LESSWRONG
LW

Comment Permalink
[anonymous]1200

  1. You have to put yourself in environments where you'll be able to interact with a lot of women. College is in a lot of ways set up perfectly for this: if you're not in college right now, consider joining a class or an activity group. Try to make it one where the gender balance will be in your favor. Book groups are one example--they're wildly tilted towards women (I suspect men just, you know, read books, and don't tend to see the value in sitting around sipping coffee and talking about reading books). But if you like girls who wear glasses, try finding a congenial book group. You'll probably be the only man.

    Even better than book groups, though, are dance classes. Swing and rockabilly aren't super trendy anymore, but the scenes still exist in a quieter way, and these classes are great for single men: a) they're filled mostly with women; b) dance is an inherently flirtatious activity, and the physical leading/following dynamic is one that many women find very sexy; c) even if you don't find a date in that class, you'll have learned an attractive skill, and you'll be able to participate in events that will introduce you to more women; and d) physical exercise is good for building both confidence and sexiness. Yoga classes might work too, or if you can find a martial arts practice that attracts significant numbers of women (maybe check out your local aikido classes?).

    The SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) is also a surprisingly good choice for geeks who want to hook up. Wearing princess dresses is enough of a draw for women that the gender balance, while tilted towards men, isn't too awful, and so many relationships get started in the context of SCA events that there's a joke about it. (The joke is that "SCA" actually stands for "Society for Consenting Adults.")

    There are of course singles bars or activities like speed-dating that are specifically designed to let you meet single women, so you could try those too. A lot of people find those environments stressful and frustrating, which is why I'd suggest finding a social scene that is not specifically about dating.

    Lastly, let all your friends know that you're interested in meeting women. Ask to be introduced to their friends who are single. This is how people used to meet each other and it is still an important avenue to keep open.

  2. You have to ask women out on dates. This part, I know, is hard, and I'm sorry to admit that many women don't even understand how hard it is. You will be rejected and it will suck every time, but this part is a numbers game. You just have to keep doing it until you find the girl who says "yes."

    The pre-reqs for asking a girl out are fewer than you might think. It's best if you have already been introduced and have interacted a bit in a friendly manner. When I say a bit, I really mean just that you've spoken a few times. It is far, far more common for geek guys to err wildly in the opposite direction. Don't do this. If you like her, ask her out, and make your intentions unambiguous. The sooner the better.

    If you're following my advice and meeting girls in activity classes, you would do this by approaching her just after one of the classes, maybe as she's getting her things together or as she's heading out the door. Make eye contact and smile. Start with a compliment that references the interactions you've had--"Hey, I've really been enjoying dancing with you [or "sparring with you," or, "I really liked what you said about the book"] and I wonder if I could take you out to a movie next week."

    Be really clear about the fact that you're asking her for a date. Try not to say something like "I wonder if you'd like to meet for coffee and talk " because she could interpret this as merely a friendly gesture on your part, and you don't want that. A lot of inexperienced guys think they should establish a friendship before they ask a girl out, but you really don't want to sink a lot of time and energy into a girl who is never going to see you "like that." (It is true that established friendships can make a wonderful basis for romance, but never, ever count on that happening.)

    Also, propose a specific activity and a specific time. Don't just say "I wonder if you'd go out with me some time" because a) it sounds a little desperate and b) a lot of women have trouble saying "no" directly (we're socialized not to). Leave her a face-saving way to refuse. If she says "I'd love to but I've been really busy with work/school/life recently," that means no. Move on. (If, on the other hand, she says "I'm going to Guatemala next week, but I'll be back by the end of the month, maybe then?" that means yes.)

Dealing with rejection: When you are rejected, try to be gracious about it, even if she is not. Like I said above, a lot of women truly do not understand how much gumption it takes to put yourself out there by making a pass. If she seems annoyed or condescending or whatever, try to shrug it off; just smile and say "okay, no problem" or something along those lines. Do the same thing if she says "I'd rather just be friends." (But for the love of Pete, do not spend a lot of effort trying to actually cultivate a friendship. Moooooove on.)

It does get easier the more you do it. Just remind yourself that it is a numbers game. The worst thing that can happen is not that you ask ten girls out and they all say no. The worst thing is that you ask ten girls, they say no, and then you stop asking. Because whether it was Girl #11 or Girl #83 who would've fallen head over heels for you, you'll never find her now. Keep looking to meet women, and keep asking them out; these are the two steps that lead to relationships.

Troubleshooting: If you do find that you are consistently rejected, there might be something going on with your self-presentation that is offputting to women. Make sure your basic hygiene is good: that you are wearing clean clothes that fit you, that your hair is cut and that you are clean-shaven. (Facial hair is Advanced Fashion for Men: if fashion is not your ballgame, just shave, trust me.) Ask your friends if there's anything going on with your looks or demeanor that might be getting in your way.

If you are overweight, start an exercise regimen, but do not wait until you are at your ideal weight to start asking women on dates. It is perfectly possible for big dudes to find love, they do it all the time. It IS more important to make sure that you wear flattering clothing that fits you well--a baggy, threadbare tee-shirt and Hawaiian shorts may not cut it. Use Google Images to find pictures of some of the heavier celebrities (like Sean Astin, or Seth Rogan before he slimmed down). Check out what they are/were wearing, and use those pictures as a style guide.

You may also be acting in ways that indicate you don't value yourself, which can make women (and other people in general) instinctively shy away. You will probably need the help of people who actually know you to diagnose these kinds of problems and help you fix them.

In general, though, from my observations, most geek guys are able to get dates so long as they go where the women are, and ask them out. The most common mistake by far is simply failing to execute one or both of these crucial steps.

Reply
Showing 3 of 12 replies (Click to show all)
A1987dM50

It does get easier the more you do it. Just remind yourself that it is a numbers game. The worst thing that can happen is not that you ask ten girls out and they all say no. The worst thing is that you ask ten girls, they say no, and then you stop asking. Because whether it was Girl #11 or Girl #83 who would've fallen head over heels for you, you'll never find her now. Keep looking to meet women, and keep asking them out; these are the two steps that lead to relationships.

This can backfire if you live in a small town.

Reply
9Dreaded_Anomaly
This seems like very good, thorough, general advice. However, I wonder how many of us (heterosexual males reading Less Wrong) have romantic preferences that are as general. I realize that the "reading Less Wrong" part of that descriptor wasn't specified in the question, but it seems implied. In general, a heterosexual man might describe the set of his potential romantic partners in the following way: a woman whom he finds physically attractive, with whom he shares interests, and with whom his personality is compatible. (That the woman is currently single is also important for many, including myself, but I recognize that it's less general than the former three, given the existence of polyamory/fidelity.) However, for myself, I would add to this a fairly strict qualifier, that the woman is an atheist. I simply don't feel that I would be able to be emotionally intimate with a woman who holds an irrational, i.e. religious, worldview. Atheist doesn't necessarily mean rationalist, but religious almost definitely means irrational, i.e. P(rationalist|atheist) >> P(rationalist|religious), and even more so for P(would be open to rationality|atheist). I find it to be a sound heuristic that prevents me from embarking on relationships very likely doomed to failure. I doubt that I am alone among LWers in taking this into account. Unfortunately, I have found it really damn hard to meet atheist women. I can count on one hand the number I have met in college. A large part of that is that I attend a science/engineering university which has a student body comprised of only ~30% women, but even then, my expectation before entering the university was that a population self-selected for interest in science/engineering would have a larger proportion of atheism than the general population. That expectation was not met by reality, and I recognized that I was confused, but trying to resolve that confusion (see below) didn't appreciably help my goal of meeting atheist women. Studies have
15anonymous259
I cannot possibly stress enough how non-obvious this is to "geeky" males.
See in context
by Alicorn
1 min read
1495

196

I am beginning to suspect that it is surprisingly common for intelligent, competent adults to somehow make it through the world for a few decades while missing some ordinary skill, like mailing a physical letter, folding a fitted sheet, depositing a check, or reading a bus schedule. Since these tasks are often presented atomically - or, worse, embedded implicitly into other instructions - and it is often possible to get around the need for them, this ignorance is not self-correcting. One can Google "how to deposit a check" and similar phrases, but the sorts of instructions that crop up are often misleading, rely on entangled and potentially similarly-deficient knowledge to be understandable, or are not so much instructions as they are tips and tricks and warnings for people who already know the basic procedure. Asking other people is more effective because they can respond to requests for clarification (and physically pointing at stuff is useful too), but embarrassing, since lacking these skills as an adult is stigmatized. (They are rarely even considered skills by people who have had them for a while.)

This seems like a bad situation. And - if I am correct and gaps like these are common - then it is something of a collective action problem to handle gap-filling without undue social drama. Supposedly, we're good at collective action problems, us rationalists, right? So I propose a thread for the purpose here, with the stipulation that all replies to gap announcements are to be constructive attempts at conveying the relevant procedural knowledge. No asking "how did you manage to be X years old without knowing that?" - if the gap-haver wishes to volunteer the information, that is fine, but asking is to be considered poor form.

(And yes, I have one. It's this: how in the world do people go about the supposedly atomic action of investing in the stock market? Here I am, sitting at my computer, and suppose I want a share of Apple - there isn't a button that says "Buy Our Stock" on their website. There goes my one idea. Where do I go and what do I do there?)

Scholarship & LearningSkill BuildingFinancial InvestingSocial & Cultural Dynamics
Frontpage

196

Mentioned in
Load More (5/11)
Procedural Knowledge Gaps
26SilasBarta
120[anonymous]
New Comment
Rendering 1000/1495 comments, sorted by
top scoring
(show more) Click to highlight new comments since:
Some comments are truncated due to high volume. (⌘F to expand all)Change truncation settings
[-]David_Gerard801

Please, please, please, I beg you:

Learn to touch-type. Learn to type with ten fingers.

Computer programs and websites to do this abound. If you find one that's horrible to use, find another. But persist until you do.

I am appalled at how many people I know who use computers typing for hours a day, and never learned how to drive a keyboard. They insist they're just as fast as they would be touch-typing (they're not), and then complain of sore fingers from doing weird stuff to adapt to their inability to type properly.

Anyone reading this site uses computers enough they should know how to type. I would estimate (based on my geeky friends I've seen at a keyboard) less than 20% of you can touch-type properly.

Set up your desk, chair etc per the handy how-to-avoid-RSI diagrams that one can hardly get away from in any setting. Then LEARN HOW TO TYPE. And don't make an excuse for why you're a special snowflake who doesn't need to.

By the way, when I discovered IRC big time (1996), it took my speed from 60wpm to 90wpm. Complete sentences, they're your friend.

My daughter is three and a half. She is already more skilled with the computers at nursery than the staff are. (Can get from the CBeebies games to watching Octonauts on the iPlayer in the blink of an eye!) I'm going to make sure she learns to type properly as soon as possible after she learns to read, dexterity allowing.

Reply
[-]TheOtherDave190

I've always been amused by the "magic feather" nature of my typing.

I don't touch type. I ask my brain about this, and it reports without hesitation that I don't touch type. Honest. Never have.

That said, I am perfectly capable of typing at a respectable clip without looking at the keyboard, with my fingers hovering more-or-less above the home row. I get screwy when I go after unusual punctuation keys or numbers, but when it comes to letters and commas and so forth, it works fine.

For several years, this only worked when I didn't notice it was working... that is, when I became sufficiently absorbed in what I was doing that I just typed. This became clear to me when a coworker commented "Oh, hey, I didn't know you could touch-type" and suddenly I couldn't.

It has become less fragile since then... I am typing this right now without looking at the keyboard, for example.

But my brain remains fairly certain that I don't touchtype.

(shrug)

Reply
4taryneast
I learned only a little while ago that I don't type, I dance. Words are regular, common movements... maybe like the finger movements of an incantation. Kinda cool.
[-]MBlume160

Upvoting this did not seem adequate.

I would also like to tentatively suggest an optimized keyboard layout such as Dvorak or Colemak, since the inconvenience is minimal if you're starting from scratch, and there seems to be anecdotal evidence that they improve comfort and lessen RSIs in the long run, but if fretting about what layout to use causes you to procrastinate for even one day on learning to type already then you should forget I said anything.

Reply
[-]David_Gerard170

Getting people to learn to type will be, however :-D

HOW THE HELL DO 80% OF THE COMPUTER-MAINLINING GEEKS I KNOW NOT KNOW HOW TO TYPE. HOW DO THEY NOT KNOW HOW TO USE THEIR PRIMARY MODE OF HUMAN INTERACTION. Figuring that out will be a study in human cognitive biases, for sure.

Yeah, there's a reason i didn't mention Dvorak or whatever ;-) So as not to put another "thing to do first" in the way. I know in person nobody at all who actually uses Dvorak. I can't think of any Dvorak users amongst online friends I haven't seen typing. (Perhaps there are some and they've just never said anything.)

Reply
[-]Eliezer Yudkowsky250

I use Dvorak. It's no faster and no more accurate, but it does tire out your fingers a whole lot less, and just typing one sentence in Dvorak will enable you to see why. I switched to Dvorak after a bout of RSI, and the RSI never came back.

Reply
4[anonymous]
del
3handoflixue
If you work someplace that allows you basic administrator privileges, or just has a friendly systems administrator, it isn't very difficult to change the keyboard layout in Windows. It can be set on a software level, or you could just bring a Dvorak keyboard in to work. Unfortunately, half the jobs I've had wouldn't allow this, so it's not a guaranteed solution. And the software switch is only useful if you have a cover you can throw over the existing keyboard, or can touch-type sufficiently well. Still, don't think being employed eliminates the Dvorak option. I looked in to it just recently to make sure that learning Dvorak wouldn't give me too much of a headache at work :)
2[anonymous]
del
[-]Risto_Saarelma100

Colemak user here. It didn't magically improve my typing speed as I hoped, top speed is 70 wpm and used to be the same with qwerty. I'm pretty sure it's more ergonomic to type with than qwerty, and I do have some wrist problems, so I'm going to stick with it.

I don't think non-mainstream layouts are something people should feel obliged to adopt unless they are having wrist problems. Beyond the ergonomics, it's mostly a weird thing to learn for fun.

Didn't like Dvorak because it makes you type 'ls' with your right pinky, and I type 'ls' a lot on unixlike command line shells.

Reply
3MBlume
It occurs to me that 'l' is also 'move right' in vim. I think I find my rightmost three fingers hovering on the top row when I move about for this reason. Wonder if I should try to remap those movement keys...
4lightpurpledye
The vim movement keys actually work surprisingly well in Dvorak. Up/Down are next to each other on your left hand, right/left are on the appropriate sides of your right hand.
1MBlume
that never occurred to me. I may write some bash aliases with a view to reducing long movements today.
1David_Gerard
The Wikipedia article on keyboard layouts is very interesting and informative.
5Risto_Saarelma
The nice thing about keyboard layouts, now that we have reprogrammable computers, is that there's little need to have holy wars over them. Having more people use the same layout is mostly inconsequential to a single user of the layout. It's very different for operating systems, programming languages and programs, where a lack of users means a lack of support and a slow slide into obscurity and eventual unusability.
5[anonymous]
Eliezer uses Dvorak, or at least used to four years ago:
2randallsquared
Except I've been typing for a living for 13 years on QWERTY and never had carpal tunnel syndrome. It's not clear to me that it has anything to do with keyboard layout.
3bogdanb
Reasons one may not have carpal tunnel syndrome may be: 1) independent of their keyboard layout, e.g. their carpal tunnels are very resilient, or they may not type enough to injure them; 2) dependent on the keyboard layout, e.g. for the typing one does one layout may be “efficient” enough not to trigger the syndrome. The observation that one never had CTS doesn’t separate the two hypotheses (i.e., you can’t tell if you never had carpal tunnel because of 1 or 2). My personal experience, as well as reports from others (e.g. Eliezer), is that typing on QWERTY did cause CTS, and after switching to Dvorak (for many years now), without any other visible change in typing (quantity or kind) the symptoms disappeared. From this evidence, the conclusion is quite clear that Dvorak is better for CTS than QWERTY. To be unclear about it you’d need to also have observations of people that had CTS with Dvorak but not with QWERTY. (However, it’s also clear that QWERTY is enough for some people, and that you’re likely in that category.) (Of course, the conclusion is “clear”, as I said, based on the evidence cited. It’s not a lot of evidence, so it doesn’t mean that the conclusion is definite in general. I just pointed out that you have more evidence than your personal experience that you’re ignoring.) (ETA: Also, it appears that you don’t quite need to worry about it. Similarly, I picked Dvorak when I had CTS, my CTS went away, and I don’t need to worry about layouts better than Dvorak. That doesn’t mean I’m not clear about Dvorak being less efficient than other layouts.)
2Kingreaper
Incorrect. As QWERTY is the standard, most people who have no problem with QWERTY don't switch. Therefore, people for whom QWERTY is more efficient than Dvorak are highly unlikely to ever use Dvorak enough to develop problems (such as CTS). If, say, 10% of the population was better off with Dvorak and 90% was better off with QWERTY, you still wouldn't expect to see people developing CTS with Dvorak, then going to QWERTY, because most people start with QWERTY. I'm not saying that QWERTY is better for anyone than Dvorak (personally the only reason I stopped using Dvorak was because I couldn't work out how to change the commands for ctrl-c, ctrl-x, ctrl-z, ctrl-s etc. to be in the same positions, rather than spread all over the keyboard) merely that it's a perfectly reasonable possibility given the evidence presented.
3Jonathan_Graehl
My brother has used Dvorak for the past 10 years. It's easy to learn. You can still retain qwerty proficiency. It does feel nicer for typing English. It doesn't help programming. It's annoying to use multiple/public computers. There are quite a few layouts that may be better than Dvorak. But probably not by enough to justify the extra effort of choosing one.
4Hook
I first learned how to touch type on Dvorak, but switched to qwerty when I went to college so I wouldn't have issues using other computers. I found that I could not maintain proficiency with both layouts. One skill just clobbered the other.
2Jonathan_Graehl
Maybe that's true once you try to get extremely fast with both. Since elementary school typing class, I've been 80+ wpm qwerty. I only learned and used dvorak up to about 50-60 wpm. Perhaps I never could have built maximum competence in both. I definitely noticed some mode-switching overhead.
2MartinB
I know at least 2 Dvorak users, 1 Colemak user, and 1 NEO user personally, and a few who are interested to learn. For anyone interested in switching layouts: skip Dvorak and go to one of the newer computer optimized layouts right away. I found it an interesting experience to have to re:learn how to type.
7wisnij
There's a really interesting comparison of popular keyboard layouts and proposed optimizations here: http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/ The author uses dynamic programming to calculate the various costs involved with typing (like finger movement, distance from home row, etc) and uses that to generate better layouts via simulated annealing. I thought it was a nicely quantitative take on a subject that is usually so subjective.
[-]Blueberry120

They insist they're just as fast as they would be touch-typing (they're not)

I would estimate (based on my geeky friends I've seen at a keyboard) less than 20% of you can touch-type properly

This seems like dogmatic adherence to tradition. Is there actually evidence that the traditional method of touch typing, where each finger is assigned a keyboard column and returns to the "Home Row" after striking a key, is at all faster, more efficient, or ergonomically sound than just typing intuitively?

I ask because I type intuitively with ten fingers. I know where all the keys are, and I don't see the need to return each finger to the home row after every single keystroke, which seems inefficient. If I type a common sequence like "er" or "th," I do it with a single flick of the hand, not four separate ones.

Also, I cover a much larger portion of the keyboard with my right hand than my left, because it's stronger and more natural for me than assigning each finger the exact same amount of keyboard real estate.

Reply
5TabAtkins
Skilled touch typists certainly don't make four separate motions to type "er" or "th". Keyboards are specifically designed to accept multiple keys being pressed at the same time, because a skilled typist naturally presses the next key before they have finished the motion for the previous one. Nearly all keyboards will accept two simultaneous keypresses, with higher-quality ones accepting 3, 4, or arbitrary numbers of simultaneous keystrokes. To be specific, typing "er" involves lifting my hand upwards, hitting "e" and "r" with my middle and pointer fingers in quick succession, and then dropping my hand back down. Typing "th" involves lifting my left hand at the same time as I shift my right hand slightly leftwards, and striking the "t" slightly before striking the "h" (though I often transpose the two actions and end up typing "hte" or "htat").
4wedrifid
You do "th" with one hand? I suggest that is less efficient than coordinating two shorter moves by the respective nearest fingers. "rt", of course, is a hand flick. Perhaps my vim navigation has biased me. "h" totally belongs to my right trigger finger and moving my left middle finger all the way over to the 't' so that a left hand flick can pull of a 'th' rapidly sounds like far too far out of the way.
2TobyBartels
Then you're fine. Two-fingered typing is the curse that we must quash. (But I don't speak for David.)
7D_Malik
Until about a year ago I couldn't touch-type either. I fixed it painlessly by removing my keyboard's keys and reinserting them in random positions. This would only help you if you already know more-or-less where the keys are, but you're too lazy to go a bit further and type without looking at the keyboard. It works because looking at the keyboard no longer helps, and you have to keep your fingers on the home keys to keep your sense of where the keys are. If you manage to memorize the new letter arrangement, just rerearrange.
7handoflixue
I find typing an entire sentence with my eyes closed is one of the best ways to develop good typing skills. It's really weird feeling myself correcting typos before I can svn see them. It also penalizes errors a lot more, and thus encourages a "get it right the first time" style of typing, instead of my usual "make mistakes and fix them" style. (Typed the preceding paragraph blind. "svn" is a typo for "even", and I was only aware I screwed it up ^^) It's also a fun "party trick" - I like to creep out co-workers by turning to listen to them and continuing to type :)
2David_Gerard
http://www.daskeyboard.com/model-s-ultimate/
7Kaj_Sotala
One can get fast enough using intuitive typing that I would imagine that the main bottleneck would be the need to pause and think of what you're writing, not the speed of your fingers. Although it's frustratingly slow, I seem to have the impression that writing by hand sometimes produces higher quality (unedited) text, because you have more time to think about what you're writing. Of course, because it still isn't good enough without the edits you can really only do with a word processor, overall it's still an inferior choice.
7David_Gerard
Depends. If I could type as fast as I talk, I would write more and better. (I write, speak and think pretty much identically. This is necessary to being a certain species of good writer.) Typing "cat>>tmp.txt" gives me a terminal where I can only add lines, not remove them. This gets me writing a first draft brain-dump pretty efficiently - to the point where I plug in a larger keyboard, because this netbook keyboard is too slow. (Need a Model M.) I've seen many authors say that writing in a medium where you can't go back and edit as you're writing gives better results, as you train your brain to get stuff right the first time. Also, typing a second draft completely afresh (rather than word-processing the first draft) gives good results. These are, of course, in the class of techniques for writers to try applying to see what works for them personally. Back in the olden days, before this "web" rubbish, my friends and I would write multi-page first draft letters to each other, rambling on about whatever rubbish (generally indie music).
3lukstafi
Anyone who doesn't touch-type: If you don't need to type faster, don't learn to touch-type to type faster. Just learn it.
2mkehrt
Why?
6lukstafi
To free your eyes so that they can "hold on to" and follow your ideas. ETA: for this reason I also use texmacs instead of latex.
5sfb
If you are reading this and want some typing practise: http://www2.ie.popcap.com/games/free/typershark It's a "sharks are going to eat you, type the word on the side of them to kill them, get more, faster sharks and longer words as you progress" game.
4nilsherzig
Here is good touch typing site, which doesn't force you to type stupid rows of random characters but adapts to your current efficiency per key. https://www.keybr.com/
3SilasBarta
Hm, I seem to be another exception and a new kind of exception. I had a typing class (3rd grade) and used software for learning typing (Mavis Beacon on a Mac). Neither helped me to touch type, but I still learned to use all fingers when typing, and today I can do ~90 WPM -- although that's brain-to-typed letters; I go slower for transcribing a given text. I also use an ergonomic split keyboard that's much harder to use one-handed. And the way that I learned was through gradual adjustment after needing to type a lot. Basically, I started out as a hunt/pecker (after trying Mavis and the classroom) and then made it a habit to, every once in a while, type a letter with a nearby finger instead of the forefinger. Over time, my hands moved less and less until they just settled on the method that is touch-typing, depending on what you count as T-T, since I have some quirks. For example, I usually do capital letters with one hand (pinky on shift, one of the remaining other fingers for the letter) rather than using the opposite hand to shift. And I actually prefer using the keyboard when possible: for a while I was on a quest to see how long I could go without using the mouse, even so far as to add and edit a firefox extension that let me browse the web with one hand on the keyboard. (I took one of the existing ones and changed it so it only used keys on the left side of the keyboard.)
4dlthomas
At an earlier job we moved buildings, breaking down and setting up our workspaces. I had been working away as usual for over a week thereafter before realizing I had neglected to actually plug in the mouse.
1David_Gerard
For mouse haters who use a Unix: Ratpoison.
2gwern
More general answer: Category:Tiling WMs. (I personally use and help develop Xmonad.)
3Wei Dai
From this, it sounds like I was lucky that I took a typing class in in high school (mostly because I wanted some easy credits). Do most schools not offer this?
6[anonymous]
The typing class I took was by far the best, most useful class I had in four years of high school -- and the only one where I could not have learned the material better by simply being left alone in a quiet room with the textbook. (Although being left alone with a computer and a decent learn-to-type program would probably have done just as well; but this was 1994 and my school had typewriters, not computers, so the teacher was actually useful.)
2[anonymous]
Many years ago I learned to touchtype by typing: a few times everyday, using the 'proper' finger positions. In a week or two, I was touchtyping. Some months ago I injured my left hand and had to type using my right hand only (I switched to the right-hand dvorak keyboard layout). I did not have much patience for the above practice sentences; I just practiced them a few times then jumped right into actual typing. A couple of weeks later I was touch typing comfortably with only my right hand. It may just be a matter of patience.
2FiftyTwo
I'm learning to touch type at the moment using some of the information on here. Currently I am practising with the key board covered using the lessons here. Will post my results as I go on.
6David_Gerard
The thing that really worked for me was that I was writing a fanzine at the time (1990), so had plenty of stuff I had to type. So I learnt all the keys, was at 20wpm which was slightly less than the 23-25wpm I could do two-fingered, and went ahead typing actual stuff I had to type properly with ten fingers. tl;dr Have actual stuff to type, use your new skill.
2CronoDAS
I tend to type with just one hand a lot of the time. I've trained with touch-typing software, but I never managed to learn to type all that quickly. My "one-and-a-half-handed" typing is about as fast as I've ever gotten when trying to touch type properly, so I haven't bothered to try to practice more. (I think I do about 30 WPM.) My father, on the other hand, is a 62-year-old engineering professor who still can't type with more than two fingers. When he tried to get tech support from a chat room once, the support guy kept asking if he was still there.
1Pavitra
I never had the self-discipline to stop looking down at the keyboard. I eventually forced myself to learn to touch-type by switching to Dvorak. I still have to look at the keys to type numbers (which are the same under both layouts); I should probably paint over those keys with whiteout or something.
[-]Elizabeth590

I don't know if anyone can help me with this, but how do I tell the difference between flirting and friendliness? I grew up in pretty much total social isolation from peers, so neither really ever happened, and when they happen now I can't tell which is which. Also, how do you go from talking to someone at the beginning/end of class (or other activity) to actually being the kind of friends who see each other elsewhere and do activities together?

Edit: Thank you, this is good advice. Does anyone have any advice on how to tell with women? I'm bi, and more interested in women, and they are much harder to read than men on the subject, because women's behavior with female friends is often fairly flirty to begin with.

Reply
[-][anonymous]381

It's not always this clear-cut, but if a guy touches you at all while he's talking (brushes your hand, etc.), makes an unusual amount of eye contact, or makes a point of being alone with you, it's flirting. If he's talking or joking about sex, it's more likely to be flirting.

How do you become the kind of friends who see each other outside of class? That used to confuse me SO MUCH. The easiest way to transition from "person I've spoken to" to "actual friend" is to say "You want to get lunch together sometime?" It's also possible to ask "are you going to event X?" (I used to find this step nervewracking. But remember, most people are not offended by offers of companionship. Most people want to make new friends.)

Also, notice how people hang around after an event. Most people don't leave right away, briskly. They sort of mosey and talk. If you're like me, your instinct will be to think, "Well, I'm done with that, time to go do something else." But more social people spend a colossal amount of time just hanging around, and they exchange more closeness that way. You can't make friends with people who only see you in brief bursts.

Reply
[-]kim0231

There often is not any difference at all between flirting and friendliness. People vary very much in their ways. And yet we are supposed to easily tell the difference, with threat of imprisonment for failing.

The main effects I have seen and experienced, is that flirting typically involve more eye contact, and that a lot of people flirt while denying they do it, and refusing to to tell what they would do if they really flirted, and disparaging others for not knowing the difference.

My experience is also that ordinary people are much more direct and clear in the difference between flirting and friendship, while academic people muddle it.

Reply
[-]wnoise450

yet we are supposed to easily tell the difference, with threat of imprisonment for failing.

It can be hard to tell the difference, and it can be easy to mess up when trying to flirt back, but it takes rather more than than simply not telling the difference between flirtation and friendliness for imprisonment. There has to be actual unwelcome steps taken that cross significant lines.

The way the mating dance typically goes is as a series of small escalations. One of the purposes this serves is to let parties make advances without as much risk of everyone seeing them turned down, and lose face. It also lets people make stronger evaluations and back out in the middle gracefully.

Flirtatious talk is not an open invitation for a grabby hands. It is an invitation for further flirtatious talk. It may be an invitation for an invasion of personal space and increasing proximity. This in turn can be invitation for casual, brief, touches on non-sexual body areas. The point of no return, where it's hard to gracefully back out and pretend nothing was happening, is usually the kiss. That's usually done as a slow invasion of space, by the initiator, who must watch for the other to either... (read more)

Reply
[-]MBlume160

That's usually done as a slow invasion of space, by the initiator, who must watch for the other to either lean in and take position, or lean and turn away.

If you're reasonably confident in the other person's interest, simply announcing "I'm going to kiss you now," followed by a brief pause, works quite nicely, signals confidence, builds anticipation, and still gives them the opportunity to back out.

Reply
7HughRistik
Another version: "I'm thinking about kissing you", and offering your cheek.
[-]NancyLebovitz100

And really, you can talk and ask for clarification from people you're flirting with. Heck, asking "are you flirting with me" is itself a reasonable flirt-and-escalate move. Being explicit can kill the mood for some people, but if you're not actually sure where in this dance you are or which direction it's headed, it's generally safer than risking unwanted boundary crossing.

If you need verbal feedback, you're probably better off finding out fairly early whether the person you're flirting with is comfortable with questions or not.

Reply
5Raemon
What I'm particularly frustrated about is not telling the difference between flirting and friendliness (the line is blurry and that's okay) but when specifically it's okay to escalate to physical touching.
4wnoise
I'm afraid this isn't going to be helpful, but like everything else, it depends. Touches too can straddle the line between friendliness and flirtation, and mere physical contact needn't be an escalation at all. A glancing contact with someone's hand when passing them something isn't. Prolonging that contact is. Clapping someone on the shoulder is usually just friendly, but adding a squeeze intensifies that.
2Sniffnoy
Surely this is more general than that? I mean, you didn't say it wasn't, but ISTM it wouldn't be worth mentioning if that was what you meant. Did you actually mean it in a more inclusive sense? Or am I just very wrong about interpreting/doing this? :-/
2wnoise
I didn't mean to imply that trading glances like this was exclusive to strangers. However: it is a larger portion of the initial signaling, because fewer signals are available than between friends or people otherwise interacting. Secondly, it's more noticeable in strangers, again because of the relative lack of other interactions and signals.
[-]NihilCredo360

and that a lot of people flirt while denying they do it

Or without even realising. Several years ago an acquaintance on whom I was developing a crush told me she was aware of this; this puzzled me since I thought I hadn't yet initiated anything like flirting, so I asked how she knew. Then she took my hand and replicated the way in which, a few days before, I had passed her some small object (probably a pen). I didn't realise I was doing it at the time, but in that casual gesture I was prolonging the physical contact a lot more than necessary, and once put on the receiving side it was bloody obvious what was going on.

Reply
[-]MartinB220

http://www.wrongplanet.net/ is a community page for asperger/autism people that contains social descriptions on a level that might be helpful. I do not read too much of it, but maybe it is useful.

Reply
[-]coup_eye210

Well, that's the whole idea of flirting - that you can't really tell the difference. If it's clear and upfront, then it's not called flirting anymore, but rather an advance (friendly or more explicit).

You have a lot of uncertainty arising from a simple gesture/look/invitation, and (I believe) this is where all the fun really comes from: dealing with a lot of different scenarios that have very similar initial contexts but have a wide range of possible outcomes, and choosing the outcome you want with so little effort.

I also believe that your ability to tell the difference between one person's flirting and friendliness is strongly influenced by how well you know that person.

Reply
[-]Blueberry190

how do I tell the difference between flirting and friendliness?

Flirting is tinged with sexuality, either explicit or subtle. Maybe a touch on your arm, a wink, or innuendo. A lot of it is context-dependent, as well: for instance, the exact same words and behavior can be flirting when a guy says it to a girl, but not when a guy says it to a guy (the social default is that everyone is straight; this is different in a gay bar, for instance).

Also, how do you go from talking to someone at the beginning/end of class (or other activity) to actually being the kind of friends who see each other elsewhere and do activities together?

You have to actually be active and ask the person for their phone number, invite them to get coffee, go bowling, whatever. It doesn't always work out -- you may not meet up with 90% of them -- but the other 10% will become your friends.

Reply
2pabloernesto
There is a good argument that this is intentional. (See slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/26/conversation-deliberately-skirts-the-border-of-incomprehensibility/)
[-]JoshuaZ480

An incidental note: lack of these sorts of skills can also create ugh fields around the subjects or surrounding subjects.

Reply
5Nornagest
Quite. Now that I think about it, I suspect this might be causally related to several social anxiety problems.
5sark
Well, they say some people are better at public speaking than at socializing. Note such people know what to do when public speaking, but they still have no idea what to do in social situations. So the procedural skills we are talking about here may not actually help with social anxiety per se. It might help one deceive oneself into thinking so though.
[-]PhilGoetz430

After having about 50 different housemates, I'm shocked by how few people have basic home-maintenance knowledge. Things like:

  • Change the oil in your car every 4000 miles.
  • Don't mix colored and white laundry and then set the temperature to "hot".
  • Remove the lint from the dryer screen before each load.
  • Don't put wool clothes in the dryer and set it on "hot".
  • Change the air filter in your central heating every few months.
  • Wash the stovetop after cooking with grease.
  • Use dishwashing detergent in the dishwasher.
  • Don't put knives or pots with metal/plastic or metal/wood interfaces in the dishwasher.
  • Don't put tupperware in the dishwasher lower rack.
  • Don't fill the dishwasher lower rack with pots so that no water reaches the upper rack.
  • Open the fireplace vent before starting a fire.
  • Wash the bathtub sometimes.
  • Knives must eventually be sharpened.
  • Turning the thermostat up extra-high does not make it get warm faster.
Reply
[-]Blueberry110

Don't put knives or pots with metal/plastic or metal/wood interfaces in the dishwasher.

Don't put tupperware in the dishwasher lower rack.

The others were obvious to me, but I don't understand these two. I've been disobeying them for a long time without any problems.

Reply
[-]Alicorn200

Tupperware runs the risk of melting close to the heating element. Metal and plastic/wood expand at different rates in dampness and warmth, so the interface can weaken if they're washed in the high heat of the dishwasher. That said, you can usually get away with both of these things.

Reply
7chronophasiac
Most tupperware should be "dishwasher safe", meaning it's been tested to high temperatures and won't melt even in the lower rack of the dishwasher. The real problem with putting tupperware, or indeed any plastic container, in the bottom rack is the water jets. The jets shoot out of the aerator (that's the plastic spinny thing on the bottom), and will blow light objects around the dishwasher instead of scrubbing them out. Putting tupperware on the top rack restricts their movements.
[-][anonymous]130

Most tupperware should be "dishwasher safe", meaning it's been tested to high temperatures and won't melt even in the lower rack of the dishwasher.

I think there is vocabulary confusion happening here.

Real Tupperware -- the expensive stuff -- is nigh-indestructable. Some of it is made out of polycarbonate, the same material used for windshields in fighter jets and in presidential limos. At the thickness used in the Tupperware line, it is not quite bulletproof, but it is still very, very tough. You don't have to worry about it in the dishwasher.

Lower-end Rubbermaid plastic containers are much cheaper and not made out of the same material. (Rubbermaid does have a "premier" line that is supposedly comparable to true Tupperware.) These bins should not be placed in the lower rack of the dishwasher.

Reply
2soreff
Agreed. Also, for light objects, it is handy to have something to hold them down, even on the upper rack. I have a small plastic-covered-wire rack which I put over light objects (normally plastic ones) on the top rack of a dishwasher to prevent them from getting flipped over.
3simplyeric
many people would say: don't put knives in the dishwasher at all. Meaning, good kitchen knives...tableware is fine. But kitchen knives (slicers, dicers, etc) depend on very thin foils at the blade edge. The chemicals and heat involved in dishwashers can damage the blade. (this is only marginally resolved by using serrated knives...those may not be damaged by dishwashers as much, but I have yet to find one that works as well as a pretty good kitchen knife that is even marginally maintained)
3fiddlemath
Aside from melting the plastic, lightweight containers can get flipped in the dishwasher, fill up with water, and then get not quite clean. If you put them on the top rack, they're farther from the jets of water, and are less likely to be tossed around.
8wedrifid
(Or replaced with our lifetime stay sharp guarantee!)
[-]BillyOblivion190

No.

Those are not called "knives", those are called "saws".

We (family) got some knives at marriage, and just sort of puttered along. Then I bought her some "good" knives, which arrived fairly sharp.

Oh. My. Sourdough bread in SLICES instead of ragged hunks.

Then we used them for a couple years, and I realized that since these were low-end "chef quality" knives (I'm not a chef. I don't much care about cooking, and I don't talk shop with real chefs, so that may not be an accurate statement, but the reviews I read indicated that these were as good as MUCH more expensive knives except in maybe the quality of the handle), that maybe we should get them sharpened, so I found a place in STL that had a knife sharpening service for local restaurants and went there.

They refused to even consider sharpening our steak knives. The guy called them "cheap junk". So we bought some of of the same brand as our other knives (basically the cheapest he had in stock). (Victorinox "Fibrox")

Oh. My. Steak is SO much easier to deal with now. Bread (on the rare occasions we have it ) cuts cleanly. Tomatoes and oranges can can be sliced as thin as you want. Limes for your gin/vodka? Clean cuts.

Knives are tools. Tools need maintenance or replacement.

Reply
6MartinB
Arent these self correcting? I would expect to make this mistake only once. The combining factor seems to be an ignorance into how things work, and how to maintain them. At least that is my observations of flatmates..
5JoshuaZ
Ok. I confess that this one more than any of the others makes me seriously worry about how good my theory of mind is. How do they think their heating systems work?
[-]Conuly260

They think that the furnace burns at a different temperature depending on how high the thermostat is.

Reply
[-]patrissimo221

Couldn't it just be an erroneous application of (an intuited version of) Newton's law of cooling, which says that heat transfer is linearly proportional to heat difference? They assume that the thermostat temperature is setting the temperature of the heating element, and then apply their intuited Newton's Law.

Seems pretty rational to me.

Reply
2blashimov
For example, this absolutely works with say, an electric stove.
[-]Blueberry210

This is actually implementation dependent. Though the most common implementation of a thermostat is just an on-off switch for the heater, it is possible to have a heater with multiple settings and a thermostat that selects higher heat settings for greater temperature differentials.

Also, turning the thermostat up extra-high means that you don't have to go back and make the temperature higher if your initial selection wasn't warm enough.

Reply
[-]Vladimir_M650

Even with an ordinary thermostat, cranking it up can be effective in some realistic situations. If some corners of the house take longer to heat up than the location of the thermostat, they'll reach the desired temperature faster if you let the thermostat itself and the rest of the house get a few degrees warmer first. Or to put it differently, scoffing at people who crank up the thermostat is justified only under the assumption that it measures the temperature of the whole house accurately, which is a pretty shaky assumption when you think about it.

As the moral of the story, even when your physics is guaranteed to be more accurate than folk physics, that's still not a reason to scoff at the conclusions of folk physics. The latter, bad as it is, has after all evolved for robust grappling with real-world problems, whereas any scientific model's connection with reality is delicately brittle.

That's an important lesson, generalizable to much more than just physics.

Reply
6MichaelHoward
This general point is seriously deserving of a top-level post.
[-]saturn240

Since about 50 years ago all but the lowest-end thermostats are designed to be "anticipators" — they shut off the heat before the requested temperature is reached, then gradually approach it with a lower duty cycle. More often than not, the installer doesn't bother to fine-tune this, in which case it can take a long time to reach equilibrium. Turning it a few degrees warmer than you actually want isn't a completely stupid idea.

(reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermostat)

Reply
2handoflixue
Thank you for reassuring me that I'm not crazy :)
[-]Vladimir_M150

Do you actually think a typical person has a coherent theory of how a heating system with a thermostat works?

It's a very human and intuitive way of thinking. People bundle together various things that seem like they should somehow be related, and assume that if something has a good or bad influence on one of these things, it must also influence other related things in the same direction. When you think about it, it's not a bad heuristic for dealing with a world too complex to understand with full accuracy.

Reply
5[anonymous]
I would imagine it's simply an application of the extremely general (and useful) rule of thumb "if doing something has an effect, doing it a lot will probably have a lot of that effect".
4BillyOblivion
Depending on the type and size of the heater relative to the area to be warmed that statement could very well be false. I have lived in some places where turning up the heater produced much hotter air than at a lower temperature, which would heat a house much more quickly. These houses had relatively modern central air conditioning systems with electric furnaces, or really good gas furnaces. I've also lived in places with radiators or really crappy wall mounted heaters where it wouldn't make any difference at all.
3Sniffnoy
Washers and dryers really need to come with more thorough instructions printed on them, for people who don't know anything about clothes. It would be nice to know what the different settings actually meant practically.
3AdeleneDawner
Many articles of clothing have instructions like that on their tags, along the line of "machine wash warm with like colors, tumble dry low". This doesn't help someone figure out things like 'red and blue are not 'like colors' but blue and yellow can be' or what to do with a red-and-blue striped shirt, but it's a start.
6wedrifid
Especially if you like green. :P
3ikrase
Do not leave pieces of colored paper in the pockets of clothing before washing.
3AdeleneDawner
I wash my dark blues with my black and dark brown clothing, and my medium and light blues with my other non-red medium and light colored clothing, and haven't noticed any cross-contamination of colors. I haven't tried it with reds, but my understanding is that red things are much more prone to bleeding than any other color and should definitely be washed separately.
5TobyBartels
I wash all of my colours together, with no problems, but I also always wash them on cold/cold. If I ever have to wash something red on hot, I hope that I'll remember to separate it from the blue clothes, but I might not.
1Alicorn
I wash my red things with my other colorful clothes. I haven't had problems.
3wedrifid
Apart from the first few washes of a red thing I wash all my clothes in together. I haven't had problems either. :)
[-]mindspillage140

I have had exactly one load of laundry go wrong ever due to colors running. (Purple.) I pretty much blatantly ignore washing directions, except for formalwear and business suits. If something cannot survive being thrown in with the regular wash, it's too much trouble to keep. (It helps that I thrift the vast majority of my wardrobe, so I'm rarely out more than $5 or so if something is ruined.)

Reply
2wedrifid
And those are easy to handle - drycleaners!
[-]MichaelVassar390

I wish I knew how to politely and nicely end conversations, either with friends, strangers, whatever.

Reply
[-]Pablo150

There is also the somewhat related problem of how to transition from pleasantries and chit-chat to the real point of the conversation when someone calls you on the phone. Sometimes people can stay in this mode for several minutes, and it's hard to convey the message "So, why are you calling me?" in language that is socially acceptable. My solution--which I believe I borrowed from Randy Pausch--is to say, in a friendly tone of voice, "What can I do for you?"

Reply
[-]Malovich100

Thank them for their time, sincerely, making sure the beginning of the statement acknowledges the value of the current thread of thought ("that's absolutely fascinating...and thank you for sharing that with me") and make sure your tone of voice descends at the end of the sentence; if they respond with confusion at this abrupt ending (it may appear so to them) let them know why you must go now or soon.

If your reason is impolite ("you're a boring jackass") you may wish to omit what you specifically think of them (the reasons why you think they are a jackass may have less to do with them and more to do with you and how you see the world subjectively, it's something that needs to be checked out at some point) and simply indicate that you are in disagreement with them and that you lack the time and energy to properly present your position and that you may or may not get back to them later.

Works 5/6 of the time.

Reply
2NancyLebovitz
This overlaps something I was wondering-- whether there are subtle clues you can give that the conversation is winding down.
[-]Blueberry140

Yes. You can look at your watch, phone, or appointment book. You can adjust your posture and body language to turn slightly away, step back, and shift your weight to the foot farther away from the person, as if you were getting ready to walk away.

You can make comments that summarize the conversation or comment on it more generally: this kind of abstraction is a natural signal that the conversation is winding down. "This is a really good conversation," "It's really good to talk to you," "You've given me a lot to think about," and so forth.

You can also mention other things you have going on, such as "I'm working on homework for X class," "I've got a test coming up," "I've been doing a lot of work getting my house ready to sell," which gives the other person a natural close: "Well, I'll let you get back to your work. Good luck with X."

Reply
4Malovich
Well, there are specific cues that can be given which indicate non-specific information; descending tones in a sentence tend towards definitive announcements and represent an appearance of authority, while ascending tones are inducements of affirmation or agreement. They are both useful in their context...but when you need to communicate the end of your involvement in a conversation, you may find it less than useful to seek consensus (which is what you would communicate with the ascending tone); instead you may wish to firmly communicate your boundary or limit (which you are more likely to do with a descending tone). Blueberry's suggestions are methods of breaking rapport, which is usually established by full-body mirroring in most people (mirroring posture, hand position, leg position, head tilt etc); rapport is a method of gaining comfort with someone you are dealing with and people in rapport are usually reluctant to leave it. Making a deliberate choice to do so can be an important step in easing oneself out of a conversation. However, there are people out there who associate breaking with rapport with rejection of sorts; the reasons vary greatly and it usually boils down to a lack of clear boundaries between involvement in one's life and involvement in another's and where the line of separation is supposed to lie in their model of the world. At times like this, clearly stating your stance and your priorities (I have enjoyed spending time with you; I have a lot going on and need to attend these other things) helps clear some of this up (or at least gives them something to work with and induce a learning in them if you're lucky) as does declaring when you expect to see them next as you go. Just make sure you are congruently communicating to the other person as you do so; mixed signals, as always, confuse things.
[-]TheOtherDave100

I don't know how polite or nice it is, but what I generally do is wait for it to be my turn in the conversation, visibly react to a timepiece of some sort, and claim an appointment or pressing task that requires my attention. "Oh, geez, is it that late already? I'm sorry, but I really do have to (get going, do X, finish what I'm doing)."

I've known some people who are oblivious to this and essentially reply "Sure, that's fine. Say, let's talk about this other thing!" I find them troublesome. The best solution I know is firmness -- "No, I'm sorry, but I really do have to work on something else now."

In one particularly extreme case, I actually had to say "I need you to go away now," but by that point I'd given up on polite.

Reply
9DanielLC
Point behind them and say "Look, a three-headed monkey", then run away.
8lionhearted (Sebastian Marshall)
"I've got to head out soon, anything else going on?" For more formal/professional occasions, "I've got to head out in about 10 minutes, anything else we need to cover?"
5KrisC
Make them laugh and walk away. The laughter distracts them long enough for you to get far enough away that you are not in conversational proximity. Even a chuckle is sufficient. As an added bonus, people who are not introspective will often hold opinions based around the last emotion they experienced in your presence. I don't think this method is polite, but it seems to work pretty well.
8NancyLebovitz
How do you make people laugh?
6KrisC
Yeah, I walked into that question. Inducing laughter in general is too big a question to answer, but I will explain the technique. As background reading, I would recommend Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. Mostly because it validates my belief that humor is often cruel. Really it is great reading for any alienated smart person. I tried to observed my actions today as I used humor to escape conversation, and I was conscious of using the technique five times. I have concluded that actual clever wordplay or other comedic art is not necessary. While I have gotten in trouble for not "speaking like a human" before, this conversational strategy seems surprisingly effective at work or office situations (US, east coast). * Do not attempt this technique in situations when you can not guess at the social hierarchy or on solemn occasions. * Be adequately certain that the dominant member of the group you are trying to escape from is not disagreeing with you. * Demonstrate through tracking eye movement, reactive micro-expression, and body stance that you are engaged in the conversation. Failing that, watch the mouth of the person speaking focusing on the formation of words and sounds. * Wait for a pause in speaking, lean forward and start to smile with the edge of your mouth and eyes. * Magic part: Any inane thing you say will be taken as a joke. It's the setup that triggers the response allowing the escape. If you don't want your listeners to think you a moron, say something sarcastic or hyperbolic about yourself, about the topic being discussed if it is innocuous, or about the task you are going to perform. Remember not to step on their memes and to respect their status hierarchies. * Walk away at a leisurely pace if you want. If they are laughing with you, you may want to stay. Well, at least I tried to answer the question.
[-]NancyLebovitz120

Thanks. This reminds me of something I've found which works well in the short run. I admit I haven't checked for long term consequences.

It makes me crazy when people repeat themselves in short succession. If you listen, it's possible to discover that Waiting for Godot is more realistic than a lot of more interesting theater.

Hypothesis: People repeat themselves if they aren't sure they're being heard, or, oddly (and I've done this myself) if they're unsure of how what they're saying will be received.

Solution: Smile at the person and repeat back what they said. Your body language is "I was so interested I remembered what you were saying" not "I heard it already and I'm bored".

Observation: People stop repeating that particular thing. Yay!

However, they tend to seem a bit taken aback, though not hostile. I don't know to what extent they feel comforted and heard and possibly surprised because they weren't expecting that, and to what extent they've been embarrassed that their amount of repetition has been noted.

Reply
4[anonymous]
I have worked hard to stop doing this. As a teen I'd often repeat something when it wouldn't provoke a response. This is silly. I now realize that 9 out of 10 times the other person heard you perfectly well, so repeating what one said is counterproductive. Also I've figured out that I should be louder. Everyone knows that one person who nobody likes because ze is too loud, but being too quiet is low status. Awesome I've tried this and it totally works. Thank you!
1Plubbingworth
My word, I do it too, and I never realized! I hated it when it was done to me in my youth, and I still hate it when it's done to me now. In fact, most repetitious and nagging patterns of speech make me shut up like a clam. I'm hardly as loquacious in person as I can be through text. Except... I teach piano and guitar to children. And, in my teaching of habits of practice, I tend to repeat myself maybe a bit too much. I'm really trying to improve. And also... hehe... I noticed myself introducing rationality techniques. ^_^; How to analyze and target your confusion and lack of understanding whilst reading new music that contain hitherto unseen musical notations or phrases. That's how I'm used to learning.
5sixes_and_sevens
What kind of issues do you have at present with ending conversations? How is your current technique deficient?
[-]Nick_Roy340

I'm mystified as to how to shave smoothly without cutting myself and without razor burn. I've never been able to accomplish all three of these in one shave. (This is facial shaving I'm speaking of, as I am male). Not shaving is not an option, as I quickly develop a distinctly unfashionable neck-beard whenever I neglect shaving.

