I believe 4 to be bad advice for most children. If you're from a rich, stable family and recieve a good education yet still struggle at a particular subject then maybe, yes, it does reflect some kind of inherit weakness.
But the majority of children who are behind in an area simply haven't spent enough time working on it. Regardless of a childs genuine abilities, they'll do worse if you tell them they should consider themselves to be "less capable".
It's also generally hard to be well-calibrated on how good you are relative to others as a child, when you haven't been exposed to that many people yet. Some people think they're of average smarts when they're kids and only realize as adults that they're exceptionally smart, or vice versa.
In my experience adults are not good enough judges of capabilities for this to be non-damaging. I've tutored lots of kids in math at lots of different ability levels. Except in cases where the parents were highly-involved high-achieving mathematicians and the kids were high-achieving as well (math olympiad prep basically), parent and teacher evaluations were not more informative than mere report cards, which were not all that informative (grades and test scores are very predictive if you have a standard life path, but you should not have a standard life path, there are deep interventions available for math for most students imo.) I imagine the same issue exists in other fields, and I don't think I've ever met someone who I think would be competent to give their child useful assessments of their long-term capabilities in more than two fields at a time, even assuming the children were not vulnerable to the self-image damage that I think you're basically ignoring here.
Ideally so, though children often don't trust their parents to be objective (and are often correct not to).
It's not just about spending time working on something, either. Maybe the problem is that there's something they just don't get, and if they can figure out what it is, they'll suddenly be able to do much better. See Errors vs Bugs and the End of Stupidity.
I like these pieces of advice, but I feel like the article itself isn't written for children, and is written for adults who already have some exposure to our culture. Here's a sentence I really noticed:
“Age is just a number” is not true, but is directionally correct compared to the societal status quo that rids children of agency.
I was a pretty smart kid, as I imagine was most of LessWrong, but I don't imagine being able to understand that sentence when I was a kid. I might say something like:
Don't ever tell yourself "I can't do something because I'm only twelve." Instead, think of the obstacles you face being a kid in terms of things you can change, like "I don't know enough maths to be a physicist" or "Adults won't take me seriously enough to listen to my ideas". These are obstacles you can work on or around, not just wait to grow out of.
OR
Don't ever tell yourself "I can't do something because I'm only twelve.". Instead, ask what you think you could do at sixteen that you can't do now, and figure out what you need to get there. Once you know what you need, there's a good chance you can get there in less than four years, if you try.
I think this still gets the idea across, while using concepts a smart twelve-year-old probably knows.
3
1
1Ironically, this shows that you are still deep in the "societal status quo that rids children of agency." Any English sentence that is parsable by a median adult is parsable by a smart twelve-year-old.
While I agree with your second sentence, I don't think that sentence is parsable by a median adult.
Ah, okay. I interpreted "written for adults who already have some exposure to our culture" as "exposure to [our society's] culture," which would include the median adult, but I see now that you actually meant "exposure to [rationalist] culture," which would not include the median adult.
I still disagree with the sentiment though. A smart 12-year-old even with no exposure to rationalist culture should be able to understand the sentence in context. To a first approximation, he is just like me and you but has never seen the word "agency" used in this way, so we can put ourselves in his shoes by imagining the passage said this:
Respect yourself in the past, present, and future. Don’t make excuses for being young. Even if you, the reader, are currently 4 years old, don’t let adults make excuses on your behalf. “Age is just a number” is not true, but is directionally correct compared to the societal status quo that rids children of dealership. You can start setting the foundations for the life you want today, no matter how young you are. Childhood doesn’t have to be all fun and games (fun and games are good, but they can also continue your entire life)! Start planning the life you want by thinking freely in your own head. You can beat others by starting earlier because you respect yourself and haven’t fallen for the “children aren’t people”-style propaganda.
