All of CasioTheSane's Comments + Replies

As I mentioned, I do actually sometimes get negative feedback from people, but overall the effect is positive, because it causes people to interact with me spontaneously when I have trouble initiating social interactions, and I've made quite a few good friends just from that. Being polarizing is way better than being neutral for meeting people and making friends. I also suspect being avoided by a person that would negatively judge someone they don't know just for wearing a hat is probably also a positive thing. It's a functional thing I need because I'm ba... (read more)

6lsusr
This is really important. If I meet 100 people and make 1 really good friend, then it doesn't matter whether the other 99 like me or not. Being polarizing helps filter for the small number of people I want to talk to. It's can also be fun to play into American stereotypes overseas. It's not everyday that a Czechian gets to meet an authentic American cowboy. I much prefer that look to the generic sloppy baseball cap + T-shirt.

While I think finding ways to make future generations healthier and smarter is a worthy goal, I don't think we understand enough yet to do this without potentially severe unintended consequences, and I wouldn't consider doing it myself with our current technology. It's a good bet that many of the seemingly deleterious mutations we'd like to eliminate also offer some benefit we don't understand- given that we have already discovered many instances of mutations with apparent intelligence/health tradeoffs, and disease resistance/health tradeoffs. If you're se... (read more)

Interesting, thanks for sharing. I am also on the west coast, and wear wide brimmed hats (usually cowboy hats), which is somewhat unusual and many of the people comment on it, complement it, or ask me about it.

The truth is, I'm not really trying to make a fashion statement, I'm just bald and don't want to get cancer on my head... and this hat design is uniquely functional in that it blocks the sun, doesn't blow off in the wind, and doesn't look incredibly dorky and non-breathable like the nylon sun hats they sell at REI. Yet people make a big deal about it... (read more)

0cubefox
A lot of people find wearing fancy hats "cringe". If you didn't get negative feedback, that may be because people don't want to be rude.

As someone that has been a strength athlete, and part of fitness communities for many years, I have never seen a real world instance of someone becoming generally less attractive to the opposite sex, or having trouble finding partners due to lifting weights.

Building noticeable amounts of muscle is much harder than most people who haven't tried to do so assume. The "grotesquely muscular" men on, e.g. bodybuilding magazines are essentially fake, and not something that really happens to people that lift weights, except for a few minutes in a staged photo that... (read more)

Late reply I know, but I wanted to add that I was very surprised by your take on Brett Kavanaugh, and wanted to explain my more negative interpretation of those events, as I see it as very helpful to Trump directly, and not about principles. Some points:

 -Backing down from anything almost always involves giving up political power, and encourages people to challenge you in the future. Trump is known for consistently almost never giving up without a fight, even in situations like losing an election. This strongly discourages people from challenging you ... (read more)

Growing crops for biofuel cannot produce more carbon than it consumes over long time scales, because the only source of carbon available to the system is the carbon in the atmosphere. If they are saying biofuels aren't carbon neutral over long time scales, where is this extra unlimited supply of carbon coming from?

High intensity deliberate practice that you can only do for short amounts of time per session

How is that different from flow work?

0ChristianKl
Flow work is work that you can do for 3 hours without pause.

I'm not sure if you've read Mihály Csíkszentmihályi or not, but he argued that flow states are more likely when a task is more complex/challenging, and the person has a high level of appropriate skill that makes it possible (with substantial effort) to complete the task.

For me this often occurs while programming, sailing, or doing math- especially if I need to solve a new problem with those skills that will be especially challenging.

Once I'm in 'flow' it is a distinct mental experience - I am totally into it and lose any sense of time passing, or of needin... (read more)

0ChristianKl
I'm not sure that's an accurate description for Cal Newport's Deep Work. High intensity deliberate practice that you can only do for short amounts of time per session is Deep Work in Newport's model.

I stopped using pomodoros for flow-work, because it would break my flow state. I've found roughly 2 hour chunks work better for flow, without any particular warning to stop me if I feel like going longer. If I am in flow, I want it to keep going as long as possible, until I am fatigued, or the problem is solved.

0ChristianKl
How do you decide what counts as flow-work and what doesn't?

