Harley-ml/lesswrong huggingface dataset:
# Personals, anyone?

Meet ups are great and all, but a lot of us live far away from the large masses of LW-participants.  I live in the Toledo, Ohio area, and I'm also one of those people who are looking for people who I can relate to.  Most people I can't relate to, intellectual conversation makes most people I know uncomfortable.  Even people who are intelligent are often too timid to speak their minds (this could be because of the before mentioned people).  Nothing against people who are more ordinary than I am, but I have this sense that the people I read here are people I have more in common with than most people I will ever meet by chance.

I'm not looking for a date (well, I am, but not in this case), just people who I can relate to better than people I will meet by chance.  This isn't my personal ad, but I was wondering what would be the best place to put such an ad, to see if there are people in my area who are the kind of people who would read this website?  I'm not a transhumanist, but I'm not religious either.  I've been an atheist since I was 12.  I'm not autistic, but I have ADHD which I've only recently been treated for.  This is also the main reason why I never finished college, which probably would have been \*the\* best way to meet people.  So I'm looking for second or third best.

After reading the recent post about the LW user who committed suicide, I realized that I could lose a lot by not making the effort of trying to reach out and meet people.
# How did you actually become more effective?

Like many people here, I think a lot about how to become more awesome. I'm fairly optimistic about my chances, because I can clearly remember times in the past when I was less awesome than I am now-- not necessarily less rational, but less productive and with fewer relevant skills.^1^

So I've been thinking about what changes I believe have most improved my effectiveness, changes which have caused me to learn many useful things and/or greatly increased my productive capacity. I found the list interesting:

*   Getting into a comfortable, highly supportive relationship: it has tremendously decreased my level of anxiety, improved my motivation to maintain a basic level of functioning, and increased my reserve capacity.
*   Finding enjoyable, appropriately challenging but low-stress work. Work forces me to get out of the house and interact with other humans, keeps me away from harmful behaviors like playing video games for hours, provides mental stimulation, and boosts my self-worth. Since I work as a math tutor, it's also been great practice at teaching, doing math, and the kind of general personhood skills that fall under the heading of Professionalism.
*   Attempting very difficult things at which I was highly motivated to succeed (but was not necessarily successful). These are the times when I've learned the most.
*   Limiting my own access to time-wasters by using LeechBlock and being commited to a schedule(LW is certainly on the list of time-wasters).

Things which are notably not on the list:

*   Therapy. If you have found therapy helpful, I'd really appreciate hearing exactly how you used it. It hasn't been worth a damn for me.
*   ADD meds. (Depression meds were somewhat helpful when I was actually depressed, however.)
*   Ambitious self-improvement projects undertaken alone, or without major consequences for failure (including but not limited to diets, exercise programs, and extensive programs of independent study^3^).

So how have you actually improved your own effectiveness?

^1^ Some of these less-awesome past versions of me suffered from clinical depression, but the last time I had a major episode of depression I was able to deal with it much more purposefully than in the past and still accomplish a large percentage of the shit I was supposed to be doing, so I think there has been improvement independent of my state of mental health.

^2^ Major consequences for failure seem to be very effective motivators, but since I want to undertake projects that are difficult enough to have a significant chance of failure, I would like these consequences to be highly motivating without being horribly costly, if possible. Ideas?

^3^ I have learned a lot from pleasure reading, but I'm not sure how much was actually useful, and since I've been reading for pleasure since I can remember there's no easy before-and-after comparison to make.
# Proposal: consolidate meetup announcements before promotion

The Less Wrong feed is getting crowded with meetups rather than substantive posts. Hopefully, this should be fixed in the [redesign](/lw/5by/official_less_wrong_redesign_call_for_suggestions/), but one way to work around it in the meanwhile would be to make top-level posts announcing several meetups at once.

Folk would post meetups under the 'NEW' category, and each week or even every several days one of the meetup organizers could edit her post to announce all the meetups since the last consolidated post. This would greatly reduce the cluster while still getting meetups in the main feed. On the other hand, it would reduce average warning time before meetups, and the additional activation energy might deter some meetups.

If you have thoughts on the workability of this scheme, or an adjustment to make it workable, please comment below.

\[HT: Anna Salamon\]
# Discussion: Pathways for the Aspiring AGI Researcher?

Follow up to: [Best career models for doing research?](/lw/38u/best_career_models_for_doing_research)

First, I must apologize for the somewhat self-serving post, but as it _is_ in the discussion section I hope that this can be forgiven. Also, I would not be surprised if there are _at least_ _a few_ college age people lurking around with very similar problems/issues, so I expect that this might prove very useful to at least a couple of people here. If this works out, I do hope to eventually put it into the form of a more general top-level post on career advice for those interested in a career in AGI.

