Comment author: CarlShulman 23 October 2013 05:43:32PM 4 points [-]

I'd like to see effect sizes, and perhaps the result of running the reviewed studies through the p-curve tool accompanying such claims.

Comment author: Nick_Beckstead 23 October 2013 06:03:58PM 5 points [-]

I agree that this would be good, but didn't think it was worthwhile for me to go through the extra effort in this case. But I did think it was worthwhile to share what I had already found. I think I was very clear about how closely this had been vetted (which is to say, extremely little).

Review of studies says you can decrease motivated cognition through self-affirmation

14 Nick_Beckstead 23 October 2013 11:43AM

I read this article today and thought LW might find it interesting. The key finding is that in a number of different experiments, simple "self-affirmations" (such as writing about relationships with your friends or something else that makes you feel good about yourself) make people more open to changing their mind in cases where changing their mind would be damaging to their self-image. The proposed explanation is that people need to maintain a certain level of self-worth, and one way they do that is by refusing to accept evidence that would damage their sense of self-worth. But if they have a high enough sense of self-worth, they are less likely to do this. I haven't reviewed any of these studies personally, but the idea makes some sense and sounds pretty easy to try. Hat tip to Dan Keys for putting me onto the idea. I searched LW for "Sherman self-affirmation" and didn't see this discussed anywhere on LW, but I didn't look very hard.


Title: Accepting Threatening Information: Self–Affirmation and the Reduction of Defensive Biases

Authors: David K. Sherman and Geoffrey L. Cohen

Citation details: Current Directions in Psychological Science August 2002 vol. 11 no. 4 119-123

Abstract: Why do people resist evidence that challenges the validity of long–held beliefs? And why do they persist in maladaptive behavior even when persuasive information or personal experience recommends change? We argue that such defensive tendencies are driven, in large part, by a fundamental motivation to protect the perceived worth and integrity of the self. Studies of social–political debate, health–risk assessment, and responses to team victory or defeat have shown that people respond to information in a less defensive and more open–minded manner when their self–worth is buttressed by an affirmation of an alternative source of identity. Self–affirmed individuals are more likely to accept information that they would otherwise view as threatening, and subsequently to change their beliefs and even their behavior in a desirable fashion. Defensive biases have an adaptive function for maintaining self–worth, but maladaptive consequences for promoting change and reducing social conflict.

Key quotes: "Pro-choice partisans and pro-life partisans were presented with a debate between two activists on opposite sides of the abortion dispute….However, this confirmation bias was sharply attenuated among participants who affirmed a valued source of self-worth (by writing about a personally important value, such as their relations with friends)....although all participants left the debate feeling more confident in their beliefs about abortion than they had before, this polarization in attitude was significantly reduced among self-affirmed participants (cf. Lord et al., 1979)."  p. 120

"In one study (Cohen et al., 2000), devout opponents and proponents of capital punishment were presented with a persuasive scientific report that contradicted their beliefs about the death penalty’s effectiveness as a deterrent for crime....the responses of participants who received an affirmation of a valued self-identity (by writing about a personally important value, or by being provided with positive feedback on an important skill) proved more favorable.Self affirmed participants were less critical of the reported research, they suspected less bias on the part of the authors, and they even changed their overall attitudes toward capital punishment in the direction of the report they read." p. 121

"In one study, athletes who had just completed an intramural volleyball game assessed the extent to which each of a series of factors contributed to their team’s victory or defeat. As in past research (Lau & Russell, 1980),winners made more internal attributions for their victories than losers did for their defeats. However, among athletes who had reflected on an important value irrelevant to athletics, this self-serving bias was attenuated." p. 122

 

Comment author: Wei_Dai 04 September 2013 10:01:53PM 2 points [-]

I don't think that the kind of case you are describing here is a strong consideration against using Period Independence in cases that don't involve exact repetition.

What if we assume Period Independence except for exact repetitions, where the value of extra repetitions eventually go to zero? Perhaps this could be a way to be "timid" while making the downsides of "timidity" seem not so bad or even reasonable? For example in section 6.3.2, such a person would only choose deal 1 over deal 2 if the years of happy lives offered in deal 1 are such that he would already have repeated all possible happy time periods so many times that he values more repetitions very little.

