For links, I switched to the org-id module and a unique ID for any new links. It works as long as the file containing the target headline is in the same directory as the file containing the link.
(require ’org-id)
(global-set-key “\C-cl” ’org-store-link)
(setq org-link-to-org-use-id ’create-if-interactive)
Yes, and mostly love it. Just not happy with the structure of my information management strategies, at least for daily work documentation. Put “X” under the specific project I’m doing it for? Or what if the learning seems more general… should i start a new tree for longer-term reference knowledge? Or summarize the specific knowledge more generally and keep a copy of both in separate areas? Or write only one and link to it in the other?
Stuff like that.
Other benefits I’ve really appreciated:
embedded/executable code blocks. This is my favorite, favorite feature, and I will never go back (if I can help it) to running analysis code (I do a lot of data analysis/viz with R/ggplot2), generating plots, and then having to insert them into a .doc or .ppt.
on that note, being able to export in general is a fantastic feature of Org. HTML, PDF, markdown, whatever. I love not having to futz with image placement manually. Get something you like with some #+attr_html/latex arguments, and then insert a bunch of images really easily by just linking to their location on disk.
org is the only, or one of the only, applications that lets you mix and match notes and todos. I used to use TiddlyWiki for all of my work notes and really liked it. But I had to manage todos in something else. But why? Todos often come about in the context of notes, say in a meeting, or for some home project. I really like being able to keep the todos in Org right with whatever prompted the need for action (then view just the actions you need to complete with agenda views).
Clocking/time tracking is another aspect that seems awesome, but I haven’t started using. I’d love to get to the point where I record what I work on, and especially an estimate + logged hours. Not sure what I’d do with the data, but having it vs. not at least makes post-analysis a possibility.
Still, my various attempts at org file structure seem to end up cluttered and with things structured really oddly. I’ll kick off a project with my estimate of what “categories or knowledge” it will require, and as the months or years go on, I’ll be in a rush and just resort to keeping a date tree and stuffing the stuff in there like a journal instead. Now I have project-specific info scattered around through monthly journal trees. Harder to archive/find, and end up unfolding a bunch of headlines to find stuff.
Anyway, neat to find other users, so I thought I’d comment even though I’m really late to do so!
Late the party, and actually found this thread googling around for “Org-mode file/organization strategies.” I’ve been using Org exclusively for work notes, and am finding myself in a similar situation re. being unwieldy. I constantly struggle with choosing one file per project, one big file with one headline per project, or files dedicated by type (one for todos, one for daily journal logs of experiments/efforts, references, etc.).
Org seems like it should be great for moving stuff around, but I find it not that easy. Refiling a mess of headlines seems to be cumbersome, and how do I know that my new strategy will last/work?
I’d love to know how Evernote solves the unwieldy issue for you. I’ve tried Evernote, Wunderlist, TiddlyWiki, todo.sh, Zim, and I’m sure others I’m not remembering.
What I’ll never give up is the ability to intersperse prose and code. I love, love, love writing all my work reports with embedded R code for analyses in Org-mode, exporting to really nice looking PDF reports. Super awesome, and soooo easy vs. writing all the code elsewhere to generate plots and then inserting them one by one into a ppt. In that respect, Org is awesome. I just haven’t figured out an information hierarchy/taxonomy that makes me happy.
Another variable, similar to location-based compensation (i.e. standard of living multiplier) is what sort of company the employee lands at. I work at a very large company (80k employees world-wide), with very established pay scales for employees. Just to illustrate how things work:
Technical employees are on a scale of what are called job grades
Job grades have a pay scale, which includes a minimum, median, and maximum
Annual pay increases are calculated based on performance + where you are in your current grade’s scale
Promotion raises are between 8-12% unless 12% would land you below the minimum of the next grade up
So, that’s all to say that when I read this, I wondered about the types of companies that each major lands at. If I had to ballpark my employer’s demographics, I’d say: polymer scientists = chemists = chemical engineers > mechanical engineers = physicists = electrical engineers >> environmental engineers = CS majors.
