Harley-ml/lesswrong huggingface dataset:
# Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality Bookshelves

A while back in the Columbus Rationality group, we started wondering: What books would the Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality houses have in each of their libraries?  We had fun categorizing different subjects:

*   Gryffindor - Combat, ethics, and justice
*   Ravenclaw - Philosophy, cognitive science, and math
*   Slytherin -Influence and power
*   Hufflepuff - Happiness, productivity, and friendship

And so, I found myself taking all my books off their shelves this weekend and picking the best to represent each rationality!House and made them into Facebook cover-image-sized pictures.  Click each image to see it larger, with a list on the left:

(first posted at [Measure of Doubt](http://measureofdoubt.com/2013/03/18/what-would-a-rational-gryffindor-read/))

[![](http://measureofdoubt.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/rationality-gryffindor-library.jpg)](http://measureofdoubt.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/rationality-gryffindor-library.jpg)

[![](http://measureofdoubt.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/rationality-ravenclaw-library.jpg)](http://measureofdoubt.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/rationality-ravenclaw-library.jpg)

[![](http://measureofdoubt.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/rationality-slytherin-library.jpg)](http://measureofdoubt.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/rationality-slytherin-library.jpg)

[![](http://measureofdoubt.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/rationality-hufflepuff-library.jpg)](http://measureofdoubt.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/rationality-hufflepuff-library.jpg)

I’m always open to book recommendations and suggestions for good fits.  What other books would be especially appropriate for each shelf?
# Solstice and Megameetup Preparations for 2013

I'm officially spinning the Solstice and related ritual stuff into something distinct from Less Wrong (there are good reasons to leave LW focusing on straight-up rationality, and I think it should cater more towards "serious business intellectuals" than trying to appeal to the masses, which is essentially my goal).   
  
I'll be checking in from time to time to let people know what I'm doing. I just posted an introduction newsletter for Solstice and Megameetup activity for 2013. [You can view it here](https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=&hl=en#!topic/rational-ritual/2VTmGnbFL_I), and if you want to participate in future discussion, you may want to join the rational-ritual mailing list. 

Some key points:

> The Winter Solstice 2011 had been a bit of an experiment, and went well enough, but left us with a sense of "all right, now let's do that for real next year." I think the 2012 Solstice delivered on that. Our house was filled to the brim with 50 people, and I got a lot of profound thanks from people who described it as very emotionally affective, helping them deal with death and successful at community bonding in a way that few other things had been for them. 

> Now I'm gearing up for this year's work. I have a few main goals for this year:  
> 
> *   Have Solstices and Megameetups at a number of cities other than New York.
> 
> *   Have one very _large_ Solstice in NY (looking to seat at least 100 people and trying to seat 800 if I can, in a large auditorium), that caters to the mainstream skeptic/freethinker/humanist crowd. (There will also be a smaller, more intimate and transhumanist Less Wrong Solstice in NYC, but I'm leaning towards it not doubling as a megameetup)
> 
> *   Create an official website that ties this all together, and makes it easier for people to get involved, share music/art, and find people to collaborate with. I want it to be distinct from Less Wrong  so that people who aren't interested in ritual don't feel put out, as well as give non-LW-folk a chance to discover it. 
> 
> For the first goal to be successful, we're going to need other other people doing some non-trivial logistical work. A few people had expressed interest in having Solstices or megameetups in their city but weren't sure if they were able to take on that responsibility personally. Some people were interested in making a Solstice happen but hadn't actually personally experienced it and weren't sure they were qualified.  
>   
> These are non-trivial obstacles, but I think they can be addressed. 

  

If you're interested in helping out, either in a big or small way, or just want to follow along with our progress, check it out.
# Suggestion: Read Paul Graham

This isn't really a full post, but merely a note of potential interest. Paul Graham (who runs [Hacker News](https://news.ycombinator.com/)) has several very interesting and thought-provoking essays located on [his personal website](http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html). To me they fit very well with the style of thinking employed and advocated by many people on LW and I'd advise that nearly anyone interested in LW check out his work.

I especially recommend [Keep Your Identity Small](http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html), [What You Can't Say](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html), and [What You'll Wish You'd Known](http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html), but nearly every essay up there is interesting to me in some way. Many of them are directly relevant to issues of rationality, while others are only indirectly related, but either way I found them worth my time.
# [LINK] The power of fiction for moral instruction

From Medical Daily: [Psychologists Discover How People Subconsciously Become Their Favorite Fictional Characters](http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/9878/20120514/book-reading-experience-taking-psychology-character-fiction.htm)

Psychologists have discovered that while reading a book or story, people are prone to subconsciously adopt their behavior, thoughts, beliefs and internal responses to that of fictional characters as if they were their own.

Experts have dubbed this subconscious phenomenon ‘experience-taking,’ where people actually change their own behaviors and thoughts to match those of a fictional character that they can identify with.

