Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


I want to know why you consider Diego Caleiro is evil.

If you are a Linux user, learn Colemak instead of Dvorak. It's available in almost every distribution (and probably easy to install on Windows as well, but I rarely use Windows). It's both more ergonomic than Dvorak and is much closer to QWERTY, which means it's easier to learn and you retain most of your keyboard shortcuts (e.g. Ctrl+Z/X/C/V etc).

Rationality Reading Group was mostly dead, which is very sad (although many thanks to Gram_Stone for doing it anyway!). Mainly, I guess, because it wasn't promoted and advertized in any way.

My opinion: remove Bayesian Judo and add Whining-Based Communities. Seriously, Whining-Based Communities is the most powerful article I've ever read on LW, it symbolizes what rationality is about most of all. The point of rationality is achieving your goals despite cognitive biases, signaling, self-delusion, mysterious answers etc. It's very easy to brainwash yourself into thinking that you are “doing a good job”. It's very hard to put extra effort into actually doing what is the most effective, because it might go against your habits, self-image, intuitions, convictions etc.

I think you are absolutely spot on. Fear is a key to many failures of human behavior, and I want to think more about that.

Interestingly, many time management systems like Zen to Done and Do It Tomorrow do set up a form of commitments for a day or for a week. ZTD has:

3) plan. Habit: set MITs [Most Important Tasks] for week, day. Each week, list the Big Rocks that you want to accomplish, and schedule them first. Each day, create a list of 1-3 MITs (basically your Big Rocks for the day) and be sure to accomplish them. Do your MITs early in the day to get them out of the way and to ensure that they get done.

Do It Tomorrow has a concept of a closed list in contrast to a todo-list. Every time you go to sleep you compile a list of tasks for tomorrow that you absolutely definitely gonna do. It's realistic to expect yourself to not succeed at too many things, so your closed list might contain only one task. But the fact is, you do only things on the closed list, and not add anything on top of it.

The idea of setting up a commitment for a day, or a commitment for a week, sounds sorta like applying the concept of Pomodoro for a larger time frame. During Pomodoro you aren't allowed to not do the task at hand (which implies you aren't allowed being distracted), and here you aren't allowed to not do what you already planned for a week.

V'z cebonoyl ercrngvat jung ZeZvaq unir nyernql fnvq va bgure jbeqf, ohg V jnag gb guebj vg bhg naljnl, ng yrnfg nf n cenpgvpny rkrepvfr. V haqrefgbbq va lbhe ivqrb gung lbh vzcyl gung qvssrerag gvzr znantrzrag flfgrzf ner tbbq sbe qvssrerag checbfrf, urapr nohfr bs cebqhpgvivgl flfgrzf. Juvyr V guvax r.t. cbzbqbeb pna or nohfrq, vg'f irel irefngvyr naq Fnyyl pbhyq fbyir gur wbo-frrxvat ceboyrz hfvat cbzbqbeb, fb gur ceboyrz vf abg jvgu juvpu rknpg cebqhpgvivgl flfgrz lbh'er hfvat.

Vafgrnq, V guvax vg obvyf qbja gb uvtu rkcrpgngvbaf. Guvf vf n jryy-xabja cbvag, naq znal crbcyr ernyvmr gurl unir haernyvfgvpnyyl uvtu rkcrpgngvbaf naq gung qrzbgvingrf gurz, ohg gurl pna'g svk vg. N sevraq bs zvar fnvq fur jnf n irel tbbq fjvzzre n srj lrnef ntb, ohg fur qbrfa'g jnag gb fjvz ng nyy, orpnhfr vs fur qbrf, fur'yy qb vg cbbeyl, pbzcnerq gb gur crnx fur bapr unq. Fur nyernql rkcrevrapr uhtr qrzbgvingvba nsgre n genhzn, jura fur fgnegrq fjvzzvat ntnva ohg cresbezrq zhpu jbefr. Fur haqrefgnaqf gung vg'f whfg haernfbanoyr qrznaq sebz barfrys, naq fur fubhyq fjvz sbe ure bja cyrnfher, ohg fur'f fgvyy qrzbgvingrq.

Nyyra Pnee va uvf obbx Gur Bayl Jnl gb Fgbc Fzbxvat Creznaragyl erpnyyf n fgbel. Gurer jnf n terng tbysre Urael Ybatuhefg, jub jnf nqberq ol tbys snaf. Jura ur dhvg tbysvat, ur jebgr: “V pnaabg gryy lbh gur hggre wbl bs gur zna jub unf svanyyl tvira hc tbys”. Jura Pnee, nivq tbysre uvzfrys, ernq guvf ur pbhyqa'g oryvrir uvf rlrf. Gung jnf n oynfcurzl! Ubj pna lbh fnl gung nobhg n tnzr lbh qribgrq lbhe yvsr gb?