If it’s a large, established company with significant investment in a system like the above (intuitively, I’m thinking that ME’s and other engineers are more likely to land in places like this vs. startups, smaller companies, and consulting with more variability in salary), could this shed light on the situation? This is similar to Gunnar_Zarncke’s comment, but with a bit more behind why established companies might pay less.
Article is now out.
Darnit. I blew it and fell behind in blog following; didn’t even see this get announced. I’d really like to attend one of these! I’ll keep my eyes open for the next one.
Agreed with respect to the substitution. That describes what I’m getting at. In using “rational,” I simply meant, “What’s the best way to go about deciding on a purchase of this class of thing?”
I wondered about this. So does my wife. I get lost on my computer enough already. Now we reduce capability to browsing and games, and how might that play out? Thanks for sharing this. I’m not sure how it would work in my case...
An ebook reader (+ some other prize combination) has occurred to me. I almost bought an ebook reader when they were on sale around Christmas, but couldn’t decide between the Nook and Kindle platforms. One thing that worries me is that I have such a hard time reading paper books at the moment; I wonder if an ebook reader only seems like it would improve productivity when in reality it would shortly due to novelty, but then it would wear off.
Some questions:
How long have you had it?
Did you notice any drop in reading time from initial ownership to present?
How many anki decks is realistic (I’m aware of anki and how it works but haven’t used it regularly)?
ETA: Thought of another question—can you put your finger on what, exactly, allowed you to accomplish your goal vs. when you were reading paper?
Great suggestion. I’m travelling at the moment, but will review this list. I saw the “don’t spend 15-30min” on this and have managed to not really look at the list yet. I plan to revisit it next week and think this will be a good exercise.
My wife and I get lost as well. It seems infrequent, but unfortunately when it happens it is epic and horrible. This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for—something one would never know prior to owning the device, but could share from beyond the curtain. Thanks.
ETA: I don’t have data, but in researching this more found a couple of programs that appear not to require data plans and yet still navigate with GPS-unit-containing devices (CoPilot and nDrive are the ones I’ve found so far). Thus, I may be able to get the use of a tablet, continue not buying a data plan, and also have GPS capabilities.
Thanks for the suggestion.
ETA: Back from travelling and re-reading the comments. What makes your more likely to “study anywhere” with the tablet vs. a laptop? Just the lower weight and ~1/3 (or even less) of the thickness? I spend most of my awake time at work, have a macbook which isn’t too bulky, but don’t take it many places. Do you find that you’re more likely to take a tablet and make some small chunk of waiting time useful when you wouldn’t have done the same thing with a laptop?
I didn’t put much thought into the title. I’m surprised it got downvoted so much, but perhas I lured people in thinking the post was something it wasn’t. Other than the title, is my post objectionable?
I think you put it well—I have a hard time thinking about how best to use the gift and hoped that others with devices I could potentially own might provide suggestions. For example, the idea of a tablet sounds appealing (apps, more mobile than a laptop, reading things, battery life, etc.) but (as shown below), perhaps those here who care to analyze the utility might chime in that it actually decreased efficiency by serving primarily as a distraction.
That’s hard to know without actually owning one… and I don’t. In any case, my apologies for the misleading title. It was not my intent at all.
ETA: edited the title.
Instead, I read the post as claiming “you guys are unreasonable in your overt dismissal of theism and your forceful insistence on it being a closed question, considering many of you are big on BTanism which has similar epistemological status to some varieties of theism”.
That. I think after all the comments I’ve scanned in this post, this was the first one where I really felt like I understood what the post was even really about. Thank you.
I’m quite glad you commented, and interesting take. What about younger religions that still seem to manager to woo people and hold them intellectually captive like Mormonism (~150 yrs) and Scientology (~50 yrs).
Most of humanity is not part of them, but Mormonism in particular is very quickly growing. Do you think it’s success had to do with the aspect of being internally consistent, or some other attractive feature?
