Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.
Original post: http://bearlamp.com.au/the-time-you-have/
Part 1: Exploration-Exploitation
Part 2a: Empirical time management
Part 3: The time that you have
There is a process called The Immunity to Change by Robert Kegan. The process is designed to deal with personal problems that are stubborn. The first step in the process is to make a list of all the things that you are doing or not doing that does not contribute to the goal. As you go through the process you analyse why you do these things based on what it feels like to do them.
The process is meant to be done with structure but can be done simply by asking. Yesterday I asked someone who said he ate sugar, ate carbs, and didn't exercise. Knowing this alone doesn't solve the problem but it helps.
The ITC process was generated by observing patients and therapists for thousands of hours and thousands of cases. Kegan observed what seems to be effective to bring about change, in people and generated this process to assist in doing so. The ITC hits on a fundamental universal. If you read my brief guide on Empirical time management, as well as part 1 - exploration-exploitation of this series it speaks to this universal. Namely what we are doing with our time is everything we are choosing not to do with our time. It's a trade off between our values and it's counter-commitments in ITC that's often discovering the hidden counter commitments to the goals.
The interesting thing about what you end up doing with your time is that these are the things that form your revealed preferences. Revealed preference theory is an economic theory that differentiates between people's stated preferences and their actual actions and behaviours. It's all good and well to say that your preferences are one thing, but if you never end up doing that; your revealed preferences are in fact something entirely different.
For example - if you say you want to be a healthy person, and yet you never find yourself doing the things that you say you want to do in order to be healthy; your revealed preferences suggest that you are in fact not revealing the actions of a healthy person. If you live to the ripe old age of 55 and the heavy weight of 130kg and you never end up exercising several times a week or eating healthy food; that means your health goals were a rather weak preference over the things you actually ended up doing (eating plenty and not keeping fit).
It's important to note that revealed preferences are different to preferences, they are in fact distinctly different. They are their own subset. Revealed preferences are just another description that informs the map of, "me as a person". In many ways, a revealed preference is much much more real than a simple preference that does not actually come about. On a philosophical level, if we have a LoudMouthBot, and all it does is declare it's preference for things. "I want everyone to be friends", "you need to be friends with me". However it never does anything. You can log into the bot's IRC channel and see it declaring preferences, day in, day out. Hour after hour. And yet, not actually doing those preferences. He's just a bot, spitting out words that are preferences (almost analogous to a p-zombie). You could look at LoudMouthBot from the outside and say, "all it does is spew text into a text chat", and that would be an observation which for all purposes can be taken as true. In contrast, AgentyBot doesn't really declare a preference, Agentybot knows the litany of truth.
If the sky is blue
I desire to believe that the sky is blue,
If the sky is not blue
- I desire to believe that the sky is not blue.
Or for this case; a litany of objectivity,
If my revealed preferences show that I desire this goal
I desire to know that is my goal,
If my revealed preferences show that I do not desire this goal
I desire to know that is not my goal.
Revealed preferences work in two directions. On the one hand you can discover your revealed preferences and let that inform your future judgements and future actions. On the other hand you can make your revealed preferences show that they line up with your goal.
A friend asked me how she should find her purpose, Easier said than done right? That's why I suggested an exercise that does the first of the two. In contrast if you already know your goals you want to take stock of what you are doing and align it with your desired goals.
I already covered how to empirically assess your time, That would be the first step of how you take stock of what you are doing.
The second step is to consider and figure out your desired goals. Unfortunately the process as to how to do that is not always obvious. For some people they can literally just take 5 minutes and a piece of paper and list off their goals. For everyone else I have some clues in the form of the list of common human goals. By going down the list of goals that people commonly obtain you can cue your sense of what are some of the things that you care about, and figure out which ones matter to you. There are other exercises, but I take it as read that knowing what your goals are is important. After you have your list of goals you might like to consider estimating what fraction of your time you want to offer to each of your goals.
The third step is one that I am yet to write about. Your job is to compare the list of your goals and the list of your time use and consider which object level tasks would bring you towards your goals and which actions that you are doing are not enabling you to move towards your goals.
Everything that you do will take time. Any goal you want to head towards will take time, if you are spending your time on one task towards one goal and not on another task towards another goal; you are preferencing the task you are doing over the other task.
If these are your revealed preferences, what do you reveal that you care about?
- Define what we really care about.