Now, on to the issue:

It has come to my attention that research opportunities in AGI appear to both be somewhat limited, and somewhat unstructured compared to more well-developed fields that I have looked into. It seems to me that it would be useful to have a discussion here, given the unusual population density of AGI enthusiasts/professionals, about the possible pathways that one might take after the completion of an undergraduate degree. In my case, I have a strong background in mathematics, computer science and philosophy as well as a growing knowledge base in psychology. I've been studying Pearl's work, Timeless Decision Theory, cognitive science, evolutionary and cognitive psychology, Bishop's book on Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, the link between category theory and cognitive science/AI (which appears to have some promise for building ontologies that can combine concepts and generalize), game theory, probability/statistics, computational complexity and I have been trying to get a few more programming languages under my belt.

My initial impulse was to go ahead and study for, and then take, all of the relevant GRE subject tests (Mathematics, Psychology and Computer science anyway) and apply to cognitive science and computer science programs with strong AGI groups. I've found that the latter option is more difficult that I had realized, which is somewhat disheartening, as my future planning model does not seem to work in such an underdeveloped field, and there is no easy to find established standard source for finding out which schools/programs to look at. I also realized that the former option does not necessarily conform to my research interestes as much as I would like it to, this being a fairly long term commitment.

Perhaps I lack the knowledge to successfully evaluate AGI programs; perhaps in the case of this particular area getting a PhD is not the best option; perhaps if I were more knowledgeable or wiser I might be better able to navigate where to go next, but I seem to be at a loss here. So; I come to you, fellow Less Wrongians, in search of guidance. Can any of you help to point me (and hopefully plenty of others) in the right (or at least _less wrong_) direction?
# [link] Bruce Schneier on Cognitive Biases in Risk Analysis

A very clear-minded introduction to map-vs-territory ideas in the context of risk analysis. Nothing particularly new here, though the specific examples he gives may be of interest to LW readers.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bruce_schneier.html
# [link] Whole Brain Emulation and the Evolution of Superorganisms

Robin Hanson has made [several](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/05/em-min-wage-risks-slavery.html) [recent](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/05/super-watch-dilemna.html) [posts](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/05/ems-all-newly-trained.html) on Overcoming Bias about upload economics. I remain mystified why he doesn't link to or otherwise reference or comment on Carl Shulman's 2010 paper, [Whole Brain Emulation and the Evolution of Superorganisms](http://intelligence.org/upload/WBE-superorganisms.pdf), which mentions many of the same ideas and seems to have taken them to their logical conclusions. I was going to complain again in the comments section over there, but then I noticed that the paper hasn't been posted or discussed here either. So here's the abstract. (See above link for the full paper.)

> Many scientists expect the eventual development of intelligent software programs capable of closely emulating human brains, to the point of substituting for human labor in almost every economic niche. As software, such emulations could be cheaply copied, with copies subsequently diverging and interacting with their copy-relatives. This paper examines a set of evolutionary pressures on interaction between related emulations, pressures favoring the emergence of _superorganisms_, groups of emulations ready to self-sacrifice in service of the superorganism. We argue that the increased capacities and internal coordination of such superorganisms could pose increased risks of overriding human values, but also could facilitate the solution of global coordination problems.
# A Delayed Epiphany on Motivation

During lunch today, I had a conversation with my mother about the lives of my younger brothers.  She mentioned to me that my brother, who is taking an SAT class, found the practice test he took to be extremely boring.  I replied that I was sorry for my brother and that I felt very privileged not to find standardized tests boring.  I went on to express my sorrow that I do not know how to inculcate in others the sublime joy I take in solving particularly interesting problems.  Much later, I decided to spend an hour exercising, something that I very rarely do.  It wasn't until about 45 minutes in that I realized the proper implication of what I had said to my mother - I have the natural advantage in test taking, but my brother has the natural advantage in exercise.  The obvious solution was to find a way to find a similar sense of sublime joy in exercise, and make myself remember that I can find it in exercise.  I played around with a few things I could do while on the treadmill, and found that rolling my head while walking felt _awesome_.  I'm definitely going to do more of that in the future.  It took me far too long to realize it, but when ever you wish you could help someone in some way, ask yourself if you could benefit from the same sort of thing.
# GiveWell.org interviews SIAI

Holden Karnofsky of [GiveWell.org](http://www.givewell.org/) interviewed Jasen Murray of [SIAI](http://intelligence.org/) and [published his notes](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/givewell/message/270) (Edit: [PDF](http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/siai-2011-02-III.pdf), thanks lukeprog!), with updates from later conversations. Lots of stuff to take an interest in there - thanks to jsalvatier for [drawing our attention to it](/lw/5il/siai_an_examination/43dy). One new bit of information stands out in particular:

*   Michael Vassar is working on an idea he calls the "Persistent Problems Group" or PPG. The idea is to assemble a blue-ribbon panel of recognizable experts to make sense of the academic literature on very applicable, popular, but poorly understood topics such as diet/nutrition. This would have obvious benefits for helping people understand what the literature has and hasn't established on important topics; it would also be a demonstration that there is such a thing as "skill at making sense of the world."
# Experiment Idea Thread  - Spring 2011

This is an idea that just occurred to me. We have a large community of people who think about scientific problems recreationally, many of whom are in no position to go around investigating them. Hopefully, however, some other community members _are_ in a position to go around investigating them, or know people who are. The idea here is to allow people to propose relatively specific ideas for experiments, which can be upvoted if people think they are wise, and can be commented on and refined by others. Grouping them together in an easily identifiable, organized way in which people can provide approval and suggestions seems like it may actually help advance human knowledge, and with its high sanity waterline and (kind of) diverse group of readers, this community seems like an excellent place to implement this idea.

