A collection of Stubs.
In light of SDR's comment yesterday, instead of writing a new post today I compiled my list of ideas I wanted to write about, partly to lay them out there and see if any stood out as better than the rest, and partly so that maybe they would be a little more out in the wild than if I hold them until I get around to them. I realise there is not a thesis in this post, but I figured it would be better to write one of these than to write each in it's own post with the potential to be good or bad.
Original post: http://bearlamp.com.au/many-draft-concepts/
I create ideas at about the rate of 3 a day, without trying to. I write at about a rate of 1.5 a day. Which leaves me always behind. Even if I write about the best ideas I can think of, some good ones might never be covered. This is an effort to draft out a good stack of them so that maybe it can help me not have to write them all out, by better defining which ones are the good ones and which ones are a bit more useless.
With that in mind, in no particular order - a list of unwritten posts:
From my old table of contents
Goals of your lesswrong group – As a guided/workthrough exercise in deciding why the group exists and what it should do. Help people work out what they want out of it (do people know)? setting goals, doing something particularly interesting or routine, having fun, changing your mind, being activists in the world around you. Whatever the reasons you care about, work them out and move towards them. Nothing particularly groundbreaking in the process here. Sit down with the group with pens and paper, maybe run a resolve cycle, maybe talk about ideas and settle on a few, then decide how to carry them out. Relevant links: Sydney meetup, group resources (estimate 2hrs to write)
Goals interrogation + Goal levels – Goal interrogation is about asking <is this thing I want to do actually a goal of mine> and <is my current plan the best way to achieve that>, goal levels are something out of Sydney Lesswrong that help you have mutual long term goals and supporting short term goal. There are 3 main levels, Dream, Year, Daily (or approximate) you want dream goals like going to the moon, you want yearly goals like getting another year further in your degree and you want daily goals like studying today that contribute to the upper level goals. Any time you are feeling lost you can look at the guide you set out for yourself and use it to direct you. (3hrs)
How to human – A zero to human guide. A guide for basic functionality of a humanoid system. Something of a conglomeration of maslow, mental health, so you feel like shit and system thinking. Am I conscious?Am I breathing? Am I bleeding or injured (major or minor)? Am I falling or otherwise in danger and about to cause the earlier questions to return false? Do I know where I am? Am I safe? Do I need to relieve myself (or other bodily functions, i.e. itchy)? Have I had enough water? sleep? food? Is my mind altered (alcohol or other drugs)? Am I stuck with sensory input I can't control (noise, smells, things touching me)? Am I too hot or too cold? Is my environment too hot or too cold? Or unstable? Am I with people or alone? Is this okay? Am I clean (showered, teeth, other personal cleaning rituals)? Have I had some sunlight and fresh air in the past few days? Have I had too much sunlight or wind in the past few days? Do I feel stressed? Okay? Happy? Worried? Suspicious? Scared? Was I doing something? What am I doing? do I want to be doing something else? Am I being watched (is that okay?)? Have I interacted with humans in the past 24 hours? Have I had alone time in the past 24 hours? Do I have any existing conditions I can run a check on - i.e. depression? Are my valuables secure? Are the people I care about safe? (4hrs)
List of common strategies for getting shit done – things like scheduling/allocating time, pomodoros, committing to things externally, complice, beeminder, other trackers. (4hrs)
List of superpowers and kryptonites – when asking the question “what are my superpowers?” and “what are my kryptonites?”. Knowledge is power; working with your powers and working out how to avoid your kryptonites is a method to improve yourself. What are you really good at, and what do you absolutely suck at and would be better delegating to other people. The more you know about yourself, the more you can do the right thing by your powers or weaknesses and save yourself troubles.
List of effective behaviours – small life-improving habits that add together to make awesomeness from nothing. And how to pick them up. Short list: toothbrush in the shower, scales in front of the fridge, healthy food in the most accessible position in the fridge, make the unhealthy stuff a little more inacessible, keep some clocks fast - i.e. the clock in your car (so you get there early), prepare for expected barriers ahead of time (i.e. packing the gym bag and leaving it at the door), and more.
Stress prevention checklist – feeling off? You want to have already outsourced the hard work for “things I should check on about myself” to your past self. Make it easier for future you. Especially in the times that you might be vulnerable. Generate a list of things that you want to check are working correctly. i.e. did I drink today? Did I do my regular exercise? Did I take my medication? Have I run late today? Do I have my work under control?
Make it easier for future you. Especially in the times that you might be vulnerable. – as its own post in curtailing bad habits that you can expect to happen when you are compromised. inspired by candy-bar moments and turning them into carrot-moments or other more productive things. This applies beyond diet, and might involve turning TV-hour into book-hour (for other tasks you want to do instead of tasks you automatically do)
A p=np approach to learning – Sometimes you have to learn things the long way; but sometimes there is a short cut. Where you could say, “I wish someone had just taken me on the easy path early on”. It’s not a perfect idea; but start looking for the shortcuts where you might be saying “I wish someone had told me sooner”. Of course the answer is, “but I probably wouldn’t have listened anyway” which is something that can be worked on as well. (2hrs)
Rationalists guide to dating – Attraction. Relationships. Doing things with a known preference. Don’t like unintelligent people? Don’t try to date them. Think first; then act - and iteratively experiment; an exercise in thinking hard about things before trying trial-and-error on the world. Think about places where you might meet the kinds of people you want to meet, then use strategies that go there instead of strategies that flop in the general direction of progress. (half written)
Training inherent powers (weights, temperatures, smells, estimation powers) – practice makes perfect right? Imagine if you knew the temperature always, the weight of things by lifting them, the composition of foods by tasting them, the distance between things without measuring. How can we train these, how can we improve. Probably not inherently useful to life, but fun to train your system 1! (2hrs)
Strike to the heart of the question. The strongest one; not the one you want to defeat – Steelman not Strawman. Don’t ask “how do I win at the question”; ask, “am I giving the best answer to the best question I can give”. More poetic than anything else - this post would enumerate the feelings of victory and what not to feel victorious about, as well as trying to feel what it's like to be on the other side of the discussion to yourself, frustratingly trying to get a point across while a point is being flung at yourself. (2hrs)
How to approach a new problem – similar to the “How to solve X” post. But considerations for working backwards from a wicked problem, as well as trying “The least bad solution I know of”, Murphy-jitsu, and known solutions to similar problems. Step 0. I notice I am approaching a problem.
Turning Stimming into a flourish – For autists, to make a presentability out of a flaw.
How to manage time – estimating the length of future tasks (and more), covered in notch system, and do tasks in a different order. But presented on it's own.
Spices – Adventures in sensory experience land. I ran an event of spice-smelling/guessing for a group of 30 people. I wrote several documents in the process about spices and how to run the event. I want to publish these. As an exercise - it's a fun game of guess-the-spice.
Wing it VS Plan – All of the what, why, who, and what you should do of the two. Some people seem to be the kind of person who is always just winging it. In contrast, some people make ridiculously complicated plans that work. Most of us are probably somewhere in the middle. I suggest that the more of a planner you can be the better because you can always fall back on winging it, and you probably will. But if you don't have a plan and are already winging it - you can't fall back on the other option. This concept came to me while playing ingress, which encourages you to plan your actions before you make them.
On-stage bias – The changes we make when we go onto a stage include extra makeup to adjust for the bright lights, and speaking louder to adjust for the audience which is far away. When we consider the rest of our lives, maybe we want to appear specifically X (i.e, confident, friendly) so we should change ourselves to suit the natural skews in how we present based on the "stage" we are appearing on. appear as the person you want to appear as, not the person you naturally appear as.
Creating a workspace – considerations when thinking about a “place” of work, including desk, screen, surrounding distractions, and basically any factors that come into it. Similar to how the very long list of sleep maintenance suggestions covers environmental factors in your sleep environment but for a workspace.
Posts added to the list since then
Doing a cost|benefit analysis - This is something we rely on when enumerating the options and choices ahead of us, but something I have never explicitly looked into. Some costs that can get overlooked include: Time, Money, Energy, Emotions, Space, Clutter, Distraction/Attention, Memory, Side effects, and probably more. I'd like to see a How to X guide for CBA. (wikipedia)
Extinction learning at home - A cross between intermittent reward (the worst kind of addiction), and what we know about extinguishing it. Then applying that to "convincing" yourself to extinguish bad habits by experiential learning. Uses the CFAR internal Double Crux technique, precommit yourself to a challenge, for example - "If I scroll through 20 facebook posts in a row and they are all not worth my time, I will be convinced that I should spend less time on facebook because it's not worth my time" Adjust 20 to whatever position your double crux believes to be true, then run a test and iterate. You have to genuinely agree with the premise before running the test. This can work for a number of committed habits which you want to extinguish. (new idea as at the writing of this post)
How to write a dating ad - A suggestion to include information that is easy to ask questions about (this is hard). For example; don't write, "I like camping", write "I like hiking overnight with my dog", giving away details in a way that makes them worth inquiring about. The same reason applies to why writing "I'm a great guy" is really not going to get people to believe you, as opposed to demonstrating the claim. (show, don't tell)
How to give yourself aversions - an investigation into aversive actions and potentially how to avoid collecting them when you have a better understanding of how they happen. (I have not done the research and will need to do that before publishing the post)
How to give someone else an aversion - similar to above, we know we can work differently to other people, and at the intersection of that is a misunderstanding that can leave people uncomfortable.
Lists - Creating lists is a great thing, currently in draft - some considerations about what lists are, what they do, what they are used for, what they can be used for, where they come in handy, and the suggestion that you should use lists more. (also some digital list-keeping solutions)
Choice to remember the details - this stems from choosing to remember names, a point in the conversation where people sometimes tune out. As a mindfulness concept you can choose to remember the details. (short article, not exactly sure why I wanted to write about this)
What is a problem - On the path of problem solving, understanding what a problem is will help you to understand how to attack it. Nothing more complicated than this picture to explain it. The barrier is a problem. This doesn't seem important on it's own but as a foundation for thinking about problems it's good to have sitting around somewhere.
How to/not attend a meetup - for anyone who has never been to a meetup, and anyone who wants the good tips on etiquette for being the new guy in a room of friends. First meetup: shut up and listen, try not to be too much of an impact on the existing meetup group or you might misunderstand the culture.
Noticing the world, Repercussions and taking advantage of them - There are regularly world events that I notice. Things like the olympics, Pokemon go coming out, the (recent) spaceX rocket failure. I try to notice when big events happen and try to think about how to take advantage of the event or the repercussions caused by that event. Motivated to think not only about all the olympians (and the fuss leading up to the olympics), but all the people at home who signed up to a gym because of the publicity of the competitive sport. If only I could get in on the profit of gym signups...
leastgood but only solution I know of - So you know of a solution, but it's rubbish. Or probably is. Also you have no better solutions. Treat this solution as the best solution you have (because it is) and start implementing it, as you do that - keep looking for other solutions. But at least you have a solution to work with!
Self-management thoughts - When you ask yourself, "am I making progress?", "do I want to be in this conversation?" and other self management thoughts. And an investigation into them - it's a CFAR technique but their writing on the topic is brief. (needs research)
instrumental supply-hoarding behaviour - A discussion about the benefits of hoarding supplies for future use. Covering also - what supplies are not a good idea to store, and what supplies are. Maybe this will be useful for people who store things for later days, and hopefully help to consolidate and add some purposefulness to their process.
list of sub groups that I have tried - Before running my local lesswrong group I partook in a great deal of other groups. This was meant as a list with comments on each group.
If you have nothing to do – make better tools for use when real work comes along - This was probably going to be a poetic style motivation post about exactly what the title suggests. Be Prepared.
what other people are good at (as support) - When reaching out for support, some people will be good at things that other people are not. For example - emotional support, time to spend on each other, ideas for solving your problems. Different people might be better or worse than others. Thinking about this can make your strategies towards solving your problems a bit easier to manage. Knowing what works and what does not work, or what you can reliably expect when you reach out for support from some people - is going to supercharge your fulfilment of those needs.