BTW what do you think about my suggestion to do a sequence of blog posts based on your thesis? Or maybe you can at least do one post as a trial run? Also as an unrelated comment, the font in your thesis seems to be such that it's pretty uncomfortable to read in Adobe Acrobat, unless I zoom in to make the text much larger than I usually have to. Not sure if it's something you can easily fix. If not, I can try to help if you email me the source of the PDF.

Comment author: Nick_Beckstead 04 September 2013 10:32:05PM *  1 point [-]

What if we assume Period Independence except for exact repetitions, where the value of extra repetitions eventually go to zero? Perhaps this could be a way to be "timid" while making the downsides of "timidity" seem not so bad or even reasonable? For example in section 6.3.2, such a person would only choose deal 1 over deal 2 if the years of happy lives offered in deal 1 are such that he would already have repeated all possible happy time periods so many times that he values more repetitions very little.

I think it would be interesting if you could show that the space of possible periods-of-lives is structured in such a way that, when combined with a reasonable rule for discounting repetitions, yields a bounded utility function. I don't have fully developed views on the repetition issue and can imagine that the view has some weird consequences, but if you could do this I would count it as a significant mark in favor of the perspective.

BTW what do you think about my suggestion to do a sequence of blog posts based on your thesis?

I think this would have some value but isn't at the top of my list right now.

Also as an unrelated comment, the font in your thesis seems to be such that it's pretty uncomfortable to read in Adobe Acrobat, unless I zoom in to make the text much larger than I usually have to. Not sure if it's something you can easily fix. If not, I can try to help if you email me the source of the PDF.

I think I'll keep with the current format for citation consistency for now. But I have added a larger font version here.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 03 September 2013 10:31:01PM *  2 points [-]

Does your proposal also violate #1 because the simplicity of an observer-situated-in-a-world is a holistic property of the the observer-situated-in-a-world rather than a local one?

Yes (assuming by #1 you mean Period Independence), but it's not clear to what extent. For example there are at least two kinds of programs that can output a human brain. A) simulate a world and output the object at some space-time location. B) simulate a world and scan for an object matching some criteria, then output such an object. If a time period gets repeated exactly, people's algorithmic probability from A gets doubled, but algorithmic probability from B doesn't. I'm not sure at this point whether A dominates B or vice versa.

Also, it's not clear to me that strict Period Independence is a good thing. It seems reasonable to not value a time period as much if you knew it was an exact repetition of a previous time period. I wrote a post that's related to this.

Comment author: Nick_Beckstead 04 September 2013 02:16:17PM 1 point [-]

Also, it's not clear to me that strict Period Independence is a good thing. It seems reasonable to not value a time period as much if you knew it was an exact repetition of a previous time period. I wrote a post that's related to this.

I agree that Period Independence may break in the kind of case you describe, though I'm not sure. I don't think that the kind of case you are describing here is a strong consideration against using Period Independence in cases that don't involve exact repetition. I think your main example in the post is excellent.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 02 September 2013 12:18:38AM 1 point [-]

Could you explain where the following argument breaks down?

My proposal violates Temporal Impartiality.

I primarily think of probability as a property of possible worlds, rather than individuals. Perhaps you are thinking of probability as a property of centered possible worlds?

Yes, sort of. When I said "algorithmic probability" I was referring to the technical concept divorced from standard connotations of "probability", but my idea is also somewhat related to the idea of probability as a property of centered possible worlds.

I guess there's a bit of an inferential gap between us that makes it hard for me to quickly explain the idea to you. From my perspective, it would be much easier if you were already familiar with Algorithmic Information Theory and my UDT ideas, but I'm not sure if you want to read up on all that. Do you see Paul Christiano often? If so, he can probably explain it to you in person fairly quickly. Or, since you're at FHI, Stuart Armstrong might also know enough about my ideas to explain them to you.

Comment author: Nick_Beckstead 02 September 2013 10:13:20AM *  1 point [-]

OK, I"ll ask Paul or Stewart next time I see them.

Does your proposal also violate #1 because the simplicity of an observer-situated-in-a-world is a holistic property of the the observer-situated-in-a-world rather than a local one?

Comment author: Wei_Dai 29 August 2013 10:35:47PM *  2 points [-]

(Too bad this post wasn't made by Nick Beckstead, because then he would be able to receive notice when someone posts here. I guess I'll send a PM alerting him to this comment.)

