= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Productivity
In response to
Instrumental rationality/self help resources
Getting Things Done—David Allen
Highly, highly recommended. This is the gold standard of organizational advice, and it lives up to its reputation. My productivity has skyrocketed in the five months I've been using this system. I attribute maybe half of that improvement to this book.
Allen describes his system in detail, explaining why each piece is useful. The system is modular, and most people who use it have modified it to fit their particular workflow. The book is longer than it needs to be, but still only something like 200-300 pages. Note that organizational advice is different from motivational advice (although bad organization can sap motivation).
Key insights:
—Breaking down projects into small, achievable "next actions" is a key technique for planning effectively and preventing ugh fields.
—Writing down every task in a single list that you will actually check regularly lets you stop worrying about tasks, reduce your cognitive load, and ensure that nothing gets lost.
In response to
Less Wrong London New Arrival Integration Task Force
This is a great idea and I will probably steal it.
There are no double-blind studies. All evidence so far is largely anecdotal, because it's extremely challenging to get a statistically significant number of people to do this to themselves at the same time.
I didn't ask for double-blind studies. I was saying that I understand the rationale behind it ( so no need to repeat it it again) but am not convinced unless there is some evidence.
There is a myriad of statistical evidence about how sleep deprivation works, but by and large most people just report "if you don't get X hours of sleep per night, then things suck".
How is this related? We are talking about this method versus more 'traditional' methods of adapting to everyman.
Based on many anecdotes (which are spread around in personal correspondence, forums, listservs, etc) the instructions above make sense. It is the best data available ...
Granted, I have not been heavily involved in the related communities for the last ~5 years but I have seen significantly more people adapting everyman through the standard method of just jumping in (or jumping in and making some slight alterations at least). Fwiw, if you can provide the information that you are talking about here it would've sufficed to some extent as evidence (or at least data).
But we have to start with a hypothesis, and based on the anecdotes, this is that hypothesis.
You are assuming that based on the anectodes this is the optimal(ish) hypothesis but you have not provided them. If you wish I can link you (after some googling) to a lot of people who claim to have achieved everyman through more traditional methods for example.
My uberman adaptation using the 6nap one (with sometimes 1 extra) failed, but years I later successfully adapted to everyman using the 12nap method. So this collective experience means that I have evidence that this adaptation plan is a solid one, it's just not easy to impart to you.
The biggest difference between the two attempts is that in one you were going for uberman and in the second you were going for everyman. This, I suspect makes a bigger difference than the use of 6 versus 12 naps.
ETA: My point here is that if we insist on having evidence before we do experiments, we will not do a lot of science today.
Who exactly is insisting on that??
I'm not sure what this argument is about. I don't think you two actually disagree on any questions of fact.
In response to
comment
by
on
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 19, chapter 88-89
For example, before reading the author's notes on HPMoR I was not familiar with Chekhov's Gun.
Really? I remember being about eight years old, watching an episode of Power Rangers, and seeing some random no-name tourist drop a camera and the shot lingered on it for about half a second. My instant thought was "Oh, the bad guy is going to be built from a camera", and sure enough it was. They'd never have put that in the episode otherwise, and that was obvious to me at that age.
Boston Megameetup July 13-14
On the weekend of July 13-14, Harvard High-Impact Philanthropy will be hosting a rationalist megameetup. Everyone who can make the trip is strongly encouraged to come. We'll meet at the Harvard Science Center in room B-10 at noon on both days. Crash space is available; comment or send me a PM to arrange. (I am supposed to say "the megameetup is not sponsored by the Science Center or Harvard University.") If you're planning to come, please RSVP in this thread or on our facebook event page.
If you neither assume that all cases of depression are due to chemical imbalance, or that nobody ever encounters a real problem in life that causes them genuine suffering, then why do you say that depressed people should stop looking for solutions? If it is considered unacceptable for an AGI to "solve" humanity's problems by wireheading us all with drugs to provide us with counterfeit utility then why should it not at least be considered acceptable for depressed people to seek a solution that is not an SSRI? Depressed people are conscious beings who have a need for meaning just like you do.
Also, if you weren't aware of this, anti-depressant drugs are frequently ineffective. It's common for people to have to try a whole bunch of them, and some never find a drug that works.
Please consider being nicer to people who are having a miserable time.
That seemed less like "all cases of depression are due to chemical imbalance" and more like "try medication and other common solutions to see if they work before investigating uncommon solutions"
I've removed Ozy, deleted the duplicate Christiano, and updated the wiki page accordingly.
In response to
Open Thread, June 16-30, 2013
[I made a request for job finding suggestions. I didn't really want to leave details lying around indefinitely, to be honest, so, after a week, I edited it to this.]
For job searching, focus less on sending out applications and more on asking [professors | friends | friends of friends | mentors | parents | parents' friends] if they know of anyone who's hiring for [relevant field]. When they say no, ask if they know anyone else you should talk to. To generalize from one example, every job I've ever worked has come from some sort of connection. I found my current position through my mom's dance instructor's husband.
For figuring out what to do with your long-term future, there's not much I can say without knowing your goals, but might or might not be relevant. If so, they're willing to advise you one-on-one.
In response to
Suggestions for Rationality Blogs in the Sidebar
Ozy's blog has been taken down.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
The euphemism treadmill is basically arbitrary most of the time. For example, "people of color" is very PC right now, but "colored people" is considered KKK-language. It is what it is.
Also black people is a kind of strange term. Pretty much all black people are okay with it, but a lot of white people are weirdly afraid of saying it, especially in formal settings.
"People of color" currently means anyone other than white people, not black people exclusively.