Posts
Comments
Yes.
I recommend the app warmly, but at the same time I'd be happy to switch if something with better design or features came up. I haven't found anything as good yet.
I probably explained badly. You can have 10 yes/no questions and fill half with 7 clicks using this app. It works exactly like the example you gave.
That's incorrect if I understood right. Here's how I use it:
- Click reminder notification (or tracker-specific shortcut) to open
- Click yes or no (you can have multiple of these in a single tracker)
- Click save
So it's 1 click to begin, 1 click for each choice, 1 click to save. There's also support for input fields and lists with predefined values.
If you know an app that does this better, I am looking..
Here's another app https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zagalaga.keeptrack
No, I don't think that either organization has taken an official stance, and I respect them for that. I've also talked with some people within 80,000 Hours who are clearly not mind-killed; who have been very reasonable and convincing instead. I was maybe a bit too harsh and do not mean this as a recommendation that everyone should stop supporting these organizations.
(Very rarely - that's a good point. If you imagine people fighting between two different friendly AI approaches with the same fervor, though..)
A statement made by a lifelong liberal writer, who was offended by Trump's lifestyle. Trump has short attention span, and doesn't read books - therefore he will use nukes!
Predicting one person's proclivity to cause nuclear war is an incredibly complicated prediction problem, and one flimsy and tribally motivated statement has almost zero predictive power. If I see a reasonable analysis, which considers both candidates and what kind of scenarios could actually lead to nuclear war; I'm ready to change my beliefs.
In my case, not signaling any caution was enough to make me think that they're mind-killed. I also understand well what kind of strategies may be more effective in influencing the general public; which is part of the problem. I doubt their behavior and writings convinced anyone who hadn't already decided.
There were other writings which were much more persuasive, Scott's writings for example. The people I'm referring to, just spent the last year doing tribal screaming. And they're still doing it. Freaking out because their foretold doomsday came (and went).
No, of course not. There are many situations where one can be reasonably certain that one political stance is better than another. My feeling of disgust was not caused by them supporting Hillary, but by the fervor and conviction displayed. It felt like at some point they had good reasons to choose a political stance, but then took it to the extreme and forgot all caution.
Claiming Trump as the most significant current existential risk, and prioritizing political activism over all other charity work, are the two that I was most offended by. These were usually not backed by any rigorous analysis or explanation, just the assumption that the reader conforms to the beliefs.
But I think ultimately, it was the frequency and amount of emotion and hostility that was shown that made my mind image these people as mind-killed.
Has anyone else been disgusted by how partisan and mindkilled many "rationality figureheads" have been during this election?
I've stopped supporting 80,000 Hours because of their employees' writings and lost trust in CFAR; I now see them as political think tanks that are possibly even more biased and broken than the average organization.
I'd like this very much in RSS format.
If you make an RSS feed, don't include any SSC/OB posts, because those already have their own RSS feeds.
In these discussions, I often find myself writing a long text describing my beliefs and why I am not interested in defending or spreading them. At that point, I usually stop writing and start over, like I did now.
I'm willing to label myself as neoreactionary because neoreaction better describes our current society than leftism. In a future world I might look at neoreaction as the most accurate description of a certain time period. Neoreactionary beliefs could be easily rendered irrelevant with transhumanist advances.
The reason I value neoreaction is because it gives me – in my personal life – an edge. This is also the reason why I am not interested in defending or spreading many neoreactionary beliefs.
Beliefs I've developed that are common in neoreaction are by far the ones that have contributed the most to my personal happiness.
Although I am likely biased by the location of the gym I go to, the real unpleasant experience for me was admitting that many of the "enemies" are in fact very reasonable and intelligent people.
Which areas of cognitive training do you think would have the best returns in terms of life optimization?
Exercise. Its effects are well studied, and it has been shown to cause improvements in physical and mental health, cognitive performance, and attractiveness.
At what age should you sign up your child for cryonics?
If we imagine mutually assured destruction as if it was a policy option in a strategy game, it would have statistics along the lines of:
-20% chance of nuclear war, +40% nuclear war intensity.