Researcher from the Ohio State University conducted a series of six different experiments on about 500 participants, reporting in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found that in the right situations, ‘experience-taking,’ may lead to temporary real world changes in the lives of readers. 

They found that stories written in the first-person can temporarily transform the way readers view the world, themselves and other social groups. 

I always wondered at how Christopher Hitchens (who, when he wasn't being a columnist, was a professor of English literature) went on and on about the power of fiction for revealing moral truths. This gives me a better idea of how people could imprint on well-written fiction. More so than, say, logically-reasoned philosophical tracts.

This article is, of course, a popularisation. Anyone have links to the original paper?

**Edit:** Gwern [delivers](http://www.tiltfactor.org/wp-content/uploads2/Kaufman_Libby2012_JPSPadvanceonlinepublication.pdf) (PDF): Kaufman, G. F., & Libby, L. K. (2012, March 26). "Changing Beliefs and Behavior Through Experience-Taking." _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0027525
# Soylent Orange - Whole food open source soylent

Update: John Maxwell and I have a startup making nutritionally complete food, [MealSquares](http://www.mealsquares.com) (which is likely better for weightloss see below)

This came up at a meetup a while back.  Several people, myself included, expressed frustration with the time, cost, stress, of preparing reasonably healthy and tasty meals.  I suspect this frustration is widespread among people who do work that requires a lot of focus.  Leaving flow because your body needs maintenance is annoying.  So I'm sharing a strategy that has helped me.

I was encouraged by the success of [Soylent](http://soylent.me/ "Soylent").  I had been playing around with ingredients for post workout shakes for months. But reading the Soylent blog posts inspired me to do a full micronutrient breakdown of what I had been drinking and optimize in a more rigorous fashion. Why not copy the soylent recipe?

1\. I'm not realistically going to source all of those ingredients

2\. He risks (and has already had problems with) misdosing himself to deleterious effect, this problem doesn't exist with whole foods

3\. The absorption of powders vs whole foods is contentious

4\. I don't agree with his criteria for inclusion

In comparison, my recipe is extremely easy and cheap to source, due to the small number of ingredients.

There is an immediate problem with meal replacement shakes in that liquid calories tend to have a significantly smaller satiety effect than solid foods.  So this will probably not be a good solution for you if have difficulties keeping your overall caloric intake down.

\[EDIT: Removed the link to the recipe, John and I are planning to commercialize this in addition to MealSquares at some point.  Get in touch with me if you really need the recipe and won't spread it around.\]

This is a work in progress and I am looking for further ideas for improvement.  Subjectively I can say I find this recipe delicious, and hugely prefer it post-workout to even the best junk food (pizza, etc.).  The combination of milk, vanilla, banana, and orange juice tastes kind of like an orange julius. It has also been a major stress relief and time saver.  I don't worry so much about nutrient deficiencies anymore as this shake in addition to a meat or egg based meal has me pretty well covered.

I am due for another blood panel and will report any anomalies as I've been drinking a similar concoction for around 6-8 months.

I am open to debating the merits of my ingredient choices (as well as the overall wisdom of this scheme) in the comments. Also please share any other strategies you have for making food less of a chore.

Edit: I finally got my blood panel back and everything is looking good. Triglycerides unchanged, HDL up, LDL slightly down.  All other numbers within the healthy range.  I'm a little concerned about my iron level (what is considered normal may not be optimal for longevity), and plan on giving blood to lower it, but this is orthogonal to the use of a dietary shake I believe.

Edit: Kefir is expensive but highly recommended for lactose intolerant individuals. It is also delicious.
# Solved Problems Repository

**Follow-up to:** [Boring Advice Repository](/lw/gx5/boring_advice_repository/)

Many practical problems in instrumental rationality appear to be wide open. Two I've been annoyed by recently are "what should I eat?" and "how should I exercise?" However, some appear to be more or less **solved**. For example, various mnemonic techniques like memory palaces, along with [spaced repetition](http://www.gwern.net/Spaced%20repetition), seem to more or less solve the problem of memorization.

I would like people to use this thread to post other examples of solved problems in instrumental rationality. I'm pretty sure you all collectively know good examples; there's a comment I can't find from a user who said something like "taking a flattering photograph of yourself is a solved problem," and it's likely that there are other useful examples like this that aren't common knowledge. Err on the side of posting solutions which may not be universal but are still likely to be helpful to many people. 

(This thread is allowed to not be boring! Go wild!)
# Noticing the 5-second mindkill

I've been reading news and a headline popped out at me:

Some Conservative backbenchers stirred up controversy in the House of Commons Tuesday when they accused their own party of preventing them from speaking out in Parliament.

(For the US audience, the Canadian (and British) House of Commons is like the House of Representatives, only with less democracy.)

**My first thought**: how dare the Prime Minister muzzles democratically elected MPs!

(For the US audience, the Prime Minister in a majority government has the power of the President and the majority leaders in both chambers combined, and much much more. "MP" (Member of Parliament) is the equivalent of a "Rep." Backbenchers are the reps who don't get a portfolio in the administration. Indeed, basically no separation of the legislative power from the executive. As I said, less democracy. Blame the Brits.)

