More than a year ago, I read Mortal, a My Little Pony fanfiction with transhumanist themes, and liked it. I recently found out about a short sequel, Mother of Nations, which I also read and enjoyed. If you read Mortal and enjoyed it, you will probably like Mother of Nations.
Mortal has been discussed on LessWrong before, here.
Thanks! If you like my rationality-themed stories, you might also be interested in Happily Ever After and The Thousand Year Romance Of Clover The Clever.
Not feeling connected with people, or, increasingly feeling less connection with people.
I actively socialize myself, and this helps, but the other thing maybe suggests to me I'm doing something wrong.
(Edit: to clarify, my empathy thingy works as well (maybe better) than it ever has, I just feel like the things I crave from social interactions are getting harder to acquire. Like, people "getting" you, or having enough things in common that you can effectively talk about the stuff that interests you. So, like, obviously, one of the solutions there is to hang out with more bright-and-happy CFAR-ish/LW-ish/EA-ish people.)
I found the Nonviolent Communication method extremely helpful for feeling more connected to my friends.
I've noticed a related phenomenon where, when someone acquires a new insight, they judge its value by how difficult it was to understand, instead of by how much it improves their model of the world. It's the feeling of "Well, I hadn't thought of that before, but I suppose it's pretty obvious." But of course this is a mistake because the important part is "hadn't thought of that before," no matter whether you think you could've realized it in hindsight. (The most pernicious version of this is "Oh, yeah, I totally knew that already. I just hadn't make it so explicit.")
The effective altruist comment just got me interested in effective altruism. I've seen the term thrown about, but I never bothered to look it up. Extrapolating from just the joke, I may be an effective altruist. Thanks for getting me interested in something I should have checked ages ago and for reminding me to look things up as I don't know them instead of just assuming I got the "gist of the passage."
How many rationalists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Just one. They’ll take any excuse to change something.
How many effective altruists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Actually, it’s far more efficient if you convince someone else to screw it in.
How many Giving What We Can members does it take to change a lightbulb?
Fifteen have pledged to change it later, but we’ll have to wait until they finish grad school.
How many MIRI researchers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
The problem is that there are multiple ways to parse that, and while it might naively seem like the ambiguity is harmless, it would actually be disastrous if any number of MIRI researchers tried to screw inside of a lightbulb.
How many CFAR instructors does it take to change a lightbulb?
By the time they’re done, the lightbulb should be able to change itself.
How many Leverage Research employees does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
I don’t know, but we have a team working to figure that out.
How many GiveWell employees does it take to change a lightbulb?
Not many. I don't recall the exact number; there’s a writeup somewhere on their site, if you care to check.
How many cryonicists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Two; one to change the lightbulb, and one to preserve the old one, just in case.
How many neoreactionaries does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
We’d be better off returning to the dark.
Oh, absolutely. I fully mean to utilize my internet connection for it's intended purpose: long distance community. Mainly, I'm curious what specific online communities or projects or activities are used by fellow LWers. Especially those in similar living situations. At the moment, the only rational communities I really know about are here, CFAR, and MIRI. Obviously, I've already joined the former, and I'm considering what, if anything, I could do with the latter two.
The LW study hall seems relevant.
I want to point out that when the person is telling you something personal or sensitive to them (say, talking about something hurtful that their significant other did), it is almost always best to err on the side of asking fewer questions. Even if they may be misunderstanding the situation that they feel hurt by, being extremely delicate is best. Otherwise, you're just adding insult to injury.
I don't have a full answer to the question, but if you do feed the dog meat, one starting point would be to prefer meat that has less suffering associated with it. It is typically claimed that beef has less suffering per unit mass associated with it than pork and much less than chicken, simply because you get a lot more from one individual. The counterargument would be to claim that cows > pigs > chickens in intelligence/complexity to a great enough extent to outweigh this consideration.
I'm curious: are there specific reasons to believe that dogs need meat while humans (also omnivores) do not? A quick Google search finds lots of vegetarians happy to proclaim that dogs can be vegetarian too, but I haven't looked into details.
The counterargument would be to claim that cows > pigs > chickens in intelligence/complexity
My understanding is that pigs > cows >> chickens. Poultry vs mammal is a difficult question that depends on nebulous value judgments, but I thought it was fairly settled that beef causes less suffering/mass than other mammals.
I tried this but went about it wrong, I wrote a whole bunch of cards like I was making comprehensive notes (around the level of detail of the MineZone book notes), and ended up getting frustrated by the chaff of disordered small notes that the system threw back at me. One card per article / book section seems like a good rule of thumb.
Do you have any conventions for turning insights that don't necessarily go into a neat question/answer format into card halves? Just put the whole thing on the front of the card?
I've found that the process of creating the cards is helpful because it forces me to make the book's major insight explicit. I usually use cloze tests to run through a book's major points. For example, my card for The Lean Startup is:
"The Lean Startup process for continuous improvement is (1) {{c1::identify the hypothesis to test}}, (2) {{c2::determine metrics with which to evaluate the hypothesis}}, (3) {{c3::build a minimum viable product}}, (4) {{c4::use the product to get data and test the hypothesis}}."
This isn't especially helpful if you just remember what the four phrases are, so I use this as a cue to think briefly about each of those concepts.
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
This is a difficult problem whose implications go well beyond evaluating charities. Many people seem to defer their evaluation of experts to the experts, but then you have to figure out how to qualify those experts, and I haven't yet seen a good solution to that.
Some heuristics that I use instead:
—Does the expert produce powerful, visible effects in their domain of expertise which non-experts can't duplicate? If so, they're probably reliable within their domain. (For example, engineers can build bridges and authors can make compelling stories, so they're probably reliable in those fields.) This is only useful in cases where a non-expert can evaluate the product's quality; it won't help a non-mathematician evaluate theoretical physics.
—Are the domain experts split into many disagreeing camps? If so, at most one camp is right, which means most of the experts are wrong, and the field isn't reliable. (So this rules out, e.g., experts on nutrition.) This one is a tools for assessing domains of expertise, and won't tell you much about individual experts.