So I’m attempting to adopt practices that will bring me closer to generally strategic behavior. I am also interested specifically in strategic/efficient studying. To that end I would like as much of an info dump as possible on the topic on failure.
This can include avoiding failure, preparing for failure even when avoiding it, how to notice when you are failing, and perhaps how to fail gracefully (as possible). I realize there is overlap/confusion here; I was simply rattling of primers for you to consider.
Please err on the side of inclusivity. I am not starting from a state of complete ignorance (the sequences can be turned towards my concerns handily), but best be safe.
Thank you for your help! :)
Edited for clarification, I hope.
Also for starts: What sorts of questions could someone ask to learn the most about failure?
I spent a long time coming up with theories about how I work and why, and it was a great waste of time. I now find it a lot more reliable to base my actions on generalizations about most or all humans, rather than coming up with idiosyncratic theories about myself. Idiosyncratic theories are likely to be based in introspection, which is notoriously unreliable and which humans are known for systematically overvaluing. (See introspection illusion.) I’ve found that a good rule of thumb is: Don’t use an idiosyncratic theory unless you also would’ve generated that theory about someone else by observing their current behavior and having knowledge of their past behavior. And even when idiosyncratic theories seem to work, they more likely work because they’re also explainable using the aforementioned generalizations.
There’s still no question in the original post. Questions are quite useful for exploring a new topic of interest.
You might get some answers by getting seeking an info dumb but a concrete question would likely produce better discussion. It would also help you focus yourself.
I like this prompt, and it so happens I have a proper response that fits.
I’ve seen people talk of noticing failure, but thankfully it having been a gentle one, they managed to make something of it. Sometimes people speak or write as if their may be some underlying method to be mined away from luck.
While planning actions, is it a good heuristic to attempt action so as a fall would not break legs, so to speak?
Well look at that you’ve helped me dissolve a question into a form that has an obvious answer. This is both nice (less clutter), and partly the reason I was asking for a dump. I’m trying to stumble across gaps in my understanding, not necessarily tangles (although again, thank you).
I suppose I expect to de-tangle my knowledge of this subject as I review anything possibly relevant. I just thought to ask here in conjunction with said review.
I’m trying to be as comprehensive as possible, which means I should ask the obvious first. Is the question now posed in the main post a respectable start?
Is the question now posed in the main post a respectable start?
The post as it now stands needs some serious proofreading.
What sorts of questions could someone ask to learn the most about failure?
LessWrong is likely to focus on cognitive biases, and this is a good place to start. I assume that you have already read some on the subject, but if not, we have a lot on site, and there are some good books—for example, The Invisible Gorilla and Mistakes Were Made. Everyone will have a different list of recommended reading, but I don’t know if that is the sort of info dump you are looking for.
I think that your question may be too general. Being more specific will almost surely give you more useful responses.
I suspect that your best bet would be to notice specific sub-optimal outcomes in your life, and then ask knowledgeable people (which may include us) for thoughts and information. If you have access to a trustworthy person who will give honest and detailed feedback, you might ask them to observe you in completing some process (or better, multiple processes) and take notes on any thoughts they have regarding your actions—things you do differently, things you do wrong, things that you do slower than most people, etc. They will probably notice some things that you do not. They may not know how to help you change, but that doesn’t make their information any less valuable.
Thank you for the feedback. This was a surprisingly useful line of interaction.
The first thing it did was make me remember that inferential gaps take caution at the very least to cross. Another way I failed was in not carrying out my empathetic modules of people far enough; I knew people would realize what I was after was large and vague, but then trailed off into assuming people would actually want to rattle off in some randomly chosen direction available to them. Taken on iota more of a step and I can feel how annoying such a prompt is.
And then I recalled something about A.I. safety; something along the lines of not being able to specify all the ways we don’t want an AI (genie?) to act; the nature of value or goal specification is too exclusive to approach from that direction efficiently. Reflection to see if I can be coherent about his will have to happen later.
As of this moment (2 am) it is unattractive to see if I am on to something or not. Thank you once more for the feedback. It feels like I’ve gained valuable responses.
