Punoxysm

Karma: 1,349

Punoxysm Jan 28, 2015, 9:20 PM
0 points
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
Exactly. The world is complicated, apparently contradictory characteristics can co-inhabit the same person, and frameworks are frequently incorrect in proportion to their elegance, but people still think in frameworks and prototypes so I think these are two good prototypes.

Punoxysm Jan 28, 2015, 7:24 PM
3 points
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
It’s not burdensome detail; its a list of potential and correlated personality traits. You don’t need the conjunction of all these traits to qualify. More details provide more places to relate to the broad illustration I’m trying to make. But I’ll try to state the core elements that I want to be emphasized, so that it’s clearer which details aren’t as relevant.

Professionals are more interested in achieving results, and do not have a specific attachment to a philosophy of process or decision-making to reach those results.

Auteurs are very interested in process, and have strong opinions about how process and decision-making should be done. They are interested in results too, but they do not treat it as separate from process.

And I’ll add that like any supposed personality type, the dichotomy I’m trying to draw is fluid in time and context for any individual.

But I think it’s worth considering because it reflects a spectrum of the ways people handle their relationship with their work and with coworkers.

Essentially, treat it as seriously as a personality test.

Punoxysm Jan 28, 2015, 6:11 AM
0 points
in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
Perhaps a better way to say it is that these beliefs are irrelevant to the ideology-as-movement.

That is, if you are a Christian missionary, details of transubstantiation are irrelevant to gathering more believers (or at least, are not going to strike the prospective recruits as more important). Likewise, MWI is not really that important for making the world more rational.

So I was wrong to say they are not in some way important points of doctrine. What I should say is that they are points of doctrine that are unimportant to the movement and most of the externally-oriented goals of an organization dedicated to these ideologies.

Punoxysm Jan 27, 2015, 7:58 AM
2 points
in reply to: Plasmon’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
If movie A sells for 9 dollars, people able to do a side-by-side comparison will never purchase movie B. Movie A will accrue 1.8 million dollars.

I don’t see what sublinear pricing has to do with it unless the audience is directly engaging in some collective buying scheme.

Punoxysm Jan 27, 2015, 7:54 AM
1 point
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
I was thinking 4 quadrant. Horizontal axis is competence, vertical axis is professional vs. auteur.

Steve Jobs was something of an auteur who eventually began to really piss off the people he had once successfully led and inspired. After his return to Apple, he had clearly gained some more permanent teamwork and leadership skills, which is good, but was still pretty dogmatic about his vision and hard to argue with.

The most competent end of the professional quadrant probably includes people more like Jamie Dimon, Jack Welch, or Mitt Romney. Professional CEOs who you could trust to administrate anything, who topped their classes (at least in Romney’s case), but who don’t necessarily stand for any big idea.

This classification also corresponds to Foxes and Hedgehogs—Many Small Ideas vs. One Big Idea / Holistic vs. Grand Framework thinking.

But it is not a true binary; people who have an obsessing vision can learn to play nice with others. People who naturally like to conform and administrate can learn to assert a bold vision. If Stanley Kubrick is the film example of an Auteur—an aggravating genius—and J.J. Abrams is the professional—reliable and talented but mercenary and flexible, there are still people like Martin Scorsese who people love to work with and who define new trends in their art.

So maybe junction is a good way to think of it, but there are extraordinarily talented and important people who seem to have avoided learning from the other side too.

Punoxysm Jan 27, 2015, 5:48 AM
3 points
in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
My post is about dogmatism. Sometimes beliefs have implications but they are implications in the long-tail, or in the far-future.

I would wager that most medieval Christians could not follow a medieval Christian theological debate about transubstantiation, and would not alter their behavior at all if they did. And eventually, Christians came to the consensus that this particular piece of dogma was not worth fighting over.

Specifics of property are similarly irrelevant in a world so far from the the imagined world where these specific determine policy. Certainly, it should be an issue you put aside if you want to be an effective activist. I’m not saying nobody should think about these issues ever, just that they are a disproportionately argued-about issue.

Similarly MWI just doesn’t have an impact on any decision I make in my daily life apart from explaining quantum physics to other people, and never will. Can you think of a decision and action it could impact (I really would like to know an example!)? I’m not saying it’s totally irrelevant or uninteresting, it’s just disproportionately touted as a badge of rationalism, and disproportionately argued about.

Or if you did quantum computing, or if you were a chemist, or if you were a biologist, or if you care about understanding and figuring out the Great Filter and related issues, or if you work with GPS, or if you care about nuclear safety and engineering, or if you work with radios, etc. And that’s before we look at the more silly problems that can arise from seeing parts of the world as magic, like people using quantum mechanics to justify homeopathy. If quantum mechanics is magic, then this is much easier to fall prey to.