Focusing - An already written guide to Eugine Gendlin's focusing technique. That needs polishing before publishing. The short form: treat your system 1 as a very powerful machine that understands your problems and their solutions more than you do; use your system 2 to ask it questions and see what it returns.
Rewrite: how to become a 1000 year old vampire - I got as far as breaking down this post and got stuck at draft form before rewriting. Might take another stab at it soon.
Should you tell people your goals? - This thread in a post. In summary: It depends on the environment, the wrong environment is actually demotivational, the right environment is extra motivational.
Meta: this took around 4 hours to write up. Which is ridiculously longer than usual. I noticed a substantial number of breaks being taken - not sure if that relates to the difficulty of creating so many summaries or just me today. Still. This experiment might help my future writing focus/direction so I figured I would try it out. If you see an idea of particularly high value I will be happy to try to cover it in more detail.
The Problem (TM) - Part 2
From part 1: http://bearlamp.com.au/the-problem-tm-analyse-a-conversation/
part 1 on lesswrong: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/nsn/
(this) part: http://bearlamp.com.au/the-problem-analyse-a-conversation-part-2/
I had a chat with a person who admitted to having many problems themselves. I offered my services as a problem solving amateur, willing to try to get to the bottom of this. Presented is the conversation (With details changed for privacy).
I had my first shot at analysing the person's problems and drilling down to the bottom. I am interested in what other people have to say is the problem. Here we study the meta-strategy of how to solve the problem, which I find much more interesting than the object level analysis of the problem and how to solve it.
I don't think I got to the bottom of the problem, and I don't think I conducted myself in a top-notch capacity but needless to say I wonder if you have any comments about what IS TheProblem(tm), how did you come to that conclusion and what can be done about it (for the benefit of this person and anyone with a similar problem).
What is actually the problem? I have a theory, but I also wanted to publish this without declaring my answer. I will share my ideas in a few weeks but I want to know what you think and how you came to that answer.
This is a new style of post so I expected some responses along the lines of:
I considered downvoting. I opted instead to ignore after reading the preamble. - buybuydandavis
That's fine. It was literally a chat log. Not for everyone.
I also got some interesting and relevant responses. There are several and they overlap so I decided it's best to answer with another post.
Many people narrowed down to a few particularly alarming examples:
- The most alarming part of that conversation for me was "A few weeks ago I punched a housemate in the face ten times, breaking her nose;" - Strangeattractor
- Is it really the most alarming part? I would think suicide ideation more so. - Romashka
- Treatment for mental illness (and possibly organic brain trauma) seems priority #1 here... -CronoDAS
- Zebra was extremely bad at imagining good outcomes in a way which led to him taking action-- in other words, probably depression. - NancyLebovitz
And then this:
There are lots of problems. If I had to pick only one, it would be that you seem to think there is a single, simple problem that can be identified from this transcript. - Dagon
It sounds a bit as if you are implicitly proposing a principle like "there is always a single underlying problem, if you can only find it" - gjm
To gjm first:
I present "The Problem (TM)" because I suspect in this case there is an underlying problem. Not always. Often when problem solving we try to figure out what is the lowest hanging fruit, or what one thing can be changed first.
There was a scene in Doctor Who - The ends of time Part 2 where the doctor is trapped in space on a spaceship that doesn't work. Instead of giving up he just (knowing what he is doing) starts fiddling with the heating. Other characters insist that everything is hopeless and lo and behold; as he fixes the heating; that fixes the engine and the computers and everything whirs back to life and we continue to the next epic fight scene!
Now, generalising from one fictional example. As rationalists we wish that there really was one thing that you could fix, which would cause the fixing of the next thing and a chain of events that fix everything. When we look at the accelerating factors, we wish this is how it happens:
We'd be dreaming to think that such a thing can actually happen. After 41 days we are at 1.5x where we started. After 70 days 2x, and 111, 3x. Which is just nuts. What if I told you that in a month of nudging 1% you'd be nearly 1.5x from where you are. Not likely, not going to happen.
| 1 | 1.01 | 51 | 1.6610781401 |
| 2 | 1.0201 | 52 | 1.6776889215 |
| 3 | 1.030301 | 53 | 1.6944658107 |
| 4 | 1.04060401 | 54 | 1.7114104688 |
| 5 | 1.0510100501 | 55 | 1.7285245735 |
| 6 | 1.0615201506 | 56 | 1.7458098192 |
| 7 | 1.0721353521 | 57 | 1.7632679174 |
| 8 | 1.0828567056 | 58 | 1.7809005966 |
| 9 | 1.0936852727 | 59 | 1.7987096025 |
| 10 | 1.1046221254 | 60 | 1.8166966986 |
| 11 | 1.1156683467 | 61 | 1.8348636655 |
| 12 | 1.1268250301 | 62 | 1.8532123022 |
| 13 | 1.1380932804 | 63 | 1.8717444252 |
| 14 | 1.1494742132 | 64 | 1.8904618695 |
| 15 | 1.1609689554 | 65 | 1.9093664882 |
| 16 | 1.1725786449 | 66 | 1.9284601531 |
| 17 | 1.1843044314 | 67 | 1.9477447546 |
| 18 | 1.1961474757 | 68 | 1.9672222021 |
| 19 | 1.2081089504 | 69 | 1.9868944242 |
| 20 | 1.2201900399 | 70 | 2.0067633684 |
| 21 | 1.2323919403 | 71 | 2.0268310021 |
| 22 | 1.2447158598 | 72 | 2.0470993121 |
| 23 | 1.2571630183 | 73 | 2.0675703052 |
| 24 | 1.2697346485 | 74 | 2.0882460083 |
| 25 | 1.282431995 | 75 | 2.1091284684 |
| 26 | 1.295256315 | 76 | 2.130219753 |
| 27 | 1.3082088781 | 77 | 2.1515219506 |
| 28 | 1.3212909669 | 78 | 2.1730371701 |
| 29 | 1.3345038766 | 79 | 2.1947675418 |
| 30 | 1.3478489153 | 80 | 2.2167152172 |
| 31 | 1.3613274045 | 81 | 2.2388823694 |
| 32 | 1.3749406785 | 82 | 2.2612711931 |
| 33 | 1.3886900853 | 83 | 2.283883905 |
| 34 | 1.4025769862 | 84 | 2.306722744 |
| 35 | 1.416602756 | 85 | 2.3297899715 |
| 36 | 1.4307687836 | 86 | 2.3530878712 |
| 37 | 1.4450764714 | 87 | 2.3766187499 |
| 38 | 1.4595272361 | 88 | 2.4003849374 |
| 39 | 1.4741225085 | 89 | 2.4243887868 |
| 40 | 1.4888637336 | 90 | 2.4486326746 |
| 41 | 1.5037523709 | 91 | 2.4731190014 |
| 42 | 1.5187898946 | 92 | 2.4978501914 |
| 43 | 1.5339777936 | 93 | 2.5228286933 |
| 44 | 1.5493175715 | 94 | 2.5480569803 |
| 45 | 1.5648107472 | 95 | 2.5735375501 |
| 46 | 1.5804588547 | 96 | 2.5992729256 |
| 47 | 1.5962634432 | 97 | 2.6252656548 |
| 48 | 1.6122260777 | 98 | 2.6515183114 |
| 49 | 1.6283483385 | 99 | 2.6780334945 |
| 50 | 1.6446318218 | 100 | 2.7048138294 |
Nonetheless we pursue. It might be important too, to look for the problem at the bottom, otherwise we might find ourselves bikeshedding about the trivial problems.
This week while making the emergency room project, I spent some time looking at other data. Specifically the (Australian) National Drug Strategy Household Survey data. Where the first question on the survey was; "When people talk about “a drug problem”, which is the first drug you think of?". What kind of information is that likely to yield? Is it going to return the drug which is the biggest problem in the country? Or maybe it's going to yield whatever the media feels makes a good story, (say ICE because it's dangerous) (weed because it's controvertial) (or alcohol because it's the most common)? Or is it going to yield the one with the most personally damaging reputation (tobacco > alcohol)?
In reality, is the government going to take action on what people think is the biggest problem drug? Or should the government instead take action on the drug actually killing people? Are we bikeshedding on this issue?
What actually is the biggest problem, it's a relevant question, certainly not every time. but sometimes it's worth digging into.
To Strangeattractor, Romashka, CronoDAS, NancyLebovitz:
You are not wrong. The violence, mental health, potential head wound, depression, inability to leave the house, lack of friends, weight problems, exercise problems. Are all very very important problems to tackle. And I will come back to this.
Some analysis:
I started with simple background questions. History, etc. knowing that anything being brought up is probably being brought up because it has special relevance to the topic. It's almost like a job interview, when they ask you for your top 10 characteristics, they don't expect you to tell them about how you can fry a perfect egg (if that's not relevant to the task at hand). There is a need to make certain assumptions about the truth and about the validity of the information.
I was previously very depressed, and then recovered for a few years.
Definitely relevant, sets the scene. I asked, "So you are currently feeling depressed"
Yes. Possibly as a symptom of bipolar disorder (I’ve recently started having manic episodes), or possibly not–I’ve never been diagnosed with that, and until recently had never had issues with mania.
A while back I tried reading the DSM. While it really doesn't tell you much about reality it is one instance of a Map of the world, Just like legislation, instruction manuals, guide books, Guides to how a project was done (this is an example of a map of how my process works), and more. The interesting thing about what the DSM has to say about bipolar diagnosis is that there is a requirement for mania in both the upwards and downwards directions, often affecting sleep, and giving people feelings of godliness or invincibility.
So who cares. Well; on the one hand; using this knowledge here to ask about sleep is a signal that I at least know a little bit of what is being talked about. On the other hand I think I got lucky about whether sleep was relevant. (and on the third hand - sleep is a very common problem for people generally and worth asking about.)
I guess immediately I feel quite isolated, very stressed, and don’t know how to proceed forward.
The idea of "feeling stressed" is a complicated one. On some level, you have an understanding of what "I feel stressed" means. But on another level - if you spend enough time around different diversely stressed people. You get the feeling that there is some kind of miscommunication going on.
Kind of like this one here. It's a map and territory problem. One person's map of stress is not the same as another person's map of stress.
ELiot: Is there a specific stress?
I guess; loneliness, numerous tensions with my girlfriend, some financial issues (to a large extent a symptom of the recent mania), extreme dissatisfaction with myself and especially my own appearance, frustrations with daily life, and a general dissatisfaction with the world.
So there's a list. But the problem I find with vague lists is it's easy to see there's a problem here but harder to address any part and make a difference. I personally have list making habits. Something I will one day make a post about. Which is where this comes from:
I am going to write the list out
1. Loneliness
2. Girlfriend tension
3. Financial issues
4. Self + appearance
5. Daily life
6. Dissatisfied with the world
Which grew a bit by the end of the conversation.
ChristianKl Rightly criticised me for saying this:
ELiot
Would you like to pick a specific one from the list to talk about?
I can pick one if you like
(Why do you offer to pick the specific issue? Agency is important for getting out of depression.) Unfortunately I stripped out time-stamps which would explain why I offered to pick one. There are three parts to this problem.
- Not picking one would likely lead to more complaining about the issues without solving anything. If Z was unmotivated enough to be unable to pick one (a worse failure mode) then picking any would be better than nothing.
- Leading with any of them would be fine, because I planned to cover a few of them and the conversation would naturally tend to flow onto the bigger problems anyway (as it did)
- If one cannot decide between them, they are probably all equally relevant-challenging-problematic and equal gains would be made on any of them from a bit of effort.
