All of MileyCyrus's Comments + Replies

A philosophy degree is definitely better than nothing. But I should have used that time to major in something more lucrative.

Potentially, but you may also have lost significantly in A)happiness and B)rationality. I think this may be more an issue of Harmful Options [] than actual significant utility loss.

Majored in philosophy. I don't think I learned much worthwhile and it's makes it harder to get a job.

harder than having not gone to college or than a better degree?

If anyone wants to teach English in China, my school is hiring. The pay is higher than the market rate and the management is friendly and trustworthy. Must have a Bachelor's degree and a passport from and English speaking country. If you are at all curious, PM me for details.

What vegetarian things can I eat that won't leave me hungry an hour later?

If you're having issues with your hunger response, it's almost certainly because you've simply eliminated meat from the meal, without replacing it with something nutritionally equal. Your hunger response is mediated by a number of food chemicals, which you've like never had to notice before because meat provides the appropriate ones automatically, Solving it is easy - just eat protein (nuts, beans, etc) and fat (nuts, oil, peanut butter, etc.). That'll hit you with the right stuff to replace what you're losing with meat, and keep your stomach's brain happy because it's receiving the right chemicals. People too often think vegetarianism is just a light salad at every meal. >_<
It could be that the vegetarian stuff you are eating doesn't have much protein in it. Or that the protein source doesn't have all the amino acids. There is certainly vegetarian stuff that does have these things, it just takes more knowledge and meal design that for meat diets. Protein powder can also be helpful for vegetarians (and everyone). I recommend pea protein powder.
I don't find that this is ever a problem for me. YMMV, but I'd suggest eating calorie-dense foods such as nuts, beans, grains, and fatty foods. This LiveStrong article [] has a sample meal plan:
I don't have this problem with most any food so I'm not sure what exactly might cause it, but if you find that you have this problem with vegetarian food and not with meat, I'd try heavy stuff like cheese omelets, preferred unmeats with nice sauces on them, maybe bean stew.

In general girls are also more likely to be aware that language has many lavers of meaning besides communicating facts.

Please say "women" unless you are talking about female humans that have not reached adulthood.

That only one meaning of the word. If you look at websters [], I think the meaning to which I'm refering here is: "c : a young unmarried woman". That's the reference class that I talk about when I speak about flirtation. I don't interact with a 60 year old woman the same way as I do with a young unmarried woman.

A lot of developers have tried to make this app. I first noticed a version in 2007, back when Facebook had just started with apps.

Edit:* Holy shit, apparently it's worth $30 million.

Did you read the last sentence of the linked article?

I've found "machine problem-solving" goes over with laypeople better than "machine intelligence."

The former suggests narrow intelligence to me, whereas the latter is more neutral (whereas “artificial intelligence” suggests general intelligence [] to me).

This is my first LessWrong discussion post, so constructive criticism is greatly appreciated.

This is above-average quality for a discussion post. I look forward to reading your future posts.

Thank you :)

There's at least one predictable value shift I can think of coming from human biology, namely puberty, that a hypothetical prepubescent rationalist should absolutely take into account when planning sufficiently far into the future

Yeah, but you're not going to value what your future self is going to value unless your utility function already includes "increase future self's utility" in it.

Downvoted for creating a new thread. I'll give you back the karma if you delete and repost this in the open thread.

It has already been posted there [].

I can think of a few examples but they're all political.

Not sure if this is political, but I understood why people in America were so obsessed with gay marriage much more when I realised that spouses get health care automatically. So people weren't really (or not exclusively) getting upset over a symbolic distinction but a practical one.

Like that under the US criminal definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction almost anything that can disrupt a mass qualifies?

I'm not on this site very much anymore,

:-( Thanks for the time you've spent here. Wishing you luck in whatever you've moved on to.

If you like psychology research say "I'm sure this is much more efficient than the wars or farm subsidies the government was going to use this money on."

