Comment author: HungryHobo 11 August 2016 11:44:48AM 1 point [-]

I remember having a similar discussion about HIV and anti-retroviral drugs.

In short, it's an easy position to take if you and the people you care about aren't currently in the firing line and making policy choices on assumptions about future discoveries that we can't guarantee is ethically problematic.

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 11 August 2016 01:51:26PM 0 points [-]

I agree with you 100%, and I'm not really advocating to put anything off based on my argument. I am merely bringing it up to address it properly, i.e. be aware when a trade-off is being made on this scale.

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 11 August 2016 09:16:34AM 0 points [-]

I am not ready to definitely accept the Kegan levels as a useful model because often it makes retrospective predictions. Rather than predictions of the future. A model is only as useful as what it can predict

OK, let's think about some predictions I can make from Kegan's model, about things I have no idea if they are true:

  1. There are significantly more people who go from caring emotionally about relations with colleagues at work to not caring, than the other way round.

  2. When adolescents become able to resist peer pressure, it is correlated with increased tendency to make commitments to themselves and others.

  3. In politicians who in their lifetimes change from being idealistic to being self-serving and calculated, we will observe a period of backing off from politics in the middle of the change.

  4. People who have trouble with social relationships, will also have trouble dealing with situations where the society formulated formal rules, but the optimal solution lies outside of those rules (such as law etc.).

I know that these are kind of vague, but that's what I could think of on the spot.

Non-Fiction Book Reviews

9 SquirrelInHell 11 August 2016 05:05AM

Time start 13:35:06

For another exercise in speed writing, I wanted to share a few book reviews.

These are fairly well known, however there is a chance you haven't read all of them - in which case, this might be helpful.

 

Good and Real - Gary Drescher ★★★★★

This is one of my favourite books ever. Goes over a lot of philosophy, while showing a lot of clear thinking and meta-thinking. Number one replacement for Eliezer's meta-philosophy, if it had not existed. The writing style and language is somewhat obscure, but this book is too brilliant to be spoiled by that. The biggest takeaway is the analysis of ethics of non-causal consequences of our choices, which is something that actually has changed how I act in my life, and I have not seen any similar argument in other sources that would do the same. This book changed my intuitions so much that I now pay $100 in counterfactual mugging without second thought.

 

59 Seconds - Richard Wiseman ★★★

A collection of various tips and tricks, directly based on studies. The strength of the book is that it gives easy but detailed descriptions of lots of studies, and that makes it very fun to read. Can be read just to check out the various psychology results in an entertaining format. The quality of the advice is disputable, and it is mostly the kind of advice that only applies to small things and does not change much in what you do even if you somehow manage to use it. But I still liked this book, and it managed to avoid saying anything very stupid while saying a lot of things. It counts for something.

 

What You Can Change and What You Can't - Martin Seligman ★★★

It is a heartwarming to see that the author puts his best effort towards figuring out what psychology treatments work, and which don't, as well as builiding more general models of how people work that can predict what treatments have a chance in the first place. Not all of the content is necessarily your best guess, after updating on new results (the book is quite old). However if you are starting out, this book will serve excellently as your prior, on which you can update after checking out the new results. And also in some cases, it is amazing that the author was right about them 20 years ago, and mainstream psychology is STILL not caught up (like the whole bullshit "go back to your childhood to fix your problems" approach, which is in wide use today and not bothered at all by such things as "checking facts").

 

Thinking, Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman ★★★★★

A classic, and I want to mention it just in case. It is too valuable not to read. Period. It turns out some of the studies the author used for his claims have been later found not to replicate. However the details of those results is not (at least for me) a selling point of this book. The biggest thing is the author's mental toolbox for self-analysis and analysis of biases, as well concepts that he created to describe the mechanisms of intuitive judgement. Learn to think like the author, and you are 10 years ahead in your study of rationality.

 

Crucial Conversations - Al Switzler, Joseph Grenny, Kerry Patterson, Ron McMillan ★★★★

I have almost dropped this book. When I saw the style, it reminded me so much of the crappy self-help books without actual content. But fortunately I have read on a litte more, and it turns out that even while the style is the same in the whole book and it has litte content for the amount of text you read, it is still an excellent book. How is that possible? Simple: it only tells you a few things, but the things it tells you are actually important and they work and they are amazing when you put them into practice. Also on the concept and analysis side, there is precious little but who cares as long as there are some things that are "keepers". The authors spend most of the book hammering the same point over and over, which is "conversation safety". And it is still a good book: if you get this one simple point than you have learned more than you might from reading 10 other books.

 

How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big - Scott Adams ★★★

I don't agree with much of the stuff that is in this book, but that's not the point here. The author says what he thinks, and also he himself encourages you to pass it through your own filters. Around one third of the book, I thought it was obviously true; another one third, I had strong evidence that told me the author made a mistake or got confused about something; and the remaining one third gave me new ideas, or points of view that I could use to produce more ideas for my own use. This felt kind of like having a conversation with any intelligent person you might know, who has different ideas from you. It was a healthy ratio of agreement and disagreement, such that leads to progress for both people. Except of course in this case the author did not benefit, but I did.

 

Time end: 14:01:54

Total time to write this post: 26 minutes 48 seconds

Average writing speed: 31.2 words/minute, 169 characters/minute

The same data calculated for my previous speed-writing post: 30.1 words/minute, 167 characters/minute

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 11 August 2016 04:23:58AM *  1 point [-]

Yes; this approach is helpful and I do this too.

I would however add that a slight "nudge" is often not enough when it matters. You will reach to the back of the shelf, and eat the cookie.

In the end, there is not much that works except for not having any cookies in your house.

But what if you really care to do this right?

Then, I say, buy 1000 cookies. Then shout in a loud voice, "I WILL NEVER EAT A COOKIE AGAIN." Then dump the 1000 cookies in the garbage can. And do a happy dance, and repeat 50 times "I WILL NEVER EAT A COOKIE AGAIN".

Silly? Yes.

Works? Yes.

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 10 August 2016 02:43:52AM 2 points [-]

If we are talking about PCs, then mounting filesystems read only is a killer: https://sites.google.com/site/linuxpendrive/rorootfs

Comment author: Lumifer 09 August 2016 04:54:13PM 2 points [-]

you can't oppose them short of persistently starving yourself (which ruins your health).

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?

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 10 August 2016 02:39:46AM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 09 August 2016 05:25:16AM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 08 August 2016 01:40:20AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Bound_up 04 August 2016 04:06:38PM 0 points [-]

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?

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 05 August 2016 02:36:35AM 0 points [-]

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).

In response to Motivated Thinking
Comment author: SquirrelInHell 04 August 2016 05:01:23AM *  1 point [-]

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?".

View more: Prev | Next