What do you mean by "even the most basic games [...] don't tend to be turn based"?
And I guess also in real-life situations the menu of options is typically really large instead of small? I don't actually know if that's central.
As much as I would like to already have a clean objection, it's probably more fruitful at this point for me to generally poke around and try to articulate whatever in the general space I have some traction on.
Related to what I said here (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/G2SQzLnoBnmYhPygE/divia-s-shortform?commentId=wSce6sGx9LLqQGAQ4), I also have a general beef with game theory typically being a misleading abstraction (outside of the context of certain formal games (when they are played by economists??)). I think the most common objection I've heard to game theory as a paradigm is that it's much more common for "games" to be iterated than one-off, but I think maybe my bigger complaint is that it's quite rare for stuff to be anywhere near as turn-based as the par...
Yeah, in some basic sense I totally agree with you, and also I still get the sense that the vectors of coordination and alignment are fundamental missing the point (again, in a way that leadership and culture aren't really).
cached-ish thoughts fleshing out further my allergy to the stag hunt framing
Oh, and I think I do have disagreements (or something?) with the longer form stuff people have written about stag hunts/cooperation, but they are some combination of "less of a disagreement" and "harder to pinpoint", which interests me as a phenomenon in and of itself.
Also seems me worth saying that insofar as I think something like this would improve lw conversations, I don't think there's anything stopping me from "just" unilaterally doing more of it. Maybe I would do that if I commented on lw? So far I have barely ever commented, so I wouldn't say I have an excellent predictive model of that. I seem to do it at least some when I write on social media in general.
re: the empathy thing, part of my context is that I've read a lot of communication books over the years, and it seems fair to me to say that the single most common/most important recommendation for improving discussions that are difficult is to spend more time reflecting what people have already said in various ways. And, afaict, when I've done this more, I've gotten dramatically better outcomes by my values. Still (despite having been over various versions of this is my head a bajillion times) I notice I'm confused about something in this space. (I also think this point has a lot to do with why I mostly haven't liked written conversations... not in a very articulate way though.)
I have talked to Ray about my objection about the stag hunt framing multiple times, and iirc I haven't had this conversation with Duncan. Often talking to people about what I think is enough that I mostly let go of it and stop thinking about it, but so far it's still on my mind.
Some things that have been on my mind lately:
Did you consider the possibility that I liked paleo food better and wanted it at the meetup for that reason :-).
There are no strict rules at all :-). I strongly encourage that food brought to share with the group be paleo-friendly, but you can do whatever, and certainly you can eat whatever you want yourself.
I eat vegetarian paleo myself, so I can think of stuff. I eat lots of cheese, butter, coconut oil, eggs, vegetables, and tubers. I also don't avoid soaked and fermented rice and legumes. I also approve of very dark chocolate.
Bring paleo-friendly vegetarian food :-).
These are the only lesswrong cards I've made other than what's in the Less Wrong Sequences deck, but I have tons of other Anki decks. If you're interested in hearing about them, message me.
I made an Anki deck of this post with the key 89ff552e6e8086a6.
Having the source post in a separate field seems like a really good idea, and it never crossed my mind before, so thanks! It would be enough work that I'd probably write some script to do it instead of doing it by hand, but it might be worth it to me to do so at some point.
I don't have AnkiDroid, so I'm not sure if there's a way to search the shared decks within it, but if not I bet it would work to get the desktop version, sync it with an online account, and then sync AnkiDroid with the online account.
I've used spaced repetition to memorize checklists for things for me to do in certain situations and found it to be quite useful. Some of my thinking on this was inspired by The Checklist Manifesto, which I read recently. I'm still figuring out how to make my system work better and have it cover more situations, but an example of one checklist that I've gotten a bit of mileage out of is the one I've made for accessing my inner anticipation controller.
Yeah, I've changed a few that I've noticed myself since I posted them, but if you want to email me with other changes I'd love that.
I don't see a way to export to xml, but if you want a tab delimited text file I could send you that. Interested?
Done! I uploaded a new version with links to the posts.
Hmm. I'm interested, but I'm not exactly sure what you're envisioning. Could you elaborate? I have another deck with SAT grammar (because I'm an SAT tutor) and I have cards that ask me to come up with example sentences for common grammar mistakes. I have specific answers on the back of the cards, but I'll mark them correct if I come up with anything that correctly demonstrates the principle. So maybe something analogous to that?
I think your concern is a valid one, but that there's also a solution. I think reviewing the sequences with the mindset of trying to guess a password would merely reinforce the misguided idea of verbal behavior having inherent truth value. And that's why I wouldn't even really use the word "memorization" to describe what I'm doing.
I think the way to "learn" the sequences is to practice applying the concepts all the time, which is more easily accomplished if you're primed to have them pop into your mind at the right moment. And my experience has been that SRS has helped enable that for me.
