Tell Culture

109 BrienneYudkowsky 18 January 2014 08:13PM

Followup to: Ask and Guess

Ask culture: "I'll be in town this weekend for a business trip. Is it cool if I crash at your place?" Response: “Yes“ or “no”.

Guess culture: "Hey, great news! I'll be in town this weekend for a business trip!" Response: Infer that they might be telling you this because they want something from you, conclude that they might want a place to stay, and offer your hospitality only if you want to. Otherwise, pretend you didn’t infer that.

The two basic rules of Ask Culture: 1) Ask when you want something. 2) Interpret things as requests and feel free to say "no".

The two basic rules of Guess Culture: 1) Ask for things if, and *only* if, you're confident the person will say "yes". 2) Interpret requests as expectations of "yes", and, when possible, avoid saying "no".

Both approaches come with costs and benefits. In the end, I feel pretty strongly that Ask is superior. 

But these are not the only two possibilities!

"I'll be in town this weekend for a business trip. I would like to stay at your place, since it would save me the cost of a hotel, plus I would enjoy seeing you and expect we’d have some fun. I'm looking for other options, though, and would rather stay elsewhere than inconvenience you." Response: “I think I need some space this weekend. But I’d love to get a beer or something while you’re in town!” or “You should totally stay with me. I’m looking forward to it.”

There is a third alternative, and I think it's probably what rationalist communities ought to strive for. I call it "Tell Culture".

The two basic rules of Tell Culture: 1) Tell the other person what's going on in your own mind whenever you suspect you'd both benefit from them knowing. (Do NOT assume others will accurately model your mind without your help, or that it will even occur to them to ask you questions to eliminate their ignorance.) 2) Interpret things people tell you as attempts to create common knowledge for shared benefit, rather than as requests or as presumptions of compliance.

Suppose you’re in a conversation that you’re finding aversive, and you can’t figure out why. Your goal is to procure a rain check.

  • Guess: *You see this annoyed body language? Huh? Look at it! If you don’t stop talking soon I swear I’ll start tapping my foot.* (Or, possibly, tell a little lie to excuse yourself. “Oh, look at the time…”) 
  • Ask: “Can we talk about this another time?”
  • Tell: "I'm beginning to find this conversation aversive, and I'm not sure why. I propose we hold off until I've figured that out."

Here are more examples from my own life:

  • "I didn't sleep well last night and am feeling frazzled and irritable today. I apologize if I snap at you during this meeting. It isn’t personal." 
  • "I just realized this interaction will be far more productive if my brain has food. I think we should head toward the kitchen." 
  • "It would be awfully convenient networking for me to stick around for a bit after our meeting to talk with you and [the next person you're meeting with]. But on a scale of one to ten, it's only about 3 useful to me. If you'd rate the loss of utility for you as two or higher, then I have a strong preference for not sticking around." 

The burden of honesty is even greater in Tell culture than in Ask culture. To a Guess culture person, I imagine much of the above sounds passive aggressive or manipulative, much worse than the rude bluntness of mere Ask. It’s because Guess people aren’t expecting relentless truth-telling, which is exactly what’s necessary here.

If you’re occasionally dishonest and tell people you want things you don't actually care about--like their comfort or convenience--they’ll learn not to trust you, and the inherent freedom of the system will be lost. They’ll learn that you only pretend to care about them to take advantage of their reciprocity instincts, when in fact you’ll count them as having defected if they respond by stating a preference for protecting their own interests.

Tell culture is cooperation with open source codes.

This kind of trust does not develop overnight. Here is the most useful Tell tactic I know of for developing that trust with a native Ask or Guess. It’s saved me sooooo much time and trouble, and I wish I’d thought of it earlier.

"I'm not asking because I expect you to say ‘yes’. I'm asking because I'm having trouble imagining the inside of your head, and I want to understand better. You are completely free to say ‘no’, or to tell me what you’re thinking right now, and I promise it will be fine." It is amazing how often people quickly stop looking shifty and say 'no' after this, or better yet begin to discuss further details.

Dark Arts of Rationality

136 So8res 19 January 2014 02:47AM

Today, we're going to talk about Dark rationalist techniques: productivity tools which seem incoherent, mad, and downright irrational. These techniques include:

  1. Willful Inconsistency
  2. Intentional Compartmentalization
  3. Modifying Terminal Goals

I expect many of you are already up in arms. It seems obvious that consistency is a virtue, that compartmentalization is a flaw, and that one should never modify their terminal goals.

I claim that these 'obvious' objections are incorrect, and that all three of these techniques can be instrumentally rational.

In this article, I'll promote the strategic cultivation of false beliefs and condone mindhacking on the values you hold most dear. Truly, these are Dark Arts. I aim to convince you that sometimes, the benefits are worth the price.

continue reading »

The genie knows, but doesn't care

54 RobbBB 06 September 2013 06:42AM

Followup to: The Hidden Complexity of Wishes, Ghosts in the Machine, Truly Part of You

Summary: If an artificial intelligence is smart enough to be dangerous, we'd intuitively expect it to be smart enough to know how to make itself safe. But that doesn't mean all smart AIs are safe. To turn that capacity into actual safety, we have to program the AI at the outset — before it becomes too fast, powerful, or complicated to reliably control — to already care about making its future self care about safety. That means we have to understand how to code safety. We can't pass the entire buck to the AI, when only an AI we've already safety-proofed will be safe to ask for help on safety issues! Given the five theses, this is an urgent problem if we're likely to figure out how to make a decent artificial programmer before we figure out how to make an excellent artificial ethicist.


