Well he says this is how he is and he think it’s likely those who have ‘clicked’ become similar
It would be intesting to see if it works. I mean, if people from Athene’s circle become youtube celebrities themselves (not just props in his videos) or start winning poker tournaments, that would be evidence for this hypothesis.
But generally, people often have ideas about what “made them the way they are”, and it’s typically something like “positive thinking” or “never giving up”, which is an example of survivor bias, because it ignores the thousands of people who started with same level of positive thinking and not giving up, but didn’t achieve the same results.
What I mean is that “clicking” may be a good description of how Athene feels inside, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the component that makes a difference.
anecdotal testimonies
I looked at a few examples, but they seem to be testimonies of people who “clicked” and it made them happy, at least for the time it took them to write the comment. Making people happy is a nice thing, but there are many other ways how to achieve that.
Also, in general, when people try something new that promises to improve their lives, they usually feel happy, regardless of whether that promise is true or not. You would probably get similar testimonies for many self-improvement activities.
The summary is that I don’t want to discourage you from experimenting with something you believe is great; just giving you feedback why the same thing may seem completely unimpressive from outside. The exercise makes (some) people feel really good—that’s nice, but some of us already have other preferred ways to make ourselves feel good. The exercise is also supposed to have other good consequences—and here the evidence feels quite unconvincing to me.
It would be intesting to see if it works. I mean, if people from Athene’s circle become youtube celebrities themselves (not just props in his videos) or start winning poker tournaments, that would be evidence for this hypothesis.
But generally, people often have ideas about what “made them the way they are”, and it’s typically something like “positive thinking” or “never giving up”, which is an example of survivor bias, because it ignores the thousands of people who started with same level of positive thinking and not giving up, but didn’t achieve the same results.
What I mean is that “clicking” may be a good description of how Athene feels inside, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the component that makes a difference.
That’s right and they’ve mentioned it is underway (algorithms, remembering pi, etc). So eagerly, over time the clickers can prove the click’s worth if it is. Imagine what an augmentation it is if you do become similar.
I don’t see why there would be such a survivor bias as identity is melted away and they’re doing positive expected value in the present as per inductive reasoning. If playing poker 16 hrs a day is it, then it is so. Seeing experience as a tool rather then a goal probably brings, paradoxically, more to said experience. If there isn’t enough knowledge then seeking that is probably positive expected value. Or exercising. Whatever. There’s always the now anyway. What the supposed click gives you already makes no sense to have this story or survivor bias. You have to see that it’s about your subjective reference frame and if you really care if you failed to achieve the same results.
Yes that is how athene feels, and 15 years ago he mentioned it but it was dismissed ‘common sense’ he called it, he had, but didn’t understand why no one else did. (making sense probably). Of course it might not be the component that makes a difference, then what is it and how do I get it? Why isn’t everyone researching that? (it probably is the component) Like, the more evolved reward system already can attach to an abstract concept like money. So we should be able to change it right? As a society. Not that money doesn’t matter but rather then it being the end, a means to an end. Reward system activation seems a bit more like the goal...
Edit: I don’t see why people having ideas of themselves is anyway related to the objective measurement of result from a 3rd perspective. The evidence is independent of that. You have 1000 people who are clicked, then you see how their results differs from a control group. Regarding subjective experience, the benefits of the click is one of the reasons why the results might differ positively, and said benefits make ‘survivor bias’ story thinking obsolete.
I looked at a few examples, but they seem to be testimonies of people who “clicked” and it made them happy, at least for the time it took them to write the comment. Making people happy is a nice thing, but there are many other ways how to achieve that.
Also, in general, when people try something new that promises to improve their lives, they usually feel happy, regardless of whether that promise is true or not. You would probably get similar testimonies for many self-improvement activities.
Like you said below, the evidence is unconvincing for everything which is not proven. You’re right but why is it unconvincing. What is driving you? That’s a part of the exercise. You’re typing this out of a drive yet you’re unaware of it. System 1 might say something beautiful and pretty. The exercise is System 2 emotionally. I can only preach what there is unless you’re telling ME to go to work and the immense costs it takes, or the work is independent of my volition (time it takes to learn or train to get some results for the clickers). So here we are arguing that time will tell. What’s stopping us now with the evidence we have. Might it not be what the exercise targets? Are you in a death spiral?