If you don't like psychology research say "This is an outrage! We could preventing malaria with that money"

Yep. I noticed that in myself, too.
Is there a name for this fallacy? I have seen it a lot of places before.

Or "mostly the same science funding agencies fund both fMRI and non-fMRI psychology with mostly fixed budgets, so they should reallocate funding away from fMRI and towards studies with sample sizes large enough to be adequately powered for finding real effects."

Really? I've never had the guts to tell the server that my meal was "satisfactory".

That's not taboo. If you go ahead and do it, you won't face ostracism. Your feeling awkward about it doesn't count. Otherwise, asking someone out on a date would be taboo.

I'd recommend trying it, especially if you usually get suboptimal meals. Make recommendations. Frequent a restaurant enough to know the staff and for the the staff to know you and your preferences.

When the server asks if the meal was good, it usually wasn't good. Most meals are satisfactory or poor.

"Good" is calibrated to the implicit mapping between "actual merit" and "what the patron would say now" in that context. It's just like when you ask someone how they're doing. It's not a lie (I claim) to say, "I'm doing fine", even if lots of things in your life suck and are stressing you out, because such a response is interpreted differently than a serious "life analysis" inquiry, and the person asking the question knows this and therefore is not deceived. I wouldn't say it's "taboo", but rather, a case of using slightly different language in some situations that (knowingly, knowably) conceals a lot of information.
Then why don't you change restaurant?
It's not hard to criticize a meal at a restaurant. Now, it is hard to criticize a meal when you're a guest in somebody's home. I'll file this under "context specific."

Life would be better if God existed.

Depending on who you're talking to, it may also be taboo to suggest God doesn't already exist. Or even that life could be better.
If only there was a Celestial Pyschopath to torture me eternally.
I don't think that's taboo in any sense, but I think life would be better with a superpowerful, ultra-benevolent God.

Which god?

Most sexual relationships are between people who are settling for what they can get.

As opposed to what?

settling for what they can get.

You mean optimizing.

Cynicism about love is taboo? Where have I been?

One question I like to ask in response to questions like this is "what do you plan on doing with this information?" I've generally found that thinking consequentially is a good way to focus questions.

Note that this is from someone who's never heard of "Cal Newport" or "Scott H. Young" before now, or perhaps just doesn't recognize the names.

They seem to get more respect on LW than average career advice bloggers, so I was hoping someone who was familiar would comment. Nonetheless, I'm upvoting you because it's good to hear an outsider's opinion.

Did I meet you at the Less Wrong meetup in December/January?

Cal Newport and Scott H. Young are collobarating to form a start deliberate practice course by email. Here's an excerpt from on Cal's emails to inquiring people:

The goal of the course is simple: to teach you how to apply the principles of deliberate practice to become a stand out in your job.

Why is this important? The Career Capital Theory I teach in my latest book and on Study Hacks maintains that the skills that make you remarkable are also your leverage for taking control of your working life, and transforming it into a source of passion.

The goal for

... (read more)


On an uncharitable reading, this sounds like two wide-eyed broscientist prophets who found The One Right Way To Have A Successful Career (because by doing this their career got successful, of course), and are now preaching The Good Word by running an uncontrolled, unblinded experiment for which you pay 100$ just to be one of the lucky test subjects.

Note that this is from someone who's never heard of "Cal Newport" or "Scott H. Young" before now, or perhaps just doesn't recognize the names. The facts that they've sold popular books w... (read more)

Are these life advice threads (like how to get a job in Australia, or how to be poly-amorous) appropriate for Less Wrong? Because if they are, there's a few procedural knowledge gaps I'd like to fill.

If these gaps are small enough that they can be filled using relatively short sentences, have you tried the Open Thread instead? I have in mind requests for longer posts.

Yeah, if we could use these posts to learn about women's experiences instead of constantly doubting everything they say...that would be great.

No, we take their experiences as fact.

It is not clear, though, why we must automatically take their interpretation of the policy relevance of their experiences as fact.

Unfortunately, the most upvoted comment [] so far is an example of LW's culture of disagreement [].

