All of meedstrom's Comments + Replies

... I'm getting the takeaway that you can influence policy by just emailing good papers to your local policymaker.

True, if you were gonna vomit repeatedly. I suspect the association might be forged after only one or two times. Maybe it fades after one week, so you do it again, then it fades after one month, then a year... like it's an Anki card.

Counterpoint: This sort of thing seems more efficient for my brain to take in, compared to if it were phrased in a more "friendly" way. At least if that'd mean a long-winded and less passionate phrasing that relies more on the reader's own motivation to pay attention.

It's true that this quote is more suitable for informal chat than the front page, but also, a community must be free to be caustic about some things it finds sufficiently basic, else it gets watered down. Sometimes a caustic tone serves a purpose for the current readers.

So there's a balancing... (read more)

Well pointed out.

I've done both at different times, so here's a way to tell the difference between "waiting for a reset" and "running towards a reset": it's a good sign if I'm looking forward to waking up!

I recognize myself. Thank you for putting that into words. Out of curiosity, do you have an ADHD diagnosis or consider getting one?

Thanks for the first link, it led me to demand avoidance, where caregivers/friends can make it easier with declarative language. I've been working on similar thoughts about "how to talk to someone with ADHD". E.g. I find it more comfortable to hear "let me know if you want support with that", rather than be asked "do you need support with that?". Somehow, no demand for response makes it easier to think and respond.

Zooming in on one of your examples,

Eating something tasty, or going to a party, or otherwise “indulging” yourself, every time you do something that contributes to your long-term aspiration.

AFAICT, this classic indulgence-as-a-reward can aim at one of two things:

  1. it can be something you only think to do after having completed a task, to build positive assocations for the future
  2. it can be something you think of to motivate yourself to start on a task to begin with

I believe that the first thing is generally good advice, but that a lot of people can't d... (read more)

P.S.: The “radical cure for sugar enjoyment” described in your linked post (taking emetic drugs when you consume sugar) is a really bad idea.

Not disagreeing, but what's your reason? Loss of gut flora?

2Said Achmiz
Many reasons, including that vomiting repeatedly is bad for your esophagus.

It is currently in a somewhat awkward hybrid state.

And you may see it that way for the rest of your life. Using CLI is like having a taste in coffee, there's always new frontiers. I'd advise embracing the "hybrid state" you've got at any given time as Your System, rather than always be enduring an awkward state of transition.

Well-spotted!  My other comment mentions an example of literal "|" in Warcraft 3.

Wow, blast from the past! |n|n|cfffcc00 is in many tooltip strings in Warcraft 3 (with the result of coloring the following text some light gold hue). 

Lots of examples: https://www.hiveworkshop.com/threads/tooltip-tutorial.51966/ (archived)

Saw it so many times making custom maps, cffffcc is burned into my memory.  I guess the first "c" stands for "color"; it's not part of the hex code.

I'm getting the sentiment "just sort the signal from the noise, same as always", and I disagree it's the same as always.  Maybe if you already had some habits of epistemic hygiene such as default to null:

The mental motion of “I didn’t really parse that paragraph, but sure, whatever, I’ll take the author’s word for it” is, in my introspective experience, absolutely identical to “I didn’t really parse that paragraph because it was bot-generated and didn’t make any sense so I couldn’t possibly have parsed it”, except that in the first case, I assume that

... (read more)
1SpectrumDT
Good points. Thanks!

Nitpick: "...is extremely bizarre" can sound prescriptive. If you only meant it descriptively, maybe "extremely unusual".

Basically agree, but not an useful comment.

I'd nuance that as that being alive and energetic is fun -- but when my body no longer grants energy, it's like death already. Say I'm trying to take notes about the content of this thread, but I'm so tired I barely produce anything. If the terms of my body are such that I must first do a timeskip to tomorrow to get more energy, then I want the timeskip.

I guess I understand becoming sleep-deprived and staying up anyway if you don't notice your IQ dropping...

I think some Rationalists believe everything is supposed to fit into one frame, but Frames != The Truth. [...] we should be able to pick up and drop frames as needed, at will.

Aye - see also In Praise of Fake Frameworks. It's helped me interface with a lot people that would've otherwise befuddled me. That gives me a more fleshed-out range of possible perspectives on things, which shortcuts to new knowledge.

