All of adamzerner's Comments + Replies

Frame Control

Hm, I didn't realize it when I wrote the comment, but I think you are right about those two examples making up a large majority of the instances of frame control. Either it's someone completely clueless, or it is a vice.

But 1) both of those seem like they fit somewhere on the negligence spectrum. Being clueless would put you on the "genuine mistake" end. And engaging in a vice feels to me like it is something like a 6/10, with 10/10 being as negligent as possible. I'm having trouble putting my finger on exactly why I consider it negligent, but I think you'... (read more)

4Lukas_Gloor6dSome other contributors have this angle, but the OP treats this question as unimportant at least for the level of diagnosing frame control: I agree with the framing in the OP (except that I don't think frame controllers are actually "empathic" – they seem like that and they might experience a lot of sympathy, but I don't think they understand others' situation and feel with them). I think the question of intent is also unimportant for diagnosing the badness of the effects of frame control. And at that point, it no longer seems helpful to ask "How bad is the frame controler?" (a more useful question might be "What are the chances they would change?"). In my model, "frame control" in the sense of "the whole package described in the OP," rather than "isolated instances of some of what's described," is really toxic and, unfortunately, rarely fixable. (I think isolated instances are not a big issue because if they're truly isolated, they don't lead to someone actually having their healthy frames eroded. If they're isolated, they are also unlikely to come from systematically misaligned/exploitative cognition.) I see frame control as a byproduct of what I think of as interpersonally incorrigible cognition. The primary defining feature of this phenotype is that it's exploitative, i.e., not on your side. When you give feedback to people who are like that, I suspect they'd often be too clueless and/or unwilling to improve genuinely – instead, they'll try to fix appearances only. (Of course, we shouldn't talk in absolute and there are probably ways to get people to change, but they probably involve the person hitting rock bottom and then do long therapy of some sort). I find it a bit weird that when the topic is potential signs of abusive strategies, people's first thought is often "What if we're being unfair to the accused." But it's just as legitimate to think the thought, "There are often multiple victims suffering per one abuser, so this possibility is really serious an
Frame Control

I wonder if "negligence spectrum" would be a good way to think about frame control.

Here is what I mean by negligence spectrum:

  • On one end of the spectrum is doing something (harmful) intentionally. For example, you're walking down the street, see someone you don't like, and intentionally bump into them, causing their coffee to spill.
  • On the other end is a genuine mistake. For example, you're walking down the street, and for whatever reason you bump into someone accidentally, causing them to spill their coffee.
  • Then in the middle, there is negligence. For
... (read more)
2Lukas_Gloor7dWe may be conceptualizing different things, but for me, "negligence" doesn't quite fit the description. Some people do frame control unconsciously, but when I think of negligence, I picture people who should know, in theory, that what they're doing is bad. They simply don't bother to take precautions. With frame control, I'd say the people who do this either have absolutely no clue about what they're doing (but they would be able to call it out in others because they're massive hypocrites), or it feels a bit like a vice such as swearing annoyedly at people, where you sort of know that it's bad for the person you're swearing at, but you don't care because it produces emotional relief or otherwise satisfies some emotional need. (In this case, I'd call it "semi-conscious" rather than unconscious.) Edit: Actually maybe this semi-conscious version is where I can see the parallels to negligence! If this would actually work then the person you're talking to probably wasn't doing frame control all that much in the first place. (In which case it may be enough to just change the implicit frame to make them aware, and continue the discussion on the object level.) I feel like it's a major part of the phenotype that people who do this are experts at diversion and blame shifting. (Of course, if admitting "Oh yeah, sorry, maybe I did some of that" becomes a get-out-of-jail card, then you should expect some clever manipulators – esp. the ones doing it consciously – to learn to make use of the excuse. But mostly, I think the people who use frame control have issues admitting that they did anything wrong, so if you were to confront them with that, it'll get weird and uncomfortable.)
Almost everyone should be less afraid of lawsuits

This reminds me of something Paul Graham wrote in How to Start a Startup:

There is more to setting up a company than incorporating it, of course: insurance, business license, unemployment compensation, various things with the IRS. I'm not even sure what the list is, because we, ah, skipped all that. When we got real funding near the end of 1996, we hired a great CFO, who fixed everything retroactively. It turns out that no one comes and arrests you if you don't do everything you're supposed to when starting a company. And a good thing too, or a lot of sta

... (read more)
Tentative Anger

That sounds like solid reasoning for the Paxlovid case. However, for the more personal situations, notching the probability up to ~100% doesn't seem right to me. I get the sense that it isn't too implausible for the actor to have good reason to "keep quiet". Or, rather, for the actor to think that they have good reason to keep quiet.

