we already know with confidence what to expect from the test: slowed reactions and limited attention
This is indeed what I expect, but I think you are more confident about it than I am—I’m interested in seeing what’s causing the difference. Can you link/cite the resources that caused you to update the most? (If you have a very strong prior against this sort of thing, that’s fair game too.)
If, in fact, a (strongly) polyphasic schedule did provide considerable advantages to a monophasic schedule, this would be very valuable information, if only because it could be used to the benefit of a large number of people. I’m sort of puzzled at why you dislike other people spending their resources on things that might help you, even if the chance of it doing so is small; even if you were purely a selfish agent, I don’t see why you would discourage this. (One possibility is that alternative uses of the time of the people involved would help you more. Is this likely?)
No, I don’t dislike that Brienne et al. ran the experiment. They can spend their time how they like, and quantitative self-help is admirable. But we didn’t get to the quantitative part yet, so I’m very confused that this post was so well received. It reflects a problem more severe than community standards falling because individuals are unwilling to bear the cost of speaking out; individuals are actively encouraging low standards. Or that’s how it seemed before people responded to me. Now my probability mass is mostly split between my values being weird or some cynical explanations about unconscious motivations producing exceptional support/inclusion toward this one post. At this point my complaining has exceeding my gripe, so whatever, ignore me.
I made the post despite not having detailed quantitative information yet because people are curious. I made a post before promising the results of a very high VOI experiment, so people kept sending me messages along the lines of, “Ok, the month of the experiment is over! What happened?” and I didn’t want them to lose interest or think the whole thing had been abandoned. I think this post was fairly well received because it was effective at reassuring people that the good thing they care about continues to exist and be good. Further, it’s provided evidence that I’m the kind of person who does things when she says she will (I said I’d do the experiment, and I did it), which raises their confidence in eventually seeing the full results (because I’ve said I’d provide those in somewhere around three months).
It reflects a problem more severe than community standards falling because individuals are unwilling to bear the cost of speaking out; individuals are actively encouraging low standards.
The community standard that get’s promoted is that people get credit for taking action instead of creating credit for specific results that the action produced.
Moving from theoretical anaylsis to real empirics is good.
This is indeed what I expect, but I think you are more confident about it than I am—I’m interested in seeing what’s causing the difference. Can you link/cite the resources that caused you to update the most? (If you have a very strong prior against this sort of thing, that’s fair game too.)
If, in fact, a (strongly) polyphasic schedule did provide considerable advantages to a monophasic schedule, this would be very valuable information, if only because it could be used to the benefit of a large number of people. I’m sort of puzzled at why you dislike other people spending their resources on things that might help you, even if the chance of it doing so is small; even if you were purely a selfish agent, I don’t see why you would discourage this. (One possibility is that alternative uses of the time of the people involved would help you more. Is this likely?)
No, I don’t dislike that Brienne et al. ran the experiment. They can spend their time how they like, and quantitative self-help is admirable. But we didn’t get to the quantitative part yet, so I’m very confused that this post was so well received. It reflects a problem more severe than community standards falling because individuals are unwilling to bear the cost of speaking out; individuals are actively encouraging low standards. Or that’s how it seemed before people responded to me. Now my probability mass is mostly split between my values being weird or some cynical explanations about unconscious motivations producing exceptional support/inclusion toward this one post. At this point my complaining has exceeding my gripe, so whatever, ignore me.
I made the post despite not having detailed quantitative information yet because people are curious. I made a post before promising the results of a very high VOI experiment, so people kept sending me messages along the lines of, “Ok, the month of the experiment is over! What happened?” and I didn’t want them to lose interest or think the whole thing had been abandoned. I think this post was fairly well received because it was effective at reassuring people that the good thing they care about continues to exist and be good. Further, it’s provided evidence that I’m the kind of person who does things when she says she will (I said I’d do the experiment, and I did it), which raises their confidence in eventually seeing the full results (because I’ve said I’d provide those in somewhere around three months).
The community standard that get’s promoted is that people get credit for taking action instead of creating credit for specific results that the action produced.
Moving from theoretical anaylsis to real empirics is good.