On reading this, we are struck by the word "dealership" which is clearly being used in some unusual way, but we can still understand the passage more or less completely. The "dealership" sentence in particular is conceding that being young comes with real limitations, but it asserts that these limitations are weaker than is commonly believed. We realize that we don't really need to know what "dealership" means in this context, and it's kind of obvious anyway from the surrounding text, but we're feeling motivated so we paste it into Google. Under the main definition, there is a secondary one: "the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power." Ah, that must be it. "rids children of dealership" = "imagines children lack the capacity to exert power." Ok, that was kind of a waste; we already got that from the rest of the passage. But whatever, it was worth the 30 seconds to learn some new vocabulary. Maybe it will help us in the future.
Was that really so bad?
Now imagine a 40-year-old comes along and tells us, "I feel like this article isn't written for 27-year-olds like yourselves. It's written for 40-year-olds who already have some exposure to 4chan (the 'dealership' jargon is popular on the /biz/ board). I was pretty smart at 27, but I don't imagine being able to understand that sentence back then. I think it would be more suitable for you guys if we rewrote it like this: <insert simplified version with lot of examples>."
I'm not claiming your changes aren't an improvement. But if they are, it's because they make the passage clearer in general, not because they reduce it from adult-level complexity to something even a lowly 12-year-old can understand.
You're mostly right about the "culture" interpretation. I was deliberately vague here since I'm not completely sure exactly what the broadest culture that uses terms like "agency" and "directionally correct" is. Is it rationalists? TPOT? Tech workers in the Bay Area? But in any case, I did mean some sort of niche culture that the median adult is not in.
I noticed two terms that a 12-year-old or median adult may be unfamiliar with ("directionally correct" and "agency") which usually triggers my alarm bells - imo you can use one unfamiliar term in a sentence (as you just very thoroughly showed) but two is harder. (I also noticed "status quo", but I think the median adult may already know what that is, so a smart 12-year-old could know that too) That said, it is true that a motivated 12-year-old or median adult could figure out how to parse that sentence, even if it wasn't on the first reading. And "directionally correct" is probably easier to determine from context than "agency" is, so your example uses the harder of the two.
I also think I may have incorrectly specified what I meant, too. When I said: "I don't imagine being able to understand that sentence when I was a kid", I meant more "If I read that sentence, I wouldn't know what it meant" as opposed to "I would be unable to understand that sentence even if I spent five minutes trying". I recognise my phrasing seems to imply the latter more than the former.
I don't think "directionally correct" is a standalone concept. It's just normal usage of the words "directionally" and "correct," so you understand it automatically if you understand those words.
I suppose I can't point to anything clearly false in your original post, especially with these clarifications, but I'm still left with a feeling that you would not have written it if you fully appreciated the extent to which a smart twelve-year-old is the same kind of thing as us.
The article is objectively easy to read, give or take an awkward sentence or obscure word. I'm fairly confident that if we had 12-year-old you read this article, then told him that future you had declared the article "isn't written for children," he would be amused at your impression of him.
I could've understood it at twelve-ish (which was about when I first read HPMOR and the Sequences) - however it probably wouldn't have sticked, and even if it had I know I wouldn't have truly taken it to heart.
"Don't ever tell yourself 'I can't do something because I'm only twelve.'" might've got me to do all that, due to concreteness (thus clarity) and pithiness (thus memorability). It also applies when someone thinks that just because they haven't taken a class on X or aren't a Y year student that they can't learn the basics of whatever subject. It's like they imagine learning requires the magical decree of academic officials to deign you Worthy.