These should be relatively practical, with an eye towards providing some aspiring grad student or professor with enough of an idea that they could go implement it. You should explain the general field (physics, AI, evolutionary psychology, economics, psychology, etc.) as well as the question the experiment is designed to investigate, in as much detail as you are reasonably capable of.

If this is a popular idea, a new thread can be started every time one of these reaches 500 comments, or quarterly, depending on its popularity. I expect this to provide help for people refining their understanding of various sciences, and if it ever gets turned into even a few good experiments, it will prove immensely worthwhile.

I think it's best to make these distinct from the general discussion thread because they have a very narrow purpose. I'll post an idea or two of my own to get things started. I'd also encourage people to post not only experiment ideas, but criticism and suggestions regarding this thread concept. I'd also suggest that people upvote or downvote this post if they think this is a good or bad idea, to better establish whether future implementations will be worthwhile.
# Karma Bubble Fix (Greasemonkey script)

I wrote a [greasemonkey script](http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/102429) that fixes the problem with Karma bubble that prevents you from seeing the last digits of Karma for big Karma values. You can install it from [userscripts site](http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/102429). You'll need a greasemonkey extension ([install for Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/), [install for Google Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo)).
# Death Note, Anonymity, and Information Theory

I don't know if this is a little too afar field for even a Discussion post, but people seemed to enjoy my previous articles ([Girl Scouts financial filings](/lw/5el/are_girl_scout_cookies_deliciously_evil_a_case/), [video game console insurance](/lw/4or/case_study_console_insurance/), [philosophy of identity/abortion](/lw/47k/an_abortion_dialogue/), & [prediction market fees](/lw/3l2/2011_intrade_fee_changes_or_intrade_considered_no/)), so...

I recently wrote up an idea that has been bouncing around my head ever since I watched _Death Note_ years ago - can we quantify Light Yagami's mistakes? Which mistake was the greatest? How could one do better? We can shed some light on the matter by examining DN with... basic information theory.

Presented for LessWrong's consideration: [_Death Note_ &  Anonymity](http://www.gwern.net/Death%20Note%20Anonymity).
# But Butter Goes Rancid In The Freezer

I broached the subject of cryonics with a family member today.  He offered almost none of the normal objections and I've been happy all day about the way the conversation went.  One interesting issue that he raised that I'd like to find an answer for is the question in the title.

Butter goes rancid after a while at room temperature.  It _also_ goes rancid in the fridge and can absorb the other flavors if things aren't well contained inside the refrigerator.  Butter _also_ goes rancid if left in a normal freezer, which mostly is designed to bring things very close to the melting point of water around 273 kelvin.

This suggests that lipid chemistry responds to temperatures in a different way than intuitions mostly educated by other examples of freezing, which is relevant because the brain is mostly made out of fat, with some complicating proteins mixed in.  My guess is that developing a "rancid brain" isn't likely to be a serious issue when you get down to the 77 kelvin of liquid nitrogen, but its still something I'd like to be able to answer directly and honestly, after really thinking about it in terms of "safety engineering".

One way to answer the direct question about butter might be to just perform the basic experiment with some butter samples at different temperatures (room, fridge, freezer, -80C freezer in a bio lab) and figure out how long butter stored each way takes to go rancid and then do some curve fitting, but that seems like it would take months or maybe even years, and butter doesn't even necessarily answer neurological questions directly.  Even if I learned about butter chemistry, there could be open questions about brain chemistry.  I've tentatively googled around for 30 minutes but organic chemistry isn't a primary area of expertise and I wasn't sure out to dig up the specialist scientific literature that might answer my question.

This community seemed like a good place to get help on the subject!

Here are some **specific questions** I'd love to know the answers to...

1\. What are the precise chemical reactions are that are collectively referred to as rancidity in english, and how to they change at cryogenic temperatures?  Does butter stop going rancid in liquid nitrogen?

2\. Are these or similar reactions possible in the brain, given all the cell membranes and mylenation and so on that are primarily made out of fat?

3\. How much personality/memory/mind relevant information might be lost to rancidity, if it happened?  If there are brain or neuronal structures that are more likely to go rancid first, would the chemical changes involved in rancidity be likely to change our estimation of the structures "historical operation" or not?