I see. Through counterexamples we can demonstrate anything to be acceptable fashion in certain scenarios.
The puffy shirt is irrelevant (I feel like arguing but let me try and resist that). I found your counterexamples about t-shirts to be stronger evidence, and I did adjust my beliefs. I can offer you no good evidence on how people on average perceive t-shirts with slogans on them.
Religion was an example, coming from the general category of social subgroups that carry a large impact on identity and create a sense of exclusivity, which also includes every group you described.
I would rather not see rationality marginalized into such categories, in anyone's mind.
Special Pleading Objection?
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this. The meaning of my post was that high status folk set the trends, and have an easier time introducing new fashions to the society at large. This was in relation to your (valid) point that "how and when" you wear clothes matters.
Or if you are attending a Hacker News meetup, or a software development conference, or an event taking place at a university, or... I'll stop there: I am predicting (and happily committing to update if I turn out to be wrong) that in these venues, wearing a witty t-shirt will a) score points and b) optimise for striking up conversations with strangers.
Sounds sensible. Dressing in clothes that signal your geekiness (meaning here the demographic you describe) is probably a safe bet in such a crowd.
I don't understand. It seems to me that it would be very easy to make rationality seem like a (religious) cult. Wearing dorky clothes, knocking on people's doors to spread the joy, and handing out pamphlets praising our savior Rationality. We could even send volunteers to beg for money at airports: "Hello sir, would you like to help prevent the coming end of the world?"
Johnny Depp can wear a puffy shirt because he is the king. The rest of us are probably better off saving our puffy shirts for Halloween.
But yes, what you say is true. If you are awesome enough, you can wear a rationalist slogan t-shirt and make it work.
On many occasions "difficult to explain" turns out to be a hint for "not actually true".
Is this actually an useful heuristic? It seems to me that most things in the world are very difficult to explain truthfully, but especially this case.
We can probably agree that wearing a puffy shirt would be a bad idea, but can anyone really easily explain why?
Perhaps someone could explain why some specific item of clothing is not fashionable, and I am at fault to some extent here, because I have not studied the psychology of fashion in enough depth to eloquently explain this. I am not aware of many people who have attempted to explain specific fashions in a manner that could withstand rational analysis, however.
In earlier centuries, costume rules were a matter not merely of following fashion but of obeying the law of the land. No knight under the rank of lord was permitted to wear a tunic that failed to cover his buttocks.
If the explanation for the original point was: "You can't wear t-shirts with slogans because the King has decreed it against the law", would that be a much more satisfying answer? If so, then the answer you're looking for is that these days fashion is slightly more democratic, but the rules of costume are still mainly decreed by the people with the highest social status, and they have judged t-shirts with slogans on them unfashionable for anyone below a specific rank.
There are better explanations for fashion certainly, but those require intricate knowledge of immensely complex systems, with the system in this case being the synergistic combination of all human animals - all of human society. It is only my opinion, and someone could easily prove me wrong by doing it, but it seems to me that truly explaining a particular fashion in a holistic sense would be a task that well deserves the description — "difficult".
Desmond Morris writes well about the subject in his book "Peoplewatching". I found it to be one of the better written and argued writings in the field.
For whom should we be optimizing our clothing for, then?
It almost certainly is, but does that matter? It is a slogan for any time when the powers that be are diminished by the truth.
True. This works for attractiveness as well. Generally stylish clothes will give you low variance, while dressing to please a specific crowd (goths, emo rockers, etc.) will give you high variance.
The question is, can you make people think: "I would like to be as awesome as that person. I see he is wearing a rationality shirt. I should check that out." ?
Here are two alternatives:
- People might think that rationality is something that's only for nerdy looking folk who wear +1 epic shirts.
- People's brains might associate rationality with other concepts that are often seen on shirts, such as Jesus and Guns.