As it was - it was relatively easy for Z to pick one. I generally wouldn't pick one - even if I suggested that I would. and well done ChristianKl for spotting this.
Is that bad?
I often find myself not eating until nighttime, or sometimes not eating at all, due to wanting to avoid those stressors.
An important question - is that a bad thing? I repeat this whenever I see an unjustified badness. In the sense that it should be up to the individual to decide what is or is not bad. In theory; not eating is a bad thing. Possibly to lead to mood swings from hunger or sugar levels, and who-knows what else. But, that's what I think; not what Z had to say about why it's bad.
Is this correct: you feel stressed about not wanting to leave to go buy food. Then you feel stressed about not buying food as well.
And I guess I’m kind of lonely.
later
When I go out sometimes it’s ok, and sometimes I realise the people around me are crap and I am too and I get even sadder.
later still
And really I don’t want to be staying at home, as that’s also very stressful.
later still.
There’s nothing much I can identify that I really want to do.
and then:
Also I’m frequently very exhausted, and it’s often hard to work up the energy to do those things.
and on:
Well, I really dislike being alone, but I don’t much like most people.
(I think that's enough for now)
So Z is lonely, but doesn't want to go out because sometimes it's crap, but doesn't want to be staying home, but doesn't have anything they really want to do, but is also very exhausted and doesn't have the energy to do things, but really dislikes being alone....
If we looked at the loneliness it wouldn't really improve the state of The problem because the loneliness isn't the big deal. If we looked at the going out problem, that wouldn't be it, because Z wants to go out, but also doesn't like staying home, but also if we solved the going out problem that wouldn't do it because they don't really have anything they want to do, but if we found something they want to do that wouldn't fix it because they don't have the energy to do that thing. So what if we solve the energy problem?
In the hope that once we solve the desire to go out they will have the energy, and they won't need to be stuck at home and they won't feel alone and they can go on to live a happy and prosperous life. No. That's not it. Once we dig to the bottom of the energy problem we get to an absence problem:
I kind of zone out, frequently. People find that scary.
And down the rabbit hole we go.
I want to be clear that each of these problems are valid problems, each are the most important problem and each need to be solved to dig Z out of the hole. I want to not disparage the ongoing discussion and identification of problems until we can really get to that root of all things; fix the heating and whirr the spaceship into action!
That's not how problems work. Or at least - not how this one works. At the bottom of every problem is another problem (reminds me of a poem - There's a hole in my bucket - this is not a coincidence). We also have a term for getting side tracked from the real work at hand - Yak shaving.
But wait! What is the real problem we should be working on? If all this talk is just yak shaving our way down the river - how do we know what to actually work on?
The problem
In this case - certainly not repeatable. I can't say how often it happens but I wanted to identify this very clear problem as it sneakily tries to evade capture. This problem is exactly the process of solving the problem has become part of the problem. We can't solve the loneliness without first solving the home problem, but first - having nothing to do, but first energy, but first absence feelings. It's a problem spiral.
What next?
Let's say you or a friend has a problem spiral. You start talking about it and you spiral downwards, every problem being worse than the one before until you feel absolutely terrible, develop an ugh field and resolve to do nothing at all. (probably a familiar pattern)
You get in this pattern and nothing gets solved. To break out of this pattern; I propose a known solution (the scientific method). Pick one of the problems, set a 5 minute timer (or a 20minute pomodoro, or a whole day to work on it). Your task is to improve the state of this problem, conduct tests, observe what happens. It's the loneliness problem, and it sucks because you don't want to leave the house. But that's okay. Keep trying. Don't try to solve the house-leaving problem right now, just work on the loneliness. Try talking to people about it, try therapists, try leave the house, try online forums, try anything and everything you can think of. Take notes.
Notes are evidence, evidence is how we make progress.
Your task, should you choose to accept it - is to focus on making some kind of progress on any one of the many problems. Then when you are sick of this one, or tired, or done, or successful, pick the next one. repeat, fail, repeat, succeed, repeat. Iterate.
I propose the 3 part solution to this one meta-problem is:
- pick something to work on
- work on it
- iterate
It's unlikely that you solve any one problem the first time around. If you did - take your winnings! Walk away! On to the next one. But if the situation is (as can be expected) a complicated problem - one that you already couldn't just solve - which led to the stacking up of layer upon layer of problems. It's going to take some time.
Keep at it. Good luck.
Credit goes to Dagon - There are lots of problems. If I had to pick only one, it would be that you seem to think there is a single, simple problem that can be identified from this transcript.
Well done.
Meta: this took two days to write, and the better part of 3+ hours.
If you are interested in a conversation, send me a message. No guarantees we can solve your problems, but maybe we can try.
This has been a new style of post, not for all - thanks for reading.
The Problem (TM) - Analyse a conversation
Originally published here: http://bearlamp.com.au/the-problem-tm-analyse-a-conversation/
Part 2: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/nt8/the_problem_tm_part_2/
Part 2: http://bearlamp.com.au/the-problem-analyse-a-conversation-part-2/
I had a chat with a person who admitted to having many problems themselves. I offered my services as a problem solving amateur, willing to try to get to the bottom of this. Presented is the conversation (With details changed for privacy).
I had my first shot at analysing the person's problems and drilling down to the bottom. I am interested in what other people have to say is the problem. Here we study the meta-strategy of how to solve the problem, which I find much more interesting than the object level analysis of the problem and how to solve it.
I don't think I got to the bottom of the problem, and I don't think I conducted myself in a top-notch capacity but needless to say I wonder if you have any comments about what IS TheProblem(tm), how did you come to that conclusion and what can be done about it (for the benefit of this person and anyone with a similar problem).
Zebra
Hey
ELiot
Where would you like to start?
Do you want to share about your history?
Zebra
I was previously very depressed, and then recovered for a few years. While I'm glad I was able to have those couple years, I don't think they were worth suffering through the depression, and I didn't at the time, when I didn't think it would return.
Zebra
(Though it hasn't returned as bad as it was.)
ELiot
So you are currently feeling depressed
Zebra
Yes. Possibly as a symptom of bipolar disorder (I've recently started having manic episodes), or possibly not--I've never been diagnosed with that, and until recently had never had issues with mania.
ELiot
How much are you sleeping? One Indication of bipolar swings is total sleep
Zebra
The last couple days I've slept okay, but when I had more manic symptoms sleep was very intermittent. A few weeks ago I punched a housemate in the face ten times, breaking her nose; at that point, I'd not slept in two days.
ELiot
Sounds like a bad event.
Zebra
I guess immediately I feel quite isolated, very stressed, and don't know how to proceed forward.
ELiot
Is there a specific stress?
Zebra
I guess; loneliness, numerous tensions with my girlfriend, some financial issues (to a large extent a symptom of the recent mania), extreme dissatisfaction with myself and especially my own appearance, frustrations with daily life, and a general dissatisfaction with the world.
ELiot
Manic up should correlate with little sleep, manic down with extra sleep. Manic up should also come with a variation on _feeling invincible_
Which of the things in that list do you think can't change?
Zebra
I suppose they're all changeable if you apply enough effort, but that seems like a lot of work, and frankly I've never seen much in the world that seems worth it.
As I said, I've gotten better, to some extent, previously.
Even after I had already gotten better and I no longer wanted to suicide, I wished I had previously, because even though life then was fine, it just wasn't worth what had gone before.
I don't feel invincible really.
ELiot
When in manic up states?
Zebra
When in manic states I still don't feel invincible.
ELiot
If you could remove the problems listed do you think you would want to live?
Zebra
All of them? Yes, if I could do some magically, or at a reasonable cost.
ELiot
I would say that is a good thing. But it depends on your goals.
I can offer ideas about working with those problems to make them better, but not if you don't want that.
Zebra
Well those would be good.
ELiot
Would you like to pick a specific one from the list to talk about?
I can pick one if you like
Zebra
Uhm, you can pick. I'm not sure which one would be most imminently solvable.
ELiot
I am going to write the list out
1. Loneliness
2. Girlfriend tension
3. Financial issues
4. Self + appearance
5. Daily life
6. Dissatisfied with the world
Zebra
Yep, that's most of it.
ELiot
What burdens do you currently have on your life? I. E. Supporting a child, have to show up at work each day. Etc.
Thinking about number 5 - Regular commitments
Zebra
Not a whole lot really. I've no job or school (family money, though not a large amount). My girlfriend is financially dependent on me at this point, though she's supposed to be starting a job this month.
To be honest even going downstairs to buy food, or really even to talk to a delivery person on the phone, feels like a huge burden.
ELiot
So in terms of pressure on your daily life?
Zebra
I often find myself not eating until nighttime, or sometimes not eating at all, due to wanting to avoid those stressors.
ELiot
Is that bad?
Zebra
Well, yeah. It feels very negative and causes me stress and I really don't feel life has much to offer in return for even minor inconveniences.
ELiot
is there a reason that not eating is a bad thing to do for you?
Zebra
I don't see life as particularly positive, really, and just want it to be over with so I don't have to bother with this crap every day. On the other hand, actually going about killing yourself is fucking scary.
So I guess I'm trying to find some way out of that conclusion so I won't have to face the immediately distasteful action of actually offing myself, even though it's probably preferable to suffering through a lifetime of even minor annoyances.
ELiot
Is this correct: you feel stressed about not wanting to leave to go buy food. Then you feel stressed about not buying food as well.
Zebra
Yes.
And I guess I'm kind of lonely, and even minor inconveniences, when they have no positive aspects in between, eventually get you really, really down.
I feel like what I do most days is just wait, be sad and lonely, be slightly annoyed, and wait and cry and be lonely more.
When I go out sometimes it's ok, and sometimes I realise the people around me are crap and I am too and I get even sadder.
ELiot
Here is how I see this very limited problem. Without looking at other things just yet.
When making the first choice, either stay home and not buy food or leave and buy food you choose the less stress option. To stay home. I see that as a win. You successfully made the right choice to avoid the immediate stress. Then later you decide that going out is more important/useful/(Less stress) than staying home and not having food. Seems like you also win by carrying out the choice to leave and get food have less stress.
You appear to be stressing yourself out over two reasonable choices. I would suggest that you have done well to make both the choice of staying home and later the choice to leave for food.
Zebra
The stress of not going is physiological rather than psychological, so I don't think looking at that differently can really fix it.
And really I don't want to be staying at home, as that's also very stressful.
I'm just not sure what else to do...
ELiot
In terms of where to go? Or in terms of how to spend your time?
Zebra
Both
There's nothing much I can identify that I really want to do.
ELiot
I can suggest options down those paths
Zebra
ok.
ELiot
I don't know where you are gegraphically, but if we consider specifically where to go and what to do near where you are;
I would look at; google, "things to do in *city*" as well as looking at meetups in city. As well as looking for parks, museums, monuments, walks, local history, pretty geography, public spaces I. E. Libraries, evening classes, sports to play
Zebra
I'm in Hong Kong.
I go to meetups sometimes.
ELiot
Generally the idea of exploration of the place
Also temples, religious places, hikes
Zebra
As for meetups, sometimes you meet interesting people, but often it's stressful dealing with idiots. And most people are idiots.
ELiot
You are mostly allowed to do what you like with your time. In terms of going places and later going home to sleep etc.
A large fraction of people are idiots
Zebra
And the more interesting people are often difficult to connect with more than superficially.
ELiot
"Allowed to" is a funny idea. No one needs to give you permission to do what you like.
Going to add 7. Social strategy
Zebra
True. I just don't feel like I _like_ much.
Also I'm frequently very exhausted, and it's often hard to work up the energy to do those things.
ELiot
Do you think you have tried to find many things you like or do you think the bottle neck lies before that? In trying to find them?
If you do nothing (because you are tired) is that a problem?