But perhaps it's worth thinking twice when or at least how to introduce this skill, because it looks like a method of doing Salvage Epistemology and s... (read more)

Gonna reuse the term "fluency escape velocity"!

A major point of the workshop is to just grind on making cruxy-predictions for 4 days, and hopefully reach some kind of "fluency escape velocity", where it feels easy enough that you'll keep doing it.

Fits my experience with a lot of mental skills, because it often takes me many months or years after reading about a skill that I actually reach a point where I've stacked up enough experience with it that it becomes fluent / natural / a tool in my toolkit.

Disclaimer: I am not sure I've done what you think of as Looking, but all your metaphors make sense to me.

If I "get" the general thing, then would you agree that aside from Fake Frameworks, experience with Focusing must help? Especially for people who haven't yet meditated much or find the idea of a "non-verbal thought" elusive.

I'm thinking of Focusing as targeting something that can also happen in meditation, but could take some beginner meditators a long time until they get direct experience with. It's the way that your mind can suddenly produce a new a... (read more)

3Valentine
I've changed how I want to talk about all this stuff quite a bit since 2018. I don't talk about "Looking" for the most part anymore. Not for carefully thought-out reasons. I just don't like the feel of trying to describe this stuff that way anymore. It feels over-reified and too… prideful. Not just about me, but as in, the framework seems to imply a skill or capacity a person has or doesn't have, and that it's better if they have it. I no longer think that's how grace works. With that caveat: yes probably? I'm guessing Focusing can help. I'm not sure though! My impression these days is that the kenshō "insight" is basically what you recognize when you stop restricting your perceptions with your cognitive frames. The tricky part is that what I just said is a cognitive frame, so the conceptual mind can take what I just said and claim to have some kind of understanding of the kenshō thing. But it can't. It literally cannot understand it. It's like an LLM with a pure text interface talking about truly appreciating visual art: it might give some amazing and even helpful analysis, but it doesn't have the right type of input or processing to see a painting at all. Focusing might help by giving the system a way of orienting to things in a non-conceptual way. The conceptual mind can still create frames during and after, but they're only kind of helpful to the Focusing process, so the conceptual mind can't lead the Focusing effort. (Here I'm hinting at viewing "you" as the identity structure that lives within the conceptual mind — what some spiritual/mystical places sometimes mean when they say "ego".) So, that's my guess. In short, I'd guess yes? But I really don't know.

If it helps, your explanations made perfect sense to me, like plain English.  So thank you for putting yourself out there; you gave me and others something to chew on.

I can't really see where this line of inquiry is going, so I'm not the right person to comment, but the list seems to be missing at least one thing:

  • Ask people to do you a favor

Oddly that makes people like you more, even though there is nothing obvious traded in return. I got that from either Dale Carnegie or Robert Cialdini.

I think it'd be good to flag April Fools posts when it's not April 1 anymore, no?

Not that I don't appreciate the intellectual challenge of figuring out that it's a joke, I'm just concerned about non-LWers misinterpreting it.

Hmm. About 50% of my note pile can be browsed on https://edstrom.dev/. I have some notes on the method under https://edstrom.dev/zvjjm/slipbox-workflow.

How large did your note pile get before it felt overwhelming?

It's true that sometimes I see things I wrote that are clearly outdated or mistaken, but that's sort of fun because I see that I leveled up!

It's also embarrassing to have published mistakes online, so I've learned to make fewer unqualified claims and instead just document the path by which I arrived to my current conclusion. Such documentations ... (read more)

I can understand that, since you keep the handwritings as they are.

Just sharing my own process, but I like the notepad because it's ephemeral... I scribble what I learn, almost illegibly, and later type it up more nicely in my org-roam knowledge base, driven by sheer motivation to liberate myself from that stack of loose scribblings.

That way I get the upside of writing on paper (you learn better), but skip the downside that they're hard to look up.

2mesaoptimizer
This is very interesting. I used to use org-roam and also experimented with other zettelkasten software over the past few years, but eventually it all grew very overwhelming because of the problem of updating notes. The bigger your note pile, the bigger the blocker (it seems to me at least) of updating your notes as you get a better understanding of reality. Could you elaborate more on your setup, especially your knowledge base and how you use it?

There is much bikeshedding about eyestrain. I've seen convincing arguments, especially from older hackers, that a white background is actually less strainful for the eyes. I forgot what the arguments were---will write them down next time---but I don't think it's as simple as the amount of light hitting the eye. Currently I'd advise just trusting in personal experience.