I'd like to suggest that Nick do a sequence of posts on the main novel arguments in his thesis, both to draw more attention to them, and to focus discussion. Right now it's hard to get much of a public discussion going because if I read one section of his thesis and post a comment on that, most other people will either have read that section a long time ago and have forgotten much of it, or will read it in the future and therefore can't respond.

That aside, I do have an object-level comment. Nick states (in section 6.3.1) that Period Independence is incompatible with bounded utility function, but I think that's wrong. Consider a total utilitarian who exponentially discounts each person-stage according to their distance from some chosen space-time event. Then the utility function is both bounded (assuming the undiscounted utility for each person-stage is bounded) and satisfies Period Independence. Another idea for a bounded utility function satisfying Period Independence, which I previously suggested on LW and was originally motivated by multiverse-related considerations, is to discount or bound the utility assigned to each person-stage by their algorithmic probability.

Comment author: Nick_Beckstead 30 August 2013 12:27:56PM 3 points [-]

That aside, I do have an object-level comment. Nick states (in section 6.3.1) that Period Independence is incompatible with bounded utility function, but I think that's wrong. Consider a total utilitarian who exponentially discounts each person-stage according to their distance from some chosen space-time event. Then the utility function is both bounded (assuming the undiscounted utility for each person-stage is bounded) and satisfies Period Independence.

I agree with this. I think I was implicitly assuming some additional premises, particularly Temporal Impartiality. I believe that bounded utility + Temporal Impartiality is inconsistent with bounded utility. (Even saying this implicitly assumes other stuff, like transitive rankings, etc., though I agree that Temporal Impartiality is much more substantive.)

Another idea for a bounded utility function satisfying Period Independence, which I previously suggested on LW and was originally motivated by multiverse-related considerations, is to discount or bound the utility assigned to each person-stage by their algorithmic probability.

I am having a hard time parsing this. Could you explain where the following argument breaks down?

Let A(n,X) be a world in which there are n periods of quality X.

  1. The value of what happens during a period is a function of what happens during that period, and not a function of what happens in other periods.

  2. If the above premise is true, then there exists a positive period quality X such that, for any n, A(n,X) is a possible world.

  3. Assuming Period Independence and Temporal Impartiality, as n approaches infinity, the value of A(n,X) approaches infinity.

  4. Therefore, Period Independence and Temporal Impartiality imply an unbounded utility function.

The first premise here is something I articulate in Section 3.2, but may not be totally clear given the informal statement of Period Independence that I run with.

Let me note that one thing about your proposal confuses me, and could potentially be related to why I don't see which step of the above argument you deny. I primarily think of probability as a property of possible worlds, rather than individuals. Perhaps you are thinking of probability as a property of centered possible worlds? Is your proposal that the goodness of a world A with is of the form:

g(A) = well-being of person 1 * prior centered world probability of person 1 in world A + well-being of person 2 * prior centered world probability of person 2 in A + ...

? If it is, this is a proposal I have not thought about and would be interested in hearing more about its merits and why it is bounded.

Comment author: MichaelVassar 26 August 2013 12:38:01AM 1 point [-]

Upvoted for clarity, but fantastically wrong, IMHO. In particular, "I suspect that taking straight averages gives too much weight to the opinions of cranks and crackpots, so that you may want to remove some outliers or give less weight to them. " seems to me to be unmotivated by epistemology and visibly motivated by conformity.

Comment author: Nick_Beckstead 26 August 2013 09:25:52AM *  1 point [-]

Would be interested to know more about why you think this is "fantastically wrong" and what you think we should do instead. The question the post is trying to answer is, "In practical terms, how should we take account of the distribution of opinion and epistemic standards in the world?" I would like to hear your answer to this question. E.g., should we all just follow the standards that come naturally to us? Should certain people do this? Should we follow the standards of some more narrowly defined group of people? Or some more narrow set of standards still?

I see the specific sentence you objected to as very much a detail rather than a core feature of my proposal, so it would be surprising to me if this was the reason you thought the proposal was fantastically wrong. For what it's worth, I do think that particular sentence can be motivated by epistemology rather than conformity. It is naturally motivated by the aggregation methods I mentioned as possibilities, which I have used in other contexts for totally independent reasons. I also think it is analogous to a situation in which I have 100 algorithms returning estimates of the value of a stock and one of them says the stock is worth 100x market price and all the others say it is worth market price. I would not take straight averages here and assume the stock is worth about 2x market price, even if the algorithm giving a weird answer was generally about as good as the others.

