Max Learning FI

learning book content brainstorming

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 21:03:00 +1100

Intro
- Gem of Seeing
- Goals and Achievement
- The Alternative
- Learning First
Why
- Attitude - I - Life
- Stuck - I
- Choices
- Attitude - II - Step by Step
  - Life Isn’t a Speed Run
  - Main Quest
  - Side Quests (Indirection)
- Attitude - III - Problems
  - Criticism & You
- Perspective
  - On Yourself
  - On Life
  - On Problems
  - On Others
- Opportunities
  - Creation
  - Exploitation
  - Attitude - IV
- Alignment
  - Honesty - I
  - Conflicts
  - Priorities - I
- Your Future
  - Direction
  - Freedom & Autonomy
  - Bounded vs Unbounded - I
  - You Can be a Beginning of Infinity
What / When / Where
- Learning - What it means
  - Learning cycle
- Progress
  - Bounded vs Unbounded - II
- Bottlenecks & Capacity
- Focus - I
- Priorities - II
- Mistakes
- Stuck - II
- Honesty - II
- Overreaching - I
How
- Humility & Doubt
  - Questions - I
  - Overreaching - II
  - Honesty - III
- Priorities - III
- Focus - II
  - 1-3 things
  - Questions - II
  - Hooking
- Excess Capacity
- Self Judgement
  - Overreaching - III
  - Questions - III
  - Sense of Life (?)
- Creation
  - Bounded vs Unbounded - III
  - Ideas
  - Judgements
- Stuck - III
  - Perserverence
  - Getting Unstuck
    - Questions - IV
Advanced
- Structural Epistemology
- Learning, the Mind, and AGI
- 1st / 2nd Order Stuck
  - Questions - V
- Overreaching - IV
Further Reading & Acknowledgements
- Elliot Temple
- Fallible Ideas
- Goldratt
- Rand
- Deutsch

notes

learning cycle more prominent
add: applying to knowledge-work
judging ideas - IGCs
limits
distractions
mistakes
- e.g. GPB and over-perseverance: https://youtu.be/36gbY5rPT-A?t=1097
tilting
motor
- todo: read Rand on this
overconfidence
humility
consistency
- penga practicing one thing over and over via a level created for that purpose - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-2qhUbL1-M

1st order stuck vs 2nd order stuck and structural epistemology

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 17:20:00 +1100

Note: I think this is an advanced topic on learning. I mention this for two reasons: 1. it’s not something ppl should be worried about early on, and learning the basics is more important; and 2. I’m less sure about this than my other posts on learning so far. I would still be surprised if there were significant errors, though. I’m like 8/10 confident on 1st and 2nd order stuck. I’m 9+/10 confident on the structural epistemology parts.

What happens when two people learn the same thing? It’s common sense that there will be some differences in what they learn, how well they can apply it, etc. Some of that is due to pre-existing knowledge, but is there more to it?

can two people ever learn the same thing?

Consider: Alice and Bob want to learn about something particular, and have similar background knowledge. The first two concepts they need to learn are X and Y. After that, there’s a third concept, Z, that builds on both of those. There’s also concept W that’s sort of similar to (X,Y,Z) but a bit different too.

Let’s consider a concrete example: building a computer. Alice and Bob have finished high school and want to build a computer over the christmas break. They will need to learn about the components of a computer so they know what to buy (cpu, motherboard, ram, ssds and/or hdds, the case, etc). They also need to know some super-basics about electronics: how to plug all their components together, what cables they’ll need to use or buy, calculating power consumption, etc. Those are concepts X and Y. Concept Z is how all the components work together in a complete computer and which configurations work for particular purposes (e.g. gaming, office work, video editing, streaming, music creation, digital art, etc). They need to know some other things too (like how to install an operating system, and background knowledge) – we don’t need to consider those things for this example.

Once they know Z they can choose and buy their components and then put it all together. They’re both successful.

As it happens, both of them applied for electrical engineering courses at university, and both are accepted. At the end of their break, they take their computers and their knowledge about computers – (X,Y,Z) – with them to to university.

Before we continue let’s think about what Alice and Bob learned while studying (X,Y,Z). Can we find out if they learnt the same thing or not? What does the same thing mean in the context of learning?

I think there are two important ways to look at whether they learnt equivalent things or not. One of them is about the tasks they can perform; and the other is about the ideas themselves.

If we’re only concerned with the results that certain knowledge gives, we are talking about the knowledge’s denotation. If Alice and Bob can perform the same tasks (they get equivalent results with only negligible differences) then we say they have the same denotational knowledge.

We can say that Alice and Bob learned the same thing because they both built a computer, and they can both answer the same questions about the configurations that make sense for certain use cases. This is like a standardized test that are common in schools. It’s a definition of a checklist of inputs (questions) and outputs (answers) that students should repeat. For some types of tests, like text analysis in English, the answers aren’t explicitly listed; rather, qualities of good answers are listed (like ‘identifies techniques’ or ‘discusses the interaction of themes’, etc). For other tests the answers are explicit (e.g. multiple choice tests); and finally some tests have a mix of both (like maths tests, where the final answer is explicit but the algebra to get there is not).

What if we’re concerned with the other option: the ideas themselves? How can we compare those?

We can’t directly observe ideas. Even if we could see inside Alice and Bob’s brains (something they might not like), how would we know what to look for? We can’t just ask them either: they can’t tell us exactly what their ideas are, and we can’t ask them questions on the topic either – that would basically be like a standardised test. So how do we know if they learnt equivalent things?

Even though we can’t directly observe ideas, there is a way ideas are used other than to produce results – ideas are building blocks for other ideas. This means that if Bob and Alice learnt the same thing, then they should be able to build similar new ideas with their (X,Y,Z) building blocks.

Alice and Bob will learn a new idea similarly if they have similar building blocks – if their knowledge has the same structure. It’s like they have same same lego set of ideas. If their knowledge has different structures, then they can’t build the same things, like if they had lego sets with different pieces. Sometimes they can build the same things, but not always. We can say Alice and Bob have the same structural knowledge if they can build the same ideas.

Let’s consider Alice and Bob learning a basic concept, W, about electronics in first yr uni and how it might interact with (X,Y,Z). W is similar to (X,Y,Z) but also different. Alice and Bob are told that to make electronics you need components and one of a circuit board, or a bread board, or maybe just a mess of wires. They’re told about attaching components to each other, and power, data, and ground and things like that. This is concept W. Alice and Bob each have a different question for the tutor:

Bob asks:

How do you connect components if they’re the wrong shape, or have different wires?

His full idea was something like: computer components connect together using cables or directly using sockets. The wire components of particular cables go with particular connectors only – they don’t go with other connectors. The connectors you need on a cable are the male/female versions that correspond to the connectors on the devices. If a device connects directly, then you can use a cable with one male and and one female end to connect the device somewhere else. If you plug everything together with matching sockets, then it’ll all work out.

Bob asked his question b/c his understanding was at the level of emergence of cables and connectors and things you could plug together.

Alice asks:

How can we replace components if some components are out of stock or too expensive?

Alice had a different idea, something like: sockets and connectors are chosen to make sure ppl plug the right things together. Manufacturers choose particular wires and shrouding based on: availability and price, the requirements of the components being connected (i.e. standards like HDMI), what the customer expects, and how the cable will be used (are there lots in a bunch, does it need to go round corners, etc). You can cut up multiple cables and join them together (splicing) to make cables with different combinations of male/female connectors, to change between compatible connectors (an adaptor), or to replace faulty wires – provided you are combining wiring of high enough quality (excess capacity). Cables are only there to deliver power to components or transmit signals between them.

Alice asked her question b/c her understanding was at the level of emergence of wires and semi-conductors with some economics thrown in.

I hope you can see how their knowledge differs in structure even thought they’re both able to use it to put together the same computers, diagnose the same problems, know which replacement parts or upgrades to buy, etc.

Structural knowledge matters when we want to build on, or change knowledge. When we want to use it for different things, or apply it to new situations. If the structure of (X,Y,Z) is different in different people, then they can still have the same denotational knowledge, but they will diverge when they learn new things.

Just because some knowledge has the same denotation does not mean that it has the same structure.

We do know how to record some elements of structural knowledge. curi gives some examples in Structural Epistemology Introduction Part 1 and Structural Epistemology Introduction Part 2.

But ideas in the mind are different from ideas that are written down. We don’t know how to compare ideas directly. However, we do know some things about people and how ideas are created. Ideas aren’t written in to your brain like things are written on paper. Ideas are created through an evolutionary process – exactly how we don’t know. You learn something when your brain creates an idea that explains the things you’re trying to understand – or, for simple things, when you can repeat an action or achieve a result. That means your brain needs to combine pre-existing ideas repeatedly (thinking) until it finds an idea that satisfies some success criteria. Your brain can do a lot of auto-criticising; that’s when you’re thinking but it’s like work, like you’re waiting for your unconscious mind to tell you the answer. Sometimes you have an idea that’s nearly right, only to learn of a criticism later (maybe you came up with it or someone else did). Our brain makes guesses and nothing will guarantee any of those guesses are correct, but we can know when something is not correct if we know a criticism of it.

When two people learn the same thing, they might have the same denotational knowledge (within some scope), but they’ll ~never have exactly the same structural knowledge. There will always be some differences.

1st order stuck and 2nd order stuck

When you get stuck, there are two ways that can happen.

First, you can stop learning all together (this can be specific to a single topic or it can be bigger, too). This is 1st order stuck. It’s the normal kind. It’s fixed in the normal ways and normal techniques work. In the example above, Bob was first order stuck, he just needed to learn some new things about circuitry to move on.

You can be 1st order stuck because of problems with your learning method. You could be doing the wrong type of practice, or not learning from certain media types (e.g. if you hated videos), or overreaching in general.

Second, you can be making a mistake in the act of knowledge creation; you can have a structural problem with the results of your method. This is like whether you’re creating highly general knowledge or not. This is different to 1st order stuck b/c you can still make progress, and technically that progress can still be unbounded. But you will need to do more maintenance of your existing knowledge and it will be more fragile.

This is being 2nd order stuck and means the rate of your learning will suffer. You won’t be able to come up with ideas as well as exceptional people, you won’t be able to use ideas as well as exceptional people, and most importantly you won’t be able to learn as fast as exceptional people. It’s overhead on your velocity and acceleration, not on the distance you can travel.

2nd order stuck isn’t as clear cut or pervasive as 1st order stuck typically is. It can vary by topic.

Authors note: I think this is currently the limit of my understanding.

How do you tell if you’re 2nd order stuck and on what? How do you learn/practice/fix such a mistake? What are the techniques to get 2nd order unstuck?

Can you turn 2nd order stuck into 1st order stuck? … maybe? The only way I can think of is to learn about learning, but I’m not sure that’s enough.

postmortem - onerednail

Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:56:00 +1100

It’s not that there was something particularly wrong with the idea that living the consequence of our ideas is a good thing, or whatever.

It’s just like, what’s the point? What is living the consequecne more: wearing a symbol or producing a track record?

Symbols are easy. Track records are hard. Only one really matters.

Hooking - Learning Technique

Sun, 15 Nov 2020 20:00:00 +1100

OP on curi.us

Hooking is a useful technique for learning.

The name is taken from programming; a “hook” is the relationship and entry point for new functionality. That functionality is added after the original software is written (usually by a different programmer).

Hooks are common in programming. In user interface frameworks like React or Vue, hooks to lifecycle events can be made. Those hooks let the programmer add code that runs before or after meaningful things happen, like before the page is loaded, or after all the assets (like images) have been displayed on the screen. When using Git, hooks like “prepare-commit-msg” and “post-update” allow programmers to run scripts before and after some of the steps in Git’s procedures.

In programming, the hooks that are chosen are at important breakpoints. Roughly, they are the last and first moments around a significant event. There are guarantees about things that have happened and things that will (or might) happen – something possible only because significant breakpoints were chosen.

When learning, we can do something similar, where we can introduce ideas based on noticing some event. Adding hooks to certain actions, thoughts, etc allow us to introduce ideas at that specific point, without the overhead of trying to keep the idea in mind.

One example is forgetting to use the word ‘that’. Maybe you notice [that] you sometimes omit ‘that’ and you think that your writing is less clear because of it. If you choose a breakpoint like ‘when proofreading I needed to reread a sentence’, you can hook the idea ‘check for missing implied words’. You’re not constantly looking for implied words, but you are ready to add that behaviour when you hit that breakpoint.

The words ‘breakpoint’ has a meaning in both programming and CR, and I want to clarify that I’m using it in the CR sense. It aligns fairly intuitively with the programming sense, but with programming you act on a breakpoint differently (e.g. debugging via stepping through code and looking at memory). That idea is not specific enough.

In CR, a breakpoint is a boundary on a spectrum (or pseudo-spectrum) which allows you to make yes/no judgements about IGCs and to effectively deal with continuous/unbounded data.

With hooking, the spectrum[1] that these breakpoints segment* is your thoughts and actions, the idea is the relevant methods of feedback and error correction, and the goal is to avoid the relevant error and to continue avoiding it.

It’s usually easy for programmers to make good guesses about which hooks are useful (and thus good guesses for which breakpoints are useful). The important thing is that the programmer has good explanations for why hooking here in this context is worthwhile. Sometimes there are explanations with reach, like why hooks between initialization and runtime logic are useful.

It’s harder to tell where hooks should go (where to put breakpoints) when it comes to learning. To make good judgements about where hooks go requires that you have a good explanation. That, in turn, requires you understand how to detect, correct, and ultimately avoid those errors. This means hooking is hard to use well when you’re just starting to learn a topic. to judge that you need enough knowledge about both learning generally and the topic that you’re studying. This means it’s good for stage 2 learning (consistency).

Making a bad judgement about where hooks should go can have high cost. One reason to use hooks is that you want to conditionally introduce behaviour with a high overhead. That behaviour doesn’t need to be high overhead on its own; maybe it’s only high overhead when you have 3 other ideas in mind that you’re focusing on. If you’re triggering a badly placed hook (at a bad breakpoint) then you will often have the overhead of considering error correction that doesn’t actually help. If you don’t realise that the hook is badly placed quickly then the cumulative cost can hold your learning back.

1: ‘Spectrum’ and ‘segment’ are (I think) specific to 1d shapes. You’d probably need more than one dimension to represent all possible thoughts and actions. However, that distinction isn’t really relevant here; the principle is the same.

Choices Matter (reflection)

Sun, 15 Nov 2020 04:00:00 +1100

OP on curi.us

I’ve thought for a long time that choices are epistemically significant; even before I had a good idea of what ‘epistemically’ means. One of the first ways I remember thinking about this was wrt determinism and free-will. My idea was roughly: if a person chooses to believe in (and thus have) free-will, then they do have it, and if they choose not to, then they don’t. I don’t think that’s strictly correct, but I do think there’s an essence of truth insofar as the believe that your problems are soluble is required to seek solutions. If you don’t seek solutions to your problems then your life will be ruled by static-memes and other things. Those ideas take away your control and autonomy over your life (at least in particular partial ways).

I think Rand agrees that choices are epistemically significant in some way. From Philosophy: Who Needs It (p 45, kindle edition):

A man does not have to be a worthless scoundrel, but so long as he chooses to be, he is a worthless scoundrel and must be treated accordingly; to treat him otherwise is to contradict a fact. A man does not have to be a heroic achiever; but so long as he chooses to be, he is a heroic achiever and must be treated accordingly; to treat him otherwise is to contradict a fact.

I’m pleased that there seems to be some convergence between what Rand has said and my draft ‘Why I Live’ post (#18534), esp considering I wrote my draft before starting Philosophy. I think that’s probably due largely to learning from curi and consuming his content. (e.g. repeatedly returning to think on the topic ‘helping the best ppl or helping the masses’.)

Note: I’m unsure about my honesty with this next paragraph. I didn’t want to cut it, though, in case anyone has some criticisms of it, or has suggestions of things to consider when one is self-doubtful in this way. I’m using a blockquote to signal that it’s different from the rest of the post.

I’ve repeatedly thought about whether and how choices matter, and one reason for that is my enduring dissatisfaction with how I’ve been treated (particularly wrt academics or ‘intelligence’). I’ve largely been treated well, and often preferentially, going back almost as far as I can remember. My current explanation for that dissatisfaction is that I think my success has had more to do with my choices than innate ability. I don’t know how early that started, though. I have an example about explicitly choosing to change my attitude and approach to an aspect of life from when I was 13, so I think I must have had some important ideas before that.

I still think choices matter, and also that the choice to believe choices matter is epistemically significant.

There’s a deluge of bad ideas waiting to flood one’s mind if one doesn’t take one’s choices seriously.

Learning Report 5th Oct To 14th Nov

Sat, 14 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +1100

Max’s Learning Report - 5th Oct to 14th Nov

Post to curi.us learning reports thread

I’ve mostly been posting to my microblogging thread and a little to my FI site. I’ve written a decent amount.

I finished The Choice (finally) and started Philosophy: Who Needs It. I’m really enjoying P:WNI. One of my favourite sections so far is Rand’s open letter to Boris Spassky.

I haven’t discussed The Choice much. The latter sections (e.g. comfort zones) I haven’t discussed at all. I’m not overly worried, though why shouldn’t I be worried? I wrote a post about how it’s important to have good self-judgement and to fully complete the learning cycle. Have I done so wrt The Choice? I can’t remember much off the top of my head re: comfort zones. I think I might have to revisit the last few chapters again.

I wrote 11887 words in my microblogging thread between these dates. This report covers ~40 days, so I wrote an average of ~297 words per day. I notice I felt pretty good reflecting on writing ~12k words total, but less good thinking about ~300 words / day. It doesn’t make sense to feel less good like that, though. For one there’s sampling bias – I’ve written more recently on the whole – but more importantly: I’ve started writing more in general, and I am looking forward to writing if I haven’t for a while. I want to write down thoughts and ideas now, regularly. Before tutoring I only wanted to write things down when I was struck with particular and fleeting motivation. I’m excited to think that I might be moving past that.

I’ve also started curi’s CF course. I’m finding it both good revision of yes/no and tutorial matieral, and also a good source of inspiration for connecting ideas I previously hadn’t – like breakpoints and excess capacity. (I’m not sure if curi and I covered this at all in the tutorials, but it hadn’t sunk in if we had.)

sizeable or significant posts

Conversation with curi: (Tutoring Max #49) There are no conflicts of interest between rational men
Initial answers to some conflicts of interest questions (TM#49)
Some thoughts on good/bad error msgs. I think they’re important. I found a surprise overlap with helping the best ppl or helping the masses – I think there were issues with this; the quality was too low b/c it was almost like personal notes. I haven’t done a PM or tried to re-write it.
harmony of interests - don’t forget about unknowns
in-progress idea on (in)dependent status of variables as yes/no property of explanations [Max] – I never finished this idea, but I did change my mind on whether it was worth thinking about. I got stuck at the point where I think I needed a way to test if an explanation was yes/no, but at that point you have to do significant creative thought anyway, so you can just directly criticise it. like there’s no an obvious way this could be useful. the idea wasn’t solving a major bottleneck or anything, so I stopped thinking about it.
feedback request: “Why I Live” draft 1 [Max] – this is mirrored on my site and there are some follow up comments. It’s about the importance of choosing to pursue great ideas. Anne and I have some conversation about it.
reflections on ‘Why I Live’ draft & idea in general – I had some reflections on the above post, particularly I thought I was dishonest in the way I put forward the idea. I presented it like it was reality, but really it’s an aspiration. It’s partly true, but I’m not close to consistent.
I’m thinking of unendorsing ~everything I’ve written – I’m still considering this and planning on posting to FI about it.
Reach + parameterisation of reach – Some ideas I had about reach and how it related to reality. particularly that there are infinite ways reach can be parameterised.
low-error-rate post on good self-judgement and learning - minor error 1
Some policies I am thinking of writing – social engagements; gift giving; birthdays and celebrations
a danger of unconventional ideas on academia
running communities based on ideas - note to self
Choices Matter (reflection)

short/tiny/insignificant posts

Things I could have practiced but haven’t

mapping a conversation tree
(probably more)

Posts I’m thinking of writing:

A postmortem (posted to FI) on some somewhat recent stuff I didn’t understand and now think I do
Thoughts on secondhandedness and the interaction with great people – relates to some thoughts I had regarding this thank-you msg to curi: http://curi.us/2385-discussion-points-of-view-and-mutual-benefit#18262
Reflections on tutoring (now that we’ve stopped the tutorials)

Desires / Goals

I want to keep up my writing and exceed my words-per-day average next time I do a learning report. In service to this I can keep track of what I write as I go, that way it’ll be easier to put together the next LR (this one is taking some time).
I want to keep thinking (and writing) about learning and related topics. I feel like it’s going to be very important to get that right.
I want to work on removing overheads from my life. Buffer can deal with some overheads, but there’s a limit to that. If you have too many overheads then no amount of buffer will let you fully avoid big impacts on your life. I’m going to start small by getting my house in order and selling some excess things.
I want to develop my plan for a mass-unendorsing. (Maybe I should note it’s not a way to escape doing post-mortems about things in the past & discussing past mistakes; it’s just a way to be unshackled from legacy)

Misc

I counted words by copying all my comments from microblogging to a text file. Then I used ctrl+f w/ ‘reply quote’ to quickly find+remove comments by other ppl. I then used the regex ^([\w\d #:\.\-\/'?>,”“|’\[\]\*])*\| quote$ to remove all the lines with ... | reply | quote in them. I then went and removed all quotes with the regex ^>([\w\d #:\.\-\/'?>,”“|’\[\]\*…";])* – checking that my regex covered each full quotation (that wasn’t like a comment; I sometimes mark comments with quotes to visually separate them).

running communities based on ideas - note to self

Tue, 10 Nov 2020 23:22:00 +1100

OP on curi.us

In general, if someone knows a mistake you’re making, what are the mechanisms for telling you and having someone take responsibility for addressing the matter well and addressing followup points? Do you have public writing detailing your ideas which anyone is taking responsibility for the correctness of? People at Less Wrong often say “read the sequences” but none of them take responsibility for addressing issues with the sequences, including answering questions or publishing fixes if there are problems.

https://curi.us/2065-open-letter-to-machine-intelligence-research-institute

When you start or run a community based on ideas you need to take responsibility for issues with those ideas. You shouldn’t hand over the reins to someone if they can’t fulfill that role. For an enduring tradition to be created around ideas there needs to be a stalwart to take responsibility. Progress and persistence is hard without that. If you hand over to someone who falls short then the tradition can die, or at best will have a discontinuity (something you can’t bank on). Examples: Karl Popper didn’t hand over well (AFAIK) and there was a discontinuity ending with David Deutsch, Ayn Rand handed over to (I think) Binswanger and Peikoff and they didn’t rise to a necessary standard. Both Popper and Rand did a lot while they were alive; enough to give their ideas a good chance of surviving. Maybe they could have done better? It’s hard to say b/c where were the ppl who understood greatness enough to support Rand, work with her, carry on the tradition, and ultimately grow to exceed her? It seems selling millions of books didn’t really help with that too much. You should make sure that the ideas you promote are written down and endure. You can’t rely on suitable ppl finding you during your lifetime.

a danger of unconventional ideas on academia

Sun, 08 Nov 2020 05:56:00 +1100

OP on curi.us

One of the dangers of having unconventional views on academia is that you can end up in a situation where you don’t produce a track record of thinking / ideas / research efforts. Academia and the associated journal-article norms is the primary method ppl use to establish a track record of serious research and having/presenting pioneering ideas.

I think rejecting uni culture is one reason I have ended up writing so little up till now; I had issues with some aspects from the start but I got more critical over a few years until I dropped out. (Tho I’ve been tempted twice by offers of a shortcut to postgrad stuff: first a masters of geoscience and second a PhD in compsci focusing on blockchain stuff. There are circumstances where you can do postgrad stuff without an undergrad degree – basically if someone will vouch for and supervising you. Skipping the BS was one reason I considered it more fully.)

I tried to do some writing after dropping out but never found it easy and I wanted talk about topics beyond my writing skill. I don’t think doing the normal undergrad-to-phd-to-research thing would have fixed all those issues (I’m still critical of academia), but I would have ended up with a track record at least.

I think my lack of a track record has been significantly detrimental to me more than once.

learning and self-judgement

Sun, 08 Nov 2020 01:00:00 +1100

I posted this to #low-error-rate on discord and curi.us.

One of the most important skills for life is good self-judgement. Having good self-judgement means that you’re able to tell when you’re prone to making mistakes (and what they are) or when it’s safe to be confident in doing something with a low error rate.

Learning efficiently requires a cycle of: do it once, do it consistently, do it fast/cheap/autopilot. This becomes very important because learning is an incremental process, so your learning history affects your learning future.

If your learning cycle is incomplete then you won’t create a solid foundation for future knowledge. You need a solid foundation because new knowledge/skills will compound errors in the foundation. Example: if you have bad fine motor skills then you will have a lower limit on how fast you can type; errors in precise finger movements (or precise-but-slow finger movements) disproportionately affect your typing speed (compared to precise-and-fast finger movements).

Being able to judge your own learning cycle requires good self-judgement. Without good self-judgement you can’t learn quickly and efficiently. Without good self-judgement you will end up making more mistakes than you would do otherwise. This error rate becomes an upper ceiling on your progress. Since error rates compound as you learn new things, it is possible to get stuck. At that point you stop being able to reliably make progress. To solve this you need to go back to earlier (more foundational) topics and complete the learning cycle.

If you plan to learn without outside assistance, you should do your best to ensure that your self-judgement is consistent enough and cheap enough for the topics you want to learn about.

Goal of the above post: I wanted to practice doing something that I could submit to #low-error-rate. I also wanted to write something which is useful for other FI ppl, and which helps me understand topics like learning and overreaching. I think I succeeded. However, this took ~50 minutes to write and edit, so I have not reliably completed step 3 of the relevant learning cycle(s).

Reach + parameterisation of reach

Mon, 02 Nov 2020 08:48:00 +1100

OP on curi.us

I wrote this as part of a post on reach + IGCs. This was 95% of the post at the point I copied it out; it seems better as a stand alone post.

I think reach is parameterised over infinite domains. I explain what I mean by that below. I don’t know if this is right, but I would be surprised if it were wrong, so I would like to know if anyone disagrees.

When an explanation has reach, it means the explanation is general over many problems or situations. The exact nature of this generality is particular to the explanation.

One example of reach is theories which are time-independent and/or space-independent; maybe a theory works everywhere and at all times (at the beginning of the universe, and now, and we expect it will in 100 billion years and onwards), like general relativity or quantum theory; or maybe a theory works regardless of the time of day (‘if I dial the emergency number someone will pick up, but only if people commonly have and use phones’, ‘leaving food on the stove will heat it, then cook it, then burn it, and then set fire to it’)

Reach can be mundane and fantastical. All explanations have some level of reach.

It’s hard (or impossible) to compare explanations’ reach without a common phenomena to use as a basis. Does a theory of housing in post-GFC North America have more or less reach than a theory of sodium’s role in the ionosphere? I don’t know if that question has an answer. What about newtonian gravity and general relativity? It’s reasonable to say that GR has more reach because GR explains phenomena which newtonian gravity does not, and the reverse is not true; GR is an explanatory superset.

Reach has a size, but it’s hard to be exact besides ‘zero’ and ‘infinite’. It doesn’t really make sense for reach to be ever be completely zero (b/c the explanation would not account for anything). If an explanation has little reach then it only accounts for very specific things (it’s parochial). Explanations can also have unbounded reach. Sometimes it might seem like explanations have near-unbounded reach (e.g. newtownian gravity seemed unbounded except for the orbit of Mercury). In reality, we can’t reliably tell the difference between ‘near-unbounded’ and ‘parochial’ without a superior understanding of what’s going on (which requires additional explanations).

Reach is parameterised over infinite domains. That’s because those domains correspond to–a least–levels of emergence. Some domains are subsets/supersets of other domains, but they can be incomparable too. Example: natural selection has some domain like ‘all life on earth with a genome’ (it might be even more specific than this, though). natural selection also has some domain in time and space; we expect natural selection will work in many other contexts too, like some alien life, provided it meets certain conditions. It’s possible that alien life might not meet those conditions, like hyper-advanced bioengineered AGIs. It’s not clear how natural selection would work here, and we can recognise that b/c we know something about the bounds of it’s reach. We can reason about what domains of reach an explanation has by exploring the explanation (thoughts, experiments, predicts, etc).

We don’t care that explanations have zero reach in some domains. General Relativity doesn’t really have anything to do with housing prices in the USA. So even though GR has some universal reach WRT time and space (AFAIK; galaxy rotation rates aside), it has 0 reach WRT housing prices. (It does have reach when it comes to houses themselves; you still experience gravity when building houses and when inside houses etc, and need to take it in to account.)

If an explanation has reach over some complete domain we say it has universality. I don’t know if the domain needs to be infinite, but it seems like many important universalities have an infinite domain. Some universalities are special and some seem like they’re not special. Some important domains of universalities are: all matter at all points in space and time, all computable programs, all programs, all real numbers, all people, all alphabets, all ideas, etc.

curi once said:

X is a universal Y if it can do any Z that any other Y can do.

I could say: This turing machine is a universal computer because can compute any program that any other computer can compute. The universality is all computable programs.

Or: Paths Forward is a universal discussion methodology because it can lead to a successful conversation for all conversations that any other discussion methodology can lead to success in. (I don’t know if this is actually true yet, but I suspect it is and would be surprised if it were false)

short reflective post script

I think I have used terminology correctly but there are parts I’m not certain about. An example: When I talk about domains and universalities I’m reasonably confident the terms are close-to-right (or actually right / okay / clear), but wouldn’t be surprised if there were minor issues. I would be surprised if there were major issues.

I'm thinking of unendorsing ~everything I've written

Mon, 02 Nov 2020 07:34:00 +1100

OP on curi.us

Unendorsing ~everything would basically mean that I say: from some date (eg 3rd Nov 2020) it’s not safe to assume I endorse/believe/etc anything I said publicly before that date.

It’d be like a reset on things. Partially that’s b/c there are a lot of unresolved things (e.g. the FI discussion on Flux from 2017) which I think are not worth resolving from that point. There are also things I’ve said that I don’t want to go back and try to change b/c that sounds like a lot of work. I don’t have high enough confidence in what I’ve said to want to leave stuff about without knowing what it was.

I’d make a post on my blogs but wouldn’t go to much effort outside that now. I’d point ppl to those posts when necessary and then address stuff on a case by case basis to update stuff I’ve said publicly.

I think this sounds like a fair thing for someone to do very infrequently, maybe only once.

I think this would be a good thing to do because I think my ideas and my self have changed substantially in the past few years and especially the past few months.

I also think that, from this point out, keeping things mostly up to date (or at least updatable) is something I could do. So doing a mass unendorsing would let me keep a higher quality library of criticism.

A mass unendorsing would also be a decent start to a library of criticism; it indicates a relevant discontinuity and means the stuff I write after that has special considerations the earlier stuff lacked.

If I intend to only do this once then I should treat it fairly seriously.

I’m looking for feedback.

Notes | Tutorial 52

Mon, 02 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +1100

prenotes

“why I live” post + reflections on max’s microblogging

draft

nb: I haven’t actually read it again since first draft

If one’s choices could matter that much, how could one possibly know that?

mb change to

If one’s choices can matter that much, how could one possibly know that they do?

making a big impact on humanity is wrong goal – can fail through no fault of own. unsuitable as primary life goal.
primality of goal important for life; okay to have goals like popularlize PF, but not for it to be a life goal
- be reasonably under your own control
  - changing the world can be a goal but you should be okay with failing
Problems for my projects: Flux, SV – very dependent on other ppl.

atlas shrugged - holiday book?

Their other choices–the ones they hoped would matter–will end up swallowed and forgotten by the passage of time.

ET: one of the main errors ppl make - self-crit and detecting mistakes early

To the left is a future of hit and miss choices, erratic legacy, and the fog of cosmic uncertainty.

I used to be worried about failing. “Could it be that I will spend my life in vain pursuit of greatness and progress?” If the past half decade had been different, that might have become true. I know better, now.

ET (86 min) Need to like the journey. Value in the means, not just the result/ends.

epistemic idea-cone

Vague

larger it is - the more the focus is on organising knowledge, and less “how do you do X”

how do you organise to avoid it being a mess (and also keep it maintainable, endurable, etc)

thinking of it as practice -> powering up mode

reflections on 'Why I Live' draft & idea in general

Sun, 01 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +1100

original context: a post on curi.us

Some reflections on #18534

title

The title (“Why I Live”) is at worst dishonest and at best inaccurate. In reality my actions don’t always line up with what I said in the post or the things I was planning to add in future drafts. A better title would be something like “what I want to align my life to”. It was dishonest b/c I was essentially claiming to make better choices than I do. Some of my choices line up with the post, but lots don’t. Not just in minor ways, but like major ways. Why procrastinate from ~everything to binge a game for like 20 hours? That’s choosing the crappy path.

context before writing

I was thinking about what curi and I had talked about in tutoring 51 + earlier stuff about goals. I realised that I hadn’t really written much about my goals when curi and I discussed that topic (2 sessions mostly I think). What I’d done was closer to writing my goals down as opposed to writing about them. The ‘why I live’ post is closer to talking about my goals, but there’s a lot of implicit stuff. I think the implicit stuff (which relates to me personally) is fine because the post was meant to be more general than about my specific goals, more like framework/context stuff that informs what goals I think are good or not and why.

I was thinking about being unhappy with not writing, and about my goals and prioritisation etc. I had some thoughts like ‘why be unhappy with it, you could work towards that now’, and ‘write about goals instead of just writing them down’. I started brainstorming and came up with the title and stuff later.

misc

emotions

I had some anxiety when I checked the next morning for posts on curi (because I hoped there’d be some feedback) - even before knowing whether any were in microblogging. That was unexpected and notable.

I wonder if there’s some interaction going on between:

my desire for a life with meaning / greatness
fear of failure / mistakes (i’m not sure how much I feel this but it’s a pretty common static meme)
the idea of choosing to fail (deliberately not trying) instead of trying and failing
my desire for lacking responsibility sometimes – it’s not persistent but I sometimes want it so much that I renege on commitments or withdraw and ignore msgs and things. That behaviour doesn’t go beyond reason but is definitely to some extent.

I was also surprised when I thought that the post might be dishonest/misleading. Part of me wasn’t, but part of me was because a lot of the stuff in the post (or stuff that’s implied by or implicit in it) are things that I want to believe about myself.

insight?

If I believe things about myself that are better than the situation in reality actually is, does that inhibit error correction substantially? Can it hide blockers that would otherwise be more apparent and easier to fix?

I feel ‘yes’ is the answer for some things.

Obvs thinking e.g. I’m 50th percentile playing poker when I’m actually 35th percentile isn’t going to matter much, esp compared to thinking I’m 99th percentile but actually 90th percentile (which would have potentially big consequences for variance, consistency, and volume of earnings).

In this case I think it might be an issue b/c thinking I make better life choices than I do (and do so more consistently) can mean I am overconfident, which could have consequences like starting big projects too early / without enough planning / etc.

Maybe, then, this ‘insight’ is just like another aspect of overreaching and Oism?

‘negative’ feedback?

I’d like to know if anyone thought it was low quality, overreaching, vapid, dishonest, etc.

I don’t think FI ppl would have avoided telling me this in abstract, but I could see ppl not providing feedback if they thought like ‘there are so many issues it’d be effort to know where to start’ or the like.

I think the dynamics between curi and I might be different b/c of the tutoring sessions – like anything that needs to be discussed could be done there. I don’t know how/if this would affect something in particular, but it occurs to me now & might be relevant.

writing

on the whole I didn’t think the writing was too bad considering it was a draft. There are some things that I don’t think are clear enough from what I wrote; e.g. intended audience. I wonder if I might write a less clear post if there are conflicting goals for the post. e.g. I wanted to write something for me (to spur myself on, as such), and I also wanted to write something that could become enduring (after more drafts) and would be useful or general in a philosophy-and-life type category. Maybe I’d do better by separating the two; writing at all helps me some, and I can do some of the more self-centric stuff in private journaling or in the brainstorming phase and copy those bits elsewhere s.t. they wouldn’t be in the main post.

I also wonder if I’m overreaching at this stage trying to create anything that’s enduring. I suspect there’s not much I can do with a low enough ER s.t. it lasts decades.

Actually, there’s lots I could do like that, just not stuff that I’m interested in doing. e.g. I could write a guide on how & why to tie your shoelaces could be enduring on the scale of decades. i think I might do myself a service by lowering those standards for a while. I can always revisit them later and I don’t need to have them to actually produce enduring work (you can always go above your own standards).

Why I Live [Draft 1]

Fri, 30 Oct 2020 18:49:00 +1100

(Cross posted to https://curi.us/2380#18534)

I’m requesting feedback for the following draft. It’s not done, so I’ve left some of my own comments as quotes below – just the most important stuff which came to mind.

My biggest concern is that someone might read this and feel bad about choices they’ve made which are actually okay. If you have ideas about how to avoid this or whether it will happen I’d like to hear them. This is written because it’s how I see myself, not because it’s how I think everyone else should see themselves and eachother.

Some of the language is a bit fancy. I’ll do more editing in future drafts to simplify it, but suggestions/crits are welcome.

The draft is as follows:

Why I Live

Existing matters. Particularly: our existing matters. Existing–as a human–is special, unique, and full of potential. We are–or at least, can be–cosmicly significant.

My choices–today and in the coming decades–must have some impact on humanity’s future. My choices today, more than any other moment, have the greatest leverage in influencing the manner and magnitude of that impact. Tomorrow, tomorrow’s choices will have the most leverage. If there are important choices to be made, perhaps I should pursue an understanding of them with some urgency.

Can my choices be so significant that they make an appreciable difference in the volume, quality, and proximity of important milestones in the future of humanity? That is, they contribute to a future with more people leading lives of higher quality (both std of living and std of ideas) and achieving important philosophical and technological progress sooner.

If one’s choices could matter that much, how could one possibly know that? Humanity and the route we take into the future are, together, like a giant snooker table loaded with hyperactive billiard balls and a thousand collisions for each single choice any person ever makes. Unpredictable, chaotic, immesurably complex. Everyone will have some choices they make that will impact our collective future in a significant way. However, most people will never know which choices were the special ones. Most people’s choices–the ones that end up mattering–will be special by luck. Their other choices–the ones they hoped would matter–will end up swallowed and forgotten by the passage of time.

I need to remember to answer the questions I set up here. Currently I don’t actually answer them, though I intend to. The snooker table analogy is energetic (which I wanted) but doesn’t flow super well and is maybe over the top or dominating the paragraph w/ it’s length. I’m not sure if I should avoid answering ‘yes’ to the ‘can my choices …’ question. I think it might work better to answer (and explain) it later.

Choices

Imagine yourself at the divergence of your futures.

To the left is a future of hit and miss choices, erratic legacy, and the fog of cosmic uncertainty. However, you can have a straight forward life. Your choices need not carry the epistemic burdens of depth, nor urgency, nor consequence.

To the right is the alternative.

Not everyone can take the right path. But some people can. Some people have. Maybe I can. And maybe you can, too.

Before you think about which path to attempt, what would it mean to choose poorly?

What if you chose the right path but you fell short? What difference would that make compared to choosing left? At worst, realistically, there would be no difference; or at least no difference worth considering here.

What if you chose the left path, but you could have chosen the alternative … and succeeded? Would your decendents look back and think “they should have known better?” Would there even be decendents to look back? What good purpose could there be in avoiding greatness? What hope does a future of greatness-aversion have?

Can choosing mediocrity be evil? Certainly not always. Maybe sometimes.

The reality is that you are presented, not with two paths, but infinitely many paths every moment of every day. You are not constrained to a dichotomy of greateness or mediocrity. You are the beginning of a new infinity – if you choose to be.

What About Failure?

I used to be worried about failing. “Could it be that I will spend my life in vain pursuit of greatness and progress?” If the past half decade had been different, that might have become true. I know better, now.

Contribution to the future–to progress–is not zero sum. No thinker can contribute to progress if they are cut off from civilization. The credit for the impact of a great thinker’s choices must be shared. As a light-cone constrains the the causes and effects of an event, an epistemic idea-cone constrains the prerequisites and consequences of a great thinker and thier ideas. All those people inside the idea-cone share the credit. Without shoulders to stand on, an otherwise great man is blind. Without feet to stand on his shoulders, an otherwise great man is dumb.

The acts of pursuing, supporting, and nurturing greatness are noble and honourable deeds.

I think I will expand on this last paragraph/line. It’s okay to do 1 or 2 or 3 of those things. Arguably it’s hard to avoid doing all of them if you spend time improving your thinking and know about FI / CF. This seciton feels like it might be a bit out of place. I like the middle paragraph. I wrote the middle paragraph first during brainstorming and then decided it needed a section. So I picked the title and wrote the first paragraph around paragraph 2. I like the last line, but I think it needs elaboration.

So.

What is my choice? Do I choose a future where my choices matter? Yes or no?

I do. And I will continue to.

I refuse to retreat.

I originally had paragraph 1 in the 2nd person, which might not go so well with the vibe. Originally:

What is your choice? Do you choose a future where your choices matter? Yes or no? I’m on the fence about stuff like “I refuse to retreat”. On the one hand I think it has some of the weight I want, but it feels maybe a bit too close to like a war/violence theme. That can be inspiring for ppl sometimes (“never give up, never surrender” sorta thing), but maybe there’s a better thing to say.

some leftover notes

end game for universe / civilization / intelligence?
- dunno, but ~100 years humanity debated whether other galaxies exist
- today, there are multiple conjectures–with disparate mechanics–accounting for the origin and nature of the universe (or at least some part of these things).
- what ideas will we have in another 100 yrs? 1k yrs? 10k yrs?
  - yeah, I’m not going to worry about the endgame. There’s lots of time to figure that out. There isn’t much time for some other things, though.
i want to put together a philosophy intro pack for new software teams.
- I’m worried that most ppl would react badly to it if I just got a bunch of curi’s essays together.
- but I think there’s significant and important stuff to learn.

Project Planning Examples

Fri, 30 Oct 2020 07:20:00 +1100

projects
init brainstorming
review plan draft 1
project: review selected topics
1. IGC
2. pre-plan
  1. brainstorm
  2. pre-plan tree
3. plan
  1. brainstorm
  2. main plan tree
project: moving house

projects

review + practice material from tutorials re project planning
example: moving house
example: writing a short book on type-level programming
- note: this is an idea I have b/c there aren’t really any good accessible type-level programming books AFAIK

init brainstorming

should brainstorm early in process
doing first is okay if you just need to get ideas out. then you can come back later to do a ‘proper’ order of steps.
what are the steps?
- need pre/main/post plans
- need to brainstorm dependencies
- brainstorm early steps - prelim before anything but sketch of plan is written down
- can break up projects in to subprojects at some point
- check reference material
might want to list skills you have / skills you need (contextually appropriate)
project should have clear IGC
can get feedback after draft
reference example: https://curi.us/files/diagrams/Skyscraper-Project-Plan-v1.pdf

review plan draft 1

define IGC draft 1
1. make sure you have a clear reason for taking action and you understand the context. if there are gaps: they go in prelim plan.
generic pre-plan skills
1. trees
2. IGC
3. overreaching detection & mitigation strategies
4. break down goals into subgoals and identify associated skills (main plan) or how to acquire them (pre plan)
draft up pre-plan
identify parts of main plan you know enough about and those you don’t
todo: – comment: I didn’t start this with a pre-plan

project: review selected topics

IGC

The goal is to get better at particular material we’ve covered in tutoring max. Particularly: writing and project planning. I want to do this via practice/review of both material and techniques. I want to produce examples while doing this. I’m doing this for me primarily.

The idea is to use project planning itself (along with some other examples) as the subject to practice on. I’ll practice writing by producing articles about the component skills (similar to my how can we write to communicate better post). I am the intended audience, but the examples should be useful for FI people also (the articles should be higher quality than just notes). I’ll practice project planning by planning the project of practicing project planning, along with two examples of plans: moving house and writing a small book on particular programming techniques.

Note: the book project might be at high risk of overreaching – should make sure to do pre-plan stuff well b/c it’s likely I’ll hit something in prereqs to do first (and do before I make a decision on doing the project or not).

Context is mostly delegated to assumed / common / background knowledge. Additioanl context: I feel like I have a busy schedule. I also have bad time management, esp after an intense period of work, and esp esp after intense work I am not particularly enjoying.

pre-plan

brainstorm

what does reference pre-project tree say?
- trees, overreaching, skill breakdown, bias and emotions
- other stuff?
- can the pre-project plan be generalised? like a ‘colour by numbers’ sorta thing. Why shouldn’t it be the same for any project? The 2+ levels deep stuff might be particular to the project, but shallower nodes should be generic-alizable.
some stuff in reference pre-plan probably not relevant here, but can I safely exclude it? Probably not. I should include but show an empty node.
going to put trees under skills

pre-plan tree

pre-plan: reviewing material and producing articles/examples
  identify skills
    trees (status: okay)
      method: plan the project using trees
        reqs: know about trees and other FI relevant topics
    grammar (status: okay)
    sentence analysis (okay)
    text analysis (okay)
      be able to represent article/explanation/etc as tree
    writing (?)
      techniques
        brainstorm
        define audience
        topic sentences and outline
        good sentence construction
        writing simply and clearly
        constructing ~complex arguments / explanations
    project planning (?)
      breaking ideas down into components / dependencies
      enough knowledge of core subjects, meta stuff, myself, etc to know when:
        a. I am knowledgeable enough to proceed
        b. I'm not knowledgeable enough to succeed
        c. I don't know whether I'm knowledgeable enough or not b/c of lack of overall knowledge
        d. I will get stuck if I dive into trying to learn a topic (not enough foundation)
        e. I am overreaching (or at risk of overreaching)
        f. I am reacting emotionally and not rationally
      need to know how to detect and mitigate overreaching
  what skills are very important and need to be kept in mind throughout?
    self awareness re: overreaching
    how to deal with problems and getting stuck
      identifying the problems
      finding or creating solutions
        implementing them (actually doing error correction)
      discussion and error checking
    use proper structure when writing plans/articles/etc.
      checklists might help if I'm not good enough to autopilot it reliably
  stuff i need to learn before starting main project
    nothing, but at risk of forgetting stuff so should go back to source material occasionally
  failure points
    poor time management
    starting to write before reviewing material
      the plan is like: 1. try planning/writing stuff, 2. if I get stuck go review material, 3. once I'm done, maybe review material to self-eval
      could result in wasted time or high error rate
        error rate in the project planning is okay if I can manage and correct it. it's not okay in *result* of the project (i.e. the written articles)

plan

brainstorm

for each project
1. make sure I have IGC
2. brainstorm pre-plan stuff
3. fill in pre-plan tree to note breakdown of skills
4. identify stuff that needs to happen first
5. brainstorm main-plan stuff
6. break down project into components (knowledge, tasks, risks, content outline, whatever)
7. continue breaking stuff down till it’s actionable
8. quality and totality check:
  1. what questions will ppl have?
  2. what isn’t clear?
  3. what failure cases haven’t been considered?
plan to only be doing a small number of new things at once
- what are the new things I’m doing now?
  - project planning in general - haven’t done much of that with this method
  - writing robustly under time pressure
    - note is there an issue here b/c I’m not able to effectivley manage error rate? not sure, should keep an eye out though
    - am I taking too long or being too verbose so far? might either of those indicate getting stuck?
      - haven’t had to think on any particular thing very long atm, not stuck, better to keep going
      - slight worry I’m repeating myself a bit
  - writing technique – note: does this really happen at the same time as the other parts of project planning? I could separate (eg time-box) the various components where I avoid doing bits of the other one

main plan tree

(note: I think the project planning project plan is maybe not good to do first. going to try straight up moving house example)

project: doing example project planning collection
  **todo**

project: moving house

Initial thought: Since I’ve moved house before I’m going to skip pre-plan. Revised thought: whoah there, how do you know you’re not mistaken?

IGC

Simple and general case: you don’t want to live where you do and want to live somewhere else.

Note: I think we can sort of ignore the IGC a bit in this case; we’re sort of assuming the goal (move house), context doesn’t matter much, and the idea is like the naieve/obvious idea (taking all your stuff from one house and putting it in the other).

preplan

not at particular risk of overreaching / getting emotional
skills are pretty general, nothing super important needed
going to just go for it

moving house plan

moving house brainstorm

need to be able to sign a lease
need to be able to pay for lease
need to be abel to move in whatever window you set
need to be able to secure a lease
need to find a place you like
need to know where you want to look for a place
need to know idea of effort involved to make sure dates are suitable
need to include buffer somewhere - either it needs to be pre-existing in your schedule and/or you need a long overlap period (where you have keys to old and new house) to give lots of time to finish moving
need to organise new utilties
need to cancel utils
need to update addresses
need to vacate old house

moving house project tree

project: move house
  find houses up for lease you're interested in
    decide qualities of location you like
    decide parameter for houses in that location based on market values
    schedule inspections
  secure lease
    know what you'll need to apply
    choose good docs and references
    apply early
    talk with real estate agent if possible, establish rapport
    find out plans for house if possible
      did owners buy it as an investment
      might they sell it or move in themselves
  prepare the move
    sort possessions into keeping/sell/trash
      throw out trash, starting earlier is better
      advertise items for sale, the earlier the better
      do early prep for items-to-keep early if appropriate contextual
    pack stuff for moving
    move stuff
      order of operations
        keep in mind furniture and organisation of new place
          avoid furniture tetris
      plan cutover of services like internet
  do the move
  vacate old place
    clean everything
    terminate or move services
    update address with banks/apps/govt/etc
    hand back keys
  set up new place

Notes | Tutorial 51

Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +1100

prenotes

reflection on getting to do some FI stuff a few days ago
burnout? am I using it as an excuse? I worry I am
project plan thing (in posts; left sidebar)
review anything posted to curi.us?
time management an issue - rushed and didn’t finish project planning examples
- demonstrates some overreaching

practice

can practice things while doing other things
- can be more effective by connecting things to practice
- have in mind 1/2/3 things trying to learn, fix some error
- try to think of 1+ particular thing to pay attention to
  - make it productive and do aux stuff while achieving main goal too
  - mario example - active learning and practice instead of just like playing the game and getting better
- lists existing is fine but you can’t pay attention to 20 things while doing
- need enough mental buffer left to think about the other thing to practice
  - e.g. writing post on epistemology + pay attention to using commas well

deceptively simple things
- ppl say they agree
- but they don’t do it
- eg. #18523 ? maybe not a good example
- citations - incentive to bloat bibliography
  - recursive problem

overly complex for small projects – I wrote something about this
trouble with overall project
- mismatched sizes?
- generalising too early?
- ‘clever’ project?
writing a short book on type-level programming
- is this a potential way to learn something if there isn’t good material?
ppl don’t write what they learn
- vue typescript + plugins example
  - overhead to documenting
    - can zhs/bash do like saved + named history?
write book thing
- should get better at writing tech docs – I shouldn’t expect to be good now
  - practice methodology
    - shorter stuff one blogpost good
    - conflict:
      - do I feel like my goals are not well aligned to the minutia?
      - can I find better ways to connect small individual tasks to big picture goals?
      - prior commitments
        
        it’s good to keep commitment
        
        but I don’t like that
burnout authenticity
- July 20th -> 24th; tutorial 18 and around
get rid of excuses
- eg. get plenty of sleep
For some particular things, like sleep, I usually come up with the excuse that might be legit but then make it worse
prioritisation
difficulty changing deeper ideas <- interconnection
always be working on a couple of things
t+55min
getting stuck on the same things
- time mgmt
- mismatch between active projects and desired projects

common excuses / list of categories to get a bit off / 64 min

time management vs not time-mgmt
  what am I choosing to do?
  what does it reflect?

discussions; often in small chunks
- appealing?
- quick writing
  - benefits re autopilot
  - habits: time efficient value
    - learn not to make a mess and plan to clean later – there is no later
doing post by yourself is a potentially bigger chunk

learning cycle
- get idea for something that might be an issue
- observe, learn, understand issue
- find solns
- implement solns
- master solns
- repeat

easy way

non-judgementally observe the smoking
background things that aren’t bottlenecks but are changing

–

can tackling bottlenecks be overreaching? (arguably then overreaching is the bottleneck)

should expect a new thinking method to take like several months to figure out to apply and let it sink in.

journaling re mental energy - could start sorta estimating over/under?
83 min
overbook + underestimate

important to ‘see it for yourself’

the ‘wait 6 months’ plan of learning – I’ve done that a bunch. BoI is like that.

–

CEOs & business transparency
- criticism seen as bad – can’t show up superiors
- maybe can’t be sure you’re doing good, but there are some ways to be sure something is not good
cost accounting / local optimisation
- note to self: don’t understand this well enough; the goal 25% through or thereabouts

quickcheck idea

yes/no property of dependent/independent variables

testing for dependence; is it useful?
come up with examples and brainstorm ways this idea plays into it / is significant / etc

Notes | Tutorial 50

Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +1100

thoughts on error msgs

7.19
not enough detial to know
infinitely many alts - “what would system be like”
building on stuff that’s not clear enough
no concretes about what i”m thinking about
had specific ctx in mind - not stated
- overly broad; over gereralisation
- mix and match contexts
if there’s plenty of critical feedback on good qual stuff, dw as much about lower qual stuff.
communicate to readers that things are low-qual if they are; b/c otherwise ppl presume high-qual

no conflict of interest

objective truth, so we end up converging if we’re ~rational
time traveller sitch

virtue of selfishness - conflicts of mens interests

two ppl applying for the same job example

https://www.elliottemple.com/essays/liberalism#harmony-of-interests

2018 ish ET swithcing away from liberalism project

project planning

lots of ppls plans too vague
- what would be useful, prereqs, etc

digipol

goal/purpose: allow voters to …
components (repositories): …
- tech stuff included: flutter/dart, blockchain stuff, AWS stacks, …

method

curi’s big project example
scrum/agile
goldratt warns against breaking stuff down into too-small pieces; ends up micromanagement

planning

goal
resources
requirements
“fixed points” - i.e. decisions that have already been made or things we can’t really change
what are alternatives / why is this a priority
- do we need to do this; should this be our project?
goal should be linked to a problem it’s solving
bigger problem(s):
- Flux has said “we’re going to make an app to do X” but haven’t made said app
  - putting out fires; not a mission/game plan to get somewhere really good
  - removing a negative instead of working on a positive goal
- Flux has not demonstrated that it’s capable of doing something like this (note: someone analysing the situation might conclude we could; but it’s not been demonstrated).
  - Why will it succeed?
    - track record – smart contracts done, blockchain+AWS stack done, Flutter UI v0.1 done (not pretty but works)
- Get’s ppl involved
  - mid level goal/benefit
  - not looking for silver bullet
  - not even claiming it’ll bring massive success
  - just gradual improvement
  - implied: more and more steps that make stuff 10% better
  - goldratt criticises this methodology
    - basically there’s bigger lower hanging fruit
    - focus on thing that matters the most (bottlenecks)
    - find big wins
    - problems can look complex but aren’t
    - solving bottlenecks gives orders of mag benefits, not 10%
- what are the bottlenecks – this is the only thing that really matters
- problem: not being able to campaign without foundation. Soln: have an app that works / can show ppl / etc.
- do we need to do this; should this be our project?
  - parent proj: need to run a campaign
    - do we need to do this; should this be our project?
    - parent proj: get someone elected somewhere
      - do we need to do this; should this be our project?

if you want to make small improvements - why start a new company to do that instead of joining an existing company who’s already in the lead.

new small agile competitor – you need a large competetive advantage over existing players. – depends on size of the goal. advantage matters less for smaller goals

assuming we do the project

app has to meet criteria to fit into bigger picture
requirements: X, Y, Z
details of project itself: timeline, budget, staffing, requirements (goods/services), etc
uncertainties
- e.g. state management of system state – not well defined; issues w/ mutable state; etc.
- consistent => need an interface that changes them at the same time
  - architecutre risks
- user adoption - rate? ignore? no one likes it?
- marketing?
- UI/UX? In progress

app goals / situations: sell-itself vs adequate-for-users-to-achieve-X

Supposed to be part of competetive advantage? Or necessary thing to focus elsewhere?

recap so far

we need problems, goals, solutions all laid out clearly
list requirements, details, uncertainties
- uncertainties are potentially new problems - can deal with recursively or put in “do later” list
anything that’s informing the project plan should be really clear, stuff like the situation the app is designed to exist in (sell-itself vs adequate-meets-some-functional-requirement, etc)

goldratt

5 focusing steps & 3 focusing steps
current reality tree – it’s not luck
- then map out cause/effect (c/e) relationships
future reality tree w/ goal state
transition tree
- objections to transition - how do we address those?
method for curr reality tree
- list 12 problems or complaints (about current reality?)
  - start looking for c/e relationships between them
    - connect both directly and indirectly (can add nodes in the middle to connect them)
  - then find root problem (other stuff should be downstream problems)
  - simplicity of reality

smaller picture

project plan – make a bunch of claims (we have x resources, these actions will work together to do Y, etc)
how can we check those claims are true? how do we test those claims? how can we monitor if things are going wrong? how do we know if we’re wrong? (time delay on finding out?)
- helps show details and fix them => prevent failure
challenge own plan – how do I know that? how am I sure? what have I done to check it?

notes

need vision and longer term game plan thing – 8:11pm
focus on learning a few things at once
- issue with checklists – when they need active ongoing consideration
- pre and post checklist? like super important stuff up front and then lots of check other minor stuff later?
can use project planning for small projects like essay
can do lots of tiny projects specifically till it’s autopilot
should probably learn everything the experts know at some point, worth learning
have notes on mostly full method
identify the 1-3 things as current targets to autopilot
review notes prior to doing activity
self-marking criteria
- important in general for learning: how do I know if it’s right/wrong, how will i tell?
- judging outcomes => one of most effective things for learning efficiently
writing
project planning
discussions / paths forward
with project planning:
- go through everything and question / doubt it
  - look for failure points
  - don’t be satisfied with “if it might work it is good enough”
  - should take into account all contingencies
  - “grill it”, be demanding, picky, etc

Thoughts on Error Messages

Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +1100

context: I’m thinking about error feedback in general, and I’m also thinking about the sorts of error msgs programmers get in the regular course of programming.

are error messages a good way to organise issues? (e.g. in software dev).
they have an important role: they guide ppl who know less (than the developers, or other community members, etc).
if error msgs were a bad way to organise issues then there must be a better alternative system. what would such a system be like relatively speaking?
- it would put more burden on the ppl affected by errors b/c it’s harder to know/learn how to report and solve the errors
- it would mean responsibility for the quality of error reporting would be shifted towards the shoulders of newbies
- such an alternative system would treat the relevant (preventable!) errors less seriously
why could that be good?
- it’d mean there was a higher bar for engaging with top tier ppl
- it filters out ppl who are not able to understand the problem at least enough to figure out how to begin to deal with it
- if the best ppl don’t know how to prevent relevant errors then isn’t it better for them to focus on solving those problems rather than helping ppl who aren’t as valuable?
why could it be bad?
- higher bar to error correction -> less error correction
- easy to discourage ppl and end up reinforcing static memes / driving ppl away
- if the best ppl didn’t know how to prevent the relevant errors then they end up working on the problem anyway; makes sense that there’s an equilibrium here; after all, ppl are voluntarily participating on both sides.

relevant to:

helping the best ppl or helping the masses
error msgs and ~responsibility of senior members
there is no one constant set of behaviours that makes sense WRT helping the best ppl vs masses, what matters is context. is it a good time to help one or the other? if lots of ppl have really bad ideas then it’s probably worth helping the best ppl – so we can find a good soln to that problem. conversely, if we don’t have any great ppl at that time, or are otherwise short of great opportunities, then there’s more utility helping the masses. there needs to be fertiliser for future generations, but also nourishment for current ppl in their prime. those great opportunities can be vicarious, ofc. Man’s first journey to the Moon was a journey shared by a Nation.
there’s a big question raised by this: how should we react to learning of a great opportunity?