An example of this that comes to mind is the last time I visited my grandparents. They are 90+ years old and should not be driving. Plus, I am particularly crazy about the dangers of driving. Before the trip we agreed that we w... (read more)

2cata9dI like your example. Perhaps I am a little too inclined to update, either due to typical-minding (I am usually very frank and expect others to be) or due to a kind of misplaced irritation (I want others to justify themselves to me, so if they don't I ascribe bad things to them.)
Tentative Anger

Thanks for the comment. That's a good way of putting it, and it is nice to know I am not the only one who struggles with this.

Chris Voss negotiation MasterClass: review

It seems worth mentioning that leverage is hugely important. Both 1) having it, and 2) understanding it. For example, suppose you are a programmer applying to companies. 1) It's helpful to be good at interviews and have a lot of companies interested in you. 2) It's helpful to be aware of this fact, and to be aware of what sort of leverage the companies have. Ie. BATNA.

Maybe you can call what I am referring to as hard skills and what you are referring to as soft skills? I feel like that isn't a great way to categorize is, but nothing better is coming to me.... (read more)

2VipulNaik11dGood point; I added a section clarifying this focus: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CRAzG386t3suSqDgd/chris-voss-negotiation-masterclass-review#Low_level_execution_focus_rather_than_domain_specific_tactical_or_business_school_style_strategy_focus [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CRAzG386t3suSqDgd/chris-voss-negotiation-masterclass-review#Low_level_execution_focus_rather_than_domain_specific_tactical_or_business_school_style_strategy_focus]
Chris Voss negotiation MasterClass: review

I really like how you anticipated and addressed all of these questions, and had solid, practical answers to them.

Chris Voss negotiation MasterClass: review

That all makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

Chris Voss negotiation MasterClass: review

I worry that this is a reason as memetic immune disorder type of situation. That in your journey towards becoming a more skilled negotiator, effectiveness will sometimes go down instead of up.

For example, when I imagine myself saying something like "it sounds like you're very happy with the way this turned out", it feels like it comes out very awkwardly, and that they can tell it is me trying to game them rather than acting authentically, which would backfire and make me less effective rather than more effective via that first principle of acting in good faith.

4VipulNaik11dGood point! Voss talks a bit about how many of these techniques feel odd. Two points he makes: * Practice in low-stakes situations to get more comfortable with it. Don't try any negotiation technique in a high-stakes situation that you don't have practice with! * In many cases the discomfort you experience saying it isn't noticed by others. Voss gives examples related to mirroring as well as to the calibrated question "How am I supposed to do that?" People feel apprehensive asking the question but it usually works despite their apprehension. I would also add that it's more important to stick to things you believe in than to try to literally apply something that you feel is bad or wrong. If you're convinced that, in a given situation, a label of "it sounds like you're very happy with the way this turned out" is a gaming of the other person, don't use it. But if in a situation you think it's actually an accurate label that helps summarize the situation and correctly shows the other person that you are tuned in to what they are feeling and expressing, do it! Just keep an open mind to the possibility of using labels. Summary (added): Basically I think if you use low-stakes practice and only selectively apply to the real world the skills you are comfortable with, you don't need to experience an intermittent dip in effectiveness due to not feeling authentic.
[linkpost] Why Going to the Doctor Sucks (WaitButWhy)

The spiky part makes sense. I'm the type of person who is very accepting of expected value based reasoning, so I'm not turned off by it. Although it does beg the question of whether I am the type of person who is a spike or not. I don't feel like I am, but maybe there's something I'm overlooking. Do you have any thoughts on what makes someone a spike?

2% productive seems possible, but I don't really have a good sense of what that number is. Would you mind talking a little bit about what leads you to this belief?