 

I summon a superintelligence, calling out: 'I wish for my values to be fulfilled!'

The results fall short of pleasant.

Gnashing my teeth in a heap of ashes, I wail:

Is the AI too stupid to understand what I meant? Then it is no superintelligence at all!

Is it too weak to reliably fulfill my desires? Then, surely, it is no superintelligence!

Does it hate me? Then it was deliberately crafted to hate me, for chaos predicts indifference. But, ah! no wicked god did intervene!

Thus disproved, my hypothetical implodes in a puff of logic. The world is saved. You're welcome.

On this line of reasoning, Friendly Artificial Intelligence is not difficult. It's inevitable, provided only that we tell the AI, 'Be Friendly.' If the AI doesn't understand 'Be Friendly.', then it's too dumb to harm us. And if it does understand 'Be Friendly.', then designing it to follow such instructions is childishly easy.

The end!

 

...

 

Is the missing option obvious?

 

...

 

What if the AI isn't sadistic, or weak, or stupid, but just doesn't care what you Really Meant by 'I wish for my values to be fulfilled'?

When we see a Be Careful What You Wish For genie in fiction, it's natural to assume that it's a malevolent trickster or an incompetent bumbler. But a real Wish Machine wouldn't be a human in shiny pants. If it paid heed to our verbal commands at all, it would do so in whatever way best fit its own values. Not necessarily the way that best fits ours.

continue reading »

Three ways CFAR has changed my view of rationality

102 Julia_Galef 10 September 2013 06:24PM

The Center for Applied Rationality's perspective on rationality is quite similar to Less Wrong's. In particular, we share many of Less Wrong's differences from what's sometimes called "traditional" rationality, such as Less Wrong's inclusion of Bayesian probability theory and the science on heuristics and biases.

But after spending the last year and a half with CFAR as we've developed, tested, and attempted to teach hundreds of different versions of rationality techniques, I've noticed that my picture of what rationality looks like has shifted somewhat from what I perceive to be the most common picture of rationality on Less Wrong. Here are three ways I think CFAR has come to see the landscape of rationality differently than Less Wrong typically does – not disagreements per se, but differences in focus or approach. (Disclaimer: I'm not speaking for the rest of CFAR here; these are my own impressions.)

 

1. We think less in terms of epistemic versus instrumental rationality.

Formally, the methods of normative epistemic versus instrumental rationality are distinct: Bayesian inference and expected utility maximization. But methods like "use Bayes' Theorem" or "maximize expected utility" are usually too abstract and high-level to be helpful for a human being trying to take manageable steps towards improving her rationality. And when you zoom in from that high-level description of rationality down to the more concrete level of "What five-second mental habits should I be training?" the distinction between epistemic and instrumental rationality becomes less helpful.

Here's an analogy: epistemic rationality is like physics, where the goal is to figure out what's true about the world, and instrumental rationality is like engineering, where the goal is to accomplish something you want as efficiently and effectively as possible. You need physics to do engineering; or I suppose you could say that doing engineering is doing physics, but with a practical goal. However, there's plenty of physics that's done for its own sake, and doesn't have obvious practical applications, at least not yet. (String theory, for example.) Similarly, you need a fair amount of epistemic rationality in order to be instrumentally rational, though there are parts of epistemic rationality that many of us practice for their own sake, and not as a means to an end. (For example, I appreciate clarifying my thinking about free will even though I don't expect it to change any of my behavior.)

In this analogy, many skills we focus on at CFAR are akin to essential math, like linear algebra or differential equations, which compose the fabric of both physics and engineering. It would be foolish to expect someone who wasn't comfortable with math to successfully calculate a planet's trajectory or design a bridge. And it would be similarly foolish to expect you to successfully update like a Bayesian or maximize your utility if you lacked certain underlying skills. Like, for instance: Noticing your emotional reactions, and being able to shift them if it would be useful. Doing thought experiments. Noticing and overcoming learned helplessness. Visualizing in concrete detail. Preventing yourself from flinching away from a thought. Rewarding yourself for mental habits you want to reinforce. 

These and other building blocks of rationality are essential both for reaching truer beliefs, and for getting what you value; they don't fall cleanly into either an "epistemic" or an "instrumental" category. Which is why, when I consider what pieces of rationality CFAR should be developing, I've been thinking less in terms of "How can we be more epistemically rational?" or "How can we be more instrumentally rational?" and instead using queries like, "How can we be more metacognitive?"

