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

Digging the Bull's Horn

-7 gworley 12 November 2012 04:03PM

Some time ago I learned of the metaphor of 'digging the bull's horn'. This might sound a little strange, since horns are mostly hollow, but imagine a bull's horn used to store black powder. In the beginning the work is easy and you can scoop out a lot powder with very little effort. As you dig down, though, each scoop yields less powder as you dig into the narrow part of the horn until the only way you can get out more powder is to turn the horn over a dump it out.

It's often the same way with learning. When you start out in a subject there is a lot to be learned (both in quantity of material you have not yet seen and in quantity of benefits you have to gain from the information), but as you dig deeper into a subject the useful insights come less often or are more limited in scope. Eventually you dig down so far that the only way to learn more is to discover new things that no one has yet learned (to stretch the metaphor, you have to add your own powder back to dig out).

It's useful to know that you're digging the bull's horn when learning because, unless you really enjoy a subject or have some reason to believe that contributing to it is worthwhile, you can know in advance that most of the really valuable insights you'll gain will come early on. If you want to benefit from knowing about as much stuff as possible, you'll often want to stop actively pursuing a subject unless you want to make a career out of it.

But, for a few subjects, this isn't true. Sometimes, as you continue to learn the last few hard things that don't seem to provide big, broadly-useful insights, you manage to accumulate a critical level of knowledge about the subject that opens up a whole new world of insights to you that were previously hidden. To push the metaphor, you eventually dig so deep that you come out the other side to find a huge pile of powder.

The Way seems to be one of those subjects you can dig past the end of: there are some people who have mastered The Way to such an extent that they have access to a huge range of benefits not available to those still digging the horn. But when it comes to other subjects, how do you know? Great insights could be hiding beyond currently obscure fields of study because no one has bothered to dig deep enough. Aside from having clear examples of people who came out the other side to give us reason to believe it's worth while to deep really deep on some subjects, is there any way we can make a good prediction about what subjects may be worth digging to the end of the bull's horn?

Comment author: gworley 20 August 2012 12:07:15AM 8 points [-]

Just to toss in my own strongest suspicion. Among LWers under 25, they probably see themselves as young and still learning and not yet brave enough to throw themselves all in to something. For those over 25, they (myself included) probably see themselves as already busy doing something and would need some pretty strong motivation to do something else, even if it does align with core values.

Comment author: gworley 19 August 2012 11:41:02PM *  11 points [-]

Let me just toss out some caution here.

I'm all for getting excited and making stuff happen. Maybe it really is that there have not yet been any LW startups because we all just failed to coordinate on it and in hindsight we'll all say "why the hell did we all wait for so long". That said, let's not forget a few key things here.

  • Most startups fail
  • even when the principals are smart and motivated
  • even when the idea is really good
  • even when [x] is [y]

And, as I already said, for some reason we haven't already had a bunch of successful LW startups. It's certainly not for lack of smart people, entrepreneurs, or technical skills.

If a LW startup is going to succeed, I think we would benefit from understanding first why we don't already have successful LW startups (not even one).

Comment author: gworley 24 June 2010 04:05:32PM 2 points [-]

At best, you would get someone similar enough to be a relative of yours.

Even if that's all the better we can do, that's much better than the nothing that will befall those who would otherwise have been totally lost because they didn't sign up for cryonics.

Comment author: gworley 23 June 2010 08:46:01PM 0 points [-]

I have no doubt that this sort of thing has been occasionally explored in fiction. That said, there's a big difference between considering an idea in fiction and considering acting on an idea in real life.

Comment author: gworley 23 June 2010 08:44:10PM 3 points [-]

I see where this is going, so I'll go ahead and let you run an economic analysis on me. But, keep in mind that cost is not the only factor, only the main one for most of the world's population. For me it has far more to do with the social costs I would have to pay to sign up for cryonics.

That said, I estimate I'll be putting about 1 hour a week into writing myself into the future. I am currently paid at a rate of approximately $18 an hour. I'm not sure what my lifetime average pay rate will be, but let's go ahead and estimate it at $60 per hour in 2010 USD (I have two M.S. degrees, one in computer science and one in mathematics, and I'm willing to do work with questionable ethical outcomes, like "defense" contracting).

Comment author: gworley 23 June 2010 08:35:52PM *  0 points [-]

Note, though, that you're talking about costs for people living in the First World. If you live in Sudan, for example, I doubt you can get access to cryonics short of paying for it all upfront in full: after all, who would want to insure someone's life when they live in such a deadly country.

Comment author: gworley 23 June 2010 08:32:27PM 2 points [-]

Perhaps I made a mistake in using the LW taboo words "I don't know". Really, how much is probably a function of how fine-grained you want the restoration from writing to be. Since I think it's reasonable to assume decreasing marginal utility from additional writing, I think a good estimate is that something like the first 10 pages of an autobiography are worth about the same as the following 100 pages (assuming a uniform distribution of information, so not the first 10 pages of a typical autobiography that might go in chronological order). The more you write the better the restoration will be. How good that restoration will actually turn out to be compared to, say, a cryonic restoration, is hard to know because we don't actually know how that will turn out either for sure, but obviously I think it will turn out to be pretty good.

Comment author: gworley 23 June 2010 08:08:30PM 3 points [-]

I agree with you here in that almost no one, especially the world's poor, will consider this a valid means of coming back to life. But, then, that's sort of the point. Depending on how you present it you can potentially get people to keep these kinds of writings even if they don't believe it will extend their lives in any meaningful way, and then they won't be completely lost because they didn't believe it was possible to come back from a biological death. And it lets those who do believe it will let them come back to life pursue their interest without hitting against social backlash.

Comment author: gworley 23 June 2010 04:27:22PM 3 points [-]

Of course this is a possibility. Even with cryonics, presumably if we have the technology to restore you then we'll have the technology to restore you with whatever modifications you'd like. The person you write into the future will be like you only insofar as you make them like you. If you choose to write someone like yourself but who is an excellent piano player into the future, so be it.

View more: Next