Wiki Contributions


The point in the first paragraph is well made, but in a way that might be interpret as misvaluing the content which is in fact, very good. It shifts the means from "Find the right advice" to "Figure out how to implement the advice you already know is right" which is a very notable change.

Excellent post, OP.

yeah no worries be as late as you like :P

"Hmm. I didn't interpret a hypothetical apostasy as the fiercest critique, but rather the best critique--i.e. weight the arguments not by "badness if true" but by something like badness times plausibility."

See Plausibility depends on your current model/arguments/evidence. If the badness times probability of these being wrong dwarfs the former, you must account for it.


N=1: Time to stop self-identifying with thoughts was less than 5 total hours of meditation practice (scattered across months, but still). This was especially helpful in diminishing neurotic behavior - the thoughts are still there just not engaged with.

Yes, a blank spot and one that makes everything else near-useless. This needs to be figured out.

That automation makes sense, thank you. Trying to think of how to generalize it, and how to to merge it with the first suggestion.

Anki doesn't work for me on this, agreed. The above suggestion seems to dominate this one.


In response to this post:

Robert Wiblin got the following data (treated by a dear friend of mine):

89 Confirmation bias

54 Bandwagon effect

50 Fundamental attribution error

44 Status quo bias

39 Availability heuristic

38 Neglect of probability

37 Bias blind spot

36 Planning fallacy

36 Ingroup bias

35 Hyperbolic discounting

29 Hindsight bias

29 Halo effect

28 Zero-risk bias

28 Illusion of control

28 Clustering illusion

26 Omission bias

25 Outcome bias

25 Neglect of prior base rates effect

25 Just-world phenomenon

25 Anchoring

24 System justification

24 Kruger effect

23 Projection bias

23 Mere exposure effect

23 Loss aversion

22 Overconfidence effect

19 Optimism bias

19 Actor-observer bias

18 Self-serving bias

17 Texas sharpshooter fallacy

17 Recency effect

17 Outgroup homogeneity bias

17 Gambler's fallacy

17 Extreme aversion

16 Irrational escalation

15 Illusory correlation

15 Congruence bias

14 Self-fulfilling prophecy

13 Wobegon effect

13 Selective perception

13 Impact bias

13 Choice-supportive bias

13 Attentional bias

12 Observer-expectancy effect

12 False consensus effect

12 Endowment effect

11 Rosy retrospection

11 Information bias

11 Conjunction fallacy

11 Anthropic bias

10 Focusing effect

10 Déformation professionnelle

08 Positive outcome bias

08 Ludic fallacy

08 Egocentric bias

07 Pseudocertainty effect

07 Primacy effect

07 Illusion of transparency

06 Trait ascription bias

06 Hostile media effect

06 Ambiguity effect

04 Unit bias

04 Post-purchase rationalization

04 Notational bias

04 Effect)

04 Contrast effect

03 Subadditivity effect

03 Restorff effect

02 Illusion of asymmetric insight

01 Reminiscence bump


How do you correct your mistakes?

For example, I recently found out I did something wrong at a conference. In my bio, in areas of expertise I should have written what I can teach about, and in areas of interest what I want to be taught about. This seems to maximize value for me. How do I keep that mistake from happening in the future? I don't know when the next conference will happen. Do I write it on anki and memorize that as a failure mode?

More generally, when you recognize a failure mode in yourself how do you constrain your future self so that it doesn't repeat this failure mode? How do you proceduralize and install the solution?

Load More