No-Bullshit Optimization/Risk Reduction, Life Extension, EA, Rationality, Startups, Film, MMA. Larry David is my spirit animal.
Read my posts or connect with me: https://www.johncgreer.com/
JohnGreer
Karma: 226
That talk is one of my favorites ever and so inspiring. Upvoting for actually doing the exercise!
I find that trivial inconveniences become less powerful the more I go through the routine of overcoming them. For example, I delete apps and re-install them and am now used to the process so while it still helps it’s become less of an inconvenience now that I’m acclimatized to the process. It seems good to try to reduce/get acclimated to trivial inconveniences that stop us from doing useful things and try to increase them for non-optimal things (and also beware starting a routine of getting used to them).
The mailbox thing is a really interesting idea (provided it doesn’t get messed up by the postal worker trying to fit a package in there and dropping it)!
Your mom and you might be interested in this as well if you didn’t know about it: https://www.thekitchensafe.com/
“Conceptual gerrymandering” is a very useful concept. Thanks for writing the post.
If I were Tom Clancy I hope that I would not have published Debt of Honor. I don’t know whether terrorists were inspired by it, but at least for me it’s pretty clearly in the “not worth the risk” category.
I get the argument but then I’m wondering where it stops? Don’t direct A Clockwork Orange because there’s a high likelihood that copycat murders will happen? Stop production on all things where someone might copy something harmful?
It seems implementing systems that prevent hijacking of planes is easier with how airports and plane travel work vs how much would need to change to stop vehicles being used in attacks. Seems similar to the debate over whether the Slaughterbots video and campaign to stop autonomous weapons will be successful. The supporters use nuclear weapons policy as the success story but it may not be the most useful comparison because nuclear weapons are much easier technology to restrict.
This reminds me of my favorite TV show Survivor. There are a number of reasons why it’s great, but one aspect that is so fun to watch is seeing someone come up with a new strategy or tactic and then seeing how it immediately gets adopted in the later seasons. One of the most intellectual players, Yau-Man Chan, had the idea to create a fake immunity idol. Now it is standard to save pieces from things to try to make one. Russell Hantz started looking for hidden idols before clues to them were even found. That’s become standard too and new strategies and counter-strategies keep being invented and you can see how fast memes take off in the show. From sanitation to eating Tide Pods, memes are powerful.
I hope Aubrey de Grey negotiated the moral trade with the mathematicians successfully, and now that he solved one of their most beloved problems, they will start working on solving aging.
Haha, this would be wonderful. Let’s get Terence Tao on the aging problem!
I kind of like the lightweight obligation/excuse to repeat the meal which is incurred by having one person pay.
Mm, I see. I guess I don’t find I need to incentivize friends to get together. And this norm would be for more casual and/or business meetings in which case I doubt people would be getting back together because they felt obliged to pay for the next meal.
The one off vs repeat interactions is a good point. I guess my dream scenario is to have this become a meme and in-turn a norm.
I think the worst co-diner’s preference is usually to awkwardly ignore that the bill is there in which case I assume their preference is that we pay for their lunch. I suppose I can say “Would you like to Venmo us or pay cash?” or something like that if we don’t think it’s worth it offer to pay for their lunch.
Thanks for the reply! I don’t mind letting people pay if they genuinely want to and our in a better position to. The problem is that in many instances there does seem to be a signaling game like there is in Chinese culture with refusing gifts at first, where just accepting without protesting is considered rude.
Thanks for the reply! Switching off for who pays is something I do and don’t mind but it’s only applied to friends who meet semi-regularly. The problem with business meetings, is that it’s unlikely I’m going to be meeting them again in the future on any regular basis, if it all.
BYOL (Buy Your Own Lunch)
No flashing neon text? A bit disappointing but happy to see refreshing innovation from the rationality community...
For those that like this topic, the fiction book The First Fifteen Lives of Harry August is probably worth reading.
Thank you!
Large Mammal BPF Prize Winning Announcement
Thanks for writing this! I would love to hear more about this and if you have links in mind, would love to read them:
“As with lots of interpersonal concepts, this can also be useful internally: if you’re familiar with internal double crux / internal family systems / other “parts-work”, play around with the motion of having parts of yourself make themselves small (or big).”
For people interested in nuclear war history, the 2003 documentary The Fog of War is wonderful. Alex Wellerstein’s blog is also great: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/08/08/kyoto-misconception/
This also reminds me of how companies may benefit like Buffer’s commitment to transparency: https://open.buffer.com/transparency-timeline/
Unfortunately, with an entity like the US government and military it seems like a hard inadequate equilibria to overcome even if certain actors knew better communication was more effective overall. It seems like coming up with the optimal organizations of groups (branches of the military, intelligence services, government entities) or lack thereof and the hierarchy and responsibilities within and between them is one of the major blockages.
Edit: I found an interesting prescriptive article of potential ways to overcome the problems I discussed: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/03/18/conversation-with-a-super-spook/
Yes, that’s a good point regarding having to be mindful of the shared history and not wanting to have to change that to open it up to a broader audience. I guess the easiest thing to do would be to write the same and have the para-readers like me accept that they just won’t get certain references.
I would also love your take on his opinion!