= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mushroom comments on Open thread, Sept. 29 - Oct.5, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (339)
I've tried a similar tack, and I was also worried about "narrowing".
It may be helpful to explicity note that "informative" is meaningful relative to your current set of beliefs. There are high-quality sources that I love and would recommend, but that I try not to spend much time on because the content is so close to my viewpoints that I get very little "information" out of it, even if it information-dense in an quasi-objective sense.
I recognise a consistent pattern of finding a new site or information source, exploiting it and then realising I'm not getting enough information relative to my effort, leading me to seek something new. So yes, always look for something that updates relative to your current knowledge.
Are you sure thats not just you eliminating low hanging fruit?
Call it whatever you want, of course the easier stuff gets repeated more often and is thus easier retained.