Drive-By Low-Effort Criticism 2019-07-31T11:51:37.844Z · score: 34 (27 votes)
On the Regulation of Perception 2019-03-09T16:28:19.887Z · score: 18 (7 votes)
Team Cohesion and Exclusionary Egalitarianism 2018-09-17T04:48:33.894Z · score: 36 (19 votes)
Secondary Stressors and Tactile Ambition 2018-07-13T00:26:23.561Z · score: 17 (9 votes)
Putting Logarithmic-Quality Scales On Time 2018-07-08T15:00:37.568Z · score: 15 (7 votes)
A Short Celebratory / Appreciation Post 2018-05-23T00:02:18.423Z · score: 133 (44 votes)
Some Simple Observations Five Years After Starting Mindfulness Meditation 2018-04-19T22:28:47.338Z · score: 79 (25 votes)
Explicit and Implicit Communication 2018-03-21T08:58:34.415Z · score: 102 (41 votes)
"Just Suffer Until It Passes" 2018-02-12T04:01:13.922Z · score: 134 (48 votes)
Fashionable or Fundamental Thought in Communities 2018-01-19T09:03:48.109Z · score: 37 (14 votes)
Success and Fail Rates of Monthly Policies 2017-12-09T15:24:37.148Z · score: 46 (18 votes)
Doing a big survey on work, stress, and productivity. Feedback / anything you're curious about? 2017-08-29T14:19:37.241Z · score: 1 (1 votes)
Perhaps a better form factor for Meetups vs Main board posts? 2016-01-28T11:50:20.360Z · score: 14 (15 votes)
Crossing the History-Lessons Threshold 2014-10-17T00:17:42.822Z · score: 34 (42 votes)
Flashes of Nondecisionmaking 2014-01-27T14:30:26.937Z · score: 28 (31 votes)
Confidence In Opinions, Intensity In Opinion 2013-09-04T16:56:17.883Z · score: 0 (11 votes)
Reflective Control 2013-09-02T17:45:58.356Z · score: 13 (16 votes)
A Rational Approach to Fashion 2011-10-10T18:53:00.594Z · score: 22 (44 votes)
"Technical implication: My worst enemy is an instance of my self." 2011-09-22T08:46:49.941Z · score: -3 (8 votes)
Malice, Stupidity, or Egalité Irréfléchie? 2011-06-13T20:57:06.178Z · score: 24 (53 votes)
Chemicals and Electricity 2011-05-09T17:55:25.123Z · score: 6 (27 votes)
The Cognitive Costs to Doing Things 2011-05-02T09:13:17.840Z · score: 39 (39 votes)
Convincing Arguments Aren’t Necessarily Correct – They’re Merely Convincing 2011-04-25T12:43:07.217Z · score: 9 (21 votes)
Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People 2010-12-01T08:25:47.450Z · score: 92 (128 votes)
"Nahh, that wouldn't work" 2010-11-28T21:32:09.936Z · score: 74 (81 votes)
Reference Points 2010-11-17T08:09:04.227Z · score: 32 (33 votes)
Activation Costs 2010-10-25T21:30:58.150Z · score: 29 (36 votes)
The Problem With Trolley Problems 2010-10-23T05:14:07.308Z · score: 11 (64 votes)
Collecting and hoarding crap, useless information 2010-10-10T21:05:51.331Z · score: 18 (29 votes)
Steps to Achievement: The Pitfalls, Costs, Requirements, and Timelines 2010-09-11T22:58:38.145Z · score: 18 (26 votes)
A "Failure to Evaluate Return-on-Time" Fallacy 2010-09-07T19:01:42.066Z · score: 53 (63 votes)


Comment by lionhearted on What product are you building? · 2019-07-05T05:58:52.507Z · score: 6 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Fascinating. The word "project" encapsulates a lot of these — from software to a party — establishing norms without a more tangible/legible "stake in the ground" (say, starting a Running Club) seems more ephemeral and we don't really have good words for it.

Thought-provoking post here. There's a gap in the vocabulary around this.

Comment by lionhearted on On the Regulation of Perception · 2019-03-10T23:05:17.212Z · score: 14 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Useful post, cheers — it seems someone has tread this ground before.

Just got the book, it's on incidentally —

Comment by lionhearted on On the Regulation of Perception · 2019-03-10T18:01:17.756Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW
What do you mean by “when we eat we regulate perception”?

I think most people think of hunger like a gas gauge on the car — eating because the gas gauge is on "Empty" to fill it out.