Doubting that a person is honestly and accurately relating their experiences is one thing, doubting that the generalizations they draw are accurate is another. I upvoted the post, but I think V_V brings some legitimate considerations to the table here.

Women and men tend to have somewhat different experiences in life, and it's useful for them to be exposed to each others' experiences and learn from them. But I don't think we can assume that the generalizations any particular woman draws from her experiences will be accurate, any more than we can assume that... (read more)

Yeah, if we could use these posts to learn about women's experiences instead of constantly doubting everything these they say...that would be great.

I think that this would make women more willing to describe their experiences. I also think on LW learning and engagement often look like doubt and criticism, and that epistemic hygiene is very important.

If you're saving for your own retirement, you might want to consider the risk of dying before you can spend that money. A 25-year old male has an 18.6% chance of dying before he reaches 65, so he should discount his expected return accordingly.

Not just the risk of dying; consider also the risk of some world event that makes your savings irrelevant, like a Singularity or a global economic crash. Or, on a much smaller scale, the risk of switching jobs. My employer match doesn't vest until I've been on staff three years; the numbers for maxing it out look very different if I want to look for a better position elsewhere before then.
Note that the discount is in the direction of how much you value the assets in your estate after death. ie. Altruistic (and nepotistic) preferences still apply so do not simply multiply by (1-0.186).

I've never heard of this before but reading the article reminded me of an experience I had in a Pentecostal setting. I was praying for the Holy Spirit to make me speak in tongues. I was very concentrated and prayed a chant over and over. I was lying in my bed and my chest started tingling. It was sort of like how your leg feels when it falls asleep. I also felt physical warmth and muscle relaxation, and lot of pleasure. The tingling spread all over my body and I became paralyzed. But it felt good so I didn't care.

I re-induced it lots of times until I saw a... (read more)

I was going to do it for honor/karma.

IMO that would be a misuse of the karma system.
Definitely appropriate, then!

Would it be inappropriate to host a Less Wrong March Madness bracket pool?

Edit: Not going to do it.

An interesting thing would be to set up a prediction market and compare the results
I suspect there's too much of a difference in how much LW members know about basketball to get particularly wide participation. For example, I had to look up "March Madness" to figure out what this is about. Also, there's a significant chance that either people would just copy the odds from Pinnacle [], or maybe even arbitrage against it (valuing karma or whatever at 1-2 cents). Or, well, I'd certainly be tempted to =]
Less Wrong is about rationality. Surely there are better ways to have fun than to arbitrarily redistribute our wealth. Unless you somehow plan to make some of the money go to charity, or not involve money at all, I don't see the point.

No, and Google is failing me. Is there somewhere I can read about it?

Really? For me, the first 4 hits for "hardware overhang argument" seem relevant. Tossing in relevant keywords like "Lesswrong" make them even more so.

If computer hardware improvement slows down, will this hasten or delay AGI?

My naive hypothesis is that if hardware improvement slows, more work will be put into software improvement. Since AGI is a software problem, this will hasten AGI. But this is not an informed opinion.

Are you familiar with the hardware overhang argument?

Please delete this comment and don't bring up the subject again. Or if you must, bring up the subject only in the Politics Open Thread.

While the way it is phrased here is politically inflammatory, the general piece of advice "be cautious about entering contracts even if your peer group seems blase about them" is probably good.

General idea: On the follies of letting guilt motivate you.

Story idea: Once upon a time Kay (future superhero) and Pluto (future villain) were union busters. Together they crippled and broke up almost all the unions in the city, often through illegal and unethical means. One day they realized they do something Truly Horrific, and they realize what monsters they are. They quit busting unions, but the damage is done.

