Screwtape

Karma: 4,278

I’m Screwtape, also known as Skyler. I’m an aspiring rationalist originally introduced to the community through HPMoR, and I stayed around because the writers here kept improving how I thought. I’m fond of the Rationality As A Martial Art metaphor, new mental tools to make my life better, and meeting people who are strange in ways I find familiar and comfortable. If you’re ever in the Boston area, feel free to say hi.

Starting early in 2023, I’m the ACX Meetups Czar. You might also know me from the New York City Rationalist Megameetup, editing the Animorphs: The Reckoning podfic, or being that guy at meetups with a bright bandanna who gets really excited when people bring up indie tabletop roleplaying games.

I recognize that last description might fit more than one person.

Screwtape 20 Dec 2024 22:41 UTC
6 points
0
on: Updates and Reflections on Optimal Exercise after Nearly a Decade
One of the stated purposes of the LessWrong Review is to decide what posts stood the test of time, looking back at the last year. We have yet to do a LessWrong Review that looked back at the last decade, but wouldn’t it be awesome if we did?
That’s what this essay offers. It’s short! I wish it had a little more data, or went into details like what nervous system training was tried (what about Yoga works?) but if the biggest complaint I have about an essay is ‘I wish it was longer’ that’s a really good problem to have!
I’d like to encourage people to write more followups to plans they laid a decade ago. I wish LessWrong had more feedback loops that did look at we were all excited about a decade ago. For both those reasons, I’d like this to be in the Best Of Review. I want Romeostevensit to get a really nice cookie for the followup.

Screwtape 17 Dec 2024 23:12 UTC
4 points
0
on: The 101 Space You Will Always Have With You
(Self review) Does this essay belong in the Best Of collection? That’s a good question. Do people go back and read all the Best Of posts? Do they read the Best Of posts from previous years? Speaking as the person who wrote this, if there was a collection of posts everyone on LessWrong read when they joined, I might not need this essay included in that collection because the essay would have already succeeded. I’d want basically any other essay that taught an object-level thing.
Then again, this essay is a useful pointer to why a group might repeat information that most people already know. If I imagine a Five Books Of Moses for the Rationality Community, I actually do think it would be good to include one chapter that said essentially “make a copy of this book and read it every year, because that’s how you make sure everyone in the community actually knows this stuff.” If you left out that chapter, eventually someone would forget why they were supposed to have that habit of rereading the thing as a group every year, they wouldn’t do it, and then years later the community would have a bunch of people who didn’t know the basics.
(Amusingly, I plan to create a different version of this essay every couple of years and post it somewhere. This is because I don’t want people to forget about it, and it’s easy to forget about, and I think newcomers read new stuff more than they reliably dig into old stuff. This information isn’t especially important on the object level, but I stand by my argument that if there isn’t something that teaches new people the things you want everyone in a space to know, new people won’t know it. )
I don’t think the Best Of posts are actually intended to be the collection of common knowledge everyone is expected to eventually know. Absent that, this is just a good essay about how common knowledge works. It’s my essay so I can’t vote on it, but if I could I’d have given it a 1 upvote for the Best Of collection- a serviceable addition, but probably replaceable.

Screwtape 17 Dec 2024 22:57 UTC
8 points
5
on: [Link] A community alert about Ziz
Most LessWrong readers do not attend meetups, and this is basically useless to them. Some readers do attend meetups, which Ziz will not attend because the organizers are aware of this and are will keep Ziz out. Some organizers aren’t aware, and this is a useful thing to be able to point to in that case, though since this was written describing a developing situation it would be kind of nice to have a conclusion or update somewhere near the top.
Overall, I wouldn’t want this in the Best Of collection, but I do expect to link people to it in the future.

Screwtape 14 Dec 2024 6:09 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: Peacewagers so Far
A year ago: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bF353RHmuzFQcsokF/cohabitive-games-so-far This post introduces the idea, motivation, and a bit of information about the game itself.

Four months ago: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xY3A8xy6ox5jzmCAm/release-optimal-weave-p1-a-prototype-cohabitive-game A playable version is released, with rules.

(Apologies for link formatting, I’m on mobile at the moment.)

