Comment author: FiftyTwo 07 November 2013 10:20:15PM 0 points [-]

This also has the advantage of needing no new code.

Comment author: Gabriel 07 November 2013 10:58:27PM 0 points [-]

It does need new code. For aggregate threads to work, meetup organizers have to coordinate with whoever is posting them. I don't think that will happen without automation.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 28 October 2013 11:33:29AM *  3 points [-]

Nonjudgemental people may help you socially with trying new ideas, but will not help you epistemically with finding the correct ones. You will have to reinvent every wheel alone. If you have unlimited time, go ahead. Otherwise, it is better to find people who are a bit judgemental -- who have a preference for correct beliefs.

Of course, replacing judgemental people with a preference for incorrect beliefs by nonjudgemental people is an improvement. But sometimes you can do much better than this.

Maybe this is what happens to many people: they replace the judgemental people with incorrect beliefs by nonjudgemental people, they realize the improvement... but then they can't improve further because their heuristics says that "nonjudgemental is best". Noise can be better than active misinformation, but signal can be even better than noise. But when most of your experience is with active misinformation, all signals seem dangerous.

Comment author: Gabriel 28 October 2013 01:52:44PM *  2 points [-]

There is some confusion that pops up whenever there's a discussion of 'being judgmental'. Some people distinguish between disagreement and condemnation and believe that you can strongly disagree with someone in a non-judgmental manner and others think of it as a package deal, where being non-judgmental is a trade-off between niceness and ability to form correct beliefs.

When I hear people talking about being nonjudgmental I tend to assume the first interpretation (which I also agree with). But being non-judgmental in that way might itself be an example of a weird, costly attitude. If others don't share it, they will think that you are judging them and there's no way of convincing them otherwise.

Comment author: Gabriel 28 October 2013 01:10:43PM *  0 points [-]

I always thought that there are bits of useful insight scattered among all the nonsense of self-help books and that reading lots of them and then letting your mind sort through it could lead to those bits being assembled into a useful whole. But I was never able to get myself to actually do it (is there a self-help book on reading self-help books?)

The problem is that I can't really tolerate the idea that I'm doing something mostly useless in the hope that some benefits will nevertheless accrue, invisibly, in my subconscious. I feel the need to judge whatever I'm reading and either seriously engage with it or discard it. And self-help books are not only full of crap, but are also designed to push all your enthusiasm buttons. For me, it's hard to read through bazillions of 'simple insights that will change my life' without slipping into excessive enthusiasm or outright contempt.

So, I think, do it, if you can tolerate the tedium.

Comment author: CAE_Jones 23 October 2013 04:15:27PM 1 point [-]

Depression can be irrational--chemical imbalances, not enough sunlight/exercise/etc--and can also be totally rational (life actually does suck titanium balls). Psychiatric care can help the former; the latter seems as it should be vulnerable to rationality superpowers, but either that's incorrect or I'm just not superclever enough to win. It does not help when the two coincide (sucky life situation causing serious chemical problems).

There's also the question of whether or not a terrible situation is one that makes psychiatric help readily available (I'd hope online psychiatry could help with this, but I don't really know).

Comment author: Gabriel 27 October 2013 02:26:56PM 1 point [-]

and can also be totally rational (life actually does suck titanium balls)

It's a mistake to assign truth values to emotions. They can't be correct or incorrect, they can be only helpful or unhelpful. And I don't think depression is ever helpful, barring convoluted thought experiments.

Comment author: Gabriel 26 October 2013 05:08:19PM 4 points [-]

This sounds like a great idea.

But, how will you know if you managed to replicate EURISKO's success? Are people still playing this? Or is there some archive of tournament entries available so you could see how your program's fleet compares against them?

Comment author: Torello 12 October 2013 02:00:35PM 1 point [-]

I really enjoyed this article, and I can see how many of my own behaviors map onto this cue-routine-reward structure. I've been wanting to read this book, but now I don't feel that I need to.

I would appreciate it if another reader could try to explain how rumination (focused attention on the symptoms of one's distress, and on its possible causes and consequences, as opposed to its solutions) would fit into this framework. Here's my attempt:

Let's say you were fired from a job you liked, and you ruminate on the loss of the job.

The cue: seeing a former co-worker The routine: think of everything that went wrong on the job leading to your firing, the possible changes you could have made but didn't, feeling stupid The reward: to discipline yourself?

I feel that the cue and routine are well described, but I'm not sure about how the reward.

Comment author: Gabriel 12 October 2013 10:12:36PM *  3 points [-]

The anticipated reward for ruminating might be the feeling of closure you'd get from finding a clear, simple solution to whatever problem you're ruminating about. So it's not a separate habit in itself but a misapplication of analytical, 'perfectionist' problem solving to problems with high uncertainty. I think that was it for me. I also had this idea shoved into my head while growing up, that real life is harsh and unpleasant and being an adult is all about facing the harsh unpleasantness. As a result, ruminating felt somewhat virtuous.

Comment author: Gabriel 12 October 2013 09:44:34PM 2 points [-]

Nice.

Bug reports:

Note that even though t is 1, we'll end up with a unit error if we don't carry it around.

I think you meant r here.

And you have flipped the sign of \Delta U_{linear}.

Comment author: Gabriel 03 October 2013 10:20:40AM 6 points [-]

Question: when people say that two weeks on dry ice is suicide, is the 'two weeks' part significant? Are two weeks on dry ice worse than two days and better than two months on dry ice or is it that the moment you get frozen without cryoprotectant, you're done?

Comment author: Gabriel 02 October 2013 07:53:50PM 4 points [-]

Now we just need to figure out how to make people more competitive in the areas they care about...

I'm not sure that replacing intrinsic motivation with the motivation to prove yourself better than others is always a good idea. It will help some but it might also hinder.

If I'm feeling competitive, why would I ever skip the chores and lose?

I could skip the chores and lose because I'm feeling the wrong sort of competitiveness, I tied my feelings of self-worth to the outcome and avoiding thinking of the issue altogether is preferable to facing the prospect of loss.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 30 September 2013 02:02:06PM 3 points [-]

And then when you join, it will display a message to all your contacts that you are "following their answers", of course without telling you anything.

Comment author: Gabriel 30 September 2013 08:03:39PM 1 point [-]

Contacts on what? Your comments makes it sound like it will use its authorization with a Google Account to send spam. And I just clicked the permission button 30 seconds before reading it.

View more: Prev | Next