But, actually, we're eating to change our perception — changing from the "I perceive myself to be hungry" to that not being the case any more.

The problem is that that might not map to actual nutritional needs, desired life/lifestyle, biochemistry, body composition, etc etc.

Comment by lionhearted on Less Competition, More Meritocracy? · 2019-01-22T04:08:15.636Z · score: 8 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Much ado about nothing, I think this is the most quotable thing you've ever written.

Appease or wipe out, perverse desperadoes, etc etc.

Anyways — exceptional piece. Feels like classical Zvi deep analysis as applied to high-leverage non-constructed scenarios. Or rather, how to turn a draft into constructed, without participants knowing. One marvels over what type of win rate would be possible if this can be successfully executed....

Comment by lionhearted on 18-month follow-up on my self-concept work · 2018-12-19T13:28:11.364Z · score: 21 (6 votes) · LW · GW

First — congratulations.

Second — an observation and a bit of an abstract question.

Observation: it seems to me that it's often the most introspective, pro-social, and thoughtful people that seem to wrestle with things like shame and potentially damaging self-concept.

Can you think of why that might be true? Obviously I don't know you super well, but you always came across like a very admirable person to me; i.e., exactly the type of person that would benefit least from rumination and feelings of shame or anxiety that might lead to some sort of paralysis.

It seems to me the more pro-social, reflective, and thoughtful someone is, the most ideal position for society would be for that person to go most confidently through life, no? Yes, of course, everyone gets some stuff wrong, and you don't want to shut down introspection, but...... I wonder why this is? Is it being very thoughtful causes both pro-sociality and rumination/shame/anxiety? Or that going through a round of heavy rumination makes one more pro-social? Or that becoming pro-social leads one to higher standards and more rumination?

Trying to navigate the cause-and-effect a little bit, but it seems like a darn shame to me.

Congrats again, of course — and any thoughts on why the general case occurs?

Comment by lionhearted on Peanut Butter · 2018-12-12T14:47:04.203Z · score: 13 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Well said.

On the Nietzsche front, "Formerly all the world was insane" is certainly remarkable. "Follies and Crimes" and "Galaxies of Joy" are both right up there with it.

Here's Galaxies —

“What? The final aim of science should be to give man as much pleasure and as little displeasure as possible? But what if pleasure and displeasure are so intertwined that whoever wants as much as possible of one must also have as much as possible of the other — that whoever wants to learn to ‘jubilate up to the heavens’ must also be prepared for ‘grief unto death’? And that may well be the way things are! […] Even today you still have the choice: either as little displeasure as possible, in short, lack of pain — and socialists and politicians of all parties fundamentally have no right to promise any more than that — or as much displeasure as possible as the price for the growth of a bounty of refined pleasures and joys that hitherto have seldom been tasted. Should you decide on the former, i.e. if you want to decrease and diminish people’s susceptibility to pain, you also have to decrease and diminish their capacity for joy. With science one can actually promote either of these goals! So far it may still be better known for its power to deprive man of his joys and make him colder, more statue-like, more stoic. But it might yet be found to be the great giver of pain! — And then its counterforce might at the same time be found: its immense capacity for letting new galaxies of joy flare up!”

— Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 1882

Comment by lionhearted on Public Positions and Private Guts · 2018-10-17T03:44:29.380Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Good call. Replied above to Vaniver on this point.

Comment by lionhearted on Public Positions and Private Guts · 2018-10-17T03:41:41.774Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Yeah, that's it — IDC, circling, etc are things I'm peripherally aware of but which I haven't tried and which aren't really contextualized; it felt sort of like, "If you know this, here's how they connect; if not, well, you could go find out and come back." I also got the feeling that 'Agenty Duck' was more significant than the short description of it, but I hadn't come across that before and felt like I was probably missing something.

I think the biggest issue, actually, wasn't the specific technical terms that I was aware I wasn't fully up to speed on, but rather with words like "coherence" — I wasn't sure if there was a formal definition/exploration being alluded to that I haven't heard, or if it's the plain English meaning. So my trust in my own ability to be reading the piece correctly really started to decrease at the end of the "Public Guts" section — I wasn't sure which words/phrases were technical terms that I wasn't up to speed on, and which were just plain English meaning that I could read and use natural assumptions to keep going.

Even then, still got a lot of it — just wanted to point it out since I liked the piece a lot. Also, it does make sense much of the time to write for an audience that's maximally informed to push the field forwards; this community and the world at large certainly benefits from both technical pieces that assume context as well as more "spell it out for you" materials.