This argument can be applied to anything. Automotive knowledge, political knowledge, mathematical knowledge, cosmetics knowledge, fashion knowledge, etc. I think it’s great to know things, especially when you actually do need to know them but also when you don’t. But if some piece of knowledge is unimportant to determining your actions or most of them, I won’t privilege it just because it has some cultural or theoretical role in some ideology.

Punoxysm Jan 27, 2015, 5:31 AM
6 points
in reply to: is4junk’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
I just read a crapton of political news for a couple years until I was completely sick of it.

I also kind of live in a bubble, in terms of economic security, such that most policy debates don’t realistically impact me.

High belief in a near singularity is unnecessary.

Punoxysm Jan 27, 2015, 5:26 AM
0 points
in reply to: Slider’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
The decreasing price for prior buyers is an interesting notion.

There are specific auction and pre-commitment and group-buying schemes that evoke certain behaviors, and there’s room for a lot more start-ups and businesses taking advantage of these (blockchains and smart contracts in particular have a lot of potential).

I don’t think we’ll ever get rid of marketing though.

Punoxysm Jan 27, 2015, 5:19 AM
4 points
in reply to: Plasmon’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
I don’t get what you’re getting at.

Pricing is a well-studied area. Price discrimination based on time and exclusivity of ‘first editions’ and the like is possible, but highly dependent on the market. Why would anyone be able to sell an item with a given pricing scheme like 1/n? If their competitor is undercutting them on the first item, they’ll never get a chance to sell the latter ones. And besides there’s no reason such a scheme would be profit-maximizing.

Punoxysm Jan 27, 2015, 5:12 AM
2 points
in reply to: wobster109’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
AI is the harder role, judging from past outcomes. I hope you prepare well enough to make it interesting for GK.

I’m interested in doing AI Box as either role. How did you organize your round?

Punoxysm Jan 27, 2015, 5:09 AM
5 points
in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
I used to be frustrated by the idea that my nation’s stated principles were often undermined by its historical actions. Then I realized that this is true of every nation, everywhere at all times. Same with politicians, public figures, parents, companies, myself, etc.

Hypocritical actions happen all the time, and it is a victory when their severity and frequency is tempered. At the same time, justifications for those hypocritical actions abound. The key is not to take them at face value or reject them completely, but remember with humility that your favored group makes the same excuses at varying levels of validity.

So now I can empathize much more easily when people try to defend apparently hypocritical and reprehensible behavior. Even if I AM better than they are, I’m not qualitatively better, and its disingenuous to try to argue as if I am. This realization leads to a more pragmatic, more fact-and-context-sensitive approach to real-world conflicts of values.

Punoxysm Jan 27, 2015, 5:01 AM
5 points
on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
I think in many professions you can categorize people as professionals or auteurs (insofar as anyone can ever be classified, binaries are false, yada yada).

Professionals as people ready to fit into the necessary role and execute the required duties. Professionals are happy with “good enough”, are timely, work well with others, step back or bow out when necessary, don’t defend their visions or ideas when the defense is unlikely to be listened to. Professionals compromise on ideas, conform in their behavior, and to some degree expect others to do the same. Professionals are reliable, level-headed, and can handle crises or unexpected events. They may have a strong and distinct vision of their goals or their craft, but will subsume it to another’s without much fuss if they don’t think they have the stance or leverage to promote it. Professionals accurately assess their social status in different situations, and are reluctant to defy it.

On the worse end of this spectrum is the yes-man, the bureaucrat, and the aggressive conformer. On the better end are the metaphorical Eagle Scouts, the executive, the “fixers” who can come in and clean up any mess.

Auteurs are guided first by their own vision, maybe to the point of obsession. Auteurs optimize aggressively and wildly, but only for their own vision. Auteurs will interrupt you to tell you why their idea is better, or why yours is wrong. Auteurs have a hard time working together if they disagree, but can work well together if they agree, or with professionals who can align with their thinking. Auteurs don’t care that their ideas are non-standard, or don’t follow best practices, or have substantial material difficulties. Auteurs will let a deadline fly past if their work is not ready. Auteurs might look past facts that contradict thems. Auteurs don’t feel that sorry if they make themselves a pain in the ass for others to move toward their goals. Auteurs will disregard status, norms, and feelings to evangelize.

On the worse end they are kooks, irrationally obstinate and arrogant, or quixotic ineffectuals. On the best they are visionaries, evangelists for great ideas, obsessive perfectionists who elevate their craft whether the material rewards are proportional to their pains or not.

