You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

handoflixue comments on Leveling IRL - Less Wrong Discussion

33 Post author: cousin_it 05 August 2011 09:35PM

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

Comments (125)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: handoflixue 06 August 2011 12:14:03AM 4 points [-]

There's plenty of physical fitness programs, such as Hundred Pushups that already effectively give you a leveling system AND an actual training program. I've found them quite useful, although I dropped them as soon as I stopped gaining levels easily.

It doesn't seem like it would be significantly harder to come up with alternatives: A NaNoWriMo training program where you produce 50 words/day for a week, then 100, until you're doing a novel in a month, for example.

I don't see any reason to have "generic" levels which combine physical fitness, problem solving, and socialization, though. There's so much variation even within each of those domains that I'd feel silly even assigning myself a "socialization" score to begin with (I'm horrible at pointless cold approaches, but have absolutely no issues if I genuinely need information from a stranger, for example)

Comment author: [deleted] 06 August 2011 01:45:18AM *  7 points [-]

I like the idea of "generic" levels because I'd like other people's appraisals of what they think are standard skills of human competence. (For example, it took me a while to realize that fitness is a standard domain of human competence, and that I was being silly by defining myself as "just not into exercise.")

Comment author: handoflixue 06 August 2011 10:04:57PM 1 point [-]

One could easily have a website listing broad categories (Exercise, Puzzles, etc.) and specific challenges within them, without trying to make a handful of metrics to be a "generic level"

Comment author: [deleted] 06 August 2011 11:41:19PM 0 points [-]

I agree with wanting to know what others think of as standard skills of human competence, and non-standard, interesting/useful skills of human competence. But I don't see how needing generic levels follows from that. You can know just as much by having a (strength, stamina, math, chemistry, literature, instrumental music, etc.) level system, and with folks giving suggestions for what would be most useful to accomplish life goals generally, without trying to organize those skills into a "human level 1, human level 2" system.

Comment author: cousin_it 06 August 2011 11:20:30AM 0 points [-]

If you're interested, I propose that we start defining the first level :-)