Comment author: Brillyant 19 August 2013 04:45:15AM 4 points [-]

18 August 2013 - I'm really grateful to you for sharing this idea.

I've been writing a journal/diary-style daily reflection since Aug 1 as part of a quantified self project. I think it has the potential to be a good tool... but I also think I could use some of the structure a template like yours might provide.

I'm curious... Do you find yourself giving repetitive answers over the course of several days? Especially in regard to section C? For example, does "get to the point where I can do 10 pull-ups" come to mind everyday, since it is a goal that requires consistent effort over time?

Comment author: Nick_Beckstead 19 August 2013 08:25:46AM 1 point [-]

The answers over the last 6 weeks have not been very repetitive at all. I'm not sure why this is exactly, since when I was much younger and would pray daily the answers were highly repetitive. It may have something to do with greater maturity and a greater appreciation of the purpose of the activity.

Comment author: MumpsimusLane 18 August 2013 05:47:37PM 0 points [-]

How do you determine what it is that you are grateful for?

I've tried a few things like this before, but every time I find myself being held back by not having a good definition of "gratitude" that can appeal to both my logical half and my intuitive half.

If I got a pony, I'd get an emotional reaction in the moment, but at the end of the day when I go to write it down, my logical side wouldn't think "hey, ponies are great", I'd think, "If I got a unicorn, that would have been better, and if I got shot in the face, that would have been worse. There is nothing more to say here." Any "zero goodness point" that I compare my life situation to is going to be arbitrary, so I don't think it could be meaningful.

It all seems as silly to me as being told to eat my vegetables because someone somewhere else is starving to death. I would still like to get the benefits of a gratitude journal, I'm just not sure how to justify the idea to my inner Spock. What am I missing?

Comment author: Nick_Beckstead 18 August 2013 06:32:27PM 2 points [-]

I think of the gratitude list as things that stood out as either among the best parts of the day or as unusually good (for you personally). And mistakes go the opposite way.

My daily reflection routine

20 Nick_Beckstead 18 August 2013 11:54AM

In Common sense as a prior, I used the example of prayer as a practice that is probably adaptive but the people who adopt it may not know why it is adaptive. I wrote:

Another striking example is bedtime prayer. In many Christian traditions I am aware of, it is common to pray before going to sleep. And in the tradition I was raised in, the main components of prayer were listing things you were grateful for, asking for forgiveness for all the mistakes you made that day and thinking about what you would do to avoid similar mistakes in the future, and asking God for things. Christians might say the point of this is that it is a duty to God, that repentance is a requirement for entry to heaven, or that asking God for things makes God more likely to intervene and create miracles. However, I think these activities are reasonable for different reasons: gratitude journals are great, reflecting on mistakes is a great way to learn and overcome weaknesses, and it is a good idea to get clear about what you really want out of life in the short-term and the long-term.


…I think it would be better still to introduce a different routine that serves similar functions—this is something I have done in my own life…

Someone recently wrote to me asking about my routine. I wrote this person an answer, so I thought I might as well share it with others. I have a number of structured routines like this that I find helpful and have considered sharing more widely, so this post will also serve as a test for whether I should share these routines. (These routines include: planning the day and tracking your time, planning and evaluating a project, doing a literature search, keeping a record of personal principles, reading and evaluating a paper, weekly review, and a few others that are less developed.)

Below, I offer and explanation of my routine, a template for following it, and give examples of what it looks like when I have used it. I have been doing this for about 6 weeks and I spend 5-15 minutes doing this per day. I was raised in a very religious family, and did something pretty similar for about the first 18 years of my life. I think it is good, but I don’t think the effect size/my tracking ability combo allows me to confidently distinguish between “it’s a placebo” and “it actually works” on the basis of my personal experience. I do it because it intuitively makes sense to me, it fits with some practices that I think are likely to be adaptive, it seems good so far, it seems good from a common sense perspective, some impressive people I know do similar things, and I’ve been told that psychological research on gratitude journals supports the idea. (Also, I don't mind benefits from "mere" placebos.)