Finishing up: what happens if someone goes to an effort to make error msgs as good as possible?

organisation gets better b/c the error messages are better suited to the associated errors
it gets easier for ppl to help with / do error correction b/c the msgs/explanations match the contextually best ideas more closely and are more reliable to reason about.
exponential/geometric increase in effectiveness of relevant key ppl – their time can be better allocated, delegation gets easier, etc
mutually beneficial for all parties. (note: this relies on the ability to improve error msgs and the right ~economic context to make it the easy choice. OTH I think that’s reasonably common. most non-optimum situations don’t hurt much and can be easily controlled via the 2nd-derivative (~acceleration). if there’s a bit too much work on good error msgs then you can just reduce the hours per week by 10%; it can be gentle without much harm. the harm I mention here is wasted resources in a generic sense.)

clarifying stuff

I didn’t put a huge amount of thought into particular word choices because they felt difficult and I didn’t want to ruin the flow. Here are some clarifications:

responsibility as in ~responsibility of senior members: i don’t mean anything like an obligation, but if there was a clear moral decision then it’d line up with that.
2nd-derivative (~acceleration): controlling the rate-of-rate-of-change is useful if you want to control the outcomes of some (simple enough) system, and acceleration is a reasonably common way of talking about that.

Notes on Conflicts of Interest Scenarios (Tutoring Max 49)

Sun, 18 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +1100

Can all these be resolved?

We both want the same diamond.

We both want the same computer.

We both want to marry the same woman.

We both want the same slot on the manned mission to the moon.

We both want to be President (of the same country).

We both want to be the top commander of the army.

I want to speak my mind but you don’t like what I have to say and would prefer I shut up.

I want to kiss you but you don’t want to kiss me.

I sell printers and you sell printers and we’re competing for customers.

principle

Conflicts of interest (CoIs) seem to exist sometimes. When considering rational ppl or trying-to-be-rational ppl, those conflicts don’t actually exist–they’re illusions which can be resolved. They look like conflicts because we’re ignoring the bigger picture. Ppl involved in the CoI shouldn’t want to ‘win’ via a system which use force to get an outcome. They should want a system that’s fair and works generally. A system with universality.

Systems which use force or unwritten rules are not preferable to free-market situations b/c they have adverse consequences outside of one’s control (e.g. violence, ‘winners’ being decided by something like physical attractiveness or social status, etc). They outcomes – when decided with alternative systems – are worse for ppl involved. Reasons include: bad distribution of resources, outcomes being based on perceived problems that a person can’t solve (e.g. not handsome enough), harm being done (e.g. violence), etc.

We both want the same diamond.

Expansion of situation: we are both in a shop buying an engagement ring for our respective soon-to-be fiancées, and want the same diamond (diamond-A).

The initial ‘solution’ is that the shop sells diamond-A to whomever asks for it first. Person-A gets it. This is okay because both ppl can agree to a first-come-first-serve model (which is typical and expected).
Maybe person-B really wants the diamond. They can offer to buy it from person-A. This is okay because it’s consensual trade where both ppl are better off.
Say person-A says they want to buy it but hasn’t paid, but person-B has the cash now. The shop could work on a first-come-first-serve basis where the transaction is the important moment (who can pay first), so person-B gets it. this is an agreeable system.
Maybe there is another diamond (diamond-B) that one of the ppl is happy with, so person-A gets diamond-A, person-B gets diamond-B.

in each case an alternative system of distribution (based on attractive looks, or social status, or bribes, or whatever) is not preferable – it’s a worse society to live in.

We both want the same computer.

Say it’s a rare old computer so there’s only one of them and it’s not fungible. We can agree on a system which is fair, like an auction, and proceed on that basis.

We both want to marry the same woman.

She should choose who she wants to be with (if either of us). We shouldn’t want to be with someone who doesn’t want to be with us (that would be bad for both me and her). We should both want her to be able to consider both of us. If I had an advantage (e.g. knew her earlier) and tried to stop her meeting you b/c I thought she’d prefer you, then it means I have to keep that effort up WRT you and any one else she might meet. So eventually I’d need to be coercive or forceful to do that. Hurting the person you want to marry is a shit thing to do (and a bad way to live long term), so I shouldn’t want to prevent her evaluating other potential partners. I should actually be in favour of that because it means problems are apparent sooner rather than later. Living in a relationship where big problems will occur and that can’t be resolved (e.g. she changes her mind about wanting to marry me) is bad for me, so if there will be problems I should want to know about them as soon as possible.

We both want the same slot on the manned mission to the moon.

Say there are 3 crew slots and 2 crew members have been decided and are better candidates than us (at least for those slots, like the other crew have skills we don’t).

notes on alternatives to free-market / merit based judgement

We shouldn’t want to be chosen if that would jeopardise the mission – it being successful is more important. we can agree that the most qualified person should be chosen, or the person otherwise chosen s.t. the mission has the greatest chance of success. Maybe we’re equally qualified, though.
We don’t want a system where one of us is harmed (e.g. I hurt your family to keep you out of the mission). If I wanted that it could mean my family (or me) is hurt, which I don’t want.
We don’t want the mission to be jeopardised for political reasons (or other parochial stuff), so we should be in favour of a selection criteria which is publicly and politically defensible (and just).
We don’t want a system where one of us is prevented from doing stuff in the future like other moon missions.
We don’t want a system where NASA (or whomever) regrets their decision (e.g. because it was made via nepotism or whatever).
We don’t want a system where we hate each-other because that could mean we can’t be on the same future mission or otherwise end up excluded from other stuff.

solutions?

We can agree on a system based on merit
We can agree on a system where NASA maintain a suitable body of astronauts (like a minimum number of astronauts kept in reserve), so some rotation is necessary (maybe one of us went on the last mission so the other should go on this one) – We can also agree on a system which takes into account future rotations, e.g. flip a coin and one of us goes on this one, and the other goes on the next mission
We can agree on a system that doesn’t bias one of us for external reasons like social status (if that happened, all missions would be worse off and have a lower chance of success)

operating under these sorts of systems is preferable to winning the slot under a different system. if it was some different system then how could we be confident that our crew is the best crew possible?

We both want to be President (of the same country).

Note: curi and I sort of started discussing this at the end of Tutoring Max #49.

We should both be in favour of a good system for selecting a president. We can agree on important features such a system should have, like not favouring one of us. We should want a system where the victory conditions are clear and compatible with our values. We should want a system where we could lose b/c it’s possible the other person is a better choice regardless of what we believe.

The conflict only exists when we have bad, irrational systems for choosing a president. If the system is bad then we can both agree changing the system is more important (and subsequently find a system which satisfies both our goals).

If there are other candidates, we should prefer those candidates who will institute a better system to those who won’t. If there are perverse mechanics in the selection system (e.g. like those in first-past-the-post when you have 2 similar candidates running s.t. it decreases the chance of a favourable outcome) then we should both be in favour of cooperating to maximise the chance of one of us winning over bad candidates. We can find such a system.

We could also run a pre-election or something to decide which of us runs in the main election (similar to primaries in USA).

mid exercise reflection

I worry that I’m missing something. Are these adequate answers? Do any of the apparent conflicts persist after what I’ve written?

I think these are hard problems to write about – in some ways – b/c there are always unknown and unspecified details which could be chosen to make the situation a ‘nightmare situation’ (as curi put it in TM#49).

Going to have a think and maybe come back to this later.

Notes | Tutorial 48

Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:00:00 +1100

note: not feeling so hot today

reflection

not quite sure how to do more re: bigger picture goals, just more detailed?
I feel like i’m regressing maybe, like focusing more on other things again means I’m getting lazy

Goals

Write docs about IBDD (Flux) – technical / systems level writing
Get better at writing
- I don’t feel like I’ve done enough
- quality isn’t high enough
- not ‘easy’ enough in general (it is somewhat easy when I’m ‘inspired’)
Reading habit not instantiated
Improving my discussion capability
- quality
- I want to be able to effectively lead a discussion

Note: I started doing this and felt a bit flat so worked on the post below a bit.

writing feedback

https://xertrov.github.io/fi/posts/2020-10-12-what-is-the-goal-of-a-political-party/

tutorial

spaced repetition

ET: should probs do spaced repetition practice of past exercises
- e.g. brainstorming before writing
- writing practice
  - topic sentences
- grammar trees / analysis
- text analysis trees
  - connections between ideas, how they relate to each other
  - analysis for social dynamics
- trees in general; debate tree, brainstorming tree
- philosophy:
  - yes/no – go through content
  - paths forward – review at least
    - articles
  - overreaching
  - scheduling / resource budgets / buffers / procrastination / motivation

not just maintenance, none of these are “done”

urgency; no pressure -> no work
- FI: it is urgent (compounding effect)
  - allocate time?
  - mindset shift
    - think this has something to do with some general dissatisfaction w/ myself / some conflict.
- you have to see a problem to be motivated to solve it / work on it
  - e.g. parents with some problem might be motivated to discuss / learn about TCS
  - throughout day - come up with examples of where some skill would be helpful
    - identify specific times
    - planning steps help to see problems more clearly: goal, resource usage, budget; list things that would help make the project better / more successful
      - “wishful thinking” list
- buffers - over-scheduling
  - schedule too full -> pushing things off
  - if schedule is ‘semi open’ then it’s easier to fit in FI / reading / etc
  - scheduling waking hours vs ‘office hours’
  - flex time
    - the goal: flex time not wasted time
  - don’t be afraid to have extra flex time
    - my guess is probably 50% is a good place to start
  - good use of flex time: taking stock of situation, looking at schedule docs, estimating buffers, will I have spare time or not, etc

writing practice

can practice philosophy stuff by writing about it
- repeatedly writing posts helps think through and ‘internalize’ the idea

reading – practice and make habitual.

Justing + Anne’s conversation about Atlas Shrugged helped

leading discussions

objective part
- discussion tree
- work with them in collab way to brainstorm issues and questions and address systematically
  - some nodes we’ll agree on
  - disagreement nodes are where discussion & reasons happen
    - can make arguments that aren’t decisive but sound good
      - other person might be persuaded
      - makes sense particularly when person does believe in arguments of support
    - better is to find decisive issues
      - both ppl could suggest an idea which, if it were wrong, they would change their mind
      - lots of issues disagreed about, but not all will change their mind
        
        good explicit upfront question
        
        what’s the crucial thing that would change my mind
      - often there’s a key issue in both ppl’s mind
      - one way to get at it via goldratt’s conflict clouds / evaporating clouds
social part
- issues like do they want to listen / respond
- manage social stuff at least some

writing checklist
- 95 min

carryover:

idea for post (for max):
- how should one respond to impasses
- why is discussion methodology important

What is the goal of a political party?

Mon, 12 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +1100

Creating a political party takes time, energy, and resources like money. Parties aren’t cheap to create and they take some effort to maintain. It doesn’t make sense to start or continue a party if the political party doesn’t contribute to some goal, or of that goal can be met more effectively in other ways.

In general, Australian political parties are groups with members that are registered with the relevant Electoral Commission. These groups are allowed to run candidates under a unified banner in elections managed by that Electoral Commission. Parties aren’t necessarily incorporated. Parties are made up of members, at least some of whom must be voters in the relevant elections.

It’s fair to say that a party can help achieve multiple goals. When a party is multi-purpose, like this, the goals don’t change. There aren’t that many common goals that parties help achieve, either. Some of the goals a political party might satisfy can be better satisfied by other types of organisations. For example: if you had the goal to increase medical research for some disease, you could register a political party around that issue, or you could register a not-for-profit company. Why would you want to go the political party route instead of another option? It doesn’t make sense to register a political party if some other type of organisation would be better. It only makes sense if you’re taking advantage of the things political parties are uniquely suited to address.

The main goals a political party is uniquely suited to meet, are:

Affect the policies enacted by legislatures, either by proposing new legislation, or by participating in voting on which legislation to enact.
Get one particular person, or a group of people, elected.

Both of these involve the interim step of winning elections.

Parties can help meet other goals too–they don’t just have to be about winning elections–though they’re not uniquely suited to such goals. For example, creating a political party can help meet a personal goal of contributing to something meaningful, or the goal of amplifying particular points of view in the media and other discussions. For political parties, these usually become background goals. They’re goals that could be satisfied in multiple ways; a political party is just one path to satisfying those sort of goals. Crucially: background goals are not well satisfied by a political party which consistently loses–they’re better satisfied in other ways. Anything outside winning elections that a political party can do can be done better by a different type of organisation.

What is a decisive reason for starting a political party? Well, such a reason needs to be something that political parties are uniquely suited to achieve; a decisive reason means there is no comparable method to meet the particular goals. Those goals cannot to be met effectively in ways other than the creation of a party (otherwise there’s no point starting a party). The main advantage of a political party is that in elections, compared to independents, parties have privileged treatment. They can choose a good name to appear on the ballot and they typically have a better position on the ballot paper, too. It’s significantly easier for a candidate of a political party to be elected compared to an independent–most of the time.

A core goal of a political party, then, must be to affect elections–i.e. increase the chance of a candidate, or multiple candidates, being elected. That goal is a decisive reason to start a political party.

A political party which does not contribute to particular candidates being elected is wasting resources. Political parties don’t need to have their own candidates elected to meet the core goal. An easy example can be demonstrated with Flux. We (Flux) have enough members to register multiple parties federally. This would give us certain advantages, though it increases maintenance costs and the overhead of running in elections. If we had, say, 4 federal parties, we could run 4 candidates where previously we could only run 1. In some situations this would increase the chance of us winning a seat. So parties can contribute to the core goal even if the candidate elected is not their own.

what do the common misconceptions lead to – impact

what mistakes get made when ppl don’t understand this

feels unfocused
what are the downsides
switches back and forth
seemed like 2 goals would be main thing

et: might do better to start with bullet points

what’s my goal?

get info across as main focus

after feedback on the outline version

staggered library of crit
- tier for lower quality
- tier for higher quality

need better idea of what audience is interested in

doesn’t seem like I know my audience / have a clear goal

can respond to ~everyone a lot faster w/ bullet point

no background on who I’m arguing with

write outline first

progression / theme

some guy with a policy: you need an outline with the article or no feedback

outline - brainstorm a bunch of thing, then criticize list and narrow it down / fit together thematically / etc.

Notes | Tutorial 47

Fri, 09 Oct 2020 11:00:00 +1100

Impasse Chains

Thoughts on Elliot’s essay https://www.elliottemple.com/essays/debates-and-impasse-chains.

reframing

First, you may agree to disagree. You may agree to stop debating. You may agree it’s a hard problem.

One thing people do with some impasses is try to ~put the idea in different words; explain it from a different point of view.

The reason they expect that to work is something like inferential distance. They’re partially acknowledging there is some prerequisite knowledge and trying to find different prereq knowledge to use.

Sometimes that can be okay, like I could explain a relationship geometrically, algebraically, and ‘intuitively’ (which usually means ‘in terms of past experiences’). Some proofs of Pythagoras’ theorem are algebraic and some are geometric – both are still proofs.

Sometimes it’s not okay, though. If I wanted to explain something complex, like a blockchain, then there aren’t lots of different options for what to base that off. We’d need to talk about hashing and p2p networking and unambiguous data structures and transactions and some of the things that were invented for blockchains to work at all. People try, though, which leads to analogies like a ledger in big excel spreadsheet in a dropbox folder but you can only decrease your own balance and increase someone elses by the same amount. That analogy is okayish for some things, like explaining permissions and that you can see all the balances. It doesn’t say anything about censorship resistance or immutability, though. The explaining from a different point of view idea wasn’t a replacement for a good explanation, it was a compromise.

Is that compromise ever useful? Well evidently it’s somewhat useful. If you’re a manager, maybe you’d give someone a compromise-analogy. It’d let you delegate specific work to them which you can error correct later, before it matters. The person’s understanding isn’t really the point, though, their productivity is. (presumably in this case that means it’s menial work.)

Maybe a compromise-analogy can help someone incrementally learn stuff. Not sure. Why not just study the proper fundamentals, then? Maybe the situation with children learning maths has some relevancy here.

Anyway, reframing the idea isn’t a good solution b/c:

you can’t do it indefinitely, most ppl can probably only do it like 1 or 2 times before running out of ideas; and
it isn’t actually a solution if the original disagreement isn’t resolved (i imagine mostly miscommunications get resolved this way); and
it doesn’t work for all conversations – maybe just teacher-student type things (also some people will react badly if you simplify stuff).

topic preference

And people commonly only want to discuss the original topic, but not what’s wrong with the discussion, so they basically don’t even try to argue their case about why and how the other guy is messing up the discussion.

There’s a big PoV difference with philosophy vs everything else: philosophy is explicitly unbounded. if one person thinks something is related, then it becomes part of the discussion (and a sub-topic becomes whether it is related or not). if one person thinks something needs to be resolved first, then it does (even if that resolution is that it wasn’t actually a dependency).

It’s not like other topics where you can exclude particular things.

One problem is that faux intellectuals like to make things philosophical when it doesn’t need to be, or where they don’t understand enough about the actual philosophy.

Gavin’s impasse chain – tree

Starting with this comment: https://curi.us/2321-project-planning-discussion#16695

https://files.fish.xk.io/2020-10-09-gavin-impasse-chain.pdf

tutorial

We’d need to talk about hashing and p2p …

ET: careful with words that mean “all”, theoretically there’s always another way to explain something.

ET: partial explanations can be useful and okay.

depends on goal.

Big difference in partial explanations: some make a compromise and are wrong about some things. but some partial explanations are just incomplete rather than wrong in some way.

Vagueness can lead to errors, particularly because understanding why something is vague (and thus what it should and shouldn’t be used for) requires a understanding the bigger picture.

ET re math: possible teach stuff that isn’t wrong later. can teach principles that are correct. History compromises less.

It’s not like other topics where you can exclude particular things.

Not safe to exclude stuff generally, and being too narrow in scope will still lead to errors. those might not be decisive but it’ll happen. plus, being a good thinker means being good at philosophy.

ET: TOC is an example of something ppl often think isn’t relevant but is, and a refusal to talk about it will lead to mistakes.

issues with ‘i will respond directly to impasses’ option

should show some understanding, show he’s changed his mind and say why.

idea for post (for max):
- how should one respond to impasses
- why is discussion methodology important

tutoring methodology

role: programmer - early in career
goal: broad education on blockchain stuff – one of the ideas i have is to implement a little blockchain (a ‘toy’) that demonstrates the concepts; they’d do the coding particularly and I’d prompt or things.
- ongoing unknown/predictable work, general knowledge/applicability is a goal
somewhat freeform, I haven’t done much planning b/c it doesn’t feel like I need to (slow pace, broad topics, no immediate outcomes necessary like understanding X Y and Z particularly)
No assumed knowledge (except programming generally)
from first principles
very question based, like there are lots of creative actions for the student to do
- questions like ‘for situation X, what to the ppl need, how might they solve this outcome, if we add this constraint does their solution need to change?, etc’

no known problems ATM

outline - no outline

outline will help w/ big picture and dependencies of topics

a common problem is ppl say they understand stuff they don’t understand – don’t raise enough issues/questions on their own initiative

some ppl do
ask questions yourself, test their understanding, reword stuff (their own words), do stuff that reveals misunderstanding
- common thing in school - teachers giving hints instead of an answer
  - kids use answers to practice on the next one
- if someone needs to learn a method that’s fine because they cna practice
- if it’s a specific thing that’s also okay because it’s not a method
  - can test for deeper understanding by asking for questions that try to get at it
optimise for what’s useful, optimise second for easier to test understanding
if I do withhold don’t be an ass about withholding, find a diff way to test

mindset: helper and facilitator, not guide/authority

passiveness - should check and calibrate

next time: bigger picture goals, life, and tutoring going forward

Notes | Tutorial 46

Mon, 05 Oct 2020 11:00:00 +1100

romance novels (X - 18min)

general comments

quality of conversation

how to have higher qual discussions with ppl other than ET
- ET:
  - conversation tree, review before replying, share with other person, consider what is a reply to what, esp important for self
  - short chunks
    - 2 at a time technique (ask a quest, answer one of theirs)
  - comments and aside stuff doesn’t need to go in tree
  - focus -> going in to depth -> focus on goal of getting something resolved
    - metric for conversation: resolutions (like OKRs / Key Outcomes)
- pre-empt hostility to discussion methodology with ‘rules’ esq post?
- people feel like they’re ‘done’ with learning about having discussions
- ppl want to ‘win’
  - setting bad victory conditions
  - student-teacher relationship vs peer-peer
MK: try conversation tree next time
- idea: is that how a forum could be structured
winning at fi
- no way to let them win
- feeling of winning /= actually winning?
asymmetry
- rationality symmetric – ‘impartial’ maybe better word
conversation ‘phases’
- early game: common ground, inferential difference
- mid game?
- end game?

ppl expect most conversations to fail; they’re looking for partial value to extract not proper outcomes.

people have a ‘queue’ of problems so they don’t like other errors being brought up

todo: https://www.elliottemple.com/essays/debates-and-impasse-chains

gavin alt options: 16705

Learning Report: 2020, week 40

Sun, 04 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +1000

tutorials

This week Elliot and I had a practice discussion (over both tutorials) about whether genes can play a significant role in one’s thoughts. I felt like it was valuable for a few reasons:

I haven’t had many discussions like that. I felt like we got to the important bits much quicker than ‘normal’ conversations (if ‘normal’ conversations ever get to the point).
- differences
  - focus – keeping attention on 1 thing at a time
  - msgs less ‘laden’ with presumption
By keeping a tree of the conversation it became clearer the role each person played to the ‘breadth’ of the discussion (how many forks were in the tree). It was also clear how I was contributing to that a lot more than Elliot was.
The ‘challenges’ Elliot put to me (in response to the ideas I was putting forward) were relevant and they either teased out required information or asked me questions that, when I attempted to answer, pointed out issues with the idea.

a ~break

I took a few days last weekend and early last week and focused on less intense things, like speedrunning.
I think I need to get better attuned to my capacities and manage how I spread that out a bit better.

speedrunning SSOL

the WR is down to 1:49.5 (not mine), I haven’t improved beyond my 1:51.8.
It seems like I usually take an hour or so to get into things enough to consistently get below 2 minutes on completed runs, so there’s some overhead to making attempts.
I think I might have found a new route
- It could save ~3 seconds.
- I’ve practiced it a bit and gotten sub-2 minutes so I think there’s a chance it’s better than the current run.
- It’s about 3.5% shorter and doesn’t seem to be too zig-zaggy (which is important because of the way momentum works in the game)
- I want to practice more before making it public b/c I could get a sub-1:49 with it (which would mean WR)
I’m still not close to ~perfection yet (and neither is AC). My best run has 3 fumbles I think, and AC’s 1:49 is actually behind my 1:51 in parts.
- AC’s 1:49 being behind mine is significant b/c the nature of the game is that ~any time saves he has earlier can be carried through, and he was +1.5s ahead at most before falling behind, and finished 1.5s ahead, too.
  - that means the theoretical lowest time with that route is at most ~1:48.0, maybe 1:47.x

writing

I didn’t do much writing last week, which I’m unhappy about

reading

despite starting FoR and picking up The Choice again, I haven’t continued reading
I started one of Heinlein’s books (Have Space Suit–Will Travel) some weeks ago, too, that I haven’t continued
My brother and I talked about reading some trashy literature together and talking about it. That might help provide some impetus (even if Stargazer Alien Barbarian Brides #1 is useful for nothing else)
- It’s more relevant for him than me (he makes content about literary analysis and stuff). Example: Annihilation (2018) and Stalker (1979): Similarities, Symbolism, and Themes

code

I have done some work on two bodies of code I’m unfamiliar with, one in dart which I haven’t used before besides super simple stuff. I was fairly productive considering.

I’ve been experimenting for a while with how to do data structures in languages like Python (or dart). Both can be fairly loose with their type system but have recent extra features that help. One thing I’m noticing is that my code has a comparably low nesting-factor. Excluding code that looks like nesting due to formatting, I often have no nesting outside of e.g. a try/catch block for the entire function body.

I think this is directly due to using immutable data structures, pure functions, and first class functions. Doing things like avoiding null/None as valid types helps too – this way you can e.g. return a list of results (of say type Maybe int) instead of handling error cases in a more cumbersome confusing way. It makes code easier to analyse, extend, predict, sequence, etc.

goals

I think it’s a problem I don’t review goals daily (sometimes I think about ‘what do I need to do today’, but that’s about it).

I started using lifetick as goal tracking software. I’m not sure if it’s good or will help, yet.

monthly learning report

I need to do a monthly LR for september. I meant to do it this weekend but didn’t (I’m writing this one on Monday).

Notes | Tutorial 45

Fri, 02 Oct 2020 11:00:00 +1000

speed-running

wiggle room
- criteria for difference between good and bad run
- corners easy to lose

reading

could try reading in small chunks on purpose
- e.g. 2 or 5 min chuck
  - get used to chunks
  - figure out minimum size that’s useful

thoughts on short term goals in general

meditation
- (I have some experience btw)
- maybe morning routine
  - some meditation
  - goals + reflection + daily planning
- ET: try 5-10 min sessions
- MK: need to set up morning routine
(okayish, book) meditation for fidgety skeptics
- emotions essay
  - breakpoint: figure out what you want to do faster than being able to react
practice doing things calm/detached

not wasting time on bottleneck / not wasting bottleneck time.

genes and direct influence on thoughts

thinking someone’s implying something via a long chain of reasoning (e.g. 10 steps) is high risk.

I think at this point it’s up to me to come up with some other causal mechanism?

That’s an option.

I have a few ideas for casual mechanisms:

genes encode some ideas which are ‘given’ to us early in life
- so there could be flow on effects
  - this isn’t really a direct influence on thoughts, though.
or maybe: ideas have different classes of components e.g. like ideas about ‘relationships between people’ are one of those possible components. if there are optimisations the brain has that directly relate to some phenotype (like volume of that brain-part) then the weighting between generation of idea-components could differ thus ppl with certain genes are more likely to think of certain stuff.
- note, after I wrote “ideas have different classes of components” I strongly questioned why I wrote that, I don’t think I have a good reason. I think that is reflected in the following 2 points:
- but we don’t know anything about these idea-component things
- so this ‘causal mechanism’ just kicking the can down the road by introducing another unknown casual relationship as part of this explanation

So I don’t think I have any good ideas for casual mechanisms.

I don’t think I could convince myself that genes have a direct influence over our thoughts. But I can’t convince myself they don’t, either. I can convince myself that I shouldn’t believe they do.

I’m open to other ways to move the conversation forward if you have ideas.

not clear on initial ideas in brain and significance to topic
counterexample re ~symbols of attractiveness

I don’t think the initial ideas in the brain matter a lot.

for clarity: so you think it is possible we have ideas encoded in genes that are given to ~everyone during prenatal development (or shortly after birth, w/e)?

the idea that the initial ideas in the brain don’t have any long term significance on our thoughts (and genes can give us some initial ideas) is a stronger and different position than I thought you had.

I think I might have some counterexample to the idea that genes don’t play a significant role in thoughts. It’s part of a bigger idea, though. I’ll try and outline parts of it.

Lindybeige has a theory on why women have breasts
He explains why other theories aren’t sufficient (e.g. there’s one idea that women have breasts to signal fertility, etc, and that theory compares humans to other animals like primates; this is refuted b/c other species have no permanent signs of fertility)
There’s a bit about the EEA and evolutionary context / selection pressures / social dynamics at the time (social dynamics here means like ‘dynamics of hunter gatherer society’)
There’s a (conjectured) chain of reasoning and events he goes through in early (modern) homo sapien development involving secret menstruation and how sexes would ‘react’ for evolutionary advantage
part of that conjecture is male reaction to sexual signals ~flipping to avoid being unattracted to fertile women
and this eventually ends with women having permanent breasts

It’s that second to last part about male reaction ~flipping that I think might be a counter example.

The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWkOvakd9Mo

The reason I think it’s a counter example is that this would be a way genes significantly changed thoughts. (assuming ideas like ‘she’s attractive’ and ‘she’s not attractive’ fit the bill for what we’re considering.)

I’m not sure about the causal mechanism, just that this is an effect and it’s argued that it happened via evolution at the gene-level.

The idea of ~flipping is roughly:

animals are attracted to symbols like swollen breasts / butt, particular inflammations, temporary colouring, etc.
animals (all but humans) don’t have breasts when they don’t need them. They only grow them when necessary, and they’re not swollen at other times
modern women have ~swollen breasts all the time (there’s some difference between lactating/not lactating but it’s minor compared to other animals) – maintaining breasts costs resources, there’s an evolutionary reason not to do it
the male reaction to swollen breasts is to not be attracted b/c it means the female isn’t fertile (this is true in other animals)
human males around the time women developed permanent breasts had this reaction too (along with other things like fatter -> good -> more resources / better chance of children surviving)
one evolutionary reaction could have been to like fix the ‘pattern’ for what males found attractive (e.g. breasts -> good now, fatter -> still good)
but the simplest change necessary is just a binary ‘not’ - i.e. things that weren’t attractive now are, and things that were attractive aren’t – admittedly (thinking about it now) why didn’t humans die out because malnourished women were selected over non-malnourished?
so males had this gene flipped by evolution and breasts were attractive now

This sounds like a way genes had (and have) a significant role in thoughts.

Possible criticism: this is just an idea we get when we’re young and some people change it, some don’t, but it doesn’t mean genes have a substantial role in affecting thoughts, just that like this one inborn(?) idea is different.

I marked inborn with a (?) because I’m not sure I’m using it right.

The reason I think it’s a counter example is that this would be a way genes significantly changed thoughts.

It’s useful to think through what sorts of genetic effects on thoughts are important and why.

In this case I think Lloyd (lindybeige) is claiming

what is the criteria for calling a conversation done?

todo
- work on discussion tree to see what state of the conversation is
- there are standard ideas on this, could I answer them?

Notes | Tutorial 44

Mon, 28 Sep 2020 11:00:00 +1000

SSOL

WR down to 1:53 (by me)
- Discovered some speed tech – up to 4s save in first 30s
Tied by AC a few hours later
Also I’m a mod on speedrun.com now

Debate Stuff?

Genes - Mind

Genes (or other biology) don’t have any direct influence over our intelligence or personality. We have free will. What kind of person someone grows up to be depends on the ideas they’re exposed to and accept, and their own choices. Genes play fairly non-controlling indirect roles, e.g. if you’re tall more people will encourage you to play basketball. All people are born with essentially equal intellectual capacity. Dumb people are people with bad ideas about how to think.

Genes (or other biology) don’t have any direct influence over our intelligence or personality.

I’m not sure about this. I don’t think humans being universal understanders/explainers means genes don’t have a direct influence over our mind/personality (esp. starting conditions). It seems reasonable that physical effects on the brain can have an effect on our mind/thinking (e.g. brain tumors, head trauma), and genes affect things in ways we don’t fully understand, so there’s room for them to have a direct effect.

#18153 What sort of effect or influence do you have in mind, via what causal mechanisms?

I’m not sure about this possibility, but it’s a thing I’ve heard or seems to be a somewhat common idea:

temperament: Say someone has a gene that means they produce lots of some hormone. That hormone makes them angry more often / more easily.

Does this sort of thing count as a direct influence over our personality? I can see a person like this ‘learning to control’ themselves or something, but I’m not sure exactly what you mean by directly influencing personality.

More broadly, I see room for unknown causal mechanisms, esp. relating to things that make sense to have evolutionary roles, like social stuff. I could see some genes play a role in how readily someone accepts static memes based around certain social signals (e.g. ingroup-outgroup stuff).

For example, genes could make it so we’re better at integer math than floating point math. I don’t think this would cause someone to be more inclined to solipsism than an alien that excels at floating point math. And there could be variance among humans, but I don’t think that would cause some people to be atheists.

I agree that there are ways it could affect our brains like an instruction set affects CPU performance, and that this sort of effect isn’t substantial.

(curi’s reply)

temperament: Say someone has a gene that means they produce lots of some hormone. That hormone makes them angry more often / more easily.

Hormones are low level. Behaviors and emotions are high level. It’s kinda like suggesting that heating a room with a CPU in it might result in video game bosses attacking more aggressively. Low level changes do not cause high level changes that have the appearance of complex design unless there’s a specific causal mechanism set up to enable this (e.g. sleep or volume button on a computer).

Does this sort of thing count as a direct influence over our personality?

You could get annoyed more when hot or cold. Does that mean heat and cold influence personality? I think how one responds to heat, cold or hormones is part of what one’s personality is. But they aren’t controlling your reactions. The reactions are your choice based on your ideas.

Low level changes do not cause high level changes that have the appearance of complex design unless there’s a specific causal mechanism set up to enable this

A: Don’t we have a (rudimentary) explanation for hormones affecting thoughts, though? I know–personally–I think different things when in different moods (at least I think that’s the case).

I think how one responds to heat, cold or hormones is part of what one’s personality is. But they aren’t controlling your reactions. The reactions are your choice based on your ideas.

B: It feels like you’re implying reactions are core to understanding personality, like the only way we can inspect personality is via its effect on our reactions.

I googled ‘personality’ and found a sensible-feeling definition about patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. Those are all based on ideas, so by that definition personality is just a collection of ideas.

I’m not sure if part A and B contradict each other.

Don’t we have a (rudimentary) explanation for hormones affecting thoughts, though? I know–personally–I think different things when in different moods (at least I think that’s the case).

Are you linking hormones to moods? You bring up something about hormones affecting thoughts but then the next sentence doesn’t mention hormones.

It feels like you’re implying reactions are core to understanding personality, like the only way we can inspect personality is via its effect on our reactions.

I don’t think that and I don’t see how my text implied it.

so by that definition personality is just a collection of ideas.

I agree with that.

Are you linking hormones to moods? You bring up something about hormones affecting thoughts but then the next sentence doesn’t mention hormones.

Yes. I think most ppl presume a super tight relationship between them. That doesn’t seem right–thinking about it now.

Some effect might be there, but that’s like a transition between levels of emergence, and probably means I don’t have a point here.

Going to drop this angle for the moment.

It feels like you’re implying reactions are core to understanding personality, like the only way we can inspect personality is via its effect on our reactions. I don’t think that and I don’t see how my text implied it.

Given you agreed with “personality is just a collection of ideas” I’m not sure this is important to discuss unless you think so. I can explain why I thought the implication was there if you want.

concluding comment: I think I agree with you that hormones don’t influence personality/thoughts in a substantial way (I think you agree with that at least).

I think at this point it’s up to me to come up with some other causal mechanism? Or the only other node on my conversation tree I have to look into atm is mine about unknown causal mechanism.

Do you think your made an error? If so how’d that happen?

Yes, will do a post mortem in a different post.

Yes I’m curious.

Cool, will also put this in a diff post because it feels off-topic.

That’s an option. Another is …

I want to take a bit to think about where to go from here. I didn’t really consider how many possibilities there were. Some of those options I might be able to follow myself (like a thought experiment) to see where they lead.

TODO

discussion with someone else and make a tree
read
reflect on convo
continue convo

note to self: keep in mind the ask-one,answer-one idea for doing a discussion.

et 69min: ET responds to smaller thing - ppl think is picky/pedantic

can’t say “I have lots of diff knowledge to you”, seen as condescending / w/e
76min - ppl dishonest about thinking, not about painting

max: “

other

Human minds aren’t a collection of modules or compartments

I think it’s fair to say that the core of a mind isn’t modular.

Example via universality of computation: a turing machine is able to be structurally broken down (like on/off registers or the tape and feeder mechanism), but you can’t break down a turing machine itself and have something meaningfully related to computation (or at least not anything like a full turing machine).

I think human minds could be different, though – like the way my computer is a

There are no conflicts of interest between rational men.

Bitcoin is a worthless investment (fraud)

Learning Report: 2020, week 39

Sun, 27 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +1000

tutorials

42
- covering some overreaching material
43
- talking about goals, bigger picture stuff

SSOL

autosplitter
modded game
- a lot
conversation about modded clients
I’m a moderator on speedrun.com now
WR tied at 1:53
- I found some new speed tech

Notes | Tutorial 43 (goals)

Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:00:00 +1000

My Goals - bigger stuff
1. notes from tutorial

rand -> ‘too early for pol party’ -> ppl need better ideas, first -> after that worry about pol party.

invisalign -> look into technology; risks or whatever; papers

My Goals - bigger stuff

– last updated 2018

(parallel) a. make a bunch of money (~~$5-10m~~ $20m? for family/life/future; rest for mission & purpose) b. develop Flux / IBDD in b.g. -> Work towards new BoI for Democracy
Funnel money into Flux -> get it stable
T+ ~5yrs: start process of finding suitable partner (other things can be ongoing)
T+ ~10yrs: child (partner needs to learn TCS + Philosophy gaps)
- ideally the other projects are stable enough to not need my active involvement.

notes from tutorial

Things that need doing
- Better Democracy
- Not shit education
  - anti-social
  - anti-dishonesty
- Social Dynamics too powerful for most ppl *
Break{points,throughs}
- intellectual breakthrough
- plan for leverage points / use
- being right isn’t enough
- model world -> exploit constraint
  - it’s not luck

big improvements -> forces at work -> suppress change -> e.g. ruling elites

elections -> in general bad

educate many ppl or powerful ppl -> can you do both?

rand -> couldn’t find anyone? -> ?? -> who trains the ordinary ppl so great ppl have followers?

rand

wrote books
- not for the masses, just works okay for them
- designed? to be super good for super good ppl

massive longitudinal shortage of philosophers.

great ppl (e.g. goldratt / feynmann) - middling parents b/c static memes

failure of ppl to use TOC: - fragile knowledge

not see it coming: - super high quality low cost education

Notes | Tutorial 42

Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:00:00 +1000

re flux and goals 26min
speedrunning 38min
reach - patio 59 min
overreaching

holding back b/c improving

ongoing problem – maybe forever problem. not a problem that goes away

comparative advantage between work stuff and public FI stuff

plan for ongoing learning curve; whatever I make in next year can be done better in 5 years

re flux and goals 26min

wholistic: in terms of world, leverage points, etc. best path doesn’t need to be direct.

todo: write about this

speedrunning 38min

repetitive stuff -> automatic -> can learn and think at the same time
persistence - debugging 49min

reach - patio 59 min

https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1307811149128163328

overreaching

error rate
not managing / exceeding
persistent and not able to solve a problem
has to do with the process by which you encounter problems and attitude with solving them / approach to solving them

ET: error rate > error correction rate

What errors exist/possible depend on your goal.

Can still make errors like doing bad exploration (or wrong area of study, maybe), get bad overview.

more meta goal: test out exploring, gauge effectiveness – can do that even if full exploration is beyond you atm

can go meta to do this

Some things are probably beyond you anyway, so better to leave alone till you have more basics / foundations down.

There are some ways to engage with end goal near the beginning, can get some info

“going meta” changes the goal of the activity to a different ~level of emergence, sorta. like “build planes” can become “go to work with a guy who builds planes and see if you like it”

motivation for OR stuff
- having discussions, someone makes 1 or 2 errors
  - you talk about those
    - they respond with 1 or 2 more errors
      - etc
- never get back to original topic b/c they’re not resolving errors
  - economics stuff

84min autopilot means you can work on problems like tilt much more easily b/c you can isolate it. not as easy to work on tilt in social situations, for example, b/c there’s lots more factors.

sort of like minimal test case; fewer extraneous details. overlapping ~minimal cases help to; allows for better isolation.

89 min; inverse yesno / bifurcation / goals / something

big part of OR: not enough consideration of prereqs or planning

what’s the plan
what’s it require
do I expect to succeed
can’t achieve anything to
some goals beyond resources (including skills, time, ppl to help you), not just money and land and whatever
any prereq is a resource; trying to get some knowledge
- any requirement for making the project work is a resource
fully explore what’s required to make the project work, then compare to what you have available
doing to much can lower both success rate + abs(output)
- sometimes you could add resources (e.g. buy another computer)
- but being over capacity in other areas is overall harmful to output
ppl sometimes start projects that have prereqs that take years (e.g. physics degree)

similar projects to grammar stuff

learning from some kinda course work - learn from text
reading things and sentence analysis
using a dictionary to figure out what something means
jigsaw puzzles / shapes together
complex / modular from simple things
classification of things and general relationships
breaking down into subproblems
learning to automate classification to allow more complex constructions

from ET

multi day
talk with ppl
share work
self judge/mark
learn from videos
learn from tutor

how was grammar diff to things I’ve done before

grammar
streamed?

want as few different things as possible

if lots of different things, do projects that only do a few differences, build up to large project

if something goes wrong in small project, you can isolate and work on the problem

ET: like small games -> easy to master

If you don’t do small things you can be fooled by like the union of problems -> has a lower ceiling than the actual space of results do.

max and Blockchain

written like 4 micro-minimal chains

OR

Sign of OR: if you can’t break down into parts

another sign: surprise

children start out pretty okay (they don’t try to exceed capacities, don’t want to); pushed into overreaching via social pressure

doesn’t give you space to get ahead

better to aim for being under capacity because variance makes things unpredictable

spare capacity?
- flex projects
only schedule resources for like 2/3 capacity for mandatory things
- rest is flex stuff, can drop to increase capacity for mandatory things
- examples: money/budget or scheduling during waking hours (or work hours)

for next time:

writing about goals, life plan, big picture

prerequisites, resources used for diff things
understanding of success criteria
ppl sometimes jump into projects before knowing the success criteria and goals
- doesn’t work for hard things
- can get some benefits with hard things, but less efficient

Learning Report: 2020, week 38

Sun, 20 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Goals

philosophy
- keep improving, learning, and understanding stuff about YesNo, TCS, Goldratt, etc
  - finish the choice
  - finish fabric
- discussion has been helpful, I think more of that would be good
  - discussion seems to be easier to write about than when I have free choice of topics
- objectivism – start learning a bit more about it slowly; I have a list of Rand to read
work
- continue/start writing on some things
- i’ve done a bit of writing on some work stuff, but held back a bit b/c I’ve been improving a lot
  - I feel my writing (and speed at writing) has improved a lot, so time to go back to that, I think
- put together a sort of ‘intro philosophy’ pack for future team stuff
Flux
- have some backlog to do, getting more urgent
- start writing some of the Flux articles I’ve been meaning to

specific goals

make a video like ‘Tom Scott is Wrong About Online Voting and he Should Stop Spreading Misinformation
- made some notes on this
write and publish draft: discussion / debate policy
- from curi.us debate topics: “Intellectuals who are too busy to talk with everyone should have written policies for who they talk to”
write response to WA Electoral Funding submission request (by Oct 2)
write response to Fed Electoral Funding submission request (by Nov 6)

notes

finding overhead of managing postmortems, this site, etc sometimes-significant but not unbearable

tutorials

40
- Speedrun discussion
- Otherwise general discussion + post ideas discussion
41
- LW banned curi
  - some discussion
- discussion of ‘hello and welcome to fi’ post – lots of places to improve, not persuasive
- some discussion on ‘potential’ and why it’s not a good thing to base stuff on

posts

Overreaching, greatness, and meta-knowledge
Perimortem on intuitive response to comment #18037
Postmortem on #18030 #18043 #18050
Hello, and welcome to FI (opt1) – note: not v good
(Draft/Partial) Helping the Best People or the Masses; One Meaning for FI
(curi.us) Inefficient learning is like eating the seed corn – plus some discussion I thought was good
(curi.us) TCS and passions
(curi.us) Quick thought on a secondary goal of life.

Personal

wrote a few thousand words in a few letters, one went through numerous drafts which was good
over the phone – helped find a soln to a minor ~family problem, using stuff I’ve learnt

LW posts/comments

reply to curi’s ban – there’s ~7 substantial replies in total, mostly mirrored on curi.us
- LW is pretty shit

postmortems

I said I’d do a retrospective (filling in for a monthly learning report) and I didn’t. I should do a postmortem on that. (I haven’t)
pm/1
Perimortem on intuitive response to comment #18037 – pm/2
misreading IR #18051 (also via pm/3)

carry over

started reading the choice again, up to ch12 (friday)
- no other reading

misc

SSOL speedrun improved to 2:20
- this uses the same route but I have some new ideas.
  - I got 2:23 on a new route on like the ~5th attempt, so there’s some good potential there
  - I also realised I thought there was a wall at the end of the main route but it’s just bushes, so maybe there’s a faster route that goes through that. it’s a bit of a pain though b/c it’s hard to manoeuver through that space without like hitting rocks or things
  - the current end is not a bad place to end b/c there are a lot of orbs in roughly a line. it’s tricky to get them all in one go, though, and costs like 5s+ if you miss one (or more), so ending elsewhere could be good.
    - maybe I can try routing backwards instead?
- Weekend Update: Bit of a timer battle thing going on with AggressiveCombo (AC)
  - He got a 2:16, I pushed my time down to a 2:12
  - Then he got a 2:09, 2:08, 2:02, 2:01, and 1:57
  - No fundamental changes to the route, he cut a corner off I included but didn’t need, and has better movement in the last section which is important for consistency and b/c it can take 10s on its own (saves like 4s)
    - If I were going to keep competing, I’d practice picking up orbs on corners, particularly zigzagging
    - Also, I’m not sure if holding s to stop and go backwards is slower than holding w and flipping 180 with the mouse
- not sure if I’m going to keep running it – I gather AC put in more time practicing that weekend that I have in total

curi debate topics

Genes (or other biology) don’t have any direct influence over our intelligence or personality.
- I’m unsure about this, I should do some more reading.
  - I think genes could have some effect without compromising ppl being universal understanders/explainers
Human minds aren’t a collection of modules or compartments
- parts of the brain dedicated to some function
  - not sure this is incompatible, sort of like optimisations in code
    - you could do something generally and slowly, or have some optimisations that are specific but don’t change the generality of the program
There are no conflicts of interest between rational men.
- at a high level this seems sensible, but I’m not sure at a lower level
  - does ‘lower level’ (like day-to-day stuff) mean anything outside of higher level goals (e.g. life-long / wholistic)
Bitcoin and cryptocurrency are worthless investment frauds.
- this I think we could debate

I think the only thing we might disagree about in a substantial way is the cryptocurrency one. I think there are two main things to figure out via the topics:

Bitcoin is a worthless investment (fraud)
- fraud is easier to see in projects ppl start which they profit from, Bitcoin is different b/c AFAWK Satoshi hasn’t made significant profit from it, despite his estimated holdings being like ~9b USD (the coins remain untouched)
Blockchain in general has this property

Notes | Tutorial 41

Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:00:00 +1000

Since Last Time
tutorial notes

Since Last Time

Hello, and welcome to FI
(Draft/Partial) Helping the Best People or the Masses; One Meaning for FI
Bunch of stuff on curi.us

Minor, or duplicated stuff:

good thing to write about: goals, attainability, what do i plan to do and can i accomplish it, a good position to do it, etc

going to do this in this weeks learning report

tutorial notes

sentence 1, generic statement that a lot of ppl claim. ppl filter it out.
- ppl misinterpret by thinking “most forums” is like bottom 50%
- doesn’t give them important actiontionable ppl
It’s rude to criticise someone
- not point of difference for most ppl, e.g. lesswrong
You have to stay on topic
- ppl think staying on topic is a good thing, accusation against other forums
(maybe) need to focus on some point of difference that is more evident or something
ppl don’t know how FI is different
- topic: every conversation is unbounded
on note of philosophy in life, Rand’s philosophy who needs it chapters 1 and 2
one thing I notice is I can tell pretty quickly is when I’ve fooled myself with the quality of what I write. I didn’t do proper structure and brainstorming before writing Hello, and welcome to FI. I thought I had done enough but it falls down really quickly. I have a bad intuition

(Draft/Partial) Helping the Best People or the Masses; One Meaning for FI

Fri, 18 Sep 2020 01:47:00 +1000

Note: this is currently a draft and incomplete post.

I’ve been thinking about FI beginners / new participants on and off for a while. There are a few issues FI has that prevents it growing. I think there’s a reasonable case to be made that the bottleneck is people of Elliot’s calibre.

I had some thoughts regarding Elliot’s podcast Helping the Best People or the Masses (from late 2017). In it he’s responding to an FI post I made at the time. He argues we should help the best people. I agree.

I think it’s reasonable ppl who value FI should help and support Elliot (he’s the only “mission-critical” person in FI currently). Those people can donate money or maybe provide labour if there is relevant work to do. Most importantly they can learn, and help others learn via discussion. They can improve their own lives.

But who should Elliot help?

I think ET’s conclusion answers this question. ET should help the best people. What does that mean, though? Has anyone else even earned the privilege of contending that they’re a better philosopher? I don’t know of anyone with that kind of track record. However, being the best at something doesn’t invalidate the conclusion.

Why did DD help Elliot? Why did DD mentor him? It wasn’t because ET was better than DD – that happened later. There must have been some other reason, perhaps that ET was “the best”, whatever that means in this case. I think that sounds reasonable so far.

(Not finished, but less confident about where to go from here)

Sketch:

(Note: I feel like I haven’t earned the privilege of making some of these comments, but sketching it out anyway)

DD saw potential in ET
- win-win
- ‘potential’ is not a good word
I think ET should consider, if/when such a person/situation arises, to mentor them similarly
- the goal should be to elevate one person (or maybe two, IDK) to close to his level.
- then some quid-pro-quo kicks in, the deal is essentially a ‘pay if forward’ type thing
- now we have two great people
  - supply is presumably an issue
while this is happening FI ppl who aren’t that capable (yet?) help each-other
- it’s important that most of the FI work that can be done by someone other than ET is done by someone else
  - that’s helping the best ppl too by removing load/demand for attention/scarcity of half decent discussion/feedback
    - this happens a bit now, but enough?
- also important that cargo-cult type stuff doesn’t happen; progress needs to be genuine, ppl need to disagree and seek out those challenges
  - ideally resolving them on their own (then those two people get better w/o significant attention or demand for attention)
(todo)

Podcast & Transcript

Published on curi.us on 2017-10-06

https://curi.us/podcast/helping-best-people-or-masses

I’ve touched up the automated transcript a bit. It follows:

Alright, so Max wrote this email called “BoI isn’t working, but neither is Elliot working alone”. And I think it’s cool that he wrote the email, other people should try to actually talk about this stuff more that would be good. It’s a good discussion topic that’s worth trying to think about. It’s about like how to change the world and spread philosophy ideas and persuade people of critical rationalism and stuff like that.

So max says, He presumes we all agree that spreading good ideas is very important to avoid the end of civilization. And one way is spreading out by car, boi, etc. Well, I don’t think that he should presume that we agree, like most people don’t act like they agree with that. What exactly makes it look like they agree, like, you can probably get some people let’s say they think that’s important. Like, that’s probably not that hard. But like getting people actually do something about it. Now, that sounds hard. Like most people, most people cared about this, but it wouldn’t be that hard to spread, because they’d be trying to learn it themselves.

You know, the reason that it’s hard to spread as most people don’t want to learn it. So like, they just don’t care that much about good ideas. They say they care about ideas, but they don’t act like, you know, how willing are they to debate? How many people want to debate me like, Oh, yeah, I care about the truth. But then, are they willing to talk to me? Are they willing to actually answer questions and address criticisms? Or do they just want to, like, ignore a bunch of criticisms? And, like, avoid the work of trying to actually think about things? How many books they actually want to read? How much effort have they put into things like learning how to read books faster, or setting up their life and their schedule on shut so they have time read, unlike actually learn ideas, how many of them actually bother to like, put an audio book on while they’re working out? Like they could listen to books at the gym? But do they do that? Do they want to, maybe they just don’t like books, they could listen to books while they’re commuting to work, but they don’t, right? Like what’s going on there. Apparently, they’re just not that a new ideas.

So [Max] asks, If it’s better to improve like a few people’s ideas a lot, or a lot of people’s ideas a little bit. So the answer the few people’s ideas a lot, because people who know a lot are like powerful, and they can do important productive things. And then people who only know a little bit like, don’t really matter that much like they’re okay, they can fulfill your Amazon delivery or something, you know, they can, they can be productive in like, little ways, like, earn their paycheck or something. But, you know, it’s not a big deal.

Like, if you can help the very best people, then they can get even better. And then that’s like, the most important thing in the world is like, really, really good people. Like, what kind of comparison between, like David Deutsch and you know, 100 of his fans, or even 1000 of his random fans, like, do you want to help create another David Deutsch, or you want to, like, create one book that helps 1000 fans got slightly better, it’s better to help the content creators, it’s better to help the people who actually have ideas that are correct, rather than help people whose lives are a mess anyways, and who are just going to, like, promote and dumb ideas because they don’t know what they’re talking about.

[What] are the best ideas in the world? What are the best ideas anyone knows? that’s an important thing. And the way you improve that as you got like a small number of people that are actually know enough to work on improving human knowledge. If you just take a bunch of people who are like, not even close to contribute anything to human knowledge. And then you got them all like, a tiny bit better. Like, what difference does that make? What’s going to happen now? you’re not going to get like new important ideas from that. In rare cases, you might get lucky. But a lot of important ideas are connected to other ideas, you have to, like, know a bunch of shit before you can contribute. You have to like kind of get to the cutting edge before you can build on it. It’s not like that, like 100% of the time. But that’s that’s kind of how it often works. Like first to catch up to what people already know. And then you move past that if you’re like, nowhere near what’s already known, then the vast majority of the show you come up with is just gonna be like reinventing things are getting things wrong.

So Max says it’s important to have both skill some people up to be experts, as well as skill most people up to the amateurs, at least in the near future, far future is a different matter. But like what is an amateur? What is an expert? Like, does an expert mean someone like me, someone like David? Like it’s hard to scale up even one person like that. We haven’t really figured out how to do that. So figuring that would be good. Does an expert means someone who like couldn’t possibly debate me, does that count as an expert, someone who’s just completely outclassed? I mean, skilling people up to that level, like, I guess that’d be something, but like, you know, that it’s hard for them to contribute, if they’re just outclassed by current human knowledge.

And then, like the amateurs like what they’re going to do, what’s an amateur, like, just someone who’s wrong about everything, or, you know, not quite wrong about everything? Is that it like, what, what does that for what’s, what’s the positive aspect is that like, people who are sort of fans who have things they don’t understand, do we need, like a bunch of people on our side who don’t know what they’re talking about, like, why solo like, give us money, or like, so we can get, like, lots of views on our YouTube videos. So if like our YouTube videos, I’ll have like a million views. Because we have a bunch of stupid fans who don’t actually understand it, and aren’t actually interested in getting involved in learning it for real, they just sort of, you know, sit there and hit the like button and pretend they understand it.

And like, first, you can’t even get people like that unless you like, Don’t challenge them too much. So you have to like ruin your content, or you’re not going to have that kind of fan base. Like, if you if you make this sort of demanding critical content that I make, that doesn’t just let people sit back and nod and like, feel good about themselves, so they don’t know know anything, then with my kind of content, you’re not going to get like a big audience, unless you have like a bunch of people that are actually diesel, because it’s intentionally not sucking up to bad people, and making them feel good about themselves. You know, it’s intentionally trying to communicate that I have standards, and that this is like, what the standard is of what you should know, or how hard you should think, or what sort of effort you should put into things as you’re not doing that, then you’re just sort of not trying and life and wasting your life. And when you say things like that, then you don’t get as many just like random followers tagging along for no real reason. Which is like what amateurs are right?

Like, what would normally be considered an amateur level just like doesn’t exist on FI, because people like that never stick around, because they don’t like it. Because if I says people like that are ruining their lives, they’re bad people, their immoral, they should change, people either listen to that, and change or they don’t like it and they leave. You can’t just like, get rid of that. And like, start trying to appeal to shitty people having shitty lives that would like defeat the whole message. And the purpose of saying that having a rational life is actually different.

I think you got enough trickle down effects just from misunderstandings. You don’t need to do them on purpose. You don’t have to, like dumb down material, just like make your best material. And then if you can explain it to some people, some of them are going to misunderstand parts of it, then they’re going to make content that’s like, not as good. And then some of their fans will make content that’s not as good. And you’ll get like, eventually, some people will be making sure that has like little pieces of your content. And then people can get it in like little bite sized chunks that are less threatening, or something, you don’t have to, like, do that on purpose, best to try to, like manipulate people, like there’s already enough degradation, just from like misunderstandings and people fucking up. You don’t have to do it on purpose.

Max keeps talking about ‘we’ like it matters that we move as fast as we reasonably can. And we can’t do all the work via one end. And so we should think about working from the other side, too. So first of all, that’s not very specific, like doing what from the other side? Like, what’s an actual proposal? And why will it not suck? Like, is there is there an actual idea here? Or is it just a like call to brainstorm ideas to do this, like vague aspiration of somehow getting lots of amateur fans that aren’t really well defined? And there’s no actual conceptual model of like, what type of people they would be in what their opinion of fit would be in, like, what the point would be like, it’s not really planned out, it’s not specific. But anyways, this whole like, we thing; who is we? like, is a max and me maybe Justin, anyone who will listen, I don’t know. I mean, I’ve sort of told max what I think like he should read books.

You know, I think if you have, if you haven’t read DD and ran, then you’re not really in a position to think about things like you’re just missing the most important parts of human knowledge. So like, catch up, and then try to actually learn things and then figure out what to do. And like, you also got to learn about like, what’s already been tried, why, why things don’t work, what kinds of things could or couldn’t work, like, there’s already a lot of knowledge about this stuff. There have already been a lot of trials to talk with people to create content, etc.

Max is like talking about like, Oh, yeah, let’s all get together and, like, persuade the world or something. But like can he persuade, like, one person? can even persuade himself, let alone someone else? There’s no unified group here. There’s like, different people with their own ideas in their own lives. And that’s what you should expect, like it’s, you know, an individualist philosophy. We’re not a collective, we don’t want to be a collective. And it’s important not to think too much and collective terms, and not to put too much stock and collaborations and like to just do things yourself that you want to do. And there’s some scope for like multiple people doing good things, and having some level of coordination. But like, there’s something weird about trying to plan like, what the group will do before you’ve actually done anything.

If people want to contribute, they need to learn more, basically, I’ve been saying this for years, and people don’t want to do it. Um, Max’s email is not focused on that not How can he learn more, that’s, that’s not really even about that’s not focused on like, anyone learning a lot more, it’s focused on like, mass popularity, kind of, for some reason. Then Max has this idea, something like, we’ve got existing people who have like big audiences, and we’ll get them to convert their audiences to FI stuff. But like, can you even convert like one person? Could you take one member of their audience and convert them, let alone convert the content creator himself.

Like, there’s a big problem there. Max wants to grow the number of experts and also the number of people who could become experts, like, what does a person who could become an expert like everyone to Universal knowledge creator. So in some sense, that’s everyone, I mean, I think you mean something more specific. But like, it’s not really clear what that meant, what it is that it’s not, it’s not defined.