4\. The boiling point of oxygen is about 90 kelvin (13 degrees higher than nitrogen's boiling point).  If the liquid around a cryo-patient is not changed over time then we might expect the ratio of liquid oxygen to liquid nitrogen to increase over time.  Is the presence of the liquid oxygen relevant to rancidty issues or not?
# Building rationalist communities: a series overview

Related to: [How to build rationalist communities](/lw/5lm/how_to_build_rationalist_communities/)

_"Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em,"_ as it is written:

- Holy Books Don’t Implement Themselves

o Marx needed a Lenin. Fermi, Hahn and Meitner needed a Manhattan Project. The Bible needs a Rick Warren.

o EY and the [Sequences](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences) need:

§ a Distiller that generates Rationality Projects.

§ some Organizers to help people embark on these Projects.

- Getting People To Do Stuff

o It doesn’t matter what ideas were conveyed in group meeting, the subset that matters is what group members resolved to do

o It doesn’t matter what group members resolved to do, the subset that matters is what you, the Organizer, followed up with.

- Bhagwat’s Law of Commitment

o The degree to which people identify with the group is directly proportional to the amount of stuff you tell them to do that works.

- Head in the Clouds < Making It Rain

o If someone is unable to articulate how they are going to implement a principle into their day-to-day lives, they are unlikely to implement it.

- Herding Cats

o If you don’t let people do something meaningful, they will never be any help.

o Feeling needed as a part of a community is a powerful motive to keep coming to meetings.

o Know the name and face of every newcomer. Have a good conversation with each. Afterwards, send them an e-mail showing them you are glad they came.

- "The Four People Who Do Everything" organization problem

o When you focus on doing stuff, some fandom members become core members.

o Others leave or detach themselves.

o But if you don’t have competent core members who organize, the group falls apart or stagnates.

o Attrition is the organization-killer. Spending tons of time training new people, only to have your old people leave, is a recipe for frustration and stagnation.

- Living Organisms Grow Naturally

o The idea isn’t, ‘how can Less Wrong meetups expand’

o It’s, ‘how can we remove the barriers stopping them?’

What are you all most interested in?
# How should I help us achieve immortality?

I was immensely glad to find this community, because while I knew intellectually that I was not the only person who felt that rationality was important, death was bad, and technology was our savior, I had never _met_ anyone else who did. I thus determined my career without much input from anything except my own interests; which is not so bad, of course, but I have realized that I might benefit from advice from like-minded people.

Specifically, I would like to know what LessWrong thinks I should do in order to get into "immortality research." **Edit:** that means "what field should I go into if I want humanity to have extended lifespans as soon as possible?"

I feel immortality, or at least life-extension, is one of - if not _the_ \- most important thing(s) humanity can accomplish right now. I don't think I am suited to AI work, however. Another obvious option is an MD, but that's not in my temperament either. My major right now is biochemistry, in preparation for a doctorate in either biochemistry itself, or pharmacology.

I think there's a good chance that advances in this area could contribute to life extension; aging is a biochemical process, right? And certainly drugs will be involved in life extension. But is this the **best** place to apply my efforts? I have considered that biogerontology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerontology) might be better, as it is about aging specifically; but I don't know much about the field - only that Wikipedia says it is new and very few universities offer degrees in it. My final idea is nanotechnology of some kind; I believe nanomachines may be able to repair our bodies. I'm not sure what type of nanotechnology I'd be looking at for this, or if degrees in it are offered.

Any ideas, suggestions, or comments in general are welcome. I favor the biochemical approach as of now, but only through temperament. As far as I know, AI, biochemical/pharmacological methods, and nanotechnology are all about equally close to giving us immortality. If someone feels one option is better than the others, or has recommended reading on the subject, please share!

Thanks in advance, my new rational friends.
# Optimizing Sleep

I have an atypical sleep schedule.  I tend to drift in the hours that I keep (that is, going to sleep later and later each day until a 'reset' is required).  I also am willing to sacrifice sleep if something sufficiently interesting or urgent (problem sets, a Neal Stephenson book, a new Less Wrong article about an interesting topic) comes up.  While procrastination earlier in the day can also play a part in my staying up late, I've noticed that, left to my own devices, I seem to prefer a day-night inversion.  I'm naturally much more active at night than during the day, and will skip a meal or two in order to maintain this schedule.  (Note:  I realize that day-night sleep inversion can be a sign of a medical illness.  For reasons I won't go into here, I don't believe that any of them are applicable.)

The schedule that I have now is not optimal for a number of reasons:

*   Not being able to socialize with very many other people due to not syncing up with their schedules.

*   'Drifting' leads to unpredictability in my ability to function at a given time during an upcoming day- which is  important for tests and classes.

*   Sleeping during the day is more difficult than at night (extra noises, distractions, etc.)

