Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 05 October 2013 01:52:28PM 5 points [-]

If you ask a Software Architect which database technology you should use

Well, it depends on the architect, I suppose. I would say "write your application in a modular way so that it doesn't rely on specific features of the underlying database, and if you need to make exceptions to this principle, make sure the relevant code sections and dependencies are well highlighted and documented."

Comment author: SatvikBeri 09 October 2013 06:57:04PM 1 point [-]

Good call. This is a great example of how sometimes experts can even point out that you're thinking at the wrong level of abstraction, and provide a better one.

Comment author: Dagon 07 October 2013 05:57:02PM 4 points [-]

Note that the comparison (more to do with X than Y) isn't very helpful for cases where X and Y are not exclusive, and/or related. For this particular topic, the quality and quantity of work in many fields has a direct effect on your ability to negotiate for salary (for three reasons: your actual ability to positively impact the business, your confidence in asking for what you're worth, and your (prospective) employer's comfort level in treating you differently from your nominal peers).

Also, 5 minutes of salary negotiation is bull crap. There is no excuse not to spend dozen hours of research and have multiple 30 minute conversations every year or two. Of course, you should put the same level of thought and effort into other areas of job-satisfaction (commute, hours, duties, etc.) as well.

Comment author: SatvikBeri 08 October 2013 11:55:33PM 2 points [-]

Note that the comparison (more to do with X than Y) isn't very helpful for cases where X and Y are not exclusive, and/or related.

I find it helpful to model salary as

(value contributed) X (percentage extracted through negotiation)

in most cases. For a huge swathe of people a marginal hour in negotiation is worth much more than a marginal hour in contributing value. And "a marginal hour invested in Y produces more than a marginal hour in Z" is very useful information.

Also, 5 minutes of salary negotiation is bull crap. There is no excuse not to spend dozen hours of research and have multiple 30 minute conversations every year or two. Of course, you should put the same level of thought and effort into other areas of job-satisfaction (commute, hours, duties, etc.) as well.

I agree that you should be willing to spend a lot of time on negotiation, but would like to clarify that investing even an hour is often exceptionally valuable.

Comment author: Bakkot 07 October 2013 03:51:07PM *  7 points [-]

I'm told, and quite willing to believe, that your salary has more to do with the five minutes of salary negotiation than the next several years of work. I am also told that salary negotiation is very much a skill.

As such, it seems it would be worth a fairly substantial amount of time and money to practice and/or get coaching in this skill. Is this done? That is, how likely am I to be able to find someone, preferably someone who has worked on the business end of salary negotiation at somewhere like Google, who I can pay to practice salary negotiation with?

ETA: I've read extensively about how to negotiate (though of course there's always something more). What I'm interested in is practice.

Comment author: SatvikBeri 08 October 2013 09:42:43PM *  9 points [-]

Referrals are the best source for finding someone involved in negotiation at a specific company. I believe that Google has HR negotiate salaries, so if you know any Googlers, asking them to introduce you to someone in HR will probably work.

If you haven't done so already, you can get ~80% of the value here just by practicing with a random friend playing the role of hiring manager. As you mentioned, most of the value is in ingraining the behaviors through practice, not in the extra knowledge you get. So you don't necessarily need a specialist for this.

If you are interested in Effective Altruism (donate 10% or more of your income or work at an EA organization) then I would be happy to help. I have successfully negotiated 80%+ raises before, and taught 7 people to negotiate with average results of 30% or more raises. About half of the teaching was role-played practice. Feel free to email me at satvik.beri@gmail.com .

In response to comment by [deleted] on How to Become a 1000 Year Old Vampire
Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 03 October 2013 05:45:56AM *  5 points [-]

My particular goal is get enough power to save the world, which does sometimes disagree with maximum vampire-mode.

