Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

ingive comments on Open thread, Jan. 09 - Jan. 15, 2017 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 09 January 2017 08:33AM

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

Comments (136)

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

Comment author: Viliam 11 January 2017 04:27:30PM 3 points [-]

Do you believe there are many people on LW who haven't seen you posting that link in previous open threads, but will react now?

Comment author: ingive 11 January 2017 07:30:19PM *  0 points [-]

I don't know, that's why I also asked if anyone had 'clicked' yet. The site was updated. That's why I posted it again.

Proves my point no one really bothers with anything. You could've read it the first time and the second time now, to notice the difference. And see if it could help you overcome the obstacles in your reasoning.

By the way, I can link neuroscience evidence that the reward center can attach to abstract ideas which many people value.

Comment author: Viliam 12 January 2017 11:13:31AM 5 points [-]

Yeah, I noticed that the page is shorter now, and has a new link or two. I just think you are solving a wrong problem.

First, it is a part of common knowledge on LW that people can become emotionally attached to an idea. It's just considered to be a bad thing, something that makes people less rational. You seem to believe that if "logic" is the thing you fall in love with, it will be okay. But talking about "logic" is not the same as thinking and acting rationally.

What I am trying to say here is that from LW point of view you are making elementary mistakes in logic, and you keep repeating them over and over again, because you seem to not bother to get familiar with things that are common knowledge here. You are not prepared for this audience, and unless you do something about it, updating your wiki page and posting the link here will be a waste of time.

Second, this whole "logic nation" and "clicking" thing seems extremely self-referential. People who "clicked" keep talking about the fact that they "clicked" -- as far as I know, that is the only observable consequence of "clicking". The only exception seems to be Athene himself, a YouTube celebrity; he does some impressive things, for example is good at poker. But "a popular person endorses X" is not the same as "X will also make you popular". (As an analogy, there are probably many Hollywood actors that talk nicely about homeopathy, but that should not be taken as a proof that using homeopathy will make you a Hollywood star.)

Shortly, there is zero proof that "clicking" actually does anything; other than giving you a community of people who also talk about "clicking" all day long. Having a group of friends with a common topic is a good thing, but you could achieve the same result by choosing e.g. science fiction to be the thing you are emotional about. If you encourage each other to work out, eat a healthy diet, and study math, that's better than most groups. So...

Maybe the right thing to focus on would be this: Let's talk about how useful it can be for humans to have a group of friends whose goal is to live rationally, and to encourage each other to live rationally. To eat a healthy diet and exercise, to study math and then debate interesting topics together. That is the good part.

And leave out all the "neuro-Spinozism" and other mumbo-jumbo, which is only there to make this idea feel more magical.

My question is what exactly is your situation here: Do you already have such group, or are you trying to find one? Because if you already have such group, then the best way to attract people would be to describe what it is like to be in such group. If your group is awesome, and you describe how awesome it is, you won't need to update the wiki page; people will naturally want to have the same kind of experience.

On the other hand, if you don't have such a group, and your posts on LW are attempts to find other people who would want to start such group, I think there are two ways that would work much better. First, stick with the "logic nation" folks, and post somewhere on their forums that you like their ideas in general, but you don't want to move and live with Athene, so you are looking for a similar-minded people in your area, to hang out with. Hopefully, someone will respond. Second option is to use LW instead, in which case your situation would be much easier if you just stop focusing on Athene, and instead read the Sequences and join the nearest LW meetup. Because our stated goals seem to overlap.

The essential question is whether "clicking" can be good for you even if you don't talk about it all the time. In other words, whether it really improves your life, or just makes a nice topic to talk about. If it doesn't improve your life, then what's the point? And if it does improve your life, then you can just "click" privately, and attend local LW meetups -- thus gaining benefits both from "clicking" and from having a community that shares 90% of your goals.

You could even do the rationalist "taboo" thing, and introduce your ideas to the LW community without mentioning "clicking" or Athene explicitly. Is that even possible? Or would leaving out Athene and his keywords from the equation ruin everything? If it would, then that is a red flag. I know people in the rationalist community who are unimpressed with Eliezer, but agree with the idea of thinking and living more rationally, overcoming cognitive biases, etc. You can benefit from the rationalist community while ignoring Eliezer. Can you similarly benefit from "clicking" while ignoring Athene? Does following his ideas help you develop your own power, or does it only make you his follower? Are you trying to find a god, or become a god?