Then I keep reading:

Warawa \[the MP in question\] did not specify the topic, but it’s widely believed that he wanted to bring up his motion calling on parliamentarians to condemn sex-selective abortion.

**My next thought**: oh, good on the Prime Minister to prevent that crazy lunatic from pushing his pro-life agenda!

And finally, **my third thought**: WTF did just happen? I changed my mind 180 degrees instantly because I disagree with the person's opinion, even though the original issue didn't go away. Mindkill in action. Had he been trying to promote, say, legalization of marijuana instead, I would have been twice as indignant about the evil PM. 

Now, I do notice this sometimes (often when reading something on LW), but probably not every time it happens to me. I want to notice it more often.

So, I'm asking people to give your own (hopefully non-political) examples of noticing your instant about-face and hopefully some experience in recognizing it more reliably.
# Robin Hanson's Cryonics Hour

I'm writing to recommend something awesome to anyone who's recently signed up for cryonics (and to the future self of anyone who's about to do so). Robin Hanson has a longstanding offer that [anyone who's newly signed up for cryonics can have an hour's discussion with him on any topic](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-cryonics-hour.html), and I took him up on that last week.

I expected to have a fascinating and wide-ranging discussion on various facets of futurism. **My expectations were exceeded.** Even if you've been reading [Overcoming Bias](http://www.overcomingbias.com/) for a long time, talking with Robin is an order of magnitude more stimulating/persuasive/informative than reading OB or even watching him debate someone else, and I'm now reconsidering my thinking on a number of topics as a result.

So if you've recently signed up, [email Robin](mailto:rhanson@gmu.edu); and if you're intending to sign up, let this be one more incentive to quit procrastinating!

**Relevant links:**

[The LessWrong Wiki article on cryonics](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics) is a good place to start if you have a bunch of questions about the topic.

If you want to argue about whether signing up for cryonics is a good idea, two good and relatively recent threads on that subject are under the posts on [A survey of anti-cryonics writing](/lw/1r0/a_survey_of_anticryonics_writing/) and [More Cryonics Probability Estimates](/lw/fz9/more_cryonics_probability_estimates/).

And if you are cryocrastinating (you've decided that you should sign up for cryonics, but you haven't yet), [here's a LW thread](/lw/e5e/how_to_get_cryocrastinators_to_actually_sign_up/) about taking the first step.
# LW wiki spam filtering

Long-time readers may have noticed that spam on the wiki has been a very persistent problem for the past 2 years or so; I've been dealing with it so far by hand, but I recently reached a breaking point and asked Trike to resolve it or find a new wiki administrator. (Speaking of which, is anyone interested?)

So Trike has enabled a MediaWiki extension called the [edit filter](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter): a small functional programming language which lets you define predicates applied to edits which trigger one of a set of actions, like banning a user, deleting an edit/page, or stopping an edit from going through. I have so far defined one rule: page creation is forbidden for users younger than 24 hours. This so far seems to have worked well; spam pages have fallen from 5-10/day to ~5 over the past 2 weeks. This is much more manageable, and I am hopeful that this new anti-spam measure will be effective longer than the previous additions did (but if it doesn't, I'll look into adding more rules dealing with images and external links, and perhaps also ban users whose names end in a numeric digit as almost all the spam accounts do).

If you've run into this edit filter before by making a page and seeing the submission rejected with an error message, fret not: merely wait 24 hours. (If your account is more than a day old and you're still getting errors, please contact me or Trike.)
# Existential risks open thread

We talk about a wide variety of stuff on LW, but we don't spend much time trying to identify the very highest-utility stuff to discuss and promoting additional discussion of it.  This thread is a stab at that.  Since it's just comments, you can feel more comfortable bringing up ideas that might be wrong or unoriginal (but nevertheless have relatively high expected value, since existential risks are such an important topic).
# A Rational Altruist Punch in The Stomach

[Robin Hanson wrote, five years ago](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/protecting-acro.html): 

> Very distant future times are ridiculously easy to help via investment.  A 2% annual return adds up to a googol (10^100) return over 12,000 years, even if there is only a 1/1000 chance they will exist or receive it. 
> 
> So if you are not _incredibly eager_ to invest this way to help them, how can you claim to care the tiniest bit about them?  How can you think _anyone_ on Earth so cares?  And if no one cares the tiniest bit, how can you say it is "moral" to care about them, not just somewhat, but almost _equally_ to people now?  Surely if you are representing a group, instead of spending your own wealth, you shouldn’t assume they care much.
> 
> So why do many people seem to care about policy that effects far future folk?   I suspect our paternalistic itch pushes us to control the future, rather than to enrich it.  We care that the future celebrates our foresight, not that they are happy. 

