One way would be to start every morning by giving a 80% confidence interval for the amount of total sleep, the amount of deep sleep, average nighttime HRV and lowest heart rate in the last night.
For training calibration I would expect it to be very useful to make live-prediction on variables that your own gadgets can measure.
I would only enjoy making predictions about the future. Confidence intervals about my weight in 30 days and various other health metrics would be interesting as well.
The DSM-V is an ontology that's cause neutral. That's useful when you have many professionals who need a common language but which disagree about the causes of mental illnesses.
A depression that's due to a head trauma is different from a depression because someone doesn't deal well with a romantic relationship that's ended.
When you want to actually treat depression it's on the other hand very useful to be able to keep different types of depressions apart.
I do prefer to read and discuss on LW over discussing on Facebook. As a reader of a post on LW I don't think it harms me much when a post gets linked on Facebook.
I don't think this will result on average in fewer comments on LW.com. If people click on the link to LW within Facebook they can both comment on LW and on Facebook. Many of the people who see the post on Facebook would have never read the post otherwise or engaged with it.
External links also increase page-rank which means that posts show up more prominently on Google and additional people will discover LessWrong.
As far as optimization goes, I would prefer LW to optimize to motivate people to write great posts over organizing it in a way that optimizes the reading experience.
Can you expand on what exactly you mean with "without having social status come into play"?
Social status is a prime way human beings are motivated to do things. The prospect that I might get social status by writing a great article that people find valuable sets good incentives for me to provide quality content.
If I write an article I care about it getting read as widely as possible. I care about engagement happening.
If an article I write on LessWrong gets shared on Facebook or Twitter I would enjoy knowing that it's shared.
I didn't wrote anything about anticipation. I wrote about expectations. There's a subtle difference between the two.
Expectations aren't simply predictions. Expectations are about norms. Content like that which is below the norms of what's expected on LessWrong gets downvoted, so that it doesn't show up anymore.
A lot of Quantified Self tools provide data. It would be great to have a tool that pulls data from QS sources like the Oura API, Beeminder, Fitbit, Google Fit and Apple Healthvault and allows me to make prediction based on the data.
It would be really great if I could make predictions about how last night went before looking at my Oura stats.
For example, it's very likely that Wikidata will continue to report on the GDP and population of different countries, at least for the next 5-10 years.
Being an admin on Wikidata myself, I don't see Wikidata as solution to this problem given that Wikidata can report values from multiple different sources.
If you want to make predicions about GDP and population the CIA Worldfactbook is likely a more stable source.
In the case of diseases, decades of research years have been carried out in order to establish pragmatic and popular taxonomies. In other domains, new ontologies would need to be developed. Note that we consider ontologies to be a superset of taxonomies.
While ontologies have been developed for diseases, that doesn't mean that the ontologies are good. The DSM-V for example was crappy enough that the head of the NIH called for people to develop alternative ways of measuring it after it was published.
Apart from the actual definition, if you have a question like whether the amount of people with Asperger's did increase, you only have data about the number of people who are diagnosed with Asbergers and not about how many people would qualify for the diagnosis.
The easiest way to improve cancer survival rates is to diagnose more people with cancer and that's the strategy which the US used to get the best cancer survival rates in the world. Only quite recently under the Obama administration, the US government came to the point that it makes sense to reduce the number of people who get diagnosed with cancer.
Love of knowledge can drive you to engage with questions that aren't addressable with the current tools of a field in a way that brings the field forward.
Work that's advancing the field is work on which other scientists can build.
In physics scientists use significance thresholds that are much more stringent then 5%. If you would tell nutrition researchers that they could only publish findings that have 5 sigma's they would be forced to run studies that are very differently structured. Those studies would provide answers that are a lot less interesting but to the extend that researchers manage to make findings those findings would be reliable and would allow other researchers to build on them.
I'm not saying that this is the only way to move forward for nutrition science but if I think the field would need to think much better about how progress can be made then running the kind of studies that they run currently.
Safety concerns are a valid concern and increase in capability in certain fields like AI might now be desirable for it's own sake.
By that reasoning a native speaker of a language would often have less knowledge of a language then a person who learned it as a foreign language in a formal matter even when the native speaker speaks it much better for all practical purposes.