Comment by lionhearted on Public Positions and Private Guts · 2018-10-14T19:04:54.550Z · score: 17 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I enjoyed this tremendously.

Small feedback: this post is a mix of fundamentals and good introductions to key concepts, but also seems to assume a very high level of knowledge of the norms and current recent terminology and developments in the rationality community.

I'm probably among the top 5-10% of time spent in the community (read all the sequences in real time when Eliezer was originally writing them at Overcoming Bias), but I'm certainly not in the top 1-2%, and there were a number of references I didn't get and therefore points I couldn't quite follow. Of course, I could dig-up and cross-reference everything to work at them towards max understanding, but then, I just dropped in for 30 minutes here at LW before I'm about to get on a phonecall.

If that's intentional, no problem. Just pointing it out so you can do a quick check on target audience. What I did get seemed really marvelous, at least a half-dozen very interesting ideas here.

Comment by lionhearted on Anti-social Punishment · 2018-09-30T23:21:48.225Z · score: 9 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I'm from Boston originally. Very interesting to note that Boston didn't score the highest in the non-punishment variant — it was high, but lower than Copenhagen — but scored the at the top with punishment added.

That squares with my experience of my Bostonians — reasonably friendly and pro-social but not as much so as say Scandinavia, but very much willing to get righteous if someone is defecting, probably moreso than Scandinavia.

But then, reasonably quick to forgive if someone did bad but gets with the program.

Or maybe I'm flattering my native city. But the results aren't surprise compared to my intuition. (I wish I'd made a prediction about how Boston would come out before reading the results, but alas, missed opportunity there.)

Comment by lionhearted on Team Cohesion and Exclusionary Egalitarianism · 2018-09-18T03:38:47.676Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Nice. Thanks. I'm due to learn Markdown...

Comment by lionhearted on A Dialogue on Rationalist Activism · 2018-09-15T22:38:30.731Z · score: 9 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I came to write that exact comment —

"That was a really fun read."

Nothing more substantive for now. Fun, for sure, though.

Comment by lionhearted on On Robin Hanson’s Board Game · 2018-09-09T02:33:43.233Z · score: 14 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Loved this. The vast majority of analysis on games is shallow, tending to look at the stated rules and explicit mechanics, and ignoring derived and implied rules (the vastly different property value-payoff heatmaps in Monopoly, the "genre awareness" here), ignoring tempo/timing issues, and ignoring win conditions / endgame considerations.

I love when stuff like this gets boiled down elegantly:

>You want to accumulate contracts in suspects you ‘like’ (which mostly means the ones you think are good bets), so you can get ‘control’ of one or more of them. Control means that if they did it, you win.

Ah, cool, that's a win condition.

And then the logical corollaries:

>... Suppose you’re a poor player. ... A basic gambit would be to buy up all the contracts you can of a suspect everyone has dismissed. Even if there are very good reasons they seem impossible and are trading at $5, you can still get enough of them to win if it works out, and you might have no competition since players in better shape have juicier targets. Slim chance beats none. But if even that’s out of the question, you’ll have to rebuild your position. You will need to speculate via day trading. Any other play locks in a loss.

And tempo:

>This is a phenomenon we see in many strategic games. Early in the game, players mostly are concerned about getting good value, as most assets are vaguely fungible and will at some point be useful or necessary. As the game progresses, players develop specialized strategies, and start to do whatever they need to do to get what they need, often at terrible exchange rates, and dump or ignore things they don’t need, also at terrible exchange rates.

I love this stuff. It's so cool. Hat's off.

Incidentally, did you ever read "The best Puerto Rico strategy"?

A gem of a broad overview that similarly looks in depth across the whole stack. Puerto Rico is a wonderful game in that it's incredibly simple and satisfying for new players — no overtly destructive actions against fellow players, everyone gets a turn, you're always building up your island no matter what — but has incredibly deep mathematical and behavioral complexity underneath the hood. Rare that games can hit both of those notes.

Definitely recommend that one if you haven't read it. Seriously, huge respect and hat's off for this article — being able to intuit game dynamics, strategic and tactical considerations, elucidating win conditions and relevant play adjustments when winning or losing before having played the game extensively is... damn impressive.

