All of Spade's Comments + Replies

Spade10

How much serendipity is too much?

Twice now, within the month-to-date, I've started seriously looking into an idea and, within a week or two, a directly related post finds its way to the HackerNews front page. As far as I know, HN doesn't have a personalization engine that could've tracked me across the internet to show these to me specifically.

I don't mean to imply anything crazy is going on here -- it's entirely possible that some decent subsection of the HN cohort was primed in some way, and I'm perfectly aware of the frequency bias (and more vulnerable ... (read more)

2Shankar Sivarajan
This sounds like the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon.
Spade10

You offer a really interesting point. I don't think I feel as sharply bad about having to context switch as you do, but it very well could be that I still register a similar bad feeling, and simply react to it by doing nothing as opposed to being productive and then having to go through a context switch.

I hadn't really thought about it as a response to stimulus like that, but I guess that's because I have a more subtly bad feeling when switching contexts, so there wasn't as obvious of a thing to associate my behavior with.

Spade10

Anecdotally, I remember seeing analyses of Stockfish v. Alpha Zero (I think) where AlphaZero would fairly consistently trade absurd amounts of materiel for position. While there is obviously still a tipping point at which a materiel advantage will massively swing the odds I feel that the thrust of this essay kind-of understates the value of a lot-a lot of intelligence in light of those matches.

With that said, I haven't seen any odds-games with AlphaZero, so perhaps my point is entirely moot and it does need that initial materiel as badly as Stockfish.

Spade10

Ah. I had no idea that this was symptomatic of ADHD. I happen to have an appointment with a psychiatrist coming up for reasons unrelated, so I suppose it might be worth bringing up. Thank you for the insight, and sorry the post was so trite.

2StartAtTheEnd
No problem! Little note though, your psychiatrist might doubt you if it seems like you're trying to self-diagnose because of something you read online. It may be better not to name it directly unless they bring it up first
Spade40

Something that I struggle badly with is valuing (and meaningfully using) small chunks of free time. I feel that I am more inclined to waste a forty-five minute block of free time between classes than I am to waste, say, the entire end of a day.

What I feel is that I cannot meaningfully engage with an activity if I suspect that I might be forced to stop before I'd like to, and I'm not sure that that is an entirely incorrect intuition. After all, there is certainly a loss incurred by context-switching, and perhaps leaving business unfinished in one task while... (read more)

2Viliam
At job, what works for me is making notes. For each task, I start a new page in a note-making software, and put there everything related to the task: link to the Jira ticket, short description, people to contact about analysis and testing, links to relevant resources, etc. Sometimes I also write an outline like "first I will do this, then this". Then I start working on the task, adding more information as it emerges: things that people told me, things I found in the source code, links to the commits and pull requests I made, etc. The reason is that interruptions are frequent (both planned and unplanned) and seems like I can't do much about it, but the thing I can do is make it easier to recover after the interruption. This way I can make a use of a short block of time, by reading about the planned next step in my notes, doing it, and adding a note about the result. Unfortunately, the same strategy does not work for me in my private life. I am not sure why, but I have a few suspicions. In private life I have to play both the role of the manager (decide what to do) and the individual contributor (actually do it); my current version of the system works okay for the latter but not for the former. The difficult part is to make myself continue working on the interrupted project, when there are so many alternatives. Without interruptions, this is automatic. It is difficult for me to start working on something, but once I do, I can easily get obsessed, and could continue working on the same thing for days. That is how I accomplished some things when I was single and childless; I knew that the right time for projects was weekends, especially the ones that had a holiday on Friday or Monday. I could work on something for 4 days in a row, only taking breaks for food and sleep. But now that I have kids, I simply don't get that amount of uninterrupted time, ever. Interruptions at work are not just difficult for me, but also very unpleasant. It feels like getting hurt in some
5StartAtTheEnd
I see this problem quite often in communities for people with ADHD. People describe being unable to relax or start any task if they have any plans later, seemingly going into a sort of "waiting mode" until that event happens. This may be a common problem which is simply stronger in people with ADHD, I'm not sure.  If you Google "ADHD Waiting mode", you should be able to find posts on this. I don't know how many of these are scientific or otherwise high-quality, and how many of them are unhealthy self-victimzation and other such things. I'm not judging, as I'm diagnosed with ADHD and a few other things myself, I just don't recommend identifying as ones medical diagnoses nor considering them as inherently impossible to overcome. 
Spade41

Last night, I had a dream that scared me awake. I suspect that this was some sort of response to a low heart rate, because when I woke, I noticed that my lips were rather cold, and my heart was now beating rather quickly. I've often heard of dreams of falling being a way for the mind to correct for this kind of danger, but I've failed to find any evidence for that with some quick searches.

