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

Comment author: sleepingthinker 02 April 2017 07:16:57PM 0 points [-]

I have been working on my own framework and categorization of cognitive biases. I would like to hear your comments (don't be too harsh :) )...

[Link] A Framework For Cognitive Biases: What Types Of Cognitive Biases Are Out There?

0 sleepingthinker 02 April 2017 07:15PM

[Link] First principles thinking and better, more creative solutions to problems

0 sleepingthinker 24 February 2017 09:51PM
Comment author: Viliam 15 February 2017 01:07:35PM *  0 points [-]

Similar to the idea "willpower is limited only if you believe that willpower is limited" is this TED talk by Kelly McGonigal who seems to say that "stress damages your health only if you believe that stress damages your health". I would be interested in you opinions.

My current model (based purely on speculation) is that in similar situations at least two different aspects are involved. That there is something that is a limited resource, but that the way how your mind frames the situation can influence how quickly this resource is consumed. For example, the same activity done voluntarily will consume less of the scarce resource that if you do it against your will; or doing an activity for a reward will consume less of the scarce resource than doing the same activity to avoid puishment. That the scarce resource is related to the internal conflict, and a different perception of the situation can reduce the internal conflict. -- But as I said, this is just speculation.

Comment author: sleepingthinker 17 February 2017 10:05:57PM 0 points [-]

My opinion is that you body has a limited capacity to do anything. For example if you are weight training, you might improve year by year, but eventually you will hit a limit of what is humanly possible and won't be able to make any gains.

Willpower is probably similar (but in a much shorter timespan). Willpower has to be a limited resource, since by doing different activities you consume energy and thereby have less energy available to do other things. The fact that you have less energy impacts your willpower.

However on the other hand, the human body is capable of much more than you think. That's where the effect of the second wind comes in. At some points you are able to muster up your last amounts of energy and push through, right at the time you thought you were done.

Comment author: gjm 16 February 2017 02:40:28AM 0 points [-]

"Sugar" and "carbohydrate" are not synonyms (starch is a carbohydrate but not a sugar), but sugar is indeed a carbohydrate. I do not know why EngineerofScience thinks "carbohydrate" was a wrong answer on that quiz.

Comment author: sleepingthinker 17 February 2017 12:16:27AM 0 points [-]

I said "basically". :)

Starch is a polysacharride, the Greek word for sugar is sacharr. Starch is made up of long-chains of glucose, and glucose is sugar. The body breaks down the polysacharrides it ingests down into simple sugars like glucose. So whatever the original form, it always ends up being sugar.

But yes, what you say is also correct. All sugars are carbohydrates, but not all carbohydrates are sugars (like starch for example, but even starch can be further broken down into sugars)...

Comment author: EngineerofScience 12 February 2017 10:14:56PM *  0 points [-]

One thing I have noticed relating to this in school is that on tests sometimes I put down an answer on a quiz that I know is wrong because the teacher will give me points if I put that. For example, on a Physical Education quiz the teacher briefly talked about how sugar affects the human body. One of the questions was multiple choice and it said "Sugar is a..." and I selected carbohydrate even though I knew it was wrong because that is what we were taught.

Comment author: sleepingthinker 15 February 2017 11:32:53PM 0 points [-]

The words sugar and carbohydrate are basically synonyms. Carbs can be broken down into glucose, galactose, fructose and mannose, which are called monosacharrides aka simple sugars. Sacharr is the Greek word for sugar. So I am not sure why you think you put down the wrong answer,

Comment author: sleepingthinker 07 February 2017 09:33:58PM 0 points [-]

Well, if you look at it most stories since prehistory have a similar structure. Guys like Vladimir Propp or Joseph Campbell analyzed old stories and came up with basic elements that almost all of the different stories shared.

George Lucas was actually inspired to create Star Wars by reading Campbell's "A Hero with a Thousand Faces".

This shows that all stories share a common structure, so it is hard to be totally original. However the structure is so versatile that it allows a huge number of different stories to come out and seem fresh and original.

We have to separate this from what Hollywood is producing today. Studios have gotten lazy and are just chasing after the big bucks. So instead of taking a risk on something new, they instead invest in a plethora of sequels, reboots and sequels to reboots. I think that's where the problem is, not in being able to come up with anything new.

In response to Crisis of Faith
Comment author: sleepingthinker 06 February 2017 08:59:55PM 0 points [-]

The problem with faith is that for many people it has become a part of their identity. The brain cells are intertwined and when someone attacks their faith, their self-protection mechanism kicks in and their rational thinking turns off.

It's basically like Plato's Allegory of the Cave, where prisoners choose to disbelieve the real world and go back to their own fake reality.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 December 2016 05:12:48PM 21 points [-]

I have about six of these floating around in my drafts. This makes me think that maybe I should post them; I didn't think they were that interesting to anyone but me.

Recently, I spent about ten hours reading into a somewhat complicated question. It was nice to get a feel for the topic, first, before I started badgering the experts and near-experts I knew for their opinions. I was surprised at how close I got to their answers.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Fact Posts: How and Why
Comment author: sleepingthinker 06 February 2017 08:43:57PM *  0 points [-]

I am the same way, although I think that I have much more than 6 drafts of these types of posts. :) I have hundreds in fact! I often start writing on something, and then switch to a different topic without finishing my essay on the first one!

It's the first time I see the concept of a "fact-post", however in my experience writing posts on history is a good practice for this. Of course, "history" is often biased and many history books have slants based on ideologies, biases or other perspectives, but there are such things as dates, names, events...etc. which are facts and if you start putting them in chronological order, you can arrive at good fact posts.

Once you start digging a bit deeper and writing more in depth history posts, you also start noticing your inherent biases a lot more. Oftentimes you might skip over some fact, event or name just because it doesn't fit with your internal vision of the world. For example, I have a hard time accepting that some dinosaurs had feathers, since I have already formed a preconceived ideal type of what dinosaurs looked like in my head and when I write about dinosaurs, i conveniently try to skip recent paleontological findings pointing to evidence that indeed some types of dinosaurs had feathers at least on parts of their bodies.

However since I write these things down, I am forced to internally confront this inherent bias and maybe over time it lessens.

Comment author: Jess_Whittlestone 01 December 2016 10:13:25AM 5 points [-]

Thanks for writing this up! One thing I particularly like about this technique is that it seems to really help with getting into the mindset of seeing disagreements as good (not an unpleasant thing to be avoided), and seeing them as good for the right reasons - for learning more about the world/your own beliefs/changing your mind (not a way to assert status/dominance/offload anger etc.)

I feel genuinely excited about paying more attention to where I disagree with others and trying to find the crux of the disagreement now, in a way I didn't before reading this post.

Comment author: sleepingthinker 05 February 2017 11:24:55PM 0 points [-]

Disagreements are not always bad, however what happens in the real world most of the time is that the disagreements are not based on rational thought and logic, but instead on some fluffy slogans and "feelings". People don't actually go deep into examining whether their argument makes sense and is supported by sound facts and not things like narrative fallacy.

In fact, when you point out to other people that what they are saying is not supported by any logical arguments, they get even more defensive and irrational.

View more: Next