However, making the question a little bit more complex ... and adding in why that fame really can add to the act -

How does it change your equation if that Policeman who saved the three prostitutes only became a policeman because he was inspired to do so by reading comic books about Superman saving 200 kids?

Inspiring others by your deeds, causing your actions to reflect against the world in a far greater effect than the deeds themselves would, I think, have quite an effect on the equation.

Very interesting post: but I wonder what counts as a 'habit'. 'Getting up at 5am for swimming three times a week' is very different to 'eating healthily', and I think they need to be distinguished. The first sort is more specific and rigid: you know WHAT you're meant to do and (more importantly?) you know WHEN you've failed to hit it.

As an example of these two kinds of habit:

I have tried to cut down drinking by 'drinking less' or 'only drinking when it's a particularly special occasion', and within weeks this went back to default of 'drinking when I wanted'. Ditto with 'eating less meat', 'eating healthier food' etc.

On the other hand, I have also had times of quite happily not drinking AT ALL, or not eating meat AT ALL: within a few weeks, I get to a point where I'm quite content with this, and only start drinking or eating meat because I've reached the end of the intended time of 'fasting' or because of more external events.

Now, I'm not sure whether the latter sort of habit is actually more sustainable or just easier to sustain right at the start - or possibly it depends on the purpose. For me, the absolute terms make the system feel external: I can't think my way round it and make excuses on individual cases.

Other people have the same experience?

Continuing other comment:

To take patrissimo's arguments on what makes something useful for self-improvement:

patrissimo says,

My version: Growth activities are Work, and hence feel like work, not fun"

I call foul. He tries to claim he's not being puritan, and not saying that growth is never fun, but then proceeds to dismiss fun in that "all use you could get out of it, you've probably already gotten." In essence stating that fun activities only helped you grow in the past, and to move towards the future, you have to be not-fun.

He also compares the experience of improving Instrumental Rationality with going to the gym. I suggest he misrepresents going to the gym. Going to the gym is fun. Or at least, it is fun for a lot of people. You engage in physical activity that stimulates endorphin flow, you watch TV, you engage in social behavior, and when you're done, you're left feeling relaxed and accomplished both. People do not just go to the gym to try to lose weight and enter hating the gym - there are people who are strongly in shape who go to the gym because they enjoy working out, they enjoy the physical stimulation and the social environment.

To that end, patrissimo sounds a little like one of the trainers at the gym walking into the weight room, watching people laugh and joke with each other while lifting weights or spotting each other, and remarking that they're obviously not exercising hard enough if they're having fun, and they need to figure out how to work harder.

He also says:

Meditation is a great example of an instrumental rationality practice: it is a boring, difficult isolation exercise for directing and noticing the direction of one's attention. It is Work."

And I greatly disagree with this. I find meditation to be satisfying and contenting, I find it to be helpful, and fun. If you are finding it boring, you are probably doing it wrong, or it is inappropriate for you.

Quite the opposite to the suggestion - while not an indicator, certainly, I think the most important aspects of a useful tool for self-improvement is that it IS fun. Things which are not fun are not attended to easily on a regular basis - if we try to force ourselves to do them anyway, then we are working against our basic nature. Proper self-control is not about stoically proceeding with unfun activities because it's in our best nature. Proper self-control is about refocusing our attention upon activities to recognize where they could be fun, or coming up with alternate activities which can achieve the same result which would be more enjoyable.

For example, everyone knows it's better to take the stairs than the escalator - but when you get right down to it, most people take the escalator anyway. However, if you add sensors and speakers to the stairs, so that taking the stairs creates musical reactions - turning the stairs into a giant walking piano - suddenly more people take the stairs, because the useful and beneficial activity has just become more fun. By taking a not-fun activity and turning it into a fun activity, you just made it a better tool.

For another example - exercise can, indeed, be boring. However, if you make your daily workout an exercise bike, and only allow yourself to play video games while you're on the exercise bike - then your video game exercise time becomes fun, and productive. What's more, you limit your video game time to your exercise time, helping prevent it from taking over your evening, so that when you get tired and achy, you walk away from the bike and the games, to go do more productive activities.

Goals are not about specific activities, but instead, specific results, and determining from those results - what are the best activities you can follow to achieve said results? And one of the qualities that you should use in judging those activities is: How easy will it be for me to repeat that activity on a regular basis?

So to example the six items:

1: I disagree with strongly, as explained above 2: I disagree with strongly, as explained above 3: Is relevant to the skill being developed.

Less Wrong is certainly relevant to the skills of improved rationality - whether it is relevant to the skill of improved Instrumental Rationality is really presupposing the result of the discussion.

4: Is not simply watching the skill being performed. 5: Requires effort and attention from the learner.

