Kaj_Sotala comments on To what degree do you model people as agents? - Less Wrong

34 Post author: Swimmer963 25 August 2013 07:29PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (130)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 25 August 2013 09:12:24PM 15 points [-]

Okay, now that does sound like a useful term.

Does anyone happen to know of reliable ways for increasing one's supply of executive function, by the way? I seem to run out of it very quickly in general.

Comment author: pscheyer 26 August 2013 02:16:39AM 10 points [-]

After joining the military, where executive function on demand is sort of the meta-goal of most training exercises, i found that having a set wardrobe actually saves a great deal of mental effort. You just don't realize how much time you spend worrying about clothes until you have a book which literally has all the answers and can't be deviated from. I know that this was also a thing that Steve Jobs did- one 'uniform' for life. President Obama apparently does it as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/10/05/steve-jobs-always-dressed-exactly-the-same-heres-who-else-does/

There are a number of other things i've learned for this which are maybe worth writing up as a separate post. Not sure if that's within the purview of LW though.

Comment author: metastable 26 August 2013 03:06:34AM 9 points [-]

I agree, though it's always been interesting to me how the tiniest details of clothing become much clearer signals when eveybody's almost the same. Other military practices that I think conserve your energy for what's important:

-Daily, routinized exercise. Done in a way that very few people are deciding what comes next.

-Maximum use of daylight hours

-Minimized high-risk projects outside of workplace (paternalistic health care, insurance, and in many cases, housing and continuing education.)

Comment author: KnaveOfAllTrades 26 August 2013 03:41:04AM *  2 points [-]

It's plausible to me that a much higher proportion of peeps than is generally realized operate substantially better on different sleep schedules to what a 9-5 job forces, in which case enforced maximal (or at least, greater) use of daylight hours is possibly taking place on a societal (global?) level, though not as strongly as in militaries.

Comment author: metastable 26 August 2013 04:22:11AM 6 points [-]

This is plausible to me, too. I've had very productive friends with very different rhythms.

But I suspect far more people believe they operate best staying up late and sleeping late than actually do. There's a reason day shifts frequently outperform night shifts given the same equipment. And we know a lot of people suffer health-wise on night shift.

Comment author: Document 26 August 2013 07:36:33PM *  1 point [-]

I don't think one forced sleep schedule outperforming another is strong evidence that forced schedules are better than natural schedules.

Edit: Also, depending on geography, time of year and commute a 9-5 job may force one to get up some time before dawn and/or stay up some time after dark.

Comment author: Decius 27 August 2013 01:10:04AM 1 point [-]

I also intuit that most people do best on a non-forced sleep schedule; I don't think that many people know how to have a unforced schedule.

Comment author: KnaveOfAllTrades 26 August 2013 03:30:50AM *  2 points [-]

I'd be interested to see this in Discussion.

I'm going the opposite way: Paying more attention to non-formulaic outfits, after years of {{varying only within one or two very circumscribed formulas, or even wearing one of exactly the same few set outfits for months--or more--at a time}}. So far it's interesting figuring things out, but it's increasing wardrobe load, and if I continue expanding my collection, it could become substantially more expensive than what I was doing before.

The dialectic outside view suggests I'll end up settling down a bit and going back to a more repetitive approach, but with a greater number of variables (e.g. introducing variables for level of formality, weather, audience, tone-fancied-on-given-day, etc.) and items from which to choose.

Comment author: pscheyer 09 September 2013 11:49:04PM 4 points [-]
Comment author: KnaveOfAllTrades 12 September 2013 05:49:50AM 3 points [-]

Awesome!

Comment author: Vaniver 25 August 2013 09:24:27PM 10 points [-]

Does anyone happen to know of reliable ways for increasing one's supply of executive function, by the way? I seem to run out of it very quickly in general.

There are a handful of specific small fixes that seem to be helpful. For example, having a capture system (which many people are introduced to by Getting Things Done) helps decrease cognitive load, which helps with willpower and energy. Anti-akrasia methods tend to fall into clusters of increasing executive function or decreasing value uncertainty / confusion. A number of people have investigated various drugs (mostly stimulants) that boost some component.

I get the impression that, in general, there are not many low hanging fruit for people to pick, but it is worth putting effort into deliberate upgrades.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 August 2013 09:14:01AM 3 points [-]

Does anyone happen to know of reliable ways for increasing one's supply of executive function, by the way?

Stimulants, exercise and the removal of chronic stress.

Comment author: Decius 27 August 2013 01:07:33AM 0 points [-]

That sounds like ways of reducing the demand, not increasing the supply.

"Spending it better" is one option, but not the one that I want.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 August 2013 07:56:59AM 1 point [-]

That sounds like ways of reducing the demand, not increasing the supply.

They are not. Each of those increase the supply of executive function.

Comment author: James_Miller 09 September 2013 11:57:31PM 1 point [-]

Lumosity's new game "Train of Thought" might do it.