If true, though. this would be interesting because it would suggest that some part of my brain has a model of "things I put myself through that I would fear enough to cau... (read more)

1green_leaf
When I skipped my medication whose abstinence symptom is strong anxiety, my brain always generated a nightmare to go along with the anxiety, working backwards in the same way. Edit: Oh, never mind, that's not what you mean.
Spade30

I may, at some point, and for other reasons. Lets say, if I were to start drinking some rather foul-tasting protein or something -- it would be nice to potentially taste less of that. But, in general, deliberately and severely impairing my ability to taste the things I like for about two weeks, only to be able to taste in that way for a meal or two post-recovery is probably not the sort of tradeoff that I'd find myself making regularly.

Spade150

Recently, I had a strange reaction to Sensodyne Whitening and Gum Sensitivity toothpaste. As luck would have it, I happen to fall into the subset of the population that lose much of their ability to taste certain flavors after using the toothpaste for a couple of days.

I happened to catch on pretty quickly and ended up switching toothpastes within the week, but it still resulted in about two weeks where I could not taste salt, and could hardly taste anything sour, sweet, or whatever makes buffalo sauce taste like buffalo sauce. It felt like I was coating my... (read more)

5Measure
You could repeat the taste suppression/recovery process if you wanted.
Spade10

That's a very interesting outlook -- I haven't really considered action being a sum of motivations up until now. So, I guess my question then would be, what does encouraging/discouraging sources of intrinsic motivation look like for you?

5RHollerith
My answer to your first question was, I don't know, but in the interest of comprehensiveness I mentioned a minor exception, which you asked about, so here is more info on the minor exception. It looks like making a habit of patiently watching for the desired change. My software environment is organized enough that I can usually arrange for my future self to re-read a written reminder. So, (years ago) I wrote a reminder to watch for any instance where I think my behavior and my decisions are being motivated by interpersonal altruism or I experience pleasure or satisfaction from having achieve an altruistic interpersonal outcome. Note that this did not result in incontrovertible evidence of a significant increase in frequency of altruistic behavior. But I certainly stopped my addiction to the flow motivator (over the course of many years, except I relapse when I'm under stress, but these years it takes a lot of stress) and am pretty sure that the patient watching strategy helped a lot there. (And "just watching" helped me make other kinds of internal mental changes.) My mind seems to works such that if the only conscious effort I make to effect some internal change is to get into the habit of watching or checking to see if the change has already occurred, my subconscious sometimes seems to figure out a way to effect the change if I watch long enough (months or years). There are much faster and more potent ways to increase motivation and drive for most people: avoiding all exposure to light between 23:00 and 05:00 every night; getting as much very bright light as possible during the first 3 hours of wakefulness; making sure to get enough tyrosine (a dopamine precursor); deliberate cold exposure; avoiding spending too much of the day in perfectly-safe pleasurable activities; doing enough things you find aversive or outright painful; doing enough risky things. But you didn't ask about that, I don't think: "passion" almost always refers to intrinsic motivation (i.e., b
Spade30

This is a very interesting approach, and one that I haven't really considered. I fear that the temptation to start from scratch might be quite strong, but then I suppose that having very good documentation serves to blunt that problem in the first place.

3Hastings
Ahah! I suspect that permission to start from scratch may be a large component of maintaining passion. Starting from scratch at will is pretty close to the exact boundary between programming I do for fun and programming for which I demand payment. 
Spade30

I can certainly see the appeal of social pressure/the potential reward of better social standing for sticking a long-term goal through. I've employed this tactic on a few occasions, and, at least with my current circles, it doesn't seem to do much for me -- or, at least, whatever improvement it offers isn't enough for me to make it substantially farther.