Some levels of using Less Wrong are nothing more than 'watching the skill being performed'. However, if you use Less Wrong properly, then the discussions or pursuing the research potentials of the site becomes 'performing the skill'. The very nature of being aware of it and trying to develop methods for yourself is a performance of the skill, even if the level of that skill is apprentice-level.

6: Often involves activities selected by a coach or teacher to facilitate learning.

IE: the sequences?

At any rate, I won't dispute that perhaps the site of Less Wrong is not goal-oriented towards patrissimo's own goals... but that does not mean it is not goal-oriented towards helping others develop their goals, nor in improving instrumental rationality. It just depends on how you use it and what your goals are.

But now you're just the crab trying to pull me back into the pot

Not at all. You are stating that you want to figure out how to improve the successes of the members of Less Wrong - but I think that tearing down the usefullness of Less Wrong, or decrying the having of fun as being opposed to development, is counterproductive to your goals. I know very well the phenomenon you speak of, and the basic nature of Less Wrong as a site is not likely the culprit - having fun is not the culprit, and the social activity of discussion over a myriad of subjects is not the culprit. Rather, simple human behavior is the culprit.

If you wish to improve people's Instrumental Rationality through Less Wrong, I would suggest that instead of writing an article about the problems of Less Wrong - you instead write an article containing your item #6: activities to facilitate learning. How can people use Less Wrong, in its current state, to improve their Instrumental Rationality? How can they use it to:

1: Identify their goals. How do they distinguish between 'goals' and 'activities'? How can they distinguish between good goals and bad goals? What literature is available for developing goals? 2: Set up plans for achieving their goals, and what skills will be needed for achieving goals. 3: Identify and avoid common problems in achieving their goals. 4: Practice the skills they need to achieve their goals.

Instead of saying Less Wrong is a 'bad tool', tell people how to use it better ... or 'less wrongly'.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm still new, still working through the sequences, which is taking me a while because the needs and requirements of accomplishing my goals in life has down-prioritized my reading through Less Wrong. A somewhat appropriate reason for this discussion.

I see an implied assumption in the article, and additionally outright stated in the comments, that Less Wrong needs to create results, that it needs to have more successes, or it should be accomplishing something in its existence.

I disagree. Less Wrong cannot create results, nor can it have successes. It is a passive site. The Less Wrong community would find it difficult to create results or successes, because even with the shared goal of 'increasing rationality', there is too much variation in the concept of what that means, and in the individual goals that aim towards that overall shared goal, for the community to be able to accurately track or develop results or successes.

The individual members of Less Wrong can create results, and have successes, and it is for these, I know, that patrissimo is writing. He wishes the members to develop their instrumental rationality, and fears that Less Wrong itself is a detrimental influence upon them.

What's more, we can also observe that the ability of Less Wrong to aid in Instrumental Rationality is dependent upon what goals you want Less Wrong to help you achieve. If one of your goals is increasing rationality, then it's VERY appropriate towards developing that goal. If one of your goals is 'spending less time on the internet', then it's very anti-achieving that goal. For the purposes of this discussion, let's say that we're trying to use Less Wrong to aid in the goal of improving our Instrumental Rationality, independent of what our other goals are.

That having been said, we can now distinguish between Less Wrong, and the Members of Less wrong. And to that end, no longer speaking of Less Wrong having successes, or having failures, we can observe that Less Wrong is a tool. Let us, then, examine what the qualities of this tool are.

1: The tool is passive. It is used only as much or in the manner that the reader uses it. 2: It has varying levels of use. Someone can browse it lightly, just picking and choosing the articles that interest them. Someone can read through it in a focused and directed manner, researching the ideas within. Someone can read and write to the comments, engaging in the discussions. Someone can become a major contributor, and write articles for the site. 3: It is a reference to other tools. It contains external links that suggest books, sites, activities, and the like - all of which are useful tools in and of themselves. 4: It is flexible. It can be used for a variety of purposes. It can be used for self-inspection, identifying flaws spoken about on the site. It can be used to aid in judging evidence and arguments presented to us in the world around us. It can be used for fun and social activity. And that discussion can be a practice in technique.

And my proposal would be that it is not anti-Instrumental Rationality - it is merely neutral, as any tool, and depends upon the reader using the site correctly.

I would present myself as an example of the contrary. Less Wrong has increased my Instrumental Rationality, even though I have not used it a lot. (You might argue because I have not used it a lot.) One of my goals is to become more rational - to develop and practice rationality. I was doing as well as I could, by myself, but was stymied, because many of the things I was trying to do were stuck in mental loops. I had the problem in that I suspected I could not be the first to think of the things I was thinking of, but didn't know where to go to research it, what books to read, which authors or philosophers to explore.

Within an hour of reading LessWrong, I found in the community the answers to those problems. I found that one of my biggest goals - trying to quantify and qualify the primary focuses of rational discussion - had already been done in Eliezer's 12 Virtues of Rationality. I found references to pursue, and discussions that illustrated both sides that I'd been trying to hold up to each other, myself.