Screwtape 13 Dec 2024 18:53 UTC
4 points
2
on: Guide to rationalist interior decorating
My recommendation for this essay’s inclusion in the Best Of LessWrong collection comes down to two questions.
1. Are the places decorated like this actually that nice?
2. Is this a useful guide for creating those spaces?
Having been to Lighthaven (Lightcone’s venue) a lot over the last year, I think the answer to 1. is a straightforward yes. Lots of other people love Lighthaven. It’s possible that this style doesn’t work if you’re putting less oomph into it than Lightcone put into Lighthaven. I’ve visited a couple of homes decorated like this and think the style works pretty well.
As for 2, yeah, I think this is useful. It points out things people might not think of (colour! I didn’t think about colour when decorating a space, because I hadn’t sat down and thought about it or done much research. Light! Luminators are great and pointing people at them is helpful) and is organized neatly by sections.

Screwtape 13 Dec 2024 18:43 UTC
2 points
0
on: So you want to save the world? An account in paladinhood
I like this essay. I am not a paladin and do not particularly plan to become one. I do not think all the people setting out to maximize utility would stand behind this particular version of the rallying cry.
But I do think paladins exist, I want them to have a rallying cry, and when it works — when they do manage to point themselves at the right target, and are capable of making a dent, then I appreciate that they exist and chose to do that. I also appreciate the “if you want to save the world, then here’s how” framing.
I don’t quite think someone could follow this essay to paladinhood so I’m mixed as to whether it succeeds at what it’s setting out to do. I’ve given this a small upward vote in the review, with the intent to say yeah, hey paladins, I’m glad you’re around LessWrong and I think something would be lost if you all left.

Screwtape 13 Dec 2024 18:30 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: mako yass’s comment on: Peacewagers so Far
In contrast, your article meandering for 11 paragraphs defining concepts that basically everyone already has installed before dropping the definition of cohabitive game in a paragraph that looks just like any of the others.
This is an excellent point and I’ve added a summary at the start, plus some headers. Thank you!
I want to take a moment and note that I’m currently approaching this cooperatively. (Yes, ironic given the subject.) I want the idea of cohabitive games to be in the LessWrong lexicon, I think you also want this, those are the articles we have the chance to put in a higher profile Best Of list, so anything that strengthens either is good.
I don’t think that’s a good criticism, those sections are well labelled, the reader is able to skip them if they’re not going to be interested in the contents
Plausible this is a stylistic thing and you should feel free to ignore me. I found that I lost track of the flow in the bullet points. For a specific example, the area that starts “Instead of P1′s omniscient contract enforcement system...” has a mix of long and short bullets that go like this-
- Instead of P1′s omniscient contract enforcement system...
  - Let us build a strand-type board game...
  - I’ve heard it suggested that if we got world leaders...
    But I’ll make an attempt...
    If you initially score for forests...
    If you want your friends to be happy...
    Taken to an extreme...
- Give some players a binary...
- and when I get to “Give some players a binary...” I’ve sort of lost track of which level it’s on and what thought it’s continuing from, in part because “I’ve heard it suggested...” is long enough to take up most of the screen on my laptop.
The rules of OW.1 aren’t in a zip file
Now they aren’t :) This is a case where I think the review’s sort of caught the development process in amber. Release: Optimal Weave (P1) has the clean game links up front and easy to find; it’s the answer to my second part basically. I am still a little worried about those links going dead sometime down the line, though I also think it’s quite reasonable to want to keep a prototype where it’s easier to update for you and in a format that’s best for the standalone game.

Screwtape 11 Dec 2024 2:58 UTC
7 points
2
on: Basics of Rationalist Discourse
I think this, or something like this, should be in a place of prominence on LessWrong. The Best Of collection might not be the place, but it’s the place I can vote on, so I’d like to vote for it here.
I used “or something like this” above intentionally. The format of this post — an introduction of why these guidelines exist, short one or two sentence explanations of the guideline, and then expanded explanations with “ways you might feel when you’re about to break the X Guideline” — is excellent. It turns each guideline into a mini-lesson, which can be broken out and referenced independently. The introduction gives context for them all to hang together. The format is A+, fighting for S tier.
Why “something like this” instead of “this, exactly this” then? Each individual guideline is good, but they don’t feel like they’re the only set. I can imagine swapping basically any of them other than 0 and 1 out for something different and having something I liked just as much. I still look at 5 (“Aim for convergence on truth, and behave as if your interlocutors are also aiming for convergence on truth”) and internally wince. I imagine lots of people read it, mostly agreed with it, but wanted to replace or quibble with one or two of the guidelines, and from reading the comments there wasn’t a consensus on which line was out of place.
That seems like a good sign.
It’s interesting to me to contrast it with Elements Of Rationalist Discourse. Elements doesn’t resonate as much with me, and while some of that is Elements is not laid out as cleanly I also don’t agree with the list the same way. And yet, Elements was also upvoted highly. The people yearn for guidelines, and there wasn’t a clear favourite. Someday I might try my own hand at the genre, and I still consider myself to owe an expansion on my issues with 5.
I’m voting for this to be in the Best Of LessWrong collection. If there was a process to vote to make this or at least the introduction and Guidelines, In Brief into a sitewide default recommendation I would vote for that.