What I'd like to do is figure out how to optimize my sleep schedule.  I'd prefer not to just 'invert' it to be a typical sleep schedule, but to either alter the sleep schedule or discover changes that I can make in other parts of my life that will mitigate the downsides.  Some things are obvious: microwavable food for when nothing else is available at night is one change that I can make right away and would minimize the damage from skipping meals.  The social issues and 'drifting' are more complicated and don't present an obvious solution after a few minutes of reflection.  The reason I resist changing back to a regular sleep schedule is that I know that I'm groggy and miserable in the morning and less productive until about noon of that day if forced to operate under a regular sleep schedule.

Do you have an atypical sleep schedule now, or have you in earlier parts of your life?  I would hazard a guess that among the Less Wrong/Rationality/Skeptic/Bayesian community, experimentation in sleep schedule would be higher than in the general population.  Have you tried a polyphasic sleep schedule?  (I once unsuccessfully did a few years ago in hopes of solving some of the above problems.)  If you have experienced these or similar problems, what 'hacks' have you found that mitigate the downsides?

(Note: This is my first discussion post.  I apologize in advance if the formatting or content seems a bit askew as a result.  Constructive criticism is of course welcome.)
# SL4 META: list closure 2 month followup

This is probably of interest only to the old-timers here. (Ironically, as a cross-post, this is almost by definition spam for LW, since anyone really interested in the topic would already be subscribed to SL4 and would have seen the emails.)

In 13 March, I finally got around to a long outstanding bit of cleanup: s[uggesting that](http://sl4.org/archive/1103/21112.html) the equally long defunct SL4 list be formally closed, things tidied up, and the lights turned out. The suggestion met with a mixed (and muted) reception.

Last night I followed up with a [second email](http://sl4.org/archive/1105/21135.html) comparing SL4 activity to activity on Extropy-chat, LW, OB, and MoR; it won't surprise anyone trying to drink from the firehose here that LW is approximately 3 orders of magnitude more active than SL4 is.
# Econ/Game theory question

This puzzled me. I'm pretty sure it's one of those unsolvable questions, but I'd want to know if it's not.

Two members of the species Homo Economus, A and B, live next to each other. A wants to buy an easement (a right to cross B's property, without which he cannot bring anything onto his lot) from B so that he can develop his property. B, under the law, has an absolute right to exclude A, meaning that nothing happens unless B agrees to it. The cost to B of granting this easement is $10 - it's over a fairly remote part of his land and he's not using it for anything else. A values the easement at $500,000, because he's got a sweet spot to build his dream house, if only he could construction equipment and whatnot to it. A and B know each others costs and values. They are "rational" and purely self-interested and bargaining costs zero. What's the outcome? I'm guessing it's "Between $5 and $500k," or "There is no deal unless one can credibly commit to being irrational." But I'm really not sure.

This could be asked as "In a bilateral monopoly situation where the seller's reservation price is $5 and the buyer's is $500,000, what is the predicted outcome?" But I figured the concrete example might make it more concrete. 

Now that I've written this, I'm tempted to develop a "True price fallacy" and its implications for utilitarian measurement. But that's a separate matter entirely.
# You'll die if you do that

> "They told me that if I ever turned this flashlight on, I would _die!_ They told me that about _everything!_ I mean, I don't even know why they bothered giving me this stuff if they didn't want me to use it."
> 
> \-\- Wheatley, _Portal 2_

Today I received some shoes in the post, which included a couple of packets of silica gel. I don't think I have ever seen a packet of silica gel that didn't have "DO NOT EAT" printed on it, and it's always bemused me.  It doesn't look edible, or smell appetising, and isn't even especially harmful to ingest in most circumstances.  Chances are that if I ever did want to eat silica gel, I'd probably have a damn good reason, and a lifetime of being told to not eat it is an obstacle to that.

This has started me thinking about all the other things we internalise as serious hazards contrary to reality.  As a child, I was told that picking my nose and eating it would have some sort of cumulative toxic effect.  This was obviously a lie manufactured by my parents (or maybe their parents) to get me to stop doing it, but a couple of decades later I felt positively scandalised when I read about an Austrian pathologist who claimed the practise was beneficial to the immune system.  (Although this is mentioned in the delightful [Wikipedia page on nose-picking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nose-picking), the reference links are dead, so I'd actually treat this assertion with caution, but feel free to munch away on your own dried nasal mucus anyway).

Although nose-picking and eating the packaging that shoes come in are pretty trivial examples, I do wonder how many of these prohibitive false dire consequences I'm still labouring under, invisibly making my life more difficult.  I also wonder how many full-grown adults still don't accept sweets from strangers.

Do you have any examples of an authority figure, or a prevailing piece of cultural conditioning, giving warnings of dire outcomes you later discovered to be false, misleading or based on an agenda you were naive to at the time?
# Rationality Exercise: My Little Pony

Recently I started watching My Little Pony: Friendship as Magic on the recommendation of numerous friends.  It has been entertaining for the most part, but in episode 15, I hit a problem.

