Because it frequently conflicts with previous commitments and often, when I am free, it is playing board games, which I don't enjoy. No knock on those who do (including most of my friends) but I find them unbearably tedious.
Hmm, okay. What types of meetups would you enjoy?
(I'm asking this as a co-organizer. We try to ask people what they want and accomodate to the degree possible.)
I live in DC and am an instigator of things (mostly theatre outings, debate, etc). That makes it easy to pull someone into my social circle, since there's usually a movie night, play outing, Shakespeare reading I'm hosting withing the next three weeks to invite them too. (And wanting to be invited to that sort of thing is an excellent filter from my end to see that I will like them).
Obligatory plug: If you want to be even more of a social supernode, why not increase your circle by attending your local DC LessWrong meetup? :-):-)
Typo:
Factors that cut against volunteering have social value
should be "having"
Ehh... As the other commenters are saying, it's unclear how it would promote rationality, or what its Ultimate Effect would be...
But I think you should do it anyway. I'd read it.
Meetup : Washington DC: Robin Hanson visits to talk about giving
Discussion article for the meetup : Washington DC: Robin Hanson visits to talk about giving
Robin Hanson will be visiting to discuss the issues involved with giving now vs. giving later (for example, saving up as much money as you can and donating your estate to an effective charity when you die).
As usual, the conversation may drift to whatever folks are most interested in.
Discussion article for the meetup : Washington DC: Robin Hanson visits to talk about giving
Only about 10 percent of new social programs in fields like education, criminology and social welfare demonstrate statistically significant benefits in RCTs
This is a higher rate than I'd expected. It implies that current policies in these three fields are not really thoroughly thought out, or at least not to the extent that I had expected. It seems that there is substantial room for improvement.
I would have expected perhaps one or two percent.
Remember, you expect 5% to give a statistically significant result just by chance...
In my career coaching work, one of the things I try to teach is how to spot these patterns of which way a market is going. This has some classic signs, and I can give plenty of examples of other industries in which this same pattern took place.
Examples would be appreciated. But this seems to be a case of trying to time the market and the usual objection applies; if you can time the market to within a year you can make huge piles of money. One of the contributors on HN, lsc of prgrmr.com talks about how he was calling the property bubble in the Bay area for years before it popped, and how if he had just got in at the frothy height of the dotcom bubble like everyone else, he'd still be ahead now on property, very far ahead.
I suspect that predicting trends in the pay for a certain career path doesn't need to be that precise in order to be useful. If you can predict the year in which it'll happen, you make huge piles of money. If you can predict the decade in which it'll happen, maybe you can't do that as well, but you could still make a choice to do something else.
This is really frustrating because I feel like the culture is constantly spamming two contradictory memes. Lumifer even explicitly gave me both of them upthread.
- Don't do something you don't truly enjoy, follow your dreams
- Don't do something that isn't practical, whatever you do, don't end up working at McDonalds
But in my case (and probably a substantial majority of people) I honestly think that the venn diagram between one and two might have literally zero overlap. Like, isn't the whole point of a job that it isn't fun, and that's why they have to pay you to do it? I tried to compromise by double majoring in something I am genuinely passionate about (art) and something practical (comp sci), but I feel like this is still not enough somehow...? Sometimes I think the only winning move is to get lucky and be born the type of person who has a natural burning desire to become an engineer.
Cal Newport's 'solution' to this is basically: Get good at something and then you'll enjoy it; expecting to enjoy anything that you are not yet good at is unrealistic. I think this probably isn't the entire story, because natural aptitude and enjoyment are real things that can cause you to like things more or less initially... But for me at least, this does explain a lot of my enjoyment of things. I find that there are some programming tasks I used to really hate doing, which I now dig into feeling fine, because I've gotten good at them. It probably depends on your personality and how you react to different incentives, as well.
You (the reader) do not exist.
EDIT: That was too punchy and not precise. The reasoning behind the statement:
Most things which think they are me are horribly confused gasps of consciousness. Rational agents should believe the chances are small that their experiences are remotely genuine.
EDIT 2: After thinking about shminux's comment, I have to retract my original statement about you readers not existing. Even if I'm a hopelessly confused Boltzmann brain, the referent "you" might still well exist. At minimum I have to think about existence more. Sorry!
Could you be more specific about what you mean by that?
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
I sort of understand Zendo but what's the point of playing dominion at a LW meetup?
Pretty much just for socializing / fun.