re compartmentalization question about 'jinxing'.

I have some experience and knowledge in this subject from a sports science perspective.

It's commonly accepted within sport psychology that first, negativity, is associated with predicting low chances of success, and secondly that those who do display negativity and predict low chance of success decrease their own performance.

For example, a well coached basketball player at the free throw line would be aware that saying "I'm going to miss this free throw" increases their chances of missing the free throw. Note now that "well coached" implies including psychological training as a component of a wider training program.

One source for you compartmentalization, to dig a little deeper is...

"Krane and Williams concluded that a certain psychological profile appears to be correlated with peak performance for most athletes. More specifically, this ideal mind/body state consists of the following: (a) feelings of high self-confidence and expectations of success, (b) being energized yet relaxed, (c) feeling in control,(d) being totally concentrated, (e) having a keen focus on the present task, (f) having positive attitudes and thoughts about performance, and (g) being strongly determined and committed. Conversely, the mental state typically associated with poorer performances in sport seems to be marked by feelings of self-doubt, lacking concentration, being distracted, being overly focused on the competition outcome or score, and feeling overly or under aroused. While acknowledging that this ideal mind/body state is highly idiosyncratic, Krane and Williams concluded that for most athletes, the presence of the right mental and emotional state just described is associated with them performing to their potential." Harmison, R. J. (2006). Peak performance in sport: Identifying ideal performance states and developing athletes' psychological skills. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(3), 233-243. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.37.3.233

Microsoft Outlook Business Contact Manager provides ways forward to utilising prediction. Within its Task scheduling one has opportunity to estimate what percentage of the set task is already completed. Also how long the task will take is estimated by the user.

I find B.C.M highly useful for focusing prediction and task achievement.

Hi people, I just wanted to say thank you to the LessWrong community for exposing me to the concept of "bayesian probability". Apparently human motor programs function in a bayesian way, with each movement prior predicted including predicted sensory feedback of said movement, which enables a comparison of prediction with perceived reality. Pretty cool.

Learned of the observational evidence supporting random practice over blocked practiced as they relate to motor learning and retention, 14/5/2015.

Wrote a new lesson plan for my squash juniors, based upon the aforementioned idea of random practice, which I offer freely to LW.

Squash training, psuedorandom

1. Serve from right
2. Move to t
3. Chase own ball
4. Serve from left
5. Chase own ball
6. Throw ball with left hand to front wall right side
7. Play forehand drop shot
8. Move to T
9. Gather ball
10. Move to t
11. Throw ball to front wall, left side
12. Play backhand drop shot
13. Move to t
14. 1 push-up
15. Gather ball
16. Move to t
17. Throw ball to left wall softly.
18. Play a backhand drive deep
19. 1 squat
20. Gather ball
21. Move to t
22. Throw ball to right wall softly
23. Play a forehand drive deep
24. 1 lunge
25. Gather ball
26. Rest, drink, provoke THINK.
27. Move to front left court with ball n racket.
28. Play a backhand cross court, like a serve.
29. Move to t
30. Do a split step jump
31. Gather ball
32. Move to front right
33. Play a backhand cross court, like a serve.
34. Move to t
35. 1 situp
36. Gather ball
37. Move to front right.
38. Play a forehand cross court, like a serve.
39. Move to t
40. 1 one legged swan pose, 5 seconds
41. Gather ball
42. Move to front left
43. Play a forehand cross court, like a serve
44. Move to t
45. Balance racket on one finger, 5 seconds.
46. Gather ball
47. Move to t
48. Throw ball to right wall softly with non racket hand
49. Play forehand boast
50. Move to t
51. Gather ball
52. Move to t
53. Throw ball to left wall softly
54. Play backhand boast
55. Move to t
56. Do right side plank, 5 seconds.
57. Gather ball
58. Move to t
59. Do left side plank, 5 seconds.
60. Rest, drink, provoke THINK.
61. NOTE TIME TO DO 59 tasks. Repeat

Implemented an approximation of the above program in today's session, after explaining why the changes are occurring. I observed that the young athletes were more enthused.

tomme, welcome to lesswrong, gday I'm Peacewise.

re

I used to believe that Santa is real

Fair crack mate, "Santa" is a standard fiction/lie perpetrated by society and parents, hardly something to be used as evidence of a "faulty brain". In fact its more likely to be evidence that your brain was and is functioning in a developmentally normal state.

