And only coincidentally signalling that his status is worth more than a million dollars.

tree structures are useful for their ability to create junk drawers that don't clutter up the rest of your lists (among many other benefits of course). tangent: I have to thank LW user fiddlemath for pointing out during an argument mapping talk that you can maintain strict tree structure with more complex structures involving cross-connections simply via repetition. I'm now using tree structures for more organization.

Making a separate reply so you get an orange envelope. I just reread this, and it isn't really conducive to summarization. I'd read the whole thing, it's worth it. It's what got me to really start noticing subtle rationalizations and subtle avoidant behaviors in myself and others. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/06/amy_schumer_offers_you_a_look.html

There's a cell with directions on the spreadsheet. But essentially yes. Part of the appeal is that it takes less than 5 minutes.

This is also a reminder for me that I should really turn it into an infographic or at least make a more complete blogpost.

Placeholder, cant post efficiently from phone. A fascinating foray into the apology phase by The Last Psychiatrist, I'll post a link and summary later when able.

Awesome, this is worth its own post IMO.

tangent: System 1 seems to control how "profound", and thus likely-to-apply-in-the-future, any given concept feels. Venkatesh Rao has written a piece on this I can't find right now, but the gist was that we glom onto concepts that allow more efficient mental organization. For example discovering that two phenomenon we thought were separate are actually sub-cases of some more basic phenomenon. An important point is that we do this speciously, as our pattern recognition is overactive (it is worth false alarms when checking for leopards). This predicts wide ranging failures such as religion, policy wonkery, conspiracy theories, etc.

Anyway, the point is that my process for finding, evaluating, and adding such concepts to my permanent repository of cognitive tools is not well defined and this bothers me. I've tried explicitly adding concepts to my permanent toolbox without being positive they will be helpful, for example when I used Anki (spaced repetition software) to help remember biases and fallacies. I found it hard to stick with this even though it did in fact seem to help me notice when making specific errors more. So I guess what I'm basically asking is why aren't we spending a lot more time improving the checklist of rationality habits, especially via empiricism.

This is an application of opportunity cost?

Related: although many distributions are normal, It seems that people often assume an unfamiliar distribution must be either normal or uniform. Multimodal in particular seems to be an oft neglected possibility.

The idea that blood pressure is an adequate proxy for overall health is highly dubious and I wouldn't draw conclusions about longevity from it. Even if the inference was valid blood pressure is notoriously unreliable because it is affected by so many variables.