Zebra
Yeah, doing nothing all the time sucks. If I stay home I feel like I'm in jail...
but if I go out I feel like I've been sent as a labourer to Australia.
ELiot
At some point the desire to stay home because you are tired should weigh up against the desire to go out and feel like you are not in jail. That is a fine time to leave, feeling bad about both staying at home and leaving the house sounds like a recipe for displeasure either way... Does that make sense?
Zebra
Well it is, obviously, which is why I feel like I'm in a no-win situation, and want to die.
(or at least part of it)
I mean, occasionally there are meetups and stuff which I go to, and those are ok, but really I have so much free time and since my mental health issues started I've alienated almost everyone I knew.
And that just increases the stress and makes it difficult to make new friends.
ELiot
I would be going down the path of tracing that feeling of bad to its source because it's not really about staying or going it's about that bad pressure that appears self imposed.
Do you feel like you _should be doing_ things?
I.e. Going out
Zebra
Well, I really dislike being alone, but I don't much like most people.
I think that's what it boils down to.
And yes, I get that that might not be a healthy state to be in, but again, that I'm not in a healthy state has already been established.
ELiot
Do you know what part or kind of social interaction you like? When you say "dislike alone" what is "not alone"
Zebra
Well, I like talking with friends and drinking and doing stuff, but often it's difficult to make new friends.
ELiot
Conversation with new people is "not alone"
And you sometimes feel alone when you hang around old friends
Zebra
Yes, that's true.
ELiot
Can you financially afford to go drinking and doing stuff?
Zebra
I guess new people I meet are often very disappointing, and more than that, even when they aren't, I myself have a lot of recently developed mental issues it takes a lot of effort to control.
I kind of zone out, frequently. People find that scary.
ELiot
What kind of new people would you like to meet?
Zebra
Uhm, I dunno. It's hard to specify really.
ELiot
Is your zoning out actually absence or is it more like daydreaming?
Zebra
Absence
Or sometimes I just sort of feel sad.
But usually no internal thoughts associated.
I can sort of afford to go drinking and stuff.
ELiot
Do you recall things that happen while you are absent?
Zebra
Mostly not. I can sort of remember it happening but super vague.
ELiot
Do you feel like you are an automa - following a path you were on, and then you zone back in?
Zebra
It's not like in the middle of a sentence, but people notice that I look dead and then sometimes I don't respond until they call me a couple times, though sometimes I can respond immediately.
More like my energy's just gone, I guess.
Sometimes I'll lose track of the conversation, even when I myself am speaking.
That's not as common recently, though.
ELiot
I was going to say I suspect an absent seizure. It came up in the lw open thread this week. Let me get you a link
Zebra
My mother claims I told her I was hospitalised for a head injury around the time my mental health problems started worsening.
I can't remember the incident, though, and she has not much in the way of specific details.
ELiot
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/niv/open_thread_apr_18_apr_24_2016/d8ow
If you have something like that I am sure it makes everything worse
Zebra
I had depression before that, but as I said, it had mostly gotten better. On the other hand, there were a lot of issues in my life around the same time which may have led to the recurrence of symptoms as well.
ELiot
Okay, what kind of person would you like to meet?
Zebra
Hmm, previously I wanted to see a neurologist because my symptoms were much worse, but they've lessened now.
ELiot
There is medication to reduce seizures to nearly nothing
Which might help
Zebra
Well, an intelligent person, but those are rare; or someone who's fun, but finding one who's willing to put up with my lethargy and depression is hard; or someone who's nice and not a complete idiot.
ELiot
It also might help to keep a diary of what you do each day to try to keep track of how often they happen
Zebra
Maybe. I'm not at all certain I'm having seizures, though.
I have pretty bad memory, too.
ELiot
Where might you find intelligent people?
A brain scan would tell you if you are or are not having seizures
Zebra
I have no idea. I guess some of the intellectually-focused meetup groups have some, but not all that many.
Yeah, I've been meaning to go to a neurologist, but I frequently fail to get around to stuff.
ELiot
I would suggest university campus as a viable place
To find smart ones
Zebra
Maybe, but I'm not in university and probably don't have the effort to enter.
Also, somewhat smart, but not very smart, people really annoy me.
Universities have a lot of those.
ELiot
Campuses here are just places you can walk into, not sure what it's like there
If you want to get out of the house and see something, universities are a nice place to visit
Zebra
Hmm, I guess I could try.
Many offer classes to the public very cheaply.
ELiot
You can probably also work out how to sneak into a lecture anyway - they usually don't check the roll
Any topic of study fancy your interest? To sneak into a lecture about
Zebra
Hmm, not sure. Linguistics or history might be fun.
CS would probably just be a recap of basic material.
ELiot
You can usually find course details online and work out where the lectures are and just kinda walk in and sit down - For a bit of fun
Zebra
How does that translate to meeting people though?
(If it's not obvious, I've never been to uni.)
ELiot
Chat to people if you want to. Lectures have breaks, uni tries to encourage social groups too usually, barbecues and stuff
If you make yourself look approachable and friendly people will talk to you. It's how I avoid approaching others. I wear funny hats and strangers talk to me
Zebra
Really? Haha, what sort of hats?
ELiot
Pirate hat, top hats, Stetson,
I have about 50 hats
Different ones all the time
That's on the topic of appearance tho
Zebra
I don't look very approachable now :( Since I became ill again my personal health and hygeine have done very poorly.
ELiot
Do you like being hygienic? Indifferent?
Zebra
Well, I like being hygenic, but getting to that state is difficult.
Also, I've probably gained 40kg since then, so even if I was it's probably all for naught.
ELiot
What contributes to that state? For me it's having a shower and brushing my teeth.
Maybe deodorant too. And clean clothes
Zebra
Well, those things.
Now I've got so fat it's hard to buy clothes :-/
ELiot
I would say you can work on that
Both the fat and the clothes
If you want to
Exercise would help you, leaving the house to go for a walk would help you, you don't need anywhere to go other than around a block or something
Do you track your weight?
Zebra
Yes, but it's very difficult.
ELiot
Is it still climbing or staying where it is?
Zebra
I've tried some stuff. Fasting, methamphetamine, etc., but I was never able to really reduce it.
ELiot
Difficult to track? To walk? To exercise? To buy clothes?
Weight loss is difficult, Yes
Zebra
I just don't have the energy to excercise. Even when I was taking methamphetamine I didn't have the energy for it.
ELiot
Would you consider paying for a service that helped you lose weight?
Zebra
Right now I think it's not climbing, but I didn't buy a new scale when my last one broke.
Yes, if I thought it had reasonable chance of being effective.
ELiot
An option would be to look at what is available
Near to where you live
Zebra
I don't think there are any drugs that work as well for weighy loss as meth, though, and that was not effective enough.
I don't know what else such a service could provide really.
I mean, I _know_ you need to excercise and eat healthy, but I just haven't been able to do it.
ELiot
Commitment, a gym, a trainer setting a program
There are greater experts in the field of weight loss than I
Zebra
Honestly, I've tried so much, I do not realistically think I would continue to follow through with that.
ELiot
Okay
Zebra
Other than the very deepest depths of depression (which I still haven't fallen to this time around), I've never experienced anything as unpleasant as excercise.
ELiot
I can offer ideas about weight loss and exercise but maybe another time.
What types of exercise?
Zebra
I suppose there are some illnesses which might do better than meth, but trying to induce those makes me feel very squeamish.
Pretty much anything.
It'a just so hot and icky and tiring.
ELiot
Oh! Yes, a problem with your geography
Other geographies are not as hot and sticky. Even that has solutions. My exercise is walking, running, swimming, unicycle, circus skills, rock climbing, ice skating, laser tag, and trampoline, I also did pole dance for a while. Also I would kayak and hike more if I had more opportunities...
Zebra
True. I had some fun doing outdoor type stuff in the Southwestern US.
Moving has its own host of problems, though.
ELiot
Other sports I have done include table tennis, actual tennis, archery...
Zebra
The primary one being that I don't know anyone anywhere else.
ELiot
I don't imagine moving will solve all your problems
Zebra
Except my mother in Florida, USA.
ELiot
Yes I was going to say, it would certainly make loneliness harder
Especially when you don't currently know how to make new friends very well
You can exercise at night, find an indoor pool to swim in maybe.
Zebra
Yes. I did the moving thing once, and it was probably good at the time, but I had fairly exceptional circumstances then which I don't have now.
There's a pretty nice pool in my condo, but I get tired. Swimming is exhausting.
And very self-conscious doing excercise around others.
ELiot
Yes.
Zebra
That's probably equally as serious an issue as the exhaustion.
ELiot
Night time for self conscious
Take a friend or girlfriend?
Moral support?
Zebra
Makes me more self conscious :(
ELiot
You need support network not criticism
Do you trust these people?
Do you think you could track how far you swim and try to increase laps or so?
The idea being to measure progress and feel like you are going somewhere
Zebra
I don't think I've ever actually trusted anyone, even as a child.
ELiot
That is a different problem
Zebra
Yeah. I have a lot of problems. :(
ELiot
That is okay for a place to be
Better to know than not know.
To be more specific you have a lot of problems *at the same time*
Which is making it hard to work out what the biggest one is, and where to start
Zebra
Yes. That kind of sucks.
ELiot
It appears that at the bottom of each problem there is a slightly different problem, also with a solution but one that too needs implementation
I am confident that this can all be fixed, I am also confident that you can enjoy the journey of doing so.
Perhaps you might benefit from writing down the problems until you have a clearer picture for yourself
Zebra
Yes, that's how it feels to me too. There's a large web of problems which are fixable with enough effort, but inter-related so hard to fix one at a time, and I don't really feel like I have the effort to do it all at once, nor that it would be worth it.
ELiot
As you talk to me you are clarifying the problems, I imagine that can help to identify them to help solve them.
If I were in your position I would pick the first one that I encountered and try to make a little progress on it before the next one hit me, and trying to make progress on the next one too.
I firmly believe in the concept of _making it easier for future you_.
Zebra
Sometimes I feel that all of them could be fixed in one go with a more radical change, but that's a rather scary thing to do.
ELiot
It is. Especially without experience in radical changes.
Zebra
Well, I moved alone to a country I'd never been when I was 18. So I guess it's not entirely unfamiliar.
ELiot
A change of scenery would probably change the problems. Not necessarily fix them
Zebra
Yeah.
ELiot
It could be the motivation you need to help make it easier for you to make progress
But it could also leave you exhausted and worse off
Zebra
I've looked some into moving to the Republic of Georgia.
But I do have friends here, even if there are only a few remaining and I feel increasingly alienated from them.
ELiot
You might benefit from a time management system
Zebra
Why? I don't have enough to even fill one activity per day...
ELiot
A list of problems, followed by a list of ways to solve the problems followed by a plan of how to spend your next 168 hours towards solving those problems while also not making new ones...
Each week
Energy limited? That's also a problem. With a solution. You do need sleep and rest
Zebra
I usually sleep a lot, but it doesn't feel restful.
I try to go on holidays, but again, usually come back more stressed than before.
ELiot
That too has a solution. Are you getting enough light when you wake up?
Zebra
I typically keep the blinds closed.
I don't like light :(
ELiot
Bright light when you wake up will help you feel awake more. Only when you wake up.
Zebra
But then what do I do?
ELiot
Pick something you want to change and go for it.
The strategy of: "Try X"
It might help to have a notebook paper trail of ideas you have tried
Or thoughts you have had about each problem and how to solve it
Zebra
Most of the things I want to change are hard to change, computer related (and this not really helpful to not feeling terrible and alone), or things I don't have a good plan for how to change.
ELiot
You have as much to do as you want to. You can make a plan.
Zebra
I guess if I did something computer related it could make money, maybe, but I'd still feel awful. In the longer term it may be helpful, but I've tried this before and it is difficult to not get depressed and quit to go cry all day after 30 minutes.
