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

Lumifer comments on Running a Futurist Institute. - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: fowlertm 06 October 2017 05:05PM

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

Comments (23)

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

Comment author: fowlertm 09 October 2017 07:11:02PM 0 points [-]

Different reasons, none of them nefarious or sinister.

I emailed a technique I call 'the failure autopsy' to Julia Galef, which as far as I know is completely unique to me. She gave me a cheerful 'I'll read this when I get a chance" and never got back to me.

I'm not sure why I was turned down for a MIRIx workshop; I'm sure I could've managed to get some friends together to read papers and write ideas on a whiteboard.

I've written a few essays for LW the reception of which were lukewarm. Don't know if I'm just bad at picking topics of interest or if it's a reflection of the declining status of this forum.

To be clear: I didn't come here to stamp my feet and act like a prissy diva. I don't think the rationalists are big meanies who are deliberately singling me out for exclusion. I'm sure everyone has 30,000 emails to read and a million other commitments and they're just busy.

But from my perspective it hardly matters: the point is that I have had no luck building contacts through the existing institutions and channeling my desire to help in any useful way.

You might be wondering whether or not I'm just not as smart or as insightful as I think I am. That's a real possibility, but it's worth pointing out that I also emailed the failure autopsy technique to Eric S. Raymond -- famed advocate of open source, bestselling author, hacker, philosopher, righteous badass -- and he not only gave me a lot of encouraging feedback, he took time out of his schedule to help me refine some of my terminology to be more descriptive. We're actually in talks to write a book together next year.

So it might be me, but there's evidence to indicate that it probably isn't.

Comment author: Lumifer 09 October 2017 08:13:40PM 0 points [-]

a technique I call 'the failure autopsy' ... which as far as I know is completely unique to me

Ahem. The rest of the world calls it a post-mortem. See e.g. this.

never got back to me ... I'm not sure why I was turned down... Don't know if I'm just bad at picking topics of interest...

So you do not know why. Did you try to figure it out? Do a post-mortem, maybe?

Comment author: fowlertm 09 October 2017 08:48:19PM 1 point [-]

A post-mortem isn't quite the same thing. Mine has a much more granular focus on the actual cognitive errors occurring, with neat little names for each of them, and has the additional step of repeatedly visualizing yourself making the correct move.

https://rulerstothesky.com/2016/03/17/the-stempunk-project-performing-a-failure-autopsy/

This is a rough idea of what I did, the more awesome version with graphs will require an email address to which I can send a .jpg

Comment author: Lumifer 10 October 2017 02:38:41PM 0 points [-]

Neat little names, I see. Thank you, I'll pass on the jpg awesomeness.