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

Comment author: compartmentalization 08 June 2015 10:30:46PM 0 points [-]

This is the reason I have mixed feelings about making predictions of events that I can influence. I'm curious whether there is any research about this 'jinxing' - does predicting low chances of success at a task make people less likely to succeed? Or (maybe) the opposite?

Comment author: Peacewise 04 July 2015 08:37:45PM 0 points [-]

re compartmentalization question about 'jinxing'.

I have some experience and knowledge in this subject from a sports science perspective.

It's commonly accepted within sport psychology that first, negativity, is associated with predicting low chances of success, and secondly that those who do display negativity and predict low chance of success decrease their own performance.

For example, a well coached basketball player at the free throw line would be aware that saying "I'm going to miss this free throw" increases their chances of missing the free throw. Note now that "well coached" implies including psychological training as a component of a wider training program.

One source for you compartmentalization, to dig a little deeper is...

"Krane and Williams concluded that a certain psychological profile appears to be correlated with peak performance for most athletes. More specifically, this ideal mind/body state consists of the following: (a) feelings of high self-confidence and expectations of success, (b) being energized yet relaxed, (c) feeling in control,(d) being totally concentrated, (e) having a keen focus on the present task, (f) having positive attitudes and thoughts about performance, and (g) being strongly determined and committed. Conversely, the mental state typically associated with poorer performances in sport seems to be marked by feelings of self-doubt, lacking concentration, being distracted, being overly focused on the competition outcome or score, and feeling overly or under aroused. While acknowledging that this ideal mind/body state is highly idiosyncratic, Krane and Williams concluded that for most athletes, the presence of the right mental and emotional state just described is associated with them performing to their potential." Harmison, R. J. (2006). Peak performance in sport: Identifying ideal performance states and developing athletes' psychological skills. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(3), 233-243. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.37.3.233

Comment author: Peacewise 27 June 2015 05:44:14AM 1 point [-]

Microsoft Outlook Business Contact Manager provides ways forward to utilising prediction. Within its Task scheduling one has opportunity to estimate what percentage of the set task is already completed. Also how long the task will take is estimated by the user.

I find B.C.M highly useful for focusing prediction and task achievement.

Comment author: Peacewise 14 May 2015 09:50:45AM 2 points [-]

Hi people, I just wanted to say thank you to the LessWrong community for exposing me to the concept of "bayesian probability". Apparently human motor programs function in a bayesian way, with each movement prior predicted including predicted sensory feedback of said movement, which enables a comparison of prediction with perceived reality. Pretty cool.

Learned of the observational evidence supporting random practice over blocked practiced as they relate to motor learning and retention, 14/5/2015.

Wrote a new lesson plan for my squash juniors, based upon the aforementioned idea of random practice, which I offer freely to LW.

Squash training, psuedorandom 1. Serve from right 2. Move to t 3. Chase own ball 4. Serve from left 5. Chase own ball 6. Throw ball with left hand to front wall right side 7. Play forehand drop shot 8. Move to T 9. Gather ball 10. Move to t 11. Throw ball to front wall, left side 12. Play backhand drop shot 13. Move to t 14. 1 push-up 15. Gather ball 16. Move to t 17. Throw ball to left wall softly. 18. Play a backhand drive deep 19. 1 squat 20. Gather ball 21. Move to t 22. Throw ball to right wall softly 23. Play a forehand drive deep 24. 1 lunge 25. Gather ball 26. Rest, drink, provoke THINK. 27. Move to front left court with ball n racket. 28. Play a backhand cross court, like a serve. 29. Move to t 30. Do a split step jump 31. Gather ball 32. Move to front right 33. Play a backhand cross court, like a serve. 34. Move to t 35. 1 situp 36. Gather ball 37. Move to front right. 38. Play a forehand cross court, like a serve. 39. Move to t 40. 1 one legged swan pose, 5 seconds 41. Gather ball 42. Move to front left 43. Play a forehand cross court, like a serve 44. Move to t 45. Balance racket on one finger, 5 seconds. 46. Gather ball 47. Move to t 48. Throw ball to right wall softly with non racket hand 49. Play forehand boast 50. Move to t 51. Gather ball 52. Move to t 53. Throw ball to left wall softly 54. Play backhand boast 55. Move to t 56. Do right side plank, 5 seconds. 57. Gather ball 58. Move to t 59. Do left side plank, 5 seconds. 60. Rest, drink, provoke THINK. 61. NOTE TIME TO DO 59 tasks. Repeat

Implemented an approximation of the above program in today's session, after explaining why the changes are occurring. I observed that the young athletes were more enthused.

