Balance motivation and discipline 2021-01-07T12:00:34.942Z
Aphorisms on motivation 2020-12-02T08:55:17.065Z
Under which conditions are human beings most likely to be altruistically motivated? 2020-06-01T19:16:33.212Z
Meetup #46 - Authentic Relating games 2020-02-24T21:29:14.207Z
Post-meetup social 2020-02-04T08:43:03.669Z
Meetup #45 - Implementation Intentions 2020-02-04T08:26:31.529Z
Meetup #44 - Murphyjitsu 2020-01-21T07:37:00.317Z
"human connection" as collaborative epistemics 2020-01-12T23:16:26.487Z
Meetup #43 - New techniques 2020-01-07T07:59:31.797Z
Moloch feeds on opportunity 2019-12-12T21:05:24.030Z
Meetup #42 - Ideological Turing Test 2019-12-09T07:36:06.469Z
RAISE post-mortem 2019-11-24T16:19:05.163Z
Meetup #41 - Double Crux 2019-11-24T16:09:53.722Z
Steelmanning social justice 2019-11-17T11:52:43.771Z
Meetup #40 - Street epistemology 2019-11-08T16:37:27.873Z
Toon Alfrink's sketchpad 2019-10-31T14:56:10.205Z
Meetup #39 - Rejection game 2019-10-28T20:36:54.704Z
The first step of rationality 2019-09-29T12:01:39.932Z
Is competition good? 2019-09-10T14:01:56.297Z
Have you lost your purpose? 2019-05-30T22:35:38.295Z
What is a good moment to start writing? 2019-05-29T21:47:50.454Z
What features of people do you know of that might predict academic success? 2019-05-10T18:16:59.922Z
Experimental Open Thread April 2019: Socratic method 2019-04-01T01:29:00.664Z
Open Thread April 2019 2019-04-01T01:14:08.567Z
RAISE is launching their MVP 2019-02-26T11:45:53.647Z
What makes a good culture? 2019-02-05T13:31:57.792Z
The housekeeper 2018-12-03T20:01:57.618Z
We can all be high status 2018-10-10T16:54:19.047Z
Osmosis learning: a crucial consideration for the craft 2018-07-10T15:40:12.193Z
Open Thread July 2018 2018-07-10T14:51:12.351Z
RAISE is looking for full-time content developers 2018-07-09T17:01:38.401Z
A friendly reminder of the mission 2018-06-05T00:36:38.869Z
The league of Rationalists 2018-05-23T11:55:14.248Z
Fundamentals of Formalisation level 2: Basic Set Theory 2018-05-18T17:21:30.969Z
The reverse job 2018-05-13T13:55:35.573Z
Fundamentals of Formalisation level 1: Basic Logic 2018-05-04T13:01:50.998Z
Soon: a weekly AI Safety prerequisites module on LessWrong 2018-04-30T13:23:15.136Z
Give praise 2018-04-29T21:00:42.003Z
Raising funds to establish a new AI Safety charity 2018-03-17T00:09:30.843Z
Welcome to LW Netherlands 2018-03-16T10:13:08.360Z
Updates from Amsterdam 2017-12-16T22:14:48.767Z
Project proposal: Rationality Cookbook 2017-11-21T14:34:01.537Z
In defense of common-sense tribalism 2017-11-02T08:43:11.715Z
We need a better theory of happiness and suffering 2017-07-04T20:14:15.539Z
Announcing AASAA - Accelerating AI Safety Adoption in Academia (and elsewhere) 2017-06-15T18:55:06.306Z
Meetup : Meetup 17 - Comfort Zone Expansion (CoZE) 2017-05-10T09:59:48.318Z
Meetup : Meetup 15 (for real this time) - Trigger Action Planning 2017-04-12T12:52:40.546Z
Meetup : Meetup #15 - Trigger-Action Patterns 2017-03-29T00:55:10.507Z
Meetup : #13 - Focusing 2017-02-28T20:52:57.897Z
Meetup : Amsterdam - Meetup #12 - Friendly AI 2017-02-15T15:08:00.708Z


Comment by toonalfrink on Great minds might not think alike · 2021-01-02T23:48:18.176Z · LW · GW

A Shor-to-Constance translation would be lossy because the latter language is not as expressive or precise as the former

Comment by toonalfrink on Great minds might not think alike · 2021-01-02T23:46:53.370Z · LW · GW

Great work. 

