All of MarcelloV's Comments + Replies

Was "Rest Days vs Zombie Days" removed from LessWrong, or at the very least available online anywhere else? I can't find it either via Google search or LessWrong's site search. All I see is "Rest Days vs. Recovery Days" by Unreal from 2019.

7Ben Pace1y
Same post! Author changed the name for the book. I'll probs check in with author and then change it on LW too.

Here are the two most effective "quick trick" tactics. I say "quick trick" because they tackled the symptoms not the root cause (albeit effectively) via brute force, leading me to eventually burn out and abandon them:

Boss as a Service: The most extreme tactic I've tried. You pay someone each month to be your "boss", meaning you send them your goals for each day/week and then you report back to them at the end of the day/week on how you did. Was very effective, but was too draining so I stopped using it.

Focusmate: Lets you do 50-minute work sessions with yo... (read more)

Thanks! Meds during meals works well for me also.

Another solution may be to somehow turn off your fierceness, by devoting yourself to meditation or psychotherapy or something like that. Maybe that's the right answer for some people. I have no idea. But it doesn't seem the optimal solution to me. If you're given a sharp knife, it seems to me better to use it than to blunt its edge to avoid cutting yourself.

This seems like sunk cost fallacy. If your goal is to maximize your happiness in life, then you shouldn't base your decision off of the abilities you have now if utilizing them won't make you happier. T... (read more)

I don't think the "stereotypical Gifted Kid" did work hard at all through high school and/or college. But you make a good point about a fixed expectation about performing at a high level. I know I get frustrated when I can't do so (for a variety of reasons).

I also have this problem and the same experience with ADHD meds. I tried a bunch of tactics that I can go into if you want but they all had varying degrees of success. Annoyed of trying quick tricks, I tried going for the root cause. 

I thought the root cause was related to low willpower, so I tried multiple things that have been shown to improve willpower in studies (meditation, exercise, squeezing a hand grip) but I didn't see much benefit after at least a month of doing these actions daily so I stopped.

I then thought that maybe it's not so much low ... (read more)

Sorry that you haven't had much success, but I am interested in which tactics you used turned out best.

Are you sure about the Harris-Benedict formula? It seems like Mifflin-St Jeor is the most reliable. Nonetheless, I'm curious if you have any recommended articles/books on diet and mental health?

5jimrandomh2y [] lists both, and seems to consider the Mifflin-St. Jeor version a revision that sort of uses the same name. The calculator I linked uses constants from Roza-Shizgal, which is technically neither of these. All of the sets of constants were produced by taking linear regressions on measured energy expenditure among different groups of people. I don't have much in the way of opinions about which of these sets of constants is best; the differences between them are small compared to the difference between "2000 is what it says on the nutrition facts panel" vs actually-using-any-sort-of-formula, and compared to the error in the activity-factor constant and the measurement error in a non-Soylent diet.

These are nice, for the friends recommendation one just be cautious of offering unsolicited advice and other-optimizing

What dose do you use when you do it that early? At the end of section 3 in the post you linked that recommends taking it that early, it seems like the conclusion around the proper dose for this case is murky.

2Maxwell Peterson2y
I take 1mg.

I'm not very familiar with academia, but have you considered sending this to the authors of the paper to a) see if there are any mistakes you made and b) help them avoid similar errors in the future? 
But I acknowledge that this could lead to a long email exchange that you may not want.

I've politely contacted them several times via several different channels just asking for clarifications and what the "missing coefficients" are in the last model. Total stonewall- they won't even acknowledge my contacts. Some people more connected to the education community also apparently did that as a result of my post, with the same result.

This article may help you, albeit Clubhouse is currently invite-only

5mako yass2y
There was an invite chain proposed in Lesswrongers Slack [], I don't know if it got running at the time but the comments are still there in #open
Invites are plentiful. PM me if you need one. [Update: My borrowed iPhone doesn't have a SIM card and invites are sent via SMS. If anyone else has an iPhone and extra invites they're willing to share, please leave a comment here.]

Do you know roughly what the breakdown is for the types of rooms on Clubhouse? e.g. what % of the rooms are casual conversations/shooting the breeze (think "Just Chatting" on vs. people talking about topics that you can learn from vs other?

I would like more rooms just for chatting with like-minded people. There's kind of topic focused. Like you need to make a group of clubhouse friends and it's hard to do.

Can you elaborate on how you use it to help install TAPs? I've been experimenting with cards with a trigger in a specific situation on one side and the action on the other, but I'm wondering if there are better ways.

That's what I do.

Very interesting idea. I've also built my own piece of productivity software for myself since ideas out there were lacking, although it's centered around strict accountability that I don't think the App Store would allow.

The Paul Graham article you linked is centered around startups, so if you are using this for the possibility of creating a startup then there is one caveat: the value proposition you describe is eliminating decision fatigue by removing features irrelevant to you. But as you create stuff for more and more people, then you'll add more and mo... (read more)

To elaborate on this, the odds of cryonics succeeding are estimated to be between .23% in the pessimistic scenario and 15% in the optimistic. Contrast this with the 1 in quadrillion (or a similarly high number) chance of the mugger being honest in Pascal's mugging.