The summary is that I don’t want to discourage you from experimenting with something you believe is great; just giving you feedback why the same thing may seem completely unimpressive from outside. The exercise makes (some) people feel really good—that’s nice, but some of us already have other preferred ways to make ourselves feel good. The exercise is also supposed to have other good consequences—and here the evidence feels quite unconvincing to me.
I wonder at that point what’s the problem with submitting to the consistent patterns that bring about reality. Whether it be physics and whatever. Probabilistic rationality becomes your God, so what? It’s not a man in the sky, it’s everything and you’re equally a part of it. It’s not as if you’ll be harmed by such a realization, like Einstein was preaching it. In fact, maybe you’ll be “spiritual but non-religious” in a religious way. 5 Billion people are religious and it does show reward activation. Actually maybe you are religious but you’re unaware to what. You don’t have to give it up you just realize you wanted it all along and ‘upgrade’ your current values.
Viliam, you’ll write articles here on Yudkowsky’s or Yvain’s level. In fact, you’ll surpass them. I give the likelihood 95% if you click. Just copy paste the exercise text go to a cabin in the the beautiful country-side, if you’re worried you’ll be indoctrinated into a cult, and meditate on it. No one’s after you.
Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate it highly.
Rationality is your God, so what? [...] maybe you are religious but you’re unaware to what. [...] Viliam, you’ll write articles here on Yudkowsky’s or Yvain’s level. In fact, you’ll surpass them. I give the likelihood 95% if you click.
I understand why it was necessary to turn off downvoting on LW, but there are times when it would be so nice to have it back for a bit.
ingive, if this “clicking” thing is supposed to turn people into better thinkers then I have to say you aren’t being the best possible advertisement for it at the moment.
I meant “Probabilistic rationality becomes your God, so what?”, or inductive reasoning with rationality. (as reality is probabilistic as per one interpretation of QM.).
Mechanisms of religion may be equally in action in self-proclaimed Atheists, but for something which they’re either not aware of or it’s base-rate? Is that not a reasonable conclusion as there obviously can be a brain mechanism correlated?
gjm: I am not clicked, in fact, with simple reasoning you can come to the conclusion that is very unlikely I am, as I am the only one here talking of it, if it such that clicking is similar to Einstein’s beliefs and brings a paradigm casually related to performance. Even if said clickers, some with an immense impact on poverty reduction, know about LessWrong yet don’t bother to post about it. It might be a tell-tale sign why they are not here and the type of pattern-recognition you can do if you take this into account. For example, because of the lack of evidence it might not be worthwhile to pitch.
It’s not as much as turning into better thinkers, I speculate it might increase general intelligence. I take it as an ad hominem. If you want to talk of advertisement, then let’s do so, it is a matter of impact.
So, wait, you’re saying we should try this thing out because it might lead to a mysterious experience that makes us much smarter … and it hasn’t even worked for you? This is even less impressive than the case being made by the typical religious evangelist, who can at least say “I did X and have felt much better ever since”.
With the same reasoning, based on your knowledge and evidence you wouldn’t recommend a drug because it didn’t work for you, even if it seems promising to change the world. I don’t rely on anecdotal evidence to the point where neuroimaging studies and basic reasoning is taken out of consideration and of the world we live in.
If any of these many testimonies are a little true that makes it worth a look for me, without the other reported benefits like intelligence. That someone stopped vaping from one moment to the next, that’s impressive, for example, or if people’s depression, social anxiety or other mental disorder were cured. Someone reporting that their self vanishes as they submit to inductive reasoning is also impressive. When lay in bed there’s no thinking or thoughts unless it’s necessary, they’re in a constant state of flow and so on. No duality.
Or that a games developer stopped procrastinating all together. I can’t simply ignore these ancedotal testimonies.
I am however less impressed with success stories of for example rationality. But for what I’ve read things are very similar and I’ve noticed clicked people with a lot of lack of knowledge in this area. Including myself (not clicker).
It’s important to not destroy the world with your arguments.