In the comments  some people gave counterarguments. For those in a rush, the best ones are Toby Ord's. But I didn't bite any of the counterarguments _to the extent that it would be necessary to counter the 10^100_. I have some trouble conceiving of what would beat a consistent argument a googol fold.  

Things that changed my behavior significantly over the last few years have not been many, but I think I'm facing one of them. Understanding biological immortality was one, it meant 150 000 non-deaths per day. Understanding the posthuman potential was another. Then came the 10^52 potential lives lost in case of X-risk, or if you are conservative and think only biological stuff can have moral lives on it, 10^31. You can argue about which movie you'll watch, which teacher would be best to have, who should you marry. But (if consequentialist) you can't argue your way out of 10^31 or 10^52. You won't find a counteracting force that exactly matches, or really reduces the value of future stuff by

3 000 000 634 803 867 000 000 000 000 000 000 777 000 000 000 999  fold 

Which is way less than 10^52 

You may find a fundamental and qualitative counterargument "actually I'd rather future people didn't exist", but you won't find a quantitative one. Thus I spend a lot of time on X-risk related things. 

Back to Robin's argument: so unless someone gives me a good argument against investing some money in the far future (and discovering some vague techniques of how to do it that will make it at least one in a millionth possibility) I'll set aside a block of money X, a block of time Y, and will invest in future people 12 thousand years from now. If you don't think you can beat 10^100, join me. 

And if you are not in a rush, read [this](http://rationalaltruist.com/2013/02/22/four-flavors-of-time-discounting-i-endorse-and-one-i-do-not/#more-90) also, for a bright reflection on similar issues.
# The Unintuitive Power Laws of Giving

Why give globally? Why give money? Why health charities? Why single-issue organizations? At first glance these all seem like arbitrary choices: what if I would rather volunteer, or donate to local charities? Why does it matter? It comes down to two distributions: cost-effectiveness and income.

_DALYs per $1000_  
![](http://www.jefftk.com/daly-per-1000-usd-sm.png)

This shows the cost-effectiveness of a large number of health interventions, with taller bars in cases where we can avert more death and suffering per dollar. The shape of this chart is important: while we can do a lot of good if we pick an intervention at random or support a 'horizontal' effort that works on everything, we can do 300 times better by picking one in the top 10%. This is why single-issue charities make sense: you can pick one that focuses on a top intervention.

(Don't let the small bars on the left fool you: nearly every intervention on that chart is worth doing \[1\], some are just far more valuable than others.)

This only considers health: what about other ways of helping people? Political advocacy, development, literacy, human rights, why not them? The big thing health has going for it is that we can measure impact, which lets us choose only the best options. In other fields where we can't measure we could end up anywhere on the impact curve.

Let's look at another distribution:

![](http://www.jefftk.com/world-income-distribution.png)

So some people have a lot more money that other people, we knew that, right? But have a look at the scale. Someone earning at the poverty line in the US is richer than 90% of people. This is why giving globally is so powerful: small amounts of your money can mean a huge amount to people who have so much less.

Neither of these distributions are intuitive: we don't feel that rich, and charities all seem kind of interchangeable. But understanding them can make the difference between trying to do good and really succeeding.

(I first saw these charts in a talk by Toby Ord of [Giving What We Can](http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/) (GWWC). The data for the first chart, DALYs per $1000, comes from the [DCP2](http://www.dcp2.org/). This was a project that, among other things, compiled cost effectiveness estimates for a very wide range of health interventions. I made the chart from the csv version of the data [from here](http://www.dcp2.org/page/main/BrowseInterventions.html), excluding the ~60 interventions (of 171) that didn't have estimates. The second chart is straight from GWWC's website, and you can read the details [there](http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/why-give/how-rich-am-i) by clicking on footnote 4.)

  
\[1\] The median intervention there is $207/DALY, which roughly means it can give someone an extra year of healthy life for $207. Which is an incredible deal, that I think most of us would jump at. And it's less than 5 pixels high.

_I also posted this [on my blog](http://www.jefftk.com/news/2013-04-01)._
# [Link] Son of low-hanging fruit

**Related:** [Thick and Thin](/r/discussion/lw/cwk/link_thick_and_thin/), [Loss of local knowledge affecting intellectual trends](/r/discussion/lw/85b/link_loss_of_local_knowledge_affecting/)

An [entry](http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/son-of-low-hanging-fruit/) I found in the archives on [Gregory Cochran](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Cochran)'s and [Henry Harpending](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Harpending)'s blog [West Hunter](http://westhunt.wordpress.com/).