ELiot
Even the meta strategy of "trying to plan" can help
You should write down that idea
It also seems like you apply pressure and expectations above what you have evidence of yourself being capable of.
Zebra
The idea of trying to plan, or?
ELiot
Yes and the "computer thing" idea
You should update on the estimation of your capabilities to be more of a reflection on what you have recently observed you are able to do
Zebra
I have a lot of computer thing ideas. I know pretty specifically how to do them, but sitting it down and typing it out is harder.
Well, I can walk to 7/11 if I put a lot of effort into it.
That's about it...
ELiot
Which is a way of saying to start small. Reset from the beginning (which is not easy)
Zebra
That doesn't seem helpful.
ELiot
That's what your baseline is
Anything upwards is now impressive.
Including this conversation
You have come a long way already
Zebra
Doesn't feel like it. Starting from walking to 7/11 sounds kind of exhausting and not very enjoyable.
ELiot
But that's where you are right now
I would say try habit RPG, but I never found it useful to me
Zebra
Yeah, but I mean, back on to the original point, all this seems much harder than trying to work through my hangups about suicide.
ELiot
Possibly, Yes.
All these problems are solveable, But perhaps
What about the possibility of solving the most immediate discomfort at any time?
What is the most immediate discomfort right now?
Zebra
I feel stressed about life being shit generally, I guess.
Which is generally how I feel when I have nothing specific to be stressed about.
ELiot
What can you do about that right now? How can you make life less generally shit for the you that lives 10 minutes in the future?
Or maybe make yourself feel less stressed about it
Zebra
I guess I could try to do some meditation. That used to work, but hasn't been so much recently.
For the stress part, at least.
I have no idea how to make life immediately less crap in the next ten minutes.
ELiot
I would suggest your environment or hygiene
As they are usually quick low hanging ideas.
Zebra
What sorts of things are you thinking of specifically with regard to those that could be accomplished within 10 minutes?
ELiot
A shower, a little cleaning up your space, changing clothes
Taking out the trash
Zebra
I guess that's doable.
Zebra
Welp, done that. I suppose I do feel mildly better...
ELiot
That particular strategy is called success spirals. Successfully doing a thing to help the you of the future slightly. One bit at a time.
I should add - if you want to talk about death we should have that talk too
Death, dying, pain
Zebra
Well, death seems somewhat scary in the immediate sense.
Especially death by falling, which is the most low-effort solution for someone living in a high rise building.
ELiot
You need at least 10 floors to be confident of a sudden death
Zebra
More high-effort strategies, like pentobarbital or such, seem more palatable, but not quite as immediately actionable.
I'm on the tenth floor, and I think there's 20 something.
ELiot
And it depends whether you want to impact others I. E. Seeing you fall and or the body
Zebra
I don't really care, though obviously I wouldn't want anyone seeing me "on the ledge" if I couldn't go through with it.
OTOH, nighttime is a thing.
ELiot
Yes
Zebra
But it's ... scary.
Have you ever been with someone during suicide?
ELiot
No, I recently discouraged someone from taking action in person. They were making rash decisions at the time
Zebra
Ah
ELiot
At least 3 people in my life have come close. They are not all better yet, still in limbo of up and down
I would still encourage you to do the things that you want. Have you read the guilt series by nate soares?
Zebra
No. What is it about?
ELiot
Why we have guilt and defeating it where it's not appropriate
Zebra
I don't think I experience a significant amount of guilt.
ELiot
Guilt in the sense of, "should be going out" but "should stay in". The conflicting desire of parts of you to do different things. And sorting it out
Zebra
Ah, hmm
I will read the Guilt series then...
ELiot
I also went through a period of time when I felt purposeless, I described it as, "everything is meaningless" and it's bothering me. As distinctly different to, "everything is meaningless and it doesn't matter"
Zebra
Everything being meaningless doesn't bother me. I don't think meaningfulness is a possible thing in any universe. Everything being shitty and empty bothers me, but that's rather different.
http://mindingourway.com/dont-steer-with-guilt/ <- this?
ELiot
Yes, but that's the middle of the series, better to start in the beginning
http://mindingourway.com/guilt/
That's the table of contents
Zebra
Hmm, it's a pretty good read.
------------------------------------ Later in time...............
Zebra
Finished it. It was long!
I liked it more than Eliezer's writing. It may even have been potentially useful irl, maybe.
ELiot
do you think you can apply things to your life?
Zebra
Maybe. I've been trying to do the breaking things up part.
I made a small amount of money with stupid computer things... I guess that's a modicum of progress, maybe.
I liked the last part about changing goals. That might be useful.
Visualising bad things seems like a potentially helpful strategy as well.
Zebra
A lot of the techniques do seem effective. Hopefully it will make a positive difference.
---------------------A long time later--------------
ELiot
hey
I promised to get back to you.
how are things?
Zebra
Hi
ELiot
it's been a while..
Zebra
I'm doing somewhat better. Got on meds for bipolar disorder, which has helped a lot.
Yeah. Been trying to actually do things now, so I feel less stagnant.
ELiot
Oh! great!
Zebra
Hopefully life will end up in a better place than before.
The Problem TM
What is actually the problem? I have a theory, but I also wanted to publish this without declaring my answer. I will share my ideas in a few weeks but I want to know what you think and how you came to that answer.
Meta: this conversation happened over 6 months ago, this took 2 hours to collate, tidy and publish.
Originally published here: http://bearlamp.com.au/the-problem-tm-analyse-a-conversation/
2016 LessWrong Diaspora Survey Analysis: Part Two (LessWrong Use, Successorship, Diaspora)
2016 LessWrong Diaspora Survey Analysis
Overview
- Results and Dataset
- Meta
- Demographics
- LessWrong Usage and Experience
- LessWrong Criticism and Successorship
- Diaspora Community Analysis (You are here)
- Mental Health Section
- Basilisk Section/Analysis
- Blogs and Media analysis
- Politics
- Calibration Question And Probability Question Analysis
- Charity And Effective Altruism Analysis
Introduction
Before it was the LessWrong survey, the 2016 survey was a small project I was working on as market research for a website I'm creating called FortForecast. As I was discussing the idea with others, particularly Eliot he made the suggestion that since he's doing LW 2.0 and I'm doing a site that targets the LessWrong demographic, why don't I go ahead and do the LessWrong Survey? Because of that, this years survey had a lot of questions oriented around what you would want to see in a successor to LessWrong and what you think is wrong with the site.
LessWrong Usage and Experience
How Did You Find LessWrong?
Been here since it was started in the Overcoming Bias days: 171 8.3%
Referred by a link: 275 13.4%
HPMOR: 542 26.4%
Overcoming Bias: 80 3.9%
Referred by a friend: 265 12.9%
Referred by a search engine: 131 6.4%
Referred by other fiction: 14 0.7%
Slate Star Codex: 241 11.7%
Reddit: 55 2.7%
Common Sense Atheism: 19 0.9%
Hacker News: 47 2.3%
Gwern: 22 1.1%
Other: 191 9.308%
How do you use Less Wrong?
I lurk, but never registered an account: 1120 54.4%
I've registered an account, but never posted: 270 13.1%
I've posted a comment, but never a top-level post: 417 20.3%
I've posted in Discussion, but not Main: 179 8.7%
I've posted in Main: 72 3.5%
[54.4% lurkers.]
How often do you comment on LessWrong?
I have commented more than once a week for the past year.: 24 1.2%
I have commented more than once a month for the past year but less than once a week.: 63 3.1%
I have commented but less than once a month for the past year.: 225 11.1%
I have not commented this year.: 1718 84.6%
[You could probably snarkily title this one "LW usage in one statistic". It's a pretty damning portrait of the sites vitality. A whopping 84.6% of people have not commented this year a single time.]
How Long Since You Last Posted On LessWrong?
I wrote one today.: 12 0.637%
Within the last three days.: 13 0.69%
Within the last week.: 22 1.168%
Within the last month.: 58 3.079%
Within the last three months.: 75 3.981%
Within the last six months.: 68 3.609%
Within the last year.: 84 4.459%
Within the last five years.: 295 15.658%
Longer than five years.: 15 0.796%
I've never posted on LW.: 1242 65.924%
[Supermajority of people have never commented on LW, 5.574% have within the last month.]
About how much of the Sequences have you read?
Never knew they existed until this moment: 215 10.3%
Knew they existed, but never looked at them: 101 4.8%
Some, but less than 25% : 442 21.2%
About 25%: 260 12.5%
About 50%: 283 13.6%
About 75%: 298 14.3%
All or almost all: 487 23.3%
[10.3% of people taking the survey have never heard of the sequences. 36.3% have not read a quarter of them.]
Do you attend Less Wrong meetups?
Yes, regularly: 157 7.5%
Yes, once or a few times: 406 19.5%
No: 1518 72.9%
[However the in-person community seems to be non-dead.]
Is physical interaction with the Less Wrong community otherwise a part of your everyday life, for example do you live with other Less Wrongers, or you are close friends and frequently go out with them?
Yes, all the time: 158 7.6%
Yes, sometimes: 258 12.5%
No: 1652 79.9%
About the same number say they hang out with LWers 'all the time' as say they go to meetups. I wonder if people just double counted themselves here. Or they may go to meetups and have other interactions with LWers outside of that. Or it could be a coincidence and these are different demographics. Let's find out.
P(Community part of daily life | Meetups) = 40%
Significant overlap, but definitely not exclusive overlap. I'll go ahead and chalk this one up up to coincidence.
Have you ever been in a romantic relationship with someone you met through the Less Wrong community?
Yes: 129 6.2%
I didn't meet them through the community but they're part of the community now: 102 4.9%
No: 1851 88.9%
LessWrong Usage Differences Between 2016 and 2014 Surveys
How do you use Less Wrong?
I lurk, but never registered an account: +19.300% 1125 54.400%
I've registered an account, but never posted: -1.600% 271 13.100%
I've posted a comment, but never a top-level post: -7.600% 419 20.300%
I've posted in Discussion, but not Main: -5.100% 179 8.700%
I've posted in Main: -3.300% 73 3.500%
About how much of the sequences have you read?
Never knew they existed until this moment: +3.300% 217 10.400%
Knew they existed, but never looked at them: +2.100% 103 4.900%
Some, but less than 25%: +3.100% 442 21.100%
About 25%: +0.400% 260 12.400%
About 50%: -0.400% 284 13.500%
About 75%: -1.800% 299 14.300%
All or almost all: -5.000% 491 23.400%
Do you attend Less Wrong meetups?
Yes, regularly: -2.500% 160 7.700%
Yes, once or a few times: -2.100% 407 19.500%
No: +7.100% 1524 72.900%
Is physical interaction with the Less Wrong community otherwise a part of your everyday life, for example do you live with other Less Wrongers, or you are close friends and frequently go out with them?
Yes, all the time: +0.200% 161 7.700%
Yes, sometimes: -0.300% 258 12.400%
No: +2.400% 1659 79.800%
Have you ever been in a romantic relationship with someone you met through the Less Wrong community?