I'm totally hoping you teach a class on game analysis at Stanford or MIT or whatever someday, and put the lectures online. I'd watch 'em. What you do is, frankly, really damn impressive. No idle flattery, but where do you reckon you're at percentile-wise in this skill? Top 0.00001% of analysts/theorists would be 1 in 10 million or so. There's probably not more than 30 better analysts in the USA than you, no? No flattery, more like a factual statement. If someone gave me an under/over bet of "100 more talented game analysts than Zvi in the USA", I'm leaning super strongly to the the under; under/over of 1000 people and I take the under without hesitating.

Comment by lionhearted on Secondary Stressors and Tactile Ambition · 2018-07-14T18:43:08.922Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Very useful concept and phrase. Thanks.

Comment by lionhearted on Secondary Stressors and Tactile Ambition · 2018-07-14T12:33:42.950Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Interesting way of putting it.

It seems to me ambition differs slightly from motivation — ambition, I think, often includes some medium-intensity negative emotion with it — but, insightful take here.

Comment by lionhearted on Secondary Stressors and Tactile Ambition · 2018-07-14T12:32:15.985Z · score: 12 (3 votes) · LW · GW

This was my favorite disagreeing comment on this thread, and insightful.

Comment by lionhearted on Secondary Stressors and Tactile Ambition · 2018-07-14T12:31:55.244Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

That's one of my favorite essays, incidentally.

That said, I'm not going for poetics or linguistic beauty — I'm looking for an easily-used technical term.

I'm not particularly attached to "secondary stressors" — I just want a precise phrase for the phenomenon. Other people in the thread proposed other ones, EX "worrying about worrying" (which is close but I think again not as precise).

Comment by lionhearted on Secondary Stressors and Tactile Ambition · 2018-07-13T16:23:37.200Z · score: 11 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I respectfully disagree.

You seem to be saying that you prefer general words that encompass many concepts rather than specific and more precise words. EX:

>Did you just come up with a new way to say "motivation"? It's true that some people might get a quick boost from that.

Are motivation and ambition the same thing? I don't think so. It seems to me that ambition typically encompasses a certain lack alongside it; it seems to most typically occur with some medium-intensity negative emotion.

It's very possible to say someone is motivated to throw a birthday party for their son or daughter, but you wouldn't usually say they're "ambitious to throw a birthday party" — while ambition in its various forms (abstract or tactile) might be a subset of motivation, maybe, I think there's a useful distinction there.

Of course, the key is having language that works for you — if it doesn't work for you, by all means don't use it.

Comment by lionhearted on Putting Logarithmic-Quality Scales On Time · 2018-07-11T12:06:24.986Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Well said. Time is maybe the most fundamental thing we've got to manage and navigate to have the lives we want, and thus I find it strange how little thinking people give the topic... the scale described here obviously isn't perfect, but hopefully is useful as a jumping-off point to analyzing time usage a bit for how well it's being spent.

Comment by lionhearted on Simplified Poker Conclusions · 2018-06-10T11:02:21.383Z · score: 19 (4 votes) · LW · GW

>I broke even against the Nash programs, utterly crushed vulnerable programs, and lost a non-trivial amount to only one program, a resounding heads-up defeat handed to me by the only other top-level gamer in the room, fellow Magic: the Gathering semi-pro player Eric Phillips.

Great series.

Do you have the win/loss stats or final amounts by strategy? Or a rough approximation from memory?

Comment by lionhearted on Simplified Poker · 2018-06-06T09:10:34.809Z · score: 8 (1 votes) · LW · GW

>It's not obvious to me that, with only fifty rounds, you have enough time to identify exploitable agents and exploit them

That was the first line of thinking I had too.

If so, you might want to check-open and call down with your 2's early in the game to see if you're going to only be paying 3's, or what frequency they bluff 1's.

Also very important to observe whether they call-down with 2's or toss them in either position, and with what frequency.

On a quick think, the inability to raise means that bluffing (1's) and semi-bluffing (2's) is probably more viable... if the opponent wasn't running any based-on-opposition-adjustment, I wonder to what extent "bet every hand from opening position" might play out. It's certainly not optimal but might do better than expected. Presumably second-position always folds 1's and calls 3's, so you'd wind up with —


If each hand mix is around 1/9th of the distribution of hands (it doesn't say how large the deck is)...

1v1: You steal a little more than a half chip than expected, instead of push or fold to bluff. Opponent never calls.

1v2: You steal one chip... 50% of the time? 70%? And lose an extra chip the remainder of the time.

1v3: You lose two chips 100% of the time, instead of losing one chip as expected.

2v1: You get one chip with minimal gained equity (small value in you don't have to face a bluff).