~10 years later, Kay is working as a repossession agent, while Pluto has become a community organizer. Pluto has managed to organize the workers... (read more)

Nice story :) The way this plays out feels Joseph Campbell-ey, with Kay even refusing a literal call before the tension ramps up. Which is not bad at all from a literary perspective, but might cause audiences to see things in terms of the structure of the story rather than as a lesson. So hm, what are some ways to vividly show our protagonist doing the best with what they have rather than living in the past, or than selling out / giving up. Or maybe Kay has given up initially, and then over the course of the story rekindles an explicit desire to do what's right now as a direct response to our villain's self-justifications. Other rationality skills to possibly include: noticing when you're writing in the bottom line beforehand, making plans more shock-proof and modular than humans naively want to, explicitly stopping and checking the consequences of a difficult choice, noticing when you flinch away from unpleasant thoughts - sometimes that's okay, but sometimes you need to do that thing that's unpleasant to think about.

What's the problem with the "compound interest will make you rich" meme? Is it inflation?

Compound interest gains most of its power when large amounts have been saved. So if you don't make much money, compound interest simply won't make you rich, you won't be able to save enough (though you can still have a decent retirement). If you make a lot, it doesn't matter as much anyway. If you're middle class and willing to save half your income, then it might make you rich, but that is a painful 30-40 years. Explore the graphs and savings calculator here for examples of what you would need to do to have a million by 60.

Mostly that life is too short and interest too low for that to really happen before you die.

What's the probability of a major war between Japan and China in the next decade?

Wait a little while and then check here [].
Good question. I would say the probability is low, but the event has high expected impact (i.e. high expected number of deaths and economic losses). I am just reciting Taleb's philosophy of history here, but it seems likely that history is dominated by events with this character (= low probability but high expected impact). A difficult but important problem would be to rank events by expected impact.
I would say sub- 5% given a low prior for rich, well-governed nations fighting all out wars, Japan being relatively demilitarized still (and war being technically illegal), and the US having a defense commitment there.

Any ideas why this is blocked by Trend Micro?

Maybe you should instead donate any leftover money to CFAR, so as to avoid the donor illusion.

He could start a giving war by setting up a fund for AMF and a fund for CFAR. At the end of the year, he could donate a total of 30% of his income to both charities, splitting the fund in proportion to how much each charity raised in the giving war.

To get a real war going you want some advantage to escalation. Simply spitting it in proportion to the total giving diminishes the value of a marginal dollar. Maybe an all-pay auction (like a dollar auction) would be better: whichever of AMF and CFAR got more donations would get the full match from me. Among rational mixed-strategy-utilizing donors this should result in $X moved by an $X pool on average, but people being imperfect I would expect to see more than $X moved.

Or until he posts his next obviously influenced by transhumanism comic, which shouldn't be too long.

In which case he'd be right, but for the wrong reasons.

Downvoted for being mean.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
I think khafra was trying to say that he's too close to the starting location to be of any use.

Are donations to the Singularity Institute tax deductible in Australia?

From what I have been able to research they are not. See for example [].
Updated the link.
I don't think that would be a good idea. I'm unhappy enough with my Twitter feed. Though I do want to encourage people to read more blogs by LWers []. I make lots of posts referencing material mostly outside the site to counteract what I think is a big problem [] of the community. In any case this is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. I don't think this is inappropriate on the Discussion section considering what used to be discussed on Overcoming Bias.

Hmm, still doesn't work for me. That's odd.

Before I start posting some of the choicest tweets about realworld science, here's the twitter feed []. Huffington Post [] Neatorama [] ) io9 [] In other words, I probably didn't need to post about this..... everyone would have seen it anyway.
The link works for me, if that's what you're asking about. []

Moreover, the objections made about the recent health-care mandate were not made by and large based on gender equality issues.

Sure. My point was that no one was requiring employers to cover vasectomies, so of course no one will get angry about having to provide vasectomy coverage.

Someone started a rumor last decade that a large portion of health insurers cover Viagra but not birth control. It's not true.

I'm not sure that state laws mandating specific corporate policy make a good basis for defending corporate policies. That said, even if it were true, I am not sure it's really that objectionable. Viagra is intended to treat a dysfunction of the body, whereas birth control is intended to prevent a function of the body; they're not comparable in kind, even if they both enable the same behaviors.