Like, none of this addresses the problem that plenty of people have seen FI for it to like get started. Like, the problem is, they don’t like it, they don’t want it. None of this addresses that people don’t want to hear it. They don’t like the message. They don’t want to know these things. They don’t want to learn that it’s not just that they don’t like thinking that much, or debating or criticism is that there are ideas in FI that contradicts the values they already have. that they disagree with it. They don’t like it. They don’t want it. They think like, FI ideas are immoral and gross and stuff. So like, that’s why it’s not spreading very well, it’s cause people hear about it. And then the more they understand, the less they like, basically, that’s most people.

I think, Max is assuming something like if we can change a bunch of people’s opinions, then well, learn stuff afterwards, at least a little bit in some random amounts? And like, we just have to get more favorable opinions and get the word out. And then people like it or something, oh, no, it’s not very specific. But something kind of like that.

And even if you could get like thousands of people saying, like, positive things about FI, or about BoI or whatever, that’s not like, actually useful, like, just because they said some positive things about it doesn’t mean they’re going to actually want to start like learning and studying and being serious. Like, virtually everyone is just extremely consistent about going into evasion mode and burying their head in the sand if you start asking them tough questions. They don’t want to, like see the issue through to a conclusion and have some of their prejudices questioned and they’re like, not very self aware, and they don’t want to introspect and change. They’re happier when they when they hear it as like, oh, some other people are dumb, some other people are wrong, and when they’re like, feeling superior, because like, they know something about FI, and other people don’t. But like when the criticism turns on them and it’s like, “Hey, what about you? What are you doing? Where are your good essays? whereas you’re good content. What have you studied? What books have you read? Have you discussed them? What have you done to error correct your understanding of those books?” When you start getting into that people, they don’t want to talk about it anymore. They’re busy, the excuses start.

Hello, and welcome to FI (opt1)

Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:17:00 +1000

context for this writing ~exercise/practice

Audience: me in August 2017, essentially.

Note: I’m not sure I can speak with the tone of authority I do in this, but I’m fairly confident it’s reasonable.

After reviewing in Tutoring Max 41: This is not a good post. Lots of issues. Leaving it here for the record, but, yeah.

Thinking about this now, it’s more like 2020-Max wrote this for 2020-Max, not for 2017-Max.

the (opt1) in the title indicates this is one of multiple ways to tackle the same issue; I intend to try other ways in future posts.

Please see Tutoring Max #41 0:30:00 onwards for discussion with ET about this post.

the post itself

Fallible Ideas (FI) is not like other forums. Other forums have much lower standards. They think things like: “It’s rude to criticise someone”, “You have to stay on topic”, or “It’s better to praise new members than criticise them”. Other forums encourage quantity over quality, and the appearance or feeling of good discussion over the actual quality of discussion.

But you knew that, right? At least a bit. You went looking for high quality philosophy; isn’t that why you’re here? Maybe, maybe not. You’re here now.

FI is a place where you can learn to think and have a better life. A place where you can learn how to better judge and understand ideas. A place where you can learn how to have high quality discussions. A place where your ideas will be challenged. A place where criticism is treated as a gift.

FI will never give you any of these things. However, it is a place you can find them, provided you know how to look. The most succinct way I can describe the right method to use is ‘Socratic’. Know that you know nothing, or something like that. How to be socratic is not something that many people are good at. You should not expect that you will be good at it to start with. It takes a mix of time, energy, focus, and reflection. In some ways the proportions of those things are up to you.

Most people who come to FI for some time end up leaving, often angry, upset, or offended. I found myself upset a few times in the ~18 months following my first post. I would struggle along, feeling like I was the victim of condescension, or the subject of pejoratives. The truth, though, was that I was inflicting those things on myself. I had been fooling myself for years–about the quality of my capabilities, of my thinking, of my ideas… I had been living a fantasy, and it has taken me 3 years just to realise that.

I think it’s important to mention, I am not attempting to dissuade you–I’m writing this to make your life easier, after all–but you need to know upfront that this will not be easy. You have been born into a world of poor thinkers–parents, friends, teachers, colleagues: high quality thinkers are exceptionally rare. It is exceedingly unlikely that you are an exception to this rule. It would only harm us if I were dishonest with you about these things. Especially now.

One of the reasons I’m writing this is so that you, an FI beginner, will have some material that I did not. I will tell you some things I would have liked to been told–and might have found had I the wherewithal to humbly look. I urge you to proceed with an open mind. By that I mean: please, reserve judgement until you have thoroughly thought through and discussed the foundational material. There are many things you can learn without talking about fantastical things like AGI or saving the world. In fact, it will be expected that you take seriously other things before having the sorts of discussions many people try to jump right into.

FI is a community that will expect you are fully capable of discussing topics you choose at incredibly high standards. ~~If you do not master (or at least become proficient) in the basics, do not expect anyone to take you seriously in more advanced matters.~~ If you overreach–~~that is, attempt to tackle problems beyond your potential~~(not what overreaching means, need to rework a lot here)–you will be confronted about this. This is what high standards mean, high standards do not mean things like fancy, impressive, or advanced. High standards means a low error rate and consistent, robust thinking; you must know your own boundaries and capabilities to reach your goals.

Despite the high standards, everyone is capable of becoming a productive member–and potentially very quickly. What does being a productive member mean? Primarily: making progress for yourself. You owe nothing to other posters, and they owe nothing to you. However, you do owe it to yourself to take the knowledge made available to you and use it to improve your thinking and your life.

FI is not a club, or a show and tell. It is a serious philosophy forum for serious people. You will be expected to take matters seriously, to take advice, suggestions, and criticism seriously. Responding with anger or offence will not demonstrate your seriousness; this is not twitter, or facebook, or reddit. This is Fallible Ideas; know that you are fallible, and expect to learn that harder and faster than anywhere else.

All that said, I’m glad you’re here.

FI is the living tradition of several David Deutsch related online communities: TCS (Taking Children Seriously), ARR (Autonomy Respecting Relationships), and the FoR (Fabric of Reality) and BoI (Beginning of Infinity). Although FI is the living tradition of these discussion groups, you won’t find DD here, only his legacy: primarily through his long-time mentee, and colleague, Elliot Temple.

As for introductory material, in lieu of follow-up posts of mine (and others, I hope), these things will help you on your way:

Overreaching, what is it, how to avoid it, and why understanding it will help you: https://www.elliottemple.com/essays/life-overreaching-correcting-error and https://fallibleideas.com/overreach
If you’re wrong, how will you know? Start here for introductory methodology: https://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward, https://curi.us/1761-paths-forward-summary, and https://curi.us/1898-paths-forward-short-summary
Communication is hard, it takes creative effort on all sides: https://fallibleideas.com/communication-is-hard
Grammar matters, for text analysis and effective communication: https://fallibleideas.com/grammar

Reading those alone, in isolation, is not enough. To really understand things you need to discuss and write about them. How will you know if you’re doing well, or what problems you are yet to overcome?

Develop, publish, and share a learning plan: https://curi.us/2295-fallible-ideas-learning-plan
When you make a mistake, do a postmortem; understand why the mistake happened and how to avoid the general class of mistake in future: https://curi.us/2190-errors-merit-post-mortems

Here are some sample resources from budding FI members to help you on your way:

When you run into difficulty or get stuck, the most important thing you can do is discuss it. Remember that.

Postmortem on #18030 #18043 #18050

Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:57:00 +1000

IR wrote (addressing curi)

i feel very much like i have gotten some of these ideas from you, but i dont know which things youve wrote that i got these ideas from. and i dont know how much ive changed them.

I asked IR:

Otherwise, does it matter how much you’ve changed your mind?

which didn’t make much sense. Context: #18030 #18043 #18050

I think 2 main things happened:

I wasn’t careful when reading IR’s comment, so missed important details / relations. (i.e. he was talking about changes to curi’s ideas in his head, not changes to his own pre-existing ideas in his head)
I’ve been thinking recently about how my own ideas have changed over the last ~3 months.

(1) allowed me to ~skip between trains of thought without noticing. I ended up thinking about IR’s comment in terms of (2). My question to IR makes more sense in this light.

Beyond the issue of miscommunication in general, there’s a bigger problem I should care about and deal with. That is: responding earnestly to someone (usually) takes longer than reading what came immediately before. If I spend time responding to what I thought they wrote (but I’m wrong about that) then it’s, in essence, wasted time. Maybe there are some benefits, but they’re lesser than would be otherwise.

To avoid this sort of thing the obvious answer is reading stuff better. That doesn’t feel super actionable tho b/c just concentrating more on ~everything I read is not v efficient, esp if this sort of issue isn’t super common.

I could try re-interpreting what the person says, like re-writing out what I thought they meant before replying, but how would I know if that were right/wrong? It might make it clearer to me if I was unclear about what they thought. It doesn’t help if I think I know what they meant and that idea is clear and consistent in my mind (as it was in this case).

This issue was - I think - that the reference “these ideas” is somewhat ambiguous (or maybe just tricky). I think IR’s full sentence (expanding “them”) is something like:

and i dont know how much ive changed [my version of ideas I got from your ideas relative to the original ideas you wrote]

So, this might be a better sketch of what to do:

recognise tricky references (ideally automatically)
when tricky references occur, expand them out (there could be more than one possibility)
criticise the possibilities so I get just one
if I can’t and it’s ambiguous still, ask a clarifying question (listing the possibilities too)
- optionally respond to each possibility if short enough or easy enough
if I get one and it’s reasonable I can just respond
if I get one and I’m not sure it’s reasonable, ask a clarifying question and respond at the same time

the next step in this action-plan-sketch is “recognise tricky references (ideally automatically)”. The first part of that is introducing a breakpoint (in the coding sense) on tricky references. I can do this a bit by paying more attention to references in general, trying to quickly figure out what they mean (and eval-ing if I know what they mean), and taking action if I don’t. If I’m not 10/10 confident on the reference I should stop and investigate.

Okay, this feels like a decent PM and plan. Feedback welcome/appreciated. It was a bit trickier than normal to figure out what to do because a plan like ‘learn2read’ didn’t feel good enough.

Perimortem on intuitive response to comment #18037

Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:22:00 +1000

Originally posted to curi.us/2380

Context

Here is the context around the perimortem – it’s necessary to properly understand it, but skimming is probably fine. I wanted a copy here (my site) anyway b/c I wrote a decent amount.

Each reply is sequential (earliest to most recent) and copied here in full.

Max said in #18032

Title of comment: Inefficient learning is like eating the seed corn

an ongoing conflict of mine - something to do with learning styles and methods. Sometimes I prioritize the wrong thing. I’ll spend time on fun (and maybe even slightly useful) ‘intellectual’ activities like coding, instead of doing more structured, efficient, and goal directed learning. That’s like eating the seed corn. It’s like: I end up fed, and I still have some seed corn left over, but the harvest isn’t going to be as good. What’s the point of learning and thinking if not for the harvest? indirectly related: #18025 and https://curi.us/2378-eliezer-yudkowsky-is-a-fraud

curi said in #18034

#18032 Metaphorically seed corn = capital = e.g. machines. it’s stuff you can save for later. time is somewhat different in that you can’t save it for later. but, like money, you can spend time on things with later benefits (investment rather than consumption).

Max said in #18036

time is somewhat different in that you can’t save it for later. but, like money, you can spend time on things with later benefits (investment rather than consumption). I’m not sure if we disagree on something or not. I think we roughly agree but I’m thinking of time spent in a specific way (just a subset of the time we get). For context, I read curi.us/2378 a few minutes before having that idea. I liked these bits particularly (and liked being reminded of them) capital goods, not consumption goods accumulation of capital increasing the productivity of labor I think time can be sometimes seen like money and other capital goods. How do people save money? One option is a bank account, but that performs poorly, and is sort of like investing in loans/debt, anyway. Better investors save money by spending it on capital goods (and they choose the goods). After they spend money, they don’t have it any more, but they have something else they can exchange for money later. I think time spent on learning is similar, but not all time spent is similar. Granted, there’s no bank account for time, but you can spend time now so you get more of it later – that’s one of the reasons to learn and think, you - in essence - get more time in the future because you avoid making mistakes or being slower than you could be. In that sense it’s like investing in productive capacity. There’s a higher upfront cost, but you get a higher capacity and larger RoI than the alternatives. The choice to spend time learning ineffectively seems to me like spending some chunk of your factory budget on hookers and cocaine; fun at the time, but it’s in opposition to the main goal. Similarly, by analogy, learning skills that don’t end up helping you, but learning them effectively, is like market risk. Not every investment makes a profit, but diversification helps, and the better you are the less you waste. Time spent on things like downtime is different from normal money; that’s more like $100 of food stamps you both get once a week and have to spend the same week. You might only be able to spend it at low-quality grocers, but avoiding spending it only hurts you. An alternative thing about spending time on learning is trying to spend downtime doing pseudo-learning stuff. That’s more like trying to invest your $100 food stamp (not going to go well). I find trying to do ~learning stuff when I’m tired etc. often means I stay up later, sleep worse, and have less high-capacity time for important things.

curi said in #18037

Eating seed corn is like disassembling machinery for scrap metal, which is different (more destructive) than leaving it idle for a day (which sounds reasonably similar to spending a day of your time unproductively).

Max said in #18038

#18037 yeah okay, I see what you mean. I’ve changed my mind on the quality of my analogy. (I don’t think it’s super bad or anything, just not as good as I originally thought.)

Content

My intuitive response (which would be put a bit defensively) is something like: disassembling machinery is like eating all the seed corn, and leaving it idle is like skimming a bit of corn off the top. Things keep working; there’s still productivity and returns, but less than otherwise.

(note: I think this is valid, and it’s why I don’t think my analogy was all bad)

I think that intuitive response is wrong though. It’s subtly moving the goal posts (similar to e.g. a “strategic” clarification), and would be expressing an idea like: “we’re both right, we should blame miscommunication”. That’d be dishonest though, because:

a) I didn’t see some limits of the analogy that I do now - this contradicts the idea of miscommunication being a primary issue (it’s not important if curi and I understood each other fully in every way; we understood each other sufficiently), and

b) the reasonable next steps from a miscommunication would be to figure out how to avoid it. Some miscommunications are due to like ~inferential distance but that doesn’t make sense here. The easiest solution (if it really was miscommunication) would have been for me to be clearer originally. If I advocated that (and claimed I could have done it) I’d be pretending like there wasn’t ever an issue; at the very least my lack of clarity would be an issue. Maybe I couldn’t have been clearer for lack of knowledge, in which case it’d still be dishonest–and evasive–to claim a miscommunication b/c that wasn’t the problem.

I don’t know any way that my intuitive response would have been good, which is the reason I wrote this perimortem.

I’m not sure if putting the response in this perimortem is like a roundabout (and/or cowardly) way of trying to say the idea anyway. However, I think writing the perimortem is a better alternative than making the titular reply, so I’m satisfied for now.

Overreaching, greatness, and meta-knowledge

Tue, 15 Sep 2020 18:08:00 +1000

Consider people who are great (like exceptional) at something in particular. One of the things that makes them great is ~meta-knowledge, like knowledge about context regarding their actions.

I watched a bit of a recent Sea of Thieves WR speedrun - particularly the events during 7:25:00 -> 9:00:00 (it’s like a 21hr run). They lost like 1:20:00 from a choice to steal another crews loot b/c that crew chased them for a decent while. A third ship joined in a bit, too. Near the end of this chase (8:49:00) they spot another sloop (ship of 2 crew) and one guy jokes about taking this new ship’s loot. The two speedrunners have been talking about what to do at this point, and particularly risk/rewards tradeoffs for how to sell the loot. The two guys are good enough to - ordinarily - take on another sloop no problem. after all, they just fought off 2 other crews of sizes 4 and 3. their choice not to go after the sloop (and the humor of the joke) is based in this like ~*meta-knowledge~ type stuff.

it doesn’t matter how great you are at something, even the best ppl in the world know there are some challenges they won’t win (or it’s too much a risk), and the choose to back off. they’re not OP just because they’re the best in the world.

Generalising this means something like: the ~meta-knowledge is at least as important as the knowledge about how to do the skill well (which is more like technical knowledge). Or, at least it’s that important at high levels.

Basically, this is like “don’t overreach”, or rather, if you do overreach, don’t expect to still be great. the ability to pick challenges is part of the reason great people are great. sorta like flying close, but not too close, to the sun.

It also relates to knowing your limits, either when something is too big a task or when (and what) to learn before doing it.

This offers a bit more clarity for an ongoing conflict of mine - something to do with learning styles and methods. I intuitively think that ‘exploratory’ style learning (with a high(er) error rate) has benefits. and I mean it’s not as bad as doing nothing at all (I guess it could be sometimes), but it’s not as efficient as directed and non-overreaching learning.

I think part of the reason I have this conflict is in essence thinking too much of my own skills. That’s true even tho, I went through a few ~breakpoints early on in the Tutoring Max series. (Breakpoints might not be the right word, but I think there are like significant points of increased ~reach when we adopt new and better ideas about ourselves)

Notes | Tutorial 40

Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:00:00 +1000

Tutorial content
good to do stuff about

Tutorial content

ppl have problem -> look for solns -> only do research when getting stuck
- upsides: self-guided and (10min)
book learning
- passive
- but organised
  - and includes a lot more from “sum total of human knowledge” -> better EC too
easy to go wrong both ways
ET: ppl should start with guided learning as children – always a mix
- as you get better you have more tools + context, so can do self-guided better

evolution:

setting up rules is super important to whether something is evolution or fake

meta:

91min:

ppls conversation goal: narrow, on topic,
meta goes outside boundaries, unpredictable,
fundamentally dishonest
- narrow conversation, etc
want unwritten rules
ET: universality special kind of breakpoint, or like breakpoints are a more fundamental/general thing
- -> breakpoints can make things digital

good to do stuff about

goals, attainability, what do i plan to do and can i accomplish it, a good position to do it, etc

Learning Report: 2020, week 37

Sun, 13 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +1000

(NOTE: not yet complete)

Tutorials

37
- todo
38 (paths forward)
- todo
39
- todo

Other things

Bit more haskell practice / study. Haven’t made any significant progress in HFFP
Started reading FoR, and am taking notes. (_notes/fabric-notes.md on github)
I meant to go back to the choice but haven’t this week
todo

A Slower Speed of Light - WR speedrun

I got WR (0:2:30) in A Slower Speed of Light (SSOL) speedrun.com
- First attempt at like a “fast casual” run was 4:04 (better than first recorded time on speedrun.com)
- best I found on twitter was like 2:5x
  - There are ~4 or so unique ways SSOL starts the suggested tweet. I googled them in quotes with various prefixes like “It took me 00:02”
    - this example finds a quote on Twitter (from @CharlesEnos) from 28 May 2014
      
      It took me 00:02:47 to break the #threeminuteworldtime http://gamelab.mit.edu/slower #slowlight #openrelativity
    - I couldn’t find shorter times on twitter, there were some other 2 minute times, but none faster than 2:47
  - (there were some social-integration features b/c SSOL it was released in 2012)
- Watched previous runs to figure out routes
- Tried some more experimental routes that didn’t seem to work well
- Before doing much practice I wanted to get an image of the map for routing purposes
  - I used uTinyRipper to extract assets from the game file (Unity)
  - Loaded these assets in Unity 2017 and found the map and figured out (guessing/intuition)
    - how to load the right map
    - enough to show the orbs + fences in one image (search for one, ctrl+a; search for the other -> bg items are grey, searched items are visible, selected items are highlighted) image
    - I loaded these into photoshop (initially) to draw the previous routes over them (with timing info for WR)
    - Photoshop can’t tell you the length of a path easily, so I moved to illustrator. The lengths for routes taken were roughly:
      - 3rd - 2:47 - 6711
      - 2nd - 2:40 - 6543
      - ~1st - 2:35 - 6385 (note: this isn’t my WR run, I measured an earlier run that was 2:35)
      - Although the game penalises sharp changes in velocity (the character has lots of inertia), seems like shorter routes still matter
  - I practiced the route in 2:47 first to get a feel for it. Then I practiced the old WR route in 2:40.
  - practicing these and having the map let me make a few novel improvements:
    - I don’t get the orb that’s immediately in front of you when you start the game (-1s)
    - After the side-run of 13 orbs (bottom middle of my map) I get an extra orb – the one between the mushrooms and the wall. You have a lot of velocity which you need to shed anyway, so it’s quicker (-1s?)
    - In my WR 2020-09-13 run I think I had better-than-previous technical movement, but there are still obviously sloppy things (like going into the final run of 14 orbs – I miss one and have to go back)
    - Doing the final 14 well saves >3s on it’s own, if not more. Missing any one of them is quite costly
- taking it further
  - I used Engauge Digitizer to get a CSV of points of the orbs - I wanted to use some route-finding software later to try and improve the route
  - Idea: use travelling salesman + genetic to find a faster route?
    - Have done a bit on this in python and haskell (separately)
      - Fun but not a great use of time, no results from 12hrs+ work
    - BOTTLENECK I think lookup times of pixels I’m using for a-star (which gives distances for the travelling salesman alg) is the bottleneck. looping thru all pixels (~1.3m) to test if black/white adds like +60s to my tests
      - can optimise this
- there are other problems I identified w/ my run and issues I have that I haven’t had time to write down here

It was maybe ~6hrs till I beat/equalled the WR and ~8 to get a time of 2:30. Most of that time was spent doing the Unity/Route stuff.

Issues

I had lots of things I wanted to do over the weekend and didn’t do ~any.
- I intend to read easy way again (partially due to some discord conversations about it)
  - need to fix some habits

Carry over

Reading habit - I still haven’t built this up, or spent time working towards it.
- some improvement, not enough
  - one issue is I end up pausing a thinking a bunch reading FoR which means I take a long time to get through stuff
  - another is concentration, like doing multiple things at once (e.g. discord)
didn’t write as much as I planned to

post ideas

what would it mean for meta discussion to be bad? is it compatible with fallibilism?
philosophical oracles aren’t useful (related to FoR)
postmortem on my short argument against moral relativism
- comparison to logical positivism argument in fabric ch1p6
approval of outcomes is no way to run a democracy
does all progress involve finding new universalities?
- maybe just increasing reach of humanity’s body of knowledge?
- fabric ch1,22:30
fabric ch1,27:00-27:59,p12
- seems wrong: bit with planets and the claim to only see facts that aren’t explained by GR
  - postmortem: audible reading hard to follow grammatically - easier in print, multiple commas make it difficult. misinterpreted audiobook, clarified after checking print copy.
is ‘replication strategy’ a good label for the rational/static descriptors on rational/static memes?
finish santa claus is coming to town analysis
how do you represent not-X in CF and CR?
- CR perspective: not-X the idea that X is false, which is to say that X is criticised
- CF / yesno pespective: not-X … how is it different, how does it relate to goals?
finish dialog on fi-light
heart stuff
healthypi
how is meta used socially? (like: introducing meta topics)
- equal or higher status?
  - rejection of meta => (optimistically) rejection of social stuff? (maybe like a bit good?)
  - objections to meta => defensive b/c of social stuff? (not good)
    - what about some equivalence of action to goodness? does anything like that come in to it?
Justin/Max metaphors of violence chat log
Chat log excerpts
Why you should contribute via subscribestar
Why (and under what conditions) should you take someone seriously?
retrospective on 3 months
- learning report for this week + this month
What does it mean for a philosopher to be consistent? (both WRT their behaviour and their values)
“picking fights” - can they be good?
haskell over scheme - importance of data types

From FoR notes:

offtopic - FoR ch2,25:00 maybe – beginning to talk about “tangible” photons and what it means to be in the same universe -> thinking about the “what to do with way out there ideas” post a. maybe this section answers the q “what do you think a universe is?” b. todo: retrospective on how my thinking has changed;
- gone from
  - questions like “how do i talk about this”
  - and behaviours like ‘writing a post, not knowing how to deal with it, writing a wrapper post so I can do something at least’
  - feeling overwhelmed by some stuff and not knowing how to proceed
- to (starting to, not mastered)
  - being capable of knowing what i want to say and whether I can say it,
  - what I need to do re: organisation of ideas and research,
  - how to break down ideas to evaluate them earlier in my process,
  - how to ask questions to get better answers,
  - better methods of discussion,
  - better methods of thinking,
  - appreciation for own static memes and a small arsenal of methods to combat them^1
  - knowing what to focus on to communicate ideas better/properly
  - how to understand what people are trying to say/communicate
  - how to evaluate texts/samples quicker for qualities and errors
  - how to manage my own time better and more productively
  - how to think and feel about myself and my actions/inactions
  - how to think about my own problems and life problems generally
  - how to make more reliable progress towards goals
  - how to choose better goals (and why to choose them)
  - how to reason about other people and social dynamics / motivations
  - how to read text in multiple critical frames, including social dynamics
  - how to choose topics, subjects, and appropriate attention for them

1: i use metaphors of violence, but particularly wrt my own static memes. how does this compare to metaphors of violence wrt criticism?

Notes | Tutorial 39

Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:00:00 +1000

Paths Forward (review)
efficiency
helpful things
epistemic stuff
during tutorials

Paths Forward (review)

PF is not a method. PF is something have, not something you do. It has been ~~primarily (completely?)~~ developed by Elliot Temple.

If someone has PF it means they have general methods for correcting errors. The presence (and adherence to) those methods is what provides PF. That presence is the solution to a very particular problem (and the related problems/questions):

If you are wrong about something:

Are you always able to find that out? Why are you generally able to find out if you’re wrong about something?

Can you be confident that this works for anything you could possibly be wrong about?

Important 28min: if you disagree with something, you should have thresholds and limits for things that will change your mind. you should know what they are and be able to tell ppl if they ask.

It’s not specific to one domain (e.g. research into a particular topic), it applies to all elements of one’s life.

The core of PF is about discussion. There are - broadly - two ways to find and fix an error. You can do it in your own head (thinking about it alone) or via discussion. Discussion is important because that’s the primary way of getting a variety of ideas. Even reading a book is a simple discussion (sort of) - the author says a bunch to you.

Note 62m: don’t blur (too much) active discussion w/ passive stuff like books/videos. two way convo has customised/personal stuff. books aren’t.

65: different experience when trying to read a book (and only the book), vs when you have the book + a fan of the book who can answer qs, etc. they can provide error correction -> (can) prevents compounding errors. Available advocates.

How you do discussions matters b/c it affects whether they’re high/low quality and whether they’re productive or not. Unproductive discussions are ones where people don’t learn anything, don’t resolve disagreements, do things around goals other than furthering the discussion and learning, the ppl talk cross purposes, etc. If you have lots of unproductive discussions it’s unlikely you have good PF because these discussions don’t answer the core question.

59min: important special case: someone else knows you’re wrong and wants to tell you. If you have PF you should ALWAYS be able to deal with this.

efficiency

cite material
develop a library of criticism
- link ppl to that
- 4min: use proxies, don’t need to do everything yourself
allow conversations to go deep to find root causes of disagreements
fail early (don’t have long breadth-first discussions by default)
8min: let opponents pick questions / topics

helpful things

debate policy
track record of public debate / discussions
write & publish stuff
6min: backups - e.g. http://curi.us/2068-my-paths-forward-policy

epistemic stuff

if something isn’t public it hasn’t been contributed to the project of human knowledge
two way street

during tutorials

key issue - avoid fooling yourself / suffering from your own biases
- your biases need to be criticizable too
what do you expect of other ppl re trust
- if you’re holding yourself to a lower standard than you expect from others
  - issue – 18min in
- if you don’t trust yourself -> easier for other ppl to trust you
  - your reasons are general beyond yourself

PF is alternative to social hierarchy - how can you show your stuff is worthwhile. main method for allocating attention is social status. social status based methods make errors / fool yourself. PF says ‘let’s figure out how to tackle and solve these problems’ build ‘real’ intellectual status rather than social status.

poor reception of PF
changes rules of game (from social to rational)
20-25min

– closeness to higher status ppl / accomplished ppl - ppl start treating them like a peer

proxies - popper’s status transferrable in some cases?

tricky, proxy has to supply bridging args
- minimal bridging args makes this easier / hard to reject badly

re popper and bridging:

can start with “can you answer the famous arguments”
- low difficulty hurdle to jump - should have recorded answers already
ignoring something mainstream more dangerous than ignoring things that are obscure

how to respond to literature cites

basic method: read until the first important error.

reactions:

dismissal - that’s not an important error
holistic - you need to read everything to understand
- ppl disagree with the method itself?
  - contradicts “PF takes too long”; the person then demands high effort
the book but the idea is good
- someone needs to write a good version
  - from scratch
  - copy just good paragraphs
  - extract good bits and have short explanatory commentary
- why isn’t there a better version?
  - popular stuff should have good resources

meta arg: the fact the material is bad reflects badly on your school -> provides evidence about that group’s intellectual processes

people don’t like damning big things for “small” reasons.

47 min: if you ask someone:

would you be surprised to be wrong?

It’s a bit pointless to argue, then.

can label claims they think are weak/strong.

how do you write literature to make bridging args easier?

link to different layers of abstraction
“incoming” -> lower layers of abstraction
consequences -> higher
peers - sorta applications, but can be “sibling”

bridging args often about application, so example literature makes it easier maybe?

todo: write some early stuff about policies

maybe also psuedo ‘guide’ for ppl starting?

SI murders ppl

too complex for most LW people

imagine talking to a smart 15 yo, how much do they know about SI? probs need to start more basic; LW ppl don’t know enough about SI necessarily to apply.

note: universality of computation vs of mind -> rip superint.

breakpoints: different dimensions are a type of breakpoint.

e.g. rational vs real numbers? aleph numbers?
- no / maybe sorta
more like traits - the stuff we were talking about in yes/no sessions. length vs green-ness of cucumbers

PF - community representatives?

http://curi.us/2064-less-wrong-lacks-representatives-and-paths-forward

Why do things fail? Generally:

there’s an object problem
then there’s a meta problem
the combo is what breaks things

https://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward
Gladwell’s new yorker article on college rankings – the order of things.
http://curi.us/2065-open-letter-to-machine-intelligence-research-institute
http://curi.us/2204-alisa-discussion
https://www.elliottemple.com/essays/using-intellectual-processes-to-combat-bias
read other PF stuff on FI and curi.us - note questions, etc

SI murders people. a lot.

Wed, 09 Sep 2020 19:00:00 +1000

This was first a post to FI, then posted here.

Looking for feedback; thinking of posting to LW. I’d probably change some bits so I didn’t sound as much like an outsider.

Posters on LW often bring up the idea of emulating a person to establish some bounds on complexity of SI programs.

The problem with this idea is that an ~infinite number of people are murdered before SI finds a good answer.

Here’s the common logic:

Peoples’ minds take lots of space to specify.
People can do knowledge-y stuff: solve problems, make predictions, etc.
SI wants to do some of the things that people do
Minds can be represented as classical programs
Therefore a capable mind is an upper limit on program size

I add:

Minds take lots of space, and the important parts of the mind grow in length as the mind grows in knowledge.

I note: I’ve had the goal-posts of the word ‘simple’ changed on me in curi’s code/english thread with:

When I say the ‘sense of simplicity of SI’, I use ‘simple program’ to mean the programs that SI gives the highest weight to in its predictions(these will by definition be the shortest programs that haven’t been ruled out by data).

I’ll use “SI-simple” to label that idea going forward

My further reasoning:

SI-simple minds are more common. if nothing else, babies are SI-simpler minds. Their brains might have more neurons (than adults), but those brains are also easier to specify b/c they’re more generic.
As we grow and learn our brains get more complex (and by ‘complex’ i mean both: not simple and not SI-simple).
SI doesn’t throw programs out too early, esp when they’re long, so if minds are emulated they’re run for enough time to start thinking.
SI has no problem killing the person in search of a better program (in fact, it’s necessary).

I predict the common response will be like:

sure, but that doesn’t matter because SI will find other programs first. we don’t expect we need programs this long, it’s just to find an upper limit.

I assume that LW people agree that killing a mind is murder (i.e. non-humans count), and that SI programs can be minds, and turning one off is killing it.

(If they disagreed with any of that I would be much more worried about their AGI pursuits. I assume ppl here agree with it too)

I think this is problematic b/c:

a) there’s a known lesser limit (murder) that has not been said “out loud” as far as I know

b) we don’t know how large the SI-simplest mind is, or how to reason about these as SI programs

c) if we continue to not be able to reason about it, but also put serious resources behind SI research, then it’s possible “we” (humanity) start generating and killing AGIs before realising it

d) if there is a better way to do minds and AGI than SI, then SI would find that method along the way, but also murder lots of new AGI people

e) if we keep not understanding AGI and SI keeps getting more funding: someone might actually try something of the complexity necessary to do this randomly. if they optimise with stuff like evolutionary algorithms (esp if there are some good developments in related areas), then it gets easier to end up with these sorts of programs

f) SI is basically guaranteed to do this if it’s used to try and find programs which are also AGIs.

Now, I don’t think it’s likely some horrible future like this will come to pass. It’s not serious in that sense.

However, I do think it’s serious for fans of SI. It’s a new, important upper limit that they haven’t mentioned before, and it rules out certain programs.

Crucially, we can’t say all the problems we care about will have SI-simpler solutions than AGIs. English (or w/e) words represented as code - generally - has an upper limit in the range of AGIs b/c maybe an AGI + english words are the SI-simplest way to write down some programs. We can’t know what the crossover point is for SI-simple programs to go from non-AGI to AGI… unless we have a theory of AGI. So, whatever understanding of AGI we get, we should not do it incrementally if that means making lots of incremental steps through a program-space “full” of AGIs.

By the above logic I think an important conclusion is that one of the two following ideas has to be true. Option 1: AGI researchers (as humans) are/will be mass-murdering AGIs one day - if humans work like SI does. Or, option 2: there’s some other way to learn stuff / create knowledge - that’s what the AGI researchers are doing - and it must be SI-simpler than an SI-AGI would be. If option 2 is correct, but it is physically possible to make meaningful progress towards AGI via SI, then we’re basically guaranteed to murder lots of AGIs if ppl pursue that avenue long enough (and with enough compute resources).

As far as the idea of a “moral proof” goes, I think this fits the bill. I don’t think AGI research requires the murder of AGIs.

Notes | Tutorial 38 (Paths Forward)

Wed, 09 Sep 2020 11:00:00 +1000

Paths Forward

what problem is PF trying to solve
- doing communication well is hard and often results in disagreements
- when disagreements happen we need ways to resolve them
- PF is a process/method/methodology to reliably resolve differences
  - i.e. people can do a thing and focus on the probelms that exist and thus figure out what to do to sovle them
ET: think of it more specifically
- if i’m wrong, how will I stop being wrong?
  - and PF particularly deals with: if someone knows I’m wrong and they want to tell me, how can they do that?
- you can ask ppl: if I’m right and you’re wrong, how will you use this to improve your ideas, will you bet your life on being right?
  - ET: one reason - ppl already making dozens of bets
  - another one: I read a bunch of stuff (variety) and try and judge and prioritise them; “your” idea isn’t high on the list, I’m still rational just other stuff is more important.
    - few issue points / potential problems stuff
      - you could be bad at judging / prioritising
      - error: not prioritising philosophy stuff (e.g. better at rationality) -> exponential
        
        bad interests
      - response: “but I think it’s important”
        
        triggers other bad responses
      - we disagree about how important this is; if it is important and you avoid it -> bad long term consequences
        
        need some other rational method to prioritise
    - ET: specific response - it doesn’t answer the question
      - haven’t actually offered a path to learning
        
        e.g. what would change their mind
        
        inexplicit -> unaccountable
      - They’ve moved it to a meta issue -> topic change to meta topic of how high a priority the issue is e.g dinosaurs (13min)
        
        now there’s a new claim it’s reasonable to ask the same question: if someone knows I’m wrong and they want to tell me, how can they do that?
      - also a case - ET suspects but they’re hiding info
        
        ppl should still want to be corrected

bigger issue: how to correct our errors - hard problem. can do it ourself or other ppl might do it. both can be good. ppl have a lack of prep work so other ppl can correct them (e.g. by providing info about your positions, writing, addressing crits, etc)

one issue ppl have; they say:

I want to share ideas for crits,
- but I only have X hours/energy,
- and need privacy
- so I’ll only share some ideas
ET:
- easy case
  - impersonal stuff only, stuff that’s related to an area of speciality/focus
    - stuff you have a reason to know more about
    - should have paths forward for public intellectual work
  - excuse above doesn’t work
  - highest value
  - one can say: if you don’t want to write publicly, okay, but don’t make claims about it or say ppl are wrong without discussing; be more neutral (21min)
    - objective state is you withdrew - it’s unresolved
- hard case

common problem:

p: I've dealt with this in the past
ET: do you have records?
p: no, and I don't want to deal with the issue again
ET: do you know of other ppls records you agree with
p: no

2 big things:

if wrong how will you correct that error?
1. what could you say to change their mind? anything?
flip side: if you’re right, how will my error be corrected?

25min

written records help (author doesn’t matter much) - works both ways

refusing to keep written records is blocking PF for you and other ppl
- preventing ppl from joining your side

ET thinks one big reason is ppl haven’t actually read the literature - even on their side. lots of gesturing about things generally; not citing stuff. avoid sticking neck out. makes it harder to engage with.

if they’re going to say “X author is good” and someone could cherry pick bad ones, why didn’t they write down what the bad ones were? (or point to someone else’s list)

concept “what does it mean for something to contribute to human knowledge”

literature
- public, reusable, enduring, sharable (paid is okay; somewhat)
- if it’s not entered into human knowledge, you don’t know it’s right

concept “what counts as entering a thing into human knowledge”

ppl make claims like “I know Rand is bad” but there’s no entry for it in human knowledge
- no record means no contribution
- records need to be
  - correctable
  - can correct others
- if you haven’t done that you haven’t added the idea to the stock of human ideas
  - unfair and unreasonable to bring up ideas that aren’t learnable or readable by other ppl
- work in progress okay, but don’t oversell it
  - WIP > NOT a WIP; never planning to get to it, etc.
    - most ppl never plan to get to it

taking responsibility for ideas 38min

publicly claiming it’s true
- they’re acting like a pub intellectual in some way
  - partially they’re trying to contribute or comment on ideas / project of human knowledge
    - they should care about what’s true and being good at dealing with criticism and ideas
- even if not a pub int: you still have ideas that affect your life - learning helps you have a better life; ideas have a big impact
  - ppl should care about doing a reasonable job of figuring out which ideas are important for them.
- what is a pub int?
  - lots of PPL on LW or reddit are irresponsible about “what if i’m wrong”
    - “I’m not a PI” -> defense
    - max’s thoughts at 45 min
    - ET:
      - ppl don’t label their stuff
      - no disclaimer
      - relates to dishonesty
      - lack of disclaimer is to mislead ppl / give wiggle room
      - ppl present themselves as high-status; not much correlation to quality as a thinker tho
      - disclaimer would be for objective reasons, but they’re communicating socially
      - varies by forum; less excuse on LW than on twitter

ET: lack of places where - by default - ppl take responsibility.

if you haven’t entered a criticism into human knowledge, you don’t get to reject it

or one doesn’t exist which you can refer to

variety of reasons ppl don’t want to take responsibility: social climbing, lazy what are the good reasons ppl don’t want to take responsibility: “I’m busy” / too much work / too time consuming / other priorities

-> big problem – it takes 0 time if they just work within their responsibility

73 min

going through “due process” takes too much time

74 min

ET: focus helps, not enough of an answer

need rules for getting out of “low quality” bucket
can end up judging ideas by source not content

ET: (paraph) debate policy gives freedom and saves time / without it there’s pressure

90 min

issue: how to deal with volume

if you know an idea is low quality, you should have a reason, and that should be written down.

new reason per idea => too much work
crits can refute a category of ideas; identify patterns
- every low qual idea either fits existing patterns or is actually novel (which is interesting!)
  - ‘actually novel’ -> other person can participate, too
library of criticism is like a test suite; can use it to rapidly test new ideas
todo: start library of criticism via linking to other indexes of categories of bad ideas
ET himself acts as an index b/c the library is not well organised in all ways that matter; not easy to search everything (thanks google), etc
- try to monitor for problems (not supervise)
- escalation mechanisms
multiple layers are fine (MK: I think probably necessary to be general/have reach)
person at top is like CEO - needs to take responsibility for whole system

particularly important point

ppl worry it takes too much time
criticism of CATEGORIES

ppl can say “I don’t think it fits in cat.A” -> need short bridging argument

bridging argument: specifically link idea.X -> cat.A

very short (mostly), but need them frequently

bri.args more general than other sorts of args? like across populations (even if pops disagree about the correctness of the ideas bridging args reference) – different sort of reach from normal explanatory reach

107min

ppl: “reading a long book is lots of work” ET: same as before: has anyone else done the work; if no refutations it means no-one has a good reason (written) about why it’s bad. => Big opportunity for the person!

big asymmetry between FI and other communities like LW.

more ppl on your side who can’t written crit responses => be MORE worried about your side

having only a few articles between like 1 or 5 ppl is somewhat expected, not with 500k ppl

cut out briefly at 113 minutes back at 115

ppl have problem resolving one idea

make some notes about PF, see what I remembered / left out
- read PF articles

Notes | Tutorial 37

Mon, 07 Sep 2020 11:00:00 +1000

need good way to organise async discussions
- important: linear view
  - nested comments -> button to show chronology
depends in large part on being good at having discussions
- policies help
  - easy to not follow own policies
reading stuff - listening easier to get started
- getting started important
- listening effort efficient
  - can do a second reading (visually) for good stuff
  - can read more books than if only doing it visually
  - pausing good to do occasionally
- perfectionism a common problem
- resilient skills important - do the thing in bad circumstances (when you don’t feel well, etc)

36, 37, 38

taking stock, goals, next sessions

[40 min] there are options about how we might do a discussion
having discussions and running into issues can be a good way to bring issues to light
- are there problems I already know about?
ET: looking back at all tutes: 55min
- what’s worked well
  - not getting stuck - flexible topics and things
  - discussing tricky stuff
  - broader knowledge -> more informed decisions
- what’s worked less well
  - F: early on - emotional conflicts w/ self
  - pressure to do stuff / write / hw / whatever
- what do I need more practice on
  - discussion
  - ???
- and overall perspective.
- ET: part has been going through quickly so I can practice on my own
  - what things?

future ideas:

how to use trees for debates in yes/no way, use decisive arguments, mark branch as resolved.
- e.g. can mark nodes that are meant to be decisive
  - some commentary can be good/useful
  - would be good to do in general
long term schedule
set goals at waking up
- check again every 4hrs
writing stuff about fi [83 min]
- remind self of things

[draft] an inductive proof that SI isn't useful

Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +1000

written 2020-09-04 I think.

I don’t know if I’ll ever finish this or think more about it. it’s an unfinished draft of an attempt to use mathematical induction to show you can’t choose useful alphabets with SI.

There’s some context about this in tutoring max 37.

the goal of this is to inductively show that there are some alphabets (the set of instructions for turing machines) which SI can’t use in a productive way.

maybe we’ll show all meaningful alphabets are these types of alphabets.

let’s take a trivial case for a Solomonoff Induction machine. it’s taken that we have a free choice of turing machine, so we’ll choose one where the bit string 1100 corresponds to a program that outputs 1 and halts. we need to generate input data, and to avoid complexity we use a deterministic evidence generation pattern. the meat of this algorithm is: we output 1 if the data matched our theory, and 0 if it didn’t. it’s trivial to see that for the case where we have a correct idea the program 1100 is optimal, and SI will rightly find it.

if the progam can read the data and generate it on the fly (perhaps generating probabilities of the next bit), that’s okay, it still works, we’ll just choose a program that e.g. throws away any extra input data.

this is the base case.

the issue with the base case is that the alphabet (and thus both the program and the evidence data) contains a sort of digest of some preimage. The alphabet isn’t useful because all the useful stuff was done already and baked in to the alphabet. The ideas that are baked into a alphabet are how we know what the program means; there’s a way to convert the program into other forms like words.

these sorts of alphabets (with baked in knowledge) aren’t useful for SI to use; it can’t use them to create knowledge. we can only use them to learn stuff we already knew (or could have ~easily found out by doing like statistical analysis or something).

we should be able to get a useful program by changing the alphabet. Particularly, we can replace the symbol for “the experimental data matched our theory” with some combination of other, more foundational symbols. This can be done in slow steps, but the principal works over bigger looking jumps too. Maybe we choose symbols so we can represent data generated by the idea “we measured photons coming from XYZ coordinates and got [data…]”. if we choose an alphabet that bakes in ideas about photon generation activities (like what might happen across the room or in other stars), then the work of figuring out what caused the photons is already done! besides, we know we can’t choose alphabets that bake in that sort of knowledge. Right now though, there’s lots of “baked in” knowledge, like what photons are, how they interact with stuff, how they get created, what coordinates are, what a room is, etc. It’s not that SI wouldn’t find a program, it’s that we wouldn’t ever learn anything from it we didn’t already know before starting.

in general, any time we try to modify the alphabet we’re using by replacing some symbols with others (usually more of them), if the new symbols contain information in terms of constituent ideas at a theoretical level, then we won’t get a useful program out. we will have already done the creative stuff via the design and choice of the alphabet.

However, without such an alphabet we don’t have a straight forward way of figuring out what the program does. There’s no way for us to know anything from it. E.g. without a specific alphabet to predict how light acted with mirrors; without the ideas of ‘angle’, ‘incidence’, ‘reflect’ baked in, SI & variants wouldn’t ever produce the law of reflection in a straight forward program.

(note: SI+ can produce some not-straight forward programs via jumps in the usefulness of certain abstractions which I’ll mention in a bit)

Learning Report: 2020, week 36

Sun, 06 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +1000

tutorials:
- 34:
  - reviewed a “simplification” of a blockchain paper
  - analysed social dynamics in some LW posts
- 35
  - reviewed some of my analysis on social dynamics in some LW posts
  - improved list of questions to tease out social dynamics
- 36
  - I made a big tree on some thoughts on solomonoff induction
  - ET and I discussed a bit about this and post mortems in general
  - Talked about it about replying to something and related goals
I’ve written a few LW replies about SI stuff
- one was a post (LW, local, curi.us) checking curi’s maths in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9AWoAAA59hN9PEwT7/why-would-code-english-or-low-abstraction-high-abstraction. It was done in LaTeX so I could practice LaTeX stuff again and so the equations would look nice (they render nicely on LW, though there were some issues).
- I posted an answer to curi’s post Why would code/English or low-abstraction/high-abstraction simplicity or brevity correspond?
  - I thought the other answers didn’t answered the question, instead they mostly referenced the same stuff but didn’t really link it back or talk about the topic. I wanted at least one of the replies to be answering the questions.
  - I also replied to several other answers b/c I thought they had issues. I think I had a good general criticism of the core idea that the other replies brought up. There’s one discussion running atm.
    - I tried to introduce some good discussion hygiene by stating a case clearly for what I thought was wrong with the post I was replying to and asking for clarity and agreement on the topic.
    - I might have spent too much time on all that collectively, but I hope I’ll get a decent discussion out of it as practice.
    - I note I’m slightly self-concious or anxious about replying to every top level comment/answer at the time (and the next one that appeared) because it’s generally frowned upon.
I’ve worked on some work-related stuff and have been mapping things out. I’m finding both the writing practice and the idea-structure / text analysis to be useful.
I’ve been thinking about long term commitments to philosophy including stuff like a debate policy. For many things I can defer to stuff curi’s already developed like Paths Forward.
- I should read and understand PF et al first.
  - Practically, that means discussing it.
  - which means writing about it
  - so i can write a post about it and keep it as draft while i discuss it on FI
  - while it’s in draft I can still stick by it with the proviso that it could change unpredictably. once it’s stable i can remove the proviso
- I think it will be important for me (personally and WRT Flux, maybe other projects too) to have a public debate policy and some well-defined boundaries for what I’ll dedicate to debating/resolving disagreements on certain topics (e.g. 1hr / day).
  - I will need to practice prioritising things effectively to be able to keep this up and do it productively.
- goal plan this
- this sort of ties into the “ideas for future stuff” part
I didn’t do anything regarding Richard Ngo’s blog and melting democracy post curi and I covered in tutorial 36. I’m not sure I will do anything directly, but I am thinking about it still.

things I’m not happy about

(mild) I’d prefer to spend less time thinking about SI because it’s not really relevant to my near-term goals. It might still help me generally because I’m thinking more about CR and yes/no at the same time. I like thinking about it because it’s topical and interesting, tho.
Reading habit - I still haven’t built this up, or spent time working towards it.
not using skills like brainstorming before writing posts (which I’m viewing as writing practice)

ideas for future stuff

I drafted an email to ET on Friday but didn’t send it - I wanted to think about it more. It’s added here for the record and as a source of discussion. I’m not sure if this is a good/useful idea (relatively to other options) but it does feel like working towards it is good generally. It aligns with the above goal to have better long term philosophical practices.

I had an idea for some future tutoring sessions that’s a bit different. Not necessarily the immediate future, either. I’m not completely sure how the operational/practical parts would work. It felt worth saying anyway b/c it might be valuable and/or good content.

In essence it’s paying you for a discussion and sort of tutoring/coaching in that discussion. I imagine we’d stream both sides. We could do some parts separately and some together. I noticed that on http://curi.us/2238-potential-debate-topics you have “Bitcoin and cryptocurrency are worthless investment frauds”. I think that might be a good topic. I’m imagining something a bit like the gigahurt discussion.

I don’t know if it’d be practical to do like normal tutoring about the discussion whilst having the discussion - maybe that’s an issue. If so we could chunk the discussion up. one big chunk (doing all the tutoring at the end) doesn’t feel like the best plan. but maybe it could work if there’s no limit on meta-discussion. the meta stuff could replace the urgent parts of normal tutoring.

I think it might be a good way to use stuff I’ve learnt in a practical, dedicated environment.

Maybe, if I lack some skills or need more practice, this is good inspiration for what those skills might be. Then some future tutorials could be about those things, instead.

One thing I am a bit concerned about is I don’t have much in the way of a track record of successful discussions, so I might not be very good at it early on.

(note: I don’t have any issues with this email being public, or with discussing it in future sessions)

Notes | Tutorial 36

Fri, 04 Sep 2020 11:00:00 +1000

pre-tutorial - postmortem thoughts

I made a big tree on some thoughts on solomonoff induction the other day.
I’m not sure if I effectively reached my goal
- the goal was to explore some things about the way SI views hypothesis programs
  - I think some things are left out which are important, like how details about how data is encoded. particularly stuff like parameters, e.g. the scenario params for how data was gathered.
  - Also I think there might be a way to find deficiencies of SI via self-referential problems. e.g. a program which generates its own parameters – note: this example isn’t complex enough to actually test, but I think some more sophisticated constructions might be able to.
- Some problems I think I ran into:
  - most of the ~2000 words are not related to SI, but to setting up a conceptual model of how ideas work and what things we need to evaluate them
  - I got to the end and it wasn’t necessarily clear how to construct a self-referential problem, though I might just need to spend a bit more time thinking on it
  - I ran into limits of my knowledge on SI
    - in part this is due to low-quality accessible explanations of it, and inaccessible academic formulations

tutorial

bottlenecks
- e.g. AnneB watching video lectures
- look for - high leverage points
- try to give a little bit to get past stuck points
  - a bunch of stuff - most is stuff they could do on their own
  - if they couldn’t do it on their own it won’t help anyway
CR - multiple roads to truth, but not many ways known to build to an idea (like 1-3 ways); only a few foundations that (ppl think) matter
activity selection and time prioritisation important
- be careful of recency bias
older stuff
- feels like you’ve changed a lot
- that stuff can jump out - so easy issues to find
- ppl say “i’ll stay”, “i’m into truth seeking”
  - ET spots a problem
  - they deny
  - a way of evading/avoiding discussion about the big problem
- ppl dismiss things as “small errors” - but you can’t measure that before you have a soln. knowledge (and reach) is unpredictable.
can do better with a good map of relevant field/knowledge
- what builds on what
- what are the open problems
- are there areas you haven’t looked in to?
- can’t be perfect but can do decent surveys

ideas for SI tree postmortem

did not establish if the foundation has significant errors
- if it does the stuff I build off that foundation will have errors
- idea: work more slowly, write posts/trees/whatever about the foundations first, then build on after EC / feedback / criticisms.
ET: jumping way too much into detail
- generally better to start at higher level
  - main concepts, what problems are they trying to solve, if that’s sorted out then look at details of soln and whether to analyse some of the details for issues
  - a lot of the time one doesn’t get to detail level, things fail in earlier stages (e.g. overall consistently)
  - jumping into details common in convos, but more time on meta issues, organisation, where to focus => more efficient
max’s intuition on parallel constructions
- 35 min in
- trying to do bridging often not most efficient way to figure out issues; just looking at them on their own terms
- bit of a last resort due to added complexity/difficulty
  - internal contradictions preferable
- something internal has(?) to be wrong if idea is wrong
- usually don’t have to get into rival frameworks
  - hard to deal with, usually not necessary
- ET: this stuff too foreign to their system - what are their building blocks, the power it has, etc
  - important to try to understand ideas on their own terms before disagreeing or introducing own stuff
  - can focus on ‘what is this idea’ and try and understand it instead of distracting with diff system
  - if it’s hard to analyse their ideas and introducing stuff, ask if they have a way to do it before using your own ideas
  - criticising incompleteness often a lot simpler / easier than trying to introduce stuff
  - better if they introduce stuff than you (as like an outsider)
    - show problems, rather than telling them “imma add all this stuff”
    - will seem unfair otherwise
  - goldratt talks about similar stuff with e.g. how to do presentation; present problem and ask how other guy would solve it - esp if he can come up with soln himself, then on the same page
    - check “it’s not luck”, goldratt satellite program (50min)

BoI msg

alice says:

15% through BoI - started reading “a couple of days ago”
finding it interesting
i think i will def need to read it at least twice though, since I am waiting until I get to later chapters to see if my questions from earlier chapters are answered
so I will need to go back and read it to see if they were
or i could always write them down as I go, but I have not been doing that

MK:

should write down Qs at least
can ask me or at curi.us whether Qs are answered later – light & low-expectation discussion

ET:

problems with reading twice, can be good but ppl often don’t follow through
- main problem with that method
depends on type of qs, some are immediate problems
- other qs are tangential curiosities – book isn’t wrong if it doesn’t go back to it
i can sorta understand but think they’re wrong, what would be answer to this counter-argument
- important to write this stuff down
some are half-baked ideas, who cares if they’re lost
can post Qs to: https://curi.us/1536
- can post notes too - allows others to give feedback
another thing besides Qs:
- if there are deal breakers, SAVE THE QUOTE AT THE TIME, really important
- can’t have good discussion without it
- write it down RIGHT as they get to it

Reply to 'Mathematical Inconsistency in Solomonoff Induction?'

Fri, 04 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +1000

This is a reply to this LessWrong post.

I went through the maths in OP and it seems to check out. I think the core inconsistency is that SI implies . I’m going to redo the maths below (breaking it down step-by-step more). curi has which is the same inconsistency given his substitution. I’m not sure we can make that substitution but I also don’t think we need to.

Let X and Y be independent hypotheses for Solomonoff induction.

According to the prior, the non-normalized probability of X (and similarly for Y ) is:

(1)

what is the probability of ?

(2)

However, by Equation (1) we have:

(3)

thus

(4)

This must hold for any and all X and Y .

curi considers the case where X and Y are the same length, starting with Equation (4)

(5)

but

(6)

and

(7)

(8)

curi has slightly different logic and argues which I think is reasonable. His argument means we get . I don’t think those steps are necessary but they are worth mentioning as a difference. I think Equation (8) is enough.

I was curious about what happens when . Let’s assume the following:

(9)

so, from Equation (2)

(10)

by Equation (3) and Equation (10)

(11)

but Equation (9) says – this contradicts Equation (11).

So there’s an inconsistency regardless of whether or not.

Notes | Tutorial 35

Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:00:00 +1000

socdyn questions

new stuff in tutorial:

congruence - accounted for by any of the above?
- who acts like they’re congruent even when they’re not?
- who avoids incongruence? (indicates higher status)
- to be congruent you need outward signals and language to match your internal stuff (emotions, etc). ppl catch faking with mismatches (low status) and ppl are more likely to believe you when it matches (high status)
who’s acting like they’re helpful, or doing someone a favor?
who’s being helpful (putting in effort) - it’s a type of compliance; subservience.
- there’s a personal social incentive against the good of the conversation; low status ppl manoeuver to make the other person more comfortable; incentive to not be rational or not take rationality seriously / rational methods
who’s showing a willingness to invest in the conversation? (lower status)
who writes more? (putting in effort / helpful / needy)
who’s evasive when confronted about social dynamics & their behaviour?
- sign they don’t have concious control over soc.dyn.

whether something counts as “effort” isn’t judged by logic, it’s judged by social rules.

ppl should be responsible for their ideas even if they didn’t deliberately put it there.

if you can’t criticise their behaviour how can they fix it?

ET: not very important to distinguish concious/autopilot socdyns. it’s still part of who they are. also low evidence (particularly text based) whether it was concious or not.

idea: post to LW “is anyone interested in debating induction / solomonoff induction”

tell some narrative

flag patterns

I think ___, but ___.

Questions to help tease out social dynamics

Wed, 02 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Initial list from tutorial 34:

who’s putting in how much effort?
who’s asking for how much effort?
who’s reacting to who
who gets to question who?
who answers?
who ignores counter-party requests?
who gives hints and expects the counter-party to figure out what he means
who’s happy with status quo, who want’s change, who’s needy?
calm is high status
LoLE
who’s framing of the issue dominates?
who’s signalling expertise?

new stuff:

who’s making the conversation more basic whilst presuming they’re correct? (acting like a teacher / being condescending)
- it’s like they’re making the conversation more basic for the benefit of the other person, not the benefit of themselves.
who’s breaking rules and getting away with it?
who’s speaking on behalf of the group?
who’s hedging as a tactic to misrepresent the counter-party’s views?
who’s misrepresenting the counter-party in general?
who’s breaking trends/norms and who’s following them? (both implicit and explicit norms) - conformity
who’s claiming they’re great for some reason?
who’s not admitting weakness by acting confident? wrt philosophy/technical stuff: who’s admitting weakness by asking clarifying questions?
who’s claiming to have demonstrated value in the past? (e.g. I’ve given away 30 books, etc)
who’s speaking more fancy than is required?
who’s signalling virtue via group approval? (e.g. ‘we here think X’ or something)
who’s phrased things so they could deny things later on? who’s not putting forward their idea as something they believe in (which would make it hard to deny something later)

new stuff in tutorial:

congruence - accounted for by any of the above?
- who acts like they’re congruent even when they’re not?
- who avoids incongruence? (indicates higher status)
- to be congruent you need outward signals and language to match your internal stuff (emotions, etc). ppl catch faking with mismatches (low status) and ppl are more likely to believe you when it matches (high status)
who’s acting like they’re helpful, or doing someone a favor?
who’s being helpful (putting in effort) - it’s a type of compliance; subservience.
- there’s a personal social incentive against the good of the conversation; low status ppl manoeuver to make the other person more comfortable; incentive to not be rational or not take rationality seriously / rational methods
who’s showing a willingness to invest in the conversation? (lower status)
who writes more? (putting in effort / helpful / needy)
who’s evasive when confronted about social dynamics & their behaviour?
- sign they don’t have concious control over soc.dyn.

whether something counts as “effort” isn’t judged by logic, it’s judged by social rules.

ppl should be responsible for their ideas even if they didn’t deliberately put it there.

if you can’t criticise their behaviour how can they fix it?