I wonder just how far this concept can be stretched. Is focusing a translation from the part of you that thinks in feelings to the part of you that thinks in words? If you're translating some philosophical idea into math, are you just translating from the language of one culture to the language of another?

And if so, it strikes me that some languages are more effective than others. Constance may have had better ideas, but if Shor knew the same stuff as Constance (in his own language) perhaps he would have done better. Shor's language seems to be more expressive, precise and transferable.


  • In a given context, which language is "best"?
  • In a given context, which languages have the best ideas/data?
  • Where might we find large opportunities for arbitrage?

For example, I think we should be translating spiritual ideas into the language of cognitive science and/or economics. Any others?

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-12-25T01:36:58.267Z · LW · GW

Personalized mythic-mode rendition of Goodhart's law:

"Everyone wants to be a powerful uncompromising force for good, but spill a little good and you become a powerful uncompromising force for evil"

Comment by toonalfrink on How to Ignore Your Emotions (while also thinking you're awesome at emotions) · 2020-12-17T12:28:45.897Z · LW · GW

The parent-child model is my cornerstone of healthy emotional processing. I'd like to add that a child often doesn't need much more than your attention. This is one analogy of why meditation works: you just sit down for a while and you just listen

The monks in my local monastery often quip about "sitting in a cave for 30 years", which is their suggested treatment for someone who is particularly deluded. This implies a model of emotional processing which I cannot stress enough: you can only get in the way. Take all distractions away from someone and they will asymptotically move towards healing. When they temporarily don't, it's only because they're trying to do something, thereby moving away from just listening. They'll get better if they give up.

Another supporting quote from my local Roshi: "we try to make this place as boring as possible". When you get bored, the only interesting stuff left to do is to move your attention inward. As long as there is no external stimulus, you cannot keep your thoughts going forever. By sheer ennui you'll finally start listening to those kids, which is all you need to do.

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-11-24T13:01:44.268Z · LW · GW

Look, if you can't appreciate the idea because you don't like it's delivery, you're throwing away a lot of information

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-11-16T20:37:27.723Z · LW · GW

It's supposed to read like "this idea is highly unpolished"

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-11-16T19:22:16.205Z · LW · GW

Here's an idea: we hold the Ideological Turing Test (ITT) world championship. Candidates compete to pass an as broad range of views as possible.

Points awarded for passing a test are commensurate with the amount of people that subscribe to the view. You can subscribe to a bunch of them at once.

The awarding of failures and passes is done anonymously. Points can be awarded partially, according to what % of judges give a pass.

The winner is made president (or something)

Comment by toonalfrink on Sunny's Shortform · 2020-07-30T08:32:56.623Z · LW · GW

It might be hard to take a normative stance, but if culture 1 makes you feel better AND leads to better results AND helps people individuate and makes adults out of them, then maybe it's just, y'know, better. Not "better" in the naive mistake-theorist assumption that there is such a thing as a moral truth, but "better" in the correct conflict-theorist assumption that it just suits you and me and we will exert our power to make it more widely adopted, for the sake of us and our enlightened ideals.

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-07-30T07:47:20.594Z · LW · GW

In the spirit of sharing what worked: goal factoring a girlfriend, I found that I could get better and cheaper coverage of my needs by hiring escorts and dating someone with less sexual but more emotional compatibility.

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-07-05T14:36:45.995Z · LW · GW

Case study: A simple algorithm for fixing motivation

So here I was, trying to read through an online course to learn about cloud computing, but I wasn't really absorbing any of it. No motivation.

Motives are a chain, ending in a terminal goal. Lack of motivation meant that my System 1 did not believe what I was doing would lead to achieving any terminal goal. The chain was broken.

So I traversed the chain to see which link was broken.