So this is an interesting point but actually reinforces the sorts of claims being made by Xachariah, since the amount of objection to vasectomies is much smaller than the amount of objection to birth control, which is consistent with his hypothesis.

If you're thinking about US politics in 2012, most of the "objection to birth control" was objection to Obama's mandate that insurance companies to fully cover birth control for women, but not men.

More generally, in the US there's much more objection to birth control. This is a long-term trend independent of any recent issues. Moreover, the objections made about the recent health-care mandate were not made by and large based on gender equality issues.

If a middle-class couple in a first world country decide to create and raise a child, they have done


Error, insufficient data
I'd say something bad, because the money could be better spent. But if they weren't going to do effective altruism stuff with it, it's probably just neutral so far as I can tell.
My current thoughts on this issue run as follows: it seems like smart people can come up with various reasons not to have children (e.g. because it frees up their finances and free time to do interesting things, or because life is suffering). This seems dangerous. If smart people stop having children, then the population gets dumber, and I don't want that. On the other hand, insanely smart people really should have money and free time to do interesting things such as save the world. So my current ideal child-bearing policy is something like the following: dumb people should be discouraged from having children, smart but not insanely smart people should be encouraged to have children, and insanely smart people should do whatever they want. (Maybe periodically donate their genetic material.)

Instead of the whole 'soul' thing, lets go with "Women deserve to be punished for having sex," and that 'life-begins-at-conception' is just a rationalization.

Every pro-lifer I've ever met has shared two characteristics: they don't think women who have abortions should go to jail, and they think that women who have abortions are worse off than women who choose to give birth. That doesn't fit with the pregnancy-as-punishment theory.

(It does however, expose another type of misogyny: they refuse to believe a mature woman in a sound mind could ever choose abortion.)

The first characteristic, even if it doesn't fit the pregnancy-as-punishment theory terribly well, fits far worse with the abortion-as-murder theory.

Possible explanations:

One sex knows something the other sex doesn't:Perhaps since men are treated as the default gender, women understand what it's like to be a man better than men understand what it's like to be a woman.

How to test: Turing test. Create an anonymous panel of 4 male and 1 female economists, and then let a group of males ask them questions. Afterwards, the males vote on which panelist was female. Reverse the test. Whichever sex knows something the other sex doesn't will do a better job at passing the turning test and a spotting one of the... (read more)

If women know something men don't, men could just ask. That seems much more relevant than testing people's play-acting skills, and we'd actually learn what it was. As in this case women could just publish it and get a paper out of it, I doubt it.
A weak test of the signaling hypothesis would be to poll economists' colleagues and see what they think about them. Presumably if the hypothesis were true, endorsement of compassion-signaling economic and social policies would be correlated with your colleagues thinking that you are generally a compassionate person.

Other factors that could explain:

The difference is not as large, either because of the file drawer effect, or because someone selected / massaged the data to make the difference look bigger (the researcher or the journalist).

Selection effects: men and women may go into economics for different reasons; for example (as a bit of a caricature); men who want to get obscenely rich study economics to get into business, and women who want to get obscenely rich try to marry into money, and money-grabiness is correlated with pro-free market views.

Differences in peer... (read more)

For starters, write lots of letters to the editor stating that war is always wrong. Don't just attack the easy targets like the Iraq War. Try and write things that will make your average dove say "Well that's going a bit far." (ex, saying the American Revolution was unjustified.)

As it happens, I think the American Revolution was clearly unjustified, viz. Zinn's "A People's History of the United States."

A rule not ultimately backed by the threat of violence is merely a suggestion.

You can threaten non-violence, like a boycott.

Mr. Donovan is speaking of rules. A boycott as a rule, a government-mandated boycott, will be backed up by the forcible seizure of property or imprisonment by armed men prepared to do violence in the event of resistance or non–compliance. Opt-in boycotts, boycotts not required by rules, can be non-violent as you rightly point out.
Load More