The decisions that lead to this were a direct result of the systematic decision and planning process I implemented because of minicamp
I'm curious to hear more about that point. Do you mean to say that you explicitly implemented a system that designated how to make those kinds of decisions?
Sort of. I meant to say that I decided to make explicit long term, medium term, and short term goals, regularly check their progress, estimate their difficulty and likelihood, and also had a better sense of the space of other opportunities, all as a direct result of minicamp (there was a session or two on goals, sessions on estimation and prediction calibration, and in general while there I realized that I sucked at seeing opportunity costs).
After I did all those things, it effectively resulted in a systematic decision and planning process, since I had a much better sense about what tasks had the highest expected payoffs for my goals, and I simply work on those first.
I attended minicamp last year, and I followed up with almost all of the attendees since then. I have had periodic Skype chats to see how it impacted their lives, so I can pretty confidently say that the minicamp:
It definitely had a positive impact on me, but I represent more of a median result than an outlier. Since minicamp, I:
Sold my company, and am on track to make more money in the time since minicamp than I've made in the past few years. The decisions that lead to this were a direct result of the systematic decision and planning process I implemented because of minicamp
Turned down a job offer at Google to work at an even more awesome company. I both learned about--and got an interview with--this company directly because of a contact from minicamp
Improved in a hundred small ways (again, directly attributable to notes I made at minicamp), from fashion (I now regularly get compliments where I got none before) to health (I use less time to exercise and eat, yet feel much better)
There were definitely parts of the minicamp that could have used improvement, but these were mostly a variety of details and logistical mistakes that will go away with practice on the part of the organizers.
If you're even thinking about this at all, you should apply. The cost is HUGELY outweighed by the benefits. I've probably gotten a 10x ROI (assuming I had paid the amount listed here and including the value of the time), and it hasn't even been a year....
I'm happy to answer any questions about my experience (or my observations of others' experiences).
This is why I said "average" venture-backed founder. You may have tons of assets such that losing/gaining 10% is not a big deal, or you may be naturally less risk-averse than the average person.
Some level of risk-aversion is rational, and it's not obvious to me if people are naturally over or below that level. it's also not obvious to me at all that people on LW would have unnaturally low risk-aversion.
Ok, I now think it's possible that you were right about the "average" founder, but for a different reason--it only depends on what assumptions we make about the distribution of rationality within the set of all founders. I'm not really interested in that right now.
However, I am assuming that the audience of LW is MORE rational than average. They should be LESS risk averse, because "A risk averse agent can not be rational" (source: http://lesswrong.com/lw/9oe/risk_aversion_vs_concave_utility_function/ )
Thus, I believe that it is somewhat disingenuous to use that paper to say that founding a startup has negative expected utility--actually, the EXPECTED utility is very high (because the average outcome is great), and it is very rational. We should definitely be encouraging people here to start startups.
It's more or less win/lose. Being the average venture-backed founder actually has negative expected utility.
I went and read that paper. I don't think it says that at all. Their exact conclusion is:
"An individual with a coefficient of relative risk aversion of 2 and assets of $0.7 million would choose employment at a market salary over becoming an entrepreneur. With lower risk aversion or higher initial assets, the entrepreneurial opportunity is worth more than alternative employment"
I didn't understand relative risk aversion, so I looked it up. Here is an example:
"[if you have constant relative risk aversion utility and] If you would give up 2% of your wealth to avoid a 50-50 risk of losing or gaining 10%, then you have a coefficient of relative risk aversion of 4." If you would give up only 0.5% of your wealth to avoid the same gamble, you have a coefficient of 1.
source: http://www.rasmusen.org/x/archives/cat_economics.html
Maybe I'm just not risk averse, but I would not be willing to give up much at all to prevent such a gamble. I'm WAY below a coefficient of 2, and I suspect that many people here on LW are as well.
Come celebrate the end of finals/the year/upcoming vacations! Feel free to bring friends, even irrational ones ;)
I'll be providing food and drinks, so please RSVP via email to thejash@gmail.com. Or you can just show up anyway.