 

2. We think more in terms of a modular mind.

The human mind isn't one coordinated, unified agent, but rather a collection of different processes that often aren't working in sync, or even aware of what each other is up to. Less Wrong certainly knows this; see, for example, discussions of anticipations versus professions, aliefs, and metawanting. But in general we gloss over that fact, because it's so much simpler and more natural to talk about "what I believe" or "what I want," even if technically there is no single "I" doing the believing or wanting. And for many purposes that kind of approximation is fine. 

But a rationality-for-humans usually can't rely on that shorthand. Any attempt to change what "I" believe, or optimize for what "I" want, forces a confrontation of the fact that there are multiple, contradictory things that could reasonably be called "beliefs," or "wants," coexisting in the same mind. So a large part of applied rationality turns out to be about noticing those contradictions and trying to achieve coherence, in some fashion, before you can even begin to update on evidence or plan an action.

Many of the techniques we're developing at CFAR fall roughly into the template of coordinating between your two systems of cognition: implicit-reasoning System 1 and explicit-reasoning System 2. For example, knowing when each system is more likely to be reliable. Or knowing how to get System 2 to convince System 1 of something ("We're not going to die if we go talk to that stranger"). Or knowing what kinds of questions System 2 should ask of System 1 to find out why it's uneasy about the conclusion at which System 2 has arrived.

This is all, of course, with the disclaimer that the anthropomorphizing of the systems of cognition, and imagining them talking to each other, is merely a useful metaphor. Even the classification of human cognition into Systems 1 and 2 is probably not strictly true, but it's true enough to be useful. And other metaphors prove useful as well – for example, some difficulties with what feels like akrasia become more tractable when you model your future selves as different entities, as we do in the current version of our "Delegating to yourself" class.

 

3. We're more focused on emotions.

There's relatively little discussion of emotions on Less Wrong, but they occupy a central place in CFAR's curriculum and organizational culture.

It used to frustrate me when people would say something that revealed they held a Straw Vulcan-esque belief that "rationalist = emotionless robot". But now when I encounter that misconception, it just makes me want to smile, because I'm thinking to myself: "If you had any idea how much time we spend at CFAR talking about our feelings…"

Being able to put yourself into particular emotional states seems to make a lot of pieces of rationality easier. For example, for most of us, it's instrumentally rational to explore a wider set of possible actions – different ways of studying, holding conversations, trying to be happy, and so on – beyond whatever our defaults happen to be. And for most of us, inertia and aversions get in the way of that exploration. But getting yourself into "playful" mode (one of the hypothesized primary emotional circuits common across mammals) can make it easier to branch out into a wider swath of Possible-Action Space. Similarly, being able to call up a feeling of curiosity or of "seeking" (another candidate for a primary emotional circuit) can help you conquer motivated cognition and learned blankness.  

And simply being able to notice your emotional state is rarer and more valuable than most people realize. For example, if you're in fight-or-flight mode, you're going to feel more compelled to reject arguments that feel like a challenge to your identity. Being attuned to the signs of sympathetic nervous system activation – that you're tensing up, or that your heart rate is increasing – means you get cues to double-check your reasoning, or to coax yourself into another emotional state.

We also use emotions as sources of data. You can learn to tap into feelings of surprise or confusion to get a sense of how probable you implicitly expect some event to be. Or practice simulating hypotheticals ("What if I knew that my novel would never sell well?") and observing your resultant emotions, to get a clearer picture of your utility function. 

And emotions-as-data can be a valuable check on your System 2's conclusions. One of our standard classes is "Goal Factoring," which entails finding some alternate set of actions through which you can purchase the goods you want more cheaply. So you might reason, "I'm doing martial arts for the exercise and self-defense benefits... but I could purchase both of those things for less time investment by jogging to work and carrying Mace." If you listened to your emotional reaction to that proposal, however, you might notice you still feel sad about giving up martial arts even if you were getting the same amount of exercise and self-defense benefits somehow else.

Which probably means you've got other reasons for doing martial arts that you haven't yet explicitly acknowledged -- for example, maybe you just think it's cool. If so, that's important, and deserves a place in your decisionmaking. Listening for those emotional cues that your explicit reasoning has missed something is a crucial step, and to the extent that aspiring rationalists sometimes forget it, I suppose that's a Steel-Manned Straw Vulcan (Steel Vulcan?) that actually is worth worrying about.

Conclusion

I'll name one more trait that unites, rather than divides, CFAR and Less Wrong. We both diverge from "traditional" rationality in that we're concerned with determining which general methods systematically perform well, rather than defending some set of methods as "rational" on a priori criteria alone. So CFAR's picture of what rationality looks like, and how to become more rational, will and should change over the coming years as we learn more about the effects of our rationality training efforts. 

The Ultimate Newcomb's Problem

18 Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 September 2013 02:03AM

You see two boxes and you can either take both boxes, or take only box B. Box A is transparent and contains $1000. Box B contains a visible number, say 1033.  The Bank of Omega, which operates by very clear and transparent mechanisms, will pay you $1M if this number is prime, and $0 if it is composite. Omega is known to select prime numbers for Box B whenever Omega predicts that you will take only Box B; and conversely select composite numbers if Omega predicts that you will take both boxes. Omega has previously predicted correctly in 99.9% of cases.

