Thanks. I thought I would be metaphorically smacked in the head with a trout by most people here for trying something like that after all I'd read on OB/LW.
Edit: Part of why I had joined was because it's the easiest way to get a social group in Waco. Now I don't know whether to try to relocate my life; try to find other, more appropriate groups to join here; or go for broke and try to get a stable Waco LW meetup going.
It costs you almost nothing to post a meetup for a Waco group up here, and only an afternoon reading/on your laptop to wait at a failed meetup. Just because a course of action has a very high payout doesn't mean that trying it has a high cost. The universe isn't fair, and sometimes that's a good thing.
I say this just to offer evidence that something about "rationality" works.
Rationality working is one possible explanation of this, but it's not the only one or even the most likely.
There are all sorts of interesting sociological differences between actively religious people and the nonreligious, usually to the advantage of theists. They live longer, report greater happiness, are healthier by most measures of health, and I think have some protection against mental disease. Most studies investigating these advantages find they have nothing to do with the content of the religion and everything to do with the religion providing easy access to the religious community, a friendly and supportive social group to which other believers have an automatic "in".
I have a feeling this works in more subtle ways than just the obvious; it's not just about going to church and seeing people, but about slowly absorbing these people's norms (which are usually pretty positive in practice even when the theory behind them is repulsive) and internalizing their conception of you as a genuinely okay person because you're part of the in-group.
A lot of what you're talking about sounds potentially mediated by the same factors. You are part of a large and active RL community of rationalists and may have internalized the idea of fellow rationalists as your in-group, which means you're adjusting your behavior to conform to rationalist norms and values rather than the norms and values of whatever was your in-group before.
This is not to devalue the importance of the material - most of us would not fit into a religious community no matter how hard we tried and so the material deserves a lot of credit as the attractor around which a community of interesting non-religious people can form - but I think the value of the material is indirect rather than direct.
Most people stumble in with their friends. Your friends are the people you happen to sit next to at the first day of class, people who work in the same office as you, people who belong to the same clubs as you, people who go to the same bars as you. This is usually local because as the search radius increases, the amount of new data you have to deal with (people to filter out) becomes excessive.
It takes a strong sense of purpose to travel and hour and a half by train to meetup with strangers at an apartment in order to find a community, all based on the fact that you read the same blog. That is a very small part of search space.
There are many things that are claimed to give people large amounts of happiness. Most don't work, and many that work won't work for a given person. Quickly identifying what works for you, and making a beeline towards it is one of the largest benefits rationality can give a typical person. People see this and focus on the "it" (in this case finding a community) and say "of course that made you happy." This feels like hindsight bias. If you had met SarahC a year ago, would you have said to her "Oh, you obviously need to meet us with these really awesome rationalists in NYC"? Finding that option is where the rationality comes in.
Generally, people who try to lose weight don't actually lose weight, and when they do lose some weight, they put it back on later (yo-yo dieting). Zvi, a NYC rationalist, recently posted about how he lost weight using TDT style thinking. He lost a considerable amount, and has kept it off for many years. He is not alone in the NYC group. Many of us have done this relatively simple task, and kept the weight off for years. We all used different methods to change our behavior, but we each picked one that worked for our specific problems.
Rationality helps you CHOOSE one option out of many. The option you choose isn't "rational" in any special sense, but in some cases the choice would be unlikely. Maybe as unlikely as traveling 63 miles to hang out in a strangers apartment. Noticing that option exists is a superpower, even if taking it is obvious afterwards.
Something occurred to me lately about the story. It seems likely that there's another character in the shadows (if not more then one).
What exactly has been going on with Nicholas Flamel?
He exists within the story, Dumbledore has consulted with him. The philosopher's stone is still being hidden at Hogwarts, and presumably Voldemort still wants it.
This seems like a decent hypothesis on who/what Quirrell is if he isn't Voldemort.
Doesn't being rich require that others be poor?
No.
In relative terms (eg being in the top 1%) obviously yes.
In absolute terms (eg being able to experience more places, creative works, ideas, etc than people 1000 years ago could have dreamed about) obviously no.
One is more important than the other.
He uses this new power to finish his book, get back together with his girlfriend, become rich, and eventually become president of the united states. Incidentally he gets in shape, establishes himself as high status at top tier social events, learns many new languages, and sleeps with a bunch of women.
How would it work if everyone had this power?
Doesn't being rich require that others be poor?
Only one person can become president at a time.
Doesn't being at the top tier of social events (or anything) mean that there needs to be sub tiers?
"Sleeps with a bunch of women": this seems to answer the above problems. Humans would be so busy "sleeping" with each other they'd have little time or use for money, politics, or meaningless social gatherings. Food would still be important. I'd like to think art would be too. Sex, food, and transformative experiences. A return to the animal kingdom. That makes me almost hopeful.
But, I have this all wrong, don't I. I'm going back to the sequences now....
There is a moment where he gets "the idea". This is the thing that takes him from his hedonic whirlwind to a purposeful existence. He's trying to change the world.
My hope is that he'd use the powers of the pill to set up labs to study the process it works on, mass produce it, use his political clout as president to push it though as a legal nootropic, and use the bully pulpit to promote it. Make everyone smart.
So, a while ago I succeeded in phasing "good luck" out of my vocabulary, and I replaced it with "enjoy," which has the great virtue of being only 2 syllables. But reading that has inspired me to seek another replacement.
At the moment, what comes to mind are "make your own luck," "think positively," and "prepare well." All of those are longer, though, and it's not clear they're better. Thoughts / suggestions?
I've used "have fun" for the past several years. "Choose well" occurred to me within the last week or so, I've been signing my emails with it. Both are two syllables, "choose well" works for rationalists and sounds like what you're looking for.
I just came back from the film Limitless. The movie contained a very interesting depiction of a character who gets an black market nootropic that works very well. It gives him perfect recall, perfect situational awareness, and the ability to figure out the best thing to say/do in real time. He uses this new power to finish his book, get back together with his girlfriend, become rich, and eventually become president of the united states. Incidentally he gets in shape, establishes himself as high status at top tier social events, learns many new languages, and sleeps with a bunch of women. In the end his new found intelligence leads him to happiness. The drama in the film comes from the fact that the drug has side effects, and there's a mobster who gets his hands on some and wants more. Intelligence is depicted as a fundamentally good thing. It's even described as "I knew what I wanted and I knew how to get it." He affirms several times (and the story agrees) that he's still himself on the drug, just more effective.
most saliently: obsessing over being ugly.
You're not ugly
One of the reasons Hold'Em is popular is that it is easy to do the probability calculations in your head. We should probably post about that...
Also, most of the time you're doing the same calculation over and over. People who can't do math are fine most of the time (but not all, and that matters) because they have the odds memorized.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
This post has convinced me so thoroughly that I'm going to pick up and go to New York City to hang out with a rationalist community... Right Now!
Cool. We're have a fun weekend planned.