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

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 20 September 2017 05:38:09PM 1 point [-]

Yes, US football and boxing are very bad for the brain. Plenty of evidence.

Comment author: Brillyant 21 September 2017 01:29:54PM 0 points [-]

Plenty of evidence.

Any that you find particularly clear and compelling?

Comment author: Brillyant 20 September 2017 05:35:52PM 0 points [-]

Anyone following the role American football may play in long term brain injuries? Subconcussive hits to the head accumulating to cause problems?

Anyone have thoughts?

Comment author: Brillyant 19 September 2017 05:45:08PM 2 points [-]

Fix RECENT ON RATIONALITY BLOGS.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 10 September 2017 07:49:54AM *  7 points [-]

Note that neither Lumifer, nor Dagon, nor Brillyant have ever made a top-level submission of original content to Less Wrong. It's easy to be a critic.

Since Lumifer, Dagon, and Brillyant seem to want a site that never has anything new on it, may I suggest example.com? It hardly ever changes.

...what did people say they'd need to rejoin [Less Wrong]?

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.

Source. Less Wrongers overwhelmingly want there to be more posts.

The problem with comments like Lumifer's is not that they are incorrect. It's that they create a bad incentive structure for content creators. Anyone who posts to LW is doing free labor in an attempt to improve the accuracy of the community's beliefs. I believe that lukeprog, Eliezer, and Yvain have all complained that writing LW posts is not very rewarding. If there's some probability that the Lumifers are the world are going to call your post "stupid" without offering any specific feedback, that makes the job even more thankless. And no, this is not necessarily something a person can predict in advance: a previous post chaosmage made got voted to +55, and the ideas in it were being used by a friend of mine years after it was made.

The cost of an occasional bad post is not very high: you read it until you realize it is bad and then you move on. But the cost of nasty comments like Lumifer's can be quite high. Most online communities suck, and nasty comments are a big part of the reason why. If I was selling a product you could spray on an online community to prevent anything from growing there, I would name it Lumifer.

Comment author: Brillyant 18 September 2017 02:09:58PM 0 points [-]

I was criticising the criticism of this post.

I feel like you're taking all of this way too seriously.

Fix the "RECENT ON RATIONALITY BLOGS"

Comment author: jmh 30 August 2017 12:08:11PM *  7 points [-]

I think given the scenario, I roll over and go back to sleep. Put simply that's such a silly god I'm not going to pay any attention to it.

Another thought, "exactly as it unfolded" suggests I will have no awareness of any prior loop as I certainly have none now. Moreover, such an awareness necessarily changes how my life would unfold. There simply seems no difference between the two options from a practical perspective for me.

In response to comment by jmh on Is life worth living?
Comment author: Brillyant 07 September 2017 09:33:58PM 0 points [-]

This answer has too many upvotes in my view.

I suspect it was here early in the discussion and people upvoted for whatever reason it is people upvote early comments.

Comment author: Dagon 07 September 2017 04:30:51PM 1 point [-]

this is pointlessly negative

No, it's pointedly negative. This post doesn't belong on LW.

Comment author: Brillyant 07 September 2017 09:29:10PM 0 points [-]

Yes. LW's content is too good for this.

[Link] Game Theory & The Golden Rule (From Reddit)

15 Brillyant 28 July 2017 01:54PM
Comment author: Elo 29 June 2017 05:09:56AM 1 point [-]

I gained an understanding of how to interpret zen koans. It's kinda fun and yields a very calm state of mind when playing with them in your head.

It might be useful but I didn't really go seeking this, I mostly stumbled across it.

Comment author: Brillyant 30 June 2017 04:55:16PM 0 points [-]

Okay. How do you do it?

Comment author: Viliam 16 May 2017 11:20:21AM 2 points [-]

the Calories In / Calories Out model of weight loss is correct

My opinion is that it is a "motte-and-bailey" type of a model. Technically correct, but skips some of the important parts.

Things you can control directly:

  • amount and type of food you put in your mouth
  • type and amount of exercise you choose to do
  • whether you really start doing the exercise each day, and keep doing it as long as possible

Things you cannot control directly:

  • what your metabolism actually does with the food you put in your mouth

Things this model doesn't even mention:

  • there are other important things about the food, not just calories

As a consequense, these things happen in real life that the model does not predict:

If you are lucky, you can actually put a lot of calories in your mouth without getting fat as a result, even if you are not exercising hard. Not sure what exactly happens, my uneducated guess is that the metabolism only takes as much calories as needed, as the rest goes to shit. (So yes, technically it is "calories out", but it is not what people proposing this model typically mean, and you have no direct control over this, i.e. you can't simply decide to lose weight by going to the bathroom more often.)

If you are unlucky, the "calories in" get converted into something that is somehow not easily accessible as an energy source. (Either because your metabolism is fucked up generally, or because your body is low on some important component, such as iron.) You know you should burn some calories, but at the same time you are weak as a fly, so you really can't. (Not because "math doesn't work", but because the linear model ignores some parts of the reality.) But you mentioned this in the "random thoughts" part.

...however, assuming that the metabolism is working more or less correctly, the model is useful.

My recommendation would be:
Step 1 -- get checked by a doctor, whether you are low on something; start taking supplements;
Step 2 -- start exercising regularly, without worrying about the "calories in" yet, just to build the momentum;
Step 3 -- get more strategic about the food you eat.

The reason I put "step 2" before "step 3" is because studing calories can take unlimited amounts of time, and can be used as a convenient excuse to procrastinate on exercising. I would also say that "add a lot of unprocessed vegetables in your food" is a good first approximation for healthy diet.

Other random thoughts:

  • don't focus too much on "weight" -- it correlates with the right thing, but is not exactly the right thing; converting 5 kg of fat into 5 kg of muscles increases your health and attractivity even if the resulting weight is the same, on the other hand dehydrating yourself decreases your weight but hurts your health;
  • shaming people for their metabolism (or just not having time to exercise because they e.g. have to work 2 jobs to survive) is bad; but enforcing a norm of tabooing information about healthy lifestyle is in my eyes even worse... essentially, because people doing the former are at least usually recognized as assholes, while people doing the latter can pretend noble intentions while in fact they contribute to avoidable premature deaths;
  • I believe that "eating a lot of unprocessed vegetables" is the essence of healthy diet, and the rest is mostly role-playing (i.e. you can eat "Mediterranean diet" and imagine being an exotic Italian, or eat a "paleo diet" and imagine being a prehistorical warrior, but the outcome is the same for the same reasons, regardless of your aesthetical preferences)
Comment author: Brillyant 16 May 2017 09:26:24PM 0 points [-]

Things you cannot control directly - what your metabolism actually does with the food you put in your mouth

Agreed. Some people have significantly higher metabolisms.

Things this model doesn't even mention - there are other important things about the food, not just calories

Agreed. I'm not talking about nutrition, just weight loss.

Comment author: ChristianKl 16 May 2017 12:49:10PM 1 point [-]

The first 2-5 weeks of big diet changes are fucking hard, but it gets easier like any habit change.

As far as I understand the literature suggest that many people succeed with the first 2-5 weeks of big diet changes only to have the yoyo-effect later in the process.

Comment author: Brillyant 16 May 2017 09:18:54PM *  0 points [-]

To the extent people yo-yo, I think the novelty wears off and old habits come back. You're often dealing with months or years of new diet versus decades of old habitual diet.

I mean you notice the differences more in the first phase of a diet. You may have some New Diet Energy! that gives you a boost and helps counter the differences.

After a while, you can get accustomed to less food.

View more: Next