Weinstein vs. Veritas

Comments on podcast: The Portal 26: James O’Keefe: What is (and isn't) Journalism in the 21st century

i listened to Eric Weinstein spend 2 hours talking to James O’Keefe (of Project Veritas) and beat around the bush the whole time. (I listened in Overcast at 2.5x or 3x base speed for different parts, with SmartSpeed automatic silence removal adding an additional speed boost too).

lots of stuff was interesting in the small picture, locally interesting, but Weinstein was supposed to be sharing his disagreement and criticism. Which was basically:

i think what you’re doing is way less effective than it could and should be because my social circle sees your name and then irrationally ignores every fact associated with it.

he never quite said that clearly, and he never really got to step 2: what specific actions should O’Keefe do differently to avoid that problem? is that the fault of O’Keefe or the social circle? what downsides would the alternative actions have?

he brought up a few specifics: he’d like O’Keefe to pixelate more faces, leave out more names, and focus more on companies/organizations not individuals.

he thinks normal people, who aren’t the problem, are scared of veritas.

O’Keefe said how body language, facial expressions, and other details help paint a more vivid picture that communicates more to people

Weinstein mentioned briefly something about how O’Keefe could start milder and escalate. like do pixelated video, then if ppl don’t care enough, release non-pixelated. this struck me as just clueless about marketing. veritas has access to limited public attention and uses it well. can’t afford extra versions (except in appendixes for ppl who want extra details). can’t just lead with something 50% effective and then try to get more attention later when ppl don’t care.

Weinstein was extremely arrogant and kept talking himself up and how advanced and smart and shit he and his audience are. He was hard to listen to. I only put up with it because i liked listening to O'Keefe.

and that was pretty much it for 2 hours.

basically Weinstein just wants O’Keefe to somehow make stuff more acceptable to Weinstein’s (bad) social circle. and O’Keefe doesn’t know how to do that without ruining it, and Weinstein had no substantive suggestions, and the social circle has bad taste.

Weinstein seems to think that maybe if O’Keefe added more appendixes explaining the tough choices he makes, and how he worries over the right actions and the balance between informing the public and avoiding hurting anyone unnecessarily ... then that would make things better. i doubt it. i think Weinstein’s social circle would come up with other complaints and excuses if some of their current ones were changed. i think he’s friends with a bunch of elite social climbers and social climbers who want to be elite, and they are invested in The System (the powers that be; the status quo cultural leaders; the power of the mainstream media; the deep state; etc) that Veritas is a threat to. I think Weinstein himself is in a mixed, confused position of disliking The System in some significant ways but also having partial allegiance to it and being friends with lots of people involved with it. He’s just confused.

I knew almost zero about Weinstein going in, just that he's Intellectual Dark Web associated. Have followed O'Keefe and Veritas for a while and like them.


Elliot Temple | Permalink | Message (1)

Fallible Ideas Community Overview

The Fallible Ideas (FI) community is for learning, philosophy, rationality and critical thinking. These can be applied to all topics (science, economics, politics, gaming, etc.), not just traditional “philosophy” topics. The central topic is how to think and learn well.

Favored thinkers at FI include Elliot Temple (aka curi, the owner), David Deutsch, Ayn Rand, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises and Eliyahu Goldratt.

Resources to learn about FI.

The FI community has three discussion places. They are the Curiosity website (blog/forum hybrid), the FI Google Group (email), and the Discord chatroom.

You can support Fallible Ideas with a monthly subscription. SubscribeStar is like Patreon with reward tiers. I refuse to use Patreon because of all the people they've deplatformed.

Sign up for the Fallible Ideas newsletter for 2-3 email updates per month. You'll get notifications about new articles, YouTube videos, podcasts and more.


Elliot Temple | Permalink | Messages (0)

Don't Cut Corners On Coronavirus

This post shares and comments on quotes from Hold the line, a coronavirus article by an infectious disease epidemiologist.

First, we are in the very infancy of this epidemic’s trajectory. That means even with these [social distancing] measures we will see cases and deaths continue to rise globally, nationally, and in our own communities in the coming weeks. This may lead some people to think that the social distancing measures are not working. They are. They may feel futile. They aren’t. [...] We need everyone to hold the line as the epidemic inevitably gets worse. This is not my opinion; this is the unforgiving math of epidemics for which I and my colleagues have dedicated our lives to understanding with great nuance, and this disease is no exception. I want to help the community brace for this impact. Stay strong and with solidarity knowing with absolute certainty that what you are doing is saving lives, even as people begin getting sick and dying. You may feel like giving in. Don’t.

I agree.

While social distancing decreases contact with members of society, it of course increases your contacts with group (i.e. family) members. This small and obvious fact has surprisingly profound implications on disease transmission dynamics. Study after study demonstrates that even if there is only a little bit of connection between groups (i.e. social dinners, playdates/playgrounds, etc.), the epidemic trajectory isn’t much different than if there was no measure in place. The same underlying fundamentals of disease transmission apply, and the result is that the community is left with all of the social and economic disruption but very little public health benefit. You should perceive your entire family to function as a single individual unit; if one person puts themselves at risk, everyone in the unit is at risk. Seemingly small social chains get large and complex with alarming speed. If your son visits his girlfriend, and you later sneak over for coffee with a neighbor, your neighbor is now connected to the infected office worker that your son’s girlfriend’s mother shook hands with.

This is a key point. If a family is staying home together, then if anyone in the family takes a risk, it's similar to your whole family taking the risk. That’s because one infected family member is likely to infect the rest of the family.

Also, if everyone in your family individually thinks they can get away with small risks, the risks will add up. Suppose you have 5 people each taking 3 tiny risks in a month. That's less than one risk per week. And suppose they’re 2% risks (1 in 50 odds of getting infected). Then the total risk for the family is a 26% chance of getting infected. That means over 1 in 4 families get infected from taking those tiny risks – every month. It doesn’t take many families doing this to keep the disease spreading. People acting anything like this scenario are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

In contrast to hand-washing and other personal measures, social distancing measures are not about individuals, they are about societies working in unison. These measures also take a long time to see the results. It is hard (even for me) to conceptualize how on a population level ‘one quick little get together’ can undermine the entire framework of a public health intervention, but it does. I promise you it does. I promise. I promise. I promise. You can’t cheat it. People are already itching to cheat on the social distancing precautions just a “little”- a playdate, a haircut, or picking up a needless item at the store, etc. From a transmission dynamics standpoint, this very quickly recreates a highly connected social network that undermines all of the work the community has done so far.

He's right. Don't cut corners.


Elliot Temple | Permalink | Messages (0)

Coronavirus Solution

Coronavirus: The Hammer and the Dance explains what everyone should know about governmental and societal policies for dealing with Coronavirus. Millions will die needlessly unless we change policies. (Some Asian countries have good policies. North American and European countries don't.)