This list can lead to suboptimal outcomes on its own. I understand that it was never meant to be a complete guide, but I would add a couple of ideas related to "dealing with others". I was a child who could be described as following the advice on the list: doing things my own way, a bit stubborn, skeptical of the stories I was told, failing to respect norms, contrarian even. But I wish someone had persuaded me early on about the importance of learning from others and building more relationships than I did. So I would add two ideas:
a. Learning from people that are different from you. Some of the kids in my school were not into learning stuff and I had some disdain for them. These not-high-IQ kids went on to have interesting lives because the intelligence that helps you deal with abstractions and learning is not so important in other areas. Those kids did well in commercial settings, in design, politics. They did not understand physics like the "smarter" kids, but they had qualities that I failed to see and that are important for individual success and for mattering in the world.
b. Learn to build coalitions and understand group politics. Many important goals require a group of people acting together. No matter how smart or capable someone is, a group will be able to achieve more. Many smart kids that like to think on their own and have their own views, struggle persuading others because they cannot compromise their worldview with kids who think differently. Non-conformist smart kids want to be right and that leads to confrontation and disagreement. I know that this might go against the foundational ideas of rationality that many of you hold, but I would advice that sometimes it is better to give in and have "less right" opinions in order to forge alliances that help you achieve a higher goal. I learnt this lesson a bit too late.
You don’t need to make “rite of passage”-style mistakes (e.g. drinking or taking drugs, getting into bad relationships, cramming for exams, ignoring your health, becoming a socialist[2])
Probably most kids should do less of this on the margin, but using intelligence + willpower to avoid obvious mistakes cost me the opportunity to develop wisdom, and the same mistakes are much more costly later on.
but using intelligence + willpower to avoid obvious mistakes cost me the opportunity to develop wisdom
I didn't get it but it sounds interesting. Can you elaborate?
2I agree with most of these, but I'm worried about 11, especially how people who are exceptionally risk-averse might interpret it.[1] There are just as many things that you might look back and regret not trying.[2]
Most people's long-term regrets don't come from having a drink once, or having a horrible sleep schedule for a semester, or becoming a socialist for a couple years. Sure, if you sample from alcoholics, [edit: in a majority of cases] the first attempt was pivotal. But a ruined body or or mind usually comes from persistent bad habits rather than a single try.
The thing about the regret of not trying enough things is that most people err on the other side, so it's very rare to find people that express it. There were a couple years of my life where I valued purity very highly, and in hindsight I think it caused more harm than good. But I'm still young; who knows what I'll think in five years.
- ^
5 checks this somewhat, but I think this is significant enough to flag.
- ^
It is possible to spiral into madness wondering about these counterfactuals. Maybe I'll regret it in ten years. Maybe I'll regret not doing it in ten years. Maybe I probably won't regret doing it, but in reality my utility would have been higher and I'll never know.
I don't think any of this is useful. The point I'm trying to make is that the regret counterfactual can go either way and you shouldn't worry about it too much.
It's an explore/exploit problem. Many times you don't have complete enough knowledge to make an informed rational decision, because the only truly relevant data is your own life (I cite point 5 above). I think cases like this are what the gut is for.
a ruined body or or mind usually comes from persistent bad habits rather than a single try.
Then the relevant advice could be something like:
It is good to try various things out of curiosity (if they are harmless), but after trying them, evaluate whether the experience was good or bad for you, and feel free to stop doing the things that were bad. The fact that you tried something once does not create an obligation to continue. You are free to start doing things and to stop doing thing.
That said, consider how much time would it take for a noticeable effect to happen. For example, going to a gym once won't have much of a positive effect, so it may feel like just wasted time. On the other hand, people sometimes procrastinate on ending a useless activity. Try to decide in advance how much time should you spend on the activity until it either delivers the positive results or you stop.
I generally agree, although part of my point is that "if they are harmless" might still be too high of a bar if you have a certain disposition (which is likely more common than average in this community). See Elizabeth's comment.
When I was a teen, I got little to no intrinsic reward from getting good grades, and lots of reward on learning cool stuff. My grades started dropping, and yet I would not tell my teen self that her priorities were wrong - though I wish I was more able to do boring homework. I learned a whole bunch of math, physics, and basic coding, and I've been reaping the rewards ever since. I don't claim thousand year old vampire status, but I am a bit like that in much part thank to my natural priorities. I don't think I at any point thought "okay, time to learn a bunch of math for the purposes of long term gain!" until suddenly for some reason near the end I started getting externally rewarded for it (if anything I was actively discouraged - adults cared more about my SAT scores than my textbook reading hobbies).