Impressing, persuading - the difference between these is mostly insignificant when dealing with non-rationalists. I chose the word due to my belief that rational argument is an inefficient method for spreading rationality. If you encounter a non-rationalist, you may rationally explain him why rationality is great, but if you leave a good impression on an emotional level, he'll probably remember the lesson about rationality much longer. Ideally we probably want to do both. Arguing people into changing their way of thinking is vastly more difficult than creating in them a desire to change. This tends to be supported by studies in psychology - people are much more likely to do things and be happy about it when their own brain gets to explain why they are doing it.
A practical example of this would be a popular movie star speaking about rationality on Oprah. Regardless of what the star said, interest in rationality would almost certainly increase, and so would the average level of rationality, even if slightly. (If the star spoke well, the effect would be larger, of course.) I'm quite certain that this would have a much larger effect on spreading rationality than having someone in a t-shirt make an argument about rationality in front of the same amount of viewers.
How many Less Wrong users have become more rational, not because of any rational arguments they read, but because they were impressed by Yudkowsky or someone else? I'll be the first to admit that being impressed by the people here was a significant factor in getting me to study rationality in more depth.
Getting people to change their ways of thinking is extremely difficult. I say that wearing a dorky T-shirt while attempting this will only make the task more difficult.
Is there a better method for forming beliefs about fashion than observing the people whose sense of style you want to understand?
Wearing clothes with slogans written on them is a bad idea socially. It is quite unlikely that anyone will ask you about it, and even less likely that such an interaction will result in any good. All the negative social effects are likely to overshadow the few positive encounters you may have. Even if you wear the clothes with the slogan in the appropriate social context, like a Less Wrong meetup, they don't add any value.
If you wanted to talk to someone about rationality, what do you think would help more in impressing them: a rationalist wearing normal, stylish clothes, or a rationalist wearing a t shirt with a slogan printed on it?
It is difficult to explain why clothes (or vehicles) with slogans printed on them are bad for you. If it helps, consider that the vast majority of people you see outside are not wearing clothes with witticisms, they have all decided that it is not beneficial. The exceptions are mainly religious, political, and other extremists.
Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks to emperors. Today we kneel only to truth.
— Kahlil Gibran
If you find the truth, continue the search for it regardless.
Forget about arriving at the truth, rather practice the methods that brings you closer to truths.
The intended meaning has something to do with the Buddhist concept that the practice of Buddhism (basically meditation) is the realization of Buddhahood, and instead of accepting any Buddha you meet, you must simply continue your practice.
That does sound very sensible. I stand corrected.
Can anyone recommend any further reading on the subject?
Weight loss is not easy. It's ridiculously hard for many people, and that's awful. I know this from personal experience too, but I'm sure anyone would agree. However, it is impossible to not lose weight if a person eats below his total daily energy expenditure. Not losing weight in this scenario is comparable to taking your car on a drive and finding out it doesn't consume fuel.
Coming to the conclusion that weight loss is impossible requires extraordinary proof. Attempted scientifically dubious diets are weak evidence. Two months of eating below one's TDEE while tracking everything with a digital scale is a minimum.
Do you mean "impossible" in the psychological sense? In that case medical interventions to remove fat directly are inadvisable as the fat will simply be regained, psychological treatment is required instead.
Even if one organization navigates the creation of friendly AI successfully, won't we still have to worry about preventing anyone from ever creating an unsafe AI?
Unlike nuclear weapons, a single AI might have world ending consequences, and an AI requires no special resources. Theoretically a seed AI could be uploaded to Pirate Bay, from where anyone could download and compile it.
Losing weight and becoming more fit will make you healthier and more attractive. You can't effectively gain muscle and lose weight at the same time. In your case losing weight should be the priority. To do this, start tracking absolutely everything you eat using one of the many free trackers available out there, and eat below your TDEE. Invest $10 in a digital scale so you can track more accurately. If you don't know what you should eat, read this. Exercise is helpful to your general health, but losing weight is almost entirely about diet. Practically all specialized diets are scams, so beware.
To improve your strength and fitness (and attractiveness), barbell training is one of the most effective and safest forms of exercise you can pursue. You should read Rippetoe's books, his programs are quite likely the best option for beginners. You can pursue weight training even while you lose weight, but you won't make as much progress.