I used Less Wrong as a resource, as a tool, which improved my time usage and helped me keep from having to figure a lot of stuff out, myself. And to that end, I call a success in Instrumental Rationality.

I am, sadly, too busy this weekend to make it. I would be coming down from Milwaukee, and very much hope to make the next meeting.

For prospective places to meet up, I am afraid that in Illinois, I have little experience. The only place i do know of is Ballydoyle Irish Pub and restaurant which is a nice place with several back rooms for parties which wish to have a more private meal and discussion.

I'd also like anything within easy walking distance of Ogilvie Transportation Center, making it easy to get there via the Metra, though within distance of any of the train stations connected to this would also be nice.

Anyhow, I think it's illuminating to be aware of what criteria actually go into one's judgments of Biblical interpretations. Your particular examples will vary.

Sounds like you've given this some serious thought and avoided all kinds of failure modes. While I disagree with you and think that there's probably an interesting discussion here, I agree that this probably isn't the place to get into it. Welcome to Less Wrong, and I hope you stick around.

I want to know what's true. Even if Christianity wasn't true, I've already found a great deal of Truth in its teachings for how to live life. The Bible, I feel, encourages a rational mindset, as much as many might think otherwise - to not use one's intellect to examine one's religion would be to reject many of Jesus' teachings.

Having been religious (in particular, a very traditionalist Catholic, more so than my parents by far)† for a good chunk of my life before averting to atheism a few years ago (as an adult), I would have agreed with you, but a bit uneasily. And now, I can't help but point out a distinction.

When you point to the Bible for moral light, you're really pointing to a relatively small fraction of the total text, and much of that has been given new interpretations†† that the original apostles didn't use.

Let's give an example: to pick a passage that's less emotionally charged and less often bruited about in this connection, let's consider the story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-42. People twist this every which way to make it sound more fair to Martha, when the simplest reading is just that Luke thought that the one best thing you could do with your life was to be an apostle, and wrote the episode in a way that showed this. Luke wasn't thinking about how the story should be interpreted within a large society where the majority are Christians going about daily business like Martha, because he expected the end times to come too soon for that society to be realized on Earth. He really, genuinely, wanted the reader to conclude that they should forget living like Martha††† if they possibly could, and imitate Mary instead.

Now, when faced with a passage like this, what do you prefer? The simpler interpretation which doesn't seem to help you as moral guidance? Or a more convoluted one which meshes with the way you think the truth should be lived in the world today? Which interpretation would you expect to find upheld in letters of the Church Fathers who lived before Rome converted? Which interpretation do you think was more likely for Luke?

And most importantly, if you're saying you're learning about moral truth from the Bible, but you're choosing your preferred interpretation of Scripture by aesthetic and moral criteria of the modern era, rather than criteria that are closer to the text and the history, why do you need the Scripture at all? Why not just state your aesthetic and moral principles and be done with it?

† Sorry for these distracting parentheticals, but I know the assumptions I'd have made had I read the unadorned account from someone else.

†† For one year at school, I took on the task of finding both Scripture readings and commentary from the Church Fathers to be read during a weekly prayer group. The latter task proved to be a lot harder than it seemed, because the actual content of typical passages from the Church Fathers is really foreign, and not in an inspiring way either. Augustine gets read today in schools as exemplar of Christian thought basically because he's the only Church Father of the Roman era who doesn't look completely insane on a straightforward reading of any full work.

††† There are places of honor in Luke and Acts for patrons who help the apostles, but they're rather clearly supporting roles, and less admirable than the miracle-working apostles themselves.

Not in response to anyone, but to this thread/topic.

Is this really something that should be on LessWrong? LessWrong is more about debate on new territory and rationality and such, not going to well-tread territory. There are many other places on the internet for debate on religion, but there's only one LW. Perhaps /r/atheism, (maybe being careful to say that you're honestly looking to challenge your beliefs and not test your faith.)

Unless there are new points that haven't been heard before, or people are genuinely interested in this specific debate.

Just not sure this is the right place, and want to hear other people's opinions on this.

1: The universe seems slanted towards Entropy. This suggests a 'start'. Which suggests something to start the universe. This of course has a great many logical fallacies inherent in it, but it's one element.

If this point is logically fallacious, why is it the foundation of your belief? Eliezer has addressed the topic, but that post focuses more on whether one should jump to the idea of God from the idea of a First Cause, which you do seem to have thought about. But why assume a First Cause at all?

On a slightly different tack, if Thor came down (Or is it up? My Norse mythology is a little rusty) from Valhalla, tossed some thunderbolts around, and otherwise provided various sorts of strong evidence to support his claim that he was the God of Thunder with all that that entails, would you then worship him? Or, to put it another way, is there some evidence that would make you change your mind?

(Apologies if I'm being too aggressive with my questions. You seem like good people, and I wouldn't want to drive you away.)