meat with a bone knife that you make and sharpen yourself
How do you imagine that the hunter-gatherers are skinning and butchering the animal? With their fingernails?
I don't accept your theory that humans have been cutting meat into small pieces and browning all the surface area since they invented cooking.
Okay. I don't claim to know that for certain or anything. You've already accepted that the technique is at least thousands of years old, which is as far as I can feel really sure--although I'll admit that it seems to me much more likely that the technique of cutting meat into small pieces was discovered substantially earlier, given its utter simplicity.
Replies from: JGWeissman↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-02-13T04:33:57.992Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Edit: quoted parent as when I responded, the 2nd part was added after
Try cutting up the meat with a bone knife that you make and sharpen yourself
How do you imagine that the hunter-gatherers are skinning and butchering the animal? With their fingernails?
Of course they skinned and butchered the animal with knives. That doesn't change the fact that producing and maintaining those knives is a lot of work for them, and they are more difficult to use than our modern knives, and this does have impact on the marginal costs of additional preparation of the meat.
Seriously, I found your reply to be sarcastic and unsubstantial.
Replies from: None↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-13T04:35:36.171Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Would they be using bone knives or flint? How good are flint knives?
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2012-02-11T16:42:16.352Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How early did people have knives that were good enough to make cutting meat into small chunks reasonably easy?
Replies from: MixedNuts↑ comment by apophenia · 2011-03-15T08:06:53.088Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Find a cookbook, which often contains more fleshed-out recipes, instead of searching online. You can of course evaluate a cookbook for this property before you buy one. I find watching Alton Brown (Good Eats) helpful, in that he covers things too simple to be a recipe (eggs), mentions specific problems you might have, explains such things, and of course you can see it being done, which helps. He also explains some of the science behind cooking, which is fun. I assume other cooking shows fix many of these same problems (Julia Child? I haven't watched). I often cook Alicorn's recipes, and can ask her for help if something is underspecified. Finding a somewhat experienced cook to help (preferably in person) might be useful?
German recipes are even worse. They don't specify things like pans, oil, how to combine ingredients, or sometimes even baking temperatures. They're basically a list of ingredients and assume you know... well, more than I do. Plus I don't speak German very well, so I had a nightmare making the one recipe I properly translated.
↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-13T01:06:05.329Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, this is part of what I am tring to get at. What's needed are not cookbooks but cooking textbooks. Though apparently these exist now - I recently got one - but since I've not yet had time to actually start learning to cook I can't personally vouch for it.
↑ comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-02-08T14:43:01.404Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Judging from the comments, cooking seems to be a big area where Less Wrongers feel tentative. I'm really surprised
I don't find it surprising at all. At least for myself, my brain tags cooking under the category of "boring housework chores", giving me negative motivation to actually learn it. The "pay attention to recipes and follow directions carefully and it's easy" part may actually be making it worse, since it strengthens the image of a dull, uninteresting task.
Intellectual types often find basic household chores as the kind of things that aren't worth wasting their time and smarts on, not when there are more interesting / important things to do. I can certainly admit being guilty of this.
Replies from: None, Mystfan↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T17:08:21.557Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Intellectual types often find basic household chores as the kind of things that aren't worth wasting their time and smarts on, not when there are more interesting / important things to do.
Cooking is applied chemistry, and at the higher levels, it's art.
Replies from: Alicorn, Kaj_Sotala↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T17:30:30.180Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I categorize cooking as an organizational skill - I have some ingredients, and I'm going to arrange them in a way that suits me. The algorithms I engage aren't that different from the ones that come into play when I organize the junk on my desk.
Replies from: Blueberry, MartinB↑ comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-02-08T18:45:34.394Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't dispute that. Nonetheless it easily gets emotionally tagged as "boring chore", even if it could be made interesting once you overcame that emotional tag.
↑ comment by Mystfan · 2011-02-10T18:47:05.952Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I definitely used to have the same attitude towards cooking, back when my dad and I were first learning to cook. There's a few things I did to alter my perceptions (in no particular order):
Start thinking of cooking as nifty biology/chemistry. There's a lot of books out there that go in-depth on this, but I think my favorite is "On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen" (Harold McGee 2004), which covers pretty much every foodstuff I've ever used.
Think of the last time you went out to a nice restaurant to eat, specifically of the best portion of food you got. Imagine being able to eat food of close to this quality multiple times a week, at much lower cost (I generally pay as much to make an 8-serving dish as a restaurant charges for 2). This probably only helps if you're big on food and/or eating fairly low-quality food now, but I found it a big motivator when I was learning.
If you're one of the many people posting in the dating advice comments above, consider the fact that cooking is an attractive skill in a romantic partner, so the time taken to learn it could be a useful investment.
Try starting with recipes you don't need to pay much attention to, such as stews; this helps to minimize the feeling of wasting time, as you just combine the ingredients and leave.
As always, your mileage may vary, especially if you don't think with your stomach like I do.
↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-08T00:45:53.850Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Duplicate comment?
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T00:51:39.180Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Alicorn and I aren't the same person, if that's what you're asking!
I didn't see her comment before I started writing mine.
Replies from: SilasBarta↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-08T01:42:36.903Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Just a goof on my part, I was thinking in terms of verbatim duplicates. I actually realize, on some level, that reading a post twice -- even several minutes apart! -- doesn't mean it's been posted twice, but didn't quite put this knowledge into action...
My apologies.
↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T00:10:32.473Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm pretty sure I could summarize the basics of cooking simple things in a non-book-sized piece of prose. Is there something in particular you wanted to know?
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-08T01:31:44.583Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In truth, I don't really have anything to ask right now. This is not due to a lack of knowledge but rather due to a lack of having any sort of handle on the subject. As it happens I've actually gone and gotten a book, one which seems like it actually explains things (Cooking for Geeks, Jeff Potter), but starting a big project like learning to cook isn't something I really have time for right now, probably not till summer. (And then we'll see whether the book is actually as helpful as it looks.)
Though if you want anyway to know where I'm coming from I could repost from elsewhere my rant about what sorts of things I would have to understand to get a grasp on cooking. :P
comment by thejash · 2011-02-08T13:55:30.299Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Not to be annoying (as I often have questions like this as well), but I've found that Google is remarkably helpful in answering those questions. In fact, I tried two of the example questions and the answers seemed very reasonable to me:
http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+deposit+a+check
http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+buy+stocks
I also use Google's suggestions (ie, by typing into Google Instant or Firefox search bar) to help phrase my question in the most common way, or to provide alternative related questions that might be more what I mean. For example, when typing "how to buy stocks" it suggested:
"how to buy stocks with out a broker"
"how to buy stocks online"
"how to buy stocks for beginners"
Replies from: Matt_Duing↑ comment by Matt_Duing · 2011-02-08T19:49:07.793Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Khan Academy also has a sequence of videos on stock market basics.
Replies from: Vladimir_M↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-08T21:51:56.210Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The idea of educational videos on "stock market basics" for amateurs strikes me as about equally sensible as having educational videos for amateurs on abdominal surgery. Unless of course these videos limit themselves to explaining the concept of weak EMH, but somehow I doubt it.
Replies from: Matt_Duing↑ comment by Matt_Duing · 2011-02-09T01:00:22.799Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The videos are basically explanations of investing terminology. On second thought, my suggestion was not really on point as a source of procedural knowledge.
comment by Threedee · 2011-02-07T06:23:49.093Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There are a number of web sites that present such implicit and procedural knowledge. such as: http://www.ehow.com/ http://www.wikihow.com/Main-Page http://www.howcast.com/ http://www.howtodothings.com/
I might be useful to somehow select the most generally useful ones of these in one place.
Replies from: luminosity, spriteless, lukeprog↑ comment by luminosity · 2011-02-07T09:18:26.758Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I haven't come across any of them except eHow. eHow is awful. Useless. Bad. I have ended up there unwittingly from google searches a half dozen times or so. Not once has it answered what I wanted to know. The information on their site is optimised to be written as quickly as possible while getting the best google rank possible, with no thought as to quality of information.
Replies from: knb↑ comment by knb · 2011-02-07T23:19:54.585Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Huh. I use eHow and WikiHow all the time, and always find it incredibly useful.
Replies from: bayleo↑ comment by bayleo · 2011-02-08T21:26:26.583Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
eHow is frequently accused of being a content mill. I switched search engines to DuckDuckGo when the founder announced he was dropping eHow and all other Demand Media properties from his results (Blekko has also dropped them). eHow articles are cranked out by paid writers who typically know very little about what they are writing, resulting in a lot of completely inadequate explanations. WikiHow, on the other hand, is a genuine wiki (go ahead; edit it) which rivals Wikipedia for process-oriented queries.
Replies from: David_Gerard↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T22:32:30.454Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
when the founder announced he was dropping eHow and all other Demand Media properties from his results
Sure hope he keeps Cracked. It's Wikipedia, rewritten with jokes!
↑ comment by spriteless · 2012-03-26T19:29:14.010Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
stack exchange network too.
comment by Bo102010 · 2011-02-08T03:21:16.191Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I recently found myself thinking about this same topic. I have figured some of these out by trial and error, but feel that some formal training would have been useful (others I have not encountered):
How should you interact with a police officer - what are your obligations, your rights, and how should you conduct yourself?
If you want to move from one residence to another, what steps should you take? If you are credentialed in one state and want to move to another, what do you do?
If you get into a minor car accident, what should you do? What about a major one?
What's the best way to quit your job?
How do you vote in an election? A primary? What should you do if you want to run for office?
If you find that someone has died of non-suspicious and natural causes, what steps should you take? Whom should you call?
↑ comment by Psychohistorian · 2011-02-08T04:36:56.939Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How should you interact with a police officer - what are your obligations, your rights, and how should you conduct yourself?
I'm a law student. I'll take this one. This applies to the US specifically, though being polite and deferent are probably universal.
In short: TL;DR answer: Be polite, calm, and friendly. If you are guilty of a crime, admit nothing, do not give permission to search anything that would be incriminating, say that you don't want to talk to the officer (unless answering extremely general questions), and, if you are detained, ask to speak with a lawyer. Be more compliant if you are innocent, but if you get the slightest hint that they think you're responsible, stop complying and ask for a lawyer if detained. For more mundane interaction (i.e. speeding tickets) be polite and deferent, and don't confess to anything unless they totally have you nailed. Arguing with cops will very rarely advance your case; save that for court if you care enough to challenge the ticket. More detail follows.
In minor cases (e.g. speeding tickets), you generally want to be polite, deferential, and honest, but probably don't volunteer too much information, except insofar as it's obvious. If you were going 85 and the cop asks why he pulled you over, it's probably wiser to admit you were speeding than to play stupid; in some borderline cases, being honest and likable will get you out of a ticket or into a lesser ticket. Arguing with police officers is generally not going to get you anywhere. If they're wrong about some material fact, you'll probably have to deal with it in court. Being calm, friendly, and deferential (address them as "officer") is often your best chance of avoiding a ticket, and will almost always avoid any escalation. In some cases, crying or explaining yourself may work, but if they don't believe you, it may make things worse. Similarly, if you made some mistake (i.e. did not see the speed limit change) it may be helpful to say as much politely, but again, you won't win an argument.
For more serious offenses (basically, anything criminal greater than a speeding ticket).
Edited to add: Basically, never talk to the police or other similar authorities under any circumstances, except where it can't be avoided, e.g. speeding tickets.
A police officer is either detaining you or they are not. If they are not detaining you, you are free to stop talking with them and leave. If they are detaining you, you have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. If you are being detained, and you ask for an attorney, ALL QUESTIONING MUST CEASE. Anytime you hear a story about some guy the police were grilling for eight hours: if he'd asked to speak with an attorney, they'd have had to stop.
In general, if you even think you might be guilty of something, it is best not to try to explain yourself and not to make up excuses. Most criminals don't think they did anything morally wrong. The police will not share your perspective. Especially if you are guilty, you should ask if you are free to go, and if you are not, ask for an attorney. This is advisable even if you are innocent if the crime is significant.
The police CAN legally lie to you in order to exact a confession; this is a rather common tactic. That means they can tell you someone has positively ID'd you, or tell you that your fingerprints have been found, or that your accomplice has turned on you even when these things aren't true.
Of course, if you actually have an accomplice, you should hope you've both credibly committed to cooperating in a prisoner's dilemma. Omega cannot save you now.
You should never give police permission to search anything unless you know that there is nothing incriminating there. If the officer tells you that the law entitles him to do something, and then ask for his permission, you should probably tell him that he does not have your permission, but if what he says about the law is true, you're not going to stop him. Even if the police find incriminating evidence, if they did not have a legal right to search where they were searching (i.e. they lack probable cause), that evidence generally cannot be used against you in criminal proceedings.
If police are questioning you about someone else (who is not a spouse) who may have been involved in a crime, it gets fuzzier. I'm not entirely sure how extensive police power is; ultimately, the state has some capacity to compel your testimony (there's no right not to incriminate others), but this generally doesn't work because someone who doesn't want to testify can generally testify to a lack of memory on whatever issue (as people might do if threatened by the mob).
It's also worth noting that roommates and people living with you can, under certain circumstances, authorize searches of your possessions. They can certainly authorize searches of common areas.
This is endlessly more complicated, but this should be a pretty good overview. You cannot be compelled to say anything incriminating, and if the cops are bargaining with you, that probably means they don't have enough to get you on. Again, if you've done something, or if they think you've done something, you're going to want a lawyer to sort things out. The risk is obviously a lot higher if you're guilty, but you can run into serious risks even if you just seem possibly guilty.
Replies from: TobyBartels, folkTheory, Kaj_Sotala, TobyBartels, None, sumguysr↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T23:09:22.726Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Especially if you are guilty, you should ask if you are free to go, and if you are not, ask for an attorney. This is advisable even if you are innocent if the crime is significant.
I want to emphasise this. The prisons in the U.S. (and probably most countries) are full of people who believed that they were safe, despite being suspected, due to their innocence. Remember, innocence is no excuse if they find you guilty anyway. (This is even true after the fact; new evidence of innocence is not enough to get a new trial, as long as your rights were not violated in the old one, according to the Supreme Court.)
Replies from: Baughn↑ comment by Baughn · 2012-02-12T20:04:12.589Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
new evidence of innocence is not enough to get a new trial, as long as your rights were not violated in the old one, according to the Supreme Court
Wait, what? [citation needed]
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2012-02-18T15:19:15.441Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)
Four months later, a person who was legally guilty (so found by a jury in a valid trial) but actually innocent (probably) was killed by the State of Texas.
This is the best short coverage that I found in a few minutes' Googling (using the defendant's full name): http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/05/12/1993-leonel-herrera-v-collins/
ETA: As the court's opinion points out, there is a procedure for relief when one finds new evidence of innocence: clemency. Good luck getting that in Texas!
↑ comment by folkTheory · 2011-02-08T23:28:14.381Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm just gonna add: Say "Sir" all the time. It really calms them down.
He asks you a question? ("have you been drinking?") Say "Yes sir" or "no sir"
"I stopped you because you were speeding" - "I'm very sorry, sir"
and so on. This has saved me countless times.
↑ comment by sumguysr · 2016-03-08T07:23:37.052Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Even more effective in my experience is giving them an authentic pleasant greeting. "Good evening officer". For some reason saying sir constantly makes me feel nervous and like I'm ceding too much power. I usually say it once or twice and never in my first couple answers.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-10T07:50:55.107Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Just don't say "Sir" if the cop's a woman!
↑ comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-02-08T15:00:40.349Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Must-watch with regard to the police: Why You Should Never Talk to Cops, parts one and two.
(US-specific, but a lot of the general content is probably applicable worldwide.)
Replies from: Douglas_Knight, jaimeastorga2000↑ comment by Douglas_Knight · 2011-02-08T22:39:56.409Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Many sources, including that one, if I recall correctly, say that if you talk to cops, they will lie about what you said, but no one ever says that they will fabricate the fact of talking.
↑ comment by jaimeastorga2000 · 2011-02-09T12:28:41.664Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is another good video which touches on many of the same ideas:
BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters
Also, here's the video you posted in one part. I completely loved it.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T23:02:13.148Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A police officer is either detaining you or they are not.
If you don't know which, just ask. Note that being detained is less serious than being arrested.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T04:54:42.702Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think your comment got cut off? It was really interesting and I'd like to read the rest of it.
I think you're talking about the U.S., too, and we should probably specify that since obviously laws are different in different countries.
Replies from: Psychohistorian, wedrifid↑ comment by Psychohistorian · 2011-02-08T06:22:10.382Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Fixed. Thank you. Just forgot to finish off the last paragraph. And added a disclaimer about the US.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-08T05:11:08.059Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think you're talking about the U.S., too, and we should probably specify that since obviously laws are different in different countries.
I note that the above advice is applicable in Australia too. I'll add in that if you decided to stop talking stop talking (except under legal advice). You do not want to try to cherry pick which questions you answer. For details see the Australia section on wikipedia.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T03:32:33.306Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Voting: all the official info from the US government is here.
↑ comment by komponisto · 2011-02-08T16:20:05.518Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How should you interact with a police officer - what are your obligations, your rights, and how should you conduct yourself?
For U.S. residents, the ACLU's "bust card" is a convenient reference.
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T23:01:12.381Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
One thing that I have trouble with in the U.S. is how much information the police can compel me to give when stopped on the street. Unless you're operating a motor vehicle (or have some other special circumstance), you don't have to carry ID, but in many States, you do have to show it if you're carrying it, and you usually have to give your name and address regardless. Since this varies from State to State, the national ACLU information is vague, so check with your local branch.
comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T19:05:51.989Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Dealing with serious clutter-- the kind of situation where the house has never been in good order and there isn't any obvious place to put most things.
Sometimes I take a crack at it, but there's so little progress and so many non-obvious decisions to be made.
Replies from: David_Gerard, Alicorn, Sinal, MartinB, NickiH, pepe_prime↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T20:25:45.982Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The key point I have discovered in my own recent massive household declutter:
Distinguish "generally useful" or "potentially useful" from actually useful.
No, you'll never eBay it. No, you'll never wear that shirt or those boots. No, you'll never fix that laptop. No, you'll never get around to finding someone who really wants it. No, that weird cable won't actually ever be used for anything, because it hasn't been used in the past five years. No, you'll never get around to taking it to the charity shop. No, it may be a shame to throw out something so obviously useful, but it's a curse. No, you never did any of these things in the past so there's no reason to assume you will in the future. No. No. Stop making bullshit excuses. JUST NO.
Get a big roll of garbage bags. Delight in having so many full bags of discards that your bin overflows.
You have to be utterly uncompromising. Set the "when did I last use this?" to one year. Anything unused in longer than that better have a REALLY EXCELLENT justification.
If you swear you're going to eBay it, give yourself one week to do the listing. If it's not done, throw it out.
A very helpful method is to have someone else to help you be uncompromising. (Particularly with kicking your backside when you make one of the excuses.)
Paul Graham's essay Stuff talks about the problem. He lists books as an exception. THEY ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION. Be as ruthless with your book pile.
(I have been doing a huge clearout of STUFF for the last couple of months - saga in my journal - and kept linking that Paul Graham essay like the holy writ it is. NO DAMN ATOMS. EVERYTHING MADE OF ATOMS IS A WHITE ELEPHANT UNLESS IT CAN PROVE IT CAN PAY ITS BLOODY RENT. AAAAAAAA)
Replies from: khafra, None↑ comment by khafra · 2011-02-08T22:37:39.107Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sounds like the "outside view" approach to cleaning. It seems to me the “really excellent justification” heuristic could be generalized into expected value, with some danger of overfitting—something with infrequent but important use like a fire extinguisher might earn its place just as easily as a bic pen you use twenty times a day.
Replies from: David_Gerard↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T22:46:48.539Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think it's more generally the phenomenon Paul Graham talks about: stuff used to be valuable and people didn't have much of it; these days, it's actually not of value and most people have too much of it. That is: we're all rich now, and we don't know how to cope with the fact.
It's moving up to a better class of problem. Like how Britain has a major health problem in 2011 with poor people being too fat, whereas in 1950 food was rationed. It's a great problem to have. Though it's still a problem.
Yes, it really helps to get in an outside view - the friend to help and berate you - until you get the proper visceral loathing of stuff.
Replies from: fiddlemath↑ comment by fiddlemath · 2011-02-09T16:11:00.129Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think this explains a lot of it. Another part is that people don't think about the costs of owning stuff: it occupies your space, you have to keep it organized, and you have to move it around whenever you move.
These costs are easy to ignore, because they aren't in mind when you're thinking about buying a specific thing. The mentally-available facts are "what will I get by using this?" versus "how much money does this cost?" Similarly, when you're looking for stuff to get rid of, it's hard to bring those costs back into light, because they're so general to everything you own
I don't have lots of stuff, and I'm pretty willing to get rid of stuff or give stuff away. I think this is largely because I highly value my space, my attention, and my time, and I've practiced being sensitive to those values when I'm making decisions about stuff.
Replies from: handoflixue, soreff↑ comment by handoflixue · 2011-02-15T22:45:48.279Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"you have to move it around whenever you move."
Usually I'm adverse to reducing clutter, due to the cost of going through, organizing it, and throwing away most of it. Every time I move I end up losing a huge chunk of my stuff because suddenly it's much cheaper to throw it out instead of moving it :)
↑ comment by soreff · 2011-05-07T02:07:32.662Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Another part is that people don't think about the costs of owning stuff
Good point. My heuristic is to say: My house cost $100/ft^2. A $2 knickknack with a square foot footprint really costs $102.
Replies from: Ian_Ryan↑ comment by Ian_Ryan · 2011-05-07T02:18:02.604Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
But could you really have saved $100 by having decided to buy that same exact house except without that extra square foot?
Replies from: fiddlemath↑ comment by fiddlemath · 2011-05-07T03:15:11.922Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Probably not. But, if you had rather less stuff, you could have probably bought a pretty similar house with one fewer closet for a few thousand less.
Replies from: juliawise, soreff↑ comment by soreff · 2011-05-07T04:47:19.860Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yup, also, the incremental cost of space in a self-store unit is of the order of $1/month-ft^2, say $240/ft^2 capital cost at a 5% annual rate - and that is a true incremental cost. The more severe approximation is ignoring which items stack well and which don't, and ignoring the additional costs of maintaining the items, keeping track of them and so on.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T23:56:20.601Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Paul Graham's essay Stuff talks about the problem. He lists books as an exception. THEY ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION. Be as ruthless with your book pile.
Better yet, get a Kindle.
Replies from: David_Gerard, homunq, taryneast↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-09T00:37:10.139Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'd love a Kindle if it wasn't a hideously locked-down proprietary money funnel. I'm waiting for something with an eInk screen that just opens documents if I put them on it, in whatever format. I've wanted something like that to read PDFs with approximately forever.
I already don't read my paper books. I'd rather download a PDF than read the book that's on the shelf just over there. This appears to be unusual amongst my friends.
Replies from: None, Risto_Saarelma, ruhe47, mindspillage, Douglas_Knight, false_vacuum, Normal_Anomaly↑ comment by Risto_Saarelma · 2011-02-10T15:37:22.247Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I got my hands on a Kindle a year back, and it just opened PDFs and text documents I put on it using it as an USB drive. Amazon even provided an app for rolling your own Kindle-format ebooks from hypertext files, which you could again just plop on the Kindle over USB.
My main problem was that the regular Kindle was too small for viewing technical article PDFs full screen. I can already use my smartphone for reading stuff that's easily reflowable, like most fiction. The Kindle DX should be better for this, but I haven't had a chance to try that.
↑ comment by ruhe47 · 2011-02-11T19:04:16.800Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There are other e-readers that have far less stringent requirements for getting books. The Nook and Kobo are an example (as are the Sony E-Readers). I have a Nook and have yet to purchase any books from the Barnes and Noble store. I constantly put DRM free books from Project Gutenberg on it and just placed the Less Wrong sequences on it as well. There are also FLOSS programs for editing PDFs to make them easier to read on an e-reader. A little research goes a long way!
↑ comment by mindspillage · 2011-02-09T06:46:07.713Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I use my thinkpad tablet--my main computer--for reading anything I can manage to get in .pdf, but I do really envy the Kindle screen. And battery life. I keep checking back to the PixelQi site hopefully...
I read paper books because 1) I can get them really cheap used (cheaper than the library fines I always get from borrowing them...), 2) they require no batteries, 3) dropping them or stepping on them will not damage them irreparably, and 4) they are not likely to attract unwelcome attention on the buses through the rougher parts of town.
Replies from: sfb↑ comment by sfb · 2011-02-09T06:58:55.217Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
keep checking back to the PixelQi site hopefully...
The first batch of Notion Ink Adam tablets have shipped, they have a PixelQi screen and run Android. Can't yet buy one unless you caught the pre-order, but to me that means they've moved out of 'vapourware'.
↑ comment by Douglas_Knight · 2011-02-09T21:35:20.199Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you know that your dislike of paper is weird, you shouldn't be giving general advice about it. (you said we should throw out books)
Your dislike of the Kindle sounds like status quo bias to me. Maybe the proprietary format means that the books will only last a few years, but is that so bad? In return, you get a searchable format and no physical clutter. And if you switch to another format and lose everything, you're purged of electronic clutter!
Replies from: David_Gerard↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-09T21:53:21.170Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, you should definitely throw out your books. For everyone else it was obvious hyperbole for literary effect, but for you I mean it literally. What on earth?
Yes, that is so bad. I'm not paying paper prices for bits that evaporate, and I'm not giving Amazon a hundred quid's encouragement to pull that sort of stunt. That's an even more direct incentive to piracy than trying to watch a commercial DVD. In return, I get a searchable format and no physical clutter!
Although purging my life of digital clutter is actually an attractive idea. Hence the notion of "inbox zero". Like not really appreciating minimalism until you've been subjected to horrible aesthetic noise for a long time.
Replies from: Blueberry↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T22:04:14.603Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That's an even more direct incentive to piracy than trying to watch a commercial DVD.
I liked that cartoon, but it's not completely accurate. I can skip over all of those things on my computer with software DVD players, whether the DVD was commercially authorized or not. This is a problem with some DVD players, not really a "piracy" issue.
Replies from: saturn↑ comment by saturn · 2011-02-10T05:47:23.858Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Enforcement in software players is lax for whatever reason, but makers of DVD players need to agree to honor the Prohibited User Operations flags in order to get a patent license to use the DVD video format. So the general point stands that if you're skipping previews, someone is either in breach of contract or breaking the law.
↑ comment by false_vacuum · 2011-02-09T02:51:30.502Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
to read PDFs with
and DJVUs. So there isn't anything like this yet. Thanks for saving me some research time.
↑ comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T02:38:40.622Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't like PDFs because Word Documents can be sent to your Kindle, which makes them more convenient for me. Edit: Apparently, this isn't so. Never mind then!
One other comment: I like being able to annotate things, or copy/paste parts of things, and I know more about how to do that in Word or with a Kindle.
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2011-03-11T18:17:16.280Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In case you are wondering why people have downvoted you, it's because you have bastardized the computing usage of 'portable' almost beyond recognition. Word documents are one of the classic examples of unportable file formats - formats locked into Microsoft software, which are portable neither over time nor computing platforms.
Although it might also just be because you are apparently wrong when you say you can't email a PDF to your Kindle like you can your Word documents.
(Even the XML MS format is pretty terrible, as groups like Groklaw analyzed back when MS first began pretending it was a real alternative to OOXML.)
Replies from: CuSithBell, Normal_Anomaly↑ comment by CuSithBell · 2011-03-11T18:26:26.068Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I approve of explaining heavily-downvoted posts (FSVO 'heavily'). Thank you on behalf of LessWrong!
↑ comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2011-03-11T20:30:37.866Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thank you for explaining that! I didn't realize "portable" had a technical meaning; I was reffering to how I can carry them around on a Kindle. I've edited the grandparent.
Replies from: gwern, CuSithBell↑ comment by CuSithBell · 2011-03-11T21:07:07.926Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Aaaaand also upvoting this for related reasons.
↑ comment by homunq · 2011-03-11T17:29:51.170Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Books can be valuable even if you never read them again, in several ways. If you have kids, you never know what they might read, or just what attitudes they might pick up from the presence of books. If your books are in a public part of your house, guests may see them and either start a conversation or be impressed. If they are behind where the guests sit, you may see a book a guest will like and give it to them. Also, of course, there's the potential for bathroom reading, a page of an old favorite.
That said, when you're moving house, you should be more ruthless than usual with books.
Replies from: MartinB↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T19:36:17.555Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Throw stuff out/give it away. Lots of stuff. If you have two of it, or don't really like it, or plan to replace it soon and won't need it till then, get rid of it.
Completely clear out some place, like a closet or a drawer or a shelf - do this by putting its contents in obviously inappropriate temporary locations, like on a bed, if necessary. Decide from scratch what belongs in this place. Put those things there. Repeat with the next space. If you don't have a way to efficiently use the space, buy an organizer of some kind suited to what you plan to put in. (Wire racks, drawer dividery things, bookends for open-ended shelves, etc.)
↑ comment by Sinal · 2018-07-24T06:05:40.882Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Don't know if anyone still follows this 7 year old thread but-
I strongly recommend Marie Kondo's book The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up. The gist is you declutter by category of item instead of by room: first do all of the dishes, then do all your clothing items, then books, etc. For instance, to declutter your closet, take out all the clothes and sort into two piles: clothes that make you happy and clothes that don't.
I've also found that goodwill will accept lots of different kinds of items not just clothes.
And remember, it's not about becoming angry about all the useless garbage you have in your house, but about choosing to keep what makes you happy and being surrounded by lovely things that you appreciate.
↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-09T07:29:48.213Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Leo Babauta from zenhabits is a good source to go to.
Decluttering was a personal struggle for me, that I think to have handled now. Here my current model for how to de:clutter. Note that I mix actual experience with theory, also some might not be universally applicable. Also I don't know which points to elaborate on and which are obvious.
Preface:
Order is a process, not an end state! Much progress is achieved early on. Like optical decluttering the visible areas, when everything is nicely boxed up. (80:20 principle)
Tools:
I use stackable plastic containers like these. The important factors are the volume that allows to store all kinds of things, transportability by hand, and the possibility to stack them onto them self.
Lots of garbage bags. (Get some of the big ones, some the smaller once9
Tape that can be written on + marker pens.
It might be a good time to install more shelf space
Timing
Depending on your schedule you can use like half an hour each day, or some hours once or twice a week to attack it, and make as much progress as possible. Use a kitchen timer. Get family involved if applicable.
Target areas
Choose a room, or an area smaller than a room to attack. Common rooms or your own are best. (I think that parents should not clean up their kids rooms, safe for fire and health hazards.)
If you are into planning, make a list of all areas and their order, so you can cross them off. Find out which parts of the process give you pleasure and optimize accordingly. (Some people find it helpful to know exactly which steps to take, some get anxious from it. It helps to know which one you are.)
Maybe clean floor space first. And tables.
Depending on level of entropy you can go in one swipe, or do multiple rounds.
Methodology
Put everything that is obviously to throw away in a garbage bag. Put everything else into the boxes. You can do a lazy general sort here right away, but its not necessary. If you do label the boxes with the tape + pen. Take boxes out of the area. Clean the area. Think how you generally want to to lay it out. Put stuff back into the area. Leave everything else in its respective box, till you get into the area where it belongs.
In the end you should have some thematic sections. All office supplies in one place, all electronics. All tools etc. Make your own categories!
In general I find I helpful to know where an item belongs. It should be clear without much thought.
Appendix:
The way to declutter differs widely along what kind of stuff you actually have lying around. Some general pointers:
- children toys should have their big box, where they go
- work related papers should be packed into folders together alongside projects
- (physical) mail needs its one place to go into
- electronics should not block the living space
- it pays to think about how to arrange an area. Maybe an inefficient design contributes to a higher ugh
↑ comment by taryneast · 2011-03-10T12:40:45.523Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Lots of good advice here!
I'd also add: don't get bogged down in details.
Many, many are the times I've set aside time to properly clear up and found I've spent an hour sorting through one stack of papers...
I'd suggest: start with the big things first. You can sort which papers to keep and which to throw after you've picked up the bigger things and put them in boxes out of the way.
There's a huge amount of relief in cleaning up even just the easy 80% of the clutter, so tackle the low-hanging fruit first and leave the details for the second pass.
Replies from: MartinB↑ comment by NickiH · 2011-02-12T15:51:14.921Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I like this site: http://unclutterer.com/
It includes advice, examples, a forum to ask advice/share stories, and the weekly "Ask Unclutterer" column. Not to mention some hilarious examples of unitaskers.
↑ comment by pepe_prime · 2016-02-15T23:22:49.356Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A book I recently heard was good: the lifechanging magic of tidying up
comment by Elizabeth · 2011-02-09T18:46:33.826Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I am terrible at remembering names. This is bad in itself, but exacerbated by a few factors:
I regularly have lengthy conversations with random strangers, and will be able to easily summarize the conversation afterwords, but will have no recollection of their name.
I am fairly noticeable and memorable, so even people whose names I have no reason to know will know mine.
I am not particularly good with faces either.
This isn't a memory problem, I can quote back conversations or remember long strings of numbers. I often cope by confessing to my weakness in a self-deprecating manner, or by simply not using names in direct address (it's generally not necessary in English), but these don't actually help me learn names. If I remembered to ask their name early on, I sometimes pause mid-conversation to ask "Are you still x?" but that is somewhat awkward and I'm wrong half the time anyway. The only time I can reliably remember is if they share the name of an immediate family member.This is bad enough that I'll sometimes be five or six classes into the semester and have to check the syllabus to figure out the professor's name, or will have been in multiple classes with someone and shared several conversations and still not know their name.
Replies from: SRStarin, Desrtopa, sixes_and_sevens, None, ViEtArmis, TabAtkins, Alicorn, solipsist, Manfred, Torben, SilasBarta↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-09T19:35:40.644Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When I started running study groups in college, the training included teaching how to learn student's names. The trick to remembering names is to say the name out loud, with focus on the name and the person at the same time. So, Joachim introduces himself, and you say "Joachim? Nice to meet you, Joachim!" Give the name and face enough time to sink into long term memory. If they don't introduce themselves, ask them their name, simply apologizing if it turns out you've met before.
Then, at the earliest good opportunity, reinforce the name. Using it during the conversation is good. Any time the topic goes in a new direction, or you or your interlocutor have a new idea, you say "So, Joachim, I have another way of looking at that..." or "Joachim, that is an excellent point." This is totally normal, but might not feel that way to a person who doesn't use names frequently.
Finally, it is minimally awkward to, at the end of a conversation, say to the person "Well, Joachim, it's been so good talking to you!" Or, if you've totally lost the name, say with a smile "I've enjoyed talking with you so much I've managed to forget your name!" And they will be quite pleased to remind you.
Not using people's names is like a microcosm of this thread--if you don't use the name, rightly or wrongly, you won't get affirmation or correction.
That all works if you have the capability of recognizing people but just have not practiced it. But you say specifically that you're not good with faces. A large number of people are partially or completely face-blind. Many (maybe most) don't realize they have differently functioning brains from the majority of people when it comes to faces. They often recognize people by their distinctive hair color or facial hair, by particularly large or small noses, chins, etc, or even in some cases, by learning the wardrobes of people they are frequently around. I read about one fellow with 4 young children and he is completely unable to tell them apart. So when one jumps in his lap, he hugs them and smiles and says, "So who are you, then?" His kids think it's a running joke, which is how he treats it, but it's the only way he'd know who he's got in his lap.
The point is, if you are not just "bad with faces" but instead face-blind, you may have to use other, more you-specific techniques for identifying people.
Replies from: Elizabeth↑ comment by Elizabeth · 2011-02-09T21:32:06.086Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It wasn't until a couple of years ago that I first consciously noticed that I was incapable of using other people's names to their faces. I could do it with immediate family, and I could do it in third person "Howard was telling me..." I have since made strenuous efforts to get better at it, but it is still really psychologically difficult. That's also when I realized that it was almost impossible for me to leave a message on an answering machine. I'm working on that one too, but doing so is a serious effort. One of my roommates my freshman year of college had the same issues, but neither of us had a clue why.
Replies from: handoflixue, ShardPhoenix, SRStarin↑ comment by handoflixue · 2011-02-15T21:05:26.987Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It might help to find a friend you can practice with, for the names - if the issue applies to IM/Skype/etc. as well, then you can probably find a practice partner or two right here. Otherwise, hopefully you have an in-person friend who you'd trust to explain this to, and who can encourage you to refer to them by name frequently :)
For answering machines, the same friend can probably help, or you could practice on your own answering machine.
I've found that, for most skills, doing really impractical-but-safe practice exercises like this actually really pays off. Even if it doesn't 100% resolve the issue, it still gives you a good foundation to build on, and helps remind you that the activity CAN be safe.
↑ comment by ShardPhoenix · 2011-02-09T23:47:54.457Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I sometimes have trouble usings people's names - I think due to fear that I haven't remembered them correctly, even if I'm 95% certain or more. If I don't know the person well it may also seem overly familiar.
↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-09T23:52:47.028Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That does make it difficult to use the techniques I suggested. Some people do not like other people to use their names because they experience it as an attempt to control them emotionally. They feel it invokes automatic parent-child responses that others ought not have access to.
I think the number of these folks is very low (I've only met one person who feels this way). But, if he feels that way, it makes sense that there would be people who might be overwhelmed by the emotional burden of invoking such an emotional response. I certainly feel more burdened when I use his name in the first person. I'm not claiming that's what's going on with you. But, your description reminded me of this other person, and we can often gain great insight in hearing something even approximately related to our own difficulties.
As for suggestions, I would suggest that a good, small place to start, if you are able, is to repeat a person's name immediately after they introduce themselves to you, and leave it at that. I suspect it will help cement a few more names than you otherwise would have, and it might have less emotional impact on you to have a formulaic circumstance in which you can think of using another person's name with them.
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-09T19:38:05.162Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thirding the request.
I have sometimes contemplated taking out my frustrations by following people around to learn their names, scrounging up any background material on them that I can get, and then pretending to be an old high school acquaintance of theirs, and watching them squirm as they try to remember me.
I'm not entirely certain people aren't already doing this to me.
Replies from: TheOtherDave, solipsist↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T19:58:35.483Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
People have done this to me. I was amused.
In general, I avoid claiming to actually remember people if I don't, but I'm happy to engage with them as though we were old friends if they are engaging with me that way. If it turns out that we don't know each other, well, I've been friendlier than our relationship obligated me to be, which is not a big problem.
Replies from: mindspillage↑ comment by mindspillage · 2011-02-11T04:02:41.630Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Me too; nothing wrong with it and some people will be positively impressed with how friendly you are even to people you barely know! Also, being straightforward and not embarrassed to ask someone's name again helps. A simple "I'm sorry, but I've completely forgotten your name; could you remind me?" is usually not too awkward unless you've met often enough that you should be expected to remember.
(Also, I am in DC, which is a very business card-exchanging area; remembering getting the card and seeing the name after being introduced is very helpful.)
↑ comment by solipsist · 2013-08-05T17:25:11.829Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've started some great friendships by doing just this. Don't just pretend to run into an acquaintance. Pretend that you just ran into your old best friend X (X is totally awesome BTW, it's been way too long since you've seen them, and OMG do you remember when X did Y? It was so cool).
Requirements: an upstanding and respected mutual friend, an endorsement that a prank will be well received, and a victim with a sense of humor.
↑ comment by sixes_and_sevens · 2011-02-10T09:58:56.166Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
At the beginning of 2010 I made it my mission to remember the names of everyone I was introduced to. I haven't quite managed everyone, but I've gotten pretty close.
My technique: when someone tells me their name, I think of something that rhymes with it, and imagine the person in conjunction with the rhyme. I have a general policy of picking the first thing that comes to mind, since that presumably suggests my brain already has some sort of reliable connection between them.
For example, when meeting Sam for the first time, I will think of the first rhyme for 'Sam' that comes to mind, which in the case of a recent Sam was 'ham'. I imagine Sam holding some ham, with a big grin on her face (she has quite a striking grin anyway, so this detail just sort of cements it in place). When I next meet Sam, I will have a striking image of her holding some ham with a big grin on her face, which I can then follow back to her name.
Over the past year or so I've built up quite a menagerie of associations. All people called Sue are now in a large group of Blue Sues in my head. Anyone called Vicky is covered in something sticky. Anyone called Kate has an expression of hate.
Sometimes I have to reach for tenuous rhymes. 'David' was a bit of a tricky one, but I eventually settled on 'shavéd', and imagine Davids to have a partially-shaved scalp. If anything, the more tenuous rhymes are more memorable, because I also have the memory of the difficult rhyme to hang the name off.
This does occasionally create some odd effects. Last September, for example, I know I met two people called Amanda, but can only remember one of them. The act of remembering their name has persisted in memory, but actually meeting them hasn't.
The most important aspect isn't the actual technique (as there are plenty of other name-remembering techniques out there which presumably work fairly well), but getting into the habit of using it. It doesn't do any good just knowing it; you have to consciously choose to apply it whenever you're told a name you want to remember, and that's a much harder habit to get into than you'd think.
It's also a good technique for remembering things in general. I remembered the term 'homonymous hemianopia' recently by imagining Hermione from Harry Potter smoking opium and losing half of her field of vision.
Replies from: aelephant↑ comment by aelephant · 2012-03-25T03:32:19.246Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Excellent explanation & examples; everything elucidated effectively.
I don't understand the final example though. Is the memory device just to help you remember some of the letters in the name and the symptom or is there some connection my brain doesn't make that yours does? HoMoNymous - HerMioNe, HemiAn - HArry, OPIa - OPIum?
Replies from: sixes_and_sevens↑ comment by sixes_and_sevens · 2012-03-25T19:22:30.773Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The word "homonymous" takes care of itself in my case, since it's a word I'm familiar with already. The "hermianopia" bit is a not-quite-portmanteau of "hermione" and "opium".
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-09T22:25:06.795Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I remember names after I've seen them written in association with the face. I remember unusual names better, because I can ask the person then and there how to spell it. So for anyone with whom I speak rarely, I basically only consistently remember the names of facebook friends.
Method: Add people on facebook immediately after meeting them. Then review the RSVP list before going to any events with an events page!
↑ comment by ViEtArmis · 2012-07-23T17:37:22.613Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I had this problem for a long time, which can be embarrassing doing phone support, especially one with frequent callers that know my name and voice (one of only two men and we have distinct voices and greetings). I started intentionally using callers name's three times in every call and reaped several benefits: 1) I actually remember their names when they call back, 2) I'm better at remembering names having been told only once (even outside of work), and 3) my customer satisfaction scores had a marked and sustained increase.
↑ comment by TabAtkins · 2011-03-09T06:41:46.243Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm also normally terrible at learning names, but I've learned how to get around it. This may be terribly specific to people who learn like me; if so, I apologize.
I have found that I am incredibly focused on learning through actually seeing things written. I am excellent at spelling because I see the written form of words in my head, and even when I can't immediately recall the precise letters, I always have an accurate sense of how many there are (which is often enough to select the correct spelling from a shortlist of plausible alternatives).
Given that, I find that I can trivially remember people's names after having emailed them and typed their names.
Replies from: Elizabeth↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-09T19:42:53.819Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If there is some metadata about names that you can remember more easily (rhymes with X, name of Y character from fiction, would have been taunted on the playground because of Z) use that. I tend to ask people how to spell their names so I can embed the information as text instead of much-more-slippery-for-me sounds.
Replies from: Elizabeth↑ comment by solipsist · 2013-08-05T17:26:33.261Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've had good results with flashcards. One side write a person's name, and on the other write conversation details, physical descriptions, and mnemonics for physical descriptions. A few days of reviewing that Michael Jones is a friend of Lisa's who a grad student at Brown studying Fluorochemistry and looks a bit like O'Brian from Star Trek, and you'll probably remember his name (and other tidbits about him too).
↑ comment by Manfred · 2011-02-09T19:25:51.580Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Same problem here (exacerbated if not outright caused by the habit of not using peoples' names often), but I can remember peoples' names when really necessary by using a simple trick:
Say their name at least once in every phrase you say to them, for at least five minutes worth of you-saying-things. Lots of normal people do this already without even noticing. Without much practice it will be awkward, though, so you can just mention that you're bad at names and turn it into a joke.
↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-09T18:50:07.889Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Same situation here, same solutions tried. Also, even if I've known someone for a while, if I don't see them for a long time and then one day spot them, I may have lost memory of the person's named. Not often, but once or twice.
What's worse is that there's this woman I had met at a weekly group, and after like 4 weeks and three times of asking her name, I forgot, asked another, more socially adept woman there, and she gave me the wrong name! Argh!
comment by Johnicholas · 2011-02-08T22:49:39.554Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I do not have health insurance currently. I could obtain health insurance, but that's not my question.
How often is it appropriate to go to a doctor or general health person (in the US), if I think I'm mostly okay, and how much should I pay? How do I control how much I pay rather than setting up an appointment without mentioning price and allowing them to charge me? How do I find someone based on their skill/price rather than choosing randomly or following a recommendation from a friend?
Replies from: MartinB, qsoc, TobyBartels, SRStarin, Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-09T05:40:52.544Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Off the top of my head:
Visit the dentist regularly, like once or twice a year for a checkup, or whenever a reason pops up. Problems with teeth should be taken care of ASAP, otherwise they grow big.
The normal doctor needs no regular visits. (For females the gynecologist might be useful regularly, for males there is no equivalent yet.) You should take care of vaccinations. Some like the flu are done annually, others in much rarer sequences like every 10 years. If special once are recommended in your region your doctor or some kind of health information center will know. If you have special reasons to do an occasional checkup you probably know about that already. Like: I am a vegetarian and have my blood levels checked every few years. If you are generally healthy no visits are necessary. For people above a certain age some general prescreenings are recommended. I dont have the numbers here, and they differ by country, but that generally only starts at 35 or more.
I don't bother my doctors with minor illnesses that go away on their own, like the cold. But sometimes do go there with seemingly minor stuff that does not go away on it's own.
As a preparatory measure you could find out where your next general doctor, and the next emergency room is and how to get there.
It probably pays to take care of oneself. After all we only have one body to run with.
No information on payment rates since I live in another place.
↑ comment by qsoc · 2011-02-09T17:16:42.847Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There are a couple of ways you can ballpark how much you should be paying. You can look up what Medicare pays here. To use that you'll need to know the appropriate CPT code(s), which is not easy. If you're a new patient just going for a check up, you probably want 9920[1-5]; for an established patient, you want 9921[1-5]. The range from 1 to 5 varies by how "complex" the medical decision making is and how comprehensive the examination is.
You can also go to a site like healthcarebluebook.com to look up the prices. I think their goal is to report what a private insurance company might pay, so the numbers are somewhat higher. It also gives some tips on how to negotiate the payment if you don't have insurance.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-10T09:56:07.816Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When calling for prices, tell them that you have no insurance and offer to pay on the day of service (assuming that you can), then ask what kind of discount they can give you. Sometimes you won't even have to ask.
↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-09T15:00:38.987Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you are under 50, I agree with the other comments that you don't really need to see a doctor regularly. I would want a baseline examination, though, to see if you have any tendencies toward bad cholesterol or blood sugar, so you can maintain a diet that will keep you healthy and able to continue skipping the doctor visits. I agree with MartinB that you should see the dentist at least once a year for a checkup and cleaning.
If you are approaching or over 50, you should really get a prostate exam every year or so. Prostate cancer is very common, relatively slow to progress, and very treatable if caught early on. Apparently (I just learned this in checking the web that I'm not giving you bad info) it is possible to do self-examinations, but combined with all the other things (blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, etc) that have increasing probability with age, you should probably be seeing a doctor once a year anyway.
Whatever doctor you call, you can ask them what their fee is before making an appointment. You can also ask what their fees are for specific tests and procedures. Calling several doctors and asking the same questions (i.e. shopping around) is the only way I know of to find cheap doctors. As for skill, recommendations are the way to go. You may be able to find recommendations/reviews online.
Replies from: BillyOblivion↑ comment by BillyOblivion · 2011-02-10T12:01:03.679Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you are male and under 30 you should see a doctor every so often to get blood work done--say every 3-5 years. This is to check your blood sugar (diabetes) and establish a cholesterol baseline. If you're a drinker also start tracking your liver enzymes.
From 30 to 40 every other year is OK, unless you want to watch something more closely. If you're heavily involved in shooting sports and/or reloading, or some other sport with exposure to heavy metals or toxic chemicals discuss this with your physician and get the appopriate tests.
After 40 you're really better off getting blood work done annually.
As you hit your mid-40s getting your A1C baselined and then checked every so often is a good idea.
But yes, if you're paying out of pocket call around and see who will give you the best deal.
Also you really SHOULD consider a class of insurance (if you can find it anymore, idiot politicians have priced it out of some markets) called "catastrophic health care insurance". This doesn't cover you if you want an HIV test, or blood work, it doesn't cover your breast enlargements or vasectomy, but if an uninsured drunk car thief knocks you off your bicycle it WILL cover the bills he won't pay.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2012-05-08T10:38:53.016Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you are male and under 30 you should see a doctor every so often to get blood work done--say every 3-5 years.
Pro tip: if you donate blood, they check it for free.
↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T02:40:37.685Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know about negotiating out of pocket price, but you should definitely get a significant discount from retail (just like the insurers do).
I would never see a doctor unless you had a reason to, even if it were free. This is based on a general belief that doctors have a high false-positive rate in recommending dangerous procedures (that are only warranted in case of true positives).
comment by JanetK · 2011-02-07T11:33:11.125Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I believe there should be a subject in school (and text books to go with it) that goes through all the things that adult citizens should know. I believe this was part of what was called Civics but that is dead or changed to something else. The idea is somewhat dated but it included things like how to vote, how to read a train schedule, that different types of insurance actually were, simple first aid, how to find a book in a library and all sorts of things like that. Today it would be a slightly different list. Somewhere between 10 and 14 seems the ideal age to be interested and learn these sort of things.
Replies from: SilasBarta, tenshiko, jsalvatier↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-07T20:43:43.896Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I agree. I've also long held a different but complementary view: that all establishments should (hopefully, out of the goodness of their hearts) put up signs that basically say, "this is how it works here".
(For example, at a grocery store in the US, the sign would say something like, "This store sells the items you see inside that have a price label by them. To buy something, take it with you to one of the numbered short aisles [registers] toward the exit and place it on the belt. If you need many items, you may want to use one of the baskets or carts provided near this sign. The store employee at the register will tell you how much the item costs, and you can pay with ...")
While most of it would be obvious to everyone and something parents automatically teach, everyone might find some different part of it to be novel. And I suspect that this easily-correctible "double illusion of transparency", in which people don't think such signs would convey anything new, prevents a lot of beneficial activity from happening.
Replies from: Matt_Simpson, ChristianKl, TheOtherDave↑ comment by Matt_Simpson · 2011-02-07T21:08:24.439Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is particularly helpful for anyone new to the area - immigrants, emigrants, tourists, etc.
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2011-02-09T22:23:37.349Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As I live in Germany I have experience with such rule sets. People don't follow them and instead do whatever they consider to be the obvious thing to do.
Our public transport system has for example the rule that you should stand on the right side of an escalator if you choose to stand.
If you choose to walk the escalator you take the left side.
It's a smart rule and it would be in the public interest if everyone would abide by it. It would make life easier for those who choose who walk the escalator. Normal people however don't care and simple stand wherever they want to stand.
Introducing a formal rule set when people are used to following informal rules is hard.
Replies from: Richard_Kennaway, SilasBarta, MartinB, TobyBartels↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2011-02-13T20:28:15.288Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In London, the same convention is in effect on the Underground. Unlike Germany, it is almost always followed, and enforces itself. If you stand on the left, it won't be long before someone walking will ask you to step aside to let them pass.
There are notices here and there asking people to do this.
↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-10T00:08:28.385Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The idea is for the sign to describe how it in fact works, not necessarily how they'd like it to work. (A sufficiently detailed sign might explain the distinction, potentially allowed for coordinated punishment of defectors.) That's why I mentioned the bit about "the goodness of their hearts". It would probably require a law because of the problem of people stating outright how something "really" works.
(I've been to the Hauptbahnhoffs btw -- "links gehen, rechts stehen" is the phrase, right?)
Introducing a formal rule set when people are used to following informal rules is hard.
I agree -- so the idea instead is to have a sign that can quickly teach people this informal system, since it may be so hard for a newcomer to infer it.
↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-10T07:13:10.315Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I thought the right-ide standing was a social convention, not a rule.
What sometimes trips me up is weather I am supposed to weight my vegetables before going to the counter, or if they do it there.
Replies from: ChristianKl, Sniffnoy↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2011-02-13T17:05:10.444Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When you put social convention into writing and hang them on the walls they become a rule.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-10T06:37:16.142Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Normal people however don't care and simple stand wherever they want to stand.
That's too bad. Large airports in the United States have (flat) automated walkways with a similar rule, and people follow it. Very handy!
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-04-21T16:39:30.675Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There's regional variation-- I'm told that in DC, people follow escalator "slow on the right, fast on the left" etiquette. In Philadelphia, it's pretty random.
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-07T21:05:41.494Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Huh.
Would you similarly endorse putting a link up on the front page that explains that "this website displays user-generated content, both in the form of discrete posts and in the form of comments associated either with a post or another comment. To view a post, click the title under "recent posts." To view comments... etc. etc. etc."?
Replies from: SilasBarta, avalot↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-07T21:11:28.348Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Maybe not specifically that, but I recall a lot of new users (and regular users, and critics of users...) complaining that they don't know e.g. what kinds of comments are appropriate to post under articles, what the pre-requisites for understanding the material and generally stuff that we might just assume they know.
LW does have a good "about" section, though.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T05:57:49.709Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It needs a "how to use the site" section. When the envelope turns red, it means you have a reply or a message. The help link at the bottom of the comment box will tell you how to do formatting, but it's different formatting methods if you post an article.
There may be useful features on the site that haven't crossed my path. Finding them seems to be a semi-random process.
Replies from: Pavitra↑ comment by Pavitra · 2011-02-09T04:47:56.287Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The "Preferences" button is worth exploring. In particular, the anti-kibitzer will hide usernames so that you can vote without being biased by your overall like or dislike of various users.
Replies from: Normal_Anomaly↑ comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2011-03-05T20:49:22.431Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Note on the anti-kibitzer: I use it by default, and find that it prevents me from getting to know the individual users and their views. Although I have gotten to the point where I can sometimes recognize certain posters from their content (Eliezer, Clippy, and Wedrifid mostly).
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-03-05T22:27:50.453Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Although I have gotten to the point where I can sometimes recognize certain posters from their content (Eliezer, Clippy, and Wedrifid mostly).
Some anti-kibitzer users have reported mistaking me for clippy at times! :D
I don't use anti-kibitzer so I have to allow for hindsight bias - but I'd be willing to bet that I could pick nearly every comment by HughRistik and, if reading with the context as opposed to just the recent comments feed, most of Vladimir_Nesov's too. Oh, and a lot from Perplexed and timtyler. Picking Alicorn's posts based on most of them these days being 'speaking as the Word of God on Luminosity fiction' would just seem like cheating. ;)
↑ comment by avalot · 2011-02-12T17:55:54.195Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Lesswrong is certainly designed for the advanced user. Most everything on the site is non-standard, which seriously impedes usability for the new user. Considering the topic and intended audience, I'd say it's a feature, not a bug.
Nonetheless, the site definitely smacks of unix-geekery. It could be humanized somewhat, and that probably wouldn't hurt.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz, ruhe47↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-12T19:12:44.537Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What specific changes would you recommend?
Replies from: avalot↑ comment by avalot · 2011-03-30T03:20:22.430Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Very tricky question. I won't answer it in two ways:
As I indicated, in terms of navigation/organization scheme, LW is completely untraditional. It still feels to me like a dark museum of wonder, of unfathomable depth. I get to something new, and mind-blowing, every time I surf around. So it's a delightful labyrinth, that unfolds like a series of connected thoughts anyway you work it. It's an advanced navigation toolset, usable only by people who are able to conceptualize vast abstract constructs... which is the target audience... or is it?
I've been in the usability business too long to make UI pronouncements without user research. We've got a very specific user base, not defined by typical demo/sociographics, but by affinity. Few common usability heuristics would apply blindly to this case.
But among the few that would:
- Improved legibility, typographic design, visual hierarchy
- Flexible, mobile to wide-screen self-optimizing layout
- More personalized features (dashboard, analytics, watch lists, alerts, etc.) although many are implicitly available through feeds, permalinks, etc.
- Advanced comments/post management tools for power-users (I'm guessing there might be a need, through I am not one by any means.)
But, again, I think we have a rare thing here: A user base that is smart enough to optimize its own tools. Normally, the best user experience practitioners will tell you that you should research, interview and especially observe your users, but never ever ever just listen to them. They don't know what they really want, wouldn't know how to explain it, and what they want isn't even close to what they actually need. Would LW users be different? And would design by committee work here? I'm very dubious, but curious.