Update, one year later: I can report that shaving during a warm shower with no shaving cream has increased the smoothness of my shaves, has drastically reduced shaving cuts and has eliminated razor burn almost entirely. Thanks, Less Wrong!

Reply
[-]SilasBarta150

I had the same problem, but it went away immediately after one simple change: stop using shaving cream. Instead, just apply warm water before you shave (it helps to do it after a shower). Before I made the change, my face was always irritable the day of a shave, and exercising would make it flare up; now, nothing. (Having a good multi-blade razor still matters though.)

I was pointed to this idea by some article by Jeffrey Tucker on lewrockwell.com sometime in '06.

Reply
5David_Gerard
I second this. Shave in the shower. I haven't used soap or shaving cream in years. My skin is happier too.
3Desrtopa
I stopped using shaving cream for a while, and tried to get by with just hot water, and my results were markedly negative. Much more irritation, and a lot of ingrown hairs.
6Matt_Simpson
This article is supposed to be a life changer when it comes to shaving. I haven't tried all of the suggestions, but the ones I have tried have improved my shaving experience.
1fr00t
I second the recommendation to learn the art of wet shaving. If you're frugal about it you can make an initial investment of around $75 and have it amortized over a few years compared to cartridges. The real benefit is that the shaves are much better, and more importantly, it has become an enjoyable ritual that starts my day off with a little class and luxury.
5Clarity1992
While I've never had serious problems shaving such as you describe, I did find it a humungous bore and wholely unsatisfying until someone on Hacker News linked to this guy's videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qSIP6uQ3EI What made the real difference for me was going from multiblade razor with can of shaving foam, to multiblade razor with shaving oil, to multiblade razor with shaving soap and a proper brush, and finally that but with a neatening up afterwards using a single blade disposable. That final solution gives me a close shave and leaves my skin feeling lovely. I actually make the time to have a proper shave every day and really look forward to it!!! YMMV, but like all hygiene stuff experimenting with new techniques is pretty useful..
2adavies42
before anything else, if you want to stick with blades, get a "reverse" razor (i.e. gillette sensor, mach3, fusion, etc.) from a reputable brand (gillette or schick, not a drugstore brand). this is a razor where the handle joins the cartridge at the bottom, rather than the top, and this setup (somehow) makes it much, much harder to cut yourself. second is to figure out if your skin can handle against-the-grain shaving--shaving up (which is, again, much less likely to cut you with a "reverse" razor) produces much smoother skin than shaving down, but my skin can't cope--about 36 hours later i break out in red welts and tiny little sores. beyond that, experiment with different soaps/creams/gels/foams--i know people who swear by things like aveeno oatmeal foam, and others who insist shaving in the shower with nothing but the incoming hot water is the best. or try electric. :)
2Caspian
I got sick of trying to shave with a sharp razor, and now use a cheap electric shaver instead. It doesn't get quite so much of the hairs off though. Also I've found shaving in the morning easier if I've already shaved the night before.
2sixes_and_sevens
I am astounded by how little people talk about shaving, considering it's an activity that most of the people in our culture carry out on a regular basis. My tips: * Seconding SilasBarta's suggestion on just using warm water rather than shaving foam * Try shaving while actually in the shower, since the humidity helps a lot * Find an optimal frequency for shaving. (I have a magical shaving period of about 50 hours, at which my facial hair is long enough for a razor to gain easy purchase but not so long to need a lawnmower. I have pretty fair hair, though, so I can get away with only shaving every two days) * Get some sort of post-shave moisturising product.
1ikrase
I use a powered shaver rather than a blade.
[-]Vaniver310

How to Buy Stocks

First Option:

  1. Acquire at least $3,000 in a checking account, and grab your account number and routing number. (It's written on the bottom of your checks.)
  2. Go to Vanguard.com and open an account.
  3. Buy into VTSMX, the total market index fund, or VFINX, the S&P 500 index fund. If you have trouble picking, flip a coin; they're very similar funds.

Second Option:

  1. Go to Sharebuilder.com and open an account. They shouldn't require a significant starting balance, but might.
  2. Sign up for automatic investing to take advantage of dollar cost averaging.
  3. Buy VFINX or VTSMX.

Third option:

  1. List out what you know about a company.
  2. List out what the market knows about that company.
  3. If your knowledge is better than the market's, then proceed. Otherwise (including if you don't know how much the market knows), go to option 1.
  4. Go to your bank and read about their brokerage accounts. If the fees aren't excessive (check Sharebuilder and other banks and stuff like etrade), open a brokerage account, or go to option 2 and open a Sharebuilder account.
  5. Transfer money to your brokerage account.
  6. Plan out your trades: under what conditions will you buy a stock? (not "the price now is o
... (read more)
Reply
7Unnamed
Why the S&P index (VFINX) and not the Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX), which has broader coverage and the same expense ratio?
3Raoul589
I have a related question about buying stocks. Suppose (for example) that I knew with 100% certainty that the global demand for home robotics would grow tenfold in the next decade. If this was the only information that I had that wasn't generally known, is there any action I could take based on this information to reliably make money from the stock market (at least over the next ten years)?
2Shmi
If you have 100% confidence in something, you then logically should go for maximum leverage, regardless of the risk, and so stock up on derivatives, like options and futures, rather than buy and hold stocks or indices. But of course people are generally poorly calibrated, so someone who thinks they are 100% right will probably be wrong half the time.
2Vaniver
So, from a time savings perspective you would want a fund that specializes in home robotics. If one of those exists, though, that suggests that your knowledge isn't as unique as you'd like. What I would probably do is find a news website for home robotics producers- a trade magazine is what used to fill this niche, and might still do so- to have a good idea of how relative companies are doing. This looks like a promising place to start, but that gets you as informed as similar investors, and you'd like to be more informed. Then, try to keep a portfolio that's fairly balanced in all noteworthy home robotics companies. I'd probably go the 'buy and hold' route- try and keep your portfolio roughly apportioned relative to market share by buying up shares of companies underrepresented in your portfolio every month. This is the 'indexing' approach- basically, you trust that the home robotics market as a whole will go up, and that the market is better at predicting who will go up than you will. If you're more confident in your ability to predict trends, you want to hold companies relative to their expected market share at the end of your trading period- to use an old example, the first strategy would have you holding lots of Blockbuster and some Netflix and the second strategy would have you holding lots of Netflix and some Blockbuster. There is a giant obstacle here, though, which is that a large part of the stock price is determined by the financials of the company, which take a relatively large investment of time and energy to understand. If you're indexing, you basically offload this work to other investors; if you do it yourself, you can have a decent idea of what the companies are worth on the books, and then adjust by your estimate of how well they'll do in the near future.
2Raoul589
If I was keeping my porfolio indexed to the market, wouldn't I be selling Blockbuster shares each month as Blockbuster lost market share? Why would I end up holding lots of Blockbuster?
1Vaniver
I apologize, I was unclear; I'm recommending 'buy and hold indexing' where you correct imbalances by buying the stocks you have less of with new investment income, rather than correcting imbalances by selling stocks you have too much of to buy stocks you have too little of. This is a good way to invest for individual investors who have a constant influx of investment funds and who pay trading fees that are a large percentage of their order sizes. If you have a large pool of capital that you begin with, or you want to actively manage money you've already invested, then you may want to actively correct imbalances. It's helpful to work out the expected value of a rebalancing trade, and make sure that's larger than the fees you pay (and you may decide to only rebalance once it gets above some larger threshold). Here, you do end up with mostly Netflix- but you bought a lot of Blockbuster when it was expensive, and sold it when it was cheap, whereas the projection investor who knew that Netflix was going to worth 30 times what Blockbuster would be would have put 3% of their money into Blockbuster and 97% into Netflix, and so the majority of their current shares would come from when they put a lot of money into cheap Netflix stock. I haven't heard about that sort of projection investing playing well with rebalancing- and if I remember correctly, it was designed for allocating a large pool which you have complete access to, rather than doing dollar cost averaging with a constant income stream.
3Solomonsk5
How to Buy Stocks Note: This is just nuts and bolts. Any terminology you may need can be found on Investopedia. 1. Have a bank/checking account 2. Sign up with any of the many online stock brokerage sites(ScottTrade, Ameritrade, Sharebuilder,etc.) 3. Send the broker an initial deposit of funds. (You'll require your routing and account numbers. You have to transfer funds to the broker, who needs this money to purchase your stocks.) The usual minimum is $2000 but can be as little as $500.00. 4. In trade section, you'll need to input the company's stock symbol, #of shares to be bought, and the order type. 5. Click Review order and double check you've made the right selections. 6. Finalize order. Shameless Plug: If you happen to fancy Scottrade, I can be listed as your referral so we can both benefit from free trades. Referred by: SOLOMON KNOWLTON ReferALL code: OPRH6640
2ChristianKl
Somehow along the line, there should be a check of: "Can I be sued for insider trading if I make this trade"
2ChrisHibbert
I've been investing in stocks (occasionally) and mutual funds (consistently) for about thirty years, and I endorse Vaniver's advice heartily. I think overall, I'm up on stocks, due to doing most of my stock investing in cyclical stocks that I can buy and sell repeatedly over the course of many years. This has worked for me with both SGI and Cypress, which I repeatedly bought at low prices and sold at high prices. If you try this and find that you're not buying low and selling high, then you should stick to mutual funds and a buy-and-hold strategy. I've dabbled in other stocks where I thought I knew something and could time it, but few of those have turned out well. Happily, I knew I was dabbling, and kept the amounts low, so I got a valuable less for a relatively low price. Mostly, I invest in mutual funds. I have subscribed to a newsletter that specializes in rating No Load funds (there are a couple). This gives me a monthly opportunity to review the performance of the funds I'm invested in, so I can tell when they stop being in the top performers and roll my money over to a different investment. I record the monthly performance of each of my investments in a spreadsheet (used to be a paper notebook). The newsletter tells me which quintile the performance is in compared to the fund's peers. I highlight 1st and 2nd quintile in green, and 5th quintile in red. When the number of reds gets to be high compared to the greens, I look for a different fund with better recent performance. The commercials always say "past performance is no guarantee of future returns", but it's the only indication you can use. Most of the time performance is consistent over periods of a few years, so you have to look back a year or so when evaluating, and monitor continuing performance in a consistent way. This whole process takes far more attention than most people are willing to put into it (a few hours a month on an on-going basis, and several hours every six months or so when choosing
[-]gwern280

2 deficits of my own come to mind. I didn't learn the alphabet until middle school or so; I covered up my ignorance by knowing pairs of letters and simply looking it up whenever I needed to sort something. (In middle school I realized how silly this was and studied diligently until I could finally remember the alphabet song. For years after that, whenever I needed to know something, I would mentally sing through the alphabet song until I had my answer.)

Until 2 years ago or so, I didn't know the 12 months of the calendar. I got around this by generating a bunch of month flashcards for Mnemosyne. (The cards should be obvious, but if anyone really doesn't know how that would work, I can post them.) I'm still a little shaky but I more or less know them now.

These 2 methods may not be generally applicable.

Reply
[-]jsalvatier270

Wait; singing the alphabet song is still how I order letters. Is there a more efficient way?

Reply
[-]Nisan130

I had a Hebrew teacher who assigned the following exercise on the first day of class: Memorize the alphabet backwards. Once the pupils knew the alphabet backwards and forwards, we were able to look things up quickly in the dictionary.

I became much more familiar with the Latin alphabet after I performed the following exercise: Type out every two-letter string, in alphabetical order. This was laborious because I didn't know where the keys were on the keyboard; perhaps that contributed to its effectiveness.

Reply
8Alicorn
Inquiry seconded. I have a vague sense of whether certain letters appear early or late in the alphabet (I don't need to sing to know that B comes before X) but for any finer-grained distinctions I need the song.
7Benquo
You could memorize the numeric values of the letters (A=1, B=2, ... , Z=26); if you can figure out which number is bigger without counting, you can figure out which letter is later. Disclaimer: I have not actually done this, because memorizing 26 separate, individually useless items is a pain.
[-]D_Malik100

I did this a few years back while bored at school, and it has actually been surprisingly useful.

I find the easiest and quickest way is to try to write the number in a way that makes it look like the letter; eg for H imagine drawing two lines above and below to make it look like an LCD 8. Using this I thoroughly memorized the letters' numbers in about 15 minutes. You'd need to periodically rememorize to keep the numbers fresh, though.

Reply
2Malovich
While the song helps to remember the specific order, in order, of the alphabet, I just went ahead and found patterns in the alphabet. Can you remember the vowels? What does the alphabet look like without them? What letters are between a and e? e and i? Which letter is in the middle of the alphabet? Knowing those answers (and others) helps break the entire string up into chunks that you can manage easily and cross reference unconsciously with the entire song memorized so you can recall the relevant information quickly and easily. The practice also familiarizes oneself with the alphabet itself overall and other connections and patterns will be recognized in an out-of-conscious manner.
3bogdanb
We don’t have an alphabet song where I’m from, but I simply remember the list of letters. I’ll just mentally recite “a, b, c, d, e...” very fast. If I need to do figure out what letter’s next after one somewhere in the middle I don’t need to recite all of it from the beginning, but I also don’t immediately recall the next letter; I just start reciting it a bit before, e.g. if you’ll ask me what’s after “N” I’ll do a very quick “m,n,o,p” in my mind and then say “O”. I’m not exactly sure how I pick the starting point, it’s automatic; it seems there are some “fixed” starting points for some reason (that come up often) and I usually pick the nearest one; for instance if you asked me what’s after “o” I’ll also start at “m”. Very rarely it happens that I start with a letter following the reference one, then I’ll stop after a few letters and try again with an earlier stop-point. (I recite the alphabet mentally in my native language, and I suspect the rhythm of the syllables generates some break-points unconsciously, and they probably differ with language. Though I just tried it and it works in English too, it just seems like it takes a bit more time to “think of” a starting point; I wouldn’t be surprised if my brain did a two-way conversion before I could notice it.) ETA: I just tried singing the song, and I noticed that after H or so I actually have to stop and do it “my way” very fast to remember what’s next. Apparently having to think of the notes (as I said, I’m not used to it sung) is enough to disturb the recall. Also, this seems to be my an automatic method for memorizing lists; I have terrible memory and it’s very hard for me to memorize abstract things like names, numbers and dates, but the few that I do manage—a few phone numbers and the first 25 or so decimals of π—I remember as a quick list of individual digits. When I have to tell someone my phone number, for example, I’ll recite quickly digit-by-digit in my head and then pronounce it in a more common forma
2A1987dM
Me too, and I seem to have a checkpoint at M too. Fun fact: it takes me much shorter (not much longer than my usual reaction times) to translate the words for ‘left’ and ‘right’ across any two languages I know than to actually tell which side is which -- I have to imagine I'm holding a pen and that's the right hand, which can take as long as one second. No problem at all with the song, but it's still slower than the other way, by about a factor of 2. Also, I don't have checkpoints with the song, I have to start from A. (Well, I have one at W but it's not very useful.) Some strings of numbers I remember as sequences of digits spoken, others as sequences of digits written, others as a series of finger movements I make to type them -- or in certain cases, to play them on a guitar if they were a tablature. (And I remember the digits of pi through the mnemonic “How I need a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics”.)
2gwern
For me, after a while, I think of a letter, say, 't', and then know that 'u' comes next. I don't need to sing 'a, b, c d, e...' and wait until I get to 't' to know what comes next. Like indexing into an array rather than iterating through a list, if that comparison makes sense to you.
6false_vacuum
This is fascinating! I've been told I memorised the alphabet before I was a year old... But it wasn't until I was in college that I finally memorised which hand is called 'left' and which one is 'right'. (Never had an analogous problem with compass directions.) A possibly related deficit is that I typically think of the wrong word first when I want to name a colour; i.e. for example I want to refer to purple and I have to choke off the impulse to say 'yellow'. And yet I have letter/colour synaesthesia! Brains are weird.
5TobyBartels
A middle-school history teacher once had me memorise the classical Greek alphabet (without diacritics or ligatures, just the 24 uppercase and lowercase letters, including both lowercase forms of Sigma) 4 at a time. Each weak, I'd recite the entire alphabet up to what I had learnt, completed after 6 weeks. This was largely useless for history but has been helpful for me as a mathematician. I learnt the modern Hebrew alphabet in high school, using a song (to the tune of Frère Jacques) that a Jewish friend had learnt in shul, but I really only learnt the names. Later I learnt the Russian alphabet by brute force; now I'm back to Hebrew and working (but not hard) on getting the shapes of the Jewish script.
1[anonymous]
I think of the Greek alphabet as being the Latin alphabet with a couple of extra letters tossed in here and there (and a couple removed, or un-duplicated). Unfortunately, this doesn't help me remember the positions of theta, xi, phi, psi, or omega.
5FAWS
I'm curious: Do you generally have unusual trouble with memorizing ordered lists compared to other people? Do you remember when/how you learned to count, for example?
4Risto_Saarelma
Finnish has separate words for the intermediate compass directions, northeast, southeast, southwest and northwest are "koilinen, kaakko, lounas, luode". There's no pattern to the words. I still can't automatically match directions to these words, the only way I remeber them is from having learned to list them along the clock face and working back and forth using that. Finnish also has separate words for the various types in-law relatives such as 'lanko' or 'käly'. I have no idea which is which. I remember other people in my high school English class complaining about not knowing what the Finnish words mean when discussing in-law vocabulary. Finnish month names don't come from Latin like the English ones do. Most of them have some common Finnish word as their root, but 'maaliskuu' and 'huhtikuu' for March and April both have nonsensical-sounding root words and are right next to each other, so I still have to think a bit sometimes about which is which.
5Bongo
LUKO LOKA
2Thomas
I wonder how many people (here) know the number of days for every month.
3DSimon
There's a great mnemonic for that which helped me a lot: put your hands into fists and hold them side by side, palms down. Now starting from your left, each knuckle represents a month with 31 days, and each valley between knuckles represents a month with 30 days (or fewer, for Feb). The space between your hands does not count as a valley.
2Desrtopa
I still remember this one via the children's rhyme.
3TheOtherDave
I used to try to remember it this way, except that the rhyming parts don't actually cue the important info, so I was always "30 days have September, April,.... um.... something, and... December? November? Something like that." So I use the knuckle trick instead. I also never learned the last part of the rhyme, it was taught to me as "...except for February, which is all kinds of messed up."
[-]SilasBarta260

How does a heterosexual male begin a long-term romantic relationship with a heterosexual female? Be sure to cover such issues as pre-requisites and how to indicate what intentions and when.

[For balance, others can post the dual (which is not necessarily the same) question for the other categories of people.]

Reply
[-][anonymous]1200

  1. You have to put yourself in environments where you'll be able to interact with a lot of women. College is in a lot of ways set up perfectly for this: if you're not in college right now, consider joining a class or an activity group. Try to make it one where the gender balance will be in your favor. Book groups are one example--they're wildly tilted towards women (I suspect men just, you know, read books, and don't tend to see the value in sitting around sipping coffee and talking about reading books). But if you like girls who wear glasses, try finding a congenial book group. You'll probably be the only man.

    Even better than book groups, though, are dance classes. Swing and rockabilly aren't super trendy anymore, but the scenes still exist in a quieter way, and these classes are great for single men: a) they're filled mostly with women; b) dance is an inherently flirtatious activity, and the physical leading/following dynamic is one that many women find very sexy; c) even if you don't find a date in that class, you'll have learned an attractive skill, and you'll be able to participate in events that will introduce you to more women; and d) physical exercise is good for building b

... (read more)
Reply
[-]lukeprog290

Lots of good advice here.

One change I'd make is that, imo, a movie makes a poor first date. Do something fun and active where talking is possible, instead.

Reply
1[anonymous]
Agreed! Can you suggest any specific good first-date activities?
3taryneast
Depends on your interests. Can be as simple as grabbing a cup of coffee. Could be going for a walk on the beach. Take some sandwiches and go hiking. Pick a shared interest and enjoy it - go to an art gallery, or go ice-skating. Something active is good - and/or something where you get to sit down and chat...
[-]Kaj_Sotala250

This is excellent advice, and I up-voted it. However:

If she seems annoyed or condescending or whatever, try to shrug it off; just smile and say "okay, no problem" or something along those lines. Do the same thing if she says "I'd rather just be friends." (But for the love of Pete, do not spend a lot of effort trying to actually cultivate a friendship. Moooooove on.)

I may just be reading too much into things, and I acknowledge that this comment is written primarily as a response to the question "how to get into a relationship". Nevertheless, this bit bothers me a bit, as the "for the love of, don't try to actually cultivate a friendship" part seems to imply that there's no point in being friends with women if you're not going to have a relationship with them. That strikes me as a bit offensive.

Even if we're assuming that you're purpose is solely to get women, I don't think befriending lots of them is as useless as you seem to suggest. You say yourself that one's friends may introduce one to somebody one might be interested in. People tend to have more same-sex friends than opposite-sex friends, so being friends with lots of women will incr... (read more)

Reply
[-]cousin_it300

Befriending women is sometimes useful for becoming attractive to other women. (Allow me to skip the obligatory part where friendship is good in itself, of course it is, but I want to make a different point.) For example, you can ask them to help you shop for clothes, relying on their superior visual taste. Most of my "nice" clothes that I use for clubbing etc. were purchased this way, and girls seem to love this activity. Also they can bring you to events where you can meet other women; help you get into clubs; offer emotional support when you need it; and so on. If you make it very clear that you're not pursuing this specific girl sexually, being friends with her can make quite a substantial instrumental benefit.

That said, of course I don't mean the kind of "friendship" that girls offer when they reject you. That's just a peculiar noise they make with their mouths in such situations, it doesn't mean anything.

Reply
[-][anonymous]150

Sorry, that line wasn't clear. If you'd truly like to be friends with a particular woman, then by all means, be her friend! What I'm specifically counseling inexperienced men to avoid is the pitfall where they befriend a woman when they really want to be her boyfriend, and then spend a lot of time pining after her fruitlessly.

And I did mean it when I said, "It is true that established friendships can make a wonderful basis for romance..." My husband was my friend first, so I'm not knocking these kinds of relationships at all. However, it'll either happen or it won't; if there are strategies for making it happen, I don't know them; and I don't think hoping it will happen is a good strategy at all for men specifically looking for a relationship. My impression is that ending up in "the friend zone" with a woman you want to date is a fairly common failure mode for inexperienced men, so I advise SilasBarta to take some care to avoid it. I may have stressed that part too heavily.

Reply
[-]TheOtherDave130

There's a big difference between "If I approach someone for a date, and s/he rebuffs me, it's best not to spend a lot of effort cultivating a friendship with that person" and "It's never worth cultivating friendships."

Yes, making friends is worth doing. Agreed. And if it so happens that the person I'm making friends with is someone I'd previously wanted to date, great! I have numerous friends in this category, and some of them are very good friends indeed.

But even with that in mind, I mostly agree with siduri.

Mostly that's because I know very few people who can make that decision reliably immediately after being turned down. Taking a while to decide whether I'm genuinely interested in a friendship with this person seems called for.

Reply
[-][anonymous]110

I also meant the "spend a lot of effort" part to act as a qualifier, since for me true friendships tend to develop spontaneously and easily, in contrast to a situation where I'm actively courting the other person and they're kind of pulling back. In my own life, I've learned it's better to just let those second kinds of friendships die in the bud.

However, I recognize on reflection that for more introverted people, developing any friendship probably takes significant effort--so advice along the general lines of "if you have to push it, it's probably not meant to be" is actually probably bad advice for a lot of people. Instead, I think the question should be "would you be satisfied with friendship alone, if nothing further ever developed? Would the friendship be a source of happiness to you, or a source of frustration and pain?"

I just don't think guys should spend the time and energy being friends with women if friendship isn't truly what they're after. In a case like that it's much better for them to focus their attention on other women, who might reciprocate.

Reply
2Kaj_Sotala
Fair enough. I can agree with that.
9bigjeff5
I believe the point is that if you want a romantic relationship with a woman, cultivating a friendship with her in the hopes that romance will develop is almost always a bad idea. Occasionally such romance sparks "out of the blue", but more likely nothing will ever happen, and it is a huge investment of time and emotion that basically never pays off. So if you aren't interested in the woman for the sake of friendship alone, it is better to just forget about her and move on. If you find a person interesting and worth being friends with, by all means don't reject such an opportunity just because the person is a woman. That's idiotic. It's just a terrible dating strategy, that's all.
2David_Gerard
sark hit upon a good point here: think of meeting many women as a special case of meeting many people. How good are you at generally meeting people? Improve that and you'll meet more of the half of them you're interested in. General social skills are good to exercise.
[-]anonymous259150

b) a lot of women have trouble saying "no" directly (we're socialized not to).

I cannot possibly stress enough how non-obvious this is to "geeky" males.

Reply
6Blueberry
I don't think this is accurate. People generally don't say "no" directly. It's not a matter of gender socialization, it's just how language works. A direct "no" is seen as rude, and refusals are usually couched in vague or tentative language.
2Sniffnoy
But people seem to understand refusals anyway, which means the question is whether refusals are more vague and tentative in this case.
1Blueberry
Valid point. Though I think people generally understand refusals even in this case. is a little extreme. Though this could be an very ambiguously worded "polite" refusal, it can also be honesty from someone who actually is interested. Whereas "I'm sorry, I can't, I've been really busy with life" is a clear refusal, "I'd love to but..." isn't always and is worth at least a follow up.
9[anonymous]
Your experience may differ, but I disagree. Unless she suggests another time, this is meant as a polite brush-off. For most women, pursuing potential mates is a very, very high-priority activity, and no matter how busy their schedules may be, they can clear out an evening for a guy they're truly interested in. In the few situations where the woman really is booked solid (such as the example where she's going out of town, or maybe if she's studying for a very important upcoming exam) she'll let you know when she expects to have some time free.
5taryneast
There is one alternative explanation - and that's a woman following "The Rules". In that case, you may not want to go out with her anyway, given that it's a book explaining how to manipulate men (much as PUAs do to women).
[-]MBlume150

You have to ask women out on dates.

This is not strictly true from my experience. I've had three girlfriends thus far and in all three cases, we were basically just friends who eventually realized we wanted to date one another. Of course, all three were also housemates, so I may be an odd case.

I've tried the "ask women out on dates" approach from time to time, but keep coming back to the impression that I'm the sort of person who just slides into romantic relationships with friends, and that if I want more romantic relationships, I need to make my social circle -- not my circle of acquaintances, but my circle of folks I see on a daily basis -- more generally co-ed (kind of a problem since it's mostly folks I know from Singinst/Less Wrong these days).

Or become bisexual. If anyone posted a procedural comment on how to become bisexual, I would upvote it immediately =)

Reply
[-]khafra561

The way to become bisexual is to regularly extend your exposure to erotic stimuli just a little further than your comfort zone extends in that direction. I'll use drawn pictorial porn as an example erotic stimulus, but adapt to whatever you prefer: start with Bridget. Everyone is gay for Bridget. Once you're comfortable with Bridget, move on to futanari-on-female erotica, male-on-futanari, then futanari-on-male, paying attention to your comfort levels. You'll run across some bizarre things while searching for this stuff; if any of it interests you, just go with it.

By now, you should be fairly comfortable with the plumbing involved, so it's just the somatically male body you need to learn to find attractive. Find art featuring bishounen types, then pairing them with other male body types, and pay attention to what feels most comfortable.

It may take a while to go through this process, but I believe it's entirely achievable for most people who don't view heterosexuality as a terminal value.

Reply
[-]David_Gerard320

The Bisexual Conspiracy commends your insidious efforts at propagating memes advantageous to us and has sent you several HBBs of assorted gender orientations by overnight delivery.

Reply
8oliverbeatson
I wonder how much this would work for a homosexual male. I've actually been trying this essential thing, although with less persistence as it requires a certain amount of effort to attend to something that just seems so immediately boring to myself. Perhaps living in a hetero-normative culture ensures that when a man decides that he's gay, he is more likely to have discovered a roughly immutable biological fact?
[-]TheOtherDave130

Two related thoughts come to mind.

One is that male anatomy is more familiar, and therefore presumably less intimidating, to straight men than female anatomy is to gay men.

Another is that in a heteronormative culture, men who aren't strictly monosexual are more likely to identify as straight than as gay. If what this technique actually does is make men who aren't monosexual more aware of their non-monosexuality, then I'd expect it to get more noticeable results on men who identify as straight. (I'd also expect there to be a wide range of effectiveness among straight-identified men.)

Reply
[-]David_Gerard110

Despite subcultural normativity being strongly biased against bisexuality, really quite a lot of gay-identifying men have experimented with heterosexual behaviour, but are - ha! - closeted about it.

Reply
2khafra
If you're finding it boring, you may be trying to go too straight too quickly, or you may not be using your preferred form of erotica--I used hentai as as example, but I could've used textual fiction, videos, etc. Or you could just be immutably gay; I am generalizing from just a few examples.
1oliverbeatson
Hmm, I'll experiment with a variety, and report back if I make findings.
7Kaj_Sotala
I suspect how well this works probably depends on exactly how hetero- or homosexual one was from the beginning. (I'm basing that on personal experience with regard to both bisexuality and various fetishes.) Instead of a strict straight/bi/gay split, I prefer to think of it as a spectrum where 0 is completely straight, 5 is completely bisexual and 10 is completely gay. I'm guessing it's possible for you to shift yourself a couple of points towards the middle of the spectrum, but not an arbitrary amount. E.g. if you started off at 0 you might shift yourself to 2, or if you started off at 8 you could shift yourself to 6. I'd also note that there's a difference between sexual attraction and emotional compatibility. I'm rather mildly bisexual and using these techniques, could probably become a bit more so. But my main issue with pursuing same-sex relationships is not the sexual attraction as such, but the fact that I find it a lot easier to relate and connect to women on an emotional level. These techniques probably wouldn't help in that.
[-]Peter_de_Blanc411

Instead of a strict straight/bi/gay split, I prefer to think of it as a spectrum where 0 is completely straight, 5 is completely bisexual and 10 is completely gay.

Hah! You're trying to squish two axes into one axis. Why not just have an "attraction to males" axis and an "attraction to females" axis? After all, it is possible for both to be zero or negative.

Reply
4Strange7
I would say there are more than two axes which could be meaningfully considered, here. Male and female body types, personalities, and genitals can exist in a variety of combinations, and any given combination can (in principle) be considered sexy or repulsive separate from the others. For example, there are those who prefer [feminine/curvy/penis] having sex with [masculine/buff/vagina] over all other thus-far-imagined pairings.
4Cyan
Dimension reduction is not automatically an illegitimate move. That said, I grant that in this case it's worthwhile to keep at least two axes.
3TheOtherDave
In a similar spirit, many discussions of sexuality separate "attraction" from "identity" from "experience" onto different axes to get at the differences between a man who is occasionally attracted to men but identifies as straight, vs. a man who is equally often attracted to men but identifies as bi, or various other possible combinations.
4AdeleneDawner
Something related is common in the asexual community: Many asexuals identify as hetero/homo/bi/pan/a-romantic. I could certainly see someone being hetero- or homosexual and bi- or pan-romantic, or bi- or pansexual and hetero- or homo-romantic.
2Kaj_Sotala
An excellent point.
8TheOtherDave
I would be surprised if the kinds of gradual-exposure techniques khafra endorses here for making same-sex partners more erotically compatible didn't work equally well (or poorly) for making them emotionally compatible. Of course, in that case you wouldn't want to use erotic stimuli. I'm not exactly sure what stimuli you would use, because I'm not exactly sure what you mean by relating and connecting to people on an emotional level... but whatever it is, I suspect you could test khafra's approach by identifying specific activities that qualify, and then looking for the closest thing to that activity involving men that you find easy, and attending to that thing. Let me stress here, though, that I'm not asserting you ought to change anything. There's nothing wrong with being heterosexual, and there's no reason you should feel like your heterosexuality diminishes you in any way.
8Kaj_Sotala
Umm, no. To make erotic stimuli more attractive, it's enough that you think about the stimuli often enough and learn to like it. It may be slow, but there's relatively little risk. Learning to bond and relate to the kinds of people you've always had difficulty bonding and relating to requires you to open yourself up to them in an attempt to connect with them. At worst, you can end up embarassed and hurt and have an ever harder time trying to connect to them in the future. It's also a lot more complex, since it's not enough to modify your own reactions. You also need to learn how to get the right responses out of other people. I'm not saying it can't be done, or that you couldn't apply similiar techniques as you would to developing an erotic attraction. But those are techniques are only a small part of it, and it's a lot harder.
1TheOtherDave
Agreed that learning to get the right responses out of other people, and risking social penalties, are eventually required for this sort of social conditioning. (Though not necessarily initially required.) It seems to me the same thing is true of erotic conditioning of the sort we're talking about. That is, if I want to train myself to respond erotically to X, sooner or later I have to stop exclusively interacting with pictures or books or whatever and start actually interacting with X, and that can be difficult, and risks social penalties. But I don't start there. That said, I'm pretty much speaking hypothetically here; I've never actually used this technique. So I could easily be wrong.
2Blueberry
That shouldn't be as much of an issue, because there's so much variation in emotional compatibility with men. If you're sexually attracted to penises, it shouldn't be hard to find at least someone you're emotionally compatible with who has a penis. The main problem is getting attracted to the "other" set of genitalia. If you're attracted to one penis, you're probably attracted to all of them, whereas emotional compatibility is more complicated and subtle. There isn't really a one-size-fits-all emotional compatibility with men, the way there is with sexual orientation.
2TheOtherDave
If Kaj_Sotala tells me that emotional compatibility is more of an issue for him than sexual attraction, I'm prepared to accept that... I don't see the value in challenging his observations about what "the main problem" for him really is. That said, like you, I don't consider it likely that this describes very many people. Then again, I also don't find it likely that "If you're attracted to one penis, you're probably attracted to all of them" describes very many people. Then again again, the world is full of unlikely things.
4Blueberry
Well, think about it like this. I also get along better and generally find it easier to get closer to women than to men. But there are some men I can connect with as well, because there is so much variation in men's personalities. So the problem here is just finding the right ones. Now compare this to sexual compatibility, which requires the right sex organs. This is a much bigger obstacle. I'm attracted to female genitalia and not male ones. Unlike with personality, this is a binary issue: you either like male genitalia or you don't, and if you don't, this rules out half the population. Really? Why not? I would think it obviously describes everyone. You may not be attracted to the person attached, but you're either sexually attracted to male genitalia, or you're not.
3TheOtherDave
Well, the short answer to "Why not?" is "Experience." The longer answer is, I suspect, longer than I feel like giving, since it's clear that you and I have very different models of how attraction works. Suffice to say that there are various attributes along which individual genitalia vary, to which I expect different people assign more or less value, resulting in different judgments. For many people I expect that this list of attributes includes the contexts established by the attached person.
4Blueberry
I may not have spoken clearly. Let me try again, and tell me if this makes sense to you. A lot of people are strongly monosexual: that is, no matter what a person looks like, what their personality is, or how emotionally compatible they are, if the other person has the "wrong" genitalia, this will preclude any possibility of dating, sex, or a relationship, because they won't be able to sexually connect. If you think about dating as going through a series of hurdles, the first and most important hurdle is having the "right" genitals. After that, there are other attributes, like looks and personality, which I think is what you're talking about. But if someone has the "right" genitals, there is at least the potential for a sexual connection. That doesn't mean there will definitely be sexual attraction. Does that seem right? Am I missing something?
9TheOtherDave
I think you're being clear; I just don't agree with you. Yes, I think you're missing things. For one thing, you treat gender as equivalent to having particular genitalia. It isn't. Even people exclusively attracted to men sometimes find themselves attracted to people without penises. For another, you treat all genitals of a particular category as being interchangeable for purposes of attractiveness. They aren't, any more than all voices or all hands or feet or all eyes are interchangeable. You may not care about individual differences in a particular category, but that doesn't mean other people don't. For a third, your whole structure of "the first hurdle" and "the most important hurdle" strikes me as arbitrary. The idea that someone to whom I am not attracted is someone I have a "potential sexual connection" with simply because they are a particular gender, or have the proper genitals, is a perfectly legitimate perspective... but to privilege that dimension over the myriad other parameters that allow or preclude attraction is not obviously justified.
7Blueberry
No, I was thinking of gender as a separate hurdle. For instance, a straight cisgender male is most likely primarily attracted to persons with vulvas, whether they identify as men or women. He might secondarily prefer women, but that's a lesser "hurdle". that is, there would be a possibility of sexual attraction to a FtM (gender = man, bio-female) but not a pre-op MtF (gender = woman, bio-male) because of genital incompatibility. I don't think the attraction is "exclusive to men" as much as it is "exclusive to people with specific genitals." Though this is probably very variable, and monosexuals may well be divided on whether genitalia or gender is more important to them. I'd be curious to know the breakdown. I was thinking like this. Suppose you are a monosexual on a desert island with one other person. You will likely want sexual contact. At least for me, the most important quality of your island-mate (for purposes of sexual contact, that is) is that they have the "right" type of genitals; while other qualities may be unattractive or undesirable, they can be overcome if you want sexual contact enough, but having the "wrong" type of genitals can't. To put this another way, as a straight male, someone I am not attracted to who has a vulva may be less than ideal, but still sexually satisfying; someone without a vulva couldn't possibly be. I had thought this would be universal for monosexuals; your comments lead me to think I was wrong, and it's more complicated than that. I'm curious how common my view is, and the specifics of other views. (BTW, I wish I could upvote you several times just for using 'myriad' correctly.)
[-]TheOtherDave110

a straight cisgender male is most likely primarily attracted to persons with vulvas, whether they identify as men or women. He might secondarily prefer women, but that's a lesser "hurdle". [..] I don't think the attraction is "exclusive to men" as much as it is "exclusive to people with specific genitals."

Huh.

So George, a straight cisgender male, walks into a dance club and sees Janey dancing. He can tell she presents as female from the way she dresses, her hair, her body shape, etc. He talks to her for a while, and he can tell she identifies as female -- or at least claims to -- from the things she says.

But her pants are still on.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying George does not know at this point whether he's sexually attracted to Janey, because the "primary hurdle" hasn't been crossed yet?

If so, you and I have very different understandings of how sexual attraction works. It seems relatively clear to me that George makes that determination within the first few minutes of seeing her, based on a variety of properties, many of which are components of gender.

If not, then I'm not really sure what you're saying.

Reply
1Blueberry
Yes, he does. And you're right: he is attracted to her even though he doesn't know what her genitalia are like. He's probably making an assumption that might or might not be correct, and this assumption is based on the gender properties he observes. If he's not correct, this may change his attraction. Or not. My mistake was using the word "attracted" in the quoted portion of my comment. What I should have said was "capable of sexual satisfaction with," "sexually compatible," or "genitally compatible," which aren't the same thing. While he may be initially attracted, he still doesn't know whether or not he's sexually compatible with her (though he assumes he is, which inspires the attraction). I think you are also right that genitalia is not the most important thing for all monosexuals. I would bet it is for most, though. And at some point this is just a matter of how we define 'monosexual' (or 'straight', or 'gay'). We could think of a 2-D version of the Kinsey scale, similar to what you discuss in an earlier comment, where gender is one axis and genitalia is another.
4TheOtherDave
I'm not sure that helps. Many people, even entirely monosexual people, are perfectly capable of sexual satisfaction with one another despite injury to or loss of their genitalia. So I would similarly object to defining "capable of sexual satisfaction with" and "sexually compatible" primarily in terms of genitals the way you do. I'll agree with defining "genitally compatible" that way, though. If you're willing to define people for whom genital compatibility is not primary as not-really-monosexual, then your claim is trivially true. That said, at that point you have also defined a lot of people as not-really-straight who would disagree vehemently with you.
4TheOtherDave
(Well, you can -- just create multiple accounts for the purpose -- but I'd rather you didn't.) As I understand it, there are many cases of men who identify as heterosexual but who, in all-male environments, nevertheless participate in sexual encounters with other men. That suggests to me that for many heterosexual men, having the "right" genitals isn't as singularly definitive a property as it is for you. Granted, another possibility is that such men aren't actually heterosexual, they merely think they are, and your description is accurate for genuine heterosexuals. If so, it seems genuine heterosexuals are noticeably rarer than people who identify that way.
3Blueberry
One theory is that there is a difference between sexual orientation and relationship orientation, so that there are men who prefer romance and relationships with women, but are sexually bi. Since our language and culture don't typically make this distinction, such people might just identify as straight. Another is that sexuality is flexible, so in the desert island example, or in all-male environments, the men adapt over time to become capable of getting sexual satisfaction from other men in a way that they weren't before. This is similar, in a way, to the gradual-exposure techniques khafra talked about. But -- and this was my main point -- before such a shift in sexuality occurs, a straight man would be out of luck even if he had 100 males to choose from. But once such a shift occurs, all he has to do is find one out of the 100 he's emotionally compatible with (assuming he's looking for emotional compatibility). This is why I said the sexual shift was the hard part: males are not an emotional monolith and out of 100, at least one should be more or less emotionally compatible.
1gjm
I very frequently find someone attractive, or not, long before seeing their genitals. Indeed, there are dozens of people in the world whose genitals I have never seen, and yet I am still able to find them either attractive or not. Compatibility of genitalia is surely important for answering the more specific question "am I going to have sex with this person or not?" but that's not the same thing as attraction. For most of us, there are plenty of people in the world who are very attractive but with whom we will never have sex. Many people choose to have sex with people they find not all that attractive (e.g. because they are in some sort of long-term relationship, and either their tastes or the appearance of the other person have changed over time). [EDITED once, to fix a trifling typo.]
5Desrtopa
By this metric, I started at a zero (unable to find other males sexually attractive,) and ended at a zero. My attempts to influence myself to have a sexual interest in men achieved null results. I have no problem finding other men attractive, but they're still about as sexually appealing to me as plants.
3JoshuaZ
The scale you are talking about when used by psychologists and others when discussing sexuality is the Kinsey scale. Under the standard scaling it goes from 0 to 6 with 0 being complete heterosexuality and 6 being complete homosexualty.
6Nick_Tarleton
I take it this is a process that's worked for you?
[-]khafra110

Accidentally, but yes. I've also seen it work on other people who frequent /b/, both for bisexuality and many paraphilias.

Reply
[-]Matt_Simpson210

heh, I had a suspicion that /b/ had something to do with this

Reply
5ata
Within the nearby cluster in personspace: I think Robin Lee Powell has said that he chose to become bisexual, if you want to ask him to elaborate on that process. :) (I've gotten a bit more bisexual over time, and I occasionally wonder if I actually pushed myself in that direction (since I remember wishing that I could be, as early as 14 or 15), or if that's just the direction I was drifting in anyway and I happened to be open to it in advance. But it's probably hard to tell in retrospect.)
2lukeprog
Beware that if you manage to become bisexual somehow, this can significantly damage a man's prospects with many women. For a huge percentage of women, bisexual men are not as attractive (manly) as strictly heterosexual men.
7Vaniver
I have heard from some people that having a reputation as bisexual has increased their prospects with women. I suspect this is dependent on location, social circle, and attractiveness. It may also be that a large percentage of women are no longer interested, but enough of the women that remain are significantly more interested- and so you go from, say, 20 women who might date you to 10 women who might date you, of whom 2 want to. Overall prospects down, but easy prospects up. (I will comment, though, that this probably has to do way more with the masculine/feminine balance of the people in question than their sexual history or orientation.)
7MBlume
For the foreseeable future, I'm going to be exclusively dating poly or poly-friendly girls anyway. I don't think being bi would hurt me within that subpopulation -- does that seem wrong? (One data point: my girlfriend has only-half-jokingly claimed that if I really want to make her happy, I ought to make out with one of my male friends and send her photos)
6David_Gerard
It won't hurt in any way. The pure heterosexual or pure homosexual are slightly odd in most poly scenes. And everyone knows about straight guys kissing to get the chicks ...
2CronoDAS
I actually know a girl who succeeded in getting male friends of hers to pose for that kind of picture.
3katydee
I suspect it would be trivial to do so in most modern US college-type situations.
2lukeprog
Don't do it!!!! She definitely wants to have something she can blackmail you with if the need arises!
[-]Alicorn130

He can only be blackmailed with such photos if he would mind having them displayed to some third party.

Reply
7MBlume
Indeed. * Mother: Mildly awkward conversation * Boss: "Mike, that was kinda TMI" * Brothers: "Ewwwww" * Randomly Chosen Singularitarian Friend: High-Five ...that's all I can really think of.
4anon895
But he might benefit from having her think she's blackmailing him.
6MBlume
No such luck -- I've already e-mailed her this thread.
2MartinB
I do not get how making out with a male is considered a blackmail worthy offense.
3Blueberry
Well, it would likely prevent a guy from running for political office or becoming a CEO of a major corporation, for instance. Or at least make it very difficult. There are only a few openly gay politicians, and even then they have to fit certain social ideals.
[-]MBlume110

I'm already quite publicly a polyamorous sex-positive atheist, I'm not running for political office any time soon

Reply
2MartinB
Okay, I cross that off then. How about naturism? In east Germany its a trivial part of the culture. In the US it seems to be a highly stigmatized lifestyle.
2MBlume
I'm trying to picture this scenario and can't stop laughing =P.
6Lila
I didn't select my friends from (a conservative Christian) college for lgbt-friendliness or non-conformist dating styles or really anything at all, besides maybe an enjoyment of genre television or some connection to friends I already had. And yet it turned out that at least a third of the women in my social circle share my love of hot bi guys and m/m in general. Also, m/m fanservice for the benefit of female fans seems to be rather a common thing for hot young male celebrities to do in certain cultures, such as Japan.
4David_Gerard
I've found that just meeting more people solves this one nicely. The percentage difference is not overwhelming, and you really won't want those people anyway.
7lukeprog
I disagree with the "you really won't want those people anyway." I suspect the loss of attraction many women feel if they hear a guy has been with another guy has marginal 'conscious choice' in it. But anyway, I've followed this thread too long. I don't really have any expertise on bisexuality - I've just heard lots of straight women tell me it turns them off.
[-][anonymous]100

I think the reason for that is that so many gay men go through a phase, as part of their coming out, where they claim bisexuality for a while. This, combined with the fact that there seem to be relatively few numbers of truly bisexual men, means that a significant percentage of the pool of men presenting as bisexual are actually gay. So going out with a bisexual guy is really risky from the woman's point of view.

Reply
3TheOtherDave
I'll admit, when I run into people who talk like this, I generally assume that they are weighting the costs of a relationship ending badly due to a boyfriend turning out gay significantly higher than the costs of a relationship ending badly for other reasons. But perhaps that's unfair of me; perhaps, as you suggest, it's really just about probability estimates. Would you mind putting some numbers around "really risky"? That is... if S is the chance of a relationship ending badly with a partner who identifies as straight, and B is the chance of it ending badly with a partner who identifies as bi, what's your estimate and confidence level for (B-S)?
3David_Gerard
I would say, speaking from other bisexual men I know as well as myself, that if bisexuality turned someone off that would in fact reduce their attractiveness, in the general case. But yeah, we both only have anecdotes at this stage :-)
2TheOtherDave
I'm reminded of coming out as bi to a high-school friend of mine, who allowed after some consideration that he was pretty squicked by the notion, but he saw no particular reason why either one of us should pay much attention to that reaction. Which I can respect, actually. Though admittedly it would turn me off in a prospective partner.
4wedrifid
Nobody is required to signal their sexual preferences far and wide. That is personal information, to be revealed if and when you deem it appropriate or beneficial. This means that becoming bisexual merely gives you more options, without interfering with your existing options unless you choose to let it change your signalling strategy. That said, humans are notoriously bad at making decisions when burdened with extra choices!
[-]sark120

Is it purely a numbers game though? Most people have this thing nerdy academics call a 'mate value sociometer' and they use it to help decide how hot a female to pursue. Of course, this sociometer has to be calibrated, so you really want to be rejected often enough to know where you stand. My point is, it might be better to keep this sociometer in mind (especially since non-neurotypicals tend not to have this instinct), to at first target your proposals to be as informative as possible, and then later on target those girls your mate value can buy. (this is in fact what studies have found neurotypicals to be doing)

Reply
8David_Gerard
It's not purely a numbers game. However, it really helps if you can interact with a number of people that's at least in double digits. Get used to meeting new people. It's good for you. You grew this great big brain to do chimp-chimp interaction better, after all - you have an aptitude for this sort of thing. MEET MORE PEOPLE!
5sark
If someone takes my point as an excuse not to meet people, that person is wrong. Because that is not what it says at all. And also, meeting girls and meeting new people are not quite the same. Though the point does apply to the latter. Perhaps you are saying people already adjust their expectations in light of their successes and failures, in which case my pointing out that sociometer point does more harm than good.
6David_Gerard
Sorry, I was speaking more generally of "dating as numbers game", not disagreeing with you. I find many people who worry about the idea of a "numbers game" see that as a problem rather than an opportunity. I must note that I am almost pathologically gregarious and outgoing myself, and have an unfortunate habit of offering unhelpful advice on such to those who aren't - and if I seem to you to have done that, I most sincerely apologise.
2sark
Ah ok. I was puzzled I guess as that didn't seem otherwise very relevant. Yes, thinking of meeting many girls as a special case of meeting many people does make it seem less daunting to me!
5A1987dM
I'm approximately 97% sure that at least one of the next five people I'll meet will be a woman. I'm also approximately 100% sure that at least five of the next five women I'll meet will be people. :-)
6[anonymous]
I mostly agree with this, although I suspect it might be more complicated than a single hot-or-not scale. Like, indie rock chicks are looking for a different kind of dude than cheerleaders are. Both the indie rock chick and the cheerleader might be blazing hot, but they're going to pick out different boyfriends. So if a guy is making a lot of passes at certain kinds of girls and getting nowhere, perhaps he should consider targeting girls who are closer to his own "type."
1sark
Certainly.
2sark
I was just trying to acknowledge caveats. Of which there should be many.
9Dreaded_Anomaly
This seems like very good, thorough, general advice. However, I wonder how many of us (heterosexual males reading Less Wrong) have romantic preferences that are as general. I realize that the "reading Less Wrong" part of that descriptor wasn't specified in the question, but it seems implied. In general, a heterosexual man might describe the set of his potential romantic partners in the following way: a woman whom he finds physically attractive, with whom he shares interests, and with whom his personality is compatible. (That the woman is currently single is also important for many, including myself, but I recognize that it's less general than the former three, given the existence of polyamory/fidelity.) However, for myself, I would add to this a fairly strict qualifier, that the woman is an atheist. I simply don't feel that I would be able to be emotionally intimate with a woman who holds an irrational, i.e. religious, worldview. Atheist doesn't necessarily mean rationalist, but religious almost definitely means irrational, i.e. P(rationalist|atheist) >> P(rationalist|religious), and even more so for P(would be open to rationality|atheist). I find it to be a sound heuristic that prevents me from embarking on relationships very likely doomed to failure. I doubt that I am alone among LWers in taking this into account. Unfortunately, I have found it really damn hard to meet atheist women. I can count on one hand the number I have met in college. A large part of that is that I attend a science/engineering university which has a student body comprised of only ~30% women, but even then, my expectation before entering the university was that a population self-selected for interest in science/engineering would have a larger proportion of atheism than the general population. That expectation was not met by reality, and I recognized that I was confused, but trying to resolve that confusion (see below) didn't appreciably help my goal of meeting atheist women. Studies have
6[anonymous]
So this is an interesting challenge. My first thought is that it's actually a challenge shared by theists--Mormon men who want a Mormon wife, for example--but these people share a whole social structure (their religious community) that is already working to bring them together. Without this, atheists do face a special hurdle. Wow, those numbers are high. Yes, when you're limited to 14 percent of women, general dating strategies become a lot less useful. Other groups faced with numbers like these have to create (and advertise among themselves!) special spaces for meeting and flirting. (I'm thinking about gay bars now.) I hope others can suggest more, but the only one I'm coming up with is political activism. If you are in the U.S.A., you could look for events put on through http://secular.org/ or any of the Member Organizations. Even though men are more likely to be atheists, women are more likely to be volunteers, so you may find that the gender balance evens out.
2MBlume
From what I recall, if you filter for "active in atheism/rationalism/secularism" you get an even stronger male skew than if you just filter for "atheist/rationalist/secular" =(
4ChristianKl
The reason to go into environments where you interact with a lot of women isn't only an issue of having a lot of opportunities. It's also a matter of practice. Even if you don't like to date the woman at a dance class the class will still teach you basic skills about interacting with women. If you don't have the practice with regularly interacting with women than you are unlikely to have success when you find a woman who would be a good match because she fulfills your criteria.
4CronoDAS
It's probably a little bit easier if you don't live in the U.S.; the U.S. is unusually religious when compared to other First World countries.
4sfb
From reading your whole comment, it seems this: would be the easiest bit to change to remove the problem from your life.
[-]Dreaded_Anomaly100

I'm not interested in a relationship in which I can't interact honestly with the woman, because I wouldn't find it to be fulfilling. I'd rather be single than have to tiptoe around my romantic partner's irrational beliefs. Changing that implies either ceasing to care about rationality, or dramatically lowering my expectations for a relationship. Neither of those sounds particularly appealing.