I’m enjoying this more and more. At first (and it was probably apparent), I was pretty defensive, particularly because this is obviously something personal and important and I felt a bit threatened. I think I (at least, maybe “we”) have leveled off and are actually getting places now :)
if their belief is justified it’s mostly the result of epistemic luck...
Well put, and we agree on that. Though your big bang cosmology example made me realize that this is more true in far more areas of my life than I am aware of (or even care to think about in order to avoid an ugh field).
It’s probable that my default model doesn’t apply...
Maybe, maybe not. I was around my father and brother during Christmas break and they don’t believe. I was with my wife, though, and we both did very strongly. I said rosary on the plane on the way down, tried to take some personal prayer time, etc. So… I’m not explicitly aware of those things, but then again I was in close proximity to non-believers (which perhaps forced me to wonder why they didn’t believe, leading me to my first major cognitive dissonance) and away from my typical very-tight-knit Catholic social sphere for ~10 days.
Then again, I’ve debated my dad about biblical interpretation and tended to view them in a pained manner, as in a “Why can’t they just see the truth?” type of way. It was an unusual circumstance, but I’ve typically held my own without feeling any doubts or uncertainty before. I could see it either way.
I’ll check out the link on rationalization. Thanks.
I think Catholicism has the most reliably good infrastructure of doctrine, but again I may be wrong.
We don’t have to pursue this more, but I’d be interested in how you think Catholics are so good. Is it, as you said before, by epistemic luck, or because they actually have some sort of connection to a divine being’s will/intention? Similarly, just to probe some specifics:
Do you sign onto this being having a purpose/design for humans? As in, was the universe created for us to exist as the pinnacle of creation, to live out holy lives, and then spend eternity in a heaven if we’ve lived good enough?
Similarly, with something like contraception (contraversial, I know), the typical route Catholics would take to their stance is that it’s “unnatural.” God intended sperm to meet the egg and so preventing that in some non-natural way is thus contrary to his will. How do you sit with that specific line of moral thought and subsequent implication derivation (not just on contraception, any don’t-fiddle-with-how-god-designed-things line of argument)?
I’m not very confident of theism...
Oh. When I replied at that other thread (though, that was WIN_2011), it was to you saying you were highly confident in an omni-max being, which I took to mean theism.
I think that’s a mischaracterization...
Re-read, and I can see that. I think I’m also still having a hard time wrapping my mind around your use of the word “theism” (or at least what you meant a year ago in that post). “Agent-y processes” is not what typically comes to mind when I’m talking about theism :)
To be fair, though, you do seem to be talking about YHWH, or at least perhaps you’re saying that people writing in the bible have been interpreting this simulation machine as the analog of a person, but with magic powers and an interest in their eternal future?
You too; I’m glad there exists a place like LessWrong where...
Indeed! Like I said, I feel much more on the same page with you after some back and forth. It’s at least been mind opening to some other views and you’ll surely have my head involuntarily occupied (well, your ideas) on my car rides to and from work for several days or more.
I’ll have to check into compatabilism more. It had never occurred to me that determinism was compatible with omniscience/intercession until my commenting with Vladimir_Nesov. In seeing wiki’s definition, it sounded more reasonable than I remembered, so perhaps I never really understood what compatabilism was suggesting.
I’m not positive I get your explanations (due to simple ignorance), but it sounds slightly like what Adam Lee presented here concerning a prediction machine; namely that such a thing could be built, but that actually knowing the prediction would be impossible for it would set off something of an infinite forward calculation of factoring in the prediction, that the human knows the prediction itself, that the prediction machine knows that the human knows the prediction… and then trying to figure out what the new action will actually be.
Great question! I was quite surprised to read this, and think it’s quite the valid reply. In pondering it… my answer would come in a couple of ways.