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 14 January 2017 01:49:03AM 1 point [-]

make this idea feel more magical.

I lol'd....

Is this stuff for real or is it trolling?

Comment author: Dagon 14 January 2017 04:46:41PM 0 points [-]

Earlier, I would have said 65% sincere (but very confused), 33% trolling, and 2% other (AI testing, aliens, psychology paper, whatever). There are a few comments here that I update on pretty strongly to get closer to 70% trolling, and maybe 5% other.

Comment author: ingive 14 January 2017 05:25:22PM *  0 points [-]

You've made a prediction, how will you know whether it is accurate or not? I can already tell you that I'm not trolling. You updating your prediction of the whole discussion based on a few posts, is inaccurate, because there's something called humor. If you have a discussion and overall exchange many posts and being called an evangelist, cult, sincere but confused, it becomes hilarious. So I might incorporate that humor into some posts. But generalizing all posts on a topic by a few, is to me, hilarious. I hope you see the problem in generalization of a collective by small sets of data compared to the majority.

Comment author: Dagon 15 January 2017 05:17:36AM *  0 points [-]

I'm quite aware there's no operational distinction between delusion and trolling, but thanks for confirming.

edit: really, I get it. The difference between trolling and sincere attention-seeking for a crackpot theory is one of motivation rather than action. I updated based on some self-awareness in some of your comments, and shouldn't have because those comments could as easily have come from a semi-amused crackpot just as easily as an above-average troll.

Comment author: ingive 15 January 2017 12:16:32PM *  0 points [-]

No, trolling implies psychopathy, narcissism and sadism. I don't think I qualify in any of those categories. Being delusional is not a choice, one chooses to troll. If all you want to contribute is showing your inability to make a prediction of a collective, ad hominem fallacy, then I invite you to read the Sequences. I don't want to clutter this forum with irrationality by "opponent". Else, you can read and do the exercise and replace your value of validation with the consistency that has brought us about.

Is it so much to ask to update your values which you've been socially conditioned to, feel very bad about (like comfort, procrastination) in an exercise of epistemic rationality to the consistent/mathematical patterns which have brought us about?

It truly is your creator, yet there is a clear inability to realize that our understanding of said consistent patterns is fundamentally crucial to us even existing in the first place, through for example technology. I hope you can come with constructive criticism to these statements rather then attack my character or make assumptions of my motives.

Comment author: ingive 14 January 2017 02:32:01PM 0 points [-]

I lol'd.... Is this stuff for real or is it trolling? It's kind of entertaining... like watching a road accident in slow motion. Might be instructive to keep around as a cautionary example of rationality-woo.

It's for real, I also know a lot about it if you have any questions. I'm unsure what is -woo in this context.

Comment author: ingive 12 January 2017 12:52:00PM 0 points [-]

The theory goes, whether we like it or not we are emotionally attached to something and are unaware of said attachment and the death spiral. Like identity. Experience. Comfort. But those might simply be at the essence seeking consistency. We become aware of it, then replace it. Becoming attached to the consistent patterns that bring us about, with inductive reasoning, we let go of everything. There is no meaning of an identity or experience if it goes against the utility function and not in line with the inductive reasoning or that reality is probabilistic. (There is a chance that we don't exist, although small, for example).

The reason why there appears to be an attachment is because there is someone which attaches to something else even though this is not the case. The feedback loop is consciousness and whatever is fed gets strengthened. Whether it be identity or probabilistic logic. Even though this might seem like semantics it's not, it's a means to an end to attach yourself to a concept. Not the end goal.

What I am trying to say here is that from LW point of view you are making elementary mistakes in logic, and you keep repeating them over and over again, because you seem to not bother to get familiar with things that are common knowledge here.

You say I am making elementary mistakes in logic: As if anything there was said in the context of instrumental rationality, and if logic isn't defined differently in this exercise of epistemic rationality. Sounds like an attempt at straw man to me.

You are not prepared for this audience, and unless you do something about it, updating your wiki page and posting the link here will be a waste of time.