But I would have thought that if there was widespread 'central hypothyroidism', someone would have twigged by now, since that form does show up if you do a full panel of hormone tests

Which tests? I am not aware of any simple blood test that measures the endpoint of thyroid activity on metabolic rate (except, arguably, cholesterol levels), rather than just the state of the T4->TRH->TSH->T4 feedback loop.

mostly T4 with a bit of extra T3', but no-one has particularly clear ideas on what works and what doesn't or why

The challenge with T3 is it... (read more)

he was basically making his patients hyperthyroid

Why is this a reason not to reject it? He is essentially arguing that the major cause of cardiovascular disease is population-wide high rates of hypothyroidism. It would be a circular argument to dismiss that because his treatment leads to a greater than average metabolic rate. One would also need evidence of a disadvantage that outweighs the advantages. His patients seemed to be doing well, or at least he doesn't report them exhibiting any classic signs of hyperthyroidism. He was primarily adjusting dose... (read more)

You wouldn't need to invoke the idea of 'hormone resistance' because TSH and T4 tests normally used to diagnose hypothyroidism don't measure the active hormone - T3. T4 is just a prohormone with very little direct activity on metabolic rate.

In primates, metabolism is regulated primarily in the liver by T4->T3 conversion, so if this is inhibited for any reason it will suppress metabolism without showing up on those tests. Low calorie intake, and poor nutrition are known to cause this (e.g. Euthyroid sick syndrome). In cases of poor liver conversion, supp... (read more)

3FriendlyBuffalo
The reason why Barnes' paper showing that desiccated thyroid lowering cholesterol levels and seeming to prevent cardiovascular disease isn't cited is because he was basically making his patients hyperthyroid. Lower cholesterol levels occur in hyperthyroidism. There is a doctor I know of in California who gives his patients supra-physiological levels of T3 hormone (cytomel) to increase their metabolism, to help them lose weight, and to lower their cholesterol levels. It basically suppresses the thyroid's own production of hormone. In the short term, it works. It's brilliant. But it's crazy. We have no idea what the long-term consequences are. And since I'm pretty sure he's not running a study on it, we won't.
1johnlawrenceaspden
Hi, there can be all sorts of things going wrong! Mysterious resistances, gland failures, conversion disorders, broken pituitary, broken hypothalamus, faulty deiodinase enzymes, etc. All potentially inherited or acquired. We really do seem to have no idea how this complicated system works or what it's all for, or what can cause it to go wrong. But I would have thought that if there was widespread 'central hypothyroidism', someone would have twigged by now, since that form does show up if you do a full panel of hormone tests. Or I would have thought that when I wrote this. By now I am in such despair about the pitiful state of medical research that I wouldn't be surprised if they'd never thought to look, so maybe it is all just perfectly obvious from blood tests and the fools have ignored it. And the question of 'what is the optimal treatment' is bound to be tricky. I'm just trying to demonstrate that the problems exist and are widespread and thus worth looking at! Although Skinner certainly thought 'clinical hypothyroidism' could usually be fixed by bunging enough T4 at the problem. He does mention in his book that he sometimes used T3 or NDT, but he doesn't go into details. Various other people say 'mostly T4 with a bit of extra T3', but no-one has particularly clear ideas on what works and what doesn't or why. Thanks for the reference to Ray Peat, I hadn't heard of him before. Can you link to the best expression of his thoughts?

You're right, we do understand the pathophysiology of many diseases, and those are the ones that have been mostly eradicated. The major chronic diseases that remain are very poorly understood such as type II diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and alzheimer's.

I spend a lot of time reading about 'alternative' ideas about these diseases, and many seem promising, but aren't taken seriously by the mainstream. It's definitely possible that they're ignored for a good reason, but I haven't been able to find the reasons yet. This is the biggest problem I've ... (read more)

I have been attempting to do this with biology and medicine, seriously for about 5 years now. Not by actually repeating experiments, but in trying to understand the original evidence, and see if I agree that it was interpreted correctly. Of course this is nearly impossible as biology is too broad and complex for one person to understand all of the details.

It's a confusing mess, but I think I am still learning a lot. Even if I come to agree with most of the mainstream ideas, I'd like to think I'd then understand them more deeply, in a way that is more funct... (read more)

dougclow100

Much of modern medicine involves covering up symptoms with drugs proven to do this, without understanding the underlying cause of the symptom.

What, really? There certainly is a lot of that approach around, but it's not what I think of when I think of modern medicine, as opposed to more traditional forms. Can you give examples?

