To take patrissimo’s arguments on what makes something useful for self-improvement:
patrissimo says,
My version: Growth activities are Work, and hence feel like work, not fun”
I call foul. He tries to claim he’s not being puritan, and not saying that growth is never fun, but then proceeds to dismiss fun in that “all use you could get out of it, you’ve probably already gotten.” In essence stating that fun activities only helped you grow in the past, and to move towards the future, you have to be not-fun.
He also compares the experience of improving Instrumental Rationality with going to the gym. I suggest he misrepresents going to the gym. Going to the gym is fun. Or at least, it is fun for a lot of people. You engage in physical activity that stimulates endorphin flow, you watch TV, you engage in social behavior, and when you’re done, you’re left feeling relaxed and accomplished both. People do not just go to the gym to try to lose weight and enter hating the gym—there are people who are strongly in shape who go to the gym because they enjoy working out, they enjoy the physical stimulation and the social environment.
To that end, patrissimo sounds a little like one of the trainers at the gym walking into the weight room, watching people laugh and joke with each other while lifting weights or spotting each other, and remarking that they’re obviously not exercising hard enough if they’re having fun, and they need to figure out how to work harder.
He also says:
Meditation is a great example of an instrumental rationality practice: it is a boring, difficult isolation exercise for directing and noticing the direction of one’s attention. It is Work.”
And I greatly disagree with this. I find meditation to be satisfying and contenting, I find it to be helpful, and fun. If you are finding it boring, you are probably doing it wrong, or it is inappropriate for you.
Quite the opposite to the suggestion—while not an indicator, certainly, I think the most important aspects of a useful tool for self-improvement is that it IS fun. Things which are not fun are not attended to easily on a regular basis—if we try to force ourselves to do them anyway, then we are working against our basic nature. Proper self-control is not about stoically proceeding with unfun activities because it’s in our best nature. Proper self-control is about refocusing our attention upon activities to recognize where they could be fun, or coming up with alternate activities which can achieve the same result which would be more enjoyable.
For example, everyone knows it’s better to take the stairs than the escalator—but when you get right down to it, most people take the escalator anyway. However, if you add sensors and speakers to the stairs, so that taking the stairs creates musical reactions—turning the stairs into a giant walking piano—suddenly more people take the stairs, because the useful and beneficial activity has just become more fun. By taking a not-fun activity and turning it into a fun activity, you just made it a better tool.
For another example—exercise can, indeed, be boring. However, if you make your daily workout an exercise bike, and only allow yourself to play video games while you’re on the exercise bike—then your video game exercise time becomes fun, and productive. What’s more, you limit your video game time to your exercise time, helping prevent it from taking over your evening, so that when you get tired and achy, you walk away from the bike and the games, to go do more productive activities.
Goals are not about specific activities, but instead, specific results, and determining from those results—what are the best activities you can follow to achieve said results? And one of the qualities that you should use in judging those activities is: How easy will it be for me to repeat that activity on a regular basis?
So to example the six items:
1: I disagree with strongly, as explained above
2: I disagree with strongly, as explained above
3: Is relevant to the skill being developed.
Less Wrong is certainly relevant to the skills of improved rationality—whether it is relevant to the skill of improved Instrumental Rationality is really presupposing the result of the discussion.
4: Is not simply watching the skill being performed.
5: Requires effort and attention from the learner.
Some levels of using Less Wrong are nothing more than ‘watching the skill being performed’. However, if you use Less Wrong properly, then the discussions or pursuing the research potentials of the site becomes ‘performing the skill’. The very nature of being aware of it and trying to develop methods for yourself is a performance of the skill, even if the level of that skill is apprentice-level.
6: Often involves activities selected by a coach or teacher to facilitate learning.
IE: the sequences?
At any rate, I won’t dispute that perhaps the site of Less Wrong is not goal-oriented towards patrissimo’s own goals… but that does not mean it is not goal-oriented towards helping others develop their goals, nor in improving instrumental rationality. It just depends on how you use it and what your goals are.
But now you’re just the crab trying to pull me back into the pot
Not at all. You are stating that you want to figure out how to improve the successes of the members of Less Wrong—but I think that tearing down the usefullness of Less Wrong, or decrying the having of fun as being opposed to development, is counterproductive to your goals. I know very well the phenomenon you speak of, and the basic nature of Less Wrong as a site is not likely the culprit—having fun is not the culprit, and the social activity of discussion over a myriad of subjects is not the culprit. Rather, simple human behavior is the culprit.
If you wish to improve people’s Instrumental Rationality through Less Wrong, I would suggest that instead of writing an article about the problems of Less Wrong—you instead write an article containing your item #6: activities to facilitate learning. How can people use Less Wrong, in its current state, to improve their Instrumental Rationality? How can they use it to:
1: Identify their goals. How do they distinguish between ‘goals’ and ‘activities’? How can they distinguish between good goals and bad goals? What literature is available for developing goals?
2: Set up plans for achieving their goals, and what skills will be needed for achieving goals.
3: Identify and avoid common problems in achieving their goals.
4: Practice the skills they need to achieve their goals.