1. That analysis didn't include a factor for "the nanotechnology of the future actually has a cure for what ails you in the present" 2. That analysis is wrong on one point that I could research in 10 minutes: From [] 25% of deaths from major causes (not counting suicide) are of a type that would significantly risk the cryo process (accident, stroke, Alzheimer's) so the optimistic "I die in a way that doesn't hurt my chances for cryo" would be 75%, not 95%, and the lower bound would be ?. Having a clear error in one place casts doubt on the other numbers. 3. Like almost all fermi/drake estimates, that one was bounded by the human tendency to assign whole number percentages to estimates. It is entirely plausible that the person doing the estimations thought "this is unlikely" and wrote down "20%" instead of the actual value of .000000001%. 4. The cost is also significantly higher than the Mugging scenario - talking tens of thousands of dollars and hours of time and significant personal life constraints (eg living near a facility)

Perhaps I am overthinking this, but when it comes to applying your knowledge gained through spaced repetition, is there a difference in how effectively you can apply it in these two situations?

  1. You spend time memorizing what a function is. A function comes up in a problem in a very similar format to how it looked on your Anki card. You are able to understand it because the prompt of the function in the problem causes you to recall your understanding from studying and then apply it.
  2. You spend time memorizing what a function is. A problem comes up that can be
... (read more)
I don't think spaced repetition runs into the failure mode of #2 if you do it competently. Good spaced repetition prompts you to think about the concepts on a spaced, expanding basis, not to recite the magic words on the back of the card. When I study a card, I'm trying to train urge to understand concept in prompt -> concepts on back of card, not words in prompt -> words on back of card. For example, when I learned French with Anki, I translated entire sentences English-to-French (and vice versa). I learned vocab words by just finding sentences where I already knew how to say everything except the new word. By learning sentences containing the word for e.g. "swamp", I learned how to say "swamp" in normal, fluent conversation, without having to remember the exact sentence I used for Anki (as #2's model might suggest). I don't see any real difference in quality between normal study and Anki study, if you make your cards well.

Honestly, I could do another 100 tweets on what this looks like in each case. The delicate dance of beliefs, emotions, strategies, behaviors, and tools that can be combined to internalize a new way of being.

I would love to see further discussion of what the solution looks like. Is there any writing out there that discusses this?

2Matt Goldenberg2y
I also have this free course (still in alpha and not fully edited) on the basic skills. []
2Matt Goldenberg2y
I have some other twitter threads that I'll port over on various aspects of this.

I'm not a psychologist/psychiatrist, but isn't personality not very mutable past the age of around 7? At least without psychedelics or brain damage or something?

I've read that this is a common myth and that personality continues to change throughout our lives (1, 2). According to some psychologists, this could be related to the end of history illusion.

The book Personality Isn't Permanent talks a lot about personality myths and ways to change one's personality. In the section on how to change one's personality, he suggests (albeit doesn't cite studies) that... (read more)

I have never heard someone use the "end of history illusion" explicitly in this context before. I feel it is appropriate. Plus, adults have more control than children over their environments. I suspect most people choose environments conducive to their present personality. (I do the opposite by deliberately seeking out environments that nudge me toward a more dynamic personality.) Four of the Big Five personality traits seem to be mostly immutable. I have on (what I consider to be) good evidence that neroticism can be reduced through extreme contemplative practice. This is evidence environment can shape personality. Unfortunately, a comprehensive scientific investigation of this phenomenon is not available yet. In my personal experience, I have managed to cultivate deliberate interests too. However, I understand I am an outlier.

It seems that they can use vitrification as opposed to solely freezing the body, and this is more effective at preservation. Here's a paper about scientists vitrifying a rabbit kidney then rewarming it and successfully putting it back into a rabbit (h/t wait but why). However, it seems that each organ must be studied so that it can be successfully vitrified given its unique complexities, so we can't just apply that paper's solution to every organ.

This seems to be almost exactly what you are suggesting. At the end of the article he seems to offer an open invitation to receive their vaccine. While there is no mention of their vaccine's efficacy in the article, the article was written in late July so the team may have more updates by now if you reach out to them directly.

The RADVAC website has more information, possibly enough to tell experts how to do the same for other viruses.

I've used the DelayWebpage extension. It can delay the loading for websites you choose but doesn't offer some features mentioned in the article such as resetting if you alt+tab or increasing the wait time each check.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question correctly; are you asking whether you're obligated to act in accordance with what worked in the past for you? One response could be that if you always follow what worked in the past, then you'd be akin to the recluse, constantly exploiting and never exploring. This means you could miss out on great opportunities that are not part of your past experience.

That's interesting, do you have a link so I can read more about that?

I don't know of a centralized source. Just a variety of 'life outcomes by profession' type studies show actuaries as a positive outlier.