Separately, the Numerical Lottery has randomly selected 1033 and is displaying this number on a screen nearby. The Lottery Bank, likewise operating by a clear known mechanism, will pay you $2 million if it has selected a composite number, and otherwise pay you $0.  (This event will take place regardless of whether you take only B or both boxes, and both the Bank of Omega and the Lottery Bank will carry out their payment processes - you don't have to choose one game or the other.)

You previously played the game with Omega and the Numerical Lottery a few thousand times before you ran across this case where Omega's number and the Lottery number were the same, so this event is not suspicious.

Omega also knew the Lottery number before you saw it, and while making its prediction, and Omega likewise predicts correctly in 99.9% of the cases where the Lottery number happens to match Omega's number.  (Omega's number is chosen independently of the lottery number, however.)

You have two minutes to make a decision, you don't have a calculator, and if you try to factor the number you will be run over by the trolley from the Ultimate Trolley Problem.

Do you take only box B, or both boxes?

High School, Human Capital, Signaling and College Admissions

12 JonahSinick 08 September 2013 07:45PM

During high school, students learn skills that will help them in their future careers. This can be referred to as building human capital. They also build up a record of grades, standardized test scores, and extracurricular activities that colleges use to assess whether to admit them. This can be referred to as signaling quality to colleges

High schoolers engage in valuable activities that fall outside of these two categories, such as personally enjoyable activities and helping others. This article focuses on building human capital and signaling quality to colleges, for the sake of simplicity, rather than because I think that these are the only two things that matter.

 

continue reading »

How I Am Productive

38 peter_hurford 27 August 2013 01:04PM

I like to think that I get a lot of stuff done.  Other people have noticed this and asked me how I'm so productive.  This essay is where I try and "share my secrets", so to speak.

The real secret is that, in the past, I wasn't nearly as productive.  I struggled with procrastination, had issues completing assignments on time, and always felt like I never had enough time to do things.  But, starting in January and continuing for the past eight months, I have slowly implemented several systems and habits in my life that, taken together, have made me productive.  Productivity is not a talent I have -- I've learned to be productive over the past several months and I have habits in place where I basically cannot fail to be productive.

Hopefully these systems will work for you.  I've seen some people adopt them to some success, but I've never seen anyone do it exactly the way I do.  And perhaps it would even be bad to do it exactly the way I do, because everyone is just a little bit different.  I'm being aware of other-optimizing and letting you just know what's worked for me.  I make no claims that these systems will work for you.  Your mileage may vary.

So what are the systems?  To get you to be productive, we'll need to get you to organize, to prioritize, then to do and review.  Have those four things down and you'll have everything you need to be productive.

 



Organize

The first step to being productive is to be organized and remember things without memorizing them.  If we get these systems down, you won't forget your ideas, when and where events are, what tasks you need to complete, what papers you have, and what emails you have.

 

The Most Important Rule: Write Things Down

If you only take away one system from one category, I want it to be this one.  Whole essays can be written about these systems and this one is no different -- write things down.  Whenever you have a cool idea, an event invitation, a task, etc., write it down.  Always.  Constantly.  No excuses.

I've found in my life that stress has come in surprising part from trying to keep everything in my head.  When I write down everything I think is worth remembering, whether it be a concrete thing I need to do or just a cool yet unimportant idea I want to follow up on sometime later, I write it down.  That gets it out of my head, and I no longer feel the need to remember things (as long as I remember to look them up later), and I feel much better.

I've also found in my life that I constantly think I'll remember something and it's not worth writing down.  More than half the time, I've been wrong and forgotten the thing.  This has meant I've forgotten cool ideas and even forgotten events or to complete key items.  Always write things down, no matter how convinced you are that you'll remember them.

How do you do this?  I suggest getting something that will always be with you that you can write things down on.  For the vast majority of my readers, this can be a phone where you text yourself messages.  For a long time, I would use my smartphone to email myself notes, because I knew I'd always check my email later and then could record the note to a text document.  Later on, I moved to keeping track of ideas on Evernote and then later moved on to keeping track of ideas on Workflowy.  Workflowy costs $5 a month to use it to full potential (worth it, in my opinion), but there are free alternatives (that aren't as good, in my opinion).

However, don't shy away from the good old pen and paper if it gets the job done.  I got this notepad for $6 and it's been great.

 

Keep Track of Events: The Calendar

Of course, some of the things you want to write down will be particular things that need to be recorded in particularly useful places.  One of these things is events, or places you need to be at a particular time and place.  For this, you can use any calendar, but I like Google Calendar the best.  Whenever you get invited to an event, record it on your calendar.  (We'll include reviewing your calendar regularly in a bit, so you won't forget what's there.)

A common mistake I see people make is to rely on Facebook events to keep track of their events.  Perhaps this works for some people, but not all events are done through Facebook or can be done through Facebook, so you end up keeping track of events in multiple places, which causes confusion and missed events.  Wherever you record events, record all your events in one place.

