+1 to Sapiens, parts of Moral Mazes, Deep Work, and Seeing like a State.
How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big
The Dhammapada (especially if they’re feeling overwhelmed / burned out)
How To Do Nothing (if they spend a lot of time online / on social media)
I believe many are at Paradigm & Reserve:
lol yeah it’s an infosec guy’s blog. He’s trolling a bit with the domain name.
Here’s a compilation of “how to get started in infosec” guides.
cf. Gwern’s study of catnip.
Also Luke’s post on Scaruffi:
Sometimes I do blatantly useless things so I can flaunt my rejection of the often unhealthy “always optimize” pressures within the effective altruism community. So today, I’m going to write about rock music criticism.
cf. Gwern’s Banner Ads Considered Harmful.
See also Why I Quit Social Media on Otium.
In our Advice for talking with journalists guide, we go into more depth about some of the advice we’ve received.
The Media Training Bible is also good for this.
See On the construction of beacons (a):
Finally, some advice for geeks, founders of subcultures, constructors of beacons. Make your beacon as dim as you can get away with while still transmitting the signal to those who need to see it. Attracting attention is a cost. It is not just a cost to others; it increases the overhead cost you pay, of defending this resource against predatory strategies. If you have more followers, attention, money, than you know how to use right now—then either your beacon budget is unnecessarily high, or you are already being eaten.
More on psychedelics & Openness:
[Erritzoe et al. 2018 found that psilocybin increased Openness in a population of depressed people, which SSRIs do not do.] Maclean et al. 2011, an analysis of psilocybin given to healthy-typed people, also found a persisting increase in Openness. However, Griffiths et al. 2017, also psilocybin for healthy-typed people, found no persisting increase in Openness. So maybe psilocybin causes greater Openness but only sometimes? As always more research is needed.
Why would increasing Big-Five Openness matter? Erritzoe [et al. 2018] engages with that too:
″… the facets Openness to Actions and to Values significantly increased in our study. The facet Openness to Actions pertains to not being set in one’s way, and instead, being ready to try and do new things. Openness to Values is about valuing permissiveness, open-mindedness, and tolerance. These two facets therefore reflect an active approach on the part of the individual to try new ways of doing things and consider other peoples’ values and/or worldviews.”
“It is well established that trait Openness correlates reliably with liberal political perspective… The apparent link between Openness and a generally liberal worldview may be attributed to the notion that people who are more open to new experiences are also less personally constrained by convention and that this freedom of attitude extends into every aspect of a person’s life, including their political orientation.”
Climate change, geoengineering, and existential risk
Climate Change Is, In General, Not An Existential Risk
Founders Pledge report on climate change
… or how to update my views of the post in response to your critique
For what it’s worth, I suspect there’s enough inferential distance between us on fundamental stuff such that I wouldn’t expect either of us to be able to easily update while discussing topics on this level of abstraction.
cf. The Optimizer’s Curse & Wrong-Way Reductions
Raemon thought that it seems good for leaders to keep people updated on how they are conceptualizing things.
I argued that this doesn’t seem true in all cases, pointing out that six paragraphs on whether to hyphenate “longetermism” isn’t important to stay updated on, even when it comes from a leader.
For stuff like this, my ideal goal is something like “converge on the truth.”
I usually settle for consolation prizes like “get more clarity about where & how I disagree with other folks in EA” and/or “note my disagreements as they arise.”
Basically agree about the first claim, though the Forum isn’t really aimed at EA newcomers.
(It also seems like good practice to me for people in leadership positions to keep people up to date about how they’re conceptualizing their thinking)
Eh, some conceptualizations are more valuable than others.
I don’t see how six paragraphs of Will’s latest thinking on whether to hyphenate “longtermism” could be important to stay up-to-date about.
Thanks – I agree that confusions are likely to arise somewhere as a new term permeates the zeitgeist.
I don’t think longtermism is a new term within EA or on the EA Forum, and I haven’t seen any recent debates over its definition.
[Edited: the Forum doesn’t seem like a well-targeted place for clarification efforts intending to address potential confusions around this (which seem likely to arise elsewhere)]. Encyclopedia entries, journal articles, and mainstream opinion pieces all seem better targeted to where confusion is likely to arise.
This post strikes me as fairly pedantic. Is there a live confusion it’s intending to solve?
The Wittgensteinian / Eliezerian view (something like “words are labels pointing to conceptual clusters that have fuzzy boundaries”) seems to fully dissolve the need to precisely specify definitions of words.
Just saw this AnnaSalamon comment on LessWrong about generativity & trustworthiness. Excerpt:
To be clear, I still think hypothesis-generating thinkers are valuable even when unreliable, and I still think that honest and non-manipulative thinkers should not be “ruled out” as hypothesis-sources for having some mistaken hypotheses (and should be “ruled in” for having even one correct-important-and-novel hypothesis). I just care more about the caveats here than I used to.