- Even though Eliezer knew about Bayes theorem and cognitive biases, he didn’t think of himself as a Bayesian until he read E.T. Jaynes’ Probability Theory: The Logic of Science
- The only way to tackle truly difficult problems is to look for solutions that are so rigorous, they seem like the only solution, not just one solution out of many
- Can’t just show why your way will work, have to show why other ways will not work
- Holding yourself to that greater level of rigor saves time, not on the order of weeks or months, but on the order of decades and careers
- Saying “Oops” is something to look forward to
- The problem with the “10,000 hours” theory of excellence is that it encourages focused effort towards a local maximum
- The skills needed for this form of excellence don’t help one make truly novel discoveries, nor do they help communities
- Sewall Wright’s theory of adaptive landscapes of fitness corresponds to four archetypes of acheivement:
- Climbing – Expertise: climbing towards the current (local) fitness maximum
- Crossing – Genius: Crossing the “adaptive valley” towards an even higher maximum level of fitness
- Moving – Heroism: Altering the landscape of fitness to favor a particular group
- Shaking – Rebellion: Changing the landscaping of fitness to be more even
- The problem is that modern institutions emphasize the climbing form of adaptations over all others
- Need alternative institutions to traditional academia for people who want to pursue paths other than the 10,000 hours theory of excellence
- People have differing levels of emotional intensity
- Some people feel emotions (both positive and negative) very intensely
- Others have more muted emotions
- Muted emotional expression doesn’t necessarily imply muted emotions
- People with a wide range of emotional expression report similar levels of contentment and life satisfaction
- People with intense emotions personalize and focus on the emotional aspects of a situation, whereas people with less intense emotions focus on the factual aspects of the situation
- Emotional intensity appears to be heritable, with identical twins showing greater similarities in emotional intensity than fraternal twins
- Emotional intensity appears to decline with age, with the greatest drop occurring between one’s 20s and one’s 40s
- More emotionally intense people appear to have less physiological activity at rest than less emotionally intense people
- the more strongly a person feels emotions, the less they appear to understand those emotions
- Consider the following procedure:
- Create unreasonably high standards
- When people fail to meet those standards, assign them “debt”
- Provide some way for people to discharge that debt by giving up agency
- Examples:
- Christianity:
- Define many natural human emotions as sins
- Define subserviency to Jesus/church as a way to discharge debts accumulated by sinning
- Education system
- Define standards of behavior that are impossible to follow
- Discharge debt by accepting punishments and displaying your subservience to the educational system
- Effective altruism
- Enjoying luxuries before all children have lifesaving treatment is wrong
- Discharge that debt by donating 10% of your income
- The rationality community
- No one is fully rational all the time
- Discharge debt by improving your own personal rationality and donating to high-level rationalists
- Setting up unreasonably high standards has the following effects:
- Hypocrisy: no one follows the standard all the time, and the standard is enforced inconsistently, often against the most vulnerable members of the community
- Self-violence: unreasonably high standards force people’s minds to turn against themselves, and result in self-hatred
- Distorted perception and cognition leading to motivation problems: the righteous part of the mind sometimes has trouble looking at ways a person is failing to meet a standard, and that leads to motivation issues
- Fear: accumulating debt gives one the feeling that one can be called to account and asked to do anything, at any time
- Systems with unreasonably high standards could be justified if they were good coordination mechanisms, but there’s no evidence that unreasonably high standards form a better basis for coordination than existing defacto norms
- Unreasonably high standards are responsible for a great deal of violence and epistemic problems
- We have to distinguish unreasonably high standards from preference ordering
- Advice to the scrupulous: unreasonably high standards are a scam, and you are giving your life away to the scammers