Summary: Absolutely don't give up and intentionally let everyone get the disease. And we don't need total lockdown for 18+ months to wait for a vaccine, either. Instead, we must immediately do roughly 4-6 weeks of lockdown to get the disease under control (every day counts against an exponential pandemic). Once it stops spreading exponentially, we can manage it using testing and contact tracing, and ongoing mild and cost-effective lockdown measures while awaiting a vaccine. Any time spent on half-measures right now is condemning people to die and hurting the economy without solving the main problem. If we don't get this right, the hospital system will be overwhelmed and millions will die as hospitals turn them away. We're already on course for disaster, in a matter of days, if we don't make this policy change.

Do we really need to take drastic measures? Yes. Read about how harmful the disease is: A Medical Worker Describes Terrifying Lung Failure From COVID-19 — Even in His Young Patients (the article is about a hospital in New Orleans, in Louisiana, in USA).

In Wuhan, the disease peaked a month after they did a full lockdown. In Italy today, despite the ongoing disaster (they've passed China in deaths), their lockdown is still inadequate.


Elliot Temple | Permalink | Messages (5)

What To Do About Coronavirus

We can stop the pandemic if we slow it down plus heavily ramp up testing. We don’t need to give up and accept that everyone will get it. And we don’t need to stay home for over a year until there’s a vaccine. We just need to do enough testing to figure out who to quarantine. Once we mostly know who has it, the rest is pretty easy, and we’ll be able to manage it when a few cases initially sneak by us. Until testing gets things under control, we must do a lot of social distancing. We can probably get this under control in one month if we take it seriously, which will save hundreds of thousands of lives in USA alone.

To prevent exponential growth of the pandemic, the average person needs to avoid around 70% of their regular contact with other people. That’s a reasonable, achievable number even if most people keep their jobs and go to the grocery store. (70% is a rough estimate based on several sources. Maybe the correct number is actually 80%, but it’s not 99%, it’s something achievable.) People who can isolate extra are a big help who will bring the average down. They’ll make up for some people, such as medical workers, who stay in contact with a lot of people. I’m staying home now.

Don’t go outside for non-essential reasons. Don’t congregate in groups. Stay home as much as you reasonably can. Do your best to leave public spaces for people who need them, e.g. utility workers who keep the water, sewers, power, internet, and phones working. Some people have really good reasons to go outside like healthcare workers, police, firefighters, delivery people, grocery workers, and pharmacy workers. Everyone needs to stop going out for entertainment, luxuries or socializing.

If you can cut down your going out just to work (if you can’t work from home and are in a bad situation to take a break from work), getting medicine and getting groceries when you actually run out (stay home and get stuff delivered if you can), it’ll be a big help to everyone. Get more food at once and eat non-perishables so that you have to shop less often. If you go out, shower when you get home and put all your clothes in the laundry. And don’t place unimportant orders for deliveries right now.

Once the pandemic is under control – we stop it from spreading exponentially, most currently infected people stop being contagious, and we do a lot more testing to find out who has it and who doesn’t – then we can go out more.

Remember: You can spread the disease before you have symptoms or even if you never get symptoms! This appears to be common and is part of why the disease is spreading rapidly.

The best time to get things under control is now, not after the bodies start piling up like they are in Italy.

More Info

Slow the coronavirus spread so we can test way more.

Coronavirus info thread (multiple updates per day; anyone can share info or ask questions)

My Coronavirus video

I tweet coronavirus info. Follow me or read my tweets directly at @curi42.

There is a coronavirus channel on the Fallible Ideas Discord


Elliot Temple | Permalink | Messages (14)

Slow the coronavirus spread so we can test way more

Johns Hopkins March 17 Coronavirus update:

The researchers concluded that efforts to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 epidemic in each country—defined here as slowing transmission to reduce the peak of the epidemic—would be expected to still result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and overwhelmed health systems. Subsequently, they argue that efforts to suppress the epidemics—defined here as lowering transmission to bring R0 less than 1—are necessary to ensure the continued functioning of health systems. These measures, however, would likely need to be implemented for 18 months or longer. The study considered multiple interventions, both alone and combination with others: case isolation at home, voluntary quarantine of those living with cases, social distancing for individuals over the age of 70, social distancing of the entire populations, and school closures. The model indicates that a combination of these measures would be sufficient to suppress the epidemic and preserve the health system, but the disease would be expected to “quickly rebound” after the interventions are lifted. In order to maintain their impact, the measures would essentially need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available, which could be 18 months or longer.

Study link. And FYI R0 means the average number of people that an infected person infects.

This info is dangerously wrong. Specifically, the 18 month claim is very discouraging (the rest is fine). People, including policymakers, will give up and think stopping the disease is hopeless. We're not all going to stay home for 18+ months (and there's actually no guarantee we'll have a working vaccine in 5 years – unpredictable scientific progress is involved). That won't work. But we shouldn't be planning to wait for a vaccine. That's the wrong plan.

We need to buy time to do way more testing to see who's infected. When we test enough, we can control the disease. Proof is logical and explanatory thinking about how diseases work (if we know who's infected, we can isolate them), as well how well heavy testing is working in e.g. South Korea and Vo, a small Italian town which got the disease completely under control with lots of testing.

See also my coronavirus info thread with multiple updates per day. You can share info there, too.

And see What To Do About Coronavirus


Elliot Temple | Permalink | Messages (2)

The CCP Coronavirus

This is a discussion topic for posting info and questions about the CCP Coronavirus. Check back regularly for updates and share important info. This is a serious pandemic and we all need to educate ourselves and stay home. Don't go out for non-essential reasons. A lot of people are going to die, and our behavior today (March 15, 2020) will still dramatically affect how many die.

March 23 update: Although diseases are commonly named after locations, I edited the post title from The Wuhan Coronavirus to The CCP Coronavirus to reflect the fact that the fault lies with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), not the city of Wuhan.

Below is the original post.


I'm not a medical expert and I haven't given my full attention to the Wuhan Coronavirus. But I've looked into it some and I have a few guesses, below. Summary: It's a real danger, which might kill millions, and China is lying about containment.

