change your mind, get a cookie

admitting you're wrong = winning/learning

conservation of expected evidence (add formula)

The path to truth is a random walk

discussions are random walks

what is true is already so

rationality: outcomes > rituals of thought

what can be destroyed by truth, should be

update beliefs incrementally

beliefs should pay rent

the cat 's alive, curiosity got framed

optimize everything

delta knowledge = surprise

minimize future surprise

A diagram like this with some actual data e.g. about P(autism|vaccine) or P(violence|video games).

A matrix representation of the prisoners dilemma with an arrow pointing to (cooperate, cooperate) saying "let's meet here".

Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence.

Slightly more than 5 words:

The facts don't know whose side their on.

Every cause wants to be a cult.

First, your markup is broken. I can see the link-syntax, instead of the links. Also, the firs link is to an article by Phil Goetz, not Eliezer Yudkowsky.

Now about the actual content. I'm all for trying to use one's natural tendencies, instead of just trying to compensate for them. But I'm critical of the concrete examples you gave. What you are trying to do seems to be to motivate yourself through shame and guilt. And no one seems to be in favour of that. Some reasons why I think it's a bad idea:

1. I believe you train yourself to be judgemental, not just about yourself but about others. I see no reason why the behaviour of judging your own actions wouldn't generalize to judging other people's behaviour.
2. Punishing yourself is unlikely to be effective, because you are unlikely to do it every single time you transgress. AFAIK punishment works best when it's a reliable consequence of the behaviour you want to control ('continuous punishment' in behavioural psychlology). It works very poorly otherwise, because every other time, the behaviour still gets reinforced. E.g. every time you take a cookie out of the cookie jar (a habit you want to minimize because you are on a diet) and you forget to conjure up a mental image of Dudley Dursly (a fat character from Harry Potter), you still get rewarded by a delicious cookie.
3. You start associate related concepts with the punishment. Essentially, you are building an ugh-field. Suppose you associate procrastination with laziness. What do you associate procrastination with? With the very tasks that you are putting off. Now event thinking about doing the dishes makes you feel worse than you felt before you conjured up the image of a disgusting messy dying of food poisoning in their never-clean house.
4. It simply doesn't feel good.

See also: a summary of what /u/pjeby says about the topic, many posts on http://mindingourway.com/

If you never apply the negative image (the "enemy") to yourself, that might be a slightly different matter. Maybe the image of an alcoholic can help keep you sober if you never drink alcohol in the first place. But even then, you learn to be judgemental of people and, should you start drinking, you will have the before mentioned problems with punishment.

EDIT: corrected "disgress" to "transgress"

First, your markup is broken. I can see the link-syntax, instead of the links. Also, the firs link is to an article by Phil Goetz, not Eliezer Yudkowsky.

Now about the actual content. I'm all for trying to use one's natural tendencies, instead of just trying to compensate for them. But I'm critical of the concrete examples you gave. What you are trying to do seems to be to motivate yourself through shame and guilt. And no one seems to be in favour of that. Some reasons why I think it's a bad idea:

1. I believe you train yourself to be judgemental, not just about yourself but about others. I see no reason why the behaviour of judging your own actions wouldn't generalize to judging other people's behaviour.
2. Punishing yourself is unlikely to be effective, because you are unlikely to do it every single time you transgress. AFAIK punishment works best when it's a reliable consequence of the behaviour you want to control ('continuous punishment' in behavioural psychlology). It works very poorly otherwise, because every other time, the behaviour still gets reinforced. E.g. every time you take a cookie out of the cookie jar (a habit you want to minimize because you are on a diet) and you forget to conjure up a mental image of Dudley Dursly (a fat character from Harry Potter), you still get rewarded by a delicious cookie.
3. You start associate related concepts with the punishment. Essentially, you are building an ugh-field. Suppose you associate procrastination with laziness. What do you associate procrastination with? With the very tasks that you are putting off. Now event thinking about doing the dishes makes you feel worse than you felt before you conjured up the image of a disgusting messy dying of food poisoning in their never-clean house.
4. It simply doesn't feel good.