It doesn't allow you to review all your decks simultaneously, but you can merge decks by importing one deck into another. http://ichi2.net/anki/wiki/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#How_can_I_merge_or_split_decks.3F
I've wanted to try incremental reading myself, but not enough to install Windows on my Mac. I'm glad to hear you find it useful though--that makes me more likely to make a greater effort to experiment with it at some point in the future.
I recently used similar reasoning during an episode of sleep paralysis about a week ago. My sleep paralysis episodes are always very similar: I hear someone calling out to me from the next room, but I can't respond because I'm paralyzed. I have them often enough that I usually realize what's going on. In this one, I heard my brother (who had been visiting earlier in the day, but who doesn't live with me) calling out to me from the other room. I knew I was experiencing sleep paralysis, but at first, I tried desperately to wake myself up to go answer him...
I'll also say that insofar as women think that PUA "mind-hacking" techniques are black-hat subversions of female rationality, the most obvious solution I see is disseminating more information about them. Knowledge of these techniques would allow women to at least attempt to "patch" themselves, assuming they are open to the idea that they actually work.
For example, say I learn about negs. I can either think, "Oh good, it's fun to be attracted to guys, so I hope guys neg me effectively," or "I think it is immoral to neg...
Some women aren't. I know because I'm one of them. I've already commented on this subject, and my views haven't changed much since then.
While I'm open to the idea that discussing PUA on LW is a net loss, selfishly I want the discussion to stay because I find it fascinating. Since I know it works on me, learning about it helps me understand myself better and make more informed choices.
Well, some people do write about relationship game, but it's certainly the minority of the material. And some of what I have read I find either a mixed bag or decidedly unappealing.
Just to provide a different female perspective, I'd heard about the seduction community a while back, and a few months ago decided to find out more about it. I read some (admittedly not all) of The Game, watched The Pickup Artist, and read a very substantial amount of material online, including most of the archives of a few blogs, my favorite of which was The Sinns of Attraction.
I take almost no issue with the seduction community, in fact my response is closer to the opposite. Insofar as the techniques advocated work, and I have every reason to believe...
To provide yet another different male perspective:
Some part of the success caused by "game" can no doubt be explained as a rationally justifiable taking-into-account of genuinely increased excitingness/attractiveness, but some other part of the extra success is no doubt better explained as a direct influence on the decision mechanism, not on the thing that it makes decisions about. "Game" that's mostly about the former strikes me as being a good thing for the reasons divia mentions; "game" that's mostly about the latter strik...
I've thought similar things. As a married man, I've also wondered whether certain aspects of the seduction community could be repurposed to maintain a high level of attraction within a long-term relationship. The misogyny of some PUAs is very troubling like you note, though.
Your mention of the difficulty of men writing realistic fictional female characters reminds me very much of a passage from Virginia Woolfe's A Room of One's Own that is the most insightful exploration of the issue I have ever read:
...'Chloe liked Olivia,' I read. And then it struck me how immense a change was there. Chloe liked Olivia perhaps for the first time in literature. Cleopatra did not like Octavia. And how completely ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA would have been altered had she done so! As it is, I thought, letting my mind, I am afraid, wander a little from
A more recent instantiation of the same idea is the Bechdel Test or Mo Movie Measure (it's named after a character called Mo in Alison Bechdel's comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For), which a movie passes if it
1. has at least two women in it
2. who talk to one another
3. about something other than a man.
Depressingly few movies pass this test. Of course it can be applied to things other than movies.
While it's ultimately true that individuals come to LW, not groups, I'm far more likely to follow and especially to comment on blogs that my friends also read. For me, one primary way I get really interested in subjects and motivated to understand them well is by talking about them to my friends in real life. And most of my friends are girls.
Not entirely sure, though I believe I did post a couple of comments to Overcoming Bias a while back. I used to comment on reddit and comment semi-regularly on Hacker News, which refutes the first explanation that I thought of, that it was a matter of my time, since clearly I do sometimes take time to comment on the internet.
The comments here are high quality, which is somewhat intimidating, and also makes things take longer, since I want to think more carefully about what I say, but that would probably apply to Hacker News as well.
A possible explanati...
I'm in a similar situation - I comment (sometimes) on reddit and HNews, and have occasionally posted a few sentences to OB, but I am much less likely to comment here. The high quality of the posts and comments leads me to agonize a bit overmuch about every part of a comment, and sometimes I will write, edit, and rewrite a comment before deciding to just not comment at all. I, too, often feel I would not be contributing anything original.
(I should also note in this comment that I am male.)
I am reminded of Paul Graham's explanation for the low number of female startup partners from Ideas for Startups:
...I didn't realize it till I was writing this, but that may help explain why there are so few female startup founders. I read on the Internet (so it must be true) that only 1.7% of VC-backed startups are founded by women. The percentage of female hackers is small, but not that small. So why the discrepancy?
When you realize that successful startups tend to have multiple founders who were already friends, a possible explanation emerges. People's b
Seems like you want me to acknowledge that various people, including on LW, have been doing pretty sophisticated stuff with game theory lately?