ET: not very important to distinguish concious/autopilot socdyns. it’s still part of who they are. also low evidence (particularly text based) whether it was concious or not.

Analysing some LW replies for social dynamics

Wed, 02 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Donald Hobson
1. Second pass and comparing to list of questions about social dynamics:
2. Donald Hobson’s full reply
Dagon
abramdemski
1. first pass
2. abramdemski’s full reply

Donald Hobson

Donald Hobson’s reply

I didn’t spot any explicit social stuff on the first pass looking for particular works/phrases that are red flags.

DH is putting in some effort, though he’s making general comments rather than responding to curi particularly. He’s not asking Qs to try and understand more. He’s expecting a reaction, like “tell me why I’m wrong” rather than “I think there’s a problem with your idea”.

There’s no direct response to what curi wrote, but there could have been. e.g. DH could have quoted “How strong is a chain? How hard can you pull on it before it breaks? It’s as strong as its weakest link.” or something, that would have been relevant.

DH also contradicts curi without arguing against curi’s case, just stating an alternative. e.g curi said:

If you measure the strength of every link in the chain, and try to combine them into an overall strength score for the chain, you will get a bad answer.

And DH replied:

On the other hand, Cojunctive arguments are weaker than the weakest link. If I have an argument that has 100 steps, and relies on all the steps holding for the argument to hold, then even if each step is 99% certain, the whole argument is only 37% certain.

It sounds like he’s contradicting curi but he doesn’t say so or say what the contradiction is. This means curi needs to reply questioning DH, instead of DH questioning curi - it’s a tactic that shifts DH into a higher social position b/c now curi needs to do the work to figure out what DH meant or point out why DH is wrong (making curi expend more effort).

DH is also not explaining himself fully, giving references, or explaining why curi is wrong. So this is DH giving hints and expecting curi to figure things out.

DH also doesn’t look needy, rather he looks calm and somewhat casual. He’s a bit loose with some technical references (indicating LoLE and signalling expertise).

DH is re-framing the issue to be “refute DH” rather than “refute curi” which is again a social status play.

Donald Hobson’s full reply

I think that ideas can have a bottleneck effect, but that isn’t the only effect. Some ideas have disjunctive justifications. You might have genetic evidence, and embryological evidence, and studies of bacteria evolving in test tubes, and a fossil record, all pointing towards the theory of evolution. In this case, the chains are all in parallel, so you can add their strength. Even if all the fossil record is completely discounted, you would still have good genetic evidence, and visa versa. If, conditional on the strongest line of evidence being totally discounted, you would still expect the other lines might hold, then the combination is stronger than the strongest.

If I have 10 arguments that X is true, and each argument is 50/50 (I assign equal probability to the argument being totally valid, and totally useless) And if these arguments are totally independant in their validity, then P(not X) < 1/1000. Note that total independance means that even when told with certainty that arguments 0 … 8 are nonsense, you still assign 50% prob to argument 9 being valid. This is a strong condition.

Disjunctive arguments are stronger than the strongest link.

On the other hand, Cojunctive arguments are weaker than the weakest link. If I have an argument that has 100 steps, and relies on all the steps holding for the argument to hold, then even if each step is 99% certain, the whole argument is only 37% certain.

For those of you looking for a direct numeric analogue to resistors, there isn’t one. They have similar structure, resistors with x+y and 1/x, probabilities with x*y and 1-x, but there isn’t a (nice) function from one to another. There isn’t f st f(x+y)=f(x)*f(y) and f(1/x)=1-f(x)

Dagon

Dagon’s reply

curi and I discussed this a bit in t34. I’ll mention everything I see tho, but I’m not going to put in as much effort over all as fresh examples.

first pass - low level

Dagon starts with some statements about himself / self-aggrandisement. There’s a weird apology. He then contradicts the first paragraph somewhat.

Dagon then has a few short statements which challenge curi’s post but only semi-directly. He doesn’t quote anything, and there’s some reframing going on. He states some things like they’re fact which signals expertise and LoLE.

second pass

Dagon’s first paragraph is setting a social scene (that he’s high status and has expertise). he knows lots about goldratt because he’s given away “the goal” and wants to keep recommending it or whatever.

Dagon is pointing things out in a teacher-esq sort of way, e.g.

It’s important to recognize the limits of the chain metaphor - there is variance/uncertainty in the strength of a link (or capacity of a production step), and variance/uncertainty in alternate support for ideas (or alternate production paths).

He’s communicating that he’s an expert and that the’s pointing out something curi has missed. This is reframing, and potentially outright dishonest if he read the whole post, and negligent dishonest if he didn’t (b/c he’s acting like it).

He’s also communicating that he knows more than Goldratt, that he’s pointing something out that Goldratt got wrong. Which begs the questions: “why does he recommend it? are there not better things to recommend?”

(Note: ET pointed out Dagon might think Goldratt agrees with him about the limits of the chain metaphor)

He’s expecting curi to respond with more detail or something and on the whole it’s a low-effort response (both LoLE and actually LE). The conversation is now about his idea.

(This reframing to talk about your own ideas feels like it’s going to be pretty common).

Dagon’s full reply

I think I’ve given away over 20 copies of The Goal by Goldratt, and recommended it to coworkers hundreds of times. Thanks for the chance to recommend it again - it’s much more approachable than Theory of Constraints, and is more entertaining, while still conveying enough about his worldview to let you decide if you want the further precision and examples in his other books.

It’s important to recognize the limits of the chain metaphor - there is variance/uncertainty in the strength of a link (or capacity of a production step), and variance/uncertainty in alternate support for ideas (or alternate production paths). Most real-world situations are more of a mesh or a circuit than a linear chain, and the analysis of bottlenecks and risks is a fun multidimensional calculation of forces applies and propagated through multiple links.

abramdemski

abramdemski’s reply

first pass

immediately: this is a longer reply (the longest I think) and has quotes.

He quotes curi and then acts like he’s going to point out a problem (will he?):

There are special cases. Maybe the links are all equally strong to high precision. But that’s unusual. Variance (statistical fluctuations) is usual. Perhaps there is a bell curve of link strengths. Having two links approximately tied for weakest is more realistic, though still uncommon.

There is another case which your argument neglects, which can make weakest-link reasoning highly inaccurate, and which is less of a special case than a tie in link-strength.

(note: that’s the end of abramdemski’s paragraph - it’s just that one sentence)

he points out the conjunctive/disjunctive thing. There’s a bit of condescension when he says stuff like:

(Of course there are even more exotic logical connectives, such as implication or XOR, which are also used in everyday reasoning. But for now it will do to consider only conjunction and disjunction.)

it’s condescending because it’s basic (like wow, implication and XOR, such advanced concepts). this is reframing to a degree, treating curi like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about (relative status elevation).

Following the venerated method of multiple working hypotheses, then, we are well-advised to come up with as many hypotheses as we can to explain the data. […]

he’s appealing to the status of some idea and implying that curi is dumb for contradicting it, while associating himself. he’s reframing because he’s not asking if there’s like a contradiction or something, he’s just stating it as fact. it’s now the responsibility of curi to refute him and the method of multiple working hypotheses (or point out why there’s not a contradiction).

he also says we’re “well-advised” which is adding extra judgement (implying his judgement is worth something extra) to the idea. this is strictly unnecessary, he could just say “we are advised”.

He’s also talking in “we”s, which reframes the conversation to ‘curi vs the mob’ or similar.

abramdemski continues to quote curi, but then offers a false concession/agreement with:

I can agree that a weighted average is not what is called for in a conjunctive case. It is closer to correct in a disjunctive case.

That’s not really substantial; he’s not saying curi’s right, just that curi’s not super wrong, that some part is good. he then sort of contradicts himself with the second sentence, but they’re both similar in the way they treat curi/curi’s idea. both sentences are more signalling of expertise and are designed to make abramdemski look better (like more magnanimous or generous or something), while making curi look like he’s missed something and sorta ‘on the right track’.

abramdemski says:

But let us focus on your claim that we should ignore non-bottlenecks. You already praised ideas for having excess capacity, IE, being more accurate than needed for a given application. But now you are criticizing a practice of weighing evidence too accurately.

he puts the word “praised” in curi’s mouth. he’s also misrepresented curi with “more accurate than needed”, which directly contradicts curi’s statement: “Excess capacity means the idea is more than adequate to accomplish its purpose.” I doubt abramdemski realised he did this - it looks like a mistake ppl who hold his views would make b/c they’re interpreting what curi said through their own lense (which ignores curi’s statements: “I expect large inferential distance. I don’t expect my intended meaning to be transparent to readers here”)

this is designed to reframe the conversation to be about what abramdemski is saying.

like a lot of comments abramdemski brings up probability even tho curi didn’t mention it.

abramdemski then quotes curi saying “Excess capacity means…” which indicates he is either ignoring the contradiction mentioned above or didn’t understand it. he pretends (either intentionally or b/c he’s fooling himself) that he did, though.

he then finishes with some questions that are either using terms abramdemski introduced, or already answered by curi in the post. he’s expecting curi to put more effort in to understand why curi is wrong and implicitly demanding a reframing of the topic to be about what he thinks it is, not what curi posted. He’s also implicitly demanding curi reply to those Qs particularly, even tho none of the 3 are good questions.

abramdemski’s full reply

There are special cases. Maybe the links are all equally strong to high precision. But that’s unusual. Variance (statistical fluctuations) is usual. Perhaps there is a bell curve of link strengths. Having two links approximately tied for weakest is more realistic, though still uncommon.

There is another case which your argument neglects, which can make weakest-link reasoning highly inaccurate, and which is less of a special case than a tie in link-strength.

The way you are reasoning about systems of interconnected ideas is conjunctive: every individual thing needs to be true. But some things are disjunctive: some one thing needs to be true. (Of course there are even more exotic logical connectives, such as implication or XOR, which are also used in everyday reasoning. But for now it will do to consider only conjunction and disjunction.)

A conjunction of a number of statements is – at most – as strong as its weakest element, as you suggest. However, a disjunction of a number of statements is – at worst – as strong as its strongest element.

Following the venerated method of multiple working hypotheses, then, we are well-advised to come up with as many hypotheses as we can to explain the data. Doing this has many advantages, but one worth mentioning is that it increases the probability that one of our ideas is right.

Since we don’t want to just believe everything, we then have to somehow weigh the different hypotheses against each other. Our method of weighing hypotheses should ideally have the property that, if the correct hypothesis is in our collection, we would eventually converge to it. (Having established that, we might ask to converge as quickly as possible; and we could also name many other desirable properties of such a weighting scheme.)

Concerning such weighting schemes, you comment:

Don’t update your beliefs using evidence, increasing your confidence in some ideas, when the evidence deals with non-bottlenecks. In other words, don’t add more plausibility to an idea when you improve a sub-component that already had excess capacity. Don’t evaluate the quality of all the components of an idea and combine them into a weighted average which comes out higher when there’s more excess capacity for non-bottlenecks.

I can agree that a weighted average is not what is called for in a conjunctive case. It is closer to correct in a disjunctive case. But let us focus on your claim that we should ignore non-bottlenecks. You already praised ideas for having excess capacity, IE, being more accurate than needed for a given application. But now you are criticizing a practice of weighing evidence too accurately.

I previously agreed that a conjunction has strength at most that of its weakest element. But a probabilistic account gives us more accuracy than that, allowing us to compute a more precise strength (if we have need of it). And similarly, a disjunction has strength at least that of its weakest element – but a probabilistic account gives us more accuracy than that, if we need it. Quoting you:

Excess capacity means the idea is more than adequate to accomplish its purpose. The idea is more powerful than necessary to do its job. This lets it deal with variance, and may help with using the idea for other jobs.

Perhaps the excess accuracy in probability theory makes it more powerful than necessary to do its job? Perhaps this helps it deal with variance? Perhaps it helps the idea apply for other jobs than the one it was meant for?

Notes | Tutorial 34

Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:00:00 +1000

review writing/outlining

problem: if I don’t feel good about a simpler word use a more technical one
extra parens -> more cluttered
trying to hard to copy what the paper says (outlining) instead of explaining the ideas
idea: maybe should have added commentary at the end of each subsection.
copying the parts i didn’t like is confusing – ppl might as well just read the original.
ET: what are important ideas, only write about those, not redo the rest, give self more leeway to reorganise it, alter the presentation, use own examples, etc.
todo: write alt version - not outlining; explain it myself.

advance and answer method

example: http://curi.us/1595#12793
the post is in two parts - one advance, one answer

exercises

tree-out http://curi.us/1595#12793 discussion
analyse first level replies: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ze6PqJK2jnwnhcpnb/chains-bottlenecks-and-optimization
and other material from http://curi.us/2371-analyzing-quotes-objectively-and-socially
work on checklist and improve, check “social dynamics summary notes”

effort-based analysis
- who’s putting in how much effort?
- who’s asking for how much effort?
- who’s reacting to who
- who gets to question who?
- who answers?
- who ignores counter-party requests?
- who gives hints and expects the counter-party to figure out what he means
- who’s happy with status quo, who want’s change, who’s needy?
- calm is high status
- LoLE
- who’s framing of the issue dominates?
- who’s signalling expertise?
social thing: okay to lie to prevent people being discouraged

Learning Report: 2020, week 35

Sun, 30 Aug 2020 15:00:00 +1000

Tutorials:
- 31
  - finished off analyzing lies
  - briefly discussed my medical-diagnoses–supporting-arguments-contradiction post
  - SCICTT analysis - ‘silly mistake’ wrt some subordinating conjunctions where I mislabel as preposition
- 32
  - built a tree of TAG discussion on LW
- 33
  - method of discussion: each answer 1 question and pose 1 q each reply. Note to self: use this in future.
  - finished Reading: Distributed Consensus from Proof of Stake is Impossible
I started “haskell from first principles” again - reviewed material I’d already covered.

misc:

carry-over things I wasn’t happen about:

~~I haven’t done any writing practice this week~~. I did some, though not much.
I haven’t read more of The Choice. Still haven’t.
Didn’t do much on the weekend.
Not using time efficiently – feels like at least.

Reading: Distributed Consensus from Proof of Stake is Impossible

Sun, 30 Aug 2020 12:00:00 +1000

Distributed Consensus from Proof of Stake is Impossible PDF: old-pos.pdf, (permalink)

The paper Distributed Consensus from Proof of Stake is Impossible has been criticised as being hard to read and understand.

My goal is to accurately analyse the paper to extract its arguments, and re-express them in simple language.

Links for tutorial 34:

X, if Y, but Z

1 Reading: Introduction
2 Reading: Proof of Stake
2.1 Reading: What is Proof of Stake?
2.2 Reading: What is distributed consensus?
2.3 Reading: How does Bitcoin achieve distributed consensus?
2.4 Reading: How is proof of stake used to achieve distributed consensus?
2.5 Reading: What is wrong with this mechanism for consensus?
2.6 Reading: Is it possible to obtain a distributed consensus without provably consuming some re-source outside of the system?
3 Reading: About this document.
4 Comments

1 Reading: Introduction

People propose that proof-of-stake (PoS) can be used to protect blockchains. The proposition to use proof-of-stake is flawed. The paper looks at the history and motivation of proof-of-work (PoW) (as used in Bitcoin). PoW ”evades a impossibility result” [sic]. The paper shows PoS is not a viable replacement.

2 Reading: Proof of Stake

2.1 Reading: What is Proof of Stake?

As cryptography has progressed, the idea that [information can be real and valuable] is being taken seriously. People know about economic activity which depends on crypto stuff. Business stuff can be done on the public internet safely. People also know about bad things that happen if secret data is lost.

Idea 1 Information can be real and valuable.

Since Bitcoin, Idea 1 is concrete. All at once:

You can hold and trade a fungible ”store of value” (i.e. money).
You can do this using the internet.
You can do this with cryptographic security, instead of physical security.
The security prevents fraud and theft.

Instead of ”this key is worth $X because that is the cost of it being public”, one can say ”this key is worth $X but is divisible, you can send $Y to someone but keep the rest”.

Proof-of-stake is simple in this¹ context. ”A proof of stake is a cryptographic proof of ownership.” That proof can prove (precise) ownership of coins. It can also prove that the coins satisfy some property, like being locked up.

Particularly: a proof of stake of some cryptocurrency is like a proof that the hodler/stakeholder will benefit if the projects succeeds. If the stake (from the proof) is time-locked² then it shows the owner has interest in the project’s long term success.

2.2 Reading: What is distributed consensus?

Idea 2 (Distributed Consensus) A distributed consensus is an agreement between parties. That agreement is global. The parties don’t have to trust each-other. The parties don’t need identities. The parties didn’t need to have been present when the system started.

A synchronous network is required. You can’t assume nodes need to agree on precise timing of events or the order of events. You can’t make that assumption for networks over the internet anyway.

For blockchains, we just need distributed consensus on the order of transactions (and nothing else).³ That means nodes must agree on the first transaction that moves particular funds. That means the recipient can trust that the network treats those coins as his.

The double-spending problem is the reason we need distributed consensus. Someone could always try to send the same money to two different people. Both transactions could look valid. Recipients need to know that if there are conflicts about ownership they will still get their money. Distributed consensus means nodes can agree that the one recorded first is the right one.⁴

(Other problems with blockchains are easy and we know how to solve them.)

2.3 Reading: How does Bitcoin achieve distributed consensus?

We can prove that distributed consensus cannot be cryptographically guaranteed on an async network.⁵ Bitcoin gets around this by only requiring an economic guarantee. It does this via external opportunity cost. That opportunity cost is CPU time and electricity. Bitcoin provides rewards within the system, but only if consensus and an unbroken transaction history is maintained.

Proofs of work in Bitcoin prove an opportunity cost was paid and how much it was. Such a proof includes all work (past proofs) up to that point.⁶ Bitcoin nodes choose the history with the most total work as the valid history to extend. (Though it can be a bit fuzzy at the head if there are multiple options.) This history is called the consensus history. You can only spend coins on the consensus history. So miners are incentivised to all work on the same history.⁷ Also, one miner can’t control the consensus history without help from their peers.⁸

2.4 Reading: How is proof of stake used to achieve distributed consensus?

The big idea behind PoS is to move opportunity cost from outside the system to inside it. People want to do this because PoW incentivises ppl to do as much work as possible. Bitcoin work is thermodynamic work. For this kind of work, the Landauer limit lets us figure out what ”as much work as possible” means. The result is a network that uses a lot of energy. This drives us towards the heat death of the universe. It drives us ”literally as fast as the laws of physics will allow”⁹ If opportunity cost is inside the system we should be able to use fewer resources (and limit their usage).

PoS works b/c currency holders can lock up their funds (”stake”) in some staking scheme. This action is cryptographically verifiable. Particular people publish signed updates to extend the chain’s history. Normally a small random selection of people are chosen to do this, and only a majority need to agree to publish an extension. Those people get a reward and can unlock their stake later.¹⁰

PoS doesn’t depend on the high cost of taking control of the main history (unlike PoW). Instead, PoS says stakeholders will agree on the extension. They’ll do this b/c:

they’re randomly chosen so are unlikely to collude, and
they don’t want to undermine the system anyway, and
they can’t do much damage anyway b/c new random stakeholders will be chosen soon who will probably agree on a single history to extend.

2.5 Reading: What is wrong with this mechanism for consensus?

PoS equates state to temporarily sacrificed [internal] resources. This begs the question of consensus on who owns what.¹¹ PoS fans evade this problem with the argument:

False histories must be made by stakeholders, and
Stakeholders’ power is limited to a short interval, and
When they have power they’re incentivised to behave.
Therefore conflicting histories won’t happen, and
the ”weak synchronicity” is enough to agree on a single history.

The problem with the argument is simple.¹² The problem is to do with what ”short interval” means. It’s only short relative to the full history. The full history (”consensus history”) has to exist for ”short interval” to mean something. [But the full history is based on stakeholders’ balances.] So we’re still begging the question. A stakeholder has no incentive to be honest if they sell their stake (like at an exchange). This means they can’t be punished for forking the history at the time they had control. They could also expose their private keys and let others fork the history.

This is difficult to understand.¹³ We can use an example. Suppose that earlier, a single person could add blocks. It might have happened naturally, if the keys were chosen by some algorithm, or it could happen if the person got other private keys (maybe by buying them).¹⁴ The person getting all the relevant keys can happen much later, and keyholders aren’t incentivised to keep their keys secret after they use them. Keyholders also might accidentally reveal their keys, and the chance of that increases over time.

Now we have an attacker who can fork the chain at an earlier point in time. To replace the consensus history the attacker needs to make an alternate history, starting from his fork, and this new history needs to be longer¹⁵ than the existing public history. But every block¹⁶ needs new signers. Can the attacker still do the attack? Yes: we used the word ”random” but the network needs to agree on the new signers (otherwise we’d get lots of forks), so the new selection has to be based on past history. That means an attacker with enough past signing keys can change¹⁷ the history they control so that their keys are always selected for the next part. (The attacker probably needs to try lots of different options to find a way to continue the consensus history so he keeps control. It’s like the attacker replaced proof-of-stake with proof-of-work but centralised around themselves.)

This ability to control future selections of stakeholders (and maybe even the set they’re chosen from) is bad. It’s bad – even if no one is trying to attack the network – because the signers who extend history have an incentive to choose futures better for them, so the system will get centralised. They can do this by manipulating future selection processes, or blocking transactions that would introduce potential new signers.

2.6 Reading: Is it possible to obtain a distributed consensus without provably consuming some re-source outside of the system?

Intuitively, no, but there’s no rigorous argument.

The problem comes down to costless simulation¹⁸ or nothing at stake.¹⁹ If there’s (virtually) no cost for signers to make blocks, they can easily search for blocks with a better future for them. Regardless of the safeguards to prevent minority-rule, an attacker can influence the consensus history towards a future we’re they’re the majority, even if they’re the only physical party (they might have lots of keys).

It appears that whatever ”space” we want distributed consensus in, we need opportunity cost in that space. (For Bitcoin, it’s the ”space of humans”, which is roughly thermodynamic space, since we’re agents in that space.)

3 Reading: About this document.

This should get merged into the ”Distributed Consensus” part of A Treatise on Altcoins, but that article isn’t done, so this²⁰ article is being published on its own.

This topic is hard to discuss on IRC because incentive analysis and cryptography interact. The goal of this article is to make the fundamentals clear and give relevant discussions better foundations.

4 Comments

The author makes some mistakes and there are some other problems. The mistakes are partially due to using a fancy writing style. They don’t compromise the main argument, but do make the article harder to read.

There’s also some things that are unnecessary, I think. One example is going into the double-spending problem. I don’t know who would want to read this document if they don’t already understand the double-spending problem.

Some parts were hard to outline accurately b/c the sentences were complex. For those parts I made lists instead.

¹Which context? I am guessing the context of a public(!) distributed ledger; sending cryptocoins on a public net. The list provided above plus the ”instead of …one can say …” bit.

²Time-locked means that the coins can’t be spent by the owner till some point in the future.

³ET feedback: what about if transactions happened at all? MK: We need that too. Not mentioned in the original paper.

⁴The author is a bit unclear b/c of the way they’ve worded it. They haven’t considered the case of two recipients, etc. Personally I think they should have left most of that out; it was unnecessary.

⁵The author cites: M.A. Fischer, N.A. Lynch, and M.S. Paterson, Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process, J. Ass. for Comp. Mach.32(1985), no. 2, 374–382.

⁶Particularly proofs of work include all work done in the history the miner selects, and not proofs were from other histories.

⁷If they don’t, then they won’t be able to spend the reward.

⁸ET pointed out 51% attack is not mentioned here.

⁹Pfft. No it doesn’t. The laws of physics would go way faster. Also the author needs to learn about basic economics. Basic physics too.

¹⁰I think the original paper is missing some details but they’re not super important here.

¹¹This is because we are trying to answer the question ”who owns what” (consensus) by using the last answer of ”who owns what?” I think that’s what the author means by ”begging the question”. They should try to be more clear and less fancy.

¹²I doubt that, but let’s continue…

¹³The author says ”This is abstruse”, which I hope wasn’t a joke b/c it’s stupid if it was. Also, the last paragraph started with ”The problem with this argument is simple” – get your message straight!

¹⁴Original sentence: ”This may have happened organically, if this person’s keys were chosen randomly by the stake-choosing algorithm, but it could also happen if this person tracks down the other keyholders and buys their keys.”

¹⁵”Longer” is approximately correct but it might mean different things for different networks; like for proof-of-work networks it can mean ”more work done” rather than ”more blocks”

¹⁶or epoch, whatever

¹⁷They’re changing the alternate history they’re in the process of creating.

¹⁸The author notes this is what Greg Maxwell calls it.

¹⁹The author notes this is what Andrew Miller calls it

²⁰In this paragraph ”this” refers to the author’s original article, linked at the top.

Notes | Tutorial 33

Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:00:00 +1000

LW discussion for treeification (carrying on from last session)

notes

24min - if there isn’t a productive way to proceed it’s confusing/besides the point to keep discussing; solve that problem first

This is irrational.

CR answer “what is rational” - about error correction, about methods; do your methods allow for EC and help EC, or work against EC (or disallow EC). Irrationality is working against EC.

Rationality not about correctness; CR: about processes for continuous improvement

33min - can’t claim irrationality

not designed for positive outcome; aggressive

focus on simple points, only after track record of success scale up to more difficult things. simple enough messages that work well, don’t start with like 4 sections with 7 paragraphs. trying to deal with way too many things at once.

36min - discussion format: do 2 things at a time, each person picks one. they write their post, make claims, ask one thing. then you answer and say one thing. one response of your choice and one response of their choice. small chunks. two streams in the one convo. both get to lead the conversation, but also participate and answer them.

46min - anything else thigns

how to reply to a thing

The point is that every claim in general depends on assumptions. So, in particular, the critrats don’t have a disproof of induction that floats free of assumptions.

brainstorming

every claim has assumptions, okay
TAG: CR ppl don’t have a crit of induction that’s free of assumptions
can any proof be free of assumptions?
if not, then there are no proofs, really, right?
if there are, what are they?
can you use assumptions of the idea to argue against it? e.g. Bayesian assumptions to argue against Bayesian Epist?

ET: start slow, don’t skip steps. can do that later after track record of success

TAG’s position:

Theres are issues with CR
It’s significant if arguments are based on assumptions.
- the particular assumptions are significant.
- every argument is based on assumptions somewhere.
  - “The point is that every claim in general depends on assumptions”
  - “the critrats don’t have a disproof of induction that floats free of assumptions”
    - implying this is a problem with the crit
  - how do those two ideas gel?
  - is he saying: you can’t attack induction based on assumptions b/c everything makes assumptions?

he’s making a point about assumptions, but I don’t quite know what point that is, what are all the positions on assumptions ppl could have?

positions on assumptions:

assumptions are necessary, though a contradiction means some/one is wrong - can improve from there
we can get back to a set of assumptions that are “common sense” and go from there, can’t get better than that
these are my assumptions and tough luck if you disagree
some contradictions are always going to happen so we should ignore them
some contradictions are always going to happen => we can’t know anything for sure
there’s no foundation, all assumptions have assumptions
- opt1: so nothing is right
- opt2: so we do the best we can
basing ideas on assumptions means the idea is wrong
ET: minimise riskyness of assumptions; logically proven, self-justifying, obvious things (e.g. i think therefore i am)
- also done by minimising the number of assumptions
for 2 ppl to agree on an argument based on assumptions they need to agree on the assumptions

can try to figure out what’s going on by matching TAG to the above

what pos do I have and how does it differ from his

69min - idea for moving fwd

TAG: too much work, our convo more specific

reply: what should I read, what are the bounds of the convo in your mind?

if you get stuck you can add more ideas to the system (the starting system) and see if it helps. can brainstorm new ideas.

93min - halting problem - idris, coq, ada

turing machine - constant overhead?

110min - in general benefit more by finding things with low error rate + things I can self eval on => expand on that => extend reach

before i do something

what have i done that’s similar i can point to which I succeeded at (went well, good example, worked out, no/few downsides, etc)
example is like 80% as hard or similar
- better to say 10 things better in a row that are 80% as hard
this perspective: i want to do X, what have i done prior
i can do X,Y,Z what can I do next?
be careful w/ breakpoints (can’t predict problems)

for next time:

pick out sentences that are problematic for next time

Notes | Tutorial 32

Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:00:00 +1000

LW discussion for treeification

Tutorial

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bsteawFidASBXiywa/misc-raw-responses-to-a-tract-of-critical-rationalism?commentId=nfWqk8KuCW4i9JDgd

can explain what I’m doing; “I’m not really sure what your point is, here are some adjacent points/thoughts to help us get moving”

keep awareness of how well the things I’m saying would form a debate tree (and if it’s intended to)

keep track of which are good tree replies and which are general; label each

47min - Popper example, better to do minimal example needed to make the point; don’t use an example without extra stuff not required.

50min -

[;]
    I'm not suggesting anything I said was a reason to think both theories wrong,
    [;]
        and
            I listed it because it was a possibility I didn't mention in the other paragraphs
            it's a bit of a trivial case for this stuff
        i.e. if we come up with a reason both are wrong then we don't have to worry about them anymore if we can't answer that criticism

am
    I
    not
    suggesting
        that
            anything
                that
                    I said was a reason to think
                        that
                            both theories [are] wrong

really badly constructed sentence

alt: I’m not [trying to advocate]/[advocating] skepticism

66min

72min

trying to sort out mess

high effort to start with better than trying to clean it up later
- psychological reasons: once discussion seems lower quality ppl often get careless or give up, and attitude issues get in the way

78 min - topic sentence issue; actual point is sentence 2 not sentence 1. not a direct q or request; deemphasises it, and means I’m expecting TAG to guess what’s necessary.

not highlighting the response was inadequate - there’s a need to backtrack.

point is that my previous msg is still unanswered and it needs to be answered; that is unstated, though

97 min - next conversation: make an idea tree as I go along

100 min - (a few min before hand) the issue around “The relevance is that CR can’t guarantee that any given dispute is resolveable.”

Notes | Tutorial 31

Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:00:00 +1000

hw

AL RSP’s Reply

quickcheck

arguments of support and medical diagnoses

Tutorial

Medical Diagnoses and Arguments of Support (Writing Practice)

Mon, 24 Aug 2020 09:00:00 +1000

Speed writing exercise, goal for splits: 3 min, 10 min, 2 min

Note: I asked ET about this in tutorial 31, and in response to some of his feedback sort of outlined/summarised it in a follow post to FI. Here is my outline:

Two philosophers: Aro and El. Aro believes in arguments of support, El doesn’t.

I label explanations with capital letters, A..Z. The explanations are diagnoses in this case. We eliminate them via evidence that contradicts the explanation.

There are 25 explanations under consideration, A..Y.

Situation 1; (case 1) eliminate Y, A..X remain. Aro and El basically agree on things, here.

Situation 1; (case 2) eliminate A..X, Y remains. Aro and El basically agree on things, here, too.

Situation 1.1.: Start with the second case in Situation 1 and introduce a new option, Z.

What do Aro and El think given Z is introduced?

El doesn’t think much of it; he’s just not done when he otherwise might be.

Aro needs to think about whether the same evidence still supports Y, to what extent, and how much it supports Z, etc.

Aro needs to re-evaluate the evidence’s support for Y and Z.

Evidence’s relationship to Y changes due to the introduction of Z. The epistemic status of that supporting relationship changes w/ the introduction of Z. So the epistemic status of supporting relationships for Y depend on other ideas you know. Those other ideas are not refutations of Y, however, they influence how much Y is supported. So Y’s support from some evidence is not dependent on the evidence as much as it is on alternatives to Y (which are things we can make up, almost at will).

The mistake here (leading to the need to recalc the amount of support) is different from other mistakes. With other mistakes: the correction can both be decisive and involve learning something new.

With supporting arguments, the mistake of incorrectly judging support is one where:

the correction is not decisive
we don’t ever learn something new
- (note: a new option like Z is what causes one to realise their estimate of support is wrong, so it can’t be a thing we learn as a result of fixing that)

When irrelevant* new knowledge was introduced, Aro has to change his measurement of the amount of support an option, Y, had, but there was no associated error correction in a substantial way. For any idea that gets introduced he has to do that. But shouldn’t the relationship between evidence and ideas be something we can make enduring, objectively reasonable statements about?

[*]: Irrelevant to the evidence<->idea supporting relationship

A way of resolving this issue is to find equilibrium points in one’s measurement of support. These points should be such that: the amount of support provided by some evidence for some idea doesn’t change as not-directly-relevant ideas are introduced.

The only such equilibrium point for supporting arguments/evidence is 0. Therefore arguments/evidence always provide zero support. This is equivalent to the idea that supporting arguments don’t exist. This is a contradiction with the premise that they do exist. Therefore they don’t; QED.

planning

diagnosis has lots of options (hypotheses)
symptoms eliminate options
reactions to stuff eliminate opts
you can narrow down by testing
testing a thing might seem to “support” a diagnosis,
but what it really does is provide more evidence that eliminates other options, even if you don’t know exactly what the alts are
- just knowing there are alts is enough (and if they’re eliminated) – can work on classes of theories
house - ‘you’re treating with X looking for support for a diagnosis of Y’
when you come up with an idea to test
if a test or reaction or evidence would be particularly unexpected we feel like it supports some particular idea
but that’s just b/c lots of OTHER things, more ordinary things, eliminated
so like ‘antivenom making you get better supports snake-bite’
but antivenom making you get better and not having a snake-bite doesn’t make sense, so lots of other stuff eliminated
how does the idea of diagnosing make it more obvious arguments of support don’t exist
- b/c
  - evidence (results) are theory laden in 2 ways - diff evidence supports different stuff depending on your hypothesis of what it could be, e.g. ibuprofen reducing inflammation - if you try that b/c you think it might be X and it gets better, all you’ve done is eliminate all the A,B,Cs that wouldn’t get better with that treatment, not eliminated any Ys or Zs that also would get better w/ the treatment
    - but evidence against results are theory laden in the normal way only - understanding of human body
    - arguments of support are either meaningless b/c they don’t eliminate any options, or irrelevant b/c they are compatible with all the options (e.g. X,Y,Z)
imagine you’re a doctor and having trouble diagnosing a patient
there are 1000 possible things but you eliminate 900 immediately b/c they are way different from initial conditions
come up with tests for lots of the 100 remaining by comparing and finding places to look for points of difference - eliminate 75
have to progressively eliminate the remainder
what happens with “supporting” arguments

(total time planning: 10 min)

how does diagnosing a medical condition explain that arguments of support don’t exist?

Pretend for a moment (if you have to) that you’re a general doctor and trying to diagnose a patient - your goal is to find exactly one explanation for the patient’s condition, and have no reasons it couldn’t be that diagnosis. When the patient walks in the present with a set of symptoms you can see plainly. You know very quickly that you can eliminate most medical conditions; they don’t fit the symptoms, so you can eliminate 900 of the 1000 possible medical issues. Technically you should include non-medical issues too, but we won’t worry about that now.

Of the 100 options left, you eliminate 75 of them with ‘easy’ tests – you can compare all 100 options, loosely and quickly in your mind, to find some tests that will necessarily contradict lots of options. So you do some things like checking the patients throat or something. But now you’re stuck; there are 25 conditions left and you don’t have easy things to try. You need to do more cumbersome tests, or get more data/evidence in some way.

Let’s consider arguments of support from the PoV of 2 philosophers: Aro and El. (new-school, arguments of support don’t exist). Aro thinks arguments of support exist, and that support can be quantified on the interval [0, 1]. El thinks arguments of support don’t exist; equivalent to the belief that all support is quantified as exactly 0.

Situation 1

Let’s say there is one option out of the 25 (call it Y) which is common (like the flu), and (Fact 1:) there is some treatment for it which does not have side-effects – regardless of whether the patient has the condition or not. Furthermore, (Fact 2:) this treatment does not help any of the other possible conditions (call them A through X). You decide to administer this treatment. What happens in each of the cases?

If the patient does not get better then we’ve eliminated Y, so we have 24 options left. This “seems” to support all other options A..X, but we’ve also reduced the size of the set of options from 25 to 24. I don’t think Aro will have an issue accepting that this outcome doesn’t really “support” any of A..X. If they did, esp if they tried to calculate it, the “amount” of support would be low. Aro’s going to die on that hill. El doesn’t need to do anything, this is fine and expected.

If the patient does get better then we have not eliminated Y, however, we have eliminated A..X – did we find supporting evidence for Y? Let’s call this ‘getting better’ part Evidence 1 or E1 for short. This is the sort of situation where Aro will claim that E1 supports Y. El will claim E1 does not support Y, it just refutes A..X. However, this situation doesn’t help us determine if Aro or El are wrong; because in both cases they arrive at the same result unambiguously.

Situation 1.1

Let’s modify situation 1 as follows:

exactly 1 of the initial 900 options eliminated was done so for a particular reason – call this option Z.
(Fact 3:) Z is rare and especially in someone like the patient who is outside the normal age bracket, which is why it was eliminated as a candidate, but the symptoms otherwise match.
(Fact 4:) when someone with Z is given the treatment you expect the condition to get better.

So, you give the patient the treatment and they start to get better; and you soon realise that Z could be an option and actually shouldn’t have been eliminated. What now happens with Aro and El?

Let’s presume Aro and El agree that option Z was always wrongly eliminated, but it’s understandable considering how exceedingly rare it would be for Z to be the cause (perhaps a world first) – what will they think next?

El doesn’t have much of a problem here, E1 never supported Y so there’s no need to make new conclusions, we just aren’t done yet. El’s theory is entirely compatible with reality.

Aro does have a problem though: does E1 still support Y? Does it support Z too? (Logically, it must.) Do the amounts of support change? Aro has some thinking to do.

How does the introduction of new knowledge change things? Well, it doesn’t change anything about reality - the same options were always available and the same causal forces are at work, etc. It doesn’t change anything in El’s mind besides adding the new knowledge. It does change a lot in Aro’s mind, though, because Aro needs to retroactively re-evaluate E1’s support for Y and judge E1’s support for Z too.

Aro thinks arguments of support exist thus Y must still be supported by E1. However, the introduction of new knowledge (that Z is an option) changes E1’s relationship to Y (call that supporting relationship RS1). This means RS1 cannot be an objectively sound thing – it’s epistemic status changes depending on new knowledge, so that epistemic status wasn’t objectively true. Consider the relationship where evidence refutes an option: this type of relationship (removing/excluding options) does not change with new knowledge (unless that knowledge is about a mistake you made, which is fine, but not an important case here).

Aro’s need to recalculate is not a mistake like most other mistakes - here Aro is treating RS1 as an epistemic truth, but it needs to be changed for any relevant new knowledge. El doesn’t need to recalculate anything; the normal process is fine to continue.

Even though Aro realised something wasn’t objectively true, the solution was just to update RS1 instead of asking why RS1 needed to be updated. When Aro thinks about why RS1 needs to be updated the conclusion is that the need was due to the introduction of new knowledge. But we’ll always be creating and introducing new knowledge (sometimes we can’t even tell if it’s relevant or not straight away, which technically makes it relevant). Aro thinks the mistake was in the measuring (the amount of support), but the method for calculating that support hasn’t changed; neither has Aro changed any epistemic beliefs (besides those about RS1).

Aro thinks about this, and decides one approach might be to try and factor in new knowledge. Aro thinks he’ll be right if - for any new knowledge introduced - his updated estimate of the “amount” of support doesn’t change, regardless of what new knowledge is introduced and in which order. That is, RS1’s “support” should be constant regardless of the set of current knowledge and the set of new knowledge that will or could be created. Aro knows the set of new knowledge that will or could be created is infinite. So the only logical conclusion is that the “amount” of support must be 0 because that’s the only way it’ll be constant in all future cases. Aro doesn’t know how to deal with this contradiction – he arrived at the same position as El!

El doesn’t have any issues with the above events; everything fits in neatly.

Conclusion

Since Aro came to the same conclusion as El started with, it either means the contradiction needs to be explained or Aro was wrong. Arguments of support do not exist (or, equivalently, arguments always provide exactly 0 support).

Reflection

While the diagnosing aspect didn’t end up playing as significant a role as I thought it would, I think the argument is good, so I’m leaving it as it is. Also, I lost 5 min to a discord reply (which really wasn’t necessary, but I got distracted anyway).

Timings

planning	00:09:55
writing	01:06:19
editing:	00:00:57

Well, it took longer than I expected.

(Draft) Song Analysis - Santa Claus is Coming to Town

Sun, 23 Aug 2020 10:00:00 +1000

(Note: this is a partially complete draft, but I’m not sure I’m going to finish it. Written on 2020-08-17)

Chorus
Chorus 2
1. parse trees and commentary
The Rest of the Song

This is a popular Christmas song. I wanted to analyse it because I suspect the message it sends to children will be pretty awful.

Lyrics will be quoted once verse at a time then analysed, except the chorus which will be analysed at the start.

Chorus

The song starts with this verse which appears 3 times in total.

You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I’m telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town

This verse is speaking directly to the listener and consists primarily of 3 threats. The singer then tells the reason they should do the specified action.

Grammatically, the threats have the form “You better (verb phrase)”.

implied words

The use of “better” is roughly a more urgent form of “should”, however the normal form of this is “had better”, as in “you’d better act like you believe in santa or you might embarrass your parents and then they’ll punish you.”

Each threat can be seen to have an implied “or else” (or similar phrases) at the end. This isn’t strictly necessary, though, and it’ll be omitted here.

definitions

had: “To cause or procure to be; to effect; to exact; to desire; to require.”
watch: “To be attentive or vigilant; to give heed; to be on the lookout; to keep guard; to act as sentinel.”
better:
- TODO: is this an appropriate defn?
- “In a superior or more excellent manner; with more skill and wisdom, courage, virtue, advantage, or success;”
- “More correctly or thoroughly.”
out: “In its original and strict sense, out means from the interior of something; beyond the limits or boundary of somethings; in a position or relation which is exterior to something; – opposed to in or into. The something may be expressed after of, from, etc. (see Out of, below); or, if not expressed, it is implied; …”

parse trees and commentary

For the first threat, “you [had] better watch out”:

had :: verb
  you :: pronoun
  better :: adverb
  watch :: verb
    out :: adverb

This threat is coercing the listener to pay care and attention to their behaviour, lest the (as yet unspoken) consequences affect them.

The second two threats:

had :: verb
  you :: pronoun
  better :: adverb
  {cry,pout} :: verb
    not :: adverb

These threats are coercing the listener to prevent themselves from crying or pouting.

“Better” in all these threats is indicating that the quality of the listener’s performance must be exceptional. “Better” also modifies “had”, not the other verb in the clause, which can be seen via clauses like “You had better sing better.”

The threats together advise the listener to be vigilant of their behaviour and to avoid two examples of actions considered unacceptable or undesirable by parents. They imply the listener should be vigilant of other behaviours too, which is foreshadowed here and developed later.

Chorus 2

This verse precedes the chorus on it’s second and third appearance.

He sees you when you’re sleeping
He knows when you’re awake
He knows if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake

parse trees and commentary

sees :: verb
  he :: pronoun
  you :: pronoun
  when :: preposition
    are :: verb
      you :: pronoun
      sleeping :: noun

knows :: verb
  he :: pronoun
  when :: preposition
    are :: verb
      you :: pronoun
      awake :: adjective

if :: subordinating conjunction
  knows :: verb
    he :: pronoun
  or :: conjunction
    have :: verb
      you :: pronoun
      been :: verb
        bad :: adjective
    [have] :: verb
      [you] :: verb
      [been] :: verb
        good :: adjective

These first three lines use Santa as their subject and cast him as an omniscient being. They primarily tell the listener that they’re powerless; that there’s no possibility of fooling Santa or otherwise avoiding judgement because he knows and sees all.

be :: verb
  so :: adverb
  good :: adjective
  for :: preposition
    [goodness's] :: noun
      sake :: noun

In this case the prepositional phrase “for [goodness’s] sake” modifies the verb “be” because it provides a reason for the ‘being’. The reason relates to the complement of ‘be’ but does not modify it. This line impels the listener to “be good for [goodness’s] sake”.

The Rest of the Song

(CHORUS)

He’s making a list,
Checking it twice,
Gonna find out who’s naughty or nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town

(CHORUS 2)

(CHORUS)

With little tin horns, little toy drums
Rooty toot toots and rummy tum tums
Santa Claus is coming to town
And curly head dolls that toddle and coo
Elephants, boats, and kiddie cars too
Santa Claus is comin’ to town

Then kids in Girls and Boy land will have a jubilee
They’re gonna build a Toyland town
all around the Christmas tree
So! You better watch out, you better not cry
Better not pout, I’m telling you why
Santa Claus is comin’ to town

(CHORUS 2)

(CHORUS)

Although not explicitly stated, there is a strong implication that Santa is crudely righteous throughout. He is omniscient, judgemental of those children who do bad things (repeated three times via the chorus), carrying wonderful toys, and coming.

Learning Report: 2020, week 34

Sat, 22 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Analyzing Lies:
- Tutorials 28, 29, 30 are mostly reviewing Analyzing Lies material (28, 29 on LT’s comment and 30 on RSP’s).
- I’ve been watching more of the Analyzing Lies videos, a bit like podcasts. It’s been somewhat inconvenient trying to do the analysis before watching the videos b/c I can’t necessarily tell what’s safe to watch (no spoilers).
- I’ve been thinking about dishonesty, criticism, and when to apply criticism regarding dishonesty. There are significant differences between some instances of dishonesty and others, though I’m not clear what they are, yet.
I’ve been practicing some basic locksport (lock picking for recreation). I had some false starts getting in to it in highschool and a few years ago, but opened my first proper lock this week. I think it’s a skill where learning methodology can play a big role, so am curious to see how I go. I’m using this as a lower-effort way to spend time.
I’ve been having a discussion on LW about DD’s ideas from an AGI presentation. The discussion is particularly focused on epistemology though. MakoYass and I are sort of trying to understand more about each other’s point of view. The discussion feels relatively non-accusatory / non-debate-y which is good, but I think he’s overreaching a bit and not explaining Bayesian Epistemology very well. Part of that is reflected in his somewhat stream-of-conciousness style. I’ve provided a list of points re: CR which I think are points of difference between BE and CR, and brought up some ideas from yes/no philosophy like the goal-get-a-pet example. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bsteawFidASBXiywa/misc-raw-responses-to-a-tract-of-critical-rationalism
I started some analysis of Santa Claus is Coming to Town; it’s mostly about threatening children.
- I had some trouble with grammatical analysis, particularly that of “watch out” in “you better watch out” and the repeated “you better” throughout the chorus. I think I’ve come up with good explanations for what they mean though.
I got some feedback from Mum regarding How can we write to better communicate ideas? which I haven’t properly evaluated yet. She suggested cutting a bunch out, though, which I thought was funny considering the post was an expansion of my earlier version.

misc:

I wrote a python script to create standard learning report posts. (I didn’t really learn much (datetime’s isocalendar maybe?) but might be useful)
Time management has been somewhat poor, but I have got a few things done I needed to, like cleaning up my place and doing some tax stuff.

things I’m unhappy about:

I haven’t done any writing practice this week
I haven’t read more of The Choice

Notes | Tutorial 30

Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:00:00 +1000

large buffers
prioritisation
estimating size
- can give better estimates like “4 weeks”
firefighting mode bad
- organised plan

goldratt:

current reality tree
- negative branches

ongoing learning

reading
- have meant to go back to the choice for like 1.5 months
- it’s not luck
- early heinlein novels

procrastination

notes on what was working
- resource for when I have trouble again - something to come back to

RSP's Quote

Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:00:00 +1000

Note: nomenclature like (cN) at the start of a sentence or paragraph indicates “a confidence of N / 10”. Anything without once indicates a confidence of 9 or 10 / 10.

Bolded terms are my claims of dishonesty; italicised terms are just regular emphasis.

Original Quote
Analysis 2020-08-21
Analysis 2020-08-24

Original Quote

I think Lulie Tanett’s reply to Jack Birner’s piece here is dead on. The quotation from Jack Birner’s piece is verbose and largely incorrect. I grant that some critical rationalists don’t get out much (are introverted), but there are many who are quite extraverted. Just look at me! Or David McDonagh! I’m completely happy being surrounded by justificationists - just so I can have a go at them all at once. 😁 When at the University of Warwick, I used to love finding a bunch of Marxist-Lenninists and throwing the Economic Calculation Problem at them plus the impossibility of justifying one’s position. Talk about a double punch to the jaw! It was easy though - they all had glass jaws. 😂 As for critical rationalism getting “entrenched”, what’s needed is to get out there and apply it to various problems in different domains. I also think that yes, we lost the great Popperian Knights Peter Medawar and Sir John Eccles, but there are major living scientists who do respect philosophy and often refer to Popper’s work - Frank Tipler the astrophysicist (who described Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery as one of the most important books of the 20th Century), for example, and many others. Rational argument has a force of its own, as I argue in depth in my book. Having a strong argument is like being given a light sabre for a battle in the bronze age. You simply can’t wait to get out there and use it. That’s what it felt like at Warwick with the ECA. The same applies to CR. If one imprudently allows a sound counterargument into one’s “safe space,” beware the corruption to one’s cherished beliefs - they may fall and wither like leaves from a cold autumn wind.

Analysis 2020-08-21

I think Lulie Tanett’s reply to Jack Birner’s piece here is dead on.

In general this sort of comment & phrasing doesn’t need to have bad social stuff in it, however, RSP is replying only to Lulie’s comment and not to any of the other comments. There are multiple other threads - which he doesn’t reply to. It’s also a reply to OP, not to Lulie’s comment (though as far as Facebook is concerned the threading is terrible, so this doesn’t need to be done for self-aggrandising reasons).

He is thanking Lulie for the tag by replying like this and as a top-post - a little social dance.

His reply is also entirely non-critical, which is odd considering he’s meant to be a prominent CR thinker. It’s also hard to believe he didn’t have any issues with Lulie’s post or interpretation – unless he didn’t bother to think much about it; he should know better. It might be possible to reply casually such that a lax reading of Lulie’s post was okay, but this is a CR forum! Not ~~reddit or~~ _(edited) a discussion about a restaurant or the movies. His inappropriate of tone is projecting low effort (as in LoLE, not one of carelessness) – we’ll see more of this mismatch throughout his post.

The quotation from Jack Birner’s piece is verbose and largely incorrect.

The quotation is neither verbose (as some things were omitted) and isn’t “largely” incorrect AFAIK; though there are errors like the ellipsis. What RSP means is that this part of Birner’s essay is verbose and largely incorrect. ‘Extract’ is a better word than ‘quotation’ – this is careless and ambiguous. If you brought this sort of thing up with someone a response like you know what I meant is typical. (Casual phrasing is okay when it suits the subject matter; this doesn’t.)

He says verbose, which is sort-of-true. It is somewhat verbose (as in prolix) but the bigger issue is the academese and fanciness. RSP is thus non-specific in an important way. We know it’s not that verbose because my outline of Birner’s extract is of comparable length; if Birner’s extract was verbose only, it would have a smaller ~~extract~~ outline _(edited). I suspect RSP’s writing is fancy, too. If RSP writes in academese, then to criticise Birner for this would admit hypocrisy, so RSP would be dodging criticism (social agility).

RSP also projects expertise.

I grant that some critical rationalists don’t get out much (are introverted), but there are many who are quite extraverted.

(c7) “Don’t get out much” is a somewhat pejorative way to talk about one’s colleagues (so RSP does some relative social-status elevation here).

This is also a false concession since intro/extroversion isn’t particularly relevant to Birner’s argument. Plenty of introverted ppl do politicking – that’s why the idea of “in the shadows” or puppet-master-ing is reasonably well known.

Added in tutorial: false concession because he’s not granting anything – the comparison via ‘but’ indicates he’s disagreeing with a more fundamental point (and is condescending to Birner).

Just look at me! Or David McDonagh!

RSP name drops someone. I googled David McDonagh and found an anesthesiologist; once I added ‘popper’ to the search the first result was the CR facebook group, and the second was an article from libertarian.co.uk titled “Ray Scott Percival’s The Myth of the Closed Mind, Reviewed by David McDonagh (2012)” 🤨. Apparently D. McDonagh isn’t extroverted enough to do much SEO.

RSP also uses himself as a counterpoint, which is anecdotal at best, but crucially isn’t arguing the point well at all. He could have e.g. pointed out that Birner didn’t link the stated traits of CR-attracted personalities/characteristics to the idea they make it harder to do CR related work.

Aside: Birner doesn’t take in to account what the goals of someone in CR are/should be. If one is to do relevant philosophical work simpliciter then who cares about being an academic? If one is to be an academic that is more problematic. Both RSP and Lulie could have pointed that out, but it might have raised conflicts w/in them.

Added in tutorial: bragging.

I’m completely happy being surrounded by justificationists - just so I can have a go at them all at once. 😁

(c7) Outright lie or bad thinking – this would mean RSP is fine with ppl having low-quality ideas in general as long as he has good ones (or something along those lines). As he goes on it seems more like he cares about having better ideas than other people (i.e. relativity is important). If it’s not an outright lie, the ‘bad thinking’ is just as bad because he should know better.

Confidence explanation: “outright lie” is a strong claim; I’m hesitant to put it so bluntly. I think it’s reasonable if true, though.

(c6) This statement is pro-metaphorical-violence, RSP is aggrandising winning, even though it’s presumable the justificationists aren’t convinced by RSP. This is one reason it’s metaphorically violent – RSP can’t convince them so just attacks them instead.

Confidence explanation: I’ve worded this pretty strongly, which might be unfair.

(c9) It’s also anti-Popper because it’s against the idea of ideas dying in one’s stead. The implication somewhat aligns with: justificationists have been, are, and always will be justificationists. An alternate interpretation is that RSP is speaking collectively (in that there always will be justificationists), but that is contradicted by his next few sentences. RSP implies he enjoys the debate more than improving ppl’s ideas (and by extension, their lives). He should know better.

The emoji “😁” indicates RSP is pleased with himself, and socially pressures others to replicate that idea.

When at the University of Warwick, I used to love finding a bunch of Marxist-Lenninists and throwing the Economic Calculation Problem at them plus the impossibility of justifying one’s position.

RSP concept drops “the Economic Calculation Problem” (which I’ve never heard of before). Wikipedia just says it’s the problem of being unable to replicate market-driven prices with economic planning. That’s a fancy name for a simple problem.

(note from tutorial: I’m missing a lot of context on econ-calc-problem; like Marxists changing focus b/c of Mises’s paper)

Moreover, I’m pretty sure most Marxists/Leninists aren’t super concerned about pricing; their arguments are often about other things like supposed tyranny / slavery via working / employment. Concept dropping here is not making a point relevant to LT’s post or Birner’s extract (or at least I don’t see how it is ATM). It is relevant to RSP claiming he’s extroverted, but it’s just more anecdotes, which gives him an excuse for concept-dropping, elevating relative social status (with respect to justificationists and Marxists/Leninists), institution dropping U of Warwick.

“The impossibility of justifying one’s position” is ambiguous. Does he mean throwing the combined econ-calc-problem + cant-justify-your-position at them, or that these are two different problems he’d throw at them at separate times? The second option doesn’t fit b/c of the way he’s worded the sentence and the grouping of nouns. The first option is okay, but why would he say that, isn’t the econ-calc problem enough? Is he just pointing out (to them) that we should not have contradictions in our ideas (which is presumably why their position on econ-calc problem is impossible to justify)? Why is he picking on Marxists/Leninists only? (Though my experience - of uni in Australia - is there aren’t many other ~~active pro-communist~~ groups that are accessible and out-and-about.) RSP should not be so careless.

Claiming to have publicly attacked Marxists/Leninists raises relative social status and is self-aggrandising.

“used to love” is odd compared to “loved” – is the comparative implication is that he doesn’t love it anymore?

Typo/grammar errors:

“Lenninists” has an extra ‘n’
“throwing the Economic Calculation Problem at them plus the impossibility of justifying one’s position”
- ‘at them’ modifies ‘throwing’ but RSP then uses a conjunction to add another noun, so the intended meaning is: “throwing A and B at them”, not “throwing A at them plus B”. (the latter being unprincipled / overly casual / ambiguous / etc).

Talk about a double punch to the jaw! It was easy though - they all had glass jaws. 😂

More self aggrandising (look at how good I am, esp compared to other ppl who tried the same thing).

More metaphorical violence, including “glass jaw” which is explicitly a boxing/fist-fighting reference.

The emoji “😂” expresses laughter and emphasises the previous sentences, showing how casual and embracing of metaphorical violence RSP is. There’s minor social pressure on others to find this entertaining / funny too.

As for critical rationalism getting “entrenched”, what’s needed is to get out there and apply it to various problems in different domains.

RSP indirectly points out ‘entrenched’ was a weird word for Birner to use, but talks past it (non-sequitur). RSP is ambiguous about what “it” is, but it’s easy enough to read that he’s talking about CR (not ‘CR getting “entrenched”’) b/c it’s posted to a CR forum.

He’s also projecting expertise, esp because there are no qualifiers like ‘I think’ or even something like ‘the best way’ (which would at least acknowledge other solns are possible).

He does not give examples or explanation and moves on.

I also think that yes, we lost the great Popperian Knights Peter Medawar and Sir John Eccles, but there are major living scientists who do respect philosophy and often refer to Popper’s work - Frank Tipler the astrophysicist (who described Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery as one of the most important books of the 20th Century), for example, and many others.

This is RSP’s messiest and longest sentence.

He starts “I also think that yes, …” even though: nobody else mentioned PM or JE, and there’s no need for this false/irrelevant concession (it’s a concession because of the usage of “yes”).

It’s another metaphorical violence reference and invokes simplistic ideas of virtue via the use of “Knights”. This also name drops to (presumably deceased) people. “Sir” is an appeal to status and raises relative social status (because RSP knows a knight in the modern sense). While there’s ambiguety between old ideas of knighthood (righteous violence) and the modern idea, we know RSP is invoking the old idea particularly b/c the full adjective is “Popperian Knights”, which both includes Peter Medawar (who presumably doesn’t have a title like ‘sir’) and relegates the knighthood to defending Popper. We shouldn’t need violence to defend good ideas (even if it’s metaphorical violence) – RSP should have known better.

It also implies the act of defending Popper is what’s virtuous, not having good ideas – RSP should have known better.

His use of “major living scientists who do respect philosophy” which is a veiled attack on scientists who RSP disagrees with. It’s also an excuse to name drop Frank Tipler (“the astrophysicist”) in a way that doesn’t really add to the conversation except to point out some scientists are still concerned with philosophy. (c6) Indirectly it’s anti-criticism wrt other ideas, though it can be overlooked as an inappropriate level of detail for this post.

The parenthetical on Tipler is largely irrelevant to scientific works; it’s more relevant to philosophy of science.

(todo: rest of this sentence)

Rational argument has a force of its own, as I argue in depth in my book.

He somewhat contradicts himself with the mostly-true “rational argument has a force of its own” statement (though repeats the misuse of ‘force’). However, that contradiction is in service to self-aggrandisement via mentioning his book, further raising relative social status and projecting expertise.

It’s possible LT mentioned RSP just so he could mention he wrote a relevant book, which is something LT should have done, but otherwise moving through social motions.

