Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 07 February 2015 01:46:49AM *  20 points [-]

Type 4 problems have a wrinkle I've found interesting/useful once I identified it. Successfully executing on the strategy mentioned for Type 4 requires what I call self-trust. That is, the system breaks down if you form these agreements with yourself and then have a pattern of breaking them. This can happen regardless of the content of the conversation between System 1 and 2 you have at the time. It is not automatic to ask yourself a question like "what is my track record with this sort of agreement" and much more common to just model your future self as being more virtuous than your present self. Fortunately, I think this problem is amenable to a general counter-strategy that had positive spillover effects elsewhere in my life. Building self-trust can be done with offline training.

For those not familiar with the technique: Let's say you want to stop pressing the snooze button on your alarm clock, but like clockwork every morning you do. Instead of trying to train in the actual scenario you need the skill in you try training in an artificial situation. You lie down, set your alarm and practice getting up as soon as it goes off. You do this multiple times per training session until you have built a mental circuit for "getting up when alarm goes off." If all goes well you then find online execution easier.

So to circle back to building self-trust. You practice lots of pre-commitments in low stakes situations and make sure to reward yourself a lot (could just be internal rewards) when you succeed and don't punish yourself when you fail. You are building the mental circuits associated with "I do what I say I will do." After sufficient practice many things start becoming easier. The biggest spillover effect for me was that my internal selves started getting along much better when I could tell a sub-agent that I would attend to their needs later and have them actually believe it and calm down about the current situation. Eventually sub-agents stopped being so "grabby" about my attention.

BTW can we get Anna a time turner so she can post more? This is an excellent post.

Comment author: Suryc11 18 February 2015 07:37:46PM 1 point [-]

Good comment; I've noticed this myself. Fyi, in case you didn't know and might be interested, Nate Soares has written a few blog posts on this exact topic: Self-signaling the ability to do what you want and Productivity through self-loyalty.

Comment author: Suryc11 29 October 2014 09:26:09PM 29 points [-]

Took the survey! Some very interesting questions; I look forward to the analysis.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 26 June 2014 02:07:17AM 5 points [-]

The nastiness Viliam talks about is mostly in the form of trolling or making insulting statements with little semantic content. Lying of the type Arthur advocates goes beyond that since it injects false statements into the discussion and tends to result in one's side filling up with people who believe said lies and thus willing to lie further.

Comment author: Suryc11 26 June 2014 01:22:42PM 2 points [-]

Ah, okay. That makes sense, thanks.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 25 June 2014 03:56:14AM 4 points [-]

The disagreement wasn't just about tone. It was about Arthur Chu's willingness to lie for his cause. The only reason it appeared to be mostly about tone is that Yvain didn't make the strongest argument he could have.

Comment author: Suryc11 25 June 2014 08:07:15PM 1 point [-]

Hm, I'm confused. I agree that at least part of the disagreement was over Arthur's willingness to lie for his cause, but how is that not captured by Viliam_Bur's post?

Lying for a cause or otherwise playing "dirty" to win for your cause, as Arthur seemed to be advocating, seems to straightforwardly line up with Viliam_Bur's theory about "Nice Greens", "Nasty Greens", "Nice Blues" and "Nasty Blues"; specifically, in this theory, Arthur would be a "Nasty" player on the side of progress/civilization/neoliberalism-ish/etc. and Yvain would be a "Nice" player on the same side.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by tone?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 19 June 2014 08:38:52AM *  22 points [-]

Relevant SMBC. It illustrates my political theory that in every political conflict that seems to be between Greens and Blues, there are actually four sides of the conflict, let's call the "Nice Greens", "Nasty Greens", "Nice Blues" and "Nasty Blues". And there is more than one line of conflict.

Officially, "Nice Greens" + "Nasty Greens" and "Nice Blues" + "Nasty Blues" should be the only existing coalitions. But there is also the value of niceness, which somehow connects "Nice Greens" and "Nice Blues", and puts them into often unconscious opposition against the "Nasty Greens" and "Nasty Blues". Being nasty is a personality trait... for a "Nasty Green" it is often easier to become a "Nasty Blue" (different slogans, but generally the same behavior) than a "Nice Green" (different everyday behavior both among the enemies and the allies).

It's probably the Nasty person's greatest fear that one day the Green/Blue conflict will stop being important. Because then they would stop being "a person in service of the great Green/Blue cause, who happens to be a bit nasty, but is a great fighter on our side, so we should support them", and become merely "a nasty person who is better to be avoided".

Specifically in this case, PZ Myers seems to me analogical to those religious people who bring hate banners to funerals of gays. (As oppossed to people like Dawkins who are analogical to priests, that is, legitimate speakers of their movements' beliefs. I am making this contrast to prevent putting both of them to some general category of "militant X". There is a difference between being frank about your opinions, even if it offends those who believe otherwise, and being an asshole.)

Also, I don't like that PZ Myers is hiding behind the banner of "atheism" when doing his nasty things. Because this is not his true banner. As far as I know, he has his own set of values that he is trying to impose on all atheists: the whole "Atheism Plus" stuff. He hates the non-Plus atheists. ("Dictionary Atheists. Boy, I really do hate these guys. You’ve got a discussion going, talking about why you’re an atheist ... and some smug wanker comes along and announces that “Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.”" -- source) So I hope he will proudly wave the banner of "Atheism Plus" when doing controversial things, not to be confused with the average boring atheists. Because I certainly don't want to be confused with him.

