I don't think it's (mostly) a question of fame, I think whether it works is a question of how weird/hard to pronounce it is, how hard you stick to it, and the local norms. "Screwtape" works passably well for me, but I also don't use it in the more ~white collar professional circles.
. . . Actually, I should add clothing to this list.
Work ticket systems are one of the main examples of this I've worked with, that's the right track! Early in my career I worked IT for a university, and the ticket system was core to how the IT department operated. Every user report should create a new ticket or be attached to an existing ticket. Every ticket should be touched ideally once a day unless it was scheduled for a future date, and if a ticket went untouched for a whole week then that indicated something had gone horribly wrong. That's because the failure we really wanted to avoid was something li...
Also having the four suits each having a different multiplier might be fun?
Yeah, setups where (for instance) Clubs are worth 2x, Hearts and Diamonds are worth 1x, and Spades are worth 1/2x would (I expect) accelerate the effect. The example in Planecrash talks about multipliers like 1.3 or 1.1 where the evaluation is closer, which I turned to an integer multiplier to make the math doable in an average person's head.
I have a more complicated and playtested version of Jellychip I mean to publish in a few days :)
Yep, that seems right and that does seem suboptimal.
I think checking for escaping the island at the end of game would fix that since people still need to survive ten turns. Alternately, raising the amount of Boat needed would stretch that out, and more playtesting could figure out what the right target is.
. . . Hrm. What if escaped players still need food and water for the duration of the game, and then have to save up if they want to escape early? Not needing shelter gives a gentle encouragement to go as soon as they can.
(Self review) I stand by this essay, and in particular I like having this essay to point to as an example of why some organizations are not holding the idiot ball quite as much as people might assume. This essay is somewhat self defense? I work like this most of the time these days.
Followup work on how to better juggle balls is useful, and basically leads into an existing field of management. If One Day Sooner is unusual startup mode, Never Drop A Ball is a very normal middle and end stage of many organizations, and for good reasons. It's also a genuinely ...
(Self review) I stand by this essay and think more people should read it, though they don't need to read it deeply.
I think some people knew this kind of work and so this serves as a pointer to "yeah, that thing we did at my last company" and some people did not realize this was an option. Making people aware of potentially exciting options they could choose in life is (in my opinion) a good use of an essay. In my ideal world everyone would read something describing the One Day Sooner mindset as they were choosing their first careers so they could hav...
(Self review) I stand by this post, I think it's an important idea, I think not enough people are using this technique, and this adds nothing but a different way of writing something that was already in the rationalist canon.
If you do not sometimes stop, start a timer, think for five minutes, come to a conclusion and then move on, I believe you are missing an important mental skill and you should fix that. This skill helps me. I have observed some of the most effective people I know personally use this skill. You should at least try it.
You know what follow...
(Self review) Do I stand by this post? Eh. Kinda sorta but I think it's incomplete.
I think there's something important in truth-telling, and getting everyone on the same page about what we mean by the truth. Since everyone will not just start telling the literal truth all the time and I don't even particularly want them to, we're going to need to have some norms and social lubricant around how to handle the things people say that aren't literal truth.
The first thing I disagree with when rereading it is sometimes even if someone is obviously and strai...
I think this essay is worth including in the Best Of LessWrong collection for introducing a good conceptual handle for a phenomenon it convinced me exists in a more general form than I'd thought.
It's talking about a phenomenon that's easy to overlook. I think the phenomenon is real; for a trivial example, look at any self reported graph of height and look at the conspicuous shortage at 5'11". It comes with lots of examples. Testing this is maddeningly tricky (it's hiding from you!) but doable, especially if you're willing to generalize from one or two exam...
I might be a niche example, but the Dark Forest Theory as applied to meetups was novel to me and affects how I approach helping rationality meetups.
Sometimes they're not advertised for good reasons, even if those reasons aren't articulated. It sure does seem to make accurate claims about meetups from my observation, where when I notice an odd dearth of meetups in an area where it seems like there should be more meetups, sometimes I find out they exist they're just not as public and also nobody seems to have told the more frustrating quarter of the lo...
I love Fatebook as a user, and also this feels like an odd fit for the Best Of LessWrong collection.
I usually think of the Best Of LessWrong collection as being the best posts from a given year. The collection used to be physical books, printed on paper, which I could physically hand to someone. By that standard, this isn't very good. What exactly would someone do with this post if they read it in a book? It's kind of just a (well written) advertisement. The magic happens if they go to the website.
But man, the last few years have been a giant leap forward ...
I continue to be a fan of people trying to accomplish something in the world and reporting back on what happened. This is a good example of the genre, and on a subject near and dear to (part of) LessWrong's collective heart.
I confidently expect somebody will read a bunch of things on LessWrong, get excited about AI, and try to get the American government to Do Something. By default this attempt will not be particularly well aimed or effective, and every piece of information we can give on the obstacles will be useful. There have been updates since 2023 on ...