For fashion, reddit is probably your best bet. Spending money on expensive brands won't help.
If you want to target success with women in particular, PUA is a better option than the alternatives. Many people dislike it, but it is currently the closest thing to a science there is in the field. The basic idea is to simply make you try more often. That alone will tend to improve your social skills, and success.
Don't use success with women as a measure for your success. Attraction is based on irrational, primal emotions, and neither women or men, nor rationalists, care to even try and change this. The fact that women are not attracted to you conveys very little useful information. It is better to pursue your goals in order to improve your life in general. Losing weight and becoming fit will improve your quality of life far beyond attractiveness.
I have intentionally kept this short and skipped many details and arguments. Hopefully you can benefit from these as guidelines while improving your life.
The Candle Problem is an experiment which demonstrates how time pressure and rewards can diminish people's ability to solve creativity-requiring problems. People who weren't offered rewards for solving a clever problem solved the problem faster than those who were offered even significant rewards. Another finding was that when the problem was simplified and the creativity requirement removed, the participants who were offered rewards performed the task much faster.
There are multiple theories that try to explain the result of this study, and the many other studies with similar results. One theory which is still developing, but which seems obvious when studying neuroscience of the brain (summarized here in very broad strokes): Currently it is thought that the left hemisphere of the brain is the more dominating one and capable of suppressing the right hemisphere. Additionally, the right hemisphere is the one associated with creating new, or 'creative', connections from known information. The evolutionary perspective is that the left hemisphere operates in a more immediate, focused mode of thinking, while the right hemisphere interprets the world in a larger context. A practical example of this is how birds prefer to use their left hemisphere to focus on searching food, and the right hemisphere to maintain an alertness of their surroundings. The left hemisphere is the preferred one for handling trained, familiar tasks, while the right hemisphere is more active when dealing with the unfamiliar.
With the added context of studies that indicate much higher activity in the right hemisphere when solving insight (a-ha! moment) requiring problems, and studies that show the right hemisphere is more active in relaxed states, it seems quite likely that when a reward is offered and pressure is put on the participants in the Candle Study, the left hemisphere is chosen as the processor for solving the issue at hand. Meanwhile if there is no direct pressure or reward, the right hemisphere is more active in contributing to the solving process.
Being rational while sitting in your room browsing the internet is often hard enough, but how about behaving rationally in an emergency? I've been in emergencies, or "black swan events", and I'm willing to admit that I acted much less optimally than I would have predicted.
All schools in the US do fire drills. The first lesson in the SAS Survival Guide is to be prepared. Reducing the likelihood of disaster is one step, but practice and preparedness are just as essential. Not only will you behave more optimally with practice, but a prepared person is much less likely to fall victim to normalcy bias, which is a major cause of death in disasters. It's why you see safety demonstrations on every flight, why every school has fire drills - because even a simple reminder that a disaster is possible, is enough to increase survival rates. If the disaster is a completely foreign event, a real black swan, people are much more likely to simply freeze and refuse to believe that something so unlikely and abnormal is happening to them.
Be prepared. It doesn't cost much, and it can save your and other people's lives.
This might better be summarized as the rule: "Don't criticize, condemn, or complain". Anyone who believes that a straightforward, rational argument will be successful in changing people's minds will upon empirical experimentation discover this to be far from the truth.
Some of the most well known "social intelligence" classes were held by Dale Carnegie in 1912, and many business schools still make students read his book. Nowadays social training exists in many forms, and there are programs aimed specifically at kids as well, although maybe nothing aimed at making future computer scientists less awkward. Studies show positive results, but mainly treatments for more serious behavior problems are studied.
Is there reason to believe that social skills are more difficult to teach than math, or rationality?
Is calling people "creepy" more than a manifestation of the affect heuristic? Consider how attractive people are thought to be more honest and kind, and even get more lenient sentences in court. Then how powerful this effect is when combined with one of the most deeply ingrained forms of complete irrationality - romance.