 

Keep Track of Tasks: The To-Do List

The next thing you'll want to keep track of is tasks.  For this, you need a to-do list.  I spent a lot of my life just using a TextEdit document, but I recommend you use a dedicated app instead.  I personally use Workflowy here too, but others work great.  In the past I've used Trello to great success.  I've seen others succeed with Asana or even just a text document on the computer.

A common mistake I see people make here is using their email as their to-do list.  This might make some sense, but often emails contain information unnecessary to your tasks which slows you down, and sometimes emails contain multiple action points.  Worse, emails contain no easy way to prioritize tasks (which is really important and will be discussed in a bit).

Bottom line: Keep all your tasks in one crisp, clear place.  Don't spread out your to-do lists across multiple applications and don't put it in with a bunch of other stuff.

 

Action, Waiting, Reference: Stay Organized with Zones

Once you have your ideas written down, your events on your calendar, and your tasks on your to-do list, it's time to organize the materials you'll have to deal with.  Lots of physical papers and computer documents come at you throughout your day and it's time to organize them.

The trick here?  Get a surface area you can keep clear and divide it into three zones: action, waiting, and reference.

 

The action zone is for things that need to be done.  Have a form you need to fill out?  Something you need to read?  Even more outlandish things like a necklace you need to repair or something?  Keep everything needed for a task together in folders or with paperclips as necessary, put it in the action zone, and record the task on your to-do list.

The waiting zone is for things that eventually need to be done, but which cannot be done yet because you're waiting on something.  Perhaps you need feedback from someone, a package still needs to arrive, or the task only can be done on a certain day.  For this, keep everything grouped together in the waiting zone, and record on your to-do list what the task is and what you're waiting for.  (We'll revisit implementing zones in the to-do list in a little bit.)  Move things to action and update your to-do list when what you're waiting for arrives.

The reference zone is for things you might need to look at and need to be kept around, but are not associated with any task.  For examples, things I have had in my reference zone are passwords, details about tasks from people, items that are relevant but not necessary to the work that I'm doing, etc.

 

Always Inbox Zero: Apply the Folders to Your Email

Email is really messy for most people, but it doesn't have to be.  The solution here is to implement the zones in your email too.  I use Gmail, but nearly every email system includes folders these days.  Use that system to create three folders -- action, waiting, and reference -- in your email, then sort your email according to the folders and record on your to-do list.

There is no reason to have any email in your inbox.  You should be at "inbox zero" constantly.  Whenever an email comes in, process it and file it.  Got an email from Nancy that you need to reply to?  Put it in "Action" and put "Reply to Nancy's email" on your to-do list.  Got a long email from your boss that you don't even have time to read yet?  Put it in "Action" and put "Read boss's email" on your to-do list.  Then when you go back to read it, you can determine the next action item.

Emails also make sense to be put in waiting.  If it's important I get a reply from the email, I'll put it in waiting to remind myself to follow up later if necessary (more on that later).  I'll also put emails in waiting if I'm expecting a reply from someone else first, or if it's information for an action item I can't act on yet, or if I want to reply later on.

Lastly, reference is very important for emails that you need to keep around to read, but don't need to reply to.  Lots of notes that people send me get processed into my relevant Workflowy document and then kept in reference for as long as they're relevant.

 



Prioritize

Now that you're all organized, it's time to get in a position to do the things you need to do.  But watch out, because unless you have time to complete your entire to-do list in one sitting, it's a poor use of time to just go from the top to the bottom.  Instead, we need to go from the most important to the least important.

 

Eisenhower Matrix: Do What's Important

How do you prioritize?  The best tactic I've seen here is called The Eisenhower Matrix.  It comes from Steven Covey's book First Things First but is credited to President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Here, you take your to-do list and organize everything into four quadrants: important and urgent, important and not urgent, unimportant and urgent, and unimportant and not urgent.  This is very easy to do on Workflowy, and still possible on something like Trello.

There's pretty universal agreement that you complete all the "important and urgent" tasks first and the "unimportant and not urgent" tasks last.  But the real trick is that after you complete the important and urgent tasks, you should move to complete the important and not urgent tasks.  Ignore the not important and urgent tasks until you've completed all important tasks and even be comfortable with skipping unimportant tasks if necessary.  Why?  Because they're not important.

If you get this matrix down, you'll soon get ahead on your tasks, because you'll be completing important tasks before they become urgent.

Also, note the inclusion of "waiting" here as one of the tabs in my to-do list.  This is where I put tasks I can't complete yet with a note of what I'm waiting on.  Something like talking to my Dad three days from now would be tagged as "#30aug :: Talk to Dad" (using Workflowy hashtags), but I'd also do things with unclear dates, like "Brian responds to email :: Forward response to Seth".  Beware that being able to manage unclear deadlines (where you don't know what day the task will be) is something that most to-do list apps struggle with.

Timeboxing: Plan Your Day in Advance

The next prioritization thing to master is planning your day in advance.  You do this through making "time boxes" for things, or periods of time where you'll do something predefined.  For example, I'll set aside some time to work through my to-do list or to work on particular projects.  For bigger projects, I'll decide how much I want to work on them in any particular day or week and set them aside from my to-do list.  I'll then block out time for them on my calendar and end up with days like this.