Reply
2sfb
Are you suggesting that a non-religious person would have no irrational beliefs to tiptoe around? This seems unlikely. Are you suggesting that if you didn't tiptoe around religious beliefs that would be a problem? Because it seems that religious people are extra-resilient in their beliefs, so that might be less of an issue than you fear. Are you suggesting that it isn't possible to have a relationship where one person is religious and another atheist without them having to fight about it or lie about it? That your relationships must have zero tolerance and absolute agreement on all points?
4Dreaded_Anomaly
No, but a religious person is definitely going to have such beliefs. Yes, I am. It's not a matter of resilience in beliefs; telling my significant other that I can't take their opinion on [evolution/gay marriage/abortion/insert religiously-tinted issue of your choice] at all seriously doesn't sound like a recipe for a harmonious relationship. It's not possible for me, because I believe atheism is the rational position and religious belief is objectively unjustified. I don't think the idea that relationships between religious and nonreligious people are unlikely to succeed is an uncommon one; I've had religious friends express agreement with it. This is a straw man argument, as I did not make such a statement.
6endoself
Many people are religious without really examining the consequences of their beliefs. Also many people have religious beliefs that do not cause them to think irrationally about evolution, gay marriage, or abortion. I would expect many of these people to move toward atheism during a long-term relationship with a LessWronger.
1Dreaded_Anomaly
Yes, I've made that argument for abortion. However, that generally doesn't stop such people from being extremely convinced of their beliefs. I haven't had any success changing someone's mind about abortion with the aforementioned argument, despite how obvious it becomes that the person is merely acting out instructions without thinking about them. Those were meant as examples, not a definitive list of topics. There are very few people whose religious beliefs don't cause them to think irrationally about some important issue. I understand that, but I would be setting myself up for disappointment to expect that from any specific romantic partner who fell into that category.
2endoself
I realized this, but there seems to be a cluster in personspace of theists who are no less rational about the concepts on your list than the average atheist. If there are any topics that even these theists are irrational about, can you give examples? Good point.
1Dreaded_Anomaly
To be honest, I really haven't met enough theists in that cluster to be very confident about any examples. I can see the matter of church attendance (in general, in terms of the course of the relationship if it moves toward marriage, and later in terms of raising children) being an issue. It's not necessarily something that will come up right away, but I would see the specter of it hovering overhead. There's also the irrationality of religious beliefs themselves, e.g. the idea that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or the idea that Jesus performed miracles.
1NancyLebovitz
Could you be comfortable with an agnostic? That would expand your pool somewhat.
1Dreaded_Anomaly
Yes, most likely. I don't see much of a difference between agnosticism and atheism in practice. If a person doesn't know if God exists (agnostic), ey probably won't hold an active belief in God (atheist). There are exceptions to that, of course, but in a minority of cases.
3Desrtopa
Have you tried using OkCupid? It allows you to filter by religion, and it appears to be the preferred dating site among Less Wrongers, and possibly young intellectuals in general. We already have a thread dedicated to optimizing your profile for positive attention, so it may worth trying out.
1Dreaded_Anomaly
I haven't ventured into online dating, but if I do, I will keep OkCupid in mind.
9SilasBarta
Thanks, this is what an informative answer looks like.
6PaulWright
Even better than book groups, though, are dance classes. Amen to that. I'd add a slight caution that chemistry generated on the dancefloor can sometimes just be about the dancing, and telling when it is more than that is possibly an advanced skill. So, as this Mefi comment says, don't push your luck on the dancefloor itself. Workaround: ask after the class or when you're standing around chatting (assuming you don't dance all the time). Don't be the guy who asks everyone in turn: the women talk to each other :-) EDIT: I elaborate on what I mean by this below...
5A1987dM
This can backfire if you live in a small town.
6[anonymous]
If anyone figured out the asexual variant of this, I'd love to know, too. (Gender shouldn't matter that much.)
[-]wedrifid110

If anyone figured out the asexual variant of this, I'd love to know, too.

Alas, asexuality among humans is notorious for making it difficult to form long-term romantic relationships.

(Gender shouldn't matter that much.)

When it comes to following protocol it is matters more what it is than what it should be. The various permutations of gender and romantic preference do matter that much. (And looking at things as they are instead of how they 'should be' is probably step one.)

Reply
1Antisuji
It sounded to me like muflax was asking about making friends, not asexual romantic relationships. It's true though that when making friends gender matters quite a bit more than it seems like it should, at least in some social circles. If I'm wrong and that's not what muflax was asking about, I'll ask it myself: how does an adult make friends with other adults?
2knb
There are a million ways to start, but this is the most formalizable method I have used. 1. Go to craigslist.com. 2. Look at personal ads from women seeking men. 3. Respond to ads you like. If she responds positively, talk online for awhile. 4. Schedule a meeting. 5. Go on casual date (i.e. meet for drinks at a bar). 6. Be attractive, wealthy, and interesting. 7. If you like her, suggest another date. 8. Go on another date. (repeat 8 until LTR)
[-]thejash250

Not to be annoying (as I often have questions like this as well), but I've found that Google is remarkably helpful in answering those questions. In fact, I tried two of the example questions and the answers seemed very reasonable to me:

http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+deposit+a+check

http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+buy+stocks

I also use Google's suggestions (ie, by typing into Google Instant or Firefox search bar) to help phrase my question in the most common way, or to provide alternative related questions that might be more what I mean. For example, when typing "how to buy stocks" it suggested:

"how to buy stocks with out a broker"

"how to buy stocks online"

"how to buy stocks for beginners"

Reply
2Matt_Duing
Khan Academy also has a sequence of videos on stock market basics.
3Vladimir_M
The idea of educational videos on "stock market basics" for amateurs strikes me as about equally sensible as having educational videos for amateurs on abdominal surgery. Unless of course these videos limit themselves to explaining the concept of weak EMH, but somehow I doubt it.
3Matt_Duing
The videos are basically explanations of investing terminology. On second thought, my suggestion was not really on point as a source of procedural knowledge.
[-]Threedee210

There are a number of web sites that present such implicit and procedural knowledge. such as: http://www.ehow.com/ http://www.wikihow.com/Main-Page http://www.howcast.com/ http://www.howtodothings.com/

I might be useful to somehow select the most generally useful ones of these in one place.

Reply
[-]luminosity100

I haven't come across any of them except eHow. eHow is awful. Useless. Bad. I have ended up there unwittingly from google searches a half dozen times or so. Not once has it answered what I wanted to know. The information on their site is optimised to be written as quickly as possible while getting the best google rank possible, with no thought as to quality of information.

Reply
4knb
Huh. I use eHow and WikiHow all the time, and always find it incredibly useful.
7bayleo
eHow is frequently accused of being a content mill. I switched search engines to DuckDuckGo when the founder announced he was dropping eHow and all other Demand Media properties from his results (Blekko has also dropped them). eHow articles are cranked out by paid writers who typically know very little about what they are writing, resulting in a lot of completely inadequate explanations. WikiHow, on the other hand, is a genuine wiki (go ahead; edit it) which rivals Wikipedia for process-oriented queries.
3David_Gerard
Sure hope he keeps Cracked. It's Wikipedia, rewritten with jokes!
[-]Bo102010200

I recently found myself thinking about this same topic. I have figured some of these out by trial and error, but feel that some formal training would have been useful (others I have not encountered):

  • How should you interact with a police officer - what are your obligations, your rights, and how should you conduct yourself?

  • If you want to move from one residence to another, what steps should you take? If you are credentialed in one state and want to move to another, what do you do?

  • If you get into a minor car accident, what should you do? What about a major one?

  • What's the best way to quit your job?

  • How do you vote in an election? A primary? What should you do if you want to run for office?

  • If you find that someone has died of non-suspicious and natural causes, what steps should you take? Whom should you call?

Reply
[-]Psychohistorian570

How should you interact with a police officer - what are your obligations, your rights, and how should you conduct yourself?

I'm a law student. I'll take this one. This applies to the US specifically, though being polite and deferent are probably universal.

In short: TL;DR answer: Be polite, calm, and friendly. If you are guilty of a crime, admit nothing, do not give permission to search anything that would be incriminating, say that you don't want to talk to the officer (unless answering extremely general questions), and, if you are detained, ask to speak with a lawyer. Be more compliant if you are innocent, but if you get the slightest hint that they think you're responsible, stop complying and ask for a lawyer if detained. For more mundane interaction (i.e. speeding tickets) be polite and deferent, and don't confess to anything unless they totally have you nailed. Arguing with cops will very rarely advance your case; save that for court if you care enough to challenge the ticket. More detail follows.

In minor cases (e.g. speeding tickets), you generally want to be polite, deferential, and honest, but probably don't volunteer too much information, except insofar as it's obvious.... (read more)

Reply
[-]TobyBartels200

Especially if you are guilty, you should ask if you are free to go, and if you are not, ask for an attorney. This is advisable even if you are innocent if the crime is significant.

I want to emphasise this. The prisons in the U.S. (and probably most countries) are full of people who believed that they were safe, despite being suspected, due to their innocence. Remember, innocence is no excuse if they find you guilty anyway. (This is even true after the fact; new evidence of innocence is not enough to get a new trial, as long as your rights were not violated in the old one, according to the Supreme Court.)

Reply
3Baughn
Wait, what? [citation needed]
4TobyBartels
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) Four months later, a person who was legally guilty (so found by a jury in a valid trial) but actually innocent (probably) was killed by the State of Texas. This is the best short coverage that I found in a few minutes' Googling (using the defendant's full name): http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/05/12/1993-leonel-herrera-v-collins/ ETA: As the court's opinion points out, there is a procedure for relief when one finds new evidence of innocence: clemency. Good luck getting that in Texas!
[-]folkTheory180

I'm just gonna add: Say "Sir" all the time. It really calms them down.
He asks you a question? ("have you been drinking?") Say "Yes sir" or "no sir"
"I stopped you because you were speeding" - "I'm very sorry, sir"
and so on. This has saved me countless times.

Reply
2sumguysr
Even more effective in my experience is giving them an authentic pleasant greeting. "Good evening officer". For some reason saying sir constantly makes me feel nervous and like I'm ceding too much power. I usually say it once or twice and never in my first couple answers.
2TobyBartels
Just don't say "Sir" if the cop's a woman!
[-]Kaj_Sotala110

Must-watch with regard to the police: Why You Should Never Talk to Cops, parts one and two.

(US-specific, but a lot of the general content is probably applicable worldwide.)

Reply
3Douglas_Knight
Many sources, including that one, if I recall correctly, say that if you talk to cops, they will lie about what you said, but no one ever says that they will fabricate the fact of talking.
2jaimeastorga2000
This is another good video which touches on many of the same ideas: BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters Also, here's the video you posted in one part. I completely loved it.
6TobyBartels
If you don't know which, just ask. Note that being detained is less serious than being arrested.
3[anonymous]
I think your comment got cut off? It was really interesting and I'd like to read the rest of it. I think you're talking about the U.S., too, and we should probably specify that since obviously laws are different in different countries.
2[anonymous]
Voting: all the official info from the US government is here.
[-]Blueberry100

Great link, especially this quote from Part 2:

One probably could not devise a better system for keeping people with humanistic values away from power than by confining them to decade-long graduate programs with a long future of transient adjunct positions making less than the minimum wage.

Reply
7[anonymous]
I agree. The odds are very much against you. And I say this as someone who likes the humanities and admires humanities professors. If you have incredibly strong evidence in your favor that you're a special case, go for it, though -- but it should be incredibly strong evidence. It's possible that it's easier to publish a philosophy book than to become a philosophy professor, if you're good at networking. Or to get some attention for your ideas through podcasts, etc., which you're already doing. If your goal is to do and write philosophy, optimize for that -- it's a different goal than becoming a professor.
2CronoDAS
This is a stronger argument against a doctorate than a Masters degree, but I imagine that the same kinds of considerations apply.
[-]NancyLebovitz180

Dealing with serious clutter-- the kind of situation where the house has never been in good order and there isn't any obvious place to put most things.

Sometimes I take a crack at it, but there's so little progress and so many non-obvious decisions to be made.

Reply
[-]David_Gerard500

The key point I have discovered in my own recent massive household declutter:

Distinguish "generally useful" or "potentially useful" from actually useful.

No, you'll never eBay it. No, you'll never wear that shirt or those boots. No, you'll never fix that laptop. No, you'll never get around to finding someone who really wants it. No, that weird cable won't actually ever be used for anything, because it hasn't been used in the past five years. No, you'll never get around to taking it to the charity shop. No, it may be a shame to throw out something so obviously useful, but it's a curse. No, you never did any of these things in the past so there's no reason to assume you will in the future. No. No. Stop making bullshit excuses. JUST NO.

Get a big roll of garbage bags. Delight in having so many full bags of discards that your bin overflows.

You have to be utterly uncompromising. Set the "when did I last use this?" to one year. Anything unused in longer than that better have a REALLY EXCELLENT justification.

If you swear you're going to eBay it, give yourself one week to do the listing. If it's not done, throw it out.

A very helpful method is to have someone els... (read more)

Reply
[-]khafra130

Sounds like the "outside view" approach to cleaning. It seems to me the “really excellent justification” heuristic could be generalized into expected value, with some danger of overfitting—something with infrequent but important use like a fire extinguisher might earn its place just as easily as a bic pen you use twenty times a day.

Reply
[-]David_Gerard220

I think it's more generally the phenomenon Paul Graham talks about: stuff used to be valuable and people didn't have much of it; these days, it's actually not of value and most people have too much of it. That is: we're all rich now, and we don't know how to cope with the fact.

It's moving up to a better class of problem. Like how Britain has a major health problem in 2011 with poor people being too fat, whereas in 1950 food was rationed. It's a great problem to have. Though it's still a problem.

Yes, it really helps to get in an outside view - the friend to help and berate you - until you get the proper visceral loathing of stuff.

Reply
9fiddlemath
I think this explains a lot of it. Another part is that people don't think about the costs of owning stuff: it occupies your space, you have to keep it organized, and you have to move it around whenever you move. These costs are easy to ignore, because they aren't in mind when you're thinking about buying a specific thing. The mentally-available facts are "what will I get by using this?" versus "how much money does this cost?" Similarly, when you're looking for stuff to get rid of, it's hard to bring those costs back into light, because they're so general to everything you own I don't have lots of stuff, and I'm pretty willing to get rid of stuff or give stuff away. I think this is largely because I highly value my space, my attention, and my time, and I've practiced being sensitive to those values when I'm making decisions about stuff.
[-]handoflixue100

"you have to move it around whenever you move."

Usually I'm adverse to reducing clutter, due to the cost of going through, organizing it, and throwing away most of it. Every time I move I end up losing a huge chunk of my stuff because suddenly it's much cheaper to throw it out instead of moving it :)

Reply
6soreff
Good point. My heuristic is to say: My house cost $100/ft^2. A $2 knickknack with a square foot footprint really costs $102.
4Ian_Ryan
But could you really have saved $100 by having decided to buy that same exact house except without that extra square foot?
6fiddlemath
Probably not. But, if you had rather less stuff, you could have probably bought a pretty similar house with one fewer closet for a few thousand less.
4juliawise
This. My housemates and I needed a three-bedroom apartment instead of a cheaper two-bedroom because some of them have so much stuff. Especially large furniture.
3soreff
Yup, also, the incremental cost of space in a self-store unit is of the order of $1/month-ft^2, say $240/ft^2 capital cost at a 5% annual rate - and that is a true incremental cost. The more severe approximation is ignoring which items stack well and which don't, and ignoring the additional costs of maintaining the items, keeping track of them and so on.
[-][anonymous]110

Paul Graham's essay Stuff talks about the problem. He lists books as an exception. THEY ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION. Be as ruthless with your book pile.

Better yet, get a Kindle.

Reply
9David_Gerard
I'd love a Kindle if it wasn't a hideously locked-down proprietary money funnel. I'm waiting for something with an eInk screen that just opens documents if I put them on it, in whatever format. I've wanted something like that to read PDFs with approximately forever. I already don't read my paper books. I'd rather download a PDF than read the book that's on the shelf just over there. This appears to be unusual amongst my friends.
7[anonymous]
The Kindle 3G has native PDF support. It also supports .mobi ebooks from any non-DRM'd source. (And most other formats can be converted to .mobi using a program like Calibre.)
6Risto_Saarelma
I got my hands on a Kindle a year back, and it just opened PDFs and text documents I put on it using it as an USB drive. Amazon even provided an app for rolling your own Kindle-format ebooks from hypertext files, which you could again just plop on the Kindle over USB. My main problem was that the regular Kindle was too small for viewing technical article PDFs full screen. I can already use my smartphone for reading stuff that's easily reflowable, like most fiction. The Kindle DX should be better for this, but I haven't had a chance to try that.
5ruhe47
There are other e-readers that have far less stringent requirements for getting books. The Nook and Kobo are an example (as are the Sony E-Readers). I have a Nook and have yet to purchase any books from the Barnes and Noble store. I constantly put DRM free books from Project Gutenberg on it and just placed the Less Wrong sequences on it as well. There are also FLOSS programs for editing PDFs to make them easier to read on an e-reader. A little research goes a long way!
1mindspillage
I use my thinkpad tablet--my main computer--for reading anything I can manage to get in .pdf, but I do really envy the Kindle screen. And battery life. I keep checking back to the PixelQi site hopefully... I read paper books because 1) I can get them really cheap used (cheaper than the library fines I always get from borrowing them...), 2) they require no batteries, 3) dropping them or stepping on them will not damage them irreparably, and 4) they are not likely to attract unwelcome attention on the buses through the rougher parts of town.
1homunq
Books can be valuable even if you never read them again, in several ways. If you have kids, you never know what they might read, or just what attitudes they might pick up from the presence of books. If your books are in a public part of your house, guests may see them and either start a conversation or be impressed. If they are behind where the guests sit, you may see a book a guest will like and give it to them. Also, of course, there's the potential for bathroom reading, a page of an old favorite. That said, when you're moving house, you should be more ruthless than usual with books.
6Alicorn
Throw stuff out/give it away. Lots of stuff. If you have two of it, or don't really like it, or plan to replace it soon and won't need it till then, get rid of it. Completely clear out some place, like a closet or a drawer or a shelf - do this by putting its contents in obviously inappropriate temporary locations, like on a bed, if necessary. Decide from scratch what belongs in this place. Put those things there. Repeat with the next space. If you don't have a way to efficiently use the space, buy an organizer of some kind suited to what you plan to put in. (Wire racks, drawer dividery things, bookends for open-ended shelves, etc.)
4Sinal
Don't know if anyone still follows this 7 year old thread but- I strongly recommend Marie Kondo's book The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up. The gist is you declutter by category of item instead of by room: first do all of the dishes, then do all your clothing items, then books, etc. For instance, to declutter your closet, take out all the clothes and sort into two piles: clothes that make you happy and clothes that don't. I've also found that goodwill will accept lots of different kinds of items not just clothes. And remember, it's not about becoming angry about all the useless garbage you have in your house, but about choosing to keep what makes you happy and being surrounded by lovely things that you appreciate.
3MartinB
Leo Babauta from zenhabits is a good source to go to. Decluttering was a personal struggle for me, that I think to have handled now. Here my current model for how to de:clutter. Note that I mix actual experience with theory, also some might not be universally applicable. Also I don't know which points to elaborate on and which are obvious. Preface: Order is a process, not an end state! Much progress is achieved early on. Like optical decluttering the visible areas, when everything is nicely boxed up. (80:20 principle) Tools: I use stackable plastic containers like these. The important factors are the volume that allows to store all kinds of things, transportability by hand, and the possibility to stack them onto them self. Lots of garbage bags. (Get some of the big ones, some the smaller once9 Tape that can be written on + marker pens. It might be a good time to install more shelf space Timing Depending on your schedule you can use like half an hour each day, or some hours once or twice a week to attack it, and make as much progress as possible. Use a kitchen timer. Get family involved if applicable. Target areas Choose a room, or an area smaller than a room to attack. Common rooms or your own are best. (I think that parents should not clean up their kids rooms, safe for fire and health hazards.) If you are into planning, make a list of all areas and their order, so you can cross them off. Find out which parts of the process give you pleasure and optimize accordingly. (Some people find it helpful to know exactly which steps to take, some get anxious from it. It helps to know which one you are.) Maybe clean floor space first. And tables. Depending on level of entropy you can go in one swipe, or do multiple rounds. Methodology Put everything that is obviously to throw away in a garbage bag. Put everything else into the boxes. You can do a lazy general sort here right away, but its not necessary. If you do label the boxes with the tape + pen. Take boxe
2taryneast
Lots of good advice here! I'd also add: don't get bogged down in details. Many, many are the times I've set aside time to properly clear up and found I've spent an hour sorting through one stack of papers... I'd suggest: start with the big things first. You can sort which papers to keep and which to throw after you've picked up the bigger things and put them in boxes out of the way. There's a huge amount of relief in cleaning up even just the easy 80% of the clutter, so tackle the low-hanging fruit first and leave the details for the second pass.
1NickiH
I like this site: http://unclutterer.com/ It includes advice, examples, a forum to ask advice/share stories, and the weekly "Ask Unclutterer" column. Not to mention some hilarious examples of unitaskers.
[-]Elizabeth173

I am terrible at remembering names. This is bad in itself, but exacerbated by a few factors:

  • I regularly have lengthy conversations with random strangers, and will be able to easily summarize the conversation afterwords, but will have no recollection of their name.

  • I am fairly noticeable and memorable, so even people whose names I have no reason to know will know mine.

  • I am not particularly good with faces either.

This isn't a memory problem, I can quote back conversations or remember long strings of numbers. I often cope by confessing to my weakness in a self-deprecating manner, or by simply not using names in direct address (it's generally not necessary in English), but these don't actually help me learn names. If I remembered to ask their name early on, I sometimes pause mid-conversation to ask "Are you still x?" but that is somewhat awkward and I'm wrong half the time anyway. The only time I can reliably remember is if they share the name of an immediate family member.This is bad enough that I'll sometimes be five or six classes into the semester and have to check the syllabus to figure out the professor's name, or will have been in multiple classes with someone and shared several conversations and still not know their name.

Reply
[-]SRStarin120

When I started running study groups in college, the training included teaching how to learn student's names. The trick to remembering names is to say the name out loud, with focus on the name and the person at the same time. So, Joachim introduces himself, and you say "Joachim? Nice to meet you, Joachim!" Give the name and face enough time to sink into long term memory. If they don't introduce themselves, ask them their name, simply apologizing if it turns out you've met before.

Then, at the earliest good opportunity, reinforce the name. Using it during the conversation is good. Any time the topic goes in a new direction, or you or your interlocutor have a new idea, you say "So, Joachim, I have another way of looking at that..." or "Joachim, that is an excellent point." This is totally normal, but might not feel that way to a person who doesn't use names frequently.

Finally, it is minimally awkward to, at the end of a conversation, say to the person "Well, Joachim, it's been so good talking to you!" Or, if you've totally lost the name, say with a smile "I've enjoyed talking with you so much I've managed to forget your name!" And they ... (read more)

Reply
6Elizabeth
It wasn't until a couple of years ago that I first consciously noticed that I was incapable of using other people's names to their faces. I could do it with immediate family, and I could do it in third person "Howard was telling me..." I have since made strenuous efforts to get better at it, but it is still really psychologically difficult. That's also when I realized that it was almost impossible for me to leave a message on an answering machine. I'm working on that one too, but doing so is a serious effort. One of my roommates my freshman year of college had the same issues, but neither of us had a clue why.
1handoflixue
It might help to find a friend you can practice with, for the names - if the issue applies to IM/Skype/etc. as well, then you can probably find a practice partner or two right here. Otherwise, hopefully you have an in-person friend who you'd trust to explain this to, and who can encourage you to refer to them by name frequently :) For answering machines, the same friend can probably help, or you could practice on your own answering machine. I've found that, for most skills, doing really impractical-but-safe practice exercises like this actually really pays off. Even if it doesn't 100% resolve the issue, it still gives you a good foundation to build on, and helps remind you that the activity CAN be safe.
1ShardPhoenix
I sometimes have trouble usings people's names - I think due to fear that I haven't remembered them correctly, even if I'm 95% certain or more. If I don't know the person well it may also seem overly familiar.
[-]Desrtopa110

Thirding the request.

I have sometimes contemplated taking out my frustrations by following people around to learn their names, scrounging up any background material on them that I can get, and then pretending to be an old high school acquaintance of theirs, and watching them squirm as they try to remember me.

I'm not entirely certain people aren't already doing this to me.

Reply1
7TheOtherDave
People have done this to me. I was amused. In general, I avoid claiming to actually remember people if I don't, but I'm happy to engage with them as though we were old friends if they are engaging with me that way. If it turns out that we don't know each other, well, I've been friendlier than our relationship obligated me to be, which is not a big problem.
4mindspillage
Me too; nothing wrong with it and some people will be positively impressed with how friendly you are even to people you barely know! Also, being straightforward and not embarrassed to ask someone's name again helps. A simple "I'm sorry, but I've completely forgotten your name; could you remind me?" is usually not too awkward unless you've met often enough that you should be expected to remember. (Also, I am in DC, which is a very business card-exchanging area; remembering getting the card and seeing the name after being introduced is very helpful.)
1[anonymous]
I've started some great friendships by doing just this. Don't just pretend to run into an acquaintance. Pretend that you just ran into your old best friend X (X is totally awesome BTW, it's been way too long since you've seen them, and OMG do you remember when X did Y? It was so cool). Requirements: an upstanding and respected mutual friend, an endorsement that a prank will be well received, and a victim with a sense of humor.
7sixes_and_sevens
At the beginning of 2010 I made it my mission to remember the names of everyone I was introduced to. I haven't quite managed everyone, but I've gotten pretty close. My technique: when someone tells me their name, I think of something that rhymes with it, and imagine the person in conjunction with the rhyme. I have a general policy of picking the first thing that comes to mind, since that presumably suggests my brain already has some sort of reliable connection between them. For example, when meeting Sam for the first time, I will think of the first rhyme for 'Sam' that comes to mind, which in the case of a recent Sam was 'ham'. I imagine Sam holding some ham, with a big grin on her face (she has quite a striking grin anyway, so this detail just sort of cements it in place). When I next meet Sam, I will have a striking image of her holding some ham with a big grin on her face, which I can then follow back to her name. Over the past year or so I've built up quite a menagerie of associations. All people called Sue are now in a large group of Blue Sues in my head. Anyone called Vicky is covered in something sticky. Anyone called Kate has an expression of hate. Sometimes I have to reach for tenuous rhymes. 'David' was a bit of a tricky one, but I eventually settled on 'shavéd', and imagine Davids to have a partially-shaved scalp. If anything, the more tenuous rhymes are more memorable, because I also have the memory of the difficult rhyme to hang the name off. This does occasionally create some odd effects. Last September, for example, I know I met two people called Amanda, but can only remember one of them. The act of remembering their name has persisted in memory, but actually meeting them hasn't. The most important aspect isn't the actual technique (as there are plenty of other name-remembering techniques out there which presumably work fairly well), but getting into the habit of using it. It doesn't do any good just knowing it; you have to consciously choose to
4[anonymous]
I remember names after I've seen them written in association with the face. I remember unusual names better, because I can ask the person then and there how to spell it. So for anyone with whom I speak rarely, I basically only consistently remember the names of facebook friends. Method: Add people on facebook immediately after meeting them. Then review the RSVP list before going to any events with an events page!
2ViEtArmis
I had this problem for a long time, which can be embarrassing doing phone support, especially one with frequent callers that know my name and voice (one of only two men and we have distinct voices and greetings). I started intentionally using callers name's three times in every call and reaped several benefits: 1) I actually remember their names when they call back, 2) I'm better at remembering names having been told only once (even outside of work), and 3) my customer satisfaction scores had a marked and sustained increase.
1TabAtkins
I'm also normally terrible at learning names, but I've learned how to get around it. This may be terribly specific to people who learn like me; if so, I apologize. I have found that I am incredibly focused on learning through actually seeing things written. I am excellent at spelling because I see the written form of words in my head, and even when I can't immediately recall the precise letters, I always have an accurate sense of how many there are (which is often enough to select the correct spelling from a shortlist of plausible alternatives). Given that, I find that I can trivially remember people's names after having emailed them and typed their names.
1Alicorn
If there is some metadata about names that you can remember more easily (rhymes with X, name of Y character from fiction, would have been taunted on the playground because of Z) use that. I tend to ask people how to spell their names so I can embed the information as text instead of much-more-slippery-for-me sounds.
[-]Johnicholas170

I do not have health insurance currently. I could obtain health insurance, but that's not my question.

How often is it appropriate to go to a doctor or general health person (in the US), if I think I'm mostly okay, and how much should I pay? How do I control how much I pay rather than setting up an appointment without mentioning price and allowing them to charge me? How do I find someone based on their skill/price rather than choosing randomly or following a recommendation from a friend?

Reply
8MartinB
Off the top of my head: Visit the dentist regularly, like once or twice a year for a checkup, or whenever a reason pops up. Problems with teeth should be taken care of ASAP, otherwise they grow big. The normal doctor needs no regular visits. (For females the gynecologist might be useful regularly, for males there is no equivalent yet.) You should take care of vaccinations. Some like the flu are done annually, others in much rarer sequences like every 10 years. If special once are recommended in your region your doctor or some kind of health information center will know. If you have special reasons to do an occasional checkup you probably know about that already. Like: I am a vegetarian and have my blood levels checked every few years. If you are generally healthy no visits are necessary. For people above a certain age some general prescreenings are recommended. I dont have the numbers here, and they differ by country, but that generally only starts at 35 or more. I don't bother my doctors with minor illnesses that go away on their own, like the cold. But sometimes do go there with seemingly minor stuff that does not go away on it's own. As a preparatory measure you could find out where your next general doctor, and the next emergency room is and how to get there. It probably pays to take care of oneself. After all we only have one body to run with. No information on payment rates since I live in another place.
6qsoc
There are a couple of ways you can ballpark how much you should be paying. You can look up what Medicare pays here. To use that you'll need to know the appropriate CPT code(s), which is not easy. If you're a new patient just going for a check up, you probably want 9920[1-5]; for an established patient, you want 9921[1-5]. The range from 1 to 5 varies by how "complex" the medical decision making is and how comprehensive the examination is. You can also go to a site like healthcarebluebook.com to look up the prices. I think their goal is to report what a private insurance company might pay, so the numbers are somewhat higher. It also gives some tips on how to negotiate the payment if you don't have insurance.
5TobyBartels
When calling for prices, tell them that you have no insurance and offer to pay on the day of service (assuming that you can), then ask what kind of discount they can give you. Sometimes you won't even have to ask.
2SRStarin
If you are under 50, I agree with the other comments that you don't really need to see a doctor regularly. I would want a baseline examination, though, to see if you have any tendencies toward bad cholesterol or blood sugar, so you can maintain a diet that will keep you healthy and able to continue skipping the doctor visits. I agree with MartinB that you should see the dentist at least once a year for a checkup and cleaning. If you are approaching or over 50, you should really get a prostate exam every year or so. Prostate cancer is very common, relatively slow to progress, and very treatable if caught early on. Apparently (I just learned this in checking the web that I'm not giving you bad info) it is possible to do self-examinations, but combined with all the other things (blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, etc) that have increasing probability with age, you should probably be seeing a doctor once a year anyway. Whatever doctor you call, you can ask them what their fee is before making an appointment. You can also ask what their fees are for specific tests and procedures. Calling several doctors and asking the same questions (i.e. shopping around) is the only way I know of to find cheap doctors. As for skill, recommendations are the way to go. You may be able to find recommendations/reviews online.
2BillyOblivion
If you are male and under 30 you should see a doctor every so often to get blood work done--say every 3-5 years. This is to check your blood sugar (diabetes) and establish a cholesterol baseline. If you're a drinker also start tracking your liver enzymes. From 30 to 40 every other year is OK, unless you want to watch something more closely. If you're heavily involved in shooting sports and/or reloading, or some other sport with exposure to heavy metals or toxic chemicals discuss this with your physician and get the appopriate tests. After 40 you're really better off getting blood work done annually. As you hit your mid-40s getting your A1C baselined and then checked every so often is a good idea. But yes, if you're paying out of pocket call around and see who will give you the best deal. Also you really SHOULD consider a class of insurance (if you can find it anymore, idiot politicians have priced it out of some markets) called "catastrophic health care insurance". This doesn't cover you if you want an HIV test, or blood work, it doesn't cover your breast enlargements or vasectomy, but if an uninsured drunk car thief knocks you off your bicycle it WILL cover the bills he won't pay.
8A1987dM
Pro tip: if you donate blood, they check it for free.
[-]Osmium_Penguin170

No, nor that they print their own names. They just have to sign their names and date the signature. It's also a good idea to have each of them initial every (numbered) page of your will; this proves that no pages have been inserted or deleted.

When I first started asking how to write a will, a couple of years ago, the best advice I got was to write the will myself — because this is free — and then reread it in a few months. Repeat this process until I couldn't think of anything to add or change. Then visit a lawyer and have them translate it into legalese.

Reply
[-]JanetK170

I believe there should be a subject in school (and text books to go with it) that goes through all the things that adult citizens should know. I believe this was part of what was called Civics but that is dead or changed to something else. The idea is somewhat dated but it included things like how to vote, how to read a train schedule, that different types of insurance actually were, simple first aid, how to find a book in a library and all sorts of things like that. Today it would be a slightly different list. Somewhere between 10 and 14 seems the ideal age to be interested and learn these sort of things.

Reply
[-]SilasBarta460

I agree. I've also long held a different but complementary view: that all establishments should (hopefully, out of the goodness of their hearts) put up signs that basically say, "this is how it works here".

(For example, at a grocery store in the US, the sign would say something like, "This store sells the items you see inside that have a price label by them. To buy something, take it with you to one of the numbered short aisles [registers] toward the exit and place it on the belt. If you need many items, you may want to use one of the baskets or carts provided near this sign. The store employee at the register will tell you how much the item costs, and you can pay with ...")

While most of it would be obvious to everyone and something parents automatically teach, everyone might find some different part of it to be novel. And I suspect that this easily-correctible "double illusion of transparency", in which people don't think such signs would convey anything new, prevents a lot of beneficial activity from happening.

Reply
[-]Matt_Simpson200

This is particularly helpful for anyone new to the area - immigrants, emigrants, tourists, etc.

Reply
[-]ChristianKl130

As I live in Germany I have experience with such rule sets. People don't follow them and instead do whatever they consider to be the obvious thing to do.

Our public transport system has for example the rule that you should stand on the right side of an escalator if you choose to stand.
If you choose to walk the escalator you take the left side.

It's a smart rule and it would be in the public interest if everyone would abide by it. It would make life easier for those who choose who walk the escalator. Normal people however don't care and simple stand wherever they want to stand.

Introducing a formal rule set when people are used to following informal rules is hard.

Reply
8Richard_Kennaway
In London, the same convention is in effect on the Underground. Unlike Germany, it is almost always followed, and enforces itself. If you stand on the left, it won't be long before someone walking will ask you to step aside to let them pass. There are notices here and there asking people to do this.
8SilasBarta
The idea is for the sign to describe how it in fact works, not necessarily how they'd like it to work. (A sufficiently detailed sign might explain the distinction, potentially allowed for coordinated punishment of defectors.) That's why I mentioned the bit about "the goodness of their hearts". It would probably require a law because of the problem of people stating outright how something "really" works. (I've been to the Hauptbahnhoffs btw -- "links gehen, rechts stehen" is the phrase, right?) I agree -- so the idea instead is to have a sign that can quickly teach people this informal system, since it may be so hard for a newcomer to infer it.
6TheOtherDave
Huh. Would you similarly endorse putting a link up on the front page that explains that "this website displays user-generated content, both in the form of discrete posts and in the form of comments associated either with a post or another comment. To view a post, click the title under "recent posts." To view comments... etc. etc. etc."?
[-]SilasBarta140

Maybe not specifically that, but I recall a lot of new users (and regular users, and critics of users...) complaining that they don't know e.g. what kinds of comments are appropriate to post under articles, what the pre-requisites for understanding the material and generally stuff that we might just assume they know.

LW does have a good "about" section, though.

Reply
[-]NancyLebovitz160

It needs a "how to use the site" section. When the envelope turns red, it means you have a reply or a message. The help link at the bottom of the comment box will tell you how to do formatting, but it's different formatting methods if you post an article.

There may be useful features on the site that haven't crossed my path. Finding them seems to be a semi-random process.

Reply
1Pavitra
The "Preferences" button is worth exploring. In particular, the anti-kibitzer will hide usernames so that you can vote without being biased by your overall like or dislike of various users.
3Normal_Anomaly
Note on the anti-kibitzer: I use it by default, and find that it prevents me from getting to know the individual users and their views. Although I have gotten to the point where I can sometimes recognize certain posters from their content (Eliezer, Clippy, and Wedrifid mostly).
3wedrifid
Some anti-kibitzer users have reported mistaking me for clippy at times! :D I don't use anti-kibitzer so I have to allow for hindsight bias - but I'd be willing to bet that I could pick nearly every comment by HughRistik and, if reading with the context as opposed to just the recent comments feed, most of Vladimir_Nesov's too. Oh, and a lot from Perplexed and timtyler. Picking Alicorn's posts based on most of them these days being 'speaking as the Word of God on Luminosity fiction' would just seem like cheating. ;)
2avalot
Lesswrong is certainly designed for the advanced user. Most everything on the site is non-standard, which seriously impedes usability for the new user. Considering the topic and intended audience, I'd say it's a feature, not a bug. Nonetheless, the site definitely smacks of unix-geekery. It could be humanized somewhat, and that probably wouldn't hurt.
5tenshiko
Civics, at least in my area of the United States, is mainly education about government and ethics. I do believe they may discuss how to vote and other information that would be useful to the democratic process, but nothing like going onto trains. (Although in the United States, this could only ever discuss the subway, and only in certain metropolitan areas - culturally, the elegant train is dead here, which is sad, since I've had much more positive travel experiences on trains than planes.)
[-]gwern160

In case you are wondering why people have downvoted you, it's because you have bastardized the computing usage of 'portable' almost beyond recognition. Word documents are one of the classic examples of unportable file formats - formats locked into Microsoft software, which are portable neither over time nor computing platforms.

Although it might also just be because you are apparently wrong when you say you can't email a PDF to your Kindle like you can your Word documents.

(Even the XML MS format is pretty terrible, as groups like Groklaw analyzed back when MS first began pretending it was a real alternative to OOXML.)

Reply
[-]CuSithBell130

I approve of explaining heavily-downvoted posts (FSVO 'heavily'). Thank you on behalf of LessWrong!

Reply
9Normal_Anomaly
Thank you for explaining that! I didn't realize "portable" had a technical meaning; I was reffering to how I can carry them around on a Kindle. I've edited the grandparent.
4gwern
You may find these links helpful for understanding what people expect 'portable' to mean in a computer context: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_portability * http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/portabilitychapter.html * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_format * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataPortability
[-]Alex Flint160

Just want to throw this one out:

Choosing the right size for a collared shirt (men) : Look at the seams that run from the collar down the neck and along the tops of your shoulders to the beginning of the arms. When you try the shirt on, that seam should reach exactly to the point where your shoulders curve downwards. In this case the shirt will accentuate the broadness of your shoulders.

Reply
5jwhendy
Another good idea is to go somewhere you can try shirts on (if you don't have one) and find one you like (seams at shoulders, wrists covered but sleeves not ruffled) and look at the size. If worn with a tie, the neck should button and not be tight, but you should not be able to fit more than one finger in between the shirt and your neck, otherwise a tie will cause the neck to crumple when tightened. Memorize or write down the size of the shirt, given in a neck measurement (inches, like 15 1/2) and a sleeve length (inches, and often a split value like 32/33). This will help if you enter a department store where the shirts are bagged and not easy to try on. Look for your size (neck + sleeves) and hope for the best. These numbers are good to know, as neck sizes may be sold with wide sleeve ranges (30/31, 32/33, and 34/36), and those buckets make a huge difference. Lastly, find a particular brand that seems to fit well, if you can. I shop a lot at thrift stores and am of a narrower frame and really have a hard time finding 15-15 1/2 necked shirts with the right sleeves that aren't very "blousy" (where once tucked in, there is a huge "balloon" of shirt sticking out in the back). Pay attention to labels like "classic fit," "modern fit," or "athletic fit." Classic and athletic tend to be slimmer/tapered, and modern tends to be more of a static width, extending the width at the armpits down to the bottom hem.
[-]nazgulnarsil160

the procedure here is how to consistently feel better after a few weeks (vs typical lazy cheap diets)

breakfast, buy:

  • plain (unsweetened) yogurt
  • honey
  • fruit (bananas or whatever berries are on sale)
  • granola (again, unsweetened)

dump together in bowl and eat. if you don't feel hungry in the morning just do a very small serving at first.

lunch: whatever, avoid sugar/white bread

dinner, buy :

  • rice-a-roni red beans and rice when it is on sale (goes to 75 cents a box once every couple months at my local store)
  • bell pepper (or spicier pepper to taste)
  • olive oil

boil, then simmer 20 minutes

yes, this procedure can be improved upon. the advantage of this one is low activation cost as it is about as difficult as the regular bachelor diet of instant foods. if you're trying to eat healthier but can't find the motivation this is a decent compromise.

major thing to avoid besides the obvious: fruit juice and fruit flavored anything. you're subverting your body's desire for actual fruit. fruit juice is no better for you than soda.

I'm guessing this is mostly preaching to the choir here, but if this helps one person it was worth the 5 minutes.

Reply
9Alicorn
Another easy healthy thing: Just about any vegetables can be boiled till soft, then put through the blender, salted and peppered to taste, and yield soup (cream is optional). A quartered peeled onion, half a bulb of peeled garlic, and a quartered peeled potato or two, plus a fair amount of peeled and roughly chopped whatever else (cauliflower, broccoli, carrots, parsnips, turnips, fennel, leeks, celery root or stalks, whatever) is a good template. Dump it all in a pot with water or stock. Boil till it'll smoosh against the side of the pot when pressed with a spoon. Blend. Salt & pepper.
6Psychohistorian
Less appetizingly, but probably more nutritiously, most green leafy vegetables can be blended with water or milk and consumed in milkshake form. I'll often take three or four cups (that's a lot) of spinach and blend it with two cups whole milk and chocolate protein powder. This actually tastes good, if not delicious; a portion half that size is probably a solid amount of food for most people. Even without the protein powder or other flavoring, it is drinkable. Lower portions of vegetables give you better taste for less nutrition. Not a great culinary feat, but a very efficient way to improve diet quality, and eating vegetables raw is probably more nutritious than boiling them extensively.
4pengvado
Is there any nutritional reason to distinguish between breakfast, lunch, and dinner, or did you give separate suggestions just to be compatible with american traditions about what to eat when? Am I missing something when I eat 2-4 meals per day all drawn at random from the same menu consisting mostly of what other people might call "dinners"?
5dinasaurus
I'm not sure about the other traditions, but eating foods with a high amount of carbohydrates (especially sugar) for dinner in my experience isn't a good idea. Even fruit. It raises your blood sugar, so when your blood sugar drops again you find yourself hungry. It happened to me a quite a few times that I woke up in the middle of the night in desperate need of sweets. If don't eat sweet things in the evening this doesn't happen. Obviously this only speaks against eating "breakfast" for dinner but not against eating "dinner" for breakfast. Which seems to be what English Breakfast is all about. ;-)
1nazgulnarsil
well I don't have anything to back it up with, but I've heard that your blood sugar is low in the morning which is why you crave sugary stuff. the fruit alleviates that without being a shock to the system like fast sugars and the protein is more slow calories. I presume many people eat out for lunch if they work a normal job. but certainly if you aren't forced into a rigid schedule eating 5 meals is better.
3janos
Regarding the fruit juices, I agree that fruit-flavored mixtures of HFCS and other things generally aren't worth much, but aren't proper fruit juices usually nutritious? (I mean the kinds where the ingredients consist of fruit juices, perhaps water, and nothing else.)
6Conuly
One orange is one or two servings of fruit... but a serving of orange juice is four oranges. You're getting all the sugar and calories of four oranges (4 - 8 servings of fruit!) without any of the fiber. Fruit juices aren't exactly the devil, but they're not especially nutritious either.
3janos
But I drink orange juice with pulp; then the fiber is no longer absent, though I guess it's reduced. The vitamins and minerals are still present, though, aren't they?
2Conuly
Are you making this juice yourself by chucking a whole orange in the blender and then drinking it? In that case, you probably - I don't know - have enough fiber that it's not that much different from just eating an orange, and fresh juices are said to be more nutritious than bought anyway. (Admittedly, the people who say this are people who own juicers, but that's probably beside the point.) But if you're buying it from the store, then... no. It's still mostly just sugar with a little bit of texture floating in it. If you're not gulping it by the gallon daily I wouldn't worry about it, but it's part of your healthy balanced breakfast - and not a huge part :)
1Vladimir_M
You still get an enormous amount of sugar, with or without the pulp. Regarding the vitamins and minerals, my understanding is that you need a certain amount of each of those to avoid various nasty and fatal diseases, and an amount over a certain limit can be poisonous, but there isn't any real evidence that anything in-between makes a difference. From what I understand, it also requires a very extreme diet (by modern developed world standards) to develop provably harmful micronutrient deficiencies. (One exception might be vitamin D if the winters are especially dark and cold where you live, but you won't get that one from fruit juice.)
4Kutta
Fruit juices are very bad. They concentrate the sugar content of a lot of fruits into a small mass and volume. For instance apple juice is usually considerably more sugary than Pepsi, with around 11-12 g/100g sugar content, and also with a worse sugar profile, with 66% fructose, compared to HFCS's 55 percent as it is commonly used in soft drinks (note: fructose is the worse sugar). Other fruit juices are usually above 8% sugar too.
4Alicorn
They're still high in sugar relative to how much you are likely to consume, and don't offer the fiber or unprocessed-ness of entire fruit. It would usually be better to either eat a piece of fruit or drink water. (I ignore this advice because I hate water, so when I thirst between meals I drink juice.)
4SRStarin
Incidentally, the lack of fiber is important for diabetics to consider. My grandmother is diabetic and is prone to insulin shock. She was told to drink fruit juice if she feels woozy. Well, she prefers fresh fruit, and she felt woozy one day and ate a peach. That pushed into full blown shock and another trip to the hospital. I had to explain to her that the fiber in fruit is like plant-based insulin--it prevents sugar from being used quickly. That's why it's important for healthy eating, but exactly the reason she needs to drink fruit juice to prevent diabetic shock.
3[anonymous]
I don't like water myself. In my part of the world (a corner of India) we generally drink water boiled with a herbal powder and then cooled. When the herbal powder is not available we just boil water with a pinch of cumin seeds. Not sure if you'll like the taste any better than plain water though..
2lukeprog
This is great! Thanks for your 5 minutes.
[-]shokwave140

When you have a spare hour, set your alarm to go off every five minutes and practice 'being asleep', hearing the alarm, jumping out of bed, turning it off, and running to the shower. After 20 repetitions, the idea is that the next morning, when you hear the alarm, you'll run to the shower without needing to get fully conscious first. I dunno, something to try at least.

Reply
[-]LauraABJ140

Ok- folding a fitted sheet is really fucking hard! I don't think that deserves to be on that list, since it really makes no difference whatsoever in life whether or not you properly fold a fitted sheet, or just kinda bundle it up and stuff it away. Not being able to deposit a check, mail a letter, or read a bus schedule, on the other hand can get you in trouble when you actually need to. Here's to not caring about linen care!

Reply
2michaelkeenan
Here is a YouTube video (496,000 views, time 2:26) demonstrating how to fold a fitted sheet.
1David_Gerard
I want to know how to put a cover on a duvet (doona, quilt) without feeling like I'm going to pop a vertebra.
7folkTheory
I'm glad I can actually answer something! This is how I do it and it works really well: 1. reverse the cover so it's inside out. 2. stand with it's opening facing you, reach into it and grab the far corners, from the INSIDE. If it's hard to find them, simply let the edges (from the inside) guide your hands all the way to the ends. 3. Now using your two hands (which are already holding two corners of the cover from the insides), grab two corners of the duvet 4. Now this is the fun part: Lift the duvet, so the cover falls all around it. This is like reversing a bag when you pick up dogpoop. 5. release the corners and you're done. (you may need to adjust things a bit if it isn't prefect)
[-]janos140

Regarding investment, my suggestion (if you work in the US) is to open a basic (because it doesn't periodically charge you fees) E*TRADE account here. They will provide an interface for buying and selling shares of stocks and various other things (ETFs and such; I mention stocks and ETFs because those are the only things I've tried doing anything with). They will charge you $10 for every transaction you make, so unless you're going to be (or become) active/clever enough to make it worthwhile, it makes sense not to trade too frequently.

EDIT: These guys appear to charge less, though they also deal in fewer things (e.g. no bonds).

Reply
[-]Benquo280

This is right. But to put it much more generally, and as an exercise in seriously trying to bridge information gaps:

To buy stocks you need what is called a Brokerage account. The way a brokerage account works is that you give money to the Broker to invest for you. (Generally, you will do this by transferring it from an existing bank account.) This money generally gets put into a highly liquid account in your name, such as a money market fund. You can get your money back by instructing your broker to send it back to you.

When you want to buy stocks or other financial investments, you direct your broker to use the money in your brokerage account to buy stocks or other financial investments in your name. Your broker will use the money that is in your account to do this. Your brokerage account now also contains the stock you bought.

When you want to sell stocks, you tell your broker to sell, and the proceeds get put back into your cash-like account.

Brokers make money by charging you a fee each time you buy or sell a stock or other financial investment through them.

