land in scandinavia (if Hansons guess about the emulations hub is right),

Can you link me to this? I searched but could not find what you are talking about.

I have used Fiverr to hire a professional voice actor to read short messages. For small scripting jobs or Photoshop work, I have always found reddit's r/forhire subreddit useful.

Lately there seems to be an abundance of anecdotal and research evidence to refrain from masturbation/quit porn. I am not sure that the evidence is conclusive enough for me to believe the validity of the claims. The touted benefits are impressive, while the potential cons seem minimal. I would be interested in some counter arguments and if not too personal, I'd like to know the thoughts of those who have participated in quitting masturbation/porn.

I attempted to clarify what I mean by editing the post. I meant unemployment and I apologize for being unclear. Also, I didn't want to say, "Do you agree with the Neo-Luddism?" because I think that you could still believe that structural unemployment caused by technology is a real risk, with out having the philosophy of opposing technology. Perhaps there are solutions that would minimize suffering, if technological unemployment is a significant risk, that does not involve halting progress in software and robotics.

Surely I'm missing something?

Perhaps more practice?

I mentioned that I was attending a Landmark seminar. Here is my review of their free introductory class that hopefully adds to the conversation for those who want to know:

Coaches - They are the people who lead the class and I found them to be genuine in their belief in the benefits of taking the courses. These coaches were unpaid volunteers. I found their motives for coaching were for self-improvement and to some degree altruism. In short, it helped them, and they really want to share it.

Material - The intro course consists of more informative ideas rather than exercises. Their informative ideas are also trade-marked phrases, which makes it gimmicky and gives it more importance than an idea really warrants. We were not told these ideas were evidence-based. Lots of information on how to improve one's life was thrown around but no research or empirical evidence was given. Not once was the words " cognitive science" or "rationality" used. I speculate that the value the course gives its students is not from their informative ideas, but probably from the exercises and motivation that one gets from being actively pushed by their coaches to pursue goals.

Final thoughts - If you are rationality minded then this is not for you. I am no worse for going, and I do not believe that anyone who is rationality minded and attends will be worse off either, however I do believe that it is most likely damaging for a person's rationality , who is naive in rationality to begin with, to attend. I have never attended CFAR but just from browsing their website I can tell that Landmark is very far from what CFAR does. I think people in general would benefit more from attending CFAR than Landmark.

What are some effective interviewer techniques for a more efficient interview process?

A resume can tell you about the person's skill, experience, and implicitly, their intelligence. The average interview process is in my opinion broken because what I find happens a lot is that interviewers un-methodologically "feel out" the person in a short amount of time. This is fine when searching for any obvious red-flags, but for somethings as important as collaborating with someone long-term and who you will likely see more of than your own family, we should take it more seriously.

I have a few ideas of my own:

1. Disregard given references - call references and ask them who else they worked with, and call them instead.

2. Ask specific and verifiable questions - competency is hard to fake if questions are deep.

3. Use an actual known problem and solution related to the job and have them solve it.
4. Plant an impersonator as an interviewee for an unrelated lowly position in the waiting room and have them interact.
5. Test for interpersonal situation reasoning - This is the big one for me. You can't just ask "are you good with people?" The answer is too easily faked. Terrible coworkers are often arrogant, unempathetic ,and lack self-awareness and theory of mind. All the things that a resume and traditional Q and A about an interviewee's experience, can't help you answer. By presenting everyday interpersonal situations and having them reason through the positions they take, you will a better nuanced understanding.

Any suggestions?

Not an explanation, but perhaps try to see this as a benefit to you? I have witnessed plenty of poker players get very angry at bad players. Over time bad players lose money to good players, so one shouldn't complain about bad players. Someone who is ineffective at status signalling won't affect you, you already see through them.

Personally, I find that I have an admiration for people with skill, even in things such as effective status signalling. When people lack a certain savoir-faire about them, it makes me upset, but then I remind myself I shouldn't.

I have recently been thinking about meta-game psychology in competitions, more specifically, knowledge of opponent's skill level and knowledge of opponent's knowledge of your own skill level, and how this all affects outcomes. In other words, instead of being 'psych out' by 'trash talk', is there any indication that you can be 'psyched out' by knowing how you rank up against other players. Any links for more information would be appreciated.

Part of my routine is to play a few games of on-line chess everyday. I noticed when ever an opponent with a vastly superior score comes in the room, my confidence is shaken before game play, I become nervous. If my opponent is only slightly better than me, I am calm and confident that I can win. Chess rating systems work by giving the worse ranked player more points for winning a match, this makes it so that if I am matched against a vastly inferior player than myself, I once again become nervous because I do not want to lose to such a player.

Here are my opponent's strength and how I feel before playing:

• superior opponent - Nervous
• slightly superior opponent - Confident
• slightly inferior opponent - Neutral
• inferior opponent - Nervous

Over the last few months decided to block the rating of players that play with me and I noticed that I consistently feel more confident that I can win because I am no longer thinking about how much better or not better I am than my opponent. I don't know if it really helps, because my improvement can be attributable to playing more, not necessarily because I blocked out my opponent's rating and chat (Yes, people do trash talk in on-line chess and it does psych me out sometimes).

I am curious to know what other people's feelings are when it comes to knowledge of opponents skill, it would be nice to have a few responses filling out their feelings on the following:

• superior opponent -
• slightly superior opponent -
• slightly inferior opponent -
• inferior opponent -

It would be useful information to see what the majority reaction is, as useful strategies can be developed. For example, assuming most people are crushed to hear that they are vastly outmatched, and you are accurate about your skill being in the 5th percentile, then it would be beneficial in competition to make it known, perhaps?