  • Why was I doing the online course? Because I want to become better at my job.
    • Do I still think doing the online course will make me better at my job? Yes I do.
    • Do I want to get better at my job? Nah, doesn't spark joy.
  • Why do I want to get better at my job? Because I want to get promoted.
    • Do I still think doing better will make me get promoted? Yes I do.
    • Do I want to get promoted? Nah, doesn't spark joy.
  • Why do I want to get promoted? Because (among other things) I want more influence on my environment, for example by having more money.
    • Do I still think promotion will give me more influence? Yes I do
    • Do I want more influence? Nah
  • Why do I want more influence (via money)? Because (among other things) I want to buy a house and do meetups, and live with close friends at the center of a vibrant community that helps people
    • Do I think more money will get me this house? Yes I do
    • Do I want to live with close friends at the center of a vibrant community that helps people? Well, usually yes, but today I kind of just want to go to the beach with my gf, and decompress.
  • Well okay, but most days you do want this thing.
  • Shit you're right, I do want to do this online course

And motivation was restored. Suddenly, I feel invigorated. To do the course, and to write this post.

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-06-28T20:58:37.923Z · LW · GW

Question for the Kegan levels folks: I've noticed that I tend to regress to level 3 if I enter new environments that I don't fully understand yet, and that this tends to cause mental issues because I don't always have the affirmative social environment that level 3 needs. Do you relate? How do you deal with this?

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-06-28T19:34:42.153Z · LW · GW

As someone who never came across religion before adulthood, I've been trying to figure it out. Some of it's claims seem pretty damn nonsensical, and yet some of it's adherents seem pretty damn well-adjusted and happy. The latter means there's gotta be some value in there.

The most important takeaway so far is that religious claims make much more sense if you interpret them as phenomenological claims. Claims about the mind. When buddhists talk about the 6 worlds, they talk about 6 states of mood. When christians talk about a covenant with god, they talk about sticking to some kind of mindset no matter what.

Back when this stuff was written, people didn't seem to distinguish between objective reality and subjective experience. The former is a modern invention. Either that, or this nuance has been lost in translation over the centuries.

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-06-11T07:23:04.240Z · LW · GW

As for being on ibogaine, a high dose isn't fun for sure, but microdoses are close to neutral and their therapeutic value makes them net positive

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-06-11T07:13:21.839Z · LW · GW

Have you tried opiates? You don't need to be in pain for it to make you feel great

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-06-04T17:27:23.344Z · LW · GW

Ibogaine seems to reset opiate withdrawal. There are many stories of people with 20 year old heroin addictions that are cured within one session.

If this is true, and there are no drawbacks, then we basically have access to wireheading. A happiness silver bullet. It would be the hack of the century. Distributing ibogaine + opiates would be the best known mental health intervention by orders of magnitude.

Of course, that's only if there are no unforeseen caveats. Still, why isn't everybody talking about this?

Comment by toonalfrink on Paul Crowley's Shortform · 2020-06-02T20:45:17.478Z · LW · GW

Did Dominic Cummings in fact try a "Less Wrong approach" to policy making? If so, how did it fail, and how can we learn from it? (if not, ignore this)

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-06-02T20:42:41.093Z · LW · GW

I did all the epistemic virtue. I rid myself of my ingroup bias. I ventured out on my own. I generated independent answers to everything. I went and understood the outgroup. I immersed myself in lots of cultures that win at something, and I've found useful extracts everywhere.

And now I'm alone. I don't fully relate to anyone in how I see the world, and it feels like the inferential distance between me and everyone else is ever increasing. I've lost motivation for deep friendships, it just doesn't seem compatible with learning new things about the world. That sense of belonging I got from LessWrong is gone too. There are a few things that LW/EA just doesn't understand well enough, and I haven't been able to get it across.

I don't think I can bridge this gap. Even if I can put things to words, they're too provisional and complicated to be worth delving into. Most of it isn't directly actionable. I can't really prove things yet.

I've considered going back. Is lonely dissent worth it? Is there an end to this tunnel?

Comment by toonalfrink on Is competition good? · 2020-05-25T20:19:07.668Z · LW · GW

I don't recall, this is one of those concepts that you kind of assemble out of a bunch of conversations with people that already presuppose it

Comment by toonalfrink on What Money Cannot Buy · 2020-05-21T22:40:17.182Z · LW · GW

Here's another: probing into their argument structure a bit and checking if they can keep it from collapsing under its own weight.

Comment by toonalfrink on What Money Cannot Buy · 2020-05-21T22:36:14.371Z · LW · GW

Probably the skill of discerning skill would be easier to learn than... every single skill you're trying to discern.