  • Coronavirus is spreading in mainland China outside of Hubei province.
  • The Chinese government is lying heavily.
  • China reports fake coronavirus data.
  • Experts could and should have known the above points a month ago.
  • There's a significant chance, let's say >= 20%, that coronavirus kills a lot of people, let's say over a million.
  • If the virus infects 25% of the world and has a 1% mortality rate, that's 19 million dead. The 25% and 1% figures are both plausible. Worse is not unreasonable.
  • Things might not turn out all that bad, but people ought to be concerned and take it seriously.
  • The virus is a bigger threat than the government measures to contain the virus.
  • Many measures to stop or slow the virus' spread are being done too late to have a large benefit.
  • Many people with coronavirus show no symptoms, but can still be contagious.
  • Individual quarantine measures are frequently inadequate. Self-quarantined persons are told e.g. to keep their distance from their spouse ... who can still live with them and go to the grocery store.
  • A 14 day quarantine is inadequate for a person who is around healthy family members or roommates. E.g. they could infect a family member on day 6. Then the quarantine ends too soon (8 days, not 14) after that person got sick.
  • Although we may still slow the spread down, we can't realistically expect to stop the virus from spreading to most of the world. It may not spread that much, but if it doesn't, that will be luck more than skill. We don't know all the details of the virus and how good it is at spreading. Also, the potential exception would be if someone comes up with a major medical breakthrough to protect us.
  • Politicians and others still going around shaking the hands of dozens of people are fools or bastards.
  • The people mocking those who do "social distancing" like not touching other people (e.g. no handshakes) are second-handers disconnected from reality, and they will be responsible for many deaths.
  • Literal life and death threats are inadequate for most social-reality-oriented persons to start focusing on facts, science, details and logic. They can't snap out of it and will continue to be dangerously careless, and to make decisions based on e.g. not wanting to show weakness. People deal with situations by social dynamics like acting tough instead of fearful, and not wanting to be reactive or high effort, and it doesn't matter if coronavirus has no social behavior and cannot act on social interpretations. People will e.g. stock up on supplies if and when other people stock up, and do whatever they think others are doing; they don't want to be different and that matters more to them than their lives.

Elliot Temple | Permalink | Messages (261)

Goal of Life

The goal is to live a life guided by good ideas. Good ideas come from ongoing improvement – learning new things and error correction – while avoiding systematic blockers. So the goal of life is unbounded progress for your ideas.

Discuss below. Ask questions, express objections, try to elaborate on what this means or how to do it.


Elliot Temple | Permalink | Messages (23)

Elliot Temple | Permalink | Messages (8)

Elliot Temple | Permalink | Message (1)

Elliot Temple | Permalink | Message (1)

Comments on Prologue of The Great Influenza

The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History by John M. Barry (2004) is about the 1918 flu. I started reading it today after enjoying his 2017 article How the Horrific 1918 Flu Spread Across America. Here are quotes and comments on the prologue:

In 1918 an influenza virus emerged—probably in the United States—that would spread around the world, and one of its earliest appearances in lethal form came in Philadelphia. Before that worldwide pandemic faded away in 1920, it would kill more people than any other outbreak of disease in human history. Plague in the 1300s killed a far larger proportion of the population—more than one-quarter of Europe—but in raw numbers influenza killed more than plague then, more than AIDS today.

The lowest estimate of the pandemic’s worldwide death toll is twenty-one million,

He says 21m is a bad estimate, the truth is likely more like 50m and could be 100m. And the world population was 1/3 as much back then as today.

And that this underestates how bad it was b/c it killed young adults, not just elderly and babies like the flu usually mostly kills. Roughly half of deaths were people aged 20-39.

Young adults dying is worse than the elderly dying because more future years of life are lost. Babies dying is also better than young adults because not many resources have been invested in a baby yet. (This paragraph is my own blunt comments, which are not representative of the book.)

And they died with extraordinary ferocity and speed. Although the influenza pandemic stretched over two years, perhaps two-thirds of the deaths occurred in a period of twenty-four weeks, and more than half of those deaths occurred in even less time, from mid-September to early December 1918. Influenza killed more people in a year than the Black Death of the Middle Ages killed in a century; it killed more people in twenty-four weeks than AIDS has killed in twenty-four years.

Scary. And I had no idea this had happened. I'm pretty sure I'd heard the words "Spanish Flu" (misnamed) before, but had no idea what it actually was. By contrast, I've heard plenty about the black plague and AIDS.


He says it’s kinda the first time we (well a few ppl, but they had outsized impact) dealt with something like this with science instead of religion.

After humans do anything great, people think it’s dangerous and set up rules and institutions to harness, control and contain that human power. That’s what the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration – other countries have similar agencies) now does to our medical pioneers. 100 years after the 1918 flu, with the COVID-19 threat scaring the world, I actually don't know, with confidence, that we're in a better position to face it. Yes science has advanced, but it's also more controlled now. Plus science has been mainstreamed and let in far too many mediocre social climbers and low-initiative, uncreative follower-types (too quickly, without enough cultural assimilation, and without enough requirement that they can actually achieve anything, paid for with mostly government funds with little accountability and no need for profit).

In a way, these researchers had spent much of their lives preparing for the confrontation that occurred in 1918 not only in general but, for a few of them at least, quite specifically. In every war in American history so far, disease had killed more soldiers than combat. In many wars throughout history war had spread disease.

I knew wars had a lot of non-combat deaths (from weather, malnutrition and other stuff too, besides disease) but didn't know the particular statistic that I've italized in the quote.

Not until late—very late—in the nineteenth century, did a virtual handful of leaders of American medical science begin to plan a revolution that transformed American medicine from the most backward in the developed world into the best in the world.

William James, who was a friend of—and whose son would work for—several of these men, wrote that the collecting of a critical mass of men of genius could make a whole civilization “vibrate and shake.” These men intended to, and would, shake the world.

To do so required not only intelligence and training but real courage, the courage to relinquish all support and all authority. Or perhaps it required only recklessness.

I think Ayn Rand would have liked this even though it speaks of a small group changing the world instead of a single individual. The last sentence about recklessness shows the author's own mixed thinking: he's not really sure what side he's on or why. But he still managed to say something nice. Maybe he said it because it's true – and he knows it's true in a particular case in the field where he has detailed, expert knowledge – rather than because it's nice. (It can of course be both true and nice.)


Elliot Temple | Permalink | Messages (9)

Discussion About Epistemology with doubtingthomas

This discussion (from Discord) is pretty long. If you want to skip to the best part, click here. That's where I discussed methodology. The earlier conversation involves me trying to ask a bunch of clarifying questions and it being difficult to make progress.


curi:

i think you're underestimating how different people are and how complex FI is.

doubtingthomas:

even for people who are steeped into CR?

curi:

yes

doubtingthomas:

well let's see

curi:

DD and non-DD CR ppl are quite different, and then FI ppl are quite different again

doubtingthomas:

ok

curi:

there are also different subcultures within those groups, e.g. academic and non-academic CR ppl

doubtingthomas:

We're not scoring theories on their reach level or anything in order to decide whether to accept them or not
so what is role of reach in the scientific process?

curi:

reach is a trait of a theory that we can talk about. similar to how blue is a trait of an object we can talk about. it could come up in science sometimes but can also be irrelevant lots of the time.

curi:

reach is useful enough, often enough, in some sort of thinking (can be philosophy or something else, doesn't have to be science) to merit a name.

curi:

it's kinda like the opposite of ad hoc, a concept CR mentions a fair amt

doubtingthomas:

does it give merit to science as a process? does it show that science or rational community is better at thinking than other factions of society?

