Even for people familiar with the big idea, there may be some new previously unknown details, such as that TAP can actually harm some people (and which ones specifically).
Also, it’s worth repeating the basics. Sometimes people chase new epiphanies when they should apply the 80⁄20 rule instead. The upvotes may express the feeling that having the basics written well, and bringing them back to attention is useful.
But… yeah, even this article could be considered “yet another epiphany”, unless people will actually use it in their lives. And we have no evidence that someone actually used it; only that many people liked seeing it.
I wonder how much would it take to bring this to more productive level; to actually make people use the stuff. For example, if the article at the end would repeat a specific sequence of steps people are supposed to take, and then encouraged people to post the results in top-level comments below the article.
EDIT:
So, here are a few examples for myself:
When I get to my job, I order a vegetable-based lunch.
When my child goes to sleep, I start exercising. (Specifically, the first step is that I bring a cup of water from kitchen, and open my exercise log.)
But it is also interesting to see some of my bad habits as a kind of TAPs installed by a malicious agent in my brain:
When I turn on the computer, I start the web browser and go to Facebook.
When I am sitting at the computer, and not sure what to do next, I also look at LessWrong and Reddit.
When I enter the kitchen, I look at the place where cookies are usually stored, and take one.
But… yeah, even this article could be considered “yet another epiphany”, unless people will actually use it in their lives. And we have no evidence that someone actually used it; only that many people liked seeing it.
I wonder how much would it take to bring this to more productive level; to actually make people use the stuff.
Real-life workshops and study groups. :-)
I’m not even kidding here. This is basically the reason for why you didn’t get a writeup of this from CFAR earlier: actually teaching the stuff in person is so much more effective in getting people to use it than just explaining it online is.
Even for people familiar with the big idea, there may be some new previously unknown details, such as that TAP can actually harm some people (and which ones specifically).
Also, it’s worth repeating the basics. Sometimes people chase new epiphanies when they should apply the 80⁄20 rule instead. The upvotes may express the feeling that having the basics written well, and bringing them back to attention is useful.
But… yeah, even this article could be considered “yet another epiphany”, unless people will actually use it in their lives. And we have no evidence that someone actually used it; only that many people liked seeing it.
I wonder how much would it take to bring this to more productive level; to actually make people use the stuff. For example, if the article at the end would repeat a specific sequence of steps people are supposed to take, and then encouraged people to post the results in top-level comments below the article.
EDIT:
So, here are a few examples for myself:
When I get to my job, I order a vegetable-based lunch.
When my child goes to sleep, I start exercising. (Specifically, the first step is that I bring a cup of water from kitchen, and open my exercise log.)
But it is also interesting to see some of my bad habits as a kind of TAPs installed by a malicious agent in my brain:
When I turn on the computer, I start the web browser and go to Facebook.
When I am sitting at the computer, and not sure what to do next, I also look at LessWrong and Reddit.
When I enter the kitchen, I look at the place where cookies are usually stored, and take one.
Real-life workshops and study groups. :-)
I’m not even kidding here. This is basically the reason for why you didn’t get a writeup of this from CFAR earlier: actually teaching the stuff in person is so much more effective in getting people to use it than just explaining it online is.