Delayed Solutions Game
This is a thread to practice holding off on proposing solutions.
Rules:
Post your dilemma (i.e. problem, question, situation, etc.) as a top-level comment. You can always come back to edit this.
For the next 24 hours, replies in that thread can discuss only aspects of the problem, no solutions. (If something sounds too much like a solution, it gets downvoted.)
After the 24 hours have passed from the start of the thread, solutions may be proposed therein.
Note: Timezones for comments are in GMT (e.g. London), so you may need to use this to determine when 24 hours have passed in your local timezone.
I have a lot of disposable income. I also have inexpensive tastes. The two facts are not entirely unrelated.
I would like to signal my wealthy status in such a way that it’s apparent to people I meet without adopting genuine expensive tastes which I see as wasteful. Also, y’know, subtly, so I don’t look like an arse. Polishing a monocle with a £50 note is right out.
It would help to know why you want to signal your wealthy status- because if it’s something like “have better success while asking people out” the answers are very different than if it’s “be treated better normally.”
I haven’t really thought about it in terms of specific achievements I’d like to make, but more as an untapped resource. I actually find the idea of signaling wealth a little gauche and kind of distasteful, but I’m convinced there are some gains to be made with it somewhere.
This is a really important thing to think about. Remember, decisions are specializations. If you are financially autonomous and devote your excess to savings or investments or charity or status signaling, then each of those will point you in a different direction when it comes to hobbies/mates/friends/family/acquaintances.
There are two main forces I would keep in mind: the first is of water to find its level, and the second is of salmon to jump upstream. It is generally better to hang out with richer people than poorer people, but while signaling wealth makes you more attractive to others it doesn’t discriminate- you’re also more likely to get people approaching you because of your wealth. And so the question I would ask is, “who do you want to respect you, and what do they respect?”
One answer (this breaks the solution rule, but oh well) for pretty much everyone is “good grooming”- and so getting regular haircuts, showering frequently, attending to your nails, and so on will be a general resource. But beyond that, fashion is strikingly subjective- I personally love how suits and ties and such look, but am likely to go into a field where those are actually a handicap (The word “suit” does not have positive connotations at startups).
Good point that decisions are specializations.
Another way of looking at it is that making up your mind (on a matter you have control over) eliminates a wide range of future universes wherein you would make different decisions. You’ve picked a leg in the trousers of time, so to speak. The negative aspect of making decisions prematurely can thus be noticed as the accidental elimination of positive futures from your timeline.
It does seem like being perceived as a fellow rich person might give you more influence with other wealthy people, i.e. your opinions could seem more worth paying attention to on that basis. That might be useful for a variety of reasons, especially if you have a high rationality level.
Hmm… One way to approach this would be, instead of looking for examples of people trying to signal, try to get inside the heads of your target impressee. What would really, genuinely impress the sort of person you’re trying to impress? What would impress you?
I imagine, for example, that someone who knows a lot about wine, or is conversant in the pros and cons of the driver experience in luxury cars, is clearly signalling a lot of leisure time and resources to pursue the habit, and I’d be more impressed by that person than by someone who simply brags about the expensive car or wine they just bought. Of course, that kind of approach may work on a limited range of people; you’d want to pick a domain that your impressees know enough about to recognize a real connoisseur.
What would impress me is someone more interested in personal development than signaling their status with wasteful expenditure and needless material goods. :-)
This also works on a sadly limited number of people.
I’m pretty sure there are expensive types of personal development; even expensive types of personal development that aren’t “wasteful” if you don’t want to count pure signaling as something worth paying for.
So another way of thinking about the problem would be “what high status training could I simply buy?” This has the added bonus of circumventing the money awkwardness at the operational end.
I don’t know why, but I find the idea very funny and worth trying.
Signaling your wealth is likely to be socially advantageous, but may also bring with it the expectation that you will spend your money freely, which you would consider wasteful. Is it possible, even, that the status boost you are seeking is associated more with spending money than with having money?
I think you’ve kind of hit the nail on the head with that. Most signals of wealth are about showing how wasteful you can afford to be, rather than how much you can achieve with what you’ve got.
I’m not against all expensive spending habits, because they’re not equally wasteful. I’m curious as to whether there are any obvious spending habits I could adopt which would get me a disproportionate status-bang for my buck. At the moment, for example, I don’t scrimp on formal wear. Any situation in which I’m wearing a suit will be a situation where I want to look like I’m wearing an expensive suit.