Comment by toonalfrink on Conflict vs. mistake in non-zero-sum games · 2020-05-21T22:11:33.722Z · LW · GW
The outgroup is evil, not negotiating in good faith, and it's an error to give them an inch. Conflict theory is the correct one for this decision.

Which outgroup? Which decision? Are you saying this is universally true?

Comment by toonalfrink on "human connection" as collaborative epistemics · 2020-01-14T19:26:35.164Z · LW · GW


Comment by toonalfrink on "human connection" as collaborative epistemics · 2020-01-13T08:06:52.877Z · LW · GW

Forgive me for stating things more strongly than I mean them. It’s a bad habit of mine.

I’m coming from the assumption that people are much more like Vulcans than we give them credit for. Feelings are optimizers. People that do things that aren’t in line with their stated goals, aren’t always biased. In many cases they misstate their goals but don’t actually fail to achieve them.

See my last shortform for more on this

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2020-01-13T08:01:15.798Z · LW · GW

So here's two extremes. One is that human beings are a complete lookup table. The other one is that human beings are perfect agents with just one goal. Most likely both are somewhat true. We have subagents that are more like the latter, and subsystems more like the former.

But the emphasis on "we're just a bunch of hardcoded heuristics" is making us stop looking for agency where there is in fact agency. Take for example romantic feelings. People tend to regard them as completely unpredictable, but it is actually possible to predict to some extent whether you'll fall in and out of love with someone based on some criteria, like whether they're compatible with your self-narrative and whether their opinions and interests align with yours, etc. The same is true for many intuitions that we often tend to dismiss as just "my brain" or "neurotransmitter xyz" or "some knee-jerk reaction".

There tends to be a layer of agency in these things. A set of conditions that makes these things fire off, or not fire off. If we want to influence them, we should be looking for the levers, instead of just accepting these things as a given.

So sure, we're godshatter, but the shards are larger than we give them credit for.

Comment by toonalfrink on Moloch feeds on opportunity · 2019-12-13T16:09:29.844Z · LW · GW
I am aware that confessing to this in most places would be seen as a huge social faux pas, I'm hoping LW will be more understanding.

You're good. You're just confessing something that is true for most of us anyway.

Where I have a big disagreement is in the lesson to take from this. Your argument is that we should essentially try to turn off status as a motivator. I would suggest it would be wiser to try to better align status motivations with the things we actually value.

Up to a point. It is certainly true that status motivations have led to great things, and I'm personally also someone who is highly status-driven but manages to mostly align that drive with at least neutral things, but there's more.

I struggle hugely with akrasia. If I didn't have some external motivation then I'd probably just lie in bed all day watching tv.

The other great humanist psychologist besides Maslow was Adam Rogers. His thinking can be seen as an expansion on this "subagent motivation is perceived opportunity" idea. He proposed an ideal vs an actual self. The ideal self is what you imagine you could and should be. Your actual self is what you imagine you are. The difference between ideal self and actual self, he said, was the cause of suffering. I believe that Buddhism backs this up too.

I'd like to expand on that and say that the difference between ideal self (which seems like a broader class of things that includes perceived opportunity but also social standards, the conditions you're used to, biological hardwiring, etc) and your actual self is the thing that activates your subagents. The bigger the difference, the more your subagents are activated by this difference.

Furthermore, the level of activation of your subagents causes cognitive dissonance (a.k.a. akrasia), i.e. one or multiple of your subagents not getting what they want even though they're activated.

And THAT is my slightly-more-gears-level model of where suffering comes from.

So here's what I think is actually going on with you: you're torn between multiple motivations until the status subagent comes along and pulls you out of your deadlock because it's stronger than everything else. So now there's less cognitive dissonance and you're happy that this status incentive came along. It cut your gordian knot. However, I think it's also possible to resolve this dissonance in a more constructive way. I.e. untie the knot. In some sense the status incentive pushes you into a local optimum.

I realise that I'm probably hard to follow. There's too much to unpack here. I should probably try and write a sequence.

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2019-12-12T21:08:43.679Z · LW · GW

Right, right. So there is a correlation.

I'll just say that there is no reason to believe that this correlation is very strong.

I once won a mario kart tournament without feeling my hands.