Yes: +0.800% 132 6.300%
I didn't meet them through the community but they're part of the community now: -0.400% 102 4.900%
No: +1.600% 1858 88.800%
Write Ins
In a bit of a silly oversight I forgot to ask survey participants what was good about the community, so the following is going to be a pretty one sided picture. Below are the complete write ins respondents submitted
Issues With LessWrong At It's Peak
Philosophical Issues With LessWrong At It's Peak[Part One]
Philosophical Issues With LessWrong At It's Peak[Part Two]
Community Issues With LessWrong At It's Peak[Part One]
Community Issues With LessWrong At It's Peak[Part Two]
Issues With LessWrong Now
Philosophical Issues With LessWrong Now[Part One]
Philosophical Issues With LessWrong Now[Part Two]
Community Issues With LessWrong Now[Part One]
Community Issues With LessWrong Now[Part Two]
Peak Philosophy Issue Tallies
| Label | Code | Tally |
|---|---|---|
| Arrogance | A | 16 |
| Bad Aesthetics | BA | 3 |
| Bad Norms | BN | 3 |
| Bad Politics | BP | 5 |
| Bad Tech Platform | BTP | 1 |
| Cultish | C | 5 |
| Cargo Cult | CC | 3 |
| Doesn't Accept Criticism | DAC | 3 |
| Don't Know Where to Start | DKWS | 5 |
| Damaged Me Mentally | DMM | 1 |
| Esoteric | E | 3 |
| Eliezer Yudkowsky | EY | 6 |
| Improperly Indexed | II | 7 |
| Impossible Mission | IM | 4 |
| Insufficient Social Support | ISS | 1 |
| Jargon | ||
| Literal Cult | LC | 1 |
| Lack of Rigor | LR | 14 |
| Misfocused | M | 13 |
| Mixed Bag | MB | 3 |
| Nothing | N | 13 |
| Not Enough Jargon | NEJ | 1 |
| Not Enough Roko's Basilisk | NERB | 1 |
| Not Enough Theory | NET | 1 |
| No Intuition | NI | 6 |
| Not Progressive Enough | NPE | 7 |
| Narrow Scholarship | NS | 20 |
| Other | O | 3 |
| Personality Cult | PC | 10 |
| None of the Above | ||
| Quantum Mechanics Sequence | QMS | 2 |
| Reinvention | R | 10 |
| Rejects Expertise | RE | 5 |
| Spoiled | S | 7 |
| Small Competent Authorship | SCA | 6 |
| Suggestion For Improvement | SFI | 1 |
| Socially Incompetent | SI | 9 |
| Stupid Philosophy | SP | 4 |
| Too Contrarian | TC | 2 |
| Typical Mind | TM | 1 |
| Too Much Roko's Basilisk | TMRB | 1 |
| Too Much Theory | TMT | 14 |
| Too Progressive | TP | 2 |
| Too Serious | TS | 2 |
| Unwelcoming | U | 8 |
Well, those are certainly some results. Top answers are:
Narrow Scholarship: 20
Arrogance: 16
Too Much Theory: 14
Lack of Rigor: 14
Misfocused: 13
Nothing: 13
Reinvention (reinvents the wheel too much): 10
Personality Cult: 10
So condensing a bit: Pay more attention to mainstream scholarship and ideas, try to do better about intellectual rigor, be more practical and focus on results, be more humble. (Labeled Dataset)
Peak Community Issue Tallies
| Label | Code | Tally |
|---|---|---|
| Arrogance | A | 7 |
| Assumes Reader Is Male | ARIM | 1 |
| Bad Aesthetics | BA | 1 |
| Bad At PR | BAP | 5 |
| Bad Norms | BN | 5 |
| Bad Politics | BP | 2 |
| Cultish | C | 9 |
| Cliqueish Tendencies | CT | 1 |
| Diaspora | D | 1 |
| Defensive Attitude | DA | 1 |
| Doesn't Accept Criticism | DAC | 3 |
| Dunning Kruger | DK | 1 |
| Elitism | E | 3 |
| Eliezer Yudkowsky | EY | 2 |
| Groupthink | G | 11 |
| Insufficiently Indexed | II | 9 |
| Impossible Mission | IM | 1 |
| Imposter Syndrome | IS | 1 |
| Jargon | J | 2 |
| Lack of Rigor | LR | 1 |
| Mixed Bag | MB | 1 |
| Nothing | N | 5 |
| ??? | NA | 1 |
| Not Big Enough | NBE | 3 |
| Not Enough of A Cult | NEAC | 1 |
| Not Enough Content | NEC | 7 |
| Not Enough Community Infrastructure | NECI | 10 |
| Not Enough Meetups | NEM | 5 |
| No Goals | NG | 2 |
| Not Nerdy Enough | NNE | 3 |
| None Of the Above | NOA | 1 |
| Not Progressive Enough | NPE | 3 |
| Not Rational | NR | 3 |
| NRx (Neoreaction) | NRx | 1 |
| Narrow Scholarship | NS | 4 |
| Not Stringent Enough | NSE | 3 |
| Parochialism | P | 1 |
| Pickup Artistry | PA | 2 |
| Personality Cult | PC | 7 |
| Reinvention | R | 1 |
| Recurring Arguments | RA | 3 |
| Rejects Expertise | RE | 2 |
| Sequences | S | 2 |
| Small Competent Authorship | SCA | 5 |
| Suggestion For Improvement | SFI | 1 |
| Spoiled Issue | SI | 9 |
| Socially INCOMpetent | SINCOM | 2 |
| Too Boring | TB | 1 |
| Too Contrarian | TC | 10 |
| Too COMbative | TCOM | 4 |
| Too Cis/Straight/Male | TCSM | 5 |
| Too Intolerant of Cranks | TIC | 1 |
| Too Intolerant of Politics | TIP | 2 |
| Too Long Winded | TLW | 2 |
| Too Many Idiots | TMI | 3 |
| Too Much Math | TMM | 1 |
| Too Much Theory | TMT | 12 |
| Too Nerdy | TN | 6 |
| Too Rigorous | TR | 1 |
| Too Serious | TS | 1 |
| Too Tolerant of Cranks | TTC | 1 |
| Too Tolerant of Politics | TTP | 3 |
| Too Tolerant of POSers | TTPOS | 2 |
| Too Tolerant of PROGressivism | TTPROG | 2 |
| Too Weird | TW | 2 |
| Unwelcoming | U | 12 |
| UTILitarianism | UTIL | 1 |
Top Answers:
Unwelcoming: 12
Too Much Theory: 12
Groupthink: 11
Not Enough Community Infrastructure: 10
Too Contrarian: 10
Insufficiently Indexed: 9
Cultish: 9
Again condensing a bit: Work on being less intimidating/aggressive/etc to newcomers, spend less time on navel gazing and more time on actually doing things and collecting data, work on getting the structures in place that will onboard people into the community, stop being so nitpicky and argumentative, spend more time on getting content indexed in a form where people can actually find it, be more accepting of outside viewpoints and remember that you're probably more likely to be wrong than you think. (Labeled Dataset)
One last note before we finish up, these tallies are a very rough executive summary. The tagging process basically involves trying to fit points into clusters and is prone to inaccuracy through laziness, adding another category being undesirable, square-peg into round-hole fitting, and my personal political biases. So take these with a grain of salt, if you really want to know what people wrote in my advice would be to read through the write in sets I have above in HTML format. If you want to evaluate for yourself how well I tagged things you can see the labeled datasets above.
I won't bother tallying the "issues now" sections, all you really need to know is that it's basically the same as the first sections except with lots more "It's dead." comments and from eyeballing it a higher proportion of people arguing that LessWrong has been taken over by the left/social justice and complaints about effective altruism. (I infer that the complaints about being taken over by the left are mostly referring to effective altruism.)
Traits Respondents Would Like To See In A Successor Community
Philosophically
Attention Paid To Outside Sources
More: 1042 70.933%
Same: 414 28.182%
Less: 13 0.885%
Self Improvement Focus
More: 754 50.706%
Same: 598 40.215%
Less: 135 9.079%
AI Focus
More: 184 12.611%
Same: 821 56.271%
Less: 454 31.117%
Political
More: 330 22.837%
Same: 770 53.287%
Less: 345 23.875%
Academic/Formal
More: 455 31.885%
Same: 803 56.272%
Less: 169 11.843%
In summary, people want a site that will engage with outside ideas, acknowledge where it borrows from, focus on practical self improvement, less on AI and AI risk, and tighten its academic rigor. They could go either way on politics but the epistemic direction is clear.
Community
Intense Environment
More: 254 19.644%
Same: 830 64.192%
Less: 209 16.164%
Focused On 'Real World' Action
More: 739 53.824%
Same: 563 41.005%
Less: 71 5.171%
Experts
More: 749 55.605%
Same: 575 42.687%
Less: 23 1.707%
Data Driven/Testing Of Ideas
More: 1107 78.344%
Same: 291 20.594%
Less: 15 1.062%
Social
More: 583 43.507%
Same: 682 50.896%
Less: 75 5.597%
This largely backs up what I said about the previous results. People want a more practical, more active, more social and more empirical LessWrong with outside expertise and ideas brought into the fold. They could go either way on it being more intense but the epistemic trend is still clear.
Write Ins
Diaspora Communities
So where did the party go? We got twice as many respondents this year as last when we opened up the survey to the diaspora, which means that the LW community is alive and kicking it's just not on LessWrong.
LessWrong
Yes: 353 11.498%
No: 1597 52.02%
LessWrong Meetups
Yes: 215 7.003%
No: 1735 56.515%
LessWrong Facebook Group
Yes: 171 5.57%
No: 1779 57.948%
LessWrong Slack
Yes: 55 1.792%
No: 1895 61.726%
SlateStarCodex
Yes: 832 27.101%
No: 1118 36.417%
[SlateStarCodex by far has the highest proportion of active LessWrong users, over twice that of LessWrong itself, and more than LessWrong and Tumblr combined.]
Rationalist Tumblr
Yes: 350 11.401%
No: 1600 52.117%
[I'm actually surprised that Tumblr doesn't just beat LessWrong itself outright, They're only a tenth of a percentage point behind though, and if current trends continue I suspect that by 2017 Tumblr will have a large lead over the main LW site.]
Rationalist Facebook
Yes: 150 4.886%
No: 1800 58.632%
[Eliezer Yudkowsky currently resides here.]
Rationalist Twitter
Yes: 59 1.922%
No: 1891 61.596%
Effective Altruism Hub
Yes: 98 3.192%
No: 1852 60.326%
FortForecast
Yes: 4 0.13%
No: 1946 63.388%
[I included this as a 'troll' option to catch people who just check every box. Relatively few people seem to have done that, but having the option here lets me know one way or the other.]
Good Judgement(TM) Open
Yes: 29 0.945%
No: 1921 62.573%
PredictionBook
Yes: 59 1.922%
No: 1891 61.596%
Omnilibrium
Yes: 8 0.261%
No: 1942 63.257%
Hacker News
Yes: 252 8.208%
No: 1698 55.309%
#lesswrong on freenode
Yes: 76 2.476%
No: 1874 61.042%
#slatestarcodex on freenode
Yes: 36 1.173%
No: 1914 62.345%
#hplusroadmap on freenode
Yes: 4 0.13%
No: 1946 63.388%
#chapelperilous on freenode
Yes: 10 0.326%
No: 1940 63.192%
[Since people keep asking me, this is a postrational channel.]
/r/rational
Yes: 274 8.925%
No: 1676 54.593%
/r/HPMOR
Yes: 230 7.492%
No: 1720 56.026%
[Given that the story is long over, this is pretty impressive. I'd have expected it to be dead by now.]
/r/SlateStarCodex
Yes: 244 7.948%
No: 1706 55.57%
One or more private 'rationalist' groups
Yes: 192 6.254%
No: 1758 57.264%
[I almost wish I hadn't included this option, it'd have been fascinating to learn more about these through write ins.]
Of all the parties who seem like plausible candidates at the moment, Scott Alexander seems most capable to undiaspora the community. In practice he's very busy, so he would need a dedicated team of relatively autonomous people to help him. Scott could court guest posts and start to scale up under the SSC brand, and I think he would fairly easily end up with the lions share of the free floating LWers that way.
Before I call a hearse for LessWrong, there is a glimmer of hope left:
Would you consider rejoining LessWrong?
I never left: 668 40.6%
Yes: 557 33.8%
Yes, but only under certain conditions: 205 12.5%
No: 216 13.1%
A significant fraction of people say they'd be interested in an improved version of the site. And of course there were write ins for conditions to rejoin, what did people say they'd need to rejoin the site?