> [![](http://westhunt.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/400px-upperatmoslight1.jpg?w=640 "400px-Upperatmoslight1")](http://westhunt.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/400px-upperatmoslight1.jpg)
> 
> In yet another example of  long-delayed discovery, forms of high-altitude lightning were observed for at least a century before becoming officially real (as opposed to really real).
> 
> Some thunderstorms manage to generate blue jets shooting out of their thunderheads, or  glowing red rings and associated tentacles around 70 kilometers up.   C T R Wilson predicted this long ago, back in the 1920s.  He had a simple model that gets you started.
> 
> You see, you can think of the thunderstorm, after a ground discharge,  as a vertical dipole. Its electrical field drops as the cube of altitude.  The threshold voltage for atmospheric breakdown is proportional to pressure, while pressure drops _exponentially_ with altitude: and as everyone knows, a negative exponential drops faster than any power.
> 
> The curves must cross.   Electrical breakdown occurs.  Weird lightning, way above the clouds.
> 
> As I said, people reported sprites at least a hundred years ago, and they have probably been observed occasionally since the dawn of time. However, they’re far easier to see if you’re above the clouds – pilots often do.
> 
> **Pilots also learned not to talk about it, because nobody listened.**   Military and commercial pilots have to pass periodic medical exams known as ‘flight physicals’,  and there was a suspicion that reporting glowing red cephalopods in the sky might interfere with that.  Generally, you had to see the things that were officially real (whether they were really real or not), and only those things.
> 
> **Sprites became real when someone recorded one by accident on a fast camera in 1989.**  Since then it’s turned into a real subject, full of strangeness: turns out that thunderstorms  sometimes generate gamma-rays and even antimatter.
> 
> Presumably we’ve gotten over all that ignoring your lying eyes stuff by now.

[May you tell others what you see.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times) (~_^)
# Call for help: volunteers needed to proofread MIRI's publications

[MIRI](http://intelligence.org) needs volunteers to proofread our soon-to-be-released publications, such as Eliezer's "Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics." Some reasons to get involved:

*   Get a sneak peek at our [publications](http://intelligence.org/research/) before they become publicly available.
*   Earn points at [MIRIvolunteers.org](http://mirivolunteers.org/), our online volunteer system that runs on [Youtopia](http://www.youtopia.com/). (Even if you're not interested in the points, tracking your time through Youtopia helps us manage and quantify the volunteer proofreading effort.)
*   Having polished and well-written publications is of high-value to MIRI.
*   Help speed up our publication process. Proofreading is currently our biggest bottle-neck.

Some of the papers that are sitting in the pipeline and ready for proofreading _right now_ (or will be very soon):

*   "Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors" by Bill Hibbard
*   "Decision Support for Safe AI Design" by Bill Hibbard
*   "A Comparison of Decision Algorithms on Newcomblike Problems" by Alex Altair
*   "Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics" by Eliezer Yudkowsky

How proofreading works:

*   Youtopia, with the help of some shared Google Docs, is used to manage and track the available documents and who's proofread what.
*   Proofreading entails checking for basic grammar, spelling, punctuation, and formatting errors; pointing out areas of confusion or concern; and making general style and flow suggestions.
*   Don't worry, you don't have to proofread entire documents, just as many individual pages as you like.
*   (This is explained in more detail once you've joined the MIRI Proofreaders group.)

How to join Youtopia and specifically the MIRI Proofreaders group:

1.  Go go [MIRIvolunteers.org](http://mirivolunteers.org/).
2.  In the right sidebar click on Register as a Volunteer and fill out your info.
3.  Once your Youtopia account is created (this could take a day or two), head [here](https://www.youtopia.com/organizations/354) and click on "Join Organization.”
4.  Once your membership is approved you will have have access to detailed proofreading instructions and draft versions of our publications.

Questions can be directed to alexv@intelligence.org.
# CFAR is hiring a logistics manager

CFAR is hiring an additional logistics manager.  Please click on our form for more information, or to fill out an application:

[https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ACTvM1oYsw1zzHMumrLzffCVVak3eA5A-5uJzyIYOKM/viewform](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ACTvM1oYsw1zzHMumrLzffCVVak3eA5A-5uJzyIYOKM/viewform)

We hope to choose a candidate within the next week or so, so if you're interested, do apply ASAP.
# [Link] Values Spreading is Often More Important than Extinction Risk

In a [recent essay](http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/values-spreading.html), Brian Tomasik argues that meme-spreading has higher expected utility than x-risk reduction. His analysis assumes a classical utilitarian ethic, but it may be generalizable to other value systems.  Here's the summary:

> I personally do not support efforts to reduce extinction risk because I think space colonization would potentially give rise to astronomical amounts of suffering. However, even if I thought reducing extinction risk was a good idea, I would not work on it, because spreading your particular values has generally much higher leverage than being one more voice for safety measures against extinction in a world where reducing extinction risk is hard and almost everyone has some incentives to invest in the issue.
# What Rate of Return Should You Expect?

If you invest money, perhaps because you want to [give money in the future](/r/discussion/lw/h3q/a_rational_altruist_punch_in_the_stomach/), you want a good estimate of the real rate of return so you can compare it to just giving now. Small differences in this estimate have [very large effects](http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-07-18) over decades, and just today I've seen people giving numbers as far apart as [2%](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/parable-of-the-multiplier-hole.html) and [8%](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/05/investment-and-inefficient-charity/#comment-2448), which over 40 years mean 2.2x growth and 22x growth respectively.