Use this code to get into the main entrance: *0511 (or call me at 585 506 6900)
high pitched sound
Sounds like tinnitus. (I have this, but less often than you, and I wouldn't describe it as loud. A friend of mine has it constantly since he went to a loud rock concert as a boy.)
I have VERY few memories of my life before I was 11.
Wow.
When I was 8 or so I thought it was strange that I didn't have any memories from before I was about 4. Based on that, my interest in science and space travel, and my general weirdness, I decided that I was probably a space alien changeling. (Note: I no longer think this.)
Yup, definitely tinnitus, thanks! My hearing isn't that great, so this is probably related.
I read at about 1100 WPM. I had no idea that people sounded out words in their heads until about two years ago, when I was speed reading an article about speed reading and realized I was speed reading. I am curious how much faster it is possible to go? Can anyone here go significantly faster? I want to know if it's worth training further.
I talked to a person a few months ago who mentioned that her reading speed decreased noticeably from its very high starting point when she took speed reading lessons. It's only one data point, but it may be worth keeping in mind if you're thinking of training your ability.
How meaningful is it to assign a single number to your reading speed anyway? I would estimate that mine varies by at least a factor of ten or so depending on what I'm reading (I might top 1100 WPM at the high end, but only for very basic text.)
It's not that meaningful to assign a single number, true. I gave my speed for "normal" text--comments, blogs, newspaper articles, "light" books (business/best-sellers), fiction (if I have to/feel like reading it quickly). When I read scientific papers, the speed drops considerably until I am used to the terms used in the field.
Thanks a lot for that comment though, I have less incentive to try training it further now... I am pretty surprised that anything could decrease significantly from trying to train it though. I would suspect other effects at work (like now she is reading a different kind of text, or had previously never measured herself, or the training was nonsense, etc). Any idea what caused the decrease?
Have you found any negative consequences from this exposure therapy?
None that I've noticed It's actually quite nice not to feel personally liable when other people are doing stupid things anymore.
If you're willing to generalize from one data point, I say go for it :)
If you DO go for it, note that most of the benefit came from watching the first two seasons, so if you don't experience any change after that, it probably isn't worth pursuing. Also, I watched it with a bunch of friends who all clearly enjoyed it, so that might be a good detail to replicate if possible.
Also if you try it, let me know how it turns out, I'm really curious.
I sometimes (every few weeks) hear a pretty loud, high pitched sound. It eventually (within a minute) fades. No idea if that is normal or not, but it just occurred to me that it might not be.
I read at about 1100 WPM. I had no idea that people sounded out words in their heads until about two years ago, when I was speed reading an article about speed reading and realized I was speed reading. I am curious how much faster it is possible to go? Can anyone here go significantly faster? I want to know if it's worth training further.
My memory of faces might be weird. The more familiar I am with a person, the less I can visualize what their face looks like. But, I CAN visually recall (pretty accurately) pictures of those same people. For example, I have no idea what my mom's face looks like if I think of it in the abstract, but I have a screenshot that I took while we were talking on skype a few weeks ago, and I can visualize that quite well, including the glasses she was wearing, her hair, and the quality of the webcam image.
I have VERY few memories of my life before I was 11. Probably 30. And no memories of my time before I was 6. Consequently I am quite interested in life logging :)
Once I passed out while I was getting a small amount of blood drawn. When I woke up, it felt like literally ten thousand years had passed. I still feel as if there was a gap there (This is not related to the above however, I've always had about the same small number of memories of childhood). That happened when I was about 17, I am 27 now.
The older I get, the slower time seems to go. I think this is partly environmental and NOT mental in that it also corresponds to less structure (the older I've gotten, the less structured my life has become to the point where now I am completely self-directed all day every day)
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Out of curiosity, what does the menu look like? Is it based around a specific, dare I say "rational" diet? Paleo, Bulletproof, Shangri-la?
I helped make some of the food last time. I would call that menu "college random" ;) It was basically left as a problem for us to solve.
I assume that this time they will have it straightened out (and is probably part of the higher price), but I am also curious.