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.

John_Maxwell_IV comments on What are your contrarian views? - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Metus 15 September 2014 09:17AM

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

Comments (806)

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

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 19 September 2014 08:00:39AM 3 points [-]

I'd like to hear a more substantive argument if you've got one. Do you think there are few general-purpose life skills (e.g. those purportedly taught in Getting Things Done, How to Win Friends and Influence People, etc.)? What's your best evidence for this?

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 19 September 2014 03:15:49PM 1 point [-]

I think that there is a huge unseen component in life skills where in addition to knowing about a skill, you need to recognize a situation where the skill might apply, remember about the skill, figure out if the skill is really appropriate given what's going on, know exactly how you should apply the skill in that given situation and so on. There isn't really an algorithm you can follow without also constantly reflecting on what is actually going on, and I think that in what basically looks like another instance of Moravec's paradox, the big difficult part is actually in the unconscious situation awareness and the things you can write in a book like GTD and give to people are a tiny offshoot on that.

No solid evidence for this except for the observation that there don't seem to be self-helpy systems for general awesomeness that actually do consistently make people who stick with them more awesome.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 20 September 2014 03:51:24AM 1 point [-]

recognize a situation where the skill might apply, remember about the skill

OK, what if you were to, say, at the end of each day brainstorm situations during the day when skill X could have been useful in order to get better at recognizing them?

There isn't really an algorithm you can follow without also constantly reflecting on what is actually going on

Could meditation be useful for this?

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 20 September 2014 05:29:13AM 0 points [-]

OK, what if you were to, say, at the end of each day brainstorm situations during the day when skill X could have been useful in order to get better at recognizing them?

Sounds like this would still run into the problem I anticipate and be hindered by poor innate memory and pattern matching abilities or low conscientiousness. Some people just won't recognize the situation even in retrospect or have already forgotten about it.

Here's an example of what a less than ideal teaching scenario might look like. If MIT graduates are one end of the spectrum, that's close to the another, and most people are going to be somewhere in between.

Could meditation be useful for this?

Meditation is definitely one of the more interesting self-improvement techniques where you basically just follow an algorithm. Still, it probably won't increase your innate g, much like nothing else seems to. And there are some not entirely healthy subcultures around extensive meditation practices (detachment from the physical world as in "the only difference between an ideal monk and a corpse is that the monk still has a beating heart" and so on), which might be trouble for someone who really wants an algorithm to follow and grabs on to meditation without having much of a counterweight in their worldview.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 21 September 2014 06:18:27AM 3 points [-]

"There exists no rationality curriculum such that a person of average IQ can benefit from it" and "there exists no rationality curriculum such that a person of LW-typical IQ can benefit from it" are not the same statement.

And there are some not entirely healthy subcultures around extensive meditation practices (detachment from the physical world as in "the only difference between an ideal monk and a corpse is that the monk still has a beating heart" and so on), which might be trouble for someone who really wants an algorithm to follow and grabs on to meditation without having much of a counterweight in their worldview.

shrug It sounds as though you want a rationality curriculum to fail, given that you are brainstorming this kind of creative failure mode.

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 21 September 2014 08:41:07AM 0 points [-]

shrug It sounds as though you want a rationality curriculum to fail, given that you are brainstorming this kind of creative failure mode.

I want to believe that the rationality curriculum will fail iff it is the case that the rationality curriculum will fail.