There are full-service brokerages and discount brokerages. Full service brokers (such as Merrill Lynch) give you extra help ... (read more)

Reply
2[anonymous]
I've had good experience with ShareBuilder.
[-]jsalvatier270

I feel like it is useful to mention that because of efficient markets (which implies assets are "fairly priced") and the benefits of diversification (lower risk), it's almost always better to buy a low fee mutual fund than any particular stocks or bonds. In particular, Index Funds merely keep a portfolio which tracks a broad market index. These often have very low operating costs, so they are a pretty good way to invest. You can buy these as ETFs, or you can buy them through something like Vanguard.

Reply
[-]Benquo110

I think some more detail is called for here too, on mutual funds vs ETFs:

When you buy part of a mutual fund, you are giving your money to professional fund managers to invest for you. Mutual funds are often devoted to a single investment strategy (value, growth, index...) or a specific business sector (energy, health care, high technology), or even a specific kind of investment vehicle (stocks, bonds, commodities...).

You pay the fund managers a small percentage of your assets each year (the number you want to look for here is the "expense ratio"). Something on the order of 1%. Sometimes you also pay a fee when you put your money in or when you take it out; funds that do this are called "load" funds, funds that don't are called "no-load" funds.

When you buy into an ordinary mutual fund, it's a similar process to having a savings account: you send the fund money, they use it to buy financial investments. Mutual funds are generally sold and redeemed at par; each dollar you invest in the fund buys a dollar's worth of investments. When you cash out, each dollar of investments they sell is a dollar that goes back into your pocket.

ETFs are similar to stocks. ... (read more)

Reply
5michaelkeenan
This is very, very good advice, and is worth understanding in more detail. My favorite article on index funds is this one, which angles its discussion of index funds around the unusually good investment advice many Google employees received when they became millionaires after the IPO in 2004. My second-favorite is this one from Overcoming Bias (LessWrong's sister site). Investing in index funds should be one of the big instrumental wins of rationality. It requires the ability to defend against overconfidence bias, the ability to defend against the wily marketing of financial advisers who don't have your best interests in mind, enough understanding of economics to comprehend what Yudkowsky called anti-inductive markets, and some not-especially-common knowledge about what investment options are available.
[-]quentin130

I have a kind of embarrassing one, but that's kind of the point of this discussion so here goes.

For some reason I've always had an aversion to social networking websites. I remember when all my peers used xanga, then livejournal, then myspace, and now facebook, and I always refused to use them whatsoever. I realize now though, that they represent a massive utility that I desperately need.

I am worried though, about starting new. Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but it seems that having few friends on such a website signals low status, as does getting into the game this late.

So should I just create an account and add every single person I am even tangentially acquainted with? Is there a feature on facebook where you can hide who your friends are? Is it appropriate to ask someone you just met to friend you? What other cultural and social knowledge am I missing in this area?

Reply
[-]sixes_and_sevens100

I think people have very different standards as far as social networking goes. I would recommend deciding from the offset what you want to use Facebook for, and establish friending policies on that basis. If it's for keeping in touch with your nearest and dearest, keep it to a select few. If you want a conduit for talking to everyone you've ever met, add everyone you meet.

If I see someone who only has a handful of FB friends, I assume they're towards the more private end of the spectrum rather than thinking they're somehow socially retarded. Likewise if someone has 800+ FB friends, I don't think they regularly hang out with them all.

There is such a thing as a late adopter advantage. I don't think most people make these kinds of decisions when they first enter into that kind of environment, so you actually have the benefit of deciding off the bat how you want to use it, and how to optimise your usage for that aim.

Reply
3quentin
For people I actually care about, I have better means of staying in touch. My inner circle has had a private voice chat server for years now, and that's part of the reason I haven't really been forced to use a social networking website. But I'm trying to dramatically change who I am as a person, and this is a necessary step. I have severe issues with self-consciousness and social anxiety (despite acknowledging that this is unjustified as I am affable and attractive) so I am generally looking for ways to ease myself into social normalcy.
3StacyK
Quentin, I worried too about the "few friends = low status" thing when I started on Facebook. But speaking now as an old hand I'm fairly confident that the only people who make such judgments or worry about them are newbies! And yes, you CAN hide who your friends are.on Facebook. There are many other privacy settings as well. It would be too complicated to go into it here but they have a Help Center which will tell you how. You can find the Help link on the menu that will open up when you click on "Account" (at the top right-hand of any page) or, in small letters, at the very bottom of any page on the far right. It's OK to ask someone you just met to friend you. Not only do some people friend every last acquaintance, it's also common to friend people for the purpose of game play (there are numerous game applications you can access through Facebook, and for one reason or another it's often advantageous to play with people who are friends, so people will friend one another for the sake of the game). Then there are people who friend friends of friends because of shared interests or whatever. Bottom line: If somebody has 1,000 friends, nobody assumes that he is best buds with all those folks in real life. Don't worry too much about the etiquette--if you spend some time with it you'll pick it up. Most people will be happy to help you out if they can (though a lot of people don't know about all the privacy settings. They're really not hard to set but you have to look for the info.)
2TheOtherDave
A very good friend of mine created her Facebook account just a few weeks ago, and I still think she's cool. So getting into the game late is at least sometimes recoverable from. Adding everyone you are even tangentially acquainted with seems to be the social convention, including people you've just met; it's common for me to receive facebook invites after meeting someone at a party, for example. FB has some tools for bulk-link-farming... e.g., it will look at your email if you let it and contact everyone whose name appears in it who has a FB account. I did this when I created my FB account (a couple of years ago) and it worked pretty well. As far as I know, there's no way to hide your friends. The teenagers of my acquaintance frequently use fake names on Facebook to subvert searches. The adults frequently create multiple Facebook profiles, more or less for the same reason.
1Blueberry
I quit social networking sites because they made my life significantly worse. If you really need to use them, you can, but don't worry. There is a wide variety of ways to use them, ranging from adding hundreds of people to just a few friends. Yes, you can do this, but you don't have to. This is one reasonable way of using the site that a lot of people use, but it's also common to restrict things to people you know better. YES. Absolutely. And it's an essential feature. If you do use Facebook please pay close attention to the privacy settings. You can make everything about yourself private, to the point where no one else, even your friends, can see anything except messages you specifically send them. Yes, it's pretty common to do this, though you may be surprised by how many people don't like to use these sites.
1MartinB
When you make an account there is a high chance you will get flooded by friend requests right away. Facebook does some shady things with user data for their convenience. Also there are still enough non-Facebookees that you will not be the last to get online.
[-]dinasaurus130

Keep a regular sleep schedule.

This is something I completely failed to learn so far. Sure, I have some issues with procrastination or a lack of certain time-management skills, but even if I create a schedule for my whole week in advance and manage to follow it through for a couple of days at some point I completely mess it up because I sleep through half a day since I stayed up until 4AM the night before. Or I end up not getting enough sleep for several days in a row and getting sick (which happens far too often). Mostly, if I wake up at a certain time I don't get tired early enough to get a sufficient amount of sleep before I wake up at the same time on the next day (and unfortunately they don't make these time-turners yet).

It seems like every failed attempt to establish a working day routine can be mainly narrowed down to this single thing. I managed to get through High School and still get good grades even though I missed a lot of school days (due to being sick or too tired to go) because it was easy. Even at university it's still possible to pass the exams when you miss half of the lectures (although your results probably will suffer). However, I'm already afraid of my first real job.

Reply
[-]Bongo100

I had that problem but melatonin seems to have solved it.

Reply
9ShardPhoenix
I found that having a full-time job fixed my sleep schedule - if I have to get up, I will. Then I'll usually be tired enough to go to sleep at a reasonable time too.
8BillyOblivion
I've been fighting to regulate my sleep schedule for about 30 years now, and I've tried lots of things. These are the things that seem to help me, or that Studies Have Shown. What works best is to simply "man up" and regulate your sleep schedule, to quote the international sweat-shop shoe company "Just Do it". 1 Pick a "get up time", set you alarm and GET UP. This helps to make sure you're ready to go to bed on the other side. If you stay up until 4 in the morning playing Warcrack, play another 2 hours then go for breakfast. You'll be tired all day, but that night you'll be able to reset more effectively. 1.1 Do Not Nap, this makes it more difficult to get to sleep at a reasonable hour. 1.2 OTOH some people do really well to take nap in the afternoon (every afternoon) and stay up a little later. I can't do this. YSSMV. 1. When the alarm goes off GET UP. Do not set your alarm for 5 minutes early, if anything set it for 5 minutes late. 3 Avoid caffiene after noon to start with. If this helps you may want to let it slip to 3 or 4 in the afternoon, depending on how you metabolize it. Definately no caffine with dinner or afterwards. NONE. 4 When the sun goes down start to darken your surroundings a bit--turn off unnecessary lights, use desk/table/spot lights instead of room lights etc. 5 Set a realistic bedtime and stick to it. 6 Your sleep quarters should be used ONLY for sleeping, sex and dressing. Do not read yourself to sleep, no computers or television. 6.1 Heavy curtains and limit light as much as possible. The goal is not only to sleep, but to sleep WELL. 6.2 A fan, or some source of "grey noise" might help as well. 6.3 A regular sex partner can help you get to sleep :) Well, so can an irregular one, but the sheets may need changing more often. The other side of this is that some people seem to have body clocks that insist on running a certain way. I've been getting up at about 10 to 6 for the last 2 months every day of hte week. F'ing HATE IT. I can do 1
2Nick_Tarleton
If on a computer, software like F.lux or Nocturne can help with this.
2wedrifid
When you are getting into the routine this one of the hard parts. So use whatever assistance required. For me that has included a bottle of energy drink and a modafinil tablet sitting on top of the alarm clock. Sure, you can turn it off but it isn't much more effort to down the stimulants at the same time. A sledge hammer approach. It more or less guarantees you will be able to get up 30 minutes later. I often deliberately allow myself another 30 minutes to sleep after I've taken the stimulants so as to cooperate more effectively with my instincts. They don't like me @#$@#$ing with them and forcing them up but they don't care at all if I give them stimulants and let them do their own thing. (The above is not something I tend to use long term.) At about this time you can also take a dose of melatonin (which is essentially what you are doing with the light manipulation anyway). I have found this useful from time to time.
2scientism
Put your alarm clock far out of reach so you have to get out of bed to switch it off. Put everything you need for your morning routine next to the alarm clock. This will make you much less likely to go back to bed.
9Cyan
I did this when I was a teenager. A few months later I found myself regularly jumping out of bed, taking two long running strides across my room, hitting the snooze button, running back to bed, and getting under the covers without ever properly waking up.
8shokwave
I solved this problem by maxing out my alarm's volume and putting it in the shower.
1Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg)
That is...genius. And hilarious.
2scientism
Did you keep everything you need for your morning routine next to your alarm clark? I found that was the key element to stop me from jumping back into bed. It's habit forming. You get to the alarm clock and then go through your routine. Otherwise, if everything's out of reach or disorganised, it's easier to just go back to bed than deal with it.
2wedrifid
I use this technique from time to time. But as Cyan suggests it isn't a reliable long term solution. It still amounts to trying to bully yourself into compliance. And that just isn't the best way to deal with allies - be they internal or not. I know myself and know how I respond to attempts at dominance. I'll do it if necessary but it rapidly burns out any sense of loyalty. And I want myself on my own side.
4Vive-ut-Vivas
Do you exercise?
1Risto_Saarelma
My biggest problem for keeping a sleep schedule stable is not being able to fall asleep early if I'm stuck with a late sleep schedule. Once I get an early wakeup, early bedtime routine going, it can stay on for weeks, but it can likewise get messed up for weeks. One nice thing for waking up is a timed light box. It gradually lights up, and is a lot less stressful to wake up to than an alarm. Combine this with a regular alarm that goes off after the light has been getting brighter for a while. I also somehow got addicted to taking daily cold showers since they were mentioned here or in the IRC channel. A couple of Hacker News posts talked about cold showers helping people fall asleep, so I've started taking a shower an hour before bedtime. I've been doing this for three weeks now and have managed to maintain a pretty stable sleep schedule.
1bigjeff5
The key is the wake-up time. You can always force yourself to get up once the alarm goes off, no matter how little sleep you've gotten. The opposite is not true without drugs to assist you (though it sounds like the cold shower helps, makes sense). I do this about every four weeks. My work schedule is such that I work 160 hours in two weeks, and then don't work at all for the following two weeks. This means I have to get up very early when I'm working and not at all when I'm not. The net result, since I lack discipline when I don't have a goal set for the day, is that by the time I go back to work I am regularly staying up until 3am or later and waking up around noon, while I need to be at work by 7am when I'm working. The fix for this is to force myself to get up at 6am the very first day I'm back at work. No easing in to anything, just cold turkey - alarm goes off I've got to get up. This means for the first day or two I'll be running on 3-4 hours of sleep, but the need to sleep builds fast and by the third day I'm usually going to bed at a respectable time. The key for me is that I must have a purpose for the day. I've tried to maintain this in my off time, but since I don't have a specific place to be "on time" each day I tend to let my wake up time drift instead of getting up on-schedule. The fix for that is apparently having a regular morning schedule during my off time, but I haven't put much effort into it. Another important thing to remember when you are forcing yourself awake after insufficient sleep is to not dilly-dally. If you are tired when you wake up, the worst thing you can do is hit "snooze" and go back to sleep. It probably won't make you any less tired unless you sleep for another hour (at which point you are almost certainly late for whatever it is you were getting up for) and it will make it a lot harder to get up.
1Risto_Saarelma
There's an extra problem I run with drastic sleep cycle changes. Say I'm sleeping from 3 AM to noon. Then I do the cold turkey wake up at 6 AM, so far so good. Next evening I go to bed at 21:30, then my brain apparently goes, "hey, it's a lot earlier than usual, must be an afternoon nap", and helpfully wakes me up sometimes at 1 AM. (Other people's brains might not have this feature.) This tends to lead to having to go multiple consecutive days with little sleep if I want to change the cycle, instead of just the one, which gets considerably less fun. The fix to this might be to do something on the cold turkey day that gets me sufficiently tired that I'd just sleep 9 hours straight on the next night, whatever the bedtime. The cold shower thing is still working, so far I've had only one night when I've failed to fall asleep after taking the shower.
[-]CronoDAS120

This would best be done on a wiki of some sort, I think.

Reply
[-]roryokane180

Many of the instructions on this thread would fit well on wikiHow. It would be better to put them there than on Less Wrong Wiki or a new site because wikiHow is already known by more people as a source of information on basic things.

Reply
2NancyLebovitz
Aside from time (a non-trivial consideration) is there any reason not to put them on both wikiHow and the LW wiki?
5TheOtherDave
A hard-earned lesson from my days as a technical writer: "a man with two watches never knows the time." That is, any piece of information maintained in two places will sooner or later progress inconsistently. Putting it in one place and a pointer to it in the other place might be better.
4David_Gerard
Gosh, if only we had a wiki to hand ...
[-][anonymous]120

How do you speak clearly?

I have a bad speaking voice -- my sibilants ("S" sounds) come out mushy. If I record my speaking voice and play it back, even when I'm concentrating on enunciation, I sound... terrible. It's a voice that sounds geeky at best, retarded at worst. A little too high-pitched and monotone, as well. People have been telling me they can't understand what I'm saying all my life.

It's quite likely that I'll give many public presentations throughout my life, so being better at speaking might be worthwhile. I've lost my fear of public speaking (knowing the material well takes care of that) -- I'm just talking about the mechanics of speech. I want to be audible, comprehensible, and not sound like a moron.

Reply
[-]afeller230

I found that frequently recording my voice and playing it back immediately afterward helps immensely. Up through the start of my junior year of highschool I did a very poor job with pronunciation in general and what I thought I sounded like, sounded nothing like what I did in fact sound like. I got a portable voice recorder midway through my junior year. I like poetry, so a few times a week I would spend a while (maybe a half hour) in the evenings reading poetry into the recorder and playing it back a stanza at a time. If I didn't like the way it sounded, I would repeat the stanza (or the particular line in that stanza that sounded wrong) until it started sounding right. Within a few months I very much liked the way my voice sounded, and instead of having people telling me I talked funny, I occasionally had people complimenting my enunciation. (As I side effect I also became able to read out loud which was something else I used to have a lot of trouble doing)

Reply
4Paul Crowley
Sounds good. If anyone else reading this tries this, please report back on how well it works for you!
1Richard_Kennaway
Just noticed this thread after someone linked to it. For the last year and a half, I've been writing and recording a 100-word story every week, in response to a prompt word, and sending it off to a web site that runs a weekly drabble challenge. I use a proper voice recorder for this (the Edirol R-09), and do as many takes as it takes to get the best possible result. I don't just record them once a week, with 80 stories in my head by now I often just recite them for practice when I'm alone. Less work than picking up a book to read aloud from. If you don't write, memorising poetry would provide the same advantage. I used to find that my voice was fine first thing in the morning, but tended to get very hoarse by mid-morning, but that has abated substantially. Maybe I just don't talk enough otherwise to keep it exercised. I don't actually do enough talking in everyday life that anyone has spontaneously commented, but I have had a few compliments in the comments at the web site.
[-]Desrtopa110

I think there may be some psychological element to finding one's own recorded voice unpleasant. When I hear my own recorded voice played back at me, I find it incredibly unpleasant, but my acquaintances assure me that it doesn't sound bad to them. Likewise, I've had people tell me that they can't stand the sound of their own recorded voices, when they sound perfectly fine to me.

If your acquaintances agree that your speech could use work, I agree with the recommendation of speech therapy, but it's possible that the problem is in your perception.

Reply
5Normal_Anomaly
I dislike my own recorded voice as well. I've heard that because the sound of our own voices is partly transmitted to our ears via our heads, everyone's voice sounds higher in a recording. The difference is probably enough to be unnerving and I think that's what it is for me.
8CronoDAS
I think the job title of someone who helps with that kind of problem is "speech therapist". And, for what it's worth, I kind of like your voice...
3SRStarin
What you're asking may require practice, rather than just following a new set of guidelines. I have had some formal vocal training, so I can offer some activities that could help. One important factor in public speaking is breath support. Practice breathing deeply and smoothly, with erect posture and tense abdominal muscles. (Doing this daily can be very refreshing, anyway.) Practice speaking at various sound levels--softly and loudly--alone (or with a supportive friend) in a room with hard walls and/or floor, so you can hear yourself clearly. Tense the muscles of your throat and soft palate (the back of the roof of your mouth) in different ways to change your voice in ways that may feel and sound unnatural. This should help you gain a better sense of how to use your voice. When you speak more loudly, does the pitch of your voice go up? Many people do this, because our ears are more sensitive to higher pitches. Try forcing more air through your words to gain volume instead of raising the pitch. In other words, use more air to say the same words by increasing the pressure of your abdominal muscles. When we speak loudly, we can generally feel a vibration, if we pay attention. When you speak usually, you may find that the sensation is in your throat, or in the far back of your mouth. Force yourself to yawn, but then activate your voice during the yawn (i.e. vocalize the yawn), to place the sensation more in your sinuses and the front of your face (the front of the face is called the masque). This may take some practice, but the most pleasant sonority of most people's voices is achieved by using the face as a resonator. I hope one or more of those activities can help the sonority and pitch aspects of your voice become more like what you want. I haven't heard your voice, so it may be that I'd think it doesn't need any fixing :) My husband hates his voice, but I think it's great!
3JoshuaZ
I don't think there's any really quick way of dealing with this. I had about 4 years of speech therapy which helped a lot. Note that a speech therapist will generally have lots of things that are tailored to you in particular to help out. For example I have a list of words that I still have trouble with so I make sure to always be ready to use their synonyms when speaking. Unfortunately there really isn't any simple solution to this.
2Elizabeth
If you don't want to go to a speech therapist, a friend with some linguistics training or a voice (singing) teacher may be able to listen and tell you where to put your tongue, etc. I, too, have a related problem. I have great difficulty controlling my volume. That is largely hereditary (or nurtured by my family environment), but the real problem is that I can't hear when I'm too loud. There are certain triggers (being excited, interrupted, or in the presence of my mother) but they are not really triggers I can avoid, and I can't see a way to fix it. The obvious solution is to have someone tell me when I'm too loud, but being interrupted for that purpose tends to make me involuntarily louder.
2Alicorn
Similar: I would find it useful to learn to speak slowly. I have to repeat myself a lot. The trouble is that I lose track of what I'm saying if I try to speak at a normal pace - I cannot seem to focus on speaking slowly and think of things to say at the same time.
[-]Psychohistorian110

(Edited the last few paragraphs to be more useful.)

I actually teach this to college students, to some degree. This is in the context of moderately scripted competitive speech, though.

The first basic trick is to consciously try to speak at half-speed. Once you've done that, halve your speed again. This will at least be close to the right speed.

Another trick is to tell friends or family to rudely (or politely) interrupt you if you speak too fast. This technique can also be helpful for eliminating um, uh, like, y'know, and similar disfluencies. I will write "SLOW" on a piece of paper and hold it up while a student is speaking, for example.

I admit I am surprised that you find speaking slowly more difficult in terms of keeping track of what you are saying. In almost all cases I encounter, people actually speak much more coherently when they speak slower. Either use the extra time to think of what to say, or insert a few judicious pauses for the same effect.

I would say there is a non-negligible chance that your rapid speech comes off as very clear to you, but not to observers. I know that when I get really engaged in an idea, I will often talk rapid-fire in a way that I think ... (read more)

Reply
1fiddlemath
I don't have much practice with public speaking, and I've tried this. To speak slowly while you think about what you're going to say next takes practice. When I try this, I'm likely to confuse my thoughts with my current speech. And this is what I'll actually do: pause a bit between sentences, so that the audience can think about what I just said, and I can think about what to say next. Much easier than trying to talk and think at the same time.
3Psychohistorian
There's your problem right there. Optimally, public speaking should require very little on-the-spot thinking with respect to word choice. Depending on exactly how important (and predictable) the subject matter is, you should have a relatively set vocabulary and set of concepts you wish to discuss. There's being competent at public speaking, and there's being good at public speaking; this comment is about how to do the latter. Before I get started: one general useful piece of advice: if giving a speech, your first few sentences matter far more than everything else, because people will decide whether or not they want to listen to you and will frame their understanding based on it. If you're giving a speech, you should have a moderately detailed bullet-point outline of what you're going to say, and you should have thought (or actually spoken) your way through it in advance. (Often many, many times)(In some cases, and for some people, it's ideal to have a verbatim script. But such circumstances tend to be relatively rare.) When you are actually speaking, you shouldn't need to think too hard about your exact word choices. For relatively high-stakes public speaking, I will have thought the issue over so many times it takes some effort to prevent myself from saying what I've been thinking of saying at a hundred miles an hour. In other words, if you're doing serious public speaking, you should be clear enough on what you want to say in advance that you can afford to devote a significant amount of your mental effort to your tone, movement about the stage, and speed of speech. This is admittedly advanced-level, but it's how one excels. When answering questions (as opposed to controlling exactly what you say) it doesn't change much. 90% of questions can be easily anticipated. The remainder, you pause a bit before answering (or, if appropriate, reframe (honestly) to make easier to answer, "If I understand your question, you're asking _"). If you'll forgive a rudimentary spo
3TheOtherDave
A useful additional trick is to practice a few generic units of body language, such as walking thoughtfully across a stage or making eye contact with several audience members, until it looks and feels natural to do them. You can drop them into the stream when you need to give yourself a longer break, and they will usually "read" as part of your presentation.
1Paul Crowley
Recording yourself can help with this too. I recorded myself rehearsing for my first ever presentation, and found that when it seemed to me that I was speaking so slowly that I was sarcastically calling the audience stupid, when played back I was speaking at the right pace.
1Alicorn
The right pace for whom? I hate it when other people talk slowly, too. I don't think I'd calibrate properly if I aimed at making myself sound slow enough to myself.
[-]mindspillage120

I'd be surprised if there are any of us who don't have some gap in knowledge that a majority of the rest of us found surprising. But really I can't think of any knowledge of this type I'm missing that I can't just look up (rather than ask here) if I realize that I don't have it. (Things of this type I can recall looking up in the past few years: ordering at a bar, dialing international phone numbers, reaching someone at a phone extension, getting a cashier's check from a bank, how to properly wear a suit jacket, how to read facial expressions and make small talk.)

I like wikihow, ehow, and similar sites--and I also find that guides intended for recent immigrants or people with autism are useful for "things everyone is supposed to know".

Reply
[-]Richard_Kennaway120

So it's true: Finnish is so insanely difficult that even the Finns can't speak it! :-)

Reply
4gwern
Which makes their PISA scores and educational practices all the odder, to me.
2Risto_Saarelma
It's a bit odd how people keep citing the PISA results, but don't seem to ask the follow-up question of why Finns don't seem to be exactly the international science superstars having top academic performance in the world would indicate. For instance, there are about twice the number of Swedes than there are of Finns, but Swedes have 30 Nobel laureates, while Finns have 4, according to Wikipedia. (Ragnar Granit, who emigrated to Sweden, is on both lists, so maybe the numbers should be 29.5 and 3.5 instead.)
4gwern
It doesn't necessarily bother me. I know that there are some biases in the Nobels (iirc, Literature has a bias towards Scandinavian authors), and there are plenty of other explanations. Perhaps Finland simply has an atrocious higher education system, which may not reflect in PISA scores. Perhaps Finland and Sweden are similar and some of Finland's better scores come from it being smaller and more susceptible to variation (kind of like the smaller school effect). Perhaps their techniques improve the average but squash extreme variation - like potential Nobelists. Without knowing more, I take the PISA at face value. Now, what would bother me a lot is if a country had very low PISA scores but very many per capita Nobels. (The other way around only bothers me a little.)
4TobyBartels
The BBC article that you cited suggests precisely that Finland has flattened the extremes. They're proud of this on one end but acknowledge that they need to quit this on the other end.
3gwern
D'oh! Perhaps I should re-read references before I link them.
[-]Blueberry110

I think it's more that the word is dated. People still spend time together getting coffee to get to know each other. It's just not called a "date" because that sounds so 1950s.

Reply
[-][anonymous]100

This should really be a recurring (or otherwise highly visible) thread.

Much-belated edit: Here

Reply
[-]wedrifid100

The thing to do with telemarketers, I have learned, is not to immediately hang up.

No, it really is to hang up.

I prefer this to simply hanging up because doing the latter always makes me feel bad for several minutes afterward for having been rude to somebody who is, after all, trying to make a living.

Your emotions seem to be doing both you and the telemarketers a disservice - perhaps due to an instinctive misunderstanding of what kind of social transaction is taking place. The telemarketer is not socially vulnerable and nor are you in a position where perception will have future consequences. They also don't WANT to have an extended positive interaction that has no chance of success. Wasting five minutes on a mark that has no chance of giving a commission is strictly worse than an instant hang up. Your instincts are right that they are "after all, just trying to make a living" and you are just getting in their way.

I'm not saying it is necessarily worth retraining your emotional attachments in this case. You seem to attach pride to the act of wasting telemarketer time and guilt to the act of hanging up. This, combined with assertiveness practice you get and the cost of retraining yourself may mean that it is better to stay in the behavioral local minima.

Reply
[-]jimmy100

Yeah, car batteries can do about a kiloamp into a dead short so we can treat them as ideal voltage sources for this 'application'. However, even with wet hands and solid contact, 12 volts is too low to get much current flowing.

Soaking my hands in saturated salt water got my hand to hand resistance down to 10-20kohm (0.5-1ma), which is still at least a factor of 250 above the 40 ohm resistance you'd need to draw 300ma, which is the lower figure wiki gives for DC caused fibrillation. Putting one hand on either terminal didn't get me so much as a tingle.

I know tingle levels are possible when soaking for longer (hours) and 9v will tingle your tongue (2-4milliamps), but it seems exceedingly hard to get to a dangerous level, considering that most models I've seen had the internal resistance of people at hundreds of ohms (350 is the number that sticks in mind). Also nerves are somewhat AC coupled, which brings the fibrillation limit up and makes people push away from the source instead of clinging on.

I guess it might be possible for someone with thin skinned thoroughly soaked hands making good contact and having a poorly shielded sensitive heart, but I'd call it a 'freak accident'.

Reply
3Chronos
It's worth noting that the reason we use clamps on the ends of the jumper cables is because pressure increases surface area in contact, which decreases resistance for the simple reason of Ohm's law applied to parallel resistors. (Three 1k Ohm resistors have a parallel resistance of only 333 Ohms. It's meaningless to give a single figure for copper -> wet skin resistance without also giving the surface area for which the figure is valid.) This means that incidental touching of metal is extremely unlikely to kill anyone, but accidentally clamping your finger, gripping metal tightly, or anything else that applies pressure to your skin will dramatically raise the risk.
[-]mindspillage100

Something else I've had to look up: how to convincingly dress like a grownup. (By which I mean less casual than t-shirts and jeans, work-appropriate, flattering, not looking like I just stepped out of a sci-fi movie or an art school.) There are some sites for female style advice I've found interesting and helpful (and edited to remove one I used to like that has gone off the rails).

Reply
8lextori
I've found that for men, the style articles at http://artofmanliness.com/category/dress-grooming/ are an excellent resource, the authors of them often go out of the way to explain why particular choices are appropriate for particular situations.
5sixes_and_sevens
Related to this, I have immense difficulty dressing well and casually. I'm quite adept at dressing smartly, but there's a nebulous area between "jeans & t-shirt" and "shirt, no tie" where I just can't seem to figure out how to look stylish.
1Jodika
The secret to that is clothes that are simple and fit well. So well-fitted dark jeans with shirt, no tie or a nice sweater/cardigan is a good look. Even 'jeans and a t shirt' can be a really nice look if the jeans fit you well and the t shirt is something classic like plain white (this also works well with a shirt partly or wholly unbuttoned over the top). There's also chinos which can work (just don't get them in too light or bright a colour if you're not confident about pulling off that look). If you live somewhere cold, peacoats and longer, slightly fitted coats are everywhere right now and they look good. Advanced level - pick colours that complement your complexion. This is easier to gauge in person, but generally redheads rock green and jewel tones, blonds look good in cold colours and brown-haired guys are more likely to rock warm colours (though there are few people who don't rock blue). Brown-haired and darker-skinned guys are also a lot better at wearing white without having a tan. Oh and practically nobody looks good in orange or yellow.
4beza1e1
There is a decent subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice/
[-]PeerInfinity100

I think I have lots of gaps to report, but I'm having lots of trouble trying to write a coherent comment about them... so I'm going to just report this trouble as a gap, for now.

Oh, and I also have lots of trouble even noticing these gaps. I have a habit of avoiding doing things that I haven't already established as "safe". Unfortunately, this often results in gaps continuing to be not detected or corrected.

Anyway, the first gap that comes to mind is... I don't dare to cook anything that involves handling raw meat, because I'm afraid that I lack the knowledge necessary to avoid giving myself food poisoning. Maybe if I tried, I would be able to do it with little or no problem, but I don't dare to try.

Reply
[-]pjeby140

I don't dare to cook anything that involves handling raw meat, because I'm afraid that I lack the knowledge necessary to avoid giving myself food poisoning.

Short tip: If the raw meat smells or tastes bad, don't eat it.

Longer tip: the reason there are so many raw meat warnings are not because you will get sick from eating or handling raw meat. If you don't have a clogged nose, there is almost no way for you to get sick from raw meat, because you will smell or taste any problems before you swallow it.

What's NOT safe is mxing raw and cooked foods. The safety warnings are because the same bacteria that will make raw foods smell bad, will not produce the same smell warnings in the cooked food. This means that you can have highly-contaminated cooked food that gives off no warning whatsoever, and get terribly sick from it.

I have eaten raw meat -- including raw chicken and raw eggs -- for many years, and had fewer incidences of stomach upset with them than I have had with cooked foods. The worst reaction I ever had to a raw food was when I ate a bad egg raw, that was too cold for me to properly taste or smell. (I vomited it up a few minutes later, when some less-impaired part of my... (read more)

Reply
2Kutta
I used to be a semi-frequent raw egg consumer. I figured that risks should be rather low. However, once I did get food poisoning, and it was such an excessively bad experience that I decided that I'm avoiding even small risks from raw food consumption.
[-]Threedee100

Generally, it is mainly chicken that one needs to be careful about, because it is sometimes contaminated with unhealthy bacteria, even when bought "fresh". A general procedure with all meat, and especially chicken, is to wash any surface that raw chicken comes in contact with when you are done preparing it and have started to cook it, then wash any utensils you used that touched the chicken, and wash you hands. To be extra cautious, you can do that for any raw meat. Raw meat should be refrigerated soon after purchase and now allowed to stand uncooked at room temperature for more than the time it takes to prepare it.

Reply
2PeerInfinity
Thanks for explaining that! But, um... I still have more questions... What is the procedure for washing the surfaces, the utensils, and my hands? How do I know when the meat is cooked enough to not qualify as raw? And for stir-frying raw meat, do I need to pause the stir-frying process to wash the stir-frying utensils, so that I don't contaminate the cooked food with any raw juices that happen to still be on the utensils?
7saturn
Salmonella bacteria is killed instantly at 165°F. Cooking small chopped or sliced pieces of meat is hard to do wrong because the surface area to volume ratio is high enough that they will be sterilized even before they start to appear cooked. Make your slices less than 1/2 inch thick and cook them until they start to turn golden brown. As long as the business ends of your utensils are in contact with the food as it cooks they will be sterilized along with it. Assuming that you already know how to wash things in general, you don't need to do it any differently. Normal washing is good enough because bacteria can't grow without a source of nutrients and moisture, and you need to ingest a fairly substantial amount of bacteria in order to get sick.
7RHollerith
We should add that soapy water does not kill the bacteria, but rather makes it impossible for them to adhere to anything, so they get washed down the drain.
[-]Chronos140

Washing bacteria down the drain is certainly the primary purpose for using soap, by far, but surfactants like soap also kill a few bacteria by lysis (disruption of the cell membrane, causing the cells to rapidly swell with water and burst). In practice, this is so minor it's not worth paying attention to: bacteria have a surrounding cell wall made of a sugar-protein polymer that resists surfactants (among other things), dramatically slowing down the process to the point that it's not practical to make use of it.

(Some bacteria are more vulnerable to surfactant lysis than others. Gram-negative bacteria have a much thinner cell wall, which is itself surrounded by a second, more exposed membrane. But gram-positive bacteria have a thick wall with nothing particularly vulnerable on the outside, and even with gram-negative bacteria the scope of the effect is minor.)

In practice, the big benefit of soap is (#1) washing away oils, especially skin oils, and (#2) dissolving the biofilms produced by the bacteria to anchor themselves to each other and to biological surfaces (like skin and wooden cutting boards). Killing the bacteria directly with soap is a distant third priority.

For handwash... (read more)

Reply
2JoshuaZ
This is true, but it probably helps to state explicitly that a) the even for small pieces of meat the inside might not be at 165 F even if the outside is (so make sure that it is hot for a fair bit of time) b) This is more of an issue for larger pieces of meat (luminosity's comment below is relevant). There's a related issue: if the meat is raw and frozen, life will be much easier if you defrost it before cooking it. Weird things can happen if you try to directly cook large bits of frozen meat. Generally it won't result in health problems, but it does make stuff more likely to be burned in part or simply not taste good.
2false_vacuum
However, I find it much easier to slice meat for stir-frying which is still partially frozen. (This also speeds the thawing process.) Probably if you use a cleaver or other heavy, extremely sharp type of instrument, no prior thawing would be necessary; but I don't trust myself with those.
3luminosity
For cooking larger pieces of meat than saturn addresses, the way I learnt what was and wasn't needed was simply cooking meat, waiting until the outside looked cooked, then taking a piece out and cutting it in half. You'll be able to see if it's still bloody inside, or if it's chicken you'll be able to see if it's turned white yet. Personally I prefer meat entirely cooked, but depending on your taste pinkish in the middle should be fine. Doing this over time has given me a good feel for how long to cook meat for my preferences, though even now I still often slice pieces open to be sure.
5false_vacuum
For beef, not chicken.
2beriukay
I'm not much of a stir-fryer, but my general method for meat cooking is to have separate utensils for "before cooking" and "during-to-after". So if I put the meat in the pan with a fork, that fork goes to the sink. But the wooden spoon that is cooked with the meat doesn't get washed until I'm done eating, and is usually used as my serving spoon, too. If you are really concerned for safety, you could always use one cooking spoon until the surface of the meat is obviously brown, then switch to a fresh spoon. If dealing with a low-fat meat (like moose), burger is much easier to cook than other meat, and is still healthy. It is hard to overcook, and easy to tell what's safe, because all the little chunks of meat go from red to dark brown. High fat burger (like cow) is still tasty and easy to cook, but not terribly healthy. One trick that I will immediately adopt is using an infrared thermometer to check for the 165F that saturn mentioned. Thanks for the info!
3wisnij
This is one of the things I struggled with a bit when first learning to cook for myself as well. It may help to keep in mind that some meats are safer than others. My heuristic goes roughly: chicken < pork < beef/lamb < fish, in increasing order of safety. If I'm handling raw chicken, I'll wash my hands and utensils thoroughly in warm soapy water before doing anything else. If I'm handling fish, I'll usually just give my hands a quick rinse. The same ordering also applies roughly to doneness; it's a much bigger problem to have undercooked chicken than beef, for example. A good starting place for meats is braised dishes like stews and pot roasts, because the typically long cooking time makes it hard to accidentally undercook something while still producing tasty results (as opposed to e.g. a steak grilled until it turns into shoe leather).
3Conuly
Also it should be noted that ground meats are not as safe as meat that is whole. A steak doesn't have to be cooked to the same level of doneness as a hamburger.
2Conuly
One bit of food safety is to use a designated cutting board ONLY for chopping raw meat. One board for fruits and vegetables (and if they're wooden I find it's helpful to use a separate one for onions) and one for raw meat. You'll want to buy two that look dissimilar so you can't confuse the two. When you're cooking, be sure to wash the knife between chopping up your raw meat and chopping up anything that might not be cooked to the same temperature. (Practically, this means to wash the knife or switch knives after the meat, no matter what.)
[-]bogdanb90

Yeah, scary. And scariest is that he said it with a dismissive tone of authority and my brain just accepted it. It took me a couple minutes to notice it and convince myself the “expert” was completely ridiculous (I was almost a complete beginner skier at the time).

By the way, it’s not like short skis are new: I checked afterwards and found that their ease of use has been known for decades. It seems trainers insist on long skis just because they can give more lessons, rental shop guys can charge more for the bigger “better” skis, and I suspect most everyone else doesn’t even try them because they’re think they look like child skis or something.

Reply
[-]Tripitaka90

In addition to "Learn to touch-type. Learn to type with ten fingers.":

I am often amazed and astonished that people do not know how to operate the search engine of their choice properly and thus fail to find their desired information. It is your main internet-information retrival-tool, make yourself familiar with its advanced possibilitys, also know as operators. e.g. for google, see this chart: http://www.googleguide.com/advanced_operators_reference.html

I found most useful (for google) the following ones:

Quotationmarks around a phrase, e.g. &... (read more)

Reply
1Jonathan_Graehl
Nice link. I'd been thinking a-b was the same as "a b" all these years. For the record, it means ("ab" or "a-b" or "a b").
[-]gwern80

Certainty is irrelevant, even if you are certain you still have serious problems making any use of this knowledge; there is no convenient stock named RBTS you can just buy 500 shares of and let it appreciate.

Example: in retrospect, we know for certain that a great many people wanted computers, operating systems, social networks etc - but the history of computer / operating system / social networks are strewn with flaming rubble. Suppose you knew in 2000 that "in 2010, the founder of the most successful social network will be worth >$10b"; just... (read more)

Reply
1MalcolmOcean
Ahh good point. I mean, hence the argument to start your own company. But right, you won't necessarily win.
[-]DSimon80

Even a metric that can be gamed is possibly useful when not being gamed.

Reply
[-][anonymous]80

Vladimir, I'm not sure about the orientation bit. Imagine constructing a sphere of fish around the lightning strike, so that the fish tile the sphere and are flat against the sphere (actually, hemisphere). Necessarily, all the electricity flows through the fish, because they completely tile the hemisphere. Now re-orient the fish without otherwise changing their location. Now, because the fish are thin, they no longer cover the sphere, and between them is a lot of seawater. So only a small fraction, now, of the electricity flows through the fish, and the re... (read more)

Reply
4Vladimir_M
Constant: You are correct! I hastily analogized from the human step potential, ignoring the fact that fish, unlike humans, may well be much poorer conductors than the surrounding (or, in the human case, underlying) medium. Sadly, it seems the electrical engineering courses I took long ago haven't left many surviving correct intuitions. After a bit of googling about this question, I'm intrigued to find out that the problem of electrocuting fish has attracted considerable research attention. A prominent reference appears to be a paper titled Electrical stunning of fish: the relationship between the electrical field strength and water conductivity by two gentlemen named J. Lines and S. Kestin (available ungated here, and with a gruesome experimental section). Alas, the paper says, "No publications appear to be available which identify conductivity measurements of fish tissue at the frequencies being used." It does however say that we might expect something in the hundreds or low thousands of uS/cm, whereas Wikipedia informs us that the conductivity of seawater is around 4.8 S/m, i.e. as much as 48,000 uS/cm. So, yes, this was definitely a blunder on my part.
[-]pjeby80

the fear definitely fully extends to never cooked chicken (cutting boards, knives)

Because bringing them into contact with cooked foods actually is dangerous. You won't have any way of knowing the cooked food is contaminated.

Here's the thing: if your food's not that fresh, cooking can make an unsafe food safe (from a bacterial point of view) at the cost of destroying some other nutrients. (e.g. creatine and vitamin C). However, that same piece of food you'd spit out due to taste or spit up via whatever the backup test mechanism is.

So it's not that I'm... (read more)

Reply
3Desrtopa
It's easy to tell when an egg has gone bad, but not easy to tell whether it's contaminated with salmonella. I'd take a bet on that. I haven't read any statistics on this, but I have read that before refrigeration, people were often less picky about what constituted expiration in food, by necessity. People might be able to smell most dangerous food contamination, but before refrigeration and pasteurization, people were often faced with a choice between eating potentially dangerous food and not eating. I recall Bill Bryson writing (in Made In America) that a contemporary noted that at one meal, George Washington put away his food without eating it, because he thought it was off. His wife cleaned her plate.
2wedrifid
I have found my senses to be particularly sensitive in this regard and they do seem to work with cooked foods. I've definitely 'rejected' cooked foods early enough that the experience wasn't more than a mildly unpleasant inconvenience. (ie. Eating more a minute later doesn't seem at all unnatural.) Closer inspection confirmed the instinctive judgement and I gave my reflexes a gold star. Yet I would certainly agree that this is much easier when it comes to raw foods. Did you find it took you time to adapt to raw meats after switching away from cooked meats? It seems like something that would take some adjustment. I find, for example, that my instincts scream at me if they discover I am eating chicken that isn't cooked through. And eating large slabs of raw fish takes a lot of willpower too.
2pjeby
Not much. Once I was prepared for the idea, I eased into it by trying things like raw egg smoothies, sushi, beef tataki (meat that's just seared on the outside - available at many sushi restaurants), and so on. After that, I was psychologically ready to try chicken. There really wasn't any adjustment to the food itself, only to the idea of eating it. What I found consistently was that raw food tasted better than cooked, in terms of flavor and texture. The main drawback I have found to eating raw food is the temperature: hot food is generally more appetizing, except for sushi and sashimi. I have very little interest in cooked fish, but I love sushi and sashimi. I can't stand beef well done any more, I want it to be at least extremely rare if not raw. (I just don't like it cold that much.) These were almost immediate changes in my taste preference. Texturally speaking, raw meat is 100% superior to cooked. It feels better in the mouth, it's juicy... damn, I'm making myself hungry now. Really, the main thing at this point I like better about cooked meat is that the fat portion is more appetizing when heated to the point of softening, and it has an above-ambient temperature. I suspect that this is once again an evolutionary thing -- a fresh kill would not likely have cold-hardened fats and would be hotter than ambient temperature. It would not surprise me if early humans began heating meat for the simple reason that it tastes better if it's at least body-temperature warm.
[-]saturn80

Enforcement in software players is lax for whatever reason, but makers of DVD players need to agree to honor the Prohibited User Operations flags in order to get a patent license to use the DVD video format. So the general point stands that if you're skipping previews, someone is either in breach of contract or breaking the law.

Reply
[-]Desrtopa80

Any atheist here, and equally irrational? That's a bet I'd take.

It's one thing to disagree with a person on a number of points, and another thing to be unable to respect their epistemology. On difficult matters, where it's hard to locate an error, you can consider another person's reasoning sound to respectable standards without agreeing with their conclusions (we're only human after all,) and on matters of opinion, disagreement does not necessarily imply conflict of epistemology. Religion falls into neither category.

I used to be open to relationships with... (read more)

Reply
[-]majus80

My deficiency is common manners. I think it's a lack of attention to the world outside of my own thoughts. I've been known to just wander away from a conversation that is clearly not over to the other participants. I notice a sneeze about 10 seconds too late to say "bless you!". I'm appropriately thankful, but assume that's clear without my actually saying or writing something to convey the feeling. Depending on the context, my preoccupation leads me to be perceived as everything from a lovable nerd to an arrogant jerk. It's something I'd like to change.

Reply
[-]SRStarin120

When I interact with people who behave the way you do (there a lot here at NASA), I generally do not hold it against them.

However, since you said you'd like to change, here are some suggestions that don't require a great deal of attention because they are responses to specific events (which you would need to practice noticing):

  • Always say "Thank you" for everything. Assume that no one thinks you're thankful unless you say so. It's not necessarily true, but it is true sometimes, and it's virtually never true that saying "thank you" will annoy someone that has just done something for you.
  • Learn people's names and use them when you see someone for the first time each day (assuming you're in an anglophone culture--romance cultures greet more often, I don't know about other cultures). For many people, saying "Hi, JoAnn!" instead of just "Hi" or "Mmf" helps make them feel valued and respected by you.
  • It's OK to leave a conversation that others are continuing, if they're not actually speaking to you at the time you leave. Tell everyone "Bye" or "Talk to you later" or whatever is appropriate for your expectations of interacting in the future, and then step away. If you don't want to interrupt a lively discussion, you can just raise your hand in a quick wave, try to make eye contact with at least one person if you can and smile or nod, and step away.
Reply
4handoflixue
I'll second the "thank you", and append that "please" and "you're welcome" are also wonderful phrases. I tend to read out as exceptionally polite as long as I'm managing those three. I have, ONCE in my life, had someone upset with me for my politeness, but that was because I was overusing "sorry". I do find apologizing is a useful trait, but it's definitely easier to overdo that one :)
6Jonathan_Graehl
I used to think it was worthwhile to think of strangers as human beings. Now I prefer to ignore them until an actual reason to interact presents itself. This doesn't apply to people I expect to encounter at least several times. Just strangers. I suppose learning to comfortably make eye contact and engage strangers was useful, but now I choose not to do it when I have no reason to. It conserves energy and makes me happier not thinking about how I'm perceived by them. Maybe it's true that crowded/urban living isn't "natural" or "healthy", but the solution isn't to waste energy trying to constantly "connect" with strangers - that's an exercise in futility. The solution would be to find a subcommunity where you can behave "normally".
6ruhe47
I have replaced the stock replies to normal social banter with something just on the edge of what most people expect. That little change has had a positive impact on my everyday life. When you ask someone how they are doing they will usually respond with the standard, "I'm Good". A simple smile and a, "Are you really good, or just sorta good?" tends to bump them away from the script and engage with you a little more. Whether it's a waitress or a mechanic, that simple statement (no matter how scripted it is on my part) tends to bring out a higher level of service from them. There is no wasted energy in trying to "connect" with them, as I usually don't care... but stepping outside of their hum-drum routine gives them the perception that I care. That can make all the difference!
4Jonathan_Graehl
Interesting. The smile, and the fact that you're really saying something, are probably what really matter. I don't ignore my mechanic or waiter - there is a reason to interact :)
3Sniffnoy
*shudder* I'm going to have to say that I find that very surprising (on the basis of the typical mind heuristic, of course. :P ). While I like the idea of changing up the standard greetings, that specific question is one I would probably react hostilely to.
6MaoShan
Welcome to the LessWrong / Autism Spectrum club.
2juliawise
I learned these things because for years my parents corrected me every time I was wrong. Is there someone close to you whom you can ask to give you a prearranged signal when you forget certain things? It would be a little odd to have your friend prompting, "What do you say, dear?", but maybe you can come up with something more subtle.
1jefftk
that's what you're doing to me!
[-]Charlie_OConnor70

Where can I get an IQ test? I am an adult and was never tested as a child. Searching google has only given me online tests. I want a professionally done test.

I considered myself intelligent, but some of the sequences/posts on this site are quite challenging for me. It has made me curious on exactly how intelligent I am. I don’t want to be too over or under confident when it comes to intelligence. I try to learn new things and that helps me find the limits of my intelligence, but I figure my IQ will also be interesting to know as well.

Thanks.

Reply
7gwern
Per saturn's comment, online tests can be pretty accurate, especially the ones which are imitating (copying) the matrix-style tests; I keep a list as part of the DNB FAQ. Note the many caveats. In particular, you cannot take multiple tests! Obviously for most of them you can't take it twice because the questions don't change, but less obviously, they're all similar enough that if you take one, you can expect your score on the second to be noticeably increased just from familiarity/experience. (This is why I suggest that people doing dual n-back do before/after IQ tests with a minimum of months in between, and preferably years.)
3Vladimir_M
Note however that IQ is not a property of individuals measurable on an individual basis like, say, height or weight is. Its utility lies in its statistical power to predict the average performance of large groups of people. When it comes to testing a specific individual, except perhaps for the greatest extremes (like diagnosing mental retardation), the fact that you achieved a certain score gives only probabilistic information about you. Moreover, for individuals scoring in high percentiles, to which you probably belong if you find the stuff written on this blog interesting, there are strong diminishing returns to high scores even statistically. It's like e.g. wondering about your height with regards to your basketball prospects: your potentials are indeed likely to be much greater if you're, say, 6'2" rather than 5'10", but if you already know that you're more than a few inches above average, the difference between, say, 6'9" and 6'5" won't matter anywhere as much.
5CarlShulman
This doesn't seem to be so up to at least the 1 in 10,000 level. However, I agree that the predictive power of theses tests is still small relative to the remaining sources of variation (although it is one which we are relatively good at measuring) and they shouldn't be over-weighted.
1Costanza
Strictly speaking, the weight of an individual can fluctuate even in the course of a day, due to the consumption or excretion of fluids. It can fluctuate more permanently when you lose or gain body mass in the form of fat or muscle. I'm under the impression that, in contrast, measured I.Q. of an individual is supposed to stay more or less within the same approximate range throughout the course of that individual's life (with obvious caveats for brain damage, senility, and as you say, exceptional individuals at the extremes of the distributions).
3Vladimir_M
From what I know, there are high correlations between an individual's IQ test scores at different times, especially in the short run. Depending on the study, it ends up being something like 0.95 in the short run and 0.7-0.9 between different ages (I'm just quoting rough ballpark figures from memory -- they of course differ between studies and age spans). Some impressively high correlations were found even in a study that compared test scores of a group of individuals at 11 and 77 years of age. On the other hand, people can be coached to significantly improve their IQ test scores. At least so says Rushton, of all people. Then of course, as with all issues where you might want to make some sense of what IQ scores exactly imply, the Flynn effect throws a wrench into any attempt to come up with a neat, plausible, and coherent theory. But even regardless of all this, one should still not forget that the connection between IQ and any realistic measure of success is itself just probabilistic. This is especially true for high-scoring individuals: instead of worrying whether one's score is 120, 130, 140, or whatever, one would be better advised to worry about whether one is deficient in other factors important for success and accomplishment in life.
2taw
Mensa runs IQ tests frequently, worldwide, for a small fee. That's the best choice (and the only thing they're useful for).
2first_fire
Private psychologists will probably perform them, but there is also the convenient option of finding out when your local branch of Mensa is having its next round of testing. One of the cheaper options, plus access to Mensa services such as the Travel special interest group (staying for free with interesting people around the world) if you're above the requisite percentile.
2Blueberry
There is a rough correlation between IQ and standardized test scores.
2saturn
Some private psychologists will do them. If there's a research university near you, you might be able to get one for free by participating in a study. However, I discourage you from doing this. The usefulness of knowing your own IQ is already limited at best, and the extra accuracy compared to a good online test isn't worth the amount of time you'll need to spend on it.
1Jonathan_Graehl
I grew up with a very weird opinion about my place in the world as a result of a kindergarten IQ test (they never told me a number, but I knew it was good, because, for example, I got to the point where I had to ask the proctor what it means when someone writes a fraction - of course I didn't know it was called that). Everything I've done since then has been a let down :) You're better off not knowing. Just use whatever you've got. There are many high-IQ-tested people who have crazy views and behavior, and are unsuccessful and unhappy (I don't deny that there exists some meaningful single general intelligence number, but what does knowing it give you?) Besides, such tests can definitely be studied for as a skill, as much as any game (waste of time warning: Cambridge Brain Sciences games). So caring about the result just means you're going to effectively waste time practicing.
[-]lukeprog70

800+ comments now. I think you may have been right that lots of people have basic procedural gaps that need addressing, Alicorn... :)

Reply
[-]Alicorn130

I'm kind of weirded out by the fact that a three-paragraph post originally put in Discussion that took me ten minutes to write is now my most upvoted post of all time.

