Dony's Shortform Feed

post by DonyChristie · 2019-07-24T23:48:05.223Z · score: 14 (4 votes) · LW · GW · 25 comments

25 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by DonyChristie · 2019-08-15T01:18:29.669Z · score: 21 (12 votes) · LW · GW

I'm really noticing how the best life improvements come from purchasing or building better infrastructure, rather than trying permutations of the same set of things and expecting different results. (Much of this results from having more money, granting an expanded sense of possibility to buying useful things.)

The guiding question is, "What upgrades would make my life easier?" In contrast with the question that is more typically asked: "How do I achieve this hard thing?"

It seems like part of what makes this not just immediately obvious is that I feel a sense of resistance (that I don't really identify with). Part of that is a sense of... naughtiness? Like we're supposed to signal how hardworking we are. For me this relates to this fear I have that if I get too powerful, I will break away from others (e.g. skipping restaurants for a Soylent Guzzler Helmet, metaphorically) as I re-engineer my life and thereby invite conflict. There's something like a fear that buying or engaging in nicer things would be an affront to my internalized model of my parents?

The infrastructure guideline relates closely to the observation that to a first approximation we are stimulus-response machines reacting to our environment, and that the best way to improve is to actually change your environment, rather than continuing to throw resources past the point of diminishing marginal returns in adaptation to the current environment. And for the same reasons, the implications can scare me, for it may imply leaving the old environment behind, and it may even imply that the larger the environmental change you make, the more variance you have for a good or bad update to your life. That would mean we should strive for large positive environmental shifts, while minimizing the risk of bad ones.

(This also gives me a small update towards going to Mars being more useful for x-risk, although I may need to still propagate a larger update in the other direction away from space marketing. )

Of course, most of one's upgrades should be tiny and within one's comfort zone. What the portfolio of small vs huge changes one should make in one's life is an open question to me, because while it makes sense to be mostly conservative with one's allocation of one's life resources, I suspect that fear brings people to justify the static zone of safety they've created with their current structure, preventing them from seeking out better states of being that involve jettisoning sunk costs that they identify with. Better coordination infrastructure [LW · GW] could make such changes easier if people don't have to risk as much social conflict.

comment by Raemon · 2019-08-15T01:34:07.252Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Nod.

Some relevant previous thoughts over at Strategies for Personal Growth [LW · GW].

comment by Viliam · 2019-08-15T21:56:07.862Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW
if I get too powerful, I will break away from others

You would probably break away from some, connect with some new ones, and reconnect with some that you lost in the past.

comment by DonyChristie · 2019-08-02T08:23:35.153Z · score: 15 (8 votes) · LW · GW

I find the question, "What would change my mind?", to be quite powerful, psychotherapeutic even. AKA "singlecruxing". It cuts right through to seeking disconfirmation of one's model, and can make the model more explicit, legible, object. It's proactively seeking out the data rather than trying to reduce the feeling of avoidant deflection associated with shielding a beloved notion from assault. Seems like it comports well with the OODA loop as well. Taken from Raemon's "Keeping Beliefs Cruxy [LW · GW]".

I am curious how others ask this question of themselves. What follows is me practicing the question.

What would change my mind about the existence of the moon? Here are some hypotheses:

  • I would look up in the sky every few hours for several days and nights and see that it's not there.
  • I see over a dozen posts on my Facebook feed talking about how it turns out it was just a cardboard cutout and SpaceX accidentally tore a hole in it. They show convincing video of the accident and footage of people reacting such as leaders of the world convening to discuss it.
  • Multiple friends are very concerned about my belief in this luminous, reflective rocky body. They suggest I go see a doctor or the government will throw me in the lunatics' asylum. The doctor prescribes me a pill and I no longer believe.
    • It turns out I was deluded and now I'm relieved to be sane.
    • It turns out they have brainwashed me and now I'm relieved to be sane.
  • I am hit over the head with a rock which permanently damages my ability to form lunar concepts. Or it outright kills me. I think this Goodharts (is that the closest term I'm looking for?) the question but it's interesting to know what are bad/nonepistemic/out-of-context reasons I would stop believing in a thing.

