All of alwhite's Comments + Replies

“Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.” -Oscar Wilde

After digesting this a bit, I think I come away with the idea that the internet is bad for creating change in people and that the systemized winning training has to happen on the personal, real-life level.

Is there a function that a website like this can serve if it can't create change?

What would you turn this forum into to be maximally beneficial towards your change?

6Bendini
LW2.0 in its current form isn't ideal for creating measurable change in people on the object level, but if it promotes people to read more of the rationality material that isn't currently popular blog posts, that's a force for good. If I was in charge, I'd divide the site up into cause areas and have things be tagged for which cause area they have relevance to. Possible categories: 1. Xrisk 2. Non-Xrisk EA 3. Craft development 4. Community meta 5. Meta insights 6. Otherwise interesting posts This would allow multiple cause areas to benefit from a shared audience and mitigate most of the stepping on each other's toes you get when each cause area is competing for dominance over the feed. I'd also have more focus on wiki-like information distribution. Currently there is little effort being put into wikis and little status awarded for contributing to them, so they are currently inferior to blog posts written by a single author at a specific moment in time, but it doesn't have to stay that way.

This is sounding to me like the confidence vs competence discussion. Humans have a tendency to select confident leaders whether or not they are any good at a specific task or even leading itself.

https://hbr.org/2013/08/why-do-so-many-incompetent-men

http://bigthink.com/big-think-edge/why-confidence-often-trumps-competence

http://fortune.com/2013/10/17/confidence-does-not-lead-to-success/

5ryan_b
The important detail in the post is that how people react to the leader is the metric for good leadership. If people respond to confidence, then projecting confidence is competence in any situation where it is important for people to respond.

I'm not sure if this is possible, but I think I'm looking for something like "I used this TAP and got this result where past me would not have used a TAP and gotten this other result which is demonstrably worse".

This might be a good test of the calibration idea and making better predictions. Can we accurately predict what would happen without the extra thinking tools?

2[anonymous]
These are all very good questions. (Slight nitpick is that I meant 'calibration' in the Tetlock sense, like being able to make informed judgments about how global events will play out, but I agree there's certainly an analogous component that maps onto 'how well you can predict your own life'.) I currently don't think that I have good answers to them, so this is sort a placeholder reply until me (or someone else) puts in more thoughts into this line of inquiry.

This idea has interested me a lot and I really want to see data on outcomes. I know CFAR is trying to do this but is anyone else doing this? Anyone who visits this site, can they see how the decisions they're making now are leading to improved outcomes?

Are the better outcomes that happen in my life due to the fact that I really am making better decisions or are they mostly because my parents never got divorced, etc....

Anyone have any thoughts on how to evaluate this?

4[anonymous]
I don't think I can offer info on how rationality affects later life outcomes. There's a bunch of confounding / lurking variables in the space, and I'm unsure what to say substantially (Scott's recent posts on IQ have also shifted me towards more uncertainty, but I'm also not really following all of what's been researched.) Here's what I think we do seem to know: 1. Debiasing people in the short-term is possible. 2. People who get calibration training end up more calibrated / make better predictions. 3. Lots of goal-setting/getting techniques have been shown to be effective in allowing people to achieve their short-term goals, e.g. go on diets, exercise more, floss more, etc. What I personally seem to have gained from CFAR-esque material is sort of in the way of "stuff I can't easily verabalize and thus is also perhaps suspicious from the outside view because all I can do is mumble things like 'ontological upgrade'". Concretely, though, I can point to basically 3 TAPs which I have as concrete habits which I counterfactually wouldn't have had, had I not been exposed to the CFAR content: 1. A TAP for putting down to-dos into my phone. (Paired w/ switching the ring on my finger to the other hand, in a "string on the wrist" sort of a way.) 2. A TAP for asking people for examples during conversations. 3. A TAP for not immediately getting angry when I feel frustrated in conversations. In the spirit of the OP, it definitely seems like these little TAPs do add up over time. So even if all the other stuff isn't there (which I emphatically claim that it subjectively feels like it is), I think I've personally still benefited.

The idea that comes to mind is "fail safe". Failure is inevitable so make sure it fails in a safe way. The tool used to evaluate this is called an FMEA.

The Catholic Worker movement probably has a lot of what you're looking for.

Here's an example of one of their houses. I have spent a bit of time helping these guys fix up their buildings.
http://cherithbrookcw.blogspot.com/

http://www.catholicworker.org/cw-aims-and-means.html

The first thing that jumps out at me is the phrase "nourish/reward them over time such that their needs are not better met". It would seem that the first step of a rational group is to understand and meet the needs of the members of that group. I also see this as a very complex problem to solve in and of itself.

To me, this is setting up a false dichotomy; that being, rational thought vs biased thought. Or said differently, rational thought automatically chooses against what a bias would choose. Said even more differently, thinking rationally isn't taking the opposite of bias. I think bias and thinking are happening on different planes and interact in weird ways.

