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

Comment author: dropspindle 29 April 2017 01:12:29PM 2 points [-]

in-home maid/handyman/nanny jobs are exactly the obedient, dutiful, vigilant, lower-IQ, blue-collar, conscientious-type people.

Your stereotypes are both inaccurate and harmful. All the handymen I know are extremely intelligent. Electrical systems, plumbing systems, etc. are both complex and require reasoning to work with. A lot of fix-it stuff is a mix of puzzles, and figuring out how to do things on the fly.

I myself am a nanny (if you do a SAT to IQ conversion, my IQ is 144, which I am only saying because that seems to be of particular importance to you). Nannies tend to be of about average intelligence, and if I were to think of the most common trait it's that they were pioneering enough to either immigrate or leave their entire family behind to come to America to work.

Comment author: michaelkeenan 29 April 2017 06:44:41PM 1 point [-]

All the handymen I know are extremely intelligent

This is google-able - I found this chart. It's probably imperfect, but from a brief glance at the source I'd trust it more than anecdote or my own experience.

Comment author: michaelkeenan 01 April 2017 07:37:52PM 13 points [-]

The answer to, "What idiot did this!?" is almost always, "A smart, well-intentioned person making tradeoffs you hadn't even considered." - Jason Specland

Comment author: michaelkeenan 29 March 2017 06:19:51PM 8 points [-]

Debates didn't work because... well, it's a very complicated problem.

I'd love to hear about this in more detail. What have you learned about the problem? Do you know what good solutions would look like, but they're too hard or expensive to implement? Or have you learned that it isn't feasible?

Comment author: satt 13 March 2017 07:50:25PM 5 points [-]
Comment author: michaelkeenan 13 March 2017 09:15:13PM 1 point [-]

Thank you!

Comment author: michaelkeenan 13 March 2017 06:02:49PM 1 point [-]

I hope someone can help me find a blog post or webpage that I've seen before but can't find: it's someone describing a power law of scientists. There's a top level who have drastically more output than the level below, who are drastically more productive than the level below that. There's only a few at the top level, and a few hundred at level 2, and a few thousand at level 3. I think he mentions one scientist being level 0.5 - notably more productive than almost anyone else. It was on a relatively unstyled website, maybe Scott Aaronson's.

Anyone familiar with that?

Comment author: Bound_up 13 February 2017 11:52:49PM 0 points [-]

I'm looking for a link I saw on Slate Star Codex. It was poetry written by a woman who took drugs every day for a year (something like that). Anyone know where I might find it?

Comment author: michaelkeenan 28 February 2017 05:15:24PM *  0 points [-]

That sounds like Aella, who wrote about taking acid every week for a year. Here's her reddit post about it; it includes some art she made, and one poem.

Comment author: wubbles 29 December 2016 01:28:00PM 6 points [-]

I was using it to describe my own comment. I'll try to think of a way to make that clearer in the future.

Comment author: michaelkeenan 30 December 2016 08:06:40PM 1 point [-]

Oh, sorry!

Comment author: wubbles 28 December 2016 02:41:00AM 1 point [-]

Epistemic status: probably BS This could be a causal explanation for why engineers are seen as having poor social skills and the usefullness of ASD traits in engineering. If you aren't sensitive to the productive conversations being bad socially, and so don't disrupt them, you will learn more.

As for salons the fact that a hostess lead the conversation and selected the guests meant that the conversation had to be interesting to her. Those who didn't have anything interesting to say, or disrupted interesting conversations, wouldn't be invited back. Sadly wikipedia doesn't say much about how they were run. They seem to also have selected books to read, which would steer the conversation towards those books.

Comment author: michaelkeenan 29 December 2016 05:02:29AM *  2 points [-]

[I misinterpreted wubbles above; I retract this comment.]

I think we should reserve the "epistemic status" thing for authors to describe their own works. Using it to insult a work seems pointlessly snarky. The useful part could be communicated with just "Probably BS" or "I think this is probably BS". Leaving it at that would avoid the useless connotation about the author's thought process, which is unknowable by others.

Comment author: michaelkeenan 26 October 2016 12:10:27AM 1 point [-]

This is probably not the biggest annoyance, but it's recurring and it affects a lot of people (especially the approximately 9% with hyperacusis): many buses and garbage trucks have horrible screeching brakes. This is bad in general, but especially bad at 7am before I want to be awake.

Presumably it can be solved with some kind of regular maintenance. I doubt municipalities are interested in spending that money, but if somehow the affected residents could coordinate to pay (maybe with some kind of crowdfunding), and someone would organize the whole thing, then something could be done.

Comment author: James_Miller 24 October 2016 10:24:51PM 2 points [-]

I have trouble falling asleep at normal times and have been blocking blue light at night sometimes by wearing blue-blocking glasses but also by having red lights in my home office. I would like a bright lamp whose light would automatically change based on the time of day. I recently spent $75 buying smart light bulbs whose color can be changed by my iPad but I have to change the color myself several times each day.

Comment author: michaelkeenan 26 October 2016 12:06:07AM 1 point [-]

Not what you were asking for, but: have you encountered Eliezer's list of sleep interventions? It's the last section of this author's note at HPMOR. There might be a different helpful intervention there.

View more: Next