niceguyanon comments on Open Thread, October 16-31, 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (271)
Given the research that you cited, I have updated my probability estimate – that Conscientiousness is indeed rigid, higher from my original estimate of 75%. Wikipedia provides very accommodating definitions of Conscientiousness, inclusive of many behaviors such as being efficient and systematic, elements such as self-discipline and thoroughness, aspects of industriousness such as productivity and work ethic, and finally a strong association with procrastination.
The following are popular posts that try to understand and promote ways in which we can optimize some of the multiple facets of Conscientiousness listed above :
Scientific Self-Help: The State of Our Knowledge
My Algorithm for Beating Procrastination
Ugh fields
Defeating Ugh Fields In Practice
Anti-Akrasia Technique: Structured Procrastination
If it is not obvious by now, the following questions have me deeply conflicted:
Is it a waste of time for most, to invest into these sort of posts, because Conscientiousness is rigid?
If these sort of posts are not a waste of time, and you can optimize certain facets of Conscientiousness via the many methods provided, then is Conscientiousness still rigid?
Perhaps Conscientiousness is boost-able, but on the low end? Perhaps the efficacy of these posts are over estimated?
I think you should first ask, what is meant, statistically, by the results we're describing as 'rigid'. If ~50% of population variance is genetically linked, what does that mean in practice?
Second, one should then ask, is there such a thing as 'being efficient with Conscientiousness'? Somewhat like willpower - are there better or worse ways of deploying willpower? What would this even mean?