Comment by toonalfrink on Give praise · 2019-12-12T20:03:57.273Z · LW · GW
People generally only discuss 'status' when they're feeling a lack of it

While this has been true for other posts that I wrote about the subject, this post was actually written from a very peaceful, happy, almost sage-like state of mind, so if you read it that way you'll get closer to what I was trying to say :)

Comment by toonalfrink on Give praise · 2019-12-12T19:58:00.531Z · LW · GW

I appreciate your review.

Most of your review assumes that my intent was to promote praise regardless of honesty, but quite the opposite is true. My intent was for people to pause, take a breath, think for a few moments what good things others are doing, and then thank them for it, but only if they felt compelled to do so.

Or I'll put it this way: it's not about pretending to like things, it's about putting more attention to the things about others that you already like. It's about gratefulness, good faith and recognition. It's about validating those that are already on the right track, to embolden them and secure them.

And this works to the extent that it is genuine. If you don't feel what you say, people will notice and discard your opinion. Congruency is an obvious first step that I didn't include in the post because I assumed it to be obvious.

But of course not getting that point across is all on me. I suppose I could have written a better post.

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2019-12-12T19:33:04.345Z · LW · GW

I have gripes with EA's that try to argue about which animals have consciousness. They assume way too readily that consciousness and valence can be inferred from behavior at all.

It seems quite obvious to me that these people equate their ability to empathize with an animal with the ability for the animal to be conscious, and it seems quite obvious to me that this is a case of mind projection fallacy. Empathy is just a simulation. You can't actually see another mind.

If you're going to make guesses about whether a species is conscious, you should first look at neural correlates of consciousness and valence and then try to find these correlates in animals. You don't look at animal behavior at all. We have absolutely no reason to believe that behavior correlates with consciousness. That's just your empathy getting in the way. The same empathy that attributes feelings to stuffed animals.

Comment by toonalfrink on Raemon's Shortform · 2019-12-06T21:57:10.410Z · LW · GW

I'm looking forward to a bookshelf with LW review books in my living room. If nothing else, the very least this will give us is legitimacy, and legitimacy can lead to many good things.

Comment by toonalfrink on Affordance Widths · 2019-11-30T19:15:37.824Z · LW · GW

To me, the most useful part of this post is that it introduces this idea that affordances are personal, i.e. some people are allowed to do X while others are not. I like to see this as part of the pervasive social machinery that is Omega.

I imagine people of a certain political background to want to sneer at me, as in, "why did it take someone in your in-group to tell you this?"

To which I admit that, indeed, I should have listened. But I suppose I didn't (enough), and now I did, so here we are with a post that made my worldview more empathetic. The bottom line is what matters.

Comment by toonalfrink on Transhumanism as Simplified Humanism · 2019-11-30T19:13:04.582Z · LW · GW

This post has been my go-to definition of Transhumanism ever since I first read it.

It's hard to put into words why I think it has so much merit. To me it just powerfully articulates something that I hold as self-evident, that I wish others would recognize as self-evident too.

Comment by toonalfrink on Tradition is Smarter Than You Are · 2019-11-30T19:11:08.706Z · LW · GW

To me, this is exactly what the LW community (and the broader progressive tribe surrounding it) needs to hear. This post, along with other developments of thought in the same direction, has caused a major shift in how I think about changing things.

The first quote is most important, and I find myself using it quite often if I'm met with a person my age (or even older) that dismisses a tradition as obviously dumb. Why do you think the tradition exists in the first place? If you don't know, how can you be so sure it doesn't serve some function?

If a piece of code you ran raised an error, it would be pretty dumb to just remove the statement that raises the error to fix your program. The only reason why Omega doesn't break down that easily is because naive people like us have kicked at it long enough to make it a little more robust. That doesn't mean kicking it makes it stronger.

This direction of thinking caused a major shift in my career, from trying to hack away at the margins of society to becoming a part of the establishment. I'm writing this from my office at a governmental bank. This post is the reason that it's not some indie startup instead, and I don't regret it.

Comment by toonalfrink on The Tails Coming Apart As Metaphor For Life · 2019-11-30T19:07:28.546Z · LW · GW

I still find myself using this metaphor a lot in conversations. That's a good benchmark for usefulness.