No, I’m not saying “if it didn’t work for ingive it can’t be any good”. There are of course other kinds of evidence and many of them are better. It just happens that you don’t have those either, and in the absence of anything resembling objective evidence the usual fallback of the evangelist is their own personal experience—but you don’t have even that.
(You keep talking about neuroimaging studies. Are you claiming that there are neuroimaging studies that show that this “clicking” thing (1) can be achieved by the methods claimed and (2) is beneficial? I’d be awfully surprised if so. I can’t escape the feeling that you are just repeating those words because they sound impressively scientifical and you are hoping your audience will be impressed. There are probably places where that works, but I wouldn’t expect it to be terribly successful around here.)
It’s important to not destroy the world with your arguments.
I haven’t destroyed the world yet. I shall continue trying not to.
No, I’m not saying “if it didn’t work for ingive it can’t be any good”. There are of course other kinds of evidence and many of them are better. It just happens that you don’t have those either, and in the absence of anything resembling objective evidence the usual fallback of the evangelist is their own personal experience—but you don’t have even that.
It sounds so funny to me that you’re comparing me to an evangelist, shall I call you the same? gjm the evangelist preaching he is not religious to something, such as comfort, family or social validation How you feel about it, I feel the same. Regarding the absence of objective evidence, no it’s not a matter of evidence, it’s a matter how much evidence you require. I can give you all the evidence in the world and you’ll still not convert, because it’s subjective. I don’t need more evidence based on my own knowledge and experience, however, that does not rule out the pursuit of evidence or falsifying. Takes time, money, etc. Might as well gather the low hanging fruit and if a few high IQ people convert without adequate proof, it’ll be faster to either falsify or prove depending on themselves.
(You keep talking about neuroimaging studies. Are you claiming that there are neuroimaging studies that show that this “clicking” thing (1) can be achieved by the methods claimed and (2) is beneficial? I’d be awfully surprised if so. I can’t escape the feeling that you are just repeating those words because they sound impressively scientifical and you are hoping your audience will be impressed. There are probably places where that works, but I wouldn’t expect it to be terribly successful around here.)
Indeed I do sir. (1) Unfortunately, it costs a lot to do studies, also neuroimaging. (2) How does neuroimaging tell you whether something is beneficial or not, you can note the correlations of brain activity (or lack thereof)? I would be posting it all over the place if that was the case and everyone would be clicking left and right. Now I just post the exercise all over the place but no one wants to click.
I’m repeating those words because that’s the as-objective-of-a-measurement I think you can get. In the context of my post however, I do not exclude what I know of it when it comes to religion, religious and/or mystical experiences, and especially reward activation and reward systems of abstract concepts in for example the orbitofrontal cortex. When it comes to if it’s worthwhile to try the exercise or not, or discuss it with others. I’m glad you asked. There is a reason why people go to chuch, because they are rewaaarded. Why not be rewarded by positive expected value tasks? (“there is a lack of evidence”) you say. Yet how did churchgoers attach their reward centers to prayer in the first place? Or how does the brain and behavior even work? If you figure that out. You’ll realize pretty soon by emotionally submitting yourself to your true creator, the consistent patterns that bring us about, for example, mathematics, you’ll have what you wanted and you’ll see it everywhere.
It would be intesting to see if it works. I mean, if people from Athene’s circle become youtube celebrities themselves (not just props in his videos) or start winning poker tournaments, that would be evidence for this hypothesis.
But generally, people often have ideas about what “made them the way they are”, and it’s typically something like “positive thinking” or “never giving up”, which is an example of survivor bias, because it ignores the thousands of people who started with same level of positive thinking and not giving up, but didn’t achieve the same results.
What I mean is that “clicking” may be a good description of how Athene feels inside, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the component that makes a difference.
I looked at a few examples, but they seem to be testimonies of people who “clicked” and it made them happy, at least for the time it took them to write the comment. Making people happy is a nice thing, but there are many other ways how to achieve that.
Also, in general, when people try something new that promises to improve their lives, they usually feel happy, regardless of whether that promise is true or not. You would probably get similar testimonies for many self-improvement activities.