Comment author: tomme 14 March 2012 08:38:03PM *  2 points [-]

Nonfiction because: my faulty brain sometimes mistakes fiction for reality(e.g., I used to believe that Santa is real) and cognitive economy - there is a finite amount of knowledge I can store, so I would rather make sure it's accurate, truthful, useful knowledge.

Comment author: Peacewise 13 April 2012 03:44:55AM 0 points [-]

tomme, welcome to lesswrong, gday I'm Peacewise.

re

I used to believe that Santa is real

Fair crack mate, "Santa" is a standard fiction/lie perpetrated by society and parents, hardly something to be used as evidence of a "faulty brain". In fact its more likely to be evidence that your brain was and is functioning in a developmentally normal state.

I suggest you reconsider your position on fiction, since you state

so I would rather make sure it's accurate, truthful, useful knowledge

there is indeed plenty of accurate, truthful and useful knowledge within the realm of fiction. Shakespeare has plenty of accurate and useful knowledge about the human condition, just to give you one counter example. "Out damned spot, out " by lady Macbeth is an example of how murder and the guilt caused by the act of murder affects the human mind. (Macbeth, Act 5, scene 1.) Lady Macbeth cannot get the imagined blood stains off her hands after committing murder.

Humans are subjective creatures, by experimenting with fiction you'll be looking into the human condition, by avoiding fiction you are dismissing a large subset of truth - for truth is subjective as well as objective.

Comment author: Larks 17 March 2012 03:00:51AM 1 point [-]

reduced levels of violence in society? e.g. the reverse of this slippery slope

Comment author: Peacewise 17 March 2012 03:33:41AM 0 points [-]

Seems to me that rationalism as a living ideal is a slippery slope with a positive outcome. Once someone takes the initial steps to use rationalism, they then seek to learn more about rationalism, they practice it more and they become more effective and efficient at utilising it. That looks like a slippery slope to me, but obviously one that has a different outcome type than a traditional negative outcome orientated slippery slope.

Comment author: Peacewise 20 February 2012 07:09:42AM -2 points [-]

Well done, you've rephrased S.M.A.R.T.E.R goal setting into you're own language... and that's cool, cause that's a part of learning.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 22 January 2012 06:45:40AM *  12 points [-]

I consider myself lucky, because making money is what I intrinsically want to do due to all the turn-based strategy games I played as an adolescent. Fuzzy life goals like "find what you like and make a career out of it" don't really appeal to me--in practice, what I like has changed too often historically, and besides, there's nothing to optimize and no rules to game!

Alpha Centauri is an almost perfect example of a computer game that teaches optimizer thinking:

http://www.amazon.com/Meiers-Alpha-Centauri-Alien-Crossfire-Expansion/dp/B003NMA3DG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327214061&sr=8-1

Unlike the civilization series, the designers decided that since the game was based in the future, they would throw in all kinds of crazy stuff. This gives a big advantage to players who read through the entire manual and develop strategies like "I won't have to deal with drones if I build punishment spheres everywhere, but then I won't have any scientific research. So I'll have to probe the hell out of the other factions in order to steal their advances. Hm, the Believers would be perfect for this, since they're terrible at science but that won't matter." My brother and I have spent hours talking about the game and bouncing strategies like this one off each other. Did I mention that it's insanely fun and addictive?

Comment author: Peacewise 22 January 2012 04:42:43PM 5 points [-]

I played Alpha Centauri for a few weeks back when it came out, ended up going back to Civilisation, more out of habit I suppose than anything else. These days I'm playing Civilisation IV Beyond the Sword.

