= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jonathan_Graehl comments on Humans are not automatically strategic - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (266)
Yes, my approach is similar.
I schedule planning time where the level of abstraction is proportional to the logarithm of the recurrence period, and it seems effective at pruning cached goals and sanity-checking my meta-goals. (However, it's difficult to test because of the time scales involved and the fact that I can't fork myself.)
Recently, I noticed that my general skills aren't improving as fast as I'd like, so I decided to take advantage of compound interest[1] and created a parallel structure for working, learning, and meta-learning.
EDIT: Fixed link misparse.
This brings to my mind the idea of a complete n-ary tree (with n being the base of your logarithm), with the highest abstraction level at the root - if you spend equal time on each node, then you'll portion time across levels as you described.
I found this amusing - I'm not sure I know of any generally meaningful meta-thinking levels beyond say, 2.