Living life, getting through the day, is obviously an enormously complex process. Whether we are rational or irrational, we make decisions based on a large number of short-cuts. These “short-cuts” have evolved over time and have their origins in our routines, our values, etc. However, since they don’t completely capture our full decision-making system (i.e., don’t reproduce every time the decision we’d make if we had enormous time and energy to decide each one), they introduce certain inefficiencies (or even inconsistencies).
I think that a lot of advice represents “hacks” for getting around certain built-in inefficiencies. It would be enormously trouble-some (and arguably counter-productive) to rewrite your whole meta-code, but a patch is worth adding, if it works.
Thus I think the reason advice works for some and not for others is because it is a patch for a particular (hopefully common) form of inefficiency, but the patch only works if you have that efficiency or if the source of the inefficiency is the same.
I had a friend in graduate school that had a mental breakdown and lost most of her short-cuts. It was a really amazing thing to watch her make decisions from ground zero. I think she appreciated the experience because, to a large extent, she had the opportunity to pick and choose which new short-cuts to assimilate. As an intelligent adult that was more or less X-rational as well, she proceeded in a very systematic way. The result was a very efficient but somewhat strange decision making process.
I had a friend in graduate school that had a mental breakdown and lost most of her short-cuts. It was a really amazing thing to watch her make decisions from ground zero. I think she appreciated the experience because, to a large extent, she had the opportunity to pick and choose which new short-cuts to assimilate. As an intelligent adult that was more or less X-rational, she proceeded in a very systematic way. The result was a very efficient but strange (e.g., oddly non-organic) decision making process.
Are you still in contact with this person, and would she have any interest in LW? It seems that experience might provide some fairly unique insights.
I think that a lot of advice represents “hacks” for getting around certain built-in inefficiencies. It would be enormously trouble-some (and arguably counter-productive) to rewrite your whole meta-code, but a patch is worth adding, if it works.
Strongly seconded. This also means that if one is unusually capable of self-rewriting, or at least deeper patching than usual, even common advice that works can be greatly suboptimal, or even harmful in closing off opportunities for greater growth.
As an intelligent adult that was more or less X-rational as well, she proceeded in a very systematic way. The result was a very efficient but somewhat strange decision making process.
I want to read about that. Samples, complete write ups, anything. It sounds fascinating, but I dont know yet in which direction that goes.
I read Jonathan Lehrer: How we decide—but didnt integrate the strategies yet. But some tidbits from real life ideas & friends I adapted with some usage.
“Different things work for different people.”
Living life, getting through the day, is obviously an enormously complex process. Whether we are rational or irrational, we make decisions based on a large number of short-cuts. These “short-cuts” have evolved over time and have their origins in our routines, our values, etc. However, since they don’t completely capture our full decision-making system (i.e., don’t reproduce every time the decision we’d make if we had enormous time and energy to decide each one), they introduce certain inefficiencies (or even inconsistencies).
I think that a lot of advice represents “hacks” for getting around certain built-in inefficiencies. It would be enormously trouble-some (and arguably counter-productive) to rewrite your whole meta-code, but a patch is worth adding, if it works.
Thus I think the reason advice works for some and not for others is because it is a patch for a particular (hopefully common) form of inefficiency, but the patch only works if you have that efficiency or if the source of the inefficiency is the same.
I had a friend in graduate school that had a mental breakdown and lost most of her short-cuts. It was a really amazing thing to watch her make decisions from ground zero. I think she appreciated the experience because, to a large extent, she had the opportunity to pick and choose which new short-cuts to assimilate. As an intelligent adult that was more or less X-rational as well, she proceeded in a very systematic way. The result was a very efficient but somewhat strange decision making process.
Are you still in contact with this person, and would she have any interest in LW? It seems that experience might provide some fairly unique insights.
Indeed. She is the most X-rational person I know of (that I’ve met in person). Also, she is a mathematician. I will invite her!
Strongly seconded. This also means that if one is unusually capable of self-rewriting, or at least deeper patching than usual, even common advice that works can be greatly suboptimal, or even harmful in closing off opportunities for greater growth.
I want to read about that. Samples, complete write ups, anything. It sounds fascinating, but I dont know yet in which direction that goes.
I read Jonathan Lehrer: How we decide—but didnt integrate the strategies yet. But some tidbits from real life ideas & friends I adapted with some usage.