Comment author: MrMind 04 February 2016 02:23:42PM 3 points [-]

I've enjoyed the article, and I look forward for the parts, though it required me three/fourth re-reads to dig out the actual tips, they are scattered and sort-of buried amidst jokes and story.

Comment author: Jacobian 04 February 2016 05:44:49PM *  1 point [-]

I get what you're saying.

My approach is that I'm a blog writer and not a dating consultant. My main goal is for my readers to enjoy what they are reading even if the topic isn't at the top of their interests. People who know nothing at all about soccer (like Scott Alexander) and certainly don't work in soccer development seemed to enjoy the Tails of Great Soccer Players series.

I see your comment as actually encouraging my style: people who care about the advice will dig a bit to isolate the tips, people who don't care about it will spend a fun 5 minutes and have a few chuckles. Do you think the writing would be better if it was more structured (i.e. adding an intro and conclusion with a clear list of tips)?

P.S. The day I start writing listicles, take me behind the shed a put a bullet in me.

Comment author: Jacobian 17 January 2016 02:27:08AM 5 points [-]

Wasn't sure if should have stayed at a job or applied for grad school, so I quarter-assedly worked on school applications while quarter-assedly pretending to work until I got fired.

Comment author: robirahman 13 January 2016 12:15:22AM *  3 points [-]

You're the author of putanumonit?? I'd like to take this opportunity to say that your blog is amazing and I love it. Please write more soon!

Comment author: Jacobian 13 January 2016 03:45:07PM 3 points [-]

Thanks!

I previously explored some of the ideas I write about on LessWrong, and on more than one occasion I was corrected here on dumb mistakes in math and reasoning that I made. I was hoping that the same would be true for Putanumonit, I even promise a small gift to anyone correcting a major mistake I made. That hasn't really happened yet. Either I'm becoming more careful in my writing, or I was spoiled by the high level of the commenters on LW :)

Comment author: Jacobian 11 January 2016 07:52:24PM *  7 points [-]

I started a rationality-adjacent blog about applying math to life last year and a couple of weeks ago I achieved my first major goal for the blog: a place on Scott's blogroll which bumped my readership by around 10x.

In response to Sports
Comment author: Jacobian 27 December 2015 05:01:01AM 5 points [-]

This is something that I always found weird hanging out with LWers, how people almost take pride in being anti-sports. I'm not athletic at all and yet I play a dozen different sports and watch everything from figure skating to college football. Is this because the nerd/jock dichotomy actually happens in American schools and not in movies? All my friends from the math club in high school in Israel played soccer several times a week, every chance that we could.

I encourage everyone to try playing a sport, if you've never tried then something like ping pong or even throwing a frisbee around can be good entry level activities for people who think they're horrible athletes.

Comment author: Jacobian 23 December 2015 06:01:03PM 5 points [-]

A question about donating:

AFAIK about half of the payment for attending a workshop (~$2,000) is considered a charitable donation, is tax-deductible etc. Would it be possible for me to donate to the winter fundraiser and have the donation amount deducted from my workshop participation fee if and when I choose to attend in the future?

I think it works out great for CFAR to allow this: either you get a pre-commited attendee or a free donation.

In response to LessWrong 2.0
Comment author: Jacobian 04 December 2015 08:44:58PM 28 points [-]

One more use I have for LessWrong: learning about subjects from people whom I trust to be smart and rational. A while back I wanted to learn up on perceptual control theory, I found RichardKenneways' and Vaniver's posts a hundred times better than Wikipedia.

This is an invaluable resource for me that I would hate to lose. Even if the quality of new stuff being written on LW is declining, the quality of stuff that I'm reading on LW is still consistently excellent. I really hope we would find a way to keep this aspect going.

In response to LessWrong 2.0
Comment author: btrettel 03 December 2015 04:09:54AM *  18 points [-]

You bring up a number of important points. Perhaps I missed this when reading, but one role LessWrong plays and continues to play is a good source of discussion. Often I'll find the discussion to be more interesting than a particular article. It's not uncommon for me to be linked to a particular comment divorced from its larger context and not be interested in the larger context. I don't know how common this behavior is, but this is not uncommon for me, and I don't think replacing the rationalist materials with a wiki or Q&A site would suit this well at all. This is one reason to favor something like Reddit.

I'm also generally not a fan of shutting down even semi-active forums. In one online community I've participated in, there were several major forum closures, and each time there was a period of confusion about what to do if you're interested in discussion, along with basically sectarian posturing to get active posters. The sectarian stuff caused major problems down the line, and the current discussion forum for this community more or less voluntarily avoids those conflicts now. There also are a number of roles LessWrong plays that I'm not sure would survive a transition to the diaspora, like the page about sharing academic papers. I also often enjoy reading the open threads. Perhaps transitioning LessWrong more towards discussion would be a good middle ground.