2Raemon13dI think the biggest wins are among people who have something subtly wrong with them that can be fixed. In Strategies for Personal Growth [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/85J8hjEn48FicYfvp/strategies-for-personal-growth] terms, you have a problem that can be fixed with healing.
3Vaniver13dI mean, the OP has two examples of the target customer: someone with a serious autoimmune disorder, and someone who got breast cancer while young. My interest in this sort of thing stems from having low energy compared to people around me, and wouldn't be surprised if there's a medical treatment available that somehow increases my productive hours by 20-100%. Compare to my boyfriend, who already works >60hr weeks, where I would be astounded if a similar intervention existed for him. In terms of inputs, that looks like "you get one more hour of productive work done per week" for a regular full-timer, which I think is a reasonable thing to expect if you, say, your sleep is 10 minutes more efficient each night, or your diet is better such that you have 10 minutes more of focused energy per day. Or the story might be 'fewer sick days'--if you're working 250 days a year, then you need to shave 5 sick days off a year (which is many fewer than I was taking to start with, for example, but is probably well within the realm of possibility for the two founders). [This also is assuming it just costs the money--however, if the active ingredient is that you're seeing doctors more often, or spending limited experimental budgets on health things instead of other things, then it can be much harder to pay for itself. And it's assuming that your productivity is somehow measured in a way that flows back to you--if you need to increase your productivity by 5% to get a 2% raise, then for this to be strictly worth it on financial grounds you'd need to get a 5% improvement from increased health.]
[linkpost] Why Going to the Doctor Sucks (WaitButWhy)

I'm interested in opinions about this. I haven't thought too hard about it, but my current take is that it's too much money to spend for someone who is young and doesn't have much health-related stuff to deal with. But on the other hand, it seems very plausible that health is just that important, and it is worth it.

5Vaniver13dI think if you're earning 100k/yr, it's pretty likely that improvements to your health can make you more than 2% more productive, and thus it's worth it. Unfortunately I think this is pretty spiky, where some people will get >10% improvements and many people will get 0% improvements, and it may be possible to tell ahead of time which group you'll be in. [Like, the relevant factor shouldn't be "I'm young" but something more like "I love the experience of being in my body."]

A relevant phrase is "temporal discounting", although I'm not sure how helpful it'd be to know that (if you don't already).

A Crash Course in the Neuroscience of Motivation might be helpful, but I'm skeptical about that being helpful as well. For the people who read posts like that, I don't get the sense that they then turn around and win more than the rest of us. I think the harsh reality is just that this is a really hard problem that we haven't made much progress on yet, and that the same thing is true for a lot of things in the field of instrumental rat... (read more)

adamzerner's Shortform

(I'm not as confident in the following, plus it seems to fit as a standalone comment rather than on the OP.)

Why do we really need to find it? Because we live in a world where people are seduced by the power of the sports car. They are in a competition to get to their destinations as fast as possible and are willing to be reckless in order to get there.

Well, that's the conflict theory perspective. The mistake theory perspective is that people simply think they'll be fine driving the car without the brakes.

That sounds crazy. And it is crazy! But think about ... (read more)

adamzerner's Shortform

I just came across an analogy that seems applicable for AI safety.

AGI is like a super powerful sports car that only has an accelerator, no brake pedal. Such a car is cool. You'd think to yourself:

Nice! This is promising! Now we have to just find ourselves a brake pedal.

You wouldn't just hop in the car and go somewhere. Sure, it's possible that you make it to your destination, but it's pretty unlikely, and certainly isn't worth the risk.

In this analogy, the solution to the alignment problem is the brake pedal, and we really need to find it.

2adamzerner15d(I'm not as confident in the following, plus it seems to fit as a standalone comment rather than on the OP.) Why do we really need to find it? Because we live in a world where people are seduced by the power of the sports car. They are in a competition to get to their destinations as fast as possible and are willing to be reckless in order to get there. Well, that's the conflict theory [https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/] perspective. The mistake theory perspective is that people simply think they'll be fine driving the car without the brakes. That sounds crazy. And it is crazy! But think about it this way. (The analogy starts to break down a bit here.) These people are used to driving wayyyy less powerful cars. Sometimes these cars don't have breaks at all, other times they have mediocre brake systems. Regardless, it's not that dangerous. These people understand that the sports car is in a different category and is more dangerous, but they don't have a good handle on just how much more dangerous it is, and how it is totally insane to try to drive a car like that without brakes. We can also extend the analogy in a different direction (although the analogy breaks down when pushed in this direction as well). Imagine that you develop breaks for this super powerful sports car. Awesome! What do you do next? You test them. In as many ways as you can. However, with AI, we can't actually do this. We only have one shot. We just have to install them, hit the road, and hope they work. (Hm, maybe the analogy does work. Iirc, the super powerful racing cars, are built to only be driven once/a few times. There's a trade-off between performance and how long the car lasts. And for races, they go all the way towards the performance side of the spectrum.)
Replace the Symbol with the Substance

Often, the words about language were once metaphors, and their etymology focuses on that relational core. One word mentioned in the last chapter, the word "symbol," comes from an ancient Greek rook, "bol," which means "to throw". Combined with "sym" (which means "the same"), a symbol literally means "thrown as the same." When our minds throw words at us, those words appear to be much the same as the things to which they "refer".

— Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life, Steven C Hayes

Sasha Chapin on bad social norms in rationality/EA

I agree with the general consensus in the comments that Sasha is under the wrong impression of what the rationality community is about. However, I think that this false impression is very telling. I suspect a lot of people also have this same wrong impression of what the rationality community is about. This seems like an important thing for us to pay attention to.

What can we do about it? I'm not sure. One thing that comes to mind is to simply repeat ourselves a lot.

Using blinders to help you see things for what they are

I'm in full agreement! Good point. I see it as a tool to be used, but we have to be careful about this downside.

And FWIW in basketball people don't leave the blinders on. They just use it as a debiasing tool to kick things off.

Discussion with Eliezer Yudkowsky on AGI interventions

The following is probably moot because I think it's best for AI research organizations (hopefully ones with some prestige) to be the ones who pursue this, but in skimming through the paper, I don't get the sense that it is applicable here.

From the abstract (emphasis mine):

In some situations a number of agents each have the ability to undertake an initiative that would have significant effects on the others. Suppose that each of these agents is purely motivated by an altruistic concern for the common good. We show that if each agent acts on her own person

... (read more)
8Greg C24dI think the people cold emailing Terry in this scenario should at least make sure they have the $10M ready!

I think the model clearly applies, though almost certainly the effect is less strictly binary than in the surprise party example.

I expect the annoyance to make him a little bit biased, but still open to the idea and still maintaining solid epistemics.

This is roughly a crux for me, yeah. I think dozens of people emailing him would cause him to (fairly reasonably, actually!) infer that something weird is going on (e.g., people are in a crazy echo chamber) and that he's being targeted for unwanted attention (which he would be!). And it seems important, ... (read more)

Discussion with Eliezer Yudkowsky on AGI interventions

I didn't mean it humorously, I meant it more in a grim sense.

Then you have hit a target you couldn't yourself see, which is high genius indeed. 

I'm a Brit, and jokes at funerals are appropriate and necessary, even if the funeral is one's own. But this is surely not one of those transatlantic things? Even in Tarantino movies the doomed go out with a wisecrack.

Concentration of Force

You Won’t Believe My Morning feels to me like a solid example of an attempt at concentration of force. It was posted in March of 2020, just as the coronavirus was developing into a big thing. Urban basically is making the point that we should treat it as a wake-up call and realize that there are even bigger things at stake, existential risks for instance.

Discussion with Eliezer Yudkowsky on AGI interventions

Alternatively, has anyone considered... just asking him to?

That sounds naive. Maybe it is. But maybe it isn't. Maybe smart people like Terry can be convinced of something like "Oh shit! This is actually crazy important and working on it would be the best way to achieve my terminal values."

(Personally I'm working on the "get 10 million dollars" part. I'm not sure what the best thing would be to do after that, but paying Terry Tao doesn't sound like a bad idea.)

Edit: Information about contacting him can be found here. If MIRI hasn't already, it seems to me l... (read more)

8TekhneMakre24dPlease keep the unilateralist's curse in mind when considering plans like this. https://nickbostrom.com/papers/unilateralist.pdf [https://nickbostrom.com/papers/unilateralist.pdf] There's a finite resource that gets used up when someone contacts Person in High Demand, which is roughly, that person's openness to thinking about whether your problem is interesting.

A reply to comments showing skepticism about how mathematical skills of someone like Tao could be relevant:

Last time I thought I would understood anything of Tao's blog was around ~2019. Then he was working on curious stuff, like whether he could prove there can be finite-time blow-up singularities in Navier-Stokes fluid equations (coincidentally, solving the famous Millenium prize problem showing non-smooth solution) by constructing a fluid state that both obeys Navier-Stokes and also is Turing complete and ... ugh, maybe I quote the man himself:

[...] one

... (read more)
6wunan25d+1 especially to this -- surely MIRI or a similar x-risk org could attain a warm introduction with potential top researchers through their network from someone who is willing to vouch for them.
Speaking of Stag Hunts

Make wildly overconfident assertions that it doesn't even believe (that it will e.g. abandon immediately if forced to make a bet).

