so I read in Rational Spaces for almost a decade, and almost never commented. when i did commented, it was in places that i consider Second Foundation. your effort to make Less Wrong is basically the only reason I even tried to comment here, because i basically accepted that Less Wrong comments are to adversarial for safe and worthwhile discussion.In my experience - and the Internet provide with a lot of places with different discussion norms - collaboration is the main prediction of useful and insightful discussion. I really like those Rational Spaces when there is real collaboration on truth-seeking. I find a lot of interesting ideas in blogs where comments are not collaborative but adversarial and combative, and I sometimes found interesting comments, but i almost never found interesting discussion. I did, however find a lot of potentially-insightful discussions when the absent of good will and trust and collaboration and charity ruined perfectly good discussion. sometimes it was people deliberately pretend to not understand what people said, and instead attacking strawman. sometimes (especially around politics) people failed to understand what people say and was unable to hear anything but the strawman-version of an argument. a lot of times people was to busy trying to win an argument so they didn't listen to what the other side actually trying to convey. trying to find weak part of the argument to attack instead of trying to understand vague concept in thingspace that a person is trying to gesture to.the winning a argument mode is almost never produced new insights, while sharing experiences and exploring together and not trying to prove anything is the fertile ground of discussion.All the rules in this list are rules I agree to. more then half will facilitate this type of environment. and other things you wrote that I read make me believe you find this find of collaborative spirit important. but this is my way of seeing the world, in which this concept of Good Will is really important, and more then half of this rules look like ways to implement in practice this concept. and I'm not sure this is the way you think about those things, or we see the same elements of the territory and map them differently. if i was writing those rules, i would have started with "don't be irrationally, needlessly adversarial, to wrongly fulfill your emotional needs, for example: [rules 2,3,5, 6,7,8,9,10]"but there is enough difference that i suspect there is other concept, near my Good Will concept but different from it, around which those rules cluster, that i don't entirely grasp. can you help me understand if such a concept exist, and if yes, point to some posts that may help me understand it?
This is very interesting comment, about book that I just added to my reading list. would you consider posting this as separate post? I have some thoughts about masking and Authenticity, and the price of it and the price of too much of it, and I believe it's discussion worth having, but not here.(I believe some people will indeed benefit a lot from not working as a new parents, but for others, it will be very big hit to their self-worth, as they define themselves by work, and better to be done only after some introspection and creating foundation of self-value disconnected from work.)
The way i see it, something wrong with people EA attract and some problem with EA are complimentary hypotheses. dysfunctional workplaces tend to filter for people that accept those dysfunctionalities.
I know very little about other sorts of charity work, but i heard social workers complaining about burnout a lot.I tend to assume that encounter harsh reality s hard, and working in unappreciated work that lack resources is hard.It may be interesting to see what is the baseline burnout level in some fields is, to look both on variation and to how similar or dissimilar EA to other charities is. It may help to understand who big part different elements play in burnout - true values alignment, Heroic Responsibility, encountering discouraging reality, other things (like simply too many working hours).
i find it interesting, and something i want one of my friends especially to read. i also liked a lot the ACTUAL EXAMPLES, that was helpful. i will not use (At least, i'm not planing to use) picture-window-framework metaphor myself.so... maybe in the future don't write long posts that take a lot of time just because two people pressure you to do that? you have n=1 it will not worth it.
it was strange to read it. it was interesting - explaining point i already know in succinct and effective way. and it's connect nicely with the extensive discussion on consent and boundaries. Boundaries: Your Yes Means Nothing if You Can’t Say No. and then, when i was reading the comments and still internalizing the post i got it - i actually re-invented this concept myself! it could have been so nice not to have to do it... i wrote my own post about it - in Hebrew. it's name translates to Admit that sometimes the answer is "yes", and it start with a story about woman that claimed to believe in personal optimization of diet my experiments on yourself, but then find a reason no invalidate every result that contradicted her own believes about optimal diet. it took me years to notice the pattern.and then, this comment about budgeting and negotiating with yourself that empathized how important it is to allow the answer to be "yes":"I’m seeing a lot of people recommend stopping before making small or impulse purchases and asking yourself if you really, really want the thing. That’s not bad advice, but it only works if the answer is allowed to be ‘yes.’ If you start by assuming that you can’t possibly want the thing in your heart of hearts, or that there’s something wrong with you if you do, it’s just another kind of self-shaming. "it's kind of like 5, but from the point of view of different paradigm.and of course, If we can’t lie to others, we will lie to ourselves.it's all related to the same concept. but i find the different angels useful.
is it? i find it very Christian way of thinking, and this though pattern seem obviously wrong to me. it's incorporated into the Western Culture, but i live in non-Christian place. you can believe in Heaven to all! some new-age people believe in that. you can believe in Heaven to all expect the especially blameworthy - this is how i understand Mormonism.thanks for the insight! now i can recognize one pretty toxic thought-pattern as Christian influence, and understand it better!
this post was almost-useless for me - i learn from it much less then from any post for the sequences. what i did learn: how over-generalization look like. that someone think that other people learn rationality skills in a way that i never saw anyone learn from, with totally different language and way of thinking about that. that translating is important.the way i see it is: people look on the world with different lens. my rationality skills are the lens that are instinctive to me and include in the rationality-skills subset. i learned them mostly be seeing examples and creating a category for it. all those exercises not only didn't work for me, i have much less idea what Yudkowsky tried to teach, while from the sequences i did manged to learn some things.maybe the core rationality skill is the ability to bridge the gap between theory and practice? i consider "go one meta level higher" the most important one. it creates important feedback loop. also, in most situations i consider going level higher - give category and not example - good idea. i actually learned that examples are really good thing and that is the natural way humans learn. i think it's part of the things the post tried to say, but i'm not sure. this is one of the least understandable post of Yudkowsky i ever read.
what is cool about that post is it self-demonstrating nature. like the maze, it give explanation that give less precise map of the world, with less prediction power then more standard model. and it give more pessimistic and cynical explanation. you trade off your precision and prediction power to be cynical and pessimistic!and now i can formalize what i didn't like abut this branch of rationality. it's look like cynicism is their bottom line. they already convinced in the depth of their heart that the most pessimistic theory is true, and now they are ready to bite the bitter bullet. but from the side, i see no supporting evidence. this is not how people behave. the predictions created by such theories are wrong. it's so strange thing to write on the bottom line! but being unpleasant not making something true, more then being pleasant make it true. and as Wizard's first rule say, people believe things they want to believe or things the afraid to believe...