Having a strong argument is like being given a light sabre for a battle in the bronze age.

todo

You simply can’t wait to get out there and use it.

todo

That’s what it felt like at Warwick with the ECA.

todo

The same applies to CR.

todo

If one imprudently allows a sound counterargument into one’s “safe space,” beware the corruption to one’s cherished beliefs - they may fall and wither like leaves from a cold autumn wind.

todo

~~“cold autumn wind” could be a reference to 1984’s “It was a bright cold day in April and the clocks were striking 13”. (todo: check 1984 quote)~~ (Note: decided in tutorial this wasn’t a 1984 ref)

Analysis 2020-08-24

Rational argument has a force of its own, as I argue in depth in my book.

The contradiction here: why make all the other points about CR (or CR practitioners) he did above but then make a claim about rational argument that usurps the previous points? There’s no need for those points unless RSP concedes that the “force” of “rational argument” is in some way insufficient, and doing stuff like being extroverted or politicking are good ideas. (Which, ofc, would mean there is some rational argument for them.)

He could have addressed this with qualifiers like “none of that really matters though, b/c rational argument…”, or structuring things differently.

It’s possible LT mentioned RSP just so he could mention he wrote a relevant book; mentioning the book is something LT should have done, but otherwise the interaction is moving through social motions.

Having a strong argument is like being given a light sabre for a battle in the bronze age.

Another comparison to violence.

There’s also a lot of social framing of the ideas here: light sabres are weapons of the Jedi. Throughout Star Wars the idea is often repeated that only Jedis are skillful enough to handle a light sabre well enough to use in combat; other ppl don’t have them (they also can’t really get them). Jedis are positioned as virtuous and just, and often they occupy the role of applying righteous justice. Jedis only use violence when necessary and only on bad people. Etc etc etc. RSP is comparing CR practitioners to Jedis and other ppl (who refuse his arguments) as barbarians (maybe sand people to keep the star wars motif).

Moreover, what happened to weak ppl in the bronze age? They got conquered, they didn’t get convinced or persuaded. What is RSP suggesting here?

Stepping back… RSP said “being given a light sabre for a battle in the bronze age”, so he’s sort of presuming there’s already going to be a battle, metaphorical life will already be lost, but a strong argument (not ‘rational argument’) is a decisive advantage (like a light sabre). I think I had more of an impression he was advocating having a light sabre and going out to use it, deliberately, but it’s a little less aggressive when you’re given it for the battle.

You simply can’t wait to get out there and use it.

WHAT?! We should want to go out and be violent?

WRT “can’t wait”, is RSP talking about eagerness or urgency? Both interpretations have issues.

Either way he seems to be advocating using metaphorical force or violence (via rational argument) against ppl, which just doesn’t make sense if you’re not like convincing them. maybe his goal is not to convince them?

Stepping back, linking the last two sentences makes sense and I think reveals some meaning: ‘Having a strong argument is like being given a light sabre for a battle in the bronze age[:] [you] simply can’t wait to get out there and use it.’

This makes it sound like RSP thinks there is an obligation for ppl with a metaphorical light sabre to use it.

To what end?

That’s what it felt like at Warwick with the ECA.

RSP has loosely said he felt good about the Warwick+ECA thing, and now that it felt like “being given a light sabre for a battle in the bronze age”.

So he either wanted to hurt the socialists or thought conflict was inevitable so was happy he had an advantage. But he didn’t express any remorse or other thoughts, just a sort of faux-CR hooliganism.

The same applies to CR.

He’s wrong, but it reveals we ~~weren’t incorrect~~ were okay to assume this before.

If one imprudently allows a sound counterargument into one’s “safe space,” beware the corruption to one’s cherished beliefs - they may fall and wither like leaves from a cold autumn wind.

He drops a “safe space” reference but it’s unclear if he did so jokingly or not. I think he did but I’m not sure. Even if it’s an ambiguous signal, it’s still a social signal of some kind.

However, the bigger issue here is how he frames everything in this last sentence! “imprudently allows a sound counterargument” – this, taken at face value, is anti-CR. We should want as many sound ideas as possible regardless of “cherished beliefs” (we shouldn’t cherish them, anyway).

I don’t think this sentence should be read at face value tho, because I think taking on a non-CR master/teacher figure to make a point (further status signalling). It’s misleading and bad writing to swap perspectives like this; esp without making it explicit or at least like a paragraph break or some other flagging language. Instead he gets poetic (status signal) for no clear reason.

RSP is making the point that if you pay attention to ideas and judge them on quality, you’ll find that you stop believing some stuff you liked to believe. That’s mostly true, but it’s not clear why he’s making this point or why he thought it would be more impactful or meaningful to say it like this (philosophically).

“Imprudently” is a weird word to use here b/c he could speak from a neutral PoV if he didn’t add this adverb. “Beware” has an anti-CR connotation here too, but it’s somewhat general and acceptable b/c of the poetic/purple way he’s put this last sentence. He could have just said “If one allows a sound counterargument into one’s “safe space,” know the consequences for one’s cherished beliefs - they may fall and wither like leaves from a cold autumn wind.” Something like that is wanky* but at least somewhat correct.

* wanky: adjective, vulgar slang • British
adjective: wanky; comparative adjective: wankier; superlative adjective: wankiest
definition: pretentious, contemptible, or stupid.
“wanky art-house movies”

Notes | Tutorial 29

Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:00:00 +1000

(nil)

Notes | Tutorial 28

Mon, 17 Aug 2020 12:00:00 +1000

notes on Birner 2

issue paraphrasing sentence 2 [00:12:00]

“Let us assume (realistically, I think) that the type of personality with a firm belief in the power of criticism is less prone than the average academic to devote resources to the social networking and academic politicking that are needed to create an environment in which his or her intellectual offspring can survive.”

assume
- realistically
type of personality
- with firm belief
less prone
- than avg academic
- to devote resources
  - to social networking / politicking
- which are
  - needed to create env
    - allows ideas to survive

note: when outlining/paraphrasing: put the same thing in the same order with simpler words; not too worried about understanding / structure

notes on Lulie’s reply

00:40:00

There’s a premise here that critical rationalism is incompatible with social networking and politicking. But you can have all sorts of interests as a critical rationalist.

false comparison
non-parallel phrasing

CR is incompatible with doing networking and politicking. CR is compatible with being interested in many different things.

00:58:00

Maybe the assumption is that critical debate isn’t compatible with these social endeavours, but I don’t think that’s true: there’s always a way of explaining an idea that isn’t off-putting; it’s not fundamentally the case that people dislike criticism.

Lulie's Quote

Mon, 17 Aug 2020 07:30:00 +1000

original quote
analysis (in depth; 1st pass)
analysis (mid-level; 2nd pass)
analysis (high-level; 3rd pass)

original quote

While I sympathise with the spirit of this post, I am far more optimistic.

There’s a premise here that critical rationalism is incompatible with social networking and politicking.

But you can have all sorts of interests as a critical rationalist. Why would social networking and politicking be special?

Maybe the assumption is that critical debate isn’t compatible with these social endeavours, but I don’t think that’s true: there’s always a way of explaining an idea that isn’t off-putting; it’s not fundamentally the case that people dislike criticism. (What they dislike is something more like: being trapped; being called bad; having problems that destabilise/overwhelm; etc. It’s possible to avoid all these problems and still have a critical discussion.)

Or maybe the assumption is that people are not persuaded by argument, and instead you have to appeal to social status or bureaucracy. Ray Scott Percival may agree with me here that this isn’t true either.

Another apparent premise is that the only way to carry on these ideas is through institutional academia (which does indeed have its flaws). But it’s becoming ever easier to work outside the system (books, blogs, videos, forums, etc.), and even build intellectual communities and organisations to keep these ideas going. You don’t need to be an academic to engage with academia, either. Problems are soluble. There will be a solution to the problem “how do we ensure CR survives without doing unpleasant academic tedium?”.

The quote talks about “personal characteristics” — so maybe it’s saying the personality type that gets into critical rationalism tends not to be the exuberant promoter/social type. (As an aside, the final sentence of the second paragraph seems to be saying “critical rationalists don’t actually take the clash of ideas seriously”!) But truth is connected. Why not be interested in expressing ideas so that they’re appealing to other generations/traditions?

New people from diverse intellectual backgrounds are getting interested in Popper regularly via Deutsch (who is himself still writing about critical rationalism). And there’s a lot of craving for these ideas lately — a lot of modern rationalist/skeptic communities trying to understand how to think about truth and knowledge, a lot of dissatisfaction for traditional academic philosophy, people who intuitively think objective morality makes sense but don’t know how to justify it, how to make sense of tyranny and liberalism, and so on. It’s very fertile ground for the next generation.

analysis (in depth; 1st pass)

(1) While I sympathise with the spirit of this post, I am far more optimistic.

What’s the spirit of the post? (Presumably the same as the spirit of the quoted text.) The spirit of the text is about CR being hard (or on the way to extinction, or not worthwhile) because it’s incompatible with necessary evils like social stuff or things that academics need to do these days. And because ppl in CR can’t adopt other traditions (which is false). And that this has something to do with the personalities or characteristics of ppl in CR. It sort of sounds like it’s against politicking to start with but most of the extract is about CR being bad at things it’s not. The article is fairly anti-CR, though.

Why sympathise with that?

One reason to say it is to seem like you’re able to understand lots of points of view and see the good in what people say even if you disagree. the social reaction to this is generally positive. it’s a way to not seem like you’re being as critical even though you disagree with something. Because it’s done for social reasons this type of sympathy is false, though.

It’s supporting something anti-CR to artificially downplay a disagreement more socially acceptable.

She also says the spirit of the post, (which I’m reading like “in the spirit of the law”) which is both hedging by not telling you much and possibly sidestepping issues w/o dealing with them properly or discussing them (depending on the rest of her post).

She says she’s optimistic. That implies the extract is pessimistic (I mean it’s not optimistic). Saying “more optimistic” means it gives false credit to the original article for being better / more optimistic than it is.

(2) There’s a premise here that critical rationalism is incompatible with social networking and politicking

This seems fine. The politicking is like a major point, though, and Birner rags on CR more than just this particular (hedged and alleged) incompatibility. The indirect way she’s talking can diminish the apparent importance of the disagreement or avoid it. (though maybe avoiding it is a good idea, like just arguing a small number of points, politicking being one of them; if she can argue against that then it’s pretty important to the rest of the extract)

(3) But you can have all sorts of interests as a critical rationalist.

Yes, but there are also lots of interests you can’t have (at least if you’re a halfway-decent critical rationalist). I’m not sure if it’s dishonest to speak this broadly about it.

(4) Why would social networking and politicking be special?

I don’t think Birner says they couldn’t be interests, he says CR ppl don’t like devoting resources to doing them. You can study something (be interested) without doing it. This might just be overly casual language (so careless) or deliberately reframing/downgrading.

Later in the article Birner implies a connection to different traditions (b/c they’re both things that CR ppl can’t do or do badly). I think she’s avoiding a more serious disagreement.

(5) Maybe the assumption is that critical debate isn’t compatible with these social endeavours, but I don’t think that’s true: there’s always a way of explaining an idea that isn’t off-putting; it’s not fundamentally the case that people dislike criticism.

There are more reasons it’s incompatible; like politicking requiring dishonesty — or it’s at least very hard to avoid consistently and takes a lot of effort. in those sorts of environments you’re rewarded for certain kinds of dishonesty. Avoidance, reframing.

If she’s talking about the assume in the second sentence (“let us assume (realistically, I think)”) then that’s not what it says – it say’s there’s a possibility with the types of personalities by nature. If that’s what she’s talking about that (or about the thing that would lead to what’s said in the second sentence), then she’s avoiding the reality that Birner is making a much stronger claim about CR ppl.

(6) (What they dislike is something more like: being trapped; being called bad; having problems that destabilise/overwhelm; etc.)

So, yeah, these things sound like ppl would dislike them, but people definitely don’t want some criticisms no matter how you put it, right? Hmm, maybe. Don’t know enough to judge.

(7) (It’s possible to avoid all these problems and still have a critical discussion.)

You can avoid some of the problems some of the time, but not all of the problems all of the time. Eventually they’ll get in the way — she should know this.

(8) Or maybe the assumption is that people are not persuaded by argument, and instead you have to appeal to social status or bureaucracy.

No response to this is given ~~(tho it’s in a parenthetical)~~, it’s sort of just dismissed because RSP might agree with her.

_{Edit: I incorrectly marked the quote parenthetical; this statement wasn’t}

(9) Ray Scott Percival may agree with me here that this isn’t true either.

Name dropping, raises social status if RSP is like well known or whatever.

(10) Another apparent premise is that the only way to carry on these ideas is through institutional academia (which does indeed have its flaws).

Birner’s article does imply that to have ideas survive you need to do academic politicking. The “which does indeed have its flaws” hedge is curious b/c it’s unnecessary for the point. She doesn’t really seem to be against it in any way, though. If academia was responsible for bad traditions (which Birner seems to imply, at least by CR standards) then it’s worse than just having some flaws.

I feel like this is making one concession to hide another.

(11) But it’s becoming ever easier to work outside the system (books, blogs, videos, forums, etc.), and even build intellectual communities and organisations to keep these ideas going.

Over a long time scale maybe? Access has increased, not sure if that makes it easier. There are definitely a lot more communities now than 50 yrs ago, and a lot more ideas going because of it.

(12) You don’t need to be an academic to engage with academia, either.

[6/10] This is pretty unrealistic. Maybe if you were really good at being impressive to academics and had some vouch for you? But realistically you do. Just b/c it’d be possible to engage (problems are soluble) doesn’t mean it’s easy / accessible / worth while. There’s also a lot of cultural stigma. dishonest

(13) Problems are soluble.

This is fine (in isolation at least).

(14) There will be a solution to the problem “how do we ensure CR survives without doing unpleasant academic tedium?”.

She’s downgraded politicking to tedium, which is downplaying the seriousness of what Birner claimed. So, yeah, there’s a solution, but the question as written isn’t particularly interesting or relevant. BoI alone is probably enough to ensure CR survives without more tedium (excepting like ~everyone dying).

(15) The quote talks about “personal characteristics” — so maybe it’s saying the personality type that gets into critical rationalism tends not to be the exuberant promoter/social type.

More downplaying by softening what Birner said. It makes it more socially acceptable and makes Birner seem more reasonable, or like Lulie thinks it’s more reasonable.

(16) (As an aside, the final sentence of the second paragraph seems to be saying “critical rationalists don’t actually take the clash of ideas seriously”!)

Why is this an aside? It’s a serious accusation!

Did Lulie take the clash of ideas seriously between what Birner wrote and CR?

(17) But truth is connected.

What is ‘but’ contrasting?

Sort of a meaningless statement.

(18) Why not be interested in expressing ideas so that they’re appealing to other generations/traditions?

Because you risk compromising the idea and pandering? Because it hides disagreements? Pretending disagreements don’t exist

(19) New people from diverse intellectual backgrounds are getting interested in Popper regularly via Deutsch (who is himself still writing about critical rationalism).

I’m not sure how diverse that background is, like the volume of ppl isn’t that high, and most ppl don’t learn much or well from BoI, and don’t go on to study Popper directly. So she’s overly optimistic

Where is DD writing about CR? He’s done a bit on AGI, but I’m not aware of much on CR and he doesn’t post to lists anymore. Outright lie? I mean presumably she’s aware.

(20) And there’s a lot of craving for these ideas lately — a lot of modern rationalist/skeptic communities trying to understand how to think about truth and knowledge, a lot of dissatisfaction for traditional academic philosophy, people who intuitively think objective morality makes sense but don’t know how to justify it, how to make sense of tyranny and liberalism, and so on.

This is a bit of a messy sentence. outline:

there have been cravings for these (CR/Popperian) ideas lately
- lots (!?) of rationalist/skeptic communities
- dissatisfaction for traditional academic philosophy (rly?)
- ppl who believe in objective morality but can’t explain why it’s true

I’m not sure this is true and it’s not good to say you’re doing well if you’re not, like it’s denying important things and problems. it backs up the optimism but this doesn’t sound very realistic.

Also if people are learning badly and taking away half baked ideas that’s not very good, it’s maybe better than what they had before but it’s not what they should be doing.

(21) It’s very fertile ground for the next generation.

Saying things are good when they’re not, avoiding issues.

analysis (mid-level; 2nd pass)

While I sympathise with the spirit of this post, I am far more optimistic.

There’s a premise here that critical rationalism is incompatible with social networking and politicking.

But you can have all sorts of interests as a critical rationalist. Why would social networking and politicking be special?

She starts out by saying she sees the good in the post but thinks the future will be better than the picture painted. She doesn’t say what the good is. This is dishonestly representing the post (or rather, the extract). ~~There’s no good in the extract, but~~¹ it’s just more acceptable to say things like this.

_{[1]: edited, this bit was unfair, and it does have decent criticisms of CR.}

Then she makes note of the main point but downplays it so it seems less important to the extract.

She rebuts this point by saying you can have lots of interests — this is dishonestly broad and gives an impression you can think what you like and be in CR. Most things ppl are interested in aren’t compatible with CR, saying they can be is pandering and misrepresentation. She makes a lazy argument like ‘lots of things are compatible, why is X special’ which both evades responding to the extract (to maintain social status and not embarrass Birner) and isn’t a logically sound argument.

Maybe the assumption is that critical debate isn’t compatible with these social endeavours, but I don’t think that’s true: there’s always a way of explaining an idea that isn’t off-putting; it’s not fundamentally the case that people dislike criticism. (What they dislike is something more like: being trapped; being called bad; having problems that destabilise/overwhelm; etc. It’s possible to avoid all these problems and still have a critical discussion.)

She downplays Birner’s point again with maybe, and actually provides more of an explanation. That is: you can always explain an idea s.t. it’s not off-putting (which relies on the other person so it’s tenuous at best) and then claims ppl don’t fundamentally dislike criticism, which might be true of some people, but isn’t generally. So she paints a false picture to compare to so that it comes out favourably. She then mentions some stuff that people also dislike, but it doesn’t cover all the cases of criticism. It also denies things like personal responsibility for the quality of one’s ideas. If she agrees with DD about morality this sort of stuff might violate the moral criterion DD proposes b/c it’s tolerating things that can destroy the methods of correcting mistakes. So she’s overly tolerant to avoid offending ppl.

Or maybe the assumption is that people are not persuaded by argument, and instead you have to appeal to social status or bureaucracy. Ray Scott Percival may agree with me here that this isn’t true either.

She reframes the debate again to downplay Birner’s attack on CR. Maybe she’s making a meta-joke because she immediately appeals to social status via mentioning RSP — if so it’s hiding meaning in social pandering, if not it’s somewhat hypocritical. She also uses it as an excuse not to address the point.

Another apparent premise is that the only way to carry on these ideas is through institutional academia (which does indeed have its flaws). But it’s becoming ever easier to work outside the system (books, blogs, videos, forums, etc.), and even build intellectual communities and organisations to keep these ideas going. You don’t need to be an academic to engage with academia, either. Problems are soluble. There will be a solution to the problem “how do we ensure CR survives without doing unpleasant academic tedium?”.

She downplays again with words like another apparent premise instead of acknowledging the extent of what Birner is saying. She correctly identifies that Birner claims certain things are necessary’s but evades answering properly b/c she mentions some things that — on the whole — aren’t very effective at doing the thing she says they do. Then there’s a non-sequitur or maybe just reframing to downplay the point again via academic tedium which sounds a lot better than ‘CR is incompatible with environments where one’s ideas can survive’. She also don’t take it further to criticise academia for having bad culture, which is social agility — dodging the confrontation.

There’s a BoI reference dropped without applying it very well, too.

The quote talks about “personal characteristics” — so maybe it’s saying the personality type that gets into critical rationalism tends not to be the exuberant promoter/social type. (As an aside, the final sentence of the second paragraph seems to be saying “critical rationalists don’t actually take the clash of ideas seriously”!) But truth is connected. Why not be interested in expressing ideas so that they’re appealing to other generations/traditions?

More hedging/downplay/reframing via maybe and exuberant promoter/social type (which is not at all similar to stuff Birner says, where most of the personality stuff is about traits like firm belief in the power of criticism).

She then points out something really serious and completely avoids dealing with it. Even though it’s crucial to the extract, she already said she ~~agrees~~ sympathises _(edited) with the spirit of the extract, and important enough to add a ! to the end of the sentence! reframing/downplay

There’s the confusing truth is connected bit which is a non-sequitur and leads into a suggestion that would likely corrupt ideas or require bad compromise, so she’s misleadingly suggesting things incompatible with CR are compatible. This makes her look more open minded and ~fairer, calibrated to reduce social friction.

New people from diverse intellectual backgrounds are getting interested in Popper regularly via Deutsch (who is himself still writing about critical rationalism). And there’s a lot of craving for these ideas lately — a lot of modern rationalist/skeptic communities trying to understand how to think about truth and knowledge, a lot of dissatisfaction for traditional academic philosophy, people who intuitively think objective morality makes sense but don’t know how to justify it, how to make sense of tyranny and liberalism, and so on. It’s very fertile ground for the next generation.

The final paragraph makes some optimistic claims which she knows aren’t true (or should know), including DD actively writing (though I’d like to be proven wrong). She goes on to claim everything is peachy, and there are lots of good things happening. She claims stuff like there’s “a lot of dissatisfaction for traditional academic philosophy” even though Birner makes the opposite point, and she avoids addressing this conflict despite it being really important.

She finishes with a general optimism that isn’t well supported and directly conflicts with what Birner is saying, but it’s okay because she made some concessions so she’s socially insulated from anyone trying to claim she’s being too critical.

analysis (high-level; 3rd pass)

Lulie gives false credit to a bad post/extract, reframes the debate multiple times to make Birner’s extract sound better (and less critical of CR) than it is, avoids dealing with direct conflicts brought up by the extract, misrepresents CR and the importance of ideas, appeals to social status a bit, and ultimately finishes optimistically pretending there aren’t any issues here.

Birner Quote - 2

Mon, 17 Aug 2020 07:00:00 +1000

Full quote

INDIVIDUALISTS AND THE MOB: CAN CRITICAL RATIONALISM SURVIVE?

“By its very nature, critical rationalism attracts philosophers who believe in the force of critical argument. Let us assume (realistically, I think) that the type of personality with a firm belief in the power of criticism is less prone than the average academic to devote resources to the social networking and academic politicking that are needed to create an environment in which his or her intellectual offspring can survive…

“Until recently not only philosophers but some (outstanding) practising scientists (who are more likely to cultivate the social conditions that are necessary to carry on with their work), too, supported critical rationalism. This allowed critical rationalism to become a tradition for at least a couple of generations. In the mean time, however, the number of scientific disciplines, journals and scientists has increased. The professionalization of science has gone hand in hand with a drop in interest in philosophy on the part of scientists. The academic environment has changed and selection pressures have increased greatly. In this new environment, the support of scientists is lacking while the contents of critical rationalism continue to select against the type of personal characteristics that make it possible for individuals to adopt or have access to at least elements of different traditions. The situation of carriers of the tradition of critical rationalism being incapable of adopting or having access to alternative traditions is tantamount to the non-existence of alternative traditions. If critical rationalists continue to fail to adopt alternative traditions, or at least elements of them, critical rationalism risks becoming entrenched – and extinct.”

Jack Birner, ‘From Group Selection to Ecological Niches,’ in ‘Rethinking Popper,’ ed. Zuzana Parusnikova.

higher level pass, focusing on content; for use in later analysis

This is an outline of Birner’s quote.

paragraph 1

outline of sentence or partial sentence	comment (if any)
paragraph 1
	> “By its very nature, critical rationalism attracts philosophers who believe in the force of critical argument.”
CR attracts thinkers that believe in the reach/value/efficacy of criticism.
This is intrinsic to CR.
	> “Let us assume (realistically, I think) that the type of personality with a firm belief in the power of criticism is less prone than the average academic to devote resources to the social networking and academic politicking that are needed to create an environment in which his or her intellectual offspring can survive.”
Ideas can only survive in the right environment, which must be created (it isn’t natural or the default).
Skills are needed for philosophers to create an environment for the survival of their ideas.	(Implication? The environment that ideas survive in is specific to each thinker/idea s.t. cooperation isn’t possible?)
Those skills are social networking and politicking.
Philosophers attracted to CR find it easier to avoid doing those things (via their type of personality).	(Implied: there’s a reason not to do them; some trade off; academics do it against their will; or something nasty about them; etc)
paragraph 2
	> “Until recently not only philosophers but some (outstanding) practising scientists (who are more likely to cultivate the social conditions that are necessary to carry on with their work), too, supported critical rationalism.”
both philosophers and scientists supported CR until recently.	when? vague
those scientists often created social conditions to facilitate their work.	the philosophers too? doesn’t seem like it from the text
	> “This allowed critical rationalism to become a tradition for at least a couple of generations.”
the support by thinkers and scientists allowed CR to be a tradition
that tradition lasted a few generations.
	> “In the mean time, however, the number of scientific disciplines, journals and scientists has increased.”
the number of journals, science disciplines, and scientists has gone up.
this happened “in the mean time”.	“in the mean time” -> refers to “until recently” at start of paragraph? Between now and the stopping of support? maybe the mean time is since CR became a tradition? Is he implying the stopping of support has something to do with journals, no. of disciplines, and no. of scientists?
	> “The professionalization of science has gone hand in hand with a drop in interest in philosophy on the part of scientists.”
science has been professionalized.	what does that mean? how long has it been happening? is it the same thing as the no. of scientists, disciplines, journals increasing?
scientists have lost interest (somewhat) in philosophy.	have they? just recently or since when?
the professionalization and losing interest go hand in hand	what’s the causal link? Birner seems to imply causality
	> “The academic environment has changed and selection pressures have increased greatly.”
the academic environment has changed.
selection pressures have increased.	which selection pressures?
	> “In this new environment, the support of scientists is lacking while the contents of critical rationalism continue to select against the type of personal characteristics that make it possible for individuals to adopt or have access to at least elements of different traditions.”
this new environment is different.	which environment? the one with the journals? the current one? the one that scientists created? the ones that philosophers need to create for their ideas to survive?
scientists aren’t supporting CR much.
there is a type of personal characteristics which are necessary to adopt/access traditions outside CR	wtf
CR’s contents makes it hard for people with those personal characteristics to be part of CR	“[…] the contents of CR continue to select […]”, what are the contents of CR? Is that not CR itself?
access to different traditions is not possible for CR ppl mostly	wtf
	> “The situation of carriers of the tradition of critical rationalism being incapable of adopting or having access to alternative traditions is tantamount to the non-existence of alternative traditions.”
some ppl in CR carry the tradition of CR
if those carriers can’t adopt/access other traditions it is the same as there not being any other traditions
	> “If critical rationalists continue to fail to adopt alternative traditions, or at least elements of them, critical rationalism risks becoming entrenched – and extinct.”
if CR ppl don’t adopt other traditions:
CR will become entrenched	what does entrenched mean here? intuition is the opposite of extinct
CR will become extinct
both will happen.	at the same time? Birner doesn’t use ‘then’ like “entrenched - and then extinct”, so presumably at the same time.

Thought Backlog

Sun, 16 Aug 2020 04:00:00 +1000

conflicts

conflict re: overreaching and discuss disagreements
- pre-emptive reaction to avoid discussion and put on mental backlog
analysing lies application - uncertainty, self-eval
(from 2020-08-12) conflict between idea of structuring things well and having a full idea in your head and trying to get it all out at once.
keeping posts small but replying to lots of points
- breaking up posts is annoying
- so ideally take each discussion one post at a time?
  - doesn’t take advantage of async or talking about multiple things during discussion
  - but can be more efficient if you focus on important things
- check curi.us on discussions

conflict: learning and error rate

The conflict is to do with the relative prioritization activities related to these two ideas:

the idea that working on building blocks and foundations is more efficient; leads to exponential progress with a larger base (like 2^x vs 10^x)
that activities or projects with a higher error (“exploratory learning” sorta thing) are worthwhile or fun (particularly the fun is why we do them, right?)
- counter-examples:
  - trying to do number theory stuff from SICP (via AnneB’s work) – big failure
  - ‘blind trees evening’ as I called it (the thing that prompted me to contact ET about tutoring)

thoughts:

interesting case: doing time limited challenges increases error rate but can be useful for learning quickly
- what’s going on here?
- example: max’s time-limited writing challenges
the more I learn the more intuitive it is to me that powering-up is a priority.

thoughts and ideas and stuff

gerunds can be modified by an adverb
- https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/gerunds.htm
- does fi/grammar say this?
does being unsiklled at FI and trying to manage a backlog become exponentially harder as prioritisation skills decrease?
- like, prioritisation matters for effective FI participation with multiple things, and the more things the more it matters
- so if someone is bad at FI and also bad at prioritisation it’s a really uphill battle
- increased bandwidth (time) means prioritisation is less important, less of a bottleneck
- so more time is one way to get good enough for your prioritisation to get better
- then once prioritisation is better you can manage things at a slower rate with good prioritisation

copied over from [List] Ideas during Analysing Lies 1

why would it be important to be impressive but to not aim to be impressive?
analysing lies redux
- explanation + bg on what I’ve watched
- plan: X hrs a day, do both analysis then comparisons
log my unfinished topics - finish them
reflections on learning FI
- challenge notion of self
- can’t predict problems or pace; if it wasn’t surprising/confronting/causing idea-conflicts you wouldn’t be learning
  - what topics could work well to help ppl getting in to FI
  - write posts (as exercises) about fallibleideas.github.io
add list of unresolved conflicts and track them - get them resolved (tutorial 26 examples; learning and errors; another one…)
how can you go about learning?
how can you actually be impressive instead of looking impressive?
what’s the difference between debating as a debater, and debating as a thinker?
reconsider instantaneous goals
- i.e. instantaneous priorities
  - change “why did I write this?” to “why should I write this?”
practice writing digests of what I learn; post those to site, maybe weekly update to FI?
write post about writing style and how it can be dishonest; simpler is better
- here’s an old example: XXXXX (e.g. IBDD popper’s criterion)
- speaking simply makes hiding lies harder.
- speaker can’t put in the same sort of social signals. it’s harder to tell people what to think with simple language.
- simple language is also easier to read and understand. if you can write complex ideas in simple language, that’s a virtue. it makes it easier to spread good ideas, and it makes the writing more enduring.
- (from AnalyzingLies1; ET) 32:07 where you’re supposed to use bold and simple writing. and make your stuff easy to criticise. (not fancy and confusing)
thoughts on quoting people like goldratt: status, context, synchronising ideas
- context, post about “intellectual response time doesn’t matter; a novel interpretation of the tortoise and the hare as a metaphor for attitudes towards thinking and learning.”
  - quote goldratt: “I’m a bodybuilder”
how to symbols and our ideas about our self interact?
why would rules like always saying “i think” before sentences mean when explaining an idea?
- meaningless, it’s sort of implied anyway
- but also not saying it is (at least sometimes) explicitly removing the “it’s just my opinion” excuse - you’re making a claim about reality by doing that, and reality doesn’t care about your opinion.
- so to refuse to not add “i think” means (at least in part) that you’re refusing to take “it’s just my opinion” off the table as a means to end the discussion irrationally. why would someone do that? well one reason is because they want the excuse there b/c they know they’ll need it.
how would grouping symbols change written english? (if we integrated something with a function like parens in maths / programming)
have a script / flow chart for resolving paths forward style stuff (where the other person has different ideas). you can add stuff like “do I spot a problem with meta / social stuff? yes -> raise that I have a problem, ask if they have methodology to resolve such issues. do they? no -> paths forward, yes -> try that. did it work? no -> paths forward, yes -> leart a new way to resolve conflicts maybe, maybe resolved by luck, either way you can move on and maybe take extra ideas w/ you (okay it’s a long shot).
- you can also say to the person (btw I have a methodology for asking about methodolgies, it’s here if you want to check it out or skip ahead)
- if the person looks at the flow chart and can move to the bit that’s appropriate then it saves dialog time
don’t tell a story (“i was reading blah and thought blah”), tell the idea (“what if blah causes blah? I think it could because blah. Here’s an example: blah”)

August 13th

what is fallible ideas?
- community + living tradition of critical fallibilism
what is the relationship between critical rationalism and critical fallibilism. What are some differences?
- important disagreements exist
why would wanting to be remembered as someone who contributed to a good future be good?
why would wanting to be remembered as someone who contributed to a good future be second handed?
why would wanting to be remembered as someone who contributed to a good future be bad?
AL1: the prioritization of academic politicking indicates Birner thinks success as a philosopher depends on success in academia, which is wrong.
AL1: it’s curious how much i read into both the title and the ellipsis. if they were put there by the guy who posted (need to check source) it shows how much i take good quoting for granted. if it wasn’t CR i think i would have been more sceptical of the quoting quality.
why did overreaching stuff / coming to terms with own problems feel ~confessional before but doesn’t now?
songs to analyse
- santa clause is coming to town (wrt TCS / lying to children)
- call me maybe
- you need to calm down (taylor swift)
- blank space (taylor swift)
- sk8er boi
standard nomenclature for FI posts about flagging stuff you
- overreaching - label for full post
- social signal / social dynamics / static meme - for particular statements or sentences; jokes, all jokes?
  - not all jokes; some are fine e.g. “a preposition is fine to end a sentence with”
- self grading of quality

How can we write to better communicate ideas?

Sat, 15 Aug 2020 20:00:00 +1000

This article was originally written as a 15 minute writing exercise. I’ve since edited it properly, improved some points, and integrated feedback Elliot Temple gave in my tutorial on 14th August 2020.

The original draft is in my “homework” notes for that tutorial. (For comparison, the original draft was ~650 words and this one is ~1200)

When we want to better communicate ideas, we’re saying we want our ideas to be understood by our readers. For an audience to understand your ideas, they need to end up with a fairly good idea of the structure and content. A general method is to build up the main idea using simple or pre-existing ideas. These ideas should either be known already, or be simple enough to explain as you go without disrupting your main idea. If you constrain your writing in this way, your readers will (mostly) follow and understand what you write. It’s impossible to perfectly communicate an idea — especially in a short article — so don’t stress too much about getting things perfect. You might think you already do all this, but you probably have room to improve. So, what techniques should you use and what patterns should you change?

First, you should consider — at a high level — how you’re going to structure the main idea in terms of smaller ideas. When you express ideas as words, you can write the words in a regular and consistent way that matches what people expect. They expect you to introduce new ideas as you go. They expect you to build up to the main idea. People don’t expect you to say everything important in the first sentence or paragraph and then have lots of nitty-gritty details in the rest of the article. If the first paragraph is too confusing they probably won’t even read the rest. After all, if they didn’t understand the first bit, why should they expect to understand the rest?

You should consider what your audience already knows — it’s good to give your audience the credit they deserve. No one likes reading an article full of things they already know. They’re reading it for new ideas. This doesn’t mean you should always avoid things they already know; mentioning them is useful for establishing common ground with your readers. This common ground is a standard foundation for you and the audience to build the idea from. But if you are too simple or repetitive they’ll get bored. Similarly, if you presume too much they will get lost — and maybe angry, in some cases. The best part (for you, the author) is that you don’t have to write much about the common ground; it makes the act of writing easier! So it’s important to know what your audience knows, and write something that’s useful to them.

You should also not be too concerned with what you put down initially, editing and revising are tools you should use. We all make mistakes while writing, but that’s okay — what matters is that we can fix them. Instead of worrying about mistakes, it’s better to keep writing — to maintain flow. This is especially important if you want to write fast. It’s usually better to leave editing to the end because it can be very distracting to do it while you’re writing. The main thing is keep ideas coming, and keep building them up incrementally. If you do this you’ll quickly have hundreds of words that are easy to understand!

You should make sure everything you write has a purpose and aligns with your goals. Your goals are the reasons for writing the article in the first place; the article’s purpose is what it’s meant to do. For example, this article has three goals: practice writing, be a useful reference, and help other people point out things I missed or mistakes I made. The purpose of this article is to accurately communicate the most important things about writing clearly and effectively. If you’re unsure of including something when writing or editing, you can ask yourself: “Is including this idea helping me realise my goals? How does this word or sentence contribute to the purpose of what I’m writing? Does it give the reader a better idea of what I mean, or does it get in the way?” If you can answer these questions, consider if it’s too much detail (that would be boring); if you can’t… taking that bit out is probably a good idea. Keeping things short and tight is good; readers like that.

Sometimes you might want to add a joke, be careful doing this. Jokes can be fun but they can also be dangerous. Jokes rarely make our ideas clearer, and often make things more confusing, not less. If you distract your audience they’re not paying attention to your ideas. Jokes might make us feel smarter, or maybe we hope they make the audience think we’re smarter, but they rarely help in communicating you ideas. (Not to mention: doing things to feel smarter, or so other people think we’re smarter, is a bad reason to do something.) If you add a joke so that your readers like you more, that’s pandering. Jokes don’t typically contribute to the purpose of the article, so it’s best to leave them out if you’re unsure.

While you’re doing all this, remember your goals and that writing can be fun! Don’t get too caught up in the idea of being a good writer or something — it’s too easy to be hard on yourself and overly critical. Instead, remember that you’re writing for a reason, like telling people the ideas you have, or explaining their ideas back to them to check your understanding. Whatever the case may be, remember that if you have fun writing it will be easier to practice and get better. It’s fun to share ideas! Your writing will improve faster if you study some other skills too, like grammar and brainstorming. Nothing is wrong with being a good writer, but there is a problem with aiming for it without other goals.

There are more advanced techniques you can use too (try reading only the first sentence of each paragraph in this article). One method is choosing where key ideas (and optional ideas) fit in a sentence. Ideas that are part of the subject or object of a sentence are the easiest to understand. When you put ideas there, you’re signalling to the reader that they’re the most important part of the sentence. Here’s an example of what not to do: “It’s sadly all too easy to mistakenly find ourselves at the end of sentences after too many prepositions and adverbs feeling stuck and (out of desperation!) finally putting down the main idea”. That last sentence was about finding ourselves somewhere rather than the diminishment of ideas (which was the actual point). Ideas in modifiers (adverbs, adjectives, prepositions, etc) are less important to the sentence than the subject, object or complement, and the primary verb. Similarly, turning a verb into a gerund, infinitive, or participle will diminish the meaning, too (though you could be tricky to get around this, but the result is often confusing). Being capable of these more advanced techniques is one of the motivations to learn some of the other skills I mentioned earlier, like grammar. I’ll need more practice before I can write a good article about these sorts of techniques, though.

Good luck!

If you’d like more to read about writing, here are some posts by Elliot Temple. He’s a better writer than I am and knows more about the topic.

(Discord Log) Self-Analysis for Dishonesty

Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

#Context: JustinCEO used "contractability" in a sentence; a word he made up to talk about how easy it is to add a contraction to a sentence, e.g. `can not` -> `can't`. Some brief discussion around alternative words happens, and Max starts joking about silly alternatives, like "contractionicity factor". Source: https://discordapp.com/channels/304082867384745994/724819412502446091/743488044434456678 # Chat Log: [1:16 AM] Max: oh! even better: `contractionation potential` [1:18 AM] Max: we can write papers like `on the preponderance of contractionation potential among enduring patterns and the metaphiscal consequences for communication and meta-communication into the 22nd centaury` [1:18 AM] Max: someone call steven pinker, he's a linguist right?? [1:20 AM] Max: oh wow, I just found a neat discord feature [1:20 AM] Max: I was going to post: > s/enduring patterns/enduring patterns of language to indicate "search for 'enduring patterns' and replace with 'enduring patterns of language' in the thing I just said" [1:21 AM] Max: anyway, i pressed send and nothing happened. tried again to confirm. then I tried s/right?/right?? and it edited my last msg! [1:22 AM] Max: in this case I don't want the feature on by default because I generally try not to edit posts unless it's immediate and important for ambiguity or something, but in general (outside FI) that's really cool [1:22 AM] JustinCEO: yeah i've used the edit feature multiple times even in this conversation [1:22 AM] JustinCEO: for minor formatting/typo stuff [1:22 AM] Max: the little pencil icon? [1:22 AM] Max: or the s/A/B thing? [1:22 AM] JustinCEO: sorry the s/x/y [1:22 AM] Max: oh man now I feel out of the loop :stuck_out_tongue: [1:23 AM] Max: but super neat to find [1:23 AM] Max: > oh man now I feel out of the loop :stuck_out_tongue: I notice saying things like this sometimes and am unsure if there are bad social dynamics involved. I am thinking of collecting them for later analysis. [1:24 AM] Max: in this case thinking about qs like: "what was the point of saying that?", "should I feel OOTL?", "what am i saying by using that as my response to JM's msg?", etc [1:26 AM] Max: I don't feel bad or guilty just unsure. There are also questions like "how would that make JM feel?" but they're harder to answer and i'm not convinced they're good to ask or i'm asking for the right reasons (I would start reading objectivist stuff, particularly virtual of selfishness, if I was going to prioritise finding out more) [1:33 AM] JustinCEO: i think it's good to examine the meaning of stuff you say [1:34 AM] JustinCEO: i didn't take any particular bad meaning out of the out of the loop thing though i didn't take it as being particularly substantive either. kinda like chit-chatty. and you can question the value of that in general though particular instances can be pretty harmless. curi is much better at analyzing this sort of thing than i am though so he may have a different take, this is very much just IMHO [1:37 AM] Max: > kinda like chit-chatty this seems like the most dangerous sort of thing (like hardest to spot), particularly b/c it is often isn't significant. But i feel like it points to something, and it bothers me that i don't know what it points to or if it's good. [1:37 AM] Max: i know the reason I say most of the stuff I say [1:37 AM] JustinCEO: you may be trying to convey a happy/friendly/cheerful type demeanor [1:38 AM] JustinCEO: that is just my guess [1:38 AM] Max: like the jokes about contractionation potential and writing a stupid paper with steven pinker; if they're bad I know where to start with those things. FTR I'm also not sure about this, but I am not nearly as worried. [1:38 AM] Max: one thing that occurs to me is that it must be relative to have meaning [1:39 AM] Max: like [you did X,] now I do/feel Y [1:39 AM] Max: so it's sort of saying you did something to me, which is sort-of true in that you told me a thing, more like you gave something to me. [1:40 AM] Max: then I reacted with the implication that you sharing knowledge made me feel bad, but that I'm sort of joking about it. the joke is a hedge I think. [1:42 AM] Max: but ultimately if i'm saying that sharing/propagating knowledge, or like: learning someone knew something that was useful to them - which I now know and am glad about because it's useful to me - is somehow a bad thing, or a thing not to be happy about. like that the application and use of knowledge is not okay if i'm not the one to share it; "it should have been me" sort of thing. [1:42 AM] Max: I think that might be where it's coming from [1:45 AM] Max: so the hedging means I know it's not robust, but i still expressed the orig idea. plus: i did so in a socially acceptable manner and expressed an idea that's anti-knowledge / anti-reason (presumably related to the similar anti-reason sentiments kids are heavily exposed to) [1:46 AM] Max: to be clear, when I say 'not robust' I don't mean now in hindsight, I mean what was going through my head at the time. It refers to me doubting something about the idea but expressing it anyway. [1:46 AM] JustinCEO: analysis seems overall reasonable [1:46 AM] JustinCEO: btw one thing u didn't do is ask me e.g. how i found out about discord feature [1:47 AM] JustinCEO: IIRC it was cuz at some point i explicitly went and researched formatting and other Discord options [1:47 AM] JustinCEO: so you talked about feeling out of the loop but didn't try to address the out of the loopness [1:47 AM] JustinCEO: which is interesting [1:48 AM] Max: oh yeah good point! (finishing comments on that little collection of msgs: I'm happy that I managed to find like one feature of what I said (then spotted hedging) and it lead to something reasonable, or at least criticisable (maybe it has high criticisimatory potential)) [1:48 AM] Max: oh the other thing about out of hte loop is re social norms and common knowledge! [1:48 AM] Max: this feels more substantial [1:49 AM] Max: I'm saying "bad JM for knowing about something important that I care about and not telling me, because now I feel like an outsider" [1:49 AM] Max: and that's a bad thing to think [1:50 AM] Max: it's to do with relative social status i recon [1:50 AM] Max: so theres some 'humorous self-deprecation' bad ideas in there too [1:51 AM] Max: I don't think we should be surprised when multiple bad ideas (static memes in this case?) are expressed in small things like the 9 words + 1 emoji I said [1:51 AM] Max: oh man, analysing lies already coming in handy. Can't believe I'm this excited to find dishonesty in a thing I said like 5 min ago [1:55 AM] Max: so to start with, "oh man" I'm expressing regret, sadness, remorse, that sort of thing. it introduces that i'm not feeling good and that it happened recently "now" pointer; indicates blame "I feel" this has affected my internal state, it's changed me, but also regular casual language. but what if I said "I am out of the loop" instead? "feel" -> you did something to me; "am" -> i realised something about myself; so "feel" is anti-personal responsibility "out of the loop" -- indicates relative social status dropped, but particularly because of "feel", it has a different sense with "I am out of the loop", like that I can do something about it by getting back in the loop (my choice) [1:55 AM] Max: the "oh man" has a lot of tone in it [2:01 AM] Max: > someone call steven pinker, he's a linguist right?? One reason this might be bad (different to the silly paper title) is that it might be mean. I'm implying Pinker would be happy or interested or whatever with my silly paper title, mocking him, but I've also analysed some of his writing and it wasn't very good. So I'm unsure if it actually is mean or more like fair satire. [2:10 AM] Max: > One reason this might be bad (different to the silly paper title) is that it might be mean. I'm implying Pinker would be happy or interested or whatever with my silly paper title, mocking him, but I've also analysed some of his writing and it wasn't very good. So I'm unsure if it actually is mean or more like fair satire. Do I think this is okay (even if it is mean) because I think he deserves it? (btw: not sure if I should say something more neutral, like about the ideas i have rather than about me, but i guess it'd be longer and i'm not sure I doubt it'd be valuable or clearer)

Notes | Tutorial 27

Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

homework link

analysing lies session 1: on FI google group, on my site.

feedback

I feel like I am making incredible 1 progress. Like I’ve never made before. The feeling is still similar to the feeling reading BoI, like the excitement of learning new ideas. But this has reach in a way BoI doesn’t because I can do more stuff in the world. BoI doesn’t have that sort of practical knowledge; outside Flux I can can probably count most of the times I’ve applied knowledge from BoI in a significant / pure-ish way. But this, this is something else.

I feel like I’m leveling up.

quickcheck

idea: collect ideas to ask ET about during tutorials (not necessarily first thing b/c might be distracting). they aren’t urgent ideas, but are ideas that I’d want to be mostly-right about. they don’t need to be perfect because I’m not prioritizing them right now, but might later so want to get off on the right foot. also implies ET doesn’t spend too much effort looking for errors, just easy to see ones I can’t.

JM and MK in #tutoring 2020-08-14 (AEST)

Discord link

[1:20 AM] Max: oh wow, I just found a neat discord feature
[1:20 AM] Max: I was going to post: 
> s/enduring patterns/enduring patterns of language
to indicate "search for 'enduring patterns' and replace with 'enduring patterns of language' in the thing I just said"
[1:21 AM] Max: anyway, i pressed send and nothing happened. tried again to confirm. then I tried s/right?/right?? and it edited my last msg!
[1:22 AM] Max: in this case I don't want the feature on by default because I generally try not to edit posts unless it's immediate and important for ambiguity or something, but in general (outside FI) that's really cool
[1:22 AM] JustinCEO: yeah i've used the edit feature multiple times even in this conversation
[1:22 AM] JustinCEO: for minor formatting/typo stuff
[1:22 AM] Max: the little pencil icon?
[1:22 AM] Max: or the s/A/B thing?
[1:22 AM] JustinCEO: sorry the s/x/y
[1:22 AM] Max: oh man now I feel out of the loop :stuck_out_tongue:
[1:23 AM] Max: but super neat to find
[1:23 AM] Max:
> oh man now I feel out of the loop :stuck_out_tongue:
I notice saying things like this sometimes and am unsure if there are bad social dynamics involved. I am thinking of collecting them for later analysis.
[1:24 AM] Max: in this case thinking about qs like: "what was the point of saying that?", "should I feel OOTL?", "what am i saying by using that as my response to JM's msg?", etc
[1:26 AM] Max: I don't feel bad or guilty just unsure. There are also questions like "how would that make JM feel?" but they're harder to answer and i'm not convinced they're good to ask or i'm asking for the right reasons (I would start reading objectivist stuff, particularly virtual of selfishness, if I was going to prioritise finding out more)

did I pick up on something worth investigating and is the direction I suggest a good one?

(note: more developments (and analysis) in discord)

notes on first writing exercise 00:18:00

need good habits (missed in https://xertrov.github.io/fi/notes/2020-08-13-hw/#how-can-you-write-to-better-communicate-to-people-generally)

That doesn’t mean you should not say things they don’t already know; that’s useful for getting your audience on the same page with you.

(need to find ilnk / timestamp here)

00:38:00

fi is an honest community

careful attributing to community, not everyone is like that even though the community / ideas encourage it.

00:62:00 (and 5 min earlier) - analyzing lies

for next AL session: do more quickly - don’t spend time on Birner
rate quality of arguments after the fact, like go back and add [8/10] before a point or paragraph
- self eval
- accuracy - don’t falsely underrate
when i make a claim “woudl I be surprised?” if yes -> significant thing you can learn from
- 65 min
self-grading method discussed in [Tutoring Max 27] at ~65-70min.

Developing a Conversation/Writing Metadata

Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

I want to use some standardised symbology to flag important metadata in stuff I say. I think this would be helpful for me while writing and learning, and it will be helpful for anyone reading what I write because it provides useful information. Adding this sort of information in English: is cumbersome, makes standards harder to design, and is susceptible to misinterpretation and drift. Using symbols is much simpler. Symbols are: easier to design, less intrusive, makes it clearer that rules and patterns both exist and are being used, and allow us to work with higher level concepts easily. They also let us easily use programming to generate info/stats about one’s posts (here or on a blog).

I am very interested in feedback on this – it isn’t very meaningful if I’m the only one using it.

Why would something like this be good or help discussion / writing quality? If we do this well the patterns will have reach and thus many benefits. Authors benefit from considering what they’re writing as they’re writing it. This would give them more opportunities to notice errors and fix them early, and makes reflecting on one’s writing a background task which improves explicit reflection done later on. Readers benefit from additional data about which parts are important, precise, or essential (and which parts aren’t). Readers providing criticism benefit because they can more effectively target problem areas and judge the utility of criticism. Standard patterns also provide general information about the effort the author made or their intent; they add info about how important the topic is to the author and other reflections of the authors goals. It also helps people prevent suppressing errors dishonestly by giving them a way to say the thing without worrying too much.

I have a preliminary list of things it should flag.

Overreaching - straightforward I think; I tried this at least once on the list using [OR]. One should probably consider why they’re bothering to do the thing if it’s marked with [OR], but flagging is a first step, at least. (I personally found overreaching ‘hard to come to terms with’ and I expect that to be prototypical.)
Social Dynamics - marks things we say where we don’t know why; when there’s a reason we don’t understand for why we said it; etc. It’s a particular type of hedging with extra info. I think it could work well at the end of sentences; like the last thing you type before you press .
- Could this make people care less b/c they don’t have to worry as much? Solution: it’s not an excuse for what you say, it’s an indication you doubt that it’s genuine/good/honest/etc.
Confidence in quality of claims - It provides context for feedback and criticism. Criticising someones 2/10 over their 8/10 doesn’t make much sense if you think there are problems with both. It indicates where the higher marginal utility feedback is (provided the author didn’t miss something).
Explicit grouping - Trying to express a complex or new idea can be hard, sometimes. This is just an explicit additional tool to help remove grammar overhead, it might also point out issues w/ grouping or sentence structure during the writing process.
Approximation - ~ works well for words, but is confusing with phrases. Adding “or something like that” feels tiresome when I want to speak casually about something.
Hedging - similar to approximation (always the same?); indicates the author wouldn’t be surprised if something was wrong, that they have a low barrier to doubt the statement, or that it plays a nonessential role, etc. Depending on context it could indicate that relevant criticism is very valuable (quick/easy error correction), or not very valuable (because it’s nonessential).

How should we integrate it in what we write? I think adding it directly to the text is best, and standardising it means we can develop patterns to avoid metadata getting in the way. It’s even less intrusive if we keep the symbols short.

Should we change anything about how we write to make patterns/symbols more useful or easier to read? I think there are some things we could do (easily!) that would provide a lot of benefit or make it easier to standardise a symbology.

One sentence, one line. I do this regularly when I write posts in markdown and it makes some things much easier (there isn’t much downside). You can move lines up/down easily. It makes lines that are too long very obvious. You can split a sentence over two+ lines to make it easier to write and parse. Sentences always start on a new line. Example: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/XertroV/fi/master/docs/_tutorials/2020-08-13-hw.md
- We can add symbols to the beginning of lines like this for medium-grain resolution.
- It is easier to quote ppl sometimes, too, esp. if replying in the middle of a paragraph.
We could standardise lists, layout, sections, etc (like markdown but more specific). I’m not sure what sort of variation FI posts have on this already, though.
Are there other changes we should make?

I am developing some ideas on what sort of symbols to use and where. I’ll share those soon. I think [4/10] at the beginning of a line would be a decent place to start with flagging confidence (though square brackets can be overloaded).

If we had good standards, should they be required or enforced? I don’t think so. One reason is that some people write well enough that this information isn’t helpful, this is a small case, though. More broadly: we have some standards that are enforced, e.g. quotations and subject lines (adding was:). These both have to do with meaning, content, topic, etc. Crucial things. The symbol types I’m suggesting provide ancillary data, so they should be voluntary and not be enforced.

Would you use something like this?

Is it worth developing more?

Would you find it useful if other ppl used it?

Is it obvious I’ve tried some particular patterns with this email? Can you guess what they are?

I have two things on my todo list about this idea:

Write a paragraph or some stuff about “Who should use this, when is it useful?”
Develop some draft ideas about particular symbols to use.

Things I forgot to put in the FI post (will add to follow up):

categories for things, like [AL] for analyzing lies (no reason not to take it beyond the material ET provided in the OP)

Birner Quote

Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:00:00 +1000

Full quote

INDIVIDUALISTS AND THE MOB: CAN CRITICAL RATIONALISM SURVIVE?

“By its very nature, critical rationalism attracts philosophers who believe in the force of critical argument. Let us assume (realistically, I think) that the type of personality with a firm belief in the power of criticism is less prone than the average academic to devote resources to the social networking and academic politicking that are needed to create an environment in which his or her intellectual offspring can survive…

“Until recently not only philosophers but some (outstanding) practising scientists (who are more likely to cultivate the social conditions that are necessary to carry on with their work), too, supported critical rationalism. This allowed critical rationalism to become a tradition for at least a couple of generations. In the mean time, however, the number of scientific disciplines, journals and scientists has increased. The professionalization of science has gone hand in hand with a drop in interest in philosophy on the part of scientists. The academic environment has changed and selection pressures have increased greatly. In this new environment, the support of scientists is lacking while the contents of critical rationalism continue to select against the type of personal characteristics that make it possible for individuals to adopt or have access to at least elements of different traditions. The situation of carriers of the tradition of critical rationalism being incapable of adopting or having access to alternative traditions is tantamount to the non-existence of alternative traditions. If critical rationalists continue to fail to adopt alternative traditions, or at least elements of them, critical rationalism risks becoming entrenched – and extinct.”

Jack Birner, ‘From Group Selection to Ecological Niches,’ in ‘Rethinking Popper,’ ed. Zuzana Parusnikova.

Notes on spoilers from the start of AL1

ET talks about these things (that I remember) at the beginning:

use of words like “force” and “power”
“let us assume” - anti-popperian academese
“type of personality” - ‘belief in the power of criticism’ is not a personality trait

Analysis

INDIVIDUALISTS AND THE MOB: CAN CRITICAL RATIONALISM SURVIVE?

are individualists pitted against the mob? is it adversarial? is the mob anyone other than “us”? is this a false dichotomy?

the idea of CR surviving or not implies a fight or something. does this fight have anything to do with CR?

This is just the title so maybe this is all explained in the body. We’ll come back to this at the end to re-evaluate it.

By its very nature, critical rationalism attracts philosophers who believe in the force of critical argument.

Claiming that a quality like this is intrinsic to CR is dishonest for a few reasons:

CR is an idea in people’s heads; you can’t be attracted to it before you understand it (at least in part)
CR isn’t intrinsically attractive like this; philosophers aren’t flies and CR isn’t rotting meat. You could say “by its very nature, rotting meat attracts flies” (provided you have an atmosphere for smells to work, etc)
To portray CR like this is anti-criticism; if I were to disagree it would be obvious to the author that I didn’t understand CR because I’m disagreeing with something that is “by its very nature”. This is like using “obvious” and similar words; most of the time they’re used to dismiss criticisms rather than because something really is obvious.
- Furthermore: since CR is an idea made by people (or the ideas in CR are; w/e) to imply that it’s intrinsic to CR is to imply that CR was built to be attractive in this way. I don’t think that was the case, rather CR was an idea that Popper went with because there was no other alternative. CR doesn’t need to be attractive to have people adopt it, it just needs to be their only option because nothing else is good enough. It’s philosophers’ integrity that compels them to take CR seriously, not that it’s attracting them like some siren.
Why specify only philosophers? Does it not attract anyone else? What about people who become philosophers because of ideas from CR; surely they were attracted for some other reason (like me, maybe)
- CR has reach, and it’s reach is not that it’s attractive - it’s something different. It follows: If we want to call it’s thing that’s special “attraction”, then it’s attractive to people who aren’t philosophers, and it’s not attractive to many philosophers - evidently being a philosopher isn’t that important. Positioning it in the way Birner does is dishonest because it misrepresents CR and CR’s place in the world, and is condescending to anyone who disagrees or isn’t a philosopher just b/c they disagree / aren’t a philosopher. All those things are anti-CR and thus dishonest for Birner to be saying.
  - Comment: I’m all riled up now. Fuck this guy.
If you like CR but disagree with “force of critical argument” Birner implies you either aren’t a philosopher or don’t understand CR. Again, this is anti-CR, anti-Popper, anti-DD, anti-ET.
Maybe Birner explains “critical argument” somewhere, but I don’t think this is right. What he means is more like ‘efficacy of persuasive reasoning which is resistant to criticism’. The phrase “critical argument” is too broad; he should know better.
- Using language like this would clash with “force” though, b/c persuasion isn’t forceful (well, at least not the type we’re concerned with). If he stuck with ‘critical argument’ so he could use the word “force” that’d be dishonest, too, b/c he’s prioritising something less meaningful and not relevant to CR over actual essential bits, which especially in this context is wicked.

Birner implies criticism is somehow forceful, which it isn’t. This misrepresents reality, panders to anti-rational memes like speech-as-violence, and signals that he’s being moral or virtuous because he’s acknowledging ‘great power, great responsibility’ or similar ideas — all of which are dishonest and anti-Popper.

This is all particularly bad because it’s from a publication; i.e. something you’re meant to put more effort into so that it’s high quality and enduring. Birner doesn’t have an excuse of being casual, every word should be carefully chosen and considered with something like this.

ET suggested value and effective as replacement words for “force”; I think a better one is reach. Not only is it an idea that originated (or at least was developed in large part) from CR, but it’s more accurate too.

