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.

tetsuo55 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.

Comments (91)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: tetsuo55 12 August 2011 10:36:02AM 2 points [-]

I fear that the level requirements look kind of random.

I agree that we need to start from something, and sooner rather than later. But i strongly feel the need to have requirements based on science and rationality. For example the ExRx tables are a good start, but passing a scale there means different things to different people, i'd rather have a unified scale based on bodyweight and sex. A possible solution might be to take the world records (which appear to average out at around 3,5x bodyweight regardless of sex) and have that value be the highest level. And then devide that number by the number of levels you want to have in this first version, for example 99. Obviously things change over time and i'm fine with redefining the highest possible level over time.

I also feel the need that others expressed, to have each individual item level independently from others. Maybe it could be like the windows rating system, the lowest score is your total level score. Letting go of putting everything into 1 level also solves the problem of disability, someone would be able to reach high levels for a lot of things except say strenght without the need for special exceptions.

Comment author: tetsuo55 12 August 2011 10:56:52AM 2 points [-]

I also wanted to add that Unicef has defined "life skills", I think these should be part of the levels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_skills