If you judge your social media usage by whether the average post you read is good or bad, you are missing half of the picture. The rapid context switching incurs an invisible cost even if the interaction itself is positive, as does the fact that you expect to be interrupted. “[T]he knowledge that interruptions could come at every time will change your mental state”, as Elizabeth puts it.
This is the main object-level message of this post, and I don’t have any qualms with it. It’s very similar to what Sam Harris talks about a lot (e.g., here), and it seems to have a solid grounding in the literature. The post also offers practical advice (how to maintain a healthy mindset without giving up on social media). And it’s a nuanced take altogether; part of the premise is that past Elizabeth correctly identified many anti-social media takes as bad, but bad arguments for a claim don’t mean the claim has no merit. It’s very LessWrong.
And my honest guess is that what most people actually take away from this post has nothing to do with any of the above.
People read the sequences, and they got whatever they got out of them, but a LOT of what people picked up on was the “vibe”.
Personally, I remember well how I felt when I first read the sequences (right after hpmor). Eliezer verbalized all these ideas that I felt like I could have written up as well, and while that was a pretty naive reaction, it was feeling—the vibe—that mattered. It gave me the sense that so much was possible if I just tried. It made me realize that you could try. It made me feel kinship. A sense of purpose. And many other things.
Some say it’s only about the vibes; I’ve had enough debates with people who don’t understand Kolmogorov Complexity to know that’s not true. But the vibes are a big part of it; perhaps most of it. And the same is true for this post, so let’s talk about that.
In discussing her social media usage, it becomes readily apparent that Elizabeth’s life is highly optimized. Most people haven’t put as much thought into their social media usage, and they certainly haven’t taken as many actions based on rational considerations. As Anna Salomon put it twelve years ago, we “mostly just do things”. People on LessWrong are better at this than people in general, but not nearly enough to make the picture painted here seem normal.
And it’s not just the what but also the how. Elizabeth’s writing style projects a sense of extreme confidence. The fact that there is zero boasting is part of it; you get the sense that she isn’t trying to be confident, it just comes naturally. Everything feels authentic, yet also precise, purposeful, directed.
If we take it all together, what does the post do? Does it inspire or intimidate? Honestly, I don’t know. I mean, both, of course, but as for the net effect, I have no idea. And I’m not even going to describe my own reaction because I know I’m way more status sensitive than the average LessWrong reader and hence not representative. I just think it is very silly to judge this post while talking only about the object level. It’s often silly to see people pretend the emotional angle doesn’t exist while it obviously affects their commenting and voting behavior, but it’s especially silly here, where the emotional angle is so powerful, on a post about personal habits.
So when voting for the 2021 Review, the question you should ask is not “does the post give good advise?” It’s not even “is this post useful?” The right question is, “did this post inspire positive change in my life?” Judge the effects, not the quality.
If you judge your social media usage by whether the average post you read is good or bad, you are missing half of the picture. The rapid context switching incurs an invisible cost even if the interaction itself is positive, as does the fact that you expect to be interrupted. “[T]he knowledge that interruptions could come at every time will change your mental state”, as Elizabeth puts it.
This is the main object-level message of this post, and I don’t have any qualms with it. It’s very similar to what Sam Harris talks about a lot (e.g., here), and it seems to have a solid grounding in the literature. The post also offers practical advice (how to maintain a healthy mindset without giving up on social media). And it’s a nuanced take altogether; part of the premise is that past Elizabeth correctly identified many anti-social media takes as bad, but bad arguments for a claim don’t mean the claim has no merit. It’s very LessWrong.
And my honest guess is that what most people actually take away from this post has nothing to do with any of the above.
About a year ago, Eli Tyre tweeted the following (which is also on LessWrong):
Personally, I remember well how I felt when I first read the sequences (right after hpmor). Eliezer verbalized all these ideas that I felt like I could have written up as well, and while that was a pretty naive reaction, it was feeling—the vibe—that mattered. It gave me the sense that so much was possible if I just tried. It made me realize that you could try. It made me feel kinship. A sense of purpose. And many other things.
Some say it’s only about the vibes; I’ve had enough debates with people who don’t understand Kolmogorov Complexity to know that’s not true. But the vibes are a big part of it; perhaps most of it. And the same is true for this post, so let’s talk about that.
In discussing her social media usage, it becomes readily apparent that Elizabeth’s life is highly optimized. Most people haven’t put as much thought into their social media usage, and they certainly haven’t taken as many actions based on rational considerations. As Anna Salomon put it twelve years ago, we “mostly just do things”. People on LessWrong are better at this than people in general, but not nearly enough to make the picture painted here seem normal.
And it’s not just the what but also the how. Elizabeth’s writing style projects a sense of extreme confidence. The fact that there is zero boasting is part of it; you get the sense that she isn’t trying to be confident, it just comes naturally. Everything feels authentic, yet also precise, purposeful, directed.
If we take it all together, what does the post do? Does it inspire or intimidate? Honestly, I don’t know. I mean, both, of course, but as for the net effect, I have no idea. And I’m not even going to describe my own reaction because I know I’m way more status sensitive than the average LessWrong reader and hence not representative. I just think it is very silly to judge this post while talking only about the object level. It’s often silly to see people pretend the emotional angle doesn’t exist while it obviously affects their commenting and voting behavior, but it’s especially silly here, where the emotional angle is so powerful, on a post about personal habits.
So when voting for the 2021 Review, the question you should ask is not “does the post give good advise?” It’s not even “is this post useful?” The right question is, “did this post inspire positive change in my life?” Judge the effects, not the quality.