2v2: You steal one chip... 50% of the time? 70%? And you push the remainder of the time.

2v3: You lose two chips 100% of the time, instead of losing one chip as expected.

3v1: They fold, gain one chip as expected.

3v2: They fold... 50% of the time? 70%? You get a second chip the remainder of the time.

3v3: They call, it's a push.

So you'd wind up with...

1v1: +0.5 expected over equity.

1v2: +equity if they fold at 67% or higher, -equity if they fold 66% or less.

1v3: -1 expected over equity.

2v1: Minimally small +equity for not having to make decision against bluff, but not much gained.

2v2: Guaranteed +equity if they ever fold, with their fold rate of 2's being the equity gained rate.

2v3: Slightly less than -1 expected over equity (since you'd check-call sometimes to protect).

3v1: They fold, as expected. Breakeven.

3v2: +equity on whatever their calling rate is.

3v3: Push, as expected. Breakeven

Assuming the deck is large enough that these are all similarly weighted matchups (EX 1v1 or 2v2 isn't much less likely), then you'd get +0.5, ???, -1, +tiny, +medium, -1, 0, +medium, 0 [as compared to expected normal equity].

I think that comes out ahead — I'd speculate that among people who don't sit and run analysis, that they fold 2's to open bets slightly too often. Or, hmm, maybe not. You could do better than this of course... but the fact that I'm even running the analysis to see if "literally bet everything from opening position" is good shows just how much the inability to raise changes the game.

Comment by lionhearted on May newsletter · 2018-06-03T16:09:11.389Z · score: 30 (6 votes) · LW · GW
"take gwern is an unbiased sample" is a surprisingly useful strategy.

Yes, but you need to control for the fact that he's apparently superhuman, and his results might not correlate with expected results of standard homo sapiens.

(Kidding aside, Gwern's got some of my favorite research on the internet. Such a wellspring of clear thinking, great citing, and immense practicality.)

Comment by lionhearted on Meta-Honesty: Firming Up Honesty Around Its Edge-Cases · 2018-05-29T18:02:55.836Z · score: 52 (18 votes) · LW · GW

Perhaps the most insightful comment I ever read on Hacker News went something like,

"One of the big problems for startup founders who are immigrants is not knowing what they're expected to lie about, and what they're absolutely forbidden to lie about. If you cook the books, you go to jail for fraud. But if you're very honest when a VC asks you, 'Who else is thinking of investing in you?' and you answer, 'It's only you, no one else is interested' — then you're never going to get investment. You're expected to lie and say, 'Oh, there's a lot of interest.'"

I can't find the exact comment but I found that very insightful.

Comment by lionhearted on Personal relationships with goodness · 2018-05-21T21:08:32.643Z · score: 5 (1 votes) · LW · GW

You know how people write 'lol' kind of casually on the internet?

I actually, literally, audibly laughed out loud at "Suck it, future." Thank you. I'm still chuckling, actually, that's a riot.

Comment by lionhearted on Personal relationships with goodness · 2018-05-21T20:58:17.440Z · score: 5 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Well said. At the risk of asking elaboration of an obvious point, do you have any examples of when this has paid off for you? Or, perhaps write a top-level post? On the one hand it's very easy to get one's mind around what you wrote... but I'd speculate there might have been some non-obvious takeaways?

It's a fascinating point. It'd be cool to read more about your perspective on it.

Comment by lionhearted on Personal relationships with goodness · 2018-05-21T20:55:49.938Z · score: 11 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Wow. Huge respect for noticing that and then just saying it outright. That's... hard to do. Or at least, rare.

Also the side-taking morality link is extremely thought-provoking; it led to one of those "wow how come I never thought of this before..." moments -- thanks.

Comment by lionhearted on Does Thinking Hard Hurt Your Brain? · 2018-05-06T23:29:20.167Z · score: 5 (1 votes) · LW · GW

This happens to me too. In particular, if I concentrate at say 95% of ability on a hard problemset for 2+ hours without a break, I'm often "fried" for a few hours after that. In my journals, I sometimes call it "synaptic backlash" — I don't know that it's actually happening on that level, but it feels like I overtaxed some inner mechanism of the brain somewhat.

That said, I think there's a lot of potential explanations. Here's a few I've come up with —

*Actual, physical strain — eye strain, tension in body, staying in same position/posture for long periods of time.

*Forgetting to hydrate or eat while concentrating. (Sometimes I feel like hell after a long work session, and then realize I haven't eaten something in a day, eat, and I'm good again shortly afterwards.)