Reply
9MartinB
You identified a need and acted on it. Well done. You probably do net get to choose where you make the biggest impact. PS: my most voted comment used to be just one word
8Unnamed
It's like the joke about the mechanic who fixes a car's engine by hitting it once with a hammer. He charges the owner $200 and the guy complains: "All you did was hit the engine with a hammer, I'm not paying $200 for that." So the mechanic gives him an itemized bill: Hitting the engine with a hammer, $5; Knowing where to hit it: $195.
5mindspillage
Unlike some of the more abstruse topics, this one is likely of at least some interest/value to nearly everyone reading the site...
2Blueberry
It's more that this is just a good way to start interesting conversations, I think.
[-]DanielVarga100

This should probably be turned into a quarterly (monthly?) thread.

Reply
[-]Alicorn70

Dry hair is more likely to break, split, and peel.

Reply
2Sniffnoy
Thank you.
[-]Sniffnoy70

And now you know what jokes about the letter "elemenopee" are referring to.

Reply
3Conuly
Although that's not the only way to divide up the ABCs to sing it to the melody of Baa Baa Black Sheep. You can also do abcd efg hijk lmn opq rst uvw xyz. Took me ages to figure that out after I learned how to sing the alphabet backwards and realized that backwards there was no rushing part.
[-]Eliezer Yudkowsky70

Yeah, that kind of advice is not going to fill any procedural knowledge gaps, sorry.

Previously I've tried "exercise" with fitness machines, aerobic and resistance both, an hour apiece on both, and it doesn't seem to do anything at all. I currently walk a couple of hours every other day. I have no idea whether this does anything (besides exhausting me so much I don't get any work done for the rest of the day, of course). I once read that 40% of the population is "immune to exercise" and I suspect I'm one of the 0.40.

If I have enough m... (read more)

Reply
[-]Mark_Eichenlaub160

I once read that 40% of the population is "immune to exercise" and I suspect I'm one of the 0.40.

I've been a competitive distance runner for a decade. In that time I've watched maybe 100 people join track or cross country teams, and every one who stays on the team more than a month has shown clear improvement, at least at first.

I've also known many recreational runners, and there's a big difference between a median runner on a cross country team and a median recreational runner of the same age and gender. In fact, of the fifty or so recreational runners I've talked to in some depth, and thousands I've seen at races, I have never met someone who trained themselves independently from the beginning and could beat me at 1500 meters. Meanwhile, I've known scores of people who could beat me at that distance, but they all ran on teams or had run on teams in the past.

In my experience, the slowest guys who joined the team and practiced every day would run a mile in about 5:30 after a year, with a median around 5:00, and 4:40 if they kept at it for a few years. For women it was about 7:00 at slowest, median 6:00 and around 5:30 for women who trained for some time. (Talen... (read more)

Reply
[-]orthonormal110

In that time I've watched maybe 100 people join track or cross country teams, and every one who stays on the team more than a month has shown clear improvement, at least at first.

Okay, but which way does the causality run?

Reply
3Mark_Eichenlaub
Are you suggesting that people join track teams because they have the capacity to improve at running? Maybe a third of those people had no prior experience with running and could not have known whether they would improve. Or are you suggesting that people who don't improve quit in less than a month? I can't really answer that, except that it seems unlikely that all the people with no inborn ability to improve are also the people who will give up on something in less than a month.
5orthonormal
The way it works in normal people seems to be that exercising regularly feels really awful at first, but after the first few times it doesn't feel that bad (indeed, it starts releasing endorphins) and the person starts getting in shape. Let's imagine that it works like that for one segment of the population, but for another segment it never stops feeling awful and doesn't have the same fitness effects. You'd see the exact same effect you note. Obviously, what you say is evidence that regular running can make anyone more fit as long as they persist– but it's not necessarily strong evidence.
1randallsquared
I'm in a segment where it does have fitness effects, but never stops feeling awful. I was in the Army, and it was possible for me to meet the physical fitness standards, but even exercising strenuously every day during eight weeks of Basic Training never produced the exercise high that people speak of.
1TobyBartels
This is addressed in the parent's next-to-last paragraph (which may have been a late edit, for all that I know).
[-]pjeby150

I once read that 40% of the population is "immune to exercise"

If you mean, 40% of people don't lose weight by exercising, that's probably correct. The OP said "basic level of fitness", though, which does not necessarily mean weight loss.

I currently walk a couple of hours every other day. I have no idea whether this does anything (besides exhausting me so much I don't get any work done for the rest of the day, of course).

There is a fair amount of study (for citations see "Body By Science") that longer exercise does not result in greater health gains, and that it is rather the intensity of exercise that makes the difference.

In my own personal experience, long walks are pleasant, but I felt a greater increase in energy levels from using one of Sears's 10-minute PACE workouts (1 minute walking, 1 minute all-out running, repeat 5 times, then cool down). A few days of this and my general energy levels throughout the day went up. (I would guess the OP's suggestion of hill sprints is based on the same principle of alternating high intensity and low intensity activity for a short period.)

There are quite a few ways in which conventional or popular wisdom about exercise is wrong; the idea that more exercise is better is one of them. (The idea that exercise will help or cause you to lose weight is another.)

Reply
[-]Armok_GoB140

This is confusing. It seems like somehting a good rationalist should not have any problem with. And you're supposedly the greatest rationalist around. Are you sure you've actually applied your rationality skills and done stuff like sat down for 5 minutes (each) and thought about questions like "What exactly am I trying to accomplish with exercise, and is there any other way to accomplish it", "How can I find out what kinds of exercise will give results" , "can I replicate what a fitness trainer does myself, find the information online, or find someone willing to act as one for free?", etc.

There are probably a decent number of people with medical knowledge here, who knows these things. Heck, if a few things (like living on the wrong continent) were different I could've just given you my athlete sisters number.

Edit: Also, why is everyone talking about expensive equipment? I'm pretty sure you only need equipment for advanced training if you want to compete or because it's easier/more comfortable, general fitness and health I can see no reason to do anything other than running and stretching and push-ups and such. I'm also pretty sure you can use normal stuff lieing around even for the things you need props for. I'm no expert thou.

... goodness I can't believe I just typed this. -_- Feels like heresy telling Eliezer what to do, especially in an area I consider myself to know nothing about. I'm fully prepared for this to be down-voted to oblivion.

Reply
[-]ata130

I once read that 40% of the population is "immune to exercise"

Where did you read that?

(I'd be pretty surprised if that turned out not to be untrue, overstated, or overgeneralized.)

Reply
4wedrifid
I am hoping it was advice specifically given for wait loss, emphasising that just adding light exercise will not see large results in many cases. As an independent observation it would be terrible.
[-]orangecat100

I was skeptical as well, but Googling for "immune to exercise" produced this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6735-some-people-are-immune-to-exercise.html. It seems like an area that could really use further research; if the universally-dispensed advice is ineffective for nearly half the population, that's a huge problem.

Reply
[-]gwern180

Yes, but that shows that Eliezer probably misremembered what the 40% referred to. In that study, "40%" refers not to how many didn't benefit, but rather to the maximal benefit on a particular measure of fitness received by any of the participants:

For example, the team found that training improved maximum oxygen consumption, a measure of a person’s ability to perform work, by 17% on average. But the most trainable volunteers gained over 40%, and the least trainable showed no improvement at all. Similar patterns were seen with cardiac output, blood pressure, heart rate and other markers of fitness.

Alternately, he might've been rounding the subsequent statistic:

Bouchard reported that the impact of training on insulin sensitivity – a marker of risk for diabetes and heart disease – also varied. It improved in 58% of the volunteers following exercise, but in 42% it showed no improvement or, in a few cases, may have got worse.

So, how many is many? What fraction of the subjects were resistant on the various metrics? Unfortunately, the NS article doesn't give exactly what we want to know, so we need to find the original scientific papers to figure it out ourselves, but the... (read more)

Reply
[-]Eliezer Yudkowsky110

I recall originally reading something about a measure of exercise-linked gene expression and I'm pretty sure it wasn't that New Scientist article, but regardless, it's plausible that some mismemory occurred and this more detailed search screens off my memory either way. 20% of the population being immune to exercise seems to match real-world experience a bit better than 40% so far as my own eye can see - I eyeball-feel more like a 20% minority than a 40% minority, if that makes sense. I have revised my beliefs to match your statements. Thank you for tracking that down!

Reply
2Ishaan
Do you have an opinion concerning whether this is better characterized as "non-response to the benefits of exercise due to pathology" vs. "immunity to the harmful effects of a sedentary lifestyle"? Basically, is being a non-responder good or bad? Eyeballing that graph it does look like untrained non-responders might be a bit fitter than responders - but of course the first thing we should assume is ceiling effect. (And of course there's many 3rd options - orchid/dandelion trade offs and such)
[-]Dr_Manhattan100

I once read that 40% of the population is "immune to exercise" and I suspect I'm one of the 0.40.

.4 of the population unlikely to have evolved? I can't take this too seriously I suppose.

Did you try working on strength first? A lot of cardio is claimed to not be very helpful.

Also, consider a coach or a fellow rationalist with some domain knowledge to work with, it's pretty important to optimize this area (esp. if it puts you out of commission for the rest of the day).

One hack that helped me work throughout the annoyance is reading kindle on a stationary bike. Lost 20 with that trick.

Reply
1TobyBartels
Pounds or kilos? (I'll assume not stone.)
7MichaelVassar
Why not just use a trainer at the gym. Also, if you can't afford that you should really talk with me. It's obviously a high priority.
[-]Eliezer Yudkowsky140

At this point, my Expectancy for positive results from single changes like "just use a trainer at the gym" has hit essentially zero - I've tried all sorts of stuff, nothing ever fucking works - so I'm not willing to spend the incremental money. If I have a lot of money to spend, I'll try throwing a higher level of money at all aspects of the problem - get a trainer on weights, try the latest fad of "short interval bursts" for aerobic exercise, get LASIK and a big TV and a separate room of the apartment to make exercising less unpleasant (no, dears, I don't get any endorphins whatsoever), buy a wide variety of grass-fed organic meats and take one last shot at the paleo diet again, and... actually I think that's most of what I'd do. That way I'd be able to scrape up enough hope to make it worth a shot. Trying one item from that list doesn't seem worth the bother.

I did try Shangri-La again when Seth Roberts contacted me personally and asked me to take another shot. It was just wearing tight, uncomfortable noseplugs while eating all my food and clearing out time at night to make sure I took oil 1 hour away from eating any other food or brushing my teeth, a trivi... (read more)

Reply
[-]schemingreader110

I replied to your other comment without being sure whether the "nothing works" part was about weight loss or the ability to gain strength and conditioning from exercise.

There is a current idea that exercise is beneficial no matter what you weigh. See for example http://haescommunity.org/ and this new article on exercise and depression: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lloyd-i-sederer-md/depression-treatment-_b_819798.html?ir=Living

I have a hard time not following the herd mentality and trying to measure my success with exercise by my size and shape. I can and generally do use another measure of success for exercise than what I weigh. You can measure increased strength either by seeing how much weight you can lift or how many push-ups or pull-ups you can do, or you can measure your increased cardiovascular fitness with your standing pulse rate, or how long you can walk or run without becoming exhausted. (I'm shooting for 45 push-ups in a row by age 45.)

Then it doesn't actually matter whether you're metabolically privileged. Or privileged with relation to losing weight anyway, some people would say your metabolism--and mine!--make total sense in a starvation environment. The ... (read more)

Reply
[-]Mitchell_Porter100

If I were in your situation, I would start to take a technical interest in the biomechanics of fat deposition in male bodies, differential retention of water in body tissues, the genetics of metabolism, the adipocyte cell cycle in visceral fat - as much causal and molecular detail as I could bring myself to assimilate. Just for a few hours, I would proceed as if I was going to tackle the problem by understanding what's happening from the molecular level up, genuinely identifying exactly where a change needs to occur, and fashioning an appropriate intervention.

The logic of this approach is that we are now in a time when such overkill analysis of all biological processes has become possible, and that you personally are smart and informed enough to be able to perform that analysis, "in principle". "In principle" means that if you devoted the next several years of your life to nothing but the intensive study of those topics, you would almost assuredly make useful progress. In reality you have other priorities which guarantee that you won't turn yourself into a research biologist. But just for a while proceed as if you were going to tackle this problem with the thor... (read more)

Reply
8[anonymous]
What do you mean by "nothing works"? I have heard pretty good evidence that some people have a very hard time losing weight. I've also seen physiological reasons for why that might be. I have never heard of "resistance to exercise" in the sense that you could exercise and never get stronger or fitter. I just don't see how that would work, physiologically. Honestly -- is this a documented phenomenon?
6pjeby
This is more of an anecdote than advice, but my wife has had some similar issues, i.e. being able to lose weight on occasion in some fashion, but then becoming immune to it and having it creep back on. Recently, she got some software that makes dietary recommendations based on genotype information -- a combination of blood type, body proportions, PROP tasting ability, tooth shapes, etc. etc. (It took an hour or two to take all the measurements, tests, and observations required.) The theory behind the software is that humans are evolved to thrive on different sorts of foods; even if you are going to eat "paleo", your ancestral geography will make a difference as to which specific fruits, nuts, roots, eggs, and meats you're going to thrive on. So, the software uses a bunch of known physical genetic markers (like torso length to leg length ratio, index/ring finger ratio, etc.) to identify a dietary genotype grouping. From these measurements, the software spat out a list of foods to eat, avoid, or eat more of to lose weight... and many of the things to eat to lose weight were pretty obscure, while many of the things to avoid were things she ate a lot of. After cutting out all the things to avoid, her weight has started drifting down instead of up. It's still early days yet, in that one would expect this effect per Roberts' hypothesis. However, one of the interesting things is that the foods the diet recommended just happened to also match things she'd been eating on previous diets when she lost weight... and many of the "avoid" items were things she'd been eating a lot of when struggling to stop gaining. That is, if you looked at it in terms of "doing the X diet", "doing the Y diet", and so on, her results would appear more mixed than if you looked at the detail of, "doing the X diet eating food A" versus "doing the X diet eating food B." For example, "doing Atkins eating beef and horseradish", vs. "doing Atkins eating lots of whey protein bars and chicken." The ove
1wedrifid
This system would need to be based off an awful lot of data to be producing such specific prescriptions based on a wide range of minor differences. Data which as far as I know does not exist. It would be an excellent thing to be working towards but right now does not sound credible.
5michaelkeenan
Hey, metabolically privileged guy here. Being immune to whatever exercise you previously tried must have been very frustrating and demotivating. As far as I can tell from brief research, exercise immunity has been demonstrated for cardio exercise, but I haven't heard of people unable to gain strength. In my experience, even a modest gain in strength is gratifying, and this may propel you the rest of the way to ferocious manraptor. You mentioned you've tried resistance machines, but machines have kind of a bad reputation among seriously strong people. Free weights are widely considered better. Trainer quality varies widely, so you might have come across a bad trainer if you were advised to use machines, and especially if you were advised to try high rep counts (like 12 or more) per set, and very especially if you were advised to focus on isolation exercises targeting one muscle at a time. Maybe you have a hidden dark mighty side that has yet to surface. You may have read about how different human phenotypes have different proportions of slow-twitch and fast-twitch muscles, making different people suited to be endurance runners or sprinters, or just really strong people. I guess the populations of each are stable over time, since it's advantageous to specialize in whatever skill your tribe is in short supply of. Presumably there are many genetic differences in addition to the fast-twitch/slow-twitch one that's fairly well-known. Your body might be suited to something in particular - maybe not an activity that's recommended to the average person. If strength isn't it, maybe it's something unusual. Jousting? Wrestling? Ballet? Yoga? Crossfit? Fencing? (Or, of course, you could be a mutant, or affected by some virus, or just in possession of an unlucky genetic combination that leaves you not particularly suited for anything physical.) You might want to talk to Patri Friedman about this in person - he is good on the topic of exercise and strength.
4Armok_GoB
Is it just me or does the "nothing fucking works phenomenon" be very much rarer outside of the US?
1niplav
While this comment might point towards a real phenomenon, it's phrased in a way I read as passive-aggressive. Tentatively weakly downvoted.
4John_Maxwell
If you don't mind my asking, why do you feel such a strong compulsion to lose weight? It feels to me like you're certainly justified in giving up at this point. If thinking about your weight brings feelings of low status, this seems like a problem worth fixing. It's certainly much harder for me to think well when I'm feeling low status. But there are other methods for fixing low-status feelings, like having people social proof you, taking drugs, taking acting classes, meditating, giving yourself therapy, etc. (I'd be happy to elaborate on how any of these worked for me.)
9Eliezer Yudkowsky
I have given up, and it was indeed a great improvement in quality of life when I stopped trying to manage my weight - gave up and ate whatever, stopped going to the gym - and observed that my weight behaved in exactly the same way as before, the same slow upward creep at the same rate. I don't know to what degree being overweight would be less painful if there wasn't a social stigma attached to it, but we don't actually live in that world.
9komponisto
Some questions from someone who is genuinely curious and has almost zero domain knowledge (I've never commented on this topic before, I don't think): 1. It seems to me that any social stigma would be based not on being overweight per se, but rather on the visual appearance of being overweight, i.e. being "fat". However, I don't find that your visual appearance is outside the normal variation that I expect to see among people in the contemporary United States. (In fact, I never would have guessed that you had an interest in this topic if you hadn't discussed it here.) So I'm quite curious about what evidence you've seen that you're suffering a social stigma. 2. Turning back from the social to the medical: given that you seem to naturally tend toward a certain "high" weight (I presume it doesn't actually increase without bound!) to what extent have you considered the possibility that the medical establishment's definition of "overweight" is wrong, or doesn't apply to you? 3. Do you think you would be experiencing the same phenomenon if you were living in the ancestral environment? Why or why not? 4. Have you tried eating less (e.g. only one meal per day)? If so, what was the result? If not, what do you predict would happen to your weight?
2Cyan
EY describes what happens when he eats less here: Best wishes, the Unofficial Guide to Less Wrong (take that, Zack M. Davis!).
2TheOtherDave
I'm curious: leaving aside weight and social stigma, have you found that the different levels of diet and exercise you've experimented with had any positive or negative effects? (E.g., mood, energy levels, endurance, etc.?)
6Eliezer Yudkowsky
I can walk farther after getting in a couple of weeks of regular walking. That's it. Basically, "no effect that I can detect with the naked eye".
2Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg)
Do you want to lose weight or do you want to be fit? I've been frustrated in the past by the fact that my body doesn't look like the North American female ideal, but I think of the number of hours I put into exercise compared to some of my skinny but sedentary peers, and I'm sure that's going to make a difference in future health. I think it's generally accepted that exercise improves health INDEPENDENT of weight. (I should try to cite this but I have a midterm in an hour... If you want, I can do more in-depth research when I have time.) I think that's true for most people. Exercise seems to be better for maintaining a given weight than for losing weight.
2bogdanb
I was wondering (just because I can’t remember you mentioning it): Did you try a few different sports rather than just “abstract exercising”? I tend to hate exercise in general, but I find that I like some things that do incidentally force me to do a lot of it. For example, I very much like volleyball, wall climbing, trekking (over mountains, i.e. abrupt terrain, not horizontally), skiing, and all martial arts I tried, although I hate soccer (too much running) or basketball (running, also I suck at throwing balls through hoops) or even swimming (I hate water in my eyes). I even like chopping wood :-) When I do sports I like (I do them less than I’d like to because of time, money and difficulty of synchronizing with friends to do it with) it is very effective as exercise, in the sense that I do them until I get positively exhausted, but I don’t hate what I’m doing after sixty seconds as it happens with “just exercise”. You might want to try some. I’m not saying it will necessarily cause you to loose weight (I’m lucky enough to stay around the weight I like without much effort), but if you find one you like (enough to keep at it) it will make you fitter, and it does have nice effects on personal image (both yours and others’ towards you). The important thing is to try many things to find out what you like; there may be great difference in how you like even similar things (e.g., I hate snowboarding with passion, although I’d like to like it, but I love skiing). You might want to try them with friends (even doing sports I like, I get bored if I’m alone). Also, don’t try to be good at the sport. I’m far from being very good at any of the things I mentioned I like; I’m much better than someone who never did them before, but I got that way just having fun, not specifically by training.
8bogdanb
By the way, I remembered something relevant to LessWrong, I’ll put it here even though not precisely on topic: There is a very widespread bias in the skying world for long skis: evidence is overwhelming that for recreational skiing shorter skis are much better, but it seems almost everyone ignores it for what appear to be status reasons. Anecdote: Having seen short skis on slopes, I once asked the guy at the rental shop about them. He dismissed them with “Oh, those are just for fun”—although it was quite obvious that I wasn’t there training for the Winter Olympics. It so happens that short skis are much more fun than “normal” ones for normal people, but for some reason almost all the advice given is only appropriate for expert use—even when you explicitly say you never skied before and you’re in it just for fun. And I really mean the “much” in that first sentence: it’s the difference between falling constantly for a week and starting to ski from the first minute. (Larger skis are better for going faster or skiing outside slopes, but that just doesn’t apply to most people.)
1Vladimir_M
Frankly, I'm surprised that this "Shangri-La" approach is taken seriously by you and other people here on LW. I do believe that it has worked for many people, but this looks exactly like the sort of problem where placebo should be very effective on average. On the other hand, Roberts's theories about it don't even sound like a good just-so story.
1[anonymous]
If you're still interested in weight loss (or any kind of fitness) I have two recommendations. One: track everything you eat on fitday. It has calorie contents for most foods. (The calorie expenditure estimates for exercise are shady and I wouldn't trust them.) The data is useful, regardless of what you decide to do with it. I did fitday for a year and I'm not doing it now, because it's a bit of a hassle, but now I'm calibrated with a sense of how calories feel. (An 1100-calorie day means misery and fatigue; a 1300-calorie day is ok, but sooner or later I'll want to eat more; 1600 feels normal, 2000 is especially tasty, 2500 is a giant feast day. Before I paid attention to my diet, every day was a giant feast day, and that was the problem.) Two: start a log on T-Nation. This site is a roiling mass of chaos, I should warn you. It is full of idiots. It is full of porn-addicted bros. It is a time-sucking Charybdis. But it is also full of people who are very, very into fitness, and in very, very good shape. Many of them are professional trainers who share a fair amount of usually proprietary advice for free. If you are specific enough about what you are doing, they will tell you what you are doing wrong. I learned a lot there. Not least, I learned that what looked like minimal progress to me was actually good progress, and evidence that I should keep it up. A public fitness log, with significant click traffic, is really excellent motivation -- intermittent feedback really does work. And it's even better when much of that feedback is knowledgeable advice. And when you have a pseudo-peer group of people who are much better than you, and give you a sense that more is possible. Like all forums, this one has its own etiquette -- basically, post in the beginner's section if you're a beginner, give as much concrete data about yourself as possible if you're asking for advice (diet, exercise program, weight, strength, age, goals), and always RTFM. If you ever get intereste
1XiXiDu
For how long have you tried? It took me about 3 years and I still have to do sports 3 times a week to keep my current weight. Compare: * XiXiDu_2003 * XiXiDu_2008 And I did not become overweight again, I just gained a lot of muscle mass since 2008. There are more photos here, see for example that I still had a fat face in 2004. Since end of 2009 I try to do the same with my education but only now I'm manging to gather momentum. It took me all of 2010 and the last two months to prepare myself.
3wedrifid
Careful with the 'helpful' suggestions. I think Eliezer has put enough effort into this that he will not respond well to this sort of assumption. For many the benefits of exercise will not be in weight loss but rather the effects on health and mental performance.
2XiXiDu
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. Now going to remove that sentence.
1timtyler
You attribute that to exercise? Those effects look a lot like the ones produced by energy restriction to me.
1XiXiDu
I didn't think that I was eating much less these days. Maybe because I stopped drinking alcohol back then? Starting to think about weight and doing exercise probably caused me to change my diet without noticing it. I'm still eating ice cream almost every evening and drink half a liter milk-cacao. Today I'm going to eat two soy cutlets with two eggs sunny side up, onions and fries with mayonnaise. In the morning I eat a pan full of oatmeal with milk and a handful of dried dates. In the evening it is often a pizza or bread with cheese and grapes.
5khafra
Given that Eliezer has expressed this concern a few times already, I'd like to see someone better known than me and/or more involved with SIAI start a wepay fund to get him a personal trainer. I would contribute the first $300 to such a fund, and consider it existential risk reduction, given the cognitive and longevity benefits of physical fitness.
4ewang
I think that the guilt and loss of self esteem that that would cause might outweigh the benefits, causing an existential risk increase.
6NancyLebovitz
My impression is that getting so tired from moderate exercise is way outside the normal range. I have no idea if it might indicate a medical problem, or is just individual variation.It may just be that the cultural belief that exercise is good for everyone is false. An alternate possibility is that you move very inefficiently. I was shocked to find out how much muscle tension was restricting my breathing, and how much difference it made to loosen up even somewhat. The best book I've seen for exploring that is The 10-Minute Rejuvenation Plan: T5T: The Revolutionary Exercise Program That Restores Your Body and Mind. There's a certain amount of woo woo in it, but there's also clear explanations of how to get more flexibility and relaxation so that you can get more air, and there's a warm-up which improved my body awareness to the point that I could realize that a move which was difficult for me was because my shoulders and chest were too tight, rather than because I was an inferior person or because the universe was out to get me. I'd also hypothesized that muscle tension might be the problem, but there's a huge difference between a hypothesis and actually feeling what was going on when I did the move. On the other hand, the way tenseness interacts with exercise for me is that exercise tends to feel really bad to me (less so as I become less tense), and then I stop, so t don't know whether I'd end up with that much exhaustion if I pushed.
5PhilGoetz
Are you exercising to lose weight, gain strength or muscle, or increase endurance? Those three things are very different. Exercising for endurance works for everyone, AFAIK; and exercising to build muscle works for everyone up to some plateau (which is barely perceptible for women, and some men). But exercise is not always an effective way of losing weight, because your body may make you as hungry as it needs to, to get you to make up the weight you lost during exercise. Losing weight requires being hungry, and it's not clear that exercising gives an advantage. For people who have that problem, exercise geared towards building muscle may be a more effective way of losing weight. You'll get even hungrier than with endurance exercise, and eat more, but your body will probably save less of those calories as fat. For me, if I do something really interesting all day long, I may forget to eat. But then I'm likely to binge just before bed, which negates the gain. I haven't found low-fat food very useful; my impression is that I eat more of it. Artificial sweeteners make me able to resist drinking soda and juice, but some experiments have shown artificial sweeteners increase weight gain in rodents and people; reasons are not known. The real fat-builders are soda and juice. Both pack a huge, swift bolus of calories. Many people think juice is "healthy" because it's natural, but it has hella calories. And all sorts of "diet food" and "exercise drinks", like Gatorade and Slim-Fast, are basically flavored sugar and will make you fat. Some people think fat calories make them fatter than sugar or carb calories. I doubt it. If anything, I'd guess sugar builds more fat per calorie, because fat needs to go through a lot of catabolic and then anabolic processing before being stored as fat. (Your body doesn't just suck up fat globules from the lymph and deposit them into cells.) Somebody with a biology degree should know the answer. You could experiment with when you eat, what
4NancyLebovitz
For what it's worth, I bounced your situation off my therapist who's also an RN and a serious martial artist. He says you're up against something weird and he doesn't know what it might be. And off one of my friends who is a lay person but has a lot of medical knowledge. Very tentatively, you might be up against thyroid or adrenal issues. Theory which is at least cheap and safe to check: you might not be eating enough salt. This can cause low energy. And if this is the case, you might need more salt than most people-- one of my friends is semi-metabolically privileged (does trail running for the fun of it, is fairly fat anyway), and if he doesn't eat a good bit of salt, he falls over.
3wedrifid
This isn't implausible. It also prompts another safe and relatively inexpensive check - get comprehensive blood testing. This is something that most people should do and definitely anyone with any niggling health issues. It is amazing what some people discover, especially when it is issues that are easily resolved!
7Eliezer Yudkowsky
Pretty sure I've had some type of allegedly-comprehensive-but-cheap blood scan done, which didn't turn up anything interesting. Is there somewhere I go for a more comprehensive blood scan?
5wedrifid
Ouch, you've really explored your options! I must admit I've only really looked at places to get blood tests in Melbourne. It sounds like you didn't keep a copy of the scan results. If I you did have the results handy it would have been worth getting the guys at imminst.org to look at it. In the collective they seem to be an effective resource when it comes to identifying atypical yet not life threatening health issues. What interests me in your case is whether you get the other benefits of exercise, particularly the neurological ones. Not losing weight from exercise is one thing but I wonder whether you still get the boost to neurogenesis and the increased resilience to stress that exercise provides.
1Davorak
An idea would be finding your old scan and getting your blood checked again every 6 months to a year. That way you can see if anything is slowly changing. From personal experience I know it can take several years of patient vigilance to solve some medical problems.
6NancyLebovitz
I've read enough accounts from people with thyroid problems to gather that the usual tests don't catch all of them-- I don't remember a lot of details (will check what I've got if anyone wants), but apparently the standard test is for a surrogate measurement which might or might not be relevant. And there's argument about what the normal range for thyroid hormones are. However, if you're lucky, Synthroid is effective, safe, and cheap. More generally, another more comprehensive blood test isn't a bad idea, but going in with more specific ideas about what you want to find out seems sensible. Basically, this stuff is complicated enough that 5 minutes thought (and rather more time than that spent on research) is called for. It gets better. I've got quantities of anecdata, but most of it is from women. I hope the situation is better for men, but I'm not counting on it being much better. A lot of people have to go through several doctors before they find one who listens and thinks. My impression is that about 20% are competent for non-obvious problems. Being fat and having a problem which affects your energy level are major risk factors for not being heard. If you decide to go the medical route, there are websites where people rate their doctors.
4Desrtopa
If you're not in particularly good shape to start with, any pace you can sustain in cardiovascular exercise for a full hour may not be very effective as exercise. You might get better results by starting with shorter time periods, closer to 25-35 minutes, at sufficient intensity to induce fatigue.
3David_Gerard
Exercising for 45 minutes three times a week - enough to raise your heart rate - is the standard quantity to stay in reasonable general cardiovascular health - whatever your weight or fat level, whatever your walking speed (to some extent). If just walking exhausts you, have you sought medical advice? Try 45 minutes of walking instead of two hours. DDR can be done with glasses on, if they won't fly across the room ;-) I'm afraid "I can't do DDR without Lasik first" comes across as a mere excuse. It is possible you may be generalising from one example here. nazgulnarsil's post struck me as actually a pretty good start: it doesn't matter tremendously much what you do as long as you do stuff.
3schemingreader
I don't think it's easy to give universally-applicable exercise advice. If it were, there wouldn't be such a huge market for exercise advice! There seem to be changes in how exercise physiologists think about certain exercises every few years. Separate abdominal strengthening exercises, for example, seem to be out of vogue with some trainers. So one piece of procedural knowledge is, you have to read about exercise, it's not trivially obvious how to do it. If I were going to try to give someone a universal piece of advice about how to get started, I wouldn't say, "don't bother with other things, try pull-ups and tricep dips," because only a small percentage of new exercisers can even do those exercises. I'd probably say, "try taking a walk." (But even that isn't universally helpful, since lots of people have problems with their knees and ankles or hips or back and may need to start with something even lower impact, like swimming or yoga.) So a second piece of procedural knowledge is, everyone's body is different, so the exercise you pick should reflect what you like and need. Addressing the problem you pose here: Since walking is a low-impact cardiovascular exercise, why not try it for an hour every day instead of two hours every other day? That will help build endurance and make it less taxing. Or you could start with less and increase a little every day. There's a third piece of procedural knowledge about exercise: you can increase your capacity if you add on slowly and sneak up on your body, even if your body is being recalcitrant. I'm not sure what you mean by "immune to exercise." Are you not experiencing endorphins from your walk? Is your heart rate staying below the target rate? Some good procedures are to walk with a friend and make sure you aren't going too slow or too fast or bring music if you're going to walk on a treadmill by yourself. And if you think you'd enjoy Dance Dance Revolution, I'd say do it in your glasses--you can always wipe your face wi
3nazgulnarsil
if you are capable of going for an hour you are doing it wrong. sets of sprinting once a week has better results than jogging an hour a day for many people. same thing with resistance. if you can do more than 10 you are going way too light. this is why i suggest running up a hill. rather than traditional biking or treadmill aerobics.
3Nick Hay
If the goal in exercise is to lose weight, have you tried replacing carbohydrates with fat in your diet? Forcing yourself to exercise will serve to work up an appetite and make you hungry, but not to lose weight. There is a correlation between exercising and being thin, but the causality is generally perceived the wrong way around. There is also a correlation between exercising and (temporarily) losing weight, but that is confounded by diet changes which typically involving reducing carbohydrate intake. I've heard you mention Gary Taube's work, but not that you've read it. If you haven't read his book he has a new shorter on which is well worth reading, linked here: http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/ The appendix has specific diet recommendations. Also good are these notes: http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-calories-bad-calories/
1Benquo
Maybe this is a good topic for the group problem-solving post in Discussion? I'd have to know more specifics before I know whether I can be useful at all.
1folkTheory
Check out the book called "The 4-Hour Body" by Tim Ferris
3Liron
Yeah, I listened to the patronizingly-abridged 4-hour audiobook and it's good. I got two main things out of it: 1. I should try to be like Tim Ferriss and get disproportionate results for small time investments. 2. Hitting a muscle group with just one set of 10 slow reps (5 seconds up, 5 seconds down) is great! It's over really fast.
[-][anonymous]70

How do you write a will?

Reply
[-]Mass_Driver100

The following is not legal advice for your situation, despite the occasional use of the second person. Rather, it is general commentary about how wills work.

There are four good options: (1) do it yourself (2) hire a lawyer ($200 - $3,000) (3) use a legal forms service such as LegalZoom.com ($30 - $100) (4) buy a how-to book from a company like Nolo ($15 - $40)

If you do it yourself, you will need to think about what you own, decide who you would like to get that stuff when you die, and then write your instructions down on a piece of paper. You should then find two adults who are (a) not your relatives, and (b) not mentioned in the will to be your witnesses. Reassure the witnesses that you are sane, thinking clearly, and acting of your own free will. Then sign the will by writing your name in both print and cursive at the bottom. Add today's date. Then have each of your witnesses do the same. Have the witnesses write "witness" next to their signatures. Finally, make two photocopies of the will. Keep one in your desk for handy reference, give one to a friend or family member for publicity, and put the original in a safe deposit box at a bank for safekeeping.

If you decide to... (read more)

Reply
5Psychohistorian
This is a fairly complex legal question. Depending on the size of your estate, you probably want to hire a lawyer. I believe you can find a number of legal services that will do flat-rate wills for (I think) a couple hundred bucks. This is probably most important if you have kids or a lot of assets. If you don't have kids, and you don't have a lot of assets, or you seriously dislike lawyers, you can put together a will from a pre-made form and get witnesses (who are not beneficiaries) to sign the will, ideally in the presence of a notary public. Legal documents are often highly technical and vary meaningfully from state to state. Some of this is defensible - you'd be surprised how things can get messed up - and some of it exists to keep lawyers employed. If it's really important - if you are not a mostly asset-free student willing various odds and ends to family - it's probably worth having it done professionally. Five or ten minutes on google searching for estate lawyers in your area will probably do the trick; or you can look for the fixed-rate will deals from bigger businesses that I mentioned earlier.
4mutterc
Well worth asking a lawyer, because they know some ins and outs. My wife and I did this after our first child was born. It was a few hundred bucks to get wills, general powers of attorney, and healthcare powers of attorney for both of us. (Our situation was simple: leave everything to each other or the kids if we both kick it, and designate a guardian for the kids). We'd have gotten living wills but haven't decided what we want them to say. The lawyer put in a bunch of things we would never have thought of, e.g.: Making the will sibling-proof (it divides everything equally amongst all children we might end up having, which turned out to be 2) Waiving the requirement that our out-of-State executor post a bond Authorizing the executor to open safe deposit boxes and the like
2Richard_Kennaway
I am in the process of doing this, having realised that the English intestacy laws would not produce a desirable outcome for my circumstances. I went to a lawyer, explained my wishes, and in a week or two I expect to receive a draft. Since my will is a simple one, the cost is (relative to what lawyers cost in general) fairly low: £210. You can do it yourself, but I decided that it was worth the fee to have someone who knows exactly what they're doing take care of the matter. My lawyers will also be my executors (long may the time be in coming), and will take care of secure storage of the will. How does one find a lawyer? In my case, I looked on the web for local practices, eyeballed a few of their web sites, and from among those offering general legal services to private individuals, chose based on my general impression. This is probably suboptimal; personal recommendation from friends and colleagues might be a better way to go.
2[anonymous]
I used Quicken Willmaker, which is very easy to use. You can get the basic version for less than twenty bucks on Amazon.
[-][anonymous]60

Well, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is wrong on a fundamental level -- its stated conditions for market efficiency often fail to prevail in the real world. Panics are one of those times, and being more rational than other people is not a free lunch, but in fact a Substantial Effort for Good Return Lunch.

(I've seen one paper actually proving, rather humorously, that EMH is completely true IFF P = NP.)

Reply
[-]gwern60

Are you claiming that there is literally no way of using this information to reliably extract money from the stock market? This surprises me.

I'll reuse my example: if you knew for certain that Facebook would be as huge as it was, what stocks, exactly, would you have invested in, pre-IPO, to capture gains from its growth? Remember, you don't know anything else, like that Google will go up from its IPO, you don't know anything about Apple being a huge success - all you know is that some social network will some day exist and will grow hugely. The best I c... (read more)

Reply
1Raoul589
In case it's not clear: I'm not trying to contradict you; I am trying to get advice from you. Suppose that you got a mysterious note from the future telling you that the demand for home-robotics will increase tenfold in the next decade, and you know this note to be totally reliable. You know nothing else that is not publicly known. What would you do next?
5gwern
Do more research. Is this even nonpublic knowledge at all? The world economy grows at something like 2% a year, labor costs generally seem to go up, prices of computers and robotics usually falls... Do industry projections expect to grow their sales by <25% a year? If so, I might spend some of my hypothetical money on whatever the best approximation to a robotics index fund I can find, as the best of a bunch of bad choices. (Checking a few random entries in Wikipedia, maybe a fifth of the companies are publicly traded, so... that will be a pretty small index.) But I wouldn't be really surprised if in 10 years, I had not outperformed the general market.
1[anonymous]
I'd advise finding a market bottleneck, like ColTan mining. You'll see any technology that can replace tantalum capacitors from further away than you'll manage to see software or design shifts.
[-]Sniffnoy60

Or awake-in-the-morning or not.

Reply
1taryneast
True :) But then you don't actually have to really make real plans for Sunday mornings... just ask if they're available then and see what they say when turning you down. "Sorry, I'd prefer the afternoon" is different to "Well, if you'd like you can come along to my church group" :)
[-]AdeleneDawner60

I think you're missing part of JGWeissman's argument, which is somewhat understandable as he hasn't explicitly spelled it out.

The fact that the Maillard reaction was, most likely, present in ancient cooking does not imply that the results of that reaction are harmless. It's evidence in that direction, but it's not conclusive. In particular, the fact that the compounds caused by the Maillard reaction build up over time and lead to a somewhat earlier death, rather than being a faster-acting kind of poison, make it hard for evolution to select against liking ... (read more)

Reply
[-]Sniffnoy60

This is another question that may lack a simple answer, and indeed there is a good chance that this is simply a wrong question in the first place.

Background: So going by LW and indeed much of the rest of the internet it seems that speaking to arbitrary strangers in public is in fact not in general considered creepy and unacceptable (which makes this a case where I would have done better with the typical mind heuristic, as opposed to what I guess is some sort of version of Postel's Law, as I am not myself in general creeped out when others approach me).

Now ... (read more)

Reply
8sixes_and_sevens
In the public space in question, are you more likely to find books or alcohol? Pretty much any venue with alcohol is going to be a socially facilitating venue, whereas anywhere people take books is going to be a venue where they don't expect to be disturbed.
2wedrifid
I recommend socializing in book stores, libraries and outside classrooms. It will not always be appropriate but you can learn what sort of people will open to talking with practice.
1sixes_and_sevens
I'd agree with all these suggestions. A more discerning rule of thumb might be "are you more likely to find people consuming books or consuming alcohol?" It's probably also reasonably safe to assume that the typical LWer would prefer to talk with someone over a revealed mutual interest, rather than talking to someone after deadening their selectivity with booze, so places that are about books, but not where people read them, are likely to be good haunts for talking to strangers.
5wedrifid
Best yet, find the people consuming alcohol in the place where you find lots of books. They're bound to be up for a chat.
2MBlume
I have heard it suggested that the world would be a nicer place if there were bookstores in which one could simply order a beer, the same way one can today order a coffee. (It should be noted that the 'order a coffee' thing is only a decade or two old.)
6Nick_Tarleton
If, as it sounds, you would learn from any mistakes, and if you're somewhere populous enough that a randomly selected person's opinion of you doesn't matter, I doubt that imposing this restriction on yourself is right, or benefits others more than it costs you. You're allowed to briefly creep people out by mistake in order to learn useful things and reap the mutual benefits of non-creepy interactions. Where do you think the "be conservative in what you do" is coming from in your case?
3Sniffnoy
Hm, this sounds like good way of thinking about it. I already use this principle, but I had not thought it to apply it to such cases. I'm not clear on how I could possibly answer that.
3wedrifid
Agree, and with added emphasis! An excellent general social policy.
4Sniffnoy
Perhaps I should further specify just what sort of spaces I'm clear and unclear on. (All "maybe"s, "probably"s refer to my own uncertainty, of course - for simplicity I'm doing writing this as if I hadn't read any of the cousin posts yet.) The examples listed here are whatever I think of, mostly relevant ones but not all - I don't think there's a zoo anywhere around here and I haven't been to one in quite some time, but the example occurred to me while I was writing this so I threw it in. I expect I'm right about the things I'm certain of but should that not be the case corrections would be appreciated! 1. Definitely OK to approach people: "Private public spaces" - anywhere where a person you don't know can be assumed to be a friend of a friend - small parties, common rooms in dorms or co-op houses 2. OK to join existing conversations, maybe not OK to approach people initially: "Purposed public spaces" - anywhere where a person you don't know can be assumed to share a common interest - a common room in a school department building, e.g. Game stores probably fit here too. Also probably competitions of any sort. 3. Probably OK but currently avoided by me: Outside - on the street, on the quad, in the park. Here the location doesn't let you infer much of anything. (Unless something unusual is occurring, then clearly OK as people gather around it.) 4. ???: Fast-food places or food courts. Non-quiet spaces where people go to get work done (but which are too general to fall under #2.) Zoos, museums, other similar places. Bookstores. 5. Probably not OK: Libraries. 6. Definitely not OK: Anywhere where you shouldn't be talking in the first place. Most restaurants. Again, thanks! The sibling posts have already clarified things some.
[-]rabidchicken130

My suggestion: take a crash course in etiquette by going to another city nearby, and then spend a few days walking around asking questions, or inviting people to do stuff with you, etc. Condition yourself to get used to the occasional weird look, learn what you can get away with, and possibly make friends with people you would otherwise never meet. If all else fails, drive out of the city and pretend the entire thing never happened. Or you will get some amusing stories to share with me when you get back. How can you lose?

I am only partly joking, my social skills are so mediocre I have seriously considered doing exactly this at some point. I might throw in some speed dating as well for good measure.

Reply
7Jolly
I do this all the time, with fantastic results! A current example is my temporary move to Boston/Cambridge. I've walked around asking random strangers questions such as "If you could live anywhere in Boston, where would you live?" I've received great advice, and made a few friendships and event invites from doing so!
1wedrifid
I endorse this advice wholeheartedly.
4ViEtArmis
I can't tell if people actually don't care or if they are just oblivious, but I hate when people try to strike up a conversation while I'm using a public toilet. Bad when it's a urinal, worse when it's a stall. Maybe this falls under "spaces where people go to get work done"?
3first_fire
I spend a fair amount of my time off work either on public transportation or in coffee shops, and have found that how receptive people are to starting conversations varies widely within these settings. On public transportation, there are observations one can make which can aid with determining whether someone is open to conversation. If they are already engaged in conversation with another passenger and appear either happy or lost, it is more often appropriate (people who are happy tend to have farther to go on their mood spectrum to get to creeped out or annoyed, as well as sometimes, as with the people I befriended a couple weeks ago, being in the mood to share their happiness with others, and people who are lost generally appreciate direction or at least a clarification of where they are on the map). A person confined to the seat next to you is less likely to be happy about a conversation, as they will feel they have less of an exit than, say, in a section where all seats face a middle aisle, meaning the area in which the conversation takes place is felt to be larger. In my experience, few people like to start conversations on their morning commute. So the important factors which determine whether it is appropriate to speak to someone on public transportation are time of day, physical position, and mood. Coffee shops follow similar guidelines: it is often appropriate to chime in to existing conversations (as long as the conversation is not romantic or argumentative in nature). When a person might be forced by lack of seating to share your table, it is not appropriate to start a conversation if both of you have laptops, as you can be reasonably expected to be engaged with other people or projects. If the other person does not have a laptop or other electronic device with which they are engaged, it is generally appropriate to start a conversation. I have found coffee shops environments where it is sometimes received well to butt in to interesting conversations.
2juliawise
Public transit talkiness varies a lot by city. In Boston, it's minimal. I understand in other cities, conversation is much more normal. It's my experience as a young woman that the only people who try to talk to me on public transit are men. If you're a man, know that young women you try to talk to are probably going to assume you're sketchy because they've been approached by so many other sketchy men before. I veto talking to anyone who is reading. A possible exception might be if you've read what they're reading and ask their opinion of it, or similar.
2[anonymous]
An anecdote: I was once reading Prattchett in a trolley-bus, and the ticket seller, a young man, exclaimed 'Oh! You read Prattchett in the original!', and I was like, shit, he's after my book and said 'Yes,' in an uninviting voice, and he went on his way... ...and I still regret not taking the time to talk to him.:)
2bigjeff5
I have the same issue, and I personally think it's stupid (as in, in what way is talking to a stranger in public weird?). Thinking it's stupid doesn't make it much easier to overcome my own inhibitions about it, but it is somewhere to start. I think tact is the key. Interrupt as politely as you can, and gauge their reactions when you do. If it is clear they are not interested in your input, then turn around and leave them alone. No harm, no foul. If you have something to contribute, though, and the individuals weren't specifically seeking a private conversation, then they will probably be interested in what you have to contribute. This reminds me of a recent episode of the Ricky Gervais Show (basically Ricky and his friend make fun of another friend of theirs the whole time, funny but it gets old), where one of the hosts went swimming, noticed the guy in the lane next to him had an excellent front crawl (which the host has always struggled with) and asked the guy if he could give him some tips. Ricky's response was "Oh god, you didn't! Why would you do that?!" My thought the whole time was why in the world is that wrong? If the guy isn't interested he'll say no, and that will be it. If he is willing to help out a fellow swimmer then he will, and they may become friends over it. Where is the loss for anybody there? I have a half dozen friends now that I wouldn't have if I hadn't done something very similar a couple years ago, at a swimming pool too, no less. I simply started talking to the lifeguard before and I after I swam. Not quite as out of the blue as the Gervais Show co-host, but it was similar. Still, some people find it rude. I don't for the life of me understand why, except for when they are clearly having (or are attempting to have) a private conversation, or talking about a personal. Otherwise, where is the harm? And really, the risk for me personally is extremely low. So some stranger thinks I'm odd, so what? Most people are odd in some way, friendli
5[anonymous]
Strangers are a potential threat. So when a stranger comes up to you and initiates a conversation, there's some reason to be on your guard. This is combined with basic etiquette. If someone makes a small request, it is considered rude to refuse. The problem here is that creepy weird dangerous strangers can take advantage of this fact by making a small request, which then makes you feel obligated to comply. So now a complete stranger, who may be dangerous, has ensnared you. You're now doing something that he asked, instead of something that you want to do. And he can keep you dancing to his tune by making more small requests. So if you follow the rules of etiquette, a complete stranger, possibly dangerous, can monopolize you for a significant length of time. I see this happen all the time with telemarketers. The phone will ring. Somebody will answer it. Then they'll be at the phone for a long time, maybe half a minute maybe a couple of minutes. And it turns out that it was a telemarketer, and the reason the person stayed at the phone for a long time was that he just couldn't think of a polite way to end the conversation. You go ahead and try it. If you try to disengage, the telemarketer has a scripted response ready which cancels your attempt. For my part, I'm not trapped by telemarketers. But I simply hang up. I say "no thanks", and the telemarketer goes on to the corresponding point in his script, and I simply hang up on him while he's in the middle of a sentence. That's rude. But I do it, because there are no personal repercussions for me in doing it. Being rude to a stranger face to face is not as easy to do. If you're rude to someone, they might get angry, and one thing might lead to another. So it's easy to hang up on telemarketers (for me, but importantly, not for everyone) but not so easy to "hang up" on a stranger right in front of you. For this reason, being approached by a stranger represents a more serious potential problem, a social trap that may be
[-]David_Gerard60

The Bizarre World of the Bisexual - it's all 100% true! [1]

[1] Statement of 100% truth may not be 100% true.

Reply
[-]Bo10201060

I've got another one that's about to be relevant to me. What should you do in order to be an effective manager?

