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

Comment author: justwanttorecommend 07 August 2016 10:32:31AM 2 points [-]

For Biology 101, Life by David Sadava is amazing. I wasn't even particularly interested in the subject and just needed the course credit, but it was a fascinating page turner and made everything so clear.

https://www.amazon.com/Life-Science-Biology-David-Sadava/dp/1464141266

I don't know if this counts as a textbook, but Python for the Absolute Beginner is so good for beginning programming. Python is a great language to learn programming with. This book is just so perfectly paced. It's the exercises that make it work so well. It increments the difficulty just a smidgeon with each exercise to gradually get you used to more and more concepts.

https://www.amazon.com/Python-Programming-Absolute-Beginner-3rd/dp/B00B7RE628/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1470565643&sr=1-1&keywords=python+for+absolute+beginners#navbar

Comment author: zedzed 08 August 2016 04:07:29AM 1 point [-]

Second the rec on Sadava. I strongly preferred it to Campbell, the other standard intro bio text, which I found insufficiently precise. I'd go to make an Anki card about some concept, only to find that Campbell's discussion lacked enough precision for me to state exactly what was going on. Sadly, I haven't read another biology book (having been quite satisfied with Sadava's), so I can't make a Luke-compliant recommendation.

Comment author: Will_BC 03 March 2016 09:31:53AM 1 point [-]

Regarding the McAfee economics book, the link appears to have changed. I believe this link directs to the appropriate text

http://www.mcafee.cc/Introecon/IEA2007.pdf

Comment author: zedzed 04 March 2016 02:16:19AM 0 points [-]

Book's homepage: http://www.mcafee.cc/Introecon/

There seems to be threeish versions about:

  1. The original (the one your link goes to), which McAfee believes may be preferred by the mathematically sophisticated or engineers. This is the one I'm personally using, currently.

  2. A second version, meant to improve accessibility, which McAfee expects professors considering the text to prefer

  3. Version 2.1, which appears to be a refinement of version 2. Includes solutions to exercises, cosmetic improvements, and "small edits for consistency of notation and for clarity."

(I'm vaguely reminded of Debian-Ubuntu-Mint Linux distros. Yay open source?)

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 October 2015 01:28:15PM *  4 points [-]

Uberman, and other polyphasic sleep cycles? - depends if it works for you. Don't force yourself to do it if it, don't expect it to work for you. Feel free to try it; lifestyle is also relevant in considering this sleep implementation,

As far as I know there are no documented cases of people successfully doing Uberman for multiple years. There are theoretical reasons to expect long-term harm from it. Uberman sounds cool but I don't think there a rational case for starting Uberman.

Comment author: zedzed 15 October 2015 04:06:04PM 0 points [-]

There are theoretical reason to expect long-term harm from it.

Such as?

Comment author: raydora 29 September 2015 01:48:11PM 1 point [-]

I agree, though that particular technique (in and of itself, without context) is also used as a Dark Art.

Comment author: zedzed 30 September 2015 07:45:18AM 1 point [-]

I wouldn't be surprised if every single principle of effective learning has, by someone, somewhere, been co-opted into a dark art.

Comment author: zedzed 29 September 2015 12:03:09AM 4 points [-]

My favorite part of this post was the inclusion of the exercise left to the reader; working through it really helped me deeply understand what you were saying. I suggest that this type of thing become more common because generation effect.

Comment author: zedzed 02 September 2015 02:37:58PM 0 points [-]

The answer is 42.

(But, seriously, I think 15 is fine. I'd even be fine reducing it to 10 (username is currently #12)).

Comment author: PhilGoetz 23 August 2015 11:12:23PM *  1 point [-]

Isn't facebook strictly inferior to email for messaging? By a wide margin? It's not archivable, sortable, filterable, searchable, forwardable, or manageable. It can't be sent to multiple recipients. It has no BCC, threading, prioritizing.

Comment author: zedzed 23 August 2015 11:38:34PM 3 points [-]

From a technical perspective. However, many of my friends respond to fb messages and not emails. Near as I can tell, they're young enough that, when establishing a "best way to contact me," they chose "website I'm going to be on anyway."

I think, now that they're graduating college, they're going to have to get themselves a professional email, but the best way to contact them socially is going to remain fb because, for most social stuff (or at least, social stuff my friends and I get up to), we don't really need any more features than fb has, which I find disappointing, being in the minority who could really use everything you listed.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 August 2015 02:29:45AM 6 points [-]

I downvoted because it completely detracts from the purpose of the thread, and it contributes to the negative nitpicking culture of less wrong.

Comment author: zedzed 23 August 2015 03:05:14AM *  3 points [-]

Thank you for the reply. I somewhat disagree that this detracts from the purpose of the thread—I find signalling via grammar (a) nonobvious and (b) useful, making my comment very much in place in a thread about instrumental rationality (albeit less so in a questions thread)—but I do very much appreciate the feedback.

Comment author: Username 23 August 2015 12:25:16AM *  3 points [-]

If there's one thing I enjoy about this site, it's reading practical advice from its members.

*fixed the 3AM typo

Comment author: zedzed 23 August 2015 12:54:29AM *  -1 points [-]

In that case, "it's" is a contraction equivalent to "it is". For a possessive, use "its".

Examples:

Practical advice from its members.

and

It's inspired by the stupid questions.

(What's the point of paying attention to this stuff if you're communicating clearly? Briefly, signalling. If I notice you've made a grammatical error, on average, I estimate you're less well educated or not invested in making the writing worth my while than in the opposite case, and am less likely to finish reading if I get bored or have to expend mental effort to understand what you're saying or something. Also, there's an aesthetic element: error-free writing is, ceter paribus, more pleasing to read.)

(Also, wondering if this was downvoted because someone thinks I'm incorrect, because they think I'm being an ass, or for some other reason.)

Comment author: zedzed 22 August 2015 11:06:29PM 5 points [-]

Are there any nootropics that have decent evidence of nonnegligible effectiveness that aren't listed in Slate Star Codex's Nootropics Survey Results. Asking so I can use replies to this comment + survey as an exhaustive list of nootropics worth considering.

View more: Next