as opposed to black fish.
nazgulnarsil
Karma: 1,547
You can be gentle about DH7 by attributing the improved argument to someone with high status. This is my typical strategy and seems to work well. It’s a double whammy because you’re implicitly associating them with someone of high status e.g. “it’s funny you say that, it’s very similar to an argument by ”. I’m NOT saying that you actually have to know a bunch of famous arguments offhand, the better argument can be attributed fallaciously to anyone who has spoken on a topic and can have little to do with the person’s original argument. Few notice and you have the out of being mistaken even if they do.
Satisficing seems a great way to describe the behavior of maximizers with multiple-term utility functions and an ordinal ranking of preference satisfaction i.e. humans. This sounds like it should have some fairly serious implications.
I think I can summarize hedonomics right here: Most people spend too much time optimizing for the acquisition of more objects and not enough optimizing their use of objects they already have (where objects can be anything we want not just physical items).
ex: “If only I was better looking!”
economics: acquire more of the properties that make you attractive to other people
hedonomics: are you maximizing your looks given your current resources?
I think the distinction relies on a naive understanding of economics, but it is nonetheless a good heuristic in general to ask that sort of question.
The things that increase testosterone serum levels are things you should be doing anyway.
ensure you’re getting good quality sleep (poor quality sleep responsible for up to a 40% drop)
ensure that your diet includes enough fresh vegetables that you’re getting RDAs of zinc, magnesium, and b-vitamins.
engage in physical activity, especially those that engage the largest muscle groups.
stop eating low fat foods. the majority of people eating low fat food make up for the lack of calories with more sugary foods. whole milk, eggs, full fat cottage cheese, nuts are all good for you.
decrease stress in your life. cortisol is bad for test levels. meditation has been shown to significantly reduce cortisol levels. this is one of the things sleep plays into as well.
I do not plan to supplement my natural levels but I do intend to use supllemental test to stay at my baseline as the level naturally drops off with aging.
I favor a diaspora cev. Why compromise between wildly divergent CEV’s of subsets if you don’t actually have to? In more concrete terms, I’m in favor of holodecking psychopaths.
Using technical definitions and ignoring folk meanings is something I’ve been noticing more in myself and others lately. Until I started making the distinction when listening to others I never realized how painfully bad it must sound when I do it.
After further investigation I retract the “much worse” comment. It is a little more precise than I previously thought.
the poverty threshold is a much worse metric than looking directly at various parameters for living standards.
this might just be the single greatest comment I’ve seen on LW.
I say that I hang out with people who are “into hardcore rationality” immediately followed up with “studying reasoning, that sort of thing.” I think the nerdishness sound of that balances it out slightly.
I cut people making decisions before google a lot more slack. If you make a bad a decision because of a lack of info that was on the first page of a google search on the topic I’m not really worried about your shitty outcomes.
I don’t know why people care so much. He chose to dramatically increase his risk of dying. If he was that bothered by the prospect of dying enough he would have made a more thorough investigation. Most people obviously choose not to maximize their lifespans as the serious longevity crowd is a tiny niche.
If your system is 99% ‘good’ you actually CAN then nudge your behavior via slight modifications. For example floss no longer goes in the bathroom, it stays next to my computer where I see it.
pocket discipline? you mean everyone doesn’t do this?! there are people walking around right now with their possessions in random pockets and they themselves might not know what pocket an item is in until they check? MADNESS. brb, accosting strangers.
When trying to convince someone of something that is weird we use smaller inference jumps in order to make our argument more watertight. This is perceived as condescension. You aren’t going to convince anyone of something weird in a single conversation anyway. Use normal inference jumps and if the topic comes up multiple times you’ll eventually have the opportunity to plug any gaps. Also keep in mind that normal people don’t require near as high a standard of proof in the first place.
People’s subjective experience of how attractive someone is is heavily influenced by framing. I can’t find the relevant study but basically people responded with better ratings when someone was surrounded by less attractive people than when someone was surrounded by people who were around the same or more attractive. Conclusion? The same as Mises: preference rankings are ordinal, not cardinal. The frame of hotornot is looking at a very large group, so all but the most attractive in the set will rank slightly worse than they otherwise would have (real life situations are always much smaller sets).
In addition, as the okcupid article indicates, variance matters a lot. 3 people rating you a 9 or 10 and 7 people rating you 1 or 2 means your overall rating will be low, even though a significant fraction of people think you’re the bees knees.
Oh and to quantify: the research I’m familiar with indicates that women should, on average, bump up their estimation of their own attractiveness and men should bump it downward (but a smaller bump than women). But this hides an important dynamic: we don’t care what the average person thinks of us. We care about what people whom we find attractive think. A rating of 8 from someone who we rate an 8 is roughly twelve billion times more important than from someone we rate a 2.
I expect radical extension on my natural lifespan given that even currently: “A second, larger study of men in their 70s found that those who avoided smoking, obesity, inactivity, diabetes and high blood pressure greatly improved their chances of living into their 90s. In fact, they had a 54 percent chance of living that long.”
and I have several decades of life expectancy continuing to improve just from mundane medical research.
I would be shocked at no brain uploads by 2085.
mining was unprofitable for a long while until just recently with the price recovery. mining now is worth it for the free heating.