Since I plan my days in advance using this timebox method, I just plan every minute of the calendar in advance and have a plan so I always know what to be doing and never miss a beat.  Of course, things come up and you'll have to change your plan for the day, but that's better than having no plan at all.

Two Minute Rule

It's important to be mindful of how much time it takes to record a task, put it in your to-do list, and prioritize it, however.  For most people, including me, it's about two minutes for any given task.  This gives rise to the "two minute rule": if doing somethign would take less than two minutes, just do it now.  Likewise, if it would take over two minutes, put it in your to-do list and do it at the best time.

 



Do

Now that you have your to-do list set and timeboxes for when you're going to work and on what, it's time to actually do the work.

 

The Pomodoro Technique

The ideal timebox should be a length that is a multiple of thirty minutes so you can do the most powerful productivity thing there is: The Pomodoro Technique.  Beware that it doesn't work for some, but I do urge you to give it a fair shake and a few tries, because for those whom the Pomodoro works, the Pomodoro Technique works wonders.

Here's how you do it.  Set a timer for 25 minutes.  During those 25 minutes (a) work only on your task at hand; (b) do not do anything else, even for a second; (c) be completely focused; (d) be free from distractions; (e) and do not multi-task. There are some acceptable things to do during a Pomodoro, however: go to the bathroom, drink, listen to music.  But there are tons more things not to do during a Pomodoro: check Facebook, read your email, etc.  The list will go on.

After the timer expires, take a five minute break.  During these five minutes, do anything you'd like except the task on hand.  Even if you feel like the break is boring and you're itching to get back on task, don't.  You're only hurting yourself in the long-run.  This five minute break will restore your focus, keep you grounded, provide a way to think through your ideas in a different setting, and prevent you from needing longer breaks later in the day.

It should be noted, however, that the Pomodoro can be a bit difficult to get in the habit of, though.  To solve this, I've found it useful to work my way up to the full Pomodoro by spending a month getting used to "15 minutes of work, 5 minutes break", then another month doing "20 minutes of work, 5 minutes break", and then finally "25 minutes of work, 5 minutes break".

Different people have tried other multiples besides 25 and 5, but I'm still convinced that 25-5 is the ideal split.  Perhaps 27-3 could work better for advanced Pomodoro users, but I wouldn't push it further.  I've seen things like 90-30 or 30-10, and all of these seem to involve working just a little too long (losing focus) and then taking a lot more break than is necessary.  Of course, if it works for you, then it works.

Here's the 25-5 stopwatch I use and my 20-5 stopwatch.  I've also liked Tomato Timer.com, but any timer can work.

 

Be Comfortable with Breaks

The important lesson of working a lot is to be comfortable with taking a break.  The novice productive person will think it virtuous to work clear through a break and onward, thinking that he or she is making even better use of their time, defeating all those sissy workers who need breaks!  But really, this person is just setting up their own downfall, because they'll crash and burn.

Burnout is real and one of the most dangerous things you can do is train yourself to feel guilty about not working.  So you need to remember to take breaks.  The break in a Pomodoro is a good one, but I also recommend taking a larger break (like 30 minutes) after completing three or four Pomodoros.

One particularly good break I'd like to give a shout-out to is to take a nap.  Taking a nap at a fairly regular time has health benefits (see also here, here, and here) and doesn't harm your night sleep if you nap for 20 minutes and don't nap too late in the afternoon or evening.  In fact, I've actually found naps to be a time saver instead of time "wasted" for a break, because I can sleep less at night and still feel rested and be focused throughout the day.

 

Keep Your Energy Up

Another thing to prevent your chance of crashing and needing a long break to restore your energy is to keep your energy up.  I recommend drinking something that is somewhat sugary but not too sugary (I drink water-diluted lemonade in a 25%-75% mix) and remembering to exercise on a regular basis.  Also, eating healthy and sleeping right works wonders for keeping your attention on your work.

 



Review

Of course, it's not enough to do if you're not going to learn from how you're doing and improve.  I suggest you review your life on multiple levels -- daily, weekly, monthly, and once every six months.

For the daily review, I keep track of whether I've succeeded at certain habits like exercising and eating right, and log the amount of time I've spent on various things so I can keep track of my time usage.  I also complete other relevant logs, and then spend a bit of time reflecting how things have gone for the day and think of ways to repeat successes and avoid mistakes.  I then check the plan for the next day and tweak it if necessary.  This process takes me about 15 to 20 minutes.

For the weekly review, I go through my action-waiting-reference zones wherever they exist (physical piles, email, and computer folders) and process them -- make sure everything there is still relevant and still belongs in the same place.  I'll remove whatever needs to be removed at this stage and remind myself what I'm working on.  I'll organize and clean anything that isn't organized at this stage and get everything together.  I'll then quickly re-read my strategic plan and plan out the week in accordance with my goals.  Recently, I've set amounts of time per week I want to be spending on certain projects, so it's now a matter of making a schedule that works.  This process usually takes me 45 minutes to an hour.