The main character, Twilight Sparkle, is an avid intellectual, who is constantly reading and learning about the magic of the world.  In episode 15, a friend of hers, Pinkie Pie, reveals a strange talent for divination:  When something is about to fall, her tail twitches.  Various other manifestations also exist, in excruciating detail.

Twilight Sparkle is very unhappy with this "unscientific" state of affairs.  She attempts (to my delight) to do Science to Pinkie Pie, however her attempts to do Science are frustratingly foiled; in large part because her experiments ignore the nature of the phenomenon.

After watching and being frustrated by this episode, I decided that it would be more fun to come up with better experiments that would cut to the core of the issue and really investigate the subject.

My first idea was, if Pinkie Pie's tail twitches when something falls, place Pinkie Pie in a room.  In a room next to her, drop things, and have someone else record her responses and timing.

Once you can reliably predict and cause tail twitches, try holding her tail still.  See if, say, the rest of her body starts shaking, or the thing stops falling.  See if the twitches return if she is asleep.  See how far away you can make something fall and still get a reaction.

The list could continue forever!  What ideas do you have?  You're welcome to seek out and watch the episode, and give experiments that would apply well to Pinkie Pie in particular, or just consider the idea that someone claims that their arm twitches noticeably when something is about to fall, and has used their twitchy arm to accurately predict several falling objects for you, in an uncontrolled setting.  How would you Do Science to them (assuming their full cooperation)?

EDIT: it occurred to me immediately after submitting that "Experimental design" would have been a better title beginning that "Rationality exercise," but assuming the RSS issues are unresolved I will not change it.
# Ask LessWrong: Design a degree in Rationality.

You are a tenured professor at a medium-sized public university. The Interdisciplinary Gods have smiled upon you, and you have been handed an operating grant, office space, and broad design powers to create an advanced interdisciplinary degree^1^ in "Rationality" (you suspect your department head reads LessWrong). Your students will come from a broad range of disciplines, and you cannot assume that they will posses any particular prior knowledge.

Candidates in your program could take courses in any department, as long as you have personally approved a course as eligible for credits. \[ETA\] All admitted students will be awarded tuition wavers and living wages. A compelling ROI calculation was a requirement for admission, and all students have demonstrated some impressive real-world accomplishments.

You thumb through [your University's course register](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/)^2^, seeing a long list of courses in a variety of disciplines: Anthropology to Writing and Humanistic Studies. Without some constraints, you think, this degree will be incoherent.

Which do you include?

\[1\] To avoid tangential conversation, don't worry about what sort of degree. This could be the course load for a PhD/MBA/MA/etc.

\[2\] If it helps you think this through, use the MIT OCW listings to make suggestions. HT: [nerzhin](/lw/5on/ask_lesswrong_design_a_degree_in_rationality/45tc)
# Upcoming meet-ups: Buenos Aires, Minneapolis, Ottawa, Edinburgh, Cambridge, London, DC

There are upcoming Less Wrong meetups in:

*   [**Buenos Aires**: Saturday May 14th, 3pm](/lw/5n4/buenos_aires_meetup_saturday_may_14th_3pm/);
*   [**Minneapolis**: Saturday May 14th, 3pm](/lw/5nr/minneapolis_meetup_saturday_may_14_300pm/);
*   [**Ottawa**: Saturday May 14th, 6pm](/lw/5nx/ottawa_meetup_saturday_may_14_6pm/);
*   [**Edinburgh**: Sunday May 15th, 2pm](/lw/5nu/ediburgh_lw_meetup_sunday_15th_may_2pm/);
*   **[London](/lw/5ko/london_meetup_sunday_20110515_1400_near_london/)**[: Sunday May 15th, 2pm](/lw/5ko/london_meetup_sunday_20110515_1400_near_london/);
*   [**DC**: Sunday May 15th, 3:30pm](/lw/5mf/dc_meetup_sunday_may_15th_330_pm/);
*   [**Southern California / Irvine**: Saturday May 21, 2pm](/r/discussion/lw/5pd/southern_california_meetup_may_21_weekly_irvine/);
*   [**Triangle NC:**  May 20, 6pm;](/r/discussion/lw/5qn/triangle_nc_meetup_may_20th_6pm/)
*   [**Houston:** May 22, 5pm;](/r/discussion/lw/5pp/houston_hackerspace_meetup_sunday_may_22_500pm/)

Cities with regularly scheduled meetups:  **[New York](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Less_Wrong_meetup_groups#New_York_City.2C_NY), [Berkeley](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Less_Wrong_meetup_groups#Berkeley), [Mountain View](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Less_Wrong_meetup_groups#Tortuga_.28in_Mountain_View.29), [Cambridge, MA](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Less_Wrong_meetup_groups#Cambridge.2C_MA), [Toronto](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Less_Wrong_meetup_groups#Toronto), [Seattle](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Less_Wrong_meetup_groups#Seattle.2C_WA), [San Francisco](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Less_Wrong_meetup_groups#San_Francisco), [Irvine](/r/discussion/lw/5pd/southern_california_meetup_may_21_weekly_irvine/).**

If you'd like to talk with other LW-ers face to face, and there is no meetup in your area, consider starting your own meetup; [it's easy](/lw/43s/starting_a_lw_meetup_is_easy/) (more resources [here](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Less_Wrong_meetup_group_resources)). Check one out, stretch your rationality skills, and have fun!