What is Birner saying by using “force”? There are two other meanings of the word which are more common than its definition similar to ‘effective’:

the application of violence, power, non-consent, etc (like ET uses it with the phrase “initiation of force”)
a method of transferring energy intrinsic to the universe (like a physical force)

I think Birner is dishonestly referencing both here: defn (1) is reflected in his ‘dismissal of criticism’ things I mention earlier, and defn (2) is being used to imply that the other things he’s said are intrinsic to the universe and undeniable like physical forces are undeniable. (Someone, somewhere, might try to deny physical forces exist, but I bet the won’t if you drag them to the edge of a bridge and threaten to push them off.) Both of these implications are either dishonest and anti-CR OR they reflect the fact he was careless with word choice which means he’s a bad philosopher.

Note: it might take me some time to get through this if I have this much to say on the rest. I have a printout of this quote with lots of marks and arrows and things. The only mark on this line was an oval around “force”.

Let us assume

Dishonest b/c it’s a misrepresentation of self (he believes it, it’s only put as a hypothetical to adhere to social expectations). If he wanted to deal with it as a hypothetical while also believing it is true, there are ways to write that well. Just adding the parenthetical “(I think it’s true)” does a lot to improve this, unfortunately though…

Let us assume (realistically, I think)

Birner continues to be dishonest by now saying that whatever follows is a realistic assumption, not that it’s a good conclusion or something robust.

Let us assume (realistically, I think) that the type of personality with a firm belief in the power of criticism is less prone than the average academic to devote resources to the social networking and academic politicking that are needed to create an environment in which his or her intellectual offspring can survive…

Personality type has nothing to do with “belief in the power of criticism”; that belief is an idea and can be explained with rationality - no personality stuff required (tho Birner might claim rationality is a personality trait too). To imply that belief (and being interested in philosophy schools he approves of, more generally) is a personality trait is also to condemn those ppl Birner thinks don’t have it (which is anti-DD, anti-FI, etc, again) — the dishonesty is particularly evident when considering why he would talk about personality at all?

If you could change your personality using only ideas (which you can) it means that someone could want to know more about philosophy and choose to change their personality to facilitate that. This is a problem because then someone can be interested in CR for bigger and better reasons than b/c their personality told them to be. Presumably being interested in this stuff for reasons other than being God’s chosen one would be a crisis for Birner. If it wouldn’t be a crisis he could have just said some of the actual reasons instead of deferring to personality. The fact that he didn’t say any substantial reason why people would care about good philosophy means he probably doesn’t have one. He’s misrepresenting himself as someone who understands this (and personality stuff), and other people and why they’d be interested in good philosophy, which is especially egregious.

“firm belief” is dishonestly amplifying the significance of the belief and the rest of the sentence while pandering to ideas that his intended audience hold about themselves. They are Jerrys.

“less prone” — well, evidently the belief isn’t that important then because it’s not even dominant in whether people avoid politicking or not. Why bring it up then? Birner is signalling to his Jerrys that it’s okay for them to think of themselves as superior and above all that (without properly understanding it) even though society generally frowns upon people who say that outright. It’s the ‘wink and a nod’ secret signal type thing. I doubt the audience is particularly aware of this at all, even if they do realise they think themselves above all that because of some belief.

Aside: It’s pejorative of me to refer to his audience as Jerrys, but I’m not sure that’s bad. Should I be unhappy about doing that?

“the type of personality with a firm belief in the power of criticism is less prone than the average academic to […]” — is a comparison between personality types and academics; two possibilities I can see:

No point about dishonesty, just incompetence. He presumably means ‘the type of person with the personality trait of having a firm …’.
From an english lit point of view he’s using a technique called synecdoche to refer to the whole via a part. In this case the whole of each of his audience via the part of them which is the referenced personality trait. Dishonesty: social signalling; false sophistication; lack of dedication to ideas; inappropriate poetic license.

“average academic” as the object of comparison falsely makes the claim that being “gifted” via this personality trait means you are less likely (b/c of that trait) to do politicking than half of all academics. Not only does that include way more people than just academics, it’s not based in reason. Memes aside, whether people do stuff like politicking can change much more easily than their personality. Moreover, ppl who consistently avoid politicking do so for deep reasons, not because a part of their personality tells them to. When someone deliberately avoids doing it even though they think both that they could do it well and that doing so would be advantageous* for them, they’re avoiding that behaviour because they value avoiding that behaviour. They have reasons to, e.g. put their integrity before shallow attempts at ladder-climbing. Not only is Birner dishonestly avoiding this acknowledgement (presumably because it would be hard to swallow), he’s dishonestly representing himself as an expert on morality. He isn’t b/c he’s missed all the big-ticket items like integrity and principles; not to mention whatever the equivalent of ludo-narrative harmony is for academics and their work. (I think his dishonesty might be infectious; I’m concept-dropping a youtube meme instead of just saying ‘not to mention the value for an academic (particularly a philosopher) to live the consequences of their ideas; for their life and work to be harmonious’.)

*: I don’t like using the word advantageous here b/c compromising your integrity is rarely advantageous. I’m using it loosely to mean a very shallow and short-term view of advantageous. I’m choosing to leave it with only an asterisk in the sentence because I had parentheticals before and after the word to help clarify, and they just got in the way.

“devote resources” — dishonest indirection; pandering by making the audience feel better about the times they did the bad things.

“politicking” — In general this isn’t a common word, and usually associated with particular topics (and a particular side of those topics). He’s signalling that he’s one of the intellectuals that thinks the right things, like French Aristocrats should be beheaded, or that he disapproves of the bourgeoisie, or something.

“social networking and academic politicking” — he uses two terms here, one of which is common, the other is academese. He didn’t need to use two, and presumably included the second for the extra social points. Social networking is a bit more specific than politicking, though, since it includes stuff like trying to meet new people (which is fine, and arguably a responsible thing for an academic to do from time to time). The other reason he includes the second term is that it gives context to the social networking, indicating it’s that type of social networking (not the good kind). Presumably he could have said ‘social manipulation’ instead of both those terms — seems a fairly close match for his intended meaning — but that might make his audience feel a bit alienated (not to mention cause conflicts in his own mind about his behaviour). he doesn’t want to alienate his audience though (pandering) so cushions it to them and himself with further dishonesty (the signalling pseudo-intellectual bits).

“intellectual offspring” — ideas aren’t children. There’s a reason ‘ideas die in our place’; it’s so that people don’t. Screw you Birner for misrepresenting Popper (and CR) like that. That’s actually upsetting me, now.

Popper’s way of putting it was “Let our conjectures, our theories, die in our stead!” (note: I’m not sure if that’s original to him or not).

“needed” as in “… politicking that are needed to create …” — he’s dishonestly claiming that it is a requirement of enduring ideas that they are created (or at least recorded) via the gains of social manipulation. That is: an environment (i.e. social situation) for ideas to persist must be created by manipulating people. Maybe he thinks this because his ideas are bad, so people need to be manipulated? This idea of his is definitely bad.

I don’t know why there’s an ellipsis at the end of this, either. The thought is complete (as a sentence) so it’s not to indicate an interruption. It might be used like a colon: leading into the following thought. Using an ellipsis could just be a social signal of sophistication or laziness, though. I don’t think it’s done for the mystery or the… dramatic pause! I think it’s a social signal, combined with a slightly opaque “let’s see where this assumption goes” type thing. The problem with the “let’s see where this assumption goes” is that it doesn’t go anywhere. Birner goes on (after this quote) to make some claims and try to explain some things which makes the “let’s see where this goes” dishonest b/c it’s manipulating the reader into thinking Birner is being fairer than he is.

He could also be representing false sorrow or false regret. e.g. Alas, poor Yorik, that we live in such a time whence corruption is necessitated by the villainous visage of vicissitude which plagues mine enterprise of passion. That I should be sprack again; thenceforth I could slay the beast. Alack alack. (player bows)

I’m going to leave it there. I’m quite tired and it’s been maybe 2.5-3 hrs of writing so far. The last 30-60 min has been low-output tho.

Next time:

the following paragraph of the quote provided for contextual before the actual source material
don’t forget to re-evaluate the title
once the quote is done, do pass 2 and 3

other stuff I remembered:

check the relationships of all the prepositions and things in sentence 2. there’s some weird stuff there.

update after tutorial 27: going to leave Birner’s quote there and go to next section.

Analyzing Lies

Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:00:00 +1000

I’m going to go through the Analyzing Lies material again. Here is my plan:

Follow ET’s 3-pass method he mentions in AL1 (Analyzing Lies 1.mp4 from ET’s grammar pack around 00:10:15; I’ll refer to this series of videos as AL1 through AL6)
- Oh apparently ET posted it too; maybe in his analysis? (the RSP analysis thread)
Avoid watching ET’s analysis till after doing the analysis myself
- Avoid revisiting anyone else’s analysis too
- I’ve had some new spoilers from the first 30 min or so of AL1. It only covers the first few lines of Birner’s quote, though.
  - I didn’t realise the reason ET covers that quote is b/c Justin did, but I think it’d be good to do so I’m going to start there (plus I don’t think I did that in 2017).
- I probably remember a bit from doing some analysis of Lulie’s post in 2017 but don’t think it’ll get in the way much.
  - Most of the emails and answers in the thread are unread, so not too worried about that either.
Do the analysis in chunks according to the order in the AL_ videos.
Try to chunk things as small as reasonably possible. In the first case I think it’d be just the Birner quote first (the entire thing). The second chunk will probably be LT’s post. And the third: the RSP’s post.
After analysing a chunk I’ll watch the corresponding next part of the AL_ video. While doing this I’ll take notes to compare between my analysis and the analysis in the video (which, in the first case, is both JM’s analysis and ET’s analysis). In any case this should cover most bases.
- Presumably I’ll also be talking with ET about this during my tutorials, will try to link them each time.
I’ll post to a new thread and prioritise posting over editing/cleaning up my analysis.
- Ideally posting before watching the next chunk.
- I’ll also post it to https://xertrov.github.io/fi/analyzing-lies/
I’m also going to try and not edit my answers too much. It’s more valuable for me and you (readers in general) if I react honestly rather than trying to touch it up too much after the fact. I’m putting this here because I think I’ve already done this twice, and it feels dishonest to take those things out.
I’m going to use the self-grading method discussed in [Tutoring Max 27] (link soon) at ~70min.

Three pass method

First pass: in detail; stuff like which prepositions modify which things, meaning of individual words, find the detail of what is going on, etc. Nitty gritty.
Second pass: start to summarise what’s going on, get a short version that covers all the main issues (ET gives examples like ‘book plugging’ and ‘bragging’ in AL1). You don’t need to be super precise on this one because you already have all the details from pass 1 in mind.
Third pass: no quoting, high level and overall comments; summary and comments.

Analyzing Lies posts

Homework | Tutorial 26

Thu, 13 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Analyzing Lies

Post re: first 2 lines

15 min writing exercise parameters

Idea:

break answering Qs down into 15 min
- 2 min planning
- 10 min writing
- 3 min editing
it’s ‘bite sized’ but better than the 1+5 minute thing I did last time (since that was too short)
maybe longer overall or difference balances between stages can work but this is a good starting point
- can iterate

how can you write to better communicate to people generally?

(Update: I’ve written this out as a full article which is about twice as long.)

put ideas down
explain self
make sure complete sentences
each sentence an idea
build up ideas, snowball them
plan out first so you know where to start and where to go
don’t put too much in one sentence
keep audience in mind
- you’re writing for a goal
to communicaate better the audience is the important thing, their ability to understand is how you judge how well you did
don’t stop if you get stuck
you can always edit stuff
a timer helps me b/c i can’t stop
so i don’t think too much on one thing
you need to think about how much readers know
what’s appropriate fro them
because they shouldn’t need to learn anything
but should understand what you say
so too much detail is bad
but not enough is bad too , or too long

When we want to communicating better, we’re saying we want to make sure the ideas we write down are understandable and understood by other people. For an audience to understand your ideas they need to be able to read what you wrote once through and have a fairly good idea of the structure and content. That means you need to build up your new idea using simple ideas that the person already knows - or ideas they’ve already mastered. If you constrain your writing in this way, your readers will be able to follow and understand everything you write. You might think you already do this, but if you’re reading this, you probably have room to improve. So what should you change to do this better?

You should consider - at a high level - how you’re going to structure things. When you put ideas down on paper, you can put them down in a regular and consistent way that matches what people expect. People don’t expect you to say everything important in the first paragraph and then have lots of nitty-gritty details in all the other paragraphs. They expect you to introduce new ideas through the entire article. They expect you to build up to what you want to say, not to say it all at once in confusing language and then not explain it in the rest of the article. If it’s too confusing to start with they probably won’t even read the rest. If they couldn’t understand your first sentence, why should they think they can understand the rest of them?

You should consider what your audience already knows. It’s good to give your audience the credit they deserve. No one likes reading an article but having things they already know repeated to them. They want to go there for new ideas. That doesn’t mean you should not say things they don’t already know; that’s useful for getting your audience on the same page with you. This gives a standard foundation for you both to build the idea from. But if you are too simple or repetitive in your language they’ll get bored. Similarly, if you presume they know too much they will get lost (and maybe angry too, depending on the context). So it’s important to know what your audience knows, and write something that’s useful to them.

You should also not be too concerned with what you put down initially. We all make mistakes while writing, but that’s okay – what matters is that we can fix them. For example, in this writing exercise i’ve spent 6.5 minutes writing so far (out of 10), so you can get a lot done in a few minutes. it’s important to keep the pace up if you want to write fast. it’s also better to leave editing to the end – I have allocated 3 minutes after finishing writing – because it’s very distracting to do it while you’re writing. the main thing is keep ideas coming, and keep building them up incrementally. if you do this you’ll quickly have hundreds of words that are easy to understand! (Don’t worry if you need a bit of practice, I did too, and I’m not even that good at it yet)

you should make sure everything you write has a purpose. you can ask yourself: how does this word or sentence add to the goal of what I’m writing? does it help the reader get a better idea of what I mean? or does it get in the way? if you put extraneous detail in, you’ll lose people as they get bored. so keeping things short and tight is good; readers like that.

While you’re doing all this, remember that writing can be fun! don’t get too caught up in the idea of being a good writer or something. if you have fun writing your writing will get better. nothing is wrong with being a good writer, the problem is aiming for it.

fin

reflection

I didn’t have enough time to edit - it’s much slower than writing. Even just going back and changing sentences to capital letters was more than 30s. Considering each of my sentences was on a new line, it was much easier for me, now, than it would be for most ppl with a word processor. maybe more editing?

what is fallible ideas?

FI is a communitiy
philosophy focused
formed b/c TCS / FoR list -> BoI list -> FI
it’s the living tradition of best CR version
is there a link to popper via associates? (where they overlap life wise)
fi is an honest community
CF, objectivisim, econ (goldratt and mises)
learning
overreaching
lots of good new concepts for ppl to learn
you can learn most of the ideas elsewhere, but not all of them in one place
- they’re spread out
critcisim matters
ET maintains community / websites

Fallible Ideas is a living tradition of Critical Fallibilism. It’s a community of people who like to think and talk about things using epistemology from CF. This community is a living tradition of the ideas in CF. There are direct links back to influential thinkers, like DD, KP, and AR.

One important part of

commentary

stopped here - that was 3 min 37 sec. MUCH slower than the one above.

speed reflects how much knowledge i have? how clear it is?

going too slow means -> find diff topics, or learn more about this one

b/c i’m overreaching

evidence of not overreaching would be writing constantly - like when your thoughts go faster than writing

if your thoughts go slower than your writing then it means you’re either putting GREAT care into what you’re saying (this is okay) or you’re writing on a topic that’s too hard for you (this isn’t okay).

doing the latter isn’t okay because your ER is higher and you will spend LOTS more time (not just a bit more time)

but you could - alternatively - spend time on skills / learning ideas that make the main thing easier to write about

those skills also make LOTS of other things easier - they have reach

so it’s typically unwise to try things beyond your capacity like that b/c your time efficiency is much lower

you wont’ be able to do as much, influence as many people, develop ideas and learn as much, etc.

in short: you wont’ have as good a life.

ifyou want a good life you should make sure the things you do most of the time are fast and easy for you

then you can do them on autopilot and your brain can focus on other things - more creative things

if you care about ideas then this should help you be happier because you have more mental resources to spend on stuff that matters to you, rather than on trying to do things that are too hard.

Structural changes to how this site works

Thu, 13 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

I’ve made some structural changes under the hood - particularly using jekyll collections to group stuff. I’ve tried to keep all the permalinks the same and things.

Previously the just-the-docs theme accessed everything via site.html_pages which was slower to compile and more of a pain to do category based things.

Also, by default documents in _posts didn’t show up anywhere, which I wanted to fix.

Notes | Tutorial 26

Wed, 12 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Notes on homework
1. on max’s summary at start
exercises during tutorial
previous possible exercises - not done (was previous homework)

Notes on homework

on max’s summary at start

goal isn’t trivial if it includes audience
why do ppl swim
- ‘people swim for lots of reasons’ - better to omit this sentence
- ‘voluntary’ sentence doesn’t add much
- ‘concrete sides of a pool’ largely irrelevant to ‘why do people swim’
tides

tides argument breakdown:

moon pulls on water
some water is pulled more than other water
the water that is pulled the most changes as the moon orbits the earth spins
the sun works similarly to the moon but weaker
aimless writing due in part to not picking problems that are relatable.

timestamp: 00:39:00

big complex ideas are tricky to share
- better to unpack into components
- what chunks can people understand at once time? (that’s a sentence)

shoes contrast:

(Max) These kinds of shoes might not make life easier for the wearer, and even cause them pain or deform the foot over long periods of consistent wear.
- talking about making life easier; point about pain auxiliary
(Elliot) People care enough about fashion to wear shoes that actually hurt their feet.
- want to indicate fashion prioritised over utility

conflict between idea of structuring things well and having a full idea in your head and trying to get it all out at once.

fix issues with sessions 1-3

pick relevant problems; ones I care about more
keep goal of the exercise in mind

exercises during tutorial

how to use a microwave

Microwaves can be used to heat up food and liquids. If your food is frozen you will need to put it in for longer.

You need to make sure there isn’t any metal (like foil, or spoons) with the food you’re going to put in there. If there’s metal in the microwave while it’s on it will spark.

You use the microwave by putting your food (inside a container or on a plate) in the microwave. Then you close the door and choose settings like power level and time. When you’re done you press the “go” button.

The microwave should now make a buzzing sound while the timer counts down. When it’s done the microwave will go “bing” (or make some other sound) and your food will be hot – if you left it in there for long enough. Be careful though, it might be so hot that it burns you. It’s good to let it cool down before you eat it.

brainstorming solns: microwave broke: how do I cook dinner

fix microwave (might be possible if like the door got jammed)
use alternate heat source you’d typically find in a kitchen
- stove top with a pan
- oven
eat cold dinner (like salad)
eat at a restaurant or get take out (someone else cooks for you)
ask your neighbour if you can borrow their microwave (take your food there)
collect fire wood and start a small fire (preferably outside)
- (not a sub-point) have breakfast instead (derivative: cold dinner)
eat something that doesn’t require preparation, like fruit or leftovers

brainstorming: brainstorming topics

a thing you have which you reply on breaks, what do?
what to do when you’re sad?
how to do brainstorming
why is it good to brainstorm before writing things down in sentences and paragraphs?
how do I solve a problem I have?
how can we generate infinite numbers of derivative ideas from a single starting point?
where did the universe come from?
how do alpacas communicate
how do you teach a dog to play the piano (like a small one with ~7 keys)
(getting out of the way) can you write music in text and play it through midi things
how do you compress video?
why should I care about brainstorming?
how do you get your mind to not think about meta things when it keeps thinking about meta things?
how do you get songs out of your head?
how to tell if your ideas are good
how to convince other ppl they are
figuring out why a project failed
figuring out how you could avoid that a failure

brainstorming: getting a date with a stripper

presumably we’re not talking about just paying her
so you need to convince her to go on a date with you
- why would she want to?
  - she wants to feel good about herself?
  - she wants something other than sex from a relationship? (like presumably that’s in surplus)
    - so you could like appeal to that?
    - how to do that so you don’t come off as lame
    - is this something she actually wants?
  - you could convince her that you’ll love and cherish her forever and have lots of money and things
- you could intimidate her into going on a date
- you could just try and pay her - even though i said above that was excluded
  - she might?
- you could like just ask her too, without trying the above
step back
- research strippers - since that’s a defining characteristic, why do they do that? what do they get out of it? are there any dominant themes you could play to?
- research who strippers don’t date.
- once you know more about strippers in general you can learn about all the strippers close to you
  - you probably want to pick one you like anyway
  - more strippers means more chances one will say yes
  - but you don’t want to just ask them all in a bunch, you want to figure out how to make the best one say yes to a date (well, that’s not explicitly part of the goal)
- learn about women in general, too (presuming you’re going after a female stripper)
  - maybe male strippers are easier dates? could work
  - but things that work in general for women are likely to work for female strippers
attract her

budgeting

budgeting is managing your money which means knowing how much you’re earning and how much you’re spending (and on what). The point of budgeting is - in the sort term - to avoid being broke and to make sure you save a bit. The long term point of budgeting is to build up a significant amount of wealth so you don’t have to spend as much time working or doing things you don’t want to – financial freedom.

Lots of ways to do budgeting have been developed by people, but they rely on the same foundations. There are specialised software or books to help with budgeting if you don’t want to make spreadsheets from scratch. These are good if you don’t have much experience with budgeting because they give you a well-tested framework to start with. Over time you can adjust and customise how you budget to better suit your lifestyle.

if your goal is long term financial freedom it’s important to understand the theoretical side of how saving money works. For example: did you know that the time it will take you to retire is directly proportional to the proportion of income you save? This is because you only need to survive on the income you don’t save. If you live on less income you don’t need as much money to generate passive income enough to completely replace income from labour.

If your goal is to avoid being broke every month and not live pay cheque to pay cheque then you don’t need to worry about that now. You should focus instead on “balancing” your budget: making sure you know how much you’re going to spend ahead of time and that you don’t overspend. That way you can start to build up a safety net. After that you can worry about the long term stuff.

previous possible exercises - not done (was previous homework)

What are good rain clothes?

how to use a dictionary

how to make a milk shake

why does rain fall down but clouds stay up

how to learn to touch-type

where does the trees get material from to make its branches and leaves

why do we need to drink water?

what are scissors for?

how to use post-it notes for task management

how do speakers work?

what is a VHS tape?

What is alphabetical order?

How do you write good Google searches?

How do you backup a computer?

How do you use a stove?

How do trees get energy to grow?

[List] Ideas during Analysing Lies 1

Wed, 12 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

why would it be important to be impressive but to not aim to be impressive?
analysing lies redux
- explanation + bg on what I’ve watched
- plan: X hrs a day, do both analysis then comparisons
log my unfinished topics - finish them
reflections on learning FI
- challenge notion of self
- can’t predict problems or pace; if it wasn’t surprising/confronting/causing idea-conflicts you wouldn’t be learning
  - what topics could work well to help ppl getting in to FI
  - write posts (as exercises) about fallibleideas.github.io
add list of unresolved conflicts and track them - get them resolved (tutorial 26 examples; learning and errors; another one…)
how can you go about learning?
how can you actually be impressive instead of looking impressive?
what’s the difference between debating as a debater, and debating as a thinker?
reconsider instantaneous goals
- i.e. instantaneous priorities
  - change “why did I write this?” to “why should I write this?”
practice writing digests of what I learn; post those to site, maybe weekly update to FI?
write post about writing style and how it can be dishonest; simpler is better
- here’s an old example: XXXXX (e.g. IBDD popper’s criterion)
- speaking simply makes hiding lies harder.
- speaker can’t put in the same sort of social signals. it’s harder to tell people what to think with simple language.
- simple language is also easier to read and understand. if you can write complex ideas in simple language, that’s a virtue. it makes it easier to spread good ideas, and it makes the writing more enduring.
- (from AnalyzingLies1; ET) 32:07 where you’re supposed to use bold and simple writing. and make your stuff easy to criticise. (not fancy and confusing)
thoughts on quoting people like goldratt: status, context, synchronicity
- context, post about “intellectual response time doens’t matter; a novel interpretation of the tortise and the hare as a metaphor for attitudes towards thinking and learning.
  - quote goldratt: “I’m a bodybuilder”
how to symbols and our ideas about our self interact?
why would rules like always saying “i think” before sentences mean when explaining an idea?
- meaningless, it’s sort of implied anyway
- but also not saying it is (at least sometimes) explicitly removing the “it’s just my opinion” excuse - you’re making a claim about reality by doing that, and reality doesn’t care about your opinion.
- so to refuse to not add “i think” means (at least in part) that you’re refusing to take “it’s just my opinion” off the table as a means to end the discussion irrationally. why would someone do that? well one reason is because they want the excuse there b/c they know they’ll need it.
how would grouping symbols change written english? (if we integrated something with a function like parens in maths / programming)
have a script / flow chart for resolving paths forward style stuff (where the other person has different ideas). you can add stuff like “do I spot a problem with meta / social stuff? yes -> raise that I have a problem, ask if they have methodology to resolve such issues. do they? no -> paths forward, yes -> try that. did it work? no -> paths forward, yes -> leart a new way to resolve conflicts maybe, maybe resolved by luck, either way you can move on and maybe take extra ideas w/ you (okay it’s a long shot).
- you can also say to the person (btw I have a methodology for asking about methodolgies, it’s here if you want to check it out or skip ahead)
- if the person looks at the flow chart and can move to the bit that’s appropriate then it saves dialog time
don’t tell a story (“i was reading blah and thought blah”), tell the idea (“what if blah causes blah? I think it could because blah. Here’s an example: blah”)

August 13th

what is fallible ideas?
- community + living tradition of critical fallibilism
what is the relationship between critical rationalism and critical fallibilism. What are some differences?
- important disagreements exist
thoughts on conflict between learning and error rate
- doing time limited challenges increases error rate but can be useful for learning quickly
  - what’s going on here?
- the more I learn the more intuitive it is to me that powering-up is a priority.
why would wanting to be remembered as someone who contributed to a good future be good?
why would wanting to be remembered as someone who contributed to a good future be second handed?
why would wanting to be remembered as someone who contributed to a good future be bad?
AL1: the prioritization of academic politicking indicates Birner thinks success as a philosopher depends on success in academia, which is wrong.
AL1: it’s curious how much i read into both the title and the ellipsis. if they were put there by the guy who posted (need to check source) it shows how much i take good quoting for granted. if it wasn’t CR i think i would have been more sceptical of the quoting quality.
why did overreaching stuff / coming to terms with own problems feel ~confessional before but doesn’t now?
songs to analyse
- santa clause is coming to town (TCS / lying to children)
- call me maybe
- you need to calm down (taylor swift)
- blank space (taylor swift)
- sk8er boi
standard nomenclature for FI posts about flagging stuff you
overreaching - label for full post
social signal / social dynamics / static meme - for particular statements or sentences; jokes, all jokes?
- not all jokes; e.g. “a preposition is fine to end a sentence with”
self grading of quality

Homework | Tutorial 25

Tue, 11 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

simple writing exercises (aiming for 1-3 paragraphs)
Session 1
1. Why shouldn’t you look at the sun?
2. What is swimming?
Session 2
comments on session 2
session 3
1. What are fungi? How are they different than plants? (1+5 min speed thing)

simple writing exercises (aiming for 1-3 paragraphs)

notes:

practice:
- beforehand
  - brainstorm relevant things, try to make atomic ideas / basic single chunks (or break down ideas into this)
  - have goal written down (can increase specificity as I write if needed), audience, purpose, pre-existing knowledge, etc
- when writing
  - do an outline
  - each sentence should have a purpose
    - could analyse some answers after the fact and try and figure out the purpose
    - check each sentence for
      - vagueness
      - how does it help the goal
      - does the audience already know this (if it’s not important to say for other reasons)
      - are there any common questions to pre-address
      - is the sentence consistent with the rest of the paragraph/answer
  - can write the same thing multiple times if stuck
  - don’t fixate on one point; keep flow
- eval after writing
  - if I’ve avoided some details: when someone learns the truth will they be surprised or feel betrayed; will it seem like a lie?
  - was anything left out that seems important?
  - any inelegancies that need cleaning up?

Session 1

Why shouldn’t you look at the sun?

the sun emits LOTS of photons
photons have energy
photons can cause molecules to change if they’re high energy or there are a lot of them
our eyes focus light on to our retinas
our eyes are used to normal daylight or below
when our eyes focus normal daylight (not look at the sun) on to our retinas it doesn’t do damage because our retinas can cope with it
the sun is brighter than normal daylight
when our eyes focus direct sunlight on to our retinas it’s like when you use a magnifying glass
all that light gets focused on to our retinas and they can burn
this isn’t normal for retinas so they can’t heal
that means permanent damage

we can see things because, when we look at them, the things reflect light and this light goes into our eyes and lands on the back-side (the retina). Our retinas are made of many tiny sensitive light detectors. These light detectors make signals when light hits them. those signals go to the brain which turns them into the image we see. all of these things need to work correctly for us to see, if anything goes wrong then we won’t see anything.

there are lots of ways things could go wrong so that you don’t see anything, but some are worse than others. one reason you might not see something is if there’s no light: maybe it’s dark or you have your eyes closed. if there’s no light then nothing will land on your retinas and no signals will get sent to your brain (which is why you can’t see when it’s dark or your have your eyes closed). that’s easy to fix because you can just turn on a light or open your eyes. other things can go wrong though, which might be very bad. one way the might go wrong is if your retinas stop producing signals. then it doesn’t matter if your eyes are open or closed, you still won’t see anything because no signals get generated so nothing gets sent to your brain. if your retinas stop working forever then you might not ever see again.

[outline.s] light has energy

focusing light to a point makes a lot of heat in that spot. light is usually spread out, but we can make a lot of light land on one spot using a lens (like the one in a magnifying glass) if we do that, the spot where the light lands gets hot enough to burn things. some people use a magnifying glass and the sun to burn pictures in wood.

our eyes are like little magnifying glasses; they each have a lens to focus light on to our retinas which makes the image. this isn’t a problem normally because our eyes can deal with the amount of light we get when we look at normal things like buildings, trees, books, or other people.

[outline.s] but if something is really bright - like the sun - it can shine a lot of light on our retinas.

[outline.s] retinas can’t heal like cuts and bruises, so damage to them can be permanent. doctors can’t fix retinas very well, so if you damage them they might never heal, which means they won’t work and you won’t see anything anymore.

[outline.s] if we look long enough then it can do things like boil the insides of our eyes which will make you completely blind

(stopping here, it’s long enough, might come back and edit later)

What is swimming?

swimming is using one’s body in coordinated motions to move through the water. lots of animals swim. humans use their arms to pull themselves through the water, and their legs to push. land animals that don’t have arms usually use their front legs to pull and back legs to push. typically, animals that live in the ocean swim using their whole body to push against the water. lots of animals that live in rivers and lakes do this too. these animals often have smooth skin (or scales) and have^1 big tails which makes swimming easier.

there are some exceptions to the normal ways of swimming, though. some land animals, like snakes or alligators, have small legs or no legs at all, so they swim using their whole body like fish and dolphins. some sea creatures, like adult crabs, aren’t very good at swimming so tend to live on the sea floor. some birds can swim, too. penguins are one example; they use their wings both to push themselves through the water and to steer too.

Session 2

Why do people swim?

exercise
- low strain
- easier than running for ppl with physiological issues
  - easy on legs
  - easier if obese
enjoyment
- team sports
- competitions
survival
- get back to shore
  - rips can drag ppl out
- away from predators
- save someone else
- hunting for food

People swim for lots of reasons. Some of these reasons people swim are for exercise, enjoyment, or survival. Most cases of swimming are voluntary; the person wants to go swimming.

Some people swim for exercise. Swimming can be a good exercise for certain people because it is less stressful on their body than land-based activities. That could be because they’re obese and swimming is easier for them. Or because they’ve hurt one of their limbs and need to move it regularly but can’t do other exercises – like if they can’t put weight on one leg or have broken an arm so can’t use weights. Some people enjoy swimming for other reasons too, so it’s more efficient to exercise by swimming too.

Some people swim for fun. They might like a particular sport that’s only played in the water, like water polo. Or they might enjoy racing against other people, so they practice and compete regularly. People seem to especially like swimming at the beach, maybe because they find the waves fun or because they can play fight with friends without worrying about concrete sides of a pool.

Sometimes people need to swim to survive; because their life is at risk. They might drown if they don’t, like if their boat has capsized. Or because they need to get back to shore; they could have been dragged out into the ocean by a rip, or maybe someone pushed them in to the water. Although swimming is much safer than it used to be, sometimes people swim to get away from predators that might attack them if they stay where they are.

Some people swim for work, like swimming instructors or people who do niche kinds of fishing.

Why are there tides?

differences in forces
- due to gravity
  - mostly the moon
  - a little bit the sun
earth spins
- so tides roughly “point” at the moon
- earth rotates underneath
  - explains cycle time

Tides occur because of differences in the forces acting on water in the ocean, which we notice because the Earth spins. Tides are easiest to notice where the ocean meets land, but can sometimes be observed in rivers or lakes if their geography is just right.

The main source of these differences is the Moon, though the Sun contributes a little bit — this is due to their gravity. The Moon’s gravitational force is a bit stronger on the side of the Earth closest to the Moon, a bit weaker in the middle part, and weakest on the furthest side of the Earth. The average force on the ocean is less than that on the Moon-side of Earth, and more than that on the opposite side. This means the oceans bulge out on the sides closest and furthest from the moon relative to the middle bits; there are two high tides. It’s like the ocean is being pulled towards the moon when it’s closer, and pushed away from the moon when it’s farther — though the ‘pushing away’ is just an illusion: that side is just being ‘pulled towards’ less than all the other water (not to mention the Earth itself, too). That’s why high tides happen at the parts of the ocean that are closest or farthest from the Moon.

Tides occur twice a day, though, not once per Moon cycle; why? The Earth spins on an axis roughly perpendicular to the orbital plane of the Moon. As the Earth rotates the parts of Earth which are closest to or farthest from the Moon change. Those changes occur on a ~24 hour cycle, since that’s how long it takes for the Earth to spin once relative to the Moon. We see the tides go up and down on a ~12 hour cycle because we’re watching them from the surface of Earth, so we’re spinning too.

What are tides?

Tides
- regular
- up-and-down
  - towards and away from?
    - tides aren’t sideways
High tide is …
- need to answer this?

Tides are the regular up and down movement of the ocean due to gravitational effects from sources like the Moon and the Sun combined with the Earth’s spin.

q: what more to say without just describing them or quirks?

e.g.

the dominant cycle time is 12hrs, though other cycles exist with periods of 24hrs, once per orbit of the Moon, and once per year.
high tide for a given place is the name for the time when that place is closest too and farthest from the Moon.
low tide for that place is half way between high tides, when that place is the average distance from the Moon in that 24hr cycle.

What are shoes for?

covering and protecting feet
different shoes
- activities
- cultures
- qualities
scarcity of resources - need to use materials available

Shoes are for covering and protecting feet. People have different kinds of shoes depending on the activities they do, or the cultures they’re from.

People choose some shoes because they’re particularly good for certain activities, or at certain times of the year. Some examples of shoes that are specialised like this are running shoes or steel-capped boots. Running shoes are built to make running more comfortable and less stressful on runners’ legs and ankles. They still cover and protect runners’ feet, but they have extra features that make them particularly well suited to running like more padding than usual. Steel-capped boots are made to be especially protective, so that if something really heavy is dropped on them the foot inside won’t be crushed when it otherwise might. They can’t protect against all drops, but they’re much better than typical shoes at doing so. Sandals and thongs (flip-flops) are particular kinds of shoes which only cover part of the top and sides of the foot. This makes them very comfortable in hot weather, or particularly easy to clean if they get sandy. These kinds of shoes are for making their respective activities safer, easier, more comfortable, etc.

People choose some shoes because of their culture. One example is ceremonial shoes which are only used for particular rituals or traditions. Another example is shoes that are made for dressing up, like many high heels. These kinds of shoes might not make life easier for the wearer, and even cause them pain or deform the foot over long periods of consistent wear. When people choose these shoes they’re not doing it to make a particular activity easier or safer, like running shoes and steel-cap boots. They’re doing it for social reasons, like impressing other people or adhering to traditional dress.

comment: hmm, feel like I’m in a bit of an example trap here

comments on session 2

I noticed I wasn’t writing down goals. I didn’t think they’d be particularly useful b/c they seem trivial.

session 3

What are fungi? How are they different than plants? (1+5 min speed thing)

planning: 1 min

writing: 5 min

soft
don’t photosynth
spores
grow on trees
or in ground
underground root network multiple heads
different branch of life
smelly
small
frequency

fungi are a type of life. fungi are different from plants, even though they both grow in the ground (sometimes, at least). fungi reproduce with spores. they release lots of them all at once. a single spore can grow into a new fungi. like a seed but they’re asexual.

fungi can grow lots of above ground bits (called fruit) at once from a single root system, unlike trees. the fruit can be removed and the fungi can grow new fruit again. some are designed to be removed to spread spores.

fungi are smelly in a different way to trees. fungi smell like dirt and old socks.

fungi produce above ground bits, or fruit, much more frequently than trees which only do it once (their trunk). they can produce fruit many times from a single root system, or many fruits at once.

fungi are very different to trees genetically. they split off from the rest of the tree of life a long time ago, and have their own branch alongside plants and animals. that means do lots of things that plants, animals, and other life like bacteria don’t do.

fungi don’t photosynthesise like trees do. fungi get all their nutrients from the soil - I think.

fungi taste different to plants, too. but like some plants, you can’t eat all fungi. some fungi are very poisonous to humans.

Notes | Tutorial 25

Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

why do pots get empty when you boil water

if you put a pot of water oh a hot plate the pot will become empty. it takes a little bit of time because the water is heating up. when the water gets really hot it will start bubbling. it will keep bubbling till there’s no water left and the pot is empty. where does the water go and why?

when the hot water is making the bubbles - what we call boiling - it means the water is turning into steam. steam is water that’s a gas, which means its not a liquid any more. that means it goes into the air, sort of like rain in reverse. after it boils the steam is still very hot, so it’s not good to breath it in because it will burn you, like hot water will.

when water is a liquid it sits in the bottom of the pot with a flat top and no gaps around the edges, but it doesn’t do this if it’s a solid or a gas. if it’s a solid it will stay in one shape, like when it’s an ice cube. if you put solid water (ice) in a pot you’ll notice that it doesn’t sit in the bottom like when it’s a liquid does. it stands up and there are gaps around the edges.

when water is a gas it doesn’t sit in the bottom of the pot, either. but instead of being in one solid block, like when it’s frozen, the water splits up into tiny bits we call molecules. these water molecules mix in with the other molecules in the air as the water boils. if you could collect all the air from around the pot and cool it down you could get the water back. some of it will probably escape, though.

paragraphs i cut:

water doesn’t just have to be a liquid or a gas, it can freeze and become solid too. if you hold that water in your hand it will melt and become a liquid again. this is because you’re heating it up.

all matter can be solid, liquid, or gaseous, but it happens at different temperatures depending on what it is. if you have a solid and heat it up, it will melt and turn into a liquid. if you have a liquid and heat it up, it will boil and turn into a gas. solids melt into liquids, and liquids boil (or evaporate) into gases. this goes the other way too. if you cool a gas down it will condense into a liquid. and if you cool a liquid down it will freeze into a solid.

some chemicals are special, and go straight from being a solid to a gas, without being a liquid in between. when a chemical does this, we call it sublimation; the solid sublimates into a gas. if it goes the other way, where the gas becomes a solid, we call it deposition (or desublimation); the gas deposits into a solid.

inappropriate to be introducing new terms like ‘chemicals’ or ‘molecules’?
problem: getting in to a ‘explain everything’ mode where i go too deep

why does a mirror show an image of yourself? (one paragraph)

a mirror shows a reflection of yourself because, when you’re standing in front of it, light is bouncing from you to the mirror then to your eyes. if you put a camera in front of the mirror and take a photo when you’re not there, the photo won’t show you in the mirror, it’ll show the camera. in this case, light from the camera is being reflected by the mirror back to the camera sensor which is recording the image as a photo. if you look at that picture later you can still see the mirror (especially if the photo captures the frame) but you’re seeing what the mirror was reflecting at that point in time: the camera. if you’re standing in front of it, you’re seeing the thing it’s reflecting at that point in time, which is you.

notes

consider goal
what does each sentence do to help the goal
- what does it talk to
- what does audience already know / what do they need to be told
- preaddress common qs
article needs to be consistent with goal, and internally consistent

approach:

brainstorm ideas that could be included
when someone learns the truth will they be surprised or feel betrayed; will it seem like a lie?
was anything left out that seems important?
any inelegancies that need cleaning up?

why do pots get empty when you boil water

if you put a pot of water oh a hot plate the pot will become empty.

it takes a little bit of time because the water is heating up.

can mislead ppl, “some time” better than “little”, “time” better still
assuming context that isn’t written down

when the water gets really hot it will start bubbling.

vague

it will keep bubbling till there’s no water left and the pot is empty. where does the water go and why?

when the hot water is making the bubbles - what we call boiling - it means the water is turning into steam.

not linking hot water -> bubbles -> steam
link internal and external process

steam is water that’s a gas, which means its not a liquid any more.

not relevant, sort of contradicts

that means it goes into the air, sort of like rain in reverse.

after it boils the steam is still very hot, so it’s not good to breath it in because it will burn you, like hot water will.

when water is a liquid it sits in the bottom of the pot with a flat top and no gaps around the edges, but it doesn’t do this if it’s a solid or a gas.

conceptual jump to geometric description
can misread modifiers as applying to pot not water

if it’s a solid it will stay in one shape, like when it’s an ice cube. if you put solid water (ice) in a pot you’ll notice that it doesn’t sit in the bottom like when it’s a liquid does. it stands up and there are gaps around the edges.

when water is a gas it doesn’t sit in the bottom of the pot, either. but instead of being in one solid block, like when it’s frozen, the water splits up into tiny bits we call molecules. these water molecules mix in with the other molecules in the air as the water boils. if you could collect all the air from around the pot and cool it down you could get the water back. some of it will probably escape, though.

attempt

Water boils when you make it hot. When it heats up some tiny bits of water get hotter than the other bits. When tiny bits of water get hot enough they jiggle around so much that they turn into a gas. If those bits are on top they go straight into the air. If those bits aren’t on top they still become a gas, but because they’re under the rest of the water they turn into bubbles. These bubbles aren’t air bubbles, they’re steam bubbles. When something is a gas it means the little bits are jiggling so much they don’t stay in one spot, and instead float around. Eventually, all the water gets hot enough to have gone into the air and there’s none left in the pot.

mirrors flip horiz

what is division

goal:

explain what division is
- so that someone who knows about adding, subtraction, or multiplying can understand
- but doesn’t yet know about division

brainstorm:

numbers are made of other numbers (factorization)
whole numbers and fractional numbers
“blocks” of numbers; geometric interp. of multiplication
- is there a better way to put this?
- multiplication - repeating X times
division is breaking up numbers into some number of equal parts (some number => divisor)
- the answer to a question of division is how the size of the parts you get
geometric: ‘size’ and number of chunks
multiplication (Z = X * Y) is how big the final thing is when you have X chunks of Y size
division (Z / Y = X) is how many chunks you have if you make chunks of size Y from a total Z
can’t divide by 0
anything divided by 1 is itself
opposite of multiplication

division and multiplication are inverse operations. multiplication combines a certain number of chunks of a particular size into a total. division breaks up a total into chunks of a particular size and you get the number of chunks as the answer.

division is the opposite of multiplication. division is breaking something up into parts of equal sizes.

how big is the thing? how many parts? how big are the parts?

multiplication repeats the self-addition of a number a certain number of times. multiplication is repeated addition. particularly, it’s adding the same number over and over again. how many times do we add it? n times. multiplication is repeated addition of the same number a certain amount of times.

when we multiply two numbers, it’s like taking an area the size of the first number, but we have n of them instead.

when we divide a big number by a smaller number we’re asking: if we break the big number into chunks the size of the small number, how many chunks do we get?

an example is cutting up a pizza. if we divide the pizza into 8 parts, the answer to the question of division is how big the slices are. to go the other way, we could take one slice and multiply it by 8 to get the whole pizza back. the act of dividing the pizza breaks it up into smaller parts (of equal size).

if we have 8 slices of pizza and 4 people, how many slices does each person get? trial and error: we can figure this out by guessing how many slices people get and multiplying it by the number of people, and if we get 8 slices total we know the answer. but we could also divide 8 slices by 4 people, which would give us 2 slices per person. we broke the number 8 into 4 equal chunks, and each chunk was 2 slices large.

if we have 8 slices of pizza and 4 people, how many slices does each person get? we have 8 slices and we need to give each person equal parts of the pizza. since we have 4 people, we divide 8 slices by 4 people, which would give us 2 slices per person. division is breaking something up into some number of chunks of equal size. the answer to a division question is how big the chunks are.

division is breaking stuff up into groups of equal size. e.g. if we have 8 slices of pizza and 4 people, how many slices does each person get? we divide 8 slices by 4 people to get the answer: 2 slices per person. we’ve divided the pizza, which was 8 slices large, into 4 chunks of 2 slices each. if someone asks: “what’s 8 divided by 4?” then they want to know the size of the groups if there are 4 groups and 8 things total. the answer is 2 - which we saw with the pizza.

we can check this by multiplying 4 people by 2 slices each, and we get 8 slices total so it works out.

how’s - often simpler

how to read a dictionary (not end to end)
how to make a milk shake
why does rain fall down but clouds stay up
how to learn to touch-type
where does the trees get material from to make its branches and leaves
why do we need to drink water?
what are scissors for?
how to use post-it notes for task management
how do speakers work?
what is a VHS tape?
What is swimming?
Why do people swim?
What are shoes for?
What are good rain clothes?
Why are there tides?
What are tides?
What is alphabetical order?
How do you write good Google searches?
Why shouldn’t you look at the sun?
How do you backup a computer?
How do you use a stove?
What are fungi? How are they different than plants?
How do trees get energy to grow?

Notes | Tutorial 24

Fri, 07 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

They would demonstrate what could be done and how. But they would not be in a position to determine whether the realization of a certain project would really increase material well-being or whether it would not, by withdrawing scarce factors of production from other lines, jeopardize the satisfaction of more urgent needs, that is, of needs considered more urgent by the consumers.

but
    They would demonstrate what could be done and how
    [and]
        they would not be in a position to determine whether the realization of a certain project would really increase material well-being or whether it would not
        [they would], by withdrawing scarce factors of production from other lines, jeopardize the satisfaction of more urgent needs, that is, of needs considered more urgent by the consumers.

If you remove the [and] and take one of the following two clauses (call that clause X), then this makes sense for both cases:

They would demonstrate what could be done and how but X

ET’s analysis is different:

But they would not be in a position to determine whether the realization of a certain project would really increase material well-being or whether [the realization of a certain project] would not jeopardize the satisfaction of more urgent needs, that is, of needs considered more urgent by the consumers, [because they would not be able to determine the impact of] withdrawing scarce factors of production from other lines.

discussion in tutorial

but
    They would demonstrate what could be done and how
    [and]
        they would not be in a position to determine 
        or
            whether the realization of a certain project would really increase material well-being
            whether it would not
        [they would], by withdrawing scarce factors of production from other lines, jeopardize the satisfaction of more urgent needs, that is, of needs considered more urgent by the consumers.

writing within one’s means

if concerned about capacity, do something successful as baseline
- example: constitution article?
- do that by scaling way way down
  - get first one super good, 3 orders of mag below capacity
  - then do one 2 orders, then 1 order, etc
    - quick scaling up, but can establish both track record and point of failure

article idea: can’t safely apply categories to legislation

coding ideas:

diff between imperative and functional programming

general topics better

how to install linux instead of windows
point is to write coherent prose
- communicate ideas
how does base 10 work
- computation in alt bases
  - bases in general
    - factoradics after that
- generate problem - tally systems, comparing to roman numerals

focus on conceptual:

why designed this way, how is it useful, why does it makes sense
- contrast to stuff like tally systems
- scope creep - start w small scope
what is division
- fractions, ratios, percents
  - how ratios work, is it always part-A:part-B or can it be part-A:total
  - betting, odds

try to explain something - can do by ELI5; what’s gravity, why does earth go round the sun

why do pots get empty when you boil water
why does a mirror show an image of self
- why is it only reversed in one direction
simplify elections w/ random samples
- like only X% of ppl vote instead of 100%

goal: successfully explain something so ppl understand it (note: gives a way to test success easily, too; without FI involvement if need be) can fail in fundamental ways where the error has reach

start w/ things that are 1 paragraph long

topics - some have natural breakpoints

add to overview
reorganise, different conceptual model

another practice method:

come up with problems, come up with solutions (brainstorm), like one clear, understandable sentence. partial solutions, like don’t fully solve the problem

dog/cat hair shedding
specific okay: this lego set is missing a piece what do I do?

leaving yourself room to add more detail is good too

can calibrate capability in multiple areas too

FI from last year, reading short story (e.g. for elementary kids), GISTE

paraphrase every sentence, go through and decide which have improtant info
some ppl had comprehension errors (presumably surprisingly)

should get stuck 1-3 orders of magnitude past point where you start making errors

Ideas for Drafts

Wed, 05 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

what’s the differences between statements where you change the focus from occurrence to prevalence

what is the difference between

TS occurs in people from all ethnic groups; males are affected about three to four times more often than females.

and

TS patients are disproportionately male (at a ratio of 3:1); no ethnic group is disproportionately represented [in TS patients].

What are the right changes to make if you want to change the world?

from https://curi.us/1994-goals-and-status-update

Most people trying to change the world skip the step where they put a massive amount of effort into figuring out which are the right changes. I’ve done that step. I will debate anyone on the matter, but it’s hard to find anyone willing to discuss it much.

one thing that occurs to me is that one’s comparative advantage matters. the best thing for you to do might not be the best thing for me to do, etc.

On free will and MWI

the main idea to explore is about whether the belief in some sort of free-will-esq thing matters for the particular histories we end up in

like more future histories of mine are good when I think I have self-determination regardless of the laws of physics (particularly what they say about determinism)

like more future histories of mine are good when I think I have self-determination because of the laws of physics (what they say about how my brain works and how ideas will change the world)

Early Learning: Objectivism

I know about it (Objectivism) in name only (and only since learning about FI, and because of FI)
google: “define:objectivism” - 2. [Philosophy] the belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.
wiki/objectivism: Rand described Objectivism as “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute”.

thoughts:

sounds super compatible with ideas re objective morality in BoI

Evolution selected for “depression”

The thing ppl commonly call ‘depression’ was evolutionarily selected for - it helped humans.

How do you test a partial explanation of Tourette's?

Tue, 04 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

In the early hours of the morning (12am - 1am) I had an idea about Tourette’s (Tourette’s Syndrome / TS) and wanted to figure out if it was useful. If I could come up with a way it would help patients or related fields of research, i thought that’d be a good start.

i decided to record myself talking about the idea (b/c i was a bit intoxicated and so didn’t think i’d have the patience to write it down). if i could record something coherent then it’d mean the idea was clear enough to me, at least, that it might be good or useful.

since then I’ve learnt a bit more about some of the treatment mechanisms which might impact the thoughts on how/why it happens and what things might help w/ symptoms.

i think the exercise was useful, and i came up with a few ways you could test the explanation and maybe different approaches to treatment (I didn’t find any existing research on this sort of thing, but didn’t look hard, either).

the core idea is that the cycles of conjecture and criticism in the brain responsible for picking what we do/say/express/whatever are failing in some particular way, like misinterpretations of feedback signals for making neuronal connections / circuits stronger or weaker. i think there are other possible explanatory-mechanisms that would provide different things we could test (and different implications for TS patients).

one idea for treatment i came up with was based on the idea that feedback signals were inverted (something more complex might be going wrong but this is easier to test for). the test is to encourage tics - particularly in a way that translates to a “good” feedback signal in the brain. I don’t know how well behavioural feedback (like normal positive/negative reinforcement) translates to that deeper sort of feedback.

FI Post (it’s better expressed in this section and the ‘idea’ subsection than anywhere else)

i’m making this post because

i used some epistemic ideas i’d learnt recently to help figure out the explanation and the experiment
- i actually came up with an experiment. if you listen to the audio that’s my goal when i start recording, so i consider this experience a success regardless of how good the idea is (provided the experiment makes sense, ofc)
the idea uses other ideas from BoI and ET about how learning and ideas in the brain work
- FYI it also uses some preexisting knowledge i have about psychology / neurology
i think it’s an idea most psychologists would reject
it doesn’t seem to be contradicted by some cursory research
i think this is interesting and might be a good example of how to use philosophy practically. i mean particularly if this has any element of truth to it, that would be like a legit breakthrough AFAIK in TS research (i couldn’t find anything close to an explanation for it besides “chemical imbalance” which AFICT is just academese for NFI).
i couldn’t find any info on whether this had been thought of or tried before (it’s a bit hard to search for, though)
maybe it (the post) leads to something ¯_(ツ)_/¯

i am interested in feedback on this idea (and anything/everything else in this post), but i don’t expect it. this is definitely something where i don’t have much preexisting knowledge so errors are likely but EC might be hard (for this topic). i’m mostly posting this because it can be useful even if i’m wrong (like i think i did a decent job of exploring the idea; i knew there was a tree, i descended various branches and tried to cycle through them, i successfully figured out a way to test the idea without a null hypothesis or a competing explanation (yay!), etc)

(actually, I am always interested in feedback re: the quality / style / form / purpose / etc of my posts to FI, so that’s like a general background thing i do want. that said, i also don’t expect it)

as a general comment: i can’t really take it too much further and i’m not interested in doing so (like, that would likely mean becoming a full time researcher or something), so i probably won’t work on it much more unless something important occurs to me.

nomenclature: tourette’s = tourette’s syndrome = TS

the rest of this post is the idea itself, any other notes i wanted to add, and a link to the post on my fi site

i recorded about 45 min of audio of me talking through this idea the other night; audio and transcript available: https://xertrov.github.io/fi/pub-drafts/how-do-you-test-a-partial-explanation-of-tourettes/

idea

our bodies doing meaningful stuff in the world requires an idea (particularly using implicit knowledge, and it can be unconscious)
observation: ppl with tourette’s have meaningful and complete tics. verbal tics are a good example (sometimes a single tic can be both physical and verbal, too).
- verbal tics as an example: ppl with TS will say complete ideas, even if they’re short or fragmented.
- how can an idea be complete and fragmented? you know how you’ll pause in speech, and you think for a second then say another bunch of words? each instance of speech - even if it’s a partial sentence - is a complete idea in your brain. the difference is the speech is communicating explicit knowledge, but the idea that causes to make physical movements is based on implicit knowledge. those two types of knowledge don’t need to be the same thing, so you can have complete implicit ideas which correspond to partial explicit ideas. note: it makes sense for these two types to often almost fully overlap b/c they’re more efficient, particularly when you take stuff like neuroplasticity into account.
there’s also like complete ideas from other things (like repeating lines from a video game character) that can be picked up from environmental sources
here’s sweet anita (a streamer with TS) answering ‘yes’ w/ details to the q “do the words ever speak the truth?”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfHJUPrahkY&feature=youtu.be&t=110
- one example she gives is being in a public bathroom and saying aloud “I can hear you shitting” – It’s a complete idea
there’s a process of conjecture and criticism / evolution used in the brain for idea generation
idea generation using C&C/evolution means there must be an elimination process involved somewhere which filters out all but one idea. ‘all but one’ b/c you can’t move your arm in two directions at once, etc.
- i go into some details about queues/locks in the audio/transcript but i’m not sure it’s relevant here
if there’s an elimination process there must be signals and feedback mechanism involved
- one thing that I’m not sure about is whether the C&C process needs to happen in each thought-generation-instance. like feedback and refinement of neuronal networks can happen over many ideas (well, the networks definitely are modified over many ideas), but there’s no requirement any iteration happens generating each idea. from a systems point of view i’m not sure if the benefits would outweigh the cost
both filters and feedback could be going wrong and both could independently explain (at least some things about) TS
- the reason i think these two things particularly are potential causes is b/c they can work at the level of emergence of complete ideas. granted, we don’t know how ideas are encoded in the brain, but it seems reasonable that individual neurons can play a role in both cases (and in idea generation) which means we can’t rule out that a corruption at these points could let unintended behaviours through, which, if they win the competition for the idea that is eventually expressed, would explain at least some tics. (note: i don’t know of an exhaustive list of tics but that could be used to sanity-check this)
- more detail about this in the audio/transcript
i focus on feedback in the audio/transcript (note: filters acting up can explain it too):
- feedback signals could be complex but i don’t think too much about those cases b/c they’re harder to test for
- a simpler case is feedback signals that are on a spectrum like -1,0,1; bad feedback and good feedback are mutually exclusive (gets complex otherwise)
feedback / filter stuff could be going wrong on a neuron by neuron basis
- a curious feature of TS that doesn’t criticise this is the idea of like themes in ppl’s tics; particularly: the same neurons are affected over many tics, so it seems reasonable to look for explanations that operate on a compatible basis.

so, i think that’s all we need to suggest: (the following paragraph is copy pasted from my post to my fi site)

audio recording

anyway, two bits of audio and a transcript are below; the original recording and a cut down version where longer silences are shortened and repeated/filler words are cut out. there are two versions because i was experimenting with descript.com and there are some features to cut stuff out.

cut down version:

original:

transcript

Okay. So thinking about Tourette’s, there’s an idea that might explain it and I’m wondering, how can we come up with a way to experiment? Can’t an experiment about this, given that we don’t know all the details. so the idea is basically that, okay. first let’s talk about traits. So Tourette’s is this condition where there are uncontrolled behavior and verbalizations that people make and they’re involuntary. It seems like they can last reasonable periods of time. almost as though someone is like changing personality for a little bit or something for a complete thought. And then once that’s over. Even though the thought might be like, not what we’d lump as a thought, but it seems like it’s a, it’s one sort of expression continuously.

so I’m not exactly sure what will, what that is expressing. But it seems like there could be something happening in the brain where like it’s a complete idea. There’s a continuity to it. It’s like a complete expression of something. So the idea that I had that sort of explains it is that a , like learning and things like that idea generation is a cycle of conjecture and criticism.

it’s an evolutionary process, like bad ideas that thrown out and good ideas kept around this possibly some sort of iterative process, but at the very least, there’s an elimination process. And so if I guess we do this all the time, we will. like anytime we think about stuff, like whether what to say, like what I’m, when I’m trying to come up with what I say next, my brain is coming up with a whole bunch.

It’s just stuff. And it’s letting me know about the good stuff. And that’s when it becomes conscious and I speak it. It’s worth reflecting a bit here. I think about the idea that we don’t really like. When, before we do something, we’ve only got like a really implicit idea of what it is that we’re going to do.

Like it’s a really innate idea. It’s not it’s hard to put into words before you act it out sort of thing. you almost a bit of your mind finds out about it after it happens. I don’t think that’s particularly surprising because, if like reaction time and things are important than, it’s reasonable that like evolution would have selected for.

I like doing both at once or prioritizing the one that like saves your life and being conscious about stuff doesn’t typically save your life. if it does, then it’s likely that it wasn’t under time pressure. you had a long time to think about it, in which case prioritizing the action doesn’t matter and prioritizing the thought doesn’t matter or the conscious experience of it.

so that can just happen whenever, but it seems likely that evolution would select for acting out beforehand. While, I think it’s possible to influence this cycle by doing things like trying to like, be more mindful of things or whatever else. or thinking about like morality and having some moral realizations that then change, like deep ideas within you. There’s like a relationship there. It’s not necessarily immediate, but, I think this is one of the reasons that we feel bad is so we can have that feedback cycle about stuff there. which is also why you shouldn’t feel bad for stuff that you did.