Most of the ones I can think of are things that have fallen to the modern turn to evidence-based practice. The poster-child one in my head is the story of H. pylori and how a better understanding of the causes of gastritis and gas... (read more)

Excellent post, thanks for putting so much work into a clear explanation. I will re-investigate Ling's work more carefully, and also see if I can find the mistakes in his thermodynamics calculations you mention. I have been biased towards his work and not looking critically enough, because it seems to explain some surprising observations about drug activity I've found in my own research- but that's no excuse.

I am interested in the possibility that Ling could be entirely wrong about membrane physiology, but this gel phase shift phenomena could still be impo... (read more)

0[anonymous]
I promise I'll get my top level post made soon - I just finished my committee meeting a few hours ago. The short and dirty version is that Ling seems to completely ignore the entropy contribution to the Gibbs free energy change associated with ATP hydrolysis and throws out about 3/4 of the enthalpy contribution on the grounds that it is the energy of solvation of the protons that come off the newly deprotonated middle phosphate rather than the potential energy of the phosphate-phosphate bond itself, when that simply doesn't matter and you just can't do that when considering equilibrium and reaction rates and the ability of one reaction coupling to another to drive it. It's not as if that one bond alone charges up a battery or something, the whole reaction occurs. I honestly don't know what to make of the assertion that ATP unwinds proteins just by complexing with unwound backbone. I've never seen that claim anywhere else, and I use ATP all the time via standard active-site hydrolysis reactions to drive DNA-building and DNA-modifying reactions as I make the DNA I put into my modified cells. The simulation I was speaking of about the SNARES was indicating small hydration shells just a molecule or two wide, not large ones. It was interesting though in that it found that when the two membranes were forced into odd geometries and very close proximity by the SNARES forming a tight ring, the hydration shells were forced together to form ordered structures just a few molecules wide between the membranes before suddenly emptying the space. It's been a while since I've seen that paper though, and I'd encourage you to look at the folding@home website and find it if you are curious and you don't trust my memory (which I do not entirely trust myself, that's not exactly my field and it's been a few years). Odd drug metabolism stuff eh? Want to move that to a PM?

That's a good point about intelligence, the way I used that word without defining it in this article is sloppy.

I am interested in the ability to solve important problems. Maybe instead I should talk about something more easily definable such as mental endurance, or limiting the stress response from focused work? Personally, I think if I could work longer in one sitting on a hard problem without stress or fatigue, that alone would count as "increased intelligence" for practical purposes.

I think there are links between the stress response and nutr... (read more)

0ChristianKl
Do you have an argument for why we should have had evolutionary pressure for solving the kind of issues that we today consider to be important problems? When it comes like a mental task such as memorizing a deck of card there are simply massive improvement when one uses mnemonics and trains then when one doesn't. To me it doesn't seem like there's a good reason to think that the same isn't true with working on important problems. I agree. The interesting thing on that question is that believing whether or not willpower is limited seems to have an effect: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0038680 Going around and arguing that it's a fixed resource you might effectively reduce willpower. The quest for a molecular biological framing of the problem might be hurting people's ability to solve important problems because it gives them the wrong beliefs and those beliefs matter for their performance. Maybe the emporer has no clothes and we should just stop the project and insteadly focus on programming the right beliefs into people. I know I'm moving into dangerous waters if I say those things on Lesswrong ;). The more I think about concepts like stress the more new questions popup. There are things happens in my body for which I developed qualia through Danis Bois perceptive padagogy where unfortunately the main body of written work is in French. I have seen that there are interesting things to be done with hypnosis when it comes to emotional management but the resulting literature is also not straightforward. I probably need good test subjects and further time thinking about detail and improving my own perception. Maybe find a way to calibrate my percerption. Are we talking about production in the sense of making new hormones or are we talking about secreting already existing hormones? Do you know the time frames? Unfortunately I have to confess I don't know. I think at the time I took the relevant lessons I was too shy to really p

I need to learn more about this, I don't have a strong belief. If I understand correctly, this is basically the idea behind the free radical theory of aging (FRTA). One interesting variant of that idea is in the article I linked above, which suggests that the focus should be on "mitochondrial membrane peroxidizability index" rather than antioxidant activity or free radical production.

It seems weird that sugar seems to cause problems in certain populations of people, but not others.