And maybe experiment with increasing ambient light rather than reduce light from the screen.

4Seth Herd
Agreed that it's not as simple as light hitting the eye. I've also tried to work on external monitors that are relatively far away for neutral focal distance. But I couldn't find any good research or even theory on it. FWIW, the majority of my book reading in white on black has been done in the dark in bed before sleeping, but at low contrast.

One problem with the Kindle Scribe is that I couldn’t switch from the note-taking application to the book I was reading very quickly. It would take about 5 to 10 seconds in total to press all the menu buttons

Ah, yes! With the reMarkable (another e-reader), I have a trick: I installed an app switcher so I could merely use a gesture to switch between a writing app and reading app.

I quite appreciated having a single slate to read and write on, in environments like the bus and the beach. Anyway, the software was somewhat buggy... and then I lost my stylu... (read more)

3mesaoptimizer
Answered here, but TLDR is joy of using the Scribe, aversion to using notepads, and a worry of losing logs of what I wrote if written on paper.

Just a thought: I experience discomfort with only being able to sign up via a Google account. I can get over it personally, but we should observe I'm probably not the only one, so there are people out there for whom this is an insurmountable hump that stops them from getting started. I dunno how many in actuality, but there are definitely bubbles where it's normal not to have used a Google service for years.

Alas, I dunno what alternative sign-up would be quickest and easiest to implement.

2Adam B
Thanks for the suggestion - you can now sign in to Fatebook with email!

What is the goal? Why do you need to do more than what has already been sufficient to create high-trust societies?

2Viliam
Even if something is good, it can be further improved. The question is how, and what is the cost. There are places where people do not lock their doors. There are places where people leave their bicycles without a lock, and they find them there on their way home. Perhaps we could do even better. We could do better quantitatively: maybe you trust your neighbors to leave your bike alone, but you wouldn't trust them to leave your purse alone... but it is possible to imagine a society where if someone forgets a banknote in a park, someone will post a message on facebook "hey neighbors, someone forgot some money in the park, if you know who it was please tell them" and the money would stay there until the owner takes it. We could do better qualitatively: maybe you consider your streets safe enough that no one would hurt you or steal from you... but perhaps you could similarly feel sure that no one will ever hurt you emotionally, or that no business would even take advantage of the information asymmetry. Finally, high-trust societies can break down, so it is important to understand what keeps them running.

I'm no historian, but I cannot fit your exiling/killing theory to any recent society I know of.

I know the most about Sweden, so I'll discuss that society. Thinking about Sweden made several things obvious:

  1. First, an alternative mechanism with similar effect as exiling/killing: simply making the next generation better, and watching the stats improve over time.
  2. It's not just a question of good norms or correct education, as if these could develop in any direction independent of the government and system in general. Sweden underwent a transformation over ma
... (read more)
3Viliam
Removing poverty helps a lot. But some people are born as psychopaths and no amount of social democracy can change that. What happens to those in Sweden? I assume it's prison if they do something bad, just like at most places. There are also other mechanisms for making the next generation better, for example forced sterilization. ...perhaps it works best when you do all of this, because different people become criminals for different reasons? Some people are driven to crime by desperate circumstances; some people have low self-control and would also commit crime in Utopia.

Even when you build alone. Let's say you'll redo the tapestry in one room, with four nice regular walls, but in one corner there's an ornamental stone pillar. Then you can spend one day doing the four walls, and three days just getting the details right near the pillar.

Regularities save time. Each irregularity is a massive delay.

Although every building is "novel" even today, they're not "improvements on an existing building". It's a new site every time with a new blueprint. So your novelty point should apply, yet skyscrapers build slower now.

I do think the Burj Khalifa is also an outlier, and not representative of typical building speed, at least in the West.

I disagree with this definitively. I can’t read most if not almost all LW posts.

That’s interesting. I find it relaxing to read most LW posts/comments, which tempts me to call them good writers. Perhaps it’s not that they write “well” but that they think similar to me?

Because I know, it’s something that can hold me back, thinking “ohhh it’s so obvious what I’m going to say, it would be pretentious to think I’m provinding any value by saying it”.

Katja Grace explains how she got over that: Typology of blog posts that don’t always add anything clear and insightful

When you study practical rhetoric, you learn to hold speeches without any written memory-aid. Instead, you use something like the method of loci to remember a sequence of concepts that you want to lay out to the audience, but you do not memorize any exact phrasings.

