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

Comment author: Elo 19 June 2017 11:00:31AM 1 point [-]

"logistics"

make plans, invite people along, exchange details.

Comment author: LessWrong 19 June 2017 12:07:35PM 0 points [-]

What do you mean by "logistics"?

Comment author: LessWrong 19 June 2017 10:48:21AM 0 points [-]

How do you move from a superficial relationship (I see you at work) to a more meaningful relationship? (friends)?

Comment author: LessWrong 09 June 2017 06:43:09PM 0 points [-]

CFAR also has a booklist. Eliezer has one too, but says it's deprecated. There's the 'rationality' tag on on Goodreads, and it's up to you to decide if the books listed live up to it.

Comment author: LessWrong 07 June 2017 12:41:05PM *  1 point [-]

Is there a reason that members of the community can't game together online? This post on Overwatch provides at least a small amount of evidence that the community would have enough members interested to form teams, and team-building seems to be one of the goals.

That requires that you (in order of importance)

  1. Have good computer hardware to run the game
  2. Have good latency to the servers (for me specifically, but statistically I'd imagine there shouldn't be a big one)
  3. Have good skill at aiming
  4. Actually spend quite a bit of time learning all the game mechanics

As an ex-gamer I just realized that I can drop the games (still miss them sometimes) and focus on reading a book or do some better activity. Games are incredible fun, but so (at least from what I've been told) are plenty of drugs that you wouldn't want to do, and once you generalize it a little bit games can be seen as a drug themselves.

Many people disagree with the 'gaming is a waste of time' opinion. I wouldn't say totally, but most games focus on being like chocolate versus a salad to your mind.

Comment author: LessWrong 04 June 2017 07:49:53PM 0 points [-]

A new, better way to read the Sequences

Sorry to nitpick but you haven't said in which way it is better than the on-site Sequences or the PDF.

Comment author: LessWrong 02 June 2017 07:55:48PM *  1 point [-]

Meta post:

How often does it happen that:

  1. You're reading a book, and it's not particularly interesting, or there's nothing new in it, and you put it down;

  2. You read a book, and after n amount of (days, months, years) you felt that it wasn't as good as you felt it was when reading it.

I've recently felt a "yeah, cool" feeling about books I'm reading and am curious if it happens to other people.

Comment author: LessWrong 02 June 2017 07:48:09PM 1 point [-]

I've tried GEB. Contrary to what a lot of people feel about it, I did not particularly enjoy the book. I didn't finish it, so perhaps I didn't see the grand finale. My assumptions are that GEB was the first time a lot of fans found out about the concepts described in the book, and therefore they like it because of that. From a reductionalist viewpoint, I still haven't found an adequate answer for "What does GEB have that I can't find anywhere else?". Or perhaps, "if we take n amount of people, one group aware of the concepts in GEB and another unaware of it, assuming neither of them read the book, how much would their final rating differ?".

Comment author: LessWrong 29 April 2016 10:51:50AM *  0 points [-]

What are some non-flashcard-style memorization techniques? I'm learning a menu as part of my job as a waiter and it feels more like trial and error. My main problem is that I can't remember the stuff at all.

I've come up with a "open answers" system that I don't really know if it can work. Let's say we have x number of things on the system, like item1, item2, item3...item(x). We also have y number of meals (which vary on the number of ingredients) and so you need to fill in the blanks, like this:

Meal 1: (underscores should be here but the "you'll never get what you see" comment system hates them)

This has the advantage of being visible which I personally like. It's also pretty simple and doesn't really require reading much beyond "fill in the blanks". It removes the disorder of "x number of things" and instead moves the question to "where should item(x) belong to?".

My only significant issue with this is that it's a trial and error thing - which I personally dislike because that's how I play chess, and most of my games end up in a loss which disappoints me and makes me think trial and error is meh, but hey I'm just one person, let's not get into typical mind fallacy here.

Comment author: Lumifer 27 April 2016 03:13:17PM 2 points [-]

Lack of a clue.

Comment author: LessWrong 27 April 2016 03:14:41PM 0 points [-]

What do you mean?

Comment author: Lumifer 27 April 2016 02:47:44PM 1 point [-]

I would not recommend LW as a good source of dating advice X-/

Comment author: LessWrong 27 April 2016 03:06:08PM 0 points [-]

Why not?

View more: Next