This list made me think off an old Scott Alexander piece:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/24/should-you-reverse-any-advice-you-hear/
I think 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 might fall under this category.
If you are clearly weird, the standard advice is more likely to be flat out wrong! People are just pretty different, and you are a people.
What you said implies this, but I thought it worth making super explicit.
1Specifically, the things that make other people happy will not necessarily make you happy. So the advice on how to achieve them, even if factually correct, may be irrelevant for you.
Related to #4: Your traits really are part of you. Use them; expect them; flaunt them; adapt to them. If you're tall, don't stoop to try to look average height; you'll still look tall and you'll look uncomfortable and have back pain. If you're short, feel free to stand on stuff when you need to be big or reach something high; and if you're meant to be on camera with someone much taller, you can stand on a box like Gillian Anderson or Tom Cruise.
The idea of "accommodations" for disabilities can be generalized: by correctly accounting for your traits, you can find out what adaptations you should be carrying around with you — or asking for. If someone wants to work with you, and you know there's something you will need in order for it to go successfully — be clear about that. Know your needs and accurately represent them to others.
You're not the average person. More to the point, you're not a failure at being the average person. Nobody is the average person. You're you. Be you. Take some time to figure out what it is to be you, and communicate that to others so they can be better-than-useless in helping.
Number 4 sounds like it would back fire horribly.
If the child has an incorrect or incomplete picture of their capabilities (which is almost always the case since schools don't reliably and regularly test childrens mental traits) then this advice will result in them over or underestimating their capabilities causing them to make terrible life decision.
I think these advice can also be applied to adults, especially young adults, when many of them are in a transition phase, whose past mistakes might not be too deep or problematic to recover from, or their life principles are still forming.
Personally, I like number #8, specifically:
"Start planning the life you want by thinking freely in your own head. You can beat others by starting earlier because you respect yourself and haven’t fallen for the “children aren’t people”-style propaganda."
I feel like this is crucial for children who need to overcome adversaries, and even more for those who live in a hostile environment (toxic parents, schools or bully), by setting up priorities and long-term plans, or having agency in general. Though, I do wonder how much of agency a child can cultivate when power is not in their control in the first place.
Ah, here's one from Paul Graham; Always produce. I feel a bit conflicted about this, but don't understand my disagreement enough to explain why. I still think it's a valuable read
I came up with these principles when I was a child myself.
On Substack, someone commented that "Typically people assume they’re too fixed relative to the optimal!". I actually agree with this. Most people assume they are more fixed than they actually are, i.e. they don't try to positively change as much as they could, while also being insufficiently aware of their own nature. What I'm proposing is trying really hard to achieve your goals and improve while also being very aware of your own nature. When I make fun of "growth mindset" stuff, I mean more that you should be well aware of what things you find easier or harder compared to others because that should inform your strategies a lot (and of course sometimes modify your goals).
These are just examples, the specific list will vary depending on what types of things people similar to you tend to regret doing. On Substack, someone commented that they did these sorts of "bad" things but don't regret it because it's nice to try many sorts of things in your life (not sure where that comment went, maybe it was deleted). This is an understandable view, though also I specifically mean things people do tend to regret. If people like you don't tend to regret becoming socialists, that's a bad example for you. However, I also said the following, which I am adding here as advice point 11.5: "I think if a child reads and follows my principles, they get a unique opportunity to be pure (I mean this in a figurative, general sense). Destroying purity is easy, having it is rare and valuable; only attainable to those who commit to the path early. Unfortunately most people are impure and therefore have no chance to go back, so they don’t consider what it would be like to be pure from day one. You can always try something, you can never un-try something."