What is interesting about being taught optimizer thinking within a computer game is that if that thinking stays within the game, then it's not real world applicable as optimal. If however one stops playing the game and then takes the learned strategies applicable in the real world, into the real world - then gaming is useful, otherwise gaming is just entertainment. I love gaming, don't get me wrong - it's just that (simplistically) x hours of gaming translates into x hours of missed revenue/earnings in the real world, or x hours of real world knowledge unlearned.

Comment author: Peacewise 19 January 2012 06:18:02PM *  1 point [-]

In my judgement ABrooks was not trolling, and instead raised a point of view that experience on LW encouraged me to consider.

I think it is true that some members of LW, on some occasions do believe they are justified in expressing contempt for the beliefs of outsiders, sometimes this is done without expressing the justification, on other occasions the justification has been expressed and refuted yet the contempt remains and on yet other occasions the justification is reasonable. I leave the other branches of the scenario for the community to express at their convenience.

I don't however consider the LW community on the whole to be toxic to rationality as one cannot and shouldn't judge an entire community based upon isolated actions of a potential unrepresentative sample. I think the statement

Less Wrong is just a community that is on the whole, and despite it's best efforts and intentions, toxic to rationality

Is false, yet as one can see in my 2nd paragraph in this post, a change of the numbers from "on the whole" to "some members, some of the time" supports that the gist of the hypothesis deserves consideration, despite that I believe the original hypothesis is false.

Possibly a more succinct description of the issue under discussion is when an individuals self serving bias meets a groups group serving bias. The individual being an outsider.

When one considers that an aim of LW is the removal of biases, labelling a presentation of a possible group serving bias as a "troll" is not in the spirit - or vibe if you prefer - of LW. I do understand why one would want to not waste time on something as obviously false as the original hypothesis, yet I think that the updated hypothesis deserves consideration from members of the community.

Comment author: Peacewise 19 January 2012 07:10:26PM *  0 points [-]

What is quite interesting when reconsidering the original hypothesis of ABrook, is the taking into consideration of outsiders.

If outsiders strongly associate rationality with LW and LW is negatively perceived, then the original hypothesis has some weight.

Fortunately we have an outsider... that's me, and,

I do have some negative perceptions of LW, yet more fortunately for rationality a negative perception of LW is that I do not strongly associate LW with rationality. I presume some will appreciate the beautiful irony of this construct and further appreciate and then avoid the infinite spirals it produces.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 January 2012 09:40:15PM 1 point [-]

I've raised some objections to the (quite justifiable I suppose) impression that I might be trolling or committing the fallacy you name. You haven't responded to these, so I'll tap out for now.

Comment author: Peacewise 19 January 2012 06:18:02PM *  1 point [-]

In my judgement ABrooks was not trolling, and instead raised a point of view that experience on LW encouraged me to consider.

I think it is true that some members of LW, on some occasions do believe they are justified in expressing contempt for the beliefs of outsiders, sometimes this is done without expressing the justification, on other occasions the justification has been expressed and refuted yet the contempt remains and on yet other occasions the justification is reasonable. I leave the other branches of the scenario for the community to express at their convenience.

I don't however consider the LW community on the whole to be toxic to rationality as one cannot and shouldn't judge an entire community based upon isolated actions of a potential unrepresentative sample. I think the statement

Less Wrong is just a community that is on the whole, and despite it's best efforts and intentions, toxic to rationality

Is false, yet as one can see in my 2nd paragraph in this post, a change of the numbers from "on the whole" to "some members, some of the time" supports that the gist of the hypothesis deserves consideration, despite that I believe the original hypothesis is false.

Possibly a more succinct description of the issue under discussion is when an individuals self serving bias meets a groups group serving bias. The individual being an outsider.

When one considers that an aim of LW is the removal of biases, labelling a presentation of a possible group serving bias as a "troll" is not in the spirit - or vibe if you prefer - of LW. I do understand why one would want to not waste time on something as obviously false as the original hypothesis, yet I think that the updated hypothesis deserves consideration from members of the community.

Comment author: Peacewise 12 January 2012 03:09:18AM 0 points [-]

I'd like to attend via skype if someone cares to plonk an ipad or other skype activated device on the desk. my skype name is peace.wise and I live in Mount Barker, south australia.

Please contact me via LW before attempting to have me as a skype contact. I reject all skype contacts from people I don't know as a matter of course.

View more: Next