All of JesseGalef's Comments + Replies

Excellent point, thanks! I'd been using this mostly for work projects that I'd already decided were worth doing but found myself procrastinating, but that's a great addendum.

I'm in the process of learning more about Geoff and Leverage's Goal Factoring, so that might help me refine the list (or replace it with something better.)

1ytrek
So, have you come up with something better than this checklist ?

You're welcome! I've been using this checklist for a few months, though I've been on the road traveling for much of it. I finally applied the checklist steps to posting the checklist to LessWrong.

I've gone through it enough that I can usually remember each of the 10 steps even when I'm not at my desk. That seems like a good sign that it can carry over to other contexts. (Though I acknowledge that the process of having created it myself probably made it easier for me to remember.)

Regarding the music: I found video game soundtracks to be especially perfect - after all, they're designed to be background music. But I think there's more to it than that. I've had years of conditioning such that when I hear the Warcraft II soundtrack I immediately get into a mindset of intense concentration and happiness.

Obviously it depends on your tastes and whether you have attachments to particular video games, but here are my favorites:

... (read more)
0CWG
Choose music that you're very familiar with it and put it on a loop. New music is much more likely to distract you. (Tip from Matt Mullenweg, interviewed by Tim Ferriss.) That might be more significant than the type of music, although we'd expect instrumental music to be less distracting. I know a health professional (who has ADHD, and works with people who have ADHD) who finds that AC/DC is best for helping to concentrate. I'm not an AC/DC fan, but I'll try some fast heavy music one day when I need an extra concentration boost, and see if it works.
0Dr_Manhattan
I find techno stuff also conducive to working - it aims for the right level of arousal without being too disruptive. Deadmau5, Daft Punk kind of stuff. (will appreciate other suggestions in this vein)
0ryjm
focus@will is pretty useful for me - I've never been into movie music, but the cinematic option was very inspiring for me. There is some science behind the project too.
0[anonymous]
.
1incariol
Here's another one: Skyrim soundtrack (a bit over 3,5 hours of epic fantasy music, with the last ~40 minutes being purely atmospheric/ambient).
3jamesf
musicForProgramming(); is essentially video game music but slower. It's supposed to be just interesting enough to reduce boredom, without being interesting enough that you end up choosing between tuning it out so you can get work done and listening to it actively and not getting work done.
3PhilipRies
I do this too and will check out your tracks! I would add Morrowind and Final Fantasy 6. Also, it's very easy to find game music on Youtube like you have. Just search " music, playlist".
0David Althaus
Thanks so much!
2RomeoStevens
Awesome taste in music. Might I suggest post rock playlists.

Warcraft 2
Might and Magic VI: Mandate of Heaven
Heroes of Might and Magic IV
Planescape Torment

I endorse your taste in video games.

7Qiaochu_Yuan
I've been experimenting with Rainy Mood recently (I think someone on LW linked to this but I don't remember who). Not exactly music but it's interesting. I don't know if it actually helps because I'm not being totally consistent about only playing it when I'm working. Also, some people might find the sound of rain depressing (I find it kind of comforting).

My thinking for Game of Thrones belonging to Gryffindor (though at this point it might just be cognitive dissonance, so please let me know if it sounds right) is that the first book - A Game of Thrones - most heavily features Ned Stark, the paragon of honor and principle. I'm wishing that I had put another Song of Fire and Ice book on the Slytherin shelf to show contrast...

3Alejandro1
I see your point, but I agree with Desrtopa's reply. I would go further and say that Arq'f ubabe abg bayl snvyrq gb cerirag pvivy jne, vg npgviryl pnhfrq vg (ol jneavat Prefrv bs jung ur unq qvfpbirerq, naq yngre erwrpgvat Erayl'f naq Yvggyrsvatre'f zber frafvoyr cynaf sbe nibvqvat one). So I think he makes more sense as an example for Slytherins of how Gryffindor values are foolish and counterproductive.
5Desrtopa
On the other hand, Ned Stark trgf rkrphgrq sbe uvf gebhoyr naq snvyf gb cerirag n pvivy jne. Ur hcubyqf ubabe naq cevapvcyrf, ohg qbrfa'g trg n ybg bs zvyrntr bhg bs gurz.

That's all that's in the printed paperback version that I have - I think Eliezer is working on publishing a more comprehensive volume, but this is all I have.

1[anonymous]
Check /r/hpmor. Also, the git repo now has a print-ready branch.

I'm in! I live in Columbus, so would love a meetup here.

I'll be at Skepticon - I'm moderating the "death" panel with Eliezer and Julia (and Greta Christina and James Croft)!

From knowing the speakers and backgrounds, I also recommend:

1) Julia's talk "The Straw Vulcan" on the interaction between rationality and emotion, 2) Spencer Greenberg's talk, Self-Skepticism: What the Tools of Science Tell Us About Our Thoughts, Beliefs, and Decisions and 3) Hemant Mehta's "The Need for More Critical Thinking in Math Education"

These, along with my panel, should all be of interest to the rationalist community. See you there!