Does anyone know the back-story of how this website evolved? Was it a person, a team, or the whole group designing it?
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-03-30T06:52:46.702Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
LW does more to bring its past into the present than any other site I've used. I'm thinking that this is partly structure, and partly that the users consider its past posts (much less so with the comments) to be important.
I might be an advanced user-- I'm able to use LW and I think I've found the major features. [1] On the other hand, I would not have been able to identify the site as being from the style of a particular operating system.
My history goes back to usenet, which is why I keep mentioning that the site needs trn or the equivalent. Still, the way comments are presented is the Least Awful I've seen on the web. Trn or slrn might be the kind of thing you mean by advanced comments/post management.
The other thing I think would do the most to keep weaving the past into the present is a better search system. It would help if I could just do a string search which was limited to the posts from a particular user. And if there were a way to get search results arranged chronologically. As far as I can tell, they're arranged randomly. Something like the advanced search from Google Groups would be really helpful. It can take 10 or 15 minutes for me to find a comment if I manage it at all, and it's apt to feel like luck.
Only having Recent Comments for LW proper and for LW:Discussion rather than being able to choose Recent Comments for particular threads is of mixed value. I think it does make the site more like one conversation for those who want to put in a lot of time, but that means it's less useful for those who don't want to put in that much time and a temptation to kill time for some of the rest.
[1] The site has an abstract resemblance to a bit from one of Doris Piserchia's novels (Mr. Justice?), in which a school for brilliant children doesn't offer a map of the buildings, just a map of the local geography. The students are expected to figure out where the buildings are supposed to be.
↑ comment by tenshiko · 2011-02-07T15:05:57.119Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Civics, at least in my area of the United States, is mainly education about government and ethics. I do believe they may discuss how to vote and other information that would be useful to the democratic process, but nothing like going onto trains. (Although in the United States, this could only ever discuss the subway, and only in certain metropolitan areas - culturally, the elegant train is dead here, which is sad, since I've had much more positive travel experiences on trains than planes.)
Replies from: knb↑ comment by knb · 2011-02-07T23:18:54.223Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Intercity rail is very common here in the northeast.
Replies from: tenshiko↑ comment by tenshiko · 2011-02-07T23:36:34.294Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Ahahahahahahaha where do you live take me with you now. The last time I checked, northern Virginia qualified as the Northeast and the Metro is the only thing like that for miles and miles.
Replies from: knb↑ comment by knb · 2011-02-08T00:04:01.852Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Virginia will always be the south to me. I live in Philadelphia, so for local public transit we have elevated rail, subway, electric trolley bus, light rail, and intercity commuter rail. And then of course there is the high-speed Acela Express connecting the rest of the Northeast Corridor.
↑ comment by jsalvatier · 2011-02-07T15:51:42.975Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"Home Economics" and similar courses teach life skills like cooking, paying bills and doing your taxes.
Replies from: Sniffnoy, Matt_Simpson↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-07T23:51:52.672Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The question, then, becomes how common useful home ec courses actually are. E.g. I had one of those back in middle school, but it was close to useless. IIRC, it consisted of cooking and sewing; the former half did nothing to actually explain cooking and so was useless to anyone who didn't already understand cooking, while the latter half seemed to successfully teach the basics (at least, I think I understand the basics) but isn't something I've ever really had reason to apply. (I think we also discussed nutrition some, but that was redundant as it was already covered in other classes.)
Replies from: jsalvatier↑ comment by jsalvatier · 2011-02-08T16:18:56.183Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Incidentally, on cooking, if you're a nerd, learning some of the science of cooking is actually pretty rewarding. Learning how browning occurs, how fats work etc. can improve your cooking somewhat and it's fun to know. I found The Science of Cooking to be pretty informative.
↑ comment by Matt_Simpson · 2011-02-07T16:53:15.633Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When I was in middle school, anyone not in band (or sports, I think) took "Family and Consume Science" - FACS. Basically home economics with a spiffy new name. But to be honest, it didn't teach much that was useful. In HS, there was no course like that. Well, maybe an elective.
comment by Alex Flint (alexflint) · 2011-02-08T09:15:22.691Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Just want to throw this one out:
Choosing the right size for a collared shirt (men) : Look at the seams that run from the collar down the neck and along the tops of your shoulders to the beginning of the arms. When you try the shirt on, that seam should reach exactly to the point where your shoulders curve downwards. In this case the shirt will accentuate the broadness of your shoulders.
Replies from: jwhendy, Maniakes↑ comment by jwhendy · 2011-02-08T19:47:50.029Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Another good idea is to go somewhere you can try shirts on (if you don't have one) and find one you like (seams at shoulders, wrists covered but sleeves not ruffled) and look at the size. If worn with a tie, the neck should button and not be tight, but you should not be able to fit more than one finger in between the shirt and your neck, otherwise a tie will cause the neck to crumple when tightened.
Memorize or write down the size of the shirt, given in a neck measurement (inches, like 15 1/2) and a sleeve length (inches, and often a split value like 32/33). This will help if you enter a department store where the shirts are bagged and not easy to try on. Look for your size (neck + sleeves) and hope for the best. These numbers are good to know, as neck sizes may be sold with wide sleeve ranges (30/31, 32/33, and 34/36), and those buckets make a huge difference.
Lastly, find a particular brand that seems to fit well, if you can. I shop a lot at thrift stores and am of a narrower frame and really have a hard time finding 15-15 1/2 necked shirts with the right sleeves that aren't very "blousy" (where once tucked in, there is a huge "balloon" of shirt sticking out in the back). Pay attention to labels like "classic fit," "modern fit," or "athletic fit." Classic and athletic tend to be slimmer/tapered, and modern tends to be more of a static width, extending the width at the armpits down to the bottom hem.
Replies from: jkaufman↑ comment by jefftk (jkaufman) · 2011-09-15T19:15:39.201Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I still have not figured out how to find work shirts that won't ballon when tucked in. I may be smaller than most people who give their clothes to the thrift store, or it may be there's something about this I don't understand.
Replies from: jsalvatier, thomblake↑ comment by jsalvatier · 2011-09-16T20:10:49.200Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Most shirts are "classic fit" or something along those lines. Well fitting shirts for slim people are "fitted" or "slim fit" or some such. "modern" is usually in between. The same goes for tshirts and pants. http://www.primermagazine.com/2011/field-manual/how-to-wear-a-tucked-in-shirt-without-looking-like-an-old-man
You can also get a tailor to slim your shirts. This runs about 30 USD/shirt at a tailor shop but sometimes you can find people offering such services on craigslist for less.
↑ comment by thomblake · 2011-09-15T19:27:21.962Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
They will change your life.
Replies from: jkaufman↑ comment by jefftk (jkaufman) · 2011-09-15T20:58:04.994Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That is an excellent concept: reverse suspenders.
I go barefoot a lot, including walking to work, so I'd need to figure something out with that. Possibly just putting on the shirt stays when I put on my shoes, socks, and dress shirt at work.
Replies from: khafra↑ comment by khafra · 2011-09-16T19:28:14.179Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You can wear shirt stays while walking barefoot if you leave the bottom disengaged, because the elastic pulls them up into your pantlegs. Also, there are different types. Some clip to your socks like they do to your shirt; some loop around the bottom of your foot. The latter type would be possible to wear completely engaged while (aside from that) barefoot, if you really wanted to. They also have the advantage of not leaving deep, red, itchy, clasp-shaped impressions in your ankles.
↑ comment by Maniakes · 2011-02-08T17:43:39.280Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This works for any shirt, jacket, or coat. In addition to the benefit you cite, it also make the garment hang more naturally on your body as you move your arms, since the sleeve is designed to be able move with your arms on the assumption that the cap of the sleeve is aligned with the top of your shoulder.
The test I usually do is to try on the garment and raise my arm without moving my shoulder. The spot where my arm starts moving should be at or just below the shoulder seam.
comment by nazgulnarsil · 2011-02-07T19:27:11.463Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
the procedure here is how to consistently feel better after a few weeks (vs typical lazy cheap diets)
breakfast, buy:
- plain (unsweetened) yogurt
- honey
- fruit (bananas or whatever berries are on sale)
- granola (again, unsweetened)
dump together in bowl and eat. if you don't feel hungry in the morning just do a very small serving at first.
lunch: whatever, avoid sugar/white bread
dinner, buy :
- rice-a-roni red beans and rice when it is on sale (goes to 75 cents a box once every couple months at my local store)
- bell pepper (or spicier pepper to taste)
- olive oil
boil, then simmer 20 minutes
yes, this procedure can be improved upon. the advantage of this one is low activation cost as it is about as difficult as the regular bachelor diet of instant foods. if you're trying to eat healthier but can't find the motivation this is a decent compromise.
major thing to avoid besides the obvious: fruit juice and fruit flavored anything. you're subverting your body's desire for actual fruit. fruit juice is no better for you than soda.
I'm guessing this is mostly preaching to the choir here, but if this helps one person it was worth the 5 minutes.
Replies from: Alicorn, pengvado, janos, lukeprog, Dorikka, rhollerith_dot_com, Matt_Simpson↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-07T19:52:06.902Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Another easy healthy thing:
Just about any vegetables can be boiled till soft, then put through the blender, salted and peppered to taste, and yield soup (cream is optional). A quartered peeled onion, half a bulb of peeled garlic, and a quartered peeled potato or two, plus a fair amount of peeled and roughly chopped whatever else (cauliflower, broccoli, carrots, parsnips, turnips, fennel, leeks, celery root or stalks, whatever) is a good template. Dump it all in a pot with water or stock. Boil till it'll smoosh against the side of the pot when pressed with a spoon. Blend. Salt & pepper.
Replies from: Psychohistorian, sfb↑ comment by Psychohistorian · 2011-02-08T04:10:51.336Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Less appetizingly, but probably more nutritiously, most green leafy vegetables can be blended with water or milk and consumed in milkshake form. I'll often take three or four cups (that's a lot) of spinach and blend it with two cups whole milk and chocolate protein powder. This actually tastes good, if not delicious; a portion half that size is probably a solid amount of food for most people. Even without the protein powder or other flavoring, it is drinkable. Lower portions of vegetables give you better taste for less nutrition. Not a great culinary feat, but a very efficient way to improve diet quality, and eating vegetables raw is probably more nutritious than boiling them extensively.
↑ comment by sfb · 2011-02-08T06:00:14.136Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm surprised by the amount of cooking posts here so, questioning my own assumptions: is anyone put off doing this because you lack knowledge about preparing vegetables in the "whatever else" class, or picking the "wrong" whatever else foods, or even peeling things/etc.?
I feel silly even asking this ("Don't be so patronising, who wouldn't know how to peel an onion?"), but I'm interested to see if anyone replies.
Replies from: Alicorn, Sniffnoy↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T06:06:13.216Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Peeling onions can be surprisingly confusing. For instance, just under the really papery skin there is sometimes a layer which is partially or entirely thin, greenish, and rubbery. It's not all that pleasant to eat unless it's de-texturized (a puréed soup as described above will do the trick), but unlike the papery bits it's technically food. Keeping it or removing it is a judgment call, but I could imagine finding it an intimidating decision to make if I didn't know. The bits of garlic cloves that attach them to the base of the bulb are in a similar category. (I cut them off.)
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T03:24:55.608Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When in doubt, trim.
I cut the onion into a few chunks then remove the inner part. losing 1/8" or 1/4" of the outermost stuff doesn't bother me.
If it looks different from the rest, trim it away.
↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-08T06:07:23.487Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm confused as to what exactly you're asking here.
Replies from: sfb↑ comment by sfb · 2011-02-08T07:21:05.404Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Does anyone have a knowledge gap preventing them from cooking Alicorn's "easy" soup?
I noticed myself thinking it was so basic that nobody would, but then wondered that such a thought might be completely wrong (given the overall post topic). Maybe there are people daunted by... not knowing how to prepare common vegetables, for instance.
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-08T08:36:54.354Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well here's what I would say as someone who doesn't understand cooking - certainly, that looks mostly very understandable and straightforward, though I'm not so clear on the exact procedure for boiling. (And pressed with what sort of spoon, if it matters?) Also there's definitely some stuff that I think I can figure out but has not been made explicit (e.g., if I'm guessing correctly, we don't want to include the water when blending, and that should be dumped/strained out first).
But since I don't actually have an underlying understanding of cooking, I'd stil hesitate to actually use it. Because without that, I have no idea what corrections to make if I messed up, etc. If you just follow recipes without understanding, you can only handle the best case.
Replies from: TobyBartels, Alicorn, MartinB, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T21:42:46.152Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
what sort of spoon, if it matters?
Any solid object will do, as long as it tolerates the heat. The only reason for using a utensil at all is that your hand does not tolerate the heat (and if it could tolerate the heat, then it would be unsanitary).
When stirring, the important aspect of the spoon is that it's wide; a flat utensil would work just as well. (However, a spoon has the added benefit of allowing you to taste the soup, as you add salt, herbs, and spices. Use the spoon to pour a little into a small bowl, let it cool there, and then taste it, or you can just blow on the spoon.)
we don't want to include the water when blending
You can if you want. It's a trade-off between the trouble of removing the water and the capacity of your blender (or how many batches you want to blend).
In the final product, it's best to keep as much water as possible, since thrown-out water includes thrown-out vitamins. (The exception is when the water is used to draw out unwanted flavours or other chemicals, which is not the case with ordinary vegetables but can apply to dry beans, for example.) If you have too much water after blending, return everything to the pot and simmer it uncovered until the water level has gone down, stirring occasionally. (Conversely, if your soup is too thick, return it to the pot, add more water, cover, reheat to boiling, and then turn it off.)
If you're serving the soup right away, it's nice to return it the pot anyway to keep it warm as people go back for second and third helpings. Use low heat (so that the soup is never too hot to eat), either cover or add water occasionally as needed (let it come back to temperature before serving after adding new water), and stir occasionally to keep it from sticking.
(Boiling water in uncovered pots escapes into the air, but the air inside a covered pot is quickly saturated with water vapour, after which no more water will leave the soup, or at least very little more water if the cover is not air-tight. However, it's harder to remember to stir when the pot is covered. I often just let the soup thicken a bit through the meal, neither covering the pot nor adding water.)
Replies from: soreff, KrisC↑ comment by soreff · 2011-05-07T03:28:02.751Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In the final product, it's best to keep as much water as possible, since thrown-out water includes thrown-out vitamins.
One way to avoid this trade-off is to microwave the vegetables rather than boiling them. It produces rather similar results otherwise, but doesn't leach out water-soluble vitamins.
↑ comment by KrisC · 2011-02-09T03:19:28.609Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Regarding the blender, and mortar if you are a traditionalist, I would recommend blending without any liquid if possible. The liquid you use should be only enough to carry the food down to the blades in the blender. Any more liquid and you risk the food lifting away from the blades.
A similar problems occurs when mashing, for instance, beans in the mortar and pestle. Liquid allows the larger pieces to glide more easily out of the pestle's mashing grind.
↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T14:59:25.707Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
exact procedure for boiling
Dump vegetables into a pot. Pour in water or stock until it reaches the same level as the veggies (less if you plan to add cream, more if you're nervous about burning it, less if you want thick goopy soup and more if you want thin soup). Put it on a stove burner, turn it up to High, stir at least once to prevent stuff from sticking to the bottom, and check on the smooshability of the vegetables every 5-10 minutes. Add more water if the vegetables are still unsmooshable and the water level has gotten significantly lower.
what sort of spoon
The only reason this would matter would be if you use a short-handled spoon, you will have to have your hand much closer to the boiling water, which is physically uncomfortable. Otherwise the spoon could be wooden, plastic, metal, slotted or not, whatever.
Replies from: monsterzero↑ comment by monsterzero · 2011-02-08T18:08:47.499Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I definitely wouldn't use the disposable plastic spoons that fast food places give out with their food. Those might actually melt, especially if pressed against the side of a hot metal pot.
Replies from: Alicorn↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T18:11:35.213Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
While I wouldn't prefer a fast-food-place plastic spoon, I don't think it would be in danger of melting in this specific case. Boiling water is a fixed temperature and it will stay that temperature until the water is all boiled off, if I understand it correctly; and the spoon doesn't spend much time pressed against the pot itself, since the idea is to smoosh a vegetable between spoon and pot.
Replies from: pengvado, saturn↑ comment by pengvado · 2011-02-09T00:58:38.219Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The pot itself can't get hotter than boiling either, as long as there's a bunch of water in it. (This, btw, is how rice cookers detect when the rice is done.)
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T03:23:25.178Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The inside of the pot can't get significantly hotter than ... right, he water just turns gas phase more rapidly.
↑ comment by saturn · 2011-02-09T20:21:36.232Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It won't melt, but depending on the type of plastic it might become too soft and flexible to be useful for vegetable smooshing. From experience, some types of plastic spoons become too soft to even support their own weight when placed in boiling water.
↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-08T08:46:35.303Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I would bet yes. Part of the problem is not knowing the tolerance range of the parameters. Like when does the precise timing matter and when does it not.
Replies from: taryneast↑ comment by taryneast · 2011-03-08T22:54:42.856Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Precision generally only matters with desserts (which is really a form of kitchen chemistry).
Any other meal has a lot of leeway.
Your first meals may involve veggies that are a bit extra squishy (overcooked) or crunchy (undercooked), or a nasty combination of the two (the temperature was too high or you didn't stir often enough), but in all the above cases, unless there's actual carbon (black) on the outside, then you'll still be able to eat it.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T14:29:06.285Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This sounds like a case for apprenticeship. Is there anyone who'd be willing to have you be present, help with the easy bits (maybe-- I'm not sure if that would inappropriately add to the stress level), and ask questions while cooking? I'm not talking about just once, though that would be better than nothing.
↑ comment by pengvado · 2011-02-09T07:05:21.163Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Is there any nutritional reason to distinguish between breakfast, lunch, and dinner, or did you give separate suggestions just to be compatible with american traditions about what to eat when? Am I missing something when I eat 2-4 meals per day all drawn at random from the same menu consisting mostly of what other people might call "dinners"?
Replies from: dinasaurus, nazgulnarsil, wedrifid↑ comment by dinasaurus · 2011-02-10T01:19:18.117Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm not sure about the other traditions, but eating foods with a high amount of carbohydrates (especially sugar) for dinner in my experience isn't a good idea. Even fruit. It raises your blood sugar, so when your blood sugar drops again you find yourself hungry. It happened to me a quite a few times that I woke up in the middle of the night in desperate need of sweets. If don't eat sweet things in the evening this doesn't happen. Obviously this only speaks against eating "breakfast" for dinner but not against eating "dinner" for breakfast. Which seems to be what English Breakfast is all about. ;-)
↑ comment by nazgulnarsil · 2011-02-10T01:13:58.802Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
well I don't have anything to back it up with, but I've heard that your blood sugar is low in the morning which is why you crave sugary stuff. the fruit alleviates that without being a shock to the system like fast sugars and the protein is more slow calories.
I presume many people eat out for lunch if they work a normal job.
but certainly if you aren't forced into a rigid schedule eating 5 meals is better.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-10T01:52:39.564Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Is there any nutritional reason to distinguish between breakfast, lunch, and dinner, or did you give separate suggestions just to be compatible with american traditions about what to eat when?
There is a difference, but some say that traditions have it backwards. For breakfast you want to include at least 30g of protein. It contributes to both weight loss and energy levels.
↑ comment by janos · 2011-02-08T03:30:12.614Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Regarding the fruit juices, I agree that fruit-flavored mixtures of HFCS and other things generally aren't worth much, but aren't proper fruit juices usually nutritious? (I mean the kinds where the ingredients consist of fruit juices, perhaps water, and nothing else.)
Replies from: Conuly, Kutta, Alicorn, TobyBartels↑ comment by Conuly · 2011-02-09T03:04:02.973Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
One orange is one or two servings of fruit... but a serving of orange juice is four oranges.
You're getting all the sugar and calories of four oranges (4 - 8 servings of fruit!) without any of the fiber.
Fruit juices aren't exactly the devil, but they're not especially nutritious either.
Replies from: janos↑ comment by janos · 2011-02-09T04:57:01.279Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
But I drink orange juice with pulp; then the fiber is no longer absent, though I guess it's reduced. The vitamins and minerals are still present, though, aren't they?
Replies from: Conuly, Vladimir_M↑ comment by Conuly · 2011-02-09T05:53:30.015Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Are you making this juice yourself by chucking a whole orange in the blender and then drinking it?
In that case, you probably - I don't know - have enough fiber that it's not that much different from just eating an orange, and fresh juices are said to be more nutritious than bought anyway. (Admittedly, the people who say this are people who own juicers, but that's probably beside the point.)
But if you're buying it from the store, then... no. It's still mostly just sugar with a little bit of texture floating in it.
If you're not gulping it by the gallon daily I wouldn't worry about it, but it's part of your healthy balanced breakfast - and not a huge part :)
↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-09T05:08:43.724Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You still get an enormous amount of sugar, with or without the pulp.
Regarding the vitamins and minerals, my understanding is that you need a certain amount of each of those to avoid various nasty and fatal diseases, and an amount over a certain limit can be poisonous, but there isn't any real evidence that anything in-between makes a difference. From what I understand, it also requires a very extreme diet (by modern developed world standards) to develop provably harmful micronutrient deficiencies.
(One exception might be vitamin D if the winters are especially dark and cold where you live, but you won't get that one from fruit juice.)
↑ comment by Kutta · 2011-02-08T05:56:09.205Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Fruit juices are very bad. They concentrate the sugar content of a lot of fruits into a small mass and volume. For instance apple juice is usually considerably more sugary than Pepsi, with around 11-12 g/100g sugar content, and also with a worse sugar profile, with 66% fructose, compared to HFCS's 55 percent as it is commonly used in soft drinks (note: fructose is the worse sugar). Other fruit juices are usually above 8% sugar too.
↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T03:38:25.623Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
They're still high in sugar relative to how much you are likely to consume, and don't offer the fiber or unprocessed-ness of entire fruit. It would usually be better to either eat a piece of fruit or drink water. (I ignore this advice because I hate water, so when I thirst between meals I drink juice.)
Replies from: SRStarin, None, taryneast, Kevin↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-08T18:04:28.403Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Incidentally, the lack of fiber is important for diabetics to consider. My grandmother is diabetic and is prone to insulin shock. She was told to drink fruit juice if she feels woozy. Well, she prefers fresh fruit, and she felt woozy one day and ate a peach. That pushed into full blown shock and another trip to the hospital. I had to explain to her that the fiber in fruit is like plant-based insulin--it prevents sugar from being used quickly. That's why it's important for healthy eating, but exactly the reason she needs to drink fruit juice to prevent diabetic shock.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-11T16:48:38.187Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't like water myself. In my part of the world (a corner of India) we generally drink water boiled with a herbal powder and then cooled.
When the herbal powder is not available we just boil water with a pinch of cumin seeds. Not sure if you'll like the taste any better than plain water though..
Replies from: Alicorn↑ comment by taryneast · 2011-03-08T22:59:50.041Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Try tea - works for the English (among others) :)
Replies from: Alicorn↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-03-08T23:17:00.957Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't like tea, except the kind they serve at Chinese restaurants, and that I only like with two or three little packets of sugar per teacup.
Replies from: taryneast, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by taryneast · 2011-03-09T15:56:18.893Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Ok - well on a related note... I find that I only like the taste of water if I'm actually thirsty... if I'm just drinking as a kind of fidgeting (or when some diet-book had told me I should "drink 8 cups a day") I hate the taste too.
YMMV, of course, but worth considering.
As to the "8 cups a day" - my aunt's a dietician and she says that the 8-cups is inclusive of the water that you consume via other sources (eg in your food or your morning cuppa joe)... whereas most diet books assume it's 8-cups on top of all your other dietary sources.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-03-10T09:35:27.091Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There's no evidence that 8 cups a day does any good-- I can't find a link, but when the debunking first came out, it turned out that there was no source for the idea that 8 cups a day was worthwhile.
I've found that drinking until it's no longer a pleasure (I generally don't mind the taste of water, though I think Aquafina tastes of plastic) leaves me feeling better than just drinking until I'm not thirsty, and the former takes a good bit more water.
Replies from: taryneast↑ comment by taryneast · 2011-03-10T10:05:02.118Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yup - I also recall that the human sense of thirst is particularly unreliable (though cannot remember the source).
It's definitely less reliable than the sense of hunger - and we all know that that can be faulty.
There's a "dieting trick" that I've heard of whereby if you feel a little like snacking - you should first try drinking a glass of water... because your body can often mistake one for the other.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2012-02-11T16:18:29.728Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Around here, Chinese restaurants tend towards jasmine tea. If you care, you could ask someone who knows about tea what's typical in your area.
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2012-02-11T16:37:40.474Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Around here, Chinese restaurants tend towards jasmine tea
Jasmine oolong specifically? (I read once that oolong was the traditional kind of tea to drink after/during a Chinese meal, but haven't seen any sources for it.)
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2012-02-11T17:42:02.022Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know. It tastes flowery, is light-colored, and doesn't get bitter if it sits for a while.
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2012-02-11T17:53:12.062Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Light-colored? Probably a kind of green, then; oolongs are usually pretty dark-colored (but on the other hand, greens can get bitter if they sit for a while).
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2012-02-11T18:45:03.427Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's possible that I don't leave jasmine tea that long.
↑ comment by Kevin · 2011-02-08T16:58:20.451Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You hate water? That seems like a very odd thing to hate.
Try learning to gulp rather than drink water. Or, what is the minimally flavored liquid you can consume that isn't water? Are you already drinking 3:1 water:juice or something? Or why not drink low calorie liquids?
Replies from: Alicorn↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T17:26:49.468Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've watered down some juices in the past, though usually thick ones that contain purées instead of just juice. I can drink water without hating it too much if I am really thirsty and if it's really cold. I will tend to drink water automatically if there is some nearby (and wind up drinking a whole lot of it at restaurants). With meals (that do not take place at restaurants) I drink skim milk.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T17:48:54.585Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Does the quality of the water matter? Tap vs. filtered vs. various brands of bottled?
Replies from: Alicorn, TobyBartels, David_Gerard↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T17:55:01.451Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It matters, but not the way you'd think - I prefer tap water to filtered (have successfully distinguished them in a blind test) and hate bottled.
Replies from: Dustin, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T18:50:39.018Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Do you have preferences (or at least lower distaste levels) about tap water from different areas?
Replies from: Alicorn↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T22:04:23.489Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Everyone in my area (Lincoln NE) hates the local tap water, but I think that it's fine. They think that I'm going to die or something, while I think that they're all chumps.
Replies from: sketerpot↑ comment by sketerpot · 2011-03-08T23:53:30.174Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Having lived in Lincoln and enjoyed the nicely watery tap water, I think they're just looking for something to grouse about. You often see groups of people start to dislike something because the rest of the group speaks ill of it, in a positive feedback loop.
Water is mostly tasteless, so people's perceptions of its taste are especially sensitive to weird psychological stuff.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2013-01-10T07:31:26.963Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think you're mistaken, or at least I find-- without discussing it with anyone-- that the taste of Philadelphia tap water varies a lot --from good to nasty.
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T21:18:16.378Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Not unless your tap water really sucks. (e.g. Adelaide levels of suck, rather than mere London levels of suck.) Given this is a matter of taste, do whatever tastes nice to you - first-world tap water is unlikely to harm you.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T22:02:19.383Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I like real juice, but (except for orange juice with pulp) I always water it down. It tastes the same when compared to long-term memory (although not when directly compared).
↑ comment by RHollerith (rhollerith_dot_com) · 2011-02-08T15:16:02.503Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
how to consistently feel better after a few weeks
A significant fraction of the population will IMHO feel even better by avoiding all gluten, including of course the pasta in the Rice-a-Roni.
Replies from: nazgulnarsil↑ comment by nazgulnarsil · 2011-02-08T19:16:52.871Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
rice is gluten free AFAIK.
Replies from: rhollerith_dot_com↑ comment by RHollerith (rhollerith_dot_com) · 2011-02-08T20:16:28.454Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, but Rice-a-roni is pasta and seasonings. It is added to rice (or to rice and beans).
Alternative suggestion though I'd skip the Knorr beef bouillion which is mostly salt and MSG.
Replies from: nazgulnarsil↑ comment by nazgulnarsil · 2011-02-08T23:33:00.215Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't understand what you're talking about. I eat the rice-a-roni red beans and rice almost daily. it is a box with dry beans, rice, and a packet full of spices.
Replies from: Conuly, rhollerith_dot_com↑ comment by Conuly · 2011-02-09T03:00:06.638Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
http://www.ricearoni.com/Products/Rice-A-Roni/Classic_Favorites/Red_Beans_and_Rice/Ingredients
The ingredient list says it contains "hydrolyzed protein" made from, among other things, wheat. That means it has gluten in it and it's not gluten-free. It's also not kosher for Passover.
Edit: Reading further, it also has "hydrolyzed gluten", so... yeah.
The packet full of spices has much more than just spices in it, and it's that which has the gluten.
Replies from: nazgulnarsil↑ comment by nazgulnarsil · 2011-02-09T05:30:01.688Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
ah, in that case i'd suggest replacing it with cumin, pepper, garlic, and bouillon cube.
↑ comment by RHollerith (rhollerith_dot_com) · 2011-02-09T19:35:31.493Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh, sorry for the misinformation.
I was remembering a different flavor of Rice-a-Roni (and forgetting that the rice comes in the box).
↑ comment by Matt_Simpson · 2011-02-07T19:45:14.485Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It certainly helps me. I'll probably add that breakfast plan to my diet. The dinner looks like it could use some chicken or beef.
Replies from: nazgulnarsil↑ comment by nazgulnarsil · 2011-02-08T19:16:25.130Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
alternatively you can add half a bouillon cube to increase satiety. it doesn't "need" meat in the nutrition sense.
comment by LauraABJ · 2011-02-08T06:34:01.322Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Ok- folding a fitted sheet is really fucking hard! I don't think that deserves to be on that list, since it really makes no difference whatsoever in life whether or not you properly fold a fitted sheet, or just kinda bundle it up and stuff it away. Not being able to deposit a check, mail a letter, or read a bus schedule, on the other hand can get you in trouble when you actually need to. Here's to not caring about linen care!
Replies from: michaelkeenan, David_Gerard↑ comment by michaelkeenan · 2011-02-09T11:22:38.385Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Here is a YouTube video (496,000 views, time 2:26) demonstrating how to fold a fitted sheet.
Replies from: MichaelHoward↑ comment by MichaelHoward · 2011-02-16T12:25:35.892Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Arg! Not that it mattered, but how on Earth did I never just realize to put the corners inside like that instead of trying to hold them together?
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T20:56:22.553Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I want to know how to put a cover on a duvet (doona, quilt) without feeling like I'm going to pop a vertebra.
Replies from: folkTheory, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by folkTheory · 2011-02-08T23:23:34.965Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm glad I can actually answer something!
This is how I do it and it works really well:
- reverse the cover so it's inside out.
- stand with it's opening facing you, reach into it and grab the far corners, from the INSIDE. If it's hard to find them, simply let the edges (from the inside) guide your hands all the way to the ends.
- Now using your two hands (which are already holding two corners of the cover from the insides), grab two corners of the duvet
- Now this is the fun part: Lift the duvet, so the cover falls all around it. This is like reversing a bag when you pick up dogpoop.
- release the corners and you're done. (you may need to adjust things a bit if it isn't prefect)
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T23:32:33.010Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thank you! That's more or less what I think I'm trying to do ... so I'm just not doing it well enough or something, or something.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T21:30:06.851Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Could you be more specific about what goes wrong?
Replies from: David_Gerard↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T21:36:48.064Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I try to grab the far corners from the inside and sort of WHOOSH the cover over the duvet. I get tangled up in it! And I can never quite find the opposite corners! And I can never quite pull off that magical get-it-to-turn-itself-inside-out WHOOSH and suddenly it's done! Perfectly!
If I knew what I was doing wrong I would know how to do it right ...
Replies from: saturn↑ comment by saturn · 2011-02-10T06:50:32.600Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's still hard to tell what exactly you're doing, but I'll try to spell out how I do it.
Lay the duvet flat on the bed with the top edge towards you, and then lay the inside-out cover flat on top of it with the opening towards you.
Stick your arms into the cover up to your elbows and grab the sides of the cover from the inside. Hold on to the sides and pull your arms most of the way back out, gathering the fabric towards you. Keep going until you can reach the corners.
Holding the corners from the inside, bring your hands up to shoulder height and shake them slightly until most of the fabric is draped around your elbows.
Grab two corners of the duvet through the cover. Still holding the corners, pull your hands together, gathering the duvet between them. Pull the whole edge of the duvet through the cover opening.
Lift your arms over your head, then shake them slightly as you move them apart, keeping them over your head. The cover should drop partway over the duvet.
Forcefully bring your arms down. WOOSH!
comment by janos · 2011-02-07T04:23:02.225Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Regarding investment, my suggestion (if you work in the US) is to open a basic (because it doesn't periodically charge you fees) E*TRADE account here. They will provide an interface for buying and selling shares of stocks and various other things (ETFs and such; I mention stocks and ETFs because those are the only things I've tried doing anything with). They will charge you $10 for every transaction you make, so unless you're going to be (or become) active/clever enough to make it worthwhile, it makes sense not to trade too frequently.
EDIT: These guys appear to charge less, though they also deal in fewer things (e.g. no bonds).
Replies from: Benquo, jsalvatier, Alexei↑ comment by Benquo · 2011-02-07T13:04:57.936Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is right. But to put it much more generally, and as an exercise in seriously trying to bridge information gaps:
To buy stocks you need what is called a Brokerage account. The way a brokerage account works is that you give money to the Broker to invest for you. (Generally, you will do this by transferring it from an existing bank account.) This money generally gets put into a highly liquid account in your name, such as a money market fund. You can get your money back by instructing your broker to send it back to you.
When you want to buy stocks or other financial investments, you direct your broker to use the money in your brokerage account to buy stocks or other financial investments in your name. Your broker will use the money that is in your account to do this. Your brokerage account now also contains the stock you bought.
When you want to sell stocks, you tell your broker to sell, and the proceeds get put back into your cash-like account.
Brokers make money by charging you a fee each time you buy or sell a stock or other financial investment through them.
There are full-service brokerages and discount brokerages. Full service brokers (such as Merrill Lynch) give you extra help figuring out what you want to do, though they charge a premium. Be aware that since full service brokers do not have a fiduciary duty to their customers to give good advice, they can legally steer you toward investments that pay them a higher commission even if it's not as good for you.
Discount brokerages are usually online-only and charge lower commissions. You don't get any advice, just the ability to buy and sell through their website. E*trade, Scottrade, and Zecco are well-known discount brokers. Some major banks such as Bank of America / Merrill Lynch and Fidelity also offer online brokerage services, as does Vanguard. Many people recommend discount brokerages over full-service ones.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-07T20:16:15.380Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've had good experience with ShareBuilder.
Replies from: Jayson_Virissimo↑ comment by Jayson_Virissimo · 2011-02-08T04:25:47.872Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Me too, although that was 3 years ago.
↑ comment by jsalvatier · 2011-02-07T15:49:47.776Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I feel like it is useful to mention that because of efficient markets (which implies assets are "fairly priced") and the benefits of diversification (lower risk), it's almost always better to buy a low fee mutual fund than any particular stocks or bonds. In particular, Index Funds merely keep a portfolio which tracks a broad market index. These often have very low operating costs, so they are a pretty good way to invest. You can buy these as ETFs, or you can buy them through something like Vanguard.
Replies from: Benquo, michaelkeenan↑ comment by Benquo · 2011-02-07T17:49:01.680Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think some more detail is called for here too, on mutual funds vs ETFs:
When you buy part of a mutual fund, you are giving your money to professional fund managers to invest for you. Mutual funds are often devoted to a single investment strategy (value, growth, index...) or a specific business sector (energy, health care, high technology), or even a specific kind of investment vehicle (stocks, bonds, commodities...).
You pay the fund managers a small percentage of your assets each year (the number you want to look for here is the "expense ratio"). Something on the order of 1%. Sometimes you also pay a fee when you put your money in or when you take it out; funds that do this are called "load" funds, funds that don't are called "no-load" funds.
When you buy into an ordinary mutual fund, it's a similar process to having a savings account: you send the fund money, they use it to buy financial investments. Mutual funds are generally sold and redeemed at par; each dollar you invest in the fund buys a dollar's worth of investments. When you cash out, each dollar of investments they sell is a dollar that goes back into your pocket.
ETFs are similar to stocks. When you buy shares of an ETF, you're buying a piece of the fund from another investor, not putting money into the fund directly. ETFs are often traded at a discount to net asset value. In other words, you pay less than the market price of the investments the fund owns. But that doesn't necessarily make it a better deal, because of course when you want to cash out, you will probably be selling below par as well.
↑ comment by michaelkeenan · 2011-02-09T11:11:23.481Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is very, very good advice, and is worth understanding in more detail. My favorite article on index funds is this one, which angles its discussion of index funds around the unusually good investment advice many Google employees received when they became millionaires after the IPO in 2004. My second-favorite is this one from Overcoming Bias (LessWrong's sister site).
Investing in index funds should be one of the big instrumental wins of rationality. It requires the ability to defend against overconfidence bias, the ability to defend against the wily marketing of financial advisers who don't have your best interests in mind, enough understanding of economics to comprehend what Yudkowsky called anti-inductive markets, and some not-especially-common knowledge about what investment options are available.
Replies from: Mitchell_Porter↑ comment by Mitchell_Porter · 2011-02-09T12:22:24.005Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Perhaps you are still being insufficiently cynical. Yes, index funds outperform managed funds, and investment professionals get rich off their fees and their media, not because they personally know how to beat the market.
But if I am to believe the analyses poured out daily at zerohedge.com, volume in the US stock market is now dominated by a few large institutional investors, looking for a place to put the free money they get by frontrunning the Fed's purchases of Treasuries, and this is a political choice: US federal debt is being monetized, and the US dollar debased, but since the bankers are all buying equities with their play money, the stock market is being driven up, which creates the illusion that growth is happening somewhere in the economy. :-)
I don't know how much of that is true, but my real point is that a revival of the financial crisis (this time because of sovereign debt rather than corporate debt) could put stocks into a zero-growth doldrum - of frequent crashes and long-term decline in value - for a decade or more. It's happened before, if it happens again then even index funds will be losing value, and it is precisely the sort of thing that would happen after the comprehensive discrediting of an overgrown and politically connected financial sector. People would go back to seeing stocks as a game of risk for the rich, rather than a happy place to put their retirement savings.
The result of making everyone an investor is that when everyone loses their money, they become a mob and burn the casino down, and run the people who were connected with it out of town. That hasn't happened in the US yet, but you can be sure that more than a few politicians are readying a line of populist nationalist outrage, for the day when the big banks become even more politically radioactive than they are now. Politics might even come down to who can mount the more convincing attack on the banks, the left or the right; and I would guess that the political red line will be the bankruptcy of cities and states.
You can already see the basic choice in Europe: Ireland, or Iceland. Ireland, so far, is agreeing to pay off the debts of its failed banks with taxpayer money, and the IMF has come in to supervise the process. Iceland's people said no way will we do that (even though they were happy to partake of the boom while it was still on), and had a small revolution in which they disowned responsibility for the actions, and the debts, of their financier class. It's part of how they ended up playing host to an entity as subversive as Wikileaks for a while.
So what I'm saying - what I'm predicting - is that you will see that same dilemma being faced at all levels in the US as the debt pyramid implodes, and in a country as big and diverse as the US, there will be cities and regions who take the radical option. Local politics will trump external economics, and they will disown or rewrite the agreements which would otherwise leave them in debt to outsiders for a generation. In some places, this will manifest as a reversion to the traditional local economy. In others, there might be some new thinking - green futurism or digital fabricators might be touted as the way forward. In such a turbulent context, even traditionally superior insights ("invest in index funds") may cease to apply, as the system undergoes a bigger change than most had imagined possible.
Replies from: jsalvatier, NancyLebovitz, michaelkeenan↑ comment by jsalvatier · 2011-02-09T16:06:43.047Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
People who claim that the "dollar is being debased", don't know the basic facts. Inflation has actually been significantly lower than typical, the last couple of years. See for example http://investingforaliving.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/cpi-us-vs-japan.png
Market based inflation expectations (TIPS spreads) also indicate lower than typical expected inflation.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-09T14:46:46.348Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've been worried about index funds for a while. They're predicated on the assumption that someone is doing to the research while you free ride on their work.
Are enough people doing the research?
Replies from: wedrifid, jsalvatier↑ comment by jsalvatier · 2011-02-09T16:01:18.385Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yep.
↑ comment by michaelkeenan · 2011-02-09T13:59:29.990Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So - if I understand you correctly - you're saying we have a market with some actors who are buying at higher-than-justifiable prices, and the rest of the market lacks the liquidity to short-sell, adjusting the prices downward? That doesn't match my understanding of these things...but my lack of understanding of these things is part of why I delegate my decision-making to index funds, rather than trying to time or beat the market.
↑ comment by Alexei · 2011-02-09T22:45:52.489Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Scottrade is another well known company that provides the same services. They only charge $7 dollars per transaction (more more for penny stocks). I've had very positive experience with them.
One thing to keep in mind is that doing stock trading will make your taxes more complicated and more expensive to fill out.
comment by quentin · 2011-02-10T22:26:36.120Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have a kind of embarrassing one, but that's kind of the point of this discussion so here goes.
For some reason I've always had an aversion to social networking websites. I remember when all my peers used xanga, then livejournal, then myspace, and now facebook, and I always refused to use them whatsoever. I realize now though, that they represent a massive utility that I desperately need.
I am worried though, about starting new. Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but it seems that having few friends on such a website signals low status, as does getting into the game this late.
So should I just create an account and add every single person I am even tangentially acquainted with? Is there a feature on facebook where you can hide who your friends are? Is it appropriate to ask someone you just met to friend you? What other cultural and social knowledge am I missing in this area?
Replies from: sixes_and_sevens, StacyK, TheOtherDave, Blueberry, MartinB, Jodika↑ comment by sixes_and_sevens · 2011-02-10T23:28:13.976Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think people have very different standards as far as social networking goes. I would recommend deciding from the offset what you want to use Facebook for, and establish friending policies on that basis. If it's for keeping in touch with your nearest and dearest, keep it to a select few. If you want a conduit for talking to everyone you've ever met, add everyone you meet.
If I see someone who only has a handful of FB friends, I assume they're towards the more private end of the spectrum rather than thinking they're somehow socially retarded. Likewise if someone has 800+ FB friends, I don't think they regularly hang out with them all.
There is such a thing as a late adopter advantage. I don't think most people make these kinds of decisions when they first enter into that kind of environment, so you actually have the benefit of deciding off the bat how you want to use it, and how to optimise your usage for that aim.
Replies from: quentin↑ comment by quentin · 2011-02-10T23:55:44.483Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For people I actually care about, I have better means of staying in touch. My inner circle has had a private voice chat server for years now, and that's part of the reason I haven't really been forced to use a social networking website.
But I'm trying to dramatically change who I am as a person, and this is a necessary step. I have severe issues with self-consciousness and social anxiety (despite acknowledging that this is unjustified as I am affable and attractive) so I am generally looking for ways to ease myself into social normalcy.
Replies from: jhuffman↑ comment by jhuffman · 2011-02-15T18:06:30.437Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You need to be more specific though; or at least you have the advantage of being able to choose specifically what you want to use it for. For example, I pretty much only use Facebook for sharing pictures and videos of my kid. I may go weeks without paying attention to it. I have a wide mix of people including both people at work, family and old friends from highschool who I would normally share this type of thing with when they ask. So now when someone asks about my kid I'll just ask if I can friend them.
↑ comment by StacyK · 2011-02-13T23:21:31.496Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Quentin, I worried too about the "few friends = low status" thing when I started on Facebook. But speaking now as an old hand I'm fairly confident that the only people who make such judgments or worry about them are newbies!
And yes, you CAN hide who your friends are.on Facebook. There are many other privacy settings as well. It would be too complicated to go into it here but they have a Help Center which will tell you how. You can find the Help link on the menu that will open up when you click on "Account" (at the top right-hand of any page) or, in small letters, at the very bottom of any page on the far right.
It's OK to ask someone you just met to friend you.
Not only do some people friend every last acquaintance, it's also common to friend people for the purpose of game play (there are numerous game applications you can access through Facebook, and for one reason or another it's often advantageous to play with people who are friends, so people will friend one another for the sake of the game). Then there are people who friend friends of friends because of shared interests or whatever. Bottom line: If somebody has 1,000 friends, nobody assumes that he is best buds with all those folks in real life.
Don't worry too much about the etiquette--if you spend some time with it you'll pick it up. Most people will be happy to help you out if they can (though a lot of people don't know about all the privacy settings. They're really not hard to set but you have to look for the info.)
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-10T23:03:35.683Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A very good friend of mine created her Facebook account just a few weeks ago, and I still think she's cool. So getting into the game late is at least sometimes recoverable from.
Adding everyone you are even tangentially acquainted with seems to be the social convention, including people you've just met; it's common for me to receive facebook invites after meeting someone at a party, for example.
FB has some tools for bulk-link-farming... e.g., it will look at your email if you let it and contact everyone whose name appears in it who has a FB account. I did this when I created my FB account (a couple of years ago) and it worked pretty well.
As far as I know, there's no way to hide your friends.
The teenagers of my acquaintance frequently use fake names on Facebook to subvert searches. The adults frequently create multiple Facebook profiles, more or less for the same reason.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-11T10:35:07.764Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I quit social networking sites because they made my life significantly worse. If you really need to use them, you can, but don't worry. There is a wide variety of ways to use them, ranging from adding hundreds of people to just a few friends.
So should I just create an account and add every single person I am even tangentially acquainted with?
Yes, you can do this, but you don't have to. This is one reasonable way of using the site that a lot of people use, but it's also common to restrict things to people you know better.
Is there a feature on facebook where you can hide who your friends are?
YES. Absolutely. And it's an essential feature. If you do use Facebook please pay close attention to the privacy settings. You can make everything about yourself private, to the point where no one else, even your friends, can see anything except messages you specifically send them.
Is it appropriate to ask someone you just met to friend you?
Yes, it's pretty common to do this, though you may be surprised by how many people don't like to use these sites.
↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-10T23:48:43.560Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When you make an account there is a high chance you will get flooded by friend requests right away. Facebook does some shady things with user data for their convenience. Also there are still enough non-Facebookees that you will not be the last to get online.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2012-01-14T22:09:10.835Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You can also send friendship requests to people who don't have a FB account yet, if you have their email address. I received the first such request about one year before signing up, and when I eventually did sign up I had about ten such requests.
↑ comment by Jodika · 2014-10-31T06:18:48.513Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
These days having few friends frequently signals maturity or coolness - someone who doesn't add everyone they've ever met to look like they have lots of friends.
I think the sweet spot is between 10 and 200 - go over that and people tend to imagine 'there's no way he could actually have that many friends, he just adds people at random and cares too much about popularity'.
Edit: Having said that, I just went back to my fb, which I no longer really use, and I'm on over 350. But largely that's because I've had it for a long time and not removed people I no longer see or have any real intention of seeing, so I don't only have actual friends as friends either.
comment by dinasaurus · 2011-02-10T01:06:55.378Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Keep a regular sleep schedule.
This is something I completely failed to learn so far. Sure, I have some issues with procrastination or a lack of certain time-management skills, but even if I create a schedule for my whole week in advance and manage to follow it through for a couple of days at some point I completely mess it up because I sleep through half a day since I stayed up until 4AM the night before. Or I end up not getting enough sleep for several days in a row and getting sick (which happens far too often). Mostly, if I wake up at a certain time I don't get tired early enough to get a sufficient amount of sleep before I wake up at the same time on the next day (and unfortunately they don't make these time-turners yet).
It seems like every failed attempt to establish a working day routine can be mainly narrowed down to this single thing. I managed to get through High School and still get good grades even though I missed a lot of school days (due to being sick or too tired to go) because it was easy. Even at university it's still possible to pass the exams when you miss half of the lectures (although your results probably will suffer). However, I'm already afraid of my first real job.
Replies from: Bongo, ShardPhoenix, BillyOblivion, Vive-ut-Vivas, Risto_Saarelma, TobyBartels↑ comment by ShardPhoenix · 2011-02-11T02:21:00.240Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I found that having a full-time job fixed my sleep schedule - if I have to get up, I will. Then I'll usually be tired enough to go to sleep at a reasonable time too.
↑ comment by BillyOblivion · 2011-02-10T10:35:08.463Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've been fighting to regulate my sleep schedule for about 30 years now, and I've tried lots of things. These are the things that seem to help me, or that Studies Have Shown.
What works best is to simply "man up" and regulate your sleep schedule, to quote the international sweat-shop shoe company "Just Do it".
1 Pick a "get up time", set you alarm and GET UP. This helps to make sure you're ready to go to bed on the other side. If you stay up until 4 in the morning playing Warcrack, play another 2 hours then go for breakfast. You'll be tired all day, but that night you'll be able to reset more effectively. 1.1 Do Not Nap, this makes it more difficult to get to sleep at a reasonable hour. 1.2 OTOH some people do really well to take nap in the afternoon (every afternoon) and stay up a little later. I can't do this. YSSMV.
- When the alarm goes off GET UP. Do not set your alarm for 5 minutes early, if anything set it for 5 minutes late.
3 Avoid caffiene after noon to start with. If this helps you may want to let it slip to 3 or 4 in the afternoon, depending on how you metabolize it. Definately no caffine with dinner or afterwards. NONE.
4 When the sun goes down start to darken your surroundings a bit--turn off unnecessary lights, use desk/table/spot lights instead of room lights etc.
5 Set a realistic bedtime and stick to it.
6 Your sleep quarters should be used ONLY for sleeping, sex and dressing. Do not read yourself to sleep, no computers or television. 6.1 Heavy curtains and limit light as much as possible. The goal is not only to sleep, but to sleep WELL. 6.2 A fan, or some source of "grey noise" might help as well. 6.3 A regular sex partner can help you get to sleep :) Well, so can an irregular one, but the sheets may need changing more often.
The other side of this is that some people seem to have body clocks that insist on running a certain way. I've been getting up at about 10 to 6 for the last 2 months every day of hte week. F'ing HATE IT. I can do 10 minutes to 7 so much easier, but there is no flex in my work schedule.
If you're like that--if these sorts of things don't work--they you have a decision to make. There are professions that allow you to work different, or sometimes even irregular hours, but they are generally not particularly high paying or influential (except for "Author", but you have to get published first).
There are people who just live better working second shift or graves. If you're like that you're going to fight it your whole life.
Also you can try finding a sleep clinic and see if you need professional intervention.
Replies from: Nick_Tarleton, wedrifid↑ comment by Nick_Tarleton · 2011-02-12T09:16:44.763Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When the sun goes down start to darken your surroundings a bit--turn off unnecessary lights, use desk/table/spot lights instead of room lights etc.
If on a computer, software like F.lux or Nocturne can help with this.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-10T11:20:34.712Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When the alarm goes off GET UP. Do not set your alarm for 5 minutes early, if anything set it for 5 minutes late.
When you are getting into the routine this one of the hard parts. So use whatever assistance required. For me that has included a bottle of energy drink and a modafinil tablet sitting on top of the alarm clock. Sure, you can turn it off but it isn't much more effort to down the stimulants at the same time. A sledge hammer approach. It more or less guarantees you will be able to get up 30 minutes later. I often deliberately allow myself another 30 minutes to sleep after I've taken the stimulants so as to cooperate more effectively with my instincts. They don't like me @#$@#$ing with them and forcing them up but they don't care at all if I give them stimulants and let them do their own thing.
(The above is not something I tend to use long term.)
When the sun goes down start to darken your surroundings a bit--turn off unnecessary lights, use desk/table/spot lights instead of room lights etc.
At about this time you can also take a dose of melatonin (which is essentially what you are doing with the light manipulation anyway). I have found this useful from time to time.
Replies from: scientism, luminosity↑ comment by scientism · 2011-05-07T00:17:31.778Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Put your alarm clock far out of reach so you have to get out of bed to switch it off. Put everything you need for your morning routine next to the alarm clock. This will make you much less likely to go back to bed.
Replies from: Cyan, wedrifid↑ comment by Cyan · 2011-05-07T00:56:37.054Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I did this when I was a teenager. A few months later I found myself regularly jumping out of bed, taking two long running strides across my room, hitting the snooze button, running back to bed, and getting under the covers without ever properly waking up.
Replies from: shokwave, scientism, Swimmer963, None↑ comment by shokwave · 2011-05-07T15:29:54.441Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I solved this problem by maxing out my alarm's volume and putting it in the shower.
Replies from: Swimmer963, Cyan↑ comment by Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) (Swimmer963) · 2011-05-08T03:49:13.175Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That is...genius. And hilarious.
↑ comment by Cyan · 2011-05-07T17:38:52.444Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That'd be a good fix for one or two people living in an apartment, but the shower was at the other end of the house and was used by everyone in my family.
Replies from: shokwave↑ comment by shokwave · 2011-05-07T22:57:52.799Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When you have a spare hour, set your alarm to go off every five minutes and practice 'being asleep', hearing the alarm, jumping out of bed, turning it off, and running to the shower. After 20 repetitions, the idea is that the next morning, when you hear the alarm, you'll run to the shower without needing to get fully conscious first. I dunno, something to try at least.
Replies from: Cyan↑ comment by scientism · 2011-05-07T14:51:28.531Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Did you keep everything you need for your morning routine next to your alarm clark? I found that was the key element to stop me from jumping back into bed. It's habit forming. You get to the alarm clock and then go through your routine. Otherwise, if everything's out of reach or disorganised, it's easier to just go back to bed than deal with it.
Replies from: Cyan↑ comment by Cyan · 2011-05-07T17:37:57.934Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Did you keep everything you need for your morning routine next to your alarm clark?
The next step of my morning routine was to stumble down the hall to the bathroom. There wasn't an additional object necessary to do that. Or one could say that the next step was showering, but I couldn't physically move the shower next to the alarm clock.
↑ comment by Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) (Swimmer963) · 2011-05-08T03:50:44.176Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My brother does this. Personally I've never had trouble waking up...if anything my problem is falling asleep and staying asleep all night. I tend to stay on an early-to-bed, early-to-rise schedule, which is convenient for work and class but inconvenient for social life...overall I think I prefer it to constantly having to fight my internal clock. My main problem is mid-afternoon sleepiness on the days when I don't quite make my 8 or 9 hours.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-05-07T01:45:31.338Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Put your alarm clock far out of reach so you have to get out of bed to switch it off. Put everything you need for your morning routine next to the alarm clock. This will make you much less likely to go back to bed.
I use this technique from time to time. But as Cyan suggests it isn't a reliable long term solution. It still amounts to trying to bully yourself into compliance. And that just isn't the best way to deal with allies - be they internal or not. I know myself and know how I respond to attempts at dominance. I'll do it if necessary but it rapidly burns out any sense of loyalty. And I want myself on my own side.
↑ comment by luminosity · 2011-02-10T13:09:43.791Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've considered using melatonin before, but some cursory searching didn't reveal an easy way to get my hands on it from Melbourne. Since you live here too, I presume you have found a source. Would you be able to share that with me? Thanks.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-10T13:40:07.242Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Some pharmacies have begun to sell it, however the dosage can sometimes be ridiculously small. I got mine online. Possibly from cognitivenutrition.com. Maybe bulknutrition. The price was trivial. I got 3 mg capsules although I may perhaps get 1mg capsules if I buy again.
Replies from: Eliezer_Yudkowsky, Desrtopa↑ comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Eliezer_Yudkowsky) · 2011-02-12T03:28:15.993Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I take 0.4 mg an hour or two before sleep, then 0.3 mg timed-release (sold by LEF) just before getting into bed.
That took a lot of tweaking to find.
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-18T05:27:52.852Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This advice seems reasonable. However, I don't see why timed-release melatonin wouldn't be helpful in preventing early awakening (especially assuming you want to sleep past dawn), and I don't understand their recommendation to use timed-release only when trying to shift sleep by more than 1hr (1hr earlier, I presume).
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-11T23:46:40.415Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What are the downsides of taking larger doses than necessary?
Replies from: gwern, wedrifid↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-12T00:51:49.935Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
U-shaped response curve, so it starts losing effectiveness & nasty headaches are the consequences of a melatonin overdose that I know of.