It's not my wiki page and of course I am not prepared. I don't deny that.

Second, this whole "logic nation" and "clicking" thing seems extremely self-referential. People who "clicked" keep talking about the fact that they "clicked" -- as far as I know, that is the only observable consequence of "clicking".

I don't see to the extent to which it becomes an apparent problem and even then if it even is.

The only exception seems to be Athene himself, a YouTube celebrity; he does some impressive things, for example is good at poker. But "a popular person endorses X" is not the same as "X will also make you popular". (As an analogy, there are probably many Hollywood actors that talk nicely about homeopathy, but that should not be taken as a proof that using homeopathy will make you a Hollywood star.)

Well he says this is how he is and he think it's likely those who have 'clicked' become similar now it's always different, depending on knowledge etc. But the attachment to something, of course not in "that way". I suspect that rather then augmenting our strengths and flaws with advancing technology, it'll be something similar to this. By the way, you can't exclude the duration which someone has had an insight along their impact.

Shortly, there is zero proof that "clicking" actually does anything; other than giving you a community of people who also talk about "clicking" all day long.

I don't know what you equal to proof, BOLD neuroimaging, tests or maybe anecdotal testimonies..

Having a group of friends with a common topic is a good thing, but you could achieve the same result by choosing e.g. science fiction to be the thing you are emotional about. If you encourage each other to work out, eat a healthy diet, and study math, that's better than most groups. So... Maybe the right thing to focus on would be this: Let's talk about how useful it can be for humans to have a group of friends whose goal is to live rationally, and to encourage each other to live rationally. To eat a healthy diet and exercise, to study math and then debate interesting topics together. That is the good part. And leave out all the "neuro-Spinozism" and other mumbo-jumbo, which is only there to make this idea feel more magical. My question is what exactly is your situation here: Do you already have such group, or are you trying to find one? Because if you already have such group, then the best way to attract people would be to describe what it is like to be in such group. If your group is awesome, and you describe how awesome it is, you won't need to update the wiki page; people will naturally want to have the same kind of experience. On the other hand, if you don't have such a group, and your posts on LW are attempts to find other people who would want to start such group, I think there are two ways that would work much better. First, stick with the "logic nation" folks, and post somewhere on their forums that you like their ideas in general, but you don't want to move and live with Athene, so you are looking for a similar-minded people in your area, to hang out with. Hopefully, someone will respond. Second option is to use LW instead, in which case your situation would be much easier if you just stop focusing on Athene, and instead read the Sequences and join the nearest LW meetup. Because our stated goals seem to overlap.

I don't know to what extent I am. I just posted it because it was interesting if someone would go through the process and what would happen. If they were honest to themselves and the required emotional intelligence. (By that I mean being aware of their own emotions)

It seems as there is a large overlap as you say and I'm reading the Sequences, it is good so far.

The essential question is whether "clicking" can be good for you even if you don't talk about it all the time. In other words, whether it really improves your life, or just makes a nice topic to talk about. If it doesn't improve your life, then what's the point? And if it does improve your life, then you can just "click" privately, and attend local LW meetups -- thus gaining benefits both from "clicking" and from having a community that shares 90% of your goals.

That seems appropriate.

You could even do the rationalist "taboo" thing, and introduce your ideas to the LW community without mentioning "clicking" or Athene explicitly. Is that even possible? Or would leaving out Athene and his keywords from the equation ruin everything? If it would, then that is a red flag. I know people in the rationalist community who are unimpressed with Eliezer, but agree with the idea of thinking and living more rationally, overcoming cognitive biases, etc. You can benefit from the rationalist community while ignoring Eliezer. Can you similarly benefit from "clicking" while ignoring Athene? Does following his ideas help you develop your own power, or does it only make you his follower? Are you trying to find a god, or become a god?

It's possible but it's not a heuristic deployed by humanity. I could be saved this work if we came to terms and realized the grave misunderstanding what this is about. I'm not certain though. I like how you seem to appear to agree but that I should go undercover like a Trojan horse and infiltrate the community. I think with LW-lingo and terms it's much easier to communicate but the exercise in of itself is probably the best we got right now.