I am an engineer and will soon be "in charge" of another engineer. I have had a couple bosses with various good and bad qualities, and obviously I want to emulate the good qualities and avoid the bad ones.

Is there a good procedure to begin being an effective supervisor of technical people? There is a vast of array of books and websites on management, but I think there's a very low rationality quotient.

Reply
5MartinB
Recommended reading: Peopleware, and The Mythical Man Month. My managing experiences so far have been in the unpaid/voluntary field. But in general it seems to be * generally be fast and clear in responding to communication (read: email) * ability to stay calm in pressurized situations Outside Interface: * make it possible for your people to do actually their work * get them the tools and environment needed * take care of systemic problems (Usually limited by your higher ups and corporate rules.) Inside interface * Bubble each individuals work by taking care of deadlines, putting suitable people into projects, checking in at times if the work is getting done. * you can possibly get extra points if you adapt your managing to each person. * search for 'how to manage your boss' and look what would work best on the other end Recommended skills * people skills * ridiculous high level of being organized * specifically: have efficient and few meetings The talks from Merlin Mann: Who moved my brain? and possible the others might be of use. If you can get a mentor with a similar background from yours.
[-]nawitus60

I stutter, and I've done it for as long as I can remember. Anyone know how to beat it? I feel this has pretty significant (negative) effects on my life, because I'm often afraid of speaking up in a group, as stuttering is extremely embarrassing.

Reply
4TheOtherDave
My only experience with stuttering was while I was recovering from post-stroke aphasia. My speech therapist mostly suggested that every time I started to stutter I should stop trying to talk altogether, take a deliberate pause, and then concentrate on articulating... each... word... individually instead of letting my brain rush on ahead to the stuff I was about to say. Or, if that wasn't enough, articulating each syllable. That worked pretty well, though it replaced the stuttering with a kind of slow monotone speech that was also kind of embarrassing. Fortunately for me, the brain damage was temporary, so after a few months of this I started being able to speak more smoothly again. (Toastmasters helped a lot with that part, as did improv theatre classes.) I have no idea if the same sorts of techniques would work for a less acute form of stuttering, though it seems like they ought to. Edit Oh, and the other thing that helped was getting enough sleep.
3Desrtopa
Most people with a stuttering problem are able to speak normally when speaking in unison with others. There are anti-stuttering devices based on this principle, which play the speaker's own words back into their ear as they say them, which eliminates or dramatically reduces stuttering symptoms in a majority of those afflicted, while worn. Unfortunately, their price tends to run in the range of thousands of dollars, and they have no carryover effects when removed.
[-]JGWeissman60

I would not be happy about my normal eating habits resulting in food poisoning 1 time in 50. I eat 3 meals per day, and would expect to get food poisoning nearly twice per month. Fortunately, my actual eating habits have a far better track record than that.

Reply
[-]wisnij60

I live in the US. If I want to mail someone an item bigger than can be fit in a simple envelope, what is the procedure for determining the proper packaging, postage, etc? Will I have to actually bring the package to the post office to have them determine that? What is the protocol for doing so?

Reply
8Jonathan_Graehl
There's a flat rate USPS box deal. You're limited to just a few fixed boxed sizes. It's cheaper than Fedex or UPS.
1lincolnquirk
My protocol is: Find an appropriate sized cardboard box. (They have these at the post office, but I often reuse old Amazon boxes and the like.) Stuff it with the object you wish to ship and any necessary padding materials so that it doesn't slide around. If your box has anything potentially confusing on it -- inapplicable warning labels, old shipping addresses, etc., -- cover them up or black them out with a marker. (I had to do this when I reused a box that had warnings about liquids). Find a way to put the destination and return addresses on the box. You can just write on the box with a marker, or you can write on a separate sheet of paper. Address it like you would an envelope (destination in the center, return address in the top left corner). Tape it up good with packing tape (available at CVS). Tape all the seams. If you wrote the address on a separate sheet of paper, make sure all the edges of the paper are taped to the box. Take it to your US Post Office, bring the sealed box to the counter and ask for it shipped "parcel post" (unless your box only contains books and CDs, in which case you can ask for "media mail" and it will be slightly cheaper). They will weigh it, print a stamp, stick it onto the box, charge you money, and you're done. More notes: If the object fits inside a Priority Mail flat-rate envelope (even if it is bulging), that might be the best way to ship it, especially because of the convenience (no special materials or tape required). For example, you can reasonably fit about 3 DVDs into the flat-rate envelope. The Post Office won't ship liquids. For that you have to go to UPS or FedEx, and even then, some states might have laws against shipping liquids, so you could be out of luck.
[-]simplyeric60

There are many who believe that the key to better hair is NOT using as much shampoo. Use as little as possible in order to not have greasy hair. This takes time to master. Some people need a full scrub every day. Some people need almost nothing. The homeostatis of your scalp is the key: using less shampoo should, over time, make your scalp produce less oil.
I'm down to a point where I go a day or two rinsing only, sometimes just a little bit of extra soap from when I washed my neck. When I wash my hair, I use very little shampoo...the bare minimum. T... (read more)

Reply
[-]BenLowell60

Personal hygiene. The internet has eluded me on what is the best method for washing your body. I've always put soap on a washcloth and used that to scrub myself. I used to get really dry skin and I don't know if this was from my method. It seems like there are lots of different techniques---sponges, washcloths, scrubbers, body wash, lotions. What do they do?

How do you keep hair looking nice? Sometimes I use a comb, but it still goes all over the place. I usually keep my hair short to avoid dealing with this.

Reply
5noveldevice
I am female. I put soap on a washcloth and rub it on my body, then rinse well. Once out of the shower or bath, I use body lotion. I am frequently told that I smell good and/or delicious, so I'm pretty sure I am doing it right. :) If you have dry skin, use lotion or look for a soap that is milder. I have a lot of allergies so I use Ivory, which doesn't have a lot of extra perfume and no colourants or other additives. You can also use small-batch artisanal soaps, which are risky if you have allergies but may be less drying because a lot of them are superfatted and/or made with goat's milk and that sort of thing. I don't like bath poufs because they feel weird and are gross over time. I own a loofah gourd, which I use when I feel particularly needful of exfoliation, but mostly it's the washcloth for me. Basically it's going to be what kind of texture you like to feel, as far as what you use for scrubbing (a lot of people use their hands, but I don't feel clean enough if I do that), and product wise, use what makes your skin feel good. For hair, go get a good haircut from a good stylist. If you are paying less than $30 in most markets you are getting a dreadful haircut. I routinely expect to pay $70 for a haircut because I have thick curly hair. If you like what the stylist does, ask them to recommend products and show you how to use them. If you do not, wait till it grows a bit, try another stylist. Ask your friends and coworkers where they get their hair cut. If you have a male friend who always looks particularly well-groomed, ask him who does his hair. This is how most people find stylists.
7HughRistik
Products and tools are very important for hair.
2Sniffnoy
So... what exactly does it do?
3Alicorn
It makes you pettably soft. (Modulo hair type.)
2anonymous259
?! That sounds highly female-specific (but even so, I still find it shocking). My idea of haircut price range is $10-20.
2[anonymous]
You can't get a $30 haircut if you're a woman. It's $40-$60, minimum. Let's not even get started on styling. I used to get my hair cut at barbershops because of the price; lately I don't live near a barber who'll make an exception for me, unfortunately. (No, I don't have a man's haircut. Some barbers will just cut a woman's hair if you ask nicely.) Honestly, I would be surprised if being more "serious" about hair (blow-drying, styling product, straightening) made much of a difference in my appearance and people's impression of me. Am I underestimating the importance of hair?
3Elizabeth
It depends on where you live and what sort of cut you want. My haircuts are ridiculously cheap, because I have long, straight hair and I just want a straight line across the bottom, so they generally charge me the child's price ($10). Fair warning, though, I may get charged less out of sheer novelty, because my hair comes to my knees, or because I always wash my hair at home before going, rather than having them wash it for me there, because my hair is simply too long to be washed in a sink. I have lots of hair advice, but it is largely limited to very long hair, and thus minimally useful, and not worth using space on. If anyone wants advice on having or growing long hair, I'll be happy to respond.
2handoflixue
I've been interested in growing long hair, and would love to hear advice :)
[-]Elizabeth210

Principles for growing long hair:

  • It takes a long time. I've been growing mine for fourteen years, and it was at least seven before it was long enough to be at all remarkable. Growth rates vary, and mine isn't all that fast (4-5 inches a year), but it may be a long time. Don't get fed up and chop it all off.
  • Stop doing damaging things. No more blow-drying or coloring or straightening or curling. Minimize the amount of product you put in. Never tease your hair.
  • Get trims. A half inch trim every three months or so will take off the split ends and make your hair healthier.
  • Conditioner is your friend. Use it liberally. As your hair gets longer, less of it will have any exposure to scalp oils. Be sure to condition all of your hair, not just the ends. I always brush my hair with the conditioner in it before I rinse. This makes sure the conditioner is evenly distributed and there are no tangles.
  • Braid your hair before sleep to prevent tangles, and brush gently. Work knots out patiently, don't just tear through them.
  • Don't wash your hair every day. Every other day is plenty for hygiene purposes, and more often is hard on your hair.
  • Once your hair is too long to brush in a si
... (read more)
Reply
2Alicorn
Do you have to ask for the child's price or do they just give it to you? My hair doesn't come as far as my knees, but I do have to stand up to get it cut and usually don't want it washed there. (I even brush it myself.)
2Elizabeth
They just gave it to me after I'd been there once or twice, but I suspect that if you pointed out that you just want a straight line and asked nicely, they might give it to you. If that is what you want, and have a friend or relative you trust to cut a straight line, it is also one of the few hairstyles that can be trusted to a nonprofessional. Just make sure you get a pair of good sewing scissors first.
1imonroe
I concur. In my opinion, men are best served by a proper barber, not by a "hair stylist" at a strip mall Fantastic Sam's. A good barber knows not only what kind of haircuts look fashionable for men, but the also how to cut the hair so it's easy to maintain. You know you've found a decent barber when you get a hot lather and straight-razor shave for your neckline at the end of the cut. Further, a good barber won't charge more than $20 for a haircut. $15 is average. I pay $18, but I really like the place. This from a fellow who averaged one haircut a year for 15 years, and now keeps it cut rather short.
7HughRistik
Barbers can help you look like a fashionable normal guy, but what's most likely to happen with a barber is that you come out looking like an average normal guy. Here are a bunch of haircuts that your barber probably can't help you with. All these guys are very popular, and most of them are sex symbols. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 To everyone who's day this comment makes: you're welcome.
[-]Vladimir_M120

HughRistik:

Here are a bunch of haircuts that your barber probably can't help you with. All these guys are very popular, and most of them are sex symbols.

I don't think these photos make such a good case.

First and foremost, some of them are examples of extreme peacocking, or in case of that guy with dreadlocks, of extreme "I'm shabby but still high-status" countersignaling. This can indeed be spectacularly successful if done with utmost competence and in a suitable context, but it's apt to backfire with an even more spectacular failure if any of these conditions are less than perfect.

I'd say there's a more important general lesson here: just because high-status, sex-symbol men do something, it doesn't mean that it's wise for the average Joe to try imitating it. You must learn to walk before trying to run, which means that if you're not able to pull off a rock-solid and competent "conservative normal guy" image, you probably won't be able to pull off any of those more advanced peacocking/countersignaling strategies. (There are examples of men who can naturally do the latter but not the former, but it's very rare.)

This is why modern pop-culture is highly conf... (read more)

Reply
6HughRistik
Then I think I failed to be clear about what case I was making with them. The point is that there are many ways for men to do hair that barbers don't support, and that barbers are not at the cutting edge of what is fashionable. I showed the photos to display some of the "design space" for men's hair that is kept off limits to them. I see the costs and benefits about differently. Peacocking can be super-powerful, and getting it wrong while learning isn't actually terribly costly, especially for those who are already low in social status and attractiveness. Of course, this depends on culture: some cultures punish male appearance nonconformism (particularly around gender) more harshly than others. True, but it's useful to understand the cultural schemas around masculinity. Once he does, then he can tap into them in more subtle ways. Yes. I wouldn't advise jumping straight to one of these hairstyles until you can put together the right sort of outfit to support it. Putting together a strong normal guy image can quickly start overlapping with peacocking. If you can pick out good pieces that fit you, then you are practically peacocking already. Normal guy looks just don't suit some guys very well, and developing a normal guy look isn't necessarily the best use of effort. In my case, even though I'm probably above average in looks, I just don't look very remarkable in jeans and a T-shirt, with <1 inch hair. Other guys with different builds would look much better in those clothes and hair. Eventually I realized that I wasn't going to beat guys at doing the normal guy look. So I started doing something more niche, and the attention I got skyrocketed. I'm actually much better positioned to try a normal guy look now. In some ways, doing a normal guy look well is actually hard, because the options are so limited. There is a benefit to doing a crazy look, then incorporating elements of it backwards to spice up your normal look. That's true. And I probably traumatized some
4Vladimir_M
Also, regarding this: I think you're being much too idealistic about subcultures. Any subcultural or countercultural milieu will feature the same human universals that exist everywhere else, and will therefore impose its own status markers and standards of conformity no less strict and demanding than the mainstream society. (Of course, the mainstream can usually threaten more severe punishments for disobedience, but the loss of status among people whose opinion one cares about is a terrifying enough threat for anyone.) What you see as escaping the straight-jacket is at best just a change of masters, not an escape into freedom. (With the exception of a small minority who find that their natural inclinations and abilities lend themselves to achieving high status in some particular milieu especially well, but even this works both ways.) Trouble is, the girls in various groups like those respond positively to the same essential traits in men as anywhere else. Whether you have a mainstream image or any particular subcultural image, it's basically orthogonal to how attractive you are to women. Now clearly, a given way of dress and behavior will be acceptable in one place and unacceptable in another, but chances are that if you adjust your dress and manners to a different milieu, the women there will find you about as attractive as those in the previous place found you with your previous image. That has at least been my experience, both personal and observational, and I've certainly changed my image and the circles I've hung out in a great deal through the years.
1Vladimir_M
I've thought about our disagreement, and I think there are several important points. First, at the risk of sounding vain, it is possible that I'm biased because I'm handsome enough that I didn't have problems attracting attention even in the most misguided years of my youth. (My problem was that I'd usually be oblivious to indications of interest, or I'd sabotage myself by responding to them in naive and clumsy ways, not that I was invisible to girls.) It is possible that for less handsome men, being invisible in the crowd is a big enough obstacle that trying to break it by peacocking is a better option than I'd think. Then, it also depends on what exactly your goal is. If you're striving to become a full-blown player -- which I never did, both because I was already a bit too old to start working on it when I realized that it's actually a feasible goal, and also because it doesn't suit me temperamentally -- then I suppose more extreme options like heavy peacocking become the order of the day. For less adventurous goals, however, I still think that working on a strong and solid "normal" image is overall a better option for most men. I've already pointed out that if your face or head shape is not very handsome, you can significantly improve your looks with a suitably shaped haircut. But if you already look handsome with a buzz cut, there are rapidly diminishing returns to what you can do with your hair, if we consider it in terms of handsomeness rather than peacocking. (I hope it's clear what I mean by that distinction.) Regarding various subcultural styles, I'll reply in a separate comment. Otherwise, I agree that our age is probably too restrictive in what passes for mainstream respectable men's fashion, and has in fact been ever since the early-to-mid 19th century. I find the 18th century aristocratic men's fashion very appealing, and the 17th century Cavalier style even more.
1wedrifid
So a barber can't help me. Say I want to end up with hairstyle 9 (primarily because I like his music :P), what process would I go through to end up with that hairstyle from a start of 'ordinary, kinda spiky'? Also, what sort of facial features, body type and clothing style would be required to pull it off?
2HughRistik
If you have curly hair, a this haircut is probably a bad idea. The ends will look too wispy. It's probably going to take you some product to maintain. Also, decide on the color. Looking up some other photos, in some he looks all blond, and in others he looks a highlighted dirty blond. You could of course do this cut without coloring your hair. This cut should work for any facial features except perhaps a round face. That's because it goes over the ears, which creates a rounder look, which could be too much roundness if your head is already round. As for clothes, something edgy would go well with it. Maybe add a couple accessories like a necklace or a wristband. Look at the sorts of stuff Bon Jovi wears with it. Does that answer your questions?
3Vladimir_M
Regarding haircuts for men: the best way in my experience is to become a regular at a cheap place that's been in business for a long time. You'll likely get much better service than a random customer. Also, for men with a handsome face and a nicely shaped head, spending resources on an elaborate haircut is a complete waste -- a simple very short cut or even a buzz-cut will look as good as anything else. The only important thing is that it's not strikingly uneven and flawed. Otherwise, a well selected and executed haircut can make you look more handsome, but finding the cost-benefit optimum here is very difficult and individual-specific. Very expensive, elaborate, and high-maintenance cuts are likely a waste in any case. Generally, a big problem with all short hairstyles is that they become visibly uglier due to hair growth after only a week or two, which makes elaborate cuts even less cost-effective. Finally, if you're losing hair visibly, a shaved head is definitely the way to go. Just make sure you don't look too scrawny.
2HughRistik
If you are doing a normal guy look, sure. But if you want to do something crazier or more subcultural, then ditch the barber. One of the simplest ways a guy can increase the amount of sexual attention he gets is to get a cool haircut (i.e. not a normal guy barber haircut). There are costs, but in some cultures there are big benefits. Hair is an important signaling device. The signal can be costly... and that's part of the point. It's really hard to go wrong having awesome hair. Maintenance is a pain, but if you know what you're doing, it's not so bad.
5Vladimir_M
HughRistik: Actually, I disagree, unless you take this in a tautological sense. There are several important points here. First, a "crazier and more subcultural" look is essentially a form of peacocking. Like all peacocking, it can be extremely effective, but it's difficult to pull off competently and tends to backfire badly if done in a less than stellar way. So I definitely wouldn't recommend it to a typical guy, who almost certainly has much more advisable options than attempting peacocking. Even attempting a more conventional elaborate hairstyle can backfire. You know when a man tries dressing sharply but instead of looking sharp ends up projecting that bad "I'm trying too hard" look? (I don't have in mind being badly dressed by any clear standard, but rather giving off that vague impression that it's not his natural image, and it just doesn't fit him in some hard-to-describe way.) My impression is that it's even easier to fail in a similar way by attempting a sophisticated haircut. That said, as I already pointed out, if you don't have a nicely shaped skull and a handsome face, a competently chosen and executed haircut can significantly improve your looks, while a really bad hairstyle can make any man look like a dork. Otherwise, however, I have the impression that men's efforts put in hairstyle rapidly hit diminishing returns, except perhaps in a peacocking context. Certainly it seems to me that countless other aspects of looks and behavior are far more important outside of these basic limits. What apparent evidence I've seen to the contrary can all be explained by confounding factors, i.e. it's about men who have self-improved in other more important ways along with changing their hairstyle. (Of course, like any other change, it can be effective via "inner game," i.e. if it makes you genuinely feel better about yourself, it will likely change your outside behavior for the better, regardless of any immediate effect on your looks.)
[-]HughRistik110

First, a "crazier and more subcultural" look is essentially a form of peacocking. Like all peacocking, it can be extremely effective, but it's difficult to pull off competently and tends to backfire badly if done in a less than stellar way.

I am indeed talking about peacocking. I agree with you about the risks of peacocking, and perhaps I didn't acknowledge them clearly enough.

So I definitely wouldn't recommend it to a typical guy, who almost certainly has much more advisable options than attempting peacocking.

Actually, I think peacocking of some sort is one of the options I would most advise to a typical guy attempting to improve social and romantic success. It can quickly help him get more attention and new sorts of reactions (e.g. compliments that increase his confidence).

Even attempting a more conventional elaborate hairstyle can backfire. You know when a man tries dressing sharply but instead of looking sharp ends up projecting that bad "I'm trying too hard" look? (I don't have in mind being badly dressed by any clear standard, but rather giving off that vague impression that it's not his natural image, and it just doesn't fit him in some hard-to-d

... (read more)
Reply
5Zack_M_Davis
(Not to disagree with your general advice, but I am compelled to mention in passing that) not everyone is playing the same game. I keep my hair long in order to avoid the normal guy look; it's a personal style and self-expression thing, not the kind of sexual ploy that can backfire.
3Blueberry
If you get really dry skin, try using a body wash that's formulated for sensitive skin. Dove makes a good one. Body wash in general is less harsh on your skin than soap. I personally never use washcloths: I just take the soap or body wash in my hand, build up a lather, then rub it on my body.
2NancyLebovitz
Which shampoo you use can make a huge difference. I find that Crabtree and Evelyn's LaSource Original Formula leaves my hair soft and fluffy (I like getting volume), while most other shampoos tend to flatten it out. I have no idea what efficient methods of finding a great shampoo for oneself would be-- I lucked out because Hilton hotels offer LaSource Original Formula in their rooms-- their non-original LaSource isn't bad for me, but it isn't nearly as good. Oh, and if you're trying to please other people, your own instincts may not be adequate. There was a while when I was using Herbal Essence, and I couldn't tell the difference, but it was like living in a shampoo commercial. I'd get compliments on my hair when I used it, but not at other times.
2juliawise
I like The Beauty Brains, a blog by some anonymous authors who say they're scientists in the cosmetic industry (and as far as I can tell, this is true). It's a bit hard to navigate, but it does have some good information on what the ingredients in products actually do, so you can tell what ingredients to look for in a product and which are just for marketing.
[-]Sniffnoy60

Err towards generous tipping.

Actually, this is something I meant to ask about. Not how much to tip, which has well been covered elsewhere, but how one goes about the actual action of giving someone a tip. (I am generalizing beyond bars here).

Reply
3[anonymous]
The advice given here is good, but is US-specific. For those with this predicament in the UK, if you're in a bar then the correct procedure is to say "And one for yourself" - this allows the bartender to take between a nominal tip and the cost of the drink. Tipping is less common in British bars than USian ones, but not unknown. Restaurant tipping follows the same rules as the US. A complete guide to English pub etiquette can be found at http://real-ale.dreamwidth.org/1252.html
3wiresnips
You tip when you pay, whether you're running a bill or buying drinks one by one. If you're paying by card, usually the little card-swipey-machine(?) will ask if you want to tip, and how much. Nice and easy. If you're paying cash, you can drop some into a visible tip jar, or leave a little pile on the bar/table. It's convenient to overpay and then use some or all of your change for this. You don't need to stick around to watch this be picked up. edit: absolutely agree with JoshuaZ- you should wait for your change. After accepting it you don't need to be present when the bartender gets the tip. Sometimes, more in semi-classy restaurants, a waiter/ess will ask if you want change- if you say no, the difference is tip.
3JoshuaZ
It depends on the environment. For some things one just asks explicitly for less change. This works well with taxis. (Say there's an 7$ taxi ride, give a $10 and ask for $1 back). Another option in many contexts is to pay with the tip included and have it included in a way that shows it is obviously a tip based on the denominations in question (for example, if our taxi cost $9 and you hand them $11.25 it is obvious that you intended to tip $2.25) Things to avoid: Do not give a large bill and say "keep the change" even if this is makes a generous tip or makes precisely the tip you want to give. The standard connotations of this are all negative (including but not limited to that you are rich, can't be bothered to think about change, can't be bothered to think about what is the right size tip, and don't really care much about the person you are tipping). If you only have a single bill it is better to tip less and get some small amount of change back than to say "keep the change." Another related thing to avoid is that when one is asking back for a specific amount of change, some people get annoyed if you ask for bills in specific denominations or specific coins. This seems to vary more by area and specific individual but it seems better to just avoid as an issue.
[-]Blueberry120

Do not give a large bill and say "keep the change" even if this is makes a generous tip or makes precisely the tip you want to give. The standard connotations of this are all negative (including but not limited to that you are rich, can't be bothered to think about change, can't be bothered to think about what is the right size tip, and don't really care much about the person you are tipping). If you only have a single bill it is better to tip less and get some small amount of change back than to say "keep the change."

Wow, this is very much counter to everything I've heard and thought! When I think of someone saying "keep the change," I think of someone who is rich and generous and carefree. It doesn't have any of the negative connotations you suggest. And from the point of view of someone who's worked in service and lived on tips, I would definitely prefer a larger tip accompanied by the words "keep the change" than a smaller tip.

Reply
5[anonymous]
Yes. I've worked as a waitress and I agree with you. I had no problem with hearing "keep the change" so long as the bill offered was large enough. Another (possibly nicer?) way of phrasing it is "I don't need any change."
2NancyLebovitz
I'd have thought that the big advantage for the server of "keep the change" is that it's one less transaction, so the server spends less time to get a tip.
9simplyeric
I spend more time than I should at bars (I like my sports, and don't own a TV..), and I've developed a few rules of thumb: 1. I never say "keep the change"...but I often say "I'm all set, thanks" if I hand them a $20 for $18 of drinks, (or $17..) for example. "I'm all set" has the same effective meaning as "keep the change", but without the connotations. 2. Overtip...in moderation. Standard American fare: $1 per drink. If you order 3 drinks, tip 3 dollars. If you order 8 drinks at once, it depends. If you ordered 8 bottles of Bud, you could tip $5-$6...if you ordered 8 mixed drinks, $8-$10. If you order 1 drink at a time, but stay for a while and order a handful of drinks, consider occasionally tossing in an extra dollar now and then. (an $18 martini sometimes, but not always, merits $2 for one drink...it depends. If the bartender is aloof and self important, I only tip $1) 3. Women often tip less than men. NOTE: this varies WIDELY, in both how it's done and how people react to it. A bunch of single girls at a bar will often order 3-4 drinks, and leave a dollar. In some places that's "the cost of doing business", in others it will get you worse service over time (I'll point out that there's a countervailing trend where some women type MORE than men, in part because some of their peers tip less...it's confusing) 4. Ordering: get up to the bar, make your presence know as subtly as possible 4.a. hand on the bar with two fingers slightly extended, like a half-hearted peace sign, or with money/card in the hand but not flagrantly displayed 4.b. eye contact. Watch the bartender...as he/she turns and scans, give a nod, raise the eyebrows, like in a quiet cordial non-vocal greeting)... but then BE PATIENT. Once you've registered your presence, they will mentally que you up and come to you in your turn. Be ready to order, or have minimal questions. (note: obviously this will fail sometimes..start subtle, and increase efforts bit by bit...waving or "excuse me" is a la
3MartinB
And all of this is culture coded and may vary for your specific location or subtype of bar. A general safe way to go is to observe what other people do. Sidenote: since i only started drinking late in life and did not yet develop a favorite drink I often order a) local b) the same as my peer(s) c) by name only. Many people seem to act as if there is an objectively best drink to order. But I would guess that is wrong. Feel free to try.
2simplyeric
Absolutely. Although I'll mention that I've had good luck with this general approach in various parts (both geographically and demographically) of the United States, Western Europe, and at least one part of Eastern Europe. But, I'd like to reinforce: This is absolutely the best advice...but be careful to observe the right people. Observe the people who seem to get drinks "effortlessly" (rather than the people who are more aggressive...they create a visual nuisance that makes them more noticeable, thus more "observable" by someone who is new to a situation). Again, totally true. However, I'd say that there can be times where there is an objectively "wrong" drink to order. Nothing is absolute, of course. But, don't order martinis in a crowded dive bar, for example. Don't order a Jaeger Bomb at an elegant cocktail lounge. I mean, by all means, DO order those. Just keep in mind that some places might actually refuse, or it might simply be seen as socially awkward.
7Vladimir_M
JoshuaZ: What is the exact source of this information? In a few years of living in (Anglophone) Canada, I've never heard of this. In fact, once you get the bill and put the money on the table, the waiter will often ask if you need any change. (Especially if the bill comes in that small folder and you close it over the money so he can't see how much you left when taking it.)
5JoshuaZ
shrug it is something I remember being told explicitly when I was younger. It is possible that whoever told me was simply wrong.
[-]afeller60

I've always assumed that this is something inborn instead of learned -- hopefully, that assumption (which come to think of it I've never really questioned) is wrong -- but I have a very hard time orienting myself. When I'm walking up the stairwell in my apartment, I have no idea whether I am walking towards the road, away from the road, or perpendicular to it. I can sit down with a pencil and paper and draw it and figure it out by looking at it from a 'birds eye' perspective. But when I'm standing in a room with opaque walls and trying to imagine what room is on the other side, I just get really confused.

Reply
[-]apophenia170

I think that this sounds like too much work to learn manually, so I am embracing transhumanism and making a compass belt.

Reply
5SRStarin
This weekend I finally finished my compass anklet. It's pretty impressive how quickly the human brain can include a new sense. I'm looking forward to taking it geocaching!
2sfb
What do you do with the knowledge of which way North is? Are the motors continuously vibrating or pulsed? When you take it off do you feel the absence (absense?) like an amputation?
6SRStarin
When I wear the device, there are eight motors positioned around my ankle. The one pointing most closely to north vibrates. As I move, there is sometimes some lag before a motor changes state, but when I'm still, there is always one motor buzzing, or else two motors kind of taking turns. (Actually, one of the motors doesn't work, because I burned the circuit board at its contact >< But that still tells me something.) I'm not totally used to it yet--the buzzing is a little uncomfortable when it goes on for too long in one spot (like sitting in a car driving straight for several minutes). I think it might be an improvement if the motors were pulsed instead of continuous. But, if I am walking around, changing directions, it feels just fine. But I haven't been using it enough for me to feel a strong absence or blindness when I take it off. How do I use the knowledge? One of my hobbies is geocaching. In geocaching, I usually need to look at a GPS receiver and a compass alternately, while also not tripping over roots and while looking around for my goal. I haven't gotten to try it yet, but with the ankle device (it's called North Paw), I'm hoping to reduce my visual burden by transferring some responsibility to my tactile modality.
1Thomas
I could use this sense. I imagine it is similar to up and down feeling. I could use many more such. Where is my car for example. Which direction and how far. A combined device for several informations of this kind should equip and serve me well.
[-]Osmium_Penguin160

I do not know if this is a practical, general or transferable solution, but it worked for me: throughout my childhood I couldn't orient myself, and I finally taught myself at the age of 24.

Start from a place where you can see quite some distance in all (or most) directions. Outside is best. If you can see, but are not within, a downtown core, you're in a good spot. Ditto mountains, or other tall landmarks.

Now ignore those landmarks. They're untrustworthy. If you can see them, they're close enough that sometimes they'll be north and sometimes west and sometimes right on top of you. They can be a good marker for your position, but not for your orientation. You need an orientation marker.

So instead, look in the other direction, the most featureless cardinal direction you can find. Then imagine a huge, fictional geographic element just over the horizon, and tell yourself it's in that direction: living in Edmonton at the time, I used the mantra, "The desert is west."

This is a fictional desert. (Or sea, or taiga, or forest.) It is always west. (Or east, or southeast, or north.) For this process to work, you can't actually pick a real landscape, or it becomes possi... (read more)

Reply
5bogdanb
From what you say I think my orientation skills are quite a bit better compared to yours, though I’m not one of those people who always know where they are and which way is everything else. As far as I can tell, based on just introspection and comparing my “success rate” for various orientation tasks, there are quite a few different more-or-less specialized mechanism in the mind that handle this, and when they are employed differs with the kind of task. As far as I can tell, my brain at least deals very differently with, for example, navigating a well-known territory and navigating in places I don’t know personally (even though I may have seen a map). When I go through places I know well—the areas I frequent around places I lived a few days in—I navigate and pick routes almost instantly; I can walk or drive quite complex routes, even routes I never followed before (but through places I know), without ever thinking or paying attention (I mean, I pay attention to the road, not to the route). But this seems to be based on a type of memory that associates the directions relative to where I am with destinations. For example, it often happens that I don’t remember, say, what places follow after the next turn, but I know that I have to go that way to reach some destination; once I turn I’ll remember the “next step”. But it’s not a memory of “routes”, because I can and do on occasion do the same thing with routes that are not common, as long as they pass through places I know. (E.g., I might do a detour that never happened before unconsciously.) Also, it’s not quite spatial memory, because for places like this I don’t have any awareness of their relative location on a map. (That is, I can follow an instinctive route between two distant points, even a route I never followed exactly before, but I can’t tell afterwards if the destination was north or south of the starting point.) However, in places I’m not yet familiar with things seem to be very different. Generally I can
3MartinB
Not sure if that is actually needed. As long as you find your way, you do not need to know which direction something is in from every position.
2Elizabeth
It's both inborn and learned. (Like a musical ear: you get what you get, but you can make it better if you work at it). A bird's eye view is the way to do it, there was an interesting bit on Radiolab recently about languages that rely on dead reckoning, and people keep track of it with a bird's eye map in their heads. If you can figure it out with pencil and paper, do that often. Eventually you will be able to do it without the pencil and paper. If you aren't generally good at mental representations of spatial or visual things, it will take longer.
[-]badger60

I'm not aware of a gap in my procedural knowledge, but many skills are still fuzzy and basic. The internet serves extreme beginners and specialized experts well, but I've found reference books to be the best resource for the middle ground. Some that have helped me domestically:

  • New Best Recipe from Cook's Illustrated: Basic cookbook that explain the testing and intuition behind a recipe.
  • America's Test Kitchen cookbooks: Also from Cook's Illustrated, these books tend to explain why a recipe is what it is and give tips on technique or what cuts of meat wor
... (read more)
Reply
[-]BillyOblivion170

I've spent some time in bars, so I think I can handle this one.

1) Observe the bar, some have an area or two "designated" for walkup, others expect you to shoulder your way inbetween people. There is usually an area bounded by two big silver or brass handles. This is so the bartender can get out in a hurry to help the bouncer, and in many bars it's where the waitresses go to get their orders filled. Do Not Go There, you are getting in the way of working folk, and are making other working folk wait longer for THEIR drinks.

2) If it's busy know what you want before you go up there. Save your experimentation and questioning for a slow period. When it doubt "Whiskey, Neat", or "Vodka, neat". If you're having a day "Whiskey, double".

3) If you'd like to run a tab proffer your credit card and ask. Some places don't do it, some don't take credit. Also have some cash Just In Case.

4) If you have a preference (for example I don't drink canadian whiskey straight, and I won't drink a whiskey and coke if they use pepsi. So I ask "do you have pepsi or coke" [1]) ask BEFORE ordering. If you really don't care you will (generally) be asked for a pre... (read more)

Reply
4SilasBarta
It's subtleties like this that make me wish for the "how it works" signs I suggested. OTOH, there could be some invisible filtering going on: perhaps bars wouldn't even want the kind of customer that doesn't have a "sponsor" that can accustom them to the many rules there. On the third hand, establishments do resort to "how it works" signs when either a) everyone is more ignorant than they would like (e.g. sub shop Quizno's posting of how to order a sandwich), or b) the downside of not knowing how it works is severe (e.g. emergency rooms, safety warnings). I just think cases like a) and b) are more common than the prevalence of "how it works" signs would indicate.
5NancyLebovitz
I agree-- I think people generally have a hard time imagining that what's easy for them is hard for other people. "Some people have a way with words, and other people, um.... thingy." was a revelation for me-- it had literally never occurred to me what it might be like to not have words come easily.
[-][anonymous]120

I just want to second your cookbook recommendations--Cook's Illustrated especially. Almost all their products are extremely high-quality, and they have a very Less Wrong-friendly stance on cooking, which is to test everything. Before they publish a cookie recipe they'll make like twenty different versions, and have their taste-testers do blind tastings, and they'll publish the one that tastes best.

Alton Brown's "Good Eats" TV show is also probably Less Wrong-friendly because it puts a heavy emphasis on the chemistry and science of cooking.

Alice Waters' "The Art of Simple Food" is another good cookbook for beginners, because it walks you through everything: shopping for ingredients, choosing your pots and pans, the different techniques (i.e. what it means to "mince" an onion versus "dicing" it), prepping for cooking, etc.

Reply
[-][anonymous]60

How do you fold a fitted sheet? The time I tried to follow Martha Stewart's instructions I took a wrong turn somewhere, and just ended up with a wadded-up ball of sheet as per usual. And I didn't care enough to unfold and try again. Do you know a different/easier technique?

Reply
6Alicorn
Name the corners A, B, C, and D, clockwise around the sheet with A as the upper left and A-B forming a long side of the sheet. Tuck corner A into corner B, so the one is nested inside the other. Then, avoiding twisting the sheet, tuck corner D into corner C similarly. Then, tuck corner AB into corner CD. You should now have a rectangle that will lie fairly flat. Fold it up like you would fold a flat thing.
3Benquo
This one is probably going to be tough to communicate without diagrams. I don't know if my technique is optimal, but it's better than nothing: At each corner of a fitted sheet, there will generally be a seam that goes a few inches in toward the center of the sheet and then stops. My technique involves holding/pinching the sheet by the inner ends of these seams, which allows you to fold along the relatively straight lines between these seam-corners, instead of using the curved elastic edges as your reference line. Starting at one of the two narrower ends of the fitted sheet, grab the two seam-corners on your side of the sheet. Grab them from the top, not the bottom, so you can see your hands. Next, for each hand, while holding onto one corner, grab the adjacent free corner and pinch them together. This is your first fold. Then, holding two adjacent corners in each hand, spread your arms out wide, flap the sheet until it mostly straightens out, and quickly fold the sheet a second time by bringing your hands forward and together. This is your second fold. Use one hand to hold the four seam-corners together, and the other to grab the sheet in the place you folded it. After this the sheet should have a small enough area to fold like any other soft, mostly flat object, and you don't need to worry about where the natural corners are.
1michaelkeenan
Here is a YouTube video (496,000 views, time 2:26) demonstrating how to fold a fitted sheet.
[-]Alicorn60

This has been upvoted a lot. Does anyone think I should move it to Main?

Edit: Apparently so. Moved.

Reply
[-]ialdabaoth50

How do you convince yourself to have self-confidence in a given situation, even in the face of direct empirical evidence that such confidence would be misplaced in that situation?

This seems to be a thing that many successful people are very good at - shrugging and acting like they're good at whatever task is at hand, even when they're clearly not - and then getting people to "buy in" to them because of that confidence rather than because of any evidence of actual skilled performance.

How do you kickstart that process?

(EDIT: was this a bad question to ask?)

Reply
4Risto_Saarelma
Think how you would perform the role of a self-confident character when acting in a play?
2ialdabaoth
I guess... I'm not sure how well I can visualize the answer to that. I can visualize self-confident characters in plays, I just can't visualize being one; as soon as I imagine me as the actor, imagining self-confidence immediately breaks suspension of disbelief. (Like imagining Danny DeVito as a leading man in a straightforward, non-subversive romcom).
2Risto_Saarelma
Screw suspension of disbelief. You're really into theater now, you want to figure out all about how acting works, and so you want to learn out how to do all sorts of characters to develop a good range, no matter if you're actually good for casting into one or not. So now you're trying to figure how to do the confident self-affirmed character, starting from the nuts and bolts. Figure out how they use their voice, how they move themselves, what body language and stereotypical interactions they use in various stock situations and so on. You're not being in a social situation yourself here, you're figuring out the mechanics for making a theater scene come together, with yourself as one part of it. Also maybe look into some actual books on improv theater that have been recommended here occasionally?
3ialdabaoth
Hmm. My emotional reactions as I attempt to push myself towards doing this seem to indicate that I don't actually want to learn these things - or at the very least, that I anticipate that trying to learn these things will be unsuccessful and embarrassing.
1Estarlio
Doing a wide range of tasks I'm not familiar with, and learning them well and quickly, has done wonders for my ability to just say, 'Fuck it, I'm me and I can do whatever I'm paid to. I've done stuff I didn't know how to do before.' It also helps to know what the complexity of the task is have little self-affirming narratives - if you know that people who you don't consider smarter than yourself have done something, and have some idea about stacked complexity, then it becomes a lot easier to say something like "This really isn't that complicated, I just don't know how to do it yet, but that guy does it and he's an idiot - and he probably didn't spend years really learning it." If you can draw parallels with what you already know, that can help too.
[-]TheOtherDave50

Oh no! December is the end of the knuckle calendar! The world is going to end then!

Reply
[-]jsalvatier50

Most shirts are "classic fit" or something along those lines. Well fitting shirts for slim people are "fitted" or "slim fit" or some such. "modern" is usually in between. The same goes for tshirts and pants. http://www.primermagazine.com/2011/field-manual/how-to-wear-a-tucked-in-shirt-without-looking-like-an-old-man

You can also get a tailor to slim your shirts. This runs about 30 USD/shirt at a tailor shop but sometimes you can find people offering such services on craigslist for less.

Reply
[-]handoflixue50

I'll actually second Sniffnoy on that, but I concede I'm unusual.

First, I often don't want to interact with people, and I've noticed that people who ask that specific question are usually somewhere between bad and INCREDIBLY bad at reading social cues that indicate I'm not interested in interacting. Related to tat, I've found people who ask that specific question are often very likely to get upset when I refuse to engage them. Basically, it makes me feel objectified - you're forcing me to engage with you socially without my consent. (I am aware that "... (read more)

Reply
2Blueberry
I didn't read you as hostile at all! I hope you don't mind if I return the critique, since I have the corresponding counter-peeve. :) Hmm... so you have heard that specific question before? One of the things I liked about it is that I have never heard it before; it seemed unusual and original. I could understand someone not liking it if they had heard it many times. As far as being bad at reading cues, two other possibilities are a) they are good at reading the cues, but still interested in interacting with you and trying to find a way to make the interaction work; or b) your cues are more ambiguous than you think. Contrast my own case, which is that I'll say "good" because I suspect the other person isn't actually interested in an honest answer, and giving a fully honest answer might be imposing. Pressing further allows for the possibility of actually being honest and genuinely connecting. If you're not interested, you don't have to lie or share something you're not comfortable with; you could just say "Sorry, not in a good mood for talking now." This is why I said the signals you are sending may be ambiguous, in that acting reserved can be a) because you aren't interested, or b) because you are interested, but aren't sure that the other person is interested and don't want to impose.
4Daniel_Starr
If it's an obviously super-brief pro-forma "conversation", like banter with a waitress, then I see why ruhe47 's approach works: it shows that you're more interested than average, but the other person has an excuse (other customers!) to walk away rather than lay out their whole life or be rude, so it's not trapping them into a demand for a long answer. But if someone were to say "Are you really good, or just sorta good?" in a more extended-conversation setting, like a party, then I would agree with Sniffnoy in disliking the proposed question. Without such an obvious natural time limit, that open-ended reflection-demanding question creates too much of an interrogation atmosphere. It's like you're going to stand there and poke at their life until you've heard enough. My feeling is that the right way to start an extended conversation with someone is to ask them a question that invites them to remember, specifically remember something that's fun for them and likely halfway interesting to you. Toy example from my own life: "I've got Netflix streaming now, and I can't decide what to watch. When you think about TV shows or movies that you've really enjoyed, which ones do you think of first?" It sounds silly, like most conversation-with-strangers openings ("How are you?" is pretty silly in its own way, when you think about it), but it's easy to answer and it invites discussion of something the other person has fun thinking about. Also it puts the other person in the position of being capable of helping you, as opposed to being evaluated or judged by you, which is a much friendlier subtext. And hey, I really do need the recommendations. :) But ruhe47 offered up their technique simply in the context of pro-forma 'conversations' like when you're buying something at a store counter, and in that environment I can totally see how it would work. Especially since when you're clerking or table-serving, you're spending hours helping people yet not being engaged with as an inter
[-]PaulWright50

Perhaps I should amend that to "don't be obviously indiscriminate in a sleazy way". The bad thing isn't finding lots of people attractive, it's apparently caring nothing for them as a person (which is about having had no conversational interction with them before asking them out, some small amount of buildup is necessary, though as siduri says, if you're a decent chap, it's probably less than you think) or alternatively appearing desperate (which is about demeanor, I think). Things I've heard remarked upon have been bemusement at dinner invites f... (read more)

Reply
[-]MBlume50

I have a dear friend who loves rationality, reads Methods rabidly, quotes 'That which can be destroyed...' at the top of her FB profile... and still identifies as Christian. She's young and has had the kind of sheltered upbringing that makes it possible to actually believe your religion without lots of doublethink.

I expect to have her deconverted within a year or two -- I'd have managed by now if we weren't half a state apart.

Reply
2Dreaded_Anomaly
I would be interested to know how she responded to, for example, Chapter 39 "Pretending to be Wise, Pt 1".
2CronoDAS
I wonder if sending her to this site would help at all?
[-]Blueberry50

This has mostly frightened me off so far.

Don't let it. I actually disagree with the original advice for this reason: any benefit you get is likely to be outweighed by the additional anxiety from worrying what other people think.

My general take on this is the opposite: go ahead and ask many people if you're interested. Don't worry about what they think. Most of them won't care or mind anyway, as long as you're not rude or hostile about it. There's nothing wrong with asking out a lot of people.

In fact, this is a common internal obstacle to asking people o... (read more)

Reply
[-]pjeby50

Define "spitting it up" --if you mean chewing on a piece of raw chicken for 60-120 seconds, and spitting it out if it doesn't taste right, that's just a little odd

That would be spitting out, not up. In any case, what I mean is that I'm eating it for a minute or two before I suddenly have the distinct feeling that something is wrong with what I'm eating, and gently cough it back up.

if you mean swallowing the chicken, then vomiting it back up, that crosses my personal line into "sick from it."

There's a huge difference between vomit... (read more)

Reply
[-]Dan_Moore50

Something I am baffled at is how to quote a post on this website so that a vertical line segment appears to the left of the quoted text. I have a guess, but I don't want to clunky failed HTML attempt show up.

Reply
7ata
> blah > > zoop becomes:
2Dan_Moore
Thanks!
5NancyLebovitz
Also, it's not great if a failed html attempt shows up, but it's no disaster-- this site doesn't have preview for comments, and I expect I'm not the only one who might take a comment through several edits before it's probably cleaned up. In any case, comments here use Markdown (most common features are non-obviously available from the Help link on the lower right of the comment box), not html. I don't have a complete grasp of how to format posts, but there's an html tag at the top, so you can just write them in html.
1Eugine_Nier
Also, is there any formatting guide for this website more detailed then the one you get by clicking on the help link?
2ata
Here's the spec for Markdown, the comment formatting language used here. (Not all of the syntax is available here — e.g. raw HTML isn't allowed, and I don't think headers are permitted in comments — bur most of it is usable.)
[-]wedrifid50

This is otherwise known as "being in the closet" in some communities.

Fortunately it is a closet full of beautiful women who you find highly attractive. Such a better closet to be in than the one homosexuals have had to hide themselves in at times. :)

Reply
3TheOtherDave
Sure, given a choice between having to keep all of my sexual attractions secret, and only having to keep half of them secret, the latter is far better. Agreed. Of course, even better is to not have to keep any of them secret, and to instead be able to reveal whatever information about my sexual preferences I choose to reveal without fear of negative consequences. All of that said: perhaps I've lost track of context. MBlume's parent comment framed bisexuality as an improvement, and lukeprog warned that there were costs to it. You countered that those costs can be averted by keeping one's bisexuality secret. But that seems to completely subvert MBlume's original point... if I'm in the closet about being bisexual, how is that an improvement over being heterosexual?
5wedrifid
It seems the choice is, instead, between having your attraction and sexual appreciation mechanism biologically crippled so as to halve the potential partners or to give yourself the option of specialising your signalling as to optimise your chances within a specific target niche or of seeking more diverse experience. Neutral returns as a worst case makes the point a good one. :)
5Blueberry
You don't have to be in the closet with everyone. Just treat it as something personal that you only tell people once you know them and trust them enough, and you've gauged their reaction to casual mentions of bisexuality.
[-]CronoDAS50

The alphabet song I learned (and Elizabeth is probably referring to) is to the tune of "Twinkle Twinkle, Little Star".

Reply
[-]arundelo50

If each list item consists of multiple paragraphs, your source code should look like this:

1. First paragraph of first list item.

####Second paragraph of first list item.

####Third paragraph of first list item.

2. First paragraph of second list item.

####Second paragraph of second list item.

except replace the "#" characters with spaces.

Alternatively, you can defeat automatic numbered list formatting like this.

Great comment, by the way.

Reply
[-]CronoDAS40

Yeah, being the other biological sex is complicated, but a roughly equivalent statement might be "If she could (convincingly) present herself as male and attempted to get dates with women, she expect to find it much harder than she does getting dates with men while presenting as female."

Reply
[-]thomblake40

shirt stays

They will change your life.

Reply
[-][anonymous]40

This I disagree that this is rude.

You are talking about what ought to be. I am describing what is - how people think and behave. What we can observe is that many people have a great deal of difficulty getting off the phone when a telemarketer calls. The reason, I think, is clear: they are reluctant to end the conversation unless the other person lets them go, because this is conversational etiquette. That's why it's difficult. You saying that it ought not be difficult isn't a description, it's an exhortation. You're talking in exhortatory/advisory mode ... (read more)

Reply
2bigjeff5
Of course that is true, and it is not at all what I was advocating. And you're right that suggesting people learn to say "no" is an exhortation. It was also quite beside the original point (though I did bring it up first, certainly). The point is that politely interrupting a conversation that does not appear to be particularly private or personal, for the purpose of contributing to that conversation, is not rude. Neither is asking a question. It can certainly become so if you ignore the hints to stop, but it does not start out that way. I also doubt the bore enjoys boring people, so getting irritated at him when you aren't willing to tell him to stop seems pretty inconsiderate to me.
5Alicorn
Also, tautologies are tautological.
2bigjeff5
Indeed, I meant only to suggest there is a polite and impolite way to do it, and that interrupting in and of itself was not rude. I could have phrased it better.
[-]Sniffnoy40

Several reasons. For one, it's challenging my response for no apparent reason. I answered precisely how I intended to! Which may not be the same as answering truthfully but it's the best you'll get out of me in such a case. It seems to me to contain an implicit challenge that things aren't actually good and I'm just saying that because it's conventional. Which may well be the case, but if things are indeed bad, I am not about to start talking about it to an arbitrary stranger, nor do I have appreciate having it or the obviousness of it thrown in my face like that. And if that things are good then it seems to be accusing me of telling falsehoods when I'm not, which is not exactly complimentary either.

Reply
2ruhe47
Edited: See the bottom section! It isn't challenging the response. It is asking for more information. I accept the answer of "good" and then ask for elucidation. The follow up question ("really good or just sorta' good?") is predicated on my acceptance of their response. If I were to continue the questioning beyond the initial request for more detail it would definitely be intrusive, especially coming from an arbitrary stranger. If you were to respond to my follow-up question with anything other than a positive reaction I would not attempt to engage you in any meaningful way beyond that. It hasn't happened yet, but it is entirely possible that it would! Edit: I owe you an apology. After a little bit of thought (I posted shortly after you without giving what you said the consideration it deserves) it definitely could be construed as questioning your initial response of "good", which would be rude. I just had my understanding improved a bit. I hadn't even considered it that way (even after you spelled it out)!
[-]Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) 40

Definitely exercise helps. Working out first thing in the morning is probably the best way to ensure you'll be a) energized to start your day, and b) tired enough to go to bed at night. However, that might be tough if you already are on a deadline to get to work.

I wouldn't recommend working out at night if you're already a night owl. If you're at all like me, you'll end up super-awake right when you should be going to bed.

Reply
[-]Vladimir_M40

Any suggestions on how to grow from short to medium length without it looking terrible in between?

When I'm overdue for a haircut, I find that wearing a tuque for a while makes it look significantly less bad. This might be highly individual-specific, though.

Reply
[-]David_Gerard40

Yes, you should definitely throw out your books. For everyone else it was obvious hyperbole for literary effect, but for you I mean it literally. What on earth?