There can be damage or defects in the mitochondria that inhibit it's ability to respond to hormones, for example per-oxidation of cardiolipin. Cells don't always die when they have a mitochondrial defect. An extreme example is cancer, where there is major damage to the mitochondria, but the cells continue to live via anaerobic fermentation (aka the Warburg Effect).

Some review articles that talk about these theories:

Cancer as a metabolic disease: implications for novel therapeutics

Life and Death: Metabolic Rate, Membrane Composition, and Life Span of Animal... (read more)

0Lumifer
Sure, but what's the prevalence of this kind of problems? Sugar and/or glucose can cause problems in a significant chunk of population, maybe even the majority. Are you saying all these people have damaged mitochondria?

Perhaps sugar and glucose only cause problems in those who can't metabolize it effectively, for other reasons (or when consumed in excess of your capacity to metabolize them). I used to think high glucose intake caused metabolic syndrome but I can't reconcile that with the existence of large groups of people (Kitavans, fruitarianism, etc.) that have very high carb diets and don't develop metabolic syndrome.

In mice, high sugar diets don't cause metabolic problems or liver damage unless also coupled with high polyunsaturated fat intake. Populations of people... (read more)

3Lumifer
What do you mean by "metabolize effectively"? People who have problems with metabolizing glucose are usually known as "dead" and things like insulin resistance are a problem with signalling, not a problem with cells' aerobic metabolism. The metabolic syndrome is clearly multi-factor, there is no single cause we can point to. I am not sure PUFAs (or fructose) are the magic ingredient either, and it looks quite likely that the amount of physical exercise plays a fairly major role in all this -- but the whole thing is pretty messy at the moment. Sorting out all the causal connections leading to the metabolic syndrome is probably Nobel material :-/

If you have time to provide links, I would like to read the research you mention- especially on the thermodynamics of ATP and calcium-triggered membrane vesicle fusion. Ling's work is all very old and doesn't address any newer research, but Pollack addresses some of the issues you raise in his books. Pollack does love to speculate a lot, but he appears to be careful in distinguishing this speculation from things that have more evidence. Here is also a newer review paper that discusses this and some other ideas related to the role of entropy in biochemistry... (read more)

2[anonymous]
I'm gonna split up this reply, since I think part of it is important enough to be seen more and will go into a higher-level reply to the post itself. I will also preface this by saying that my primary areas of expertise are in energy metabolism (mostly glycolysis) and the cell division cycle, along with all the basic enzymology you need to know to do molecular biology. As for ATP thermodynamics, I looked deeper into Ling's writings before replying and was more and more distressed by what I saw. They literally cannot correctly do thermodynamics and biochemistry that I learned in my senior year of high school. The end result of several extremely basic math and conceptual errors in their justification for their theories is that their calculated value for the free energy available from cellular metabolism to pump sodium and potassium across the membrane is approximately 1/12 the true value! Given that this is approximately the figure they give for the factor of insufficiency of cellular metabolism to provide enough energy to run the pumps (they give a factor of 15-30 [without stating the error bars] ), and that I have other reasons to distrust almost everything this person has ever done, it is safe to say that Ling's objection to the sodium/potassium pump on thermodynamic grounds is quite simply unjustified. I will be walking through this in more detail in my other top-level reply along with other reasons that you shouldn't accept their work at face value. I will only say more about the thermodynamics of the sodium potassium pump by pointing to a paper that I found after a few moments of google scholar searching indicating that hepatocytes under oxygen starvation conditions not dissimilar to those described in Ling's experiments put about 75% of their cellular energy into maintaining the ion gradient, but that under normal circumstances they use a much more reasonable less than one quarter. This is not an unexplored area of research and insinuating that there is some

I think this would be difficult to observe, because starvation also increases stress hormones which increase motivation. For the most part, brain metabolism remains high in starvation, but other glucose using systems are reduced, to preserve glucose for the brain. Ketones are also used to reduce glucose demands while keeping brain metabolism high. Ancedotally, I seem to be more motivated when fasting or dieting, but more creative when eating a nutritious diet.

Metabolic syndrome, and hypothyroidism (both diseases of decreased cellular energy production) are... (read more)

0Lumifer
Hypothyroidism obviously has a lot more consequences than just decreased cellular energy production and as to the metabolic syndrome, I'm not sure I'd call it a "disease of decreased cellular energy production" at all, it looks much more like a breakdown of some regulatory systems to me. Of course, there are many ways to harm brain (=reduce intelligence) which do not involve limiting ATP in the cells.