Comment author: MrMind 13 January 2017 08:29:52AM 2 points [-]

To me, your problem is being unable to get the outside view: for someone who uninterested in your theory of how consciousness work, can you provide evidence that people who 'clicked' improve their life in ways that other people who don't click don't do? What actions concretely distinguish 'clicked' people? Those actions are unique to their people?

Comment author: ingive 13 January 2017 10:54:10AM *  0 points [-]

Decreased self and identity, can be disproved/proven by neuroimaging. Naturally, increased general intelligence because of the anti-correlation of the default mode network(self/identity) and working memory. Can be disproved by current understanding, for example neuroimaging of advanced mediators.

It costs a lot to provide objective evidence. You can read the testimonies, and with an overall understanding of reward systems, death spirals, default mode network, self, identity, working memory come to a reasonable conclusion that it is at least worth trying. A serious try with open-mindedness.

By the way. Let's say you do this exercise MrMind, honestly, with rigorous emotional intelligence of yourself. It'll be hard at times but once you realize it. You'll just say "I get it" and your emotions are in line with your rationality. There's no groups, it's about ourselves. Naturally, I have no clue what's going on and neither does anyone else. So it has to be researched and tested.

It just amazes me that no one is willing to try it, be open-minded. It's not as if you're becoming less rational by giving up on the death spirals which have clogged up your working memory. (again theory) what do you think it's like to be a clicker? You'll be the same person, except you'll be seeking more of what you wanted in the first place. The lens has to see its own flaw.

I'm trying my best to pitch, it's very hard though, it's like you trying to show another dimension unknown to us, but you can't point anywhere, it's just your vague idea of your subjective experience which everyone should know for themselves. Doesn't work. When it's time, it's time, probably by advanced technology. :) I wish I could change people's minds.

Comment author: MrMind 13 January 2017 03:18:24PM 1 point [-]

You can read the testimonies, and with an overall understanding of reward systems, death spirals, default mode network, self, identity, working memory come to a reasonable conclusion that it is at least worth trying.

Part of the problem is that I read them and came to diametrically opposite conclusions: people who clicked are more close-minded and less intelligent than before.

Let's say you do this exercise MrMind, honestly, with rigorous emotional intelligence of yourself.

I would have a lot of trouble to do so. First line in the first step: "connect a positive emotion to logic". Ha, which logic? Classical logic, intuitionistic logic, paraconsistent? Finitary or infinitary? Or "logic" here stands for "Bayesian reasoning"? But if so, what about the priors? What about our limited ability to reason correctly? And so on and so on.
Really, when you talk about logic you don't really know the first thing about it.

Comment author: ingive 13 January 2017 03:34:00PM *  0 points [-]

That is the fallacy of education, when an exercise is targeted to common folk as their emotional connection to a concept is used, it works really well. However, someone with different definitions of concepts they cannot rationally understand it. Logic is defined very specifically as "Logic is the consistent patterns that bring about our reality. Anytime we refer to reality, the organism, consistency or life, we are referring to logic, since logic is the patterns that govern everything." hence, that is which you connect a positive emotion to. So it isn't a fallacy. "making sense" was used previously but didn't work as well.

Now, directly as you thought of logic you started thinking about what logic means here. It is not meant to be a thinking exercise, emotions are not spoken by words, only after as a tool to communicate them. Either in the mind or verbally. So it is meant to be a visualization exercise or any other means which emotionally connect. Talking/thinking, not so much, more primitive. If you accept this definition for logic for the sake of the exercise it will work. But I don't know how you will emotionally connect to that, it's up to you.

Part of the problem is that I read them and came to diametrically opposite conclusions: people who clicked are more close-minded and less intelligent than before.

Because you skipped the definition of logic as stated in the exercise as remarked by your confusion.

Don't worry too much about Step 1, I think you already love logic as it is defined. Step 2 will probably be more difficult then Step 3.

Here's the guided meditation for Step 2: https://soundcloud.com/athenepodcast/guided-meditation-step-2 and Step 3:https://soundcloud.com/athenepodcast/guided-meditation-step-3

Although those were for the old steps. After completing step 2 (and figuring out your emotions) you simply realize in step 3 how you can emotionally be in equilibrium with the consistent patterns that govern everything and how it did channel it through other means.