For the monthly review, I reflect on the habits I've been trying to build for the month and decide what habits I want to keep, what habits I want to add, and what habits I want to subtract.  I review how the month as a whole went and think about what I can do to repeat successes and avert future failures.  I then write up a reflection and publish it on my blog.  This process usually takes me two hours.

For the six month review, I return to my goals and think about how my life trajectory as a whole is going.  What are my life goals?  What am I doing to accomplish them?  Am I closer to my goals than I was six months ago?  Should I be working toward new goals?  What common mistakes did I make through the past six months that I want to avoid?  I then write a documentwith my personal mission and goals for the next six months and skim it every week to constantly remind myself of what I want to be doing.  This process usually takes me three hours.

 

Yes, there will be an unlucky day where you do all four reviews and spend like six and a half hours reviewing your life at different levels.  Perhaps this is a bit much for people, but I've found tremendous benefit from it.  I've found that spending this day reviewing my life has saved me from not just days, but even months, of wasted time that doesn't accomplish what I really want to do.  Reviewing is another way of saving you time.




Additional Tips

Now I've given you all my main advice, but I have some additional tips if you want to keep reading.

Carefully form these habits over time.  This is a lot to do at once, so do it in stages.  Build the habit of writing things down first, and then slowly get the apps you like in place for ideas, events, and tasks.  After you have that down, spend the time necessary to get your email in order and implement the zones wherever possible.  Then begin to move into prioritizing your tasks with the Eisenhower Matrix.  After you have this down, begin planning your days in advance with timeboxes and start doing your reviews.  While you're building that habit, simultaneously start building up the Pomodoro habit, slowly approaching 25-5 over a few months.

Find a way to reliably stay on habit.  Don't make the common failure of sticking to something for a month or two and abandoning it.  Spend a lot of energy thinking through how you'll stay on habit and how you'll not be like all the other people who think they'll stay on habit then fail.  Make a bet with a friend, start up Beeminder, or create some other kind of commitment device.

Form the productivity mindset. I had a lot of trouble implementing this plan until I was able to think of myself as an important person who does important things and should personally value my time.  I had to really want to be productive before I could start being productive.  Success at this will follow from the right mindset.  It's time to start thinking of yourself as important.  If you can't fool yourself, maybe it's time to look at your goals and decide what goals would make you feel important and then do those goals instead.

Behold the power of routines. I find it a lot easier to exercise if I have a routine of "every other day, right after waking up" or "every other day, right before dinner".  Your routine can be built from here.  It's a lot easier to stick to timeboxes if they're regularly occurring.  Use a calendar and build yourself something nice.

Put everything in a particular place.  People lose a lot of time just hunting around for things.  Solve this by spending some time ahead of time organizing things in your life and getting them into particular places.  Then always make sure things return to their places.

Declutter your life.  You'll work better if you have less stuff to keep track of and less commitments to worry about.  Get rid of everything and delegate anything you can.

Make a productivity place. This works especially well in colleges where there is a large variety of places you could be working.  Find a place to work, set up your Pomodoros, and follow them to the letter.  Don't mess up.  Take your longer breaks somewhere else.  If you do mess up, find a new productivity place and start again.  I found this really helpful for my mindset, but others have found it silly.

Don't neglect friends and family.  This is a big one.  Remember, the goal of being more productive is to free time to do the things you want and be with the people you want.  It's not to spend 100 hour workweeks neglecting those who are important to you.  Make sure to take some time off to spend with friends and family.  Schedule it in your calendar if you have to.  This will matter most in the long-run for your life.

Productivity ≠ Busy and Busy ≠ Productivity.  If you do productivity right, you shouldn't feel busy all that often.  Being busy is a sign of having poor productivity and/or having taken on too many commitments, and is rarely ever a sign of doing things correctly.

 



Conclusion

These tips are really a result of me experimenting for eight months.  I'd expect you to take a similar amount of time to go from zero to productive and end up with different systems that work for you and your environment.  But I think there are a lot of power in these systems and I'm interested to see what other people do and how other people run with them.  After all, they work for me.

 

Further reading:

* The Secret Weapon

* David Allen's Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity

* Scott Young's The Little Book of Productivity

* Paul Christiano's Workflow

* 10 Step Anti-Procrostination Checklist

* Zenhabits

 

-

(Also cross-posted on my blog.)

How sure are you that brain emulations would be conscious?

15 ChrisHallquist 26 August 2013 06:21AM

Or the converse problem - an agent that contains all the aspects of human value, except the valuation of subjective experience.  So that the result is a nonsentient optimizer that goes around making genuine discoveries, but the discoveries are not savored and enjoyed, because there is no one there to do so.  This, I admit, I don't quite know to be possible.  Consciousness does still confuse me to some extent.  But a universe with no one to bear witness to it, might as well not be.

- Eliezer Yudkowsky, "Value is Fragile"

I had meant to try to write a long post for LessWrong on consciousness, but I'm getting stuck on it, partly because I'm not sure how well I know my audience here. So instead, I'm writing a short post, with my main purpose being just to informally poll the LessWrong community on one question: how sure are you that whole brain emulations would be conscious?