Rejoin Condition Write Ins [Part One]
Rejoin Condition Write Ins [Part Two]
Rejoin Condition Write Ins [Part Three]
Rejoin Condition Write Ins [Part Four]
Rejoin Condition Write Ins [Part Five]
Feel free to read these yourselves (they're not long), but I'll go ahead and summarize: It's all about the content. Content, content, content. No amount of usability improvements, A/B testing or clever trickery will let you get around content. People are overwhelmingly clear about this; they need a reason to come to the site and right now they don't feel like they have one. That means priority number one for somebody trying to revitalize LessWrong is how you deal with this.
Let's recap.
Future Improvement Wishlist Based On Survey Results
Philosophical
- Pay more attention to mainstream scholarship and ideas.
- Improved intellectual rigor.
- Acknowledge sources borrowed from.
- Be more practical and focus on results.
- Be more humble.
Community
- Less intimidating/aggressive/etc to newcomers,
- Structures that will onboard people into the community.
- Stop being so nitpicky and argumentative.
- Spend more time on getting content indexed in a form where people can actually find it.
- More accepting of outside viewpoints.
While that list seems reasonable, it's quite hard to put into practice. Rigor, as the name implies requires high-effort from participants. Frankly, it's not fun. And getting people to do un-fun things without paying them is difficult. If LessWrong is serious about it's goal of 'advancing the art of human rationality' then it needs to figure out a way to do real investigation into the subject. Not just have people 'discuss', as though the potential for Rationality is within all of us just waiting to be brought out by the right conversation.
I personally haven't been a LW regular in a long time. Assuming the points about pedanticism, snipping, "well actually"-ism and the like are true then they need to stop for the site to move forward. Personally, I'm a huge fan of Scott Alexander's comment policy: All comments must be at least two of true, kind, or necessary.
-
True and kind - Probably won't drown out the discussion signal, will help significantly decrease the hostility of the atmosphere.
-
True and necessary - Sometimes what you have to say isn't nice, but it needs to be said. This is the common core of free speech arguments for saying mean things and they're not wrong. However, something being true isn't necessarily enough to make it something you should say. In fact, in some situations saying mean things to people entirely unrelated to their arguments is known as the ad hominem fallacy.
-
Kind and necessary - The infamous 'hugbox' is essentially a place where people go to hear things which are kind but not necessarily true. I don't think anybody wants a hugbox, but occasionally it can be important to say things that might not be true but are needed for the sake of tact, reconciliation, or to prevent greater harm.
If people took that seriously and really gave it some thought before they used their keyboard, I think the on-site LessWrong community would be a significant part of the way to not driving people off as soon as they arrive.
More importantly, in places like the LessWrong Slack I see this sort of happy go lucky attitude about site improvement. "Oh that sounds nice, we should do that." without the accompanying mountain of work to actually make 'that' happen. I'm not sure people really understand the dynamics of what it means to 'revive' a website in severe decay. When you decide to 'revive' a dying site, what you're really doing once you're past a certain point is refounding the site. So the question you should be asking yourself isn't "Can I fix the site up a bit so it isn't quite so stale?". It's "Could I have founded this site?" and if the answer is no you should seriously question whether to make the time investment.
Whether or not LessWrong lives to see another day basically depends on the level of ground game its last users and administrators can muster up. And if it's not enough, it won't.
Virtus junxit mors non separabit!
State-Space of Background Assumptions
[Update]: I received 720+ responses to the survey. Thanks everyone who helped! I have also concluded the statistical analysis (factor analysis, mediation analysis, clustering and prediction). I have not, however, done the writeup. This may take some time since I just started working. It will be done :) I just wanted to let people know this is the current stage.
Hello everyone!
My name is Andrés Gómez Emilsson, and I'm the former president of the Stanford Transhumanist Association. I just graduated from Stanford with a masters in computational psychology (my undergraduate degree was in Symbolic Systems, the major with the highest LessWronger density at Stanford and possibly of all universities).
I have a request for the LessWrong community: I would like as many of you as possible to fill out this questionnaire I created to help us understand what causes the diversity of values in transhumanism. The purpose of this questionnaire is twofold:
- Characterize the state-space of background assumptions about consciousness
- Evaluate the influence of beliefs about consciousness, as well as personality and activities, in the acquisition of memetic affiliations
The first part is not specific to transhumanism, and it will be useful whether or not the second is fruitful. What do I mean by the state-space of background assumptions? The best way to get a sense of what this would look like is to see the results of a previous study I conducted: State-space of drug effects. There I asked participants to "rate the effects of a drug they have taken" by selecting the degree to which certain phrases describe the effects of the drug. I then conducted factor analysis on the dataset and extracted 6 meaningful factors accounting for more than 50% of the variance. Finally, I mapped the centroid of the responses of each drug in the state-space defined, so that people could visually compare the relative position of all of the substances in a normalized 6-dimensional space.
I don't know what the state-space of background assumptions about consciousness looks like, but hopefully the analysis of the responses to this survey will reveal them.
The second part is specific to transhumanism, and I think it should concerns us all. To the extent that we are participating in the historical debate about how the future of humanity should be, it is important for us to know what makes people prefer certain views over others. To give you a fictitious example of a possible effect I might discover: It may turn out that being very extraverted predisposes you to be uninterested in Artificial Intelligence and its implications. If this is the case, we could pin-point possible sources of bias in certain communities and ideological movements, thereby increasing the chances of making more rational decisions.
The survey is scheduled to be closed in 2 days, on July 30th 2015. That said, I am willing to extend the deadline until August 2nd if I see that the number of LessWrongers answering the questionnaire is not slowing down by the 30th. [July 31st edit: I extend the deadline until midnight (California time) of August 2nd of 2015.]
Thank you all!
Andrés :)
Here are some links about my work in case you are interested and want to know more:
Psychophysics for Psychedelic Research
Psychedelic Perception of Visual Textures
No peace in our time?
There's a new paper arguing, contra Pinker, that the world is not getting more peaceful:
On the tail risk of violent conflict and its underestimation
Pasquale Cirillo and Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Abstract—We examine all possible statistical pictures of violent conflicts over common era history with a focus on dealing with incompleteness and unreliability of data. We apply methods from extreme value theory on log-transformed data to remove compact support, then, owing to the boundedness of maximum casualties, retransform the data and derive expected means. We find the estimated mean likely to be at least three times larger than the sample mean, meaning severe underestimation of the severity of conflicts from naive observation. We check for robustness by sampling between high and low estimates and jackknifing the data. We study inter-arrival times between tail events and find (first-order) memorylessless of events. The statistical pictures obtained are at variance with the claims about "long peace".
Every claim in the abstract is supported by the data - with the exception of the last claim. Which is the important one, as it's the only one really contradicting the "long peace" thesis.
Most of the paper is an analysis of trends in peace and war that establish that what we see throughout conflict history is consistent with a memoryless powerlaw process whose mean we underestimate from the sample. That is useful and interesting.
However, the paper does not compare the hypothesis that the world is getting peaceful with the alternative hypothesis that it's business as usual. Note that it's not cherry-picking to suggest that the world might be getting more peaceful since 1945 (or 1953). We've had the development of nuclear weapons, the creation of the UN, and the complete end of direct great power wars (a rather unprecedented development). It would be good to test this hypothesis; unfortunately this paper, while informative, does not do so.
The only part of the analysis that could be applied here is the claim that:
For an events with more than 10 million victims, if we refer to actual estimates, the average time delay is 101.58 years, with a mean absolute deviation of 144.47 years
This could mean that the peace since the second world war is not unusual, but could be quite typical. But this ignores the "per capita" aspect of violence: the more people, the more deadly events we expect at same per capita violence. Since the current population is so much larger than it's ever been, the average time delay is certainly lower that 101.58 years. They do have a per capita average time delay - table III. Though this seems to predict events with 10 million casualties (per 7.2 billion people) every 37 years or so. That's 3.3 million casualties just after WW2, rising to 10 million today. This has never happened so far (unless one accepts the highest death toll estimate of the Korean war; as usual, it is unclear whether 1945 or 1953 was the real transition).
This does not prove that the "long peace" is right, but at least shows the paper has failed to prove it wrong.
Decision Theory: Value in Time
Summary: Is there demand for writing posts about this aspect of decision-making?
And of course, is there offer? Because I didn't see any post about it.
Topics I intended to cover include:
- How much is worth 100$ in few years? Why? Why is it useful?
- Risk-return relationship.
- How is it useful in life outside finance?
And topic I would like, but I am not sure if i should cover:
- How can we apply it to death? (in sense, should I live a happy life or struggle to live endlessly?)
I found that missing in decision analysis, and I think it is very important thing to know, since we don't always choose between "I take A" or "I take B", but also between "I take A" or "I take B in two years", or "should i give A to gain B every year next 100 years?"
Why not simply redirect to some other source?
Well, that can be done either way, but I thought clear basics would not harm and would be useful to people who want to invest less time in it.
[LINK] The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions: preprint
A preprint of the "The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions – and what they mean for the future" is now available on the FHI's website.
Abstract:
Predicting the development of artificial intelligence (AI) is a difficult project – but a vital one, according to some analysts. AI predictions are already abound: but are they reliable? This paper starts by proposing a decomposition schema for classifying them. Then it constructs a variety of theoretical tools for analysing, judging and improving them. These tools are demonstrated by careful analysis of five famous AI predictions: the initial Dartmouth conference, Dreyfus's criticism of AI, Searle's Chinese room paper, Kurzweil's predictions in the Age of Spiritual Machines, and Omohundro's ‘AI drives’ paper. These case studies illustrate several important principles, such as the general overconfidence of experts, the superiority of models over expert judgement and the need for greater uncertainty in all types of predictions. The general reliability of expert judgement in AI timeline predictions is shown to be poor, a result that fits in with previous studies of expert competence.
The paper was written by me (Stuart Armstrong), Kaj Sotala and Seán S. Ó hÉigeartaigh, and is similar to the series of Less Wrong posts starting here and here.
[LINK] The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions
The Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence has - finally! - published our paper "The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions – and what they mean for the future":
Predicting the development of artificial intelligence (AI) is a difficult project – but a vital one, according to some analysts. AI predictions are already abound: but are they reliable? This paper starts by proposing a decomposition schema for classifying them. Then it constructs a variety of theoretical tools for analysing, judging and improving them. These tools are demonstrated by careful analysis of five famous AI predictions: the initial Dartmouth conference, Dreyfus's criticism of AI, Searle's Chinese room paper, Kurzweil's predictions in the Age of Spiritual Machines, and Omohundro's ‘AI drives’ paper. These case studies illustrate several important principles, such as the general overconfidence of experts, the superiority of models over expert judgement and the need for greater uncertainty in all types of predictions. The general reliability of expert judgement in AI timeline predictions is shown to be poor, a result that fits in with previous studies of expert competence.
The paper was written by me (Stuart Armstrong), Kaj Sotala and Seán S. Ó hÉigeartaigh, and is similar to the series of Less Wrong posts starting here and here.
AI prediction case study 5: Omohundro's AI drives
Myself, Kaj Sotala and Seán ÓhÉigeartaigh recently submitted a paper entitled "The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions and what they mean for the future" to the conference proceedings of the AGI12/AGI Impacts Winter Intelligenceconference. Sharp deadlines prevented us from following the ideal procedure of first presenting it here and getting feedback; instead, we'll present it here after the fact.
The prediction classification shemas can be found in the first case study.
What drives an AI?
- Classification: issues and metastatements, using philosophical arguments and expert judgement.