I think LW might have more sympathy for the Auteurs, but I hope people recognize the virtues of the professional and the shortcomings of the auteur, and that there is a time and place to channel the spirit of each side.

Punoxysm Jan 27, 2015, 4:36 AM
−1 points
on: Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
I believe many philosophies and ideologies have hangups, obsessions, or parasitical beliefs that are unimportant to most of the beliefs in practice, and to living your life in concordance with the philosophy, yet which are somehow interpreted as central to the philosophy by some adherents, often because they fit elegantly into the theoretical groundings.

Christians have murdered each other over transubstantiation vs consubstantiation. Some strands of Libertarianism obsess over physical property. On this forum huge amounts of digital ink are spilled over Many-Worlds Interpretation. Each fitness community swears by contradictory advice, even about basic nutrition and exercise.

These are sometimes badges of tribalism, sometimes the result of trying to hard to make a “perfect theory”.

Most of the time, most of this stuff just doesn’t matter! To live a Christian life, it could not matter less what you believe about the Eucharist. You could live your life as if the world were classically Newtonian and everything defying that was magic, and unless you were a physicist it would not affect your life as a rationalist. You can become more fit than most people you know on almost any given fitness program, with time and effort and diet.

“Doctrinal” issues are largely a distraction from actually living your life in accordance with principles you think are good or from achieving a goal.

Punoxysm Jan 19, 2015, 4:40 AM
10 points
in reply to: buybuydandavis’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 19 - Jan. 25, 2015
Remember the ⁸⁰⁄₂₀ rule. Don’t over-optimize; it could be expensive and dangerous.

At least get your diet in line before you worry too much about pharmaceuticals.

Punoxysm Jan 19, 2015, 4:35 AM
36 points
in reply to: Alex_Miller’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 19 - Jan. 25, 2015
Be charitable; don’t assume they’re trying to present themselves as martyrs. Instead they could be outlining the peculiar challenges and difficulties of their particular positions.

Life is hard for everyone at times.

Punoxysm Jan 16, 2015, 10:29 PM
22 points
on: Group Rationality Diary, January 16-31
I am enrolled in a weightwatchers-like program.

My doctor recommended it to me 6 months ago and I said “doc, I can understand nutrition and exercise myself! no need for a program like this. I’ll lose weight my own methods and show you in a follow-up!”

One follow-up later, I’m 10 pounds heavier and agree to enroll.

If you’re not rational enough to get it done one way, try a different way.

Punoxysm Jan 14, 2015, 6:30 PM
0 points
in reply to: ike’s comment on: The guardian article on longevity research [link]
I’m moderately familiar with the work that exists. No need to google it for me.

I’m talking about something on the order of winning the Methusaleh mouse prize (20 years). Something that could show a concrete path towards indefinite lifespan. Calorie restriction doesn’t look like it will get us there.

Sorry I wasn’t clear.

Punoxysm Jan 14, 2015, 2:44 AM
2 points
on: The guardian article on longevity research [link]
Sadly it seems like all the researchers are still at the early hypothesis / vaguely-grounded speculation stage.

Of course, everything has to start somewhere, and the true hypothesis is built on the bones of the false ones, but it also means that it’s hard for these efforts to gain the scale of funding that could really accelerate them.

When somebody manages to substantially slow aging in an animal (preferably a mouse, but maybe a fruitfly would be enough), I think the faucet will really turn on.

Punoxysm Jan 8, 2015, 5:11 AM
3 points
in reply to: kalium’s comment on: Low Hanging fruit for buying a better life
The bike you should get depends a lot on your use case. A used one is a decent choice if you’re doing short commuting and random city errands. If you want to do long or fast rides, invest more (though beware there’s no real ceiling on bike cost and accessories have strong allure).

Whatever bike you get, make sure it’s in decent shape and is sized correctly for you. Also put a bit of effort into maintenance (lube the chain and inflate the tires and you’re fine for casual riding). AND GET SAFETY LIGHTS.

Punoxysm Jan 8, 2015, 4:58 AM
5 points
on: Programming-like activities?
- Personal financial literacy (single most important factor for long-term wealth building)
- Basic understanding of nutrition and exercise (the caveat is that there’s a LOT of bad information or irrelevant information out there. Going from zero to some knowledge is hugely beneficial).
- Meditation (you can immediately observe the novelty of meditating if you have never done it before; I won’t say it’s incredibly useful but it can be nice)
- Household repair (look up how to fix something yourself whenever the opportunity comes up; use your judgment though)