I suggest you reconsider your position on fiction, since you state

so I would rather make sure it's accurate, truthful, useful knowledge

there is indeed plenty of accurate, truthful and useful knowledge within the realm of fiction. Shakespeare has plenty of accurate and useful knowledge about the human condition, just to give you one counter example. "Out damned spot, out " by lady Macbeth is an example of how murder and the guilt caused by the act of murder affects the human mind. (Macbeth, Act 5, scene 1.) Lady Macbeth cannot get the imagined blood stains off her hands after committing murder.

Humans are subjective creatures, by experimenting with fiction you'll be looking into the human condition, by avoiding fiction you are dismissing a large subset of truth - for truth is subjective as well as objective.

Seems to me that rationalism as a living ideal is a slippery slope with a positive outcome. Once someone takes the initial steps to use rationalism, they then seek to learn more about rationalism, they practice it more and they become more effective and efficient at utilising it. That looks like a slippery slope to me, but obviously one that has a different outcome type than a traditional negative outcome orientated slippery slope.

Well done, you've rephrased S.M.A.R.T.E.R goal setting into you're own language... and that's cool, cause that's a part of learning.

Do you recall this line in the Matrix?

MORPHEUS: I told you that I can only show you the door. You have to step through it.

Thats what i hoped would be understood by the previous, one can lead a horse to water but one cant make it drink.

I played Alpha Centauri for a few weeks back when it came out, ended up going back to Civilisation, more out of habit I suppose than anything else. These days I'm playing Civilisation IV Beyond the Sword.

What is interesting about being taught optimizer thinking within a computer game is that if that thinking stays within the game, then it's not real world applicable as optimal. If however one stops playing the game and then takes the learned strategies applicable in the real world, into the real world - then gaming is useful, otherwise gaming is just entertainment. I love gaming, don't get me wrong - it's just that (simplistically) x hours of gaming translates into x hours of missed revenue/earnings in the real world, or x hours of real world knowledge unlearned.

What is quite interesting when reconsidering the original hypothesis of ABrook, is the taking into consideration of outsiders.

If outsiders strongly associate rationality with LW and LW is negatively perceived, then the original hypothesis has some weight.

Fortunately we have an outsider... that's me, and,

I do have some negative perceptions of LW, yet more fortunately for rationality a negative perception of LW is that I do not strongly associate LW with rationality. I presume some will appreciate the beautiful irony of this construct and further appreciate and then avoid the infinite spirals it produces.

In my judgement ABrooks was not trolling, and instead raised a point of view that experience on LW encouraged me to consider.

I think it is true that some members of LW, on some occasions do believe they are justified in expressing contempt for the beliefs of outsiders, sometimes this is done without expressing the justification, on other occasions the justification has been expressed and refuted yet the contempt remains and on yet other occasions the justification is reasonable. I leave the other branches of the scenario for the community to express at their convenience.

I don't however consider the LW community on the whole to be toxic to rationality as one cannot and shouldn't judge an entire community based upon isolated actions of a potential unrepresentative sample. I think the statement

Less Wrong is just a community that is on the whole, and despite it's best efforts and intentions, toxic to rationality

Is false, yet as one can see in my 2nd paragraph in this post, a change of the numbers from "on the whole" to "some members, some of the time" supports that the gist of the hypothesis deserves consideration, despite that I believe the original hypothesis is false.

Possibly a more succinct description of the issue under discussion is when an individuals self serving bias meets a groups group serving bias. The individual being an outsider.

When one considers that an aim of LW is the removal of biases, labelling a presentation of a possible group serving bias as a "troll" is not in the spirit - or vibe if you prefer - of LW. I do understand why one would want to not waste time on something as obviously false as the original hypothesis, yet I think that the updated hypothesis deserves consideration from members of the community.