Maybe instead of thinking in 1000-year-old vampire terms for this, it's better to think in intelligence explosion terms. For example, let's say you have a list of goals you want to accomplish. One is get more sleep, which you expect, among other things, to improve your focus. Another is meditate intensely for 10 minutes every day, which you expect, among other things, to improve your willpower. Each of these goals helps to some degree with the other. If you had a lot of goals that all improved your capacity to work towards the other goals, and improved your capacity in general, then you could potentially see exponential growth in your ability to do things. (Some of your goals should probably be object-level though, because it's good to intermix self-improvement goals with object-level goals to see if you are actually building the kind of capacities you need.)

But lets say that you've tried and failed at both the meditation and sleep goals in the past. In that case, you are having a hard time getting the exponential growth cycle started, and you're probably better off taking things from another angle, kind of like a game of sudoku. So develop and test a hypothesis about why your meditation goal failed, or read up on strategies people have to overcome whatever problem you think you were having. Or alternatively, try to find the small capacity-building thing that you think is quite likely to stick for the long term, and try to achieve it so you can gain a toehold. Then celebrate and attempt the capacity-building thing that you think is the next hardest to get to stick, etc. This also doubles as establishing a success spiral and builds the ability to maintain commitments to yourself (and is also kaizen).

Probably the easiest sort of "toehold" to establish is just to start learning more about yourself. Read up on ugh fields, reinforcement, and stuff like it. Maybe spill your guts to a friend, or start keeping a productivity diary... every entry you make has a small expected self-knowledge gain. Basically try to get as much insight as you can in to yourself, because self-knowledge is an irreversible capacity gain (unlike, say, a habit, which, once lost, will have to be re-established).

(I'm sure I'm not the only one who's wondered if the effective altruist community is best off overtly telling everyone we are focused on things like Givewell, MIRI, etc. but covertly choosing to focus most of our resources on capacity-building, knowing that the goals we've set for ourselves are big enough that they aren't going to be realistically accomplished with our current cohort.)

Comment author: SatvikBeri 08 October 2013 05:21:30PM 2 points [-]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's wondered if the effective altruist community is best off overtly telling everyone we are focused on things like Givewell, MIRI, etc. but covertly choosing to focus most of our resources on capacity-building, knowing that the goals we've set for ourselves are big enough that they aren't going to be realistically accomplished with our current cohort.

I don't think deception is even necessary here. Leverage Research is basically openly telling people they're focused on capacity building and making humans smarter & more capable, and CFAR seems to be doing the same thing from a different angle.

Comment author: Dorikka 05 October 2013 03:43:40AM 2 points [-]

Is the referenced book useful if I'd like to know more about the subject?

Comment author: SatvikBeri 05 October 2013 01:47:15PM 1 point [-]

Somewhat. It's a comprehensive study with a lot of good facts on expertise. But the the method is something I came up with and haven't seen elsewhere. So you may have to spend a significant chunk of time thinking about the implications of these facts in order to derive something useful.

In response to How do you say no?
Comment author: SatvikBeri 04 October 2013 05:22:06PM 0 points [-]

I'm fairly good at saying no. I would consider myself unusually productive, but not unusually busy...because I'm fairly good at saying no.

    • At work if a boss asks me to do something that seems interesting but where I don't have time, I'll say something like "I currently have too much on my plate to handle X. These are my priorities, should I drop something to do X?" For example, I recently used this when I was asked to do some market research but didn't have time.
  1. If they ask me to do something I'm not interested, I'll say "I'm not very good at X, but (person B) is. I'd be happy to take something off their plate if they can handle X." I recently used this when asked to do several programming tasks I wasn't particularly interested in or good at.

  2. If the boss insists on me doing X that I'm not interested in, or on getting everything done, I'll say something like "I can handle it this time as a special case, but we need to work out a different solution going forward."

  3. If a friend asks me I'm much more blunt-I'll explicitly say that I'm not really interested. E.g. one of my friends recently asked me to help organize an event, and I told them I really dislike logistics work.

Overall in all of these situations I felt slightly guilty. I like being helpful and would prefer to contribute.

  1. I receive a lot of requests, so I default to rejecting responsibilities. I generally accept them only if they seem particularly interesting or valuable.

