The out-of-context statements are intended as a resource for people who have already read through and understood the post. If they have done that, then the statements won't be mysterious or meaningless, but instead act as triggers for entire concepts. See this excellent guide to breaking down knowledge into memorisable chunks.
Two questions, Phillip:
1) Do you think Eliezer's article has value? 2) How would you ensure that you'd learnt its key messages?
If you think there's no point, or if you have a better way, I'd love to hear about it.
Okay, to know what I'm talking about here, I downloaded the deck and am looking at sample questions now. Here are the first 10 questions I got:
1) The sixth virtue is ___.
2) ___ wrote in the Book of Five Rings, "quoted stuff".
3) The sixth virtue (again)
4) The ___ is humility.
5) ___ thus more can be said about a single apple...
6) If ___, you will not advance to the next level and you will not gain the skill to notice new errors.
7) [as I realize I can copy and paste from Anki] The [...] is relinquishment.
8) [...] seeks to annihilate itself; there is no [...] that does not want an answer.
9) [...] that distorts what you say to others also distorts your own thoughts.
10) The [...] is empiricism.
What do you gain from knowing whether empiricism is the second or the seventh in the list, or from memorizing pithy quotes word for word, without context? The important thing is to learn how to practice and apply the concepts, not to memorize them by rote.
[Edit: line breaks]
What do you gain from knowing whether empiricism is the second or the seventh in the list,
Take a look at the list. Look at the last sentence of each item, and the first sentence of the next. Do you see how they flow into each other? Learning the order of the items helps me remember which virtues are connected to other ones, and how.
or from memorizing pithy quotes word for word, without context?
There is context, just not in the Anki card. It's in the article (which you would need to read before using the deck), and it's in your brain (the memories of the last time you read it.)
The important thing is to learn how to practice and apply the concepts, not to memorize them by rote.
When I'm in situations where I might want to apply these virtues (e.g. when having an argument), I often don't have time to deduce them from first principles. If I've got them memorised, I can at least do a quick check of “is my current behaviour in opposition to any of the virtues?”. This helps me apply them to everyday life.
So how would you “learn how to practice and apply the concepts” from the article? What concrete steps would you take?
I'm sure my method has flaws; I want to know of a better way. Can you help me?
"Do you see how they flow into each other? Learning the order of the items helps me remember which virtues are connected to other ones, and how."
Sure, it may help you remember how some of the virtues are connected to other virtues in an indirect way, but even if it were direct, it is quite partial. The flow can only hint at how lightness is related to evenness, or how perfectionism is related to evenness.
Lightness doesn't just relate with evenness. It also relates with all the other virtues in a ton of different ways. In fact, they are all so heavily interrelated, that, "you will see how all techniques are one technique".
If your objective is to have a good understanding of how all the virtues of rationality relate, I would chunk them in a way that is most sensible to you, then ask how each may relate to each other both in theory and in application.
All techniques are one technique.
False. Is this a quote from the referenced source? If so, the referenced source is silly.
Eliezer quotes Musashi:
“Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy’s cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him.”
So I took “All techniques are one technique” to mean that the techniques share the same goal, and that it can be useful to think of them as a unified whole to facilitate moving between one and the other (see also his part about rationality being a “dance”.)
How do you interpret it? Is he just trying to sound cool, and not actually communicating anything of value?
(That's a genuine question, and I'm open to the possibility of it being true. I just need a little convincing.)
If for many years you practice the techniques and submit yourself to strict constraints, it may be that you will glimpse the center. Then you will see how all techniques are one technique, and you will move correctly without feeling constrained. Musashi wrote: “When you appreciate the power of nature, knowing the rhythm of any situation, you will be able to hit the enemy naturally and strike naturally. All this is the Way of the Void.”
There is this saying about the game of go, which states that as a beginer, all you see are stones. As an intermediate, all you see are tactics, shapes with specific names, etc. And as an expert, all you see are just stones again. I think the sentiment is the same.
There is this saying about the game of go, which states that as a beginer, all you see are stones. As an intermediate, all you see are tactics, shapes with specific names, etc. And as an expert, all you see are just stones again.