Screwtape 11 Dec 2024 2:46 UTC
6 points
0
in reply to: Screwtape’s comment on: Open Thread Fall 2024
The census is live!
The post itself is here if you want a little more detail, but I thought I’d save you a click.

Screwtape 11 Dec 2024 2:16 UTC
4 points
0
on: Peacewagers so Far
I really like cohabitive games. I enjoy playing this one. I’m somewhat mixed on this post in particular being in the Best Of LessWrong collection. Cohabitive Games So Far looks like it’s doing two things; it’s outlining what a cohabitive game is and why it’s interesting, and it’s describing one specific cohabitive game but not in enough detail to play it.
For the first part (outlining what a cohabitive game is and why it’s interesting) I prefer Competitive, Cooperative, and Cohabitive. (Though I wrote Competitive, Cooperative, and Cohabitive, so I might be biased here.) I think it would be good to get “Cohabitive” into the general rationalist lexicon via some means though, and would vote in favour of post explaining the concept for the Best Of LessWrong collection. Overall Cohabitive Games so Far sprawls a bit in a couple of places, particularly where bullet points create an unordered list.
For the second part, I’d like to see a writeup of how Peacewager works in enough detail to play a couple games. That writeup exists, but this post has a link to a website that has a link to a .zip file with the rules. I get that Peacewager is a prototype and the rules are likely to change in the future, but if I’m going to review a post on the basis of the game itself, I’d like the rules to be in the post where it’s easier to comment on them. It’d be awkward if five years from now the Best Of posts had a dead link to an important part of the post. If I imagine I’m voting on the Peacewager rules themselves for the Best Of LessWrong. . . eh. I think I’d tentatively vote for their inclusion if the game succeeded at what it was trying to do, and against if I thought it was missing the mark. Right now the game is rough enough around the edges I think it doesn’t quite get there for me.
(Mako Yass does get the points for being the idiomatic man in the arena though- It’s been a year and I haven’t yet published either of my cohabitive games.)
Where does that land? I think Competitive, Cooperative, and Cohabitive is better for explaining the concept, but one of the two is worth putting in the Best Of LessWrong collection and if you like Cohabitive Games So Far then vote for it.

Screwtape 11 Dec 2024 1:33 UTC
2 points
0
on: On Tapping Out
(Self Review) I stand by this post, and if the Best Of LessWrong posts are posts we want everyone in the community to have read then this seems worth the space.
Tapping out is a piece of rationalist jargon that has a definition in the LessWrong tags and has been used in the community for years, but doesn’t really have a canonical post explaining why we use it. The tag definition is a good explanation of what it means and it’s shorter, which is good. I think tapping out is a good and useful tool when having debates or discussions, and it’s one that works best if everyone involved already knows the term.
If we could nominate tags to the Best Of LessWrong posts, I’d say either the tag definition or this post would be fine additions. Since the timing works out for the post, sure, let’s go with this post.

Screwtape 11 Dec 2024 1:22 UTC
7 points
0
on: You don’t get to have cool flaws
This essay is an example of the ancient LessWrong genre, “dumb mistakes your brain might be making which feel obvious once someone points them out.” I love this genre, and think You Don’t Get To Have Cool Flaws should be included in the Best Of LessWrong posts.