There's actually a fair amount of philosophical literature about issues in this vicinity; David Chalmers' paper "The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis" has a good introduction to the debate in section 9, including some relevant terminology:

Biological theorists of consciousness hold that consciousness is essentially biological and that no nonbiological system can be conscious. Functionalist theorists of consciousness hold that what matters to consciousness is not biological makeup but causal structure and causal role, so that a nonbiological system can be conscious as long as it is organized correctly.

So, on the functionalist view, emulations would be conscious, while on the biological view, they would not be.

Personally, I think there are good arguments for the functionalist view, and the biological view seems problematic: "biological" is a fuzzy, high-level category that doesn't seem like it could be of any fundamental importance. So probably emulations will be conscious--but I'm not too sure of that. Consciousness confuses me a great deal, and seems to confuse other people a great deal, and because of that I'd caution against being too sure of much of anything about consciousness. I'm worried not so much that the biological view will turn out to be right, but that the truth might be some third option no one has thought of, which might or might not entail emulations are conscious.

Uncertainty about whether emulations would be conscious is potentially of great practical concern. I don't think it's much of an argument against uploading-as-life-extension; better to probably survive as an up than do nothing and die for sure. But it's worrisome if you think about the possibility, say, of an intended-to-be-Friendly AI deciding we'd all be better off if we were forcibly uploaded (or persuaded, using its superhuman intelligence, to "voluntarily" upload...) Uncertainty about whether emulations would be conscious also makes Robin Hanson's "em revolution" scenario less appealing.

For a long time, I've vaguely hoped that advances in neuroscience and cognitive science would lead to unraveling the problem of consciousness. Perhaps working on creating the first emulations would do the trick. But this is only a vague hope, I have no clear idea of how that could possibly happen. Another hope would be that if we can get all the other problems in Friendly AI right, we'll be able to trust the AI to solve consciousness for us. But with our present understanding of consciousness, can we really be sure that would be the case?

That leads me to my second question for the LessWrong community: is there anything we can do now to to get clearer on consciousness? Any way to hack away at the edges?

Humans are utility monsters

67 PhilGoetz 16 August 2013 09:05PM

When someone complains that utilitarianism1 leads to the dust speck paradox or the trolley-car problem, I tell them that's a feature, not a bug. I'm not ready to say that respecting the utility monster is also a feature of utilitarianism, but it is what most people everywhere have always done. A model that doesn't allow for utility monsters can't model human behavior, and certainly shouldn't provoke indignant responses from philosophers who keep right on respecting their own utility monsters.

continue reading »

How to Measure Anything

50 lukeprog 07 August 2013 04:05AM

Douglas Hubbard’s How to Measure Anything is one of my favorite how-to books. I hope this summary inspires you to buy the book; it’s worth it.

The book opens:

Anything can be measured. If a thing can be observed in any way at all, it lends itself to some type of measurement method. No matter how “fuzzy” the measurement is, it’s still a measurement if it tells you more than you knew before. And those very things most likely to be seen as immeasurable are, virtually always, solved by relatively simple measurement methods.

The sciences have many established measurement methods, so Hubbard’s book focuses on the measurement of “business intangibles” that are important for decision-making but tricky to measure: things like management effectiveness, the “flexibility” to create new products, the risk of bankruptcy, and public image.

 

Basic Ideas

A measurement is an observation that quantitatively reduces uncertainty. Measurements might not yield precise, certain judgments, but they do reduce your uncertainty.

To be measured, the object of measurement must be described clearly, in terms of observables. A good way to clarify a vague object of measurement like “IT security” is to ask “What is IT security, and why do you care?” Such probing can reveal that “IT security” means things like a reduction in unauthorized intrusions and malware attacks, which the IT department cares about because these things result in lost productivity, fraud losses, and legal liabilities.

Uncertainty is the lack of certainty: the true outcome/state/value is not known.

Risk is a state of uncertainty in which some of the possibilities involve a loss.

Much pessimism about measurement comes from a lack of experience making measurements. Hubbard, who is far more experienced with measurement than his readers, says:

  1. Your problem is not as unique as you think.
  2. You have more data than you think.
  3. You need less data than you think.
  4. An adequate amount of new data is more accessible than you think.


Applied Information Economics

Hubbard calls his method “Applied Information Economics” (AIE). It consists of 5 steps:

  1. Define a decision problem and the relevant variables. (Start with the decision you need to make, then figure out which variables would make your decision easier if you had better estimates of their values.)
  2. Determine what you know. (Quantify your uncertainty about those variables in terms of ranges and probabilities.)
  3. Pick a variable, and compute the value of additional information for that variable. (Repeat until you find a variable with reasonably high information value. If no remaining variables have enough information value to justify the cost of measuring them, skip to step 5.)
  4. Apply the relevant measurement instrument(s) to the high-information-value variable. (Then go back to step 3.)
  5. Make a decision and act on it. (When you’ve done as much uncertainty reduction as is economically justified, it’s time to act!)

These steps are elaborated below.

continue reading »

View more: Next