As an aside, I find it extremely strange to say "aware of one's own biases". Bias is all about decisions that happen, seemingly outside our awareness. Decisions we make for what we

... (read more)
3Chris_Leong
"To me, this is setting up a false dichotomy" - I set up this dichotomy as a way of identifying a middle path. To clear "post-bias thinking" is not so much about rejecting rationalism's tendency to think in terms of bias, but about realising that there are often counter-veiling considerations. "If I were aware of my bias, I would take steps to not make that decision and would therefore no longer be biased, except in ways that I was currently unaware." - Not necessarily. You might end up overcorrecting if you tried that. "As to the survivorship of biases, it doesn't really make sense to believe that only useful things survive and all negative things die off" - Indeed, but it is useful to consider whether a bias might also have benefits attached. Because sometimes we might find that we were too quick to judge.

I think I interpret this phenomenon as a motivation problem. The fear of letting someone down is more motivating to you than the actual task itself. We are inherently social creatures so this makes a lot of sense for why it's working for you. I'm not sure I'm really getting the connection to morality.

Maybe there's a need for more clarity on what morality means. Does moral just mean BAD or is moral a substitute for "damaged social connections"? Are you more motivated by not being BAD or are you more motivated by keeping yo

... (read more)

What are you looking for on a post of CBT? I've got a bit of information on it.

After reading this, I tried to figure out what the desired end goals were. I think we can all agree that commenting for the sake of commenting is meaningless, so I looked for what would fill in the blank "commenting for the sake of ______".

At the beginning of the post I saw:
1) I like getting comments (I see this as a bid for attention)
2) Staying in the public view (more comments = more staying power)
3) Learning on the side of the reader (commenting = engagement = better learning)

At the end of the post I saw:
4) Public attention incentivizes effor... (read more)

4Raemon
Upvoted for spelling out thinking in a goal-oriented way that functions a) as some useful insights, and b) a useful example of how other people could approach writing similar comments.
2Richard_Kennaway
Or to put it another way, Steve Jobs convinced a board of directors to hire him. And the vision from which Apple's new products come from happens in a room at the heart of Apple that only a small number of people ever see. Companies are really run by their HR department? I've heard that some HR people think so.
alwhite-10

Depends on the size of the effort. The larger the effort, the more people involved in the gathering.

Are you suggesting that the gathering function is more important than any other function?

1Richard_Kennaway
Who gathers the gatherers? Gathering and leading are essential functions of a hero. Without them, outside of a few examples in mathematics and the arts, nothing heroic is accomplished.
alwhite-40

One of the things that comes to mind for me is the "Myth of the lone genius" and, in part, it sounds like you are continuing that myth in your use of the word "hero". A single person doing something to better the world. But I don't think such people actually exist. All of the heroes, all of the geniuses, have near armies of people beneath them that make their impact on the world happen. No single person has that kind of impact.

Very plainly said, if we investigate any person that you identify as "hero" we will find a lot of... (read more)

0Richard_Kennaway
Who gathered those people together, to work for that success?
0Lumifer
Also known as "You didn't build that".
alwhite-20

That's a really big question. The very short answer is that shame is experienced on a physiological level the same way trauma is experienced. A lot of people who commit sexual assault are operating under beliefs that no one wants them (shame) and so do experience a kind of threat to their psyche.

(disclaimer. This does not excuse sexual assault and is only meant to inform. If you want to decrease sexual assault, look towards the shame triggers of the perpetrator.)

alwhite00

I certainly also recognize there are other factors, but I think they pale when compared against our technological advancements. Technology in terms of general human betterment is unparalleled. This planet can not sustain a population of 7 billion without technological means of food production. Refrigeration another huge boon for food. Advances in medicine mean more people survive childhood and general illness as well. Technology enables most of our sanitation efforts which is also massive towards the betterment of human life.

None of this can be duplic... (read more)

alwhite20

Homicide and assault are what I think most people are referring to. The harming of the physical body through force. Additionally these numbers are referenced per capita and not as raw numbers. If we look at raw numbers, modern times certainly have more. If we look at per capita, the trend is downward.

As far as size of perturbation? That's difficult to really answer. My rough opinion would be to ignore any perturbations that span less than 100 years. So while WW1 and WW2 might cause a spike to the graph, post-WW is still lower than pre-WW and so the trend is still continuing and valid. Could also try reducing it down to 50 year averages as well to help smooth out the variation.

alwhite20

Income equality certainly does play a role. This is why I include the GWP stat as well. I don't think we're at a point where income equality fixes the problem. If we made all things equal, I think we'd end up short and more people would suffer. But that is only at the view of right now. If we increased our production output even more so that total equality would put every everyone at 4 times the poverty level, then I think this income equality issue would become the greater force in violence.

alwhite00

The co-operation theory is certainly possible and active in the whole process. Co-operation can also be more than trade too, but increasing empathy as well. But does co-operation or empathy have more impact than our richness?