What is reasonable here? If you look around online at personal finance sites you'll see numbers like [6%](http://www.popeconomics.com/2010/01/18/what-investment-return-should-you-plan-for/), [7%](http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/28/pf/expert/retirement_investment_return.moneymag/index.htm), [10%](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2011-06-13-big-investment-returns_n.htm), [11%](http://www.fool.com/money/401k/401k02.htm), and even [12%](http://www.daveramsey.com/article/the-12-reality/lifeandmoney_investing/). First off, these all ignore inflation, which has averaged about 3%. Naively subtracting, this gives us real rates of 3%, 4%, 7%, and 9%. There's also a lot of cherry-picking: if you're willing to choose specific years and specific indexes you can get quite good numbers.

There's an even bigger cherry-picking problem, however, in that they're all based on US returns. Other countries have had worse economic performance, or have even had their stock markets wiped out. Dimson, Marsh, and Staunton (2013) ([pdf](http://www.investmenteurope.net/digital_assets/6305/2013_yearbook_final_web.pdf)) ([summary](http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21571443-investors-may-have-developed-too-rosy-view-equity-returns-beware-bias)) conclude that investors should expect much lower returns:

> We have estimated that over the next 20-30 years, global investors, paying low levels of witholding tax and management fees, can expect to earn an annualized real return of no more than 3.5% on an all-equity fund and 2% on a fund split equally between equities and government bonds.

The difference between 7% interest and 3.5% interest is the difference between 60x and 8x over 60 years. This is really important if you're trying to decide whether you do better to save money now and donate later after several decades of compound interest. \[1\]

  
\[1\] If you're saving for your own retirement [tax incentives are probably more important](http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-07-18#gp-1342671046850) than interest rates.

_Cross-posted from [my blog](http://www.jefftk.com/news/2013-04-06)_
# On moving posts from Main to Discussion

Yesterday, someone moved one of my posts from Main to Discussion without telling me.  Again.

I encourage the site administrators to show some basic courtesy to the posters who provide the content for the site.  I believe this would be a better way of doing things:

1\. Have a policy on what has to happen to move a post from Main to Discussion.  Who can do it?  How many admins are there who can do this?  State this policy in a FAQ.

2\. When you move a post from Main to Discussion, make a comment on the post saying you have done so and why you have done so.
# LW Study Group Facebook Page

**Update:** There is now an online sign up to groups with workflowy, based on subject and current ability. You do not have to be signed up to Facebook to join a group, but do add an email address so that the group can contact you:  https://workflowy.com/shared/cf1fd9ca-885f-c1b9-c2e8-e3a315f70138/

[The recent Main article](/lw/h4z/anybody_want_to_join_a_math_club/ "The recent Main article"), searching for interest in LWers studying maths together, had many comments showing enthusiasm, but nothing really happened.

On an aside, I think that on LessWrong, we tend not to work together all that well. The wiki isn't kept bright and shiny, and most of the ideas we search for are in loose blog posts that often take a while to find. However, I think having a single place in which to work together on a specific topic, might encourage effect groups. Especially if it's in a place that you get fairly regular reminders from.

So, here's a Less Wrong Study Group Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/131607983690959/

Rixie [suggested](/lw/h4z/anybody_want_to_join_a_math_club/8pta "suggested") that we could split into smaller groups, based on age. I was thinking perhaps ability. Maybe even a group leader. However, before sitting and pondering this for eternity (just until we have a perfect structure), perhaps we should 'just try it'.

So, who exactly do I think should join the group?  
  
Well, if you're interested in learning maths, and think that being surrounded by LWers might enhance your learning, this group is intended for you. If you're interested in learning maths, but you think that reading a textbook on your own is daunting, or you've tried and had difficulty previously, then this group is intended for you.

Also, if you're interested in learning other LessWrongy subjects (perhaps some cognitive science, or more economics-y stuffs) then this group could do that. If ten people join who want a basic idea economics, then they can work together. This isn't specificly maths, it's whatever we make it.

Personally, when I read a textbook, there's often a paragraph describing a key idea, and the author's words fly right over my head. I've often thought the best thing for me, would to have someone else who I could talk through that bit with. Maybe he or she would see it easily. Maybe I'd see something they wouldn't get.

I also wouldn't worry about level of prior knowledge. Mainly, because mine is zilch :)

So, what are you waiting for?

(No seriously. [Just try it](/lw/5a5/no_seriously_just_try_it/ "Just try it").)

Edit: It is true that anonymity is difficult to preserve on Facebook. I am entirely unfamiliar with google, and I certainly would have to make that [regular effort](/lw/f1/beware_trivial_inconveniences/ "regular effort") to check it there too. If you do wish to join but have issues with public knowledge, please PM me, and I'll keep in contact with you through email (or other if you prefer). I will discuss with you there how to best take part in a study group.
# Post Request Thread

This thread is another experiment roughly in the vein of the [Boring Advice Repository](/lw/gx5/boring_advice_repository/) and the [Solved Problems Repository](/lw/h2m/solved_problems_repository/).