Replies from: Matt_Simpson↑ comment by Matt_Simpson · 2011-02-12T01:15:49.408Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
and also grogginess in the morning if you get anything less than 8hrs of sleep, at least in my experience
Replies from: timtyler↑ comment by timtyler · 2011-02-12T11:46:26.531Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In my experience too.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-12T03:57:44.354Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Surprisingly few, at least considering melatonin's role in there among the neurotransmitters doing some rather drastic regulation. People can (and do) take thousands of times the natural level of melatonin without too much trouble. (It is a ridiculously powerful antioxidant. The kind of thing people like to experiment with.)
Something I find is that if I have, say 6mg I can reliably expect to wake up about 4 hours later, alert. I exploit that sometimes if I need to drastically alter my sleep patterns. But it isn't what you usually want to aim for.
I haven't heard of nasty headaches (I don't doubt that it could well be possible...) but mild headaches are common. Similar to the kind you get when you are mildly dehydrated. Quite probably related, too, because they respond well to drinking a lot of water. As do the dry mouth and eyes that sometimes occur.
Grogginess during the following day is perhaps the most annoying side effect.
Replies from: Desrtopa↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-12T04:20:45.231Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I bought some for someone else a matter of days ago (she's living kind of hand to mouth at the moment, so I sprung the cost for her,) but I didn't notice until after I placed the order that I had selected the highest available dosage, 10 mg per pill. Would it be best for her to start with fractions of a pill per night? Her sleep issues are pretty serious.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-12T04:44:08.692Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
10 mg? Wow. I didn't know they sold them that high!
If I was using it myself I would just take the 10mg tablet and see what happened, it isn't going to do anything particularly harmful. But if I was supplying them for someone else I would either split the dose or buy new ones. Some people are reluctant enough to try pills that an initial bad experience will turn them off completely.
Would it be best for her to start with fractions of a pill per night?
It is actually pretty hard to say. Response to melatonin in humans is just bizarre. For some people 0.1 mg is too much while others could gulp down that 10mg tablet and it'd be just right. The degree of sleep difficulties don't necessarily come into it.
Her sleep issues are pretty serious.
It could work wonders if her difficulties are melatonin or sleep-clock related or it could do absolutely nothing. :/
Replies from: Desrtopa↑ comment by Vive-ut-Vivas · 2011-02-10T01:39:50.971Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Do you exercise?
Replies from: dinasaurus↑ comment by dinasaurus · 2011-02-10T09:35:34.731Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Not every day, but yep in general.
Replies from: Swimmer963↑ comment by Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) (Swimmer963) · 2011-02-12T04:01:05.767Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Definitely exercise helps. Working out first thing in the morning is probably the best way to ensure you'll be a) energized to start your day, and b) tired enough to go to bed at night. However, that might be tough if you already are on a deadline to get to work.
I wouldn't recommend working out at night if you're already a night owl. If you're at all like me, you'll end up super-awake right when you should be going to bed.
↑ comment by Risto_Saarelma · 2011-02-10T13:55:23.804Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My biggest problem for keeping a sleep schedule stable is not being able to fall asleep early if I'm stuck with a late sleep schedule. Once I get an early wakeup, early bedtime routine going, it can stay on for weeks, but it can likewise get messed up for weeks.
One nice thing for waking up is a timed light box. It gradually lights up, and is a lot less stressful to wake up to than an alarm. Combine this with a regular alarm that goes off after the light has been getting brighter for a while.
I also somehow got addicted to taking daily cold showers since they were mentioned here or in the IRC channel. A couple of Hacker News posts talked about cold showers helping people fall asleep, so I've started taking a shower an hour before bedtime. I've been doing this for three weeks now and have managed to maintain a pretty stable sleep schedule.
Replies from: bigjeff5↑ comment by bigjeff5 · 2011-02-20T17:16:24.775Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The key is the wake-up time. You can always force yourself to get up once the alarm goes off, no matter how little sleep you've gotten. The opposite is not true without drugs to assist you (though it sounds like the cold shower helps, makes sense).
I do this about every four weeks. My work schedule is such that I work 160 hours in two weeks, and then don't work at all for the following two weeks. This means I have to get up very early when I'm working and not at all when I'm not. The net result, since I lack discipline when I don't have a goal set for the day, is that by the time I go back to work I am regularly staying up until 3am or later and waking up around noon, while I need to be at work by 7am when I'm working.
The fix for this is to force myself to get up at 6am the very first day I'm back at work. No easing in to anything, just cold turkey - alarm goes off I've got to get up. This means for the first day or two I'll be running on 3-4 hours of sleep, but the need to sleep builds fast and by the third day I'm usually going to bed at a respectable time.
The key for me is that I must have a purpose for the day. I've tried to maintain this in my off time, but since I don't have a specific place to be "on time" each day I tend to let my wake up time drift instead of getting up on-schedule. The fix for that is apparently having a regular morning schedule during my off time, but I haven't put much effort into it.
Another important thing to remember when you are forcing yourself awake after insufficient sleep is to not dilly-dally. If you are tired when you wake up, the worst thing you can do is hit "snooze" and go back to sleep. It probably won't make you any less tired unless you sleep for another hour (at which point you are almost certainly late for whatever it is you were getting up for) and it will make it a lot harder to get up.
Replies from: Risto_Saarelma↑ comment by Risto_Saarelma · 2011-02-21T10:36:47.519Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There's an extra problem I run with drastic sleep cycle changes. Say I'm sleeping from 3 AM to noon. Then I do the cold turkey wake up at 6 AM, so far so good. Next evening I go to bed at 21:30, then my brain apparently goes, "hey, it's a lot earlier than usual, must be an afternoon nap", and helpfully wakes me up sometimes at 1 AM. (Other people's brains might not have this feature.) This tends to lead to having to go multiple consecutive days with little sleep if I want to change the cycle, instead of just the one, which gets considerably less fun. The fix to this might be to do something on the cold turkey day that gets me sufficiently tired that I'd just sleep 9 hours straight on the next night, whatever the bedtime.
The cold shower thing is still working, so far I've had only one night when I've failed to fall asleep after taking the shower.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-10T10:26:02.468Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I sleep through half a day since I stayed up until 4AM the night before
Even when you stay up late, get up on time anyway. (I'm assuming here that you're already trying to keep a regular schedule and just messed up one night.) And do not get hooked on caffeine to wake up; you are (at best) wasting your money.
(The "you" here is general advice, not just dinasaurus.)
comment by CronoDAS · 2011-02-08T10:56:19.420Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This would best be done on a wiki of some sort, I think.
Replies from: roryokane, David_Gerard↑ comment by roryokane · 2011-02-11T02:41:37.313Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Many of the instructions on this thread would fit well on wikiHow. It would be better to put them there than on Less Wrong Wiki or a new site because wikiHow is already known by more people as a source of information on basic things.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz, CronoDAS↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-11T10:31:23.698Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Aside from time (a non-trivial consideration) is there any reason not to put them on both wikiHow and the LW wiki?
Replies from: TheOtherDave↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-11T14:22:34.628Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A hard-earned lesson from my days as a technical writer: "a man with two watches never knows the time." That is, any piece of information maintained in two places will sooner or later progress inconsistently.
Putting it in one place and a pointer to it in the other place might be better.
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T20:54:31.739Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Gosh, if only we had a wiki to hand ...
comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T03:27:10.455Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How do you speak clearly?
I have a bad speaking voice -- my sibilants ("S" sounds) come out mushy. If I record my speaking voice and play it back, even when I'm concentrating on enunciation, I sound... terrible. It's a voice that sounds geeky at best, retarded at worst. A little too high-pitched and monotone, as well. People have been telling me they can't understand what I'm saying all my life.
It's quite likely that I'll give many public presentations throughout my life, so being better at speaking might be worthwhile. I've lost my fear of public speaking (knowing the material well takes care of that) -- I'm just talking about the mechanics of speech. I want to be audible, comprehensible, and not sound like a moron.
Replies from: afeller, Desrtopa, CronoDAS, SRStarin, JoshuaZ, Elizabeth, Alicorn↑ comment by afeller · 2011-02-08T04:31:04.587Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I found that frequently recording my voice and playing it back immediately afterward helps immensely. Up through the start of my junior year of highschool I did a very poor job with pronunciation in general and what I thought I sounded like, sounded nothing like what I did in fact sound like. I got a portable voice recorder midway through my junior year. I like poetry, so a few times a week I would spend a while (maybe a half hour) in the evenings reading poetry into the recorder and playing it back a stanza at a time. If I didn't like the way it sounded, I would repeat the stanza (or the particular line in that stanza that sounded wrong) until it started sounding right. Within a few months I very much liked the way my voice sounded, and instead of having people telling me I talked funny, I occasionally had people complimenting my enunciation. (As I side effect I also became able to read out loud which was something else I used to have a lot of trouble doing)
Replies from: ciphergoth, SRStarin, listic↑ comment by Paul Crowley (ciphergoth) · 2011-02-09T08:10:14.135Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sounds good. If anyone else reading this tries this, please report back on how well it works for you!
Replies from: Richard_Kennaway↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2013-06-05T07:51:07.849Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Just noticed this thread after someone linked to it. For the last year and a half, I've been writing and recording a 100-word story every week, in response to a prompt word, and sending it off to a web site that runs a weekly drabble challenge. I use a proper voice recorder for this (the Edirol R-09), and do as many takes as it takes to get the best possible result.
I don't just record them once a week, with 80 stories in my head by now I often just recite them for practice when I'm alone. Less work than picking up a book to read aloud from. If you don't write, memorising poetry would provide the same advantage.
I used to find that my voice was fine first thing in the morning, but tended to get very hoarse by mid-morning, but that has abated substantially. Maybe I just don't talk enough otherwise to keep it exercised. I don't actually do enough talking in everyday life that anyone has spontaneously commented, but I have had a few compliments in the comments at the web site.
↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-08T18:29:19.291Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
On the other hand, some recording technologies make your voice sound higher and thinner than it really is. Voice answering machines are really bad about this. But for enunciation, rhythm, and that sort of thing, this should be very helpful.
↑ comment by listic · 2011-02-08T14:14:26.552Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Do you know of a modern recording technology that would make this kind of recording convenient? An iOS app would be best, I think; alternatively a computer software.
I can well imagine recording myself reading the poems with a cassette recorder, but not with any software that I know.
Replies from: sfb↑ comment by sfb · 2011-02-09T07:32:28.245Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Maybe useful - Everyday Looper is an iOS app for recording short looping samples, up to four at a time. That is, you record a sound and it plays it from start to finish over and over in a loop, and you can record another sound up to the same length and play them next to each other, or adjust the volume on them individually.
It's intended for musical use, but might do for what you ask. It is not free, so you might check it out on Youtube to see how it works and why it might be good for quick record-hear-compare feedback.
(iOS / iPhone does have a basic sound recorder in it, as you may know).
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-08T16:40:34.173Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think there may be some psychological element to finding one's own recorded voice unpleasant. When I hear my own recorded voice played back at me, I find it incredibly unpleasant, but my acquaintances assure me that it doesn't sound bad to them. Likewise, I've had people tell me that they can't stand the sound of their own recorded voices, when they sound perfectly fine to me.
If your acquaintances agree that your speech could use work, I agree with the recommendation of speech therapy, but it's possible that the problem is in your perception.
Replies from: Normal_Anomaly, monsterzero↑ comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T02:45:55.353Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I dislike my own recorded voice as well. I've heard that because the sound of our own voices is partly transmitted to our ears via our heads, everyone's voice sounds higher in a recording. The difference is probably enough to be unnerving and I think that's what it is for me.
↑ comment by monsterzero · 2011-02-08T17:28:55.388Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I used to be extremely self-conscious about my voice before I became a volunteer DJ at my local college radio station. After six years of listening to myself through headphones, I speak much more slowly and clearly, and people who don't know about the DJing have told me that "I should be on the radio".
But my ability to be understood by phone systems that depend on voice-recognition doesn't seem to have improved at all. Any suggestions there?
Replies from: Desrtopa↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-08T18:47:52.564Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What you're asking may require practice, rather than just following a new set of guidelines. I have had some formal vocal training, so I can offer some activities that could help.
One important factor in public speaking is breath support. Practice breathing deeply and smoothly, with erect posture and tense abdominal muscles. (Doing this daily can be very refreshing, anyway.)
Practice speaking at various sound levels--softly and loudly--alone (or with a supportive friend) in a room with hard walls and/or floor, so you can hear yourself clearly. Tense the muscles of your throat and soft palate (the back of the roof of your mouth) in different ways to change your voice in ways that may feel and sound unnatural. This should help you gain a better sense of how to use your voice.
When you speak more loudly, does the pitch of your voice go up? Many people do this, because our ears are more sensitive to higher pitches. Try forcing more air through your words to gain volume instead of raising the pitch. In other words, use more air to say the same words by increasing the pressure of your abdominal muscles.
When we speak loudly, we can generally feel a vibration, if we pay attention. When you speak usually, you may find that the sensation is in your throat, or in the far back of your mouth. Force yourself to yawn, but then activate your voice during the yawn (i.e. vocalize the yawn), to place the sensation more in your sinuses and the front of your face (the front of the face is called the masque). This may take some practice, but the most pleasant sonority of most people's voices is achieved by using the face as a resonator.
I hope one or more of those activities can help the sonority and pitch aspects of your voice become more like what you want. I haven't heard your voice, so it may be that I'd think it doesn't need any fixing :) My husband hates his voice, but I think it's great!
↑ comment by JoshuaZ · 2011-02-08T06:07:07.394Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't think there's any really quick way of dealing with this. I had about 4 years of speech therapy which helped a lot. Note that a speech therapist will generally have lots of things that are tailored to you in particular to help out. For example I have a list of words that I still have trouble with so I make sure to always be ready to use their synonyms when speaking. Unfortunately there really isn't any simple solution to this.
↑ comment by Elizabeth · 2011-02-08T06:00:42.371Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you don't want to go to a speech therapist, a friend with some linguistics training or a voice (singing) teacher may be able to listen and tell you where to put your tongue, etc.
I, too, have a related problem. I have great difficulty controlling my volume. That is largely hereditary (or nurtured by my family environment), but the real problem is that I can't hear when I'm too loud. There are certain triggers (being excited, interrupted, or in the presence of my mother) but they are not really triggers I can avoid, and I can't see a way to fix it. The obvious solution is to have someone tell me when I'm too loud, but being interrupted for that purpose tends to make me involuntarily louder.
↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T03:31:09.915Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Similar: I would find it useful to learn to speak slowly. I have to repeat myself a lot. The trouble is that I lose track of what I'm saying if I try to speak at a normal pace - I cannot seem to focus on speaking slowly and think of things to say at the same time.
Replies from: Psychohistorian, ciphergoth, Dagon↑ comment by Psychohistorian · 2011-02-08T04:46:15.889Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
(Edited the last few paragraphs to be more useful.)
I actually teach this to college students, to some degree. This is in the context of moderately scripted competitive speech, though.
The first basic trick is to consciously try to speak at half-speed. Once you've done that, halve your speed again. This will at least be close to the right speed.
Another trick is to tell friends or family to rudely (or politely) interrupt you if you speak too fast. This technique can also be helpful for eliminating um, uh, like, y'know, and similar disfluencies. I will write "SLOW" on a piece of paper and hold it up while a student is speaking, for example.
I admit I am surprised that you find speaking slowly more difficult in terms of keeping track of what you are saying. In almost all cases I encounter, people actually speak much more coherently when they speak slower. Either use the extra time to think of what to say, or insert a few judicious pauses for the same effect.
I would say there is a non-negligible chance that your rapid speech comes off as very clear to you, but not to observers. I know that when I get really engaged in an idea, I will often talk rapid-fire in a way that I think makes perfect sense, only to be stopped or slowed down by those around me, whom I've lost completely. My thought process feels a little more muddled when I have to slow down and think about exactly what I'm saying, but this is not because my communication is worse; it's because I actually have to run a mental check to make sure I have a cogent point, rather than simply having a cogent point internally and saying whatever happens to feel right. Rapid-fire speech may create an illusion of transparency, but I'm not familiar with it actually helping people speak better.
Of course, YMMV and I could be totally wrong. But from the couple dozen or so students I've worked with, I never remember hearing a complaint that it is harder to think cogently while speaking slowly, only that it is difficult to remember to speak slowly.
Replies from: fiddlemath↑ comment by fiddlemath · 2011-02-10T13:58:57.324Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In almost all cases I encounter, people actually speak much more coherently when they speak slower. Either use the extra time to think of what to say,
I don't have much practice with public speaking, and I've tried this. To speak slowly while you think about what you're going to say next takes practice. When I try this, I'm likely to confuse my thoughts with my current speech.
or insert a few judicious pauses for the same effect.
And this is what I'll actually do: pause a bit between sentences, so that the audience can think about what I just said, and I can think about what to say next. Much easier than trying to talk and think at the same time.
Replies from: Psychohistorian, TheOtherDave↑ comment by Psychohistorian · 2011-02-15T20:28:54.631Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
To speak slowly while you think about what you're going to say next takes practice.
There's your problem right there. Optimally, public speaking should require very little on-the-spot thinking with respect to word choice. Depending on exactly how important (and predictable) the subject matter is, you should have a relatively set vocabulary and set of concepts you wish to discuss. There's being competent at public speaking, and there's being good at public speaking; this comment is about how to do the latter.
Before I get started: one general useful piece of advice: if giving a speech, your first few sentences matter far more than everything else, because people will decide whether or not they want to listen to you and will frame their understanding based on it.
If you're giving a speech, you should have a moderately detailed bullet-point outline of what you're going to say, and you should have thought (or actually spoken) your way through it in advance. (Often many, many times)(In some cases, and for some people, it's ideal to have a verbatim script. But such circumstances tend to be relatively rare.) When you are actually speaking, you shouldn't need to think too hard about your exact word choices. For relatively high-stakes public speaking, I will have thought the issue over so many times it takes some effort to prevent myself from saying what I've been thinking of saying at a hundred miles an hour. In other words, if you're doing serious public speaking, you should be clear enough on what you want to say in advance that you can afford to devote a significant amount of your mental effort to your tone, movement about the stage, and speed of speech. This is admittedly advanced-level, but it's how one excels.
When answering questions (as opposed to controlling exactly what you say) it doesn't change much. 90% of questions can be easily anticipated. The remainder, you pause a bit before answering (or, if appropriate, reframe (honestly) to make easier to answer, "If I understand your question, you're asking _").
If you'll forgive a rudimentary sports metaphor: when you're throwing a ball, all you want to have to think about is where you want it to end up and how fast you want it to get there. Knowing how to position your arm and move your wrist and rotate your shoulder should be second-nature. You get them in line by practicing them before game day. Similarly, quality public looks off-the-cuff and conversational, but reflects a great deal of preparation and mental weight-lifting that prepare the speaker to communicate effectively.
[I'd certainly be willing to expand this into a top-level post if anyone thinks such would be useful. Public speaking skills are surprisingly rare; I believe this is because they require practice and people identify as being bad at them and avoid said practice.]
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-10T14:21:41.815Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A useful additional trick is to practice a few generic units of body language, such as walking thoughtfully across a stage or making eye contact with several audience members, until it looks and feels natural to do them. You can drop them into the stream when you need to give yourself a longer break, and they will usually "read" as part of your presentation.
↑ comment by Paul Crowley (ciphergoth) · 2011-02-09T08:12:55.963Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Recording yourself can help with this too. I recorded myself rehearsing for my first ever presentation, and found that when it seemed to me that I was speaking so slowly that I was sarcastically calling the audience stupid, when played back I was speaking at the right pace.
Replies from: Alicorn↑ comment by Dagon · 2011-02-08T03:51:16.773Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I can only speak slowly if I have notes to work from. In normal conversation, including work discussions among 2-10 participants, I tend to rush to get my thoughts out, and that makes it hard for people to follow.
I've found that having a whiteboard helps a lot (a notepad on which I can scribble less so, but still better than nothing). Having to slow down enough to write main points down or sketch out some things seems to make me more comprehensible without losing my train of thought.
comment by mindspillage · 2011-02-08T02:55:16.283Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'd be surprised if there are any of us who don't have some gap in knowledge that a majority of the rest of us found surprising. But really I can't think of any knowledge of this type I'm missing that I can't just look up (rather than ask here) if I realize that I don't have it. (Things of this type I can recall looking up in the past few years: ordering at a bar, dialing international phone numbers, reaching someone at a phone extension, getting a cashier's check from a bank, how to properly wear a suit jacket, how to read facial expressions and make small talk.)
I like wikihow, ehow, and similar sites--and I also find that guides intended for recent immigrants or people with autism are useful for "things everyone is supposed to know".
comment by mindspillage · 2011-02-11T06:20:28.289Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Something else I've had to look up: how to convincingly dress like a grownup. (By which I mean less casual than t-shirts and jeans, work-appropriate, flattering, not looking like I just stepped out of a sci-fi movie or an art school.) There are some sites for female style advice I've found interesting and helpful (and edited to remove one I used to like that has gone off the rails).
Replies from: lextori, sixes_and_sevens, beza1e1, EvelynM↑ comment by lextori · 2011-02-12T01:39:23.142Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've found that for men, the style articles at http://artofmanliness.com/category/dress-grooming/ are an excellent resource, the authors of them often go out of the way to explain why particular choices are appropriate for particular situations.
↑ comment by sixes_and_sevens · 2011-02-11T09:51:06.494Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Related to this, I have immense difficulty dressing well and casually. I'm quite adept at dressing smartly, but there's a nebulous area between "jeans & t-shirt" and "shirt, no tie" where I just can't seem to figure out how to look stylish.
Replies from: Jodika↑ comment by Jodika · 2014-10-31T04:17:09.558Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The secret to that is clothes that are simple and fit well.
So well-fitted dark jeans with shirt, no tie or a nice sweater/cardigan is a good look. Even 'jeans and a t shirt' can be a really nice look if the jeans fit you well and the t shirt is something classic like plain white (this also works well with a shirt partly or wholly unbuttoned over the top). There's also chinos which can work (just don't get them in too light or bright a colour if you're not confident about pulling off that look). If you live somewhere cold, peacoats and longer, slightly fitted coats are everywhere right now and they look good.
Advanced level - pick colours that complement your complexion. This is easier to gauge in person, but generally redheads rock green and jewel tones, blonds look good in cold colours and brown-haired guys are more likely to rock warm colours (though there are few people who don't rock blue). Brown-haired and darker-skinned guys are also a lot better at wearing white without having a tan.
Oh and practically nobody looks good in orange or yellow.
↑ comment by beza1e1 · 2014-07-12T18:34:46.281Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There is a decent subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice/
comment by PeerInfinity · 2011-02-07T03:55:51.283Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think I have lots of gaps to report, but I'm having lots of trouble trying to write a coherent comment about them... so I'm going to just report this trouble as a gap, for now.
Oh, and I also have lots of trouble even noticing these gaps. I have a habit of avoiding doing things that I haven't already established as "safe". Unfortunately, this often results in gaps continuing to be not detected or corrected.
Anyway, the first gap that comes to mind is... I don't dare to cook anything that involves handling raw meat, because I'm afraid that I lack the knowledge necessary to avoid giving myself food poisoning. Maybe if I tried, I would be able to do it with little or no problem, but I don't dare to try.
Replies from: pjeby, Threedee, wisnij, Conuly, NancyLebovitz, None, MartinB, FAWS↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-08T19:25:03.087Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't dare to cook anything that involves handling raw meat, because I'm afraid that I lack the knowledge necessary to avoid giving myself food poisoning.
Short tip: If the raw meat smells or tastes bad, don't eat it.
Longer tip: the reason there are so many raw meat warnings are not because you will get sick from eating or handling raw meat. If you don't have a clogged nose, there is almost no way for you to get sick from raw meat, because you will smell or taste any problems before you swallow it.
What's NOT safe is mxing raw and cooked foods. The safety warnings are because the same bacteria that will make raw foods smell bad, will not produce the same smell warnings in the cooked food. This means that you can have highly-contaminated cooked food that gives off no warning whatsoever, and get terribly sick from it.
I have eaten raw meat -- including raw chicken and raw eggs -- for many years, and had fewer incidences of stomach upset with them than I have had with cooked foods. The worst reaction I ever had to a raw food was when I ate a bad egg raw, that was too cold for me to properly taste or smell. (I vomited it up a few minutes later, when some less-impaired part of my body detected the problem.)
Since then, I prefer to keep fresh eggs unrefrigerated, and find they keep for around two weeks at room temperature.
So, bear in mind that the mere presence of harmful organisms in food doesn't mean they'll make you sick, in and of themselves. Cooking and sterilization are evolutionarily modern inventions, and we've only known about the existence of germs for the last 100 years or so.
We can therefore trust that our genes will encode reflexive and intuitive responses to food that is actually harmful, provided that it was found in the ancestral environment. This means that we can easily tell with our senses when a raw and unprocessed food is unsafe to eat. It's the prepared stuff you need to be careful with!
In other words, raw meat is plenty safe to handle and eat. Just keep it away from your cooked food, as the cooked food not only has its residual defenses destroyed (no intact cell walls, etc.) but also will not show any signs that it has been contaminated until well after you eat it.
Food poisoning, btw, is less bad the earlier your body detects the problem. If you somehow manage to eat something raw that's bad, you may throw it up before it even reaches your stomach, or within the first few minutes of getting it there. But cooked food poisoning usually doesn't get detected until the food is at least into the small intestine, and it's much worse down there.
(Really, if you're worried about cooking raw meat, you're much better off just eating the raw meat as-is!)
Replies from: Kutta, DanielLC↑ comment by Kutta · 2011-02-11T12:01:11.002Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I used to be a semi-frequent raw egg consumer. I figured that risks should be rather low. However, once I did get food poisoning, and it was such an excessively bad experience that I decided that I'm avoiding even small risks from raw food consumption.
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-11T20:31:41.739Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
However, once I did get food poisoning, and it was such an excessively bad experience that I decided that I'm avoiding even small risks from raw food consumption.
Just out of curiosity, what were the specific circumstances? Were the eggs refigerated? Mixed with other items? Or eaten warm and plain with nothing else?
Replies from: Kutta↑ comment by Kutta · 2011-02-12T17:55:21.597Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I ate two raw eggs along with maybe a cup of whipping cream and two-three pieces of vegetable, for breakfast. I'm fairly confident it was the eggs. First symptoms occurred only about 5 hours later, after I'd eaten a moderate amount of other food whose composition I can't recall. Eggs were at most 5 days old, and spent that time refrigerated. They may have spent at most one day left out of refrigerator. They were eaten cold.
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-12T20:07:21.878Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Eggs were at most 5 days old,
Since coming out of the store, or the chicken? ;-)
As a comparison point, I usually store eggs at room temperature with a high probability of still being good 2 weeks after getting them from the farmer. (Don't know how old they are before that point, or how they're stored, though they usually seem pretty cold when I get them.)
I never eat them raw except at room temperature, and never without smelling them before adding them to something else (like a smoothie or other recipe).
They were eaten cold.
In my experience, you're lucky to notice a problem with a cold egg even if you intentionally smell it, and you don't mention having smelled it.
First symptoms only occurred only about 5 hours later,
I am a bit surprised by this. The one time I had a nasty reaction to a cold egg it only took 5 minutes. On the other hand, it wasn't mixed with anything else at all, so maybe that's a factor.
Replies from: Kutta↑ comment by Kutta · 2011-02-13T07:57:17.890Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Since coming out of the store, or the chicken? ;-)
Store.
The one time I had a nasty reaction to a cold egg it only took 5 minutes.
Wiki says: "The delay between consumption of a contaminated food and appearance of the first symptoms of illness is called the incubation period. This ranges from hours to days depending on the agent, and on how much was consumed. If symptoms occur within 1–6 hours after eating the food, it suggests that it is caused by a bacterial toxin or a chemical rather than live bacteria."
↑ comment by Threedee · 2011-02-07T05:27:28.653Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Generally, it is mainly chicken that one needs to be careful about, because it is sometimes contaminated with unhealthy bacteria, even when bought "fresh". A general procedure with all meat, and especially chicken, is to wash any surface that raw chicken comes in contact with when you are done preparing it and have started to cook it, then wash any utensils you used that touched the chicken, and wash you hands. To be extra cautious, you can do that for any raw meat. Raw meat should be refrigerated soon after purchase and now allowed to stand uncooked at room temperature for more than the time it takes to prepare it.
Replies from: PeerInfinity↑ comment by PeerInfinity · 2011-02-07T06:18:58.697Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for explaining that! But, um... I still have more questions... What is the procedure for washing the surfaces, the utensils, and my hands? How do I know when the meat is cooked enough to not qualify as raw? And for stir-frying raw meat, do I need to pause the stir-frying process to wash the stir-frying utensils, so that I don't contaminate the cooked food with any raw juices that happen to still be on the utensils?
Replies from: saturn, luminosity, beriukay↑ comment by saturn · 2011-02-07T08:16:30.232Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Salmonella bacteria is killed instantly at 165°F. Cooking small chopped or sliced pieces of meat is hard to do wrong because the surface area to volume ratio is high enough that they will be sterilized even before they start to appear cooked. Make your slices less than 1/2 inch thick and cook them until they start to turn golden brown. As long as the business ends of your utensils are in contact with the food as it cooks they will be sterilized along with it.
Assuming that you already know how to wash things in general, you don't need to do it any differently. Normal washing is good enough because bacteria can't grow without a source of nutrients and moisture, and you need to ingest a fairly substantial amount of bacteria in order to get sick.
Replies from: rhollerith_dot_com, JoshuaZ↑ comment by RHollerith (rhollerith_dot_com) · 2011-02-08T06:47:56.887Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
We should add that soapy water does not kill the bacteria, but rather makes it impossible for them to adhere to anything, so they get washed down the drain.
Replies from: Chronos, hwc↑ comment by Chronos · 2011-02-21T08:51:21.387Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Washing bacteria down the drain is certainly the primary purpose for using soap, by far, but surfactants like soap also kill a few bacteria by lysis (disruption of the cell membrane, causing the cells to rapidly swell with water and burst). In practice, this is so minor it's not worth paying attention to: bacteria have a surrounding cell wall made of a sugar-protein polymer that resists surfactants (among other things), dramatically slowing down the process to the point that it's not practical to make use of it.
(Some bacteria are more vulnerable to surfactant lysis than others. Gram-negative bacteria have a much thinner cell wall, which is itself surrounded by a second, more exposed membrane. But gram-positive bacteria have a thick wall with nothing particularly vulnerable on the outside, and even with gram-negative bacteria the scope of the effect is minor.)
In practice, the big benefit of soap is (#1) washing away oils, especially skin oils, and (#2) dissolving the biofilms produced by the bacteria to anchor themselves to each other and to biological surfaces (like skin and wooden cutting boards). Killing the bacteria directly with soap is a distant third priority.
For handwashing, hot water is in a similar boat: even the hottest water your hands can stand is merely enough to speed up surfactant action, not to kill bacteria directly. For cleaning inanimate surfaces, sufficiently hot water is quite effective at killing bacteria, but most people's hot water only goes up to 135°F or thereabouts, which is not scaldingly hot enough to do the job instantly.
For directly killing bacteria via non-heat means, alcohol and bleach are both far more effective than soap. Alcohol very rapidly strips off the cell wall and triggers immediate lysis, while bleach acts both as a saponifier (it turns fatty acids into soap) and a strong oxidizer (directly attacking the chemical structure of the cell wall and membrane, ripping it apart like a rapid-action biological parallel to rusting iron).
Fun trivia: your hand feels slippery or "bleachy" after handling bleach (or any reasonably strong base) because the outermost layer of your skin has been converted into soap.
↑ comment by hwc · 2011-02-08T13:16:16.027Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I formulated this hypothesis on my own, but I have not seen evidence to back this up. I think a misunderstanding of this process has lead to the profusion of anti-bacterial soaps, which may be breeding hard-to-kill bacteria.
Replies from: kpreid↑ comment by kpreid · 2011-02-08T21:10:47.553Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Those who are concerned may be interested to know that Ivory Liquid Hand Soap (and, in all the stores I've visited lately, no other) is a brand of liquid soap which contains no antibacterial ingredients.
Furthermore, it at least used to have a slogan like "so gentle you can even use it on your face" — and it does not have the warning “keep out of eyes” that, as far as I know, all antibacterial soaps have — and I do in fact use it as a face and body wash.
↑ comment by JoshuaZ · 2011-02-07T14:21:00.128Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Salmonella bacteria is killed instantly at 165°F.
This is true, but it probably helps to state explicitly that a) the even for small pieces of meat the inside might not be at 165 F even if the outside is (so make sure that it is hot for a fair bit of time) b) This is more of an issue for larger pieces of meat (luminosity's comment below is relevant).
There's a related issue: if the meat is raw and frozen, life will be much easier if you defrost it before cooking it. Weird things can happen if you try to directly cook large bits of frozen meat. Generally it won't result in health problems, but it does make stuff more likely to be burned in part or simply not taste good.
Replies from: false_vacuum↑ comment by false_vacuum · 2011-02-08T05:40:47.365Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
However, I find it much easier to slice meat for stir-frying which is still partially frozen. (This also speeds the thawing process.) Probably if you use a cleaver or other heavy, extremely sharp type of instrument, no prior thawing would be necessary; but I don't trust myself with those.
↑ comment by luminosity · 2011-02-07T09:16:15.533Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For cooking larger pieces of meat than saturn addresses, the way I learnt what was and wasn't needed was simply cooking meat, waiting until the outside looked cooked, then taking a piece out and cutting it in half. You'll be able to see if it's still bloody inside, or if it's chicken you'll be able to see if it's turned white yet. Personally I prefer meat entirely cooked, but depending on your taste pinkish in the middle should be fine.
Doing this over time has given me a good feel for how long to cook meat for my preferences, though even now I still often slice pieces open to be sure.
Replies from: false_vacuum, Matt_Simpson↑ comment by false_vacuum · 2011-02-08T05:42:13.868Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
pinkish in the middle should be fine.
For beef, not chicken.
↑ comment by Matt_Simpson · 2011-02-07T17:00:29.124Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is good for getting a feel for how long to cook meat, but it also dries the meat out to some degree as you cook it. This is especially relevant for cooking steak, IMHO. For things like hamburgers, a simple meat thermometer will do the trick (brown both sides and cook until the inside is 165*F). For steak, it's more difficult if you prefer your meat cooked less than medium-well.
↑ comment by beriukay · 2011-02-07T15:15:35.404Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm not much of a stir-fryer, but my general method for meat cooking is to have separate utensils for "before cooking" and "during-to-after". So if I put the meat in the pan with a fork, that fork goes to the sink. But the wooden spoon that is cooked with the meat doesn't get washed until I'm done eating, and is usually used as my serving spoon, too. If you are really concerned for safety, you could always use one cooking spoon until the surface of the meat is obviously brown, then switch to a fresh spoon.
If dealing with a low-fat meat (like moose), burger is much easier to cook than other meat, and is still healthy. It is hard to overcook, and easy to tell what's safe, because all the little chunks of meat go from red to dark brown. High fat burger (like cow) is still tasty and easy to cook, but not terribly healthy.
One trick that I will immediately adopt is using an infrared thermometer to check for the 165F that saturn mentioned. Thanks for the info!
↑ comment by wisnij · 2011-02-08T16:36:22.968Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is one of the things I struggled with a bit when first learning to cook for myself as well. It may help to keep in mind that some meats are safer than others. My heuristic goes roughly: chicken < pork < beef/lamb < fish, in increasing order of safety. If I'm handling raw chicken, I'll wash my hands and utensils thoroughly in warm soapy water before doing anything else. If I'm handling fish, I'll usually just give my hands a quick rinse. The same ordering also applies roughly to doneness; it's a much bigger problem to have undercooked chicken than beef, for example.
A good starting place for meats is braised dishes like stews and pot roasts, because the typically long cooking time makes it hard to accidentally undercook something while still producing tasty results (as opposed to e.g. a steak grilled until it turns into shoe leather).
Replies from: Conuly↑ comment by Conuly · 2011-02-09T03:32:22.319Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
One bit of food safety is to use a designated cutting board ONLY for chopping raw meat. One board for fruits and vegetables (and if they're wooden I find it's helpful to use a separate one for onions) and one for raw meat. You'll want to buy two that look dissimilar so you can't confuse the two.
When you're cooking, be sure to wash the knife between chopping up your raw meat and chopping up anything that might not be cooked to the same temperature. (Practically, this means to wash the knife or switch knives after the meat, no matter what.)
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T05:00:40.378Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you're roasting meat, you can get a thermometer that goes into the meat so you can find out whether the interior has gone up to a safe temperature. Chart of temperatures
Stewing meat (simmering it for an extended period until it falls apart) is another way to be sure it's safe.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-07T12:35:28.857Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Pork and chicken should be cooked all the way through. If you're not sure whether it's done, you can cut it open and have a look.
With beef and lamb, you only need to ensure that the outer surface is cooked - whether you want it cooked all the way through is just a matter of personal taste. However, if it's minced, you should cook it all the way (it has formerly-outer-surfaces in the middle).
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-07T23:59:16.987Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you're not sure whether it's done, you can cut it open and have a look.
You should probably specify how one would actually visually distinguish done from not done. Or maybe not, it sounds like PeerInfinity already understands the basics of cooking. I don't, however. :)
Replies from: Nornagest↑ comment by Nornagest · 2011-02-08T00:15:59.549Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Uncooked meat is semitransparent with a kind of gelatin-like luster. As it cooks, it becomes more opaque and shifts color.
The exact color transitions depend on the kind of meat and whether it's had a chance to oxidize before you start cooking it. Chicken, which as mentioned you need to worry about the most, starts out a pale yellow-pink and cooks to a tannish color. Pork starts out light pink and cooks to a kind of light pinkish-gray; if it goes completely gray you've overcooked it. Beef and lamb start dark red, or dark pink if they've been exposed to the air, and cook to a deep red-brown.
All meat develops a brown crust over time if it's being grilled or pan-fried, but it's the interior color that matters. Another thing to look at is the kind of juice it's dripping; uncooked meat bleeds slightly, a thin reddish fluid, while well-cooked meat oozes gravy-like, clear or brownish liquids. It's safe before it stops bleeding, though.
↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-08T16:57:37.549Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't dare to cook anything that involves handling raw meat
This thread just confirms the benefits of being a vegetarian.
Replies from: fr00t, TobyBartels↑ comment by fr00t · 2011-02-08T20:37:09.669Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Pish posh. I have admittedly horrendous sanitary procedures, and though I handle and cook raw meat at least 4 times a week I've never once gotten sick.
Pork actually should have a little bit of rose inside; I only cook my chicken until this is just gone (or even faintly visible). I routinely eat steak rare as can be, and tuna essentially raw.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T17:23:31.835Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's certainly one benefit. Unfortunately, vegetables can also be contaminated, especially when animal waste is used as manure.
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T03:30:17.532Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
True. Many people die from green onions and spinach each year (not intended to bean exhaustive enumeration).
↑ comment by FAWS · 2011-02-07T05:13:08.901Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As long as it is sufficiently fresh I don't think there is any particular food poisoning danger from raw meat. There is some risk from eating it completely raw, but even that is far less likely to end in food poisoning than not, and ISTM effectively impossible to do on accident without noticing.
Replies from: Barry_Cotter, jimmy↑ comment by Barry_Cotter · 2011-02-07T09:30:04.867Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Poultry and pork are not safe to eat raw, even store bought in Western countries, same for minced meat. They need to be properly cooked, which means white all the way through. You can cook it hot and it'll be dry or at a lower temperature and still tender and juicy though.
Generally if it has hooves or swims and was properly handled or washed beforehand this is pretty accurate.
Replies from: Conuly, pjeby, komponisto↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-08T20:51:52.630Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Poultry and pork are not safe to eat raw, even store bought in Western countries,
Define "safe". I've eaten plenty of store-bought poultry raw, never been sick from it. (Unless you count going, "ugh, that's not as fresh as I thought it was," and spitting it up a minute or two later.)
Replies from: khafra, Barry_Cotter↑ comment by khafra · 2011-02-08T22:25:15.428Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Define "spitting it up"--if you mean chewing on a piece of raw chicken for 60-120 seconds, and spitting it out if it doesn't taste right, that's just a little odd; if you mean swallowing the chicken, then vomiting it back up, that crosses my personal line into "sick from it."
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-08T23:11:43.931Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Define "spitting it up" --if you mean chewing on a piece of raw chicken for 60-120 seconds, and spitting it out if it doesn't taste right, that's just a little odd
That would be spitting out, not up. In any case, what I mean is that I'm eating it for a minute or two before I suddenly have the distinct feeling that something is wrong with what I'm eating, and gently cough it back up.
if you mean swallowing the chicken, then vomiting it back up, that crosses my personal line into "sick from it."
There's a huge difference between vomiting and spitting something up. The latter feels entirely different; for one thing. It feels almost like you never swallowed it at all, it just comes back up like "bzzt... rejected by quality control".
To put it another way, it feels exactly like wanting to spit something out that tastes really bad... except that it just pops back out of your throat instead of merely out of your mouth. There is no unpleasantness to the expulsion; instead it feels like the unpleasantness is contained in the food itself.
I have heard parents use the phrase "spitting up" to describe what happens with babies rejecting a food, and it seems an apt description of the response here.
Believe me, if spitting up was anything like vomiting, it would've put me off of raw foods mighty quickly. The very distinct sensation was actually very convincing that our bodies do indeed have layered defenses against ancestrally relevant forms of food contamination, and specifically that there's a layer of protection that kicks in before hardly any digestion has occurred, but after you've tasted/smelled/swallowed the food.
Believe me, it is a world of difference from cooked-food poisoning, where you're doubled over heaving your intestines out hours after eating. Imagine a linear reduction in discomfort proportional to the time the food spends in your body, with spitting out something nasty at the other end of the spectrum. Spitting up is only slightly more distasteful than spitting something out, and if you have a decent sense of smell, you won't even put it in your mouth to begin with.
Eggs and chicken, however, lose most of their smell when cold (which is why I avoid refrigerating eggs I intend to eat raw). Fish and beef lose less of their odor (and especially, less of their decay odors) when cold, which is probably why people think they're safer to eat raw. (i.e., because when they're not safe, you'll notice this sooner and with less discomfort.)
Replies from: khafra↑ comment by khafra · 2011-02-08T23:44:14.598Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Informative, thanks. Do you stay away from steak tartare and kitfo, since the raw beef is seasoned?
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-09T04:18:01.201Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Do you stay away from steak tartare and kitfo, since the raw beef is seasoned?
I don't know what kitfo is. I think I may have had steak tartare, but I'm not fond of having lots of seasoning on my raw foods. Generally speaking, though, I assume that if a restaurant is serving a raw dish, they have every incentive to make sure that the food in question is fresh and unspoiled. (As a result, raw dishes are often among a restaurant's most expensive things to eat.)
I don't know to what extent seasoning would interfere with freshness detection in general. I rarely seasoned any raw meat with anything stronger than soy sauce or ponzu sauce, and usually only part of any given bite.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-09T11:17:50.698Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Kitfo is Ethopian-style raw beef. .
↑ comment by Barry_Cotter · 2011-02-08T22:20:56.201Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Define "safe"
You will get food poisoning less than 1 time in 50 you do this.
Replies from: JGWeissman, pjeby↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-02-08T22:28:27.178Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I would not be happy about my normal eating habits resulting in food poisoning 1 time in 50. I eat 3 meals per day, and would expect to get food poisoning nearly twice per month. Fortunately, my actual eating habits have a far better track record than that.
↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-08T23:18:29.158Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You will get food poisoning less than 1 time in 50 you do this.
I've eaten raw chicken hundreds of times and never experienced food poisoning from it, so by your definition, my approach to eating it is "safe".
On the other hand, I've experienced food poisoning from cooked foods several times during the parts of my life where I was not eating raw meats.
Proportionally speaking, of course, I've eaten so much more cooked food in my life that this doesn't mean cooked food is less safe than raw. Certainly, it still qualifies as "safe" by your definition.
On the other hand, the experience of vomiting up contaminated cooked food that made it to my intestines seems almost two orders of magnitude worse than anything I ever experienced from eating something raw... so YMMV.
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T03:35:36.843Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Conventional wisdom is that you're crazy to not cook chicken to the point that any salmonella is surely killed. I'm sure you know this. I guess you have faith that you won't be infected by the bacteria as your body quickly detects and 'spits up' the offending chicken.
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-09T04:42:18.411Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Conventional wisdom is that you're crazy
Conventional wisdom is that quite a few things discussed on this site are crazy.
to not cook chicken to the point that any salmonella is surely killed.
If you are cooking your chicken, then you should indeed make sure it is fully cooked! Partially cooking chicken is in fact a good way to get food poisioning.
This does NOT imply, however, that eating the chicken raw is maximally unsafe!
The first hidden assumption in this conventional wisdom is that the contaminated chicken will in fact reach your intestines with the bacteria intact. But this assumption is further predicated on an even bigger assumption:
Namely, that you are cooking the food in the first place.
If you are cooking it, then you are bypassing your body's safety mechanisms, by destroying whatever chemical composition our evolved bacteria detection machinery relies upon, making it impossible to smell, taste, or otherwise detect the contamination before it's too late.
However, if you're not cooking it, then it's straightforward to rely on your evolutionary heritage to detect and defend against this natural ancestral hazard.
IOW, the presence of a bacteria detection and eviction system keyed to chemical reactions in raw (but not cooked) foods explains both phenomena: why partially cooked foods and mixing raw+cooked foods are dangerous, while raw foods by themselves are quite safe in comparison.
Both will cause problems if they get to your gut -- but the raw food is extremely unlikely to actually make it to your gut, or stay there long enough to be a problem.
I guess you have faith
Hey, no insults necessary. ;-)
that you won't be infected by the bacteria as your body quickly detects and 'spits up' the offending chicken.
If salmonella was present as a food contaminant danger for enough of our ancestors, we would expect to have such detection and protection machinery, yes.
That I have experienced this machinery in operation with contaminated raw foods but not with contaminated cooked ones (i.e., the cooked foods that I have gotten food poisoning symptoms from), it seems strongly in support of that hypothesis.
Do you have an alternative hypothesis that fits this combination of evidence, and reasonable evolutionary priors? Or are you just regurgitating your gut reactions to the ideas you've been fed in the past? (puns intended ;-) )
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-10T06:42:22.102Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I do value your experience report.
Yes, I'm regurgitating my summary of the way that I've seen other people react to the idea of undercooked or uncooked chicken flesh (like it has near-magical powers to contaminate with a powerful poison anything it touches). For an amusing example, see any Gordon Ramsey cooking show (which I cannot generally recommend). Undercooked chicken is the cardinal restaurant sin. But the fear definitely fully extends to never cooked chicken (cutting boards, knives).
Kindly notice I didn't say that you're definitely wrong. I was aware of the distinction between "most people would say he's crazy" and "he's crazy".
I've experienced dramatic (but not life threatening) food poisoning on 3-4 occasions only. Once was a raw egg in a smoothie. The other times were especially contaminated cooked meat (e.g. hot dog from grocery store).
I don't buy that "it would be helpful to have evolved it, and such evolution was possible" means "we have it". But of course it makes it more plausible that we have it.
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-10T16:56:58.488Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
the fear definitely fully extends to never cooked chicken (cutting boards, knives)
Because bringing them into contact with cooked foods actually is dangerous. You won't have any way of knowing the cooked food is contaminated.
Here's the thing: if your food's not that fresh, cooking can make an unsafe food safe (from a bacterial point of view) at the cost of destroying some other nutrients. (e.g. creatine and vitamin C). However, that same piece of food you'd spit out due to taste or spit up via whatever the backup test mechanism is.
So it's not that I'm claiming the raw meat itself is safe in that case. Obviously, if your body rejects it, it's because it's not safe. I'm just saying that, raw meat that's not contaminated is as safe (or safer) than cooked food, and that telling the difference is easy if you use your senses in the way they're adapted for.
Raw food is only dangerous in a kitchen if you're combining it with other foods without first ensuring that it's not contaminated.
The error is in thinking that all raw food is "contaminated", simply because it hasn't been cooked yet. Before a certain level of decay occurs, it's not contaminated food, it's just food.
I've experienced dramatic (but not life threatening) food poisoning on 3-4 occasions only. Once was a raw egg in a smoothie.
Did you smell and/or taste the egg at room temperature before it was added to the smoothie? From personal experience, it's a bad idea not to. ;-)
I'm not saying "all raw food is safe all the time", I'm saying, if you smell and taste individual raw foods in as close to a "natural" state as practical (i.e., near ambient temperature, not yet processed or mixed with other foods) then the odds of you coming into contact with an excessive bacterial load are quite low.
As a practical matter, I would also mention that I never eat chicken raw that is only a day or two away from its store-marked expiration date, because during that period it can be difficult to tell by smell right out of the refrigerator if it's bad. If it is bad, I won't notice until I've chewed or swallowed some, and while it's not a traumatic event by any means, it is still unpleasant and makes me want to wash my mouth out.
By contrast, beef that has gone bad in the day or two before its marked expiration is pretty damn obvious -- brown or grey coloration is also a visible indicator that it's not particularly fresh. But the scent is more pronounced, right out of the refrigerator.
Anyway, accidentally consuming contaminated (but detectably-so) raw meat is mildly unpleasant. But accidentally consuming contaminated food that your body can't detect is MUCH much worse.
IOW, if you eat raw animal proteins, smell or taste them separately, and preferably close to room temperature, before consumption. If it's bad, don't eat it.
I don't buy that "it would be helpful to have evolved it, and such evolution was possible" means "we have it".
Of course. But that, plus the experience of your body rejecting a food makes it considerably more plausible. It's a very convincing experience, since I've never experienced the same rejection of a contaminated cooked food. Nor has anything cooked that gave me food poisoning smelled or tasted bad when I ate it.
This looks to me like strong evidence for contamination-detection machinery that's tuned to the properties of ancestral food sources, and which is bypassed by cooking.
IOW, the benefit of cooking is that it lets you eat marginal foods. The cost is that you have to substitute careful procedures for "common sense" in order to avoid getting randomly food-poisoned. The extent to which food poisoning still occurs in the modern world is a testament to just how difficult it is for us to notice contamination in cooked foods, vs. its sheer obviousness in the raw.
Really, in the past 100 years of refrigeration and Pasteur, I would hazard a guess that more people have died or become seriously ill (per capita in the relevant regions) from food contamination than in the preceding 100 years, simply because before refrigeration we had a much higher probability of smelling any contamination. To thoroughly check a piece of cold beef, I have to put it right up to my nose and take a deliberate whiff. The same odor from a warm piece would likely be detectable just through ambient proximity -- you'd know without even having to specifically check.
So, while refrigeration and cooking definitely have their place, they also bypass our built-in safeguards.
Replies from: Desrtopa, wedrifid, TobyBartels, Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2012-02-12T01:39:36.895Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Did you smell and/or taste the egg at room temperature before it was added to the smoothie? From personal experience, it's a bad idea not to. ;-)
It's easy to tell when an egg has gone bad, but not easy to tell whether it's contaminated with salmonella.
Really, in the past 100 years of refrigeration and Pasteur, I would hazard a guess that more people have died or become seriously ill (per capita in the relevant regions) from food contamination than in the preceding 100 years, simply because before refrigeration we had a much higher probability of smelling any contamination.
I'd take a bet on that. I haven't read any statistics on this, but I have read that before refrigeration, people were often less picky about what constituted expiration in food, by necessity. People might be able to smell most dangerous food contamination, but before refrigeration and pasteurization, people were often faced with a choice between eating potentially dangerous food and not eating. I recall Bill Bryson writing (in Made In America) that a contemporary noted that at one meal, George Washington put away his food without eating it, because he thought it was off. His wife cleaned her plate.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-10T17:14:14.641Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Of course. But that, plus the experience of your body rejecting a food makes it considerably more plausible. It's a very convincing experience, since I've never experienced the same rejection of a contaminated cooked food. Nor has anything cooked that gave me food poisoning smelled or tasted bad when I ate it.
I have found my senses to be particularly sensitive in this regard and they do seem to work with cooked foods. I've definitely 'rejected' cooked foods early enough that the experience wasn't more than a mildly unpleasant inconvenience. (ie. Eating more a minute later doesn't seem at all unnatural.) Closer inspection confirmed the instinctive judgement and I gave my reflexes a gold star. Yet I would certainly agree that this is much easier when it comes to raw foods.
Did you find it took you time to adapt to raw meats after switching away from cooked meats? It seems like something that would take some adjustment. I find, for example, that my instincts scream at me if they discover I am eating chicken that isn't cooked through. And eating large slabs of raw fish takes a lot of willpower too.
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-10T21:46:19.780Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Did you find it took you time to adapt to raw meats after switching away from cooked meats? It seems like something that would take some adjustment.
Not much. Once I was prepared for the idea, I eased into it by trying things like raw egg smoothies, sushi, beef tataki (meat that's just seared on the outside - available at many sushi restaurants), and so on. After that, I was psychologically ready to try chicken.
There really wasn't any adjustment to the food itself, only to the idea of eating it. What I found consistently was that raw food tasted better than cooked, in terms of flavor and texture. The main drawback I have found to eating raw food is the temperature: hot food is generally more appetizing, except for sushi and sashimi. I have very little interest in cooked fish, but I love sushi and sashimi. I can't stand beef well done any more, I want it to be at least extremely rare if not raw. (I just don't like it cold that much.)
These were almost immediate changes in my taste preference. Texturally speaking, raw meat is 100% superior to cooked. It feels better in the mouth, it's juicy... damn, I'm making myself hungry now. Really, the main thing at this point I like better about cooked meat is that the fat portion is more appetizing when heated to the point of softening, and it has an above-ambient temperature. I suspect that this is once again an evolutionary thing -- a fresh kill would not likely have cold-hardened fats and would be hotter than ambient temperature. It would not surprise me if early humans began heating meat for the simple reason that it tastes better if it's at least body-temperature warm.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-12T04:59:17.416Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Pasteur
Is Pasteur to blame? Of course, it's terrible that governments in Anglophone countries (and why is it only them?) are trying to stop people from selling raw milk, but even with pasteurised milk, it's easy to smell when it goes bad --rather famously so, I thought.
↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-10T21:41:13.349Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I understand your claim. You think that most dangerously spoiled food is easy to detect (if not overly chilled, or cooked) by tasting/smelling a small quantity raw, and that that quantity is not enough to harm us. Or, perhaps, even if initial smell/ taste can't detect it, actually consuming enough of it will lead to detection and relatively safe expulsion further downstream, but that cooked food defeats some of the detection mechanisms.
I do agree that exposure to harmful substances isn't all-or-nothing bad (while of course I reject most homeopathic-believers' views that small amounts of harmful substances are magical).
Also, there's nothing necessarily wrong with a brown or gray surface on meat. It just means the blood has been exposed to oxygen. When I store meat in a sealed glass container in the refrigerator for a few days, it looks like that and tastes+smells fine.
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-10T21:55:51.121Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Also, there's nothing necessarily wrong with a brown or gray surface on meat.
I understand that. However, it's also correlated somewhat with the age of the meat (i.e. quantity of oxygen exposure), which is why I will smell such a piece more carefully than one without such a sign of age.
I do agree that exposure to harmful substances isn't all-or-nothing bad (while of course I reject most homeopathic-believers' views that small amounts of harmful substances are magical).
It sounds like you might be in danger of overgeneralizing from homeopathy to the hygiene hypothesis and bacterial symbiosis. In addition to keeping one's immune system in trim, there are other benefits to even the theoretically-nastiest bacteria. I believe E. Coli has actually been experimented with as an anti-cancer agent, for example. The line between "beneficial bacteria" and "harmful invader" is not as cleanly drawn as brains designed for primate politics would like to make it.
(i.e., we are biased to label organisms as good or bad, for us or against us, when it's really more a matter of how much, where, and when. Dose makes the medicine as well as the poison.)
↑ comment by komponisto · 2011-02-08T15:55:02.113Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Poultry and pork are not safe to eat raw, even store bought in Western countries
But beef is?
What accounts for the difference?
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-08T16:04:23.317Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, pork has trichinosis. (Notice the treatment section is silent about what to do if you are diagnosed more than 3 days after infection.)
And chicken is basically universally contaminated with salmonella or campylobacter.
On the other hand, it seems to be actual news when beef is infected with E. coli or salmonella, so I infer that beef is usually free of such problems. (Why beef doesn't have a unique or universal infection of its own, I have no idea. Maybe cows just have better immune systems than pigs or chickens.)
Replies from: TobyBartels, komponisto↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T17:15:18.739Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There are also traditional cuisines of raw beef (such as steak tartar) and many forms of fish (such as sashimi). This still doesn't explain why, but it suggest to me (especially since there are so many types of sashimi) that the real question is why raw pork and chicken (is it all poultry?) are always dangerous, rather than why raw beef and fish are not.
ETA: Gwern has just suggested the same idea.