  2. Less empathetic/compassionate than average

  3. Yes. Mostly I just learned political skills so that I could say no politely.

How to Learn from Experts

32 SatvikBeri 04 October 2013 05:02PM

The key difference between experts and beginners is the quality of their abstractions. Masters of a field mentally organize information in a way that's relevant to the tasks at hand. Amateurs may know as many facts and details as experts but group them in haphazard or irrelevant ways.

For example, experienced Bridge players group cards by suit, then number. They place the most importance on the face cards and work down. Bridge amateurs group solely by number and place equal importance on all numbers. Professional firemen group fires by how the fire was started and how fast it’s spreading-features they use to contain the fire. Novices group fires by brightness and color. Both have the same information, but the firemen hone in on the useful details faster.1

Learn abstractions from masters. If you ask a Software Architect which database technology you should use, circumstances will eventually change and you'll need to ask them again and pay them again. But if you ask the Architect to teach you how to choose a database then you can adapt to changing circumstances. Ideally you should emerge with a clear set of rules-something like a flow-chart for that decision. A good example is this article on whether you should use hadoop. Clear criteria let you make a high-quality decision by focusing on the relevant details.

After talking to the expert you can write up the flow-chart or criteria and send it to them to get their opinion. This ensures you understood what the expert was trying to say, and lets you get additional details they might add. Most importantly it gives them something valuable to share with people seeking similar advice, so you're able to add value to their lives as a thank you for their advice. 

Caveats to this method:

  • In some domains there are details only professionals know. Academic research has a secret paper-passing network with ideas known to top researchers 1-2 years before they’re published. So you need to be in constant contact with these experts and hear the details from them. However, this typically only matters if you’re aiming to become a top-class expert yourself. 
  • Experts aren’t always conscious of the abstractions they use. They’ll say one thing and do another. So you should ask them to guide you through a specific situation and ask them several questions about how their decision would change if some conditions are different.
  • You may not have a specific question you want answered-you might want to find “unknown unknowns.” In that case ask the expert for stories-things they did that made a big difference. Then analyze those situations to figure out what criteria they used. 

Comment author: Brillyant 03 October 2013 07:37:36PM -1 points [-]

Suggestion for new post title: Beeminder (or StickK) Can Help You

The post doesn't seem to be about lucky breaks. And it apparently isn't specifically about learning.

The crux seems to be that a systematic approach to incorporating things that work can improve your life. I concur.

Comment author: SatvikBeri 03 October 2013 11:24:01PM 0 points [-]

The responses I've received suggest that the phrase "systematic lucky breaks" resonates with a lot of people. But I think it would be helpful if you were to take the Beeminder/StickK idea and write a post specifically on that topic. And it would probably resonate with a segment of Less Wrong for whom my post doesn't work.

Comment author: Brillyant 03 October 2013 06:49:02PM 0 points [-]

People frequently refer to one-off positive events as "lucky breaks", which is why I used that phrase. But I don't care about the word luck specifically. The point of the post is to take one-off positive events or things that worked unexpectedly well and make them happen repeatedly and automatically.

Noted.

Very few people respond to an unexpected positive event with "now I'll set up a system to make this happen repeatedly."

I'm not sure how a "game night" qualifies as an "unexpected positive event". Surely game makers are aware that games are positive experiences for people...

Humans are generally good at repeatedly doing things that they intentionally tried and worked well, but not good at spotting the things that happened without effort on their part, but which could be copied and repeated.

...and I don't know that this is the case. Can you give an example of how people are "generally not good at this"?

It seems to me people (pretty commonly) intentionally incorporate things that work into their lives, and do so on an recurring schedule. You happen (luckily or not) upon something you enjoy/is helpful/is profitable/just works and you make it a part of your life.

Isn't that the basis for how most people spend their time? Isn't that just called "learning" and putting what you learn into practice? If not, can you explain the difference between what you are proposing and learning what works and then doing what you learn?

Comment author: SatvikBeri 03 October 2013 07:17:23PM 1 point [-]

Thanks for raising these points.

...and I don't know that this is the case. Can you give an example of how people are "generally not good at this"?

