The general lesson is that understanding the thing directly is better than understanding someone else's explanation of the thing.
This is a massive misread of the article. The benefit of lifting is the feeling of joy in the merely material, and of transforming the feeling of being embodied from a feeling of trappedness to a feeling of capabilities being granted to you.
Until I’d gained some muscle, I didn’t know that getting out of bed shouldn’t actually feel like much, physically, or that walking up a bunch of stairs shouldn’t tire you out, or that carrying groceries around shouldn’t be onerous. I felt cursed by the necessity of occupying space while shuffling around this mortal coil. And now I do not. Moreover, I no longer feel that I need some special justification for existing, because simply residing in the material is now a privilege.
The first time I moved apartments after I started seriously lifting, I enjoyed it. I had always suffered while moving before lifting, ending up sore and tired and cranky, but after lifting, I didn't feel any negatives.
Unfortunately, all of life is a virtue ethics/game theory context.
Excellent post. To do things, do things, and surround yourself with people who do things. To do things better, you have to practice rationality, but without some specific target goal, you can't evaluate whether you are being successful at your practice of rationality.
I've noticed a similar thing with Anki flashcards, where my brain learns to memorize responses to the shape of the input text blob when I have cards that are relatively uniquely-shaped. I have to swap around the layout every few months to ensure that the easiest model to subconsciously learn is the one that actually associates the content on the front of the card with the content on the back of the card.
Less so under potentially adversarial conditions, when there are politics/culture-war aspects. For example, many people have large personal and social incentives to convince you of various ideas related to UFOs. In that case, it may not be the correct move to engage with the presented arguments, if they are words chosen to manipulate and not to inform. Do not process untrusted input,.
I'm curious if you think that this formulation of the above idea is still antithetical to epistemic rationality.
Kids can be surprisingly useful resources at a surprisingly early age.
On farms, as you've said, kids can figure out what to do and help out easily. If your work requires a lot of low-skill repetitive manual labor, kids can do that, and it can help teach them how to do your slightly higher-skill labor next year.
This does not apply if you work as an engineer, or in an office, or many other cases where specific skills contingent on mostly-finished-developing brains are required to do your work and there is no manual labor that you can offload to children. If you expect your kid to go through the standard college route, there are 22 years of waiting before they can really do anything useful to help with your labor.
It feels like an important metric is "karma per view" or "karma per read" or "karma per user-minute-looking-at-text" something similar. Currently, we can't gauge that, and so when someone who gives a strong prior that their post will be worth reading posts, that post will get more views which means more upvotes even if they have a similar "karma per read".
EDIT: EY's post loaded the second I posted this, but I promise it was an independent invention
What asymmetries did you introduce into your simulations that lead to a difference? Models with no gender differences but with mandatory sexual reproduction usually tend to be 50/50 in my experience.
The original post has much more value than the one-sentence summary, but having a one-sentence explanation of the commonality between the mathematical example and the programming example can be useful.
I would say it is perhaps not nice to provide that sort of summary but it is kind.