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.

AdeleneDawner comments on Leveling IRL - level 1 - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: cousin_it 09 August 2011 05:12PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (91)

Comments (91)

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

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 09 August 2011 07:13:52PM 3 points [-]

I brought this up too - it's also relevant in cases where a person isn't interested in gaining skill in a certain area. I consider the issue to still be up for discussion, but in the meantime I don't see a problem with taking a 'this bit is useful to me, so I'll do it; this bit isn't, so I'll ignore it' approach.

Comment author: Alexei 09 August 2011 07:41:34PM 1 point [-]

Is OP really suggesting that to get Level 1, you need to do all those things? (I think the quote kind of suggests that.) I think a lot more reasonable approach (and one I thought OP was advocating) is to just measure Levels separately for each skill.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 09 August 2011 07:49:04PM 1 point [-]

This looks pretty clear to me, though it is noted as "what I [the OP] think":

2. A level is indivisible, you don't get moral whuffie points for doing half of the tasks.
3. The only exception is that some people may opt to try for Level 1 No Physical, so they don't have to meet the Strength and Endurance requirements. (In university we had a saying that "sports is the only test you cannot cram in a weekend".)

Comment author: Alexei 09 August 2011 11:50:02PM 1 point [-]

Hmm, you are right. It's just that kind of system makes no sense to me. Not everyone needs or wants to learn programming/chess/etc..., which I guess was your original point. :)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit