All of Anonymous47's Comments + Replies

If you look at the whole list, the predictions aren't terribly bad. I think the main problem is that they are far too concrete--Kurzweil got the gist of trends in electronics. He should have simply stated the trends he sees that justified the predictions he made. Then, instead of these obviously flawed predictions, he would have some worthwhile observations about trends in consumer electronics.

I don't know about the "Luddite movement" prediction, though. He should leave those kind of predictions to the social scientists.

You may want to consider Amphetamine. It worked wonders for me.

0Bound_up
I've noticed a good deal of some of the best self-improvement advice I've ever found is right here on LessWrong. At the same time, I think EY's mention of his diligence difficulty is only incidental here. It was in the context of discussing it that he had a valuable insight, and it is this valuable insight which is his real point in this post. The apparent chaos of a system is a sufficient condition for stupidity (in this area) on the part of the observer. All areas which we feel are chaotic are areas which we are ignorant about, assuming that there are no fundamentally predictable phenomena. If we can shift those areas labeled as unpredictable to predictable once studied, we may find that there are superior pursuable outcomes we could be actualizing. One more blind spot among many worth sacrificing to the light.
6David Althaus
The mathematician Erdös used it, too. From Wikipedia: "After 1971 Erdös also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month.[12] Erdős won the bet, but complained that during his abstinence mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine use."