Comment author: gjm 13 January 2017 04:52:00PM 0 points [-]

Logic is defined very specifically as "Logic is the consistent patterns that bring about our reality. Anytime we refer to reality, the organism, consistency or life, we are referring to logic, since logic is the patterns that govern everything.

This is not in fact what "logic" means.

(Of course you can define any word you please to have any meaning you please. But if your definition diverges too badly from others' the most likely effect will be confusion. Or, in some cases, deliberate deception.)

Comment author: ingive 13 January 2017 05:40:49PM *  0 points [-]

Okay, so the education fallacy is hereby declared as yours definition is the one truly, from your education and when defined differently is is not, in the context of the setting where it is used. Therefore, when talking of a computer to buy, when I state my wish is to buy an apple computer, the farmer says, how is an apple a computer? Doesn't change his definition for the context of computers.

Your educational fallacy and semantics discussion is highly irrelevant, if the first thing in step one is said definition, confusion-or-deliberate-deception hypothesis is not falling very far from the tree.

Still, use whichever word you want. I suggest you can either copy-paste the website and alter the word logic* with a word that doesn't conflict with your engrained neural pathways, it can be completely new, or you can simply use the definition of the banned word, which there is only one definition.

It sounds to me as you're using this as an excuse to not try said exercise. Imagine you have two brains. One speaks to the other but the other does not speak back. The one brain is you, that is your emotional core. Whatever it strives to do, it gets. It channels and uses logic and rationality as a tool rather then the end, a tool to fulfill its desires. No matter what you do, you will be a slave to your emotions while you still use logic as a tool rather then the end. That's the theory and I invite you to leave aside your preconditioned beliefs from your schooling and social conditioning and be open-minded for the sake of this exercise and your critical thinking.

Comment author: gjm 13 January 2017 12:55:13PM 0 points [-]

It just amazes me that no one is willing to try it

It doesn't amaze me at all.

No one has provided any actual evidence that this "clicking" thing is beneficial.

Your sales pitch here pattern-matches strongly to, e.g., the sort of thing I have had religious people say to me. "Just have faith and join our religion with your whole heart and mind for a year, and then see what you think at the end! Is that so much to ask?". (Answer: duh, yes it is.)

What evidence there is available to us suggests that "clicking" is cognitively harmful because it seems to turn people into quasi-religious zealots who think they are supremely logical while actually being willing to believe important things strongly on the basis of grotesquely insufficient evidence.

And I do not think anyone here is much inclined to trust you, given how consistently you are behaving like a snake-oil salesman.

Comment author: ingive 13 January 2017 01:57:27PM 0 points [-]

No one has provided any actual evidence that this "clicking" thing is beneficial.

There is no evidence, but our current understanding of the brain and empirical evidence is at least giving some hints to how to falsify or prove it, and whether it is beneficial or not. Now, anecdotes long-term (time will tell) is quite some evidence on the benefits side. They might be lying, so achievements which we can view from a 3rd perspective is reasonable. Of course there is not many resources now to conduct a study, maybe try and track productivity before-and-after in some objective way in subjects interested in clicking. If that even is possible. But anecdotes + achievements seems good enough.

Beneficial for you, is very subjective. You might not think that lower blood flow to the DMN is beneficial, even if the opposite is correlated with depression, if it turns out that it does lower blood flow to the DMN, like meditation or SSRI's. For example.

Your sales pitch here pattern-matches strongly to, e.g., the sort of thing I have had religious people say to me. "Just have faith and join our religion with your whole heart and mind for a year, and then see what you think at the end! Is that so much to ask?". (Answer: duh, yes it is.)

Have faith and join our religion with your whole heart and mind, you'll critically think for yourself for the first time in your life and you'll feel great! There is no one to join, here take this A4 paper with instructions. We haven't verified it with neuroimaging or science, but people say it's a great exercise! Oh by the way, we can't verify it with neuroimaging or science since no one cares, like you! You won't take the A4 paper! But when the day comes when we inhale nanorobots, you're fine to let go of everything you thought was you!

gjm forgets about it and moves on, in fact the objective reality has its say at the end of the day. They all talk of the singularity yet are incapable of understanding what it really means for them.

