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

Comment author: patrissimo 06 August 2011 03:44:52AM 16 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky's keyboard only has two keys: 1 and 0.

Comment author: patrissimo 06 August 2011 03:44:37AM 16 points [-]

The speed of light used to be much lower before Eliezer Yudkowsky optimized the laws of physics.

Comment author: patrissimo 06 August 2011 03:44:11AM 2 points [-]

Eliezer Yudkowsky doesn't have a chin, underneath his beard is another brain.

Comment author: patrissimo 09 July 2011 05:47:10PM 2 points [-]

As a contrarian rationalist, I can assure you that my attitudes are the results of my personality & upbringing, not some bold brave conscious decision. I was always different, enough that conforming wouldn't have worked, so finding true & interesting & positive-attention-capturing ways to be different was my best path. The result is that I'm biased towards contrarian theses, which I think is useful for improving group rationality in most cases, but still isn't rational.

Comment author: patrissimo 29 March 2011 08:47:22PM 7 points [-]

I am starting to believe that Patri is motivated by status and worldly accomplishment much more than by learning or curiosity, and if Patri is indeed (as this article suggests) forgoing opportunities to take pleasure in learning for the sake of optimizing his increases in status or accomplishment, well, then even though Patri certainly is a fine and commendable young man, that is a mistake

Yes, I am indeed attempting to choose my reading based on how it supports my consciously chosen goals, rather than simply the vague non-goal of "learning" or short-term hedonic utility ("pleasure"). There is a name for this - it's called "instrumental rationality", and I'm rather surprised to find an LW commenter calling it a mistake! I thought I could count on it as a shared assumption.

Now, the question of what I'm motivated by & whether that's good is totally separate. I frankly admit that one of my goals is to climb the status ladder, and I can understand why some people might not see that as desirable. On the other hand, I'm again surprised to find "worldly accomplishment" characterized negatively - isn't accomplishing things in the world the point of...everything?

Curiosity is fun for kids, but the world ain't gonna save itself.

Comment author: patrissimo 28 March 2011 06:36:57PM 0 points [-]

I use audio books / podcasts some, but I don't run, have a minimal commute, and so don't end up getting much time in.

Comment author: patrissimo 28 March 2011 06:36:26PM 0 points [-]

I'm pretty good at getting rid of the worst things, still trying to figure out what the best things are.

Comment author: patrissimo 27 March 2011 09:06:56PM 0 points [-]

I see, that makes sense. I find it easiest to prioritize within a domain like "books", vs. among all possible skill-increasing activities. Also, when it comes to "generally increasing my knowledge / improving my map", that is something that I think it makes sense to allocate a fixed bucket of time to, although one should also compare alternatives like documentaries, blogs, and conversations as ways of doing it.

Comment author: patrissimo 27 March 2011 08:40:43PM 4 points [-]

I personally know many people who have made those figures in the past, although high-stakes online poker has gotten much tougher in the past few years and it takes extremely high skill to make that much now.

I have personally made about $240/hr at online poker ($200 NLH SNGs on Party Poker back before the UIGEA). But I couldn't make anywhere near that nowadays.

Comment author: patrissimo 27 March 2011 08:37:45PM 0 points [-]

200 hours is 1 month of 50 hour weeks, or 2 months of 25 hour weeks. Is it really that big a deal for your results to only matter month to month rather than day to day? I mean, yeah, it can be frustrating during a bad week, but it's not like the long run takes years.

View more: Next