- Define what results we think we can aim for within what we really care about
- Define what actions we can take to yield a trajectory towards those results
- Stick to it because it's what we really want to do.
That's what's important right? Doing the work you value because it leads towards your goals (which are the things you care about).
If you are not doing that, then your revealed preferences are showing that you are not a very strategic. If you find parts of your brain doing what they want at the detriment of other parts of your goals, you need to reason with them. Use the powers of VoI, treat this problem as an exploration-exploitation problem, and run some experiments (post coming soon).
This whole; define what you really care about and then head towards it, you should know that it needs doing now, or you are making bad trade offs.
Meta: this is part 3 of 4 of this series.
Meta: this took 5+ hours to piece together. I am not yet very good at staying on task when I don't know how to put the right words in the right order yet. I guess I need more practice. What I usually do is take small breaks and come back to it.
I have compiled many suggestions about the future of lesswrong into a document here:
It's long and best formatted there.
In case you hate leaving this website here's the summary:
There are 3 main areas that are going to change.
Technical/Direct Site Changes
new home page
new forum style with subdivisions
new sub for “friends of lesswrong” (rationality in the diaspora)
New tagging system
New karma system
Social and cultural changes
Positive culture; a good place to be.
Pillars of good behaviours (the ones we want to encourage)
Demonstrate by example
3 levels of social strategies (new, advanced and longtimers)
Content (emphasis on producing more rationality material)
For up-and-coming people to write more
for the community to improve their contributions to create a stronger collection of rationality.
For known existing writers
To encourage them to keep contributing
- To encourage them to work together with each other to contribute
Why change LW?
Lesswrong has gone through great times of growth and seen a lot of people share a lot of positive and brilliant ideas. It was hailed as a launchpad for MIRI, in that purpose it was a success. At this point it’s not needed as a launchpad any longer. While in the process of becoming a launchpad it became a nice garden to hang out in on the internet. A place of reasonably intelligent people to discuss reasonable ideas and challenge each other to update their beliefs in light of new evidence. In retiring from its “launchpad” purpose, various people have felt the garden has wilted and decayed and weeds have grown over. In light of this; and having enough personal motivation to decide I really like the garden, and I can bring it back! I just need a little help, a little magic, and some little changes. If possible I hope for the garden that we all want it to be. A great place for amazing ideas and life-changing discussions to happen.
How will we know we have done well (the feel of things)
Success is going to have to be estimated by changes to the feel of the site. Unfortunately that is hard to do. As we know outrage generates more volume than positive growth. Which is going to work against us when we try and quantify by measurable metrics. Assuming the technical changes are made; there is still going to be progress needed on the task of socially improving things. There are many “seasoned active users” - as well as “seasoned lurkers” who have strong opinions on the state of lesswrong and the discussion. Some would say that we risk dying of niceness, others would say that the weeds that need pulling are the rudeness.
Honestly we risk over-policing and under-policing at the same time. There will be some not-niceness that goes unchecked and discourages the growth of future posters (potentially our future bloggers), and at the same time some other niceness that motivates trolling behaviour as well as failing to weed out potential bad content which would leave us as fluffy as the next forum. there is no easy solution to tempering both sides of this challenge. I welcome all suggestions (it looks like a karma system is our best bet).
In the meantime I believe being on the general niceness, steelman side should be the motivated direction of movement. I hope to enlist some members as essentially coaches in healthy forum growth behaviour. Good steelmanning, positive encouragement, critical feedback as well as encouragement, a welcoming committee and an environment of content improvement and growth.
While at the same time I want everyone to keep up the heavy debate; I also want to see the best versions of ourselves coming out onto the publishing pages (and sometimes that can be the second draft versions).
So how will we know? By trying to reduce the ugh fields to people participating in LW, by seeing more content that enough people care about, by making lesswrong awesome.
The full document is just over 11 pages long. Please go read it, this is a chance to comment on potential changes before they happen.
Meta: This post took a very long time to pull together. I read over 1000 comments and considered the ideas contained there. I don't have an accurate account of how long this took to write; but I would estimate over 65 hours of work has gone into putting it together. It's been literally weeks in the making, I really can't stress how long I have been trying to put this together.
If you want to help, please speak up so we can help you help us. If you want to complain; keep it to yourself.
Thanks to the slack for keeping up with my progress and Vanvier, Mack, Leif, matt and others for reviewing this document.
As usual - My table of contents