Instead of saying Less Wrong is a ‘bad tool’, tell people how to use it better … or ‘less wrongly’.
Continuing other comment:
To take patrissimo’s arguments on what makes something useful for self-improvement:
patrissimo says,
I call foul. He tries to claim he’s not being puritan, and not saying that growth is never fun, but then proceeds to dismiss fun in that “all use you could get out of it, you’ve probably already gotten.” In essence stating that fun activities only helped you grow in the past, and to move towards the future, you have to be not-fun.
He also compares the experience of improving Instrumental Rationality with going to the gym. I suggest he misrepresents going to the gym. Going to the gym is fun. Or at least, it is fun for a lot of people. You engage in physical activity that stimulates endorphin flow, you watch TV, you engage in social behavior, and when you’re done, you’re left feeling relaxed and accomplished both. People do not just go to the gym to try to lose weight and enter hating the gym—there are people who are strongly in shape who go to the gym because they enjoy working out, they enjoy the physical stimulation and the social environment.
To that end, patrissimo sounds a little like one of the trainers at the gym walking into the weight room, watching people laugh and joke with each other while lifting weights or spotting each other, and remarking that they’re obviously not exercising hard enough if they’re having fun, and they need to figure out how to work harder.
He also says:
And I greatly disagree with this. I find meditation to be satisfying and contenting, I find it to be helpful, and fun. If you are finding it boring, you are probably doing it wrong, or it is inappropriate for you.
Quite the opposite to the suggestion—while not an indicator, certainly, I think the most important aspects of a useful tool for self-improvement is that it IS fun. Things which are not fun are not attended to easily on a regular basis—if we try to force ourselves to do them anyway, then we are working against our basic nature. Proper self-control is not about stoically proceeding with unfun activities because it’s in our best nature. Proper self-control is about refocusing our attention upon activities to recognize where they could be fun, or coming up with alternate activities which can achieve the same result which would be more enjoyable.
For example, everyone knows it’s better to take the stairs than the escalator—but when you get right down to it, most people take the escalator anyway. However, if you add sensors and speakers to the stairs, so that taking the stairs creates musical reactions—turning the stairs into a giant walking piano—suddenly more people take the stairs, because the useful and beneficial activity has just become more fun. By taking a not-fun activity and turning it into a fun activity, you just made it a better tool.
For another example—exercise can, indeed, be boring. However, if you make your daily workout an exercise bike, and only allow yourself to play video games while you’re on the exercise bike—then your video game exercise time becomes fun, and productive. What’s more, you limit your video game time to your exercise time, helping prevent it from taking over your evening, so that when you get tired and achy, you walk away from the bike and the games, to go do more productive activities.
Goals are not about specific activities, but instead, specific results, and determining from those results—what are the best activities you can follow to achieve said results? And one of the qualities that you should use in judging those activities is: How easy will it be for me to repeat that activity on a regular basis?
So to example the six items:
1: I disagree with strongly, as explained above 2: I disagree with strongly, as explained above 3: Is relevant to the skill being developed.
Less Wrong is certainly relevant to the skills of improved rationality—whether it is relevant to the skill of improved Instrumental Rationality is really presupposing the result of the discussion.
4: Is not simply watching the skill being performed. 5: Requires effort and attention from the learner.
Some levels of using Less Wrong are nothing more than ‘watching the skill being performed’. However, if you use Less Wrong properly, then the discussions or pursuing the research potentials of the site becomes ‘performing the skill’. The very nature of being aware of it and trying to develop methods for yourself is a performance of the skill, even if the level of that skill is apprentice-level.
6: Often involves activities selected by a coach or teacher to facilitate learning.
IE: the sequences?
At any rate, I won’t dispute that perhaps the site of Less Wrong is not goal-oriented towards patrissimo’s own goals… but that does not mean it is not goal-oriented towards helping others develop their goals, nor in improving instrumental rationality. It just depends on how you use it and what your goals are.
But now you’re just the crab trying to pull me back into the pot
Not at all. You are stating that you want to figure out how to improve the successes of the members of Less Wrong—but I think that tearing down the usefullness of Less Wrong, or decrying the having of fun as being opposed to development, is counterproductive to your goals. I know very well the phenomenon you speak of, and the basic nature of Less Wrong as a site is not likely the culprit—having fun is not the culprit, and the social activity of discussion over a myriad of subjects is not the culprit. Rather, simple human behavior is the culprit.
If you wish to improve people’s Instrumental Rationality through Less Wrong, I would suggest that instead of writing an article about the problems of Less Wrong—you instead write an article containing your item #6: activities to facilitate learning. How can people use Less Wrong, in its current state, to improve their Instrumental Rationality? How can they use it to:
1: Identify their goals. How do they distinguish between ‘goals’ and ‘activities’? How can they distinguish between good goals and bad goals? What literature is available for developing goals? 2: Set up plans for achieving their goals, and what skills will be needed for achieving goals. 3: Identify and avoid common problems in achieving their goals. 4: Practice the skills they need to achieve their goals.
Instead of saying Less Wrong is a ‘bad tool’, tell people how to use it better … or ‘less wrongly’.