When we speak about whether Mary understanding Chinese, I think what we care about is to what extend she will be able to use the language the way a speaker of Chinese would.
A lot of most expert decision making is based on "unconscious competence" and you have to be very careful about how you use the term knowledge if you think that "unconscious competence" doesn't qualify as knowledge.
I haven't spoken about "love of knowledge". Nutrition scienctists who wants to know what they should eat are also seeking knowledge that they might love. I spoke about research which advances the field.
As far as I understand the research into the ability of people who judge grants to predict how much influence a result would have decades later is very poor. Even estimating effect at the time a paper is published is very hard.
Most published paper turn out to have no practical application. Most nutritition papers try to answer practical questions for which the field currently doesn't have the ability to provide good answers.
In Feymann's cargo cult speech he talked about how Mr. Young did research on how to run psychology research on rats in a way that yields much better results. His research community unfortunately ignored him to the point that it's not possible to locate his paper but if he would have been heard his research would have effects that are much larger then another random rat experiment with dubious methology.
For the field of nutrition science to progress we would likely need a lot of people like Mr. Young who think about how to actually make progress in learning about the field even if that's in the beginning far from practical application.
I think the first version that reached me through the rationality sphere had Hamming asking the all the questions on the same day.
A bit later there was a local rationalist who got a different version of the story through family connection and a Bell labs source. In that story Hamming asked "What's the most important question" in week 1, "What are you working on?" in week 2 and "Why isn't that the same?" in week 3.
In his book Thomas Khun's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he makes the point that those fields like theoretical physics where scientists persue issues "acknowledged as important in the academia" as opposed to those persuing topics where the answers are of high practical use like economics, nutrition science or social science often make much more progress.
In medicine I think it's great for EA reasons when researchers do basic work that moves our understanding of the human body forward even when that doesn't have direct applications.
When I read a phrase like key fiendings I would expect on LW an argument that's backed up by research. Without any reference to published research and facts established by published research, the argument you are making feels ill-supported.
In addition you are using a lot of bold-text which is a stylistic choice that often done key sales pages.
Together the resulting text feels like it's not up to the standards of LW discourse.
It seems to me that there are straightforward interventions:
(1) Provide share buttons. Most websites use share buttons to encourage readers to share content and there's no reason why it wouldn't work for us.
Share buttons also provide a way to to recognize which users share articles.
To build on your existing example, having the information "25 people come to this article because Wei Dai shared it on facebook" would be motivating information. It would also provide a way for people to follow the backlink to facebook and witness comments that happened there.
For spam fighting reasons you might set a minimum amount of karma for people to be share in such a fashion.
(2) Automatically, push newly curated posts to Twitter and a Facebook page.
I think the post suffers for not being clear about the distinction between delievery and order taking. It would be helpful to be explicit to what extent it factors in.
Most people who rides bikes don't have explicit knowledge about how riding a bike works. They are relying on reflexes to ride a bike.
Would you say that most people who ride bikes don't know how to ride a bike?
Goodhard law isn't a new concept and the term goodharting doesn't get used in the post about Goodhart's law that you linked and thus likely isn't responsible for it either.
I haven't seen the term that the post actually introduces Regressional Goodhart, Causal Goodhart, Extremal Goodhart or Adversarial Goodhart be used.
The credit is his for inspiring the new voting system.
Are you sure? I don't think I have read the post you linked but I do remember having discussed changing the voting system in such a direction on the old LessWrong.
Your posts starts by noting that you aren't clear what's meant with culture and then you go on to discuss what would be a good culture without having brought forward a good definition.
The word culture gets used when talking about company cultures and it also gets used when talking about the culture of nations or communities.
Those different kinds of cultures have different goals and different things make them good.
This suggests that people have an intention to be closed minded and to not change their self-identity in the face of any evidence that it might be beneficial to them.
I myself don't have any intention to prevent any change to my self-identity and it seems to be foolish to categorically reject it.
A person who can concentrate 2 hours without pause is above average in their concentration ability and unlikely to have ADHD.
It sounds like you classify all events where somebody else has an effect on yourself that makes you change your identity as mind hacking. Why do you find it useful to make that classification?
That name doesn't give anybody who reads it an idea about what the podcast is about. It also doesn't contain any keywords that are good for SEO.
This is especially true given that the case for not nominating a centrist is to have stronger motivation of the base.