Your example of movies and video games: These things exist now as part of the latest iteration of technology. Now is also the time in which violence is lowest. You suggest movies and video games have replaced physical violence. This supports my theory that technology is the cause of decreased violence.

But I disagree that people i... (read more)

0Lumifer
How does this apply to e.g. sexual assault?
alwhite20

I agree that this is possible. I'm questioning whether or not it really is true though. This could even be our future if we're not careful.

Do you have anything that says this is happening or has happened? Something other than "possibility"?

4Viliam_Bur
Well, I can't give you an example of a society that literally had infinite resources, so all we have are extrapolations from societies with finite resources. By the way, we should not talk about "infinity" literally. Literal infinity is probably technically impossible. This galaxy only contains a finite amount of matter and energy. So when we say "infinite resources", we really mean something like "1 000 000 000 x more resources than we have today". We do not mean literal infinity. I am emphasising this to prevent possible technical arguments using mathematical properties of the literal infinity (such as: however microscopically tiny nonzero fraction of the infinity is still infinite). If we look at historical capitalist societies, we see huge differences in access to resources: several magnitudes of order, even among people living in the same country. It seems plausible that in the future it would remain essentially the same. If the society as a whole would have million times more resources, that does not mean that all members of the society would have million times more resources than they have today. It could also mean that the "top 1%" (or maybe top 0.0001%) would have million-plus-epsilon times more resources, while the rest would have just as much as they have today, or maybe ten times more. On the other hand, if we look at historical communist societies (and for the sake of this debate let's suppose the egalitarian division of resources is a fact, instead of merely a propaganda), there is one important scarce resource: power over people. (Let's assume that the "resources" cannot be used to manufacture synthetic sapient people, because that would be yet another ethical problem.) In a communist society power over people is even more important than property. People can have their lives ruined, and the lives of their relatives ruined, because of things like criticizing the regime or its leaders. So even if resources are not a problem, "who is my boss, what wil
alwhite20

The GWP is the summation of the GDP for each country. The GDP is then converted to USD for comparison sakes. GDP also is not average income, so it's not entirely accurate to assume that GWP per capita is the same as having $12,000 USD. The number is all about comparison and estimation.

I realize that this is a very crude number but I still think it is useful for recognizing that we do not yet produce enough to appease all basic needs equally.

Do you disagree with that statement? Are you suggesting that we do currently produce enough and all we need to do is redistribute?

jefftk140

We do currently produce enough for everyone's basic needs, yes. But "all we need to do is redistribute" isn't it: when the state steps in and massively redistributes you screw up incentives and decrease production. We haven't yet figured out how to meet everyone's basic needs without disrupting the system that gives us the economic productivity that would make this possible.

alwhite20

Can you provide actual data for this statement? The trend on a global and historical scale has always been downwards, as far as we can tell. And this data spans thousands of years. (see the Pinker video for an overview of that data). This data is suggesting that wars, even the big 2 of the last century, aren't changing the global stats THAT much.

The 2012 - 2014 doesn't perfectly represent history but that just means history isn't exactly 9 to 1 for individual to group violence. It could be 8 to 1 or 6 to 1 or even 3 to 1, I don't know that exact numbe... (read more)

0Lumifer
Can you define the terms that you're using? The PDF you linked to, for example, takes a rather broad view of "violence" as encompassing, say, corporal punishment of children by parents. Or when you say that the trend "has always been downwards", how large a perturbation are you willing to ignore? Under a sufficiently wide definition of violence, every person engages in it (some more frequently than others).
alwhite20

I'm not sure your counter-example is that accurate either. This is a report for only recent time and so the historical accuracy is not guaranteed but from 2012 to 2014, individual violence outweighed group violence by about 9 times. http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/conflict_assessment_-_hoeffler_and_fearon_0.pdf. I think it is safe to assume that historically it's at least similar.

When we look at the total historical view of violence we can not limit ourselves to just "war" or "group violence", and this data was ... (read more)

0Lalartu
I think it is completely different. Take German or Russian statistics over whole 20 century - it will be much closer to historical average.
alwhite80

Some gyms have automated belay equipment. It's a bit clunky and not everyone likes using them but they do exist and do work.

I have always climbed with a partner but we have also included other people into our group who needed a belay partner. I would think that it's definitely possible to find a partner for the day but it is easier to just bring your own.

There is also bouldering, which doesn't require a partner but doesn't go as high either.

2lmm
Bouldering is a better way to do deliberate practice if you want to actually improve your skills - you can practice a particular movement again and again until it's right, with minimal overhead between retries. But you might prefer a wall from a fun PoV.
alwhite30

It seems like most of the big ideas have been covered, so here's a small one.

Rock climbing equipment (shoes and harness) and membership to a climbing gym. It's different, fun, gets you exercise and exposure to more/different people.

2arundelo
Do most climbing gyms have walls (or whatever) that can be climbed without a belaying partner? Or is it usually pretty easy to find a just-for-that-day partner among whoever happens to be at the gym when you are?