I wonder if this effect is restricted to younger people who are supposedly more malleable

I read about a study in Thinkertoys, a handbook for creative thinking, about how employees who thought they weren't creative but were told to tell themselves that they're creative had more ideas compared to those who continued thinking they were not creative. (I could be paraphrasing incorrectly since it was a while ago). Writing your ideas down could be a way to reinforce to yourself the idea that you are creative, in case you have doubts about that.

For your first question, Cold Turkey is my favorite for Windows! Freedom is also a popular one, but I prefer Cold Turkey since it has more robust settings and doesn't allow you to uninstall it during an active session.

If you want something lighter you could use browser extensions like LeechBlock but it's far too easy just to switch browsers with those.

I have LeechBlock for both Chrome and Firefox and don't experience any desire to use Edge instead

I recently read this Psyche article related to your question. While not an academic paper, they do cite them throughout the article. Here's the text most relevant to the preserve vs. develop willpower debate:

According to a 2017 meta-analysis of many relevant studies, self-control training seems to be effective at improving ‘self-control stamina’ – the ability to exert inhibitory self-control for longer periods.
So, is that the solution to greater self-discipline? Exercise your self-control muscle and get better at inhibitory se
... (read more)

There is this HBS article I found which talks about it from a management lens and offers some okay recommendations at the end

Do you have any further reading on "the opposite advice would be useful" besides the SSC article? I've found it difficult to navigate the tension between two sides of some pieces of advice.

3Matt Goldenberg2y
That's my go to article. Was trying to think if there's any other sources of advice that I use implicitly when dealing with conflicting advice, but nothing springs to mind. Let me know if you find a good resource!
And the solution that worked for me, is to make it part of your identity to be an agent. Make it a point of principle to do things, not because the thing is necessarily the perfect action, but because I choose the life where I do things, over the life where I always wait for the perfect opportunity.

This seems like shifting from act utilitarianism to rule utilitarianism, where you don't try to calculate the value from each option in relation to all other options but instead act upon a principle (or core values in business speak).

Notice the small p
... (read more)
5Neel Nanda2y
I'm making the empirical claim that people systematically don't take enough opportunities. Essentially that people fall too far on the exploit side of explore/exploit, thanks to a bunch of human biases that lead to paralysis. And empirically I've found that when I started taking opportunities more, some were meh, and others were really valuable. I don't think this claim is obviously true, but empirically it seems true for my experience and my observations of people. I think there's also an important skill of prioritising and choosing the right opportunities. But people are bad at this, and I think that trying to do this often leads to excessive paralysis. I think you first need to develop the skill of taking opportunities, there will be enough good ones in there for this to feel motivating and sustainable, and then you develop the skill of selecting things and prioritising. I'm also not arguing that you should take literally every opportunity - just that on the margin people should take opportunities more. I think it's really hard to give advice that leads someone paralysed to take too many opportunities, because their bias goes so far in the other direction. And so getting them to take the marginal opportunity naturally means they select good ones (on average). I agree this can go wrong! Eg, somebody who signs up to a bunch of extra-curriculars, realises they don't have enough time and burns out. I'm not sure how to give advice that can help people to overcome paralysis and be good at filtering opportunities at the same time.
8Matt Goldenberg2y
Typically I see the pattern go more like this: 1. Start doing things. 2. Notice that some things you do have higher payoffs. 3. Start naturally gravitating towards the things that have higher payoffs.
Yeah, pre-mortem is another name for pre-hindsight, and murphyjitsu is just the idea of alternating between making pre-mortems and fixing your plans to prevent whatever problem you envisioned in the pre-mortem.
I tried a parade of experiments and tracked all the factors that I thought might influence my energy levels – including sleep times, sleep duration, hydration, exercise, medications, melatonin, doing a sleep study, temperature, naps, and nutrition.

I'd love to see a separate post to learn more about the details and results of this so that I could try it myself.

I've tried doing this but for focus instead of fatigue, but it became too tedious to track all these factors every day. This was especially true since I felt that a) there were s... (read more)

1Raj Thimmiah2y
I'm also interested in this, there are lots of things I'd want to track (and use the data from) but I don't know a good not messy framework for it.

Interesting; it's similar to if you make a calculated bet in poker when the odds are in your favor but still lose. In that case, your decision was still correct as well as the means you used to arrive at your decision. So there wouldn't be much to write about. Perhaps in this case the loser could write about why they think the winner actually made the wrong decision to continue playing the hand.

I agree that you can't distinguish between those things. But I wonder if it could be argued that as long as someone is putting in effort and deliberately reflecting and improving after each outcome, then you can't fault them since they are doing everything in their power; even if they are modeling incorrectly or behaving badly, if they did not have opportunities to learn to do otherwise beforehand then is it still reasonable to fault them if they act that way? The pragmatic part of me says that everyone has "opportunities to learn to do otherwise" with the knowledge on the internet, so we can in fact fault people for modeling poorly. But I'm not sure if this line of reasoning is correct.

I disagree, and that's my central issue with the post. The post gets this exactly backwards - the optimal contract exactly balances punishing lack of effort and bad luck, in a way that the employer is willing to pay as much as the market dictates for that effort under the uncertainty that exists.