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

Comment author: fubarobfusco 24 April 2017 10:33:04PM *  7 points [-]

Caution: This is not just a survey. It is also a solicitation to create a public online profile.

In the future, please consider separating surveys from solicitations; or disclosing up front that you are not just conducting a survey.

When I got to the part of this that started asking for personally identifying information to create a public online profile, it felt to me like something sneaky was going on: that my willingness to help with a survey was being misused as an entering-wedge to push me to do something I wouldn't have chosen to do.

I considered — for a moment — putting bogus data in as a tit-for-tat defection in retribution for the dishonesty. I didn't do so, because the problem isn't with the survey aspect; it's with the not saying up front what you are up to aspect. Posting this comment seemed more effective to discourage that than sticking a shoe in your data.

Comment author: peter_hurford 25 April 2017 02:09:49AM 4 points [-]

Thanks for the feedback.

I added a paragraph to above saying: "We're also using this as a way to build up the online EA community, such as featuring people on a global map of EAs and with a list of EA Profiles. This way more people can learn about the EA community. We will ask you in the survey if you would like to join us, but you do not have to opt-in and you will be opted-out by default."

Comment author: casebash 22 April 2017 03:59:12PM 0 points [-]

No, because the fund managers will report on the success or failure of their investments. If the funds don't perform, then their donations will fall.

Comment author: peter_hurford 23 April 2017 07:20:30PM 2 points [-]

Why do you think this? The outside view suggests this won't happen -- disclosing success and failure is uncommon in the non-profit space.

Comment author: gjm 13 February 2017 03:17:34AM 1 point [-]

It's not clear to me that a lack of fixed rules has that consequence. Why do you think that?

Comment author: peter_hurford 14 February 2017 04:37:45AM 0 points [-]

It seems to have had consequences for at least one poster (namely, the OP).

Comment author: ChristianKl 02 February 2017 07:59:37PM 1 point [-]

There are no fixed rules. There are values and value judgments. Don't try to optimize for rules but for what brings LW forward.

Comment author: peter_hurford 11 February 2017 06:01:42PM 0 points [-]

I think we should change this, because a lack of fixed rules makes LW pretty hard to use and helps keep it dead.

Comment author: peter_hurford 29 December 2016 06:48:32PM 0 points [-]

This is pretty cool -- I like the write-up. I don't mean to pry into your life, but I would find it interesting to see an example of how you answer these questions. It would help me internalize the process more.

Comment author: peter_hurford 29 December 2016 06:47:15PM 0 points [-]

What category does writing posts go under? I'm impressed you can do a day job, write posts, and still have a lot of messing around time! :)

Comment author: Elo 29 December 2016 12:21:06AM 0 points [-]

fixed

Comment author: peter_hurford 29 December 2016 06:46:04PM 0 points [-]

10:20-1 work meeting (1hr40mins)

Still nitpicking, 10:20-1 is 2hr40min.

Comment author: Elo 29 December 2016 12:32:17AM 1 point [-]

The trouble with this information (and exercises of this type) is that you always had that information available to you, but never really on the one page laid out obviously. There is an insight to be gained in just being able to do that.

That doesn't answer the question fully. This information helps to inform other tasks and processes for example in the "Try this" section of this post http://bearlamp.com.au/exploration-exploitation-problems/

The third thing it does is help defeat a s1/s2 incongruity. you System2 know that these are all the tasks you spend your time on, so in order to System1! change your mind on what you want to do in your time you inform your system 1 that there is no time that has sneakily "escaped" your view, fallen down the back of the couch, or somehow there is "more time" other than what you already have. This is what I consider the most powerful insight of this process.

This is hopefully also explained in the next post in the series - http://bearlamp.com.au/bargaining-trade-offs-in-your-brain/ (this paragraph was added to that post because I really liked the way I described it to you :) Thanks! )

Comment author: peter_hurford 29 December 2016 06:34:25PM 0 points [-]

Ok, that's pretty cool. Thanks!

Comment author: peter_hurford 28 December 2016 04:12:09AM 0 points [-]

I'd be curious to hear more about what you did with this information once you had it.

Comment author: peter_hurford 28 December 2016 04:10:51AM *  0 points [-]

Nitpick:

10:20-1 work meeting (40mins)

1-1:30 lunch (30mins)

You have a hole in your schedule with 2hrs unaccounted for.

View more: Next