= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
This is an awful lot of words for talking about something that I don't get to play with yet.
America contains multitudes; by living in the right place and exposing yourself to the right information, you don't really have to be aware of all the people who determined its World Values Survey results.
Yes, certainly. But it is still the case World Values Survey results are relevant. I do not know exactly the people I will come about when I move to another country. All of them are expected to be biased towards academic values. Still, the values of the survey predict each country specific bias. I have met academics from USA on my area, and they are all very clearly much more obsessed with their careers (survival and traditional value) than with having a meaningful life. But I reckon my sample is very small.
(I suspect this is also true in Brazil...)
No. Brazil is so screw up that during 26 years I have found only one intelligent person with my set of values. Meet diegocaleiro. He is also leaving the country, by the way. In fact, most really smart people are. Note I live in Brazil's largest metropolitan area (and world's 7th), and I have visited 20 out of 27 states.
Why? You haven't expressed that living somewhere with high population density or lots of popular nearby attractions is important to you.
No, I haven't. I will address the "isolated country" factor on my reply to Kaj and then add that to the post afterwards.
Finally, note that you could remove "rationally" from the title and exactly the same meaning would be conveyed, since we're on a blog about rationality.
Fixed.
I'm skeptical of the implicit dichotomy between a successful career and a meaningful life (especially for academics!). I may very well just think that because I'm also from the US. As for my n=1, I live in New York and get to enjoy the rationalist and tech communities here and generally don't interact with any other demographic.
In response to
How to choose a country/city?
[the US] isn't that far away from a survival-traditional oriented society
America contains multitudes; by living in the right place and exposing yourself to the right information, you don't really have to be aware of all the people who determined its World Values Survey results. (I suspect this is also true in Brazil...)
the fact [New Zealand] is in the freaking middle of nowhere is very discouraging.
Why? You haven't expressed that living somewhere with high population density or lots of popular nearby attractions is important to you.
Finally, note that you could remove "rationally" from the title and exactly the same meaning would be conveyed, since we're on a blog about rationality.
I would say there is not a sharp dividing line. There is engineering practice, there is research and development into incremental modifications and improvements of existing engineering practice having varying degrees of novelty, and way at the other end of the spectrum is pure research into the mass of neutrinos and whatnot. In between there is an infinite range of degrees.
In some sense engineers are always doing "science." Pilot projects and prototypes are a common way of experimentally demonstrating the feasibility of a new engineering design or process. One might say that this is "science" but not "Science." Some seem to feel that it isn't Science without peer review. I've been part of the peer review process numerous times from both sides of the table and it's nothing like what you would think if you gleaned your impression of peer review from reading about it on lesswrong. In short, the process barely serves to filter out the obviously wrong.
The market provides a continuous and generally valid test of engineering principles. I think it's more scientific than peer review, in the most meaningful sense of the word "science".
In response to
comment
by
on
Introducing Familiar, a quantified reasoning assistant (feedback sought!)
Ah. Well, (correlations enough-sleep true), for example, just gives me "That didn't work" - what am I doing wrong?
In response to
comment
by
on
Introducing Familiar, a quantified reasoning assistant (feedback sought!)
I'm not sure. If you're comfortable sharing your data, PM me a link to the contents of your /data folder.
More questions!
Is there a way to get at the data this produces, if I want to manually edit it, or use it with a different program? (Or rather, of course there's a way - how would you recommend I do it?)
How many data points do you need before (correlations) starts giving you results?
In response to
comment
by
on
Introducing Familiar, a quantified reasoning assistant (feedback sought!)
It's an H2 database saved inside /data in your Familiar directory. You can make SQL queries into it with other programs. Exporting to JSON or CSV or something will happen eventually.
Two, technically, I suppose, but I'd probably collect data for a couple of months before I started seriously interpreting correlations involving variables with a resolution of one day. This will be a topic in the more extended documentation.
Is there a way to modify a variable once you've created it, or delete it? In particular, I'd like to change the units and the value type.
In response to
comment
by
on
Introducing Familiar, a quantified reasoning assistant (feedback sought!)
There is, though it's not implemented as a neat API function (yet), so if you're using the official release from when this was first posted you can't do it. It looks like this:
(update variable (where {:name "cats"}) (set-fields {:unit "encountered" :fn "non-negative?"}))
This will break preexisting data if the prior validator wasn't a strict subset of the new validator. Converting variables into a new representation sanely and easily is something I plan to add in.
Also, the default time is a good four hours off (presumably because of timezones?) Is there a way to change that?
Can you use percentage variables?
(And while we're at it, is there are more comprehensive readme anywhere?)
In response to
comment
by
on
Introducing Familiar, a quantified reasoning assistant (feedback sought!)
You want
(change-time (days -1))
if the active time is on the wrong day. The active time being wrong but on the correct day doesn't matter yet since only day-resolution variables are supported. A time zone setting will be added along with variables of arbitrary time resolution.
For percentage variables, use
(num-interval 0 100)
as the validator for a variable. (I will add "percent" as a built-in validator.)
Besides the built-in documentation for all the API functions, the readme on GitHub is the most comprehensive existing documentation. Of course I intend to fix that eventually, probably along with the next release which is going to be the one where there is a GUI.
Thank you for all your feedback!
In response to
Useful Habits Repository
At the end of the day, go through the things you did. What did you do and why? How did you feel while you did it? Doing it in writing can be helpful (this is what journaling is). Or even get scientific and quantify things so you can analyze your data later!
cough this software I write for that last thing cough
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
One option would be to make a new account and not publicly acknowledge it's a successor to this one, if you're okay with everything that entails. I've done it before (to change my username) and the reset to zero karma and loss of my precious posting history really didn't affect me at all.