*Potentially over-consuming stimulants when concentrating — empirically, I go much harder on coffee and nicotine when I'm working on hard problems, but oddly, I seem to forget that I do that. Then I get caffeine/nicotine headaches, but sometimes forget the simple cause-effect relationship of why it happened. (I know that sounds stupid, but I used to do this quite commonly without realizing what it was.)

*General fatigue effects prompting explore/exploit tradeoffs. These two papers on paper that Kaj Sotala shared with me were gamechangers —

Also, a subtle effect that might explain some of it — regular normal homeostatic pressure means we often lose some "cognitive horsepower" throughout the day as sleep pressure builds, circadian/ultradian rhythms cycle, and various biological processes happen. If you're only performing at 60% of your theoretical max capacity, you might not notice a -10% decrease in cognitive processing ability... if you're up at 95% of theoretical max capacity but experience a normal -10% decline as a result of just hours passing, it can feel like you're... I don't know how to describe it, but "losing the problem" or some such... it's likely that at close to our mental limits we more acutely feel the normal loss of cognitive ability that just comes as the day goes on via normal biochemical processes.

That's my $.02 — this is still an active area of inquiry for me, it seems important and relevant to long-term well-being...

Comment by lionhearted on Does Thinking Hard Hurt Your Brain? · 2018-05-06T23:20:00.725Z · score: 5 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I've had similar experiences and I think this is part of it.

Eye strain potentially, too.

Comment by lionhearted on The Sheepskin Effect · 2018-05-06T22:51:09.868Z · score: 5 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Good post. To play devil's advocate for a moment — I basically agree with you, but for the heck of it — perhaps the ability to graduate is actually a relatively honest signal for "ability to finish stuff" which results from either not having any major weaknesses in a big confounded mess of variables and character traits, or having the problem-solving skills, political skills, system/bureaucracy-navigation skills/whatever to be able to mitigate one's weaknesses if any... just y'know, finishing a 4-year degree with all its attendant tedium and arbitrary requirements, maybe that shows the degree-holder can finish stuff.

Just playing devil's advocate, mostly agree with you. Good post.

Comment by lionhearted on Some Simple Observations Five Years After Starting Mindfulness Meditation · 2018-05-04T11:51:59.391Z · score: 11 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks x2. I just got the meditation book and moved to high up on my reading list — every one of your recommendations in the past has been so overwhelmingly useful that I'll read just about any book or paper you recommend. Those fatigue papers you recommended were a serious game-changer for me in particular, checking out the progress model and Mind Illuminated now.

Comment by lionhearted on Some Simple Observations Five Years After Starting Mindfulness Meditation · 2018-04-21T08:56:45.404Z · score: 5 (1 votes) · LW · GW

A little bit. I went deeper into studying the Zen tradition some — Hakuin, in particular — which doesn't emphasize process and stages as much.

Thanks for the links, I'll read them shortly.

Comment by lionhearted on Some Simple Observations Five Years After Starting Mindfulness Meditation · 2018-04-21T08:54:46.943Z · score: 11 (3 votes) · LW · GW

1. It's useful as a quick calibration for the day.

2. Some of the gains in perspective and skill seemed to atrophy after time off.

Comment by lionhearted on Some Simple Observations Five Years After Starting Mindfulness Meditation · 2018-04-21T08:53:44.827Z · score: 21 (5 votes) · LW · GW

From a problem-solving perspective, conditions like dehydration, lack of sleep, and similar seem to actually need remedying objectively. Subjective states, not always true that anything needs to change objectively.

Comment by lionhearted on Recommendations vs. Guidelines · 2018-04-19T22:38:09.577Z · score: 4 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Great post.

Re: dieting and nutrition, I think some of the better practitioners are getting into doing it that way. I think Andy Morgan is the best out there right now, EX —

Comment by lionhearted on Is Rhetoric Worth Learning? · 2018-04-07T14:01:25.074Z · score: 8 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Marvelous post.

It's worth reading Aristotle's Rhetoric at some point —

The famous points like arguing from ethos (roughly, character/credibility), logos (logic), and pathos (emotional appeals, especially around harm and suffering) — these are well-known enough, but Aristotle went into a lot of specific and counterintuitive examples.

I feel like I got a lot from reading it that I haven't seen elsewhere, but it does oscillate a bit between a dry and slogging type read and some real gems of insight. Probably worth checking out if you're interested in the topic — I don't think summaries do it justice; there's some particularly good and non-obvious examples.