This seems like an important failure mode that I think a ton of people, including myself, fall victim to. I can't actually think of a reference post for it though. Does it exist? Really, I think it deserves it's own tag. I recall hearing it discussed in the rationality community, but moreso in passing, not as a focal point of something.

2Duncan_Sabien25dI guess there may not be a direct, central post, but I did write this [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WsvpkCekuxYSkwsuG/overconfidence-is-deceit] not long ago.
Discussion with Eliezer Yudkowsky on AGI interventions

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but I perceive this comment as being similar to, if you are at a particularly sad funeral service and just finished burying a loved one, proceeding to make a comment like, "Hm, maybe I should get some of those flowers for my front yard."

FWIW, I didn't have a problem with it.

 

8johnlawrenceaspden24dFinally, some humour in what has up to now been a pretty grim read! And I've thought we were all doomed for the last ten years.
4lsusr25dYoav Ravid's comment is quite Zen.
4Yoav Ravid25dNoted. fwiw, I wrote it before reading the article (after clicking the link at the top and seeing what it is). Maybe If I waited until I finished I would have written something more like "chathamroom.com [https://www.chathamroom.com/] seems very useful for this sort of thing" (without the excited tone).
Discussion with Eliezer Yudkowsky on AGI interventions

Good to hear I'm not the only one with this reaction. Well, good isn't the right term, but y'know. The This Is Fine meme comes to mind. So does the stuff about how having strong feelings is often right and proper.

I've always thought this but have never said it to anyone before: I can only imagine the type of stress and anxiety Eliezer deals with. I'm grateful to him for many reasons, but one distinct reason is that he puts up with this presumed stress and anxiety for humanity's benefit, which includes all of us.

Maybe this would be a good time for the commu... (read more)

Book summary: Unlocking the Emotional Brain

Just came across a quote that seems relevant:

It’s very hard for people to talk their way out of something that they didn’t talk their way into.

—Tim Ferriss

My current thinking on money and low carb diets

If only Theranos didn't turn out to be a fraud. That's a good tip though about the doctor prescribing it. I feel like that is plausible. Thanks.

My current thinking on money and low carb diets

Gotcha on the eggs. Incorporated into my model.

easy to indirectly monitor, via blood work

Do you know of any good ways to monitor blood stuff more frequently than waiting for your annual check up?

1supposedlyfun1moI don't, but when my blood numbers were high, my doctor prescribed (or whatever causes insurance to pay for it) more-frequent checks, like every month or so. ymmv depending on your insurance. You might be able to pay out of pocket if you call up LabCorp and work out a volume-discount deal.
My current thinking on money and low carb diets

I am confident this claim is false. I will donate $50 to GiveWell if you use Macrofactor for two months, with a goal of slow weight loss (.25kg/week), make a conscious effort to track your food accurately and thoroughly ("I can't cheat or it's like cheating supposedlyfun"), don't go over your daily kcal allowance, and you nevertheless don't lose tissue roughly in the amount of the goal you put into the app.

Thank you, that is very nice of you! Maybe I'll revisit calorie counting in the future, but I'd at least like to give slow carb a chance first. I rea... (read more)

3supposedlyfun1moRe eggs: I like eggs, and I don't like no eggs, and I don't like egg whites, and the hedonic disparity is worth what I perceive to be a very small risk increase. Especially because the risk level is easy to indirectly monitor, via blood work, but even more especially because my model of your body, based on how mine was at your age + what you said in your post and comments, is that getting your weight under control is likely to get your blood work under control, such that you can add as many egg yolks as you are likely to want without your numbers moving in a way that adds appreciably to your risk of dying of heart disease. Re low carb, absolutely try what you are most inclined to try, because compliance is hard without motivation, and low carb will probably put you in a caloric deficit anyway. Good luck! I'm excited for you.
My current thinking on money and low carb diets

I don't have a strong basis. Unfortunately it is all very vague. A lot of it is coming from preconceived notions I have surrounding health. Things I've heard throughout my life.