↑ comment by komponisto · 2011-02-08T16:42:29.951Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why beef doesn't have a unique or universal infection of its own, I have no idea. Maybe cows just have better immune systems than pigs or chickens
This is the part I'm curious about. Or rather, why beef seems to be sufficiently immune to all infections -- not just unique or universal ones -- so as to be safe for raw consumption (something I hadn't known until now).
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-08T17:09:19.097Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The best guess I can venture is that it has something to do with the raising and butchering process. Notice that it's also safe to eat a lot of seafood raw (which is often called sushi); it seems unlikely to me that all sorts of random sea-critter would also have any special cow immune system features.
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T03:37:26.835Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes. Conventional wisdom is that undercooked beef is pretty safe. Weird that chicken and pig cultivation would be so much more filthy than cow and farmed-fish. (for fish, we could suppose that fish diseases and parasites aren't so harmful to us as those found in our mammal kin)
↑ comment by jimmy · 2011-02-07T19:29:45.571Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have been eating my cow and fish raw for the last year or so and haven't gotten sick from it- even when the meat was old enough that half way through I noticed that it smelled kinda bad.
Raw chicken liver was over the line though.
Replies from: pjeby, sfb↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-08T20:53:53.471Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Raw chicken liver was over the line though.
I'll admit I've never tried any organ meats; I've heard that there are non-ancestral contaminants we don't have the sensory machinery to detect and which accumulate more in animals' organs than in their flesh.
comment by Tripitaka · 2011-02-13T14:51:58.005Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In addition to "Learn to touch-type. Learn to type with ten fingers.":
I am often amazed and astonished that people do not know how to operate the search engine of their choice properly and thus fail to find their desired information. It is your main internet-information retrival-tool, make yourself familiar with its advanced possibilitys, also know as operators. e.g. for google, see this chart: http://www.googleguide.com/advanced_operators_reference.html
I found most useful (for google) the following ones:
Quotationmarks around a phrase, e.g. "less wrong" searches for the exact phrase.
the "site:address phrase" command searches for your phrase only on the specified site, e.g. site:lesswrong.com "nuclear plant"
the exclude-command "-" (minus) excludes one word from your results: rationality -rand
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-18T05:07:47.161Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Nice link. I'd been thinking a-b was the same as "a b" all these years. For the record, it means ("ab" or "a-b" or "a b").
comment by majus · 2011-02-08T23:10:05.457Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My deficiency is common manners. I think it's a lack of attention to the world outside of my own thoughts. I've been known to just wander away from a conversation that is clearly not over to the other participants. I notice a sneeze about 10 seconds too late to say "bless you!". I'm appropriately thankful, but assume that's clear without my actually saying or writing something to convey the feeling. Depending on the context, my preoccupation leads me to be perceived as everything from a lovable nerd to an arrogant jerk. It's something I'd like to change.
Replies from: SRStarin, Jonathan_Graehl, MaoShan, juliawise, dlthomas↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-09T14:35:55.655Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When I interact with people who behave the way you do (there a lot here at NASA), I generally do not hold it against them.
However, since you said you'd like to change, here are some suggestions that don't require a great deal of attention because they are responses to specific events (which you would need to practice noticing):
- Always say "Thank you" for everything. Assume that no one thinks you're thankful unless you say so. It's not necessarily true, but it is true sometimes, and it's virtually never true that saying "thank you" will annoy someone that has just done something for you.
- Learn people's names and use them when you see someone for the first time each day (assuming you're in an anglophone culture--romance cultures greet more often, I don't know about other cultures). For many people, saying "Hi, JoAnn!" instead of just "Hi" or "Mmf" helps make them feel valued and respected by you.
- It's OK to leave a conversation that others are continuing, if they're not actually speaking to you at the time you leave. Tell everyone "Bye" or "Talk to you later" or whatever is appropriate for your expectations of interacting in the future, and then step away. If you don't want to interrupt a lively discussion, you can just raise your hand in a quick wave, try to make eye contact with at least one person if you can and smile or nod, and step away.
↑ comment by handoflixue · 2011-02-15T22:25:53.110Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'll second the "thank you", and append that "please" and "you're welcome" are also wonderful phrases. I tend to read out as exceptionally polite as long as I'm managing those three.
I have, ONCE in my life, had someone upset with me for my politeness, but that was because I was overusing "sorry". I do find apologizing is a useful trait, but it's definitely easier to overdo that one :)
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-16T06:01:41.231Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Regarding exact phrasing, I think "no problem" has largely replaced "you're welcome" outside of formal settings. Also, here is something it took me a while to figure out - in the case of an approximately equal trade, both parties should thank each other, but saying "you're welcome" or an equivalent would be kind of insulting.
Replies from: handoflixue↑ comment by handoflixue · 2011-02-16T19:46:48.523Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In that particular case I could see "you're welcome" being received oddly, since the social expectation is to thank the other person. That said "You're welcome - and thank YOU for your $GIFT" seems to work decently if it's, say, exchanging Christmas gifts.
I've generally gotten positive reactions to using "you're welcome". It might help that I have a voice that comes across as genuinely friendly and happy, and when I'm not genuinely feeling that way I won't use the phrase. I don't think I've ever seen someone react as though it was insulting, in any circumstances.
Admittedly I also just have a personal dislike of "no problem" - it strikes me as disparaging the effort that went in to something, and I only use it when it was a genuinely trivial effort, or if the person seems to be honestly concerned that they've imposed too much on me.
Saying "no problem" to something big also reads out as having an undertone of "you really shouldn't bother thanking me, I didn't actually put any effort in to this", and my experience is that people DO react somewhat to that undertone.
Hmmm, interesting. Overall, "no problem" seems to move people towards a more neutral response to my gift - reducing both anxieties of imposing on me, and enthusiasm/gratitude for me going out of my way to help.
↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T02:38:36.408Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I used to think it was worthwhile to think of strangers as human beings. Now I prefer to ignore them until an actual reason to interact presents itself.
This doesn't apply to people I expect to encounter at least several times. Just strangers.
I suppose learning to comfortably make eye contact and engage strangers was useful, but now I choose not to do it when I have no reason to. It conserves energy and makes me happier not thinking about how I'm perceived by them.
Maybe it's true that crowded/urban living isn't "natural" or "healthy", but the solution isn't to waste energy trying to constantly "connect" with strangers - that's an exercise in futility. The solution would be to find a subcommunity where you can behave "normally".
Replies from: ruhe47↑ comment by ruhe47 · 2011-02-11T01:49:36.390Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have replaced the stock replies to normal social banter with something just on the edge of what most people expect. That little change has had a positive impact on my everyday life. When you ask someone how they are doing they will usually respond with the standard, "I'm Good". A simple smile and a, "Are you really good, or just sorta good?" tends to bump them away from the script and engage with you a little more. Whether it's a waitress or a mechanic, that simple statement (no matter how scripted it is on my part) tends to bring out a higher level of service from them. There is no wasted energy in trying to "connect" with them, as I usually don't care... but stepping outside of their hum-drum routine gives them the perception that I care. That can make all the difference!
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl, Sniffnoy↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-11T18:48:46.699Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Interesting. The smile, and the fact that you're really saying something, are probably what really matter.
I don't ignore my mechanic or waiter - there is a reason to interact :)
↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-11T04:26:25.769Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A simple smile and a, "Are you really good, or just sorta good?" tends to bump them away from the script and engage with you a little more.
*shudder* I'm going to have to say that I find that very surprising (on the basis of the typical mind heuristic, of course. :P ). While I like the idea of changing up the standard greetings, that specific question is one I would probably react hostilely to.
Replies from: Blueberry, ruhe47↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-11T10:26:26.120Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
that specific question is one I would probably react hostilely to.
Why? I would guess you are unusual in that respect.
Replies from: handoflixue, Sniffnoy↑ comment by handoflixue · 2011-02-15T22:35:09.716Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'll actually second Sniffnoy on that, but I concede I'm unusual.
First, I often don't want to interact with people, and I've noticed that people who ask that specific question are usually somewhere between bad and INCREDIBLY bad at reading social cues that indicate I'm not interested in interacting. Related to tat, I've found people who ask that specific question are often very likely to get upset when I refuse to engage them. Basically, it makes me feel objectified - you're forcing me to engage with you socially without my consent. (I am aware that "non-consensual social interaction" is something my culture doesn't seem to normally object to)
Second, as Sniffnoy pointed out, it's rejecting my answer. I'll often say "good" because I'm dealing with all sorts of neurochemical imbalances that I don't want to be thinking about. Pressing further makes me feel like you're unwilling to accept a polite social deflection. Either way, it requires me to come up with a more convoluted lie, or else share something that isn't your business and that I didn't really want to be thinking about.
Third, it often reads out very much as a "stock response", not something that's genuinely attempting to engage me as an individual. "How are you doing?" is fine as a stock question, because I have a stock answer. However, in this case, I don't have a stock answer, so it's forcing me to engage you without you actually putting any effort in to engaging me.
All in all, it basically reads out as "I'm going to actively force you to engage with me, even though I'm unwilling to put any effort in to reading you or understanding you".
(I should clarify that this is a minor peeve, just one that comes up often enough that I have a cached analysis that is fairly in-depth by now. I realize that a detailed critique like this could be read as overly hostile, and that is not at all my intent :))
Replies from: Blueberry↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-24T01:10:21.646Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I didn't read you as hostile at all! I hope you don't mind if I return the critique, since I have the corresponding counter-peeve. :)
I've noticed that people who ask that specific question are usually somewhere between bad and INCREDIBLY bad at reading social cues that indicate I'm not interested in interacting.
Hmm... so you have heard that specific question before? One of the things I liked about it is that I have never heard it before; it seemed unusual and original. I could understand someone not liking it if they had heard it many times.
As far as being bad at reading cues, two other possibilities are a) they are good at reading the cues, but still interested in interacting with you and trying to find a way to make the interaction work; or b) your cues are more ambiguous than you think.
it's rejecting my answer. I'll often say "good" because I'm dealing with all sorts of neurochemical imbalances that I don't want to be thinking about. Pressing further makes me feel like you're unwilling to accept a polite social deflection. Either way, it requires me to come up with a more convoluted lie, or else share something that isn't your business and that I didn't really want to be thinking about.
Contrast my own case, which is that I'll say "good" because I suspect the other person isn't actually interested in an honest answer, and giving a fully honest answer might be imposing. Pressing further allows for the possibility of actually being honest and genuinely connecting. If you're not interested, you don't have to lie or share something you're not comfortable with; you could just say "Sorry, not in a good mood for talking now."
This is why I said the signals you are sending may be ambiguous, in that acting reserved can be a) because you aren't interested, or b) because you are interested, but aren't sure that the other person is interested and don't want to impose.
Replies from: Daniel_Starr↑ comment by Daniel_Starr · 2011-02-24T01:41:56.075Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If it's an obviously super-brief pro-forma "conversation", like banter with a waitress, then I see why ruhe47 's approach works: it shows that you're more interested than average, but the other person has an excuse (other customers!) to walk away rather than lay out their whole life or be rude, so it's not trapping them into a demand for a long answer.
But if someone were to say "Are you really good, or just sorta good?" in a more extended-conversation setting, like a party, then I would agree with Sniffnoy in disliking the proposed question. Without such an obvious natural time limit, that open-ended reflection-demanding question creates too much of an interrogation atmosphere. It's like you're going to stand there and poke at their life until you've heard enough.
My feeling is that the right way to start an extended conversation with someone is to ask them a question that invites them to remember, specifically remember something that's fun for them and likely halfway interesting to you.
Toy example from my own life: "I've got Netflix streaming now, and I can't decide what to watch. When you think about TV shows or movies that you've really enjoyed, which ones do you think of first?"
It sounds silly, like most conversation-with-strangers openings ("How are you?" is pretty silly in its own way, when you think about it), but it's easy to answer and it invites discussion of something the other person has fun thinking about. Also it puts the other person in the position of being capable of helping you, as opposed to being evaluated or judged by you, which is a much friendlier subtext.
And hey, I really do need the recommendations. :)
But ruhe47 offered up their technique simply in the context of pro-forma 'conversations' like when you're buying something at a store counter, and in that environment I can totally see how it would work. Especially since when you're clerking or table-serving, you're spending hours helping people yet not being engaged with as an interesting human being, so a sign of more genuine interest (without a real obligation to raespond more than you feel like) should be pretty positive.
↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-12T08:15:33.168Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Several reasons. For one, it's challenging my response for no apparent reason. I answered precisely how I intended to! Which may not be the same as answering truthfully but it's the best you'll get out of me in such a case. It seems to me to contain an implicit challenge that things aren't actually good and I'm just saying that because it's conventional. Which may well be the case, but if things are indeed bad, I am not about to start talking about it to an arbitrary stranger, nor do I have appreciate having it or the obviousness of it thrown in my face like that. And if that things are good then it seems to be accusing me of telling falsehoods when I'm not, which is not exactly complimentary either.
Replies from: ruhe47↑ comment by ruhe47 · 2011-02-12T08:52:36.698Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Edited: See the bottom section!
It isn't challenging the response. It is asking for more information. I accept the answer of "good" and then ask for elucidation. The follow up question ("really good or just sorta' good?") is predicated on my acceptance of their response. If I were to continue the questioning beyond the initial request for more detail it would definitely be intrusive, especially coming from an arbitrary stranger.
If you were to respond to my follow-up question with anything other than a positive reaction I would not attempt to engage you in any meaningful way beyond that. It hasn't happened yet, but it is entirely possible that it would!
Edit: I owe you an apology. After a little bit of thought (I posted shortly after you without giving what you said the consideration it deserves) it definitely could be construed as questioning your initial response of "good", which would be rude. I just had my understanding improved a bit. I hadn't even considered it that way (even after you spelled it out)!
Replies from: Sniffnoy, Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-13T03:29:57.615Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thought - warning, unreliable memory ahead - perhaps the problem is that I often do try to somehow answer the question in the first place, so if I simply reply "Good", that's already something of a "don't-bother-me". But I suppose other people couldn't be expected to recognize that.
↑ comment by ruhe47 · 2011-02-11T06:33:50.478Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The phrase itself is less important than the "stepping outside of their hum-drum routine." If you can get them to engage in what was going to be just another surface level customer interaction it can be a good thing.
Of course, that question is not the only one I use, but it was an example of stepping outside the expected script. An unexpected, but apparently friendly, response tickles the right places in many people.
↑ comment by juliawise · 2011-08-08T17:29:49.218Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I learned these things because for years my parents corrected me every time I was wrong. Is there someone close to you whom you can ask to give you a prearranged signal when you forget certain things? It would be a little odd to have your friend prompting, "What do you say, dear?", but maybe you can come up with something more subtle.
Replies from: jkaufman↑ comment by jefftk (jkaufman) · 2011-09-15T16:58:18.006Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
that's what you're doing to me!
↑ comment by dlthomas · 2011-02-10T04:17:55.739Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The following is from my reading, thinking, and experience. Hopefully it contains some useful ideas.
"Etiquette" is being conscious of the needs and wants of others, and changing your behavior (within reason) to accommodate these. If your thoughts are sufficiently engaging, this may be difficult or even undesirable.
What I find works for me is to partition my time. For some of it, I am interested in the world outside my head (including people) and for some of it I'm coding or thinking deep or sick or what have you and am not. While I try not to be outright rude in the latter state, it's probably clear where my priorities lie.
These attitudes I apportion strategically, and make a point of establishing the appropriate context with grooming (basic maintenance always gets done, but making sure I actually look okay to go along with it might not) and clothing (jeans and a t-shirt, I'm probably not looking as much to engage the world outside my head as if I'm dressed up a bit).
Set aside some time for deliberate practice in treating people considerately - literally. That is, giving them consideration and letting that guide your actions.
"Manners" are patterns of behavior - when they tend to correspond to the actions one would take if they were acting considerately, they're "good manners." These are habits, with all the good and bad that implies. Specifically, the good is that they can happen without thinking - meaning your interactions may be improved even when you're not focused on them; the bad is that they will not always apply, and so one shouldn't rely on them when things are particularly important, and should turn to actual consideration of the involved individuals.
I'll briefly note that "protocol" is yet another class of behavior - that which is rigidly proscribed, generally around some function. While it is usually both etiquette and (consequently) good manners to follow protocol, the three should not be confused. In particular, etiquette and manners can usually be figured out - protocol must be taught, but thankfully there's usually reference material regarding more formal settings.
I do recommend perusing a book on etiquette or manners (the Post tome, for instance), reading not so much for the details but for the thinking behind them.
comment by Charlie_OConnor · 2011-02-11T07:09:41.036Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Where can I get an IQ test? I am an adult and was never tested as a child. Searching google has only given me online tests. I want a professionally done test.
I considered myself intelligent, but some of the sequences/posts on this site are quite challenging for me. It has made me curious on exactly how intelligent I am. I don’t want to be too over or under confident when it comes to intelligence. I try to learn new things and that helps me find the limits of my intelligence, but I figure my IQ will also be interesting to know as well.
Thanks.
Replies from: gwern, Vladimir_M, taw, first_fire, Blueberry, saturn, Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-11T15:07:48.086Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Per saturn's comment, online tests can be pretty accurate, especially the ones which are imitating (copying) the matrix-style tests; I keep a list as part of the DNB FAQ.
Note the many caveats. In particular, you cannot take multiple tests! Obviously for most of them you can't take it twice because the questions don't change, but less obviously, they're all similar enough that if you take one, you can expect your score on the second to be noticeably increased just from familiarity/experience. (This is why I suggest that people doing dual n-back do before/after IQ tests with a minimum of months in between, and preferably years.)
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2012-02-15T20:41:25.487Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Someone once said: if you do lots of IQ tests, you'll eventually get better at them; does this mean you have become more intelligent? If it doesn't, then IQ tests are not a good measure of intelligence; if it does, we all should do lots of IQ tests so that we'll become smarter. :-)
Replies from: DSimon, gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2012-02-15T21:42:42.862Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you mean that seriously, you're simply wrong; if it's meant to be humorous, meh. I won't downvote per my usual practice for replies, but I could understand why the others did.
Replies from: army1987↑ comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2012-02-15T21:50:13.732Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I didn't say I agree with that person... (I think IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence provided you haven't taken similar tests for a while.)
↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-12T01:48:26.712Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Note however that IQ is not a property of individuals measurable on an individual basis like, say, height or weight is. Its utility lies in its statistical power to predict the average performance of large groups of people. When it comes to testing a specific individual, except perhaps for the greatest extremes (like diagnosing mental retardation), the fact that you achieved a certain score gives only probabilistic information about you.
Moreover, for individuals scoring in high percentiles, to which you probably belong if you find the stuff written on this blog interesting, there are strong diminishing returns to high scores even statistically. It's like e.g. wondering about your height with regards to your basketball prospects: your potentials are indeed likely to be much greater if you're, say, 6'2" rather than 5'10", but if you already know that you're more than a few inches above average, the difference between, say, 6'9" and 6'5" won't matter anywhere as much.
Replies from: CarlShulman, Costanza, johnlawrenceaspden↑ comment by CarlShulman · 2011-02-12T02:10:28.202Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Moreover, for individuals scoring in high percentiles, to which you probably belong if you find the stuff written on this blog interesting, there are strong diminishing returns to high scores even statistically.
This doesn't seem to be so up to at least the 1 in 10,000 level. However, I agree that the predictive power of theses tests is still small relative to the remaining sources of variation (although it is one which we are relatively good at measuring) and they shouldn't be over-weighted.
Replies from: Vladimir_M↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-12T05:23:16.482Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for the link, I wasn't familiar with these results.
↑ comment by Costanza · 2011-02-12T02:11:52.632Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Strictly speaking, the weight of an individual can fluctuate even in the course of a day, due to the consumption or excretion of fluids. It can fluctuate more permanently when you lose or gain body mass in the form of fat or muscle.
I'm under the impression that, in contrast, measured I.Q. of an individual is supposed to stay more or less within the same approximate range throughout the course of that individual's life (with obvious caveats for brain damage, senility, and as you say, exceptional individuals at the extremes of the distributions).
Replies from: Vladimir_M↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-12T05:17:29.884Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
From what I know, there are high correlations between an individual's IQ test scores at different times, especially in the short run. Depending on the study, it ends up being something like 0.95 in the short run and 0.7-0.9 between different ages (I'm just quoting rough ballpark figures from memory -- they of course differ between studies and age spans). Some impressively high correlations were found even in a study that compared test scores of a group of individuals at 11 and 77 years of age.
On the other hand, people can be coached to significantly improve their IQ test scores. At least so says Rushton, of all people.
Then of course, as with all issues where you might want to make some sense of what IQ scores exactly imply, the Flynn effect throws a wrench into any attempt to come up with a neat, plausible, and coherent theory.
But even regardless of all this, one should still not forget that the connection between IQ and any realistic measure of success is itself just probabilistic. This is especially true for high-scoring individuals: instead of worrying whether one's score is 120, 130, 140, or whatever, one would be better advised to worry about whether one is deficient in other factors important for success and accomplishment in life.
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-24T20:26:09.122Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
On the other hand, people can be coached to significantly improve their IQ test scores. At least so says Rushton, of all people.
I'd point out that this should be extremely obvious a point, given how some subtests are Gc-loaded. You can 'improve' your IQ by studying some vocab, quite aside from the usual practice effects.
(And one of the standing questions about dual n-back is whether it doesn't (partially) amount to training for matrix-style Gf IQ tests.)
↑ comment by johnlawrenceaspden · 2014-04-16T01:38:26.351Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why would that be true? Isn't it relative difference in height that matters for basketball? I would have thought that 6'9" would be great news, all other things being equal.
↑ comment by first_fire · 2011-02-16T01:17:44.200Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Private psychologists will probably perform them, but there is also the convenient option of finding out when your local branch of Mensa is having its next round of testing. One of the cheaper options, plus access to Mensa services such as the Travel special interest group (staying for free with interesting people around the world) if you're above the requisite percentile.
Replies from: saturn↑ comment by saturn · 2011-02-16T01:58:52.008Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I was under the impression that Mensa's most recent test only provides pass/fail rather than an actual IQ score.
Replies from: first_fire↑ comment by first_fire · 2011-02-16T20:29:15.667Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It gives you a percentile, which can be correlated.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-11T10:29:40.713Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There is a rough correlation between IQ and standardized test scores.
↑ comment by saturn · 2011-02-11T08:30:19.236Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Some private psychologists will do them. If there's a research university near you, you might be able to get one for free by participating in a study.
However, I discourage you from doing this. The usefulness of knowing your own IQ is already limited at best, and the extra accuracy compared to a good online test isn't worth the amount of time you'll need to spend on it.
↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-18T05:14:41.490Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I grew up with a very weird opinion about my place in the world as a result of a kindergarten IQ test (they never told me a number, but I knew it was good, because, for example, I got to the point where I had to ask the proctor what it means when someone writes a fraction - of course I didn't know it was called that).
Everything I've done since then has been a let down :) You're better off not knowing. Just use whatever you've got. There are many high-IQ-tested people who have crazy views and behavior, and are unsuccessful and unhappy (I don't deny that there exists some meaningful single general intelligence number, but what does knowing it give you?)
Besides, such tests can definitely be studied for as a skill, as much as any game (waste of time warning: Cambridge Brain Sciences games). So caring about the result just means you're going to effectively waste time practicing.
comment by lukeprog · 2011-02-10T02:40:25.107Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
800+ comments now. I think you may have been right that lots of people have basic procedural gaps that need addressing, Alicorn... :)
Replies from: Alicorn, DanielVarga↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-10T02:59:04.345Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm kind of weirded out by the fact that a three-paragraph post originally put in Discussion that took me ten minutes to write is now my most upvoted post of all time.
Replies from: MartinB, Unnamed, mindspillage, Blueberry↑ comment by Unnamed · 2011-02-10T19:05:03.327Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's like the joke about the mechanic who fixes a car's engine by hitting it once with a hammer. He charges the owner $200 and the guy complains: "All you did was hit the engine with a hammer, I'm not paying $200 for that." So the mechanic gives him an itemized bill: Hitting the engine with a hammer, $5; Knowing where to hit it: $195.
↑ comment by mindspillage · 2011-02-11T15:54:55.344Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Unlike some of the more abstruse topics, this one is likely of at least some interest/value to nearly everyone reading the site...
↑ comment by DanielVarga · 2011-02-10T11:49:07.828Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This should probably be turned into a quarterly (monthly?) thread.
comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T03:33:41.834Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How do you write a will?
Replies from: Mass_Driver, Psychohistorian, mutterc, Richard_Kennaway, None, michaelkeenan, majus↑ comment by Mass_Driver · 2011-02-08T04:30:25.048Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The following is not legal advice for your situation, despite the occasional use of the second person. Rather, it is general commentary about how wills work.
There are four good options: (1) do it yourself (2) hire a lawyer ($200 - $3,000) (3) use a legal forms service such as LegalZoom.com ($30 - $100) (4) buy a how-to book from a company like Nolo ($15 - $40)
If you do it yourself, you will need to think about what you own, decide who you would like to get that stuff when you die, and then write your instructions down on a piece of paper. You should then find two adults who are (a) not your relatives, and (b) not mentioned in the will to be your witnesses. Reassure the witnesses that you are sane, thinking clearly, and acting of your own free will. Then sign the will by writing your name in both print and cursive at the bottom. Add today's date. Then have each of your witnesses do the same. Have the witnesses write "witness" next to their signatures. Finally, make two photocopies of the will. Keep one in your desk for handy reference, give one to a friend or family member for publicity, and put the original in a safe deposit box at a bank for safekeeping.
If you decide to hire a lawyer, make sure the lawyer speaks a casual dialect of English in addition to legalese -- a will that no one but lawyers can decipher will irritate your relatives. For free, you should expect to be able to briefly discuss what sort of will you want. After the discussion, insist on a flat fee that will cover drafting (writing), execution (signing) and an uncontested probating (publishing and enforcing) your will. Do not agree to an hourly rate unless there is a firm cap on the number of hours. If your relatives challenge your will, you will probably have to pay additional fees. If you think this is likely, set aside some money in your will to pay the legal expenses associated with publishing and enforcing your will.
Replies from: Alicorn↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T05:08:25.488Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Have the witnesses write "witness" next to their signatures.
Is it actually important that the witnesses be the ones to write "witness"? If so, why?
Replies from: Osmium_Penguin, Mass_Driver↑ comment by Osmium_Penguin · 2011-02-08T06:51:03.461Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
No, nor that they print their own names. They just have to sign their names and date the signature. It's also a good idea to have each of them initial every (numbered) page of your will; this proves that no pages have been inserted or deleted.
When I first started asking how to write a will, a couple of years ago, the best advice I got was to write the will myself — because this is free — and then reread it in a few months. Repeat this process until I couldn't think of anything to add or change. Then visit a lawyer and have them translate it into legalese.
↑ comment by Mass_Driver · 2011-02-08T07:45:47.669Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
No. Sorry about that.
↑ comment by Psychohistorian · 2011-02-08T04:19:01.752Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is a fairly complex legal question. Depending on the size of your estate, you probably want to hire a lawyer. I believe you can find a number of legal services that will do flat-rate wills for (I think) a couple hundred bucks. This is probably most important if you have kids or a lot of assets.
If you don't have kids, and you don't have a lot of assets, or you seriously dislike lawyers, you can put together a will from a pre-made form and get witnesses (who are not beneficiaries) to sign the will, ideally in the presence of a notary public.
Legal documents are often highly technical and vary meaningfully from state to state. Some of this is defensible - you'd be surprised how things can get messed up - and some of it exists to keep lawyers employed. If it's really important - if you are not a mostly asset-free student willing various odds and ends to family - it's probably worth having it done professionally. Five or ten minutes on google searching for estate lawyers in your area will probably do the trick; or you can look for the fixed-rate will deals from bigger businesses that I mentioned earlier.
↑ comment by mutterc · 2011-02-08T17:05:04.650Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well worth asking a lawyer, because they know some ins and outs. My wife and I did this after our first child was born. It was a few hundred bucks to get wills, general powers of attorney, and healthcare powers of attorney for both of us. (Our situation was simple: leave everything to each other or the kids if we both kick it, and designate a guardian for the kids). We'd have gotten living wills but haven't decided what we want them to say.
The lawyer put in a bunch of things we would never have thought of, e.g.:
Making the will sibling-proof (it divides everything equally amongst all children we might end up having, which turned out to be 2)
Waiving the requirement that our out-of-State executor post a bond
Authorizing the executor to open safe deposit boxes and the like
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-09T23:39:28.104Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Authorizing the executor to open safe deposit boxes and the like
Thinking about this instruction: Should I conclude that you should write down all your passwords and put them in a safe deposit box so your data will be recoverable by other people? (This is assuming you don't care about privacy after death.)
↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2011-02-08T10:49:00.717Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I am in the process of doing this, having realised that the English intestacy laws would not produce a desirable outcome for my circumstances. I went to a lawyer, explained my wishes, and in a week or two I expect to receive a draft. Since my will is a simple one, the cost is (relative to what lawyers cost in general) fairly low: £210.
You can do it yourself, but I decided that it was worth the fee to have someone who knows exactly what they're doing take care of the matter. My lawyers will also be my executors (long may the time be in coming), and will take care of secure storage of the will.
How does one find a lawyer? In my case, I looked on the web for local practices, eyeballed a few of their web sites, and from among those offering general legal services to private individuals, chose based on my general impression. This is probably suboptimal; personal recommendation from friends and colleagues might be a better way to go.
↑ comment by michaelkeenan · 2011-02-09T11:46:15.932Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Related: a few years ago, I researched advance medical directives. They're surprisingly easy to make in the USA. They made a federal law about it in 1990, so you just have to fill out a short form (which differs for each state). The forms for each state are all available here.
The main decisions are:
- designating someone to make health decisions for you, when you're unable
- providing general guidance on whether to prolong your life in various situations
- whether it's ok to donate your organs to others
Fill out the form, store it and some copies somewhere sensible, and you're done.
↑ comment by majus · 2011-02-08T17:00:59.792Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You can get a warm fuzzy feeling from doing it yourself with a downloaded form (say from Nolo) or a cheap app (like WillMaker), but there are subtle ways to mess up, so professional advice is highly recommended. Doing it yourself, you may tend to shy away from thinking about low-probability or painful scenarios, and you don't get to debug it by changing it and trying again. A will is just one part of estate planning, and sometimes a will isn't needed (if the estate is in a trust, its beneficiaries take precedence). Usually you'll need to coordinate the will and your insurance coverage, at a minimum. But don't procrastinate; you can really get burned by having no will at all. In Texas, for example, if you die married and intestate (no will), and you have kids by a previous marriage, your spouse is legally bound to give half of the estate to his/her step-children immediately. Probably not what you would have planned.
comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-12T03:34:05.657Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is another question that may lack a simple answer, and indeed there is a good chance that this is simply a wrong question in the first place.
Background: So going by LW and indeed much of the rest of the internet it seems that speaking to arbitrary strangers in public is in fact not in general considered creepy and unacceptable (which makes this a case where I would have done better with the typical mind heuristic, as opposed to what I guess is some sort of version of Postel's Law, as I am not myself in general creeped out when others approach me).
Now much has been said on this topic here already - I can't find the thread right now but I recall reading, e.g., don't do this in enclosed spaces if you're new to this (leave the other person a (literal) line of retreat). And how isn't something I think I have a problem with either, nor am I worried that I can't tell when people want me to go away.
What I am wondering is - well, regardless of the above, there do seem to be certain spaces which, though public, people have some expectation of privacy in. (I.e. they would consider other people approaching them creepy.) So what I am wondering is how can I distinguish those spaces with this expectation from those without. I have been basically erring on the side of caution by treating all public spaces as the former when I don't have good reason otherwise.
Of course I suspect this may be a wrong question because I'm not certain the suppositions I'm putting into it are correct; in particular I'm suspecting I may get the response "you need to learn to judge people, not spaces, better". But if it is in fact a wrong question any help in righting it would be appreciated.
Related - I originally thought of it as the same question, but now I realize it may not be - is the question of, in what spaces is it OK to simply butt in if I hear a bunch of people talking about something interesting? (Again this is something I currently don't do...) On the internet and at parties are two examples where this seems to be always OK, but I'm pretty certain this doesn't apply in general. I suspect this may also be a wrong question for reasons similar to above.
Replies from: sixes_and_sevens, Nick_Tarleton, Sniffnoy, first_fire, bigjeff5, Morgan_Catha↑ comment by sixes_and_sevens · 2011-02-12T14:10:36.312Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In the public space in question, are you more likely to find books or alcohol?
Pretty much any venue with alcohol is going to be a socially facilitating venue, whereas anywhere people take books is going to be a venue where they don't expect to be disturbed.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-12T14:35:31.142Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In the public space in question, are you more likely to find books or alcohol?
I recommend socializing in book stores, libraries and outside classrooms. It will not always be appropriate but you can learn what sort of people will open to talking with practice.
Replies from: sixes_and_sevens↑ comment by sixes_and_sevens · 2011-02-12T14:56:48.172Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'd agree with all these suggestions. A more discerning rule of thumb might be "are you more likely to find people consuming books or consuming alcohol?"
It's probably also reasonably safe to assume that the typical LWer would prefer to talk with someone over a revealed mutual interest, rather than talking to someone after deadening their selectivity with booze, so places that are about books, but not where people read them, are likely to be good haunts for talking to strangers.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-12T15:14:54.506Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A more discerning rule of thumb might be "are you more likely to find people consuming books or consuming alcohol?"
Best yet, find the people consuming alcohol in the place where you find lots of books. They're bound to be up for a chat.
Replies from: MBlume, Sniffnoy↑ comment by MBlume · 2011-02-21T00:04:59.520Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have heard it suggested that the world would be a nicer place if there were bookstores in which one could simply order a beer, the same way one can today order a coffee.
(It should be noted that the 'order a coffee' thing is only a decade or two old.)
↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-13T23:31:44.320Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
OK, to be honest, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this thread. Find people drinking in bookstores, libraries? I'm confused. (In school buildings, certainly possible, if we're talking about parties in grad student offices, but then that falls into a case where things seem pretty clear, and I'm only likely to be around if I know some people anyway.)
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-14T01:53:40.292Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh, pardon me. That was not particularly a serious recommendation. At least, not one that is likely to become relevant all that often. I was mostly being lighthearted so as to signal rapport with sixes as opposed to complete disagreement.
↑ comment by Nick_Tarleton · 2011-02-12T09:04:44.121Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have been basically erring on the side of caution by treating all public spaces as the former when I don't have good reason otherwise.
If, as it sounds, you would learn from any mistakes, and if you're somewhere populous enough that a randomly selected person's opinion of you doesn't matter, I doubt that imposing this restriction on yourself is right, or benefits others more than it costs you. You're allowed to briefly creep people out by mistake in order to learn useful things and reap the mutual benefits of non-creepy interactions.
what I guess is some sort of version of Postel's Law
Where do you think the "be conservative in what you do" is coming from in your case?
Replies from: Sniffnoy, wedrifid↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-13T07:30:45.095Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
randomly selected person's opinion of you doesn't matter
Hm, this sounds like good way of thinking about it. I already use this principle, but I had not thought it to apply it to such cases.
Where do you think the "be conservative in what you do" is coming from in your case?
I'm not clear on how I could possibly answer that.
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-13T23:24:51.257Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Hm, this sounds like good way of thinking about it. I already use this principle, but I had not thought it to apply it to such cases.
To clarify, I think I may have been thinking about it in the form of "I'm not likely to interact with these people", rather than "I'm not likely to interact with these people again." (Which raises the question of what if you are likely to encounter them again because you often encounter them in the same place. I suppose this still falls under "one random person, their opinion doesn't matter"; it's just going to take a bit of training to make myself think of someone I can already identify as a random.)
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-12T14:27:35.428Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If, as it sounds, you would learn from any mistakes, and if you're somewhere populous enough that a randomly selected person's opinion of you doesn't matter, I doubt that imposing this restriction on yourself is right
Agree, and with added emphasis! An excellent general social policy.
↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-14T00:09:00.489Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Perhaps I should further specify just what sort of spaces I'm clear and unclear on. (All "maybe"s, "probably"s refer to my own uncertainty, of course - for simplicity I'm doing writing this as if I hadn't read any of the cousin posts yet.) The examples listed here are whatever I think of, mostly relevant ones but not all - I don't think there's a zoo anywhere around here and I haven't been to one in quite some time, but the example occurred to me while I was writing this so I threw it in. I expect I'm right about the things I'm certain of but should that not be the case corrections would be appreciated!
Definitely OK to approach people: "Private public spaces" - anywhere where a person you don't know can be assumed to be a friend of a friend - small parties, common rooms in dorms or co-op houses
OK to join existing conversations, maybe not OK to approach people initially: "Purposed public spaces" - anywhere where a person you don't know can be assumed to share a common interest - a common room in a school department building, e.g. Game stores probably fit here too. Also probably competitions of any sort.
Probably OK but currently avoided by me: Outside - on the street, on the quad, in the park. Here the location doesn't let you infer much of anything. (Unless something unusual is occurring, then clearly OK as people gather around it.)
???: Fast-food places or food courts. Non-quiet spaces where people go to get work done (but which are too general to fall under #2.) Zoos, museums, other similar places. Bookstores.
Probably not OK: Libraries.
Definitely not OK: Anywhere where you shouldn't be talking in the first place. Most restaurants.
Again, thanks! The sibling posts have already clarified things some.
Replies from: rabidchicken, ViEtArmis, Jodika, wedrifid↑ comment by rabidchicken · 2011-03-11T04:42:45.617Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My suggestion: take a crash course in etiquette by going to another city nearby, and then spend a few days walking around asking questions, or inviting people to do stuff with you, etc. Condition yourself to get used to the occasional weird look, learn what you can get away with, and possibly make friends with people you would otherwise never meet. If all else fails, drive out of the city and pretend the entire thing never happened. Or you will get some amusing stories to share with me when you get back. How can you lose?
I am only partly joking, my social skills are so mediocre I have seriously considered doing exactly this at some point. I might throw in some speed dating as well for good measure.
Replies from: Jolly, wedrifid↑ comment by Jolly · 2011-07-26T23:39:58.002Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I do this all the time, with fantastic results!
A current example is my temporary move to Boston/Cambridge. I've walked around asking random strangers questions such as "If you could live anywhere in Boston, where would you live?"
I've received great advice, and made a few friendships and event invites from doing so!
↑ comment by ViEtArmis · 2012-07-23T15:11:05.326Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I can't tell if people actually don't care or if they are just oblivious, but I hate when people try to strike up a conversation while I'm using a public toilet. Bad when it's a urinal, worse when it's a stall. Maybe this falls under "spaces where people go to get work done"?
↑ comment by Jodika · 2014-10-31T03:58:31.856Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In ambiguous environments, it is best to determine ok-ness on the basis of the people.
Good situations: You are both doing the same thing - looking at the same genre of books in a bookstore, the same exhibit in a museum or zoo, both walking dogs in a park etc. This makes it easier to talk as you already have one thing in common and you can comment on that to see if they are receptive to conversation.
Something unusual happens - a delay on public transport, something wacky is going on in the quad etc
If you mean quad as in university, you already have a thing in common - you're at the same university. It is likely to be okay to strike up a conversation.
They're waiting for something. In a queue or waiting for public transport etc - may be bored
They're having a cigarette - they probably have time for a quick chat and if you smoke too there's a kind of unspoken thing with smokers where they will have a chat
Presence of alcohol but not a restaurant
Bad signs: Person is wearing headphones or reading - they are busy and unlikely to want to talk
They are a woman under 40-ish and you are a dude: potential difficulties, see below.
-
So there is a thing with a guy approaching a strange woman - she is likely to inductively infer that you are not just after a friendly chat. The best thing to do is use caution and watch for signals that she doesn't want to be approached and be ready to back off if your intentions are misinterpreted. A good thing to do here is to make sure that it is immediately obvious that you are talking about something that is not her - comment on your shared situation ahead of saying anything like 'hello' or 'how you doing'. Commenting on the books or the museum exhibit or something like that lets her know that you're looking at that, not her tits.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-14T03:21:29.748Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Probably not OK: Libraries.
I don't agree with this one. It is highly variable.
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-14T04:22:27.598Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't agree with this one. It is highly variable.
OK, good to know. "Highly variable" is not particularly helpful but I suppose if it's true then there might not be much more to say.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-14T04:33:19.034Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"Highly variable" is not particularly helpful but I suppose if it's true then there might not be much more to say.
Regarding variability:
Are you in a section of the library where talking is forbidden? Probably don't talk there unless you wish to flaunt rulebreaking.
Don't interrupt people when they are thoroughly engrossed in reading a book or look like they are fully focussed on getting their assignment finished by 5:30. Do talk to people if they look more relaxed or generally not busy.
"Obvious" kind of stuff, for a suitable value of obvious. (Also 'obvious' is that you could probably talk to even the busy folks if you are particularly charming or appear high status. That's how social rules work.)
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by first_fire · 2011-07-11T15:00:43.232Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I spend a fair amount of my time off work either on public transportation or in coffee shops, and have found that how receptive people are to starting conversations varies widely within these settings.
On public transportation, there are observations one can make which can aid with determining whether someone is open to conversation. If they are already engaged in conversation with another passenger and appear either happy or lost, it is more often appropriate (people who are happy tend to have farther to go on their mood spectrum to get to creeped out or annoyed, as well as sometimes, as with the people I befriended a couple weeks ago, being in the mood to share their happiness with others, and people who are lost generally appreciate direction or at least a clarification of where they are on the map). A person confined to the seat next to you is less likely to be happy about a conversation, as they will feel they have less of an exit than, say, in a section where all seats face a middle aisle, meaning the area in which the conversation takes place is felt to be larger. In my experience, few people like to start conversations on their morning commute. So the important factors which determine whether it is appropriate to speak to someone on public transportation are time of day, physical position, and mood.
Coffee shops follow similar guidelines: it is often appropriate to chime in to existing conversations (as long as the conversation is not romantic or argumentative in nature). When a person might be forced by lack of seating to share your table, it is not appropriate to start a conversation if both of you have laptops, as you can be reasonably expected to be engaged with other people or projects. If the other person does not have a laptop or other electronic device with which they are engaged, it is generally appropriate to start a conversation.
I have found coffee shops environments where it is sometimes received well to butt in to interesting conversations. This has led to a few rebuffs, but also some highly interesting conversations. When people were gathered in the coffee shop for a purpose, such as a poetry reading, there was a significantly higher proportion of interesting conversations to rebuffs.
Replies from: juliawise↑ comment by juliawise · 2011-08-08T17:09:28.118Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Public transit talkiness varies a lot by city. In Boston, it's minimal. I understand in other cities, conversation is much more normal.
It's my experience as a young woman that the only people who try to talk to me on public transit are men. If you're a man, know that young women you try to talk to are probably going to assume you're sketchy because they've been approached by so many other sketchy men before.
I veto talking to anyone who is reading. A possible exception might be if you've read what they're reading and ask their opinion of it, or similar.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2015-10-19T19:23:30.521Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
An anecdote: I was once reading Prattchett in a trolley-bus, and the ticket seller, a young man, exclaimed 'Oh! You read Prattchett in the original!', and I was like, shit, he's after my book and said 'Yes,' in an uninviting voice, and he went on his way... ...and I still regret not taking the time to talk to him.:)
↑ comment by bigjeff5 · 2011-02-20T16:41:52.846Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have the same issue, and I personally think it's stupid (as in, in what way is talking to a stranger in public weird?). Thinking it's stupid doesn't make it much easier to overcome my own inhibitions about it, but it is somewhere to start.
I think tact is the key. Interrupt as politely as you can, and gauge their reactions when you do. If it is clear they are not interested in your input, then turn around and leave them alone. No harm, no foul. If you have something to contribute, though, and the individuals weren't specifically seeking a private conversation, then they will probably be interested in what you have to contribute.
This reminds me of a recent episode of the Ricky Gervais Show (basically Ricky and his friend make fun of another friend of theirs the whole time, funny but it gets old), where one of the hosts went swimming, noticed the guy in the lane next to him had an excellent front crawl (which the host has always struggled with) and asked the guy if he could give him some tips. Ricky's response was "Oh god, you didn't! Why would you do that?!" My thought the whole time was why in the world is that wrong? If the guy isn't interested he'll say no, and that will be it. If he is willing to help out a fellow swimmer then he will, and they may become friends over it. Where is the loss for anybody there?
I have a half dozen friends now that I wouldn't have if I hadn't done something very similar a couple years ago, at a swimming pool too, no less. I simply started talking to the lifeguard before and I after I swam. Not quite as out of the blue as the Gervais Show co-host, but it was similar.
Still, some people find it rude. I don't for the life of me understand why, except for when they are clearly having (or are attempting to have) a private conversation, or talking about a personal. Otherwise, where is the harm? And really, the risk for me personally is extremely low. So some stranger thinks I'm odd, so what? Most people are odd in some way, friendliness is far from the worst odd trait you could have.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-20T17:02:22.145Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Strangers are a potential threat. So when a stranger comes up to you and initiates a conversation, there's some reason to be on your guard.
This is combined with basic etiquette. If someone makes a small request, it is considered rude to refuse. The problem here is that creepy weird dangerous strangers can take advantage of this fact by making a small request, which then makes you feel obligated to comply. So now a complete stranger, who may be dangerous, has ensnared you. You're now doing something that he asked, instead of something that you want to do. And he can keep you dancing to his tune by making more small requests. So if you follow the rules of etiquette, a complete stranger, possibly dangerous, can monopolize you for a significant length of time.
I see this happen all the time with telemarketers. The phone will ring. Somebody will answer it. Then they'll be at the phone for a long time, maybe half a minute maybe a couple of minutes. And it turns out that it was a telemarketer, and the reason the person stayed at the phone for a long time was that he just couldn't think of a polite way to end the conversation. You go ahead and try it. If you try to disengage, the telemarketer has a scripted response ready which cancels your attempt.
For my part, I'm not trapped by telemarketers. But I simply hang up. I say "no thanks", and the telemarketer goes on to the corresponding point in his script, and I simply hang up on him while he's in the middle of a sentence. That's rude. But I do it, because there are no personal repercussions for me in doing it.
Being rude to a stranger face to face is not as easy to do. If you're rude to someone, they might get angry, and one thing might lead to another. So it's easy to hang up on telemarketers (for me, but importantly, not for everyone) but not so easy to "hang up" on a stranger right in front of you. For this reason, being approached by a stranger represents a more serious potential problem, a social trap that may be more difficult to get out of.
So what do you do? There are plenty of ways to initiate a conversation. One is to be already with somebody. If you're not alone, if you already have a conversational partner, and if you're deep in conversation with them, then you are obviously less in need of company, so the possibility that you might try to trap a stranger into a conversation is correspondingly reduced. Another method is to get the other person to initiate the exchange.
Replies from: simplicio, bigjeff5↑ comment by simplicio · 2012-02-12T16:31:14.662Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The thing to do with telemarketers, I have learned, is not to immediately hang up.
You just let them get to what they want to sell you, then say, loudly but politely and without a pause for them to butt in, something like "Let me stop you there, [name], I'm afraid I'm not interested, but thank you very much for calling." If they don't back down, THEN summarily hang up.
I prefer this to simply hanging up because doing the latter always makes me feel bad for several minutes afterward for having been rude to somebody who is, after all, trying to make a living.
Replies from: wedrifid, TheOtherDave↑ comment by wedrifid · 2012-02-12T17:20:23.710Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The thing to do with telemarketers, I have learned, is not to immediately hang up.
No, it really is to hang up.
I prefer this to simply hanging up because doing the latter always makes me feel bad for several minutes afterward for having been rude to somebody who is, after all, trying to make a living.
Your emotions seem to be doing both you and the telemarketers a disservice - perhaps due to an instinctive misunderstanding of what kind of social transaction is taking place. The telemarketer is not socially vulnerable and nor are you in a position where perception will have future consequences. They also don't WANT to have an extended positive interaction that has no chance of success. Wasting five minutes on a mark that has no chance of giving a commission is strictly worse than an instant hang up. Your instincts are right that they are "after all, just trying to make a living" and you are just getting in their way.
I'm not saying it is necessarily worth retraining your emotional attachments in this case. You seem to attach pride to the act of wasting telemarketer time and guilt to the act of hanging up. This, combined with assertiveness practice you get and the cost of retraining yourself may mean that it is better to stay in the behavioral local minima.
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2012-02-12T17:04:59.937Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My own attitude is that time spent talking to me is time they aren't spending making a sale, so getting off the phone is the nicest thing I can do for them under the highly constrained circumstances. So as soon as I recognize them as telemarketers, I politely say "Sorry, but I'm really not interested; have a good day" and hang up, without waiting for them to do anything in particular.
↑ comment by bigjeff5 · 2011-02-20T18:27:37.772Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I disagree that strangers as a potential threat is one of the driving motivators for this practice. It may be a rationalization for it, but it is not a natural position to take.
In sparsely populated areas, where strangers are less frequent, strangers are often assumed to be friendly. People are still wary, of course, because there is always the possibility that a stranger is dangerous, but this is not a particularly strong reason to avoid them completely. The occasions where this seems to not be true are when individuals want nothing to do with anybody new, regardless of who they are or where they come from or what potential threat they might be (i.e. the old man with the "trespassers shot on sight" signs posted doesn't want anything to do with anybody).
In sparsely populated areas people will often take random strangers in need into their home for a night or two, far more than any small request the average stranger in a city might make, yet the people in the sparsely populated areas don't seem particularly put off by this.
Your second point I think hits closer to the mark. People believe it is rude to say no, and so seek to avoid situations where they can be trapped into small requests like you mentioned. Instead of learning to say "no, sorry", or "I'm sorry but this is a private conversation", we ostracize those who are friendly (a really sad state of affairs common to any large-ish city).
But I simply hang up. I say "no thanks", and the telemarketer goes on to the corresponding point in his script, and I simply hang up on him while he's in the middle of a sentence. That's rude.
This I disagree that this is rude. It is not rude for you to hang up on him after you decline his offer outright and he disregards you. That is extremely rude of him to do so. He is required to continue based on the nature of his job, but it is still rude. Taking his rudeness onto yourself is wrong.
It may be polite to oblige small requests, but it is not particularly impolite to decline them. You are not beholden to strangers, and there is nothing in the rules of etiquette to make you so.
This I think is also one of the major problems with people using a cell phone in inappropriate places. People seem to think it is rude to not answer the phone, even when it would be incredibly rude to those around you to do so. It's a conflict and most people seem to choose the caller on the cell phone for some bizarre reason, even when it isn't likely to be any kind of emergency.
Replies from: None, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-20T19:34:39.514Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This I disagree that this is rude.
You are talking about what ought to be. I am describing what is - how people think and behave. What we can observe is that many people have a great deal of difficulty getting off the phone when a telemarketer calls. The reason, I think, is clear: they are reluctant to end the conversation unless the other person lets them go, because this is conversational etiquette. That's why it's difficult. You saying that it ought not be difficult isn't a description, it's an exhortation. You're talking in exhortatory/advisory mode when saying "I disagree that this is rude". I'm talking in descriptive mode: ending a conversation when the other party has not let go violates the etiquette that many people have thoroughly internalized. It doesn't matter that some alternative etiquette would be superior if analyzed from a utilitarian standpoint. The one people have internalized is the one that produces the behavior.
Another entity who takes (unintentional) advantage of our reluctance to disengage until we allowed to is the bore, the tedious person who won't shut up. I see the same behavior relative to bores that I see relative to telemarketers. Though people want nothing better than for the bore to shut up and let them get on with their day, they stay and pretend to listen to the bore until the bore is done talking, which may not be for a long time. Again, it doesn't matter that, analyzed from a utilitarian standpoint, the optimal behavior is to disengage. I'm describing, not advising. My advice is to cut them short, but that is neither here nor there.
Replies from: bigjeff5↑ comment by bigjeff5 · 2011-02-20T22:11:37.268Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Another entity who takes (unintentional) advantage of our reluctance to disengage until we allowed to is the bore, the tedious person who won't shut up. I see the same behavior relative to bores that I see relative to telemarketers.
Of course that is true, and it is not at all what I was advocating. And you're right that suggesting people learn to say "no" is an exhortation. It was also quite beside the original point (though I did bring it up first, certainly).
The point is that politely interrupting a conversation that does not appear to be particularly private or personal, for the purpose of contributing to that conversation, is not rude. Neither is asking a question. It can certainly become so if you ignore the hints to stop, but it does not start out that way.
I also doubt the bore enjoys boring people, so getting irritated at him when you aren't willing to tell him to stop seems pretty inconsiderate to me.
Replies from: Alicorn, Estarlio↑ comment by Estarlio · 2013-06-14T20:00:47.784Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I also doubt the bore enjoys boring people
I'm sure they like to think they're entertaining. Which, ironically, incentivises their investing very little in finding out they actually are. I honestly would expect someone to react pretty badly to being told or hinted at that they're abusing your patience - and I think that's why people get pissed off with such people. There's little option to exit the conversation properly.
IME, bores tend to just find themselves with fewer and fewer friends as time goes on - often without ever finding out why. Because how can you tell them? Costs you social points for dubious gain.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-20T19:01:55.899Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I agree that the usual politeness rules don't apply with telemarketers. I go with "No" or "No, thank you" and hang up.
This is actually relatively polite, not just compared to yelling at them, but also in comparison to keeping the conversation going (some people do this deliberately) when the telemarketer is certainly not going to make a sale.
Replies from: bigjeff5↑ comment by bigjeff5 · 2011-02-20T19:35:19.688Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This reminds me of a story I heard of a comedian who really put the screws to a telemarketer.
The comedian pretended to be a detective investigating a homicide when the telemarketer called, and started grilling him about his relationship with the deceased (i.e. the comedian). He even went so far as to find out what city and office building the guy worked at, and told him not to move because local police would soon be on their way to pick him up for questioning.
It was hilarious, but incredibly mean. I wouldn't be too surprised if the telemarketer found himself a new job as soon as possible after that.
Replies from: arundelo↑ comment by Morgan_Catha · 2011-07-20T08:10:13.101Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is my strategy: when entering any space, I call attention to my arrival by loudly making some comment to either the group in general, someone I know, or anyone who looks friendly. Obviously, this works best in familiar settings, maxing out its fitness in, say, your own home. ("Honey! I'm home!") I find, however, that it works virtually anywhere that isn't supposed to be quiet. People who want to be social will smile and engage you. In places like bars, cafes, or restaurants where this might be taken as obnoxious, tone it down, but feel free to speak to anyone around you. Most people are amenable to passing comments at the very least.
Replies from: kpreid↑ comment by kpreid · 2011-07-21T20:49:54.429Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Could you give examples of comments (and appropriate contexts) in contexts other than your own home?
Replies from: Morgan_Catha, None↑ comment by Morgan_Catha · 2011-08-20T06:58:43.950Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Say you go into Starbucks and there's a long line of customers waiting to order a drink. Approach the end of the line and go "Whoah, long line!". Chances are, you'll get someone's attention. People will turn around and look at you. When they do, make eye contact and say "We're gonna be here a while!" or something like that. You're immediately building rapport by referencing a shared context, as well as broadcasting your own confidence and willingness to socialize. It works great.
A more difficult scenario, but still quite doable, is a bookstore. Find someone reading a particular book or type of book, or looking through a certain section, and engage them on it. "Hey, good book!" They're looking through the psychology section? Say "Psshh, Descartes. What did HE know?" This sort of thing will elicit a smile from almost anyone. The important thing is to not LOOK awkward, even though you may feel awkward.
Yes, this approach is cheesy. And some people may find you annoying. But those are people who are likely annoyed with life in general. Overall, you can generate a lot of positive results this way. If you want to generate maximum socialization, be THAT guy.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2015-10-19T19:17:36.319Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Also, it might be better to avoid addressing people in places where a lot of conversations go either between people-who-know-each-other or between drunk people and the people near to them. (In my case, it is a bus stop or the bus.) People-who-know-each-other (for example, by virtue of taking the same bus every day) might just think 'ooh, another one', without even going on to a noun.
comment by Bo102010 · 2011-02-09T02:10:33.472Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've got another one that's about to be relevant to me. What should you do in order to be an effective manager?
I am an engineer and will soon be "in charge" of another engineer. I have had a couple bosses with various good and bad qualities, and obviously I want to emulate the good qualities and avoid the bad ones.
Is there a good procedure to begin being an effective supervisor of technical people? There is a vast of array of books and websites on management, but I think there's a very low rationality quotient.
Replies from: MartinB, Malovich↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-09T10:07:10.819Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Recommended reading: Peopleware, and The Mythical Man Month.
My managing experiences so far have been in the unpaid/voluntary field. But in general it seems to be
- generally be fast and clear in responding to communication (read: email)
- ability to stay calm in pressurized situations
Outside Interface:
- make it possible for your people to do actually their work
- get them the tools and environment needed
- take care of systemic problems (Usually limited by your higher ups and corporate rules.)