Yes, that is so bad. I'm not paying paper prices for bits that evaporate, and I'm not giving Amazon a hundred quid's encouragement to pull that sort of stunt. That's an even more direct incentive to piracy than trying to watch a commercial DVD. In return, I get a searchable format and no physical clutter!

Although purging my life of digital clutter is actually an attractive idea. Hence the notion of ... (read more)

Reply
[-]Desrtopa40

In that case, I wonder if it might not be worth it to date in the wider pool, with the aim of finding a woman who is open to deconverting. Generally it's a bad idea to enter a relationship hoping to change the other person, but religion has long been a sort of special case: a lot of LTRs do involve one party or the other converting or at least modifying their religious views.

This strikes me as a very high risk strategy, and probably a low reward one as well. Deconversion tends to take a long time, and even gentle attempts could strain a new relationship... (read more)

Reply
1TobyBartels
I recently began dating an old friend with conservative Christian religious beliefs. Obviously, I don't have the rationalists-only filter that DA has, and I don't want to deconvert her. (Her personal relationship with Jesus --that is, the mental feelings that she's constructed around the idea of Christ-- are important to her, and I don't want to destroy that.) Nevertheless, here's what's happened: In conversation with me, she quickly clarified some nagging doubts about the inclusiveness (and other characteristics) of her old, conservative church. She's started attending a Congregationalist church instead. (For those unfamiliar with Christian denominations in North America, this is as liberal as you can get and still be explicitly Christian). For a while, she even considered attending the Unitarian Universalist church, since I would be willing to join it with her, but in the end she decided that it didn't fit. When we started, I expected the relationship to founder on religious differences, but I agreed to give it a shot anyway. And I seem to have affected her religion instead. I'm not sure what this proves, even when restricted to the one example, but it's been a surprising few months for me.
[-]David_Gerard40

This crosses over with the textbook thread.

May I recommend: Making Faces and Face Forward by Kevyn Aucoin. Anyone who thinks they might have cause to wear makeup and want to do it well will delight in these. I encountered them via my high-goth girlfriend of the time and later gave them as presents to my current girlfriend's teenage daughters.

It might be a little thing, but these are the books for the task.

Reply
[-]gwern40

Well, pork has trichinosis. (Notice the treatment section is silent about what to do if you are diagnosed more than 3 days after infection.)

And chicken is basically universally contaminated with salmonella or campylobacter.

On the other hand, it seems to be actual news when beef is infected with E. coli or salmonella, so I infer that beef is usually free of such problems. (Why beef doesn't have a unique or universal infection of its own, I have no idea. Maybe cows just have better immune systems than pigs or chickens.)

Reply
[-]Sabiola40

Lather is what you get when you mix soap/shampoo etc. with water, and it starts foaming.

Reply
[-]Alicorn40

Peeling onions can be surprisingly confusing. For instance, just under the really papery skin there is sometimes a layer which is partially or entirely thin, greenish, and rubbery. It's not all that pleasant to eat unless it's de-texturized (a puréed soup as described above will do the trick), but unlike the papery bits it's technically food. Keeping it or removing it is a judgment call, but I could imagine finding it an intimidating decision to make if I didn't know. The bits of garlic cloves that attach them to the base of the bulb are in a similar category. (I cut them off.)

Reply
4Jonathan_Graehl
When in doubt, trim. I cut the onion into a few chunks then remove the inner part. losing 1/8" or 1/4" of the outermost stuff doesn't bother me. If it looks different from the rest, trim it away.
[-]Zando40

Err towards generous tipping

Of course, this depends on where you are. In UK pubs you order your drink - and generally food - at the bar. And you don't tip. Though apparently you can "offer to buy the barkman/maid a drink." Took me a while to get used to this. In fact, tipping in general in the UK is still a bit mysterious to me after living here for a year. The guides say tip your Taxi driver around 10%, but why do they so often seem surprised when I do? As for delivery people, some of them actually refuse a tip, because of rules etc. If all this means that these people get a reasonably good wage and don't need the tips, I'm happy to comply; but it still seems odd to me.

Reply
4Kaj_Sotala
In Finland, there's pretty much never an expectation for you to tip, except possibly in cases where the other person has clearly gone far above the call of duty for you.
5Divide
Same in Poland; although many people do tip in restaurants. I'm always a little bit confused by the American tipping rituals whenever I see it in a movie or whatever. How about the rest of Europe?
3[anonymous]
In the UK, the only place where it is considered compulsary to tip is in restaurants, and then usually only ones where you are served at a table (some "gastro"-pubs have table service, in which case one should tip). I don't think tipping taxi drivers is a general thing- I tend to let them keep the change if its sensible, but I don't believe there is a rule. You certainly don't tip delivery people of any kind. In France tips are usually included within the price of the meal. I found this out after going to Paris and tipping at every place we went to..
1Zando
In France it's generally indicated on the menu and bill that a 15% service charge is included, but it's considered good form to leave the small change. If you think the service was bad, you have the right not to pay it. IN the UK this now varies widely, with an increasing number of restaurants adding a 10% service charge, so it's best to check. Apparently there was a minor "scandal" a few years ago when it was publicised that restaurant owners were often keeping the tips, so I always leave the tip in cash on the table. Thanks for the info on taxi drivers, I generally have been rounding up, but if the fare is £7.80, say, I often leave £9 which is a bit steep. Maybe I'll start assuming that £8 is OK. Pizza delivery guys basically live off of tips in Canada, where I hail from, so it's a big adjustment not to tip at all.
[-]TheOtherDave40

Jump-start a stalled car.

I "get around" this by not carrying around jumper cables, so nobody asks me, which is of course absurd.

Reply
[-]Matt_Simpson120

To my knowledge, this is how it works, but I might be missing a detail or two (never had to do it completely on my own).

1) Start with the car with the dead battery first. Expose the terminals of the battery - usually there are plastic covers to prevent anything from touching the metal terminals. Connect the jumper cables to both of these terminals. Jumper cables have a red side and a black side. You don't have to match red with the positive or negative terminal, but you will have to remember how you matched them. I.e., remember whether red is positive or negative.

2) Now go to the car with the good battery and make sure it's started and running. Connect the jumper cables to the terminals of the battery of that car in the same way that you connected them to the first car. I.e., if the red side was connected to the positive terminal on the first car, do the same on the second car.

3) Wait. It takes a few minutes to recharge a dead battery.

4) Try to start the car with the dead battery. You can do this with the jumper cables still connected. If it doesn't work, return to 3)

5) If it starts, disconnect the jumper cables.

A couple of things: don't touch the metal ends of the cables or the ba... (read more)

Reply
5jimmy
12 volts isn't high enough to produce any sensation under normal circumstances (the only time I've noticed so much as a tingle was after diving in the ocean for an hour) Touching the ends to each other, however, will send sparks flying.
4saturn
Touching 12 volt battery terminals is indeed very, very unlikely to harm you. However, cars are equipped with ignition coils to produce a spark for the spark plugs. When a car is running the ignition coil is producing output of 20-30 kV and back EMF in the hundreds of volts. Normally this is filtered out from the 12-volt side in order to protect the electronics and battery, but I would not recommend trusting those filters with your life.
3Matt_Simpson
Indeed, a good reason to do this procedure a safe distance from gas pumps.
2SRStarin
Not just sparks. The electrical system of one or both cars can be severely damaged. Also, you shouldn't attach the negative cable to the negative terminal on the dead car, but to exposed metal of the car's chassis (i.e. structure). This is to avoid a spark igniting any leaking fluid from the bad battery. Flaming battery acid = not fun.
3Alex Flint
If the car still won't start then get a second person to press the accelerator on the other car, with the gear stick in neutral, while the jumper leads are still attached. Then, while the other car is being revved, try again to start the car. This works because car engines have generators that recharge the battery while the car is running, and pressing the accelerator will increase the voltage to the dead car. Also, technically "stalled" refers to the situation that the engine died because you forgot to put your foot on the clutch at the traffic lights (or similar). If the car won't start at all then that means the battery is flat.
2bcoburn
It's slightly better to specifically connect the other end the cable connected to the black side of the dead battery last, and to connect it to the frame of the car with the live battery instead of to the black terminal in that car. The goal here is to make the last connection, the one that completes the circuit and can generate sparks, away from either battery, because lead-acid batteries can sometimes release hydrogen gas, which can cause fires or explode. The chances of this actually happening are pretty low, but there's no reason not to be careful. The end of the black cable connected to the running car is the only one that can be attached away from batteries, so that's the one used.
8SRStarin
Matt gives an OK description, but it is missing some important points, such as attachment order, so please consider these instructions: * 1) Park the good car so that its battery is as close as possible to the dead car's battery, and turn off the ignition. * 2) Expose the battery terminals and attach one end of one cable to the + terminal of the good car. * 3) Attach the other end of that cable to the + terminal of the dead car. * 4) Attach one end of the other cable to the - terminal of the good car. * 5) Attach the last remaining clamp to exposed metal of the car somewhere other than the dead battery. This is to avoid potential explosions from sparks and leaking batteries. Anyway, I remember the full order as "good plus, bad plus, good minus, bad car." * 6) Start the good car, leave it in park, and gently feed some gas to rev the engine for a half a minute or so. * 7) Have the other person start their car. If it doesn't start, you may need to feed fuel to the good car's engine for several minutes before trying again. * 8) When the dead car starts, remove the cables in the reverse order that you clamped them (bad car, good minus, bad plus, good plus). * 9) Don't turn off the bad car until you are in a place where it's OK for it to die again. (Edit: Gave the list bullets to be easier to read.)
2TobyBartels
Step (9) here is the one that I didn't know when I first jump-started a car. The others were in the instructions that came with the cables.
6thomblake
Assuming you mean jump-starting a car with a drained battery: The short answer is that you attach the red clamps to the positive terminals and the black clamps to the negative terminals, and then you should be able to start the car normally. Intuitively, you're just hooking up the good battery to the car with the bad battery, via cables. This would also work with just a new battery. Jumper cable boxes tend to have instructions, which may tell you to do something slightly different. And exercise general safety - don't stand in front of the engine while someone is starting the car.
5110phil
In recent years, portable battery boosters have become cheaper, which means you won't need jumper cables at all. For $50ish, you get a battery in a sealed plastic case, with two "jumper-cable"-type alligator clamps, one red and one black. You flip the on switch, then clip the red onto your battery's positive terminal, and the black onto your battery's negative terminal. Then you start the car. Once the car is running, you remove the black connector, then the red connector, and you're done. There are at least two advantages over jumper cables. First, you don't need anyone else's car or help. Second, there's 50% less chance of error, since you're connecting only two clamps and not four. If I am not mistaken, some of the deluxe models have built in protection against putting the clamps on backwards. But I'm not 100% sure about that.
6Sniffnoy
But there are still only two ways to connect the four clamps, since cable color doesn't matter when they're acting purely as cables.
2wedrifid
On the other hand more science knowledge is required to be sure of which way they go. "Does '+' go with the other '+'? Wait, no. It's like magnets, the plus goes with the minus... Oh damn. Why is it doing that?" People are less likely to be in doubt when they have a box with wires saying "attach to positive", "attach to negative".
[-]ChristianKl30

more than 50% of people in my demographic are even worse than me at that skill, but this doesn't mean they'll never get a relationship, because they can compensate by e.g. being insanely rich.

I'm not arguing that feeling no anxiety to physical contact and having the self confidence to lead woman in general is sufficient to be good at partner dancing.

I'm rather arguing that being good at partner dancing usually leads to feeling no anxiety to physical contact and having the self confidence to lead woman.

I mean, if Alice doesn't get horny when around Bo

... (read more)
Reply
[-]TheOtherDave30

My own attitude is that time spent talking to me is time they aren't spending making a sale, so getting off the phone is the nicest thing I can do for them under the highly constrained circumstances. So as soon as I recognize them as telemarketers, I politely say "Sorry, but I'm really not interested; have a good day" and hang up, without waiting for them to do anything in particular.

Reply
[-]avalot30

Very tricky question. I won't answer it in two ways:

  1. As I indicated, in terms of navigation/organization scheme, LW is completely untraditional. It still feels to me like a dark museum of wonder, of unfathomable depth. I get to something new, and mind-blowing, every time I surf around. So it's a delightful labyrinth, that unfolds like a series of connected thoughts anyway you work it. It's an advanced navigation toolset, usable only by people who are able to conceptualize vast abstract constructs... which is the target audience... or is it?

  2. I've been in

... (read more)
Reply
1NancyLebovitz
LW does more to bring its past into the present than any other site I've used. I'm thinking that this is partly structure, and partly that the users consider its past posts (much less so with the comments) to be important. I might be an advanced user-- I'm able to use LW and I think I've found the major features. [1] On the other hand, I would not have been able to identify the site as being from the style of a particular operating system. My history goes back to usenet, which is why I keep mentioning that the site needs trn or the equivalent. Still, the way comments are presented is the Least Awful I've seen on the web. Trn or slrn might be the kind of thing you mean by advanced comments/post management. The other thing I think would do the most to keep weaving the past into the present is a better search system. It would help if I could just do a string search which was limited to the posts from a particular user. And if there were a way to get search results arranged chronologically. As far as I can tell, they're arranged randomly. Something like the advanced search from Google Groups would be really helpful. It can take 10 or 15 minutes for me to find a comment if I manage it at all, and it's apt to feel like luck. Only having Recent Comments for LW proper and for LW:Discussion rather than being able to choose Recent Comments for particular threads is of mixed value. I think it does make the site more like one conversation for those who want to put in a lot of time, but that means it's less useful for those who don't want to put in that much time and a temptation to kill time for some of the rest. [1] The site has an abstract resemblance to a bit from one of Doris Piserchia's novels (Mr. Justice?), in which a school for brilliant children doesn't offer a map of the buildings, just a map of the local geography. The students are expected to figure out where the buildings are supposed to be.
[-]wedrifid30

Why do you believe that?

My knowledge of the field combined with the usual meta-information that I must always use to evaluate such possibilities.

Nothing in the description here gives any of the indications that it is the herald of hidden deep wisdom from the upper echelons of the nutrition sciences that is hidden from the rest of us. It is also too many steps beyond what the more mainstream (or even 'mainstream contrarian') scientists present to be at all likely.

This isn't a nutritional scientist we are talking about here. It's a naturopathic quack. The same guy who wrote the laughable "Eat Right For Your Blood Type".

Reply
1JGWeissman
Ok, I just took a look at the sample result set that Eby linked to, and I, like you, am not impressed. This guy is so much a part of the noise, he isn't even the noise that could be reasonably mistaken for a real expert.
6pjeby
So... here's the thing. You and wedrifid are doing something that has me concerned. Specifically, you're putting me into a position where, for consistency, I feel compelled to argue a case for something that I myself don't currently have a hugely high degree of confidence in... simply because you're not actually providing in your arguments, any information which I could either specifically agree or disagree with. IOW, comments like, "quack", "laughable", and "noise" do not give me any information about your epistemology, and therefore light up on my board "[citation needed]" just as much as it did for what I've been reading from D'Adamo. So, it would be nice if you could identify specific concerns instead... who knows, I might agree with them! OTOH, my consistent experience is that just because somebody has a stupid-sounding theory, doesn't mean their advice doesn't actually work. (Likewise, people who have good theories are often lousy at giving usable advice.) Heck, take Seth Roberts as an example here: the entire idea of drinking oil or sugar water to lose weight is also "laughable", "noise" and "quack"... and yet it still seems to work for plenty of people. Heck, there are elements of Roberts' theory that don't make sense to me, from a "fewest elements to make the circuit" point of view. (For example, I don't think "set point" is a real thing; I think it's more likely an epiphenomenon of something else.) But that doesn't mean I wouldn't recommend it... just that I'd avoid recommending it to people who jump to conclusions first and ask questions later. ;-) Anyway... specifics, please. Otherwise, I'll simply bow out of this discussion on the assumption that you don't actually have any new evidence to present. IOW, a knee-jerk dismissal on grounds of ridiculousness isn't an independent data point for Bayesian analysis. Citing papers disproving D'Adamo's hypotheses, on the other hand, would be quite welcome. (I've actually googled around for criticisms of
[-]pjeby30

This software sounds interesting. Can you provide more information on it?

It's called SWAMI Xpress -- don't ask me what the letters stand for. (It's actually web-based; what you're buying is a passcode that's physically shipped to you.)

Edit to add: here's a sample diet report (PDF) from the software, in case you're wondering what its output looks like.

Can one use it alone at home or does it require fancier tests that one would involve doctors to handle?

ABO blood type and secreter status are the only tests that have to be sent off for lab work; the r... (read more)

Reply
[-]khafra30

A HN regular just started a website that looks like a great match for this thread: http://cluedb.com.

Reply
54hodmt
Random presentation of clues implements the notoriously addictive variable ratio reinforcement schedule, as used by Farmville/WoW/etc. Potentially a big timewaster here.
[-]wedrifid30

And a car battery does have sufficient current to injure or kill a human being quite easily. (Voltage penetrates insulators, current actually does damage.

Fortunately current and voltage are not independent features of a power source - and in the case of current not even something that can be meaningfully measured without specifying the load! A car battery does not "have sufficient current to injure or kill a human quite easily" because of the human part of the (I=V/R) equation.

Reply
1Chronos
It does if the skin is wet. Once you're through the skin, the human body's resistance is quite low, in the single-digit kiloohm range at most, because the human body is mostly salt water (a fantastically good conductor by non-metallic standards). The biggest barrier to current is the upper layer of dead, dry cells on the epidermis. And lead-acid batteries have a fairly low internal resistance, which allows them to produce high currents if the load is also low resistance (a required feature when cranking the engine).
6komponisto
Physics question (for anyone who knows the answer): when lightning strikes somewhere in the ocean, why isn't every living organism in the entire ocean electrocuted? How far away do you have to be to avoid being fried? How does one calculate this?
8gwern
I'm not a physics major, but this is how I would reason: a regular human usually survives a lightning strike, IIRC. Why would fish be any different? It might hurt them but they have simpler nervous systems to boot. So my initial guess is that no fish at all is hurt, no more than they are fried by the sun unleashing gigawatts onto the ocean. But that's a cheap answer, perhaps. Let's try another route. A human isn't that big compared to a tuna fish, but is pretty big compared to things like trout or salmon. Let's say we weigh 100x as much as those small fish. Lightning is a one-shot packet of energy - like quickly blinking a flashlight. As the light spreads away from the flashlight, it begins to fade out. (Why isn't the entire earth illuminated?) Well, there's a fixed number of photons released, and the sphere/area they are spread over keeps getting bigger as they go - it increases as the square of how far away they are. It's like gravity: you get an inverse square law. Squares increase pretty fast - 2^2 = 4, 3^2 = 9, 4^2 = 16 etc. So if we humans are 2 feet around from the 'epicenter', how many units of 2 feet do we have to go to cut the strength by 1/100 and give the little fish a little fish-sized dose? Well, the square root of 100 is 10, so 10 2-feets is 20 feet. In other words, by this reasoning, I'd expect even little fish to survive a lightning strike around 20 feet away. 20 feet is much smaller than an ocean. This is all high-school physics at best; all you really have to do is think about why gravity follows an inverse square law, analogize a space-filling gravity to light, and guess some numbers in the best spirit of Fermi calculations.
3tgb
For what it's worth, it is quite possible to at least stun fish through electricity. I know people who have done this for scientific studies of fish. It's called Electrofishing and is restricted in most places because it makes over fishing easy and requires some significant caution on the part of the fisher (you're wearing a backpack designed to produce high voltage while standing in water).
1[anonymous]
Google: lightning sea I tried it and got good hits, which is why I suggest it. Variants will probably work too.
3wedrifid
The internal resistance of the body (and wet skin) is sufficient that it and the voltage are the relevant factors. Jimmy even went so far assume an ideal power source - as much current as 12v can get you. The resistance even without the benefit of dry skin is sufficient to keep the current that passes near the heart below the level that will result in fibrillation in healthy humans. I would have to concur with Jimmy that death by car battery electrocution would qualify as 'freak accident'. If you want to kill yourself with a battery you could perhaps try balancing it on top of a door and closing it while your head is
4Chronos
According to Wikipedia, the threshold for fibrillation is 60 mA for AC, 300-500 mA for DC. On reflection, it seems I'd previously cached the AC value as the value for all currents, so that was skewing my argument. Given these figures, a 1k Ohm total resistance (internal plus skin plus body) would lead to a 12 mA current (painful but not fibrillation-inducing), whereas 200 Ohms / 40 Ohms total resistance would be required for 12 VAC / VDC to be potentially lethal. So, yeah, now that I think about it, a car battery probably couldn't be lethal unless conductors were actually puncturing the skin and touching the bloodstream directly (or covering a HUGE amount of surface area). I retract my claim. Edit: OH! Except that Wikipedia says the threshold for fibrillation is a mere 10 µA if the current is from electrodes that establish a circuit through the heart. THAT's the figure I'd seen before and cached in my head. Still, that's not a likely situation to arise when using jumper cables, so my claim remains retracted.
[-]Barry_Cotter30

Off-topic: I’m not sure from your wording: do you have something that notifies you of replies to your comments?

The envelope under your username turns red if you have a reply or pm

Reply
[-]ChristianKl30

When you put social convention into writing and hang them on the walls they become a rule.

Reply
[-][anonymous]30

Cutting meat into small pieces is hardly a modern invention. Shish kebabs go way back.

Reply
[-]pjeby30

Eggs were at most 5 days old,

Since coming out of the store, or the chicken? ;-)

As a comparison point, I usually store eggs at room temperature with a high probability of still being good 2 weeks after getting them from the farmer. (Don't know how old they are before that point, or how they're stored, though they usually seem pretty cold when I get them.)

I never eat them raw except at room temperature, and never without smelling them before adding them to something else (like a smoothie or other recipe).

They were eaten cold.

In my experience, you're... (read more)

Reply
4Kutta
Store. Wiki says: "The delay between consumption of a contaminated food and appearance of the first symptoms of illness is called the incubation period. This ranges from hours to days depending on the agent, and on how much was consumed. If symptoms occur within 1–6 hours after eating the food, it suggests that it is caused by a bacterial toxin or a chemical rather than live bacteria."
[-]Unnamed30

I don't pay much attention to historical performance. If one segment of the market has been doing better than the market as a whole, that doesn't mean that it will keep it up. And looking at the data here, VTSMX seems to have actually done very slightly better than the S&P 500 since it was created in 1992.

I've invested in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX) since that comes closer to betting on the market as a whole. It's closer to the ideal of diversifying as much as possible, spreading your investment evenly across the whole market rathe... (read more)

Reply
[-]Dreaded_Anomaly30

In my view the ideology matters surprisingly little. Do not make the mistake of choosing your partner for having the right convictions.

Emphasis added to point out the non sequitur.

Also, my "atheist qualifier" is intended to prevent me from choosing a partner with the wrong convictions, not to encourage me to choose one simply for having the right convictions.

Reply
[-]Douglas_Knight30

No, according to the New York Times, the Monster Study showed no effect of the intervention on stuttering. Telling children that they should worry about stuttering did cause them to act like stutterers (eg, refusing to talk), but it did not cause stuttering. Similarly, telling children not to worry about stuttering had no effect on their stuttering. It does not address whether it affected their nervousness.

Reply
[-]jsalvatier30

People who claim that the "dollar is being debased", don't know the basic facts. Inflation has actually been significantly lower than typical, the last couple of years. See for example http://investingforaliving.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/cpi-us-vs-japan.png

Market based inflation expectations (TIPS spreads) also indicate lower than typical expected inflation.

Reply
[-]Desrtopa30

If that's not something you care about in a relationship, by all means don't concern yourself with it. But if you feel like you have to decide not to care about your partner's convictions, then it's a significant issue, and one that's likely to surface in the future however you try to suppress it.

Reply
1MartinB
I meet many people were their religion has little or no practical influence on their daily lives. If you limit your partner search to the LW/similar cluster you might find it problematic to get a suitable partner. And even then ideological similarities are no guarantee for a happy relationship. Might be interesting to poll what people look for.
3Desrtopa
Of course ideological similarities aren't a guarantee of a happy relationship; for me and for many others, they're necessary, but I know of nobody for whom they're sufficient. Dating a person with religious beliefs which do not have a practical influence on their lives, I have tremendous difficulty respecting them. This is not a hypothetical matter, it's a mistake I've learned to avoid. I know people for whom it does not seem to be an issue, but anyone for whom it is is better off taking it seriously than following advice to exercise tolerance. That sounds like a fair idea for discussion post. I'll make one later today, unless you feel like doing it first.
[-]erratio30

Is there a systematic way to tell the difference between mockery, sarcasm, facetiousness, and serious? I seem to get it wrong relatively often.

Reply
[-]AdeleneDawner140

Partial answer: Sarcasm appears to be a group membership test mechanism. It involves saying something that is obviously untrue according to the speaker's group's beliefs as if it's true, with the expectation that members of that group will understand that the speaker can't possibly believe that, and nonmembers will show their non-membership by acting as if the speaker does. It overlaps with mockery where it's done for the express purpose of highlighting the fact that someone isn't a member of a group, which is usually considered humiliating in and of itself and can also lead to other, more blatant teasing. It's hard to reliably tell the difference between sarcasm and seriousness without a good working knowledge of the speaker's beliefs - and even then it can be tricky if they're not particularly coherent in those beliefs.

(This is all based on my own observations, but I think it's accurate enough to be useful to others; if anyone has a better model I'd be interested.)

Reply
4Richard_Kennaway
Sometimes it's the other way round. The speaker says something with easily-recognised markers of not saying what they actually believe (e.g. call something a "modest proposal"), to cloak the fact that they are saying exactly what they actually believe. Insiders know what is being communicated, while plausible deniability is maintained to outsiders.
2jefftk
Can you give an example of something labled a "modest proposal" that is actually advocated by the speaker? I've only seen those words as a way to draw attention to the satire.
6Richard_Kennaway
Not really, because if you're pretending to be satirical in order to say exactly what you think, the plausible deniability goes out the window if you own up to it. See also Ha Ha Only Serious. And this is just too perfect: Like a maniac shooting flaming arrows of death is one who deceives a neighbor and says, “I was only joking!" (Proverbs 26:18-19) Via TVTropes. I had to look it up independently before I believed they hadn't just made it up.
2erratio
Hmm, it looks like I thought I was being specific when in fact I was being quite vague in my question. Maybe what I should have asked was: is there a systematic set of nonverbal cues such as tone, body language, and so forth, that I can use to reliably tell when someone is being facetious/mocking/sarcastic, as opposed to when they're being serious? This would avoid the need to know the ingroup beliefs ahead of time. I believe that this set of cues exists, since most people seem to get it right the majority of the time* * For example, in the show The Big Bang Theory, one of the characters has severe issues detecting sarcasm, and this is played for laughs because in real life virtually no one (except people on the autistic spectrum) has that much trouble.
2handoflixue
Just my personal experiences, so take it with a grain of salt: In the US and Australia, sarcasm generally has a very distinct tone of voice. I can identify sarcasm, jokes, etc. from tone of voice fairly well, even if I don't know the speaker. In Britain, "dry" humor (where the tone and body language mimic a "serious" statement) is more common, but you can still usually identify it based on Adelene's comment above if you know the culture well. In both cases, the choice of words is still fairly distinct - there's usually an emphasis on unreasonable confidence, and a pronounced lack of enthusiasm. There's also often more repetition. I wouldn't have a clue about body language. ---------------------------------------- To try and give an example of the word choice differences: "Woo, the Oxhorns are totally going to win tomorrow!" <-- the "Woo" indicates enthusiasm, and confidence is only emphasized once ("totally"). This is probably a serious statement. "Yes, the Oxhorns are TOTALLY going to win tomorrow. There's NO way they could POSSIBLY lose" <-- "Yes" instead of "Woo" indicates more of a factual tone. The second sentence reiterates confidence. Note the emphasis on confidence words. This one is quite probably sarcasm.
2Blueberry
That's brilliant and very Hansonian. I never thought of it that way, but sarcasm is often used that way, especially for groups such as economic class, or clothing or fashion seen as poor style. That said, sarcasm is often just a joke, used to relieve tension, that doesn't refer to group membership. Sarcasm is often used in an obviously unpleasant situation such as waiting in line, bad weather, or being stuck in traffic. I don't think this part is always accurate, because you can sometimes tell when someone is being sarcastic based on the vocabulary they use and tone of voice. It seems like certain words ("wonderful," for instance) are pretty much only used for sarcasm. I suspect your mockery explanation is closer to what's going on: nonmembers will know they're being mocked.
3Kingreaper
Perhaps that is true in your group, but not in mine. Hence, in your group I would not pick up on that cue (due to being a non-member) though to you it seems obvious.
2AdeleneDawner
I suspect that the tension-relief of sarcasm used as a joke is mostly in the reassurance that other people 'get it', implying that they're group members with whom one can be relaxed. (The sarcasm doesn't even have to be about the unpleasant thing for it to work, though if it is, you get the added bonus of having your annoyance at the thing confirmed as understandable.) For sarcasm that one would reasonably expect almost anyone to notice, I still think it's group-membership related, but the group is something very broad, like 'society'. It can also involve putting the target in a catch-22 situation, where they have to either ignore the sarcasm and let the sarcasm-user treat them as out-group, or acknowledge the sarcasm and acknowledge that they did, or had a hand in, something wrong. This is basically win-win for the sarcasm user. (There are other options, like calling the sarcasm-user on their sarcasm, but those are relatively hard to do on the fly, and they're usually considered fairly aggressive, so it's pretty unlikely that someone will try one.)
1dlthomas
I absolutely use "wonderful" seriously sometimes.
1nick012000
If you don't know it intuitively (because of Apserger's Syndrome or the like), about all I can recommend is hard work and effort; the differences can be fairly subtle, and depend on the context of the situation and the relationships between the people involved. Sorry I can't be more helpful; I have Asperger's Syndrome myself even if I've learned to fake being normal pretty well as I grew up, so I understand how frustrating a lack of social skills can be.
[-]bgaesop30

I have pretty high confidence this is not true. I have tried using each for the other and neither works as well

Reply
[-]ewang30

I've never figured out how to tie my shoes without bunny ears. No joke.

Reply
8Jonathan_Graehl
I use bunny ears. It's well documented that a single bunny ear overhand knot should suffice to keep your shoes tied. For the first 20 years of my life, I had been tying the initial overhand knot with the wrong polarity (right lace clockwise around left) compared to my bunny-ear tying polarity. If your laces don't stay, try swapping either one (but just one) and you may have fixed a mismatch. In my case I just changed to the mirror image of the first-stage overhand knot motion (changing dominant hand, etc.).
9SRStarin
OMG I did not even know I didn't know how to tie my shoes! I was tying granny knots instead of square knots. I have been double-knotting my laces for years because they would keep coming undone. No longer! Great link there, Mr. Graehl. I never learned the bunny ears method, but according to that same web site, it results in the same knot as the standard method.
3first_fire
It's the same knot, but bunny ears result in both loops being on one side of the central knot while the other results in them being opposite each other. While not generally of much note (or importance) in shoelaces, bunny ears result in a neater-looking knot.
5Desrtopa
Not only did I never learn how to tie my shoes without bunny ears, I didn't learn the bunny ears technique till I was eleven. For some reason I simply couldn't follow the process of tying a shoe knot, no matter how many times it was demonstrated to me. Eventually, my fencing coach realized that I didn't know how to tie my shoes, and he took me aside in frustration, and showed me the bunny ears technique. I got it immediately, and was baffled that nobody had ever tried to teach it to me that way before.
4magfrump
I'm pretty sure that the two shoe-tying methods are homotopically equivalent; which is to say there's no reason to learn the "other way."
2JoshuaZ
There's a possible status issue. People might consider you immature if you they see you using bunny ears. (Also, I'm not completely sure what it means for them to be homotopically equivalent in this context since the ends don't form a loop. The whole thing isn't a true knot from a homotopy perspective. Even if you did glue the ends together, the whole thing is I think homotopically equivalent to a trefoil (the only part that does something non-trivial is the initial crossing, and all the earlier crossings can be folded up into that.)
2prase
What are bunny ears?
5SilasBarta
Hm, I was wondering the same thing and the discussion did not seem to have a direct answer, so here's what I found: bunny ears means that after the initial overhand knot, you make a loop with each shoelace, and then tie the knot again with the loops. This is in contrast to the "standard" way (link below), where the initial overhand knot is followed by one loop, bringing the other shoelace around it, and pulling through. I never even knew you could do it the bunny ears way! It looks so much easier. I'm the opposite of ewang -- I only ever learned the standard way and that was after a lot of effort as a ~3-year-old. But now, it's just automatic, like I'm sure it is for everyone else. I'll also have to check out the Ian knot for its speed. Dvorak/Qwerty, why am I suddenly thinking of you?
2ata
Neither have I, but only because I've never figured out why the other way is supposed to be better. Why is it?
3Blueberry
I personally find it faster and easier because I don't have to hold the two separate loops and keep them from unlooping when I tie them.
1Conuly
I suspect it's just culturally seen as the grown-up way to do it and the other way is the easy, five-year-old's way.
1wedrifid
It also seems to allow more control over how tight you wish your shoes to be.
[-]pjeby30

You will get food poisoning less than 1 time in 50 you do this.

I've eaten raw chicken hundreds of times and never experienced food poisoning from it, so by your definition, my approach to eating it is "safe".

On the other hand, I've experienced food poisoning from cooked foods several times during the parts of my life where I was not eating raw meats.

Proportionally speaking, of course, I've eaten so much more cooked food in my life that this doesn't mean cooked food is less safe than raw. Certainly, it still qualifies as "safe" by yo... (read more)

Reply
3Jonathan_Graehl
Conventional wisdom is that you're crazy to not cook chicken to the point that any salmonella is surely killed. I'm sure you know this. I guess you have faith that you won't be infected by the bacteria as your body quickly detects and 'spits up' the offending chicken.
2pjeby
Conventional wisdom is that quite a few things discussed on this site are crazy. If you are cooking your chicken, then you should indeed make sure it is fully cooked! Partially cooking chicken is in fact a good way to get food poisioning. This does NOT imply, however, that eating the chicken raw is maximally unsafe! The first hidden assumption in this conventional wisdom is that the contaminated chicken will in fact reach your intestines with the bacteria intact. But this assumption is further predicated on an even bigger assumption: Namely, that you are cooking the food in the first place. If you are cooking it, then you are bypassing your body's safety mechanisms, by destroying whatever chemical composition our evolved bacteria detection machinery relies upon, making it impossible to smell, taste, or otherwise detect the contamination before it's too late. However, if you're not cooking it, then it's straightforward to rely on your evolutionary heritage to detect and defend against this natural ancestral hazard. IOW, the presence of a bacteria detection and eviction system keyed to chemical reactions in raw (but not cooked) foods explains both phenomena: why partially cooked foods and mixing raw+cooked foods are dangerous, while raw foods by themselves are quite safe in comparison. Both will cause problems if they get to your gut -- but the raw food is extremely unlikely to actually make it to your gut, or stay there long enough to be a problem. Hey, no insults necessary. ;-) If salmonella was present as a food contaminant danger for enough of our ancestors, we would expect to have such detection and protection machinery, yes. That I have experienced this machinery in operation with contaminated raw foods but not with contaminated cooked ones (i.e., the cooked foods that I have gotten food poisoning symptoms from), it seems strongly in support of that hypothesis. Do you have an alternative hypothesis that fits this combination of evidence, and reasonab
[-]TobyBartels30

what sort of spoon, if it matters?

Any solid object will do, as long as it tolerates the heat. The only reason for using a utensil at all is that your hand does not tolerate the heat (and if it could tolerate the heat, then it would be unsanitary).

When stirring, the important aspect of the spoon is that it's wide; a flat utensil would work just as well. (However, a spoon has the added benefit of allowing you to taste the soup, as you add salt, herbs, and spices. Use the spoon to pour a little into a small bowl, let it cool there, and then taste it, or... (read more)

Reply
2soreff
One way to avoid this trade-off is to microwave the vegetables rather than boiling them. It produces rather similar results otherwise, but doesn't leach out water-soluble vitamins.
[-]TobyBartels30

The three sections that you describe don't always go in that order, and they may also be separated into different volumes.

Also, the white pages should include both residential and business listings, although sometimes these also are separated from each other. The businesses here are strictly by name, not by category like in the yellow pages (and the listings are either cheaper or free).

Reply
[-]fr00t30

Pish posh. I have admittedly horrendous sanitary procedures, and though I handle and cook raw meat at least 4 times a week I've never once gotten sick.

Pork actually should have a little bit of rose inside; I only cook my chicken until this is just gone (or even faintly visible). I routinely eat steak rare as can be, and tuna essentially raw.

Reply
[-]Torben30

One crucial recommendation is to shave upwards from the bottom of your neck to the top. This takes a lot of getting used to and really gave me the willies at first, but it works much better and you miss a lot less hair.

Really? I have the exact opposite experience. I find that going against the grain, especially on the neck, gives me nicks and rashes.

After having experimented a lot, what works for me is wetshaving using any ol' shaving cream, multi-blade razor, going with the grain.

Since facial hair grows in different directions this means you have to ... (read more)

Reply
[-]Alicorn30

USPS is cheaper if you send books, DVDs, or other things you are allowed to ship media mail.

Reply
[-]Alicorn30

exact procedure for boiling

Dump vegetables into a pot. Pour in water or stock until it reaches the same level as the veggies (less if you plan to add cream, more if you're nervous about burning it, less if you want thick goopy soup and more if you want thin soup). Put it on a stove burner, turn it up to High, stir at least once to prevent stuff from sticking to the bottom, and check on the smooshability of the vegetables every 5-10 minutes. Add more water if the vegetables are still unsmooshable and the water level has gotten significantly lower.

wh

... (read more)
Reply
[-]Elizabeth30

If you know the alphabet song, the melody naturally (at least to me) separates the alphabet into a few groups: ABCDEFG HIJKLMNOP QRS TUV WX YZ. This may be easier than memorizing divisions.

Reply
[-]TheOtherDave30

I recommend the book "Now You're Cooking" -- it's a cookbook explicitly written for people not familiar with cooking techniques.

Reply
[-][anonymous]30

Judging from the comments, cooking seems to be a big area where Less Wrongers feel tentative. I'm really surprised, as I'd think that paying attention to recipes and following the directions carefully would be an activity that analytical types would master quickly.

I like cooking and I do it a lot. I'd be happy to give advice if you can explain what the specific barrier to entry is? Is it understanding the terminology, choosing the equipment, finding reliable recipes...something else?

Reply
9Nick_Tarleton
Recipes are typically badly underspecified for someone inexperienced at cooking, and the sense this creates, that there's some optimal thing to do that I'm expected to figure out but probably not going to be able to, is something I can find seriously demotivating (despite any explicit knowledge that whatever I end up doing will probably be satisfactory). I wouldn't be surprised if (something like) this is a common problem for LWers.
4[anonymous]
This problem definitely exists and I've been bitten by it personally(1), but it used to be harder to get around than it is now. In previous generations it was assumed that basic cooking knowledge would be transmitted within the family--daughters learned by helping their mothers in the kitchen, and sons, well, they'd go through a brief bachelor period of poor nutrition, but people married early and getting hot meals again would be a good inducement towards "settling down." When this cultural context died, cookbooks were slow to catch up--they were still mostly written for people (women) who already knew their way around a kitchen. However, this has changed, and there are now excellent cookbooks available that will explain all the things other recipes assume you already know. Mark Bittman's "How To Cook Everything" and Alice Waters' "The Art of Simple Food" are two good ones. The "America's Test Kitchen" show on PBS is also good for seeing what the cooks are doing when they talk about julienning carrots or making an herb chiffonade or whatever. (1) When I first started cooking for myself I didn't understand the true purpose behind browning meat, and of course none of my cookbooks explained the Maillard reaction directly. I noticed that all recipes involving meat would specify that the meat be "browned on all sides" in separate batches over high heat, but I thought the purpose was simply to get it cooked more quickly. As a result I would sometimes skip this step, or even if I performed it I would crowd as much meat into the pan as I could--resulting in meat that wasn't truly brown, but grayish because it had actually been steamed rather than seared. It also tasted dull, for which I blamed the cheap cuts of meat I was buying. Actually it turns out that some of the cheaper cuts of meat have the most flavor, if you cook them right. (Filet mignon is pricey because it's a very tender cut of meat, but it has much less flavor than a cheap sirloin steak.)
2JGWeissman
This advice to brown all the meat's surface area, and to even cut it into smaller pieces to increase the available surface area, to increase the effect of the Maillard reaction is setting off superstimulus warnings for me. What are the nutritional effects of this reaction? A Google search has turned up mostly academic papers that discuss feeding large quantities of treated food to rats and chemical analysis of the result of applying heat to some mix of organic chemicals, which I am not sure how to draw conclusions from. This abstract has negative conclusions about the nutritional effects, but doesn't really answer the question: How does the nutritional value of a piece of steak change when you brown it?
3saturn
The nutritional effects do seem to be rather negative.
3Kaj_Sotala
I don't find it surprising at all. At least for myself, my brain tags cooking under the category of "boring housework chores", giving me negative motivation to actually learn it. The "pay attention to recipes and follow directions carefully and it's easy" part may actually be making it worse, since it strengthens the image of a dull, uninteresting task. Intellectual types often find basic household chores as the kind of things that aren't worth wasting their time and smarts on, not when there are more interesting / important things to do. I can certainly admit being guilty of this.
5[anonymous]
Cooking is applied chemistry, and at the higher levels, it's art.
2Mystfan
I definitely used to have the same attitude towards cooking, back when my dad and I were first learning to cook. There's a few things I did to alter my perceptions (in no particular order): 1. Start thinking of cooking as nifty biology/chemistry. There's a lot of books out there that go in-depth on this, but I think my favorite is "On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen" (Harold McGee 2004), which covers pretty much every foodstuff I've ever used. 2. Think of the last time you went out to a nice restaurant to eat, specifically of the best portion of food you got. Imagine being able to eat food of close to this quality multiple times a week, at much lower cost (I generally pay as much to make an 8-serving dish as a restaurant charges for 2). This probably only helps if you're big on food and/or eating fairly low-quality food now, but I found it a big motivator when I was learning. 3. If you're one of the many people posting in the dating advice comments above, consider the fact that cooking is an attractive skill in a romantic partner, so the time taken to learn it could be a useful investment. 4. Try starting with recipes you don't need to pay much attention to, such as stews; this helps to minimize the feeling of wasting time, as you just combine the ingredients and leave. As always, your mileage may vary, especially if you don't think with your stomach like I do.
[-]Barry_Cotter30

Poultry and pork are not safe to eat raw, even store bought in Western countries, same for minced meat. They need to be properly cooked, which means white all the way through. You can cook it hot and it'll be dry or at a lower temperature and still tender and juicy though.

Generally if it has hooves or swims and was properly handled or washed beforehand this is pretty accurate.

Reply
4Conuly
Given the conditions in factory farms, some might say especially store-bought in Western countries! (Or at least the US, I don't know about elsewhere.)
3pjeby
Define "safe". I've eaten plenty of store-bought poultry raw, never been sick from it. (Unless you count going, "ugh, that's not as fresh as I thought it was," and spitting it up a minute or two later.)
[-]lukeprog30

I don't know how to find research grants that might help fund graduate or even undergraduate education. Not quite "mail an envelope" or even "buy a stock" basic, but still annoying! One of these days I'll call up a bunch of admissions advisors and ask.

Several of my procedural gaps concern cooking, but they don't bother me because I plan to spend as few minutes of my life as possible preparing food. Not how I want to spend my precious time!

Reply
2[anonymous]
Grant-finding, as far as I know, is a google search issue. There are so many college scholarships that you may want to find a college scholarship database (like this ) to narrow it down. For graduate school, the big ones that I know of are NSF, DOD, and DOE (for science), Hertz (for applied science), Soros (for immigrants or immigrants' kids), and Ford (if you're black, Hispanic, or Native American.)
[-]DPiepgrass20

I don't know of a good content aggregator. I guess I would like to see a personalized web site which shows me all the posts/articles from all the good blogs and publishers I know about.

RSS readers are a good start, but not every site has a proper feed (with full, formatted article text and images) and usually the UI isn't what I want (e.g. it might be ugly compared to viewing the site in a browser; also I'd like to be able to see a combined feed of everything rather than manually selecting a particular blog). In the past, I needed caching fo... (read more)

Reply
[-]Bound_up20

LW makes frequent reference to coming to above average decisions with some kind of market.

And this market can be used to find right answers, the right calibrations between group values, something like this?

Where can I find information on this, or how does it work?

Reply
1satt
The favourite local writer on this is Robin Hanson, but the general idea has a big literature: the name to search for is "prediction market".
[-]Vaniver20

My addition to the Third Option would be: if you know something's a good company, wait until a cyclical (but fundamentally extraneous to the company's business prospects) market downturn and buy it while everything is crashing.

I think this is basically wrong, because opportunities are time-sensitive. If a company is undervalued now, it's not obvious it will remain undervalued until the next cyclical downturn, and you pass up on the benefits of any market correction in the valuation of the undervalued company.

I do agree that it makes sense to invest coun... (read more)

Reply
[-]A1987dM20

Came across this discussion accidentally,

And that's why I think “repository” threads belong in Main. That would have been much less likely to happen if this thread had been in Discussion.

Reply
[-]A1987dM20

ISTM that the n-th percentile man is less attractive to women than the n-th percentile woman is to men (at least for n not very close to 100), and as a result has less ‘bargaining power’, if you will.

Reply
[-]Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) 20

I think "getting dates" isn't the goal for most people. The question is whether you get into relationships with guys that fulfill your criteria of being good mates.

You're right, this is a different problem. Which is still unsolved for me.

If you are a pretty girl than many man are willing to chase you and wait some time till you are ready.

I have had a guy go to fairly epic lengths to do this. We had what I think most people would call an awesome relationship afterwards, and lived together for some time...but a year and a half later, when w... (read more)

Reply
[-]A1987dM20

If someone tells me: "I read about this free hug thing and then I tried it out", what does that tell me about the person? He's signalling that his adventurous and willing to do things that are a bit outside of the social norm that produce good feelings for other people.

I seem to have a vague recollection of someone in one of my social groups watching a video (or something) of some guy doing the free hugs thing, and commenting something to the effect that (loosely paraphrasing) he must be a loser pathetically looking for pretexts to convince gi... (read more)

Reply
[-]A1987dM20

If you manage to let go, move to the beat and visbily have fun while doing it you might be better than 50% of the people who do improvised dancing at a nightclub.

And if you manage to implement FizzBuzz in a couple minutes you might be better than 50% of the people who have a comp sci degree.

The standard threshold of non-crappiness is the 90th percentile, not the 50th... :-)

Reply
1Error
To get to the 90th, presumably you have to pass through the 50th. Nevertheless I'm adding that to my fortune file so that I will be regularly reminded, because it really is important.
3CronoDAS
Wouldn't that depend on where you started from?
[-]wedrifid20

But the skills about interacting with women platonically aren't all of the skills about interacting with women romantically. The infamous so-called “friend-zone”, anyone?

The point is a good one. That said, as far as interacting with girls platonically goes dancing is rather far from the most emasculating influence.

Reply
[-]ChristianKl20

I don't think it makes much sense to seperate skills into platonically/romantically.

If you look at some PUA who goes for a one-night stand "romantic" isn't the label I would use to describe the interaction. On the other hand it's a word that I could reasonable use to describe an intimite Bachata dance between two people who just meet.

The ability to be physically intimite with the opposing sex without getting tense is valuable.

In dance the man leads the woman. For a shy male that's a valuable skill to learn.

Dancing doesn't teach you everything. It doesn't teach you having good conversations. The things that it teaches you are still valuable.

Reply
[-]NancyLebovitz20

Scrubbing and attention Scrubbing, the follow-up.

Short version: I have problems with scrubbing effectively because I miss spots and have to iterate cleaning several times. There's various advice about scrubbing, of which using hotter water and not using the curly metal scrubbie seem to be the most immediately valuable. What I think of as an attention problem may be less serious than I thought-- I need to proofread what I write, so the same may apply to cleaning.

Plausible advice I haven't tried yet-- approach cleaning in 30 minute chunks so that a feeling of accomplishment/completion is possible.

Reply
[-]kpreid20

Could you give examples of comments (and appropriate contexts) in contexts other than your own home?

Reply
3Morgan_Catha
Say you go into Starbucks and there's a long line of customers waiting to order a drink. Approach the end of the line and go "Whoah, long line!". Chances are, you'll get someone's attention. People will turn around and look at you. When they do, make eye contact and say "We're gonna be here a while!" or something like that. You're immediately building rapport by referencing a shared context, as well as broadcasting your own confidence and willingness to socialize. It works great. A more difficult scenario, but still quite doable, is a bookstore. Find someone reading a particular book or type of book, or looking through a certain section, and engage them on it. "Hey, good book!" They're looking through the psychology section? Say "Psshh, Descartes. What did HE know?" This sort of thing will elicit a smile from almost anyone. The important thing is to not LOOK awkward, even though you may feel awkward. Yes, this approach is cheesy. And some people may find you annoying. But those are people who are likely annoyed with life in general. Overall, you can generate a lot of positive results this way. If you want to generate maximum socialization, be THAT guy.
[-]JGWeissman20

FYI, my wife's actual profile showed this; more precisely, IIRC it rated her as 44% Explorer, based on the traits given. It did not show what percentages the other 5 boxes broke down to, and I don't know whether those factors were also taken into account in the analysis. (I also don't know what precisely the percentage represents; i.e. is it a probability, a "percentage of your traits"...?)

Better, but still not good enough. If it is a mixture, what about the other 56%? Which 44% of the explorer traits? If it is a confidence level, the model do... (read more)

Reply
1pjeby
But we do observe epigenetic traits - variations in gene expression based on environmental conditions, such as genes that act differently depending on how much exercise you get, or the level of testosterone in the fetal environment, or various other things.. D'Adamo's claim here is that his typing groups are a combination of gene inheritance and gene expression, and his notion of "strategies" isn't really the same as say, having a completely different way of digesting foods. It's more like identifying which places to store fat in first -- something that (IIUC) we already know is heritable. The fact that fat gets stored isn't changed, just how much, where, and how quickly. Something like that can make a big difference on a practical level to a person's life, without being a particularly complex adaptation in itself.
[-]wedrifid20

IOW, you're not providing any new useful information here.

I have stated my decision to defer to mainstream consensus in the face of, basically, very little that would leave me to doubt it.

Reply
[-]wedrifid20

For those who have an interest in the possible benefits of a blood type diet the wikipedia page is, as is often the case, a good place to get the basics. Particularly by following up on the references cited.

I personally am not going to investigate further, the mainstream position seems to be solid:

Nevertheless, the consensus among dieticians, physicians, and scientists is that the theory is unsupported by scientific evidence.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

I'm going with that.

Reply
[-]gwern20

Is this a correct model, though?

I'm sure it isn't! But that's the fun of Fermi problems: reaching not-wildly-incorrect solutions by way of absurdly simplified & wrong models.

For example, I feel sure that if my 20 foot answer is too little, the lethal radius would still be less than 1 larger order of magnitude (200 feet), and if it's too much, that the lethal radius is still bigger than 1 smaller order (2 feet).

