A human body has very strong mechanisms that regulate your food intake, and you can't oppose them short of persistently starving yourself (which ruins your health).
So in practice "how much you eat" is not a factor in weight loss, but "how much food your body is regulated to want" is.
Note that with a goal to eliminate a species completely, the longer you wait to get experience and perfected technology, the better.
A major screw up in such a case would be some random factor, mutation etc. preventing us from wiping all mosquitoes, and leaving a group that would be resistant to current gene-drive technology.
I don't know enough about gene-drives to suggest how it might happen - but the point is that there are always "unknown unknowns".
That smaller group would then quickly spread and replace the previous population, and would be harder to deal with.
Repeat a few times, and you have gradually nudged the population of mosquitoes to be resistant to our attempts to eliminate it.
It's possible that waiting longer and using a better technology in the first strike, would have solved the problem cleanly.
Hmm, so the map/territory distinction?
That's a good one.
Some of mine ARE object-level, but there aren't just ANY object-level ones. They focus on teaching you how to discern between real and fake evidence, I guess...
Are you just referring to map/territory, or is there more to it than that?
Are you just referring to map/territory, or is there more to it than that?
It is slightly - the "map/territory" is a view from the epistemology side, while the "your mind as a cockpit" frame which I like includes all executive functions (including belief-formation).
I like your mnemonics idea, though the part "Self-deprecation and Conceit" seems a little bit forced. Maybe make them rhyme or something else instead.
I think it's one of the most important things to teach someone about rationality (any other suggestions? Confirmation bias, placebo, pareidolia, and the odds of coincidences come to mind...)
The things that come to your mind are object-level skills. However I'd say that the most important thing to teach is the meta-skill of dissociation - looking at your thoughts as a machine with some properties, and controlling this machine from the "outside".
In other words, intuitively noticing that thinking something about X is not a fact about X, but a fact about your thoughts.
Having this habit that when you think X, you also automatically think "hmm, I seem to be thinking X, what do I make of it?".
Let me give some feedback about your writing style, which I find consistently cryptic. You tend to describe your thoughts starting in the middle and giving the context later, or skipping it altogether. E.g. the fist sentence reads
I find myself more and more interested in how the concept of "systematized winning" can be applied to a large group of people who have one thing in common, and that not even time, but - in my own very personal case - ...
Until this point, a context like "biology research" etc. does not appear anywhere, and a "large group of people who have one thing in common" could be all people who like ice cream. It is of course possible to decipher what you mean, but by writing in reverse order you make it unnecessarily hard.
~~~
Possibly, a part of the problems you are describing could be solved by storing all the raw data that is collected during research, not just conclusions. In some cases, the amount of data might pose technological problems, but humanity's capacity to store information cheaply is increasing very quickly. So we can just let the future generations analyse the data by themselves, if they care to do so.
Update:
Was I able to use the app successfully to increase my tasks by 50%? No. But I wont blame it on the app.
I found that manually clicking next day was something I did not like. The temptation to delay clicking it and catch up the next day is strong. If it were automatic I would have to live with the consequences of getting a bad score. Furthermore if you accidentally clicked next day before before updating other tasks, then too bad, you cant reverse. So for testing I made a few tasks and advanced it several days, but unless I reinstall the app, the date can not roll back for when I want to stop testing and use it for real.
There is no way to easily see your progress for the last few days. It would be nice to click on the task and see how you did recently or if I missed a few days to see when was the last time I did the task. Sure there is an export button but the data is hard to read if you just want to know quickly how you did recently.
Thanks a lot; I'll this it into account, and think how to improve this in next versions.
Though with the "next day" button, it would be a hard tradeoff - you might not have had this experience, but sometimes you travel and your timezone settings get messed up, or your phone's clock is reset etc. It's possible to design something that would avoid these problems, but it's a pretty big change in the internals of the app.
The temptation to delay clicking it and catch up the next day is strong.
This is surprising to me - the algorithm in the app makes it strictly easier to catch up when you click the button first, and then do the tasks rather than the other way around. Is it not enough incentive to make you want to click the button, rather than "cheat"?
I have also started a pursuit of learning useful concepts/models explicitly.
Some useful resources:
Cool, thanks! I didn't know about the third and the fourth.
After checking everything from comments here, I have enough material that it'll take me months to work through it all.
Also if you don't know it, Meaningness has some interesting remarks about formulating concepts and problem descriptions: http://meaningness.com/metablog/how-to-think#feynman-objects
it makes sense that the modern world needs "brotherhoods" (and "sisterhoods") less than ever.
... more than ever?
... more than ever?
If we assume that we are not more able to cope with those problems, we only fool ourselves that we are - then more. So it depends on how optimistic you are about the current society.
In any case this is not the first time when I realize that to make a concept more useful, I can adopt a definition that is similar, and yet crucially different, from the "common wisdom" one. One other example of this is my definition of mnemonic technique.
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/nqz/open_thread_jul_04_jul_10_2016/dcyy
This comment has a great link to a pretty big list of concepts.
Thanks, that's an awesome list. I'll work through it carefully.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Citation needed. We're not talking about anorexia, we're talking about, say, naturally 300 lbs people "persistently starving" themselves to 200 lbs. Would that ruin their health?
As far as I know, yes it would. In "What You Can Change and What You Can't" (which is not a perfect book, but it has some useful content), Seligman gives a reference to a study that actually found that losing weight in overweight middle-aged men made their health worse, not better.
Have you ever noticed that we have lots of evidence that slimmer people tend to be healthier, but not that losing weight makes you healthier? This is a subtle but very important difference.
I do not know any compelling evidence for the latter point. So my estimates are close to the prior, which is that starving yourself is going to at best change little, and at worst ruin your health.