These anticipations were System 2 generated and I'm still uncertain to what extent I can imagine them actually happening and changing my mind. It's probably sane and functional that the mind doesn't just let you update on anything you imagine, though I also hear the apocryphal saying that the mind 80% believes whatever you imagine is real.

comment by Raemon · 2019-08-02T22:48:14.812Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

An interesting second exercise you might apply here is taking note of what other beliefs in your network would have to change (you sort of touch on this here). If you find out the moon isn't real, you've found out something very important about your entire epistemic state. This indeed makes updating on it harder or more interesting, at least.

comment by DonyChristie · 2019-08-12T04:32:57.239Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

You bring to mind a visual of the Power of a Mind as this dense directed cyclic graph of beliefs where updates propagate in one fluid circuit at the speed of thought.

I wonder what formalized measures of [agency, updateability, connectedness, coherence, epistemic unity, whatever sounds related to this general idea] are put forth by different theories (schools of psychotherapy, predictive processing, Buddhism, Bayesian epistemology, sales training manuals, military strategy, machine learning, neuroscience...) related to the mind and how much consilience there is between them. Do we already know how to rigorously describe peak mental functioning?

comment by DonyChristie · 2019-08-25T21:40:47.903Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

How might a person develop INCREDIBLY low time preference? (They value their future selves in decades to a century nearly as much as they value their current selves?)

Who are people who have this, or have acquired this, and how did they do it?

Do these concepts make sense or might they be misunderstanding something? Tabooing/decomposing them, what is happening cognitively, experientially, when a human mind does this thing?

What would a literature review say?

comment by mr-hire · 2019-08-26T13:26:45.450Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

You might be interested in Tad James' work on Timeline Therapy. Its not exactly what I would call epistemically rigorous, but I don't know any other source that has done as much in-depth modelling of how people represent time. and work on how to change people's representations of time.

comment by DonyChristie · 2019-08-10T05:10:28.597Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Do humans actually need breaks from working, physiologically? How much of this is a cultural construct? And if it is, can those assumptions be changed? Could a person be trained to enjoyably have 100-hour workweeks? (assume, if the book Deep Work is correct that you have max 4 hours of highly productive work on a domain, that my putative powerhuman is working on 2-4 different skill domains that synergize)

comment by Elizabeth (pktechgirl) · 2019-08-10T23:46:33.039Z · score: 10 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I looked into this and found Deep Work's backing disappointing (although 4 hours isn't disproven either).

comment by juliawise · 2019-08-14T18:39:25.210Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I never have a productive six-hour unbroken stretch of work, but my partner will occasionally have 6-hour bursts of very productive coding where he stays in the zone and doesn't notice time passing. He basically looks up and realizes it's night and everyone else had dinner hours ago. But the rest of the time he works normal hours with a more standard-to-loose level of concentration.

comment by jimrandomh · 2019-08-12T20:40:15.849Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Unclear, but see Zvi's Slack sequence [LW · GW] for some good reasons why we should act as though we need breaks, even if we technically don't.

comment by ChristianKl · 2019-08-12T15:34:53.037Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

The idea of "work" is a cultural construct. If you want to move past the cultural connotations you would need to define what you are talking about.

It's worth noting that deep work talks about the ability of humans to perform deep work. A lot of useful work isn't deep work in the sense Cal Newport uses the term. If I remember right he sees large parts of management as not being about Deep Work.

We do know that some people do suffer burn out from work stress. It seems that higher workload in Japan does result in higher burnout rates then in countries with lower workload.

comment by Dagon · 2019-08-12T16:39:50.619Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Beware over-generalization and https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Typical_mind_fallacy. There's a LOT of variation in human capabilities and preferences (including preferences about productivity vs rest). Some people do have 100-hour workweeks (I did for awhile, when I was self-employed. )

Try it, see how it works for you. If you're in a position of leadership over others, give them room to find what works best for them.

comment by leggi · 2019-08-12T04:48:49.484Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Physiologically, the body can keep going for a long time if it is healthy and well maintained.

The body needs good nutrition ("real food", adequate water), physical activity to maintain function and enough sleep.

Meet these conditions and your workers should be able to keep on going, but what's your definition of "work"?

Agrarian based work (for some) is already every day, all year. As many hours as can be worked, are worked.

Anyone that enjoys their work, that has a drive to do it, can manage 15 hrs a day.

Sitting at a desk, staring at a screen, drinking a lot of coffee and eating processed food ... not so good physiologically.


I am finding the phrasing "could a person be trained" is a little concerning... Who's asking?!