Inside interface
- Bubble each individuals work by taking care of deadlines, putting suitable people into projects, checking in at times if the work is getting done.
- you can possibly get extra points if you adapt your managing to each person.
- search for 'how to manage your boss' and look what would work best on the other end
Recommended skills
- people skills
- ridiculous high level of being organized
- specifically: have efficient and few meetings
The talks from Merlin Mann: Who moved my brain? and possible the others might be of use.
If you can get a mentor with a similar background from yours.
↑ comment by Malovich · 2011-02-09T07:26:23.382Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh wow. I've seen this issue from about a half-dozen different perspectives.
Starting with my dad who moved from Engineer to Manager at the company he worked at. He hated it until he learned a few basic skills about dealing with people's perspectives' and understanding of the world and how different perspectives on a situation will necessarily generate different approaches, assumptions and beliefs that will filter information received by them as individuals until some critical information both matches the current belief and induces a transition to other belief systems.
Anyways.
Managing people is mostly about making sure that they are functional and have their needs taken care of; a lot of factors can impact job performance in any field that have little to do with the job itself. When you become manager, take the time to find out where they're at in their life and what can stress them out or what they are looking forward to. See what tools or policies you have as a manager to help with that, or what strategies you have employed in the past in regards to workplace policies that can smooth things out for them. This step is a maintenance step and requires a routine checking in on.
Next is inducing excellence in them. This is partly understanding what they are good at and giving them tasks suited to them, and working with them to overcome obstacles they come across and to arrange to have them learn new skills to enable them to perform better. This is a competence awareness process that allows you to break a project down into the largest chunks possible according to your subordinate's skills.
Other than that, make sure your perspective is clear of bias as much as possible. You're dealing with human beings who are, for the most part, trying to get by to the best of their ability in a competitive and stressful environment. Each of them has arrived to where they are by making the best possible choices they could- there is every chance that if you had lived there life, you may very well have made identical if not similiar choices.
comment by nawitus · 2011-02-09T01:48:30.249Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I stutter, and I've done it for as long as I can remember. Anyone know how to beat it? I feel this has pretty significant (negative) effects on my life, because I'm often afraid of speaking up in a group, as stuttering is extremely embarrassing.
Replies from: TheOtherDave, Desrtopa, nick012000, Blueberry, internety↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T01:58:19.693Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My only experience with stuttering was while I was recovering from post-stroke aphasia.
My speech therapist mostly suggested that every time I started to stutter I should stop trying to talk altogether, take a deliberate pause, and then concentrate on articulating... each... word... individually instead of letting my brain rush on ahead to the stuff I was about to say. Or, if that wasn't enough, articulating each syllable.
That worked pretty well, though it replaced the stuttering with a kind of slow monotone speech that was also kind of embarrassing.
Fortunately for me, the brain damage was temporary, so after a few months of this I started being able to speak more smoothly again. (Toastmasters helped a lot with that part, as did improv theatre classes.)
I have no idea if the same sorts of techniques would work for a less acute form of stuttering, though it seems like they ought to.
Edit Oh, and the other thing that helped was getting enough sleep.
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-10T06:08:20.685Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Most people with a stuttering problem are able to speak normally when speaking in unison with others. There are anti-stuttering devices based on this principle, which play the speaker's own words back into their ear as they say them, which eliminates or dramatically reduces stuttering symptoms in a majority of those afflicted, while worn. Unfortunately, their price tends to run in the range of thousands of dollars, and they have no carryover effects when removed.
↑ comment by nick012000 · 2011-02-09T16:07:19.163Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've read that singing can allow people who stutter to speak relatively normally, since it uses a different part of the brain to normal speech.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T08:54:04.098Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You may be interested in the Monster Study, which suggests that it's your fear of embarassment and self-consciousness that actually causes the stuttering.
Replies from: Douglas_Knight↑ comment by Douglas_Knight · 2011-02-09T18:43:37.547Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
No, according to the New York Times, the Monster Study showed no effect of the intervention on stuttering. Telling children that they should worry about stuttering did cause them to act like stutterers (eg, refusing to talk), but it did not cause stuttering. Similarly, telling children not to worry about stuttering had no effect on their stuttering. It does not address whether it affected their nervousness.
↑ comment by Elliot_Olds (internety) · 2011-02-09T08:32:54.473Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I stutter and have done a lot of research on stuttering. It's rare that adult stutterers ever completely stop stuttering, but these two ebooks are the best resources I know of for dealing with it:
http://www.stutteringhelp.org/Portals/English/Book_0012_tenth_ed.pdf http://www.scribd.com/doc/23283047/Easy-Stuttering-Avoidance-Reduction-Therapy
The short version is that the less you try to suppress or conceal your stuttering the less severe it will become in the long run.
comment by wisnij · 2011-02-08T18:07:38.845Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I live in the US. If I want to mail someone an item bigger than can be fit in a simple envelope, what is the procedure for determining the proper packaging, postage, etc? Will I have to actually bring the package to the post office to have them determine that? What is the protocol for doing so?
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl, lincolnquirk, handoflixue, Swimmer963, Sniffnoy, LucasSloan, nazgulnarsil↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T02:45:12.760Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There's a flat rate USPS box deal. You're limited to just a few fixed boxed sizes. It's cheaper than Fedex or UPS.
↑ comment by lincolnquirk · 2012-02-14T00:04:27.410Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My protocol is:
Find an appropriate sized cardboard box. (They have these at the post office, but I often reuse old Amazon boxes and the like.)
Stuff it with the object you wish to ship and any necessary padding materials so that it doesn't slide around.
If your box has anything potentially confusing on it -- inapplicable warning labels, old shipping addresses, etc., -- cover them up or black them out with a marker. (I had to do this when I reused a box that had warnings about liquids).
Find a way to put the destination and return addresses on the box. You can just write on the box with a marker, or you can write on a separate sheet of paper. Address it like you would an envelope (destination in the center, return address in the top left corner).
Tape it up good with packing tape (available at CVS). Tape all the seams. If you wrote the address on a separate sheet of paper, make sure all the edges of the paper are taped to the box.
Take it to your US Post Office, bring the sealed box to the counter and ask for it shipped "parcel post" (unless your box only contains books and CDs, in which case you can ask for "media mail" and it will be slightly cheaper). They will weigh it, print a stamp, stick it onto the box, charge you money, and you're done.
More notes:
If the object fits inside a Priority Mail flat-rate envelope (even if it is bulging), that might be the best way to ship it, especially because of the convenience (no special materials or tape required). For example, you can reasonably fit about 3 DVDs into the flat-rate envelope.
The Post Office won't ship liquids. For that you have to go to UPS or FedEx, and even then, some states might have laws against shipping liquids, so you could be out of luck.
↑ comment by handoflixue · 2011-02-15T23:36:19.755Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
An addendum to all the above helpful replies: Be sure to write down the address before heading off to whatever facility will be shipping your package :)
Also, simply taking the box to your local USPS does work for international shipments as well, but you'll be asked to fill out a customs form declaring what is in the package and how much it's valued at.
Possibly not necessary, but this seems like a post where little nuances are useful to mention :)
↑ comment by Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) (Swimmer963) · 2011-02-14T21:58:48.058Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I find it easiest just to bring it at the post office. I'll put it in a box/wrap it myself, but from what I've seen, the (very small) post office near my house also sells packaging materials. I just join the line up, bring the package to the clerk at the front and say "I want to mail this to __" and I received instructions.
(I live in Canada, but I'm assuming the system is similar.)
↑ comment by LucasSloan · 2011-02-08T19:10:46.898Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
USPS lets you create shipping labels online. You'll need to set up an account, but that's fairly easy. To make a label, you just need an address and you'll need to know the weight of your package, but they calculate everything from there. Also, you're going to have to choose a type of shipping, but I don't think you need to pay for the fastest service, also beware that there are options for using their provided boxes, don't use those. When you print the label, tape it to the box (or, for advanced users, buy the USPS sticky-back printer-friendly labels). You can just leave the package by your mailbox and the mail carrier will take it with em (to be sure, maybe leave a sign the first couple times you do this) or you can take it to the post office.
↑ comment by nazgulnarsil · 2011-02-08T19:18:06.971Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
just bring what you have to a UPS or fedex shipping center. i can almost guarantee that it will be cheaper than USPS and the staff will be very helpful.
Replies from: Alicorncomment by BenLowell · 2011-02-08T05:44:52.500Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Personal hygiene. The internet has eluded me on what is the best method for washing your body. I've always put soap on a washcloth and used that to scrub myself. I used to get really dry skin and I don't know if this was from my method. It seems like there are lots of different techniques---sponges, washcloths, scrubbers, body wash, lotions. What do they do?
How do you keep hair looking nice? Sometimes I use a comb, but it still goes all over the place. I usually keep my hair short to avoid dealing with this.
Replies from: noveldevice, Vladimir_M, Blueberry, NancyLebovitz, NancyLebovitz, HughRistik, Barry_Cotter↑ comment by noveldevice · 2011-02-08T20:15:07.412Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I am female. I put soap on a washcloth and rub it on my body, then rinse well. Once out of the shower or bath, I use body lotion. I am frequently told that I smell good and/or delicious, so I'm pretty sure I am doing it right. :) If you have dry skin, use lotion or look for a soap that is milder. I have a lot of allergies so I use Ivory, which doesn't have a lot of extra perfume and no colourants or other additives. You can also use small-batch artisanal soaps, which are risky if you have allergies but may be less drying because a lot of them are superfatted and/or made with goat's milk and that sort of thing.
I don't like bath poufs because they feel weird and are gross over time. I own a loofah gourd, which I use when I feel particularly needful of exfoliation, but mostly it's the washcloth for me. Basically it's going to be what kind of texture you like to feel, as far as what you use for scrubbing (a lot of people use their hands, but I don't feel clean enough if I do that), and product wise, use what makes your skin feel good.
For hair, go get a good haircut from a good stylist. If you are paying less than $30 in most markets you are getting a dreadful haircut. I routinely expect to pay $70 for a haircut because I have thick curly hair. If you like what the stylist does, ask them to recommend products and show you how to use them. If you do not, wait till it grows a bit, try another stylist. Ask your friends and coworkers where they get their hair cut. If you have a male friend who always looks particularly well-groomed, ask him who does his hair. This is how most people find stylists.
Replies from: HughRistik, anonymous259↑ comment by HughRistik · 2011-02-09T07:00:41.186Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you like what the stylist does, ask them to recommend products and show you how to use them.
Products and tools are very important for hair.
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-10T00:19:38.291Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
- Conditioner. Some guys don't know they need to be using it to take care of their hair.
So... what exactly does it do?
Replies from: Alicorn↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-10T00:21:15.269Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It makes you pettably soft. (Modulo hair type.)
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-10T00:29:41.027Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm not really clear as to what this is intended to be opposed to. Hair generally is soft, no?
Replies from: HughRistik, Nornagest, Nornagest↑ comment by HughRistik · 2011-02-10T00:33:22.313Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Conditioner makes it softer, and (for me at least) easier to work with. Plus it moisturizes your hair, and helps detangle it.
Conditioner is important if you have any parts of your hair bleached (e.g. prior to coloring), to add moisture back.
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-10T00:36:03.467Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Conditioner makes it softer, and (for me at least) easier to work with. Plus it moisturizes your hair, and helps detangle it.
Easier to work with in what sense? Why is moisturizing it good?
Replies from: HughRistik↑ comment by HughRistik · 2011-02-10T01:13:04.826Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Easier to work with for styling. Moisturizing helps take care of your hair and avoid damage, and it's especially necessary if any part of your hair is bleached. It also feels good for other people to touch.
For someone with <1 inch hair who doesn't style it and doesn't have other people touching it, conditioner probably doesn't make a difference.
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Nornagest · 2011-02-10T00:38:13.860Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It varies to a surprising extent. Frizzy hair feels kind of wooly, while hair that's unusually dry or fried from abuse of styling treatments can feel noticeably coarse, almost straw-like. Greasy hair is limp and kind of sticky. Even well-maintained hair feels different from person to person, but those differences are subtler.
↑ comment by Nornagest · 2011-02-10T00:34:23.169Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It varies to a surprising extent. Frizzy hair feels kind of wooly, while hair that's unusually dry or fried from abuse of styling treatments can feel noticeably coarse, almost straw-like. Even well-maintained hair feels different from person to person, but those differences are subtler.
↑ comment by anonymous259 · 2011-02-08T20:40:17.908Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you are paying less than $30 in most markets you are getting a dreadful haircut
?!
That sounds highly female-specific (but even so, I still find it shocking). My idea of haircut price range is $10-20.
Replies from: None, imonroe, noveldevice↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-09T14:01:59.192Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You can't get a $30 haircut if you're a woman. It's $40-$60, minimum. Let's not even get started on styling.
I used to get my hair cut at barbershops because of the price; lately I don't live near a barber who'll make an exception for me, unfortunately. (No, I don't have a man's haircut. Some barbers will just cut a woman's hair if you ask nicely.)
Honestly, I would be surprised if being more "serious" about hair (blow-drying, styling product, straightening) made much of a difference in my appearance and people's impression of me. Am I underestimating the importance of hair?
Replies from: Elizabeth, first_fire, Swimmer963↑ comment by Elizabeth · 2011-02-09T18:25:07.401Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It depends on where you live and what sort of cut you want. My haircuts are ridiculously cheap, because I have long, straight hair and I just want a straight line across the bottom, so they generally charge me the child's price ($10). Fair warning, though, I may get charged less out of sheer novelty, because my hair comes to my knees, or because I always wash my hair at home before going, rather than having them wash it for me there, because my hair is simply too long to be washed in a sink.
I have lots of hair advice, but it is largely limited to very long hair, and thus minimally useful, and not worth using space on. If anyone wants advice on having or growing long hair, I'll be happy to respond.
Replies from: handoflixue, Alicorn↑ comment by handoflixue · 2011-02-15T23:51:55.360Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've been interested in growing long hair, and would love to hear advice :)
Replies from: Elizabeth↑ comment by Elizabeth · 2011-02-17T05:47:46.008Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Principles for growing long hair:
- It takes a long time. I've been growing mine for fourteen years, and it was at least seven before it was long enough to be at all remarkable. Growth rates vary, and mine isn't all that fast (4-5 inches a year), but it may be a long time. Don't get fed up and chop it all off.
- Stop doing damaging things. No more blow-drying or coloring or straightening or curling. Minimize the amount of product you put in. Never tease your hair.
- Get trims. A half inch trim every three months or so will take off the split ends and make your hair healthier.
- Conditioner is your friend. Use it liberally. As your hair gets longer, less of it will have any exposure to scalp oils. Be sure to condition all of your hair, not just the ends. I always brush my hair with the conditioner in it before I rinse. This makes sure the conditioner is evenly distributed and there are no tangles.
- Braid your hair before sleep to prevent tangles, and brush gently. Work knots out patiently, don't just tear through them.
- Don't wash your hair every day. Every other day is plenty for hygiene purposes, and more often is hard on your hair.
- Once your hair is too long to brush in a single stroke, pull it back in a bunch like a ponytail, and then pull it over your shoulder. Brush from the bottom up. *Bear in mind that not all people can grow their hair really long. Every hair follicle has a cycle, which is why your eyebrows don't grow down to your chin. The length a hair from a particular follicle can reach is the duration of the cycle times the rate of growth. These factors vary from person to person, and can also vary within a person's lifetime. If your hair gets to a certain length and the ends get really straggly even though you're taking good care of it, it may have reached its limit.
These principles should work for varied hair types, and should allow you to get your hair long. Hopefully, by the time it's really long, you'll be used to it and won't do anything stupid, like the time I did a backbend, adjusted my feet, and then tried to stand up without realizing I was standing on my hair.
↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-09T18:38:25.055Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Do you have to ask for the child's price or do they just give it to you? My hair doesn't come as far as my knees, but I do have to stand up to get it cut and usually don't want it washed there. (I even brush it myself.)
Replies from: Elizabeth↑ comment by Elizabeth · 2011-02-09T18:52:42.108Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
They just gave it to me after I'd been there once or twice, but I suspect that if you pointed out that you just want a straight line and asked nicely, they might give it to you. If that is what you want, and have a friend or relative you trust to cut a straight line, it is also one of the few hairstyles that can be trusted to a nonprofessional. Just make sure you get a pair of good sewing scissors first.
↑ comment by first_fire · 2011-02-16T07:34:07.641Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you live in a larger city, see if you have an Aveda Institute or Academy. Having your hair cut by a student means it's $25 as opposed to $60 (Canada, cut only, no color), and they'll redo it if the student does something terrible, though this has never happened to me. Also all natural products, which I really like.
As for hair maintenance, scrub your scalp with shampoo. Unless your hair is past your shoulders, you shouldn't need more than about the size of a quarter in your palm. Focus the scrubbing on your scalp and not your hair, as the scalp is where oil comes from and the hair itself will be cleaned as the shampoo rinses from your scalp (this applies for hair dirty from daily living, not if you've lost a mud-fight or similar).
Apply a similar amount of conditioner to the hair, avoiding the scalp more. If you tend to be very oily, use less. If you have lots of frizz, use more. Let sit for at least thirty seconds, rinse, preferably in cooler water.
↑ comment by Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) (Swimmer963) · 2011-02-14T22:06:58.473Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I get a haircut (trim for dead ends) from my mother about once a year. The haircuts I have paid for in the past were NEVER as much as $40. Then again, as a student maybe I can get away with the scruffier look.
↑ comment by imonroe · 2011-02-08T23:25:06.423Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I concur. In my opinion, men are best served by a proper barber, not by a "hair stylist" at a strip mall Fantastic Sam's.
A good barber knows not only what kind of haircuts look fashionable for men, but the also how to cut the hair so it's easy to maintain. You know you've found a decent barber when you get a hot lather and straight-razor shave for your neckline at the end of the cut.
Further, a good barber won't charge more than $20 for a haircut. $15 is average. I pay $18, but I really like the place.
This from a fellow who averaged one haircut a year for 15 years, and now keeps it cut rather short.
Replies from: HughRistik↑ comment by HughRistik · 2011-02-09T06:24:04.907Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A good barber knows not only what kind of haircuts look fashionable for men, but the also how to cut the hair so it's easy to maintain.
Barbers can help you look like a fashionable normal guy, but what's most likely to happen with a barber is that you come out looking like an average normal guy.
Here are a bunch of haircuts that your barber probably can't help you with. All these guys are very popular, and most of them are sex symbols.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
To everyone who's day this comment makes: you're welcome.
Replies from: Vladimir_M, wedrifid, wedrifid↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-09T07:26:45.132Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
HughRistik:
Here are a bunch of haircuts that your barber probably can't help you with. All these guys are very popular, and most of them are sex symbols.
I don't think these photos make such a good case.
First and foremost, some of them are examples of extreme peacocking, or in case of that guy with dreadlocks, of extreme "I'm shabby but still high-status" countersignaling. This can indeed be spectacularly successful if done with utmost competence and in a suitable context, but it's apt to backfire with an even more spectacular failure if any of these conditions are less than perfect.
I'd say there's a more important general lesson here: just because high-status, sex-symbol men do something, it doesn't mean that it's wise for the average Joe to try imitating it. You must learn to walk before trying to run, which means that if you're not able to pull off a rock-solid and competent "conservative normal guy" image, you probably won't be able to pull off any of those more advanced peacocking/countersignaling strategies. (There are examples of men who can naturally do the latter but not the former, but it's very rare.)
This is why modern pop-culture is highly confusing and misleading for shy and socially inept men who look for role-models. There are few, if any examples of straightforward masculinity among the celebrities nowadays whose behavior and image would be a realistic direction for men like that; what they see instead is unfathomably complex and subtle counter-signaling and peacocking, which they can't possibly imitate with any success. That's why I think many men could find much more valuable inspiration in pre-1970s movies than in anything produced today.
(Also, we can compare some of these guys to what they look like with much simpler haircuts. The prime example would be Beckham -- how much return does he get in terms of good looks with that elaborate fauxhawk relative to a simple buzz cut? Not much, I'd say, if any at all. Finally, some of these are professionally done promotional photos. What looks good in those often looks much worse in real life, even if you take the huge effort to keep it picture-perfect at all times.)
Replies from: HughRistik↑ comment by HughRistik · 2011-02-09T09:59:12.530Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't think these photos make such a good case.
Then I think I failed to be clear about what case I was making with them. The point is that there are many ways for men to do hair that barbers don't support, and that barbers are not at the cutting edge of what is fashionable. I showed the photos to display some of the "design space" for men's hair that is kept off limits to them.
This can indeed be spectacularly successful if done with utmost competence and in a suitable context, but it's apt to backfire with an even more spectacular failure if any of these conditions are less than perfect.
I see the costs and benefits about differently. Peacocking can be super-powerful, and getting it wrong while learning isn't actually terribly costly, especially for those who are already low in social status and attractiveness. Of course, this depends on culture: some cultures punish male appearance nonconformism (particularly around gender) more harshly than others.
I'd say there's a more important general lesson here: just because high-status, sex-symbol men do something, it doesn't mean that it's wise for the average Joe to try imitating it.
True, but it's useful to understand the cultural schemas around masculinity. Once he does, then he can tap into them in more subtle ways.
You must learn to walk before trying to run
Yes. I wouldn't advise jumping straight to one of these hairstyles until you can put together the right sort of outfit to support it.
Which means that if you're not able to pull off a rock-solid and competent "conservative normal guy" image, you probably won't be able to pull off any of those more advanced peacocking/countersignaling strategies.
Putting together a strong normal guy image can quickly start overlapping with peacocking. If you can pick out good pieces that fit you, then you are practically peacocking already.
Normal guy looks just don't suit some guys very well, and developing a normal guy look isn't necessarily the best use of effort. In my case, even though I'm probably above average in looks, I just don't look very remarkable in jeans and a T-shirt, with <1 inch hair. Other guys with different builds would look much better in those clothes and hair. Eventually I realized that I wasn't going to beat guys at doing the normal guy look. So I started doing something more niche, and the attention I got skyrocketed.
I'm actually much better positioned to try a normal guy look now. In some ways, doing a normal guy look well is actually hard, because the options are so limited. There is a benefit to doing a crazy look, then incorporating elements of it backwards to spice up your normal look.
This is why modern pop-culture is highly confusing and misleading for shy and socially inept men who look for role-models.
That's true. And I probably traumatized some of those guys with the pictures I linked to. But those pictures demonstrate the end results of runaway sexual selection, and they need to understand what the playing field looks like.
There are few, if any examples of straightforward masculinity among the celebrities nowadays whose behavior and image would be a realistic direction for men like that; what they see instead is unfathomably complex and subtle counter-signaling and peacocking, which they can't possibly imitate with any success.
Unfortunately, Western middle-class "straightforward masculinity" has very little design space for hair. Rockstars and subcultural are making out like bandits in the unused design space.
While some of those hairstyles do seem like unfathomably complex signaling games, peacocking isn't all that they are about. They are also about culture, and subculture. The notion of short hair as "straightforward masculinity" is ethnocentric.
Even some of those seemingly crazy hairstyles are normal in some subcultures. In some cultures, dreads are "straightforward masculinity." In other subcultures, Jade Puget's hairstyle is "straightforward masculinity," even though it looks effeminate or gay to mainstream male observers. Mainstream heterosexual men often make fun of "hipster" and "emo" men, yet the joke is on them. While they snicker, the hipster and emo boys are getting with the cute hipster and emo girls, and have less competition in their niche.
The peacocking of rockstars only looks crazy and complex because typical Western middle-class heterosexual white men have been aesthetically straight-jacketed and lobotomized by their culture, and they don't even know it. It's understandable that in their straight-jacketed state, these men would benefit from models of aesthetically straight-jacketed masculinity. But I would like to see if the straight-jacket can be taken off, assuming that corporations, gender-typical heterosexual women, and men's own comfort zones will allow it.
Rockstar hair countersignals against current white middle-class Western masculinity, but it also speaks to how masculinity has been performed in the past, and how it could be performed in the future. Look at the mohawk, for instance. It's considered a shocking signal in mainstream culture now, but that's only because men have been forced to surrender it. Rockstars don't own the mohawk, unless normal guys let them. If you were an Iroquois Indian or Scythian warrior, a mohawk was part of your work attire.
That's why I think many men could find much more valuable inspiration in pre-1970s movies than in anything produced today.
For behavior, definitely. Movies provide horrible models of behavioral masculinity. Yet I wouldn't look to the past for hair, unless you are deliberately doing a retro look.
The prime example would be Beckham -- how much return does he get in terms of good looks with that elaborate fauxhawk relative to a simple buzz cut? Not much, I'd say, if any at all.
Not much for him, because he already good-looking and high status. But a guy other than Beckham could get significant returns.
Different hair length changes the apparent proportions of the head and face. This influences perceptions of masculinity/femininity, and perception of age. Hair long enough to frame the face changes the perception of facial structure. This is all design space that is thrown out with a buzz cut.
What looks good in those often looks much worse in real life, even if you take the huge effort to keep it picture-perfect at all times
That's true. But it can be better to have a haircut that looks awesome 50% of the time and crappy 50% of the time, rather than a haircut that looks bland 100% of the time.
Replies from: Vladimir_M, Vladimir_M↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-10T09:58:13.365Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Also, regarding this:
The peacocking of rockstars only looks crazy and complex because typical Western middle-class heterosexual white men have been aesthetically straight-jacketed and lobotomized by their culture, and they don't even know it. It's understandable that in their straight-jacketed state, these men would benefit from models of aesthetically straight-jacketed masculinity. But I would like to see if the straight-jacket can be taken off, assuming that corporations, gender-typical heterosexual women, and men's own comfort zones will allow it.
I think you're being much too idealistic about subcultures. Any subcultural or countercultural milieu will feature the same human universals that exist everywhere else, and will therefore impose its own status markers and standards of conformity no less strict and demanding than the mainstream society. (Of course, the mainstream can usually threaten more severe punishments for disobedience, but the loss of status among people whose opinion one cares about is a terrifying enough threat for anyone.)
What you see as escaping the straight-jacket is at best just a change of masters, not an escape into freedom. (With the exception of a small minority who find that their natural inclinations and abilities lend themselves to achieving high status in some particular milieu especially well, but even this works both ways.)
Mainstream heterosexual men often make fun of "hipster" and "emo" men, yet the joke is on them. While they snicker, the hipster and emo boys are getting with the cute hipster and emo girls, and have less competition in their niche.
Trouble is, the girls in various groups like those respond positively to the same essential traits in men as anywhere else. Whether you have a mainstream image or any particular subcultural image, it's basically orthogonal to how attractive you are to women. Now clearly, a given way of dress and behavior will be acceptable in one place and unacceptable in another, but chances are that if you adjust your dress and manners to a different milieu, the women there will find you about as attractive as those in the previous place found you with your previous image. That has at least been my experience, both personal and observational, and I've certainly changed my image and the circles I've hung out in a great deal through the years.
↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-10T09:21:37.509Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've thought about our disagreement, and I think there are several important points.
First, at the risk of sounding vain, it is possible that I'm biased because I'm handsome enough that I didn't have problems attracting attention even in the most misguided years of my youth. (My problem was that I'd usually be oblivious to indications of interest, or I'd sabotage myself by responding to them in naive and clumsy ways, not that I was invisible to girls.) It is possible that for less handsome men, being invisible in the crowd is a big enough obstacle that trying to break it by peacocking is a better option than I'd think.
Then, it also depends on what exactly your goal is. If you're striving to become a full-blown player -- which I never did, both because I was already a bit too old to start working on it when I realized that it's actually a feasible goal, and also because it doesn't suit me temperamentally -- then I suppose more extreme options like heavy peacocking become the order of the day. For less adventurous goals, however, I still think that working on a strong and solid "normal" image is overall a better option for most men.
I've already pointed out that if your face or head shape is not very handsome, you can significantly improve your looks with a suitably shaped haircut. But if you already look handsome with a buzz cut, there are rapidly diminishing returns to what you can do with your hair, if we consider it in terms of handsomeness rather than peacocking. (I hope it's clear what I mean by that distinction.)
Regarding various subcultural styles, I'll reply in a separate comment.
Otherwise, I agree that our age is probably too restrictive in what passes for mainstream respectable men's fashion, and has in fact been ever since the early-to-mid 19th century. I find the 18th century aristocratic men's fashion very appealing, and the 17th century Cavalier style even more.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-10T10:27:26.337Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Here are a bunch of haircuts that your barber probably can't help you with.
So a barber can't help me. Say I want to end up with hairstyle 9 (primarily because I like his music :P), what process would I go through to end up with that hairstyle from a start of 'ordinary, kinda spiky'? Also, what sort of facial features, body type and clothing style would be required to pull it off?
Replies from: HughRistik↑ comment by HughRistik · 2011-02-11T05:37:04.005Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you have curly hair, a this haircut is probably a bad idea. The ends will look too wispy. It's probably going to take you some product to maintain.
Also, decide on the color. Looking up some other photos, in some he looks all blond, and in others he looks a highlighted dirty blond. You could of course do this cut without coloring your hair.
This cut should work for any facial features except perhaps a round face. That's because it goes over the ears, which creates a rounder look, which could be too much roundness if your head is already round. As for clothes, something edgy would go well with it. Maybe add a couple accessories like a necklace or a wristband. Look at the sorts of stuff Bon Jovi wears with it.
Does that answer your questions?
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-13T05:45:40.380Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Does that answer your questions?
Thanks, that was great. I'll have to think about it a bit. The 'curly' thing may be in issue. I always think of my hair as straight but when it gets some length to it it curls a bit. Constant straightening could be tiresome.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-09T11:19:25.559Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I love 2, 7 and 9.
To everyone who's day this comment makes: you're welcome.
With a Bon Jovi hairstyle recommendation? You've definitely made mine. And it doesn't look like it would be too hard to grow out to that length either. Any suggestions on how to grow from short to medium length without it looking terrible in between?
Replies from: Vladimir_M↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-10T10:08:40.283Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Any suggestions on how to grow from short to medium length without it looking terrible in between?
When I'm overdue for a haircut, I find that wearing a tuque for a while makes it look significantly less bad. This might be highly individual-specific, though.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-10T10:25:46.500Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Ahh, wikipedia tells me a tuque is what we commonly referred to a beanie here. A good idea. Fairly individual specific, as you say. I'll definitely have to get a hat though. Are fedoras too overdone these days or could that work too?
Replies from: Vladimir_M↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-10T19:45:19.637Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Actually, I meant wearing a beanie for a while to iron out your hair and make the overgrown parts stick out less conspicuously, not wearing it around to hide bad hair.
Fedoras can look cool, but like other uncommon headwear, it can be a major fail if it fits you less than perfectly. I suppose if you decide to wear it, you should also stick to the old custom that it's impolite to wear indoors, so I don't think it's a good option for hiding bad hair.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by noveldevice · 2011-02-09T04:22:12.450Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A $15 haircut looks like a $15 haircut. A good haircut looks good wet, dry, with product, without product, straight out of bed, straight out of the shower, and six weeks after you got it.
For this, if you have curly hair? You pay big money. Period.
It's also worth it.
Replies from: CronoDAS↑ comment by CronoDAS · 2011-02-09T04:39:22.593Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've read that the way most stylists are taught to cut curly hair is flat-out wrong - apparently, the standard method is optimized for being able to straighten the hair, rather than having curls that look good.
Replies from: noveldevice, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by noveldevice · 2011-02-09T05:04:48.459Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That is absolutely correct in my experience. It is hard, as a curly person, to find a good stylist, which is why until two months ago, I was still getting my hair cut in Kansas even though I live in Vancouver, BC. (The one in Canada. Yes, really.)
Now I'm working to train my current excellent stylist that yes, I do actually have to wash my hair every day, and not washing my hair is really not an option (allergies). But at least she cuts my hair so it looks great.
I can't really use product (allergies) so straightening was never an option for me.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-09T11:35:30.385Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Voted up for interesting link.
↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-08T22:36:35.276Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Regarding haircuts for men: the best way in my experience is to become a regular at a cheap place that's been in business for a long time. You'll likely get much better service than a random customer.
Also, for men with a handsome face and a nicely shaped head, spending resources on an elaborate haircut is a complete waste -- a simple very short cut or even a buzz-cut will look as good as anything else. The only important thing is that it's not strikingly uneven and flawed. Otherwise, a well selected and executed haircut can make you look more handsome, but finding the cost-benefit optimum here is very difficult and individual-specific.
Very expensive, elaborate, and high-maintenance cuts are likely a waste in any case. Generally, a big problem with all short hairstyles is that they become visibly uglier due to hair growth after only a week or two, which makes elaborate cuts even less cost-effective.
Finally, if you're losing hair visibly, a shaved head is definitely the way to go. Just make sure you don't look too scrawny.
Replies from: HughRistik↑ comment by HughRistik · 2011-02-09T05:20:21.718Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Also, for men with a handsome face and a nicely shaped head, spending resources on an elaborate haircut is a complete waste -- a simple very short cut or even a buzz-cut will look as good as anything else.
If you are doing a normal guy look, sure. But if you want to do something crazier or more subcultural, then ditch the barber.
One of the simplest ways a guy can increase the amount of sexual attention he gets is to get a cool haircut (i.e. not a normal guy barber haircut).
Very expensive, elaborate, and high-maintenance cuts are likely a waste in any case.
There are costs, but in some cultures there are big benefits. Hair is an important signaling device. The signal can be costly... and that's part of the point. It's really hard to go wrong having awesome hair. Maintenance is a pain, but if you know what you're doing, it's not so bad.
Replies from: Vladimir_M↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-09T06:35:00.002Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
HughRistik:
It's really hard to go wrong having awesome hair.
Actually, I disagree, unless you take this in a tautological sense. There are several important points here.
First, a "crazier and more subcultural" look is essentially a form of peacocking. Like all peacocking, it can be extremely effective, but it's difficult to pull off competently and tends to backfire badly if done in a less than stellar way. So I definitely wouldn't recommend it to a typical guy, who almost certainly has much more advisable options than attempting peacocking.
Even attempting a more conventional elaborate hairstyle can backfire. You know when a man tries dressing sharply but instead of looking sharp ends up projecting that bad "I'm trying too hard" look? (I don't have in mind being badly dressed by any clear standard, but rather giving off that vague impression that it's not his natural image, and it just doesn't fit him in some hard-to-describe way.) My impression is that it's even easier to fail in a similar way by attempting a sophisticated haircut.
That said, as I already pointed out, if you don't have a nicely shaped skull and a handsome face, a competently chosen and executed haircut can significantly improve your looks, while a really bad hairstyle can make any man look like a dork. Otherwise, however, I have the impression that men's efforts put in hairstyle rapidly hit diminishing returns, except perhaps in a peacocking context. Certainly it seems to me that countless other aspects of looks and behavior are far more important outside of these basic limits.
What apparent evidence I've seen to the contrary can all be explained by confounding factors, i.e. it's about men who have self-improved in other more important ways along with changing their hairstyle. (Of course, like any other change, it can be effective via "inner game," i.e. if it makes you genuinely feel better about yourself, it will likely change your outside behavior for the better, regardless of any immediate effect on your looks.)
Replies from: HughRistik, Zack_M_Davis↑ comment by HughRistik · 2011-02-09T08:30:12.540Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
First, a "crazier and more subcultural" look is essentially a form of peacocking. Like all peacocking, it can be extremely effective, but it's difficult to pull off competently and tends to backfire badly if done in a less than stellar way.
I am indeed talking about peacocking. I agree with you about the risks of peacocking, and perhaps I didn't acknowledge them clearly enough.
So I definitely wouldn't recommend it to a typical guy, who almost certainly has much more advisable options than attempting peacocking.
Actually, I think peacocking of some sort is one of the options I would most advise to a typical guy attempting to improve social and romantic success. It can quickly help him get more attention and new sorts of reactions (e.g. compliments that increase his confidence).
Even attempting a more conventional elaborate hairstyle can backfire. You know when a man tries dressing sharply but instead of looking sharp ends up projecting that bad "I'm trying too hard" look? (I don't have in mind being badly dressed by any clear standard, but rather giving off that vague impression that it's not his natural image, and it just doesn't fit him in some hard-to-describe way.) My impression is that it's even easier to fail in a similar way by attempting a sophisticated haircut.
I know that sort of look, and I've certainly been guilty of it myself. Yet my view is that trying and failing can often look better than not trying, especially for a guy who is below average to start with. My hypothesis is that a lot guys with average or below average style could drop on a crazy hairstyle and get better reactions, even if they looked like they were trying too hard, and their hair made no sense with the rest of their clothing. Guys who are already at least above average in style, or guys in older or more conservative/conformist cultures might not benefit so much.
Good peacocking is powerful. But even messy trial-and-error while learning peacocking may actually be better than what many guys are already doing.
Otherwise, however, I have the impression that men's efforts put in hairstyle rapidly hit diminishing returns,
Effort on hairstyle hits diminishing returns once you separate yourself from the pack of average guys you are competing with. How much effort that takes depends on (sub)culture.
except perhaps in a peacocking context.
What other sort of context is there?
Certainly it seems to me that countless other aspects of looks and behavior are far more important outside of these basic limits.
There are many aspects of looks and behavior that are more important than peacocking, but in my experience, peacocking has a pretty good cost-benefit ratio.
Peacocking synergizes with other form of social self-improvement, even when done badly. Even though peacocking has a learning curve, it may actually be easier than certain other social self-improvement skills for certain types of guys.
Compare fashion to other skills that a guy might be learning. For shy, introverted males, they have a lot of things to focus on in the "field," such as posture, body language, voice, content of speech, etc... which can easily be overwhelming. Everything has a learning curve. The advantage of fashion (including hair) is that you can cache it before stepping into the field, which is a massive boon: fire and forget. Furthermore, in contrast to conversation, fashion is broadband and travels at the speed of light.
Psychologically, what traits are fashion skills loaded on?
- pattern recognition
- spatial skills and artistic ability
- creativity
- technical knowledge of tools and procedures
Fashion is the medium by which these abilities can be converted into social status. Psychologically, fashion is actually right up the alley of creative and visual introverted systemizers. Culturally, fashion isn't seen that way because it's associated with women and gay men.
↑ comment by Zack_M_Davis · 2011-02-09T07:38:15.715Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
First, a "crazier and more subcultural" look is essentially a form of peacocking
(Not to disagree with your general advice, but I am compelled to mention in passing that) not everyone is playing the same game. I keep my hair long in order to avoid the normal guy look; it's a personal style and self-expression thing, not the kind of sexual ploy that can backfire.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-08T07:36:09.012Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you get really dry skin, try using a body wash that's formulated for sensitive skin. Dove makes a good one. Body wash in general is less harsh on your skin than soap.
I personally never use washcloths: I just take the soap or body wash in my hand, build up a lather, then rub it on my body.
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T19:50:44.918Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As someone with terrible skin problems, I've found Dove products to be among the worst for skin conditons. The best thing I've found, surprisingly, is to use shampoos (specifically 'all natural' ones containing tea tree and mint, but cheap store brands for preference as they're less likely to add unneccessary crap). They work just as well for cleaning the body, and tend not to cause problems.
Replies from: Blueberry, kpreid↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T08:42:02.570Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As someone with terrible skin problems, I've found Dove products to be among the worst for skin condit[i]ons.
Yeah, mileage varies a lot with this, because everyone with sensitive skin is sensitive to different things. My skin loves Dove but it won't work for everyone. The key point is to look for body wash products that are labeled "for sensitive skin."
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2012-02-12T16:55:12.258Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Which shampoo you use can make a huge difference. I find that Crabtree and Evelyn's LaSource Original Formula leaves my hair soft and fluffy (I like getting volume), while most other shampoos tend to flatten it out.
I have no idea what efficient methods of finding a great shampoo for oneself would be-- I lucked out because Hilton hotels offer LaSource Original Formula in their rooms-- their non-original LaSource isn't bad for me, but it isn't nearly as good.
Oh, and if you're trying to please other people, your own instincts may not be adequate. There was a while when I was using Herbal Essence, and I couldn't tell the difference, but it was like living in a shampoo commercial. I'd get compliments on my hair when I used it, but not at other times.
Replies from: juliawise↑ comment by juliawise · 2012-02-12T17:03:40.107Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I like The Beauty Brains, a blog by some anonymous authors who say they're scientists in the cosmetic industry (and as far as I can tell, this is true). It's a bit hard to navigate, but it does have some good information on what the ingredients in products actually do, so you can tell what ingredients to look for in a product and which are just for marketing.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T15:15:07.469Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Possibly relevant: Curly Girl, a book about the care of hair in the curly to kinky range.
It's got a lot of enthusiastic reviews, but I found its advice to not use shampoo doesn't work for me.
The piece of shampoo advice which did work is to ignore the hair type labeling. Scalps do oil homeostasis, and if you have oily hair and use a shampoo with a drying effect, your scalp may just produce more oil, or at least that's how it worked for me. Even though I run somewhat oily, I do better with shampoo for normal hair.
↑ comment by HughRistik · 2011-02-08T19:24:07.807Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How do you keep hair looking nice? Sometimes I use a comb, but it still goes all over the place. I usually keep my hair short to avoid dealing with this.
A comb isn't enough. You need to be using certain products, but what to use depends on what type of hair you have. What is the texture of your hair? Is it straight, wavy, or curly? And are the strands fine or thick?
↑ comment by Barry_Cotter · 2011-02-08T11:19:29.830Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Personal hygiene: the important thing is to get a lather, rub it relatively vigourously over the areas that need cleaning and rinse it off, the most important places are where you sweat lots, armpits, feet and between your legs and your hands. Soap is much harsher and more likely to dry your skin than shower gel/body wash. A sponge or loofah is marginally more convenient for this liquid stuff.
Keeping long hair looking nice requires constant combing. To have it glossy and relatively manageable you need to either wash semi regularly, like 3 times a week and condition once a week (conditioner must stay in at least ten minutes, or be the kind you let dry in) or no shampoo and conditioner at all and leave for six to twelve weeks. This last is a pain because during the adjustment period your hair can get greasy and kinda gross. It still needs washing with water though.
Replies from: simplyeric, listic↑ comment by simplyeric · 2011-02-08T17:41:34.023Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There are many who believe that the key to better hair is NOT using as much shampoo. Use as little as possible in order to not have greasy hair. This takes time to master. Some people need a full scrub every day. Some people need almost nothing. The homeostatis of your scalp is the key: using less shampoo should, over time, make your scalp produce less oil.
I'm down to a point where I go a day or two rinsing only, sometimes just a little bit of extra soap from when I washed my neck. When I wash my hair, I use very little shampoo...the bare minimum. Then, a few times a year I really wash it (and then it's all crazy for a few days).
note: I should point out that I do not appear any less "groomed" than the next guy, except when I procrastinate about getting a haircut. I have extensive client contact at work in a somewhat-trendy architecture firm, etc.
Dove Bar, unscented/sensative skin. I'm not a "product" guy but that's one product I highly recommend. A little extra attention at armpits, neck, feet, and of course the vitals, goes a long way.
IMPORTANT: deoderant. There are unscented brands, and delicate ones too. The "crystal" works for some, but I find it works in winter but not in summer (too hot, and the deoderant fails me, so I switch to an unscented antipersperant).
IMPORTANT: you can shower and deoderant all you want: you must wear fresh clothing. Fresh tshirt, socks, and underwear every day (the overshirt and pants you can wear multiple times). Synthetics stink more than cottons/wools: body oder bacteria can actually feed on the plastics in fleece, bras, socks, etc. Wash undergarments regularly, and wear cotton socks.
Replies from: mindspillage↑ comment by mindspillage · 2011-02-09T06:43:45.570Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Concurring with minimal shampoo. Also, try conditioning with natural oils if your hair is dry (coconut oil in particular, though don't let it clog your drain).
If you really care about keeping long hair in great condition, wear it up or braided most of the time. I don't have the patience or the desire for that, so I have to trim my damaged ends more often than some do, also.
(I am female, with waist-length hair; I think of wearing my hair down rather than up as akin to using the good dishes rather than letting them sit in the cabinet.)
↑ comment by listic · 2011-02-08T14:35:25.326Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What's a lather?
Replies from: bbleeker, Barry_Cotter↑ comment by Sabiola (bbleeker) · 2011-02-08T15:36:23.096Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Lather is what you get when you mix soap/shampoo etc. with water, and it starts foaming.
↑ comment by Barry_Cotter · 2011-02-08T15:21:46.287Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
foam
comment by afeller · 2011-02-08T04:49:31.665Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've always assumed that this is something inborn instead of learned -- hopefully, that assumption (which come to think of it I've never really questioned) is wrong -- but I have a very hard time orienting myself. When I'm walking up the stairwell in my apartment, I have no idea whether I am walking towards the road, away from the road, or perpendicular to it. I can sit down with a pencil and paper and draw it and figure it out by looking at it from a 'birds eye' perspective. But when I'm standing in a room with opaque walls and trying to imagine what room is on the other side, I just get really confused.
Replies from: apophenia, Osmium_Penguin, bogdanb, MartinB, Elizabeth, syllogism, jaimeastorga2000, Unnamed↑ comment by apophenia · 2011-02-08T11:48:40.904Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think that this sounds like too much work to learn manually, so I am embracing transhumanism and making a compass belt.
Replies from: SRStarin, jaimeastorga2000, Dreaded_Anomaly, David_Gerard↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-08T19:00:25.081Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This weekend I finally finished my compass anklet. It's pretty impressive how quickly the human brain can include a new sense. I'm looking forward to taking it geocaching!
Replies from: sfb, gwern↑ comment by sfb · 2011-02-09T07:38:59.740Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What do you do with the knowledge of which way North is? Are the motors continuously vibrating or pulsed? When you take it off do you feel the absence (absense?) like an amputation?
Replies from: SRStarin, Thomas↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-09T13:48:57.508Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When I wear the device, there are eight motors positioned around my ankle. The one pointing most closely to north vibrates. As I move, there is sometimes some lag before a motor changes state, but when I'm still, there is always one motor buzzing, or else two motors kind of taking turns. (Actually, one of the motors doesn't work, because I burned the circuit board at its contact >< But that still tells me something.)
I'm not totally used to it yet--the buzzing is a little uncomfortable when it goes on for too long in one spot (like sitting in a car driving straight for several minutes). I think it might be an improvement if the motors were pulsed instead of continuous. But, if I am walking around, changing directions, it feels just fine. But I haven't been using it enough for me to feel a strong absence or blindness when I take it off.
How do I use the knowledge? One of my hobbies is geocaching. In geocaching, I usually need to look at a GPS receiver and a compass alternately, while also not tripping over roots and while looking around for my goal. I haven't gotten to try it yet, but with the ankle device (it's called North Paw), I'm hoping to reduce my visual burden by transferring some responsibility to my tactile modality.
↑ comment by Thomas · 2011-02-09T08:24:56.844Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I could use this sense. I imagine it is similar to up and down feeling. I could use many more such. Where is my car for example. Which direction and how far. A combined device for several informations of this kind should equip and serve me well.
↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-09T19:40:09.298Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Very interesting. I keep a list of haptic-compass links and I recently added http://www.monkeysandrobots.com/hapticcompass to it - was that you?
Replies from: SRStarin↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-09T19:45:41.169Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Nope, not me. But the video on that site looks a lot like a bigger version of the inner guts of the North Paw. Just to be clear for any who didn't follow the link in my comment, I put together a kit that Sensebridge sells--I did not design the anklet.
↑ comment by jaimeastorga2000 · 2011-02-09T12:49:34.740Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Wow, that's pretty cool! I just carry a marching compass in my purse for extra help in orientation.
↑ comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-02-09T02:08:27.003Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My own spatial reasoning abilities are very similar to what bogdanb describes, but ever since reading that Wired article I have thought about building one of those for myself.
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T20:58:05.276Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I love that that site is called "Monkeys And Robots".
↑ comment by Osmium_Penguin · 2011-02-08T06:45:11.742Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I do not know if this is a practical, general or transferable solution, but it worked for me: throughout my childhood I couldn't orient myself, and I finally taught myself at the age of 24.
Start from a place where you can see quite some distance in all (or most) directions. Outside is best. If you can see, but are not within, a downtown core, you're in a good spot. Ditto mountains, or other tall landmarks.
Now ignore those landmarks. They're untrustworthy. If you can see them, they're close enough that sometimes they'll be north and sometimes west and sometimes right on top of you. They can be a good marker for your position, but not for your orientation. You need an orientation marker.
So instead, look in the other direction, the most featureless cardinal direction you can find. Then imagine a huge, fictional geographic element just over the horizon, and tell yourself it's in that direction: living in Edmonton at the time, I used the mantra, "The desert is west."
This is a fictional desert. (Or sea, or taiga, or forest.) It is always west. (Or east, or southeast, or north.) For this process to work, you can't actually pick a real landscape, or it becomes possible to walk around it, at which point your directions are confused again. If you're like me, a fictional landmark will help you orient yourself — but please don't make the mistake of believing it's real.
Now take a few minutes to walk around, keeping the desert in your awareness. Which way are you facing when it's straight ahead? Which way are you facing when it's behind you?
After a remarkably short time, you'll find that you always know where the desert is. And that will tell you where all your directions are. And then you're oriented. And now you can look at that downtown core and notice, "When I am standing at Broadway & Commercial, downtown is to my northwest."
Repeat this process in a few different outdoor locations, and you'll be ready to try it indoors. Just before you walk into a building, note where your imaginary forest is. As you turn corners, keep it in mind. Since the forest is fictional, you've never seen it anyhow; the fact that there are no windows in this university won't matter so much.
Oh, and if you're driving, remember that the centrifugal force you feel is proportional to your speed! The faster you're going, the more quickly you feel as though you're turning — at highway speeds, it takes quite a long time to turn 90 degrees, and a 270-degree cloverleaf seems to go on forever. Unless your city is laid out with perpendicular streets and no freeways, it's a lot easier to orient yourself when you're walking or cycling than when you're driving. On a mountain highway, I'm still lost. I navigate by the sun or use a map.
So…this strategy worked for me. I've never taught it to anybody else; I have no idea which bits of it are necessary and which are superfluous. Although it uses magical thinking, I'll point out that it's easier to imagine a specific, concrete object — like a wide desert just over the horizon — than to imagine an abstract notion like "west." My problem was too much abstraction; this strategy makes the compass real.
Replies from: alethiophile↑ comment by alethiophile · 2011-02-23T07:46:43.573Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I grew up just east of the Rocky Mountains, which are, being in my area more or less straight north-south, always to the west. No fictional landmarks required. You might be able to do something similar with a coastline, though that's quite a bit less visible.
↑ comment by bogdanb · 2011-02-08T14:38:40.416Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
From what you say I think my orientation skills are quite a bit better compared to yours, though I’m not one of those people who always know where they are and which way is everything else.
As far as I can tell, based on just introspection and comparing my “success rate” for various orientation tasks, there are quite a few different more-or-less specialized mechanism in the mind that handle this, and when they are employed differs with the kind of task. As far as I can tell, my brain at least deals very differently with, for example, navigating a well-known territory and navigating in places I don’t know personally (even though I may have seen a map).
When I go through places I know well—the areas I frequent around places I lived a few days in—I navigate and pick routes almost instantly; I can walk or drive quite complex routes, even routes I never followed before (but through places I know), without ever thinking or paying attention (I mean, I pay attention to the road, not to the route). But this seems to be based on a type of memory that associates the directions relative to where I am with destinations. For example, it often happens that I don’t remember, say, what places follow after the next turn, but I know that I have to go that way to reach some destination; once I turn I’ll remember the “next step”. But it’s not a memory of “routes”, because I can and do on occasion do the same thing with routes that are not common, as long as they pass through places I know. (E.g., I might do a detour that never happened before unconsciously.) Also, it’s not quite spatial memory, because for places like this I don’t have any awareness of their relative location on a map. (That is, I can follow an instinctive route between two distant points, even a route I never followed exactly before, but I can’t tell afterwards if the destination was north or south of the starting point.)
However, in places I’m not yet familiar with things seem to be very different. Generally I can look at a map and remember the interesting points. I can’t remember the map photographically, but I kind of remember the relative orientations of points. Then, if I need to navigate alone, I need to pay attention to the cardinal points and remember approximately the direction my destination is. (Mentally this feels like looking at a graph of interconnected dots, with the vector of the direction I’m looking at superimposed.) It works surprisingly well, and the reason I mention it is that this seems to be a trained skill; when I was younger I relied entirely on the first method above, and I had no hope of orienting myself. This method seems to have appeared after I was forced (by moving alone) and I worked on it; it clearly improved with trying, so I think it’s a learned skill.
As far as I can tell the trick is to learn to “get your bearings” (the “vector” I mentioned above). This is usually easy, I just use the sun to establish (vaguely) direction. It’s easy: in the morning it’s towards the east, midday it’s towards the south, evenings west. If you can model basic astronomy in your head you can make adjustments for date and the like. (If you learn to recognize the big dipper and follow the stars around, it’s easy enough to find the north star at night.)
The trick is to consistently try to do this. I remember at first I failed completely, but if you keep forcing yourself to think “which way is north” often enough, odds are that whatever part of the brain handles that task will start paying attention and work quite well. (Note: try to think in terms of an absolute direction, not in terms of your direction. That is, when I take a turn, in my mental image the map stays the same and the vector for “my direction” rotates; I don’t rotate the map the way a GPS navigator does. So, for example, if I’m going north and turn right, my mental model doesn’t say “destination is now forward”; instead, it always says “destination is east”, and “my orientation is east”; it’s much easier to mentally rotate a line in a map than to mentally rotate a map.)
(A hint: if I’m led by someone between two places, I almost never remember the route, even if I try. But if I force myself to check a map and try to navigate by myself once, I almost don’t have to try to remember it.)
It’s quite clear that the two systems are distinct; whenever they need to interact, for example when navigating between an area I know well and one I don’t, it feels very strange; I get a very clear sensation of knowing the familiar area in a way and a very different sense of the other area (like a map), it feels like they don’t connect. I have to visually “mark” the familiar spots on the mental map of the unfamiliar place, and consciously figure out the relationships and connections, before I can route between the two “modes”.
Orientation in a place is very similar; the two methods apply the same on familiar/non-familiar places. However, in buildings I don’t think in terms of north/south, I usually think in terms of the entry point. However the mental operation of figuring out which way that is after a few turns is the same as that of remembering which way north is. In familiar places I can’t tell immediately which way is everything, I have to imagine me moving through the place, step by step, using the “familiar” system and construct a mental map in parallel using the other “map-like” system.
↑ comment by Elizabeth · 2011-02-08T05:50:14.294Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's both inborn and learned. (Like a musical ear: you get what you get, but you can make it better if you work at it). A bird's eye view is the way to do it, there was an interesting bit on Radiolab recently about languages that rely on dead reckoning, and people keep track of it with a bird's eye map in their heads. If you can figure it out with pencil and paper, do that often. Eventually you will be able to do it without the pencil and paper. If you aren't generally good at mental representations of spatial or visual things, it will take longer.
↑ comment by syllogism · 2011-02-08T05:51:56.172Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm quite incapable of doing that too. I find the confusion an interesting experience, because the reasoning required seems quite simple --- but I can't do it. I suspect it's a module that's under-developed in me.
I also am bad at visual thinking in general. A simple test for any readers who want to indulge me: close your eyes and think of your kitchen. How would you count how many cupboards do you have in it?
I have to think of what's in the separate cupboards, and do other similar kinds of reasoning. Most people seem to be able to call to mind an accurate picture of the kitchen, and count as though they were standing in it.
Replies from: AdeleneDawner↑ comment by AdeleneDawner · 2011-02-08T14:13:44.320Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
On the back wall: One over the sink, with two doors and one shelf-surface. (Does one usually count the bottom surface of a cabinet as a shelf? I'm doing so.) One over the bit of counter space with the dishwasher under it, narrow, with one door and three shelves. One over the stove, with two doors and one shelf.
On the front wall: Two under the counter, two doors each, and each one has a half-depth shelf in addition to the bottom surface.
Some of how I do it is visualization, but some of it isn't - for the cabinets I don't usually notice by sight, it's more a kinesthetic, 'how would I position myself to get to this' kind of thing. I also asked myself 'if I had a thing to put away, where could I put it?', to help bring up the relevant information and make sure I didn't forget anything.
↑ comment by jaimeastorga2000 · 2011-02-09T13:23:49.519Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Since you are bad at orientation, I suggest that you use tools to help you. For instance, carry a map of your usual roaming area with you, physical or virtual. One of the great things about tiny handheld tablets like the Archos 28 is that you can you can just put an image into it and readily have access to it at all times, or use google maps if you are in an area with wireless internet. If you have a large physical map you wish to digitize, scan it in sections and stitch it together with an image editing program. Or make a map of places like your apartment building yourself that you can use. Also, carry a compass with you for help in unfamiliar locations.