curi:

not by itself. you could try to incorporate it into an argument to do some of that.

doubtingthomas:

It seems to me like reach is just a failure of science to present a problem where a good explanation becomes refutedd

curi:

i don't really know what you're talking about. i think of reach as basically the number of problems an idea solves. some ideas are really specific to solve one or two problems. some are more general purpose.

doubtingthomas:

if einstein had come just 10 years after newton than should we have marvelled over the genius of newton's theory?

curi:

newton's theory solves a lot of problems. having a better theory doesn't change that.

curi:

i also don't think reach is a good criterion for what to marvel over, at least not alone.

doubtingthomas:

agreed.

curi:

reach is one of many things we tend to like

doubtingthomas:

is there a demarcation which can tell whether it is newton's theory which is solving the problem or einstein's?

doubtingthomas:

sorry

doubtingthomas:

wrong question

curi:

it's not one or the other. they can both solve a problem.

doubtingthomas:

so the idea of paradigm makes sense?

doubtingthomas:

it's not easy to get a hybrid between two theories because a varying a good theory even a bit makes it a bad explanation

doubtingthomas:

you have to kind of jump to another local maxima

curi:

i don't know what you mean by paradigm. but yes BoI talks about difficulty of mixing explanations.

doubtingthomas:

both theories give different solutions to a problem. there is no qualitative difference between those two solutions if they indeed are solutions. the different solutions belong to those theories paradigm

doubtingthomas:

force of gravity being a property of mass belongs to newton's paradigm and bending of spacetime belongs to einstein

doubtingthomas:

paradigm is the supporting ideas of theory which makes a theory itself hard to vary

doubtingthomas:

does that make sense?

curi:

so you're talking about paradigms differently than the Kuhn stuff that KP and DD criticized?

doubtingthomas:

yeah

curi:

problems often have many solutions

doubtingthomas:

paradigm is something like an excompassing area in which a theory can be perfected

curi:

different schools of thought can approach a problem in different ways and both succeed.

doubtingthomas:

newton's theory was the epitome in his own paradigm

doubtingthomas:

it couldn't have been improved in its own paradigm

doubtingthomas:

in that case the idea of tentative progress makes sense. and then you can add reach into scientific process. you can say when science tentatively makes progress it puts forth a theory which has reach

curi:

so re yesno, my essay persuaded you that KP and DD were wrong to talk about ideas like "weak arguments"?

doubtingthomas:

yeah there are no weak arguments. only yes or no. solved or not solved

curi:

i've found most CR ppl are not receptive

doubtingthomas:

do you agree with this?

in that case the idea of tentative progress makes sense. and then you can add reach into scientific process. you can say when science tentatively makes progress it puts forth a theory which has reach

curi:

i'm not very clear on what problem it's trying to solve or what i'd use it for.

doubtingthomas:

Even I'm not sure what problem it solves. I am more interested in the deeper problem it raises: why do solutions fall into these well defined buckets

curi:

what buckets?

doubtingthomas:

paradigms

doubtingthomas:

newton's or eintsein's

curi:

so like why is idea space approximately organized into big semi-autonomous groupings after you take out the crap?

doubtingthomas:

yeah

Qthulhu42:

halfway between two buckets you get obvious contradictions

Qthulhu42:

so that’s an unstable point that must shift either way

curi:

i think that's to be expected because 1) it's sparse 2) problems aren't infinitely demanding. so often a solution can be adjusted a bit and still work b/c there is leeway in the problem.

doubtingthomas:

i've found most CR ppl are not receptive
@curi I think even DD doesn't believe in weak arguments anymore

curi:

he's never retracted it or commented directly on YesNo

curi:

also we have to organize ideas that way – we have to try figure out how to make this work – or we couldn't think about complex things. if ideas aren't semi-autonomous then you can't ever drop some of the complexity out of your mind and set it aside for now to focus on something else. you have to fit everything in your mind at once. you lose out on layers of abstraction like programmers use where you can treat some lower level stuff as a black box and not worry about the implementation details, which is what enables highly complex software.

jordancurve:

like why is idea space approximately organized into big semi-autonomous groupings after you take out the crap?

For the same reason that lifeforms can be organized into kingdoms, phylums, etc. It's because ideas evolve, like DNA. They build on , subtract from, and modify their predecessors.

curi:

disagree. that suggests it's not inherent in the problem space. i think it partly is, both for ideas and organisms.

doubtingthomas:

also we have to organize ideas that way – we have to try figure out how to make this work – or we couldn't think about complex things. if ideas aren't semi-autonomous then you can't ever drop some of the complexity out of your mind and set it aside for now to focus on something else. you have to fit everything in your mind at once. you lose out on layers of abstraction like programmers use where you can treat some lower level stuff as a black box and not worry about the implementation details, which is what enables highly complex software.
@curi now that I think of it the idea space is autonomous. that's what makes science an impersonal thing.

doubtingthomas:

other than that the the claim you made about emergence is very interesting

doubtingthomas:

For the same reason that lifeforms can be organized into kingdoms, phylums, etc. It's because ideas evolve, like DNA. They build on , subtract from, and modify their predecessors.
@jordancurve DNA does not create explanatory knowledge so that analogy doesn't hold

curi:

i don't agree with how DD talks about that.

doubtingthomas:

DNA mutation is undirected and without intention

curi:

at the lowest level, our intelligent thinking process may be that way too. intention and direction may be a higher level thing.

doubtingthomas:

i don't agree with how DD talks about that.
@curi did you say that about DNA and explanatory knowledge or about independent autonomous nature of idea space?

curi:

about DNA and explanatory knowledge

curi:

i find his claims about that not rigorous or explained enough, and generally unnecessary anyway.

jordancurve:

It wasn't meant as an analogy, @doubtingthomas. I believe ideas are literally created by evolution. That's the only one known process to create knowledge.