So I’m attempting to adopt practices that will bring me closer to generally strategic behavior. I am also interested specifically in strategic/efficient studying. To that end I would like as much of an info dump as possible on the topic on failure.
This can include avoiding failure, preparing for failure even when avoiding it, how to notice when you are failing, and perhaps how to fail gracefully (as possible). I realize there is overlap/confusion here; I was simply rattling of primers for you to consider.
Please err on the side of inclusivity. I am not starting from a state of complete ignorance (the sequences can be turned towards my concerns handily), but best be safe.
Thank you for your help! :)
Edited for clarification, I hope.
Also for starts: What sorts of questions could someone ask to learn the most about failure?
I spent a long time coming up with theories about how I work and why, and it was a great waste of time. I now find it a lot more reliable to base my actions on generalizations about most or all humans, rather than coming up with idiosyncratic theories about myself. Idiosyncratic theories are likely to be based in introspection, which is notoriously unreliable and which humans are known for systematically overvaluing. (See introspection illusion.) I’ve found that a good rule of thumb is: Don’t use an idiosyncratic theory unless you also would’ve generated that theory about someone else by observing their current behavior and having knowledge of their past behavior. And even when idiosyncratic theories seem to work, they more likely work because they’re also explainable using the aforementioned generalizations.
This was a very useful topic to bring to the conversation, but I think I may have framed what I had in mind poorly. Did the edit clarify?
Your post contains no question at the moment. Specifying questions is useful for having discussions.
Thank you for pointing out my error. Did my editing clear up said issue?
There’s still no question in the original post. Questions are quite useful for exploring a new topic of interest. You might get some answers by getting seeking an info dumb but a concrete question would likely produce better discussion. It would also help you focus yourself.
I like this prompt, and it so happens I have a proper response that fits.
I’ve seen people talk of noticing failure, but thankfully it having been a gentle one, they managed to make something of it. Sometimes people speak or write as if their may be some underlying method to be mined away from luck.
While planning actions, is it a good heuristic to attempt action so as a fall would not break legs, so to speak?
Well look at that you’ve helped me dissolve a question into a form that has an obvious answer. This is both nice (less clutter), and partly the reason I was asking for a dump. I’m trying to stumble across gaps in my understanding, not necessarily tangles (although again, thank you).
I suppose I expect to de-tangle my knowledge of this subject as I review anything possibly relevant. I just thought to ask here in conjunction with said review.
I’m trying to be as comprehensive as possible, which means I should ask the obvious first. Is the question now posed in the main post a respectable start?
The post as it now stands needs some serious proofreading.
LessWrong is likely to focus on cognitive biases, and this is a good place to start. I assume that you have already read some on the subject, but if not, we have a lot on site, and there are some good books—for example, The Invisible Gorilla and Mistakes Were Made. Everyone will have a different list of recommended reading, but I don’t know if that is the sort of info dump you are looking for.
I think that your question may be too general. Being more specific will almost surely give you more useful responses.
I suspect that your best bet would be to notice specific sub-optimal outcomes in your life, and then ask knowledgeable people (which may include us) for thoughts and information. If you have access to a trustworthy person who will give honest and detailed feedback, you might ask them to observe you in completing some process (or better, multiple processes) and take notes on any thoughts they have regarding your actions—things you do differently, things you do wrong, things that you do slower than most people, etc. They will probably notice some things that you do not. They may not know how to help you change, but that doesn’t make their information any less valuable.
Thank you for the feedback. This was a surprisingly useful line of interaction.
The first thing it did was make me remember that inferential gaps take caution at the very least to cross. Another way I failed was in not carrying out my empathetic modules of people far enough; I knew people would realize what I was after was large and vague, but then trailed off into assuming people would actually want to rattle off in some randomly chosen direction available to them. Taken on iota more of a step and I can feel how annoying such a prompt is.
And then I recalled something about A.I. safety; something along the lines of not being able to specify all the ways we don’t want an AI (genie?) to act; the nature of value or goal specification is too exclusive to approach from that direction efficiently. Reflection to see if I can be coherent about his will have to happen later.
As of this moment (2 am) it is unattractive to see if I am on to something or not. Thank you once more for the feedback. It feels like I’ve gained valuable responses.