Thanks for the clarification - this is my first post on LW and wasn't sure how to interpret the "link" comments.

As it was, I'd upvoted them because I appreciate knowing what else I'd probably enjoy reading - there's so much material and it really helps having you guys pointing to relevant articles. It's good to know they're intended that way, and not as admonitions for not already including those links.

Again, everyone, thanks for making me feel welcome!

Indeed - when I was young, we didn't use emoticons. We typed "emote smile" and let the MUD client fill in the rest.

... Too nerdy?

Love it!

That brings to mind a fantastic set of posts on Mind Your Decisions (game theory blog) about focal points and coordination problems. If there's anything identifying about one of the songs - even being first on the list - it's a good idea to choose that one.

... Man, I bet psych researchers hate people like us.

4pedanterrific
This post was what motivated me to get the book. It's a great book. As both a 'person like us' and a (prospective) psych researcher, I can say: nah, we just toss us out as outliers.

I'm mostly been using it to track my predictions about the winner of each football game, but have my preferences set to leave predictions private.

As expected, I'm inappropriately confident at most levels of "confidence feeling" except the very high levels, where my accuracy can be more attributed to luck and a small sample size.

Inferential distance is an extremely handy phrase. I was actually unaware of it (an example of distance?) until today, but it's definitely related!

(On an off-topic note, this is my first post on LW and my first chance to tell you that I mentioned you in a post I wrote when I found Prediction Book: (This site isn’t new to rationalists: Eliezer and the LessWrong community noticed it a couple years ago, and LessWrong’er Gwern has been using it to – among other things – track inTrade predictions.)

1matt
Hopefully most LWers know PBook - it was written and is hosted by LW's hosts TrikeApps.
2gwern
Interesting post, but one of your commenters was right, I think - at least, I thought I knew all the active PBers, and you don't seem to be one of them.

Thanks, good catch!

[EDIT: For the record, I had accidentally written "by a factor of 40." I corrected it in the article for future readers.]

That depends - would I die horribly and mysteriously after a year?

2pedanterrific
No, of course not! Whatever gave you that idea? (You might be found in a closet with three fifth-year Hansonians, though...)

Great questions!

Regarding the second one, "What would [people] think if they knew exactly what I was doing?" - I absolutely agree that it's important as a pragmatic issue. If someone will get upset by a technique - justified or not - we need to factor that into the decision to use it.

But do you think their discomfort is a sign that the technique is unethical in any meaningful sense, or merely socially frowned upon? Society tends to form its conventions for a reason, but those reasons aren't necessarily tied to a consistent conception of moral... (read more)

3lessdazed
If people get upset by a technique, that is a harm, but if their suffering that harm has good consequences, upsetting them was, all else equal, a good thing to do. So upsetting people is always related to ethics as more than just a sign. Unethical things are frowned upon to the extent people feel (at some level) frowning impacts that sort of action; regarding blame: Society often has good reasons behind its moral classifications. Use your gut.
3arundelo
I just checked out the Skepticon list of speakers. Laughter was induced by the picture of David Silverman.

That's one useful way to make a distinction! And, honestly, probably the one I lean toward. That's probably the way I'd use the words, but even so I'm trying to figure out whether there's a sensible and coherent way to call a persuasion technique unethical as a reflection on the technique, rather than solely the consequences.

I've thought about it another way - if a particular technique is far easier (and more likely) to be used in a way that reduces utility than it is to use in a positive way, society should be wary of it, and perhaps call it an unethica... (read more)

1lessdazed
The first step might be to back up and see whether there's a perfectly coherent way to distinguish among persuasion techniques, in case that becomes important. Sure, there are sensible ways to distinguish among them. But if you had a good idea of what your subject's matter was like, and a good idea of how you would want it to be, and you had sufficient power, you could talk softly to them, or torture them, or disassemble their atoms and reshape them into a nearly identical version that had a few changed opinions, or barbecue them and feed them to a child and teach the child the opinions you wanted them to have. All four ways begin with an interlocutor and end with a person made out of mostly the same atoms thinking largely what you set out to have the person you are talking to think. (Note: I do not claim that for every mind, persuasion would work.) While these methods are distinct, there is a continuum of possibilities along the influence-manipulation-reconstruction-recycling axis. I don't think there is a solid, sharp boundary marking a difference in kind between "influence" and Dark Art style "manipulation". On slavery, which everyone agrees is always wrong...right?

Thanks for the tip!

I've come across some of this material, but haven't read it in a systematic way. I very occasionally refer to persuasion as 'the dark arts' - I think that phrase/connection came from LW originally.