1) There’s nothing intrinsically different. If someone says “I believe in big bang cosmology” and has no trackable fact/reasoning path back to “why,” they are unjustified in believing in big bang cosmology. Now, perhaps it will track back to “everyone talks as if the big bang is legit” or “I always see these articles that talk about the big bang and so I guess I figured it was real.” Fair enough; belief based on authority/word-of-mouth alone isn’t the greatest reason for belief, but they could track it to something at least.
2) The [probably not unique] term, “epistemic baggage” occurred to me as I thought about this. For example, what comes along with or is implied based on believing that the big bang happened? The universe exists? Entropy won’t decrease on its own? Something happened and that’s why we’re here? I don’t see a ton of practical implications from believing the big bang, at least for the layman.
Similarly, from a survey of the landscape… science has tended to converge about the big bang.
What about religion? 2000 years (or ~1400 years post-Islam (or ~150 years post-Mormonism (or ~50 years post-Scientology))) has not brought a convergence of religious truth. It could be, as you say, that we just don’t have the theories and methods of analyzing the landscape well enough yet to judge between them.
Or it could be that they offer nothing objectively testable or predictive and thus beliefs can co-exist without clashing (there’s never going to be a showdown where we get rid of all these silly heresies).
In any case (answering my second point first), religions have not converged. At a time when there were many competing cosmologies, I think it would have been equally odd to take a stand for big bang cosmology because some minority said it was true. Now, knowing the field and then comparing competing ideas would allow one to be justified in professing belief in cosmology—they have surveyed the landscape and made the best call they could (even better would be to believe with some sort of confidence interval).
This is where we are with religion, yet billions of believers are professing near 100% confidence in their beliefs without having surveyed anything at all—apologetics, other religions, other holy texts, etc. And we are not living in the religious analog to big bang scientific consensus in order for that to allow hiding behind.
Lastly, there is far more practical (well, theoretically, but I’ll get to that) baggage with religion. To profess belief isn’t to accept simple things like “I’m here, and the big bang implies how I got here” (you already know your here—how does the method it came about affect your life?). It’s to profess things like bread turning into the flesh of a man, the state of an immortal soul, that the mind isn’t what the brain does, and that we can know what god wants us to do with our lives by asking him to speak to us, and that we fell from a more perfect state by “sinning” among other things. There’s waaay more baggage associate with professing religious belief compared to whatever you think led to our universe.
I said above practical yet theoretical because the above are technically what doctrine is supposed to require of its believers, but I doubt most of them think about these things to any degree. Thus, it’s mostly going through the motions, social bonding/comfort/security, and feeling good by doing good deeds that will please the god they think is watching.
I don’t accept them as individually providing very much evidence at all...
Hard to tell what you meant. I didn’t mean to ask whether you accept their belief as providing evidence for theism… only whether or not you think their belief is justified given the level of knowledge you expect from me not to believe.
Well it’s a default explanation so I don’t have anything for you specifically in mind.
But I still don’t understand the meaning of that default explanation… and so I just meant “what types of things count as fitting the definition of ‘largely-unconscious far-sighted social pragmatics’?” (I think you answered it in your next bit, though.)
But that you’re a member of LessWrong means there’s a fair bit of pressure on you to believe whatever LessWrong thinks it’s good to believe...
My deconversion was significantly in motion prior to finding LessWrong (first doubts in Dec 2009, first comment here in Jan 2011, which suggests I might have found LW from this post from Jul 2010?).
...the actual deciding factors tend to be unconscious or sentimental drives.
How would I identify whether this is or is not the case, especially if they are unconscious?
I think this idea of a religion being true or false is clearly misguided; it’s more a question of how you interpret the world and what institutions allow for more and more-justified optimization of the world, which is heavily contingent on pragmatics of human psychology.
I like how you put that, and thanks for the explanation re. Vassar and Tarleton. I definitely approached my “quest” with the primary focus of trying to determine whether or not there was a deity who cared what I did and whether or not the Catholic faith had something special with respect to such a deity’s wishes/plans/texts/etc.
