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

Comment author: hamnox 04 December 2016 04:20:29AM 2 points [-]

I find myself very confused about how to tell which journals are reputable. Do you have a good heuristic (or list) for finding this out?

Comment author: gressettd 17 May 2013 10:26:59PM *  13 points [-]

Here's a method for learning a complex subject that seems to accelerate acquiring instrumental skill and the ability to use the knowledge creatively. As a bonus, you make progress on projects you've deferred for want of technical skills you're learning now.

Project Mapping: a) Make a list of projects you're working or intend to do sometime. The more the projects excite you, the more effective this technique. b) Take a bite of your subject (a chapter or topic, smaller the better) c) Go to your project journal. Pick one or more projects from the list to connect to the material you learned. If they can't conceivably connect ... then why are you learning this? d) No matter how great the gap between the complexity and difficulty of your project and the simplicity of the elementary material you just learned, even if it's just whole number addition, describe ways to apply the knowledge to some aspect or part of your project. This is the actual "secret sauce" of the technique. e) Return to each bite to "rehearse" it by adding even more ideas, and feel free to connect in and use more advanced material you've learned, too. f) If you can, set your rehearsal schedule for each bite to initially just half an hour apart, but space them out by double the previous time between rehearsals. Force even boundaries on days or weeks to help simplify the schedule. Something like: 30m, 60m, 2h, 4h, 8h, 16h, 24h, 2d, 4d, 7d, 2w, 1m, 2m, 4m, 8m, 1y

A note on the "secret sauce" (part d): You'll often need to force your brain to believe, especially when learning the fundamentals of a subject, that you can apply it to your byzantine mega-idea. Try for five minutes. If it's just too hard, maybe create an easier project to stand-in.

Comment author: hamnox 14 July 2016 04:26:48AM 0 points [-]

I have unintentially been implementing something like this in anki.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Why Don't Rationalists Win?
Comment author: lahwran 15 September 2015 09:58:41PM 1 point [-]

The point of the "rationalists win" thing was to define rationality as winning. Which, among other things, makes it very unclear why the word "intelligence" is different. Everyone seems to insist it is in fact different when I ask, but nobody can explain why, and the inductive examples they give me collapse under scrutiny. what?

Comment author: hamnox 18 September 2015 05:29:08PM 3 points [-]

Pretty sure inductive examples of intelligence fail because we really are pointing at different things when we say it.

Some mean "shows a statistically higher base rate for acquiring mental constructs (ideas, knowledge, skills)" when they say it. This usage tends to show up in people who think that model-building and explicit reasoning are the key to winning. They may try to tack this consideration onto their definition of intelligence in some way.

Some try to point at the specific differences in mental architecture they think cause people to use more or fewer mental constructs, like working memory or ability to abstract. This usage tends to show up in people who are trying to effect useful changes in how they or others think. They may notice that there's a lot of variation in which kind of mental constructs are used, and try to single out the combination that is most important to winning.

There's also the social stereotype of who has a preference for "doing" and experiencing vs. who is drawn to "thinking" and planning. People who think "doing" or having a well-integrated System 1 is the key to winning may favor this definition, since it neatly sidesteps away from the stupid argument over definitions the thinkers are having. I like to use it in conversations because it's loose enough to kinda encapsulate the other definitions — which role you think you fit is going to correlate with which you use more, which itself correlates with what your natural abilities lend themselves to. I'm less likely to talk past people that way..

But it's also because of this last interpretation that I point blank refuse to use intelligence as a synonym for rationality. The word 'rational' comes with just as many shades of denying emotion and trusting models over intuition, but they're at least framed as ignoring extraneous factors in the course of doing what you must.

Comment author: ChristianKl 21 June 2015 07:33:23PM -1 points [-]

a lw meetup seems like a good place to explore on your own terms: it's got a norm of asking for touch verbally instead of by mysterious social cues

People who want to be asked for physical touch likely won't opt for the "free hugs" sticker which a majority did at LWCW-EU. It means opting in to being touched unexpectedly.

Picking that sticker is not an act that I would expect from a person with real autism.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spectrum-solutions/201111/touch-and-the-autism-spectrum contains the paragraph:

NT girl wants to show her affection to her boyfriend. She comes up behind him and gives him a hug. He stiffens and pushes her away. She is bewildered, confused, and sad. Why doesn't he want her hug?