That was bad. if you know that it was bad and you understand that and whatever else like that snow problem that has been sold provided that you don’t do that again. And so you don’t need to feel bad for things of that nature, because you’re not going to repeat that mistake. I don’t know how this interacts with crime, but that doesn’t matter right now.

If we’re going through an evolutionary cycle of generating ideas or some kind of elimination cycle where we come up with many possibilities, eliminate bad ones, and then the ones that are good, get acted out. This is happening for a lot more than what we’re going to be thinking about thing.

it’s for me right now, it’s happening for I don’t know if breathing is involved, that’s a automatic sort of thing. autonomic, I think it’s called, but I’m walking around. I’m holding a gloss. I’m I actually like focusing on when to breathe a little bit in terms of the speech. I’m casting my eyes around.

So I’m deciding what to look at. At some level. When I started recording, I was getting a thing out of the microwave. so all of this sort of there’s lots and lots of ways that we must be thinking about what to do and then controlling things without being conscious of it. So it’s not that it’s a conscious intent, but it’s somehow lines up with our goals anyway.

and I think that’s the sort of differences that we have, like this implicit knowledge, which may be another thing to call that as like subconscious. I’m not sure. and then we have like explicit knowledge, which is the stuff that we can actually reason about and talk. I’m moving ideas from implicit to explicit knowledge as I’m describing this and in doing so, like I have an implicit idea about what to do in terms of moving my mouth and, all of that sort of jazz, these ideas that I’m expressing must be fairly consistent.

They must be, the, they have a consistency. Do you have a many independent actions? There’s lots of signals going out and yet there is a consistency. So the brain must have some, mechanism for preventing like conflicting signals. I think this mechanism in the case of Tourette’s has maintained by the way.

so the conflicting signals, they, I know I’m not sure how they’re structured, but it’s definitely possible like given the structure of the brain. I don’t think there’s a good reason to leave. That’s not possible. that, lots of things are happening in terms of different parts of the brain and deciding what we do, things for moving legs and things for turning words into sounds and, things for, figuring out where one’s breathing fits into the sentence.

You could, that last one you could have with a system that’s just got a really high cadence so that when I stop saying something and there’s no more instructions queued up for my larynx. then the like breathing thing kicks in and it’s I’m taking priority now. So you don’t need any particular metric for that.

it doesn’t have to be part of the same idea set as the words, you just have to have a queuing system. it’s natural that you’d have a queuing system by the way. and there’s a lot of there’s many things that might not be compatible to do at the same time. and we it’s demonstrable that people have trouble with doing two things at once.

rubbing your tummy and patting your head. if you practice it’s easy. but, it’s not easy to do intuitively and I think that’s, people tend to swap between them sort of thing. Like multitasking when you’re swapping between lots of different stuff, you’re not doing much, you’re not really paralyzing things.

that fits with this sort of queuing idea or the, the consistent lump of ideas idea. it makes sense as well with something like patting your head and rubbing your tummy. you don’t, your brain doesn’t have a way to express one consistent idea about doing both at the same time. maybe if you concentrate really hard, you could do it, but, in general, people have a lot of trouble with that, but practice makes it easy, right?

So from a neuroplasticity point of view, your like, there are sorry, guts that connect, these things that happen at the same time, and those circuits are pretty weak if you don’t practice, but once you start practicing, you start firing those circuits. And they get stronger. they’re the like thresholds get lower, that sort of thing so that the neurons fire more easily, or don’t depending on what they do, who knows, but, the thresholds change to allow the behavior that we’re trying to like express, like patting a head and rubbing your tummy, the neurons change to increase the likelihood of that connection succeeding.

that’s one way to look at it or they are lower the threshold for that. A circuit sort of being dominant in a network. so that if there’s like multiple ideas that can come out and there’s these signals coming into one neuron say that decides how your arms are gonna move. there’s like a new sort of like input there, or, collection of inputs across a big sort of collection of neurons.

I don’t know how they would work. but whatever it is, this like different inputs to. this bit that, ultimately it’s going to play a role in doing that, that works both to coordinate and there’s a locking mechanism for accusing stuff. also we don’t, that’s one of the things we don’t need a queue, we only need a lock.

And then if you have a behavior that is like in the queue, but high priority, then that’s like just having a lock, but checking really often, and trying to get it all the time. And then if you have a thing that’s low priority, like the words that I’m going to speak to, competitive breathing, they’re checking less frequently, because they don’t want to take priority.

and so it’s rare and particularly the more you practice, the better, the sort of things either fall into synchronization or, how to extend, the ability of your like lung checking algorithm or like lung and voice checking algorithm to Extend that further into the future. So it’s better able to predict when to do it or that, there’s some, these two networks are firing and, now you’re making connections between them then synchronize the two algorithms.

that’s one of the things is you don’t actually need a synchronization mechanism. You don’t need a centralized point. If all the things that will like conflict, if they can talk to each other, like they don’t need to have a universal lock if they can. Talk to all of the other algorithms that are likely to happen around that time.

if you have a really high success rate for that, like 99.9%, then you’re going to one, like it’s only one in a thousand times that you’re going to have some kind of issue. Most of the time, that’s not even going to be noticeable because the ideas aren’t going to matter too much when there’s some sort of issue.

But, some of the time you might have this, particularly in like stressful and your circumstances are things where different circuits are connecting for the first time. you might notice like something like freezing, it would be one reaction. So that sort of like consistent with one of the things we see, like a dissidence, like where you’re unable to act, or you need to think on it or things like that.

that seems logical. So the idea is that there’s this elimination cycle, this cycle of conjection criticism, when we’re deciding everything, we’re going to do ideas, our units, they are. Consistent packets, with like innocence, beginnings, and ends and stuff like that. they could be made up of sub ideas.

Like obviously the idea that I’m going to say particular words is, like something that can include multiple breathing actions, for example. But I might not feel like I finished the idea until I’ve stopped saying the words. I think this might have some kind of resemblance to speech in the different pauses that we take, where I figured out the next words that I’m going to say, but only up to a point, and then I can stop thinking about the next words and come to something inclusion.

And then I talk fast until they’re done. and I don’t want to stop until they’re done. I’m much more happy to stop in the natural pauses that I’m taking. I think because my brain is ready to be distracted then, but when I’m doing something, it’s important to me to finish that. So my brain doesn’t want to be distracted.

It dislikes that sort of thing. so yeah. yeah. Another thing to occur to me just now is remembering back to the times that like Jordan Peterson has talked about, like the shadow self or whatever it’s called in like uni union psychology. we all have these like negative or dark thoughts or whatever else that most of the time we disregard many, most of the time we don’t notice them.

They’re just like away. But sometimes we have like moments where we think about those things. it could even not even be like a, a desire at all. Just like a realization that if you’re like chopping wood with someone that like, you have an accent, if you just like, swung 90 degrees in the other direction, you could kill them or something like that.

like that would be that sort of thing where it’s not anything that you’re going to act on now. I don’t think these are the thoughts that people with Tourette’s are acting on. I suspect that, they would seem more malevolent if that were the case. but there are also ideas that are so they’re still consistent, but there’s stuff that we’re very, yeah.

You strongly opposed her. So if we think about the idea of Tourette’s, one of the features of it is that it can degrade, like the condition, like people with the condition can get. Yeah. That means that presumably there’s like a filter that’s allowing other things through that is becoming increasingly wide, like with physical ticks, that means that, they go from more named things that have little consequence, to like increasingly violent or hitting themselves or lashing out at like physical objects and whatever else.

in the case of verbal ticks, like your. Speech becomes like less controlled. it comes about topics that you wouldn’t normally say. often, the swearing is one thing like with Tourettes that are probably requires a bit of thought, as to why that’s a particular feature. Does it have anything to do with this?

because one thing that I don’t have an explanation for yet, I think is the, themes of, it seems like things that people say have themes. They can be of like particular natures or particular subjects. I guess one thing that could be there is that we have as a way to organize ideas so that I can use different filters for talking about different things.

naturally subjects have different dependencies and things anyway. but this makes a lot of sense for. cultural stuff where someone can be rational in an area of study, but irrational in the rest of their life. like I think that, yeah, people are bad at generalizing critical thought, but often they’re not too bad in one area.

Like they can be quite skilled at knowing about a thing, but their general thinking patterns. Aren’t great. if we have these sorts of the, if the brain has this ability. To innately, like categorize stuff in a bit of an arbitrary way where it’s not, necessarily the categories we would choose, like subjects like biology and physics and whatever else.

but can be anything the brain wants, like a neural network could, if the brain can do that, then it’s feasible or it’s it seems like some filters could be better than others. That sort of makes sense. And if we were to say that like particular, I’m not sure how it work, like the particular type of filters or, just randomly different filters.

Sort of end up getting lowered artificially, like the brain is not able to throw out those ideas. And so they come to the fore and then only once the idea is expressed, does the conscious mind really have a chance to, grab that lock back to express the next idea? And the more if someone was like swearing, for example, the more heinous things they said, the more alarm might be generated in a different area brain that like triggers, an algorithm that really wants to take that back.

that locked back. It really wants to finish off the idea. and that’s when people, do something like covering their mouth with their hand or whatever in shock at what they’ve just said. so things like that, I think this is all consistent. so if these, if this is the case, Then how could we build an experiment such that we could determine if this is true or not?

okay. So we need a, an ultimate theory. there’s no, what’s the alternative hypothesis? what are our goals? it’s hard to know what our goals are without comparison to something, because. we obviously have the goal. If we’re doing this, we have the goal of figuring out what, figuring out, whether our idea is, does it have any explanatory power, I guess is the question?

because I was going to say, is it true? But. everything’s a misconception, what’s the break, the point that we choose or what’s the threshold that makes this idea okay. Or good enough to work with or whatever else. and it really, if we’re talking about a condition that afflicts people, then we want to further something either.

We want to further the ability of these people to control things that they can’t, because that’s bad. so it’s good to. increase their control or, we want to contribute to, like a related field or like a dependency or something like that. So one of the things here is that this is, like what I’ve just described, I think is, not a bad representation of some peoples or like maybe the, the consequences of some people’s ideas about, the mind, Obviously stuff like conjection criticism is heavily influenced by AFI.

does this make any contributions to the like other people’s ideas? Is this useful for them in some way? what it does do is it describes the structure or like it describes various structures or constraints on structures in the brain. and it talks about how ideas work. So what this might do is under the right conditions, Tourette’s could play a constraining role on theories of consciousness, or theories of mind, thing, AI, stuff like that, this, or at least, constraints on one way of doing it.

the way that it works in people, I need to take a. A second quench my throat.

Okay. So it can constrain other ideas. It’s an explanation that’s compatible with some kind of fundamental description that, would maybe not be compatible with other fundamental descriptions. In terms of helping people Tourette’s. so I don’t think it does directly because these are things that we don’t know how to control.

We don’t have a theory of what these structures are or how the idea generation algorithm works or how the idea elimination algorithm works, or whether there’s a cycle there or whether the cycle is between ideas, not in the generation of each idea. like I could see a thing where You have increasingly high, eroticism in ideas sort of thing, as you get more specific.

So you get like these weird fragments of ideas, And neurons represent these weird fragments of ideas. I don’t know how they’re encoded, but we can leave that for the minute. Let’s say that we have these fragments of ideas and certain combinations come together to make a coherent idea. this might imply that the encoding of.

Symbols or explanations and ideas and things in the brain has some kind of universality to them that there is something special about the way that ideas are encoded. Like ideas are encoded in words in English, but, analyzing that is like the computers, having a particular advantage, doing that. In fact, I’d say they have a strong disadvantage analyzing words.

People are much better at the computers. So information and X, Y like explanation, or explanatory information is encoded in a way that we don’t really know how it works, but we might be able to determine some of its properties. So if we have these neurons that are representing like ideas, then when there’s a request for ideas, how does an idea like generate to begin with.

it can’t be just random sparks. I once thought that might be the case. Like just if you have random static happening in the background, that could be run through filters and stuff to essentially produce something meaningful. And that might still be the case, but I’m not sure that’s really what’s happening here.

I’ve been talking about this idea now for some time in a consistent manner, or I hope it’s consistent at least. and, that And miss doesn’t really let that happen very easily. it means that I would have to have some sort of active control over a lifetime filters and stuff to make the randomness go where I wanted it to, that could happen over a longer cycle than, than a request for an idea though.

if we say that ideas are generated because they’re like pinged for there’s a request that’s sent for give me a next idea about, the way that ideas might be encoded in the brain. Like where does it go? I guess you could, follow the reverse of the fragments. if the fragments were like lenses or prisons or stuff, prisons is maybe better because they take in a different wavelengths and then combine them into some weird, somewhat unpredictable output, wave length or weight instead of wavelengths that then correspond to, which particular signups is triggered and stuff like that.

so a request could be. The inverse of a, if you triggered these neurons, then the path back up the other way, like in the other direction would lead you to the idea of the idea, something like that. that’s what a request is, whereas the output is different. So why wouldn’t you just have everything in like synchronization?

Where the request is made and it goes through a whole bunch of neurons that then combine it to the output, which sort of makes sense. So our ideas based on request, it must be some request method because we respond to the environment. like when a thing happens, we see a thing then, my brain is figuring out that it’s a gorilla running towards me or something, or a lion, then that’s going to.

Trigger particular thoughts in response. so those, those are not requests, particularly. I’m going to have some ability to do, to request because we make requests, like consciously it’s can you please think about a pink elephant and suddenly you think about pink elephants, you can also just think to think about the problems in your life or whatever else, how do I solve this legal problem or something?

so you must be able to request ideas, but maybe that’s just a emergent, on top of. what do you call it? Response? Like a request can look like a response. So I think we only need response. that makes sense. If we only need response, then Tourette’s, circuits that would not normally be activated, are being activated.

there must be a lack of a feedback mechanism in order to quell those activations. alternatively, their feedback mechanism is working fine. But it does not, end up something that goes wrong between the giving of the feedback and the adjustment. So it might be an adjustment problem. Adjustment sounds like a chemical operation in the brain though and chemical operations.

typically I imagine that they’re fairly consistent, unless certain neurons with there’s a genetic. Thing that means that they have different chemistry, like maybe there’s, maybe it flips a gene that, that, determines whether it gets stronger or weaker in response to, in response to a signal, like a feedback signal, that could possibly explain it.

That would explain the deterioration. have we need a bit of a spectrum because some people don’t seem to deteriorate or they, They don’t get worse. I don’t know if there are examples of people with unpredictable themes. if the themes are consistent, then it means the same neurons are affected.

in terms of what other networks we’re trying to think of or something like that. there’s a consistency there, but if the themes are not affected or sorry, if the themes are not consistent, then it can mean that this is happening sporadically between different neurons. Like it’s happening in different places.

Now, I think. The themes are consistent. Like it seems like violence is one, swearing is one, there’s rudeness, like talking about sex, making lewd comments about the other person, which I guess is a borderline, both. those seem like themes. I don’t know about other cases. so we could look into the other cases and find out if there’s anything there.

If they are thematic, then same neurons are affected. The same neurons are affected. It must be a localized cause or the explanation for why it’s happening has to identify the neurons for some reason. So a gene flipping seems possible if it’s at a neuronal level, because, it would mean a persistent change in that neuron.

I don’t think neurons replicate really or if they do, it’s like replacement, it’s not It’s not like massive tissue growth. it’s rather like neural atrophy is like one of the things I think that happens from babies to, I don’t know, young adults, like a lot of the early years of life are killing, connections between neurons not making them.

but that’s a refinement process. Like it makes sense that it’s easier to grow everything strong and then cut it down then to grow everything a week and then try and make it strong. it’s also possible possibly the case that, negative feedback to reduce neurons is much easier than positive feedback.

this would correspond with eliminating very harmful habits, more easily than, I’m not talking about like alcoholism. stabbing yourself in the foot or something. yeah, making actions stop happening is probably easier than making actions happen. you need more focus to try and make actions happen.

You don’t know what the circuits are in advance. So you’ve got a process of trying to find out what those are, through like practice and whatever else. so what’s happening is that there are some strong circuits where everything starts out strong. So we still need to talk about, degradation in this context, because that would suggest that.

Captions are getting stronger, not weaker. but if we start out strong and we get weaker and some things that we would expect people to control, they, the feedback mechanism doesn’t work. That means that they, they must, they don’t need to be reacting the opposite direction. they just need to not respond if they don’t respond, then, they.

Will not get weaker, they don’t get weaker. Then those actions will still happen even though, there’s like a feedback circuit that’s trying to make them not happen. in the case of deterioration, one thing that might be bad for people with Tourette’s is over active feedback. If someone with Tourette’s.

Is overly critical of themselves. They might have lots of strong networks that aren’t being like aren’t being made weaker, but then if they accidentally make the good circuits weaker, then it makes the negative behavior stronger, in like proportion. So particularly if there’s a way to combine ideas so that you can mix ideas in the brain, I don’t know how that would work.

it makes sense that there is some sort of aspect of this because we’ve got, Oh, we’ve got to be generalized. As opposed to running off scripts, scripts are good because they’re very, they’re binary, right? It’s, you’re doing a script or you’re not, behavioral scripts. but people don’t have that.

we do have like patents and things like that, but, there’s no like scripts, the whole like mirror neurons and whatever else. And. being able to like use tools without understanding them sort of thing. Like people are different like that. So maybe we do have scripts, but we also have this other stuff.

with the other stuff, if we can do the other stuff, we must be able to mix and match in a way that script’s can’t, I don’t know how that works, but if we can mix and match, then that means we should be able to like, do something like becoming increasingly violent is a reasonable, like potential outcome of that.

which matches at least one sort of. I don’t know a small number of Tourette’s cases type thing.

what that would suggest in terms of therapy is that, that when, if it’s, if there’s a, if there’s a way that these people suffering it are being made to feel worse about themselves or doing that themselves or other people are doing it, or there’s a cycle. If there’s a feedback loop, It’s overactive, then they need to cut that as soon as possible.

there’s no point applying more bad feedback if that’s the problem, like the feedback system is not working well enough to be a dominant system in this way. there’s a question about positive feedback systems. If they, if it’s the case that a. if it’s the case that a particular behavior, like if, sorry, if it’s the case that a neuron responds to feedback, in the, in, along a spectrum, like if you can send both positive and negative feedback at the same time, this might be problematic, but if it’s a spectrum, like the pH of something, or I dunno what it would be, at the atomic level, you’ve got to have some kind of I guess you’ve got voltage potentials, but that’s pretty high up, right?

Like you need some chemic chemistry stuff at some point and that’s pretty that’s yes, no, it’s operational all the time. you can’t have half an Adam. so the signal thing, maybe there’s a way of communicating, where they’ve made like weather, there’s multiple, if there was a different type of group hanging off the end of an atom, and that could be a particular types of things, you could have, like alcohols have the, of a hydrocarbon type thing.

if you could have something like that, where you could have an Ohr, you could have I don’t know what a replacement function is. another sort of equivalent element. In there. maybe it has a slight different number of electrons and it’s like of a similar weight. or maybe it’s like upper down the periodic table, but you have something like that where there’s multiple options, then you really only need like stronger, neutral, weaker sort of thing.

Like it’s like neutral is a, I mean you could have, if you said I didn’t use the, this connection, so that was the feedback then that would probably be the week or right. otherwise but neutral seems reasonable. One thing that might happen is that, is a neuron might, reverse this thing.

reversing, it seems maybe difficult because, you need some kind of like spectrum or something like you want to be able to flip one thing and have it be reversed. And I’m not sure if you could do that, but you could definitely have it just respond the wrong way to one of them. so maybe there are different types of Tourette’s where.

they respond, they, the bad response to the signals is, like of a particular sort of nature. one of them might be that it misinterprets negative signals, and one of them might be misinterprets, positive signals or something like that. if you diminish all the positive circuits, then I think you’d see a worst case in the scheme of things.

like you’d have more chaotic behavior. whereas if you didn’t have bad feedback, in certain areas then particular like things connected to particular neurons would end up being fired more readily, or more often than they should. and you wouldn’t be able to turn it off. There might be, it might be something in that in terms of, the experience that, folk with turrets have, So we’ve talked about the bits of feedback, how that can work and not work. we’ve there was something that we didn’t talk about before, whether the feedback system doesn’t work or not. So we talked about whether the result of the feedback. Was interpreted either way, but not whether the feedback system worked or not.

is the feedback system not working just the same thing? is it just, are we just moving around where the misinterpret interpretation of a signal happens? I’m not sure.

One thing that has occurred to me is that we were asking about our goals earlier and we didn’t really. no, it was to aid the field. It was to make some advantage. And we were answering the question in the tree. what does it mean? What could it mean? What benefits could it have for people with threats?

One of the things, I don’t know if this has been tried, but a research Avenue that comes out of this line of reasoning is positively encouraging the behavior that is not designed. if the. condition is such that the feedback mechanism is flipped. Is it possible to encourage that behavior and have it be diminished?

I that’s a tricky thing. I don’t know if anyone’s done that because I imagine that it would be quite hard to actually convince someone to do that. Oh, Hey, I’m going to take your child. Who’s becoming increasingly violent and I’m going to encourage them when they’re violent. that seems like a dangerous thing.

I don’t know how you get past an ethics board with that, because if you’re wrong, you might like to help them deteriorate really quickly. Cause that’s got like a potentially really bad negative side effect. Though, of course you could just try it with something that’s, like something that’s easier, or something that’s less harmful.

So if someone had like a tick where they like blinked, like with one eye, like winked, sorry, that’s what it’s called. And you, gave them a thing. Every time they did that, like a physical reward, would that help if they tried to do it, would it help if they like, really actually tried to redo the tick consciously, that would be one way to maybe test it.

If they just tried to do the tick consciously, you don’t need a researcher to do it. the person who’s affected is obviously conscious too. They can make a decision on their own. If they try to do it, I don’t know how that works with vocal ticks, but with physical ticks, that might be okay.

the Twitch streamer who has Tourette’s, or at least why, I don’t know how many there are. but there’s a famous guy. I need Anita, Sweden here. she is reward somewhat for her condition. How would that play into it? Would, So she could still be really, she could still not like the behavior, like she, she physically shows like remorse or regret or something like that.

Hesitancy, she’s definitely not still encouraging the paper. So even though like her personality and I presume that she like makes a fair bit of money on Twitch. so it’s presumably her livelihood. that doesn’t mean that it’s encouraged though. Like she encourages it. She can still just, have a decent attitude about life.

And, so she doesn’t need to be adding to those things because there’s, there might be this case, If, if her Tourette’s got better, then it might indicate, it could be in support if she was like, encouraging if there was like positive feedback within the brain, but I don’t know if that’s really the case.

That’s still a bit of a stretch. yeah, Filters. they’re not good. Or they’ve got like dials that are turned or something or other feedback’s not working or not taking effect somehow happens. I’m seeking the neurons. I think it definitely happens in particular neurons because of the theme stuff though. We’d need to do more research, maybe there’s things about treatment.

I think it’s unlikely that it particularly helps. The consciousness front, unless, it’s like, if this theory turns out to have a lot of explanatory power or leads to something that has a lot of explanatory power, it’s not like it does right now. I think, then it would, like potentially add, it might eliminate some possibilities of how minds work.

I don’t think it would do significant work in this regard. I don’t think I would like. Disprove Beijing ism is like a thing. and that seems like it’s, it’s a much deeper problem because Beijing ism sort of mimics, like analog neurons in some ways, like my, thresholds and probabilities and stuff like that, being, having some relationship there.

So I think that’s a, that’s my work, but. But I don’t know what the current theories of consciousness off, so that’s a different matter. okay. Anyway, I think I’m pretty much explore that idea. I was quite happy that I was able to talk in what I feel like is a fairly coherent way. I’m not sure how can I hear and it’ll be listening back, but it’s definitely, I feel like I was failing on topic and I didn’t, I explored avenues, but I didn’t go down every Avenue too far.

When it was like going to be irrelevant. I think I did a decent job of exploring the tree. So you still didn’t answer the question like we could, we came up with some things that might help testing it, but, we need more to know exactly how they would be implemented, testing. It is when we came up with some ways to.

To eliminate it, but, we can probably come up with better ways if we know more about other theories for how Tourette’s works or other theories of learning, consciousness, idea, generation, that sort of thing. Still no comparison, but we do know about one thing we could try and test an aspect of it. I guess that’s it is, we don’t have a null hypothesis, but we’ve come up with a way that this could be inconsistent with reality. So there is a way to count. We criticism for something in isolation.

It’s not the case that. it’s not the case that ideas are in isolation. They’re never in isolation. And, it’s not the case that we need a full alternate theory to know whether an idea is wrong. Now, of course that’s the case because hard to very sort of stuff. I don’t know a better way of referring to that by shorthand.

because I think hard to various describing the lack of the ability to do a certain technique. So that’s how I think about it is not as, an idea of support, like whether something is easy to, that some ideas are easier and more malleable than other sort of thing like clay, but rather, is there a downside to applying sorts of various techniques to idea generation, because if you can apply these techniques of idea generation, then it shows a sort of arbitrariness, I don’t know how that’s an interesting idea.

yes, my philosophy has stuff about gold generation and things, but what about like anti gold generation? or not is an anti goals or is it like an anti generation? No, it’s not an intergeneration. You’re generating things, but you’re generating bad things. So it’s Yeah, that’d be like auntie goals or something or other, like anti ideas, anti explanations, anti explanations doesn’t sound very like NTID anti goals can just be like bad stuff, but anti explanations are weird. It’s really explanations that conflict with one another, but a not testable is that maybe it.

No, because we can come up with like infinite regresses of testability, where they just have different ways of testing them or different requirements on the test.

definitely that covers the Pacific any stuff? No, but that is testable. It’s just not testable by the gods. If the thing you’re changing about the theory is not the object of the testing, then

that’s bad with the Pacific he missed what’s the object of the testing. The object of the testing is like in the first version, like the two hemispheres, right? You change Stephanie to take a walk. and now the old test. Is like a passes, but, we might have a new test. so when would, when we’re testing, we have to continually change the test because, it’s not, what would be the alternative?

the thing that’s being changed cannot be directly measured with the Pacific. Anything. I need more examples of bad ideas and bad ideas, generation, easy to vary stuff.

one of the things is nonsequitors are a common thing, right? because you can always just replace it with different nonsequitors. It was just that the thing being changed is obviously not the object of the testing because it’s a new thing every time. no. Then it is the object.

The testing potentially like the seasons are due to the fact that it’s like sun every 24 hours. And then I look outside and it’s not sun. so all the sums up every 24 hours. so I, I changed something, so the sun is different. but I’m not changing. My prediction about what goes on outside. No, I am changing.

What goes my prediction about what goes on that side. What’s the object of the testing objects. The testing is light. I’m not changing something about the light. I’m changing something about the explanation, more foundationally to have a flow and effect. So bad ideas have It’s a much harder problem. Alright. Anyway, I’m done exploring that. let’s go back to bar.

what does one do with thoughts that are like "way out there"?

Tue, 04 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

what does one do with thoughts that are like “way out there”?

or what do you do after you have them? or before you have them?

the situation is: I had a thought really late at night (it’s like 4.30am when I’m sending this) and it seems good or groundbreaking or whatever. realistically i can only presume it has issues.

my concern is that i can’t tell (without more thought) if the idea is good or not - and I don’t want to throw it out if it is good. i don’t want to ignore it or throw it out just because i’m tired / a bit intoxicated / whatever when i thought of it. if i throw it out it should be because it’s a bad idea! but how could i not be overreaching and (probably?) wasting my own time?

I ask this with the benefit of hindsight (I’m writing this intro section just before sending): is there anything more to do than just writing it down?

to sorta answer my titular question:

first thing I’ve done is start to write this email b/c I didn’t know what to do.
But the next thing was writing out the idea as an example.
- i’ve managed to write down something I think is coherent, so that’s good.
it’s taken about 40 min, which TBH i don’t think is too bad considering.

am I being reasonable spending any time on this at all? Like if this stuff is ~always going to be wrong it’s a waste of time. but it’s also really fun thinking about this stuff and i’m reluctant to give it up.

example

consider conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) and everette’s many worlds (as put forward by DD in BoI). i (attempt to) give a short overview of CCC in the next section.

in EMW / MWI, the idea that universes are fungible is really important; it’s the reason for interference. fungible universes aren’t ‘located’ anywhere relative to eachother, they sort of exist ‘on top of’ eachother or something; at the very least they coexist. do we have a reason to believe anything in particular WRT ‘the location’ of these universes?

I ask because I don’t know why this would be wrong:

our universe is infinite in space, like the reality we exist in (in some objective sense) is literally comprised of infinite mass spread over infinite space. an event horizon exists outwards due to the dark-matter-driven expansion of space (or spacetime, I’m not clear on that but not sure the distinction matters here). this gives rise to stuff like the cosmic event horizon (16b light years for us) and the particle horizon (46.9b light years for us).

The particle horizon differs from the cosmic event horizon, in that the particle horizon represents the largest comoving distance from which light could have reached the observer by a specific time, while the event horizon is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future. (wikipedia)

cosmic horizon ~ away from us; particle horizon ~ towards us.

some bits of space-time are bits we can’t observe. some bits of space-time we can’t observe are the size of the observable universe. for an infinite space-time there must be infinitely many such bits. so, by the same logic¹ with which we get fungible universe in MWI, we get fungible regions of space-time in an infinite universe. regions of space-time outside of any causal connection to us are indistinguishable from different universes².

why wouldn’t fungible regions of space-time act like fungible universes?

does MWI actually need multiple universes or is one infinite one enough? can we even tell the difference? (by my argument above: no – i think?)

footnotes

one difference in the logic is that the number of universes in MWI is uncountably infinite, but (I think) the number of regions of fungible space-time might be countably infinite b/c any division of space is countable. like we can’t pull an irrational numbers esq trick, can we?
are they?

conformal cyclic cosmology

wikipedia’s opening statements:

The conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) is a cosmological model in the framework of general relativity, advanced by the theoretical physicist Roger Penrose. In CCC, the universe iterates through infinite cycles, with the future timelike infinity of each previous iteration being identified with the Big Bang singularity of the next.

my summary

conformal cyclic cosmology is in essence the idea that the state the universe is in at the big bang is indistinguishable from (and fungible with) the state that the universe is in after a really really long time (like 10^{10^{10^{10^{10^1.1}}}} years or seconds or whatever).

when those two states become fungible we get another big bang. sounds remarkable, why?

keep in mind atomic stuff is essentially point-like. the key idea is that you can’t tell the difference between a really tiny universe with a slow speed of light and a really big universe with a fast speed of light. I think this is basically “scaling time”; but it’s hard to say what “scaling time” means without being circular, so IDK.

but the essence is that the becoming indistinguishable is important for the transition from one epoch to the next (i.e. the next big bang happens).

Notes | Tutorial 22

Mon, 03 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +1000

analysing max’s “debate”

too many things at once
not well explained
gish gallop - win by overwhelming
- need to get standard rationality techniques on autopilot
future debates:
- make a few points well
  - object points, not meta
  - keep it simple, not overly complex
  - explain enough for ppl to learn (opposition or audience)
  - explain enough that someone could give critical feedback
  - keep claims to stuff i’m confident about or explicitly hedge
- keep it short
  - organization structure simpler
  - take time and make tree during discussion
    - or tree after for analysis

tree of debate and comment on debate

max debate tree (covid pandemic image; june 2020)
    image: low deaths per population (0.005%) means there is no pandemic
        max: is this satire?
            [implied 'no' from alice]
            max: 'satire is the most charitable interp'
                implication: if you don't think it's satire then you have low standards for ideas
                    max going on the offensive
                    aside: posting low qual stuff erodes good points
                        alternative thing max could say: i disagree, do you want to debate/discuss?
        alice: reasonable metric?
            max: unclear response "like the data points aren't irrelevant or wrong"
        Alice: i think 0.005% is a good point, why don't you like it?
            max: because it has problems
                [what problems do you think it has?] -- note Alice just said they thought it was good
                max: avoiding giving answer ahead of time
                    max could have been more direct by saying "do you want to make any disclaimers"
        alice: pandemic means prevalence
            the metric (0.005%) means it's not prevalent
                max [non sequitur] evading the thing, being unclear, etc
                    alice replies to get back on track
                        alice: this is what I thought the convo was
                            alice: is the metric is satire or low standard? [sic]
                                max: metric wouldn't have qualified as satire without image
                                    max: trying to back alice into corner and set her up, max lacks skill
                                        plus don't need to do that
                                        alice: i think it has zero problems
                            alice: mild infection, supporting details
        alice: i don't think it has problems
            max: here's my list
                list lacks explanation
                alice: you're being pedantic, the point still stands
    max's list
        conclusion doesn't follow (not explained)
        too many sig figs
        no citations
        number of deaths unrelated to pandemic status
            alice: for a mild infection only mortality counts b/c other symptoms can be ignored
        ignores proactive measures

for next session

grammar stuff
text analysis
- chapters of possible minds
- TCS material

thoughts on learning

Fri, 31 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

thoughts on learning

what is the benefit of sticking with hard problems? e.g. maths challenge qs at end of chapter
can we do learning more efficiently by learning multiple things? crossover/shared foundations could help (e.g. coding + maths markup)
are there benefits of ‘exploratory learning’ with a higher error rate?
- could be used to find more places one has problems
  - why would you need exploratory learning for that
is exploratory learning similar to doing a full speedrun?
- e.g. GISTE mentioned getting a PB of 2:06 (presumably 2hrs)
  - he mentioned not meeting some consistency goals: this points out places to focus practice
  - having the PB is motivating, i suspect ppl would stick with it, or progress faster (?), or at least that there’d be some qualitative differences between those who do complete runs vs those who practice “too much” on smaller / individual stuff

Notes | Tutorial 21

Fri, 31 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

grammar - trouble checking things; can check with multiple techniques -> do the multiple approaches agree? (convergence? sorta)

if you don’t know how to tell if something is right or not -> not ready to move on

todo: analysis similar to possible minds
look for debate stuff
grammar stuff, folders 2 and 3

Notes | Tutorial 20

Wed, 29 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

finite verb needs a subject

explain doesn’t have a subject
finite verb: action actually happening
not an explain action in “i can explain”
second way (explain I can) is conceptually nice but not grammatically accurate structure wise
finite vs non-finite not particularly well covered - wiki has some good grammar stuff

I can explain the acronyms if need be

can
    i
    explain
        acronyms
            the

non-finite verbs can play a noun role (has to be gerund or infinitive)

verbal: means nonfinite verb

infinitives don’t need ‘to’ - if a verbal isn’t a gerund but is playing a noun role it must be an infinitive

what thing is doing what action at a specified point in time

a finite verb is bounded (not partial)

the nonfinite verb has some unbound aspect/parameter. often this relates to the timing, but can have subject (uncommon) or object (common) too

“need be” as verb + auxverb can’t be under ‘if’ as preposition

need could be an infinitive - but where does ‘be’ go

be -> synonym for exists -> ‘need exists’ -> ….

be - present subjunctive

ET: learn faster by focusing on simpler cases

error: if as preposition -> more practice to become automatic

Notes | Tutorial 19

Mon, 27 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Grammar:

gone through initial 3 videos
read some of the PDFs
going through Rithmatist (ep1 nearly done)

Qs:

Is there anything particular I should be looking to get out of the grammar material?
- feels similar to what we’ve already been doing
- a bit boring - is that an issue? should it be?
- I’m a bit unsure / unfocused

Point of doing grammar work:

double check material / reviewing / is it autopilot enough?
how to transition from building blocks to structures
- grammar -> text analysis

https://voteflux.org/pdf/Redefining%20Democracy%20-%20Kaye%20&%20Spataro%201.0.2.pdf

This paper identifies fundamental flaws in our current democratic systems and explains that while they were useful previously, no longer serve their purpose and need to be replaced. We will explain how authority in democracy acts as a restriction on political progress, and describe a new model of democracy bringing a new era of political prosperity by removing authority from decision making

and
    This paper identifies fundamental flaws in our current democratic systems
    explains that [those systems] no longer serve their purpose and need to be replaced.
        while they were useful previously

on ‘i think’

if always present it loses communication

I think: X

####

current reality tree / future reality tree

toc-tv gsp series - how to persuade ppl to change

####

and
    It will describe a new system of democracy called 'Issue Based Direct Democracy' (IBDD) 
    make a case for why it is not only preferable to representative and direct democracy
    but essential for the continued prosperity of the human race well into this century and beyond.  

correlative conjunctions examples

post to FI

Notes | Tutorial 18

Fri, 24 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

stable long term - mix hard and not hard things.

find some things with lower T:ME ratio (mental energy)

need to mix in on daily basis

switching when getting stuck?! e.g. AoE2 - not breaking new ground

goal: find ways to make progress during low-energy periods

divide day:

hard stuff
easier that’s productive in major goals
do whatever

0:40:00

technique re: have one major productive part of day

give yourself a chance to do other things
- gives information about mental energies resources remaining

changing schedules - be gradual

1:35:00 - analysing some text (EY on lesswrong)

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5LASfhhArZ7w/expecting-short-inferential-distances

In the ancestral environment, you were unlikely to end up more than one inferential step away from anyone else. When you discover a new oasis, you don’t have to explain to your fellow tribe members what an oasis is, or why it’s a good idea to drink water, or how to walk. Only you know where the oasis lies; this is private knowledge. But everyone has the background to understand your description of the oasis, the concepts needed to think about water; this is universal knowledge. When you explain things in an ancestral environment, you almost never have to explain your concepts. At most you have to explain one new concept, not two or more simultaneously.

Notes | Tutorial 17

Wed, 22 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

without clear goals can’t measure own progress
- feedback re doing right things / when you get rewards
making own goals vs stdized goals shared with other ppl
- ixl.com - learning worksheets (grammar particularly?)
- find structured goal resourecs?

initial barrier to entry

once you get over that’s progress
can aim for that
got it working for X time
can keep making progress (start to know what to work on / look for)

learning steps:

do it 1st time and a few times
do it consistently
do it cheaply

in depth analysis useful
- don’t do it by default for all articles
- perfectionism harmful sometimes for completing task

reviewing goals regularly

if goals are good:

feel good / motivated / interested
- if absent something is wrong
if not motivated
- remind self of why it’s good
  - write down reasons, go through them
- replace self-doubt/loathing with brainstorming what you don’t like about goal X

[ ] - brainstorm things good with games / bad with games

throwing out random concretes easier to start with esp when you don’t have categories / think outside categories / rethink things you already know about

throwing out concretes first can validate categories, instead of like confirmation bias by only filling in things that already exist

less abstract also better for communicating

MK: [] need more practice with other styles
- preferring abstract amkes it harder to learn philosophy
  - b/c you need to find concretes and test self

easier to come up with solns for concrete examples

then easier to generalise

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/724819412502446091/735334540255690774/Architecture_Project_Plan_Example.pdf

important to operate when not at best (tired / bad mood / whatever)

feeling of perfectionism wrt things like philosophy or writing, so ppl try not to do it when not optimal
ways to do stuff when not at best
- slower
- more methodical
- skip fewer steps, shorter sentences etc
- more verbose / notes / aids

if can’t do at best need to change method

look for evidence and details

how much is tiredness / no resources
how much is liking the other stuff
- specific things to look for re burnout
sleep monitoring
- sleep proportional to “intellectual energy”
  - above average expected
- first approx suggestion: 8.5hrs to start w/ and consistent time + duration
convince self that doing work while sleep deprived is bad
more sleep -> more takes away excuses (helps clarify)
which activities have most value and why do I find value?
what am i not fully convinced is valuable?
remind self of ideas about self-value
- position: irrelevant, velocity & accel
- progress snowballs / approx exponential
- comparing model projects

OWL Exercises

Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

(blank atm - haven’t done any of these)

Exercise : Comma Exercise 1

Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

NOT DONE

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl_exercises/punctuation_exercises/commas/comma_exercise_1.html

Add commas as needed in the sentences below. On the line to the left of each sentence, write the number of the appropriate comma rule (click here to see the rules). If the sentence is correct as it is, write C on the line and refer to the appropriate rule in parentheses after the sentence.

He left the scene of the accident and tried to forget that it had happened.

1	He left the scene of the accident, and tried to forget that it had happened.

Note: I checked the answers after this first attempt. Rule 1 is:

Use commas to separate independent clauses when they are joined by any of these seven coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet. I googled ‘independent clauses’ and it sounds like the inverse is a subordinate clause. My initial thought about it was the ‘it’ is a back reference, so not independent. next thing I found: An independent clause is a clause that can stand alone as a sentence (i.e., it expresses a complete thought). A dependent clauses (or subordinate clause) is one that cannot stand alone as a complete sentence (i.e., it does not express a complete thought). the 2nd clause has an implied he if nothing else: ... and [he] tried to forget that it happened. so a clause is independent only when a) has a backref and/or b) implied words from the previous clause. those two sound like we could just say ‘has a grammatical dependency of any kind on the previous clause’.

Oil which is lighter than water rises to the surface

_____ Oil, which is lighter than water, rises to the surface.

_____ Madame de Stael was an attractive gracious lady.

_____ Nice is a word with many meanings and some of them are contradictory.

_____ The contractor testified that the house was completed and that the work had been done properly.

_____ Some people refuse to go to the zoo because of pity for creatures that must live in small cages.

_____ Taxicabs that are dirty are illegal in some cities.

_____ The closet contained worn clothes old shoes and dirty hats.

_____ The uninvited guest wore a dark blue tweed suit.

_____ After surviving this ordeal the trapper felt relieved.

_____ Mark Twain’s early novels I believe stand the test of time.

_____ December 7 1941 will never be forgotten.

_____ The field was safe enough wasn’t it?

_____ Write the editor of the Atlantic 8 Arlington Street Boston Massachusetts 02116.

_____ He replied “I have no idea what you mean.”

_____ After a good washing and grooming the pup looked like a new dog.

_____ Because of their opposition to institutions that force creatures to live in captivity some people refuse to go to the zoo.

_____ Men who are bald are frequently the ones who are the most authoritative on the subject of baldness.

_____ Vests which were once popular have been out of vogue for several years.

_____ As a celestial goddess she regulated the course of the heavenly bodies and controlled the alternating seasons.

_____ I hope that someday he will learn how to be polite.

Notes | Tutorial 16

Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

object/complement patterns
- can look up / memorise linking verbs

motivation and things

when ppl don’t do things with no obvious reason (emotions/motivation)
- not fully persuaded
  - conflicted
  - criticisms, doubts, objections (in your mind)
part: frustrated / not doing what I value
the avoidance behaviour (e.g. social events over reading books)
- reasons I like the social events, not fully refuted so don’t try avoiding them
consume less mental energy -> rested
- do it tired
find video games more
- often go back to old ones
- easier / familiar
- easier to do tired
- liked for reasons like reward cycles / (pve wow + bethesda)
- do better different
reward cycles
- common misconceptions
  - defer to authority - approval by teacher type thing
    - ppl not used to setting goals, game gives you goals
      - easier / thoughtless too
      - collectables, level ups, sounds, choose stats ritual, etc
      - games provide indirection: get to lvl 60 before this area is unlocked
    - ppl not confident in setting own goals
      - effortful
      - compete against ppl on same goals, make comparisons (all playing a diff game)
      - std goals allows syncing up between players
      - why would these goals appeal more than my goals?
        
        my goals unclear to me?

criticism of bad things is not thourough enough

things ppl think are good not fully convinced

e.g. reading not always good
- not getting enough value out of that
- their type of reading not always good
  - if they were better they might do more, or at least know more about whether they do like it or not
- ppl have misconceptions, e.g. of what intellectuals do
  - e.g. over-rational prediction of what life would be like
  - which they don’t really want
categories
- might like things instead of FI
- critcisms that aren’t thorough enough
- FI work not productive enough
  - not doing in best ways?
- doubts/objections
  - e.g. will it lead to a big difference
overestimation of capacity
- best case vs average case, no buffer etc
- not accounting being tired, just raw time
- transition time, overhead
burnout testable
- break + sleep + see if feel better
  - burnout -> should be able to manage life in better way
    - could build up slowly
    - how to deal with over-engagement?
    - find limits via overly-conservative
if prob is burnout, shouldn’t be super hard to find long-term soln
- err on low side
  - tune it up gradually
- variety of activity including easier ones
  - use different resources
  - small amount of “high output” hours per day
imbalance between mental/physical means excess capacity you could use
- efficiency
- how quickly you get tired -> how hard -> quality and practice of prerequisites
  - foundation makes that better
    - conflicts on belief on foundations?
  - FI has lots of unique/diverse skills (different from my BG for example)
early warning signs
- document and learn to listen to them
avoiding working on some issues because stuck is more specific than doing things because of tiredness which is more general

evasion: after break, do they go back to something else or something different? returning to topic: indication the problem

disappointed in self

desired to see self as X / be seen as X
- social: threatening to lose status
- conflict
clash between reasonable expectations and actual case
recalibrate expectations (what you’re able to do, etc)
could just lower
- but coming up with explanatory understanding -> higher direction / specific fixes / etc

daily energy budgets

reducing overhead important
practice increases budgets in relevant areas (like exercise and physical currency)
- potential compound wrt learning
cheapening activities - no limit?
- doing something according to misconception
  - goal of reading a book is not to read all the words, but to understand concpets (well with some books)
    - outlines / search / etc
using budget more efficiently - what’s your ACTUAL maximum budget
- understanding regen
- rest activities (nap, random tv/chill, music, etc)

overhead:

whats normal?
- if not standard, high priority, [usually] achievable (b/c not normal)
inefficiency comes from errors (sometimes irrational; like misconceptions when starting a project)
- that’s higher priority
bigger issue: commitments and time mgmt / limits

WRT big picture change: piecemeal change

overestimation of impact of new knowledge

splitting activities?

tracking my grammar mistakes

Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

ET and I talked about some of this stuff, and the ambiguity of ‘appearance’ in today’s tutorial. (email to FI, 2020-07-17)

should omit comma. s/and/including will make the sentence clearer, too.

The Constitution of Australia says no one is eligible for office

Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

My goal with this post is to tackle a small argument while communicating and structuring it well. It’s unlikely anyone here is familiar with it, which might be good b/c there’s less preconceived knowledge.

The initial topic was: The Constitution of Australia says no one is eligible for office

I streamed the planning process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIuebFA1jSY (approx 2hrs; including grammar analysis)

ET and I looked over the planning in Tutoring Max #14

Links:

article tree planning + grammar tree
outline (text + hierarchy)

Australia has had an illegal and unconstitutional government for 119 years, and no citizen is eligible to sit in HoR or the Senate, even if they wanted to.

Australia’s constitution is not well written and has problems like being internally inconsistent. It has grammatical oddities (if not errors), and includes the implication that any elected parliamentarian passing through foreign airports is automatically ineligible to hold office. Elected officials are also required to swear allegiance to a foreign power (Queen Elizabeth II), which disqualifies them from holding office.

The relevant section of the constitution is Section 44 (s44). After the 2016 election numerous parliamentarians resigned due to s44. This triggered by-elections, but bought some MPs (members of parliament) enough time to fix the issues, allowing some of them to win the by-election.

My interpretations could be considered as outside the spirit of the law. The problem with this is that whether rules are enforced or not must be based on potentially inexplicit knowledge in judges’ or magistrates’ heads, which weakens the law because it becomes less clear when and how to apply it. This lack of consistency also means the scenarios we should or shouldn’t apply aspects of the law are blurred (unpredictability, etc, see 15m-20m). Thus people in Australian society who interact with these laws put themselves in a higher-risk situation than the original authors intended.

A person can be disqualified from being elected to parliament in five cases under s44, but we’re only interested the first case (s44.i):

[Any person who] is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or [any person who] is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power [shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives].

— The Australian Constitution – Section 44

I created an outline of this sentence to make it easier to understand: (where {...} denotes a clause and [...] is replacing words with rough equivalents)

{[anyone who] is [under X to Z]} or {[anyone who] is [Y or entitled to rights of Y] of [Z]}, {shall be [disqualified]}

X: any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence
Y: a subject or a citizen
Z: a foreign power

(Note: use descriptive names, not single letter variables; easier for ppl to understand)

Analysing `s44.i`

S44.i can disqualify people if they acknowledge “allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power”, which is very broad. For example, if I am passing through an airport and given an instruction by local officials (e.g. TSA officers), I’m likely to comply. Those staff work for a foreign power, and complying with their instructions is showing obedience^1 to a foreign power.

S44.i also means that claiming ignorance is an acceptable ‘get out of jail’ card. I suspect the authors wanted to include some idea like mens rea, but they’ve introduced some odd side effects with their choice of phrasing.

The Oath and Affirmation

Parliamentarians must take an oath or affirmation before sitting in parliament:

Oath: I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

Affirmation: I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

(NOTE – The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)

— The Australian Constitution – Schedule

It is explicitly noted in the Constitution that the head of state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This makes her the head of state of at least one foreign power, from the perspective of the Constitution.

The Monarchy

Citizens of a monarchy are known as subjects of the monarch; some non-citizens might also be subjects depending on the monarchy in question and the date. For example, before 1949 all Australians were British subjects^2.

Australia is a type of monarchy, and Queen Elizabeth II is our current head-of-state.

Queen Elizabeth II is uncontroversially and universally recognised as Australia’s head-of-state. If someone were elected to parliament and they didn’t know this, they would find out pretty quick because she’s explicitly mentioned as part of the oath one takes before assuming their seat in Parliament.

Queen Elizabeth II is the head of other states, too, such as the UK and Canada.

The head of state of a foreign power is a foreign power, which clashes with s44.i.

What then, for elected officials in Australia?

An elected official in Australia must acknowledge, explicitly, their allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II as part of their swearing in.

Queen Elizabeth II is a foreign power, as she is the head of state of nations other than Australia.

Australia has had the same oath since independence in 1901. Thus every person who has taken the oath since 1901 has knowingly been allied to the King or Queen of a foreign power.

Every sitting parliamentarian of Australia since 1901 has acknowledged an allegiance to said foreign power; which disqualifies them under s44. Those people are therefore “incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives”.

Therefore, no member of parliament has ever held office legally.

Final notes

If there had been some ruling on these arguments by the high court, there might be precedent for sitting members to have done so legally. I’m not aware of such a ruling.

Since deciding the matter of citizenship is a sovereign right of nations themselves, they are free to decide their own criteria for citizenship. Furthermore, citizenship does not need to be acknowledged by either party to be in effect; it is simply unrecognised at that point. Any nation (as long as it is recognised as a nation by Australia) could introduce a new class of citizenship defined like “any sitting member of Australian parliament is automatically granted citizenship for their full sitting period”. Doing so would mean there would be no Australian capable of sitting in the HoR or senate, as to do so would immediately disqualify them.

1: There’s a suitable definition of ‘adherence’ which fits this pattern, too, but the other two definitions in Webster’s 1913 are more appropriate.

2: well, at least according to this wikipedia page.

Notes from Tutorial 2020-07-17

decent focus, not trying to say too much
lots of info, mostly clear
issues as covered
has casued issues
level for ppl who want political battles
- excuse to attack
- good to remove technicalities

Appearance is never worth sacrificing one's integrity for.

Wed, 15 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

background: Flux is a political movement aiming to introduce new ideas to politics and use those ideas to build better democracies.

Appearance is never worth sacrificing one’s integrity for.

Appearance matters because it is taken as an honest indicator. Animals use honest indicators to signal the quality of their genes. This works well for non-human animals because looking good is hard to fake. To some extent this is true for humans too, but people are creative and know how to fake it.

The best thinkers know appearance can be misleading, and they have more skill judging ideas than other people. When judging ideas, one important factor is judging an idea’s content above its source or appearance.

Democracy is an old idea, and the stable systems of democracy that exist today have traditions and knowledge which enable their stability and persistence. Many thinkers over the past few centuries have failed to come up with significantly better ideas about how to do democracy. For us (Flux) to claim that Flux and IBDD are better than the stable systems of today requires us to also claim we have made a breakthrough where many others have failed. That means we must have some exceptionally high quality ideas.

Lots of Flux’s ideas don’t have to be exceptionally high quality, like our ideas about how to do social media well. In fact, most of our ideas, like what to say in this newsletter, or how to try pitching the party in the next interview; those ideas don’t need to be exceptionally high quality all the time. However, when we catch the eye of an exceptional thinker, they will look for substance. It’s better for us if they think we have good ideas, so we need to be ready for those moments.

Integrity is a much better honest indicator than appearance. Appearance can be changed by ideas that aren’t deeply connected to one’s goals, but our principles must be deeply connected to our goals. For us, as a party, to have integrity means we must be principled and be honest to those principles. Good principles don’t need to be compromised, ever. If we compromise our principles we’re acknowledging that they aren’t good enough. Our principles, goals, and ideas about democracy are deeply connected, so to compromise our principles is to admit our ideas are not of exceptional quality.

We (Flux: the party, the movement, the people) claim to bring a serious alternative to representative democracy in the form of ideas. Some people will be able to judge these ideas already. Other people won’t, so they need some short-cut like an honest indicator. If we prioritise an indicator like appearance over integrity we risk compromising our principles. If we do that, some people might think better of us, but the best thinkers will see we’ve compromised our integrity.

To put our appearance above our integrity is to put short-term reward above long-term honesty. If we claim our ideas are enduring, then our integrity must be enduring. Our honesty must be enduring. And that is why our integrity should never be sacrificed for the sake of our appearance.

Some future post topics:

principles of Flux
initial limits on IBDD: criminal code (sans single-party crimes), electoral law
electoral cycles reward the dishonest because they are carrots on short sticks, but good democracy needs bigger carrots on longer sticks.

notes from tutorial #15 (2020-07-17)

appearance is ambiguous
animals and evolution introduced, but why and not connected to topic
decent number of dishonest indicators
- peacocks tail, waste of resources
so paragraph 1 is unclear, what was better to say?
indicator for what?
- social skill dishonest indicator of financial success
- indicators can be honest/dishonest based on perspective
appearance is data - need explanation about person - so it is part of judging part of ideas, esp depending on goal of the judging; “above” sounds like weighting factors
- theory laden; explanation must say why it’s relevant
contradictory to later
claiming exceptional - proof of work ; something easier to start with, 12:57pm
prior to politics: political philosophy
integrity means more than principles
controversial or unclear idea for ppl generally so should talk about principles more explicitly even tho they’re mentioned in the definition of integrity
clash between both not explained, why would we sacrifice one to the other
- unexplained appearance (1:04pm)

seemed incomplete, unstructured, exploratory, not good at communicating core idea

next time:

for every para I write, make a tree for paragraph (after an editing pass)
- satisfy by normal methods
- use tree to look for issues / opportunities
what rule about good writing am i violating and how to fix, did I succeed
write out 2+ ways in case of intuition, can compare, then do I have explicit crits at that stage?
leave alone if there isn’t a clear problem
- fast and loose, don’t sweat details
more structured writing has more explicit goals so easier to know if it meets goals / violates goals
why not getting attention for the things we do want to say (1:17pm)

maybe audience has bigger problems - no one paying attention

isn’t this like life and EC in general?
more of a role for political commentators etc?
- their goal is social climbing or similar things, EC not appealing
better EC in govt against interest of ppl in power
less relevant who’s in power – better systems do this; less arbitrary control; better ideas win on their own as opposed to needing political support
- ppl lose motivation to become the leader
no specific goal -> intuition based writing -> based on generic audience -> harder to optimise because goals aren’t explicit

Notes | Tutorial 13

Mon, 13 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Tutorial 13

the choice

relating to it’s not luck

re complexity:

brainstorm -> cause effect find causes, maybe intermediaries -> find nexus in tree

yes/no (12m)

1595 - variety of things predatings BoI

rejecting gradations of certainty 2016

1589

1581 - epist without weights

fi - discussions and how to take non-responses (15m)

dangerous to presume low error rate in non-replied posts

why no reply diff question to OP
self-reply 3+ days

pick a single topic and discuss to conclusion

if getting stuck:

can ask for suggestions
pausing discussion - problem is not following through, easy to start new discussions

grammar (23m)

keep practice up
peikoff course has homework exercises
curi gumroad grammar course

text analysis (28m)

Artificial intelligence is an existence proof of one of the great ideas in human history: that the abstract realm of knowledge, reason, and purpose does not consist of an élan vital or immaterial soul or miraculous powers of neural tissue.

AI is of a great idea: the non-supernatural mind.

[The idea of the existence of AGI proves the mind is [not wholly?] supernatural [but doesn’t exclude it]]

Rather, it can be linked to the physical realm of animals and machines via the concepts of information, computation, and control.

it: candidate:

AI
!! existence proof
!! one of the great ideas in human history [that the abstract realm of knowledge, reason, and purpose [does not consist of]]
the abstract realm of knowledge, reason, and purpose

[to some degree AGI is based in physical realm: info systems / computations.] [to some degree is based in physical realm: info systems / computations.]

Knowledge can be explained as patterns in matter or energy that stand in systematic relations with states of the world, with mathematical and logical truths, and with one another.

{Knowledge can be } {[and those patterns] stand , , }.

Knowledge can be explained as patterns Those patterns are of matter or energy Those patterns stand in systematic relations with: states of the world Those patterns stand in systematic relations with: mathematical and logical truths Those patterns stand in systematic relations with: one another.

[knowledge [is] patterns. those patterns stand: * in relations to states of world * with truths * with one another]

knowledge:

instantiation in reality / physics
relationships to:
- states of the world
- maths + logic
- consistent with “one another” (referring to patterns?)

(grammar tree up to 88 minutes)

returning to paragraph (93 min)

Reasoning can be explained as transformations of that knowledge by physical operations that are designed to preserve those relations.

Purpose can be explained as the control of operations to effect changes in the world, guided by discrepancies between its current state and a goal state.

Purpose is about making or preventing changes to the world based on our ideas and goals.

Naturally evolved brains are just the most familiar systems that achieve intelligence through information, computation, and control.

are there artificially evolved brains

Humanly designed systems that achieve intelligence vindicate the notion that information processing is sufficient to explain it—the notion that the late Jerry Fodor dubbed the computational theory of mind.

from stephen pinker’s article

Possible Minds

discussion structures 89min

estimate of discussion structure
- both ppl estimate complexity of discussion

ET’s email 110 min

philosophy who needs it : ctrl-f elephant; ppl who write like pinker
- fancy ideas - self blame when they don’t understand

Notes | Tutorial 12 | Yes/No 2/2

Fri, 10 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Notes from 8th July

persistent error in prev epistemology: ‘amounts of goodness’
- “degrees”
- “for/against” arguments positive adds, negative subtracts
vagueness: main issue: when the problem is vague
- insufficient to decide yes/no
alt to degree arguments: decisive arguments (they have priority)
- only negative
- some ppl think decisive arguments contradict fallibility (only positive decisive arguments tho, not negative)
example of decisive args: contradicts {evidence,itself,arithmatic}

we can always come up with decisive arguments?

correctness vs usefulness vs truth
- relative to goal!

getting decisive arguments

better goals (clear, precise)

premature work in arguments wasted if we don’t have good goals

focus - too many things at once?