  • One thing is that I recall reading something about how being heavier speeds up the aging process.
  • From first principles, fat's purpose is energy storage but in the modern world we don't really need energy storage.
  • I don't have a good understanding of this, but I feel like when you gain weight, ie you eat enough where your body stores stuff as fat instead of immediately using it fo
... (read more)
My current thinking on money and low carb diets

I'm realizing now that I spoke too confidently about this. In reality, my confidence isn't that high, and I really would like to have some more clarity on this question of carbs. But What made the Ancient Egyptians Fat and Sick? is a video that comes to mind.

My current thinking on money and low carb diets

Good point. I don't enjoy beans too much, but I should probably incorporate them more.

My current thinking on money and low carb diets

I have ~2 million thoughts about the many sub-points in this post, a lot of which are "yes!" or "gosh, we think about some things similarly". I'll pick two big ones.

Cool! I'm interested in hearing the other thoughts too FWIW. Not to be pushy, just saying this in case you didn't think they were important enough to say.

The first is that filet mignon is NOT the most flavorful cut of steak. It's the most flavorful cut of steak that has no marbling a/k/a fat. Objectively, the most flavorful cut is the ribeye, medium rare (fight me). Spend $80 on one at The

... (read more)
5supposedlyfun1moEpistemic status: riffing based on personal experience/background knowledge/my best personal synthesis of the research I've read or heard about from sources I trust, which is definitely not all of the research out there; sources cited below are just for flavor and are not the basis of my claims. You only lost five pounds of tissue if you cut ~3500kcal*5 pounds out of your diet in two weeks, with a fudge factor for your genetic tendency toward compensatory changes in energy expenditure. Low carbohydrate diets tend to cause loss of fluid weight in the acute stages, before it returns to baseline. This was a known "problem" with Atkins 15 years ago when all the women I knew were trying it. Problem only insofar as you got discouraged when the scale went back up, if you weren't expecting it. For a male and female of the same fitness level and the usual height disparity, I wouldn't be surprised if the male's maintenance kcals were 1.5x the female's. This statement you made didn't cause me to update very far in the direction of "wow, Adam has {some unusual dietary need}". People are natively very bad at estimating calorie content. (Another reason a calorie-counting app is a big help.) I've been this guy at the office (one office literally called me "the human garbage disposal"; in context, it's not as mean as it sounds), with family, and with friends since I started competitive 5k training in my late 20s. When I started strength training in my early 30s, it got even more pronounced. The American dietitian professional association recommends 1/4 carb, 1/4 meat, 1/2 veggies. NB not sure how well-validated this is, and given who their clients are, it's unusually focused on people with diabetes. This is true even with 12-egg omelettes...ask me how I know Structuring your diet around these things is a crappy life. People at the start of their muscle-building journey have been drinking 2L or more of milk every day, on top of their usual diet, since at least the 60s. It's
1Raven1moI have this problem with white carbs and ended up cutting them out almost entirely. I do occasionally have a loaf of ciabatta or white tortillas, but I time those meals so I won't be able to eat more later.
1supposedlyfun1moIn my experience, this just isn't a problem. I have only rarely experienced the [large carb bolus]->[untimely hunger cues] effect, and only with food that is so sugary that it makes me ill to eat, like a strawberry mochi that was 8cm across and 3cm thick. A Snickers bar (35g carb, 29g sugar) does not cause this effect--maybe the peanut fats blunt it? The only times I might have to go to bed hungry are when I lifted heavy that morning and am experiencing excess post-exercise oxygen consumption. Sometimes, I take a Unisom so I sleep through it, and sometimes, I just keep eating. The net effect of these choices is weight maintenance.
adamzerner's Shortform

Alice, Bob, and Steve Jobs

In my writing, I usually use the Alice and Bob naming scheme. Alice, Bob, Carol, Dave, Erin, etc. Why? The same reason Steve Jobs wore the same outfit everyday: decision fatigue. I could spend the time thinking of names other than Alice and Bob. It wouldn't be hard. But it's just nice to not have to think about it. It seems like it shouldn't matter, but I find it really convenient.

adamzerner's Shortform

Epistemic status: Rambly. Perhaps incoherent. That's why this is a shortform post. I'm not really sure how to explain this well. I also sense that this is a topic that is studied by academics and might be a thing already.

I was just listening to Ben Taylor's recent podcast on the top 75 NBA players of all time, and a thought started to crystalize for me that I always have wanted to develop. For people who don't know him (everyone reading this?), his epistemics are quite good. If you want to see good epistemics applied to basketball, read his series of posts... (read more)

Impressive vs honest signaling

Great point about the long vs short-term element! I wanted to say something about that in the post but couldn't figure out how to fit it in, but I agree.