The summary is that I don’t want to discourage you from experimenting with something you believe is great; just giving you feedback why the same thing may seem completely unimpressive from outside. The exercise makes (some) people feel really good—that’s nice, but some of us already have other preferred ways to make ourselves feel good. The exercise is also supposed to have other good consequences—and here the evidence feels quite unconvincing to me.
That’s right and they’ve mentioned it is underway (algorithms, remembering pi, etc). So eagerly, over time the clickers can prove the click’s worth if it is. Imagine what an augmentation it is if you do become similar.
I don’t see why there would be such a survivor bias as identity is melted away and they’re doing positive expected value in the present as per inductive reasoning. If playing poker 16 hrs a day is it, then it is so. Seeing experience as a tool rather then a goal probably brings, paradoxically, more to said experience. If there isn’t enough knowledge then seeking that is probably positive expected value. Or exercising. Whatever. There’s always the now anyway. What the supposed click gives you already makes no sense to have this story or survivor bias. You have to see that it’s about your subjective reference frame and if you really care if you failed to achieve the same results.
Yes that is how athene feels, and 15 years ago he mentioned it but it was dismissed ‘common sense’ he called it, he had, but didn’t understand why no one else did. (making sense probably). Of course it might not be the component that makes a difference, then what is it and how do I get it? Why isn’t everyone researching that? (it probably is the component) Like, the more evolved reward system already can attach to an abstract concept like money. So we should be able to change it right? As a society. Not that money doesn’t matter but rather then it being the end, a means to an end. Reward system activation seems a bit more like the goal...
Edit: I don’t see why people having ideas of themselves is anyway related to the objective measurement of result from a 3rd perspective. The evidence is independent of that. You have 1000 people who are clicked, then you see how their results differs from a control group. Regarding subjective experience, the benefits of the click is one of the reasons why the results might differ positively, and said benefits make ‘survivor bias’ story thinking obsolete.
Like you said below, the evidence is unconvincing for everything which is not proven. You’re right but why is it unconvincing. What is driving you? That’s a part of the exercise. You’re typing this out of a drive yet you’re unaware of it. System 1 might say something beautiful and pretty. The exercise is System 2 emotionally. I can only preach what there is unless you’re telling ME to go to work and the immense costs it takes, or the work is independent of my volition (time it takes to learn or train to get some results for the clickers). So here we are arguing that time will tell. What’s stopping us now with the evidence we have. Might it not be what the exercise targets? Are you in a death spiral?
I wonder at that point what’s the problem with submitting to the consistent patterns that bring about reality. Whether it be physics and whatever. Probabilistic rationality becomes your God, so what? It’s not a man in the sky, it’s everything and you’re equally a part of it. It’s not as if you’ll be harmed by such a realization, like Einstein was preaching it. In fact, maybe you’ll be “spiritual but non-religious” in a religious way. 5 Billion people are religious and it does show reward activation. Actually maybe you are religious but you’re unaware to what. You don’t have to give it up you just realize you wanted it all along and ‘upgrade’ your current values.
Viliam, you’ll write articles here on Yudkowsky’s or Yvain’s level. In fact, you’ll surpass them. I give the likelihood 95% if you click. Just copy paste the exercise text go to a cabin in the the beautiful country-side, if you’re worried you’ll be indoctrinated into a cult, and meditate on it. No one’s after you.
Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate it highly.
I understand why it was necessary to turn off downvoting on LW, but there are times when it would be so nice to have it back for a bit.
ingive, if this “clicking” thing is supposed to turn people into better thinkers then I have to say you aren’t being the best possible advertisement for it at the moment.
I meant “Probabilistic rationality becomes your God, so what?”, or inductive reasoning with rationality. (as reality is probabilistic as per one interpretation of QM.).
Mechanisms of religion may be equally in action in self-proclaimed Atheists, but for something which they’re either not aware of or it’s base-rate? Is that not a reasonable conclusion as there obviously can be a brain mechanism correlated?
gjm: I am not clicked, in fact, with simple reasoning you can come to the conclusion that is very unlikely I am, as I am the only one here talking of it, if it such that clicking is similar to Einstein’s beliefs and brings a paradigm casually related to performance. Even if said clickers, some with an immense impact on poverty reduction, know about LessWrong yet don’t bother to post about it. It might be a tell-tale sign why they are not here and the type of pattern-recognition you can do if you take this into account. For example, because of the lack of evidence it might not be worthwhile to pitch.