The first time you pull it off is almost magical, because the benefits are immense and obvious. You have full freedom to walk around, stand in front of the lectern or wherever you like, look everyone in the eyes and ascertain whether they're following along with you, and to change the speech on... (read more)

1Adrià Garriga-alonso
That's very cool, maybe I should try to do that for important talks. Though I suppose almost always you have slide aid, so it may not be worth the time investment.

Nice, I note that Foam is open source and uses markdown, the same as https://logseq.com/!

I wonder if the markdown documents are compatible? I know Logseq's markdown documents are compatible with Obsidian, so some people use both. At least back in ~2021, several commenters (on another website I forgot) found Logseq nicer for quick idea-generation and Obsidian nicer for exploration.

Sleeping on benches in daytime.

I've often had the thought that controversial topics may just be unknowable: as soon as a topic becomes controversial, it's deleted from the public pool of reliable knowledge.

But yes, you could get around it by constructing a clear chain of inferences that's publicly debuggable. (Ideally a Bayesian network: just input your own priors and see what comes out.)

But that invites a new kind of adversary, because a treasure map to the truth also works in reverse: it's a treasure map to exactly what facts need to be faked, if you want to fool many smart people. I worry we'd end up back on square one.

I agree, although I sense there's some disagreement on the meaning of "learning by rote".

Learning by rote can be tactical move in a larger strategy. In introductory rhetoric, I wasn't retaining much from the lectures until I sat down to memorize the lists of tropes and figures of speech. After that, every time the lectures mentioned a trope or other, even just in passing, the whole lesson stuck better.

Rote memorization prepares an array of "hooks" for lessons to attach to.

Also Nate's Replacing Guilt sequence. I'm still reading it, but I predict it'll be the single most important sequence to me.

I think I was unfair. I concede it's possible to have legible argumentation that people won't understand in a short time, even if it's perfectly clarified in your head. But in my experiences interrogating my own beliefs, I think it's common that they are actually not clear (you just think they are) until you can explain them to someone else, so the term "illegible belief" may help some people properly debug themselves.

Regarding your question about math and the like... The point of having the concept of epistemic legibility is that we want to be able to "... (read more)

1Jasnah Kholin
it sometimes happen in conversations, that people talk past each other, don't notice that they both use the word X and mean two different things, and behave as if they agree on what X is but disagree on where to draw the boundary. from my point of view, you said some things that make it clear you mean very different thing then me by "illegible". prove of theorem can't be illegible to SOMEONE. illegibility is property of the explanation, not the explanation and person. i encountered papers and posts that above my knowledge in math and computer science. i didn't understand them despite them being legible.  you also have different approach to concepts in generally. i don't have concept because it make is easier for people to debug. i try to find concepts that reflect the territory most precisely. that is the point of concepts TO ME. i don't sure it worth it go all the way back, and i have no intention go over you post and adding "to you" in all the places where it should be add, to make it clearer that goals are something people have, not property of the teritory. but if you want to do half of the work of that, we can continue this discussion. 

So if a Rationality Quotient (RQ) became famous for only measuring skills that everyone can build regardless of where they start, rather than innate ability, it'd be less infected than the discourse around IQ?

2Viliam
If rich people can hire tutors that will reliably increase the RQ of their kids over the RQ of their peers, I can imagine RQ becoming quite popular and politically acceptable to talk about. Similarly for IQ, once we have the technology that will let rich people genetically design their kids to have IQ around 200, while everyone else is stuck with IQ 100 on average. So far, the only measure of intellect one talks about in a polite company is education. The thing that correlates positively with intelligence, but also can be bought. (In other words, where you can buy your membership among the intelligent.) To make IQ more popular, I propose to establish a society called Excellensa, where you can get membership in two ways: either score IQ 150 or more on a valid IQ test, or pay $1,000,000 donation to Excellensa. The information about who gained the member which way will be forever kept secret. People who pass the IQ 150 test and become members will receive a one-time reward of $10,000, to incentivize smart people to take the test and join. The rest of the donated money will be used to promote the society as "a society of supreme intellect". I predict that most objections against discussing one's IQ or membership in Excellensa would disappear overnight.
2Gordon Seidoh Worley
Seems unlikely, both because I doubt the premise that an RO, whatever it looked like, would be significantly more or less trainable than IQ measurements (based on the fact that supposed measures of learnable knowledge like the SAT and GRE are so strongly correlated with IQ) and because if it had any measurement power it would, like the SAT and GRE, quickly become embroiled in politics due to disparities in outcomes between individuals and groups.

