(There’s some relation to the sunk cost fallacy here, in the sense that theoretically you should search equally hard for understanding after you’ve already paid no matter how much it costed. However, human brains don’t actually work like that, so I think that this extension of the concept is warranted.)
I’ve seen this argument, and while I acknowledge it might be true for some people, I have no reason to believe that this isn’t mistaken correlation* - if you pay more for something you probably care more about it. (Though the Ikea effect seems plausible, I could see that being a) the same kind of correlation, and b) if you make something then you probably make it the way you want it.)
*Or advertising. “Our teaching program[1] sets the price high so you will learn a lot!”
Have skin in the game
There are ‘teaching programs’[1] that have people pay afterward (if they get good enough results).
I’m not quite sure how to have skin in the game with respect to a sequence of blog posts, but it seems important enough to try. Some possible ways:
Here are two different ways of reading that—your readers committing to do the exercises, and you committing to publish (in a specific way). Both offer insights, and information about what you’re using might be informative. At a guess, you write one every day and publish it or you wrote the whole thing in advance or you have a buffer (that’s smaller than the whole thing).
Between those two methods, one seems obvious for readers (right now) - don’t build up a buffer, do each one as it is released. (This is easy to do with a regular release schedule.)
(I claim to teach techniques that work for me. At CFAR, they teach rationality techniques that work for nobody.)
The ability to stop doing bad things means that trying things has almost no cost and a very high benefit (with a few notable exceptions).
Dangerous activities or addiction?
Unless you’re going to cease having agency soon, you should probably spend much more of your time exploring than you currently do.
Building form sounds similar to building habits.
The knowledge that the researcher didn’t have before seeing the rose and did have after seeing the rose is what I am referring to as the “phenomenology” of redness with respect to that researcher.
I thought it was experience/qualia, but I’m not too invested in those words.
If I ever give an example and you’re like “well I don’t think that would be good for me”, then remember that rationality is hair style agnostic.
It is important to remember that rationality techniques are not supposed to be weird.
They’re supposed to be real. They’re supposed to work. (If you put stock in a theory and it comes up with a weird answer, see if there’s a cheap experiment, or look at why that answer seems weird—general theories require may require more evidence, but a more complete understanding of why one thing works here but doesn’t over there, is valuable if correct (which should be carefully established—conflict between theories highlights an area to look closer at).)
If you use a rationality technique properly, the thing that comes out of it should make sense.
To reuse an earlier example:
You try doing your hair for 30 minutes and find you enjoy this, but it doesn’t makes sense.
In meditating, the point is maybe something we call “enlightenment” that can only be understood by people who have seen it.
Activities where we’re not sure what the point is are an interesting class.
Being able to sit still for a very long time gets you closer to the point of meditating (might be wrong about this one).
Can meditation be done while moving?
Exercise
While the prior post was similarly abstract in subject matter, this post focused on presenting several things and was less detailed in steps.
Footnotes
[1] This is later referenced in the post under a different name.
I’ve seen this argument, and while I acknowledge it might be true for some people, I have no reason to believe that this isn’t mistaken correlation* - if you pay more for something you probably care more about it. (Though the Ikea effect seems plausible, I could see that being a) the same kind of correlation, and b) if you make something then you probably make it the way you want it.)
*Or advertising. “Our teaching program[1] sets the price high so you will learn a lot!”
There are ‘teaching programs’[1] that have people pay afterward (if they get good enough results).
Here are two different ways of reading that—your readers committing to do the exercises, and you committing to publish (in a specific way). Both offer insights, and information about what you’re using might be informative. At a guess, you write one every day and publish it or you wrote the whole thing in advance or you have a buffer (that’s smaller than the whole thing).
Between those two methods, one seems obvious for readers (right now) - don’t build up a buffer, do each one as it is released. (This is easy to do with a regular release schedule.)
That is an...interesting approach.
Dangerous activities or addiction?
Building form sounds similar to building habits.
I thought it was experience/qualia, but I’m not too invested in those words.
This could have been more strongly/explicitly stated and also seems related to Should you reverse any advice you hear?[1]
They’re supposed to be real. They’re supposed to work. (If you put stock in a theory and it comes up with a weird answer, see if there’s a cheap experiment, or look at why that answer seems weird—general theories require may require more evidence, but a more complete understanding of why one thing works here but doesn’t over there, is valuable if correct (which should be carefully established—conflict between theories highlights an area to look closer at).)
To reuse an earlier example:
You try doing your hair for 30 minutes and find you enjoy this, but it doesn’t makes sense.
Activities where we’re not sure what the point is are an interesting class.
Can meditation be done while moving?
While the prior post was similarly abstract in subject matter, this post focused on presenting several things and was less detailed in steps.
Footnotes
[1] This is later referenced in the post under a different name.