Comment by lionhearted on Explicit and Implicit Communication · 2018-04-07T01:43:48.698Z · score: 4 (1 votes) · LW · GW
I would have expected the phrase to mean[...] not very reliant on context, tone[...]

That's reasonably close to my definition. "Cringey NVC goop" is not part of my definition; it's rather an example on one extreme.

Comment by lionhearted on Explicit and Implicit Communication · 2018-03-22T09:22:26.694Z · score: 10 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Did he? I'm under the impression that Macedon conquered all of Greece except Sparta —

"With key Greek city-states in submission, Philip II turned to Sparta; he sent them a message: "If I win this war, you will be slaves forever." In another version, he warned: "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city." According to both accounts, the Spartans' laconic reply was one word: "If". Philip II and Alexander both chose to leave Sparta alone."

Comment by lionhearted on [deleted post] 2018-03-21T06:35:56.699Z

Whoa. Thanks for the clarification/elaboration. I'm a big Zvi enthusiast but was unable to follow the idea until you commented. Interesting. It's the difference between needing to be be able to spot occasional exploitable inefficiencies and to have full-on defenses against everything bad.

Comment by lionhearted on [deleted post] 2018-03-21T06:30:01.024Z

Lots of interesting ideas here. Thanks and massive respect for taking the time to think this through and write it up.

>D-, D, C-, C, C, C, B-, B, B, B+

What would have been required for have someone score an "A" ?

Both from the participant themselves, and from you structurally? Did you need different people? Or could the top people who participated have graded out at the top with different or better structure? Etc.

Again, big thanks and regards for the honest reflection.

Comment by lionhearted on Leaving beta: Voting on moving to · 2018-03-12T01:03:47.963Z · score: 93 (25 votes) · LW · GW

This has been some heroic work. This place is back to one of my favorite places to read for inspiration and learning. Huge congrats and thanks to the whole team.

Comment by lionhearted on Inconvenience Is Qualitatively Bad · 2018-03-10T05:22:16.322Z · score: 8 (2 votes) · LW · GW

There's a way to cook efficiently in batches that can lead to better nutritional profiles at rather low cost.

A pressure cooker is a totally overpowered tool in this regard — brown rice/quinoa mix takes around 2 minutes of setup (put rice in, rinse rice, turn on), around 20 minutes of cooking that doesn't need to be monitored, and around 3 minutes to wash the cooker and store extra rice/quinoa for reheating later.

Chicken breasts mixed with some vegetables takes similar amounts of time.

I probably spend around 45 minutes per week cooking in the purest sense of the term (and a couple minutes here and there to re-heat in microwave and wash plates, etc) and I eat most of my meals home cooked. It's almost an order of magnitude cheaper than eating out if you want similar quality nutritious stuff that wasn't cooked in junk oils and seasoned with garbage.

I used to hate cooking, but there's a few things of types of food/cooking mixes that are very convenient — pressure cooker in particular is amazing. Hard boiled eggs. Oatmeal and electric water kettle that shuts off automatically once it hits boiling... Kerrygold butter and extra virgin olive oil if you want more calories from fat. Mix in some pre-washed or canned vegetables and put that all in an online grocery delivery and you're eating well at low cost in time and money.

Edit: Also, I find waiting for delivery orders to arrive inconvenient too. As long as the fridge is stocked with batches of made food, I'm always 5 minutes away from eating something rather nice — or instantly if I don't mind eating it cold and am in a hurry.

Comment by lionhearted on Categories of Sacredness · 2018-02-28T10:34:59.563Z · score: 4 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Have you ever considered going into politics, or at least governance in some capacity?

I'm serious.

You don't seem the type of person who'd like to play the election racket, but man I'd love to see what you could do if you were given a place like 1965-Singapore or given broad governor's powers over a Special Economic Zone like 1979-Shenzhen.

While even genuine second-order thinking is pretty rare in the world, it seems you're regularly operating in fifth-order thinking. It's marvelous reading how you disentangle complex ideas. I idly wonder what you could build with a city-state with a few hundred thousand residents.

Comment by lionhearted on Meta-tations on Moderation: Towards Public Archipelago · 2018-02-26T00:21:29.310Z · score: 32 (9 votes) · LW · GW

Once again, I just want to say a huge thanks to the team building the site. This type of work requires really careful consideration of tradeoffs, is hugely leveraged, and almost automatically displeases some people by the tradeoffs made.