You gave one yourself in your previous comment-you mentioned that you should talk to experts more. That suggests to me that you have not set up a system to repeatedly ensure that you talk to experts when it would be helpful.

Anyway, the post is a nice reminder to reach out to an expert so I am going to try do do that today.

The approach I suggest would be to set up a system to do this repeatedly, not just once. For example, you could set up a Beeminder task or calendar reminder to reach out to an expert every week.

Isn't that the basis for how most people spend their time? Isn't that just called "learning" and putting what you learn into practice? If not, can you explain the difference between what you are proposing and learning what works and then doing what you learn?

Learning what works and doing what you learn is an obviously good thing, my approach is one way of implementing that. Focusing on "lucky breaks" redirects your attention to things that have worked for you before which you haven't already systematized-in your case, reaching out to experts. Focusing on making them systematic places the burden to do those things outside yourself, e.g. by using motivational tools such as Beeminder.

Comment author: Brillyant 03 October 2013 03:41:23PM 2 points [-]

What do the examples have to do with "luck"? Each example seems to be more about paying attention to the circumstances in your present situation and then making a choice. If those choices yield good results, maybe you make them again. If those choices have less than good results, stop making them.

My understanding of luck is a situation where the circumstances "break" in your favor regardless of your attention or intention, or even in opposition to most likely outcome. (e.g. I was lucky not to get injured when X happened and many poeple around me were injured.)

What I see described in this post is something much closer to my concept of "common sense".

...

Note:

This post reminds me of aspects of a recent discussion on LW.

I'm confused as to why people are voting it up. It is a nice reminder to do stuff you enjoy, ask for help and pay attention to trends, and I'm not disagreeing with it's rating per se... but I'm sincerely interested as to why, at the time of my comment, this post has drawn the apparent acclaim that it has compared to say, this post or this one (the latter post I also think is rather nice-but-obvious).

Do people at LW know and really like the author of this post?

Is there some very valuable and novel aspect to the content I am overlooking?

Are people upvoting because they simply say, "This is generally true"?

Anyway, the post is a nice reminder to reach out to an expert so I am going to try do do that today. (Because the "systematic luck" I've observed in my life comes from not simply reading good advice, but incorporating it by actually doing.)

But I do think this post is a good example of the gaps created by the current "like/don't like" rating format and inferential slience that exists in the comment system.

Comment author: SatvikBeri 03 October 2013 04:21:34PM *  6 points [-]

What do the examples have to do with "luck"?

At least 2 of the initial occurrences-the game night working so well and happening to hear about an important market trend-were not caused by any deliberate action on my part. They were basically random and unexpected. Systematizing them and making them continue to happen was not luck, but that's the point of the post.

My understanding of luck is a situation where the circumstances "break" in your favor regardless of your attention or intention, or even in opposition to most likely outcome. (e.g. I was lucky not to get injured when X happened and many poeple around me were injured.)

People frequently refer to one-off positive events as "lucky breaks", which is why I used that phrase. But I don't care about the word luck specifically. The point of the post is to take one-off positive events or things that worked unexpectedly well and make them happen repeatedly and automatically.

What I see described in this post is something much closer to my concept of "common sense". Is there some very valuable and novel aspect to the content I am overlooking?

Most people don't respond to positive events by setting them up to happen automatically and repeatedly in their lives. The lesson is not "do things you enjoy", it's "take something that worked really well and set it up so that it happens consistently without conscious effort on your part."

Very few people respond to an unexpected positive event with "now I'll set up a system to make this happen repeatedly." Humans are generally good at repeatedly doing things that they intentionally tried and worked well, but not good at spotting the things that happened without effort on their part, but which could be copied and repeated. The game night is again a good example-I didn't set up the initial game night, somebody else did. But I noticed that I enjoyed the game night a lot and got a lot of value out of it, so I set up a repeating game night at my apartment every two weeks.

I encourage people to focus on the "lucky breaks", because those are common blind spots. Another important factor was taking a systematic approach ("let's set up a repeating biweekly game night") as opposed to an effortful approach ("I should attend more game nights.")

View more: Prev | Next