= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Slider comments on 3 classifications of thinking, and a problem. - 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 (11)
If you encounter problems or errors increase past time. If you have resources and tools but nothing to use them on increase future time. If your state remains too much the same (ie boredom) increase present time. These should feed into each other. If you stop to analyse or plan for too long a time nothing is happening so you should increase doing. When you do stuff it is either harmful, neutral or positive. If it is positive you can do more of it. If you do something harmful you need to understand it and trigger analysing. If your wheels are spinning empty you need to come up how the activity is meaningful to you. When you are done analysing you either find A) something to positive impact your situation (trigger present mode) B) something negative to avoid (trigger future mode how your life will be without that component). When you have dreamed something desirable you either a) now have a problem of not having means to attain it (trigger past mode) b) have a clear action to follow through (trigger present mode).
These do not translate into concrete divisons but give guidelines how to switch between the mindsets and why.
I'd like to restate your 3 heuristics with some better formatting:
I can probably set arbitrary numbers i.e. 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 on my time and shift based on these and similar reasonings.
Thanks!
Do you think this is a useful model to other people?
I do not personally live by those three categories but I have found use for making triggers for when action needs to happen based on observable need for them,
The confusing thing is when the same action results in benefit occasionally and in drawback occasionally. When you group the occasions into a benefit group and a drawback group you can occasionally see a feature in common in one that isn't present on the other. That is a good reason to focus on that feature out of the possible multitudes of features situations have.
When there are multiple competing principles that give contradictory advice their assumptions might not all be fulfilled to the same extent. A might be good and B might be good but are A and B always good at the same time?