For unaided orientation, you can use the sun and/or shadows as a way to determine rough estimations of east and west (the sun raises from the east and sets in the west, so any shadow in the morning should point west and shadows in the afternoon should point east). This is specially useful in places where streets are oriented North South and East West, since an approximation is all that you need in order to know which orientation is which.
Personally, I liked maps since I was a little kid and have always been great at navigation and orientation. I automatically make a bird's eye view mental map of whichever outside area I am in and a 3D model of any buildings I happen to enter. These mental copies often contain errors in small details and scale/distances, but become more accurate as I retread the same place again and again. I don't know if this is possible to learn to do that, but you could try building a mental map by noticing what is around you and noticing where it is located in relation to other stuff.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-09T14:42:50.650Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you aren't close to the equator, the sun will be somewhat off the east-west line.
In Philadelphia, the sun is a little bit south of east-west.
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-10T08:28:18.781Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This depends on the season more than the latitude. At the equinox, the rising or setting sun should appear due east or west (modulo various small corrections), wherever you are. In June, it will appear farther north than this; in December, it will appear farther south.
You write
In Philadelphia, the sun is a little bit south of east-west.
in February, but check again in April.
↑ comment by Unnamed · 2011-02-08T18:29:06.489Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What I do is I pick one direction that I care about and identify it - that way is north, or that way is towards the street, or whatever. Then I notice where that key direction is relative to my body, e.g. the street is behind me. Then when I'm walking, every time I turn I keep track of which way that key direction is now - I turned left and now the street is to my left, I turned left again and now I'm facing it, etc. It can help to think about the part of your body that is towards the key the direction - e.g. if the street is to my left I pay extra attention to my left arm and maybe even imagine pointing or gesturing to my left with it.
I don't go through this full conscious routine that often - a lot of it I can do intuitively - but I do use it in some cases, like when I'm getting off a train at an unfamiliar station. I'll notice when I plan my trip that the train is going east and I need to head north when I leave the station. Then when I get off the train I note which way it was headed, and I keep track of that direction as I wind my way out of the train station. Then once I get outside I'll reorient myself to identify which way I want to go (the train was going in that direction, so I want to go left relative to that direction).
comment by badger · 2011-02-08T04:23:43.522Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm not aware of a gap in my procedural knowledge, but many skills are still fuzzy and basic. The internet serves extreme beginners and specialized experts well, but I've found reference books to be the best resource for the middle ground. Some that have helped me domestically:
- New Best Recipe from Cook's Illustrated: Basic cookbook that explain the testing and intuition behind a recipe.
- America's Test Kitchen cookbooks: Also from Cook's Illustrated, these books tend to explain why a recipe is what it is and give tips on technique or what cuts of meat work best for what purposes.
- How to Cook Everything by Mark Bittman: Basic cookbook that presents many recipes as templates, providing variations and room for improvisation.
- Home Comforts by Cheryl Mendelson: Everything that goes into maintaining a home, from cleaning to food storage to pets to laundry.
Any other quality reference books, perhaps for auto care or personal finance?
Owning up to a particularly fuzzy area: how do you order at a bar? I've been a couple times and managed, but somehow I feel I'm missing something, especially if I extend beyond a beer. Can someone offer a comprehensive account?
Replies from: BillyOblivion, None, wiresnips↑ comment by BillyOblivion · 2011-02-08T10:10:15.059Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've spent some time in bars, so I think I can handle this one.
1) Observe the bar, some have an area or two "designated" for walkup, others expect you to shoulder your way inbetween people. There is usually an area bounded by two big silver or brass handles. This is so the bartender can get out in a hurry to help the bouncer, and in many bars it's where the waitresses go to get their orders filled. Do Not Go There, you are getting in the way of working folk, and are making other working folk wait longer for THEIR drinks.
2) If it's busy know what you want before you go up there. Save your experimentation and questioning for a slow period. When it doubt "Whiskey, Neat", or "Vodka, neat". If you're having a day "Whiskey, double".
3) If you'd like to run a tab proffer your credit card and ask. Some places don't do it, some don't take credit. Also have some cash Just In Case.
4) If you have a preference (for example I don't drink canadian whiskey straight, and I won't drink a whiskey and coke if they use pepsi. So I ask "do you have pepsi or coke" [1]) ask BEFORE ordering. If you really don't care you will (generally) be asked for a preference. The stuff in "the well" is cheaper, and if you're getting a mixed drink usually only matters for the first, second and third. After that either your bartender is a cheap bastard or you've lost the sublties. If you're drinking it straight, then it matters. Until the 7th or 8th anyway.
5) If you're paying cash HAND THE MONEY TO THE BAR TENDER, the bar is often damp with spilled drinks, assorted other fluids, bits of food (sometimes) and cigeratte ashes. HAND THE MONEY TO THE BAR TENDER. If you want him to keep the change, just walk away, he knows. If you're sitting at the bar and you want him to keep the change just sort of push it back towards his side. He knows.
6) Be friendly, say please and thank you. Bartenders have to deal with lots of shitty customers, don't be one.
[1] Pepsi? In a BAR? What kinda sick fucking joke is THAT?
Replies from: SilasBarta↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-02-08T17:55:05.785Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's subtleties like this that make me wish for the "how it works" signs I suggested.
OTOH, there could be some invisible filtering going on: perhaps bars wouldn't even want the kind of customer that doesn't have a "sponsor" that can accustom them to the many rules there.
On the third hand, establishments do resort to "how it works" signs when either a) everyone is more ignorant than they would like (e.g. sub shop Quizno's posting of how to order a sandwich), or b) the downside of not knowing how it works is severe (e.g. emergency rooms, safety warnings). I just think cases like a) and b) are more common than the prevalence of "how it works" signs would indicate.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T18:54:39.379Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I agree-- I think people generally have a hard time imagining that what's easy for them is hard for other people.
"Some people have a way with words, and other people, um.... thingy." was a revelation for me-- it had literally never occurred to me what it might be like to not have words come easily.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T04:52:21.664Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I just want to second your cookbook recommendations--Cook's Illustrated especially. Almost all their products are extremely high-quality, and they have a very Less Wrong-friendly stance on cooking, which is to test everything. Before they publish a cookie recipe they'll make like twenty different versions, and have their taste-testers do blind tastings, and they'll publish the one that tastes best.
Alton Brown's "Good Eats" TV show is also probably Less Wrong-friendly because it puts a heavy emphasis on the chemistry and science of cooking.
Alice Waters' "The Art of Simple Food" is another good cookbook for beginners, because it walks you through everything: shopping for ingredients, choosing your pots and pans, the different techniques (i.e. what it means to "mince" an onion versus "dicing" it), prepping for cooking, etc.
↑ comment by wiresnips · 2011-02-08T05:20:45.014Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'll take a swing at it- let me know if it's helpful at all.
Ordering at a bar is easiest if you're friendly with the bartender. A jovial attitude, a confession of ignorance, and a vague description of a target drink (ie, "colorful and with rum", or "something delicious") will prompt a short exchange wherein the tender narrows their options down a little. Err towards generous tipping.
Note that I stick to quiet establishments. This probably doesn't work nearly as well in a very busy bar.
Replies from: Sniffnoy, Zando, false_vacuum↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-08T05:40:42.364Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Err towards generous tipping.
Actually, this is something I meant to ask about. Not how much to tip, which has well been covered elsewhere, but how one goes about the actual action of giving someone a tip. (I am generalizing beyond bars here).
Replies from: None, wiresnips, JoshuaZ↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T19:41:45.771Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The advice given here is good, but is US-specific. For those with this predicament in the UK, if you're in a bar then the correct procedure is to say "And one for yourself" - this allows the bartender to take between a nominal tip and the cost of the drink. Tipping is less common in British bars than USian ones, but not unknown. Restaurant tipping follows the same rules as the US.
A complete guide to English pub etiquette can be found at http://real-ale.dreamwidth.org/1252.html
↑ comment by wiresnips · 2011-02-08T06:22:51.263Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You tip when you pay, whether you're running a bill or buying drinks one by one.
If you're paying by card, usually the little card-swipey-machine(?) will ask if you want to tip, and how much. Nice and easy.
If you're paying cash, you can drop some into a visible tip jar, or leave a little pile on the bar/table. It's convenient to overpay and then use some or all of your change for this. You don't need to stick around to watch this be picked up. edit: absolutely agree with JoshuaZ- you should wait for your change. After accepting it you don't need to be present when the bartender gets the tip.
Sometimes, more in semi-classy restaurants, a waiter/ess will ask if you want change- if you say no, the difference is tip.
↑ comment by JoshuaZ · 2011-02-08T06:17:33.950Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It depends on the environment. For some things one just asks explicitly for less change. This works well with taxis. (Say there's an 7$ taxi ride, give a $10 and ask for $1 back). Another option in many contexts is to pay with the tip included and have it included in a way that shows it is obviously a tip based on the denominations in question (for example, if our taxi cost $9 and you hand them $11.25 it is obvious that you intended to tip $2.25)
Things to avoid: Do not give a large bill and say "keep the change" even if this is makes a generous tip or makes precisely the tip you want to give. The standard connotations of this are all negative (including but not limited to that you are rich, can't be bothered to think about change, can't be bothered to think about what is the right size tip, and don't really care much about the person you are tipping). If you only have a single bill it is better to tip less and get some small amount of change back than to say "keep the change." Another related thing to avoid is that when one is asking back for a specific amount of change, some people get annoyed if you ask for bills in specific denominations or specific coins. This seems to vary more by area and specific individual but it seems better to just avoid as an issue.
Replies from: Blueberry, Vladimir_M↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-08T07:21:37.211Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Do not give a large bill and say "keep the change" even if this is makes a generous tip or makes precisely the tip you want to give. The standard connotations of this are all negative (including but not limited to that you are rich, can't be bothered to think about change, can't be bothered to think about what is the right size tip, and don't really care much about the person you are tipping). If you only have a single bill it is better to tip less and get some small amount of change back than to say "keep the change."
Wow, this is very much counter to everything I've heard and thought! When I think of someone saying "keep the change," I think of someone who is rich and generous and carefree. It doesn't have any of the negative connotations you suggest. And from the point of view of someone who's worked in service and lived on tips, I would definitely prefer a larger tip accompanied by the words "keep the change" than a smaller tip.
Replies from: None, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T17:18:05.470Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And from the point of view of someone who's worked in service and lived on tips, I would definitely prefer a larger tip accompanied by the words "keep the change" than a smaller tip.
Yes. I've worked as a waitress and I agree with you. I had no problem with hearing "keep the change" so long as the bill offered was large enough.
Another (possibly nicer?) way of phrasing it is "I don't need any change."
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T07:30:55.281Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'd have thought that the big advantage for the server of "keep the change" is that it's one less transaction, so the server spends less time to get a tip.
Replies from: simplyeric↑ comment by simplyeric · 2011-02-08T17:27:06.993Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I spend more time than I should at bars (I like my sports, and don't own a TV..), and I've developed a few rules of thumb:
- I never say "keep the change"...but I often say "I'm all set, thanks" if I hand them a $20 for $18 of drinks, (or $17..) for example. "I'm all set" has the same effective meaning as "keep the change", but without the connotations.
- Overtip...in moderation. Standard American fare: $1 per drink. If you order 3 drinks, tip 3 dollars. If you order 8 drinks at once, it depends. If you ordered 8 bottles of Bud, you could tip $5-$6...if you ordered 8 mixed drinks, $8-$10. If you order 1 drink at a time, but stay for a while and order a handful of drinks, consider occasionally tossing in an extra dollar now and then. (an $18 martini sometimes, but not always, merits $2 for one drink...it depends. If the bartender is aloof and self important, I only tip $1)
- Women often tip less than men. NOTE: this varies WIDELY, in both how it's done and how people react to it. A bunch of single girls at a bar will often order 3-4 drinks, and leave a dollar. In some places that's "the cost of doing business", in others it will get you worse service over time (I'll point out that there's a countervailing trend where some women type MORE than men, in part because some of their peers tip less...it's confusing)
- Ordering: get up to the bar, make your presence know as subtly as possible 4.a. hand on the bar with two fingers slightly extended, like a half-hearted peace sign, or with money/card in the hand but not flagrantly displayed
4.b. eye contact. Watch the bartender...as he/she turns and scans, give a nod, raise the eyebrows, like in a quiet cordial non-vocal greeting)...
but then BE PATIENT.
Once you've registered your presence, they will mentally que you up and come to you in your turn. Be ready to order, or have minimal questions. (note: obviously this will fail sometimes..start subtle, and increase efforts bit by bit...waving or "excuse me" is a last resort) - be quick, friendly, humble, quick, curteous, and quick. Not servile...just, cordially professional. If you want to throw in humor or more interaction, do it while they are pouring your drink. Don't slow down the process by making the joke stand on it's own
- When ordering: Speak clearly...enunciate, (slightly) exagerrate lip movement...these people are professionals and will try to read your lips if it's noisy.
- When ordering: know what you want (as much as is possible). If you order "vodka and x___" be prepared to answer type of vodka (or whatever alcohol is involved). If you don't know what brand, say "I don't know...whatever's good" and you'll probably get a standard brand. If you say "I don't care" you'll usually get "well" which is the cheapest (but some "scene" places will give you something expensive). If you actually don't care, say "house" or "well"...sometimes this will taste bad, but it's cheaper.
- If there's space, belly up to the bar! (as you see fit) If it's crowded, don't insist on having to have full shoulder width at the bar. Stand perpendicular, lean in on your elbow to order, etc
Other things to look out for: -guys, don't necessarily tip cute waitresses more. I mean, by all means feel free. But it gets silly sometimes -guys, if the waitress/bartender is cute in...specific visual ways... do make an effort to look up at her face when you are talking to her -girls, if you tip less, fine. But don't be stingy "just because you can get away with it"
[note: this post is making me want to reassess my lifestyle. ooof]
Replies from: MartinB↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-08T17:39:52.481Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And all of this is culture coded and may vary for your specific location or subtype of bar.
A general safe way to go is to observe what other people do.
Sidenote: since i only started drinking late in life and did not yet develop a favorite drink I often order a) local b) the same as my peer(s) c) by name only. Many people seem to act as if there is an objectively best drink to order. But I would guess that is wrong. Feel free to try.
Replies from: simplyeric↑ comment by simplyeric · 2011-02-09T15:49:18.082Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And all of this is culture coded and may vary for your specific location or subtype of bar.
Absolutely. Although I'll mention that I've had good luck with this general approach in various parts (both geographically and demographically) of the United States, Western Europe, and at least one part of Eastern Europe. But, I'd like to reinforce:
A general safe way to go is to observe what other people do.
This is absolutely the best advice...but be careful to observe the right people. Observe the people who seem to get drinks "effortlessly" (rather than the people who are more aggressive...they create a visual nuisance that makes them more noticeable, thus more "observable" by someone who is new to a situation).
Many people seem to act as if there is an objectively best drink to order. But I would guess that is wrong. Feel free to try.
Again, totally true. However, I'd say that there can be times where there is an objectively "wrong" drink to order. Nothing is absolute, of course. But, don't order martinis in a crowded dive bar, for example. Don't order a Jaeger Bomb at an elegant cocktail lounge. I mean, by all means, DO order those. Just keep in mind that some places might actually refuse, or it might simply be seen as socially awkward.
↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-09T01:05:52.272Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
JoshuaZ:
Things to avoid: Do not give a large bill and say "keep the change" even if this is makes a generous tip or makes precisely the tip you want to give.
What is the exact source of this information? In a few years of living in (Anglophone) Canada, I've never heard of this. In fact, once you get the bill and put the money on the table, the waiter will often ask if you need any change. (Especially if the bill comes in that small folder and you close it over the money so he can't see how much you left when taking it.)
Replies from: JoshuaZ↑ comment by Zando · 2011-02-08T06:01:06.730Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Err towards generous tipping
Of course, this depends on where you are. In UK pubs you order your drink - and generally food - at the bar. And you don't tip. Though apparently you can "offer to buy the barkman/maid a drink." Took me a while to get used to this. In fact, tipping in general in the UK is still a bit mysterious to me after living here for a year. The guides say tip your Taxi driver around 10%, but why do they so often seem surprised when I do? As for delivery people, some of them actually refuse a tip, because of rules etc. If all this means that these people get a reasonably good wage and don't need the tips, I'm happy to comply; but it still seems odd to me.
Replies from: Kaj_Sotala, None↑ comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-02-08T14:55:40.188Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In Finland, there's pretty much never an expectation for you to tip, except possibly in cases where the other person has clearly gone far above the call of duty for you.
Replies from: Divide↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T10:56:25.504Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In the UK, the only place where it is considered compulsary to tip is in restaurants, and then usually only ones where you are served at a table (some "gastro"-pubs have table service, in which case one should tip). I don't think tipping taxi drivers is a general thing- I tend to let them keep the change if its sensible, but I don't believe there is a rule. You certainly don't tip delivery people of any kind.
In France tips are usually included within the price of the meal. I found this out after going to Paris and tipping at every place we went to..
Replies from: Zando↑ comment by Zando · 2011-02-09T06:42:49.659Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In France it's generally indicated on the menu and bill that a 15% service charge is included, but it's considered good form to leave the small change. If you think the service was bad, you have the right not to pay it. IN the UK this now varies widely, with an increasing number of restaurants adding a 10% service charge, so it's best to check. Apparently there was a minor "scandal" a few years ago when it was publicised that restaurant owners were often keeping the tips, so I always leave the tip in cash on the table.
Thanks for the info on taxi drivers, I generally have been rounding up, but if the fare is £7.80, say, I often leave £9 which is a bit steep. Maybe I'll start assuming that £8 is OK. Pizza delivery guys basically live off of tips in Canada, where I hail from, so it's a big adjustment not to tip at all.
↑ comment by false_vacuum · 2011-02-08T06:26:53.250Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How are the mechanics of tipping managed?
comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T03:28:52.649Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How do you fold a fitted sheet? The time I tried to follow Martha Stewart's instructions I took a wrong turn somewhere, and just ended up with a wadded-up ball of sheet as per usual. And I didn't care enough to unfold and try again. Do you know a different/easier technique?
Replies from: Alicorn, Benquo, michaelkeenan, Elizabeth↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T05:15:52.382Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Name the corners A, B, C, and D, clockwise around the sheet with A as the upper left and A-B forming a long side of the sheet.
Tuck corner A into corner B, so the one is nested inside the other. Then, avoiding twisting the sheet, tuck corner D into corner C similarly. Then, tuck corner AB into corner CD. You should now have a rectangle that will lie fairly flat. Fold it up like you would fold a flat thing.
Replies from: None↑ comment by Benquo · 2011-02-08T04:16:16.226Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This one is probably going to be tough to communicate without diagrams. I don't know if my technique is optimal, but it's better than nothing:
At each corner of a fitted sheet, there will generally be a seam that goes a few inches in toward the center of the sheet and then stops. My technique involves holding/pinching the sheet by the inner ends of these seams, which allows you to fold along the relatively straight lines between these seam-corners, instead of using the curved elastic edges as your reference line.
Starting at one of the two narrower ends of the fitted sheet, grab the two seam-corners on your side of the sheet. Grab them from the top, not the bottom, so you can see your hands. Next, for each hand, while holding onto one corner, grab the adjacent free corner and pinch them together. This is your first fold.
Then, holding two adjacent corners in each hand, spread your arms out wide, flap the sheet until it mostly straightens out, and quickly fold the sheet a second time by bringing your hands forward and together. This is your second fold. Use one hand to hold the four seam-corners together, and the other to grab the sheet in the place you folded it.
After this the sheet should have a small enough area to fold like any other soft, mostly flat object, and you don't need to worry about where the natural corners are.
↑ comment by michaelkeenan · 2011-02-09T11:38:34.623Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Here is a YouTube video (496,000 views, time 2:26) demonstrating how to fold a fitted sheet.
Replies from: Antisujicomment by Alicorn · 2011-02-08T02:30:30.418Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This has been upvoted a lot. Does anyone think I should move it to Main?
Edit: Apparently so. Moved.
Replies from: Benquo, None, curiousepic↑ comment by curiousepic · 2011-02-08T03:25:24.304Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I suggest subtitling it "LW Advice thread" or somesuch... or if you don't wish it to end up being used as such, should add a disclaimer in the article about the scope of questions.
Replies from: Alicorncomment by ialdabaoth · 2013-08-14T09:22:44.683Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How do you convince yourself to have self-confidence in a given situation, even in the face of direct empirical evidence that such confidence would be misplaced in that situation?
This seems to be a thing that many successful people are very good at - shrugging and acting like they're good at whatever task is at hand, even when they're clearly not - and then getting people to "buy in" to them because of that confidence rather than because of any evidence of actual skilled performance.
How do you kickstart that process?
(EDIT: was this a bad question to ask?)
Replies from: Risto_Saarelma, Estarlio↑ comment by Risto_Saarelma · 2013-08-14T11:43:17.028Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Think how you would perform the role of a self-confident character when acting in a play?
Replies from: ialdabaoth↑ comment by ialdabaoth · 2013-08-14T11:58:06.026Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I guess... I'm not sure how well I can visualize the answer to that. I can visualize self-confident characters in plays, I just can't visualize being one; as soon as I imagine me as the actor, imagining self-confidence immediately breaks suspension of disbelief. (Like imagining Danny DeVito as a leading man in a straightforward, non-subversive romcom).
Replies from: Risto_Saarelma↑ comment by Risto_Saarelma · 2013-08-14T12:14:08.009Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Screw suspension of disbelief. You're really into theater now, you want to figure out all about how acting works, and so you want to learn out how to do all sorts of characters to develop a good range, no matter if you're actually good for casting into one or not. So now you're trying to figure how to do the confident self-affirmed character, starting from the nuts and bolts. Figure out how they use their voice, how they move themselves, what body language and stereotypical interactions they use in various stock situations and so on. You're not being in a social situation yourself here, you're figuring out the mechanics for making a theater scene come together, with yourself as one part of it.
Also maybe look into some actual books on improv theater that have been recommended here occasionally?
Replies from: ialdabaoth↑ comment by ialdabaoth · 2013-08-14T12:23:33.174Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You're really into theater now, you want to figure out all about how acting works, and so you want to learn out how to do all sorts of characters to develop a good range, no matter if you're actually good for casting into one or not. So now you're trying to figure how to do the confident self-affirmed character, starting from the nuts and bolts.
Hmm. My emotional reactions as I attempt to push myself towards doing this seem to indicate that I don't actually want to learn these things - or at the very least, that I anticipate that trying to learn these things will be unsuccessful and embarrassing.
↑ comment by Estarlio · 2013-08-14T14:50:06.363Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Doing a wide range of tasks I'm not familiar with, and learning them well and quickly, has done wonders for my ability to just say, 'Fuck it, I'm me and I can do whatever I'm paid to. I've done stuff I didn't know how to do before.'
It also helps to know what the complexity of the task is have little self-affirming narratives - if you know that people who you don't consider smarter than yourself have done something, and have some idea about stacked complexity, then it becomes a lot easier to say something like "This really isn't that complicated, I just don't know how to do it yet, but that guy does it and he's an idiot - and he probably didn't spend years really learning it."
If you can draw parallels with what you already know, that can help too.
comment by Dan_Moore · 2011-02-08T18:36:19.298Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Something I am baffled at is how to quote a post on this website so that a vertical line segment appears to the left of the quoted text. I have a guess, but I don't want to clunky failed HTML attempt show up.
Replies from: ata, NancyLebovitz, Eugine_Nier, Skatche, Douglas_Knight↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T19:02:01.580Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Also, it's not great if a failed html attempt shows up, but it's no disaster-- this site doesn't have preview for comments, and I expect I'm not the only one who might take a comment through several edits before it's probably cleaned up.
In any case, comments here use Markdown (most common features are non-obviously available from the Help link on the lower right of the comment box), not html.
I don't have a complete grasp of how to format posts, but there's an html tag at the top, so you can just write them in html.
↑ comment by Eugine_Nier · 2011-02-08T19:13:14.729Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Also, is there any formatting guide for this website more detailed then the one you get by clicking on the help link?
Replies from: ata↑ comment by Douglas_Knight · 2011-02-08T23:29:59.309Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Here is a markdown sandbox, for you to experiment, though I agree with Nancy.
comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T18:05:01.761Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This crosses over with the textbook thread.
May I recommend: Making Faces and Face Forward by Kevyn Aucoin. Anyone who thinks they might have cause to wear makeup and want to do it well will delight in these. I encountered them via my high-goth girlfriend of the time and later gave them as presents to my current girlfriend's teenage daughters.
It might be a little thing, but these are the books for the task.
comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-07T14:46:16.422Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Jump-start a stalled car.
I "get around" this by not carrying around jumper cables, so nobody asks me, which is of course absurd.
Replies from: Matt_Simpson, SRStarin, thomblake, 110phil, JJ10DMAN↑ comment by Matt_Simpson · 2011-02-07T17:11:04.265Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
To my knowledge, this is how it works, but I might be missing a detail or two (never had to do it completely on my own).
1) Start with the car with the dead battery first. Expose the terminals of the battery - usually there are plastic covers to prevent anything from touching the metal terminals. Connect the jumper cables to both of these terminals. Jumper cables have a red side and a black side. You don't have to match red with the positive or negative terminal, but you will have to remember how you matched them. I.e., remember whether red is positive or negative.
2) Now go to the car with the good battery and make sure it's started and running. Connect the jumper cables to the terminals of the battery of that car in the same way that you connected them to the first car. I.e., if the red side was connected to the positive terminal on the first car, do the same on the second car.
3) Wait. It takes a few minutes to recharge a dead battery.
4) Try to start the car with the dead battery. You can do this with the jumper cables still connected. If it doesn't work, return to 3)
5) If it starts, disconnect the jumper cables.
A couple of things: don't touch the metal ends of the cables or the battery terminals. You could be in for a shock.
If the battery of a car dies, it's likely because the alternator, which recharges the battery, went out. Because of this, it's a good idea to give the dead battery a decent charge before disconnecting so that the car you're giving a jump can make it to wherever it's going (hopefully a mechanic!).
edit: and it's not my fault if you use these instructions and get caught in an infinite loop :)
Replies from: jimmy, alexflint, bcoburn, Chronos, TheOtherDave↑ comment by jimmy · 2011-02-07T19:35:14.785Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A couple of things: don't touch the metal ends of the cables or the battery terminals. You could be in for a shock.
12 volts isn't high enough to produce any sensation under normal circumstances (the only time I've noticed so much as a tingle was after diving in the ocean for an hour)
Touching the ends to each other, however, will send sparks flying.
Replies from: saturn, Matt_Simpson, SRStarin, Chronos↑ comment by saturn · 2011-02-24T23:07:03.599Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Touching 12 volt battery terminals is indeed very, very unlikely to harm you.
However, cars are equipped with ignition coils to produce a spark for the spark plugs. When a car is running the ignition coil is producing output of 20-30 kV and back EMF in the hundreds of volts. Normally this is filtered out from the 12-volt side in order to protect the electronics and battery, but I would not recommend trusting those filters with your life.
↑ comment by Matt_Simpson · 2011-02-07T19:46:17.413Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Touching the ends to each other, however, will send sparks flying.
Indeed, a good reason to do this procedure a safe distance from gas pumps.
↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-08T17:43:43.876Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Not just sparks. The electrical system of one or both cars can be severely damaged.
Also, you shouldn't attach the negative cable to the negative terminal on the dead car, but to exposed metal of the car's chassis (i.e. structure). This is to avoid a spark igniting any leaking fluid from the bad battery. Flaming battery acid = not fun.
↑ comment by Chronos · 2011-02-21T09:57:12.011Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's worth noting that, while 12 volts won't normally penetrate dry skin under most humidity conditions, you really do need to be careful. Pressure increases surface-to-surface contact, which decreases resistance, which lowers the voltage threshold. So can moisture, like even small amounts of sweat. And a car battery does have sufficient current to injure or kill a human being quite easily. (Voltage penetrates insulators, current actually does damage. The zap you get from static electricity is in the range of thousands of volts, but the current is negligible.)
Replies from: jimmy, wedrifid↑ comment by jimmy · 2011-02-21T20:28:14.985Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yeah, car batteries can do about a kiloamp into a dead short so we can treat them as ideal voltage sources for this 'application'. However, even with wet hands and solid contact, 12 volts is too low to get much current flowing.
Soaking my hands in saturated salt water got my hand to hand resistance down to 10-20kohm (0.5-1ma), which is still at least a factor of 250 above the 40 ohm resistance you'd need to draw 300ma, which is the lower figure wiki gives for DC caused fibrillation. Putting one hand on either terminal didn't get me so much as a tingle.
I know tingle levels are possible when soaking for longer (hours) and 9v will tingle your tongue (2-4milliamps), but it seems exceedingly hard to get to a dangerous level, considering that most models I've seen had the internal resistance of people at hundreds of ohms (350 is the number that sticks in mind). Also nerves are somewhat AC coupled, which brings the fibrillation limit up and makes people push away from the source instead of clinging on.
I guess it might be possible for someone with thin skinned thoroughly soaked hands making good contact and having a poorly shielded sensitive heart, but I'd call it a 'freak accident'.
Replies from: Chronos, Nick_Tarleton↑ comment by Chronos · 2011-02-24T17:37:51.319Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's worth noting that the reason we use clamps on the ends of the jumper cables is because pressure increases surface area in contact, which decreases resistance for the simple reason of Ohm's law applied to parallel resistors. (Three 1k Ohm resistors have a parallel resistance of only 333 Ohms. It's meaningless to give a single figure for copper -> wet skin resistance without also giving the surface area for which the figure is valid.)
This means that incidental touching of metal is extremely unlikely to kill anyone, but accidentally clamping your finger, gripping metal tightly, or anything else that applies pressure to your skin will dramatically raise the risk.
↑ comment by Nick_Tarleton · 2011-02-24T19:32:11.413Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Upvoted for experimenting!
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-22T02:22:36.910Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And a car battery does have sufficient current to injure or kill a human being quite easily. (Voltage penetrates insulators, current actually does damage.
Fortunately current and voltage are not independent features of a power source - and in the case of current not even something that can be meaningfully measured without specifying the load! A car battery does not "have sufficient current to injure or kill a human quite easily" because of the human part of the (I=V/R) equation.
Replies from: Chronos↑ comment by Chronos · 2011-02-24T17:30:50.380Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It does if the skin is wet. Once you're through the skin, the human body's resistance is quite low, in the single-digit kiloohm range at most, because the human body is mostly salt water (a fantastically good conductor by non-metallic standards). The biggest barrier to current is the upper layer of dead, dry cells on the epidermis. And lead-acid batteries have a fairly low internal resistance, which allows them to produce high currents if the load is also low resistance (a required feature when cranking the engine).
Replies from: komponisto, wedrifid↑ comment by komponisto · 2011-02-24T19:13:44.110Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
salt water (a fantastically good conductor by non-metallic standards).
Physics question (for anyone who knows the answer): when lightning strikes somewhere in the ocean, why isn't every living organism in the entire ocean electrocuted? How far away do you have to be to avoid being fried? How does one calculate this?
Replies from: gwern, tgb, None↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-24T20:02:21.588Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm not a physics major, but this is how I would reason: a regular human usually survives a lightning strike, IIRC. Why would fish be any different? It might hurt them but they have simpler nervous systems to boot. So my initial guess is that no fish at all is hurt, no more than they are fried by the sun unleashing gigawatts onto the ocean.
But that's a cheap answer, perhaps. Let's try another route. A human isn't that big compared to a tuna fish, but is pretty big compared to things like trout or salmon. Let's say we weigh 100x as much as those small fish.
Lightning is a one-shot packet of energy - like quickly blinking a flashlight. As the light spreads away from the flashlight, it begins to fade out. (Why isn't the entire earth illuminated?) Well, there's a fixed number of photons released, and the sphere/area they are spread over keeps getting bigger as they go - it increases as the square of how far away they are. It's like gravity: you get an inverse square law. Squares increase pretty fast - 2^2 = 4, 3^2 = 9, 4^2 = 16 etc.
So if we humans are 2 feet around from the 'epicenter', how many units of 2 feet do we have to go to cut the strength by 1/100 and give the little fish a little fish-sized dose? Well, the square root of 100 is 10, so 10 2-feets is 20 feet.
In other words, by this reasoning, I'd expect even little fish to survive a lightning strike around 20 feet away. 20 feet is much smaller than an ocean.
This is all high-school physics at best; all you really have to do is think about why gravity follows an inverse square law, analogize a space-filling gravity to light, and guess some numbers in the best spirit of Fermi calculations.
Replies from: Vladimir_M↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-24T21:58:21.079Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Is this a correct model, though? My understanding is that the relevant figure is the potential difference between various points the creature's body touches during the lightning strike. (Just like if a high voltage power transmission cable snaps and falls to the ground close to where you stand, you're in much worse danger of electrocution if you stand so that one of your feet is closer than the other to a point where the cable touches the ground.)
Considering that the fish are usually elongated and the potential is (presumably?) distributed in a radially symmetrical way, they will be struck much worse if they happen to be swimming directly towards or away from the lightning strike point. [Edit: This is incorrect - please see the further discussion with Constant below.] Ignoring this and assuming spherical fish, the danger seems to be proportional to D*dV(r)/dr, where V(r) is the potential as a function of distance on the radial between the strike point and the current position of the fish, and D is the diameter of the fish. Now does anyone know what V(r) is supposed to look like?
Replies from: None, gwern↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-24T22:54:49.965Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Vladimir, I'm not sure about the orientation bit. Imagine constructing a sphere of fish around the lightning strike, so that the fish tile the sphere and are flat against the sphere (actually, hemisphere). Necessarily, all the electricity flows through the fish, because they completely tile the hemisphere. Now re-orient the fish without otherwise changing their location. Now, because the fish are thin, they no longer cover the sphere, and between them is a lot of seawater. So only a small fraction, now, of the electricity flows through the fish, and the rest passes by them in the seawater.
Meanwhile, of course, that small fraction of electricity is staying in the fish for much longer, because each unit of power is flowing the entire length of the fish, from head to tail, whereas when the fish are placed sideways relative to the flow of electricity, each unit of power is only flowing from one side to the other.
At first glance, it seems to cancel out.
Imagine the following: each fish is made out ten unit cubes placed next to each other. They can either be placed perpendicular to the flow of energy, so that each cube gets the energy that flows through one unit square. Or, they can be placed parallel to the flow of energy, so that they all share the energy from a single unit square, which flows through all of them one after the other.
It seems to come to the same thing.
But here's one further complication: if the fish is a better conductor than the seawater, then the energy will tend to re-direct to seek out the fish (more electricity will flow through the better conductor, cet.par.), so that placing the fish parallel to the flow of energy rather than perpendicular to it will not entirely protect it from the neighboring energy. In short, if the fish is a better conductor than the seawater, then it is better for the fish to be oriented perpendicular to the flow of energy.
But, without going into details, I hastily extrapolate that if the fish is a poorer conductor than the seawater, then it is better for the fish to be oriented parallel to the flow of energy (i.e. facing the lighting strike point, or facing away).
Replies from: Vladimir_M↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-25T00:25:54.420Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Constant:
But, without going into details, I hastily extrapolate that if the fish is a poorer conductor than the seawater, then it is better for the fish to be oriented parallel to the flow of energy (i.e. facing the lighting strike point, or facing away).
You are correct! I hastily analogized from the human step potential, ignoring the fact that fish, unlike humans, may well be much poorer conductors than the surrounding (or, in the human case, underlying) medium. Sadly, it seems the electrical engineering courses I took long ago haven't left many surviving correct intuitions.
After a bit of googling about this question, I'm intrigued to find out that the problem of electrocuting fish has attracted considerable research attention. A prominent reference appears to be a paper titled Electrical stunning of fish: the relationship between the electrical field strength and water conductivity by two gentlemen named J. Lines and S. Kestin (available ungated here, and with a gruesome experimental section). Alas, the paper says, "No publications appear to be available which identify conductivity measurements of fish tissue at the frequencies being used." It does however say that we might expect something in the hundreds or low thousands of uS/cm, whereas Wikipedia informs us that the conductivity of seawater is around 4.8 S/m, i.e. as much as 48,000 uS/cm.
So, yes, this was definitely a blunder on my part.
↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-24T22:30:16.607Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Is this a correct model, though?
I'm sure it isn't! But that's the fun of Fermi problems: reaching not-wildly-incorrect solutions by way of absurdly simplified & wrong models.
For example, I feel sure that if my 20 foot answer is too little, the lethal radius would still be less than 1 larger order of magnitude (200 feet), and if it's too much, that the lethal radius is still bigger than 1 smaller order (2 feet).
Replies from: Vladimir_M↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-02-25T00:48:06.826Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh, I like your Fermi model! (And also my above comment was horribly incorrect -- see the subsequent discussion with Constant.)
What I was wondering however is whether it might be off too much even by Fermi problem standards, i.e. by multiple orders of magnitude. The trouble is that if the target creatures are vastly better or poorer conductors than the surrounding medium, this greatly influences how the flow of energy through and around them is distributed, possibly making the model based on uniform energy flow across all angles too inaccurate even for a Fermi calculation. (To give an extreme example, a metal wire connecting the poles of a battery draws nearly all energy flow in the circuit through itself, despite being a negligible part of the spatial cross-section.)
Or to put it more precisely, the way a human distorts the flow of electrical energy when surrounded by ground and air may well be extremely different, and possibly go in a totally different direction, from the way a fish distorts it when surrounded by seawater, so your generalization from humans to fish might be problematic.
My initial idea was to attempt another Fermi approach based on guesstimating V(r) and its derivative, but the poor conductivity of fish relative to seawater seems to complicate that one too.
↑ comment by tgb · 2012-02-12T15:01:44.260Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For what it's worth, it is quite possible to at least stun fish through electricity. I know people who have done this for scientific studies of fish. It's called Electrofishing and is restricted in most places because it makes over fishing easy and requires some significant caution on the part of the fisher (you're wearing a backpack designed to produce high voltage while standing in water).
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-24T18:44:50.770Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And lead-acid batteries have a fairly low internal resistance, which allows them to produce high currents if the load is also low resistance (a required feature when cranking the engine).
The internal resistance of the body (and wet skin) is sufficient that it and the voltage are the relevant factors. Jimmy even went so far assume an ideal power source - as much current as 12v can get you. The resistance even without the benefit of dry skin is sufficient to keep the current that passes near the heart below the level that will result in fibrillation in healthy humans.
I would have to concur with Jimmy that death by car battery electrocution would qualify as 'freak accident'. If you want to kill yourself with a battery you could perhaps try balancing it on top of a door and closing it while your head is
Replies from: Chronos↑ comment by Chronos · 2011-02-25T02:05:42.726Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
According to Wikipedia, the threshold for fibrillation is 60 mA for AC, 300-500 mA for DC. On reflection, it seems I'd previously cached the AC value as the value for all currents, so that was skewing my argument.
Given these figures, a 1k Ohm total resistance (internal plus skin plus body) would lead to a 12 mA current (painful but not fibrillation-inducing), whereas 200 Ohms / 40 Ohms total resistance would be required for 12 VAC / VDC to be potentially lethal. So, yeah, now that I think about it, a car battery probably couldn't be lethal unless conductors were actually puncturing the skin and touching the bloodstream directly (or covering a HUGE amount of surface area). I retract my claim.
Edit: OH! Except that Wikipedia says the threshold for fibrillation is a mere 10 µA if the current is from electrodes that establish a circuit through the heart. THAT's the figure I'd seen before and cached in my head. Still, that's not a likely situation to arise when using jumper cables, so my claim remains retracted.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by Alex Flint (alexflint) · 2011-02-08T09:05:40.692Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If the car still won't start then get a second person to press the accelerator on the other car, with the gear stick in neutral, while the jumper leads are still attached. Then, while the other car is being revved, try again to start the car.
This works because car engines have generators that recharge the battery while the car is running, and pressing the accelerator will increase the voltage to the dead car.
Also, technically "stalled" refers to the situation that the engine died because you forgot to put your foot on the clutch at the traffic lights (or similar). If the car won't start at all then that means the battery is flat.
↑ comment by bcoburn · 2011-02-24T20:40:18.804Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's slightly better to specifically connect the other end the cable connected to the black side of the dead battery last, and to connect it to the frame of the car with the live battery instead of to the black terminal in that car.
The goal here is to make the last connection, the one that completes the circuit and can generate sparks, away from either battery, because lead-acid batteries can sometimes release hydrogen gas, which can cause fires or explode. The chances of this actually happening are pretty low, but there's no reason not to be careful. The end of the black cable connected to the running car is the only one that can be attached away from batteries, so that's the one used.
↑ comment by Chronos · 2011-02-21T09:47:10.161Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I was taught a slightly different procedure, which is the same as the one listed as the first result on Google for "jumper cables":
- Line up the cars, pop the hood on both cars, get out the jumper cables, make sure both cars have their engines turned off, check that the dead battery looks safe (no cracks, leaks, or swelling), and try to scrape off any corrosion on the terminals.
- Connect one red clip to the positive (+) terminal of the dead battery.
- Connect the other red clip to the positive (+) terminal of the good battery.
- Connect one black clip to the negative (-) terminal of the good battery.
- Connect the other black clip to the exposed metal of the engine or chassis of the car with the dead battery. The chassis is connected to the negative terminal ("grounded"), so this will complete the circuit while minimizing sparks near the battery itself. A malfunctioning battery might be venting fumes of flammable/explosive hydrogen gas, so don't risk sparks near the battery.
- Start the "donor" car. Let it run for a minute or two.
- Start the "acceptor" car. It should crank and run normally.
- Disconnect the cables in the reverse order (undo steps 5, 4, 3, 2). If the order is reversed exactly, then the cables can be disconnected from the two running cars with no sparking near the battery. You'll get some sparks when you disconnect from the chassis, but that's OK.
- Wait a few minutes (3 to 5). The acceptor car should continue to run. If it dies a few minutes after disconnecting the cables, then it's a problem with the alternator and not just the battery.
- Put the cables away, close the hoods, and thank the owner of the donor car (who can now leave).
- Leave the acceptor running for a while. You can drive it as much as you like during this period; just don't shut off the engine until the alternator has had time to recharge the battery (say, 10 to 15 additional minutes).
The site I linked to makes the point that steps 6-7-8 in my procedure can damage the acceptor's alternator. It recommends letting the donor run for a bit longer than my step 6 requires, then (8a) shutting off the donor, (8b) disconnecting the cables entirely, and only then (7) starting the acceptor. Whether or not this method works would depend on the state of the battery (it may fail for a poor but working battery) and the weather (it may fail below, say, 10°F / -12°C).
(Note: lead-acid batteries are damaged by letting them discharge fully, because the cathodes and anodes are both transformed into the same material, lead sulfate. Once that happens, it becomes far more difficult to recharge the battery and you're better off just buying a new one. Even if your battery won't take a charge, a jump start can get you to a store that sells new automotive batteries -- the battery is only needed to turn the engine through the first few cycles, and the alternator will provide all needed electricity once the engine is turning fast enough.)
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-07T17:16:24.347Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
No doubt I'll eventually starve to death, so the loop will halt then if not sooner.
Thanks!
Replies from: Alexei↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-08T17:55:05.746Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Matt gives an OK description, but it is missing some important points, such as attachment order, so please consider these instructions:
- 1) Park the good car so that its battery is as close as possible to the dead car's battery, and turn off the ignition.
- 2) Expose the battery terminals and attach one end of one cable to the + terminal of the good car.
- 3) Attach the other end of that cable to the + terminal of the dead car.
- 4) Attach one end of the other cable to the - terminal of the good car.
- 5) Attach the last remaining clamp to exposed metal of the car somewhere other than the dead battery. This is to avoid potential explosions from sparks and leaking batteries. Anyway, I remember the full order as "good plus, bad plus, good minus, bad car."
- 6) Start the good car, leave it in park, and gently feed some gas to rev the engine for a half a minute or so.
- 7) Have the other person start their car. If it doesn't start, you may need to feed fuel to the good car's engine for several minutes before trying again.
- 8) When the dead car starts, remove the cables in the reverse order that you clamped them (bad car, good minus, bad plus, good plus).
- 9) Don't turn off the bad car until you are in a place where it's OK for it to die again.
(Edit: Gave the list bullets to be easier to read.)
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T21:23:42.988Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Step (9) here is the one that I didn't know when I first jump-started a car. The others were in the instructions that came with the cables.
↑ comment by thomblake · 2011-02-07T17:17:08.494Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Assuming you mean jump-starting a car with a drained battery:
The short answer is that you attach the red clamps to the positive terminals and the black clamps to the negative terminals, and then you should be able to start the car normally. Intuitively, you're just hooking up the good battery to the car with the bad battery, via cables. This would also work with just a new battery.
Jumper cable boxes tend to have instructions, which may tell you to do something slightly different.
And exercise general safety - don't stand in front of the engine while someone is starting the car.
↑ comment by 110phil · 2011-02-08T03:46:51.470Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In recent years, portable battery boosters have become cheaper, which means you won't need jumper cables at all.
For $50ish, you get a battery in a sealed plastic case, with two "jumper-cable"-type alligator clamps, one red and one black. You flip the on switch, then clip the red onto your battery's positive terminal, and the black onto your battery's negative terminal. Then you start the car. Once the car is running, you remove the black connector, then the red connector, and you're done.
There are at least two advantages over jumper cables. First, you don't need anyone else's car or help. Second, there's 50% less chance of error, since you're connecting only two clamps and not four.
If I am not mistaken, some of the deluxe models have built in protection against putting the clamps on backwards. But I'm not 100% sure about that.
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by Sniffnoy · 2011-02-08T04:51:03.852Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Second, there's 50% less chance of error, since you're connecting only two clamps and not four.
But there are still only two ways to connect the four clamps, since cable color doesn't matter when they're acting purely as cables.
Replies from: wedrifid, 110phil↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-08T05:23:39.495Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
But there are still only two ways to connect the four clamps, since cable color doesn't matter when they're acting purely as cables.
On the other hand more science knowledge is required to be sure of which way they go. "Does '+' go with the other '+'? Wait, no. It's like magnets, the plus goes with the minus... Oh damn. Why is it doing that?" People are less likely to be in doubt when they have a box with wires saying "attach to positive", "attach to negative".
Replies from: Sniffnoy↑ comment by 110phil · 2011-02-08T13:38:51.885Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Right, that's true if you're connecting them randomly -- you have a 50% probability of getting it right either way.
But if your intent is to connect red to positive, and black to negative, and you do that fairly reliably but with some chance of a mistake, then there are twice as many chances to make an error, and your chance of getting it wrong by making an odd number of errors is higher (although not exactly twice as high, which I incorrectly implied).
↑ comment by JJ10DMAN · 2011-02-10T20:16:19.272Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Like SRStarin said, you can actually just hook negative to any old metal around the opening, because THE WHOLE CAR EXERIOR is negatively charged. How cool is that?? Many cars have a point in the hood opening near the battery mount that is shaped to be easily clipped-to.
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-12T04:52:51.966Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
THE WHOLE CAR EXERIOR is negatively charged.
It's a matter of voltage, not charge. The negative terminal of the battery has lower voltage than the positive terminal. The car's metal frame is in contact with the negative terminal, so it's at that same voltage, even though it's still neutrally charged.
Replies from: JJ10DMANcomment by khafra · 2011-02-23T17:08:29.481Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A HN regular just started a website that looks like a great match for this thread: http://cluedb.com.
Replies from: 4hodmtcomment by erratio · 2011-02-09T05:45:04.789Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Is there a systematic way to tell the difference between mockery, sarcasm, facetiousness, and serious? I seem to get it wrong relatively often.
Replies from: AdeleneDawner, nick012000↑ comment by AdeleneDawner · 2011-02-09T18:18:01.148Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Partial answer: Sarcasm appears to be a group membership test mechanism. It involves saying something that is obviously untrue according to the speaker's group's beliefs as if it's true, with the expectation that members of that group will understand that the speaker can't possibly believe that, and nonmembers will show their non-membership by acting as if the speaker does. It overlaps with mockery where it's done for the express purpose of highlighting the fact that someone isn't a member of a group, which is usually considered humiliating in and of itself and can also lead to other, more blatant teasing. It's hard to reliably tell the difference between sarcasm and seriousness without a good working knowledge of the speaker's beliefs - and even then it can be tricky if they're not particularly coherent in those beliefs.
(This is all based on my own observations, but I think it's accurate enough to be useful to others; if anyone has a better model I'd be interested.)
Replies from: Richard_Kennaway, erratio, Blueberry, Mercy↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2011-02-23T11:42:45.743Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sarcasm appears to be a group membership test mechanism. It involves saying something that is obviously untrue according to the speaker's group's beliefs as if it's true, with the expectation that members of that group will understand that the speaker can't possibly believe that, and nonmembers will show their non-membership by acting as if the speaker does.
Sometimes it's the other way round. The speaker says something with easily-recognised markers of not saying what they actually believe (e.g. call something a "modest proposal"), to cloak the fact that they are saying exactly what they actually believe. Insiders know what is being communicated, while plausible deniability is maintained to outsiders.
Replies from: jkaufman↑ comment by jefftk (jkaufman) · 2011-09-15T16:42:40.295Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Can you give an example of something labled a "modest proposal" that is actually advocated by the speaker? I've only seen those words as a way to draw attention to the satire.
Replies from: Richard_Kennaway↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2011-09-15T18:29:59.068Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Not really, because if you're pretending to be satirical in order to say exactly what you think, the plausible deniability goes out the window if you own up to it. See also Ha Ha Only Serious.
And this is just too perfect:
Like a maniac shooting flaming arrows of death
is one who deceives a neighbor and says, “I was only joking!" (Proverbs 26:18-19)
Via TVTropes. I had to look it up independently before I believed they hadn't just made it up.
↑ comment by erratio · 2011-02-10T06:13:57.182Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Hmm, it looks like I thought I was being specific when in fact I was being quite vague in my question. Maybe what I should have asked was: is there a systematic set of nonverbal cues such as tone, body language, and so forth, that I can use to reliably tell when someone is being facetious/mocking/sarcastic, as opposed to when they're being serious? This would avoid the need to know the ingroup beliefs ahead of time. I believe that this set of cues exists, since most people seem to get it right the majority of the time*
- For example, in the show The Big Bang Theory, one of the characters has severe issues detecting sarcasm, and this is played for laughs because in real life virtually no one (except people on the autistic spectrum) has that much trouble.
↑ comment by handoflixue · 2011-02-15T22:19:52.293Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Just my personal experiences, so take it with a grain of salt:
In the US and Australia, sarcasm generally has a very distinct tone of voice. I can identify sarcasm, jokes, etc. from tone of voice fairly well, even if I don't know the speaker. In Britain, "dry" humor (where the tone and body language mimic a "serious" statement) is more common, but you can still usually identify it based on Adelene's comment above if you know the culture well.
In both cases, the choice of words is still fairly distinct - there's usually an emphasis on unreasonable confidence, and a pronounced lack of enthusiasm. There's also often more repetition.
I wouldn't have a clue about body language.
To try and give an example of the word choice differences:
"Woo, the Oxhorns are totally going to win tomorrow!" <-- the "Woo" indicates enthusiasm, and confidence is only emphasized once ("totally"). This is probably a serious statement.
"Yes, the Oxhorns are TOTALLY going to win tomorrow. There's NO way they could POSSIBLY lose" <-- "Yes" instead of "Woo" indicates more of a factual tone. The second sentence reiterates confidence. Note the emphasis on confidence words. This one is quite probably sarcasm.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T20:37:22.651Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That's brilliant and very Hansonian. I never thought of it that way, but sarcasm is often used that way, especially for groups such as economic class, or clothing or fashion seen as poor style.
That said, sarcasm is often just a joke, used to relieve tension, that doesn't refer to group membership. Sarcasm is often used in an obviously unpleasant situation such as waiting in line, bad weather, or being stuck in traffic.
nonmembers will show their non-membership by acting as if the speaker does
I don't think this part is always accurate, because you can sometimes tell when someone is being sarcastic based on the vocabulary they use and tone of voice. It seems like certain words ("wonderful," for instance) are pretty much only used for sarcasm. I suspect your mockery explanation is closer to what's going on: nonmembers will know they're being mocked.
Replies from: Kingreaper, AdeleneDawner, dlthomas↑ comment by Kingreaper · 2011-02-23T10:01:27.960Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It seems like certain words ("wonderful," for instance) are pretty much only used for sarcasm
Perhaps that is true in your group, but not in mine. Hence, in your group I would not pick up on that cue (due to being a non-member) though to you it seems obvious.
↑ comment by AdeleneDawner · 2011-02-09T23:16:17.751Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I suspect that the tension-relief of sarcasm used as a joke is mostly in the reassurance that other people 'get it', implying that they're group members with whom one can be relaxed. (The sarcasm doesn't even have to be about the unpleasant thing for it to work, though if it is, you get the added bonus of having your annoyance at the thing confirmed as understandable.)
For sarcasm that one would reasonably expect almost anyone to notice, I still think it's group-membership related, but the group is something very broad, like 'society'. It can also involve putting the target in a catch-22 situation, where they have to either ignore the sarcasm and let the sarcasm-user treat them as out-group, or acknowledge the sarcasm and acknowledge that they did, or had a hand in, something wrong. This is basically win-win for the sarcasm user. (There are other options, like calling the sarcasm-user on their sarcasm, but those are relatively hard to do on the fly, and they're usually considered fairly aggressive, so it's pretty unlikely that someone will try one.)
Replies from: TobyBartels, Blueberry↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-10T10:19:35.269Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For sarcasm that one would reasonably expect almost anyone to notice, I still think it's group-membership related, but the group is something very broad, like 'society'.
It can be a way of saying "We're in the same boat together.", floating in a sea that may or may not be populated by an out-group.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-10T00:02:51.443Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I suspect that the tension-relief of sarcasm used as a joke is mostly in the reassurance that other people 'get it', implying that they're group members with whom one can be relaxed. (The sarcasm doesn't even have to be about the unpleasant thing for it to work, though if it is, you get the added bonus of having your annoyance at the thing confirmed as understandable.)
If you mean "Isn't this rain wonderful" is a way of commiserating about the annoyance of bad weather, I think you're right. I'm not sure what you mean about the sarcasm being about something else. How would that give you reassurance that other people 'get it'? Get what, if not getting your annoyance confirmed?
It can also involve putting the target in a catch-22 situation, where they have to either ignore the sarcasm and let the sarcasm-user treat them as out-group, or acknowledge the sarcasm and acknowledge that they did, or had a hand in, something wrong.
I'm not really understanding. If I say "Isn't this traffic wonderful," and someone says "you know, I actually kinda like traffic because it gives me a chance to listen to a book on tape, or talk to a friend, or listen to music," I might agree or disagree, but I don't see how that's being out-group. I'm not sure what you mean about acknowledging that they did something wrong: could you elaborate?
Replies from: AdeleneDawner↑ comment by AdeleneDawner · 2011-02-10T00:38:00.892Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you mean "Isn't this rain wonderful" is a way of commiserating about the annoyance of bad weather, I think you're right. I'm not sure what you mean about the sarcasm being about something else. How would that give you reassurance that other people 'get it'? Get what, if not getting your annoyance confirmed?
What I meant was, if you're annoyed about one thing, you can be jokingly sarcastic about something else entirely and still get part of the benefit that you'd get from being sarcastic about the thing that annoys you: You get the reassurance that you're interacting with fellow group members. It would be odd to do this about something as un-controversial as rain, but you might see it when the source of annoyance is something that there's not such a clear consensus on.
I'm not really understanding. If I say "Isn't this traffic wonderful," and someone says "you know, I actually kinda like traffic because it gives me a chance to listen to a book on tape, or talk to a friend, or listen to music," I might agree or disagree, but I don't see how that's being out-group. I'm not sure what you mean about acknowledging that they did something wrong: could you elaborate?
Saying "you know, I actually kind of like traffic" contains an implicit acknowledgment that you were being sarcastic and don't - it's phrased as a polite disagreement, which requires that the person sees something to disagree with. So it's not a signifier of out-group-ness; it's a signifier of a group member who's aware of the norm and happens to disagree with it. (I'd also expect this only among people who are reasonably close friends; expressing disagreement in response to sarcasm is very nearly countersignaling.)
I was thinking of a situation more like one might encounter when dealing with an employee tasked with enforcing a particularly obnoxious policy of the company that they work for, in a situation where they're obligated to be polite to keep their job, meaning that they can't easily use any of those other options I mentioned. If you make a sarcastic comment about the policy, they basically have a choice between ignoring the sarcasm and coming across as dense, or acknowledging the sarcasm and admitting that the policy they're enforcing is obnoxious, which implies (though not especially strongly; this particular example gives them some extenuating circumstances) that they're wrong to enforce it. Either way, you get to feel superior to them.