Ur gura ernyvmrq gung Urael oerngurq jvgu eryvrs orpnhfr jura lbh cynl tbys sbe gur svefg gvzr, lbh znxr zvfgnxrf nyy gur gvzr, ohg lbh qba'g pner, vg'f sha, lbh unir n tbbq gvzr. Ohg jura lbh orpbzr n cebsrffvbany, lbh tebj va fxvyy zber naq zber, lbh fgneg gb rkcrpg lbhefrys gb cresbez cresrpgyl. Naq vs lbh znxr n zvfgnxr, lbh pna'g sbetvir lbhefrys, orpnhfr vg znxrf lbh n znffvir ybfre. Gur fgerff bs jung vf fhccbfrq gb or n sha npgvivgl orpbzrf haornenoyr.

V guvax Obo'f zvfgnxr vf gung ur envfrq gur fgnxrf naq fgnegrq rkcrpgvat uvzfrys gb yrnea Trezna rnfvyl, naq vs vg qbrfa'g eha synjyrffyl, gura ur'f n ybfre.

Exactly. It's like how classrooms are supposed to work. I'm much more motivated to engage with this post, then those that simply state a certain truth. If an article simply explains a certain mechanism, I'll read it, say “yeah, that makes sense, I agree with this”, close an article and completely forget about its contents. It's like article wasn't effective at all, even though it's technically correct.

I think this post's style combines 2 things: gamification and the fact that you can't learn math without doing exercises. Gamification because it's like solving a logical puzzle, it's fun, and it's also not too hard so that I give up immediately, and not too easy, so that I actually spend some time thinking. And the exercises, well there's a reason why Khan Academy or simply doing exercises in textbooks is crucial to understand math, and it's the same here, I work back and forth, trying to figure out the answer, it helps understanding the idea better and remember it for longer.

I think there's probably a very deep problem with the Web, having to do with how people procrastinate and devote time/effort/flow to things. It may be that internet articles are super-ineffective and will always be, at least in a certain form. When you are on the Web, and you use your browser, you have lots of tabs open simultaneously, your "workspace" is cluttered. Facebook messages there, several interesting articles here. And the computer itself, even if it's a laptop, it's not something you can easily manipulate in the same way you can a book.

So when you read some interesting article, you usually aren't in a state of flow. And even if you are in a flow, you aren't in the mood that says "I'm doing something serious and I should put much intellectual effort into it". Therefore reading a book online is infeasible, but reading some short engaging and humorous article is. When I say infeasible I mean most of the time when we are behind the computer screen, we're in the context, where we don't feel like or don't expect ourselves to concentrate heavily and not distract ourselves.

So articles optimize for clickbaity headlines, easy read, shortness. They adjust to lack of concentration and unwillingness to actively work on the reader's part. And then you read an article, find it interesting and insightful, and its contents are completely washed out from your brain 5 minutes later. Even if the article contained actually valuable knowledge and was technically correct.

There's a deeper thing going. First, recognition is not recall: just because you go "O! I know that! This makes total sense!" doesn't mean you gonna actually remember it. Second, people are very good at pattern-matching. So good, actually, that when they gain new information, they jump to conclusions and think "Your thing X is like the thing Y that I already know or heard of". The moment they prematurely equate two different phenomena based on superficial similarity, they stop paying attention and thinking, because they think they already understood it.

Suppose there is an article with condensed, yet correct and without omissions, information, for example a self-help advice. And there's an equivalent book with the same self-help advice, but it's verbose, long-winded and not necessarily easy to read. I suspect that on average the book will be more effective, not simply because of length or other properties, but mainly because people read books in certain contexts and moods, where they expect to put effort and concentration, where they expect themselves to be in a state of flow. If that is true, maybe we should rethink the whole writing and reading articles on the Web business.

Is “time management” even a meaningful term? You can't manage time after all, it just flows. You can manage your focus and your actions and spend them more effectively, given allotted time. Mark Forster in a productivity book Do It Tomorrow says that we should call it “attention management” instead. It sounds like a stupid argument about semantics, but there's a point.

Most of the time I'm not that demotivated that I only want to binge watch TV series. Most of the time I feel like I want to do something productive. But there are multitude of things that “I could be doing” in my mind at the same time. I could continue polishing my Haskell skills, or maybe I should go back to theory and revise my knowledge of algorithms, or maybe I should go back to theoretical computer science and fix the holes in my understanding of complexity, computation, type theory and what not, or maybe I should go to StackOverflow and answer someone's question, or maybe I should practice how to use Emacs more efficiently, or maybe I should start writing a video game to improve practical programming skills, or...

Instead of doing any of those things, and it's obvious I can only do one thing at a time, I spend all day browsing StackOverflow, Facebook, MIRI's website, checking email and RSS.

What I should do instead is take one and only one task, turn on my pomodoro and spend 50 minutes doing nothing else than that.

My main goal is for my readers to enjoy what they are reading even if the topic isn't at the top of their interests.

Is it correct to say that your explicit goal is to create entertainment/“porn”? Do you optimize for entertainment more than you optimize for other forms of utility?

Load More