There are some topics I'd like to see more LW posts on, but I feel underqualified to post about them relative to my estimate of the most qualified LWer on the topic. I would guess that I am not the only one. I would further guess that there are some LWers who are really knowledgeable about various topics and might like to write about one of them but are unsure which one to choose. 

If my guesses are right, these people should be made aware of each other. In this thread, please comment with a **request for a LW post (Discussion or Main) on a particular topic**. Please upvote such a comment if you would also like to see such a post, and comment on such a comment if you plan on writing such a post. If you leave a writing-plan comment, please edit it once you **actually write the post** and link to the post so as to avoid duplication of effort in the future. 

Let's see what happens! 

Edit: it just occurred to me that it might also be reasonable to comment indicating what topics you'd be interested in writing about and then asking people to tell you which ones they'd like you to write about the most. So try that too!
# Pay other people to go vegetarian for you?

I [notice](http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-04-11) that a large fraction of Effective Altruism people are vegetarian. This makes sense: in general Effective Altruists take moral issues seriously, even when that means changing your lifestyle. I'm not sure it's a good [balance](http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-06-22), though.

One way to think about this is to convert it into money. How much would I need to be paid to give up eating meat? All animal products? How much money would I need to spend on myself to be about as happy as I would be with less money but continuing to eat animals? I'd probably be willing to go vegetarian for about $500/year, vegan for maybe $2000/year.

It turns out you can probably pay to convince other people to be vegetarian much more cheaply than that. I estimate the cost of a vegetarian-year at [$4.29 to $536](http://www.jefftk.com/news/2011-11-10) while Brian Tomasik estimates [$11](http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/veg-ads.html) with better methodology (which I [looked](http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-03-07) [at](http://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-03-18)). This is by [placing ads](http://www.effectiveanimalactivism.org/veg-ads) on facebook for a [site](http://www.whosagainstanimalcruelty.org/) where people can watch an animial cruelty video and ideally become vegetarian or vegan.

If you would get more than $11/year worth of enjoyment out of continuing to eat meat, why not give $11/year to convince someone else to not eat meat for you? Or give $50/year and be on the safe side?

(While you're giving money, you should probably give it to the organization that you think will do the most good with it, which I think is probably one of GiveWell's [top charities](http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities). The nice thing about money as opposed to actions is that it's easy to redirect.)

_I also posted this [on my blog](http://www.jefftk.com/news/2013-04-11)._
# NES-game playing AI [video link and AI-boxing-related comment]

"Pretty simple" algorithm playing games quite impressively.  
[](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCurBYI_gY)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCurBYI_gY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCurBYI_gY)  
  
First, this is awesome - enjoy!  
  
Paper here [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tom7/mario/mario.pdf](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tom7/mario/mario.pdf)  
  
One interesting observation made by Tom Murphy is that the AI found and exploited playable bugs in the game not (commonly) known to human players. I think it's a good example to have available suggesting what a really smart AI might look for to win.
# Grad Student Advice Repository

There was [some support](/r/discussion/lw/h6m/post_request_thread/8qsg) for the idea of starting an advice repository for grad students much in the same tradition as the [Boring Advice Repository](/lw/gx5/boring_advice_repository/) and the [Solved Problems Repository](/lw/h2m/solved_problems_repository/) started earlier by [Qiaochu_Yuan](/user/Qiaochu_Yuan/overview/). So here goes.

Please share any advice, boring or otherwise, for succeeding at grad school. I realize that succeeding might mean different things to different people, but I believe most people largely agree with what it means in this context. Feel free to elaborate on what you believe it should mean, if you have views on the subject.

I am a theoretical physics grad student, so I'm personally more interested in advice for mathy disciplines (i.e. physics, math, CS), and I also suspect that there are many grad students from these disciplines on LessWrong; but advice for any discipline is welcome as well. 

Advice is welcome from anyone, but please do mention your background for providing the advice so that people can weight the advice accordingly. For example, I would be more be open to listening to [advice from someone who has completed a very successful PhD](http://calnewport.com/blog/), than from someone who has simply interacted with a lot of grad students but has never been to grad school. 

Also, feel free to link to advice from other sources, and maybe quote the most useful parts in what you read. Remember, this is meant to be a repository, so that people can come and find the advice, so don't worry if it seems to be something most people would've already read or known.

Thanks!
# Help us name the Sequences ebook

_[Quantum Computing Since Democritus](http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Computing-since-Democritus-Aaronson/dp/0521199565/)_ got me thinking that we may want a more riveting title for _The Sequences, 2006-2009_ ebook we're preparing for release (like the [FtIE ebook](http://intelligenceexplosion.com/ebook/)). Maybe it could be something like _\[Really Catchy Title\]: The Less Wrong Sequences, 2006-2009_.