↑ comment by Mercy · 2011-02-14T19:22:34.620Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is a very astute observation but I'm fairly certain what you are describing is normally refferred to as fascetiousness. Sarcasm uses hyperbole and intonation to make the falsity of the statement blindingly obvious, partly for humour but mostly to avoid having to directly refute it, either because it's so stupid that doing so would be boring ("let the market decide" can't solve every problem) embarrassing (no I'm not cheating on you), or because the speaker hopes to convince everyone this is so (see previous parentheses)
They do kind of merge together in multi-person arguments though, particularly on the internet where one person sarcastically dismissing a troll will leave everyone flippantly resurrecting their position long afterwards. Under the theory outlined above, this might be considered a kind of warding, like leaving heads on spears round your territory: "look, that argument has been dealt with, don't bring it up again or we'll quote you mockingly"
↑ comment by nick012000 · 2011-02-09T16:04:56.809Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you don't know it intuitively (because of Apserger's Syndrome or the like), about all I can recommend is hard work and effort; the differences can be fairly subtle, and depend on the context of the situation and the relationships between the people involved.
Sorry I can't be more helpful; I have Asperger's Syndrome myself even if I've learned to fake being normal pretty well as I grew up, so I understand how frustrating a lack of social skills can be.
comment by ewang · 2011-02-08T23:37:30.610Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've never figured out how to tie my shoes without bunny ears. No joke.
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl, Desrtopa, magfrump, prase, ata, bogdanb, false_vacuum↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T02:34:05.401Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I use bunny ears.
It's well documented that a single bunny ear overhand knot should suffice to keep your shoes tied.
For the first 20 years of my life, I had been tying the initial overhand knot with the wrong polarity (right lace clockwise around left) compared to my bunny-ear tying polarity. If your laces don't stay, try swapping either one (but just one) and you may have fixed a mismatch. In my case I just changed to the mirror image of the first-stage overhand knot motion (changing dominant hand, etc.).
Replies from: SRStarin↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-09T14:15:10.545Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
OMG I did not even know I didn't know how to tie my shoes! I was tying granny knots instead of square knots. I have been double-knotting my laces for years because they would keep coming undone. No longer! Great link there, Mr. Graehl.
I never learned the bunny ears method, but according to that same web site, it results in the same knot as the standard method.
Replies from: first_fire, Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by first_fire · 2011-02-16T06:26:45.963Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's the same knot, but bunny ears result in both loops being on one side of the central knot while the other results in them being opposite each other. While not generally of much note (or importance) in shoelaces, bunny ears result in a neater-looking knot.
↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-10T06:30:16.913Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, the result should be the same after settling. I used to double knot as well. I did learn to tie his recommended alternate shoelace knot, but it wasn't worth switching for me.
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-10T06:15:45.157Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Not only did I never learn how to tie my shoes without bunny ears, I didn't learn the bunny ears technique till I was eleven. For some reason I simply couldn't follow the process of tying a shoe knot, no matter how many times it was demonstrated to me. Eventually, my fencing coach realized that I didn't know how to tie my shoes, and he took me aside in frustration, and showed me the bunny ears technique. I got it immediately, and was baffled that nobody had ever tried to teach it to me that way before.
↑ comment by magfrump · 2011-02-09T03:32:04.138Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm pretty sure that the two shoe-tying methods are homotopically equivalent; which is to say there's no reason to learn the "other way."
Replies from: JoshuaZ↑ comment by JoshuaZ · 2011-03-09T03:22:22.815Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm pretty sure that the two shoe-tying methods are homotopically equivalent; which is to say there's no reason to learn the "other way."
There's a possible status issue. People might consider you immature if you they see you using bunny ears. (Also, I'm not completely sure what it means for them to be homotopically equivalent in this context since the ends don't form a loop. The whole thing isn't a true knot from a homotopy perspective. Even if you did glue the ends together, the whole thing is I think homotopically equivalent to a trefoil (the only part that does something non-trivial is the initial crossing, and all the earlier crossings can be folded up into that.)
Replies from: magfrump↑ comment by magfrump · 2011-03-09T03:45:13.987Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't mean homotopy necessarily in terms of knot theory, I mean it in terms of a smooth (or Ck for some k) map from R x [0,1] to R^3 where f(R,t) is a curve, f(R,0) is bunny ears and f(R,1) is whatever the other method is called.
It is true that since the later crossings are trivial from a knot theoretic perspective that there isn't a lot to show. I believe you could make an argument that they are homotopic in some stronger sense, because they involve the same steps in different orders and result in the same knot in the strong sense that the two tyings are actually equal.
As to the status issue, I rarely tie my shoes in front of people, or see other people tying their shoes. I guess I could imagine it being a problem in high school gym class?
Replies from: JoshuaZ↑ comment by JoshuaZ · 2011-03-09T03:54:34.604Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't mean homotopy necessarily in terms of knot theory, I mean it in terms of a smooth (or Ck for some k) map from R x [0,1] to R^3 where f(R,t) is a curve, f(R,0) is bunny ears and f(R,1) is whatever the other method is called.
Yes, in general, this is weaker than what one has in knot theory. What I think you want is actually a slightly stronger claim than even a knot theory homotopy. I think the claim you want is that it satisfies all of that, and one has that has such that the projections onto some plane are strongly equivalent in the sense that one can get from one to the other without any Reidemeister moves.
As to the status issue, I rarely tie my shoes in front of people, or see other people tying their shoes. I guess I could imagine it being a problem in high school gym class?
If this thread is accurate some people can distinguish how the knot was tied by subtle cues. I know that a lot of people claim that there's all sorts of status junk connected to shoes. I'm skeptical that it exists nearly as much as some people claim but if one does care about such potential environments it might matter.
Replies from: magfrump↑ comment by prase · 2011-02-10T09:47:00.768Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What are bunny ears?
Replies from: SilasBarta↑ comment by SilasBarta · 2011-03-09T04:18:24.195Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Hm, I was wondering the same thing and the discussion did not seem to have a direct answer, so here's what I found: bunny ears means that after the initial overhand knot, you make a loop with each shoelace, and then tie the knot again with the loops. This is in contrast to the "standard" way (link below), where the initial overhand knot is followed by one loop, bringing the other shoelace around it, and pulling through.
I never even knew you could do it the bunny ears way! It looks so much easier.
I'm the opposite of ewang -- I only ever learned the standard way and that was after a lot of effort as a ~3-year-old. But now, it's just automatic, like I'm sure it is for everyone else. I'll also have to check out the Ian knot for its speed.
Dvorak/Qwerty, why am I suddenly thinking of you?
Replies from: polymathwannabe↑ comment by polymathwannabe · 2014-02-24T15:33:21.258Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Upvoted because of the link. It's a whole new world to me.
↑ comment by ata · 2011-02-08T23:49:12.918Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Neither have I, but only because I've never figured out why the other way is supposed to be better. Why is it?
Replies from: Blueberry, Conuly, ewang↑ comment by bogdanb · 2012-03-11T16:37:19.374Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Depending on the kinds of footwear you wear, you might try simply doing something different than tying them.
I wear mostly sneakers, and when I got annoyed with tying them (especially one pair with laces that got untied so easily I'm sure there must be some kind of bad design award they could win) I started kind of weaving the ends among the crossing laces. Kind of like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Etnies_shoes_with_checkerboard_laces.jpg except that it doesn't have to be that elaborate, and it's not as obvious if the laces are of one color.
If done just right (in terms of tension) it will be loose enough to allow sliding your foot in the shoe, but tight enough to keep the shoes from slipping.
For sports and more dressy shoes, or if you just might want to stick to knots, try http://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/knots.htm
(Funny, I hadn't even realized there are two ways of forming the loops, I think I do it either way by instinct depending on length.)
↑ comment by false_vacuum · 2011-02-09T02:42:12.515Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Me too. (This is turning into a confessional thread.)
comment by lukeprog · 2011-02-07T04:51:32.196Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know how to find research grants that might help fund graduate or even undergraduate education. Not quite "mail an envelope" or even "buy a stock" basic, but still annoying! One of these days I'll call up a bunch of admissions advisors and ask.
Several of my procedural gaps concern cooking, but they don't bother me because I plan to spend as few minutes of my life as possible preparing food. Not how I want to spend my precious time!
Replies from: None, tenshiko↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T03:07:10.959Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Grant-finding, as far as I know, is a google search issue. There are so many college scholarships that you may want to find a college scholarship database (like this ) to narrow it down.
For graduate school, the big ones that I know of are NSF, DOD, and DOE (for science), Hertz (for applied science), Soros (for immigrants or immigrants' kids), and Ford (if you're black, Hispanic, or Native American.)
Replies from: lukeprog↑ comment by lukeprog · 2011-02-08T03:19:13.852Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks. Know any for graduate school in the humanities?
Replies from: katydee, None↑ comment by katydee · 2011-02-08T04:01:47.800Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Replies from: Blueberry, None, CronoDAS, lukeprog↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-08T08:04:57.148Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Great link, especially this quote from Part 2:
One probably could not devise a better system for keeping people with humanistic values away from power than by confining them to decade-long graduate programs with a long future of transient adjunct positions making less than the minimum wage.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T04:18:20.983Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I agree. The odds are very much against you. And I say this as someone who likes the humanities and admires humanities professors.
If you have incredibly strong evidence in your favor that you're a special case, go for it, though -- but it should be incredibly strong evidence.
It's possible that it's easier to publish a philosophy book than to become a philosophy professor, if you're good at networking. Or to get some attention for your ideas through podcasts, etc., which you're already doing. If your goal is to do and write philosophy, optimize for that -- it's a different goal than becoming a professor.
↑ comment by lukeprog · 2011-02-08T12:53:23.374Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks. I've read many such articles more specific to philosophy, but that was one of the best. I don't really want to go through all that crap, but unfortunately there aren't many ways to do what I want with my life apart from getting a Ph.D. in philosophy.
Replies from: jsalvatier↑ comment by jsalvatier · 2011-02-08T17:00:01.089Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What is it that you want to do with your life?
Replies from: lukeprog↑ comment by lukeprog · 2011-02-08T20:55:09.720Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Help solve the Friendly AI problem.
Replies from: Vladimir_Nesov, David_Gerard↑ comment by Vladimir_Nesov · 2011-02-08T21:39:44.920Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How is "getting a Ph.D. in philosophy" (as a formal distinction) helpful to this goal? Purely as a source of funding? Attempt to stimulate academia from the inside to work on the problem?
Replies from: lukeprog↑ comment by lukeprog · 2011-02-08T21:48:35.908Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Vladimir,
Yes; both of those.
As a source of funding, because SIAI is only one institution, whereas there are hundreds of decent philosophy departments I could apply to, however scarce positions are.
As an attempt to stimulate academia, because I am slightly more optimistic than SIAI's staff that (a few) mainstream academics can contribute usefully to the project of designing Friendly AI.
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T22:35:41.675Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Every philosopher I've found of actual personal interest in the modern day has crossed it with science or engineering of some sort (cognitive psychology, AI, etc). If you want to do philiosophy because you have an actual problem to solve, you'll do something of interest and have a usefulness test to keep you on track.
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2011-02-08T23:01:50.117Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"The degeneration of philosophical schools in its turn is the consequence of the mistaken belief that one can philosophize without having been compelled to philosophize by problems outside philosophy...
Genuine philosophical problems are always rooted outside philosophy & they die if these roots decay...
These roots are easily forgotten by philosophers who 'study' philosophy instead of being forced into philosophy by the pressure of nonphilosophical problems."
--Karl Popper, Conjectures & Refutations, (pages 95-97)
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-08T03:29:30.654Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The only one that comes to mind off the top of my head is the Institute for Humane Studies (which requires the topic of your research to be roughly politically libertarian.) I'm much less familiar with the humanities scholarships, and I think they tend to be smaller-scale and more scattered.
comment by DPiepgrass · 2020-07-03T06:40:15.252Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know of a good content aggregator. I guess I would like to see a personalized web site which shows me all the posts/articles from all the good blogs and publishers I know about.
RSS readers are a good start, but not every site has a proper feed (with full, formatted article text and images) and usually the UI isn't what I want (e.g. it might be ugly compared to viewing the site in a browser; also I'd like to be able to see a combined feed of everything rather than manually selecting a particular blog). In the past, I needed caching for offline viewing on a phone or laptop, but mobile internet prices have come down so I bit the bullet and pay for it now. I wonder what tools people like here?
I also wish I had a tool that would index all the content I read on the internet. Often I want to find something I have read before, e.g. to show it to someone with whom I'm conversing, but AFAIK there is no tool for this.
Another tool I wish for is a public aggregator: when I find a good article (or video) I want to put it on a public feed that is under my own control. Viewed in a web browser, ideally the feed would look like a news site, or a blog, or a publication on medium.com. And then someone else could add my "publication" to their own RSS reader, and the ideal RSS reader would produce a master feed that deduplicates (but highlights) content that multiple people (to whom I subscribe) have republished (I was on Twitter yesterday and got annoyed when it showed me the same damn video like 15 times retweeted by various people).
comment by Bound_up · 2015-08-19T19:18:51.045Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
LW makes frequent reference to coming to above average decisions with some kind of market.
And this market can be used to find right answers, the right calibrations between group values, something like this?
Where can I find information on this, or how does it work?
Replies from: satt↑ comment by satt · 2015-08-20T02:16:53.586Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The favourite local writer on this is Robin Hanson, but the general idea has a big literature: the name to search for is "prediction market".
comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-10-20T15:55:42.786Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Scrubbing and attention Scrubbing, the follow-up.
Short version: I have problems with scrubbing effectively because I miss spots and have to iterate cleaning several times. There's various advice about scrubbing, of which using hotter water and not using the curly metal scrubbie seem to be the most immediately valuable. What I think of as an attention problem may be less serious than I thought-- I need to proofread what I write, so the same may apply to cleaning.
Plausible advice I haven't tried yet-- approach cleaning in 30 minute chunks so that a feeling of accomplishment/completion is possible.
Replies from: Manfredcomment by hewhocutsdown · 2011-02-08T13:20:13.375Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Left vs. Right still tends to take two tries.
Replies from: AdeleneDawner, JoshuaFox, saturn, Kaj_Sotala, sixes_and_sevens, James_K↑ comment by AdeleneDawner · 2011-02-08T14:21:12.274Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's not the most graceful solution, but if you hold out your hands with your palms down and your thumbs pointed toward each other, the one that's shaped like an L is your left one. Or if you prefer verbal mnemonics, "you write from left to right".
Replies from: hewhocutsdown↑ comment by hewhocutsdown · 2011-02-08T14:29:22.200Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That's how I figure it out. But getting it from "I can figure it out eventually" to that instinctual knowledge just hasn't happened.
Replies from: AdeleneDawner↑ comment by AdeleneDawner · 2011-02-08T14:35:01.281Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
All I can suggest past that is to make a point of using the designations more often. It didn't really click for me until quite recently, either, but the only thing that seems even remotely likely to have triggered that click is that a project I was working on involved discussing some pictures with a friend, and I found myself having to actually think about whether X was to the left or the right of Y a few times a week for a couple months.
↑ comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-02-09T15:04:27.785Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I remember it via the left and right mouse buttons.
Replies from: MartinB↑ comment by sixes_and_sevens · 2011-02-08T16:14:36.010Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When learning the left-hand/right-hand motor/induction rules for electromagnetic fields, I spent about half an hour tapping alternate sides of my head, saying "motor, induction, motor, induction..." I can now instinctively tell you which is my motor hand and which is my induction hand.
I still have a problem with instant recall of left and right, though.
Replies from: Elizabethcomment by knb · 2011-02-07T23:47:52.768Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How do you buy a used car?
Replies from: sfb, Eliezer_Yudkowsky, CronoDAS, orthonormal↑ comment by sfb · 2011-02-08T06:43:15.812Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
(UK Specific post, not a car person).
tl;dr Find one, optionally pay a company to check it isn't stolen or legally written off, and has no outstanding finance. Agree an amount of money. Sign the vehicle ownership documents, trade those and the car for the money within any applicable laws governing trade in your area. If your car has the required tax and safety certificates, and you have the required license and insurance, drive away, otherwise sort those out next. Cross your fingers and hope it isn't a lemon, but realise that if it is, it is a setback, not the end of the world.
end tl;dr
You decide what you are looking for and/or what you can afford, and search around for ones within your area or however far you are willing to travel. If you are searching yourself then you will look at vehicles on the street with "for sale" signs on them, in local newspapers and advertising boards, on local search sites, or national ones such as Craigslist, Ebay or Autotrader, or at dealers/garages or their websites.
If you are searching with a dealership, you can discuss you requirements with them and they can suggest available cars, possibly distant ones in other garages in their group which they can transport to you. Many official dealerships for car manufacturers run approved used car schemes where they take recent cars (typically 3 years old), service them and then offer better than normal guarantees / warranty extensions, for an extra cost.
When you find one you are interested in, make contact with the seller and arrange to look at the car before buying. It would help here if you know someone you can take along, not just for a second set of eyes looking at the car, but also for a defence against pushy sellers or a second set of eyes checking your behaviour isn't too biased towards/against purchasing. Have a look around in advance in price guides and listings so you know expected prices for that make, model, specification and age. Find a checklist from somewhere online and look for things to check when inspecting a used car, to take with you. You primarily want to make sure it:
- Is what you were expecting and will do what you want or need.
- Has not been crashed seriously.
- Has been basically looked after (serviced regularly).
- Has not been rebranded as a higher model, had any low quality modifications such as nonstandard wheels or engine enhancements which might be dangerous, or indicate the owner drove it hard (and thus wore parts surprisingly heavily), or did crummy repair work which might not last.
- Doesn't surprise you - find out what works and what doesn't.
I don't think they are under any obligation to give you a test drive, and if you do want one you will need to have the usual driving license and insurance cover to do so. I don't know what you are looking for on a test drive beyond a general "does anything feel, look, sound or act wrong or suspicious" and "is it ergonomically OK".
Before buying, you ought to get a vehicle background check (at a cost) to confirm it isn't stolen, written off, financed with money owing, etc., and you may want to pay a mechanic service to give it an inspection. In the UK, The AA can do both - other companies can too.
(Again UK specific) cars more than 3 years old need MOT certificates (meets basic safety requirements) annually, so make sure the car has one or will have by the time you get it. It will need a tax disc (again, annual) before you can drive it, so if it has one in-date that is good. During the trade you will need to complete a form on the vehicle papers which the seller signs to say they are no longer the owner, and you sign to say you are the new owner, and the seller needs to send it to the DVLA to officially make the car no longer their responsibility.
Optional extra: haggling. You may wish to for the sake of saving money, but you don't have to (notice the societal disapproval of people who pay the asking price). Offer them less, or if buying from a dealer, convince them to give you more into the deal such as a tank of fuel, a free service, etc).
More specific advice: http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/buying-advice.html
Replies from: knb↑ comment by knb · 2011-02-08T06:53:21.015Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Wow. That is a very thorough answer. Thanks!
Replies from: monsterzero↑ comment by monsterzero · 2011-02-08T18:37:24.791Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Dealerships can be evil. They may try to get you to agree to pay X dollars/month for N months without telling you what the total actually is. Bring a calculator and for Merlin's sake Read Before Signing Anything.
And remember that you can always just walk out of there and buy a car off craigslist. That's what I ended up doing.
↑ comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Eliezer_Yudkowsky) · 2011-02-08T05:01:33.253Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Craigslist has worked for me. Expect to spend some money on repairing the car. Taking it to a mechanic first seems like a big deal but you will need to take it there and you may as well take it there before buying it.
↑ comment by CronoDAS · 2011-02-08T02:21:37.212Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I suppose the short answer is to go to nearby car dealerships and interact with the salespeople - they may have some for sale and, if they do, can probably find one that they think you can afford to buy.
Buying a used car without getting ripped off may be more difficult.
Replies from: Dagon↑ comment by Dagon · 2011-02-08T03:57:21.408Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This exchange is a good example of why this post needs clarification on types of knowledge that should be sought here. "how do you buy a used car" is not a simple procedural question that can have a clear answer in a web posting. It's a VERY large set of options with pretty widely varying constraints and preferences. Not unrelatedly, it has a large number of people making a living in helping people do this.
[edit: I retract this, as I've just seen some useful advice on horribly complicated topics. Please ask (and answer!) whatever you think might help. ]
↑ comment by orthonormal · 2011-02-08T17:17:42.940Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A subscription to Consumer Reports might be well worth your time- you can look up their yearly auto issue, which gives detailed ratings on cars (including information on what you can expect for used models of various years, and what would constitute a good deal on one of them).
After you've figured out what you're looking for and how much you expect to pay, start looking at local dealerships (and look through your local newspaper's auto classified section every day); test-drive different models that interest you; look at quite a few cars before making a final decision. (The salespeople will of course want you to think that there's some sort of time pressure, but they're usually wrong.) Then, as EY mentioned, take your car of choice to a mechanic for a check-up (tell the mechanic that you're considering buying the car) before you sign.
It's a fair bit of work, but having a good car for several thousand less is well worth it.
I don't know much about buying from private individuals (on Craigslist, etc)- obviously there's one fewer profit margin involved, so it's probably better in terms of expected value if you're willing to take the higher variance.
comment by beriukay · 2011-02-07T15:24:02.936Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Any suggestions using the yellow pages would be highly appreciated. I never really got the hang of it. In fact, I used to be proudly ignorant of it, announcing to friends and family that I simply could not read the damn thing. This had the negative effect of making me never want to call the pizza place when friends would get together, which made me feel guilty enough that I would offer to pay more than an equal share when splitting the bill. Now that google exists, I find that I really don't need the phone book, but any useful tips would be appreciated.
Replies from: Benquo, thomblake, byrnema↑ comment by Benquo · 2011-02-07T17:58:07.419Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The yellow pages are organized into categories- each section is a category someone would want to look up phone numbers for, mostly businesses selling similar products. For example: restaurants, plumbers, lawyers. The topics are organized alphabetically.
When you want to look up something specific, like places to order pizza, think of categories that might describe it. There might be a "Restaurants" category, but "pizza delivery" is popular enough that it may have its own section. Once you have a category in mind, find it by searching the book alphabetically; if you need more information about that, maybe gwern can help (see gwern's comment).
Once you have found a relevant section of the yellow pages, you will see a list of names and phone numbers, as well as some paid advertisements, also with names and phone numbers. Every entry in the section is a member of the same category. Then pick one entry and call.
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T21:25:01.767Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Note that all of the entries are paid advertisements; you pay extra for a big one or one that's not part of the main alphabetical list. (I try to ignore the latter, although of course they are even bigger and easier to see, which is their reason for existence. The corresponding entry in the alphabetical list will still refer you to them if you want the additional information that they contain.)
↑ comment by thomblake · 2011-02-07T18:10:08.031Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Any suggestions using the yellow pages would be highly appreciated.
I haven't used the yellow pages in years, but here goes:
They tend to be organized by what sort of business you're looking for. So, "Pizza Delivery" might be a category, which should be in large, bold letters. The listings will have at least a phone number and location; look for places near your location. Call one.
Of course, the better solution these days is to open the Google Maps app on your smart phone, click 'search', type in 'pizza', click on one of the results, and click 'call'.
↑ comment by byrnema · 2011-02-08T01:53:31.836Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know if this is true anymore, but the phonebook has several sections:
For a phone book in general:
At the front, is municipal stuff, like city maps and post office information.
Next is a section of 'white pages' where you can find residential home phone numbers listed alphabetically by last name. There are likely to be several people with the name you are looking for and it is socially acceptable to call asking, 'Are you the A. Brown that went to Baker High school in 1995?'
Next are the yellow pages. Other commenters have described how that is organized, but I'll add a couple tips. The alphabetical listings of business names under each category have to fit around paid advertisements, which significantly break up the flow of list. You can either just look at the paid advertisements (they are larger and with boxes and images) or be sure to check for your alphabetized list continuing on both sides of the ads.
Also, it is often difficult to guess the right category. (Will pizza go under 'pizza delivery', 'restaurants' or 'Italian Food'?) You simply have to hunt around. Often, the wrong category will have a tip like, 'See X' if you looked under Y.
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T21:29:33.739Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The three sections that you describe don't always go in that order, and they may also be separated into different volumes.
Also, the white pages should include both residential and business listings, although sometimes these also are separated from each other. The businesses here are strictly by name, not by category like in the yellow pages (and the listings are either cheaper or free).
comment by Thorsten Staerk (thorsten-staerk) · 2022-02-26T17:55:51.354Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Your dishwasher is not broken. You need to insert dish salt and rinse aid, then it will do its job well.
comment by [deleted] · 2012-10-14T17:58:27.360Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"I am beginning to suspect that it is surprisingly common for intelligent, competent adults to somehow make it through the world for a few decades while missing some ordinary skill, like mailing a physical letter, folding a fitted sheet, depositing a check, or reading a bus schedule. "
I need to learn almost all of that...and several other things.
How would someone in El Salvador legally move to Canada in no more than 3-4 years? How much money would that take and how does one find a job?
I tried looking at the newspaper for one but nearly all of it was either terrible or requires something I don't have (like X years of previous experience or being 25-30 years old. Some ads even looked for people of a certain gender for some reason.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2012-10-14T18:18:20.574Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"I am beginning to suspect that it is surprisingly common for intelligent, competent adults to somehow make it through the world for a few decades while missing some ordinary skill, like mailing a physical letter, folding a fitted sheet, depositing a check, or reading a bus schedule. "
There is a skill for folding fitted sheets? Damn. That'd be handy.
Replies from: Manfredcomment by MixedNuts · 2011-07-26T12:10:38.418Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How do I clean carpet floors? (I mean regular maintenance, but tips on removing particular kinds of stains also welcome.) I don't have a vacuum cleaner.
Replies from: Alicorn↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-07-26T22:19:00.466Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You borrow a vacuum cleaner.
You can get some sorts of debris (long hair, mostly) and the stuff that clings to it by shuffling around barefoot, or by hand, or with a rake.
Replies from: MixedNuts↑ comment by MixedNuts · 2011-07-27T06:27:36.205Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks! How do I borrow a vacuum cleaner? Context: I'm living in dorms for two weeks, most people are away on holiday, those who're still here are on completely different schedules from mine, there's no place clearly marked "Hang out and meet other humans here". And I don't even have an oven to bake conversation-opening cookies.
I looked into renting a vacuum cleaner, but that doesn't seem to exist.
Replies from: Alicorn↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-07-27T18:44:26.942Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If your dorm is like the ones I'm familiar with, there may be a shared cleaning supply closet from which your RA or similar can fetch you a vacuum that you are free to use. Failing that, you could put a sign on your door offering five euros for the use of a vacuum and see who knocks.
comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-10T00:32:52.484Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I like the grooming questions especially.
Besides by keeping clean, how do I go about smelling nice? Who should and shouldn't wear perfume and cologne? What kind? How do you use it?
Replies from: mindspillage, Alicorn, SRStarin, TabAtkins, katydee↑ comment by mindspillage · 2011-02-11T03:52:42.761Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't wear perfume/cologne at all--I enjoy many scents, but there are so many people who are sensitive to fragrances that it seems rude (my SO can't stand perfumes, so I don't wear any anymore). I'd avoid it in crowds and offices, and recommend only wearing it if you're going to be spending time with someone that you already know enjoys it--otherwise there's absolutely nothing wrong with simply keeping clean. Most people smell pretty okay naturally unless they've gotten very sweaty/dirty or haven't washed in a long while. (Some people even prefer natural smells over perfumes.)
As for use: less than you think. Only you and someone in your "personal space" should be able to smell it. Don't spray it all over--use very small amounts on "pulse points": wrists, behind ears, throat. (This is harder to do with sprays than oils; it's easy to spray too much.) What kind: something you like. What smells good sprayed in the air in a department store may not smell as good along with your own natural scent, so you may want to test at home before wearing something in public. Ask someone at a department store or perfume shop to help you if you really have no idea what to get, and don't be embarrassed about it; if they are at all good at their job, they will be able to guide you toward scents of different types based on what you like--fruity, musky, floral, woodsy, light, heavy, what-have-you. If you don't know where to begin, think about other smells you like: fresh-cut grass, vanilla, ocean air, Irish Spring soap? If you have a significant other, ask what they like too...
(This is knowledge I have not used in a long enough time that I'd completely forgotten I had it!)
↑ comment by SRStarin · 2011-02-10T01:59:13.814Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Anyone who wants to can wear perfume/cologne (it's essentially the same stuff, just a different word for a different gender of user). If you're wondering whether you should try it, then try it! Go to a large department store and try out their testers, then walk around for the day and see if you and your companions like it. The effect immediately after application is often not the effect after it airs a bit. You can even try mixing scents. The one thing I strongly recommend is to avoid the really cheap stuff. If the budget is tight, try different good high-quality scents for free for a while, so you can be sure you'll like what you get.
The way I've seen perfume applied usually sprayed on one wrist, then the wrists are rubbed together, and then the wrists are lightly touched to the neck and clothes. This avoids getting too strong a smell, and if you overspray the wrist, you can wash it off.
When I use cologne, I spray it in my armpits instead of deodorant, and maybe on my throat. That's not necessarily typical--it's sort of the old way cologne was used, and works for me because I have light BO. You can also use cologne the same way I described for perfume.
In the U.S., cologne is not usually considered an appropriate substitute for deodorant, but individual tastes run a broad gamut on that. Some people are allergic to most perfumes and colognes--they do have actual botanicals in them.
Replies from: monsterzero↑ comment by monsterzero · 2011-02-10T03:23:43.981Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's pretty important not to overdo perfume/cologne, as there's a lot of variation in people's sensitivity to odors (and odor preferences). One squirt or dab is usually more than enough. In addition, the person who is wearing the scent becomes habituated to it after a few minutes, so "I can't smell myself anymore" isn't a good reason to put on more.
↑ comment by TabAtkins · 2011-03-09T06:46:54.805Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Other people have already said that most people tend to smell okay all by themselves. I prefer a little help in that area, though.
There's the standard advice of wearing a deodorant/antiperspirant, which I find necessary. I can't help with perfume, but for cologne, I was never happy with anything until I spent an hour with a scented oil salesman at a stall in the mall. He helped me find the perfect combination of scents for me, which not only smells great to me but, from what other people tell me, compliments my natural smell nicely (if you're wondering - vanilla and egyptian musk).
In other words, get a perfume/cologne salesperson to help you. If the first one you find doesn't seem particularly helpful, don't buy anything, and go find another one (you can space out visits, or visit different stores, if it's uncomfortable to just go find another salesperson). One who is good at their job will know their scents well and will help you find one that you feel compliments you personally.
↑ comment by katydee · 2011-02-11T05:07:28.995Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The tips provided below are good, but keep in mind that your decision about whether you should or shouldn't wear perfume and/or cologne is based on a lot of other factors, many of which can't be easily assessed on the Internet. It depends a lot on who you're trying to signal to-- in some groups, wearing perfume/cologne can actually be bad signaling, as it shows you're a "try-hard."
comment by MartinB · 2011-02-09T10:10:05.127Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I am curious how you manage the cash in your wallet. I usually withdraw a fixed sum whenever it is empty, and pay some items by card, some by money. But I usually do not remember how much I carry.
Some peers have a super tight wallet where they basically care next to no cash at all, while others always have a healthy sum on their hand. Is there a preferred way to do it?
Replies from: TabAtkins, Richard_Kennaway, Blueberry↑ comment by TabAtkins · 2011-03-09T07:16:46.713Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I do a zero-based budget monthly, where I precisely account for every dollar coming in and going out. Some of the categories in my budget (anything I buy in person) are designated as "cash" - every paycheck I withdraw enough from the ATM to cover the next two weeks worth of cash categories. These are then distributed into envelopes per category.
All of this leads up to my answer: I carry around personal allowance (budgeted for!) in my wallet at all times, and extra cash pulled from the envelopes when I'm going to buy something that day.
(When I end up using my card for a cash expense, because I didn't anticipate needing to buy something that day, the cash goes into a separate "Return To Bank" envelope. The next time I would withdraw cash, I just take what's in that envelope first, and then withdraw only what I still need. In other words, using my card is merely a loan taken out against my next cash withdrawal.)
↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2011-03-09T16:20:54.991Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Some peers have a super tight wallet where they basically care next to no cash at all, while others always have a healthy sum on their hand. Is there a preferred way to do it?
Yes, but it's different for everyone.
I don't like to have less than £50 in my wallet, and refill from the hole in the wall in lumps of £100 or £200. I use a spreadsheet to keep track of income and expenditure, and project both out month by month for a year ahead, making conservative estimates of everything I can't predict exactly.
This works for me, because (a) I'm well enough off not to need to watch every penny -- the future part of the spreadsheet is a prediction, not a commitment -- and (b) buying or not buying something I see is not influenced by the amount of cash I happen to have in my pocket. I always have cards with me anyway, and I use them for most purchases over 10 or 20 pounds in order to get a record to enter into the spreadsheet, and later verify against a statement. Cash is only for smaller, incidental things and I don't record those transactions.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-09T10:28:29.774Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I pretty much never carry cash. If I really need it (like for a poker game) I'll stop at the ATM.
Probably the best way to do it is to budget all expenses, allocate some for cash and some for credit, add up all the cash expenses for a month, divide by 4.3, and take out that much cash every week. You could even keep a budget chart with you in your wallet so you know which expenses are for cash and how much.
comment by nazgulnarsil · 2011-02-07T19:35:05.686Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
exercise:
if you just want a basic level of fitness you don't really need to do anything besides
- pullups
- dips
- run up hills
- 8 minute abs (search youtube)
don't spend precious motivational energy on complex stuff. wait until you've established the exercise habit to start trying new things.
pullups and dips only require one of these
Replies from: Eliezer_Yudkowsky, Risto_Saarelma↑ comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Eliezer_Yudkowsky) · 2011-02-08T05:02:25.117Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yeah, that kind of advice is not going to fill any procedural knowledge gaps, sorry.
Previously I've tried "exercise" with fitness machines, aerobic and resistance both, an hour apiece on both, and it doesn't seem to do anything at all. I currently walk a couple of hours every other day. I have no idea whether this does anything (besides exhausting me so much I don't get any work done for the rest of the day, of course). I once read that 40% of the population is "immune to exercise" and I suspect I'm one of the 0.40.
If I have enough money at some point I'll try hiring a fitness trainer, and then getting a larger apartment with an extra bedroom for exercise equipment (and maybe get Lasik so I don't have to wear glasses and use a TV and Dance Dance Revolution) but such expenses are beyond the reach of my current financial balance.
EDIT: Wow, lots of advice here from metabolically privileged folks who don't comprehend the nothing fucking works phenomenon that obtains if you're not metabolically privileged.
Replies from: Mark_Eichenlaub, pjeby, Armok_GoB, ata, Dr_Manhattan, MichaelVassar, NancyLebovitz, PhilGoetz, NancyLebovitz, Desrtopa, David_Gerard, schemingreader, nazgulnarsil, nickjhay, Benquo, folkTheory, Unnamed, LauralH, jimrandomh, lukeprog, Blueberry↑ comment by Mark_Eichenlaub · 2011-02-08T11:57:26.848Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I once read that 40% of the population is "immune to exercise" and I suspect I'm one of the 0.40.
I've been a competitive distance runner for a decade. In that time I've watched maybe 100 people join track or cross country teams, and every one who stays on the team more than a month has shown clear improvement, at least at first.
I've also known many recreational runners, and there's a big difference between a median runner on a cross country team and a median recreational runner of the same age and gender. In fact, of the fifty or so recreational runners I've talked to in some depth, and thousands I've seen at races, I have never met someone who trained themselves independently from the beginning and could beat me at 1500 meters. Meanwhile, I've known scores of people who could beat me at that distance, but they all ran on teams or had run on teams in the past.
In my experience, the slowest guys who joined the team and practiced every day would run a mile in about 5:30 after a year, with a median around 5:00, and 4:40 if they kept at it for a few years. For women it was about 7:00 at slowest, median 6:00 and around 5:30 for women who trained for some time. (Talented men and women run much faster; the times I cited are typical for moderately-athletic people. I ran 4:21 and never won anything big.)
Meanwhile, recreational runners I know tell me their bests are about 6:30 median for men and 8:00 for women. I haven't collected solid data, but the divide is so sharp I'm convinced by personal experience that being on a track or cross country team makes you much faster. This in turn implies that everyone, or almost everyone, is trainable for distance running.
My experience applies mostly to men and women age 15 - 25, so I'm not sure if the same holds for older people. There is also the possibility that only fast people, or only trainable people, would stick around on the teams, but the teams I've been on made no cuts and were never top contenders, so the pressure was low. We sometimes had people come in forty pounds overweight and not able to run a mile, and still stick around for the entire season of training. They all improved to the point where they could run nonstop for an hour and run pretty fast for five minutes straight.
The practical advice is that hiring an athletic trainer or joining a team may lead to a significant improvement if you're having trouble doing it on your own. This specifically applies to running. I don't know about lifting weights, exercise machines, yoga, walking, etc.
Replies from: orthonormal, Jonathan_Graehl, None↑ comment by orthonormal · 2011-02-08T17:06:18.972Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In that time I've watched maybe 100 people join track or cross country teams, and every one who stays on the team more than a month has shown clear improvement, at least at first.
Okay, but which way does the causality run?
Replies from: Mark_Eichenlaub, TobyBartels↑ comment by Mark_Eichenlaub · 2011-02-08T21:37:26.335Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Are you suggesting that people join track teams because they have the capacity to improve at running? Maybe a third of those people had no prior experience with running and could not have known whether they would improve.
Or are you suggesting that people who don't improve quit in less than a month? I can't really answer that, except that it seems unlikely that all the people with no inborn ability to improve are also the people who will give up on something in less than a month.
Replies from: orthonormal↑ comment by orthonormal · 2011-02-09T01:01:51.695Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The way it works in normal people seems to be that exercising regularly feels really awful at first, but after the first few times it doesn't feel that bad (indeed, it starts releasing endorphins) and the person starts getting in shape.
Let's imagine that it works like that for one segment of the population, but for another segment it never stops feeling awful and doesn't have the same fitness effects. You'd see the exact same effect you note.
Obviously, what you say is evidence that regular running can make anyone more fit as long as they persist– but it's not necessarily strong evidence.
Replies from: randallsquared↑ comment by randallsquared · 2011-02-17T04:14:47.247Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Let's imagine that it works like that for one segment of the population, but for another segment it never stops feeling awful and doesn't have the same fitness effects.
I'm in a segment where it does have fitness effects, but never stops feeling awful. I was in the Army, and it was possible for me to meet the physical fitness standards, but even exercising strenuously every day during eight weeks of Basic Training never produced the exercise high that people speak of.
↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T22:16:50.150Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is addressed in the parent's next-to-last paragraph (which may have been a late edit, for all that I know).
↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T03:15:01.599Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Are you sure you considered the selection effect (those likely to join a team have what unusual properties?) as well as further selection after joining from dropouts?
However, I can't argue against your 6:30 recreational median. I trained for a half marathon for a few months and indeed got stuck at around a 6:10 mile (at 185lb).
Replies from: Mark_Eichenlaub↑ comment by Mark_Eichenlaub · 2011-02-09T04:35:36.630Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
No, I'm not sure how strong the selection effects are. In fact it's seems certain that some selection effects exist, and I don't know how to estimate them. But the signal is so strong that I didn't think selection effects could explain all of it. It might be an interesting question to investigate. Presumably there are studies done on making out-of-shape people exercise. Military recruiting and training could also provide a lot of data.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-09T01:17:41.204Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have less experience, but this matches what I saw and experienced in cross country exactly.
My starting point: couldn't run a quarter mile. After a few years: 6:30 mile, didn't have much trouble with a 12 mile run.
I basically would be extremely surprised if a serious exercise program didn't improve performance. The only caveat is if we're talking about someone who can't run, due to bad knees or something. I've known people like that and I don't know how to get around it safely.
↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-02-08T19:40:05.816Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I once read that 40% of the population is "immune to exercise"
If you mean, 40% of people don't lose weight by exercising, that's probably correct. The OP said "basic level of fitness", though, which does not necessarily mean weight loss.
I currently walk a couple of hours every other day. I have no idea whether this does anything (besides exhausting me so much I don't get any work done for the rest of the day, of course).
There is a fair amount of study (for citations see "Body By Science") that longer exercise does not result in greater health gains, and that it is rather the intensity of exercise that makes the difference.
In my own personal experience, long walks are pleasant, but I felt a greater increase in energy levels from using one of Sears's 10-minute PACE workouts (1 minute walking, 1 minute all-out running, repeat 5 times, then cool down). A few days of this and my general energy levels throughout the day went up. (I would guess the OP's suggestion of hill sprints is based on the same principle of alternating high intensity and low intensity activity for a short period.)
There are quite a few ways in which conventional or popular wisdom about exercise is wrong; the idea that more exercise is better is one of them. (The idea that exercise will help or cause you to lose weight is another.)
↑ comment by Armok_GoB · 2011-02-08T13:10:39.030Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is confusing. It seems like somehting a good rationalist should not have any problem with. And you're supposedly the greatest rationalist around. Are you sure you've actually applied your rationality skills and done stuff like sat down for 5 minutes (each) and thought about questions like "What exactly am I trying to accomplish with exercise, and is there any other way to accomplish it", "How can I find out what kinds of exercise will give results" , "can I replicate what a fitness trainer does myself, find the information online, or find someone willing to act as one for free?", etc.
There are probably a decent number of people with medical knowledge here, who knows these things. Heck, if a few things (like living on the wrong continent) were different I could've just given you my athlete sisters number.
Edit: Also, why is everyone talking about expensive equipment? I'm pretty sure you only need equipment for advanced training if you want to compete or because it's easier/more comfortable, general fitness and health I can see no reason to do anything other than running and stretching and push-ups and such. I'm also pretty sure you can use normal stuff lieing around even for the things you need props for. I'm no expert thou.
... goodness I can't believe I just typed this. -_- Feels like heresy telling Eliezer what to do, especially in an area I consider myself to know nothing about. I'm fully prepared for this to be down-voted to oblivion.
Replies from: Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T03:16:32.294Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I had the same confusion, and interpreted it as: he's just exceptionally un-athletic by nature - that there's no rationality failure. Perhaps he has a little less willingness to overcome all obstacles than I'd expect, but then again, living slightly longer (debatable) or looking trim aren't as important a prize as saving the world.
Replies from: Armok_GoB↑ comment by ata · 2011-02-08T05:23:19.595Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I once read that 40% of the population is "immune to exercise"
Where did you read that?
(I'd be pretty surprised if that turned out not to be untrue, overstated, or overgeneralized.)
Replies from: wedrifid, jacob_cannell↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-08T05:30:42.710Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Where did you read that?
I am hoping it was advice specifically given for wait loss, emphasising that just adding light exercise will not see large results in many cases. As an independent observation it would be terrible.
Replies from: orangecat↑ comment by orangecat · 2011-02-08T22:06:39.795Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I was skeptical as well, but Googling for "immune to exercise" produced this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6735-some-people-are-immune-to-exercise.html. It seems like an area that could really use further research; if the universally-dispensed advice is ineffective for nearly half the population, that's a huge problem.
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2015-08-19T02:38:06.350Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, but that shows that Eliezer probably misremembered what the 40% referred to. In that study, "40%" refers not to how many didn't benefit, but rather to the maximal benefit on a particular measure of fitness received by any of the participants:
For example, the team found that training improved maximum oxygen consumption, a measure of a person’s ability to perform work, by 17% on average. But the most trainable volunteers gained over 40%, and the least trainable showed no improvement at all. Similar patterns were seen with cardiac output, blood pressure, heart rate and other markers of fitness.
Alternately, he might've been rounding the subsequent statistic:
Bouchard reported that the impact of training on insulin sensitivity – a marker of risk for diabetes and heart disease – also varied. It improved in 58% of the volunteers following exercise, but in 42% it showed no improvement or, in a few cases, may have got worse.
So, how many is many? What fraction of the subjects were resistant on the various metrics? Unfortunately, the NS article doesn't give exactly what we want to know, so we need to find the original scientific papers to figure it out ourselves, but the NS article doesn't give citations either, forcing us to fact-check it the hard way (a long time in Google Scholar punching in names and keywords).
Tracking down sources for this article is quite difficult. Bouchard quickly pulls up a bunch of papers all revolving around similar data from what is called the HERITAGE Family Study, which has apparently been running since 1995 (the abstract to "The HERITAGE family study: Aims, design, and measurement protocol", 1995, describes it as in-progress) and there are a lot of papers on various minutia of it. So we need to search with 'HERITAGE'.
The final paragraph about the 51/72 genes seems to be sourced from "Endurance training-induced changes in insulin sensitivity and gene expression", which was published around 2004, consistent with the NS date. The general stuff about responses to exercise is much harder to track down, but after quite a bit of browsing through Google Scholar, I think it's all summarized in "Individual differences in response to regular physical activity", Bouchard & Rankinen 2001, which sounds promising since its abstract mentions "For example, Vo2_max responses to standardized training programs have ranged from almost no gain up to 100% increase in large groups of sedentary individuals".
This review covers 4 major categories:
VO2_max: "The average increase reached 384 mL O 2 with an SD of 202 mL O 2"; citing:
- BOUCHARD , C., P. A N , T. RICE , et al. Familial aggregation of VO2max response to exercise training: results from the HERITAGE Family Study. J. Appl. Physiol. 87:1003–1008, 1999.
heart-rate during exercise, "heart rate during submaximal exercise at 50 W" ; "A mean decrease of 11 beats·min -1 was observed among the 727 subjects with complete data. However, the SD reached 10 beats."
- original to this review, it seems
blood lipids, HDL-C: "They found that when the distribution of the percent changes in HDL-C was broken down into quartiles, the first quartile actually experienced a decrease in HDL-C of 9.3%, whereas the fourth quartile registered a mean increase of 18%." Cited to:
- LEON , A. S., T. RICE , S. MANDEL , et al. Blood lipid response to 20 weeks of supervised exercise in a large biracial population: the HERITAGE Family Study. Metabolism 49:513–520, 2000.
blood pressure, "systolic blood pressure during exercise in relative steady state at 50 W"; "Among these subjects, the mean decrease in SBP during cycling at 50 W was 8.2 mm Hg (SD 11.8)"
- original to this review
So that covers 4 of the markers mentioned in the NS link. In those 4 cases, going by the graphs (the data is highly non-normal so you can't just estimate from the mean/SD), I'd guesstimate that 5-20% of each show <=0 benefit from the 20-weeks of endurance exercise.
That leaves the insulin sensitivity one, which seems to be "Effects of Exercise Training on Glucose Homeostasis: The HERITAGE Family Study", Boulé et al 2005. The graphs are hilarious, almost exactly 50-50 looking, and so correspond to the NS summary of 58%/42%.
(The papers don't seem to include any correlation matrixes, but this is definitely a problem which calls out for dimensionality reduction: presumably resistance on all 4 measurements correlates and you could extract a 'exercise resistance factor' which would be more informative than looking at things piecemeal. Since correlations between the 4 measurements are not given, it's possible that they are independent and so only ~0.2^4 or <1% of the subjects were exercise-resistant on all 4 measures, but that would surprise me: it would be strange if one's insulin improved but not VO2_max or cholesterol. I don't have any guesses on how large this 'exercise-resistant factor' might be, though.)
Not all of these are as important as one another and weight does not seem to be included judging by Bouchard's silence on individual differences w/r/t that. He does cite some interesting studies on resistance of body weight to change like two twin studies.
So going by the HERITAGE data described in that NS link, exercise resistance is a thing in maybe a fifth of the population but mostly on invisible things. 40%, however, is too high, since only 1 of the 5 measured things seemed to go that high, and the specific fractions were not mentioned, so most likely Eliezer was misremembering the other two stats as the more important stat.
Replies from: Eliezer_Yudkowsky, Ishaan↑ comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Eliezer_Yudkowsky) · 2015-08-19T18:29:54.717Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I recall originally reading something about a measure of exercise-linked gene expression and I'm pretty sure it wasn't that New Scientist article, but regardless, it's plausible that some mismemory occurred and this more detailed search screens off my memory either way. 20% of the population being immune to exercise seems to match real-world experience a bit better than 40% so far as my own eye can see - I eyeball-feel more like a 20% minority than a 40% minority, if that makes sense. I have revised my beliefs to match your statements. Thank you for tracking that down!
Replies from: gwern↑ comment by gwern · 2016-01-13T22:36:20.754Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I recall originally reading something about a measure of exercise-linked gene expression and I'm pretty sure it wasn't that New Scientist article
That's certainly possible. Bouchard and others, after observing that some subjects were exercise-resistant and finding that like everything else it's heritable, have moved onto gene expression and GWAS hits. Any of those papers could've generated some journalism covering the earlier HERITAGE results as background.
20% of the population being immune to exercise seems to match real-world experience a bit better than 40% so far as my own eye can see
Another study suggests it's more like 7%. Probably hard to get a real estimate: how do you do the aggregation across multiple measured traits? If someone appears to be exercise resistant on visceral fat, but not blood glucose levels, do you count them as a case of exercise resistance? On top of the usual sampling error.
↑ comment by Ishaan · 2015-10-20T03:59:20.890Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Do you have an opinion concerning whether this is better characterized as "non-response to the benefits of exercise due to pathology" vs. "immunity to the harmful effects of a sedentary lifestyle"?
Basically, is being a non-responder good or bad? Eyeballing that graph it does look like untrained non-responders might be a bit fitter than responders - but of course the first thing we should assume is ceiling effect.
(And of course there's many 3rd options - orchid/dandelion trade offs and such)
↑ comment by jacob_cannell · 2011-02-09T15:43:14.531Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't have a specific link on hand, but I remember the term being "metabolic set point". The idea is that some low level feedback loop in the old brain sets your weight, and it can easily compensate for exercise. Along with that theory goes the idea that only dietary changes may be effective.
↑ comment by Dr_Manhattan · 2011-02-08T05:17:36.692Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I once read that 40% of the population is "immune to exercise" and I suspect I'm one of the 0.40.
.4 of the population unlikely to have evolved? I can't take this too seriously I suppose.
Did you try working on strength first? A lot of cardio is claimed to not be very helpful.
Also, consider a coach or a fellow rationalist with some domain knowledge to work with, it's pretty important to optimize this area (esp. if it puts you out of commission for the rest of the day).
One hack that helped me work throughout the annoyance is reading kindle on a stationary bike. Lost 20 with that trick.
Replies from: TobyBartels↑ comment by TobyBartels · 2011-02-08T22:07:08.460Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Lost 20 with that trick.
Pounds or kilos? (I'll assume not stone.)
Replies from: Dr_Manhattan↑ comment by Dr_Manhattan · 2011-02-09T00:37:16.584Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
pounds
↑ comment by MichaelVassar · 2011-02-08T16:32:15.342Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why not just use a trainer at the gym. Also, if you can't afford that you should really talk with me. It's obviously a high priority.
Replies from: Eliezer_Yudkowsky, khafra, David_Gerard↑ comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Eliezer_Yudkowsky) · 2011-02-08T23:39:10.661Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
At this point, my Expectancy for positive results from single changes like "just use a trainer at the gym" has hit essentially zero - I've tried all sorts of stuff, nothing ever fucking works - so I'm not willing to spend the incremental money. If I have a lot of money to spend, I'll try throwing a higher level of money at all aspects of the problem - get a trainer on weights, try the latest fad of "short interval bursts" for aerobic exercise, get LASIK and a big TV and a separate room of the apartment to make exercising less unpleasant (no, dears, I don't get any endorphins whatsoever), buy a wide variety of grass-fed organic meats and take one last shot at the paleo diet again, and... actually I think that's most of what I'd do. That way I'd be able to scrape up enough hope to make it worth a shot. Trying one item from that list doesn't seem worth the bother.
I did try Shangri-La again when Seth Roberts contacted me personally and asked me to take another shot. It was just wearing tight, uncomfortable noseplugs while eating all my food and clearing out time at night to make sure I took oil 1 hour away from eating any other food or brushing my teeth, a trivial inconvenience when I'd walk over broken glass to lose weight. I lost 20 pounds and then despite trying out around 10 different things Seth Roberts said to do, my weight slowly started creeping up again, and when after a while I gave up and stopped taking the oil to see what would happen, there was no change in the behavior of my weight - the same slow creep. It's clear that Shangri-La worked initially but then, contrary to all theory, it just mysteriously stopped working. So far I've gained 10 of those 20 pounds back, in accordance with the one truly reliable law of dietary science: 95% of the people who manage to lose weight put it back on shortly thereafter. BTW, exercise didn't lead me to lose any weight whatsoever, even when combined with an attempt at the paleo diet (albeit not one that spent lots of money, or involved a personal trainer).
So far as I can tell, all the advice here is from metabolically privileged folks who don't know they're metabolically privileged and don't comprehend the nothing fucking works phenomenon that obtains if you're not metabolically privileged.
If you want to give advice, that's fine. Don't tell me how well it's going to work or how easy it's going to be; that just tells me you're clueless.
Replies from: schemingreader, Mitchell_Porter, None, pjeby, michaelkeenan, Armok_GoB, John_Maxwell_IV, Swimmer963, bogdanb, Vladimir_M, None, XiXiDu, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by schemingreader · 2011-02-09T01:50:59.188Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I replied to your other comment without being sure whether the "nothing works" part was about weight loss or the ability to gain strength and conditioning from exercise.
There is a current idea that exercise is beneficial no matter what you weigh. See for example http://haescommunity.org/ and this new article on exercise and depression: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lloyd-i-sederer-md/depression-treatment-_b_819798.html?ir=Living
I have a hard time not following the herd mentality and trying to measure my success with exercise by my size and shape. I can and generally do use another measure of success for exercise than what I weigh. You can measure increased strength either by seeing how much weight you can lift or how many push-ups or pull-ups you can do, or you can measure your increased cardiovascular fitness with your standing pulse rate, or how long you can walk or run without becoming exhausted. (I'm shooting for 45 push-ups in a row by age 45.)
Then it doesn't actually matter whether you're metabolically privileged. Or privileged with relation to losing weight anyway, some people would say your metabolism--and mine!--make total sense in a starvation environment. The problem getting the endorphins to let down is a big disadvantage, but you may be able to figure out a duration and intensity of exercise that will release endorphins. (And that would be a good goal to replace weight loss, too.)
I think the main thing is to stop walking over broken glass to get thinner. Where's the utility in that? Exercise is still going to benefit you, even if you stay at your current weight and grumpy every minute of your walk.
↑ comment by Mitchell_Porter · 2011-03-03T02:11:32.999Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If I were in your situation, I would start to take a technical interest in the biomechanics of fat deposition in male bodies, differential retention of water in body tissues, the genetics of metabolism, the adipocyte cell cycle in visceral fat - as much causal and molecular detail as I could bring myself to assimilate. Just for a few hours, I would proceed as if I was going to tackle the problem by understanding what's happening from the molecular level up, genuinely identifying exactly where a change needs to occur, and fashioning an appropriate intervention.
The logic of this approach is that we are now in a time when such overkill analysis of all biological processes has become possible, and that you personally are smart and informed enough to be able to perform that analysis, "in principle". "In principle" means that if you devoted the next several years of your life to nothing but the intensive study of those topics, you would almost assuredly make useful progress. In reality you have other priorities which guarantee that you won't turn yourself into a research biologist. But just for a while proceed as if you were going to tackle this problem with the thoroughness and dedication you might reserve for problems in FAI theory, and knowing that it might have to be you personally who solves it (on the level of theory, not just the level of practice). You will undoubtedly learn relevant things if you do this, and if you manage to make a persistent hobby of it, your ability to tap into existing research literature and existing networks of expertise will eventually be transformed in an incredibly empowering way.
Also, you live in California. You could try to tap into the diy-bio scene, 23AndMe-style personal genomics, and the whole emerging bio-culture. Again, I'm not suggesting that you become in your own person an adipose-tissue hacker, but proceeding for a while as if you were going to do that will open doors and reveal perspectives that should actually be useful later on.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-02-09T00:09:19.363Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What do you mean by "nothing works"?
I have heard pretty good evidence that some people have a very hard time losing weight. I've also seen physiological reasons for why that might be.
I have never heard of "resistance to exercise" in the sense that you could exercise and never get stronger or fitter. I just don't see how that would work, physiologically. Honestly -- is this a documented phenomenon?
↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-03-08T17:55:17.679Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So far as I can tell, all the advice here is from metabolically privileged folks who don't know they're metabolically privileged and don't comprehend the nothing fucking works phenomenon that obtains if you're not metabolically privileged.