TOC - chain w/ 50+ links; 48 have excess capacity / buffer so are easy.

primary goals: low number, spcific and picky; aiming for better than pass secondary: low focus, not a bottlenecks; just need to pass

limit # of bottlenecks

too many things => unstable (balanced plant)

subproblems -> only some factors

how do you get excess capacity with binary factors? must be reasonably easy in context of one’s life

divide goals into many factors with binary evaluation

analogue factors

ways to convert analogue factors to binary (all reasonable valid ones) – and they should be

breakpoints

pet: >$30 too much -> binary factor; even if more lower => more better

discontinuity; notable difference at a point, a jump / cusp

reasons certain values are important, cannot think about infinite things but continuums have infinite points; waste to think about early/med/late too specifically

examples:

look at every integer value; pseudo breakpoints; not important conceptually but is easier to think about / less needed in head – better than nothing, arbitrary breakpoints, space them evenly or appropriately (could space linearly on inputs)
- can avoid being mislead through too much precision; obscures details
- percentages imply continuous

maximisation problems get to binary (q: re optimisation)

maximise many factors with conversion factors compound goals -> don’t convert to single score

degree epist -> converts ALL factors to one score binary epist -> can have orthogonal factors -> never convert

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/14/the-order-of-things -> conversion factors hard, easy to come up with factors, har to come up with score; money and time often easier to agree on conversion factors -> policy in democracy

compound goals avoids need for conversion (can avoid putting a price on some things, for example)

compound goals

might need to be less picky, e.g. 4 of 5 of these goals

many solns

pick any, it’s fine
consider more goal criteria, more ambitious compound goal
- could inspire better solns

similar to cycle of conjecture and crit

in general we calibrate goals to abilities

no solns

brainstorm more solns
- brainstorm for smaller sets of criteria
brainstorm workarounds for particular criteria / goals
be less picky

(when brainstorming) direct/indirect soln:

direct answers problem
indirect does something else / changes conditions / criteria / workarounds

Notes from 10th July

yes/no starts at about (0:30:00)

converting via yes/no qs - different to breakpoints

‘will this dog fit in my car?’ -> related to breakpoint on size

‘will my friends like it?’ -> no clear breakpoint but good q to ask, still

focus

like TOC, excess capacity for most goals, don’t have the ‘balanced factory’, becomes easy to handle those. then can focus on key goals

decisive arguments have priority over degree, there are some techniques to always make enough decisive arguments. no need for degree

avoiding coercion (1:07:00)

we have time limits/resources

ideas A,B contradict, real implications

how to act when we can’t tell if A/B is right?

-> “given I don’t know the answer to A vs B, what should I do right nwo?”

the conflict -> is a given both sides accept

persuasion is fine -> consent

reasonable from both A and B side

come up with something new,

side with the option with low side effects, maybe B has not many bad side effects if wrong, so could test
find a new idea that’s low risk
can stall for time, like prevent problem becoming worse but not solve it yet
maybe a full solution (new idea)

what if you fail coming up with new option?

We Can Always Act on Non-Criticized Ideas (1:22:00)

disagreeing ideas -> if they can’t guide you to an answer / or q to ask to get answer -> none are good enough (pending some improvement) -> new ideas required

converting pos args to neg (1:27:00)

pos args say something good, neg -> crit rivals for lacking merit

point of args is to differentiate ideas

negative arguments more rigorous

positive degree arguments claim to have reach -> error prone

binary - converting 99min (1:39:00)

thinking in more binary way means less need for conversions

breakpoints - many->one mappings

move judgments from solns -> goals / decision charts (103m) (1:43:00)

how to do that judgement well

decision chart
- yes/no procedure
recurse the problem - no limit

look for decisive factors -> which issues to eb picky about

key downsides

look for things to eliminate, (many ideas you need to test -> test first the one that’s easiest to eliminate if false)

infinite recursion -> need techniques to resolve critical arguments back and forth -> trivial to continue chain in bad faith

margins of errors breakpoints (2:06:00)

continuums harder to find breakpoints, mostly can’t find exact breakpoint, 100 +- 20; qualitative change aroudn there

use solns not in grey area

if no solns outside grey -> ask questions via techniques above to reduce error bars, but mostly we don’t need to do this.

don’t optimise unless important

Libraries of crit / patterns of error (113 min) (1:53:00)

criticisms with reach, generality (save in library)
- find patterns - do not refute one by one
  - refute categories of ideas; match certain patterns
  - e.g. hard-to-vary
  - is there always a criticism with reach for any bad faith arg? -> coming up with new ways of doing bad faith is a hard problem -> they aren’t great solving problems
everything is either
- already covered
- or worth considering
bigger library -> more things covered
- new things become more special

big picture (early in tutorial)

system for org thinking, still need for judgement and creativity

erroneously applying “judge ideas on content”
bad political idea: “flip-flopping” / punish politicians for changing their mind
moving goals are okay! Just be explicit

Notes | Tutorial 11 | Yes/No 1/2

Wed, 08 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

persistent error in prev epistemology: ‘amounts of goodness’
- “degrees”
- “for/against” arguments positive adds, negative subtracts
vagueness: main issue: when the problem is vague
- insufficient to decide yes/no
alt to degree arguments: decisive arguments (they have priority)
- only negative
- some ppl think decisive arguments contradict fallibility (only positive decisive arguments tho, not negative)
example of decisive args: contradicts {evidence,itself,arithmatic}

we can always come up with decisive arguments?

correctness vs usefulness vs truth
- relative to goal!

getting decisive arguments

better goals (clear, precise)

premature work in arguments wasted if we don’t have good goals

focus - too many things at once?

TOC - chain w/ 50+ links; 48 have excess capacity / buffer so are easy.

primary goals: low number, spcific and picky; aiming for better than pass secondary: low focus, not a bottlenecks; just need to pass

limit # of bottlenecks

too many things => unstable (balanced plant)

subproblems -> only some factors

how do you get excess capacity with binary factors? must be reasonably easy in context of one’s life

divide goals into many factors with binary evaluation

analogue factors

ways to convert analogue factors to binary (all reasonable valid ones) – and they should be

breakpoints

pet: >$30 too much -> binary factor; even if more lower => more better

discontinuity; notable difference at a point, a jump / cusp

reasons certain values are important, cannot think about infinite things but continuums have infinite points; waste to think about early/med/late too specifically

examples:

look at every integer value; pseudo breakpoints; not important conceptually but is easier to think about / less needed in head – better than nothing, arbitrary breakpoints, space them evenly or appropriately (could space linearly on inputs)
- can avoid being mislead through too much precision; obscures details
- percentages imply continuous

maximisation problems get to binary (q: re optimisation)

maximise many factors with conversion factors compound goals -> don’t convert to single score

degree epist -> converts ALL factors to one score binary epist -> can have orthogonal factors -> never convert

compound goals avoids need for conversion (can avoid putting a price on some things, for example)

compound goals

might need to be less picky, e.g. 4 of 5 of these goals

many solns

pick any, it’s fine
consider more goal criteria, more ambitious compound goal
- could inspire better solns

similar to cycle of conjecture and crit

in general we calibrate goals to abilities

no solns

brainstorm more solns
- brainstorm for smaller sets of criteria
brainstorm workarounds for particular criteria / goals
be less picky

(when brainstorming) direct/indirect soln:

direct answers problem
indirect does something else / changes conditions / criteria / workarounds

aux

max has idea re math + fallibility

analogue factors: IBDD/legislation/budgets

complexity - multiple acceptable answers
can you express preferences like this to eval multiple candidates? avoids problems of ranking in pref. systems

The Choice - Outline

Tue, 07 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Chapter 1
Chapters 2 and 3
1. Parallels to BoI - Ch3
Chapter 4
1. Parallels to BoI - Ch4
Chapter 5
1. Parallels to BoI - Ch5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8

Chapter 1

One’s choice of how to perceive reality (with regards to problems) is (one of?) the most important and impacting choices of one’s life. It is necessary to live a full life. In the chapter it’s called the scientist’s approach.

Broadly, if one wants to live a full life one must make some core decisions, and particularly one decision. That is: problems are soluble, solutions are attainable, and that one CHOOSES to devote the time to understand the problems that come up and how to solve them. (though it’s not expressed in The Choice like this, I think BoI puts the idea simply, so use that language here.) The way to do this is the scientist’s approach: we can know about and prepare for the world in such a way that failures become opportunities to learn, and we can find that energising. Common perceptions of reality have two problems: avoiding using brain power because we think we don’t have it, problems & solutions must be super complex, so we don’t have the right tools; and an unwillingness to see reality for what it is, and applying the wrong knowledge in search of the solution. The chapter ends with the conjecture that complex reality is actually simple, and Eli and Efrat agree to analyse a big apparel company to figure it out, next time on The Choice.

Chapters 2 and 3

Main Idea: The demonstration of the common sense logic in ch1 (ch2) and Efrat’s reflection on said logic and the report from ch2.

Chapter 2 is a walk-through of the common sense referred to in chapter 1 via an analysis of “Big Brand” and possible improvements to their operation. It exposes several ways Big Brand fool themselves with language and methodology. It also details the chain of reasoning by which executives of Big Brand come to realise many of their problems are addressable with changes to the way they deal with supply and manufacture of their goods.

Chapter 3 is Efrat’s reflection on the idea of common-sense logic from ch1, the report from ch2, and on what that means for herself and one’s life and approach to life. She agrees the reasoning in ch2 is logical and common sense, but doesn’t see how she could do that herself.

She thinks there are two barriers: not prioritising the biggest problem, and dismissing options early due to perceiving reality as overly complex.

She posits that when people face undesirable situations (unable to make progress due to their belief in a complex reality and thus unwillingness to look for solutions seriously), a (maybe minor) breakthrough is required. There must be some knowledge creation to make progress. Furthermore, this breakthrough creates meaningful opportunities, and that it is not lack of brainpower which enables this, but a lack of efficacy in its usage.

A side effect of the typical way people deal with these problems (where they are convinced they cannot be fixed/removed) is to lower their expectations about life. In the context of Big Brand this manifested as focusing on minor improvements like cost reduction.

Finally, she concludes a good perception of reality is effective and powerful. The implications of this are not acknowledged at this point, but this is epistemically significant in a way Efrat has not yet realised.

Parallels to BoI - Ch3

elegance in hard-to-vary explanations
theory-laden results (forecast is bad => shortages and surpluses)
new knowledge proves some element of existing knowledge wrong (‘The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that I would never say, “Away with using a forecast,”’)
one’s perception of reality impacts and directs one’s life

Chapter 4

Main idea: problems are less complex than people typically assume, we can come up with explanations for cause-effect relationships in the associated systems, and these explanations have significant reach.

Eli suggests that the idea of “Inherent Simplicity” has a deeper connection to reality than people usually entertain. Efrat has made this mistake: “I’ve treated your teaching as a collection of excellent methods. Not as a way to reach a full life.” Eli notes that he doesn’t see a difference between methods of analysing reality and methods of living a full life; he takes reality seriously and is not an instrumentalist. Eli explains these ideas via Newton’s view, expanding on it slightly to make it more obvious that all reality is included, not just “nature” (physics, chemistry, etc).

He explains most ppl think asking ‘why’ leads to greater complexity, but the nature of reality is such that we can find good explanations. “Common causes appear as we dive down.” The reality is that asking ‘why’ over and over leads to simplicity, not complexity. Common causes.

Efrat claims this doesn’t hold for social sciences / psychology. Eli insists cause and effect reasoning can still be applied, pointing out a few reasons, and that if people were unpredictable we would be able to sustain a society. Efrat insists people are more complex than organisations, and Eli points out she didn’t think this “yesterday”.

complexity of systems: degrees of freedom vs information required to describe system. former is complex and hard to predict, the latter is easy to predict, and only has one degree of freedom (in the example). So for the latter system, one strategic choice can remove a problem provided you understand the causes and effects. Big Brand is the second type of system: ‘complex’ at first glance but interconnected, such that touching just one thing could solve a big problem.

one problem covered so far: the perception reality is complex.

Parallels to BoI - Ch4

reality is objective and consistent
power and reach of explanations
convergence (to a small extent)

Chapter 5

“As long as it’s just a philosophical speculation I really don’t care.” - Efrat not taking things as seriously as she should. She’s still somewhat open to be convinced, tho.

No contradictions in nature (“harmonious with itself”). Conflicts and contradictions are different. A conflict is an apparent contradiction in goals (e.g. wings of aeroplanes should be both light and strong). Goldratt: “it will lead in good situations to some acceptable compromise, and in bad situations to a stone wall”; I prefer: a solution exists which satisfies all goals; strength and weight have breakpoints and we know that many solutions exist which satisfy both goals (with different solutions for different configurations of the goals; e.g. model plane vs 747).

Undesirable effects are due to bad compromises (which in turn means we don’t have good enough solutions or don’t understand things well enough). Often there’s an underlying assumption that’s wrong.

Second obstacle is the belief that: when we have conflicts the best we can do is compromise.

Inherent simplicity => parts of reality we care about governed by only a few elements => find the incorrect assumption => eliminate conflicts.

Parallels to BoI - Ch5

bad explanations lead to unpredictable outcomes
new knowledge proves something wrong about what it replaces (e.g. gravity as a force false according to general relativity, but not newtonian gravity)
objective reality; no contradictions in nature

Chapter 6

Goldratt didn’t bother with a full analysis of Big Brand because he didn’t need to. Believing that there was a way to deal with the problem (“the undesirable effects”) meant he could look at just the components that were a part of that, and via cause and effect logic to find the root cause and deal with that directly. Also: “I took for granted that the root cause is a conflict that doesn’t have an acceptable compromise.” Bad effects are due to a bad compromise.

Smaller problems can be isolated from that compromise so they can be handled without handling the root problem (common in business). Investigating small problems don’t necessarily lead to finding the root cause. Focusing on big problems has a higher return on time/effort.

“Part of the belief in Inherent Simplicity is that any conflict, including root conflicts, can be removed by removing one of the underlying false assumptions.”

Efrat asks why Eli kept looking for “better and better solutions”, and Eli responds that he didn’t, but after changing a deep assumption the situation changes. Looking into the consequences of that change lead to a new ‘big picture’ and many of the other improvements ‘dropped out’, as such.

Eli claims an important component is still missing from their conversation thus far.

Chapter 7

Ch 7 is about harmony/elegance in nature and good explanations.

Chapter 8

Flux Ibdd Overview

Fri, 03 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +1000

promises and payoffs
“tell not show”

The Flux Movement is founded on (what I now call) Deutschian Fallibilism. It’s an evolution of Popperian Fallibilism and David Deutsch’s book The Beginning of Infinity does a great job of explaining both the theory and exploring the breathtakingly profound consequences. In one light it’s a book about epistemology, but the consequences are far-reaching.

Parsing Exercises | Part 4

Tue, 30 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Part 4 Exercises

Part 4 Exercises

For these practice sentences, first mark clauses and phrases (using curly and angle brackets), then make a short outline, then write and answer a question for each word. You may need to do research to figure them out, especially the last two.

John pet his dog and cat with vigor.
Seeing isn’t believing.
I like philosophy because it involves thinking methods.
Some people don’t love truth or honesty.
John and Olivia enthusiastically sang their favorite song on the stage, but singing well wasn’t enough for the actors pretending to be judges.
While you’re having a discussion, never misquote anyone.
I think that nuclear power is safe.

John pet his dog and cat with vigor.

{John pet <his <dog and cat>>} <with vigor>.

outline: {John pet <[John's] dog and cat>} (note: replacing dog and cat with pets is a bit too ambiguous for my taste)
outline en-gb: {John patted <[John's] pets>}
rearranged: {<John> <patted <with vigour>> <his <dog and cat>>}. - 3 phrases
what action? patting
who did the patting? John
what did john pat? pets
what action did john do to his pets: patted
who owns the pets? john
what are his pets? dog and cat
how did he pat them? with vigour

correction:

{John pet <his <dog and cat>> <with vigor>}.

go for larger clauses

uncertainties

is pet his dog and cat a verb phrase? not really b/c it doesn’t take a subj and obj.
- more obvious when rearranging, patted with vigour is a verb phrase
- everything but the subject can be a verb phrase; verb + modifiers is sometimes called a verb phrase

Seeing isn’t believing.

{<Seeing> <[is not]> <believing>}

outline: {<Seeing> <[is not]> <believing>} – just the same as the sentence w/ [is not]?
- 3 phrases
what is the action? equivalence (or lack thereof)
how is action modified? negation: not
what is the subject? seeing
what is not equivalent to seeing? believing

I like philosophy because it involves thinking methods.

{<I> <like> <philosophy>} because {<it> <involves> <thinking methods>}

outline: {I like philosophy} because {philosophy involves <methods>}
Who’s speaking? I
what are they describing doing? liking something
what do they like? philosophy
how do they expand on liking it? offering a reason (because)
what’s the essence of the reason? involvement of something
how do they refer to philosophy? it
what thing does it involve? methods
what is the specific thing those methods relate to? thinking
subordinating conjunctions can be included in subordinate clause

Some people don’t love truth or honesty.

{<Some people> <[do not] love> <truth or honesty>}

love is the main verb, not an adverb on do, and do a helper verb for love. Feels right to keep them together because we get a verb phrase (???)
outline: [Xs] [not] love truth (Xs being some collective noun; didn’t want to just say ‘people’ because modifier is important, but I can’t think of a generic term for a subset of people)
what action is the sentence about: loving
how is the main verb modified: negation via do not
Who doesn’t love truth or honesty? people
Which people: some people
What do they not love (in the first case)? truth
What else might they not love? honesty
what’s the relationship between the two: or – i.e. not-loving either is enough to include them in the ‘some’

John and Olivia enthusiastically sang their favorite song on the stage, but singing well wasn’t enough for the actors pretending to be judges.

{<John and Olivia> <enthusiastically sang> <their favourite song> <on the stage>}, but {<singing well> <[was not]> <enough> <for the actors pretending to be judges> <[to be impressed]>}.

note: <<their favourite song> <on the stage>> - unsure if I should mark 3 phrases here. If I did, why not do it for all combinations of phrases that result in other phrases?
outline: [John] sang, but singing [was insufficient] [for the judges] [to be impressed]
First clause: <John and Olivia> <enthusiastically sang> <their favourite song> <on the stage>
- what is the action? sing
  - when did it happen? in the past
- how did it happen? enthusiastically
- who did the singing? [John] (john and olivia)
- what did they sing? song
- what was special about the song? favourite
- who’s favourite? their’s
- where did they sing? stage
- which stage? the stage
- what was their relationship to the stage? on it
Second clause: <singing well> <[was not] enough> <for the actors pretending to be judges> <[to be impressed]>
- what’s the action? was (be)
- what was doing the “being”? singing
- a particular type of singing? well (i.e. good singing)
- how was the action modified? not (negated)
- what was it not being? enough (noun)
- TODO: rest of Qs
- implied quality of judges enough refers to? ‘impressed’

While you’re having a discussion, never misquote anyone.

While {[you are] <having a discussion>}, {<never misquote> <anyone>}

outline: never misquote anyone [when] [you do discussions]
how is the condition specified? while (as in while you are doing Y, X, similar to: ‘X during Y’)
what is the condition? [you are] having a discussion
who does the condition apply to? you
what’s the verb applied to you during condition? are
what are you during condition? having something (having a discussion)
what are you having? discussion
which discussion? a (indeterminate; any discussion)
what should you do when satisfying the condition? never misquote anyone
what is the main action concerned in primary clause? misquote
what’s the modification of the main action? never
so the full action in primary clause is? never misquote
who should you never misquote? anyone

I think that nuclear power is safe.

{<I> <think>} that {<nuclear power> <is safe>}

outline: I think that X; X = nuclear power is safe – how to make this more of an outline? is it worth it?
outline 2: X, I think that – note: ‘that’ becomes a determiner in this case, not a conjunction; so it’s technically similar?
Who’s speaking? I
What’s I doing? thinking
what does I think? nuclear power is safe
what is the main noun I thinks about? power
what is power doing? is (being)
what is power being? safe
what type of power? nuclear

Parsing Exercises | Max's Collection

Mon, 29 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +1000

He was waiting for the rain to stop.
Nobody’s ever been bothered by being dead.
The main difference between object and complement in English grammar is that the object is what is affected to the action of the subject while the complement is a part of a clause that usually follows the verb and adds more information about the subject or object.
1. prelim structure
(TODO) I know about it (Objectivism) in name only (and only since learning about FI, and because of FI)
Exercises done on 2020-07-27
I can explain.
I can explain the acronyms if need be.
It is a poor argument of my superior reason, that I am unable to make justice be apprehended and felt in the most necessary cases, without the intervention of blows.
So Alice, I just wanted to add, this sentence would have a parenthetical if the point wasn’t to be an example of a sentence with a parenthetical
1. tut 20
you are done whether you fight or run
both rugby and football are popular
to be or not to be, that is the question
i’m going to steal that kid’s lollipop whether you like it or not
you will find uninvited family in the drawing room; not only your ‘long lost’ brother, but also his new (and insufferable) wife
2020-08-15 so you see, Mr. Bond, neither the British Secret Service nor God can save you now
we should be persuaded by neither eloquence nor vitriol, but instead by those arguments for which, despite detractors’ best efforts, there are no unanswered criticisms
no sooner had he written the eighth example than he began to reconsider adding more
learning is not a one-off exercise, but an unbounded journey
we could either stop at ten exercises or write more

He was waiting for the rain to stop.

was :: verb
    he :: pronoun
    waiting :: gerund
        for :: preposition
            to stop :: infinitive
                rain :: noun
                    the :: det
                :: subject

‘to stop’ - could be (preposition,noun) but a noun would mean something like ‘a stop’ could be put in there, doesn’t feel right => infinitive makes more sense

Nobody’s ever been bothered by being dead.

implied => Nobody [has] ever been bothered by being dead

bothered :: verb, linking
    has :: aux verb
        been :: aux verb
        ever :: adverb
    :: adverbial
    nobody :: pronoun
    by :: preposition
        being :: gerund
            dead :: adjective / object of 'being'
    :: adverbial

‘ever’ adverb on ‘has’
- -> usage: can remove ‘ever’, ‘has ever’, but not just ‘has’
- -> ‘ever been to the moon?’ -> implied ‘have you’

bothered as root nobody under bothered

bothered becomes a linking verb bc

relative pronoun -> clause function as modifier

The main difference between object and complement in English grammar is that the object is what is affected to the action of the subject while the complement is a part of a clause that usually follows the verb and adds more information about the subject or object.

I found this on a grammar website.

{<[difference] between [x and y]>} is that {[x is [what is [affected to [action of [subject]]]]]} while {[y is [a part of [a clause that [usually follows the verb]]] that [follows the verb] and [adds info about [subject]]]}.

prelim structure

is that
    The main difference between object and complement
        in English grammar
    while
        the object is
            what is affected to
                the action
                    of the subject
        the complement is
            a part of a clause
                that
                    and
                        usually follows the verb
                        adds more information
                            about 
                                the subject or object

Note: who the hell was paid to write that?

main grammar tree goes here if I ever do this

(TODO) I know about it (Objectivism) in name only (and only since learning about FI, and because of FI)

Note: I can definitely write this better (it’s from early learning: objectivism). Left it like this for purposes of analysis, partly because I said ‘and because’

Exercises done on 2020-07-27

I can explain.

(added after doing the one below)

can :: aux verb
    explain :: verb
    i :: pronoun

I can explain the acronyms if need be.

if :: conjunction
    can :: verb
        i :: pronoun
        explain :: infinitive
            acronyms :: noun (object)
                the :: det
    be :: verb
        need :: noun

It is a poor argument of my superior reason, that I am unable to make justice be apprehended and felt in the most necessary cases, without the intervention of blows.

‘It’ refers to ‘that’. ‘that’ is a fwd reference for ‘I am unable to make justice be apprehended and felt in the most necessary cases, without the intervention of blows’.

Could be reordered to: ‘That I am unable to make justice be apprehended and felt in the most necessary cases, without the intervention of blows, is a poor argument of my superior reason.’ (note: unsure of commas, making ‘without the intervention of blows’ parenthetical feels right; alternatively no comma before ‘without’ might work too)

[It (X)] is a [bad argument] of [my ability to make good arguments]. X: [I can’t do justice when necessary without violence]

The sentence is interesting because it’s about a hypothetical but doesn’t explicitly mention it.

alt structure 1

that :: subordinating conjunction
    is :: verb
        it :: pronoun, referring to the subordinate clause
        argument :: noun
            a :: det
            poor :: adj
            of :: prep
                reason :: noun
                    my :: det
                    superior :: adj
    am :: verb
        I :: pronoun
        unable :: adj
            to make :: adverb infinitive
                justice :: noun
                be :: aux verb
                    and :: conj
                        apprehended :: verb
                        felt :: verb
                without :: prep
                    intervention :: noun
                        the :: det
                        of :: prep
                            blows :: noun

note: ~it’s optional to put a [be] in front of felt, but apprehended needs one.~ not true, justice could be felt and apprehended. well, could you say make justice felt and apprehended? make justice felt feels fine.

from https://www.websters1913.com/words/That

As a conjunction, that retains much of its force as a demonstrative pronoun. It is used, specifically: –

(a) To introduce a clause employed as the object of the preceding verb, or as the subject or predicate nominative of a verb.

for (a): it is introducing a clause which is the subject of a preceding verb via ‘it’

idea for omission: “… superior reason, [the fact] that I …”

‘that’ could be modifying ‘argument’

the form of the sentence is {dependent coordinating clause}, that {subordinate clause}

the purpose of the sentence is to focus on the quality of the argument, not on what it is.

I think I am unable ... of blows is the predicate nominative of It via is

similar sort of sentences

you’d be a bad king, Michael

You is a pronoun and forward reference to the noun Michael

it is a smooth bird, the A380.

it is a bad omen for his career, that he hasn’t had a job since highschool.

it refers to the subordinate clause he hasn't had a job since highschool

it is a thought I had, that school is boring

this has basically the same meaning (or, at least, a very similar meaning) as the past tense of “i think that school is boring”. (edit: i thought that school is boring is obviously closer to that past tense)

some curious slightly different sentences:

it is a thought I'd had, that school was boring
it is a thought I'd have, that school was boring
it is a thought I had had, that school was boring
I'd had the thought that school is boring
I'd have had the thought that school is boring (q: is this grammatically complete?)
school is boring; I'd've had that thought

version that’s a better demonstration?

it is a thought shared by many, that school is boring

it is a versatile word, that which clarifies the dependency of a pronoun on the other side of the sentence.

back to the main sentence

~At the end of all that, I think I’m happy with the tree above.~ wait, nope, not yet

is the structure basically the same as it's good, that you came?

TODO: come back to this later and think about other ways of doing the tree

hmm, the quote is from Godwin’s Political Justice I think (can’t remember where I picked it). that was published in 1793, but websters 1828 doesn’t have a definition of that as a conjunction!

alternate structure 2

idea: that is two-way link with it

is
    it :: pronoun relative pronoun (linked to 'that')
        that :: relative pronoun / pro-sentence (linked to 'it')
            am :: verb
                I :: pronoun
                unable :: adj
                    to make :: adverb infinitive
                        justice :: noun
                        be :: aux verb
                            and :: conj
                                apprehended :: adj
                                felt :: verb
                        without :: prep
                            intervention :: noun
                                the :: det
                                of :: prep
                                    blows :: noun
    argument :: noun
        a :: det
        poor :: adj
        of :: prep
            reason :: noun
                my :: det
                superior :: adj

alt structure 3

[;] or [and] :: conj
    is :: verb
        it :: pronoun, referring to the clause marked by 'that'
        argument :: noun
            a :: det
            poor :: adj
            of :: prep
                reason :: noun
                    my :: det
                    superior :: adj
    that :: pronoun labelling the clause
        am :: verb
            I :: pronoun
            unable :: adj
                to make :: adverb infinitive
                    justice :: noun
                    be :: aux verb
                        and :: conj
                            apprehended :: adj
                            felt :: verb
                    without :: prep
                        intervention :: noun
                            the :: det
                            of :: prep
                                blows :: noun

issues identified in tutoring 20

apprehended and felt are verbals

to make :: infinitive
    be :: linking verb
        justice :: n
        and
            apprehended :: participle, adj
            felt :: participle, adj

note: to is a particle

be is linking verb, objects are apprehended and felt so can’t be finite verbs, they’re participles (adjectives)

linking verbs: big diff must have a complement, and complement can be an adjective (as well as a noun).

So Alice, I just wanted to add, this sentence would have a parenthetical if the point wasn’t to be an example of a sentence with a parenthetical

Note: I actually wrote this sentence recently

[root]
    Alice :: pronoun
    [] :: parenthetical, relative to entire sentence
        wanted :: verb
            I :: pronoun
            just :: adverb
            to add :: noun infinitive
    so :: conjunction, primary clause omitted, introduces concluding statement
        have :: verb
            would :: modal verb (helper)
            sentence :: noun
                this :: determiner
            parenthetical :: noun
                a :: det
                if :: prep
                    was :: verb
                        point :: noun
                            the :: det
                        not :: adverb
                        example :: noun
                            to be :: adjective infinitive
                            an :: determiner
                            of :: prep
                                sentence :: noun
                                    a :: det
                                    with :: prep
                                        parenthetical :: noun
                                            a :: det

alt:

so :: conj
    [primary clause omitted]
    [node/sub-root]
        Alice :: pronoun
        I just wanted to add :: parenthetical
        this sentence [...] :: clause

tut 20

parenthetical can put under the verb -> modifies the sentence

have is infinitive – the ‘having’ isn’t happening; it’s the ‘woulding’

pretty much alwasy the first verb is finite verb, second verb is infinitive (often without the ‘to’)

subject finite-verb non-finite-verb (as object of finite verb; particle, gerund, or infinitive)

So Alice, I just wanted to add, this sentence would have a parenthetical if the point wasn’t to be an example of a sentence with a parenthetical

if :: conj
    would :: modal verb (helper)
        sentence :: noun
            this :: determiner
        have :: verb
            parenthetical :: noun
                a :: det
        [] :: parenthetical, adverbial
            so :: ??
                Alice :: pronoun
        [] :: parenthetical, adverbial
            wanted :: verb
                I :: pronoun
                just :: adverb
                to add :: noun infinitive
    was :: verb
        point :: noun
            the :: det
        not :: adverb
        to be :: adjective infinitive
            example :: noun, object of 'to be'
                an :: determiner
                of :: prep
                    sentence :: noun
                        a :: det
                        with :: prep
                            parenthetical :: noun
                                a :: det

you are done whether you fight or run

(is this a correlative conjunction?)

whether :: conj
    are :: linking verb
        you :: pronoun
        done :: adjective
    you :: pronoun
        or :: conj
            fight :: verb
            run :: verb

TUT20: mistake: fight/run as verb - must be verbals – participles

TUT20: comment after the fact: can put you under or; or is making a group and playing a verb role (verb pharse), so noun under the group is okay. If we could group (or fight run) and have a child that might work but can’t do that with these trees; putting under root node

alt:

whether :: conj
    are :: linking verb
        you :: pronoun
        done :: adjective
    or :: conj
        fight :: verb
            you :: pronoun
        run :: verb
            [you] :: pronoun

alt treating correlative conjunction as one unit:

... whether ... or ... :: correlative conj
    are :: linking verb
        you :: pronoun
        done :: adjective
    fight :: verb
        you :: pronoun
    run :: verb
        [you] :: pronoun

both rugby and football are popular

are :: linking verb
    and :: conj
        both :: determiner
        rugby
        football
    popular :: adjective

are :: linking verb
    both :: determiner
        and :: conj
            rugby
            football
    popular :: adjective

are
    both ... and ...
        rugby
        football
    popular

are
    both :: pronoun
        and
            rugby
            football
    popular

to be or not to be, that is the question

[;] or [and] :: conjunction
    or :: conj
        to be :: noun infinitive
        to be :: noun infinitive
            not :: adverb
    is :: verb
        that :: pronoun / pro-sentence
        question :: noun
            the :: determiner

i’m going to steal that kid’s lollipop whether you like it or not

am :: verb
    I :: pronoun
    going :: aux/helper verb (modal?)
    to steal :: noun infinitive
        lollipop :: noun
            kid's :: adjective
                that :: determiner
    whether :: conj
        or :: conj
            like :: verb
                you :: pronoun
                it :: pronoun, indirect ref to stealing
            not :: adverb
                [you don't like it] :: implied replacement for 'not'

am - finite verb
going is complement of am
to steal modifying going
(that kid) is the noun being made possessive, but diagram is unclear

you will find uninvited family in the drawing room; not only your ‘long lost’ brother, but also his new (and insufferable) wife

outline: `{you will find family}; {not only [your bother], but also [that same brother’s wife]}

[;] :: conjunction
    find :: verb
        you :: pronoun
        will :: modal verb
        family :: noun
    but :: conj
        brother :: noun
            your :: determiner
            only :: adjective
                not :: adverb
            'long lost' :: adjective, quotes imply hidden implications
                lost :: adjective
                    long :: adverb
        also :: adverb
        wife :: noun
            his :: determiner
            [and] :: conjunction, parenthetical, produces adjective phrase
                new :: adjective
                insufferable :: adjective

alt:

[;] :: conjunction
    find :: verb
        you :: pronoun
        will :: modal verb
        family :: noun
    not only ... but also ... :: correlative conj
        brother :: noun
            your :: determiner
            'long lost' :: adjective, quotes imply hidden implications
                lost :: adjective
                    long :: adverb
        wife :: noun
            his :: determiner
            [and] :: conjunction, parenthetical, produces adjective phrase
                new :: adjective
                insufferable :: adjective

2020-08-15 so you see, Mr. Bond, neither the British Secret Service nor God can save you now

implied: “so you see, Mr Bond, [that] neither …”

[;] :: implied conjunction
    see :: verb
        so :: adverb
        you :: pronoun
            Mr. Bond :: noun, referenced via 'you'
        [that] :: pro-sentence
    can :: aux verb
        save :: verb
            you :: pronoun
        now :: adverb
        neither :: pronoun
            nor :: conjunction
                British Secret Service :: noun
                    the :: determiner
                God :: noun
            :: reference of neither
    :: reference of [that]

we should be persuaded by neither eloquence nor vitriol, but instead by those arguments for which, despite detractors’ best efforts, there are no unanswered criticisms

no sooner had he written the eighth example than he began to reconsider adding more

learning is not a one-off exercise, but an unbounded journey

we could either stop at ten exercises or write more

Parsing Exercises | AnneB's Collection

Mon, 29 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +1000

From Anne B’s dependency grammar trees post to FI
Let’s talk about a different way
You can find more stuff which is similar or related and work on that.
Assuming you’re an adult, there are some things you’re already good at judging.
There are some areas where you’re confident, competent, skilled, etc.
More precisely, if n ever fails the Fermat test, we can be certain that n is not prime.

From Anne B’s dependency grammar trees post to FI

Let’s talk about a different way

(let :: verb
    us :: pronoun
    (talk :: verb
        (about :: preposition
            (way :: noun
                a :: det
                different :: adj
            ))))

(let :: v
    ([you])
    (talk us (about (way a different)))
)

(and :: conj
    (find :: verb
        you :: pronoun
        can :: verb  -- helper verb, need to revisit 
        (stuff :: noun
            more :: adj)
        (is :: verb
            which :: pronoun
            or :: conj
                similar :: adj
                related :: adj))
    (work :: verb
        (on :: prep
            that :: n))

– note from Anne B’s trees: denote implied words – ‘realtive pronoun’ – conjunction role

Assuming you’re an adult, there are some things you’re already good at judging.

(assuming :: subordinating conjunction
    (are :: verb
        there :: adverb
        (things :: noun
            some :: determiner
            (are :: verb
                you :: pronoun
                already :: adverb
                (good :: noun
                    (at :: preposition
                        judging :: gerund)
                )
            ) :: adjective clause
        )
    )
    (are :: verb
        you :: pronoun
        (adult :: noun
            an :: determiner)
    )
)

‘good::adj at::prep judging::gerund’ - can ‘good at’ be a preposition?
- ‘she speaks good English’ -> good is an adj on English
- wait, good modifies ‘at judging’ which acts as NP. Correction: preposition phrases act as adj or adv.
- in ‘dark red apple’: ‘dark’ is an adverb on ‘red’, so any adj can be an adv when modifying another adj.
- ‘She is good with horses’: ‘good with’ is a prepositional phrase on ‘is’; similar meaning to ‘she handles horses well’, ‘well’ is adverb modifying ‘handles’
- idea: good is a noun (you are already good), and ‘at judging’ is an adj prep phrase governing ‘good’
- you::pronoun are::v already::adv good::n at::prep judging::gerund
  - this clause is then used as an adjective (googled ‘clause as an adjective’ and apparently adjective clauses are a thing)
  - problem: ‘you are already skilled at judging’ – skilled is an adj.
  - can adjective prepositional phrases modify other adjectives? if so they act as an adverb, but no mention of that in /grammar, is it important?
- could treat ‘good at’ as a preposition
how do you tie in ‘assuming you’re an adult’? prepositional phrase? modifies the rest of the sentence.
‘there are some things’ - no noun before verb
// opened up thread on FIGG
// ET mentions assuming being root
‘assuming’ could be replaced with ‘if’ => conjunction
should have googled assuming - it’s a conj
check against Anne’s tree: looks good!!!

There are some areas where you’re confident, competent, skilled, etc.

attempt 1

(are :: verb, linking
    there :: adverb
    (areas :: noun
        some :: adjective)
    ([are] :: aux verb, linking
        [you] :: pronoun
        confident :: adj
        competent :: adj
        skilled :: adj
        etc :: adverb
        which :: adverb
    )
)

Differences with Anne’s tree

Anne has ‘where’ under ‘areas’, but ‘where’ is an adverb? (not an adjective; is “where you’re …” an adverb phrase?)
“where you’re …” refers to the areas, so should be under that
verbs are not children of nouns
areas is linked to the properties “confident, …” via where
‘where’ feels more like a proposition
we could replace ‘where’ with ‘wherein’ and meaning is preserved (wherein is an adverb, but means ‘in which’; a preposition and pronoun/determiner)

‘in which’ variant: there are some areas in which you’re confident, …

(are :: verb, linking
    there :: adverb
    (areas :: noun
        some :: adjective
        (in :: preposition
            which :: determiner ['areas']
            ([are] :: verb, linking
                [you] :: pronoun
                confident :: adj
                competent :: adj
                skilled :: adj
                etc :: adverb
            ) :: adjective clause
        )
    )
)

This matches Anne’s structure, i.e.:

(are :: verb, linking
    there :: adverb
    (areas :: noun
        some :: adjective
        (where :: adverb???
            ([are] :: verb, linking
                [you] :: pronoun
                confident :: adj
                competent :: adj
                skilled :: adj
                etc :: adverb
            ) :: adjective clause
        )
    )
)

Attempt 2

(are :: verb, linking
    there :: adverb
    (areas :: noun
        some :: adjective
        ([are] :: verb, linking
            [you] :: pronoun
            where :: adverb
            confident :: adj
            competent :: adj
            skilled :: adj
            etc :: adverb
        ) :: adjective clause
    )
)

can an adverb take an object/compliment?
Why are the called the same thing as adverbs that don’t take one?
idea: where is on second ‘are’, which transforms ‘you are confident, …’ into an adjective clause
- what was it before that? noun clause? can you have a clause/phrase without a type (a type being noun, verb, adjective, adverb, etc)

More precisely, if n ever fails the Fermat test, we can be certain that n is not prime.

discussed in the post [FI] [grammar] Grammar analysis: More precisely, if n ever fails the Fermat test, we can be certain that n is not prime.

if
    can :: aux v
        we :: pronoun
        be :: v
            certain :: n
                that :: pronoun
                    is :: v (linking)
                        n :: noun, subject
                        not :: adverb
                        prime :: adjective, complement
    fails :: verb
        n :: noun
        ever :: adverb
        Fermat test :: noun
            the :: determiner
    precisely :: adverb, modifying the rest of the sentence
        more :: adverb

questions:

the if conjunction is split; we could rewrite it “we can be certain that n is not prime if n ever fails the fermat test”, so it sounds like “we can be certain … not prime” is the coordinating clause. should we put that first in the tree even though the sentence orders it the other way?

FI Post: The Choice | Ch1 | Summary and idea tree

Sat, 27 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Copied verbatim from post to FI google group

I’m planning to read The Choice and post here about it. I am particularly looking for feedback on my method, right now. In general (now too), I’m also looking for feedback re my understanding, and any discussion anyone wants re the topics in the book. (Oh, and stream it too, made a new channel, first one: https://youtu.be/5zHzTKTOu8o)

[Method, briefly: for each chapter: read it 2-3 times, make idea tree, post here, next ch; square brackets around paragraph like this are a comment as I was writing the email.]

I think the central idea in chapter 1 of The Choice is:

[Now that I’ve copy/pasted that (from notes), I think I should write more b/c it’s less reasonable to expect someone to go through my more detailed notes, but that one-and-a-bit sentences isn’t detailed enough.]

Broadly, if one wants to live a full life one must make some core decisions, and particularly one decision. That is: problems are soluble, solutions are attainable, and that one CHOOSES to devote the time to understand the problems that come up and how to solve them. (though it’s not expressed in The Choice like this, I think BoI puts the idea simply, so use that language here.) The way to do this is the scientist’s approach: we can know about and prepare for the world in such a way that failures become opportunities to learn, and we can find that energising. Common perceptions of reality have two problems: avoiding using brain power because we think we don’t have it, problems & solutions must be super complex, so we dont have the right tools; and an unwillingness to see reality for what it is, and applying the wrong knowledge in search of the soln. The chapter ends with the conjecture that complex reality is actually simple, and Eli and Efrat agree to analyse a big apparel company to figure it out, next time on The Choice.

An auxiliary point of the chapter was that problems need to be viewed and communicated objectively for other ppl to believe they can work or care about them.

with regards to the screwdriver-screw-nail analogy, I thought the author would have been better to split this up into two discrete problems: the complexity one and the refusal one as I did above, and it was wrong to keep them together, or at least to use the screwdriver one to support that point.

You can find my notes and idea tree (which ended up being the same thing) here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/14-qdOgcfwAyEgPBY4O46Ti2Pu_t-9tTZ Check the outline PDF for an easily readable version (maintains tree structure).

My plan is to do the same thing for other chapters in the book. Particularly: listen/read the chapter once, casually. The second time go through and take notes, either constructing the tree as I go or on the 3rd reading. I’ll then post my take on the central idea here, which hopefully is enough for anyone to quickly check if I’m not understanding things; i.e. a problem with the central idea means there are bigger problems elsewhere.

Parsing Exercises | Part 3

Thu, 25 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Part 3 Exercises

Part 3 Exercises

After lunch, after John sings, he loves playing games.
I want to learn lots of interesting grammar.
Running fast isn’t fun.
I don’t want to stand on my porch when it’s wet.
Swimming after work is too tiring.
John gets sweaty when he does his exercise routine.
I gave him gifts.
I love to throw boomerangs to myself.
When a movie is boring, I stop watching.
I like reading non-fiction books out of order.
My broken speakers don’t work for making sound.
FYI, working at the CIA is cooler than the FBI.

Posts to FI about all/most of the part 3 exercises:

https://groups.google.com/g/fallible-ideas/c/RP_wmvqEHDE/m/FJ-CXyMUBgAJ - Justin Mallone and others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxIy0lyoxM - Justin’s video going through part 3

After lunch, after John sings, he loves playing games.

(after2 :: subordinating conjunction
    (sings :: verb
        John :: noun
    )
    (loves :: verb
        (after1 :: preposition
            lunch :: noun)
        he :: pronoun
        (playing :: verbal.gerund.noun -- verbal, acts like a noun, has an object
            games :: noun
        )
    )
)

I want to learn lots of interesting grammar.

(want :: verb
    I :: noun
    ((to learn) :: verbal.infinitive.noun
        (lots :: noun
            (of :: preposition
                (grammar :: noun
                    interesting :: verbal.participle.adjective
                    )))
    ))
    
    -- moved this ndoe to be a child of to learn
    -- lots :: ~adverb~ no b/c we couldn't put 'very' in there, for example

Running fast isn’t fun.

(is :: verb
    not :: mod
    (running :: verbal.gerund.noun
        fast :: noun
    )
    fun :: noun
)

I don’t want to stand on my porch when it’s wet.

attempt 1:

(when :: conj,subordinating
    (do :: verb
        I :: noun
        (want :: noun
            (to stand) :: infinitive noun
                (on (porch my)) :: prepositional phrase, adj))
    (is
        it
        wet)
)

prepositional phrases are a type of modifier

Swimming after work is too tiring.

(is :: v
    (swimming :: n
        (after work) :: pp,adj
    )
    (tiring :: n
        too :: adj) :: complement
)

John gets sweaty when he does his exercise routine.

(when :: subordinate conj
    (gets :: v
        John :: n
        sweaty :: adj)
    (does
        he :: pronoun
        (routine :: n
            exercise :: adj  -- no dictionary def for adj
            his :: det)
    )
)

https://groups.google.com/g/fallible-ideas/c/nIJNYVJ7tNs/m/LvuiKkkYAwAJ (agrees)

I gave him gifts.

-> I gave gifts to him

(gave :: verb
    I
    gifts
    (to him) :: prepositional phrase, adverb
    )

https://groups.google.com/g/fallible-ideas/c/nIJNYVJ7tNs/m/LvuiKkkYAwAJ (agrees)

I love to throw boomerangs to myself.

(love :: v
    I :: pronoun
    ((to throw) :: noun infinitive
        boomerangs :: noun, object of (to throw)
        (to :: preposition
            myself :: noun) :: PP,adverb
)

working: I could say: I will throw boomerangs to myself - throw is verb, will is adverb, boomerangs is noun, (to myself) is modifying ‘throw’?

When a movie is boring, I stop watching.

(when :: conj, subordinating  -- could be an adverb? but how to structure tree?
    (stop :: v
        I :: n
        watching :: n,gerund
    )
    (is :: v
        (movie :: n
            a :: det)
        boring :: adj
        )
)

I like reading non-fiction books out of order.

(like :: verb
    I :: pronoun
    (reading :: gerund
        (books :: n
            non-fiction :: adj) :: object
        (of :: prep
            (order :: n
                out :: adj)
        ) :: adj prepositional phrase
    ) :: NP
)

note: disagrees with JM’s analysis
https://groups.google.com/g/fallible-ideas/c/lHhbJdfTrx0/m/EB6oknUWDgAJ - ambiguity around “out”, easiest thing to do is treat “out of” as a single preposition. seems to me that this is compatible w/ the above, and that if you expand like that then “out” is either an adj or adverb depending on the sentence (e.g. I ran out the door -> I ran out of the door -> ‘out’ modifies the running)

My broken speakers don’t work for making sound.

(work :: v
    (speakers :: n
        broken :: adj
        my :: det)
    not :: adverb
    do :: aux verb
    (for :: preposition
        (making :: gerund
            sound :: object of making))
)

Discussed in Tutorial 7

FYI, working at the CIA is cooler than [working at] the FBI.

(is :: verb
    (working :: gerund
        (at :: preposition
            (CIA :: ref,noun
                the :: det)))
    (cooler :: adj <CIA and FBI are objects>
        (than :: preposition
            ([working]
                ([at]
                    (FBI :: reference - noun
                        the :: det))))
                )
    (FYI :: reference - prepositional phrase)
)

Discussed in Tutorial 7

Notes | Tutorial 03

Thu, 25 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +1000

(Oh, nothing here..)

Parsing Exercises | Part 2

Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Ex1: I work hard and I play hard.
Ex2: Farting or belching is mildly impolite.
Ex3: I went to a fancy university, yet I’m still quite ignorant.
Ex4: I write because I like good ideas.
Ex5: The bully hit my buddy and me pretty hard.
Ex6: I seriously think that Ayn Rand was wise.
Ex7: Don’t chew quickly while your mouth is open.
Ex8: My daughter likes big dogs, but my son likes adorable cats.
Ex9: If universities are full of uncurious professors, don’t attend one.
Ex10: After you throw a small, red ball, while you sing, you should stamp your feet loudly, and you should clap your hands energetically, if it’s still daytime.
1. ET’s structure (Max’s conjecture of a principle: Conjunctions always have one non-conjunction child)

notation:

A » B, B « A (conjunctions): the conjunction A has higher precedence than B
if1, and2, you4, etc.: when a word appears more than once we name them by appending a number, starting at 1 in the order of appearance.
3-7 (clauses / phrases): if a sentence is broken down into clauses or phrases, a refernce in the form M-N (M to N) means the verbatim chunk of the sentence starting at clause M and ending at N. e.g., in if A then B otherwise C A-C would not include the if

also:

These notes haven’t been cleaned up (or the cleanup is minimal).
In the code blocks (s-expressions) I use -- for comments.
those comments often get crossed out, which looks ~crossed out~ like this. they don’t actually show being crossed out tho.

Ex1: I work hard and I play hard.

(and :: conj
    (work :: verb
        I :: noun
        hard :: adj
        )
    (play :: verb
        I :: noun
        hard :: adj)
)

graph TD
  and --- work
  work --- i1
  work --- h1
  h1[hard]
  i1[I]
  
  and --- play
  play --- i2[I]
  play --- h2[hard]

Ex2: Farting or belching is mildly impolite.

(is :: verb
    (or :: conj
        Farting :: ~noun - gerund~ no, adjective? - participle
        belching :: ~noun~ adj/participle
    )
    (impolite :: noun? no, adjective
        mildly :: adverb | -ly -> (adjective -> verbal adverb? )
    )
)

to re-cover again: adjectives appling to adjectives

note: fart is a noun. so as a verbal it doens’t make sense to be an adjective.
sounds like a good trick for remembering

Ex3: I went to a fancy university, yet I’m still quite ignorant.

(yet :: conj
    (went :: verb
        (to university :: infinitive version of university :: noun
            a :: mod (adj? determinate)
            fancy :: adj
        )
    )
    (am I (ignorant::adj still::adv quite::adv)))

    -- wrong, initial answer below
    (am :: verb (tricky one)
        (I :: noun -- does still go here?
            still :: adj
        )
        (ignorant :: adj
            quite :: adverb
        )
    )
)

Ex4: I write because I like good ideas.

(because :: conj
    (write :: verb 
        I :: noun)
    (like :: verb
        I
        (ideas :: noun
            good :: adj))
)

Ex5: The bully hit my buddy and me pretty hard.

(hit :: verb
    (bully the)
    (and (buddy my) me)
    (hard pretty))

Ex6: I seriously think that Ayn Rand was wise.

(that :: conj
    (think :: v
        I :: noun
        seriously :: adverb)
    (was :: v
        Ayn Rand :: n
        wise :: n)
)

that – what is that? can be tonnes
I can’t tell the difference between the sentences (with and without ‘that’)
complementizer? https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/177128/necessity-of-that-as-a-conjunction
introduces tensed clause – so the whole clause is ni the past, not the state of rand being wise i.e. she’d still be wise if she were alive.
using emphasis trick (emphasising was in each option) doesn’t make it clearer :/
heh from xmasthat.html: “I’ll attempt, though, to set out a succinct set of guidelines, but you needn’t implant them. Implants are notorious for falling out when you need them.”

moving on

Ex7: Don’t chew quickly while your mouth is open.

(while :: conj,subordinating 
    (do :: v
        (chew :: v
            quickly :: adverb,participle) (?)
        not :: adverb
    )
    (is :: v
        (mouth :: n
            your :: mod,det)
        open :: n
        )
    )

Ex8: My daughter likes big dogs, but my son likes adorable cats.

(but :: conj,coordidnating
    (likes
        (daughter my::reference.adjective)
        (dogs big))
    (likes
        (son my)
        (cats adorable))
)

Ex9: If universities are full of uncurious professors, don’t attend one.

(if :: conj
    (do :: verb
        (attend :: v -- is 'do' or attend as root of verbphrase?
        -- attend - aux/helper verb
            one :: noun)
        not :: mod
    )
    (are :: v
        universities :: noun
        (full :: adj
            (of :: preposition
                (professors :: noun
                    uncurious :: adj)
            )
        )
    )
)

only here for convenience: (proper version at top)
notation:
- `A` >> `B` | `B` << `A` (conjunctions): the conjunction `A` has higher precedence than `B`

Ex10: After you throw a small, red ball, while you sing, you should stamp your feet loudly, and you should clap your hands energetically, if it’s still daytime.

Note: this is not how ET structured it - see Tutorial 4

(after :: conj.subordinating
    (while :: conj.subordinating
        (throw :: v
            you :: n
            (ball :: n
                a :: adj,determiner
                small :: adj
                red :: adj
            )
        ) :: clause
        (sing::v
            you::n
        )
    )
    (if :: conj,subordinating
        (is :: v
            it :: n
            daytime :: noun
            still :: adverb  -- putting adverb here
                             -- makes compilation easier
        ) :: clause
        (and :: conj,coordinating
            (should :: v
                you :: n,pronoun
                (stamp :: v
                    your :: adj,det
                    feet :: n
                    loudly :: adverb
                ))
            (should :: v
                (clap :: v
                    your :: adj,det
                    hands :: n
                    energetically :: adv
                    ))
            )
    )
)

After you throw a small, red ball, while you sing, you should stamp your feet loudly, and you should clap your hands energetically, if it’s still daytime.

clauses:

you throw a small, red ball,
you sing,
you should stamp your feet loudly,
you should clap your hands energetically,
it’s still daytime.

in this sentence if » and. consider 3, and 4, if 5: The comma before if makes it more specific: ((3 and 4) if 5).

consider 3, and 4 if 5, then (3 and (4 if 5)), thus if « and in this case, and not in the prior case.

Note: I’m really not sure about this anymore, it’s a deep rabbit hole.

ET’s structure (Max’s conjecture of a principle: Conjunctions always have one non-conjunction child)

(after :: conj.subordinating
    (while :: conj.subordinating
        (if :: conj,subordinating
            (and :: conj,coordinating
                (should :: v
                    you :: n,pronoun
                    (stamp :: v
                        your :: adj,det
                        feet :: n
                        loudly :: adverb
                    )
                )
                (should :: v
                    [you] :: pronoun
                    (clap :: v
                        your :: adj,det
                        hands :: n
                        energetically :: adv
                    )
                )
            )
            (is :: v
                it :: n
                daytime :: noun
                still :: adverb  -- putting adverb here
                                 -- makes compilation easier
            ) :: clause
        )
        (sing::v
            you::n
        )
    )
    (throw :: v
        you :: n
        (ball :: n
            a :: adj,determiner
            small :: adj
            red :: adj
        )
    ) :: clause
)

Notes | Tutorial 02

Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Part 2: Complex Sentence Grammar

Breaking down sentences involves splitting at conjunctions and analysing the clauses recursively.

phrases

Clause -> simple sentence
Phrase -> incomplete simple sentence
- verb phrase - e.g. very quickly ate - (ate::verb (quickly::adverb quickly::modifier))
- noun phrase - e.g. *the unusually cute cats” - (cats::noun the::modifier “unusually cute”::modifier)
- adjective phrase - e.g. unusually cute
Prepositional phrase -> preposition + noun phrase
functions like adjective or adverb
e.g., during the day – (during::preposition (day::noun the::mod))

Warning: Standard terminology uses the term “verb phrase” to mean “predicate”: the verb plus its object or complement, plus modifiers. It’d be reasonable to use “simple verb phrase” to mean a verb plus the adverbs modifying it.

clauses

conjunctions

coordinating conj: each clause is equal, e.g. and, but, for, or, yet, nor, so. FANBOYS; can join some phrases
subordinating conj: disparity in importance or order, etc: e.g. after, before, although, while, if; can only join clauses

communicating

paragraph level

main points should use verb, subject, object and complement. Modifiers for helper points (less important than what they modify)
main points -> main clauses; helper points -> subordinate clauses (which must be deliberate; main clauses by default)
Detail: Relative pronouns can also make subordinate clauses. I won’t cover them, but I’ll give one example. In “John, who is a mechanic, loves restoring cars.”, “who” is a relative pronoun. It creates a subordinate clause that functions as an adjective that modifies “John”.
use italics etc to give hints
you can say “my main point is:”

subordinating conj

writing without subordinating conjunctions sucks. elephants and zoo example.

Practice

See exercises

Part 3: Verbals, References and Implied Words

Verbals

based on a verb, but not a verb. like “fooling”, “to eat”, “broken”. they share features of verbs like having an object or complement (no subject)

gerund: noun based on verb; ends in -ing. “fooling”
participle: adj based on verb; can be suffixed -ing too, but also -ed and maybe others.
infinitive: verbs with ‘to’ in front: ‘to sit’, ‘to be’. I want to sit -> ‘to sit’ -> noun infinitive (want is the verb, ‘to sit’ the object). verbs don’t end in -ing or have to in front

References:

pronouns: always nouns
reference adjectives: ‘my’, ‘your’
abbreviations
explanatory refs: e.g. the thing you said yesterday about cats – often unclear. more info better than less

implied words

happens often, somewhat ambiguous

“that” is often omitted; full form of “I think Ayn Rand was wise” is “I think that Ayn Rand was wise”.

indirect object: shortcut to involving an implied word. they’re nouns that come after verbs. I threw her the ball -> I threw to her the ball; ‘her’ is an indirect object, ‘to her’ is prepositional phrase moding ‘threw’
common with conjs -> avoids repetition
confused? -> look for implied words
formal writing often doesn’t leave them -> less ambiguous

Parsing Exercises

Mon, 22 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +1000

Tutorial 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nUP-Xqh_Dw
Tutorial 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOeWo2v3nhA
Tutorial 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urGtEzrVJuM
Tutorial 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP4T9ZpEd0
Tutorial 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJsE7Inzves
Tutorial 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j4zkEx37wI
Tutorial 7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKP0FI34oCg

Max Learning FI

learning book content brainstorming

notes

1st order stuck vs 2nd order stuck and structural epistemology

can two people ever learn the same thing?

1st order stuck and 2nd order stuck

Further reading

postmortem - onerednail

Hooking - Learning Technique

Choices Matter (reflection)

Learning Report 5th Oct To 14th Nov

Max’s Learning Report - 5th Oct to 14th Nov

sizeable or significant posts

short/tiny/insignificant posts

Things I could have practiced but haven’t

Posts I’m thinking of writing:

Desires / Goals

Misc

running communities based on ideas - note to self

a danger of unconventional ideas on academia

learning and self-judgement

Reach + parameterisation of reach

short reflective post script

I'm thinking of unendorsing ~everything I've written

Notes | Tutorial 52

prenotes

draft

reflections on 'Why I Live' draft & idea in general

title

context before writing

misc

emotions

insight?

‘negative’ feedback?

writing

Why I Live [Draft 1]

Why I Live

Choices

What About Failure?

So.

some leftover notes

Project Planning Examples

projects

init brainstorming

review plan draft 1

project: review selected topics

IGC

pre-plan

brainstorm

pre-plan tree

plan

brainstorm

main plan tree

project: moving house

IGC

preplan

moving house plan

moving house brainstorm

moving house project tree

Notes | Tutorial 51

prenotes

practice

quickcheck idea

Notes | Tutorial 50

thoughts on error msgs

no conflict of interest

project planning

digipol

method

planning

assuming we do the project

recap so far

smaller picture

notes

Thoughts on Error Messages

clarifying stuff

Notes on Conflicts of Interest Scenarios (Tutoring Max 49)

principle

We both want the same diamond.

We both want the same computer.