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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 28 February 2014 08:09:35PM 1 point [-]

CPAP (auto-adjusting pressure) didn't work on me. What else is there?

Comment author: Eneasz 28 February 2014 09:12:28PM 0 points [-]

UPPP

Not terribly expensive. The recovery is painful. But the pain is temporary, and the improvements are amazing. It was a major turning point in my life, and I'd strongly recommend it to anyone who is considered a good candidate (consult your specialist)

Comment author: Eneasz 27 January 2014 10:12:04PM 2 points [-]

Well, someone's gotta do it.

TED Prize Nomination

5 Eneasz 02 January 2014 04:47PM
I started the process of a TED Prize Nomination:

 Nominate an individual — or yourself — to envision and execute a high-impact project that can spur global change. Our TED Prize winner will have an ambitious wish — and the vision, pragmatism and leadership to turn it into reality. Every self-nomination will include a proposal for a world-changing and achievable wish. 

Fairly obvious who I'm nominating.
But then came across a few things that made me suspect I'm not the best person to do this. Such as:

* We weigh each single nomination as heavily as multiple nominations and we strongly discourage multiple nominations. 
* The heart of the TED Prize is the wish. Though it's small in size, it is the most important element of your nomination. It's worth investing your time refining. At its most basic, a wish = who + what + how = a better world. In other words, who are you going to engage on what issue and in what way for what kind of improvement?
* Imagine your nominee is on the stage at the TED Conference announcing their wish and inviting the wider community--everyone from corporate and nonprofit leaders to TED fellows doing grassroots work in developing countries--to get involved. In a few sentences, what is your nominee's ask?

I have absolutely no idea what Eliezer would write as his wish, and I don't think I'm even remotely qualified to take a stab at it. Would someone who knows Eliezer better, or perhaps Eliezer himself, be willing to take this on?

To reduce the amount of time needed to complete the application, here are two outside-source articles about Eliezer that I googled up while I was doing this (they ask for links to such articles in Step 3)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48538963

Comment author: VAuroch 04 December 2013 02:43:55AM 0 points [-]

Points against this: Money spent via card has much less immediate mental impact than spending cash. When you pay more thanyou make in a month, you realize it only at the end of the month. When you spend cash, you feel the impact on your finances directly.

The pattern I use, which I stumbled upon mainly by accident: For necessities, use a card (I use debit, but this is interchangeable with credit from this perspective). For luxuries, use cash. This insulates you from impulse purchases and has a short feedback loop discouraging you from spending too much.

Drawbacks: This doesn't work for online purchases and may hurt somewhat in that regard.

Comment author: Eneasz 04 December 2013 04:49:10PM 1 point [-]

Interestingly, I've been using card and online banking for so long that I seem to have internalized "money is the number stored in the bank's computer/my mental register". Recently I came into a steady flow of cash (long story), and I didn't want to go to the bank every damn week to deposit it, so I started paying for groceries and restaurants with that cash. It felt like giving away play money and getting real goods and services in exchange. "You mean I can give you some colored paper slips, and you'll just give me $100 worth of groceries? It doesn't reduce the money I have in the bank? And I'm not going to jail for this?" It was weird.

Comment author: Ishaan 29 November 2013 10:41:58AM *  -1 points [-]

55%-95% cooperate.

However, after having made that guess, I note that I am the most optimistic one here so far and begin to have doubts...

Comment author: Eneasz 03 December 2013 11:27:27PM 0 points [-]

Well, my actual guess is 85%, so it's not a symmetrical split for me. Hopefully I'm not doing confidence intervals wrong..

Comment author: MixedNuts 01 December 2013 08:08:25PM 0 points [-]

Last year there were 2% "other" answers, versus 13% "polyamorous" and 30% "uncertain/no preference" ones. This suggests there is no need to break down "other" any further, unless people in relationship models like yours pick "uncertain" rather than "other" and would switch if "monogamish" was an option.

Comment author: Eneasz 03 December 2013 09:50:20PM 1 point [-]

Personally I picked "monogamous" because it's the closest to how my relationship actually works. Aside from sex with other people, we are a monogamous couple.

Comment author: Ander 26 November 2013 06:49:09PM 0 points [-]

Correct, just like people trying to 'win' a single iteration prisoner's dilemna problem would defect.

I'm not claiming its the morally correct option or anything, just that its the correct strategy if your goal is to win.

Comment author: Eneasz 26 November 2013 11:38:32PM 1 point [-]

I don't think we're using the same definition of 'win'. This is the same thinking that leads to two-boxing.

Comment author: Yvain 23 November 2013 06:55:52PM 11 points [-]

I just realized I forgot a very important question I really want to know the answer to!

"What is your 90% confidence interval for the percent of people you expect to answer 'cooperate' on the prize question?"

I've added this into the survey so that people who take it after this moment can answer. If you've taken the survey already, feel free to record your guess below (if you haven't taken the survey, don't read responses to this comment)

Comment author: Eneasz 26 November 2013 04:48:40PM *  0 points [-]

40-98

Comment author: Ander 25 November 2013 10:56:37PM 18 points [-]

Took the survey, and finally registered after lurking for 6 months.

I liked the defect/cooperate question. I defected because it was the rational way to try to 'win' the contest. However, if one had a different goal such as "make Less Wrong look cooperative" rather than "win this contest", then cooperating would be the rational choice. I suppose that if I win, I'll use the money to make my first donation to CFAR and/or MIRI.

Now that I have finished it, I wish I had taken more time on a couple of the questions. I answered the Newcomb's Box problem the opposite of my intent, because I mixed up what 2-box and 1-box mean in the problem (been years since I thought about that problem). I would 1-box, but I answered 2-box in the survey because I misremembered how the problem worked.

Comment author: Eneasz 26 November 2013 04:41:19PM 1 point [-]

So if a group using your decision-making-process all took this survey, "rationally" trying to win the contest, they would end up winning $0. :)

Comment author: MixedNuts 23 November 2013 10:49:52AM 3 points [-]

Why do you want this to be a separate option, rather than "other"?

Comment author: Eneasz 26 November 2013 04:35:59PM 1 point [-]

Because I think it's one of the three major relationship models. Pure Monogamy is traditional, and Polyamory is the reaction against it, but Monogamish is how a lot of relationships actually work (while operating under the cloak of monogamy). It's like a worldwide religion survey allowing only "Christian" and "Muslim", and lumping Hinduism under "Other". There's another major option here that should be broken out.

View more: Next