Behavior like that happens with autism.

I used to have a roommate with autism and I don't think he would have picked a free-hugs sticker.

explicit consensus on its purpose and meaning (because touch itself might be pleasant, no accidentally starting a mating ritual)

There are many different purposes for touch besides mating and I don't think it's always communicated explicitly. In a debugging session I might use touch to direct attention, gather information or affect an emotional process. If it's informal sitting on the couch the purpose can also be bonding or pleasure in the moment.

Comment author: hamnox 22 June 2015 09:13:52PM 1 point [-]

Right.. Verbally was too narrow a term. The free hugs sticker seems perfectly in line, actually. If there's an explicit option to opt-in, then there's an implicit option to opt OUT. Just having the option to opt out that makes it feel a whole lot safer to let people into your personal space.

Some autistic conventions have gone with a system of colored badges: a green badge means that the person is actively seeking communication; they have trouble initiating, but want to be approached by people. A yellow badge means they might approach strangers to talk, but unless you have already met the person face-to-face, you should not approach them to talk. A red badge means that the person probably does not want to talk to anyone, or only wants to talk to a few people.

The quote about the hug is an exceedingly typical narrative, in the sense that it's a narrative written in a very typical way. There's no context for her boyfriend's mental state, what he was doing or what kind of day he's had so far. How do I describe how huge an oversight that is? The only comparison I can think of is to sex, because people acknowledge the way abusing such an intense experience can wreak havoc on your mind.

What if people around you thought it was normal and okay to force sex on you at any moment, and more so that you were being difficult or uncaring if you rejected a bit of harmless surprise sex? If every meeting might escalate too-much-too-fast, if you were left breathless and raw multiple times a day with no time to recuperate or make sense of it? It would be easy to decide that you point-blank hated sex. You know that your reactions are completely out of proportion by any normal standard, but the confusion and terror just keep building until you want nothing to do with sex. You make excuses where you can and think of England when you can't. You try to keep iron control over which people have sex with you and when. You find sexual variations to propose that you like better, or that at least trigger you less. You leave behind many sad, bewildered loved ones as you stumble your way through life.

You find others who seem unusually deliberate about sex also. When they talk about its many beneficial and underrated effects, it resonates with your subjective experience that sex is a powerful, intense thing. It occurs to you that you do share mostly the same brain chemistry as the rest of the human race, and there's a good chance that you will like and benefit from sex if you can break down your averse reaction to it. Might as well try it, eh?

Comment author: ChristianKl 17 June 2015 09:47:09PM 2 points [-]

Being uncomfortable with physical touch is typical for autism. The big LW community events I attended have a lot of physical touching. From what I heard about CFAR that's true as well.

We don't act according to standard social scripts and a few people do show signs of autism but I don't think autists are a majority.

Comment author: hamnox 21 June 2015 05:41:25PM 0 points [-]

Touch sensitivity can vary. Having a sense of control and an amenable mental state can make significant difference. Being touched unexpectedly, especially when one is already overstimulated, can be horrendous. But while the intense blow-ups over innocuous unwanted sensations are most memorable, autists can have as many strong positive preferences as negative. If you're curious about touch at all, a lw meetup seems like a good place to explore on your own terms: it's got a norm of asking for touch verbally instead of by mysterious social cues (a chance to say no most casual touch doesn't give), explicit consensus on its purpose and meaning (because touch itself might be pleasant, no accidentally starting a mating ritual), and a built-in excuse for why you might find it uncomfortable and off-putting (it IS weird, by other social standards).

Comment author: hamnox 16 April 2015 11:50:29PM *  1 point [-]

Things I've been up to:

Keeping a composition notebook as a lab notebook for life. The very first entry is "Keeping a Research Journal", where I'm recording metadata about this attempt and my self-confidence in doing important science subtasks before and after.