A big difference between evolution in nature and evolution in a mind is that ideas in a person's mind don't have the strict fitness requirements that an organism has to have in order to reproduce. People can create a sequence of ideas that might not work on their own, but eventually the sequence can arrive at another good idea that does work. That wouldn't work in nature, because every individual creature has to be viable enough to reproduce in order to pass on the knowledge in its DNA to the next generation.

curi:

that's an approximation. more precisely we can switch fitness criteria, including using criteria about being speculation worth pursuing further.

curi:

"this might be on the path to beating a local optimum" is a fitness criterion.

doubtingthomas:

a gene complex or a genome can create multiple different subspecies in the same environment but for a given meme complex there is a perfect newton's theory which cannot be improved further

curi:

you can optimize classical or newtonian physics more. it wasn't an end of progress if right.

doubtingthomas:

there's only certain deep ideas with reach that can open new meme complexes

doubtingthomas:

you can optimize classical or newtonian physics more. it wasn't an end of progress if right.
@curi improving it more would've never taken it into einstein's territory

doubtingthomas:

and a new meme complex envelopes the old one completely. shows why the old one seemed right

curi:

i wasn't saying it would, but "never" is an overstatement.

jordancurve:

Newton's theory has already been improved since Newton: http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/newton_mechanics.html Who's to say it's already reached final perfection?

doubtingthomas:

the few deep ideas with reach which never were killed by the old theory opened the new frontier

doubtingthomas:

when humans evolved they didn't refute bacteria. explanatory knowledge does. difference between genetic vs memetic

jordancurve:

No. Einstein's theory doesn't refute Newton's for many common problems, like understanding what happens when you throw a baseball.

jordancurve:

Ideas and organisms both have niches.

doubtingthomas:

curvature of spacetime tells that unsupported objects and earth move closer to each other

jordancurve:

So? People don't use that knowledge to analyze baseball replays.

jordancurve:

I think they do use Newtonian physics to predict the trajectory of a ball, though.

curi:

i don't think this discussion is organized enough, with clear problem statements and claims, to reach a resolution instead of just exchanging some ideas and dropping it. would suggest discussion trees.

doubtingthomas:

I think they do use Newtonian physics to predict the trajectory of a ball, though.
@jordancurve doesn't matter. they can use einstein's theory to get the same answers

curi:

whether it matters depends what problems you're trying to solve, what the claims under debate are, etc.

curi:

mattering is contextual. it matters to some things and not others. depends what you consider relevant.

doubtingthomas:

all new theories are improvements on the old ones and show why the old ones seem to be true. is there something analogous in genetic evolution?

curi:

that's not a precise statement. you don't mean all new theories. "You will x-fall if you jump out your window" is a new theory which is not an improvement on the old one.

doubtingthomas:

all new explanations which are tentatively accepted as the best known theories now

curi:

accepted by whom? people often accept new explanations which do not explain why an old one seemed to be true.

doubtingthomas:

accepted by science

Freeze:

scientific consensus? that can be wrong often

doubtingthomas:

We cannot read ideas from the book of nature. We create them. Deep good ones with reach are very close to the ones in the idea space and lots of those coalesce around each other because the rivals we guess are close to those.

Freeze:

e.g. climate change

curi:

science is not an actor and doesn't accept things

doubtingthomas:

i wasn't saying it would, but "never" is an overstatement.
@curi agreed. if modification keeps happening then another deep idea will come around which others will coalesce.

curi:

that use of coalesce is underexplained in context.

curi:

these kinds of imprecisions, at an avg rate above one per message, make it hard for the conversation to be effective in the sorts of ways i generally look for in conversations. it may work for your goals, which you haven't stated. trying to communicate to you a bit about some problems as i see them.

doubtingthomas:

my goal is to try to improve my understanding

curi:

i think working on skills to deal with errors like this, so you better understand them and do them way less, would help a lot with improving your understanding.

doubtingthomas:

i think these errors happen because of misunderstanding only. i try to criticise in my mind and when i think it looks presentable for open criticism I put it forward

doubtingthomas:

in that case coalesce is the concept whose understanding I want to improve

curi:

"misunderstanding only" – misunderstanding of what and what is "only" meant to exclude?

doubtingthomas:

"misunderstanding only" – misunderstanding of what and what is "only" meant to exclude?
@curi not misunderstanding. rather a not so good understanding. in this case coalesce. only is meant to exclude everything except coalesce

curi:

we're not on the same page and i'm not following what you're saying.

curi:

i've tried to clarify some points but things i find ambiguous or confusing are being introduced faster than they're being clarified.

doubtingthomas:

I agree

doubtingthomas:

New question. What does the autonomous independent idea space contain? All the computable functions?

curi:

I'm more interested in a strategy for dealing with the problem identified while discussing the prior topic than dropping that problem and expecting it won't happen again on the next topic (or not minding if it happens again).

doubtingthomas:

I think we have reached the 90% of it right now. We should come back to it when I have more clarity. If it happens again it will be with the intention of approaching the problem with a new direction

curi:

90% of what?

doubtingthomas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIm_uDV1Ya8

doubtingthomas:

trying to get all the details right to a 100%

curi:

I don't think you got 90% of the details right, if that's what you mean.

doubtingthomas:

Trying a new approach will be better

curi:

I don't think so because I think there are several confusions in " What does the autonomous independent idea space contain? All the computable functions?" so we're in a similar place to where we were in the prior discussion.

doubtingthomas:

I can clarify the confusions in this? What you find unclear?

curi:

Do you think I was talking about "the autonomous independent idea space" earlier?

doubtingthomas:

Yes

curi:

From memory, I don't think I was. Do you have a quote where you think I was?

doubtingthomas:

You didn't say it explicitly anywhere. Do you think there exists an idea space?

curi:

Why are you asking me if I think there exists an idea space? Are you trying to change the topic?

doubtingthomas:

I am trying to approach the problem from a new position. give me some time to try to connect it. why do want everything to go your way

curi:

I don't know what you mean about wanting anything to go my way.

doubtingthomas:

How do you know I am changing the topic?

doubtingthomas:

It might be connected if you follow my train of thought

curi:

You switched from "the autonomous independent idea space" to "an idea space". It was unclear if you were trying to switch the topic or you were treating those two things as if they were the same.

doubtingthomas:

sorry for that. I considered both things to be same

curi:

I didn't say you were trying to switch the topic. I asked. When you ask how I know that you were changing the topic, it shows you misread me.

doubtingthomas:

Ok I wasn't because I said multiple times I am trying to approach the problem from a new direction

curi:

If you think idea space with three qualifiers is the same as idea space with one different qualifier, I don't know why you included extra qualifiers initially if they make no difference. That seems like a confusing error.

doubtingthomas:

I'm extremely sorry for that

If you think idea space with three qualifiers is the same as idea space with one different qualifier, I don't know why you included extra qualifiers initially if they make no difference. That seems like a confusing error.
@curi do you think there exists an autonomous independent idea space?

curi:

I don't know what the application of those qualifiers (autonomous, independent) to "idea space" means. It's not clear.

doubtingthomas:

autonomous is like it can kick back. independent is independent of human/person thoughts

curi:

i have at least one more question about each of those statements, and i wouldn't be surprised it was dozens before we were done.

doubtingthomas:

there should be

curi:

to begin with, you seem to be saying what the qualifiers mean, which isn't what i asked.

doubtingthomas:

then?

curi:

what?

doubtingthomas:

what did you wanna know?

curi:

do you see that you didn't answer my question?

curi:

not a literal, explicit question, but i brought up an issue and then you said something else instead of addressing it. what you said could perhaps be step 1 towards addressing it.

doubtingthomas:

I didn't understand the question then. Can you help me understand?

curi:

What does the application of those qualifiers (autonomous, independent) to "idea space" mean?

curi:

You said what the qualifiers mean in general, but didn't say how you think they apply to "idea space".

doubtingthomas:

got it

doubtingthomas:

i'll rephrase my question then so that this confusion doesn't come up

curi:

I'd rather you didn't. I don't want to start over.

doubtingthomas:

autonomous idea space is something that has its own objective existence. you can define integers but then the distribution of prime numbers is an independent property of it

curi:

do you have in mind an example of a non-autonomous idea space?

doubtingthomas:

idea space is a set of ideas. an idea space which consists of only defined ideas is non--utonomous

doubtingthomas:

it is dependent on the human who created it

curi:

how does the set {"bachelor = unmarried man"} depend on the humans who created it?

doubtingthomas:

he gave a word a specific meaning

doubtingthomas:

more importantly it doesn't kick back

curi:

so what? i can die and it doesn't change it. it's out of my hands. i can make false claims about it. me being the creator of that set has nothing to do with what's true about it.

doubtingthomas:

it's a definitional idea. that's why it doesn't change

doubtingthomas:

it is not autonomous because it doesn't kick back

curi:

I think this conversation is like the previous one: new issues are coming up faster than things are being clarified, so it isn't able to make forward progress.

doubtingthomas:

i've only introduced autonomous and kick back

curi:

That's incorrect, e.g. you introduced "definitional idea" and "dependent on the human who created it"

curi:

And my outstanding list of unasked questions is growing rapidly. It's gained several entries per question I did ask.

doubtingthomas:

those have their usual meaning

doubtingthomas:

And my outstanding list of unasked questions is growing rapidly. It's gained several entries per question I did ask.
@curi thus exposing our infinite ignorance I guess?

curi:

Those don't have usual meanings and I have several comments I could make about the errors involved in expecting me to know what you mean, without communication, by societal default, on a topic like this.

doubtingthomas:

please do

curi:

I don't think it's exposing infinite ignorance, I think it's exposing a discussion methodology which isn't focused on dealing with errors.

curi:

Not just discussion methodology but also thinking and learning.

doubtingthomas:

can you suggest a better alternative then?

curi:

I've researched and written at length about better alternatives. That is what some of the material in #intro and #low-error-rate is about.

curi:

I think learning typing is a good analogy. Some people type complicated words, at high speeds, with low accuracy. These errors are not primarily due to fallibility or our infinite ignorance.

curi:

The right method involves, roughly, learning the basics and prerequisites, then learning to type slowly with high accuracy, then speeding up while keep accuracy high. At no point is a high error rate necessary or desirable.

curi:

It's harder to fix errors while going fast. It's easier to fix errors in isolation, minimizing extra complicating factors.

curi:

In conversations about complex topics, people often make errors which could come up and be fixed in simpler conversations. Trying to fix them in the midst of the more complicated conversation is harder than fixing the same error in a simpler scenario. Plus then one is doing two things at once: dealing with the conversation and the error. It's easier to fix it when in practice mode without a second goal at the same time.

curi:

Same as: it's easier to improve your typing while not simultaneously writing messages to your girlfriend trying to convince her not to break up with you.

doubtingthomas:

can you tell me what will be a simpler question here

curi:

Many things, like typing or walking, can be mastered so that they no longer take much effort or attention. They become easy and you can do them on autopilot. This lets you focus your attention on other things and build on the skill (e.g. thinking about what you write while you're typing, or chewing gum while walking).

curi:

There are many levels of simplicity. E.g. grammar (parts of speech) and arithmetic are simpler things which are relevant and useful for discussing autonomous idea spaces. At a higher level, algebra and grammar (comma usage) have some relevance, though one might be able to get away with less knowledge of them.

curi:

Also, simplicity is context and hierarchy dependent. There are multiple ways to build up to a particular idea. There are different frameworks which can change how simple an idea is.

curi:

Complexity (opposite of simplicity) is related to how many parts something is composed of. There aren't privileged foundations specifying the base parts or atoms. But not all hierarchies are equal. There are some standard ones. That's something of a tangent. But lots of the things you bring up have a ton of hidden complexity.

curi:

There are many other questions I think one should consider first, like what an error is, before autonomous idea spaces.

curi:

And, to some extent, how does one managing learning, scheduling, discussion, emotions, disliking criticism, honesty and dishonesty, etc.

doubtingthomas:

error is failing to fulfill a criteria

curi:

Some of the problems in our discussion were (speculating with incomplete information) what I view as not using word-level precision. Not giving individual attention to each word used and considering its purpose and meaning. This is what ~everyone does, but I don't think it works well. It's something DD and I do differently.

curi:

"criteria" is a plural. DD told me that long ago. One can get away with some errors like that involving using words without understanding them very well, but not too many at once.

curi:

FYI ~ means "approximately"

curi:

A main objection people have to more precise thinking and writing is that it's too time consuming. This is where mastery comes in. Walking and typing can be done on autopilot. One can do the same with many skills related to writing and thinking. E.g. it can become second-nature to avoid writing "very" without an explicit reason for making an exception. One can do that automatically, by default.

doubtingthomas:

didn't godel have something to say about why perfect precision is doomed?

curi:

Probably. So did Popper.

curi:

These things are never perfect but people can do better and stop repeating the same known errors over and over.

doubtingthomas:

everything that you gave an example of has a fixed criteria according to which you can determine success. except thinking

curi:

If you change your mind about some criteria, you can change your habit to fit the new criteria. Lots of people's criteria are fairly long-lived. ~None are fixed. An actor might have to do some relearning for walking to play a part with a limp. Or some speech relearning to get control over his accent. And only recently I changed my touch typing a bit.

curi:

Adults do most of their lives on autopilot whether they like it or not. That's because their lives involve far, far more complexity than they can consciously focus on and control. A lot of errors are due to bad autopilot rather than being created with conscious attention.

doubtingthomas:

so you think I am committing that error?

curi:

Which error?

doubtingthomas:

that kind of error. autopilot kind

curi:

Everyone does it. I do think it came up in our conversation.

doubtingthomas:

so you think I don't have good enough understanding to understand the complexity of idea space?

curi:

Yes. I don't think it's close. I think most intellectuals spend most of their lives confused. I don't think e.g. Sam Harris could productively discuss it due to errors in his autopilots and autopilots he doesn't have.

doubtingthomas:

Can you clarify what you mean by "I don't think it's close"?

doubtingthomas:

my understanding to understand the complexity of idea space?

curi:

I don't think your skill and knowledge level is close to good enough. It's not a close call. I think there's a large gap.

doubtingthomas:

what should I do to cover it up?

curi:

FWIW, I say this to ~everyone.

doubtingthomas:

what should I do to cover it up?
i wanna learn

curi:

There's no realistic way it could be different, because our schools, books, and other educational institutions don't give people the tools to fix it.