Comment by toonalfrink on The Costly Coordination Mechanism of Common Knowledge · 2019-11-30T19:05:16.626Z · LW · GW

I could write a paragraph to explain some concept underlying a decision I made. OR there could be a word for this concept, in which case I can just use the word. But I can't use that word if it's not commonly understood.

The set of things that are common knowledge in a group of people is epistemic starting point. Imagine you had to explain your niche ideas about AI without using any concepts invented past 1900. You'd be speaking to toddlers.

I needed "common knowledge" to be common knowledge. It is part of our skill of upgrading skills. It's at the core of group rationality.

Comment by toonalfrink on A voting theory primer for rationalists · 2019-11-30T18:59:01.412Z · LW · GW

This post introduced me to a whole new way of thinking about institutional/agency design. The most merit, for me, was pointing out this field existed. The subject is close to one of the core subjects of my thoughts, which is how to design institutions that align selfish behavior with altruistic outcomes on different hierarchical levels, from the international, to the cultural, national, communal, relational, and as far down as the subagent level.

Comment by toonalfrink on Is daily caffeine consumption beneficial to productivity? · 2019-11-26T20:16:30.591Z · LW · GW

I don't think this is the right question to ask. Even if the net alertness gain of a cup of coffee is 0, it is still worth consuming during those moments that alertness is worth more, and abstaining during those moments where relaxation is worth more. Net alertness is not net EV.

Comment by toonalfrink on RAISE post-mortem · 2019-11-24T20:40:46.317Z · LW · GW

Good catch, fixed it.

100x is obviously a figure of speech. I'd love to see someone do some research into this and publish the actual numbers

Comment by toonalfrink on RAISE post-mortem · 2019-11-24T18:17:33.080Z · LW · GW

I suppose I was naive about the amount of work that goes into creating an online course. I had been a student assistant where my professor would meet with me and the other assistants to plan the entirety of the course a day before it started. Of course this was different because there was already a syllabus and the topic was well understood and well demarcated.

Also, I had visited Berkeley around that time, and word was out about a new prediction that the singularity was only 15 years ahead. I felt like I had no choice but to try and do something. Start moving mountains right there and then. Looking back, I suppose I was a little bit too impressed by the fad of the day.

Third reason is that when starting out the project was supposed to be relatively simple and limited in scope, not a full-blown charity, and every step towards making the thing bigger and drawing more resources felt logical at the time.

But to be honest I'm not very good at knowing my true motivations.

Comment by toonalfrink on Steelmanning social justice · 2019-11-23T21:24:24.085Z · LW · GW

That's fair

Comment by toonalfrink on Meetup #40 - Street epistemology · 2019-11-16T11:27:35.981Z · LW · GW

Take note! We moved the location from the VU (in the south of Amsterdam) to the OBA (near central station), so plan your trip accordingly

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2019-11-09T20:00:47.037Z · LW · GW

Moved to a new country twice, they broke once.

But the real cause is that I didnt regard these items as my standard inventory, which I would have done if I had more of a preservation mindset.

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2019-11-09T12:43:44.065Z · LW · GW

Here's a faulty psychological pattern that I recently resolved for myself. It's a big one.

I want to grow. So I seek out novelty. Try new things. For example I might buy high-lumen light bulbs to increase my mood. So I buy them, feel somewhat better, celebrate the win and move on.

Problem is, I've bought high-lumen bulbs three times in my life now already, yet I sit here without any. So this pattern might happen all over again: I feel like upgrading my life, get this nice idea of buying light bulbs, buy them, celebrate my win and move on.

So here's 4 life-upgrades, but did I grow 4 times? Obviously I only grew once. From not having high lumen light bulbs to having them.

My instinct towards growth seems to think this:

growth = novelty

But in reality, it seems to be more like this:

growth = novelty - decay

which I define as equal to

growth = novelty + preservation

The tap I installed that puts this preservation mindset into practice seems to be very helpful. It's as follows: if I wonder what to do, instead of starting over ("what seems like the best upgrade to add to my life?") I first check whether I'm on track with the implementation of past good ideas ("what did my past self intend to do with this moment again?")

Funnily enough, so far the feeling I get from this mindset seems pretty similar to the feeling I get from meditation. And meditation can be seen as training yourself to put your attention on your past intentions too.

