I think it’s about risk to credibility. If I refuse to join, my reputation is entirely my own; it flatters my fierce independence of mind, in contrast to the sheeple. If I join, anything about the organisation might reflect on me, might be used to mock me. Joining is sticking my neck out; making an excuse not to is always the safer choice.
So the group norm we really need to establish is that if you want to criticise someone for joining, only a solid case is acceptable; a cheap shot based on joining behaviour should reflect badly on the speaker.
(I think this is related to the bizarre phenomenon I occasionally see (particularly regarding the Topic That Must Not Be Named) of people saying they don’t believe the conclusion of an argument because they don’t think it will convince anybody – rather than because they’re not convinced.)
So the group norm we really need to establish is that if you want to criticise someone for joining, only a solid case is acceptable; a cheap shot based on joining behaviour should reflect badly on the speaker.
Yes, but perceptions from outside the group are still just as problematic.
So we want to encourage people to assemble more solid-sounding cases for not joining?
I think what we want to encourage is that “I haven’t the time because I’m working on X” is acceptable; or better yet, silence. “Your website is the wrong font” is what we need to get away from.
If I’m saying why I shouldn’t join, either of “I haven’t the time” or silence is fine. If I want to say why you shouldn’t join, we should set the bar high, so that if I use joining as a cheap shot against you I look bad. “You joined a website with a stupid font” is what people fear, and so that might be what we need to act against.
Incidentally, what timezone are you in and when do you sleep? I’m always a bit surprised to get responses from you in the morning...
That would be a serious offense, but it’s a joke in Eliezer’s case. A bad joke though, encouraging a serious problem. Loosing most of their productivity through inadequate sleep is a common nerdy error mode.
FWIW, my own experiments with polyphasic sleep have convinced me that they do work, but at the price of a distressing fraction of one’s brainpower & creativity.
As I’m sure you’re aware, a lot of anecdotal accounts of polyphasic sleep have suggested no loss of cognitive or creative function (after a 1-3 week adjustment period), but those are difficult to evaluate without an external metric; certain kinds of cognitive impairment can paradoxically make you feel you’re thinking more clearly (c.f., “I drive better with a couple drinks in me”).
I’ve been intrigued by the idea but have been held back by issues of work schedule, inability to spare two weeks for adjustment, and lack of a way to clearly measure how stupid it makes me.
As I’m sure you’re aware, a lot of anecdotal accounts of polyphasic sleep have suggested no loss of cognitive or creative function (after a 1-3 week adjustment period), but those are difficult to evaluate without an external metric; certain kinds of cognitive impairment can paradoxically make you feel you’re thinking more clearly (c.f., “I drive better with a couple drinks in me”).
Oh yes, I was well aware of that. What I did was play 20 rounds of GBrainy a day and look at my scores. (Why GBrainy? Because I didn’t have a few score of comparable IQ tests handy, and it was available in Ubuntu, and was reasonably fun to play.) I forget the exact stats, but it wasn’t uncommon for my score to drop by 1⁄3 compared to when I was sleeping normally. What seemed to be most hard-hit was working memory, which really hurt on the mental arithmetic ones.
(The obvious criticism is that I didn’t actually adjust, but I don’t think there’s any way to prove that either way.)
Do you mean people are actually saying “I won’t join, because your fonts suck”? Or are they just dropping messages to the effect that your fonts suck into your suggestions box, and not joining—and the connection is surmised?
Good point. Joining a group introduces a level of implied assent to the group’s publicly visible aspects. As Eliezer suggests, if there’s a net gain from the utility of the positive aspects of the group less the utility of the negative, on the balance it’s worth consideration as long as the negatives aren’t fundamental issues. The issue is managing that implied assent.
Perhaps another way to look at this is to explore how to cultivate an individual persona that exhibits independence, but also exhibits a visible capability to deliberately subsume that independence to further group goals, i.e. determine how to show others that you can work with a group while disagreeing on non-core principles. It seems that a great deal of politics involves application of this paradigm.