See also: a summary of what /u/pjeby says about the topic, many posts on http://mindingourway.com/

If you never apply the negative image (the "enemy") to yourself, that might be a slightly different matter. Maybe the image of an alcoholic can help keep you sober if you never drink alcohol in the first place. But even then, you learn to be judgemental of people and, should you start drinking, you will have the before mentioned problems with punishment.

EDIT: corrected "disgress" to "transgress"

I've heard of the controversy. I think it was mentioned in a link post on slatestarcodex, and obviously on GiveWell's blog.

the community seems to be comprehensively inept, poor at marketing, extremely insular, methodologically unsophisticated but meticulous, transparent and well-intentioned

I find it stylistically strange to have a long list of negative adjectives end with two positive ones (transparent and well-intentioned are good things, right?) without any explanation. Wouldn't one say something like "These things suck:...., but on the good side there is also ...."?

More importantly, you do not explain why "EA movement building does more harm than good".

I understand you to mean "EA movement building does more harm than good, because the EA movement does more harm than good" (stop me right there if I miss understood you). Why though?

As I understood it, no one argues that de-worming does more harm than good. The argument is only that it is ineffective, not harmful. If you want to make some argument that de-worming takes away resources that should be better spend, you have to actually make that argument.

Could you explain what's so bad about GiveWell's reaction, particularly the blog post you linked? Not just where you disagree with their analysis, but how that post is evidence that GiveWell is more harmful than beneficial.

Finally, even if the EA-movement is wrong about de-worming, there are other interventions that EA tends to support. Your post isn't very convincing right now because it doesn't mention that fact at all. Do you think that all interventions popular among EAs are on as shaky a ground as de-worming (or worse)?

Check the link below, v0.2. Should be working now!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/59redws46ncdiax/predict_v0.2.apk?dl=0

Sounds nice. Making predictions about personal events makes more sense to me than predicting e.g. elections or sport events (beauce a) I don't know anything about it, and b) I don't care about it). But I don't like the idea of making them (all) public, like on prediction book. Though a PredictionBook integration sounds like an obvious fancy feature.

And I liked what I saw the one second I could use the app ;-)

After installing, it crashed pressing "save" on the first prediction. Now it chrashed right on startup. I get to see the app for a moment, but I can't do anything. After deleting the data (from the android setting) I can make a new prediction, but again, it crashes after pressing "save".

I installed from the apk-link you provided.

I've got a Moto G (2. Generation) with Android 5.0.2.

Hope that helps. And if anyone can tell me how to diagnose the problem in more detail, I'd be interested in that, too.

I really like the Jesuit examen (a way to review your day and plan for the future) and I recommend Fr. Timothy Gallagher's book on this practice. Gallagher is great at outlining the practice and giving concrete examples of how Catholics have used this debugging-your-life ritual -- it helped me notice not just active errors I was making but ways I was passively letting opportunities to be kind slip by.

Yes. Notice: a real friend, not a counterfactual one. Also "I knew I would never be repaid" makes this not a trade but just an altruistic act.

And "they would have done the same for me" is just games you play in your head. It could just as easily be "He probably wouldn't do that for me, but I don't care, he's my friend".

1) Identify the conditions which reinforce more swearing and stop doing those things. If saying "don't swear" makes him more likely to swear, don't say "don't swear." This sounds obvious in retrospect, but is very difficult to implement in practice because it's frustrating to not have any idea what you should do instead.

2) Identify the conditions which reinforce less swearing and start doing those things more. It doesn't sound like you've identified those conditions yet. This is the most important step.

To what extent does ignoring the problem work? There are probably certain areas where you should be ignoring it, and certain areas where you need to get more creative. The problem with using a strong punishment as your method as you've identified is that it can only be implemented after he gets home from school. Rewards for good behavior are generally preferable under such a condition as rewards are generally better than punishment at maintaining behavior. The way his teachers handle punishing the situation is probably going to matter a lot more than anything you do.