Perhaps you could find a different problem that solves this one incidentally—i.e. since spending the money non-wastefully is important to you, you could brainstorm ways to non-wastefully spend your money, and then sort them by how much you can use them to demonstrate high status.
Here’s one way to phrase the question:
What can I purchase which is in fact inexpensive, yet gives the impression of being, or is commonly thought to be, very expensive?
It seems plausible that the list of expensive-seeming things and the list of fairly inexpensive things might have some points in common. The main question would be how to figure out what they are, and which ones actually suit your taste.
I don’t think that’s an accurate rephrasing of the question, to be honest.
One-off expensive purchases tend to be considerably cheaper than repeat-purchase habits which add up over time. If there were a select number of individual prestigious and genuinely expensive purchases I could make, that’d be ideal.
A flashy wardrobe would be an expensive one-off purchase. A flashy car would be a purchase I’d have to keep paying for in upkeep.
Sounds like my attempt to be specific backfired. Inexpensive is probably a misleading term for the context—you really want protection from unwise habits and ongoing costs, i.e. expenses that are higher than they seem and non-obvious. Ultimately it seems like the wardrobe gives more status per dollar than the car. I wonder if something like a really nice bike would be good?
This is the key. sixes and sevens, what you buy should be the good stuff, of whatever it is. Not profligate, but putting in the effort to obtain quality. Basically, develop taste in everything.
Good correction. Inexpensive is a misleading word to describe what is being looked for. The wardrobe is expensive but not in as dangerous of a sense as a car. Would you say the car example is more dangerous because of ongoing maintenance costs or because of the habits it would be likely to change?
This sounds like it would require lots of delving into signalling literature. The prospect mildly excites me.
I can’t decide what to eat for breakfast.
What goals do you have your breakfast fulfilling? Inexpensive? Weight gain/loss? Taste?
Does the type/kind of breakfast have a larger or smaller impact your later mental state?
I think that actually thinking about breakfast for a little time would actually prove beneficial depending on your goals. I don’t think you’ll require a large amount of time, but you can spend a few minutes thinking about it. Those few minutes could have net positive or negative impact on your future self that day.
edit moved, originally posted it as a top level comment and not as a reply. Sorry
Have you considered making a FAI on a computer that includes a cereal port?
Simplified nutrition problems are usually given for examples of constrained optimization, and there’s no reason in principle you can’t use the techniques to decide what to have for breakfast. To this extent, once you’ve examined the evidence on various nutritional philosophies and perhaps self-experimented with your diet a bit, it’s a matter of deciding on the end goals your breakfast is in support of, as Hurt said. Because the evidence on nutrition can be somewhat scrambled, performing these tasks with eggcellence is easier said than done.
Perhaps you’re also asking the wrong question—should you, in fact, have formal meals such as breakfast? There are some who advocate eating as hungry, and not at set times. Food for thought.
The first sentence came across as a proposed solution, so I’m downvoting on principle even though I like the comment because it is funny.
Good factors to consider would be what’s available, what is least costly (depending on your budget), and what provides optimal nutrition. Combining multiple food groups is probably a good idea.
Enjoyment and ease of preparation/consumption are also relevant.
Breakfast bars are convenient and are marketed as being nutritious, but they are also relatively expensive and most people enjoy them less than eggs and bacon. They are also arguably less healthful than, for example, fresh fruits and vegetables, but many people would not find fruits and vegetables filling enough to constitute an entire breakfast.
This is a good illustration of why we shouldn’t always hold off on proposing solutions. Have some Cornflakes and spend your time thinking about something more important.
I think in the abstract form it’s a good question for consideration, in the sense that it gets asked on a daily basis by all of us and the answer is important to our health and productivity. Surely spending some time thinking about it could be helpful.
The fact that frequently something demands an answer now is a good reason to decide a working answer to take action with—but that does not imply that you can’t later revisit it and consider it more abstractly when you do have the time and distance from the pressing situation. Whether your past choice was right or wrong is worth knowing, as well as how to act in the future.
Think of a split-second decision to grab a candy bar versus taking a few minutes to fry up an egg—or even e.g. studying vegan cooking. We can rate these as relatively better or worse later on by various criteria, even if there wasn’t much room for debate on the matter at the time.
This is true. However, since this is a problem which is literally encountered on a daily basis, I think a more general version of it might be important enough to merit the use of this technique. For instance, if the grandparent were reformulated as “please help me come up with an algorithm for what I should eat for breakfast in the future”, then by devising a good one we could ensure that the questioner would no longer need to spend time thinking about his/her breakfast choices for the rest of their life while still being confident that they weren’t suffering undesirable opportunity costs present in the “always eat Cornflakes” strategy.