It’s so easy to make this mistake! In fiction, complex and beloved characters have flaws. Fiction can set examples we try to live up to. Flaws are easier to emulate than virtues. I can’t train as hard as Batman, and I can’t be as wealthy as Batman, but I can brood! Brooding is easy! But the flaw isn’t why I want to be like Batman!
This is such a succinct essay that I worry my review might get longer than the essay itself and I’m just repeating the good points, but pointing out that people can identify with their flaws is worth the verbiage. Sure, perfection is hard, but flaws shouldn’t be accepted stable parts of yourself. Why would you ever operate like that? Because the flaw is cool? Because it’s been a part of me for a long time? Because it distinguishes me from other people nearby? Because it means less work? None of those are good reasons.
I’m not going to fix all my flaws tomorrow, but I can at least remember that they are things I would fix if I could snap my fingers and change myself however I wanted.
What links here?
- You don’t get to have cool flaws by Neil (28 Jul 2023 5:37 UTC; 59 points)

Screwtape 11 Dec 2024 1:15 UTC
5 points
0
on: Focus on the places where you feel shocked everyone’s dropping the ball
I’m glad I read this, and it’s been a repeating line in my head when I’ve tried to make long term plans. I’d like this to be included in the Best Of LessWrong posts.
Even if you are doing something fairly standard and uncomplicated, there are likely multiple parts to what you do. A software engineer can look at a bunch of tickets, some code reviews, the gap where good documentation can be, and the deployment pipeline before deciding that the team is dropping the ball on documentation. A schoolteacher might look at the regular classes, the extracurricular programs, the recess policy, and decide that the school is dropping the ball by focusing too much on sports and not having any theatre program.
If you’re doing something weird and unusual, this gets more useful. While I haven’t done it, my understanding is that finding a place where everyone else is dropping the ball is a good way to find startup ideas. If you’re a new non-profit trying to help people, looking for the underserved parts of your community seems like a good way to make an impact.
I don’t know how idiosyncratic my situation is, and suspect there should be a contrasting essay. Sometimes the reason it looks like everyone is dropping the ball is because there’s some hidden hard part. Inadequate Equilibria might be the long version of that essay, but I’d like a short one to put next to Focus On The Places Where You Feel Shocked Everyone’s Dropping The Ball.

Screwtape 7 Dec 2024 3:10 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: Martin Randall’s comment on: 2024 Unofficial LessWrong Census/Survey
I’d say non-theistic religions should mark “Athiest but spiritual.”

I’m confident that’s not the least principled way someone has answered the probability questions. I’m currently like asking people to come up with a number, even one they’re pulling out of their rear, and explicitly mentioning N/As feels like it gets me fewer numbers to play with.

Screwtape 7 Dec 2024 2:54 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Drake Morrison’s comment on: 2024 Unofficial LessWrong Census/Survey
Thank you, both for taking the survey and for the appreciation!

Screwtape 7 Dec 2024 2:53 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Screwtape’s comment on: 2024 Unofficial LessWrong Census/Survey
How do you feel about pinning the census for a few days at some point this month?

Screwtape 5 Dec 2024 22:19 UTC
8 points
1
on: Things I Learned by Spending Five Thousand Hours In Non-EA Charities
I think this should be included in the Best Of LessWrong posts.

This post exemplifies the virtue of scholarship, of looking at every field and skillset as one more source of information. It’s well packaged into specific lessons and it comes from someone who can speak in both the Rationalist idiom and the local idiom. It’s also on a subject many of us are working on: EA and LW nonprofits do work alongside ‘normal’ charities, and it’s helpful to see their different views and frames. I’d be delighted by a dozen posts like this, field reports from other fields from the perspective of someone who spent years there.

Just the line “what is your fantasy partner/complement organization?” is worth having. It’s changed how I evaluate neighboring organizations, and how I try and prioritize my own projects. Think of it as a scalled up, non-profit version of YCombinator’s “Make something people want.”

Screwtape 4 Dec 2024 0:26 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: nick lacombe’s comment on: 2024 Unofficial LessWrong Census/Survey
Thanks!

Screwtape 4 Dec 2024 0:25 UTC
5 points
0
in reply to: mayleaf’s comment on: 2024 Unofficial LessWrong Census/Survey
I don’t believe it’s a reference to a particular post. Some people have fun as a group, whether partying or playing games together or just spending time showing each other cat pictures. Some ways to have fun as a group result in more fun than others, and people might try to test which ways have more fun.

Screwtape 4 Dec 2024 0:24 UTC
0 points
0
in reply to: Sherrinford’s comment on: 2024 Unofficial LessWrong Census/Survey
Thank you!