That's a good point. I think some old hot water heaters might even be so full of small particles that they're hard to drain from the bottom, and you might need to get the water from the top.

However, I think most of the sediment would be insoluble in water, and can be avoided by letting the water settle for a few minutes. Any soluble particles would have long since dissolved, sitting in a bath of hot flowing water for years.

Great post.

For food, I think dehydrated potatoes are a particularly effective emergency food. They're more complete nutritionally than grains and will keep you performing longer in a tough situation.

I also like to store enough fuel to safely get to a friend or family members house in another town, if necessary. My vehicle is diesel, so storing the fuel is somewhat safer than storing gasoline.

Books can be helpful as well- especially easy to read field references for emergency medicine and survival techniques. In my opinion a good book on first aid is more i... (read more)

3kpreid
I would be concerned that the atypical water flow might stir up sediment (high concentrations of assorted contaminants that are in low concentrations in the incoming water). Am I right?
2Gunnar_Zarncke
I'd like to give you an additional +1 for that.

However, I don't really have a strategy to seek out some similar mentors and worry that in engineering it's a lot more likely to find method-oriented persons. I'm wondering if you have any advice on this.

No, I'm not even sure how to easily tell if someone is method or problem oriented without at least meeting them and talking to them. If you find any ideas on this please share them with me.

intractability of the problems that grabbed my attention in the first place (intelligence amplification/cognition)

That is a very hard problem. This is wild specul... (read more)

I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

I've been planning on writing some articles on here, but I don't feel comfortable throwing out outlandish statements without explaining all of my reasoning and evidence in detail... and I don't have time to do so yet. This is a project at least on the order of the Timeless Physics sequences.

This is just the tip of the iceberg but one thing I have been looking at recently is Gilbert Ling's Association-Induction hypothesis which is centered around the idea that gel-like phase shifts in the cytoplasm are c... (read more)

I am interested in understanding the molecular basis of chronic diseases such as metabolic syndrome. I am also interested in understanding the relationship between various homeostasis mechanisms and small molecule drug activity.

Yes, I would still be doing biomedical engineering given what I now know. However, I am driven mostly by curiosity and a desire to answer medical questions- if I worked in another field, I would likely be doing so to support myself while I work on these medical questions in my free time. I am a 'dry lab' bioengineer. If my primary goal was to make a high income, I would instead do software development.

If I could change anything, it would be seeking out problem-oriented instead of method-oriented mentors. Scientists and engineers can often be divided into ... (read more)

1Arkanj3l
I definitely get what you mean and I've been blessed with a problem-oriented mentor. However, I don't really have a strategy to seek out some similar mentors and worry that in engineering it's a lot more likely to find method-oriented persons. I'm wondering if you have any advice on this. (My supposition: Non-applied mathematicians are dominantly problem oriented, but for problems that usually don't matter. Programmers and applied mathematicians (like Operational Research guys) will probably experience a more even distribution between the two modes, however I would guess that it would lean towards problem-oriented as the underlying ontology of phenomena are necessarily modeled from scratch (in physics and chem most of our ontology is mapped, but not so in social problems except maybe with economics).) Lately I've been less motivated to engage because of the intractability of the problems that grabbed my attention in the first place (intelligence amplification/cognition), even though it would be the more satisfying field from a curiosity standpoint (I like science and BME is highly integrated between all scientific disciplines). What kind of paradigm shifts do you think will occur for biology in the future? Where are the current controversies for biology right now?
2ChristianKl
Which specific problems are you talking about?

Value creation depends entirely on you. Like any field, to make major advances you will need to tackle big problems and come up with creative solutions.

In my opinion (as a biomedical engineer) the field is currently stalled in some areas (and advancing rapidly in others) but is ripe for a major paradigm shift which will accelerate progress. Some verifiably false ideas about basic biology remain commonly accepted in the field, and will need to be reinvestigated for progress to continue.

As for the grad student debt issue, most major research universities in... (read more)

0JonahS
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I'd love to hear more. I need some time to formulate good questions though. If you're willing to share your email address with me, you can email me at jsinick@gmail.com
6[anonymous]
I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this. At a major research university in a cheap medium-sized town (at least compared to where I grew up) I am saving 25% of my income - though once one of my fellowships wears off that will probably drop to 10% or less unless I change my spending habits.
4Arkanj3l
I voiced interest in making a career switch into BME. Would you still be doing biomedical engineering now if you knew what you now know about it? What would you change and why?