Paraphrasing from How to Take Smart Notes by Sönke Ahrens: we easily get away with unfounded claims when we speak orally. We can distract from argumentative gaps with a "you know what I mean", even if on introspection we would find that we don't know what we mean. Writing permanent notes will make these gaps obvious.

Thank you for writing this out. Don't lose heart if the response isn't what you'd hoped--some future post could even be curated into the featured section. Why I say that? The bits about ineffective self-talk:

He notices that he made a mistake by not trusting his gut instinct earlier enough, and then decides once again that he made another mistake. This is not, actually, the only reaction one could have. One could instead react in the following way: “Oops, I guess I didn’t make a mistake after all.” These two different reactions calibrate the mind in tw

... (read more)

(To clarify, that's 6% RDI, not 6% by volume, which would be worrying.)

I'm confused. Are you saying 1 cup of organic peas is "half a day's intake of vegetables" for you?

It happens, but you can't exchange complex ideas this way. You know when someone's talking and you nod or say "Yeah" to show you get it without interrupting? There's a number of other short phrases you could say if you wanted, like "I know" or "Impossible" or "Dunno", and that's mostly what we deafies in Sweden do IME. It's rare that hearing people do this, breaks a norm I guess, but it's in principle you could do it. With sign you can also say a bit more complicated things without breaking flow like "That's a misunderstanding" or "You're lying" or so... (read more)

As a deaf person, I'm always teaching people to sign, like when I move into a new house, and I do see a difference between learners. Some people don't know what to do with their hands and end up "tangling their elbows together", as you so vividly describe, while others have a talent as if they'd been waiting to sign all their lives. But this gap mostly closes after 3-5 months of living together. Even people who were pretty bad at the beginning end up being able to interpret a group conversation for me.

Not to diminish the difficulty -- to do anything like... (read more)

4Alicorn
I appreciate this timeline!  My emergency plan if I unexpectedly have a deaf baby one day is to find someone fluent in sign language to move in with us and do, if necessary, hardcore sign immersion, and 3-5 months is quick enough that I would not need to worry about the baby acquiring brain damage.

I might have legible argumentation, but I don’t expect it to be understandable without a bunch careful explanation and backtracking to prerequisites

That fits great with my definition of illegibility. This case sounds like you've clarified it enough to make it legible to yourself but not yet enough to cross inferential gaps, thus it remains illegible to other people.

1Jasnah Kholin
this also describe math. like, the mote complicated math that have some prerequisites and person that didn't take the courses in collage or some analog will not understand. math, by my understanding of "legibility", is VERY legible. same about programming, physics, and a whole bunch of explicitly lawful but complicated things.  what is your understanding about that sort of things?  

Not knocking your idea, but usually when you want to complain that "no one has upvoted me" it's good to think again whether you really want to blame other people.

I can guess at a reason why people may not have read that post you linked. I found it long-winded, like a page out of your diary where you're still developing the idea, thinking aloud by writing -- which is excellent to do, but it doesn't seem like something you wrote from the start for other people to read, so it's hard to follow. At least, I'm still puzzled about what you wanted to put forward in it.

I’m a pretty slow reader and I really get frustrated and distracted with not-correctly written text, so I see the subsequent editing of the text as something really threatening and time-consuming for me.

I've become a fast reader in recent years, but like you, I also get disturbed by incorrectly written text.

To me it sounds like you will get used to these issues in time. You know it's (1) your own words, (2) dictated by an imperfect program, and (3) mostly meant to be deleted. 1 would help me read faster, and 2 and 3 would help me tolerate the "writing... (read more)

1mikbp
Thank you very much :-)

It was a perfect analogy for me. One carves up new concepts the same way one always does. A decoupler will carve up a concept differently from a contextualizer. Similar analogy: If someone's knowledge can be seen as a massive mind-map, a feminist will structure a hierarchy in that mind-map quite differently from a Mormon, even if the leaf nodes are the same in the end. When you have a hierarchy in place, more knowledge added will tend to follow that hierarchy and thus subtly influence understanding.

But I've had experiences with people who interpret things ... (read more)

Load More