For my part, I don't have any real opinions on the moderation guidelines and tech buildout here specifically; I just wanted to say thanks and salut for all the thoughtful work going into it. It's too often thankless work, but it makes a tremendous difference. Regards and appreciation.

Comment by lionhearted on The abruptness of nuclear weapons · 2018-02-25T23:07:10.712Z · score: 8 (4 votes) · LW · GW

The Soviet Union had three things going for them in getting to nuclear parity —

  1. As a command economy, they were able to assign a vast amount of people to working on their equivalent of the Manhattan Project and pour basically unlimited resources into the project, despite having a much weaker economy overall.
  2. They had probably the most effective espionage corps of all time, and stole many of the core technologies instead of needing to re-invent them.
  3. With the notable exception of Churchill, the majority of the world was war-weary and genuinely wanted to believe that Stalin would uphold his Yalta Conference promises.
Comment by lionhearted on The Intelligent Social Web · 2018-02-25T02:11:09.642Z · score: 13 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Could I offer a thought on style?

I think this is a tremendous piece and there's at least 3-4 very remarkable insights in here... I wonder if it could be a transcendent piece with a bit more editing for tightness?

EX — if the piece had cut most of the preliminary and opened with "When you walk into an improv scene, you usually have no idea what role you’re playing. All you have is some initial prompt — something like:" — it would have grabbed attention faster. Then the core point from the improv scene could have been made 30% shorter/tighter before transitioning into the very powerful "I suspect that improv works because we’re doing something a lot like it pretty much all the time" with the family example.

After that, you explored from maybe a half-dozen angles... I wonder if perhaps instead choosing 3 tight, fast-written examples would have made the piece more lucid and more accessible to general readers?

When I run a word count, you're around 3600 words — now, you could fairly call me a hypocrite, since my essays regularly clock in around 4000-6000 and I'd be be a better writer if I spent more time editing down to 30-50% less words.

The two main reasons I don't edit enough — (1) perception of lack of time, (2) not wanting to delete correct-but-less-striking-true-stuff.

If it's #1, editing is of course taxing and time-consuming. I understand. It's the main reason why I don't edit enough.

But I find #2 to be pernicious and I catch myself doing it all the time. In writing, generally speaking, readers seem to average the quality of a piece rather than sum it. If you have three "A+" exceptional level insights/anecdotes, and mix in a few "B" level ideas and even the occasional "C+"... often readers seem to feel like, "Oh, that was pretty good" instead of "Wow, my mind is blown."

If you're writing just for the LW audience, people here have unusually long attention spans for engaging with complex pieces with different premises and branches of thought... certainly though, I think the tightest-edited version of this could help a lot of people beyond the LW community and I wonder there might be a more accessible version that led with the most striking points and moved maybe 25% faster through each of them?

Just a thought — I wouldn't have commented as such if I didn't feel like you were doing something absolutely marvelous here.

Comment by lionhearted on Two types of mathematician · 2018-02-25T00:11:50.370Z · score: 4 (1 votes) · LW · GW

That's one of the more useful posts I've read in a while since it gives me a way to consolidate a bunch of other loose thoughts that have been kicking around. Thanks.

Comment by lionhearted on [Meta] New moderation tools and moderation guidelines · 2018-02-20T13:55:12.989Z · score: 30 (7 votes) · LW · GW

I don't have an opinion on the moderation policy, but I did want to say thanks for all the hard work in bringing the new site to life.

LessWrong 1.0 was basically dead, and 2.0 is very much alive. Huge respect and well-wishes.

Comment by lionhearted on "Just Suffer Until It Passes" · 2018-02-14T06:57:58.491Z · score: 11 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Incredibly insightful observation. Thank you.

Comment by lionhearted on "Just Suffer Until It Passes" · 2018-02-12T14:30:53.794Z · score: 14 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Indeed, yes. Here was another (actually, earlier) entry from my potential countermeasures —

  • Proactive Recharging
    • — Sometimes losing steam or mentally flagging is real, and not much more can be done in terms of productive work.
    • — In that case, deciding intentionally to call a long break (or call done for the day) and recharging via nap or bed, and other recharging activities, can be the right call for the day.
    • — It takes wisdom to know if you should bear down or proactively recharge in a given situation.
Comment by lionhearted on "Just Suffer Until It Passes" · 2018-02-12T14:27:45.339Z · score: 21 (7 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks. I'll look to write it up. I'll have to introspect a bit first since it evolved naturally for me, and I'm sure I have some buried assumptions and premises.