Edit: On a related note, I find following discussions on Tumblr to be a huge pain, and hope either this improves in the future or that more discussions happen elsewhere.

In response to comment by btrettel on LessWrong 2.0
Comment author: Jacobian 04 December 2015 08:35:26PM 10 points [-]

Agreed, the comments (fortified by the voting system) are a huge reason why I'm here. I bought Rationality A-Z for ease of reading, but discovered that I didn't like it at all without seeing the discussion spawned by every post. In particular, it is very easy to be convinced by a well-written but subtly flawed argument, unless an equally well written rebuttal is in the comments.

The voting system is something that I would hate to lose too, I am very impressed by the people here really upvoting based more on quality than on vacuous agreement. I've had my first three comments on the site and one of my first posts massively downvoted, and it hurt, but now I'm very happy for it.

In response to comment by cousin_it on LessWrong 2.0
Comment author: Vaniver 04 December 2015 12:27:01AM 4 points [-]

Announce that during the next year, LW will have one post per week, at a specified time. There will be an email address where anyone can send their submissions, whereupon a horribly secretive and biased group of editors will select the best one each week, aiming for Eliezer quality or higher.

Functionally, this is turning LW into a magazine with one article per week. I think that's a decent approach, though I have some reservations.

Remember the shift from OB to LW, and one of the big changes being that people went from having to email Hanson about posting something (and maybe getting shot down) to being able to post something themselves. I worry that this creates too much in the way of inconvenience and risk of failure for posters, and means that they'll post it somewhere else instead of on LW.

But I think the tournament nature of it--there's a post every week, and so we need people to contribute, and if your post doesn't make it (or gets waitlisted or so on) it's not because you're absolutely bad, just relatively bad--does improve the idea significantly.

I'm also not sure how well this plays with the fragmentation in interests of people in the community.

In response to comment by Vaniver on LessWrong 2.0
Comment author: Jacobian 04 December 2015 04:25:20PM *  1 point [-]

Re: fragmentation of interests. Posts on LessWrong seem to easily slide into a number of clear categories (epistemic rationality, fighting akrasia, decision theory math, social events...) It would be great if the site was organized to group posts together, so that if I don't know math and just want to follow the best self-help tips it would be easy to do so.

This can work very well with the "one post a week" idea, which I'm in favor of. Consistent schedule + high quality is what keeps people coming back. That's why so many webcomics religiously stick to their posting schedule (like XKCD's M-W-F). We can have a post every X days in each of 3-4 basic categories, so I'll know that one Wednesday is AI-post day, the next Saturday is akrasia post day, the next Wednesday is social post day etc.

The main challenge would be getting enough good posts, two thoughts on that:

  1. If the good writers contribute enough stuff upfront it can create a good buffer that will allow the editors to plan the best schedule, i.e. how many days between posts can be kept consistently.

  2. I think a lot of people are already intimidated about posting given the very high standards. If quality is a concern more than quantity, I don't think that people with something important to say will be too discouraged by having to submit to moderation. A lot of us have our own blogs, tumblrs, Facebooks etc. Since I know that LW has a much wider reach than my own blog, I wouldn't mind trying to "win the week" on LW first, and posting on my platform as a fallback if I don't make it.

  3. Waiting for moderation on what you wrote requires delaying gratification, which is very hard... but not something that a real rationalist would have trouble overcoming, no? ;-)

Comment author: Jacobian 06 November 2015 08:36:21PM 1 point [-]

Having just read this post for the first time has made me so happy!

Let me explain: Eliezer doesn't sound optimistic at all in this essay, especially compared to the gung-ho "we got this!" spirit of almost every other call to action post. And here I am, someone who's so new to LW I only just got to this post, and yet in the last year I have:

  • Enjoyed rationalist parties with dozens of people.
  • Went to over 20 weekly rationalist gatherings.
  • Ran an EA charity research meetup.
  • Got 3 other people hooked on the sequences.
  • Am taking my girlfriend to Soltice next month.

With all that I don't even consider myself a central part of the community (either LW or EA) just someone hanging around the margins and trying to contribute occasionally.

Here's another thing to keep in mind with the Catholic Church: they've been around for 2,000 years, and they're one of 2,000 cults that made it. Can it be that there's nothing going on besides time and survivor bias? 6 years after this post was written, Givewell is affecting millions and MIRI just raised $600k by itself. I don't know if we should really still be looking up to the church for organization tips.

View more: Prev | Next