(Self review.) Bystander effect is fairly well known in the rationalist community. Quietly fading is not as widely recognized. Since writing this post, two people have told me and other people about projects they were dropping, specifically citing this post as the reason they said that aloud instead of just showing up less.
Mission (partially) accomplished.
Since crystalizing this concept, I've started paying more attention to 1. who owns a project and 2. when I last saw motion on that project. I stand by this post: it spotlights a real problem and makes a couple useful suggestions.
I wish more people 1. tried practicing the skills and techniques they think are important as rationalists and 2. reported back on how it went. Thank you Olli for doing so and writing up what happened!
Being well calibrated is something I aspire to, and so the advice on particular places where one might stumble (pointing out the >90% region is difficult, pointing out that ones gut may get anchored on a particular percentage for no good reason, pointing out switching domains threw things off for a little) is helpful. I'm a little nervous about how changing...
The structure did change. I've gone ahead and added a SFLW file to reflect the new structure, using the description Andrew had for the First Saturday SFLW group. @Andrew Gaul if you want to tweak that description look for /_posts/2025-01-05-SFLW.md and change it as you need.
The thing I want most from LessWrong and the Rationality Community writ large is the martial art of rationality. That was the Sequences post that hooked me, that is the thing I personally want to find if it exists. Therefore, posts that are actually trying to build a real art of rationality (or warn of failed approaches) are the kind of thing I'm going to pay attention to, and if they look like they actually might work I'm going to strongly vote for including them in the Best Of LessWrong collection.
Feedbackloop-first Rationality sure looks like an actual ...
(Self review)
Basically I stand by this post and I think it makes a useful addition to the conversation.
"Motte and bailey" is one of the pieces of rationalist lexicon that has wound up fairly widespread. It's also easy to misuse, because "America" or "Catholics" or "The military industrial complex" are made up of lots of different people who might legitimately different views. The countercharm is recognizing that, and talking to specific people. "Here's a way to be wrong, here's a way to be less wrong" seems a worthwhile addition to LessWrong.
Does it make a...
. . . Okay, I'll bite.
Edit: And-
Thank you all for coming to Solstice! If you'd like to give any feedback, we have a form for that here: https://tinyurl.com/bos-solstice-survey.
Hello! I'm running the Unofficial LessWrong Community Survey this year, and we're down to the last week it's open. If you're reading this open thread, I think you're in the target audience.
I'd appreciate if you took the survey.
If you're wondering what happens with the answers, it gets used for big analysis posts like this one, the data gets published so you can use it to answer questions about the community, and it sometimes guides the decision-making of people who work or run things in the community. (Including me!)
Bounded Distrust is an important addition to my personal lexicon, and this is a decent explanation of how to use it with news organizations. Zvi is perhaps a bit cynical, but the thesis is in part that this level of cynicism is warranted.
I haven't been using Bounded Distrust as much when thinking about news organizations, but I do use it when thinking about other vectors for information. (Including people.) That's a bit odd, since the original essays (both Scott's and Zvi's) are very much about news agencies. The general lesson is something like, what ways...
Welcome to LessWrong! You might be interested in the Toyko Astral Codex Ten meetups, a group of rationalists who meet about once a month. I believe there's a branch that primarily uses Japanese as well as an English-speaking group.
Where are you in Japan? I don't know of any community like this outside of Tokyo, but I know a few ways to find out.
One of the stated purposes of the LessWrong Review is to decide what posts stood the test of time, looking back at the last year. We have yet to do a LessWrong Review that looked back at the last decade, but wouldn't it be awesome if we did?
That's what this essay offers. It's short! I wish it had a little more data, or went into details like what nervous system training was tried (what about Yoga works?) but if the biggest complaint I have about an essay is 'I wish it was longer' that's a really good problem to have!
I'd like to encourage people to wr...
(Self review) Does this essay belong in the Best Of collection? That's a good question. Do people go back and read all the Best Of posts? Do they read the Best Of posts from previous years? Speaking as the person who wrote this, if there was a collection of posts everyone on LessWrong read when they joined, I might not need this essay included in that collection because the essay would have already succeeded. I'd want basically any other essay that taught an object-level thing.
Then again, this essay is a useful pointer to why a group might repeat informati...
Most LessWrong readers do not attend meetups, and this is basically useless to them. Some readers do attend meetups, which Ziz will not attend because the organizers are aware of this and are will keep Ziz out. Some organizers aren't aware, and this is a useful thing to be able to point to in that case, though since this was written describing a developing situation it would be kind of nice to have a conclusion or update somewhere near the top.
Overall, I wouldn't want this in the Best Of collection, but I do expect to link people to it in the future.
A year ago: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bF353RHmuzFQcsokF/cohabitive-games-so-far This post introduces the idea, motivation, and a bit of information about the game itself.
Four months ago: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xY3A8xy6ox5jzmCAm/release-optimal-weave-p1-a-prototype-cohabitive-game A playable version is released, with rules.