That doesn't tell you a lot of important information. It doesn't tell you how much a candidate will motivate people to get to the voting booth on Tuesday vs. staying home.
It doesn't tell you how much grassroots supporters they get that campaign for them.
Existing map-less is very hard.
That statement sounds to me like a misunderstanding of what maps are about. The act of perception is an abstraction on the world that's out there and even if you don't layer interpretation on it, it's still a different layer of abstraction then territory.
I think reading Science and Sanity (the book from which "The map is not the territory" comes) would be valuable for you if you are interested to clearer understand that topic.
Intelligence and knowledge are two separate issues.
If you spent enough time practicing a technique, you will be able to say something useful about it even if you aren't qualifying for Mensa.
Don't try to read an article from the hammertime series and try to summarize it immediately. It's a mistake to assume that making a technique easier to understand takes little knowledge. You need to understand a technique deeply to give an explanation of it that's easy to understand.
Spent the time to integrate a technique you read about into your life and once you have the feeling that you regularly use the technique for yourself in a way that's valuable to you.
It might take you longer then other people to learn the technique but as long as you are willing to put in the effort to learn it, you will still be able to get the knowledge.
Growth mindset ;)
There's a lot of inferential distance from your way of thinking to the way of thinking towards which this points.
In particular you assume that the standards you use to judge something as an inferior result easily survive the ontological crisis that involved in going from one ontology to another.
Seeing the world as being primarily made of objects isn't an universal mode of thought. It's the dominant mode in our Western society.
There's a quote of Nicole Daedone's book Slow Sex:
That one day in the kitchen changed my life. In Home Ec, we learned to cook by finding a recipe and following its instructions exactly. We were rewarded for this good behavior by getting a meal and a good grade. In my grandma’s world, we were getting into relationship with the food. Feeling it. Getting to know it. Learning how it wanted to be cooked.
My grandma was teaching me the most important lesson of cooking, but also of living: anything you really get into relationship with will reveal its secrets to you. All you have to do is stand in the kitchen with an open mind and heart, recognizing the honor of cooking food for your family. The recipe will come.
This is the description of a mindset where the food isn't simply an object. That's part of what Tantra is about. Slow Sex is a secular tantra book that doesn't speak about tantra. Nonsexual tantra practice is also alot about relationships.
In addition to the relationship layer there's also object vs background/enviroment. TDT cares more about the background of a decision then CEV and thus comes to different conclusions. As seeing the background as essential as the object is foreign to Western thought, EY has a hard time being understood by academic decision theorists as seen by the review that was linked to on LW recently.
Gestatlt therapy cares more about background as well.
I find David Ronfeldt's paper Tribes, Institutions, Markets, Networks: A Framework About Societal Evolution very insightful for thinking about the place of hierarchies (institutions).
Trade worked in Europe better then in China because Europe had no pan-European state with a fixed hierarchy. When Europe sent out ships across the ocean, the project wanted to bring back goods that could be sold on the market for profit while when China sent ships across the ocean they wanted to bring back presents that the emperor who's on top of the hierarchy enjoys.
The internet we have today is a great network without any hierarchy that works. The same goes for many open source projects where most of the value creation happens along network norms.
From what I know about what you shared about your journey I also wouldn't put yourself in the category of people who hack directly manipulatively on the emotion-layer.
I addition Focusing, Core, Transform Yourself, Internal Family System and Double Crux are all already system that were developed by people who know what they are doing and that went through a lot of practical testing.
If you work on your identity you don't get into the problem that you changed your emotions and don't really know who you are anymore.
But this week, my outgroup has decided to launch an all-out attack on men, in the form of the American Psychological Association’s guidelines for practice with men and boys. It is a dangerous piece of science denialism published by a powerful organization, with the potential to hurt countless people.
That's a pretty ironic sentence, given that the link doesn't go to the APA’s new Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men but to an article about them. Before charging other people with science denialism it would be helpful to understand what a guideline happens to be.
It's general the role of a clinician to accept they client as they are and focus the intervention on changing those psychological issues that are the mutual agreed goal of the therapy.
The phrase while fighting against homophobia, transphobia, racial bias and other types of discrimination gives to me the impression that the text advocates for clinicians to engage in fights that are beyond their clinical mandate.