From what I understand of the neuropsychology and expertise research this saying is terribly misleading. The structural changes to relevant areas of memory and the observations of which aspects of pattern recognition are improved the perception of higher level abstractions rather than low level features is rather inherent to the achievement of high levels of expertise. Chess experts for example have a vastly superior ability to memorize chess board layouts that are of the kind that occur in actual games. On the other hand their ability to memorize randomized chess boards is barely more than that of amateurs. I would be shocked if this was different in Go players. This indicates that what the experts are 'seeing' can not be meaningfully described as advancing according to the saying.
I think the sentiment is the same.
I prefer this sentiment. "Deep" nonsense saying things are all the same when they aren't doesn't belong in a rationality tract.
The saying can be seen as mystifying the abilities of stronger players. But I think there are also more charitable readings. I think the second and third stage in the saying might refer to the same as the “rigorous” stage and the “post-rigorous” stage in this article. Instead of saying that in the third stage on sees "just stones again" (I might have replicated that part badly), it might be more correct that one can see the stones again, because the formalisms aren't in your way anymore.
I prefer this sentiment. "Deep" nonsense saying things are all the same when they aren't doesn't belong in a rationality tract.
Well, I assume it was included mostly for poetic reasons. Which is not an excuse, of course.
I think a logical response would manifest more or less as follows: If all techniques surround one center, there will be at least one relationship between each of them. The meaning of these virtues is non-linear. Anki is linear. Notes are linear. Mind mapping is better, but still limiting. For one to truly learn the virtues of rationality, he must exist through them. His life must become a set of their instantiations.
However, I think your purpose of putting it into Anki was to have a verbatim collection of words that represented something meaningful in your mind. Why? To have a clearer overarching schema on which to base your declarative knowledge mastery of rationality. As a result, two sub-goals are met: to better communicate rationality to others and to have a source of stability to turn to when things become uncertain, undesirable, or menial.
You did not have a better idea on how to fulfill this purposes. Here is how I would personally do it: group them as intuitively as possible on a mind map, then figure how the groups are generally related (representing it with arrows). It should not just be left latent in the mind, but constantly rejuvenated through new instantiated experiences. For the sentences, make smaller keywords (and maybe a doodle) and connect it to the respective element on the mind map. As you learn more, add, relate, and refine what you allow to show.
If you are confused on how to make the mind map, here's some tips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zT_2aBP6vM&t=217s&ab_channel=JustinSung
[edit: rewriting the sentences to reduce cognitive load for the reader.]
I don't think it's a good idea to do a formal memorization of something that's not based on any kind of scientific research.
Ehh, I've gotten a lot of value out of memorizing poems, and even definitions. I don't do many of the latter, but I've found that throwing a word in Anki usually causes me to have it available as a concept later, which is often helpful.
I'm sorry, but this is not really worth a discussion post, especially when the twelve virtues have been ankified before with the deck already on LessWrong (as you have pointed out yourself).
I'd be interested to see the cost-benefit analysis you used to arrive at the conclusion that it's not worth a discussion post.
As I said in my comment - the twelve virtues have been ankified before. A slightly different (even if it's better which I don't know if it is) version could potentially be useful to someone but is definitely not going to be useful to enough people (any?) to justify a discussion post. If you don't believe me then look at the comment section and see if people seem to be finding it useful.
In an effort to internalise the Twelve Virtues of Rationality, I created an Anki deck. It's already been done, so the reason I'm posting is to share a condensed version of the article (created as a side effect of my making the deck).
Hopefully it will make it easier to quickly refresh the concepts if you've already read the article.
If you're not using spaced repetition, you should. Don't believe me? Try reading Gwern's thorough review of the topic.
Then download the “Twelve Virtues of Rationality” deck.
The first virtue is curiosity.
The second virtue is relinquishment.
The third virtue is lightness.
The fourth virtue is evenness.
The fifth virtue is argument.
The sixth virtue is empiricism.
The seventh virtue is simplicity.
The eighth virtue is humility.
The ninth virtue is perfectionism.
The tenth virtue is precision.
The eleventh virtue is scholarship.
Before these eleven virtues is a virtue which is nameless.