Why is this at positive karma?
A good question, as it breaks the rules by blatantly proposing a solution (i.e. eat some cornflakes and quit pondering the question) right after raising a good point (some problems cannot afford to wait very long for solutions).
It only breaks the rules of the game after identifying this problem as one for which holding off on proposing solutions was not a worthwhile endeavor. Plus, the fairly whimsical nature of the solution was probably amusing to some, which may account for some of the upvotes; I know I smiled when I read it.
I want to start writing a blog. Or perhaps several blogs dealing with a variety of subjects. For the most part the blogs will be intellectual musings, tutorials, reviews of books and things I find on the web. The usual.
I have several things to decide. Hosting is a big one. Should I use one of the standard free packages—Google’s Blogger, for example—to start out, or should I get my own domain name and pay for server space somewhere. I don’t intend anything fancy—just HTML text and graphics plus reader comments.
Another decision involves promotion and roll-out. The subject matter for at least one of the blogs will be of interest to LW. Should I start it by writing a sequence of top-level posts here and then copy the content to my own blog later? Can I do that?
One constraint is money. I’m on a small fixed income. Anything more than a few $100 per year is beyond my means.
I’m sure there are other “gotchas” that a beginning blogger needs to worry about. What are they?
The blogs I have been most captivated by as a reader have been those where the creator’s personality is readily perceivable in the content… that is, those with a distinctive voice. (Of course, the blogs I have been most turned off by have had this property as well.)
On the one-blog/several-blogs front, it might be worth thinking carefully about just how strict the line between subjects is, and how likely you’d be to write a post that belonged in multiple blogs. If the likelihood is more than negligible, you might look for hosts that simplify that sort of thing.
A lot depends on how confident you are that you really will generate content and collect readers. At least, I can’t see why having a paid-for domain is better than something like Blogger (or livejournal, or, or, or) for minimal content. Especially if money is tight.
I’d suggest giving serious thought to the kind of reader-community you want to create… both what kinds of people, and how you want them to interact, and how much work you are willing to put into making that happen… and select your hosting and promotion with that firmly in mind.
Treat this simply as evidence rather than a solution to anything: I have personally found free Wordpress blogs to be very simple, customizable, aesthetically pleasant.
I thought WordPress was simply free authoring and blog maintenance software, not free hosting. But it occurs to me that compiling a list of free blogging software (with user reviews) and compiling a list of free hosts (with strings attached, presumably) together with reviews of the various kinds of strings—well that would be very helpful.
There’s two parts to wordpress. The software (http://wordpress.org) and the hosting site (http://wordpress.com/), which uses the software and is free (I think maybe they have pay options too). The conditions don’t seem to be very restrictive.
Burn-out and writer’s block are a couple of things that come to mind.
One thing you should think about is what the aim is of the blog. Do you want to simply get your thoughts down, have a place for permanent high quality material you’ve written, do you want to entertain people, get the feeling of having lots of people read what you’ve written? Several of these require significantly different approaches to the task.
I think removing the brain from the body and interfacing it with a robot substitute is the next step towards immortality. I therefor want to found a company that researches this kind of technology. My problem is that I do not currently see a viable way to do so. The reasearch needed to create a viable business plan is too much for me to do without funding.
I have a background in business administration and engineering (industrial engineering) but not in neurology or medicin or even biology. I have no substantial funds of my own. I am 36 so I have about 40 − 50 more years to live.
My question is, how can I make this happen?
Edit:
Since the company needs to do basic research funding will be a problem. I am, however, pretty sure that there would be marketable intermediary results. The question is, how cornered is the market for prosthetics? If I were to do only the research and then give patent licenses to established prosthetics companies I fear that the original goal of my company would get lost. Also if the prosthetics market is already covered it will be difficult to convince venture capitalists to invest in a new company.
There are multiple areas of research needed for brain-robot integration.
Ranking in order of importance from my point of view
Artificial organs etc. for life support.
At this point you have a brain in a jar.
Sensory input (even if you’re keeping the eyes you’ll want propioception, and some sensitivity to damage)
At this point you’ve got a brain in a jar that can see.
Output connections (allowing the brain to control, for example, speakers, or a word processor)
Now you have a brain in a jar that can talk; and probably browse the web.
Artificial limbs
After which you’ve got a full-on cyborg.
Given how many steps are involved, it might seem impossible to potential investors to claim you are going to research all the areas at once. Having the same group solve all the problems may not be the most efficient use of specialized resources (like equipment and personnel).
