= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hyporational comments on Open thread for December 17-23, 2013 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (301)
Are there solid examples of people getting utility from Lesswrong? As opposed to utility they could get from other self-help resources?
What would solid examples look like? Are there solid examples of people getting utility from other self-help sources? Can you think of any?
Less Wrong isn't just a self-help resource. I enjoy the conversational norms and topics here, and that's utility for me, but can you measure it?
I can make you cash offers to abandon it until you take one. This is leaky but workable.
True. It's surprisingly difficult to think about the hypothetical figures since I'm not short on cash, can't seem to make myself much happier spending more money, and still don't know any viable alternative to LW. It also seems thinking about this in terms of a subscription fee instead of getting a cash offer changes the figures significantly, which I guess tells us something about the diminishing marginal utility of money.
This makes me wonder if there are any threads here discussing how to convert money into experiential happiness. ETA: yes there are.
I am wary of such type of advice because it almost always aims itself at an average person. Someone who is not average might not find such advice useful and it could turn out the be misleading and harmful.
Also a large part of it comes from psychology papers which are, um, not an unalloyed source of truth.
yes, but in the absence of significant countervailing evidence one should not assume that they are so different as to render the advice useless.
Well, that depends on the person, doesn't it? Some are sufficiently different and some are not.
Generic advice is generic. Only you can prevent wildfires.. err.. decide whether it is appropriate specifically for you or not. My point is really that you shouldn't treat it as "scientifically established" gospel and get unhappy if you are weird enough for it not to apply.
Guessing here is a bad idea though, because it is specifically in relation to an area where people are known to be bad at predicting their own responses.
with a big dose of empiricism.