  • An ambitious junior vice-president in a ethically dubious multinational corporation?
  • A pragmatic intergalactic manager wondering if Earthlings have a use more than as for fodder?

"Trained to enjoy" - I'd probably research altering the human brain to achieve that. Possibly fry a couple of appropriate synapses or find the right combination of chemicals.

Unless you start the 'training' at an early age - if you don't know any different then 100 hour work week is just how it is.

comment by Jalex Stark (jalex-stark-1) · 2019-08-10T15:38:42.886Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

We live in a world with large incentives to teach yourself to do something like this, so either it is too hard for a single person to come up with on their own or it is possible to find people that have done it.

Some military studies might fit what you're looking for.

comment by ChristianKl · 2019-08-12T15:28:18.770Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Where do you see the huge incentives? Most of high status work isn't payed by the hour.

comment by Raemon · 2019-08-12T20:34:40.657Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

There's a higher tier incentive point, where a) upper management, and b) independent artists/thinkers/etc want to get more productive work out of people or themselves. The decision of whether to pay someone by the hour is partly about what you think will produce more output (where paying by the hour might be bad because it leads people to be stingy with their time, when what they need is open space to think)

But Google still puts a lot of optimization into providing lunch, exercise, and campuses that cause people to incidentally bump into each and have conversations as a way to squeeze extra value out of people in a given day and over the course of a given year. (and company management generally prefers legibility where possible, so if it were possible to get the benefits in a more measurable and compensate-able way, they'd have tried to do so)

comment by ChristianKl · 2019-08-14T07:51:04.087Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Thinkers and artists care about intellectual output. They don't care about the numbers of hours they work.

Google purposefully doesn't let people sleep at their office which is a policy that prevents people from working 100 hours per week.

comment by Raemon · 2019-08-14T17:29:26.380Z · score: 3 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Agreed. But if there was a way to work more productive hours, they would.

comment by ChristianKl · 2019-08-15T14:25:03.022Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Not, necessarily. Not every productive hour is made equally. If you trade part of your creativity for more productive hours then might not be a worthwhile trade.

This might seem like a nitpick but it matters. The idea of chasing productive hours leads to bad ideas like the Uberman sleep schedule that do sound seductive to rationalists.

It's a reasoning error to equate "Is X possible to do" with " Is X possible to do without paying any price".

comment by Raemon · 2019-08-15T18:08:27.292Z · score: 3 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The implication I meant was "if it's possible to keep working hours of the same productivity." If you lose creativity and your profession is creative, the hours are no longer productive.

I'm specifically arguing the original point: "there are huge incentives to try to be more productive." If, as Dony was originally asking, it were possible to just get into a mental state where you could work productively (including creatively) indefinitely, people would have found it.

comment by ChristianKl · 2019-08-15T21:04:18.706Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

A normal programmer is working productively in the sense most people see "working productively". The proverbial 10x programmer on the other hand is much more productive even with the same number of productive working hours.

The thesis of deep work is that there's much higher payoff to increasing quality of your work then quantity for a knowledge works.

One of the assumptions you seem to be making is that the time not spend working is not productively used. Creative ideas often come when there's a bit of distance to the work while showering. Working 100 hours per week means that this distance is never really achieved and the benefits that get produced when your brain can process the problem in the background while your conscious mind doesn't interfere don't materialize.

I think I remember from a YCombinator source that they would tell founder who tried to work 100 hours, that they need to get better about prioritizing and not try use working that much as the solution to their challenges.

It's easier to discover that you are working at the wrong thing when you have breaks in between that give you distance that allows reflection.

comment by Raemon · 2019-08-15T21:30:05.647Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I think you think I'm making assumptions I'm not. I agree with all these points – this is why the world looks the way it does. I'm saying, if there weren't the sorts of limits that you're describing, we'd observe people working more, more often.

comment by Matthew Barnett (matthew-barnett) · 2019-08-15T18:50:23.845Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW
If, as Dony was originally asking, it were possible to just get into a mental state where you could work productively (including creatively) indefinitely, people would have found it.

Perhaps not indefinitely, but I do think there are people like this already? There are some people who are much more productive than others, even at similar intelligence levels. The simplest explanation is that these people have simply discovered a way to be productive for many hours in a day.

Personally, I know it's at least possible to be productive for a long time (say 10 hours with a few breaks). I also think professional gamers are typically productive for this much most days.

I think the main issue is that it's difficult to transfer insights and motivation to other people.