The reason for "2006–2009" is that [Highly Advanced Epistemology 101 for Beginners](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Highly_Advanced_Epistemology_101_for_Beginners) will be its own ebook, and future Yudkowskian LW sequences (if there are any) won't be included either.

Example options:

*   _The Craft of Rationality: The Less Wrong Sequences, 2006–2009_
*   _The Art of Rationality: The Less Wrong Sequences, 2006–2009_
*   _Becoming Less Wrong: The Sequences, 2006–2009_

  

In the end, we _might_ just call it _The Sequences, 2006–2009_, but I'd like to check whether somebody else can come up with a better name.

  

Suggestions?

  

(Update on 5/5/2013 is [here](/lw/h7t/help_us_name_the_sequences_ebook/8x0f).)
# Ritual Report: Schelling Day

On Sunday, April 14th, the Boston group held our first [Schelling Day](/lw/h2t/schelling_day_a_rationalist_holiday/) celebration. The idea was to open up and share our private selves. It was a rousing success.

That doesn't do it justice. Let me try again.

By all the stars, you guys. This was _beautiful_.

About fifteen people showed up. Most of us were from the hard core of Boston's rationalist community. Two of us were new to the group. (I'm hopeful this will convince them to start attending our regular meetups.) There was a brief explanation and a few vital clarifying questions before we began the ritual, which went for maybe 90-120 minutes, including a couple of short breaks. All of us spoke at least once.

I don't want to go into specifics about what people said, but it was powerful. I learned about sides of my friends I would never have guessed at. People went into depth about issues I had only seen from the surface. I heard things that will make me change my behavior towards my friends. I saw angst and guilt and hope and pain and wild joy. I saw compassion and uncertainty and courage. People said things they had never said before, things I might not have been brave enough even to _think_ in their position. I had tears in my eyes more than once.

Speaking went remarkably smoothly. I set a timer for five minutes for each speaker, but it never ran out. (Five minutes is a surprisingly long time.) Partway through, Julia suggested we leave a long moment of silence between speakers, which was a very good idea and I wish I'd done a better job of enforcing it.

Afterwards, we had a potluck and mingled in small groups. At first we talked about our revelations, but over time our conversation started drifting towards our usual topics. Next time, in order to keep us on topic, I'll probably try adding more structure to this stage.

The other area I wanted to improve was the ritual with the snacks. We had five categories: Struggles, Confessions, Hopes, Joys, and Other. There weren't many Hopes, and there wasn't much distinction between Struggles and Confessions. I'll change this for next time, possibly to Hardships, Joys, Histories, and Other. There's room for improvement in the specific snacks I picked, too.

This celebration was the most powerful thing I've experienced since the Solstice megameetup. I don't think I want to do this again soon—it was one of the most exhausting things I've ever done, even if I didn't notice until after I'd left—but I know I want to do it again _sometime_.

To everyone who came: I'm so proud of what you did and who you are. Thank you for your courage and sincerity.
# Cryocrastinating? Send me (or someone else) money!

I know from personal experience how hard it is to actually go through the final process to sign up for cryonics - no matter how theoretically in favour one is. For me, it was Robin Hanson's offer of an [hour](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/my-cryonics-hour.html) of chat that sealed the deal - it seemed much easier to focus on getting to that interview, than on potentially saving the whole of my future :-)

Anyway, I'm offering my services to help out others who might want to get that final push over the line. What am I offering? Well, the opportunity to send me money! Simply pledge something like "if I don't get signed up for cryonics by such and such a date, I will send Stuart Armstrong $X".

This sounds incredibly mercenary - I'm _offering_ you the possibility of sending _me_ money? This seems to be a misunderstanding of the whole meaning of the word "offering". Well, for a start, I'm certain that I will never receive that money - if someone pledges "in a year's time, I will have signed up for cryonics, or I will send Stuart Armstrong $200", then I read that as "in a year's time, I will have signed up for cryonics". Because no-one likes losing money they could keep by doing something they want to (want to) do. So what I'm offering is the possibility to make yourself sign up for cryonics.

In fact, I'll do it this way: if I ever get any money from such a pledge, I'll redistribute that money to other people who took the pledge and did sign up. If it's not too many people, I can probably offer one hour chats as well, for those interested.

Of course, this works just as well if you pledge to give money to someone else, not just me, so I encourage you to pledge to whoever you like! Just make sure that:

1.  You don't pledge the money to a charity you approve of - you should have no justification for avoiding signing up. Failure is a failure, not an act of generosity.
2.  You pledge the money to someone who will take the money from you if you fail - or else the whole thing doesn't work at all. I promise to do so!
3.  You bear in mind that these things take longer than you expect (planning fallacy and all that). Pledge a year, aim to have it done in six months.

I already have one person pledged for £100 in a year's time, and I'm fully confident they'll be signed up before that. If I have their permission, I'll let you know as soon as it happens.