Steve Omohundro, in his paper on 'AI drives', presented arguments aiming to show that generic AI designs would develop 'drives' that would cause them to behave in specific and potentially dangerous ways, even if these drives were not programmed in initially (Omo08). One of his examples was a superintelligent chess computer that was programmed purely to perform well at chess, but that was nevertheless driven by that goal to self-improve, to replace its goal with a utility function, to defend this utility function, to protect itself, and ultimately to acquire more resources and power.
This is a metastatement: generic AI designs would have this unexpected and convergent behaviour. This relies on philosophical and mathematical arguments, and though the author has expertise in mathematics and machine learning, he has none directly in philosophy. It also makes implicit use of the outside view: utility maximising agents are grouped together into one category and similar types of behaviours are expected from all agents in this category.
In order to clarify and reveal assumptions, it helps to divide Omohundro's thesis into two claims. The weaker one is that a generic AI design could end up having these AI drives; the stronger one that it would very likely have them.
Omohundro's paper provides strong evidence for the weak claim. It demonstrates how an AI motivated only to achieve a particular goal, could nevertheless improve itself, become a utility maximising agent, reach out for resources and so on. Every step of the way, the AI becomes better at achieving its goal, so all these changes are consistent with its initial programming. This behaviour is very generic: only specifically tailored or unusual goals would safely preclude such drives.
The claim that AIs generically would have these drives needs more assumptions. There are no counterfactual resiliency tests for philosophical arguments, but something similar can be attempted: one can use humans as potential counterexamples to the thesis. It has been argued that AIs could have any motivation a human has (Arm,Bos13). Thus according to the thesis, it would seem that humans should be subject to the same drives and behaviours. This does not fit the evidence, however. Humans are certainly not expected utility maximisers (probably the closest would be financial traders who try to approximate expected money maximisers, but only in their professional work), they don't often try to improve their rationality (in fact some specifically avoid doing so (many examples of this are religious, such as the Puritan John Cotton who wrote 'the more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan will you bee'(Hof62)), and some sacrifice cognitive ability to other pleasures (BBJ+03)), and many turn their backs on high-powered careers. Some humans do desire self-improvement (in the sense of the paper), and Omohundro cites this as evidence for his thesis. Some humans don't desire it, though, and this should be taken as contrary evidence (or as evidence that Omohundro's model of what constitutes self-improvement is overly narrow). Thus one hidden assumption of the model is:
- Generic superintelligent AIs would have different motivations to a significant subset of the human race, OR
- Generic humans raised to superintelligence would develop AI drives.
AI prediction case study 4: Kurzweil's spiritual machines
Myself, Kaj Sotala and Seán ÓhÉigeartaigh recently submitted a paper entitled "The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions and what they mean for the future" to the conference proceedings of the AGI12/AGI Impacts Winter Intelligenceconference. Sharp deadlines prevented us from following the ideal procedure of first presenting it here and getting feedback; instead, we'll present it here after the fact.
The prediction classification shemas can be found in the first case study.
Note this is very similar to this post, and is mainly reposted for completeness.
How well have the ''Spiritual Machines'' aged?
- Classification: timelines and scenarios, using expert judgement, causal models, non-causal models and (indirect) philosophical arguments.
Ray Kurzweil is a prominent and often quoted AI predictor. One of his most important books was the 1999 ''The Age of Spiritual Machines'' (Kur99) which presented his futurist ideas in more detail, and made several predictions for the years 2009, 2019, 2029 and 2099. That book will be the focus of this case study, ignoring his more recent work (a correct prediction in 1999 for 2009 is much more impressive than a correct 2008 reinterpretation or clarification of that prediction). There are five main points relevant to judging ''The Age of Spiritual Machines'': Kurzweil's expertise, his 'Law of Accelerating Returns', his extension of Moore's law, his predictive track record, and his use of fictional imagery to argue philosophical points.
Kurzweil has had a lot of experience in the modern computer industry. He's an inventor, computer engineer, and entrepreneur, and as such can claim insider experience in the development of new computer technology. He has been directly involved in narrow AI projects covering voice recognition, text recognition and electronic trading. His fame and prominence are further indications of the allure (though not necessarily the accuracy) of his ideas. In total, Kurzweil can be regarded as an AI expert.
Kurzweil is not, however, a cosmologist or an evolutionary biologist. In his book, he proposed a 'Law of Accelerating Returns'. This law claimed to explain many disparate phenomena, such as the speed and trends of evolution of life forms, the evolution of technology, the creation of computers, and Moore's law in computing. His slightly more general 'Law of Time and Chaos' extended his model to explain the history of the universe or the development of an organism. It is a causal model, as it aims to explain these phenomena, not simply note the trends. Hence it is a timeline prediction, based on a causal model that makes use of the outside view to group the categories together, and is backed by non-expert opinion.
A literature search failed to find any evolutionary biologist or cosmologist stating their agreement with these laws. Indeed there has been little academic work on them at all, and what work there is tends to be critical.
The laws are ideal candidates for counterfactual resiliency checks, however. It is not hard to create counterfactuals that shift the timelines underlying the laws (see this for a more detailed version of the counterfactual resiliency check). Many standard phenomena could have delayed the evolution of life on Earth for millions or billions of years (meteor impacts, solar energy fluctuations or nearby gamma-ray bursts). The evolution of technology can similarly be accelerated or slowed down by changes in human society and in the availability of raw materials - it is perfectly conceivable that, for instance, the ancient Greeks could have started a small industrial revolution, or that the European nations could have collapsed before the Renaissance due to a second and more virulent Black Death (or even a slightly different political structure in Italy). Population fragmentation and decrease can lead to technology loss (such as the 'Tasmanian technology trap' (Riv12)). Hence accepting that a Law of Accelerating Returns determines the pace of technological and evolutionary change, means rejecting many generally accepted theories of planetary dynamics, evolution and societal development. Since Kurzweil is the non-expert here, his law is almost certainly in error, and best seen as a literary device rather than a valid scientific theory.
AI prediction case study 3: Searle's Chinese room
Myself, Kaj Sotala and Seán ÓhÉigeartaigh recently submitted a paper entitled "The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions and what they mean for the future" to the conference proceedings of the AGI12/AGI Impacts Winter Intelligence conference. Sharp deadlines prevented us from following the ideal procedure of first presenting it here and getting feedback; instead, we'll present it here after the fact.
The prediction classification shemas can be found in the first case study.
Locked up in Searle's Chinese room
- Classification: issues and metastatements and a scenario, using philosophical arguments and expert judgement.
Searle's Chinese room thought experiment is a famous critique of some of the assumptions of 'strong AI' (which Searle defines as the belief that 'the appropriately programmed computer literally has cognitive states). There has been a lot of further discussion on the subject (see for instance (Sea90,Har01)), but, as in previous case studies, this section will focus exclusively on his original 1980 publication (Sea80).
In the key thought experiment, Searle imagined that AI research had progressed to the point where a computer program had been created that could demonstrate the same input-output performance as a human - for instance, it could pass the Turing test. Nevertheless, Searle argued, this program would not demonstrate true understanding. He supposed that the program's inputs and outputs were in Chinese, a language Searle couldn't understand. Instead of a standard computer program, the required instructions were given on paper, and Searle himself was locked in a room somewhere, slavishly following the instructions and therefore causing the same input-output behaviour as the AI. Since it was functionally equivalent to the AI, the setup should, from the 'strong AI' perspective, demonstrate understanding if and only if the AI did. Searle then argued that there would be no understanding at all: he himself couldn't understand Chinese, and there was no-one else in the room to understand it either.
The whole argument depends on strong appeals to intuition (indeed D. Dennet went as far as accusing it of being an 'intuition pump' (Den91)). The required assumptions are:
AI prediction case study 2: Dreyfus's Artificial Alchemy
Myself, Kaj Sotala and Seán ÓhÉigeartaigh recently submitted a paper entitled "The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions and what they mean for the future" to the conference proceedings of the AGI12/AGI Impacts Winter Intelligenceconference. Sharp deadlines prevented us from following the ideal procedure of first presenting it here and getting feedback; instead, we'll present it here after the fact.
The prediction classification shemas can be found in the first case study.
Dreyfus's Artificial Alchemy
- Classification: issues and metastatements, using the outside view, non-expert judgement and philosophical arguments.
Hubert Dreyfus was a prominent early critic of Artificial Intelligence. He published a series of papers and books attacking the claims and assumptions of the AI field, starting in 1965 with a paper for the Rand corporation entitled 'Alchemy and AI' (Dre65). The paper was famously combative, analogising AI research to alchemy and ridiculing AI claims. Later, D. Crevier would claim ''time has proven the accuracy and perceptiveness of some of Dreyfus's comments. Had he formulated them less aggressively, constructive actions they suggested might have been taken much earlier'' (Cre93). Ignoring the formulation issues, were Dreyfus's criticisms actually correct, and what can be learned from them?
Was Dreyfus an expert? Though a reasonably prominent philosopher, there is nothing in his background to suggest specific expertise with theories of minds and consciousness, and absolutely nothing to suggest familiarity with artificial intelligence and the problems of the field. Thus Dreyfus cannot be considered anything more that an intelligent outsider.
This makes the pertinence and accuracy of his criticisms that much more impressive. Dreyfus highlighted several over-optimistic claims for the power of AI, predicting - correctly - that the 1965 optimism would also fade (with, for instance, decent chess computers still a long way off). He used the outside view to claim this as a near universal pattern in AI: initial successes, followed by lofty claims, followed by unexpected difficulties and subsequent disappointment. He highlighted the inherent ambiguity in human language and syntax, and claimed that computers could not deal with these. He noted the importance of unconscious processes in recognising objects, the importance of context and the fact that humans and computers operated in very different ways. He also criticised the use of computational paradigms for analysing human behaviour, and claimed that philosophical ideas in linguistics and classification were relevant to AI research. In all, his paper is full of interesting ideas and intelligent deconstructions of how humans and machines operate.
AI prediction case study 1: The original Dartmouth Conference
Myself, Kaj Sotala and Seán ÓhÉigeartaigh recently submitted a paper entitled "The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions and what they mean for the future" to the conference proceedings of the AGI12/AGI Impacts Winter Intelligence conference. Sharp deadlines prevented us from following the ideal procedure of first presenting it here and getting feedback; instead, we'll present it here after the fact.
As this is the first case study, it will also introduce the paper's prediction classification shemas.
Taxonomy of predictions
Prediction types
There will never be a bigger plane built.
Boeing engineer on the 247, a twin engine plane that held ten people.
A fortune teller talking about celebrity couples, a scientist predicting the outcome of an experiment, an economist pronouncing on next year's GDP figures - these are canonical examples of predictions. There are other types of predictions, though. Conditional statements - if X happens, then so will Y - are also valid, narrower, predictions. Impossibility results are also a form of prediction. For instance, the law of conservation of energy gives a very broad prediction about every single perpetual machine ever made: to wit, that they will never work.
Free Applied Instrumental Rationality Webinar
Dan Nuffer and I are putting together a free webinar that will go through the ideas in Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Life Decisions, combined with whatever else seems useful. The authors of this book include one of the pioneers of decision analysis.
Although they don't describe it as such, Smart Choices is really a manual for basic applied instrumental rationality. It's a systematic way of going about your decisions, applicable to either decision problems (you have a situation dumped in your lap that requires a response) or decision opportunities (proactively seeking out ways to further your goals.)
The webinar will be one-hour sessions once a week for however long it takes to go through the material. We're going to do the webinar on Google+ Hangouts, and we'll have a discussion forum for the webinar on our web site.
If you're interested, send me an email [kevin at ksvanhorn com] with 1) your preferred day/time(s), and 2) the day/times that are out of the question for you.
Google+ Hangouts has a limit of 10 people. Five of those slots are already filled, leaving 5 seats open, so don't wait too long to email me if this is something you're interested in.

= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)



Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)