One local rationalists got a sensor and took it to community events. It lead to those events having the window open much more often. It also had some ripple effects and now I'm opening my own windows at home more often as well.
Unfortunately, CO2 isn't the only air-pollution. It's unfortunate that you can't buy a smart CO2 sensor that measures particle pollution, CO, CO2 and all the variables that are interesting. The fact that you need to buy mulitple devices to get all the relevant values makes me wait for new tech.
Building machines that remove CO2 from the air in office buildings is another business opportunity.
I do understand the value proposition of merino wool and cashmere but bonnegueule shirts seem to be out of cotton. I don't understand why I should pay for a different length of cotton fibers. Why are different cotton fibers better? Do I want long or short ones?
As mr-hire said, I'm referring to SquirrelInHell who committed suicide.
I hosted them as a couchsurfer for a few days, so I have a model that goes beyond what's in the linked post of mr-hire.
I don't know the exact details but there was a sense of I should speak with SquirrelInHell, to help them to sort through things that I had when I read that post and I unfortunately didn't.
I wish I would have given a clear answer back then in private. I wish I could give a public one now, but in the absence of that, I prefer to have spoken up instead of stayed silent. In case anybody encounters related problem where they need somebody to talk them through, I'm happy to Skype.
As far as I know there's no public information. There's some nonpublic information ; )
The last person that I remember writing something along the lines of You don’t have to experience negative emotion, on LessWrong didn't turn out well. Be careful if you hack around to deeply without knowing what you are doing. Emotions have their role in providing meaning.
That said, depression is not necessary and I do encourage everybody to do what's necessary to overcome.
What distinguishes a BonneGueule light blue popeline shirt from the average light blue popeline shirt? Can you explain how the shirt differs and how the additional value gets created?
Purple:
Logos are also part of identity and can be important to signal belonging. Band T-Shirts. Logos of Organizations.
Green:
If you go in a formal suit to an informal event with people in green you are unlikely to be accepted the same way as you would if you dress like the other people at the event. Ingroup/outgroup thinking is still part of green spiral-dynamics.
What brands? Is there a difference between more expensive items and less expensive items that makes it worth paying for more expensive ones?
What benefit do I get when I don't buy the Uniqlo one for 30€ but pay more?
One way the stock price matters for executives is that their bonuses are linked to the stock price.
If you start a megaproject you could link executive bonuses on the project to the probability on the Augur market.
Linking it to bonuses would also automatically push some liquidity into the market.
Your post didn't contain any advice on belts. Do you have any?
Can you taboo high-end-venues-clientele?
You do you measure whether or not your style gets worse?
How universal do you think the advice you give her is? Is it applicable in the US the same way as in Europe?
Would the advice have been correct ago 10 years ago? Would you expect it to be correct 10 years in the future?
The voodoo paper starts by noting that the social neuroscience papers regularly report values that are higher then the theoretical maximum.
I find a defense of neuroscience against the Voodoo paper that ignores that the charge of the Voodoo paper that the results of the claimed social neuroscience papers achieve impossible results (you could call them paranormal), to be no good defense.
Whether or not it causes entirely spurious correlations to be reported depends on the degrees of freedom that models have. If you have a dataset with 200 patients and 2000 degrees of freedom in your mathematical model. The neuroscience folks often use statistical techniques where there's no mathematically sound method to assess the degrees of freedom. Frequently, they run some simulated data through the model to eyeball the amount of the problem, but there are no mathematical guarantees that this will find every case when the degrees of freedom are two high.
Even if you grant it's only modest overstating. Scientists are generally not expected to modestly overstate their results but are supposed to remove systematic effects that make them overstate their results.
Even if you think that there's some value in predicting training data, they could still run a second test where they split their data into two a trainings data pile and an evaluation pile and run their model again and report the results. It's not much work as they don't need to create a new model. It's 4 lines of R (maybe even less if you write it concisely).
Cognitive neuroscience is generally considered a subfield of cognitive psychology, and cognitive psychology is the part of psychology whose results have so far replicated the best.
I don't think it makes any sense to see cognitive neuroscience as a subject of cognitive psychology. In cognitive psychology scientists do well-controlled experiments. In cognitive neuroscience many people try to predict the trainings data of their models. The epistemic hygiene of the fields are very different.