Earlier this year I gave a talk on the psychology of persuasion, synthesizing some of the fascinating studies that have been done. Rather than present the most blatant techniques as manipulation, I framed them as known weaknesses in our minds that could be exploited if we weren't wary and aware. Thus: defense against dark arts. Combining... (read more)

1pedanterrific
Are you volunteering for the post of LessWrong's DADA professor? The space is open if you want it, though Yvain has previously submitted an application. It should also be noted that a certain someone doesn't seem interested in the job (probably a good thing, on balance).
2lessdazed
I think the best approach is to read the sequence on a Human's Guide to Words before subject specific material. In particular at least the first nine (until Neural Categories) and also Categorizing Has Consequences Where to Draw the Boundary and Words as Mental Paintbrush Handles.

Hi everyone, my name is Jesse. I was introduced to LessWrong by my sister, Julia, a couple years ago and I've found the posts here fantastic.

Since college, I've been a professional atheist. I've done communications/PR work for three secular nonprofit organizations, helping to put a friendly face on nontheistic people and promoting a secular worldview/philosophy. It doesn't exactly pay well, but I like knowing that I'm part of making the world a more rational place.

I'm fascinated by a lot of the same things you are - psychology, rationality, language. B... (read more)

4Shmi
First I thought "Oh great, another believer in n gods for n=0", but after looking through your site I realized that it is much more about rationality and a secular approach to life, not just telling people that faith is a bad thing. As for the morality of a particular persuasion technique, "do unto others..." is still a golden rule, despite its inherent biases and religious connotations.
1kilobug
I would say that any persuasion technique that requires plain lies is unethical. Lies are contagious and break trust, while trust is required for any constructive communication. Now, it may be a lesser evil in some situations. But a lesser evil is still evil, and should be avoided every time it can be. So yes, to me, you can call a technique itself unethical. Some exceptional situations may force you to do something unethical, because the alternatives are much worse, but that can be said to anything (you can always construct an hypothetical situation in which a given ethical rule will have to be broken), so if we want to keep that "ethical" word, we can apply it to something like openly lying.

Some questions to ask:

  • Am I making people stronger, or weaker?
  • What would they think if they knew exactly what I was doing?
  • If lots of people used this technique, would the world be better off or worse off? Is that already happening and am I just keeping pace? Am I being substantially less evil than average?
  • Is this the sort of Dark Art that corrupts anything it touches (like telling people to have faith) or is it more neutral toward the content conveyed (like using colorful illustrations or having a handsome presenter speak a talk)?

(I've recently joked that SIAI should change its motto from "Don't be jerks" to "Be less evil than Google".)

0lessdazed
Particular persuasion techniques are called different things depending on if they are used ethically.
2pedanterrific
Bienvenidos, Jesse! You may or may not be aware, but this has been discussed at some length around these parts; Dark Arts is an okay summary. (Edit: A particularly good post on the subject is NTLing.) If you've already read it and think the topic could stand more elaboration, though, I'm with you. Oh, and "professional atheist"? Totally awesome.

"I actually have a fair amount of respect for people who go out hunting and shoot their food themselves. "

I hear this a lot and agree in a vague sense that felt a lot like a cached thought. So I started thinking about it: Should we really respect people who go out to hunt and kill animals themselves?

My initial reaction was that I'm wary, not respectful, of someone comfortable/enthusiastic about ending a life! As a display of character, it's worrying.

But on second examination, I changed my mind. Even from a virtue ethics perspective, I admire... (read more)

5[anonymous]
Your mileage may vary, I suppose. I find a willingness to let other people do all the squicky, dirty, ethically-questionable and unpleasant tasks, sorted by low socioeconomic status, and then reap the benefits feeling one's own hands are clean and all is right with the world pretty darn worrying myself. And that trait seems ubiquitous in my society.
6KatieHartman
I'm not sure how valid your point is in practice. Being enthusiastic about hunting does not necessarily indicate a willingness to face the consequences of one's actions, nor does it indicate any particular attitude toward factory farming. It may just indicate a lack of visceral discomfort when encountering animal suffering. It is plausible that some/many/most hunters simply enjoy pursuing and eating prey, and that the comparative advantages to overall utility make little or no difference to them. In this case, I wouldn't say that the utility advantage says anything positive about the individual's character, but I certainly do think it's fortunate that self-serving behaviors can occasionally lead to greater overall utility. (Note: I'm sure there are hunters who subsist on hunted meats because they find mainstream meat production ethically appalling. I just doubt that they're representative of all hunters.)

Allow me to echo Julia's thanks!

Dreaded Anomaly is right; LW has had a significant influence on me, particularly the "A Human's Guide to Words" sequence. I drew from it heavily in a talk I gave on effective communicating, and it'll be prominent in a few other talks coming up.

I'm aiming to do more LW-esque posts (beyond things like basic recaps of the map-territory.) Looking forward to your feedback!