I’m curious about the qualifications to embark on such an experiment, and what makes it different from what everyone who posts in the rationality diaries has already been doing. I mean, for all intents and purposes, I made an effort to live more LW Rationally after reading the sequences, but that’s clearly not what we’re aiming for, here. Also (as I whine about frequently), I’m “poor”/legally blind/living in bible-thumping rural America, but would prefer to improve locally rather than move to, say, the SF Bay area; does any of that disqualify me from volunteering for the experiment?
I do really like the sound of this, though, and I’m hoping something useful (or at minimum entertaining) comes of it.
I don’t have a completely clear idea at this moment—to be honest, I am not even sure if the whole thing is not completely insane—but I imagine a very high commitment to the cause. For example, I am somewhat trying to live rationally, but I keep forgetting some useful things, or I break my rules all the time if I don’t feel like following them, etc. And the idea is that as a volunteer, I would stop making various kinds of excuses, and would give other people more control over my life or express my objections as honestly as I could. For example if other people told me to quit my job and do something else, I would either do it, or would write an explanation of why I am not convinced that this is the rational thing to do. I would respond to all rationality advice (at least by saying “sorry, for some emotional reasons I don’t completely understand, I can’t do this”), instead of merely picking the parts that feel nice and silently ignoring the rest, and even forgetting those nice parts whenever it is convenient.
In other words, I would make an extraordinary effort to live rationally, the whole year. If some things are taboo to me, I would try to declare that in advance (of course I cannot predict everything), to make a difference between something that is unacceptable in long term, and a short-term desire to avoid some inconvenience. I would take risks, when told to, assuming that the given advice is good. Or I would make some clear limits, such as: the money I have now in my bank account I want to remain there untouched during the experiment, and I will not take any debt; but of the money I make during the experiment, you can tell me how to use it. -- Something like the guy who lived one year Biblically did: he also had some limits, e.g. didn’t stone anyone, but otherwise he tried to follow the rules.
Your refusal to move to a different area, even if adviced to, does not disqualify you automatically. If this is your psychological constraint, it’s good to be open about it. On the other hand, if such constraint would make the members of the hive-mind so disappointed that they refuse to provide you support within these limits, that could disqualify you. (Or they may just decide to use their limited resources on someone with less constraints.) But if we communicate this all in advance, we minimize the risk of disappointment during the experiment; everyone either agrees on the same rules, or does not participate. If the hive-mind knows about your constraints in advance, they have no right to complain later.
EDIT: After reading what I wrote… seems like I’m equating “living rationally” and “obeying the LW hive-mind”, which technically are two different things. The idea behind this is that there is only one rationality, there is no “my rationality” and “your rationality” (there may be different values, though). I usually behave irrationally when I am under control of my impulses, because at that moment, they are all I see. Replacing these impulses with outside control should improve things. And the communication would make my thoughts more explicit, which also should help.
EDIT2: I believe it will be entertaining. It will be like a reality show (which is something humans love to watch, even if they are ashamed to admit it), only instead of stupid people doing pointless things there will be smart people doing potentially awesome things. Humans love stories. Humans love being a part of story.
Something like the guy who lived one year Biblically did: he also had some limits, e.g. didn’t stone anyone, but otherwise he tried to follow the rules.
He didn’t stone anybody to death but he still did through some pebble at other people to at least sort of follow the guideline.
I’m curious about the qualifications to embark on such an experiment, and what makes it different from what everyone who posts in the rationality diaries has already been doing. I mean, for all intents and purposes, I made an effort to live more LW Rationally after reading the sequences, but that’s clearly not what we’re aiming for, here. Also (as I whine about frequently), I’m “poor”/legally blind/living in bible-thumping rural America, but would prefer to improve locally rather than move to, say, the SF Bay area; does any of that disqualify me from volunteering for the experiment?
I do really like the sound of this, though, and I’m hoping something useful (or at minimum entertaining) comes of it.
I don’t have a completely clear idea at this moment—to be honest, I am not even sure if the whole thing is not completely insane—but I imagine a very high commitment to the cause. For example, I am somewhat trying to live rationally, but I keep forgetting some useful things, or I break my rules all the time if I don’t feel like following them, etc. And the idea is that as a volunteer, I would stop making various kinds of excuses, and would give other people more control over my life or express my objections as honestly as I could. For example if other people told me to quit my job and do something else, I would either do it, or would write an explanation of why I am not convinced that this is the rational thing to do. I would respond to all rationality advice (at least by saying “sorry, for some emotional reasons I don’t completely understand, I can’t do this”), instead of merely picking the parts that feel nice and silently ignoring the rest, and even forgetting those nice parts whenever it is convenient.
In other words, I would make an extraordinary effort to live rationally, the whole year. If some things are taboo to me, I would try to declare that in advance (of course I cannot predict everything), to make a difference between something that is unacceptable in long term, and a short-term desire to avoid some inconvenience. I would take risks, when told to, assuming that the given advice is good. Or I would make some clear limits, such as: the money I have now in my bank account I want to remain there untouched during the experiment, and I will not take any debt; but of the money I make during the experiment, you can tell me how to use it. -- Something like the guy who lived one year Biblically did: he also had some limits, e.g. didn’t stone anyone, but otherwise he tried to follow the rules.
Your refusal to move to a different area, even if adviced to, does not disqualify you automatically. If this is your psychological constraint, it’s good to be open about it. On the other hand, if such constraint would make the members of the hive-mind so disappointed that they refuse to provide you support within these limits, that could disqualify you. (Or they may just decide to use their limited resources on someone with less constraints.) But if we communicate this all in advance, we minimize the risk of disappointment during the experiment; everyone either agrees on the same rules, or does not participate. If the hive-mind knows about your constraints in advance, they have no right to complain later.
EDIT: After reading what I wrote… seems like I’m equating “living rationally” and “obeying the LW hive-mind”, which technically are two different things. The idea behind this is that there is only one rationality, there is no “my rationality” and “your rationality” (there may be different values, though). I usually behave irrationally when I am under control of my impulses, because at that moment, they are all I see. Replacing these impulses with outside control should improve things. And the communication would make my thoughts more explicit, which also should help.
EDIT2: I believe it will be entertaining. It will be like a reality show (which is something humans love to watch, even if they are ashamed to admit it), only instead of stupid people doing pointless things there will be smart people doing potentially awesome things. Humans love stories. Humans love being a part of story.
He didn’t stone anybody to death but he still did through some pebble at other people to at least sort of follow the guideline.