(Apologies for link formatting, I'm on mobile at the moment.)
My recommendation for this essay's inclusion in the Best Of LessWrong collection comes down to two questions.
Having been to Lighthaven (Lightcone's venue) a lot over the last year, I think the answer to 1. is a straightforward yes. Lots of other people love Lighthaven. It's possible that this style doesn't work if you're putting less oomph into it than Lightcone put into Lighthaven. I've visited a couple of homes decorated like this and think the style wo...
I like this essay. I am not a paladin and do not particularly plan to become one. I do not think all the people setting out to maximize utility would stand behind this particular version of the rallying cry.
But I do think paladins exist, I want them to have a rallying cry, and when it works — when they do manage to point themselves at the right target, and are capable of making a dent, then I appreciate that they exist and chose to do that. I also appreciate the "if you want to save the world, then here's how" framing.
I don't quite think someone coul...
In contrast, your article meandering for 11 paragraphs defining concepts that basically everyone already has installed before dropping the definition of cohabitive game in a paragraph that looks just like any of the others.
This is an excellent point and I've added a summary at the start, plus some headers. Thank you!
I want to take a moment and note that I'm currently approaching this cooperatively. (Yes, ironic given the subject.) I want the idea of cohabitive games to be in the LessWrong lexicon, I think you also want this, those are the articles we have ...
I think this, or something like this, should be in a place of prominence on LessWrong. The Best Of collection might not be the place, but it's the place I can vote on, so I'd like to vote for it here.
I used "or something like this" above intentionally. The format of this post — an introduction of why these guidelines exist, short one or two sentence explanations of the guideline, and then expanded explanations with "ways you might feel when you're about to break the X Guideline" — is excellent. It turns each guideline into a mini-lesson, which can be broke...
The post itself is here if you want a little more detail, but I thought I'd save you a click.
I really like cohabitive games. I enjoy playing this one. I'm somewhat mixed on this post in particular being in the Best Of LessWrong collection. Cohabitive Games So Far looks like it's doing two things; it's outlining what a cohabitive game is and why it's interesting, and it's describing one specific cohabitive game but not in enough detail to play it.
For the first part (outlining what a cohabitive game is and why it's interesting) I prefer Competitive, Cooperative, and Cohabitive. (Though I wrote Competitive, Cooperative, and Cohabitive, so I mig...
(Self Review) I stand by this post, and if the Best Of LessWrong posts are posts we want everyone in the community to have read then this seems worth the space.
Tapping out is a piece of rationalist jargon that has a definition in the LessWrong tags and has been used in the community for years, but doesn't really have a canonical post explaining why we use it. The tag definition is a good explanation of what it means and it's shorter, which is good. I think tapping out is a good and useful tool when having debates or discussions, and it's one that works bes...
This essay is an example of the ancient LessWrong genre, "dumb mistakes your brain might be making which feel obvious once someone points them out." I love this genre, and think You Don't Get To Have Cool Flaws should be included in the Best Of LessWrong posts.
It's so easy to make this mistake! In fiction, complex and beloved characters have flaws. Fiction can set examples we try to live up to. Flaws are easier to emulate than virtues. I can't train as hard as Batman, and I can't be as wealthy as Batman, but I can brood! Brooding is easy! But the flaw isn'...
I'm glad I read this, and it's been a repeating line in my head when I've tried to make long term plans. I'd like this to be included in the Best Of LessWrong posts.
Even if you are doing something fairly standard and uncomplicated, there are likely multiple parts to what you do. A software engineer can look at a bunch of tickets, some code reviews, the gap where good documentation can be, and the deployment pipeline before deciding that the team is dropping the ball on documentation. A schoolteacher might look at the regular classes, the extracurricular pr...
I'd say non-theistic religions should mark "Athiest but spiritual."
I'm confident that's not the least principled way someone has answered the probability questions. I'm currently like asking people to come up with a number, even one they're pulling out of their rear, and explicitly mentioning N/As feels like it gets me fewer numbers to play with.
I think this should be included in the Best Of LessWrong posts.
This post exemplifies the virtue of scholarship, of looking at every field and skillset as one more source of information. It's well packaged into specific lessons and it comes from someone who can speak in both the Rationalist idiom and the local idiom. It's also on a subject many of us are working on: EA and LW nonprofits do work alongside 'normal' charities, and it's helpful to see their different views and frames. I'd be delighted by a dozen posts like this, field reports from other fields ...
I don't believe it's a reference to a particular post. Some people have fun as a group, whether partying or playing games together or just spending time showing each other cat pictures. Some ways to have fun as a group result in more fun than others, and people might try to test which ways have more fun.
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Do you mean, what do I suggest doing when it's equally easy to add something new to the list vs fixing a ball that's been dropped?
I think this approach is best used when fixing a dropped ball is costly. Consider the example of taking fifteen children on a hike. Fixing the situation if you have fourteen children at the end of the hike is stressful.