I feel that I am expected to bail by default -- I've done so many times -- and that I'm not going to be changing worlds if I come through. With that said, I don't think I've been as deliberate as I could ha... (read more)

2Viliam
That is not really what motivates me. It's that when I work on something alone, I feel lonely. If I can talk about it to other people, I don't. Also, I find it easier to focus on things when I can talk about them. Expected... by yourself, or by others? For example, I find talking to some people helpful, but talking to some people harmful. One way some people can disappoint me as talking partners is when they immediately start predicting that I will fail. "You always talk about doing things, but you never finish any of them. This time it is certainly not going to be any different." This hurts in two ways: on one hand, because it is uncomfortably close to truth; let's say that I finish maybe 1 out of 20 things that I start doing. On the other hand, because it is literally false; I actually do finish 1 out of 20 things that I start doing, and I always hope that this is going to be the one, or that the ratio will start improving. A glass 5% full is still not the same as empty! I may feel on most of days like a loser, but sometimes I look back and see an accumulated record of successes. If I told someone only about the successes, and not a word about the failures, they might actually consider me impressive. And when we look from outside at others, isn't this kind of filtered view that we usually see? Both of these perspectives can be true simultaneously. I had to learn to stop talking to people who are predictably negative. (Which is different from betting. Yes, when I start a project, I would rationally bet that this project will probably fail. But the point is that some things are worth trying even if the probability of success is smaller than 50%.) Another way of disappointing me is when the other person tries to takes ownership of my project. When they start giving unsolicited advice, and then get defensive when I don't accept it, often because they completely misunderstand my motivation for the project (am I doing this for myself, or for others? do I want to ach
Spade62

That certainly could be the case, but my reason for asking after manipulation of passion specifically is that commitment sans passion would likely breed disdain in long-term scenarios. But, I could be wrong, and it would certainly at least be worth trying something like Beeminder, I suppose. It just seems that, in this situation, want of a deep desire to finish isn't great.

1Ape in the coat
I think there is a delicate dance between commitment and desire and navigating it correctly is pretty hard to put to words. Commiting to something you do not desire in the first place, will very likely lead to disdain. But if you desire the thing initially, and therefore commit to doing it, even after the initial rush has died down, you can enter a self-reinforcing cycle where keeping the commitment rekindles the passion which reinforces the resolve to keep the commitment. I think, it's not unlike romantic relationship. You do not break up with your partner the moment you experienced any negative feelings towards them. You keep working on your relationship, solve the problems that arise and therefore your feelings for each other become reinforced by this, and relationship become deeper. On the other hand, if your relationships consist of almost nothing but the nagative, then no resolve to keep the commitment will save them. And neither it should.
Spade20

I think these are pretty good, if not somewhat intrusive strategies to mitigate the problems that concern me. Kudos!

> I feel that one of the best uses of a probability-weighted knowledgebase is to gather information on things that suffer from a miasma of controversy and special interests.

I think you meant "don't suffer".

It wasn't a typo; disregarding manipulation, weighted contributions in murky circumstances might produce behavior similar to that of a prediction market, which would be better behavior than a system like Wikipedia exhibits under similar ... (read more)

Spade32

This is an interesting idea, but I worry about the database's resilience in the face of adversarial action.

While using a more personally identifiable account, like a PayPal account, as a means of admittance is a step in the right direction, I'd imagine that it would still be relatively easy to create sockpuppets which could then amass credibility in banal topics and spend it to manipulate more contested ones.

If the database were to grow to the size and prevalence of Wikipedia, for example, then one might see manipulation for political gain during elections... (read more)

2iwis
Thank you for your opinion. The goal is to build a model of the world that can be used to increase the collective intelligence of people and computers, so usefulness in 99% of cases is enough. When problems associated with popularity occur, we can consider what to do with the remaining 1%. There are more reliable methods of authenticating users. For example, electronic identity cards are available in most European Union countries. In some countries, they are even used for voting over the Internet. I don't know how popular they are among citizens but I assume that their popularity will increase. > I feel that one of the best uses of a probability-weighted knowledgebase is to gather information on things that suffer from a miasma of controversy and special interests. I think you meant "don't suffer".  
2meedstrom
I've often had the thought that controversial topics may just be unknowable: as soon as a topic becomes controversial, it's deleted from the public pool of reliable knowledge. But yes, you could get around it by constructing a clear chain of inferences that's publicly debuggable. (Ideally a Bayesian network: just input your own priors and see what comes out.) But that invites a new kind of adversary, because a treasure map to the truth also works in reverse: it's a treasure map to exactly what facts need to be faked, if you want to fool many smart people. I worry we'd end up back on square one.
Spade61

In a public system, perhaps a means by which one could choose to allocate some of the tax dollars they pay towards such a project?

It would mean a loss of funds elsewhere, if we are to avoid rasing taxes/spending less money, but might achieve some of what a kickstarter-like process might offer.