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

Shoulds can be changed to Cans

2 Stabilizer 15 March 2014 09:05AM

Here is an interesting exercise. Whenever, you have a 'should' statement, see if you can change it to a 'can' statement, and notice being more empowered. Examples:

Not, I should be grateful. Instead, I can be grateful! [To clarify, I mean that being grateful is something that will make you feel good. As an analogy, if you have tasty cookies lying around the house, you will say to yourself: "well, I can certainly get cookie."]

Not, I should leave a generous tip. Instead, I can leave a generous tip! [As in, you can leave a generous tip and feel good about it.]

Not, I should donate to charity. Instead, I can donate to charity!

Not, I should loosen-up sometimes. Instead, I can loosen-up sometimes!

Not, I should keep in touch with old friends. Instead, I can keep in touch with old friends!

Not, I should learn to program. Instead, I can learn to program!

Not, I should eat healthy. Instead, I can eat healthy!

The general pattern here is that, instead of making the activity a moral duty, you can make it something fulfilling which you choose to do because of its benefits. 

For 'should not' statements you can substitute: 'I choose not to.' One example (you can make up more):

Not, I should not eat refined sugar. Instead, I choose not to eat refined sugar.

I'm sure that this procedure doesn't always work and you can generate counterexamples. I have not done them here. Please share your examples (counterexamples).

Just One Sentence

33 Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 January 2013 01:27AM

So apparently Richard Feynman once said:

If, in some cataclysm, all scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms — little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence you will see an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.

I could be missing something, but this strikes me as a terrible answer.

When was the atomic hypothesis confirmed?  If I recall correctly, it was only when chemists started noticing that the outputs of chemical reactions tended to factorize a certain way, which is to say that it took millennia after Democritus to get the point where the atomic hypothesis started making clearly relevant experimental predictions.

How about, "Stop trying to sound wise and come up with theories that make precise predictions about things you can measure in numbers."

I noticed this on Marginal Revolution, so I shall also state my candidate for the one most important sentence about macroeconomics:  "You can't eat gold, so figure out how the heck money is relevant to making countries actually produce more or less food."  This is a pretty large advance on how kings used to think before economics.  I mean, Scott Sumner is usually pretty savvy (so is Richard Feynman btw) but his instruction to try to understand money is likely to fall on deaf ears, if it's just that one sentence.  Think about money?  Everyone wants more money!  Yay, money!  Let's build more gold mines!  And "In the short run, governments are not households"?  Really, Prof. Cowen, that's what you'd pass on to the next generation as they climb up from the radioactive soil?

*Cough.*  Okay, I'm done.  Does anyone want to take their own shot at doing better than Feynman did for their own discipline?