This is more of an anecdote than advice, but my wife has had some similar issues, i.e. being able to lose weight on occasion in some fashion, but then becoming immune to it and having it creep back on. Recently, she got some software that makes dietary recommendations based on genotype information -- a combination of blood type, body proportions, PROP tasting ability, tooth shapes, etc. etc. (It took an hour or two to take all the measurements, tests, and observations required.)
The theory behind the software is that humans are evolved to thrive on different sorts of foods; even if you are going to eat "paleo", your ancestral geography will make a difference as to which specific fruits, nuts, roots, eggs, and meats you're going to thrive on. So, the software uses a bunch of known physical genetic markers (like torso length to leg length ratio, index/ring finger ratio, etc.) to identify a dietary genotype grouping.
From these measurements, the software spat out a list of foods to eat, avoid, or eat more of to lose weight... and many of the things to eat to lose weight were pretty obscure, while many of the things to avoid were things she ate a lot of. After cutting out all the things to avoid, her weight has started drifting down instead of up.
It's still early days yet, in that one would expect this effect per Roberts' hypothesis. However, one of the interesting things is that the foods the diet recommended just happened to also match things she'd been eating on previous diets when she lost weight... and many of the "avoid" items were things she'd been eating a lot of when struggling to stop gaining.
That is, if you looked at it in terms of "doing the X diet", "doing the Y diet", and so on, her results would appear more mixed than if you looked at the detail of, "doing the X diet eating food A" versus "doing the X diet eating food B." For example, "doing Atkins eating beef and horseradish", vs. "doing Atkins eating lots of whey protein bars and chicken." The overall effectiveness of "Atkins" in general vs. the specific effectiveness of "beef and horseradish" are different, in other words, and the software's recommendations seem to be similar to the more effective variations within specific diets she's tried.
I haven't done the full analysis on myself yet, but the preliminary food list from the author's book seems similarly correlated with my own weight loss attempts.
I will mention more when I know more, but if you're looking for something that specifically deals with uncommon metabolic challenges, you might find it worthwhile to investigate. Certain genotype classifications are supposed to be more weight-loss resistant than others -- for example, my wife's list has a LOT fewer "eat more of this to lose weight" items than mine does in most food categories, and in some categories she has none at all.
IOW, the author's theoretical framework includes a basis for metabolic "privilege" and "challenge", as well as extremely-specific recommendations to accomodate them. (So specific, its recommendations distinguish which species of mushrooms and which, out of dozens of different kinds of cheese you should or shouldn't eat.)
Replies from: wedrifid, JGWeissman, Alicorn↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-03-08T19:29:15.561Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This system would need to be based off an awful lot of data to be producing such specific prescriptions based on a wide range of minor differences. Data which as far as I know does not exist. It would be an excellent thing to be working towards but right now does not sound credible.
Replies from: pjeby, JGWeissman↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-03-08T20:34:22.728Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Data which as far as I know does not exist.
Are you sure about that? Wikipedia's Nutrigenomics page seems to reference a lot of articles on documented gene-nutrition interactions, incuding the effects of nutrients on genetic expression.
This system would need to be based off an awful lot of data to be producing such specific prescriptions
I don't think SWAMI actually needs that many pieces of data to make strong recommendations; it claims to be using only 225 of the nutrients or substances found in 800 foods as a basis for its suggestions.
As I understand it, it's essentially doing something like, "people with this set of genes tend to have these problems; these nutrients tend to help with that kind of problem, these others make it worse -- so rate the foods containing those nutrients up or down accordingly..." and then it computes a total score for each food, and uses various cutoff levels to rank the food as "good", "bad", or "meh". ;-)
IOW, it's not using a massive array of studies on individual foods' effects, but rather, a scoring system based on known nutrient-genome-health correlations. And statistical prediction rules can easily outperfrom human experts, so it shouldn't be especially surprising that you could get some pretty good results out of less than "an awful lot of data".
It would be an excellent thing to be working towards but right now does not sound credible
On my epistemically rational side, I would certainly like to see more references myself. D'Adamo's book and software describes many kinds of "this does this to that and is related to gene XYZ-123" things that cause my brain to go "[citation needed]" -- i.e., I would really like to have a better idea of what his epistemology for all this stuff is, besides, "we studied it in my lab".
On the other hand, my instrumentally rational side has been happy enough with the results from following the book's recommendations so far, to be willing to buy the full kit. The interesting question will be whether I can lose more than the typical "20 pounds and then start regaining" that happens when people switch to new diets, and that will take a bit longer to determine.
(OTOH, I'm already about 20 pounds down from my last major dietary change about 8 months ago... so perhaps any further weight loss will be a good sign.)
↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-03-08T19:35:00.585Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Data which as far as I know does not exist.
Why do you believe that? I wouldn't be surprised if there are nutrition scientist who have a much better model of nutrition that is publicly availabe, which we can't find or notice because of all the noise in the field.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-03-08T20:36:37.145Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why do you believe that?
My knowledge of the field combined with the usual meta-information that I must always use to evaluate such possibilities.
Nothing in the description here gives any of the indications that it is the herald of hidden deep wisdom from the upper echelons of the nutrition sciences that is hidden from the rest of us. It is also too many steps beyond what the more mainstream (or even 'mainstream contrarian') scientists present to be at all likely.
This isn't a nutritional scientist we are talking about here. It's a naturopathic quack. The same guy who wrote the laughable "Eat Right For Your Blood Type".
Replies from: JGWeissman, pjeby↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-03-08T20:53:25.327Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Ok, I just took a look at the sample result set that Eby linked to, and I, like you, am not impressed. This guy is so much a part of the noise, he isn't even the noise that could be reasonably mistaken for a real expert.
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-03-08T21:28:06.447Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So... here's the thing. You and wedrifid are doing something that has me concerned.
Specifically, you're putting me into a position where, for consistency, I feel compelled to argue a case for something that I myself don't currently have a hugely high degree of confidence in... simply because you're not actually providing in your arguments, any information which I could either specifically agree or disagree with.
IOW, comments like, "quack", "laughable", and "noise" do not give me any information about your epistemology, and therefore light up on my board "[citation needed]" just as much as it did for what I've been reading from D'Adamo.
So, it would be nice if you could identify specific concerns instead... who knows, I might agree with them!
OTOH, my consistent experience is that just because somebody has a stupid-sounding theory, doesn't mean their advice doesn't actually work. (Likewise, people who have good theories are often lousy at giving usable advice.)
Heck, take Seth Roberts as an example here: the entire idea of drinking oil or sugar water to lose weight is also "laughable", "noise" and "quack"... and yet it still seems to work for plenty of people.
Heck, there are elements of Roberts' theory that don't make sense to me, from a "fewest elements to make the circuit" point of view. (For example, I don't think "set point" is a real thing; I think it's more likely an epiphenomenon of something else.)
But that doesn't mean I wouldn't recommend it... just that I'd avoid recommending it to people who jump to conclusions first and ask questions later. ;-)
Anyway... specifics, please. Otherwise, I'll simply bow out of this discussion on the assumption that you don't actually have any new evidence to present.
IOW, a knee-jerk dismissal on grounds of ridiculousness isn't an independent data point for Bayesian analysis. Citing papers disproving D'Adamo's hypotheses, on the other hand, would be quite welcome.
(I've actually googled around for criticisms of both his blood type and genotype work, and have yet to find a single cite that doesn't have a more-recent countercite; the vast majority of criticism, however, appears to be of the, "that's so silly I won't even bother to argue the idea seriously" variety. Maybe this is evidence that he's a quack, but at least his responses to the critiques include some citations in his favor.)
Replies from: JGWeissman↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-03-08T22:14:34.549Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A big red flag is that where I expected to see an analysis of what mixture of the various ancestral types a person is, I see a declaration that the person fits into one of 6 little boxes. This despite the fact these types describe multiple features, controlled by different genes, in a sexually reproducing population that represents all types. Now, not all genes are selected for independantly, genes nearby on the same chromosone can be correletated. But a model of which dietary traits correspond to which easily measurable traits should be more complicated than assigning a cluster of dietary traits to a cluster of easily measured traits.
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-03-08T22:33:58.720Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A big red flag is that where I expected to see an analysis of what mixture of the various ancestral types a person is, I see a declaration that the person fits into one of 6 little boxes.
FYI, my wife's actual profile showed this; more precisely, IIRC it rated her as 44% Explorer, based on the traits given. It did not show what percentages the other 5 boxes broke down to, and I don't know whether those factors were also taken into account in the analysis. (I also don't know what precisely the percentage represents; i.e. is it a probability, a "percentage of your traits"...?)
The sample profile I linked appears to date from 2008; so perhaps the percentage report was added to the software later. But in both cases, if I understand correctly, the software simply presents the highest-scoring of the six boxes, rather than saying, "this is you".
Still, compared to most ways of nutritionally grouping people, six is actually a LOT of boxes.
But a model of which dietary traits correspond to which easily measurable traits should be more complicated than assigning a cluster of dietary traits to a cluster of easily measured traits.
From what I read in his book, he describes the types in terms of basic strategies for responding to the environment, where there are only a few good choices to make. IOW, the stereotypes are supposed to represent stable strategies for responding to infections, shortages, and other stressors. That is, there are not an unlimited number of ways to do things in those areas, so you end up with large clusters.
I have not studied this in any detail, mind you; I confess my primary interest in the book was more to look at the food lists for my type, to compare against my personal dietary history.
As I said, I'm less interested in the plausibility or sensibility of a theory per se, than with the correlation of its advice with the obtaining of results... especially results for myself in particular. (And I remain cautiously optimistic on that front where his advice is concerned.)
Replies from: JGWeissman↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-03-08T22:55:58.679Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
FYI, my wife's actual profile showed this; more precisely, IIRC it rated her as 44% Explorer, based on the traits given. It did not show what percentages the other 5 boxes broke down to, and I don't know whether those factors were also taken into account in the analysis. (I also don't know what precisely the percentage represents; i.e. is it a probability, a "percentage of your traits"...?)
Better, but still not good enough. If it is a mixture, what about the other 56%? Which 44% of the explorer traits? If it is a confidence level, the model doesn't seem to rate itself very highly, so why should I be impressed with it?
From what I read in his book, he describes the types in terms of basic strategies for responding to the environment, where there are only a few good choices to make. IOW, the stereotypes are supposed to represent stable strategies for responding to infections, shortages, and other stressors. That is, there are not an unlimited number of ways to do things in those areas, so you end up with large clusters.
Suppose there are 2 stable strategies that each say how to deal with several specific problems, such that either of the 2 strategies work but a mixture somehow fails. These strategies, being complicated, are coded for by multiple genes. Suppose a man with one strategy and a women with the other strategy mate and have offspring. Those offspring are going to inherit some mixture of the two strategies, even discounting complications such as being heterzygous where the parents are homozygous, and therefore will employ an unfavorable mixture. You can not have multiple non mixable complicated traits in a sexually reproducing population, without tricks like having each member have the complete code for all possible traits, and a varying gene that switches on one of them, which we observe in sexual dimorphism at not much otherwise. Eliezer has written of this.
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-03-09T05:54:35.933Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You can not have multiple non mixable complicated traits in a sexually reproducing population, without tricks like having each member have the complete code for all possible traits, and a varying gene that switches on one of them, which we observe in sexual dimorphism at not much otherwise.
But we do observe epigenetic traits - variations in gene expression based on environmental conditions, such as genes that act differently depending on how much exercise you get, or the level of testosterone in the fetal environment, or various other things.. D'Adamo's claim here is that his typing groups are a combination of gene inheritance and gene expression, and his notion of "strategies" isn't really the same as say, having a completely different way of digesting foods.
It's more like identifying which places to store fat in first -- something that (IIUC) we already know is heritable. The fact that fat gets stored isn't changed, just how much, where, and how quickly. Something like that can make a big difference on a practical level to a person's life, without being a particularly complex adaptation in itself.
↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-03-08T20:57:35.545Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The same guy who wrote the laughable "Eat Right For Your Blood Type".
I don't think that this evidence means what you think it means.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-03-08T21:41:08.425Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For those who have an interest in the possible benefits of a blood type diet the wikipedia page is, as is often the case, a good place to get the basics. Particularly by following up on the references cited.
I personally am not going to investigate further, the mainstream position seems to be solid:
Nevertheless, the consensus among dieticians, physicians, and scientists is that the theory is unsupported by scientific evidence.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
I'm going with that.
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-03-08T22:16:03.010Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Nevertheless, the consensus among dieticians, physicians, and scientists is that the theory is unsupported by scientific evidence.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
AFAICT, not one of those seven references involves a journal citation at all; they are all either "we don't think this is credible", or "we need more evidence". (The seventh is a (valid, IMO) critique of D'Adamo's epistemology.)
I notice, however, that your quotation from the Wikipedia page is from a less-informative part of the page, than say, this one:
D'Adamo's Blood Type Diet has met with criticisms for many different reasons,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] some of which have been addressed publicly by D'Adamo.[9]
And D'Adamo actually provides journal citations backing many of his responses. The strongest argument against him is, "not a lot of clinical evidence", which is quite a bit different than "shown false". (And a critique that could be equally levelled at Seth Roberts.)
Except for the (IMO valid) epistemological critique, the seven "against" references rely on either simple dismissal or attempts to refute points that D'Adamo actually has cites in his favor for.
IOW, you're not providing any new useful information here.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by JGWeissman · 2011-03-08T18:38:28.151Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Since there seems to be a persistant effect of people losing weight when they start a diet and then regaining it presumably because their digestive system learns that the food has calories and makes them crave it more, I wonder what would happen if someone changed diets everytime right after the initial weight loss from their previous diet. I have mostly only heard about this effect, so I am not sure what the timescale of each diet should be. Also, I wonder how much long term memory the digestive system has, presumably a suitably large rotation would work. (And have we historically, before advances in agriculture, been forced to do this somewhat by food going in and out of season?)
↑ comment by Alicorn · 2011-03-08T18:08:39.806Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This software sounds interesting. Can you provide more information on it? Can one use it alone at home or does it require fancier tests that one would involve doctors to handle?
Replies from: pjeby↑ comment by pjeby · 2011-03-08T19:39:24.370Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This software sounds interesting. Can you provide more information on it?
It's called SWAMI Xpress -- don't ask me what the letters stand for. (It's actually web-based; what you're buying is a passcode that's physically shipped to you.)
Edit to add: here's a sample diet report (PDF) from the software, in case you're wondering what its output looks like.
Can one use it alone at home or does it require fancier tests that one would involve doctors to handle?
ABO blood type and secreter status are the only tests that have to be sent off for lab work; the rest can be done entirely at home if you have someone to help with the measurements and observations. (For example, the PROP test is a blinded taste test, so it's easier if somebody else administers it; other tests require inspecting the shape of your teeth, measuring the angle of your jaw, etc., which are very difficult to do by yourself.)
My wife already knew her ABO/secretor results, but she bought the home genotyping kit to get the PROP test strips and fingerprinting kit. There's enough stuff in the kit to do at least two people -- it comes with a lot of taste strips, and a bunch of the stuff (like the jaw-measuring protractor) can be reused for as many people as you like.
The book has some shortcuts you can do for a quicker but lower-accuracy grouping, using a smaller set of measurements; the software is supposed to basically take more factors into account in food selection than what can be done with the six generic charts in the book.
(As I understand it, a person can have markers from more than one group, so a weighted scoring system is used to rate the markers.)
↑ comment by michaelkeenan · 2011-02-09T13:27:05.050Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you want to give advice, that's fine.
Hey, metabolically privileged guy here.
Being immune to whatever exercise you previously tried must have been very frustrating and demotivating. As far as I can tell from brief research, exercise immunity has been demonstrated for cardio exercise, but I haven't heard of people unable to gain strength. In my experience, even a modest gain in strength is gratifying, and this may propel you the rest of the way to ferocious manraptor.
You mentioned you've tried resistance machines, but machines have kind of a bad reputation among seriously strong people. Free weights are widely considered better. Trainer quality varies widely, so you might have come across a bad trainer if you were advised to use machines, and especially if you were advised to try high rep counts (like 12 or more) per set, and very especially if you were advised to focus on isolation exercises targeting one muscle at a time.
Maybe you have a hidden dark mighty side that has yet to surface. You may have read about how different human phenotypes have different proportions of slow-twitch and fast-twitch muscles, making different people suited to be endurance runners or sprinters, or just really strong people. I guess the populations of each are stable over time, since it's advantageous to specialize in whatever skill your tribe is in short supply of. Presumably there are many genetic differences in addition to the fast-twitch/slow-twitch one that's fairly well-known. Your body might be suited to something in particular - maybe not an activity that's recommended to the average person. If strength isn't it, maybe it's something unusual. Jousting? Wrestling? Ballet? Yoga? Crossfit? Fencing?
(Or, of course, you could be a mutant, or affected by some virus, or just in possession of an unlucky genetic combination that leaves you not particularly suited for anything physical.)
You might want to talk to Patri Friedman about this in person - he is good on the topic of exercise and strength.
↑ comment by John_Maxwell (John_Maxwell_IV) · 2011-02-09T08:56:22.369Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you don't mind my asking, why do you feel such a strong compulsion to lose weight? It feels to me like you're certainly justified in giving up at this point.
If thinking about your weight brings feelings of low status, this seems like a problem worth fixing. It's certainly much harder for me to think well when I'm feeling low status. But there are other methods for fixing low-status feelings, like having people social proof you, taking drugs, taking acting classes, meditating, giving yourself therapy, etc. (I'd be happy to elaborate on how any of these worked for me.)
Replies from: Eliezer_Yudkowsky, sfb↑ comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Eliezer_Yudkowsky) · 2011-02-09T15:16:55.980Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have given up, and it was indeed a great improvement in quality of life when I stopped trying to manage my weight - gave up and ate whatever, stopped going to the gym - and observed that my weight behaved in exactly the same way as before, the same slow upward creep at the same rate.
I don't know to what degree being overweight would be less painful if there wasn't a social stigma attached to it, but we don't actually live in that world.
Replies from: komponisto, TheOtherDave, John_Maxwell_IV↑ comment by komponisto · 2011-02-09T16:28:07.389Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Some questions from someone who is genuinely curious and has almost zero domain knowledge (I've never commented on this topic before, I don't think):
It seems to me that any social stigma would be based not on being overweight per se, but rather on the visual appearance of being overweight, i.e. being "fat". However, I don't find that your visual appearance is outside the normal variation that I expect to see among people in the contemporary United States. (In fact, I never would have guessed that you had an interest in this topic if you hadn't discussed it here.) So I'm quite curious about what evidence you've seen that you're suffering a social stigma.
Turning back from the social to the medical: given that you seem to naturally tend toward a certain "high" weight (I presume it doesn't actually increase without bound!) to what extent have you considered the possibility that the medical establishment's definition of "overweight" is wrong, or doesn't apply to you?
Do you think you would be experiencing the same phenomenon if you were living in the ancestral environment? Why or why not?
Have you tried eating less (e.g. only one meal per day)? If so, what was the result? If not, what do you predict would happen to your weight?
↑ comment by Cyan · 2011-02-09T20:34:54.942Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
EY describes what happens when he eats less here:
...a skipped meal you wouldn't notice would have me dizzy when I stand up...I can starve or think, not both at the same time.
Best wishes, the Unofficial Guide to Less Wrong (take that, Zack M. Davis!).
Replies from: komponisto↑ comment by komponisto · 2011-02-09T21:20:23.062Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, but I was asking specifically about the effect on weight.
(And notice that this also reinforces the relevance of my question #2 above.)
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2011-02-09T15:26:17.693Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm curious: leaving aside weight and social stigma, have you found that the different levels of diet and exercise you've experimented with had any positive or negative effects? (E.g., mood, energy levels, endurance, etc.?)
Replies from: Eliezer_Yudkowsky↑ comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Eliezer_Yudkowsky) · 2011-02-09T15:29:10.337Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I can walk farther after getting in a couple of weeks of regular walking.
That's it.
Basically, "no effect that I can detect with the naked eye".
↑ comment by John_Maxwell (John_Maxwell_IV) · 2011-02-09T20:46:02.896Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know to what degree being overweight would be less painful if there wasn't a social stigma attached to it, but we don't actually live in that world.
It's true. But there are ways of dealing with social stigma's psychological effects that aren't removing the source of the stigma or changing society.
Replies from: NancyLebovitz↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-10T03:56:11.784Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
But there are ways of dealing with social stigma's psychological effects that aren't removing the source of the stigma or changing society.
Could you expand on that?
Replies from: John_Maxwell_IV↑ comment by John_Maxwell (John_Maxwell_IV) · 2011-02-11T04:36:27.164Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As I mentioned above, having people social proof you, taking drugs, taking acting classes, meditating, and giving yourself therapy are all techniques worth experimenting with.
I could probably write a post about how I give myself therapy, but it might be difficult because essentially my self-therapy methods amount to phrases that get triggered in certain situations that remind me that feeling unhappy is not the rational thing to feel. (Example phrases: "I can deal with this level of emotional discomfort." "I give you my permission not to think about that." "As an exercise, try to feel [insert emotion here]." "Work with what you have." "Take a risk." "If I could choose to do X, I likely would.") It might be hard for me to extract all of my heuristics, because they get ingrained over time. (E.g. I find myself using "work with what you have" less because as a result of using it, I've made progress in ingraining the principle of not feeling demoralized by setbacks.)
Come to think of it, this approach (mostly implemented subconsciously) has been so effective that I'm thinking it might be a good idea to consciously invent phrases to correct other undesirable mental patterns. For example, I've noticed that if I hold some radical opinion, my radical opinion tends to get weaker over time--when left unmonitored, my opinions tend to drift towards socially accepted opinions. But maybe if I said "No opinion drift" to myself whenever I noticed that happening, then I'd be reminded that I should only change my opinions based on evidence and arguments and not intuitions that might be corrupted by what's socially accepted.
Oh yeah, one disadvantage of this self-therapy stuff seems to be a decreased ability to feel strong positive emotions. Basically to a certain extent, I've trained myself to stop feeling more or less any strong emotion whenever I start to feel it. So it's up to you to decide whether you want to be more of a robot or not.
Replies from: Blueberry↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-11T10:25:15.434Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Please write a post on this, if it's at all possible to discuss how you implant these phrases and how they help. I think it would really help me as well as others.
Replies from: John_Maxwell_IV, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by John_Maxwell (John_Maxwell_IV) · 2011-02-13T01:08:52.740Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This isn't how I implanted them, but you could try using a spaced repetition system such as Anki:
Whenever you saw a card corresponding to a phrase, you could challenge yourself to come up with a situation in your recent past which you could have used the phrase.
Alternatively, you could describe to me what stigma you tend to experience and I could tell you which phrases to use and how they apply to your situation. If you give me your email address, I can trivially send your future self a few reminders on what you should be keeping in mind (I use http://www.boomeranggmail.com/ for sending delayed emails). And, I'm extending this offer to anyone, not just Blueberry. If people are too embarrassed to discuss the stigma they are harmed by under their Less Wrong usernames, they can create shill usernames or email me with a shill email address at dreamalgebra on google's email service.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-11T15:21:03.672Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Also, I wonder if the system can be tweaked so that it doesn't undercut strong positive emotions which are in the harmless-to-useful range.
↑ comment by sfb · 2011-02-11T04:50:22.457Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you don't mind my asking, why do you feel such a strong compulsion to lose weight?
And why do so many of us have such interest in pushing it?
http://subtractthefat.com/ is written by a guy (this guy) trying to make a simpler and more reliable version of http://www.physicsdiet.com which is based (IIRC) on the founder of Autodesk's Hacker's Diet method of tracking weight - daily weigh-ins displayed on a weighted average graph to give a long-term view after smoothing out daily fluctuations, and then over time estimates for calories per day too high or low.
Might be interesting to do that ( without any hope or expectation of any particular outcome ), on the idea of measure what you want to improve and to keep an accurate long term record.
↑ comment by Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) (Swimmer963) · 2011-03-08T16:29:53.813Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Do you want to lose weight or do you want to be fit? I've been frustrated in the past by the fact that my body doesn't look like the North American female ideal, but I think of the number of hours I put into exercise compared to some of my skinny but sedentary peers, and I'm sure that's going to make a difference in future health. I think it's generally accepted that exercise improves health INDEPENDENT of weight. (I should try to cite this but I have a midterm in an hour... If you want, I can do more in-depth research when I have time.)
BTW, exercise didn't lead me to lose any weight whatsoever, even when combined with an attempt at the paleo diet (albeit not one that spent lots of money, or involved a personal trainer).
I think that's true for most people. Exercise seems to be better for maintaining a given weight than for losing weight.
↑ comment by bogdanb · 2011-02-13T10:45:31.416Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I was wondering (just because I can’t remember you mentioning it):
Did you try a few different sports rather than just “abstract exercising”? I tend to hate exercise in general, but I find that I like some things that do incidentally force me to do a lot of it. For example, I very much like volleyball, wall climbing, trekking (over mountains, i.e. abrupt terrain, not horizontally), skiing, and all martial arts I tried, although I hate soccer (too much running) or basketball (running, also I suck at throwing balls through hoops) or even swimming (I hate water in my eyes). I even like chopping wood :-)
When I do sports I like (I do them less than I’d like to because of time, money and difficulty of synchronizing with friends to do it with) it is very effective as exercise, in the sense that I do them until I get positively exhausted, but I don’t hate what I’m doing after sixty seconds as it happens with “just exercise”.
You might want to try some. I’m not saying it will necessarily cause you to loose weight (I’m lucky enough to stay around the weight I like without much effort), but if you find one you like (enough to keep at it) it will make you fitter, and it does have nice effects on personal image (both yours and others’ towards you).
The important thing is to try many things to find out what you like; there may be great difference in how you like even similar things (e.g., I hate snowboarding with passion, although I’d like to like it, but I love skiing). You might want to try them with friends (even doing sports I like, I get bored if I’m alone). Also, don’t try to be good at the sport. I’m far from being very good at any of the things I mentioned I like; I’m much better than someone who never did them before, but I got that way just having fun, not specifically by training.
Replies from: bogdanb↑ comment by bogdanb · 2011-02-13T10:58:25.453Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
By the way, I remembered something relevant to LessWrong, I’ll put it here even though not precisely on topic:
There is a very widespread bias in the skying world for long skis: evidence is overwhelming that for recreational skiing shorter skis are much better, but it seems almost everyone ignores it for what appear to be status reasons.
Anecdote: Having seen short skis on slopes, I once asked the guy at the rental shop about them. He dismissed them with “Oh, those are just for fun”—although it was quite obvious that I wasn’t there training for the Winter Olympics.
It so happens that short skis are much more fun than “normal” ones for normal people, but for some reason almost all the advice given is only appropriate for expert use—even when you explicitly say you never skied before and you’re in it just for fun. And I really mean the “much” in that first sentence: it’s the difference between falling constantly for a week and starting to ski from the first minute.
(Larger skis are better for going faster or skiing outside slopes, but that just doesn’t apply to most people.)
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-13T13:09:24.503Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Wow. I didn't know that one. Thanks.
Anecdote: Having seen short skis on slopes, I once asked the guy at the rental shop about them. He dismissed them with “Oh, those are just for fun”
That is scary. Just for fun? At a rental shop? Because professionals don't own their own skis...
Replies from: bogdanb↑ comment by bogdanb · 2011-02-15T14:58:53.849Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yeah, scary. And scariest is that he said it with a dismissive tone of authority and my brain just accepted it. It took me a couple minutes to notice it and convince myself the “expert” was completely ridiculous (I was almost a complete beginner skier at the time).
By the way, it’s not like short skis are new: I checked afterwards and found that their ease of use has been known for decades. It seems trainers insist on long skis just because they can give more lessons, rental shop guys can charge more for the bigger “better” skis, and I suspect most everyone else doesn’t even try them because they’re think they look like child skis or something.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-15T15:17:32.554Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yeah, scary. And scariest is that he said it with a dismissive tone of authority and my brain just accepted it. It took me a couple minutes to notice it and convince myself the “expert” was completely ridiculous
Up until this part I thought you were replying to an entirely different comment. Since I was just browsing my inbox I resolved 'scary' to the most recent thing I have declared scary here. :P
and I suspect most everyone else doesn’t even try them because they’re think they look like child skis or something.
And they are, well, smaller. Who doesn't want the biggest tool you can get?
I'm not sure if it's just me, but while I love skiing ever since I was a kid my instincts have screamed at me: "No! Don't attach great big levers to each of your feet then convert your gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. Physics doesn't approve and your knees aren't designed for torsion!" Shorts skiis seem like they should be slightly less dangerous.
Replies from: bogdanb↑ comment by bogdanb · 2011-02-16T18:03:51.052Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
They seem much less dangerous (besides easier to use), but then again I became a better skier in the mean-time so it’s hard to judge.
It’s not just that shorter lever means lower force on the knees. Being shorter (and lighter) they’re also much easier to maneuver around terrain irregularities, and they don’t pick up speed that fast (I think their lower surface area makes you sink a bit more in the snow).
Off-topic: I’m not sure from your wording: do you have something that notifies you of replies to your comments?
Replies from: Barry_Cotter↑ comment by Barry_Cotter · 2011-02-16T18:30:19.655Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Off-topic: I’m not sure from your wording: do you have something that notifies you of replies to your comments?
The envelope under your username turns red if you have a reply or pm
Replies from: bogdanb↑ comment by Vladimir_M · 2011-03-08T21:16:05.720Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's clear that Shangri-La worked initially but then, contrary to all theory, it just mysteriously stopped working.
Frankly, I'm surprised that this "Shangri-La" approach is taken seriously by you and other people here on LW. I do believe that it has worked for many people, but this looks exactly like the sort of problem where placebo should be very effective on average. On the other hand, Roberts's theories about it don't even sound like a good just-so story.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-03-08T15:56:19.558Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you're still interested in weight loss (or any kind of fitness) I have two recommendations.
One: track everything you eat on fitday.
It has calorie contents for most foods. (The calorie expenditure estimates for exercise are shady and I wouldn't trust them.) The data is useful, regardless of what you decide to do with it. I did fitday for a year and I'm not doing it now, because it's a bit of a hassle, but now I'm calibrated with a sense of how calories feel. (An 1100-calorie day means misery and fatigue; a 1300-calorie day is ok, but sooner or later I'll want to eat more; 1600 feels normal, 2000 is especially tasty, 2500 is a giant feast day. Before I paid attention to my diet, every day was a giant feast day, and that was the problem.)
Two: start a log on T-Nation.
This site is a roiling mass of chaos, I should warn you. It is full of idiots. It is full of porn-addicted bros. It is a time-sucking Charybdis. But it is also full of people who are very, very into fitness, and in very, very good shape. Many of them are professional trainers who share a fair amount of usually proprietary advice for free. If you are specific enough about what you are doing, they will tell you what you are doing wrong.
I learned a lot there. Not least, I learned that what looked like minimal progress to me was actually good progress, and evidence that I should keep it up. A public fitness log, with significant click traffic, is really excellent motivation -- intermittent feedback really does work. And it's even better when much of that feedback is knowledgeable advice. And when you have a pseudo-peer group of people who are much better than you, and give you a sense that more is possible.
Like all forums, this one has its own etiquette -- basically, post in the beginner's section if you're a beginner, give as much concrete data about yourself as possible if you're asking for advice (diet, exercise program, weight, strength, age, goals), and always RTFM. If you ever get interested in doing this, I'd love it if you'd PM me your username.
The general issue here is that you're working with some constraints -- the structure of your day-to-day life, and your physiology/metabolism. You would need to figure out what part of your current situation is preventing fat loss, and if that factor can be changed. Gathering way more data and getting regular input from knowledgeable people will make that process faster. Worst case scenario, you find out exactly why you can't lose weight, find out that it's not something you can change or want to change, and rest easy.
↑ comment by XiXiDu · 2011-03-08T10:24:18.783Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
BTW, exercise didn't lead me to lose any weight whatsoever...
For how long have you tried? It took me about 3 years and I still have to do sports 3 times a week to keep my current weight.
Compare:
And I did not become overweight again, I just gained a lot of muscle mass since 2008. There are more photos here, see for example that I still had a fat face in 2004.
Since end of 2009 I try to do the same with my education but only now I'm manging to gather momentum. It took me all of 2010 and the last two months to prepare myself.
Replies from: wedrifid, timtyler↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-03-08T10:31:26.337Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Maybe you just gave up too quickly?
Careful with the 'helpful' suggestions. I think Eliezer has put enough effort into this that he will not respond well to this sort of assumption.
For many the benefits of exercise will not be in weight loss but rather the effects on health and mental performance.
Replies from: XiXiDu↑ comment by timtyler · 2011-03-08T10:30:19.629Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
XiXiDu_2003 XiXiDu_2008
You attribute that to exercise?
Those effects look a lot like the ones produced by energy restriction to me.
Replies from: XiXiDu↑ comment by XiXiDu · 2011-03-08T11:40:36.804Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Those effects look a lot like the ones produced by energy restriction to me.
I didn't think that I was eating much less these days. Maybe because I stopped drinking alcohol back then? Starting to think about weight and doing exercise probably caused me to change my diet without noticing it. I'm still eating ice cream almost every evening and drink half a liter milk-cacao. Today I'm going to eat two soy cutlets with two eggs sunny side up, onions and fries with mayonnaise. In the morning I eat a pan full of oatmeal with milk and a handful of dried dates. In the evening it is often a pizza or bread with cheese and grapes.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T23:49:30.061Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My comment was more about what is causing you to get that exhausted from exercise, with the specific suggestion being to look into moving more efficiently and finding out if muscle tension is limiting your breathing.
Even if you are moving inefficiently, the most you might get from studying efficiency is more ability to enjoy movement. This might or might not be worth the trouble.
However, I think I'm the only commenter who said you might be up against an unusual problem.
↑ comment by khafra · 2011-02-08T22:51:06.444Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Given that Eliezer has expressed this concern a few times already, I'd like to see someone better known than me and/or more involved with SIAI start a wepay fund to get him a personal trainer. I would contribute the first $300 to such a fund, and consider it existential risk reduction, given the cognitive and longevity benefits of physical fitness.
Replies from: ewang↑ comment by ewang · 2011-02-09T05:57:03.855Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think that the guilt and loss of self esteem that that would cause might outweigh the benefits, causing an existential risk increase.
Replies from: khafra↑ comment by khafra · 2011-02-09T13:38:00.381Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'll admit I'm no pjeby, my other-optimizing skills are no better than average. But LW seems to be willing to offer fitness advice, and that's a huge bikeshedding problem. I'd feel much more comfortable and productive paying a professional to give fitness advice.
Replies from: Desrtopa↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-10T05:20:26.083Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If it's worth anything to you, I'm studying for ACE certification in my off time. I have all the study materials, and anything I can't answer off the top of my head I can look up in the same reference books a certified professional would have.
Edit: only saw the local context, and interpreted it as a personal request for advice. I wouldn't presume to tackle Eliezer's issues from this side of the internet. Nothing Fucking Works cases are rarely truly intractable, but I wouldn't want to deal with one with armchair diagnostics.
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T21:13:39.772Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Also, if you can't afford that you should really talk with me. It's obviously a high priority.
Basic bodily maintenance - fitness, good eating and so on - is sadly neglected by quite a lot of people who live by their thinking power. But hardware maintenance is important.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-08T15:49:10.463Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My impression is that getting so tired from moderate exercise is way outside the normal range. I have no idea if it might indicate a medical problem, or is just individual variation.It may just be that the cultural belief that exercise is good for everyone is false.
An alternate possibility is that you move very inefficiently. I was shocked to find out how much muscle tension was restricting my breathing, and how much difference it made to loosen up even somewhat. The best book I've seen for exploring that is The 10-Minute Rejuvenation Plan: T5T: The Revolutionary Exercise Program That Restores Your Body and Mind.
There's a certain amount of woo woo in it, but there's also clear explanations of how to get more flexibility and relaxation so that you can get more air, and there's a warm-up which improved my body awareness to the point that I could realize that a move which was difficult for me was because my shoulders and chest were too tight, rather than because I was an inferior person or because the universe was out to get me. I'd also hypothesized that muscle tension might be the problem, but there's a huge difference between a hypothesis and actually feeling what was going on when I did the move.
On the other hand, the way tenseness interacts with exercise for me is that exercise tends to feel really bad to me (less so as I become less tense), and then I stop, so t don't know whether I'd end up with that much exhaustion if I pushed.
↑ comment by PhilGoetz · 2011-02-09T00:11:53.352Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Are you exercising to lose weight, gain strength or muscle, or increase endurance? Those three things are very different. Exercising for endurance works for everyone, AFAIK; and exercising to build muscle works for everyone up to some plateau (which is barely perceptible for women, and some men).
But exercise is not always an effective way of losing weight, because your body may make you as hungry as it needs to, to get you to make up the weight you lost during exercise. Losing weight requires being hungry, and it's not clear that exercising gives an advantage.
For people who have that problem, exercise geared towards building muscle may be a more effective way of losing weight. You'll get even hungrier than with endurance exercise, and eat more, but your body will probably save less of those calories as fat.
For me, if I do something really interesting all day long, I may forget to eat. But then I'm likely to binge just before bed, which negates the gain.
I haven't found low-fat food very useful; my impression is that I eat more of it. Artificial sweeteners make me able to resist drinking soda and juice, but some experiments have shown artificial sweeteners increase weight gain in rodents and people; reasons are not known.
The real fat-builders are soda and juice. Both pack a huge, swift bolus of calories. Many people think juice is "healthy" because it's natural, but it has hella calories. And all sorts of "diet food" and "exercise drinks", like Gatorade and Slim-Fast, are basically flavored sugar and will make you fat.
Some people think fat calories make them fatter than sugar or carb calories. I doubt it. If anything, I'd guess sugar builds more fat per calorie, because fat needs to go through a lot of catabolic and then anabolic processing before being stored as fat. (Your body doesn't just suck up fat globules from the lymph and deposit them into cells.) Somebody with a biology degree should know the answer.
You could experiment with when you eat, what you eat, what temperature you keep the thermostat, and other metabolism-related variables. I know one man who gets a great deal of exercise but keeps gaining weight. Perhaps not coincidentally, he keeps the temperature in his room around 80 F.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-10T11:41:20.701Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For what it's worth, I bounced your situation off my therapist who's also an RN and a serious martial artist. He says you're up against something weird and he doesn't know what it might be.
And off one of my friends who is a lay person but has a lot of medical knowledge. Very tentatively, you might be up against thyroid or adrenal issues.
Theory which is at least cheap and safe to check: you might not be eating enough salt. This can cause low energy. And if this is the case, you might need more salt than most people-- one of my friends is semi-metabolically privileged (does trail running for the fun of it, is fairly fat anyway), and if he doesn't eat a good bit of salt, he falls over.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-10T14:04:46.310Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
And off one of my friends who is a lay person but has a lot of medical knowledge. Very tentatively, you might be up against thyroid or adrenal issues.
This isn't implausible. It also prompts another safe and relatively inexpensive check - get comprehensive blood testing. This is something that most people should do and definitely anyone with any niggling health issues. It is amazing what some people discover, especially when it is issues that are easily resolved!
Replies from: Eliezer_Yudkowsky, NancyLebovitz↑ comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Eliezer_Yudkowsky) · 2011-02-10T16:28:29.183Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Pretty sure I've had some type of allegedly-comprehensive-but-cheap blood scan done, which didn't turn up anything interesting. Is there somewhere I go for a more comprehensive blood scan?
Replies from: wedrifid, Davorak↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-10T17:00:17.263Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Ouch, you've really explored your options! I must admit I've only really looked at places to get blood tests in Melbourne.
It sounds like you didn't keep a copy of the scan results. If I you did have the results handy it would have been worth getting the guys at imminst.org to look at it. In the collective they seem to be an effective resource when it comes to identifying atypical yet not life threatening health issues.
What interests me in your case is whether you get the other benefits of exercise, particularly the neurological ones. Not losing weight from exercise is one thing but I wonder whether you still get the boost to neurogenesis and the increased resilience to stress that exercise provides.
↑ comment by Davorak · 2011-02-11T07:05:27.312Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
An idea would be finding your old scan and getting your blood checked again every 6 months to a year. That way you can see if anything is slowly changing.
From personal experience I know it can take several years of patient vigilance to solve some medical problems.
↑ comment by NancyLebovitz · 2011-02-11T00:25:39.796Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've read enough accounts from people with thyroid problems to gather that the usual tests don't catch all of them-- I don't remember a lot of details (will check what I've got if anyone wants), but apparently the standard test is for a surrogate measurement which might or might not be relevant. And there's argument about what the normal range for thyroid hormones are. However, if you're lucky, Synthroid is effective, safe, and cheap.
More generally, another more comprehensive blood test isn't a bad idea, but going in with more specific ideas about what you want to find out seems sensible.
Basically, this stuff is complicated enough that 5 minutes thought (and rather more time than that spent on research) is called for.
It gets better. I've got quantities of anecdata, but most of it is from women. I hope the situation is better for men, but I'm not counting on it being much better.
A lot of people have to go through several doctors before they find one who listens and thinks. My impression is that about 20% are competent for non-obvious problems.
Being fat and having a problem which affects your energy level are major risk factors for not being heard.
If you decide to go the medical route, there are websites where people rate their doctors.
Replies from: wedrifid↑ comment by wedrifid · 2011-02-11T02:02:11.524Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It gets better. I've got quantities of anecdata, but most of it is from women. I hope the situation is better for men, but I'm not counting on it being much better.
My anecdata is skewed towards males and confirms what you are saying. 20% seems about right.
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-02-08T18:33:00.792Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you're not in particularly good shape to start with, any pace you can sustain in cardiovascular exercise for a full hour may not be very effective as exercise. You might get better results by starting with shorter time periods, closer to 25-35 minutes, at sufficient intensity to induce fatigue.
↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-02-08T21:08:13.305Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Exercising for 45 minutes three times a week - enough to raise your heart rate - is the standard quantity to stay in reasonable general cardiovascular health - whatever your weight or fat level, whatever your walking speed (to some extent). If just walking exhausts you, have you sought medical advice?
Try 45 minutes of walking instead of two hours.
DDR can be done with glasses on, if they won't fly across the room ;-) I'm afraid "I can't do DDR without Lasik first" comes across as a mere excuse.
Yeah, that kind of advice is not going to fill any procedural knowledge gaps, sorry.
It is possible you may be generalising from one example here. nazgulnarsil's post struck me as actually a pretty good start: it doesn't matter tremendously much what you do as long as you do stuff.
↑ comment by schemingreader · 2011-02-08T20:00:44.438Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't think it's easy to give universally-applicable exercise advice. If it were, there wouldn't be such a huge market for exercise advice! There seem to be changes in how exercise physiologists think about certain exercises every few years. Separate abdominal strengthening exercises, for example, seem to be out of vogue with some trainers. So one piece of procedural knowledge is, you have to read about exercise, it's not trivially obvious how to do it.
If I were going to try to give someone a universal piece of advice about how to get started, I wouldn't say, "don't bother with other things, try pull-ups and tricep dips," because only a small percentage of new exercisers can even do those exercises. I'd probably say, "try taking a walk." (But even that isn't universally helpful, since lots of people have problems with their knees and ankles or hips or back and may need to start with something even lower impact, like swimming or yoga.) So a second piece of procedural knowledge is, everyone's body is different, so the exercise you pick should reflect what you like and need.
Addressing the problem you pose here: Since walking is a low-impact cardiovascular exercise, why not try it for an hour every day instead of two hours every other day? That will help build endurance and make it less taxing. Or you could start with less and increase a little every day. There's a third piece of procedural knowledge about exercise: you can increase your capacity if you add on slowly and sneak up on your body, even if your body is being recalcitrant.
I'm not sure what you mean by "immune to exercise." Are you not experiencing endorphins from your walk? Is your heart rate staying below the target rate? Some good procedures are to walk with a friend and make sure you aren't going too slow or too fast or bring music if you're going to walk on a treadmill by yourself.
And if you think you'd enjoy Dance Dance Revolution, I'd say do it in your glasses--you can always wipe your face with a towel when you get sweaty. That's what I do in the gym. I recognize that no one REALLY needs equipment to be fit, but--if you want to do that, why not? Isn't fun one of the goals of exercise?
I don't see a widely informed consensus about how to exercise and I don't think it's in the same category as some of the other questions on this thread. It's not an ordinary skill--there's a lot of mystique around it.
↑ comment by nazgulnarsil · 2011-02-08T19:07:07.362Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
if you are capable of going for an hour you are doing it wrong. sets of sprinting once a week has better results than jogging an hour a day for many people. same thing with resistance. if you can do more than 10 you are going way too light.
this is why i suggest running up a hill. rather than traditional biking or treadmill aerobics.
↑ comment by Nick Hay (nickjhay) · 2011-02-08T07:38:10.518Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If the goal in exercise is to lose weight, have you tried replacing carbohydrates with fat in your diet? Forcing yourself to exercise will serve to work up an appetite and make you hungry, but not to lose weight. There is a correlation between exercising and being thin, but the causality is generally perceived the wrong way around. There is also a correlation between exercising and (temporarily) losing weight, but that is confounded by diet changes which typically involving reducing carbohydrate intake.
I've heard you mention Gary Taube's work, but not that you've read it. If you haven't read his book he has a new shorter on which is well worth reading, linked here: http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/ The appendix has specific diet recommendations. Also good are these notes: http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-calories-bad-calories/
Replies from: AndrewH↑ comment by folkTheory · 2011-02-08T23:43:48.878Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Check out the book called "The 4-Hour Body" by Tim Ferris
Replies from: Liron↑ comment by Liron · 2011-02-16T02:15:23.947Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yeah, I listened to the patronizingly-abridged 4-hour audiobook and it's good.
I got two main things out of it:
I should try to be like Tim Ferriss and get disproportionate results for small time investments.
Hitting a muscle group with just one set of 10 slow reps (5 seconds up, 5 seconds down) is great! It's over really fast.
↑ comment by Unnamed · 2011-02-08T17:43:02.477Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There is online personal training via Skype. That's a cheaper version of a fitness trainer which you can do from home over video, using little or no exercise equipment. That site charges $45/session for one-on-one training, where you work with a trainer who develops workout routines for you, teaches you exercises, corrects your form, and so forth (like in-person training). They also have small group sessions, and you can try one of those for free. They also have a nutritionist.
I should mention that I know about that site because I know one of the trainers, which means that I have a fair amount of information about the site but it's pretty one-sided. So I know they have good trainers but I don't know what it's actually like to get training online from them or whether there are other sites that do the same thing. I won't say any more here, since I already sound too much like an advertisement for my taste, but if anyone is considering trying it out and has questions, you can ask me via pm (or comment, if you think there will be general interest).
↑ comment by jimrandomh · 2011-02-08T13:41:50.970Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Previously I've tried "exercise" with fitness machines, aerobic and resistance both, an hour apiece on both, and it doesn't seem to do anything at all
This suggests a different procedural knowledge gap: how do you tell when exercise is having an effect? Stepping on a scale doesn't give much information, since in the ideal case you're losing fat but replacing it with muscle. Counting weight and reps requires a reproducible routine, which I don't have, and only works for strength training anyways. I tried measuring endurance as "minutes on a treadmill at 6mph", but while there was a detectable upward trend it was nearly drowned out by day-to-day variance.
Replies from: Piglet↑ comment by Piglet · 2011-02-08T19:00:44.762Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A good quick-and-dirty test uses the humble push-up. Periodically (every two or three days) just do as many push-ups as you can -- this will likely involve moderate discomfort on the last few -- and track the number you do over time. While there is some day to day variance, I think this is a pretty good rough proxy for general fitness and a few weeks of data would give you decent tracking of the trend, unless you are already in such good shape that marginal improvements are hard to discern.
Replies from: Nornagest↑ comment by Nornagest · 2011-02-08T20:24:25.277Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Maxing out on push-ups every couple of days is good fitness advice, but using them as a proxy for general fitness is problematic: it's very easy to exchange form for higher repetitions when doing push-ups, especially if you're not working with a trainer or gym buddy. There's a built-in incentive to do this if you're using them to measure your fitness, and it's easy to do it unconsciously. Falling into this trap gives you a false indication of progress, and also limits the quality of the exercise: you need a full range of motion to engage all the muscle groups involved.
The only way to keep yourself from doing so is to consciously prioritize form: your back should be straight, your body should just brush the floor at the bottom of its motion (chest and groin more or less simultaneously), and you should straighten your arms as far as they'll go without locking your elbows at the top. End the set once you can no longer do this.
↑ comment by lukeprog · 2011-02-08T13:27:52.235Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Bodyrock.tv is the most motivating workout I know of.
↑ comment by Blueberry · 2011-02-08T07:52:07.708Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Previously I've tried "exercise" with fitness machines, aerobic and resistance both, an hour apiece on both, and it doesn't seem to do anything at all.
It was only recently that I actually found a type of exercise that does something: doing squats, bench presses, and deadlifts with barbells. By using a lot of weight, you only need to do around 5 sets of 5, and because you're using free weights, a few exercises work your entire body, unlike a weight machine. By increasing the weight each time you work out and doing a small number of high-weight exercises, you can build muscle quickly. It's the only exercise routine I've ever found that I've been able to stick to.
This site gives one example of such a weight lifting program: there are others out there as well.
Replies from: zaogao, Jonathan_Graehl↑ comment by zaogao · 2011-02-08T18:25:41.878Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There is a difference between a specific exercise program not working for you and exercise working for you. About 90% of the people I see at the gym are not working effectively towards their goals.
Losing Weight: First, burning calories is not the same as burning fat. People may burn a lot of calories jogging for an homakes, but because their metabolic rate is high they are burning mostly carbohydrates. This steady state cardio results in depleted glycogen, so your body will just want more food to stock up. Additionally, steady state cardio makes your metabolism work more efficiently, which is the opposite of what you want when you are trying to lose weight. Additionally, this type of cardio breaks down muscle, which makes it even harder to lose weight. (If you don't really have a muscular base it is more acceptable.)
Alternative: Morning fasted cardio. Wake up, pop a caffeine pill or drink some black coffee (rev up metabolism and increase utilization of fatty acids) and BEFORE EATING just walk 30-60 minutes on an incline treadmill (or around the neighborhood) With a book on tape this is easy and enjoyable. Because you have enough oxygen your body can actually burn fat. And it will not break down muscle tissue like jogging will. (If you are less averse to exercise look into HIIT, but walking every morning is easier so you are more likely to actually do it.)
Diet: I second those hating on carbohydrates. Your body likes carbs. It likes to use them for energy. Don't let it. Make it use fat. Every time I have made great progress, it is because I made a concrete goal with a concrete time frame. Set a goal to lose x lbs by y date. Not 30 lbs in one year. Try 8 lbs in a month. Commit for that month to some sort of diet, I recommend a ketogenic (almost no carb) diet. By having that time frame it becomes a lot easier not to cheat, and you know exactly what type of progress you should be making.
Replies from: zaogao↑ comment by zaogao · 2011-02-08T18:46:56.101Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Gaining weight: for all the string beans out there, there is one secret to gaining weight. Ready for it? Eat. Eat a lot. Eat all the time. I hindered my progress for years by not eating enough, and made my best progress when I was drinking a half gallon of whole milk a day. Also, if I didn't make this clear, you have to eat.
Lifting: Heavy compound movements should be the cornerstone of any hypertrophy program. Squats, deadlifts, bench press, overhead press, pullups, rows. (Google "squat exrx" to see demonstration and description of exercise.) While I agree with nazgulnarsil that you can obtain a good level of fitness with bodyweight exercises, a lot of movements are difficult to load with your bodyweight, additionally, your bw may be too light or heavy for a movement. Moving iron, barbells and dumbbells, should by your base. Cable machines are acceptable. Machines that force motion along a track are least acceptable. Most people do not go heavy enough when lifting. You should be grimacing through all of your work sets. In general, don't go above 12 reps, but don't be afraid to occasionally do singles or triples. (work sets should generally be 4-10 reps.) The 5x5 method mentioned earlier is a fine program, but keep track of what works for you and adjust accordingly. Just use some program and STICK TO IT.
Make sure you consume enough protein, which will be much more than needed for sedentary individuals. You can shoot for 1g of protein per lb of body weight. Now, I mentioned eating a lot earlier. If you are naturally very thin, that is very important. If you are less so, slowly ramp up your calories, and if you start seeing a little pudge growing just scale them back slightly. But if you are gaining no weight, fat or muscle, not eating enough is probably the culprit.
Replies from: zaogao↑ comment by zaogao · 2011-02-08T18:51:07.559Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Trainers: Personal training certifications are bullshit, and a lot of trainers are just bad. Luckily, you can look at a trainer and tell how good they are at training themselves. Shoot for someone who has competed in body building or figure competition or powerlifting, depending on your goals, or someone who is obviously in shape. If you see a trainer having their client standing on one foot on a bosu ball swinging a kettlebell, run the other way.
This was very rambling, but exercise is about the one subject I feel qualified to speak on, and the one subject I see so much confusion about. Feel free to message me any questions.
↑ comment by Jonathan_Graehl · 2011-02-09T03:19:38.710Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
5 sets of 5 was eventually too hard for me (when/because I reached a plateau). Also, I'm significantly stronger than my long-ago-injured lower back can tolerate (for deadlifts and squats). These days I don't look to get continually stronger and instead just play fun sports and fill in gaps w/ 1 or 2 weekly gym visits.
↑ comment by Risto_Saarelma · 2011-02-09T11:38:08.579Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Some routines like SimpleFit or the CrossFit Cindy exercise seem to get along with just pullups, pushups and squats.
comment by [deleted] · 2015-03-09T15:42:40.001Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Awesome post. Once I stop being the useless jerk jock LW perceives me as I shall compile the information here simply as an exercise that computes good in birdbrain yet I have no idea how useful the result will be (zero because sadly nobody's going to read it :( brb suicide)
comment by Nornagest · 2011-02-14T03:32:58.893Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This might have a less procedural answer than a lot of the questions here, but how would one bridge the gap between agent-mediated travel, with a schedule drawn up for you ahead of time by someone that presumably knows what they're doing, and just hopping on a plane and hoping for the best?
This is more of an issue for long trips to unfamiliar places; selecting a hotel for a few days' stay isn't hard, and renting a car isn't much harder, but creating an itinerary beyond that is a skill I haven't acquired. Particularly if I'm going somewhere where the local language isn't one I speak well.
comment by Clippy · 2011-02-07T21:43:02.317Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How do you transfer electronic money from one account to another?
Replies from: Kevin, MartinB, byrnema↑ comment by Kevin · 2011-02-08T12:25:12.475Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Failing a direct electronic transfer, a lot of banks have "online bill pay" systems that you can use to send personal checks to people or institutions even though you aren't paying a bill. Typically the bank pays to mail the check for you.
I use Charles Schwab and recommend them highly. You can sign up entirely online. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/banking_lending/checking
Replies from: Clippy↑ comment by Clippy · 2011-02-09T05:39:05.115Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I meant from an arbitrary account to an arbitrary account. All of the methods in the reply comments require me to be recognized already as the owner of the account the money is transferred from. But obviously, it's a trivial problem at that point.
↑ comment by MartinB · 2011-02-08T05:25:52.380Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I use online banking basically since I have an account. It is easy, comfortable and fast. It is still surprising to learn how foreign banking systems seem to lack behind.
Replies from: XiXiDu↑ comment by XiXiDu · 2011-02-08T11:57:14.550Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It is still surprising to learn how foreign banking systems seem to lack behind.
I'm not aware of a single bank in Germany that does not offer free online banking. Regarding the original question, you just login, click "transfer money", fill in the account and bank number of the receiver, the amount you want to transfer and click "send". There are often (hopefully always) additional security measures before you can proceed. Once I click "send" I get an SMS sent to my mobile phone with a number that I have to fill in before the money is actually transferred.
If you were able to figure out how to use Facebook you'll be able to use online banking as well (at least in Germany).
ETA Actually, just go to your banks website, call them or visit the bank itself. You are their customer, they'll tell you what to do or even do it for you.
Replies from: MartinB↑ comment by byrnema · 2011-02-08T01:41:30.465Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Call your bank and ask them if they do it (for free) and, if so, and then how you go about doing it. If your bank does not do it, I don't know what to do next.
My bank does do this: it will transfer money in my account to any account I specify. All I need is the account number and routing number of the account I'm transferring money to. The first time, this can be done over the phone by calling them. They may tell you this can also be done online. There is a substantial delay (~ 3 days) the first time you transfer to a particular account.
Replies from: Benquo↑ comment by Benquo · 2011-02-08T04:23:12.002Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sometimes, if you can't initiate a transfer from the sending account, you can initiate a transfer from the receiving account via ACH. Again, banks' processes differ, so you need to look it up on their website or call or go to a branch office in person.