One solution might be to have several research groups going, one for each branch of technology necessary to implement the solution. You could also search for existing groups that are attacking similar problems and try to help with advocacy that would get them funded.
SENS has strategy where they have seven different research themes for different technological breakthroughs they think can work together to attack aging directly.
I’d say, artificial organs are not the top priority as there are different alternatives. One way would be to genetical engineer microbes to perform the tasks, another would be to have organs which need not necessarily be human do it. A failing organ could be replaced cheaply and the mechanism for preparing the blood need not be as small. That would be the part that I would outsource.
Likewise artificial limbs. My understanding is that there are humanoid robots already available. I’d say that one is covered.
The focus would be neurointerfacing. The first intermediary result would be a way to replace severed neurons. Next comes an artificial spine. And then full simulation of nerve IO. A good question is whether vegetative nerves need to be simulated for “feeling right” or not.
Hmm, it sounds like there are a few domains you need to learn some specific things about first.
1) What is the state of medical technology in this field? You can try to find people working in the field, either researchers or businesspeople who are probably clued into the state-of-the-art. This will help you avoid reinventing the wheel, or on the other hand, settintg a goal that’s far too ambitious (too many steps away from what’s been done) too soon.
In general, my guess is that everything will be easier if you have a partner already working in the field; lots of things will be totally unknown to you, but obvious to them.
2) What sort of things get what sort of funding? Again you should ask people in the field. There may be more than one way to get funding, I don’t know.
Then, if you still think your original goal is feasible, you need to figure out based on this info, what specific advance in technology you want to pursue, and what kind of team you can put together to sell your idea and possibly start working on it.
You could also think about other ways to contribute to the same end state. Do you really have to personally control the way in which this stuff gets used, the way you would if you founded the company? Or would some other way of furthering basic research in the relevant field also satisfy your goal?
I don’t think you know what kind of companies venture capitalists invest in.
How can cryonics become more credible in the eyes of more people?
How can cryonics become more attention-worthy?
Maybe it goes like this: For most people, death is considered to be final and unescapable. Cryonics is thought of closely related to death. Thus cryonics’ promise to bring people back from freezing is seen with a much higher level of scepticism than warranted.
Yes. Cultural memes around death seem to make cryonics seem unrealistic or even downright rebellious against cultural norms. Frequently I hear people say “If someone wants to freeze their corpse as their last wishes I support that right.” But they are already calling the patient a corpse and referring to the vitrification process as freezing. So it’s kind of a back-handed endorsement as far as cryonics rights go.
Maybe part of the problem is that alternate labels to “corpse” and “freezing” are too complex or seem to imply agreement with cryonics, which the speaker does not want to prematurely grant. I don’t actually consider freezing to be too offensive as a colloquial term, it’s just technically inaccurate (when and where good cryoprotectant perfusion can be obtained) and contributes to ignorant dismissals. And “corpse” is accurate if the hypothesis that cryonics is a failure is correct—the trouble is that by accepting it you are (at least implicitly) implicitly embedding the hypothesis in your terminology, and hence mixing up map and territory.
I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE.
Nice one :-)
A person who founded a stabilization organization in Europe has recently admitted to associations with a vampire group and a satanist group. Does this kind of thing harm cryonics publicly perceived credibility? Or does it draw useful attention to it?
I think Richie as a critic could be the best thing ever to happen to cryonics. I find his website mentally painful to read.
I think what cemented my resolve on the topic was reading the rickross forum reactions. They were so over-the-top group-thinky and WRONG that I suddenly felt I had to start defending cryonics from these weirdos.
Banning Mark Plus from commenting and explicitly restricting the topic to “ways in which cryonics is a cult” was probably what really flipped my bozo bit on them. That was also probably around the time I read this.
Now that I know the context of their experience with scientology I’m a bit more sympathetic to how they could be honestly wrong. I mean, they are thinking crazy, but something real happened to put them in crazy mode.
On imminst there has been some attention to human hibernation. This only loosely related to cryonics but seems to have a lot more mainstream interest.
What goals do you have your breakfast fulfilling? Inexpensive? Weight gain/loss? Taste?
Does the type/kind of breakfast have a larger or smaller impact your later mental state?
I think that actually thinking about breakfast for a little time would actually prove beneficial depending on your goals. I don’t think you’ll require a large amount of time, but you can spend a few minutes thinking about it. Those few minutes could have net positive or negative impact on your future self that day.
Fix’d.
Moved, Thanks Manfred