To reduce front page clutter, the new plan is for meetups to be initially posted in the Discussion section, and for me to make a promoted post "upcoming meetups" post every Friday that links to every meet-up that has been planned for the next two weeks. \[HT: [Carl Shulman](/r/discussion/lw/5iy/proposal_consolidate_meetup_announcements_before).\] Please let me know if I omit your meetup.

Please note that for people to see your meetup announcement, you should post your meetup _before_ the Friday before your meetup!
# What we're losing

More and more, LessWrong's posts are meta-rationality posts, about how to be rational, how to avoid akrasia, in general, without any specific application.  This is probably the intended purpose of the site.  But they're starting to bore me.

What drew me to LessWrong is that it's a place where I can put rationality into practice, discussing specific questions of philosophy, value, and possible futures, with the goal of finding a good path through the Singularity.  Many of these topics have no other place where rational discussion of them is possible, online or off.  Such applied topics have almost all moved to Discussion now, and may be declining in frequency.

This isn't entirely new.  Applied discussions have always suffered bad karma on LW (statistically; please do not respond with anecdotal data).  I thought this was because people downvote a post if they find anything in it that they disagree with.  But perhaps a lot of people would rather talk about rationality than use it.

Does anyone else have this perception?  Or am I just becoming a LW old geezer?

At the same time, LW is taking off in terms of meetups and number of posts.  Is it finding its true self?  Does the discussion of rationality techniques have a larger market than debates over Sleeping Beauty (I'm even beginning to miss those!)  Is the old concern with values, artificial intelligence, and the Singularity something for LW to grow out of?

(ADDED: Some rationality posts are good.  I am also a lukeprog fan.)
# [SEQ RERUN] Archimedes's Chronophone

Today's post, [Archimedes's Chronophone](/lw/h5/archimedess_chronophone/) was originally published on March 23, 2007. A summary (taken from the [LW wiki](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Less_Wrong/2007_Articles/Summaries)):

> Imagine that Archimedes of Syracuse invented a device that allows you to talk to him. Imagine the possibilities for improving history! Unfortunately, the device will not literally transmit your words - it transmits cognitive strategies. If you advise giving women the vote, it comes out as advising finding a wise tyrant, the Greek ideal of political discourse. Under such restrictions, what do you say to Archimedes? In other words, how can you communicate general thinking patterns which will lead to right answers, as opposed to cached content?

  
_This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was [Useless Medical Disclaimers](/r/discussion/lw/5pa/seq_rerun_useless_medical_disclaimers/), and you can use the [sequence_reruns tag](/r/discussion/tag/sequence_reruns/) or [rss feed](/r/discussion/tag/sequence_reruns/.rss) to follow the rest of the series.  
  
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go [here](/r/discussion/lw/5as/introduction_to_the_sequence_reruns/) for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series._
# Life Extension through Diet Modification

Life extension is a relevant topic here, and I was wondering if people are aware of the apparently life-extending effects of calorie restriction (CR) and intermittent fasting (IF). To the extent of my knowledge, this is the best method using currently realized technology that has shown repeated and significant life-extension benefits.  
  
[Studies](http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/361.full.pdf) show that reducing calories by 20% to 40% from ad libitum feeding (but maintaining the supply of required protein and micro-nutrients) gives improvements in markers related to aging, and extends life span in rodents and other organisms.  
  
Other rodent [studies](http://jn.nutrition.org/content/31/3/363.full.pdf) have also shown similar results in subjects which were kept on various intermittent fasting schedules. Rats that were fed only on alternating days gained up to 25% lifespan (see Table 2).  
  
The [benefits](http://www.pnas.org/content/100/10/6216.full.pdf) of IF are seen even if the total calorie intake is the same as in ad libitum subjects.  
  
There are ongoing full-lifespan studies in rhesus macaques to test the effects in primates, but none of these studies have completed. This [abstract](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6J-473FRHK-8&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1753853052&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2480f68a73c621a3815773c22c8f7850&searchtype=a) of the interim results appears promising, though.  
  
Studies of CR and IF on humans have [shown](http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/1/7.full.pdf) [effects](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527659/pdf/pone.0003211.pdf) consistent with reduced mortality, including:  
\- Improved triglyceride profiles (a marker for heart disease)  
\- Increased insulin sensitivity  
\- Reduced cell proliferation (a marker for cancer)  
  
Generally, these diet modifications appear to not just extend life span, but improve the quality of life too. In aged subjects they improve things like: muscle mass, cognition, energy, appearance, and activity level.  
  