What evidence there is available to us suggests that "clicking" is cognitively harmful because it seems to turn people into quasi-religious zealots who think they are supremely logical while actually being willing to believe important things strongly on the basis of grotesquely insufficient evidence.

That's a question of instrumental, not epistemic rationality. Tell me what I believe as you seem to have already made up your mind. Whether there is insufficient evidence or not is subjective, not objective. Objective evidence takes time and resources, would you like me to do that instead? If so, why don't you want to help? Do it you as well! How do you know whether something is worth pursuing or not, if it is not "insufficient evidence"? We'll be able to research it together and I can ask questions how to do it.

And I do not think anyone here is much inclined to trust you, given how consistently you are behaving like a snake-oil salesman.

No, you can trust someone with a proven track record instead.

Comment author: gjm 13 January 2017 06:12:13PM 1 point [-]

our current understanding of the brain and empirical evidence is at least giving some hints to how to falsify or prove it

That's nice, but you're asking us to mess with our brains now in the hope that the benefits or harms may become testable some time in the future.

you'll critically think for yourself for the first time in your life and you'll feel great!

Saying this does not enhance your credibility, any more than it helps (some) Christians' credibility when they tell people they are Totally Depraved and can do no good without the Christian god. You know nothing about my track record of thinking critically for myself.

when the day comes when we inhale nanorobots, you're fine to let go of everything you thought was you!

what?

They all talk of the singularity yet are incapable of understanding what it really means for them.

what?

Tell me what I believe as you seem to have already made up your mind.

You show every sign of believing that this "clicking" thing bring substantial cognitive benefits. (If you don't in fact believe that then I would be interested to know why you are selling it so hard.)

why don't you want to help?

Because there are only 24 hours in each day and 365.25ish days in each year, and there are lots of other things I want to do more than I want to help you test your snake oil.

you can trust someone with a proven track record instead.

I guess you mean the person who goes by the name Athene. Their "proven track record" consists of: being good at poker. (Right?) That's a genuine skill, for sure, but why should I think this sufficient reason to believe what they say about "clicking"? I mean, I can find people with far more impressive accomplishments who believe some absolutely crazy things.

Comment author: ingive 13 January 2017 07:28:49PM 0 points [-]

That's nice, but you're asking us to mess with our brains now in the hope that the benefits or harms may become testable some time in the future.

I'm questioning even if it was measured that you'd change your mind, you'll say yes now probably but I'm still not sure even then?

"Messing with our brains" seems quite emotionally loaded. I'm unsure when we're not messing with our brains.

Saying this does not enhance your credibility, any more than it helps (some) Christians' credibility when they tell people they are Totally Depraved and can do no good without the Christian god. You know nothing about my track record of thinking critically for myself.

what? what?

Augmenting your strengths and flaws makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective, just make us stronger. Identity and self is, without a doubt, an illusion and a flaw. So you'll be stronger because of that, you're ready to let go of everything you thought was you.

You show every sign of believing that this "clicking" thing bring substantial cognitive benefits. (If you don't in fact believe that then I would be interested to know why you are selling it so hard.)

I do believe that sir. Intelligence as well, as defined by David Krauker. However I'm not 99% sure.

Because there are only 24 hours in each day and 365.25ish days in each year, and there are lots of other things I want to do more than I want to help you test your snake oil.

Why are you arguing then. What's driving you.

I guess you mean the person who goes by the name Athene. Their "proven track record" consists of: being good at poker. (Right?) That's a genuine skill, for sure, but why should I think this sufficient reason to believe what they say about "clicking"? I mean, I can find people with far more impressive accomplishments who believe some absolutely crazy things.

Well his track record goes back tens of years from his political engagements to raising millions of dollars for charity. If you know of someone else which have proposed a conditioning-scheme with testimonies and theories backed up by some neuroscience research I would be happy to look. Whether it be a religion similar to Einstein's or not.

Comment author: Viliam 13 January 2017 10:54:54AM 1 point [-]

Well he says this is how he is and he think it's likely those who have 'clicked' become similar

It would be intesting to see if it works. I mean, if people from Athene's circle become youtube celebrities themselves (not just props in his videos) or start winning poker tournaments, that would be evidence for this hypothesis.