I think this one goes a lot deeper than what I've written here. I'll be revisiting this idea.

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2019-11-07T13:21:08.382Z · LW · GW

He does influence my thinking

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2019-11-07T10:12:00.983Z · LW · GW

You may have heard of the poverty trap, where you have so little money that you're not able to spend any money on the things you need to make more. Being broke is an attractor state.

You may have heard of the loneliness trap. You haven't had much social interaction lately, which makes you feel bad and anxious. This anxiety makes it harder to engage in social interaction. Being lonely is an attractor state.

I think the latter is a close cousin of something that I'd like to call the irrelevance trap:

  • Lemma 1: having responsibilities is psychologically empowering. When others depend on your decisions, it is so much easier to make the right decision.
  • Lemma 2: being psychologically empowered makes it more likely for you to take on responsibility, and for others to give you responsibility, because you're more able to handle it.

I speculate that some forms of depression (the dopaminergic type) are best understood as irrelevance traps. I'm pretty sure that that was the case for me.

How do you escape such a trap? Well you escape a loneliness trap by going against your intuition and showing up at a party. You escape an irrelevance trap by going against your intuition and taking on more responsibility than you feel you can handle.

Comment by toonalfrink on steve2152's Shortform · 2019-11-01T16:38:13.557Z · LW · GW

I'm skeptical that anyone with that level of responsibility and acumen has that kind of juvenile destructive mindset. Can you think of other explanations?

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2019-11-01T14:47:19.455Z · LW · GW

Today I had some insight in what social justice really seems to be trying to do. I'll use neurodiversity as an example because it's less likely to lead to bad-faith arguments.

Let's say you're in the (archetypical) position of a king. You're programming the rules that a group of people will live by, optimizing for the well-being of the group itself.

You're going to shape environments for people. For example you might be running a supermarket and deciding what music it's going to play. Let's imagine that you're trying to create the optimal environment for people.

The problem is, since there is more than one person that is affected by your decision, and these people are not exactly the same, you will not be able to make the decision that is optimal for each one of them. If only two of your customers have different favourite songs, you will not be able to play both of them. In some sense, making a decision over multiple people is inherently "aggressive".

But what you can do, is reduce the amount of damage. My understanding is that this is usually done by splitting up the people as finely as possible. You might split up your audience into stereotypes for "men", "women", "youngsters", "elders", "autistic people", "neurotypicals", etc. In this case, you can make a decision that would be okay for each of these stereotypes, giving your model a lower error rate.

The problem with this is that stereotypes are leaky generalizations. Some people might not conform to it. Your stereotypes might be mistaken. Alternatively, there might be some stereotypes that you're not aware of.

Take these 2 models. Model A knows that some people are highly sensitive to sound. Model B is not aware of it. If your model of people is A, you will play much louder music in the supermarket. As a result, people that are highly sensitive to sound will be unable to shop there. This is what social justice means with "oppression". You're not actively pushing anyone down, but you are doing so passively, because you haven't resolved your "ignorance".

So the social justice project, as I understand it, is to enrich our models of humans to make sure that as many of them as possible are taken into consideration. It is a project of group epistemics, above all.

That means that good social justice means good epistemics. How do you collaboratively figure out the truth? The same laws apply as they would to any truthseeking. Have good faith, give it some probability that you're wrong, seek out to understand their model first, don't discard your own doubts, and be proud and grateful when you change your mind.

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2019-11-01T14:17:57.704Z · LW · GW

Sure. In this case "what it really is" means "what does it optimize for, why did people invent it"

Comment by toonalfrink on Toon Alfrink's sketchpad · 2019-11-01T14:14:23.083Z · LW · GW

Well yes, but no, the point is that these other people are merely means, but optimally distributing your assets over time is a means that screens off the other people, in a sense. In the end, assuming that people are really just optimizing for their own value, they might trade for that but in the end their goal is their own allocation.

Comment by toonalfrink on bgaesop's Shortform · 2019-10-31T15:02:10.472Z · LW · GW

Meta-point: I noticed almost falling into the defensive, trying to refute your sentiment without even reading the paper.

I don't hold you responsible for that, but a less polemic tone would probably get you a better response at least from me.