Reply
2Vladimir_M
Oh, I like your Fermi model! (And also my above comment was horribly incorrect -- see the subsequent discussion with Constant.) What I was wondering however is whether it might be off too much even by Fermi problem standards, i.e. by multiple orders of magnitude. The trouble is that if the target creatures are vastly better or poorer conductors than the surrounding medium, this greatly influences how the flow of energy through and around them is distributed, possibly making the model based on uniform energy flow across all angles too inaccurate even for a Fermi calculation. (To give an extreme example, a metal wire connecting the poles of a battery draws nearly all energy flow in the circuit through itself, despite being a negligible part of the spatial cross-section.) Or to put it more precisely, the way a human distorts the flow of electrical energy when surrounded by ground and air may well be extremely different, and possibly go in a totally different direction, from the way a fish distorts it when surrounded by seawater, so your generalization from humans to fish might be problematic. My initial idea was to attempt another Fermi approach based on guesstimating V(r) and its derivative, but the poor conductivity of fish relative to seawater seems to complicate that one too.
[-]wedrifid20

"Highly variable" is not particularly helpful but I suppose if it's true then there might not be much more to say.

Regarding variability:

Are you in a section of the library where talking is forbidden? Probably don't talk there unless you wish to flaunt rulebreaking.

Don't interrupt people when they are thoroughly engrossed in reading a book or look like they are fully focussed on getting their assignment finished by 5:30. Do talk to people if they look more relaxed or generally not busy.

"Obvious" kind of stuff, for a suitable value of... (read more)

Reply
1Sniffnoy
The "don't" part was pretty obvious to me, and generalizes to other places, the "do" part was not. :) I would have assumed people in libraries probably want to be left alone.
[-]wedrifid20

Oh, pardon me. That was not particularly a serious recommendation. At least, not one that is likely to become relevant all that often. I was mostly being lighthearted so as to signal rapport with sixes as opposed to complete disagreement.

Reply
[-][anonymous]20

Well, look at the list: these people are eating (among other things) "...rodents, a large variety of birds, many types of insects, caterpillars, various fish, larvae, freshwater crabs, snakes, toads, frogs..." In other words, small animals.

The bottom line is that the Maillard reaction is not a modern superstimulus. It's not in the same class of things as a candy bar. It's a reaction that occurs naturally when meat is seared, not something like a Snickers bar that can only be created through a tremendous amount of artificial processing using moder... (read more)

Reply
1JGWeissman
The bottom line is that the products of the Maillard reaction are unhealthy for humans and taste better to humans that healthy alternatives. Whether or not the Maillard reactions were less concentrated (note, this does not mean non-existent) in our evolutionary path has bearing on a possible explanation of this bottom line, which we can directly observe in modern times. A candy bar does involve more processing and is a greater superstimulus in absolute terms, though the Maillard reactions are in a way more insidious. Any adult human eating a candy bar will be aware that they are consuming an unhealthy desert, but most adults consuming browned meat will be under the false impression that they are eating something healthy.
[-]wedrifid20

I would say that the fact that browning meat (and vegetables) can accelerate aging is among the things that people should systematically learn before they become adults.

How much accelerated aging do you get per unit of tasting really really good? Do I stop browning meat before or after I consider it worthwhile to start a calorie restriction diet?

Reply
[-]TobyBartels20

THE WHOLE CAR EXERIOR is negatively charged.

It's a matter of voltage, not charge. The negative terminal of the battery has lower voltage than the positive terminal. The car's metal frame is in contact with the negative terminal, so it's at that same voltage, even though it's still neutrally charged.

Reply
[-]Desrtopa20

She's bipolar, and apparently bipolar individuals tend to be chronically low in melatonin.

Reply
[-]Desrtopa20

I bought some for someone else a matter of days ago (she's living kind of hand to mouth at the moment, so I sprung the cost for her,) but I didn't notice until after I placed the order that I had selected the highest available dosage, 10 mg per pill. Would it be best for her to start with fractions of a pill per night? Her sleep issues are pretty serious.

Reply
[-]pjeby20

Also, there's nothing necessarily wrong with a brown or gray surface on meat.

I understand that. However, it's also correlated somewhat with the age of the meat (i.e. quantity of oxygen exposure), which is why I will smell such a piece more carefully than one without such a sign of age.

I do agree that exposure to harmful substances isn't all-or-nothing bad (while of course I reject most homeopathic-believers' views that small amounts of harmful substances are magical).

It sounds like you might be in danger of overgeneralizing from homeopathy to the h... (read more)

Reply
[-]MartinB20

this

Will be difficult to top.

Reply
[-]Sniffnoy20

Unfortunately it only seems to be a social convention among those who consider it to be a social convention. :P

Reply
[-]Jonathan_Graehl20

You may have misunderstood me.

Dvorak is probably worth learning. I'm saying that (except if you spend most of your time typing non-English text, e.g. some programming language that has much more typing time than thinking time), it's probably not worth finding a more optimal layout than Dvorak.

In fact, if you have examples of the types of text you most often type, you can find a nonstandard layout using computer optimization, which is what I was thinking of.

My rough view is that for typical English text, the efficiencies are:

  • qwerty: 85%
  • dvorak: 97%
  • (all o
... (read more)
Reply
4MartinB
I try my best, but I also am very biased and probably not an expert. The main effort in switching layouts is a fixed re:training time, and then some minor hassles when interfacing with other people. It is not the time to install the new driver! (I usually regroup the keys on my keyboards, but thats also a fixed time per keyboard bought and some low level fun.) There is no research I am aware of that confirms the RSI/finger movement connection. All pleasure derived from my Layout of choice is purely subjective. The point I tried to make is that it pays to choose well before deciding to spend the effort for training a new layout. Take a few hours to reach a somewhat reasonable decision and then go about it, instead of just following a subcultural trend. I think you underestimate the possible benefits gained from a better designed keyboard. There is a lot of space at the top. What makes me like Neo tremendously besides the optimization are the additional layers. Pay attention to the 3rd layer in the overview. All brackets are nicely available in the center field.I would like to see that tacked onto any other layout one might choose. (I am also disappointed that professional researchers into work ergonomy did not attack this topic on their own. The layouts I checked out seem to be fan projects. And with current technology it is almost trivial to calculate a good one at home.) And being somewhat of a language buff I can type all latin-based languages natively from my keyboard. Without installing anything extra or switching layouts multiple times. That might not be too important for all-english writers, but for me that means some benefit with my 3rd language and possible later ones. I would expect that someone interested in the topic is not immediately aware of the possibilities offered. Actually before relearning I calculated the expected benefits and came out with what economists call a black 0 meaning some minor benefits. It is more valuable to retrain to anot
2Jonathan_Graehl
I agree that subjective pleasure with your choices is very important. I just remembered another reason I chose to stay qwerty - emacs keybindings and video games (although I'm video game abstinent for the past few months). The default letters-as-commands mappings would have to be changed or positionally relearned for each such application I'm familiar with (similar: ctrl-z x c v in windows). Overall I didn't feel like investing the effort to resolve the annoyance, but I guess I wish now that I had made the investment; I'd probably enjoy the result as you do. The effort of installing a new layout isn't much, you're right (unless you hop computers often). It just might be if you use especially limited devices (does the iphone/ipad keyboard even support arbitrary layouts?) that you sometimes need to qwerty anyway.
2MartinB
The NEO developergroup payed attention to many of those. They also collected common sets of two or three letters from common applications. So the Smiley becomes just one roll over three buttons. I probably reap some benefits from that once I get back into Lateχ. In general I like to use tools that are optimized over my current horizon and can surprise me with thinks already put in way after I started to use them. You can make the investment at any time you choose. Once you did the calculation changes (thanks to sunken cost) but before that its a matter of finding a convenient time space. Like when one is sick at home, or in holidays. Iphone/ipad does not have Colemak or generic support for different layouts. Not sure about Dvorak.
[-]NancyLebovitz20

But there are ways of dealing with social stigma's psychological effects that aren't removing the source of the stigma or changing society.

Could you expand on that?

Reply
[-]John_Maxwell110

As I mentioned above, having people social proof you, taking drugs, taking acting classes, meditating, and giving yourself therapy are all techniques worth experimenting with.

I could probably write a post about how I give myself therapy, but it might be difficult because essentially my self-therapy methods amount to phrases that get triggered in certain situations that remind me that feeling unhappy is not the rational thing to feel. (Example phrases: "I can deal with this level of emotional discomfort." "I give you my permission not to think about that." "As an exercise, try to feel [insert emotion here]." "Work with what you have." "Take a risk." "If I could choose to do X, I likely would.") It might be hard for me to extract all of my heuristics, because they get ingrained over time. (E.g. I find myself using "work with what you have" less because as a result of using it, I've made progress in ingraining the principle of not feeling demoralized by setbacks.)

Come to think of it, this approach (mostly implemented subconsciously) has been so effective that I'm thinking it might be a good idea to conscious... (read more)

Reply
2Blueberry
Please write a post on this, if it's at all possible to discuss how you implant these phrases and how they help. I think it would really help me as well as others.
4John_Maxwell
This isn't how I implanted them, but you could try using a spaced repetition system such as Anki: http://ankisrs.net/ Whenever you saw a card corresponding to a phrase, you could challenge yourself to come up with a situation in your recent past which you could have used the phrase. Alternatively, you could describe to me what stigma you tend to experience and I could tell you which phrases to use and how they apply to your situation. If you give me your email address, I can trivially send your future self a few reminders on what you should be keeping in mind (I use http://www.boomeranggmail.com/ for sending delayed emails). And, I'm extending this offer to anyone, not just Blueberry. If people are too embarrassed to discuss the stigma they are harmed by under their Less Wrong usernames, they can create shill usernames or email me with a shill email address at dreamalgebra on google's email service.
2NancyLebovitz
Also, I wonder if the system can be tweaked so that it doesn't undercut strong positive emotions which are in the harmless-to-useful range.
[-]wedrifid20

Are enough people doing the research?

Absolutely. You can not beat that market. There is too much money involved and more than enough people interested.

Reply
[-]Risto_Saarelma20

Some routines like SimpleFit or the CrossFit Cindy exercise seem to get along with just pullups, pushups and squats.

Reply
[-]Blueberry20

As someone with terrible skin problems, I've found Dove products to be among the worst for skin condit[i]ons.

Yeah, mileage varies a lot with this, because everyone with sensitive skin is sensitive to different things. My skin loves Dove but it won't work for everyone. The key point is to look for body wash products that are labeled "for sensitive skin."

Reply
[-]CronoDAS20

I've read that the way most stylists are taught to cut curly hair is flat-out wrong - apparently, the standard method is optimized for being able to straighten the hair, rather than having curls that look good.

Reply
1noveldevice
That is absolutely correct in my experience. It is hard, as a curly person, to find a good stylist, which is why until two months ago, I was still getting my hair cut in Kansas even though I live in Vancouver, BC. (The one in Canada. Yes, really.) Now I'm working to train my current excellent stylist that yes, I do actually have to wash my hair every day, and not washing my hair is really not an option (allergies). But at least she cuts my hair so it looks great. I can't really use product (allergies) so straightening was never an option for me.
[-]Mark_Eichenlaub20

No, I'm not sure how strong the selection effects are. In fact it's seems certain that some selection effects exist, and I don't know how to estimate them. But the signal is so strong that I didn't think selection effects could explain all of it. It might be an interesting question to investigate. Presumably there are studies done on making out-of-shape people exercise. Military recruiting and training could also provide a lot of data.

Reply
[-]pengvado20

The pot itself can't get hotter than boiling either, as long as there's a bunch of water in it. (This, btw, is how rice cookers detect when the rice is done.)

Reply
[-]TobyBartels20

One thing that I have trouble with in the U.S. is how much information the police can compel me to give when stopped on the street. Unless you're operating a motor vehicle (or have some other special circumstance), you don't have to carry ID, but in many States, you do have to show it if you're carrying it, and you usually have to give your name and address regardless. Since this varies from State to State, the national ACLU information is vague, so check with your local branch.

Reply
[-]kpreid20

Those who are concerned may be interested to know that Ivory Liquid Hand Soap (and, in all the stores I've visited lately, no other) is a brand of liquid soap which contains no antibacterial ingredients.

Furthermore, it at least used to have a slogan like "so gentle you can even use it on your face" — and it does not have the warning “keep out of eyes” that, as far as I know, all antibacterial soaps have — and I do in fact use it as a face and body wash.

Reply
[-]pjeby20

Raw chicken liver was over the line though.

I'll admit I've never tried any organ meats; I've heard that there are non-ancestral contaminants we don't have the sensory machinery to detect and which accumulate more in animals' organs than in their flesh.

Reply
[-]pwno20

Dating is for people who have trouble hooking up without making their intentions explicit.

Reply
[-]David_Gerard110

YMMV. "You're hot, but I'm really quite keen on knowing if I can bear to be around you for a few hours" can be a good thing to establish.

Reply
[-]sixes_and_sevens20

I've never really thought about it before, but I'm pretty sure I "just know" as well, in most cases. I think there's a bit of ambiguity from P through U, (if you asked me whether Q or T came first, I'd have to think about it for a second), so that suggests that certain parts of the alphabet are easier for my brain to sequence than others.

Reply
2TobyBartels
I also just know it, even with the same range (‘P’–‘U’) of uncertainty. (And yes, I'd composed enough of this reply before reading the parent comment that this is an independent datum.) I sometimes even mix up ‘R’ and ‘S’ after thinking about it. (I never go back to the song, although I certainly do know that too.) I have been known to touch-type the alphabet in order when checking out a new font. This has been useful to me. As a teacher, I alphabetise papers before recording grades, and it's handy to be able to do this quickly and correctly. (I'm pretty sure that I just knew it before I started regularly using that knowledge, however.)
[-]AdeleneDawner20

All I can suggest past that is to make a point of using the designations more often. It didn't really click for me until quite recently, either, but the only thing that seems even remotely likely to have triggered that click is that a project I was working on involved discussing some pictures with a friend, and I found myself having to actually think about whether X was to the left or the right of Y a few times a week for a couple months.

Reply
[-]hewhocutsdown20

Left vs. Right still tends to take two tries.

Reply
5AdeleneDawner
It's not the most graceful solution, but if you hold out your hands with your palms down and your thumbs pointed toward each other, the one that's shaped like an L is your left one. Or if you prefer verbal mnemonics, "you write from left to right".
2JoshuaFox
I smashed the left side of my face into a wall while sledding at age ten. Ever since then, I simply had to remember which cheek the (very minor) scar was on. Don't try this yourself.
2saturn
Can you remember whether you're right-handed or left-handed? And if so, can you remember which hand you normally hold a pen in?
2Kaj_Sotala
I remember it via the left and right mouse buttons.
2sixes_and_sevens
When learning the left-hand/right-hand motor/induction rules for electromagnetic fields, I spent about half an hour tapping alternate sides of my head, saying "motor, induction, motor, induction..." I can now instinctively tell you which is my motor hand and which is my induction hand. I still have a problem with instant recall of left and right, though.
2Elizabeth
I don't get instant recall for left and right, but when I was learning to drive, the teacher would say "turn left ahead" and I would automatically turn on the correct blinker, and then have to pause to figure out which way to turn.
1James_K
I deal with this by wearing a watch. I always wear a watch on my left hand. Whenever I have to work out whether I'm talking about my left or my right I stop and sense the extra weight. The wrist with a slight weight on it is my left.
[-]MartinB20

I would bet yes. Part of the problem is not knowing the tolerance range of the parameters. Like when does the precise timing matter and when does it not.

Reply
5taryneast
Precision generally only matters with desserts (which is really a form of kitchen chemistry). Any other meal has a lot of leeway. Your first meals may involve veggies that are a bit extra squishy (overcooked) or crunchy (undercooked), or a nasty combination of the two (the temperature was too high or you didn't stir often enough), but in all the above cases, unless there's actual carbon (black) on the outside, then you'll still be able to eat it.
[-]Mass_Driver20

No. Sorry about that.

Reply
[-]jimmy20

Got sick for a week or so. Symptoms matched salmonella.

Reply
[-]Alicorn20

Editing the title will cause it to re-propagate to RSS feeds.

Reply
[-]Sniffnoy20

If you're not sure whether it's done, you can cut it open and have a look.

You should probably specify how one would actually visually distinguish done from not done. Or maybe not, it sounds like PeerInfinity already understands the basics of cooking. I don't, however. :)

Reply
3Nornagest
Uncooked meat is semitransparent with a kind of gelatin-like luster. As it cooks, it becomes more opaque and shifts color. The exact color transitions depend on the kind of meat and whether it's had a chance to oxidize before you start cooking it. Chicken, which as mentioned you need to worry about the most, starts out a pale yellow-pink and cooks to a tannish color. Pork starts out light pink and cooks to a kind of light pinkish-gray; if it goes completely gray you've overcooked it. Beef and lamb start dark red, or dark pink if they've been exposed to the air, and cook to a deep red-brown. All meat develops a brown crust over time if it's being grilled or pan-fried, but it's the interior color that matters. Another thing to look at is the kind of juice it's dripping; uncooked meat bleeds slightly, a thin reddish fluid, while well-cooked meat oozes gravy-like, clear or brownish liquids. It's safe before it stops bleeding, though.
[-]Sniffnoy20

The question, then, becomes how common useful home ec courses actually are. E.g. I had one of those back in middle school, but it was close to useless. IIRC, it consisted of cooking and sewing; the former half did nothing to actually explain cooking and so was useless to anyone who didn't already understand cooking, while the latter half seemed to successfully teach the basics (at least, I think I understand the basics) but isn't something I've ever really had reason to apply. (I think we also discussed nutrition some, but that was redundant as it was already covered in other classes.)

Reply
3jsalvatier
Incidentally, on cooking, if you're a nerd, learning some of the science of cooking is actually pretty rewarding. Learning how browning occurs, how fats work etc. can improve your cooking somewhat and it's fun to know. I found The Science of Cooking to be pretty informative.
[-]knb20

How do you buy a used car?

Reply
7sfb
(UK Specific post, not a car person). tl;dr Find one, optionally pay a company to check it isn't stolen or legally written off, and has no outstanding finance. Agree an amount of money. Sign the vehicle ownership documents, trade those and the car for the money within any applicable laws governing trade in your area. If your car has the required tax and safety certificates, and you have the required license and insurance, drive away, otherwise sort those out next. Cross your fingers and hope it isn't a lemon, but realise that if it is, it is a setback, not the end of the world. end tl;dr You decide what you are looking for and/or what you can afford, and search around for ones within your area or however far you are willing to travel. If you are searching yourself then you will look at vehicles on the street with "for sale" signs on them, in local newspapers and advertising boards, on local search sites, or national ones such as Craigslist, Ebay or Autotrader, or at dealers/garages or their websites. If you are searching with a dealership, you can discuss you requirements with them and they can suggest available cars, possibly distant ones in other garages in their group which they can transport to you. Many official dealerships for car manufacturers run approved used car schemes where they take recent cars (typically 3 years old), service them and then offer better than normal guarantees / warranty extensions, for an extra cost. When you find one you are interested in, make contact with the seller and arrange to look at the car before buying. It would help here if you know someone you can take along, not just for a second set of eyes looking at the car, but also for a defence against pushy sellers or a second set of eyes checking your behaviour isn't too biased towards/against purchasing. Have a look around in advance in price guides and listings so you know expected prices for that make, model, specification and age. Find a checklist from somewhere online and
6Eliezer Yudkowsky
Craigslist has worked for me. Expect to spend some money on repairing the car. Taking it to a mechanic first seems like a big deal but you will need to take it there and you may as well take it there before buying it.
4CronoDAS
I suppose the short answer is to go to nearby car dealerships and interact with the salespeople - they may have some for sale and, if they do, can probably find one that they think you can afford to buy. Buying a used car without getting ripped off may be more difficult.
2Dagon
This exchange is a good example of why this post needs clarification on types of knowledge that should be sought here. "how do you buy a used car" is not a simple procedural question that can have a clear answer in a web posting. It's a VERY large set of options with pretty widely varying constraints and preferences. Not unrelatedly, it has a large number of people making a living in helping people do this. [edit: I retract this, as I've just seen some useful advice on horribly complicated topics. Please ask (and answer!) whatever you think might help. ]
2orthonormal
A subscription to Consumer Reports might be well worth your time- you can look up their yearly auto issue, which gives detailed ratings on cars (including information on what you can expect for used models of various years, and what would constitute a good deal on one of them). After you've figured out what you're looking for and how much you expect to pay, start looking at local dealerships (and look through your local newspaper's auto classified section every day); test-drive different models that interest you; look at quite a few cars before making a final decision. (The salespeople will of course want you to think that there's some sort of time pressure, but they're usually wrong.) Then, as EY mentioned, take your car of choice to a mechanic for a check-up (tell the mechanic that you're considering buying the car) before you sign. It's a fair bit of work, but having a good car for several thousand less is well worth it. I don't know much about buying from private individuals (on Craigslist, etc)- obviously there's one fewer profit margin involved, so it's probably better in terms of expected value if you're willing to take the higher variance.
[-]beriukay20

Any suggestions using the yellow pages would be highly appreciated. I never really got the hang of it. In fact, I used to be proudly ignorant of it, announcing to friends and family that I simply could not read the damn thing. This had the negative effect of making me never want to call the pizza place when friends would get together, which made me feel guilty enough that I would offer to pay more than an equal share when splitting the bill. Now that google exists, I find that I really don't need the phone book, but any useful tips would be appreciated.

Reply
5Benquo
The yellow pages are organized into categories- each section is a category someone would want to look up phone numbers for, mostly businesses selling similar products. For example: restaurants, plumbers, lawyers. The topics are organized alphabetically. When you want to look up something specific, like places to order pizza, think of categories that might describe it. There might be a "Restaurants" category, but "pizza delivery" is popular enough that it may have its own section. Once you have a category in mind, find it by searching the book alphabetically; if you need more information about that, maybe gwern can help (see gwern's comment). Once you have found a relevant section of the yellow pages, you will see a list of names and phone numbers, as well as some paid advertisements, also with names and phone numbers. Every entry in the section is a member of the same category. Then pick one entry and call.
2TobyBartels
Note that all of the entries are paid advertisements; you pay extra for a big one or one that's not part of the main alphabetical list. (I try to ignore the latter, although of course they are even bigger and easier to see, which is their reason for existence. The corresponding entry in the alphabetical list will still refer you to them if you want the additional information that they contain.)
2thomblake
I haven't used the yellow pages in years, but here goes: They tend to be organized by what sort of business you're looking for. So, "Pizza Delivery" might be a category, which should be in large, bold letters. The listings will have at least a phone number and location; look for places near your location. Call one. Of course, the better solution these days is to open the Google Maps app on your smart phone, click 'search', type in 'pizza', click on one of the results, and click 'call'.
[-]Thorsten Staerk10

Your dishwasher is not broken. You need to insert dish salt and rinse aid, then it will do its job well.

Reply
[-]Lumifer10

If you want to ride the cycles, shouldn't you just market-time the broad index of your choice? Picking "undervalued" companies to ride the cycles implies that you have two skills (which, I think, are mostly orthogonal) -- the stock-picking skill and the market-timing skill.

Reply
[-]A1987dM10

you dance frequently.

Actually these days I usually only dance once or twice a week, and sometimes even less than that.

If you try to handle your relationship with a woman on an abstract level instead of handling it on a emotional level

That's not what I meant. I meant ‘trade’ as in, the partners jointly trying to fulfil each other's wishes, rather than each one only thinking about themself. That doesn't require suppressing emotions.

that significantly decreases your pool of potential mates.

So what? We're talking about long-term relationships, not... (read more)

Reply
[-]A1987dM10

In focusing on the difference in what the man can do versus what the woman can do to fix the situation.

Er... Why? You realize that the man and the woman can communicate with each other, and thence ‘trade’ (in a LWesque general abstract sense)? If it would take months for me to achieve something but minutes for her to achieve the same, it'd be most daft for us to do the former. (And it feels off to call what you mentioned in the other thread ‘something the woman can do’ -- it's not like the man isn't playing any role; it sounds as weird to me as calling ... (read more)

Reply
[-]TheOtherDave10

I don't know how to make that interpretation compatible with, for example, Blueberry's claim that a straight cis male would not be attracted to a pre-op MtF, given that many sexual characteristics typical of women are present in a a pre-op MtF. (And, indeed, my understanding of the real world is that straight cis males are not infrequently attracted to pre-op trangender MtF people.)

But I would certainly agree that the claim that the "primary hurdle" for sexual attraction is the set of all sexual characteristics, both primary and secondary, is a much more sensible claim than the one I understood Blueberry to be making.

Reply
[-]ChristianKl10

Or maybe I have other things to do with 15 minutes than hugging a random stranger. Opportunity costs, anyone?

That's a completely different objection than saying that the activity is boring. If you change around your objections in that way it's likely that you are in the process of rationalizing some fear of intimicy.

Yes, but wouldn't that apply more to improvised dancing than to beginners' dancing classes?

What do you mean when you say "improvised dancing"? Do you already have the skills to spend a significant amount of time dancing closely with a women in nightclub settings?

Reply
1A1987dM
Isn't the feeling that you could do something more fun with your time what boredom is? For such a broad definition of “intimacy” as yours, I'm pretty sure I have very little fear of intimacy itself. e.g. this (I'm the tall guy with glasses and a black T-shirt). (That was over a year ago, I may have gotten better --or worse-- since.) What amount of time would you consider to be significant, and are you talking about women I already know or about strangers? (Also, “in nightclub settings” isn't a terribly homogeneous category IME, women tend to be fussier in some of those than in others.)
2ChristianKl
I don't advocate doing it primarily for fun but to learn something. Sometimes good learning experiences are boring. At the beginning of the video you are touching the hand of a girl but expect for the part where you spin her it doesn't look like you have much contact with her. When it comes to the girl on the end you have a bit more contact but not much more. If dancing like that feels like you aren't leading the girl it's because you actually aren't leading. Most of the time that this video goes you aren't touching a woman. If you are taking a dancing lesson you are basically all the time touching. Let me give you a link to a beginner kizomba lesson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbYChD5b9VE Watch that video and compare the amount of physically intimacy that you have in your video with the women and the amount of physical intimicy that you see in that beginner kizomba lesson. Some beginner kizomba lesson might be a bit less intimite but that level of intimicy can exist in beginner kizomba lessons. If you do a lot of that kind of improvised dancing that you showed in your video, I would recommend you to take Bachata lessons over Kizomba lessons. Beginner bachata lessons are a bit less intimite than beginner kizomba lessons but you learn a bunch of things that will improve your improvised dancing. Once you learn Bachata decently it looks like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y5YAdHfT9Q&list=PL07372236D9BBFDBD . That an average dance that you could see between two strangers who just meet at a decent social Bachata event.
1TheOtherDave
Not in my experience, except in a very degenerate sense. There seems to be some threshold of entertainment below which I'm inclined to describe my state as bored; above that threshold, I may not be having as much fun as possible, but that's not the same thing at all.
[-]ChristianKl10

IME, dancing with someone doesn't magically make me that much bolder in non-dancing situations than I already was (I can even remember at least one case when it actually made me more awkward), and I'd expect the effect to be even smaller if we were made to dance together in a class than if we did so on our own accord.

You only had a few lessons and that alone doesn't have much of an effect on your interaction with woman in general.

That would mainly teach me resistance to boredom (and it would likely kind-of make me look silly, though that's not necess

... (read more)
Reply
[-]ChristianKl10

IOW, my point was that dancing doesn't necessarily lead to sex and sex isn't necessarily preceded by dancing -- especially the kind of dancing taught in classes

That's not something I argued.

If you take the average nerd and put him into physically intimicy with a girl he tenses up. It takes time and effort for him to relax.

Romantic chemistry that created in a dance context doesn't lead with the same probability to sex than the same chemistry outside of a dance context.

It's still romantic chemistry and when your brain learns to become comfortable with it ... (read more)

Reply
[-]Vaniver10

Knowledge that domestic robots will be a bigger thing than other people expect doesn't translate into having comparative advantage at producing domestic robots.

Reply
[-]gwern10

Given the failure rates for new businesses, that doesn't sound like a very reliable strategy.

Reply
[-]Raoul58910

Right. Is there no more sophisticated strategy though?

Reply
[-][anonymous]10

"I am beginning to suspect that it is surprisingly common for intelligent, competent adults to somehow make it through the world for a few decades while missing some ordinary skill, like mailing a physical letter, folding a fitted sheet, depositing a check, or reading a bus schedule. "

I need to learn almost all of that...and several other things.

How would someone in El Salvador legally move to Canada in no more than 3-4 years? How much money would that take and how does one find a job?

I tried looking at the newspaper for one but nearly all of it ... (read more)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
2wedrifid
There is a skill for folding fitted sheets? Damn. That'd be handy.
2Manfred
Once you know it exists, you can think of what it should be, probably. Hint: Znxr gur pbearef tb vagb rnpu bgure.
[-]sixes_and_sevens10

The word "homonymous" takes care of itself in my case, since it's a word I'm familiar with already. The "hermianopia" bit is a not-quite-portmanteau of "hermione" and "opium".

Reply
[-]gwern10

If you mean that seriously, you're simply wrong; if it's meant to be humorous, meh. I won't downvote per my usual practice for replies, but I could understand why the others did.

Reply
[-]MartinB10

I had two mishaps a few years ago. Once A blue pant that darkened a whole load of white shirts, another time a red one. The color wore off after a few washes, but I don't recommend it. Even if most items are fine, just one is enough to ruin a whole load of clothes.

Reply
[-]gwern10

Light-colored? Probably a kind of green, then; oolongs are usually pretty dark-colored (but on the other hand, greens can get bitter if they sit for a while).

Reply
[-]khafra10

You can wear shirt stays while walking barefoot if you leave the bottom disengaged, because the elastic pulls them up into your pantlegs. Also, there are different types. Some clip to your socks like they do to your shirt; some loop around the bottom of your foot. The latter type would be possible to wear completely engaged while (aside from that) barefoot, if you really wanted to. They also have the advantage of not leaving deep, red, itchy, clasp-shaped impressions in your ankles.

Reply
[-]MixedNuts10

How do I clean carpet floors? (I mean regular maintenance, but tips on removing particular kinds of stains also welcome.) I don't have a vacuum cleaner.

Reply
4Alicorn
You borrow a vacuum cleaner. You can get some sorts of debris (long hair, mostly) and the stuff that clings to it by shuffling around barefoot, or by hand, or with a rake.
1MixedNuts
Thanks! How do I borrow a vacuum cleaner? Context: I'm living in dorms for two weeks, most people are away on holiday, those who're still here are on completely different schedules from mine, there's no place clearly marked "Hang out and meet other humans here". And I don't even have an oven to bake conversation-opening cookies. I looked into renting a vacuum cleaner, but that doesn't seem to exist.
6Alicorn
If your dorm is like the ones I'm familiar with, there may be a shared cleaning supply closet from which your RA or similar can fetch you a vacuum that you are free to use. Failing that, you could put a sign on your door offering five euros for the use of a vacuum and see who knocks.
[-]MartinB10

Simple habit is to start using Names in conversation way more often. It feels a bit unnatural at first, but can help.

Reply
[-]taryneast10

Ok - well on a related note... I find that I only like the taste of water if I'm actually thirsty... if I'm just drinking as a kind of fidgeting (or when some diet-book had told me I should "drink 8 cups a day") I hate the taste too.

YMMV, of course, but worth considering.

As to the "8 cups a day" - my aunt's a dietician and she says that the 8-cups is inclusive of the water that you consume via other sources (eg in your food or your morning cuppa joe)... whereas most diet books assume it's 8-cups on top of all your other dietary sources.

Reply
3NancyLebovitz
There's no evidence that 8 cups a day does any good-- I can't find a link, but when the debunking first came out, it turned out that there was no source for the idea that 8 cups a day was worthwhile. I've found that drinking until it's no longer a pleasure (I generally don't mind the taste of water, though I think Aquafina tastes of plastic) leaves me feeling better than just drinking until I'm not thirsty, and the former takes a good bit more water.
5taryneast
Yup - I also recall that the human sense of thirst is particularly unreliable (though cannot remember the source). It's definitely less reliable than the sense of hunger - and we all know that that can be faulty. There's a "dieting trick" that I've heard of whereby if you feel a little like snacking - you should first try drinking a glass of water... because your body can often mistake one for the other.
[-]sketerpot10

Having lived in Lincoln and enjoyed the nicely watery tap water, I think they're just looking for something to grouse about. You often see groups of people start to dislike something because the rest of the group speaks ill of it, in a positive feedback loop.

Water is mostly tasteless, so people's perceptions of its taste are especially sensitive to weird psychological stuff.

Reply
[-]JoshuaZ10

Not necessarily. There are a fair number of Christians who strongly self-identify as Christian but don't go to church that regularly (in the US at least there are some very weird patterns. People claim in surveys to be going to church much more frequently than church attendance rates suggest.) This also won't rule out other common religious groups, such as semi-religious Jews.

Reply
[-]bigjeff510

This reminds me of a story I heard of a comedian who really put the screws to a telemarketer.

The comedian pretended to be a detective investigating a homicide when the telemarketer called, and started grilling him about his relationship with the deceased (i.e. the comedian). He even went so far as to find out what city and office building the guy worked at, and told him not to move because local police would soon be on their way to pick him up for questioning.

It was hilarious, but incredibly mean. I wouldn't be too surprised if the telemarketer found himself a new job as soon as possible after that.

Reply
1arundelo
http://www.tommabe.com/videos-find/video_murder_scene.htm
[-]handoflixue10

In that particular case I could see "you're welcome" being received oddly, since the social expectation is to thank the other person. That said "You're welcome - and thank YOU for your $GIFT" seems to work decently if it's, say, exchanging Christmas gifts.

I've generally gotten positive reactions to using "you're welcome". It might help that I have a voice that comes across as genuinely friendly and happy, and when I'm not genuinely feeling that way I won't use the phrase. I don't think I've ever seen someone react as though it... (read more)

Reply
[-]jhuffman10

From the post that you replied to:

Then LEARN HOW TO TYPE. And don't make an excuse for why you're a special snowflake who doesn't need to.

Reply
3SilasBarta
Yes, I'm familiar with that comment, as I was before you made your first reply, and your point still isn't any clearer. Why don't you try again, and this time, say it explicitly, so I can either appreciate your insight, see your error, or confirm your rudeness.
3jhuffman
My point is simply that what you are doing is not touch typing; if you transcribe slower than you can type from your brain then you are not touch typing. People who touch type find transcription a lot faster since they do not need to think at all. I find your narrative an elaborate excuse for not simply learning to type properly.
4SilasBarta
Okay, thanks for stating your point -- this should have been your first comment. Now, could you provide a source for your claim about "people who touch type find transcribing easier"? Your reasoning doesn't make sense: when I transcribe, having to learn what I'm supposed to type is the bottleneck, which is why typing what's already in my head is faster for me -- I skip the stage of reading. I also don't think about each individual letter as you seem to be implying, and I type as fast as the OP touch-typist claims. I can even type fast enough to transcribe people talking. (The accuracy isn't good, but it's high enough to reconstruct it afterward.) I use 10 fingers, I base 8 of them on the home row, I type a touch-typing speeds, I use a keyboard optmized for touch typing, I use the keyboard in preference to the mouse; what exactly would "learning to type" include, and how would it be an improvement?
5jhuffman
Maybe I misunderstood you; I guess I leapt to the conclusion that when transcribing your eyes moved between the source and the keyboard. If that were the case then "learning to type" would mean learning to type without ever looking at the keys. It sounds like you do that. If you didn't do that, then its a safe bet that while your 90 WPM is "good enough" you could almost certainly transcribe faster if you could keep your eyes on the source all the time.
4SilasBarta
I don't ever look at the keyboard when transcribing, or typing in general (except maybe on the occasional symbol). The slowdown in transcription is not from having to look back at the keyboard.
3TabAtkins
I can concur with the reporter's comments in that transcribing is faster for me (as a touch-typist), and more accurate. I can disconnect my brain when transcribing and just let the text flow from my visual center straight to my fingers. When transcribing properly you're not actually "reading" - I, at least, retain very little of texts that I transcribe.
3JackEmpty
This is why learning to speed read is so difficult for me. If I look at a word I've read and subvocalized it. I can't not read a word that I look at. I can try to ignore parsing full sentences and their relation to each other, with limited success, but not at the scale of individual words or letters.
[-]JGWeissman10

It's not that much extra effort

Try cutting up the meat with a bone knife that you make and sharpen yourself, instead of your metal store-bought knife, and skewering it on a stick you find that is strong enough to skewer the meat, but small enough not tear apart the small pieces of meat, instead of browning in a metal pan or skewering on a metal skewer, and then tell our hunter-gatherer ancestors that it's not that much extra effort.

if I ate more meat at the time I would have discovered the (substantial) effect much sooner.

That is speculation. What w... (read more)

Reply
1[anonymous]
How do you imagine that the hunter-gatherers are skinning and butchering the animal? With their fingernails? Okay. I don't claim to know that for certain or anything. You've already accepted that the technique is at least thousands of years old, which is as far as I can feel really sure--although I'll admit that it seems to me much more likely that the technique of cutting meat into small pieces was discovered substantially earlier, given its utter simplicity.
[-][anonymous]10

This is not high technology: all you need is a knife, a stick, a fire, and some meat. I'm pretty sure the technique is about as old as cooking. It just wasn't until Maillard that people understood what was happening.

Reply
1JGWeissman
You seem to be trying to convince pre-agricultural hunter gatherers who did not even eat meat all that often and had to work hard for every calorie of food they consumed to put a substantial extra effort into cooking their meat that you yourself, with your modern access to inexpensive raw ingredients and pre-manufactured metal cookware, often skipped when told to do so by a recipe because you didn't think it did anything more than cook the meat faster.
5gwern
They didn't have to work hard, and they ate meat more than most humans could eat. I just finished reading the part of Clark's A Farewell to Alms where he covers how hunter-gatherers where far better off than basically any farmer. Going through my notes, I see:
[-]TheOtherDave10

Yes, I was saying that I often find actual women, even those in non-sexual situations, even those wearing clothes on, more arousing than women in porn, depicted without clothes, in explicitly sexual positions and acts.

I hope that clears things up.

I can easily see where this might be an artifact of a relatively narrow porn sample; I'm not especially a connoisseur of porn.

Reply
[-]gwern10

U-shaped response curve, so it starts losing effectiveness & nasty headaches are the consequences of a melatonin overdose that I know of.

Reply
[-]TheOtherDave10

I didn't mean "...to have sex with." I meant actual women. Who can sometimes be arousing even if I'm not having sex with them. As can men. Others' mileage may, of course, vary.

Reply
[-]wedrifid10

Some pharmacies have begun to sell it, however the dosage can sometimes be ridiculously small. I got mine online. Possibly from cognitivenutrition.com. Maybe bulknutrition. The price was trivial. I got 3 mg capsules although I may perhaps get 1mg capsules if I buy again.

Reply
3Eliezer Yudkowsky
I take 0.4 mg an hour or two before sleep, then 0.3 mg timed-release (sold by LEF) just before getting into bed. That took a lot of tweaking to find.
2Jonathan_Graehl
This advice seems reasonable. However, I don't see why timed-release melatonin wouldn't be helpful in preventing early awakening (especially assuming you want to sleep past dawn), and I don't understand their recommendation to use timed-release only when trying to shift sleep by more than 1hr (1hr earlier, I presume).
[-]Desrtopa10

If it's worth anything to you, I'm studying for ACE certification in my off time. I have all the study materials, and anything I can't answer off the top of my head I can look up in the same reference books a certified professional would have.

Edit: only saw the local context, and interpreted it as a personal request for advice. I wouldn't presume to tackle Eliezer's issues from this side of the internet. Nothing Fucking Works cases are rarely truly intractable, but I wouldn't want to deal with one with armchair diagnostics.

Reply
[-]HughRistik10

Conditioner makes it softer, and (for me at least) easier to work with. Plus it moisturizes your hair, and helps detangle it.

Conditioner is important if you have any parts of your hair bleached (e.g. prior to coloring), to add moisture back.

Reply
[-][anonymous]10

I like the grooming questions especially.

Besides by keeping clean, how do I go about smelling nice? Who should and shouldn't wear perfume and cologne? What kind? How do you use it?

Reply
3mindspillage
I don't wear perfume/cologne at all--I enjoy many scents, but there are so many people who are sensitive to fragrances that it seems rude (my SO can't stand perfumes, so I don't wear any anymore). I'd avoid it in crowds and offices, and recommend only wearing it if you're going to be spending time with someone that you already know enjoys it--otherwise there's absolutely nothing wrong with simply keeping clean. Most people smell pretty okay naturally unless they've gotten very sweaty/dirty or haven't washed in a long while. (Some people even prefer natural smells over perfumes.) As for use: less than you think. Only you and someone in your "personal space" should be able to smell it. Don't spray it all over--use very small amounts on "pulse points": wrists, behind ears, throat. (This is harder to do with sprays than oils; it's easy to spray too much.) What kind: something you like. What smells good sprayed in the air in a department store may not smell as good along with your own natural scent, so you may want to test at home before wearing something in public. Ask someone at a department store or perfume shop to help you if you really have no idea what to get, and don't be embarrassed about it; if they are at all good at their job, they will be able to guide you toward scents of different types based on what you like--fruity, musky, floral, woodsy, light, heavy, what-have-you. If you don't know where to begin, think about other smells you like: fresh-cut grass, vanilla, ocean air, Irish Spring soap? If you have a significant other, ask what they like too... (This is knowledge I have not used in a long enough time that I'd completely forgotten I had it!)
2Alicorn
This isn't a general smelling-nice tip, but: imitation vanilla extract? Decent bug repellent. And smells much nicer than the standard varieties.
1SRStarin
Anyone who wants to can wear perfume/cologne (it's essentially the same stuff, just a different word for a different gender of user). If you're wondering whether you should try it, then try it! Go to a large department store and try out their testers, then walk around for the day and see if you and your companions like it. The effect immediately after application is often not the effect after it airs a bit. You can even try mixing scents. The one thing I strongly recommend is to avoid the really cheap stuff. If the budget is tight, try different good high-quality scents for free for a while, so you can be sure you'll like what you get. The way I've seen perfume applied usually sprayed on one wrist, then the wrists are rubbed together, and then the wrists are lightly touched to the neck and clothes. This avoids getting too strong a smell, and if you overspray the wrist, you can wash it off. When I use cologne, I spray it in my armpits instead of deodorant, and maybe on my throat. That's not necessarily typical--it's sort of the old way cologne was used, and works for me because I have light BO. You can also use cologne the same way I described for perfume. In the U.S., cologne is not usually considered an appropriate substitute for deodorant, but individual tastes run a broad gamut on that. Some people are allergic to most perfumes and colognes--they do have actual botanicals in them.
6monsterzero
It's pretty important not to overdo perfume/cologne, as there's a lot of variation in people's sensitivity to odors (and odor preferences). One squirt or dab is usually more than enough. In addition, the person who is wearing the scent becomes habituated to it after a few minutes, so "I can't smell myself anymore" isn't a good reason to put on more.
[-]saturn10

It won't melt, but depending on the type of plastic it might become too soft and flexible to be useful for vegetable smooshing. From experience, some types of plastic spoons become too soft to even support their own weight when placed in boiling water.

Reply
[-]Dreaded_Anomaly10

Desrtopa makes the main points below; I'd like to add:

For what it's worth, as irrational as religion is, I'm willing to bet that any atheist here has equally irrational ideas that they stick with.

Even accepting that premise, the difference is that I'm willing to update my map. If a religious person had the same willingness, ey already would no longer be religious.

Reply
[-]TheOtherDave10

One of the things that amused me about that report when I read it was realizing that while I am often aroused by actual women, most mainstream straight porn does nothing for me.

I can only assume that many straight men find porn more arousing than actual women, since the whole point of porn is to be a superstimulus, so there seems to be a difference there.

Reply
[-]MartinB10

I am curious how you manage the cash in your wallet. I usually withdraw a fixed sum whenever it is empty, and pay some items by card, some by money. But I usually do not remember how much I carry.

Some peers have a super tight wallet where they basically care next to no cash at all, while others always have a healthy sum on their hand. Is there a preferred way to do it?

Reply
2TabAtkins
I do a zero-based budget monthly, where I precisely account for every dollar coming in and going out. Some of the categories in my budget (anything I buy in person) are designated as "cash" - every paycheck I withdraw enough from the ATM to cover the next two weeks worth of cash categories. These are then distributed into envelopes per category. All of this leads up to my answer: I carry around personal allowance (budgeted for!) in my wallet at all times, and extra cash pulled from the envelopes when I'm going to buy something that day. (When I end up using my card for a cash expense, because I didn't anticipate needing to buy something that day, the cash goes into a separate "Return To Bank" envelope. The next time I would withdraw cash, I just take what's in that envelope first, and then withdraw only what I still need. In other words, using my card is merely a loan taken out against my next cash withdrawal.)
[-]Blueberry10

Unfortunately, in the US today, probably atheism.

Reply
[-]Dreaded_Anomaly10

In that case, I wonder if it might not be worth it to date in the wider pool, with the aim of finding a woman who is open to deconverting. Generally it's a bad idea to enter a relationship hoping to change the other person, but religion has long been a sort of special case: a lot of LTRs do involve one party or the other converting or at least modifying their religious views.

That sounds like an exhausting process without a way to judge openness to atheism quickly. It seems like converting from one religion to another would be less jarring than dropping ... (read more)

Reply
6[anonymous]
I think you could suss it out on the first date. You might have to use some trial-and-error -- and conversations with other atheist men -- in order to come up with the perfect line that raises the question without coming off as overly aggressive, but you can get a pretty good picture of how committed a woman is to her religion just by asking her. The general advice to people with specific requirements (I admit I'm getting this from Dan Savage's advice to people with particular sexual fetishes) is to disclose early, but to present it as a bonus rather than an onerous hurdle that must be overcome by potential prospects. So instead of "Just so you know, I have a foot fetish, so being with me means you're gonna have to be into that" the foot guy would say something like "Your shoes are super hot. I kind of have a thing for feet. Do you like footrubs?" Following that formula, I think the thing to avoid would be lines like "Just so you know, I don't date religious wackos." Maybe something like "I'm an atheist, so I'm always looking for ways to celebrate earthly life on Sunday mornings. Do you like strawberries and mimosas?" That's just a stab at a formulation that could start the conversation without killing any romantic momentum you've got going at that point.
3Dreaded_Anomaly
At the least, that advice presents a reasonably positive strategy, which is appreciated. My attempts to be realistic about this issue are certainly prone to drifting into the sort of pessimism that comes from spending my entire undergraduate career single.
4[anonymous]
Your situation is harder than the norm, it's true, but it's not impossible. There are atheist women out there, and you'll meet them if you're diligent about being social. It may just take you a little longer. I wish you luck!
[-][anonymous]10

Well, for S, most relationships end "badly" (in a breakup, at least), so I guess I'll ballpark that at 90 percent.

For B, I estimate that 34 percent of men presenting as bi are actually gay (going from this study.) I'll assume that a relationship with the other 66 percent of bi guys would have the same 90 percent failure rate as the S group, but that a relationship with one of the 34 would have a 100 percent failure rate. So B overall is 93.4.

It's only a few percentage points higher, yes, but the fact that S is already high doesn't do much to cha... (read more)

Reply
2TheOtherDave
Agreed.
[-]nazgulnarsil10

I don't understand what you're talking about. I eat the rice-a-roni red beans and rice almost daily. it is a box with dry beans, rice, and a packet full of spices.

Reply
2Conuly
http://www.ricearoni.com/Products/Rice-A-Roni/Classic_Favorites/Red_Beans_and_Rice/Ingredients The ingredient list says it contains "hydrolyzed protein" made from, among other things, wheat. That means it has gluten in it and it's not gluten-free. It's also not kosher for Passover. Edit: Reading further, it also has "hydrolyzed gluten", so... yeah. The packet full of spices has much more than just spices in it, and it's that which has the gluten.
[-]David_Gerard10

I try to grab the far corners from the inside and sort of WHOOSH the cover over the duvet. I get tangled up in it! And I can never quite find the opposite corners! And I can never quite pull off that magical get-it-to-turn-itself-inside-out WHOOSH and suddenly it's done! Perfectly!

If I knew what I was doing wrong I would know how to do it right ...

Reply
[-]lukeprog10

Help solve the Friendly AI problem.

Reply
7Vladimir_Nesov
How is "getting a Ph.D. in philosophy" (as a formal distinction) helpful to this goal? Purely as a source of funding? Attempt to stimulate academia from the inside to work on the problem?
3lukeprog
Vladimir, Yes; both of those. As a source of funding, because SIAI is only one institution, whereas there are hundreds of decent philosophy departments I could apply to, however scarce positions are. As an attempt to stimulate academia, because I am slightly more optimistic than SIAI's staff that (a few) mainstream academics can contribute usefully to the project of designing Friendly AI.
1David_Gerard
Every philosopher I've found of actual personal interest in the modern day has crossed it with science or engineering of some sort (cognitive psychology, AI, etc). If you want to do philiosophy because you have an actual problem to solve, you'll do something of interest and have a usefulness test to keep you on track.
[-]gwern100

"The degeneration of philosophical schools in its turn is the consequence of the mistaken belief that one can philosophize without having been compelled to philosophize by problems outside philosophy...
Genuine philosophical problems are always rooted outside philosophy & they die if these roots decay...
These roots are easily forgotten by philosophers who 'study' philosophy instead of being forced into philosophy by the pressure of nonphilosophical problems."

--Karl Popper, Conjectures & Refutations, (pages 95-97)

Reply
[-]Nornagest10

Maxing out on push-ups every couple of days is good fitness advice, but using them as a proxy for general fitness is problematic: it's very easy to exchange form for higher repetitions when doing push-ups, especially if you're not working with a trainer or gym buddy. There's a built-in incentive to do this if you're using them to measure your fitness, and it's easy to do it unconsciously. Falling into this trap gives you a false indication of progress, and also limits the quality of the exercise: you need a full range of motion to engage all the muscle g... (read more)

Reply
[-]nazgulnarsil10

alternatively you can add half a bouillon cube to increase satiety. it doesn't "need" meat in the nutrition sense.

Reply
[-]zaogao10

Gaining weight: for all the string beans out there, there is one secret to gaining weight. Ready for it? Eat. Eat a lot. Eat all the time. I hindered my progress for years by not eating enough, and made my best progress when I was drinking a half gallon of whole milk a day. Also, if I didn't make this clear, you have to eat.

Lifting: Heavy compound movements should be the cornerstone of any hypertrophy program. Squats, deadlifts, bench press, overhead press, pullups, rows. (Google "squat exrx" to see demonstration and description of exercise.) Wh... (read more)

Reply
2zaogao
Trainers: Personal training certifications are bullshit, and a lot of trainers are just bad. Luckily, you can look at a trainer and tell how good they are at training themselves. Shoot for someone who has competed in body building or figure competition or powerlifting, depending on your goals, or someone who is obviously in shape. If you see a trainer having their client standing on one foot on a bosu ball swinging a kettlebell, run the other way. This was very rambling, but exercise is about the one subject I feel qualified to speak on, and the one subject I see so much confusion about. Feel free to message me any questions.
[-]monsterzero10

Dealerships can be evil. They may try to get you to agree to pay X dollars/month for N months without telling you what the total actually is. Bring a calculator and for Merlin's sake Read Before Signing Anything.

And remember that you can always just walk out of there and buy a car off craigslist. That's what I ended up doing.

Reply
Moderation Log
1000Comments