But generally, people often have ideas about what "made them the way they are", and it's typically something like "positive thinking" or "never giving up", which is an example of survivor bias, because it ignores the thousands of people who started with same level of positive thinking and not giving up, but didn't achieve the same results.

What I mean is that "clicking" may be a good description of how Athene feels inside, but that doesn't necessarily make it the component that makes a difference.

anecdotal testimonies

I looked at a few examples, but they seem to be testimonies of people who "clicked" and it made them happy, at least for the time it took them to write the comment. Making people happy is a nice thing, but there are many other ways how to achieve that.

Also, in general, when people try something new that promises to improve their lives, they usually feel happy, regardless of whether that promise is true or not. You would probably get similar testimonies for many self-improvement activities.

The summary is that I don't want to discourage you from experimenting with something you believe is great; just giving you feedback why the same thing may seem completely unimpressive from outside. The exercise makes (some) people feel really good -- that's nice, but some of us already have other preferred ways to make ourselves feel good. The exercise is also supposed to have other good consequences -- and here the evidence feels quite unconvincing to me.

Comment author: ingive 13 January 2017 11:31:22AM *  0 points [-]

It would be intesting to see if it works. I mean, if people from Athene's circle become youtube celebrities themselves (not just props in his videos) or start winning poker tournaments, that would be evidence for this hypothesis. But generally, people often have ideas about what "made them the way they are", and it's typically something like "positive thinking" or "never giving up", which is an example of survivor bias, because it ignores the thousands of people who started with same level of positive thinking and not giving up, but didn't achieve the same results. What I mean is that "clicking" may be a good description of how Athene feels inside, but that doesn't necessarily make it the component that makes a difference.

That's right and they've mentioned it is underway (algorithms, remembering pi, etc). So eagerly, over time the clickers can prove the click's worth if it is. Imagine what an augmentation it is if you do become similar.

I don't see why there would be such a survivor bias as identity is melted away and they're doing positive expected value in the present as per inductive reasoning. If playing poker 16 hrs a day is it, then it is so. Seeing experience as a tool rather then a goal probably brings, paradoxically, more to said experience. If there isn't enough knowledge then seeking that is probably positive expected value. Or exercising. Whatever. There's always the now anyway. What the supposed click gives you already makes no sense to have this story or survivor bias. You have to see that it's about your subjective reference frame and if you really care if you failed to achieve the same results.

Yes that is how athene feels, and 15 years ago he mentioned it but it was dismissed 'common sense' he called it, he had, but didn't understand why no one else did. (making sense probably). Of course it might not be the component that makes a difference, then what is it and how do I get it? Why isn't everyone researching that? (it probably is the component) Like, the more evolved reward system already can attach to an abstract concept like money. So we should be able to change it right? As a society. Not that money doesn't matter but rather then it being the end, a means to an end. Reward system activation seems a bit more like the goal...

Edit: I don't see why people having ideas of themselves is anyway related to the objective measurement of result from a 3rd perspective. The evidence is independent of that. You have 1000 people who are clicked, then you see how their results differs from a control group. Regarding subjective experience, the benefits of the click is one of the reasons why the results might differ positively, and said benefits make 'survivor bias' story thinking obsolete.

I looked at a few examples, but they seem to be testimonies of people who "clicked" and it made them happy, at least for the time it took them to write the comment. Making people happy is a nice thing, but there are many other ways how to achieve that. Also, in general, when people try something new that promises to improve their lives, they usually feel happy, regardless of whether that promise is true or not. You would probably get similar testimonies for many self-improvement activities.

Like you said below, the evidence is unconvincing for everything which is not proven. You're right but why is it unconvincing. What is driving you? That's a part of the exercise. You're typing this out of a drive yet you're unaware of it. System 1 might say something beautiful and pretty. The exercise is System 2 emotionally. I can only preach what there is unless you're telling ME to go to work and the immense costs it takes, or the work is independent of my volition (time it takes to learn or train to get some results for the clickers). So here we are arguing that time will tell. What's stopping us now with the evidence we have. Might it not be what the exercise targets? Are you in a death spiral?