Comment author: Suryc11 24 June 2014 07:58:38PM 2 points [-]

Relevant SMBC. It illustrates my political theory that in every political conflict that seems to be between Greens and Blues, there are actually four sides of the conflict, let's call the "Nice Greens", "Nasty Greens", "Nice Blues" and "Nasty Blues". And there is more than one line of conflict.

Officially, "Nice Greens" + "Nasty Greens" and "Nice Blues" + "Nasty Blues" should be the only existing coalitions. But there is also the value of niceness, which somehow connects "Nice Greens" and "Nice Blues", and puts them into often unconscious opposition against the "Nasty Greens" and "Nasty Blues". Being nasty is a personality trait... for a "Nasty Green" it is often easier to become a "Nasty Blue" (different slogans, but generally the same behavior) than a "Nice Green" (different everyday behavior both among the enemies and the allies).

Yup, and that is almost exactly what (at least part of) the relatively recent disagreement between Yvain and Arthur Chu was about. See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2014/02/on-some-criticism-of-lesswrong/ and http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/

Comment author: ephion 10 June 2014 02:04:44PM 3 points [-]

Fuck, that's awesome. I've been stuck with a max of 360 for about a year now, after two years of lifting. What is your lifting program?

Comment author: Suryc11 11 June 2014 02:03:31AM *  2 points [-]

Thanks!

I compete in powerlifting, so the programs I've done--since starting to lift seriously/intentionally--are focused around that, especially recently. A quick summary (let me know if you have questions or want more details!):

  • My own linear progression program that employed a split and emphasized heavy compounds
  • Smolov (2 cycles)
  • Sheiko/Cube Kingpin (both were only done for a few weeks)
  • GZCL Method (current)

Of all of those, I saw the most squat gains by far from Smolov. The hype is well-deserved. Just started GZCL and I can tell that it's approximately as good, just more sustainable, i.e., not a competition peaking program.

Some advice that you probably already know, but just in case: record your squat to know exactly what your form looks like to pinpoint weaknesses/sticking points and to make sure you're hitting depth, weightlifting shoes do help, logging/journaling your workouts is huge (probably one of the most obviously "rational" things to do in weightlifting), and of course, get enough food and sleep.

Comment author: Suryc11 10 June 2014 02:27:47AM 16 points [-]

I squatted 400 lbs at a bodyweight of 154 lbs!

I've been doing squats for around 7 months now, and been lifting seriously for slightly over a year total.

Comment author: Vaniver 30 May 2014 11:28:28PM *  11 points [-]

It sounded like he was just proposing that people post all content that currently goes in Open Threads in Discussion instead.

I think the barrier to posting a post in Discussion is higher than posting a comment in the Open Threads, and thus less of them will happen. I also think doing Open Threads on a monthly timescale, instead of a weekly one, will lead to less comments in the open thread.

I think a guide on "This is how you post to Discussion! :D" will be more effective at getting people to use Discussion the way ChristianKI wants than reducing the frequency of the Open Thread posts. (That's an example of what I think a method that increases activity looks like.)

Comment author: Suryc11 31 May 2014 02:49:17AM 4 points [-]

I think the barrier to posting a comment in the Open Threads is higher than posting a post in discussion

I think you may have meant this instead: the barrier to posting a post in discussion is higher than posting a comment in the Open Threads.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 30 April 2014 02:59:57PM 9 points [-]

To the extent that privilege claims are about ignorance, I think they're likely to have a point. To the extent that they're a claim that some people are guaranteed to be wrong, they're ad hominem.

Comment author: Suryc11 30 April 2014 04:54:46PM 0 points [-]

Agreed, that's a great way of putting it.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 30 April 2014 11:09:18AM 0 points [-]

I don't think "malicious" quite does the delicacy of that sort of very abstract Marxist argument justice, though I'm not sure what word would be better.

"Unfair" doesn't quite do the job, either, though the author does point out that a privilege framework means that the same argument will be approved or ignored depending on who makes it.

"Consciousness itself is complicit." is kind of cool. It could almost be something from LW (or at least Peter Watts), but the author probably means something else by consciousness.

Comment author: Suryc11 30 April 2014 04:49:41PM *  1 point [-]

I agree, though to be fair the author himself seems to use malicious and fallacious to describe a privilege framework.

First, I am arguing that no one’s participation in public discourse should be denigrated by appeal to essential features of their identity. If we, as leftists, want to be unashamedly critical of discourse—as we should be—we should do so with reference to structures of power, such as heterosexual hegemony, rather than with reference to essential identities, such as the ‘straightness’ of particular individuals.

...

Second, I am arguing that to situate ideology in identity can not only be malicious, but also fallacious. If a self-identified queer person were to have written “How Gay Pride Backfires”, the privilege framework would collapse as an explanans, as it would no longer be able to appeal to the heterosexual privilege of the author to explain the danger of the argument. Importantly, however, in this alternative scenario, the queerness of the author would not render the article any less ideological and detrimental to the interests of sexual minorities.

View more: Next