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

In response to Channel factors
Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 12 March 2014 05:32:19PM -1 points [-]

closing browser tabs as soon as I’m done with them

There should be a browser feature something along the lines of: if a tab is deeply buried and hasn't been used in a while, it gets closed automatically.

Comment author: jsalvatier 15 March 2014 01:33:18AM 1 point [-]
In response to Channel factors
Comment author: jsalvatier 15 March 2014 01:28:03AM 5 points [-]

This seems quite close to Beware Trivial Inconveniences. It's good to have an outside established name for this, though.

In response to Proportional Giving
Comment author: drethelin 04 March 2014 02:58:09AM 1 point [-]

proportional giving is good because it's a kind of giving that you can get a lot of people to do. Not for weird math reasons. I agree with what you're saying given utilitarian calculations but I don't think you're doing the right calculation.

Comment author: jsalvatier 06 March 2014 07:58:53PM 0 points [-]

Can you expand on that? What do you think would be closer to the right calculation?

In response to Proportional Giving
Comment author: jsalvatier 05 March 2014 01:24:55AM 1 point [-]

This seems obviously correct to me. In my experience this is not obvious to everyone and many people find it a bit distasteful to talk about. I'm glad you bring it up.

I haven't really tried hard, but I think I would find it pretty difficult to get myself to behave this way.

The way I "resolve" this dissonance is by thinking in terms of a parliamentary model of me. Parts of me want to be altruistic and part of me is selfish and they sort of "vote" over the use of resources.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 25 February 2014 08:55:04PM 3 points [-]

Not exactly. My best guess is that trying to figure out conscientiousness, benevolence, and loyalty are so hard that people mostly trust or mistrust without very good reasons.

And the reason loyalty is on the list is that companies don't want embezzlers, but they don't want whistleblowers, either.

Comment author: jsalvatier 26 February 2014 01:02:36AM 0 points [-]

You say not exactly, but you seem to be agreeing and clarifying?

Also there are definite strongish conscientiousness signals, such as education level and grooming/dress.

I think this post could use more context. Your point seems interesting and novel, but I'm not 100% certain what it is or what question you're trying to address.

Comment author: Vaniver 25 February 2014 07:51:39PM 10 points [-]

It seems to me that you can find out a lot about people's intelligence by talking with them a little, though I've underestimated people who were bright enough but didn't present as intellectual.

If this is true, then unstructured interviews should be a good way to determine how effective a candidate will be in a position. The literature is clear that unstructured interviews are worthless, and IQ testing is the best measure we have, typically explaining about half of the variance.

Lots of people have tried to dethrone IQ as a measure for a very long time, trying lots of things. They've never succeeded; IQ really is that good a measure of cognitive ability, and cognitive ability really is that important for almost everything.

Comment author: jsalvatier 25 February 2014 08:31:27PM 2 points [-]

I think NancyLebovitz is not saying IQ isn't important, but that its a lot easier to read than other traits.

Comment author: jsalvatier 25 February 2014 08:30:10PM 4 points [-]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying:

IQ might be important, but its easy for people to tell what someone's IQ is, so its not something you need to concentrate on. Things like conscientiousness, benevolence, and loyalty are also important, but much more difficult to figure out, and people spend lots of effort trying figure out those traits.

Is that right?

Comment author: michaelkeenan 23 February 2014 04:04:57AM 1 point [-]

I'd skimmed a paper from a couple of years ago, How Universal Is the Big Five? Testing the Five-Factor Model of Personality Variation Among Forager–Farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Abstract:

The five-factor model (FFM) of personality variation has been replicated across a range of human societies, suggesting the FFM is a human universal. However, most studies of the FFM have been restricted to literate, urban populations, which are uncharacteristic of the majority of human evolutionary history. We present the first test of the FFM in a largely illiterate, indigenous society. Tsimane forager-horticulturalist men and women of Bolivia (n = 632) completed a translation of the 44-item Big Five Inventory (Benet-Martínez & John, 1998), a widely used metric of the FFM. We failed to find robust support for the FFM, based on tests of (a) internal consistency of items expected to segregate into the Big Five factors, (b) response stability of the Big Five, (c) external validity of the Big Five with respect to observed behavior, (d) factor structure according to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and (e) similarity with a U.S. target structure based on Procrustes rotation analysis. Replication of the FFM was not improved in a separate sample of Tsimane adults (n = 430), who evaluated their spouses on the Big Five Inventory. Removal of reverse-scored items that may have elicited response biases produced factors suggestive of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, but fit to the FFM remained poor. Response styles may covary with exposure to education, but we found no better fit to the FFM among Tsimane who speak Spanish or have attended school. We argue that Tsimane personality variation displays 2 principal factors that may reflect socioecological characteristics common to small-scale societies. We offer evolutionary perspectives on why the structure of personality variation may not be invariant across human societies.

Comment author: jsalvatier 25 February 2014 08:07:22PM 0 points [-]

Very interesting. Thank you.

Comment author: michaelkeenan 10 June 2013 08:15:21PM *  2 points [-]

Moral Foundations theory (all moral rules in all human cultures appeal to the six moral foundations: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression,loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation). This makes other people's moralities easier to understand, and is an interesting lens through which to examine your own.

The Big Five Personality Traits - though I've heard these don't seem to fit non-Westerners very well. Probably still useful when thinking about Westerners. (For example, when evaluating someone as a romantic partner or a business partner in some risky venture, I find it useful to deliberately consider their neuroticism. Or when considering suggesting someone try traveling or anything adventurous, their Openness To Experience is probably relevant.)

A teleological, non-reductionist worldview, supposedly traceable through Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas is wrong, but is a useful concept to be aware of because some people think it's correct. It's related to why some people, particularly some religious people, oppose homosexuality. Edit: I should add that I'm not recommending an in-depth study of this concept, just reading a few blog posts on it, and then more if it's interesting to you or if you really need to engage with believers for some reason.

Comment author: jsalvatier 21 February 2014 02:05:24AM *  1 point [-]

though I've heard these don't seem to fit non-Westerners very well.

Any chance you have a source for more information on that? Seems interesting.

Comment author: gwern 16 August 2013 10:25:55PM *  5 points [-]
  1. First study fulltext: "Short-term effects of daily aspirin on cancer incidence, mortality, and non-vascular death: analysis of the time course of risks and benefits in 51 randomised controlled trials" http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/medicine/units/family_medicine/media/ASA_and_cancer_prevention.pdf
  2. Second: "Effect of daily aspirin on long-term risk of death due to cancer: analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials" http://home.kku.ac.th/medicine/I-San/9_4/files/07.pdf

Now that these are available, I've read through them and specifically looked at any mentions of all-cause mortality; while most of the all-cause figures are not statistically-significant, in every case the point-value seems to be consistently lower (ie. the baby aspirin was helpful). I didn't find any all-cause numbers cited in which the aspirin group died more.

I was critical in the earlier discussion because we weren't seeing the all-cause numbers and there are excellent reasons to be wary of medical results, but personally I find all-cause mortality to be a very persuasive metric, and in the absence of any contraindications for myself or finding that the all-cause numbers have been fudged, I think I'll start low-dose/baby aspirin. (The medical aspects are my only concern - money-wise, it might as well be free; for example, here on Amazon is 730 tablets or 2 years' worth for $8.)

Comment author: jsalvatier 21 February 2014 01:46:44AM 0 points [-]

Are you now taking low-dose aspirin?

View more: Next