doubtingthomas:

FWIW, I say this to ~everyone.
@curi i agree epistemology is the most important thing

doubtingthomas:

i wanna learn
where and how can I learn?

curi:

I've developed some options for things people can do. It depends a lot on you, what your interests are, what your skills are (you're good at some things already), what your resources are (e.g. available time and money), what you find hard or easy.

curi:

Some people are working on grammar, programming, or speedrunning video games. Most people dislike beginner stuff, and don't want to be like a child or student, but some become more open to it if they start to recognize ways other stuff is hard for them and they make lots of mistakes.

doubtingthomas:

can't I learn it through conversation in this chat with this community?

curi:

One can also just try to discuss philosophy but with an attitude of being careful and caring about small errors and trying to fix them and consider their causes.

curi:

One of the ways to do that better is by making discussion trees to help organize and understand discussions one has (or sections of discussion where problems happened).

curi:

And one can have an attitude of trying to figure out what philosophy concepts one understands with really high quality and then seeing what they imply, what can be built using them, instead of just jumping ahead to stuff one has vague ideas about.

curi:

Are you on a desktop computer?

doubtingthomas:

yeah

curi:

This is an example of a discussion tree I made recently to show someone some of the errors in a discussion. https://my.mindnode.com/nxNNJHpa1pmw2brf26ZwkWJgxWLPJAs2UxqAfHDU

doubtingthomas:

do you wanna make one together

curi:

It helps to e.g. introduce advanced or complex concepts into a discussion gradually instead of a bunch at once. One can have more respect for the difficulty of philosophy and try to break it down into smaller steps.

doubtingthomas:

It helps to e.g. introduce advanced or complex concepts into a discussion gradually instead of a bunch at once. One can have more respect for the difficulty of philosophy and try to break it down into smaller steps.
@curi that's a really good idea

curi:

Most philosophy material discourages this and encourages people to read complex stuff that they only partly understand, and to view that kinda partial understanding as success.

curi:

Schools are like that too. People pass tests, and often get A's, while not understanding stuff very well.

doubtingthomas:

true

curi:

Lots of young kids want to understand more but eventually give up on the world making sense.

doubtingthomas:

schools are the worst

curi:

Maybe we could make a tree another time. I'm leaving soon. Would have left a while ago but was interested in writing about this. Maybe someone else will. You'll find talking with other people easier in some ways (they'll tend to be more similar to you than i am, and accept more of what you say without challenging or questioning it).

curi:

I think this went well. Lots of people don't like these ideas or would be angry or upset by now.

doubtingthomas:

Maybe we could make a tree another time. I'm leaving soon. Would have left a while ago but was interested in writing about this. Maybe someone else will. You'll find talking with other people easier in some ways (they'll tend to be more similar to you than i am, and accept more of what you say without challenging or questioning it).
@curi i can see you've thought a lot about this

doubtingthomas:

Maybe we could make a tree another time. I'm leaving soon. Would have left a while ago but was interested in writing about this. Maybe someone else will. You'll find talking with other people easier in some ways (they'll tend to be more similar to you than i am, and accept more of what you say without challenging or questioning it).
@curi next time then

doubtingthomas:

I think this went well. Lots of people don't like these ideas or would be angry or upset by now.
@curi i only used the word tolerance first

curi:

Since near when I first met DD and learned about his ideas, I've been trying to figure out why most people don't understand or learn them , and why intellectual conversations, learning and debates mostly fail.

curi:

And I've been trying to expand on CR for ~10 years. CR says we learn by critical discussion but doesn't give people nearly enough guidance about how to organize a discussion.

curi:

So I have some ideas like judging every error we can find to matter a lot more than most people think it does. I find ignoring errors is a major error.

curi:

If an error is genuinely small, fix it. Shouldn't be that hard!

curi:

But we don't really know how big or small it was until after we fix it. In retrospect we may see it was small. But beforehand, we don't know how complex the solution will be because we don't yet know what the solution is. It's like predicting the future growth of knowledge.

doubtingthomas:

And I've been trying to expand on CR for ~10 years. CR says we learn by critical discussion but doesn't give people nearly enough guidance about how to organize a discussion.
@curi no one has been critical enough of these anti-rational memes. and even if they defeat those memes they don't know explicitly how they did it. so they end up giving bad advice most of the times

doubtingthomas:

yes

curi:

Like DD, I did a lot of things well intuitively, and trying to figure out what I did, so I can tell others how to do it, is something i've been working on.

doubtingthomas:

even he started to push out ideas about the fun criteria and so on. I think he is contemplating a book on irrationality

curi:

He's been contemplating that book for many years, and he's had ideas about the fun criterion for over 20 years, probably way more.

doubtingthomas:

But we don't really know how big or small it was until after we fix it. In retrospect we may see it was small. But beforehand, we don't know how complex the solution will be because we don't yet know what the solution is. It's like predicting the future growth of knowledge.
@curi because of the unpredictability of growth of knowledge we cannot have a fixed criteria against which we can judge thinking errors. that's my understanding. I can feel I am making some error here. Can you help me point it out?

curi:

fixing errors involves knowledge growth, so we don't know what the outcome will be in advance, so we don't know how long it will take, how hard it will be, or how many other ideas will have to be changed. we may estimate these things when the error is in a well understood category but there are limits, so people should be more hesitant to immediately say "that error is no big deal, why are you criticizing it?"

curi:

I think the fun criterion is bad. See http://curi.us/1882-speed-reading-is-a-core-life-skill#15609

curi:

that's a comment link. should highlight the right one. that's why the blog post title is off topic.

doubtingthomas:

yeah found it

doubtingthomas:

You said you have to leave. I don't wanna keep you. I can keep on asking questions though

curi:

You're not keeping me, I am. It's my choice. Don't worry about it.

doubtingthomas:

fixing errors involves knowledge growth, so we don't know what the outcome will be in advance, so we don't know how long it will take, how hard it will be, or how many other ideas will have to be changed. we may estimate these things when the error is in a well understood category but there are limits, so people should be more hesitant to immediately say "that error is no big deal, why are you criticizing it?"
@curi fixing error is correct. you can have a criterion for whether someone is making less errors while typing or while playing chess but you cannot implement a criteria whether someone has created a new scientific theory

doubtingthomas:

you can have that criterion only after you have that theory whether it is a new theory or not


Elliot Temple | Permalink | Messages (2)

Elliot Temple | Permalink | Message (1)

Fallible Ideas Learning Plan

Lots of people tell me they like Fallible Ideas (FI), they're interested, they think it's good, etc. Some of them try to learn more about FI, or think they're trying, or something like that, but then they don't learn much about FI philosophy. Others like FI and vaguely plan to do something about it, but never do much.

This is sad because learning FI philosophy can improve people's lives. Applied to problems people have, it can help provide solutions.

