= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
turchin comments on Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016 - 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 (212)
Simple hypothesis relating to Why Don't Rationalists Win:
Everyone has some collection of skills and abilities, including things like charisma, luck, rationality, determination, networking ability, etc. Each person's success is limited by constraints related to these abilities, in the same way that an application's performance is limited by the CPU speed, RAM, disk speed, networking speed, etc of the machine(s) it runs on. But just as for many applications the performance bottleneck isn't CPU speed, for most people the success bottleneck isn't rationality.
I had an idea to write a post about this problem under the name "general effectiveness". GE is measure of you by your outside peer, typically employer.
If I were employer I would (and I really did it as I used to hire people for small tasks in my art business) look on their general effectiveness. It constitutes of many things after rationality, including visual outlook, age, gender, interest to work, ability to come in time and their results in test work.
Most of these characteristics are unchangeable personality traits, so if a given person would invest a lot in studying rationality, he would not be able to change them much.
But he could change his place of work and find more suitable to him.
There are also ways to rise personal effectiveness in different ways. For example if I hire a helper I rise my effectiveness.