You continue to return to social/pragmatic aspects, which continues to leave me puzzled as to whether you think the Catholic Church’s primary advantage is that it’s most aligned with the wishes/truths concerning a god of some sort, or whether it’s beliefs are just a side effect and what really matters is that it has the best social/pragmatic rules/suggestions for human beings of any competing religion.
This is why I emphasized social psychology and game theory, because doing thorough analyses of questions like these is simply too difficult.
Gotcha, and I’m glad they didn’t seem difficult only to me :)
After reading all that, though, it still leaves me puzzled that a being who wants us to know about it would reveal itself (bible) in a time when we had none of these probability and game theories, and no formal study of social psychology.
After I had those I could look into Kant or Aquinas and be impressed, but I don’t know if I would have realized the depth of their arguments if I hadn’t thought about the moral philosophy and decision theory on my own first.
After reading this post, I think it would be fantastic if you simply laid out some x-part series here on LW specifying more about your current beliefs. At the moment, they seem paradoxically very strong yet vague. As in, you strike me as being rather confident in theism (or various theistic tenets) while typically offering very vague statements about specifically what they are (more on this in a different response, as it fits better there).
My read of this post/threads suggest that what happened is that you came out and asked “Why is theism wrong?” Then a bunch (like ~500) comments took place explaining various objections, and you concluded that everyone was attacking someone else’s theism, which isn’t what you hold or think is really theism.
Perhaps a new post with specifics might help more (or point me to more of that if it already exists).
Thanks for the dialog.
As some others have said, others on LW (like myself) were not always non-theists. Feel free to reach out if you’d like to discuss or need/want support. Thinking these thoughts and living as a heavily-doubting theist is extremely challenging and draining, from my experience. I was consumed during my initial questioning and ultimate de-conversion. I read and thought day and night, felt sick, alienated, lonely, etc. I wrote some posts here if you’d like to take a look:
My story / owning one’s reasons
Recent de-convert saturated by religious community; advice?
My blog has a bunch of mixed stuff as well, though I don’t write in it anymore and haven’t for a long time.
One of the more direction-changing thoughts I had (independently and prior to finding out the concept already existed) was what John Loftus claims “The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF).” Basically, if you weren’t already a subscriber to some religion, X, could you be convinced of it? Similarly, why are said miracle claims un-convincing even in the least to someone who doesn’t already share your religious tradition?
I had a different twist on that. My natural inclination when researching (say, which tool to buy or which method is best) is to force myself to be agnostic to all of them and then research to see which is the most convincing. Say, googling “Milwaukee vs. Dewalt router” or “Milwaukee routers suck/are great” and “Dewalt routers suck/are great” to see what I find. I pay attention to Amazon 1-2 star reviews to look at their content. I started wondering why this shouldn’t work for religion. Everyone in my religious community was suggesting that I should “have faith seeking understanding.” This always struck me as “believe that you may believe more strongly.” I wanted to know why the one thing that mattered the very most in the world shouldn’t hold up to the same test I put my financial purchases through.
In addition, I wondered why the Bible, God’s inspired book, failed to convince so many others who surely were aware of it. Assuming Christianity was true meant that other religions were false/lies/invented (by humans). Measly human minds creating stories out of thin air have been able to sway more than half the world away from God’s official word?
Probably doesn’t sound all that great re-writing it, but this was a pretty mind-blowing thought to me back then, and was a definite contributing factor to my ultimate deconversion. Sure, there’s apologetics to counter it, but they have to work fairly hard to speculate about God’s motives for not being more clear.
As others have stated outrightly or alluded to, toss in whatever apologetic ammunition you’d like and it still works pretty well. Some biblical prophecy, miracle, perfectly fitting theological aspect about Christ, etc. seem amazing to you? Why doesn’t it to the nearest Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, or Mormon? And why do things like reading golden plates from a hat or being embodied alien spirits seem so ridiculous as to not even warrant a fair shake when Christians hear them?