2Dagon1moIt later occurred to me that there are multiple purposes beyond timeframes. Filtering, to select more compatible initial matches, and expectation-setting and power-jockying early in the relationship may have competing choices for how to focus your profile. These factors are likely related, of course.
Impressive vs honest signaling

That is a good point. I'm no dating expert but my read is that icebreaker type stuff is normal in the very beginning. If it failed to progress to something more exciting or vulnerable after some period of time, that would be a bad signal, but before that period of time it wouldn't be, and that in my cousin's case it was before then.

Impressive vs honest signaling

That makes sense. I think I didn't do a good job of expressing how I really feel. I think in most situations what I said here is probably the case:

Then again, a lot of times you just need to send impressive signals in order to get the job, but then once you get it, the job isn't actually that hard and you can manage it. Or maybe you are in above your head, but you can solve that problem by working a little harder for a few months, ramp up on your skillset, and then you'll be fine.

And that the risk of getting fired is usually quite low. However, I also ... (read more)

Impressive vs honest signaling

Then if you apply for a job at skill level X you have to show impressiveness at skill level X+N - otherwise you won't get it.

Well there are jobs out there that you'd be able to get via honest signaling, right? For example, suppose your skill level is a 5/10 and there is a job that is supposedly for a skill level of 3/10, but like you're saying, to outcompete the 3/10 candidates you need to do better, so in reality it will be a 5/10 type of person who gets the job. But then if this X+N thing is true, honest signaling would lead you to a job that you are ... (read more)

2Gunnar_Zarncke1moI agree that it is rarely that simple. A smart person will always find edge cases to make use of. Like detecting the other honest signalers on Tinder via their profiles in the OP.
Mental health benefits and downsides of psychedelic use in ACX readers: survey results

Overall, it seems to me like both doing and not doing psychedelics is a high-stakes choice.

Huh. I agree. That never really hit me until now. Seems like something people should invest more time in thinking about and considering.

adamzerner's Shortform

I wonder if it would be a good idea groom people from an early age to do AI research. I suspect that it would. Ie identify who the promising children are, and then invest a lot of resources towards grooming them. Tutors, therapists, personal trainers, chefs, nutritionists, etc.

Iirc, there was a story from Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise about some parents that wanted to prove that women can succeed in chess, and raised three daughters doing something sorta similar but to a smaller extent. I think the larger point being made was that if you ... (read more)

What health-related tips do you have for buying meat?

Thanks for the information Antonio! The fact/possibility that red meat should be eaten in limited quantities actually is something that I had forgotten about, so I appreciated your response.

If you're looking to do more research (not that you should), I just started looking through some of Peter Attia's stuff this weekend and it seems promising.

What health-related tips do you have for buying meat?

Haha yup. But even beyond that, even if you had all the money in the world there is still a cost to developing diseases — lowered quality of life, increased risk of dying early — and I suspect that even if you just look at that cost, it would outweigh the extra money spent on higher quality meat.

Feature Suggestion: one way anonymity

Trivial Inconveniences seems relevant. As has been mentioned, this doesn't provide anything close to perfect anonymity, and it isn't intended to. What it does is it adds a trivial inconvenience for people looking to internet-stalk you, which we know can be very powerful. Actually, I think the inconvenience is a lot more than trivial.

What health-related tips do you have for buying meat?

Ah I see. I didn't explain that very well, my bad.

What health-related tips do you have for buying meat?

From what I gather from Adam Ragusea, modern flash freezing actually does an excellent job of preserving quality.

What health-related tips do you have for buying meat?

Perhaps income level doesn't actually have anything to do with it. If the health benefits are worth it and you don't pay for the expensive meat, then you risk developing health problems down the road which will cost you even more money.

Put differently, if you view it as an investment, and if that investment has a positive ROI, it's probably worth making regardless of whether or not you are wealthy. Caveats include things like opportunity cost and whether you have enough cash on hand to make the investment in the first place.

1Angela Pretorius1moYou might be right. I forgot that the OP is in the US, where healthcare is absurdly expensive.
Open & Welcome Thread October 2021

That is totally it! Thanks a million!

The best frequently don't rise to the top

A related thing that comes to mind is looking at Hacker News submissions, and how the same post will sometimes get hundreds of upvotes, and other times only get one or two. Example.

Load More