One quick point of caution is that I would be careful about framing this as “atheist prayers” in your head. I framed it that way for a while and thought it would be a good idea to do it, but “atheist prayers” just sounds silly. On the other hand, “daily reflection” just sounds reasonable. I found framing it this way made me substantially more motivated to actually follow the process.

 

 

A detailed explanation of my process

1.       Getting started

a.       Download the document “Daily reflection.”

2.       Step by step

a.       At the end of the work day or before going to sleep, open up “Daily reflection.”

b.      Copy and paste the template for today’s entry.

c.       Fill in today’s date, e.g. 18 August 2013.

d.      Under “What went well today/what am I grateful for?”

                                                               i.      List things you feel good about doing recently or things you enjoyed today.

                                                             ii.      List general things you have noticed lately and appreciate, even if they are not recent.

                                                            iii.      (This is supposed to help you notice good things in life and seek out more of the good things.)

e.      Under “Where would I like to improve? What principles could I follow in the future in order to improve?”

                                                               i.      List any mistakes you think you made today.

                                                             ii.      Try to think about principles you could follow to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

                                                            iii.      If any of the principles seem useful or generally applicable, save them in another document, titled e.g. “My Principles.” I review my principles roughly monthly, and get reminders when I add new ones. I took this idea from Ray Dalio.

                                                           iv.      (This is supposed to help you learn from mistakes and identify, manage, and/or overcome personal weaknesses.)

b.      Under “What do I hope for in the future?”

                                                               i.      List upcoming challenges and opportunities that you hope go well.

                                                             ii.      List long-term priorities that you hope go well, especially ones you haven’t thought about lately or have been neglecting.

                                                          iii.      (This is supposed to help you keep track of what you really want out of life in the short-term and the long-term.)

3.       Other notes      

a.       If it is inconvenient to make notes in this document and I’m not going to open up the document, I will sometimes do my daily reflection in my head.

b.      I generally list 2-5 things under each category per day.

c.       I find this complements well with tracking your time. If you do track your time, you can look at how you spent your day and think about what was productive and what was unproductive. This helps with identifying items for the first and second steps.

Daily entries (template)

1.       Date:

a.       What went well today/what am I grateful for?

b.      Where would I like to improve? What principles could I follow in the future in order to improve?

c.       What do I hope for in the future?

2.       Date:

a.       What went well today/what am I grateful for?

b.      Where would I like to improve? What principles could I follow in the future in order to improve?

c.       What do I hope for in the future?

3.       Date:

a.       What went well today/what am I grateful for?

b.      Where would I like to improve? What principles could I follow in the future in order to improve?

c.       What do I hope for in the future?

Examples of daily entries (stripped of anything personal or embarrassing)

1.       9 August 2013

a.       What went well today/what am I grateful for?

                                                               i.      Got my post drafted

                                                             ii.      Great talk with [friend]

                                                            iii.      Enjoyed dinner

                                                           iv.      Talking to [other friend] was useful

b.      Where would I like to improve? What principles could I follow in the future in order to improve?

                                                               i.      Spending too much on dinners

                                                             ii.      Spending too much time criticizing people with dumb views

c.       What do I hope for in the future?

                                                               i.      Evaluate my projects well after they are done

                                                             ii.      Use my framework for evaluating topics to work on

2.       13 August 2013

a.       What went well today/what am I grateful for?

                                                               i.      Really enjoyed the weekly review

                                                             ii.      Glad I e-mailed a number of people to engage them on their perspectives

                                                            iii.      Glad I came up with the idea that 80K say what it is going to change and be held accountable for making the changes

b.      Where would I like to improve? What principles could I follow in the future in order to improve?

                                                               i.      I spent too much time checking the LW blog in response to my stuff

                                                             ii.      I’m not sure how useful it was for me to be involved with this prioritization institute stuff

                                                            iii.      I didn’t do a good job filling out my time tracker

                                                           iv.      Maybe [friend] is right that I didn’t do a good job as I think defending my common sense prior post

c.       What do I hope for in the future?

                                                               i.      Get my GCRI talk outline done

                                                             ii.      Get to the point where I can do 10 pull-ups

                                                            iii.      Review my common sense prior project

                                                           iv.      Share my productivity procedures with others

View more: Prev | Next