Don't you think it would be a useful item to add to your intellectual toolkits to be capable of saying, when a ton of wet steaming bullshit lands on your head, 'My goodness, this appears to be bullshit'?

-Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

My interpretation is that this quote is aimed at people who do have the cognitive capacity to reason through specific problems that are important to them, but are failing to do so because they put too much trust in authorities.

He's not literally saying to believe this, but to consider this idea to enable you to then look at the evidence yourself.

The problem is so many people hold a 'prior' that the authorities are always right, it becomes possible for wrong ideas to become entrenched, and never seriously reinvestigated.

His ideas are all based on the Association-Induction hypothesis, which is a little known and iconoclastic theory of cell biology... however it seems to have a strong experimental basis.

His writing seemed crazy to me at first (almost like schizophrenic word salad, despite having graduate level training in biology), but I've spent much of the last year studying the papers he cites... and I cannot find any mistakes in his reasoning yet. It's seeming more and more reasonable, but I think it's better to use his writings to find new ideas about basic biology, ra... (read more)

Is this reverse stupidity? It's a demonstrably false statement, but I think it's a useful heuristic to compensate for a bias we are prone to, allowing you to then collect evidence and evaluate the situation rationally. It might help overcome the also demonstrably false 'prior belief' that the authorities are always correct, which prevents people from ever expending energy to confirm or question them.

I retracted this, because I have learned a lot more about this issue in the last year. I am still undecided on aspirin, however I no longer think that the mechanisms mentioned above are the only important roles aspirin plays. I am also no longer convinced that omega-3 offers a health benefit, and that omega-6 restriction alone may be superior to replacing omega-6 with omega-3.

1Richard_Kennaway
I googled Ray Peat, and he is someone with rather definite views about nutrition and biochemistry. Can I go against his advice in the other quote to read a lot of technical stuff, and ask those on LW who have done so, to say how they judge his ideas?
9A1987dM
Reverse stupidity is not intelligence.
8bramflakes
Guess I'd better start driving without a seatbelt, smoking cigarettes, drinking while pregnant, avoiding healthy food and exercise, having unprotected sex with strangers ...

I really like your recipe analogy, I think it would be very useful for teaching molecular biology.

I think our discussion mirrors the tension between traditional biology and bioengineering. As a bioengineer I'm primarily concerned with what is possible to build given the biology we already know.

While I agree that a "blueprint" isn't a good analogy for naturally evolved living organisms, this doesn't prevent us from engineering new molecular systems that are built from a blueprint. As I mentioned, we already have turing complete molecular computers... (read more)

0David_Gerard
It's the usual analogy I see.

To what extent is labeling the behavior of biological systems as "emergent" just an admission that these systems are currently mysterious to us?

I don't think it's clear to what extent biological systems have "emergent" behavior, vs. organization into distinct "modules" each with a specific role, and robust feedback systems.

The book chapter On Modules and Modularity in the book System Modeling in Cellular Biology argues that simple modular design is likely selected for, as it would increase the ability of an organism to evolve ... (read more)

[anonymous]300

I don't seem to have the same disdain for the word 'emergent' as much of the population here. I don't use it as a curiosity stopper or in place of the word 'mysterious' - I wouldn't be much of a biologist if a little emergent behavior stopped me cold. (Also no argument about many modular things in biological systems, I pull out and manipulate pathways and regulatory circuits regularly in my work, but there is a whole lot which is still very context-dependent). In this context I used the word emergent to mean that rather than having some kind of map of t... (read more)

Isn't life an example of self-assembling molecular nanotechnology? If life exists, then our physics allows for programmable systems which use similar processes.

We already have turing complete molecular computers... but they're currently too slow and expensive for practical use. I predict self-assembling nanotech programmed with a library of robust modular components will happen long before strong AI.