People often have reasons in their head which justify not doing much about FI. Or they do things that seem like learning FI to them, but which don't create visible results which could be criticized if incorrect. Most typically, ineffective FI engagement involves non-interactive content consumption: watching, listening, reading but without writing or discussing. Relying on self-criticism is inadequate, especially at first.

If you want to learn FI, consider a learning plan. Here's an example:

  • Try to work on FI every day, but missing 1 or 2 days per week is OK.
  • Working on FI means at least 15 minutes that day. But for the first month, two days per week can be 5 minute days. In the second month, you can do one 5 minute day each week.
  • Once a week, do at least an hour of FI stuff (30 min in the first month, 45 min in the second month).
  • Every day you do FI work, share what you did. The requirement is to write it down and share it on the same day you did it, and the recommendation is to do that immediately afterwards. This is just a basic overview like "I read X" which will keep records of what you do.
  • Starting after 3 months, at least once a week, share some work product publicly. This means sharing an idea, explanation, argument ... something people could discuss, debate, and criticize.
  • Once a month, consider the bigger picture, e.g.: what are your goals and your progress on them, what topics are you working on, why, are you satisfied with your progress over the last month, what progress has been exposed to criticism successfully, what progress has been exposed to what objective tests to check for errors, what are your goals for the next month?
  • The first day of the week is Saturday. (You're welcome to pick a different day. I like Friday or Saturday so you don't procrastinate stuff for the weekend. Depending on your sleep cycle you may also want to specify e.g. that days start at 5am.)
  • Be at least 90% consistent about following the plan. Write down every time you miss doing a plan requirement (which requirement was missed and the date). Keep counts of successes and failures so you can compare the percentage. I suggest a spreadsheet. Keep notes about why you miss stuff and what happens (they can be private if you prefer) and watch out for patterns, bad habits and problems. Share your miss counts and consistency percentage weekly until you succeed every week for 3 months in a row, then share it monthly.
  • If you fall a bit short in the early months, keep trying. But if you don't actually do the plan, the consequences are: don't tell yourself, or anyone else, that you're learning FI philosophy. The point here isn't to discourage people, it's to help you. That's because pretending you're learning FI, when you aren't, is a common thing that prevents or sabotages learning FI.

This can be done in around 10 hours per month minimum, but involves doing something on most days.

If some part of this plan wouldn't work for you, or it's just too hard, make a different plan. Change some things to what will work for you. You could e.g. start with a lower consistency target, but don't go under 66% – if you can't even be that consistent, make your plan easier so that you can actually do it. If the example plan sounds too hard, think about why it would be hard for you. You can discuss your plan ideas to get tips and feedback.

In general, you should place a low value on progress which has not been exposed to external criticism and objective tests.

In general, you should place a high value on finishing things. After doing an FI learning plan for a while, you should have a list of accomplishments instead of just 50 things you started and then stopped halfway through. It's fine to stop some things partway through and to look at a variety of stuff and be selective, but you should also finish some. That can be small things like finishing reading an essay, or bigger thrings like finishing a book or finishing a project to learn about an essay by writing notes about it and discussing one idea related to it (and having some goal which the discussion reaches).

It'd be a good idea to hire curi or ingracke to talk with you for an hour a month regarding your monthly review.

If you take FI seriously, it'd be a good idea to be a paying customer in some way, especially on a regular basis. E.g. contributing any amount per month is significantly better for you than zero. (Don't worry about it if you're actually too poor or can't do online payments to the US, especially if you're a kid. But if you can spend $20+/month on luxuries and can pay US dollars online, you could afford at least $2/month for FI, and you should if you genuinely care about it.)

Decide on your own learning plan and write it down and put it somewhere with a permalink. I suggest putting it on a website you control where you can edit it with updates in the future. I suggest everyone have a website they control even if you mostly post directly to curi and FI (directly as opposed to putting stuff on your own site and sharing a link, which is fine too).

Some people want to do freeform, unscheduled, unstructured learning. They think it's more rational or fun. Most people are bad at that. Anyway, it's fine to do that if you get results which clearly surpass those of the example learning plan above. Otherwise, you should do a plan. You can do all the extra learning you want in addition to the plan. Since the plan only takes around 10 hours a month minimum, just stick to the minimum when you're doing extra learning and you should still have time for more. But the plan doesn't dictate what you learn, anyway.

If you can do more and better learning, great. But don't let those aspirations get in the way of doing something concrete like the learning plan above. At least do that. If you can't or won't even do that, you shouldn't pretend to yourself that you're involved with FI. IMO, you should be happy if you can do this, and be happy with progress that looks kinda small to you. It's far better than no progress. And keep in mind that people in general in our culture (like you) are bad at judging how good/effective philosophy progress is or where it will lead. Our culture doesn't understand philosophy learning projects well and doesn't adequately respect the important early-stage work to achieve mastery over the relatively basic skills related to rational, critical thinking.

You don't have to be very ambituous at the start, and probably shouldn't be. If you read some stuff and write down what you read, that's enough to follow most of the plan. At first, get used to doing the plan itself and solve the problems you have with making the plan part of your life. Later you can worry more about saying your opinions of ideas, explaining concepts yourself, or debating issues (you're allowed to do those things early on, you're just not being asked to). More broadly, the goal is to get something working; you can add whatever you want after it's already working consistently and reliably.

Note: One of people's biggest problems with FI, besides the hard stuff (e.g. dishonesty, evasion, disliking criticism, refusing to try, static memes, irrationality), is dealing with people in writing instead of voice (and also there being a time delay, often hours, between saying something and getting a response, which is different than an IRL or phone conversation where people respond in a few seconds). Some people also broadly prefer listening to video or audio over reading. It's important to learn to deal with this stuff well and get used to using text. It's a valuable skill and should be one of your main goals early on. But if you find that hard, you can start by learning from videos and podcasts, and you could say what you did that day in a short video or audio recording, or do that in writing but say your more complicated thoughts with your voice. Try to start with something you can do and expand from there.

Note: Sometimes people do FI work and think that the time they spent doesn't count for some reason. Creating a gmail account and signing up to FI counts as working on FI stuff. Figuring out how to send a plain text email counts, including watching a video about it. Finding mind map software and learning to use it counts. So does spreadsheet, text editing or blogging software as long as you plan to use it for FI stuff. Watching a video someone from FI linked counts too. Reading novels to get more used to reading regularly (even using audio books or text-to-speech initially with e.g. a plan to do text reading for your 4th book) is relevant to FI too. You don't have to be reading or writing philosophy to count the time you spend. Be inclusive by default about what counts as FI time, and make some adjustments if you see a recurring pattern that you want to change. (The minimum for a problematic pattern is three times, but it's often better to first become concerned with it after somewhere between five and a dozen times.)


Elliot Temple | Permalink | Messages (3)