It seems that for every type of information input, there is an ideal: 1. Source/Format 2. Frequency 3. Time of Day 4. Energy State 1. Source/Format Examples: Twitter, blog, books, podcasts etc. Don’t waste your time following your favorite author’s Twitter account if 99% of their value is derived from...
A post by Tom Chivers on Unherd.com discussing EY, The Sequences and the Rationality Community: The nerds who saw the dangers of Covid A relatively positive tone, for a change.
The fact that the people involved apparently find it uniquely difficult to talk about is a pretty good indication that Leverage != CFAR/MIRI in terms of cultishness/harms etc.
I'm sure it'll be fine :-)
I'm not involved in this in any way, but from the comments I've seen of yours in these threads you've shown great honesty and openness with everything.
FYI - Geoff will be talking about the history of Leverage and related topics on Twitch tomorrow (Saturday, October 23rd 2021) starting at 10am PT (USA West Coast Time). Apparently Anna Salamon will be joining the discussion as well.
Geoff's Tweet
Text from the Tweet (for those who don't use Twitter):
"Hey folks — I'm going live on Twitch, starting this Saturday. Join me, 10am-1pm PT:
twitch.tv/geoffanders
This first stream will be on the topic of the history of my research institute, Leverage Research, and the Rationality community, with @AnnaWSalamon as a guest."
FYI - Geoff will be talking about the history of Leverage and related topics on Twitch tomorrow (Saturday, October 23rd 2021) starting at 10am PT (USA West Coast Time). Apparently Anna Salamon will be joining the discussion as well.
Geoff's Tweet
Text from the Tweet (for those who don't use Twitter):
"Hey folks — I'm going live on Twitch, starting this Saturday. Join me, 10am-1pm PT:
twitch.tv/geoffanders
This first stream will be on the topic of the history of my research institute, Leverage Research, and the Rationality community, with @AnnaWSalamon as a guest."
I have to say, your extreme/rigid opposition to any form of whatever you're currently defining as 'illegal drugs' reminds me of religious people who have similarly rigid and uncompromising views on things.
Ironically, this also seems to me to be antithetical to rationality...
I agree with the intent of your comment mingyuan, but perhaps the reason for the asymmetry in activity on this post is simply due to the fact that there are an order of magnitude (or several orders of magnitude?) more people with some/any experience and interaction with CFAR/MIRI (especially CFAR) compared to Leverage?
I would agree with you there.
I wouldn't agree that describing an experience as 'meaningful' is antithetical to rationality, though.
In my personal and anecdotal experience, for the people who have a positive experience with psychedelics it really is more your 'a' option.
Psychedelics are less about 'thinking random thoughts that seem meaningful' and more about what you describe there - reflecting on their actual life and perspectives with a fresh/clear/different perspective.
How does someone thinking that they had a meaningful experience make them less rational?
It seems that for every type of information input, there is an ideal:
1. Source/Format
2. Frequency
3. Time of Day
4. Energy State
Examples: Twitter, blog, books, podcasts etc.
Don’t waste your time following your favorite author’s Twitter account if 99% of their value is derived from their books.
The most effective frequency to consume a particular information source might be:
- Live/on-demand/push notifications
- Daily
- Weekly
- Monthly
- Annually
- On a Random Schedule
Match the frequency to the information source, and aim to maximize value gained for time input. Apply the 80/20 rule, then apply it again.
In general, if you feel like a source of information input is taking up too much of your time relative to the value... (read more)
A post by Tom Chivers on Unherd.com discussing EY, The Sequences and the Rationality Community: The nerds who saw the dangers of Covid
A relatively positive tone, for a change.
Common sense implies that they must be at least partially effective at reducing transmission of various diseases, in the same way that wearing gloves does (i.e. a barrier is created which partially blocks movement of potentially harmful particles).