The summary is that I don't want to discourage you from experimenting with something you believe is great; just giving you feedback why the same thing may seem completely unimpressive from outside. The exercise makes (some) people feel really good -- that's nice, but some of us already have other preferred ways to make ourselves feel good. The exercise is also supposed to have other good consequences -- and here the evidence feels quite unconvincing to me.

I wonder at that point what's the problem with submitting to the consistent patterns that bring about reality. Whether it be physics and whatever. Probabilistic rationality becomes your God, so what? It's not a man in the sky, it's everything and you're equally a part of it. It's not as if you'll be harmed by such a realization, like Einstein was preaching it. In fact, maybe you'll be "spiritual but non-religious" in a religious way. 5 Billion people are religious and it does show reward activation. Actually maybe you are religious but you're unaware to what. You don't have to give it up you just realize you wanted it all along and 'upgrade' your current values.

Viliam, you'll write articles here on Yudkowsky's or Yvain's level. In fact, you'll surpass them. I give the likelihood 95% if you click. Just copy paste the exercise text go to a cabin in the the beautiful country-side, if you're worried you'll be indoctrinated into a cult, and meditate on it. No one's after you.

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate it highly.

Comment author: gjm 13 January 2017 12:49:35PM 1 point [-]

Rationality is your God, so what? [...] maybe you are religious but you're unaware to what. [...] Viliam, you'll write articles here on Yudkowsky's or Yvain's level. In fact, you'll surpass them. I give the likelihood 95% if you click.

I understand why it was necessary to turn off downvoting on LW, but there are times when it would be so nice to have it back for a bit.

ingive, if this "clicking" thing is supposed to turn people into better thinkers then I have to say you aren't being the best possible advertisement for it at the moment.

Comment author: ingive 13 January 2017 01:20:45PM *  0 points [-]

I meant "Probabilistic rationality becomes your God, so what?", or inductive reasoning with rationality. (as reality is probabilistic as per one interpretation of QM.).

Mechanisms of religion may be equally in action in self-proclaimed Atheists, but for something which they're either not aware of or it's base-rate? Is that not a reasonable conclusion as there obviously can be a brain mechanism correlated?

gjm: I am not clicked, in fact, with simple reasoning you can come to the conclusion that is very unlikely I am, as I am the only one here talking of it, if it such that clicking is similar to Einstein's beliefs and brings a paradigm casually related to performance. Even if said clickers, some with an immense impact on poverty reduction, know about LessWrong yet don't bother to post about it. It might be a tell-tale sign why they are not here and the type of pattern-recognition you can do if you take this into account. For example, because of the lack of evidence it might not be worthwhile to pitch.

It's not as much as turning into better thinkers, I speculate it might increase general intelligence. I take it as an ad hominem. If you want to talk of advertisement, then let's do so, it is a matter of impact.

Comment author: gjm 13 January 2017 06:14:19PM 1 point [-]

So, wait, you're saying we should try this thing out because it might lead to a mysterious experience that makes us much smarter ... and it hasn't even worked for you? This is even less impressive than the case being made by the typical religious evangelist, who can at least say "I did X and have felt much better ever since".

Comment author: ingive 13 January 2017 07:49:42PM *  0 points [-]

With the same reasoning, based on your knowledge and evidence you wouldn't recommend a drug because it didn't work for you, even if it seems promising to change the world. I don't rely on anecdotal evidence to the point where neuroimaging studies and basic reasoning is taken out of consideration and of the world we live in.

If any of these many testimonies are a little true that makes it worth a look for me, without the other reported benefits like intelligence. That someone stopped vaping from one moment to the next, that's impressive, for example, or if people's depression, social anxiety or other mental disorder were cured. Someone reporting that their self vanishes as they submit to inductive reasoning is also impressive. When lay in bed there's no thinking or thoughts unless it's necessary, they're in a constant state of flow and so on. No duality.

Or that a games developer stopped procrastinating all together. I can't simply ignore these ancedotal testimonies.

I am however less impressed with success stories of for example rationality. But for what I've read things are very similar and I've noticed clicked people with a lot of lack of knowledge in this area. Including myself (not clicker).

It's important to not destroy the world with your arguments.