Most recently, I did some random-sampling with tagtime to help me locate convenient straps to bootstrap trigger-actions with. At each ping, I wrote down my current actions, what in my internal experience or environment triggered me to be doing that, and maybe a few things I thought I 'ought' to be working on instead. It was a more frequent sampling rate than I've ever done before (~10min between pings), and the most significant conclusion to pop out was that getting interrupted by random pings all the time really, really stressed me out. This highly skewed my samples towards anxious internet browsing.

Now I've got:

  • Think about opening social media -> open mood survey
  • Feel prideful -> reinforce the moment with msg to bf or tumblr
  • Feel bored -> put on some music (feeling 'bored' is the often the first sign that I'm about to go into overload)
  • Feel confused about next actions -> Take a walk outside
  • Notice it's after 10 am -> make tortilla toast (simple enough to make while starving, in case I forgot to eat)

I'm deliberately not adding things until I've got a firm handle on the composition and effects of my baseline habits. My history with self-improvement is a long sad tale of accidentally tearing apart vital building blocks to fuel the production of shiny paperweights.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 29 March 2015 08:21:05PM 1 point [-]

Using a (stochastic) time tagger has not worked for me. Apparently I'm not compulsively checking my phone enough. I miss lots of pings.

At first I thought I could just build enough habit. Didn't work.

Then I thought just enough data would solve it. Until I noticed that there are times where I don't reliably track as realiably as in other times (e.g. at home when the phone is out of earshot).

Then I thought I could salvage pings by smartly analysing them - evaluating tags relativ to the hour they come it thus compensating high-miss times. Until I realized that they correlate with the type of tag.

Then I gave up.

The last use of the ping right now is to remind me of writing this post.

Comment author: hamnox 16 April 2015 09:51:43PM 0 points [-]

Sorry it didn't work out for you.

It seems like such a brilliant idea, and it doesn't work for me either. I still use it occasionally when there's something important I want to randomly self-sample for a few days, but I quickly train myself to ignore pings and alarms after a while.

Comment author: Unknowns 01 March 2015 05:31:02AM 1 point [-]

and tell Harry to drop his wand now that the Vow is over, otherwise the other Death Eaters kill him.

Comment author: hamnox 03 March 2015 05:11:43PM 1 point [-]

happenss next chapter, of coursse. readerss should be ready for Voldemort to adapt in wayss not explicity sstated—Voldemort has intelligence to do sso.

Comment author: toner 01 March 2015 03:56:39PM *  6 points [-]

Observation: If the purpose of this exercise is to run an AI box experiment, with EY as gatekeeper and the internet hivemind as the AI, then the ability to speak in parseltongue is problematic: It appears to make the game easier for the AI, thereby preventing the results from being generalized to a standard AI box experiment.

So why did Eliezer include the parseltongue constraint?

Maybe parseltongue is meant to introduce the concept of provability in a way that everyone can understand. To speak in parseltongue in real life, you just speak in logic statements and supply a proof with any statement you make. It seems reasonable (modulo computational complexity and provability concerns) for an AI to be able and/or required to supply proofs in an AI box experiment and parseltongue enables that in version of the game in the story.

I don't understand the constraint to speak only in parseltongue. Is that there to force us to focus on a solution set that is somehow of interest for friendly AI research?

Comment author: hamnox 03 March 2015 05:01:19PM *  1 point [-]

It's there to limit Harry using the death eaters somehow. Seriously, my first thought on this problem was to convince the death eaters that there were two Voldemorts to seed confusion.

Meetup : Sandy, UT—Altruism Discussion

1 hamnox 13 February 2015 07:16PM

Discussion article for the meetup : Sandy, UT—Altruism Discussion

WHEN: 21 February 2015 03:00:11PM (-0700)

WHERE: 9425 Riverside Dr, Sandy, UT 84070

Topic: Altruism ========================== When: Saturday, February 21 at 3:00pm Where: Clubhouse at Legends at River Oaks in Sandy, Utah - https://goo.gl/maps/TPH3h (9425 Riverside Dr, Sandy, UT 84070) Meetup is in Sandy this time, at 3pm, at the Legends clubhouse. There will be an opportunity for anyone to give a neat 5-minute presentation or two on whatever subject they like before we get talking. If the date and time doesn't work for you, you can just reply to this thread, or you can contact hamnox directly.

Discussion article for the meetup : Sandy, UT—Altruism Discussion

View more: Next