I think it’s about risk to credibility. If I refuse to join, my reputation is entirely my own; it flatters my fierce independence of mind, in contrast to the sheeple. If I join, anything about the organisation might reflect on me, might be used to mock me. Joining is sticking my neck out; making an excuse not to is always the safer choice.
So the group norm we really need to establish is that if you want to criticise someone for joining, only a solid case is acceptable; a cheap shot based on joining behaviour should reflect badly on the speaker.
Exactly what I was thinking.
(I think this is related to the bizarre phenomenon I occasionally see (particularly regarding the Topic That Must Not Be Named) of people saying they don’t believe the conclusion of an argument because they don’t think it will convince anybody – rather than because they’re not convinced.)
Yes, but perceptions from outside the group are still just as problematic.
We can only do two things about that, I think: challenge it where we see it, and worry about it less.
So we want to encourage people to assemble more solid-sounding cases for not joining?
I think what we want to encourage is that “I haven’t the time because I’m working on X” is acceptable; or better yet, silence. “Your website is the wrong font” is what we need to get away from.
If I’m saying why I shouldn’t join, either of “I haven’t the time” or silence is fine. If I want to say why you shouldn’t join, we should set the bar high, so that if I use joining as a cheap shot against you I look bad. “You joined a website with a stupid font” is what people fear, and so that might be what we need to act against.
Incidentally, what timezone are you in and when do you sleep? I’m always a bit surprised to get responses from you in the morning...
Eliezer Yudkowsky does not sleep. He waits.
Mm. I don’t like ‘waits’; it sounds like he’s wasting his time, and it doesn’t have enough LW/OB injokes. Maybe ‘He updates priors.’?
It should be obvious from looking at the timestamps of my comments. I don’t sleep.
This worries me… sleepless in charge of the future of humanity is a serious offence
That would be a serious offense, but it’s a joke in Eliezer’s case. A bad joke though, encouraging a serious problem. Loosing most of their productivity through inadequate sleep is a common nerdy error mode.
Innit. I quite like the sleep deprivation high, but it’s not a good state for thinking straight. And I also love sleeping and dreaming.
There’s always polyphasic sleep schedules. Assuming those actually work, which is not at all well-established...
FWIW, my own experiments with polyphasic sleep have convinced me that they do work, but at the price of a distressing fraction of one’s brainpower & creativity.
As I’m sure you’re aware, a lot of anecdotal accounts of polyphasic sleep have suggested no loss of cognitive or creative function (after a 1-3 week adjustment period), but those are difficult to evaluate without an external metric; certain kinds of cognitive impairment can paradoxically make you feel you’re thinking more clearly (c.f., “I drive better with a couple drinks in me”).
I’ve been intrigued by the idea but have been held back by issues of work schedule, inability to spare two weeks for adjustment, and lack of a way to clearly measure how stupid it makes me.
Oh yes, I was well aware of that. What I did was play 20 rounds of GBrainy a day and look at my scores. (Why GBrainy? Because I didn’t have a few score of comparable IQ tests handy, and it was available in Ubuntu, and was reasonably fun to play.) I forget the exact stats, but it wasn’t uncommon for my score to drop by 1⁄3 compared to when I was sleeping normally. What seemed to be most hard-hit was working memory, which really hurt on the mental arithmetic ones.
(The obvious criticism is that I didn’t actually adjust, but I don’t think there’s any way to prove that either way.)
No one person is “in charge of the future of humanity”. I know you were probably being somewhat flippant, but still.
Do you mean people are actually saying “I won’t join, because your fonts suck”? Or are they just dropping messages to the effect that your fonts suck into your suggestions box, and not joining—and the connection is surmised?
Good point. Joining a group introduces a level of implied assent to the group’s publicly visible aspects. As Eliezer suggests, if there’s a net gain from the utility of the positive aspects of the group less the utility of the negative, on the balance it’s worth consideration as long as the negatives aren’t fundamental issues. The issue is managing that implied assent.
Perhaps another way to look at this is to explore how to cultivate an individual persona that exhibits independence, but also exhibits a visible capability to deliberately subsume that independence to further group goals, i.e. determine how to show others that you can work with a group while disagreeing on non-core principles. It seems that a great deal of politics involves application of this paradigm.