[anonymous]360

Life is a wonderful example of self-assembling molecular nanotechnology, and as such gives you a template of the sorts of things that are actually possible (as opposed to Drexlerian ideas). That is to say, everything is built from a few dozen stereotyped monomers assembled into polymers (rather than arranging atoms arbitrarily), there are errors at every step of the way from mutations to misincorporation of amino acids in proteins so everything must be robust to small problems (seriously, like 10% of the large proteins in your body have an amino acid out ... (read more)

Consider volunteering in an academic lab that does computational research- such as bioinformatics, or computer science research. This will get you practical programming skills, but also other useful skills and knowledge related to the specific research being done.

Personally, I find it a chore to learn programming languages, but I find it very enjoyable and rewarding to write software which helps solve problems I'm interested in.

Do you have any more information on this?

My personal experience has been that it's almost impossible to consistently put in more than about 2 hours/day of highly focused 'flow' coding. I was previously worried that there was something wrong, but at this pace I'm able to complete big projects on a regular basis. Could this be normal even for productive programmers?

0Risto_Saarelma
The only way I can get actual 8 hours of focused programming work is if it's the sort of tweaker monkey work where I just try a whole bunch of combinations trying to achieve the thing I've already figured I want to do. Examples of this are long debugging sessions, writing FFI bindings and writing an assembly subroutine. If I actually need to keep figuring stuff out, 2 to 4 hours is generally the amount I can manage.
2Kaj_Sotala
I have heard a lot of people say that around 3-4 hours is typical. (That is also the average for professional writers, so it makes sense for that to generalize to other kinds of creative work.)
1Shmi
2 hours a day seems low, but you might be unusually effective. My experience is that the duty cycle is closer to 50/50, and lower with overtime, the latter being common, especially in startups.

Invest some time looking into modern bodybuilding methods and "paleo 2.0" diets, and you'll quickly see that his knowledge level of practical fitness methods is shockingly shallow (and outdated) for someone who claims such a longstanding interest in them.

I was not arguing for studying theory over practical experience- but to argue that he is far from an expert at either approach.

It's true that most effective fitness techniques lack any solid theoretical basis and were discovered by self experimentation. However, his knowledge level of these practical fitness techniques is shallow.

For example his workouts were copied nearly verbatim from the book "Body by Science" but are missing important advice from that book on how to perform them safely and effectively. He also seems unaware of the methods de... (read more)

You have a good point about motivation, but I don't think Timothy Ferriss is a good example person to use for explaining this idea to LWers. Perhaps a very successful and motivated scientist such as Feynman?

Personally, I don't find Timothy Ferris' motivation level that impressive- on the contrary, I think he's dangerously lazy.

For example, he presents himself as an elite and highly experienced biohacker in 4HB, but he's just copying methods from already published books that he doesn't understand well. He's using relatively dangerous and ineffective techniques, because he never invested the time to understand the relevant biology, history, and many key methods surrounding the ideas he talks about.

7wedrifid
You are wrong. Any definition of 'lazy' which makes your claim true would be ridiculous. And, in case you were wondering, suicide bombers aren't cowards either. Bravo. Unsubstantiated claim that I have no reason be believe. His understanding seems to be more than adequate, even if oriented more towards practice than theory. This seems false (except the parts that explicitly say "this is dangerous", "don't do this without medical supervision").
drethelin100

This is actually a very traditional kind of over-caution. It's being lazy by pretending not to be, and never actually doing anything. You learn more about how effective a diet is for you by trying it for two months than you do by studying nutrition science for 4 years, but one is a scary difficult life change and the other you can leave to the experts and do nothing.

He's put in way more time and effort into figuring out his own body and its reactions to things than you ever will. What's lazy about this? It may be inefficient or incorrect if you believe in the primacy of research, but in what universe does it count as lazy?

The barriers to entry in becoming a supervillan are getting lower and lower- soon just anybody will be able to 3D print an army of flying killer robots with lethal autonomy.

1fubarobfusco
Next time someone asks what "privilege" means, quote this one.

I just got an eBook of "The Motivation Hacker" and it seems AMAZING. I realize it's much of the same ideas present in the article on here how_to_beat_procrastination, but Nick explains them in a way that seems far more convincing and applicable to daily life.

The terminology "cheat meal/day" bothers me, as it implies that it's not a critical part of the diet or even some sort of "planned moral transgression"- and leads many people to think they might get better results if they avoid it, do it less often. In reality it's a critical part of the method.

0MalcolmOcean
Likewise, somewhat. Well, call it a binge day then. Or a gluttony day. Or an indulgence day.
Load More