Have people heard about this or tried it? If you are trying to maximize your chance of surviving to the point that technology can lengthen lifespan indefinitely, it seems like something worth exploring.  
  
I tried an IF schedule for about 6 months during 2010. I followed a schedule of 3 x ~thirty hour fasts every 7 days and found it somewhat tolerable. I exercise regularly and found that exercising on the non-fasting days was not a problem. I'm thinking of starting up such a schedule again.
# How some algorithms feel from inside

So I decided to list the known applications of this popular LW phrase:

*   Believing in essences is how a [classifier](/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside/) feels from inside
*   Free will is how an [action-chooser](/lw/2l2/what_a_reduction_of_could_could_look_like/) feels from inside
*   Self esteem is how a [status calculation](/lw/1d/simultaneously_right_and_wrong/so) feels from inside

What else?
# Rationalist Horoscopes: Low-hanging utility generator?

(5:29:23 PM) Adelene: ...horoscopes are for people who, like \[mutual friend\], prefer to have an authority tell them what to do. \*blink\*  
(5:30:18 PM) Alicorn: \*blink\*  
(5:30:50 PM) Adelene: This is an observation that my brain made just now, but it seems to make a fair bit of sense.  
(5:31:18 PM) Alicorn: Plausible.  
(5:32:21 PM) Adelene: Especially given that horoscopes seem not to actually make predictions about the future: They say 'X is a good thing to do today', not 'X will happen today'.  
(5:32:36 PM) Alicorn: \*nod\*  
(5:32:53 PM) Adelene: ...rationalist horoscopes?  
(5:33:07 PM) Alicorn: like what?  
(5:33:33 PM) Adelene: "Focus on granularizing your goals this week."  
(5:33:43 PM) Alicorn: hmm  
(5:34:09 PM) Alicorn: divided according to some mechanism like star sign, or no?  
(5:34:38 PM) Adelene: The only advantage I see to that is that it may make it more emotionally plausible.  
(5:35:06 PM) Adelene: There may be some other advantage to having different people doing different things at any given time tho.  
(5:35:23 PM) Alicorn: According to \[other friend\], birth \*season\* has empirically interesting effects in a few areas...  
(5:36:35 PM) Adelene: I don't think we can cash that out very well into advice, and anyway I expect that having that close of a similarity with actual horoscopes is likely to provoke a memetic immune response for most people. Could do it based on some kind of personality test tho.  
(5:36:50 PM) Alicorn: \*nod\*  
(5:39:08 PM) Adelene: Really, I think the bulk of the utility of such a thing would be in giving people generally-useful cues to work from - having any given day's horoscope (or whatever we'd call it) be randomly picked from a set of good ones that haven't been used recently should be just fine.  
(5:39:15 PM) Alicorn: \*nod\*  
(5:40:00 PM) Adelene: Maybe pair it with a rationality quote of the day, too.  
(5:40:10 PM) Alicorn: Yessss.

I know it's a silly idea, but it seems like it might be useful. I've played with random quote dispensers in the past, and if they have a good list of quotes to start with they can be surprisingly useful, in my experience - the quote might be useless 9 times out of 10, but that tenth time, when it makes you realize that a connection exists that you never would have noticed otherwise, is pretty awesome. Something like a daily horoscope might have a similar effect, but in a more practical way, getting people to consider taking actions in contexts where they wouldn't usually consider those actions and occasionally finding an unusually good, but not intuitively obvious, match. And that's on top of any benefits that such a system would have for people who do work better when they're told what to do.

Thoughts?
# [LINK] Pixar works to make the future better

An analysis of how Pixar is promoting transhumanist ideals.

[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/05/14/the-hidden-message-in-pixars-films/](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/05/14/the-hidden-message-in-pixars-films/)

>Pixar films contain a complex, nuanced, philosophical and political essence that, when viewed across the company’s complete corpus, begins to emerge with some clarity.

>There are certain rules in Pixar movies ... The first is that there is no _magic_. No problems are caused or fixed by the wave of a wand. Second, every Pixar film happens in the world of human beings ... The third rule is that at least one main character is an intelligent being that isn’t a human.

> In each case, the deviant non-human is ostracized.

>In being ostracized, however, the non-human encounters a human. 

> Furthermore, the human is also deviant. 

>The new is seen as dangerous and therefore feared. 

>Victory in the battle for the rights and respect from both groups will come from an act of exemplary personhood and humaneness by those who dare to break ranks with their kind. ...the benefits for humanity are tremendous in every case where non-human persons are treated with respect.

>Pixar has given those who would fight for personhood the narratives necessary to convince the world that non-humans that display characteristics of a person deserve the rights of a person.

>The message hidden inside Pixar’s magnificent films is this: humanity does not have a monopoly on personhood. In whatever form non- or super-human intelligence takes, it will need brave souls on both sides to defend what is right. If we can live up to this burden, humanity and the world we live in will be better for it. An entire generation has been reared with the subconscious seeds of these ideas planted down deep.