It’s not as much as turning into better thinkers, I speculate it might increase general intelligence. I take it as an ad hominem. If you want to talk of advertisement, then let’s do so, it is a matter of impact.
So, wait, you’re saying we should try this thing out because it might lead to a mysterious experience that makes us much smarter … and it hasn’t even worked for you? This is even less impressive than the case being made by the typical religious evangelist, who can at least say “I did X and have felt much better ever since”.
With the same reasoning, based on your knowledge and evidence you wouldn’t recommend a drug because it didn’t work for you, even if it seems promising to change the world. I don’t rely on anecdotal evidence to the point where neuroimaging studies and basic reasoning is taken out of consideration and of the world we live in.
If any of these many testimonies are a little true that makes it worth a look for me, without the other reported benefits like intelligence. That someone stopped vaping from one moment to the next, that’s impressive, for example, or if people’s depression, social anxiety or other mental disorder were cured. Someone reporting that their self vanishes as they submit to inductive reasoning is also impressive. When lay in bed there’s no thinking or thoughts unless it’s necessary, they’re in a constant state of flow and so on. No duality.
Or that a games developer stopped procrastinating all together. I can’t simply ignore these ancedotal testimonies.
I am however less impressed with success stories of for example rationality. But for what I’ve read things are very similar and I’ve noticed clicked people with a lot of lack of knowledge in this area. Including myself (not clicker).
It’s important to not destroy the world with your arguments.
No, I’m not saying “if it didn’t work for ingive it can’t be any good”. There are of course other kinds of evidence and many of them are better. It just happens that you don’t have those either, and in the absence of anything resembling objective evidence the usual fallback of the evangelist is their own personal experience—but you don’t have even that.
(You keep talking about neuroimaging studies. Are you claiming that there are neuroimaging studies that show that this “clicking” thing (1) can be achieved by the methods claimed and (2) is beneficial? I’d be awfully surprised if so. I can’t escape the feeling that you are just repeating those words because they sound impressively scientifical and you are hoping your audience will be impressed. There are probably places where that works, but I wouldn’t expect it to be terribly successful around here.)
I haven’t destroyed the world yet. I shall continue trying not to.
It sounds so funny to me that you’re comparing me to an evangelist, shall I call you the same? gjm the evangelist preaching he is not religious to something, such as comfort, family or social validation How you feel about it, I feel the same. Regarding the absence of objective evidence, no it’s not a matter of evidence, it’s a matter how much evidence you require. I can give you all the evidence in the world and you’ll still not convert, because it’s subjective. I don’t need more evidence based on my own knowledge and experience, however, that does not rule out the pursuit of evidence or falsifying. Takes time, money, etc. Might as well gather the low hanging fruit and if a few high IQ people convert without adequate proof, it’ll be faster to either falsify or prove depending on themselves.
Indeed I do sir. (1) Unfortunately, it costs a lot to do studies, also neuroimaging. (2) How does neuroimaging tell you whether something is beneficial or not, you can note the correlations of brain activity (or lack thereof)? I would be posting it all over the place if that was the case and everyone would be clicking left and right. Now I just post the exercise all over the place but no one wants to click.
I’m repeating those words because that’s the as-objective-of-a-measurement I think you can get. In the context of my post however, I do not exclude what I know of it when it comes to religion, religious and/or mystical experiences, and especially reward activation and reward systems of abstract concepts in for example the orbitofrontal cortex. When it comes to if it’s worthwhile to try the exercise or not, or discuss it with others. I’m glad you asked. There is a reason why people go to chuch, because they are rewaaarded. Why not be rewarded by positive expected value tasks? (“there is a lack of evidence”) you say. Yet how did churchgoers attach their reward centers to prayer in the first place? Or how does the brain and behavior even work? If you figure that out. You’ll realize pretty soon by emotionally submitting yourself to your true creator, the consistent patterns that bring us about, for example, mathematics, you’ll have what you wanted and you’ll see it everywhere.